Research

INTRODUCTION

According to the recent report on water, ice, society, and ecosystems in the Hindu Kush Himalaya (Wester et al. 2023), glacier mass loss rates have accelerated by 65% over the last two decades (from -0.17 meter water equivalents per year between 2000–2009, to -0.28 between 2010–2019). As a result, cascading impacts of climate change are leading to changing seasonal water availability, increased exposures to natural hazards, and changing mountain ecologies (Wester et al. 2023). Marginality and vulnerability of mountain communities are worsening with climate change as ecosystem services and livelihood sources such as agriculture, livestock, and medicinal and aromatic plants are severely affected by changes in the cryosphere (Wester et al. 2023). Even though large-scale patterns of glacier change are widely understood in glaciology (e.g., Douville et al. 2021, Hugonnet et al. 2021, Wester et al. 2023), there is little understanding about how people who live near Himalayan glaciers experience and cope with the emerging challenges in changing glacier environments. About 129 million farmers in the Indus and Ganga basins depend on glacier and snow melt for their livelihoods (Kulkarni et al. 2021), and in the Indus basin, about 60% of irrigation water is withdrawn from meltwater (Biemans et al. 2019). Around 60–70% of glacier mass of the Hindu Kush Himalaya is projected to be lost by 2100, if current greenhouse gas emissions continue (Kraaijenbrink et al. 2017, Kulkarni et al. 2021). The loss of glaciers will surely spur both slow and fast ecological processes with extensive social impacts (Carey et al. 2017, 2021), and there is a need to analyze how these processes are understood and experienced by communities. Water stress, socioeconomic change, and governance will require context-based climate adaptation to meet place-specific needs and vulnerabilities (Kulkarni et al. 2021).

Mountain research has increasingly engaged with the concept of ecosystem services over the last two decades, with a particular focus on water resources (Liu et al. 2022). Ecosystem services are increasingly referred to as “nature’s contributions to people” (NCP) in an attempt to make the ecosystem services approach more inclusive, interdisciplinary (Pascual et al. 2017), and suitable for non-Western contexts. Nature’s contributions to people is a framework that emphasizes what nature does for people. It is developed to categorize and understand how nature benefits humans in three broad categories: material, non-material, and regulating (Díaz et al. 2018). However, there are difficulties with assessing NCP because no single value or metric can comprehensively capture the overall importance of ecosystems (Gómez-Baggethun and De Groot 2010), especially in places like the high mountains of the Himalaya where worldviews are dominated by spiritual understandings of human-nature interactions (Hirons et al. 2016). Most studies continue to focus on material and regulating NCP, often excluding non-material aspects such as cultural and spiritual contributions that are important for peoples’ well-being (Martín-López et al. 2019, Canedoli et al. 2024). However, a growing number of scholars emphasize the need to focus on the multiple and diverse values of nature to achieve socially equitable and environmentally sustainable outcomes (e.g., Zafra-Calvo et al. 2020, IPBES 2022, Himes et al. 2024). As a result of this need, a complementary values typology framework has emerged with an emphasis on why nature matters for people (Pascual et al. 2023).

We draw on both frameworks, despite their potential overlaps, to better interpret quantitative and qualitative data collected from Himalayan communities because they not only reveal what glaciers do for society and nature, but also why glaciers matter to these communities.

Valuation, in its broad sense of assigning importance, is inherently part of most decisions on natural resource and land use. For NCP studies to be useful for decision making and planning in glacier environments, there is a need to better understand values attributed to glaciers to ascertain what aspects of human-nature interactions are perceived important for the livelihoods and the well-being of local communities.

Within the context of changing environments in Ladakh and Uttarakhand, Northern India, we aim to understand glaciers’ contributions to people as well as values that local communities attribute to glaciers. In both cases, we asked the following research questions: What are the perceived changes of glaciers? What are glaciers’ contributions to people? How do people value glaciers? How are impacts of glacier change distributed across social differences in relation to livelihoods and socioeconomic dimensions? How do people adapt to, and cope with, changing glacier environments?

BACKGROUND

Case study sites: Ladakh and Uttarakhand

The climatic diversity of the Hindu Kush Himalaya is shaped by topography and complex interactions of various atmospheric processes, which give rise to several microclimates shaped by slope, aspect, and elevation (Flohn 1968, Qazi et al. 2020). In this region, the quantity and seasonality of water reserves and discharge are vulnerable to the influence of climate change on monsoons, glaciers, and snowpack (Azam et al. 2021). Our study areas, Ladakh and Uttarakhand, are two regions with substantial glacial cover in which the impacts of climate change are increasingly pronounced (Fig. 1). Studies that monitor winter precipitation point to an overall increase in rainfall but a decrease in snowfall in Northwestern Himalaya (Negi et al. 2020, Kulkarni et al. 2021). In Uttarakhand, erratic monsoon patterns and extreme weather phenomenon like floods, prolonged dry spells, reduced snow, and intensified rainfall have been highlighted (e.g., Wani 2011, Tiwari and Joshi 2012). A recent study shows that the iconic Parachik Glacier in Ladakh (Fig. 1) retreated by 210 meters between 1971 and 2021, with an average loss rate of 4 meters per year (Rana et al. 2023). In the same region, the Drang-Drung Glacier has receded by an average rate of 21 meters per year between 1971 and 2017, accelerating to 60 meters per year after 2014 (Rashid and Majeed 2018). The glaciers of Uttarakhand face similar changes. For instance, the prominent Gangotri Glacier (one of the primary sources of the Ganges) has been retreating at approximately 12 meters per year between 2005 and 2017 (Yousuf et al. 2024), and the Pindari Glacier has retreated 1569 meters between 1976 and 2014, at an average rate of 51 meters per year (Pandey et al. 2018).

Meltwater contributions to river runoff and water availability are highest closest to the sources of snow and ice but vary widely between catchments (Azam et al. 2021). Ladakh is positioned in the rain shadow of the Great Himalayan Range to the south (Fig. 1), and the Karakoram Range in the north (Chevuturi et al. 2018). Therefore, Ladakh receives very little precipitation and is heavily reliant on snow and glacial meltwater for water supply, particularly from the Ladakh and Zanskar ranges (Singh and Bhatla 2025). Glacier and snow melt have great hydrological importance for the Indus River that cuts through the valley nestled between these ranges (Azam et al. 2021). Uttarakhand lies in the subtropical forest zone, with north-facing peaks covered with glaciers and south-facing slopes covered by dense vegetation (Gambhir et al. 2021). Several major river systems originate here, including the Ganga and the Yamuna (Kulkarni and Pratibha 2018). Due to its lower altitude, Uttarakhand has monsoon-fed slopes that makes it less reliant on meltwater from glaciers and snow, and suitable for hosting multiple livelihoods. Therefore, it is more densely populated by agrarian communities than Ladakh. Ladakh’s stark, arid, high-altitude landscape has on the other hand shaped a culture resilient to extreme cold and is reliant on glacial meltwater for subsistence.

Ladakh and Uttarakhand are chosen as critical cases for this research because they represent two climatologically and altitudinally different regions where people live in glacier environments. Field sites in Ladakh were situated between 3000 to 4000 meters above sea level, characterized by a cold desert climate and sparse vegetation. In contrast, the Uttarakhand site lies at a lower elevation of 2000 to 2600 meters, within a mid-alpine zone that supports more diverse agro-ecological conditions. We define glacier environments as areas in which both ecosystems and livelihoods depend to varying degrees on glaciers as a vital source of water (Menounos et al. 2018). The selection of field sites was guided by the objective to capture the diversity of lived experiences and cultural meanings associated with glacier environments in the Indian Himalaya. In both cases, site selection was further informed by one of the authors’ prior engagements and longstanding familiarity with the areas, which facilitated access to key local gatekeepers and community networks. These relationships proved essential for building trust and enabling culturally sensitive research encounters, which is critical for eliciting situated understandings of glacial values in contexts in which ecological change and cultural meaning are deeply intertwined. In Ladakh, fieldwork was conducted with communities in the Zanskar Valley and Leh, characterized by extensive glaciation, arid terrain, and sparse vegetation. In contrast, fieldwork in Uttarakhand took place in villages situated in the East Ramganga River valley and are the last inhabited settlements before the glacier, thus offering a distinct social-ecological context within the middle of Himalaya.

Both cases also inhabit communities with traditional livelihoods in the context of emerging economic development. Ladakh is a cold desert characterized by cold temperatures and short growing seasons, which strongly constrain agricultural options (Nüsser et al. 2019). Accelerated glacial and snow melt introduce additional challenges by reducing the availability of meltwater necessary for irrigation during critical agricultural periods, which traditionally is distributed through a network of channels. With diminishing water supplies, the cultivation of essential crops like barley, which is vital for local food security, is increasingly at risk (Nüsser et al. 2019, Schmidt and Nüsser 2024). Livestock rearing of dzo (a yak and cow hybrid), goats, and sheep in the highlands is also a critical livelihood because these animals provide wool, meat, and dairy, essential for both sustenance and income generation. Similarly, in Uttarakhand, animal husbandry serves as a vital adjunct to agriculture, with cows, buffaloes, and goats not only supplying dairy products but also dung, which is used as organic fertilizer and fuel. This synergistic relationship is particularly crucial because agriculture constitutes the foundation of the local rural economy. Uttarakhand’s agro-ecological diversity, ranging from sub-tropical to cold alpine zones, results in a wide array of crops. In the cold, alpine zone above 2000 meters (where this study was conducted), resilient crops like wheat, millet, barley, kidney beans, and potatoes are crucial (Sati 2017, Sati and Kumar 2023).

Tourism has emerged as an important economic sector in both Ladakh and Uttarakhand due to the regions’ strong appeal for religious and adventure tourism (Kakkar and Sapna 2012). Uttarakhand, known as Devbhoomi or the Land of the Gods is central to Hindu spirituality with sites like the Char Dham (including Yamunotri, Gangotri, Kedarnath, and Badrinath) symbolizing the deep connection between faith and nature (Pinkney 2013). Ladakh, often called Little Tibet, reflects Buddhist heritage through monasteries like Hemis and Thiksey, emphasizing harmony with nature and respect for all life forms (Joldan 2006). Although pilgrims and trekkers provide a significant economic boost to the regions, tourism also places strain on environmental resources and culture. The growing number of hotels, guesthouses, and tourist facilities has increased the demand for water, exacerbating water scarcity (Dolma and Kumar 2024). The generation of large amounts of waste and pollution from traffic and construction activities further aggravates environmental degradation and causes air pollution (Singh 2021). The regions are also highly susceptible to disasters, as demonstrated by the catastrophic floods in Uttarakhand as in Kedarnath, 2013, and Raini, 2021 (Allen et al. 2016, Katakam and Hernandez 2021, Singh et al. 2023). According to Tibetan cosmology and other regional cosmological worldviews prevalent in the Himalayas, weather patterns and the changes therein are governed by non-human deities (Millington 2024). Local ritual practices in the Himalayas weave together natural elements, sacred geographies, and divine beings through festivals, processions, and worship, reinforcing a cosmology in which people, deities, and landscapes are mutually interdependent. Within this framework, specific deities, such as serpent gods, joginîs, and demonic figures like Sâgû—are believed to influence meteorological phenomena, linking ritual observance to the regulation of rain, wind, and storms (Halperin 2017).

DATA AND METHODS

Semi-structured interviews

We used a mixed methods approach to explore and map local perceptions of glaciers’ contributions to people (quantitatively and qualitatively) and attributed values, impacts, and coping strategies (qualitatively). Our findings are grounded in 48 semi-structured interviews conducted with informants residing in areas with proximity to glaciers across Ladakh (29) and Uttarakhand (19). Through random, as well as purposive, sampling and snowballing techniques, we targeted a range of actors of different ages, genders, and livelihoods (e.g., farmers, herders, engineers; Appendix 1). Our case area selection allowed for a nuanced examination of the social-environmental dynamics and adaptive strategies employed by communities in response to glacier change within contrasting climatological and altitudinal contexts (see specific locations of villages and altitudes in Figure 2). The data were collected in March and April, 2024 and primarily build on an interview guide (Appendix 2) designed by the research team and tested on a local expert where language specific issues and framings about snow and glaciers were integrated in its design. The local expert, from Zanskar Valley, participated in the research team as a guide, facilitator, and translator, and enabled interviews and focus groups with residents in Ladakh (Zanskar Valley and Leh). In Ladakh, the research team consisted of four senior researchers (one speaking Hindi), two junior researchers (one speaking Hindi), and the local expert (speaking Ladakhi and Hindi). In Uttarakhand, fieldwork was conducted by the second author, who is fluent in Hindi and the local Kumauni dialect spoken in the study area. This was an important asset for facilitating culturally grounded and linguistically accessible research encounters. Drawing on prior ethnographic experience in the region, the researcher conducted interviews and held focus group discussions in two villages located along the east Ramganga River valley, selected for their proximity to glaciers.

Key informants, focus group discussions, and field visits

We interviewed seven key informants to dig deeper into specific topics that emerged as we explored the regions. The interview guide formed the basis of these discussions, but additional questions emerged in relation to the participants’ knowledge and expertise in, e.g., tourism, herding, religious practices, and constructing artificial glaciers (Clouse et al. 2017) and ice stupas (Clouse 2017) for climate adaptation. In Ladakh, we visited three ice stupas and two artificial glaciers to get insights into their design and function from their builders and operators (see locations in Figure 2). Two key informant interviews in Igoo and Phyang also focused on understanding the technical aspects of ice stupa constructions because we had the opportunity to interview two leading engineers. An additional key informant interview was held with Chewang Norphel in Leh, a civil engineer who constructed the first artificial glacier in Ladakh back in 1989. This interview was crucial for understanding the history of water harvesting of ice in the region and to get a deeper insight into human-glacier relations in Ladakh, from the perspective of someone who has dedicated their life to these issues. In Uttarakhand, four key informant interviews were conducted with travel operators who have worked in the region for decades. One of the participants has been involved in the trekking industry for over 20 years and has extensively traversed glacial terrains, providing him with firsthand observations of changes in both the physical characteristics of the glaciers and the associated biodiversity over time. Similar observations were echoed by other key informants with long-term local experience, who also noted visible glacier retreat and shifts in vegetation patterns across the landscape. These individuals offered valuable insights into long-term environmental changes, shifting patterns of glacial retreat, and the evolving relationship between tourism, pilgrimage, and high-altitude landscapes.

We also conducted focus group discussions to dig deeper into specific topics. One focus group in Hongchet focused on ice stupas and involved six men who were part of a local construction group. In Uttarakhand, two additional focus group discussions were held with four and five herder men each, who traverse these high-altitude areas each summer, providing further perspectives on the shifting biodiversity tied to glacier and climate change.

Analytical framework

Our data were assessed from two complementary perspectives (Díaz et al. 2015). First, we highlighted multiple values of glaciers for a more context-specific perspective to understand what glaciers mean to people. The values approach considers the importance people assign to nature including those informed by Indigenous local knowledge and can help us to understand more holistic conceptualizations of human-nature relationships (Díaz et al. 2015). Second, to assess glacier benefits for people, we adapted the NCP approach and modified it as glaciers’ contributions to people (GCP). It is organized into three general groups: regulating, material, and non-material contributions, which largely correspond to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) regulating, provisioning, and cultural services. Within these groups, there are a range of sub-categories (see our 13 categories and definitions in Table 1). The IPBES framework shows that NCP can overlap between groups and, for example, be considered as both material and non-material for different people (Christie et al. 2019). Table 2 describes how we defined multiple values of glaciers.

