This article was downloaded by:[Kansas State University Libraries]
On: 8 July 2008
Access Details: [subscription number 789760407]
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Annals of the Association of
American Geographers
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t788352614
Land, Life, and Environmental Change in Mountains
Richard A. Marston a
a
Department of Geography, Kansas State University,
Online Publication Date: 01 September 2008
To cite this Article: Marston, Richard A. (2008) 'Land, Life, and Environmental
Change in Mountains', Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98:3,
507 — 520
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/00045600802118491
URL: 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 expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently 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 or
arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded By: [Kansas State University Libraries] At: 19:50 8 July 2008
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
Land, Life, and Environmental Change in Mountains
Richard A. Marston
Department of Geography, Kansas State University
One of the greatest challenges facing mountain scholars is to separate environmental change caused by human
activities from change that would have occurred without human interference. Linking cause and effect is especially
difficult in mountain regions where physical processes can operate at ferocious rates and ecosystems are sensitive
to rapid degradation by climate change and resource development. In addition, highland inhabitants are more
vulnerable to natural hazards and political-economic marginalization than populations elsewhere. This address
focuses 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 offer
to increase understanding of human impacts on the stability of mountain landscapes. First, the mixed methods
and theories we employ—quantitative and qualitative, postpositivist science and social theory, muddy-boots
fieldwork linked with GIScience—together position geographers to resolve the debate over human-triggered
changes 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 that
most 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 and
explain spatial variability of natural hazards. Forecasting environmental change remains elusive in “the perfect
landscape” of mountains. Key Words: environmental change, Himalaya, Karakoram, mountains.
Uno de los mayores retos al que se enfrentan los expertos en montañas es separar los cambios ambientales causados
por las actividades humanas de los cambios que hubiesen ocurrido sin la interferencia del hombre. La relación
entre causa y efecto es especialmente difı́cil en las regiones montañosas, en donde los procesos fı́sicos pueden
desencadenarse a una tasa feroz, y los ecosistemas son sensibles a la degradación rápida provocada por los cambios
climáticos y el desarrollo de recursos. Además, los habitantes de las tierras altas son más vulnerables a los peligros
naturales y a la marginalización polı́tico-económica que los habitantes de otros lugares. Este artı́culo se concentra
en el macizo Nanga Parbat de la Cordillera de los Himalaya de Pakistán, el Garhwal Himalaya del noroeste de
India y las montañas nevadas de Manaslu-Ganesh del centro de Nepal. He recalcado tres perspectivas especiales
que los geógrafos ofrecen para aumentar la comprensión de los impactos humanos en la estabilidad de los paisajes
C 2008 by Association of American Geographers
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98(3) 2008, pp. 507–520 Published by Taylor & Francis, LLC.
Downloaded By: [Kansas State University Libraries] At: 19:50 8 July 2008
508
Marston
montañeses. Primera, los métodos y teorı́as que empleamos—cuantitativas y cualitativas, ciencia postpositivista
y teorı́a social, trabajo de campo ligado a la ciencia de información geográfica (GIScience)—en conjunto,
colocan a los geógrafos en posición para resolver el debate sobre los cambios en el paisaje fı́sico de las montañas
provocado por el hombre y explicar la frecuente desconexión entre la ciencia de las montañas, el establecimiento
de polı́ticas y la administración de recursos. Segunda, los expertos académicos y los diseñadores de polı́ticas se
han dado cuenta de que la mayorı́a de los problemas requieren capacitación, experiencia y conocimientos para
entender los sistemas fı́sicos y humanos. Tercera, las técnicas modernas para medir las tasas de cambio geomórfico
ayudan a poner en perspectiva el factor humano y explicar la variabilidad espacial de los peligros naturales. El
pronóstico del cambio ambiental sigue siendo inaprensible en “el perfecto paisaje” de las montañas. Palabras
claves: cambio ambiental, Himalaya, Karakoram, montañas.
When you give yourself to places, they give you yourself
back. Exploring the world is one of the best ways of exploring the mind, and walking travels both terrains.
—Rebecca Solnit (2000, 13)
Mountains Sustain Humanity
I
t is difficult to conceive of landscapes where opportunities for geographic understanding are as great,
and as urgently needed, as in mountains of the
world. Mountains of diverse origin, climate, and cultures cover approximately 24 percent of the land surface on Earth (Figure 1). Twenty percent of the population in the world resides in mountains or at the edge of
mountains. Many mountain landscapes are unstable because of biophysical and socioeconomic factors, experiencing change that defies understanding and prediction.
Complex feedbacks affect mountains. For instance, uplift drives climate change, and highlands are also especially susceptible to the consequences of climate change
(e.g., melting glaciers, degradation of alpine permafrost,
shifting ecosystems, soil erosion, etc.). The physical and
human environment changes rapidly over short distances; horizontal and vertical boundaries are the first
to be affected by environmental changes (Owens and
Slaymaker 2004).
Funnell and Price (2003) have noted over the last
forty years that mountain studies have moved dramatically from the pursuit of a few dedicated individuals
to a process involving global agencies. The 1992 Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro was instrumental in moving mountains up in the global environmental agenda
(Bandyopadhyay and Perveen 2004). A small, informal
group of mountain scholars, known as the Mountain
Agenda collective, succeeded in adding Chapter 13 to
the global plan of action for sustainable development
that was adopted at the Rio Summit, better known as
Agenda-21. This led to the United Nations declaring
2002 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), the
International Year of Mountains in 2002 (e.g., Price,
Jansky, and Iatsenia 2004), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Korner and Ohsawa 2005), and work
of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development (e.g., Gyamtsho 2006; ICIMOD 2006)
that mountain ecosystems are especially fragile and degrading rapidly, although the cause may differ from one
mountain region to another.
The beauty, inspiration, dramatic history of exploration, sacred significance, and abundant recreational
opportunities afforded by mountains have long been
celebrated in a rich published literature and thriving tourism industry (Zurick 1992; Blake 2002, 2005;
Zurick and Pacheco 2006). The place identity of mountains remains strong in many cultures, those indigenous to mountain regions and beyond (McDonald 2002;
Macfarlane 2003). As expressed by The Mountain Institute (2006, 1): “Mountains sustain humanity. Our
emotions about mountains are complex. We are comforted by their presence and inspired by their beckoning
spirit. We admire them. We fear them. We aspire to
them.” One expects spectacular physical landscapes in
the high Himalaya, but the greater impression was left
on me by the imprint of Buddhism on the landscape
in the form of prayer flags, prayer wheels, chortens,
gompas, monasteries, and the camaraderie and general
demeanor of the Sherpa who served as guides on our
expeditions. Mountain geography is so successful as a
meeting place for human and physical geographers because of the transcendent significance of mountains to
land and life, whether as sacred place or site to study
geomorphology, landscape ecology, and glaciology.
Agricultural terraces in Asian mountains were first
brought to my attention in remarkable classroom lectures by UCLA geography professor Joe Spencer, but
one has to trek through the Lesser Himalaya during the monsoon season to fully appreciate the hydraulic engineering and enhanced landscape stability of
Downloaded By: [Kansas State University Libraries] At: 19:50 8 July 2008
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 Middle
Mountains of Nepal, transmits 1,500 to 2,500 mm of
rainfall down hillslopes during the monsoon season, and
retains moisture sufficient to irrigate crops. The portion entering steep streams turns millstones and prayer
wheels. In khet terraces constructed with a berm (or
bund) on the outer edge to retain water, surplus runoff
moves downslope from one ramped terrace to the next,
and this occurs over hundreds and sometimes thousands
of meters of local relief without triggering irreparable
erosion. At higher elevations, rain-fed bari terraces,
without a berm and sloping outward, experience rates
of erosion two orders of magnitude higher than khet
terraces. This creates a demand for labor to repair the
terraces in winter after crops are harvested and labor
becomes available (Johnson, Olson, and Manandhar
1982; Wu and Thornes 1995).
Runoff from snow melt, glacier melt, and rain in
mountains generates 32 percent of global runoff, water that is used for drinking and hygiene, irrigation
agriculture, hydropower, and other services by half of
the population on Earth (Meybeck, Green, and Vorosmarty 2001). In Wyoming, only 15 percent of the state
experiences a water surplus—all of which occurs in
mountains—and runoff from the mountainous highlands supplies water to the remaining 85 percent of
the state that is situated in water-deficit lowlands (Ostresh, Marston, and Hudson 1990). Water resource development in the Himalaya and Karakoram varies from
local-scale technology to large-scale dams to generate
hydropower for distant markets (Ives 2006). Mountains
provide a significant portion of other resources: crops
and pasture, forests (for fuel, construction, fodder), and
minerals (Messerli and Ives 1997). Mountains also constitute storehouses of biological and cultural diversity
Downloaded By: [Kansas State University Libraries] At: 19:50 8 July 2008
510
Marston
Figure 2. Khet terraces in the Garhwal Himalaya. Source: Author photo, March 2003.
(United Nations 1992; Bandyopadhyay and Perveen
2004; Korner and Ohsawa 2005). The Indian Himalaya
alone provides habitat for more than 1,748 plant species
of known medicinal value (Samant, Dhar, and Palni
1998).
Whereas mountains do sustain humanity, they are
also recognized as one of the most rugged and challenging places on Earth to pursue a sustainable livelihood (B. C. Bishop 1990; Stevens 1993; Zurick and
Karan 1999). Consider the vulnerability of society as a
function of exposure, sensitivity, and resilience to natural hazards (Turner et al. 2003). Mountain peoples
are exposed to slope failures, snow and ice avalanches,
glacier and landslide outburst floods, earthquakes, wildfires, extreme climatic events, and other environmental
calamities. Mountain inhabitants are subject to place
sensitivity, but also to social sensitivity, finding themselves isolated as well as politically and economically
marginalized more than populations elsewhere (Zurick
and Karan 1999; Korner and Ohsawa 2005). The consequences for this in the Himalaya and Karakoram are
observed in the widespread poverty, poor access to education and health care, and inadequate community
infrastructure. Residents in the Himalaya and Karakoram lack the full capacity to adapt to hazards because
of the limited access to technology, capital, and government. Mountains are often sites for political borders and access might be restricted through narrow
corridors, so it is not surprising that they become the
refuge for displaced groups (Zurick and Karan 1999; Korner and Ohsawa 2005). Concerns over environmental degradation, sustainability, and vulnerability have
been replaced in some mountain regions by concerns
for security and economic globalization. For example,
the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Maoist
insurgency in Nepal are only the most recent vestiges of “conflict at the top of the world” (Margolis
2002).
Downloaded By: [Kansas State University Libraries] At: 19:50 8 July 2008
Land, Life, and Environmental Change in Mountains
Figure 3. Approaching the study of mountain landscapes and sustainability at the nexus of earth system geography, human and cultural geography, and geographic information science.
The interaction between mountains and their inhabitants deserves special attention from geographers
and other mountain scholars and is the main focus of
this address. The theories, knowledge, and techniques
of geography yield special insights into environment–
society interactions in mountains (Figure 3). We seek
to understand the spatial distribution of earth surface
phenomena (biophysical and social), the links between
these phenomena, the resources and hazards for humans created by these distributions, human impacts on
these distributions, and the meaning of places to people and societies. This address focuses on these themes
in the Nanga Parbat massif in the Himalaya Range of
Pakistan, Garhwal Himalaya of northwest India, and
Manaslu-Ganesh Himals of central Nepal (Figure 4).
The Himalaya, Karakoram, and Tibetan Plateau comprise the highest and greatest mountain mass on Earth
and one of the best natural labs to study mountain systems (Owen 2004). For a wonderful cartographic and
photographic portrayal of the Himalaya, readers are referred to the award-winning Illustrated Atlas of the Himalaya by Zurick and Pacheco (2006).
A Grand Challenge for Mountain
Geographers
One of the greatest challenges facing mountain
scholars is to separate environmental change caused
511
by human activities from change that would have occurred without human interference. If we cannot make
this distinction, we will fail to bridge the gap among science, policymaking, and resource management. Linking
cause and effect is especially difficult in mountain regions where physical processes can operate at ferocious
rates and ecosystems are sensitive to rapid degradation
by climate change, resource development, and land use
and land cover change.
During the middle and late 1970s, a rising tide of
scientific literature and media attention was devoted
to a perceived crisis in the Himalaya, linking deforestation in the Himalaya to flooding and slope failures
locally and far downstream in the Ganges River plain
and delta. One of the more influential articles in the
popular literature was authored by Kerasote (1987) in
Audubon and titled, “Is Nepal Going Bald?” To investigate the link among deforestation, flooding, and slope
failures, I was invited to join two scientific expeditions
to the central Nepal Himalaya, hiking a total of 430 km
in the Langtang-Jugal and Manaslu-Ganesh himals. We
traveled between elevations of 1,000 and 5,000 meters
in the Middle Mountains and Greater Himalaya physiographic regions. I presumed that deforestation would
accelerate flooding and slope failures, as conventional
thinking dictated and as it does in the Coast Range and
Cascades of the Pacific Northwest where I had received
my graduate training. In short, our research in the Middle Mountains (Lesser Himalaya) of central Nepal revealed that forest cover had no influence on the patterns
of monsoon flooding (Marston, Kleinman, and Miller
1996). We were equally astonished to learn that slope
failures occurred at a lower frequency in disturbed (deforested) lands than in land where the forest cover was
intact (Marston, Miller, and Devkota 1998). The cause,
form, and frequency of slope failures did vary by physiographic region and slope aspect, but was not influenced
by deforestation. The primary control on slope failures
was exerted by geologic and geomorphic factors, more
than by land use and land cover. This finding has been
subsequently confirmed by the majority of researchers
(e.g., Shroder 1998; Dhakal, Amada, and Aniya 2000;
Ives 2006). Humans do accelerate slope failures through
road building, especially when the roads are situated in
midslope locations instead of along ridge tops (Marston,
Miller, and Devkota 1998; Barnard et al. 2001). Roads
in eastern Sikkim and western Garhwal have caused
an average of two major landslides for every kilometer
constructed. Road building in Nepal has produced up to
9,000 cubic meters of landslide per kilometer, and it has
been estimated that, on average, each kilometer of road
Downloaded By: [Kansas State University Libraries] At: 19:50 8 July 2008
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 land
lost from slope failures (Deoja 1994; Zurick and Karan
1999).
The lesson was learned that “place matters,” a lesson that is fundamental to geography, but one that
is sometimes assimilated only after long and difficult
labors in the field. One must take care to avoid bias
from having received academic training and experience
in a limited number of locales (Schumm 1991). It simply was not possible to translate our understanding of
the effects of deforestation in the Pacific Rim to the
steep slopes and thin soils of the tectonically active,
monsoon-affected central Nepal Himalaya. The value
of “muddy boots” geography became apparent: Go to
the field, measure, and learn for yourself! Andrew Marcus (personal communication 2007) stated: “Fieldwork
generates some deep emotions for the world around you.
It also generates deep learning . . . you and your students
ask more challenging questions when confronted by the
immensity of the world around them.”
Our studies of monsoon flooding and slope failures
in the central Nepal Himalaya were hampered by the
absence of a globally robust theory for understanding
mountain hydrology and geomorphology. On reflecting
about this state of affairs, Phillips (2007) authored a
benchmark article titled “The Perfect Landscape.” He
proposed a new way of thinking about landscape evolution, one that in fact explains why geomorphologists
have not been able to develop a general, widely accepted model of landscape evolution. Phillips pointed
out that landscapes are controlled by a combination of
global factors (i.e., independent of time and place, governed by the laws of physics and chemistry) and local
factors. Each landscape has an inherited history—from
Downloaded By: [Kansas State University Libraries] At: 19:50 8 July 2008
Land, Life, and Environmental Change in Mountains
513
biophysical and human influences—that will almost
certainly vary from place to place. The historical legacy
of 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 of
variables and factors considered, rather than seek deterministic models to describe landscapes in all of their
complexity. The “perfect landscape,” a term adapted
from the book The Perfect Storm (Junger 1997), is one
where an improbable (hard-to-predict) convergence of
global and local factors create a rather unique (or unusual) set of interacting landforms. Phillips (2007, 160)
wrote:
The probability of existence of any landscape or earth
surface system at a particular place and time is negligibly small; all landscapes are perfect. Recognition of the
perfection of landscapes leads one away from a worldview
holding that landforms and landscapes are inevitable outcomes of deterministic laws, such that only one outcome
is possible for a given set of laws and initial conditions.
With the fragility, heterogeneity, and dynamic physical
geography endemic to many highland environments,
mountain locations conform to Phillips’s construct of
perfect landscapes.
Many Ways of “Knowing” in Mountain
Geography
Simultaneous with my field research in Nepal, research efforts by Jack Ives, Bruno Messeli, and a legion of
students led to publication of a series of articles and two
noteworthy books that present a theory of Himalayan
environmental degradation (HED; Ives and Messerli
1989; Ives 2006). The theory of HED was presented as
a series of interlinked propositions based on the casual
observations and conventional thinking of many. Ives
and Messerli were not proponents of the theory, but
rather used it as a starting point to call for data collection and analyses to confirm or reject it. Ives (2006)
presents the most succinct outline of the theory of HED
as eight points; it is presented here in simplified form
as a flowchart (Figure 5). Ives and Messerli (1989) and
Ives (2006) have shown that the theory of HED could
not be supported when one actually collected field and
remotely sensed data to test the hypotheses. In particular, the link between deforestation and floods and
slope failures could not be supported, confirming our
studies in the Langtang-Jugal and Manaslu-Ganesh himals. The review by Kasperson, Kasperson, and Turner
Figure 5. Simplified version of the theory of Himalayan environmental degradation. Source: Adapted from Ives (2006, 6–7).
(1995) also confirmed that no reported impending collapse of the human–environment system existed in the
Middle Mountains of Nepal.
Research by social theorists has revealed how effective response to environmental change in mountains is
confounded by power politics and failure to fully regard
the differential impacts by gender and social class. If the
theory of HED has been invalidated, one must ask why
forest management practices have not been modified.
Blaikie and Muldavin (2004) wondered why coercive
restrictions still exist on agriculture and forestry in the
Himalaya of India and China; why not more local control, as has happened in Nepal? Thompson, Warburton,
and Hatley (2007) suggested that we shift our attention
away from uncertain nature and focus instead on institutions. Blaikie and Muldavin asserted that those in
the national political arena of India and China have
ignored what science has to say to maintain the power
of the central government. Furthermore, they claimed,
the notion that floods and sediment damage can be reduced through upstream land use policies can be used
as leverage when governments apply for foreign aid.
Thus, government attention has not been shifted from
the theory of HED in India and China to the more real
and pressing social issues of warfare and insurgency,
poverty, education, medical problems, infrastructure,
and water supplies. Ives (2006) agreed that attention
has been diverted from the problems of unequal access
to resources, mistreatment of mountain minorities, and
political fragmentation.
Understanding of environment–society relations in
the Himalaya has been gained from postpositivists and
Downloaded By: [Kansas State University Libraries] At: 19:50 8 July 2008
514
Marston
social theorists alike. We learned to ask different questions; dialogue is possible, but we must be willing to
talk with one another (Harrison et al. 2004; Murphy
2006). Many ways exist of “knowing” in geography; no
one has a lock on the truth. The methods and modes of
presentation differ between biophysical and humanistic geography. Multiple geographies exist, however, and
we improve understanding of mountains when we consult and collaborate. Writing in To Interpret the Earth:
Ten Ways to be Wrong, Schumm (1991) delivered an
effective message that is relevant to the debate over the
theory of HED. Most postpositivists recognize potential
pitfalls in linking cause and effect. Science might not
always “get it right” the first time, but the studies linking
deforestation, flooding, and slope failures demonstrate
that science is a self-correcting process over time. Gober
(1990) identified the key for geography to fulfill its goal
of searching for synthesis at the nexus of the natural
sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities:
In order to achieve this goal, however, we must leave the
isolated intellectual realms into which we have retreated,
dampen the fires of criticism that have polarized us, rethink the way graduate education is structured, foster new
networks of communication, and develop a disciplinary
culture that values both specialized analytical research
and broader integrative research. (Gober 1990, 1)
Ferocious Rates of Uplift and Denudation
in the Himalaya and Karakoram
One of the questions in mountain geography that
will not go away is how fast are the Himalaya rising
and denuding? The question begs controversy as new
dating techniques have yielded astounding results and
spawned new theories to explain the geodynamics of the
Indian–Asian collision. Advances in numerical dating
of episodes of deformation and denudation create exciting 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 7
imagery draped over Space Shuttle digital elevation model (DEM), courtesy of Bill Bowen, February 2005.
Downloaded By: [Kansas State University Libraries] At: 19:50 8 July 2008
Land, Life, and Environmental Change in Mountains
of landscape forming events in high mountain areas.
Answering this question will help place human impacts
into context.
Caine (2004) has reviewed the extreme variability in rates of denudation for mountain regions. For
the entire Himalayan system, Galy and France-Lanord
(2001) reported denudation rates of 2.1 meters per 1,000
years for the Ganges River drainage and 2.9 meters
per 1,000 years for the Brahmaputra drainage. Rates of
sediment yield climb to astonishing values of 5 to 20
meters per 1,000 years for smaller, high-relief watersheds. Incision rates for the Indus River where it borders the Nanga Parbat massif vary from 2 to 12 meters
per 1,000 years (Burbank et al. 1996). Rates of incision for tributary valleys around Nanga Parbat are 22 ±
11 meters per 1,000 years (Shroder and Bishop 2000;
515
Cornwell, Norsby, and Marston 2003). Zeitler et al.
(2001) proposed that the river incision that produced
the deep Indus River gorge would weaken the crust, attracting advective heat flow in the crust, which in turn
triggers rapid uplift (Owen 2004). A steepened thermal
gradient would also be created in the massif that would
further weaken the crust. This process constitutes a positive feedback and has been termed a tectonic aneurism.
Indeed, the local relief and rates of erosion reported for
the Nanga Parbat massif are both among the highest
ever measured on the planet (Figure 6). In summarizing the literatures, Ives (2006) reported rates of uplift
for the Himalaya ranging from 0.5 to 20 meters per
1,000 years.
I was also part of a team that explored the links
between 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.
Downloaded By: [Kansas State University Libraries] At: 19:50 8 July 2008
516
Marston
of northwest India (Catlos et al. 2007). Conventional
thinking was that this region had been tectonically inactive since the early Miocene (22 million years BP),
but severe earthquakes in the Garhwal during the 1990s
led us to question this assumption. The Main Central Thrust (MCT), identified as a dominant crustalthickening mechanism in the Himalaya, is responsible
for post-Miocene deformation and produces extreme relief when concurrent with rapid river incision and mass
movement. Advances in numerical dating of episodes of
deformation and denudation create exciting opportunities to more closely document the timing of landscapeforming events in high mountain areas. Using monazite
geochronology, Catlos found that significant deformation had occurred within the MCT shear zone between
1 and 4 million years BP. I examined the geomorphic
signature of MCT activity. Slope failures were more frequent near major thrust faults that define the borders
of the MCT, a finding confirmed by Saha, Gupta, and
Arora (2002). As in the central Nepal Himalaya, slope
failures in the Garhwal were affected more by proximity to geologic factors (rock type and proximity to
major thrust) and river erosion than to land use and
land cover. The longitudinal profile of rivers crossing
the MCT exhibited a knick point or steepening, a finding confirmed elsewhere in the Himalaya by Seeber and
Gornitz (1983) and Hodges et al. (2004). Topographic
profiles were created for several valley sections in the
Garhwal from the 40 to 60 meter digital elevation models (DEMs). Cross-valley topographic profiles are decidedly more convex in and near the MCT zone (Figures 7
and 8). Finally, cosmogenic isotope dating was used to
date strath terraces along the Bhagirathi, Alaknanda,
and Maldakini rivers in the Garhwal Himalaya. Rates
of incision were calculated at 3.6 to 11 meters per 1,000
years, comparable to the rate of 4 meters per 1,000 years
reported by Barnard et al. (2001) for the Alaknanda
drainage.
These studies blended extensive fieldwork under difficult conditions, meticulous lab analyses for cosmogenic dating, and a variety of geospatial techniques,
including digital terrain representation, remote sensing,
geostatistics, artificial intelligence, cartography, and visualization (Marcus, Aspinall, and Marston 2004). New
technologies in geography have helped overcome the
difficulties of access to remote steepland environments.
Recent breakthroughs in geospatial analysis have allowed earth scientists to study mountain environments
in new ways (M. P. Bishop and Shroder 2004). To
advance understanding in studies of the Nanga Parbat massif and Garhwal Himalaya, it was critical that
Figure 8. Bhagirathi River valley illustrates effects of rapid uplift concurrent with rapid river incision in the Garhwal Himalaya.
(A) Recent incision has created an inner gorge, (B) convex hillslope profile, (C) view across Bhagirathi River at junction with
small tributary stream; a knick point has been created because of
the more rapid incision of the Bhagirathi River. Source: Author
photos, March 2003.
Downloaded By: [Kansas State University Libraries] At: 19:50 8 July 2008
Land, Life, and Environmental Change in Mountains
I collaborated with geologists and others with expertise far beyond my own. The propensity for collaboration within our discipline and with practitioners from
other disciplines serves geographers well for understanding environment–society relationships in mountains.
Rather than assert that we have an advantage as geographers, it is perhaps more accurate (and properly humble) to say that geographers offer a body of knowledge,
theories, and mix of techniques that foster collaboration. Most mountain scholars recognize that problems
and issues in environment–society relations require the
expertise of more than one discipline, especially in
this age of information explosion. The boundaries between disciplines are becoming blurred. For mountain
scholars who want to move beyond empirical studies
to develop and implement action plans, opportunities
abound. Nongovernmental organizations that deal with
mountain issues are growing in number, size, and influence at the same time that new academic journals are
appearing. This momentum contributes to the development of national and international centers of mountain
research.
Conclusion
One of the greatest challenges facing mountain
scholars is to separate environmental change caused
by human activities from change that would have occurred without human interference. Linking cause and
effect is especially difficult in mountain regions where
physical processes can operate at ferocious rates and
ecosystems are sensitive to rapid degradation by climate
change and resource development. In addition, highland inhabitants are more vulnerable to natural hazards
and political-economic marginalization than populations elsewhere.
I have highlighted three special insights that geographers offer to understanding human impacts on
mountain landscape stability. First, the mixed methods
and theories we employ—quantitative and qualitative,
postpositivist science and social theory, muddy-boots
fieldwork linked with GIScience—together position geographers to resolve the debate over human-triggered
changes of the physical landscape in mountains and explain the frequent disconnect between the findings of
mountain science, policymaking, and resource management. My own studies in the central Nepal Himalaya
and the many studies conducted by others as a test of
the theory of HED underscore the place-dependence of
processes and the importance of primary data gathering
517
via fieldwork. The preoccupation on effects of deforestation on landscape stability has diverted attention from
the more dramatic impacts of roads and from the more
pressing social needs related to political fragmentation,
poverty, education, plus access to health care and water
supplies.
Second, academic scholars and policymakers have
come to realize that most problems require training,
experience, and expertise in understanding both physical and human systems. Our propensity for collaboration within our discipline and with practitioners from
other disciplines serves geographers well for understanding the human impact in mountains. Geographers have
achieved accurate, balanced, and informative synthesis
in the mountain studies that test links between resource
use and land management, thereby strengthening our
discipline’s position as a bridge between the social and
natural sciences.
Third, modern techniques of measuring rates of geomorphic change help place the human factor in perspective and explain spatial variability of natural hazards.
New technologies in geography have helped overcome
the difficulties of access to remote steepland environments. Recent breakthroughs in geospatial analysis
have allowed earth scientists to study mountain environments in new and exciting ways and have strengthened our ability to identify linkages between spatial and
temporal variability. With respect to the study of mountains, developments in physical geography and geospatial sciences need not distance physical geography from
human geography. Forecasting environmental change
remains elusive in “the perfect landscape” of mountains.
Most geographers who I know want to be part of
something bigger than ourselves and follow a career
path that moves beyond understanding and explanation
of geographic phenomena to a larger goal of improving
the human condition on our planet. The need persists
to measure and map biophysical processes, as well as to
apply social theory in mountains as part of the greater
effort to identify landscapes at risk. If you want to get
your arms around the major issues in mountain geography, focus on vulnerability studies, rural sustainability,
and land use and land cover change while continuing to
measure and model geomorphic change and ecosystem
changes. The International Year of Mountains in 2002
spawned widespread initiatives to raise the awareness of
the values of mountain regions and build on the motto,
“We are all mountain people.” Let us endeavor to use
geographic theory, knowledge, and techniques to improve the human condition in the mountains and for
all who live downstream.
Downloaded By: [Kansas State University Libraries] At: 19:50 8 July 2008
518
Marston
Acknowledgments
References
I am grateful for the direct and indirect guidance
of many in developing the concepts in this address. I
appreciate the quality undergraduate education in geography that I received at UCLA (1970–1974), inspiring lectures, challenging projects, and stimulating
field trips that taught me fundamental concepts, writing skills, and some measure of critical thinking. I am
deeply indebted to my geography professors at Oregon
State University (1974–1980), especially Dr. Charles L.
Rosenfeld, who equipped me with a bag of tools, love of
fieldwork, and desire to apply concepts and techniques
to solve practical problems in mountains. I have been
fortunate to collaborate with many skilled, efficient,
energetic, and earnest faculty colleagues over the years.
I am especially grateful to Maynard M. Miller of the
Foundation for Glacier and Environmental Research for
the initial opportunity to pursue field-based research in
the Himalaya. Elizabeth Catlos (Oklahoma State University) has been particularly generous in collaborating
and sharing ideas about the geodynamics of the Garhwal
Himalaya; our work was supported by one grant from
the National Science Foundation (INT-0217598) and
one from the Oklahoma EPSCoR Program. Work in
the Nanga Parbat massif was also supported by the
National Science Foundation (EAR-9418839). Other
ideas were developed as a result of conversations with
scholars involved in the International Mountain Society, ICIMOD, the Mountain Forum, the Mountain
Research Initiative, SHARE Asia, The Mountain Institute, USGS Western Mountain Initiative, USFS Consortium for Integrated Climate Research in Western
Mountains (CIRMOUNT), and AAG Mountain Geography and Geomorphology specialty groups. The forty
graduate students who have completed their degrees
under my supervision through 2007 have served as excellent partners in research and have taught me far
more, I suspect, than they have learned from me. This
address was improved by comments from Mark Fonstad, Kathy Hansen, Carol Harden, Andrew Marcus, M.
Duane Nellis, Olav Slaymaker, Jack Vitek, and David
Zurick. The concepts presented in this address are my
own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of
these individuals or organizations. Finally, I appreciate
the support of friends, my wife Linda, and two children,
Bryce and Brooke, who fortunately share my love of
learning, travel, and adventure in mountains and on
rivers.
Bailey, R. G. 1996. Ecosystem geography. New York: Springer.
Bandyopadhyay, J., and S. Perveen. 2004. Moving the mountains up in the global environmental agenda. Occasional
Paper 3, Centre for Development and Environment Policy. 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 the
Garhwal Himalaya of northern India. Geomorphology 40
(1–2): 21–35.
Bishop, B. C. 1990. Karnali under stress: Livelihood strategies and seasonal rhythms in a changing Nepal Himalaya.
Geography Research Paper nos. 228–29. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Bishop, M. P., and J. F. Shroder, Jr., eds. 2004. Geographic
information science and mountain geomorphology. Berlin:
Springer-Praxis.
Blaikie, P. M., and J. S. S. Muldavin. 2004. Upstream, downstream, China, India: The politics of environment in the
Himalayan region. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 94 (3): 520–48.
Blake, K. S. 2002. Colorado fourteeners and the nature of
place identity. Geographical Review 92 (2): 155–79.
———. 2005. Mountain symbolism and geographical imaginations. 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 incision, rock uplift, and threshold hillslopes in the northwestern Himalaya. Nature 379:505–10.
Caine, N. 2004. Mechanical and chemical denudation in
mountain systems. In Mountain geomorphology, ed. P. N.
Owens and O. Slaymaker, 132–52. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Catlos, E. J., C. S. Dubey, R. A. Marston, and M. T. Harrison.
2007. Geochronologic constraints across the main central thrust shear zone, Bhagirathi River (NW India): Implications for Himalayan tectonics. In Convergent margin
terranes and associated regions: A tribute to W. G. Ernst, ed.
M. Cloos, W. D. Carlson, M. C. Gilbert, J. G. Liou, and
S. S. Sorenson. Geological Society of America Special
Paper 419: 135–51.
Cornwell, K., D. Norsby, and R. Marston. 2003. Drainage,
sediment transport, and denudation rates on the Nanga
Parbat Himalaya, Pakistan. Geomorphology 55 (1–4): 25–
43.
Deoja, B. B. 1994. Planning and management of mountain roads. In Proceedings of the international symposium
on mountain environment and development, 1–44. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD.
Dhakal, A. S., T. Amada, and M. Aniya. 2000. Landslide
hazard mapping and its evaluation using GIS: An investigation of sampling scheme for grid-cell based quantitative method. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing 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 rates
in the Himalaya: Geochemical constraints on riverine
fluxes. Geology 29:23–26.
Downloaded By: [Kansas State University Libraries] At: 19:50 8 July 2008
Land, Life, and Environmental Change in Mountains
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 the
Hindu Kush-Himalayas: Directions for future research, development 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 and
human geography. Area 36 (4): 435–42.
Hodges, K. V., C. Wobus, K. Ruhl, T. Schildgen, and K.
Whipple. 2004. Quaternary deformation, river steepening, and heavy precipitation at the front of the Higher
Himalayan ranges. Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters
220:379–89.
ICIMOD. 2006. Environmental assessment of Nepal: Emerging
issues and challenges. Kathmandu, Nepal: International
Centre for Integrated Mountain Development and Asian
Development Bank.
Ives, J. D. 2006. Himalayan perceptions: Environmental change
and the well-being of mountain peoples. 2nd ed. Lalitpur,
Nepal: Himalayan Association for the Advancement of
Science.
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. Experimental knowledge and response to natural hazards in
mountainous Nepal. Mountain Research and Development
2 (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. In
Ecosystems and human well-being, ed. R. Hassan, R. Scholes, and N. Ash, 681–716. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Macfarlane, R. 2003. Mountains of the mind: Adventures in
reaching the summit. New York: Vintage Books.
Marcus, W. A., R. J. Aspinall, and R. A. Marston. 2004. Geographic information systems and surface hydrology in
mountains. In Geographic information science and mountain 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. Geomorphic and forest cover controls on flooding: Central
Nepal 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 ManasluGanesh and Langtang-Jugal himals, Nepal. Geomorphology 26 (1–3): 139–50.
Meybeck, M., P. Green, and C. Vorosmarty. 2001. A new
typology for mountains and other relief classes: An application to global continental water resources and population distribution. Mountain Research and Development
21 (1): 34–45.
519
McDonald, B., ed. 2002. Extreme landscape: The lure of
mountain spaces. Washington, DC: National Geographic
Society.
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. Washington, DC: The Mountain Institute.
Murphy, A. B. 2006. Presidential address: Enhancing geography’s role in public debate. Annals of the Association of
American 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 University of Wyoming.
Owen, L. A. 2004. Cenozoic evolution of global mountain
systems. In Mountain geomorphology, ed. P. N. Owens
and O. Slaymaker, 33–58. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Owens, P. N., and O. Slaymaker. 2004. An introduction to
mountain 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 issues
for mountain areas. New York: United Nations University
Press.
Saha, A. K., R. P. Gupta, and M. K. Arora. 2002. GIS-based
landslide hazard zonation in the Bhagirathi (Ganga) Valley, Himalayas. International Journal of Remote Sensing 23
(2): 357–69.
Samant, S. S., U. Dhar, and L. M. S. Palni. 1998. Medicinal
plants of the Indian Himalaya: Himavikas. No. 13. Almora,
India: Govind Ballabh Plant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development.
Schumm, S. A. 1991. To interpret the Earth: Ten ways to be
wrong. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Seeber, L., and V. Gornitz. 1983. River profiles along the
Himalayan arc as indicators of active tectonics. Tectonophysics 92:335–67.
Shroder, J. F., Jr., ed. 1998. Special issue: Mass movement in
the Himalaya. Geomorphology 26 (1–3): 1–222.
Shroder, J. F., Jr., and M. P. Bishop 2000. Unroofing of the
Nanga Parbat Himalaya. In Tectonics of the Nanga Parbat
syntaxis and the western Himalaya: Geographical Society
Special Publication 170, ed. M. A. Khan, P. J. Treloar, M.
P. Searl, and M. Q. Jam, 163–79. London: Geological
Society of London.
Solnit, R. 2000. Wanderlust. New York: Penguin.
Stevens, S. F. 1993. Claiming the high ground: Sherpas, subsistence, and environmental change in the highest Himalaya.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thompson, M., M. Warburton, and T. Hatley. 2007. Uncertainty on a Himalayan scale: An institutional theory of
environmental perception and a strategic framework for the
sustainable 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, et
al. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science 100 (14): 8074–79.
Downloaded By: [Kansas State University Libraries] At: 19:50 8 July 2008
520
Marston
United Nations. 1992. Agenda 21, Chapter 13: Managing fragile 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 of
mountainous hill slopes in the Middle Hills of Nepal:
Stability and instability. In Water and the quest for sustainable development in the Ganges Valley, ed. G. P. Chapman
and 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 geomorphology
of metamorphism. GSA Today 11 (1): 4–9.
Zurick, D. N. 1992. Adventure travel and sustainable
tourism in the peripheral economy of Nepal. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers 82 (4): 608–
28.
Zurick, D., and P. P. Karan. 1999. Himalaya: Life on the edge
of the world. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Zurick, D., and J. Pacheco. 2006. Illustrated atlas of
the Himalaya. Lexington: The University Press of
Kentucky.
Correspondence: Kansas State University, Department of Geography, 118 Seaton Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506-2904, e-mail: Rmarston@ksu.edu.