This article was downloaded by:[Kansas State University Libraries]On: 8 July 2008Access Details: [subscription number 789760407]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Annals of the Association ofAmerican GeographersPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t788352614

Land, Life, and Environmental Change in MountainsRichard A. Marston aa Department of Geography, Kansas State University,

Online Publication Date: 01 September 2008

To cite this Article: Marston, Richard A. (2008) 'Land, Life, and EnvironmentalChange in Mountains', Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98:3,507 — 520

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/00045600802118491URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045600802118491

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Kan

sas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rarie

s] A

t: 19

:50

8 Ju

ly 2

008

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS

Land, Life, and Environmental Change in MountainsRichard A. Marston

Department of Geography, Kansas State University

One of the greatest challenges facing mountain scholars is to separate environmental change caused by humanactivities from change that would have occurred without human interference. Linking cause and effect is especiallydifficult in mountain regions where physical processes can operate at ferocious rates and ecosystems are sensitiveto rapid degradation by climate change and resource development. In addition, highland inhabitants are morevulnerable to natural hazards and political-economic marginalization than populations elsewhere. This addressfocuses on the Nanga Parbat massif in the Himalaya Range of Pakistan, Garhwal Himalaya of northwest India,and Manaslu-Ganesh Himals of central Nepal. I have highlighted three special insights that geographers offerto increase understanding of human impacts on the stability of mountain landscapes. First, the mixed methodsand theories we employ—quantitative and qualitative, postpositivist science and social theory, muddy-bootsfieldwork linked with GIScience—together position geographers to resolve the debate over human-triggeredchanges in the physical landscape in mountains and explain the frequent disconnect between mountain science,policymaking, and resource management. Second, academic scholars and policymakers have come to realize thatmost problems require training, experience, and expertise in understanding physical and human systems. Third,modern techniques of measuring rates of geomorphic change help place the human factor in perspective andexplain spatial variability of natural hazards. Forecasting environmental change remains elusive in “the perfectlandscape” of mountains. Key Words: environmental change, Himalaya, Karakoram, mountains.

Uno de los mayores retos al que se enfrentan los expertos en montanas es separar los cambios ambientales causadospor las actividades humanas de los cambios que hubiesen ocurrido sin la interferencia del hombre. La relacionentre causa y efecto es especialmente difıcil en las regiones montanosas, en donde los procesos fısicos puedendesencadenarse a una tasa feroz, y los ecosistemas son sensibles a la degradacion rapida provocada por los cambiosclimaticos y el desarrollo de recursos. Ademas, los habitantes de las tierras altas son mas vulnerables a los peligrosnaturales y a la marginalizacion polıtico-economica que los habitantes de otros lugares. Este artıculo se concentraen el macizo Nanga Parbat de la Cordillera de los Himalaya de Pakistan, el Garhwal Himalaya del noroeste deIndia y las montanas nevadas de Manaslu-Ganesh del centro de Nepal. He recalcado tres perspectivas especialesque los geografos ofrecen para aumentar la comprension de los impactos humanos en la estabilidad de los paisajes

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98(3) 2008, pp. 507–520 C! 2008 by Association of American GeographersPublished by Taylor & Francis, LLC.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Kan

sas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rarie

s] A

t: 19

:50

8 Ju

ly 2

008 508 Marston

montaneses. Primera, los metodos y teorıas que empleamos—cuantitativas y cualitativas, ciencia postpositivistay teorıa social, trabajo de campo ligado a la ciencia de informacion geografica (GIScience)—en conjunto,colocan a los geografos en posicion para resolver el debate sobre los cambios en el paisaje fısico de las montanasprovocado por el hombre y explicar la frecuente desconexion entre la ciencia de las montanas, el establecimientode polıticas y la administracion de recursos. Segunda, los expertos academicos y los disenadores de polıticas sehan dado cuenta de que la mayorıa de los problemas requieren capacitacion, experiencia y conocimientos paraentender los sistemas fısicos y humanos. Tercera, las tecnicas modernas para medir las tasas de cambio geomorficoayudan a poner en perspectiva el factor humano y explicar la variabilidad espacial de los peligros naturales. Elpronostico del cambio ambiental sigue siendo inaprensible en “el perfecto paisaje” de las montanas. Palabrasclaves: cambio ambiental, Himalaya, Karakoram, montanas.

When you give yourself to places, they give you yourselfback. Exploring the world is one of the best ways of ex-ploring the mind, and walking travels both terrains.

—Rebecca Solnit (2000, 13)

Mountains Sustain Humanity

I t is difficult to conceive of landscapes where oppor-tunities for geographic understanding are as great,and as urgently needed, as in mountains of the

world. Mountains of diverse origin, climate, and cul-tures cover approximately 24 percent of the land sur-face on Earth (Figure 1). Twenty percent of the popula-tion in the world resides in mountains or at the edge ofmountains. Many mountain landscapes are unstable be-cause of biophysical and socioeconomic factors, experi-encing change that defies understanding and prediction.Complex feedbacks affect mountains. For instance, up-lift drives climate change, and highlands are also espe-cially susceptible to the consequences of climate change(e.g., melting glaciers, degradation of alpine permafrost,shifting ecosystems, soil erosion, etc.). The physical andhuman environment changes rapidly over short dis-tances; horizontal and vertical boundaries are the firstto be affected by environmental changes (Owens andSlaymaker 2004).

Funnell and Price (2003) have noted over the lastforty years that mountain studies have moved dramat-ically from the pursuit of a few dedicated individualsto a process involving global agencies. The 1992 EarthSummit in Rio de Janeiro was instrumental in mov-ing mountains up in the global environmental agenda(Bandyopadhyay and Perveen 2004). A small, informalgroup of mountain scholars, known as the MountainAgenda collective, succeeded in adding Chapter 13 tothe global plan of action for sustainable developmentthat was adopted at the Rio Summit, better known asAgenda-21. This led to the United Nations declaring2002 as the International Year of Mountains. It is clear

from the work launched during the 1992 Earth Summit(e.g., United Nations 1992; Messerli and Ives 1997), theInternational Year of Mountains in 2002 (e.g., Price,Jansky, and Iatsenia 2004), the Millennium Ecosys-tem Assessment (Korner and Ohsawa 2005), and workof the International Centre for Integrated MountainDevelopment (e.g., Gyamtsho 2006; ICIMOD 2006)that mountain ecosystems are especially fragile and de-grading rapidly, although the cause may differ from onemountain region to another.

The beauty, inspiration, dramatic history of explo-ration, sacred significance, and abundant recreationalopportunities afforded by mountains have long beencelebrated in a rich published literature and thriv-ing tourism industry (Zurick 1992; Blake 2002, 2005;Zurick and Pacheco 2006). The place identity of moun-tains remains strong in many cultures, those indige-nous to mountain regions and beyond (McDonald 2002;Macfarlane 2003). As expressed by The Mountain In-stitute (2006, 1): “Mountains sustain humanity. Ouremotions about mountains are complex. We are com-forted by their presence and inspired by their beckoningspirit. We admire them. We fear them. We aspire tothem.” One expects spectacular physical landscapes inthe high Himalaya, but the greater impression was lefton me by the imprint of Buddhism on the landscapein the form of prayer flags, prayer wheels, chortens,gompas, monasteries, and the camaraderie and generaldemeanor of the Sherpa who served as guides on ourexpeditions. Mountain geography is so successful as ameeting place for human and physical geographers be-cause of the transcendent significance of mountains toland and life, whether as sacred place or site to studygeomorphology, landscape ecology, and glaciology.

Agricultural terraces in Asian mountains were firstbrought to my attention in remarkable classroom lec-tures by UCLA geography professor Joe Spencer, butone has to trek through the Lesser Himalaya dur-ing the monsoon season to fully appreciate the hy-draulic engineering and enhanced landscape stability of

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Kan

sas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rarie

s] A

t: 19

:50

8 Ju

ly 2

008 Land, Life, and Environmental Change in Mountains 509

Figure 1. Mountain ecoregions. Source: Modified from Bailey (1996).

terraces (Figure 2). The system of agricultural terraces,in place for centuries if not millennia in the MiddleMountains of Nepal, transmits 1,500 to 2,500 mm ofrainfall down hillslopes during the monsoon season, andretains moisture sufficient to irrigate crops. The por-tion entering steep streams turns millstones and prayerwheels. In khet terraces constructed with a berm (orbund) on the outer edge to retain water, surplus runoffmoves downslope from one ramped terrace to the next,and this occurs over hundreds and sometimes thousandsof meters of local relief without triggering irreparableerosion. At higher elevations, rain-fed bari terraces,without a berm and sloping outward, experience ratesof erosion two orders of magnitude higher than khetterraces. This creates a demand for labor to repair theterraces in winter after crops are harvested and laborbecomes available (Johnson, Olson, and Manandhar1982; Wu and Thornes 1995).

Runoff from snow melt, glacier melt, and rain inmountains generates 32 percent of global runoff, wa-ter that is used for drinking and hygiene, irrigationagriculture, hydropower, and other services by half ofthe population on Earth (Meybeck, Green, and Voros-marty 2001). In Wyoming, only 15 percent of the stateexperiences a water surplus—all of which occurs inmountains—and runoff from the mountainous high-lands supplies water to the remaining 85 percent ofthe state that is situated in water-deficit lowlands (Os-tresh, Marston, and Hudson 1990). Water resource de-velopment in the Himalaya and Karakoram varies fromlocal-scale technology to large-scale dams to generatehydropower for distant markets (Ives 2006). Mountainsprovide a significant portion of other resources: cropsand pasture, forests (for fuel, construction, fodder), andminerals (Messerli and Ives 1997). Mountains also con-stitute storehouses of biological and cultural diversity

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Kan

sas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rarie

s] A

t: 19

:50

8 Ju

ly 2

008 510 Marston

Figure 2. Khet terraces in the Garhwal Himalaya. Source: Author photo, March 2003.

(United Nations 1992; Bandyopadhyay and Perveen2004; Korner and Ohsawa 2005). The Indian Himalayaalone provides habitat for more than 1,748 plant speciesof known medicinal value (Samant, Dhar, and Palni1998).

Whereas mountains do sustain humanity, they arealso recognized as one of the most rugged and chal-lenging places on Earth to pursue a sustainable liveli-hood (B. C. Bishop 1990; Stevens 1993; Zurick andKaran 1999). Consider the vulnerability of society as afunction of exposure, sensitivity, and resilience to nat-ural hazards (Turner et al. 2003). Mountain peoplesare exposed to slope failures, snow and ice avalanches,glacier and landslide outburst floods, earthquakes, wild-fires, extreme climatic events, and other environmentalcalamities. Mountain inhabitants are subject to placesensitivity, but also to social sensitivity, finding them-selves isolated as well as politically and economicallymarginalized more than populations elsewhere (Zurick

and Karan 1999; Korner and Ohsawa 2005). The con-sequences for this in the Himalaya and Karakoram areobserved in the widespread poverty, poor access to ed-ucation and health care, and inadequate communityinfrastructure. Residents in the Himalaya and Karako-ram lack the full capacity to adapt to hazards becauseof the limited access to technology, capital, and gov-ernment. Mountains are often sites for political bor-ders and access might be restricted through narrowcorridors, so it is not surprising that they become therefuge for displaced groups (Zurick and Karan 1999; Ko-rner and Ohsawa 2005). Concerns over environmen-tal degradation, sustainability, and vulnerability havebeen replaced in some mountain regions by concernsfor security and economic globalization. For example,the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Maoistinsurgency in Nepal are only the most recent ves-tiges of “conflict at the top of the world” (Margolis2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Kan

sas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rarie

s] A

t: 19

:50

8 Ju

ly 2

008 Land, Life, and Environmental Change in Mountains 511

Figure 3. Approaching the study of mountain landscapes and sus-tainability at the nexus of earth system geography, human and cul-tural geography, and geographic information science.

The interaction between mountains and their in-habitants deserves special attention from geographersand other mountain scholars and is the main focus ofthis address. The theories, knowledge, and techniquesof geography yield special insights into environment–society interactions in mountains (Figure 3). We seekto understand the spatial distribution of earth surfacephenomena (biophysical and social), the links betweenthese phenomena, the resources and hazards for hu-mans created by these distributions, human impacts onthese distributions, and the meaning of places to peo-ple and societies. This address focuses on these themesin the Nanga Parbat massif in the Himalaya Range ofPakistan, Garhwal Himalaya of northwest India, andManaslu-Ganesh Himals of central Nepal (Figure 4).The Himalaya, Karakoram, and Tibetan Plateau com-prise the highest and greatest mountain mass on Earthand one of the best natural labs to study mountain sys-tems (Owen 2004). For a wonderful cartographic andphotographic portrayal of the Himalaya, readers are re-ferred to the award-winning Illustrated Atlas of the Hi-malaya by Zurick and Pacheco (2006).

A Grand Challenge for MountainGeographers

One of the greatest challenges facing mountainscholars is to separate environmental change caused

by human activities from change that would have oc-curred without human interference. If we cannot makethis distinction, we will fail to bridge the gap among sci-ence, policymaking, and resource management. Linkingcause and effect is especially difficult in mountain re-gions where physical processes can operate at ferociousrates and ecosystems are sensitive to rapid degradationby climate change, resource development, and land useand land cover change.

During the middle and late 1970s, a rising tide ofscientific literature and media attention was devotedto a perceived crisis in the Himalaya, linking defor-estation in the Himalaya to flooding and slope failureslocally and far downstream in the Ganges River plainand delta. One of the more influential articles in thepopular literature was authored by Kerasote (1987) inAudubon and titled, “Is Nepal Going Bald?” To investi-gate the link among deforestation, flooding, and slopefailures, I was invited to join two scientific expeditionsto the central Nepal Himalaya, hiking a total of 430 kmin the Langtang-Jugal and Manaslu-Ganesh himals. Wetraveled between elevations of 1,000 and 5,000 metersin the Middle Mountains and Greater Himalaya phys-iographic regions. I presumed that deforestation wouldaccelerate flooding and slope failures, as conventionalthinking dictated and as it does in the Coast Range andCascades of the Pacific Northwest where I had receivedmy graduate training. In short, our research in the Mid-dle Mountains (Lesser Himalaya) of central Nepal re-vealed that forest cover had no influence on the patternsof monsoon flooding (Marston, Kleinman, and Miller1996). We were equally astonished to learn that slopefailures occurred at a lower frequency in disturbed (de-forested) lands than in land where the forest cover wasintact (Marston, Miller, and Devkota 1998). The cause,form, and frequency of slope failures did vary by physio-graphic region and slope aspect, but was not influencedby deforestation. The primary control on slope failureswas exerted by geologic and geomorphic factors, morethan by land use and land cover. This finding has beensubsequently confirmed by the majority of researchers(e.g., Shroder 1998; Dhakal, Amada, and Aniya 2000;Ives 2006). Humans do accelerate slope failures throughroad building, especially when the roads are situated inmidslope locations instead of along ridge tops (Marston,Miller, and Devkota 1998; Barnard et al. 2001). Roadsin eastern Sikkim and western Garhwal have causedan average of two major landslides for every kilometerconstructed. Road building in Nepal has produced up to9,000 cubic meters of landslide per kilometer, and it hasbeen estimated that, on average, each kilometer of road

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Kan

sas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rarie

s] A

t: 19

:50

8 Ju

ly 2

008 512 Marston

Figure 4. Location of three study areas discussed in the article. Source: MODIS imagery draped over Space Shuttle digital elevation model(DEM), courtesy of Bill Bowen, February 2005.

constructed will eventually trigger 1,000 tons of landlost from slope failures (Deoja 1994; Zurick and Karan1999).

The lesson was learned that “place matters,” a les-son that is fundamental to geography, but one thatis sometimes assimilated only after long and difficultlabors in the field. One must take care to avoid biasfrom having received academic training and experiencein a limited number of locales (Schumm 1991). It sim-ply was not possible to translate our understanding ofthe effects of deforestation in the Pacific Rim to thesteep slopes and thin soils of the tectonically active,monsoon-affected central Nepal Himalaya. The valueof “muddy boots” geography became apparent: Go tothe field, measure, and learn for yourself! Andrew Mar-cus (personal communication 2007) stated: “Fieldworkgenerates some deep emotions for the world around you.

It also generates deep learning . . . you and your studentsask more challenging questions when confronted by theimmensity of the world around them.”

