SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4308647103> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 100 of ±121 with 100 items per page.

W4308647103 abstract "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 km2 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: Ecological restoration is defined as “The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed” (SER 2004; Gann et al. 2019)1,2 The quantity and quality of the ecological restoration and recovery of mine sites has accelerated in the past two decades in response to legal and regulatory obligations, community and cultural expectations, and cumulative impacts to landscapes, watersheds, and biodiversity. Importantly, mining companies are increasingly aware of the need to maintain their social license to operate3 (SLO) in addition to legal requirements to achieve mine closure and relinquishment. Thus, there are substantial advances in the corporate intent, scientific knowledge, and technological ability to restore mine sites with the aim of returning healthy, functioning ecosystems and landscapes in keeping with local, regional, and global expectations of best practice. However, for many mine sites the lack of guidance on what constitutes acceptable best practice together with a lack of appropriate technical capacity are major impediments to successful mine site restoration. Mining is a large contributor to the global economy with the top 40 companies contributing US$544.4 billion in 2020 (PwC 2021). In the mine site restoration context, the mining industry has an unprecedented opportunity to excel in and mobilize significant societal, technological, and financial resources to implement restoration that goes beyond regulatory requirements and actively advances the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)4 (CCSI, SDSN, UNDP, WEF 2016; IRP 2019). An increasing number of companies (e.g., Anglo-American, Heidelberg Cement) are committed to meeting this challenge; however, many other mining companies are not achieving successful post-mine restoration (Lamb et al. 2015; Maus et al. 2020) affecting relinquishment and contributing to the growing legacy of abandoned mines. Moving beyond remediation and rehabilitation to ecological restoration can help reinstate and recover ecological losses as well as increase positive social and community impacts, even beyond the area directly impacted by mining. The opportunity to set new restoration agendas and standards in this field, especially over the next decade, is even more profound as restoration is at the forefront of global efforts to recover, conserve, and improve native biodiversity and ecological integrity. Implementing restorative activities across a continuum of contexts is fundamental to enhance human health and well-being; build natural, social, and cultural capital; support Indigenous and traditional land uses; and respond to climate change (e.g., United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030; United Nations Environment Program [UNEP] & FAO 2020; see also section 4, part 3 in Gann et al. 2019). Direct impacts of mining should be minimized where possible, consistent with the internationally recognized principles of the Mitigation Hierarchy (CSBI 2013), where industry and regulators aim to firstly avoid environmental impacts; minimize impacts that cannot be avoided; when impacts occur to rehabilitate or restore; and offset any residual negative impacts (Fig. 1). The Mitigation Hierarchy forms a key part of the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) Mining Principles and Position Statements whereby company members commit: “To ensure that potential adverse impacts on biodiversity from new operations or changes to existing operations are adequately addressed throughout the project cycle and that the mitigation hierarchy is applied.” Because mining intact or near intact ecosystems creates a recovery gap that usually cannot be addressed by mitigation alone or even mitigation plus restoration, offsets are often used to try to address residual mining impacts. However, the current application of offsets rarely, if at all, can achieve like-for-like or net gain outcomes for impacted ecosystems. The Mine Site Restoration Standards (MSRS) therefore are founded on (1) reconsidering if and where mining occurs (e.g., prioritizing mining in areas that have previously been converted5) and avoiding unique or high-value natural and cultural assets; (2) minimizing the recovery gap to the extent possible by implementing the highest level of restorative activities beyond achieving a safe, stable, and nonpolluting landform; and (3) conducting off-site recovery of legacy mines and other adjacent degraded landscapes in order to move toward ecological and social net gain by restoring more than what was impacted. The MSRS outline how to minimize the recovery gap to the extent possible by implementing best practice and future practice that builds a company's SLO and minimizes closure risks. In many jurisdictions a mining company is legally required to manage, return, or transfer the land to a custodian or owner in a condition that matches an agreed post-mining land use (PMLU) in accordance with regulatory requirements.6 When the PMLU includes a native ecosystem, ecological restoration is often required. The MSRS describe how ecological restoration and allied activities should be undertaken in these mining landscapes to achieve the highest level of recovery possible given site conditions and societal choice. The MSRS and other relevant regulatory documents (e.g., EMPs) and guidance (ICMM 2019) should be used in tandem to maximize efficiencies and cohesion within the activities of the mining company, recognizing that the MSRS will most often exceed established regulatory requirements. Recognizing that the environment and social context represents the number one key risk for the mining and metals industry in 2022 (Ernst & Young 2021), Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance is becoming a critical reporting measure for mining companies. Obtaining and complying with government approvals and regulatory requirements alone may no longer be sufficient, nor socially and culturally acceptable, when implementing a new mining project (Box 1). Challenges to obtaining an approval for a new mine can be exacerbated when agreed outcomes for reclamation, rehabilitation, or mandatory restoration have not fully been delivered by the mining company on previous projects. Instances of mining developments being delayed, interrupted, or not approved due to community opposition are increasing. As such, mining companies must be diligent in building, fostering, and maintaining currency of their SLO through open and full disclosure of their technical and financial capacity to deliver an agreed post-mining outcome (Moffat & Zhang 2014). Furthermore, the sustainability agendas of mining companies through ESG structures, including climate readiness is now a key driver for financial investors (Eccles & Klimenko 2019). The majority of international financiers and many mining companies have adopted the Equator Principles,7 and are signatories to the UNEP Principles for Responsible Banking (UNEP Finance Initiative 2019), the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures,8 and the forthcoming Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures.9 These principles require recipients of banking loans, including mining companies, to align their business strategy with the SDGs and the Paris Climate Agreement (United Nations 2015). The potential for ecological restoration should never be invoked as a justification for destroying or damaging existing native ecosystems or for unsustainable use (Gann et al. 2019). Many mines and extractive industries operate in native ecosystems,10 including wetlands, coastal environments, forests, tropical grasslands, and subalpine ecotones, some of which are of high or irreplaceable conservation values. Mine sites also present some of the most challenging settings for ecological restoration due to the significantly altered geological profile (Buisson et al. 2019; Festin et al. 2019). To date, full recovery of native ecosystems has only been achieved on a small percent of the area where global mining activities have degraded or destroyed native ecosystems, even when the technological and operational potential exists (Lamb et al. 2015; Maus et al. 2020). Thus, if mining approval is based on restoring a functional and resilient native ecosystem based on a reference model, proponents should demonstrate adequate site and ecosystem-specific technical ability to restore before commencing the mining activity.11 If this cannot or has not been done in advance, early investment in establishing the restorative approaches and adaptive management structures to deliver a restoration outcome by the time of mine closure should be required. This can be achieved through research, adaptive management, and progressive restoration. Although other documents speak to the practice of ecological restoration and repair, or the process of mine closure, the MSRS for the first time, consolidate guidance and provide an integrated framework for best practice. By adopting the MSRS and expanding commitment to ecological restoration and allied restorative activities, mining companies can ensure that the social and environmental benefits extend beyond the mine itself, while building sustainable prosperity. The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) and partners published the International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (Gann et al. 2019) (International Standards), which are foundational to the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of ecological restoration projects at all scales and in all ecosystem types worldwide.12 Core to the International Standards is the Restorative Continuum that articulates that ecological restoration is one of a range or family of restorative activities that can support the recovery of ecosystem integrity (Gann et al. 2019). However, mines and mined landscapes present unique challenges often not encountered in many restoration projects. Hence, the need for a complimentary document of ecological restoration and recovery of mine sites. An essential precursor to successful restoration at mine sites is the attainment of a safe, stable, and nonpolluting landforms. This is typically a large and complex engineering challenge, requiring significant knowledge and financial inputs. Detailed closure planning throughout the life of mine (LoM) including the characterization of the physical, chemical, biological, and ecological properties of the site is needed to effectively manage mine waste, mine drainage and water, post-mining landforms, and impacts and risks associated with mine tailings, radiological, or other hazardous materials. Elements of achieving a safe, stable, and nonpolluting landscape as a phase of mine closure are discussed, as they impact the success of restoration, but the topic itself is not comprehensively addressed in the MSRS as it is effectively covered in other documents (LPSDP 2016a, 2016b; Global Tailings Review 2020; Salvador et al. 2020). The MSRS focus on the restoration of areas impacted by mining and present the established and emerging knowledge from scientific research, as well as practical and collective experience. The MSRS include all forms of terrestrial activities but exclude subsea mining. They apply at varying scales and extent in pit, underground and strip mining for minerals, raw materials, coal, peat, oil, and gas, where terrestrial environments are impacted. Relevant concepts and tools in the International Standards are customized to meet the recovery and restoration challenges of mine sites (e.g., key definitions, the Eight Principles, Five-star System, Recovery Wheels), together with additional concepts and tools consolidated from other leading guidance documents (International Finance Corporation 2012; Liu & Clewell 2017; ICMM 2019; Young et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2021). This section provides the background and scope of the document. “Towards a Culture of Best and Future Practice for the Ecological Restoration of Mine Sites” section considers how the MSRS can be adopted into the LoM process and move toward a culture of best and future practice. “Eight Principles that Underpin the Ecological Restoration and Recovery of Mine Sites” section outlines the eight key principles that underpin the ecological restoration and recovery of mine sites. “SoP for Planning and Implementing Mine Site Restoration Projects” section covers mining-related standards of practice (SoP) for ecological restoration. Throughout this article, global case studies are used to demonstrate key concepts of the MSRS in practice. Appendix S1 of the MSRS provides full versions of the case studies used in the manuscript. Appendix S2 includes a series of pertinent issues and explanatory concepts relevant to topics discussed in the manuscript including: SLO; legal frameworks; Indigenous rights; the economic, social, and environmental value of restoration; the Mitigation Hierarchy and Ecological Offsets; repurposing; developing reference models; achieving safe stable and nonpolluting landforms; water management; implications of climate change; and monitoring and evaluation. Ecological restoration is distinct from restoration ecology, the science that supports the practice of ecological restoration, and from other forms of environmental repair in seeking to assist recovery of native ecosystems and ecosystem integrity. Ecological restoration aims to move a degraded ecosystem to a trajectory of recovery that allows adaptation to local and global changes, as well as persistence, ultimately enabling continued evolution of its biodiversity and functionality. Ecological restoration is part of a continuum of restorative activities that, under certain conditions, comprise the broad concept of ecosystem restoration as defined by the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration: the process of halting and reversing degradation, resulting in improved ecosystem services and recovered biodiversity. Ecosystem restoration encompasses a wide continuum of practices, depending on local conditions and societal choice (UNEP 2021). The MSRS accept ecological restoration as any activity with the goal of achieving ecosystem recovery relative to a native reference model. Other kinds of restorative activities, such as mine reclamation, may also refer to reference conditions, but those references may return agricultural or other land uses. Reference models used for ecological restoration projects in mining are informed by a native reference ecosystem appropriate to the altered substrates and environment, which can include traditional cultural ecosystems or semi-natural ecosystems. Reference models do not necessarily describe intact native ecosystems, but alternative stable states that could be considered following mining (see Principle 3). Ecological restoration is commonly used to describe both the process and the outcome sought for an ecosystem, but the MSRS use the term restoration for the activity undertaken and recovery for the outcome sought or achieved. Ecological restoration projects or programs at mine sites include one or more targets that identify the native ecosystem to be restored, and project goals that establish the level of recovery sought. Full recovery is defined as the state or condition whereby, following restoration, all key ecosystem attributes closely resemble those of the reference model. These attributes include absence of threats, physical conditions, species composition, community structure, ecosystem functions, and external exchanges. Where lower levels of recovery are planned or occur due to resource, technical, environmental, or social constraints, partial recovery is the planned goal. At the minimum, an ecological restoration project or program should aspire to substantial recovery of the native biota and ecosystem functions (contrast with rehabilitation and other terms in Table 1). Progressive restoration involves the staged restoration of disturbed areas during the exploration, construction, and resource extraction phases of a mine, instead of large-scale works at the end of the project. Mine closure occurs when all mining activities have ceased, but the mine owner remains responsible for environmental compliance of the site. Relinquishment is achieved when the formal approval by the relevant regulating authority is granted (all obligations have been met satisfactory to authorities and possibly other stakeholders) and transfer of ownership and residual liability can shift to that agency or a third party. At this point, when ecological restoration is the goal, the site should be on a demonstrated recovery trajectory. Management actions that aim to reinstate a level of ecosystem productivity or functioning on degraded sites, where the goal is renewed and ongoing provision of ecosystem services rather than the recovery of a specified target native ecosystem. Rehabilitation is encouraged and valued where it: (1) improves ecological conditions and functions; (2) is the highest standard that can be applied at present; and (3) improves conditions that could lead to recovery of a native ecosystem in the future. When full recovery is the goal, an important benchmark is when the ecosystem demonstrates self-organization, which is when almost all of the necessary elements are present, and the ecosystem's attributes can continue to develop toward the appropriate reference state with minimal outside assistance, or even benefit from traditional cultural practices. Once self-organization is achieved, if unexpected barriers or other factors take recovery off-course, restoration interventions may be required to ensure the trajectory continues toward full recovery. Certain activities that occur during restoration, for example, weeding and watering new plantings, can be referred to as aftercare. Once fully recovered, any ongoing management activities (e.g., maintenance of disturbance regimes) would be considered as ecosystem maintenance. Specific activities, for example the control of invasive species, may be used in both the restoration and maintenance phases of a mine restoration project. In the mining industry, terms such as reclamation, rehabilitation, remediation, repurposing, and revegetation are commonly used, often interchangeably, but each are distinct processes (Table 1; Fig. 2; Principle 8) and care should be taken to use the appropriate terminology for a given activity. PMLUs are land uses that occur after the cessation of mining operations, which can require ecological restoration, reclamation, rehabilitation, or repurposing to be achieved. A diversity of stakeholders should be involved in determining the PMLUs before mining commences; however, evolution of PMLUs may occur throughout the LoM, reflecting changing stakeholder or PMLU holder desires. In many parts of the world, maintaining a SLO is critical to the success of a mining company. As a concept and practice, SLO originated in the mining industry and has evolved over 25 years. SLO represents a highly diverse array of disciplinary and conceptual influences—including anthropology, psychology, philosophy, law, management, governance, ethics, communication, and human rights—to form a complex, dynamic, and often contested discourse. Ernst and Young's (Mitchell 2020) list of risks and opportunities in the mining sector is regularly headed not by physical, tangible matters, but by the SLO. This prioritization may derive from the relative intangibility of SLO, combined with the challenge of unambiguously defining the concept, which may seem to have a disproportionate influence on a company's perceived legitimacy. Indeed, SLO's apparent intangibility suddenly becomes very real when faced with rebuilding community trust following incidents such as the blasting of 46,000-year-old rock shelters at Juukan Gorge (Commonwealth of Australia 2020) or the catastrophic loss of life and livelihoods due to tailings dam collapses (Owen et al. 2020). Despite (or perhaps because of) the relatively extensive literature, the development of SLO remains a challenge for many companies. Although some adopt effective processes during early project development, more often social and community activities (e.g., assessment, engagement, monitoring) occur in a relatively piecemeal or disconnected manner through an operation's lifecycle, with a focus on engagement in the “front end” rather than ongoing relationship-building and social performance monitoring. Once a project is approved, companies often become more transactional in their community interactions, confusing a community's tolerance of a project in the assessment phase with ongoing approval; a community's cooperation with trust; or technical credibility with social legitimacy. Communities hosting mining operations expect to benefit materially or in other ways from the presence of mining projects. Where mining companies operate, their local communities expect genuine, respectful, fully transparent, and life-of-mine relationships with companies, not just involvement when approvals or consents are required. Host communities also expect industry to be good neighbors that contribute consistently and genuinely to local community dialogue and issues; and who work in partnership with communities to enhance natural, physical, economic, social, and human capital thereby leaving a positive social and environmental legacy when mining is complete. High levels of SLO have been achieved. For example, Veenker and Vanclay (2021) evaluated the Dutch oil company NAM and assessed the highest level of social license (psychological identification) using the Thomson and Boutilier's scale (Thomson & Boutilier 2011). Despite NAM industrializing a rural landscape over time, and contributing to change in community composition, cohesion, and identity, the company delivered material and long-term local benefits and developed respectful and responsive local relationships. The result was that people in the community of Schoonebeek trusted NAM to do the right thing and to take responsibility for their actions, even following major incidents. There is no universal approach to the development of social license. Each community has its own histories, cultures, narratives, norms and conventions, specific issues, power dynamics, systems of knowledge, and interests, all of which can change over time. Companies need to know their host communities well, respect Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), develop trusted relationships both with key stakeholders and “ordinary” community members, participate actively in community life, and deliver on their promises, as key prerequisites for SLO. Once lost, SLO is extremely hard to regain. Communities have enduring memories, and trust and respect is earned, not given. See Parsons and Coates (2022) in Appendix S2a for further discussion on the SLO in mining. The process of change toward a culture of social and environmental best practice can often be long, requiring “company champions” to work diligently and continuously. The best environmental outcomes are achieved when trust is first established between government (regulators), industry, community, and science, and then leveraged to go beyond best practice (Fig. 3). The “Trust Model” can be difficult to attain and sustain, but once established the best net environmental, social, and operational benefits can be realized. Science and ILK are both fundamental to ensuring that robust and independently verified information guides mining businesses toward better environmental outcomes. It is important to acknowledge that these outcomes will continue to improve as new knowledge is developed and embedded into company practice (future practice, Box 2). Science interactions that embrace long-term relationships yield greatest results, as detailed knowledge of a site is progressively developed and an understanding of how the biota respond to the altered conditions is established (Principle 2 in “Eight Principles that Underpin the Ecological Restoration and Recovery of Mine Sites” section expands on the important role of science). Future practice is the acknowledgement that aspects of science, ILK, on-site learning, and other knowledge sources that are not currently known or understood will inform, influence, and improve restoration practice in the future including the cost-effectiveness of restoration. Companies adopting future practice will build monitoring and review into company policy that enables evidence-based management and practices to develop improved outcomes, even when those changes are currently unknown. Throughout the LoM, companies engaging in restoration must maintain active engagement with government agencies, local communities, and stakeholders. Importantly, dialogue with regulators is critical when risks of restoration failure mean alternative pathways or changes in the standard operational procedures are required. When government regulators and stakeholders are included in a process of information exchange with companies throughout the LoM, it will be easier for companies to gain approvals for restoration plan modification (adaptive management) to achieve outcome-based objectives. Furthermore, this can create an environment of trust (Fig. 3) whereby regulators are more supportive of industry and science innovation for restorative approaches. Mine closure governance is increasing globally. This is in response to greater societal awareness of the economic, environmental, cumulative impact, and social consequences of abandoned and ineffectively closed mines and the sustainable development agenda in mining (APEC 2018). However, the global adopti" @default.
W4308647103 created "2022-11-13" @default.
W4308647103 creator A5009482774 @default.
W4308647103 creator A5011224227 @default.
W4308647103 creator A5016991456 @default.
W4308647103 creator A5019125407 @default.
W4308647103 creator A5026625846 @default.
W4308647103 creator A5032558298 @default.
W4308647103 creator A5040695294 @default.
W4308647103 creator A5049507232 @default.
W4308647103 creator A5050912249 @default.
W4308647103 creator A5063967074 @default.
W4308647103 creator A5068456409 @default.
W4308647103 creator A5073096805 @default.
W4308647103 creator A5076363355 @default.
W4308647103 creator A5081797453 @default.
W4308647103 date "2022-11-01" @default.
W4308647103 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
W4308647103 title "International principles and standards for the ecological restoration and recovery of mine sites" @default.
W4308647103 cites W1142769842 @default.
W4308647103 cites W1968071566 @default.
W4308647103 cites W1985526514 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2005575413 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2009149046 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2057236063 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2059207293 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2070989922 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2102262971 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2142445198 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2147317057 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2189920458 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2405767226 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2408840022 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2549174243 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2577650085 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2599623918 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2736798384 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2744149756 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2756967475 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2789521693 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2790968535 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2796468720 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2803747025 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2885731399 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2891660628 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2892581778 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2909066281 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2951204077 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2970397573 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2971398159 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2979889172 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2986280708 @default.
W4308647103 cites W2999751453 @default.
W4308647103 cites W3008360370 @default.
W4308647103 cites W3011226480 @default.
W4308647103 cites W3015511375 @default.
W4308647103 cites W3034654997 @default.
W4308647103 cites W3035848286 @default.
W4308647103 cites W3042644701 @default.
W4308647103 cites W3047377919 @default.
W4308647103 cites W3083132170 @default.
W4308647103 cites W3083892408 @default.
W4308647103 cites W3135705367 @default.
W4308647103 cites W3151814132 @default.
W4308647103 cites W3165169375 @default.
W4308647103 cites W998210339 @default.
W4308647103 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13771" @default.
W4308647103 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
W4308647103 type Work @default.
W4308647103 citedByCount "18" @default.
W4308647103 countsByYear W43086471032022 @default.
W4308647103 countsByYear W43086471032023 @default.
W4308647103 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W4308647103 hasAuthorship W4308647103A5009482774 @default.
W4308647103 hasAuthorship W4308647103A5011224227 @default.
W4308647103 hasAuthorship W4308647103A5016991456 @default.
W4308647103 hasAuthorship W4308647103A5019125407 @default.
W4308647103 hasAuthorship W4308647103A5026625846 @default.
W4308647103 hasAuthorship W4308647103A5032558298 @default.
W4308647103 hasAuthorship W4308647103A5040695294 @default.
W4308647103 hasAuthorship W4308647103A5049507232 @default.
W4308647103 hasAuthorship W4308647103A5050912249 @default.
W4308647103 hasAuthorship W4308647103A5063967074 @default.
W4308647103 hasAuthorship W4308647103A5068456409 @default.
W4308647103 hasAuthorship W4308647103A5073096805 @default.
W4308647103 hasAuthorship W4308647103A5076363355 @default.
W4308647103 hasAuthorship W4308647103A5081797453 @default.
W4308647103 hasBestOaLocation W43086471031 @default.
W4308647103 hasConcept C107826830 @default.
W4308647103 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
W4308647103 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
W4308647103 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
W4308647103 hasConcept C78437154 @default.
W4308647103 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
W4308647103 hasConcept C91375879 @default.
W4308647103 hasConceptScore W4308647103C107826830 @default.
W4308647103 hasConceptScore W4308647103C18903297 @default.
W4308647103 hasConceptScore W4308647103C205649164 @default.
W4308647103 hasConceptScore W4308647103C39432304 @default.
W4308647103 hasConceptScore W4308647103C78437154 @default.