Open Access
How to translate text using browser tools
1 August 2024 Settlement Systems in Mountain Regions: A Research Gap?
Dominik Bertram, Markus Lambracht, Tobias Chilla
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Cities and their networks play a significant role in spatial development. This holds true for settlement systems in general, and there is no reason that this should differ in mountain contexts. However, research on this subject is scarce, and it remains a relatively niche topic. Against this background, our article presents a scoping review of settlement systems in mountain regions, reflecting on thematic foci, temporal developments, and regional differences in the global scientific debate. The results show that the scientific discourse has been a rather Eurocentric debate of modest intensity for several decades. The discussion has become more intense in the past decade because of a substantial number of contributions on Asia. Our findings suggest that the current academic debate does not fully address the potential of settlement systems for sustainable spatial development in mountain areas. Recent articles have been predominantly based on improved data availability and methodological innovation, often in the form of case studies. We conclude that a significant research gap exists in terms of comparative perspectives on settlement systems in mountain regions.

Introduction

Mountains are a specific geographical context for spatial development. Topography strongly influences spatial structures, and the limited accessibility and availability of settlement areas can challenge socioeconomic development in mountain regions (Dematteis 2018; Lambracht 2024). Additionally, environmental vulnerability and the likelihood of disasters tend to be higher in these regions than in lowland areas (Price et al 2022). In particular, cities in mountain areas face increasing pressure to adapt to the accelerating impacts of climate change (Adler et al 2022). Thus, mountain areas demonstrate a growing need for sustainable spatial development from both environmental and socioeconomic perspectives, requiring integrated approaches to ensure equitable access to services of general interest and ecological corridors (Price et al 2022; Bertram, Chilla, and Hippe 2023). Building on these potentials, spatial development in mountain areas has to balance various sectoral settings with the demands of sustainable development (Kohler et al 2015).

In this context, settlement systems are crucial, particularly in terms of socioeconomic dynamics and providing essential services (Dodman et al 2022). At the same time, research on settlement systems, such as those in the European Alps, is limited (Chilla et al 2022). This observation is in line with the main findings of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) study, which highlighted that knowledge on climate change adaptation in mountain settlement systems worldwide remains sparse (Adler et al 2022). Indeed, Scopus searches show a much higher volume of works with keyword combinations containing disaster, climate change, biodiversity, and mountains compared to those featuring settlement systems and urbanization.

In this article, we systematically reflect on this issue by examining the extent to which settlement systems are discussed in the scientific debates of global mountain studies. We hypothesized that settlement systems are underrepresented in the academic discourse. To verify and qualify the research gap, we conducted a scoping review that distinguished between geographical and thematic foci to identify thematic priorities, temporal developments, and geographical patterns. We reflect our results with regard to a research gap and unused potential for sustainable spatial development in mountain regions.

State of the art

The link between spatial development and settlement systems

Spatial development and spatial planning coordinate sectoral policies and dynamics from a territorial perspective and, conversely, are strongly influenced by sectoral dynamics (Figure 1). Although spatial planning is primarily the domain of local and regional governments and contains a significant amount of formal and legally binding elements, spatial development tends to be less binding and “softer.” Funding programs, strategic plans, and governance processes are relevant. Spatial planning—in a formal, juridical, and technical sense—is mostly organized through national mandates.

FIGURE 1

The links between spatial planning, spatial development, and sectoral policies.

img-z2-2_A1.jpg

In this context, settlement systems are defined by interactions between a set of local units (villages, towns, or cities; Bura et al 1996). They play a significant role in shaping socioeconomic and environmental dynamics, as well as in structuring space. Cities and towns are densely populated areas where residents, businesses, transportation, and services are concentrated. In mountain studies, the debate on urban dynamics dates back to the 1970s, with case studies focusing on individual cities and their urbanization processes (Borsdorf 1978).

Urban networks present both challenges and opportunities for spatial development (Harbiankova and Scherbina 2021). For instance, specific challenges arise when urban structures are organized in ways that threaten environmental quality (McDonnell and Hahs 2008). Moreover, high social inequalities and polarized economies further threaten sustainable spatial development. Effective organization of urban functions holds the potential to ensure efficiency, for example, via spatial concentration of socioeconomic activities. The links between local units can lead to improved overall functioning in economic, social, and environmental terms. Such potential is particularly high when polycentric spatial patterns come into play. Research on so-called morphological (focusing on nodal characteristics) and functional (focusing on the relationships between centers) urban networks reveals opportunities for polycentric spatial structures (Meijers 2008; Burger et al 2014). Conceptual arguments and frameworks, such as the concept of “borrowing size” (Meijers and Burger 2017), the method of calculating “population catchment intensities” (Bertram and Chilla 2023), and multiagent and evolutionary analysis (Bura et al 1996; Pumain 2000), are strands of research that have been used to investigate and discuss the roles of local units within settlement systems. Prominent arguments have flourished regarding the prospects of efficient transport systems, the balanced integration of regional and global economies, and equitable access to services of general interest (Chilla and Streifeneder 2018; Möck and Küpper 2020). In this regard, the theory of central places remains the most relevant conceptual framework for research on settlement systems (Christaller 1933). Existing work on the European Alps underlines the relevance of polycentric spatial development and a mountain-specific scale for settlement systems (Dematteis 2009; Vaz and Matos 2015; Liu et al 2019; Bertram, Chilla, and Lambracht 2023). Studies in this vein have illustrated that settlement systems capture mountain specificities such as the functional relevance of small settlements, efficient spatial organization along valley axes, and cross-border dimensions.

Sustainable spatial development in mountain settlement systems

The concept of sustainability emphasizes the need for a long-term perspective that prioritizes the wellbeing and concerns of future generations. Moreover, it often highlights the need to balance environmental considerations with socioeconomic concerns (Bibri et al 2020). Accordingly, sustainable development is of paradigmatic importance in mountain contexts (Hock et al 2019).

Spatial development aims to balance different and often conflicting needs and interests. It has to manage various sectoral concerns in mountain areas, such as tourism, biodiversity, and transport infrastructure (Tischler and Mailer 2014: 149). Topographic challenges, low population density, and (in most cases) multiple national borders further complicate spatial development in such contexts. Thus, policy frameworks have to support spatial development processes throughout the multilevel system from the global to the local level. Examples include sustainable mountain development as an objective of the Sustainable Development Goals, transnational policy frameworks like the Alpine Convention in the European Alps or the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development in the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) region, and thematic working groups such as the Working Group on Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development of the Alpine Convention.

From a scientific perspective, research on mountain settlement systems has primarily focused on 4 particular fields. First, many studies have dealt with ecological issues. In terms of spatial development, research on green infrastructure and biodiversity has been especially widespread. Topics such as environmental impact assessments in settlement systems (Peng et al 2016), ecological connectivity and resilience (Job et al 2022; Wang et al 2023), and disaster risk reduction (Poudel et al 2023) are highly relevant.

Second, research on settlement systems in mountain regions has paid close attention to socioeconomic development. In this vein, topics have ranged from demographic development and migration to transportation and mobility patterns (Bätzing et al 1996; Perlik and Messerli 2004; Chilla and Heugel 2022; Öncü et al 2023).

The third area encompasses urbanization dynamics in general and includes studies on urban sprawl in valleys (eg Romero and Ordenes 2004), rural–urban linkages (Haller and Branca 2023), and peri-urbanization and suburbanization processes in mountain regions (Brighenti 2013).

Finally, several publications have foregrounded spatial development and planning, particularly the topics of centrality and functions (Perlik et al 2001; Torricelli 2001; Dematteis 2009; Bole et al 2016; Ortman et al 2016; Bertram and Chilla 2023). A certain dominance is also seen within this domain of addressing spatial monitoring and methods illustrating urbanization processes and environmental challenges—mostly by remote sensing analysis in case studies (Li et al 2022; Wang et al 2022; Ziwei et al 2022). In terms of sectoral challenges in the field of spatial development and planning, the topic of water management has been a relevant research strand (Jerves-Cobo et al 2020; Singh et al 2020).

By conducting a scoping review, our aim was to examine the extent to which mountain settlement systems have been discussed in the global debates on sustainable spatial development in a comprehensive and systematic manner.

Methods: a scoping review

Scoping reviews serve to quantify and qualify the research output on a given topic. They also help to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and determine potential avenues for decision-making (Tricco et al 2016). As such, the review requires transparent, systematic, and replicable methods to ensure trustworthy results (Grant and Booth 2009; Munn et al 2018; Sutton et al 2023). The main steps include defining the subject and developing the search strategy, selecting studies based on predefined inclusion criteria, extracting data, and then collating, summarizing, and reporting the results (Peters et al 2015; Casali et al 2022). Although presented as a series of stages, the process does not have to be linear; instead, it is typically iterative.

Definitions and search strategies

Our scoping review was based on Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). Scopus is the abstract and citation database of the Elsevier publishing company and is one of the largest such databases in the world (Singh et al 2021; Gurgiser et al 2022). WoS is one of the oldest and most widely used scientific online citation and literature databases and is hosted by Clarivate. Both focus on peer-reviewed articles in listed journals. According to Gusenbauer and Haddaway (2020), using Scopus and WoS ensures the reproducibility of results and, therefore, constitutes a sufficiently scientific approach. Relying on these databases means excluding nonacademic studies (such as government or nongovernmental publications) that may be relevant, especially for regional case studies. However, the strength of this approach is its systematic coverage of scientific publications that have undergone quality assurance processes and have international visibility.

The data query was carried out in January 2024. We chose the “all-time” timeframe and did not focus on any particular language, though the search terms were in English. The search was based on Boolean operators and performed within the “article title,” “abstract,” and “keywords” sections. The applied queries were then divided into 2 search approaches. First, the more general search terms “settlement system*AND mountain* and urbanisation OR urbanization AND mountain* resulted in 2584 matches. After extracting double matches, we identified 2553 potentially relevant articles.

Second, to get a regional specification, the terms of the official IPCC global mountain classification and possible synonyms were combined with the previous search terms: “settlement system*ANDX” and urbanisation OR urbanization ANDX,” where “X” stands for the previous search terms (Table 1). The search resulted in 1201 hits. After removing double matches, a total of 756 potentially relevant articles were identified.

TABLE 1

Search terms used for the IPCC mountain groups. (The asterisk, *, is attached to the stem of a word. It finds any word that contains the stem or the letters preceding the asterisk.)

img-z3-2_A1.gif

In total, our search resulted in a database with 3309 records. After excluding the double matches across the two searches, we finally identified 2984 articles as potentially relevant.

The Scopus/WoS-based approach ensures institutionalized quality control, resulting in a comprehensive coverage of the scientific discourse. However, the approach also has some limitations. First, some applied and regional publications without peer review, project results, nonreviewed books, and other nonreviewed content are not covered, even though they would fit perfectly in terms of thematic coverage. Second, it is possible that some mountain regions may not be identified during the search process, especially if other words were used in the title, abstract, or keywords. Nevertheless, the overall strength of this methodology lies in its comprehensive coverage of scientific publications that are subject to peer-review quality assurance procedures.

Article selection process

The resulting body of potentially relevant publications had to be filtered in a standardized selection process. First, the thematic focus of the publication had to be settlement systems in mountain regions. Studies with a different focus (eg individual city case studies, intraurban processes, or articles with no spatial perspective) were excluded. Second, the spatial focus of the study had to be mountain regions according to the IPCC definition of high mountain regions (Hock et al 2019). Accordingly, case studies on contexts with relatively low elevation and less steep relief were excluded. Figure 2 provides an overview of the process.

FIGURE 2

Scoping review process of the study selection.

img-z4-2_A1.jpg

The studies were screened for relevance by title scanning (“include,” “exclude,” or “maybe”). This was carried out independently by 4 reviewers (2346 articles were excluded). After double-checking, there were minimal discrepancies between the individual selection results. In cases where discrepancies did arise, the abstract was retrieved to resolve the incompatibility.

This process resulted in 638 articles being included in the subsequent full-text review. In this step, the full texts were screened, and relevance was categorized as before. This was carried out independently by 2 reviewers. Here the interrater reliability was high. Individual inconsistencies between “maybe” and “include” were discussed and resolved by jointly scanning the full text. In this step, an additional 374 studies were excluded. In total, 264 studies are finally included in the scoping review.

Data extraction and coding

Overall, we extracted the year of publication and geographical affiliation (the continent of the mountain region being analyzed). For the thematic analysis, we used a standard coding template to assign the information from each article. Thus, we developed qualitative codes to capture the focus of each article in an inductive manner (Mayring and Fenzl 2019). Here again, 2 reviewers were involved in quality assurance, and they independently extracted the data for all articles (ntotal = 264). The publications were assigned to the following codes (multiple entries were possible):

  • Archaeological settlement patterns included publications focusing on ancient settlement structures, particularly those of earlier advanced civilizations, as well as former trade route networks.

  • Centrality and functions encompassed spatial organization and functional links between local units (eg relevance beyond size, commuting zones, and polycentric urban networks).

  • Demographic development and migration patterns focused on issues such as patterns of residential growth and shrinkage, depopulation processes, or rural–urban migration.

  • Economic development included publications on topics ranging from agricultural transformation and polarization effects to structural change.

  • Governance, politics, and planning covered articles on multilevel governance systems and planning instruments, as well as regulations and stakeholder relations.

  • Green and blue infrastructure featured publications on land use dynamics, climate change adaptation, ecological connectivity and fragmentation, and disaster risk reduction with a particular focus on water management and flooding.

  • Housing and real estate included topics such as second homes, amenity migration, and building regulations.

  • Spatial monitoring, methods, and new data covered novel approaches to data collection, management, and processing for monitoring land use dynamics (eg remote sensing, nighttime analysis, and lidar analysis).

  • Topographic implications included publications on high elevations or steepness of the relief (eg valley-type agglomerations and connections between mountain areas and adjacent lowlands).

  • Touristic implications grouped together topics on tourism-related impacts (eg overtourism, tourism infrastructure, and the impacts of tourism on regional economies and biodiversity).

  • Transport and mobility addressed issues such as infrastructure development, public transportation, accessibility, and mobility networks.

  • Urbanization dynamics concentrated on the links between local units (intraurban effects were not included) and encompassed issues such as counter-urbanization, urban sprawl, and uncoordinated settlement expansion.

This approach allowed us to identify temporal and geographical patterns, thematic development and trends, and geographical patterns and thematic foci.

Results and discussion

Temporal and geographical patterns

Figure 3 illustrates publication intensity over time, with the horizontal axis covering the years from 1976 to 2023 and the vertical axis showing the number of published articles. The colors represent the geographical reference of the publications (ie the continent affiliation of the analyzed mountain regions).

FIGURE 3

Publication density over time and spatial distribution of continent affiliation of analyzed mountain regions. (Data source: Scopus and Web of Science, 2024)

img-z5-2_A1.jpg

The overall picture shows a density of publications in small “waves.” A growing research interest appears in the early 2000s, with a sharp increase from 2013 onwards. An increasing number of publications focus primarily on mountain regions in Asia and Europe, as well as those in South America. Several articles concentrate on North America and Africa, and a few others adopt a global perspective. In our review, we identify no publications on mountain ranges in Australia and Oceania.

We see a large variation in the number of studies for each region, with 133 publications focusing on Asia, 87 on Europe, 36 on South America, 4 on North America, and 3 on Africa, along with 2 articles that adopt a global perspective. The trends over time are as follows:

  • Europe shows the most consistent publication activity. However, we find a gap between 1986 and 2000, with only 9 articles being published in this period.

  • Asia demonstrates an emerging trend. Before 2011, we find only 15 publications, which is relatively low compared to Europe. Since then, however, a substantial number of articles have been published. In the full-text review, we identify a remarkably high number of studies with similar methodological approaches despite having different spatial foci.

  • South America has fewer published articles compared to Europe and Asia, though an increase in publication density occurres at the beginning of the 2000s.

  • North America, Africa, and global perspectives appear sporadically and infrequently over time, and, therefore, no specific trend or regularity can be identified.

For several decades, the academic debate on mountain settlement systems has focused predominantly on European contexts, characterized by a modest level of intensity. In recent years, however, the discussion has become much livelier because of a significant number of contributions on mountain regions in Asia. This is in line with the economic dynamics in Asia, accompanied by an expansion of the academic sector across the continent.

The relative scarcity of publications on mountain settlement systems in South America is surprising, given the large number of important cities in the Andes. Even more striking is the dearth of research on settlement systems in North America, as both the United States and Canada have mountain cities and towns that play a significant role in regional development. However, it should be noted that in the full-text review, we had to exclude many South and North American publications on single mountain cities that did not focus specifically on settlement system research.

Thematic development and trends

Figure 4 visualizes the thematic development and overarching trends in research on mountain settlement systems. This overview includes 264 publications and a total of 706 thematic code assignments—one article could have up to 12 thematic foci. Most publications have 1–7 code classifications, and, on average, we found 2.6 thematic codes per article.

FIGURE 4

Thematic distribution of papers on mountain settlement systems over time (1976–2023). (Data source: Scopus and Web of Science, 2024)

img-z6-2_A1.jpg

The results can be grouped into 3 categories. First, we identify thematic fields of continuous interest over time. In particular, the topics of “demographic development and migration patterns,” “economic development,” “archaeological settlement patterns,” “transport and mobility,” and “topographic implications” show a constant publication intensity from the 1970s to 2023. In this group, socioeconomic topics are the most assigned.

In the second category, we identify topics with increasing interest over time. Specifically, the research fields of “urbanization dynamics,” “governance, politics, and planning,” “centrality and functions,” “green and blue infrastructure,” and “touristic implications” show increasing publication relevance over time, becoming more prominent in the last decade. The field of “urbanization dynamics,” with a specific focus on mountain settlement systems, is, by far, the research topic that increases the most (primarily from Asian affiliations), with a total of 169 code assignments.

Third, we detect a group of emerging topics. The research fields of “spatial monitoring, methods, and new data” and “housing and real estate” are not covered in research on mountain settlement systems before the 2000s. However, with 25 hits in 2023, “spatial monitoring, methods, and new data” has the highest number of code assignments for a single year. The reasons for the emergence of new topics or increased interest in this vein could be both scientific (eg data availability or paradigmatic changes) and de facto dynamic (eg social and political trends).

Geographical patterns and thematic foci

Figure 5 illustrates the geographical publication patterns and thematic foci for all continents (excluding Antarctica), as well as those with a global perspective. The map shows the IPCC high mountain regions in dark gray (Körner et al 2017, Payne and Snethlage, 2018). The pie charts illustrate the shares of the main topics addressed in the research articles.

FIGURE 5

Thematic and spatial distribution of research on settlement systems in mountain regions (1976–2023). (Map by Dominik Bertram, Markus Lambracht, and Tobias Chilla)

img-z7-2_A1.jpg

Research on mountain regions in Asia has the highest number of code assignments, with a total of 327, followed by those in Europe (n = 250) and South America (n = 99). Publications on African (n = 10) and North American (n = 11) mountain settlement systems, as well as articles with a global perspective (n = 9), have substantially fewer thematic assignments.

Overall, the research fields of “urbanization dynamics,” “economic development,” “demographic development and migration patterns,” and “spatial monitoring, methods, and new data” are the dominant thematic foci of research dealing with mountain settlement systems. However, some of the differences between mountain regions warrant further discussion.

First, research on “green and blue infrastructure” from the perspective of settlement systems is not particularly prominent in Europe. We find this surprising, given the high number of Alpine towns and the general debate on ecological connectivity, climate change adaptation, and disaster risk reduction. This observation suggests that settlement systems have not been significantly included in this debate, which may instead have a more ecological focus.

Second, “governance, politics, and planning” is high on the agenda in mountain regions across contexts. This finding suggests the relevance of mountain-specific settlement issues that are difficult to resolve at the local or regional level. Comparative global studies focusing on common challenges could be a fruitful avenue for further research in this regard.

Finally, although the focus on “centrality and functions” is fairly sparse across contexts, it remains comparatively similar in European, Asian, and South American mountain regions. The provision of essential services in mountain areas is not a prominent issue of this debate.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that research on mountain settlement systems remains a relatively niche topic. The number of publications in the global discourse is rather limited, with 264 articles published in nearly 50 years of research. However, we find a modest level of interest, primarily in Europe and, increasingly, in Asia. Nevertheless, there are still several significant research gaps regarding sustainable spatial development in mountain regions. We argue that future research agendas should take into account the following 3 potential factors.

First, our findings illustrate a thematically selective debate on mountain settlement systems. Our results show emerging topics, such as innovative methods for spatial monitoring, and topics of increasing interest, such as general urbanization dynamics. Moreover, some fields of research have met with continuous interest over time, such as socioeconomic development. In these articles, demographic and migration processes, economic transformation, and urban sprawl are the most prominent topics, leaving many other areas substantially underrepresented. Although research on housing and real estate (eg second homes and amenity migration) is an emerging topic, the total number of publications in this field remains low. Tourism, which is highly relevant for mountain spatial development, also shows increasing interest, but the overall publication density is still limited. The same applies to governance, centrality, and environmental issues. It is striking that topics like transport, accessibility, and morphological patterns do not factor more heavily into academic discussions, as these areas provide fundamental arguments for the organization of mountain settlement systems. From our point of view, articles on centrality based on functional arguments, such as transport and mobility analysis, and articles dealing with elevation and steepness are lacking in academic debates. As sustainable spatial development requires integrated approaches, the combination of sectoral issues with research on mountain settlement systems has a high potential on future research agendas.

Second, the potential of increased data availability and methodological innovation has not yet been fully realized. Although the monitoring of land use dynamics has become increasingly common, especially in Asian mountain regions, the focus has primarily been on describing the urban expansion of land use rather than investigating the functional dynamics within settlement systems. If one agrees that settlement systems are key to sustainable spatial development, then the potential for scientific reflection is significant. Future research could benefit from applying existing innovative methods in functional analyses.

Third, geographical foci have been selective, with a clear priority on European and, increasingly, Asian mountain settlement systems. Moreover, the near absence of comprehensive settlement systems in large mountain regions (eg the European Alps, the Andes, and the HKH region) from the academic debate in general and for certain thematic issues in particular is striking. This selective geographical focus has been mostly accompanied by a case study approach, which, in turn, leaves room for comparative studies, meta-analyses, and further systematic reflections.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Elias Günther, Hannah Paul, Anna Pilar, Niklas Vogel, and Theresa Wein for their support during the scoping review. We also thank the reviewers for their constructive comments, which significantly improved our article.

© 2024 Bertram et al.

This open access article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please credit the authors and the full source.

OPEN PEER REVIEW

This article was reviewed by Elisa Ravazzoli and a second reviewer who preferred to keep the review double blind. The peer review process for MountainAgenda articles is normally open. In shaping target knowledge, values are explicitly at stake. An open review process offers authors and reviewers the opportunity to engage in a discussion about these values.

REFERENCES

1.

Adler C, Wester P, Bhatt I, Huggel C, Insarov GE, Morecroft MD, Muccione V, Prakash A . 2022. Cross-chapter paper 5: Mountains. In: Pörtner HO, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, Craig M, Langsdorf S, Löschke S, Möller V, et al, editors. Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp 2273–2318.  https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.022Google Scholar

2.

Bätzing W, Perlik M, Dekleva M. 1996. Urbanization and depopulation in the Alps. Mountain Research and Development 16(4):335–350.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3673985Google Scholar

3.

Bertram D, Chilla T . 2023. Polycentricity and accessibility in mountain areas: The Alpine case. European Planning Studies 31(12):2425–2445.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2145874Google Scholar

4.

Bertram D, Chilla T, Hippe S . 2023. Cross-border mobility: Rail or road? Space-time-lines as an evidence base for policy debates. Journal of Borderlands Studies 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2023.2249917Google Scholar

5.

Bertram D, Chilla T, Lambracht M . 2023. The Alpine settlement system: Capturing relevance beyond size. Journal of Maps 19(1):2164229.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2022.2164229Google Scholar

6.

Bibri SE, Krogstie J, Kärrholm M. 2020. Compact city planning and development: Emerging practices and strategies for achieving the goals of sustainability. Developments in the Built Environment 4:100021.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2020.100021Google Scholar

7.

Bole D, Nared J, Zorn M . 2016. Small urban centers in the Alps and their development issues. In: Zhelezov G, editor. Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions: Southeastern Europe. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp 265–279.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20110-8_18Google Scholar

8.

Borsdorf A. 1978. Population growth and urbanization in Latin America: Some comments on demographic development and urban structural change. GeoJournal 2:47–60.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00212577Google Scholar

9.

Brighenti AM. 2013. The urban fringe as a territorial interstice: On Alpine suburbs. In: Brighenti AM, editor. Urban Interstices: The Aesthetics and the Politics of the In-between. London, United Kingdom: Routledge, pp 163–182. Google Scholar

10.

Bura S, Guérin-Pace F, Mathian H, Pumain D, Sanders L. 1996. Multiagent systems and the dynamics of a settlement system. Geographical Analysis 28(2):161–178.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1996.tb00927.xGoogle Scholar

11.

Burger MJ, Van Der Knaap B, Wall RS . 2014. Polycentricity and the multiplexity of urban networks. European Planning Studies 22(4):816–840.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.771619Google Scholar

12.

Casali Y, Aydin NY, Comes T . 2022. Machine learning for spatial analyses in urban areas: A scoping review. Sustainable Cities and Society 85:104050.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104050Google Scholar

13.

Chilla T, Bertram D, Lambracht M . 2022. Alpine Towns—Key to Sustainable Development in the Alpine Region. Part 1: Facts, Maps and Scientific Debates. 9th Report on the State of the Alps. Erlangen, Germany: Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.  https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36022.98880/1Google Scholar

14.

Chilla T, Heugel A . 2022. Cross-border commuting dynamics: Patterns and driving forces in the Alpine macro-region. Journal of Borderlands Studies 37(1):17–35.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2019.1700822Google Scholar

15.

Chilla T, Streifeneder T . 2018. Interrelational space? The spatial logic of the macro-regional strategy for the Alps and its potentials. European Planning Studies 26(12):2470–2489.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1532493Google Scholar

16.

Christaller W. 1933. Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland. Eine ökonomischgeographische Untersuchung über die Gesetzmäßigkeit der Verbreitung und Entwicklung der Siedlungen mit städtischer Funktion. Jena, Germany: Gustav Fischer Verlag. Google Scholar

17.

Dematteis G. 2009. Polycentric urban regions in the alpine space. Urban Research & Practice 2(1):18–35.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17535060902727017Google Scholar

18.

Dematteis G. 2018. The alpine metropolitan-mountain faced with global challenges. Reflections on the case of Turin. Journal of Alpine Research, Revue de géographie alpine 106:2.  https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.4402Google Scholar

19.

Dodman D, Hayward B, Pelling M, Castan Broto V, Chow W, Chu E, Dawson R, Khirfan L, McPhearson T, Prakash A , et al. 2022. Cities, settlements and key infrastructure. In: Pörtner HO, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, Craig M, Langsdorf S, Löschke S, Möller V, et al, editors. Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp 907–1040.  https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.008Google Scholar

20.

Grant MJ, Booth A . 2009. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal 26(2):91–108.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.xGoogle Scholar

21.

Gurgiser W, Price MF, Juen IF, Körner C, Bahn M, Gems B, Meyer M, Nicolussi K, Tappeiner U, Mayr S. 2022. Rising slopes—Bibliometrics of mountain research 1900–2019. PLoS ONE 17(8):e0273421.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273421Google Scholar

22.

Gusenbauer M, Haddaway NR . 2020. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods 11(2):181–217.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378Google Scholar

23.

Haller A, Branca D . 2023. Urbanization and the verticality of rural–urban linkages in mountains. In: Sarmiento FO, editor. Montology Palimpsest: A Primer of Mountain Geographies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp 133–148.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13298-8_8Google Scholar

24.

Harbiankova A, Scherbina E . 2021. Evaluation model for sustainable development of settlement system. Sustainability 13(21):11778.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111778Google Scholar

25.

Hock R, Rasul G, Adler C, Cáceres B, Gruber S, Hirabayashi Y, Jackson M, Kääb A, Kang S, Kutuzov S, et al. 2019. High mountain areas. In: Pörtner HO, Roberts DC, Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Tignor M, Poloczanska E, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, Nicolai M, Okem A, et al, editors. The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], pp 131–202.  https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964.004Google Scholar

26.

Jerves-Cobo R, Benedetti L, Amerlinck Y, Lock K, De Mulder C, Van Butsel J, Cisneros F, Goethals P, Nopens I . 2020. Integrated ecological modelling for evidence-based determination of water management interventions in urbanized river basins: Case study in the Cuenca River basin (Ecuador). Science of the Total Environment 709:136067.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136067Google Scholar

27.

Job H, Meyer C, Coronado O, Koblar S, Laner P, Omizzolo A, Plassmann G, Riedler W, Vesely P, Schindelegger A . 2022. Open spaces in the European Alps—GISbased analysis and implications for spatial planning from a transnational perspective. Land 11:1605.  https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091605Google Scholar

28.

Kohler T, Balsiger J, Rudaz G, Debarbieux B, Pratt D, Maselli D . 2015. Green Economy and Institutions for Sustainable Mountain Development: From Rio 1992 to Rio 2012 and Beyond. Bern, Switzerland: CDE [Centre for Development and Environment], SDC [Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation], University of Geneva and Geographica Bernensia .  https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.70417Google Scholar

29.

Körner C, Jetz W, Paulsen J, Payne D, Rudmann-Maurer K, Spehn EM. 2017. A global inventory of mountains for bio-geographical applications. Alpine Botany 127(1):1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00035-016-0182-6Google Scholar

30.

Lambracht M. 2024. Spatial development in the European Alps: Topographic potential area as a basic indicator for policy debates. Papers in Applied Geography 10(1):81–88.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23754931.2023.2264289Google Scholar

31.

Li T, Guo Z, Ma C . 2022. Dynamic characteristics of urbanization based on nighttime light data in China's “Plain–Mountain Transition Zone.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(15):9230.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159230Google Scholar

32.

Liu Y, Fan P, Yue W, Huang J, Li D, Tian Z . 2019. Assessing polycentric urban development in mountainous cities: The case of Chongqing Metropolitan Area, China. Sustainability 11(10):2790.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102790Google Scholar

33.

Mayring P, Fenzl T . 2019. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Baur N, Blasius J, editors. Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer, pp 633–648. Google Scholar

34.

McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK . 2008. The use of gradient analysis studies in advancing our understanding of the ecology of urbanizing landscapes: Current status and future directions. Landscape Ecology 23:1143–1155.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9253-4Google Scholar

35.

Meijers E. 2008. Measuring polycentricity and its promises. European Planning Studies 16(9):1313–1323.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310802401805Google Scholar

36.

Meijers E, Burger MJ . 2017. Stretching the concept of ‘borrowed size.’ Urban Studies 54(1):269–291.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015597642Google Scholar

37.

Möck M, Küpper P. 2020. Polycentricity at its boundaries: Consistent or ambiguous? European Planning Studies 28(4):830–849.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1666802Google Scholar

38.

Munn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E . 2018. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 18:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-xGoogle Scholar

39.

Öncü MA, Somuncu M, Güney I, ̇ Perlik M. 2023. Rural and alpine gentrification impact on lifestyle mobilities during Covid-19: The Yayla experience at the Taurus mountains in Turkey. European Countryside 15(2):259–280.  https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2023-0014Google Scholar

40.

Ortman SG, Davis KE, Lobo J, Smith ME, Bettencourt LM, Trumbo A . 2016. Settlement scaling and economic change in the Central Andes. Journal of Archaeological Science 73:94–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.07.012Google Scholar

41.

Payne D, Snethlage MA . 2018. GMBA mountain inventory_V1.2. dataset. Bern, Switzerland: BORIS [Bern Open Repository and Information System].  https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.106896Google Scholar

42.

Peng J, Du Y, Liu Y, Hu X . 2016. How to assess urban development potential in mountain areas? An approach of ecological carrying capacity in the view of coupled human and natural systems. Ecological Indicators 60:1017–1030.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.008Google Scholar

43.

Perlik M, Messerli P . 2004. Urban strategies and regional development in the Alps. Mountain Research and Development 24(3):215–219.  https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2004)024[0215:USARDI]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar

44.

Perlik M, Messerli P, Bätzing W. 2001. Towns in the Alps: Urbanization processes, economic structure, and demarcation of European functional urban areas (EFUAs) in the Alps. Mountain Research and Development 21(3):243–252.  https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2001)021[0243:TITA]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar

45.

Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB . 2015. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 13:141–146.  https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000050Google Scholar

46.

Poudel DP, Blackburn S, Manandhar R, Adhikari B, Ensor J, Shrestha A, Timsina NP . 2023. The urban political ecology of ‘haphazard urbanisation’ and disaster risk creation in the Kathmandu valley, Nepal. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 96:103924.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103924Google Scholar

47.

Price MF, Gurgiser W, Juen I, Adler C, von Dach SW, Kaser G, Mayr S . 2022. The International Mountain Conference, Innsbruck, Austria, September 2019 (IMC2019): A synthesis with recommendations for research. Mountain Research and Development 42(1):A1–A16.  https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-2100027.1Google Scholar

48.

Pumain D. 2000. Settlement systems in the evolution. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 82(2):73–87.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.04353684.2000.00075.xGoogle Scholar

49.

Romero H, Ordenes F . 2004. Emerging urbanization in the Southern Andes: Environmental impacts of urban sprawl in Santiago de Chile on the Andean piedmont. Mountain Research and Development 24(3):197–201.  https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2004)024[0197:EUITSA]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar

50.

Singh VK, Singh P, Karmakar M, Leta J, Mayr P . 2021. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 126:5113–5142.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5Google Scholar

51.

Singh S, Tanvir Hassan SM, Hassan M, Bharti N . 2020. Urbanisation and water insecurity in the Hindu Kush Himalaya: Insights from Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan. Water Policy 22(S1):9–32.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2019.215Google Scholar

52.

Sutton J, Arcidiacono A, Torrisi G, Arku RN . 2023. Regional economic resilience: A scoping review. Progress in Human Geography 47(4):500–532.  https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325231174183Google Scholar

53.

Tischler S, Mailer M . 2014. Sustainable mobility and living in alpine metropolitan regions. Transportation Research Procedia 4:140–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.11.012Google Scholar

54.

Torricelli GP. 2001. Structural changes and organization of mountainous territories: The case of Switzerland [in French with English abstract]. L'Espace geographique 30(4):333–347.  https://doi.org/10.3917/eg.304.0333Google Scholar

55.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, Levac D, Ng C, Sharpe JP, Wilson K , et al. 2016. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 16:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4Google Scholar

56.

Vaz DM, Matos MJ . 2015. Regional polycentrism in a mountainous territory: The case of Covilhã (Portugal) and Alpine cities. European Planning Studies 23(2):379–397.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.865711Google Scholar

57.

Wang Y, Liao J, He Y, Chen P . 2022. Evolution and ecological implications of land development and conservation patterns on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Land 11(10):1797.  https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101797Google Scholar

58.

Wang K, Ma H, Fang C . 2023. The relationship evolution between urbanization and urban ecological resilience in the Northern Slope Economic Belt of Tianshan Mountains, China. Sustainable Cities and Society 97:104783.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104783Google Scholar

59.

Ziwei D, Jinling Z, Xu Z, Reji Q . 2022. Analysis of time–space dynamic simulation on urban expansion in mountainous area based on the weight-CA model. Advances in Space Research 70(10):3107–3121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.07.061Google Scholar
Dominik Bertram, Markus Lambracht, and Tobias Chilla "Settlement Systems in Mountain Regions: A Research Gap?," Mountain Research and Development 44(2), A1-A9, (1 August 2024). https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.2023.00021
Received: 6 May 2024; Accepted: 14 June 2024; Published: 1 August 2024
KEYWORDS
montology
mountain geographies.
mountain research
Research agenda
scoping review
urbanization
Back to Top