The recently concluded GLOCHAMORE (GLObal CHAnge in MOuntain REgions) project, funded under the European Union's Sixth Framework program ‘Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems’ had 3 aims: 1) to develop an integrative research strategy for detecting signals of global environmental change (GEC) in mountain environments; 2) to define the impacts of these changes on mountain regions as well as lowland areas dependent on mountain resources; and 3) to facilitate the development of sustainable resource management regimes for mountain regions. A primary focus of the project was on mountain biosphere reserves (MBRs) designated under UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme (Reasoner et al 2004).

The 2-year project comprised 5 workshops (Greenwood et al 2005) and an Open Science Conference (Price 2006). While many aspects of GEC fall within the domain of the natural sciences—which were the primary focus of the majority of the workshops (Lee and Schaaf 2004a, 2004b; UNESCO 2005)—comprehensive understanding of the human dimension of GEC was essential to achieve the project's second and third aims. Hence, the first GLOCHAMORE project workshop included a breakout group on sustainable development in MBRs (Lee and Schaaf 2004a), the second included a working group on social monitoring (Price 2004), and the fourth was largely devoted to this subject (UNESCO 2005). The present article introduces the principles and process of social monitoring and presents the conclusions resulting from these activities. It complements the article on long-term environmental observations in MBRs which resulted from the second GLOCHAMORE workshop (Grabherr et al 2005), and thereby contributes to the implementation of the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy (Björnsen Gurung 2005).

Social monitoring in biosphere reserves

Social monitoring may be defined as “the production and provision of socially relevant information including its presentation” (Habich and Noll 1994). Such information may relate to the “economic, political, cultural, and socio-psychological aspects of human actors and systems” (Lass and Reusswig 2002, p 5). These statements are taken from the report of the first international workshop on social monitoring in biosphere reserves (Biosphere Reserve Integrated Monitoring [BRIM] workshop), which provides a detailed discussion on many aspects of this topic (Lass and Reusswig 2002).

There are compelling reasons why social monitoring is a key activity to be undertaken in connection with the development of sustainable resource management regimes in general, and in biosphere reserves (BRs) in particular. Article 3 of the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves states that “biosphere reserves should strive to be sites of excellence to explore and demonstrate approaches to conservation and sustainable development at the regional scale.” Along with the conservation function there are 2 others: “development—fostering economic and human development which is socio-culturally and ecologically sustainable” and “logistic support,” including “research and monitoring related to local, regional, national and global issues of conservation and sustainable development” (UNESCO 1996, p 16). While the Statutory Framework does not mention GEC, this provides part of the rationale behind the complementary Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, which notes that they “will also contribute to the needs of society as a whole by showing the way to a more sustainable future” (UNESCO 1996, p 5), and that they should contribute to the implementation of various international agreements, including those on climate change. The Seville Strategy proposes a large number of implementation indicators, of which a number relate to monitoring, eg implementation of a coordinated research and monitoring plan, use of the BR for developing and testing monitoring methods and indicators of sustainability relevant to local populations, and inclusion of local stakeholders in these activities (UNESCO 1996, p 15).

Reasons for doing social monitoring include (UNESCO 1996; Lass and Reusswig 2002):

Social monitoring in mountain biosphere reserves (MBRs)

Given the general focus on the drivers of GEC in mountains, such as climate change and pollution, research and monitoring have typically emphasized natural science activities; the development of appropriate protocols and methodologies in these spheres is well advanced (eg Grabherr et al 2005). However, when considering the subsequent effects of altered mountain ecosystem goods and services on regional economies, human health, and institutional arrangements to mitigate and adapt to GEC, it becomes clear that the inclusion of the social dimension is crucial in the discussion of GEC. Unlike environmental monitoring, social monitoring in MBRs has received relatively little attention to date.

Basic issues and principles

During the GLOCHAMORE project and the BRIM workshop (Lass and Reusswig 2002) it became clear that the availability of both biophysical and socioeconomic monitoring data, and the resources required to obtain them, vary from site to site. To ensure that all MBRs, independent of their human and financial resources and infrastructure, can participate in a wider monitoring program, different levels of indicators need to be defined: ie, essential, improved, and optimum (see also Grabherr et al 2005).

One key issue is that, in principle, all MBRs, like other BRs, include 3 zones: 1) core area or areas devoted to long-term protection according to the conservation objectives of the biosphere reserve; 2) one or more buffer zones surrounding or contiguous to the core area or areas, where only activities compatible with the conservation objectives can take place; 3) an outer transition area where sustainable resource management practices are promoted and developed (UNESCO 1996, p 17). Notably, the outer boundary of the transition zone is flexible. In practice, not all MBRs contain buffer and transition areas, though the periodic review process included in the Statutory Framework is intended to ensure that all BRs contain the 3 types of zones and generally strive to achieve the goal stated in its Article 3 (Price 2002).

In choosing appropriate socioeconomic indicators, the spatial and temporal resolution of data should be considered. With regard to spatial resolution, the choice and extent of the area under examination as well as the spatial resolution of data collection determine the quality of data. This leads to 2 questions: how far into the transition area do data need to be collected; and to what extent are existing data or information from administrative or reporting districts coherent with BR realities?

