What Is the Operation Logic of Cultivated Land Protection Policies in China? A Grounded Theory Analysis

Abstract

Cultivated land protection policies (CLPP) are essential for maintaining social stability, guaranteeing food security, and ensuring sustainable development. However, a mismatch exists between policy performance and the objectives that influence the implementation of CLPP, and the system mechanisms of CLPP must be revealed and explored. Based on the literature review, this paper summarizes the current dilemmas of China’s cultivated land protection at the theoretical level, and preliminarily depicts the external foundation of CLPP in view of China’s topography and spatial distribution of cultivated land. This paper uses CLPP texts as research samples based on grounded theory to construct an analytical framework. The results show that the operation logic of the CLPP is founded on situation–structure–motivation–action–space–outcome. Accordingly, systematic analysis and in-depth understanding of the operation logic of CLPP will help to re-examine the profound relationship between policy text and implementation effect from such perspectives as transnational, trans-regional, and multi-scale. It also helps to reveal the hidden scientific value of spatiotemporal pattern for cultivated land protection, and serve the formulation and implementation of relevant policies in the future. Under the background of the new era of ecological civilization, it is urgent to enhance the operational effectiveness of the CLPP, identifying the focus of policy implementation, and scientifically formulating the CLPP is of great significance to its success.

Spatial Heterogeneity and Driving Mechanisms of Cultivated Land Intensive Utilization in the Beibu Gulf Urban Agglomeration, China

“…At present, the overall level of CLIU in the Beibu Gulf urban agglomeration is relatively low, as most of the region exhibits low-intensity CLIU. Although China has implemented a strict farmland protection system [65], occupation-compensation balance, and import-export balance policies, which have helped ensure the quantity of farmland, policy performance is still not outstanding [66]; moreover, the effectiveness of farmland protection policies in promoting CLIU has not been significant. Therefore, improvements in the utilization and protection of farmland through scientific innovation, technological innovation, and policy innovation are still necessary.…”

Substantiation of Technologies for the Restoration of Degraded Soils by Regulating Groundwater

“…The relevance of this research lies in the global issue of soil degradation caused by human activities and climatic changes, which can lead to significant losses in agricultural productivity and biodiversity. Anthropogenic pressure, combined with abnormal arid climatic conditions, contributes to a reduction in plant diversity, a decrease in the area and productivity of forage lands, erosion, salinity and a decrease in soil fertility, which, in turn, leads to significant losses of agricultural products [1][2][3][4][5][6]. The area of saline soils in the Republic of Kazakhstan is more than 40%, while fields with natural (primary) mineralization prevail due to the presence of marine sediments [7].…”

Multi-Scenario Simulations of Land Use and Habitat Quality Based on a PLUS-InVEST Model: A Case Study of Baoding, China

“…Water protection: Baoding's rich wetland resources are important for the ecological management of northern China and the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei ecosystem [36]. The scenario simulates habitat quality and EVS development until 2030 under water protection policies.…”

“…Cultivated land protection: Cultivated land is an important foundation for consolidating and improving food production capacity and ensuring national food security [36], and Baoding's cultivated land resources are important for the construction of the Beijing-Tianjin Agricultural Circle, the Yanshan-Taihang Mountains, and the pre-mountain agricultural area. The scenario simulates habitat quality and ESV development up until 2030 under cultivated land protection policies [41].…”