<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
 xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
 xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/basic/2.0/"
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.mdpi.com/rss/journal/resources">
		<title>Resources</title>
		<link>http://www.mdpi.com/journal/resources</link>
		<description>Latest open access articles published in Resources at http://www.mdpi.com/journal/resources</description>
								<items>
			<rdf:Seq>
            				<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/2/2/58" />
            				<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/2/2/39" />
            				<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/2/1/26" />
            				<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/2/1/1" />
            				<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/1/1/23" />
            				<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/1/1/3" />
            				<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/1/1/1" />
                    	</rdf:Seq>
		</items>
				<cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" />
	</channel>

        <item rdf:about="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/2/2/58">
	<title><![CDATA[Resources, Vol. 2, Pages 58-72: Recycling of Coking Plant Residues in a Finnish  Steelworks—Laboratory Study and Replacement  Ratio Calculation]]></title>
	<link>http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/2/2/58</link>
	<description>Material efficiency is one of the most effective methods for achieving more sustainable operations in iron and steelmaking. Sintering and briquetting processes are commonly used in integrated steel plants to recycle carbon- and iron-containing residues back to blast furnace. In the Ruukki steelworks in Finland, a surplus of solid coking plant by-products is produced, none of which are presently utilized within the steelworks. In this paper, a novel concept for recycling solid coking plant by-products to a blast furnace via liquid-solid injection is evaluated. According to the conducted laboratory study, all the solid by-products could be utilized via liquid-solid mixture injection. By pulverizing the coke gravel and coke sand and mixing it with extra heavy bottom oil, the annual coke requirement of a blast furnace could be decreased by almost 9% with constant oil injection and could reduce annual oil requirements by almost 39% with constant coke rate. Evaluation of direct and indirect environmental impacts reveals that there would be more positive than negative impacts when recycling solid coking plant by-products inside steel plant boundaries.</description>

	<prism:publicationName>Resources</prism:publicationName>
	<prism:publicationDate>2013-05-06</prism:publicationDate>
	<prism:volume>2</prism:volume>
	<prism:number>2</prism:number>
	<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
	<prism:doi>10.3390/resources2020058</prism:doi>
	<prism:startingPage>58</prism:startingPage>
		<prism:endingPage>72</prism:endingPage>
		<prism:issn>2079-9276</prism:issn>
	
	<dc:title><![CDATA[Recycling of Coking Plant Residues in a Finnish  Steelworks—Laboratory Study and Replacement  Ratio Calculation]]></dc:title>
    <dc:date>2013-05-06</dc:date>
	<dc:identifier>doi: 10.3390/resources2020058</dc:identifier>
    	<dc:creator>Hannu Suopajärvi</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Antti Salo</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Timo Paananen</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Riku Mattila</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Timo Fabritius</dc:creator>
	
	<cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" />
</item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/2/2/39">
	<title><![CDATA[Resources, Vol. 2, Pages 39-57: The Size of Forest Holding/Parcelization Problem in Forestry:  A Literature Review]]></title>
	<link>http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/2/2/39</link>
	<description>In the early nonindustrial private forest (family forest) research literature, size of forest holding was identified as a critical variable impacting the propensity of family forest owners to invest in and manage small forest properties. This literature discusses relationships between size of forest holding and variables like forest owners’ financial and asset positions, forest management objectives, use of a forest management plan and professional forestry advice, and use of forestry cost-share funding. Since then, the literature has expanded and now relates to the major problem of forest parcelization. We reviewed this literature for historical themes, technical considerations, and continuing ownership problems, emphasizing the current circumstances of forest parcelization and its historical roots in the size of forest holding problem. Many of the sociological, economic, financial, and technical relationships identified earlier as foundations of the size of forest holding problem are shown to be also fundamental to the parcelization problem in forestry. We suggest that today’s parcelization issues are partially a continuation of the size of  forest holding problem and that earlier research may be relevant to parcelization problems. We provide a detailed literature review that relates parcelization to the size of forest holding problem.</description>

	<prism:publicationName>Resources</prism:publicationName>
	<prism:publicationDate>2013-04-19</prism:publicationDate>
	<prism:volume>2</prism:volume>
	<prism:number>2</prism:number>
	<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
	<prism:doi>10.3390/resources2020039</prism:doi>
	<prism:startingPage>39</prism:startingPage>
		<prism:endingPage>57</prism:endingPage>
		<prism:issn>2079-9276</prism:issn>
	
	<dc:title><![CDATA[The Size of Forest Holding/Parcelization Problem in Forestry:  A Literature Review]]></dc:title>
    <dc:date>2013-04-19</dc:date>
	<dc:identifier>doi: 10.3390/resources2020039</dc:identifier>
    	<dc:creator>John Hatcher</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Straka</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>John Greene</dc:creator>
	
	<cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" />
</item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/2/1/26">
	<title><![CDATA[Resources, Vol. 2, Pages 26-38: The Triple Bottom Line and Progress toward Ecological Sustainable Development: Australia’s Coal Mining Industry as a Case Study]]></title>
	<link>http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/2/1/26</link>
	<description>A common goal shared by the world is to achieve well-being for the planet—for this generation and generations to come. The world formalized this common goal when it accepted the concept of ecological sustainable development (ESD) at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and through the adoption of the United Nation’s Agenda 21. This paper explores the capacity of New South Wales’ planning system to deliver on this shared goal. It does this through an evaluation of the triple bottom line (TBL), as an impact assessment framework, in the context of coal mine development proposals. The evaluation is performed against ESD principles, and draws from the experience of the authors in reviewing a recent coalmine expansion application in New South Wales, Australia. During this review the authors encountered opportunities to improve the impact assessment process. The opportunities identified relate to the process of robust and consistent drawing of impact boundaries and selection of scales (geographic and temporal), in which to conduct an impact assessment. The findings are significant, as they offer a path toward greater discussion around, and realization of, opportunities for achieving development in each TBL domain, i.e., social, environmental and economic.</description>

	<prism:publicationName>Resources</prism:publicationName>
	<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-20</prism:publicationDate>
	<prism:volume>2</prism:volume>
	<prism:number>1</prism:number>
	<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
	<prism:doi>10.3390/resources2010026</prism:doi>
	<prism:startingPage>26</prism:startingPage>
		<prism:endingPage>38</prism:endingPage>
		<prism:issn>2079-9276</prism:issn>
	
	<dc:title><![CDATA[The Triple Bottom Line and Progress toward Ecological Sustainable Development: Australia’s Coal Mining Industry as a Case Study]]></dc:title>
    <dc:date>2013-03-20</dc:date>
	<dc:identifier>doi: 10.3390/resources2010026</dc:identifier>
    	<dc:creator>Aleta Lederwasch</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Pierre Mukheibir</dc:creator>
	
	<cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" />
</item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/2/1/1">
	<title><![CDATA[Resources, Vol. 2, Pages 1-25: Partnership Models for Climate Compatible Development: Experiences from Zambia]]></title>
	<link>http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/2/1/1</link>
	<description>Partnership working is necessary to allow nations to harness the evolving opportunities presented by climate finance and to progress towards climate compatible development (CCD). However, the new multi-stakeholder partnerships being formed and the factors affecting their outcomes remain poorly understood. This paper aims to identify the characteristics of partnership models that can lead to successful delivery of CCD projects by analyzing case study data from two projects in Zambia. The projects are primarily funded under the umbrella of Corporate Social Responsibility and support activities such as conservation farming which can have carbon storage (mitigation), adaptation and rural development benefits. In each of the case study projects, multiple partnerships have been established between private sector companies, government,  Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), traditional authorities and community stakeholders to achieve project aims. A new partnership evaluation model is developed and applied to analyze the partnerships formed. Findings show that the rationale behind the partnership, partner-related factors, and process-related factors can all affect achievement of the project’s aims. Good practices are identified which can inform future partnerships and projects. For example, when establishing a project, the initiating partner must identify gaps that can be addressed by establishing one or more partnership(s). Careful consideration of which partners can best address these gaps allows for synergies in contributions across the partnership required for successful project implementation. Transparency, openness and communication over roles and responsibilities are key to successful partnerships, and power imbalances between partners will reduce the utilization of each partner’s strengths. When working with communities, extra care must be taken to ensure projects are appropriate and relevant to local needs, as well as allowing goals to be met, by engaging communities from the beginning of the project.</description>

	<prism:publicationName>Resources</prism:publicationName>
	<prism:publicationDate>2013-03-20</prism:publicationDate>
	<prism:volume>2</prism:volume>
	<prism:number>1</prism:number>
	<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
	<prism:doi>10.3390/resources2010001</prism:doi>
	<prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
		<prism:endingPage>25</prism:endingPage>
		<prism:issn>2079-9276</prism:issn>
	
	<dc:title><![CDATA[Partnership Models for Climate Compatible Development: Experiences from Zambia]]></dc:title>
    <dc:date>2013-03-20</dc:date>
	<dc:identifier>doi: 10.3390/resources2010001</dc:identifier>
    	<dc:creator>Jen Dyer</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Julia Leventon</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Lindsay Stringer</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Dougill</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Syampungani</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Muleba Nshimbi</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Francis Chama</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Ackson Kafwifwi</dc:creator>
	
