| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
194450
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Extant scholarly discourse on ecological governance within China predominantly underscores the salient role of the central state. This is unsurprising given the statist policy trajectory transitioned from an emphasis on swift economic growth to focusing on emerging ecological challenges in the last decade. However, this article deviates from this prevailing emphasis, pivoting instead to the tangible practices and realities of ecological governance at the grassroots level. Through an ethnographic investigation, this article delves into the nuances of ecological governance within the Tibetan regions of Qinghai Province, China, emphasising the interplay between local communities, environmental non-governmental organisations and the local state. The article introduces the concept of ‘pluralistic ecological governance’, advocating for the integration of diverse governance structures, institutional frameworks and stakeholder involvements. This approach encompasses a thorough consideration of diverse knowledge systems, motivations of community participation and local-state relations, vital for addressing the complex nature of ecological issues. The study contends that ‘pluralistic ecological governance’ not only encompasses different stakeholders but also critically examines various forms of knowledge and motivations, along with the diverse interests these stakeholders contribute to both the discourse and practice of ecological conservation on the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
162540
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper analyzes the transmission of China’s Ecological Migration Policy from the central government down to Tibetan villages and townships for implementation. It examines the specific ways through which the policy is translated from Chinese to Tibetan and communicated through various local dialects to concerned pastoralists. In order to achieve the Ecological Migration Policy’s purported objectives of environmental conservation, livelihood improvement, and urbanization, township government officials at the grassroots level mistranslate and miscommunicate policy meanings to villagers to render an otherwise unfeasible, impractical policy implementable on the ground. Tibetan pastoralists actively engage with this resettlement project to fulfill their desires and aspirations for accessing healthcare and educational services in urban areas. However, this pursuit of legibility is induced by the state’s negligence of rural pastoralist life and elimination of alternative educational facilities in rural communities. Both negligence and elimination of educational facilities in rural areas concentrate and increase investments in education and healthcare in urban settlements. These conjunctures ultimately drive Tibetan pastoralists to “choose” their only available option, to resettle in urban townships.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|