ArticleHeliyon2023
Mining-induced changes in ecosystem services value and implications of their economic and relational cost in a mining landscape, Ghana.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Public health impacts of gold mining in Ghana: A scoping review of environmental exposures and intersectoral resilience strategies.Journal of public health in Africa · 2026Review
- Social vulnerability: A driving force in amplifying the overall vulnerability of protected areas to natural hazards.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The surge in mining operations to meet the global demand for mineral resources adversely impacts ecosystem services and dependent households, but the issue barely attracts attention. This study evaluated the dynamics of mining-induced changes in the value of ecosystem services (ES) and the consequent economic and relational cost to rural households in the Ahafo region of Ghana. Face-to-face structured interviews with 200 householders were conducted in three mining communities. We determined relational values in the landscape through focus group discussion and the economic cost of the ecosystem services lost by applying replacement and contingency cost estimations. Old-growth forests, degraded forests, teak plantations, cultivated land, wetlands, and grassland were ecosystems identified in the mining landscape. The most valued ecosystem was old-growth forest, while the least was grassland. Provisioning service was the most valued ES, while supporting service was the least. Provisioning ES was rated the most impacted by the mine, whereas cultural services were the least affected. Mining activities caused a significant loss of 14 ecosystem services (including crops, livestock, capture fisheries, wild food, bush meat, biomass fuel, and freshwater) that were of priority to the communities. The affected households experienced relatively high monthly economic costs, approximating $300 per household, from the loss of priority ecosystem services. Canonical correspondence analysis revealed connections between ecosystem services valuation and the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. There was a perceived mine-adverse effect on the relational values of the people relating to cultural identity, sovereignty, symbolic value, security, subsistence and livelihood, sense of place, social cohesion, social memory, female emotional/mental health, and womanhood training opportunities. Actors in the mining industry should consider policies and management interventions that will limit ecosystem services loss, widely ascertain ecosystem benefits, and comprehensively mitigate the impact of their loss on households.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.