Next Article in Journal
Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence Practices in the Teaching of Social Sciences: A Multi-Complementary Research Approach on Pre-School Education
Next Article in Special Issue
Thermal Regime Characteristics of Alpine Springs in the Marginal Periglacial Environment of the Southern Carpathians
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Heritage Planning for Urban Mass Tourism and Rural Abandonment: An Integrated Approach to the Safranbolu–Amasra Eco-Cultural Route
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Heavy Metal Contamination of Seawater and Sediments Along the Romanian Black Sea Coast: Spatial Distribution and Environmental Implications
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 7
10.3390/su17073156
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Perspective

Balancing Development and Sustainability: Lessons from Roadbuilding in Mountainous Asia

by
Roy C. Sidle
1,* and
Alan D. Ziegler
2,3
1
Mountain Societies Research Institute, University of Central Asia, 155Q Imatsho Street, Khorog 736000, GBAO, Tajikistan
2
Faculty of Fisheries Technology and Aquatic Resources, Maejo University, Chiang Mai 50290, Thailand
3
Andaman Coastal Research Station for Development, Kasetsart University, Ranong 85120, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(7), 3156; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073156
Submission received: 2 January 2025 / Revised: 6 March 2025 / Accepted: 31 March 2025 / Published: 2 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Protection and Sustainable Ecological Engineering)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Managing land-use activities sustainably in mountainous regions requires addressing the interconnected impacts of geophysical, socioeconomic, cultural, and geopolitical stressors. This complexity is exemplified in roadbuilding across highland Asia, where insufficient planning, incomplete environmental impact assessments (EIAs), and governance gaps often result in lasting “toeprints”—subtle yet significant unintended consequences. Drawing on specific case studies within Yunnan, China; Central Asia’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI); and the Kedarnath Disaster in India, this perspective highlights the risks of rapid infrastructure development without holistic, long-term planning and explores the underlying issues of these problems. While mountain roads enhance connectivity, mobility, and short-term economic prosperity, they frequently impose environmental and social costs that offset their intended benefits. Poorly designed roads in the mountains of northwest Yunnan and Central Asia have triggered landslides, sedimentation, habitat fragmentation, and disruptions to local livelihoods and cultural practices. In contrast, road improvements to the remote Kedarnath Temple in the Himalaya led to the overcrowding of religious pilgrims who were killed and stranded during a major flood and sediment disaster in 2013. These case studies emphasize the need for transdisciplinary research, community engagement, and regulatory frameworks that integrate disaster risk reduction, climate resilience, and sustainability for the benefit of all stakeholders. By aligning infrastructure projects with robust planning frameworks, development practitioners and policymakers can better balance economic, environmental, and social priorities, minimizing unintended impacts while fostering resilient and equitable outcomes in fragile mountain landscapes.

1. Introduction

Sustainably utilizing the planet’s resources while promoting development and safeguarding environmental and human systems requires a thorough examination of the consequences of anthropogenic activities and geophysical processes across broad spatial scales and extended timeframes [1]. Sustainable development, whether applied to roadbuilding (the focus of this perspective), energy, food security, forest management, or other sectors, involves meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Yet even well-intentioned projects frequently yield unintended consequences. We refer to these subtle consequences as “toeprints”, which must be considered when evaluating the success of broader development projects. To truly achieve sustainability, assessments must look beyond immediate and obvious effects to account for broader environmental, social, and economic dimensions, providing a comprehensive understanding of long-term negative implications [2,3].
Using a historical example to frame the issue, the failure to consider “cumulative impacts” is evident in the management of forest and aquatic ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest of Canada and the USA [4]. During the 1960s, forest-harvesting practices deposited excessive logging slash into streams, prompting debris removal projects to restore natural stream conditions [5]. By the 1980s, aquatic ecologists and fisheries biologists recognized the importance of woody debris in creating habitats for fish and macroinvertebrates, storing sediment, and enhancing channel diversity [6,7]. This realization led to an overcorrection: logs were reintroduced and secured with cables to “rehabilitate” streams [8]; however, large storms often dislodged the anchored logs, exacerbating downstream flood damage [9].
Meanwhile, these interventions largely overlooked the broader impacts of logging road infrastructure [10]. Road and trail systems greatly increased the efficiency and profitability of logging, an overwhelming positive aspect, yet triggered unprecedented levels of surface erosion and landslides on hillslopes [11,12]. These hazards contributed substantial sediment to streams, significantly altering fish habitats and channel structures [13,14]. This cascade of unintended consequences underscores the need for holistic planning that addresses both immediate and long-term impacts across interconnected systems. While best management practices in steep-slope logging are advancing [15,16], balancing private versus public outcomes, they are often not followed in locations without strong governance and dedication to balancing economic and sustainability objectives.
Ongoing mountain road planning and construction provide a contemporary lens for examining the complexities in the continuum of development to sustainability objectives. Histories of roadbuilding often reveal not only direct impacts, both good and bad, but also the broader, often unintended consequences that ripple through environmental, social, and economic systems [17]. Despite the long-standing awareness of the negative impacts of mountain road building [11,18], the persistence of poor practices combined with rapid development—even in remote areas—necessitates revisiting these issues [19,20]. This renewed focus is critical for fostering sustainable approaches that avoid repeating past mistakes, not only for sustainable road building but also for any development objective [21].
In this perspective, we examine three examples from mountainous Asia where development initiatives lacked comprehensive forethought to avoid negative outcomes. The three cases, all from developing mountain regions where the authors have worked, include (1) mountain road development and expansion in northwestern Yunnan, China; (2) the One Belt One Road initiative in Central Asia; and (3) the 2013 Kedarnath disaster in the Indian Himalaya. Emerging and often unpredictable economies and geopolitical priorities in these areas have heightened pressures to develop road infrastructure without adequately considering broader perspectives, such as inherent natural hazards [17,22].
Herein, we extract common challenges and identify opportunities for advancing sustainable road design as pressures on mountain landscapes intensify, climate variability increases, and the Anthropocene unfolds. While these overall areas have diverse spatial footprints, we take a more nuanced approach in the discussion of each case study to assess specific anthropogenic practices that contribute to environmental problems with suggestions for amelioration. As such, the case studies represent good examples to examine, recognizing many other examples exist elsewhere.

2. Case Studies

2.1. Mountain Road Development in Northwest Yunnan, China

Northwestern Yunnan Province, nestled within the steep Hengduan Mountains, features three iconic river gorges that have shaped its rugged terrain and history. In the early 20th century, transportation was primarily limited to foot and mule traffic along narrow paths carved into hillslopes, including the “Yunnan-Burma Road” used by the military [23] and the historic “Ancient Tea and Horse Caravan” trade route through Tibet to Nepal and India [24]. These precarious routes were frequently plagued by landslides [25].
Efforts to expand road networks in the 1980s and 1990s, aimed at boosting market development and tourism in areas like the Leaping Gorge, exacerbated these geophysical hazards, with poorly planned construction triggering widespread erosion and destabilizing slopes, leading to significant environmental degradation [26]. In such cases, competing prefectures have pushed road development to gain financial advantage of the unsustainable tourism [26]. An inventory of road development from 1989 to 2005 in the Three Parallel Rivers Region, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in northwest Yunnan, revealed that the overall regional road length increased by 63.7% with by far the greatest increase in road density occurring in rural areas [27]. While this study briefly acknowledged balancing economic development with environmental conservation, the economic analysis showed that the highest priority for road development was in rural mountain areas. Others have noted that such rural roads improve access to off-farm employment, reduce poverty, and increase educational opportunities [28]. More recently, calls have been made to increase rural roads in Yunnan based on economic and social development and improve linkages with the Belt and Road Initiative, echoing the old Chinese proverb “if you want to get rich, build roads first” [29]. Geopolitics in the region has also affected road expansion by enhancing Chinese trade with neighboring Southeast Asia nations and the lesser-mentioned military security issues [30].
The expansion of road infrastructure in northwest Yunnan has been heavily financed by international organizations, including the Asian Development Bank, World Bank, and FAO, alongside NGOs. While also intended to improve livelihoods, market access, and tourism, these projects often have environmental and social costs that undermine their goals [26,31,32,33,34]. These roads, though strategically valuable for hydropower development, agricultural intensification, emergency evacuation, market access, and national defense [35,36], come with substantial environmental trade-offs.
The “Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas” encompasses the Salween, Mekong, and upper Yangtze rivers that carve their way through steep gorges confined within a corridor less than 100 km wide. This UNESCO World Heritage Site is celebrated for its geological, geomorphic, ecological, and biodiversity significance (Figure 1b). These unique landscapes justified the region’s UNESCO designation but underscore the challenges of balancing environmental preservation with the pressures of infrastructure development. Given the rapid expansion of rural road networks in this mountainous region during recent decades, including the conversion of traditional foot trails and mule tracks into wider roads deeply cut into unstable hillslopes, environmental risks have intensified (Figure 1a), suggesting that the potential for environmental degradation needs to be assessed alongside the economic and connectivity benefits of these networks. Increased occurrences of hazards as well as ecosystem and societal disruptions illustrate the persistent risks of developing infrastructure in such geologically fragile regions.
Research in the Salween and Mekong basins has documented the severe impacts of poorly located roads in steep terrain. For example, landslide erosion along heavily disturbed road corridors has been measured at rates ranging from 33,000 to 48,000 Mg ha−1 yr−1. While more landslides occurred on road cutslopes than fillslopes in both basins, landslide rates from fillslopes were higher compared to cutslopes in both the Mekong (1355–32,960 Mg ha−1 yr−1 versus 78–1403 Mg ha−1 yr−1) and Salween (252–43,789 Mg ha−1 yr−1 versus 98–11,643 Mg ha−1 yr−1) [37,38]. An estimated 46% to 86% of eroded materials from these fillslopes directly entered streams (Figure 1c,d) [37,38]. This sedimentation not only disrupts aquatic habitats but also threatens downstream ecosystems and communities, highlighting the unsustainable nature of such road projects.
A partially completed road along the Salween River, intended to connect a mountain village near Daxingxi, was abandoned due to recurring landslides, leaving a legacy of river degradation (Figure 1d). Other environmental impacts in the region include habitat loss [26], reduced habitat connectivity for wildlife [39], and fragmented landscapes [40]. These examples highlight the long-term ecological costs of poorly planned road projects in fragile mountain environments.
The cumulative impacts of roadbuilding in northwest Yunnan reveal the limitations of narrowly focused sustainability objectives. The touted benefits of mountain roads, such as enhanced livelihoods, economic connectivity, and tourism, become questionable when weighed against their environmental toll. This is especially true for roads constructed on steep or unstable terrain without proper planning. A sustainability decision analysis framework for road development could mitigate these issues by improving secondary road placement and construction practices. Such an approach would shift the focus from creating unsustainable “toeprints” to fostering more effective land management and better functionality and integration of the road network within the region [38].
However, implementing sustainable roadbuilding practices faces significant challenges. Zhang [41] found that while an indicator-based model for assessing highway sustainability in Yunnan is conceptually robust, it is hindered by practical barriers such as inadequate local data, divergent stakeholder views, bureaucratic inefficiencies, limited resources, and the complexity of balancing development goals with environmental and social concerns. Overcoming these obstacles requires a transdisciplinary approach that integrates geophysical, ecological, and socio-economic perspectives to develop more comprehensive and actionable sustainability strategies with due attention to actively engage and coordinate both governmental and local priorities. Better planning of emerging mountain roads is essential, including a long-term focus on multiuse roads, improving alignment to avoid wet and unstable sites if feasible, and locating roads along ridgelines and in valley bottoms (if possible), thus avoiding unstable mid-slope locations (Table 1). Better construction practices, such as avoiding blasting and excavation into unstable substrates, placing excavated materials in stable sites, and providing efficient road drainage that does not direct runoff onto unstable slopes, will (1) reduce landslides and surface erosion, (2) improve water quality and aquatic habitat, (3) reduce future road maintenance and blockages, and (4) mitigate international down-river impacts.

2.2. The One Belt One Road Initiative in Central Asia

Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan play vital roles in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) launched by China in 2013, also known as “One Belt One Road”, which is being implemented to support China’s economic development [17,42]. This project seeks to boost global connectivity and cooperation, offering substantial opportunities for trade, investment, and poverty reduction among its partners (Figure 2).
This initiative encompasses an extensive network of roads across 65 countries, including critical corridors within mountainous Central Asia where much of the planned road development aligns with the ancient Silk Road routes, leading to frequent reference as the “New Silk Road”. The BRI is expected to open new corridors for economic development and natural resource extraction and link remote villages to social services and economic hubs. Lying strategically at the intersection of the Pamir, Karakoram, Hindu Kush, and Tien Shan ranges, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan stand to gain economically, at least in the short term, from the new infrastructure. Upgrading existing roads and building new roads in this mountainous region provide improved access to markets, medical supplies, and emergency evacuations. However, despite being touted by various international organizations, donors, and NGOs, issues related to the long-term sustainability of these road systems have largely gone unnoticed [43].
While China promotes the BRI project as green and sustainable, better participation and alignment with the goals of partner nations are needed to minimize the negative impacts [44]. Some have argued that the economic focus of the more than USD 4 trillion BRI has largely overlooked regional environmental trade agreements and impact assessments [45,46]. Concerns have also been raised about the lack of local employment opportunities, the forfeiture of mining and land rights, debt dependency, the disruption of traditional land management practices, and passive quid pro quo of Chinese policies by Central Asian governments [42] (Figure 2; Table 1).
Many environmental consequences of the BRI expansion through sensitive mountainous terrain are often ignored by supporters of the initiative, and when they are discussed, the focus tends to be on air quality, biodiversity loss, protection of indigenous areas, and local pollution [45,47]. A consideration of the impact of road corridors on mountain hazards and the resulting risks to travelers, downslope communities, and water resources is missing—hazards that represent some of the most formidable challenges to sustainable development in poor mountain regions (Table 1).
Thus, a critical issue is the nexus among mountain roads, people, and environmental hazards, especially when weighed against the short-term economic gains of BRI development, which are not equitably distributed amongst the affected population [48]. Geohazards along mountain roads in the Pamir and Tien Shan include landslides, debris flows, snow avalanches, and rockfalls, which can block roads, injure or kill travelers, and cause infrastructure damage [49,50].
A recent example is a widened road along the Panj River in Afghanistan that is already experiencing a full array of hazards, periodically blocking the road, posing difficulties for travelers and risking the total obliteration of the road (lower right photo in Figure 2). Additionally, mountain roads affect the local ecology by creating edge effects, harming native plants and animals, and fragmenting habitats [51]. The effects of these potential toeprints on Central Asia mountain landscapes and people have not been thoroughly assessed.
Another contentious aspect of the BRI is the likelihood that the development of poorly located and constructed spur roads off the main roads will increase encroachment into areas that previously experienced few anthropogenic impacts [42,50] (Figure 2). Increased road density can lead to the transformation or elimination of traditional cultivation systems in rural uplands and contribute to deforestation and land exploitation in remote regions [52,53]. Furthermore, such roads require ongoing maintenance and repair but often lack funding because they fall outside of the main initiatives of the BRI—an issue that proliferates across time and space. Well-located and well-designed spur roads could provide valuable access routes for mountain residents, but funding for such low-volume roads is not available nor in the BRI plans.
To enhance the sustainability and function of new mountain roads in this region, best management practices for road location and construction need to be employed (Table 1). This represents a “tall order” in a region with little government support and a BRI that is not focused on environmental sustainability. Using existing hazard assessments and models can help prioritize problem areas along proposed road corridors that need to be avoided or mitigated. Furthermore, spur roads built into remote mountain areas must be carefully located and designed to primarily serve residents, not constructed for the benefit of international operators extracting natural resources (Table 1).
The BRI has also exerted adverse impacts in local regions of China, particularly in Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture in southern Yunnan. The so-called ‘hybridized BRI poverty reduction program’ has accelerated urban development [54], but land use in the surrounding mountainous areas, dominated by rubber plantations on steep terraced hillsides and rice paddies on gentler slopes, has seen little change [55]. In mountain villages like Bashayicun and Mandian, residents have not reaped the benefits from this infrastructure development, and existing roads and trails remain in a poor condition and are vulnerable to erosion and instability.
Large-scale international projects like the BRI, coupled with the allure of economic opportunities in the rapidly growing metropolis of Jinghong, have driven rural–urban migration, leaving fewer people to maintain the extensive rubber plantations and local infrastructure [56]. As a result, China’s anti-poverty campaign, though promoted as a path to sustainable development in Xishuangbanna [54], appears to be undermining the wider environment and negatively impacting emerging sectors like ecotourism as well as the livelihoods of poor ethnic communities. To ensure the BRI truly fosters sustainable development, it is imperative to balance short-term economic gains with comprehensive environmental and social assessments, addressing the intricate interplay amongst infrastructure, natural hazards, and local communities while prioritizing equitable and long-term benefits for all stakeholders involved.

2.3. The Kedarnath Disaster: Road Development and Risk

Road building in remote rural areas of the Himalayas is often intended to improve livelihoods by reducing transportation costs and fostering new business ventures [57]. However, the convergence of mountain road development, human activities, and natural hazards create significant risks and exacerbate various insecurities in the absence of careful planning [58]. This dynamic is tragically exemplified by the devastating events surrounding the 2013 Kedarnath disaster in Uttarakhand, India [59,60].
In June 2013, a multi-day “cloudburst” triggered flash floods and cascading hazards in Uttarakhand, killing thousands of religious tourists and their support staff on pilgrimage to the Kedarnath Temple. The intense rainfall, exceeding 300 mm in a 24 h period, combined with snowmelt to produce cascading hazards in the Mandakini Catchment [61]. Swollen with debris from landslides, the river surged through the region, collapsing riverbanks and dragging vehicles, buildings, and people into floodwaters [62,63,64]. In the aftermath, approximately 70,000 tourists and 100,000 locals were stranded in the complex, high-altitude terrain, with limited resources and exposure to ongoing hazards [65].
The disaster was particularly deadly due to improved road networks that made the pilgrimage route more accessible, drawing thousands of tourists into a hazardous area where only the most prepared could venture before. This accessibility, while economically beneficial, amplified the disaster’s scale by concentrating unprepared travelers in a high-risk environment. Specifically, the tragedy highlights the lack of early warning systems and risk reduction measures alongside the dangers of over-commercialization in environments where roads and tourism exacerbate vulnerability [66]. Despite known hazardous conditions, unsustainable tourism growth turned the situation into one of the worst hydrological disasters in the Himalayas [63]. While tourism initially declined post-disaster, it surged to more than a million visitors by 2019, driven by efforts to rebuild and expand infrastructure for revenue restoration [67,68,69]. However, this short-sighted focus on economic recovery ignored underlying vulnerabilities, leading to further environmental degradation and increased risk, with improved roads providing easy access to once-remote areas [68,69,70].
The disaster illustrates how road building and tourism intensify hazard risk when underlying social, political, and economic factors are overlooked. Viewing disasters as isolated, unpredictable events undermines the need for integrated development and risk assessment plans [60]. Institutional and individual perceptions of risk are crucial for disaster prevention, yet extreme events are often underestimated, especially when perceived as rare [66]. Political risks and financial constraints frequently drive decision-making, resulting in a short-term ‘gambling’ approach to disaster management, compromising long-term sustainability. Governments need to better incorporate climate and hydrologic information in their decision-making.
The heavy rainfall that triggered the Kedarnath disaster was part of a larger pattern of extreme weather events exacerbated by enhanced climate variability [71]. The early arrival of the monsoon in 2013, combined with a low-pressure system from the Bay of Bengal and a high-latitude system over the South Himalayan Front, created a perfect storm that overwhelmed the region’s natural defenses [59,72]. While such landslides and floods are not unprecedented, the scale of the disaster was amplified by the concentration of pilgrims and inadequate preparation for an extreme event.
The Kedarnath disaster underscores the importance of considering broader impacts of development in fragile environments, where cultural and economic benefits must be balanced against sustainability and disaster risk reduction. Proactive measures are crucial, as Kedarnath’s emphasis on economic recovery over disaster preparedness has likely left the region dangerously exposed to future catastrophes. With climate variability potentially driving more extreme weather events, integrating comprehensive disaster risk reduction into development plans is more important than ever. To better address the planning oversights of Kedarnath, the government needs to develop policies that implement sustainable tourism volumes in such mountain areas and balance economic gains with environmental sustainability and safety (Table 1). Furthermore, early warning systems could be developed in hazardous areas to forewarn potential travelers, and protocols should be in place to restrict traffic as hazards begin to emerge.

3. Discussion

Many scholars discuss the positive benefits from rural roads in other developing nations associated with welfare support, trade, reduced poverty, promotion of social equity, travel time reduction, and disaster mitigation response [73,74,75,76,77,78]. However, many also note that poor residents benefit more from trails within village complexes and local road upgrades [74,76], while interconnected road systems can have adverse effects such as increased land prices [74]; over dependencies when roads are blocked by hazards [79]; and forest clearing, pollution, and communicable disease spread [77]. Sudmeier-Rieux et al. [17], for example, highlighted the role of roads in improving livelihoods for rural (mountain) communities in Nepal but noted that negative consequences are often overlooked. Collectively, these examples [17,73,74,75,76,77,78,79] and the three case studies reviewed in Section 2 clearly illustrate some of the trade-offs between infrastructure development and environmental sustainability in fragile mountain environments, albeit in different ways.
Fundamentally, sustainable roadbuilding in rugged terrain encounters a series of interconnected challenges where multiple stressors act simultaneously to amplify environmental consequences. These interconnected processes, described as “non-singularity,” are essential for understanding how cumulative watershed effects develop over space and time. For example, road-related sediments can degrade water quality, obstruct tributaries, increase downstream flood risks, and damage hydropower infrastructure, creating a cascade of impacts that propagate throughout a catchment [22,80]. Addressing cascading impacts necessitates road planning that accounts for the intricate geophysical characteristics of hazard-prone regions while integrating current and anticipated human activities in the context of global change [17]. Equally important is the consideration of local priorities and dedication to minimizing social and geopolitical tensions, thereby mitigating the “toeprints” that may hinder sustainable mountain development [81].
We argue that the inability to address these sustainability issues in the past often stems from inadequate planning, weak governance, and limited stakeholder engagement. Furthermore, prioritizing short-term economic gains, such as tourism, religious pilgrimages, and resource extraction, often undermines resilience and disaster preparedness [66,68]. Reasons for insufficient attention to plausible roadbuilding impacts are varied and include (1) limited funding, creating pressure to rapidly employ solutions to environmental challenges without comprehensive impact assessments; (2) the adoption of short-term solutions leading to long-term environmental problems; (3) donor-supported solutions reliant on advanced technologies where recipient nations lack capacity to implement; (4) ambiguous protection laws or a lack of enforcement; and (5) the belief that the socioeconomic benefits outweigh most environmental consequences. The big picture of the development–sustainability nexus revolves around balancing economic development, social equity, and environmental protection, starting in the early planning stages of road development projects. Governments must recognize the long-term benefits of adopting such sustainable perspectives for mountain road development.
Because some developing economies may not be able to support widespread and expensive engineering measures for mountain road construction, a more viable approach to protect against landslide, debris flow, and rockfall hazards is proper road location, such as avoiding (1) seasonally wet areas on steep slopes, (2) deep cuts into regoliths with unstable sequences, (3) old landslides, and (4) overloading the heads of potential rotational failures [12]. Thus, careful geotechnical and hydrogeomorphic assessments prior to road construction in complex mountain terrain are essential to avoid high maintenance costs along with increasing the susceptibility to natural hazards [82].
While innovative engineering solutions may reduce environmental impacts during road building and maintenance phases [83], such practices are often prohibitively expensive. Geotechnical asset management systems and bioengineering can help optimize the use of limited available resources for landslide risk reduction along mountain roads [84,85]. Furthermore, incorporating disaster risk reduction strategies into road design is another essential step [86]. Measures such as early warning systems and proper evacuation routes can reduce hazard risk, while post-construction monitoring supports human safety and ensures that infrastructure remains resilient to extreme weather [87]. Finally, incorporating multiuse design of roads in the planning stage is a forward-thinking measure that will conserve future resources and support sustainability.
Also important is that road development may trigger future changes in population and land-use dynamics, leading to new and potentially contentious challenges (both positive and negative) that are difficult to predict. For example, increased tourism following road rebuilding in Kedarnath illustrates this phenomenon in Asia. In South America, particularly in the Amazon rainforest, roads—both formal and informal—play key roles in opening previously inaccessible areas to logging, agriculture, and human settlement [88,89]. Another extreme example relates to the potential of roads connecting to remote villages being linked to the transmission of diseases [77,90] and could exacerbate the spread of pandemics coupled with the exploitation of natural resources.
Capacity building and knowledge sharing are also indispensable for long-term success. Involving local communities in the planning process is useful for leveraging local knowledge to support context-sensitive designs, while fostering public participation builds trust and aligns projects with community needs [91]. Training local engineers, planners, construction workers, and communities, coupled with international knowledge exchange, promotes efficient and context-specific practices [77,92].
Our focus has been on roadbuilding and natural hazards, but these issues apply to other types of activities (e.g., hydropower and other energy systems, agriculture, mining, and mountain recreation) that are initiated in the name of development, where the toeprints were not anticipated and became apparent too late in the process to avoid negative impacts [66,93,94,95]. Holistic approaches should be forward thinking and require translating theoretical frameworks like sustainable development goals and shared socioeconomic pathways into actionable strategies that governments can implement [2,3]. While these frameworks are potentially useful tools for balancing competing economic, environmental, and social priorities, practical measures are necessary to achieve sustainable results in complex environments [96,97].
This process begins with site-specific planning and comprehensive environmental impact assessments that account for geophysical, ecological, and cultural factors throughout the life cycle of a project, while also integrating climate projections to anticipate future hazards [98,99]. Poorly conducted impact assessments, as witnessed in the BRI, whether due to insufficient data, superficial greenwashing, or flawed methodologies, combined with weak regulatory enforcement, frequently result in land degradation, social displacement, and economic inefficiencies [100,101]. Financiers and other stakeholders should align with these efforts by linking funding to measurable environmental and social benchmarks to mitigate potential harm in both the short and long term, regardless of the funding mechanism [102]. This process requires strong governance [103].
Some might contend that these development principles are widely understood. However, the countless examples of missteps and failures—both in the reviewed cases and globally—indicate implementation is often piecemeal. If these well-grounded principles are not universally recognized or applied, the lack of motivation to adopt them perpetuates unsustainable practices that lead to adverse outcomes. Addressing this challenge demands actionable strategies and a steadfast commitment to harmonize development goals with long-term environmental and economic resilience.

4. Closing Remarks

Development in resource-limited, ecologically sensitive, or topographically constrained regions requires balancing immediate needs with long-term sustainability objectives. The three road building case studies reviewed herein highlight the importance of adaptive management, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and inclusive governance specifically tailored to mountain environments. Our aim in reviewing these case studies is to scrutinize road development from a perspective that embraces environmental sustainability, with an emphasis on disaster risk reduction. As such, we are not dismissing the positive social and economic benefits of mountain road systems, rather we are casting road development into a broader frame of reference.
Poorly planned infrastructure projects often lead to environmental degradation, social disruption, and increased vulnerability to natural hazards, ultimately undermining their purported benefits, which are frequently framed as essential for development. Achieving resilient and equitable outcomes demands moving beyond theoretical frameworks to integrate sustainability principles into locally tailored, practical strategies that address challenges such as climate variability, geophysical hazards, resource constraints, and evolving societal needs.
Although the framework of sustainable development has been criticized by some due to the inconsistent interpretation of sustainable development goals and measurement protocols, as well as ineffective implementation [104,105,106], clearer definitions, transdisciplinary approaches, and attention to dynamic systems reaffirm its value as a guiding principle [107]. These advances would help practitioners integrate geophysical processes, ecosystem functioning, socioeconomic dynamics, and community priorities into actionable strategies [108,109]. Reflecting on past missteps through a critical lens should prompt policymakers to refine practices that balance economic progress with the preservation of environmental and social systems. Comprehensive planning frameworks, hazard risk reduction, meaningful community engagement, and strong governance remain essential to ensure long-term resilience and equity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.C.S. and A.D.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, R.C.S. and A.D.Z.; writing—review and editing, R.C.S. and A.D.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created in publishing this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Karen Sudmeier-Rieux and several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Travel support related to the preparation and discussions of this paper were supported by Yamano Bosai.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Steffen, W.; Rockström, J.; Richardson, K.; Lenton, T.M.; Folke, C.; Liverman, D.; Summerhayes, C.P.; Barnosky, A.D.; Cornell, S.E.; Crucifix, M.; et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 8252–8259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Morton, S.; Pencheon, D.; Squires, N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and their implementation: A national global framework for health, development and equity needs a systems approach at every level. Br. Med. Bull. 2017, 124.1, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. O’Neill, B.C.; Kriegler, E.; Ebi, K.L.; Kemp-Benedict, E.; Riahi, K.; Rothman, D.S.; Solecki, W. The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 2017, 42, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dubé, M.G.; Duinker, P.; Greig, L.; Carver, M.; Servos, M.; McMaster, M.; Munkittrick, K.R. A framework for assessing cumulative effects in watersheds: An introduction to Canadian case studies. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2013, 9, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Narver, D.W. Effects of logging residues on fish production. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Forest Land Uses and Stream Environments, Corvallis, OR, USA, 19–21 October 1970; Krygier, J.T., Hall, J.D., Eds.; Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR, USA, 1971; pp. 100–111. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bryant, M.D. The role and management of woody debris in west coast salmonid nursery streams. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 1983, 3, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bilby, R.E. Removal of woody debris may affect channel stability. J. For. 1984, 82, 609–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Schetterling, D.A.; Pierce, R.W. Success of instream habitat structures after a 50-year flood in Gold Creek, Montana. Restor. Ecol. 1999, 7, 369–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Frissell, C.A.; Nawa, R.K. Incidence and causes of physical failure of artificial habitat structures in streams of western Oregon and Washington. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 1992, 12, 182–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Megahan, W.F.; Kidd, W.J. Effects of logging and logging roads on erosion and sediment deposition from steep terrain. J. For. 1972, 70, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rice, R.M.; Lewis, J. Estimating erosion risks associated with logging and forest roads in northwestern California. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1991, 27, 809–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sidle, R.C.; Ochiai, H. Landslides, processes, prediction, and land use. In Water Resources Monograph 18; American Geophysical Union: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; 312p. [Google Scholar]
  13. Harr, R.D.; Nichols, R.A. Stabilizing forest roads to help restore fish habitats: A northwest Washington example. Fisheries 1993, 18, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Amaranthus, M.P.; Rice, R.M.; Barr, N.R.; Ziemer, R.R. Logging and forest roads related to increased debris slides in southwestern Oregon. J. For. 1985, 83, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Amishev, D.; Basher, L.R.; Phillips, C.J.; Hill, S.; Marden, M.; Bloomberg, M.; Moore, J.R. New Forest Management Approaches to Steep Hills; Ministry for Primary Industries: Wellington, New Zealand, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cristan, R.; Aust, W.M.; Bolding, M.C.; Barrett, S.M.; Munsell, J.F.; Schilling, E. Effectiveness of forestry best management practices in the United States: Literature review. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 360, 133–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sudmeier-Rieux, K.; McAdoo, B.G.; Devkota, S.; Rajbhandari, P.C.L.; Howell, J.; Sharma, S. Invited perspectives: Mountain roads in Nepal at a new crossroads. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2019, 19, 655–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wemple, B.C.; Browning, T.; Ziegler, A.D.; Celi, J.; Chun, K.P.; Jaramillo, F.; Sawyer, D. Ecohydrological disturbances associated with roads: Current knowledge, research needs, and management concerns with reference to the tropics. Ecohydrology 2018, 11, e1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Laurance, W.; Clements, G.; Sloan, S.; O’Connell, C.S.; Mueller, N.D.; Goosem, M.; Venter, O.; Edwards, D.P.; Phalan, B.; Balmford, A.; et al. A global strategy for road building. Nature 2014, 513, 229–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Balmford, A.; Chen, H.; Phalan, B.; Wang, M.; O’Connell, C.; Tayleur, C.; Xu, J. Getting road expansion on the right track: A framework for smart infrastructure planning in the Mekong. PLoS Biol. 2016, 14, e2000266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kreutzmann, H. Common challenges and differing responses: Reflections about sustainable mountain development. Glob. Environ. Res. 2024, 27, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sidle, R.C.; Ziegler, A.D. The dilemma of mountain roads. Nat. Geosci. 2012, 5, 437–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fitzgerald, P. The Yunnan-Burma Road. Geogr. J. 1940, 95, 161–171. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fuquan, Y. The “Ancient Tea and Horse Caravan Road,” the “Silk Road” of southwest China. Silk Road J. 2004, 2. Available online: http://silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/2004vol2num1/tea.htm (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  25. Ward, F.K. Through western Yunnan. Geogr. J. 1922, 60, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hayes, J.P. The recent environmental history of Tiger Leaping Gorge: Environmental degradation and local land development in northern Yunnan. J. Contemp. China 2007, 16, 499–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ying, L.; Shen, Z.; Chen, J.; Fang, R.; Chen, X.; Jiang, R. Spatiotemporal patterns of road network and road development priority in three parallel rivers region in Yunnan, China: An evaluation based on modified kernel distance estimate. Chin. Geog. Sci. 2014, 24, 39–49. [Google Scholar]
  28. Wong, H.L.; Luo, R.; Zhang, L.; Rozelle, S. Providing quality infrastructure in rural villages: The case of rural roads in China. J. Develop. Econ. 2013, 103, 262–274. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zhang, J. An Overview of Sustainable Highway Infrastructure Development in Yunnan, China. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 914, 012003. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hu, Z.; Konrad, V. Repositioning security spaces of exclusion, exception, and integration in China–Southeast Asia borderlands. Reg. Cohes. 2021, 11, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jacoby, H.G. Access to markets and the benefits of rural roads. Econ. J. 2000, 110, 713–737. [Google Scholar]
  32. van de Walle, D. Choosing rural road investments to help reduce poverty. World Dev. 2002, 30, 575–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Balisacan, A.M. Averting hunger and food insecurity in Asia. In Proceedings of the FAO-SEARC Regional Workshop: Policy Issues and Investment Options to Avert Hunger and Food Insecurity in Asia; FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific: Bangkok, Thailand, 2005; pp. 11–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cater, E.A. Tourism in the Yunnan great rivers national parks system project: Prospects for sustainability. Tour. Geogr. 2010, 2, 472–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Krongkaew, M. The development of the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS): Real promise or false hope? J. Asian Econ. 2004, 15, 977–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Urban, F.; Nordensvärd, J.; Khatri, D.; Wang, Y. An analysis of China’s investment in the hydropower sector in the Greater Mekong Sub-Region. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2013, 15, 301–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sidle, R.C.; Furuichi, T.; Kono, Y. Unprecedented rates of landslide and surface erosion along a newly constructed road in Yunnan, China. Nat. Hazards 2011, 57, 313–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sidle, R.C.; Ghestem, M.; Stokes, A. Epic landslide erosion from mountain roads in Yunnan, China—Challenges for sustainable development. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 14, 3093–3104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Clauzel, C.; Xiqing, D.; Gongsheng, W.; Giraudoux, P.; Li, L. Assessing the impact of road developments on connectivity across multiple scales: Application to Yunnan snub-nosed monkey conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 192, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liang, J.; Liu, Y.; Ying, L.; Li, P.; Xu, Y.; Shen, Z. Road impacts on spatial patterns of land use and landscape fragmentation in three parallel rivers region, Yunnan Province, China. China Geogr. Sci. 2014, 24, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, J. Building a Sustainability Assessment Model for Highway Infrastructure Projects in Yunnan, China. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Greenwich, London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sidle, R.C. Dark clouds over the Silk Road: Challenges facing mountain environments in Central Asia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sternberg, T.; Ahearn, A.; McConnell, F. Central Asian ‘characteristics’ on China’s new Silk Road: The role of landscape and the politics of infrastructure. Land 2017, 6, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yin, W. Integrating sustainable development goals into the Belt and Road Initiative: Would it be a new model for green and sustainable investment? Sustainability 2019, 11, 6991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lechner, A.M.; Chan, F.K.S.; Campos-Arceiz, A. Biodiversity conservation should be a core value of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 2, 408–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zeng, L. Conceptual analysis of China’s Belt and Road Initiative: A road towards a regional community of common destiny. Chin. J. Int. Law. 2016, 15, 517–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hafeez, M.; Chunhui, Y.; Strohmaier, D.; Ahmed, M.; Jie, L. Does finance affect environmental degradation: Evidence from One Belt and One Road Initiative region? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 9579–9592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Muhammadamin, E.; Azizbek, A. Economic benefits and strategic importance of the One Belt One Road Initiative for Central Asia. Iqtisodiyot Va. Xalqaro Munosabatlar Onlayn Ilmiy Jurnali 2024, 1, 8–14. [Google Scholar]
  49. Caiserman, A.; Sidle, R.C.; Gurung, D.R. Snow Avalanche Frequency Estimation (SAFE): 32 years of remote hazard monitoring in Afghanistan. Cryosphere 2022, 16, 3295–3312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sidle, R.C.; Caiserman, A.; Jarihani, B.; Khojazoda, Z.; Kiesel, J.; Kulikov, M.; Qadamov, A. Sediment sources, erosion processes, and interactions with climate dynamics in the Vakhsh River basin, Tajikistan. Water 2024, 16, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Spellerberg, I.F. Ecological effects of roads and traffic: A literature review. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 1998, 7, 317–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, D.S.; Iverson, L.R.; Brown, S. Rates and patterns of deforestation in the Philippines: Application of geographic information system analysis. For. Ecol. Manag. 1993, 57, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Miyamoto, M. Forest conversion to rubber around Sumatran villages in Indonesia: Comparing the impacts of road construction, transmigration projects, and population. For. Policy Econ. 2006, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lu, X. Re-territorializing Mengla: From “backwater” to “bridgehead” of China’s socio-economic development. Cities 2021, 117, 103311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nespoulous, J.; Merino-Martín, L.; Monnier, Y.; Bouchet, D.C.; Ramel, M.; Dombey, R.; Viennois, G.; Mao, Z.; Zhang, J.-L.; Cao, K.-F.; et al. Tropical forest structure and understorey determine subsurface flow through biopores formed by plant roots. Catena 2019, 181, 104061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, X.; Ruet, J.; Richet, X. “Belt and Road Initiative” and the new China-EU relations. In How China’s Silk Road Initiative Is Changing the Global Economic Landscape; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 246–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Charlery, L.; Nielsen, M.R.; Meilby, H.; Smith-Hall, C. Effects of new roads on environmental resource use in the Central Himalaya. Sustainability 2016, 8, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gurung, P. Challenging infrastructural orthodoxies: Political and economic geographies of a Himalayan road. Geoforum 2021, 120, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dobhal, D.P.; Gupta, A.K.; Mehta, M.; Khandelwal, D.D. Kedarnath disaster: Facts and plausible causes. Curr. Sci. 2013, 105, 171–174. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ziegler, A.D.; Wasson, R.J.; Bhardwaj, A.; Sundriyal, Y.P.; Sati, S.P.; Juyal, N.; Nautiyal, V.; Srivastava, P.; Gillen, J.; Saklani, U. Pilgrims, progress, and the political economy of disaster preparedness—The example of the 2013 Uttarakhand flood and Kedarnath disaster. Hydrol. Process. 2014, 28, 5985–5990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kotal, S.D.; Roy, S.S.; Bhowmik, S.R. Catastrophic heavy rainfall episode over Uttarakhand during 16–18 June 2013–observational aspects. Curr. Sci. 2014, 106, 234–245. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bhardwaj, A.; Wasson, R.J.; Ziegler, A.D.; Chow, W.T.L.; Sundriya, Y. Characteristics of rain-induced landslides in the Indian Himalaya: A case study of the Mandakini Catchment during the 2013 flood. Geomorphology 2019, 330, 100–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Champati Ray, P.K.; Chattoraj, S.L.; Bisht, M.P.S.; Kannaujiya, S.; Pandey, K.; Goswami, A. Kedarnath disaster 2013: Causes and consequences using remote sensing inputs. Nat. Hazards 2016, 81, 227–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Martha, T.R.; Roy, P.; Govindharaj, K.B.; Kumar, K.V.; Diwakar, P.G.; Dadhwal, V.K. Landslides triggered by the June 2013 extreme rainfall event in parts of Uttarakhand state, India. Landslides 2015, 12, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gupta, S.; Anand, S.; Gwal, S. Inbound tourism in Uttarakhand, India, before and after the 2013 Kedarnath disaster—Evidence derived from social networking sites using GIS. Curr. Sci. 2018, 114, 1755–1759. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ziegler, A.D.; Wasson, R.J.; Sundriyal, Y.; Srivastava, P.; Sasges, G.; Ramchunder, S.J.; Ong, C.E.; Nepal, S.K.; McAdoo, B.G.; Gillen, J.; et al. A call for reducing tourism risk to environmental hazards in the Himalaya. Environ. Hazards 2023, 22, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Basu, S.; Singh, J. Man-Made Reasons for Uttarakhand Disaster. Available online: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/natural-disasters/man-made-reasons-for-uttarakhand-disaster-41407 (accessed on 12 February 2021).
  68. Lorenz, D.F.; Dittmer, C. Disasters in the ‘abode of gods’—Vulnerabilities and tourism in the Indian Himalaya. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 55, 102054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Singh, S. Tourism in the sacred Indian Himalayas: An incipient theology of tourism? Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2006, 11, 375–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Aukland, K. At the confluence of leisure and devotion: Hindu pilgrimage and domestic tourism in India. Int. J. Relig. Tour. Pilgr. 2018, 6, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Negi, V.S.; Tiwari, D.C.; Singh, L.; Thakur, S.; Bhatt, I.D. Review and synthesis of climate change studies in the Himalayan region. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 10471–10502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dubey, C.S.; Shukla, D.P.; Ningreichon, A.S.; Usham, A.L. Orographic control of the Kedarnath disaster. Curr. Sci. 2013, 105, 1474–1476. [Google Scholar]
  73. Rawat, D.S.; Sharma, S. The Development of a Road Network and Its Impact on the Growth of Infrastructure: A Study of Almora District in the Central Himalaya. Mt. Res. Develop. 1997, 17, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hettige, H. Whether the Poor Benefit from Rural Roads Depends on the Contextual Situation as Well as the Assets They Hold; Asian Development Bank: Manila, The Philippines, 2006; 101p. [Google Scholar]
  75. Bryceson, D.F.; Bradbury, A.; Bradbury, T. Roads to poverty reduction? Exploring rural roads’ impact on mobility in Africa and Asia. Dev. Policy Rev. 2008, 26, 459–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Iimi, A.; Ahmed, F.; Anderson, E.C.; Diehl, A.S.; Maiyo, L.; Peralta-Quiros, T.; Rao, K.S. New Rural Access Index: Main Determinants and Correlation to Poverty. Research Working Paper 7876. 2016. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10986/25676 (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  77. Starkey, P.; Tumbahangfe, A.; Sharma, S. Building Roads and Improving Livelihoods in Nepal, External Review of District Roads Support Project: Final Report; Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), District Roads Support Programme (DRSP), SDC: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  78. Jaquet, S.; Schwilch, G.; Hartung-Hofmann, F.; Adhikari, A.; Sudmeier-Rieux, K.; Shrestha, G.; Liniger, H.P.; Kohler, T. Does outmigration lead to land degradation? Labour shortage and land management in a western Nepal watershed. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 62, 157–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ahmed, B.; Sammonds, P.; Saville, N.M.; Le Masson, V.; Suri, K.; Bhat, G.M.; Hakhoo, N.; Jolden, T.; Hussain, G.; Wangmo, K.; et al. Indigenous mountain people’s risk perception to environmental hazards in border conflict areas. Int. J. Diast. Risk Reduct. 2019, 35, 101063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sidle, R.C.; Hornbeck, J.W. Cumulative effects: Broadening the approach to water quality research. J. Soil. Water Conserv. 1991, 46, 268–271. [Google Scholar]
  81. Maselli, D. Promoting sustainable mountain development at the global level. Mt. Res. Develop. 2012, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hearn, G.J.; Shakya, N.M. Engineering challenges for sustainable road access in the Himalayas. Quart. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 2017, 50, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Trandafir, A.C.; Kamai, T.; Sidle, R.C. Earthquake-induced displacements of gravity retaining walls and anchor-reinforced slopes. Soil. Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 2009, 29, 428–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dhital, Y.P.; Kayastha, R.B.; Shi, J. Soil bioengineering application and practices in Nepal. Environ. Manag. 2013, 51, 354–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Choden, S. A Geotechnical Asset Management Framework for the Department of Roads in Bhutan. Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Xiong, M.; Hu, H.; Huang, Y. From slope seismic resilience to regional road network resilience: An integrated framework for evaluating the seismic resilience of mountainous road networks. Disast. Prev. Res. 2023, 2, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Redzuan, A.A.; Anuar, A.N.; Zakaria, R.; Aminudin, E.; Alias, N.E.; Yuzir, M.A.M.; Alzahari, M.R. Road disaster resilience. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 615, 012002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Southworth, J.; Marsik, M.; Qiu, Y.; Perz, S.; Cumming, G.; Stevens, F.; Rocha, K.; Duchelle, A.; Barnes, G. Roads as drivers of change: Trajectories across the tri-national frontier in MAP, the southwestern Amazon. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1047–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. da Silva, C.F.A.; de Andrade, M.O.; dos Santos, A.M.; de Melo, S.N. Road network and deforestation of indigenous lands in the Brazilian Amazon. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2023, 125, 103735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Rohr, J.R.; Barrett, C.B.; Civitello, D.J.; Halliday, F.W.; Hudson, P.J.; Lafferty, K.D.; Wood, C.L. Emerging human infectious diseases and the links to global food production. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 445–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wyss, R.; Luthe, T.; Pedoth, L.; Schneiderbauer, S.; Adler, C.; Apple, M.; Erazo Acosta, E.; Fitzpatrick, H.; Haider, J.; Ikizer, G.; et al. Mountain resilience: A systematic literature review and paths to the future. Mt. Res. Develop. 2022, 42, A23–A36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Deken, J. Local Knowledge for Disaster Preparedness: A Literature Review; International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD): Kathmandu, Nepal, 2007; 84p. [Google Scholar]
  93. Liu, N. Ok Tedi and transboundary environmental harm: A reassessment. Asia Pac. J. Environ. Law 1999, 4, 393. [Google Scholar]
  94. Aung, T.S.; Shengji, L.; Condon, S. Evaluation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Chinese EIA in Myanmar: Myitsone Dam, the Lappadaung Copper Mine, and the Sino-Myanmar Oil and Gas Pipelines. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2019, 37, 71–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Sasges, G.; Ziegler, A.D. We have eaten the rivers: The past, present, and unsustainable future of hydroelectricity in Vietnam. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sati, V.P. Sustainable Mountain Development: Challenges and Opportunities. In Towards Sustainable Livelihoods and Ecosystems in Mountain Regions; Environmental Science and Engineering; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bracher, C.; Wymann von Dach, S.; Adler, C. Challenges and Opportunities in Assessing Sustainable Mountain Development Using the UN Sustainable Development Goals; Report compiled by the Mountain Research Initiative (MRI), in collaboration with the Centre for Development and Environment (CDE); CDE Working Paper 3; Centre for Development and Environment (CDE): Bern, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Agrawala, S.; Kramer, A.M.; Prudent-Richard, G.; Sainsbury, M. Incorporating Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Environmental Impact Assessments: Opportunities and Challenges; OECD Environment Working Papers; OECD: Paris, France, 2011; Volume 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Jiang, R.; Wu, P. Estimation of environmental impacts of roads through life cycle assessment: A critical review and future directions. Transport. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 77, 148–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Tracy, E.F.; Shvarts, E.; Simonov, E.; Babenko, M. China’s new Eurasian ambitions: The environmental risks of the Silk Road Economic Belt. Eurasian Geog. Econ. 2017, 58, 56–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Baird, I.G.; Ziegler, A.D.; Fearnside, P.M.; Pineda, A.; Sasges, G.; Strube, J.; Hayes, D.S. Ruin-of-the-Rivers? A global review of run-of-the-river dams. Environ. Manag. 2024, 75, 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jomo, K.S.; Chowdhury, A. World Bank financializing development. Development 2019, 62, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kardos, M. The reflection of good governance in sustainable development strategies. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 58, 1166–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Jacob, M. Toward a methodological critique of sustainable development. J. Develop. Areas 1994, 28, 237–252. [Google Scholar]
  105. Jinkling, B.; Wals, A.E.J. Globalization and environmental education: Looking beyond sustainable development. J. Curric. Stud. 2008, 40, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Swain, R.B. A critical analysis of the sustainable development coals. In Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research; Leal Filho, W., Ed.; World Sustainability Series; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Sneddon, C.; Howarth, R.B.; Norgaard, R.B. Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57, 253–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Haberl, H.; Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Krausmann, F.; Weisz, H.; Winiwarter, V. Progress towards sustainability? What the conceptual framework of material and energy flow accounting (MEFA) can offer. Land Use Policy 2004, 21, 199–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Bai, Y.; Huang, Q.; Inostroza, L.; Xu, H.; Yin, D.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, L.; Xu, F. Residents’ perceptions of ecosystem services in an urbanizing basin: A case study in the Guanting Reservoir basin, China. Geogr. Sustain. 2024, 5, 430–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 03156 g001
Figure 1. Mountain road development in northwestern Yunnan, China: (a) expansion of a small foot and animal track into a mountain road along a tributary of the Salween River; (b) iconic landscapes that led to the UNESCO World Heritage site designation; (c) deadly landslides along the relatively new Weixi—Shangri-La road in the headwaters of the Mekong River; and (d) a road designed to connect to a mountain village near Daxingxi along the Salween River that was abandoned due to excessive landslides.
Figure 1. Mountain road development in northwestern Yunnan, China: (a) expansion of a small foot and animal track into a mountain road along a tributary of the Salween River; (b) iconic landscapes that led to the UNESCO World Heritage site designation; (c) deadly landslides along the relatively new Weixi—Shangri-La road in the headwaters of the Mekong River; and (d) a road designed to connect to a mountain village near Daxingxi along the Salween River that was abandoned due to excessive landslides.
Sustainability 17 03156 g001
Sustainability 17 03156 g002
Figure 2. Examples of Belt and Road Initiative development objectives that are widely viewed as ‘sustainable’, along with examples of environmental and societal ‘toeprints’ that deliver adverse impacts.
Figure 2. Examples of Belt and Road Initiative development objectives that are widely viewed as ‘sustainable’, along with examples of environmental and societal ‘toeprints’ that deliver adverse impacts.
Sustainability 17 03156 g002
Table 1. Major issues contributing to mountain road planning and building problems as well as environmental and socioeconomic concerns in each of the three study areas along with potential measures to ameliorate these deficiencies.
Table 1. Major issues contributing to mountain road planning and building problems as well as environmental and socioeconomic concerns in each of the three study areas along with potential measures to ameliorate these deficiencies.
Study AreaRoad Planning IssuesRoad Construction IssuesEnvironmental and Socioeconomic IssuesPotential Measures for Reducing Impacts
Northwest Yunnan Province, China; UNESCO “Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas”Lacking attention to environmental issues in road location.
Spur roads located on steep slopes adjacent to channels.
Most spur roads serve only one use.
Lack of coordination between local and national goals.
Better inclusion of local stakeholder priorities.
Poor post-construction follow-up of road-related problems.		Excessive excavation into steep unstable slopes.
Poor or a lack of road drainage measures.
Uncontrolled blasting during construction.
Excavated materials pushed downslope, often entering streams.
Poor construction causes ongoing maintenance.
Unpaved surfaces are not ‘rocked’.
Few if any protection measures for streams.		Frequent landslides on cut and fill slopes and intense erosion from road surfaces during storms, with sediments reaching streams.
Road access issues during landslide clearing.
Degraded water quality and aquatic habitats.
Accidents along roads due to landslides.
Potential for debris flows and floods in major channels due to heavy sediment inputs.
Degraded landslide scars.
Down-river impacts on trans-national livelihoods.
Abandoned road-building projects due to extensive landslides.		Plan and design road systems for long-term multiuse and construct accordingly.
Avoid deep cuts and blasting into unstable substrate.
Design ridgetop and valley bottom roads where feasible.
Minimize crossing wet areas and old or dormant landslides.
Implement proper road drainage measures and ongoing road maintenance.
Plant deep-rooted woody vegetation in road fills.
Carefully consider all costs and benefits of new and updated road construction.
Use multi-criteria decision analysis to achieve optimal economic, social, and environmental tradeoffs for roads.
Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Central Asia (emphasis in Tajik Pamir)In Central Asia, the BRI has deficient environmental impact assessments in place.
Short-term planning goals relegating low priority to environmental issues.
Inadequate attention paid to multiple hazards along road corridors.
Few options for road building in stable sites.
Little concern by the Tajik government for BRI externalities affecting mountain residents.
No inclusion of Tajik locals in BRI planning.
Ignoring the potential effects of spur road development off the BRI for international resource exploitation. 		Blasting associated with expansion and construction of existing and new roads in the Pamir causes rockfalls and landslides.
No attention to road drainage.
Blasted rocks and soil are pushed into the Panj River system.
Few countermeasures installed for rockfall, landslide, and avalanche control.
Road access issues during construction
Priorities for road upgrades often do not reach mountain communities.
Road surfaces left in a poor condition.
Noise and dust pollution in neighboring villages. 		Travel disruptions, injuries, and fatalities due to rockfalls, avalanches, and landslides along new and widened roads.
Exploitation of natural resources and hydropower in the Pamir to benefit external nations.
Lack of local employment opportunities in the BRI.
Disrupting traditional land management practices.
Future governmental debt dependencies to China.
Forfeiture of mining and land rights.
Implicit compliance with pro-China policies and allowing Chinese military practices on Tajik territories.
Vector-based disease spread to remote villages.
The Tajik government prioritizes short-term economic gains via trade over long-term environmental sustainability.		Employ best management practices for road location and construction, e.g., minimize blasting and excavation into unstable substrates, install road drainage networks, regularly maintain roads, avoid wet areas (if possible), reduce connectivity of road runoff with surface waters, and exercise care if crossing debris fans.
Use available hazard models and evaluations to aid in road location plans and prevention measures.
Prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term economic gain via transparent cost/benefit and life-cycle analyses.
Limit the expansion of mountain roads to areas that benefit the locals.
Institute noise and dust control measures near villages.
Governments must negotiate strongly with the BRI to ensure local employment and environmental benefits.
Kedarnath Temple disaster, Uttarakhand, IndiaImproved road access caused unsustainable tourism in a very hazardous mountain area.
Failure to link road access to over-crowding as well as disaster risk reduction and assessments.
Highly commercial development in vulnerable areas exacerbated by road and tourism expansion.		Expanded road systems greatly contributed to the flood and cascading sediment disaster by facilitating overcrowding.
Road ‘improvements’ did not consider linkages with upslope landslides and debris flows that exacerbate flood conditions.		Thousands of religious tourists and their support staff on pilgrimage were killed.
About 70,000 religious tourists and 100,000 locals were stranded in the disaster area with few resources.
Huge damage to properties and environmental attributes.
The government failed to balance cultural and economic benefits against sustainability and disaster risk reduction.
Inadequate planning and facilities for increased levels of tourism.		Governments need to better balance short-term economic gains against disaster risk reduction and environmental sustainability.
Implement sustainable tourism protocols in hazardous regions based on available shelters, weather forecasts, and evacuation routes.
Policies that view disasters as isolated unpredictable events must be modified based on scientific evidence to inform and protect human life.
Early warning systems for flood and sediment hazards are urgently needed to alert tourists and residents.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sidle, R.C.; Ziegler, A.D. Balancing Development and Sustainability: Lessons from Roadbuilding in Mountainous Asia. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3156. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073156

AMA Style

Sidle RC, Ziegler AD. Balancing Development and Sustainability: Lessons from Roadbuilding in Mountainous Asia. Sustainability. 2025; 17(7):3156. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073156

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sidle, Roy C., and Alan D. Ziegler. 2025. "Balancing Development and Sustainability: Lessons from Roadbuilding in Mountainous Asia" Sustainability 17, no. 7: 3156. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073156

APA Style

Sidle, R. C., & Ziegler, A. D. (2025). Balancing Development and Sustainability: Lessons from Roadbuilding in Mountainous Asia. Sustainability, 17(7), 3156. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073156

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop