Changing rural livelihood activities may reduce the effectiveness of ecological restoration projects

Abstract

Understanding the mechanisms of ecological restoration project (ERP) effectiveness is essential for designing, implementing, and sustainably managing ERPs. It is worth noting that ERPs and parallel policies always lead to an interplay between socioeconomic systems and the ecosystem, and such processes can also have a significant impact on ERP effectiveness in addition to local environmental conditions. However, few studies have focused on this mechanism. Here, the agro‐pastoral ecotone in northern China, which is a key area containing several national ERPs, was used to analyze the above problem from the perspective of rural livelihood activities. Specifically, we identified changes in rural livelihood activities in the context of ERPs and analyzed the impact of changing activities' feedback effect on ERP effectiveness. The results showed that in addition to the afforestation and local environmental factors, changing rural livelihood activities significantly affected the ERP effectiveness through the direct or indirect pathway. Based on our results, we suggest policymakers need an integrated and systemic perspective and focus on the dynamic changes in rural livelihood activities in the context of ERPs and parallel policies. Our study helps to elucidate the complex mechanisms of ERP effectiveness with a social‐ecological perspective, thereby providing new insights and a theoretical basis for improving ERP effectiveness in China and around the world.

Socioeconomic outcomes of ecological restoration projects and parallel policies: A case‐study of the agro‐pastoral ecotone in northern China

“…This has led to the fact that in counties where grass‐based livestock husbandry has developed rapidly in recent years, the livestock volume that has increased year by year can only be concentrated in pastures with shrinking areas for grazing. Therefore, although the promotion of grass‐based livestock husbandry in the context of ERPs has improved rural income, however, it may bring more intense grazing pressure and negative ecological impacts, especially for counties where afforestation is the main method of ecological restoration, and our previous studies have shown that an increase in livestock husbandry output in the APENC interface significantly leads to a decrease in the effectiveness of ERPs (Dang et al, 2022).…”

“…However, in the long term, the corresponding subsidy, due to inflation and reduction (Chen et al, 2015; Yin, Liu, et al, 2014), is gradually less effective in improving local rural livelihoods (Howell, 2022; Li, Liu, et al, 2021). Conversely, in the context of several national strategies, grass‐based livestock husbandry has been vigorously promoted in order to improve rural farm households' incomes and has led to changes in the agricultural structure of many counties (Dang et al, 2022), and a regime shift in regional rural livelihoods has occurred (Biggs et al, 2018). However, the backward construction of related infrastructure and insufficient investment have led to increased pressure on the local environment (Dang et al, 2022).…”

“…Conversely, in the context of several national strategies, grass‐based livestock husbandry has been vigorously promoted in order to improve rural farm households' incomes and has led to changes in the agricultural structure of many counties (Dang et al, 2022), and a regime shift in regional rural livelihoods has occurred (Biggs et al, 2018). However, the backward construction of related infrastructure and insufficient investment have led to increased pressure on the local environment (Dang et al, 2022). That is, ERPs and other parallel policies have more specific objectives in their development, but there is a lack of effective horizontal coordination between policies, and trade‐offs between ecosystem services resulting from land use conflicts may be stronger in the context of multiple ecosystem management policies (Coleman et al, 2021; Xu & Peng, 2022), leading to the emergence of a negative feedback process in regional social‐ecological systems, which in turn affects the effectiveness of ecological restoration.…”

“…Therefore, although the promotion of grass-based livestock husbandry in the context of ERPs has improved rural income, however, it may bring more intense grazing pressure and negative ecological impacts, especially for counties where afforestation is the main method of ecological restoration, and our previous studies have shown that an increase in livestock husbandry output in the APENC interface significantly leads to a decrease in the effectiveness of ERPs (Dang et al, 2022).…”

“…Specifically, ERPs have achieved high intensity afforestation to enhance regional ecosystem functions and capture more ecosystem services. However, in the long term, the corresponding subsidy, due to inflation and reduction (Chen et al, 2015;Yin, Liu, et al, 2014), is gradually less effective in improving local rural livelihoods (Howell, 2022; incomes and has led to changes in the agricultural structure of many counties (Dang et al, 2022), and a regime shift in regional rural livelihoods has occurred (Biggs et al, 2018). However, the backward construction of related infrastructure and insufficient investment have led to increased pressure on the local environment (Dang et al, 2022).…”