Responses to climate change and farming policies by rural communities in northern China: A report on field observation and farmers’ perception in dryland north Shaanxi and Ningxia

Sjِgersten, S. A. et al., 2013. Land Use Policy

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

To address land degradation and rural poverty the Chinese government has put in place a series of land conversion programmes in the Loess Plateau area in northern China. In addition to problems arising from unsustainable land use, water resource availability driven in part by climatic forcing is also a threat to livelihoods in this region. To understand climate impacts on farming practice in poor areas of China, field observation and village reconnaissance took place in the summer of 2009 in three selected counties of Shaanxi and Ningxia Province, northern China. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with householders in rural communities aiming to explore the impacts of recent climate and environmental changes and the role of land management practices on individual and community livelihood incomes as well as individual understanding and engagement with these concepts. The findings were complemented with secondary agricultural, economic and climatic data from the study regions. Respondents argued that land conversion programmes improved income potential, sustainability of livestock grazing and environmental quality in the region. However, water availability was thought to increasingly limit agriculture and human wellbeing in some of the regions with water resources becoming notably scarcer. Understanding of climate change as a concept varied amongst farmers potentially hampering the ability to adapt existing farming practices to maximise livelihood incomes sustainably. Positive effects of the government’s land management schemes were unevenly distributed within villages and amongst regions, often linked to a lack of knowledge transfer and shared resources resulting in marginalised households and/or communities. Off-farm labour (in many cases relating to young adult rural to urban migration) appears a crucial source of income for households in the study region. Respondents in Ningxia expressed reservations about the future prospect of productive farming if the water availability continued to diminish.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-214-2
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    the emphasis of the land conversion programme in Ansai was to support conversion of agricultural land to forest. part of broader GFGP policy that involved other actions such as changes to farming practices ... reported that they received additional funding for purchasing and planting trees on their land.

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Soil erosion  Positive anecdotal: community members' perceptions of improvements to sandstorm levels Other = Sandstorms
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    a series of communities across central- north Shaanxi and Ningxia Provinces, chosen to represent a range of climatic conditions and farming practice. - for this intervention specifically looked at villages in Ansai county (northern Shaanxi)

  • Country: China
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Effectiveness assessed through interviews with community members "We explored with respon- dents whether they felt that government initiatives had impacted upon their livelihoods and/or the surrounding ecosystem services ... perception of the success of the GGP were explored." "Data analysis followed a thematic approach based around a series of broad topics (Table 1). Given the largely qualitative answers to the interview questions, statistical analyses were not undertaken. "
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Positive
  • Ecosystem measures: assessed through interviews with community members and their perceptions of environmental benefits "they acknowledged the improved environmental conditions (e.g. reduced dust levels and increased biodiversity) resulting from the programme."
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
  • Impacts for people: Positive
  • People measures: [GFGP] provided an important source of income for many households. Not sur- prisingly, many respondents emphasised the benefits gained from the subsidies they received as the main reason for keeping the land uncultivated or ungrazed
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Qualitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-214-1
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    In Yanchi, the dominant form of land use change under the GGP was that grazing animals were kept in pens on the farm and not on rangelands. part of broader GFGP policy that involved other actions such as changes to farming practices

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Other climate impact  Positive anecdotal: community members' perceptions of improvements to sandstorm levels Other = Sandstorms
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    a series of communities across central- north Shaanxi and Ningxia Provinces, chosen to represent a range of climatic conditions and farming practice. - for this intervention specifically looked at villages in Yanchi county (Ningxia Autonomous Region)

  • Country: China
  • Habitat/Biome type: Montane/Alpine |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Effectiveness assessed through interviews with community members "We explored with respon- dents whether they felt that government initiatives had impacted upon their livelihoods and/or the surrounding ecosystem services ... perception of the success of the GGP were explored." "Data analysis followed a thematic approach based around a series of broad topics (Table 1). Given the largely qualitative answers to the interview questions, statistical analyses were not undertaken. "
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Positive
  • Ecosystem measures: assessed through interviews with community members and their perceptions of environmental benefits "they acknowledged the improved environmental conditions (e.g. reduced dust levels and increased biodiversity) resulting from the programme."
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
  • Impacts for people: Positive
  • People measures: [GFGP] provided an important source of income for many households. Not sur- prisingly, many respondents emphasised the benefits gained from the subsidies they received as the main reason for keeping the land uncultivated or ungrazed
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Qualitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic: