1 Introduction

Ecosystem service approaches combine environmental and socioeconomic knowledge to understand how communities value and depend on nature (Kenter et al. 2019). Over recent years, the ecosystem services concept has evolved significantly, moving towards more pluralistic approaches. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) introduced the idea of “Nature's Contributions to People” (NCP) as a broader framework, encompassing ecosystem services and other approaches to human-nature relationships (Pascual 2017; Díaz et al. 2018). This framework aims to better incorporate diverse worldviews, including those of Indigenous and local communities.

As global mineral demand rises, mineral-rich countries in the Global South are presented with promising economic opportunities. However, mining often involves trade-offs between financial gain and the degradation of ecosystem services. The production of mine tailings (mining waste) has negative impacts on ecosystems and communities worldwide, although these can be minimised through responsible management (Sonter et al. 2018). The PROMT (Philippines Remediation of Mine Tailings) project aims to rehabilitate mine sites using approaches developed through an ecosystem services lens.

2 Materials and Methods

2.2 Stakeholder Mapping

To identify stakeholders, we held meetings between the PROMT team and the Community Development Officer from Philex. The Community Development Officer is an Indigenous person who has a longstanding relationship with local communities. We constructed a stakeholder matrix to categorise stakeholders who are impacted by or have an interest in the project (Figure 1). As this was the first event, we focused on engaging stakeholders in the “Manage Closely” category. All participants at the workshop were from Itogon and Ampucao Indigenous communities, reflecting the complex relationship between mining companies and Indigenous groups.

3 Results

3.2 Ecosystem Services and Gender Perspectives

Despite the detailed video introduction on ecosystem services, only 88% of the participants understood the concept. Participants who agreed with the statement “I know a lot about environmental protection” were more likely to be familiar with ecosystem services (60%, n = 26).

Most participants (62%) thought that mining activities negatively impacted ecosystem services, with a higher percentage of females (80%) agreeing compared to males (55%) (p = 0.2, Fisher's exact test). An open-ended question was asked about which ecosystem services participants thought were impacted. The responses were thematically sorted into provisioning, regulating and cultural services. The primary focus was on provisioning services (50%) and regulating services (38%), with cultural services mentioned briefly by 13% of participants.

When asked “Do you think mine tailings can be restored to provide ecosystem services?”, 65% of participants answered “yes”, while 35% answered “unsure”. The MCA plot (Figure 2) shows a division between male and female participants into two clusters. A higher percentage of females (73%) believed that restored mine tailings could provide ecosystem services compared to 55% of males. Meanwhile, 45% of males were unsure whether restored mine tailings could provide ecosystem services, compared to 27% of females.

4 Discussion

Our integration of ecosystem services and participatory methods bridges conventional divides between researchers and local communities. Through participatory dialogues, researchers can build trust and identify ecosystem services that align with community needs. This approach should be applied globally to promote socially just mine rehabilitation.

The complex relationship between Indigenous Filipino communities and mining provides critical context. Although colonisation impacted lowland groups in the Philippines, remote Indigenous Filipino communities retained greater cultural distinctness and ownership of ancestral lands than their counterparts in other colonised countries (Chaloping-March 2018). Initial mining acceptance has given way to dissatisfaction over environmental costs and unequal economic benefits (Holden et al. 2011). This situation—where Indigenous communities retain land rights but face development pressures in impoverished but mineral-rich regions—demands context-specific research that is sensitive to power dynamics. Our workshop feedback was positive, with participants expressing appreciation for the new knowledge they gained. We aim to build trust, avoid exploitation and ensure that communities benefit equitably in the long term.

Our focus group raised concerns about the project's potential environmental impacts, including its effects on groundwater integrity and community benefits. The researchers provided detailed responses where possible and acknowledged areas of uncertainty that require further investigation. Such transparency is key to building trust and resolving conflicts surrounding mining research (Moomen and Dewan 2017). We emphasised the importance of inclusive dialogue and knowledge coproduction between experts and communities, striving to create space for diverse perspectives.

Globally, the ecosystem services approach will play an important role in mine closure planning, as many regions will require rehabilitation. A key challenge lies in communicating the concept in locally relevant terms, moving beyond technical jargon. A problem illustrated by the fact that some participants found the term “ecosystem services” confusing. In future activities, using tangible examples can make ecosystem services more comprehensible (Delorme et al. 2021). Understanding local contexts and adapting research language will lead to more successful engagement. Helping communities grasp tangible examples of ecosystem services that will benefit them will make mine rehabilitation relatable.

Our findings align with studies showing that communities understand the environmental trade-offs of mining (Wang 2016), but our participants are more optimistic about restoration potential than other research has indicated (van der Plank et al. 2016). This optimism likely stems from framing ecological rehabilitation in terms of tangible community benefits through the ecosystem services lens, which promotes social acceptance. Communities are more receptive when environmental initiatives directly address local needs, rather than when they are imposed in a top-down manner that is disconnected from lived realities.

More female participants perceived the negative environmental impacts of mining but were also more optimistic about rehabilitation. This aligns with research showing that women tend to perceive greater environmental risk (Subiza-Pérez et al. 2020), which likely influences their stronger belief that mining degrades ecosystem services. However, women's greater empathy and commitment to environmental stewardship likely explain their higher confidence in rehabilitation. This indicates a relational perspective, where nature is viewed as capable of recovery when properly cared for. This view aligns with Chan et al.'s (2016) argument that relational values are central to Indigenous worldviews. Understanding how gender and other sociocultural factors shape environmental perceptions can help inform more inclusive research in mining rehabilitation.

The ecosystem services concept can provide a compelling narrative to engage communities focused on economic benefits. Some participants appreciated the idea that reclaimed mines could provide ecosystem services, indicating potential social acceptance. Local communities often find it difficult to conceptualise future mine closure because of the economic benefits they bring. However, if researchers can help communities envision scenarios in which former mines generate tangible benefits (Figure 3), a pluralistic ecosystem services approach can serve as an effective narrative for environmental stewardship.

By integrating community perspectives into project planning, our research presents a collaborative stewardship model. Traditional mine rehabilitation often relies on a Eurocentric worldview that separates humans and nature, but ecological restoration does not automatically result in societal benefits (Rosa et al. 2020). This approach is unsuitable for Indigenous communities, who have distinct ways of relating to ecosystems. Recent academic discourse has shifted towards more pluralistic approaches to valuing nature, acknowledging the limitations of conventional ecosystem service frameworks in capturing diverse worldviews. These approaches recognise that different communities may value their relationships with nature in ways that do not align with Eurocentric scientific categorisations (Pascual 2017). Recent research has introduced the concept of “relational values” to bridge the gap between instrumental and intrinsic values of nature (Klain et al. 2017). Chan (2016) argue that relational values play an important role in Indigenous worldviews of human-nature relationships. By adapting the ecosystem services framework beyond its Eurocentric origins, we can make this concept locally relevant and inclusive. In the context of mine rehabilitation, these pluralistic approaches can lead to more culturally appropriate and sustainable outcomes. Nevertheless, pluralistic valuation presents challenges in the mining context, where economic imperatives frequently dominate decision-making. Future research should explore how Indigenous valuations of nature can be integrated into mine rehabilitation practices. Our initial findings provide valuable guidance for more inclusive mine rehabilitation in the Philippines and beyond.

Author Contributions

Yuan Pan: conceptualisation, supervision, methodology, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, funding acquisition. Sarah Duddigan: conceptualisation, formal analysis, visualisation, writing – review and editing. Ma Catriona E. Devanadera: conceptualisation, investigation, methodology, supervision, project administration. Rico Neil M. Quierrez: investigation, project administration, writing – review and editing. Mark Tibbett: conceptualisation, supervision, writing – review and editing, funding acquisition.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.