Community Engagement and Ecosystem Services for Mine Rehabilitation

Abstract

The growing global demand for minerals presents economic opportunities for countries such as the Philippines but also raises concerns about the impacts of mineral extraction on local communities and ecosystem services. This study explores an interdisciplinary community engagement process informing mine rehabilitation in the Philippines, framed through an ecosystem services lens. As part of the PROMT (Philippines Remediation of Mine Tailings) project, we conducted an initial participatory workshop at the Padcal Mine site, engaging Indigenous communities to assess local perspectives on ecosystem services and the impacts of mining activities. Through video presentations, a questionnaire, and focus groups, we found that 88% of participants understood the concept of ecosystem services after viewing an introductory video, while 62% believed mining negatively affected ecosystem services. Interestingly, 65% felt that rehabilitated mines could provide future ecosystem services, such as agriculture or ecotourism. Gender differences were evident, with women perceiving more significant mining impacts but being more optimistic about the rehabilitation potential. This underscores the importance of inclusive engagement approaches. The ecosystem services framework effectively bridges ecological knowledge with community priorities and tangible benefits, promoting social acceptance of mine rehabilitation. This interdisciplinary approach, particularly the integration of Indigenous perspectives, remains underused in mining contexts. Our community-based participatory methodology provides guidance for balancing diverse socioeconomic and environmental considerations.

Keywords

community engagement / ecosystem services / mine rehabilitation / mine tailings / mineral extraction / stakeholder engagement

References

[1] Chaloping, M. M. 2018. Social Terrains of Mine Closure in the Philippines 1st ed. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177182.

[2] Chan, K. M. A., P. Balvanera, and K. Benessaiah, et al. 2016. “Why Protect Nature? Rethinking Values and the Environment.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, no. 6: 1462–1465.

[3] Delorme, D. E., S. H. Stephens, R. C. Collini, D. W. Yoskowitz, and S. C. Hagen. 2021. “Communicating and Understanding Ecosystem Services Assessment With Coastal Stakeholders: Obstacles and Opportunities.” Frontiers in Communication 6: 78. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2021.656884/full.

[4] Díaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, et al. 2018. “Assessing Nature's Contributions to People.” Science 359, no. 6373: 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826.

[5] Holden, W., K. Nadeau, and R. D. Jacobson. 2011. “Exemplifying Accumulation by Dispossession: Mining and Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 93, no. 2: 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0467.2011.00366.x.

[6] Holden, W., K. Nadeau, and R. D. Jacobson. 2016. “Exemplifying Accumulation by Dispossession: Mining and Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 93: 141–161.

[7] Kenter, J. O., C. M. Raymond, C. J. van Riper, et al. 2019. “Loving the Mess: Navigating Diversity and Conflict in Social Values for Sustainability.” Sustainability Science 14, no. 5: 1439–1461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00726-4.

[8] Klain, S. C., P. Olmsted, K. M. A. Chan, and T. Satterfield. 2017. “Relational Values Resonate Broadly and Differently Than Intrinsic or Instrumental Values, or the New Ecological Paradigm.” PLoS One 12, no. 8: e0183962. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183962.

[9] Moomen, A. W., and A. Dewan. 2017. “Probing the Perspectives of Stakeholder Engagement and Resistance Against Large-Scale Surface Mining in Developing Countries.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 24, no. 2: 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/CSR.1396.

[10] Neves, A. C. O., F. P. Nunes, F. A. de Carvalho, and G. W. Fernandes. 2016. “Neglect of Ecosystems Services by Mining, and the Worst Environmental Disaster in Brazil.” Natureza & Conservação 14, no. 1: 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2016.03.002.

[11] Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, S. Díaz, et al. 2017. “Valuing Nature's Contributions to People: The Ipbes Approach.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26–27: 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSUST.2016.12.006.

[12] van der Plank, S., B. Walsh, and P. Behrens. 2016. “The Expected Impacts of Mining: Stakeholder Perceptions of a Proposed Mineral Sands Mine in Rural Australia.” Resources Policy 48: 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.03.005.

[13] Rosa, J. C. S., A. Morrison-Saunders, M. Hughes, and L. E. Sánchez. 2020. “Planning Mine Restoration Through Ecosystem Services to Enhance Community Engagement and Deliver Social Benefits.” Restoration Ecology 28, no. 4: 937–946. https://doi.org/10.1111/REC.13162.

[14] Sonter, L. J., S. H. Ali, and J. E. M. Watson. 2018. “Mining and Biodiversity: Key Issues and Research Needs in Conservation Science.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 285: 20181926.

[15] Subiza-Pérez, M., L. Santa Marina, A. Irizar, et al. 2020. “Who Feels a Greater Environmental Risk? Women, Younger Adults and Pro-Environmentally Friendly People Express Higher Concerns About a Set of Environmental Exposures.” Environmental Research 181: 108918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108918.

[16] Wang, L., K. Awuah-Offei, and W. Yang. 2016. “Eliciting Drivers of Community Perceptions of Mining Projects Through Effective Community Engagement.” Sustainability 8: 658.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 The Author(s). Integrative Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden (XTBG).