Regional landscape transformation and sustainability of the rural homegarden agroforestry system in the Chengdu Plain, China

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2022.04.001

Abstract

Abstract:

Traditional rural homegarden agroforestry system in the Chengdu Plain of China, called “Linpan” in Chinese, integrates the ecological functions of the landscape with human production activities. Studying the driving mechanisms of rural landscape changes in the Chengdu Plain is of great significance from stakeholders’ perspective. Taking the Pidu Linpan Farming System (PLFS) in the suburban area of Chengdu (designated as one of China-Nationally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems in 2020) as a case, this study combined remote sensing image analysis, oral history interviews, and focus group interviews to elucidate the driving forces of landscape changes in the PLFS. The results show that tourism development, traffic accessibility, economic demand, and agricultural heritage protection measure are the main driving forces promoting the stability and maintenance of the traditional homegardens. In contrast, population ageing, land circulation, centralized residence, climate change, and living and recreational need are the forces leading to adverse changes in the traditional homegardens. In addition, these driving forces have led to the gradual abandonment of traditional agricultural activities and critical issues related to rural landscape planning and management. The current research indicates that infrastructure construction and increased traditional agricultural income are considered as the best practices of local stakeholders, promoting the development of the protected homegardens of heritage sites and tourist destinations. Finally, we put forward some suggestions to improve and maintain the traditional rural landscape: (1) establishing a benefit-sharing mechanism; (2) establishing a training system with traditional technology and culture; (3) strengthening infrastructure construction; (4) promoting the development of the agricultural industry; (5) improving the cultural quality of farmers; and (6) establishing a management system with legal effects. This research can provide a basis for the formulation of rural landscape planning and the orderly and healthy development of agricultural heritage in Chengdu Plain.

Key words: Sustainability, Rural landscape, Homegardens, Agricultural heritage, Social ecosystem, Chengdu Plain

ZHOU Lian, HUANG Xueyuan, ZHAO Chunmei, PU Tiancun, ZHANG Lei. Regional landscape transformation and sustainability of the rural homegarden agroforestry system in the Chengdu Plain, China[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2022, 3(1): 68-81.

Figures/Tables 12

Fig. 1.

Table 1

Table 2

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Table 3

Importance scores of the driving forces and their impacts on the traditional rural landscape changes."

Importance score	Driving forces	Impact on the traditional rural landscape changes
5	Population ageing	(-) Abandonment of traditional crops (-) Land use change (-) Farmland abandonment
5	Land circulation	(-) Reduced planting area of traditional crops (/) Land use change (-) Abandonment of the traditional homegardens (-) Loss of traditions and local knowledge (+) Increasing in the income of residents (-) Environmental problems (-) Blurring the boundaries of the homegardens
5	Tourism development	(-) Reduced planting area of traditional crops (+) Land use change (+) Increasing in the income of residents (+) Valorization of traditional landscape features (+) Development of rural planning
5	Centralized residence	(-) Increasing in the distance between residence and farmland (-) Changes in the landscape pattern (-) Abandonment of the traditional homegardens (-) Management and land planning issues (-) Loss of traditions and local knowledge
4	Traffic accessibility	(/) Changes in the landscape pattern (+) Promotion of cultural values (+) Promotion of tourism development
4	Economic demands	(+) Promotion of cultural values (+) Promotion of tourism development (-) Loss and deterioration of local and traditional production (+) Increasing in agro-ecological farms (-) Leaving the rural areas to work in the city (-) Movement from rural areas to urban areas
3	Climate change	(-) Increasing in the workload of agricultural production (-) Damaging to infrastructure, crops, and vegetation
3	Living and recreational needs	(-) Movement from rural areas to urban areas (-) Reduced planting area of traditional crops (+) Maintenance of the homegardens
2	Agricultural heritage protection measures	(+) Conservation of traditional and historical culture values (+) Consolidation of cultivation practices and traditional agroforestry methods (+) Maintenance of agricultural resources and traditional homegardens

Table 3

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

References 47

[1]	Appiah D.O., Bugri J.T., Forkuor E.K., et al., 2014. Determinants of peri-urbanization and land use change patterns in peri-urban Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Development. 7(6), 95-109.
[2]	Atwell R.C., Schulte L.A., Westphal L.M., 2011. Tweak, adapt, or transform: policy scenarios in response to emerging bioenergy markets in the U.S. corn belt. Ecol. Soc. 16(1), 10, doi: 10.5751/es-03854-160110. doi: 10.5751/es-03854-160110
[3]	Bewley R.H., 2003. Aerial survey for archaeology. The Photogrammetric Record. 18(104), 273-292. doi: 10.1046/j.0031-868X.2003.00023.x
[4]	Bürgi M., Bieling C., von Hackwitz K., et al., 2017. Processes and driving forces in changing cultural landscapes across Europe. Landsc. Ecol. 32, 2097-2112. doi: 10.1007/s10980-017-0513-z
[5]	Conrad E., Christie M., Fazey I., 2011. Is research keeping up with changes in landscape policy? A review of the literature. J. Environ. Manage. 92(9), 2097-2108. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.04.003
[6]	Cushman S.A., Wallin D.O., 2000. Rates and patterns of landscape change in the Central Sikhote-alin Mountains, Russian Far East. Landsc. Ecol. 15, 643-659. doi: 10.1023/A:1008180207109
[7]	Debolini M., Valette E., François M., et al., 2015. Mapping land use competition in the rural-urban fringe and future perspectives on land policies: A case study of Meknès (Morocco). Land Use Pol. 47, 373-381. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.035
[8]	Dramstad W.E., Fjellstad W.J., Strand G.H., et al., 2002. Development and implementation of the Norwegian monitoring programme for agricultural landscapes. J. Environ. Manage. 64(1), 49-63. pmid: 11876074
[9]	Eiter S., Vik M.L., 2015. Public participation in landscape planning: effective methods for implementing the European Landscape Convention in Norway. Land Use Pol. 44, 44-53. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.012
[10]	Fensham R.J., Fairfax R.J., 2002. Aerial photography for assessing vegetation change: a review of applications and the relevance of findings for Australian vegetation history. Aust. J. Bot. 50(4), 415-429. doi: 10.1071/BT01032
[11]	Flores-Díaz A.C., Castillo A., Sánchez-Matías M., et al., 2014. Local values and decisions: views and constraints for riparian management in western Mexico. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 414, 6, doi: 10.1051/kmae/2014017. doi: 10.1051/kmae/2014017
[12]	García de Jalón S., Burgess P.J., Graves A., et al., 2018. How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects by stakeholders. Agrofor. Syst. 92, 829-848. doi: 10.1007/s10457-017-0116-3
[13]	Gullino P., Devecchi M., Larcher F., 2018. How can different stakeholders contribute to rural landscape planning policy? The case study of Pralormo municipality (Italy). J. Rural Stud. 57, 99-109. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.12.002
[14]	Han H.Y., Lin H., 2021. Patterns of agricultural diversification in China and its policy implications for agricultural modernization. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 18(9), 4798, doi: 10.3390/ijerph18094978. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18094978
[15]	Handayani W., 2013. Rural-urban transition in Central Java: population and economic structural changes based on cluster analysis. Land. 2(3), 419-436. doi: 10.3390/land2030419
[16]	Kiryluk-Dryjska E., Baer-Nawrocka A., 2021. Regional differences in benefits from the EU Common Agricultural Policy in Poland and their policy implications. Agriculture. 11(4), 288, doi: 10.3390/agriculture11040288. doi: 10.3390/agriculture11040288
[17]	Krajewski P., 2019. Monitoring of landscape transformations within landscape parks in Poland in the 21st century. Sustainability. 11, 2410, doi: 10.3390/su11082410. doi: 10.3390/su11082410
[18]	Li Q.S., Wumaier K., Ishikawa M., 2019. The spatial analysis and sustainability of rural cultural landscapes: Linpan Settlements in China’s Chengdu Plain. Sustainability. 11(16), 4431, doi: 10.3390/su11164431. doi: 10.3390/su11164431
[19]	Liu Q., Xu P., Yan K., et al., 2019a. Pollination services from insects in homegardens in the Chengdu Plain will be confronted with crises. Sustainability. 11(7), 2169, doi: 10.3390/su11072169. doi: 10.3390/su11072169
[20]	Liu Q., Peng P.H., Wang Y.K., et al., 2019b. Microclimate regulation efficiency of rural homegarden agroforestry system in the Western Sichuan Plain, China. J Mt. Sci. 16, 516-528. doi: 10.1007/s11629-018-5112-1
[21]	Luyet V., Schlaepfer R., Parlange M.B., et al., 2012. A framework to implement Stakeholder participation in environmental projects. J. Environ. Manage. 111, 213-219. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.026
[22]	Martínez-Sastre R., Ravera F., González J.A., et al., 2017. Mediterranean landscapes under change: Combining social multicriteria evaluation and the ecosystem services framework for land use planning. Land Use Pol. 67, 472-486. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.06.001
[23]	Min Q.W., Yang D.S., Wang B., 2020. Pidu Linpan Farming System (1^st ed.). Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 14-37. (in Chinese)
[24]	Moseley R.K., 2006. Historical landscape change in northwestern Yunnan, China. Mt. Res. Dev. 26(3), 214-219. doi: 10.1659/0276-4741(2006)26[214:HLCINY]2.0.CO;2
[25]	Okello N., Beevers L., Douven W., et al., 2009. The doing and un-doing of public participation during environmental impact assessments in Kenya. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 27(3), 217-226.
[26]	Pašakarnis G., Maliene V., Dixon-Gough R., et al., 2021. Decision support framework to rank and prioritise the potential land areas for comprehensive land consolidation. Land Use Pol. 100, 104908, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104908. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104908
[27]	Persson J., Johansson E.L., Olsson L., 2018. Harnessing local knowledge for scientific knowledge production: Challenges and pitfalls within evidence-based sustainability studies. Ecol. Soc. 23(4), 38, doi: 10.5751/ES-10608-230438. doi: 10.5751/ES-10608-230438
[28]	Plieninger T., Bieling C., 2013. Resilience-based perspectives to guiding high-nature-value farmland through socioeconomic change. Ecol. Soc. 18(4), 20, doi: 10.5751/ES-05877-180420. doi: 10.5751/ES-05877-180420
[29]	Prager K., 2015. Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 12, 59-66. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2014.10.009
[30]	Ramirez R., Mukherjee M., Vezzoli S., et al., 2015. Scenarios as a scholarly methodology to produce “interesting research”. Futures. 71, 70-87. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.06.006
[31]	Ramos I.L., 2010. ‘Exploratory landscape scenarios’ in the formulation of ‘landscape quality objectives’. Futures. 42(7), 682-692. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.005
[32]	Royal T., 2021. Private land conservation policy in Australia: Minimising social-ecological trade-offs raised by market-based policy instruments. Land Use Pol. 109, 105473, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105473. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105473
[33]	Sohl T., Dornbierer J., Wika S., et al., 2019. Remote sensing as the foundation for high-resolution United States landscape projections-The Land Change Monitoring, assessment, and projection (LCMAP) initiative. Environ. Modell. Softw. 120, 104495, doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104495. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104495
[34]	Ståhl G., Allard A., Esseen P.-A., et al., 2011. National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS)-scope, design, and experiences from establishing a multiscale biodiversity monitoring system. Environ. Monit. Assess. 173, 579-595. doi: 10.1007/s10661-010-1406-7
[35]	Storie J.T., Bell S., 2017. Wildlife management conflicts in rural communities: a case-study of wild boar (Sus scrofa) management in Ērgļu Novads, Latvia. Sociol. Rural. 57(1), 64-86. doi: 10.1111/soru.12122
[36]	Tenza-Peral A., Pérez-Ibarra I., Breceda A., et al., 2022. Can local policy options reverse the decline process of small and marginalized rural areas influenced by global change? Environ. Sci. Policy. 127, 57-65. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.10.007
[37]	Wadduwage S., Millington A., Crossman N.D., et al., 2017. Agricultural land fragmentation at urban fringes: an application of urban-to-rural gradient Analysis in Adelaide. Land. 6(2), 28, doi: 10.3390/land6020028. doi: 10.3390/land6020028
[38]	Wan A.J., Liu Y.X., Xie X.J., et al., 2021a. Study on spatial layout optimization of Linpan settlements based on point pattern analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 23, 9974-9992. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-01042-z
[39]	Wan A.J., Chen H.L., Xie X.J., et al., 2021b. Effects of water systems and roads on Linpan distribution based on buffer analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability. doi: 10.1007/s10668-021-01749-7. doi: 10.1007/s10668-021-01749-7
[40]	Wartmann F.M., Purves R.S., 2017. What’s (not) on the map: Landscape features from participatory sketch mapping differ from local categories used in language. Land. 6(4), 79, doi: 10.3390/land6040079. doi: 10.3390/land6040079
[41]	Wu S., Wu N., Zhong B., 2020. What ecosystem services flowing from Linpan system-a cultural landscape in Chengdu Plain, Southwest China. Sustainability. 12(10), 4122, doi: 10.3390/su12104122. doi: 10.3390/su12104122
[42]	Yang Z.H., Shen N.N., Qu Y.B., et al., 2021. Association between rural land use transition and urban-rural integration development: from 2009 to 2018 based on county-level data in Shandong Province, China. Land. 10(11), 1228, doi: 10.3390/land10111228. doi: 10.3390/land10111228
[43]	Yirgu T., Govindu V., Yihunie Y., 2022. Land use/cover dynamics and its impact on the rural livelihood of potter communities. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 24, 204-220. doi: 10.1007/s10668-021-01392-2
[44]	Zhang Y.X., Min Q.W., Zhang C.Q., et al., 2017. Traditional culture as an important power for maintaining agricultural landscapes in cultural heritage sites: A case study of the Hani terraces. J. Cult. Herit. 25, 170-179. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2016.12.002
[45]	Zhang Y.X., Li X.D., Min Q.W., 2018. How to balance the relationship between conservation of Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (IAHS) and socio-economic development? A theoretical framework of sustainable industrial integration development. J. Clean Prod. 204, 553-563. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.035
[46]	Zhang Y.X., He L.L., Li X.D., et al., 2019. Why are the Longji Terraces in Southwest China maintained well? A conservation mechanism for agricultural landscapes based on agricultural multi-functions developed by multi-stakeholders. Land Use Pol. 85, 42-51. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.046
[47]	Zurita-Benavides M.G., Jarrín-V P., Rios M., 2016. Oral history reveals landscape ecology in Ecuadorian Amazonia: time categories and ethnobotany among Waorani people. Econ. Bot. 70, 1-14. doi: 10.1007/s12231-015-9330-y

Classification	Number of respondents (n)	Proportion (%)
Gender
Male	31	52.54
Female	28	47.46
Area
Dujiangyan City	10	16.95
Chongzhou District	7	11.86
Wenjiang District	10	16.95
Shuangliu District	9	15.25
Pidu District	23	38.99
Age
≤40 years	2	3.39
40-50 years	3	5.08
50-60 years	13	22.04
60-70 years	9	15.25
70-80 years	19	32.21
80-90 years	7	11.86
≥90 years	6	10.17
Education level
Primary school education level and below	28	47.46
Junior high school education level	21	35.59
Senior high school education level and above	10	16.95
Social identity
Ordinary residents	41	69.49
Member of rural cultural groups	18	30.51

Stakeholder category	Number of invited stakeholders (n)	Number of participants (n)
People with economic interest
Resident	4	4
Returning entrepreneur	2	1
Returning worker	2	2
Forestry producer	2	2
Tourism developer	2	1
People interested in governance and planning
Government staff	4	3
Rural planner	2	1
People with an interest in nature conservation and agricultural heritage
Member of non-governmental organization	3	2
Compiler of local chronicle	2	2
Rural cultural group	4	3
People interested in research
Academic researcher	2	2
Total	29	23