Coexisting Dryland Ecosystems and Humans: A Socio-Economic Approach
(Yaoqi Zhang, Liping Gao, Guanghua Qiao, Jiquan Chen????)
Hypotheses:
 The dryland ecosystem’s carrying capacity under a given set of technologies determines its
population density and settlement distribution. The low population density of the dryland is largely
due to its low carrying capacity, as seen in the form of low food production. The Malthus population
theory can largely explain the relationship between population and the environment in the Mongolian
Plateau for the long history of the dryland area. The nomadic lifestyle accurately reflects the impact
of the carrying capacity, as well as the adaptation strategy of the humans who live in this environment.
Apart from the restricted food providing capacity, other forces (e.g. natural disasters, wars, diseases)
also often checked the population growth before it reached the carrying capacity in this region.
 Mathus population theory may overlook the fact that the Mongolian Plateau has never been isolated,
and its interactions with other regions play an important role in the relationship between dryland
ecosystems and humans. Compared with the larger territory to the south, population pressure was
historically low in the Mongolian Plateau, so the population was significantly affected by migration
from other regions throughout history. Hence, population in some periods of time might have been
more heavily affected than in other periods.
 The immigration from other regions brought in new technologies (farming) and lifestyles (like
permanent settlement), which significantly impacted the environment in the Mongolian Plateau and
increased the population capacity, but also interrupted the ecosystems for the self-contained herding
society. The population migration into the Mongolian Plateau was largely promoted by political and
economic events and policies enforced by the governments.
 Two periods in recent history have had a significant impact on the Mongolian grassland. The changes
from subsistence herding and nomadic society to a planned economy from the 1950s to the 1980s in
the first period, and the market economy since the 1980s in the second period, without other
supporting institutional arrangements, led to the deterioration of the grassland. In a subsistence
herding society, the resources and the population check each other, keeping both the ecosystem and
the population stable in the long term. In the planned economy, as implemented in both Mongolia and
Inner Mongolia since the 1950s, the role of the controlling humans and ecosystems on each other was
broken. As witnessed in the general failure of planned economies, it is impossible to manage the
ecosystems as well under this system. In a planned economy, there is no quick adaptation mechanism,
which is required for grassland management. In the market economy, the objective is to maximize the
livestock value if there is open access (like the 1980s in Mongolia), grass value if there is open land
(like in the 1990s) or even maximize land value if there is private land (like the 2000s). Such
objectives would likely not be able to keep the ecosystems healthy, both in theory and in practice.
 The failure of planned economy and market economy does not suggest we should return to the
subsistence and nomadic society, which was sustainable but provided only a low level of wellbeing.
Instead, we need to improve both human welfare and the ecosystems. The most important mechanism
we need is to internalize the externalities of the environmental functions. The price of environmental
services from the ecosystem will respond to the opportunity costs and benefits of the services. This is
the most feasible way for providing the possibility of healthy coexisting dryland ecosystems and
humans. It is important to let the market build the relationships between humans and various services.
 How can we incorporate the impacts of climate changes that will affect the coexisting systems? Both
in the planned economy and the market economy, a lack of information on the interactions between
humans and the ecosystem, in addition to inadequate implementation, planning, and mechanisms,
would eventually lead to the collapse of the ecosystem.
Data Sources: Historical literature review, secondly data analysis, case study
Methodology: To understand the coexistence of humans and natural systems through study of carrying
capacity for population in three kinds of economies: subsistence herding, planned economy, and market
economy.
1