Abstract
Drylands are the largest biome complex on Planet Earth and home to over 40% of the human population. Their extraordinary high biotic and cultural richness is endangered by global climate change, land use pressures including coastal/marine systems, and environmental degradation. Understanding and maintaining the functional integrity of dryland socio-ecological systems (DSES) is fundamental for sustainable development. It requires resilience-based dryland stewardship, where land users, managers and decision-makers incorporate change, as understood from the multiple actors’ perspective of a SES, into their planning and governance. The linkage of America’s drylands with west Africa and Southern Europe is often overseen, however increasing economic activities in these DSES have enormous impacts on their functional integrity. In response to this daunting task, academic and government institutions founded the Agadir Platform as a coordinating instrument for cooperation in the Global South. As focal node of this platform, Mexico established the first international network to co-generate knowledge through transdisciplinary research partnerships. We present the conceptual framework of this network highlighting 1) the socio-ecological system’s approach, 2) the transdisciplinary scope of participatory research, 3) the intercultural action scheme, and 4) the repercussions of this integrated approach on polycentric governance. This book includes diverse examples of the application of this framework in DSES ranging from co-designing socio-ecological development projects, to adaptive management, and policy development.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- RISZA
- Transdisciplinary networks
- Co-designed projects
- Arid lands
- Participative research
- South-South and triangular cooperation
Drylands are the largest biome complex on Planet Earth and home to over 40% of the human population. Their extraordinary high biotic and cultural richness is endangered by global climate change, land use pressures including coastal/marine systems, and environmental degradation. Understanding and maintaining the functional integrity of dryland socio-ecological systems (DSES) is fundamental for sustainable development. It requires resilience-based dryland stewardship, where land users, managers and decision-makers incorporate change, as understood from the multiple actors’ perspective of a SES, into their planning and governance. The linkage of America’s drylands with west Africa and Southern Europe is often overseen, however increasing economic activities in these DSES have enormous impacts on their functional integrity. In response to this daunting task, academic and government institutions founded the Agadir Platform as a coordinating instrument for cooperation in the Global South. As focal node of this platform, Mexico established the first international network to co-generate knowledge through transdisciplinary research partnerships. We present the conceptual framework of this network highlighting 1) the socio-ecological system’s approach, 2) the transdisciplinary scope of participatory research, 3) the intercultural action scheme, and 4) the repercussions of this integrated approach on polycentric governance. This book includes diverse examples of the application of this framework in DSES ranging from co-designing socio-ecological development projects, to adaptive management, and policy development.
Aridity is often characterized by an aridity index (AI) (Thomas and Middleton 1992), calculated as annual precipitation divided by annual potential evapotranspiration, and ranges from a minimum of 0.05 to a maximum of 0.65 (Hulme 1996; Safriel et al. 2005). Based on the AI drylands can be classified as hyperarid, arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid (UNCCD 1994). In comparison to other biomes, life in the drylands has evolved under highly variable precipitation, extreme water scarcity, pronounced fluctuations in diurnal temperatures, and extended exposure to high levels of solar radiation (Noy-Meir 1973). These factors continuously exert strong selection pressures on specialized life forms (Whitford 2002). However, there is an exceptionally high species diversity across all categories of biota that contributes to varied ecosystems that span from coastal drylands to intracontinental basins and highland plateaus.
Dryland ecosystems offer a wealth of ecosystem goods and services for human well-being (Safriel et al. 2005; Stafford Smith et al. 2009). Large populations of agriculturalists, pastoralists, and coastal fishermen have enormous cultural wealth and ecological knowledge. Over millennia, humans have adapted to the scarcity and abundance cycles of natural resources, shaping their livelihoods accordingly (Stafford Smith and Cribb 2009; Davis 2016a). The long history of fine-tuning socio-economic and political life among drylands peoples reflects some of the oldest legacies of socio-ecological system (SES) development, and today are characterized by both their ecological significance in sustaining the supply of ecosystem services and their capacity to support millions of people (Safriel et al. 2005; Cherlet et al. 2018). Variability is an inherent structural property of drylands (Stafford Smith et al. 2009) to which local communities have adapted and evolved under, thereby lowering their vulnerability to unpredictable environmental changes (Krätli 2015; Davis 2016b). These adaptive social–ecological interdependencies of human activities and ecosystem services require collective knowledge-based actions supporting dryland stewardship (Chapin III et al. 2009a, b, c).
However, over recent decades, drylands have suffered substantial losses of productivity and biodiversity, increasing the severity and frequency of droughts, food insecurity, poverty, violence, emigration, and social disintegration (Reed and Stringer 2016; Cherlet et al. 2018; Middleton 2018). In addition, some areas have been converted to irrigated lands to expand high-input agriculture and to pastures for intensive livestock production (Jia et al. 2004; Squires 2010) triggering irreversible systemic changes. The processes underlying all these changes are often termed desertification (UNCCD 1994; Reynolds et al. 2007) undermining the sustainable regional development and threatening the global dryland SES (UNCCD 1994; Cherlet et al. 2018), which are mainly situated in the Global South. According to the sustainable development goals, the objectives include thriving lives and livelihoods, sustainable food security, sustainable water security, universal clean energy, healthy and productive ecosystems, and governance for sustainable societies (Griggs et al. 2013).
The scope of this chapter is to elucidate the challenges of understanding current human and environmental conditions in the drylands and identify emerging research needs that can help forge pathways towards improved stewardship and sustainable development in future drylands in a world that will also be buffeted by climate change. Many issues related to transforming and governing drylands have been developed theoretically at the global scale [e.g., sustainable development goals and land degradation neutrality (Orr et al. 2017; Cowie et al. 2018)]. Some plans have been implemented at a national scale (INEGI 2019; UNCCD 2019), but scaling down sustainable development to dryland local communities is still lacking. Furthermore, suitable SES research methods that fully respond to such theoretical developments are required and need to be better defined and promoted.
Therefore, we present the International Network for Dryland Sustainability (“Red Internacional para la Sostenibilidad de Zonas Áridas, RISZA”) that tackles the current dryland challenges at the local and regional scale, and supports several activities and goals. These include: (1) Creation of multisectoral partnerships associated with local SESs; (2) facilitation of intercultural exchange and dialogue; (3) weaving of different knowledge systems (Johnson et al. 2016; Tengö et al. 2017); (4) encouragement of transdisciplinary and participatory research (Schuttenberg and Guth 2015; Hickey 2018, Hickey et al. 2018; Willyard et al. 2018) for the co-production of relevant knowledge for action research (Clark et al. 2016; Durose et al. 2018); (5) generation of place-based learning communities (Davidson-Hunt and O’Flaherty 2007); (6) stimulation of the co-design of novel management, assessment, and governance schemes (Whitfield and Reed 2012; Schoon et al. 2015; Bautista et al. 2017; Bodin 2017; de Vente et al. 2017, (7) providing information for sustainable policy and socio-economic development standards in accordance with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Agenda 2030). This network is the first national/international node of a recently founded international platform (see Chap. 13) to coordinate novel research, management, and assessment models in the drylands of Latin America, North Africa, and Europe in response to global environmental change in the Anthropocene.
The RISZA initiative also contributes to the wide range of activities related to the so-called Global South to foster the global scientific and research-development agenda on drylands. As a matter of context, the concept “Global South” refers broadly to the regions of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. It is a term that has emerged as an alternative to the misconceived and former colonial ideas of “The Third World” and “Periphery” adopted in Europe and North America pointing to low-income and often politically or culturally marginalized countries of the planet (Dados and Conell 2012). The use of the “Global South” idea marks a shift from a central focus on underdevelopment or cultural differences in world countries, towards an emphasis on geopolitical relations of power among more equal nations. This is possible through the economic, political, cultural, and environmental changes that many developing nations in different continents have undergone over the past three decades. The Global South is rather an international political and economic concept that focuses on how world cultures, particularly those from Latin America Africa and Asia, respond to globalization and global processes linked to the environment, poverty, immigration, gender, etc., together with transformation, colonialism and post-colonialism, and modernity.
In the specific case of this book, we address the vision of drylands stewardship through the lens of a group of countries in Latin America (mostly Mexico) and Africa, through the nexus with the Agadir Platform, a transdisciplinary initiative, where countries from the two regions and Southern Europe collaborate on a common scientific agenda on sustainable development in drylands in the light of climate change.
Drylands Vulnerability in the Twenty-First Century
Over millennia the drylands have undergone innumerable transformations in climate, biotic interactions, and human conditions. Pressing current challenges in global drylands include a broad spectrum of issues as shown in Table 1.1.
Hence, these challenges explain why drylands currently cover over 35% of the global biodiversity hotspot area (Davies et al. 2012) and 28% of the total area of World Heritage Sites (Gudka et al. 2014). Past climate warming has been most pronounced in drylands, with an average increase of 1.7 °C between the years 1948 and 2008 (Huang et al. 2012); this warming trend is about 2.1 and 1.5 times greater than any increase observed in humid regions and globally, respectively (Huang et al. 2015, 2017a, b). Over a sixty-year period (1948–2008), drylands have expanded to their current extension (Feng and Fu 2013). Drylands are one of the most vulnerable biomes to climate warming, likely unable to tolerate the 2 °C warming threshold of the 2015 Paris agreement (Huang et al. 2017a). When considering high CO2 emission scenarios (RCP 8.5), global drylands are predicted to expand at an even faster rate in that they will cover up to 56% of the terrestrial surface by 2071–2100 (Huang et al. 2015, 2017b). When considering only the CO2 fertilization effect, drylands are predicted to increase their productivity. It has been shown that within 28 years (1982–2010) leaf cover has increased by 11% likely attributable to a 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (Donohue et al. 2013). Finally, recent simulation models suggest that temperate drylands will shrink by a third and convert to subtropical drylands, and that drought may reduce water availability primarily at deep soil layers during the growing season with obvious implications on vegetation shifts, declines in ecosystem services supply and livelihood options (Schlaepfer et al. 2017).
Such accelerated changes in dryland use can introduce new dynamics in SES and in the transitions between stable and unstable SES states (Huber-Sannwald et al. 2012; Bestelmeyer et al. 2015). A state is characterized by certain vegetation and soil types and ecosystem processes (Bestelmeyer et al. 2015), which supplies a set of ecosystem goods and services in accordance to human demand (Yahdjian et al. 2015). Inherent and new sources of disturbances may cause changes of SES states; these changes can be abrupt, gradual, reversible, or persistent. Hence, unpredictable trends of change will be accompanied by new challenges related to understanding the combined and interacting effects of historic land use change, climate variability, alterations in the functioning of dryland SES, and their resilience and ability to deliver future ecosystem services (Folke et al. 2009, 2010). While extended droughts and increased variability in precipitation directly exacerbate socio-environmental degradation in drylands (Puigdefábregas 1998; Stott 2016), indirect policy-induced desertification also occurs (Geist and Lambin 2004; Adams 2009; Davis 2016b; Huaico Malhue et al. 2018).
Scholars have long debated on how to better manage the inherent variability of drylands to improve human living conditions. Such engineering approaches are grounded on the premise that one can reduce the inherent variability of drylands by adopting agricultural practices that have been successful where water availability is more predictable. A prominent example is crop irrigation, for instance, in the Yaqui valley in Mexico; this desert area has been the cradle of the Green revolution and the worldwide leader in wheat producer (Matson 2012). Environmental uniformity and stability, and the removal of redundancy may guarantee short-term high crop yields and temporarily increase food security, yet at the cost of irreversible loss of biotic and cultural diversity (Holling and Meffe 1996; Safriel et al. 2005; Walker and Salt 2006) along with trade-offs on sustaining ecosystem services (Papanastasis et al. 2017).
Human interventions intended to achieve sustainable development, as defined in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/), no longer require investment in maximizing commodity production, but rather in diversifying protections afforded to the biota, cultures, and knowledge systems in order to increase the response and adaptation spectra to regional or global socio-environmental change (Chapin III et al. 2009a). This increases the system buffering capacity against unpredictable change (Huber-Sannwald et al. 2012). The role of traditional ecological knowledge in understanding SES is crucial to understand how some local communities have sustained resilient landscapes, but also for the successful stewardship of diverse SES where the division between nature and society is bridged and true ethical multisectoral collaborations are accomplished (Johnson et al. 2016).
Desertification and Land Degradation Versus Drylands Resilience
According to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD 1994) desertification refers to land degradation in drylands due to various factors, including climatic variations and/or human activities (Article 1 of the UNCCD). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) defines land degradation as a process that leads to a long-term failure to balance the demand for and the supply of ecosystem goods and services. While there are estimates that about 10–20% of global drylands suffer from desertification (Reynolds et al. 2007; D’Odorico et al. 2013), due to the complexity of the causes of desertification and the impacts of land degradation, we have little understanding of both local expressions and the global extent of this problem (Cherlet et al. 2018). What is the origin of desertification? Where does its legacy originate, in the (false) sense that deserts are the result of deforestation, overgrazing, and excessive burning by indigenous nomadic pastoralist populations (Davis 2016a, b)? How can one explain major investments globally and regionally in strategic projects of “re”forestation and greening that promise to convert deserts into “productive land” (Davis 2016a, b; Stafford Smith 2016; 8000 km of Great Green Wall in the Sahel https://www.greatgreenwall.org/about-great-green-wall)?
The Earth’s largest drylands are about 65 million years old, but like other biomes drylands have undergone dramatic changes over time (Goudie 1986). As noted above, in the drylands the scarcity, variability, and unpredictability of water over space and time are unique characteristics that have challenged traditional linear approaches to understanding ecosystem dynamics (Whitfield and Reed 2012). Seminal works by Westoby et al. (1989), Walker (1993), and Holling (1988) have stated that after a disturbance event, ecosystems return to a stable state of “equilibrium” or “climax,” with a new “non-equilibrium” paradigm (Westoby et al. 1989). However, in most dryland SES most likely we will find both equilibrium and non-equilibrium features due to an extremely high spatiotemporal heterogeneity in structure, function, and overall system resilience (Coppock and Briske personal comment). What is currently labeled redundant or “noise” may be the source of system stability and resilience in the future under changing and interacting environmental conditions (Folke et al. 2010).
This concept of “non-equilibrium” is not only reflected in multiple stable biophysical states, but necessarily applies also to alternative socio-economic states (Reynolds and Stafford Smith 2002; Huber-Sannwald et al. 2012). While innate natural disturbance regimes have been acknowledged in contributing to the natural dynamics of SES (Pickett and White 1985), these aspects have not been considered in environmental policy formulation, concepts of dryland development, and anti-desertification policies (Behnke and Mortimore 2016; Davis 2016b) with potentially detrimental implications as they do not foresee the unpredictable non-linear nature of SES change (Reynolds et al. 2007; von Wehrden et al. 2012).
Desertification was recognized as one of the first major global change problems (UNCCD 1994; Thomas and Middleton 1992) and since then, it has been on the global UN agenda (Stafford Smith 2016). In 1977, the first United Nations Conference on Desertification (UNCOD) was organized. In parallel, in the second half of the twentieth century global dryland policy was targeted towards dryland restoration to enhance productivity in ways aligned with capitalist development goals (Davis 2016a). Ironically, however, some of the regions, most severely affected by desertification seem to have been related to those inappropriate policies that arose from misperceptions on the origin and (falsely promoted lack of) value of drylands and the supposedly inappropriate traditional uses by local populations (Davis 2016a). While scholars continue to debate how to best distinguish land degradation from desertification and to identify their underlying causes (Reynolds and Stafford Smith 2002; Reed and Stringer 2016; Reed et al. 2011; Behnke and Mortimore 2016; Davis 2016a, b), or measuring how much land loss has occurred (Huaico Malhue et al. 2018), the UN is targeting a land degradation neutral world by 2030 as one of the sustainable development goals (Chasek et al. 2015; Safriel 2017; Cowie et al. 2018), highlighting new challenges and opportunities (Stavi and Lal 2015; Akhtar-Schuster et al. 2017) and ignoring potential pitfalls (Easdale 2016; Okpara et al. 2018). Undoubtedly however, climate change may have contrasting impacts at the regional scale and thereby interact with human effects on land degradation, either by causing mega-droughts reducing vegetation cover and thereby exacerbate land degradation or by enhanced precipitation leading to some re-greening of drylands (for example, in the Sahel, Herrmann and Sop 2016; Behnke and Mortimore 2016).
Despite global awareness of and attention to desertification, success stories about its combating and/or developing the world’s drylands are surprisingly scarce (for exception, see Reid et al. 2014). Thus, leading us to question why re- and afforestation projects have failed and have, at times, negatively affected biodiversity, as well as the hydrological and biogeochemical cycles of drylands (Amdan et al. 2013). Both irrigated and rain-fed agricultural schemes in drylands have overall rendered low crop yields and increased soil salinization and land degradation (Southgate 1990; Lambin et al. 2001), while rangeland management programs appear to have had little or no effects on improving land degradation (Dregne and Chou 1992). Conversely, regions formerly claimed to be notoriously and presumably irreversibly degraded by overgrazing have recovered after the end of long drought periods (Donohue et al. 2013; Dardel et al. 2014). In the wake of an accelerated rate of global socio-environmental change (Steffen et al. 2015), it is useful to question whether drylands are doomed to be physically degraded and desertified by humans (Reynolds and Stafford Smith 2002), or whether they instead present an opportunity for sustainable development (Reynolds et al. 2007; Mortimore et al. 2009; Krätli 2015; Behnke and Mortimore 2016).
Dryland Socio-Ecological Systems Are Complex Systems
Socio-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems where the relationships between humans and nature are based on interconnections among system components, whose interlinkages and dynamics create emerging properties with synergistic effects (Berkes et al. 2008; Koontz et al. 2015; Biesbroek et al. 2017; Tàbara et al. 2018). All complex systems have their inherent quantitative measures such as structure, dynamics, evolution, development, and complexity (Bar-Yam 1997; García 2006). Physical, biological, social, cultural, economic, and political components interact and provide feedback at different rates and intensities across different spatial and temporal scales, thus, they undergo non-linear, unpredictable changes and self-organize after disturbance events (Liu et al. 2007).
Understanding the connectedness between humans and nature necessarily requires inter- and transdisciplinary efforts and frameworks, including scholarly expertise from the natural and social sciences, and platforms of communication, negotiation, and decision-making that facilitate the formation of learning communities (similarly to Davidson-Hunt and O’Flaherty 2007; Bautista et al. 2017). The purpose of such learning communities is the sharing of scientific, local, indigenous, and technical knowledge, and ethics, wisdom, and worldviews, to ensure equal dialogue among all involved stakeholders. Utilizing and simultaneously protecting the wealth of natural resources and ecosystem goods and services upon which humanity depends calls for novel, holistic, transboundary designs, analysis, and knowledge co-production (Daily 1997; MEA 2005; Chapin III et al. 2009b). This integrated approach is fundamental for co-management, collaborative governance, and adaptive policy development (Bautista et al. 2017).
With this perspective, in 2002, a global multidisciplinary think tank of dryland specialists developed the Drylands Development Paradigm (DDP) (Stafford Smith and Reynolds 2002; Reynolds et al. 2007). The DDP is an integrative framework for the analysis, restoration, mitigation, and/or prevention of dryland SES as affected by degradation and/or desertification (Reynolds et al. 2007) and for policy development. The DDP is based on complex adaptive systems theory (CAS) (Ashby 1962; von Bertalanffy 1968), in that systems consist of interconnected elements conferring a particular structure following the underlying rules of the specific purpose or function of a system (Meadows 2008). Elements and processes may change at different rates, either “slow” or “fast,” and at and across different spatial and/or temporal scales. The CAS has three key properties: (1) order is emergent not pre-determined, where the system adjusts and self-organizes after disturbance events; (2) historic impacts are irreversible in that current dynamics are linked to and influenced by past events (legacy effects); (3) based on (1) and (2) the future of CAS is unpredictable and the past lays the foundation for future changes (Chapin III et al. 2009a; Curtin 2015).
When studying SES, we need to ask the questions what causes overall system dynamics, internal connectedness, SES contexts and feedbacks of system components in response to internal and external long-term drivers (e.g., climate change, human population growth), stressors (e.g., mega-drought, emigration, fluctuations in markets or commodity prices, policy change), or pulsed trigger events (e.g., extreme weather or natural hazards, sudden access to electricity, communication technology), and how do system elements (resources, species, social actors) disperse, migrate, or interact across socio-ecological systems (Biggs et al. 2012). Do the variables and processes change slowly or rapidly and are they connected to the dynamics of events occurring at other times or places (Folke et al. 2009)?
For relevant research questions, clear understanding is required of the spatial and temporal dimensions of connectivity in SES. This implies understanding the connections between landscape units, habitats, species, social groupings, generations, knowledge types, institutions, and policies, among others (Biggs et al. 2015). Comprehending the functional integrity of SES as CAS is daunting yet crucially important, as the younger generations’ tolerance to and perception of environmental degradation is changing such that the threshold of acceptance of environmental condition is declining, a psychological and sociological phenomenon laconically coined shifting baseline syndrome (SBS) (Pauli 1985). Hence, understanding SES dynamics and the degree of land degradation and potential human’s preventive, reactive, proactive, mitigating, and/or adaptive responses requires a multi-criteria assessment in different contexts (Ocampo-Melgar et al. 2017).
When SES are managed, restored, or protected, necessarily through the lens of CAS theory, they will not remain or can be maintained at a mature or desirable state, respectively, but rather undergo adaptive cycles (Gunderson and Holling 2002). Complex systems may organize around one of several stable states within a desirable (from a stakeholder perspective) regime of the system. Thus, rather than focusing on detailed characteristics of one stable state, one may want to understand the internal and external drivers that cause the transition to alternative states and how systems elements reorganize without losing the underlying interconnectedness, structure, function, and feedback responses of the system, thus maintaining its resilience (Westoby et al. 1989; Scheffer and Carpenter 2003).
In Holling’s adaptive cycle, the systems once fully developed are commonly held in the so-called conservation phase (Walker and Salt 2006). Humans tend to interfere in the adaptive cycle and frequently prolong this phase. For instance, by maximizing the production of a single ecosystem service, for example, forage production, water extraction, and so on, thereby eliminating unnecessary system variability and redundancy. However, this comes at the cost of eradicating high levels of diversity including biotic (species and functional groups, ecosystem service bundles), cultural (flexibility to adapt and adopt new livelihoods, high adaptive capacity related to local knowledge), and social diversity (institutional organizations, social networks, social memory, adaptive local governance systems). This diversity is needed as it confers insurance and buffer against unpredictable future changes (e.g., prolonged drought, fire, diseases, pests, drop in prices of commodities, new legislation). Similarly, we may want to ask do high levels of response diversity also provide systems with a potentially broad adaptive capacity to reorganize once a system has collapsed and shifted from the conservation to the release phase. How do SES reorganize, after they have lost the internal connectedness and release all resources, energy, and/or information itself?
Acknowledging and eventually managing the cyclic behavior of SES requires the incorporation of different sources of knowledge. The trajectory of system development follows both the system’s memory and the current social–ecological context and conditions, thus conferring new ecological and/or social opportunities characterizing a certain system state within the desired regime (Huber-Sannwald et al. 2012). Lack of ability to respond to or recover after a system has collapsed may trigger the crossing of a threshold (biophysical or socio-economic) or tipping point (social, ecological, or socio-ecological (Milkoreit et al. 2017), and the shift into a new (albeit less desirable) regime. A system’s capacity to build and maintain resilience and to re(self)-organize after a shock or severe disturbance event is critical, whether external, internal, or interacting drivers induce system change. Since the 1950s, in the time of Great Acceleration (Steffen et al. 2007), this may occur more rapidly, unpredictably, or irreversibly (global population growth, local and regional migration, land use change, soil erosion), directionally (loss of vegetation cover, change in species composition, climate warming, exploitation of aquifers, fisheries) (Steffen et al. 2015), or as an emerging phenomenon (loss of system resilience, landscape dysfunction, impoverishment of local traditional knowledge by introduction of information technology, migration, land degradation, desertification). Therefore, due to the complexity of SES, monitoring, tracing, and evaluating socio-ecological system change require multiple disciplines, expertise, knowledge systems, concepts, methodologies, frameworks, novel platforms, newly emerging sciences, thus fundamental approaches to do dryland system science achieve the stewardship of future drylands and the sustainable development goals (see Table 1.1).
RISZA and the Conceptual/Operational Model
In March 2017, the International Network for Drylands Sustainability/Red Internacional para la Sostenibilidad de las Zonas Áridas (RISZA) (www.risza.com.mx) was launched by the Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (IPICYT) in San Luis Potosi, Mexico, with financial support from the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT by its Spanish acronym). The aim of RISZA is to generate and foster research, development, and innovation in partnership at the national level linked to the tripartite alliance between Latin America, Africa, and Europe (see Chap. 13/Agadir Platform), with a strong regional, inter-sectoral emphasis.
RISZA aims to guide and facilitate transdisciplinary and participatory research including academics, governmental and non-governmental organizations, civil societies, local stakeholders, and policy-makers, to foster collective knowledge production, iterative system monitoring and (re) evaluation, and capacity building in dryland stewardship at all levels. The principal research goal is to contribute to accomplish the SDGs in Mexican drylands in synergistic ways, drawing on expertise from other countries of the Platform of Agadir. As a ratifying country, Mexico needs to comply with each of the SDGs and their associated targets. Pre-established global indicators and country-specific indicators serve to monitor each SDG. The role of Mexico’s and global drylands in meeting the SDGs both as a national and a global biome is poorly understood (for an exception, see FAO 2018). RISZA as part of the Agadir Platform will contribute with knowledge, technology, and innovation to meet these goals, in particular to the SDGs 13, 14, 15, and 17.
As a product of the inaugural RISZA participatory planning meeting in May 2017, a transdisciplinary group consisting of 80 people co-designed a comprehensive framework consisting of four dimensions: philosophies, study objects, actions, and long-term goals (Fig. 1.1). The framework is also a network, with the four dimensions representing nodes and the participatory or collective nature of the network representing the links, the blue line meaning water (a crucial determinant of drylands) as a transversal main focal point. This framework is flexible and open for feedback and adjustment; its emphasis lies on establishing the basis for inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations in national and international drylands with a current emphasis on Latin America, North Africa, and Southern Europe. It is also necessary to motivate the dialogue and co-production of knowledge by different actors (i.e., academia, government, private sector, civil societies, local communities, indigenous groups).
Part I: Drylands and Socio-Ecological Systems
Places, territories, landscapes, and/or ecosystems where people live and depend on natural resources and regulating forces have been described as social–ecological systems (SES ). For this reason, the central study units for RISZA are SES, as people associate important values to these services, many represented by the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs ). When land conditions change caused by external or internal drivers, the quality and quantity of these services change as well.
For example, dryland degradation is advancing rapidly (Safriel et al. 2005; Safriel 2017) affecting the productivity and the functioning of inland and coastal ecosystems. Loss of biotic and cultural diversity, and climate change and socio-economic changes related to globalization enhance the effect of land degradation, thereby eliminating the inherent buffer characteristics that allow SES to resist, mitigate, or adapt to these adverse effects. Biodiversity and cultural diversity are directly related; cultural diversity includes genetic, linguistic, and cognitive diversity and thus has tangible and intangible assets. Cultural diversity often originates from the biotic diversity regularly in places inhabited by indigenous or rural communities (Toledo and Barrera-Bassols 2008). Furthermore, beyond a direct relationship the concept of biocultural eliminates the dichotomy and describes objects like animals, plants, rivers, or mountains as having a corresponding linguistic expression, charged with identity and individual or collective memory, sacred meaning, or ritual importance (Boege 2008).
Therefore, the interactions between humans and the environment are highly complex resulting from various interrelated factors. Research has demonstrated a broad transcultural variability in the environmental consequences of human behavior (Oviedo et al. 2000). In addition to the employment of SES as a study object and framework, political ecology research has analyzed the different actions and perceptions that social actors have and their relations of dependence and influence with their environment, together with the understanding of what causes such interrelationships (Robbins 2012). Thus, the emphasis is placed on the relationship of environmental, ideological, social, economic, and political aspects on each particular spatiotemporal context while articulating their local, regional, and global components (Greenberg and Park 1994). In both approaches, for research to have real repercussions in the objectives of sustainable development, an emphasis is placed on the importance of the role of institutions and social organizations in environmental contexts, where the individual and social diversity must be considered and the power relationships understood through governance studies.
Dryland socio-ecological, biocultural systems, and sustainable land management practices are affected by global socio-environmental change (i.e., land use change, climate change, diversity loss, livestock grazing, mining, migration, among others). Understanding specific historical, socio-cultural, socio-economic, and socio-political contexts will allow interregional, intercultural, and inter-policy comparisons among similar dryland SES and their divergent responses to global environmental change drivers. For RISZA we adopt the drylands development paradigm (Reynolds et al. 2007), as it considers the complexity, diversity, and uncertainty as inherent properties of dryland SES, as well as different system components, slow variables, cross-scale linkages, and diverse knowledge systems both as scientific and operational framework (Reynolds et al. 2007; Stringer et al. 2017).
Part II: Transdisciplinarity in Drylands
Participatory research originated in the 1970s in Latin America as part of social movements and processes of policy transformations related to social and education planning (Freire 1970). New research approaches with active democratic participation of the population via participatory mechanisms were proposed to plan and execute new education and development projects (Durston and Miranda 2002), as well as research efforts for conservation aims (Newing et al. 2011). Participatory research requires the fulfillment of a series of operational procedures to acquire useful knowledge and to eventually induce change in a situation or system. Many different methods have been efficiently used, the most common being action research (Whyte 1989), participatory rural appraisal (Chambers 1983), participatory mapping (Chapin et al. 2005), and participatory workshops and monitoring (Knapp et al. 2011). Due to its participatory nature, dialogue development among participating actors leads to the co-production of knowledge, allows the systematization of experiences, collective wisdom, and local knowledge (Ander-Egg 1990), and generates confidence among participants. All of these components are essential in positive governance (Schuttenberg and Guth 2015).
Problem solving inherently is multi, inter, or transdisciplinarity, requiring necessarily participatory research, because it involves collaboration among different stakeholders and is based on the generation of knowledge that emerges and extends beyond the limits of single scientific disciplines. It starts from the premise that knowledge is constantly developing by weaving scientific knowledge with empirical observations, technical know-how, contemporary scientific facts, local and traditional knowledge, and ancestral wisdom. Bridging and connecting knowledge systems helps understand socio-ecological system dynamics, opens dialogue between different cultures, mental models, institutions, actors, and their practices and influences, and/or informs governance schemes and policies (Tengö et al. 2017; Challenger et al. 2018). Co-production of knowledge opens new learning and teaching opportunities (Gutiérrez Serrano 2016) and contributes to an ever-growing horizontal learning community. The concept of transdisciplinarity originally stems from the idea that thinking is a complex process including biological, cerebral, spiritual, logical, linguistic, cultural, social, and historical processes, with emphasis on the connections and communication between knowledge systems (Morin 1977; García 2006; Castañares Maddox 2009; Díaz et al. 2015, 2018). Furthermore, it emerges with the intention to not only systematically solve a problem, but to make research and thus education more relevant to society (Kockelmans 1979).
Part III: Interculturality in Drylands
The development of transdisciplinary and participatory research is based on continuous knowledge development and dialogue as the basis to develop sustainable development projects with direct participation of local actors. Multiple stakeholder collaborations are fundamental for the co-production of useful knowledge production as different wisdoms, disciplines, foci, and positions can be shared (Gutiérrez Serrano 2016). This transdisciplinary academic context has strongly helped remove unequal power relations, which is the basis for interculturality (Alsina 2003), and thus generates friendly intimate relations built on confidence and trust to their legitimacy (Coppock 2016). Interculturality refers to the process of establishing equitable communication and interaction forms between people and groups with specific cultural identities, which stimulates dialogue and integration between different cultures, knowledge, and worldviews (Alsina 2003; Clark et al. 2016). The process of action through interculturality requires not only a different type of knowledge, but also a novel process of knowledge creation. It requires the creation of collective and participatory wisdom based on equal cognitive and emotional exchanges, providing an emancipatory knowledge that goes beyond colonialism to accomplish solidarity (Santos 2002).
While intercultural dialogues are not always exempt of conflict, strong emphasis is given on mutual respect, horizontality in communication channels, equitable access to information, and joint search for synergies (Alsina 2003). Thus, when looking for engagement by a diverse group of stakeholders, emphasis needs to be given on a diverse spectrum of values with potentially conflicting worldviews, and on different knowledge systems, rules, and norms (Gorddard et al. 2016). This then will guide management practices, power relations, skills, and preferences, which in turn may dramatically influence the perception, definition, and stewardship of socio-ecological systems (Davies et al. 2015). Therefore the diverse values, knowledge, and rules of multiple social actors influence the decision-making context and together with the inherent complexity and interrelatedness of dryland SES components, their feedbacks and non-linear responses to management and climate change across different spatial and temporal scales may trigger uncertainty related to both the vulnerability to increasing risks associated with climate change and the resilience to the long-term provisioning of ecosystem services and human well-being.
These so-called wicked problems (a type III problem according to Rittel and Webber 1973 cited in DeFries and Nagendra 2017) that RISZA will be tackling have no clearly defined solutions, yet require continuous collective learning, integrated collaborative institutional designs, and adaptive, iterative pathways, towards finding solutions both at the management, policy, and governance level (Curtin 2015; DeFries and Nagendra 2017). Ultimately, to guarantee respectful exchange among knowledge types and diverse cultures, RISZA commits to follow the established ethical codes to protect human rights (see United Nations Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the regulations of the WIPO “World Intellectual Property Organization”) and to adopt the scheme of basic agreements on human studies established by the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the USA. It is important to note that transdisciplinary and intercultural endeavors must require a commitment to true ethical academic procedures where the individual becomes part of a research team and considers the participation of all actors involved throughout all the project’s stages: from the establishment of objectives to the final co-authorship of research results.
Part IV: The Governance of Drylands
Drylands are the home for a large amalgamation of geological, biological, and cultural diversity (Stafford Smith et al. 2009). For local populations, they consist of meaningful places representing history, memory, and identity, where accumulated experiences and knowledge are weaved into objects, songs, rituals, stories, and other social practices (Martínez-Tagüeña and Torres Cubillas 2018). The creation of stable institutions with high institutional capacity implying clearly defined equitable rules, and openness for shared learning as a basis for collective action related to sustainable resource use is essential for the conservation of the biotic and cultural diversity (Ostrom 2000). Hence, the study of governance is fundamental in order to understand the processes of interaction between social actors involved in public affairs that require decision-making and the formulation of public policies. Governance is considered an emerging pattern of interaction among social actors, their objectives, and the instruments used to direct socio-ecological processes within a particular policy area (Kofinas 2009). The governance of complex systems is produced at various scales from local to global and by different sectors including civil, public, and private (Rhodes 1997).
For fisheries, governance proposals have been suggested through the implementation of SES in order to evaluate their sustainability (Leslie et al. 2015). In defined SES, like national protected areas or in specific environmental themes, governance systems have been analyzed to assess their performance and relevance (Martínez and Espejel 2015; Martínez et al. 2015, 2016). In the context of SES in order to maintain certain favorable stable states, it is important to form participatory inter- and transdisciplinary partnerships, who do not only integrate the natural and social sciences, but incorporate knowledge, needs, and interests of all stakeholders, which then allows the co-production of knowledge, diagnostics, monitoring and evaluation systems, and the development of public policies (Ostrom 2009). In Mexico, inventories on biodiversity operated by CONABIO have generated novel forms of knowledge generation through participatory monitoring (www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/sistema_monitoreo), while at the Latin American level citizen observatories have contributed to novel forms of knowledge production (www.desertificación.gob.ar/). In both examples, citizen involvement in knowledge production has transformed attitudes and conferred good governance schemes related to nature, life quality, and the implementation of good practices.
Governance schemes should be flexible and support innovation and risk-taking in research. For instance, the creation of a cross-sectional innovation unit can bridge the gap between public research and private sector initiatives directly engaged in sustainable management and development of the drylands. Thus, RISZA considers that alongside good governance, social innovation is crucial to achieve the sustainable development goals in drylands. Social innovation refers to novel solutions created to solve social problems in a more efficient, effective, sustainable, and fair manner than previous solutions, where the resulting aggregated value corresponds to society at large rather than to a few individuals (Philis et al. 2008). Beyond ample creativity, successful ideas for social innovation have originated from people’s needs and dislocations, dissatisfactions, and blockages. And furthermore, from the generation of new knowledge that opens the door to problem solving in innovative ways (Mulgan 2006).
While certain governments have been reticent to invest in social innovation because it entails risk of failure, innovation has a better chance of success when users have choices and contracts for services reward outcomes achieved rather than outputs or activities, or when there is some competition rather than a state monopoly (Díaz Foncea et al. 2012). Other challenges for social innovation come from the typical insights obtained from business innovation. Contrary to following typical market structures these endeavors align with social organizations that have different motives going further than material incentives to include political recognition and support, voluntary labor, compassion, identity, autonomy, and care. According to the authors’ experiences, social organizations tend to grow slower than private businesses, but they also tend to be more resilient. However, clearer metrics are needed to understand social innovation since it is complicated to judge their success. Scale or market share may matter little for a social innovation concerned with a very intense but contained need. In some cases, participants’ lives are dramatically improved by the act of collaboration (Mulgan 2006, also for an example, see http://www.in-control.org.uk).
In drylands, it is important to document multiple innovation examples that have been implemented to better manage natural resources like water, minerals, new technology for pastoralism and ranching and agricultural practices, among others. Social technologies are looking to develop novel tools for diagnostic, monitoring, evaluation, and transfer needed in order to have successful social innovation projects that provide potentially better management schemes and in particular deal with water scarcity. It is important to mention the efforts made in the area of technology for social businesses that promote rural development and in social entrepreneurship that join a socio-ecological scope with an economic benefit based on local communities’ self-management (Navarro and Climent 2010).
In this book, a series of chapters retake the key concepts and pillars of the RISZA conceptual framework explained throughout this introduction chapter. Examples of innovative dryland policies and case studies in response to climate change and other global change drivers, and collective thinking gave place to this compendium of highly diverse experiences representing transdisciplinary efforts coauthored by a total of over 80 co-authors from different sectors and organizations. It presents novel ideas to solve the continuously evolving and challenging dryland problems of the Global South.
References
Adams WA (2009) Green development: environment and sustainability in a developing world, 3rd edn. Routledge, London, pp 225–228
Aeschbach W, Gleeson T (2012) Regional strategies for the accelerating global problem of groundwater depletion. Nat Geosci 5:853–861
Akhtar-Schuster M, Stringer LC, Erlewein A, Metternicht G, Minelli S, Safriel U, Sommer S (2017) Unpacking the concept of land degradation neutrality and addressing its operation through the Rio conventions. J Environ Manage 195:4–15
Alsina M (2003) La comunicación intercultural Barcelona. Ed. Antropos, Paris
Amdan L, Aragón RM, Jobbágy EG, Volante J, Paruelo JM (2013) Onset of deep drainage and salt mobilization following forest clearing and cultivation in the Chaco plains (Argentina). Water Resour Res 49:6601–6612
Ander-Egg E (1990) Repensando la Investigación-Acción-Participativa, Colección Política, Servicios y Trabajo Social. Grupo Editorial Lumen Humanitas, Buenos Aires
Archibold OW (1995) Ecology of world vegetation. Chapman and Hall, London
Ashby WR (1962) Principles of the self-organizing system. In: Von Foerster H, Zopf GW Jr (eds) Principles of self-organization: transactions of the University of Illinois Symposium. Pergamon Press, London, pp 255–278
Bar-Yam Y (1997) Dynamics of complex systems. Westview Press, New England
Bastin JF, Berrahmouni N, Grainger A, Maniatis D, Mollicone D, Moore R, Patriarca C, Picard N, Sparrow B, Abraham EM, Aloui K, Atesoglu A, Attore F, Bassüllü C, Bey A, Garzuglia M, García Montero LG, Groot N, Guerin G, Lastadius L, Lowe AJ, Mamane B, Marchi G, Patterson P, Rezende M, Ricci S, Salcedo I, Sanchez Paus Diaz A, Stolle F, Surappaeva V, Castro R (2017) The extent of forest in dryland biomes. Science 356:635–638
Bautista S, Llovet J, Ocampo-Melgar A, Vilagrosa A, Mayor ÁG, Murias C, Vallejo VR, Orr BJ (2017) Integrating knowledge exchange and the assessment of dryland management alternatives – a learning-centered participatory approach. J Environ Manag 195:35–45
Behnke RH, Mortimore M (2016) The end of desertification? Springer, New York, p 560
Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2008) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 394 pp
von Bertalanffy L (1968) General systems theory. George Braziller, New York
Bestelmeyer BT, Okin GS, Duniway MC, Archer SR, Sayre NF, Williamson JC, Herrick JE (2015) Desertification, land use, and the transformation of global drylands. Front Ecol Environ 13:28–36
Biesbroek R, Berrang-Ford L, Ford JD, Tanabe A, Austin SE, Lesnikowski A (2017) Data, concepts and methods for large-n comparative climate change adaptation policy research: a systematic literature review. Clim Chang 9:e548
Biggs R, Schlüter M, Biggs D et al (2012) Towards principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:421–448
Biggs R, Schlüter M, Schoon ML (2015) Principles for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bodin Ö (2017) Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357(6352):eaan1114. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114
Boege E (2008) El Patrimonio biocultural de los pueblos indígenas de México. Hacia la conservación in situ de la biodiversidad y agrodiversidad en los territorios indígenas. INAH, CDI, Ciudad de México
Castañares Maddox EJ (2009) Sistemas complejos y gestión ambiental: el caso del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano México. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano México, Ciudad de México
Challenger A, Cordova A, Lazos Chavero E, Equihua M, Maass M (2018) Opportunities and obstacles to socioecosystem based environmental policy in Mexico: expert opinion at the science-policy interface. Ecol Soc 23(2):31
Chambers R (1983) Rural development: putting the last first. Harlow, Prentice Hall
Chapin FS III, Carpenter SR, Kofinas GP, Folke C, Abel N, Clark WC, Olsson P, Stafford Smith DM, Walker B, Younq OR, Berkes F, Biggs R, Grove JM, Naylor RL, Pinkerton E, Steffen W, Swanson FJ (2009c) Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol Evol 25(4):241–249
Chapin FS III, Folke C, Kofinas GP (2009a) A framework for understanding change. In: Chapin FS III, Kofinas GP, Folke C (eds) Principles of ecosystem stewardship. Springer, New York, pp 3–28
Chapin FS III, Kofinas GP, Folke C, Carpenter SR, Olsson P, Abel N, Biggs R, Naylor RL, Pinkerton E, Stafford Smith DM, Steffen W, Walker B, Young OR (2009b) Resilience based stewardship: strategies for navigating sustainable pathways in a changing world. In: Chapin FS III, Kofinas GP, Folke C (eds) Principles of ecosystem stewardship. Springer, New York, pp 319–337
Chapin M, Lamb Z, Threlkeld B (2005) Mapping indigenous lands. Annu Rev Anthropol 34:619–638
Chasek P, Safriel U, Shikongo S, Futran Fuhrman V (2015) Operationalizing zero net land degradation: the next stage in international efforts to combat desertification? J Arid Environ 112:5–13
Cherlet M, Hutchinson C, Reynolds JF, Hill J, Sommer S, von Maltitz G (2018) World atlas of desertification. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Clark W, van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L, Gallopin GC (2016) Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(17):4570–4578
Coppock DL, Fernández-Giménez F, Hiernaux P, Huber-Sannwald E, Schloeder C, Valdivia C, Arredondo JT, Jacobs M, Turin C, Turner M (2017) Rangeland systems in developing nations: conceptual advances and societal implications. In: Briske DD (ed) Rangeland Systems. Springer, New York, pp 569–641
Coppock LD (2016) Cast off the shackles of academia! Use participatory approaches to tackle real-world problems with underserved populations. Rangelands 38(1):5–13
Cowie AL, Orr BJ, Castillo Sanchez VM, Chasek P, Crossman ND, Erlewein A, Louwagie G, Maron M, Metternicht GI, Minelli S, Tengberg AE, Walter S, Welton S (2018) Land in balance: the scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality. Environ Sci Policy 79:25–35
Curtin CG (2015) The science of open spaces. Island Press, Washington, DC
D’Odorico P, Bhattachan A, Davis K, Ravi S, Runyan C (2013) Global desertification: drivers and feedbacks. Adv Water Resour 51:326–344
Dados N, Conell R (2012) The global south. Contexts 11(1):12–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504212436479
Daily G (1997) Nature’s services. Island Press, Washington, DC
Dardel C, Kergoat L, Hiernaux P et al (2014) Re-greening Sahel: 30 years of remote sensing data and field observations (Mali, Niger). Remote Sens Environ 140(1):350–364
Davidson-Hunt IJ, O’Flaherty RM (2007) Researchers, indigenous peoples, and place-based learning communities. Soc Nat Resour 20(4):291–305
Davies J, Poulsen L, Schulte-Herbrüggen B, Mackinnon K, Crawhall N, Henwood WD, Dudley N, Smith J, Gudka M (2012) Conserving dryland biodiversity. IUCN, Nairobi, xii+84 p
Davies J, Robinson LW, Ericksen PJ (2015) Development process resilience and sustainable development: insights from the drylands of eastern Africa. Soc Nat Resour 28(3):328–343
Davis DK (2016a) The arid lands: history, power, knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge
Davis DK (2016b) Deserts and drylands before the age of desertification. In: Behnke RH, Mortimore M (eds) The end of desertification? Springer, New York, pp 203–223
De Vente J, Bautista S, Orr B (2017) Preface: optimizing science impact for effective implementation of sustainable land management. J Environ Manage 195:1–3
DeFries R, Nagendra H (2017) Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science 356:265–270
Díaz Foncea M, Marcuello C, Marcuello C (2012) Empresas sociales y evaluación del impacto social. CIRIEC-España Rev Econ Pública Soc Coop 75:179–198
Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, Bartuska A, Baste I, Bilgin A, Brondizio E, MaChan K, Figuero VE, Duraiappah A, Fischer M, Zlatanova D (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework — connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16
Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KMA, Baste IA, Brauman KA, Polasky S, Church A, Lonsdale M, Larigauderie A, Leadley PW, van Oudenhoven APE, van der Plaat F, Schröter M, Lavorel S, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bukvareva E, Davies K, Demissew S, Erpul G, Failler P, Guerra CA, Hewitt CL, Keune H, Lindley S, Shirayama Y (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359(6373):270–272
Donohue RJ, Roderick ML, McVicar TR, Farquhar GD (2013) Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments. Geophys Res Lett 40:3031–3035
Dregne HE, Chou NT (1992) Global desertification dimensions and costs. In: Degradation and restoration of arid lands. Texas Tech. University, Lubbock, pp 73–92
Dressler W, Büscher B, Schoon M, Brockington D, Hayes T, Kull CA, McCarthy J, Shrestha K (2010) From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environ Conserv 37:5–15
Dudley N (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland
Durose C, Richardson L, Perry B (2018) Craft metrics to value co-production. Nature 562:32–33
Durston J, Miranda F (2002) Experiencias y metodología de la investigación participativa. Serie Políticas sociales. División de Desarrollo Social, CEPAL, Publicación Naciones Unidas, Santiago de Chile
Easdale MH (2016) Zero net livelihood degradation – the quest for a multidimensional protocol to combat desertification. Soil 2:129–134
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations) (2018) World livestock: transforming the livestock sector through the sustainable development goals. Rome. 222 pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
Feng S, Fu Q (2013) Expansion of global drylands under warming climate. Atmos Chem Phys 13(9):10081–10094
Figueroa M (2011) Indigenous peoples and cultural losses. In: The Oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 232–249
Folke C, Carpenter SR, Walker BH, Scheffer M, Chapin FS III, Rockström J (2010) Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol Soc 15:20
Folke C, Chapin FS III, Olsson P (2009) Transformations in ecosystem stewardship. In: Chapin FS III, Kofinas PG, Folke C (eds) Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer, New York, pp 103–125
Freire P (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum, New York
García R (2006) Sistemas Complejos. Conceptos, métodos y fundamentación epistemológica de la investigación interdisciplinaria. GEDISA, Barcelona, 200 pp
Geist JJ, Lambin EF (2004) Dynamical causal patterns of desertification. Bioscience 54:817–829
Global Land Project (GLP) (2005) Science plan and implementation strategy, IGBP (international geosphere biosphere program) report no. 53. IHDP report no. 19. IGBP Secretariat, Stockholm
Gómez-Baggethun E, Reyes-García V (2013) Reinterpreting change in traditional ecological knowledge. Hum Ecol 41:643–647
Gorddard R, Colloff MJ, Wise RM, Ware D, Dunlop M (2016) Values, rules and knowledge. Adaptation as change in the decision context. Environ Sci Policy 57:60–69
Goudie AS (1986) The search for Timbuktu: a view of deserts. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Grace J, San José J, Meir P, Miranda HS, Montes RA (2006) Productivity and carbon fluxes of tropical savannas. J Biogeogr 33:387–400
Greenberg JB, Park TK (1994) Political ecology. J Political Ecol 1:1–12
Griggs D, Stafford-Smith DM, Gaffney O, Rockström J, Öhman MC, Shyamsundar P, Steffen W, Glaser G, Kanie N, Noble I (2013) Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495:305–307
Gudka M, Davies J, Poulsen L, Schulte-Herbrügger B, MacKinnon K, Crawhall N, Henwood WD, Dudley N, Smith J (2014) Conserving dryland biodiversity: a future vision of sustainable dryland development. Biodiversity 15:143–147
Gunderson LH, Holling CS (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DC
Gutiérrez Serrano NG (2016) Senderos académicos para el encuentro. Conocimiento transdisciplinario y configuraciones en red. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, 213 pp
Herrmann SM, Sop TK (2016) The map is not the territory: how satellite remote sensing and ground evidence have re-shaped the image of Sahelian desertification. In: Behnke RH, Mortimore M (eds) The end of desertification? Springer, New York, pp 117–145
Hickey G (2018) Co-production from proposal to paper: share power in five ways. Nature 562:29–30
Hickey G, Brearley S, Coldham T, Denegri S, Green G, Staniszewska S et al (2018) Guidance on co-producing a research project. INVOLVE, Southampton http://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Copro_Guidance_Mar18.pdf
Holling CS (1988) Temperate forest insect outbreaks, tropical deforestation and migratory birds. Mem Entomol Soc Can 146:21–32
Holling CS, Meffe GK (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv Biol 10:328–337
Huaico Malhue AI, Romero Díaz A, Espejel Carbajal MI (2018) Evolución de los enfoques en desertificación. Cuad Geogr 57(2):53–71
Huang J, Guan X, Ji F (2012) Enhanced cold-season warming in semi-arid regions. Atmos Chem Phys 12(12):5391–5398
Huang J, Li Y, Fu C, Chen F, Fu Q, Dai A, Shinoda M, Ma Z, Guo W, Li Z, Zhang L, Liu Y, Yu H, He Y, Xie Y, Guan X, Ji M, Lin L, Wang S, Yan H, Wanget G (2017b) Dryland climate change: recent progress and challenges. Rev Geophys 55:719–778
Huang J, Yu H, Dai A, Wei Y, Kang L (2017a) Potential threats over drylands behind 2°C global warming target. Nat Clim Change 7:417–422
Huang J, Yu H, Guan X, Wang G, Guo R (2015) Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change. Nat Clim Chang 6(2):166–171
Huber-Sannwald E, Ribeiro Palacios M, Arredondo JT, Braasch M, Martínez Peña M, García de Alba J, Monzalvo K (2012) Navigating challenges and opportunities of land degradation and sustainable livelihood development. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367:3158–3177
Hulme M (1996) Recent climate change in the world’s drylands. Geophys Res Lett 23(1):61–64
INEGI (2019) México: Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. http://www.agenda2030.mx/#/home
Jia B, Zhang Z, Ci L, Ren Y, Pan B, Zhang Z (2004) Oasis land-use dynamics and its influence on the oasis environment in Xinjiang, China. J Arid Environ 56(1):11–26
Johnson JT, Howitt R, Cajete G, Berkes F, Pualani Louis R, Kliskey A (2016) Weaving indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods. Sustain Sci 11:1–11
Jonathan Davies, Lance W. Robinson, Polly J. Ericksen, (2015) Development Process Resilience and Sustainable Development: Insights from the Drylands of Eastern Africa. Society & Natural Resources 28 (3):328–343
Knapp CN, Fernandez-Gimenez M, Kachergis E, Rudeen A (2011) Using participatory workshops to integrate state-and-transition models created with local knowledge and ecological data. Rangel Ecol Manag 64(2):158–170
Kockelmans JJ (1979) Interdisciplinarity and higher education. Penn State University, State College
Kofinas GP (2009) Adaptive co-management in socio-ecological governance. principle of ecosystem stewardship. Springer, New York, pp 77–101
Koontz TM, Gupta D, Mudliar P, Ranjan P (2015) Adaptive institutions in social-ecological systems governance: a synthesis framework. Environ Sci Policy 35(B):139–151
Krätli S (2015) In: de Jode H (ed) Valuing variability: new perspectives on climate-resilient drylands development. International Institute for Environment and Development, London
Lambin EF, Turner BL, Geist HJ, Agbola SB, Angelsen A, Bruce JW, Coomes OT, Dirzo R, Fischer G, Folke C, George PS, Homewood K, Imbernon J, Leemans R, Lin X, Moran EF, Mortimore M, Ramakrishnan PS, Richards JF, Skane H, Steffen W, Stone GD, Svedin U, Veldkamp TA, Vogel C, Xu J (2001) The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Glob Environ Chang 11:261–269
Leslie HM, Basurto X, Nenadovic M, Sievanen L, Cavanaugh KC, Cota-Nieto JJ, Erisman BE, Finkbeiner E, Hinojosa-Arango G, Moreno-Báez M, Nagavarapu S, Reddy SMW, Sánchez-Rodríguez S, Siegel K, Ulibarria-Valenzuela JJ, Hudson Weaver A, Aburto-Oropez O (2015) Operationalizing the social-ecological systems framework to assess sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(19):5979–5984
Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Alberti M, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Ostrom E, Pell AN, Lubchenco J, Taylor WW, Ouyang Z, Deadman P, Kratz T, Provencher W (2007) Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio 36(8):639–649
Lindsay C. Stringer, Mark S. Reed, Luuk Fleskens, Richard J. Thomas, Quang Bao Le, Tana Lala-Pritchard, (2017) A New Dryland Development Paradigm Grounded in Empirical Analysis of Dryland Systems Science. Land Degradation & Development 28 (7):1952–1961
Marlowe FW (2005) Hunter-gatherers and human evolution. Evol Anthropol 14:54–67
Martínez N, Brenner L, Espejel I (2015) Red de participación institucional en las áreas naturales protegidas de la península de Baja California. Reg Soc 27(62):27–62
Martínez N, Espejel I (2015) La investigación de la gobernanza en México y su aplicabilidad ambiental. Econ Soc Territorio 15(47):153–183
Martínez N, Espejel I, Martínez Valdes C (2016) Evaluation of governance in the administration of protected areas on the peninsula of Baja California. Front Norte 28(55):103–129
Martínez-Tagüeña N, Torres Cubillas LA (2018) Walking the desert, paddling the sea: Comcaac mobility in time. J Archaeol Anthropol 49:146–160
Matson P (2012) Seeds of sustainability. Lessons from the birthplace of the Green revolution in agriculture. Island Press, Washington, DC
MEA (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board. Ecosystem and human wellbeing. Island Press, Washington, DC
Meadows DH (2008) Thinking in systems. EarthScan, London
Middleton N (2018) Rangeland management and climate hazards in drylands: dust storms, desertification and the overgrazing debate. Nat Hazards 92(1):57–70
Middleton N, Stringer L, Goudie A, Thomas D (2011) The forgotten billion: MDG achievement in the drylands. UNDP-UNCCD, New York
Middleton N, Thomas D (1997) World atlas of desertification, 2nd edn. Arnold, London
Milkoreit M, Hodbod J, Baggio J, Benessaiah K, Calderon Contreras R, Donges JF, Mathias JD, Rocha JC, Schoon M, Werners SE (2017) Defining tipping points for social-ecological systems scholarship – an interdisciplinary literature review. Environ Res Lett 13:033005
Morin E (1977) El Método. La Naturaleza de la Naturaleza. Ediciones Cátedra, Madrid
Mortimore M, Anderson S, Cotula L, Davies J, Faccer K, Hesse C et al (2009) Dryland opportunities: a new paradigm for people, ecosystems and development. IUCN, Gland; IIED, London
Mulgan G (2006) The process of social innovation. Innov Technol Gov Glob 1(2):145–162
Navarro AM, Climent VC (2010) Emprendedurismo y economía social como mecanismos de inserción sociolaboral en tiempos de crisis. REVESCO 100:43–67
Newing H, Eagle CM, Puri RK, Watson CW (2011) Conducting research in conservation: social science methods and practice. Routledge, New York
Nolan RH, Sinclair J, Eldridge DJ, Ramp D (2018) Biophysical risks to carbon sequestration and storage in Australian drylands. J Environ Manag 208:102–111
Noy-Meir I (1973) Desert ecosystems: environment and producers. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4(1973):25–51
Ocampo-Melgar BS, de Steiguer JG, Orr BJ (2017) Potential of an outranking multi-criteria approach to support the participatory assessment of land management actions. J Environ Manag 195:70–77
Okpara UT, Stringer LC, Akhtar-Schuster M, Metternicht GI, Dallimer M, Requier-Desjardins M (2018) A social-ecological systems approach is necessary to achieve land degradation neutrality. Environ Sci Policy 89:59–66
Orr BJ, Cowie AL, Castill Sanchez VM, Chasek P, Crossman ND, Erlewein A, Louwagie G, Maron M, Metternicht GI, Minelli S, Tengberg AE, Walter S, Welton S (2017) Scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality. A report of the science-policy interface. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Bonn
Ostrom E (2000) El gobierno de los bienes comunes. La evolución de las instituciones de acción colectiva. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Ciudad de México
Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of socio-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422
Oviedo G, Maffi L, Larsen PB (2000) Indigenous and traditional peoples of the world and Ecoregion conservation. An integrated approach to conserving the World’s biological and cultural diversity. WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland
Papanastasis VP, Bautista S, Chouvardas D, Mantzanas K, Papadimitriou M, Mayor AG, Koukioumi P, Papaioannou A, Vallejo RV (2017) Comparative assessment of goods and services provided by grazing regulation and reforestation in degraded Mediterranean rangelands. Land Degrad Dev 28:1178–1187
Pauli D (1985) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol Evol 10(10):430
Peters DPC, Havstad KM, Archer SR, Sala OE (2015) Beyond desertification: a new paradigm for dryland landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 13(1):4–12
Philis JA, Deiglmeier K, Miller DT (Fall 2008) Rediscovering social innovation. Stanf Soc Innov Rev. http://ssir.org/articles/entry/rediscovering_social_innovation. Accessed November 2015
Pickett STA, White PS (1985) The ecology of natural disturbance as patch dynamics. Academic, New York
Puigdefábregas J (1998) Ecological impacts of global change on drylands and their implications for desertification. Land Degrad Dev 9:393–406
Reed MS, Buenemann M, Atlhopheng J, Akhtar-Schuster M, Bachmann F, Bastin G, Bigas H, Chanda R, Dougill AJ, Essahli W, Evely AC, Fleskens L, Geeson N, Glass JH, Hessel R, Holden J, Ioris A, Kruger B, Liniger HP, Mphinyane W, Nainggolan D, Perkins J, Raymond CM, Ritsema CJ, Schwilch G, Sebego R, Seely M, Stringer LC, Thomas R, Twomlow S, Verzandvoort S (2011) Cross-scale monitoring and assessment of land degradation and sustainable land management: a methodological framework for knowledge management. Land Degrad Dev 22:261–271
Reed MS, Stringer LC (2016) Land degradation, desertification and climate change. Anticipating, assessing and adapting to future change. Routledge, London/New York
Reid RS, Fernández-Giménez ME, Galvin KA (2014) Dynamics and resilience of rangelands and pastoral peoples around the globe. Annu Rev Environ Resour 39:217–242
Reynolds JF, Stafford Smith DM (2002) Global desertification: do humans cause deserts. Dahlem University Press, Berlin
Reynolds JF, Stafford Smith DM, Lambin EF, Turner BL II, Mortimore M, Batterbury SPJ, Downing TE, Dowlatabadi H, Fernandez RJ, Herrick JE, Huber-Sannwald E, Leemans R, Lynam T, Maestre FT, Ayarza M, Walker B (2007) Global desertification: building a science for global dryland development. Science 316:847–851
Rhodes RAW (1997) Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability (public policy & management). Open University Press, Philadelphia, 252 pp
Rittel H, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169
Robbins P (2012) Political ecology: a critical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex
Safriel U (2017) Land degradation neutrality (LDN) in drylands and beyond – where has it come from and where does it go. Silva Fenn 51:1650. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.1650
Safriel U, Adeel Z, Niemeijer D, Puigdefabregas J, White R, Lal R, Winslow M, Ziedler J, Prince S, Archer E, King C (2005) Dryland systems. In: Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N (eds) Ecosystems and human Well-being: current state and trends. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 623–662
Santos B (2002) Hacia una concepción multicultural de los derechos humanos. El Otro Derecho 28:59–83
Scheffer M, Carpenter SR (2003) Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Trends Ecol Evol 18:648–656
Schlaepfer DR, Bradford JB, Lauenroth WK, Munson SM, Tietjen B, Hall SA, Wilson SD, Duniway MC, Jia G, Pyke DA, Lkhagva A, Jamiyansharav K (2017) Climate change reduces extent of temperate drylands and intensifies drought in deep soils. Nat Commun 8:14196
Schoon ML, Robards MD, Brown K, Engle N, Meek CL, Biggs R (2015) Politics and the resilience of ecosystem services. In: Biggs R, Schlüter M, Schoon ML (eds) Principles for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Schuttenberg HZ, Guth HK (2015) Seeking our shared wisdom: a framework for understanding knowledge coproduction and coproductive capacities. Ecol Soc 20(1):15
Southgate D (1990) The causes of land degradation along “spontaneously” expanding agricultural frontiers in the third world. Land Econ 66(1):93–101
Squires VR (2010) Desert transformation or desertification control? J Rangel Sci 1(1):17–21
Stafford Smith DM (2016) Desertification: reflections on the mirage. In: Behnke RH, Mortimore M (eds) The end of desertification? Springer, New York, pp 539–560
Stafford Smith DM, Abel N, Walker B, Chapin FS III (2009) Drylands: coping with uncertainty, thresholds, and changes in state. In: Chapin FS III, Kofinas GP, Folke C (eds) Principles of ecosystem stewardship. Springer, New York, pp 171–195
Stafford Smith DM, Cribb J (2009) Dry times. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton
Stafford Smith DM, Reynolds JF (2002) Desertification: a new paradigm for an old problem. In: Reynolds JF, Stafford Smith DM (eds) Global desertification: do humans cause deserts? Dahlem workshop reports, vol 88. Dahlem Univ. Press, Berlin, pp 403–424
Stavi I, Lal R (2015) Achieving zero net land degradation: challenges and opportunities. J Arid Environ 112:44–51
Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L, Gaffney O, Ludwig C (2015) The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. Anthropocene Rev 2(1):81–98
Steffen W, Crutzen PJ, McNeill JR (2007) The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio 36:614–621
Stott P (2016) How climate change affects extreme weather events. Science 352(6293):1517–1518
Stringer LC, Reed MS, Fleskens L, Thomas RJ, Le QB, Lala-Pritchard T (2017) A new dryland development paradigm grounded in empirical analysis of dryland systems science. Land Degrad Dev 28(7):1952–1961
Tàbara D, Frantzeskaki N, Hölscher K, Pedde S, Kok K, Lamperti F, Christensen JH, Jäger J, Berry P (2018) Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2018(31):120–129
Tengö M, Hill R, Malmer P, Raymond CM, Spierenburg M, Danielsen F, Elmqvist T, Folke C (2017) Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:17–25
Thomas D, Middleton N (1992) World atlas of desertification. Edward Arnold for UNEP, London
Toledo V, Barrera-Bassols N (2008) La Memoria Biocultural. La importancia ecológica de las sabidurías tradicionales. Icaria Editorial, Barcelona
UNCCD (1994) United Nations convention to combat desertification. United Nations, Geneva, p 58
UNCCD (2019) United Nations convention to combat desertification. Land degradation neutrality: land profiles. https://www.unccd.int/actionsldn-target-setting-programme/ldn-country-profiles
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2019) Global policy centre on resilient ecosystems and desertification. Nairobi, Kenya. Consulted April 2019
Veldman JW, Buisson E, Durigan G, Fernandes GW, Le Stradie S, Mahy G, Negreiros D, Overbeck GE, Veldman RG, Zaloumis NP, Putz FE, Bond WJ (2015) Toward an old-growth concept for grasslands, savannas, and woodlands. Front Ecol Environ 13(3):154–162
Von Wehrden H, Hanspach J, Kazzensky P, Fischer J, Wesche K (2012) Global assessment of the non-equilibrium concept in rangelands. Ecol Appl 22(2):393–399
Walker B (1993) Rangeland ecology: understanding and managing change. Ambio 22:2–3
Walker B, Salt D (2006) Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, DC
Wang L, D’Odorico PD, Evans JP, Eldridge DJ, McCabe MF, Caylor KK, King EG (2012) Dryland ecohydrology and climate change: critical issues and technical advances. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:2585–2603
Westoby M, Walker B, Noy-Meir I (1989) Opportunistic management of rangelands not at equilibrium. J Range Manag 42(4):266–274
Whitfield S, Reed MS (2012) Participatory environmental assessment in drylands: introducing a new approach. J Arid Environ 77:1–10
Whitford WG (2002) Ecology of desert systems. Academic, San Diego
Whyte WF (1989) Introduction to action research for the twenty-first century: participation, reflection, and practice. Am Behav Sci 32:502–512
Wilcox BP, Sorice MG, Young MH (2011) Dryland ecohydrology in the Anthropocene: taking stock of human-ecological interactions. Geogr Compass 5(3):112–127
Willyard C, Scudellari M, Nordling L (2018) Partners in science. Nature 562:24–28
Yahdjian L, Sala OE, Havstad KM (2015) Rangeland ecosystem services: shifting focus from supply to reconciling supply and demand. Front Ecol Evol 13:44–51
Acknowledgements
The authors greatly appreciate the stimulating discussions and dialogues with members of the RISZA network during many workshops and group meetings; a special thank you to Mark Stafford Smith, Chair of the Science Committee of Future Earth. A special thanks to Ana Delia del Pilar Moran Mendoza for logistic support in compiling all chapters of this book. EHS gratefully acknowledges financial support by CONACYT (projects CB 2015-251388B, 293793, PDCPN-2017/5036).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Huber-Sannwald, E., Martínez-Tagüeña, N., Espejel, I., Lucatello, S., Coppock, D.L., Reyes Gómez, V.M. (2020). Introduction: International Network for the Sustainability of Drylands—Transdisciplinary and Participatory Research for Dryland Stewardship and Sustainable Development. In: Lucatello, S., Huber-Sannwald, E., Espejel, I., Martínez-Tagüeña, N. (eds) Stewardship of Future Drylands and Climate Change in the Global South. Springer Climate. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22464-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22464-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22463-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22464-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)