Getting to ‘agreed’ post-mining land use – an ecosystem services approach

References

• Abdala F. 2011. Sustainable Juruti Model: a case of pluralist governance to drive mining and local development in the Amazon region. In: Sagebien J, Lindsay NM, editors. Governance ecosystems: CSR in the Latin American mining sector. London: Palgrave Macmillan; p. 233–244.10.1057/9780230353282
   Google Scholar
• Arksey H, Knight PT. 2011. Approaches to interviewing. In: Arksey H, Knight PT, editors. Interviewing for social scientists. London: Sage; p. 74–88.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government. Community engagement and development: leading practice sustainable development program for the mining industry. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Baker J, Sheate W, Phillips P, Eales R. 2013. Ecosystem services in environmental assessment – help or hindrance? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 40:3–13.10.1016/j.eiar.2012.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benayas JMR, Newton AC, Diaz A, Bullock J. 2009. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science. 325:1121–1124.10.1126/science.1172460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [CNEC] Consórcio Nacional de Engenheiros Construtores. 2005. Estudo de Impacto Ambiental do Projeto Mina Juruti [Environmental impact study of Juruti mine project]. Portuguese.
   Google Scholar
• Dare M(Lain), Schirmer J, Vanclay F. 2014. Community engagement and social licence to operate. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 32(3):188–197.10.1080/14615517.2014.927108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fish R, Saratsi E, Reed M, Keune H. 2016. Stakeholder participation in ecosystem service decision-making. In: Potschin M, Haines-Youg R, Fish R, Turner K, editors. Routledge handbook of ecosystem services. London: Routledge; p. 256–270.
   Google Scholar
• Gavidia MC, Kemp D. 2017. Company-community relations in the mining context: a relational justice perspective. In: Lukasiewicz A, Dovers S, Robin L, Mckay J, Schilizzi S, Graham S, editors. Natural resources and environmental justice: Australian perspectives. Victoria: CSIRO Publishing; p. 79–89.
   Google Scholar
• Geneletti D. 2016. Strengthening biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessment for better decisions. In: Geneletti D, editor. Handbook on biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; p. 477–486.10.4337/9781783478996
   Google Scholar
• Honrado JP, Vieira C, Soares C, Monteiro MB, Marcos B, Pereira HM, Partidário MR. 2013. Can we infer about ecosystem services from EIA and SEA practice? A framework for analysis and examples from Portugal. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 40:14–24.10.1016/j.eiar.2012.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter-Xenie H, Whittaker C, Ghidini AR. 2017. The Amazon environment. In: Eisemberg CC, Reynolds SJ, editors. An introduction to wildlife conservation in the Brazilian Amazon: a view from Northern Australia. Brazilian Amazon field intensive. Darwin: Charles Darwin University; p. 5–12.
   Google Scholar
• Koch J, Hobbs RJ. 2007. Synthesis: Is Alcoa successfully restoring a Jarrah Forest ecosystem after bauxite mining in Western Australia? Restoration Ecol. 15(4):S137–S144.10.1111/rec.2007.15.issue-s4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [ICMM] International Council on Mining & Metals. 2008. Planning for integrated mine closure: toolkit. London: ICMM.
   Google Scholar
• [ICMM] International Council on Mining & Metals. 2012. Community development toolkit: a set of 20 revised and update tools intended for use throughout the mining project cycle. London: ICMM.
   Google Scholar
• [IFC] International Finance Corporation. 2007. Stakeholder engagement: a good practice handbook for companies doing business in emerging markets. Washington (DC): IFC.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs S, Dendoncker N,Martín-López B, Barton DN, Gomez-Baggethun E, Boeraeve F, McGrath FL, Vierikko K, Geneletti D, Sevecke KJ, et al. 2016. A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decision. Ecosyst Serv. 22:213–220.10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jha-Thakur U, Fischer TB. 2008. Are open cast coal mines in India casting a shadow on the Indian Environment? Int Dev Plann Rev. 30(4):441–459.10.3828/idpr.30.4.7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jha-Thakur U, Fischer TB, Rajvanshi A. 2009. Reviewing the design stage of EIA follow-up: looking at open cast coal mines in India. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 27(1):33–44.10.3152/146155109X413064
   Google Scholar
• Larondelle N, Haase D. 2012. Valuing post-mining landscapes using an ecosystem services approach – an example from Germany. Ecol Indic. 18:567–574.10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazos-Chavero E, Zinda J, Bennett-Curry A, Balvanera P, Bloomfield G, Lindell C, Negra C. 2016. Stakeholders and tropical reforestation: challenges, trade-offs, and strategies in dynamic environments. Biotropica. 48(6):900–914.10.1111/btp.12391
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liamputtong P. 2007. Traditional interviewing research methods appropriate for researching vulnerable people. In: Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. London: Sage; p. 95–117.10.4135/9781849209861
   Google Scholar
• Lima GTP, Hackbart VCS, Bertolo LS, dos Santos RF. 2016. Identifying driving forces of landscape changes: historical relationships and the availability of ecosystem services in the Atlantic forest. Ecosyst Serv. 22:11–17.10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marca Consultant. 2015. Relatório técnico científico: monitoramento da flora nas áreas de mineração da Alcoa, Município de Juruti [Flora monitoring report from Alcoa operation in Juruti municipality]. Belém. [ Portuguese].
   Google Scholar
• [MMSD] Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development. 2002. Breaking new ground: the report of the mining, minerals and sustainable development project. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J, Baker J. 2003. Lessons from practice: towards successful follow-up. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 21(1):43–56.10.3152/147154603781766527
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, McHenry MP, Sequeira AR, Gorey P, Mtegha H, Doepel D. 2016. Integrating mine closure planning with environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportunities drawn from African and Australian practice. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 34(2):117–128.10.1080/14615517.2016.1176407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neri AC, Sánchez LE. 2010. A procedure to evaluate environmental rehabilitation in limestone quarries. J Environ Manage. 91:2225–2237.10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otto J. 1997. A national mineral policy as a regulatory tool. Resour Policy. 23(1/2):1–7.10.1016/S0301-4207(97)00007-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partidario MR, Gomes RC. 2013. Ecosystem services inclusive strategic environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 40:36–46.10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preston SM, Raudsepp-Hearne C. 2017. Value of nature to Canadians study taskforce. Completing and using ecosystem service assessment for decision-making: an interdisciplinary toolkit for managers and analysts. Ottawa (ON): Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Governments of Canada.
   Google Scholar
• RAS. 2012. Adequação do Plano de recuperação de áreas degradadas da mina de Juruti/PA: Uma nova tecnologia – A Nucleação [Adequacy of land rehabilitation plan of the Juruti mine: a new technology – Nucleation]. Alcoa World Alumina Brasil. [ Portuguese].
   Google Scholar
• Ridder B. 2008. Questioning the ecosystem services argument for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity Conserv. 17:781–790.10.1007/s10531-008-9316-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosa JCS, Sánchez LE. 2016. Advances and challenges of incorporating ecosystem services into impact assessment. J Environ Manage. 180:485–492.10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.079
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal A, Verutes G, McKenzie E, Arkema KK, Bhagabati N, Bremer LL, Olwero N, Vogl AL. 2015. Process matters: a framework for conducting decision-relevant assessments of ecosystem services. Int J Biodiversity Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 11(3):190–204.10.1080/21513732.2014.966149
   Google Scholar
• Sánchez LE, Silva-Sánchez SS, Neri AC. 2014. Guide for mine closure planning. Brasília: IBRAM – Brazilian Mining Association.
   Google Scholar
• Scholte SLS, Maya T, van Teeffelen AJA, Veburg PH. 2016. Public support for wetland restoration: what is the link with ecosystem services values? Wetlands. 36:467–481.10.1007/s13157-016-0755-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scoles R, Gribell R, Klein GN. 2011. Crescimento e sobrevivência de castanheira (Bertholletia excelsa Bonpl.) em diferentes condições ambientais na região do rio Trombetas, Oriximiná, Pará. Bol Mus Para Emilio Goeldi Ciênc Nat [Growth and survival of Brazil nut tree (Bertholletia excelsa Bonpl.) under different environmental conditions in the Trombetas river region, Oriximiná, Pará]. 6(3):273–293.
   Google Scholar
• Slootweg R, Rajvanshi A, Mathur VB, Kolhoff A. 2010. Biodiversity in environmental assessment: enhancing ecosystem services for human well-being. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sweeting A, Clark A. 2000. Lightening the lode: a guide to responsible large-scale mining. Washington (DC): Conservation International. [accessed 17.06.14]. http://www.elaw.org/system/files/lode.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Verweij P, Schouten M, van Beukering P, Triana J, van der Leeuw K, Hess S. 2009. Keeping the Amazon forests standing: a matter of values. Zeist: WWF-Netherlands; p. 72.
   Google Scholar
• Zipper CE, Burger JA, Skousen JG, Angel PN, Barton CD, Davis V, Franklin JA. 2011. Restoring forests and associated ecosystem services on Appalachian coal surface mines. Environ Manage. 47(5):751–765.10.1007/s00267-011-9670-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar