Snow Leopard Landscapes: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Vivi Li and Version 1 by Wajid Rashid.

THigh Asia, the high-altitude region of Asia is prone to natural resource degradation caused by a variety of natural and anthropogenic factors that also threaten the habitat of critical top predator species, thehabitat of the snow leopard (Panthera uncia), covers the mountainous regions of Asia’s twelve countries, including Afghanistan, Bhutan, China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The transboundary landscape occupied by snow leopard (Panthera uncia). The s covers an area of about 3.0247 million square kilometers. China possesses about 60% of the global snow leopard’s landscape encompasses parts, and China shares its border with 10 (the only exception being Uzbekistan) out of the twelve Asianotal 12 snow leopard range countries and is dominated by pastoral societies within arid mountainous terrain. However, no investigation has assessed the vulnerability and pathways towards long-term sustainability on the global. The snow leopard is an umbrella species from the high-altitude transboundary Asian regions. It is a threatened carnivore of an elusive and secretive nature. Globally, the population of snow leopard landscape scales is estimated to be 4500–7500 animals in the wild.

  • collaboration
  • habitat
  • innovative solutions
  • integrated landscape approach
  • socio-ecological system
  • trade corridor
  • tourism

1. Introduction

High Asia, the high-altitude habitat of the snow leopard (Panthera uncia), covers the mountainous regions of Asia’s twelve countries, including Afghanistan, Bhutan, China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The snow leopard habitat mainly comprises the Himalayan mountain ranges: Altai, Tien shan, Kunlun, Pamirs, Karakorum, and Hindukush ranges [1,2,3][1][2][3] in high Asia (Figure 1). The transboundary landscape occupied by snow leopards covers an area of about 3.0247 million square kilometers [4]. China possesses about 60% of the global snow leopard landscape, and China shares its border with 10 (the only exception being Uzbekistan) out of the total 12 snow leopard range countries [1,5][1][5].
Figure 1.
 The transboundary snow leopard landscape in the Asian region covering 12 countries.
The snow leopard is an umbrella species from the high-altitude transboundary Asian regions [6]. It is a threatened carnivore of an elusive and secretive nature. Globally, the population of snow leopards is estimated to be 4500–7500 animals in the wild [2]. It is one of the least studied big cats and an important threatened species at the global level. This rare big cat inhabits remote and rugged mountain terrains that are difficult to study [7,8][7][8]. Within the habitat, the snow leopard is adapted to the harsh environment, rough rocky territories, and extremely cold temperatures at higher elevations [9,10][9][10]. Snow leopards have low densities across its habitat [5,8][5][8]. The snow leopard maintains the biological diversity as a top predator [6] and therefore plays a significant role in the continued supply of ecosystem services in this high mountain region [11].
Various political, social, economic, and ecological challenges have placed severe stress on snow leopards in the high-altitude Asian regions and have destabilized and fragmented their natural habitats. The multitude of factors include political boundaries and the associated fencing, climate change, transboundary infrastructure development, encroachment of agriculture and human settlements into the habitats of carnivores and their prey species, human–snow leopard conflict, and illegal trade in snow leopard skin and bones [12,13,14,15,16,17,18][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. The political fragmentation of the habitat, however, prevents the adoption of an integrated transboundary landscape approach to handle the issue of integrated habitat conservation and can be seen as the overarching phenomenon that has bearing on all the other factors and their mitigation.
The lack of appropriate environmental management in the face of increasing human use of this landscape for human settlements, transboundary infrastructure development, pasturing, cropping, and tourism is leading to the increased vulnerability of the snow leopard [13,19][13][19]. An impending ecological collapse is also destroying the balance of the prevailing socio-economic and ecological system in the snow leopard habitat [20].
The challenges to mitigating the vulnerabilities of the transboundary snow leopard landscapes include land use and cover changes [21], habitat degradation [22[22][23],23], climate change [24[24][25],25], human–snow leopard conflict [1[1][26][27],26,27], political inefficiency [16], and border fencing [17]. The conservation policies are only effective if they incorporate ecological and social mechanisms that can positively impact the socio-ecological systems [28,29][28][29].
Most of the studies conducted on snow leopard habitats are fragmented and are carried out at the micro- and meso-scale. Additionally, no investigation has assessed the vulnerability and pathways towards long-term sustainability on a larger or regional scale. The current paper, therefore, intends to review ntry focuses on the existing knowledge, identify gaps, and propose sustainable mitigation options for the longer term and at a larger landscape level across the aforementioned countries. It will cover the multi-dimensional aspects of vulnerability (Figure 2) and propose solutions in a vast region encompassing all of high Asia’s snow leopard range countries.
Figure 2. The workflow of the current review, displaying the vulnerability of snow leopard landscapes in the framework of issues, implications, and possible pathways.
The workflow of the current entry, displaying the vulnerability of snow leopard landscapes in the framework of issues, implications, and possible pathways.

2. Transboundary Vulnerability Factors at the Global Snow Leopard Landscape Level

During the last few years, increasing attention has focused on assessing wildlife vulnerability at the level of the socio-ecological system [30]. A range of factors are responsible for the increasing vulnerability of socio-ecological systems over the larger snow leopard habitat (Figure 3). The prominent factors enhancing vulnerability in this region include the following.
Figure 3. The socio-ecological system of the snow leopard habitat region in the framework of vulnerability and management strategies.

2.1. Political Factors

2.1.1. Habitat Fragmentation through Border Fencing

The snow leopard landscape spans international borders and includes some of the world’s most disputed borders, including the Line of Control (LOC) between Pakistan and India and between India and China [16,31][16][31]. The closure or fencing of the international borders creates many problems for the snow leopards and their prey species [16[16][32],32], reducing food, water, and mating potential, thus leading to declining populations [31]. Previous research in the snow leopard landscape revealed that 500 km of fencing on the border of Pakistan and India resulted in a 60% decline in the endangered Kashmir Markhor (Capra falconeri falconeri) [33], a crucial wild prey of snow leopards in the boundary region of Pakistan and India [2,34][2][34]. This closure confines the snow leopards to fragmented habitats that sometimes have scare prey populations, causing the snow leopard to resort to hunting domestic livestock [24,35][24][35]. Studies have revealed that border closure results in the division of wildlife populations and blocks the migration routes of wild animals [36]. The closure also has a terrible impact on the gene flow in snow leopard populations and is a menace to the survival of this emblematic carnivore species in the long run [37].

2.1.2. Non-Uniform Conservation Policies

The scale of prominent environmental problems or challenges varies from the regional to the global level [38]. Similarly, the global snow leopard landscape is spread over the twelve countries in the high Asian region [1]. Thus, the snow leopard landscapes crisscross the boundaries of different regions [17]. Moreover, the policies of a country are commonly aligned according to the best national interests, while regional or global interests are generally given less priority [39].

2.2. Social Factors

2.2.1. Human–Snow Leopard Conflict

In the highest mountain ranges of Asia, the snow leopard is an apex predator and an opportunistic generalist carnivore, consuming any available prey and killing domestic livestock in large numbers (Table 1) [40,41,42][40][41][42]. Depredation is the single most important cause of the human–snow leopard conflict [43,44][43][44]. Since livestock depredation is a threat to livestock owner livelihoods and hence an economic burden [45], these negative perceptions lead to human–snow leopard conflict [46]. The livestock depredation rate depends on the availability of wild prey and the local population of snow leopards, and can be ameliorated by using livestock guarding methods like strong corrals and herding dogs/watchdogs [47]. The snow leopard is known for livestock killings, with mass killings of livestock being reported if corrals are attacked [4,27][4][27]. This is the single most prominent reason for the retaliatory killings of snow leopards [45,48,49][45][48][49].
Table 1.
 The details of livestock type and number predated by snow leopards in different ranges and countries.
No. Global Snow Leopard Range Country Type of Livestock

Predated by Snow Leopard		 No. of Livestock Depredated Year Reference
1 Himalaya Range (HIMLY) Bhutan Yaks, Horses, Cattle, Sheep,
Horses, Sheep, Goats
740
2010
[
56
]
12 Russia Sheep and Goats 233 2000–2003 [57]

2.2.2. Increasing Human Population

Globally, human population density and population growth are challenges for the survival of wild carnivores [58]. The human population is growing at a fast rate in the snow leopard range countries, for example, China’s population will increase from 1.37 billion in 2016 to 1.42 billion in 2025 [59]. In India, the human population will grow from current 1.35 billion to 1.47 billion in 2031 [60]. Similarly, Pakistan has a population of 216.6 million with high annual growth rate of 2% [61]. Moreover, an earlier study revealed that the increasing human population density has negative consequences for biodiversity [62]. The increasing human population and the increasing demands for natural resources are putting pressure on the world’s remaining wild habitats and the associated wild animals [63].

2.3. Ecological Factors

2.3.1. Climate Change

One of the major challenges for biodiversity and ecosystems worldwide is climate change [64,65][64][65]. Snow leopard landscapes span the world’s highest mountains, which mostly consist of semi-arid and fragile high mountain ecosystems that are particularly vulnerable to climatic changes [5]. Climate change impacts snow leopard landscapes through increasing temperatures, permafrost degradation, glacier retreat, and loss of surface water [66]. From 1951 to 2012, the global mean surface temperature increased at 0.12 °C/decade [67,68][67][68]. However, the mean surface temperature at different locations in the snow leopard landscape exhibits a more pronounced increase from 0.16 °C/decade to 0.90 °C/decade (Table 2). Similarly, a temperature increase of 0.20 °C/decade from 1955 to 2012 was revealed in the Karakorum (Pakistan) snow leopard landscape [69,70][69][70]. Previous studies in the snow leopard landscape reveal that climate change profoundly influences the socio-ecological system, and coping with climate change is one of the most urgent issues [71,72][71][72].
Table 2.
 Climate warming rates from the selected sources in the snow leopard landscape (listed from north to south).
Location Period Warming Rate Reference
Global Mean Surface Temperature 1951–2012 0.12 °C/decade [67]

[		32 682003–2005 [50]
]
Altai Sayan Ecoregion (Russia)
63][85][86]. In Bhutan, the total area covered by forest increased markedly compared to other land cover types in three decades (1990 to 2010), representing a rare example of environmental transformation due to climate change affecting the snow leopard landscape [87]. A contrasting situation of land degradation, deforestation, and habitat fragmentation occurred in all other range countries (Table 3) in the snow leopard landscape [88,89,90][88][89][90].
Table 3.
 Land use/land cover changes (in the snow leopard landscape) in the range countries.
No. Global Snow Leopard Range Country/

Location		 Type of Land Use/Landcover Changes Period Source
1 Himalaya Range (HIMLY) Bhutan Increase in forest cover 1990–2010 [87]
2 China 1976–2008Yaks, Cattle–Yak hybrid, Cows, Sheep and Goats 5877
20.58 °C/decade Qinghai-Tibet Plateau,

China		 Grassland decreased

Unused land increased[73]
1980–20182011–2013 [89[51]
] 3 India Horse, Yaks, Goat, Sheep, others 112 2003 [52]
Almaty (Kazakhstan) 1974–2015 4 Nepal Horses, Yak, Yak–Cow hybrid, Cows, Goats, Sheep
30.52 °C/decade Central Himalayas,

(India)		[ Increasing deforestation, Forest fragmentation74]
1976–2006 [91] 362 Naryn (Kyrgyzstan) 1930–1989 0.32 °C/decade
4 Nepal Deforestation

2014 [75][53]
Forest degradation 1976–2001 [92] 5 Karakorum and Hindukush (KK/HK) Afghanistan Yaks, Horses, Cattle, Sheep, Goats 378 Oygaing, (Uzbekistan) 1961–2016 0.25 °C/decade [762007–2008
5]
Karakorum and Hindukush (KK/HK) Afghanistan Deforestation,

Forest fragmentation		 1976–2014 [[54]
93] 6 Pakistan Yak, Yak–Cow hybrid, Cows, Goats, Sheep 223 2013 [45]
Pamir mountains (Tajikistan) 1979–2018 0.32 °C/decade
6 Pakistan Built-up area increased

Cropland increased		[77]
2008–2018

2000–2020 [94] 7 Tibetan Plateau (China)Commonwealth of Independent

States and Western China (CISWC)		 Kazakhstan --None-- ---- ----- -----
1955–1996 0.16 °C/decade [78] 8 Kyrgyzstan --None-- ---- ----- -----
Dingri, Tibetan Plateau (China) 1959–2007 0.62 °C/decade [79] 9
Gilgit (Pakistan) 1986–2010 0.39 °C/decade [80]
Hindukush Himalaya region

(Parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, China, India, Nepal, Bhutan)		 1951–2014 0.20 °C/decade [81]
Trans-Himalaya Region (Nepal) 1977–1994 0.90 °C/decade [82]

2.3.2. Land Use and Land Cover Changes

Land use and land cover changes cause increasing vulnerability in the snow leopard landscapes [65,83,84][65][83][84]. Previous studies revealed that land use and cover changes like human settlements, overgrazing, mining, road building, and hydrological development projects impacted the snow leopard landscapes [63,85,86][
7
Commonwealth of Independent States and Western China (CISWC)
Kazakhstan
Vegetation cover decreased

Built-up area increased 1995–2015 [95]
8 Kyrgyzstan Forest decreased

Barren land increased

Agriculture increased		 1996–2014 [96]
Tajikistan --None-- ---- ----- -----
9 Pamir mountains (Tajikistan) Deforestation

Desertification		 -- [97] 10 Uzbekistan Horses, Sheep, and Goats 82 2004 [55]
10 Uzbekistan Grassland degradation 1991–2010 [98] 11 Northern Range (NRANG) Mongolia
11 Northern Range (NRANG) Mongolia Grassland degradation 2000–2006

1998–2006		 [99]

[100]
12 Altai region (Russia) Land degradation -- [101]

2.4. Economic Factors

2.4.1. Habitat Fragmentation through Trade Corridors

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which was initiated by the Chinese government in 2013 to enhance regional connectivity and so economic development, is the largest infrastructure project in human history [102]. Recently, several studies along the different economic corridors, including the China–Mongolia–Russia Economic Corridor [103], the New Eurasia Land Bridge Economic Corridor [104], and the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor [105], identified the associated environmental issues. Other studies also concluded that BRI has potential negative impacts on the region’s biodiversity as there are many plans for transportation development to expand into remote regions and ecosystems [106,107][106][107].

2.4.2. Unsustainable Tourism in the Snow Leopard Landscape

Tourism is growing continuously and is primarily unregulated, which results in uncontrolled tourism in this region and creates many environmental problems for the fragile snow leopard landscape [108]. In addition, trophy hunting is a considerable income-producing recreational activity; yet this remains a controversial tool in conservation science with substantial benefits and risks. After initiation of trophy hunting programs, a conflict of interest arises between the local community and snow leopards. The trophy hunting of wild ungulates generates considerable income for the local community, giving rise to negative perceptions of the snow leopard as a pest animal because the snow leopard depends on the precious trophy ungulates as its prey and consequently destroys the local community’s income generation potential [40]. Alternately, the wild trophy ungulates (Markhor, Ibex, blue sheep) in northern Pakistan provide enormous income to the local community; however, at the same time, the snow leopard depends on the abundance of ungulates to survive and increase its population [108]. This conflict and the associated adverse perceptions lead to problems that endanger the existence of snow leopards through the removal of wild prey species or other retaliatory killings [109].

3. Possible Pathways to Handle Snow Leopard Transboundary Conservation Issues

3.1. Handling Political Boundaries Related Issues

3.1.1. Transboundary Collaboration (Regional Cooperation)

Transnational environmental problems lack regional cooperation, specifically in Central and South Asia’s snow leopard landscape [149][110], with similar challenges arising for SES for other transboundary countries across the snow leopard global habitat. Regional cooperation is further limited in the snow leopard landscape due to territorial disputes and other historical conflicts [150][111]. The cross-boundary nature of the snow leopard landscape provides an opportunity for transboundary cooperation among the range countries to achieve long-term conservation [151][112].
The most critical organization in the snow leopard range countries is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) [152][113]. The SCO was the first international organization initiated by China and thus has a leading role in establishing functional international relationships [153][114]. The SCO comprises all the snow leopard range countries except for Bhutan (Figure 54). The SCO’s core objective is to provide a better environment for socio-economic development and regional prosperity [152,154][113][115]; the SCO platform was used previously to gradually shape relations among the member states [155][116]. Thus, the SCO can play an essential role in collaboration and the sustainable development of the snow leopard landscape. The SCO is driven and inspired by China, clearly depicting China as an emerging global power with a leadership role in regional or international affairs [153][114]. Notably, China covers around 60% of the snow leopard landscape worldwide. Thus, it has the opportunity to play a leading role in the sustainable development of this landscape.
Land 11 00248 g005 550
Figure 54. The snow leopard range countries are also connected through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) except Bhutan.

3.1.2. Creation of Peace Parks

Resolving local transboundary conflicts often culminates in creating “peace parks” by designating a demilitarized peace park that would reinforce conflict resolution. Amid political differences in Afghanistan, India, China, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan, conservationists brought about the conservation of the Pamir Wakhan [113][117]. The Karakoram mountains is a disputed region between India and Pakistan, and conservationists in this region suggested establishing Siachen peace park [110,156][118][119]. Similarly, the Khangchendzonga Conservation Area, in the Qomolangma Region, and the Altai Mountains could also serve as peace parks. Researchers have suggested that the further establishment of a peace park in the Himalayas region of Asia would prove to be an effective solution to resolve continued biodiversity loss as a result of war and military activities [157][120].

3.1.3. Addressing Non-Uniform Conservation Policies

The snow leopard landscape is often viewed within the totality of natural, human, and spiritual dimensions, and thus has been the focus of integrated interpretations, such as Coupled Socio-Ecological Systems (CSES) approaches [158][121]. Recently, the term Socio-Ecological System (SES) has been widely used to understand the human–nature relationship with the idea that an SES is interrelated and indivisible [159][122]. A regional landscape is a CSES composed of a dynamic mosaic of land uses and stakeholders [159,160][122][123]. Management of landscapes at the regional level thus requires a wide variety of interacting natural and human processes operating at different spatio-temporal scales [160][123]. Human behavior can affect the SES through complex human–environment interactions [161][124].
Previous studies disapproved conventional sectoral approaches condemning them as insufficient to address the multi-faceted changes occurring in an evolving socio-economic environment [162,163,164][125][126][127]. Integrative landscape management may provide solutions and alleviate global challenges by inviting cross-sectoral collaboration to mitigate vulnerability at a significant regional level [165][128]. More extensive landscape approaches for inter-organizational goal-oriented networks and well-coordinated synergistic strategies have gained importance in terms of reconciling conservation and development [166][129].
Thus, sustainable landscapes incorporate complexity into the management process. Sayer et al. [166][129] framed 10 strategies for a landscape approach, including continual learning and adaptive management, a common concern entry point, multiple scales, multi-functionality, multiple stakeholders, negotiated and transparent change logic, clarification of rights and responsibilities, participatory and user-friendly monitoring, resilience, and strengthened stakeholder capacity. As a result, the landscape will be resistant to future disturbances caused by natural or anthropogenic sources.

3.2. Handling Social Issues

3.2.1. Improving Livestock Management Practices

The poor or lack of livestock guarding practices may lead to increasing snow leopard depredation on domestic livestock [133,167][130][131]. Previous studies demonstrated that proper livestock guarding can reduce snow leopard depredation of livestock [1,26,168][1][26][132]. Strong corrals for livestock can provide better protection for domestic livestock at night. Poor corrals may increase snow leopard depredation and losses of domestic livestock; therefore, better protection will provide better results [26[26][131],167], thereby decreasing human–snow leopard conflict [167][131]. Livestock insurance schemes and compensation for livestock depredation can play a role in mitigating human–snow leopard conflict [169][133].

3.2.2. Controlling Human Population Growth

One of the vital approaches to managing biodiversity and human wellbeing is through reducing the population growth rate and finally reversing the population growth rate [170][134]. The population in most of the snow leopard range countries is growing at a fast rate [59,171][59][135]. Thus, controlling human population growth and managing the consumption pattern could reduce the impact of these factors [172][136].

3.2.3. Payment for Ecosystem Services

Recently, Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) represents a vital conservation policy [173,174][137][138]. PES programs have seen a swift increase in recent decades [175][139]. PES are defined as voluntary transactions in which ecosystem services are bought and sold between beneficiaries and service providers [176][140]. The global snow leopard landscape provides ecosystem services to more than two billion people [121,177][141][142]. PES is an excellent tool with which to obtain the local communities’ support for environmental conservation [178][143].

3.3. Handling Ecological Issues

3.3.1. Climate Change Mitigation (Climate-Smart Technologies and Nature-Based Solutions)

Climate change is an essential factor contributing to vulnerability in this region. Thus, the adoption of innovative solutions, including climate-smart technologies and nature-based solutions, is a promising option. These innovative solutions can play a significant role in mitigating the vulnerability of the Himalayan region [179,180][144][145]. Studies in the snow leopard range countries have revealed that climate-smart technologies are some of the best options available for vulnerability mitigation [181,182,183][146][147][148]. Prior studies revealed that restoring natural predators in a landscape can mitigate climate changes and predators can serve as insurance against climate change [184,185][149][150].

3.3.2. Integrative Management of Transboundary Conservation Landscape

Transboundary conservation efforts are also strengthened by the Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection Programme (GSLEP), launched in October 2013 with the adoption of the Bishkek Declaration of the Conservation of Snow Leopards, supporting the 12 range countries to develop national programs [186][151]. The group has become increasingly active after the establishment of an online platform that allows for trainings in targeted topics for representatives from snow leopard countries, as well as ongoing efforts to build global capacity for snow leopards. Transboundary collaboration provides an opportunity for the neighboring countries to conserve biodiversity across vast landscapes and reduce conservation costs [31]. For conservation of transboundary landscapes and biological diversity, collective efforts from the range countries are required to achieve the common goals [187][152].

3.4. Handling Economic Issues

3.4.1. Environment-Friendly Trade Corridors in the Snow Leopard Landscape

The transition of the current development in this region to green growth is a good step in achieving the sustainable development goals, which will lead to the protection and conservation of the environment, and promote biodiversity in the region. The BRI has promoted cooperation among the countries as regards different global issues like climate change mitigation [188,189][153][154]. A recent study by Cuiyun and Chazhong [190][155] revealed that the BRI’s green development will provide long-term benefits for this region. However, the environmental impacts and recommended mitigations rarely provide sufficient safeguards, even when urgent priorities exist to provide proactive approaches for smart infrastructure planning to minimize impacts on snow leopards and other wildlife during the planning process [191][156]. Recommendations have been previously developed to shift these destructive patterns for protected areas and large mammals, to encourage BRI development partners and partner countries to support protected areas, to strategize wildlife corridors, to enact conservation planning methods, and to encourage transboundary and international collaborative efforts [107]. In 2017, an attempt to make the BRI more environment-friendly was developed, with the aim of promoting the construction of environment-friendly infrastructure, and promoting green trade and financing, and sustainable production and consumption among the partner countries [192][157]. CITES protections should scale with the scope of the BRI and tackle the complex issues surrounding the illegal wildlife trade for all protected species. Ongoing development scenarios can calibrate the planning process through science–policy interfaces at the local governmental planning and biodiversity conservation levels, using methodologies such as preemptive measures for smart or green planning.

3.4.2. Sustainable Tourism

Ecotourism is the best option for areas with wildlife availability and easy accessibility for tourists [193][158]. Sustainable tourism is economically viable, socially equitable, and ecologically sustainable [194][159]. Tourism is a good conservation tool if managed sustainably, especially in areas with apex predators [195][160]. A previous study on the snow leopard global range revealed ecotourism to be a good option for conservation in these high Asian landscapes [196][161].

References

  1. Rashid, W.; Shi, J.; Rahim, I.U.; Sultan, H.; Dong, S.; Ahmad, L. Research trends and management options in human-snow leopard conflict. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 242, 108413.
  2. Anwar, M.B.; Jackson, R.; Nadeem, M.S.; Janečka, J.E.; Hussain, S.; Beg, M.A.; Muhammad, G.; Qayyum, M. Food habits of the snow leopard Panthera uncia (Schreber, 1775) in Baltistan, Northern Pakistan. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2011, 57, 1077–1083.
  3. Sunquist, F.; Sunquist, M. The Wild Cat Book; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA; London, UK, 2014; p. 277.
  4. Aryal, A.; Brunton, D.; Ji, W.; Karmacharya, D.; McCarthy, T.; Bencini, R.; Raubenheimer, D. Multipronged strategy including genetic analysis for assessing conservation options for the snow leopard in the central Himalaya. J. Mammal. 2014, 95, 871–881.
  5. Alexander, J.S.; Cheng, Z.C.; Kun, S.; Riordan, P. A spotlight on snow leopard conservation in China. Integr. Zool. 2016, 11, 308–321.
  6. Alexander, J.S.; Cusack, J.J.; Pengju, C.; Kun, S.; Riordan, P. Conservation of snow leopards: Spill-over benefits for other carnivores? Oryx 2016, 50, 239–243.
  7. McCarthy, T.M.; Fuller, T.K.; Munkhtsog, B. Movements and activities of snow leopards in Southwestern Mongolia. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 124, 527–537.
  8. Riordan, P.; Cushman, S.A.; Mallon, D.; Shi, K.; Hughes, J. Predicting global population connectivity and targeting conservation action for snow leopard across its range. Ecography 2016, 38, 419–426.
  9. Li, J.; Schaller, G.B.; McCarthy, T.M.; Wang, D.; Jiagong, Z.; Cai, P.; Basang, L.; Lu, Z. A Communal Sign Post of Snow Leopards (Panthera uncia) and Other Species on the Tibetan Plateau, China. Int. J. Biodivers. 2013, 2013, 370905.
  10. Sharma, R.K.; Bhatnagar, Y.V.; Mishra, C. Does livestock benefit or harm snow leopards? Biol. Conserv. 2015, 190, 8–13.
  11. Li, J.; Mccarthy, T.M.; Wang, H.; Weckworth, B.V.; Schaller, G.B.; Mishra, C.; Lu, Z.; Beissinger, S.R. Climate refugia of snow leopards in High Asia. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 203, 188–196.
  12. Bagchi, S.; Sharma, R.K.; Bhatnagar, Y.V. Change in snow leopard predation on livestock after revival of wild prey in the Trans-Himalaya. Wildl. Biol 2020, 1, 1–11.
  13. Bitabarova, A.G. Unpacking Sino-Central Asian engagement along the New Silk Road: A case study of Kazakhstan. J. Contemp. East Asia Stud. 2019, 7, 149–173.
  14. Farrington, J.D.; Tsering, D. Human-snow leopard conflict in the Chang Tang region of Tibet, China. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 237, 504–513.
  15. González-Tokman, D.; Córdoba-Aguilar, A.; Dáttilo, W.; Lira-Noriega, A.; Sánchez-Guillén, R.A.; Villalobos, F. Insect responses to heat: Physiological mechanisms, evolution and ecological implications in a warming world. Biol. Rev. 2020, 95, 802–821.
  16. Lewis, M.; Songster, E.E. Studying the snow leopard: Reconceptualizing conservation across the China–India border. Br. J. Hist. Sci. 2016, 1, 169–198.
  17. Li, J.; Weckworth, B.V.; McCarthy, T.M.; Liang, X.; Liu, Y.; Xing, R.; Li, D.; Zhang, Y.; Xue, Y.; Jackson, R.; et al. Defining priorities for global snow leopard conservation landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 241, 108387.
  18. Teo, H.C.; Lechner, A.M.; Walton, G.W.; Chan, F.K.S.; Cheshmehzangi, A.; Tan-Mullins, M.; Chan, H.K.; Sternberg, T.; Campos-Arceiz, A. Environmental Impacts of Infrastructure Development under the Belt and Road Initiative. Environments 2019, 6, 72.
  19. Cumming, G.S.; Peterson, G.D. Unifying Research on Social–Ecological Resilience and Collapse. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2017, 32, 695–713.
  20. Lauerburg, R.A.M.; Diekmann, R.; Blanz, B.; Gee, K.; Held, H.; Kannen, A.; Möllmann, C.; Probst, W.N.; Rambo, H.; Cormier, R.; et al. Socio-ecological vulnerability to tipping points: A review of empirical approaches and their use for marine management. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 705, 135838.
  21. Penjor, U.; Wangdi, S.; Tandin, T.; Macdonald, D.W. Vulnerability of mammal communities to the combined impacts of anthropic land-use and climate change in the Himalayan conservation landscape of Bhutan. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 121, 107085.
  22. Mukherji, A.; Sinisalo, A.; Nüsser, M.; Garrard, R.; Eriksson, M. Contributions of the cryosphere to mountain communities in the Hindu Kush Himalaya: A review. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 1311–1326.
  23. Trouwborst, A.; Blackmore, A. Hot Dogs, Hungry Bears, and Wolves Running Out of Mountain—International Wildlife Law and the Effects of Climate Change on Large Carnivores. J. Int. Wildl. Law Policy 2020, 23, 212–238.
  24. Forrest, J.L.; Wikramanayake, E.; Shrestha, R.; Areendran, G.; Gyeltshen, K.; Maheshwari, A.; Mazumdar, S.; Naidoo, R.; Thapa, G.J.; Thapa, K. Conservation and climate change: Assessing the vulnerability of snow leopard habitat to treeline shift in the Himalaya. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 150, 129–135.
  25. Hanson, J.H.; Schutgens, M.; Leader-Williams, N. What factors best explain attitudes to snow leopards in the Nepal Himalayas? PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223565.
  26. Jackson, R.M.; Wangchuk, R. A Community-Based Approach to Mitigating Livestock Depredation by Snow Leopards. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2004, 9, 307–315.
  27. Jamwal, P.S.; Takpa, J.; Parsons, M.H. Factors contributing to a striking shift in human–wildlife dynamics in Hemis National Park, India: 22 years of reported snowleopard depredation. Oryx 2017, 53, 58–62.
  28. Laterra, P.; Barral, P.; Carmona, A.; Nahuelhual, L. Focusing Conservation Efforts on Ecosystem Service Supply May Increase Vulnerability of Socio-Ecological Systems. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155019.
  29. Goursi, U.H.; Anwar, M.; Bosso, L.; Nawaz, M.A.; Kabir, M. Spatial distribution of the threatened Asiatic black bear in northern Pakistan. Ursus 2021, 32, 1–5.
  30. Berrouet, L.M.; Machado, J.; Villegas-Palacio, C. Vulnerability of socio-ecological systems: A conceptual Framework. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 84, 632–647.
  31. Liu, J.; Yong, D.L.; Choi, C.-Y.; Gibson, L. Transboundary Frontiers: An Emerging Priority for Biodiversity Conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2020, 35, 679–690.
  32. Saddiki, S. Border fencing in India: Between colonial legacy and changing security challenges. Int. J. Arts Sci. 2016, 7, 111–124.
  33. Ellison, A.M. Political borders should not hamper wildlife. Nature 2014, 508, 9.
  34. Leki; Thinley, P.; Rajaratnam, R.; Shrestha, R. Establishing baseline estimates of blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur) abundance and density to sustain populations of the vulnerable snow leopard (Panthera uncia) in Western Bhutan. Wildl. Res. 2018, 45, 38–46.
  35. Xu, F.; Ma, M.; Yang, W.; Blank, D.; Wu, Y.; Mccarthy, T.; Munkhtsog, B. Winter habitat use of snow leopards in Tomur National Nature Reserve of Xinjiang, Northwest China. J. Arid. Land 2012, 4, 191–195.
  36. Vitkalova, A.V.; Feng, L.; Rybin, A.N.; Gerber, B.D.; Miquelle, D.G.; Wang, T.; Yang, H.; Shevtsova, E.I.; Aramilev, V.V.; Ge, J. Transboundary cooperation improves endangered species monitoring and conservation actions: A case study of the global population of Amur leopards. Conserv. Lett. 2018, 11, e12574.
  37. Janecka, J.E.; Yu-guang, Z.; Di-qiang, L.; Munkhtsog, B.; Bayaraa, M.; Galsandorj, N.; Wangchuk, T.R.; Karmacharya, D.; McCarthy, T.; Li, J.; et al. Range-Wide Snow Leopard Phylogeography Supports Three Subspecies. J. Hered. 2017, 108, 597–607.
  38. Cherp, A. Cost of non-uniform climate policies. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2021, 11, 722–723.
  39. Calvin, K.; Clarke, L.; Krey, V.; Blanford, G.; Jiang, K.; Kainuma, M.; Kriegler, E.; Luderer, G.; Shukla, P.R. The role ofAsia in mitigating climate change: Results from the Asia modeling exercise. Energy Econ. 2012, 34, S251–S260.
  40. Kachel, S.M.; Mccarthy, K.P.; Mccarthy, T.M.; Oshurmamadov, N. Investigating the potential impact of trophy hunting of wild ungulates on snow leopard Panthera uncia conservation in Tajikistan. Oryx 2017, 51, 597–604.
  41. Khatoon, R.; Hussain, I.; Anwar, M.; Nawaz, M.A. Diet selection of snow leopard (Panthera uncia) in Chitral, Pakistan. Turk. J. Zool. 2017, 41, 914–923.
  42. Rosen, T.; Hussain, S.; Mohammad, G.; Jackson, R.; Janecka, J.E.; Michel, S. Reconciling Sustainable Development of Mountain Communities With Large Carnivore Conservation. Mt. Res. Dev. 2012, 32, 286–293.
  43. Khan, M.Z.; Awan, S.; Khan, B.; Abbas, S.; Ali, A. A review of behavioural ecology and conservation of large predators inhabiting the Central Karakoram National Park (CKNP). J. Biodivers. Environ. Sci. 2014, 5, 439–446.
  44. Sharma, K.; Bayrakcismith, R.; Tumursukh, L.; Johansson, O.; Sevger, P.; McCarthy, T.; Mishra, C. Vigorous dynamics underlie a stable population of the endangered snow leopard Panthera uncia in Tost Mountains, South Gobi, Mongolia. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e101319.
  45. Khan, M.Z.; Khan, B.; Awan, M.S.; Begum, F. Livestock depredation by large predators and its implications for conservation and livelihoods in the Karakoram Mountains of Pakistan. Oryx 2017, 52, 519–525.
  46. Suryawanshi, K.R.; Bhatnagar, Y.V.; Redpath, S.; Mishra, C. People, predators and perceptions: Patterns of livestock depredation by snow leopards and wolves. J. Appl. Ecol. 2013, 50, 550–560.
  47. Aryal, A.; Brunton, D.; Ji, W.; Barraclough, R.K.; Raubenheimer, D. Human–carnivore conflict: Ecological and economical sustainability of predation on livestock by snow leopard and other carnivores in the Himalaya. Sustain. Sci. 2014, 9, 321–329.
  48. Bashari, M.; Sills, E.; Peterson, M.N.; Cubbage, F. Hunting in Afghanistan: Variation in motivations across species. Oryx 2017, 52, 526–536.
  49. Li, J.; Xiao, L.; Lu, Z. Challenges of snow leopard conservation in China. Sci. China (Life Sci.) 2016, 59, 637–639.
  50. Sangay, T.; Vernes, K. Human-wildlife conflict in the Kingdom of Bhutan: Patterns of livestock predation by large mammalian carnivores. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 1272–1282.
  51. Chen, P.; Gao, Y.; Lee, A.T.L.; Cering, L.; Shi, K.; Clark, S.G. Human-carnivore coexistence in Qomolangma (Mt. Everest) Nature Reserve, China: Patterns and compensation. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 197, 18–26.
  52. Namgail, T.; Fox, J.L.; Bhatnagar, Y.V. Carnivore-Caused Livestock Mortality in Trans-Himalaya. Environ. Manage. 2007, 39, 490–496.
  53. Chetri, M.; Odden, M.; Devineau, O.; Wegge, P. Patterns of livestock depredation by snow leopards and other large carnivores in the Central Himalayas, Nepal. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 17, 1–11.
  54. Simms, A.; Moheb, Z.; Salahudin; Ali, H.; Ali, I.; Wood, T. Saving threatened species in Afghanistan: Snow leopards in the Wakhan Corridor. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2011, 68, 299–312.
  55. Esipov, A.; Bykova, E.; Protas, Y.; Aromov, B. Central Asia: Uzbekistan. In SNOW LEOPARDS, Biodiversity of the World: Conservation from Genes to Landscapes; McCarthy, T., Mallon, D., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2016; pp. 439–448.
  56. Mijiddorj, T.N.; Alexander, J.S.; Samelius, G. Livestock depredation by large carnivores in the South Gobi, Mongolia. Wildl. Res. 2018, 45, 237–247.
  57. Paltsyn, M.; Poyarkov, A.; Spitsyn, S.; Kuksin, A.; Istomov, S.; Gibbs, J.P.; Jackson, R.M.; Castner, J.; Kozlova, S.; Karnaukhov, A.; et al. Northern Range: Russia. In SNOW LEOPARDS, Biodiversity Of The World: Conservation From Genes To Landscapes; McCarthy, T.M., Mallon, D., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2016; pp. 488–498.
  58. Cardillo, M.; Purvis, A.; Sechrest, W.; Gittleman, J.L.; Bielby, J.; Mace, G.M. Human Population Density and Extinction Risk in the World’s Carnivores. PLoS Biol. 2004, 2, 909–914.
  59. Cui, K.; Shoemaker, S.P. A look at food security in China. npj Sci. Food 2018, 2, 4.
  60. Chauhan, R.K.; Mohanty, S.K.; Mishra, U.S. Population Trends, Distribution and Prospects in the Districts of India. In The Demographic and Development Divide in India: A District-Level Analyses; Mohanty, S.K., Mishra, U.S., Chauhan, R.K., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 17–144.
  61. Abbas, S. Global warming and export competitiveness of agriculture sector: Evidence from heterogeneous econometric analysis of Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 2022.
  62. Luck, G.W. A review of the relationships between human population density and biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 2007, 82, 607–645.
  63. Alexander, J.S.; Gopalaswamy, A.M.; Shi, K.; Hughes, J.; Riordan, P. Patterns of Snow Leopard Site Use in an Increasingly Human-Dominated Landscape. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155309.
  64. Klausmeyer, K.R.; Shaw, M.R.; Mackenzie, J.B.; Cameron, D.R. Landscape-scale indicators of biodiversity’s vulnerability to climate change. Ecosphere 2011, 2, 1–18.
  65. Ye, X.; Yu, X.; Yu, C.; Tayibazhaer, A.; Xu, F.; Skidmore, A.K.; Wang, T. Impacts of future climate and land cover changes on threatened mammals in the semi-arid Chinese Altai Mountains. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 612, 775–787.
  66. Farrington, J.D.; Li, J. Climate Change Impacts on Snow Leopard Range. In SNOW LEOPARDS, Biodiversity of the World: Conservation from Genes to Landscapes; McCarthy, T.M., Mallon, D., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2016; pp. 85–95.
  67. IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1–222.
  68. IPCC. Climate Change 2021 The Physical Science Basis; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 1–223.
  69. Asad, F.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, H.; Liang, E.; Muhammad, S.; Farhan, S.B.; Hussain, I.; Wazir, M.A.; Ahmed, M.; Esper, J. Are Karakoram temperatures out of phase compared to hemispheric trends? Clim. Dyn. 2017, 48, 3381–3390.
  70. Spies, M. Mixed manifestations of climate change in high mountains: Insights from a farming community in northern Pakistan. Clim. Dev. 2020, 12, 911–922.
  71. Kakinuma, K.; Yanagawa, A.; Sasaki, T.; Rao, M.P.; Kanae, S. Socio-ecological Interactions in a Changing Climate: A Review of the Mongolian Pastoral System. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5883.
  72. Sorg, A.; Bolch, T.; Stoffel, M.; Solomina, O.; Beniston, M. Climate change impacts on glaciers and runoff in Tien Shan (Central Asia). Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 725–731.
  73. Kokorin, A.O. Assessment Report Climate Change and Its Impact on Ecosystems, Population and Economy of the Russian Portion of the Altai-Sayan Ecoregion; WWF Russia: Moscow, Russia, 2011.
  74. Talipova, E.; Shrestha, S.; Alimkulov, S.; Nyssanbayeva, A.; Tursunova, A.; Isakan, G. Influence of climate change and anthropogenic factors on the Ile River basin streamflow, Kazakhstan. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 1–14.
  75. Marchenko, S.S.; Gorbunov, A.P.; Romanovsky, V.E. Permafrost warming in the Tien shan Mountains, Central Asia. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2007, 56, 311–327.
  76. Kholmatjanov, B.M.; Sulaymonova, N.N.; Petrov, Y.V.; Khujanazarov, T.; Abdikulov, F.I.; Tanaka, K. Analysis of Temperature Change in Uzbekistan and the Regional Atmospheric Circulation of Middle Asia during 1961–2016. Climate 2020, 8, 101.
  77. Haag, I.; Kassam, K.-A.; Senftl, T.; Zandler, H.; Samimi, C. Measurements meet human observations: Integrating distinctive ways of knowing in the Pamir Mountains of Tajikistan to assess local climate change. Clim. Chang. 2021, 165, 1–22.
  78. Liu, X.; Chen, B. Climatic warming in the Tibetan Plateau during recent decades. Int. J. Climatol. 2000, 20, 1729–1742.
  79. Yang, X.; Zhang, T.; Qin, D.; Kang, S.; Qin, X. Characteristics and changes in air temperature and glacier’s response on the north slope of Mt. Qomolangma (Mt. Everest). Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 2011, 43, 147–160.
  80. Adnan, M.; Nabi, G.; Kang, S.; Zhang, G.; Adnan, R.M.; Anjum, M.N.; Iqbal, M.; Ali, A.F. Snowmelt Runoff Modelling under Projected Climate Change Patterns in the Gilgit River Basin of Northern Pakistan. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2017, 26, 525–542.
  81. Sabin, T.P.; Krishnan, R.; Vellore, R.; Priya, P.; Borgaonkar, H.P.; Singh, B.B.; Sagar, A. Climate Change Over the Himalayas. In Assessment of Climate Change Over the Indian Region; Krishnan, R., Sanjay, J., Gnanaseelan, C., Mujumdar, M., Kulkarni, A., Chakraborty, S., Eds.; Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2020; pp. 207–222.
  82. Shrestha, A.B.; Wake, C.P.; Mayewski, P.A.; Dibb, J.E. Maximum temperature trends in the Himalaya and its vicinity: An analysis based on temperature records from Nepal for the period 1971–1994. J. Clim. 1999, 12, 2775–2786.
  83. Khurshid, M.; Nafees, M.; Rahim, I.u.; Rashid, W. Impacts of Agriculture Land use Changes on Mobile Pastoral System in Naran Valley of Western Himalayan Northern Pakistan. Sarhad J. Agric. 2016, 32, 1–8.
  84. Sharma, K.; Robeson, S.M.; Thapa, P.; Saikia, A. Land-use/land-cover change and forest fragmentation in the Jigme Dorji National Park, Bhutan. Phys. Geogr. 2016, 38, 18–35.
  85. Cui, X.; Graf, H.-F. Recent land cover changes on the Tibetan Plateau: A review. Clim. Chang. 2009, 94, 47–61.
  86. Liu, S.; Zamanian, K.; Schleuss, P.-M.; Zarebanadkouki, M.; Kuzyakov, Y. Degradation of Tibetan grasslands: Consequences for carbon and nutrient cycles. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 252, 93–104.
  87. Gilani, H.; Shrestha, H.L.; Murthy, M.S.R.; Phuntso, P.; Pradhan, S.; Bajracharya, B.; Shrestha, B. Decadal land cover change dynamics in Bhutan. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 148, 91–100.
  88. Dame, J.; Schmidt, S.; Müller, J.; Nüsser, M. Urbanisation and socio-ecological challenges in high mountain towns: Insights from Leh (Ladakh), India. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 189–199.
  89. Zhang, B.; Zhou, W. Spatial-Temporal Characteristics of Precipitation and Its Relationship with Land Use/Cover Change on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China. Land 2021, 10, 269.
  90. Yar, P.; Huafu, J.; Khan, M.A.; Rashid, W.; Khan, S. Modification of Land Use/Land Cover and Its Impact on Groundwater in Peshawar City, Pakistan. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2022, 50, 159–174.
  91. Munsi, M.; Malaviya, S.; Oinam, G.; Joshi, P.K. A landscape approach for quantifying land-use and land-cover change (1976–2006) in middle Himalaya. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2010, 10, 145–155.
  92. Panta, M.; Kim, K.; Joshi, C. Temporal mapping of deforestation and forest degradation in Nepal: Applications to forest conservation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 256, 1587–1595.
  93. Reddy, C.S.; Saranya, K.R.L. Earth observation data for assessment of nationwide land cover and long-term deforestation in Afghanistan. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2017, 155, 115–164.
  94. Rashid, W.; Shi, J.; Rahim, I.U.; Qasim, M.; Baloch, M.N.; Bohnett, E.; Yang, F.; Khan, I.; Ahmad, B. Modelling Potential Distribution of Snow Leopards in Pamir, Northern Pakistan: Implications for Human–Snow Leopard Conflicts. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13229.
  95. Qi, J.; Tao, S.; Pueppke, S.G.; Espolov, T.E.; Beksultanov, M.; Chen, X.; Cai, X. Changes in land use/land cover and net primary productivity in the transboundary Ili-Balkhash basin of Central Asia, 1995–2015. Environ. Res. Commun. 2019, 2, 1–15.
  96. Duulatov, E.; Xi, C.; Kurban, A.; Ndayisaba, B.; Monoldorova, A. Detecting Land Use/Land Cover change using Landsat Imagery: Jumgal District, Kyrgyzstan. Int. J. Geoinform. 2016, 12, 1–7.
  97. Breckle, S.-W.; Wuchere, W. Vegetation of the Pamir (Tajikistan): Land use and desertification problems. In Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity; Spehn, E.M., Liberman, M., Körner, C., Eds.; CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group): Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006; pp. 225–238.
  98. Yang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Li, J.; Gang, C.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Odeh, I.; Qi, J. Comparative assessment of grassland degradation dynamics in response to climate variation and human activities in China, Mongolia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan from 2000 to 2013. J. Arid Environ. 2016, 135, 164–172.
  99. Sekiyama, A.; Takeuchi, W.; Shimada, S. Detection of Grassland Degradation Using MODIS Data in Mongolia. J. Arid. Land Stud. 2014, 24, 175–178.
  100. Sternberg, T.; Tsolmon, R.; Middleton, N.; Thomas, D. Tracking desertification on the Mongolian steppe through NDVI and field-survey data. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2011, 4, 50–64.
  101. Milanova, E. Land use/cover change in Russia within the context of global challenges. Rom. J. Geogr. 2012, 56, 105–116.
  102. Ng, L.S.; Campos-Arceiz, A.; Sloan, S.; Hughes, A.C.; Tiang, D.C.F.; Li, B.V.; Lechner, A.M. The scale of biodiversity impacts of the Belt and Road Initiative in Southeast Asia. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 248, 108691.
  103. Dong, S.; Li, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, S. Spatiotemporal Patterns and Drivers of Land Use and Land Cover Change in the China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2021, 30, 2527–2541.
  104. Naboureh, A.; Bian, J.; Lei, G.; Li, A. A review of land use/land cover change mapping in the China-Central Asia-West Asia economic corridor countries. Big Earth Data 2021, 5, 237–257.
  105. Lashari, A.H.; Li, W.; Hassan, M.; Nabi, G.; Mabey, P.T.; Islam, M.M.; Rashid, W.; Ujjan, S.A.; Memon, K.H. Biodiversity Governance and Management in Pakistan: A Way Forward Through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2021, 30, 1–8.
  106. Huang, M.-X.; Li, S.-Y. The analysis of the impact of the Belt and Road initiative on the green development of participating countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 722, 137869.
  107. Lechner, A.M.; Chan, F.; Campos-Arceiz, A. Biodiversity conservation should be a core value of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 2, 408–409.
  108. Rashid, W.; Shi, J.; Rahim, I.u.; Dong, S.; Sultan, H. Issues and Opportunities Associated with Trophy Hunting and Tourism in Khunjerab National Park, Northern Pakistan. Animals 2020, 10, 597.
  109. Hussain, S. The status of the snow leopard in Pakistan and its conflict with local farmers. Oryx 2003, 37, 26–33.
  110. Soboleva, E.; Krivokhizh, S. Chinese initiatives in Central Asia: Claim for regional leadership? Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 2021, 62, 634–658.
  111. Li, J.; Gao, J.; Li, W.; Zhang, Z.; Fu, J.; Shao, G.; Guo, X. An indicator framework for assessing cooperative cross-border conservation in the Karakoram-Himalayan region. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 126, 107658.
  112. Uddin, K.; Chettri, N.; Yang, Y.; Lodhi, M.S.; Htun, N.Z.; Sharma, E. Integrating geospatial tools and species for conservation planning in a data-poor region of the Far Eastern Himalayas. Geol. Ecol. Landsc. 2020, 4, 187–202.
  113. Yuan, J.-D. China’s Role in Establishing and Building the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). J. Contemp. China 2010, 19, 855–869.
  114. Kembayev, Z. Implementing the Silk Road Economic Belt: From the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation to the Silk Road Union? Asia Eur. J. 2018, 16, 37–50.
  115. Ahmed, Z.S.; Ahmed, S.; Bhatnagar, S. Conflict or Cooperation? India and Pakistan in Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Pac. Focus 2019, 34, 5–30.
  116. Garlick, J. The Regional Impacts of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. J. Curr. Chin. Aff. 2020, 49, 3–13.
  117. Gaynor, K.M.; Fiorella, K.J.; Gregory, G.H.; Kurz, D.J.; Seto, K.L.; Withey, L.S.; Brashares, J.S. War and wildlife: Linking armed conflict to conservation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 14, 533–542.
  118. Ali, A. A Siachen Peace Park: The Solution to a Half-Century of International Conflict? Mt. Res. Dev. 2002, 22, 316–319.
  119. Ali, S. The Siachen peace park proposal: Moving from concept to reality. Environment 2008, 50, 43.
  120. Maheshwari, A. Ease conflict in Asia with snow leopard peace parks. Science 2020, 367, 1203.
  121. Freeman, O.E.; Duguma, L.A.; Minang, P.A. Operationalizing the integrated landscape approach in practice. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 24–43.
  122. Takeuchi, K.; Ichikawa, K.; Elmqvist, T. Satoyama landscape as social-ecological system: Historical changes and future perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 19, 30–39.
  123. Parrott, L.; Meyer, W.S. Future landscapes: Managing within complexity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 10, 382–389.
  124. Herrera-Franco, G.; Alvarado-Macancela, N.; Quinchuela, T.G.; Carrión-Mero, P. Participatory socio-ecological system: ManglaraltoSanta Elena, Ecuador. Geol. Ecol. Landsc. 2018, 2, 1–8.
  125. Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.; O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342.
  126. Reed, J.; Vianen, J.V.; Deakin, E.L.; Barlow, J.; Sunderland, T. Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: Learning from the past to guide the future. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 2540–2554.
  127. Tscharntke, T.; Tylianakis, J.M.; Rand, T.A.; Didham, R.K.; Fahrig, L.; Batary, P.; Bengtsson, J.; Clough, Y.; Crist, T.O.; Dormann, C.F.; et al. Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes—Eight hypotheses. Biol. Rev. 2012, 87, 661–685.
  128. Weisshuhn, P. Indexing the vulnerability of biotopes to landscape changes. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 102, 316–327.
  129. Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.-L.; Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C.; et al. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 110, 8349–8356.
  130. Jackson, R. Fostering community-based stewardship of wildlife in Central Asia: Transforming Snow Leopards from pests into valued assets. In Rangeland Stewardship in Central Asia: Balancing Improved Livelihoods, Biodiversity Conservation and Land Protection; Squires, V., Ed.; SpringerLink: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012.
  131. Johansson, Ö.; McCarthy, T.; Samelius, G.; Andrén, H.; Tumursukh, L.; Mishra, C. Snow leopard predation in a livestock dominated landscape in Mongolia. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 184, 251–258.
  132. Jackson, R.; Wangchuk, R. Linking Snow Leopard Conservation and People-Wildlife Conflict Resolution:: Grassroots Measures to Protect the Endangered Snow Leopard from Herder Retribution. Endanger. Species Update 2001, 18, 138–141.
  133. Alexander, J.S.; Agvaantseren, B.; Gongor, E.; Mijiddorj, T.N.; Piaopiao, T.; Redpath, S.; Young, J.; Mishra, C. Assessing the Effectiveness of a Community-based Livestock Insurance Program. Environ. Manag. 2021, 68, 87–99.
  134. Crist, E.; Mora, C.; Engelman, R. The interaction of human population, food production, and biodiversity protection. Science 2017, 356, 260–264.
  135. Kumar, S.; Smith, S.R.; Fowler, G.; Velis, C.; Kumar, S.J.; Arya, S.; Rena; Kumar, R.; Cheeseman, C. Challenges and opportunities associated with waste management in India. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2017, 4, 1–11.
  136. Bradshaw, C.J.A.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Beattie, A.; Ceballos, G.; Crist, E.; Diamond, J.; Dirzo, R.; Ehrlich, A.H.; Harte, J.; Harte, M.E.; et al. Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2021, 1, 9.
  137. Huang, L.; Shao, Q.; Liu, J.; Lu, Q. Improving ecological conservation and restoration through payment for ecosystem services in Northeastern Tibetan Plateau, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 181–193.
  138. Arriagada, R.; Villaseñor, A.; Rubiano, E.; Cotacachi, D.; Morrison, J. Analysing the impacts of PES programmes beyond economic rationale: Perceptions of ecosystem services provision associated to the Mexican case. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 116–127.
  139. Kaczan, D.; Pfaff, A.; Rodriguez, L.; Shapiro-Garza, E. Increasing the impact of collective incentives in payments for ecosystem services. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2017, 86, 48–67.
  140. Waylen, K.A.; Martin-Ortega, J. Surveying views on Payments for Ecosystem Services: Implications for environmental management and research. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 23–30.
  141. Foggin, J.M. Depopulating the Tibetan Grasslands. Mt. Res. Dev. 2008, 28, 26–31.
  142. Liu, Y.; Zhang, R.; Zhao, W.; Wang, S.; Fu, B. Comparison between tourists’ and inhabitants’ willingness to pay for nature in the Tibetan Plateau. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120219.
  143. Badola, R.; Ahmed, T.; Gill, A.K.; Dobriyal, P.; Das, G.C.; Badola, S.; Hussain, S.A. An incentive-based mitigation strategy to encourage coexistence of large mammals and humans along the foothills of Indian Western Himalayas. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1–13.
  144. Bai, X.; Huang, Y.; Ren, W.; Coyne, M.; Jacinthe, P.A.; Tao, B.; Hui, D.; Yang, J.; Matocha, C. Responses of soil carbon sequestration to climate-smart agriculture practices: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 2591–2606.
  145. Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Pant, A.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Vasireddy, V.V.; Yadav, A. Stakeholders prioritization of climate-smart agriculture interventions: Evaluation of a framework. Agr. Syst. 2019, 174, 23–31.
  146. Chhogyel, N.; Kumar, L.; Bajgai, Y. Consequences of Climate Change Impacts and Incidences of Extreme Weather Events in Relation to Crop Production in Bhutan. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4319.
  147. Mazhar, R.; Ghafoor, A.; Xuehao, B.; Wei, Z. Fostering sustainable agriculture: Do institutional factors impact the adoption of multiple climate-smart agricultural practices among new entry organic farmers in Pakistan? J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 283, 124620.
  148. Subedi, R.; Bhatta, L.D.; Udas, E.; Agrawal, N.K.; Joshi, K.D.; Panday, D. Climate-smart practices for improvement of crop yields in mid-hills of Nepal. Cogent Food Agric. 2019, 5, 1631026.
  149. Ross, S.R.P.-J.; Molinos, J.G.; Okuda, A.; Johnstone, J.; Atsumi, K.; Futamura, R.; Williams, M.A.; Matsuoka, Y.; Uchida, J.; Kumikawa, S.; et al. Predators mitigate the destabilising effects of heatwaves on multitrophic stream communities. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2022, 28, 403–416.
  150. Sala, E. Top predators provide insurance against climate change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2006, 21, 479–480.
  151. Snow Leopard Trust. Transboundary Cooperation for Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Conservation; Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection Programme: Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, 2021; pp. 1–70.
  152. Bawa, K.S.; Koh, L.P.; Lee, T.M.; Liu, J.; Ramakrishnan, P.S.; Yu, D.W.; Zhang, Y.-p.; Raven, P.H. China, India, and the Environment. Science 2010, 327, 1457–1459.
  153. Liu, Y.; Hao, Y. The dynamic links between CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic development in the countries along “the Belt and Road”. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 645, 674–683.
  154. Wu, H.; Ren, S.; Yan, G.; Hao, Y. Does China’s outward direct investment improve green total factor productivity in the “Belt and Road” countries? Evidence from dynamic threshold panel model analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 275, 111295.
  155. Cuiyun, C.; Chazhong, G. Green development assessment for countries along the belt and road. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 263, 110344.
  156. Brooks, T.M.; Akçakaya, H.R.; Burgess, N.D.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Hilton-Taylor, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Juffe-Bignoli, D.; Kingston, N.; MacSharry, B.; Parr, M.; et al. Analysing biodiversity and conservation knowledge products to support regional environmental assessments. Sci. Data 2016, 3, 160007.
  157. Cheshmehzangi, A.; Xie, L.; Tan-Mullins, M. Pioneering a Green Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) alignment between China and other members: Mapping BRI’s sustainability plan. Blue-Green Syst. 2021, 3, 49–61.
  158. Dickman, A.; Packer, C.; Johnson, P.J.; Macdonald, D.W. A sideways look at conservation and consistency in tourism policy. Conserv. Biol. 2018, 32, 744–746.
  159. Cristiano, S.d.C.; Rockett, G.C.; Portz, L.C.; Filho, J.R.d.S. Beach landscape management as a sustainable tourism resource in Fernando de Noronha Island (Brazil). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 150, 110621.
  160. Macdonald, C.; Gallagher, A.J.; Barnett, A.; Brunnschweiler, J.; Shiffman, D.S.; Hammerschlag, N. Conservation potential of apex predator tourism. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 215, 132–141.
  161. Vannelli, K.; Hampton, M.P.; Namgail, T.; Black, S.A. Community participation in ecotourism and its effect on local perceptions of snow leopard (Panthera uncia) conservation. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2019, 24, 180–193.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback