Modern trends in mountain regional study: border transformation and comparative analysis (on the example of Alps and Caucasus)

http://doi.org/10.35595/2414-9179-2019-1-25-229-245

View or download the article (Rus)

About the Author

Alexey N. Gunya

Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Staromonetny per. 29, 119017, Moscow,
E-mail: gunyaa@yahoo.com,

Abstract

The mountain regional study is based on ideas about mountains, which play a crucial role in the formation of specific features of a vast territory. Unlike classical regional study, which is based on the political boundaries of countries, mountain regional study focuses on the natural boundaries, which are reflected to some extent in the socio-political picture. Mountain countries, such as the Alps, the Caucasus, the Carpathians, the Hindu Kush and others, have a transboundary character. The ideas about these and other mountainous countries have significantly transformed in recent times: the borders, names, and geopolitical context have changed. Using the example of the Caucasus and the Alps, the article will analyze two trends in mountain regional study: 1) changes in the understanding of boundaries; 2) shifts in the nature of the comparison of similar mountain countries towards the involvement of the human component.

There are traditional and postmodern approaches to the selection of borders, based either on natural or artificial (constructed) borders. In the last century, the relative similarity of the natural structure of the Caucasus and the Alps contributed to the development of comparative geographical analysis and cooperation of scientists from the Alpine countries and the USSR. At that time, emphasis was placed on physiographic conditions; socio-economic features were only partially reflected, for example, in a comparative analysis of tourism development. Modern conditions of scientific analysis and comparison of the Alps and the Caucasus have changed. The new geopolitical situation has led to the transformation of ideas about the boundaries of these regions. The development of the concept of an ecoregion, including adjacent to the mountain ranges, significantly increased the area of these mountain countries.

Keywords

mountain countries, the Caucasus, the Alps, the transformation of borders, a comparative analysis.

References

  1. Agnew J.A. Arguing with Regions. Regional Studies, 2013. No 47 (1). P. 6–17.
  2. Alps—Caucasus: modern problems of constructive geography of mountainous countries. Ed. I.P. Gerasimov, I. Bravar, Y.M. Dresh. Moscow: Science, 1980. 325 p. (in Russian).
  3. Biodiversity of the Caucasus Ecoregion. An Analysis of Biodiversity and Current Threats and Initial Investment Portfolio. Ed. by V. Krever, N. Zazanashvili, H. Jungius, L. Williams, D. Petelin. Moscow: Signar, 2001. 132 p.
  4. De Vreese C.H. New Avenues for Framing Research. American Behavioral Scientist, 2012. № 56 (3). P. 365–375.
  5. Debarbieux B. How regional is regional environmental governance? Global Environmental Politics, 2012. No 12 (3). P. 119–126.
  6. Debarbieux B., Balsiger J., Djordjevic D., Gaberell S., Rudaz G. Scientific collectives in the region-building process in Europe. Environmental Science and Policy, 2014. No 42. P. 149–159.
  7. Fazey I., Evely A.C., Reed M.S., Stringer L.C., Kruijsen J., White P.C.L., Newsham A., Jin L., Cortazzi M., Phillipson J., Blackstock K., Entwistle N., Sheate W., Armstrong F., Blackmore C., Fazey J., Ingram J., Gregson J., Lowe P., Morton S., Trevitt C. Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management. Environmental Conservation Journal, 2013. V. 40. No 1. Р. 19–36.
  8. Gunya A., Baush T. Possibilities of transboundary cooperation in the field of nature conservation and sustainable development in the Caucasus region. Berlin: BMU, 2002 (in Russian).
  9. Gunya A.N. Regional development trends and opportunities for cross-border cooperation in the Caucasus. Cross-border problems of the CIS countries. Moscow: Opus, 2003. P. 111–122 (in Russian).
  10. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Ed. by G. Hirsch Hadorn, H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, Ch. Pohl, U. Wiesmann, E. Zemp. Springer, 2008. 448 p.
  11. Ives J., Messerli B., Spies E. Mountains of the world. Global priority. Ed. Russian edition of Yu.P. Badenkov, V.M. Kotlyakov. Moscow: Publishing house “Noosphere”, 1999. 450 с. (in Russian).
  12. Kolosov V.A. Theoretical limology: new approaches. International processes, 2003. No 3. P. 44–59 (in Russian).
  13. Kolosov V.A., Gunya A.N. Mountain regions of Russia: the ratio of natural and socio-political factors of development. Problems of geography. V. 137. RGO. Moscow: Publishing house “Codex”, 2014. P. 63–82 (in Russian).
  14. Lebel L., Garden P., Imamura M. The politics of scale, position, and place in the governance of water resources in the Mekong region. Ecology and Society, 2005. 10 (2): 18. Web resource: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art18/ (accessed 10.10.2017).
  15. MacKinnon D. Reconstructing scale: Towards a new scalar politics. Progress in Human Geography, 2011. No 35 (1). P. 21–36.
  16. Mashbits Ya.G. Complex geography. Smolensk: SSU Publishing House, 1998. 238 p. (in Russian).
  17. Mironenko N.S. Regional geography: theory and methods. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2001. 265 p. (in Russian).
  18. Mountain research. Mountain regions of Northern Eurasia. Development in the context of global change. Ed. V.M. Kotlyakov, Yu.P. Badenkov, K.V. Chistyakov. Problems of geography. V. 137. RGO. Moscow: Publishing house “Codex”, 2014. 584 p. (in Russian).
  19. Paasi A. Regions are social constructs, but who or what ‘constructs’ them? Agency in question. Environment and Planning, 2010. No 42. P. 2296–2301.
  20. Silaev N. Transit Transcaucasian Transit Perspectives. Foreign policy. 03.10.2017. Web resource: http://www.foreignpolicy.ru/analyses/tranzitnye-perspektivy-zakavkazya (accessed 12.02.2018) (in Russian).
  21. Streletsky V.N. Borders, border regions and geographical science (instead of the preface). In the collection: Socio-economic, geopolitical and socio-cultural problems of the development of border regions of Russia. Proceedings of the XXXII annual session of the economic and geographical section of MARS, Pskov, June 08–11, 2015. Мoscow: Aslan, 2016. P. 3–9 (in Russian).
  22. Swyngedouw E. Neither global nor local: ‘glocalization’ and the politics of scale. Spaces of globalization: reasserting the power of the local. New York, London: Guilford, 1997. P. 137–166.
  23. The Transformation of Swiss Mountain Regions. Problems of development between self-reliance and dependency in an economic and ecological perspective. Eds. E.A. Brugge, G. Furrer, B. Messerli, P. Messerli. Bern and Stuttgart: Verlag Paul Haupt, 1984. 699 p.
  24. Vivian R., Golubev G.N., Davitaya F.F., Krenke A.N., Tushinskiy G.K. General and specific features of climate regime and glaciers. Alps—Caucasus: modern problems of constructive geography of mountainous countries. Moscow: Science, 1980. P. 281–287 (in Russian).
  25. Weingartner R., Gunya A.N. The impact of climate change on runoff and water management in mountain regions: the experience and lessons of the Alps for the Caucasus. Sustainable development of mountain areas, 2017. V. 9. No 1. P. 55–64 (in Russian).
  26. Weingartner R., Gunya A.N. The importance of mountains and the need for active participation in international mountain programs. Sustainable development of mountain areas, 2016. No 2 (8). P. 120–126 (in Russian).

For citation: Gunya A.N. Modern trends in mountain regional study: border transformation and comparative analysis (on the example of Alps and Caucasus) InterCarto. InterGIS. GI support of sustainable development of territories: Proceedings of the International conference. Moscow: Moscow University Press, 2019. V. 25. Part 1. P. 229–245. DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2019-1-25-229-245