Open AccessArticle

Mechanism of Population Outflow and Ecological Pressure Reflux in China’s Pastoral Area: S-C Gacha’s Case

Mingming Fan

^1,* and

Gongbu Zeren

Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing 100081, China

Institute of Social Development Studies, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 410081, China

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Land 2024, 13(11), 1936; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111936

Submission received: 8 October 2024 / Revised: 8 November 2024 / Accepted: 11 November 2024 / Published: 17 November 2024

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agriculture, Forestry, Land Allocation and Environmental Sustainability)

Download

Browse Figures

Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

In China’s rural areas, as populations flow into cities, dependence on land has significantly decreased, leading to widespread land abandonment; however, the relationship between population and land in pastoral areas differs. This study conducted a five-year tracking survey on Sunite Right Banner in Xilingol League (Inner Mongolia), where macro data and in-depth home interviews were used for the mechanisms’ analysis. The findings demonstrate that the pastoral regions’ ecological pressure has increased with population immigration. There are several factors influencing such interaction between people and rangeland: First is the cost mechanism. The increasing cost of livestock production leads herders to increase their reliance on grazing rental systems to increase the number of livestock. The grazing rental system generates income for those migrating to adjacent urban regions. Second is the institutional mechanism. The “three-separating property right systems”, a recent rural land institutional reform policy, has marketized rural individualized rangelands, leading herders to focus more on the exchange value of rangelands rather than the use value, including ecological functions. Consequently, both lessors and lessees engage in high-intensity utilization of their individualized grazing lands. Third is the natural mechanism. Climate fluctuations influence herders’ migration patterns, prompting them to leave and return to grazing lands. These ecological dynamics force herders to oscillate between survival and development, intensifying pressure on the grasslands during favorable years and preventing them from recovering while increasing the occurrence of poor years, such as droughts. Fourth is the consumption mechanism. Herders who have migrated to urban regions must continue relying on rangeland resources to sustain their livelihoods. However, lower economic outputs of livestock production hardly catch up with the higher consumption levels in urban regions, which leads migrated herders to increase their pressure on rural rangelands. The final factor is a combination of the previous four mechanisms. The interplay between these previously mentioned four mechanisms encouraged higher herder population outflow, though their reliance on rangeland resources has continued. Based on the results, we argue that these dynamic relations between rural population change and land use patterns are becoming common issues across pastoral regions in Inner Mongolia, demanding innovative solutions.

Keywords:

population outflow; ecological pressure; inherent mechanisms; relationships; humans; land; pastoral area

Grasslands are the largest terrestrial ecosystem in China, characterized by ethnic minority populations, underdeveloped socio-economic conditions, and a fragile ecological environment. Despite over 20 years of ecological management and policy interventions, the condition of these grasslands remains concerning1. Compared to the more settled agricultural regions where the outflow of the rural population leads to hollow lands and a decrease in reliance on rural land resources, the outflow of the pastoral population has continued while maintaining their connections and reliance on rural rangeland resources with increased ecological pressure [1,2]. Therefore, it is critical to understand the people–land interactions in the changing socio-economic contexts to achieve the modernization of rural pastoral regions. This research examines the changing interaction patterns between rural pastoral population outflow and rangeland ecological changes in the pastoral areas of Inner Mongolia and the mechanisms that influence the relationships between rural people and land to provide innovative policy implications for the modernization of rural regions.

1. Research Question

Pastoralism relies on water and grass with spatial mobility as an essential strategy to adapt and exploit the dynamic ecological conditions [3]. Traditionally, herders have migrated from a few kilometers to several hundred kilometers. Even today, many herders in China continue to engage in seasonal movements. However, the traditional movements of herders are primarily linked with their livestock production strategies within more confined rangeland regions. Such migration has dramatically shifted into movements of the rural population between rural and adjacent urban regions, with significant changes in production and lifestyle. As herders transition from a livelihood dependent on grasslands to an alternative means of sustenance, this shift is closely related to the ecological conditions and trends affecting grassland ecosystems.

For a long time, the increasing numbers of both the population and livestock have been considered significant factors contributing to grassland degradation, indicating that the sustainable development of pastoral areas requires controlling population levels within the grassland’s carrying capacity [4,5]. Consequently, the outward migration of populations has been considered a fundamental strategy for ecological protection. Since the late 1990s, major pastoral areas such as Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Qinghai have experienced gradual movement of rural herders to live in adjacent urban regions [6,7,8]. The ecological migration policy, which primarily aimed to protect the rangeland ecosystem since 2000 has been among the main drivers for rural population outflow. The centralization of education and healthcare resources in county towns has further induced population movement from rural regions to urban areas. Among these are the elders and young children from pastoral families who cannot provide much labor help in livestock production and who need better social services [9,10]. Beyond policy-driven movements, there are many other types of rural population migrations aimed at diversifying livelihoods. A study in 2008 found that 32.1% of surveyed herder families in Inner Mongolia were migrant workers who aimed at diversifying their livelihood resources. According to another study conducted in the five pastoral provinces in China, the proportion of non-agricultural employment has increased in both pastoral regions and more settled agricultural areas [11]. As rural populations continue to move out, how has the relationship between herders and their rangeland changed? Will the ecological pressure in the grassland pastoral areas decrease, as some researchers and policymakers expect?

Previous studies indicate that even though population migrations are happening in both pastoral and agricultural regions, they differ in how migrated families sustain their connections to rural land resources. Unlike agricultural settings, migrated families in the pastoral regions have maintained a close reliance on rural pastoral resources after migrating to live in urban regions, with frequent movements between rural and urban regions. For example, Alatan’s research indicates that even with strong national policy support, many herders find it challenging to not rely on rangeland resources to support their urban livelihoods after migration with frequent movement between rural and urban regions [12]. Similarly, Li’s study in Chifeng discovered a phenomenon of family members living in both rural and urban regions, where the young laborers stay in pastoral regions to keep their livestock production while the elders and children move to live in adjacent urban towns [13]. Wang and Xiu’s investigation of primary and secondary school student migrants and their families in Xilin Hot also highlighted the issue of “seasonal citizens”, where families reside in two locations [14]. Bao’s research in the Qingshui District of Inner Mongolia demonstrated that “settling in towns and producing in pastoral areas” has emerged as a new model over a decade of urbanization among herdsmen [15].

