Mineral extraction on Indigenous land: employing a relational approach to navigate the convergence of Indigenous and other ontologies and practices

Perspective Mineral extraction on Indigenous land: employing a relational approach to navigate the convergence of Indigenous and other ontologies and practices Elke Kellner * School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, 777 E. University Dr., Tempe, Arizona 85281, USA Wyss Academy for Nature, University of Bern, Kochergasse 4, 3011 Bern, Switzerland ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Energy transition Mineral extraction Justice Indigenous communities Sustainable development Climate change mitigation. ABSTRACT The transition to low-carbon technologies, essential for energy transition, significantly increases the demand for minerals, with projections indicating a sixfold rise by 2040. A substantial portion of these minerals is located on Indigenous lands, placing policymakers in (1) a governance paradox between rapid mineral extraction and the protection of Indigenous rights and (2) a justice paradox between respecting Indigenous self-determination—including the right to reject mining—versus accelerating the energy transition to prevent broader climate injustices. This perspective explores how a relational approach can help navigate the convergence of Indigenous and other ontologies and practices to address justice issues in mineral extraction. It contrasts the holistic, relational worldview of Indigenous peoples with the resource-centered, extractive logic embedded in the governance approaches of many mining companies and governments. The environmental, social, and cultural impacts of mineral extraction on Indigenous lands are discussed, revealing that Indigenous communities bear disproportionate negative consequences despite their minimal contribution to carbon emissions. The paper proposes a paradigm shift towards a process-relational framework that acknowledges Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and relating to land. This framework aims to enhance procedural, distributive, recognitional, and epistemic justice in mineral extraction and promote new governance approaches. This perspective aims to support a more just and sustainable energy transition that respects Indigenous ontologies and practices and constitutes a start towards a broader political movement of decolonization. 1. Introduction Achieving global carbon neutrality requires a transformation away from fossil fuels to low-carbon solutions, as energy-related carbon dioxide emissions represent two-thirds of all greenhouse gases [1]. Lowcarbon technologies such as photovoltaic, wind energy, and e-mobility play a key role in energy transition but cause a growing demand for minerals [2]. Limiting global warming to 2 ◦C to meet the Paris Agreement necessitates a quadrupling of minerals by 2040. Reaching net zero by 2050 will require six times more minerals in 2040 than today [3]. However, the current recovery and recycling rate of minerals is low, e.g., by 2040, recycling batteries could cut 10 % of the primary supply needs for copper, lithium, nickel, and cobalt [3]. Consequently, 90 % of the minerals have to be generated through (new) mining activities [4]. In accordance with this, the “World Bank estimates a 500 % increase in mining activity over the next two decades to produce more than three billion tons of minerals” needed for low-carbon technologies ([5], p.1). This situation is further exacerbated because analyses of the International Energy Agency show that developing mining projects from discovery to first production takes on average 16 years [3]. This period encompasses more than 12 years for exploration and feasibility studies, followed by an additional 4 to 5 years for the construction phase. However, besides the goal to transition to renewable energy, it is also important to avoid reinforcing existing inequalities and ensure that the transition is both socially and environmentally sustainable. There is a growing body of literature about just energy transition and several key organizations and institutions promote just energy transition principles and policies such as the United Nations (UN), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), European Union (EU), International Labour Organization (ILO), Global Trade Unions, and the World Bank and other development banks. The concept of just energy transition fosters a holistic approach that combines environmental goals with social equity by (i) ensuring fair distribution of benefits and burdens [6], (ii) supporting vulnerable communities through the transition * School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, 777 E. University Dr., Tempe, AZ 85281, USA. E-mail address: [email protected]. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy Research & Social Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2025.104097 Received 30 June 2024; Received in revised form 5 April 2025; Accepted 22 April 2025 Energy Research & Social Science 125 (2025) 104097 Available online 18 May 2025 2214-6296/© 2025 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). [7], and (iii) respecting local social priorities and the rights of marginalized groups such as Indigenous communities [8]. In this vein, it is important to note that Owen et al. [9] mapped all existing and proposed global mining projects extracting minerals for energy transition and found that 54 % are located on or near Indigenous peoples’ lands. In 29 % of these projects, Indigenous peoples are recognized as having a role in managing or exercising some degree of control or influence for conservation purposes. However, with respect to just energy transition, Indigenous communities bear the least responsibility for cumulative carbon dioxide emissions leading to climate change but are disproportionately impacted by the social-ecological impacts of mitigating climate change [10]. Several studies show that mining activities on Indigenous land are having more negative than positive impacts on Indigenous peoples [11,12]. As described in more detail in Section 2, mining projects contain the risk of disrupting Indigenous identity, cultures, and economies [13]. In addition, the extraction of minerals produces large quantities of solid and chemical waste that can pose serious risks to both human and environmental health [14,15], as presented in Section 3. This situation is also reflected in the persistent resistance by Indigenous peoples worldwide against mining projects [16], such as in Argentinia and Chile [17], Peru [18], the Resolution Copper Mine project in Arizona, US [19], Canada [20], Samis in Sweden [21], and in Australia [22]. Indigenous peoples are increasingly expressing concerns about mineral extraction and renewable energy development on their lands and territories [12]. This underlines the general concern that climate change is poised to exacerbate existing (income) inequality even further [23], both through its direct impacts and through efforts to mitigate it. World Indigenous leaders have warned at the UN Summit 2023 that the West’s climate strategy risks the exploitation of Indigenous territories, people, and resources. Threats about energy transition, including mineral extraction, were at the centre of debate when hundreds of Indigenous chiefs, presidents, chairmen, and delegates met at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2023 [24]. They highlighted that they face situations where mining projects targeting Indigenous land sometimes proceed without Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) – a core principle of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [25]. They are concerned about “green colonialism”, which drives harmful sustainability projects on Indigenous lands. Further, Indigenous peoples mostly have not shared equitably in the wealth generated by mining projects. Therefore, they call for new mineral policies that take into account Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests. Without substantial policy reforms, inequitable outcomes will persist [12]. A positive aspect of the mapping by Owen et al. [9] is the fact that 70 % of the mapped projects are in their initial planning phase, which still provides time to improve governance processes and regulations towards justice for Indigenous communities [26]. But what does justice mean in that context? It should not only mean focusing on ‘how can mineral extraction be done without harming Indigenous peoples [27]. According to the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the requirement for FPIC, the primary question should be whether Indigenous peoples can exercise self-determination, consent, and self-governance in the decisions about new mining projects. This is also closely linked to the question of whether governments and mining companies respect Indigenous ontologies. Indigenous philosophical and spiritual traditions around the world have a deeply relational and nonhuman centric perspective [28,29], such as Indigenous communities in Canada [30], in Australia [31], in Africa [32], or in the US [33]. This situation places policymakers with governance authority over the mining sector in a governance paradox: Promoting rapid intensification of mineral extraction to meet the high international demand for low-carbon technologies versus conducting long-lasting participative processes with affected Indigenous communities to meet the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and environmental laws. This governance paradox also includes a justice paradox: Giving the rights to affected Indigenous communities for selfdetermination (which includes the right to reject a mineral extraction project) versus the necessary acceleration of energy transition to prevent further injustice associated with climate change [34]. Against this backdrop, this perspective aims to initiate an important intellectual debate by suggesting some starting points for a broader reflection on how to ensure just mineral extraction on Indigenous land as part of an urgently needed just energy transition. The overarching argument of this perspective article is that a paradigm shift towards a relational approach is necessary. This approach is not simply a different ontological thinking, it is also a matter of justice. [35]. Consequently, scholars and practitioners need to combine diverse ontologies when conceptualizing, studying, and addressing the challenges of mineral extraction on Indigenous land. Laying the foundation for the debate, Section 2 examines how diverse ontologies and practices converge in the case of mineral extraction on Indigenous land. This is followed by an overview of the impact of mineral extraction on the environment (Section 3) and Indigenous communities (Section 4). Section 5 presents different types of justice and how justice could be impacted through the extraction of minerals on Indigenous land. Evidence from this foundation supports Section 6 and 7, which offer initial concepts for combining Indigenous and western substantialist ontologies within a framework intended as both an analytical and participatory tool for mineral extraction projects on Indigenous lands. The perspective article is completed by Section 8 with a discussion and concluding reflections. It is important to note that I acknowledge that my perspective is shaped by my background. While I have lived in the United States for 2.5 years studying conflictual situations involving Indigenous communities, I write as a European white woman trained in western scientific knowledge systems. I am aware that this article would have been stronger with Indigenous co-authorship, which unfortunately was not possible at this stage. Nevertheless, mineral extraction on Indigenous land continues, and I believe it is essential to begin this conversation to prevent further harm to Indigenous peoples. Throughout my research, I have made continuous efforts to engage with Indigenous voices and I remain committed to learning from and with Indigenous communities. Further, I do not intend to impose a single ontological perspective or a particular conception of ‘the good’. The embrace of ontological capaciousness may help to overcome some social-ecological trade-off situations towards sustainable development. 2. Mineral extraction on Indigenous land: the convergence of diverse ontologies and practices To understand how and why mineral extraction on Indigenous land can lead to injustice, it is crucial to examine how diverse ontologies and practices converge in this context. As mentioned in the introduction, Indigenous peoples 1 worldwide have a deeply relational and non-human centric perspective. They understand humans in an obligated relationship with all living beings (human and other-than-human) and nonliving beings (such as rocks and places). This relationship is seen beyond linear conceptualizations of time, including past and future presences [33]. “For Indian people, relationship never signaled merely human relationships, but has always been inclusive of all ‘people,’ from humans to animals, birds, trees, mountains, and even rocks. So when we pray, ‘For all my relatives’ … we mean to include all of life and not just next of kin within our own species” ([37], pp9–10 cited in [38], p.1215). The 1 In this article, I use the definition of Indigenous peoples according to the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention no. 169, Article 1 [36]: Indigenous peoples are groups regarded as native to a region or country due to their descent from the populations that inhabited the area before modern state formation or colonial conquest. They retain distinct social, economic, cultural, and political institutions and identify themselves as part of the original inhabitants of their ancestral lands. E. Kellner Energy Research & Social Science 125 (2025) 104097 2 relationship is not seen as an optional caring relationship but rather as an unavoidable pact, ‘the covenant of reciprocity’ [39]. “Living in harmonious and sustainable relationship with the land [is] a sacred responsibility, tempered with the realization that neglect of this responsibility would bring dire results and retribution from the Earth” ([40], p.212 cited in [33], p.3). That means that care is intertwined with other principles such as respect, gratitude, reciprocity, an attitude of giving and receiving gifts, and responsibility to ensure mutual survival [39,41]. This is reflected, for example, in how Indigenous peoples relate to land activities in a more holistic way compared to the more atomistic land management approach of mining companies [42]. By going out on the land with family and looking for a weed, they may also engage in cultural activities that foster cultural connections, share traditional knowledge, learn from elders, and connect with ancestors. These activities contribute to building a place-based identity [43,44]. “Identity for Indigenous peoples is grounded in their relationships with the land, with their ancestors who have returned to the land and with future generations who will come into being on the land. Rather than viewing ourselves as being in relationship with other people or things, we are the relationships that we hold and are part of.” (quoted by [41], p.10) This quote also shows differences in values. The relational approach of Indigenous peoples resonates well with a relational value, which is not about a thing/component of nature but about meaningful relationships between humans and nature and among humans through nature, such as reciprocity and care [45,46]. Other ontologies favor the instrumental value of nature, which emphasizes the justification and prioritization of conservation efforts based on the benefits nature offers to people, often leading to human-dominated landscapes [47]. Advocates for the intrinsic value of nature, however, want to protect nature for its own sake and try to minimize human interference with ecological processes [47]. Conceptualizing nature as separate from people does not exist in Indigenous ontologies and practices [48]. They bond with the environment in a deeply spiritual connection [49]. In contrast, western substantialists insist on categorical differences between humans and the world around them [50]. Western mining companies, as well as western governments, usually treat nature as a resource and an object reducible to various components such as plants, animals, soil, minerals, etc., or ecosystem services with an economic value that can be managed by (sustainable) resource management [50]. Not to make a distinction between humans and non-human nature challenges many western governmental concepts of conservation and resource management. These concepts may lead to policies that aim to achieve a particular status for each component or ecosystem service, such as specific species, soil, or water quality [51]. From an Indigenous perspective, governing a specific status for each component is inappropriate as the core value is the relationship. 3. Impacts of mineral extraction on the environment To improve just mineral extraction, it is crucial to understand the key impacts of mineral extraction on the environment, evaluated from a western substantialist perspective [52]. The impact can be categorized into the following seven key areas: (1) Land degradation: Mining operations often involve the removal of large amounts of earth, resulting in deforestation, soil erosion, and landscape disruption [53]. (2) Water pollution: Mining can have severe effects on water quality. The drainage and runoff from mining sites can carry pollutants, which could cause significant damage to aquatic ecosystems, make water unsafe for drinking, and affect biodiversity and food sources for local communities [54]. (3) Air pollution: The extraction and processing of minerals release various pollutants into the atmosphere, which can lead to air pollution and respiratory problems in nearby communities. Dust from mining operations can spread over large areas, worsening air quality and depositing heavy metals in the environment with consequences for biodiversity and food sources [52]. (4) Biodiversity loss: Mining operations often require clearing large areas of land, leading to habitat destruction and biodiversity loss [55]. (5) Climate change: The process of extracting and processing minerals requires a substantial amount of energy, and the degradation of carbon-rich environments like peatlands and forests in mining areas contributes to greenhouse gas emissions [56]. (6) Waste Management: Tailings, the leftover materials after the minerals have been extracted from mined ore, are typically stored in large tailing ponds or dams. The potential leakage of chemicals and erosion of dam structures can lead to pollution of land and water [57]. The increasing mine waste will lead to “land cover change that results in ecological degradation and human displacement” ([5], p.1). (7) In addition to the mines themselves, the infrastructure developed to support mining activities, including roads, ports, railway tracks, and power lines, can disrupt animal migratory paths and contribute to increased habitat fragmentation [58]. 4. Impacts of mineral extraction on Indigenous communities Based on the understanding of the key impacts of mineral extraction on the environment, this section presents the impacts on Indigenous communities. Although scholars have well documented the social impacts of mine construction, operation, and closure, there is still limited empirical evidence on the social impacts of mineral extraction on Indigenous communities [11]. The existing literature shows that the impacts of mineral extraction on Indigenous communities are complex and controversial. While a few researchers have highlighted the positive impacts of mining activities for Indigenous communities, such as improving livelihoods, reduced poverty [59], and shared benefits [60], the prevailing consensus among researchers, NGOs, and government agencies emphasizes the negative impacts [61,62]. A dataset published in Science by Scheidel et al. [63] presents that about 25 % of all global environmental conflicts involving Indigenous people are related to mining projects. Impacts causing conflicts are about 53 % loss of landscape, 48 % water degradation, 47 % livelihood loss, 43 % soil degradation, 40 % land dispossession, 40 % militarization, 39 % knowledge loss, 39 % deforestation, 34 % biodiversity loss, 34 % displacement, and 21 % impacts on women. The authors of this study point out that “efforts towards achieving zero tolerance of Indigenous rights violations are urgently needed” ([63], p.3). 4.1. Impacts on Indigenous identity and cultures Indigenous communities are especially vulnerable to environmental change due to their direct dependence on local natural resources for livelihoods, their understanding of relationships, and their place-based identity, unlike recent settlers or colonizers [64,65]. Consequently, they are particularly exposed to the environmental repercussions of mining activities, such as the processes of mining, rehabilitation, and closure [66]. Environmental pollution could impact food sovereignty [64] and lead to health issues [67]. Land degradation could cause irreversible harm to their place-based identity and profound connections with the land, including cultural activities, knowledge sharing, learning, and building connections with ancestors [42–44,49]. Ash [11] presents in her study that mining can foster economic individualism, which may lead to the diminishment of cultural values and traditions and increase antisocial behavior within communities. The deployment of western approaches may disempower traditional governance structures, and the inequitable distribution of community development benefits can lead to inter-community conflict and the deterioration of social well-being. As a consequence, mining projects carry the risk of disrupting Indigenous identity, cultures, and economies [13]. 4.2. Self-determination, consent, and self-governance Several international standards regulate Indigenous rights: The 2007 E. Kellner Energy Research & Social Science 125 (2025) 104097 3 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, endorsed by 148 nations, emphasizes the urgent need to respect and promote Indigenous rights, particularly their rights to lands, territories, and resources [25]. Central is the affirmation that Indigenous nations globally are self-determining, including the determination of their development. Articles 26 and 32 are particularly relevant for mining, addressing Indigenous peoples’ rights regarding land and resource use, including the requirement for FPIC. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples aligns with other international conventions like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [68], United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights [69], and International Labour Organization and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169 [36]. However, there is a gap between written standards and their enforcement [70,71] as “in most mining jurisdictions, states prioritize the macro-economic contribution of mining over culture and heritage” ([9], p.208). One prominent example occurred in 2020 in Juukan Gorge, Australia, when the mining company Rio Tinto legally destroyed two ancient and sacred 46,000-year-old caves to expand an iron ore mine. However, it is frequently a complex constellation. In Western Australia, for example, approvals for new mining projects are often supported by agreements in which traditional owners receive monetary compensation in exchange for waiving statutory rights and agreeing not to oppose or criticize the company’s actions (ebd.). This practice has harmful implications for Indigenous peoples as it silences their voices and leads to economic dependency and the loss of irreplaceable heritage. This is contradictory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and FPIC, which outline the necessity of including Indigenous peoples in the decision-making process for projects that impact their territories and retain the right to withdraw consent. In addition, the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector provides practical guidance in addressing the challenges related to stakeholder engagement, including a special Annex B for “Engaging with Indigenous peoples” [72]. In the Annex, the authors point out that Indigenous peoples “require special consideration including: their governance institutions, practices and any associated right to self-determination; their relationship with land; their spiritual and cultural heritage; historical discrimination they have suffered; their unique and at times vulnerable position in society; their recognition under international law, as well as at times special legal status under national legislation and policy” ([72], p.94). They suggest also that “traditional decision making may provide that: (i) decisions are reached through inclusive and participatory processes, (ii) dispute resolution processes are led by leaders or council members, (iii) wisdom and experience play an important role, (iv) the resolution of disputes occurs through consensus, and (v) the restoration of community peace, unity and harmony, rather than punishment, is the primary objective” ([72], p.101). However, even though some regulations and guidance mention special consideration for engagement with Indigenous peoples, they don’t discuss or mention the Indigenous-informed relational approach, including meaningful relationship-building, which is repeatedly requested. For example, Matawa First Nation members in Canada stated that they want to build a relationship with industry and external governments as part of their decision-making process [70]. They point out that relationship-building needs to start early during initial project planning and before any development-related activity. This requires a large time commitment and attention to ensure that all parties are informed and respect treaty rights. “We have to safeguard our Aboriginal and treaty rights, things that are within us. Our culture has to be safeguarded and protected. But it has to be protected in a way that everything will work in harmony. [...] And that’s how we want to move forward in our relationship with industry and also with government. Sometimes, for consultation and accommodation, they come to see you, shake hands with you and have a coffee. That’s not a true consultation process. If you want to truly create a working relationship for development, you have to know the concepts and teachings of how the important pieces of the development will occur, and when and how. […] And what happens sometimes is the property changes hands [between exploration companies], and that leaves First Nations with a broken relationship of consultation.” ([70], p.18) 4.3. Impact assessments In most countries, impact assessment serves as the main instrument for predicting and mitigating the impacts of natural resource exploitation [73]. However, historically, its implementation has often been poorly aligned with the rights of Indigenous peoples to selfdetermination despite the requirement for the consent of Indigenous communities before initiating extractive activities on their lands or where their rights are impacted [74]. Several studies present how impact assessments neglect Indigenous worldviews and practices [75]. Assessments are mainly based on western international standards, such as recognized lists of threatened species based on rarity or vulnerability [44]. Cultural heritage protection efforts relate mainly to tangible sites such as archaeological sites including artefacts, e.g., stone tools, but the site is mostly treated separately from the cultural landscape that supports them [76]. Culture is usually treated as a ‘good’ (i.e., a commodity), rather than as an activity conducted by people who have rights to its practice [77]. “This focus is a core misunderstanding of cultural heritage management, whereby many intangible or ethnographic sites that provide multiple benefits to Indigenous people, and that are rarely visible to non-Indigenous people or those who do not hold customary knowledge, are typically not recognized […] in cultural heritage or biodiversity impact assessments” ([44], p.3). The United States’ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for example, established procedures for federal agencies to prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for major federal actions that may impact the environment. Indigenous people “are not understood to be parts of, and deeply knowledgeable about, the ecosystems that NEPA is designed to protect” ([78], p.43). Instead, Indigenous people are understood to be only concerned with cultural ‘goods’, e.g., archaeological sites. Impacts on wildlife and plants are assessed by biologists, impacts on water by hydrologists, and impacts on ecosystems by ecologists [78]. When Indigenous communities try to contribute to their topics “– using such bureaucratic concepts as ‘sacred sites’, ‘cultural landscapes’, and ‘traditional cultural properties’– they find that they have only made more work for the anthropologists and archaeologists, while they themselves become the objects of social scientific study” ([78], pp.43–44). The examples make clear that impact assessments usually don’t consider who holds the relevant knowledge to predict impacts [79]. This results in insufficient community involvement, which affects appropriate activities like rehabilitation and compensation [44]. As an element of environmental impact assessment, social impact assessment emerged throughout many western countries during the late 1960s. However, Lawrence and Larsen [74] show how it fails to acknowledge Indigenous rights and how industrial developments are generally taken as a priori. The assessment is mainly used to balance and manage the positives and negatives of (an inevitable) development but does not include the right of affected Indigenous communities to withhold their consent. 5. The relational approach is a matter of justice Mining projects on Indigenous land could significantly impact different types of justice for Indigenous peoples [80] which is presented in Table 1. As the examples in Table 1 show, justice is linked to the respect of multiple ontologies. That means, as mentioned before, that E. Kellner Energy Research & Social Science 125 (2025) 104097 4 respecting the relational approach is not simply a different ontological thinking, it is a matter of justice [35]. This linkage is important to understand this perspective’s overarching argument: A paradigm shift towards a relational approach is necessary in the context of mineral extraction on Indigenous land to reach more justice. 