As has often been noted for mountain areas (eg Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2002), census districts tend to include both areas that would be defined as ‘mountain’ and others that would not. For MBRs, the fact that the outer boundary of the transition area is flexible presents particular challenges. Once the area for monitoring has been agreed, and the suitability of existing sources evaluated, what spatial scale is appropriate for the measurement of data and the collection of information? Similarly, what spatial scale is appropriate for the storage of these data and information? Certain types of information have to be aggregated to ensure the privacy of respondents. A further question is: when data and information are collected at different spatial scales, what is the best level of aggregation for storage and analysis using a geographic information system (GIS), if this is the appropriate means for these purposes? With regard to temporal resolution, what frequency is appropriate? This depends on the issue under consideration and the resources available, and strongly influences the potential uses and users.

In addition to these technical considerations, a third set of issues relating to the choice of indicators derives from the key principle that local people and other stakeholders, as well as MBR coordinators/managers and scientists, should be involved in monitoring in MBRs.

Indicators for social monitoring related to global environmental change

While the conclusions of the BRIM workshop (Lass and Reusswig 2002) were fundamental for the discussion of social monitoring within the GLOCHAMORE project, the former workshop did not focus on indicators for social monitoring specifically in relation to either mountains or GEC. The working group at the second GLOCHAMORE workshop identified 2 main types of indicators within the human–nature systems influenced by GEC:

For the purposes of brainstorming, the categories of indicators for social monitoring in BRs proposed by Lass and Reusswig (2002) were slightly restructured into the following categories:

The proposed indicators were then manually clustered to identify common themes and reduce the total number of indicators. Indicators with few other ‘votes’ had, if justified, an equal chance to be included in the final set (Table 1). The table shows that, as participants worked through the different categories from the more objective (demographics) to the more subjective (perception), the definition of specific indicators generally became more difficult. Table 1 also orders the indicators according to their relevance and feasibility, ie within an essential, improved, and optimum set of indicators. The optimum set of indicators was further divided into measurable indicators, which could be compared across all sites; and analytical indicators, which would be site-specific. A preliminary discussion of the various indicators, and reasons for including them, is presented by Price (2004). The number before each indicator represents the category to which it (primarily) belongs.

Regional evaluation of indicators for social monitoring

The fourth GLOCHAMORE workshop focused primarily on refining the indicators presented in Table 1. Recognizing that the key issues vary from one part of the world to another, and building on experience from organizing previous scientific meetings (Price et al 1999; Ramakrishnan et al 2003), the indicators were evaluated by 3 groups, each consisting of scientists and MBR managers or coordinators from a specific region: the mountains of western Europe; the Himalaya and the mountains of Central Asia; and the mountains of Latin America. Following initial evaluation, each working group aimed to:

Conclusions

The 3 presented evaluations and proposals reflect the great diversity of situations, both within and between these regions. This differentiated approach showed that few indicators are probably applicable at the global level; the regional—and even local—context must always be taken into account if indicators are to be meaningful for informing the development and implementation of both management actions and policy. In particular, even though the western Europe working group suggested that the indicators they proposed would be appropriate in other regions, this may not necessarily be true, depending on both different contexts (economic, social, political, environmental, etc) and the existing and likely availability of relevant data and information. One important point to be made is that, in western Europe, agriculture and/or forestry are no longer the primary sources of livelihoods, and populations are rarely growing significantly; the converse is generally true in MBRs in developing and transition countries. However, certain themes do appear to be of general relevance in all 3 regions:

The first 2 sets of indicators are contextual and largely natural science-based, and link to specific elements of the GLOCHAMORE Research Strategy (water systems, land use change). Others link to the strategy elements on mountain economies (employment and income, tourism and recreation economies) and on society and global change (governance institutions, development trajectory, and vulnerability). Overall, these 7 themes (though not all the detailed indicators proposed within them) echo the first 6 categories proposed by the western Europe working group; most of the other issues identified for possible high-priority indicators by this group were not identified as such in the other 2 working groups.

The workshop showed the need for considerable additional work to identify and then implement effective indicators for social monitoring in MBRs and other mountain regions. In contrast to many of the indicators proposed in previous GLOCHAMORE workshops—which focused on biogeophysical systems (Lee and Schaaf 2004a and 2004b; Grabherr et al 2005; UNESCO 2005)—for socioeconomic systems, there may be a greater need to distinguish between the situations and needs in different parts of the world.

Participatory action research, management, and monitoring in specific mountain areas are likely to underline such differences. At the same time, there is a need to develop protocols for social monitoring that enable MBR managers and scientists, together with local communities, to generate comparable data sets. Promoting shared ownership of such activities is a challenging aspect of such an approach; however, it will ultimately enable mutual learning within a partnership (KFPE 1998; Baumgartner et al 2004, p 331). Such data of reliable origin are required, in particular, for modeling purposes. In this context, attention should also be given to existing structures and themes for monitoring, both within individual countries and internationally—such as UNESCO's BRIM and the Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS).