IUCN, 2025. IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Murguía, D.I., Bringezu, S. & Schaldach, R., 2016. Global direct pressures on biodiversity by large-scale metal mining: Spatial distribution and implications for conservation. Journal of Environmental Management, 180, pp. 409-420. Olivadese, 2025. Rethinking Nature-Based Solutions: Unintended Consequences, Ancient Wisdom, and the Limits of Nature. Land, 14(6). Opatovsky, et al., 2025. Examining critical assumptions in global conservation practice, Conservation Biology, 39(6). Raymond, et al., 2017. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science & Policy, 77, pp. 15-24. Seddon, N., et al., 2020. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1794). Smyth, E. & Vanclay, F., 2017. The Social Framework for Projects: A conceptual but practical model to assist in assessing, planning and managing the social impacts of projects. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35(1), pp. 65-80. Stanimirova, et al., 2024. Mining Is Increasingly Pushing into Critical Rainforests and Protected Areas, The World Resources Institute. The World Bank, 2019. Climate-Smart Mining: Minerals for Climate Action. World Bank Group. Turnhout, et al., 2020. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, pp. 15-21. UNEP FI, 2024. Circular solutions to achieve climate targets, United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative. West, P., Igoe, J. & Brockington, D., 2006. Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, pp. 251–277. Wong, et al., 2022. Designing REDD+ benefit-sharing mechanisms: from policy to practice, Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). 84
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2