In the context of multiple values of glaciers, examples of instrumental values also include values of ice stupas and artificial glaciers that function as a site-specific water conservation strategy for overcoming seasonal water scarcity at critical times for irrigation (Nüsser et al. 2019). Instrumental values can be described as the “values of other-than-human entities, as means to achieve human ends or satisfy human preferences” (Himes et al. 2024:30). Intrinsic values relate to the view that humans share the environment with other non-human species, which have a value for their own sake and have a right to exist. Intrinsic values are “values of other-than-human beings expressed independently of any reference to humans as valuers, including values associated with entities worth protecting as ends in and of themselves” (Himes et al. 2024:29). Hence, this value also articulates humans’ moral duties toward biodiversity and ecosystems. Relational values can generally be described as “values of meaningful, and often reciprocal human relationships—beyond means to an end—with nature and among people through nature, where nature is often specified as a particular landscape, place, species, forest, etc.” (Himes et al. 2024:31). Relational values are an intermediary position and cannot be classified as instrumental or intrinsic. These values stress that nature is the space in which connections among the biophysical, social, and cultural worlds take place in a relational way. One example in the context of our research is the Tibetan cosmology in which causes of glacier retreat are linked to spiritual and material pollution (Salick et al. 2012).

Interview design and coding for analysis

Interviews were guided with questions to uncover: (1) participant’s relation to glaciers; (2) perceived values, uses, and changes in glaciers; (3) differentiated impacts, adaptations, and coping strategies; and (4) socio-demographic data of informants. The responses were entered into an Excel spreadsheet for content analysis.

Content analysis was coded in two steps. First, interviews were analyzed in the three value categories of instrumental, relational, and intrinsic. Subsequently, additional categories were introduced to enable a quantitative mapping of glaciers’ contributions to people. These preliminary categories were informed by research on cryospheric ecosystem services (Wester et al. 2023) and NCPs related to river systems (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2019).

For GCP analysis, we used descriptive statistics (i.e., counts, means) to identify key features, themes, and trends. Some responses were treated as numerical values (e.g., age, years), and locations and livelihoods were treated as categorical data. Many responses needed interpretation and categorization by us into the taxonomies of the NCP framework (Díaz et al. 2015, 2018). Tables 1 and 2 describe the key definitions used for data entry and coding in relation to the two frameworks. Thereafter, we used an inductive approach to identify case-specific themes of the contributions and values. For example, regarding relational values, we could find themes related to life and existence, culture and identity, and spirituality. The categorization into themes made it possible to indicate how often the participants referred to specific features of glaciers, their contributions, and their values.

The interview guide also posed questions about differentiated impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation. This part of the interview aimed to contribute to a forward-looking approach in relation to understanding changing GCP. Statements from the interviews are included in the results as quotes to provide nuance and explanations for some of the patterns we identified.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Participants and perceived changes of glaciers

Out of the 48 interviews, 40 (83%) were conducted with men and 8 (17%) with women (see tables of demographic characteristics in Appendix 1). The respondents’ age ranged between 17 and 89 years (median age of 45). Most were rural residents (42), and only in Ladakh did we interview 6 urban residents (engineers, NGO-workers, and a scientist). The rural participants were from 11 villages in total: 9 in Ladakh and 2 in Uttarakhand (Fig. 2). Some respondents (33%) have diversified livelihoods, for example combining farming with taxi services, carpentry, homestays, herding, tours, or with governmental benefits from being a former serviceman or ex-army. Only six respondents relied solely on farming. Other livelihoods included teachers (4) and tour operators (2). We also interviewed students (3) and monks (2). In total, the respondents were familiar with 17 glaciers (Fig. 2). Most respondents (35%) referred to Stongdey Glacier in Zanskar Valley in Ladakh, and Namik Glacier in Uttarakhand (35%).

The majority (83%) perceived that glaciers have retreated and that most changes have occurred within the last three decades. Additionally, about half of the participants (52%) referred to observations of less snowfall, and many attributed the retreat of glaciers to reduced snowfall (35%). Participants often referred to glaciers, snow, and water interchangeably, which points to the need to not only understand NCP and values of glaciers, but in relation to all types of cryospheric changes in ice and snow. Figure 3 is a synthesis of GCP mentioned by the respondents in our case areas, along with their perceived changes and impacts on people and the environment.

Changing material GCP and their impacts

All participants (100%) referred to the material contributions of glaciers’ (and snow) for water supply and food production. Many participants experienced more challenges related to water scarcity due to changes in glaciers and snowfall, and the subsequent drying of springs and rivers. In Uttarakhand, participants described a seasonal drying out of rivers and springs because water here is also provided from the monsoon unlike in Ladakh, which is known as a cold desert where:

glaciers are the only water source, since the region does not receive monsoon rains.

Because water availability and agriculture are tightly linked, most respondents (98%) experienced challenges for agriculture in relation to changing glaciers, snowfall, and water supply. A farmer in Zanskar highlighted that:

winter snow is very important for the agricultural communities because less snow means less water for the soils.

Several interviewees further explained that meltwater now arrives too late to provide water for agricultural land, connecting the regulating contributions of glaciers for timely water supply. Especially in Ladakh, where meltwater from glaciers and snow is critical for the first months of planting and for providing water throughout the entire growing season. Participants further described that farmers need to either abandon or reduce their farms due to a lack of snow and water, and that less water for irrigation and drier soils affects crops negatively. In turn, these challenges lead to out-migration, changing land use practices, and loss of income and food insecurity, but also to livelihood diversification.

In terms of livestock keeping and herding, 67% of the respondents referred to the importance of glaciers for cattle keeping and herding in various ways. Just as farmland is reduced, also the number of cattle has been reduced by more than 50%. For example, a farmer in Ladakh said that he used to have 15 animals, but now only 7 because:

if there is no water, there is no fodder.

Participants described that there is generally less fodder and fewer grazing areas, and that the quality of the grass has declined. Herders also described that they must walk further to find pastures, and a herder in Ladakh exemplifies this by saying that:

I used to take them grazing near the glaciers, but now it takes longer.

Locally important plants are both material and non-material contributions of glaciers (46%), and respondents experienced negative effects of accessing such plants. The loss of culturally important plants was particularly mentioned in Uttarakhand, where meadows and glacial ponds provide a habitat for the lotus flower Brahma Kamal. The plant has spiritual uses for offerings in temples and medicinal uses from applying the root of the plant on bruises and cuts.

Changing non-material GCP and their impacts

Spirituality stands out as a dominant non-material GCP (88%) in both regions because most interviewees portrayed glaciers as a source of life emphasizing a sacred worldview to water systems. Interviewees often talked about glaciers interchangeably with water and referred to the importance of rituals to bring snowfall, and thereby also water. A farmer in Zanskar explained:

many prayers are done for the glaciers; the main priest from the monastery comes down to the village to do rituals and people give him food, nowadays they do more rituals for snow.

Many interviewees further described mountains and glaciers as sacred, with some stressing:

if glaciers are gone, life is gone.

Care for nature and all living beings is central to Buddhism and Hinduism, and nature is central in prayers. In the context of spirituality, rituals, and care for nature, the interviewees described that people’s faiths have changed, impacting their participation in rituals.

Tourism (69%) is commonly categorized as a non-material contribution to people because it is usually associated with recreation. In our case areas, tourism was rather discussed as having material contributions to people as an income generating livelihood. Participants discussed glaciers as being good for tourism but also reflected on challenges for tourism in relation to a changing environment. A tour guide explained:

there are more tourism opportunities (rock climbing) due to better roads, and less opportunities for glacier tourism due to danger.

A few also mentioned that tourism might further induce challenges in an “already fragile environment,” due to pollution and increased water use.

Sense of place and identity (54%) were mainly discussed in relation to emotions such as sadness and worries, often in the context of forced migration due to water scarcity. Glaciers’ importance for existence was emphasized in both Ladakh and Uttarakhand, and a student in Leh said:

If the glacier isn’t there, there are no people, and no culture.

A farmer and herder in Uttarakhand further described the importance of glaciers as life supporting systems:

the glacier region provides for many important things, they are life-giving resources.

A farmer and shop owner in Zanskar, expressed:

our existence depends on the glaciers.

Glaciers were discussed as important for villages’ and communities’ identity because some villages are “known for its nearness to glacier.” Some participants in Ladakh also emphasized the role of glaciers in their cultural identity, giving examples of how modernity is changing cultures by changing traditional woolen clothing. Changed clothing goes hand in hand with a reduced need for yak wool, which can be linked to trends of reduced yak herd sizes.

Glaciers’ importance for arts and culture (48%) mainly relates to songs, but also poetry, storytelling, and festivals. An executive director of an NGO in Leh described:

the cultural element of glaciers and water are the biggest factor to give people satisfaction; glaciers are connected to agriculture and agriculture is connected to festivals and culture (referring to harvest and sowing festivals).

Glaciers’ contributions to esthetics (44%) were discussed both in terms of beauty and for providing happiness, and in terms of darkening and sadness. A farmer in Uttarakhand described:

I feel blessed to be born in a region where I can see such beauty.

A monk in Zanskar said:

we sit on top of the village and see changes that makes us sad.

For science and education (23%), there is a sense that children currently know less about nature, and that there is a loss of traditional knowledge. Even though there might be more awareness about environmental issues due to internet access, education has shifted from a focus on glaciers to more broadly focus on climate change. An NGO project manager in Leh mentions:

the importance of sharing spiritual knowledge with kids because the traditions teach them how to care for nature.

We also found that participants in our case areas emphasized the link between people’s (mis)behavior and the loss of glaciers, and that the loss of glaciers in turn might further change people’s behavior by loss of cultural identity. In Zanskar Valley, a monk described that the glaciers are disappearing due to human behavior and contamination and that:

human bodies, nature and the universe should be in harmony in relation to the four elements.

Changing regulating GCP and their impact

Glaciers’ contributions to water regulation are prominent in both Ladakh and Uttarakhand (98%), and respondents frequently referred to the fact that the hydrology of their region has changed. Regulating and material GCP were difficult to separate because glaciers regulate hydrological conditions that directly supply water for farming and affect local livelihoods. A farmer in Zanskar Valley said:

If it’s not white in the winter, how can you expect it to be green in the summer.

Although Uttarakhand also receives rain from the monsoon, glaciers and snow were described as the main source of water for rivers and surrounding ecosystems because:

less snow means less water for the rivers, for the fields and for the forest; and forest fires if there is less winter snow.

As indicated by the quote above, another important factor regulating GCP relates to wildlife and plant life (83%). A teacher in Ladakh expressed:

glaciers are important for ecological balance; it is the only water source.

A farmer in Ladakh emphasized:

in these areas there are not many trees and animals, so those who need glaciers are people and cattle.

And respondents in both Ladakh and Uttarakhand explained that many species of animals, plants, and birds have vanished, and in some cases have been replaced by new species. Additionally, participants referred to the importance of glaciers for removing invasive species. In Uttarakhand, a farmer explained:

for good agriculture we need good snow in the winters, it also kills a lot of invasive species which are not good for crops.

Another concern in both Ladakh and Uttarakhand related to the fact that:

wildlife are now coming to the village because of lack of water and food.

Fewer participants referred to glaciers’ importance for climate regulation (23%). However, they described links between glaciers and climate, for example by referring to the “cooling effect” that glaciers have on the climate, and observations of changing weather patterns, global warming, and changes in the monsoon. In Uttarakhand, the main changes emphasized were linked to observations of reduced snowfall, more intense and erratic rains, and increasing winter temperatures. In Ladakh, participants described that there is less snowfall and that glaciers have become darker. This issue is critical in both Ladakh and Uttarakhand in which infrastructure projects for road and tunnel construction involve heavy machinery and blasting, which contribute to dust and black carbon emissions.

Multiple values of glaciers

The use of values typology for unpacking GCPs has been important for two reasons in this research. First, it helps us obtain more empirical accuracy by showing relational aspects of meaning and importance in the context of glacier environments. Second, we attempted to overcome one major challenge of the NCP framework, which is recognizing the diverse and often incommensurable ways in which different communities value nature. In our case studies, this diversity is represented by the prominence of non-Western worldviews such as Tibetan and Hinduist philosophies on water systems. The complexity of value systems in local contexts is often simplified by NCPs due to its focus on categorization.

In our cases, all material GCP were expressed as having instrumental values without referring to monetary values, but to livelihoods and subsistence. This was expressed with the importance of water derived from glaciers and snow for sustaining crops, yields, cattle, grazing, tourism, medicinal plants, and culturally important plants. Experienced changes in material GCP and impacts on people were discussed as having relational values. For example, participants often talked about glaciers, livelihoods, culture, and social-environmental change in an intertwined manner, stating that their whole existence depends on glaciers, and that:

without glaciers, there are no people, and without people there is no culture.

As Stålhammar and Thorén (2019) argued, we see that relations (to glaciers) not only hold certain static values, but also that values arise out or these relations. For example, for non-material contributions of glaciers (e.g., esthetics), relational values were expressed as feelings of happiness, while the darkening and retreat of glaciers were expressed as sadness. Also, participants described changing GCP along with changing relational values by stating that glacier loss might change people’s behavior due to the loss of cultural identity. Loss of cultural and spiritual identity was in turn associated with misbehavior toward nature (e.g., pollution), a lack of participation in rituals, pointing to:

the importance of sharing spiritual knowledge with kids because the traditions teach them how to care for nature.

Intrinsic values were mainly expressed as glacier’s importance for biodiversity and wildlife, and:

glaciers are part of the Himalayan Mountain system that have been here longer than humans.

“No water, no life” not only refers to human life but the importance of glaciers for whole ecosystems because:

all the elements of the ecosystem are dependent on the glaciers and with glaciers melting, all animals risk their lives.

In Figure 4, we conceptualized how glaciers and different GCPs were expressed as having instrumental, relational, and intrinsic values. Material contributions were expressed as having both instrumental and relational values. Non-material contributions were all attributed to relational values but tourism was mainly expressed as having instrumental values. Sacredness, spirituality, and knowledge systems were discussed as relational, but also as intrinsic by referring to the value of glaciers regardless of importance or usefulness to humans, which is strongly associated with moral obligations toward other living things (Himes et al. 2024). Regulating contributions were most often expressed as having intrinsic values, but changing regulating contributions were discussed as having impacts on relational (no glaciers, no life, no culture) and instrumental values (water supply for human use).

Differentiated impacts, adaptations, and coping strategies

Most participants expressed that changes related to GCP have differentiated impacts (69%), emphasizing that even though everyone is impacted by glacial loss:

people with more resources will cope better.

However, one informant also stated:

the rich cope better short term, but in the end, they will not be able to eat the money.

Income is perceived as the most important factor to cope with change, followed by land ownership. Farmers and herders are perceived as most vulnerable to glacier change. This is exemplified by a herder in Ladakh who said “farmers and herders are more directly affected,” followed by a fellow farmer who said “people with government jobs can leave.” The differentiated impacts in relation to livelihoods and land was further described as:

some are more affected, both between and within villages, and impacts are proportional to their land, and those who have land downstream, they move down.

The ability to cope through migration was described as a short-term solution, exemplified by a student who stated:

those who have moved to lower Kumik get water from the Zanskar River, but everyone will be affected in the next 10 years.

A few emphasized that “women in agriculture are more affected,“ and the gender asymmetries in land ownership may affect them further because one informant stated that “women are labourers on land that men own.”

In terms of power to influence the impacts associated with glacier loss, 90% of the respondents felt powerless in the face of glacier retreat. A farmer and carpenter expressed:

no matter how powerful you are, you cannot control what nature gives you.

Changes were often attributed to air pollution from vehicles, emphasizing the need for “behavioral change to stop pollution and contamination.” In Uttarakhand, people expressed powerlessness related to climate change and disasters; they expressed:

climate is not in our hands, further stating that we have no power in front of nature but should work to conserve it.

However, people express that they attempt to adapt (94%), either by seasonal or internal migration (44%), by creating new infrastructures (23%), diversifying their livelihoods (23%), or by increasingly relying on government subsidies (8%). Migration can happen in different forms, either by migrating permanently, or by having an urban job but remaining seasonally, or by securing land and houses elsewhere in India “to migrate to when difficulties arise.” Furthermore, the old tend to stay and “the young migrate to the cities and towns.” In Ladakh, we saw both technical and spiritual approaches to influencing the presence of ice and water availability. A technical adaptation measure was through the construction of new water infrastructures, most commonly by constructing artificial glaciers and ice stupas that ought to provide water during the first weeks of planting when water is scarce. The ice stupas are both constructed by entrepreneurs and local villagers. Participants also emphasized the role of rituals to bring snowfall to the Zanskar Valley, and a Tibetan monk stated:

we get sad but not anxious about these changes as change is part of life and we have coping mechanisms such as meditation and rituals.

DISCUSSION

Our study explored glaciers’ contributions to people, how these contributions and their values are affected by glacier retreat in the context of climate change, along with impacts, vulnerabilities, and coping strategies. We found that participants talked about the importance of glaciers interchangeably with other sorts of frozen waters like snow and ice, indicating the need to understand both glacial and other types of cryospheric changes. Even though our two cases differed in terms of glaciers’ roles in providing water throughout the year, people described the importance of glaciers in similar ways. Participants discussed its material, non-material, and regulating contributions with a particular emphasis on the relational values. This highlights the importance of giving voice to Indigenous and local knowledge holders to demonstrate new types of NCP and evidence of relational values like sense of place, identity, symbolic value, and sacredness. We found that numerous non-material contributions, which have been identified as an understudied NCP category in mountain regions, were ranked high in both of our case study areas.

Perceived changes of glaciers

First, our findings suggest that local perceptions of glacier retreat are shaped by awareness of climate change intertwined with local spiritual representations of changing human-nature relationships. Most local informants experienced that glaciers are receding at alarming rates due to changing snowfall patterns and higher temperatures, a phenomenon they attribute to anthropogenic climate change, in line with empirical observations and modeling. Participants referred to a darkening of glaciers, which is creating a sense of sadness. This observation aligns with studies that indicate that black carbon emissions from vehicles (Gertler et al. 2016) and recurrent forest fires (Azad 2024, Tiwari et al. 2024) significantly accelerate glacier melt (Romshoo et al. 2022). Spiritual representatives portray changing glaciers as a consequence of human misbehavior toward nature, which has upset the water spirits. Our findings highlight that glacier loss is perceived as a consequence of human behavior and unbalanced human-nature interactions in the region, further emphasizing that the loss of glaciers can lead to the disappearance of cultural identity in local communities. Our empirical work contributes a local understanding of how glacier loss is understood and experienced by different people within mountain communities and adds nuance to ongoing debates on climate change and adaptation.

Glaciers’ contributions to people and how people value glaciers

Second, glaciers provide a wide range of critically important contributions to people. Among these, water was invariably named as an important contribution, portrayed as the basis of life and existence with its role for irrigation and other human uses, but also for sustaining all forms of life and the Himalayan ecosystems. The main difference between our case study areas related to glaciers’ importance for meeting water needs for agriculture and livestock rearing (Ladakh), and the importance of glaciers to provide habitat for culturally important plants (Uttarakhand). The Indus Basin (Ladakh) is considered a critical water tower and depends more on snow and glacier melt than the Ganga Basin (Uttarakhand; Immerzeel et al. 2020). Other studies also emphasized water supply as a particularly important NCP in mountain regions (Schirpke et al. 2019, Grêt-Regamey and Weibel 2020), which connects to the notion that contributions of snow and glacier melt to river runoff and streamflow increases with altitude (Kulkarni et al. 2021). Other GCP widely perceived by locals include spirituality, local identity, and tourism. In our case study areas, adventure and pilgrim tourism were considered as important GCP for livelihood diversification and income, while also being seen as a threat to the regional water supply and ecosystem health. The dual benefits and risks related to mountain tourism have also been emphasized by other scholars (e.g., Pian et al. 2021, Ziegler et al. 2023), along with the notion of dissatisfaction and sadness related to the changing esthetics of glacier environments (Salim et al. 2021). In our study, most informants expressed deep concerns and often strong emotions on how climate change and associated glacier retreat is undermining the ability of glacier environments to sustain their contributions to people, in particular water regulation and supply, but also noting the impacts on culture (including spirituality and sense of place) and the environment (including local ecosystems, fauna, and flora).

Third, our findings point to a conceptualization of glaciers not merely as physical entities and indicators of climate change, but also as indicators of the intricate and reciprocal relationships between people, nature, and culture. In terms of values attributed to GCPs, instrumental values were mentioned by all participants, mainly referring to water supply for food production. However, the numerous contributions of glaciers were mainly expressed as relational, referring to the importance of glaciers for life, existence, culture, and identity. We found that GCPs span multiple value types because they center around the core value of life support, including the spiritual and symbolic meaning of life-giving and life-regenerating processes of glaciers. Intrinsic values were mainly expressed as glaciers’ importance for ecosystems, biodiversity, and wildlife, but also acknowledging glaciers have been part of the Himalayan Mountain system for longer than humans and are thereby also valued regardless of their relation to people, consistent with non-anthropocentric worldviews. The material and regulatory contributions of glaciers for water storage and supply were interchangeably discussed as having both instrumental (for food production), relational (for existence), and intrinsic (for biodiversity) values. Also, locally important plants derived from near-glacier environments were discussed as having both instrumental (medicinal), relational (spiritual), and intrinsic (ecosystems) values. This study thereby supports the notion that people tend to assign multiple values to nature and that relational valuation is highly relevant when discussing NCPs

Differentiated impacts, adaptations, and coping strategies

Fourth, people perceive that every local person is impacted by changing glaciers, but that people’s ability to cope differs. We observed emerging technical responses (artificial glaciers and ice stupas) as well as spiritual (rituals and prayers) approaches to cope with and influence ice and water availability. These coping strategies exemplify local capacities to respond to glacier loss and abilities to direct adaptation in line with priorities and needs (Johnson et al. 2022) while also emphasizing the need for climate action because these measures will not work if glaciers are gone. We found that diversifying livelihoods and economic capacity to adapt (including the ability to resort to market products when subsistence production fails) are perceived as important factors to cope with change, and farmers and herders are perceived as some of the most vulnerable groups to glacier changes. Some also mentioned that being able to move between districts can be one way to cope with glacier change. As in our study, Choudhary and Garkoti (2024) observed similar reductions of herds among pastoralist communities. They attributed this to broader socioeconomic, policy, and land-use related changes leading to livelihood diversification but acknowledged that climate change has increased the constraints on labor-intensive transhumant pastoralism. Dame (2018) attributed farmland abandonment to income diversification and a reduced need for subsistence farming, rather than caused by changing glaciers and water availability. Furthermore, Dame (2018) did not attribute out-migration and livelihood diversification to glacier loss per se but emphasized opportunities for off-farm employment from the booming tourist and military activities in Ladakh as important drivers of change. Raoul (2015) stated that migration was likely to occur due to changing water regimes, but the topic is understudied (Palomo 2017), and we argue that migration due to glacial retreat needs to be further studied.

CONCLUSION

Glaciers are major repositories of social and ecological values, and provide multiple contributions to people, ranging from water supply to cultural identity and the sustenance of all forms of life. Our findings point to the need for adaptation strategies that acknowledge both water scarcity issues and local cultures from a perspective of values. Understanding the impacts across various non-material benefits to people in glacier environments is essential for enhancing informed decision making and mitigating the adverse effects of climate change on vulnerable communities. By understanding and recognizing glaciers’ contributions to people and their values, we can understand impacts on social-environmental systems within a context of changing livelihoods, snowfall patterns and glacier runoff, human relations, inequality, spirituality, ethics, and adaptation. The plural values of GCP identified in this study underscore the need for locally informed understandings of NCP when making management and adaptation decisions, considering both instrumental, relational, and intrinsic values. This is increasingly important now and in the future because more strong adaptation strategies for glacier retreat are needed.

LITERATURE CITED

Allen, S., P. Rastner, M. Arora, C. Huggel, and M. Stoffel. 2016. Lake outburst and debris flow disaster at Kedarnath, June 2013: hydrometeorological triggering and topographic predisposition. Landslides 13(6):1479–1491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-015-0584-3

Azad, S. 2024. Wildfires destroy 1,107ha forest cover; could trigger glacier melt, say scientists. Times of India, May 5. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/wildfires-destroy-1107ha-forest-cover-could-trigger-glacier-melt-say-scientists/articleshow/109849062.cms

Azam, M. F., J. S. Kargel, J. M. Shea, S. Nepal, U. K. Haritashya, S. Srivastava, F. Maussion, N. Qazi, P. Chevallier, A. Dimri, A. V. Kulkarni, J. G. Cogley, and I. Bahuguna. 2021. Glaciohydrology of the Himalaya-Karakoram. Science 373(6557):eabf3668. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf3668

Biemans, H., C. Siderius, A. F. Lutz, S. Nepal, B. Ahmad, T. Hassan, W. von Bloh, R. Wijngaard, P. Wester, A. B. Shrestha, and W. W. Immerzeel. 2019. Importance of snow and glacier meltwater for agriculture on the Indo-Gangetic plain. Nature Sustainability 2(7):594–601. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0305-3

Canedoli, C., N. Rota, I. N. Vogiatzakis, A. Zanchi, M. Drius, H. Nagendra, and E. Padoa-Schioppa. 2024. Review of indicators for mountain ecosystem services: are the most frequently used also the best? Ecological Indicators 166:112310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112310

Carey, M., G. McDowell, C. Huggel, B. Marshall, H. Moulton, C. Portocarrero, Z. Provant, J. M. Reynolds, and L. Vicuña. 2021. A socio-cryospheric systems approach to glacier hazards, glacier runoff variability, and climate change. Pages 215–257 in W. Haeberli and C. Whiteman, editors. Snow and ice-related hazards, risks, and disasters. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817129-5.00018-4

Carey, M., O. C. Molden, M. B. Rasmussen, M. Jackson, A. W. Nolin, and B. G. Mark. 2017. Impacts of glacier recession and declining meltwater on mountain societies. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 107(2):350–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1243039

Chevuturi, A., A. Dimri, and R. Thayyen. 2018. Climate change over Leh (Ladakh), India. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 131(1):531–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-016-1989-1

Choudhary, D. K., and S. C. Garkoti. 2024. Transhumant pastoralism in Indian western Himalaya: traditional ecological knowledge and contemporary practices. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 31(1):57–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2023.2254273

Christie, M., B. Martín-López, A. Church, E. Siwicka, P. Szymonczyk, and J. Mena Sauterel. 2019. Understanding the diversity of values of “nature’s contributions to people”: Insights from the IPBES assessment of Europe and central Asia. Sustainability Science 14(5):1267–1282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00716-6

Clouse, C. 2017. The Himalayan ice stupa: Ladakh’s climate-adaptive water cache. Journal of Architectural Education 71(2):247–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.2017.1340781

Clouse, C., N. Anderson, and T. Shippling. 2017. Ladakh’s artificial glaciers: climate-adaptive design for water scarcity. Climate and Development 9(5):428–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2016.1167664

Dame, J. 2018. Food security and translocal livelihoods in high mountains: evidence from Ladakh, India. Mountain Research and Development 38(4):310–322. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-18-00026.1

Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabias, C. Joly, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash, A. Larigauderie, J. R. Adhikari, S. Arico, A. Báldi, A. Bartuska, I. A. Baste, A. Bilgin, E. Brondizio, K. M. A. Chan, V. E. Figueroa, A. Duraiappah, M. Fischer, R. Hill, T. Koetz, P. Leadley, P. Lyver, G. M. Mace, B. Martin-Lopez, M. Okumura, D. Pacheco, U. Pascual, E. S. Pérez, B. Reyers, E. Roth, O. Saito, R. J. Scholes, N. Sharma, H. Tallis, R. Thaman, R. Watson, T. Yahara, Z. A. Hamid, C. Akosim, Y. Al-Hafedh, R. Allahverdiyev, E. Amankwah, S. T. Asah, Z. Asfaw, G. Bartus, L. A. Brooks, J. Caillaux, G. Dalle, D. Darnaedi, A. Driver, G. Erpul, P. Escobar-Eyzaguirre, P. Failler, A. M. M. Fouda, B. Fu, H. Gundimeda, S. Hashimoto, F. Homer, S. Lavorel, G. Lichtenstein, W. A. Mala, W. Mandivenyi, P. Matczak, C. Mbizvo, M. Mehrdadi, J. P. Metzger, J. B. Mikissa, H. Moller, H. A. Mooney, P. Mumby, H. Nagendra, C. Nesshover, A. A. Oteng-Yeboah, G. Pataki, M. Roué, J. Rubis, M. Schultz, P. Smith, R. Sumaila, K. Takeuchi, S. Thomas, M. Verma, Y. Yeo-Chang, and D. Zlatanova. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework - connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

Díaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martín-López, R. T. Watson, Z. Molnár, R. Hill, K. M. A. Chan, I. A. Baste, K. A. Brauman, S. Polasky, A. Church, M. Lonsdale, A. Larigauderie, P. W. Leadley, A. P. E. van Oudenhoven, F. van der Plaat, M. Schröter, S. Lavorel, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, E. Bukvareva, K. Davies, S. Demissew, G. Erpul, P. Failler, C. A. Guerra, C. L. Hewitt, H. Keune, S. Lindley, and Y. Shirayama. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359(6373):270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826

Dolma, S., and A. Kumar. 2024. A bottom-up approach for sustainable cultural tourism in Ladakh: an initiative taken by women and homestays. Pages 39–51 in J. Chica-Olmo, M. Vujičić, R. A. Castanho, U. Stankov, and E. Martinelli, editors. Sustainable tourism, culture and heritage promotion. Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49536-6_5

Douville, H., K. Raghavan, J. Renwick, R. P. Allan, P. A. Arias, M. Barlow, R. Cerezo-Mota, A. Cherchi, T. Y. Gan, J. Gergis, D. Jiang, A. Khan, W. Pokam Mba, D. Rosenfeld, J. Tierney, and O. Zolina. 2021. Water cycle changes. Pages 1055–1210 in V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Páan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou, editors. Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, New York, USA. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter08.pdf

Flohn, H. 1968. Contributions to a meteorology of the Tibetan Highlands. Paper no. 130. Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. https://api.mountainscholar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/170cdbfe-58ca-4c4e-bce4-a4ab0c66c175/content

Gambhir, D., A. M. Khalid, and S. Sharma. 2021. Religious tourism and sustainable development: perspectives from Hill States in India. Pages 273–287 in A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk, B. M. B. de Sousa, B. M. Đerčan, and W. Leal Filho, editors. Handbook of sustainable development and leisure services. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59820-4_18

Gertler, C. G., S. P. Puppala, A. Panday, D. Stumm, and J. Shea. 2016. Black carbon and the Himalayan cryosphere: a review. Atmospheric Environment 125:404–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.08.078

Gómez-Baggethun, E., and R. De Groot. 2010. Natural capital and ecosystem services: the ecological foundation of human society. Pages 105–121 in R. E. Hester and R. M. Harrison, editors. Ecosystem services. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781849731058-00105

Gómez-Baggethun, E., M. Tudor, M. Doroftei, S. Covaliov, A. Năstase, D.-F. Onără, M. Mierlă, M. Marinov, A.-C. Doroșencu, G. Lupu, L. Teodorof, I.-M. Tudor, B. Köhler, J. Museth, E. Aronsen, S. I. Johnsen, O. Ibram, E. Marin, A. Crăciun, and E. Cioacă. 2019. Changes in ecosystem services from wetland loss and restoration: an ecosystem assessment of the Danube Delta (1960–2010). Ecosystem Services 39:100965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100965

Grêt-Regamey, A., and B. Weibel. 2020. Global assessment of mountain ecosystem services using earth observation data. Ecosystem Services 46:101213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101213

Halperin, E. 2017. Winds of change: religion and climate in the Western Himalayas. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 85(1):64–111. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfw042

Himes, A., B. Muraca, C. B. Anderson, S. Athayde, T. Beery, M. Cantú-Fernández, D. González-Jiménez, R. K. Gould, A. P. Hejnowicz, J. Kenter, D. Lenzi, R. Murali, U. Pascual, C. Raymond, A. Ring, K. Russo, A. Samakov, S. Stålhammar, H. Thorén, and E. Zent. 2024. Why nature matters: a systematic review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values. Bioscience 74(1):25–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad109

Hirons, M., C. Comberti, and R. Dunford. 2016. Valuing cultural ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41(1):545–574. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085831

Hugonnet, R., R. McNabb, E. Berthier, B. Menounos, C. Nuth, L. Girod, D. Farinotti, M. Huss, I. Dussaillant, F. Brun and A. Kääb. 2021. Accelerated global glacier mass loss in the early twenty-first century. Nature 592(7856):726–731. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03436-z

Immerzeel, W. W., A. F. Lutz, M. Andrade, A. Bahl, H. Biemans, T. Bolch, S. Hyde, S. Brumby, B. J. Davies, A. C. Elmore, A. Emmer, M. Feng, A. Fernández, U. Haritashya, J. S. Kargel, M. Koppes, P. D. A. Kraaijenbrink, A. V. Kulkarni, P. A. Mayewski, S. Nepal, P. Pacheco, T. H. Painter, F. Pellicciotti, H. Rajaram, S. Rupper, A. Sinisalo, A. B. Shrestha, D. Viviroli, Y. Wada, C. Xiao, T. Yao, and J. E. M. Baillie. 2020. Importance and vulnerability of the world’s water towers. Nature 577(7790):364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1822-y

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2022. Methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://www.ipbes.net/the-values-assessment

Johnson, D. E., M. Parsons, and K. Fisher. 2022. Indigenous climate change adaptation: new directions for emerging scholarship. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 5(3):1541–1578. https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486211022450

Joldan, S. 2006. Traditional ties between Ladakh and Buddhist Tibet: monastic organization and monastic education as a sustaining factor. Tibet Journal 31(2):69–88.

Kakkar, L., and A. Sapna. 2012. Impact of tourism on Indian economy. International Journal of Marketing: Financial Services and Management Research 1(4).

Katakam, A., and M. Hernandez. 2021. Disaster in the Himalayas: how a rare February landslide left more than 200 dead. Reuters, 26 Feb. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/disaster-himalayas-how-rare-february-landslide-left-more-than-200-dead-2021-02-26/

Kraaijenbrink, P. D. A., M. F. P. Bierkens, A. F. Lutz, and W. W. Immerzeel. 2017. Impact of a global temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius on Asia’s glaciers. Nature 549:257–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23878

Kulkarni, A. V., and S. Pratibha. 2018. Assessment of glacier fluctuations in the Himalaya. Pages 183–195 in P. S. Goel, R. Ravindra, and S. Chattopadhyay, editors. Science and geopolitics of the white world: Arctic-Antarctic-Himalaya. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57765-4_13

Kulkarni, A. V., T. S. Shirsat, A. Kulkarni, H. S. Negi, I. M. Bahuguna, and M. Thamban. 2021. State of Himalayan cryosphere and implications for water security. Water Security 14:100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2021.100101

Kyle, G. T., J. Jun, and J. D. Absher. 2014. Repositioning identity in conceptualizations of human–place bonding. Environment and Behavior 46:1018–1043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513488783

Liu, W., Z. Wang, R. Li, and T. Wu. 2022. A bibliometric analysis of mountain ecosystem services, 2000–2019. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29(11):16633–16652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16766-2

Martín-López, B., I. Leister, P. Lorenzo Cruz, I. Palomo, A. Grêt-Regamey, P. A. Harrison, S. Lavorel, B. Locatelli, S. Luque, and A. Walz. 2019. Nature’s contributions to people in mountains: a review. PLoS ONE 14(6):1. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217847

Menounos, B., A. Bevington, and M. Geertsema. 2018. Glacier environments. Pages 1–5 in P. Bobrowsky and B. Marker, editors. Encyclopedia of engineering geology. encyclopedia of earth sciences series. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Island, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf

Millington, A. 2024. Himalayan Buddhism as human geological agency: rethinking the novelty of ‘the Anthropocene’. Journal of Global Buddhism 25(1):75–92. https://doi.org/10.26034/lu.jgb.2024.3815

Negi, H. S., A. Ganju, N. Kanda, and H. S. Gusain. 2020. Climate change and cryospheric response over north-west and central Himalaya, India. Pages 309–330 in A. P. Dimri, B. Bookhagen, M. Stoffel, and T. Yasunari, editors. Himalayan weather and climate and their impact on the environment. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29684-1_16

Nüsser, M., J. Dame, S. Parveen, B. Kraus, R. Baghel, and S. Schmidt. 2019. Cryosphere-fed irrigation networks in the northwestern Himalaya: precarious livelihoods and adaptation strategies under the impact of climate change. Mountain Research and Development 39(2):R1–R11. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-18-00072.1

Palomo, I. 2017. Climate change impacts on ecosystem services in high mountain areas: a literature review. Mountain Research and Development 37(2):179–187. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00110.1

Pandey, A., M. S. Sarkar, M. Kumar, G. Singh, S. Lingwal, and J. S. Rawat. 2018. Retreat of Pindari glacier and detection of snout position using remote sensing technology. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 11:64–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2018.04.011

Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, S. Díaz, G. Pataki, E. Roth, M. Stenseke, R. T. Watson, E. B. Dessane, M. Islar, E. Kelemen, V. Maris, M. Quaas, S. M. Subramanian, H. Wittmer, A. Adlan, S. Ahn, Y. S. Al-Hafedh, E. Amankwah, S. T. Asah, P. Berry, A. Bilgin, S. J. Breslow, C. Bullock, D. Cáceres, H. Daly-Hassen, E. Figueroa, C. D. Golden, E. Gómez-Baggethun, D. González-Jiménez, J. Houdet, H. Keune, R. Kumar, K. Ma, P. H. May, A. Mead, P. O’Farrell, R. Pandit, W. Pengue, R. Pichis-Madruga, F. Popa, S. Preston, D. Pacheco-Balanza, H. Saarikoski, B. B. Strassburg, M. van den Belt, M. Verma, F. Wickson, and N. Yagi. 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26–27:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006

Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, C. B. Anderson, R. Chaplin-Kramer, M. Christie, D. González-Jiménez, A. Martin, C. M. Raymond, M. Termansen, A. Vatn, S. Athayde, B. Baptiste, D. N. Barton, S. Jacobs, E. Kelemen, R. Kumar, E. Lazos, T. H. Mwampamba, B. Nakangu, P. O’Farrell, S. M. Subramanian, M. van Noordwijk, S. Ahn, S. Amaruzaman, A. M. Amin, P. Arias-Arévalo, G. Arroyo-Robles, M. Canú-Fernéndez, A. J. Castro, V. Contreras, A. De Vos, N. Dendoncker, S. Engel, U. Eser, D. P. Faith, A. Filyushkina, H. Ghazi, E. G=ómez-Baggethun, R. K. Gould, L. Guibrunet, H. Gundimeda, T. Hahn, Z. V. Harmáčková, M. Hernaández-Blanco, A.-I. Horcea-Milcu, M. Huambachano, N. L. Hummel Wicher, C. İ. Aydın, M. Islar, A.-K. Koessler, J. O. Kenter, M. Kosmus, H. Lee, B. Leimona, S. Lele, D. Lenzi, B. Lliso, L. M. Mannetti, J. Merñon, A. S. Monroy-Sais, N. Mukherjee, B. Muraca, R. Muradian, R. Murali, S. H. Nelson, G. R. Nemogá-Soto, J. Ngouhouo-Poufoun, A. Niamir, E. Nuesiri, T. O. Nyumba, B. Özkaynak, I. Palomo, R. Pandit, A. Pawłowska-Mainville, L. Porter-Bolland, M. Quaas, J. Rode, R. Rozzi, S. Sachdeva, A. Samakov, M. Schaafsma, N. Sitas, P. Ungar, E. Yiu, Y. Yoshida, and E. Zent. 2023. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620(7975):813–823. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9

Pian, P., L. XiaoPan, and L. Yong. 2021. Local residents’ perception of the impacts of mountain adventure tourism: the case of Siguniang Mountain Range, Tibet. International Journal of Tourism Anthropology 8(3):193–212. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTA.2021.122351

Pinkney, A. M. 2013. An ever-present history in the land of the gods: Modern Mâhâtmya writing on Uttarakhand. International Journal of Hindu Studies 17(3):229–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11407-014-9142-1

Qazi, N. Q., S. K. Jain, R. J. Thayyen, P. R. Patil, and M. K. Singh. 2020. Hydrology of the Himalayas. Himalayan weather and climate and their impact on the environment. Springer. p. 419-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29684-1_21

Rana, A. S., P. Kunmar, M. Mehta, and V. Kumar. 2023. Glacier retreat, dynamics and bed overdeepenings of Parkachik Glacier, Ladakh Himalaya, India. Annals of Glaciology 64(92):254-267. https://doi.org/10.1017/aog.2023.50

Raoul, K. 2015. Can glacial retreat lead to migration? A critical discussion of the impact of glacier shrinkage upon population mobility in the Bolivian Andes. Population and Environment 36(4):480–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-014-0226-z

Rashid, I., and U. Majeed. 2018. Recent recession and potential future lake formation on Drang Drung Glacier, Zanskar Himalaya, as assessed with earth observation data and glacier modelling. Environmental Earth Sciences 77(12):429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7601-5

Romshoo, S. A., K. O. Murtaza, W. Shah, T. Ramzan, U. Ameen, and M. H. Bhat. 2022. Anthropogenic climate change drives melting of glaciers in the Himalaya. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29(35):52732–52751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19524-0

Salick, J., A. Byg, and K. Bauer. 2012. Tibetan cosmology of climate change. Journal for the Study of Religion Nature and Culture 6:447–476. https://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.v6i4.447

Salim, E., L. Ravanel, and C. Gauchon. 2021. Aesthetic perceptions of the landscape of a shrinking glacier: evidence from the Mont Blanc massif. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 35:100411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2021.100411

Sati, V. P. 2017. Enhancing food security through sustainable agriculture in Uttarakhand Himalaya. Productivity 58(2):187–196.

Sati, V. P., and S. Kumar. 2023. Declining agriculture in Garhwal Himalaya: major drivers and implications. Cogent Social Sciences 9(1):2167571. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2167571

Schirpke, U., U. Tappeiner, and E. Tasser. 2019. A transnational perspective of global and regional ecosystem service flows from and to mountain regions. Scientific Reports 9(1):6678. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43229-z

Schmidt, S., and M. Nüsser. 2023. Glaciers of central Ladakh: distribution, changes and relevance in the Indian Trans-Himalaya. Pages 11–30 in B. Humbert-Droz, J. Dame, and T. Morup, editors. Environmental change and development in Ladakh, Indian Trans-Himalaya. Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42494-6_2

Singh, A. 2021. The toxic love for Ladakh is weighing heavy on its natural resources. India Mongabay, 20 July. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/07/the-toxic-love-for-ladakh-is-weighing-heavy-on-its-natural-resources/

Singh, G., M. Rawat, and A. Pandey. 2023. Investigation of the flash flood event caused by a massive rock-ice avalanche in the Himalayan River valleys of Rishiganga and Dhauliganga, Uttarakhand, through hydrodynamic modeling perspectives. Natural Hazards 117(3):2935–2962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-05972-5

Singh, R., and R. Bhatla. 2025. Assessment of rainfall variability in Ladakh amidst evolving climate. Natural Hazards 121(3):3073–3097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06922-5

Stålhammar, S., and H. Thorén. 2019. Three perspectives on relational values of nature. Sustainability Science 14(5):1201–1212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00718-4

Tiwari, P. C., and B. Joshi. 2012. Natural and socio-economic factors affecting food security in the Himalayas. Food Security 4(2):195–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-012-0178-z

Tiwari, A., P. Nanjundan, R. R. Kumar, and V. K. Soni. 2024. A framework for natural resource management with geospatial machine learning: a case study of the 2021 Almora forest fires. Fire Ecology 20(1):78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-024-00293-9

Wani, M. H. 2011. Hill agriculture in India: problems and prospects of mountain agriculture. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.204732

Wester, P., S. Chaudhary, N. Chettri, M. Jackson, A. Maharjan, S. Nepal, and J. F. Steiner. 2023. Water, ice, society, and ecosystems in the Hindu Kush Himalaya: an outlook. ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal. https://doi.org/10.53055/ICIMOD.1028

Yousuf, B., A. Shukla, I. Ali, P. K. Garg, and S. Garg. 2024. Surface facies analysis of the Gangotri and neighbouring glaciers, central Himalaya. Science of Remote Sensing 9:100128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srs.2024.100128

Zafra-Calvo, N., P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, J. Merñon, B. Martín-López, M. van Noordwijk, T. H. Mwampamba, S. Lele, C. I. Speranza, P. Arias-Arévalo, D. Cabrol, D. M. Cáceres, P. O’Farrell, S. M. Subramanian, S. Devy, S. Krishnan, R. Carmenta, L. Guibrunet, Y. Kraus-Elsin, H. Moersberger, and S. Díaz. 2020. Plural valuation of nature for equity and sustainability: insights from the global south. Global Environmental Change 63:102115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102115

Ziegler, A. D., R. Wasson, Y. Sundriyal, P. Srivastava, G. Sasges, S. J. Ramchunder, C. E. Ong, S. K. Nepal, B. G. McAdoo, J. Gillen, D. Bishwokarma, A. Bhardway, and M. Apollo. 2023. A call for reducing tourism risk to environmental hazards in the Himalaya. Environmental Hazards 22(1):1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2021.1984196