Research

INTRODUCTION

Anthropogenic changes to land, water, air, and other components of our life-support system have triggered environmental crises and demonstrated a failure to govern social and economic activities sustainably (Steffen et al. 2015). There have been increasing inquiries about how institutional arrangements could effectively govern both human affairs and the environment (e.g., Mitchell 2005, Montgomery 2013, Söderström and Kern 2017, Johnson 2019), particularly given challenges associated with the complexity of social-ecological systems (SESs). Like the boundaries between individual ecosystems, those separating specific institutions are difficult to precisely identify due to interdependencies and overlaps in their spatial domains of functioning (Young 2003). This means that identifying changes that can be attributed to specific institutional arrangements is methodologically challenging (Young 2002). Environmental policies are also rarely formulated to manage complexity and commonly give little consideration to governance arrangements of other sectors (e.g., Oberthür and Gehring 2011, Ren and Shou 2013, Durant et al. 2017). Moreover, analyses of environmental policies have tended to focus on biophysical and socioeconomic criteria of specific scales, often neglecting the influences of institutional arrangements emanating from other sectors or scales (Brondizio et al. 2009).

The rising density of institutions increases the likelihood of their interaction or interplay. Institutions interact when there are functional interdependencies stemming from inherent connections, or strategic links formed through political design and management (Young 2003). For example, before the European Union’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) established the river basin management in 2000 to address institutional interplay between water management and land-use policy and planning, Moss (2004) noted that water managers had long warned of the substantial impact of urban development and intensive agricultural production over which they had very limited control. Fifteen years after its adoption, Voulvoulis et al. (2017) highlighted delays in delivering the WFD objectives due to interaction of the WFD with pre-existing institutions. The systemic thinking the WFD called for did not materialize because member states continued water management practices that regulated individual pollutants and neglected complexity (Voulvoulis et al. 2017)

Institutions interact horizontally and vertically, and this interplay can be more or less symmetric (Elsässer et al. 2022). The resultant consequences can be synergistic or disruptive. For example, Finland and Sweden adopted different national strategies for adaptation to climate change, which also affected their competence, capacity, and compatibility to incorporate and implement climate goals set at the EU level (Glaas and Juhola 2013). In the global south, international and national regulations can significantly affect local institutions. Failing to respect local institutional legacies, including informal institutions, can adversely affect the implementation of new policies or even cause them to fail (Lukat et al. 2022). From a historical perspective, North (1990) suggests that in contrast to formal institutions that often resist changes, informal institutions such as behaviors, habits, and social norms, can be more easily influenced and harnessed to drive the transformation of formal institutions.

Different actors influence ecosystems differently. In the seafood industry, over a dozen transnational seafood corporations that Österblom et al. (2015) refer to as “keystone actors” could trigger cascading effects within the entire seafood industry, fostering a critical transition toward enhanced management of marine living resources and ecosystems, despite their small numbers. Galaz et al. (2018) similarly found “keystone actors” among international financial actors, whose activities in globally significant forest biomes could either bolster or undermine the stability of Earth’s climate system. Unlike the keystone actors, “dominant actors,” analogous to dominant species in ecosystems, often wield significant influence in shaping ecosystems due to their abundance. In land management, the “dominant actors” are smallholder farmers whose lives depend on land. Their absolute number is so large that even simple interventions they adopt can have regional impacts on land degradation (Cherlet et al. 2018). However, their behaviors and outcomes of their actions are nested in both horizontal and vertical institutional arrangements: they need to navigate multiple levels of governance, alongside internal and external drivers of change (Berkes 2006).

Our world is a product of choices and actions of individuals and collectives of all levels, characterized by a complex web of interconnected drivers, dynamic structures, emergent phenomena, and unintended consequences (Bai et al. 2016). Global environmental changes raise the question of how humanity can sustain a liveable biosphere and take care of those already vulnerable in the near-term, as well as preventing further unintended consequences, such as worsening inequality and exacerbated damage to natural resources (Folke et al. 2021). Dramatic changes to the planet have exposed humans and ecosystems to increasing uncertainties and complexities and put human security and resilience in the spotlight (O’Brien and Barnett 2013). Folke (2016) cautions that if sustainability is to be taken seriously, resilience of SESs and its biosphere connections should be a priority.

Despite growing recognition of the need to build resilience in communities to reduce uncertainties and surprises while navigating the complex and dynamic environment (Olsson et al. 2014), efforts have focused on overcoming sudden events and on agency building (Berkes and Ross 2013, Koliou et al. 2018). However, changes such as those arising from floods and droughts, or fluctuations in commodity and energy markets, are beyond individual agency, and addressing the underlying reasons demands long-term efforts. Social security “as an effective automatic stabilizer in times of crisis, contributes to mitigating the economic and social impacts of economic downturns, to enhancing resilience against future shocks and achieving faster recovery towards inclusive growth and development” (International Labour Organization, accessed September 2023). This brand of resilience is an attribute fostered at the individual level but in a systemic way, so that it manifests across local, regional, and national levels. Interest in the role of social protection for local communities in adapting to the impacts of or mitigating climate change has dramatically increased (e.g., Johnson and Krishnamurthy 2010, Davies et al. 2013, O’Brien and Barnett 2013, Weldegebriel and Prowse 2013, Carter and Janzen 2018, Tenzing 2020). However, systemic resilience in tackling land degradation has so far received limited attention.

Dryland degradation has profoundly affected the livelihoods of over a billion people, predominantly in developing countries, where most livelihoods directly depend on the land (Cherlet et al. 2018). Communities in these areas also face other biophysical and socioeconomic challenges such as malnutrition and extended droughts, making it both urgent and challenging to build resilience (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification [UNCCD] 2022). Addressing land degradation is pivotal for ecosystem restoration, climate change adaptation, biodiversity conservation, and achieving food security (Montanarella et al. 2018). Desertification and land degradation extend beyond natural resource management to human well-being, environmental management, and socioeconomic development, putting related institutional arrangements in a very testing position.

China is significantly affected by desertification and land degradation challenges, but also one of the most proactive nations in addressing them (Kong et al. 2021). The implementation of the National Environmental Programs (NEPs) began in the northwestern drylands in China over 20 yrs ago. Administered by several national departments with the central government’s financial support, NEP implementation was at first supported at all levels and achieved environmental improvement (Chinese Academy of Sciences [CAS]-National Forestry and Grassland Administration [NFGA] 2018, NFGA 2020). However, difficulties in restoration of local ecosystems have increasingly been reported (Yuan et al. 2015, Ma et al. 2022); communities have been impoverished in some NEP locations (Wang et al. 2023); and farmers and herders have returned to cultivate land that was restored under the NEPs (Wei et al. 2020). These challenges question the sustainability of environmental governance under the NEPs, and how to safeguard both land and people under changing circumstances.

Although China has kept adjusting its environmental policies based on feedback and assessments, the mechanisms NEPs employed remain widely endorsed by policy makers and scientists (Lu et al. 2020; https://www.nfga.cn, accessed July 2023). Our case study of China in this paper offers a bottom-up perspective on how local biophysical and socioeconomic subsystems interact in the presence of the NEPs and other institutional arrangements, and what are the consequences for people and land on the ground. Specifically, we seek to answer the following questions:

1. What kind of changes have happened in local SESs and what is the role of the NEPs therein?
2. How have these changes affected local livelihoods and behaviors and attitudes toward the NEPs and the land?
3. What role have other drivers played in the changes and what are their implications?

An inductive approach is taken to identify patterns and themes in local SESs (Thomas 2006). We first examine the changes in local ecological and social systems in light of the views of scientists, grassroots implementers, as well as farmers and herders. Next, we explore farmers’ and herders’ attitudes toward land, and their concerns and needs. We then analyze secondary data from the National Statistical Yearbooks to understand the root cause(s) and driver(s) of their needs and concerns. We conclude by demonstrating through the analytical framework of social-ecological-technological-regimes (SETRs), how essential institutional arrangements can contribute to systemic resilience building and enable people to adeptly navigate changes and safeguard land in a changing and complex world.

METHODOLOGY

National environmental programs (NEPs) for combating desertification in China

Since the start of 21st century, China’s government has taken a leading role in research, investment, administration, and implementation of the NEPs (Table 1) (Kong et al. 2021). In contrast to earlier approaches, the design and implementation of the NEPs was undertaken against the backdrop of prosperous economic development (Lu et al. 2020). The ability of the central government to provide generous compensation to local communities and governments for retired sloping and pasture land, and to subsidize tree planting and grass reseeding, initially garnered widespread support (Xu et al. 2006). Several assessments found that these programmes have reversed land degradation and improved dryland environmental quality, albeit with increased pressure on local water resources (Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences [IGSNRR-CAS] 2014, Lyu et al. 2020, Li et al. 2021). The compensation mechanisms later were formally institutionalized as part of environmental regulations and rules in 2020 (National Development and Reform Commission [NDRC] 2020).

The scale of the NEPs is enormous. By 2015, approximately 500 million people had directly engaged in these programs, and over 40 million households or 150 million farmers and herders were involved by 2019 in the “Grain for Green” project (GGP) alone (Lu et al. 2020). The NEPs and their implementation have brought various actors together to collaborate on reversing and rehabilitating the degraded land. They provide a unique interface to observe people’s interactions and responses, and to investigate the underlying reasons behind them. It is also a good interface for examining how communities respond to external changes and drivers.

The social-ecological-technological-regimes (SETRs) framework

Social-ecological-technological-regimes are complex adaptive systems in which people and nature are inextricably linked (Berkes et al. 2000). Based on the concept, frameworks have been developed for the study of the intertwined human and natural systems, among which those of Berkes et al. (2000), Anderies et al. (2004), and Ostrom (2007, 2009) are very representative (Colding and Barthel 2019).

Berkes and colleagues’ (2000) SESs framework stresses a systems approach in which resources cannot be treated as discrete entities and isolated from the rest of the ecosystem and social system. It has a people-oriented approach that focuses on institutions and property rights, emphasizing people in social, political, and economic organizations, with institutions as the mediating factor governing the relationship between a social group and its life-support ecosystems (Berkes et al. 2000). The framework has four sets of elements (ecosystem, people and technology, local knowledge, and property rights institutions) and focuses on key interactions, practices, and social mechanisms that result in sustainable outcomes. Although descriptive, it defines the social system as consisting of people and technology, noting that the type of technology available to potential users for exploiting resources can have significant impacts on resources and ecosystems in different ways (Berkes et al. 2000).

In the SESs framework developed by Anderies et al. (2004), institutional configurations are put in the center to observe how they affect interactions among resources, resource users, public infrastructure providers, and public infrastructure. The framework acknowledges that most components of SESs, such as ecological systems and social networks, are self-organizing, only rules of interaction are designed, and that uncertainty is high as experimentation is difficult or impossible. The framework proposes the concept of robustness to better understand how SESs deal with disruptions. Two types of external disturbances are introduced into the framework, one is the biophysical disruptions such as climate change, the other includes socioeconomic changes such as economic and political changes, to examine how institutional arrangements affect the robustness of SESs (Anderies et al. 2004).

Ostrom (2007) suggested a multilevel, nested framework for analyzing outcomes arising from SESs, emphasizing relationships of complex SESs at different spatial and temporal scales. Her framework considers that all resources are embedded in complex SESs, composed of multiple subsystems at multiple levels. The first-level core subsystems are resource systems, resource units, governance systems, and users. Each core subsystem is made up of multiple second-level variables, which are further composed of deeper-level variables; they are relatively separable but interact to produce outcomes at the SES level, which in turn feedback to affect these subsystems and their components, as well other larger or smaller SESs (Ostrom 2009). This framework takes into consideration the complexities and increasing connectivity and functional interdependence of the components of SESs at different levels and across them.

The social-ecological-technological systems (SETSs) framework was developed for application in urban areas (McPhearson et al. 2022). Interactions between humans and nature in cities are intense and complicated, making technological factors stand out as a dimension that enhances the complexities when addressing issues such as multi-functionality, systemic valuation, scale mismatch of ecosystem services, and inequity and injustice in cities (McPhearson et al. 2015, Keeler et al. 2019, Matsler et al. 2021). The SETSs framework acknowledges the interactions and interdependencies among social-cultural-economic-governance systems (social), climate-biophysical-ecological systems (ecological), and technological-engineered-infrastructural systems (McPhearson et al. 2022). With ties to different sectors of urban planning and overall governance, the SETSs framework provides opportunities for further mainstreaming nature-based solutions in urban development.

These SESs frameworks recognize the interlinkages between ecological and socioeconomic subsystems and the complexities therein, providing the theoretical and analytical foundation when environmental issues are to be addressed. But their foci differ. Besides, they were developed under different contexts, and the data and understanding these resource-use related frameworks built on have already evolved. For example, traditional ecological concepts such as regime and resilience have been increasingly applied in the framework of SESs ( e.g., Folke 2016, Biggs et al. 2018). With the growing recognition of adaptive governance, new concerns such as human security (O’Brian and Barnett 2013) and planetary boundaries (Folke et al. 2021) have entered studies of global environmental change. Although they acknowledge cross-scale interactions, no scale(s) were explicitly defined in these frameworks.

Building on this scholarship, we develop a SETRs framework to guide analysis and discussion in this study (Fig. 1). The framework acknowledges the multiple levels and embeddedness of SESs (Ostrom 2007), how exogenous drivers (such as climate change) and endogenous changes (such as institutions) would affect the SESs (Anderies et al. 2004), and recognizes that technology can not only influence the way people use land but also how they safeguard it (Berkes et al. 2000, McPhearson et al. 2022). It focuses on local SESs as land use and efforts to address land degradation are embedded in local SESs (Cherlet et al. 2018). The SETRs framework is composed of biophysical, socioeconomic, and technological regimes, with the latter two nesting within the boundaries of the biophysical regime (Folke et al. 2021), and the technological regime (the outer colored circle around the socioeconomic regime) being an indispensable part of sustainable land management (SLM) (World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies [WOCAT] 2016), controlling development in the socioeconomic regime. Institutions of various scales and levels are organizing activities and operating in the socioeconomic regime. For local farmers and herders, they are affected not only by land they depend on, the NEPs implemented on the land, and institutional arrangements from other sectors and scales, but also drivers from the technological and biophysical regimes. While focusing on the local level, the SETRs framework helps highlight interactions across scales.

Moreover, the concept of regime is adopted instead of subsystem, emphasizing a spectrum of conditions across which a system may fluctuate while retaining a similar structure and function (Biggs et al. 2012), aligning with the concept of resilience this study is dealing with. The concept of regime also facilitates regime shift analysis, enabling dynamic explorations of drivers, interactions, impacts, and changes (Biggs et al. 2018).

Study area

Based on information from the Chinese Desert and Grassland Ecosystem Research Station Alliance (http://dga.ib.cas.cn, accessed several times since March 2020), Dengkou Desert Ecosystem Research Station (DK), Ordos Grassland Ecosystem Research Station (OR), and Ansai Agroecosystem Research Station (AS) and their surrounding communities were selected as study cases. In this paper, they are referred to as DK, OR, and AS, respectively (Table 2). The stations are located in northwestern China and are responsible for monitoring and assessing local ecosystems to inform policy making on desertification and land degradation (Fig. 2).

Before NEP implementation, DK experienced severe desertification and, in the 1980s, was designated as a target for national desertification control and management (source: https://slzx.caf.ac.cn/, accessed several times since March 2020). In OR, arable land expansion, overuse of groundwater, overgrazing, and unregulated mining transformed pasture land into sandy land by the early 1990s (source: http://esd.cern.ac.cn/, accessed several times since March 2020). Ansai Agroecosystem Research Station lies in ecologically fragile loess terrain where the fine soil is extremely susceptible to erosion. Deforestation, slope cultivation, irregular precipitation, and climate change exacerbated soil and water losses (source: http://dga.ib.cas.cn/). The NEPs were developed to tackle desertification and land degradation and have been implemented in these three areas since the year 2000 (Kong et al. 2021).

Methods

Primary data collection

Fieldwork started in September 2021. Ethical approval was granted from the lead author’s institution before fieldwork began. A questionnaire survey (Append. 1) was conducted with local farmers and herders who lived around the research stations and who had witnessed or were involved in NEP implementation. We adopted convenience sampling as September was part of the harvest season, and farmers were either at home or in their fields. To improve external validity, reduce possible bias due to the sampling strategy, and ensure diversity within our sample, we explained our sampling criteria to local contacts first, and made adjustments to participant recruitment when necessary, based on information they provided about the local communities. After participants’ consent was obtained, surveys were conducted face-to-face in Chinese. Face-to-face engagement also facilitated open-ended conversations that often went beyond the survey questions. Analytical memos were made to record these conversations and other observations.

Like other rural areas in China, the villages had substantially reduced populations (Li 2015), with some only half or one-third occupied. Farmers living in towns and cities cannot change their status in China’s Household Registration System: their records remain in the villages, so the local official population statistics often overstate the actual remaining population. In DK, six villages were visited, and 66 questionnaires were completed; in OR, 57 questionnaires from 11 villages; and in AS, 64 questionnaires from 15 villages, totalling 187 valid questionnaires (Append. 2).

Interviews were conducted with scientists at the research stations and with grassroots implementers of the NEPs. Consent was sought and obtained before the interviews. The face-to-face interviews were typically conducted in the interviewees’ offices, and audio recordings were made with the explicit consent of the participants. If the participant felt uncomfortable at any point, note taking replaced recording. In total, 22 scientists and 14 grassroots implementers were interviewed (Append. 2). Three interviews were conducted using videoconferencing through WeChat (a Chinese version of WhatsApp), and four others were by email due to Covid-19 restrictions at the time of data collection.

An adapted snowball sampling approach was used for the interviews. We studied the research station webpages and discussed potential interview participants with local contacts. This kind of communication was maintained throughout the recruitment process, enabling us to recruit a diversity of scientists in terms of research field, age, and gender. Recruiting local grassroots implementers based on referrals by the stations turned out to be very fruitful. Rapport was built before interviews took place. The stations have been established for more than 30 yrs, and the interactions between the scientists, local authorities, and agencies were frequent. Their relationships are an important local social asset, and introductions allowed us to engage with the implementers as well as other members, such as agency heads. Permission from agency heads was essential for our interviews with their subordinates.

Secondary data

Secondary data over the period 2000–2021 (when the NEPs were implemented) were extracted from the China Annual Statistical Yearbooks 2001–2022. In light of the survey responses and conversations with the farmers and herders, five key products for agricultural production were identified: fertilizers, manual agricultural machinery, semi-automatic agricultural machinery, automatic agricultural machinery, and supportive agricultural production materials such as pesticides and mulch films. Data from the producer price index (PPI) for these products were extracted for the period 2002–2021. Corn was selected as a locally important crop, and data about its yields per hectare over the same period were extracted. Commodity retail price index (RPI) information was extracted for clothes, electricity, cooking oil, grains (for food, mainly flour, rice, and potatoes), construction materials and hardware for the period 2000–2021 (http://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/ndsj/, accessed several times since April 2023).

Coding and statistical analysis

Analysis began in parallel with primary data collection. Observations were noted as analytical memos each day (Saldaña 2016). For instance, the “policy” category emerged in conversations during surveys when participants often complained about policy changes or the influence of policy uncertainty on their agricultural activities. From the recurrence of “technical support” and “employment opportunities,” the theme of “social capital” emerged. Other themes such as “institutions,” “natural capital,” and “change,” manifested in similar ways.

Data from survey questionnaires were digitized and prepared for coding and descriptive statistical analysis. Recorded interviews were first transcribed using “Dictate” in Microsoft Word 365, followed by manual proofreading of all the transcripts.

NVivo 1.7.1 was used to code the original Chinese conversations and answers. Categories in English were created in the process. Next, key sentences and details related to specific questions were identified and translated into English. All answers to the same question were grouped and summarized to draw out patterns and categories. The last step was to zoom out and review, regrouping patterns and categories when necessary, or creating new ones under the overall interview topics. Holistic coding began simultaneously throughout the proofreading and coding processes, with recurring patterns and similar categories being highlighted. The thematic analysis was thus based on findings from these three coding approaches as well as referring to patterns and themes in the analytical memos.

The price index of each item in a specific year is recorded based on the assumption that the index in the preceding year is 100 (http://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/zbjs/202302/t20230202_1897106.html). The indices were normalized against a base of 100 for the year 2000. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS (version 28.0.1.1).

RESULTS

Changes to local social-ecological systems after the implementation of national environmental programs

Of the 36 interviewed scientists and grassroots implementers, 32 considered that positive biophysical changes could be directly attributed to the NEPs (Table 3). Positive socioeconomic changes in local communities were most often mentioned, alongside increased crop yields, more fuelwood, and more labor released from land. Nearly three-quarters of the interviewees believed that these changes were due to NEP implementation. Some also considered that environmental awareness of locals had improved during the NEP implementation. However, several grassroots implementers indicated that trees in local newly established forests were maturing and dying after nearly 20 yrs. Given that forests are mostly monoculture, and complex and stable undergrowth communities were yet to form, some ecological functions and services the forests provided such as acting as a windbreak could decline or disappear if the trees died. Additionally, as the local environment improved, external actors also came in and some restored land was re-converted into arable use, expanding irrigated farmland and depleting groundwater.

Although national economic growth enabled investment in the NEPs, local development also supported their implementation. Several scientists had witnessed positive local economic developments during the NEP implementation, such as improved infrastructure and growing economic activity such as exploration and extraction of oil and gas resources. However, some grassroots implementers worried that oil and coal companies were damaging the environment. Also noticeably, almost all participating scientists highlighted more frequent extreme weather events, such as prolonged droughts and intense heatwaves, which exacerbated tensions over water supplies and stressed irrigated and rain-fed agricultural production systems. Implementation of the NEPs was affected too. Climate change adversely affected the survival, regeneration, and succession of newly planted trees, and (re)greening activities became less viable. These changes were corroborated by local farmers and herders, although they were also concerned about other changes (see below).

Changes from the perspective of farmers and herders

Changes from national environmental program implementation and the impacts on local livelihoods

Addressing the degradation of households’ sloping land and degraded pastureland was an important part of the NEPs. As a result, the arable land area of most households was halved as it was converted to forest and grassland. Ansai Agroecosystem Research Station was characterized by hilly terrain. After NEP implementation, average arable land area per household was 13.05 mu (<1 ha; 1 ha = 15 mu) with the modal land area being only 10 mu (0.66 ha, the modal value of the data set) (Append. 3). Agriculture in AS was rain fed. Farmers felt that extreme weather occurred more frequently, as also noted by many scientists (e.g., Tang and Hailu 2020, Huang et al. 2024). In the absence of irrigation, arable harvests had become unpredictable. To make a living, farmers engaged in other livelihood activities (Fig. 3). Seasonal jobs were the most frequent option (40%), although most farmers were already in their 50s or 60s and found it more difficult to gain employment as they aged. Each farmer in AS had at least two income sources.

Agriculture in DK and OR was irrigated. After the NEP implementation, average arable land area per household was 35.67 mu (just over 2 ha) and the maximum area 200 mu (just over 13 ha) in DK (Append. 4). Ordos Grassland Ecosystem Research Station involved both farmers and herders, and the latter had more land than farmers. Average land area per household in OR was 1081.12 mu (approx. 72 ha), and the most common land area was 40 mu (<3 ha) (Append. 5).

Land-based livelihoods such as livestock rearing and grain cultivation dominated in DK and OR (Fig. 3). Many farmers and herders in OR had cars or trucks, and most spoke openly in the survey. In contrast, many farmers in AS spoke reluctantly, and their assets were visibly fewer. In traditional agricultural communities in China, the area of arable land is essential for livelihoods and profoundly affects living standards. Implementation of the NEPs dramatically reduced farmers’ arable and pastureland, and compensation and supportive policies were considered inadequate. Consequently, farmers and herders were left in a more precarious situation, reliant on seasonal employment and produce markets that are beyond farmers’ control.

Changes in soil quality and the drivers

Although more than 70% of surveyed farmers and herders were positive about the NEPs, only 34% agreed that the quality of their soil had improved, whereas 31% felt the soil quality had declined. Almost 70% believed that SLM practices such as terracing land, organic fertilization, seasonal grazing, and crop rotation were responsible for the positive changes. Another 21% attributed positive changes to an improved environment, whereas 11% felt that increased precipitation had helped. Adverse soil quality changes were attributed to droughts and frosts by over half of the respondents. Important factors for the decline in soil quality also included overfertilization, groundwater pollution, and soil salinization caused by groundwater mismanagement (Table 4).

Soil quality changes were triangulated with farmer and herder views, which echoed those of the scientists and grassroots implementers. Overuse of fertilizer, for example, happened because farmers and herders hoped to improve harvests by applying more fertilizer, but they lacked technical support on what kind of and how much fertilizer they should use.

Changes promoted by technology

The majority of the households in the survey were using machinery for either ploughing the land, planting, irrigation, or harvesting, especially for those from DK and OR where local terrains were relatively flat. But most participants also mentioned they had used oxen and donkeys before that. The machinery made farming less labor demanding and pumping groundwater much easier, especially in the case of DK and OR. In our investigation, the application of machinery helped the farmers and herders who were already in their 50s and 60s, and the women who used to be housekeepers, became the main laborers in the fields when young people or men left the villages and found jobs in towns and cities. As one of the national agriculture-related policies, both the manufacturing and purchasing of agricultural machinery have been subsidized by the central government since 2004 (https://www.gov.cn). Although the mechanization of agriculture policy aims to provide strength to farmers and herders, improving production efficiency and their incomes, many in the survey expressed that the machines were still heavy for them to handle and worried for the future, as they were aging.

Another noticeable change was the way people received information and communicated with each other or outside. Television was in every home the survey took us to. However, only some senior farmers in their 60s or 70s relied on TV or face-to-face conversation to receive information. Over 90% of the participants had mobile phones (MPs). Facilitated by easy access to Wi-Fi, people could carry out daily communications with family members and friends whenever and wherever they wanted. About 60% of the participants were using social media to organize groups of common interests and exchange information among them, such as sharing market demands and price information of crops, exchanging experience or asking for help in a group of farmers who were raising livestock. They were also encouraged to install local government apps through which the governments issued notices or organized activities. During the NEP implementation, notices were sent before every meeting to village heads and farmers and herders who otherwise would be very difficult to coordinate and organize as they lived in rather scattered villages. Despite the development in communications, we found that local governments would disclose information mostly when they needed the farmers and herders to work with them rather than appealing to farmers and herders’ concerns and needs, and few scientists and grassroots implementers were in the networks of the farmers and herders.

Changes in costs of agricultural production and living during year 2000–2020

Secondary data analysis indicated the PPI of semi-automatic and automatic agricultural machinery increased by over 30% between 2002–2020. The PPI of annual agricultural expenditure on fertilizers, manual agricultural machinery, and pesticides and mulch films almost doubled from 2002 to 2020. At the same time, use of fertilizers, pesticides, and mulch films increased by more than 30%. Unit output of corn increased by 32% over the same period (Fig. 4). But, given the lower market price of corn and that 40% of households had less than 1 ha of arable land, income increases from corn were negligible, even in normal years when the costs of inputs were accounted for. For most, a good corn harvest ensured that farmers at least could maintain self-sufficiency of food in case of emergency. But this became less attainable as extreme weather events reduced yields. Similarly, prices of goods to meet basic needs rose palpably (Fig. 5), which explains why people were so concerned about extreme weather and seasonal jobs.

The commodity RPI indicates that grain prices increased by almost 150%, cooking oils by close to 83%, and construction materials and hardware about 50% between 2000 and 2020. Electricity prices increased 120%, whereas its use increased over threefold. Only prices of clothes rose just slightly. People also highlighted the costs of education and medical care, but official price statistics for these services do not exist. During the survey, we encountered three participants whose family members had undergone surgery. None had recovered fully. Two already worked in the fields, and the third was unable to move. Their treatment had drained savings and forced families to borrow from friends and relatives, leaving them in debt. The Rural Medical Insurance Scheme barely provided sufficient cover for expensive medical services. One scientist in AS who had relatives in the villages spoke of the reluctance of senior farmers to obtain medical care when they fell ill: “They would endure the pain silently rather than risk getting their family into debt [for receiving medical services]. Most often, when they were finally sent to hospital, the illness had become incurable [as it was too late].”

Concerns and needs: understanding livelihoods of local communities

Table 5 indicates that farmers and herders were more concerned about social capital (84%) and natural capital (80%) than financial (51%) or human capital (10%). The most common concern was the applicability of measures and policies, technical support, and seasonal job opportunities. Extreme weather events, arable land area, and groundwater depletion and pollution were the most frequent natural capital concerns. Markets, costs of agricultural production and family income were the main financial capital concerns.

Applicability of measures and policies, extreme weather events, arable land area, technical support, and seasonal job opportunities were the five most often mentioned concerns (Table 6). Applicability of measures and policies concerns centered on policy appropriateness when changing circumstances made policies untenable, as well as on policy predictability. People were also concerned about the lack of technical support, many participants saying that they “do not know” about specific practices or from whom to obtain advice. The lack of social capital among farmers and herders became apparent in terms of policies, knowledge availability to practice SLM and/or sell produce at the market, and support for additional employment opportunities. Extreme weather events such as droughts, heatwaves, and frosts were threats to pastureland restoration, crops, and orchard management. Respondents expected it to become more challenging to implement conservation measures when livelihoods depend on a small arable land holding and if social support for coping with the changes is lacking.

None of the participants considered food security an issue, but high costs of living and expensive medical care and education forced them to adopt multiple livelihood activities. The small area of arable land provided a lifeline, but yields were often threatened by extreme weather and precarious markets. Lack of social capital and social protection pushed them to put more pressure on the land that they could still use.

DISCUSSION

Changes and the role of national environmental programs

Lambin et al. (2001) noted that, in developing countries, land changes are influenced more by institutions and markets than population growth or poverty. The NEPs have brought about positive environmental changes, such as increased vegetation cover, reduced frequency of sandstorms and improved local air quality, resonating with earlier findings (Zhang et al. 2016, Bryan et al. 2018, Chen et al. 2019, Cai et al. 2020, Wang et al. 2020). Under the NEPs, detrimental activities such as deforestation, land overexploitation, overgrazing, and farming on sloping land were prohibited, and restoration measures such as afforestation, wasteland revegetation, retirement of sloping land, and pastureland rehabilitation were introduced (NFGA 2020). Lyu et al (2020) found that other environmental strategies and policies such as eco-industrialization and forestry policies also contributed to the reversal of desertification. Others draw attention to the substantial government investment in the NEPs, which was indispensable for their implementation (Feng et al. 2019, Cai et al. 2020, Wang et al. 2023).

The impacts of the NEPs are more far-reaching than originally designed. Cao et al. (2010) suggested that large-scale afforestation in arid and semi-arid northwestern China had exacerbated pressure on local water resources, and that only small-scale, short-term success had been achieved. Li et al. (2021) also argued that restoration measures were increasing aridity, echoing the worries of scientists and grassroots implementers in our study. Additionally, Feng et al. (2016) highlighted an over-emphasis on revegetation in semi-arid areas, suggesting that reduction of onsite water and soil loss put local water supplies at risk as plants retained water and reduced runoff to rivers. Given frequent droughts and heatwaves, our participants worried about the potential increase of desertification, in line with observations in other studies (e.g., Huang and Zhai 2023). These concerns indicate a need to reform the NEPs by the inclusion of SLM practices, which farmers favor due to their positive impact on soil quality.

Economic prosperity expected as the result of NEP implementation was not fully realized despite some positive socioeconomic impacts. The consequences of the reduced arable land area after the NEP implementation became more conspicuous as compensation declined. Cao et al. (2009) and Feng et al. (2015) warned that, although there was widespread support in local communities for restoration, many poorer residents would return to cultivate forest land and pastureland as there were no alternatives for making a living after NEPs prohibited tree felling, grazing, and groundwater extraction. The evidence indicates that the NEPs caused a decrease in the incomes of farmers and herders, and that local economic needs far exceed the provided compensation, contributing to local impoverishment (Wang et al. 2023).

Institutional interplay and the implications for local livelihoods

Brondizio et al. (2009) demonstrated that increasing environmental and social connectivity of the resource-use systems renders the management success at one level dependent on another. They suggested that the multilevel nature of such problems needs institutions that facilitate cross-level environmental governance for the long-term protection of ecosystems and the well-being of people. Our farmers and herders benefited from an improved environment due to the NEPs, alongside economic development in terms of improved living standards. They were food secure and had transportation and communication facilities. But they also faced impacts from other sectors and scales, such as an increasing cost of living and agricultural production. Medical services and housing became increasingly unaffordable. Healthcare costs could pull families into poverty as the financial protection health insurance offered was insufficient (Li et al. 2012). In a booming economy, farmers and herders therefore had to cover rising costs by turning to their only available resource: the land. However, as Wang et al. (2020) noted, farmers could no longer support their basic needs if they relied only on croplands.

In China, rural people have been left behind in the national development agenda. In 2000, there was a widely reported letter from a grassroots official to then Prime Minister Zhu, which began: “farmers are suffering; the villages are so poor; and agriculture is in danger,” followed by a stark description of the plight of local communities, such as aging and the loss of laborers (as young farmers moved to towns and cities for better employment opportunities), taxes even on items irrelevant for agricultural production (such as taxes on family membership, homestead, and family plot, etc.), unenforced supportive rural polices etc (https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/38519460, accessed in January 2024). Three rural issues: agricultural production, rural development, and farmers’ well-being, have ever since entered on the agenda of central government (https://www.gov.cn, accessed in January 2024).

Agricultural production tax has been canceled since 2006. Farmers are free to sell their products at markets, but market prices of grains are regulated by the government. In the dual-tier social security system, urban people are protected by comprehensive welfare measures, whereas most farmers had no medical insurance until 2009. The Rural Revitalization Strategy was initiated by the central government in 2017. However, the system, including pensions in rural areas, remained incomplete until 2021 (Chen et al. 2022). At the same time, costs of living have increased dramatically. The average cost of raising a child in China until the age of 18 is more than 6.3 times the GDP per capita, compared with 4.11 times in the USA or 4.26 times in Japan, making China one of the most expensive places in this regard (Liang et al. 2024). Many studies have noted aging farmers, empty villages, and increasing income gaps and inequalities between rural and urban people (e.g., Guo et al. 2019, 2020, Kong et al. 2023).

Impacts of the changes on local communities and the role of social security

Farmers and herders had concerns for climate change, which adversely affects their ability to predict harvests and creates additional costs. Amid global environmental change and in particular climate change, there is increasing collective perception of insecurity and uncertainty worldwide (Morrissey 2023). Vulnerability to environmental change has profound social dimensions. Factors contributing to vulnerability often stem from political, economic, social, and cultural processes (Smit and Wandel 2006), which result in disparities not only in people’s exposure to environmental changes but also in their capacity to respond to them (O’Brien 2006). Although exposures, sensitivities, and adaptive capacities are evident at the local level, they reflect broader forces, drivers, and determinants that shape and influence local-level vulnerabilities. Examples of these include infrastructure, institutional environment, kinship, social networks, and political support (O’Brien 2006). Both human security (the capacity of individuals and communities to address threats to their basic needs and fundamental rights, allowing them to lead dignified lives) and social and ecological resilience (the ability of ecosystems, individuals, and groups adapt to environmental change) have been increasingly examined in the literature on environmental change, human development, and disaster relief (e.g., Adger 2000, O’Brien and Barnett 2013, Folke 2016).

Social security is the legal “protection that a society provides to individuals and households to ensure access to healthcare and to guarantee income security, particularly in cases of old age, unemployment, sickness, invalidity, work injury, maternity or loss of a breadwinner” (International Labour Organisation, https://www.ilo.org). Although social security influences individuals’ and communities’ attitudes and capabilities, spending on social security in developing countries is low (Chukwunonso 2014, Seekings 2019, Tasci and Tatli 2019, World Bank Group 2022). Social protection can improve agricultural production and livelihoods by enhancing households’ abilities to cope with risks and non-farm investment, and build human capital (Tirivayi et al. 2016). Kosec and Mo (2017) noted that government relief in Pakistan enabled flood-hit people to restore livelihoods, replace damaged assets, and retain their aspirations for the future. Levels of social security impact people’s spending and investment plans and decisions in the short and long term (Carter and Janzen 2018, Patrick and Simpson 2020). Liang et al. (2014) discovered that farmers were happy to be relocated from an ecologically degraded area to let it regenerate, but inadequate support for employment made over half of them consider returning. Although China’s Administrative Measures for Farmland Transfer have been in force since 2005 to consolidate fragmented plots for improved production efficiency, land management and economic benefits, the sought-after results were not delivered (Huang and Wang 2008). Contracted farmers tried to maximize short-term gains from the land within the term and were unwilling to invest to maintain its functions, for example, by using organic fertilizers due to lack of social security (Ke et al. 2022).

The insufficiency of social security in rural communities in China poses a risk of social instability as rural communities remain under a different social security system than urban people (Guo 2014, Shen and Zhang 2018). Although farmers and herders are motivated to protect the environment their livelihoods depend on, they need to put their survival first. In the absence of social protection and confined to degraded land, they have to navigate the challenges by largely relying on their own knowledge and experience (Guo 2013).

Social capital of local communities in environmental governance

When analyzing rural livelihoods in Latin America, Bebbington (1999) found that their sustainability and implications for poverty largely depended on the networks and links with state, market, or civil society actors who could help them access, defend, and capitalize on their capital assets. Such assets include produced, natural, human, and social capitals, which can enhance rural people’s capacity to be their own agents of change. He also noted that government could build synergistic relationships with local organizations that increase the quality and coverage of the provision of services, and thereby enhance family assets (Bebbington 1999). With institutions linking multiple levels, government is an important enabler of social capital and essential for the long-term protection of ecosystems (Brondizio et al. 2009). Putnam (1993) argued that the networks or links of a society were influential in affecting government effectiveness and economic performance. He noted that where social structures were more “vertical” and based on authority relations, citizens’ capacity for collective action is more limited, and access to and influence over state and market are weaker. In more efficient, effective and inclusive governments and economies, relationships were more “horizontal” (based on trust and shared values), with higher levels of participation in social organizations and networks that cut across the boundaries between different institutions (Putnam 1993).

In our cases, the farmers and herders took advantage of the technological advancement and used various social media to exchange information and knowledge, but only within circles they could reach and often, away from public attention. Studies show 80% of social media users in China are those under 30 who use social media to maintain contacts but mainly through following or sharing entertainment activities; about 20% of users were in their 40s or above who care for a broader scope of topics, but seldom reached by environmental and social issues (Sina Technology 2021). More than that, actors from official institutions, such as policy makers, scientists, and grassroots implementers, often appear in their working groups while refraining from making opinions in the public domain and or beyond their working agenda due to cultural and institutional concerns, such as low visibility, privacy exposure, or risk of information leaking (Niu 2019). Although governments, news agencies, and institutions are encouraged to post environmental and social topics appealing for public engagement or support, negative responses are often incurred due to lack of knowledge and transparency (Liu et al. 2023).Even though social media are used in knowledge exchange, traditional interpersonal social capital, such as guanxi (personal relationships), dominates the communication process in professional service firms (Davison et al. 2018).

Social capital plays a pivotal role in facilitating the sustainable management and governance of shared resources (Pretty 2003). As demonstrated by Bebbington (2008), actors with different backgrounds can bring in new ideas as well as networks of contacts, which help local communities gain access to non-local institutions and resources, to NGOs with technical expertise and financial resources, to sources of technology, donors, and alternative trading networks. In NEP implementation, local communities lacked contacts with outside actors, whether for land conservation, agricultural production, or for adaptation to climate change and markets, resonating with observations that networks between scientists, grassroots implementers, and policy makers were working efficiently around the design and/or implementation of the NEPs, but above the level of local communities and outside the scope of local livelihoods (Kong et al. 2023).

Linking sustainable land management and resilient community building in the social-ecological-technological regimes (SETRs) framework

As a local SES, the farmers and herders, and the land, are deeply embedded in the SETRs (Fig.6). Although we focus on the NEPs, interventions and changes from other sectors and scales also impact on local SESs, such as prices rising amidst fast national economic development, precarious markets brought by globalization, extreme weather events due to climate change, and so on. All these drivers are putting local SESs into a more vulnerable state, but solutions stay beyond the local scope and local coping capacities. Yet, policies have not kept pace with the changing situation. Thus, emerging local environmental problems such as overfertilization, groundwater depletion and pollution, overgrazing, and declining soil quality made the situation on the ground even more complicated (“I”).

National environmental programs were designed to address local land degradation, but failed to accommodate the effects of other measures on local ecosystems and livelihoods. Although farmers and herders navigated the complex SETRs, their activities affected the land and in part undermined the outcomes the NEPs aimed to achieve. This demonstrates that not only short-term measures from the NEPs should be transitioned into long-term practices of SLM, but also shows the critical roles social security and social capital can play in contributing to resilience building among the uncertainties and changes, and how essential they are for local farmers and herders to safeguard land and develop their own well-being (“II”). Moreover, as part of our society and also important institutional arrangements in a society, social security and social capital embody collective assets/efforts that environmental governance aims for. Their significance thus in solving current global environmental challenges cannot be overestimated.

Sustainable land management relies on technological innovations (WOCAT 2016), but technological factors have also been reported as robust drivers of desertification. When technological innovations are applied with the intention to improve land and water management (e.g., through motor pumps and boreholes or through construction of hydrotechnical installations such as dams or collectors), these developments are often coupled with high water losses due to poor infrastructure maintenance, or they induce fundamental and often irreversible changes to the natural hydrological network (e.g., through tapping into groundwater reservoirs) (Geist and Lambin 2004). The use of agricultural machinery and irrigation systems in this study has improved land productivity. Although we cannot unravel direct relationships between the technological changes in farming and the decline of soil quality as other operations, such as those from oil and coal companies were raised as one of the concerns, caution needs to be maintained when technological applications are introduced. Nevertheless, effective knowledge sharing could be realized due to technological advancement in communications, which is essential for the implementation of technologies and approaches of SLM.

Although we find that greater focus on social capital and social security is needed, they are not always beneficial as Portes (1998), Lin (1999), Dwyer (2018), and Engelhardt et al. (2022) have suggested. For example, social capital can be used to limit opportunities for those outside of the networks, but providing social security is costly, and beneficiaries may become dependent on it rather than retaining their personal motivation. But for the rural communities in China, building social capital with outside actors would enable them to have the networks accessing knowledge and resources they need to safeguard land and improve their own well-being; and the provision of social security could shelter them from adversaries to livelihoods and facilitate them to do so even in the face of challenges. With social capital and social security, they could retain the resilience for the land and themselves when navigating the unprecedented uncertainties global environmental change has brought about.

CONCLUSIONS

We investigated changes in local SESs during the implementation of the NEPs. While focusing on the NEPs, other drivers of change were also identified and examined. Some biophysical and socioeconomic impacts can be directly attributed to the NEPs; others are driven by other institutions, markets, and climate change. Some changes have been positive, others negative, demonstrating how institutional interventions targeting one sector can produce unexpected effects across sectors and scales. Our results show that traditional environmental restoration approaches and institutions such as NEPs require supportive mechanisms from other socioeconomic sectors.

By examining the concerns and needs of local communities, drivers that could cause further challenges to NEP implementation and outcomes were also discussed. In the absence of social security, local communities are exposed to changes beyond their control, exacerbating the relationship between the land and the people. A lack of measures for building links between local communities and outside actors impedes collaboration, social learning, long-term environmental conservation, as well as social development. Without a systemic approach that incorporates social security and building of social capital to improve the general resilience of local communities in face of the changes, the goals of environmental governance in China will be difficult to achieve with effectiveness, efficiency, and equity.

The case study highlights the challenges China’s environmental governance is facing. Although it reveals the need for new governance approaches and mechanisms such as social capital and social security when navigating the fast-changing and complex SETRs, discussion about specific pathways toward related institutional arrangements is still lacking at this stage, and thus requires further exploration.

LITERATURE CITED

Adger, W. N. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography 24:347-64. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200701540465

Anderies, J. M., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2004. A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society 9(1): 18. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-00610-090118

Bai, X. M., K. O’Brien, F. Berkhou, F. Biermann, E. S. Brondizio, C. Cudennec, J. Dearing, A. Duraiappah, M. Glaser, A. Revkin, W. Steffen, and J. Syvitski. 2016. Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: a new research agenda. Global Environmental Change 39:351-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.017

Bebbington, A. 1999. Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development 27(12):2021-2044. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00104-7

Bebbington, A. 2008. Social capital and development studies III: social capital and the state (seen from Peru). Progress in Development Studies 8(3):271-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/146499340800800305

Berkes, F. 2006. From community-based resource management to complex systems: the scale issue and marine commons. Ecology and Society 11(1): 45. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01431-110145

Berkes, F., C. Folke, and J. Colding, editors. 2000. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Berkes, F., and H. Ross. 2013. Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. Society and Natural Resources 26(1):5-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605

Biggs, R., H. Blenckner, C. Folke, L. Gordon, A. Norström, M. Nyström, and G. Peterson. 2012. Regime shifts. Pages 609-617 in A. Hastings and L. J. Gross, editors. Encyclopedia of theoretical ecology. University of California Press, Oakland, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520951785-107

Biggs, R., G. D. Peterson, and J. C. Rocha. 2018. The regime shifts database: a framework for analyzing regime shifts in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 23(3): 9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10264-230309

Brondizio E. S., E. Ostrom, and O. R. Young. 2009. Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34(1):253-278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.020708.100707

Bryan, B. A., L. Gao, Y. Ye, X. Sun, J. D. Connor, N. D. Crossman, M. Stafford-Smith, J. Wu, C. He, D. Yu, Z. Liu, A. Li, Q. Huang, H. Ren, X. Deng, H. Zheng, J. Niu, G. Han, and X. Hou. 2018. China’s response to a national land-system sustainability emergency. Nature (London) 559(7713):193-204. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0280-2

Cai, D., Q. Ge, X. Wang, B. Liu, A. S. Goudie, and S. Hu. 2020. Contributions of ecological programmes to vegetation restoration in arid and semiarid China. Environmental Research Letters 15(11): 114046. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abbde9

Cao, S., L. Chen, and X. Yu. 2009. Impact of China’s Grain for Green Project on the landscape of vulnerable arid and semi-arid agricultural regions: a case study in northern Shaanxi Province. The Journal of Applied Ecology 46(3):536-543. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01605.x

Cao, S., T. Tian, L. Chen, X. Dong, X. Yu, and G. Wang. 2010. Damage caused to the environment by reforestation policies in arid and semi-arid areas of China. Ambio 39(4):279-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0038-z

Carter, M. R., and S. A. Janzen. 2018. Social protection in the face of climate change: targeting principles and financing mechanisms. Environment and Development Economics 23(3):369-389. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X17000407

Chen, C., T. Park, X. Wang, S. Piao, B. Xu, R. K. Chaturvedi, R. Fuchs, V. Brovkin, P. Ciais, R. Fensholt, H. Tømmervik, G. Bala, Z. Zhu, R. R. Nemani, and R. B. Myneni. 2019. China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management. Nature Sustainability 2:122-129. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0220-7

Chen, J., Y. Zhao, and K. Chen. 2022. Research on innovation and optimization of rural old-age service system under rural revitalization. Pages 1258-1261 in Z. P. Xu and J. D. Bi, editors. Proceedings of the 2022 7th International Conference on Social Sciences and Economic Development (ICSSED 2022), Atlantis Press, Springer Nature, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.220405.208

Cherlet, M., C. Hutchinson, J. Reynolds, J. Hill, S. Sommer, and G. von Maltitz, editors. 2018. World atlas of desertification. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2760/06292

Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and National Forestry and Grassland Administration (NFGA). 2018. A comprehensive assessment of three north shelterbelt program in its 40 years. Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. (In Chinese.) https://www.cas.cn/cm/201812/t20181225_4674896.shtml

Chukwunonso, G. 2014. Impact of social spending on human development in sub-Saharan Africa. American Journal of Social Sciences 2(2):29-35.

Ci, L. J., and B. Wu. 1997. Climate type division and the potential extent determination of desertification in China. Journal of Desert Research 17:107-111. (In Chinese.) http://www.desert.ac.cn/EN/abstract/abstract4071.shtml

Colding, J., and S. Barthel. 2019. Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecology and Society 24(1): 2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10598-240102

Davies, M., C. Béné, A. Arnall, T. Tanner, A. Newsham, and C. Coirolo. 2013. Promoting resilient livelihoods through adaptive social protection: lessons from 124 programmes in South Asia. Development Policy Review 31(1):27-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2013.00600.x

Davison, R. M., C. X. J. Ou, and M. G. Martinsons. 2018. Interpersonal knowledge exchange in China: the impact of guanxi and social media. Information and Management 55(2):224-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.05.008

Durant, R. F., D. J. Fiorino, and R. O’Leary, editors. 2017. Environmental governance reconsidered: challenges, choices, and opportunities. Second edition. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA and London, UK.

Dwyer, P. 2018. Punitive and ineffective: benefit sanctions within social security. Journal of Social Security Law 25(3):142-157.

Elsässer, J. P., T. Hickmann, S. Jinnah, S. Oberthür, and T. van de Graaf. 2022. Institutional interplay in global environmental governance: lessons learned and future research. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 22(2):373-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-022-09569-4

Engelhardt, G. V., J. Gruber, and A. Kumar. 2022. Early social security claiming and old-age poverty: evidence from the introduction of the social security early eligibility age. The Journal of Human Resources 57(4):1079-1106. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.57.4.0119-9973R1

Feng, Q., Z. Miao, Z. Li, J. Li, J. Si, Y. S, and Z. Chang. 2015. Public perception of an ecological rehabilitation project in inland river basins in northern China: success or failure. Environmental Research 139:20-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2014.12.030

Feng, Q., Y. Tian, T. Yu, Z. Yin, and S. Cao. 2019. Combating desertification through economic development in north-western China. Land Degradation and Development 30(8):910-917. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3277

Feng, X., B. Fu, S. Piao, S. Wang, P. Ciais, Z. Zeng, Y. Lü, Y. Zeng, Y. Li, X. Jiang, and B. Wu. 2016. Revegetation in China’s Loess Plateau is approaching sustainable water resource limits. Nature Climate Change 6(11):1019-1022. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3092

Folke, C. 2016. Resilience (republished). Ecology and Society 21(4): 44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09088-210444

Folke, C., S. Polasky, J. Rockström, V. Galaz, F. Westley, M. Lamont, M. Scheffer, H. Österblom, S. R. Carpenter, F. S. Chapin, K. C. Seto, E. U. Weber, B. I. Crona, G. C. Daily, P. Dasgupta, O. Gaffney, L. J. Gordon, H. Hoff, S. A. Levin, J. Lubchenco, W. Steffen, and B. H. Walker. 2021. Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio 50(4):834-869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01544-8

Galaz, V., B. Crona, A. Dauriach, B. Scholtens, and W. Steffen. 2018. Finance and the Earth system—exploring the links between financial actors and non-linear changes in the climate system. Global Environmental Change 53:296-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.09.008

Geist, H., and E. Lambin. 2004. Dynamic causal patterns of desertification. Bioscience 54(9):817-829. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0817:DCPOD]2.0.CO;2

Glaas, E., and S. Juhola 2013. New levels of climate adaptation policy: analyzing the institutional interplay in the baltic sea region. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland) 5(1):256-275. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5010256

Guo, Y. 2013. Narratives of the suffering: the history and cultural logic of Ji village. Chinese University Press, Hong Kong, China. (In Chinese.)

Guo, Y. 2014. Pension policy reforms in China from 2009 to 2012. China Journal of Social Work 7(3):237-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/17525098.2014.962756

Guo, Y., Y. Zhou, and Y. Han. 2019. Population aging in rural China: spatial-temporal pattern and countermeasures for rural revitalization. Geographical Research 38(3):667-683. (In Chinese.)

Guo, Y., Y. Zhou, and Y. S. Liu. 2020. Spatial-temporal evolution of rural population outflow and its mechanism in China. Scientia Geographica Sinica 40(1):50-59. (In Chinese.) https://doi.org/10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2020.01.007

Huang, M. T., and P.-M. Zhai. 2023. Desertification dynamics in China’s drylands under climate change. Advances in Climate Change Research 14(3):429-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2023.05.001

Huang, Y., H. Long, Y. Jiang, D. Feng, Z. Ma, and F. Mumtaz. 2024. Motivating factors of farmers’ adaptation behaviors to climate change in China: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 359: 121105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121105

Huang, Z. H., and P. Wang. 2008. Farmland transfer and its impacts on the development of modern agriculture: status, problems and solutions. Journal of Zhejiang University: Humanities and Social Sciences 38(2):38-47. (In Chinese.)

Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IGSNRR-CAS). 2014. Investigation and assessment on environment changes in project area of major national ecological restoration and rehabilitation programmes during 2000–2010. Beijing, China. (In Chinese.)

Johnson, C. A., and K. Krishnamurthy. 2010. Dealing with displacement: can “social protection” facilitate long-term adaptation to climate change? Global Environmental Change 20(4) 648-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.06.002

Johnson, M. F. 2019. Strong (green) institutions in weak states: environmental governance and human (in)security in the Global South. World Development 122:433-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.010

Ke, S., Y. Wu, H. Cui, X. Lu, and D. Chen. 2022. Farmland transfer, social security, and households’ productive investment: based on China’s CFPS survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(17): 11082. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191711082

Keeler, B. L., P. Hamel, T. McPhearson, M. H. Hamann, M. L. Donahue, K. A. Meza Prado, K. K. Arkema, G. N. Bratman, K. A. Brauman, J. C. Finlay, A. D. Guerry, S. E. Hobbie, J. A. Johnson, G. K. MacDonald, R. I. McDonald, N. Neverisky, and S. A. Wood. 2019. Social-ecological and technological factors moderate the value of urban nature. Nature Sustainability 2(1):29-38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0202-1

Koliou, M., J. W. van de Lindt, T. P. McAllister, B. R. Ellingwood, M. Dillard, and H. Cutler. 2018. State of the research in community resilience: progress and challenges. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure 5(3):131-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2017.1418547

Kong Z.-H., L. Stringer, and J. Paavola. 2023. Knowledge exchange in the implementation of national environmental programs (NEPs) in China: a complex picture. PLoS ONE 18(7): e0288641. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288641

Kong, Z.-H., L. Stringer, J. Paavola, and Q. Lu. 2021. Situating China in the global effort to combat desertification. Land 10(7): 702. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10070702

Kosec, K., and C. H. Mo. 2017. Aspirations and the role of social protection: evidence from a natural disaster in rural Pakistan. World Development 97:49-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.039

Lambin, E. F., B. L. Turner, H. J. Geist, S. B. Agbola, A. Angelsen, J. W. Bruce, O. T. Coomes, R. Dirzo, G. Fischer, C. Folke, P. S. Ramakrishnan, J. F. Richards, H. Skånes, W. Steffen, G. D. Stone, U. Svedin, T. A. Veldkamp, C. Vogel, and J. Xu. 2001. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change 11(4):261-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3

Li, C., B. Fu, S. Wang, L. C. Stringer, Y. Wang, Z. Li, Y. Liu, and W. Zhou. 2021. Drivers and impacts of changes in China’s drylands. Nature Reviews Earth and Environment 2: 858-873. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00226-z

Li, X. 2015. Rural depopulation in China: a comparative perspective. RIMCIS: International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences 4(2):149-174. https://doi.org/10.17583/rimcis.2015.1503

Li, Y., Q. Wu, L. Xu, D. Legge, Y. Hao, L. Gao, N. Ning, and G. Wan. 2012. Factors affecting catastrophic health expenditure and impoverishment from medical expenses in China: policy implications of universal health insurance. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 90(9):664-671. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.12.102178

Liang, J. Z., W. Z. Huang, and Y. F. He, editors. 2024. Cost of raising children in China (version 2024). (In Chinese.) https://file.c-ctrip.com/files/6/yuwa/0R72u12000d9cuimnBF37.pdf

Liang, Y., W. Lu, and W. Wu. 2014. Are social security policies for Chinese landless farmers really effective on health in the process of Chinese rapid urbanization? A study on the effect of social security policies for Chinese landless farmers on their health-related quality of life. International Journal for Equity in Health 13(1): 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-13-5

Lin, N. 1999. Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 22(1):28-51. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315129457-1

Liu, M., X. Luo, and W.-Z. Lu. 2023. Public perceptions of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) based on social media data: evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production 387: 135840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135840

Lu, Q., J. Lei, X. Li, Y. Yang, and F. Wang. 2020. China’s combating desertification: national solutions and global paradigm. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences 36:656-664. (In Chinese.)

Lukat, E., C. Pahl-Wostl, and A. Lenschow. 2022. Deficits in implementing integrated water resources management in South Africa: the role of institutional interplay. Environmental Science and Policy 136:304-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.06.010

Lyu, Y., P. Shi, G. Han, L. Liu, L. Guo, X. Hu, and G. Zhang. 2020. Desertification control practices in China. Sustainability 12(8):3258. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12083258

Ma, S., H.-Y. Wang, L.-J. Wang, J. Jiang, J.-W. Gong, S. Wu, and G.-Y. Luo. 2022. Evaluation and simulation of landscape evolution and its ecological effects under vegetation restoration in the northern sand prevention belt, China. Catena 218: 106555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106555

Matsler, A. M., T. R. Miller, and P. M. Groffman. 2021. The eco-techno spectrum: exploring knowledge systems’ challenges in green infrastructure management. Urban Planning 6(1):49-62. https://doi.org/10.17645/UP.V6I1.3491

McPhearson, T., E. Andersson, T. Elmqvist, and N. Frantzeskaki. 2015. Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 12:152-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.012

McPhearson, T., E. M. Cook, M. Berbés-Blázquez, C. Cheng, N. B. Grimm, E. Andersson, O. Barbosa, D. G. Chandler, H. Chang, M. V. Chester, D. L. Childers, S. R. Elser, N. Frantzeskaki, Z. Grabowski, P. Groffman, R. L. Hale, D. M. Iwaniec, N. Kabisch, C. Kennedy, S. A. Markolf, A. M. Matsler, L. E. McPhillips, T. R. Miller, T. A. Muñoz-Erickson, E. Rosi, and T. G. Troxler. 2022. A social-ecological-technological systems framework for urban ecosystem services. One Earth 5(5):5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.04.007

Mitchell, B. 2005. Integrated water resource management, institutional arrangements, and land-use planning. Environment and Planning A 37(8):1335-1352. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37224

Montanarella, L., R. Scholes, and A. Brainich, editors. 2018. The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3237392

Montgomery, C. A. 2013. Institutional environments and arrangements for managing complex aquatic ecosystems in forested landscapes. Forest Policy and Economics 35:50-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.06.008

Morrissey, J. 2023. The task of envisioning security for the Anthropocene. Irish Studies in International Affairs 34(1):17-26. https://doi.org/10.1353/isia.0.a904027

Moss, T. 2004. The governance of land use in river basins: prospects for overcoming problems of institutional interplay with the EU Water Framework Directive. Land Use Policy 21(1):85-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.001

National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). 2020. Ecological Protection Compensation Regulation (Draft) (Open for public comments and suggestions). https://hd.ndrc.gov.cn/yjzx/yjzx_add.jsp?SiteId=350 (in Chinese)

National Forestry and Grassland Administration (NFGA). 2020. Report on the implementation of the Grain for Green program in China (2000–2019). (In Chinese.) http://www.forestry.gov.cn/html/main/main_195/20200630085813736477881/file/20200630090428999877621.pdf

Niu, J. 2019. An exploration of opinion expression on social media and its influencing factors: a perspective based on political efficacy and public attention. Pages 60-79 in Study on social media usage behavior: interaction, expression, and disclosure. Social Sciences Publishing House, Beijing, China.

North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678

O’Brien, K. 2006. Are we missing the point? Global environmental change as an issue of human security. Global Environmental Change 16:1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.11.002

O’Brien, K., and J. Barnett. 2013. Global environmental change and human security. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 38(1):373-391. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-032112-100655

Oberthür, S., and T. Gehring. 2011. Institutional interaction: ten years of scholarly development. Pages 25-58 in S. Oberthür and O. S. Stokke, editors. Managing institutional complexity. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8577.003.0005

Olsson, P., V. Galaz, and W. J. Boonstra. 2014. Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspective. Ecology and Society 19(4): 1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06799-190401

Österblom, H., J. B. Jouffray, C. Folke, B. Crona, M. Troell, A. Merrie, and J. Rockström. 2015. Transnational corporations as ‘keystone actors’ in marine ecosystems. PLoS ONE 10(5): e0127533. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127533

Ostrom, E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39):15181-15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104

Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419-422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

Patrick, R., and M. Simpson. 2020. Conceptualising dignity in the context of social security: bottom‐up and top‐down perspectives. Social Policy and Administration 54(3):475-490. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12528

Portes, A. 1998. Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24(1):1-24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1

Pretty, J. 2003. Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302(5652):1912-1914. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1090847

Putnam R. D. 1993. Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400820740

Ren, B., and H. Shou. 2013. Chinese environmental governance: dynamics, challenges, and prospects in a changing society. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, New York, USA.

Saldaña, J. 2016. The coding manual for qualitative researchers Sage Publications, Los Angeles, California, USA; London, UK.

Seekings, J. 2019. The limits to ‘global’ social policy: the ILO, the social protection floor and the politics of welfare in east and southern Africa. Global Social Policy 19 (1-2): 139-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468018119846418

Shen, J., and Y. Zhang. 2018. Adverse selection behavior in China’s pension insurance market for urban and rural residents. Pages 288-293 in M. Wang and A. Tarazi, editors. Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Economics, Business, Management and Corporate Social Responsibility (EBMCSR 2018). Atlantis Press, Springer Nature, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.2991/ebmcsr-18.2018.56

Sina Technology. 2021. Vblog user development report. https://finance.sina.cn/tech/2021-03-12/detail-ikkntiak9143019.d.html?fromtech=1

Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16(3):282-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008

Söderström, S., and K. Kern. 2017. The ecosystem approach to management in marine environmental governance: institutional interplay in the Baltic Sea region. Environmental Policy and Governance 27(6):619-631. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1775

Steffen, W., W. Broadgate, L. Deutsch, O. Gaffney, and C. Ludwig. 2015. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review 2(1):81-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785

Tang, K., and A. Hailu. 2020. Smallholder farms’ adaptation to the impacts of climate change: evidence from China’s Loess Plateau. Land Use Policy 91: 1043353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104353

Tasci, K., and H. Tatli. 2019. Short- and long-term correlation of social security expenditure and human development: Turkish model. Panoeconomicus 66(1):93-112. https://doi.org/10.2298/PAN160225013T

Tenzing, J. D. 2020. Integrating social protection and climate change adaptation: a review. WIREs Climate Change 11(2): e626. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.626

Thomas, D. R. 2006. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. The American Journal of Evaluation 27(2):237-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

Tirivayi, N., M. Knowles, and B. Davis. 2016. The interaction between social protection and agriculture: a review of evidence. Global Food Security 10:52-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2016.08.004

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). 2022. Land restoration pathways for recovery and resilience. Pages 152-164 in The global land outlook 2: land restoration for recovery and resilience. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany. https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/2022-04/UNCCD_GLO2_low-res_2.pdf

Voulvoulis, N., K. D. Arpon, and T. Giakoumis. 2017. The EU water framework directive: from great expectations to problems with implementation. Science of the Total Environment 575:358-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.228

Wang, F., X. Pan, C. Gerlein-Safdi, X. Cao, S. Wang, L. Gu, D. Wang, and Q. Lu. 2020. Vegetation restoration in northern China: a contrasted picture. Land Degradation and Development 31(6):669-676. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3314

Wang, H., F. Tian, J. Wu, and X. Nie. 2023. Is China forest landscape restoration (FLR) worth it? A cost–benefit analysis and non-equilibrium ecological view. World Development 161: 106126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106126

Wang, X., Q. Ge, X. Geng, Z. Wang, L. Gao, B. A. Bryan, S. Chen, Y. Su, D. Cai, J. Ye, J. Sun, H. Lu, H. Che, H. Cheng, H. Liu, B. Liu, Z. Dong, S. Cao, T. Hua, S. Chen, F. Sun, G. Luo, Z. Wang, S. Hu, D. Xu, M. Chen, D. Li, F. Liu, X. Xu, D. Han, Y. Zheng, F. Xiao, X. Li, P. Wang, and F. Chen. 2023. Unintended consequences of combating desertification in China. Nature Communications 14(1):1139-1139. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36835-z

Wang, Y., X. Li, H. He, L. Xin, and M. Tan. 2020. How reliable are cultivated land assets as social security for Chinese farmers? Land Use Policy 90: 104318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104318

Wei, X., L. Zhou, G. Yang, Y. Wang, and Y. Chen. 2020. Assessing the effects of desertification control projects from the farmers’ perspective: a case study of Yanchi county, northern China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(3): 983. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030983

Weldegebriel, Z. B., and M. Prowse. 2013. Climate-change adaptation in Ethiopia: to what extent does social protection influence livelihood diversification? Development Policy Review 31(s2):35-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12038

World Bank Group. 2022. Charting a course towards universal social protection: resilience, equity, and opportunity for all. World Bank Group, Washington, D.C., USA. https://doi.org/10.1596/38031

World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT). 2016. Making sense of research for sustainable land management. https://issuu.com/wocat/docs/wocat_glues/302

Xu, J., R. Yin, Z. Li, and C. Liu. 2006. China’s ecological rehabilitation: unprecedented efforts, dramatic impacts, and requisite policies. Ecological Economics 57(4):595-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.008

Young, O. R. 2002. The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3807.001.0001

Young, O. R. 2003. Environmental governance: the role of institutions in causing and confronting environmental problems. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 3(4):377-393. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:INEA.0000005802.86439.39

Yuan, Z. Q., H. Epstein, and F.-M. Li. 2015. Factors affecting the recovery of abandoned semi-arid fields after legume introduction on the Loess Plateau. Ecological Engineering 79:86-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.03.012

Zhang, Y., C. Peng, W. Li, L. Tian, Q. Zhu, H. Chen, X. Fang, G. Zhang, G. Liu, X. Mu, Z. Li, S. Li, Y. Yang, J. Wang, and X. Xiao. 2016. Multiple afforestation programs accelerate the greenness in the ‘Three North’ region of China from 1982 to 2013. Ecological Indicators 61:404-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.041