Search

Land use change (LUC) is one of the main factors of economic development, and humans have been changing land use for many years. Agricultural land conversion (ALC) is determined as a major process in many developing countries. The aim of this study was to investigate the widespread ALC and its main socio-economic impacts in developing countries during the last 50 years. This study was conducted through a meta-analysis of 56 original articles that identified the main impacts of the ALC from the 19th century onwards in four continents, including Africa, Asia, Europe, and America. The findings of meta-regression showed that spatiotemporal impacts had significant influences on socio-economic impacts, and the most important spatial impacts were related to the continents of America and Asia. In addition, the results of ALC's rate coefficients in meta-regression indicated that the greatest social impacts were related to crime (2.17%) and the greatest economic impacts were related to endangering households' revenue (2.98%). Therefore, it is concluded that the rapid conversion of agricultural land to achieve economic development leads to socio-economic impacts, and such economic development cannot be sustainable. Accordingly, it is suggested that the ALC consider such things as planning detailed investigations for the ALC, assessing the value of goods and services provided by agricultural land, monitoring unauthorized ALCs, and imposing fines and taxes on the unplanned ALC. Agricultural land provides important non-market goods and services with good management. Improper conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land makes it unproductive and endangered, leading to global warming and climate change. • This study reviewed the widespread agricultural land conversion (ALC) in developed and developing countries. • The results showed significant spatiotemporal impacts of the ALC. • Land use change is a major factor in the economic development process. • ALC to non-agricultural use decreases the amount of available farmland for food production. • As industrialization intensifies, conflicts over land use for agricultural or non-agricultural purposes increase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pastoralists' households have faced several external disruptions such as drought, climate change, and rangeland degradation. Climatic and anthropogenic stressors are projected to pose extra pressure on the rangelands and increase the vulnerability of pastoralist households. Effective interventions are needed to improve pastoralists' livelihoods under climatic and anthropogenic changes. The sustainable livelihood framework can help to identify and investigate livelihood profiles, strategies, and outcomes. This study aims to determine the economic and environmental effectiveness of livelihood management strategies in pastoralist communities of Fars province, Iran. Based on a survey of 393 Qashqai nomad households, who were selected through multi-stage cluster sampling, four different livelihood strategies were identified: the pastoral, agro-pastoral, servicing-pastoral and agro craft-pastoral. However, traditional pastoralism played a basic role in the livelihood of the pastoralist households. Further, the results indicated that the engagement of households in different livelihood strategies was significantly driven by their livelihood assets. The findings suggested that livelihood diversification can reduce household poverty, and maintain rangelands in a relatively better condition. However, given the differences in livelihood assets, no unique livelihood strategy can simultaneously provide both optimal economic advantages and ecological sustainability. • To ensure rangelands conservation, assessing the livelihood strategies and outcomes are required. • Different livelihood strategies (LS) were selected to mitigate drought impacts. • Traditional pastoralism had not lost its economic relevance to the pastoralist households. • Pastoralist' livelihoods induced by a complex set of the livelihood assets. • No LS can always provide optimal economic and ecological advantages due to the differences in livelihood assets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]