Research

INTRODUCTION

A large body of research demonstrates how traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) systems play a critical role in maintaining the resilience and sustainability of social-ecological systems, including aspects such as environmental conservation, agriculture, health, and community governance (Berkes et al. 2000, Fernández-Giménez 2000, Reyes-García et al. 2014, Biró et al. 2019). Simultaneously, important advances have been made in connecting these systems with Western scientific understanding (Huntington 2000, Molnár et al. 2024, Reyes-García et al. 2024). Besides encouraging a deeper understanding of reality, these efforts advance a collaborative framework that integrates traditional and scientific knowledge systems, empowering local traditional communities, and leading to more comprehensive environmental research and more effective conservation outcomes (Reyes-García et al. 2019).

Despite these advances, a hierarchical divide between scientific and traditional ways of knowing persists. Consequently, policies regulating local people’s practices are often designed disregarding TEK systems that are holistic and deeply rooted in community practices, beliefs, and oral traditions (Ihejirika 2024). For example, conservation plans and policies, such as the creation of protected areas, aim to maintain a “pure” wilderness ideal, which is based on and promotes a narrative that traditional practices were inimical to conservation efforts (Martinez 2003). The case of the Banni grasslands in India exemplifies how conservation policies can overlook the ecological insights of traditional practices; although Maldhari pastoralists historically managed the land sustainably through mobile grazing, state interventions labeled these methods inefficient, leading to fragmentation, biodiversity loss, and livelihood disruptions (Maru 2021). The same story is repeated around the world. In 2022, the Tanzanian government forcibly evicted Maasai communities from the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in the name of biodiversity conservation, ignoring the fact that their pastoral practices could coexist with local wildlife (Mantz 2024). In Inner Mongolia, land tenure reforms introduced in the 1980s, intended to prevent overgrazing and improve rangeland management, instead disrupted the traditional pastoral production systems, resulting in the accelerated degradation of rangelands (Li et al. 2007, Li and Huntsinger 2011). These examples show a recurring theme: while aiming to achieve ecological recovery, top-down conservation policies frequently fail to recognize the sustainable practices inherent to local cultures (Brockington 2004, Berkes 2012).

Rooted in colonial legacies, the forces of education systems, policies, market economy, urbanization, and globalization, compounded by environmental and other social-ecological changes, make it increasingly challenging for local traditional communities to perceive, function, and sustain themselves in the ways their ancestors taught them. These challenges are reflected in a large body of literature that reports on the status of TEK systems, often focusing on their loss or erosion (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021). For instance, Aswani et al. (2018) reviewed 92 studies, with 77% reporting a decline in TEK, particularly in ethnobotanical practices. Similarly, Sharifian et al. (2022), in a review of 152 publications on pastoral TEK, found 62 documented transitions, with 83% identifying knowledge erosion as the most prevalent change. Reporting loss and erosion can bring to light the vulnerabilities faced by TEK systems and mobilize support from global communities and policy makers to protect these traditional cultural legacies.

Although some scholars acknowledge that TEK naturally adapts and evolves over time, continuously focusing on its loss or decline can be counterproductive. This negative-centered narrative may discourage local traditional communities and hinder their efforts to preserve, revitalize, and develop their cultural practices (Gómez-Baggethun and Reyes-García 2013, Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021). Adding to this, the perspectives from which we view TEK systems shape our interactions with them (Benyei et al. 2020). Viewing TEK systems only as fading or disappearing may lead to their “museumification,” taking away their agency and narrowing them to “static” knowledge of the past, rather than recognizing them as inherently dynamic and adapting (Berkes et al. 2000, Reyes-García et al. 2014). Conversely, recognizing their resilience and adaptability opens opportunities to weave these living knowledge systems with other knowledge systems, such as science, potentially providing an enriched picture of the world (Tengö et al. 2014).

Furthermore, understanding how TEK systems persist, reorganize, and renew themselves, not only shifts the narrative from vulnerability to vitality, but also offers valuable insights into what features of these knowledge systems might help them sustain and evolve. This dynamic perspective aligns with the concept of ecosystems’ resilience, first introduced by Holling (1973) to refer to ecosystem’s capacity to absorb disturbances while undergoing change and still retain their essential functions and identity. Later, the concept of resilience was used as a central feature for understanding complex system dynamics (Walker et al. 2004). In social-ecological systems, resilience is about learning from and developing with change, rather than managing against change. It is about having the capacities to live with complexity, uncertainty, and change, abrupt or incremental, and continue to develop with ever-changing environments (Folke 2006). This concept captures not only the idea of a system’s persistence, but also its ability to react, reorganize, and renew itself.

However, although resilience is often framed positively, researchers have drawn attention to its potential downsides. Concepts such as undesirable resilience or social-ecological traps refer to systems that are stable but maladaptive, inequitable, or unsustainable (Kerner and Thomas 2014, Tidball et al. 2016). Lambert-Peck et al. (2024) further argues that resilience is not value-neutral. It can normalize loss, obscure vulnerability, or reinforce dominant interests. As Dornelles et al. (2020) stated, we should consider resilience of what, to what, and for whom. In pastoral contexts, pastoralists’ resilience typically arises from embedded, self-organized practices such as mobility, herd sharing, and selective breeding. Yet policy-driven efforts to “build resilience,” through sedentarization programs or grazing restrictions, often sideline or overwrite these internal strategies. What appears adaptive in the short term can, over time, limit pastoralists’ options and lead to entrapment. This highlights the need to distinguish between externally imposed forms of resilience and those that emerge from within traditional knowledge systems themselves.

There is considerable research on how TEK systems can nurture the resilience of social ecological systems through biodiversity conservation, climate change adaptation, nature stewardship, and more (Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera 2013, Reyes-García 2023). However, far fewer studies investigate the resilience and adaptative capacity of TEK systems themselves. Illustrating this, Reyes-García et al. (2014) has found that TEK of home gardeners in Spain shows resilience through incorporating scientific knowledge while, at the same time, maintaining the bulk of the accumulated body of knowledge. Similarly, in another study in coastal communities in Brazil, TEK shows resilience through the effective intergenerational transmission of knowledge (Zank et al. 2019).

Building on this foundation, this study examines the persistence, change, and functional characteristics of the TEK system among pastoral herders in East Ujimchin Banner, Inner Mongolia, China. Focusing on three traditional herding practices, mobile grazing (nuudel), herd breeding (uriin mal songoh), and herd sharing (surug tabih/abah), this study analyzes how these practices have historically enabled herders to adapt to past environmental changes and how they may continue to support adaptation to contemporary socio-environmental challenges. In this study, we use the term TEK as defined by Berkes (1999:8): “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission.” This definition explicitly acknowledges the dynamic nature of TEK, constantly shaped and reshaped through observation, innovation, and interaction with changing social-ecological contexts. Although the word “traditional” might suggest fixed knowledge, we follow Gómez-Baggethun and Reyes-García (2013) in emphasizing that TEK systems are living and evolving frameworks of knowledge and practices. Thus, the TEK we examine is not confined to pre-modern eras but understood as a dynamic system that is continuously shaped by generational learning and adaptation to social-ecological change.

Our specific research questions are the following: (1) How were these three traditional practices implemented prior to the land tenure reform in 1984 (referred to as Q1)? (2) Which elements of these practices have persisted, and which have changed in response to contemporary socio-environmental changes (Q2)? (3) What features support the long-term persistence and adaptive capacity of these three practices (Q3)? By examining the persistence and adaptation of traditional mobile grazing, herd breeding, and herd-sharing practices, rather than focusing on the “end of nomadism,” the “disappearance of local breeds,” and the “breakdown of reciprocal relationships,” we aim to create an alternative narrative to approach current crises.

CASE STUDY

Background

East Ujimchin Banner is situated within the Shilingol League in northeastern Inner Mongolia, China. The administrative structure of Inner Mongolia is organized into aimag (leagues), which are further subdivided into huxuu (banners). Each banner is made up of several sumu (townships), and these, in turn, consist of gacha (the smallest administrative unit).

Rooted in the Mongolian word for “grapes,” Ujimchin translates as “grape people.” According to local oral history, the grape mountains in the Altai-Hanggai region were the ancestral land of the Ujimchin Mongolians (Belguntai 2006). To this day, Ujimchin herders place their saddles and cooking pots in the direction of their origin to remember their history. With a population of 46,419 people, Mongolians make up 74.7% of the banner’s total population (East Ujimchin Bureau of Statistics 2020). The banner has 4,611,300 hectares of overall rangeland area (East Ujimchin Banner Government Office [date unknown]).

East Ujimchin lies at elevations between 800 and 1500 meters above sea level, sloping from higher ground in the north toward the south and west (East Ujimchin Banner Government Office [date unknown]). The region falls within the northern temperate continental climate zone and is characterized by a semi-arid climate (Li et al. 2016). It experiences four distinct seasons. Spring is unpredictable, characterized by fluctuating conditions that include snow, rain, and frequent windy days. Summer generally features high temperatures with regular rainfall. In contrast, autumn is relatively cool, with minimal rainfall and stable weather. Winter is intensely cold, often marked by significant snowfall. Annual precipitation ranges from 200 to 350 mm, while evaporation can exceed 3000 mm. The average annual temperature is around 1.6 °C, with extremes ranging from 39.3 °C in summer to -40.5 °C in winter (East Ujimchin Banner Government Office [date unknown], Uriyaanhan 2018). These climatic and environmental conditions shape a temperate steppe ecosystem dominated by species such as Stipa grandis, Stipa krylovii, Leymus chinensis, Cleistogenes squarrosa, Artemisia frigida, Caragana microphylla, and Agropyron cristatum (Li et al. 2016).

Traditionally, Mongolian nuudel maljil (nomadism) represents a traditional social-ecological system characterized by three interconnected core components: baigal (nature), tavan hoshuu mal (the five primary livestock species: sheep, goats, cattle, horses, and camels), and malqin (herder; Boyanbaatar 2012). Among these, nature is the foundation. Mongolian herders believe that an imbalance in nature can lead to catastrophic events (Chao et al. 2023). They have developed a deep understanding of natural cycles and ecological processes, aligning their practices with the rules of nature to prevent nature deterioration and maintain ecological balance (Tang and Gavin 2010, Sa 2020). Mobile grazing practice is one of the key practices that reflects this close relationship with nature. Traditionally, herders manage all five types of livestock and follow a highly strategic and organized movement, respecting the rules of nature. Such movement is crucial for the sustainability of grassland ecosystems, as it allows vegetation periods of rest and recovery (Belguntai 2006, Uriyaanhan 2018). Additionally, because the climate variations throughout the year in the Ujimchin result in changes in forage availability, mobile grazing also allows herders to move their livestock to locations offering more suitable resources and shelter, according to the season.

In addition to mobile grazing, the selection of appropriate livestock breeds is another important job for herders. To ensure that their livestock adapts to the extreme temperatures and resource scarcity of the area, herders practice selective breeding. They choose male livestock based on traits such as coat color, hair density, and other physical characteristics, which indicate the livestock’s ability to thrive in the local environment (Boyanbaatar 2012). For example, sheep with black ears, snout, eyes, and neck are often preferred to sheep without these characteristics for their better resilience against the region’s harsh climate (Belguntai 2006).

Pastoral life is inherently uncertain, frequently encountering various challenges and hazards (Reid et al. 2014). Consequently, collaboration and reciprocal support systems among herders are not merely beneficial but rather essential for their survival in these variable environments (Chao et al. 2023). In response to adversities such as harsh winters or other natural disasters, East Ujimchin herders engage in “herd sharing,” a practice where herders share female livestock with those who have suffered losses, enabling them to rebuild their livestock. This arrangement is also beneficial in situations where a family faces labor shortages and cannot manage their full livestock effectively. In such cases, herders entrust their young female livestock to another reliable family. Typically, the host family receives the wool and milk produced, as well as a share of any offspring, as compensation. This practice not only acts as a crucial safety net but also strengthens social bonds, ensuring that herders can maintain their way of life in the face of ongoing challenges (Uriyaanhan 2018).

Compared to many other areas in Inner Mongolia, East Ujimchin has preserved traditional nomadic livelihoods in relatively authentic ways (Zhang and Shang 2020). However, in recent decades, Inner Mongolia has experienced growing climatic pressures. Herders report increased variability in precipitation, delayed spring grass growth, and more frequent droughts and sandstorms (Liu and Wang 2012, Zhang 2015). These environmental challenges, coupled with socioeconomic and policy pressures, have placed increasing stress on TEK system. This intersection of strong cultural continuity and rapidly evolving socio-environmental conditions makes East Ujimchin a particularly suitable case for exploring the persistence and adaptation of TEK.

Policy shifts in land and herd management in East Ujimchin, Inner Mongolia, China

Until 1958, livestock and land in East Ujimchin were managed collectively within larger communal units known as sums. After 1958, management shifted to a more localized gacha level, though it remained collective. In 1984, land tenure reform was implemented, transitioning from collective management to a market-oriented system based on privately owned land with the aim of improving efficiency and grassland management (Xie and Li 2008). While initially enhancing household economic conditions, the reform also heightened the vulnerability of pastoral social-ecological systems to environmental variability and climate change. Many scholars have noted that this policy has contributed to increased grassland degradation and has adversely impacted herder livelihoods through reduced mobility and fragmented grazing patterns (Xie and Li 2008, Han 2011).

Since the privatization of land, the central government has also intensified efforts to enhance the economic conditions in pastoral regions by promoting the transition from traditional mobile pastoralism to a more sedentary one. This policy shift, driven by state narratives that characterized nomadic lifestyles (Ju We Ding Suo) as backward, sought to fundamentally transform traditional pastoral practices. The “12th Five-Year Plan for the Construction of National Nomadic Settlement Project” explicitly linked traditional mobile pastoralism to poor living conditions and to increased vulnerability to natural disasters (National Development and Reform Commission 2012). Following these settlement policies, by 2010, most formerly nomadic households in Inner Mongolia had adopted more sedentary lifestyles, residing in permanent brick structures on allocated land parcels. As of 2010, only about 3000 households, comprising 12,000 herders, maintained their mobile pastoralist practices (National Development and Reform Commission 2012).

In addition, the local government has implemented several livestock incentive programs to boost the productivity and economic viability of herding. Starting in 1958, these programs primarily focused on crossbreeding local herds with imported commercial breeds. A significant example was the effort to replace local Ujimchin fat-tail sheep with the Australian Merino breed, known for the quality of their wool and high market value (Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Chronicles Editorial Committee 2016). This effort, which continued for nearly 25 years, ultimately failed after the land tenure reform (Uriyaanhan 2018). Between 1965 and 1985, the Ujimchin white horses were also targeted for replacement because of their perceived “lack of market value.” Similarly, from 2005 to 2007, the local government ordered the replacement of the Ujimchin cattle breed with Simmental cattle, known for the value of its meat. The Ujimchin white goat is characterized by cold resilience, attributable to its long, heavy, and soft cashmere and large body size. However, in 2009, the local government criticized this breed for its “low wool production” and “harmful effects on vegetation and pastures” (Gong 2001, Uriyaanhan 2018). As a result, herders were incentivized with other breeds with higher wool yields. Ironically, only five months later, the national government officially recognized the Ujimchin goat as a valuable national breed. Introducing foreign breeds and undervaluing local breeds have not only affected the lineage makeup of local livestock but also disrupted traditional breeding practices that were finely tuned to the ecological and climatic realities of local communities (Li and Li 2012, Uriyaanhan 2018).

METHODS

Positionality statement

As an ethnic Mongolian from China, the first author’s cultural connection to the study community fundamentally informed the research approach and data interpretation. This cultural positionality offered the team privileged access to knowledge holders and enabled a nuanced understanding of the local cultural context. However, this insider status also requires careful reflexivity regarding potential biases arising from such close cultural proximity. The research team’s composition, including scholars from Catalonia, Hungary, and China, brought diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives derived from their extensive work with local traditional communities globally. To enhance methodological rigor and minimize potential biases, we employed multiple methods and conducted collective reviews during the research design and implementation. We acknowledge that despite these measures and our diverse perspectives, our interpretation may not fully capture the complexity and nuances of the community’s knowledge systems.

Data collection

This study is based on nine months of fieldwork, from November 2022 to August 2023, in East Ujimchin, Inner Mongolia, China. Three gacha, Honger, Hargant, and Mantuhbolog, were selected as study sites. All three selected gacha are under the jurisdiction of East Ujimchin Banner and share similar topographic, ecological, and community characteristics. The selection of these specific gacha was influenced by the first author’s previous engagements and familiarity with the local communities. Although these gacha provide valuable insight into the persistence and adaptation of traditional practices, we acknowledge that our results may not represent the full diversity of experiences across East Ujimchin or Inner Mongolia. Therefore, our findings should be interpreted with an awareness of their partial representativeness.

Prior to data collection, ethical authorizations were obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (CEEAH - 6170), and informed consent was collected from all participants (see Fig. 1). Although traditionally the role of men in grazing is prominent within pastoral communities in the area, we acknowledge the indispensable contribution of women to herding life (Meurs et al. 2022). To ensure gender inclusivity, we intentionally involved both men and women in all data collection methods. We combined both qualitative (i.e., semi-structured interviews and participatory mapping workshops) and quantitative methods (i.e., survey) for data collection, as detailed below.

Past practices

To gain a comprehensive understanding of traditional practices in the study area, the study began with interviews with three key participants. Interviewees were selected through purposive sampling based on three criteria: (1) individuals aged 70 years or older, (2) recognition among East Ujimchin herders for their demonstrated success in managing livestock through harsh climatic events, and (3) formal acknowledgment as exemplary herders by their community. During these interviews, the main question posed was, “How did you, and other herders in your area, adapt to climate variability?” Through this question, we aimed to gather detailed insights into local traditional practices. Although the question focused on climate variability, participants’ responses naturally encompassed a broader range of environmental, socioeconomic, and political changes that shaped their practices. We identified mobile grazing, herd breeding, and herd sharing as the practices that contributed the most to adapting to climate variability.

To delve deeper into the details of the past applications of these practices, semi-structured interviews were conducted with other elders (n = 40). Snowball sampling was employed to broaden the pool of participants, with the initially selected key participants recommending other knowledgeable elders. To better understand mobile grazing before the 1984 land tenure reform, we asked questions about the frequency and distance of movements, the selection of seasonal pastures, and the reasons for mobility. To complement this, we conducted three participatory mapping workshops in each gacha with 12 local elders to document historical mobile grazing practices (Ilboudo Nébié et al. 2021). Elders, selected for their prior gacha management roles through purposive sampling, used color markers to identify the pre-1984 seasonal pastures and key landscape features. In addition, to obtain further insights into the TEK associated with this practice and the reasons behind the choices of specific pastures, we also engaged in discussions with the elders during workshops. To better understand herd breeding before 1984, we asked elders about the specific traits used for selecting each of the five livestock types and the reasoning behind the selection of these traits. Finally, to better understand past herd-sharing practice, we explored the rules governing the sharing process, past experiences, and the purpose of the practice. One past herd-sharing contract was collected from a herder.

Current practices

The dynamic and spatial nature of mobile grazing was difficult to capture in a survey, for which we used more visual and interactive methods to capture information accurately. Specifically, we organized household participatory mapping workshops with 30 randomly selected households to understand current mobile grazing practices. We asked households to draw their pastures and mark the pastures where they currently move their livestock during each season, detailing the characteristics of each seasonal pasture, the distances between them, and the frequency of movements. These mapping activities were complemented by discussions that provided further insights into whether households have engaged in long-distance mobility practices outside the mapped areas since 1984 and the reasons behind their mobility practices.

We used data from semi-structured interviews to design a survey aimed at gathering information on the current application of two of the practices examined: herd breeding and herd sharing. Using a random sampling method, we conducted 227 individual surveys with herders selected from a household list provided by local gacha leaders. Households were numbered, and a random number generator was used to select participants. Within each selected household, we surveyed the household head; in some cases, both male and female heads were surveyed. The survey gathered information on whether the herder knew about the traditional breeding traits for five livestock types and whether they still use these specific traits now. Additionally, we collected data on herders’ perceptions of the different functions of this practice.

Because herd-sharing practice is implemented at the family unit level and decisions are typically made collectively by the household, we conducted 200 household-level surveys on herd sharing. During these surveys, we collected data on whether households were aware of this practice, whether they have engaged in herd-sharing practice, who they practice it with (i.e., relatives or strangers), and why they engage in it. To understand the current rules and formats, we also collected the herd-sharing contracts of households that reported that they have engaged in this practice. Individual and household background information, including details on demographic data, household size, herd types, and rangeland dimensions, was also collected.

Data analysis

To understand how the three traditional practices were implemented before the land tenure reform in 1984 (Q1), we employed thematic analysis, identifying themes within interview data. For mobile grazing, themes emerged related to the characteristics of seasonal pastures, the timing, frequency, and reasons for moving. For breeding practices, we documented the detailed breeding traits, the timing of these selections, and the number of males chosen, alongside the purposes of this practice. Similarly, for herd-sharing practices, we explored with whom and how it was practiced, the specific rules, and the reasons for engaging in herd-sharing.

To explore the continuity and changes in three practices following the implementation of land tenure reform (Q2), we employed a combination of both qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques. For mobile grazing, we evaluated the number of seasonal pastures marked on historical gacha maps gathered from three participatory mapping workshops. Then, we compared them with those on current maps from 30 household participatory mapping workshops. We also performed thematic analysis on the characteristics of seasonal pastures, as well as the distances and frequencies of movements, using data from interviews and household mapping workshops. For herd-breeding practices, we assessed the awareness and application of traditional breeding traits for five types of livestock. This involved calculating descriptive statistics to evaluate community knowledge and implementation of these traits, and tracking changes based on survey responses. Afterward, we conducted follow-up interviews with three knowledgeable local herders to further explore the findings from the herd-breeding survey. During these interviews, we asked for their perspectives on why certain traits are more commonly used today. The insights from these interviews were not treated as standalone data but were integrated into the discussion section to support reflection and interpretation of the observed patterns. In the case of herd-sharing practices, we compared the rules and formats of sharing, analyzing both historical (n = 1) and current written contracts (n = 2) along with data from interviews and household surveys.

To explore the features that contribute to the persistence and adaptation of pastoral TEK (Q3), we used descriptive statistics. For mobile grazing, we quantified the responses from interviews and participatory mapping workshops to identify the functions attributed to this practice. Similarly, for both herd breeding and herd sharing, we analyzed the frequency of different reasons provided by herders for practicing these traditions in the past and now.

In the presentation of the findings in the results section, descriptions of the past application of these practices are articulated in the past tense to denote historical context. Conversely, findings about the current application of these practices are written in the present tense, reflecting their ongoing relevance and implementation.

RESULTS

Here, we present empirical findings on the three key practices in East Ujimchin: mobile grazing, herd breeding, and herd sharing. Each subsection outlines the motivations, past practices, and current forms of these practices, based on interviews, surveys, and participatory mapping.

Mobile grazing practice

Motivations

According to interview responses, mobile grazing was core to maintaining livestock health and productivity, ecological balance, and climate adaptation. The primary motivation for mobile grazing, as mentioned by 41 of 43 participants during key informant and semi-structured interviews, was the maintenance of livestock health and productivity.

There are a lot of reasons [to move the livestock]. The first one is to feed our herd with different kinds of plants and change the taste for the herd. Like humans, if we keep eating the same meal every day, we will be sick of it one day (Interviewee XYZ, personal communication 2023).

Moreover, 26 participants stressed nutag sergeh (land regeneration) as a motivation for mobile herding. Nutag referred to land, while sergeh meant “to awake.” Adapting to climatic events, such as drought, was another critical function of mobile grazing, pointed out by 23 of 43 participants in the semi-structured interviews. Several participants shared an old proverb, huraazh barhaar, nuuzh bar, which could be translated as “It is better to move and risk than to stay and risk.” Informants reported that, in the past, during severe climatic events, herders even moved beyond gacha boundaries to find suitable pastures.

Comments made during household mappings of current movement showed that nowadays herders continued practicing mobile grazing primarily to rest and regenerate pastures, as emphasized by 28 out of 30 participants in mapping sessions. Seven participants cited the improvement of livestock health through varied pastures as their motivation, while two participants noted the importance of maintaining tradition.

Past practice

During the interviews, elders emphasized that, before the 1984 land tenure reform, mobile grazing in the area was characterized by frequent movement, careful selection of seasonal pasture locations, strategic timing of movements, and long-distance mobility during extreme weather events. Traditional mobile grazing followed a dual-scale pattern, involving seasonal migration between different pastures and shorter-distance rotation movements within each seasonal camp. Decisions were typically guided by a knowledgeable elder. Families cycled through four seasonal pastures over the course of the year, and, within each pasture, they usually did not stay in the same spot for more than 15 days, moving around 11–17 km at a time.

Mobile grazing was not spontaneous but followed a clear process based on herders’ knowledge about vegetation types and their actual condition, microclimates, water availability, and livestock needs. In East Ujimchin, early forage growth during spring was crucial for livestock recovery after winter, making gobi pastures with salty vegetation such as hers (Suaeda glauca (Bunge) Bunge) and bodargan (Atraphaxis manshurica Kitag.) highly suitable during this season (see Fig. 2a). These spring camps were typically located in warm, sheltered areas, where snow tended to melt first, providing optimal conditions for early grazing. Summer camps were strategically placed at higher altitudes in flat, open areas, ideally near water sources such as lakes or rivers, which was beneficial for the livestock to obtain oson tarag, or water fat (see Fig. 2b). However, certain pastures were less favorable for summer camps than others. Gobi pastures, while suitable in spring, were too salty during the summer, potentially harming the livestock. Mountain pastures posed a risk of flooding, which could be hazardous for both livestock and herders. Densely grown pastures were generally avoided for summer camps because of the high number of mosquitoes, which posed a risk to both livestock’s and herder’s health and comfort.

For autumn, participants preferred pastures with mangir (e.g. Allium senescens L.), agi (Artemisia frigida Willd.), and zheergen (Ephedra sinica Stapf), which provided toson tarag, or oil fat (see Fig. 2c). To fatten the livestock in autumn, participants mentioned that the practice was to restrict water intake to once a month because frequent drinking prevented livestock from gaining oil fat, making them less resilient in cold weather and prone to weight loss in winter. Instead, herders let the livestock graze on the species mentioned above, which were considered watery plants, to minimize the livestock’s frequent need for water. Participants noted that, during winter, the standard practice was to choose areas with less snow and with dense and rich forage and place herds there (see Fig. 2d). Pastures located in mountainous terrain were considered ideal for sheltering and grazing the livestock during heavy snow. Some participants noted that they observed wild animals to decide on winter camp locations. Specifically, they mentioned that the presence of deer with reddish fur was an indicator of good pasture quality.

Regarding when to move, participants mentioned that changes in temperature, pasture quality, or the productivity of grazing areas determined the timing of seasonal movements. When snow cover melted and forage availability decreased, it signaled the time to leave ubuljee, the winter camp, for habarjaa, the spring camp, typically from late March to early April. When temperatures rose, mosquitoes appeared, and rainfall was reduced, herders transitioned to zuslang, the summer camp, around late June to early July. As the air cooled, early frosts set in, and rainfall increased, conditions that appeared coupled with worsening pasture conditions and that occurred from mid to late August, herders moved to namarjaa, the autumn camp. Finally, the appearance of cold winds and early snow in early November was a sign of the return to the winter camp, completing the full cycle of their seasonal migration.

Participants reported that, in the past, East Ujimchin herders also employed long-distance mobility to cope with severe weather events, such as dzud, a period characterized by heavy snow and extreme cold that severely restricted access to pastures. Participants explained that since 1967, six dzud events had occurred, five of which were before the year 2000 (see Fig. 3). In the severe tumer dzud of 1977, thick ice made it nearly impossible for livestock to dig for grass. During those times, families moved their livestock up to 100 km to areas with vegetation that allowed their livestock to survive. Participants also noted an increase in the frequency of droughts in recent years, with more frequent occurrences since 2000 (see Fig. 3).

Current practice

Since 1984, the mobile grazing practice has experienced significant changes, characterized by reduced movement frequency, fewer seasonal camps, and diminished long-distance grazing. Participatory mapping workshops revealed that 90% of participating households (n = 27) attributed these changes primarily to restricted land access, a consequence of land tenure reform and the proliferation of boundary fencing. For instance, in Mantuhbolog gacha, movements from summer to autumn camps reduced from ~30–40 km to ~10 km. A similar reduction was seen in Hargant gacha, where spring-to-summer movements dropped from 30 km to less than 5 km. Previously, households carried out four major seasonal movements and relocated every 15 days within a pasture to preserve pasture health. Today, no household could sustain such frequent movements. Additionally, no households reported practicing long-distance migration since the reform, marking an obvious contrast to the past.

Despite these changes, a key element of mobile grazing persisted: seasonal utilization of pastures. Data from 30 participatory household mapping sessions showed that one-third of the interviewed households (n = 8) individually managed pasture areas over 1333 hectares. These households typically had three seasonal camps primarily for winter, spring, and summer (see Fig. 4a and b). One household also rented additional pasture from another herder as hadleng, a pasture area intentionally left ungrazed during summer so that hay could be harvested and stored for winter feeding.

Another third of the households participating in the mapping exercise (n = 11) managed pasture areas ranging between 667 and 1333 hectares. These households typically had two seasonal camps: either winter and spring, or summer and autumn camps (see Fig. 4c and d). One family, lacking suitable summer grazing land, rented a pasture adjacent to a river specifically for their summer use. Among participants with less than 667 hectares, micro-mobility (short-range mobility) was the predominant strategy (see Fig. 4e and f). The term micro-mobility referred to more spontaneous rotation between pasture types within the grazing areas (Adriansen 2008). During the winter months, most of these households relied on purchased fodder, with only two households maintaining dedicated areas for hay harvesting to support winter feeding.

As in the past, the type and number of seasonal camps continued to be influenced by the available pasture area and landscape characteristics. Closeness to water sources and landscape features, such as mountains, played crucial roles in this process. However, because of limited land availability and environmental changes, it became increasingly challenging to find suitable areas for autumn camps. Participants of household mapping workshops noted that these constraints led families to either purchase forage, rent additional pastures, or reserve nutrient-rich parts of their own pastures as reserve pasture to meet the high forage and specific plant needs of autumn grazing.

Herd-breeding practice

Motivations

Herd breeding was a fundamental practice among herders in East Ujimchin. According to interview participants, traditional breeding traits for selecting male livestock helped ensure that the livestock were productive, well-suited to the local climate, and reflective of cultural values. The primary function, productivity, was particularly emphasized, with 12 traits identified across five types of livestock that maintained productivity. Climate resistance was the second most emphasized function, supported by 11 traits. Cultural significance was also a key aspect of breeding practice, with seven traits in total.

You can easily tell how good a herder is by the Uriin Mal [male breeding stock] they choose (Interviewee AUV, personal communication 2023).

Data from 227 individual surveys reaffirmed the enduring relevance of herd-breeding practice. A large majority of participants, 94% (n = 213), believed that, in general, herd-breeding practice significantly contributed to restoring herd productivity. Moreover, 78% (n = 178) of participants viewed herd breeding as crucial for enhancing their livestock’s resistance to winter disasters (see Fig. A1). Similarly, most participants agreed on the ability of breeding practice to enhance livestock resistance to drought (76%, n = 173). When considering the importance of herd breeding to increase resilience to pasture shortages, levels of agreement were more varied, but still most informants agreed (62%, n = 141).

Past practice

Through interviews, we identified 19 traits across the five types of livestock, each serving different functions, including enhancing productivity, improving climate resistance, and preserving cultural values (see Table 1). Among these functions, high productivity was particularly emphasized, with six key traits across different livestock types specifically valued to maintain productivity. For example, the udom, lineage, was crucial for all livestock types. When herders said, “This ram’s udom is good,” the ram’s ancestors had consistently produced offspring with desirable traits, such as high fertility rates and strong health. Rams, stallions, and bulls were selected for their long and straight backs, indicative of physical strength essential for effective breeding. Balanced and wide hips signified higher reproductive success. Stallions were also picked for their same-sized and large testicles, which showed they were fertile and likely to produce healthy offspring.

Climate resistance was crucial to ensure that livestock could withstand harsh weather conditions. Participants mentioned that, for rams, pure white color should have been avoided, while black eyes, ears, and snout were preferred. Several participants shared an old proverb: chadla gezh chagaan hoch bu taib, hanla gezh hara hoch bu taib, which translates to “Don’t breed pure white rams, even if you have many livestock; don’t breed pure black rams, even if you are satisfied with your livestock.” According to herders interviewed, pure white and black rams were less desirable because white rams easily lost weight in cold winters and had poor vision in snowy conditions. Nevertheless, black sheep were not preferred either, in this case, as the color represented bad luck and bad omen in Mongolian culture. Another trait to help selection was birth season. In the past, rams born in the middle of the lambing season were considered stronger than the ones born at the onset or at the end. Additionally, big and even tails, along with curly wool, were preferred, as these features indicated resistance to cold. Moreover, the thickness of the skin determined a bull’s resistance to cold. Bull camels with evenly standing humps were also highly valued for their ability to endure both cold winters and hot summers.

Beyond their practical functions, the physical traits of livestock also embodied unique cultural identities and beliefs. For example, Ujimchin was known for its white horses. Participants noted that white color represented purity and nobility. Additionally, they believed this was a part of Ujimchin identity, as historical accounts described Ujimchin herders wearing white and riding white horses. Bucks and bulls with even and big horns were preferred, as participants believed these horns symbolized maliin sur, the spiritual pride and power in male livestock. Some traits that primarily indicated climate resilience or high productivity also had cultural significance, particularly within the community’s identity. For instance, the fat-tailed sheep, valued for their ability to store energy and thrive in harsh climates, were representative of Ujimchin identity.

Traditionally, the selection process for rams and bucks commenced by mid-April according to the agricultural calendar, strategically timed before castration. The number of males selected for breeding was not fixed but varied depending on the size of the herd. For example, in a herd of 1000 sheep or goats, about 10–20 males were chosen to ensure effective breeding. For cattle, bulls were evaluated and selected for breeding at two years of age. The typical selection ratio was one bull for every 30 cows and two bulls for every 50 cows. Stallions were chosen at four years old, and each was paired with a group of approximately 20 mares.

One notable past practice among East Ujimchin herders was the rotational use of male livestock. Every three years, herders engaged in the exchange of male livestock, specifically selecting male livestock from families renowned for maintaining authentic herd traits. This practice was locally called qus solih, meaning changing the blood. The strategic exchange was particularly important when certain valued traits began to weaken or disappear within herds. By introducing livestock from families where these traits were kept and strong, herders could effectively recover these characteristics in their livestock. Additionally, introducing bloodlines from geographically distant herds was believed to prevent inbreeding (locally called qus oirtoh, which literally meant “blood becoming close”) and to maintain the overall quality of the livestock.

Current practice

Parallel to changes observed in mobile grazing, herd-breeding practices in East Ujimchin also underwent significant transformations since 1984. Certain selection traits, such as “single-color selection” of stallions and bulls and “born in the middle of lambing season” of rams, had a noticeable shift in awareness and use (see Table 2). According to participants, the main reason behind the color choice change was the shift to foreign breeds of stallion and bull. The decline in selection of “heavy tail fur” and “heavy neck hair” of stallions was also due to breed change. Moreover, bucks and bulls were now preferred without horns. Participants reported that the reason behind the change in preference was that they kept livestock in shelters during winter and horns made it easy for them to harm each other. Some participants also reported that livestock with horns were not resistant to the cold and were more likely to lose weight. Among all five types of livestock, bull camel traits experienced the most considerable reduction. Buck selection using traditional traits was also largely under-practiced. A significant factor contributing to this shift was that many participants did not own any of these types of livestock.

Despite these changes, 30 traditional traits continued to be practiced, although their use varied. Traditional traits for rams and stallions remained particularly strong, with herders consistently valuing traits such as strong lineages and body conformation. Bull selection also showed continuity in the use of traits related to endurance and productivity.

Moreover, survey data also showed that traits contributing to maintaining herd productivity were the most widely used across all livestock types. For example, lineage stood out as the most consistently valued trait across all livestock types (see Fig. 5). Traits that ensured livestock adaptation to harsh environmental conditions were the second most frequently applied. Compared to herd productivity and climate resistance traits, cultural traits were less frequently used. Although less frequently applied, many of the cultural traits were still used by around 40%–70% of participants, depending on the trait.

Herd-sharing practices

Motivations

Herd sharing, locally known as surug tabih/abah, was a long-standing practice among herders in East Ujimchin. As participants reported, traditionally, this practice contributed to fostering societal equality. During the collective era in Inner Mongolia, China (1950s–1970s), when livestock and rangelands were collectively owned and managed, herd sharing was practiced to maintain herd-pasture balance, address labor shortages, minimize climatic risks, sustain herd growth, and help herders with few or no animals to increase their herd size. Prior to the fencing of pastures in 2000, herders continued to employ traditional herd sharing to cope with climatic events, even after the implementation of land tenure reform in 1984. This practice was engaged at the community level, enabling herders to recover from severe climatic events by hosting livestock from other communities.

Household survey results showed that the primary reason for engaging in herd sharing was to mitigate land shortages, cited by 38% of households (see Appendix 1 Fig. A2b). Other significant reasons included helping families in need and addressing labor shortages (18% each). Additionally, 15% of households used herd sharing to increase their herd numbers, and 7% of participants utilized it as a strategy to adapt to severe climatic events. A smaller portion, 3%, viewed herd sharing as an important tradition that should be preserved.

Past practice

According to interview participants, in the past, families with larger herds shared part of their livestock with families with fewer or no livestock. This system allowed host families to improve their economic stability and living conditions. In return, the sharing families paid the labor of caring for the livestock by offering some of their livestock, along with meat and dairy products, to the host families. Thus, the system was considered mutually beneficial. The selection of host families varied and could include relatives, herders from the same gacha, or even those they had never met, with agreements made orally and based primarily on trust.

Interview participants also noted that during the 1950s, prior to the collective era, this practice was encouraged and formalized by the local government. At that time, Inner Mongolia operated under a decentralized system of animal husbandry. Interview participants recalled that when a family wanted to share part of their herd, there was a requirement that 60% to 70% of the herd be female, with 30% to 40% of the newborn offspring belonging to the host family after one year. For instance, according to a herd-sharing contract from 1953 (see Fig. 6), the host family would receive 40% of the newborn offspring, while 60% would be returned to the sharing family each year. Further details shared by participants indicated that in the case of twin births, one stayed with the mother, while the other was given to the sharing family. In the event of sudden livestock deaths, the host family was responsible for one-third of the loss, with the sharing family assuming the rest. If diseases such as brain infections occurred, the burden of the loss was shared equally. The herd was returned after the wool was removed, allowing the host family to benefit from it.

Participants explained that during the collective era in Inner Mongolia, China (1950s–1970s), the main use of this practice was to assist herders in need. Although all livestock and pastures were owned by the community, households still retained small amounts of livestock to sustain themselves, with the local government acting as the sharing entity to ensure every household had enough.

In the 1970s, they [the Chinese local government] gave us 100 sheep to herd, and by the end of the year, they took back the original ones with 70% of their offspring, leaving us with the rest ... not just us, many families increased their herd number. (Interviewee SDX, personal communication 2023).

According to interview participants, as recently as the early 2000s, herd sharing was employed as a collective strategy to help herders mitigate and recover from severe climatic events. For example, in the winter of 2000, the Honger gacha suffered a devastating white dzud, losing almost 75% of its livestock. The following year, the neighboring banner of Sunid experienced a severe drought, leaving no grazing available until early July 2001. In response, leaders from the two communities collaborated to implement herd sharing. Herders from Hongor gacha took charge of 20,000 ewes from Sunid, agreeing to return the same number of mother ewes (without returning the offspring) the following year. This initiative was pivotal not only in helping Honger herders rebuild their livestock base, but also in helping Sunid herders cope with the drought.

Current practice

Survey data showed that 81% (n = 162) of the households knew about the herd-sharing practice, and 25% (n = 49) of the households either had shared their livestock with other families or received livestock from others. Compared with the past, among the households who practiced herd sharing, most (43%, n = 21) preferred to share their livestock with relatives, with neighbors constituting the second most popular option (28%; see Appendix 1 Fig. A2a). Only 18% of households chose to share their livestock with strangers, and 7% shared with families they knew, but who were not necessarily neighbors or relatives.

Compared to past practice, it became more common to receive/pay money rather than take/give back offspring. In East Ujimchin, the original livestock that had been shared was called monghk mal, literally meaning “everlasting herd.” Herders assumed that each base livestock would give birth to one offspring. According to one of the recent contracts provided by a herder (see Fig. 7a), “On the basis of ensuring the base number of livestock that had been shared, the host family should pay around US$55 per sheep, around US$11,000 annually to the sharing family.” Participants noted that this payment was equivalent to giving back 50% of the offspring, as the market price of a lamb was US$110. If the herd got sick, the host families had to fully absorb the losses resulting from the illness. Previously, the administrative unit served as the guarantor of the contract, but now an individual household took on that role, as agreed upon by both parties.

Besides sheep sharing, horse sharing was also common in East Ujimchin. Compared with sheep sharing, horse sharing required a slightly lower payback rate of the offspring. For instance, one horse sharing contract (see Fig. 7b) showed that the host family had to pay approximately US$200 for each young horse, equating to one third of the market value. This arrangement meant the host family paid back 30% of the offspring’s value.

Overall, based on survey data, herd sharing was perceived positively for its ability to address several critical challenges faced by herders (see Fig. A3). A significant portion of households (82%, n = 162) believed that herd sharing could help herders manage land shortages. Also, 73% of the households recognized its role in dealing with current labor shortages. Additionally, 70% of households perceived herd sharing as an effective strategy to combat land degradation, and more than half of them (52%) reported it was helpful in mitigating severe climatic events.

DISCUSSION

Continuity within changes

One of the main findings from our work is that while various elements of all three practices have changed, many others have persisted and remain active. In the context of mobile grazing in East Ujimchin, despite the changes in moving distance and frequency, herders still practice strategic seasonal movements within the limited pastures they have available. They do so by careful observation of the subtle signs in the pastures, the landscape, and changes in vegetation (Na et al. 2018, Varga et al. 2020, Sharifian et al. 2023, Batdelger et al. 2025). For families with insufficient pasture area to support distinct seasonal grazing, micro-mobility is adopted. Aligning with these findings, despite the sedentary or semi-sedentary reality of many pastoralists globally, it is crucial to remember that mobility remains an integral component of the herding life (Na et al. 2018, Varga et al. 2020). The change toward micro-mobility is not unique to Inner Mongolia but mirrors challenges and diverse adaptations observed in other parts of the world. From the adjustment of mobility routes by Kenyan Maasai pastoralists and the Fulani communities in northwestern Ghana, to the delay of migration timings by nomadic groups in Semirom, Iran, pastoralists globally continue to adapt their mobile grazing strategies to meet the shifting conditions they face (Saboohi et al. 2019, Napogbong et al. 2021). Therefore, while acknowledging that local traditional communities globally increasingly face pressures that threaten their knowledge (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021), it is essential to recognize that knowledge changes do not always signify an absolute loss but rather prove the non-static nature of knowledge (Gómez-Baggethun and Reyes-García 2013).

Similarly, many traditional traits that help herders to cope with various challenges, whether they are related to productivity, climate resistance, or cultural values, have also persisted. This aligns with findings by Marshall et al. (2016), who documented that Somali pastoralists continue to prioritize and select for traits such as environmental adaptability, productivity, and marketability in their breeding practices. As herders explained in the follow-up interviews designed to contextualize our findings, lineage is highly valued by East Ujimchin herders because it correlates with key productivity indicators: increased offspring numbers and greater body weight, and higher milk production. Similarly, livestock with wider hips and long back are preferred because they have fewer complications when giving birth and higher meat production. The preference for sheep with big and even tails is explained because tails supply stored nutrients that sheep need to get through harsh springs and winters. These perspectives from herders reinforce that current breeding choices are not incidental, but form part of an intentional strategy embedded within TEK. Their persistence reflects an ongoing, dynamic knowledge system that integrates traditional understanding with current environmental and economic realities. Although the socio-political contexts of Mongolia and Inner Mongolia differ significantly, this finding aligns with Batdelger et al. (2025), who found that Mongolian herders still consider most traditional herding advice valid, even though modern challenges have limited its application.

In the practice of herd sharing, although the format of agreements has transitioned predominantly to written contracts and financial compensation has largely replaced the return of offspring, various families still share and take herds from each other based on reciprocity relations. Similar traditional practices have been reported in other pastoral communities, adapted to fit local contexts (Mowo et al. 2013, Tadesse et al. 2016, Mokomane 2018). One example is the mafisa system (lending cattle to the poor) in southern Africa, particularly in Botswana. This livestock loan system involves distributing livestock among a few people in different locations, effectively reducing the risks associated with livestock mortality during droughts; an estimated 11–12% of families were engaged in this practice as of 2002 (Mokomane 2018).

Multifunctionality

Another important finding from our study is that each of the practices analyzed serves various functions. We refer to this dynamic as the multifunctionality of knowledge, which describes how TEK addresses diverse needs simultaneously (Dominguez et al. 2010, Ghorbani et al. 2013, Wario et al. 2016, Chao et al. 2025). Historically, these practices have been multifunctional. Currently, as environmental and socioeconomic conditions evolve, additional functions are also emerging, allowing these practices to adapt and respond effectively to contemporary challenges.

In East Ujimchin, mobile grazing was traditionally used not only to restore herd health and productivity after harsh winters but also to sustain grassland regeneration by allowing rest periods in previously grazed areas (White 2021). Over time, the practice has evolved to serve multiple purposes, including responding to the increasing frequency of droughts and reinforcing cultural identity. Herders emphasized that maintaining mobility, even in more limited forms, helps balance livestock pressure across rangelands and ensures better survival during increasingly unpredictable seasons. Furthermore, herders also emphasized their commitment to mobile grazing as a way to preserve their ancestral Mongolian culture. This multifunctional nature of knowledge was also observed by Robinson et al. (2021) in Kazakhstan, where mobile grazing, used to optimize forage intake through spatial and temporal variability, collapsed in the 1990s after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but has been revived in recent years to improve pasture conditions, animal weight gain, and farm profitability. This example of the revival of mobile grazing in Kazakhstan also shows that when TEK becomes ineffective, the loss of relevance can potentially lead to its decline or loss, particularly in contexts where institutional support is lacking. However, this does not always mean an absolute end. Rather, it could mark a phase of ongoing adaptation where knowledge is refined through cycles of observation, experience, and trial, allowing itself to evolve in response to new challenges and opportunities.

The practice of herd breeding also traditionally plays diverse functions, including maintaining herd health and productivity, contributing to ecological balance, and adapting to a changing climate. Our data indicates that, following the 1984 land tenure reform, in addition to original functions, East Ujimchin herders now also increasingly recognize additional functions of herd-breeding practice in enhancing the herd’s resistance to drought and pasture shortages. Similarly, in Gambia, herd breeding addresses not only direct economic benefits, such as milk and meat production and adaptation to environmental stresses, but also the preservation of cultural heritage (Ejlertsen et al. 2012). In Hungary, the Hungarian Grey cattle, known for their strength in draught and tillage, faced near extinction in the mid-20th century because of the mechanization of agriculture (Bartosiewicz 1997). However, because of Hungarians’ deep cultural attachment to the breed and its historical identity, this traditional breed and its breeding practices have survived to the present day (Bartosiewicz 2017).

In addition to mobile grazing and herd breeding, herd sharing also has a multifunctional nature in East Ujimchin. Historically, herd sharing played a crucial role in supporting herders in need, maintaining herd-pasture balance, addressing labor shortages, sustaining herd growth, and minimizing climatic risks. These functions align with observations from other local communities’ contexts, where informal livestock-sharing systems strengthen community-level resilience by distributing risk and labor (Mowo et al. 2013, Tadesse et al. 2016, Mokomane 2018). As with mobile grazing, the evolving nature of herd sharing shows it is flexible in form yet grounded in social norms of reciprocity. In light of land tenure reforms, herd sharing now contributes to negotiating land access and labor shortages in East Ujimchin. This reflects what Cleaver (2002) describes as “institutional bricolage,” the process through which people adaptively piece together institutions using both formal regulations and informal norms to navigate shifting conditions. A similar dynamic can be seen in southern Tunisia, where the khlata, an informal institution of collective herding, has evolved as a high-reliability system that mediates land access, labor sharing, and human mobility in dryland ecologies (Pappagallo 2024).

If we imagine East Ujimchin pastoral knowledge as an ecosystem, then different types of knowledge can be understood as interacting populations within this ecosystem. These knowledge forms emerge through herders’ direct engagement with the environment and are shaped by lived experience, experimentation, and social learning. Often passed down primarily through oral traditions and daily practices (Berkes 2012), they are constantly re-evaluated and modified in response to changing landscapes, climatic variability, and shifting livelihoods. Just as species populations in an ecosystem perform diverse roles (Hector and Bagchi 2007), from nutrient cycling to climate regulation, so too different elements of TEK perform diverse and multiple functions, ranging from livestock management and pasture monitoring to weather forecasting and plant classification (Dominguez et al. 2010, Chao et al. 2023, Sharifian et al. 2023). This functional diversity reflects both the cumulative nature of TEK and its adaptive capacity.

Practices such as mobile grazing, herd breeding, and herd sharing are not only multifunctional in themselves, but they also complement one another by contributing diverse functions to the broader TEK system. Together, they help sustain essential ecological, economic, and socio-cultural functions. Research by Díaz and Cabido (2001) suggests that ecosystems with higher functional diversity are more resilient to disturbances, as they enable multiple, flexible responses to environmental changes. Applying this analogy to the TEK system, we argue that the interlinked multifunctionality may contribute to the resilience of the knowledge system, helping it remain dynamic and capable of withstanding socio-environmental shifts. Because the challenges herders face are diverse and often unpredictable, their knowledge system must be equally flexible, layered, and responsive. The multifunctional nature of TEK is thus both a product of ongoing adaptation and a condition for continued resilience (Berkes and Turner 2006).

Functional complementarity

Another key finding of this study is that the three practices not only serve multiple functions individually but also function together in complementary ways. We refer to this as functional complementarity, which explains how different TEK interact to maintain and reinforce essential ecological, economic, and social functions of the pastoral system. TEK systems are inherently holistic and complex (Berkes 2012); within them, diverse knowledge and practices work synergistically to adapt to and manage the natural environment effectively. For example, in adapting to climate variability, herders do not simply rely on weather forecasts (Ayal et al. 2015, Radeny et al. 2019), but also emphasize strategic herd breeding to select traits that improve livestock’s drought tolerance and productivity (Marshall et al. 2016). To sustainably manage the pastures, herders often use not only their understanding of forage/plants growth cycles, but they also consider grazing preferences and habits (Sharifian et al. 2023, Batdelger et al. 2025). This way they can better adapt to changing pasture conditions.

In East Ujimchin, this complementarity is evident in how herders combine TEK strategically. Herders make sure the livestock have access to seasonally optimal pastures with diverse forage, and this mobility helps livestock build strength throughout the year, as different pastures provide specific benefits. However, after 1984, the accelerated grassland degradation, driven by both climatic and anthropogenic factors, significantly reduced the productivity benefits previously achieved through mobile grazing (Liu et al. 2015, 2020). With this, herd breeding has taken on a heightened importance in maintaining herd health and productivity by focusing on selecting traits that increase offspring numbers and improve meat production.

The functional complementarity becomes even more apparent in climate adaptation. During severe weather events such as dzud, mobile grazing enables herders to move their livestock over long distances to access pastures that are more favorable for survival. Herd breeding has also been integral to climate adaptation, as herders continue to select livestock with traits that enhance their ability to withstand extreme weather. Herd sharing further provided a community-based mechanism for managing climatic risks. However, since the land tenure reform, long-distance mobile grazing has become nearly impossible to practice in Inner Mongolia (Xie and Li 2008, Li and Li 2021). Thus, herders now cope with increasing droughts through stressing selection on certain breeding traits and through herd-sharing practice. This functional complementarity of knowledge allows pastoral communities to approach challenges from various angles. But more importantly, we argue that the interplay and synergy among functions may contribute to the resilience of the knowledge systems through maintaining the essential ecological, economic, and socio-cultural functions of these systems.

CONCLUSION

This study shows how traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in East Ujimchin continues to evolve in response to socioeconomic and environmental pressures. Although specific elements of mobile grazing, herd breeding, and herd sharing have changed over time, many core aspects remain actively practiced. These practices are not only multifunctional themselves, serving ecological, economic, and social-cultural roles, but also interconnected, supporting each other in sustaining pastoral life. The diverse and overlapping functions of these practices allow herders to flexibly navigate challenges such as climate change and land fragmentation. This functional interdependence proves that TEK is not a collection of isolated knowledge and practices, but a holistic system where pastoralists work collectively to sustain both pastoral livelihoods and the knowledge system itself. Supporting such knowledge systems is essential for developing adaptive, locally grounded governance strategies capable of addressing the growing uncertainties in rangeland regions.

LITERATURE CITED

Adriansen, H. K. 2008. Understanding pastoral mobility: the case of Senegalese Fulani. Geographical Journal 174(3):207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2008.00278.x

Aswani, S., A. Lemahieu, and W. H. H. Sauer. 2018. Global trends of local ecological knowledge and future implications. PLoS ONE 13(4):e0195440. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195440

Ayal, D. Y., S. Desta, G. Gebru, J. Kinyangi, J. Recha, and M. Radeny. 2015. Opportunities and challenges of indigenous biotic weather forecasting among the Borena herders of southern Ethiopia. SpringerPlus 4:617. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1416-6

Bartosiewicz, L. 1997. The Hungarian Grey cattle: a traditional European breed. Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales 21:49-60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1014233900000924

Bartosiewicz, L. 2017. Hungarian Grey cattle: parallels in constituting animal and human identities. Pages 190-213 in S. Cockram and A. Wells, editors. Interspecies interactions. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315109299-10

Batdelger, G., B. Oborny, B. Batjav, and Z. Molnár. 2025. The relevance of traditional knowledge for modern landscape management: comparing past and current herding practices in Mongolia. People and Nature 7(5):1056-1072. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10784

Belguntai, N. B. 2006. The culture of Wuzhumqin. [Original work published in Mongolian.] Inner Mongolia Culture Publishing House, Hohhot, China.

Benyei, P., G. Arreola, and V. Reyes-García. 2020. Storing and sharing: a review of indigenous and local knowledge conservation initiatives. Ambio 49(1):218-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01153-6

Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Taylor and Francis, New York, New York, USA.

Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred ecology. Third edition. Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123843

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10(5):1251-1262. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2

Berkes, F., and N. J. Turner. 2006. Knowledge, learning and the evolution of conservation practice for social-ecological system resilience. Human Ecology 34:479-494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9008-2

Biró, M., Z. Molnár, D. Babai, A. Dénes, A. Fehér, S. Barta, L. Sáfián, K. Szabados, A. Kiš, L. Demeter, and K. Öllerer. 2019. Reviewing historical traditional knowledge for innovative conservation management: a re-evaluation of wetland grazing. Science of the Total Environment 666:1114-1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.292

Boyanbaatar. 2018. Nomadic trajectories of the Mongols. [Original work published in Mongolian.] Minzu Press, Beijing, China.

Brockington, D. 2004. Community conservation, inequality and injustice: myths of power in protected area management. Conservation and Society 2(2):411-432.

Chao, O., X. Li, and V. Reyes-García. 2023. Faith, reciprocity, and balance: Inner Mongolian Ovoo offering ritual and its contribution to climate change adaptation. Pages 348-357 in V. Reyes-García, editor. Routledge handbook of climate change impacts on Indigenous peoples and local communities. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003356837-26

Chao, O., X. Li, and V. Reyes-García. 2025. Exploring the dynamic functions of pastoral traditional knowledge. Ambio 54:932-946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-025-02131-x

Cleaver, F. 2002. Reinventing institutions: bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource management. European Journal of Development Research 14(2):11-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/714000425

Díaz, S., and M. Cabido. 2001. Vive la différence: Plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16(11):646-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02283-2

Dominguez, P., F. Zorondo-Rodríguez, and V. Reyes-García. 2010. Relationships between religious beliefs and mountain pasture uses: a case study in the High Atlas Mountains of Marrakech, Morocco. Human Ecology 38:351-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-010-9321-7

Dornelles, A. Z., E. Boyd, R. J. Nunes, M. Asquith, W. J. Boonstra, I. Delabre, J. M. Denney, V. Grimm, A. Jentsch, K. A. Nicholas, M. Schröter, R. Seppelt, J. Settele, N. Shackelford, R. J. Standish, G. Tambang Yengoh, and T. H. Oliver. 2020. Towards a bridging concept for undesirable resilience in social-ecological systems. Global Sustainability 3:e20. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.15

East Ujimchin Banner Bureau of Statistics. 2020. 2019 Statistical bulletin on national economic and social development of Dong Ujimchin Banner. Dong Ujimchin Banner, China. https://www.dwq.gov.cn/dwq/zfsj/tjgb/300be5fadaae48a9ae0d6f3f21e1e95a/index.html

East Ujimchin Banner People’s Government. [date unknown]. Overview of Dong Ujimchin Banner. https://www.dwq.gov.cn/dwq/mldw/qxgk/dwgk/index.html

Ejlertsen, M., J. Poole, and K. Marshall. 2012. Traditional breeding objectives and practices of goat, sheep and cattle smallholders in The Gambia and implications in relation to the design of breeding interventions. Tropical Animal Health and Production 45(1):219-229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-012-0194-1

Fernández-Giménez, M. E. 2000. The role of Mongolian nomadic pastoralists’ ecological knowledge in rangeland management. Ecological Applications 10(5):1318-1326. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1318:TROMNP]2.0.CO;2

Fernández-Llamazares, Á., D. Lepofsky, K. Lertzman, C. G. Armstrong, E. S. Brondizio, M. C. Gavin, P. O. Lyver, G. P. Nicholas, P. Pascua, N. J. Reo, et al. 2021. Scientists’ warning to humanity on threats to Indigenous and local knowledge systems. Journal of Ethnobiology 41(2):144-169. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.2.144

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16(3):253-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002

Ghorbani, M., H. Azarnivand, A. Mehrabi, M. Jafari, H. Nayebi, and K. Seeland. 2013. The role of indigenous ecological knowledge in managing rangelands sustainably in northern Iran. Ecology and Society 18(2):15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05414-180215

Gómez-Baggethun, E., and V. Reyes-García. 2013. Reinterpreting change in traditional ecological knowledge. Human Ecology 41(4):643-647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9577-9

Gong, Q. 2001. Is it really goats that have destroyed the grassland ecosystem? Inner Mongolia Statistics (4):1.

Han, N. Y. 2011. The logic of the grasslands (Volume 1): beware of agricultural expansion under new terms. Beijing Science and Technology Press, Beijing, China.

Hector, A., and R. Bagchi. 2007. Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 448(7150):188-190. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05947

Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4(1):1-23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

Huntington, H. P. 2000. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecological Applications 10(5):1270-1274. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1270:UTEKIS]2.0.CO;2

Ihejirika, C. 2024. Harnessing African Indigenous knowledge systems for knowledge production: a redefinition of a culture-centric epistemology. Journal of Contemporary Philosophical and Anthropological Studies 2(1). https://doi.org/10.59652/jcpas.v2i1.103

Ilboudo Nébié, E. K., C. T. West, and T. A. Crane. 2021. Participatory mapping with herders in a climate adaptation research project. Practicing Anthropology 43(1):25-29. https://doi.org/10.17730/0888-4552.43.1.25

Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Chronicles Editorial Committee. 2016. Livestock hybridization and improvement in Inner Mongolia. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Chronicles: Science and Technology Chronicles, 23 August. https://www.nmgqq.com.cn/quqinggailan/shehuibolan/kexuejishu0981/2016-8-23/9302.html

Kerner, D. A., and J S. Thomas. 2014. Resilience attributes of social-ecological systems: framing metrics for management. Resources 3(4):672-702. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources3040672

Lambert-Peck, M., P. Echaubard, O. Saito, and M. Nishi. 2024. Putting power in perspective: a systematic review of power dynamics in social-ecological traps. Discover Sustainability 5:515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00766-6

Li, W. J., S. H. Ali, and Q. Zhang. 2007. Property rights and grassland degradation: a study of the Xilingol Pasture, Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Environmental Management 85(2):461-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.10.010

Li, W., and L. Huntsinger. 2011. China’s grassland contract policy and its impacts on herder ability to benefit in Inner Mongolia: tragic feedbacks. Ecology and Society 16(2):1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03969-160201

Li, W., and Y. Li. 2012. Managing rangeland as a complex system: how government interventions decouple social systems from ecological systems. Ecology and Society 17(1):9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04531-170109

Li, X. B., R. H. Li, G. Q. Li, H. Wang, Z. F. Li, X. Li, and X. Y. Hou. 2016. Human-induced vegetation degradation and response of soil nitrogen storage in typical steppes in Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Arid Environments 124:80-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.07.013

Li, Y., and W. Li. 2021. Do fodder import and credit loans lead to climate resiliency in the pastoral social-ecological system of Inner Mongolia? Ecology and Society 26(1):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12245-260127

Liu, M., L. Dries, W. Heijman, J. Huang, and X. Deng. 2015. Tragedy of the commons or tragedy of privatization? The impact of land tenure reform on grassland condition in Inner Mongolia, China. Paper presented at International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Milan, Italy. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.212052

Liu, M., J. Huang, L. Dries, W. Heijman, and X. Zhu. 2020. How does land tenure reform impact upon pastoral livestock production? An empirical study for Inner Mongolia, China. China Economic Review 60:101110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2017.09.009

Liu, S., and T. Wang. 2012. Climate change and local adaptation strategies in the middle Inner Mongolia, northern China. Environmental Earth Sciences 66:1449-1458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1357-5

Mantz, F. 2024. Land grabbing through unlivability: Necro-scapes and slow violence in the expansion of conservation regimes in Tanzania. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758251349592

Marshall, K., N. Mtimet, F. Wanyoike, N. Ndiwa, H. Ghebremariam, L. Mugunieri, and R. Costagli. 2016. Traditional livestock breeding practices of men and women Somali pastoralists: trait preferences and selection of breeding animals. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 133(6):534-547. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbg.12223

Martinez, D. 2003. Protected areas, Indigenous peoples, and the Western idea of nature. Ecological Restoration 21(4):247-250. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.21.4.247

Maru, N. 2021. Learning to resist(ance) in Gujarat: pastoral pedagogy as active and positive grassroots resistance. Commodity Frontiers 3:41-49.

Meurs, M., A. Amartuvshin, O. Banzragch, M. Boldbaatar, and G. Poyatzis. 2022. Women herders: women’s role and bargaining power in Mongolian herding households. Central Asian Survey 41(1):79-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2021.1968345

Mokomane, Z. 2018. Indigenous social security systems in Botswana. Pages 13-28 in N. Noyoo and E. Boon, editors. Indigenous social security systems in Southern and West Africa. African Sun Media, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Molnár, Z., Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, D. Babai, S. Díaz, S. T. Garnett, R. Hill, P. Bates, E. S. Brondízio, J. Cariño, L. Demeter, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, M. Guèze, P. McElwee, K. Öllerer, A. Purvis, V. Reyes-García, A. Samakov, and R. K. Singh. 2024. Towards richer knowledge partnerships between ecology and ethnoecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 39(2):109-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.10.010

Mowo, J., Z. Adimassu, D. Catacutan, J. Tanui, K. Masuki, and C. Lyamchai. 2013. The importance of local traditional institutions in the management of natural resources in the Highlands of East Africa. Human Organization 72(2):154-163. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.72.2.e1x3101741127x35

Na, Y., S. Bao, K. Hashimoto, C. McCarthy, and B. Hoshino. 2018. The effects of grazing systems on plant communities in steppe lands–a case study from Mongolia’s pastoralists and Inner Mongolian settlement areas. Land 7(1):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7010010

Napogbong, L. A., A. Ahmed, and E. K. Derbile. 2021. Fulani herders and indigenous strategies of climate change adaptation in Kpongu community, north-western Ghana: implications for adaptation planning. Climate and Development 13(3):201-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1746231

National Development and Reform Commission. 2012. Twelfth Five-Year Plan for the National Nomad Settlement Project. [In Chinese.] National Development and Reform Commission, Beijing, China.

Pappagallo, L. 2024. Recasting tenure and labour in non-equilibrium environments: making the case for “high-reliability” pastoral institutions. Land Use Policy 138:107034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.107034

Radeny, M., A. Desalegn, D. Mubiru, F. Kyazze, H. Mahoo, J. Recha, P. Kimeli, and D. Solomon. 2019. Indigenous knowledge for seasonal weather and climate forecasting across East Africa. Climatic Change 156:509-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02476-9

Reid, R. S., M. E. Fernández-Giménez, and K. A. Galvin. 2014. Dynamics and resilience of rangelands and pastoral peoples around the globe. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39:217-242. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020713-163329

Reyes-García, V. 2023. Indigenous and local knowledge contributions to social-ecological systems’ management. Pages 71-81 in S. Villamayor-Tomas and R. Muradian, editors. The Barcelona School of Ecological Economics and Political Ecology: a companion in honour of Joan Martinez-Alier. Springer International, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22566-6_7

Reyes-García, V., L. Aceituno-Mata, L. Calvet-Mir, T. Garnatje, E. Gómez-Baggethun, J. J. Lastra, R. Ontillera, M. Parada, M. Rigat, J. Vallès, S. Vila, and M. Pardo-de-Santayana. 2014. Resilience of traditional knowledge systems: the case of agricultural knowledge in home gardens of the Iberian Peninsula. Global Environmental Change 24:223-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.022

Reyes-García, V., D. García-del-Amo, P. Benyei, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, K. Gravani, A. B. Junqueira, V. Labeyrie, X. Li, D. M. Matias, A. McAlvay, P. G. Mortyn, A. Porcuna-Ferrer, A. Schlingmann, and R. Soleymani-Fard. 2019. A collaborative approach to bring insights from local observations of climate change impacts into global climate change research. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 39:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.04.007

Reyes-García, V., D. García-Del-Amo, A. Porcuna-Ferrer, A. Schlingmann, M. Abazeri, E. M. Attoh, J. Vieira da Cunha Ávila, A. Ayanlade, D. Babai, P. Benyei, L. Calvet-Mir, et al. 2024. Local studies provide a global perspective of the impacts of climate change on Indigenous peoples and local communities. Sustainable Earth Reviews 7(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055-023-00063-6

Robinson, S., J. Bozayeva, N. Mukhamedova, N. Djanibekov, D. Oshakbayev, and M. Petrick. 2021. Obstacles to the revival of mobile grazing systems in Kazakhstan. Proceedings of the Joint XXIV International Grassland & XI International Rangeland Congress, October 2021, Nairobi, Kenya. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4313&context=igc

Ruiz-Mallén, I., and E. Corbera. 2013. Community-based conservation and traditional ecological knowledge: implications for social-ecological resilience. Ecology and Society 18(4):12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05867-180412

Saboohi, R., H. Barani, M. Khodagholi, A. A. Sarvestani, and A. Tahmasebi. 2019. Nomads’ Indigenous knowledge and their adaptation to climate changes in Semirom City in central Iran. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 137(1):1377-1384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-018-2665-4

Sa, S. 2020. The shared destiny of nomadism and nature. [Original work published in Mongolian.] East Ujimchin Banner Association for Literature and History, East Ujimchin, Inner Mongolia, China.

Sharifian, A., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, H. T. Wario, Z. Molnár, and M. Cabeza. 2022. Dynamics of pastoral traditional ecological knowledge: a global state-of-the-art review. Ecology and Society 27(1):14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12918-270114

Sharifian, A., B. Gantuya, H. T. Wario, M. A. Kotowski, H. Barani, P. Manzano, S. Krätli, D. Babai, M. Biró, L. Sáfián, J. Erdenetsogt, Q. M. Qabel, and Z. Molnár. 2023. Global principles in local traditional knowledge: a review of forage plant-livestock-herder interactions. Journal of Environmental Management 328:116966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116966

Tadesse, M. A., S. T. Holden, R. A. Øygard, and J. McPeak. 2016. Cattle sharing and rental contracts in an agrarian economy: evidence from Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics 47(5):479-492. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12248

Tang, R., and M. C. Gavin. 2010. Traditional ecological knowledge informing resource management: Saxoul conservation in Inner Mongolia, China. Society and Natural Resources 23(3):193-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903375503

Tengö, M., E. S. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, and M. Spierenburg. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43(5):579-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3

Tidball, K. G., N. Frantzeskaki, and T. Elmqvist. 2016. Traps! An introduction to expanding thinking on persistent maladaptive states in pursuit of resilience. Sustainability Science 11:861-866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0398-9

Uriyaanhan, O. Y. 2018. The summary of traditional Ujimchin ecological knowledge. [Original work published in Mongolian.] Inner Mongolia People’s Publishing House, Hohhot, China.

Varga, A., L. Demeter, V. Ulicsni, K. Öllerer, M. Biró, D. Babai, and Z. Molnár. 2020. Prohibited, but still present: local and traditional knowledge about the practice and impact of forest grazing by domestic livestock in Hungary. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 16:51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-00397-x

Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. P. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205

Wario, H. T., H. G. Roba, and B. Kaufmann. 2016. Responding to mobility constraints: recent shifts in resource use practices and herding strategies in the Borana pastoral system, southern Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments 127:222-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.12.005

White, T. 2021. Pastoralism and the state in China’s Inner Mongolia. Current History 120(827):227-232. https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.2021.120.827.227

Xie, Y., and W. Li. 2008. Why do herders insist on Otor? Maintaining mobility in Inner Mongolia. Nomadic Peoples 12(2):35-52. https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2008.120203

Zank, S., L. Gomes de Araujo, and N. Hanazaki. 2019. Resilience and adaptability of traditional healthcare systems: a case study of communities in two regions of Brazil. Ecology and Society 24(1):13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10701-240113

Zhang, L. 2015. Changes in precipitation resources on the Xilingol grasslands over the past 50 years under climate change. Inner Mongolia Science and Economy 7:3.

Zhang, K., and H. Shang. 2020. The endogenous development of pastoral society: an anthropological case study in East Ujimqin Banner in Inner Mongolia. International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology 4(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41257-020-00041-2