6. A paradigm shift to identify interventions for just mineral extraction on Indigenous land Based on the former sections, this perspective argues that Indigenous ontologies should be part of the conceptualization and analysis of socialecological mineral extraction systems because they have direct effects on how problems are perceived, solutions are conceptualized and supported, and they impact policy and investment behavior. A framework as an analytical and transdisciplinary tool is useful even though frameworks are part of western scientific knowledge systems. The framework needs to capture the empirical complexities of the socialecological system (SES) and connect Indigenous and other ontologies and practices. Several SES frameworks exist, such as the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework [88–90], the SocialEcological Systems framework [91,92], or the Networks of Action Situations (NAS) approach [93–95]. However, all of these frameworks understand the social and the ecological as separated elements following a western substantialist logic of separation [43]. As described in Section 2, Indigenous cultures conceptualize people and nature as one body within a reciprocal and balanced relationship [38,96]. While socialecological systems frameworks have emphasized interconnectedness and feedback between components, they still generally use the concepts of ‘social’ and ‘ecological’ as two separate types of entities [50], which are linked through interactions [97]. In this conceptualization of SES, individual social and ecological entities exist prior to any interaction with each other. Data were usually collected separately for one or both domains [98]. To respect Indigenous ontologies by overcoming the dichotomy and dualism between humans and nature, a paradigm shift in coupled systems thinking from substantialist to relational assumptions is necessary. A process-relational approach focuses on the connections and relational qualities, such as the relations and processes themselves [99]. In this approach, the entities are conceived as co-constituted through the relations and derive their existence from their relations. That means that everything exists through processes and relations, relations have causal agency and stand prior to objects [99]. The continuous unfolding processes and relations build events and experiences. Therefore, a processrelational approach emphasizes “the past and present processes and relations that constitute, are constituted by, and bring about changes in, a system” ([99], p.4). The process-relational approach described by various western authors appears to closely align with the Indigenousinformed relational approach discussed in Section 2. One of the more recent SES frameworks is the Social-Ecological Action Situations (SE-AS) framework [97] which may be useful for a process-relational perspective. In contrast to other SES frameworks, it treats human and nonhuman entities as equal, which is a first step to overcoming the dichotomy and thus to better account for the intertwined nature of SES [100]. It also conceptualizes action situations differently than other SES frameworks. It integrates not only social action situations – venues for interaction between two or more actors [88] – but also ecological action situations – interactions between components of ecosystems (Fig. 1). Most importantly, it also integrates socialecological action situations – interaction between human and nonhuman entities that are governed by social and biophysical rules and structures [97]. In the original conceptualization by Schlüter et al. [97], the social-ecological action situation consists of a social entity (SE) and an ecological entity (EE) that interact with each other. To apply a process-relational perspective, I propose to conceptualize the action situations without separating the social entities, e.g., Indigenous communities, and ecological entities, e.g., land (see Fig. 2), and by understanding and naming the action situation by a verb, e.g., stewarding land, and not a none, e.g., stewardship for land [98]. This conceptualization allows for a focus on the process, relationships, or experiences in specific action situations rather than on the entities involved. However, the visualization does not provide information about the entities, which makes the system understanding from a nonrelational perspective more challenging. Nevertheless, using a framework as a participatory tool may be viewed from an Indigenous perspective as a product of western scientific knowledge. In addition, applying the relational approach solely to individual action situations still maintains a separation between social, ecological, and socialecological action situations. This is a first attempt to combine relational and non-relational approaches, thereby acknowledging different ontologies. Combining both approaches requires a decision on how each action situation is conceptualized. When used as a participatory tool, the framework enables all participants to collectively decide how each action situation is conceptualized. This helps to identify where a relational approach is particularly important for Indigenous peoples and where a more substantialist approach may be acceptable. These decisions are also expected to structure project activities. For example, the social-ecological action situation “mineral extraction” is likely to be conceptualized using a substantialist approach, whereas “stewarding land” may align more Table 1 Different types of justice and how justice could be impacted through the extraction of minerals on Indigenous land. Type of justice Description Examples regarding extraction of minerals on Indigenous land Procedural justice Inclusiveness through transparent and fair processes, including access to information and how decisions are made and by whom [81,82]. Insufficient involvement of Indigenous communities, which affects appropriate activities like rehabilitation and compensation for mining activities [44]. Distributive justice Fair distribution of burdens and benefits [83]. Even though Indigenous communities have to deal with the consequences, they are often discriminated against by sharing the benefits of mining [84], whereas multinational corporations benefit [85]. Recognitional justice Acknowledging and respecting the diverse rights, needs, and values of individuals and communities, considering cultural, social, and historical identities of particular groups [86]. Land degradation could cause irreversible harm to Indigenous’ place-based identity and profound connections with the land, including cultural activities, knowledge sharing, learning, and building connections with ancestors [42–44,49]. Epistemic justice Valuing and fairly integrating different sources and types of knowledge and ontologies as well as access to different types of knowledge [87]. Impact assessments for mining projects usually don’t consider who holds the relevant knowledge to predict impacts [79]. E. Kellner Energy Research & Social Science 125 (2025) 104097 5 with a relational approach. Section 7 provides an example of how the framework could be applied to conceptualize the social-ecological system of mineral extraction using a combination of both approaches. 7. Example of a conceptualization of mineral extraction on Indigenous land This section conceptualizes mineral extraction on Indigenous land by drawing on insights from both academic literature and media sources. A project for mineral extraction typically begins with an impact assessment. As discussed in Section 4, impact assessments often neglect Indigenous ontologies and practices [75]. Moreover, they usually fail to consider who holds the relevant knowledge to predict impacts, e.g., two cases involving the Sami in Sweden as analyzed by Kløcker Larsen et al. [79]. The resulting impact statement either rejects the mining project or establishes regulations for mineral extraction and compensatory measures. At this step, a critical question arises: To what extent can Indigenous peoples exercise self-determination, provide consent, and engage in self-governance in the decision about new mining projects? This has significant implications for procedural, recognitional, and epistemic justice, affecting activities such as rehabilitation and compensation [44]. For instance, the case of the Resolution Copper Mine in Arizona, US, illustrates how a compensatory measure could result in a land exchange, even when sacred land is deemed inalienable [101]. In this case, as in most mining projects, mining companies do