From Historical Narratives to Circular Economy: De-Complexifying the “Desertification” Debate

Rares Halbac-Cotoara-Zamfir, Andrea Colantoni, Enrico Maria Mosconi, Stefano Poponi, Simona Fortunati, Luca Salvati and Filippo Gambella
Additional contact information
Rares Halbac-Cotoara-Zamfir: Department of Overland Communication Ways, Foundation and Cadastral Survey, Politehnica University of Timisoara, 300224 Timisoara, Romania
Andrea Colantoni: Department of Agricultural and Forest Science, University of Tuscia, I-01100 Viterbo, Italy
Enrico Maria Mosconi: Department of Economics, Engeneering, Society and Business, University of Tuscia, I-01100 Viterbo, Italy
Stefano Poponi: Nicolò Cusano University (Unicusano), Via Don Carlo Gnocchi 3, I-00166 Rome, Italy
Simona Fortunati: Department of Economics, Engeneering, Society and Business, University of Tuscia, I-01100 Viterbo, Italy
Luca Salvati: Department of Economics and Law, University of Macerata, Via Armaroli 43, I-62100 Macerata, Italy
Filippo Gambella: Department of Agricultural Science, University of Sassari, Via De Nicola 9, I-07100 Sassari, Italy

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 15, 1-18

Abstract: Assuming the importance of a “socioeconomic mosaic” influencing soil and land degradation at the landscape scale, spatial contexts should be considered in the analysis of desertification risk as a base for the design of appropriate counteracting strategies. A holistic approach grounded on a multi-scale qualitative and quantitative assessment is required to identify optimal development strategies regulating the socioeconomic dimensions of land degradation. In the last few decades, the operational thinking at the base of a comprehensive, holistic theory of land degradation evolved toward many different conceptual steps. Moving from empirical, qualitative and unstructured frameworks to a more structured, rational and articulated thinking, such theoretical approaches have been usually oriented toward complex and non-linear dynamics benefiting from progressive and refined approximations. Based on these premises, eleven disciplinary approaches were identified and commented extensively on in the present study, and were classified along a gradient of increasing complexity, from more qualitative and de-structured frameworks to more articulated, non-linear thinking aimed at interpreting the intrinsic fragmentation and heterogeneity of environmental and socioeconomic processes underlying land degradation. Identifying, reviewing and classifying such approaches demonstrated that the evolution of global thinking in land degradation was intimately non-linear, developing narrative and deductive approaches together with inferential, experimentally oriented visions. Focusing specifically on advanced economies in the world, our review contributes to systematize multiple—sometimes entropic—interpretations of desertification processes into a more organized framework, giving value to methodological interplays and specific interpretations of the latent processes underlying land degradation.

Keywords: disciplinary perspectives; historical narrative; combating desertification; assessment; complex systems (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/15/5398/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/15/5398/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:15:p:5398-:d:390443

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().