Our studies of monsoon flooding and slope failuresin the central Nepal Himalaya were hampered by theabsence of a globally robust theory for understandingmountain hydrology and geomorphology. On reflectingabout this state of affairs, Phillips (2007) authored abenchmark article titled “The Perfect Landscape.” Heproposed a new way of thinking about landscape evo-lution, one that in fact explains why geomorphologistshave not been able to develop a general, widely ac-cepted model of landscape evolution. Phillips pointedout that landscapes are controlled by a combination ofglobal factors (i.e., independent of time and place, gov-erned by the laws of physics and chemistry) and localfactors. Each landscape has an inherited history—from

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Kan

sas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rarie

s] A

t: 19

:50

8 Ju

ly 2

008 Land, Life, and Environmental Change in Mountains 513

biophysical and human influences—that will almostcertainly vary from place to place. The historical legacyof local disturbances leads to increased divergence,whereas global controls lead to convergence. The key,therefore, is to increase the generality of our models,concepts, and research and to reduce the number ofvariables and factors considered, rather than seek de-terministic models to describe landscapes in all of theircomplexity. The “perfect landscape,” a term adaptedfrom the book The Perfect Storm (Junger 1997), is onewhere an improbable (hard-to-predict) convergence ofglobal and local factors create a rather unique (or un-usual) set of interacting landforms. Phillips (2007, 160)wrote:

The probability of existence of any landscape or earthsurface system at a particular place and time is negligi-bly small; all landscapes are perfect. Recognition of theperfection of landscapes leads one away from a worldviewholding that landforms and landscapes are inevitable out-comes of deterministic laws, such that only one outcomeis possible for a given set of laws and initial conditions.

With the fragility, heterogeneity, and dynamic physicalgeography endemic to many highland environments,mountain locations conform to Phillips’s construct ofperfect landscapes.

Many Ways of “Knowing” in MountainGeography

Simultaneous with my field research in Nepal, re-search efforts by Jack Ives, Bruno Messeli, and a legion ofstudents led to publication of a series of articles and twonoteworthy books that present a theory of Himalayanenvironmental degradation (HED; Ives and Messerli1989; Ives 2006). The theory of HED was presented asa series of interlinked propositions based on the casualobservations and conventional thinking of many. Ivesand Messerli were not proponents of the theory, butrather used it as a starting point to call for data col-lection and analyses to confirm or reject it. Ives (2006)presents the most succinct outline of the theory of HEDas eight points; it is presented here in simplified formas a flowchart (Figure 5). Ives and Messerli (1989) andIves (2006) have shown that the theory of HED couldnot be supported when one actually collected field andremotely sensed data to test the hypotheses. In par-ticular, the link between deforestation and floods andslope failures could not be supported, confirming ourstudies in the Langtang-Jugal and Manaslu-Ganesh hi-mals. The review by Kasperson, Kasperson, and Turner

Figure 5. Simplified version of the theory of Himalayan environ-mental degradation. Source: Adapted from Ives (2006, 6–7).

(1995) also confirmed that no reported impending col-lapse of the human–environment system existed in theMiddle Mountains of Nepal.

Research by social theorists has revealed how effec-tive response to environmental change in mountains isconfounded by power politics and failure to fully regardthe differential impacts by gender and social class. If thetheory of HED has been invalidated, one must ask whyforest management practices have not been modified.Blaikie and Muldavin (2004) wondered why coerciverestrictions still exist on agriculture and forestry in theHimalaya of India and China; why not more local con-trol, as has happened in Nepal? Thompson, Warburton,and Hatley (2007) suggested that we shift our attentionaway from uncertain nature and focus instead on in-stitutions. Blaikie and Muldavin asserted that those inthe national political arena of India and China haveignored what science has to say to maintain the powerof the central government. Furthermore, they claimed,the notion that floods and sediment damage can be re-duced through upstream land use policies can be usedas leverage when governments apply for foreign aid.Thus, government attention has not been shifted fromthe theory of HED in India and China to the more realand pressing social issues of warfare and insurgency,poverty, education, medical problems, infrastructure,and water supplies. Ives (2006) agreed that attentionhas been diverted from the problems of unequal accessto resources, mistreatment of mountain minorities, andpolitical fragmentation.

Understanding of environment–society relations inthe Himalaya has been gained from postpositivists and

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Kan

sas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rarie

s] A

t: 19

:50

8 Ju

ly 2

008 514 Marston

social theorists alike. We learned to ask different ques-tions; dialogue is possible, but we must be willing totalk with one another (Harrison et al. 2004; Murphy2006). Many ways exist of “knowing” in geography; noone has a lock on the truth. The methods and modes ofpresentation differ between biophysical and humanis-tic geography. Multiple geographies exist, however, andwe improve understanding of mountains when we con-sult and collaborate. Writing in To Interpret the Earth:Ten Ways to be Wrong, Schumm (1991) delivered aneffective message that is relevant to the debate over thetheory of HED. Most postpositivists recognize potentialpitfalls in linking cause and effect. Science might notalways “get it right” the first time, but the studies linkingdeforestation, flooding, and slope failures demonstratethat science is a self-correcting process over time. Gober(1990) identified the key for geography to fulfill its goalof searching for synthesis at the nexus of the naturalsciences, the social sciences, and the humanities:

In order to achieve this goal, however, we must leave theisolated intellectual realms into which we have retreated,dampen the fires of criticism that have polarized us, re-think the way graduate education is structured, foster newnetworks of communication, and develop a disciplinaryculture that values both specialized analytical researchand broader integrative research. (Gober 1990, 1)

Ferocious Rates of Uplift and Denudationin the Himalaya and Karakoram

One of the questions in mountain geography thatwill not go away is how fast are the Himalaya risingand denuding? The question begs controversy as newdating techniques have yielded astounding results andspawned new theories to explain the geodynamics of theIndian–Asian collision. Advances in numerical datingof episodes of deformation and denudation create excit-ing opportunities to more closely document the timing

Figure 6. Nanga Parbat massif, Pakistan, looking southward directly up Raikot Valley, with Indus River in foreground. Source: Landsat 7imagery draped over Space Shuttle digital elevation model (DEM), courtesy of Bill Bowen, February 2005.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Kan

sas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rarie

s] A

t: 19

:50

8 Ju

ly 2

008 Land, Life, and Environmental Change in Mountains 515

of landscape forming events in high mountain areas.Answering this question will help place human impactsinto context.

