Open Access

Social-ecological transformations of Inner Mongolia: a sustainability perspective

Ecological Processes20165:23

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-016-0067-z

Received: 11 October 2016

Accepted: 30 November 2016

Published: 19 December 2016

Abstract

Introduction

Sustainability requires the reconciling of human needs with the healthy natural ecosystem, which should be achieved within the grand course of industrialization and modernization. Systematic transitions on demography, economy, technology, and institutions are required, while different civilizations may take their respective paths. In this study, we analyze the social-ecological transitions of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China during the past century, focusing on major changes in its environmental, demographic, and socioeconomic conditions.

Results

A two-level social-ecological system analysis framework was proposed, and four stages of transition were identified: traditional nomadism, primitive industrial civilization, collectivization era, and economic reform/open-door policy era. Our analysis showed that Inner Mongolia has made great achievements in its socioeconomic domains but is faced with numerous challenging environmental problems. Overconsumption of resources and failure to curtail ecological degradation may lead to a trap of unsustainability.

Conclusions

However, the slowing-down population growth, improvements of the economic structure, and many new sustainability initiatives and strong support from the central government together give hope for a sustainable future of the region.

Keywords

Sustainability transitionInner MongoliaSocial-ecological systemDemographic transitionModernizationEcological trap

Introduction

Industrialization and associated technological advances have greatly increased the world’s population and affluence, significantly altered global ecosystems and landscapes, and brought myriad environmental problems such as resource shortage, biodiversity loss, and climate change (Steffen et al. 2005). For the sustainability of our civilization, human demands must be reconciled with the earth’s service supply capacity, necessitating a global sustainability transition (Clark 2001; Kates et al. 2001; National Research Council 1999; Parris and Kates 2003; Raskin et al. 2002; Reid et al. 2010; Schellnhuber et al. 2011; Weinstein et al. 2013). Social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems with internal feedbacks and nonlinear dynamics, but current policies and norms, based mainly on command and control, often focus on the symptoms rather than underlying causes of unsustainability (Weinstein et al. 2013; Garmestani 2014; Holling and Meffe 1996). To increase the chance of success in sustainable transformations, it is important to examine past evolving trajectories, identify key variables and their interactions, and understand how they result in fundamental structural changes (Chapin et al. 2006; Olsson et al. 2014; Reid et al. 2010; Scheffer and Westley 2007).

From a historical point of view, human civilization is in the grand course of transition from traditional agricultural civilization to industrial and post-industrial civilizations (Boserup 1981; Cumming et al. 2014; Zeder 2008). Ancient civilizations like hunting and gathering or farming rarely ran into problems of environmental disruption, because of their limited technical capability, as well as rules and traditions that they developed to maintain their own resource bases. It is the greatly advanced technology and industrial power, combined with the rapidly increasing population and its ever-expanding demands for resources, that has pushed the world onto an unsustainable trajectory. However, the dynamics of complex social-ecological systems are forever irreversible and unpredictable (Holling 1973, 2001; Wu and Wu 2013). For human society to return back to the ancient state is impossible and unreasonable. Sustainability of our civilization needs to be achieved within the modernized world and coexists harmoniously with it (van den Bergh 2011).

Social-ecological transition happens when gradual or abrupt changes of external or/and internal conditions drive the system away from its initial dynamic steady state, during which the system undergoes structural changes until new feedback mechanisms are created to regain its stability (Chappin and Ligtvoet 2014; Holling 1973, 2001; Meadowcroft 2011; Rotmans et al. 2001; Scheffer et al. 2001; van den Bergh et al. 2011). The US National Research Council (NRC) addressed the goal of sustainability transition as “a stabilizing world population meets its needs and reduces hunger and poverty while maintaining the planet’s life support systems and living resources” (National Research Council 1999). Towards this end, several fundamental and systemic shifts are required on the global level (Crossman et al. 2013; Gell-Mann 2010; Kates and Parris 2003), including (1) a demographic transition to low population growth rates (Caldwell et al. 2006; Notestein 1983); (2) an economic transition eliminating poverty and hunger and switching to high-level needs that are less harmful to the environment; and (3) technological and institutional transitions which allow the demographic and economic transitions to happen while protecting the environment. Thus, the human-nature relationship would outgrow the hostile stage of “conquering nature” as reflected in the philosophical and political ideologies, through cooperative coevolution and integrated landscape planning and management (Farina 2000; Naveh 2000, 2005). New equilibrium between human well-being and ecosystem integrity at global scale may be achieved, which would provide a solid foundation for sustainability (Wu 2013).

Such a transition will not be a smooth sailing. Cumming et al. (2014) provided a conceptual model of agricultural transitions, showing that the interacting processes of technological change, population growth, and urbanization may over-exploit ecosystems leading to “green” or “red” traps. A “green trap” takes place when positive feedback reinforce rural poverty and ecological degradation, while a “red trap” happens because of overconsumption and failure to maintain the integrity of ecosystems. Between these two poles of green and red traps, a continuum of combinations could be possible (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Illustration of the course of grand sustainability transition. Human civilization shifts from the low-level subsistence sustainability to the high-level ultimate sustainability, with possible green and red traps of unsustainability as addressed in Cumming et al. (2014)

Neither the developed world nor the developing world is on a path to the ultimate sustainability. Developed countries have achieved a greater success in the grand sustainability transition, but their overconsumption has contributed significantly to the world’s unsustainability, usually through uneven exchanges with developing countries (Hornborg 2014). Promoting the sustainability transition in developing countries—which hold the majority of the world’s population—is particularly urgent if we are to achieve global sustainability in decades to come. Studies that examine the historical transition courses in developing countries are helpful for improving our understanding and practice of sustainable development in these regions.

As the world’s largest developing country, China is inhibited with roughly 20% of the world’s total population, and its development is of great importance to the world’s sustainability transition. Inner Mongolia is the largest pastoral area of China and also has high indigenous species diversity in its many unique landscapes (Wu et al. 2015) which has experienced multiple political regime shifts, as well as substantial changes in environmental and socioeconomic conditions during the past century (Jiang et al. 2006; Tong et al. 2004). In this study, we aimed to achieve two main objectives: (1) to examine the historical transitions of Inner Mongolia as a social-ecological system during the past century, with an emphasis on the coevolving relationship between human and nature, and (2) to assess whether Inner Mongolia has been on a path of sustainability transition based on a historical and social-ecological analysis.

Methods

Study area

Inner Mongolia is located in North China, stretching over more than 2000 km from east to west and covering a total area of 1.18 million km2 (Fig. 2). The high latitude and altitude, as well as its distance from the ocean, result in a temperate continental monsoon dominated climate. With an average annual temperature around −2 to 6 °C, the winter is long and cold, while the summer short and hot. Annual precipitation is 50–450 mm, decreasing from east to west, and concurrently appears with temperature peak, which favors vegetation growth. Evaporation is above 1200 mm in most parts of the region, much higher than precipitation (Shi 1982; Wu et al. 2015).
Fig. 2

Location of Inner Mongolia (modified from Wu et al. (2015)

About 67% of the territory (0.87 million km2) is covered by natural grasslands (steppes); besides that, there are also 0.19 million km2 forests and 0.07 million km2 of cultivated land (Han et al. 2009; Kang et al. 2007; Li 1962, 1979; Wu and Loucks 1992; Wu et al. 2015). However, humus covers only 30–50 cm in most areas under the grassland, while the rest is broadly distributed sand, deficient in organic matter and mineral nutrients (Shi 1982). The interdependence between organisms and environment forms a fragile balance, which is easily destroyable but hardly recoverable.

Analytical framework

For describing the evolution of complex social-ecological systems, narrative approaches with theoretical frameworks are usually adopted (Cumming et al. 2014; Grin et al. 2010; Markard and Truffer 2008; Smith et al. 2010). Here, we developed a two-level framework modified from a multi-level perspective (Geels 2002, 2011) to describe the historical transitions of Inner Mongolia, focusing on the interactions between human and nature.

The local natural resources and ecosystems provide services (or disservices) to the society, which were made available (or alleviated) through the production activities of the people. Production activities could be divided into industry, livestock husbandry, farming, etc., which are characterized by land use, engaged population, and produced value. Along with the production activities, population is also reproduced. Up above the production level, there are related institutional arrangements, including property rights and allocation rules/regulations of resources and products, as well as the social consciousness subsystem that reflects the knowledge level and value judgment of stakeholders. Besides that, the regional social system is also strongly influenced by extrinsic factors like immigration, economic/technological innovations, and national policies (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3

Illustration of the analysis framework for Inner Mongolia as a social-ecological system

Results

We describe the historical transformations of Inner Mongolia in two different while complementary steps, i.e., a four-stage narrative of the social-ecological system, followed with an analyzing of three key variables of the Inner Mongolia (ecosystem condition, population, and economy) to provide more thorough understanding of the transition.

Different evolving stages of Inner Mongolia

The division of the four stages is based mainly on the institutional changes of the social system. Within a stage, the main feedback relationships among key variables of Inner Mongolia remained the same or similar, although gradual changes of some variables are possible. Between stages, however, qualitative transformation happens (Walker et al. 2004), which usually are the results of within-system processes and external influences from a broader scale (Table 1). A more detailed description of historical landscape dynamics and driving forces of Inner Mongolia is found in Wu et al. 2015.
Table 1

Summary of different evolving stages of Inner Mongolia as a social-ecological system and their major characteristics

Major characteristics

Evolving stages

Traditional nomadism (before the 1900s)

Primitive industrialization (1900s–1949)

Collectivization (1949–1978)

Economic reform (1978–present)

Natural resource and ecosystems

Natural grasslands

Localized cultivation and land degradation

Large-scale cultivation and increasing land degradation

Serious degradation due to overgrazing, cultivation, mining, etc.

Production structure

Primitive nomadism

Traditional nomadism, with limited sedentary pastoralism and cultivation

Sedentary pastoralism, with increasing cultivation

Privatized sedentary pastoralism, with cultivation, mining, tourism, etc.

Population

Very low and sparsely distributed

Episodic immigration waves

Rapid growth, large-scale immigration

Steadily increasing, with low immigration rate

Institution

Tribes, clans, and feudalistic empires

Tribes, subordination to centralized government

Communes, collectivism

Privatization, property rights, marketization

Social consciousness

Reverence for nature, lamaism (since 16th century)

Lamaism and various other trends of thought

Socialism, conquering nature

Mixture of nature exploitation for profits and nature conservation for sustainability

National/international influence

War, commercial trading

Immigration, capital

Immigration, technology, land use policy

Land use policy, common markets

Traditional nomadism (before the 1900s)

In the vast arid and semiarid regions of the Mongolian Plateau, harsh natural conditions could barely support large-scale farming systems, and a nomadic lifestyle became the choice of history (Bao 2005; Tian and Ma 2008). This land use form made good use of the mobility and feeding habits of herbivores to suit the changing dryland environment, converting the primary productivity of grassland into meat, milk, fur, and other necessities (Wang 2008; Xi 2010). Through moving around broad areas seasonally and annually, livestock had diverse forages, saline and mineral supplements, and a reduced risk of spreading diseases, while grasslands were fertilized relatively evenly with livestock manure (Bao 2015). As a way of human adaption to the natural environment, the nomadic land use reconciled the relationship between people, livestock, forage, and pasture, resulting in a culture that includes its unique production style, social system, and customs, for example, the selection of appropriate breeds, suitable grazing stations and nomadic routes, and social cooperative organizations to resist natural disasters (Liu 2005). In addition, people also created political organizations and paramilitary system (Uretogtohu 2006). Such technological measures and institutional arrangements enhanced adaptability, which maintained the relative stability of the grass-livestock-herder system for over 2000 years (Wang 2006; Wu et al. 2015).

However, the nomadic economy was also fragile (Hu 2002; Lu 2005), and wealth accumulation and population growth were very slow (Jia 2011; Shen 1986). The military advantages of nomadic economy enabled it to partly compensate for its vulnerability through plundering adjacent agricultural societies, which was indeed a main theme of the ancient history of China (Barfield 1989; Lattimore 1988; Tian and Ma 2008).

Primitive industrial civilization (1900s–1949)

In the beginning of the twentieth century, when industrial civilization dominated the western world, China was in a chaotic state characterized by repeated invasions and exploitation by imperialist countries, endless military conflicts between warlords, and a lack of governmental control. The long-term dominance of nomadic pastoralism in sInner Mongolia was also challenged by episodic but large-scale grassland-to-farmland conversion events in the last decades of the Qing Dynasty and during the era of the Republic of China (Wu et al. 2015). A key driver for such land conversion was the enormous pressure put on China by imperialist aggressions, which further impacted the pastoral areas of Inner Mongolia (Lattimore 1988). Large areas of natural grasslands were converted to farmland because of governmental policies for reclamation in order to pay for foreign indemnities or because of the lawless behavior of warlords often in the name of feeding their armies to resist imperialist aggressions (Lattimore 1988; Wu et al. 2015). Also, the Japanese imperialist turned vast areas of natural grasslands into farmland and looted a great deal of natural resources from Inner Mongolia to support their military aggressions against China and humanity (An 1995).

Warlords, local landlords, and foreign powers exploited the grasslands and the local herdsmen, devastating the socioeconomic development of the region (Da and Zheng 2010). Meanwhile, massive hungry inland farmers entered the grassland area to seek a new livelihood. Areas with best natural conditions and vegetation were converted into farmland, forming an expanding pastoral-agricultural transitional zone (Yan 2004). Farming in drylands of Inner Mongolia where precipitation is quite limited often led to the loss of soil fertility and consequently land degradation. The traditional nomadic pastoralism could no longer sustain itself under such conditions, and many herders had to settle down. When the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949, the sedentary herders reached 50% of the total pastoral population (Historiography Committee of Inner Mongolia Animal Husbandry Department 2000).

The collectivization era (1949–1978)

The newly established People’s Republic of China adopted the socialistic system to achieve industrialization. Livestock herding in Inner Mongolia was incorporated into pastoral communes through the process of collectivization. Individual herdsmen were transferred into members of the people’s commune who own the grassland, herds, and other production tools (Da and Zheng 2010). Pastoral and agricultural products were produced at low costs, and a gradual modernization of animal husbandry took place. During this period, there were frequent reciprocal socioeconomic interactions between Inner Mongolia and inland China.

The nomadic mode of production underwent a series of changes, including specialization, sedentarization, and the introduction of new technologies, which improved the productivity of both animal and people. Sedentarization facilitated government service delivery, such as postal services, business services, education, and health care, which greatly improved the resilience of the herding community (Wang 2006). By 1965, traditional nomadism was largely abandoned (Xu 1999). Then, a pastoral system based on seasonal rotational grazing within a production unit was formed (Wang 2006, 2013). Meanwhile, the introduction of machinery like harvesters and wind generators, as well as breeding stations, greatly promoted the efficiency of animal husbandry (Lin and Zheng 1990). The efficiency of livestock raising was high, while its impacts on the environment were relatively low.

As the further expanding of animal husbandry, the grassland began to feel the pressure exerted by the rapidly increasing livestock and human populations. In particular, higher birth rate and lower mortality rate, plus increasing immigration influx, resulted in fast increasing human population (except the period 1960–1962). To feed the nationally growing population, the government expanded cultivated in several grassland areas across Inner Mongolia, substantially altered the structure and function of Inner Mongolia as a social-ecological system (Su et al. 2005; Wu et al. 2015).

Economic reform and open-door policy era (1978–present)

People’s communes were disbanded in the early 1980s, together with the centralized government-planned economy. Production materials including herds, farmlands, and grasslands were gradually separated and distributed to households (Wang 2013). With the changes of the property right system, market mechanism was introduced in and gradually took dominance.

The downsizing of grassland livestock husbandry through privatization upsets the traditional way of livestock herding, causing numerous impacts on production structure and the environment. Constrained by the small and fragmented grassland size of individual owners, rotational grazing became less applicable and degradation is more possible (Zhang and Li 2008). The pastoral management system changed fundamentally; herdsmen’s consciousness of grassland ownership right was motivated and began to invest on construction, especially fences. Pastoral culture of mutual support within the community began to disintegrate, while market mechanisms began to penetrate into labor force (Da and Zheng 2010). As a side effect, grasslands were divided into pieces and livestock mobility was further lost (Williams et al. 2008).

In 2001, the Chinese central government initiated a national program to promote the economic development in its western regions (the “Western Development Drive”), which encouraged the flows of capital and technology from developed countries as well as China’s eastern regions to its resourceful but economically less developed western regions. Industries of coal mining and electricity generation, among others, began to grow quickly and soon became the main driving force of economic development of Inner Mongolia. However, proper institutions of profit distribution and ecological compensation were not in place timely, resulting in soaring wealth inequality and large-scale land degradation (Da and Yu 2015; Wang 2010).

Rising human and livestock populations, changing pastoral systems and grazing patterns, grassland-to-farmland conversion, and industrial activities together caused considerable damages to the grasslands of Inner Mongolia (Li et al. 2016; Su et al. 2005; Wu et al. 2015). According to the third national survey of grassland resources, about 57% of the total available grassland area in Inner Mongolia suffered moderate or more serious deterioration and desertification, with only 30–70% of natural grassland productivity (Joint Investigation Team of Grassland Ecological Research 2003). A recent study by Li et al. (2016) showed that the ecological footprint of the drylands of northern China increased from 30 million global hectares in 1990 to 170 million global hectares in 2010, with a total deficit of 100 million global hectares. Ecological problems in Inner Mongolia have had impacts on the environmental quality of surrounding regions (e.g., dust storms and reduced carbon sequestration capacities).

In order to restore the degraded grasslands, the Chinese government has enacted laws and regulations to protect the grasslands and curb land-conversion activities since the 1980s (Squires and Yang 2008a; Wu et al. 2015). Since the beginning of the new century, several large-scale national programs have been implemented, with billions of yuan invested by the government to achieve the following goals: (1) balance grassland herbage production and livestock population; (2) regulate grazing activities and restore grazing lands to natural grasslands; and (3) design proper ecological migration strategies (Da and Zheng 2010; Qi et al. 2012; Yin and Yin 2010).

Changes of key environmental and socioeconomic variables

Ecosystem conditions

The ecosystems of Inner Mongolia experienced continuous degradation (Fig. 4). After a series of reclaiming actives, cultivated land increased to 82,000 km2 in 1996, accounting for 9.4% of the total pastoral area (Bayaer et al. 2005a). Studies based on remote sensing showed a decreasing trend of grassland and water surface, coupled with degradation and desertification, as well as the growth of farmland and urban since 1970s to 2000s (Bayaer et al. 2005b; Shi et al. 2013). However, the deterioration trend slowed down and even reversed in some cases during the recent decades (Chen et al. 2014).
Fig. 4

Grassland productivity declining during the three periods form 1961 to 2009 (Qi et al. 2012)

Population

The total population of Inner Mongolia was 1.75 million in 2 AD, reached 2.15 million in the early nineteenth century, and increased from about six million in 1949 to 18.2 million in 1978 mainly because of immigrants from other places in China (Wu et al. 2015). Since the mid-1970s, the natural population growth rate dropped rapidly and immigration rate also declined, both due largely to the implementation of family planning policy (Wang and Chog 2009) (Fig. 5). Besides, education level greatly elevated (Cui 2014; Su et al. 2002) (Fig. 6), which also shifted societal consciousness from the traditional state of seeking a livelihood to a modern state of seeking a higher living standard and self-development.
Fig. 5

Historical changes in human population and natural growth and immigration rates in Inner Mongolia. Data source: Inner Mongolia Yearbook (2015)

Fig. 6

Education level of Inner Mongolia. Note that the primary school of 1949 means total students at school. Data are obtained from Cui 2014; Su et al. 2002; and Inner Mongolia Yearbook (1991–2015)

Local economy

Economy in Inner Mongolia has developed quickly with tremendous changes in its structure, especially since the reform and open-door policy in the early 1980s. Primary industry has shrunk greatly, while the secondary and tertiary industries have taken an increasingly larger share of the local economy (Chen et al. 2015a, 2015b). The grassland scenery and nomadic culture have also become key resources for tourism enterprises in the recent decades (Figs. 7 and 8).
Fig. 7

Composition of GDP and per capita value. Data source: Inner Mongolia Statistical Yearbook (2015)

Fig. 8

Tourism income. Constant price of the year 2000 was used. Data source: Inner Mongolia Statistical Yearbook (2000–2015)

Discussion

The past century witnessed dramatic socioeconomic and environmental transitions in Inner Mongolia. The traditional nomadic lifestyle, which maintained a fragile balance between the harsh environmental conditions and a vulnerable society, was forced to change when the industrial revolution spread to China. Since 1949, the People’s Republic of China has initiated a process of industrialization and modernization. The economic reform and open-door policy in 1978 marked a new era of privatization and marketization in Inner Mongolia, elevating local people’s aspirations for an affluent life beyond meeting the basic survival needs.

The socioeconomic development of Inner Mongolia has long depended on the natural resources in the region, which has resulted in a cascade of environmental changes. Our analysis suggests that Inner Mongolia now is faced with a development trap that may prevent it from achieving regional sustainability. The demands for mutton, beef, and cashmere from people and industries in different parts of China and the world have already exceeded the capacity of the grasslands. Intensified land use activities have profoundly transformed the landscapes of the plateau. The wide-spreading surface mining not only has torn up the face and destroyed the beauty of the grasslands but also is radically changing the identity and function of the Inner Mongolia social-ecological system. While Inner Mongolia once led all other provinces of China in GDP in recent decades, its enormous economic growth dug a huge hole into its fragile environment (Wu et al. 2015), which is the primary root cause of this potential development trap.

Nevertheless, there are also reasons to believe that such traps can be overcome through institutional changes and stakeholder engagements following the principles of the place-based science of sustainability (Kates et al. 2001; Kates and Parris 2003; Wu 2013; Wu et al. 2014, 2015). There are already several encouraging signs emerging. First, the population of Inner Mongolia, as well as the population of China as a whole, seems close to reaching a steady state in the near future, so do the total demands for food, water, and other essential life-supporting materials. Second, new policies from the central government and local governments have increasingly emphasized the “quality” (environmental impacts), instead of the “quantity” (GDP), of economic development. This is particularly evident in China’s 13th Five-Year Plan, approved by China’s National People’s Congress in March of 2016, which provides the blueprint for the economic and social development of the country from 2016 to 2020. Third, as China’s socioeconomic development puts more emphasis on “quality,” people’s awareness and participation of protecting the environment are also increasing. These positive signs of government policy and stakeholders’ attitude towards nature are essential for a sustainable future of Inner Mongolia.

To avoid the trap and achieve sustainability, however, both institutional reforms and technological innovations will be needed (Wu et al. 2015). There has been a wealth of research on the ecology, conservation, and management of the dryland systems of Inner Mongolia, which provides a valuable scientific basis for guiding the region’s sustainable development in the future (Fang et al. 2015; Han et al. 2009; Kang et al. 2007; Wu and Loucks 1992). A number of suggestions have been made for making the region more environmentally sustainable, economically viable, and socially equitable (see Wu et al. (2015) for a summary). Such suggestions include to develop a semi-nomadic system to increase mobility (Squires and Yang 2008b; Williams et al. 2008); to improve degraded natural grasslands and to establish artificial grasslands in appropriate locations (Hou 2015; Jia et al. 2015; Jiang et al. 2016); to establish mechanisms for forage reservation (Jia et al. 2015); and to develop an ecological pratacultural production system composed of pastures, meat, dairy and poultry production chains, bioindustry, ecological tourism, and a joint venture of grass-paturage-research-industry-commerce (Jiang et al. 2016). In addition, Wu et al. (2015) proposed a multi-scale, transdisciplinary approach for future development of Inner Mongolia, guided by landscape sustainability science and land system design.

Conclusions

In this study, we examined the historical transformations of Inner Mongolia, as a coupled social-ecological system, from a traditional nomadic society to an increasingly industrialized and modernized society during the past century. Then, we discussed the challenges for achieving sustainability in this region. Inner Mongolia has made great achievements in its socioeconomic domains, but its environmental problems are mounting, possibly leading to a potential “red trap” (sensu Cumming et al. (2014)). Some additional challenges, such as climate change, were not considered here, but will likely worsen the situation (Fang et al. 2015; Qi et al. 2012; Xu et al. 2010). However, we argue that several reasons give us hope for a sustainable future. Towards this end, both research and actions are imperative. Better understanding of the coupled social-ecological system of Inner Mongolia needs to integrate biodiversity, ecosystem function, ecosystem services, and human well-being. Achieving sustainability in this region needs to maintain both ecosystem and cultural diversity and requires innovative land system design and planning directly linked to institutional changes (Wu 2013; Wu et al. 2015).

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology through the National Basic Research Program of China (2014CB954303, 2014CB954300) and US National Science Foundation under Grant No. DEB-0618193.

Author’s contributions

Both JW and GX contributed to the conceptual framework. GX wrote the manuscript, and JW revised it. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Author’s information

Guanghua Xu, Assistant Professor in School of Environmental & Resource Sciences, Zhejiang A&F University. Interested fields include system ecology, landscape ecology, and sustainability science. Jianguo Wu, Dean’s Distinguished Professor of Landscape Ecology and Sustainability Science, School of Life Sciences & Global Institute of Sustainability. Dr. Wu’s research is focused on landscape ecology, urban ecology, and sustainability science. His research combines theoretical and empirical studies that link spatial patterns, ecological processes, and sustainability across scales in various landscapes of China and the USA

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Forestry and Bio-technology, Zhejiang A&F University
(2)
Centre for China-Africa Agriculture and Forestry Research (CAFOR), Zhejiang A&F University
(3)
Center for Human-Environment System Sustainability (CHESS), State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology (ESPRE), Beijing Normal University
(4)
School of Life Sciences and School of Sustainability, Arizona State University

References

  1. An CR (1995) Economic development of the Japanese imperialism in Northeast China. Northeast Asia Forum 3:85–89Google Scholar
  2. Bao Q (2005) On nomadic ecological economy and its enlightenment in terms of ecoligical philoshophy. Stud Dialectics Nat 21(5):8–11, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  3. Bao Q (2015) The nomadic civilization: review of researches on its survival wisdom and ecological dimension. Inn Mongolia Soc Sci 36(1):145–153, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  4. Barfield TJ (1989) The perilous frontier: nomadic empires and China. Basil Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayaer W, Audengaowa A, Ma A, Zhou Y, Wang J (2005a) Inner Mongolia LUCC time and space process and driving mechanism in the historic times. Hum Geogr 85:122–127. doi:10.13959/j.issn.1003-2398.2005.05.028, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayaer W, Shen Y, Xiao J, Audengaowa A, Tateishi R (2005b) Dynamic analysis of LUCC in Inner-Mongolia, China, by using multi-source data, vol 1-8, IGARSS 2005: IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium., pp 2876–2879Google Scholar
  7. Boserup E (1981) Population and technological change: a study of long-term trends. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. Caldwell J, Caldwell B, Caldwell P, McDonald P, Schindlmayr T (2006) Demographic transition theory. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapin FS, Robards MD, Huntington HP, Johnstone JE, Trainor SE, Kofinas GP et al (2006) Directional changes in ecological communities and social-ecological systems: a framework for prediction based on Alaskan examples. Am Nat 168(6):S36–S49. doi:10.1086/509047 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Chappin EJL, Ligtvoet A (2014) Transition and transformation: a bibliometric analysis of two scientific networks researching socio-technical change. Renew Sust Energ Rev 30:715–723. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.013 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen H, Shao Q, An R (2014) Spatial and temporal changes of ecosystem services values in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region from 1980s to 2005. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 16(4):582–591Google Scholar
  12. Chen JQ, John R, Shao CL, Fan Y, Zhang YQ, Amarjargal A et al (2015a) Policy shifts influence the functional changes of the CNH systems on the Mongolian plateau. Environ Res Lett 10:1–15. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/085003 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen JQ, John R, Zhang YQ, Shao CL, Brown GD, Batkhishig O et al (2015b) Divergences of two coupled human and natural systems on the Mongolian plateau. Bioscience 65(6):559–570. doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0261-x View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark WC (2001) America’s national interests in promoting a transition to sustainability: issues for the new US administration. Environment 43(1):18–27View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S, Willemen L, Petz K, Palomo I et al (2013) A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 4:4–14. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Cui N (2014) From illiteracy to literacy: a study on the literacy campaign in Inner Mongolia (1949–1959). (Master), Inner Mongolia University, HuhhotGoogle Scholar
  17. Cumming GS, Buerkert A, Hoffmann EM, Schlecht E, von Cramon-Taubadel S, Tscharntke T (2014) Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services. Nature 515(7525):50–57. doi:10.1038/nature13945 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Da L, Yu H (2015) A study of the profit distribution in the exploitation of mineral resources—using Inner Mongolia as an example. J Inn Mongolia Univ (Philos Soc Sci) 47:84–93, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  19. Da L, Zheng Y (2010) Pastoral areas and market—a herder-based economics. Social science academic presss(China), BeijingGoogle Scholar
  20. Fang JY, Bai YF, Wu JG (2015) Towards a better understanding of landscape patterns and ecosystems processes of the Mongolian Plateau. Landscape Ecol 30:1573–1578. doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0277-2 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Farina A (2000) The cultural landscape as a model for the integration of ecology and economics. Bioscience 50(4):313–320. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0313:Tclaam]2.3.Co;2 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Garmestani AS (2014) Sustainability science: accounting for nonlinear dynamics in policy and social-ecological systems. Clean Technol Envir 16(4):731–738. doi:10.1007/s10098-013-0682-7 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case study. Res Policy 31:1257–1274View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Geels FW (2011) The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environ Innov Soc Trans 1:24–40View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Gell-Mann M (2010) Transformations of the twenty-first century: transitions to greater sustainability. In: Schellnhuber J, Molina M, Stern N, Huber V, Kadner S (eds) Global Sustainability: a Nobel Cause. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  26. Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J, Geels F, Loorbach D (2010) Transitions to sustainable development—part 1. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Han XG, Owens K, Wu XB, Wu JG, Huang JH (2009) The grasslands of Inner Mongolia: a special feature. Rangeland Ecol Manag 62(4):303–304. doi:10.2111/09-002.1 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Historiography Committee of Inner Mongolia Animal Husbandry Department (2000) History of Inner Mongolia animal husbandry development. Inner Mongolia people’s publishing house, HohhotGoogle Scholar
  29. Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4(5):390–405. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Holling CS, Meffe GK (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv Biol 10(2):328–337. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Hornborg A (2014) Ecological economics, Marxism, and technological progress: some explorations of the conceptual foundations of theories of ecologically unequal exchange. Ecol Econ 105:11–18. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.015 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Hou XY (2015) Priority and technology of grassland potential digging and efficiency adding in Inner Mongolia. Grassland Prataculture 27(3):1–3, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  34. Hu T (2002) On the vulnerability of Chinese northern ancient nomadic economy. Soc Sci In Ningxia 5:88–93, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  35. Jia Y (2011) Discussion on desertification and nomadism. Chin J Grassland 33(1):1–5, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  36. Jia YS, Du S, Wang ZJ, You SH, Ge GT (2015) A review of herbage storage in pastoral areas of China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica 9:189–196. doi:10.11686/cyxb2015177, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  37. Jiang GM, Han XG, Wu JG (2006) Restoration and management of the Inner Mongolia grassland require a sustainable strategy. Ambio 35(5):269–270. doi:10.1579/06-S-158.1 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Jiang GM, Wu GL, Cheng D, Zheng YH, Liu MZ, Li CH (2016) Characteristics and designing of eco-husbandry system: a case study in Zhenglan Banner, China. Chinese Sci Bull 61(2):224–230. doi:10.1360/N972015-00693.Chinese Google Scholar
  39. Joint Investigation Team of Grassland Ecological Research (2003) It is urgent to stop sand desert and build green barrier—survey about Inner Mongolia grassland ecology and management questions. World Surv Res 3:14–18Google Scholar
  40. Kang L, Han XG, Zhang ZB, Sun OJ (2007) Grassland ecosystems in China: review of current knowledge and research advancement. Philos T R Soc B 362(1482):997–1008. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2029 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Kates RW, Parris TM (2003) Long-term trends and a sustainability transition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100(14):8062–8067. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231331100 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292(5517):641–642. doi:10.1126/science.1059386 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Lattimore O (1988) Inner Asian frontiers of China. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Li B (1962) Basic types and eco-geographical principles of the zonal vegetation in Inner Mongolia. J Inn Mongolia Univ 2:42–72, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  45. Li B (1979) Characteristics of China’s grasslands. Grasslands China 1:2–12, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  46. Li JW, Liu ZF, He CY, Tu W, Sun ZX (2016) Are the drylands in northern China sustainable? A perspective from ecological footprint dynamics from 1990 to 2010. Sci Total Environ, Epub ahead of print. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.088 Google Scholar
  47. Lin WR, Zheng GZ (1990) History of Inner Mongolia autonomous region economy development. Inner Mongolia people’s publishing house, HohhotGoogle Scholar
  48. Liu MY (2005) On the productivity prosperity of the nomadic production mode. Inn Mongolia Soc Sci 26(5):31–35, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  49. Lu S (2005) A brief comparison of ancient nomadic nationalities and agricultural nationalities. J Hubei Univ Econ 5:116–122, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  50. Markard J, Truffer B (2008) Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: towards an integrated framework. Res Policy 37:596–615View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Meadowcroft J (2011) Engaging with the politics of sustainability transitions. Environ Innov Soc Trans 1:70–75View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. National Research Council (1999) Our Common Journey. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  53. Naveh Z (2000) What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction. Landscape Urban Plan 50(1-3):7–26. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00077-3 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Naveh Z (2005) Epilogue: Toward a transdisciplinary science of ecological and cultural landscape restoration. Restor Ecol 13(1):228–234. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00028.x View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Notestein F (1983) On population growth and economic development. Popul Dev Rev 9(2):345–360View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Olsson P, Galaz V, Boonstra WJ (2014) Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspective. Ecol Soc 19(4):1. doi:10.5751/Es-06799-190401 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Parris TM, Kates RW (2003) Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annu Rev Env Resour 28:559–586. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105551 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Qi JG, Chen JQ, Wan SQ, Ai LK (2012) Understanding the coupled natural and human systems in Dryland East Asia. Environ Res Lett 7(1):015202. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/015202 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Raskin P, Banuri T, Gallopin G, Gutman P, Hammond A, Kates R et al (2002) Great transition: the promise and lure of the times ahead. Retrieved from Boston, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  60. Reid WV, Chen D, Goldfarb L, Hackmann H, Lee YT, Mokhele K et al (2010) Earth system science for global sustainability: grand challenges. Science 330(6006):916–917View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Rotmans J, Kemp R, Asselt M (2001) More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3(1):15–31. doi:10.1108/14636680110803003 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Scheffer M, Westley FR (2007) The evolutionary basis of rigidity: locks in cells, minds, and society. Ecol Soc 12(2):36View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413(6856):591–596. doi:10.1038/35098000 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Schellnhuber HJ, Messner D, Leggewie C, Leinfelder R, Nakicenovic N, Rahmstorf S et al (2011) World in transition: a social contract for sustainability. Retrieved from Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  65. Shen B (1986) The population issue of modern Inner Mongolia. J Inn Mongolia Univ (Philos Soc Sci) 2:1–14, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  66. Shi Y (1982) Inner Mongolia agricultural geography. Inner Mongolia People’s Publishing House, HohhotGoogle Scholar
  67. Shi H, Zhou X, Meng F, Bai H (2013) Mongolia and Inner Mongolia LUCC regional differentiation over the past 30 years. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 5:719–725Google Scholar
  68. Smith A, Vob J-P, Grin J (2010) Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res Policy 39:435–448View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Squires VR, Yang YL (2008a) Historical degradation episodes in China: socio-economic forces and their interaction with rangeland grazing systems since the 1950s. In: Squires VR, Lu XS, Lu Q, Wang T, Yang YL (eds) Rangeland Degradation and Recovery in China’s Pastoral Lands. CABI, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  70. Squires VR, Yang YL (2008b) How can the next degradation episode be prevented? In: Squires VR, Lu XS, Lu Q, Wang T, Yang YL (eds) Rangeland Degradation and Recovery in China’s Pastoral Lands. CABI, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  71. Steffen W, Sanderson A, Tyson P, Jager J, Matson P, Moore B et al (2005) Global change and the earth system: a planet under pressure. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Su L, Wu Y, Hu Y (2002) Area distributing feature of educated population in Inner Mongolia. Acta Acad Med Nei Mongol 24(3):160–163, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  73. Su H, Liu G, He T (2005) Grassland reclamation and its harm. Grassland China 27(6):61–63, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  74. Tian S, Ma X (2008) Review of researches on northern nomadic culture in ancient China since 1980. Western Regions Stud 2:116–124, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  75. Tong C, Wu J, Yong S, Yang J, Yong W (2004) A landscape-scale assessment of steppe degradation in the Xilin River Basin, Inner Mongolia, China. J Arid Environ 59(1):133–149. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.01.004 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Uretogtohu (2006) The Mongolian nomadic economy and its transitions. Minzu University of China Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  77. van den Bergh JCJM (2011) Environment versus growth—a criticism of “degrowth” and a plea for “a-growth”. Ecol Econ 70:881–890View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. van den Bergh JCJM, Truffer B, Kallis G (2011) Environmental innovation and societal transitions: introduction and overview. Environ Innov Soc Trans 1:1–23View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Walker B, Hollin CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 9(2):5View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Wang J (2006) Ecology of agriculture and animal husbandry and traditional Mongolian society. Shandong people’s publishing house, Ji’nanGoogle Scholar
  81. Wang M (2008) The nomad’s choice: the first encounter between northern nomads and imperial China: Guangxi Normal University PressGoogle Scholar
  82. Wang G (2010) Main problems in the pastoral region economic development and their countermeasures. Inn Mongolia Soc Sci 31:114–119, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  83. Wang X (2013) Grassland drought in the context of institution change—impacts of pastoral sedenterization, pasture segmentation and market economy. China Agric Univ J Soc Sci Ed 30:18–30, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  84. Wang J, Chog DO (2009) Prediction of the natural population growth rate in Inner Mongolia in the next ten years. Inn Mongolia Stat 04:36–37Google Scholar
  85. Weinstein MP, Turner RE, Ibanez C (2013) The global sustainability transition: it is more than changing light bulbs. Sustain: Sci Pract Policy 9:4–15Google Scholar
  86. Williams A, Wang MP, Zhang MA (2008) Land tenure arrangements, property rights and institutional arrangements in the cycle of rangeland degradation and recovery. In: Squires VR, Lu XS, Lu Q, Wang T, Yang YL (eds) Rangeland degradation and recovery in China’s pastoral lands. CABI, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  87. Wu JG (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol 28(6):999–1023. doi:10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Wu JG, Loucks OL (1992) Xilingele grassland. In: National Research Council (ed) Grasslands and Grassland Sciences in Northern China. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 67–84Google Scholar
  89. Wu JG, Wu T (2013) Ecological resilience as a foundation for urban design and sustainability. In: Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, McGrath BP, Hill K (ed), Resilience in Urban Ecology and Design: Linking Theory and Practice for Sustainable Cities, Springer, Netherlands, pp. 211–230Google Scholar
  90. Wu JG, Guo XC, Yang J, Qian GX, Niu JM, Liang CZ et al (2014) What is sustainability science? Chin J Appl Ecol 25(1):1–11Google Scholar
  91. Wu JG, Zhang Q, Li A, Liang CZ (2015) Historical landscape dynamics of Inner Mongolia: patterns, drivers, and impacts. Landscape Ecol 30(9):1579–1598. doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0209-1 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  92. Xi T (2010) On the nomadic mode of production under the background of modernization. Forward Position 15:139–141, ChineseGoogle Scholar
  93. Xu K (1999) Local records of Inner Mongolia animal husbandry. Inner Mongol People Publishing House, HuhhotGoogle Scholar
  94. Xu LG, Zhou HF, Liang CA, Du L, Li H (2010) Spatial and temporal variability of annual and seasonal precipitation over the desert region of China during 1951–2005. Hydrol Process 24(20):2947–2959. doi:10.1002/hyp.7708 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  95. Yan T (2004) The Han immigrants and the modern social change in Inner Mongolia. The Ethnic Publishing House, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  96. Yin RS, Yin GP (2010) China’s primary programs of terrestrial ecosystem restoration: initiation, implementation, and challenges. Environ Manage 45(3):429–441. doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9373-x View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  97. Zeder MA (2008) Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: origins, diffusion, and impact. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(33):11597–11604. doi:10.1073/pnas.0801317105 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  98. Zhang Q, Li W (2008) Distributed overgrazing: a neglected cause of grassland degradation in Inner Mongolia. J Arid Land Resour Environ 12:8–15, ChineseGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016