China’s Land Resources Dilemma: Problems, Outcomes, and Options for Sustainable Land Restoration

Abstract

Pressing issues such as water and food security, health, peace, and poverty are deeply linked to land degradation. We use China's major land restoration programs as a case offering perspective on the existing problems in China's major policies for improving degraded land and maintaining land resources in three dimensions. The shortcomings and outcomes in terms of biophysical consequences, socioeconomic benefits, and political goals are addressed, namely (i) non-integrated land resources management creates new problems while solving existing problems, (ii) non-participatory processes and "one-size-fits-all" measures compromise socioeconomic benefits, and (iii) implementation outcomes conflict with policy targets for sustainable land management and development. Based on discussions for more sustainable land management, we conclude that China needs to create a new mode of 'economy and environment' in plans and actions of restoring degraded land resources. Establishing multifunctional land-use systems based on formulating and balancing multiple benefits/services across socio-ecological sectors can be an option to achieve such a mode. At the end, recommendations are given for research and implementation that are not only vital for China but also relevant for other regions since the challenges of afforestation and sustainable land development faced in China are not unique.

How afforestation affects the water cycle in drylands: A process‐based comparative analysis

“…One of these “greening up” regions is northwestern China, where the Chinese Government implemented the world's largest afforestation programs (Chen et al, ; Liu, Li, Ouyang, Tam, & Chen, ). These programs are planned until 2050 to reduce soil erosion and land degradation, adapt to climate change, alleviate poverty, and improve and restore land quality as well as watershed ecosystem services (Zhang & Schwärzel, ). One hotspot region for these programs is the Loess Plateau, which supplies a large amount of water and sediment for the lower reaches of the Yellow River.…”

A Water–Energy–Food Nexus Perspective on the Challenge of Eutrophication

“…In China, nitrate pollution of shallow groundwater is widespread, with almost 100% of water samples containing some level of nitrate, and with 30-60% of samples containing nitrates at levels above the national standard (20 mg/L) [28]. It is observed that approaches that did not address environmental challenges in a holistic manner produced rebound effects with implications for degradation of water and soil resources [29]. In Brazil, land use has been affecting raw surface-water quality for drinking supply [30], and there is eutrophication of local aquatic systems [31,32].…”

Decoding the Wickedness of Resource Nexus Problems—Examples from Water-Soil Nexus Problems in China

“…In areas with water stress, such as the Loess Plateau, tree-driven evapotranspiration can remove more water from deep soils, lowering local groundwater recharge and water supply for downstream areas, thereby intensifying water shortage in dryland areas [34][35][36]. The expected ecological and social "win-win" outcomes have not emerged due to degraded water resources as a result of afforestation [37].…”

“…Thus, nexus problems typically encompass several conflicts that relate to how a resource is allocated and managed (addressing the mismatch of supply and demand) [44][45][46]. In semi-arid and arid areas in China, for instance, there is a tendency to prioritize soil over water in some regions [37]. Consequently, farmers are compensated for their loss of land for soil conservation.…”

“…Relevant households are rarely consulted and involved in negotiation before decisions are implemented. By doing so, conflicts of interests between officials and stakeholders and visions of participants are not considered in the program, which increases the risks of program unsustainability, as participants may apply the measures and decisions as far as they receive a benefit (e.g., subsidy, compensation) and will return to old practices when the benefits disappear during the post-program period [37].…”