Caine (2004) has reviewed the extreme variabil-ity in rates of denudation for mountain regions. Forthe entire Himalayan system, Galy and France-Lanord(2001) reported denudation rates of 2.1 meters per 1,000years for the Ganges River drainage and 2.9 metersper 1,000 years for the Brahmaputra drainage. Rates ofsediment yield climb to astonishing values of 5 to 20meters per 1,000 years for smaller, high-relief water-sheds. Incision rates for the Indus River where it bor-ders the Nanga Parbat massif vary from 2 to 12 metersper 1,000 years (Burbank et al. 1996). Rates of inci-sion for tributary valleys around Nanga Parbat are 22 ±11 meters per 1,000 years (Shroder and Bishop 2000;

Cornwell, Norsby, and Marston 2003). Zeitler et al.(2001) proposed that the river incision that producedthe deep Indus River gorge would weaken the crust, at-tracting advective heat flow in the crust, which in turntriggers rapid uplift (Owen 2004). A steepened thermalgradient would also be created in the massif that wouldfurther weaken the crust. This process constitutes a pos-itive feedback and has been termed a tectonic aneurism.Indeed, the local relief and rates of erosion reported forthe Nanga Parbat massif are both among the highestever measured on the planet (Figure 6). In summariz-ing the literatures, Ives (2006) reported rates of upliftfor the Himalaya ranging from 0.5 to 20 meters per1,000 years.

I was also part of a team that explored the linksbetween uplift and erosion in the Garhwal Himalaya

Figure 7. Cross-valley topographic profile, derived from 40 to 60 meter digital elevation model (DEM). Source: Prepared by Ben Holland,NSF-REU student in July 2003, using ArcMap 3D Analyst. Yellow denotes Main Central Thrust (MCT) zone.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Kan

sas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rarie

s] A

t: 19

:50

8 Ju

ly 2

008 516 Marston

of northwest India (Catlos et al. 2007). Conventionalthinking was that this region had been tectonically in-active since the early Miocene (22 million years BP),but severe earthquakes in the Garhwal during the 1990sled us to question this assumption. The Main Cen-tral Thrust (MCT), identified as a dominant crustal-thickening mechanism in the Himalaya, is responsiblefor post-Miocene deformation and produces extreme re-lief when concurrent with rapid river incision and massmovement. Advances in numerical dating of episodes ofdeformation and denudation create exciting opportuni-ties to more closely document the timing of landscape-forming events in high mountain areas. Using monazitegeochronology, Catlos found that significant deforma-tion had occurred within the MCT shear zone between1 and 4 million years BP. I examined the geomorphicsignature of MCT activity. Slope failures were more fre-quent near major thrust faults that define the bordersof the MCT, a finding confirmed by Saha, Gupta, andArora (2002). As in the central Nepal Himalaya, slopefailures in the Garhwal were affected more by prox-imity to geologic factors (rock type and proximity tomajor thrust) and river erosion than to land use andland cover. The longitudinal profile of rivers crossingthe MCT exhibited a knick point or steepening, a find-ing confirmed elsewhere in the Himalaya by Seeber andGornitz (1983) and Hodges et al. (2004). Topographicprofiles were created for several valley sections in theGarhwal from the 40 to 60 meter digital elevation mod-els (DEMs). Cross-valley topographic profiles are decid-edly more convex in and near the MCT zone (Figures 7and 8). Finally, cosmogenic isotope dating was used todate strath terraces along the Bhagirathi, Alaknanda,and Maldakini rivers in the Garhwal Himalaya. Ratesof incision were calculated at 3.6 to 11 meters per 1,000years, comparable to the rate of 4 meters per 1,000 yearsreported by Barnard et al. (2001) for the Alaknandadrainage.

These studies blended extensive fieldwork under dif-ficult conditions, meticulous lab analyses for cosmo-genic dating, and a variety of geospatial techniques,including digital terrain representation, remote sensing,geostatistics, artificial intelligence, cartography, and vi-sualization (Marcus, Aspinall, and Marston 2004). Newtechnologies in geography have helped overcome thedifficulties of access to remote steepland environments.Recent breakthroughs in geospatial analysis have al-lowed earth scientists to study mountain environmentsin new ways (M. P. Bishop and Shroder 2004). Toadvance understanding in studies of the Nanga Par-bat massif and Garhwal Himalaya, it was critical that

Figure 8. Bhagirathi River valley illustrates effects of rapid up-lift concurrent with rapid river incision in the Garhwal Himalaya.(A) Recent incision has created an inner gorge, (B) convex hill-slope profile, (C) view across Bhagirathi River at junction withsmall tributary stream; a knick point has been created because ofthe more rapid incision of the Bhagirathi River. Source: Authorphotos, March 2003.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Kan

sas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rarie

s] A

t: 19

:50

8 Ju

ly 2

008 Land, Life, and Environmental Change in Mountains 517

I collaborated with geologists and others with exper-tise far beyond my own. The propensity for collabora-tion within our discipline and with practitioners fromother disciplines serves geographers well for understand-ing environment–society relationships in mountains.Rather than assert that we have an advantage as geog-raphers, it is perhaps more accurate (and properly hum-ble) to say that geographers offer a body of knowledge,theories, and mix of techniques that foster collabora-tion. Most mountain scholars recognize that problemsand issues in environment–society relations require theexpertise of more than one discipline, especially inthis age of information explosion. The boundaries be-tween disciplines are becoming blurred. For mountainscholars who want to move beyond empirical studiesto develop and implement action plans, opportunitiesabound. Nongovernmental organizations that deal withmountain issues are growing in number, size, and influ-ence at the same time that new academic journals areappearing. This momentum contributes to the develop-ment of national and international centers of mountainresearch.

ConclusionOne of the greatest challenges facing mountain

scholars is to separate environmental change causedby human activities from change that would have oc-curred without human interference. Linking cause andeffect is especially difficult in mountain regions wherephysical processes can operate at ferocious rates andecosystems are sensitive to rapid degradation by climatechange and resource development. In addition, high-land inhabitants are more vulnerable to natural hazardsand political-economic marginalization than popula-tions elsewhere.

I have highlighted three special insights that ge-ographers offer to understanding human impacts onmountain landscape stability. First, the mixed methodsand theories we employ—quantitative and qualitative,postpositivist science and social theory, muddy-bootsfieldwork linked with GIScience—together position ge-ographers to resolve the debate over human-triggeredchanges of the physical landscape in mountains and ex-plain the frequent disconnect between the findings ofmountain science, policymaking, and resource manage-ment. My own studies in the central Nepal Himalayaand the many studies conducted by others as a test ofthe theory of HED underscore the place-dependence ofprocesses and the importance of primary data gathering

via fieldwork. The preoccupation on effects of deforesta-tion on landscape stability has diverted attention fromthe more dramatic impacts of roads and from the morepressing social needs related to political fragmentation,poverty, education, plus access to health care and watersupplies.

Second, academic scholars and policymakers havecome to realize that most problems require training,experience, and expertise in understanding both phys-ical and human systems. Our propensity for collabora-tion within our discipline and with practitioners fromother disciplines serves geographers well for understand-ing the human impact in mountains. Geographers haveachieved accurate, balanced, and informative synthesisin the mountain studies that test links between resourceuse and land management, thereby strengthening ourdiscipline’s position as a bridge between the social andnatural sciences.

Third, modern techniques of measuring rates of geo-morphic change help place the human factor in perspec-tive and explain spatial variability of natural hazards.New technologies in geography have helped overcomethe difficulties of access to remote steepland environ-ments. Recent breakthroughs in geospatial analysishave allowed earth scientists to study mountain envi-ronments in new and exciting ways and have strength-ened our ability to identify linkages between spatial andtemporal variability. With respect to the study of moun-tains, developments in physical geography and geospa-tial sciences need not distance physical geography fromhuman geography. Forecasting environmental changeremains elusive in “the perfect landscape” of mountains.

Most geographers who I know want to be part ofsomething bigger than ourselves and follow a careerpath that moves beyond understanding and explanationof geographic phenomena to a larger goal of improvingthe human condition on our planet. The need persiststo measure and map biophysical processes, as well as toapply social theory in mountains as part of the greatereffort to identify landscapes at risk. If you want to getyour arms around the major issues in mountain geogra-phy, focus on vulnerability studies, rural sustainability,and land use and land cover change while continuing tomeasure and model geomorphic change and ecosystemchanges. The International Year of Mountains in 2002spawned widespread initiatives to raise the awareness ofthe values of mountain regions and build on the motto,“We are all mountain people.” Let us endeavor to usegeographic theory, knowledge, and techniques to im-prove the human condition in the mountains and forall who live downstream.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Kan

sas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rarie

s] A

t: 19

:50

8 Ju

ly 2

008 518 Marston

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for the direct and indirect guidanceof many in developing the concepts in this address. Iappreciate the quality undergraduate education in ge-ography that I received at UCLA (1970–1974), in-spiring lectures, challenging projects, and stimulatingfield trips that taught me fundamental concepts, writ-ing skills, and some measure of critical thinking. I amdeeply indebted to my geography professors at OregonState University (1974–1980), especially Dr. Charles L.Rosenfeld, who equipped me with a bag of tools, love offieldwork, and desire to apply concepts and techniquesto solve practical problems in mountains. I have beenfortunate to collaborate with many skilled, efficient,energetic, and earnest faculty colleagues over the years.I am especially grateful to Maynard M. Miller of theFoundation for Glacier and Environmental Research forthe initial opportunity to pursue field-based research inthe Himalaya. Elizabeth Catlos (Oklahoma State Uni-versity) has been particularly generous in collaboratingand sharing ideas about the geodynamics of the GarhwalHimalaya; our work was supported by one grant fromthe National Science Foundation (INT-0217598) andone from the Oklahoma EPSCoR Program. Work inthe Nanga Parbat massif was also supported by theNational Science Foundation (EAR-9418839). Otherideas were developed as a result of conversations withscholars involved in the International Mountain So-ciety, ICIMOD, the Mountain Forum, the MountainResearch Initiative, SHARE Asia, The Mountain Insti-tute, USGS Western Mountain Initiative, USFS Con-sortium for Integrated Climate Research in WesternMountains (CIRMOUNT), and AAG Mountain Ge-ography and Geomorphology specialty groups. The fortygraduate students who have completed their degreesunder my supervision through 2007 have served as ex-cellent partners in research and have taught me farmore, I suspect, than they have learned from me. Thisaddress was improved by comments from Mark Fon-stad, Kathy Hansen, Carol Harden, Andrew Marcus, M.Duane Nellis, Olav Slaymaker, Jack Vitek, and DavidZurick. The concepts presented in this address are myown and do not necessarily reflect the views of any ofthese individuals or organizations. Finally, I appreciatethe support of friends, my wife Linda, and two children,Bryce and Brooke, who fortunately share my love oflearning, travel, and adventure in mountains and onrivers.

ReferencesBailey, R. G. 1996. Ecosystem geography. New York: Springer.Bandyopadhyay, J., and S. Perveen. 2004. Moving the moun-

tains up in the global environmental agenda. OccasionalPaper 3, Centre for Development and Environment Pol-icy. Calcutta: Indian Institute of Management.

Barnard, P. L., L. A. Owen, M. C. Sharma, and R. C. Finkel.2001. Natural and human-induced landsliding in theGarhwal Himalaya of northern India. Geomorphology 40(1–2): 21–35.

Bishop, B. C. 1990. Karnali under stress: Livelihood strate-gies and seasonal rhythms in a changing Nepal Himalaya.Geography Research Paper nos. 228–29. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago.

Bishop, M. P., and J. F. Shroder, Jr., eds. 2004. Geographicinformation science and mountain geomorphology. Berlin:Springer-Praxis.

Blaikie, P. M., and J. S. S. Muldavin. 2004. Upstream, down-stream, China, India: The politics of environment in theHimalayan region. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 94 (3): 520–48.

Blake, K. S. 2002. Colorado fourteeners and the nature ofplace identity. Geographical Review 92 (2): 155–79.

———. 2005. Mountain symbolism and geographical imag-inations. Cultural Geographies 12 (4): 527–31.

Burbank, D. W., J. Leland, E. Fielding, R. S. Anderson, N.Brozovic, M. R. Reid, and C. Duncan. 1996. Bedrock in-cision, rock uplift, and threshold hillslopes in the north-western Himalaya. Nature 379:505–10.

Caine, N. 2004. Mechanical and chemical denudation inmountain systems. In Mountain geomorphology, ed. P. N.Owens and O. Slaymaker, 132–52. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Catlos, E. J., C. S. Dubey, R. A. Marston, and M. T. Harrison.2007. Geochronologic constraints across the main cen-tral thrust shear zone, Bhagirathi River (NW India): Im-plications for Himalayan tectonics. In Convergent marginterranes and associated regions: A tribute to W. G. Ernst, ed.M. Cloos, W. D. Carlson, M. C. Gilbert, J. G. Liou, andS. S. Sorenson. Geological Society of America SpecialPaper 419: 135–51.

Cornwell, K., D. Norsby, and R. Marston. 2003. Drainage,sediment transport, and denudation rates on the NangaParbat Himalaya, Pakistan. Geomorphology 55 (1–4): 25–43.

Deoja, B. B. 1994. Planning and management of moun-tain roads. In Proceedings of the international symposiumon mountain environment and development, 1–44. Kath-mandu, Nepal: ICIMOD.

Dhakal, A. S., T. Amada, and M. Aniya. 2000. Landslidehazard mapping and its evaluation using GIS: An inves-tigation of sampling scheme for grid-cell based quanti-tative method. Photogrammetric Engineering and RemoteSensing 66 (8): 981–89.

Funnell, D. C., and M. F. Price. 2003. Mountain geography:A review. The Geographical Journal 169 (3): 183–90.

Galy, A., and C. France-Lanord. 2001. Higher erosion ratesin the Himalaya: Geochemical constraints on riverinefluxes. Geology 29:23–26.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Kan

sas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rarie

s] A

t: 19

:50

8 Ju

ly 2

008 Land, Life, and Environmental Change in Mountains 519

Gober, P. 1990. Presidential address: In search of synthesis.Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90 (1):1–11.

Gyamtsho, P., ed. 2006. Securing sustainable livelihoods in theHindu Kush-Himalayas: Directions for future research, de-velopment and cooperation. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD.

Harrison, S., D. Massey, K. Richards, F. J. Magilligan, N.Thrift, and B. Bender. 2004. Thinking across the divide:Perspectives on the conversations between physical andhuman geography. Area 36 (4): 435–42.

Hodges, K. V., C. Wobus, K. Ruhl, T. Schildgen, and K.Whipple. 2004. Quaternary deformation, river steepen-ing, and heavy precipitation at the front of the HigherHimalayan ranges. Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters220:379–89.

ICIMOD. 2006. Environmental assessment of Nepal: Emergingissues and challenges. Kathmandu, Nepal: InternationalCentre for Integrated Mountain Development and AsianDevelopment Bank.

Ives, J. D. 2006. Himalayan perceptions: Environmental changeand the well-being of mountain peoples. 2nd ed. Lalitpur,Nepal: Himalayan Association for the Advancement ofScience.

Ives, J. D., and B. Messerli. 1989. The Himalayan dilemma:Reconciling development and conservation. London:Routledge.

Johnson, K., E. A. Olson, and S. Manandhar. 1982. Exper-imental knowledge and response to natural hazards inmountainous Nepal. Mountain Research and Development2 (2): 175–88.

Junger, S. 1997. The perfect storm. New York: HarperCollins.Kasperson, J. X., R. Kasperson, and B. L. Turner, eds. 1995.

Regions at risk: Comparisons of threatened environments.New York: United Nations University Press.

Kerasote, T. 1987. Is Nepal going bald? Audubon 89 (5): 28–39.

Korner, C., and M. Ohsawa. 2005. Mountain systems. InEcosystems and human well-being, ed. R. Hassan, R. Sc-holes, and N. Ash, 681–716. Washington, DC: IslandPress.

Macfarlane, R. 2003. Mountains of the mind: Adventures inreaching the summit. New York: Vintage Books.

Marcus, W. A., R. J. Aspinall, and R. A. Marston. 2004. Ge-ographic information systems and surface hydrology inmountains. In Geographic information science and moun-tain geomorphology, ed. M. P. Bishop and J. F. Shroder,Jr.,343–79. Berlin: Springer-Praxis.

Margolis, E. S. 2002. War at the top of the world. New York:Routledge.

Marston, R. A., J. Kleinman, and M. M. Miller. 1996. Geo-morphic and forest cover controls on flooding: CentralNepal Himalaya. Mountain Research and Development 16(3): 257–64.

Marston, R. A., M. M. Miller, and L. Devkota.1998.Geoecology and mass movement in the Manaslu-Ganesh and Langtang-Jugal himals, Nepal. Geomorphol-ogy 26 (1–3): 139–50.

Meybeck, M., P. Green, and C. Vorosmarty. 2001. A newtypology for mountains and other relief classes: An ap-plication to global continental water resources and pop-ulation distribution. Mountain Research and Development21 (1): 34–45.

McDonald, B., ed. 2002. Extreme landscape: The lure ofmountain spaces. Washington, DC: National GeographicSociety.

Messerli, B., and J. D. Ives, eds. 1997. Mountains of the world:A global priority. New York: Parthenon.

The Mountain Institute. 2006. 2006 annual report. Washing-ton, DC: The Mountain Institute.

Murphy, A. B. 2006. Presidential address: Enhancing geog-raphy’s role in public debate. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 96 (1): 1–13.

Ostresh, L. M, R. A. Marston, and W. M. Hudson, eds.1990. Wyoming water atlas. Cheyenne and Laramie:Wyoming Water Development Commission and Uni-versity of Wyoming.

Owen, L. A. 2004. Cenozoic evolution of global mountainsystems. In Mountain geomorphology, ed. P. N. Owensand O. Slaymaker, 33–58. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Owens, P. N., and O. Slaymaker. 2004. An introduction tomountain geomorphology. In Mountain geomorphology,ed. P. N. Owens and O. Slaymaker, 3–32. New York:Oxford University Press.

Phillips, J. D. 2007. The perfect landscape. Geomorphology 84(3–4): 159–69.

Price, M. F., L. Jansky, and A. A. Iatsenia. 2004. Key issuesfor mountain areas. New York: United Nations UniversityPress.

Saha, A. K., R. P. Gupta, and M. K. Arora. 2002. GIS-basedlandslide hazard zonation in the Bhagirathi (Ganga) Val-ley, Himalayas. International Journal of Remote Sensing 23(2): 357–69.

Samant, S. S., U. Dhar, and L. M. S. Palni. 1998. Medicinalplants of the Indian Himalaya: Himavikas. No. 13. Almora,India: Govind Ballabh Plant Institute of Himalayan En-vironment and Development.

Schumm, S. A. 1991. To interpret the Earth: Ten ways to bewrong. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Seeber, L., and V. Gornitz. 1983. River profiles along theHimalayan arc as indicators of active tectonics. Tectono-physics 92:335–67.

Shroder, J. F., Jr., ed. 1998. Special issue: Mass movement inthe Himalaya. Geomorphology 26 (1–3): 1–222.

Shroder, J. F., Jr., and M. P. Bishop 2000. Unroofing of theNanga Parbat Himalaya. In Tectonics of the Nanga Parbatsyntaxis and the western Himalaya: Geographical SocietySpecial Publication 170, ed. M. A. Khan, P. J. Treloar, M.P. Searl, and M. Q. Jam, 163–79. London: GeologicalSociety of London.

Solnit, R. 2000. Wanderlust. New York: Penguin.Stevens, S. F. 1993. Claiming the high ground: Sherpas, sub-

sistence, and environmental change in the highest Himalaya.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Thompson, M., M. Warburton, and T. Hatley. 2007. Un-certainty on a Himalayan scale: An institutional theory ofenvironmental perception and a strategic framework for thesustainable development of the Himalaya. 2nd ed. Lalitpur,Nepal: Himal Books.

Turner, B. L., II, R. E. Kasperson, P. A. Matson, J. J.McCarthy, R. W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, etal. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sus-tainability science. Proceedings of the National Academyof Science 100 (14): 8074–79.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Kan

sas

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rarie

s] A

t: 19

:50

8 Ju

ly 2

008 520 Marston

United Nations. 1992. Agenda 21, Chapter 13: Managing frag-ile ecosystems—Sustainable mountain development. U.N.Doc. A/CONF. 151/26 (Vol. II). Washington, DC:United Nations.

Wu, K., and J. B. Thornes. 1995. Terrace origination ofmountainous hill slopes in the Middle Hills of Nepal:Stability and instability. In Water and the quest for sustain-able development in the Ganges Valley, ed. G. P. Chapmanand M. Thompson, 41–63. London: Mansell.

Zeitler, P. K., A. S. Meltzer, P. O. Koons, D. Craw, B. Hallet,C. P. Chamberlain, W. S. F. Kidd, et al. 2001. Ero-

sion, Himalayan geodynamics and the geomorphologyof metamorphism. GSA Today 11 (1): 4–9.

Zurick, D. N. 1992. Adventure travel and sustainabletourism in the peripheral economy of Nepal. Annalsof the Association of American Geographers 82 (4): 608–28.

Zurick, D., and P. P. Karan. 1999. Himalaya: Life on the edgeof the world. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Zurick, D., and J. Pacheco. 2006. Illustrated atlas ofthe Himalaya. Lexington: The University Press ofKentucky.

Correspondence: Kansas State University, Department of Geography, 118 Seaton Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506-2904, e-mail: Rmarston@ksu.edu.