China and the environment: The question of scale

Abstract

This introduction analyzes the question of scale in relationships between China and the environment. Scholars across fields have long debated the role of scale, revealing how different scales—from political-economic systems to global processes—shape environmental change. China, with its vast size and global significance, provides a crucial case for investigating these dynamics and relations. First, dominant environmental narratives are interrogated, revealing contradictions between China's historical environmental legacies and its capacity for long-term ecological resilience as it becomes further incorporated within global capitalism. Following this, it introduces the contributions to this “Special Issue on China and the Environment” through the multiple lenses of scale, drawing on insights from environmental sociology, geography, and ecology. Environmental-sociological formulations of scale foreground micro, meso, and macro scales that correspond with different actors, processes, and relations. Overlapping with this understanding, geography and ecology see scale in terms of size, level, and relation and as situated in space and time. This introduction analyzes scale as both a critical framework for understanding China and the environment and as a method for circumventing contradictions embedded in common narratives of China and the environment. These include historical narratives that posit either degradation or resilience, as well as narratives that emphasize China's particularism or challenge Chinese exceptionalism. We argue for a politics of scale as a method for analyzing China's relationship with the environment. In this, we call for explicit attention to the multi-scalar processes and relations across space and time, which can account for historical context, uneven power dynamics, and socio-ecological relations.

Keywords

scale environment China environmental sociology geography ecology

Introducing scale in China's human–environment relations

Where and when do relationships between China and the environment begin? When and where do they end? How can they be bound spatially and temporally? The question of scale animates this introduction, as well as the articles that follow in this special issue.

There are multiple ways to understand and engage with scale.¹ This is evident from human–environment scholarship, which has long engaged with questions of scale (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Brad, 2016; Bulkeley, 2005; Castree, 2024; Dietz et al., 2020; Neumann, 2008; Legun et al., 2020; Lockie, 2015; Sayre, 2005; Swyngedouw, 1996, 2004, 2010; Swyngedouw and Cox, 1997). Engagements with scale cross disciplines, including human geography, political science, and environmental sociology, among others. Influential works in critical land-use research brought attention to the role of power and institutions in structuring such relationships (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Swyngedouw, 1996, 2010; Swyngedouw and Cox, 1997). Emphasizing a spatial understanding, Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) examine the role of uneven resource access and multiple causes of land degradation beyond the local scale by incorporating regional, national, and global scales. Swyngedouw (1996) offers insights into political and spatial re-scaling through “glocal” elite coalitions. Employed as a verb, “scaling” has been conceptualized in relation to new forms of authoritarian governance. More recent explorations in the tradition of critical land-use research consider scale in terms of geographical magnitude, such as in the ways land grabs occurring under the guise of sustainability transitions are mediated by actors across various scales (Inan and Albulut, 2022; Klingler et al., 2024). Further recent interventions criticize the narrow focus on spatial and place-based scales, emphasizing the need to investigate higher-scaled geographies related to market access and control (Ribot, 2025).

Indeed, questions of power and uneven positionality run through analyses of scale, as do questions of environmental change. Recent works demonstrate how attention to scale allows for a nuanced understanding of complexity that undergirds global environmental change. For instance, scholars have critically engaged with mismatches between local and global approaches to addressing socio-ecological problems (Folke, 2007; Friis et al., 2023; Newig and Moss, 2017). Through studying scale, the hope is to better manage complex and rapidly changing socio-ecological problems. In this vein, scale is thought of in a solutions mode. We draw attention to these different perspectives and, in line with Castree (2024), emphasize the convening power of scale to foster dialogue across disciplines and an integrated understanding of a multidimensional climate-changed world.

China is a particularly important case through which to consider scale, not just given the size and heterogenous characteristics of the country and its roles in global environmental change and geopolitics, but also regarding its prominent environmental history (Bao, 2004; Wang, 2023). Historical works tend to focus on the historical evolution of human–environment interactions in China (Fan, 2023; Fang et al., 2024; Huang and Su, 2009; Xiao et al., 2015; van Ess, 2022). Implicit in this is a spatiotemporal understanding of long-term ecological dynamics and social change. While many offer insights into early state formation, ecology, and socio-environmental resilience, political dimensions and their relation to scale are underemphasized. The focus on ancient and traditional environmental histories often comes at the expense of studying contemporary environmental, political, and social concerns (Bao, 2004). Studies on contemporary environmental governance in China tend to focus on the top-down nature of the political system (Li and Shapiro, 2020), while others emphasize the role of civil society (Mertha, 2010). Less common in scholarship on China and the environment, however, is an explicit engagement with scale.

This introduction explores this question and contends that centering scale should be the hallmark of research on China and the environment. In what follows, we briefly introduce dominant narratives in the field of China and the environment, as well as some of their key contradictions. We then turn to different perspectives on scale from environmental sociology, geography, and ecology to analyze how they can attend to and move beyond these contradictions in the field by accounting for uneven power dynamics, historical context, and socio-ecological relations across geographical scales. Scale, we argue, can help us to make sense of these contradictions and open up novel directions for future research on China and the environment. More specifically, we contend that scale is both a critical framework for understanding environmental governance in China and globally, as well as a method for circumventing contradictions embedded in common narratives about China and the environment. These narratives include histories that posit either degradation or resilience, as well as contradictory narratives that suggest either Chinese particularism or conversely challenge Chinese exceptionalism. Our analyses highlight the contributions in this special issue, pinpointing how these articles attend to scalar dynamics and relations.

China and the environment: Predominant narratives and their contradictions

Scholarship on China and the environment tends to reflect one of three types of narratives. One type focuses on historical aspects of human–environment relations. These narratives often emphasize either the detrimental environmental effects of Chinese social and political systems or, conversely, the resilience of such systems. The second type analyzes relationships between the Chinese state and environmental governance, often emphasizing its authoritarian nature, which is seen as a marker of difference from Western political systems. The third type emphasizes material relations rather than political systems, and brings attention to commonalities and comparison between China and the rest of the world. While categorization inevitably risks oversimplification, and these modes are not necessarily mutually exclusive, these types reflect the predominant narrative threads in scholarship on China and the environment. Our analyses of these dominant narratives highlight some of the contradictions across these narratives.

Historical perspectives: Environmental degradation or enduring resilience?

A key tension in historical scholarship on China and the environment is an emphasis on environmental degradation or, conversely, resilience. Environmental degradation narratives tend to focus on China's historical and political transitions and their effects on environmental change. These include works on premodern China to the present. A common theme is how state interventions degrade the environment. As Lander (2021) argues, the birth of Chinese civilization corresponded with the replacement of a biodiverse landscape with a monocrop agricultural landscape. A sedentary agricultural system simplified taxation and undergirded the formation of China's early dynasties. The geographical expansion of the agricultural taxation system and rice agriculture, for instance, contributed to the loss of indigenous animal life, such as elephants, and corresponded with the geographical extent of dynastic territories (Elvin, 2004). Similarly, scholarship on the pre-reform period emphasizes warring with or conquering nature to advance state modernization policies (Shapiro, 2001). Economy (2011), likewise, characterizes the post-reform era as exhibiting a development-first ethos that sacrificed the environment for economic gain. These works exemplify environmental degradation narratives within the field of China and the environment.

Other historical accounts of human–environment relations in China, however, tell tales of enduring socio-ecological resilience. Aside from major ecological disruptions, this alternative line of discussion revolves around the strength of people's adaptability (Fang et al., 2024; Li et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2024). Accordingly, people were not passive victims of environmental change but rather drew on local cultural adaptations to respond (Shen et al., 2024). Fang et al. (2024) explore how imperial governments, local authorities, and communities adapted through innovations in irrigation, granary systems, disaster relief, and social policies aimed at mitigating famine risks. Shen et al. (2024) demonstrate how agricultural populations became impactful “ecosystem engineers” by culturally adapting to arid ecosystems through establishing complex agricultural systems based on traditional knowledge. Li et al. (2021), for instance, study the evolution of roof design in traditional northern Chinese architecture in response to extreme snow events over the past millennium. Their study portrays Chinese people's adaptation to environmental change as “intelligent long-term adaptive behavior” (Li et al., 2021: 5).

Another mode of resilience studies explores how significant ecological stress and climatic patterns correlate with societal and political changes. Some of these works examine how environmental change led to the weakening and fall of dynasties from Zhou (1046–256 BCE) to Tang (618 to 907 CE), and from Ming (1368 to 1644 CE) to Qing (1644 to 1912 CE) (Fan, 2023; Huang and Su, 2009; van Ess, 2022; Xiao et al., 2015). They offer longue durée analyses of interactions between society and nature and show how social and political practices have evolved throughout time. Whereas most of these works tend to leave the political untouched, they intersect with discourses around tianxia (“All under Heaven”) and tianming (the “Mandate of Heaven”), which speak to how the emperor's political legitimacy could be strengthened or lost depending on how major natural hazard events were dealt with (see Kim, 2024; Shapiro, 2001). Other works, in this vein, debate the role of water management for political legitimacy and state formation (Muscolino, 2014; Pietz and Giordano, 2009; Zhang, 2016).

Chinese particularism: State power, environmental governance, and authoritarian environmentalism

A second type of narrative in scholarship on China and the environment tends to focus on relationships between the environment and the state, often suggesting some form of Chinese particularism characterized by how the state approaches environmental problems. Emblematic of this work are debates around authoritarian environmentalism (AE), which consider whether autocratic governance structures may enable more decisive and consistent environmental action or hasten the green transition (Beeson, 2010; Eaton and Kostka, 2014; Gilley, 2012; for a recent critical review of AE see Eaton and Kostka (2024); Li and Shapiro, 2020; Li and Zinda, 2023; Lo, 2021; Shen and Jiang, 2020). Some argue that AE may be more efficient when it comes to rapid production of domestic policies through centralized control, despite challenges with policy implementation (Beeson, 2010; Gilley, 2012). This body of research also discusses central features of the Chinese political system, such as party-led decision making, top-down policy formulation, limited public participation, and decreasing policy experimentation (Eaton and Kostka, 2014; Gilley, 2012; Zhang and Zhao, 2026). Other angles emphasize social and procedural injustices as well as the limits of non-participatory approaches to environmental governance (Li and Shapiro, 2020; Lo, 2021).

In a related but distinct vein, scholars have examined relationships between ecology and power, particularly through science, technology, and planning interventions aimed at green urbanization. Rodenbiker (2023a), for instance, demonstrates how eco-developmental logics and techniques have become central to expressions and constitutions of state power. Rather than portraying a modernist state whose power derives from state simplifications of nature, as Scott (1998) posits, Rodenbiker argues that frontiers of local state formation are produced through attempts to mechanize nature and optimize socio-spatial relations. This occurs through practices like urban-rural coordinated planning and ecological protection zoning. Urban modeling is crucial in this regard as it portrays socio-spatial optimization as achievable through planning models and necessary for a sustainable future (Hoffman, 2011). In an attempt to create a society organized around circular ecologies and economies, the state has introduced systematic waste recycling programs to convert trash into resources (Zhang, 2024). The rapid metabolic rate of China's urbanization, however, brings rural-to-urban migrants into cities to organize around the scrap trade, where they turn garbage into tradable commodities (Liebman, 2023). These works focus on relationships between state power and nature, with attention to socio-ecological relations between different actors.

Studies of AE, however, tend to overlook the heterogeneity of actors within the state apparatus—a lacuna that research on authoritarian fragmentation aims to fill (Gong, 2025; Kostka, 2016; Lo, 2015; Tomba, 2014; Teets and Hurst, 2014). The discourse on state heterogeneity offers insights into the political space local governments have to act on behalf of local interests. Some of these works also pay greater attention to central–local relations, potential weaknesses of top-down governmental approaches, and the role local actors play in maneuvering between central state requirements and local needs (Ahlers et al., 2015; Eaton and Kostka, 2014; Gilley, 2012; Kostka, 2016; Kostka and Mol, 2013; Kostka and Nahm, 2017; Li, 2010). Recent works hint at the dual tendencies of (re)centralizing and decentralizing environmental institutions in China, calling for an updated understanding of AE and a more balanced account of China's green transformation (Xiang and Lo, 2025; Zhang and Zhao, 2026).

Challenging Chinese exceptionalism: Global capitalist expansion

A third narrative within scholarship on China and the environment emphasizes material relations, as well as commonalities across regional contexts. Rather than focusing on China's autocratic political system, interventions in this realm posit that China's relationship to the environment is not peculiar. Nor does it differ fundamentally from the experience of other industrializing countries. In this vein, Harrell (2023: 78–89) provides an ecosystemic periodization of modern Chinese history according to adaptive cycles wherein periods of extensive exploitation give way to conservation and an eventual reorganization of social-ecological relationships. This entails transitioning from a release of social-ecological forces to a phase of slow growth, high potential, and social reorganization, to a phase of steady growth and developmentalism, and eventually to a phase of conservation and eco-developmentalism, not unlike those of other industrializing countries. Deemphasizing Chinese exceptionalism, Zee (2022) illustrates how attempts to control the weather through sand fixation infrastructures produce techno-managerial assemblages that shape the spatial trajectories of sand particulates across continents. Here the emphasis is on material relations across geographical spaces. Material relations are also at the center of comparative works that explore how concrete social and economic relationships that arise around the production, distribution, and access to basic material goods (e.g. food, land, and resources) impact vulnerability to climate change (Teebken, 2022, 2024a, 2024b), as well as cultural politics of biodiversity loss (Zhu, 2022). By studying different political systems, and how political economy reproduces uneven vulnerability to climate change, it becomes clear that China is but one country among many striving for solutions to challenging socio-environmental problems.

Indeed, the role of China and the environment is increasingly important not only in social studies on the environment but because China's relationship with the environment increasingly bears on life everywhere else. One sense in which this is important is the environmental impact of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a massive international infrastructure investment platform with interventions in over 130 countries (Teo et al., 2019; Harlan, 2021; Rodenbiker, 2023c). Chinese investment and infrastructure construction clearly have an effect on environments beyond China's borders, as Chinese capital seeks spatial fixes abroad (Harvey, 2018). The injustices embedded in development and the externalizing of environmental (and social) costs as part of contemporary economic growth paradigms are problematized in broader socio-ecological perspectives (e.g. Brand and Wissen, 2013; Brand and Wissen, 2017; GKK, 2025; Görk et al., 2017; Keyßer et al., 2025; Schmelzer, 2016). Brand and Wissen (2017) discuss China as a “new center of capital accumulation” and situate the country within global capitalist dynamics. These authors coined the term “imperial way of living” to understand how everyday life is structured around modes of production and consumption that rely on the uneven exploitation and use of resources from elsewhere. This includes classical extractivism (e.g. fossil fuels, metals, minerals), as well as new forms of “green extractivism” within the context of green transitions (e.g. copper, lithium) (Brand and Wissen, 2013; Brand and Wissen, 2024; Riofrancos, 2025).

China is a particularly interesting case in this framing, given the legacy of imperial and colonial resource extraction by the European powers and Japan (the “old hegemons”), wherein the country was subjected to partial colonization. Conversely, scholars claim that China has become a new global center of capital accumulation that is relying on expansion and appropriation elsewhere (Brand and Wissen, 2017). Given the burgeoning middle class in emerging economies, such as China, there is growing competition around existing resources (Brand and Wissen, 2024). The growth of the Chinese middle class fuels the demand for consumer goods that often rely on resource extraction from poorer regions such as South America or Africa. Yet, China, like other countries, actively promotes the green transition, which reproduces new forms of exploitation and resource dependency.

At the same time, China is increasingly positioning itself as a leader on climate change cooperation and other international environmental issues (Harlan et al., 2025; Lewis, 2023; Qi and Dauvergne, 2022). This includes the establishment of the Chinese discourse on building a global ecological civilization (Rodenbiker, 2023a, 2023b). It also includes projects oriented toward nature-based solutions, with international cooperation projects spanning Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America (Zhu et al., 2024), as well as providing green development models for emulation by other Global South countries (Bai et al., 2021; Harlan, 2017). We contend that analyzing contradictions such as China's role in global environmental governance and global capitalism requires examining the politics of scale.

Scale as method for analyzing China and the environment: The papers in this special issue

Across the narrative modes identified above, there is rarely explicit engagement with and analysis of scale. We contend that scholarship on China and the environment can be deepened and extended by foregrounding questions of scale. More specifically, we argue that scale is both a critical heuristic for understanding China and the environment and a method for circumventing contradictions embedded in common narratives of China and the environment. These narratives include historical narratives that posit either degradation or resilience, as well as contradictory narratives that suggest either Chinese particularism or challenge exceptional characteristics, instead emphasizing cross-regional relationships embedded in capitalist development. In this special issue, we emphasize the need to integrate a politics of scale as a method for analyzing China's relationship with the environment. In this, we call for explicit attention to multi-scalar processes and relations across space and time, which can account for uneven power dynamics, historical context, and socio-ecological relations across geographical scales. This entails specificity to the operational scales of a process or relations across spatial and temporal dimensions. Delineating politics of scale can introduce greater specificity and analytical rigor to the analysis of China's relationships with the environment and further disrupt monolithic portrayals.

This special issue foregrounds scale in relation to China and the environment by centering how scale is conceptualized and used in environmental sociology, geography, and ecology. Environmental sociology focuses on the interactions between different actors and processes at micro, meso, and macro scales (Dietz et al., 2020). Geography and ecology tend to consider scale in terms of size, level, or relation across space and time (Castree, 2024; Sayre, 2005). Human geography and political ecology scholarship, furthermore, has illustrated how scale can be thought of as both an analytics and a methodology (Brad, 2016; Castree, 2024; Neumann, 2008). Rather than existing independently of human thought and action, scale is something inherent to the processes of observation and categorization (Sayre, 2005). Methodologically, scale entails attention to macro-, meso-, and micro-processes, as well as to relations that cross hierarchical positions, spaces, and temporalities. Analytical attention to spatial relations and social processes is crucial to scalar analyses in sociological and geographical inquiry (Sheppard and McMaster, 2008). Scale, therefore, is not merely a tool with analytical utility. Scale is also a method. It is inherent to methodological approaches that categorize socio-ecological relationships.

Environmental sociology perspectives on scale: Micro, meso, macro

Dietz et al. (2020) view scale across micro, meso, and macro levels from a social systems perspective. Micro-perspectives refer to individual interactions with the environment and tend to fall into two streams in sociological research: consumer behavior, such as the way consumers make choices that influence greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and ecosystems, and beliefs and attitudes, such as the way citizens view environmental issues. In sociology, the micro-scale centers human motivations to action, such as by looking at different values, belief systems, and norms about climate change and the environment, including altruism, self-interest, traditionalism, openness to change, and hedonism (Dietz et al., 2020). These in turn influence when and how people change their behavior, take actions to influence policy, or become active regarding mitigation efforts and adaptation to climate change. Danning Lu and Tianshu Ran's (2026) contribution to this special issue, for instance, focuses primarily on the micro scale. They analyze individual dispositions around sustainable consumption in China's urban middle class. Research on the micro scale has moved from focusing on self and identity to concentrating on social situations for environmental action (Brewster and Puddephatt, 2020). Lu and Ran's work thus also foregrounds the meso scale as it analyzes community social norms and urban systems. In this way, the micro scale sets foundations to bridge to the meso scale.

The meso scale in environmental sociology refers to interactions between groups, organizations, and institutions. It is generally used to analyze how various organizations and networks interact with the environment and exert influence on climate change responses (Dietz et al., 2020). The meso scale is considered an intermediary between the local and the global—the space where different organizations interact. This can include different interest groups at the national level that engage in policy networks. It is also used to refer to the interaction of national governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector as part of multilateral climate negotiations (Dietz et al., 2020; Di Gregorio et al., 2019). In this special issue, Mei Ai, Wenhan Feng, Christine Heinzel, Siying Chen, and Liang Emlyn Yang's (2026) contribution hones in on the meso scale, focusing on how community- and township-level governance is central to flood risk management in China.

Additionally, research in this domain has paid greater attention to supranational multi-level-governance processes, such as global–national linkages in climate change governance (Di Gregorio et al., 2019) and the interplay between Chinese domestic policies and international climate agreements, which is the subject of Passant Aboubakr and Hannes Gohli's (2026) contribution to this special issue. Given new actor constellations and hybrid organizational forms in the climate arena, this scale is becoming increasingly relevant. Examples include public–private partnerships—prevalent in the Chinese context of financing “sponge cities”—and new forms of cooperation between organized communities and the public sector, such as commons–public partnerships to reinforce important public services and promote social and environmental well-being. Yet, drawing from early land-use research (Swyngedouw, 1996), attention must also be paid to the extent to which new (elite) actor constellations result in homogenizing regional spaces, thereby undermining social cohesion.

The macro perspective refers to large-scale environmental processes and broader, systemic phenomena, such as actions that promote GHG emissions with effects that cross countries and regions (Dietz et al., 2020). These include interactions and feedbacks between different social systems. In this special issue, Aboubakr and Gohli (2026) bridge the meso- and macro-scales in their analysis of national and global scale relations in China's ratification of the Paris Agreement. In this, global scales are shown to impact policy intensity at the national scale.

Congruent with critical reflections on global capitalist expansions and China's role therein (see above), macro-scale sociological analyses provide insightful critiques of common economic thinking that tend to narrowly depict environmental costs as contained within bounded geographical areas (Sommer, 2017). For instance, macro-level perspectives highlight the disjuncture between critical political-economic perspectives on capitalism as a growth engine that harms the environment, on the one hand, and ecological modernization theories that posit capitalism can be reformed to reduce its environmental impact (Dietz et al., 2020). Delving into issues of China's emissions, Feng Hao (2026) in this special issue examines provincial-level metrics to shed light on regional patterns in emission quantities. This contributes to the ongoing debate in environmental sociology and disrupts portrayals of China as monolithic. Rather, attention to size, level, and relation are key in this analysis, which aligns with how scale is analyzed in geography and ecology. Although Hao (2026) shows how China has been successful in reducing its carbon footprint by reducing energy intensity and increasing the deployment of renewable energy technologies, the extractive nature of renewables, especially in mining, and their effects on local communities and international constellations requires critical consideration (see Deberdt et al., 2024; Zeng, 2024). Future research could concretize the extent to which China's low-carbon development, like that of other countries, coincides with resource appropriation and environmental degradation and how this can be accounted for in economic models. The global shift from fuels to minerals and “poly-crises” associated with phasing out coal underscore the need to rethink green growth models and ecological modernization paradigms embedded in classic economic theory.

Scale in geography and ecology: Size, level, and relation in space and time

Space has long been seen as the “fundamental stuff of geography” (Thrift, 2003: 95). Examining the relation between space and time within capitalism to understand environmental processes and dynamics has also become a key thread within geography (Castree, 2009; May and Thrift, 2001). Within the context of the spatial and temporal, scale in geography and ecology has generally been conceptualized in terms of size, level, and relation (Castree, 2024; Sayre, 2005). Size entails separation and categorization into standardized units (Rykiel, 1998). Size, for instance, can refer to a population size, as in the numbers of people living in a given place or that make up part of an urban or rural population. Scaling can also refer to a process of resizing, down-scaling from a forest to a tree or up-scaling, meaning to expand in size (Castree, 2024). Level can refer to hierarchical forms of organization across biophysical and social worlds and their functional relations (Allen and Starr, 2019). Level can indicate the various forms of government and governance actors that matter for a specific process or across geographical boundaries. Within this special issue, this includes actors that are formally part of the Chinese government, as well as corporations, civil society actors, and everyday citizens engaged in environmental processes. Relation can refer to the geographical linkages and interconnections that cross boundaries, levels of governance, populations, and biomes.

Each of these renderings of scale can be thought of and engaged with spatially and temporally. In human geography more specifically, common geographical scales include, in ascending spatial order, bodies, households, neighborhoods, cities, metropolitan areas, states or provinces, nation-states, international or bilateral relations, multilateral relations, continents, and the Earth (Sayre, 2005; Sheppard and McMaster, 2008). Human geographical works also invite us to consider an expanded sense of scale beyond the dimensions of space and time (Castree, 2024). In this special issue, KuoRay Mao and Yue Xu (2026) bring attention to the relational aspects of scale and spatiotemporal dimensions of China's grassland governance. They do so by analyzing how specific spatiotemporal relations and bureaucratic functions can inadvertently lead to institutional lock-ins. Furthermore, they investigate how conflicting policy objectives across levels of governance generate climate vulnerability and affect shifts in adaptive behaviors, resource allocation, and risk management among pastoral communities. In doing so, they bring attention to each of the different geographical and ecological scalar modalities. Likewise, analyzing cases of flood risks in China's southwest, Ai et al.'s (2025) contribution to this special issue reveals the importance of local environmental managers in the “before”, “during”, and “after” temporalities of floods.

Scale has likewise been discussed in the solutions space in regard to environmental governance and social power (Bulkeley, 2005; Norman et al., 2012; Swyngedouw, 1996; Swyngedouw and Cox, 1997). Swyngedouw and Cox (1997) theorize the politics of scale in relation to how power and policies are organized, contested, and reconfigured across different levels (local, regional, national, global). Aboubakar and Gohli (2025), in this special issue, analyze relational interplays between international and domestic environmental policies as an exchange between different levels of governance. Ai et al.'s (2026) study also offers insights into the dynamic nature of interactions between various actors, challenging prevailing binary constructions of state and society as opposing ends and offering much-needed insights on mixed forms of climate adaptation (both autonomous and planned adaptation). The papers included in this special issue examine how various scales come to matter in analyses of specific socio-ecological processes using sociological, geographical, and ecological scalar lenses. In doing so, they center scale in ways that provide novel directions for studying China and the environment.

Conclusion: Toward a politics of scale as method

The arguments presented here underscore the multifaceted nature of studies on China and the environment. Such studies, we contend, can be deepened and extended through greater attention to the politics of scale and (re)scaling. Scale serves as both a categorial tool and method for examining different dimensions of environmental problems and underlying social orders (Herod, 2025). In this context, sociological scales reflect upon what actors do across micro, meso, and macro levels. Analyzing them in ways congruent with geographical and ecological scales—including size, level, and relation in space and time—is instrumental to circumventing contradictions embedded in common narratives of China and the environment, including narratives that posit either degradation or resilience, as well those oriented around Chinese particularism or challenging Chinese exceptionalism. Further, a politics of scale as method can bring focus to and unpack the layers of climate risks and structural inequalities. In this, we call for explicit attention to the multi-scalar processes and relations across space and time in future research on China and the environment, which can account for uneven power dynamics, historical context, and socio-ecological relations across geographical scales.

Foregrounding the politics of scale can serve as a method for analyzing socio-ecological power dynamics embedded in relationships between China and the environment. Relations of power and inequality are not only shaped by scalar relations but also appear differently from different scalar vantage points. As such, there is ample room for engaging with the politics of scale in future research and practice. Engaging with the politics of scale, particularly through critical comparative approaches drawing on political economy and historical materialist perspectives, will further illuminate how scale is critical to understanding various dimensions of human–environment relations.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Jesse Rodenbiker

Julia Teebken

Contributorship

Jesse Rodenbiker led the drafting of the manuscript, defined its core framework, and revised the manuscript. Julia Teebken also drafted the manuscript, defined its core framework, and revised the manuscript. Both authors jointly reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Social Science Foundation (grant number: 22VRC140).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Aboubakr

Gohli

(2026) The Paris climate agreement and China’s environmental policies: A pseudo-panel data model approach to analyzing the predictors of environmental policy intensity in China. Chinese Journal of Sociology 12(1): 70–93.

Ahlers

Heberer

Schubert

(2015) “Authoritarian resilience” and effective policy implementation in contemporary China: A local state perspective. Duisburg Working Papers on East Asian Studies no. 99. Available at : https://www.uni-due.de/imperia/md/content/in-east/about/publications_green_series/paper99-2015.pdf.

Feng

Heinzel

, et al. (2026) Bridging planned and autonomous adaptation for flood resilience in multi-ethnic communities along China's Tea-Horse Road. Chinese Journal of Sociology 12(1): 94–121.

Allen

Starr

(2019) Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bai

Fang

Hughes

(2021) Ecological redlines provide a mechanism to maximize conservation gains in mainland Southeast Asia. One Earth 4(10): 1491–1504.

Bao

(2004) Environmental history in China. Environment and History 10(4): 475–499.

Beeson

(2010) The coming of environmental authoritarianism. Environmental Politics 19(2): 276–294.

Blaikie

Brookfield

(1987) Land Degradation and Society. London: Methuen & Co.

Brad

(2016) Politische ökologie und politics of scale-vermittlungszusammenhänge zwischen raum, natur und gesellschaft. Geographica Helvetica 71(4): 353–363(in Dutch).

10.

Brand

Wissen

(2013) Crisis and continuity of capitalist society–nature relationships: The imperial mode of living and the limits to environmental governance. Review of International Political Economy 20(4): 687–711.

11.

Brand

Wissen

(2017) Imperiale Lebensweise, Zur Ausbeutung von Mensch und Natur im globalen Kapitalismus. München: oekom Verlag.

12.

Brand

Wissen

(2024) Kapitalismus am Limit: Öko-imperiale Spannungen, Transformationskämpfe und sozialistische Perspektiven. Von den Autoren des Bestsellers »Imperiale Lebensweise«. München: oekom Verlag.

13.

Brewster

Puddephatt

(2020) Microsociological perspectives in environmental sociology. In: Legun

Keller

Carolan

, et al. (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.74–92.

14.

Bulkeley

(2005) Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography 24(8): 875–902.

15.

Castree

(2009) The spatio-temporality of capitalism. Time and Society 18(1): 26–61.

16.

Castree

(2024) Representing climate change: Dialogue about, and through, an expanded sense of scale. Dialogues on Climate Change 2(1). DOI: 10.1177/29768659241302211.

17.

Deberdt

DiCarlo

Park

(2024) Standardizing “green” extractivism: Chinese and Western environmental, social, and governance instruments in the critical mineral sector. The Extractive Industries and Society 19: 101516.

18.

Dietz

Shwom

Whitley

(2020) Climate change and society. Annual Review of Sociology 46(1): 135–158.

19.

Di Gregorio

Fatorelli

Paavola

, et al. (2019) Multi-level governance and power in climate change policy networks. Global Environmental Change 54: 64–77.

20.

Eaton S and Kostka G (2014) Authoritarian environmentalism undermined? Local leaders' time horizons and environmental policy implementation in China. The China Quarterly 218: 359–380.

21.

Eaton S and Kostka G (2024) Environmental authoritarianism. In: Wolf A (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Authoritarian Politics. Oxford University Press.

22.

Economy

(2011) The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

23.

Elvin

(2004) The Retreat of the Elephants: An Environmental History of China. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.

24.

Fan

(2015) Climate change and Chinese history: A review of trends, topics, and methods. WIRES Climate Change 6(2): 225–238.

25.

Fan

(2023) The little ice age and the fall of the Ming dynasty: A review. Climate 11(3): 71.

26.

Fang

Zheng

, et al. (2024) The Social Impacts of Climate Change in China over the Past 2000 Years. Singapore: Springer Nature.

27.

Folke

(2007) Social-ecological systems and adaptive governance of the commons. Ecological Research 22(1): 14–15.

28.

Friis

Hernández-Morcillo

Baumann

, et al. (2023) Enabling spaces for bridging scales: Scanning solutions for interdisciplinary human–environment research. Sustainability Science 18(3): 1251–1269.

29.

Gilley

(2012) Authoritarian environmentalism and China’s response to climate change. Environmental Politics 21(2): 287–307.

30.

Gong

(2025) Implementing a Low-Carbon Future. New York: Oxford University Press.

31.

Görk C, Plank C, Wiedenhofer T, et al. (2019) Scrutinizing the great acceleration: The anthropocene and its analytic challenges for social-ecological transformations. The Anthropocene Review 7(1): 42–61.

32.

Graduiertenkolleg Krise (GKK) (2025) Kämpfe um Transformation: Kritische Analysen und Interventionen zur sozial-ökologischen Krise (1st edn). Vol. 14. Neue Ökologie: Bielefeld: transcript.

33.

Hao

(2026) Toward a low-carbon economy: A study of the economy’s impact on China's CO₂ emissions, 1997–2021. Chinese Journal of Sociology 12(1): 20–44.

34.

Harlan

(2017) A green development model: Transnational model-making in China’s small hydropower training programmes. Area Development and Policy 2(3): 251–271.

35.

Harlan

(2021) Green development or greenwashing? A political ecology perspective on China’s green belt and road. Eurasian Geography and Economics 62(2): 202–226.

36.

Harlan T, Sun Y, Lu J, et al. (2025) China aspires to be an environmental leader: How should the rest of the world engage? Journal of Current Chinese Affairs. DOI:18681026251400351.

37.

Harrell

(2023) An Ecological History of Modern China. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

38.

Harvey

(2018) The Limits to Capital. London: Verso Books.

39.

Herod

(2025) Scale matters: The case of workers and their geographies. In: Castree

Barnes

Salmond

(eds) Making Geography Matter. London: Routledge, 211–226.

40.

Hoffman

(2011) Urban modeling and contemporary technologies of city-building in China: The production of regimes of green urbanisms. In: Robinson

Roy

(eds) Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.55–76.

41.

Huang

(2009) Climate change and Zhou relocations in early Chinese history. Journal of Historical Geography 35(2): 297–310.

42.

Inan

Albulut

(2022) Linking actors and scales by green grabbing in Bozbük and Kazıklı. Land Use Policy 120: 106297.

43.

Keyßer

Steinberger

Schmelzer

(2025) Economic growth dependencies and imperatives: A review of key theories and their conflicts. Ecological Economics 238: 108745.

44.

Kim

(2024) Disaster, heaven, and political responsibility: Mencius and Dong Zhongshu on humane government. The Review of Politics 86(1): 1–23.

45.

Klingler

Ameli

Rickman

, et al. (2024) Large-scale green grabbing for wind and solar photovoltaic development in Brazil. Nature Sustainability 7(6): 747–757.

46.

Kostka

(2016) Command without control: The case of China’s environmental target system. Regulation and Governance 10(1): 58–74.

47.

Kostka G and Mol APJ (2013) Implementation and participation in China's local environmental politics: Challenges and innovations. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 15(1): 3–16.

48.

Kostka

Nahm

(2017) Central–local relations: Recentralization and environmental governance in China. China Quarterly 231: 567–582.

49.

Lander

(2021) The King’s Harvest: A Political Ecology of China from the First Farmers to the First Empire. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.

50.

Legun

Keller

Carolan

Bell

(eds) (2020) The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Lewis

(2023) Cooperating for the Climate: Learning from International Partnerships in China’s Clean Energy Sector. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

52.

Li LC (2010) Central-local relations in the People's Republic of China: Trends, processes and impacts for policy implementation. Public Administration and Development 30(3): 177–190.

53.

Ding

, et al. (2021) Change of extreme snow events shaped the roof of traditional Chinese architecture in the past millennium. Science Advances 7(37): eabh2601.

54.

Shapiro

(2020) China Goes Green: Coercive Environmentalism for a Troubled Planet. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

55.

Li Y and Zinda JA (2023) Introduction: Authoritarian environmental governance in East Asia: Seven theses. Sociology of Development 9(2): 109–130.

56.

Liebman

(2023) High-metabolism infrastructure and the scrap industry in urban China. The China Quarterly 255: 560–574.

57.

(2015) How authoritarian is the environmental governance of China? Environmental Science and Policy 54: 152–159.

58.

(2021) Authoritarian environmentalism, just transition, and the tension between environmental protection and social justice in China’s forestry reform. Forest Policy and Economics 131: 102574.

59.

Lockie

(2015) What is environmental sociology? Environmental Sociology 1(3): 139–142.

60.

Ran

(2026) Navigating social and material challenges of sustainable consumption among the Chinese urban middle class: Environmentalism, simplicity, frugality. Chinese Journal of Sociology 12(1): 45–69.

61.

Mao

Yue

(2026) Climate adaptation and institutional continuity: Understanding lock-in dynamics in China’s grasslands governance. Chinese Journal of Sociology 12(1): 122–153.

62.

May

Thrift

(2001) Timespace: Geographies of Temporality. London: Routledge.

63.

Mertha

(2010) China’s Water Warriors: Citizen Action and Policy Change, 1st edn. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

64.

Muscolino MS (2014) The Ecology of War in China: Henan Province, the Yellow River, and Beyond, 1938-1950. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

65.

Neumann

(2008) Political ecology: Theorizing scale. Progress in Human Geography 32(3): 398–406.

66.

Newig

Moss

(2017) Scale in environmental governance: Moving from concepts and cases to consolidation. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 19(5): 473–479.

67.

Norman ES, Bakker K and Cook C (2012) Introduction to the themed section: Water governance and the politics of scale. Water Alternatives 5(1): 52–61.

68.

Pietz

Giordano

(2009) Managing the Yellow River: Continuity and change. In: Molle

Wester

(eds) River Basin Trajectories: Societies, Environments and Development. Wallingford: CABI, 99–122.

69.

Dauvergne

(2022) China’s rising influence on climate governance: Forging a path for the Global South. Global Environmental Change 73: 102484.

70.

Ribot J (2025) Access failure. In: Borras SM and Franco JC (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Land Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.261–282.

71.

Riofrancos

(2025) Extraction: The Frontiers of Green Capitalism. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

72.

Rodenbiker

(2023a) Ecological States: Politics of Science and Nature in Urbanizing China. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

73.

Rodenbiker

(2023b) Ecological civilization goes global: China’s green soft power and South–South environmental initiatives. In: Center

(ed.) Understanding China Amid Change and Cooperation. Washington, DC: The Wilson Center, pp.320–351.

74.

Rodenbiker

(2023c) Green silk roads, partner state development, and environmental governance: Belt and road infrastructure on the Sino–East African frontier. Critical Asian Studies 55(2): 169–192.

75.

Rykiel

(1998) Relationships of scale to policy and decision making. In: Peterson

Parker

(eds) Ecological Scale: Theory and Applications. New York: Columbia University Press, 485–498.

76.

Sayre

(2005) Ecological and geographical scale: Parallels and potential for integration. Progress in Human Geography 29(3): 276–290.

77.

Schmelzer

(2016) The Hegemony of Growth: The OECD and the Making of the Economic Growth Paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

78.

Scott

(1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.

79.

Shapiro

(2001) Mao’s War Against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

80.

Shen

Spengler

Zhou

, et al. (2024) Seeing the wood for the trees: Active human–environmental interactions in arid northwestern China. Earth System Science Data 16(5): 2483–2499.

81.

Shen

Jiang

(2020) Making authoritarian environmentalism accountable? Understanding China’s new reforms on environmental governance. The Journal of Environment and Development 30(1): 41–67.

82.

Sheppard

McMaster

(2008) Scale and Geographic Inquiry: Nature, Society, and Method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

83.

Sommer

(2017) Externalisation, globalised value chains, and the invisible consequences of social actions. Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung 42(4 [162]): 114–132.

84.

Swyngedouw

(1996) Reconstructing citizenship, the re-scaling of the state and the new authoritarianism: Closing the Belgian mines. Urban Studies 33(8): 1499–1521.

85.

Swyngedouw

(2004) Scaled geographies: Nature, place, and the politics of scale. In: Sheppard

McMaster

(eds) Scale and Geographic Inquiry: Nature, Society, and Method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp.129–153.

86.

Swyngedouw

(2010) Place, nature and the question of scale: Interrogating the production of nature. In: Materialien der Interdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppen – IAG Globaler Wandel – Regionale Entwicklung. Berlin: Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp.1–27.

87.

Swyngedouw

Cox

(1997) Neither global nor local: “glocalization” and the politics of scale. In: Cox

(ed) Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local. New York: Guilford Press, pp.137–166.

88.

Teebken

(2022) The Politics of Human Vulnerability to Climate Change: Exploring Adaptation Lock-ins in China and the United States. London: Routledge.

89.

Teebken

(2024a) Vulnerability locked in: On the need to engage the outside of the adaptation box. Global Environmental Change 85: 102807.

90.

Teebken

(2024b) Historical materialist policy analysis to study the state of climate adaptation policymaking in China. In: Zang

Zhang

(eds) Handbook on Climate Change and Environmental Governance in China. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.19–41.

91.

Teets

Hurst

(Eds) (2014) Local Governance Innovation in China: Experimentation, Diffusion, and Defiance. London: Routledge.

92.

Teo

Lechner

Walton

, et al. (2019) Environmental impacts of infrastructure development under the belt and road initiative. Environments 6(6): 72.

93.

Thrift

(2003) Space: The fundamental stuff of human geography. In: Holloway

Rice

Valentine

(eds) Key Concepts in Geography. London: Sage Publications, pp.95–107.

94.

Tomba

(2014) The Government Next Door: Neighborhood Politics in Urban China, 1st edn Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

95.

van Ess

(2022) What role did climate change play in the decline of the Tang dynasty? In: Gehler

Rollinger

Strobl

(eds) The End of Empires. Wiesbaden: Springer, 337–350.

96.

Wang

(2023) Environmental history in China—editor’s introduction. Chinese Studies in History 56(3): 195–199.

97.

Xiang

(2025) Authoritarian environmentalism 2.0: An incremental transition of environmental governance in China. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 43(4): 765–782.

98.

Xiao

Fang

Zheng

, et al. (2015) Famine, migration and war: Comparison of climate change impacts and social responses in North China between the late Ming and late Qing dynasties. The Holocene 25(6): 900–910.

99.

Zee

(2022) Continent in Dust: Experiments in a Chinese Weather System. Volume 10. Oakland: University of California Press.

100.

Zeng

(2024) Towards growth-driven environmentalism: The green energy transition and local state in China. Energy Research and Social Science 117: 103726.

101.

Zhang

(2024) Circular Ecologies: Environmentalism and Waste Politics in Urban China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

102.

Zhang

(2016) The River, the Plain, and the State: An Environmental Drama in Northern Song China, 1048–1128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

103.

Zhang

Zhao

(2026) Policy experimentation trapped in tiao-driven authoritarian environmentalism: A case study of national park policy in China. The China Quarterly 263: 685–702.

104.

Zhu

(2022) Rosewood: Endangered Species Conservation and the Rise of Global China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

105.

Zhu

Weins

, et al. (2024) China’s nature-based solutions in the Global South: Evidence from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Global Environmental Change 86: 102842.