Document is current

Article History

Received: 27 May 2024

Accepted: 17 November 2025

First Online: 20 December 2025

Competing interests

: The authors declare no competing interests.

: This study was conducted as part of a doctoral research project at the University of Groningen (Netherlands) and the University of Barcelona (Spain). Ethical clearance was obtained through the Faculty of Spatial Sciences Research Ethics Committee, University of Groningen, under application no. 2018-05, approved on 18 October 2018. The approval covered the project “Socio-Environmental Impact Assessment of Extractive Projects: The role of social movements and elites in shaping policy in Chile and South Africa.” At the time of approval, the doctoral project was designed to produce several academic outputs, including journal articles. One of these planned outputs is the present article. The approval letter confirms compliance with the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and the National Ethics Council for Social and Behavioural Sciences. The research was also conducted in compliance with the research ethics of under the Declaration of Helsinki.

: Data collection was conducted over several fieldwork periods: 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2022. In total, 44 in-depth interviews were conducted (37 in the Commune of La Higuera and 7 in Santiago de Chile). Interviews lasted between 20 and 150 minutes, were conducted in Spanish, and were mostly audio-recorded; where recording was not possible, extensive notes were taken. Consent was personally obtained by the research team (the authors) from adult participants, who included: • 19 community members • 7 local activists • 4 business representatives • 4 local government representatives • 4 scientists • 2 environmental NGO representatives • 2 constitutional assembly members • 2 managers from the Dominga Mining Company No minors, patients, refugees, or other vulnerable groups were involved. • Written consent was obtained for in-person interviews when participants agreed to sign a printed form. • Oral consent was obtained when participants preferred not to sign, or when interviews were conducted remotely (by phone or videoconference). In such cases, a standardized consent script was read aloud, and verbal consent was audio-recorded with permission or noted in field notes.