TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 24 January 2023
DOI 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
Risk assessment framework for
OPEN ACCESS cumulative effects (RAFCE)
EDITED BY
Salvador García-Ayllón Veintimilla,
Technical University of Cartagena, Spain Effah Kwabena Antwi
1*, John Boakye-Danquah2,
REVIEWED BY Wiafe Owusu-Banahene
3, Anna Dabros4, Ian MS Eddy5,
Mohammad Yazdi, Daniel Abraham Silver6, Evisa Abolina5, Brian Eddy7 and
Macquarie University, Australia
7
Linda Kay Silka, Richard S. Winder
University of Maine, United States
Roland Cormier, 1Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Great Lakes Forestry Centre, Sault Ste. Marie, ON,
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Canada, 2School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK,
Canada Canada, 3University of Ghana, Accra, Greater Accra, Ghana, 4Northern Forestry Centre, Natural
Resources Canada, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 5Department of Natural Resources (Canada), Ottawa, ON,
*CORRESPONDENCE Canada, 6Office of the Chief Scientist, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 7Pacific Forestry Centre, Natural
Effah Kwabena Antwi, Resources Canada, Victoria, BC, Canada
effah.antwi@canada.ca,
effah.antwi@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca
SPECIALTY SECTION
This article was submitted to Land Use
Dynamics, Introduction: Regional environmental risk assessment is a practical approach to
a section of the journal understanding and proactively addressing the cumulative effects of resource
Frontiers in Environmental Science
development in areas of regional importance. However, regional assessment is
RECEIVED 27 September 2022 methodologically complex, and frameworks to identify and prioritize regional
ACCEPTED 07 December 2022
PUBLISHED 24 January 2023 risk issues to guide effective management decisions are lacking. This research
develops a risk and impacts-based cumulative effects assessment framework
CITATION
Antwi EK, Boakye-Danquah J, for scoping regional cumulative effects issues to guide present and future
Owusu-Banahene W, Dabros A, project and regional assessment. We operationalized the framework dubbed
Eddy IMS, Silver DA, Abolina E, Eddy B
and Winder RS (2023), Risk assessment Risk Assessment Framework for Cumulative Effects (RAFCE) to assess the risks
framework for cumulative and impacts of proposed mining development in the Ring of Fire region of
effects (RAFCE). Northern Ontario, Canada.
Front. Environ. Sci. 10:1055159.
doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
Methods: Methodologically, we built on existing studies to understand the key
COPYRIGHT valued ecosystem components (VECs) impacted by mining; organized an expert
© 2023 Antwi, Boakye-Danquah,
Owusu-Banahene, Dabros, Eddy, Silver, Bowtie Risk Assessment Tool workshop and interviews to identify regional risks and
Abolina, Eddy and Winder. This is an define the VECs impacted bymining; and developed an impact prioritizationmodel
open-access article distributed under
that helped quantify and prioritize impacts of mining.
the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other Results and Discussion: RAFCE enabled us to: a) identify drivers and impacts of
forums is permitted, provided the cumulative effects and potential preventive and mitigation measures for effective
original author(s) and the copyright cumulative effects management and b) describe, quantify, and rank the major
owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is impact and components of regional interest. Using RAFCE, we can identify and
cited, in accordance with accepted prioritize impacts that are cross-cutting, multisector-driven, synergistic, and
academic practice. No use, distribution
relevant to a region, visualize and understand the risk management process,
or reproduction is permittedwhich does
not comply with these terms. identify policy and management issues to prevent risks or mitigate impacts, and
ultimately inform resource allocation for effective regional cumulative effects
assessment outcomes. RAFCE is suitable for engaging diverse stakeholders in
planning for regional cumulative effects assessment.
KEYWORDS
regional assessment, cumulative effects, bowtie risk analysis, impact, resource
development, decision support analysis, framework, management
Frontiers in Environmental Science 01 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
1 Introduction understand different facets of proposed development projects
and their effects.
Risk assessment describes the potential outcomes of Although there has been considerable discussion of RA
management alternatives and quantifies their likelihood. within the impact assessment literature, in practice, the
Regional-scale environmental risk assessment is widely process is still in a relatively early stage of development across
recognized across academic and policy circles, and by most regions of the world (Blakley et al., 2020). Canada’s Impact
resource-rich communities, as a practical approach to Assessment Act (2019) frames RA as a tool to inform baseline
understanding and proactively addressing the cumulative trends and mitigation plans and examine alternative scenarios
environmental effects of proposed development programmes (IAAC, 2020b). Consequently, key stakeholders, including
(Blakley et al., 2020). Regional assessment (RA) primarily project proponents, environmental non-government
focuses on risk assessment, with a spatial scale that contains organizations, and Indigenous communities, have supported
multiple valued ecosystem components (VECs) with several the use of RA (Blakley et al., 2020). RAs have recently been
sources of stressors affecting multiple endpoints. Both conducted in Canada for offshore exploratory oil and gas drilling
cumulative effects assessment and strategic assessments are in Newfoundland and Labrador (IAAC, 2020B), Alberta’s
central to RA. The strategic component of RA is future- Athabasca oil sands (Johnson et al., 2011), Manitoba’s Nelson
focused and analyzes the relative desirability of multiple River hydro-electric complex (Gunn and Noble, 2012), and the
future state options (Noble et al., 2017). On the other hand, a Beaufort Sea hydrocarbon region (Beaufort Environmental
regional strategic environmental assessment (R-SEA) focuses on Assessment Plan, 2008). A RA has also been announced for
both strategic and cumulative effects issues and supports a more Ontario’s Ring of Fire area (Chetkiewicz and Lintner, 2014;
spatially relevant and strategically oriented approach to IAAC, 2022).
environmental assessment–one that provides an early, overall Blakely et al. (2020) reviewed RAs in Canada to understand
analysis of the relationships between alternative futures for a best practices for RA and found that different approaches to
region and the potential cumulative environmental effects that regional cumulative effects assessment have emerged.
may emerge under multisector land uses and surface Assessments that focus on thresholds to support future
disturbances associated with different scenarios (Gunn and planning have often used the scenario modelling frameworks
Noble, 2009). (e.g., ALCES Online Scenario Analysis), primarily to simulate the
While methodologically complex and practically evolving, impacts of developments on VECs (e.g., Schneider et al., 2003;
RA has been promoted by governments, resource-rich Francis and Hamm, 2011; Rempel et al., 2021). For instance, the
communities, and academics as a tool to understand the cumulative effects assessment of the North Saskatchewan River
implications of major resource development projects and Watershed used ALCES Online Scenario Analysis to simulate the
program in areas of national and regional importance. RA effects of major land uses in the watershed and on watershed
facilitates analyses at broader spatial and temporal scales than values over a 100-year period under four different development
typical project-level assessments, enabling them to better scenarios (Sullivan, 2009). On the other hand, assessments that
consider the regional context. RAs can inform, and ultimately focus on data gathering to better understand the environmental,
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of future project-level social, and cultural context and identify key regional issues have
impact assessments (IAAC, 2020a). RAs can also serve as a often reviewed past studies to synthesize and assess the
strategic tool for governments/project proponents to articulate accumulated state of knowledge. For instance, the Manitoba
a preferred course of action and set conditions for future Hydro Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment collated the
decisions (Chetkiewicz and Lintner, 2014; Noble et al., 2017). results of past studies in the region and performed
The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) (2020) retrospective analyses of available data to characterize the total
discusses several functions of RAs. First, RA enables data effects of select regional study components (Manitoba
collection to better respond to the regional environmental, Government and Manitoba Hydro, 2015). Other studies have
social, and cultural context, and promotes early identification involved collaboration between scientists and local communities
of region-specific issues to serve as a baseline against which to to assemble and translate existing science into policy (Stern and
assess the incremental impact of discrete projects. Second, RA Gaden, 2015).
can help provide information on thresholds to support future Currently, RAs are being conducted based on varied
project decisions. Third, RA can support regional development frameworks and methodologies, leading to inconsistencies that
planning, for instance, to guide the assessment of future impede the ability to compare results within and between regions
development scenarios and support the identification of (Gunn and Noble, 2009; Hodgson et al., 2019). Since addressing
regional development objectives. Fourth and finally, RAs can the complex and multi-scalar issues in RA requires the
help establish standard mitigation and/or effects thresholds to integration of knowledge from several disciplines and
guide future planning and project development. The stakeholders there is a need for a comprehensive framework
multidimensionality of RA means that it is important to to support systematic evaluation of cumulative effects. When
Frontiers in Environmental Science 02 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
faced with complex and potentially controversial decisions that ecology and evolution, philosophy, and organizational
affect the environment, many resource management agencies behavior (Runge et al., 2020).
and researchers have recognized the value of structured decision In the natural resource management field, SDM (Gregory
making (SDM) - the systematic use of principles and tools of et al., 2012) is the term most frequently applied to the use of
decision analysis (Gregory et al., 2012; Runge et al., 2020). decision analysis (Runge et al., 2020). SDM demonstrates the
Inspired by the principles of SDM, coupled with the Bowtie Risk formal use of decision analysis to support difficult, real-world
Assessment Tool (BRAT) (see Elliott et al., 2017; Kishchuk et al., natural resource management decisions. Problem decomposition
2018; Cormier et al., 2019; Winder et al., 2020), we developed a (turning a complicated problem into a set of smaller, more
framework dubbed, Risk Assessment Framework for Cumulative tractable pieces) and values-focused thinking (all decisions are,
Effects (RAFCE) to guide present and future RA, from the scoping of ultimately, the expression of values the decision-maker aims to
regional risks to analysis and scenario planning.We apply RAFCE to achieve) are two philosophical principles that underlie SDM
identify and prioritize regional cumulative effects issues of proposed (Runge et al., 2020). Taken together, they provide a structured
mining in the Ring of Fire (RoF) region of northern Ontario, approach for any decision involving five constituent elements
Canada. In managing natural resources, federal and provincial (Figure 1): a context that gives the decision-maker power to act
governments strive to meet the needs of multiple stakeholders (the problem framing); one or more objectives that form the
whose interests frequently diverge. Within this environment, a desired outcomes (the objectives); a set of alternative actions to
complex assemblage of policies and management approaches choose from (the alternatives); predictions that link the
have arisen which can align, overlap, or, at times, contradict each alternatives to the objectives (the consequences); and an
other. In this context, the use of an SDM approach to guide the evaluation of the trade-offs among the alternatives that lead to
identification of cumulative effects issues in the RoF and their the selection of a preferred alternative (the trade-offs).
connection to policy and management approaches is critical to Adapting the PrOACT sequence to the analysis of regional
ensure effective planning and sustainability in the region. Guided by cumulative effects, we draw on two tools: the BRAT and ALCES
RAFCE, we identify potential risks, impacts, and mitigation online simulation, which are combined to arrive at an integrated
measures of proposed resource development and then develop a risk and scenario analysis for RA (Figure 2). The BRAT helps to
model to support the identification, categorization, and distinguish the value-based elements of the decision (defining the
prioritization of regional impacts for mitigation during decision problem context, articulating objectives, and identifying what
making. We used the BRAT SDM-inspired framework as an alternatives are acceptable) from the scientific elements
example of systematically identifying risks posed by proposed (identifying trade-offs, which alternatives are feasible, and
RoF mining activities and the implications for sustainable evaluating the consequences), allowing the decision-maker to
development in the context of decision support for RA. bring appropriate expertise to help on each element. The BRAT
helps to conceptualize the cumulative effects issues, identify
potential drivers and impacts, and policies/procedures
1.1 Conceptual framework required to mitigate the possible adverse effects. On the other
hand, the ALCES modeling (scientific elements of SDM)
Decision-makers who manage public natural resources face a demonstrates the potential to link the outcomes of the BRAT
daunting task of overseeing complex social-ecological systems in into an integrated population dynamic model to explore risks,
which the priorities of different stakeholders frequently diverge, barriers, and consequences in support of RA. Thus, the BRAT
and uncertainties abound. The ability to make decisions in this and ALCES become complementary modeling tools that can be
environment requires integration of the legal, regulatory, and implemented to collectively address the information needs of RA
value-based aspects of decision-making within the broader (Figure 2). For the purpose of this study, however, we focus only
context of both policy and science, which are often poorly on the BRAT component of the model or framework.
resolved. In recognition of this dilemma, many decision- The ISO 31010 BRAT (Figure 3), a risk assessment technique of
support frameworks and tools have emerged (Bower et al., the ISO 31000 riskmanagement standard (ISO, 2018), is a conceptual
2018; Schwartz et al., 2018) including the Open Standards for model well-suited to environmental assessment (Cormier et al., 2019).
the Practice of Conservation, Systematic conservation planning The International Organization for Standardization has listed the
(Margules and Pressey, 2000), Strategic foresight (Cook et al., BRAT as a widely applicable method for the selection and
2014), Evidence-based practice (Sutherland et al., 2004), implementation of systematic techniques for risk assessment (IEC/
Management strategy evaluation (Bunnefeld et al., 2011), ISO 31010:2009 standard). The BRAT uses pressure-effect-impact
Adaptive management (Walters 1986) and others. These tools pathways to break down complex policy environments and assess risk
collectively fall within the realm of Decision analysis, a vast field fromany source to any endpoint (Cormier et al., 2018), thusmaking it
of study of how humans make decisions that is informed bymany suitable for an SDM process. Although BRAT has been applied in
fields, including economics, operations research, cognitive several sectors to identify risks, it is only now starting to be applied to
psychology, mathematics, computer science, behavioral the field of environmental management (Elliott et al., 2017; Kishchuk
Frontiers in Environmental Science 03 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
FIGURE 1
Elements in the structured decision-making: The PrOACT (Problem statement, Objectives, Alternatives, Consequences and Trade-offs)
sequence (Runge et al., 2020). The dashed lines indicate the element of a decision is not necessarily linear.
et al., 2018; Winder et al., 2020), particularly to analyze cumulative The components of a BRAT diagram are the policy objective
effects in resource management and the risks of not meeting at risk (i.e., the hazard); the harmful cumulative effects, or where
environmental policy objectives (e.g., Cormier et al., 2019), risks to control over management object is lost (top event); causes of the
water quality, and forest management pressures on biodiversity and risk event (threats); consequences of the risk event; preventative
water quality (Kishchuk et al., 2018). Winder et al. (2020) used the barriers that impede the threats from triggering the risk event;
BRAT to evaluate the cumulative effects of anthropogenic and natural andmitigation barriers that reduce the negative consequences of
factors affecting boreal caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) herds in the risk event (Figure 3). Collectively, these components of the
Northeastern British Columbia. BRAT helped to navigate complexity bow-tie diagram allow a detailed understanding of policy
and convey, at the landscape level, the interactive effects of human objectives. The BRAT framework can be used to numerically
activities and disturbances (Winder et al., 2020). Importantly, BRAT quantify the effectiveness of risk barriers, quantitatively and
can help to identify the most effective management strategies to qualitatively portray the overall scope of contemporary risks
address risks. Thus, BRAT frameworks can provide a clearer and analyze the deficiencies in management systems.
understanding of complex cumulative effects problems. Specifically, the BRAT provides a concise representation of
Frontiers in Environmental Science 04 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
FIGURE 2
Integrated risk and scenario based analysis for regional cumulative effects assessment.
FIGURE 3
Components of a BRAT diagram.
Frontiers in Environmental Science 05 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
key components such as drivers (i.e., threats), indicators warbler (Cardellina canadensis) (https://www.ontario.ca/page/
(i.e., consequences), and management scenarios canada-warbler).
(i.e., barriers). In summary, the BRAT diagram maps how In addition to the RoF mines, other active or planned land
threats can trigger a risk event (ecological tipping point) that uses in the region include timber production, the several planned
violates management objectives and thereby leads to negative major and access roads for the RoF, communities, and potential
consequences (Figure 3). The BRAT also identifies management hydroelectric developments (Chetkiewicz and Lintner, 2014).
strategies that can act as barriers to risks by preventing threats The region’s biophysical attributes make it an interesting
from triggering the risk event or mitigating the negative location to assess how climate change is affecting wildlife
consequences after a risk event. habitat, with the region likely to experience a wide array of
The value of BRAT also lies in its ability to prompt climate-related impacts (Chetkiewicz and Lintner, 2014). The
brainstorming on interdisciplinary issues previously not well region could experience the full range of threats and impacts
considered. Therefore, identifying threats and consequences from the planned developments, thereby requiring a thorough
requires brainstorming sessions, often through workshops that understanding of the potential risks and cumulative effects. The
include stakeholders from multiple fields, thus promoting the federal government recently mandated a RA under the IAA for
development of results that minimize technical jargon and can be the RoF area, with the terms of reference being worked out with
understood across disciplines (ISO, 2018). the Provincial government and Indigenous communities. In
2020, the federal government, through the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change, directed the IAAC to
2 Methodology engage with diverse groups, including Indigenous groups,
non-government organizations, the Province of Ontario, and
2.1 Context–The ring of fire region other federal departments to discuss appropriate activities,
outcomes, and spatial and temporal boundaries for the RA in
The study area is the RoF region, which is in the ecologically the RoF. The IAAC proposed that the goal of the RoF RA is “to
sensitive James Bay Lowlands of Northern Ontario, Canada, a provide information and analysis regarding future developments
subset of the Hudson Bay Lowlands which forms part of the in the RoF area and their potential effects to inform and improve
second-largest contiguous peatland complexes in the world impact assessments and other planning and decision-making
(Packalen et al., 2014). The area is part of Treaty nine processes in a way that helps protect the environmental, health,
territory, also known as the James Bay Treaty. The study area social and economic conditions of the area while also creating
overlaps with the RoF mineral deposits, First Nation Territories, opportunities for sustainable economic development” (IAAC,
and multiple caribou ranges The RoF is an approximately 2020a).
5,120 km2 crescent-shaped area in northern Ontario
(52°58′45″N, 86°26′26″W) hosting a collection of multi-
element ore deposits (Chong, 2014). It resides on primarily 2.2 Research design
Phanerozoic calcareous bedrock within a humid high boreal
climatic zone, with a mean annual temperature The study is guided by Gunn and Noble’s (2009) methodological
between −2.6 and 0°C, a mean growing season between foundations of regional strategic environmental assessment that
154 and 173 days, and mean annual precipitation between required a more regional and integrative approach for RA,
528 and 833 mm (Crins et al., 2009). underpinned by three core principles, including being strategic,
First Nation communities located in and around the area cumulative effects driven and regionally focused. We drew from
include theWebequie, Nibinamik, Neskantaga, Marten Falls, and different sources and approaches to gather information and data
Eabametoong. However, even other geographically distant First for this study in a stepwise direction, including review and adaptation
Nation over northern and eastern Ontario members may of existing literature (focused on identifying Valued Ecosystem
consider the land encompassed by the RoF region as their Components related to cumulative effects of resource
traditional territory. development). Figure 4 shows each step involved in the research
The Hudson Bay Lowlands support a wide variety of fauna design.
and flora. This includes at least 816 native and 98 non-native
plant species, approximately 300 bird species (predominantly 2.2.1 Identification of valued environmental
migratory birds), more than 50 species of terrestrial and marine components
mammals, and at least 35 species of fish (Abraham et al., 2005). Following Antwi et al. (2022), we identified valued
Notably, the species hosted by the region include several at-risk ecosystem components (VECs) that are important to
species, such as polar bears (Ursus maritimus), woodland caribou assessment of the impact of mining on ecosystems and
(Rangifer tarandus caribou), wolverine (Gulo), lake sturgeon people. Since Antwi et al. (2022)’s research was a global
(Acipenser fulvescens), and a variety of birds, e.g., Canada review of cumulative effects, we adapted their list of
Frontiers in Environmental Science 06 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
FIGURE 4
Steps involved in the research design.
indicators to make it relevant to the Ring of Fire context. measures within their areas of expertise. The BRAT expert
Guided by the Cumulative Effects assessment questionnaire workshop was convened in November 2020 and involved
developed by Canter and Kamath. (1995) and considering the researchers from different divisions/branches within the Canadian
regional issues of interest to different stakeholders in the Ring Forest Service (CFS) of Canada’s Department of Natural Resources
of Fire region, we adapted and categorize the VECs according (NRCan) department and beyond (see Supplementary Material S2
to six major components including organism, biodiversity, and Supplementary Material S3 for a summary on the background of
land, climate change, fish/wildlife habitat, and water (Table 1). the participants for the workshop). Prior to the workshop, a summary
For each VEC, measurable parameters (defined here as sub- of the findings from the review of published literature (see Table 1)
VECS) were defined, where possible and appropriate, to was sharedwith the participants. Due to the diverse scientific/technical
facilitate specific quantitative or qualitative measurement of backgrounds of the participants, the workshop was divided into
potential project effects and cumulative effects. Measurable separate socio-economic and ecological groups. In this paper, we
parameters provide a means to determine the level or amount present only the results from the ecological group, although some
of change in a VEC. socio-economic implications associated with the ecological issues
In the next stage of analysis, we selected specific sub- remain.
VECs and explored them further through a BRAT analysis Following the workshop, additional expert consultations or
(Table 2). The selection of the sub-VECs was guided by policy interviews were held with specific subject-matter leads to refine
objectives at risk (top-events) in the context of the proposed the initial BRAT maps developed for each policy objective and
mining in the RoF area and the expertise of the workshop event under the sub-VECs. The results (impacts) from the BRAT
participants. In all, we focused on 12 top events or policy were used to develop an impact prioritization model (see Section
objectives (see Supplementary Material S1) that guided the 2.4) which enabled us to quantify, rank, and prioritized the
BRAT workshop. identified impacts.
2.2.2 Bowtie risk analysis workshop
Guided by the 12 top events or policy objectives at risks in the 2.3 Impact prioritization model and
context of the RoF area, we conducted a BRAT workshop to help analysis
prioritise and identify key regional risks, sources, impacts and
mitigation measures. We built on past applications of the BRAT Using the outcomes of the BRAT workshop, we developed an
tool in examining a broad range of policy objectives in the context of impact prioritization model and analysis. The impact
resource management and applied the BRAT as a problem-solving prioritization model helps to identify impacts that are cross-
tool. Discussions during the workshop were open, collaborative, and cutting, multi-sector driven, and synergistic, and thus enables the
driven by the experts themselves (i.e., bottomup). Participants focused prioritization of impacts that are of greatest significance to a
on identifying priority risks, sources, impacts, and mitigation region and most urgently require effective management and
Frontiers in Environmental Science 07 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
TABLE 1 Summary of VEC Components, VECs, and sub-VECs.
Valued component sub-components Valued component sub-components
Organism Vegetation (composition and connectivity)
Mammals/Wildlife
Migratory birds
Fish (health)
Herpetofauna
Biodiversity Species biodiversity (species richness/diversity, species at risks)
Landscape biodiversity
Community biodiversity
Aquatic biodiversity
Land Wetland (morphology and hydrology)
Soil (quality and stability)
Topography/Terrain
Land use/Landcover
Geology/Geohazard
Sediment quality
Climate change Atmospheric/Meteorological conditions
GHG emissions
Carbon sink and storage
Air quality (dust and other forms of emissions)
Fish/Wildlife Habitat Wildlife habitat
Migratory bird habitat
Fish habitat
Habitat connectivity
Water Surface water quality (flow, quantity, quality, and discharge)
Groundwater (flow, quantity, quality, and discharge)
Portable water
Source: Adapted from Antwi et al., 2022.
policy intervention. This involves scoring each individual impact being composed of exposure to activity, and the consequence
(derived from the BRAT analysis) according to nine (9) criteria of that exposure (e.g., Borgwardt et al., 2019). Thus, for each
(see Table 3) guided by previous studies on regional risk individual impact, the total exposure is the combined effect of
assessment approaches and frameworks (see EAO, 2013; the nine criteria focused broadly on spatial and temporal
Gunn and Noble, 2009; Borgwardt et al., 2019). extent of the exposure, magnitude and frequency of
To score the impact of each criterion, the research team occurrence, recoverability, and others, all of which are not
debated and discussed the scoring, guided by the literature independent of each other. In addition, the consideration of
review. Scores were assigned for each individual impact (1 = key stakeholder issues (e.g., Indigenous communities) and
high; 0.66 = moderate; and 1 = high). However, in some of the areas of significant global or national/public interest makes
impacts, the scoring was either 1 (present) or 0 (absent or not our risk scoring and valuation unique as it extends previous
present). The model is consistent with standard approach to approaches that have largely focused on biophysical criteria
environmental risk assessment that considers impact risk as for assessment.
Frontiers in Environmental Science 08 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
TABLE 2 VECs and sub-VECs and relationship to specific policy objectives.
Valued component sub- Valued component sub-components Policy objectives/Top events
components
Organism
Vegetation (composition and connectivity) Increase in fire severity and frequency
Mammals/Wildlife Unsustainable wildlife population. Alteration of baseline noise-causing
disturbance to wildlife
Migratory birds Failure to protect migratory birds and their habitat
Biodiversity
Species biodiversity (species richness/diversity, Successful colonization of non-native species
species at risks) Failure to protect species at risk
Land
Soil (quality and stability) Soil contamination
Topography/Terrain
Climate change
Air quality (dust and other forms of emissions) Decline in air quality
Fish/Wildlife Habitat
Migratory bird habitat Failure to protect migratory birds and their habitat
Habitat connectivity Disruption of habitat connectivity below critical thresholds
Water
Surface water quality (flow, quantity, quality, and Declining surface water quality
discharge)
Groundwater (flow, quantity, quality, and Disrupted flow regimes
discharge)
Portable water Lowering of drinking water quality
2.4 Model calculation respectively. We then calculate Tcat, the value of the threat
or impact for a major category, which is the summation of Ti
To determine which impacts should be prioritized during for threats or impacts within a major category. Further on, we
decision making, we used Eq. 1 to compute impact numerical determine Ri as the rank of the value of each impact under the
values for the individual impacts as follows: study and Rcat, which is the rank of the value of the major
category compared with all other major categories under the
T 
 S + U + jC +∑ F (1) study. The impacts are ranked according to the valuesi i i i 1 j
T1ST >T2ND >T3RD > . . . .TLAST where T1ST is the impact
where Ti is the value of each threat or impact under the study; with the highest value and is given the highest priority, and
Si is the impact factor of stakeholder interest or consideration TLAST is given the least priority. Table shows Ri and Rcat
for each threat or impact and is assigned a highest priority calculated for impacts.
value of 1 (with lowest at 0.33 and medium at 0.66); Ui is
impact factor of underlying issues of the ith threat, and is
assigned the highest priority value of 1 (lowest at 0.33 and 3 Results
medium at 0.66); Ci is the fraction of the number of times an
effect occurs in the risk analysis and the total number of effects 3.1 Bowtie risk analysis outcomes
j
in the risk analysis for each threat or impact; ∑ F is
1 j
summation of the impact factor F for each criterion, where Guided by the 12 policy objectives, the BRAT analysis
j is the number of criteria, apart from S and U; F takes a value identified various forms of risks and impacts. In total,
0.33, 0.66, and 1 for low, medium, and high impact, 62 unique impacts (Table) were identified in the BRAT
Frontiers in Environmental Science 09 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
TABLE 3 Criteria for scoring and valuation of impact.
Criteria Description Impact factor Score
Geographic extent Anticipated extent/coverage of effects or area Discrete (limited to area within metres from 0.33
covered by effect source)
Local (perceptible and limited to 5 km within 0.66
source)
Regional (beyond 5 km from source) 1.00
Duration of impact How long the impact is expected to last Effect lasting for 5 years 0.33
Effects lasting for 5–15 years 0.66
Effects lasting more than 15 years 1.00
Frequency of occurrence Number of times impact is expected to occur Effect occurs once 0.33
Effect rarely occurs—more than twice but less 0.66
than five time
Effects occurs regularly—more than five times 1.00
Recoverability Number of years required for human mediated Involves reversible effects/short term 0.33
restoration/the degree to which effect can be restoration (50 years)
reversed
Effect is partly reversible/medium term 0.66
restoration (50–100 years)
Involve irreversible effects/cannot be restored 1.00
Severity/magnitude of impact The degree of severity of the effect Undetectable change compared to baseline 0.33
Projected change in is equal or close to 0.66
allowable limit
Expected change is greater than allowed limit 1.00
Receptor (human/ecosystem) The valued components affected e.g., humans The receiving environment involves livelihoods 0.33
(affects livelihood) or non-human (affect
moose, fish, and benthic invertebrates) The receiving environment involves ecosystems 0.33
The receiving environment involves both 1.00
livelihoods and ecosystems
Key stakeholder interest/considerations* Effect concerns key stakeholders (e.g., Presence 1) or absence 0) of key stakeholder 0
Indigenous communities) concerns/interest
1
Areas of significant global or national interest Effect on VEC with significant global or Presence 1) or absence 0) of VEC with 0
national interest e.g., VEC under Ramsar significant global or national interest
Convention on Wetland
1
Sources of impact: (Multiple/Single) Sources Impacts originate from simple/single or Involves simple/single source 0.33
complex/multiple dose-source relationships
Involves few source (less than or equal to 5) 0.66
Involves complex/multiple dose-source 1.00
relationships (more than 5 receptors)
Count (no. Of times it appears in risk analysis) The number of times effect occurs in the risk Fraction of the number of times an effect occurs
analysis of various ecosystem components in in the risk analysis and the total number of
comparison to the total number of effects under effects in the risk analysis
consideration
Source: Partly adapted and modified from: EAO. (2013). Guideline for the selection of valued components and assessment of potential effects. Prepared by the BC, EAO. *Not used in the
model calculation.
exercise, which we categorized under four broad impact themes: related disturbances (migratory bird habitat loss; unsustainable
1) hydrological related impacts (flow regimes; surface water wildlife population; and alteration of baseline noise-causing
declines; and lowering of drinking water quality), 2) wildlife disturbance to wildlife); 3) habitat and biodiversity related
Frontiers in Environmental Science 10 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
forms of destruction (disruption of habitat connectivity below for regeneration of native trees, shrubs and mosses species in
critical thresholds; successful colonization of non-native permafrost environments can be used to control soil temperature.
species; and negative population growth for species at risk); Regarding the mitigation options, several management
and 4) soil, air and fire disturbances (soil contamination; and legislative approaches were identified to reduce the
declines in air quality; and increase in fire severity and impacts of the consequences. For instance, to mitigate the
frequency). Below, we describe each category of impacts impact of lowering drinking water quality, Indigenous
along with their sources and consequences and indicate the Services Canada (ISC) provides funding and advice for
prevention and mitigation measures that were identified to water systems on First Nations reserves, while Circuit
prevent or reduce the magnitude of impacts. Throughout the Rider Training Program also supports First Nations in
discussion, although we make distinctions between the direct operating, servicing and maintaining the water and
consequences caused by risks to humans and ecosystems, these wastewater systems in their communities. In addition,
are not mutually exclusive as both interact at multiple levels. mining companies can be encouraged to provide funding
to improve water quality to avoid social conflict.
3.1.1 Risk analysis related to hydrological
disturbances 3.1.2 Risk analysis related towildlife disturbances
Under the hydrological disturbances, the top events The second category of top events are wildlife related
identified were changes in flow regimes, surface water disturbances, include migratory bird habitat loss; unsustainable
declines, and lowering of drinking water quality (Figure 5). wildlife populations; and alteration of baseline noise and light.
The common sources of impacts related to the hydrological Common disturbances across these top events include the
changes include withdrawal intake for mine-related activities construction of mines and supporting infrastructure, causing
access-road construction in or near waterbodies, adjacent banks, increased light and sound pollution (e.g., cumulative impacts of
or shores, draining of peatlands, and unsustainable fish shovelling, ripping, drilling, blasting, crushing, grinding, and
populations. Changes in flow regimes can be caused by early stockpiling); removal of soil and vegetation around nesting sites
snowmelt and reduced snowpack, permafrost thaw, and draining and breeding grounds; and increased contact with humans and
of peatlands. Surface water declines, lowering of drinking water vehicles. In addition, unsustainable wildlife populations can be
quality, and unsustainable fish population can be caused by caused by excessive wildlife harvest from an influx of people,
wastewater, seepage and storm water runoff from habitat fragmentation, and changes in predator/prey dynamics.
contaminated mine sites, accidental release of toxic substances On the other hand, the consequences for wildlife related
frommine sites, acidic rainfall and drainage, waste rock andmine disturbances are categorized into impacts on wildlife and on
tailings release into the water, eutrophication, and leaching of humans. For the former, consequences include increased
toxic constituents. competition for food, alteration of birds’ nesting habitat,
The BRAT workshop also identified the consequences of disturbance of migratory bird nests or eggs, disruption of
hydrological disturbances. For instance, changes in flow regimes migratory pathways, increased hunting leading to direct migratory
can result in loss or alteration (due to changes in hydrology) of bird mortality, extirpation, or extinction, cascading impacts to other
peatland ecosystems, spikes in water volume flow, permafrost wildlife, declining genetic fitness, and wildlife sensory disturbance.
degradation, and destruction of wildlife habitats. Also, declines in Also, increased presence of humans on primary roads can cause
surface water or decreased water levels can affect water increased physiological and nutritional stress of caribou (Wasser et al.,
temperature, chemistry, turbidity, or flow, damage to fisheries 2011). For the human related disturbances, loss of social license for
and habitats of plants and animals, reduced recreational uses of development, increases in human-wildlife conflict and reduced access
water, and fish mortality, leading to declining fish populations. In to country food by Indigenous people are possible second-order
addition, lowering of drinking water quality has a direct consequences of wildlife disturbance.
consequence on humans as it can be a health hazard, increase To prevent wildlife-related disturbances from occurring
social conflict, decrease quality of human life and lead to a loss of beyond unacceptable thresholds, preventive measures under
social license for mining firms. several laws such as the Species at Risk Act (e.g., limiting
Preventive and mitigation measures identified to stop or reduce human contact and protecting critical habitat of species at
hydrologically related disturbances from occurring were diverse and risk), Migratory Birds Convention Act (e.g., protecting areas
included both legislative and management actions. On the frequented by migratory birds), Environmental Protection Act
preventive side, for instance, to control the occurrence of and The Planning Act of Ontario (e.g., activate set Noise Pollution
changing flow regimes, management planning (Mining Act, Control Guidelines) can be used. In addition, the 2019 Canadian
Crown Forest Sustainability Act), land use planning (Far North Fisheries Act which has specific legislative provisions for the
Act) and federal and provincial environmental assessment protection of fish and fish habitat including pollution prevention
legislation, are activated prior and during the mining. On the and regulations for deleterious substances to fish and the invasive
direct management side, the construction of dykes and support species, can be applied. Also, noise-related disturbance to wildlife
Frontiers in Environmental Science 11 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
FIGURE 5
Risk Analysis Related to Hydrological-related disturbances in the RoF Area. (A) Flow regimes (B) surface water declines (C) lowering of drinking
water quality.
can be controlled through the installation of noise monitoring setback distances, and enforcing hunting prohibitions for
stations and the implementation of avoidance strategies such as protected species can mitigate impacts to species. On the
planning drilling outside of the nesting season, while other hand, mitigation measures that reduce impacts on
disturbances from light can be prevented by implementing humans include hunting prohibitions that limit non-
downward facing and fully shielded outdoor light fixtures, Indigenous, especially recreational harvest, economic
installing light monitoring stations and motion sensors, and diversification beyond subsistence hunting, income security
implementing dark sky laws and ordinances (e.g., mandating programs for hunters, and providing compensation to affected
downward-pointing lighting fixtures). Indigenous communities.
To reduce the severity of these impacts, mitigation programs
supported by legislation can be implemented. Specific legislation 3.1.3 Risk analysis related to habitat and
that can be applied include the Environmental Protection Act and biodiversity disturbance
The Planning Act of Ontario (e.g., activate Noise Pollution The third top events category is focused on habitat and
Control Guidelines), and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation, biodiversity related forms of destruction, which includes
Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Under these laws, disruption of habitat connectivity below critical thresholds;
specific management mitigation mechanisms to reduce the successful colonization of non-native species; and population
impact on wildlife and humans can be implemented. Figure 6. decline for species at risk (Figure 7). Across these top events, the
Captive breeding and habitat stewardship programs, harvest most common sources of impacts are destruction of vegetation
regulations, the introduction of protected areas, controlling the and habitat from mining infrastructure development, including
noise pathway (using barriers and land-use controls), access roads; increases in the volume and extent of plant and
maintaining equipment adequately to minimize noise, halting wildlife harvest, including illegal harvesting; and increased
disruptive activities around nesting areas, rescuing migratory movement of humans and materials (e.g., trade,
birds trapped in beams of light, establishing buffer zones and transportation, tourism, and recreation) with potential
Frontiers in Environmental Science 12 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
FIGURE 6
Risk Analysis Related toWildlife disturbances. (A)Unsustainablewildlife population (B)migratory bird habitat loss (C) alteration of baseline noise-
causing disturbance to wildlife.
associated impacts such as the introduction of non-native and landscape planning, including minimizing disturbance (e.g.,
invasive species. Other sources of impacts such as climate change, linear features) footprint at landscape level), and the Fish
especially warming resulting in mild winters, can also promote and Wildlife Act (e.g., prohibiting alteration and destruction
the successful colonization of non-native species and negative of fish habitat, establishing fisheries quotas and prohibitions
population growth of species at risk. against transportation, possession, importation, and release of
The consequences of habitat and biodiversity-related impacts non-native species). In addition, other important and
include hydrology disruption (leading, e.g., to treemortality caused by applicable legislation can include the Species at Risk Act
the extremes such as local droughts on one hand, and flood resulting (e.g., to protect critical habitat and prevent disturbance to
in “drunken forests” on the other hand), the spread of exotic and residences of species at risk), the Animal Health Act (e.g.,
invasive species leading to competition with native species for food restricting movement of agents capable of spreading disease),
and habitat decreased native habitat area and restricted species Forest Fire Prevention Act (e.g., Fire suppression measures), and
movement and gene flow, reductions in tree seedling Plant Protection Act and Canada Shipping Act (e.g., regulating
establishment, loss of habitat, and increased parasitism of native ballast water management).
species. Overall, high-level consequences include reduction in There are both legislative and management mechanisms that
ecosystem resilience and economic damages. can mitigate impacts to habitat and biodiversity. Regarding
The preventive and mitigation barriers for habitat and legislation, the Weed Control Act (e.g., for population control),
biodiversity related impacts are underpinned by specific Animal Health Act, Pesticides Act and Recreational Fishing and
legislations. The key legislative preventive barriers include Hunting Regulations (e.g., to regulate recreational fishing/
the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (e.g., to protect hunting), Fisheries Act (e.g., population control of non-native
wildlife, establish wildlife corridors, and introduce buffers to hosts), and Far North Act (e.g., to reduce the number of new
prevent the impact of forest edge), the CanadaWildlife Act (e.g., mines and exploration activities) provide several opportunities to
to preserve areas critical for connectivity), the Far North Act reduce potential impacts on habitat and biodiversity related
(e.g., to control road development/network and manage issues.
Frontiers in Environmental Science 13 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
FIGURE 7
Risk Analysis Related to habitat and biodiversity disturbances. (A) Disruption of habitat connectivity below critical thresholds (B) successful
colonization of non-native species (C) failure to protect species at risk.
In terms of management mechanisms, programs such as into the soil; deposition of arsenic, lead, and radionuclides;
early detection of new invaders, rapid response procedures to windblown dust; and salt from roadways. Also, an increase in
manage new and established invasive species (e.g., through fire severity and frequency can result from increased incidence of
containment, eradication, and control), market restrictions, arson and accidental fires that get out of control, e.g., campfires,
and introduction of human-mediated restoration measures to ignition along roads, and railways, and improper burning of
improve habitat condition for native species can be implemented debris.
to address specific issues. Moreover, habitat restoration programs The consequences of decline in air quality impact both
such as reforestation projects, including the restoration of critical ecosystems (e.g., damage to plants and long-term forest
habitats, funding the creation of refuge areas for displaced health, increased GHG emissions in the long-term causing
wildlife, and introduction of wildlife corridors to improve intensification of extreme weather events and altering rainfall
connection across landscape could be implemented to mitigate cycle and acid rain) and human health (e.g., respiratory diseases,
impacts. and accumulation of toxics in the food chain). On the other hand,
the consequences of increased fire severity and frequency include
3.1.4 Risk analysis related to air, soil, and fire impacts on vegetation (e.g., biomass, loss forest fragmentation,
The fourth and final category of top events are related to air, soil erosion and loss of soil structure and nutrients, and species
soil, and fire disturbances, including soil contamination; declines mortality) and on humans (e.g., respiratory-related illness, and
in air quality; and increases in fire severity and frequency (Figures loss of property). Soil contamination can affect habitat
8A–C). Potential causes of air pollution can result from emissions availability/suitability.
from heavy vehicles used in excavation operations and to Preventative mechanisms to address the potential increase in
transport personnel, and from aircrafts; combustion of fuels in fire severity and frequency include activating protection
power generation installations and drying/roasting operations; mechanisms under the Forest Fires Prevention Act (e.g.,
and dust from driving andmining operations. On the other hand, undertake Emergency Operations such as fire suppression and
soil contamination includes releases or spills of chemical erecting firebreaks), and Ontario Forest Fire Preventing Act (e.g.,
contaminants from vehicle and equipment maintenance areas restrict and control campfire, fuel reduction alongside road/rail,
Frontiers in Environmental Science 14 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
FIGURE 8
Risk Analysis Related to soil, air and fire disturbances. (A) Soil contamination (B) decline in air quality (C) increase in fire severity and frequency.
prescribed burns, fuel harvest). Other preventive measures such measures (e.g., mask-wearing), especially when safe thresholds are
as early detection and monitoring of wildfire through the NRCan exceeded, would be key to ensure that human health is not
wildfire monitoring under the Canadian wildland fire compromised. To mitigate the consequences of increased
information system can also be implemented. frequency and severity of fire, public health advisories (e.g.,
Prevention mechanisms to control declines in air quality fall provision of respirators and evacuation of affected population)
under two main programs, the Canadian Ambient Air Quality can be issued, especially when Air Quality Health Indices are
Standards (CAAQS) and Emissions standards (CEPA), which can exceeded. Also, to restore ecosystems from fire destruction,
be used to monitor activities to ensure that thresholds for ambient planting native tree species that are less flammable, large scale
air are not exceeded. Also, specific prevention management reforestation activities and compensation in the form of habitat
mechanisms to prevent lowering of ambient air quality include creation and reseeding could be helpful. To address soil
the introduction of windbreaks and increasing the water content of contamination, mitigation measures can focus on enforcement of
road and gravel applications. Finally, prevention mechanisms for soil pollution control legislation under the Canadian Environmental
soil contamination need to focus on early detection through Protection Act (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2018)
monitoring by carrying out sensitizations and surveys of soil (e.g., updating soil register to include contemporary soil pollution
pollution, establishing soil environmental quality monitoring control and prevention measures, and the establishment of soil
networks, thermal desorption, and bioremediation, updating the environmental quality monitoring networks); supervision of
soil register to include contemporary soil pollution control and unutilized land and enhancing spatial planning management
prevention measures, and using alternatives to salt to control ice on under the Far North Act; implementation of direct mitigation
roads (e.g., magnesium acetate or gravel). measures such as improving soil quality through pollution
To mitigate the decline in air quality, the enforcement of treatment and remediation; and general education strategies to
CAAQS and implementation of the Air Zone Management improve food safety.
Framework and Air Quality Management System (e.g., establish Having discussed each of the top events through the BRAT
Air zones and airsheds), especially in emissionmonitoring, would be analysis, the next step is to rank and prioritise the impacts
critical. In addition, direct mitigation measures such as installing with the most occurrences and regional impacts to aid
dust collectors and windbreaks, as well as issuing public health decision making.
Frontiers in Environmental Science 15 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
TABLE 4 Ten highest ranked impacts.
Impacts Impact value Rank
Loss of food-sharing networks 6.66 1
Reduced subsistence 6.66 1
Extirpation or extinction 6.65 3
Forest fragmentation 6.32 4
Intensification of extreme weather events and altered rainfall cycle 6.32 4
Alterations in food web and community structure 6.32 4
Increased competition for food and nesting areas 6.32 4
Loss of social license for development 6.31 8
Accumulation of toxins in the food chain 6.31 9
Impacts on human comfort/wellbeing 5.99 10
TABLE 5 Ten least-ranked impacts.
Impact Impact value Rank
Phytotoxicity for NTFPs (e.g., mushrooms, berries) 4.7 52
Restricted species movement and gene flow 4.6 54
Competition with native species for food and space 4.6 54
Loss of soil fertility 4.6 54
Disturbance to migratory birds nesting sites/eggs 4.6 58
Acid rain affecting human health 4.3 59
Increased parasitism of native species 4.3 60
Spikes in water volume flows 4.0 61
Permafrost degradation 3.6 62
Hydrology disruption (drunken forests) 3.6 63
3.2 Impact score and ranking food web and community structure increased competition for food
and nesting areas).
The BRAT analysis resulted in 62 unique impacts across the Table 5 shows that the ten least ranked impact scores are:
top12 events. The rank of the value of each impact is the value of phytotoxicity for Non-Timber Forest Products (e.g., mushrooms,
the impact score compared with all other impacts. Hence, the berries), followed by restricted species movement and gene flow,
impact with the highest value is given the highest priority (high competition with native species for food and space, loss of soil
rank), and the one with the lowest value is given the least priority fertility, disturbance to migratory birds nesting sites/eggs, acid
(low rank). rain affecting human health, increased parasitism of native
Impacts that recorded the highest ranked scores can be species, spikes in water volume flows, degradation, and
organized into three categories as shown in Table 4. These are hydrology disruption (drunken forests).
human related impacts, especially livelihoods of Indigenous peoples In addition to the ranking of individual impacts from the BRAT
(e.g., loss of food sharing networks, reduced subsistence, loss of social analysis, the cumulative impacts of each of the 12 major impacts
licence, accumulation of toxins in the food chain, impacts on human categories or top events (Table 6) were analysed. Destruction of
comfort/wellbeing), climatological impacts (e.g., intensities and wildlife habitat/population scored the major impact with a score of
frequency of extreme weather events), and ecosystem impacts 40.82 and ranked 1, followed by loss of plant diversity (score 39.53,
(e.g., extirpation or extinction, forest fragmentation, alterations in rank 2), habitat loss/alteration (score 38.83, rank 3), species invasion
Frontiers in Environmental Science 16 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
TABLE 6 Cumulative impacts of each of the major impacts categories.
Major impact categories Cumulative impact Ranking
Destruction to wildlife habitat/population 40.82 1
Loss of plant biodiversity 38.87 2
Habitat loss/alteration 38.83 3
Species invasion (Loss of native species) 37.85 4
Decline in human health and wellbeing 36.88 5
Reduced surface and groundwater quality and quantity 34.51 6
Food sovereignty and security (access, quality, and quantity)—humans 24.29 7
Destruction to soil condition 19.9 8
Destruction of fish population 17.61 9
Destruction of peatland 13.6 10
Disruptions in food chain and web—plants and animals 12.65 11
Climate variability 11.98 12
Heightened tension/dispute with communities 11.3 13
(loss of native species) (score 37.85, rank 4), and decline in human carefully and transparently and clarifying the interlinked roles of
health and wellbeing (score 36.88, rank 5). On the other hand, some scientific information and values. This research developed a
of the lowest ranked value impact categories were heightened structured framework to guide regional environmental risk
tensions/disputes with communities (score 11.63, rank 13), assessment. The RAFCE involves three overarching steps:
climate variability (score 11.98, rank 12), and disruptions in food identification of regional VECs and sub-VECs; a BRAT
chain and web (score 12.98, rank 11). workshop and analysis on key region-specific risks, impacts and
mitigation measures; and our newly developed impact prioritization
model that helps prioritize key impacts for monitoring (Antwi and
4 Discussion Wiegleb, 2008), assessment, and effective cumulative effects
management. Throughout the paper, we demonstrated the
The discussion section is divided into two. The first application of this framework to assess the impact of the
component focuses on the implications of the research for proposed mining in the RoF region in northern Ontario,
regional cumulative effects assessment and management while Canada. However, RAFCE could be applied in multiple contexts
the second component focuses on lessons learnt from the and for different resource developments or disturbances beyond
development and application of RAFCE for current and future mining. The case application enabled us to describe links caused by
regional cumulative effects assessment. the impacts of mining on terrestrial ecosystem components and
socioeconomic and health impacts. Our approach is relevant to the
operationalization of regional assessment within the framework of
4.1 Implications for regional cumulative the Impact Assessment Act of Canada of 2012 as it lends support to
effects assessment and management the decision-making needs of environmental managers by providing
a flexible, problem-solving solution linking human activities and
Ecological systems are highly complex and variable, and our ecosystem components (Piet et al., 2017; Borgwardt et al., 2019). The
knowledge about them is incomplete; nevertheless, decisions framework helps to understand the pathways through which human
concerning natural resource management must be made in activities affect VECs and vice versa which can help manage
spite of this uncertainty (Runge et al., 2020). At present, there understand impacts of pressures on terrestrial ecosystems with
is little practical guidance available to support risk assessment in linkages to socioeconomic issues. For instance, the impact
the context of natural resource management (Gunn and Noble, rankings identified the highest impact across all major impact
2009, 2011), suggesting a need to define and develop a categories to include loss of food-sharing networks and reduced
comprehensive framework to guide practices. subsistence, specie extirpation or extinction, forest fragmentation,
Our study provides a structured approach to regional risk intensification of extreme weather events and altered rainfall cycle
assessment to help managers make decisions involving risk and alterations in food web and community structure. Others
Frontiers in Environmental Science 17 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
include increased competition for food and nesting areas, loss of ramifications of mine development, operation, and management;
social license for development, accumulation of toxins in the food as well as brainstorm relevant legislation, management
chain and impacts on human comfort/wellbeing. procedures, and other approaches to address potential adverse
Our framework and findings can also support assessment effects of mining. The logical structure of the BRAT, supported
and management of cumulative effects, either at the project level by an intuitive visual representation, helped these scientific
or preferable at the regional level (Noble et al., 2017). Assessment experts understand and thus effectively contribute to the risk
of cumulative effects is primarily an attempt to describe assessment process.
environmental change imposed by forces far larger than any There is broad consensus that many environmental problems
one project (Hegmann and Yarranton, 2011). In Canada, while span scientific disciplines and require interdisciplinary thinking
assessment of cumulative effects at the project level is less to identify risks and formulate policy and management responses
desirable, often project proponents are expected to do this (Binder et al., 2013; Pricope et al., 2019). Our approach explicitly
non-etheless based on existing federal and provincial calls for cross-disciplinary collaboration in defining risks, their
legislations (Noble et al., 2017). For instance, while project- causes, and preventative and mitigation measures. Specifically,
based CEA is driven by project approval as opposed to the BRAT workshop is geared towards facilitating knowledge co-
broader understanding of sustainability of VCs affected by the creation on issues that require interdisciplinary knowledge
project, proponents also often fail to identify and manage the synthesis, with the construction of BRAT diagrams serving as
impacts of activities of other land and resource users (Duinker a structured task on which to focus the collaborative efforts of
and Greig, 2006; Boutilier and Black, 2013) as they focus on few experts from different fields. These diagrams serve as clear
VCs, and their indicators based on ecological significance, public summaries of the outcomes of a BRAT workshop that can be
or cultural value, or regulatory requirements (Canter and shared with different audiences, thereby enhancing the
Kamath, 1995). However, by grounding our assessment transparency of the risk assessment process. As such, our
through an SDM approach and guided by holistic assessment approach responds to calls for increased opportunities for
criteria, our framework provides the needed baseline knowledge “debate, collaboration, creativity [and] learning” during
and collective understanding to support the assessment and cumulative effects assessment (Jones, 2016).
management of regional and project level cumulative effects. Beyond integrating knowledge from different technical and
For instance, the highest ranked impacts could be used to support scientific experts, as was done in this research, future BRAT
individual project level assessments by making them non- workshops could include different regional stakeholders, such as
negotiable VECs for project level assessment (cf. Noble et al., Indigenous groups, local communities, and regional/local
2017). Finally, RAFCE through the BRAT also enabled a resource managers. As noted by Gallagher et al. (2015), early
consistent identification and linking of ecological changes to and comprehensive stakeholder engagement improves the
past, present, and future social issues in cumulative effects outcomes of risk assessment, especially when dealing with
assessment. Understanding cumulative social change requires cumulative effects, which, given the multitude of issues
a knowledge of the functional relationships between project- involved, are likely to implicate a wide array of perspectives.
induced change and the legacy effects of previous development With the participation of key regional stakeholders, the BRAT
(Weber et al., 2012; Noble et al., 2017). workshop could, at its best, help illuminate key regional issues,
spurring consensus building on topics that need to be addressed
in a RA. Through the engagement of stakeholders, our process
4.2 Lessons learned would be better able to facilitate “exposure to different world
views and consideration of the distribution of power” during
In this section, we reflect on the main utilities of our assessment, as called for by Jones. (2016).
approach, referencing lessons learned from the RoF case Notably, the inclusion of Indigenous stakeholders in such
study. Specifically, we discuss four important implications of processes is consistent with the Government of Canada’s
the framework; namely, its capacity to: 1) facilitate knowledge commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and
exchange and co-creation; 2) identify VECs and indicators for with the aims of RAs under Canada’s IAA, which emphasizes
RA; 3) identify policy and management options for impact the need to understand and help manage issues that have the
mitigation; and 4) promote cost-effective natural resource potential to impact Indigenous peoples and their rights. By using
management. BRAT to guide RA, there is a distinct opportunity to engage,
collaborate or establish partnerships with Indigenous peoples
4.2.1 Facilitation of knowledge exchange and early in the risk assessment process to help promote alignment
co-creation between the objectives and outcomes of risk assessment with
In the course of assessing proposed mining in the RoF region, Indigenous interests, knowledge, and perspectives. More
the construction of BRAT diagrams enabled subject matter importantly, the use of a BRAT to engage Indigenous
experts from various disciplines to work together to identify rightsholders and experts in RA could help operationalize the
Frontiers in Environmental Science 18 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
TABLE 7 Data types, sources and analysis for indicators derived from BRAT diagrams.
Indicator Description/ Type of data Level of analysis Stage of Impact—Positive Magnitude
Mechanism and source (geographic assessment +/Negative -
extent)
Noise Levels and times of noise Quant/Quali Local/Community Pre and active - Medium
from traffic and Health Canada, mining
equipment ECCC
Water quality Number of households/ Quant/Quali Regional/local Pre, active and - Low
communities without Health Canada; post mining
access to portable water Ontario MoE;
Indigenous Service
Canada
Occupational Number of mine related Quant/Quali; Local Active mine stage - Medium
health and accidents, worker injury Industry, Canadian
safety rates Centre for
Occupational Health
and Safety
Air quality Health hazard from Quant; Industry Regional/local Pre and active - High
emissions, e.g., Human ECCC, Health mining
Toxicity Level indicator in Canada, NRCan
life-cycle assessment
Food quality Extent of human exposure Quant Regional/household Active and post - Low
to contaminated fish/ ECCC, DFO, CFIA mining
wildlife
Animal health (fish and Quant Regional/household Active and post - Low
wildlife contamination) ECCC, DFO, CFIA. mining
Employment Proportion of new Quantitative Regional Active mining + High
Indigenous businesses
formed
concept of Two-Eyed Seeing; a concept often emphasized by Our framework employs an iterative process that starts
Indigenous Peoples as effective to weaving together Indigenous with a literature review to identify key VECs, which then
ways of knowing and western knowledge systems in RA. inform a BRAT workshop aimed at facilitating focused input
However, the involvement of Indigenous people in BRAT from different experts or stakeholders, and finally a model to
processes must be done in a manner that respects Indigenous prioritize key regional impacts. The outcomes of the BRAT
self-capacity and promotes adequate representation of process can then inform more targeted and relevant VECs to
Indigenous Peoples and their views to help reduce power the regional context and stakeholder concerns. Beyond the
imbalances. BRAT outcomes, the prioritization model, building off the
outcomes of the BRAT, evaluates the significance of identified
4.2.2 Identification of valued environmental impacts based on quantitative criteria. Outputs of the overall
components and indicators process include the identification of key risk sources and
Supported by such interdisciplinary participation, the priority impacts of concern in a region. We believe that
framework described in this paper can be applied to help identify these risk sources and prioritized impacts–being informed
VECs and indicators for RA. Cumulative effects are typically by expert and/or stakeholder input (BRAT) and robust
assessed based on indicators of the condition of VECs (effects- qualitative (literature review) and quantitative (impact
based) or of sources of stress to VECs (stressor-based) (Ball et al., prioritization) methods–are suitable to directly inform the
2013). The definition of VECs and indicators is highly consequential selection of indicators to evaluate during RA. The
for RA, as it determines what will actually be measured and identification of indicators can, in turn, elucidate the kind
evaluated during the assessment. The process of deciding on of data that is needed, where to source data from, and at what
VECs and indicators to analyse can be based on professional stage of RA the data is needed. For example, Table 7
input, or through more inclusive processes that solicit the views demonstrates the conversion of risk sources to indicators
of regional stakeholders (Jones, 2016). In either case, a robust and and highlight some of the uncertainties (the type and
inclusive process should be employed to inform VEC and indicator availability of scientific data) that needs to be considered in
development to ensure that the outcomes of the RA are meaningful. risk analysis (see Gissi eft al, 2017). The type(s) of data needed
Frontiers in Environmental Science 19 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
TABLE 8 Examples of management systems and policies to prevent and mitigate impacts.
Prevention barriers Mitigation barriers
Legislation/Policies/Programs Management Procedures Failure to protect Legislation/Policies/Programs Management Procedures
migratory birds and their
Limit contact under Species Act Installation of noise monitoring habitats Set up sanctuaries for migratory Rescue migratory birds
Risk Act stations birds under the Migratory Birds caught in beams of light
Convention Act
Protect area frequented by Installation of light monitoring Habitat stewardship programs Halt disruptive activities
migratory birds under the stations and motion sensors around nesting areas
Migratory Birds Convention Act
Environmental Protection Act Downward facing and fully- Enforce hunting prohibitions for Turning off excess light
and The Planning Act of Ontario shielded outside light protected bird during peak migration
(Noise Pollution Control periods
Guidelines)
Limit contact under Migratory Avoidance strategies (e.g., Introduce hunting prohibitions Controlling noise at the
Birds Convention Act planning drilling outside of that limits harvest of migratory receptor
nesting season) birds
Protect area frequented by Dark Sky laws and ordinances Nest boxes (note this
migratory birds under the (e.g., mandating downward- consequence may be
Migratory Birds Convention Act facing and fully-shielded lighting reversed?)
fixtures)
Protect important areas under Establish buffer zones and
Migratory Birds Convention Act setback distances
Limit contact under Ontario Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Act
to measure the indicator and the stage in the risk assessment incorporating preventive and mitigation barriers goes beyond
process at which the indicator needs to be measured are also the static pressure-state-consequences pathway model, and can,
indicated. in turn, illuminate the knowledge and capacity required to
operationalize the outcomes of risk assessment effectively. For
4.2.3 Identification of policy and management concerned or interested stakeholders and or rightsholders, the
options identification of mitigation and preventive barriers in the risk
Another important attribute of our approach is its emphasis on management process can promote transparency and provide an
identifying management systems and policies to prevent or mitigate assurance that proponents of the resource development are aware
impacts (Table 8). Namely, for each risk source or consequence and taking steps to address risks.
identified, the BRAT facilitates the identification of management or The policy and management options identified in the BRAT
policy options that can be used to prevent the risk or mitigate adverse can also form the basis of subsequent quantitative analyses
consequences. Amid the multi-sectoral, cross-boundary, and multi- geared towards evaluating regional risks through simulation
stakeholder demands involved in natural resource management, the exercises. For example, as our overall framework in Figure 2
BRAT can inform vertical policy integration (i.e., among local/ illustrates, the outcomes of the BRAT can serve as inputs for
municipal, regional, provincial, and federal levels) and promote scenario analysis using the ALCES online simulation. While the
coherence among different policies and management approaches BRAT analysis helps to conceptualize cumulative effects issues,
implemented in various situations (Cormier et al., 2019). the ALCES online simulation enables scenario analysis options to
In the case of proposed mine development in the RoF region, integrate landscape and population simulators to obtain a holistic
the BRAT provided a transparent and structured approach to representation of drivers and impacts of cumulative effects across
identify the existing legislation, policies, and regulatory regimes large spatial and temporal scales.
that could mitigate or prevent risks and anticipated consequences
of mine development (cf. Cormier et al., 2019). By incorporating 4.2.4 Efficient and effective resource
all of these elements into the regional risk assessment process, management
RAFCE enabled the full suite of legislation, regulations, policies, Finally, RAFCE can help prioritize issues to ensure that
standards, procedures and guidelines relevant to the RoF to be limited resources are used cost-effectively. Given that natural
elucidated in a manner that highlights their collective capacity to resource policy and management must address multiple and
serve as a barrier to pressures. Thus, our approach of diverse human activities that cause pressures, many policy and
Frontiers in Environmental Science 20 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
management responses are required to address traditional, reduces the replicability of our results. To limit such methodological
cultural, social, ecological, technical, and economic policy shortcomings and when field data is involved, future analyses could
objectives. The application of the BRAT exercise to proposed use principal component, factor, and/or distance analyses to target
mining in the RoF region illustrated that the impacts of mining normalization and address these limitations (Singh et al., 2017).
on ecological VECs are multiple and complex and can be These limitations notwithstanding, the use of an SDM approach to
overwhelming from a policy and management perspective. To ground RAFCE, combined with several robust and transparent
ensure effective and efficient policy and management response, steps, help enhance the utility of our approach.
including resource allocation to address impacts, an impact Finally, our case study on the RoF focused predominantly on
prioritization model was developed and implemented. The adverse ecological impacts of mining with some consideration for
model provides a quantitative element to the prioritization of direct social, economic, and human health issues. While the effects
impacts based on multiple scoring criteria, including geographic of mining on ecological VECs are near-uniformly negative, the
extent, duration of impact, frequency of occurrence, implications of natural resource development with regard to the
recoverability, magnitude of impact, receptor (human/ socioeconomic conditions in local communities are often highly
ecosystem), key stakeholder interest, significant global or nuanced and complex (Ensign et al., 2014). Although RAFCE did
national interest and source(s) of impact. The outcomes of the not address socioeconomic valued components in depth in the RoF
impact prioritization model can be used to inform the scoping of region, we stress that our framework can be adapted to address the
issues during RA, as well as prioritize policy and management socioeconomic impacts of mining and could also be adapted to
actions towards high-risk impacts. In this context, the model can differentiate negative and positive impacts. Future application of our
support efficient and effective resource allocation both in framework can also incorporate uncertainty analysis to support
assessing and addressing impacts. decision makers in a more structured way beyond the identification
In the RoF case study, the top five impacts with the highest o potential adverse effects we adopted. Analysis of uncertainty needs
ranked scores were: disturbance to migratory bird habitat and to verify that these conditions are satisfied: i) the potentially adverse
nesting sites, followed by wildlife sensory disturbance, restricted effects are identified, ii) the availability of scientific data is evaluated,
species movement and gene flow, acid rain affecting human and iii) the extent of scientific uncertainty is analyzed (Gissi et al.,
health, and alteration/elimination of fish habitats. These 2017).
prioritized impacts can inform scoping of the RA for the RoF,
as well as broader decision-making in the region.
5 Conclusion
4.3 Gaps and next steps RA continues to grow in the impact assessment literature across
different world regions, although tools, methods, and best practices
While the framework described in this paper followed a robust to support regional risk assessment are scarce. To achieve progress,
process with several important applications for regional frameworks need to be developed to address complex issues such as
environmental risk assessment, we note three key caveats to integrating legal and regulatory issues, interdisciplinary knowledge,
guide understanding and evaluation of our methods and and value-based aspects of the decision analysis to support real-
framework analysis. First, the identification of issues in the world natural resource management decisions. This research
BRAT analysis and impact scoring relied extensively on technical develops a risk and impacts-based cumulative effects assessment
and scientific expert opinion from individuals employed in academic framework for scoping regional cumulative effects issues and
and government institutions. Hence, future applications of the analyzes and supports scenario planning to guide present and
BRAT should engage local stakeholders and rightsholders, most future regional cumulative effects assessment. By operationalizing
notably Indigenous communities, in order to elucidate interests the framework to assess the risks posed by mining in the RoF region
beyond those of the scientific community. Ideally, to encourage of northernOntario, we learned that this structured process provides
transdisciplinary thinking and knowledge co-creation, both experts a careful and transparent approach to risks assessment, helps to
and community stakeholders could work together to identify identify and prioritize risks of regional importance, and enables
regional risk issues. Collaboration between experts and regional linkages between science and policy to promote effective
stakeholders is likely to enrich the outcomes of the BRAT exercise by management. The framework can be applied to assess the risk
allowing multiple values and diverse perspectives to inform the and impacts of different natural resource development, visualize the
identification of regional issues of concern (Gallagher et al., 2015). risks management process, identify policy and management issues,
Second, our approach to regional environmental risk assessment determine feasible interdepartmental collaboration to address cross-
involves several methodological steps that emphasize subjective cutting issues, identify skills and capacity gaps and areas of resource
decisions (Gasparatos et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2017). The use of allocation and the implications for sustainable regional development
qualitative expert judgment to brainstorm risk issues and score in the context of decision support for regional cumulative effects
impacts without actual data, given the absence of sensitivity analysis, assessment.
Frontiers in Environmental Science 21 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
Data availability statement Tracey Cooke, mentor Sonja Kosuta, manager Katalijn
MacAfee, Sara Ryan, and Matthew Wheatley for their
The original contributions presented in the study are immense support and encouragement throughout this study.
included in the article/Supplementary Material, further Their suggestions improved the manuscript. The following
inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author. research scientists contributed to the Bowtie Risk Assessment
workshops; Nicolas Mansuy, Sara Ryan, Camille Ouellet-
Dallaire, Kara Webster, Eric Neilson, Erik Emilson, Philip
Author contributions Wiebe, Jason Leach, Lisa Venier, Heather Macdonald, Joanne
De Montigny, Aurelia Thevenot, Lindsay Galway, Colleen
EKA: Conceptualization, development or design of George, Cheryl Chetkiewicz, and Stephen Mayor.
methodology; creation of models, writing—original draft,
visualization, supervision, JB-D: Conceptualization, design of
methodology; writing—original and final draft preparation. WO- Conflict of interest
B: Conceptualization, design of methodology; review and editing.
AD: Conceptualization; writing—original draft preparation IE: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
Conceptualization; writing—reviewing and editing. DAS: absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
Conceptualization; writing—reviewing and editing. BE: be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Conceptualization, design of methodology; review and editing.
EA: writing—reviewing and editing. RW: Conceptualization,
reviewing and editing. Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
Funding authors and do not necessarily represent those of their
affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the
The Cumulative Effects Program of the Canadian Forest Service- editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be
Natural Resources Canada funded this research. The Cumulative evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by
Effects Program of Canadian Forest Service-Natural Resources its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the
Canada did not play any role in preparing this manuscript. publisher.
Acknowledgments Supplementary material
The Canadian Forest Service Cumulative Effects Program The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
supported this work. David Nanang envisioned the need for online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2022.
RAFCE. We want to thank DG Danny Galarneau, director 1055159/full#supplementary-material
References
Abraham, K. F., and Keddy, C. J. (2005). “The Hudson Bay lowland,” in The Binder, C. R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P. W., and Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Comparison of
world’s largest wetlands: Ecology and conservation (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 18 (4), art26. doi:10.
University Press), 118–148. 5751/es-05551-180426
Antwi, E. K., Boakye-Danquah, J., Owusu-Banahene, W.,Webster, K., Dabros, A., Blakley, J., Noble, B., Vella, K., Marty, J., Nwanekezie, K., and Fedoroff, K. (2020).
Wiebe, P., et al. (2022). A Global review of cumulative effects assessments of Lessons learned, best practices and critical gaps in regional environmental
disturbances on forest ecosystems. J. Environ. Manag. 317, 115277. doi:10.1016/j. assessment: A synthesis of Canadian and international literature. Canada:
jenvman.2022.115277 Humanaties Research Council Canada.
Antwi, E. K., andWiegleb, G. (2008). “Standards and indicators for monitoring impact Borgwardt, F., Robinson, L., Trauner, D., Teixeira, H., Nogueira, A. J., Lillebø, A.
of disturbance on biodiversity in a post-mining area using GIS,” in Standards and I., et al. (2019). Exploring variability in environmental impact risk from human
thresholds for impact assessment (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), 277–290. activities across aquatic ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 652, 1396–1408.
Ball, M. A., Noble, B. F., and Dubé, M. G. (2013). Valued ecosystem components Boutilier, R. G., and Black, L. (2013). Legitimizing industry and multi-sectoral
for watershed cumulative effects: An analysis of environmental impact assessments regulation of cumulative impacts: A comparison of mining and energy development
in the south Saskatchewan River Watershed, Canada. Integr. Environ. Assess. in Athabasca, Canada and the Hunter Valley, Australia. Resour. Policy 38 (4),
Manag. 9 (3), 469–479. doi:10.1002/ieam.1333 696–703.
Beaufort Environmental Assessment Plan [BSStRPA] (2008). Beaufort Sea Bower, S. D., Brownscombe, J. W., Birnie-Gauvin, K., Ford, M. I., Moraga, A. D.,
strategic regional plan of action (2004–2008). Available at: https://beaufortrea. Pusiak, R. J., et al. (2018). Making tough choices: Picking the appropriate conservation
ca/resource/beaufort-sea-strategic-regional-plan-of-action-2004-2008/. decision-making tool. Conserv. Lett. 11 (2), e12418. doi:10.1111/conl.12418
Frontiers in Environmental Science 22 frontiersin.org
Antwi et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1055159
Bunnefeld, N., Hoshino, E., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2011). Management strategy IAAC (2020b). Regional assessment of offshore oil and gas exploratory drilling
evaluation: A powerful tool for conservation?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26 (9), 441–447. east of Newfoundland and labrador. Available at: https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/
evaluations/proj/80156.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (2018). Assessing cumulative
environmental effects under the Canadian environmental assessment IAAC (2020a). Regional assessment under the impact assessment act. Canada:
act. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/services/ Regional Assessment.
policy-guidance/assessing-cumulative-environmental-effects-ceaa2012.html.
ISO (2018). ISO 31000:2018 Risk management—Principles and Guidelines.
Canter, L. W., and Kamath, J. (1995). Questionnaire checklist for cumulative impacts. Available at: https://infostore.saiglobal.com/en-au/search/standard/?sortkey=date-
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 15 (4), 311–339. doi:10.1016/0195-9255(95)00010-c desc&publisher=as&productfamily=standard Standards Australia.
Chetkiewicz, C., and Lintner, A. (2014). Getting it right in ontario’s Far North-the Johnson, D., Lalonde, K., McEachern, M., Kenny, J., Mendoza, G., Buffin, A., et al.
need for a regional strategic environmental assessment in the ring of fire (2011). Improving cumulative effects assessment in Alberta: Regional strategic
(wawangajing). Working paper. assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 31 (5), 481–483. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.
01.010
Chong, J. (2014). Resource development in Canada: A case study on the ring of fire.
Ottawa, ON: Library of Parliament, 19. Jones, F. C. (2016). Cumulative effects assessment: Theoretical
underpinnings and big problems. Environ. Rev. 24 (2), 187–204. doi:10.
Cook, C. N., Inayatullah, S., Burgman, M. A., Sutherland, W. J., and Wintle, B. A.
1139/er-2015-0073
(2014). Strategic foresight: How planning for the unpredictable can improve
environmental decision-making. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29 (9), 531–541. Kishchuk, B. E., Creed, I. F., Laurent, K. L., Nebel, S., Kreutzweiser, D., Venier, L.,
et al. (2018). Assessing the ecological sustainability of a forest management system
Cormier, R., Elliott, M., and Rice, J. (2019). Putting on a bow-tie to sort out who
using the ISO Bowtie RiskManagement Assessment Tool. For. Chron. 94 (1), 25–34.
does what and why in the complex arena of marine policy and management. Sci.
doi:10.5558/tfc2018-005
Total Environ. 648, 293–305. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.168
Manitoba Government and Manitoba Hydro (2015). Regional cumulative effects
Cormier, R., Stelzenmüller, V., Creed, I. F., Igras, J., Rambo, H., Callies, U., et al.
assessment for hydroelectric developments on the churchill, burntwood and Nelson
(2018). The science-policy interface of risk-based freshwater and marine
River systems phase II report, Part II hydroelectric project description. Avaliable At:
management systems: From concepts to practical tools. J. Environ. Manag. 226,
https://www.hydro.mb.ca/docs/regulatory_affairs/pdf/rcea/rcea_phase2_part_ii_
340–346. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.053
hydroelectric_de velopment_project_description.pdf.
Crins, W. J., Gray, P. A., Uhlig, P. W. C., and Wester, M. C. (2009). “The
Margules, C. R., and Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning.
ecosystems of Ontario, Part 1: Ecozones and ecoregions,” in Ontario ministry of
Nature 405 (6783), 243–253. doi:10.1038/35012251
natural resources (Peterborough: Ontario, Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment).
Noble, B., Liu, J., and Hackett, P. (2017). The contribution of project environmental
Duinker, P. N., and Greig, L. A. (2006). The impotence of cumulative effects
assessment to assessing and managing cumulative effects: Individually and collectively
assessment in Canada: Ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environ. Manage. 37
insignificant? Environ. Manag. 59 (4), 531–545. doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0799-7
(2), 153–161.
Packalen, M. S., Finkelstein, S. A., and McLaughlin, J. W. (2014). Carbon storage and
EAO (2013). Guideline for the selection of valued components and assessment of
potential methane production in the Hudson Bay Lowlands since mid-Holocene peat
potential effects. Victoria, BC: BC Environmental Assessment Office Government
initiation. Nat. Commun. 5 (1), 4078–8. doi:10.1038/ncomms5078
of BC.
Piet, G. J., Knights, A. M., Jongbloed, R. H., Tamis, J. E., de Vries, P., and
Elliott, M., Burdon, D., Atkins, J. P., Borja, A., Cormier, R., De Jonge, V. N., et al.
Robinson, L. A. (2017). Ecological risk assessments to guide decision-making:
(2017). And DPSIR begat DAPSI (W) R (M)!”-a unifying framework for marine
Methodology matters. Environ. Sci. Policy 68, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.009
environmental management. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 118 (1-2), 27–40. doi:10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2017.03.049 Pricope, N. G., Cassidy, L., Gaughan, A. E., Salerno, J. D., Stevens, F. R., Hartter, J.,
et al. (2019). Addressing integration challenges of interdisciplinary research in
Ensign, P. C., Giles, A. R., and Oncescu, J. (2014). Natural resource exploration
social-ecological systems. Soc. Nat. Resour. 33 (3), 418–431. doi:10.1080/08941920.
and extraction in Northern Canada: Intersections with community cohesion and
2019.1680783
social welfare. J. Rural Community Dev. 9 (1), 112–133.
Rempel, R. S., Carlson, M., Rodgers, A. R., Shuter, J. L., Farrell, C. E., Cairns, D.,
Francis, S. R., and Hamm, J. (2011). Looking forward: Using scenario modeling to
et al. (2021). Modeling cumulative effects of climate and development on moose,
support regional land use planning in northern Yukon, Canada. Ecol. Soc. 16 (4),
wolf, and caribou populations. J. Wildl. Manage. 85 (7), 1355–1376. doi:10.1002/
art18. doi:10.5751/es-04532-160418
jwmg.22094
Gallagher, S. S., Rice, G. E., Scarano, L. J., Teuschler, L. K., Bollweg, G., and Martin, L.
Runge, M. C., Converse, S. J., Lyons, J. E., and Smith, D. R. (2020). Structured decision
(2015). Cumulative risk assessment lessons learned: A review of case studies and issue
making: Case studies in natural resource management. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
papers. Chemosphere 120, 697–705. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.10.030
University Press.
Gasparatos, A., El-Haram, M., and Horner, M. (2008). A critical review of
Schneider, R. R., Stelfox, J. B., Boutin, S., and Wasel, S. (2003). Managing the
reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability.
cumulative impacts of land uses in the western Canadian sedimentary basin: A
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28 (4–5), 286–311.
modeling approach. Conserv. Ecol. 7 (1), art8. doi:10.5751/es-00486-070108
Gissi, E., Menegon, S., Sarretta, A., Appiotti, F., Maragno, D., Vianello, A., et al.
Schwartz, M. W., Cook, C. N., Pressey, R. L., Pullin, A. S., Runge, M. C., Salafsky,
(2017). Addressing uncertainty in modelling cumulative impacts within maritime
N., et al. (2018). Decision support frameworks and tools for conservation. Conserv.
spatial planning in the Adriatic and Ionian region. PLoS ONE 12 (7), e0180501.
Lett. 11 (2), e12385. doi:10.1111/conl.12385
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0180501
Singh, G. G., Sinner, J., Ellis, J., Kandlikar, M., Halpern, B. S., Satterfield, T., et al.
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., and Ohlson, D.
(2017). Mechanisms and risk of cumulative impacts to coastal ecosystem services:
(2012). Structured decision making: A practical guide to environmental management
An expert elicitation approach. J. Environ. Manage. 199, 229–241.
choices. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.
Sullivan, M. G. (2009). Cumulative effects assessment of the North Saskatchewan
Gunn, J. H., and Noble, B. F. (2009). Integrating cumulative effects in regional
River watershed using ALCES. AvaliableAt: http://nswa.ab.ca/cumulative_effects.
strategic environmental assessment frameworks: Lessons from practice. J. Env.
Assmt. Pol. Mgmt. 11 (03), 267–290. doi:10.1142/s1464333209003361 Sutherland,W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M., and Knight, T. M. (2004). The need
for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (6), 305–308.
Gunn, J., and Noble, B. F. (2011). Conceptual and methodological challenges to
integrating SEA and cumulative effects assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 31 Walters, C. J. (1986). Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York,
(2), 154–160. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.12.003 NY: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Gunn, J., and Noble, B. F. (2012). Critical review of the cumulative effects Wasser, S. K., Keim, J. L., Taper, M. L., and Lele, S. R. (2011). The influences of
assessment undertaken by Manitoba Hydro for the Bipole III project. Winnipeg, wolf predation, habitat loss, and human activity on caribou and moose in the
MB: Prepared for the Public Interest Law Centre. Alberta oil sands. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9 (10), 546–551. doi:10.1890/100071
Hegmann, G., and Yarranton, G. T. (2011). Alchemy to reason: Effective use of Weber, M., Krogman, N., and Antoniuk, T. (2012). Cumulative effects
cumulative effects assessment in resource management. Environ. impact Assess. Rev. assessment: Linking social, ecological, and governance dimensions. Ecol. Soc. 17
31 (5), 484–490. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.011 (2), 22. doi:10.5751/es-04597-170222
Hodgson, E. E., Halpern, B. S., and Essington, T. E. (2019). Moving beyond silos in
Winder, R., Stewart, F. E., Nebel, S., McIntire, E. J., Dyk, A., and Omendja, K. (2020).
cumulative effects assessment. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 211. doi:10.3389/fevo.2019.00211
Cumulative effects and boreal woodland caribou: How bow-tie risk analysis addresses a
IAAC (2022). Regional assessment in the ring of fire area. Available at: https:// critical issue in Canada’s forested landscapes. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 1. doi:10.3389/fevo.
iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/80468. 2020.00001
Frontiers in Environmental Science 23 frontiersin.org