not pursue coownership with Indigenous communities — a practice that could enhance distributive justice by ensuring a more equitable sharing of both burdens and benefits [83]. Such conditions could lead to the socialecological phenomenon of unjust mineral extraction. To conceptualize the dynamics of the social-ecological interactions described above, I applied the SE-AS framework (Fig. 3). In this hypothetical example, the primary social-ecological action situation is the extraction of minerals by a mining company that is not co-owned by Indigenous peoples. Drawing on empirical evidence from the literature, I hypothesize that the impact assessment and statement were developed without the knowledge of Indigenous peoples, resulting in inappropriate compensatory measures. These interactions illustrate the emergence of the social-ecological phenomenon of unjust mineral extraction. To transform the social-ecological system towards just mineral extraction on Indigenous land, the literature suggests implementing several interventions (see Fig. 4). First, the right to self-determination of Indigenous peoples must be respected. If they support the project, coowning and co-managing the mine alongside the mining company would enhance distributive justice [73,102]. This could facilitate relationship-building between the owners. This is expected to lead to a joint assessment of the mine’s impacts, respecting Indigenous ontology, for example, Indigenous peoples’ relationship with all living beings (human and other-than-human) and nonliving beings. Such an approach is anticipated to enhance procedural, recognitional, and epistemic justice. Assessing the impacts together as co-owners could create a governmental impact statement that does not rely on standardized categories introduced by settlers and separation-oriented logic, which favor ontologies that primarily view land as a resource [103]. As a consequence, compensatory measures would, for example, not only address the effects on biodiversity but also extend to encompass the specific ecosystem services valued by Indigenous peoples. Ideally, this will prevent rehabilitation and compensation efforts from falling short of mitigating the loss of certain ecosystem services [44] and support Indigenous stewarding of land. Co-ownership may also lead to the conceptualization of the ecological action situation “intertwining minerals”, where minerals are developed in relation to other planetary elements, substances, and beings and were and are never isolated [35]. Minerals sustain multiple relationships that evolve and transform, growing over timespans ranging from moments to millennia (ebd.). Mining companies typically perceive minerals as a resource, imagined as isolated and individual entities, disregarding past, present, and potential future relationships. Fig. 4 conceptualizes most action situations using the relational approach. The impact statement is conceptualized differently because the statement itself, along with the resulting outcomes, such as regulations for the mineral extracting process, usually does not follow a Fig. 1. Social-Ecological Action Situations (SE-AS) framework adapted from 97 [97] and 100 [100]. SES =social-ecological system; AS =action situation; SE = social slement; EE =ecological element. Fig. 2. a: Social-ecological action situation conceptualized by Schlüter et al. [97] on the left side and proposed conceptualization on the right side to acknowledge a process-relational perspective. b: Example for both conceptualizations. SE =social element; EE =ecological element. E. Kellner Energy Research & Social Science 125 (2025) 104097 6 Fig. 3. Conceptualization of mineral extraction on Indigenous land leading to unjust mineral extraction. In most countries, mineral extraction projects require an environmental impact assessment. This assessment examines the effects of the mining operation on the environment and may also consider its social impacts. The outcome of this assessment is an impact statement, which serves as the basis for regulating mining activities and determining compensation measures. If affected Indigenous communities are not integrated into the process, this could lead to the emerging social-ecological phenomenon unjust mineral extraction. Fig. 4. Conceptualization of mineral extraction on Indigenous land leading to the emerging social-ecological phenomenon of just mineral extraction. The striped arrow and action situation outline a potential path to halt a mineral extraction project. Indig. peopl. =Indigenous peoples. Legend: see Fig. 3. E. Kellner Energy Research & Social Science 125 (2025) 104097 7 relational approach. Instead, it is a formal governmental activity based on western substantialist regulations. Interventions that respect the relational approach could increase distributive, procedural, recognitional, and epistemic justice, leading to the emerging social-ecological phenomenon of just mineral extraction. This example illustrates, based on insights from the literature, how suggestions for interventions can be integrated into the framework, helping to visualize the dynamics of the entire system, leading to just mineral extraction. 8. Discussion and conclusion Mineral extraction is an important part of the energy transition but poses a risk to other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular justice, if the mine is, for example, proposed on Indigenous land. The existing governance approaches and the international standards mostly do not consider approaches to ensure Indigenous rights. As a result, countries globally face challenges in sourcing justly extracted minerals important for the energy transition due to a lack of clear standards and transparency in verifying mineral origins and production conditions [104]. This trade-off situation has the capacity to both enable and undermine the achievement of the goals of the Paris Agreement and the SDGs [105]. This perspective article aims to provide some empirical and theoretical starting points for a broader reflection on how to ensure just mineral extraction on Indigenous land. I argue that understanding and implementing Indigenous ontologies and practices is crucial for conceptualizing, studying, and addressing problems of mineral extraction on Indigenous land towards justice. To open up from the ontological dominance of western substantialist approaches, we need to experiment with practical approaches for better recognizing and working with ontological differences [31]. Therefore, I suggest adapting the SE-AS framework by using the relational approach. The example in Section 7 demonstrates that the adapted framework allows combining different ontologies. The framework could be used as a participatory tool to map the dynamics in the current system by the Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants (Fig. 3). Subsequently, interventions to shift the system towards just mineral extraction can be identified and integrated into the framework (Fig. 4). Here, the participants need to decide for which action situation the relational approach is important for Indigenous peoples and where a more substantialist approach can be tolerated. This helps to structure the project activities. However, similar to other fields such as collaborative conservation projects, where Indigenous and western substantialist ontologies converge, several challenges may arise: Learning of non-Indigenous actors about Indigenous ways of being, knowing, and doing can shift the focus towards “teaching” rather than mobilizing knowledge to guide, for example, impact assessments. Respecting Indigenous kinship rules and laws can challenge adhering to western organizational rules, for example, impact statements or compensatory measures. Reducing the complexity and interconnected nature of Indigenous stories into a western reporting structure could lead to misconceptions. “Indigenous relational thinking teaches us that focusing on human experience solely for humans’ sake is harmful. […] Recognition of all our relations, as common in Indigenous epistemological and traditional practices, acknowledges implicit connections between humans and nonhumans. It acknowledges a rich web of meaningful, relationshipdependent knowing, beauty and lessons” ([33], p.4). However, applying the relational approach is challenging because most nonIndigenous peoples need to change their mental models, which means transforming their way of thinking if they think actions and the world in terms of “entities” instead of the processes in which they are engaged and which engage them [99]. This shift would mean not focusing on the social or ecological entities themselves – such as indebted to the substantialist paradigm – nor focusing on interactions between entities, but emphasizing continually unfolding processes and relations such as experiences [50]. In addition, applying the approach requires more holistic, dynamic analyses of human-nature connectedness and more “empirical accounts of knowledge production that prompt more situated and diverse knowledges in decision-making” ([50], p.15). Moreover, the relational approach “is not a neutral container holding universal goods […] and navigating these complex power dynamics requires deliberate critical thinking skills” ([106], p.482). Nevertheless, applying Indigenous peoples’ relational approach is expected to lead not only to the increase in just energy transition but to more sustainable solutions in general. There is a recent growing discourse in the literature from western scholars in the humanities and social sciences about the relational approach and values [50,99,107]. The interest is mainly built on the assumption that a paradigm shift away from that separates humans from nature would (i) acknowledge the intertwined, complex, cross-scale, and dynamic nature of SES [99] and (ii) be a powerful leverage point towards sustainability transformation [50], because it would change the way we conceptualize, study, and address sustainability problems. This is likely to enable the development of new governance approaches aiming to manage relations between and among people and the natural system instead of managing humans and ecosystem elements separately [99]. Therefore, the proposed framework in this article is not only useful for the context of mineral extraction but also for the transformation of SES towards sustainability in general. The hope is that a paradigm shift enables to overcome the current unsustainable pathways of approaches such as command-and-control tools in natural resource management and to initiate transformations towards sustainability [50]. This means that governance approaches that enable decision-makers, mining companies, and other stakeholders (i) to work collaboratively with Indigenous peoples and (ii) to learn from Indigenous ontologies and practices could foster the development of just solutions for Indigenous communities while also facilitating transformations towards sustainability in general. This is in line with the fact that Indigenous peoples have frequently emphasized that their traditional practices have demonstrated effectiveness and sustainability over thousands of years [108]. Numerous landmark reports underline that Indigenous peoples play an essential role in global biodiversity conservation [109]. However, it is crucial to note that integrating Indigenous ontologies and practices into governance processes needs to be part of a broader decolonization process [110]. This cannot be dissociated from politics and political and economic power [51]. It is essential to consider the historical injustices resulting from the colonial appropriation of Indigenous lands. However, integrating Indigenous ontologies and practices into governance processes for mineral extraction could lead to urgently needed just energy transitions and constitute a start towards a broader political movement of decolonization. “We know that we stand today at a crossroads. We need to look for the stories, left along the ancestors’ path, that will heal us and bring us back in balance. I have been told that my Potawatomi ancestors taught that the job of every human is to learn the answer to the question, ‘What can I give in return for the gifts of the Earth?’” ([39], p.371) CRediT authorship contribution statement Elke Kellner: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Data curation, Conceptualization. Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process During the preparation of this work the author used ChatGPT in order to improve language and readability. After using this tool, the author reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication. E. Kellner Energy Research & Social Science 125 (2025) 104097 8 Declaration of competing interest The author declares that she has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Acknowledgements I sincerely thank Michael D. McGinnis for the inspiring discussions on this article during my time as a visiting scholar at the Ostrom Workshop, Indiana University Bloomington, US. I also appreciate the valuable feedback received during the WOW 7 Conference 2024, which helped refine my arguments. Furthermore, I am grateful to the members of the Working Group on Governance of Social-Ecological Systems for the always inspiring meetings on the SE-AS framework. Their insights have greatly contributed to the development of this work. This work was supported by Horizon 2020 MSCA-IF-2020 (grant 101027966). Data availability No data was used for the research described in the article. References [1] D. Gielen, F. Boshell, D. Saygin, M.D. Bazilian, N. Wagner, R. Gorini, The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation, Energ. Strat. Rev. 24 (2019) 38–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.01.006. [2] ´ E. L` ebre, M. Stringer, K. Svobodova, J.R. Owen, D. Kemp, C. Cˆ ote, et al., The social and environmental complexities of extracting energy transition metals, Nat. Commun. 11 (1) (2020) 4823, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-186619. IEA, The role of critical minerals in clean energy transitions, World Energy Outlook Special Report, 2022. Available online at, www.iea.org. [4] F.M. Dorn, R. Hafner, C. Plank, Towards a climate change consensus: how mining and agriculture legitimize green extractivism in Argentina, The Extractive Industries and Society 11 (2022) 101130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. exis.2022.101130. [5] J.R. Owen, D. Kemp, A.M. Lechner, M. Ang Li Ern, ´ E. L` ebre, G.M. Mudd, et al., Increasing mine waste will induce land cover change that results in ecological degradation and human displacement, J. Environ. Manage. 351 (2024) 119691, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119691. [6] S. Carley, D.M. Konisky, The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition, Nat. Energy 5 (8) (2020) 569–577, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560020-0641-6. [7] P. García-García, ´ O. Carpintero, L. Buendía, Just energy transitions to low carbon economies: a review of the concept and its effects on labour and income, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70 (2020) 101664, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101664. [8] G. Siciliano, L. Wallbott, F. Urban, A.N. Dang, M. Lederer, Low-carbon energy, sustainable development, and justice: towards a just energy transition for the society and the environment, Sustain. Dev. 29 (6) (2021) 1049–1061, https://doi. org/10.1002/sd.2193. [9] J.R. Owen, D. Kemp, A.M. Lechner, J. Harris, R. Zhang, ´ E. L` ebre, Energy transition minerals and their intersection with land-connected peoples, Nat Sustain 6 (2) (2023) 203–211, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00994-6. [10] T.A. Deivanayagam, S. English, J. Hickel, J. Bonifacio, R.R. Guinto, K.X. Hill, et al., Envisioning environmental equity: climate change, health, and racial justice, Lancet 402 (10395) (2023) 64–78, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23) 00919-4. [11] J. Ash, Social impacts of critical mineral exploration on indigenous peoples’ lands: a case study from Solomon Islands, The Extractive Industries and Society 17 (2024) 101439, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2024.101439. [12] J. Burton, D. Kemp, R. Barnes, J. Parmenter, Mapping critical minerals projects and their intersection with Indigenous peoples’ land rights in Australia, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 113 (2024) 103556, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103556. [13] ´ A. Fern´ andez-Llamazares, M. Garteizgogeascoa, N. Basu, E.S. Brondizio, M. Cabeza, J. Martínez-Alier, et al., A state-of-the-art review of Indigenous peoples and environmental pollution, Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 16 (3) (2020) 324–341, https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam. 4239. [14] Carla Candeias, Paula ´ Avila, Patrícia Coelho, Jo˜ ao P. Teixeira, Mining activities: health impacts☆, in: Jerome Nriagu (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Environmental Health, Second edition, Elsevier, Oxford, 2019, pp. 415–435. [15] J. Lewis, J. Hoover, D. MacKenzie, Mining and environmental health disparities in Native American communities, Curr Environ Health Rep 4 (2) (2017) 130–141, https://doi.org/10.1007/s 40572-017-0140-5. [16] C. O’Faircheallaigh, Indigenous opposition: resistance and refusal, in: C. O’Faircheallaigh (Ed.), Indigenous Peoples and Mining: A Global Perspective, Oxford University Press, 2023, pp. 122–137. [17] M. Janetsky, V.R. Caivano, R. Abd, Native groups sit on a treasure trove of lithium. Now mines threaten their water, culture and wealth. [November 11, 2024], Available from: https://apnews.com/article/lithium-water-mining-indige nous-cb2f5b1580c12f8ba1b19223648069b7. [18] S. Sax, Proposed copper mine modifications spark community outcry in Peru [November 11, 2024]; Available from: https://news.mongabay.com/2024/03/p roposed-copper-mine-modifications-spark-community-outcry-in-peru/. [19] E. Scheyder, Native American Non-profit Appeals to US Supreme Court to Block Arizona Mine, The Guardian, 2024, 11 September 2024; Available from: htt ps://www theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/11/arizona-copper-mine-supr eme-court-apache-stronghold (November 13, 2024). [20] D. Rajagopal, Canada First Nations protest Ontario’s ‘Ring of Fire’ Mining Plans, Reuters, 2023, 20 July 2023; Available from: https://www.reuters.com/sustaina bility/land-use-biodiversity/canada-first-nations-protest-ontarios-ring-fire-minin g-plans-2023-07-20/ (November 13, 2024). [21] Ritzau, Samis Eager to Avoid Clashes After Major Rare Earths Find in Northern Sweden, Energy Watch, 2023, 16 January 2023; Available from: https://ener gywatch.com/EnergyNews/Policy___Trading/article14848191.ece (November 13, 2024). [22] G. Torre, Traditional Owners protest in Broome over handling of Kimberley mine, National Indigenous Times, 2023, 6 September 2023; Available from: https://nit. com.au/06-09-2023/7539/kms-protest (November 13, 2024). [23] M. Coronese, Going beyond averages, Nat. Clim. Change (2024), https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41558-024-02003-4. [24] J. Monet, ‘Green colonialism’: Indigenous world leaders warn over west’s climate strategy, The Guardian, 2023, 2023; Available from: https://www.theguardian. com/world/2023/apr/23/un-indigenous-peoples-forum-climate-strategy-war ning (April 25, 2023). [25] UN, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, 2007. [26] S.T. Garnett, K.K. Zander, A responsible energy transition, Nat Sustain 6 (2) (2023) 124–125, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01007-2. [27] K. Whyte, Indigenous environmental justice, renewable energy transition, and the infrastructure of sovereignty, in: P.C. Rosier (Ed.), Environmental Justice in North America, Routledge, New York, 2023, pp. 307–330. [28] G. Caniglia, R. Freeth, C. Luederitz, J. Leventon, S.P. West, B. John, et al., Practical wisdom and virtue ethics for knowledge co-production in sustainability science, Nat Sustain (2023), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01040-1. [29] T.A. Smith, Decolonising human-nature relationships, in: E. Dauncey, V. Desai, R. B. Potter (Eds.), The Companion to Development Studies, Routledge, London, 2024, pp. 271–275. [30] Simpson L. Betasamosake, Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 3 (3) (2014) 1–25. [31] O.B. Campion, S. West, K. Degnian, M. Djarrbal, E. Ignjic, C. Ramandjarri, et al., Balpara: a practical approach to working with ontological difference in indigenous land & sea management, Soc. Nat. Resour. 37 (5) (2024) 695–715, https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2023.2199690. [32] N. Hoffmann, T. Metz, What can the capabilities approach learn from an Ubuntu ethic? A relational approach to development theory, World Dev. 97 (2017) 153–164, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.010. [33] R.K. Gould, D.E. Martinez, K.R. Hoelting, Exploring Indigenous relationality to inform the relational turn in sustainability science, Ecosystems and People 19 (1) (2023), https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2229452. [34] X. Wang, K. Lo, Just transition: a conceptual review, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 82 (2021) 102291, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102291. [35] C.J. Winter, D. Schlosberg, What matter matters as a matter of justice? Environmental Politics 33 (7) (2024) 1205–1224, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09644016.2023.2220640. [36] ILO, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention: ILO C 169 convention, 1989. [37] T. Tinker, I.A. Omar, M.K. Duffey (Eds.), Peacemaking and the Challenge of Violence in World Religions, Wiley-Blackwell, New York, 2015. [38] R.K. Gould, M. Pai, B. Muraca, K.M.A. Chan, He ʻike ʻana ia i ka pono (it is a recognizing of the right thing): how one indigenous worldview informs relational values and social values, Sustain Sci 14 (5) (2019) 1213–1232, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11625-019-00721-9. [39] R.W. Kimmerer, The covenant of reciprocity, in: J. Hart (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Religion and Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken NJ, 2017, pp. 368–381. [40] G. Cajete, Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence, Clear Light Publishers, Santa Fe, 2016. [41] N.J. Wilson, J. Inkster, Respecting water: indigenous water governance, ontologies, and the politics of kinship on the ground, Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 1 (4) (2018) 516–538, https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2514848618789378. [42] M.C.C. Holmes, W. Jampijinpa, Law for country: the structure of Warlpiri ecological knowledge and its application to natural resource management and ecosystem stewardship, E&S 18 (3) (2013), https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05537180319. [43] N. Stoeckl, D. Jarvis, S. Larson, A. Larson, D. Grainger, E.A. Corporation, Australian Indigenous insights into ecosystem services: beyond services towards connectedness – people, place and time, Ecosyst. Serv. 50 (2021) 101341, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser. 2021.101341. [44] R. Boldy, M. Annandale, P.D. Erskine, L.J. Sonter, Assessing impacts of mining on provisioning ecosystem services in a culturally diverse landscape of Western Cape York, Australia, Landsc Ecol (2023), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-02301745-4. E. Kellner Energy Research & Social Science 125 (2025) 104097 9