Abstract
Participatory approach is useful to clarify local interests, and improve planning activities. This paper aims to evaluate local interests change and make improvements of rural development planning activities as a response. Participatory approaches were used to make rural development planning in 2007. According to the planning activities in 2007, implementation of plans and local developing requirements were tested from local perspective in 2012. Comparing local developing requirements in 2007 and 2012, local interests changes were clarified and used to advise planning activities improvements. Wangzhuang village, Hebei province, China, was chosen as the case study. The results suggest that local preference was helpful to clarify planning goals. Conflicts between different stakeholders’ interests were mainly about planning activities related to local daily life. Local interests showed a fast changeable character in a short term. These interests generally had a stable requirement on agriculture production improvement, while changed in other aspects during local community development. Participatory approach efficiently identified local interests priority and developing requirements change with a low cost. Then advised planning activities improvements consistent supported local sustainable development. We argue that taking planning activities improvements in response to local interests change through participatory approach could efficiently stimulate rural development.
1 Introduction
Multiple functions is a key point and widely play important role in rural study and development on different issues. Rural landscape do not only offer agriculture production, but also commerce, public goods, tourism, etc. [1]. Agricultural landscape covers functions beyond food and fiber supplying, and maintains nonfood benefits including environment, social and human system [2]. Residential land face complex functions of residential, production asnd ecological function [3, 4, 5], while different socioeconomic levels have effects on rural development and implementations [6]. However, spatial variation of agriculture and socioeconomic activities [7] makes it needs to understand the complexity among multifunction [8, 9], and considering the multiple functions of rural areas during development planning is used to stimulate sustainable development [10, 11, 12, 13].
Since multiple functions supply and demand show unbalanced developing pattern on different scales [14], rural spatial planning need to considering scale factor. On local scale, indigenous knowledge exclusively owned by local people stimulates local management and development [15, 16] . For example, indigenous knowledge can improve biodiversity conservation [17], forest restoration [18], urban conservation and regeneration [19], and resource management [20, 21], and identifying planning aims and activities which are out of science knowledge [22]. While, integrating local and scientific knowledge is a key to enhance rural development planning [23, 24, 25]. However,
in the integrating process, conflicts always arise among stakeholders as they have various interests for different functions [26, 27, 28, 29]. As a solution, participatory approach has ability of minimizing interest conflicts among stakeholders in planning process [30], and plays a useful role to stimulate rural development [29, 31, 32, 33]. Especially, social participation stimulates clarifying aims and options [34] in local development.
Actually, most participatory rural development planning focus on how to make improvements by involving local interests. Some studies showed a changeable character of local people’s interests during the implementation of plans [35], and their interests may change their preference and decisions on local development. Since the local people’s interests change, the planning activities could not timely respond to these changes and continuously support rural development. Then understanding the local interests change characters provides ability of identifying weaknesses in planning activities .
Participatory approaches have been introduced into China in many aspects to improve planning, such as environment conservation [36, 37, 38, 39], nitrogen management [40], forest management [18], watershed land use management [41], planning activities shortages and developing requirements detection [42, 43], and land use spatial allocation planning [44]. On the other hand, local residents did not satisfy a planning process without considering their need [45]. These experiences show positive functions of participatory approaches taking local interests into planning process and improve local sustainable development. Although agencies in rural development planning in China still consider little of local interests [46], Chinese government try to integrated bottom-up planning process and increase participatory planning at all rural development planning scales. However, current studies of participatory approaches in Chinese rural development planning mainly focused on introducing local preferences into planning activities [24, 25], and some studies tried to figure out what kind of attitude the local people have for planning activities [45], while little knowledge is about how local people interests change and improving planning activities as response.
This paper aims to clarify the change characters of local interests during implementation of plans, and make planning activities improvement as response through participatory approach. Planning activities improvements were conducted for further development. Furthermore, it is hoped that experiences of rural development planning discussed in this paper will be helpful to similar exercises in China and other rural areas.
2 Study area and methodologies
2.1 Study area
Wangzhuang village, located in Hebei province of China, was chosen as the case presenting how traditional villages responding to rural development on the North China Plain. Wangzhuang comprises 216 houses and 810 people in 2007, 216 houses and 808 people in 2012. Farm land is the major landscape of Wangzhuang, which takes 82.37% (276.86ha) of whole area (336.11ha), while building land takes 4.88% (16.4ha) and water takes 4.51% (15.17ha). The North China Plain is a traditional and important region for food production, with main crops being Winter Wheat – Summer Corn. Due to the rapid urbanization process around China, investments are quickly increasing in Chinese rural community. Wangzhuang village is a rural developing research model at local scale, and its planning activities improvements experiences could support sustainable development in other rural areas.
Study area location
2.2 Methodologies
Participatory approach was used to identify local interests and how their interests changed for local development. Planning activities improvements were responses to these changed interests. The study contained three stages: 1) rural development planning followed a participatory approach [38] and distinguished local people’s interests and the differences from experts in 2007. 2) Implementation of plans and local people’s interests change were evaluated by participatory methods, and 3) planning activities improvements of rural development were provided based on updated local interests in 2012.
2.2.1 Participatory planning in 2007
At the beginning of the process, experts group comprising a botanist, an ecologist, and a participatory planning specialist from the China Agricultural University were built to handle the participatory planning. This group was outside the of village administration and had parallel discussion with local government on developing interests.
A representative of each 216 house were gathered in a general assembly and informed a participatory planning detail. Then 216 representatives went back to discuss with their family and other local residents on local developing requirements in one week. After that, same 216 representatives were gathered again to discuss and vote sixty people as final representatives involving planning making process. These sixty representatives were local honored people, and usually had more education background and enthusiastic concentration on local public development. On this step, all residents could express their opinions on local development and got feedback through the sixty representatives who had their trust to speak for them.
Then, sixty local people from different families were equally divided into three groups to discuss local interests on rural developing requirements. In order to distinguish focuses from too many local developing requirements, each group ranked their requirements and extracted the first 20 as prioritized interests. Then three groups gathered to discuss the extracted interests and rank them by priority. The first ten interests were taken as the major local developing requirements for planning.
After that, an preliminary plan was drafted by experts considering the identified ten interests. Twenty people from the sixty representatives were gathered again to be explained by experts with the draft plan and involved in planning activities decisions. In this process, related policies and scientific considerations were also fully explained to avoid unreasonable decision by local people. This aimed to help locals understand the draft plan, and decide whether planning activities would be accepted. In a situation where no agreement was achieved with local people, adjustments of planning activities were made and these adjustments were discussed again with the same 20 selected local people. This feedback was repeated until all the activities were accepted.
2.2.2 Implementation evaluation from local perspectives in 2012
Since planning activities accepted by local people, buildings, constructions and kinds of measures were conducted following these activities. In 2012, expert group walked along main road in the village, and interviewed residents in the house (Fig. 2b). Houses without people were passed, and some residents too old to communicate or with low willingness to involve were taken as invalid interview. Totally, we got forty two residents including five in twenty people involved in planning activities decisions, five in sixty representatives, and the last thirty two residents showed awareness of participatory planning in 2007. Since the last thirty two residents opinions were taken into planning process in 2007 by representatives, their opinions could be considered in local interest change in 2012. However, the interview used semi-structured questionnaire as a tool to acquire local opinions covering three parts. The first was to evaluate the planning activities implementation of the ten interests, scored from 1 to 5, where 1 meant no implementation and 5 meant good implementation. The total scores were summed to quantitatively evaluate implementation. The second was to re-rank the ten interests from 1 to 10 by priority, and a summed result showing a new priority order according to local interest. The last one, developing requirements of each interest were collected and taken as consultation for improvements.
Planning activities improvements examples
The implementation score represented how much local developing requirements in 2007 were fulfilled. Local interests change was detected by comparing priority rank of the ten interests in 2007 and 2012. Relationship between implementation score and changed priority rank of the ten interests was analyzed to understand local interests change.
2.2.3 Improvements of rural development planning activities in 2012
Rural development planning activities improvements are to adapt the 2007 planning in response to changed developing requirements coming out during implementation of plans. The planning activities improvements focus on proper adjustment to keep consistent with local requirements, and not to make a new plan. In our study area, since no changes in land use policies and environmental context happened from 2007 to 2012, local people’s interest was the only variable in rural development planning. Hence, improving activities was mainly in response to changes of local perspectives, while other aspects fully followed planning in 2007 and not discussed in this paper.
3 Results
3.1 Discrepancy of different stakeholder interests
Significant discrepancy between local people and experts’ interests on rural development was observed through participatory planning in 2007 (Table 1). Local people had more concerns on infrastructure improvements and community managements, such as road conditions improvement. All ten interests that local people cared about closely related to daily life and agriculture production, which seems the key concerns of local people. Due to little living experiences in local community, experts had little capability of figuring out all local developing requirements. Then, those local interests on daily life could be useful for activities planning. For example, experts had no awareness of local developing requirements in ‘ living water condition improvement ’. Anyway, experts still had advantages improving most rural developments, especially those on natural conservation. Natural conservation including rural landscape pattern optimization, habitat protection and conservation, plant community designing, and ecological engineering designing required special scientific knowledge. During interview, local people showed awareness of these interests’ importance, but they still did not take them into consideration of developing requirements. Because of little education for special scientific knowledge, local people had weakness of identifying these interests and requirements. Besides, these interests did not have direct affection on their daily life, agricultural production or incomes, and could not get local people attention.
