Skip to main content

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

Abstract

Background

Indigenous Peoples are impacted by industrial resource development that takes place on, or near, their communities. Existing literature on impacts of industrial resource development on Indigenous Peoples primarily focus on physical health outcomes and rarely focus on the mental health impacts. To understand the full range of long-term and anticipated health impacts of industrial resource development on Indigenous communities, mental health impacts must be examined. It is well-established that there is a connection between the environment and Indigenous wellbeing, across interrelated dimensions of mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual health.

Methods

This paper identifies how the Community Advisory Team and a team of Indigenous and settler scholars will conduct the review. The literature search will use the OVID interface to search Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Global Health databases. Non-indexed peer-reviewed journals related to Indigenous health or research will be scanned. Books and book chapters will be identified in the Scopus and PsycINFO databases. The grey literature search will also include Google and be limited to reports published by government, academic, and non-profit organizations. Reference lists of key publications will be checked for additional relevant publications, including theses, dissertations, reports, and other articles not retrieved in the online searches. Additional sources may be recommended by team members. Included documents will focus on Indigenous Peoples in North America, South America, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, and Circumpolar regions, research that reports on mental health, and research that is based on land loss connected to dams, mines, agriculture, or petroleum development. Literature that meets the inclusion criteria will be screened at the title/abstract and full-text stages by two team members in Covidence. The included literature will be rated with a quality appraisal tool and information will be extracted by two team members; a consensus of information will be reached and be submitted for analysis.

Discussion

The synthesized evidence from this review is relevant for land use policy, health impact assessments, economic development, mental health service planning, and communities engaging in development projects.

Systematic review registration

Registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; Registration number CRD42021253720)

Peer Review reports

Background

Many industrial resource development projects take place in close proximity to Indigenous communities, and in some cases, on Indigenous treaty lands [1,2,3,4,5]. While some Indigenous communities have worked collaboratively with industries and governments to establish sustainable resource developments [6], others have experienced non-collaborative processes which have resulted in land dispossession through project construction or community relocation [5, 7]. Several studies of land dispossession have reported negative health outcomes for Indigenous Peoples [8,9,10]. Assessing the expected and potential health impacts of land loss through industrial resource developments can provide Indigenous communities, industries, and governments with evidence that is necessary for planning, negotiation, mitigation, and monitoring.

There is a substantial body of evidence about the occupational and community health consequences associated with industries such as mining, energy, and agriculture [7, 10,11,12,13,14]. However, two recent scoping reviews [7, 10] highlighted the comparative lack of evidence about the mental health impacts of industrial resource developments. Most studies have focused on physical health outcomes and industry workers, with limited investigations about mental health or with Indigenous Peoples [7, 10].

Understanding the possible impacts of industrial resource development on mental health in Indigenous communities requires a recognition of the connection between the environment and Indigenous health and wellbeing [15, 16]. The relationship between Indigenous Peoples and land is part of a holistic ontology that situates mental health as interconnected with all other dimensions of health (physical, emotional, and spiritual) and with cultural identity and place [16,17,18,19,20,21]. Given these links, industrial resource developments that have physical impacts on Indigenous lands and territories, change access to land-based activities, or result in community displacement may serve as a unique pathway for mental health risks and outcomes in Indigenous communities.

Objective and question

The objective of this systematic review is to examine and synthesize the evidence related to the mental health impacts of industrial resource development on Indigenous communities, with a specific focus on consequences due to land loss. This review will examine the reported impacts of land dispossession due to mining, hydroelectric, petroleum, and agricultural developments on mental health in Indigenous communities.

Methods

This protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Registration number CRD42021253720) and has been prepared in accordance with the statement for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) [22, 23]. The completed PRISMA-P Checklist is available as Additional file 1.

We will conduct a systematic review of the peer reviewed and grey literature on the impact of land loss related to industrial resource development on mental health and wellbeing in Indigenous communities. This protocol was developed by an interdisciplinary team of Indigenous (NG and JM) and settler (non-Indigenous) scholars (NB, JL, NP, LJB, AK, AL, JR, MMN) with expertise in Indigenous health and wellbeing (NG, JM, NB, NP, LJB, JR, MMN), environmental stewardship (AK, AL), mental health (NG, NP, MMN), resource extraction (AK, AL), and Indigenous People’s health literature databases (JL). Collectively, the co-authors have expertise in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methodologies. In keeping with principles and practices for community-based participatory [24] and Indigenous research [25,26,27,28,29], this review was designed with support from a Community Advisory Team, comprised of four Indigenous and one settler members. Their role was to advise on the research objective and question, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the information that will be extracted from eligible studies. Our approach is founded on the ethical imperative of “nothing about us without us” in Indigenous research [16, 26, 30,31,32]. In this case, this systematic review was requested by West Moberly First Nations so that the evidence can support mental health and wellness planning, decision-making, and programming.

