4.6 Article

Managing multiple stressors for sustainable livelihoods in dryland ecosystems: Insights and entry points for resource management

期刊

LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ldr.4964

关键词

land degradation; multiple stressors; multi-scalar approaches; natural capital; SDGs; social-ecological system

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Communities in dryland ecosystems face multiple stressors that threaten their livelihood resilience. This study provides potential entry points to support livelihood resilience pathways, ultimately strengthening livelihood resilience in dryland ecosystems.
Communities in dryland ecosystems face multiple stressors that threaten their livelihood resilience. While community resilience in socio-ecological systems is largely determined by access to and sustainable management of natural resources, the underlying mechanisms are still poorly understood. This study, which uses grounded theory integrated with discourse analysis, aims to contribute addressing this knowledge gap. First, we explore global literature describing trends and patterns in the various stressors-including climate change, frequent drought, and famine, ecological, socio-economic, and institutional stressors-that impact the livelihood resilience of these communities, with the goal of summarizing how multiple stressors impact the sustainability of dryland social-ecological systems. Then, using the sustainable development goals (SDGs) as a reference target, we propose potential entry points to support livelihood resilience pathways. These include land, water, livestock and agroforestry, and institutional and social capital. Lastly, we suggest an integrated multi-scalar pathway embedded with cross-sectorial policies and differential cross-social strategies towards combining resilience with SDGs targets. This research can help stakeholders to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of various stressors, ultimately strengthening livelihood resilience in dryland ecosystems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据