Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGongbuzeren
dc.contributor.authorLi, Y.
dc.contributor.authorLi, W.
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-08T18:37:00Z
dc.date.available2021-03-08T18:37:00Z
dc.date.issued2015-07
dc.identifier.citationGongbuzeren, Li, Y., & Li, W. (2015). China’s Rangeland Management Policy Debates: What Have We Learned? Rangeland Ecology & Management, 68(4), 305–314.
dc.identifier.issn0022-409x
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.rama.2015.05.007
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/656912
dc.description.abstractIn China, three major rangeland management policies have caused dramatic social, economic, and ecological changes for pastoral regions in the past 30 yr: the Rangeland Household Contract Policy (RHCP), Rangeland Ecological Construction Projects (RECPs), and the Nomad Settlement Policy (NSP). The impacts of these policies are greatly debated. In this paper, we conduct a systematic review of academic perspectives on the impacts of the three policies and the causes of ineffective and negative effects. The findings demonstrate that academics increasingly report negative impacts of RHCP on the ecosystem, animal husbandry, pastoralist livelihoods, and pastoral society. An increasing number of scholars, although not the majority, attribute the negative impacts to improper policy itself rather than incomplete implementation. Regarding the RECPs, most academics believe that policies have improved the rangeland ecosystem but with obvious negative impacts on pastoralist livelihoods and pastoral society; they attribute the problems to incomplete policy implementation. For the NSP, most academics report positive impacts on pastoralist livelihoods and animal husbandry, although recent researchers have identified negative impacts on pastoral society and the ecosystem. Although they are not in the mainstream, more and more academics attribute the negative impacts to improper policy. Finally, we apply the concept of coupled social-ecological systems (SES) to further analyze the outcomes of these three policies and propose a more flexible and inclusive land tenure policy that recognizes the diverse local institutional arrangements; an integrated RECP framework that considers coadaptation between social and ecological systems; and facilitating voluntary choice in nomad settlement and developing innovative approaches to provide social services for pastoralists who would like to remain in pastoral areas. As these three policy approaches are applied in rangeland management and pastoral development worldwide, this paper may provide useful implications for future policy development in pastoral regions on a global scale. © 2015 Society for Range Management. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSociety for Range Management
dc.relation.urlhttps://rangelands.org/
dc.rightsCopyright © Society for Range Management.
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
dc.subjectcoupled social-ecological system
dc.subjectnomad settlement
dc.subjectrangeland ecological restoration
dc.subjectrangeland management
dc.subjectrangeland tenure
dc.titleChina's Rangeland Management Policy Debates: What Have We Learned?
dc.typeArticle
dc.typetext
dc.identifier.journalRangeland Ecology & Management
dc.description.collectioninformationThe Rangeland Ecology & Management archives are made available by the Society for Range Management and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact lbry-journals@email.arizona.edu for further information.
dc.eprint.versionFinal published version
dc.source.journaltitleRangeland Ecology & Management
dc.source.volume68
dc.source.issue4
dc.source.beginpage305
dc.source.endpage314
refterms.dateFOA2021-03-08T18:37:00Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
China-s-Rangeland-Management-P ...
Size:
1.409Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record