81

Common Challenges and Differing Responses: Reflections about
Sustainable Mountain Development
Hermann KREUTZMANN
Institute of Geographical Sciences – Human Geography, Freie Universität Berlin
Malteserstr, 74-100, D-12249 Berlin, Germany
E-mail: h.kreutzmann@fu-berlin.de

Abstract
Looking back at decades of rising awareness of mountain challenges and constraints in the framework of ahalf-century-long Man and the Biosphere Programme by UNESCO, and anniversaries such as 30 years of the
UNDP Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro and 20 years since the inauguration of
the International Year of Mountains, it is high time for assessing the achievements and shortcomings over theseyears and for projecting a future vision for coping with climate and social changes and striving for sustainable
mountain development. Coping strategies need to be adapted to local conditions; many challenges are similar,
but solutions can differ over a wide spectrum of policy-making and development-package designing. Shrinking
available spaces in conjunction with high demand for building plots, infrastructure expansion, tourist facilities
and leisure and recreation areas have increased the existing tension with mountain agriculture’s paramount rolein traditional land use. Its valuable contribution to ecosystem services, food security and cash crop production
requires a cautious approach for safeguarding rural livelihoods. Enhanced out-migration and other forms of
multi-directional mobility affect the maintenance of cultural and natural landscapes. Political conflicts in borderregions indicate an urgent need for negotiations and reconciliation on the way to creating cross-boundary
cooperation and professional exchange on the path to sustainable mountain development.
Key words: food security, High Asia, migration, mobility, Pamir Peace Park, sustainable mountain agriculture,water

1. Introduction
The year 2022 was of significant importance to theinternational mountain community. Half a century ago,
UNESCO initiated the Man and the Biosphere
Programme with a pioneering section on relevant
mountain studies hinting exemplarily at these vulnerable
landscapes and stimulating a rising interest since then in
special challenges in mountain settings. Its World
Heritage Programme was initiated in the same context.
Thirty years ago, the United Nations staged the Rio
Conference on Environment and Development; twenty
years ago, its International Year of Mountains triggered a
growing awareness of the crucial interdependence of
mountain landscapes with their rimlands. Anniversaries
provide a welcome occasion to reflect on gains anddeficits during the periods passed, and offer an
opportunity to reshape programmatic approaches and toreflect on new venues for operation and visionary future

Global Environmental Research
27/2023 81-90
printed in Japan

paths of development (Fig. 1).
All these efforts have purposefully led to acomprehensive approach and fostered combined efforts to
identify goals for sustainable development. The first targetof the Sustainable Development Goals within its Goal
15—“Protect, restore and promote sustainable use ofterrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat
desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation andhalt biodiversity loss”—explicitly addresses “mountains
among the ecosystems to be conserved, restored andsustainably used in line with international agreements”(United Nations, 2015). Over a span of half a century
awareness has grown and culminated in the designation of2022 as the International Year of Sustainable Mountain
Development (United Nations, 2022). The global
community of mountain researchers and policy makers is
invited to evaluate previous achievements and to define
future challenges leading to adaptive packages andprogrammes.

©2023 AIRIES82

H. KREUTZMANN

The concentration on conservation, restoration andsustainable use is an attempt comprehensively to grasp thechallenges of our time. Significant sets of data have beengathered in the framework of climate change assessments.

The tipping points causing accelerated environmental
change and triggers for change in socioeconomic systems
have been identified, qualified in impact dimensions andarranged into a risk matrix (Fig. 1, Table 1).

Fig. 1 Existing and future physical and human system challenges in mountain systems based on
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2019) in its special report on theocean and cryosphere in a changing climate (Hock et al. 2019).
Table 1

Common challenges: different contexts and strategies.
High mountain regions

Physicalchallenges

Humansystems
challenges

Water availability
FloodsLandslides
Avalanches
Ecosystems services
Agriculture
Tourism
Infrastructure
Mobility
Cultural services

IPCC: European Alps
Gain and loss
Increase and decrease
Increase
Increase and decrease
Gain and loss
Decrease
Negative impact
Negative impact
No change
Gain and loss

IPCC: High
Mountain Asia
Gain and loss
Increase
Increase
Increase
Gain and loss
Decrease
Negative impact
Negative impact
GrowthLoss

Alpine Convention
countries1
Water scarcity
Control measures
Destructive
Endangering
Important
Ecosystem services
Eco-tourism
Shrinking spaces
High demand
Promotion

High Asia2
Drought, floods
Increasing events
Loss of land
Threat to habitat
Undeveloped
Food security
Over-tourism
ExpansionMulti-locality
Rapid loss

Note 1: The Alpine Convention comprises eight European countries: Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Slovenia andSwitzerland.
Note 2: High Asia comprises mountain regions of Central, East and South Asia surrounding the Tibetan Plateau. The table composition isbased on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2019) assessments by Hock et al. (2019) and results from theauthor’s own fieldwork.

Reflections about sustainable mountain development

The evaluation of parameters enables risk exposures
to be combined with hazard and vulnerability assessments.
It has become common knowledge that mountainous areas
are prone to rapid change processes. Previously a long list
existed of certain topics related to mountain issues: salient
sources of water for human consumption and irrigation inhighlands and lowlands; high potential for hydraulicenergy generation to supply grid-linked areas; valuable
reserves for biological diversity as assets for a wider
spatial range; target areas of exploitable natural resources
such as minerals, forest products and agricultural goods
for extra-montane markets; and increasingly a resourcefor domestic and international recreation. Significant
human impacts were visible in mining and agriculturalactivities as well as in infrastructure development andtourism.
The present-day challenges posed by global warming
and land degradation need to be identified, analysed andembedded in comprehensive adaptation and mitigation
strategies. Significant work has been done bymulti-disciplinary groups of scientists from various
backgrounds leading to an analytical focus on sustainable
mountain development that informs policy-makers andplanners.
Agricultural practices of crop farming and animalhusbandry have been a prime object of mountain research.
In earlier studies these dominant practices were taken todescribe mountain habitats as places generating basic
livelihoods from local resources. Scientific attention wascentred on localized mountain settings and neglected
outward relations as a substantial component of survival
strategies. For most mountainous regions, a soledependence on mountain agriculture has never been
sufficient to provide adequate livelihoods. Non-agrarian
resources augmented mountain households’ ability andcapacity to maintain a living at higher altitudes. Suchconnotations were taken to categorize and identify
development gaps between Asian and European
mountains (Table 1). Since mountain development has
taken various paths differentiated by regionalsocioeconomic and geopolitical settings, the importanceof agriculture as the fundamental source of income isshrinking. Nowadays mountain households depend on amultitude of income sources generated within and outsideof mountainous areas. Infrastructure development,
resource exploitation, urbanization and a fast-growing
tourism industry have exerted major pressures onmountain environments and resources. Challenges
increase when it comes to defining pathways forsustainable mountain development and strategies forcoping with climate change effects. Several European
countries have acknowledged that cross-boundary
cooperation and knowledge exchange will be instrumental
and the key to a homogeneous, unified strategy fortackling present-day challenges. The Alpine Convention
and Carpathian Convention are eminent examples of these83

efforts (Alberton et al., 2017; Permanent Secretariat of the
Alpine Convention, 2021).
The High Asian mountains are exposed to a different
set of challenges. Agricultural, hydrological and mineral
resources are of prime importance for the countries
involved. Stakes of multi-national corporations andinternational development agents focus on hidden
treasures in mountain valleys which were difficult toaccess in former times due to missing roads and lacking
infrastructure. Geopolitical and economic crises,
unresolved boundary disputes and armed conflicts,
domestic tensions and regional separatism describe part ofthe multiple challenges and constraints that hamper efforts
for cooperation and mutually profitable exchange.
Outmigration and multi-local income generation
contribute to a complex web of interlinkages.
The service industries, primarily driven by tourism,
mountaineering and trekking, have been identified as
valuable sources of income and attract significant
numbers of holiday-makers, leading to the question of
how to cope with over-tourism and recreation-led
urbanization. Europe’s mountains are reaching their limit
primarily during winter, although the previously observed
seasonality has shifted to prolonged tourism periods,
putting higher pressure on local resources.
High Asia is facing different tourism challenges suchas water and energy scarcity, uncontrolled urban sprawl
and suburbanisation of agricultural lands, conversion ofvaluable agricultural resources and the selling-out of
cultural artefacts.

2. Shrinking Space in European Mountains
The major European mountain systems such as theAlps, Carpathians and Pyrenees are centrally locatedwhere borders of neighbouring countries meet, and wheretraffic arteries lead through a growing number of tunnels
and across high passes enabling commodity exchange andpersonal communication by connecting markets andmigratory paths. After prolonged periods of confrontationand conflict, the post-World War II politics of balancing
and reconciliation have resulted in mutual agreements andcross-boundary cooperation.
Initially this began with common efforts in nature
and wildlife protection, later it expanded to tourism andtraffic regulations, defining common standards ofmaintaining biodiversity and recreational practices.
Despite all of these agreements, the pressure on valuable
mountain resources has not been alleviated; to thecontrary, the mountainous areas have become more
attractive to tourists and enterprises. Consequently, allefforts for sustainable development have had to cope withshrinking space for a multitude of activities, interests andstakes. Coping with natural hazards such as avalanches,
floods and landslides is among the leading physicalchallenges that have resulted in packages for control

84

H. KREUTZMANN

measures and mitigating destructive and endangering
forces.
The incorporation of local stakeholders residing in
the mountains and engaging them in nature conservation
by offering payments for ecosystem services has
opened-up a path towards sustainable mountain
development. The programme for “Common spatial
perspectives for the Alpine area” reflects the shrinking
space and an attempt at reconciling different stakeholders’interests. Various space-requiring actors and theirdemands such as for nature protection and conservation,
maintaining agricultural practices, providing space forrecreational and tourist activities, permitting urban growthand providing space for traffic arteries have to be met andmerged. The Alps2050 main report (Chilla et al., 2018)has taken up the challenge of suggesting potential space
allocation and use for all contenders (Fig. 2).
To give an example: Within the countries of the

Alpine Convention covering 190,600 km2, more than
1,000 protected areas exist – each more than 100 hectares
in size – that cover 28% of the Alps (The Alpine Networkof Protected Areas, 2019). Several countries haveemphasized their common interest in protecting
traditional cultural landscapes to preserve the importantfunction of the Alps’ streams, rivers, lakes and glaciers as
an important reservoir of drinking water. Mountain forests
contribute significantly to air purification, climaticcompensation and the protection of mountain slopes.
The spatial and resource demands for recreation andtourism are competing for space and resources. Watershedmanagement is challenged by water resources tapped formaking artificial snow and high demand from hotels andguesthouses. Pasture preservation and soil protection arehampered by alpine sports and leisure activities such as
skiing and other forms of holiday entertainment.
Here the question arises of what kind of ecotourism

Fig. 2 The Alps 2050 vision attempts to reconcile spatial demands of various stakeholders (Chilla et al., 2018).

Reflections about sustainable mountain development

within the framework of sustainable resource utilization isapplicable for meeting the demands of winter sports in anage of shrinking glaciers, loosening soil and rock due tothawing permafrost, reduced seasonal snow coverage andrising snowlines.
A substantial turn in spatial use is envisaged whenpolicies in response to global warming are framed. Herethe future of alpine agriculture re-enters the debate as
development packages for mountain farmers provide amix of various resources. They have become welcome
actors who permanently reside and work in the mountains,
have personal and societal stakes to preserve, andmaintain the (agri-) cultural landscape. Farmers aresupposed to make an adequate living within themountains by being provided with cash payments forecosystem services including environmentally friendly
management of a variety of landscape elements such ashedges, woody plants and walls.
Other subsidies by programmes and packages
financed by the European Union along with national andregional governments include direct payments formaintaining
traditional
cultivation
techniques,compensation for unfavourable environmental conditions
in disadvantaged regions, renovation and repair of ruralroad infrastructure including restaurants and holiday
infrastructure, and financial support for alpine pasturesand pastoralists. All these direct and indirect
remunerations are augmented by a second pillar making
use of non-farm assets which include rural family-based
tourism and entertainment (Wanner et al., 2021).
Severe challenges exist and will continue to lead to85

estranged relations between certain stakeholders in thefield. The latter has remained a bone of contention until
today. Consequently, disputes about boundary delineation
hamper trans-boundary cooperation and professional
exchange, for example, in the context of the Pamirian
Crossroads (Fig. 3). Confrontation has taken the place ofcooperation (Kreutzmann, 2013). Therefore, it is laudable
that repeated efforts are on record in which mountainresearchers and civil society representatives havesuggested a Pamir Peace Park (Ali, 2002; Kreutzmann,
2015, 2021; Schaller, 2007). It would constitute a wide
trans-boundary range within the Pamirian Crossroads
from the Afghan Hindukush to Tajikistan’s Pamirs,
covering parts of the Chinese Kun Lun Shan andPakistan’s Karakoram and crossing the line of control into
the Western Himalayas, controlled by India and Pakistan(Fig. 3).
There is hardly any country that does not have borderdisputes or undeclared delineations with neighbouring
China. India and Pakistan have not amicably settled theirouter limits; only Pakistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan
have come to terms with China by ceding land to theirmighty neighbour. Such regions have been separated sincethe 19th century and excluded from accessibility andtransboundary exchange until the end of the Cold War.
They should enter the focus when discussing thepossibility of creating a peace park with traffic
infrastructure and industrial and urban expansion.
Tensions are unavoidable, but the compromises found areoften the result of active people’s participation andinterest-led involvement in local and regional

Fig. 3 Disputed boundaries and territories in High Asia represent a high-tension conflict zone centred around the Pamirian
Crossroads (Kreutzmann, 2020).

86

H. KREUTZMANN

decision-making processes. The European Alps have along tradition of mountain research and policy
implementation. Located in an affluent environment, they
represent a constellation of trans-boundary neighbours
with self-confident actors controlled by strong civilsocieties (Brugger et al., 1984; Moser and Moser, 1986).
The resulting Alps 2050 vision (Fig. 2) is a reflectionof a fine-tuned agenda representing lobbying and power
structures. The challenges for High Asian mountains
might be similar on the path to sustainable development;
the responses are embedded in a set of constraints andexperiences that strongly influence possible adaptation
processes and mitigation packages. Blueprints for wider
mountain ranges do not exist as specific constellations,and changing conditions need to be respected. Only
anecdotal evidence can be presented here to substantiate
this argument. To understand the limitations andopportunities for mountain development, our focus isdirected on the historical and political context.

3. Conflicts over Mountain Spaces in High Asia
Path-dependency in High Asia’s mountain
development
ischaracterized
bygeopoliticalconstellations that have shaped the creation and existenceof neighbouring countries. Colonial and imperial
competition has contributed to spatial appropriation andboundary-making; the latter has remained a bone ofcontention until today. Consequently, disputes aboutboundary delineation hamper trans-boundary cooperationand professional exchange, for example, in the context of
the Pamirian Crossroads (Fig. 3). Confrontation has rather
taken the place of cooperation (Kreutzmann, 2013).
Therefore, it is laudable that repeated efforts are on recordof mountain researchers and civil society representatives
suggesting a Pamir Peace Park (Ali, 2002; Kreutzmann,
2015, 2021; Schaller, 2007). It would constitute a wide
trans-boundary range within the Pamirian Crossroads
from the Afghan Hindukush to Tajikistan’s Pamirs,
covering parts of the Chinese Kun Lun Shan andPakistan’s Karakoram, crossing the line of control into theWestern Himalayas controlled by India and Pakistan (Fig.
3). There is hardly any country among these that lacks
border disputes or undeclared delineations withneighbouring China. India and Pakistan have notamicably settled their outer limits; only Pakistan,
Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have come to terms with China
by ceding land to their mighty neighbour. Such regions
have been separated since the 19th century and been
excluded from accessibility and transboundary exchange
until the end of the Cold War. They should get attention
when discussing the possibility of creating a peace park.
Peacebuilding, communication and transboundary
exchange would support communities that have been
separated by contested boundaries and would enable theimplementation of common projects in nature protection,
mutual understanding and ecotourism.
An additional benefit of a Pamir Peace Park would bethat it would integrate a number of existing national parks
and biosphere reserves (Fig. 4) and thus foster greater

