“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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Agriculture and human values 2023-09, Vol.40 (3), p.1171-1184
1. Verfasser: Xu, Yunan
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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