Impact on mental health and wellbeing in Indigenous communities due to land loss resulting from industrial resource development: protocol for a systematic review

Indigenous communities and the mental health impacts of land dispossession related to industrial resource development: a systematic review

Globally, many resource extraction projects such as mines and hydroelectric dams are developed on the territories of Indigenous Peoples. Recognising land as a determinant of Indigenous Peoples' health, our objective is to synthesise evidence about the mental health impacts on Indigenous communities who experience land dispossession due to industrial resource development (mining, hydroelectric, petroleum, and agricultural). We systematically reviewed studies that focused on Indigenous land dispossession in Australia, Aotearoa (New Zealand), North and South America, and the Circumpolar North. We searched Scopus, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Global Health on OVID for peer-reviewed articles published in English from database inception to Dec 31, 2020. We also searched for books, research reports, and scholarly journals specialising in Indigenous health or Indigenous research. We included documents that reported on primary research, focused on Indigenous Peoples in settler colonial states, and reported on mental health and industrial resource development. Of the 29 included studies, 13 were related to hydroelectric dams, 11 to petroleum developments, nine to mining, and two to agriculture. Land dispossession due to industrial resource development had predominantly negative mental health impacts on Indigenous communities. The impacts were consequences of colonial relations that threatened Indigenous identities, resources, languages, traditions, spirituality, and ways of life. Health impact assessment processes in industrial resource development must expressly consider risks and potential impacts on mental health and respect Indigenous rights by making knowledge about mental health risks a central component to decisions about free, prior, and informed consent.

Evidence of the impacts of metal mining and the effectiveness of mining mitigation measures on social-ecological systems in Arctic and boreal regions: a systematic map

BACKGROUND

Mining can directly and indirectly affect social and environmental systems in a range of positive and negative ways, and may result in societal benefits, but may also cause conflicts, not least in relation to land use. Mining always affects the environment, whilst remediation and mitigation efforts may effectively ameliorate some negative environmental impacts. Social and environmental systems in Arctic and boreal regions are particularly sensitive to impacts from development for numerous reasons, not least of which are the reliance of Indigenous peoples on subsistence livelihoods and long recovery times of fragile ecosystems. With growing metal demand, mining in the Arctic is expected to increase, demanding a better understand its social and environmental impacts. We report here the results of a systematic mapping of research evidence of the impacts of metal mining in Arctic and boreal regions.

METHODS

We searched multiple bibliographic databases and organisational websites for relevant research using tested search strategies. We also collected evidence from stakeholders and rightsholders identified in the wider 3MK project (Mapping the impacts of Mining using Multiple Knowledges, https://osf.io/cvh3u). We screened articles at three stages (title, abstract, and full text) according to a predetermined set of inclusion criteria, with consistency checks between reviewers at each level. We extracted data relating to causal linkages between actions or impacts and measured outcomes, along with descriptive information about the articles and studies. We have produced an interactive database along with interactive visualisations, and identify knowledge gaps and clusters using heat maps.

REVIEW FINDINGS

Searches identified over 32,000 potentially relevant records, which resulted in a total of 585 articles being retained in the systematic map. This corresponded to 902 lines of data on impact or mitigation pathways. The evidence was relatively evenly spread across topics, but there was a bias towards research in Canada (35% of the evidence base). Research was focused on copper (23%), gold (18%), and zinc (16%) extraction as the top three minerals, and open pit mines were most commonly studied (33%). Research most commonly focused on operation stages, followed by abandonment and post-closure, with little evidence on early stages (prospecting, exploration, construction; 2%), expansion (0.2%), or decommissioning/closure (0.3%). Mitigation measures were not frequently studied (18% articles), with groundwater mitigation most frequently investigated (54% of mitigations), followed by soil quality (12%) and flora species groups (10%). Control-impact study designs were most common (68%) with reference sites as the most frequently used comparator (43%). Only 7 articles investigated social and environmental outcomes together. the most commonly reported system was biodiversity (39%), followed by water (34%), societies (20%), and soil/geology (6%), with air the least common (1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence found highlights a suite of potential knowledge gaps, namely: on early stages prior to operation; effectiveness of mitigation measures; stronger causal inference study designs; migration and demography; cumulative impacts; and impacts on local and Indigenous communities. We also tentatively suggest subtopics where the number of studies could allow systematic reviews: operation, post-closure, and abandonment stages; individual faunal species, surface water quality, water sediment quality; and, groundwater mitigation measure effectiveness.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13750-022-00282-y.