MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4308647103 · doi:10.1111/rec.13771

International principles and standards for the ecological restoration and recovery of mine sites

2022· article· en· W4308647103 sur OpenAlexaff
Renee Young, George D. Gann, Bethanie Walder, Junguo Liu, Wenhui Cui, Vern Newton, Cara R. Nelson, Natalie Tashe, David Jasper, Fernando A. O. Silveira, Peter J. Carrick, Tove Hägglund, Sara Carlsén, Kingsley W. Dixon

Notice bibliographique

RevueRestoration Ecology · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueMining and Resource Management
Établissements canadiensStantec (Canada)University of Victoria
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEcological footprintRestoration ecologyCoal miningEnvironmental degradationLiabilitySurface miningEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningSustainabilityEnvironmental scienceBusinessEcologyEngineeringCoalWaste management

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Executive Summary Mining has been, and remains, an integral part of human existence from Stone Age quarries through to the iron and coal that fueled the industrial revolution, to the new materials needed to support the shift to renewable energy. Mining and mining products are major contributors to national economies with mining value tripling in the past two decades. As of 2020, the global mining footprint was 57,000 km 2 and growing at a faster rate now than any other time in human history. Much of this footprint is operational, but in many areas where mining is now complete, the sites represent major environmental liabilities. Although site stabilization and managing waste materials remains a challenging part of mine closure in many parts of the world, the environmental liability of these sites means more than being just safe, stable, and nonpolluting, with companies increasingly expected to restore ecosystems that are representative of their pre‐mined (natural) state. The International Principles and Standards for the Ecological Restoration and Recovery of Mine Sites (Mine Site Restoration Standards, MSRS) present the first international framework for the delivery of socially and environmentally responsible ecological restoration after mining, regardless of whether restoration is legally mandated. The MSRS are designed to inspire and drive higher and better outcomes in post‐mining landscapes by both guiding and encouraging the highest level of restoration achievable that supports the global need for protecting and restoring nature. This comes at a time of unparalleled global human impacts where climate change, land degradation, and biodiversity loss threaten the very ecological fabric of the planet. Mining companies are a major global player in local and regional economies and by demonstrating leadership in protecting, enhancing, and restoring the environments in which they operate, they can maintain, and enhance their social license to operate. The MSRS aim to provide a framework for the mining industry, governments, and stakeholders, including Indigenous peoples and local communities, to address mining‐specific issues in delivering effective restoration of mine sites. The MSRS emphasize that achieving the highest possible ecological outcomes depends upon ingenuity, knowledge investment, and a supportive corporate ethos to build a culture of continuous improvement. This approach will maximize benefits for local communities, the environment, and ultimately the mining industry. For industry, the MSRS provide a framework that can be utilized to optimize restoration outcomes that will leave a positive legacy long after mining has ceased. Early adoption of the MSRS by industry can reduce environmental, financial, and corporate risk in achieving site relinquishment by demonstrating the highest possible commitment to stakeholders, increasing natural capital, responding to climate change and, recovering biodiversity, including threatened and culturally significant species. The agreed‐upon post‐mining land use (PMLU), in some cases, is the same general land use that was present prior to disturbance, which often includes fully functioning intact native ecosystems. In other cases, the PMLU may be different from the pre‐mining condition. Regardless, the potential for ecological restoration should not be invoked as a justification for destroying or damaging existing native ecosystems. When native ecosystems are impacted by mining, full recovery informed by reference models should be the target. Where this is not achievable a “recovery gap” between the initial native ecosystem and the post‐mining ecosystem is created. In highly man‐altered landscapes, processes and approaches to mine site restoration may require local solutions but should be undertaken within the Principles of these Standards. When followed, the MSRS can help limit the recovery gap, and where possible (e.g., if mining is implemented in an ecosystem that had previously been highly degraded by other activities), close that gap and move toward net ecological gain. The Standards are underpinned by eight principles that provide a framework to enable restoration decisions that are evidence‐based, resilient, and acceptable to mining companies, communities, and stakeholders. They are: Engage stakeholders throughout the life of mine. Draw on many types of knowledge. Be informed by reference ecosystems, while considering environmental change. Support ecosystem recovery processes. Assess against clear goals and objectives, using measurable indicators. Seek the highest level of recovery attainable. Gain cumulative value when applied at large scales. Employ a continuum of restorative activities. The MSRS recommend not just best practice, but future practice that harnesses the unique investment and technical capacity of the mining industry and applies it toward the most restorative post‐mining practices possible. These Standards align with the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, The Mitigation Hierarchy, and international best practice in ecological restoration. They build on the International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration with key concepts customized to meet the unique challenges of global mining. The MSRS represent a living document that will evolve and develop as technological ability, community and environmental expectations, and understanding of mine site restoration changes over time.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,047
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,047
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,249

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0470,061
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,003
Bibliométrie0,0100,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,007
Communication savante0,0160,010
Science ouverte0,0090,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0150,014
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0180,023

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,248
Écart entre enseignants0,226 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations143
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueRestoration EcologyMême sujetMining and Resource ManagementTravaux en français237 207