The Co-Evolutionary Interface: A Socio-Ecological Framework for Integrating Mineral Extraction and Recreational Development
Jacob, D. E.
Department of Forestry and Wildlife, University of Uyo, Nigeria
Jacob, I. D
Department of Forestry and Wildlife Technology, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria
Daniel, K. S.
Department of Forestry and Wildlife, University of Uyo, Nigeria
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/ce.v3i1.13377
Keywords: Social-Ecological Systems; Industrial Sublime; Mine Transition; Hyper-object; Recreational Planning; Integrated Interface Model
Abstract
The transition from mineral extraction to post-mining land use is conventionally structured as a sequential process where recreational functions are introduced after extraction ceases. This temporal separation limits opportunities to incorporate long-term land-use objectives into active mine design and leaves unresolved questions regarding how industrial, ecological, and institutional functions can be coordinated across the mine life cycle. This conceptual paper develops the Integrated Interface Model (IIM), a framework for examining how mineral extraction and progressive landform transformation can be analyzed as interacting components of mine-transition planning. The framework synthesizes Social-Ecological Systems theory with the Industrial Sublime as complementary analytical perspectives, utilizing the Hyper-object concept to address the spatial scale and temporal complexity of surface mining landscapes. A conceptual theory-building methodology was conducted to identify structural relationships among mine-system processes, landform geometry, governance, and post-mining land transition. The Eden Project and Lusatian Lake District are examined as illustrative post-mining precedents that inform the model but do not constitute empirical validation of active extraction concurrent with public access. The resulting IIM organizes the interface across three dimensions: Spatial, concerning sectoral zoning (Z1-Z3) and geotechnical safety setbacks; Temporal, concerning deep-time hydrological phasing; and Institutional, concerning financial assurance through the Recreational End-Use Bond. Derived theoretical propositions concerning regulatory friction (P1), post-closure asset valuation (P2), and institutional trust (P3) are framed as hypotheses requiring future empirical, geotechnical, regulatory, and economic testing rather than established operational effects.
References
1.Zhou, Y., & Gu, B. (2024). The impacts of human activities on Earth Critical Zone. Earth Critical Zone, 1(1), 100004.
2.Kabanda, F., & Ahadjie, J. (2024). Global Energy Transition: Africa's Opportunity to Harness Its Battery Minerals for Industrialization. In Routledge Handbook of Natural Resource Governance in Africa (pp. 321-337). Routledge.
3.Arboleda, M. (2020). From spaces to circuits of extraction: Value in process and the mine/city nexus. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 31(3), 114-133.
4.Devrath, S. C., Nag, A., & Pareek, S. (2025). Transforming Mining Regions through Sustainable Redevelopment with Urban Voids and Underground Housing. Journal of Mining and Environment, 16(4), 1319-1342.
5.Feng, D., Liu, Y., & Ge, Y. (2024). Social License to Operate for NIMBY Infrastructures: The Mechanism of the Four Components of Procedural Justice. Buildings, 14(8), 2465.
6.Bainton, N., & Holcombe, S. (2018). A critical review of the social aspects of mine closure. Resources Policy, 59, 468-478.
7.Jennings, L. L. (2020). Reclaiming Mining Lands in Southern Arizona: A Scientific and Policy Inquiry towards Resiliency (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona).
8.Cullen, K. D. (2017). Facilitating the Development of Eco-System Economies Through Outdoor Recreation and Adventure Sport in Complex Systems: An International Analysis and Applications to Western New York. State University of New York at Buffalo.
9.Kemp, D., & Owen, J. R. (2022). Corporate social irresponsibility, hostile organisations and global resource extraction. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(5), 1816-1824.
10.Pavloudakis, F., Roumpos, C., & Spanidis, P. M. (2024). Planning the closure of surface coal mines based on circular economy principles. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 4(1), 75-96.
11.Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419-422.
12.Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A. V., Reyers, B., & Rockström, J. (2016). Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and society, 21(3).
13.Burke, E. (1757/1998). A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and the beautiful. In A. Phillips (Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.Jackson, J. (2025). Systems and the Sublime: Science Fiction, Technology, and Subjectivity (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz).
15.Morton, T. (2013). Realist magic: Objects, ontology, causality. Open Humanities Press.
16.Martín Duque, J. F., & Lacy, H. W. (2025, September). Mine landform design, conventional to geomorphic: the evolution of nature-based design for mine landform rehabilitation and closure. In Mine Closure 2025: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mine Closure. Australian Centre for Geomechanics.
17.CRC TiME (2025) Post-Mining Land Uses: Frameworks for Transformation, Ecological Prerequisites, and Stakeholder Governance (Co-operative Research Centre for Transformations in Mining Economies) (Establishing baseline soil/water preconditions and co-managed post-mining transformation). https://crctime.com.au/crcwp/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Final-report-Project-1.2-Post-mining-land-uses.pdf
18.Sheu, C. J. (2024). The Call of the Hyperobjects. Critical Plant Studies in Taiwan, 199.
19.Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS review, 10(1), 18-26.
20.MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136-154.
21.Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human resource development review, 15(4), 404-428.
22.Kivinen, S. (2017). Sustainable post-mining land use: are closed metal mines abandoned or re-used space?. Sustainability, 9(10), 1705.
23.AusIMM. (2023). Open pit mining handbook: Geotechnical safety, slope stability, and operational risk management (3rd ed.). The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Available at: https://www.ausimm.com/publications/conference-proce edings/mining-risk-management/.
24.Teck Resources Limited (2025). Progressive landform engineering and deep-time landscape stewardship in active surface operations (Sustainability Operational Brief). Teck Resources. Available at: https://www.teck.com/news/news-releases/2026/teck-reports-2025-sustainability-performance.
25.Silvercorp Metals Inc. (2026). Integrated environmental governance and tiered financial assurance framework: Annual sustainability and closure report. Silvercorp Metals Corporate Governance Publications. Available at: https://silvercorpmetals.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/2026-Fiscal-Year-Sustainability-Report.pdf.
26.Bainton, N., Kemp, D., Lèbre, E., Owen, J. R., & Marston, G. (2021). The energy‐extractives nexus and the just transition. Sustainable Development, 29(4), 624-634.
27.Pleune, J. (2025). Permitting for the Energy Transition. The Law and Policy of Critical Minerals, 5-1.
28.Blazy, R., Hrehorowicz-Gaber, H., Hrehorowicz-Nowak, A., Hładki, W., & Knapek, J. (2026, January). New Architectural Forms in the Landscape as a Response to the Demand for Beauty in 21st-Century Tourism and Leisure. In Arts,15(1),18.
29.Chen, Y., Wang, B., Huang, J., Gao, H., & Shu, X. (2024). Urban physical environments promoting active leisure travel: an empirical study using crowdsourced GPS tracks and geographic big data from multiple sources. Land, 13(5), 589.
30.Everingham, J. A., Svobodova, K., Lèbre, É., Owen, J. R., & Worden, S. (2022). Comparative capacity of global mining regions to transition to a post-mining future. The Extractive Industries and Society, 11, 101136.
31.Machado, C. H., Sousa, M., & Branco, M. C. (2025). Sustainability-linked bonds research: a bibliometric and content analysis review. International Journal of Financial Studies, 13(2), 62.
32.Tjoetra, A., Samwil, S., Suadi, S., Khairi, A., Da-oh, P., & Mauliansyah, F. (2024). The gap between ecological violence and social injustice from mining industries in post-conflict West Aceh. Simulacra, 7(1), 51-65.
33.Dong, Z., Bian, Z., Jin, W., Guo, X., Zhang, Y., Liu, X., ... & Guan, D. (2024). An integrated approach to prioritizing ecological restoration of abandoned mine lands based on cost-benefit analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 924, 171579.
34.Florkowska, L., & Bryt-Nitarska, I. (2026). Social Responsibility of Science in the Sustainable Development of Mining and Post-Mining Areas. Applied Sciences, 16(2), 776.
35.Macey, J., & Salovaara, J. (2019). Bankruptcy as bailout: coal company insolvency and the erosion of federal law. Stan. L. Rev., 71, 879.