Exploring practices, challenges, and priorities for human health and ecological risk assessments in Indigenous communities in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Indigenous peoples in Canada are disproportionately exposed to environmental contaminants and may face elevated health risks related to their unique cultural, spiritual, and economic relationships with the land, including the use of traditional food systems. However, to date, institutionalized approaches to assess risks to human and ecological health from contaminants have not been well developed or implemented with Indigenous community contexts in mind. There is regulatory interest in developing new approach methods for risk assessment, and thus an opportunity to increase their relevance to Indigenous communities in which they will be ultimately applied. Therefore, we conducted an anonymous mixed-methods survey of those involved with risk assessment in Indigenous communities in Canada to: (1) understand risk assessment practice in Indigenous communities, (2) explore challenges with conventional assessment methods and compare these across sectors, and (3) gather perspectives on the development of new approaches. In all, 38 completed survey responses were received (14% response rate). Respondents were from Indigenous community environment and health offices (21% of respondents), Indigenous governments (8%), federal and provincial governments (21%), and academia (45%). Risk communication was seen as the most challenging part of risk assessment (71% responded “difficult”), and nearly all respondents agreed that time (86%), cost (76%), and resource availability (86%) were “moderate” to “serious” problems. Few respondents (16%) had heard of “new approach methods” for risk assessment, and 76% of respondents (and 100% of community-based respondents) agreed on the need to develop improved risk assessment approaches. To modernize risk assessment, respondents recommended advancing cumulative risk assessment methods, improving risk communication, and promoting Indigenous leadership and Traditional Knowledge in assessment activities. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:1677–1692. © 2024 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Key Points The online survey was completed by 38 respondents from across Canada who had experience with human health and ecological risk assessments, spanning a diversity of sectors including Indigenous communities, provincial and federal governments, and academia. Cumulative risk assessment, risk communication, and resource availability were identified as some of the most challenging aspects of risk assessment in the context of Indigenous communities in Canada and may be key considerations in the development of new, community-relevant methods. Perspectives differed among groups (community-based respondents, federal and provincial employees, and academics), signaling a need for further research in this area and implementation of strategies to improve multisectoral collaboration and communication. Most (76%) respondents agreed on the need for new approaches to risk assessment for Indigenous community contexts, and this agreement was unanimous (100%) among those who worked in communities themselves.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».