Given this background, a critical question would be does the outflow of rural people lead to decreased ecological pressure? Based on the data from five pastoral provinces, Wang’s study suggests that as non-husbandry employment increases, migrant workers significantly reduce livestock numbers, thereby alleviating ecological pressure [11]; however, this study primarily examines the livestock reduction behaviors of the migrant population, which may not accurately reflect the overall ecological pressure in pastoral areas. Some scholars have investigated the intergenerational transmission of animal husbandry, revealing that only 34% of herders anticipate their children to inherit this practice [16]. These studies suggest a potential future trend of population mobility in grassland regions with reduced reliance on rangeland resources. However, there are many other studies suggesting that there has been high utilization of rural rangeland resources even after increased outflow of the rural pastoral population, and overgrazing is still a common issue [17,18,19]. While the population in pastoral areas continues to decline, the ecological pressure on grasslands does not appear to decrease accordingly. Our fieldwork has corroborated this contradictory phenomenon in several locations. On the one hand, herders reported a decreasing and aging population structure in the pastoral regions; on the other, they expressed significant concern about the deterioration of the ecological environment, reflecting increased pressure on natural grasslands and ongoing ecological degradation.

Based on the existing research, work on this topic is limited, and conclusions remain controversial, especially the mechanisms and internal logic behind the relationship between population outflow and ecological pressure in pastoral areas. This study tries to address the following: why does the outflow of population coincide with rising pressure on grasslands? This research hopes to engage with empirical studies focusing on how the patterns of human–land relationships have emerged in the pastoral regions. Research on this issue is crucial for identifying the development difficulties of pastoral areas and formulating development strategies.

2. Study Area and Analysis Framework

2.1. Study Area

Sunite Right Banner is located at the northern border of China and central to the Inner Mongolia Plateau (Figure 1). With a semi-arid continental climate, it experiences significant weather variations. The annual rainfall ranges from 170 to 190 mm, primarily in July and August. However, this region also experiences high evaporation rates, reaching approximately 2700 mm yearly. Most of Sunite Right Banner’s area (95%) consists of grassland, predominantly characterized by desertified steppes. Despite the sparse vegetation, the grass quality is exceptionally high. It is ideal for livestock such as Sunit sheep and Sunit Bactrian camels, renowned for their unique characteristics and valuable contributions to the local economy and culture2. This grassland has always been the homeland for the northern nomads, and grassland animal husbandry remains the principal industry of the entire Banner today. Sunite Right Banner once was a nationally recognized county in poverty, but in 2019, it emerged from poverty. By the close of 2023, the total registered population of the Banner was 64,695, with Han Chinese comprising 61.8% and Mongolian accounting for 37.0% of the total population.3

S-C Gacha is located in the central and eastern regions of Sunite Right Banner, a pastoral enclave 25 km from the town. Between 2018 and 2023, we conducted five comprehensive visits to S-C Gacha for detailed interviews and subsequent investigations into herding households, migrant workers, schoolmates, and entrepreneurs in pastoral areas. To comprehend the historical trends of this Gacha, we engaged in extensive discussions with four generations of leaders since the 1980s. We selected various types of herders based on the general situation. We also interviewed twenty-six animal husbandry practitioners and seven urban residents (involved in dairy shops, driving, car washes, barber shops, and catering) for an average duration of 1.5 to 3 h per household. The interview content covers population shifts within the village over the past 30 years and their causes, family decisions and influencing factors among different herdsman groups, post-population flow dynamics between herdsman families and grasslands, as well as the development of animal husbandry. While this research focuses on a specific Gacha for in-depth analysis, the issue explored is common across pastoral areas of Inner Mongolia. We aim to provide a more detailed description of its internal mechanisms through a micro-case study.

2.2. Analysis Framework

The pastoral area is a complex social-ecological system [20], a multi-scale, hierarchical nested structure that includes social subsystems and ecological subsystems [21], natural, economic, institutional, and other factors at different scales that will ultimately affect the ecosystem by influencing individual decisions and produce complex and long-term interactions [22,23]. To examine the relationship between population flow and ecological pressure in pastoral areas, this research employs three research scales—(1) Banner Scale4: utilizing statistical data from entire banners (the administrative units of Inner Mongolia, equivalent to counties in rural areas) to provide an overall scenario of the population flow and changes in ecological pressure within pastoral regions. (2) Gacha Scale5: conducting a five-year follow-up survey at the Gacha level (a Mongolian term equivalent to village) to further analyze the relationship between population flow and ecological pressure changes. (3) Household Scale: investigating the mechanisms and internal logic behind population flow and ecological pressure changes through the decision-making processes of various herding behaviors at the household level.

3. Overall Scenario: Contradiction Between Population Outflow and Ecological Pressure Growth in Pastoral Areas

Over the past 30 years, the permanent resident count in Sunite Right Banner’s pastoral region has significantly declined, nearly trimming by two-thirds. Figure 2 illustrates that since 1991, the total population of Sunite Right Banner has remained relatively stable, fluctuating between approximately 60,000 and 70,000 individuals. Both net migration inflow and outflow have remained at a minimal level. The most notable shift occurred in the demographic composition of the permanent population; this change primarily manifested as an exodus from pastoral areas to urban centers, especially post-2000. Influenced by ecological immigration policies, natural disasters, and urbanization factors, the population of pastoral regions plummeted from 41,700 in 1991 to 13,200 in 2023, a staggering decrease of 68.3%. Concurrently, the corresponding urban population surged markedly.

In contrast, the number of livestock did not show a corresponding decline from 1991 to 2019. Livestock numbers in pastoral areas increased significantly from the early 1980s to the late 1990s, encouraged by the household property contract system, and peaked before 2000. From 2000 to 2001, Sunit Right encountered an unprecedented drought, resulting in a high livestock mortality rate (Figure 3). Following this disaster, the ecological policies (implemented in 2003), such as returning grazing to grassland, also led to a decline in livestock numbers. After that, the number of livestock gradually recovered.

The grassland ecological condition of the whole banner showed a trend of fluctuation and decline. This study conducted a five-year follow-up survey on hundreds of herders in this banner. The interviewees believed that although the ecological status of grassland varied from year to year, it generally showed a trend of degradation over a long time scale, as shown in Table 1. The specific manifestations are a decrease in vegetation cover, a disappearance of the litter layer, a decrease in plant diversity, the continuous development of soil desertification, and an increase in local dust storms, which reveal the significant degradation of grassland in all aspects.

It can be seen that with the outflow of the population, the ecological pressure of grassland has not been correspondingly reduced, the trend of ecological degradation of grassland has not been improved, and even the topsoil layer in some areas has suffered serious wind erosion, resulting in frequent local sandstorms. Therefore, from the statistical data, the grazing population in pastoral areas is decreasing, while the grassland degradation is intensifying. How to explain this contradiction? What is the internal relationship between the outgoing population in pastoral areas and the grassland ecology?

Table 1. The perception of herdsmen on the ecological status of pasture8.

Performance of Grassland Degradation	Expression of Herdsmen	Interview Number9
Decrease in vegetation cover	Previously, you couldn’t see the bare ground because it was all covered with grass. Even during a severe drought in 2000, it was still mostly covered with yellow grass. Since 2000, the soil has been exposed, with approximately 20% visible as bare ground. Nowadays, 90% of the area is exposed soil.	SC-20220720-DFP
Decrease in plant diversity	Before, nearly half-a-meter-tall grass and numerous species flourished here10, now many have withered away, leaving only one or two dominant types of inferior grasses.	SC-20230803-BYYBB
Soil desertification	The black soil on my pasture was scraped away, exposing the red glue soil and the grass roots.	EM-20180711-ERDMT
Local dust storms	Twenty years ago, when the wind blew, it either rained or snowed, with no sandstorms. Over the past decade, however, sand and dust have frequently blown, including instances of sandstorms during these years—a phenomenon that had previously been virtually unheard of.	ET-20180711-MXBYE
The disappearance of litter layer11	In 2000’s heavy drought, there was still litter layer. But now, the ground is bare with no grass. There was dew on my boots in the morning before, but now they’re dry.	SC-20230802-BLGBB

4. Mechanism of Population Outflow and Ecological Pressure Reflux: S-C Gacha’s Case

S-C Gacha comprised a registered population of 176 households in 2023, including about 20 married women living elsewhere, and most inhabitants (approximately 90%) are of Mongolian ethnicity. This Gacha encompasses an impressive expanse of grassland, totaling 870,000 mu (including 34,000 mu of communal grassland). Historically, there were approximately 110 to 120 herding households in S-C Gacha during 2003. However, due to the impacts of natural disasters, ecological policies, financial needs, and educational and healthcare considerations, some herding families began transitioning from traditional grazing lands to seek employment opportunities in urban areas. As of 2023, only 76 households remain in S-C Gacha as permanent herders (accounting for 43% of the total registered population, marking a decrease compared to 1984). In addition, 18 households have settled in towns, while the remaining 50 to 60 households work outside or temporarily reside in cities. In 2003, the livestock number in S-C Gacha was between 20,000 and 30,000 animals; however, by 2023, this number had surged to nearly 50,000, indicating that despite a reduction in herding households by 33%, the livestock number has increased by more than 60% over the past two decades.

The population outflow from S-C Gacha can be categorized into three groups: herders seeking employment or engaging in business ventures, students and their family members accompanying them to schools from kindergarten to high school, and elderly individuals who migrate to the city for better medical services. Although these three categories of temporary or permanent urban residents are geographically segregated from the pastoral grasslands, they remain deeply connected to the grassland in their daily lives. Therefore, it can be stated that the maintenance of economic support and reliance on pastoral regions after migration to towns underpins the persistent ecological strain on the grasslands. A close link exists between population outflow and the escalation of grassland pressure, which operates through one or more mechanisms detailed below. These mechanisms encompass cost considerations, institutional factors, natural conditions, consumption patterns, and an overlapping demographic pressure resulting from all the factors above. This research primarily focuses on elucidating these interwoven mechanisms.

4.1. Cost Mechanism

An in-depth understanding of the prevailing production model in grassland husbandry reflects a new interaction pattern between the population outflow and increased rangeland degradation. Introducing the rangeland household contract system has significantly transformed interactions between pastoralists and their rangelands, and mobility is disappearing. Since 2000, a semi-intensified feeding system has emerged as the standard practice in livestock production systems, with the purchase of fodder becoming the paramount expense, as illustrated in Figure 4. According to investigations12, during normal years (reflecting non-disaster years), sheep are fed in sheds for four months, costing approximately 90 RMB per month13. In drought years, this duration can extend to six months, necessitating over half of a herder’s income to be allocated toward purchasing fodder, leaving just barely enough to support basic living expenses. During severe droughts, the feeding period exceeds eight months, leading herders into debt. An annual six-month feeding duration is common in Sunit Right Banner and other regions within the Xilin Gol League14. When drought strikes, herders face significant survival challenges, particularly during summer when livestock cannot consume fresh grass from natural pastures. Consequently, higher reliance on fodder and feed purchase has increased livestock production costs without increasing livestock income.

Under the strain of high costs, herders naturally gravitate toward low-cost resources, which serves as their intrinsic motivation to maximize the use of natural grassland. In subsequent interviews with herders (SC-20210710-HMJL), it was found that the cost of fodder in winter constitutes the largest portion of expenses. A household owning 300 female sheep requires an expenditure exceeding RMB 100,000 during winter in a normal year. In summer, herders utilize natural pastures to reduce costs; however, it should be noted that rented pastures bear the greatest grazing pressure, although overgrazing also frequently occurs at their own pastures.

“I have over 300 sheep and more than 300 lambs. In 2018 there was a severe drought, and all the income from selling sheep was spent on buying fodder, leaving no money left. I put the ewes on the pasture of my relatives while the lambs were fattened in shelters. On July 18, it rained, and the ewes returned. The lambs were also put on the pasture to save some fodder expenses.

The rainfall in 2020–2021 was better. In the winter of 2021, I purchased 50 tons of grass, along with corn kernels as feed materials for grass-fed animals. The total cost was RMB 170,000, which was used to feed the sheep from November to May. Additionally, I rented an additional 10,000 mu of grassland at a yearly rental fee of RMB 50,000. In 2021, my livestock sales generated a total revenue exceeding RMB 300,000, resulting in a net profit of over RMB 100,000. Purchasing fodder from markets is too expensive, and the pressure is quite significant. I utilize the rented pasture in summer, while in winter, I rely on 6000 mu of my own grassland.“ (Interview number: SC-20210710-HMJL).

The reliance on natural pastures has allowed outflow herders to earn a livelihood by renting pastures. Although herders venture out for work, most opt not to settle in large cities; instead, they often find jobs within a short distance, focusing on serving “pastoral areas”. Constraints imposed by culture, customs, and language have led to dairy shops, car washes, truck drivers, sheep shears, and hotel workers being the primary employment options, with few opportunities for employment outside Inner Mongolia. The permanent population of Sunite Right Banner is merely 60,000, indicating that the market scope and operational income are limited. As shown in Table 2, the annual net income/salary of families who work outside typically falls between RMB 50,000 and 80,000, which can only cover the basic expenses of urban life and is unstable. One reason they can stabilize their lives in towns is that grassland provides a foundation for living expenses, mainly through renting pasture and receiving grassland ecological subsidies. As indicated in Table 2, grassland ecological subsidies, rental income, and self-consumed sheep remain essential for many urban-dwelling herders as a fundamental living safeguard, forming the basis for their maintenance in pastoral areas to towns. More than half of the S-C Gacha population leaves, yet no idle pasture exists. Of the 39 herders who own pasture but reside in town, all rent out their pastures, indicating that all of Gacha’s pastures are under high-intensity use. The average area owned by the 26 households investigated in this research living in pastoral areas is 4870 mu, yet the actual utilized area is 8838 mu. According to government regulations regarding grass and livestock, the average overloading rate for these households remains around 30%. With an average area rented at 3960 mu per household (based on the local grassland price of 4 RMB/mu), the average household’s pasture rental costs amount to RMB 15,840, which then becomes the income of the grassland renters.

4.2. Policy Mechanism

The grassland transfer policy offers an opportunity for outgoing herders to profit from pasture though it has negative effects on the grassland ecosystem. Following the implementation of the dual contracting system for grass and livestock in the 1980s, Inner Mongolia’s pastoral regions have gradually shifted into an individual management model. However, the individualized rangeland tenure reform also led to rangeland fragmentation. In the late 1990s, grassland transfers were institutionalized as a solution to consolidate grassland resources. For instance, in 1999, Inner Mongolia issued the “Measures for the Transfer of Grassland Contracted Management Rights in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region”, further deepening the grassland transfer system after the “three rights separation” [24]. The aim of grassland transfer is to consolidate individualized grazing parcels into a large-scale production system with the objective of addressing the issue of grassland fragmentation and protecting the grassland ecosystem. However, in actual practice, the rangeland transfer system has very different impacts. Individual herders engaging in monetary transactions for grassland integration are severely limited under the current fenced grazing scenario. Moreover, the free market enhances the general commodity attributes of grasslands, neglecting ecological benefits. The degradation of rented-in grasslands has been reflected in numerous relevant studies [25,26,27].

The further subdivision of grassland contracting rights and management rights has transformed the use value of grasslands17 into a calculable exchange value. The rangeland transfer system encourages the flow of individualized grazing parcels between individual herders, leading to overutilization and further fragmentation of pasture. The shift from use value to exchange value is crucial for herders as it grants them the ability to convert grassland into cash at any time, promoting economic rationality regardless of the ecological condition of the pasture. Both the lessor and lessee strive to maximize the benefits of the exchange value. Several phenomena being observed from our fieldwork illustrate this conclusion: (1) The trend toward short-term transfer of grassland; taking 10,000 mu of grassland as an example, renting it to a herder with 600 sheep for a month can generate RMB 18,000 (calculated at 30 RMB/sheep/month), whereas long-term renting yields only RMB 40,000–50,000 annually. For both parties, renting during the peak season for fresh pasture is more economical than leasing for an extended period. (2) Lessees often transfer the grassland to other herders to maximize economic returns. In our fieldwork, we frequently observed secondary sublease agreements, especially when leases were up, “I rented 7000 mu of grassland at 6 RMB/mu for one year. The lease ends in October (more than two months remaining), another family came to share the pasture with me, and they can split the rent with me”. (Interview number: SC-20210711-EEDBLG). This secondary sublease significantly reduces the cost of the lessee but places significant ecological pressure on the grassland. (3) “No grass to eat” has become a general principle for halting the use of rented-in pasture. There are 43,000 mu of public pasture in S-C Gacha, which is utilized for transfer to herders in summer. Due to it being a water-free pasture, its price is relatively low, at only 2.5 RMB/mu. Herders describe using this pasture as “More than 7000 sheep went into the pasture, ate until there was no grass and left, we will return when it rains for a few days”. (Interview number: SC-20240803-BYBB). It is evident that when herdsmen prioritize the exchange value of grassland, they treat it as a commodity, maximizing its use through rational economic decision-making, thereby increasing pressure on grasslands.

It can be said that the use value (including ecological value) of grasslands is continuously damaged during the process of achieving exchange value, and the exchange value cannot be linked with ecological value. This results in inevitable overgrazing under the grassland transfer system.

4.3. Natural Mechanism

The frequent population movement between pastoral areas and towns (i.e., between pastoral and non-pastoral regions) is a major characteristic of the demographic dynamics in pastoral areas. This is in response to the frequent trade-off between survival and development under climate change impacts. Among the 26 households investigated in this research living in pastoral areas, as shown in Table 3, 10 households have experienced migrating to urban regions and then returning to pastoral regions, illustrating the herders’ choices between survival and development. Drought years necessitate full dependence on migrant labor, which can be viewed as a “survival strategy” to navigate natural and market downturns. Production costs (primarily due to fodder purchases) surge significantly during dry years, while livestock sale revenue decreases, potentially leaving herders with no surplus or even accruing debt for the year. Relying entirely on an urban salary barely covers basic living expenses for individuals, some are even unable to support themselves, yet they depend on family members in the pastoral area for support; thus, it becomes challenging to accumulate assets or expand reproduction (as illustrated by Table 3). Conversely, good rainfall years can be considered “development opportunities,” where herders mainly rely on grazing natural pastures, significantly reducing production costs and generating high income from livestock sales; for instance, profits from 200 ewes can reach between RMB 100,000 and 200,000 annually, providing herdsmen with opportunities to accumulate assets and arrange reproduction. Therefore, many herders opt to work outside during droughts and return to the pastoral area to engage in husbandry when rains are favorable and sheep prices are good (such as samples in Table 3), representing a strategic choice between survival and development.

In the short term, migrant workers can secure cash flow and address immediate living expenses. However, compared to herding, it is more labor-intensive, restrictive, and lacks room for development. Migrant workers are actually seeking a new way of life, but with their current skills and financial situation, finding a job comparable to the income from herding is challenging. Therefore, most herders will keep a small amount of livestock as a backup plan, and returning to pastoral areas becomes an essential retreat for them. It can be said that the existence of grasslands and livestock offers migrant workers a strategic choice between survival and development, and many do not truly leave the pastoral region, leading to pressure on grasslands not being alleviated in good years. The shifting between leaving and returning—corresponding to natural fluctuations—benefits livelihoods, yet the pressure on good-year pastures persists, creating another ecological strain caused by the migrating population. In the pastoral area, grass exhibits characteristics of fluctuation with changes in climate conditions such as precipitation, and the grassland endures repeated natural disasters like droughts and snow disasters. The primary productivity fluctuation of grassland causes herders to switch back and forth between survival and development strategies. When herders encounter disasters, they opt to keep a certain amount of livestock, then go out to work for basic living expenses. Once the disaster passes, herders wait for an opportunity to return to the pastoral area to raise livestock, with hopes of “development” such as building houses or buying cars. In reality, herders in permanent grazing areas also employ this strategy: reducing livestock numbers in disaster years and expanding during good years to meet family development needs. The frequent alternation between survival and development strategies inevitably leads to a scenario where livestock numbers can only be maintained during bad years, while increasing in good years. Grasslands fail to recover, resulting in an inevitable continuous degradation.

4.4. Consumption Mechanism

Herders’ livelihood conditions and consumption levels have improved dramatically in recent years with better access to education and medical care. Accessing better education is one of the primary drivers of population outflow in pastoral regions though such action necessitates higher reliance on livestock production income. “The Centralization of Rural Community School” program leads a multi-spatial livelihood system in the pastoral regions, where the elders from the family stay with their school-age children in the urban regions while young laborers stay in pastoral regions to maintain livestock production and support their urban family expenses. This arrangement usually persists until the end of high school. Currently, 22 of the 76 grazing households in S-C Gacha have school-age children who need to reside in town for extended periods. Although compulsory education welfare does not require excessive education fees, the multi-spatial livelihood system significantly increases living costs, particularly rent (or house purchase), utilities, heating, Internet fees, and transportation expenses. Our fieldwork discovered that a family leading a multi-spatial livelihood system needs an additional budget of RMB 20,000 to 30,000 for their living costs in the urban regions.

“My daughter was born in 2012, and my son in 2017. The children will attend school in town from kindergarten. Their mother cares for them in the city, while I graze in the pastoral area. We rent a house in town, with the annual rental including heating costs totaling RMB 7000. Every Friday, I travel to town to retrieve the children and send them back to school on Sundays, making this a monthly round-trip journey eight times (each trip costs about RMB 100). Since having children, our expenses have increased. Everything in the city is expensive, costing at least RMB 20,000 more annually than in the pastoral area”. (Interview number: SC-20210711-BYN).

When students are admitted to college, parents can return to pasture; however, college students who enter big cities require higher expenses. Before 2010, the total number of college students in S-C Gacha was between 3 and 4, which increased to 47 in 2010. Enrolling in university means moving to a distant big city far from pastoral areas. This research interviewed five pastoral families who have their children attending college. The average annual expenditure for each student during their study period ranges between RMB 30,000 and 40,000 (mainly including tuition, accommodation, meals, transportation, computers, mobile phones, and other electronic products). This expense also comes from the family’s livestock production income (accounting for 20–40% of the average household disposable income annually, and the four-year university expenditure is at least RMB 100,000). According to survey statistics, as shown in Table 4, there are seven herders in S-C Gacha who have completely left husbandry and have permanent jobs with a monthly salary, while seven students returned to grassland after graduation. After graduation, twenty-one students worked temporarily, four started their own businesses, and eight were studying in the higher education system. The number of college students has significantly increased in the past decade, reflecting herders’ hopes for their children to have new ways of life; however, the actual rate of stable employment remains very low. Most of the graduated students who rely on temporary employment must gain a certain amount of support from livestock production to continue their livelihoods. Grassland provides important support for college students to pursue higher education and find stable jobs after graduation.

Medical care and elderly care services are the other important reasons for herders to move to cities. Many herders choose to purchase houses/apartments in the cities. As shown in Table 5, in S-C Gacha, the number of households that purchased houses was only 2 in 2003, though the number increased to 10 in 2010, and up to 20 in the following five years. By the end of the survey in 2023, 40 households had purchased houses in the city. According to interviews, the house price in Sunit Right Banner ranges from 1000 to 2000 RMB/m², with an average total price for a house being about RMB 300,000. The expenses for purchasing houses again come from their livestock production income.

Currently, a total of 18 elderly herders from S-C Gacha live in cities permanently. The living expenses of the elderly in cities are relatively low but the state’s pension of 200–300 RMB/month is insufficient to sustain life. According to interviews, herders who move to cities generally rely on pasture ecological subsidies or rent out their pastures. If their children use the pasture, they may assist the elderly by raising some livestock as an income source. Therefore, these families still have to rely on pastoralism to support their livelihoods. Taking the BLGBB family as an example (interview number: CS-20210708-BLGBB), the pension only accounts for one-third of the family’s expenses, while other costs come from animal husbandry.

“I am 62 years old and have been living in the city for nearly 7 years with my wife. We have adapted to urban life and find winter more comfortable, as seeing a doctor is more convenient. Currently, monthly pension for both of us is RMB 600, but it costs us 2000 RMB per month to cover expenses such as purchasing flour, water, electricity, medicine, etc. We own about 6000 mu of pasture land that our son currently grazes on; we receive an annual pasture subsidy exceeding RMB 9000. Additionally, our son keeps more than 30 sheep for us, which we sell when we need cash”. (Interview number: CS-20210708-BLGBB).

As a necessity for herders to frequently travel to town, cars are also an asset for consumption. As shown in Table 3, only a few herders owned cars in 2003 but the proportion of car purchases increased to about 20% in 2010, reaching 70–80% in 2015. Nowadays, cars have become a necessary means of transportation for all herders. In pastoral areas, cars are not only necessities but also consumables. The roads leading to Gacha are of low quality, with some areas even unpaved. Consequently, car consumption is more significant; herders generally opt for used cars priced at around RMB 30,000 to 50,000. However, replacement occurs more frequently than in other regions.

Beyond the limited output of natural pastures, the increase in livelihoods and consumption levels is the fourth mechanism by which migratory populations exert ecological stress. Children and the elderly reside in cities, enjoying a modern lifestyle and a level of consumption aligned with other urban areas. The steady improvement of living standards is an understandable goal supported by grassland husbandry and lasting for a long time. Conversely, the ecosystem is a system with limited output that struggles to sustain the steady growth of socio-economic systems, fundamentally challenging pastoral regions. As a result, most herders rely on loans to maintain production, with S-C Gacha accounting for up to 90% of households with loans—a phenomenon not unique to this area. Research across more than a dozen herding Gacha shows a general trend toward an increasing number of loans, compounded by increased interest rates. These increased costs will increase herders’ reliance on the rangeland ecosystem with an expected increase in grazing pressure and rangeland degradation.

4.5. Comprehensive Mechanism

Based on the above four mechanisms of ecological pressure, although the population in pastoral areas has realized spatial movement from pastoral to urban areas, their economic source still heavily depends on pastoral areas. It can even be said that the migration of the population reduces the population in pastoral areas but it does not reduce the dependence on natural pasture. In fact, it increases, and the ecological pressure of the population on grassland is referred to as the population pressure in this research. In the context of rising livestock costs and consumption levels, pressure shifts toward the cheapest natural grasslands. The uncontrollable ecological deterioration of grasslands is a result of interactions and mutual reinforcement of multiple mechanisms related to the above population pressure, such as high livestock production costs, ecologically disconnected grassland transfer systems, fluctuating natural conditions, and rising consumption levels. This establishes the basic picture of the relationship between people and land in pastoral areas: although the population continuously flows out, grassland pressure does not decrease, land is not idle, and there is cumulative ecological degradation. In reality, regardless of how the number of people leaving the pastoral area or the number of people from the pastoral area changes, grassland pressure does not decrease and even increases. Population pressure provides an important perspective for explaining why grassland ecology has not been alleviated despite a decrease in population in the pastoral area.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The relationship between people and land is the key to adjusting the development direction of rural areas. This study shows that the relationship between people and land in pastoral areas is very different from that in other agricultural areas. The core problem of pastoral areas is that “not only the herdmen live in pastoral area rely on grassland, but the people who go outside also maintain a high degree of dependence on grasslands, which causes the ecological pressure of grasslands to remain unabated”, and this is the major issue facing the development of pastoral areas. This research argues that five factors influence the changing patterns of interaction between rural population outflow and grassland ecological pressure, which are observed in our case studies. First is the cost mechanism. The increasing cost of livestock production leads herders to increase their reliance on grazing rental systems to increase the number of livestock. The grazing rental system generates income for those migrating to adjacent urban regions. Second is the institutional mechanism. The “three-separating property right systems”, a recent rural land institutional reform policy, has marketized rural individualized rangelands, leading herders to focus more on the exchange value of rangelands rather than the use value, including ecological functions. Consequently, lessors and lessees use their individualized grazing lands in high-intensity utilization. Third is the natural mechanism. Climate fluctuations influence herders’ migration patterns, prompting them to leave and return to grazing lands. These ecological dynamics force herders to oscillate between survival and development, intensifying pressure on grasslands during favorable years and preventing them from recovering while increasing the occurrence of poor years, such as droughts. Fourth is the consumption mechanism. Herders who have migrated to urban regions must continue relying on rangeland resources to sustain their livelihoods; however, lower economic outputs of livestock production hardly catch up with the higher consumption levels in urban regions, which leads migrated herders to increase their pressure on rural rangelands. The final factor is a combination of the previous four mechanisms. The interplay between the previously mentioned four mechanisms encouraged higher herder population outflow, though their reliance on rangeland resources has continued.

Our research offers valuable insights for pastoral development policies. First, the high-cost livestock production model compels herders to rely more on natural pastures, thereby increasing ecological pressure. Second, the current land system has not only failed to address the issue of grassland fragmentation but has also accelerated the commercialization of grasslands as production factors, providing a foundation for ecological degradation. Third, the economy of pastoral areas depends heavily on the sale of a single livestock product, making it vulnerable to natural climate fluctuations and rising consumer demand. Therefore, it is an urgent task to explore new husbandry models and land systems that are more suitable for grassland areas (especially reducing the production cost of husbandry), and it is crucial to extend the value-added chain of animal husbandry.

Based on these, a key question that remains is will the rangeland degradation be prevented as the rural population moves out, as predicted by studies in developed countries? Our studies from China’s case reflect that the patterns of the relationship between the rangeland ecosystem and population movement are very different. Those families who migrate to live in urban regions continue to rely on resources from pastoral regions to support their high livelihood expenditures, which results in higher pressure on livestock production and the grassland ecosystem. In addition, the individualized rangeland tenure reform and rangeland transfer system further accelerate such patterns of interaction between rural population outflow and rangeland degradation. Therefore, this research argues that policy approaches that tend to reduce the pressure of the population on rangeland to restore rangeland degradation should not take the “high input and high yield” approach, such as enclosure feeding and breed improvement. Instead, it should expand herders’ benefits and employment opportunities in the value-added chain, enhance the value-added capability of livestock products, and expand employment based on livestock production.

Author Contributions

Writing—review & editing, M.F. and G.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Social Science Foundation (19CMZ045), and Major Research Projects of the CASS Innovation Program (2023YZD047).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Han Nianyong, who did a lot of work for the investigation and provided valuable suggestions for the revision of the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notes

1	The State Council of the People’s Republic of China <Several Opinions of the General Office of the State Council on Strengthening the Protection and Restoration of Grasslands>, No. 7, 2021.
2	Source: Compilation Committee of Sunit Right Banner Annals, Sunit Right Banner Annals, Inner Mongolia Culture Publishing House, 2002 First edition, page 94.
3	Source: Sunit Right Banner Statistical Office, Statistical Bulletin of National Economic and Social Development of Sunit Right Banner 2023.
4	Banner is the administrative unit of Inner Mongolia, equivalent to a county in a rural area.
5	Gacha is a Mogolian word, equivalent to a village in a rural area.
6	Data source: Statistical Yearbook of Xilin Gol League, calculated as follows: permanent population in pastoral areas = permanent population of the whole banner—permanent population in urban areas.
7	Data source: Statistical Yearbook of Xilin Gol League from 1991 to 2019. Since 2020, only the number of livestock in the husbandry year (June) has been counted; therefore, comparable data are only used until 2019.
8	Ecological degradation is a common phenomenon in our interview, and some representative expressions of herdsmen are listed here.
9	Interview number: location—date—interviewee’s name.
10	Such as Stipa baicalensis Roshev, Artemisia scoparia Waldst. & Kit, Leymus chinensis (Trin. ex Bunge) Tzvelev, Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv., and so on.
11	The litter layer is crucial to the ecology of grassland, the soil is directly exposed after the layer disappearance, resulting in increased evaporation of soil water and reduced water available to vegetation.
12	Feeding time is proportional to the degradation of grassland, the longer the feeding time indicates less natural pasture available.
13	The average forage of a sheep every day is 0.5 kg of fodder (such as corn, the price is 2.4 RMB/kg), 1 kg of grass (the price is 1.4–2 RMB/kg).
14	Six months of feeding time is usual in mid and west parts of Xilin Gol League, other places in the east reach an average of 3–4 months in a year, and it is a common trend that feeding time increases.
15	Specifically refers to the time when natural grassland is used for grazing.
16	The employment types in the table are of the herders during the survey period, they may have had various employment experiences before that.
17	The use value of pasture reflects the relationship between humans and nature, including the ecological, cultural, and social values of pasture.
18	A banner of Xilin Gol League.
19	A banner of Xilin Gol League.
20	A city in Inner Mongolia.
21	The capital of Inner Mongolia.
22	A city of Xilin Gol League.

References

Jiang, D.; Peng, C. The Phenomenon of Rural Declining in the Process of Urbanization:Causes and Governance—An Analysis from the Perspective of the Implementation of “Rural Revitalization Strategy”. J. Nanjing Audit. Univ. 2018, 15, 16–24. [Google Scholar]
Liu, S.; Wang, Y. From Native Rural China to Urban-rural China: The Rural Transition Perspective of China Transformation. J. Manag. World 2018, 34, 128–146+232. [Google Scholar]
Han, M. A Preliminary Study on the Nomadic Mode of the Grassland Nationalities in the Historical Period. Res. Chin. Econ. Hist. 2003, 93–104. [Google Scholar]
Sun, X. Analysis of Population Migration and Flow in Pastoral Areas of Inner Mongolia. North. Econ. 2006, 23–26. [Google Scholar]
Jia, Y. Grassland Degradation Reasons and Establishment of Grassland Protection Long-term Mechanism. Chin. J. Grassl. 2011, 33, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
Gai, Z.; Song, W.; Chen, J. Ecological Emigration and Its Countermeasures in Pasture Areas. J. Beijing For. Univ. Soc. Sci. 2005, 4, 55–58. [Google Scholar]
Zhang, L.; Wang, F. A Probe into the Developmental Countermeasure after Ecological Migration in Western Pasturing Region of China. J. Minzu Univ. China Philos. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2011, 38, 31–36. [Google Scholar]
Zhang, L. On the Practices and Measures about the Sustainable Development of Ecological Migrations in Chinese Pasture Areas. Ethno-Natl. Stud. 2013, 22–34+123–124. [Google Scholar]
He, W.; Han, S. Investigation and Research on Old-age Care in the Social Change in Ethnic Areas—A Case Study of the Old Herdsmen in Dahe Township, Sunan County. J. Northwest Minzu Univ. Philos. Soc. Sci. 2013, 122–128. [Google Scholar]
Liu, H.; Qi, X.; Qiao, G. Heterogeneity Analysis of Herdsmen’s Urban-Rural Flow from the Perspective of Family: Fieldwork Research from Abaga Town, Inner Mongolia. J. North Minzu Univ. Philos. Soc. Sci. 2020, 46–53. [Google Scholar]
Wang, W.; Wang, S.; Liu, M. The Livestock Reduction Effect of Off-farm Employment: Empirical Evidence from Pastoral Area. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2024, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Baolige, A. Nomadic Industry: Wandering between Tradition and Modernization. J. Minzu Univ. China Philos. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2011, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Li, Y. New Ideas of Urbanization in Pastoral Areas. J. Peking Univ. Philos. Soc. Sci. 2012, 49, 5–10. [Google Scholar]
Wang, L.; Xiu, C. A Micro-level Analysis of the Urbanization of Emigrants from Inner Mongolian Pastoral Areas. China Soft Sci. 2014, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bao, Z. Urbanization and Ecological Governance in Pastoral Areas. Soc. Sci. China 2020, 146–162+207. [Google Scholar]
Kong, D.; Hu, Z.; Jin, L. Analysis of Intergenerational Transfer Intention of Herdsmen in Grassland Animal Husbandry Operation and its Influencing Factors. China Rural. Surv. 2016; 75–85+93. [Google Scholar]
Feng, X.; Liu, M.; Qiu, H. Impact of grassland eco-compensation policy on herders’ overgrazing behavior: The moderating role of social capital. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2019, 29, 157–165. [Google Scholar]
Ding, W.; Hou, X.; Yin, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, D. Are Herdsmen Overloaded? Who is Overloading and Its Influencing Factors under the Grassland Supplementary Award Policy—A case of Inner Mongolia. Acta Agrestia Sin. 2020, 28, 12–19. [Google Scholar]
Hu, Z.; Liu, D.; Jin, L. Study on herdsman-level heterogeneity of grassland overgrazing. J. China Agric. Univ. 2017, 22, 158–167. [Google Scholar]
Hruska, T.; Huntsinger, L.; Brunson, M.; Li, W.; Marshall, N.; Oviedo, J.L.; Whitcomb, H. Rangelands as social–ecological systems. Rangel. Syst. Process. Manag. Chall. 2017, 263–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Preiser, R.; Biggs, R.; De Vos, A.; Folke, C. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Robinson, B.E.; Li, P.; Hou, X. Institutional change in social-ecological systems: The evolution of grassland management in Inner Mongolia. Glob. Environ. Change 2017, 47, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Li, W.; Li, Y. Managing rangeland as a complex system: How government interventions decouple social systems from ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tan, S. Impacts and mechanismsof grazing institutional transitions on grassland degradation. Issues Agric. Econ. 2020, 115–125. [Google Scholar]
Ta, N.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Q. Effect of grassland inflow on herders’ grazing intensity—Based on the perspective of self-owned grassland and rent-in grassland. Grassl. Turf. 2024, 44, 193–201. [Google Scholar]
Mu, Y.; Cha, S.; Li, W. The Impacts of Pasture Transfer on Herders’ Livelihoods and Grassland Ecology: A Case Study in Xianghuang Banner, Xilingol of Inner Mongolia. Chin. J. Grassl. 2021, 43, 84–96. [Google Scholar]
Su, L.; Qiu, H.; Tan, J. The “Tragedy of Rent-in Grassland” of Grassland Transfer:An Empirical Analysis Based on Survey Data Collected from 876 Plots. Chin. Rural. Econ. 2021, 68–85. [Google Scholar]

Figure 1. Location of the study area—Sunite Right Banner of Inner Mongolia, China.

Figure 2. Permanent population in urban and pastoral areas of Sunit Right Banner from 1991 to 20236.

Figure 3. Number of livestock in Sunit Right Banner between 1991 and 20197.

Figure 4. Proportion of feeding time by forage in sheds and by natural grazing15.

Table 2. Types of herders’ employment outside their hometowns and their dependence on pastoral areas.

Types of Employment16	Time for Working Outside (Years)	Annual Turnover (RMB 10,000)	Net Income/Salary (RMB 10,000)	Pasture Property Rights/Pasture Income	Interview No.
Dairy shop	30	27	3–5	Yes/Pasture subsidy RMB 7500, 5 sheep for self-feeding	SC-20210707-NRH
Car wash	30	7.2	3.6	Yes/Pasture subsidy and rent RMB 43,000, 20–30 sheep for self-feeding	SC-20210707-ADTY
Barber shop	13	9.6	4.8	None/10–20 sheep for self-feeding	SC-20210707-TL
Truck driver	23		6–8	Yes/Pasture subsidy and rent RMB 47,000	SC-20210706-BY
Restaurant waiter	7		10 (husband and wife)	Yes/Pasture subsidy and rent RMB 30,000, 80 sheep for self-feeding	SC-20220721-SQ

Table 3. Employment experience of herders living in pastoral areas.

No.	Interview No.	Time Away from Pastoral Area/Type of Employment/Location	Reason for Going Out	Reasons for Returning to the Pastoral Area
1	SC-20180713-BYBB	2016–2018/Odd jobs/Abaga Banner18	It was dry, I left my sheep with other people and went out to work.	In the autumn of 2018, when there was enough rain, I returned to herding. I worked so that I wouldn’t have to sell my sheep.
2	SC-20210708-BLG	2018–2019/Odd jobs/Sunite Right Banner	Same as above.	I still want to develop in the pastoral area, working is not as good as herding.
3	SC-20210709-TL	2016–now/Construction worker, loader/Erenhot19, Sunite Right Banner	It was dry in 2016, sold most of the sheep and went out to work.	The income from working is not enough, and the cost of living in the city is high, so it is better to raise sheep in the pastoral area.
4	SC-20210709-AKDBTE	2011–2016/Construction worker, loader/Erenhot, Sunite Right Banner, Baotou20	I had only 40 sheep in the past, so I left them in the pastoral area while I went out to work.	I have worked for so many years, and I only work when I have no other choice. In 2016, when the price of sheep was low, I bought 40 sheep, pastoral area is still better.
5	SC-20210711-HRL	2016–now/Truck driver	I hired a shepherd, and drove a truck when I had nothing to do.	Herding can guarantee basic living, and when I have nothing to do, I drive to earn money.
6	SC-20230811-HJ	2001–2005/Truck driver	In 2001, the drought hit, the sheep were disposed and pasture was rented out.	I didn’t make much money from transporting goods, and my savings were almost gone. I bought 45 sheep and returned to the pasture in 2005.
7	SC-20220721-BTSU	1997–1998/Construction worker/Hohhot21	There were few sheep, the price was low, my parents were in the pastoral area and I went to work.	The salary from working is just enough for food, I can’t make any extra money, it’s too tiring.
8	SC-20220721-SQ	2015–2022/Restaurant waiter/Sunite Right Banner	Children need stable tuition fees for high school and college.	If the sheep price is good and the income in the pastoral area is good, I can come back and develop further.
9	SC-20220720-EEDBLG	2007–2011/Restaurant waiter, security guard, sales/Hohhot	After finishing my military service in 2006, I wanted to try working in a city.	Only salary is not enough to support myself in city. I can’t hold on any longer. The income in pastoral area is better.
10	SC-202308011-MLBLG	2013–2018/Singing/Xilinhot22	I graduated from university in 2013, and wanted to work in the city.	The income from herding is better, singing and working cannot save money.

Table 4. Employment situation of college students in S-C Gacha.

Employment Status	Number of People
Civil servant/public servant	7
Herdsman in pastoral area	7
Entrepreneurship	4
Current students	8
Temporary work	21
Total	47

Table 5. Number of S-C Gacha households that purchased houses in urban areas and the proportion of car purchases.

Year	2003	2010	2015	2023
Number of households who purchased houses	2	10	20	40
Proportion of car purchases	3–4%	20%	70–80%	100%

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fan, M.; Zeren, G. Mechanism of Population Outflow and Ecological Pressure Reflux in China’s Pastoral Area: S-C Gacha’s Case. Land 2024, 13, 1936. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111936

AMA Style

Fan M, Zeren G. Mechanism of Population Outflow and Ecological Pressure Reflux in China’s Pastoral Area: S-C Gacha’s Case. Land. 2024; 13(11):1936. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111936

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fan, Mingming, and Gongbu Zeren. 2024. "Mechanism of Population Outflow and Ecological Pressure Reflux in China’s Pastoral Area: S-C Gacha’s Case" Land 13, no. 11: 1936. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111936

APA Style

Fan, M., & Zeren, G. (2024). Mechanism of Population Outflow and Ecological Pressure Reflux in China’s Pastoral Area: S-C Gacha’s Case. Land, 13(11), 1936. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111936

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu