It is widely acknowledged that ecosystems often cannot be considered as separated from social systems, but that they should rather be seen as interacting, cross-scaled, coupled systems operating on multiple temporal and spatial scales. Humans have an increasing impact on ecosystems worldwide, while at the same time ecosystems are of critical importance for the functioning of human systems through ecosystems services. Often the term “social ecological systems” is used in approaches that consider ecological and social systems as integrated systems. This paper aims to contribute to clarification of the different relationships between social and ecological systems. The focus is on the social side of ecological restoration and conservation, in particular on participation, indigenous knowledge, governance, and ethics. It is concluded that in restoration and conservation of social ecological systems more attention should be paid to the role of social systems and conditions on which ecosystems depend. It implies awareness of the importance of engaging stakeholders and fostering public debate and deliberation.

@en

There is considerable debate about the causes of grassland degradation and desertification in China. The discussion is rekindled by recent studies that claim restoration. The reversal in degradation is attributed to policies, which include the grazing ban and the pasture contract system. Contrarily, this article maintains that these studies disregard the complexity and multilayered nature of grassland degradation, and questions whether aforementioned policies have had this effect. In this context, we report on one of the first long-term surveys (1995 and 2011) of herders' perceptions. The survey (492 valid responses) represents two ecoregions: the semiarid desert/steppe and Loess Plateau pasture. Based on the data, we adopted a renewed analytical model for scientists, termed the CCC-Framework. The model calls for caution in proposing certain restoration measures when uncertainties are identified around a “triple C”: (1) condition of vegetation; (2) causality of degradation; and (3) costs of implementation. According to this framework, we establish uncertainty about the condition of allegedly restored vegetation, with particular reference to herders' perceived rise in nonpalatable grass species. Moreover, causality between grassland restoration and effect is difficult to ascertain due the short time frame in which most studies have been conducted. Lastly, it is doubtful whether to date undetermined ecological benefits outweigh implementation costs, especially as the survey pinpointed herders' loss of livelihood without alternative income, illegal grazing, low legal understanding, and limited access to grassland rights.@en

Underground mining in China has incited severe land subsidence causing the forced eviction of millions of farmers. Here we report on one of the earliest Chinese studies on Mining-Induced Displacement and Resettlement (MIDR), based on a farm household survey (n = 230) and semi-structured interviews (n = 29) in Shaanxi, Shanxi, Shandong, Jiangsu, Chongqing and Hunan. It was found that displaced farmers were overall insufficiently compensated for mining-induced damage. Respondents expressed concerns over higher living costs in the relocation villages, and were ill-informed about resettlement schemes. We also found widespread conflict between farmers, mining companies and local government, this being the case in over two-thirds of the surveyed villages. Through additional institutional analysis it is ascertained that existing policies and laws predominantly focus on surface rather than underground mining. Compensation is rarely provided unless damage to land and housing has grown to unmanageable proportions. In result, displacement and resettlement is generally chosen as a sole, yet, final solution. The study includes cases on coal, lead, zinc and manganese. Based on the analysis, we call for a revision of mining policies and the establishment of state-supported compensation schemes in order to minimize conflict and farmers’ socio-economic vulnerability.@en