Search strategy

An academic health sciences librarian with over twenty years of experience working in Indigenous health has developed the search strategy. In consultation with team members, keywords and topics have been translated to the appropriate subject headings. Test searches have been carried out in Scopus and Medline to gather data that includes studies focused in the following three concept areas: (1) Indigenous Peoples in global regions with similar histories of colonization (North America, South America, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, and Circumpolar regions); (2) mental health risks and outcomes such as mental health and wellness, psychological trauma, substance use, resilience; and (3) land loss connected to specific resource development industries (hydroelectric dams, mining, agriculture, petroleum). Please refer to the detailed search strategies developed to search Medline and Scopus for a full list of keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH terms) relevant to these two databases (Additional file 2). The OVID interface will be used to search Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Global Health for research published in English, up to and including December 31, 2021.

Five peer-reviewed journals related to Indigenous health or research will be scanned or hand searched by members of the team to identify potentially relevant articles; International Journal of Indigenous Health, International Indigenous Policy Journal, Journal of Indigenous Wellbeing – Te Mauri/Pimatisiwin, Journal of Indigenous Research, and Indigenous Knowledge – Other Ways of Knowing. These journals have been selected because they have not been indexed consistently in the biomedical databases. This will ensure comprehensiveness in identifying all available literature and ensuring that scholarly articles written by Indigenous researchers have not been overlooked.

Books and book chapters will be identified in the Scopus and PsycINFO databases and through federated searches in inter-institutional academic library catalogues. Grey literature searches will be carried out using advanced search techniques in Google. Grey literature will be limited to reports or research published by government, academic, and non-profit organizations. Reference lists of key publications will be checked for additional relevant publications, including theses, dissertations, reports, and other articles not retrieved in the online searches. Additional sources known to team members that are potentially eligible for inclusion will be recommended if they are not otherwise captured in the database searches.

Results from the database searches will be imported into Covidence. After duplicate results are removed, two team members will complete the title and abstract screening, then full-text screening for sources that meet our inclusion criteria. We will consider a Cohen’s kappa score of >0.6 acceptable. When two team members disagree about article eligibility, they will meet to discuss their assessment and seek consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, a consistent third reviewer will be consulted to make a final decision. Table 1 describes a detailed version of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each included document will be independently appraised and extracted from by any two reviewers on the team. The extracted data will be compared side-by-side to reach consensus.

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria and rationale

Quality appraisal

For the quality appraisal tool, we will use the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme [33], and include adapted questions so it can be applied to qualitative, quantitative, and mixed research method research designs. We will weigh evidence in the review based on quality. That is, studies that demonstrate a clear connection between land dispossession and mental health (Question10 below) and receive a “yes” to 7 or more of the critical appraisal tool question, will be emphasized in the results. We anticipate that there will be a limited number of studies that meet the inclusion criteria, so we do not plan to exclude studies based on low scores. In addition to changing the questions in the appraisal tool to be inclusive of quantitative and qualitative studies (Question 2 below), we added a relevance question to assess whether a direct connection is made between losing/decreasing access to land and mental health in each study (Question 10 below). The questions in the appraisal tool focus on the quality, rigour, and relevance of the study and include:

  1. 1.

    Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research?

  2. 2.

    Is the methodology appropriate?

  3. 3.

    Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?

  4. 4.

    Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?

  5. 5.

    Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?

  6. 6.

    Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered?

  7. 7.

    Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?

  8. 8.

    Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?

  9. 9.

    Is there a clear statement of findings?

  10. 10.

    How clear is the connection between losing access to land and mental health made in the study?

Data extraction

The following information will be extracted from each included study.

  1. 1.

    Reference (full-text citation)

  2. 2.

    Type of document (article, report, other)

  3. 3.

    Geographic setting/location(s)

  4. 4.

    Indigenous Peoples (nations, groups, organizations)

  5. 5.

    Level of Indigenous Peoples involvement in governing research (e.g., initiating the research and identifying priority, guidance and governance on research methodology, gathering data, analysis, how research findings are used, and document writing.)

  6. 6.

