When land, water and green‐grabbing cumulate: Hydropower expansion, livelihood resource reallocation and legitimisation in southwest China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hundreds of hydropower dam projects, of all sizes, have been initiated in Yunnan Province, China, since the late 1990s. This paper frames hydropower‐driven resource reallocations as resource grabs that combine aspects of land, water and green‐grabbing, investigating how two dams built along the Red River have impacted local communities and how corporate and governmental stakeholders have viewed local livelihood changes and considered compensation mechanisms. This research documents how hydropower expansion triggers changes in both land and water availability, in turn depriving riverside communities of a wide range of intersecting livelihood benefits. Villagers were compensated for some losses, but in ways that failed to address how impacts accumulated over time and how hydrologic changes would impact overall livelihood activities. Financial compensation and specific environmental and modernisation agendas legitimised resource reallocations together with the provincial, national and global development campaigns driving them. Considering how different actors experience, frame and address the impacts of hydropower development through a resource‐grabbing lens elucidates the compartmentalised approaches of distant hydropower actors as well as scholars. This study answers recent calls to mobilise the scholarship on resource‐grabbing in the service of shedding light on the socio‐political projects driving resource reallocations and their livelihood impacts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it