“Taken-left” dynamics? Rethink the livelihood changes of affected villagers in the era of the global land rush
When large-scale common land is taken from villagers by investors with little compensation, their labour unneeded, villagers’ livelihoods tend to be largely destroyed. This implies a tendency to focus on what has been taken from villagers during the land-based change, which has valid and has far-rea...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Agriculture and human values 2023-09, Vol.40 (3), p.1171-1184 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1184 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 1171 |
container_title | Agriculture and human values |
container_volume | 40 |
creator | Xu, Yunan |
description | When large-scale common land is taken from villagers by investors with little compensation, their labour unneeded, villagers’ livelihoods tend to be largely destroyed. This implies a tendency to focus on what has been taken from villagers during the land-based change, which has valid and has far-reaching social relevance. But as the rise of the industrial tree plantation (ITP) sector in Guangxi shows, some villagers are capable of having their livelihoods maintained and even expanded when big investors come and acquire massive amounts of land. This seems to be an anomaly at a first glance, considering what has been taken from villagers, but these unexpected and positive livelihood changes can be explained when one closely examines the dynamic of
what is taken
and
what has been left
to villagers. During this ITP boom, although large-scale collectively owned forestland is taken by investors and few work opportunities are created to incorporate those affected, villagers’ control over farmland plots and their access to off-farm work opportunities remain (including the land system and labour dynamics). This paper highlights the importance of analysing “taken-left” dynamics to more fully capture diverse livelihood changes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10460-022-10404-4 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2858077549</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2858077549</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-e3e65c2234bda7f71e07e35da6c69e310f8b6651d77dee108c816be23f8ec0453</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1KAzEUhYMoWH9ewFXAdfQmmUnSlUjxDwRBFNyFNHPTGY0zNZkK3fVB9OV8EqdWcOfqnsV3zoWPkCMOJxxAn2YOhQIGQrAhQcGKLTLipRbMSKW2yQiMGTMozNMu2cv5GQCMBjEi6Wv18eBesGURQ_-1-qTVsnWvjc9n9B77umlfaF8jjc07xqbuuor62rUzzLQL1IWAvseKvjcxuhmmTJv2h8fk1sA6zmI3dZFG11Y0LXJ9QHaCixkPf-8-eby8eJhcs9u7q5vJ-S3zcqx6hhJV6YWQxbRyOmiOoFGWlVNejVFyCGaqVMkrrStEDsYbrqYoZDDooSjlPjne7M5T97bA3NvnbpHa4aUVpjSgdVmMB0psKJ-6nBMGO0_Nq0tLy8Gu3dqNWzu4tT9ubTGU5KaUB3iQkf6m_2l9A9bmfts</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2858077549</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>“Taken-left” dynamics? Rethink the livelihood changes of affected villagers in the era of the global land rush</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Xu, Yunan</creator><creatorcontrib>Xu, Yunan</creatorcontrib><description>When large-scale common land is taken from villagers by investors with little compensation, their labour unneeded, villagers’ livelihoods tend to be largely destroyed. This implies a tendency to focus on what has been taken from villagers during the land-based change, which has valid and has far-reaching social relevance. But as the rise of the industrial tree plantation (ITP) sector in Guangxi shows, some villagers are capable of having their livelihoods maintained and even expanded when big investors come and acquire massive amounts of land. This seems to be an anomaly at a first glance, considering what has been taken from villagers, but these unexpected and positive livelihood changes can be explained when one closely examines the dynamic of
what is taken
and
what has been left
to villagers. During this ITP boom, although large-scale collectively owned forestland is taken by investors and few work opportunities are created to incorporate those affected, villagers’ control over farmland plots and their access to off-farm work opportunities remain (including the land system and labour dynamics). This paper highlights the importance of analysing “taken-left” dynamics to more fully capture diverse livelihood changes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0889-048X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1572-8366</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10460-022-10404-4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Agricultural Economics ; Agricultural Ethics ; Agricultural land ; Changes ; Common lands ; Development Studies ; Education ; Environmental Sociology ; Farms ; Field study ; Households ; Humanities and Social Sciences ; Land purchases ; Land use ; multidisciplinary ; Philosophy ; Science ; Sustainable Development</subject><ispartof>Agriculture and human values, 2023-09, Vol.40 (3), p.1171-1184</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-e3e65c2234bda7f71e07e35da6c69e310f8b6651d77dee108c816be23f8ec0453</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-e3e65c2234bda7f71e07e35da6c69e310f8b6651d77dee108c816be23f8ec0453</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4520-1207</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10460-022-10404-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-022-10404-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27344,27924,27925,33774,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Xu, Yunan</creatorcontrib><title>“Taken-left” dynamics? Rethink the livelihood changes of affected villagers in the era of the global land rush</title><title>Agriculture and human values</title><addtitle>Agric Hum Values</addtitle><description>When large-scale common land is taken from villagers by investors with little compensation, their labour unneeded, villagers’ livelihoods tend to be largely destroyed. This implies a tendency to focus on what has been taken from villagers during the land-based change, which has valid and has far-reaching social relevance. But as the rise of the industrial tree plantation (ITP) sector in Guangxi shows, some villagers are capable of having their livelihoods maintained and even expanded when big investors come and acquire massive amounts of land. This seems to be an anomaly at a first glance, considering what has been taken from villagers, but these unexpected and positive livelihood changes can be explained when one closely examines the dynamic of
