Content uploaded by Palden Tsering
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Palden Tsering on Jun 03, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
CHAPTER 4
Hybrid rangeland governance: ways of
living with and from uncertainty in pastoral
Amdo Tibet, China
Palden Tsering
Introduction
Ecological, social, political, and economic variabilities combine in the pastoral
areas of Amdo Tibet in China, bringing with them multiple uncertainties.
Findin g ways to respond to these uncertainties is central to pastoralists’
successful use of rangelands. During my fieldwork, I would ask people, ‘How
do you understand uncertainty?’ I can still recall the first time I posed this
question when visiting the winter pastures in the southern part of Kokonor in
November 2018. In a small winter house, while sipping milk tea, the host, Suby,
a male pastoralist with a white baseball cap, sunglasses, and ruddy cheeks, said
calmly, ‘Why worry about uncertainty? We cannot foretell anything, so why
bother to worry about tomorrow? Yesterday is already the past, and we do
everything we can to address the issues of today.’
Like Suby, pastoralists across Amdo Tibet have long faced highly variable
conditions such as tribal disputes, natural disasters, climate change, and
policy shifts. In other words, pastoralists have always lived with uncertainties;
to them, uncertainty is the only certainty. Such collective world-views and
beliefs about uncertainty are in turn reflected in livelihood and management
strategies. This is why it was important to understand uncertainty through
the eyes of pastoralists. From 2019 to 2022, I conducted in-depth interviews,
focus group discussions, participant observation, and photovoice exercises
in Saga and Lumu villages, two pastoral settings in Amdo Tibet, China
(Figure 4.1).
Copyright
52 PASTORALISM, UNCERTAINTY AND DEVELOPMENT
Seeing uncertainty in pastoral Amdo Tibet
How different groups of people construct knowledge through constant
engagement with the dynamic world is the key to exploring the under-
standings and implications of uncertainty in the Tibetan context. In other
words, pastoralists’ knowledge not only reflects their beliefs and world-views
but also actively shapes the changing world.
G315
G315
G6
G6
G6
G109
G109
G214
G214
Qinghai Lake
Xining
Shinaihai Xiang
Qieji Xiang
Tanggemu Zhen
Heimahe
Xiang
Jiangxigou
Xiang
Qiabuqia Zhen
Daotanghe Zhen
Beijing
Gonghe
County
Xinghai
County
Guinan
County
HAINAN TIBETAN AUTONOMOUS
PREFECTURE
GOLOK TIBETAN AUTONOMOUS
PREFECTURE
HAINAN TIBETAN AUTONOMOUS
PREFECTURE
QINGHAI
CHINA
RUSSIA
INDIA
MONGOLIA
MYANMAR
NEPAL
TAIW AN
KAZAKHSTAN
County boundary
Main town
Town
Highway
Main road
Area of interest
(study site)
KEY
0 20 km10 155
Qinghai
Figure 4.1 Saga and Lumu in Amdo Tibet, China
Copyright
HYBRID RANGELAND GOVERNANCE 53
The uncertainties that pastoralists are most focused on are visible, traceable,
everyday uncertainties, where people have the capacities to make a difference.
During the photovoice sessions, pastoralists rarely identified political and
policy shifts as sources of uncertainty.1 This does not mean that pastoralists
are unaware of such uncertainties: they all experience the consequences
of major policy changes, resource grabbing, and ecological resettlement.
They opt instead to disregard these uncertainties because they are outside their
control; their voices are not heard and they have limited agency in relation to
externally imposed policies.
