生计策略是一种生活方式所需的能力、资产（包括物质和社会资源）和各种活动的组合。牧户尺度作为研究生计策略的内禀尺度，其生计策略的选择将会影响生态系统服务和牧民福祉。探讨不同牧户生计策略之间的差异、影响因素及其对生态系统服务、牧民福祉的影响，有助于优化牧户生计策略，进而推动区域的可持续发展。本研究在内蒙古典型草原基于可持续生计概念框架，在牧户尺度分析了生计策略差异及其影响因素，评估牧户生计策略如何影响生态系统服务和牧民福祉，进而分析了生计资本、生计策略、生态系统服务和牧民福祉四者间的关联。
本研究主要包括四部分：（1）基于牧户各项收入（小畜收入、大畜收入、政府补贴、牧草收入、旅游业收入、出租草场收入、工资性收入）所占比例进行生计策略分类，探究牧户选取不同生计策略的决定因素；（2）基于牧户调查数据和遥感数据等评估牧户尺度的产草量、载畜率、产水量、土壤保持、碳储量、休憩旅游及民族文化传承七种关键生态系统服务，分析牧户生计策略如何影响生态系统服务；（3）基于牧户调查数据评估牧户的基本物质需求、收入与支出、健康及教育四个维度的牧民福祉，分析牧户生计策略对牧民福祉的影响；（4）基于以上三部分研究得到的五类生计策略、生态系统服务及牧民福祉，分析内蒙古典型草原牧户生计策略对生态系统服务与牧民福祉之间关系的影响。本研究的主要结果如下：
（1）内蒙古典型草原牧户存在五种生计策略，制造资本和自然资本是牧户选择生计策略的关键影响因素。根据牧户七种不同来源收入所占比例，内蒙古典型草原牧户的生计策略可分为五类：仅饲养小畜、主要饲养小畜、主要饲养大畜、仅饲养大畜和“其他”。在五类生计策略中，仅饲养小畜的生计策略在该区占主导地位，其比例为63.49%，该生计策略的牧户年收入均值为10.63万元/户。主要饲养大畜生计策略的牧户具有最高的经济效益，年收入均值高达32.32万元/户；而选择“其他”生计策略的牧户经济效益最低，年收入均值仅为6.85万元/户。牧户选取不同生计策略主要受制造资本（如牲畜数量）和自然资本（如总可利用草场面积）的影响；制造资本能够直接影响牧户生计策略，而自然资本既可直接，亦可通过制造资本间接影响牧户生计策略。
（2）内蒙古典型草原不同生计策略的牧户，具有不同的生态系统服务特征。选择仅饲养大畜生计策略的牧户草场具有最高的生态系统服务，主要表现在产草量和产水量方面；选择主要饲养大畜生计策略的牧户次之，主要表现在载畜率和民族文化传承方面。不同生态系统服务之间存在较为普遍的协同关系，尤其是产草量与载畜率、产草量与产水量、载畜率与产水量、休憩旅游与民族文化传承之间，但这些关系在不同生计策略下表现有所不同。该区域的生态系统服务簇可分为三类：单一型或低多样性类型（Low-diversity，LD）、中间型或中等多样性类型（Medium-diversity，MD）和复合型或高多样性类型（High-diversity，HD）。单一型的生态系统服务簇在该区占主导地位，其比例为63.49%，该类型包含较高的碳储量、产草量和载畜率；中间型比例为35.68%，该类型包含较高的碳储量、产水量和土壤保持；复合型比例为0.83%，该类型不仅包含供给服务和调节服务，还包含了文化服务，整体生态系统服务水平较高。不同生计策略下，生态系统服务簇类型所占比例有所差异：仅饲养大畜生计策略的牧户，生态系统服务簇主要表现为中间型；另外四种生计策略的牧户，生态系统服务簇均是以单一型为主，中间型次之。
（3）内蒙古典型草原不同生计策略的牧户，具有不同的福祉特征。研究从四个维度表征牧民福祉，分别是基本物质需求、收入与支出、健康和教育，在综合分析时它们的权重分别为0.34、0.34、0.21和0.11。在不同生计策略下，牧户福祉存在显著差异，选择主要饲养大畜和仅饲养大畜生计策略的牧户福祉最高。选择仅饲养大畜和主要饲养大畜生计策略的牧户，其基本物质需求显著高于选择其他生计策略的牧户；选择主要饲养大畜生计策略的牧户，其收入与支出显著高于选择其他生计策略的牧户；健康和教育在不同生计策略间并无显著差异。
（4）内蒙古典型草原牧户生态系统服务与牧民福祉之间的关系随着生计策略不同而变。居住条件、生活基础设施、安全的水资源供给、总收入、总支出、身体健康、文化教育均受到生态系统服务的影响；而牧业基础设施受生态系统服务的影响有限。生态系统服务与牧民福祉之间存在普遍的正相关关系。不同生计策略下生态系统服务对牧民福祉的影响程度不同：选择仅饲养小畜、主要饲养小畜和“其他”生计策略的牧户，牧民福祉与生态系统服务关系紧密，而选择主要饲养大畜或仅饲养大畜生计策略的牧户，二者之间关系表现出一定的解耦状态。制造资本和自然资本影响了牧民生计策略的选择，不同生计策略主要影响了供给服务和文化服务，最终作用于基本物质需求和收入与支出两个维度的牧民福祉。
本研究就内蒙古草原牧户的可持续发展提供了四个方面的建议：（1）以可持续生计为框架、以景观可持续科学为理论支撑，加强土壤、草地、牲畜和牧户四个不同组分的耦合研究；（2）优化生计策略，向主要饲养大畜的生计策略过渡；（3）强化技术支持，开展品种选育、牲畜喂养、疾病防治等方面的培训；（4）加强政策保障，充分发挥“减羊增牛”“生态补奖”等政策引导作用。

Livelihood strategies are usually defined as the the combinations of the capabilities, material and social assets, and activities required for making a living.  Household is the most focused scale of livelihood strategy research.  Different livelihood strategies lead to different ways and intensities of livelihood capital utilization by households, which in turn affect grassland ecosystem services and human well-being.  Understanding the differences between household livelihood strategies, the influencing factors and their impacts on ecosystem services and herders' well-being is essential to optimize household livelihood strategies and thus promote regional sustainable development.  Therefore, research on pastoral sustainable livelihoods has attracted widespread attention from society and scholars.  In this study, I surveyed 241 households in the typical steppe region of Inner Mongolia to investigate the typology of pastoral livelihood strategies and their impacts on the grasslands and pastoralists.  Based on the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF), this study analyzed the differences in household livelihood strategies and their influencing factors, assessed their effects on ecosystem services and herders' well-being at the household scale, and analyzed the associations among livelihood capitals, livelihood strategies, ecosystem services, and herders' well-being.  
The main work of this study consists of the following four parts: (1) Classifying household livelihood strategies based on the proportion of seven different sources of income (i.e., small livestock sales, large livestock sales, grass sales, tourism, government subsidies, grassland rentals, and wages), and exploring the determinants of different livelihood strategies chosen by households;  (2) Evaluating seven key ecosystem services (grass production, stocking rate, water yield, soil conservation, carbon storage, tourism services and cultural inheritance) of households based on the household survey data and remote sensing data, and assessing the impacts of household livelihood strategies on ecosystem services accordingly;  (3) Evaluating herders’ well-being based on the household survey data in four dimensions: basic material needs, income & expenditure, health, and education, and assessing the impacts of different household livelihood strategies on herders’ well-being;  (4) Analyzing the influences of household livelihood strategies on the relationship between ecosystem services and herders’ well-being in the typical steppe region of Inner Mongolia based on the five types of livelihood strategies, ecosystem services, and herders' well-being.  The main findings of this study are as follows:  
(1) There were five main household livelihood strategies in the typical steppe region of Inner Mongolia, and the choice of different household livelihood strategies was mainly influenced by physical capital and natural capital.  According to clustering analysis based on the proportion of seven different sources of income, household livelihood strategies in this region were divided into five types: breeding only small livestock (S), breeding mainly small livestock (S&L), breeding mainly large livestock (L&S), breeding only large livestock (L), and “others” (Others).  Among the five types of household livelihood strategies, breeding only small livestock (S) was the most dominant household livelihood strategy in this region with the proportion of 63.49%, and the household income of 106.3 thousand Chinese yuans.  Breeding mainly large livestock (L&S) had the highest household income (323.2 thousand Chinese yuans), while the “others” (OTHERS) had the lowest household income (68.5 thousand Chinese yuans).  Among the five types of livelihood capital, manufactured capital (e.g. the number of livestock units) and natural capital (e.g. household’s total available grassland area) had more substantial influences on household livelihood strategies.  Manufactured capital directly influenced household livelihood strategies, while natural capital affected household livelihood strategies either directly or indirectly through manufactured capital.  
(2) Ecosystem services varied among households in the typical steppe region of Inner Mongolia when households chose different livelihood strategies.  Households that chose the strategy of breeding only large livestock (L) provided the highest ecosystem services, mainly in terms of grass production and water yield, while households that chose the strategy of breeding mainly large livestock (L&S) provided the second highest ecosystem services, mainly in terms of stocking rate and cultural inheritance.  There were more synergistic relationships between different ecosystem services, especially between grass production and livestock density, between grass production and water yield, between livestock density and water yield, and between tourism services and cultural inheritance, but these relations varied with households livelihood strategies.  Three types of ecosystem services bundles were identified in this region, including low-diversity (LD), medium-diversity (MD), and high-diversity (HD).  Low-diversity (LD) was the most dominant ecosystem services bundles with the proportion of 63.49%, and this type provided higher carbon storage, grass production, and livestock density; medium-diversity (MD) with the proportion of 35.68% provided higher carbon storage, water yield, and soil conservation; high-diversity (HD) with the proportion of 0.83% provided not only provisioning and regulating services, but also cultural services, and had a high level of overall ecosystem services.  The proportion of ecosystem service bundles types were different under different household livelihood strategies.  Households that chose the strategy of breeding only large livestock (L) exhibited mainly medium-diversity (MD) ecosystem service bundles; households that chose the other four livelihood strategies exhibited mainly low-diversity (LD) ecosystem service bundles, followed by medium-diversity (MD) ones.  
(3) Herders’ well-being varied among households in the typical steppe region of Inner Mongolia when households chose different livelihood strategies.  The weights of the four dimensions of herders’ well-being were in the order of basic material needs (0.34), income & expenditure (0.34), health (0.21) and education (0.11).  There were significant effects of different household livelihood strategies on herders’ well-being.  Households that chose the strategy of breeding only large livestock (L) and breeding mainly large livestock (L&S) had the highest well-being.  Households that chose the strategy of breeding only large livestock (L) and breeding mainly large livestock (L&S) had significantly higher basic material needs than those who chose the other strategies; households that chose the strategy of breeding mainly large livestock (L&S) had significantly higher income & expenditure than those who chose the other strategies; there was no significant difference of health and education between different livelihood strategies.  
(4) The relationships between ecosystem services and herders’ well-being varied among households in the typical steppe region of Inner Mongolia when households chose different livelihood strategies.  Housing conditions, basic material needs for living, secure water supply, total income, total expenditure, physical health, and cultural education were all influenced by ecosystem services, while the influence of ecosystem services on basic husbandry infrastructure was limited.  Ecosystem services and herders’ well-being were generally positively correlated.  The degree of the influence of ecosystem services on herders’ well-being varied across different livelihood strategies.  The relationships between herders’ well-being and ecosystem services were strong for households that chose the strategy of breeding only small livestock (S), breeding mainly small livestock (S&L), and breeding no livestock (Others), and somewhat decoupled for households that chose the strategy of breeding only large livestock (L) and breeding mainly large livestock (L&S).  Manufactured capital and natural capital influenced the choices of household livelihood strategies, which mainly affect supply services and cultural services, and ultimately acted on two dimensions of herders’ well-being: basic material needs and income & expenditure.  
Based on the above results, this dissertation makes four recommendations for the sustainable development of households in the Inner Mongolian grassland: (1) emphasizing research on the interactions among four different components: soil, grass, livestock, and herders, using sustainable livelihoods framework and landscape sustainability science; (2) optimizing livelihood strategies and transitioning to a livelihood strategy of breeding mainly large livestock (L&S); (3) strengthening technical support and providing training on breed selection, livestock feeding and disease control; (4) reinforcing policy protection and promoting the guiding roles of policies such as "reduce sheep and increase cattle" and "ecological compensation".