Preview

GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY

Advanced search

Explaining The Effectiveness Of Forest And Water Management And Its Spatial Distribution In The Metropolitan District Of Quito

https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2020-106

Full Text:

Abstract

The effective implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to forests (SDG15) and water resources (SDG6) have significant implications for achieving quality of life for people in urban and rural areas. We carried out a study in the rural parishes of the Metropolitan District of Quito (MDQ), Ecuador. The objective of the study was to assess how biophysical factors, institutional capacity and institutional complexity influence the perceived effectiveness of forest and water management. Ordinal logistic regressions were applied and spatial lag regressions were also calculated to assess the possible spatial correlation of the dependent variables. Additionally, spatial autocorrelation analyses (Gi* and Anselin Local Moran´s I) were applied to assess the perceived effectiveness. The regressions results show that the number of stakeholders involved in the management of each resource, used as a proxy for institutional complexity, was a significant variable (p-value = 0.003 for forest resource management and p-value = 0.027 for water resource management) when explaining perceived effectiveness. The spatial autocorrelation results show spatial hotspots (90% and 99% confidence) and a cluster (95 % confidence) of forest management effectiveness as well as some spatial outliers (95% confidence) of water and forest management effectiveness. These findings were put in context to assess the current institutional arrangements used by local actors to implement SDGs 6 and 15. The results obtained may be useful for improving local public policies that seek integrated implementation for SDGs 6 and 15, while the applied methods can be transferred to the study of other SDGs.

About the Authors

Pablo Cabrera-Barona
Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales
Ecuador

Quito



Paúl Cisneros
Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales
Ecuador

Quito



References

1. Anderies John M. and Marco A. Janssen (2013). Sustaining the Commons. Tempe: Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity. Arizona State University. https://sustainingthecommons.org/.

2. Andersson Krister (2003). What Motivates Municipal Governments? Uncovering the Institutional Incentives for Municipal Governance of Forest Resources in Bolivia. The Journal of Environment & Development 12 (1), 5-27. http://jed.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1070496502250435.

3. Andersson Krister P. and Elinor Ostrom (2008). Analyzing Decentralized Resource Regimes from a Polycentric Perspective. Policy Sciences 41(1), 71-93. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-007-9055-6.

4. Bass Margot S., Matt Finer, Clinton N. Jenkins, Holger Kreft, Diego F. Cisneros-Heredia, Shawn F. McCracken, Nigel C. A Pitman, et al. (2010). Global Conservation Significance of Ecuador’s Yasuní National Park. P, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008767

5. Batterbury Simon P.J. and Jude L. Fernando (2006). Rescaling Governance and the Impacts of Political and Environmental Decentralization: An Introduction. World Development 34 (11) 1851–63. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305750X0600129X.

6. Bedón Tamayo, Gustavo Adolfo and Germán Roberto Guerra Terán (2012). Nuevo Modelo de Descentralización En El Ecuador a Partir de La Constitución Del 2008. In XVII Congreso Internacional Del CLAD Sobre La Reforma Del Estado y de La ADministarción Pública, 1–19. Cartagena.

7. Belay Mehretie and Woldeamlak Bewket (2015). Enhancing Rural Livelihoods through Sustainable Land and Water Management in Northwest Ethiopia. Geography, Environment, Sustainability 8(2), 79-100.

8. Berardo Ramiro and Mark Lubell (2016). Understanding What Shapes a Polycentric Governance System. Public Administration Review 76(5), 738-51., DOI: 10.1111/puar.12532.

9. Bodin Örjan and Christina Prell, eds. (2011). Social Networks and Natural Resource Management. Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10. Cisneros Paul, Pablo Cabrera-Barona and Víctor López (2020). Civil Society and the 2030 Agenda. An Assessment of the Implementation of SDGActions in the Metropolitan District of Quito. Iberoamerican Journal of Development Studies 9(1)., DOI: 10.26754/ojs_ried/ijds.431

11. Cook Scott J. Seung-Ho An and Nathan Favero (2018). Beyond Policy Diffusion: Spatial Econometric Models of Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 29(4): 591-608., DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muy050

12. Córdova Marco. (2011). Quito: Gobernanza Metropolitana e Innovación Territorial En El Nuevo Milenio. In Quito: Un Escenario de Innovación, edited by Fernando Carrión and Manuel Dammert, 133-67. Quito: MDMQ, OLACCHI. (in Spanish)

13. Cuesta Francisco, Manuel Peralvo, Andrés Merino-Viteri, Macarena Bustamante, Francis Baquero, Juan F. Freile, Priscilla Muriel and Omar Torres-Carvajal. (2017). Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation in Mainland Ecuador. Neotropical Biodiversity 3(1), 93-106., DOI: 10.1080/23766808.2017.1295705

14. Dávila María José, Gustavo Villares and Marcelo Placencia (2018). Recursos Financieros de Los Gobiernos Autónomos Descentralizados: Caso de Estudio Gobiernos Autónomos Descentralizados Municipales. Economía y Negocios 9(2), 65-82. (in Spanish)

15. Díaz-Cassou Javier and Hernán Viscarra Andrade (2017). La Brecha Fiscal Horizontal En Ecuador y Su Igualación. BID. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/spanish/document/La-brecha-fiscal-horizontal-en-Ecuador-y-su-igualación.pdf.

16. Eakin Hallie and Maria Carmen Lemos (2006). Adaptation and the State: Latin America and the Challenge of Capacity-Building under Globalization. Global Environmental Change 16(1), 7-18. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378005000713.

17. Faust Jörg, Florian Arneth, Nicolaus von der Goltz, Imke Harbers, Judith Illerhues and Michael Scholms, (2008). Political Fragmentation, Decentralization and Development Cooperation: Ecuador in the Latin American Context. Ecuador in the Latin American Context. Bonn: German Development Institute.

18. Fiszbein Ariel (1997). The Emergence of Local Capacity: Lessons From Colombia. World Development 25(7), 1029-43.

19. Geddes Barbara (1994). Politician’s Dilemma. Building State Capacity in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

20. Henry Adam Douglas and Björn Vollan (2014). Networks and the Challenge of Sustainable Development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39(1), 583-610.

21. Horn Philipp and Jean Grugel (2018). The SDGs in Middle-Income Countries: Setting or Serving Domestic Development Agendas? Evidence from Ecuador. World Development 109, 73–84., DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.04.005

22. INEC (2010). Censo de Población y Vivienda. https://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/proyecciones-poblacionales/ (in Spanish)

23. INEC (2020) Proyecciones Poblacionales. Quito.

24. Kooiman J. (2003). Governing as Governance. London: SAGE Publications.

25. Larson Anne M. and Jesse C Ribot. (2004). Democratic Decentralisation through a Natural Resource Lens: An Introduction. The European Journal of Development Research 16(1), 1-25. , DOI: 10.1080/09578810410001688707.

26. Leach William D. and Paul A. Sabatier (2005). Are Trust and Social Capital the Keys to Success? Watershed Partnerships in California and Washington. In Swimming Upstream, edited by Paul A Sabatier, Will Focht, Mark Lubell, Zev Trachtenberg, Arnold Vedlitz, and Marty Matlock, 233-58. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

27. Liu Shaoyang, Jianjun Bai and Jun Chen (2019). Measuring SDG 15 at the County Scale: Localization and Practice of SDGs Indicators Based on Geospatial Information. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 8(11)., DOI: 10.3390/ijgi8110515.

28. Myers Norman, Russell A. Mittermeier, Cristina G. Mittermeier, Gustavo A.B. da Fonseca and Jennifer Kent. (2000). Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities. Nature 403 (6772), 853-58., DOI: 10.1038/35002501

29. Nicholson-Crotty Sean and Sanya Carley (2016). Effectiveness, Implementation, and Policy Diffusion. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 16 (1), 78-97., DOI: 10.1177/1532440015588764

30. Okunola Akinbode Michael (2016). Nigeria: Positioning Rural Economy for Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology 4 (9), 752-57.