	<cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" />
</item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/1/1/23">
	<title><![CDATA[Resources, Vol. 1, Pages 23-33: Resource Criticality and Commodity Production Projections]]></title>
	<link>http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/1/1/23</link>
	<description>Resource criticality arising from peak production of primary ores is explored in this paper. We combine the Geologic Resource Supply-Demand Model of Mohr [1] to project future resource production for selected commodities in Australia, namely iron and coal which together represent around 50% of the value of total Australian exports as well as copper, gold and lithium. The projections (based on current estimates of ultimately recoverable reserves) indicate that peak production in Australia would occur for lithium in 2015; for gold in 2021; for copper in 2024; for iron in 2039 and for coal in 2060. The quantitative analysis is coupled with the criticality framework for peak minerals of Mason et al. [2] comprising (i) resource availability, (ii) societal resource addiction to commodity use, and (iii) alternatives such as dematerialization or substitution to assess the broader dimension s of peak minerals production for Australia.</description>

	<prism:publicationName>Resources</prism:publicationName>
	<prism:publicationDate>2012-12-19</prism:publicationDate>
	<prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
	<prism:number>1</prism:number>
	<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
	<prism:doi>10.3390/resources1010023</prism:doi>
	<prism:startingPage>23</prism:startingPage>
		<prism:endingPage>33</prism:endingPage>
		<prism:issn>2079-9276</prism:issn>
	
	<dc:title><![CDATA[Resource Criticality and Commodity Production Projections]]></dc:title>
    <dc:date>2012-12-19</dc:date>
	<dc:identifier>doi: 10.3390/resources1010023</dc:identifier>
    	<dc:creator>Damien Giurco</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Steve Mohr</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Gavin Mudd</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Leah Mason</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Prior</dc:creator>
	
	<cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" />
</item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/1/1/3">
	<title><![CDATA[Resources, Vol. 1, Pages 3-22: Calling for Justice in the Goldfields of Tanzania]]></title>
	<link>http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/1/1/3</link>
	<description>Tanzania is the third largest gold exporter in Africa, thanks in part to the liberalization of the mining sector which started in the early 1990s. Neoliberal mining reforms promised a win-win situation in which government, investors and local host communities would benefit through export earnings, profits, local employment, and corporate social responsibility initiatives (e.g., the building of schools and clinics). While the rising price of gold and foreign investments in mining activities have delivered on some of these promises, many residents in mining regions have not benefited socioeconomically. Worse still, their communities have unjustly borne the brunt of the environmental, social, and public-health costs associated with large-scale mining operations. This paper examines these injustices through research in Geita and Kahama, two of the most active gold mining areas of Tanzania. Drawing on Kuehn’s [1] taxonomy of environmental injustice, we detail the negative impacts of mining activities in these communities and describe how residents have developed strategies of resistance as means to obtain reparations. We then explore the political, financial, organizational, and social limitations on these resistance strategies and argue that the social movements associated with mining lack the political space necessary to affect significant changes to structure, quality, and impact of the industry in western Tanzania.</description>

	<prism:publicationName>Resources</prism:publicationName>
	<prism:publicationDate>2012-12-19</prism:publicationDate>
	<prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
	<prism:number>1</prism:number>
	<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
	<prism:doi>10.3390/resources1010003</prism:doi>
	<prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
		<prism:endingPage>22</prism:endingPage>
		<prism:issn>2079-9276</prism:issn>
	
	<dc:title><![CDATA[Calling for Justice in the Goldfields of Tanzania]]></dc:title>
    <dc:date>2012-12-19</dc:date>
	<dc:identifier>doi: 10.3390/resources1010003</dc:identifier>
    	<dc:creator>Madoshi Makene</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>Jody Emel</dc:creator>
		<dc:creator>James Murphy</dc:creator>
	
	<cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" />
</item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/1/1/1">
	<title><![CDATA[Resources, Vol. 1, Pages 1-2: Resources: An Open Access Journal of Natural Resources and Their Management]]></title>
	<link>http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/1/1/1</link>
	<description>Resources is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal that publishes original manuscripts, communications, review articles, and policy discussions about all aspects of natural resources and their management. The journal seeks to expand, in a rapid and rigorous way, our understanding of natural endowments, their management, and how they interact with the most personal of resources, the human community. [...]</description>

	<prism:publicationName>Resources</prism:publicationName>
	<prism:publicationDate>2012-04-24</prism:publicationDate>
	<prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
	<prism:number>1</prism:number>
	<prism:section>Editorial</prism:section>
	<prism:doi>10.3390/resources1010001</prism:doi>
	<prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
		<prism:endingPage>2</prism:endingPage>
		<prism:issn>2079-9276</prism:issn>
	
	<dc:title><![CDATA[Resources: An Open Access Journal of Natural Resources and Their Management]]></dc:title>
    <dc:date>2012-04-24</dc:date>
	<dc:identifier>doi: 10.3390/resources1010001</dc:identifier>
    	<dc:creator>Richard F. Kazmierczak</dc:creator>
	
	<cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" />
</item>
    
<cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">
	<cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
	<cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
	<cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
</cc:License>

</rdf:RDF>