In Tibetan Buddhism studies, uncertainty and the closely related terms
‘impermanence’, ‘emptiness’, and ‘mid-way’ are widely explored (Thanissaro,
2012; Todd, 2015). I got the opportunity to visit a Geshe (དགེ་བཤེས། 格西, the title
given to a Tibetan Bhuddist scholar) from Saga in his cave-like quarters on
a lovely summer afternoon in August 2019. The Geshe fully comprehended
my explanation of uncertainty – focused on the condition where we don’t
know the likelihood of certain outcomes (see Chapter 1) – but he found it
difficult to identify an equivalent Tibetan term. After finishing his butter tea
from a brown wooden bowl, the Geshe began to explain his interpretations:
‘In Buddhism, we use mi rtag pa:2 what happened is already in the past, and
what is going to happen is unpredictable; all we can depend on is the present,
we deal with what is happening now.’
The Buddhist perspective on uncertainty centres on the nature of the
consequences. As indicated by the Geshe’s quote, things change due to their
impermanence. Thus, it is vital to recognize that the ultimate consequence
of everything is destructive in order to embrace the ongoing, perpetual,
and contingent flow of processes and relations. In this perspective,
uncertainty is the impermanent consequence of constant changes, and
thus the interpretation stresses the realization, acceptance, and embracing
of changing realities.
The expression mi rtag pa is widely used to denote that the condition
of things is always changing and disappearing in each instant. The term
emphasizes the impermanent and destructive aspect of existence, since
nothing is permanent but only continuously changes. Nevertheless, as
the Geshe explained, the understanding of uncertainty has other connota-
tions: ‘Uncertainty is everywhere, it is unpredictable, unimaginable, but
unlike the concept of mi rtag pa, it has consequences, results, and particular
impacts.’
After this discussion, the Geshe offered the term nges med (ངེས་མེད་འགྱུར་ལྡོག), which
refers to the Buddhist concept of change in motion, the state of continuous
change. nges med, unlike mi rtag pa, focuses on the continuity of change, its
processes and relations. The state of society or the local ecosystem therefore
has to be understood in relation to constantly changing processes – both
past and present – as verbs, not nouns (Hertz et al., 2020). For instance, in
the case of the expansion of the Kokonor lake, which is taking up important
pasture and displacing pastoralists, the cause – whether climate change
Copyright
54 PASTORALISM, UNCERTAINTY AND DEVELOPMENT
or expanding conservation efforts – is less of a concern compared to the
consequences. As the Geshe stressed, nges Med does not provide a compre-
hensive understanding and so additional phrases are required to illustrate
uncertainty.
Bsam yul las das pa is commonly used by both secular and non-secular
Tibetans. It refers to things, events, and states that are beyond one’s
imagination, thought, and experience. If something is bsam yul las das pa, it
pertains to things that are unpredictable and unmeasurable, a state of simply
not knowing that cannot be prepared for.
Bsam, the Tibetan word for thought, refers to the capacity for thought
or thinking ability. Yul signifies the location or object, which here refers to
the object of the thought, whereas das pa refers to things beyond thought
and capacity for thought. This phrase therefore implies the consequences
of the ongoing and changing processes, with the emphasis on responses
to unexpected outcomes. However, in this case, experiences are key and
conditions of those experiences matter for possibilities of adaptation and
transformation.
As West et al. (2020: 311) argue, our engagement with ‘the social,
material and technological aspects of holistic, unfolding situations
produces experience’. As the Geshe concluded, bsam yul las das pa refers to
the things and events beyond one’s experience; thus, uncertainties such as
snowstorms and wildlife attacks are not included, as they are more or less
resolvable based on existing and accumulated experiences and practices,
despite the fact that the forms and scale of these uncertainties vary over
time and space. Pastoralists are able to respond to such uncertainties due to
their accumulated individual and collective experiences, inherited over time
across generations. Thus, bsam yul las das pa focuses on the realm of novelty,
particularly things and events that are beyond one’s experience, where no
responses have been worked out before.
Through my discussions with the Geshe and others, I learned that there
is no single, definitive, equivalent Tibetan term for ‘uncertainty’; rather,
there are multiple phrases and expressions that convey the term in different
contexts. Mi rtag pa focuses on the impermanent consequences of things; nges
med emphasizes the ongoing process, while bsam yul las das pa relates to the
conditions of experience (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1 Different responses to uncertainty in the Tibetan context
Different context Different foci Different responses
Mi rtag pa Impermanence Staying with the changes/
vulnerability unmeasurable
Nges med Ongoing process
ofchange
Customizing rules and relations/
adaptabilities and transformability/
vulnerability depends on variables
Bsam yul las das pa Conditions of experience Experiences from the past matter
Copyright
HYBRID RANGELAND GOVERNANCE 55
Uncertainty in the Tibetan context
However, in their day-to-day practice, pastoralists must continuously adapt to
uncertainties, making use of a well-developed, practical repertoire of responses,
even if the terms used are varied. In order to go beyond the philosophical
debates around terms and phrases, I explored ideas of uncertainty in grounded
contexts through two rounds of photovoice discussion (see Chapter 2).3
In these exercises, pastoralists – both men and women in the two sites in
Amdo – expressed their understandings of uncertainty through photographs
and narrative interpretations. During a photovoice discussion in November
2019, TJ, a father of three children from Golok, shared his perspective,
reflecting on a photograph of a senior couple who chose to stay with their
livestock on the pastures.
Pastoralism is the only thing we are good at. Most of the elders already
moved to the town and close to the monasteries. And I think the further
you get away from your grassland, the more uncertain your life gets. For
example, the quality of the food you take is mi rtag pa (uncertainty); the
milk powder you buy for your grandchildren is mi rtag pa; the fake butter
and raw meat you purchase from the market is mi rtag pa. You are not
sure (mi rtag pa) about the prices of the electricity and gas that you pay
monthly for the heat because you don’t collect yak dung anymore. You
are not sure (mi rtag pa) about your wellbeing because you don’t share
stories and you don’t have temples and stupas to circulate. Therefore, the
only certain thing for us is pastoralism, even though there are uncertain
occasions like heavy snowfall and wildlife attacks. But compared to the
urban and non-pastoral way of life, our life is more certain in all different
ways because we are familiar with and we know how to handle things.
Uncertainty, according to TJ, consists of unexpected relationships and inter-
actions with the environment, which is why his familiar lifestyle inspires
confidence. In the same discussion, TJ emphasized that, ‘According to Tibetan
Buddhism, all existence is impermanent, and uncertainty is one of its aspects.
It does not imply that we should give up because everything eventually comes
to an end. Realizing the fundamental nature of existence is the essence of
impermanence and uncertainty, and this understanding enables us to make
decisions throughout the various periods of life when confronted with
uncertainties.’
Another reflection on uncertainty comes from Lhamo, a mother of two sons.
During a group discussion in Saga, Kokonor, in January 2020, she noted:
One of the many mi rtag pa (uncertainties), and the one most pertinent
to pastoralism, is the loss of pasture due to lake expansion. The loss
made life difficult for my family and me. I was born on this property as
a pastoralist and grew up herding the flock and consuming the milk and
meat of the animals. My primary source of family income is the sale of
animals and dairy products, such as butter and cheese. Due to the loss
Copyright
56 PASTORALISM, UNCERTAINTY AND DEVELOPMENT
of land, it is now extremely difficult to earn a living. We must now rent
pasture from relatives and friends, and these pastures are frequently of
lower quality and further away. Therefore, renting pasture and herding
livestock now necessitates greater investments in land, labour, and
transportation.
However, we all know that this [lake expansion and land loss] is not
going to be permanent; the lake expands and also shrinks. Moreover,
we started to do eco-tourism here, my sons have started a home-stay
centre here for the tourists, and it is good money, especially during
summer time. So, this Mi Rtag Pa will also change, and we will have
our pasture back.
Uncertainty, according to Lhamo, is not something permanent; rather, it is
central to the fluidity of things. Uncertainty brings challenges but also oppor-
tunities for transformations; in her case, gaining profit from engaging in
eco-tourism on the winter pasture. Thus, in the Tibetan context, the essence
of uncertainty is centred on fluidity, something that is always in motion
and is focused on the immediate challenges of things that are ‘taking place’.
