Indigenous engagement in oilfield remediation: a case study of the Norman Wells Oilfield, Northwest Territories, Canada

IF 5.5 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Environmental Science & Policy Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-18 DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2026.104339
Annie King , Tristan Pearce , Paul Dixon , Sinead Earley , Carly Dokis
{"title":"Indigenous engagement in oilfield remediation: a case study of the Norman Wells Oilfield, Northwest Territories, Canada","authors":"Annie King ,&nbsp;Tristan Pearce ,&nbsp;Paul Dixon ,&nbsp;Sinead Earley ,&nbsp;Carly Dokis","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2026.104339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Trust and mutual understanding are critical to meaningful engagement in natural resource development projects, yet a lack of intercultural competency, trust, and culturally appropriate methods continues to limit effective engagement with Indigenous communities in northern Canada. This paper responds to the need for a greater understanding of how community engagement processes include Indigenous perspectives in Northern Canada particularly in reclamation and closure planning. It focuses on the Indigenous people of the Sahtú region’s experience with the closure and reclamation of the Norman Wells Oilfield in the Northwest Territories. Data were collected through 42 semi-structured interviews using open-ended questions with Sahtú people, and an analysis of past engagement records. Findings reveal that past engagement approaches taken by Imperial Oil to engage are perceived by interviewees to have been ineffective due to misalignment with relational values and norms of governance and communication. The format of engagement has been incompatible with local cultural expectations, resulting in limited dialogue and limited diversity of perspectives. Infrequent and unidirectional engagement have resulted in a loss of trust, violation of Dene principles of reciprocity and respect, and overall ineffective engagement. Meaningful future engagement rooted in local Indigenous ontological frameworks and epistemes can enable relational healing through reclamation and advance reconciliation in environmental governance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"177 ","pages":"Article 104339"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901126000328","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Trust and mutual understanding are critical to meaningful engagement in natural resource development projects, yet a lack of intercultural competency, trust, and culturally appropriate methods continues to limit effective engagement with Indigenous communities in northern Canada. This paper responds to the need for a greater understanding of how community engagement processes include Indigenous perspectives in Northern Canada particularly in reclamation and closure planning. It focuses on the Indigenous people of the Sahtú region’s experience with the closure and reclamation of the Norman Wells Oilfield in the Northwest Territories. Data were collected through 42 semi-structured interviews using open-ended questions with Sahtú people, and an analysis of past engagement records. Findings reveal that past engagement approaches taken by Imperial Oil to engage are perceived by interviewees to have been ineffective due to misalignment with relational values and norms of governance and communication. The format of engagement has been incompatible with local cultural expectations, resulting in limited dialogue and limited diversity of perspectives. Infrequent and unidirectional engagement have resulted in a loss of trust, violation of Dene principles of reciprocity and respect, and overall ineffective engagement. Meaningful future engagement rooted in local Indigenous ontological frameworks and epistemes can enable relational healing through reclamation and advance reconciliation in environmental governance.
原住民参与油田修复:以加拿大西北地区诺曼威尔斯油田为例
信任和相互理解对于自然资源开发项目的有意义参与至关重要,但缺乏跨文化能力、信任和文化上适当的方法继续限制与加拿大北部土著社区的有效参与。本文回应了更好地理解加拿大北部社区参与过程如何包括土著观点的需求,特别是在填海和关闭规划方面。它的重点是Sahtú地区土著人民在关闭和开垦西北地区诺曼威尔斯油田方面的经验。数据是通过42个半结构化访谈收集的,这些访谈使用了Sahtú人的开放式问题,并分析了过去的订婚记录。调查结果显示,受访者认为帝国石油公司过去采取的参与方法是无效的,因为与关系价值观和治理和沟通规范不一致。参与的形式与当地的文化期望不相容,导致对话有限,观点的多样性有限。不频繁和单向的接触会导致信任的丧失,违反互惠和尊重的原则,以及总体上无效的接触。基于当地土著本体框架和认知的有意义的未来参与可以通过开垦和促进环境治理中的和解来实现关系愈合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书