English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

With the continuous improvement and deepened reform of institutional mechanisms in resource-based cities (RBCs) in China, mining areas have become significant urban brownfields with typical geological hazards that cause serious pollution and other disasters like landslides and subsidence. Therefore, the governance of mining areas becomes a grant challenge for local governments to sustain urban development, and different governance approaches could result in diverse effects on urban sustainability, which have not been studied in current research. In the last twenty years, the governance model of mining areas in RBCs in China can be classified into government governance model (GGM), joint governance model (JGM), and market governance model (MGM). Based on the traditional theories, we innovatively propose a structural measurement and mechanism analysis of mine management efficiency from the perspective of residents’ perceptions by designing structural equation modeling (SEM) for spatial distribution issues. The main objective is to disclose the comparative advantages of three different mine governance models and the prerequisites and considerations for the application of the three governance models in the institutional environment with Chinese characteristics, in addition to the answers of pros and cons of the three types of governance models. We find: (1) the GGM plays a necessary, positive, and effective role in guiding the governance process, and has a high level of resident satisfaction in relation to the public interest of the masses, but a problem is that the favorable groups in the implementation process mainly include the middle and senior officers. (2) The JGM as a transition and supplement to the GGM, and many large serious governance problems that cannot be solved by the GGM are reasonably solved by JGM. Lastly (3), the MGM is very different from the above two governance models, as it just concentrates on the governance of storage, transportation, and public lands within mining areas that are directly relevant to enterprises’ benefits. It indicates the urgent reforming needs of current governance models for efficient governance by integrating government, enterprise, and local communities.

sustainability

Comparative Analysis of Three Governance Modes for Resource-Based Urban Sustainability in China Based on Residents’ Perception: An Empirical Study of Pingdingshan City, Henan Province, China