Uncertainty is therefore the endless combination of dynamic processes and
relations from various actors and realms, whether material or immaterial, and
so central to pastoral livelihoods.
The fluid processes and connections at the centre of interactions between
nature and humans enable pastoralists both to live with and from uncertainty,
making use of uncertainties as possibilities and opportunities for adaptation
and transformation (Mancilla García et al., 2020). Thus, embracing uncertainty
means focusing on interactions within and between ongoing complex
adaptive systems (Preiser et al., 2018). The question then becomes how Amdo
pastoralists transform these perceptions into actions on the ground.
Living with and from uncertainty
Increasing uncertainties pose considerable challenges for governing
rangelands. Uncertainties include climate change, new large-scale infrastruc-
tural investments, the establishment of new settlements, resource grabbing,
and land fragmentation. All these combine to increase the challenges for
pastoral livelihoods. Navigating uncertainties, responding to the negative
effects, and making use of opportunities requires considerable skill and has
resulted in a series of practical innovations around rangeland governance: the
management of land used by pastoral livestock.
Pastoralists’ strategies must also confront state policies on rangeland
governance, which add another layer of uncertainty. In recent decades, these
have taken a market-oriented stance linked to policies for ‘rural vitalization’,
‘ecological civilization’, and the reinforcing of private property rights. Through
these policies, the state has provided incentives for changing land use on the
rangelands. However, these changes may not help with navigating diverse
Copyright
HYBRID RANGELAND GOVERNANCE 57
uncertainties and sustaining pastoral livelihoods, so pastoralists always have
to seek compromises between local practices and state impositions.
State policies invariably assume a stable, regulated form of property and
land use, with clearly defined patterns of tenure. On the ground, however,
pastoralists must maintain more flexible, negotiated, hybrid arrangements
to live with and from diverse uncertainties. The disconnection between
what state policies and what exists on the ground is sometimes the basis for
contention and conflict. However, the state’s ability to impose and enforce
is always limited, and compromises emerge. This results in a hybrid constel-
lation of roles, rules, and relationships, which allow pastoralists to navigate
uncertainties effectively (Scott, 1990; Simula et al., 2020; Tsering, 2022a).
As a result, various arrangements around land use are improvised, refor-
mulated, and remade from below. These do not necessarily directly challenge
state power (e.g., Hall et al., 2015; Ptáčková, 2019); rather, pastoralists try to
find ways to negotiate, seeking practical solutions that work in local contexts.
These emerge through what I call ‘practices of assemblage’ (Tsering, 2022a, b;
Li, 2014), where local practices emerge in response to uncertain contexts
(Ho, 2005, 2017; Heilmann and Perry, 2011; Yeh et al., 2013; Scoones et al.,
2018). As the cases below show, assemblage is the technique of drawing
heterogeneous elements together, forging connections between them, and
sustaining these relationships in the face of uncertainty (Li 2014, 2021).
Rangeland governance is therefore not restricted to formal edicts from the
state but is centred on the fluid practices, negotiations, and contestations
involving multiple resource user groups on the ground.
The following two sections explore such hybrid rangeland governance in
Amdo Tibet, highlighting how uncertainties are embraced through perfor-
mative practices situated in context, and how responses are assembled through
a variety of means.
The role of the monasteries in resource governance
In pastoral Lumu in Golok, the role of the monastery is pervasive in everyday
social, cultural, and religious life. Despite the central state’s power, there is a
need to combine diverse forms of authority, and this results in the emergence
of negotiations around highly contentious state policies. The case of the
construction of a mineral water factory on a private winter pasture in Lumu
showed how pastoralists, or ‘rangeland contractors’4 often approached the
monastery for advice.
As Uncle Bam a contractor on the land, reflected when interviewed in
February 2021:
I went to the monastery and consulted the incarnate, the incarnate
recommended not to give the permit [to the water factory company]
because a mineral water factory will bring damage to the water, not only
the water we drink, but also the water that our livestock, the wildlife,
and the downstream villagers use.
Copyright
58 PASTORALISM, UNCERTAINTY AND DEVELOPMENT
In Lumu, the monastery serves as both the local authority and intermediator
between the villages and local government. It takes these roles seriously
and, consequently, the de facto use and access to resources is continuously
negotiated and contested with the participation of various resource users
(Tsering, 2019; Simula et al., 2020). In December 2019, Jab, the monastery
secretary, concluded:
The monastery is determined to serve all sentient beings. We are never
opposed to development, we just worry about how to develop. This land
belongs to the pastoralists, the monastery, livestock, and wildlife.
Therefore, we cannot just give the land for a mineral water factory; this
is selfish. We must think about others because all things are intercon-
nected, and we must remember this.
This use of rangeland in Lumu is governed not only by land contractors but
also their relationships with the bigger world, including the monastery. Land
is viewed as pasture for livestock, as a habitat for wildlife, and as a sacred site
for the monastery. The inclusion of the monastery is therefore crucial in any
decision linked to rangelands and land use in the area.
The existence of the monastic network and the mediation role of religious
leaders are essential for negotiation-based, hybrid rangeland management.
The presence of the monastery also creates ‘possibility spaces’ (directly or
indirectly) for participation and engagement of local pastoralists in policy
Figure 4.2 Members of the local monastery carrying hay for the blue sheep in Golok.
Credit: Palden Tsering
Copyright
HYBRID RANGELAND GOVERNANCE 59
processes, allowing them to claim their rights to land, sometimes confronting
powerful external investors.
Pluralist resource governance
In Saga village, near the Kokonor lake area, pastoralists must work with
many actors to strengthen their bargaining power and advance their own
interests in the face of strong efforts to change land use by external actors,
both state conservation agencies and private investors interested in the
tourism potential of the area. Rather than direct confrontation, pastoralists
challenge government policies through informal networks and more hidden
forms of passive resistance (Scott, 1985, 1990). These forms of resistance
can be seen from pastoralists’ flexible ways of responding to different state
projects. Interviewed in February 2021, Uncle Bam, the former village party
secretary, explained:
The government claimed that the village needed a grazing ban zone in
order to receive the subsidy. Pastoralists wanted the subsidy and also
worried that they would no longer be able to herd livestock. Therefore,
the village decided to design the collectively used summer pasture as the
grazing ban zone because it is far away from the government; therefore,
it will be hard for inspections.
Subsidies are allocated to pastoralists if they agree to prioritize rangeland
conservation over animal grazing, through designating their pasture as
part of the grazing ban zone and decreasing animal numbers. This is in
line with state policies for conserving rangeland due to ecological concerns
about rangeland degradation and desertification. But, according to Uncle
Bam, there were many local, collective concerns about rangeland loss due
to government projects, such as the grazing ban zone policy. Instead of
complying completely, pastoralists opted to maximize rangeland use by
designating an area for the ‘ban’ that was used for only a few weeks, was
far from the township centre, and was not subject to regular inspections,
so could still be used surreptitiously. Meanwhile, pastoralists shifted their
grazing to the winter pasture areas that were not being targeted by the state.
This meant that pastoralists moderated the impacts of the state project
by adjusting their use of rangeland areas, making use of their livestock
management abilities to adapt.
Apa Tashi, a 58-year-old herder who lost half of his winter pasture to the
lake, complained:
They [the government] always choose quick-fix solutions. They relocated
my family to the township centre right after the lake expansion. It is
acceptable for me to move to the township, but as a pastoralist, my
livelihood depends on livestock and rangeland. What is the good if
I cannot make my belly full [living in the township without livestock
and land]? It will only create issues for the government.
Copyright
60 PASTORALISM, UNCERTAINTY AND DEVELOPMENT
As Apa Tashi argued in this July 2020 interview, quick-fix solutions may
resolve temporary issues (in his case, the loss of a winter house to the lake
expansion), but further livelihood policies for the landless pastoralists need
to be negotiated. Apa Tashi’s access to the rangeland is critical to his capacity
to continue his way of life. Numerous state-designed strategies for rangeland
conservation and mitigation of lake expansion have consistently targeted the
removal of pastoralists from their rangelands as a solution.
However, some pastoralists view policies such as the grazing ban and reset-
tlement as advantageous. For some, the creation of the grazing ban zone on
the summer pasture worked out well. In another interview in July 2020, Apa
Libo, who sold all his livestock and moved to the township centre in 2015,
told me:
I am happy the village and the government [township level] designed
the summer pasture as the grazing ban zone because I don’t have any
livestock; thus, summer pasture is useless to me, and now there is money
[the grazing ban subsidy], which is great for those who don’t graze on
the summer pasture.
Others with few animals move their stock to the winter pasture and so also do
not worry about the ban.
In this case, for those other than some larger livestock owners, the
negotiated solution worked out well. The hybrid arrangement, a result of
informal negotiation and centred on hidden forms of compromise agreement,
provided a solution whereby pastoralists both received a subsidy and could
continue to graze their animals. The intermediation of local government
officials at village and township level helped with the negotiation, and for
now at least, a satisfactory outcome has been brokered.
Negotiating solutions for adaptive responses
Both cases show how uncertainties emerging from state policies and
competition over resources from multiple actors (exacerbated by climate
change in the case of the lake expansion) were addressed by creating new,
brokered solutions. The process of assemblage, responding to the unfolding
and fluid nature of each context, resulted in new elements being composed,
with new roles, rules, and relationships constantly emerging.
As state policies shift, so must the local practices of assemblage and
the form of hybridity in land governance that emerges at a local level
in response to uncertainty. Collaborative approaches to assemblage
involving multiple actors result in higher participation from resource users,
greater investment in appraisal before the design and implementation of
interventions, and improved conflict negotiation mechanisms. All these
elements are important for the adaptive management of resources and
the building of resilience under uncertain conditions (Berkes et al., 2000;
Folke, 2006, 2016).
Copyright
HYBRID RANGELAND GOVERNANCE 61
This has practical implications for how resource management is designed
and practised in rangeland areas such as Amdo Tibet. If uncertainties are to
be embraced, and lived with and from, authorities must devote additional
time and effort to becoming informed about local contexts during policy
design, formulation, and implementation. Informed policymaking stresses a
thorough understanding of local politics, power dynamics, power relations,
and grounded practices. If processes of assemblage are to be facilitated,
multilateral and multilayered processes involving multiple actors always
need to be encouraged.
In the Amdo Tibet case, this means that local government officials (at the
prefectural, county, and township level), local institutions (the monastery,
nunnery, monastic associations, grass-roots civic organizations), and pasto-
ralists themselves (as landholders and users) all need to engage in the
formulation, reformulation, and implementation of policies. This means
a shift away from a centralized, fixed, and dominant style of policymaking
towards an inclusive, co-produced policy process that stimulates inclusion
and innovation.
An informed approach to policymaking thus means not just seeing
through the eyes of pastoralists but also thinking as they do, grasping how
‘uncertainty’ is understood through local, culturally embedded perceptions,
as discussed earlier. In this way, with common understandings, a hybrid
approach may facilitate interactions, negotiations, and bargaining between
informal and formal authorities over policy outcomes.
Pastoralists are not necessarily opposing a particular policy or inter-
vention; rather, they challenge top-down designs and try to incorporate
new initiatives from the government into their local repertoires. They must
adapt continuously, tailoring materials at hand through customizing roles,
enlisting different players into their networks – such as the monastery or local
government officials, for example – through various practices of assemblage,
and so constructing new rules for resource management in a plural, highly
fluid context.
In this way, what I call hybrid governance of rangelands emerges. As a route
to more effective cooperation, mutual understanding, and co-production
amongst diverse actors, the process offers opportunities for the state to see
plans emerge more effectively, while for pastoralists, options are more likely to
be embedded in existing practices, allowing them to continue their production
and respond flexibly to uncertainty.
Conclusion
There is no single, definitive Tibetan term for uncertainty; rather,
different phrases convey the concept in various circumstances. The core of
uncertainty in the Tibetan context is fluidity, something that is constantly
in motion and constituted through things that are ‘happening’. Uncertainty
is the unending mixing of dynamic processes and relationships between
Copyright
62 PASTORALISM, UNCERTAINTY AND DEVELOPMENT
diverse material and immaterial actors and domains. The interdependent
relationship between humans and nature enables pastoralists to live with and
from uncertainty, utilizing uncertainties as possibility spaces for adaptation
and transformation.
Through multi-case ethnographic research and a mixed method approach
in two pastoral villages in Amdo Tibet, China, findings reveal that ongoing
rangeland governance practices are constructed through different practices
of assemblage. The result is a hybrid regime that goes beyond the classic
description of private, common, or state-led forms of tenure. A hybrid
approach – and especially the process of building assemblages of actors,
practices, technologies, and forms of knowledge – in turn allows herders
both to respond to uncertainties as they arise, as well as make the most of
opportunities that emerge from uncertain settings.
Notes
1. See seeingpastoralism.org.
2. མི་རྟག་པ།, impermanence, refers to the state of things that are changing and
disappearing each instant.
3. Caroline Wang and Mary Ann Burris defined photovoice in the early
1990s as ‘a participatory action research method, from the photos that
the participants took, people can identify, represent, and enhance their
community through a specific photographic technique’ (Wang and
Burris, 1997; Bennett and Dearden, 2013, quoted in Apaza and DeSantis
(2011: 369)). See more on the PASTRES Photovoice website, seeingpasto-
ralism.org.
4. This specifically refers to the holders of a rangeland household contract.
References
Apaza, V. and DeSantis, P. (2011) Facilitator‘s Toolkit for a Photovoice Project,
United for Prevention in Passaic County and the William Paterson
University Department of Public Health, the William Paterson University
Print Services, USA.
Bennett, N.J. and Dearden, P. (2013) ‘A picture of change: using photovoice
to explore social and environmental change in coastal communities on the
Andaman coast of Thailand’, Local Environment 18: 983–1001 <https://doi.
org/10.1080/13549839.2012.748733>.
Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (2000) ‘Rediscovery of traditional ecological
knowledge as adaptive management’, Ecological Applications 10: 1251–62
<https://doi.org/10.2307/2641280>.
Folke, C. (2006) ‘Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological
systems analyses’, Global Environmental Change 16: 253–67 <https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002>.
Folke, C. (2016) ‘Resilience (Republished)’, Ecology and Society 21: 44 <https://
doi.org/10.5751/ES-09088-210444>.
Copyright
HYBRID RANGELAND GOVERNANCE 63
Hall, R., Edelman, M., Borras, Jr, S.M., Scoones, I., White, B. and Wolford, W.
(2015) ‘Resistance, acquiescence or incorporation? An introduction to land
grabbing and political reactions “from below” ’, Journal of Peasant Studies
42: 467–88 <https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2015.1036746>.
Heilmann, S. and Perry, E.J. (eds) (2011) Mao’s Invisible Hand: The Political
Foundations of Adaptive Governance in China, Harvard University Asia Center,
Cambridge MA.
Hertz, T., Mancilla García, M. and Schlüter, M. (2020) ‘From nouns to verbs:
how process ontologies enhance our understanding of social-ecological
systems understood as complex adaptive systems’, People and Nature 2:
328–38 <https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10079>.
Ho, P. (2005) Institutions in Transition: Land Ownership, Property Rights, and
Social Conflict in China, Oxford University Press, Oxford <https://doi.org/
10.1093/019928069X.001.0001>.
Ho, P. (2017) Unmaking China’s Development: The Function and Credibility of
Institutions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge <https://doi.org/
10.1017/9781316145616>.
Li, T.M. (2014) ‘What is land? Assembling a resource for global investment’,
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 39: 589–602 <https://doi.
org/10.1111/tran.12065>.
Li, T.M. (2021) ‘Commons, Co-Ops, and Corporations: Assembling Indonesia’s
Twenty-First Century Land Reform’, Journal of Peasant Studies 48: 613–39
<https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2021.1890718>.
Mancilla García, M., Hertz, T., Schlüter, M., Preiser, R. and Woermann, M.
(2020) ‘Adopting process-relational perspectives to tackle the challenges of
social-ecological systems research’, Ecology and Society 25: 29 <https://doi.
org/10.5751/ES-11425-250129>.
Preiser, R., Biggs, R., De Vos, A. and Folke, C. (2018) ‘Social-ecological
systems as complex adaptive systems: organizing principles for advancing
research methods and approaches’, Ecology and Society 23: 46 <https://doi.
org/10.5751/ES-10558-230446>.
Ptáčková, J. (2019) ‘Traditionalization as a response to state-induced
development in rural Tibetan areas of Qinghai, PRC’, Central Asian Survey
38: 417–31 <https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2019.1635990>.
Scoones, I., Edelman, M., Borras, Jr., S.M., Hall, R., Wolford, W. and White, B.
(2018) ‘Emancipatory rural politics: confronting authoritarian populism’,
Journal of Peasant Studies 45: 1–20 <https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.
1339693>.
Scott, J.C. (1985) Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance,
Yale University Press, New Haven CT.
Scott, J.C. (1990) Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, Yale
University Press, New Haven CT.
Simula, G. et al. (2020) ‘COVID-19 and pastoralism: reflections from three
continents’, Journal of Peasant Studies 48: 48–72 <https://doi.org/10.1080/
03066150.2020.1808969>.
Thanissaro, P.N. (2012) ‘What makes you not a Buddhist?: A preliminary
mapping of values’, Contemporary Buddhism 13: 321–47 <https://doi.org/
10.1080/14639947.2012.716709>.
Copyright
64 PASTORALISM, UNCERTAINTY AND DEVELOPMENT
Todd, S. (2015) ‘Experiencing change, encountering the unknown: an education
in “negative capability” in light of Buddhism and Levinas’, Journal of Philosophy
of Education 49: 240–54 <https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12139>.
Tsering, P. (2019) ‘The role of Tibetan monastic organizations in conservation
and development: the case study of Shar ’od monastery in Golok, China’,
Journal of Tibetology 24: 276–89.
Tsering, P. (2022a) ‘Institutional Hybridity: Rangeland Governance in Amdo,
Tibet’, doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex. Available from: <https://
core.ac.uk/download/pdf/519857982.pdf>.
Tsering, P. (2022b) ‘Jarmila Ptáčková, exile from the grasslands: Tibetan herders
and Chinese development projects’, Nomadic Peoples 26: 282–86 <https://
doi.org/10.3197/np.2022.260207>.
Wang, C. and Burris, M.A. (1997) ‘Photovoice: concept, methodology, and
use for participatory needs assessment’, Health Education and Behavior 24:
369–87 <https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400309>.
West, S., Haider, L.J., Stålhammar, S. and Woroniecki, S. (2020) ‘A relational
turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and
transformations’, Ecosystems and People 16: 304–25 <https://doi.org/10.
1080/26395916.2020.1814417>.
Yeh, E.T., O’Brien, K.J. and Ye, J. (2013) ‘Rural politics in contemporary China’,
Journal of Peasant Studies 40: 915–28 <https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.
2013.866097>.
Copyright
