Indigenous Peoples and environmental research and monitoring within the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin: A systematic map

The North American Great Lakes basin faces management challenges worsened
by climate change, invasive species, and contaminants. Addressing these
issues requires a collective approach, drawing on a diversity of
perspectives and voices, including that of the Indigenous Peoples in the
region—Tribal Nations, First Nations, and Métis peoples. For these
priorities and needs to be meaningfully included, Indigenous communities,
Nations and Tribes must be supported to participate in and direct
environmental research and monitoring through approaches that respect
community-based research and learning. However, the extent of
environmental research and monitoring conducted with, for, or by
Indigenous Peoples (including Indigenous communities, Nations, and Tribes)
in the Great Lakes region is not well documented. Without a clear
understanding of what research is taking place, where, and how Indigenous
Peoples are involved, it is difficult to assess whether these efforts are
truly inclusive or aligned with Indigenous priorities—highlighting the
need to systematically map and characterize these efforts. A systematic
mapping protocol was applied to identify, gather, and review
English-language peer-reviewed literature on environmental research and
monitoring in the Great Lakes basin conducted with, for and by Indigenous
Peoples. Sixty studies were identified and included in the systematic map
database gathered and analyzed for this review. The systematic map reveals
that 57% of the studies took place in or around Lake Superior. Many
focused on human health risk assessments, particularly related to
environmental contaminant exposure. The role of Indigenous Peoples varied,
with most studies reporting involvement at the data gathering and
collection stage. Practical Implication: This map describes the extent,
focus, and roles of Indigenous Peoples in Great Lakes research and
monitoring, based on peer-reviewed English literature. If this literature
reflects broader research activity, findings suggest limited
representation—only 19% of Indigenous communities and Nations across the
basin were included, and few were engaged in early-stage planning or
priority setting. However, this literature likely underrepresents the full
scope of Indigenous-led or co-developed work. To support more equitable
Great Lakes research, future efforts should promote broader geographic
inclusion, increased Indigenous leadership across all stages, and greater
transparency regarding Indigenous involvement.