2. Socio-glaciology: an integrated research design for studying glaciers in the context of loss and damage

Socio-glaciology builds on ideas from socio-hydrology, which has developed as an interdisciplinary ambition to advance the science of hydrology for the benefit of society (Di Baldassarre et al., Reference Di Baldassarre, Viglione, Carr, Kuil, Yan, Brandimarte and Bloeschl2015; Sivapalan et al., Reference Sivapalan, Savenije and Blöschl2014). It emphasizes the need to broaden the “use-inspired” research concerning water‐related issues so that they are addressed inclusively, considering socio‐cultural and socio‐political perspectives. Socio-hydrological studies in mountain regions are novel yet scarce (Nüsser, Reference Nüsser2017). Although socio-hydrology is the initial inspiration for developing socio-glaciology (SG), SG differs from socio-hydrology in two ways. First, SG places a clear emphasis on glaciers and glacier-related research with the growing impacts of climate change and aims for a policy impact. By acknowledging that the different ways of defining and knowing glaciers are entangled with multiple values in which people relate to glaciers, it might be possible to develop models that are more attuned to questions of power and justice that can inform cryospheric loss and damage (Haeffner et al., Reference Haeffner, Lave, Linton, Mukherjee, Ndiritu, Pacheco-Vega, Rusca and Zwarteveen2024).

Second, as an interdisciplinary framework engaging with social sciences it adopts political ecology as a grounding theory. It addresses issues related to intersectionality to unpack the social and political dynamics of glaciers and water flows, which are often missing or simplified in socio-hydrology. We thereby recognize calls from water justice scholars about the need for a new knowledge base that embraces the existence of different knowledges and recognizes where/how they originate and which/whose interests and worldviews they endorse in the context of glacier environments (Haeffner et al., Reference Haeffner, Lave, Linton, Mukherjee, Ndiritu, Pacheco-Vega, Rusca and Zwarteveen2024). The aim here is to highlight intersections of inequalities and risks or opportunities from glacier retreat not only in the context of climate change but also in the context of the risk and disaster management, uneven development, changing property and social relations, water flows, macro-projects of environmental engineering, technological change and the emergence of new rural subjectivities (Caretta et al., Reference Caretta, Fernandez, Zegre and Shinn2021). By integrating bottom-up and top-down research approaches (e.g., glacier-hyrological models that are attuned to questions of power and justice; Rusca et al., Reference Rusca, Mazzoleni, Barcena, Savelli and Messori2023) it is possible to explore both generalizable and expansionist approaches (Haeffner et al., Reference Haeffner, Lave, Linton, Mukherjee, Ndiritu, Pacheco-Vega, Rusca and Zwarteveen2024) to loss and damage in relation to changes in glacierized environments. For example, a bottom-up knowledge base might reveal that particular glaciers have significant cultural and spiritual values, or provides a certain habitat for plants used by glacier-near communities. The social importance of the glacier is not always related to its size, and small glaciers might become invisible in larger assessments and quantifications of glacier change, historically, and for understanding futures. The identification of social groups that are more affected by glacier related changes is therefore crucial in the context of loss and damage discussions as well as climate adaptation strategies (Rasul et al., Reference Rasul, Pasakhala, Mishra and Pant2019). For instance, there are communities with water storage solutions such as artificial glaciers and “ice stupas” deployed as an adaptation strategy. However, not much attention is given to societal acceptance or changing property relations that come with such solutions as well as limited impacts of such innovation in solving water scarcity issues (Aggarwal et al., Reference Aggarwal, Frey, McDowell, Drenkhan, Nüsser, Racoviteanu and Hoelzle2021). Most glacierized environments are also geopolitically important areas for governments, which may disable or enable discussions about loss and damage due to glacier retreat. In such contexts, important points of research inquiry relate to reforming societal structures to address asymmetric power relations underpinning the allocation of property rights as well as legal decisions about who holds the rights to use resources.

Another theoretical core component of socio-glaciology is the ecosystem services framework with a plural valuation approach, which we refer to as glaciers’ contributions to people (GCP). Based on Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Values Assessment (2022), the SG approach aims to unpack political ecology with an attention to “value conflicts” or “trade-offs” embedded in the changes related to glaciers by categorizing a range of values and ecosystem services that are perceived to be lost, changed or gained. Understanding GCP involves attention to the multiple ways through which people attribute meaning and importance to glaciers (Gagne et al., Reference Gagne, Rasmussen and Orlove2014; Pascual et al., Reference Pascual, Balvanera, Diaz, Pataki, Roth, Stenseke, Islar and Yagi2017), to understand how people across different spatial scales depend on glaciers and their benefits (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Zhang, Liu and Kong2022), as well as the social and ecological processes that underpin the provision of such ecosystem services in glacierized environments (Cook et al., Reference Cook, Malinauskaite, Davíðsdóttir and Ögmundardóttir2021; Su et al., Reference Su, Xiao, Chen, Qin and Ding2019). It also involves attention to the differentiated social, cultural and economic impacts of glacial retreat (Wester et al., Reference Wester, Chaudhary, Maharjan, Steiner, Chettri, Chettri, Jackson, Nepal, Wang, Wester, Chaudhary, Chettri, Jackson, Maharjan, Nepal and Steiner2023), through the combined analysis of biophysical and social data. For instance, GCP includes material benefits such as water storage and hydropower, temperature and climate regulation, habitat provision to multiple species, and diverse cultural and immaterial benefits ranging from opportunities for recreation and tourism, to science and education, community identity, aesthetics, and spiritual enrichment (Cook et al., Reference Cook, Malinauskaite, Davíðsdóttir and Ögmundardóttir2021; Milner et al., Reference Milner, Khamis, Tj, JE, NE, Füreder, Cauvy-Fraunié, GM, Jacobsen, Dm and AJ2017; Mukherji et al., Reference Mukherji, Sinisalo, Nüsser, Garrard and Eriksson2019). In addition to these contributions, glacier retreat can also have adverse impacts, also referred as ecosystem disservices, such as increased disaster risks related to slope instability or glacier lake outburst floods (Stibal et al., Reference Stibal, Bradley, Edwards, Hotaling, Zawierucha, Rosvold, Lutz, Cameron, Mikucki, Kohler and Šabacká2020).

Another core feature of the SG framework is futures thinking, which is instrumental for decision-makers as planning and action is influenced by how people, policy, and practice perceive future uncertainties. Uncertainties can either be seen as risks that can be tamed with existing knowledge systems and technologies, or as a window of opportunity to open up for a diversity of solutions according to different standpoints and aspirations of change (Scoones & Stirling, Reference Scoones and Stirling2020). For example, governments and private enterprises frequently make decisions grounded in market-based values such as planning for large scale energy projects in areas that may become more accessible due to glacier melt. Future changes in these areas are also emphasized by Bosson et al. (Reference Bosson, Huss, Cauvy-Fraunié, Clément, Costes, Fischer, Poulenard and Arthaud2023)’s recent study, which shows that vast areas of new ecosystems will emerge in the absence of glaciers in the coming decades. Policies and future changes are deeply rooted in socio-material structures that determine who can anticipate and shape the future (Groves, Reference Groves2017; Oomen et al., Reference Oomen, Hoffman and Hajer2021). Some argue that there is a “crisis of the imagination” (Ghosh, Reference Ghosh2016) leading to failures to imagine a diverse set of possible futures (Wapner & Elver, Reference Wapner and Elver2016) that can address the root causes of unsustainability (Hammond, Reference Hammond2022). Futures scholars often argue that more of this potential imaginable space can be accessed through participatory and creative methods like participatory visioning and storytelling (Cork et al., Reference Cork, Alexandra, Alvarez-Romero, Bennett, Berbés-Blázquez, Bohensky, Bok, Costanza, Hashimoto, Hill and Inayatullah2023; Pereira et al., Reference Pereira, Kuiper, Selomane, Aguiar, Asrar, Bennett, Biggs, Calvin, Hedden, Hsu and Jabbour2021). We argue that the problem is not that alternative visions do not exist, but rather that these visions are marginalized through the continuous enactment and reproduction of dominant imaginaries. A more integrated research agenda for glacier studies does not only span across a range of temporal scales, from the past to the present and future, but it actively needs to strive to generate and communicate future visions of vulnerable groups and support preferable futures to grow (Cork et al., Reference Cork, Alexandra, Alvarez-Romero, Bennett, Berbés-Blázquez, Bohensky, Bok, Costanza, Hashimoto, Hill and Inayatullah2023).

Given their situatedness, political ecology studies may often leave out large spatial scales and temporal interactions, limiting the ability to generalize their findings (Wesselink et al., Reference Wesselink, Kooy and Warner2017). Models and various quantitative assessments instead strive to generalize, homogenize, and simplify, and are generally seen as impartial and objective for decision-making and governance (Molle et al., Reference Molle, Lankford and Lave2024). The credibility and effectiveness of numbers, and their usability is however increasingly criticized, as a growing number of scholars emphasize that numbers are determined in context and shaped by processes of interaction involved in their production and use (Turnhout et al., Reference Turnhout, Tuinstra and Halffman2019). As numbers are normative, the circular research design aims to combine and contextualize findings from case studies by combining social science data (e.g., ethnography) with data of biophysical change (e.g., remote sensing and/or local observations), so that glacier-related models can be determined by, and useful for, vulnerable people in glacier environments. In the next section, we explain the SG's circular research design, which allows us to study these changes across different temporal and spatial scales by integrating local knowledge with physical sciences.

3. Doing socio-glaciology in a circular research design: mixed methods approaches

Here we present a typology of the circular research design for integrating local needs and knowledges, case-based studies, glacier monitoring, and meta databases to inform debates in, e.g., loss and damage, mitigation, and adaptation in the cryosphere (Figure 1). The SG framework aims to integrate and include values that cannot be quantified into the descriptions and understandings of change in glacier environments that can be quantified, but also to guide what can be quantified to increase those numbers’ local relevance for vulnerable groups. Since quantifications, indicators, and thresholds have dominated scientific and expert practices and decision-making over the past 40 years, and thereby disguised complexities and heterogeneities (Molle et al., Reference Molle, Lankford and Lave2024), the SG framework aims to integrate bottom-up knowledge with quantitative tools (e.g., glacier evolution models) to produce locally adapted quantitative outcomes for more inclusive and locally relevant planning and decision-making. We stress the necessary link back from quantitative assessments to the communities, since it allows for an integration of knowledge about large-scale geological and meteorological data to local and traditional knowledge. Socializing models, quantifications, and various visualizations could offer a way out of the “ontological trap” (Molle et al., Reference Molle, Lankford and Lave2024), for example by investigating the emancipatory potential of numbers and how they can lead to more inclusive governance (Mennicken & Espeland, Reference Mennicken and Espeland2019), and by incorporating local knowledge (Leonard et al., Reference Leonard, David-Chavez, Smiles, Jennings, Alegado, Tsinnajinnie, Manitowabi, Arsenault, Begay, Kagawa-Viviani and Davis2023).

Figure 1.

Our proposed socio-glaciology framework. Foundation in theories from political ecology and ecosystems services circular research design to iteratively link the bottom-up and lived experiences with top-down quantitative assessments of change. The ultimate aim of this design is to enable informed and locally relevant policies to improve decisions, management, and measures for climate adaptation and loss and damage.

4. Conclusion and future steps

SG as an interdisciplinary framework proposes to study society–glacier interactions as well as values with a circular research design, by integrating local knowledge, experiences, and preferences with more instrumental tools of scientific observations and computer modeling. No matter if the starting point of the circular research design is model outputs, remote sensing or field observations or participatory future visions of communities, the main principle is that the multiple ways of understanding of the past, present, and future should inform each other in an iterative process.

We argue for reflexivity, meaning that methodologies for understanding glacier change in relation to people should be grounded in local experiences and preferences, while also being relevant and useful for policy, decision-making, and the development of strategies to manage environments and societies of the cryosphere. Therefore, there are no pre-determined methods or tools attached to SG, since these understandings are situated and case specific and depend on the aim of the research itself. But foundational to the research design is the underpinning of theories from political ecology, ecosystem services, and valuation studies.

Local knowledge can also be embraced for providing localized information that instrumental observations and computer models are not able to capture. By integrating the physical parameters with social sciences methodologies combined with traditional and consented local knowledge, a more comprehensive understanding of the issue can be achieved. Such an interdisciplinary and inclusive approach allows for a holistic exploration of the complex interactions between physical and societal elements.