IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i8p1339-d891098.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Obstacles to the Development of Integrated Land-Use Planning in Developing Countries: The Case of Paraguay

Author

Listed:
  • Sonia Delphin

    (School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA)

  • Katherine A. Snyder

    (School of Geography, Development and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA)

  • Sophia Tanner

    (Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Kansas City, MO 64105, USA)

  • Karim Musálem

    (World Wildlife Fund (WWF)-Paraguay, Asunción 001228, Paraguay)

  • Stuart E. Marsh

    (School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA)

  • José R. Soto

    (School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA)

Abstract

Land-use planning identifies the best land-use options by considering environmental, economic, and social factors. Different theoretical land-use plan models can be found in the literature; however, few studies focus on its practical application and particular challenges in different contexts, especially in the Global South. We use expert surveys to explore the feasibility and relevance of integrated land-use planning and data acquisition in developing countries using Paraguay as an example. We identify the challenges of developing land-use plans and strategies to navigate these barriers to speed up its implementation. The results show that it might be difficult to develop an integrated land-use plan in the context of developing countries, mainly due to data availability, lack of political will, lack of stakeholder engagement, and insufficient financial and human resources. We also highlight examples of creative ways in which previous land-use planning projects and studies navigated these challenges, including stakeholder consultations, use of simpler models that required less data, prioritization of data collection, and engagement of decision makers throughout the process. We provide crucial information to improve land-use planning processes in Paraguay and across the Global South in areas with similar contexts and challenges that aim to develop in a more sustainable way.

Suggested Citation

  • Sonia Delphin & Katherine A. Snyder & Sophia Tanner & Karim Musálem & Stuart E. Marsh & José R. Soto, 2022. "Obstacles to the Development of Integrated Land-Use Planning in Developing Countries: The Case of Paraguay," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-21, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:8:p:1339-:d:891098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/8/1339/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/8/1339/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sawathvong, Silavanh, 2004. "Experiences from developing an integrated land-use planning approach for protected areas in the Lao PDR," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(6), pages 553-566, October.
    2. Annet Forkink, 2017. "Benefits and challenges of using an Assessment of Ecosystem Services approach in land-use planning," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(11), pages 2071-2084, November.
    3. Evidence Chinedu Enoguanbhor & Florian Gollnow & Blake Byron Walker & Jonas Ostergaard Nielsen & Tobia Lakes, 2021. "Key Challenges for Land Use Planning and Its Environmental Assessments in the Abuja City-Region, Nigeria," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, April.
    4. Langemeyer, Johannes & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Haase, Dagmar & Scheuer, Sebastian & Elmqvist, Thomas, 2016. "Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 45-56.
    5. Balázsi, Ágnes & Dänhardt, Juliana & Collins, Sue & Schweiger, Oliver & Settele, Josef & Hartel, Tibor, 2021. "Understanding cultural ecosystem services related to farmlands: Expert survey in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    6. Turkelboom, Francis & Leone, Michael & Jacobs, Sander & Kelemen, Eszter & García-Llorente, Marina & Baró, Francesc & Termansen, Mette & Barton, David N. & Berry, Pam & Stange, Erik & Thoonen, Marijk, 2018. "When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 566-578.
    7. Oana-Cătălina Popescu & Antonio-Valentin Tache & Alexandru-Ionuț Petrișor, 2022. "Methodology for Identifying Ecological Corridors: A Spatial Planning Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-25, July.
    8. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.
    9. Adams, V.M. & Álvarez-Romero, J.G. & Capon, S.J. & Crowley, G.M. & Dale, A.P. & Kennard, M.J. & Douglas, M.M. & Pressey, R.L., 2017. "Making time for space: The critical role of spatial planning in adapting natural resource management to climate change," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 57-67.
    10. Paul Waddell, 2011. "Integrated Land Use and Transportation Planning and Modelling: Addressing Challenges in Research and Practice," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 209-229.
    11. Karimi, Azadeh & Adams, Vanessa M., 2019. "Planning for the future: Combining spatially-explicit public preferences with tenure policies to support land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 497-508.
    12. Robin Naidoo & Taylor H Ricketts, 2006. "Mapping the Economic Costs and Benefits of Conservation," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(11), pages 1-12, October.
    13. Sallustio, Lorenzo & Pettenella, Davide & Merlini, Paolo & Romano, Raoul & Salvati, Luca & Marchetti, Marco & Corona, Piermaria, 2018. "Assessing the economic marginality of agricultural lands in Italy to support land use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 526-534.
    14. Ruckelshaus, Mary & McKenzie, Emily & Tallis, Heather & Guerry, Anne & Daily, Gretchen & Kareiva, Peter & Polasky, Stephen & Ricketts, Taylor & Bhagabati, Nirmal & Wood, Spencer A. & Bernhardt, Joanna, 2015. "Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 11-21.
    15. García-López, Gustavo A. & Arizpe, Nancy, 2010. "Participatory processes in the soy conflicts in Paraguay and Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 196-206, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yi, Zhang & Zhou, Wenwu & Razzaq, Asif & Yang, Yao, 2023. "Land resource management and sustainable development: Evidence from China's regional data," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).

    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. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    2. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    3. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    4. Juliana Uribe-Aguado & Sara L. Jiménez-Ariza & María N. Torres & Natalia A. Bernal & Mónica M. Giraldo-González & Juan P. Rodríguez, 2022. "A SUDS Planning Decision Support Tool to Maximize Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, April.
    5. Dick, Jan & Turkelboom, Francis & Woods, Helen & Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & Primmer, Eeva & Saarela, Sanna-Riikka & Bezák, Peter & Mederly, Peter & Leone, Michael & Verheyden, Wim & Kelemen, Eszter & H, 2018. "Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 552-565.
    6. Fontana, Veronika & Ebner, Manuel & Schirpke, Uta & Ohndorf, Markus & Pritsch, Hanna & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Kurmayer, Rainer, 2023. "An integrative approach to evaluate ecosystem services of mountain lakes using multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    7. Rémi Jaligot & Jérôme Chenal, 2019. "Integration of Ecosystem Services in Regional Spatial Plans in Western Switzerland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    8. Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O. & Louda, J. & Arcidiacono, A. & Brzoska, P. & Bue, M. & Cetin, N.I. & Dworczyk, C. & Dubova, L. & Fitch, A. & Jones, L. & La Rosa, D. & Mascarenhas, A. & Ronchi, S. & Schla, 2021. "Lessons learned from implementing the ecosystem services concept in urban planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    9. Harrison, Paula A. & Dunford, Rob & Barton, David N. & Kelemen, Eszter & Martín-López, Berta & Norton, Lisa & Termansen, Mette & Saarikoski, Heli & Hendriks, Kees & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Czúcz, , 2018. "Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 481-498.
    10. Jax, Kurt & Furman, Eeva & Saarikoski, Heli & Barton, David N. & Delbaere, Ben & Dick, Jan & Duke, Guy & Görg, Christoph & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Harrison, Paula A. & Maes, Joachim & Pérez-Soba, M, 2018. "Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 415-427.
    11. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2019. "A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Marek Helis & Maria Strzelczyk & Wojciech Golimowski & Aleksandra Steinhoff-Wrześniewska & Anna Paszkiewicz-Jasińska & Małgorzata Hawrot-Paw & Adam Koniuszy & Marek Hryniewicz, 2021. "Biomass Potential of the Marginal Land of the Polish Sudetes Mountain Range," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-16, November.
    13. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    14. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Fernando Pérez-Rodríguez & José María Martín-Martín & João C. Azevedo, 2019. "Planning for Democracy in Protected Rural Areas: Application of a Voting Method in a Spanish-Portuguese Reserve," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, October.
    15. Antonio J. Castro & Cristina Quintas-Soriano & Jodi Brandt & Carla L. Atkinson & Colden V. Baxter & Morey Burnham & Benis N. Egoh & Marina García-Llorente & Jason P. Julian & Berta Martín-López & Feli, 2018. "Applying Place-Based Social-Ecological Research to Address Water Scarcity: Insights for Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    16. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    17. Van Oijstaeijen, Wito & Van Passel, Steven & Back, Phil & Cools, Jan, 2022. "The politics of green infrastructure: A discrete choice experiment with Flemish local decision-makers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    18. Andrés M. García & Inés Santé & Xurxo Loureiro & David Miranda, 2020. "Spatial Planning of Green Infrastructure for Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change at a Regional Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-22, December.
    19. Min Liu & Jianpeng Fan & Yuanzheng Li & Qizheng Mao, 2023. "Ecosystem Service Optimisation in the Central Plains Urban Agglomeration Based on Land Use Structure Adjustment," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, July.
    20. Theodore Tsekeris & Klimis Vogiatzoglou, 2011. "Spatial agent-based modeling of household and firm location with endogenous transport costs," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 77-98, July.

    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:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:8:p:1339-:d:891098. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.