what is taken
and
what has been left
to villagers. During this ITP boom, although large-scale collectively owned forestland is taken by investors and few work opportunities are created to incorporate those affected, villagers’ control over farmland plots and their access to off-farm work opportunities remain (including the land system and labour dynamics). This paper highlights the importance of analysing “taken-left” dynamics to more fully capture diverse livelihood changes.</description><subject>Agricultural Economics</subject><subject>Agricultural Ethics</subject><subject>Agricultural land</subject><subject>Changes</subject><subject>Common lands</subject><subject>Development Studies</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Environmental Sociology</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Field study</subject><subject>Households</subject><subject>Humanities and Social Sciences</subject><subject>Land purchases</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>multidisciplinary</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Sustainable Development</subject><issn>0889-048X</issn><issn>1572-8366</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1KAzEUhYMoWH9ewFXAdfQmmUnSlUjxDwRBFNyFNHPTGY0zNZkK3fVB9OV8EqdWcOfqnsV3zoWPkCMOJxxAn2YOhQIGQrAhQcGKLTLipRbMSKW2yQiMGTMozNMu2cv5GQCMBjEi6Wv18eBesGURQ_-1-qTVsnWvjc9n9B77umlfaF8jjc07xqbuuor62rUzzLQL1IWAvseKvjcxuhmmTJv2h8fk1sA6zmI3dZFG11Y0LXJ9QHaCixkPf-8-eby8eJhcs9u7q5vJ-S3zcqx6hhJV6YWQxbRyOmiOoFGWlVNejVFyCGaqVMkrrStEDsYbrqYoZDDooSjlPjne7M5T97bA3NvnbpHa4aUVpjSgdVmMB0psKJ-6nBMGO0_Nq0tLy8Gu3dqNWzu4tT9ubTGU5KaUB3iQkf6m_2l9A9bmfts</recordid><startdate>20230901</startdate><enddate>20230901</enddate><creator>Xu, Yunan</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>WZK</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4520-1207</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230901</creationdate><title>“Taken-left” dynamics? Rethink the livelihood changes of affected villagers in the era of the global land rush</title><author>Xu, Yunan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-e3e65c2234bda7f71e07e35da6c69e310f8b6651d77dee108c816be23f8ec0453</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Agricultural Economics</topic><topic>Agricultural Ethics</topic><topic>Agricultural land</topic><topic>Changes</topic><topic>Common lands</topic><topic>Development Studies</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Environmental Sociology</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Field study</topic><topic>Households</topic><topic>Humanities and Social Sciences</topic><topic>Land purchases</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>multidisciplinary</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Sustainable Development</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Xu, Yunan</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career & Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Agriculture and human values</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Xu, Yunan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>“Taken-left” dynamics? Rethink the livelihood changes of affected villagers in the era of the global land rush</atitle><jtitle>Agriculture and human values</jtitle><stitle>Agric Hum Values</stitle><date>2023-09-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1171</spage><epage>1184</epage><pages>1171-1184</pages><issn>0889-048X</issn><eissn>1572-8366</eissn><abstract>When large-scale common land is taken from villagers by investors with little compensation, their labour unneeded, villagers’ livelihoods tend to be largely destroyed. This implies a tendency to focus on what has been taken from villagers during the land-based change, which has valid and has far-reaching social relevance. But as the rise of the industrial tree plantation (ITP) sector in Guangxi shows, some villagers are capable of having their livelihoods maintained and even expanded when big investors come and acquire massive amounts of land. This seems to be an anomaly at a first glance, considering what has been taken from villagers, but these unexpected and positive livelihood changes can be explained when one closely examines the dynamic of
what is taken
and
what has been left
to villagers. During this ITP boom, although large-scale collectively owned forestland is taken by investors and few work opportunities are created to incorporate those affected, villagers’ control over farmland plots and their access to off-farm work opportunities remain (including the land system and labour dynamics). This paper highlights the importance of analysing “taken-left” dynamics to more fully capture diverse livelihood changes.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10460-022-10404-4</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4520-1207</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0889-048X |
ispartof | Agriculture and human values, 2023-09, Vol.40 (3), p.1171-1184 |
issn | 0889-048X 1572-8366 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2858077549 |
source | SpringerNature Journals; Sociological Abstracts |
subjects | Agricultural Economics Agricultural Ethics Agricultural land Changes Common lands Development Studies Education Environmental Sociology Farms Field study Households Humanities and Social Sciences Land purchases Land use multidisciplinary Philosophy Science Sustainable Development |
title | “Taken-left” dynamics? Rethink the livelihood changes of affected villagers in the era of the global land rush |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T16%3A50%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=%E2%80%9CTaken-left%E2%80%9D%20dynamics?%20Rethink%20the%20livelihood%20changes%20of%20affected%20villagers%20in%20the%20era%20of%20the%20global%20land%20rush&rft.jtitle=Agriculture%20and%20human%20values&rft.au=Xu,%20Yunan&rft.date=2023-09-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1171&rft.epage=1184&rft.pages=1171-1184&rft.issn=0889-048X&rft.eissn=1572-8366&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10460-022-10404-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2858077549%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2858077549&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |