A Comparative Assessment of Land Use Functions Based on Perceptions of Policy Makers and Local Farmers in Guyuan, Western China

  • 1. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;
    2. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

Received date: 2017-01-03

  Revised date: 2017-03-20

  Online published: 2017-05-20

Supported by

National Key Research and Development Program (2016YFC0503700)


The land use function (LUF) concept is a useful tool in assessing sustainable development. With the goal of exploring the conceptive difference of policy makers and local farmer on LUFs and understanding the capacity of different land use types to provide LUFs, we used a participatory method to assess LUFs in Guyuan, which included four phases: literature review and field surveys; specification of the LUF context; ranking of priorities and weighting of LUFs; and visualization and discussion of the results. It was found that policy makers perceived regional problems and critical LUFs well, whereas farmers had a clearer perception of local issues that affect their livelihood. For policy makers, environmental functions had a higher priority than economic and social functions; in contrast, farmers prioritized economic and social functions. However, based on the perception of both groups, the result was the same whereby environmental functions had the highest LUF value and economic functions had the lowest. Participatory assessment methods enhanced our understanding of causal linkages between land use and LUFs, and may help stakeholders improve future land use decisions and management for regional sustainable development.

Cite this article

WANG Chao, ZHEN Lin . A Comparative Assessment of Land Use Functions Based on Perceptions of Policy Makers and Local Farmers in Guyuan, Western China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2017 , 8(3) : 232 -241 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2017.03.003


[1] Achyar E, Schmidt-Vogt D, Shivakoti G P, 2015. Dynamics of the multi-stakeholder forum and its effectiveness in promoting sustainable forest fire management practices in South Sumatra, Indonesia. Environmental Development, 13: 4-17.
[2] Carvalho-Ribeiro S M, Lovett A, O’Riordan T. 2010. Multifunctional forest management in Northern Portugal: Moving from scenarios to governance for sustainable development. Land Use Policy. 27(4): 1111-1122.
[3] Commission of the European Communities (CEC), 2005. Impact Assessment Guidelines.
[4] Feng Y, Luo G, Lu L, et al. 2011. Effects of land use change on landscape pattern of the Manas River watershed in Xinjiang, China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 64(8): 2067-2077.
[5] Fleskens L, Duarte F, Eicher I. 2009. A conceptual framework for the assessment of multiple functions of agro-ecosystems: A case study of Trás-os-Montes olive groves. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(1): 141-155.
[6] König H J, Podhora A, Helming K, et al. 2014. Confronting international research topics with stakeholders on multifunctional land use: The case of Inner Mongolia, China. Iforest, 7(6): 403-413.
[7] König H J, Uthes S, Schuler J, et al. 2013. Regional impact assessment of land use scenarios in developing countries using the FoPIA approach: Findings from five case studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 127(3): 56-64.
[8] La Rosa D, Barbarossa L, Privitera R, et al. 2014. Agriculture and the city: a method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts. Land Use Policy, 41: 290-303.
[9] Li F, Zhen L, Huang H Q, et al. 2009. Impacts of land use functional change on WTA and economic compensation for core stakeholders: a case study in Poyang Lake. Resources Science, 31(4): 580-589.
[10] Li Y, Zhang Z J. 2013. A study of biological diversity of Liupanshan Nature Reserve. Ningxia Journal of Agriculture and Forest Science & Technology. 54 (08): 24-26. (in Chinese)
[11] Long H. 2014. Land use policy in China: Introduction. Land Use Policy, 40(1): 1-5.
[12] López-i-Gelats F, Rivera-Ferre M G, Madruga-Andreu C, et al. 2015. Is multifunctionality the future of mountain pastoralism? Lessons from the management of semi-natural grasslands in the Pyrenees. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 13(4): 1-14.
[13] Morris J B, Tassone V, de Groot R, et al. 2011. A framework for participatory impact assessment: Involving stakeholders in European policy making, a case study of land use change in Malta. Ecology & Society, 16(1): 1-2.
[14] Pan Y, Xu Z R, Wu J X. 2013. Spatial differences of the supply of multiple ecosystem services and the environmental and land use factors affecting them. Ecosystem Services, 5: 4-10.
[15] Paracchini M L, Pacini C, Jones M L M, et al. 2011. An aggregation framework to link indicators associated with multifunctional land use to the stakeholder evaluation of policy options. Ecological Indicators, 11(1): 71-80.
[16] Peng J, Liu Z, Liu Y. 2015. Multifunctionality assessment of urban agriculture in beijing city, China. Science of the Total Environment, 537: 343-351.
[17] Pérez-Soba M, Petit S, Jones L, et al. 2008. Land use functions—a multifunctionality approach to assess the impact of land use changes on land use sustainability. Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes[C]. Springer, 375-404.
[18] Quan B, Römkens M J M, Li R, et al. 2011. Effect of land use and land cover change on soil erosion and the spatio-temporal variation in Liupan Mountain Region, southern Ningxia, China. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 5(4): 564-572.
[19] Ripoll-Bosch R, De Boer I, Bernués A, et al. 2013. Accounting for multi-functionality of sheep farming in the carbon footprint of lamb: a comparison of three contrasting Mediterranean systems. Agricultural Systems, 116: 60-68.
[20] Simelton E, Dam B V. 2014. Farmers in NE Viet Nam rank values of ecosystems from seven land uses. Ecosystem Services, 9: 133-138.
[21] Song X Q, Huang Y, Wu Z F, et al. 2015. Does cultivated land function transition occur in China? Journal of Geographical Sciences, 25(7): 817-835.
[22] Song X Q, Wu Z F, Ouyang Z. 2014. Changes of cultivated land function in china since 1949. Acta Geographica Sinica, 69(4): 435-447. (in Chinese)
[23] Sjögersten S, Atkin C, Clarke M L, et al. 2013. Responses to climate change and farming policies by rural communities in northern China: a report on field observation and farmers’ perception in dryland north Shaanxi and Ningxia, Land Use Policy, 32: 125-133.
[24] Stoate C, Báldi A, Beja P, et al. 2009. Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe- a review. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1): 22-46.
[25] Wang B, Liu G B, Zhang G H, et al. 2013. Effects of Grain for Green Project on food security on Loess Plateau. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 33(3): 241-245. (in Chinese)
[26] Xie G D, Zhen L, Zhang C X, et al. 2010. Assessing the multifunctionalities of land use in China. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 1(4): 311-318.
[27] Zhen L, Cao S Y, Wei Y J, et al. 2009. Land use functions: conceptual framework and application for China. Resources Science, 31(4): 544-551. (in Chinese)
[28] Zhen L, Deng X Z, Wei Y J, et al. 2014. Future land use and food security scenarios for the Guyuan district of remote western China. Iforest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 7(6): 372-384.
[29] Zhen L, Hu J, Du B Z, et al. 2015. International experience of green development in Western China: an overall review of policy and practice. China Population Resources and Environment, 13(4): 1-10.
[30] Zhen L, Wei Y J, Xie G D, et al. 2010. Regional analysis of dynamic land use functions in China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 30(24): 6749-6761. (in Chinese)