ReviewEnvironmental geochemistry and health2018
Effective integrated frameworks for assessing mining sustainability.
Review in Environmental geochemistry and health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Holistic, Literature-Informed Critical Mineral Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines: An Essential Foundation for the Energy Transition.ACS engineering Au · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the effect of ecological restoration in mineral resource cities and analysis of driving factors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Soil microbial community and abiotic soil properties influence Zn and Cd hyperaccumulation differently in Arabidopsis halleri.The Science of the total environment · 2022Article
- A comparative analysis of Chinese regional climate regulation policy: ETS as an example.Environmental geochemistry and health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The objectives of this research are to review existing methods used for assessing mining sustainability, analyze the limited prior research that has evaluated the methods, and identify key characteristics that would constitute an enhanced sustainability framework that would serve to improve sustainability reporting in the mining industry. Five of the most relevant frameworks were selected for comparison in this analysis, and the results show that there are many commonalities among the five, as well as some disparities. In addition, relevant components are missing from all five. An enhanced evaluation system and framework were created to provide a more holistic, comprehensive method for sustainability assessment and reporting. The proposed framework has five components that build from and encompass the twelve evaluation characteristics used in the analysis. The components include Foundation, Focus, Breadth, Quality Assurance, and Relevance. The enhanced framework promotes a comprehensive, location-specific reporting approach with a concise set of well-defined indicators. Built into the framework is quality assurance, as well as a defined method to use information from sustainability reports to inform decisions. The framework incorporates human health and socioeconomic aspects via initiatives such as community-engaged research, economic valuations, and community-initiated environmental monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.