IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/rgscpp/v14y2022i2p258-278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interdependencies between spatial planning and the mining laissez‐passer in cities: Policy analysis of the case of Ecuador

Author

Listed:
  • Karl‐Heinz Gaudry
  • Danilo Ibarra
  • Carla Carabajo
  • Katty Marin

Abstract

Urban planning as a shared resource is tied with the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Since UN‐Habitat III, Ecuador has embraced the opportunity for urban sustainability. However, while the right to the city is constitutionally anchored since 2008, the integration of strategic sectoral plans and their spatial link remains unclear. Aiming at a better understanding on how sectoral plans, particularly mining, are articulated to planning instruments, we reviewed the existing instruments as well as those from the mining sector. Rooted in qualitative methods, interviews were conducted with respondents involved in the development of underground and land use planning in Ecuador. Primary data were collected during fieldtrips, and policy analysis was carried out descriptively. Findings were differentiated by spatial planning instruments, underground mining concessions and their implications for the empirical case study of Zaruma. Results showed that mining companies capture their risks and externalities into the local development agenda, and that municipalities remain limited to corrective or reactive measures. While mining sectoral plans consider the relevance of local development plans (PDOT), we identify an instrumental vacuum across the whole ‘National Decentralized particularly Planning System’ as for articulating sectoral planning with local PDOT. With this instrumental gap mainly at the policy level, and instead of interpreting ill will from the strategic mining sector, the expertise in managing underground cadastres from the mining sector as well as the option of exploring instruments like underground master plants at the city level could level synergies towards coherence in development agendas as well as risk‐informed development across sectors and scales. El urbanismo como recurso compartido está ligado a la ‘tragedia de los comunes’. Desde ONU‐Hábitat III, Ecuador ha acogido la oportunidad de la sostenibilidad urbana. Sin embargo, aunque el derecho a la ciudad está anclado constitucionalmente desde 2008, la integración de los planes estratégicos sectoriales y su vinculación espacial sigue sin estar clara. Con el objetivo de comprender mejor cómo se articulan los planes sectoriales, en particular los referidos a la minería, con los instrumentos de planificación, se han revisado los instrumentos existentes y los del sector minero. Basándose en métodos cualitativos, se realizaron entrevistas a personas involucradas en el desarrollo de la planificación del uso del suelo y el subsuelo en Ecuador. Se recogieron datos primarios durante visitas sobre el terreno, y el análisis de las políticas se llevó a cabo de forma descriptiva. Los resultados se diferenciaron según los instrumentos de ordenación del territorio, las concesiones mineras subterráneas y sus implicaciones para el estudio de caso empírico de Zaruma. Los resultados mostraron que las empresas mineras incorporan sus riesgos y externalidades a la agenda de desarrollo local, y que los municipios se limitan a adoptar medidas correctivas o reactivas. Si bien los planes sectoriales mineros consideran la relevancia de los planes de desarrollo y ordenamiento territorial (PDOT) locales, se identificó un vacío instrumental en todo el “Sistema Nacional de Planificación Particular Descentralizada” en cuanto a la articulación de la planificación sectorial con los PDOT locales. Con esta brecha instrumental principalmente a nivel político, y en lugar de interpretar la mala voluntad del sector estratégico de la minería, la experiencia en la gestión de catastros subterráneos del sector minero, así como la opción de explorar instrumentos como las plantas maestras subterráneas a nivel de ciudad, podrían dirigir las sinergias hacia una coherencia en las agendas de desarrollo, así como el desarrollo informado por el riesgo en diferentes sectores y escalas. 共有資源としての都市計画は「コモンズの悲劇」と結びついている。エクアドルで第三回国連人間居住会議が開催されて以来、同国は都市の持続可能性の機会を利用してきた。2008年以降は、都市の権利は憲法で保障されているが、部門別の戦略的計画とそれらの空間的リンクの整合性は依然として不明確である。部門別計画、特に鉱業の計画が計画制度とどのように連動しているかよく理解するために、既存の制度と鉱業部門の制度をレビューする。定性的方法に基づき、エクアドルの地下開発と土地利用計画の従事者に面接による調査を行った。現地調査中に一次データを収集し、政策分析を記述的に実施した。調査結果は、空間的計画制度、地下採掘権、およびサルマの事例の実証的ケーススタディに対するそれらの意義によって区別された。結果から、鉱山事業者らは地域の開発アジェンダにリスクと外部性を取り込んでおり、自治体は是正措置や対応措置に限定されたままであることが示された。鉱業の部門別計画では、地域の開発計画(Development and Territorial Planning Plan:PDOT)の重要性が考慮されているが、National Decentralized Participatory Planning System(地方分権参加型計画システム)には全体的に、地域の開発計画と部門別計画との連動性に関して、制度的な空白があることが確認される。このような制度的ギャップが、主に政策レベルで存在しており、戦略的な鉱業部門からの反感を解釈するのではなく、地下の地籍を管理する鉱業部門からの専門知識と地下総合計画のような制度を都市レベルで探求するという選択肢は、開発アジェンダにおける一貫性と、部門と規模に関わらずリスク情報に基づく開発に向けた相乗効果を生む可能性がある。

Suggested Citation

  • Karl‐Heinz Gaudry & Danilo Ibarra & Carla Carabajo & Katty Marin, 2022. "Interdependencies between spatial planning and the mining laissez‐passer in cities: Policy analysis of the case of Ecuador," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 258-278, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:rgscpp:v:14:y:2022:i:2:p:258-278
    DOI: 10.1111/rsp3.12462
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12462
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rsp3.12462?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mancini, Lucia & Sala, Serenella, 2018. "Social impact assessment in the mining sector: Review and comparison of indicators frameworks," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 98-111.
    2. Dufey, Annie, 2020. "Iniciativas para transparentar los aspectos ambientales y sociales en las cadenas de abastecimiento de la minería: tendencias internacionales y desafíos para los países andinos," Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo 45604, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    3. Volchko, Yevheniya & Norrman, Jenny & Ericsson, Lars O. & Nilsson, Kristina L. & Markstedt, Anders & Öberg, Maria & Mossmark, Fredrik & Bobylev, Nikolai & Tengborg, Per, 2020. "Subsurface planning: Towards a common understanding of the subsurface as a multifunctional resource," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    4. David Harvey, 2003. "The right to the city," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 939-941, December.
    5. Rugadya, Margaret A., 2020. "Land tenure as a cause of tensions and driver of conflict among mining communities in Karamoja, Uganda: Is secure property rights a solution?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fancello, Giovanna & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2021. "Learning urban capabilities from behaviours. A focus on visitors values for urban planning," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    2. Jesús M. González-Pérez, 2022. "Evictions, Foreclosures, and Global Housing Speculation in Palma, Spain," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-26, February.
    3. Hesam Dehghani & Marc Bascompta & Ali Asghar Khajevandi & Kiana Afshar Farnia, 2023. "A Mimic Model Approach for Impact Assessment of Mining Activities on Sustainable Development Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, February.
    4. Peng Dai & Song Han & Guannan Fu & Hui Fu & Yanjun Wang, 2023. "Optimization Path of Metro Commercial Passageway Based on Computational Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-20, July.
    5. von der Tann, Loretta & Ritter, Stefan & Hale, Sarah & Langford, Jenny & Salazar, Sean, 2021. "From urban underground space (UUS) to sustainable underground urbanism (SUU): Shifting the focus in urban underground scholarship," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    6. Lucie Kubalíková & Marie Balková & Aleš Bajer & Karel Kirchner, 2024. "Is It Always Advisable to Promote Geodiversity and Geoheritage in a Traditional Recreational Area? A Case Study from Brno Reservoir and Its Surroundings (Czechia)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-29, November.
    7. Cherepovitsyn, Alexey & Solovyova, Victoria & Dmitrieva, Diana, 2023. "New challenges for the sustainable development of the rare-earth metals sector in Russia: Transforming industrial policies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    8. Van Assche, Kristof & Gruezmacher, Monica & Granzow, Michael, 2021. "From trauma to fantasy and policy. The past in the futures of mining communities; the case of Crowsnest Pass, Alberta," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Clara Irazábal, 2009. "One Size Does Not Fit All: Land Markets and Property Rights for the Construction of the Just City," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 558-563, June.
    10. Paúl Carrión-Mero & Maribel Aguilar-Aguilar & Fernando Morante-Carballo & María José Domínguez-Cuesta & Cristhian Sánchez-Padilla & Andrés Sánchez-Zambrano & Josué Briones-Bitar & Roberto Blanco-Torre, 2021. "Surface and Underground Geomechanical Characterization of an Area Affected by Instability Phenomena in Zaruma Mining Zone (Ecuador)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, March.
    11. IOVINO, Giorgia, 2017. "Waterfront Urbani: Approcci Rigenerativi e Visioni di Città," CELPE Discussion Papers 148, CELPE - CEnter for Labor and Political Economics, University of Salerno, Italy.
    12. Grace Abou Jaoude & Majd Murad & Olaf Mumm & Vanessa Miriam Carlow, 2024. "Operationalizing the open city concept: A case study of Berlin," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 51(3), pages 721-744, March.
    13. Christina G. Siontorou, 2023. "Fair Development Transition of Lignite Areas: Key Challenges and Sustainability Prospects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-14, August.
    14. Maria-Lluïsa Marsal-Llacuna, 2016. "City Indicators on Social Sustainability as Standardization Technologies for Smarter (Citizen-Centered) Governance of Cities," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 1193-1216, September.
    15. S. Vögele & K. Govorukha & P. Mayer & I. Rhoden & D. Rübbelke & W. Kuckshinrichs, 2023. "Effects of a coal phase-out in Europe on reaching the UN Sustainable Development Goals," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 879-916, January.
    16. Guzmán, Juan Ignacio & Karpunina, Alina & Araya, Constanza & Faúndez, Patricio & Bocchetto, Marcela & Camacho, Rodolfo & Desormeaux, Daniela & Galaz, Juanita & Garcés, Ingrid & Kracht, Willy & Lagos, , 2023. "Chile: On the road to global sustainable mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    17. Yuting Wu & Hongyan Wen & Meichen Fu, 2024. "A Review of Research on the Value Evaluation of Urban Underground Space," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-28, April.
    18. Muhirwa, Fabien & Shen, Lei & Elshkaki, Ayman & Hirwa, Hubert & Umuziranenge, Gloriose & Velempini, Kgosietsile, 2023. "Linking large extractive industries to sustainable development of rural communities at mining sites in Africa: Challenges and pathways," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    19. Louisa Pollok & Sebastian Spierling & Hans-Josef Endres & Ulrike Grote, 2021. "Social Life Cycle Assessments: A Review on Past Development, Advances and Methodological Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-29, September.
    20. K. C. Ho, 2021. "Land and Housing in Singapore: Three Conversations with Anne Haila," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 80(2), pages 325-351, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:rgscpp:v:14:y:2022:i:2:p:258-278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1757-7802 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.