    Type of industry (dam, mining, agriculture, or petroleum)

  7. 7.

    Research question(s)

  8. 8.

    Study design/methodology (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods)

  9. 9.

    Research methods used

  10. 10.

    Tools and other indicators to assess, measure, and document mental health and wellness

  11. 11.

    Reported mental health impacts and outcomes

  12. 12.

    Recommendations

Data analysis

The extracted data will be exported into an Excel spreadsheet and shared with the full team of authors. First, the demographics and design characteristics of the included studies will be organized by one team member and verified by another. Second, we will hold a series of team meetings to share and discuss the study demographics and study designs; overarching findings, patterns, and relationships between the findings; and identify a sub-group to conduct a thorough and rigorous data analysis. Third, the sub-group of at least four team members will independently identify themes within the extracted field for mental health impacts and outcomes; examine patterns and observations across studies by geography, ways in which land was dispossessed, study methodologies, and the level of Indigenous Peoples’ involvement in the research study; and draft a figure that describes that relationship between land dispossession from industry, the Indigenous Peoples’ mental health and wellbeing, and other arising themes. This sub-group will meet weekly to share, discuss, and re-analyse the data, using an iterative process until everyone in the group is in full agreement about the findings. Having two or more coders is shown to improve rigour, reliability, and accountability [34]. Fourth, the full team will meet to review the preliminary results prepared by the sub-group, provide further input and feedback, and co-develop figures that summarize the reported findings. Fifth, our results will then be shared and discussed with the Community Advisory Team and compared with other literature related to key themes from this review.

Discussion

This systematic review will assess and synthesize the evidence on the mental health impacts of industrial resource developments that lead to land loss for Indigenous communities. This will include an examination of potential direct and indirect effects. This evidence will be relevant to Indigenous rightsholders and other stakeholders involved in industrial resource development and land use policy, health impact assessments, economic development, and mental health service planning. Potential knowledge users of evidence from this review include Indigenous communities, various levels of government, public health professionals, and industry.

Strengths and limitations

The primary strength of this review is the collective diverse expertise within our team, which helped to inform the protocol and will aid in data analysis and understanding; this includes having an experienced librarian with expertise in Indigenous health that can develop a comprehensive search strategy [7, 10]. We are focusing the review on four major resource development industries but recognize that other related industries may also report on the mental health impacts of Indigenous populations, which is a potential limitation. Furthermore, by restricting the publication language to English, we may miss relevant papers, particularly from South America, Africa, and Asia. Another anticipated limitation is that most papers will be conceived and written by non-Indigenous authors conducting research about Indigenous Peoples, nations, or communities that they are not part of, which can result in pathologizing Indigenous Peoples and/or missing analyses that reflect local Indigenous knowledge systems.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

References

  1. Brisbois B, Feagan M, Stime B, Paz IK, Berb Es-Blázquez M, Gaibor J, et al. Mining, colonial legacies, and neoliberalism: A political ecology of health knowledge. J Environ Occup Health Policy. 2021;31(1):48–64.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Government of Canada. Indigenous Mining Agreements. Natural Resources Canada. 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hipwell W, Mamen K, Weitzner V, Whiteman G. Aboriginal peoples and mining in Canada: Consultation, participation and prospects for change. Ottawa: North-South Institute; 2002. p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Keeling A, Sandlos J. Mining and communities in Northern Canada: History, politics, and memory, vol. 3: University of Calgary Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sandlos J, Keeling A. Aboriginal communities, traditional knowledge, and the environmental legacies of extractive development in Canada. Extr Ind Soc. 2016;3(2):278–87.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rodon T. Institutional development and resource development: The case of Canada’s Indigenous peoples. Can J Dev Stud/Revue canadienne d’études du développement. 2018;39(1):119–36.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brisbois BW, Reschny J, Fyfe TM, Harder HG, Parkes MW, Allison S, et al. Mapping research on resource extraction and health: A scoping review. Extr Ind Soc. 2019;6(1):250–9.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Reid J, Varona G, Fisher M, Smith C. Understanding Maori ‘lived’ culture to determine cultural connectedness and wellbeing. J Population Res. 2016;33(1):31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Whitbeck L, Adams G, Hoyt D, Chen X. Conceptualizing and measuring historical trauma among American Indian people. Am J Community Psychol. 2004;33(3–4):119–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Myette E, Riva M. Surveying the complex social-ecological pathways between resource extraction and Indigenous Peoples’ health in Canada: A scoping review with a realist perspective. Extr Ind Soc. 2021;8:100901.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fernández-Llamazares Á, Garteizgogeascoa M, Basu N, Brondizio ES, Cabeza M, Martínez-Alier J, et al. A state-of-the-art review of indigenous peoples and environmental pollution. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2020;16(3):324–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cortes-Ramirez J, Naish S, Sly PD, Jagals P. Mortality and morbidity in populations in the vicinity of coal mining: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gamu J, Le Billon P, Spiegel S. Extractive industries and poverty: A review of recent findings and linkage mechanisms. Extr Ind Soc. 2015;2(1):162–76.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hendryx M, Ahern MM. Relations between health indicators and residential proximity to coal mining in West Virginia. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(4):669–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fast E, Lefebvre M, Reid C, Deer WB, Swiftwolfe D, Clark M, et al. Restoring Our Roots: Land-Based Community by and for Indigenous Youth. Int J Indigenous Health. 2021;16(2):120–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. King M, Smith A, Gracey M. Indigenous health part 2: the underlying causes of the health gap. The Lancet. 2009;374(9683):76–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Berry HL, Bowen K, Kjellstrom T. Climate change and mental health: a causal pathways framework. Int J Public Health. 2010;55(2):123–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cunsolo A, Ellis NR. Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss. Nat Climate Change. 2018;8(4):275–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gracey M, King M. Indigenous health part 1: Determinants and disease patterns. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Greenwood ML, de Leeuw S, Lindsay NM, Reading C. Determinants of Indigenous Peoples’ Health in Canada: Beyond the Social. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Reading C, Wien F. Health inequities and the social determinants of Aboriginal Peoples’ health; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349(g7647):1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Community-based participatory research: policy recommendations for promoting a partnership approach in health research. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2001;14(2):182–97.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jacklin K, Kinoshameg P. Developing a Participatory Aboriginal Health Research Project: “Only if it’s Going to Mean Something”. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2008;3(2):53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC). The First Nations Principles of OCAP® [Internet]. FNIGC; 2019. [cited 2021 Nov]. Available from: http://www.fnigc.ca/ocap.html

  27. Inuit Tapiriit K, Nunavut Research I. In: Nickels S, Shirley J, Laidler G, editors. Negotiating Research Relationships with Inuit Communities: A Guide for Researchers: Ottawa and Iqaluit; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kovach M. Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversation, and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2009. p. 201.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Smith LT. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. New York: Zed Books Ltd.; 2012. p. 256.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bull J, Beazley K, Shea J, MacQuarrie C, Hudson A, Shaw K, et al. Shifting practise: Recognizing Indigenous rights holders in research ethics review. Qual Res Organ Manag An Int J. 2019;15(1):21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Huria T, Palmer SC, Pitama S, Beckert L, Lacey C, Ewen S, et al. Consolidated criteria for strengthening reporting of health research involving indigenous peoples: the CONSIDER statement. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jones J, Cunsolo A, Harper SL. Who is research serving? A systematic realist review of circumpolar environment-related Indigenous health literature. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0196090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme UK. CASP CHECKLISTS - CASP - Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. [cited 2021 Nov 4]. Available from: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

  34. Cornish F, Gillespie A, Zittoun T. Collaborative analysis of qualitative data. The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis, vol. 79; 2013. p. 93.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge and thank the Community Advisory Team.

Funding

The funding to support this research is provided by West Moberly First Nations. The Community Advisory Team for this systematic review is primarily comprised of West Moberly First Nations members who were involved in defining the research question and the scope of literature. The Community Advisory Team and funder were not involved in the literature search, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

NB drafted this manuscript with significant content input from JL, NP, and MMN. JL led the development of the search strategy. MMN is responsible for the systematic review and facilitating the collaborative work with the community partner. All authors contributed to the design of the review and revised and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melody E. Morton Ninomiya.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research does not involve human subjects. It is exempted from research ethics board review.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The senior author (MMN) received funding from WMFN to conduct the systematic review; some co-authors were hired on a contract basis through this funding. There is nothing to be gained or lost based on the findings from this review, now or in the future, by any of the co-authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burns, N., Linton, J., Pollock, N.J. et al. Impact on mental health and wellbeing in Indigenous communities due to land loss resulting from industrial resource development: protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev 11, 146 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02014-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02014-2

Keywords

  • Mental health
  • Resource extraction
  • Industrial development
  • Indigenous Peoples
  • Land dispossession
  • Systematic review