Main interests of local people and experts in 2007
| Interests | Requirements of local people in 2007 | Requirements of experts in 2007 |
|---|---|---|
| Road condition improvement | Paving all roads | Paving main roads |
| Living water condition improvement | Building supplying living system water | Not awareness |
| Village drainage improvement | Improving drainage system | Not awareness |
| Farm irrigation improvement | Digging ditches | Maintaining ditches |
| Bridge maintenance | Maintaining risky bridge | Not awareness |
| Public greening | Reserving farming for vegetable | Planting public green space |
| Community environment improvement | Garbage gathering schedule | Garbage gathering schedule |
| Homegard greening improvement | Reserving space for storage | Designing aesthetic considering storage and |
| Cultural conservation | Diversifying conservation cultural ways | Traditional culture improvement |
| Scientific farming technology support | ‘by Technology university house’ supported | Not awareness |
| Rural landscape pattern optimization | Not interest | Improving conquering multi-fragment functions, like |
| Habitat protection and conservation | Not interest | Natural/and conservation semi-natural habitat protection |
| Plant community designing | Not interest | Simulating natural plant community |
| Ecological engineering designing | Not interest | Engineering following ecological constructions principle design |
“Technology house’ supported by university” is a house run by China Agricultural University aiming at teaching local people on scientific farming and providing kinds of skills for high yield and high efficiency.
Even indigenous knowledge covering expert knowledge’s blinds spots in daily life developing requirements, these two knowledge still show differences in planning activities. Common conflicts existed between local people who cared about short-term benefits and experts concentrating on long-term sustainable development. The conflicts might result different requirements in same interest. For example, local people wanted paving all roads both in the village and fields for better traffic function, while experts advised paving main roads, and keeping minor roads and field roads un-paved for protecting local botanical and animal species from dispersal [47, 48].
According to discussion with the local government, local government had strong interests on infrastructure constructions that always get financial investment from higher governmental hierarchy. Other planning activities, such as environment management, which had low financial profit, were usually not the developing focus of local government. Evidence comes from implementation of plans evaluation (Table 2), those activities related to infrastructure constructions usually had higher scores and others had lower scores.
Implementation of plans evaluation
| Interests | Planning activities | Shortages of implementation | Evaluation scores | Priority order in 2007 | Priority order in 2012 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Road condition improvement | Paving streets in village | Major streets paved, but minor streets un-improved | 179 | 1 | 9 |
| Living water condition improvement | Building living water supplying system | Outlet of water pipe in the yard lower usability in winter | 210 | 2 | 10 |
| Public greening | Planting public green space | Complete, but bad management | 119 | 3 | 5 |
| Village drainage improvement | Improving drainage system | Not enough drainage ditches | 150 | 4 | 4 |
| Scientific farming technology | ‘Technology house’ supported by | Not popularized to all villagers | 184 | 5 | 7 |
| support Farm irrigation improvement | university Digging ditches for irrigation | Digging ditches could not resolve water shortage | 112 | 6 | 2 |
| Community environment improvement | Garbage gathering schedule | No implementation | 46 | 7 | 1 |
| Homegard greening improvement | Homegard greening model designing | Short in construction | 65 | 8 | 6 |
| Bridge maintenance | Maintaining risky bridge | No implementation | 86 | 9 | 3 |
| Cultural conservation | Free public film screenings once a month | Films too old to local people favorite | 87 | 10 | 8 |
3.2 Implementation of plans evaluation from local perspectives
3.2.1 Evaluating implementation of planning activities
Evaluation scores indicated implementation efficiency of rural development planning activities from local perspectives in 2012 (Table 2). Higher score implies higher implementation efficiency. Infrastructure improvements were the main focuses, which usually had consistent with local people, local government and experts, and always had better implementation than others. According to implementation evaluation scores (Table 2), except ‘ Scientific farming technology support ’, the first five interests were mainly about infrastructure improvements. The other type, like planning activity of Community environment improvement , had been paid weak attention in practice.
Implementation of planning activities generally had three shortages. The first was the implementation resolved major problems but ignored minor ones in ‘Road condition improvement, Living water condition improvement, Public greening’. Taking living water condition improvement as an example, water supplying system aimed to support local water utilization, but outlet of water pipes in open garden faced freezing risk in winter season and weakened water usability. Activities implemented in these interests match the main developing requirements, while the minor ones still need further work for better rural development.
Evaluation scores represented implementation evaluation from local perspective, higher scores showed better implementation.
Secondly, planning activities in 2007 could not fulfill local developing requirements. Planning activities in ‘Farm irrigation improvement’ seemed not working even under good implementation. Activities in ‘Village drainage improvement, Scientific farming technology sup
port’ could meet the developing requirements but had weak implementation. The others might be not proper activities.
The last kind comprised planning activities were not implemented till 2012 in ‘Community environment improvement, Bridge maintenance’. Actually, local people complained a lot for no implementation in these two interests, especially no ‘Garbage gathering schedule’ for ‘Community environment improvement’ that caused not clean community.
3.2.2 Evaluation of local people interests change
Local people’s interests significantly changed as a response to shortages of planning activities in 2007 (Table 2). Their interests changed in developing requirements and priority. The former indicated how to develop local areas as sound suggestions for planning activities, while the latter indicated which should develop first.
3.2.2.1 Developing requirements change
Changed developing requirements of local people interests were much answerable to improper planning activities in 2007 for further development. In ‘Farm irrigation improvement ’, after digging ditches for irrigation, filed was still lack of water in irrigation season. Field survey and specialist discussion figured out that inadequate water resource was the bottleneck for irrigation and not the ditches. Because of that, local people changed their re
quirement to introducing water-saving irrigation equipment to reduce water consuming.
Developing requirements change in ‘Public greening’ is very interest. At the very beginning of planning in 2007, local people preferred arable fields than public green space. During the participatory process in 2007, they accepted planning activity of public green space for good view. While in 2012, some local people partly reclaimed the public green space to vegetable fields and showed strong desire to reserve these fields. Then, due to the conflict between planning activities in 2007 and changed local perspectives, public green space faced bad management and pressure of transforming to vegetable fields by local people (Fig. 2b). This change indicated that local people had strong favorite in arable producing. Even they accepting public green space in discussion, they would exactly do farming in practice.
‘Living water condition improvement’ had good implementation and basically met the local developing requirement. Because of engineering issue, new requirement raised for better utilization. ‘Improving outlet of water pipe’ came out requesting additional equipment to guarantee water usability in winter responding freezing risk.
3.2.2.2 Changes in development priority
The priority rank for the ten interests (Table 2) represented concerns of local people in rural development, and the changed order indicated necessary of transforming developing focus. In 2007, infrastructure improvements such as ‘ road condition improvement ’ and ‘ living water condition improvement ’ took the highest two order. At the same time, interests of ‘ community environment improvement ’ and ‘ culture conservation ’ had a lower rank. In 2012, ‘ community environment improvement ’ had the highest priority, and infrastructure constructions ranked at bottom list. However, this indicated a local interests transformation from infrastructure constructions to environment management in 2012.
Theoretically, the interests had higher implementation evaluation scores should take lower priority rank in 2012. We observed this relationship in infrastructure improvement and community environment improvement, the former had the high evaluation scores and took the low priority rank in 2012, and the latter showed opposite way. But some interests seemed not to follow this principle. ‘Village drainage improvement’ and ‘Farm irrigation improvement’ with high evaluation scores continued to have high priority order in 2012. This implied local people cared about farming very much and had a lasting requirement on improving production conditions. Priority orders of ‘Homegard greening improvement’ and ‘Cultural conservation’ had low ranking and implementation evaluation in 2012 that indicated local people care not much about these two areas. ‘Public greening’ had high evaluation score and ranking order both in 2007 and 2012, revealed local people took this issue important and the implementation of planning activities did not fully satisfy them.
3.3 Rural development improvement
For responding the changed local interests in developing requirements and priority, planning activities improvements were made to support further development (Table 3).These improvements contains three kinds of 1) using effective activities to replace un-working ones, such as introducing water-saving equipment instead of digging ditches, 2) revising activities for conquering minor problems, such as road pavements (Fig. 2a), and 3) keeping consistence with changed local interests, like taking vegetable field as a special public green space (Fig. 2b). Besides, considering priority of interests change from 2007 to 2012, focuses were set in ‘Farm irrigation improvement, Public greening, Community environment improvement, Homegard greening improvement’.
Rural development planning activities improvement
| Interests | Requirements of local people in 2007 | Requirements of local people in 2012 | Planning improvements | Focus of planning improvements |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Road condition improvement | Paving all roads | No change | Paving all streets and minor field roads | |
| Living water condition improvement | Building living water supplying system | Improving outlet of water pipe | Improving living water pipe warming equipment in yards | |
| Village drainage improvement | Improving drainage system | No change | Improving drainage ditches in village | |
| Farm irrigation improvement | Digging ditches for irrigation | Importing water-saving irrigation | Importing water-saving irrigation | * |
| equipment | equipment | |||
| Bridge maintenance | bridge Maintaining risky | No change | Continuing planning original | |
| Public greening | Reserving for arable land | Reserving vegetable fields | Designing vegetable fields as special green space | * |
| Community environment improvement | Garbage gathering schedule | No change | Continuing original planning | * |
| Homegard greening improvement | Reserving space for storage | No change | Continuing original planning | * |
| Cultural conservation | Diversifying conservation cultural ways | No change | Improving activities group | |
| Scientific farming technology support | ‘Technology house’ supported by university | No change | Continuing original planning |
4 Discussions
4.1 Advantages of participatory approach
Because Chinese rural community usually has low financial condition and education level, its development requests strongly supporting from both external finance and intelligence. Then multi-stakeholders are involved in rural development. But different stakeholders have their own interests in rural development, and the interests usually conflict with local people [27, 28] and probably cause negative effects. Actually, the local people has strong effect on land use by their own perspectives [49], the conflict on land use management may be the key issue in rural development. In our study, though planning experts from outside tried to stimulate rural development, their interests differed from local people; and this kind of conflict can be observed in other cases [29, 50]. Besides the interest conflicts, experts is incapability to cover all developing requirements. Local people plays a positive role to identify planning aims and undeniably valuable in providing suggestions on planning activities [22, 31]. Then participatory approach has advantages of considering local interests and searching for trade-off between different stakeholders, and is helpful to improves rural development [18, 51, 52, 53].
4.2 Increasing planning flexibility
Local interests showed a changeable character not only on developing priority, but also on preferred planning activities. This change might happen quickly in fast local community construction. At same time, planning activities seem inflexible and could not continuously support further development since local interests change. Then this dilemma caused negative effects on rural development and was going to be worse if local people interests change faster. For example, the change between arable land and public green space in local interest caused bad management and low implementation of plans efficiency. Simul
taneously, the dilemma was generally unforeseen and it is incapably set precautions in initial planning. Responding to that, increasing planning flexibility seems an optimal way to keep consistent with local developing requirements.
Considering a stable character of policy and natural condition in a long term, local interests seem to be the only changed indicator in planning and still change softly. By the help of participatory approach, experts can easily and efficiently identify local interests on developing requirements and priority. According our study experience, a small group comprising a core participatory planning expert and an assistant was able to management the planning activities improvements. This process is costly and practicably, that makes possibility to increase planning flexibility.
4.3 Planning activities improvement in period
To respond changeable local interests, it is necessary to make planning activities improvements on a schedule. This is important in fast developing areas, such as China. “Building new countryside” as a crucial policy of the Chinese government for rural development is supposed to last till end of this century [54] implying rapid development and community changes in rural, the local interests
change may coming out widely around China. Timely planning activities improvement is an efficient way to guarantee planning activities continuously support rural development. In our study, local interests significantly changed in requirements and priority in five years, and indicated necessary of planning activities improvement. Five years can be taken as a considerable period for improvement making. Besides, multisectoral input-output models are typically used to analyze rural areas development and provide an integrated picture of the rural territories [55]. In this study, we focused on local interests change by qualitative methods while had weaknesses on multisectoral analysis covering economy, environment and society. Even that may not fully supports rural development policy, our experiences are still valuable for local interests an preferred options identifying.
5 Conclusions
Stakeholders have different interests and advantages in planning concerns and activities for rural development. Experts played a decisive role in natural conservation and environmental issues. Local people concerned on planning activities related to daily life and agricultural production. Local interests could be helpful to clarify planning aims and activities on local daily life. Through group discuss in this participatory approach, local people put common good in the first place before individual interests. Besides, local interests have a changeable character during fast rural development because of investment at the meantime. These changed interests cover developing priority and even preferred planning activities. To respond the local interests change, it is necessary to do planning improvements. This local interests and requirements evaluation by participatory is a cost and practicable approach, and helpful to identify local developing concerns, aims and preferred options in actual planning program. Besides, participatory approach helps local people understand the limitation of local investment budget and the necessary of clarifying development priorities and actual expenses. For continually support local development, planning activities improvements are suggested doing in a period, might be five years. This experiences on local interests identifying and evaluation is hopeful to improve other rural development plans in future.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Science and Technology Planning Project of Hebei Province (16226309D-3), National Key Technology R&D Program of China (No. 2012BAJ24B05), National Key Research and Development Plan (2018YFB0505400), Demonstration of Technological Innovation and Application in Chongqing (Key Research and Development of Social and People’s Livelihood) (cstc2018jscx-mszdX0067), and Chongqing Postdoctoral Fund (Rc201515 and Xm2017144). The authors are grateful to thank Ph.D. Qian Zhang for data collection.
References
[1] Verburg P.H., van de Steeg J., Veldkamp A., Willemen L., From land cover change to land function dynamics: a major challenge to improve land characterization. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1327-1335.10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[2] Blandford D., Boisvert R., Multifunctional agriculture and domestic/international policy choice. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy,2002, 3 (1), 106–118.Search in Google Scholar
[3] Zhang B., Zhang F.,Gao Y., Li C., Zhu F., Identification and spatial differentiation of rural settlements’ multifunction. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. , 2014, 30 (12), 216–224.Search in Google Scholar
[4] Jiang G., He X., Qu Y., Zhang R., Meng Y.. Functional evolution of rural housing land: a comparative analysis across four typical areas representing different stages of industrialization in China. Land Use Pol., 2016, 57, 645–654.10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.037Search in Google Scholar
[5] Ma W., He X., Jiang G., Li Y., Zhang R., Land use internal structure classification of rural settlements based on land use function. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. , 2018, 34 (4), 269–277.Search in Google Scholar
[6] Dudzińska M., Bacior S., Prus B., Considering the level of socioeconomic development of rural areas in the context of infrastructural and traditional consolidations in Poland. Land Use Pol., 2018, 79,759–773.10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.015Search in Google Scholar
[7] Hansen A.J., Brown D.G. Land-use change in rural America: rates, drivers, and consequences. Ecol. Appl. , 2005, 15 (6), 1849–1850.10.1890/03-5219Search in Google Scholar
[8] Long H., Zou J., Liu Y.. Differentiation of rural development driven by industrialization and urbanization in eastern coastal China. Habitat Int. , 2009, 33, 454–462.10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.03.003Search in Google Scholar
[9] McDowell R.W., Snelder T., Harris S., Lilburne L., Larned S.T., Scarsbrook M., et al., The land use suitability concept: introduction and an application of the concept to inform sustainable productivity within environmental constraints. Ecol. Indicat., 2018, 91, 212–219.10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.03.067Search in Google Scholar
[10] Bills N., Gross D., Sustaining multifunctional agricultural landscapes: comparing stakeholder perspectives in New York (US) and England (UK). Land Use Pol., 2005, 22,313–321.10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.06.001Search in Google Scholar
[11] Bjørkhaug H., Richards C.A., Multifunctional agriculture in policy and practice? A comparative analysis of Norway and Australia. J. Rural Stud., 2008, 24, 98–111.10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.06.003Search in Google Scholar
[12] Renting H., Rossing W.A.H., Groot J.C.J., Van der Ploeg J.D., Laurent C., Perraud D., et al., Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework. J. Environ. Manage., 2009, 90, S112–S123.10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.014Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[13] Levine A.S., Feinholz C.L., Participatory GIS to inform coral reef ecosystem management: Mapping human coastal and ocean uses in Hawaii. Appl. Geogr., 2015, 59, 60-69.10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.12.004Search in Google Scholar
[14] Ma W., Jiang G., Li W., Zhou T., Zhang R., Multifunctionality assessment of the land use system in rural residential areas: Confronting land use supply with rural sustainability demand. J. Environ. Manage., 2019, 231,73-85.10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.053Search in Google Scholar
[15] Walker D.H., Thorne P.J., Sinclair F.L., Thapa B., Wood C.D. , Subba D.B., A systems approach to comparing indigenous and scientific knowledge: consistency and discriminatory power of indigenous and laboratory assessment of the nutritive value of tree fodder. Agric. Syst., 1999, 62, 87-103.10.1016/S0308-521X(99)00058-XSearch in Google Scholar
[16] Raymond C.M., Fazey I., Reed M.S., Stringer L.C., Robinson G.M., Evely A.C., Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J. Environ. Manage., 2010,91,1766-177710.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023Search in Google Scholar
[17] Opdam P., Pouwels R., van Rooij S., Steingröver E., Vos C. C., Setting Biodiversity Targets in Participatory Regional Planning_ Introducing Ecoprofiles. Ecol. Soc., 2008, 13(1), 20-35.10.5751/ES-02438-130120Search in Google Scholar
[18] He J., Zhou Z.M., Weyerhaeuser H., Xu J.C., Participatory technology development for incorporating non-timber forest products into forest restoration in Yunnan, Southwest China. For. Ecol. Manage., 2009, 257, 2010–2016.10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.041Search in Google Scholar
[19] Peerapun W., Participatory Planning in Urban Conservation and Regeneration: A Case Study of Amphawa Community. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012, 36, 243-252.10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.027Search in Google Scholar
[20] Kalibo H.W., Medley K.E., Participatory resource mapping for adaptive collaborative management at Mt. Kasigau, Kenya. Landsc. Urban Plan., 2007, 82,145–158.10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.005Search in Google Scholar
[21] Verkerk P.J., Sánchez A., Libbrecht S., Broekman A., Bruggeman A., Daly-Hassen H., et al., A Participatory Approach for Adapting River Basins to Climate Change. Water, 2017, 9(12), 958.10.3390/w9120958Search in Google Scholar
[22] Naylor P.J.,Wharf-Higgins J., Blair L., Green L., O’Connor B., Evaluating the participatory process in a community-based heart health project. Soc. Sci. Med., 2002, 55(7), 1173-1187.10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00247-7Search in Google Scholar
[23] Wangpakapattanawong P., Kavinchan N., Vaidhayakarn C., Schmidt-Vogt D., Elliott S., Fallow to forest: Applying indigenous and scientific knowledge of swidden cultivation to tropical forest restoration. For. Ecol. Manage., 2010, 260, 1399–1406.10.1016/j.foreco.2010.07.042Search in Google Scholar
[24] Motsumi S., Magole L., Kgathi D., Indigenous knowledge and land use policy: Implications for livelihoods of flood recession farming communities in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Phys. Chem. Earth, 2012, 50–52, 185–195.10.1016/j.pce.2012.09.013Search in Google Scholar
[25] Yuan J.W., Wu Q.X., Liu J.L., Understanding indigenous knowledge in sustainable management of natural resources in China Taking two villages from Guizhou Province as a case. Forest Policy Econ., 2012, 22, 47–52.10.1016/j.forpol.2012.02.012Search in Google Scholar
[26] Spaling H., Wood J., Greed, need of creed? Farmland ethics in the rural–urban fringe. Land Use Pol., 1998, 15 (2), 105–118.10.1016/S0264-8377(98)80009-4Search in Google Scholar
[27] Boonstra W., Polder limits: a case study of value-conflicts on Dutch rural land use. PhD Thesis.Wageningen Universiteit,Wageningen, 2006, 23-46.Search in Google Scholar
[28] Gilg A., Perceptions about land use. Land Use Pol., 2009, 26S, S76–S82.10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.018Search in Google Scholar
[29] Kerselaers E., Rogge E., Vanempten E., Lauwers L., Huylenbroeck G.V., Changing land use in the countryside: Stakeholders’ perception of the ongoing rural planning processes in Flanders. Land Use Pol., 2013, 32, 197– 206.10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.10.016Search in Google Scholar
[30] Macnaghten P., Jacobs M., Public identification with sustainable development: Investigating cultural barriers to participation. Environ. Change-Human Policy Dimens., 1997, 7(1), 5–24.10.1016/S0959-3780(96)00023-4Search in Google Scholar
[31] Hessel R., van den Berg J., Kaboré O., van Kekem A., Verzandvoort S., Dipama,J.M., et al., Linking participatory and GIS-based land use planning methods: A case study from Burkina Faso. Land Use Pol., 2009, 26(4), 1162-1172.10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.02.008Search in Google Scholar
[32] Gourmelon F., Chlous-Ducharme F., Kerbiriou C., Rouan M., Bioret F.,Role-playing game developed from a modelling process: A relevant participatory tool for sustainable development? A co-construction experiment in an insular biosphere reserve. Land Use Pol., 2013, 32, 96– 107.10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.10.015Search in Google Scholar
[33] Simmons V.N., Klasko L.B., Fleming K., Koskan A.M., Jackson N. T., Noel-Thomas S., et al., Tampa Bay Community Cancer Network Community Partners. Participatory evaluation of a community–academic partnership to inform capacity-building and sustainability. Eval. Program Plan., 2015, 52, 19-26.10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.03.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[34] Lisec A., Primožič T., Ferlan M., Šumrada R., Drobne S., Land owners’ perception of land consolidation and their satisfaction with the results–slovenian experiences. Land Use Pol., 2014 38, 550–563.10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.01.003Search in Google Scholar
[35] Vihervaara P., Marjokorpi A., Kumpula T., Walls M., Kamppinen M., Ecosystem services of fast-growing tree plantations: A case study on integrating social valuations with land-use changes in Uruguay. Forest Policy Econ., 2012, 14, 58–68.10.1016/j.forpol.2011.08.008Search in Google Scholar
[36] Fagerström H.M.H., Messing I., Wen Z.M.. A participatory approach for integrated conservation planning in a small catchment in Loess Plateau, China: Part I. Approach and Methods. Catena, 2003a, 54, 255–269.10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00068-7Search in Google Scholar
[37] Fagerström H.M.H., Messing I., Wen Z.M., Trouwborst K.O., Xu M.X., Zang X.P., et al., A participatory approach for integrated conservation planning in a small catchment in Loess Plateau, China Part II. Analysis and findings. Catena, 2003b, 54, 271–288.10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00069-9Search in Google Scholar
[38] Wang X.J., Yu Z.R., Cinderby S., Forrester J., Enhancing participation: Experiences of participatory geographic information systems in Shanxi province, China. Appl. Geogr., 2008, 28, 96– 109.10.1016/j.apgeog.2007.07.007Search in Google Scholar
[39] Sjögersten S., Atkin C., Clarke M.L., Mooney S.J., Wu B., West H.M., Responses to climate change and farming policies by rural communities in northern China: A report on field observation and farmers’ perception in dryland north Shaanxi and Ningxia. Land Use Pol., 2013, 32,125– 133.10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.014Search in Google Scholar
[40] Hu R.F., Cao J.M., Huang J.K., Peng S.B., Huang J.L., Zhong X.H., et al., Farmer participatory testing of standard and modified site-specific nitrogen management for irrigated rice in China. Agric. Syst., 2007, 94, 331–340.10.1016/j.agsy.2006.10.002Search in Google Scholar
[41] Wang X.X, Zhou, Q., Discussion on Application of Participatory Land Use Planning in Watershed Management. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2006, 13(6), 295-297. (in Chinese)Search in Google Scholar
[42] Tian L., Shen T.Y., Evaluation of plan implementation in the transitional China: A case of Guangzhou city master plan. Cities, 201, 28,11–27.10.1016/j.cities.2010.07.002Search in Google Scholar
[43] Long Y., Gu Y.Z., Han H.Y., Spatiotemporal heterogeneity of urban planning implementation effectiveness: Evidence from five urban master plans of Beijing. Landsc. Urban Plan., 2012, 108, 103–111.10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.08.005Search in Google Scholar
[44] Meng F.Y., Fang X.Z., Cao Z.J., Xu Y.Q., Advances of the research on land use structure and spatial allocation in land use planning. Territory & Natural Resources Study, 2009, 4, 46-48. (in Chinese)Search in Google Scholar
[45] Zhang Q., Xiao H., Duan M.C., Zhang X., Yu Z.R., Farmers’ attitudes towards the introduction of agri-environmentalmeasures in agricultural infrastructure projects in China: Evidencefrom Beijing and Changsha. Land Use Pol., 2015, 49, 92–103.10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.021Search in Google Scholar
[46] Zhong L.J., Mol A.P.J., Participatory environmental governance in China: Public hearings on urban water tariff setting. J. Environ. Manage., 2008, 88, 899–913.10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.04.018Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[47] Hussey B.M.J.. The flora roads survey volunteer recording of roadside vegetation in Western Australia. In: Saunders, D.A. (Ed.), Nature Conservation 4: The Role of Network. Surrey Beatty & Sons Propriety, Chipping Norton, Australia, 1999, 41-48.Search in Google Scholar
[48] Deckers B., Becker P.D., Honnay O., Hermy M.,Muys B., Sunken roads as habitats for forest plant species in a dynamic agricultural landscape: effects of age and isolation. J. Biogeogr., 2005, 32(1), 99-109.10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01101.xSearch in Google Scholar
[49] Wang C., Wang L.P., Jiang F.X., Lu Z.W., Differentiation of rural households′ consciousness in land use activities: A case from Bailin Village, Shapingba District of Chongqing Municipality, China. Chin. Geogr. Sci., 2015, 25(1), 124–136.10.1007/s11769-014-0688-zSearch in Google Scholar
[50] Busck A.G., Hidding M.C., Kristensen S.B.P., Persson, C Prætholm S., Managing urban landscapes in the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden: Comparing planning systems and instruments in three different contexts. Geogr. Tidsskr., 2008, 108(2), 1-16.10.1080/00167223.2008.10649584Search in Google Scholar
[51] Valencia-Sandoval C., Flanders D.N., Kozak R.A., Participatory landscape planning and sustainable community development: Methodological observations from a case study in rural Mexico. Landsc. Urban Plan., 2010, 94, 63–70.10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.07.018Search in Google Scholar
[52] Bernard E., Barbosa L., Carvalho R., Participatory GIS in a sustainable use reserve in Brazilian Amazonia: Implications for management and conservation. Appl. Geogr., 2011, 31, 564–572.10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.11.014Search in Google Scholar
[53] Bourgoin J., Sharpening the understanding of socio-ecological landscapes in participatory land-use planning. A case study in Lao PDR. Appl. Geogr., 2012, 34, 99–110.10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.11.003Search in Google Scholar
[54] Long H.L., Liu Y.S., Li X.B., Chen Y.F., Building new countryside in China: A geographical perspective. Land Use Pol., 2010, 27, 457–470.10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.06.006Search in Google Scholar
[55] Giannakis E., Efstratoglou S., Psaltopoulos D., Modelling the impacts of alternative CAP scenarios through a system dynamics approach. Agricultural ecnomics review, 2014,15(2),48-67.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 He Xiao et al., published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.
