Socio-Ecological Systems (SESs)—Identification and Spatial Mapping in the Central Himalaya

Abstract

The Himalaya is a mosaic of complex socio-ecological systems (SESs) characterized by a wide diversity of altitude, climate, landform, biodiversity, ethnicity, culture, and agriculture systems, among other things. Identifying the distribution of SESs is crucial for integrating and formulating effective programs and policies to ensure human well-being while protecting and conserving natural systems. This work aims to identify and spatially map the boundaries of SESs to address the questions of how SESs can be delineated and what the characteristics of these systems are. The study was carried out for the state of Uttarakhand, India, a part of the Central Himalaya. The presented approach for mapping and delineation of SESs merges socio-economic and ecological data. It also includes validation of delineated system boundaries. We used 32 variables to form socio-economic units and 14 biophysical variables for ecological units. Principal component analysis followed by sequential agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis was used to delineate the units. The geospatial statistical analysis identified 6 socio-economic and 3 ecological units, together resulting in 18 SESs for the entire state. The major characteristics for SESs were identified as forest types and agricultural practices, indicating the influence and dependency of SESs on these two features. The database would facilitate diverse application studies in vulnerability assessment, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and other socio-ecological studies. Such a detailed database addresses particularly site-specific characteristics to reduce risks and impacts. Overall, the identified SESs will help in recognizing local needs and gaps in existing policies and institutional arrangements, and the given methodological framework can be applied for the entire Himalayan region and for other mountain systems across the world.

Scientists’ warning of the impacts of climate change on mountains

“…Although also a product of more recent globalization, changes in human activities in mountains (agriculture, tourism, industry) are influenced by climate change through changing ecosystems and snow distributions. This is framed through the lens of socioecological vulnerability and resilience ( Pandey & Bardsley, 2015 ; Nettier et al, 2017 ; Kumar, Fürst & Joshi, 2021 ) which describe the co-relationships between mountain environments/resources and different human activities. Fraser, Mabee & Slaymaker (2003) term this environmental sensitivity and social resilience , respectively.…”

“…Fraser, Mabee & Slaymaker (2003) term this environmental sensitivity and social resilience , respectively. Several recent studies have discussed these elements in different sectors of the Himalayas ( Kaul & Thornton, 2014 ; Chettri, Shrestha & Sharman, 2020 ; Kumar, Fürst & Joshi, 2021 ) and highlight the importance of integrated hazard risk management and adaptive planning at the community level and with the involvement of indigenous knowledge systems. However, such an approach to minimising climate change risks in mountains has not yet been widely developed for different mountain ranges ( e.g ., McDowell et al, 2019 ; Payne et al, 2020 ).…”

“…The model is organized according to the four thematic areas identified in the literature review of this study, and it highlights that there are multiple interconnections between different mountain elements that cross between these thematic areas. The elements described in this model build from and extend the limited socio-ecological connections identified in previous studies ( e.g ., Alberti et al, 2011 ; Hossain et al, 2020 ; Kumar, Fürst & Joshi, 2021 ). Figure 3 identifies that there are a number of items that cross different thematic areas, thereby demonstrating interconnections between socio-ecological and biophysical systems.…”

“…These include anthropogenic climate/environmental change, physical landscape processes, land use/land cover change, geohazards, and tourism. Some of these elements have been included in some previous evaluations of socio-ecological and biophysical mountain systems ( e.g ., Bugmann et al, 2007 ; MacMynowski, 2007 ; Hill et al, 2017 ; Hossain et al, 2020 ; Payne et al, 2020 ; Kumar, Fürst & Joshi, 2021 ; Gopirajan, Kumar & Joshi, 2022 ), but some have not. The interconnections existing within this model also speak to the potential resilience and vulnerability exhibited by both human and environmental systems in mountains, whereby the negative impacts of ongoing changes within mountains can be mitigated.…”

“…The interconnections existing within this model also speak to the potential resilience and vulnerability exhibited by both human and environmental systems in mountains, whereby the negative impacts of ongoing changes within mountains can be mitigated. Understanding these interrelationships, including community adaptations to environmental change in mountains, is an important research priority ( Gentle & Maraseni, 2012 ; Grumbine & Xu, 2021 ; Kumar, Fürst & Joshi, 2021 ).…”