3.1 A diversity of MtSES perceptions
The interviews confirmed that important differences exist between individual stakeholders in their perception of MtSES, the focus they place on specific elements of these systems, and in their emotional responses. These differences point to potential misunderstandings and divergences in the process of decision making and validate the hypothesis that a conceptual model of MtSES is needed to create a space for different perceptions to be expressed and acknowledged.
Particularly illustrative examples of differences in focus included one specific to a mountain lake surrounded by boulders, grass patches, and no animals (Figure 2d and S2 #27). This image was described by the majority of respondents as a largely natural or very little anthropized environment, whereas the agricultural manager used it to discuss livestock and grazing issues, although no animal nor any trace of one was visible. For this person only, the focus was thus on livestock despite its absence on the picture. Another example pertained to picture with a dam (Figure 2c and S2 #17), that most respondents described as a major anthropogenic impact on the mountain landscape, whereas one stakeholder active in the dam management sector described the lake setting for its beautiful color. A further example was that of a picture with a cable car in summertime (Figure 2b and S2 #11). Two respondents noticed that the cable car was nearly empty of passengers and expanded on the topic of rentability of tourist infrastructures and the variations in the flow of visitors across seasons. The other respondents did not mention that the cabin was empty and discussed other topics. Likewise, some respondents noticed and commented on roads that were barely visible on some pictures (Figure 2b&c and S2 #11&17) whereas others talked about the landscape as a whole, without mentioning the roads. Finally, one respondent reacted to a picture of a demonstration in a village with skis and a cemetery cross stuck in a pile of snow on the foreground (Figure 3a and S2 #10) by commenting exclusively on the pile of snow and how it took too much space on the road, and on the general issue of managing snow in mountain towns and villages. All other respondents focused on the demonstration and on the possible meaning of the cemetery cross and skis, without any comment about the snow pile.
Beyond this diversity of focuses, there was also a diversity of emotional responses to the pictures. A painting of a narrow gorge with a train passage along a cliff in grey and brown tones (Picture S2 #19). was thus described and categorized by different respondents either neutrally as “an infrastructure” or with a diversity of more emotional expressions such as “the forces of nature”, “that is the nasty mountain”. Pictures of cities in mountain areas (e.g. Picture S2 #1) were also described and assigned to categories either neutrally as “cities” or “living areas” or with negative connotations “the negative impact of man on nature”, “pollution”. A picture of a man sitting on rocks and looking at a vast mountain landscape (Picture S2 #30) was also described or categorized either neutrally as “tourism”, or sparked smiles from some respondents with comments such as “he is really taking the time to appreciate the place”.
Although at a first glance such a diversity may appear as an obvious result (e.g. forest managers looking at trees and agricultural managers imagining livestock), it has major implications for collaboration. Indeed, the fact that stakeholders differ not only in their field of expertise and interests, but also at a more immediate perceptual level, both in terms of spontaneous focuses and emotional responses, highlights the risk of misunderstandings and strengthen the need for a common ground of dialogue.
3.2 Structuring distinctions of the MtSES
Two major distinctions emerged from the interviews: the distinction between humans and nature and the distinction between different social groups.
3.2.1 Distinction between humans and nature
In all interviews, humans and nature were clearly identified as two separate (albeit interacting) entities and this distinction structured the overall discourses. Moreover, in eight of the ten cases, respondents indicated such a distinction in the Categorization step (2), with formualtions such as “a strong impact of man on nature”, “man in the mountains”, “the colonization of mountains by humans”, “a good balance between nature and human activities”, “the impact of nature on man”.
Accordingly, and although the effort to go beyond the dichotomy between humans and nature is laudable in a holistic socio-ecological perspective, we decided to keep the distinction between a Natural Mountain System (NMS) and a Human Mountain System (HMS) (Figure 3) as a foundation of the model and discuss them as two interacting sub-systems. By doing so, we build on the seminal work by Messerli and Messerli (1978), who proposed a first model of the relationship between nature (natural system) and people (socio-economic system) in mountains in the late 1970s as a cornerstone of the interdisciplinary project ‘Impact of Human Activities on Mountain Ecosystems’ within the Man and the Biosphere programme (Messerli, 2012). Importantly, this distinction does not mean that we imply either the existence of a nature devoid of human influence nor the existence of humanity separate from nature. The distinction is only a conceptual one and the processes of interaction between the NMS and HMS developed later (section 3.3) mean that neither system exists independently from the other. Although the literature on socio-ecological systems emphasize the need to consider the social and ecological aspects in a holistic perspective, we could not find an alternative proposal that did not make some sort of conceptual difference between the two. The distinction is to be understood as a pragmatic one, to give names to different components of the system that exist in constant interelation and mutual redefinition of each other. Furthermore, having a “human” part of the system helps in positioning ourselves, and be reflexive on our own place and relationship with the other aspects of the socio-ecological system.
The distinction between humans and nature was also emphasized throughout the interviews by the recurring idea of nature as “pure”, or “non-altered”, “virgin”, “wild”. In our view, this recurrent positive valuation highlights the need to specifically retain the distinction between nature and humans for a MtSES model. This distinction also echoes Klein et al. (2019) notions of ‘isolation’ of mountains, which implies that direct human impact is limited, comparatively more recent, and often clearly visible in a comparatively more natural-looking environmental matrix, as is particularly the case at higher altitude (e.g. a high-altitude dam surrounded by summits and a glacier, a road crossing a wild environment, or livestock in a pasture limited by old forests). Thus, this distinction may be of particular importance to model MtSES as compared to other SES.
Another recurring topic in the interviews was the temporality of the human impact. This impact was mentioned either in a precise way (e.g. when a respondent described the constructions of the major Swiss dams in the 1950s-1970s, which transformed both the landscape and the lifestyle of local communities) or in a more general, almost metaphorical way (e.g. when a respondent classified the pictures in the Categorization step as “the original mountain”, then “man arrives”, then “man produces food first”, then “man develops technologies and infrastructures”).
3.2.2 Distinction between different social groups
All respondents mentioned the role and impact of different population groups with different interests, habits, values, and priorities. These groups included long-established mountain families, different types of tourists, or new inhabitants coming from cities (neo-mountain people). The IPBES model (Díaz et al., 2015) recognizes a potential diversity of ontologies and epistemologies among actors, but it does not include a component for people themselves. We chose to make this aspect explicit in the model to give issues of cohabitation among different populations more visibility. This decision was supported by three arguments derived from Klein et al. (2019). The first argument is that the ‘marginalization’ of mountain regions implies that local populations have developed profound cultural roots and may therefore be at odds with the culture of tourists or other people coming to the area. Second, the appeal of many mountain regions means that tourists may be coming from all over the world (a form of what Klein et al. (2019) qualify as ‘cross-scale ecosystem service’, resulting in their ‘remote, but attracts actors’ paradox), which is likely to exacerbate the cultural gap between local inhabitants and temporary visitors as well as the potential for conflictual cohabitation. This point was expressed by several respondents. Lastly, the topographic ‘complexity’ (sensu Klein et al. (2019)) implies that considerable natural and cultural differences may be observed across short distances. Accordingly, several respondents emphasized the cultural gap and the difficulties arising in discussions between people from small towns in the valleys and from villages located only a few kilometres up in the mountains. Such difficulties can also increase when settlements in the valleys and along the slopes belong to the same administrative area, but policies are not adapted to account for context and local specificities. This relates to what Klein et al. (2019) called the mountain paradox of ‘policies by outsiders’. The important distinction between population groups is reflected in the construction of the HMS in the model.
3.3 Components of the MtSES
The model is organized around two main components, the Human Mountain System (HMS) and Natural Mountain System (NMS), and four types of processesthat connect or affect them (Figure 3). As our model treats drivers and contributions as processes as opposed to components on their own it consists only of two “boxes” (sensu IPBES).
3.3.1 Natural Mountain System (NMS)
Following the Earth System Sciences Committee (NASA Advisory Council. Earth System Sciences Committee, 1988), we define the NMS as six sub-systems affecting each other: the biosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the lithosphere, and the pedosphere. We call them sub-systems since each “sphere” encompasses both components and processes at play. The biosphere includes all living organisms and their interactions such as predation, competition, symbiosis. The atmosphere includes all gases above the soil surface as well as their movements and interactions. The hydrosphere includes water in its liquid or gaseous states, while its solid state as snow or ice constitutes the cryosphere - which was important to distinguish here given its major role in mountain systems (Adler et al., 2019). The lithosphere includes the geological and geomorphological components and their dynamics, whereas the pedosphere includes organisms and necromass from the biosphere, minerals from the lithosphere, air from the atmosphere and water from the hydrosphere. In mountains, the pedosphere presents specificities such as increased erosion along the slopes or soil formation following receding glaciers. Distinguishing between these six spheres is particularly useful for identifying individual dimensions and processes in need of data and monitoring. However, these spheres interact within ecosystem processes. For instance, the increase of CO2 (atmosphere) induces warming and thus the melting of ice (cryosphere), thus exposing rocks (lithosphere) to the colonization of lichens (biosphere), which degrades the upper layers of rocks, thus starting the process of soil formation (pedosphere), which enables water retention on the site (hydrosphere). Using such a description of the NMS, it becomes possible to identify what dimensions of the hydrosphere, biosphere, pedosphere, and atmosphere need to be monitored at what frequency to understand how changes in land-use might impact terrestrial and aquatic mountain biodiversity. It further enables identifying what processes within and interactions between these spheres need monitoring.
3.3.2 Human Mountain System (HMS)
Our goal is to facilitate the dialogue among actors and to enable them to both understand each other’s perspectives and be more reflexive about their own perceptions and representations. Accordingly, we place individuals, their characteristics, and their relationships in a diversity of social groups at the heart of the HMS, using the rich input from the interviews.
The absence of explicit considerations of the individuals in SES is relatively prevalent across the literature. For example, Díaz et al. (2015) discuss institutions, governance, and belief systems and thereby remain at a rather global, collective level. Similarly, Rissman and Gillon (2017) indicate that in their review of the SES literature, the human aspects of SES that are most likely to be examined are socioeconomic variables, and these are “commonly associated with governance, followed by resource management and then resource productivity”. The same authors also note that there is a trade-off in the literature on SES between a focus on socio-ecological linkages and a focus on the dynamics among social groups, e.g. issues of justice and power. Issues stemming from these complex dynamics among social groups clearly appear in the interviews through the recurring topic of distinct populations with different characteristics and stakes (see section 3.2.2), thus highlighting the need for our model to address such complex social dynamics in addition to socio-ecological linkages. Individuals do appear in the sub-group of SES papers applying an agent-based modelling approach. However, in their review of such studies, Schulze et al. (2017) identified “Improving the representation of human decision-making” as a first step to advance the field of socio-ecological agent-based models. The lack of inclusion of individual processes appears in line with a broader tendency, exposed by Phillipson et al. (2009), to neglect psychology as a relevant scientific discipline to apply in addressing environmental issues, despite the insights developed in conservation psychology for instance (e.g. Perga et al., 2023).
The structure of the HMS part of the model follows Ellis’ (2016) musing on “What is it about humans that distinguishes us from other species? Why do behaviorally modern humans—and their various societies—transform ecology so much more than any other species, and in so many different ways?”. According to Ellis’ view, nourished by Danchin (2013) inclusive evolutionary synthesis, this is primarily due to humans’ extraordinary capacities for learning from others and for transmitting this social learning[3]. In turn, this extended cultural development makes it possible for humans to physically transform their environment, or in evolutionary terms, to engineer their niche, at a scale unrivalled by any other species (Ellis, 2016). In the HMS, we thus look at what humans make, the « niche-building » itself, as well as the underlying cultural development, the social processes at play, and also characteristics of the people themselves. In other words, we look at who people are and what they create. In both categories, we distinguish material and immaterial aspects, thus dividing the HMS into four interacting sub-components (Figure 3). These four sub-systems are not without resemblances with those of Messerli and Messerli’s socio-economic system (Messerli & Messerli, 1978).
3.3.2.1 What we create materially
This category is comparable to the anthropogenic assets in Díaz et al. (2015) and includes all material human creations that are present in the mountain area of interest, such as buildings (permanent private housing, touristic housing, public buildings, factories); transportation infrastructure (roads, tunnels, bridges, railways, funiculars, cable cars); energy and communication infrastructure (hydropower dams, electric cables, relay antennas); water and waste management infrastructure; harvested and more or less transformed natural resources (wood, agricultural goods in general, ores); as well as goods produced in local factories and workshops. The constructions may be particularly striking in mountain environments, as was frequently highlighted by the interviewees who emphasized the efforts (physical, cognitive, and of willpower) required to build roads along cliffs, cable cars, or dams for example. This was often expressed with a certain symbolic dimension, as “mastering the mountains” or “dompting the mountains” thus showing the links between human material creations and cultural constructs.
3.3.2.2 What we create immaterially
Immaterial creations may have both an individual and a collective aspect, but some social processes are typically involved. They include the different knowledge systems, from scientific to diverse local empirical knowledges (Agrawal, 1995; Berkes, 1993). As pointed out by Löfmark and Lidskog (2017), “it is acknowledged that the term ILK [Indigenous Local Knowledge] comprises multiple knowledge systems, but the [IPBES model] operates with the two categories of “western science” and “other knowledge systems”.We wish to avoid this dichotomy and leave space for the actors to describe their own relevant knowledge systems. This seems particularly important in the view of Klein et al. (2019) observation of the ‘Data needed, but lacking’ paradox in MtSES: when scientific data is lacking, there is an even greater space for use of local knowledge. Moreover, the interviews showed examples of knowledge that fits neither in the scientific paradigm nor in the « indigenous local knowledge » paradigm as typically described in the context of traditional isolated populations. For instance, an interviewee, mayor of a village and with an extensive experience in collaborating on mountain issues with scientists, explained that when pastures were less intensively grazed, the higher grasses, once flattened in the winter, were more slippery, thus increasing the risk of avalanches. To our knowledge, this was not scientifically proven, however this sort of practitioner’s knowledge was used to manage avalanches risk in the local pastures. Immaterial creations also include cultural constructs such as social norms (i.e., what is collectively deemed correct), traditions, and symbols; the legal and economic system; language (e.g. local dialects, vernacular names for the flora and fauna); or artistic productions. These categories are not indicated as a definite way of organizing immaterial human creations. Given the complexity of concepts such as culture and knowledge, which resonate with a wide array of scientific traditions from anthropology to philosophy, such a definite categorization is obviously beyond the scope of this work. We rather aim at indicating important examples of human immaterial creations, which may interplay with the NMS.
3.3.2.3 Who we are materially
This category addresses the physical existence of people in the mountain area of interest, including their health and physical abilities, their age, and their (geographic) origin (e.g. locals with family in the area, newcomers, tourists, and seasonal workers). This part of the HMS is where the distinction between different groups of people can be specified. As detailed earlier (section 3.2.2), this distinction is particularly important for mountain systems, since their marginalization, cross-scale ecosystem services, complexity, and policies often made by outsiders amplify the potential for tensions or divergences between social groups. Moreover, including this in the model paves the way to address the concern raised by Rounsevell et al. (2012) in their discussion of agency in quantitative SES models: “the characteristics of an actor, such as age, income, education and marital status, influence its decision-making and subsequently the SES in which it is situated.”
3.3.2.4 Who we are immaterially
This includes the immaterial characteristics of people in the mountain area of interest, such as one’s representations (as defined in the introduction) and attitudes, i.e. “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). These characteristics differ from the immaterial creations in that those creations remain whether or not certain individuals are removed from the system, whereas immaterial characteristics are rather to be seen at the individual level. However, there is arguably a strong continuum and interactions between the two, for instance in the case of knowledge, which can be described at both an individual and a collective level, or in the case of identities, which can be seen at the individual level, while being also socially constructed. In the model, this is reflected in the double arrow between “What we produce immaterially” and “Who we are immaterially”. Attitudes, as defined by Eagly and Chakien (1993), may be understood to encompass what other authors describe as norms or values: social norms seen as a collective product influence individually held values, and conversely, the transformation of individual values in several persons may result in the development of a different social norm at the collective level. As noted by Hofstede (1980), the social science literature proposes a wide array of concepts to describe “human mental programs”: the aforementioned attitudes, norms and values, but also beliefs, cultures, motivations, aspirations and so on (Hofstede lists fifty of them). An exhaustive discussion of these concepts is obviously beyond the scope of this paper. However, the interviews and experts’ consultations seem to point out that the term “values” often comes up as relevant, although whether everyone gives the term the same meaning is not clear (see IPBES, 2022). The literature in conservation psychology also emphasizes the importance, for environmental issues, of personality traits such as optimism or lack thereof, which has been shown to affect our behavior towards the environment (Ojala, 2013; Perga et al., 2023). Risk acceptance or avoidance appears particularly important for the management of ‘Hazards’ (one of Klein et al. (2019) mountain characteristics), because of its variability between people (Burton et al., 1978; Renn, 1995, 1998; Siegrist & Gutscher, 2008). Indeed, the interviews provide examples of conflicts arising from different levels of risk acceptance, for instance between locals and tourists, locals being potentially more accustomed to the risks inherent to their living environments (cf. section 3.5 below).
This part of the model thus opens up the possibility to consider such elements as values, norms, and personality traits in the HMS. The specific choice of one concept over another will need to be made based on the requirements of the situation at hand, of the scientific disciplines, and of the actors involved. It may include both collective and individual aspects, in line with our goal of proposing a model that may be useful across scales.
3.4 Processes of the MtSES
We here address the dynamics at play in the MtSES: interactions between the HMS and the NMS, as well as other processes that influence either the HMS or the NMS. It is important to note that dynamics are not necessarily synonymous of changes. In fact, the idea of change is complex: for instance, a periodically fluctuating prey-predators ratio may be seen either as a dynamic equilibrium, or as shorter-term changes in demographics. Ecological succession (or the progressive evolution from one ecosystem to another after a disturbance such as an avalanche or a flooding in an alluvial area) is another example: ecologists looking at a longer time-scale may see it as a rather predictable cyclical dynamic (and thus as a form of equilibrium), whereas tourism officers may see it as a fundamental change in the system they are managing for leisure activities. Consequently, we will strive not to focus on change per se, but rather to describe the processes at play more neutrally and leave open the discussion of what constitutes a significant change. Moreover, we will hereafter expose the processes stemming from the HMS that affect the NMS as “human drivers of the NMS”, and the processes stemming from the NMS that affect the HMS as “nature’s contributions to the HMS”. This choice of terms reflects the intention to ground this work in previous literature. However, this asymmetric wording choice is imperfect in that it may seem to conjure an underlying asymmetric conception of the relationship between humans and nature. As noted by Boulangeat et al. (2022), some SES may indeed reinforce the idea of hierarchy, with humans exploiting or protecting nature in an unidirectional way. This may be quite unintentional, and deeply grounded in an implicit belief system: Kluckhon and Strodtbeck (1961) suggested that any culture relies on one of three basic assumptions about the relationship between humans and nature, namely humans as dominant, as part of nature, or as subordinate to nature. Facing the dilemma between overcoming such an asymmetry in the underlying representation of the human-nature relationship on the one hand, and explicitly referring to existing literature on the other hand, we chose the latter option.
3.4.1 Human drivers of the NMS
Following the IPBES framework (Díaz et al., 2015), we distinguish direct and indirect anthropogenic drivers of the NMS. The direct drivers include climate change, land use change, exploitation of natural resources, pollution, and biological invasions. Although these drivers may be present in any SES, mountains are particularly sensitive to them: climate change for example has been shown in many instances to have stronger effects at higher altitudes (Pepin et al., 2015, 2022), which speaks to Klein et al. (2019) paradox ‘Remote, but vulnerable to global changes’. Mountains are also particularly rich in resources to be exploited (e.g. ores, water), which in turns speaks to Klein et al. (2019) paradox ‘Resources rich, income poor’. However, the impacts of these direct drivers are not necessarily to be seen as negative. For instance, land-use change through agricultural management may increase biodiversity (e.g. Kurtogullari et al., 2020; Nentwig, 2003). The indirect drivers (such as technological, economic, and institutional factors and policies) shape the direct ones. Each of these categories of indirect drivers take particular forms in the context of mountain systems. Technological factors play a fundamental role for direct drivers such as land-use change, exploitation of natural resources or pollution on slopes and at higher elevations. For instance, transportation technologies including cable cars or engineering works for roads along steep slopes are of major importance for the development of MtSES. Economic factors such as incentives to help maintain mountain agriculture or subsidies to build specific infrastructures (e.g., bringing electricity, internet access or health care structures in isolated areas) shape direct drivers (e.g. land-use change) as well, and are fundamental given the ‘Resource-rich, income poor’ (Klein et al., 2019) character of mountain regions. Finally, institutional factors may be particularly complex in mountain regions due to the fact that mountain ranges often span across jurisdiction and policies are often made by outsiders (Klein et al., 2019). Indirect drivers (technological, economic, and institutional factors) may be seen as consequences of the “What we create, immaterially” part of the HMS: they are the processes resulting from knowledge, economic system, and the creation of institutions that come to affect the NMS.
3.4.2 Nature’s contributions to the HMS.
In line with recent literature, we adopt the concept of Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP, which embeds the earlier concept of ecosystem services). Based on the work by Kadykalo et al. (2019), NCP tend to include diverse worldviews (rather than a dominant western one), context-specific perspectives (i.e., recognizing that a same NCP may be evaluated differently and both positively and negatively by different people or groups), relational values (rather than just instrumental or intrinsic), fluid categories (rather than the fixed provision/regulation/support/cultural ones), and inclusive language (facilitating interdisciplinarity and inclusion of actors). These nuances, in particular those enabling the inclusion of a diversity of perspectives and actors, are well aligned with our own goal. The concept of NCP allows for instance to capture context-specific perspectives such as the ambivalent ones expressed about avalanches by a forest manager talking about protective forests, with both a theoretical and technical background and a direct experience as a mountain rescuer: “Maybe it’s fatalism [laughs], but an avalanche going down, even if it’s destructive, it’s beautiful! Often images are fascinating, it’s overwhelming... If I don’t end up in it, I’m lucky to live in an environment where this exists […] Would it be interesting if there weren’t avalanches anymore? [laughs] it’s an aspect of mountain, there’s a nature, and it can be violent.”Moreover, the notion of NCP embraces the fact that “ecosystem disservices matter” (Blanco et al., 2019), which is particularly the case in mountains, with their high prevalence of natural hazards (Klein et al., 2019). However, as seen in the example above, hazards such as avalanches may be perceived as both services or disservices depending on the person’s perspective and the situation (“if I don’t end up in it”).We explicitly make a distinction between direct and co-produced contributions, following the idea that some contributions need human interventions and others not[4] (Díaz et al., 2015). Direct contributions include the provision of oxygen through photosynthesis (a positive contribution), or the destruction of infrastructures by earthquakes (which may be seen as a negative contribution). Co-produced contributions require a synergy between natural and human inputs, for instance in the case of agricultural production: the natural inputs include the water cycle or the soil ecological processes that provide resources for crops for instance, while human inputs include labor, tools, and knowledge. As the human contribution increases, the balance between co-produced contributions and direct drivers can shift. Another interesting example of co-produced contribution lies in the development of attitudes or values: conservation psychology has shown that one’s own values regarding nature are transformed through experiences of interacting with it (Clayton & Myers, 2015), and thus values may be seen as a co-produced NCP, resulting from a natural input (such as the presence of an animal in particular) and a human one (the decision to look for and observe this animal, the reflective process afterwards, the emotions involved in the transformation of one’s values).
3.4.3 Natural direct drivers of the NMS
These drivers are consequences of natural processes that happen outside of the NMS (as delimited by the boundaries deemed relevant for the case of application) but affect it. They include climatic trends or events that would not be related to human-induced climate change, and global tectonic movements leading to local events such as earthquakes. This last aspect seemed important to include in a description of mountain systems, since mountains, with their continuous rise or movements, are the visible manifestation of global tectonics. As pointed out by Klein et al. (2019), mountain systems are ’Remote, but vulnerable to global changes’, and these global changes are not necessarily of human origin, hence the need to specify other drivers stemming from outside the MtSES of interest.
3.4.4 Human direct drivers of the HMS
Similarly to the natural direct drivers to the NMS, these drivers are consequences of human processes that happen outside of the HMS but affect it. They include wars and conflicts, demographic factors such as an overall aging of the population, or societal evolutions and broad cultural changes. Several interviewees developed the example of the restrictions due to Covid-19, which created an influx of newcomers in mountain communities, either temporarily or permanently, with people relocating to what was formerly their vacation homes, and thus likely transforming the local demographics. We find here another consequence of the fact that mountain systems are ‘Remote, but attract actors’(Klein et al., 2019), thus making them potentially more prone to transformations stemming from the global human system beyond the MtSES.
3.5 Personal stance components
Here we propose to add a third list of elements to Klein’s mountain characteristics and paradoxes (Klein et al., 2019), namely the following “personal stance components”: responsibility, legitimacy, acceptation, awe/affiliation, and perceived self-efficacy. These components are characterized by:
- an anchor in the HMS: the personal stance components are elements that describe how individuals or groups position themselves with regard to the rest of the MtSES, e.g. what they feel responsible for, in front of whom, whom they deem legitimate in a certain space or in a certain debate. They may be seen as part of the “who we are, immaterially” or “what we create, immaterially”, depending on the focus on an individual stance or a collective stance created by a social group.
- a recurrence throughout the interviews: these five elements appeared frequently in relation to a diversity of management issues during the interviews (e.g. acceptation of life-threatening hazards, or acceptation of forests that are not specifically managed to accommodate leisure activities).
- an often implicit nature: they were typically alluded to in an indirect way, appearing rather as implicit beliefs underlying a discourse.
- potentially major consequences for collaboration: each personal stance component may create difficulties in a dialogue if they are not explicitly addressed. For instance, different positions on who is legitimate to participate in a debate may hinder the very first step of a collaborative process.
- a particular relevance for mountain systems: this will be detailed for each component below, by putting it in perspective with Klein et al. (2019).
These personal stance components can thus be seen as a list of points of attention, to be considered along already listed characteristics and paradoxes, as one strives to understand and manage MtSES. They give explicit visibility to the individuals in the MtSES, which, as exposed in the description of the HMS, is currently a neglected aspect in the literature. They do not come from a priori theoretical hypotheses, but rather emerged from a classical qualitative analysis process of inductively identifying emerging themes, which were then put in perspective with the literature.
3.5.1 Responsibility/accountability – what am I responsible for? Who do I deem responsible for what?
Responsibility may be legal or moral. Unlike the moral one, the legal dimension is normally explicit, although not everyone may always be aware of the responsibilities held by others. For instance, an interviewee, mayor of a village, explained that certain hiking trails are under his personal legal responsibility: in case of a falling rock, he would be held responsible for the consequences. He expressed his anxiety and resentment toward tourists. Yet tourists often take the risk of using trails at dangerous moments, without realizing that there is a shared responsibility in case of an accident. The issue of responsibility also takes multiple forms: one may feel responsible, or deem others responsible, to other members of their social group (e.g. when a farmer feels responsible for avoiding a mud slide on the village road when irrigating grasslands or terraced terrains), to the general population (e.g. when managing water resources or other ‘cross-scale ecosystem services’), or to future generations (e.g. when taking action to mitigate long-term effects of climate change). Responsibility, both legal and moral, may be distributed in a complex way among actors, as well as across scales, participating in the paradox ‘policies by outsiders’. The custodians of mountain goods are mountain people and the responsibility for safeguarding these goods is put on them by distant people, even though the reasons for why the goods might be compromised might well be located with the distant people (e.g. pollution) and the means to safeguard mountain goods may not always be given to mountain people (Payne, Spehn, et al., 2020). One may also feel responsible to the NMS itself, possibly in relation to the idea of a need to act justly in order to deserve the right to be living there, as mentioned by a tourism manager, which brings us to the second component of legitimacy.
3.5.2 Legitimacy – Do I have legitimacy to act in this way, to be present in this area, to participate in this discussion? Who do I deem legitimate?
Throughout the interviews, legitimacy appeared in three forms: (1) legitimacy to simply be in a mountain region, in relation with the impact on it (e.g. “the idea to be able anyway to live in the mountains, because it is a place where we have a right, so to speak, to live, we don’t all have to get piled up on each other in cities, but we can live here without altering it, using it in the good sense of the word”), (2) legitimacy to have a certain practice (particularly regarding different sports or other leisure activities), and (3) legitimacy to participate in a certain debate (e.g. who should be involved in local management ? The permanent inhabitants, or also the regular visitors, the people from the valley below, etc?). This last point is particularly relevant for Klein et al. (2019) paradox ‘policies by outsiders’: the definition of who is an outsider or a legitimate contributor is a difficult task. The issue of legitimacy is also salient for the paradoxes that are ‘in and out migration’ and ‘remote but attracts actors’.
3.5.3 Acceptation – What do I accept as it is, what do I want to control? What do I deem acceptable for others as well?
Acceptation of the NMS, with its hazards or inconveniences, was a recurring topic in the interviews. Forest managers thus expressed their frustration when receiving complaints from people who find that “the grass along the trail is too high, it’s messy” or that a branch across a trail had not been removed rapidly. To the managers, such attitudes represent a lack of necessary acceptation that a natural environment may not be completely controlled, even though their own work already includes taking care of trails and reflecting extensively on the “landscape function” by deciding which trees to chop down or not, to prioritize “striking trees that put people in a forest atmosphere”. Acceptation also relates to the ‘hazards’ characteristic: different people have different levels of acceptation of natural risks. An interviewee indicated that, as locals, “we all know someone who died from a falling rock, and not necessarily doing extreme sports”. She thought that hazards, as part of life in the mountains, was better accepted by local inhabitants than by tourists, which also highlights the relevance of the acceptation issue for the paradoxes ‘in and out migration’ and ‘remote but attracts actors’.
3.5.4 Awe/affiliation – To what extend do I feel affiliated with and in awe of the mountain system? Whom do I expect to be in awe as well?
This personal stance component refers to the deeper emotional relationship with the NMS. Awe has been defined as a complex emotion characterized by positive feelings (e.g. intense pleasure, surprise) and negative ones (e.g. fear, uncertainty) (van Elk et al., 2016). Another major emotional component of the relationship with the NMS lies in a feeling of affiliation: authors have argued that affiliation with nature may play an important role in one’s development of identity and sense of belonging (Clayton & Myers, 2015, pp. 164-187). A feeling of awe is clearly expressed in the interviews, with participants describing mountain landscapes, in particular those devoid of visible human impact, with such expressions as “it is overwhelming, astounding”, “the forces of nature”, “an avalanche going down, even if it’s destructive, it’s beautiful”. Identity is also a recurring theme, with several participants emphasizing their sense of belonging to their mountain area. There are also frequent negative discourses on tourists who are perceived as “consuming the mountains” without real appreciation for the landscapes, as if not being in awe of the mountain was seen as problematic by some actors. The issue of affiliation and awe thus appears in relationship with the paradox ‘remote, but attracts actors’ and can also be seen through the lens of the mountain characteristic ‘cross-scale ecosystem services’, since a contribution of mountains to a feeling of awe and a development of identity may go well beyond the local population, not only through tourism, but also through art or other cultural narratives. Indeed, mountains play a significant role in the Swiss culture as a whole. Although awe may be felt in diverse environments, mountains seem particularly connected with that feeling. As exposed by Nepal & Chipeniuk (2005), mountains are often associated to dramatic, extraordinary landscapes, and Smethurst (2000) further argues that mountains may be one of the deepest archetypal symbols. A detailed exposition of the symbolic role of mountains in human psyches is beyond our scope. However, authors have argued that aesthetic preferences for certain landscapes derive from their quality as potential promising habitats (Heerwagen & Orians, 1993; Orians, 1980), and a general preference for landscapes including openness, complexity, and water has been shown (Han, 2007). These three criteria are easily found in many mountain regions.
3.5.5 Perceived self-efficacy – To what extend do I feel able to act in a way that may have a significant impact? Who do I deem able to act in an efficient way?
Self-efficacy was proposed by Bandura (1977) as a concept describing people’s belief about their ability to perform a certain task. The concept has since then become very popular, being included in major models of human behavior such as the later version of the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 2002). Bandura suggested that self-efficacy may be a major behavioral determinant, and this has indeed been proven in the case of environmental behavior (Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Hines et al., 1987; van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019). The issue of believing in one’s possibility to behave efficiently towards the environment appears in the data, for example with a village mayor explaining “we are rather helpless in the sense that we have always this idea of a drop of water in the ocean, ok we will change and we will do without and we will try to, but what will that change with respect to the global effect, global warming […] I am not world-weary, I am not cynical, but I just wonder, we take some measures here and suddenly Germany decides to re-open all its coal plants, and in ten years we have two more degrees [here in the village]”. This example also shows the link between self-efficacy and the mountain paradoxes ‘remote, but vulnerable to global change’ as well as ‘policies by outsiders’.
[3]« capacities for learning from others and for transmitting this social learning—as cultural inheritances—both within and across generations. This makes it possible for human cultural inheritances to accumulate and evolve over time.»
[4]« Some of nature’s benefits to people require no intervention (or minimal intervention) of society to be produced […] Most of these benefits, however, depend for their provision on the joint contribution of nature and anthropogenic assets »