Fig. 4 Existing nature reserves in the borderlands of the Pamirian Crossroads have been identified as a salient network on
the way to building a Pamir Peace Park (Kreutzmann, 2016).

Reflections about sustainable mountain development
Table 287

Protected areas and nature reserves in the Pamirian Crossroads.
Administrative unit

Size (km2)

Protected area and date of establishment

Size (km2)

Afghanistan
Tajikistan

Badakhshan
Gorno- Badakhshan

44,05964,200People’s Republic ofChina (Xinjiang)
Pakistan

Kashgar Prefecture

112,057

Wakhan National Park (2014)
Tajik National Park (1992)
Zor Köl Nature Reserve (2000)
Tashkurgan National Nature Reserve (1984)

8,936
26,116
1,610
15,863Gilgit-Baltistan

72,500Chitral14,850Central Karakoram National Park (1993)
Deosai National Park (2016)
Khunjerab National Park (1975)
Hunderap Shandur National Park (1993)
Karumber National Park (2011)
Baroghil National Park (2010)
Chitral Gol National Park (1984)

10,557
3,580
2,271
1,650
740
1,347
77

Country

Share ofprotected
area (%)
21
43
14
26

9

Source: Data are based on Felmy and Kreutzmann (2004) and Kreutzmann (2015)trans-boundary professional cooperation (Cunha, 2016;
Kreutzmann et al., 2011; Wu Ning et al,. 2014). Protectedareas have begun to exist on paper only, but are taking
shape and being integrated into an international
monitoring system and eligible for development funding.
The earliest was Khunjerab National Park, established in
1975, and the latest addition was Deosai National Park in
2016. The share of protected areas varies from 14% in
Tashkurgan National Nature Reserve to 43% in
Gorno-Badakhshan (Table 2). Lack of funds makes proper
management difficult and has contributed to risingtensions as mountain farmers have not been adequately
compensated for their loss of access to pastures, shrubs
and forests. Here a significant difference between
European and Asian mountain areas emerges as it seems
to be highly difficult to provide mountain dwellers with
sufficient local income sources.

4. Common Challenges : Perceived in Different
Contexts and Adjusted for Selected
Strategies
Most governments in the Pamirian Crossroads areinterested in keeping mountain farmers within theirsettlement areas in order to substantiate their territorial
claims of state ownership. Farmers are expected to utilize
existing resources, to provide ecosystem services free ofcost and to depend less on government subsidies. The costto maintain this status quo is predominantly borne by
mountain dwellers. Different approaches have been usedin the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region within the
People’s Republic of China where state authorities have
implemented strict resettlement policies by concentrating
rural populations in new housing schemes and townshipsthat are less scattered than traditional habitations and aremeant to provide modern facilities (Kreutzmann et al.,2011; Kreutzmann, 2022). The efforts of the “Great
Development of the West” and subsequent policies havebrought significant change to rural livelihoods by cuttingback their degree of freedom in local decision-making,and motivating residents to seek employment in urban
settings. Mountain dwellers in Xinjiang have undergone astrongincorporation
intomainstream
Chinesedevelopment policies.
In all of the neighbouring countries the negligence of
mountain dwellers is more vivid, leading to a different setof responses. Agriculture that was based on providing thebasic subsistence for mountain households has lost inimportance. Its share in providing food for the villagers isfading, with most foodstuffs having to be imported fromnearby lowlands or even further away. Only a few cash
crops such as potatoes, fruit (apples, apricots, cherries)
and herbs can be grown on the small and further shrinking
available plots. Land fragmentation due to heritage
division, an ever-expanding infrastructure and housing
construction demand valuable village lands and contributeto dwindling household landholdings. In the livestock
sector man- and woman-power is increasingly lacking as
formal education and non-agrarian jobs do not provide
sufficient time for extensive stays in high pastures, which
are often far away from the villages. The consequent
agricultural labour shortage is the manifestation of a lackof income sources that could enable a living to be made in
the mountains. As external support is not expected, there
remain basically two options for augmenting mountainhouseholds and counteracting the depopulation ofmountain areas.
First, off-farm assets have to provide the required
funds for basic household expenditures (Fig. 5). In someregions tourism has become a prominent means ofgenerating additional income. In Kyrgyzstan andTajikistan community-based international and domestic
tourism has been marginally developed while in
Gilgit-Baltistan, domestic tourism has experienced amajor boom since 2015, thus attracting even outside
investors from downcountry Pakistan to exploit a
potential “goldmine.” Other sources of income areprovided by wage labour, civil and military services, andentrepreneurial businesses and trade.
Second, a more common strategy is outmigration ofhousehold members by creating a multi-local household

88

H. KREUTZMANN

structure in which different members generate income
within their valleys and outside the mountain areas andeven transfer funds as remittances from overseas. The
Hunza Valley in the Karakoram is a prominent case inpoint (Fig. 6).
Its inhabitants look back at a long history ofoutmigration without giving up a strong bond with therelatives who have remained in their original villages. In asituation where lacking subsidies and marginal external
support do not make up for financial deficits, acommunity has maintained a sizeable population within
the mountains despite being equipped with only meagre
agricultural resources. What will be its impact forsustainable mountain development? The unequal access toadequate and sufficient resources for maintaining a
combined mountain agriculture composed of interrelated

Fig. 5 Varied income sources and multi-faceted expenditure demands of a Hunza household(Kreutzmann, 2020).

Fig. 6 Migration patterns on different spatial scales by household members originating from the
Hunza Valley, Karakoram (Kreutzmann, 2020).

Reflections about sustainable mountain development

crop-farming and animal husbandry and/or mobile
pastoralism might lead to growing abandonment of vast
natural pastures, future collapse of weed control andfallowing of village lands. Unless mountain farmers areequipped with a decent set of income sources for alifestyle comparable with other citizens of their country,
they will be unable to perform important duties aslandscape and resource managers, ecosystem services
providers and preservers of local culture. Sustainable
mountain development requires a stronger focus of actors
and stakeholders on the vital role of mountain dwellers forthe protection of mountainous areas.

5. International Year of Sustainable Mountain
Development 2022 : Salient Points Emerging
Previously prime targets for mountain studies wereidentified as the agricultural practices of crop farming andanimal husbandry; in earlier studies these practices weretaken to categorize and identify development gaps
between Asian and European Mountains. Since regional
mountain development has taken various paths,
infrastructure development, urbanization and afast-growing tourism industry have exerted majorpressures on mountain environments and resources.
Challenges increase when it comes to defining pathways
for sustainable mountain development and strategies forcoping with climate change effects.
Analytical approaches are meant to precede policy
packages. Often this rule and sequence are neglected as
general programmes are designed to promote adaptation
to climate change that are not specific to singularlocations. Evaluating the achievements of half a century
of focused human-environmental relations has shown us
the desiderata: more empirical evidence andcomprehensive and complex approaches to survival
conditions for mountain communities are required. The
challenge for academics and scientists will be tocontribute to sustainable mountain development studies
through concise investigations that are embedded in
mountain-specific contexts and that take into accountwider implications on regional, national and international
scales. The few examples presented from High Asia andEuropean mountain areas have illustrated that common
challenges and constraints do not necessarily generate thesame answers and response mechanisms. Beyond thesegeneral remarks on mountain studies, four points might bementioned:(1) Create awareness based upon cooperation between
international organizations and civil society, theprivate sector and academia to highlight theimportance of sustainable mountain development andthe conservation and sustainable use of mountainecosystems.
(2) Contribute to mountain ecosystem regeneration by89

selecting nature-positive investments guided byscience that take into account the living conditions ofmountain residents.
(3) Boost and improve regional coordination for
professional exchange, communication on common
themes and challenges in neighbouring mountainareas that would contribute to mutual understanding,conflict reduction and peacebuilding measures.
(4) Develop and implement adequate policy agendas andconnect them with specific action plans for
mountains by integrating mountain communities into
the decision-making process as expert informers andprincipal stakeholders.
Decision- and policy-making should be guided by thegeneral consideration that mountain dwellers are locallyavailable ecosystem and landscape managers and provenexperts on local and traditional knowledge, who could be
brokers for adapting to conditions of climate and socialchange if sufficient income could be generated to allow
them to stay in their mountain abodes (Fig. 7). The
International Year of Sustainable Mountain Development
could be an initiative to draw proper attention to the needfor keeping up mountain systems by enabling theresidents to live there. Their services support not only
mountain regions but vast areas beyond.

Fig. 7 Mountain oases of Central Hunza and Nagar. Residents
have proven able to maintain and manage their lives on
steep slopes ranging from 1,800 m to peaks above 7,300 m
altitude by tapping glacial water resources and combining
crop-farming with pastoralism. Outward relations are
facilitated by the Karakoram Highway (Kreutzmann, 25
July 2021).

90

H. KREUTZMANN

References
Alberton, M., Andresen, M., Citadino, F., Egerer, H., Fritsch, U.,
Götsch, H., Hoffmann, C., Klemm, J., Mitrofanenko, A., Musco,
E., Noellenburg, N., Pettita, M., Renner, K. and Zebisch, M.
(2017) Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Carpathian
Mountains, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.
http://www.carpathianconvention.org/publications-64.html(accessed 2 January 2023)
Ali, A. (2002) A Siachen Peace Park. The solution to a half-century
of international conflict? Mountain Research and Development,
22 (4): 316−319.
Brugger, E.A., Furrer, G., Messerli, B. and Messerli, P. eds. (1984)
The Transformation of Swiss Mountain Regions, Haupt, Berne.
Chilla, T., Heugel, A., Ravazzoli, E., Laner, P., Tappeiner, U. et al.
(2018) The Alps 2050 Atlas. Common spatial perspectives for the
Alpine area. Towards a common vision. Main Report, Espon,
Luxembourg.
Cunha, S. (2016) Perestroika to parkland: The evolution of land
protection in the Pamir Mountains of Tajikistan. Annals of theAmerican Association of Geographers, 107 (2): 465−479.
Felmy, S. and Kreutzmann, H. (2004) Wakhan Woluswali in
Badakhshan. Observations and reflections from Afghanistan’s
periphery. Erdkunde, 58 (2): 97−117.
Hock, R., Rasul, G., Adler, C., Cáceres, B., Gruber, S., Hirabayashi,Y., Jackson, M., Kääb, A., Kang, S., Kutuzov, S., Milner, A.,
Molau, U., Morin, S., Orlove, B. and Steltzer H. (2019) High
Mountain Areas. In: Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C.,
Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.,
Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Nicolai, M., Okem, A., Petzold, J.,
Rama, B., Weyer, N.M. eds., IPCC Special Report on the Ocean
and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 131−202. https://doi.org/10.1017/978100915
7964.004
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2019) IPCC Special
Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.
In: H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M.
Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A.
Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer (eds.), Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Kreutzmann, H. (2013) Boundary-making as a strategy for risk
reduction in conflict-prone spaces. In: D. Müller-Mahn, ed., The
Spatial Dimension of Risk. How Geography Shapes theEmergence of Riskscapes, Routledge, Milton Park, 154−171.
Kreutzmann, H. (2015) Pamirian Crossroads. Kirghiz and Wakhi ofHigh Asia, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.
Kreutzmann, H. (2016) Pamirian spaces : Mapping process
geographies in the mountainous periphery. In: Kreutzmann, H.
and Watanabe T., eds., Mapping Transition in the Pamirs. Withcase Studies on the Changing Human-environmental Landscapes,
Springer, Cham, 1−16.
Kreutzmann, H. (2020) Hunza Matters. Bordering and Ordering
Between Ancient and New Silk Roads, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.
Kreutzmann, H. (2021) Pamir Peace Park. Antecedents andprospects. In: Shitov, A. V., Bannikova, O. I. and Merdesheva,
E. V. eds., Transboundary Regions in the Context of Global
Changes. Current Challenges and Prospects for Development,
Gornoaltaisk State University, Gornoaltaisk, 6−12.
Kreutzmann, H. (2022) Pamirs at the crossroads. In: Wouters, J. andHeneise, M. eds., The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary
Highland Asia, Routledge, London, 116−128.
Kreutzmann, H., Abdulalishoev, K., Lu Z. and Richter, J. eds.
(2011) Regional Workshop in Khorog and Kashgar : Pastoralism
and Rangeland Management in Mountain Areas in the Context of
Climate and Global Change, InWEnt, Bonn.

Moser, P. and Moser, W. (1986) Reflections on the MAB-6
obergurgl project and tourism in an Alpine environment.
Mountain Research and Development, 6 (2): 101−118.
Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention (2021)
Climate Action Plan 2.0, Bolzano. https://www.alpconv.org/en/home/news-publications/publications-multimedia/detail/climateaction-plan-20/ (accessed 2 January 2023)
Schaller, G.B. (2007) A proposal for a Pamir international peacepark. In: Watson, A., Sproull, J. and Dean, L. eds., Science andStewardship to Protect and Sustain Wilderness Values. Eighth
World Wilderness Congress Symposium, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Fort Collins, 227−231.
The Alpine Network of Protected Areas (2019) Maps of the
Alpine Protected Areas. https://www.alparc.org/discover-the-apa(accessed 2 January 2023)
United Nations (2015) Transforming our World: The 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, New York. https://sdgs.
un.org/publications/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustain
able-development-17981 (accessed 2 January 2023)
United Nations (2022) Global Sustainable Development Report(GSDR) 2023, New York. https://sdgs.un.org/gsdr/gsdr2023(accessed 2 January 2023)
Wanner, A., Pröbstl-Haider, U. and M. Feilhammer (2021) The
future of Alpine pastures – Agricultural or tourism
development? Experiences from the German Alps. Journalof Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 35: 100405. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352705627_The_future_of_Alpin
e_pastures_-Agricultural_or_tourism_development_Experiences_from_the_German_Alps/link/60d42913a6fdcc75a24e14c0/dow
nload (accessed 2 January 2023)
Wu Ning, Ismail, M., Joshi, S., Qamar, F. M., Phuntsho, K., Yang
Weikang, Khan, B., Yi Shaoliang, et al. (2014) Understanding
the transboundary Karakoram-Pamir landscape, International
Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu.

Hermann KREUTZMANN
Prof. Emeritus Dr. Hermann Kreutzmann held the
Chair of Human Geography at Freie Universitaet
Berlin until March 2020. He studied physics,
geography and anthropology at the universities of
Hannover and Freiburg. His doctoral degree wasawarded by Freie Universitaet Berlin and his
postdoctoral degree by Bonn University. From1994 to 1995 he taught as a visiting professor at the Jackson School ofInternational Studies in the South Asia program at the University ofWashington, Seattle. In 1996, he joined Erlangen-Nuernberg University as
Chair for Cultural Geography. Since 2005, he has chaired Human
Geography and directed the Centre for Development Studies at Freie
Universitaet Berlin. His main research interests are focused regionally inCentral and South Asia, with a prime focus on the mountainous areas, andtopics ranging from development studies, high mountain research, water
management and pastoralism, and mobility and migration to political
geography and minority issues. He has implemented fieldwork andempirical research for over 40 years, authoring 25 books and more than
250 research papers. His latest book trilogy is Pamirian Crossroads(2015), Wakhan Quadrangle (2017) and Hunza Matters (2020).

(Received 2 February 2023, Accepted 7 September 2023)