Mining geoecology and geotechnologies — conceptualization and evaluation elements

Geoecological approach highlights the multiple links between systems that shows most mines can affect the landscapes only within low geographical scales, usually Geotop or Geofacies level (rank); effects are reduced as extension and with natural potential of evolution, which not justify avoiding or stopping the investments. Therefore, holistic monitoring of landscapes around mining perimeters can provide all information required for assessing the abilities or inabilities produced by investments on the Geographic Environment where are located. Reorganizing the structure of the concept of “Geosystem” and introducing exact boundaries for areas affected by mining, the authors propose a Geoecological Pentagram as a reorganized concept and a semi-quantitative Geoecological method of analysis. The manuscript is addressed to specialists for the purpose of discussing the current state (paradigm) regarding the environmental impact and develops the Geoecological perspective for industrial/mining sector, as a good practice.

Nicolae Iiaş, Sorin M. Radu, Iulian Offenberg, Victor Arad, Susana Arad. Mining geoecology and geotechnologies — conceptualization and evaluation elements. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2021;(3-1):338—349. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236_1493_2021_31_0_338.

Nicolae Iiaş^1,2, Dr. Sci. (Eng.), professor;
Sorin M. Radu^1,2, Dr. Sci. (Eng.), professor;
Iulian Offenberg^1,3, associate Professor, Professor;
Victor Arad^1,2, Dr. Sci. (Eng.), professor;
Susana Arad¹, Dr. Sci. (Eng.), professor, e-mail: susanaarad@yahoo.com;
¹ University of Petroşani, Romania;
² Academia de Stiinte Tehnice din Romania;
³ DEPOGAZ SA Ploiești, Romania.

1. Noica C. Rene Descartes — Two philosophical Treatises, Ed. Humanitas, Bucharest, Romania, 1992, p. 251—252.

2. Iliaş N., Radu M. S., Offenberg I. Geoecology of life quality — loading with living resources of the Geographical Environment, Chisinau, Moldova, 2019.

3. Cocean P. Regional Geography, Edition III (Restructured and added), Presa Universitara Clujeana, Cluj-Napoca, 2010, p. 10.

4. Troll C. Landscape ecology (geoecology) and biogeocenology: a terminological study, GeoForum no. 8, p. 43—46, 1971.

5. Wu J., Hobbs R. Perspectives and prospects of landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

6. Turner M. G. Landscape heterogeneity and disturbance. Springer, New York, 1987.

7. Patru-Stupariu I. Landscape indicators. Ecological indicators. Landscape metrics, Bucharest, 2012, p.6.

8. Offenberg I. Environmental management and geoecology for the mining sector, Ed. Impressum Chisinau, Moldova, 2018.

9. Offenberg I., Iliaş N., Radu S. M. Geoecology and geotechnologies, Ed. AGIR, Bucharest, 2019.

10. Mac I. The geographical landscape. Scientific content and significance, Ed. Terra XXII, 1991, p.1—4.

11. Socheava V. B. Definition of some notions and terms of physiography, Dokladi In-ta geogr. Sibiri I Dalnego Vostoka, issue 3, 1963.

12. Francisca C. Aguiar, M. Rosário Fernandes, M. Teresa Ferreira, Riparian vegetation metrics as tools for guiding ecological restoration in riverscapes, Proceedings 7th European Conference on Ecological Restoration, Avignon, France, 23—27/08/2010.

13. Iliaș N., Offenberg I. Geoecological monitoring in extraction process of soluble minerals from underground deposits, 19th Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference — SGEM, Albena, Bulgaria, 2019; (Proceedings, Vol 19, Book no. 5.2, p.401—410).

14. Lazar M., Dumitrescu I. Anthropic impact on the environment, Ed. Universitas, Romania, 2006.

15. Reif A., Walentowski H. The assessment of naturalness and its role for nature conservation and forestry in Europe, Waldökologie, Landschaftsforschung und Naturschutz No.6, 2008, p.68.

16. Аренс В. Ж. Геотехнология. Мировоззрение горного инженера, Изд. Дом НИТУ «МИСиС», 2020, p.6, 114—115.

17. Iliaş N., Offenberg I. Geoecological monitoring using InSAR Technology, WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development, Vol.15, Art. no. 12, pp. 106—112, 2019.