Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hierarchical Modeling of Aggregate Mining Conflict in Ontario, Canada

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Group Decision and Negotiation in the Era of Multimodal Interactions (GDN 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 478))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 241 Accesses

Abstract

To develop strategic insights regarding the aggregate mining disputes in the province of Ontario, Canada, and to better understand their structured power hierarchies, we developed a two-level hierarchical graph model based on three case-specific classical conflict models. The stability analysis of the two-level hierarchical graph model shows that despite producing potential resolutions at the local level (sub-models), the model does not result in an equilibrium. This finding suggests that in the absence of preferences by the common decision-makers (i.e., provincial, and local governments), finding potential resolutions to this class of disputes may be difficult.

A. Akbari—Independent Researcher.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Aggregate Resources Act (1990). https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90a08. Accessed 27 Jan 2023

  2. Drew, L.J., Langer, W.H., Sachs, J.S.: Environmentalism and natural aggregate mining. Nat. Resour. Res. 11(1), 19–28 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014283519471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Langer, W.H., Arbogast, B.F.: Environmental impacts of mining natural aggregate. In: Fabbri, A.G., Gaál, G., McCammon, R.B. (eds.) Deposit and Geoenvironmental Models for Resource Exploitation and Environmental Security, pp. 151–169. Springer, Dordrecht (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0303-2_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Wernstedt, K.: Plans, planners, and aggregates mining: constructing an understanding. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 20(1), 77–87 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/073945600128992618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Poulin, R., Pakalnis, R.C., Sinding, K.: Aggregate resources: production and environmental constraints. Environ. Geol. 23(3), 221–227 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00771792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bradshaw, A.: Restoration of mined lands—using natural processes. Ecol Eng 8(4), 255–269 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(97)00022-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hilson, G.: An overview of land use conflicts in mining communities. Land Use Policy 19(1), 65–73 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00043-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dulias, R.: Landscape planning in areas of sand extraction in the silesian upland, Poland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 95(3), 91–104 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Wagner, E.: Law’s rurality: land use law and the shaping of people-place relations in rural Ontario. J. Rural Stud. 47, 311–325 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schiappacasse, P., Müller, B., Linh, L.T.: Towards responsible aggregate mining in Vietnam. Resources 8(3), 138 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Esteves, A.M.: Mining and social development: refocusing community investment using multi-criteria decision analysis. Resour. Policy 33(1), 39–47 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2008.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ontario Aggregate Resources Corporation: Aggregate Resources Statistics in Ontario (2019). https://toarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Stats_2019_Final.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2023

  13. Binstock, M., Carter-Whitney, M.: Aggregate Extraction in Ontario: A Strategy for the Future (2011). http://cielap.org/pdf/AggregatesStrategyExecSumm.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2023

  14. Statistics Canada: Table 17-10-0009-01 Population estimates, quarterly (2021). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710013901

  15. Statistics Canada: Table 36-10-0487-01 Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by sector and industry, provincial and territorial (x 1,000,000) (2021). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3610048701

  16. Winfield, M.S., Taylor, A.: Rebalancing the Load: The need for an aggregates conservation strategy for Ontario (2005). https://www.pembina.org/reports/Aggregatesfinal-web2.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2023

  17. Kellett, J.E.: The elements of a sustainable aggregates policy. J. Environ. Planning Manage. 38(4), 569–580 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1080/09640569512832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Port, C.M.: The Opportunities and Challenges of Aggregate Site Rehabilitation in Southern Ontario. An Evaluation of the Rehabilitation Process from 1992–2011 (2013). http://hdl.handle.net/10012/7966

  19. Baker, D., Shoemaker, D.: Environmental Assessment and Aggregate Extraction in Southern Ontario: The Puslinch Case (1995). https://uwaterloo.ca/applied-sustainability-projects/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/ontario_3_bakershoemaker_puslinch_aggregates.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2023

  20. Markvart, T.I.: Understanding Institutional Change and Resistance to Change Towards Sustainability: An Interdisciplinary Theoretical Framework and Illustrative Application to Provincial-Municipal Aggregates Policy (2009). http://hdl.handle.net/10012/4653

  21. Chambers, C., Sandberg, A.L.: Pits, peripheralization and the politics of scale: struggles over locating extractive industries in the town of Caledon, Ontario, Canada. Reg. Stud. 41(3), 327–338 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400600928319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Patano, S., Sandberg, L.A.: Winning back more than words? Power, discourse and quarrying on the niagara escarpment. Canadian Geographies/Les géographies canadiennes 49(1), 25–41 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0008-3658.2005.00078.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Baker, D., Slam, C., Summerville, T.: An evolving policy network in action: the case of construction aggregate policy in Ontario. Can. Public Adm. 44(4), 463–483 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2001.tb00901.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Philpot, S., Hipel, K.W.: We are going to make sure it doesn’t happen one way or another’. investigating a proposed quarry in Canada. In: Chang, N.-B., Fang, L. (eds.) Proceeding of 9th International Conference on Water Resources and Environment Research (ICWRER), pp. 21–26. University of Central Florida, Orlando (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Philpot, S., Mirnasl, N., Hipel, K.W.: Conflict in tiny town: aggregate mining at the alliston aquifer. In: Morais, D.C., Fang, L. (eds.) Group Decision and Negotiation: Methodological and Practical Issues, pp. 74–90. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07996-2_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Philpot, S., Hipel, K.W.: Investigating an aggregate mine proposal using the graph model for conflict resolution. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 112(6), 1812–1832 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2021.1994850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Philpot, S., Johnson, P.A., Hipel, K.W.: Analysis of a below-water aggregate mining case study in Ontario, Canada using values-centric online citizen participation. J. Environ. Planning Manage. 63(2), 352–368 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1588713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Government of Ontario: Aggregate resources (2014). https://www.ontario.ca/page/aggregate-resources. Accessed 27 Jan 2023

  29. Planning Act (1990). https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13

  30. Ministry of Northern Development Mines Natural Resources and Forestry: Aggregate resources (2021). https://www.ontario.ca/page/aggregate-resources. Accessed 30 Jan 2023

  31. Xu, H., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., Fang, L.: Conflict Resolution Using the Graph Model: Strategic Interactions in Competition and Cooperation. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77670-5

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Hipel, K.W., Fang, L.: The graph model for conflict resolution and decision support. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 51(1), 131–141 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2020.3041462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kilgour, D.M., Hipel, K.W.: The graph model for conflict resolution: past, present, and future. Group Decis. Negot. 14(6), 441–460 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-9002-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fang, L., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., Peng, X.: A decision support system for interactive decision making-Part I: model formulation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C (Appl. Rev.) 33(1), 42–55 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2003.809361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hipel, K.W., Fang, L., Kilgour, D.M.: The graph model for conflict resolution: reflections on three decades of development. Group Decis. Negot. 29(1), 11–60 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-019-09648-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fang, L., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M.: Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Wiley (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Nash, J.: Equilibrium points in N-person games. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 36(1), 48–49 (1950). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.36.1.48

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Nash, J.: Non-cooperative games. Ann. Math. 54(2), 286–295 (1951). https://doi.org/10.2307/1969529

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Fraser, N., Hipel, K.W.: Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Howard, N.: Paradoxes of Rationality Theory of Metagames and Political Behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kilgour, D.M., Hipel, K.W.: Conflict analysis methods: the graph model for conflict resolution. In: Kilgour, D.M., Eden, C. (eds.) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation, pp. 203–222. Springer, Dordrecht (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9097-3_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Hämäläinen, R.P., Luoma, J., Saarinen, E.: On the importance of behavioral operational research: the case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 228(3), 623–634 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.02.001

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Mingers, J., White, L.: A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207(3), 1147–1161 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.12.019

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Beimel, A., Tassa, T., Weinreb, E.: Characterizing Ideal weighted threshold secret sharing. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) TCC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3378, pp. 600–619. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30576-7_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Pratt, T.W.: Definition of programming language semantics using grammars for hierarchical graphs. In: Claus, V., Ehrig, H., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Graph-Grammars and Their Application to Computer Science and Biology, pp. 389–400. Springer, Heidelberg (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0025735

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Busatto, G., Kreowski, H., Kuske, S.: Abstract hierarchical graph transformation. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 15(4), 773–819 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960129505004846

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Drewes, F., Hoffmann, B., Plump, D.: Hierarchical graph transformation. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 64(2), 249–283 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1006/jcss.2001.1790

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. He, S., Kilgour, D.M., Hipel, K.W., Bashar, M.A.: A basic hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to water diversion conflicts in China. INFOR Inf. Syst. Oper. Res. 51(3), 103–119 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3138/infor.51.3.103

  49. He, S.: Hierarchical Graph Models for Conflict Resolution (2015). http://hdl.handle.net/10012/9826

  50. He, S., Hipel, K.W., Xu, H., Chen, Y.: A two-level hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to international climate change negotiations. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 29(3), 251–272 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-019-5448-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. He, S., Marc Kilgour, D., Hipel, K.W.: A general hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 257(3), 919–932 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.014

  52. IBI Group: Planning summary report proposed Hallman Pit 1894 Witmer Road, Wilmot Twp (2019). https://facility-admin.esolutionsgroup.ca/Uploads/Files/16E7D05A-FC42-4E34-A1EF-8C5C6858A2BF/zca-11-19/Planning%20Summary%20Report.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2023

  53. Government of Ontario: Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) (2021). https://ero.ontario.ca/. Accessed 30 Nov 2020

  54. Mirnasl, N., Philpot, S., Akbari, A., Hipel, K.W.: Assessing policy robustness under the COVID-19 crisis: an empirical study of the environmental policymaking system in Ontario, Canada. J. Environ. Planning Policy Manage. 24(6), 762–776 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2022.2051454

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    Nayyer Mirnasl, Keith W. Hipel & Simone Philpot

  2. Centre for International Governance Innovation, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    Keith W. Hipel

  3. Balsillie School of International Affairs, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    Keith W. Hipel

  4. Waterloo, ON, Canada

    Aidin Akbari

Authors
  1. Nayyer Mirnasl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keith W. Hipel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simone Philpot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aidin Akbari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nayyer Mirnasl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Yu Maemura

  2. University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Masahide Horita

  3. Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Liping Fang

  4. Toulouse University, Toulouse, France

    Pascale Zaraté

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Mirnasl, N., Hipel, K.W., Philpot, S., Akbari, A. (2023). Hierarchical Modeling of Aggregate Mining Conflict in Ontario, Canada. In: Maemura, Y., Horita, M., Fang, L., Zaraté, P. (eds) Group Decision and Negotiation in the Era of Multimodal Interactions. GDN 2023. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 478. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33780-2_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33780-2_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-33779-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-33780-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation