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

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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.