Keywords

1 Introduction

1.1 Research Background

Global climate change has exacerbated many of the common problems of drylands, including water resource shortages, soil erosion, desertification, low ecological stability, and habitat fragility. Driven by changing climate and other environmental pressures, the social-ecological systems in drylands may undergo gradual or sudden linear and non-linear changes (Fu et al. 2021). The stability of dryland ecosystems can be maintained by applying the principles of sustainable development, and the key to achieving sustainable development lies in that dryland livelihoods are sustainable. Sustainable livelihoods require a combination of appropriate skills and capabilities, capital, and activities to maintain a sustainable way of life. Maintaining and strengthening the capital and capabilities of a community without destroying natural resources is considered sustainable (Serrat 2017). Because of the fragility of dryland social-ecological systems due to resource constraints, harsh climates, and low levels of economic development, pressures, such as extreme climate events and high impact developments, seriously affect their stability, and they rarely recover quickly. Dryland livelihoods are fragile as they are typically based on crop cultivation or animal husbandry, which are highly dependent on stable environmental conditions and reliable access to a range of resources (Middleton and Sternberg 2013; Moreno-Jimenez et al. 2019). Disturbances such as extreme weather events directly affect the reliable provision of water, food, energy, and ecological security for residents, severely restricting the sustainability of dryland livelihoods (Keesstra et al. 2018; Sibhatu and Qaim 2018). In contrast, low levels of education, limited economic and technological development, and rigid social and cultural traditions limit the development of new industries. These problems work against the development of sustainable livelihoods in drylands.

Livelihoods in drylands are uniquely shaped by climate change, prolonged droughts, variability in resource availability, remoteness, and the prevalence of human mobility and informal economic networks (Asfaw et al. 2019; Robinson et al. 2015). Distinct livelihood vulnerability patterns were identified in developing/transitional and industrialised regions based on the combination of the five indicators: poverty, water stress, soil degradation, natural agro-constraints, and isolation (Sietz et al. 2011). Vulnerable livelihood patterns occur mainly in developing/transitional regions of Africa, Afghanistan, the Middle East, India, and Latin America which contain 84% of all global drylands (Reynolds et al. 2007). In these regions, climate-related shocks such as drought and depletion of natural resources combined with socioeconomic hardships (Asfaw et al. 2019; Robinson et al. 2015) present significant challenges to achieving household- and community-level livelihood resilience (Shackleton and Shackleton 2012). Compared with developing and transitional regions, industrialised arid regions with more potential for livelihood diversification are less vulnerable. These include the Negev region of Israel, Central Spain, Australia, and the Southern Great Plains of the United States. The inhabitants of these regions have more opportunities to participate in non-agricultural economic activities, which helps conserve and reduce dependence on marginal natural resources. Increased urbanisation and associated business developments in these regions are opportunity (“pull”) factors enabling livelihood diversification. They offer better employment and business prospects, increased food security, the opportunity to acquire new technical skills and education, and improved physical security and health (Biglari et al. 2019; Mekuyie et al. 2018), greater infrastructure development (e.g., roads, electrification, schools, health institutions), and more growth in local markets (Li et al. 2019). However, rapid urbanisation, such as the development of tourism and gaming in Las Vegas, has presented severe challenges for water resource management (Mauget et al. 2020). Drought and consequent land degradation have also resulted in large economic losses including crop failure and livestock deaths in the Southern Great Plains (Mauget et al. 2020; Smith and Katz 2013). High-risk biophysical issues like these are relevant to the main livelihood activities of the indigenous inhabitants of Australia’s rangelands, most of which are in dryland regions (Feng et al. 2020; Foran et al. 2019).

Ecosystem management is recognised as a “wicked problem” without clear-cut solutions because of the inherent complexity of ecosystems and the impossibility of predicting all the consequences of interventions across different spatial, temporal, and administrative scales (DeFries and Nagendra 2017). Wickedness may be worse for the management of dryland ecosystems, which are characterised by vulnerability due to low volumes and high variability of precipitation, in combination with unfavourable temperature, wind, and soil conditions. The productivity of these ecosystems is generally low, whereas the human demand for resources in many regions is usually high. Because of this, land degradation is extensive in dryland regions. However, during the long history of the human presence in dryland regions, considerable experience and indigenous knowledge about the effective management of local ecosystems have been accumulated. These management practices should be studied to determine if they can be effectively applied to other regions. Ecosystems in global drylands are diverse in terms of their type, degradation levels, land use, and human presence, so management regimes and objectives differ as well. “Nature-based solutions” may seem promising, but they may not be well tested in dryland ecosystem management, or applicable to all of the diverse dryland regions that exist (Keesstra et al. 2018).

Under the impact of climate change, unsustainable development and exploitation, dryland regions and countries are generally lagging behind in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The global drylands are challenging but critical for comprehensively achieving the SDGs. The stagnation and decline of arid area development is inconsistent with the UN imperative to “leave no one behind” (United Nations 2015). Therefore, it is important to promote a standardised ecosystem management model and develop related theoretical research methods with the aim to improve the adaptability and resilience of dryland livelihoods. It will require the cooperation of all stakeholders, including academics, the public and policymakers, to eventually realise sustainable economic development and management in dryland regions.

1.2 Research Progress

Social and ecological systems are dynamic and mutually influencing one another, thus ecosystem management and the development of sustainable livelihoods are closely interconnected issues. Research on sustainable livelihoods from 1990 to 2020 primarily focused on management, conservation, sustainability, biodiversity, climate change, poverty, resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation. At present, nearly half of the existing research on livelihoods in drylands is related to sustainable livelihoods, including specific case studies on the characteristics of regional livelihood sustainability and how to reliably maintain them. This research generally focuses on rural areas, with families as the most common research subjects. Early research was often narrowly focused on one aspect of sustainable livelihoods and had trouble achieving its goals (van Ginkel et al. 2013). Recent research has generally adopted a more comprehensive perspective for studying dryland social-ecological systems.

Livelihoods are closely related to the living conditions and experiences of people. These investigations generally use structured questionnaire surveys, interviews, and participatory rural evaluation methods which engage research more actively. Most of the research data were collected through household questionnaires, interviews with key information providers, and other related methods. Specific research questions were then answered through data comparison and logistic regression analysis (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2015; Brottem and Brooks 2018; Yobe et al. 2019). The results show that household surveys are highly representative of the attitudes and experiences of the communities as a whole; therefore, decision-makers should consider issues at the scale of households when dealing with livelihood-related policies in drylands (Yobe et al. 2019).

Disturbances such as climate change, population growth, economic development, and new policies cannot be ignored by residents of drylands, who may adapt their livelihoods and respond in other ways that have a range of positive and negative impacts. For example, farmers and herders may engage in deforestation and overgrazing to increase their income. Although measures such as intensifying grazing, dominant pasture cultivation, and supplementary feeding can meet demands for increased production, they are often implemented in ignorance of the carrying capacity of local ecosystems, leading to large-scale and long-term ecological degradation (Brottem and Brooks 2018; Qi et al. 2017; Yobe et al. 2019). If these issues remain unaddressed, herders will lose the capital required to maintain their livelihoods and end up in poverty.

