Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-6 (section)

== 6.1 Introduction ==

<span id="context-of-this-chapter"></span>
=== 6.1.1 Context of this chapter ===

<div id="section-6-1-1-context-of-this-chapter-block-1"></div>

This chapter focuses on the interlinkages between response options <sup>[[#fn:1|1]]</sup> to deliver climate mitigation and adaptation, to address desertification and land degradation, and to enhance food security. It also assesses reported impacts on Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) and contributions to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By identifying which options provide the most co-benefits with the fewest adverse side effects, this chapter aims to provide ''integrated response options'' that could co-deliver across the range of challenges. This chapter ''does not consider response'' options that affect only one aspect of climate mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation, or food security in isolation, since these are the subjects of Chapters 2–5; this chapter ''considers only'' interlinkages between response options, and two or more of these challenges in the land sector.

Since the aim is to assess and provide guidance on integrated response options, each response option is first described and categorised, drawing on previous chapters 2–5 (Section 6.2), and their impact on climate mitigation/adaptation, desertification, land degradation, and food security is quantified (Section 6.3). The feasibility of each response option, respect to costs, barriers, saturation and reversibility is then assessed (Section 6.4.1), before considering their sensitivity to future climate change (Section 6.4.2).

The ''co-benefits'' ''and adverse side effects'' <sup>[[#fn:2|2]]</sup> of each integrated response option across the five land challenges, and their impacts on the NCP and the SDGs, are then assessed in Section 6.4.3. In section 6.4.4, the spatial applicability of these integrated response options is assessed in relation to the location of the challenges, with the aim of identifying which options have the greatest potential to co-deliver across the challenges, and the contexts and circumstances in which they do so. Interlinkages among response options and challenges in future scenarios are also assessed in Section 6.4.4. Finally, Section 6.4.5 discusses the potential consequences of delayed action.

In providing this evidence-based assessment, drawing on the relevant literature, this chapter does not assess the merits of policies to deliver these integrated response options – Chapter 7 assesses the various policy options currently available to deliver these interventions. Rather, this chapter provides an assessment of the integrated response options and their ability to co-deliver across the multiple challenges addressed in this Special Report.

<span id="framing-social-challenges-and-acknowledging-enabling-factors"></span>
=== 6.1.2 Framing social challenges and acknowledging enabling factors ===

<div id="section-6-1-2-framing-social-challenges-and-acknowledging-enabling-factors-block-1"></div>

In this section we outline the approach used in assessing the evidence for interactions between response options to deliver climate mitigation and adaptation, to prevent desertification and land degradation, and to enhance food security. Overall, while defining and presenting the response options to meet these goals is the primary goal of this chapter, we note that these options must not be considered only as technological interventions, or one-off actions. Rather, they need to be understood as responses to socio- ecological challenges whose success will largely depend on external enabling factors. There have been many previous efforts at compiling positive response options that meet numerous SDGs, but which have not resulted in major shifts in implementation; for example, online databases of multiple response options for sustainable land management (SLM), adaptation, and other objectives have been compiled by many donor agencies, including World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT), Climate Adapt, and the Adaptation Knowledge Portal (Schwilch et al. 2012b <sup>[[#fn:r1|1]]</sup> ). <sup>[[#fn:3|3]]</sup> Yet, clearly barriers to adoption remain, or these actions would have been more widely used by now. Much of the scientific literature on barriers to implementing response options focuses on the individual and household level, and discusses limits to adoption, often primarily identified as economic factors (Nigussie et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r2|2]]</sup> ; Dallimer et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r3|3]]</sup> ). While a useful approach, such studies are often unable to account for the larger enabling factors that might assist in more wide-scale implementation (Chapter 7 discusses these governance factors and associated barriers in more detail).

Instead, this chapter proposes that each response option identified and assessed needs to be understood as an intervention within complex socio-ecological systems (SES) (introduced in Chapter 1). In this understanding, physical changes affect human decision-making over land and risk management options, as do economics, policies, and cultural factors, which in turn may drive additional ecological change (Rawlins and Morris 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r3|3]]</sup> ). This co-evolution of responses within an SES provides a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics between drivers of change and impacts of interventions. Thus, in discussions of the 40 specific response options in this chapter, it must be kept in mind that all need to be contextualised within the specific SES in which they are deployed (Figure 6.1). Framing response options within SESs also recognises the interactions ''between'' different response options. However, a major problem within SESs is that the choice and use of different response options requires knowledge of the problems they are aimed at solving, which may be unclear, contested, or not shared equally among stakeholders (Carmenta et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r4|4]]</sup> ). Drivers of environmental change often have primarily social or economic, rather than technological roots, which requires acknowledgement that the response options not aimed at reducing the drivers of change may thus be less successful (Schwilch et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r5|5]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-6-1-2-framing-social-challenges-and-acknowledging-enabling-factors-block-2"></div>

<span id="figure-6.1"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Figure 6.1'''

<span id="model-to-represent-a-social-ecological-system-of-one-of-the-integrated-response-options-in-this-chapter-using-restoration-and-reduced-impact-of-peatlands-as-an-example.the-boxes-show-systems-ecosystem-social-system-external-and-internal-drivers-of-change-and-the-management-response-here-enacting-the-response-option.-unless-included-in-the-internal-drivers-of"></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Model to represent a social-ecological system of one of the integrated response options in this chapter, using restoration and reduced impact of peatlands as an example.The boxes show systems (ecosystem, social system), external and internal drivers of change and the management response – here enacting the response option. Unless included in the ‘internal drivers of […]'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:3b5c24289461ead4cbab04bc687170fe Figure-6.1-1024x699.jpg]]

Model to represent a social-ecological system of one of the integrated response options in this chapter, using restoration and reduced impact of peatlands as an example.The boxes show systems (ecosystem, social system), external and internal drivers of change and the management response – here enacting the response option. Unless included in the ‘internal drivers of change’ box, all other drivers of change are external (e.g., climate, policy, markets, anthropogenic land pressures). The arrows represent how the systems can influence each other, with key drivers of impact written in the arrow in the direction of effect.

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-1-2-framing-social-challenges-and-acknowledging-enabling-factors-block-3"></div>

Response options must also account for the uneven distribution of impacts among populations of both environmental change and intervention responses to this change. Understanding the integrated response options available in a given context requires an understanding of the specificities of social vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and institutional support to assist communities, households and regions to reach their capabilities and achievement of the SDG and other social and land management goals. Vulnerability reflects how assets are distributed within and among communities, shaped by factors that are not easily overcome with technical solutions, including inequality and marginalisation, poverty, and access to resources (Adger et al. 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r6|6]]</sup> ; Hallegate et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r7|7]]</sup> ). Understanding why some people are vulnerable, and what structural factors perpetuate this vulnerability requires attention to both micro and meso scales (Tschakert et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r8|8]]</sup> ). These vulnerabilities create barriers to adoption of even low- cost high-return response options, such as soil carbon management, that may seem obviously beneficial to implement (Mutoko et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r9|9]]</sup> ; Cavanagh et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r10|10]]</sup> ). Thus, assessment of the differentiated vulnerabilities that may prevent the adoption of a response option need to be considered as part of any package of interventions.

Adaptive capacity relates to the ability of institutions or people to modify or change characteristics or behaviour so as to cope better with existing or anticipated external stresses (Moss et al. 2001 <sup>[[#fn:r11|11]]</sup> ; Brenkert and Malone 2005 <sup>[[#fn:r12|12]]</sup> ; Brooks et al. 2005 <sup>[[#fn:r13|13]]</sup> ). Adaptive capacity reflects institutional and policy support networks, and has often been associated at the national level with strong developments in the fields of economics, education, health, and governance and political rights (Smit et al. 2001 <sup>[[#fn:r14|14]]</sup> ). Areas with low adaptive capacity, as reflected in low Human Development Index scores, might constrain the ability of communities to implement response options (Section 6.4.4.1 and Figure 6.7).

Further, while environmental changes like land degradation have obvious social and cultural impacts, (as discussed in the preceding chapters), so do response options. Therefore, careful thought is needed about what impacts are expected and what trade-offs are acceptable. One potential way to assess the impact of response interventions relates to the idea of capabilities, a concept first 6 proposed by economist Amartya Sen (Sen 1992 <sup>[[#fn:r15|15]]</sup> ). Understanding capability as the ‘freedom to achieve well-being’ frames a problem as being a matter of facilitating what people aspire to do and be, rather than telling them to achieve a standardised or predetermined outcome (Nussbaum and Sen 1993 <sup>[[#fn:r16|16]]</sup> ). Thus a capability approach is generally a more flexible and multi-purpose framework, appropriate to an SES understanding because of its open-ended approach (Bockstael and Berkes 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r17|17]]</sup> ). Thus, one question for any decision- maker approaching schematics of response options is to determine which response options lead to increased or decreased capabilities for the stakeholders who are the objects of the interventions, given the context of the SES in which the response option will be implemented.

Section 6.4.3 examines some of the capabilities that are reflected in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as gender equality and education, and assesses how each of the 40 response options may affect those goals, either positively or negatively, through a review of the available literature.

<div id="section-6-1-2-1-enabling-conditions"></div>

<span id="enabling-conditions"></span>
==== 6.1.2.1 Enabling conditions ====

<div id="section-6-1-2-1-enabling-conditions-block-1"></div>

Response options are not implemented in a vacuum and rely on knowledge production and socio-economic and cultural strategies and approaches embedded within them to be successful. For example, it is well known that “Weak grassroots institutions characterised by low capacity, failure to exploit collective capital and poor knowledge sharing and access to information, are common barriers to sustainable land management and improved food security” (Oloo and Omondi 2017). Achieving broad goals such as reduced poverty or sustainable land management requires conducive enabling conditions, such as attention to gender issues and the involvement of stakeholders, such as indigenous peoples and local communities, as well as attention to governance, including adaptive governance, stakeholder engagement, and institutional facilitation (Section 6.4.4.3). These enabling conditions – such as gender- sensitive programming or community-based solutions – are not categorised as individual response options in subsequent sections of this chapter because they are conditions that can potentially help improve all response options when used in tandem to produce more sustainable outcomes. Chapter 7 picks up on these themes and discusses the ways various policies to implement response options have tried to minimise unwanted social and economic impacts on participants in more depth, through deeper analysis of concepts such as citizen science and adaptive governance. Here we simply note the importance of assessing the contexts in which response options will be delivered, as no two situations are the same, and no single response option is likely to be a ‘silver bullet’ to solve all land– climate problems; each option comes with potential challenges and trade-offs (Section 6.2), barriers to implementation (Section 6.4.1), interactions with other sectors of society (Section 6.4.3), and potential environmental limitations (Section 6.4.4).

<span id="challenges-and-response-options-in-current-and-historical-interventions"></span>
=== 6.1.3 Challenges and response options in current and historical interventions ===

<div id="section-6-1-3-challenges-and-response-options-in-current-and-historical-interventions-block-1"></div>

Land-based systems are exposed to multiple overlapping challenges, including climate change (adaptation and mitigation), desertification (Chapter 3), land degradation (Chapter 4) and food insecurity (Chapter 5), as well as loss of biodiversity, groundwater stress (from over-abstraction) and water quality. The spatial distribution of these individual land-based challenges is shown in Figure 6.2, based on recent studies and using the following indicators:

* Desertification attributed to land use is estimated from vegetation remote sensing (Figure 3.7c), mean annual change in NDVImax &lt;–0.001 (between 1982 and 2015) in dryland areas (Aridity Index &gt;0.65), noting, however, that desertification has multiple causes (Chapter 3).
* Land degradation (Chapter 4) is based on a soil erosion (Borrelli et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r18|18]]</sup> ) proxy (annual erosion rate of 3 t ha <sup>–1</sup> or above).
* The climate change challenge for adaptation is based on a dissimilarity index of monthly means of temperature and precipitation between current and end-of-century scenarios (dissimilarity index equal to 0.7 or above; Netzel and Stepinski 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r19|19]]</sup> ), noting, however, that rapid warming could occur in all land regions (Chapter 2).
* The food security challenge is estimated as the prevalence of chronic undernourishment (higher or equal to 5%) by country in 2015 (FAO 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r20|20]]</sup> ), noting, however, that food security has several dimensions (Chapter 5).
* The biodiversity challenge uses threatened terrestrial biodiversity hotspots (areas where exceptional concentrations of endemic species are undergoing exceptional loss of habitat, (Mittermeier et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r21|21]]</sup> ), noting, however, that biodiversity concerns more than just threatened endemic species.
* The groundwater stress challenge is estimated as groundwater abstraction over recharge ratios above one (Gassert et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r22|22]]</sup> ) in agricultural areas (croplands and villages).
* The water quality challenge is estimated as critical loads (higher or equal to 1000 kg N km <sup>–2</sup> or 50 kg P km <sup>–2</sup> ) of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) (Xie and Ringler 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r23|23]]</sup> ).

Overlapping land-based challenges affect all land-use categories: croplands, rangelands, semi-natural forests, villages, dense settlements, wild forests and sparse trees and barren lands. These land-use categories can be defined as anthropogenic biomes, or anthromes, and their global distribution was mapped by Ellis and Ramankutty (2008) <sup>[[#fn:r24|24]]</sup> (Figure 6.2).

The majority of the global population is concentrated in dense settlements and villages, accounting for less than 7% of the global ice-free land area, while croplands and rangelands use 39% of land. The remainder of the ice-free land area (more than half) is used by semi-natural forests, by wild forests, sparse trees and barren lands (Table 6.1).

Land-use types (or anthromes) are exposed to multiple overlapping challenges. Climate change could induce rapid warming in all land areas (Chapter 2). In close to 70% of the ice-free land area, the climate change adaptation challenge could be reinforced by a strong dissimilarity between end-of-century and current temperature and precipitation seasonal cycles (Netzel and Stepinski 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r25|25]]</sup> ). Chronic undernourishment (a component of food insecurity) is concentrated in 20% of global ice-free land area. Severe soil erosion (a proxy of land degradation) and desertification from land use affect 13% and 3% of ice-free land area, respectively. Both groundwater stress and severe water-quality decline (12% and 10% of ice-free land area, respectively) contribute to the water challenge. Threatened biodiversity hot-spots (15% of ice-free land area) are significant for the biodiversity challenge (Table 6.1).

Since land-based challenges overlap, part of the ice-free land area is exposed to combinations of two or more challenges. For instance, land degradation (severe soil erosion) or desertification from land use and food insecurity (chronic undernourishment) are combined with a strong climate change adaptation challenge (dissimilarity in seasonal cycles) in 4.5% of the ice-free land area (Figure 6.3).

The global distribution of land area by the number of overlapping land challenges (Figure 6.4) shows: the least exposure to land challenges in barren lands; less frequent exposure to two or more challenges in wild forests than in semi-natural forests; more frequent exposure to two or more challenges in agricultural anthromes (croplands and rangelands) and dense settlements than in forests; most frequent exposure to three or more challenges in villages compared to other land-use types. Therefore, land-use types intensively used by humans are, on average, exposed to a larger number of challenges than land- use types (or anthromes) least exposed to human use.

Case studies located in different world regions are presented for each anthrome, in order to provide historical context on the interlinkages between multiple challenges and responses (Box 6.1). Taken together, these case studies illustrate the large contrast across anthromes in land-based interventions, and show the way these interventions respond to combinations of challenges.

<div id="section-6-1-3-challenges-and-response-options-in-current-and-historical-interventions-block-2"></div>

<span id="figure-6.2"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Figure 6.2'''

<span id="global-distributions-of-land-use-types-and-individual-land-based-challenges.a-land-use-types-or-anthromes-after-ellis-and-ramankutty-2008-b-climate-change-adaptation-challenge-estimated-from-the-dissimilarity-between-current-and-end-of-century-climate-scenarios-netzel-and-stepinski-2018-c-desertification-challenge-after-chapter-3-figure-3.7c-d-land-degradation-challenge-estimated-from-a-soil-erosion-proxy"></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Global distributions of land-use types and individual land-based challenges.(a) Land-use types (or anthromes, after Ellis and Ramankutty 2008); (b) Climate change adaptation challenge (estimated from the dissimilarity between current and end-of-century climate scenarios, Netzel and Stepinski 2018); (c) Desertification challenge (after Chapter 3, Figure 3.7c); (d) Land degradation challenge (estimated from a soil erosion proxy, […]'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:591597f7860c9c91aaeebf45efdb6834 Figure-6.2-848x1024.jpg]]

Global distributions of land-use types and individual land-based challenges.(a) Land-use types (or anthromes, after Ellis and Ramankutty 2008 <sup>[[#fn:r1229|1229]]</sup> ); (b) Climate change adaptation challenge (estimated from the dissimilarity between current and end-of-century climate scenarios, Netzel and Stepinski 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1230|1230]]</sup> ); (c) Desertification challenge (after Chapter 3, Figure 3.7c); (d) Land degradation challenge (estimated from a soil erosion proxy, one indicator of land degradation; Borrelli et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1231|1231]]</sup> ); (e) Food security challenge (estimated from chronic undernourishment, a component of food security, FAO 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r1232|1232]]</sup> ); (f) biodiversity challenge (estimated from threatened biodiversity hotspots, a component of biodiversity, Mittermeier et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1233|1233]]</sup> ]); (g) Groundwater stress challenge (estimated from water over-abstraction, Gassert et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1234|1234]]</sup> ); (h) Water quality challenge (estimated from critical nitrogen and phosphorus loads of water systems, Xie and Ringler 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1235|1235]]</sup> ).

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-1-3-challenges-and-response-options-in-current-and-historical-interventions-block-3"></div>

<span id="table-6.1"></span>
<!-- START TABLE -->
'''Table 6.1'''

<span id="global-area-of-land-use-types-or-anthromes-and-current-percentage-area-exposure-to-individual-overlapping-land-based-challenges."></span>
'''Global area of land-use types (or anthromes) and current percentage area exposure to individual (overlapping) land-based challenges.'''

See Figure 6.2 and text for further details on criteria for individual challenges.

<!-- TABLE -->
{| class="wikitable"
|-

Land-use type (anthromea)

Anthrome area

Climate

change adaptation (dissimilarity index proxy)b

Land degradation (soil erosion proxy)c

Desertifica- tion (ascribed to land use)d

Food security (chronic undernourish- ment)e

Biodiversity (threatened hotspot)f

Groundwater stress (over abstraction)g

Water quality (critical N-P loads)h

|-
|

% of ice-free land areai

|

% anthrome area exposed to an individual challenge

|
|-

Dense settlement

1

76

20

3

30

32

–

30

|-

Village

5

70

49

3

78

28

77

59

|-

Cropland

13

68

21

7

28

27

65

20

|-

Rangeland

26

46

14

7

43

21

–

10

|-

Semi-natural forests

14

91

17

0.7

–

21

–

7

|-

Wild forests and sparse trees

17

98

4

0.5

–

2

–

0.3

|-

Barren

19

53

6

0.9

2

4

–

0.4

|-

\*Organic soils

4

95

10

2

9

13

–

6

|-

\*Coastal wetlands

0.6

74

11

2

24

33

–

26

|-

All anthromes

100

69

13

3.2

20

15

12

10

|}
<!-- END TABLE -->

a Ellis and Ramankutty (2008) <sup>[[#fn:r1236|1236]]</sup> ; b Borrelli et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1237|1237]]</sup> ; c Netzel and Stepinski 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1238|1238]]</sup> ; d from Figure 3.7c in Chapter 3; e FAO 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r1239|1239]]</sup> ; f Mittermeier et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1240|1240]]</sup> ; g Gassert et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1241|1241]]</sup> ; h Xie and Ringler 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1242|1242]]</sup> ; i the global ice-free land area is estimated at 134 Mkm <sup>2</sup> .

<div id="section-6-1-3-challenges-and-response-options-in-current-and-historical-interventions-block-4"></div>

<span id="figure-6.3"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Figure 6.3'''

<span id="example-of-overlap-between-land-challenges.-a-overlap-between-the-desertification-from-land-use-challenge-and-the-climate-change-adaptation-strong-dissimilarity-in-seasonal-cycles-challenge.-b-overlap-between-the-land-degradation-soil-erosion-proxy-challenge-and-the-climate-change-adaptation-challenge.-c-overlap-between-the-desertification-or-land-degradation-challenges-and-the-food-insecurity"></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Example of overlap between land challenges. (a) Overlap between the desertification (from land use) challenge and the climate change adaptation (strong dissimilarity in seasonal cycles) challenge. (b) Overlap between the land degradation (soil erosion proxy) challenge and the climate change adaptation challenge. (c) Overlap between the desertification or land degradation challenges and the food insecurity […]'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:71328a6fe18b72e63dac3c15956c9688 Figure-6.3-1024x602.jpg]]

Example of overlap between land challenges. (a) Overlap between the desertification (from land use) challenge and the climate change adaptation (strong dissimilarity in seasonal cycles) challenge. (b) Overlap between the land degradation (soil erosion proxy) challenge and the climate change adaptation challenge. (c) Overlap between the desertification or land degradation challenges and the food insecurity (chronic undernourishment) challenge. (d) Overlap between challenges shown in C and the climate change adaptation challenge. For challenges definitions, see text; references as in Figure 6.2.

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-1-3-challenges-and-response-options-in-current-and-historical-interventions-block-5"></div>

<span id="figure-6.4"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Figure 6.4'''

<span id="percentage-distribution-of-land-use-type-or-anthrome-area-by-number-of-overlapping-land-challenges-for-the-villages-dense-settlements-croplands-rangelands-semi-natural-forests-wild-forests-and-sparse-trees-and-barren-land-use-types.-values-in-brackets-show-the-mean-number-of-land-challenges-per-land-use-type.-land-challenges-include-desertification-from-land-use-land-degradation-soil"></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Percentage distribution of land-use type (or anthrome) area by number of overlapping land challenges for the villages, dense settlements, croplands, rangelands, semi-natural forests, wild forests and sparse trees and barren land-use types. Values in brackets show the mean number of land challenges per land-use type. Land challenges include desertification (from land use), land degradation (soil […]'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:6bb25db1eff5dbdf64fb2f65d11451ed Figure-6.4-1024x599.jpg]]

Percentage distribution of land-use type (or anthrome) area by number of overlapping land challenges for the villages, dense settlements, croplands, rangelands, semi-natural forests, wild forests and sparse trees and barren land-use types. Values in brackets show the mean number of land challenges per land-use type. Land challenges include desertification (from land use), land degradation (soil erosion proxy), climate change adaptation (seasonal dissimilarity proxy), food security (chronic undernourishment), biodiversity (threatened hot spots), groundwater stress (over abstraction) and water quality (critical nitrogen and phosphorus loads).

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-1-3-challenges-and-response-options-in-current-and-historical-interventions-block-6" class="box"></div>

<span id="box-6.1-case-studies-by-anthrome-type-showing-historical-interlinkages-between-land-based-challenges-and-the-development-of-local-responses"></span>