31. Oliveira José Antonio de (2002). Implementing Environmental Policies in Developing Countries Through Decentralization: The Case of Protected Areas in Bahia, Brazil. World Development 30(10), 1713-36.

32. Ostrom, Elinor (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press.

33. Ostrom Elinor ed. (2008) Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

34. Pradhan Neera Shrestha, Yao Fu, Liyun Zhang and Yongping Yang. (2017). Farmers’ Perception of Effective Drought Policy Implementation: A Case Study of 2009–2010 Drought in Yunnan Province, China. Land Use Policy 67, 48-56., DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.051.

35. Reddy P.S. (2016). Localising the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). African Journal of Public Affairs 9 (2), 1-15.

36. Ribot Jesse C., Arun Agrawal and Anne M. Larson (2006). Recentralizing While Decentralizing: How National Governments Reappropriate Forest Resources. World Development 34(11): 1864-86. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305750X06001306.

37. Rydin Yvonne and Eva Falleth, eds. (2006). Networks and Institutions in Natural Resource Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

38. Slack Lucy (2014). The Post-2015 Global Agenda -a Role for Local Government. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance. https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/cjlg/article/view/4069.

39. United Nations Development Programme (2014). Dialogue on ‘Localising the Post-2015 Development Agenda’. Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments for the Post-2015 Development Agenda Towards Habitat III. New York.

40. Wan Calvin, Geoffrey Qiping Shen and Ann Yu. (2014). The Role of Perceived Effectiveness of Policy Measures in Predicting Recycling Behaviour in Hong Kong. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (February), 141-51., DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.009.

41. Wiegleb Viviana and Antje Bruns (2018). Hydro-Social Arrangements and Paradigmatic Change in Water Governance: An Analysis of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sustainability Science 13(4), 1155-66., DOI: 10.1007/s11625-017-0518-1.

42. Wiek Arnim and Kelli L. Larson (2012). Water, People, and Sustainability—A Systems Framework for Analyzing and Assessing Water Governance Regimes. Water Resources Management 26(11), 3153-71.

43. Wilder Margaret and Patricia Romero Lankao (2006). Paradoxes of Decentralization: Water Reform and Social Implications in Mexico. World Development 34(11), 1977-95. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305750X06001367.

44. Wymann von Dach S., Bracher C., Peralvo M., Perez K. and Adler C. (2018). Leaving No One in Mountains Behind. Localizing the SDGs for Resilience of Mountain People and Ecosystems. Issue Brief on Sustainable Mountain Development. Bern. https://boris.unibe.ch/120130/1/Wymann_et_al_2018_Issue_Brief_Leaving_no_one_in_mountains_behind.pdf.

45. Xue Lan, Lingfei Weng and Hanzhi Yu (2018). Addressing Policy Challenges in Implementing Sustainable Development Goals through an Adaptive Governance Approach: A View from Transitional China. Sustainable Development 26(2): 150-58., DOI: 10.1002/sd.1726.

46. Young Oran R. (2003). Environmental Governance: The Role of Institutions in Causing and Confronting Environmental Problems. International Environmental Agreements 3, 377-93.

47. Zuindeau Bertrand (2006). Spatial Approach to Sustainable Development: Challenges of Equity and Efficacy. Regional Studies 40(5): 459-70., DOI: 10.1080/00343400600757437.


For citation:


Cabrera-Barona P., Cisneros P. Explaining The Effectiveness Of Forest And Water Management And Its Spatial Distribution In The Metropolitan District Of Quito. GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY. 2021;14(1):53-62. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2020-106

Views: 184


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2071-9388 (Print)
ISSN 2542-1565 (Online)