Changes in government policies can have dramatic effects on livelihoods. When local governments imposed strict regulations on floodplain resources in the Okavango Delta of Botswana, local farmers who originally relied on transitional farming methods to cope with flooding and rainfall patterns permanently switched to dryland agriculture. This policy intervention led to the loss of responsive local livelihood strategies and may have caused a decline in the long-term adaptability of residents (Shinn 2016). In contrast, management and technological innovation can also be used to promote and support the sustainability of livelihoods when resources are scarce. Laporiya Village in the semi-arid salt lake region of Rajasthan, India, innovatively used local people as participants and beneficiaries of interventions through community-based shallow groundwater management. These dryland water management measures were adapted to the local system, alleviating water shortages and other threats to livelihoods, and also increasing jobs, and provide a strong example for other dryland areas facing similar challenges (Everard and West 2021). Managers of semi-arid land in Kenya have implemented Sustainable Land Management (SLM) technologies including replanting forages, rain harvesting, soil conservation, and dryland agriculture and forestry compliance technologies to prevent land degradation. SLM technology has contributed to reversing land degradation trends in the local area, improving agricultural production and food security, and subsequently improving the livelihoods of communities in drylands (Mganga et al. 2015). Therefore, it is important to understand the abilities of residents to adapt to environmental changes. Researchers suggest that before regional managers introduce new livelihood interventions, they should accurately assess local capabilities and adopt targeted strategies to truly help families in the region obtain funding (King et al. 2018).

With dryland ecosystems under increasing pressures, currently stable livelihoods may also face various problems. Ecosystem management in drylands is particularly important for maintaining sustainable livelihoods. In recent years, research attention to ecosystem management in arid regions has increased, while the research emphasis varies according to geographical location, climatic conditions, and socioeconomic development status. The main livelihoods in drylands are agriculture and animal husbandry, so their ecosystem management focuses on agricultural irrigation and animal husbandry development. For example, there are a large number of studies on ecosystem management related to agricultural irrigation in Africa, and countries in the Americas have systematically studied agricultural ecosystem management. Some arid regions have also focused on ecological restoration and biodiversity protection. Their research purpose was to restore the natural environment and maintain the stability of regional ecosystems. Some areas consider biodiversity protection and agricultural production to be complementary, such as the Mediterranean region. Dryland ecosystem research in the Mediterranean has taken three directions in recent years, focusing on biodiversity issues, economic crop variety optimisation issues, and ecosystem management and optimisation issues. The unique problems that arise in each region lead to the development of distinct management systems. For example, researchers in Africa have studied critical research issues such as the invasion of local wetlands and grasslands by exotic plants and support ecosystem management by analysing the causes of the invasion and its subsequent direct and indirect effects.

Understanding and predicting changes are the basis of management, which is divided into two steps: literature-based research methods in the early stages and data-based modelling to predict changes in the research subjects in later stages. The research data used at this stage included remote sensing data, temperature and precipitation data, Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) imagery, satellite time sequence data, and gridded climatological data. For example, researchers have used spectroscopy and remote sensing technology to detect forage quality that needs to be understood to prescribe effective supplementation in livestock (Serrano et al. 2020). A three-dimensional finite evolution hydrodynamic model has also been used to assess changes in estuarine hydrodynamics (Huang et al. 2020a, b).

At present, application of the relatively rich practical experience in dryland ecosystem management is largely limited within regions. The main reason is that ecosystems in different regions have their own specific characteristics, and the results of ecosystem management vary. For example, continuous hydrological and hydrodynamic feature detection helps to understand the ecology of regional aquatic biota and provide new directions and solutions for dryland river management (Mallen-Cooper and Zampatti 2020). Landsat TM and ETM + surface water time series have been used to determine key factors to ensure landscape connectivity in surface water habitats and to detect out-of-control surface water dynamics to guide irrigation and biodiversity management (Bishop-Taylor et al. 2017). A chemical application framework has been developed for dryland planting field experiments to ensure that managers reduce damage to non-target populations (Umina et al. 2015). Therefore, it is necessary to formulate special management measures based on the distinctive attributes of different study areas and subjects.

1.3 Challenges to Livelihoods in Drylands

Livelihoods in drylands face severe challenges. Climate change has caused a continuous expansion of arid areas worldwide through the process of aridification. Aridification puts large areas of land at risk of serious degradation, which is likely to exacerbate poverty in drylands. Human activities, including urban expansion, water and air pollution, and biodiversity loss, also cause aridification, put pressure on water resources, and worsen the effects of drought. Drought restricts the development of agriculture, especially in relatively poor countries with few natural resources, and the livelihoods of residents cannot be guaranteed. Poverty and the social instability caused by it are key problems affecting the sustainable development of drylands.

Following the outbreak of COVID-19 at the end of 2019, many economically undeveloped arid countries in Africa face severe food security problems. Such as Ethiopia, simultaneously affected by civil war and a desert locust plague, has received widespread attention regarding its domestic food security issues. Although many arid countries urgently need to deal with a series of problems caused by climate change, including aridification, worsening droughts, land degradation, resource scarcity, poverty, and the food security issues mentioned above, most lack the capacity for systematic research. An incomplete understanding of the driving factors, structure, and functions of dryland ecosystems restricts the implementation of ecosystem management and development of livelihood capital. In addition, due to the complexity of ecosystems themselves and regional differences, the management level of arid areas is generally low, especially for the less developed arid countries in Africa. The dryland social-ecological system is fragile, and livelihoods within it are specialised and highly dependent on the natural environment and resources, making it extremely vulnerable to disturbance.

The main issues facing drylands today are: (1) the lack of an accurate understanding of dryland ecosystems in the context of social development and environmental changes; (2) the lack of capacity of most dryland areas to support the maintenance and improvement of livelihood stability and resilience; and (3) the inadequacy of ecosystem management to adapt to the challenges of supporting livelihoods. To address these problems, we propose the following research framework (Fig. 5.1).

Fig. 5.1
A framework of interrelated practices that contribute to S D Gs. They are ecosystem management like best management practices and nature-based solutions, and livelihood sustainability like livelihood change and driving forces, and governance and policies like capacity building.

Research framework of ecosystem management and sustainable livelihood in drylands

Full size image

Ecosystem management and livelihoods are part of a complex system that can be thought of as a “panarchy”, which is a dynamically organised and structured system arranged across multiple scales of space and time (Allen et al. 2014). They are also directly controlled or indirectly influenced by top-down actions of governments. Hence, it is essential to build the capacity for adaptability and resilience for residents to cope with this complexity and unpredictability, especially for people in less developed countries. In this process, ecosystem management focuses on maintaining sustainable livelihoods. With nature-based solutions as the basic principle, specific measures include case-based construction, and implementing best practice management and adaptive management strategies for disturbance. It is now well recognised that coordination, negotiation, and collaboration among multiple stakeholders are fundamental to effectively implement sustainable ecosystem management and livelihood schemes, and yet the difficulty may vary dramatically across global drylands. Thus, effective mechanisms must be explored to facilitate decision making involving multiple sectors and spanning administrative boundaries (DeFries and Nagendra 2017). As dryland countries lag behind in achieving the SDGs adopted by the United Nations (Sachs et al. 2020, 2021), emphasis should be placed on promoting local development in these places that make ecosystem and livelihood sustainability central to their purpose.

2 Building Adaptability and Livelihood Resilience

2.1 Ecological Capacity of Livelihood in Drylands

The sustainability of dryland livelihoods depends on a range of variables. It has been proposed that these biophysical and socio-economic variables may be divided into the categories “fast and slow”, with the key dynamics in dryland ecosystems determined by the “slow” variables. Fast variables such as advanced household disposables cannot reflect land degradation or indicate that intervention is needed, while slow variables such as household capital wealth turnover time tend to reflect the key dynamics much more accurately (Reynolds et al. 2007). Therefore, the development of sustainable livelihoods in drylands should be based on the consideration of the “slow” variables.

Dryland social-ecological systems are fragile, having difficulty to bounce back if resource use exceeds their ecological carrying capacity (Reynolds et al. 2007). Extreme weather occurs frequently in drylands due to climate change, causing water shortages, food shortages, and decreased income. The resulting fluctuations may mean that it takes a long time for a family to “rebound” and recover, and returning to their previous socioeconomic status may be impossible (Morecroft et al. 2019; Muricho et al. 2019). Accurate measurement of the carrying capacity for livelihood-related variables is important for maintaining sustainable livelihoods. Current research on dryland social-ecological systems generally relies on models, and the most advanced of these uses dynamic system simulation to determine the limits and behavior of a system (Yu et al. 2021). Due to the diversity of the social-ecological systems in drylands, improving livelihood capacity needs to be developed for specific regions. As farming and animal husbandry are the primary forms of livelihood in drylands, methods of improving livelihood capacity may include the development of drought-resistant crop varieties (Menkir et al. 2020), hydrological ecosystem service management (Porras et al. 2018), increasing access to climate risk information (Satishkumar et al. 2013), and infectious disease control (Wilcox et al. 2019). If cross-scale studies are to be carried out, two obstacles still need to be overcome: the lack of availability and high cost of data with high spatial resolution, and the lack of adequate resources for processing such data (Yu et al. 2021).

2.2 Impact of Climate Change on Dryland Livelihoods

Climate change is an important factor affecting residents in drylands. Important climate variables are changing significantly from their historic ranges and cycles. Studying the short-term and long-term impacts of climate change is essential for stabilising dryland livelihoods.

  • (1) Responses of livelihood-related indicators to climate change in the drylands

Social-ecological systems are formed by long-term interactions between nature and human societies. Changes in external environmental conditions have impacts on the stability and functioning of the system. Global warming and extreme weather events are important climate-related factors affecting ecosystem stability, especially in dryland regions. They have exacerbated the perennial environmental problems of dryland ecosystems, including water scarcity, soil erosion, desertification, and environmental fragility. For example, they have exaggerated the gap between regional water supply and demand in dryland agricultural areas that require intensive artificial irrigation. Dealing with climate change and maintaining sustainable livelihoods have become a severe challenge for residents in drylands.

Global warming is climate change on a relatively long time scale, while the effects of extreme weather are brief but dramatic. To effectively manage the effects of both, it is important to construct a livelihood indicator system specific to drylands, study their response to climate change based on long-term and short-term monitoring data, and interpret the results with the distinction between sensitive and insensitive indicators of climate change in mind. Then, the livelihood-related indicators of stable or easily affected individuals can be highlighted. Specific and locally-important indicators could then be managed in a more targeted and effective way.

  • (2) Livelihood resilience to climate change in drylands

Because of the fragility of the social-ecological systems in drylands, climate change and human activities have direct and immediate effects on livelihood stability. Understanding the level and quality of household assets provides a clear picture of the household’s resource base. Livelihood resilience is measured by assessing financial, physical, natural, social, and human assets. Industrialised arid regions generally have a higher level of resilience than rural area. Dryland inhabitants in developing/transitional regions are highly dependent on climate-sensitive natural resources and ecosystem services, having limited adaptive capacity in terms of the assets that they can mobilise in response compared with those in industrialised regions.

Integrating SDGs with adaptation strategies is an integral part of moving toward a resilient world. Locally, this requires the identification of locally-contextualised entry points to enhance viable livelihood pathways in the drylands. For example, achieving the sustainable use of natural resources is the principal entry point to improve livelihood resilience for inhabitants in less-developed drylands. Knowledge-based entry point interventions, such as water governance targeted at providing solutions and some innovative technologies, are the best options for building resilient livelihood pathways in these areas (Porras et al. 2020; Sietz et al. 2011).

Although livelihoods depend on the ownership or availability of resources, they are ultimately determined by factors such as cultural preferences, education, inheritance, and gender. Industrialised regions with higher levels of human knowledge are considered to have greater adaptive capacity than emerging nations and those in transition (Cohen et al. 2016). Increasing the overall literacy level is a reasonable entry point to reduce livelihood vulnerability in developing/transitional regions by increasing inhabitants’ capabilities and access to information. This in turn increases their ability to cope with adversity. The integration of local and traditional livelihood choices with interventions of scientific knowledge is a promising entry point for advancing sustainable dryland livelihoods.

2.3 Strategies to Enhance Livelihood Capital

Livelihood capital includes the five aforementioned components: financial, physical, natural, social, and human capital. The core goal of sustainable livelihood strategies is to improve the livelihood capital of drylands. At present, it is urgent to assess, contextualise, and meet the challenges of developing livelihood capital in the drylands. More efforts are needed to assess livelihood vulnerability, analyse influencing factors, and identify the challenges and opportunities for dryland livelihoods caused by climate change and human activities (Muricho et al. 2019). Nevertheless, the vulnerability and resilience of livelihoods may change over time, requiring effective and dynamic policies to support dryland ecosystem self-regulating properties and tackle the degradation of dryland ecosystems.

In recent years, with the deepening of livelihood research, information, cultural (traditional), and institutional capitals have also been regarded as organic components of livelihood capital, attracting extensive attention from scholars in various countries (Odero 2006; Reed et al. 2013). Scholars have conducted research on many aspects of livelihood changes in agricultural households in arid areas, including the spatial differentiation of livelihood (Coetzer et al. 2013; Martin et al. 2016; Wu et al. 2020), livelihood and policy processes (Harihar et al. 2015; Lan et al. 2021; Nepstad et al. 2013), organizational structure change (Wendiro et al. 2019), and livelihood strategies (Adhikari et al. 2021; Ellis and Freeman 2004; Kiptala et al. 2018).

Livelihood strategy refers to the way in which farmers use and combine livelihood assets to pursue goals relating to production activities, investment strategies, and reproductive arrangements. Scoones identified that farmers dynamically used expansionary, intensive, and diversified livelihood strategies (Scoones 1998). When environmental conditions, available livelihood capital, or government policies change dramatically, farmers usually change their livelihood strategies actively or passively to adapt to the new human-land relationship and gain more income, increase their welfare, reduce their vulnerability, and use natural resources more sustainably (Huang et al. 2020a, b).

During the long periods of time that it takes for residents to adapt to dryland ecosystems, they gradually explore strategies for making a living by using the available natural resources. During periods of disturbance, residents of areas with limited natural resources adopt new livelihood strategies, which may include out-migration for work, industrial restructuring, and tourism developing. This strategic adaptability is an important way to achieve sustainable livelihoods in drylands. In addition, the integration of local and traditional livelihood choices with interventions of scientific knowledge could be a good entry point for developing sustainable dryland livelihoods (Bautista et al. 2017; Mauget et al. 2020; Stringer et al. 2017). Livelihood diversification strategies should be adjusted according to the opportunities and resources available depending on the socioeconomic position of each household. All these strategies constitute a resident-centered and rights-based approach that is important in supporting and enhancing the adaptive capabilities of livelihoods in drylands.

3 Ecosystem Management and Sustainable Livelihoods

3.1 Evaluation and Priorities for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

Dryland socio-ecological systems are highly complex and vary around the world. Only by truly understanding and evaluating the problems in each region can we formulate targeted ecosystem management strategies to alleviate the challenges they face. Understanding and evaluating the current developmental status of drylands is the first step in ecosystem management. Drylands are different from other regions in the world in that water resource limitations and habitat fragility are critical limiting factors (Dougill et al. 2010; Reynolds et al. 2007). At present, there is no sustainable development evaluation system designed for the special characteristics of drylands. The resulting inability to accurately identify the unique problems and constraints of drylands seriously impedes progress towards sustainable development goals. The lack of a specific dryland evaluation system may be due to a lack of research interest. There are more than 120,000 papers with the theme of “Sustainable development” listed on the Web of Science, while less than 400 can be found with the themes of “Dryland AND Sustainable development”.

The UN SDGs provide a template for an evaluation system based on a set of indicators (United Nations 2015). Scholars have conducted a series of studies on indicator selection, standard determination, and correlation analyses between indicators, but research specific to the sustainable development of arid areas is limited. Most research proposes solutions to specific problems. For example, the method of Farmer-Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) applied to the restoration and reforestation of cultivated land in drylands to ensure the sustainable production of crops (Weston et al. 2015), and the practice of sustainable pasture management used to solve feed shortages and pasture degradation by investments and economic incentives to improve pasture management and the livelihoods of herders (Louhaichi et al. 2016). Sustainable development strategies can only succeed if all significant factors are considered in the development process (Qi et al. 2017). It is impossible to comprehensively understand the problems faced in the sustainable development of drylands through case studies in individual academic disciplines, making it difficult to formulate appropriate policies. The lack of a systematic sustainable development evaluation system with a good record of successful implementation supported by case studies is the greatest challenge facing sustainable development research and practice in drylands at present.

With less than 10 years remaining before the planned achievement of sustainable development in 2030, a timeline that will be challenging to achieve for most countries, the efficiency of plans to reach the SDGs must be maximised. To this end, the relationships between sustainable development goals and indicators have become a popular research topic in recent times. Stafford-Smith et al. (2017) proposed the concept of integration through cultivating cross-sectoral links between fields, such as finance, agriculture, energy, and transportation, as well as links between developed and developing countries, in the hopes of promoting sustainable development. Subsequently, Fu et al. (2019) reviewed the complexity and relevance of 17 sustainable development goals. They divided the 17 UN SDGs into three categories, essential needs, governance, and objectives and analysed the interaction between goals (Fig. 5.2). For most regions in the drylands, essential needs are an urgent requirement for residents. Evaluating the development status of drylands provides the basis for proposing priority development goals and optimising future development strategies, which is essential for promoting global sustainable development.

Fig. 5.2
A chart combines how governing decisions and diverse scientific approaches work together. It focuses on basic needs like food, water, and energy, aiming for goals such as reducing poverty and promoting equality. It suggests making adjustments in infrastructure and city development.

SDG categories: essential needs, governance, and objectives, reprinted from ref. Fu et al. 2019, licenses are CC BY 4.0

Full size image

3.2 Principle of Ecosystem Management

Ecosystems contains many elements that interact and influence each other in complex ways. Owing to differences in spatial, temporal, and administrative scales, the results of interventions are difficult to foresee. It is not surprising that there is still no established, effective management system to deal with complex ecosystem problems. The combination of low productivity and higher dependence on primary production for livelihoods increases the potential for degradation and presents significant additional challenges for ecosystem management in drylands. Although current research on the interaction between livelihoods and ecosystem management is not extensive, it does show that nature-based solutions should be preferred for sustainable livelihood development in drylands. Nature-based solutions are defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits” (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2019). These actions can effectively and flexibly respond to various social challenges while contributing to human well-being and biodiversity. The concept of nature-based solutions can provide a foundation when formulating sustainable management strategies for arid ecosystems, guiding strategy makers, strengthening the link between regional environmental restoration and socio-economic development goals, and ultimately achieving the goal of sustainable development of livelihoods in drylands (Fu et al. 2021).

Climate warming and water shortages are problems common to all arid regions but there are existing nature-based solutions specifically designed to alleviate them. These solutions ask for reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, limiting deforestation, restoring wetland systems, and improving land use. Water shortages are an important limiting factor in drylands, and effective water resource management is critical for realising the social and economic development of drylands. Inner Mongolia, a typical drylands area in northern China, implements strict water regulations based on sustainable development principles. Studies have found that water regulations in Inner Mongolia have promoted industrial transformation, reduced environmentally harmful industries like coal and steel production, and increased the presence of tertiary industries such as tourism. Economic development in Inner Mongolia is no longer strongly dependent on water resources and environmental protection has been achieved at the same time (Liu et al. 2022). This is a prominent example of the remarkable success of nature-based solutions.

Nature-based solutions can act as a framework to reverse the degradation of natural resources by increasing the alignment between conservation and development objectives. They can be implemented alone or integrated with other solutions to societal challenges, depending on the natural and cultural context of a site, and drawing on traditional, local, and scientific knowledge. Interdisciplinary research is the best way to determine the effects of human use on ecosystems and any subsequent changes in ecosystem structure or functions in human social groups. Case studies on nature-based solutions have rapidly accumulated, but few have examined their effectiveness in dryland ecosystem management. In addition, nature-based solutions may lead to the production of ecosystem disservices (having harmful effects on people) (Schaubroeck 2017). Some essential concepts are missing or weakened in nature-based solutions, such as adaptive management/governance, effectiveness, uncertainty, multi-stakeholder participation, and consideration of time scales (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2019). Their relationship with other approaches, such as the ecosystem approach, also requires clarification.

3.3 Case Studies and Pathway Exploration

Under different cultural, historical, and social backgrounds, the types of livelihoods and strategies employed in drylands are different, but the variation is based on adaptation to local environmental and social conditions. Local conditions and factors have the potential to threaten the sustainability of dryland livelihoods. The main biophysical constraints include ecosystem degradation, water scarcity and aridification. Social and economic limitations, such as poor access to markets and inputs, weak governance, and lack of information about alternative production technologies also limit the options available to residents in drylands. Sustainable ecological management strategies for individual regions do exist, but there is still no effective system suitable for universal implementation in arid regions around the world. Facing the diversity, variability, and unpredictability of livelihoods in drylands, it is very challenging to present a consistent analysis of different case studies and establish a common theoretical understanding of dryland livelihoods.

Because of the different socioeconomic development characteristics of drylands worldwide, there are significant differences in the development pathways available for restoring and promoting sustainable livelihoods. Agriculture is one of the main livelihoods of dryland residents, in addition to management methods to guide sustainable development of dryland ecosystems, some advanced technologies are also important for the sustainability of livelihoods (Zhao et al. 2014). Regenerative agriculture is used in the Mediterranean. It improves soil quality without affecting the stability of indigenous agricultural ecosystems and thus enhances local capacities to adapt to climate change (Luján Soto et al. 2021). In Africa, in situ rainwater harvesting has helped to increase soil nutrients and crop production (Vohland and Barry 2009). A range of ecological restoration projects have been carried out in Africa, such as the Climate Resilient Agriculture (CRA) projects (Amadu et al. 2021) and Africa’s Great Green Wall program (Sacande and Berrahmouni 2016), having had a positive impact on agricultural production and biodiversity conservation. To contain desertification, China has adopted a combination of technologies and management measures. Grass barrier and Ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungal inoculation techniques are used to promote plant colonisation in China’s drylands (Taniguchi et al. 2021), and scientific planting technologies have been developed to take advantage of seasonal cycles through management measures to maintain reasonable ecological water use and groundwater levels (Zeng et al. 2020).

The construction of a cross-scale and multilevel arid region case database would be a great advantage to dryland research and management. A case database based on different function zones (agricultural and pastoral zone, industrial zone, financial zone), aridity levels, income levels, and other characteristics would be useful to analyse particular issues and establish common ground between regions. In this way, researchers will be able to identify broadly applicable rules and lessons that can be used as a reference for sustainable development pathways.

4 Summary and Perspectives

Under the influence of global climate change and human activities, drylands are facing severe livelihood sustainability challenges. Global drylands are found in many different countries and regions, and their social-ecological systems are diverse. The key to maintain sustainable livelihoods in drylands is to maintain and strengthen the adaptability and resilience of livelihoods. Ecosystem management based on long-term monitoring and evaluation is necessary for maintaining sustainable livelihoods. The principle of ecosystem management is nature-based solutions, considering the constantly changing external environment and the peculiarities of different arid areas. To construct a cross-scale and multi-level case database and identify best practices will help summarise the general laws that can be referenced for development pathways. Enhancing regional cooperation to achieve holistic development may be beneficial for achieving sustainable development goals.

Maintaining sustainable livelihoods in drylands is an ambitious goal that requires in-depth cooperation among stakeholders. This chapter puts forward the research status and priority research direction of ecosystem management and sustainable livelihood in drylands. In the future, more scholars and managers are expected to implement these research and management strategies to protect the ecological environment and sustainable livelihood in drylands.