Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Revisiting socio-ecological resilience and sustainability
in the coupled mountain landscapes in Eastern Africa
Yazidhi Bamutaze
A prevailing classical narrative avers that mountain landscapes
in Sub-Saharan Africa are highly degraded and are natural
hazard hotspots. Soil erosion processes and a range of natural
hazards particularly landslides that transpire in mountain
landscapes have been invoked in support of the unsustainable
and non-resilient paradigm. This narrative currently constitutes
the major knowledge base informing the scientific discourse,
policy options and landscape interventions. Implicating
population as the major underpinning for land degradation and
natural hazards, this narrative linearly conceives human
environmental interactions as retrogressively tilted. This paper
based on case studies and literature synthesis contends that,
whilst soil erosion and natural hazard processes are more
prominent in mountain landscapes, the conceptualized high
level land degradation might be more spatially random than
systematic while the propounded ecological impact and
productivity impact may be suboptimal. Similarly it proffers that
high population density in mountain landscape un-linearly
contributes as much to land degradation processes as it does
also to sustainable landscape management.
Address
Department of Geography, Geo-Informatics and Climatic Sciences,
Makerere University, PO Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda
Corresponding author: Bamutaze, Yazidhi
(yazidhibamutaze@gmail.com)
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:257–265
This review comes from a themed issue on Open issue
Edited by Eduardo Brondizio, Rik Leemans and William Solecki
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
Received 11 December 2014; Accepted 29 June 2015
Available online 17th July 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.010
1877-3435/# 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Introduction
The sustainability of mountain landscapes and liveli-
hoods in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is seemingly at cross-
roads due to land degradation and natural hazards. This is
especially more pronounced in the Eastern Africa moun-
tain landscapes. The notion of highly degraded and
natural hazard prevalent mountain landscapes in Eastern
Africa continues to manifest the scientific and develop-
ment discourse. A wealth of literature illustrated with
www.sciencedirect.com
quantitative and qualitative data extensively depicts the
coupled mountain landscapes as entrapped in a viscous
cycle of a myriad of recurrent land degradation processes
including intolerable soil erosion (>5 t/ha/yr), negative
nutrient balances, stagnant or declining yields, stream
pollution loading, deforestation, land cover conversions,
biodiversity loss and disastrous landslides. These degra-
dative processes are strikingly interconnected [1], re-
portedly omnipresent and increasing. These processes
raise sustainability concerns through their adverse
impacts which transcend the sites of their occurrence.
Coupled with projected changes in climate pointing to
increasing annual rainfall amounts in mountain land-
scapes, deeper questions of ecological and human sus-
tainability have been propounded.
The prevailing classical narrative of ‘degraded mountain
landscapes’ strongly shapes the development agenda and
pathways through a multitude of interventions and policy
options geared at arresting the adverse ecological condi-
tions and improving livelihoods. Whilst this narrative is
not new and dates back to the 1920 when the alarm was
sounded through the paternalist ideology [2,3], the
current conditions of the dynamic conditions via biogeo-
chemistry and human population in mountain landscapes
has elevated the sustainability debate and the urgency for
intervention measures. The recognition of urgent need
for unique sustainability niches in mountain landscapes is
underpinned in at least two key recent considerations in
the global development agenda; first, the 2012 United
Nations Rio + 20 postulations and outcomes on ‘the
future we want’ deliberations; second, the United
Nations draft Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
and targets for the post 2015 development agenda which
now explicitly addresses mountain regions.
Does the framed notion of high land degradation and
persistent natural hazards in mountain landscapes signify
lopsided human–environmental interactions culminating
into near social–ecological collapse as widely pro-
nounced? Evidently there have been calls for transforma-
tive alteration to reverse this supposed imbalance in order
to attain sustainable multifunctional landscapes. Sustain-
able multifunctional landscapes are envisioned to inte-
grate human production and use into the ecological fabric
of a landscape maintaining crucial ecosystem functions
and service flows [4]. Whereas humans constitute part of
the earth ecosystem [5] and Eastern African mountain
landscapes reflect a long history of a complex mosaic of
socio-ecological equilibrium, land degradation processes
are dynamic in both space and time. Thus, the presumed
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:257–265
258 Open issue
negatively tilted trajectory in human–environmental
interactions discourse in mountain landscapes warrants
further synthesis in light of notably; first, the mismatch
between the alarming land degradation magnitudes vis-à-
vis the expected associated impact, second, site specific
land degradation versus catchment level degradation and
third, dynamism of humans in environmental stewardship
in fragile landscapes.
Recognizing that land degradation processes and natural
hazards are by default more prevalent in mountain
landscapes, this paper postulates that Eastern African
mountain landscapes interactively depict elements of
degradation, sustainability and resilience; and landscape
degradation extremes and hotspots are more random than
systematic. This thesis is illustrated with case studies and
literature synthesis particularly on soil erosion and land-
slide hazards which dampen the magnitude and impact,
as well signifying aspects of social ecological resilience.
The linear and unidirectional proposition of human pop-
ulation being more retrogressive than progressive in the
landscape stewardship discourse is also demagnified.
Rather the importance of scale based social ecological
resilience is emphasized.
Mountain landscapes at crossroads?
Sensitivity, co-evolution and feedbacks
Mountain are classified as areas lying 1500 meters above
sea level (masl), although Nyssen et al. [6] uses a lower
elevation threshold of >1000 masl. They geographically
cover about 7–10% of SSA. Eastern Africa countries like
Ethiopia, Rwanda and Burundi have a significant propor-
tion (over 60%) of the land area classified as mountainous
that hold large populations of typically smallholder farm-
ers. The key ecological attributes of mountain landscapes
include sensitivity, fragility, marginality, diversity, het-
erogeneity and complexity [7] which culminate from their
geomorphological and geologic settings. Mountain land-
scapes are also active geophysically and hydrologically
due to the altitude and aspect driven variability in terres-
trial energy and moisture [8]. Due to the sensitivity and
fragility in mountain landscapes, a delicate equilibrium in
terms of resource use and maintenance is required to
sustain the inhabitant populations.
How does the interaction of social systems with the
sensitive ecological attributes of mountain landscapes
in Eastern Africa adversely alter the equilibrium? No-
where is the notion of ecological collapse due to human
environmental interactions more pronounced and pro-
jected than in mountain landscapes. The concern is
fueled by demographic pressure and its demands on
landscape resources as well as global environmental
change in the midst of ecological sensitivities [9–11].
Yet humans have interacted with their environments
on the African continent longer than any other ecosystems
yielding a long and complex history [2]. This interaction
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:257–265
is expected to have evolved a dynamic and resilient social
ecology. Through the co-evolutionary theory, Lambin
and Meyfroidt [12] argues that human societies constantly
co-evolve with their environment through change, insta-
bility and mutual adaptation. The co-evolutionary theory
accordingly merits serious consideration pertaining to the
land degradation dynamics [13]. The theory envisages a
dynamically coupled Eastern Africa mountain landscapes
that adjusts and adapts to new sustainable situations
without much alarm.
The contention in the mountain landscape sustainability
debate cannot be about occurrence of geomorphic pro-
cesses and hazards as they are naturally inclined to hap-
pen. Rather, it has to be on how processes are negatively
skewed by human land used activities. From a geomor-
phological perspective, a delicate site balance known as
the ‘threshold of tolerance’ that must be maintained to
obviate adverse feedbacks and fluxes which manifest as
intolerable soil erosion, landslides and floods. Since the
concept of sustainability is normative and multifarious for
intergenerational natural capital dependent populations
[14], it ought to invariably capture the unique multiface-
ted social and ecological niches of Eastern Africa mountain
landscapes. These geographically underpin socio-ecologi-
cal resilience in the face of the prevailing slow and
dramatic processes and hazards. As Fairhead and Scoones
[11] advocated, sustainability requires comprehension of
issues ‘beyond the business as usual’ land degradation
domain in order to capture the integrated alternative
modes along a geographic agro-ecology.
Interacting scales of socio-ecological
resilience
The socio-ecological resilience concept has gained signifi-
cant ground in sustainability discourse over the last decade
in light of the increasing convergence of disciplines and
increasing environmental threats to human security. The
resilience of socio-ecological systems (SES) is a central
objective of sustainability [15] more so in fragile ecosys-
tems like mountains. The ability of SES to build resilience
in the context of hazards is an important factor in their long-
term sustainability [8]. In the land degradation and natural
hazard domain, this is useful in understanding the stability,
recovery and transformation of when and why people
would innovate to prevent land degradation [9].
Resilient SES do possess capacities to absorb distur-
bances in the system, handle negative changes and retain
functionality, structure, configuration and linkages with
other systems without regime shifts [15–17]. The thrust
of the socio-ecological resilience framework is to capture
the spatial dynamics of human–environmental interac-
tions, their consequences and material flows across the
landscape. SES assumes a functional geographically cou-
pled human–environmental system that can be delineat-
ed and mapped with definitive characteristics.
www.sciencedirect.com
 Sustainable socio-ecological resilience in SSA Bamutaze 259

For mountain landscapes, the dimension of scale in socio- range of geomorphological and socio-economic processes
ecological resilience is crucial. The resilience theory occurring in a specific terrain configuration. The typology,
predicts that complex systems such as mountain land- intensity, frequency and magnitude of a range of geo-
scapes exhibit cross-scale interactions [18]. This requires hazards occurring in a given mountain system gives
understanding the state(s) and spatial scale of the system indicators on the extent of alteration of the equilibrium
being considered (resilience of what), the perturbations of state largely through human activities although this can
interest that affect the persistence of system states (re- also occur under natural conditions. Certainly, there are
sistance to what) and the temporal scale of interest [19]. linkages between the scalar levels, but variations exist in
Holling [20] idealized the ‘Panarchy system’, that con- terms of the magnitude and rate of predominant process-
ceptualizes hierarchical spatial entities (scales) with each es, the exposure and actors. Noteworthy is the general
level evolving towards a critical condition leading to lack of linearity in process and form between the scalar
either a collapse (hazard) or to self-reorganization. Each levels. Each level dynamically depicts unique niches of
variant scale epitomizes fractional physical and social sustainability challenges, owing to the diversity and
properties. This framework holds much water in the prominence of not only natural processes, but also a range
heterogeneous Eastern Africa mountain landscapes. of actors and social processes. Overall, Dearing [18]
emphasizes the link between slow processes predominant
On the basis of terrain attributes, multiple scalar levels in over large spatial areas (slow-large) and fast processes
mountain landscapes that inform the human–ecological operating over small spatial areas (fast-small).
interactions can be constructed in a hierarchical structure
as; (1) plot scale (2) hillslope scale (3) sub catchment scale Demagnifying the human dimension in the
(4) catchment scale (5) landscape scale as illustrated in land degradation discourse
Figure 1. Geomorphologists use the concept of equilibri- Huge propositions subscribing to the existence of high
um to infer sustainability in landscapes and do recognize magnitude and ubiquitous land degradation in mountain
that it is affected by the spatial and temporal scale [21]. landscapes generally implicate human dimensions via
The equilibrium state in a mountain landscape continu- population growth rates and population density as the
um is neither uniform nor constant and is a function of a direct primary driver [22–25]. It has to be noted however

Figure 1

HH: Household, CM: Community, VL: Village, SB: Sub county, DS: District, PR: Province, RG: Regional

National and regional policies

PR RG

Priority programmes and institutions

Governance levels matched to spatial scale

Soil and water conservation programmes

SB/DS

Development programmes
Economic opportunities including markets
Ordinances and bye-laws

Common pool resources

VL

Social networks n
sitio
sitio
n
s i o n d epo n
epo n e
s i o n
e d Ero dscap positio
Ero dscap positio Lan am de re ing
Lan am de re ing load
Communal resources
load Stre e failu llution
CM

e ition Stre e failu llution p

Slo am po
ion ur p
e r os e fail epos Slo am po Stre
ion ailur E p d S e t r
os
Er pe f Slo eam
HH

Production Slo Str

Erosion

Plot Hillslope sub-catchment catchment landscape

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Interacting spatial scales and attendant processes vis-à-vis governance levels in a mountain landscapes.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:257–265

260 Open issue
that even without population increase, the land quality
can be negatively altered by the level and intensity of
human activities on the land which can influence a range
of degradative processes. Population is conceived as
triggering a cobweb of unsustainable landscape activities
including accelerated deforestation, land cover conver-
sions, encroachment on ecologically sensitive slopes, land
fragmentation and agricultural practices devoid of sound
land management measures [26]. This linear thesis is
indicative of an unsustainable dynamism between popu-
lation, land use and environment [22] and vividly con-
ceptualizes human population in mountain landscapes as
being more retrogressive than progressive in environmen-
tal stewardship and sustainability. It is imperative to
further explore the extent of validity of this thesis by
looking at the spatial population dynamics in SSA with an
eye on the Eastern Africa mountain landscapes.
The estimated population of SSA by 2013 was 936.1 mil-
lion people (http://data.worldbank.org/region/SSA) of
which 63% lives in rural areas especially in mountain
regions. This population is projected to rise to 2.5 billion
by 2050. Theoretically, the increasing population would
exert more demands on the land through a range of
extractive activities. A comparative analysis by Slaymaker
[27] reveals that tropical mountain population in develop-
ing countries are found in the mid-elevation zones as
opposed to lower zones in developed countries. The
mid-elevation zones are ecologically more sensitive. A
spatial inspection of the population distribution shows a
relative fair correlation of population density with eleva-
tion (Figure 2); where mountain regions particularly in
Figure 2
(a)
Elevation (m)
0 - 250
250 - 500
500 - 1,000
1,000 - 2,000
2,000 - 6,000
Elevation (a) is seemingly a stronger explanatory factor of population density hotspots (b) in Eastern Africa.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:257–265
Eastern Africa illuminate higher population densities.
This is widely attributed to the relatively conducive soils
and climate prevailing in mountain regions which support
agricultural productivity.
Population growth undoubtedly has impacts on land
resources, particularly in the heavily ecosystem depen-
dent livelihoods, as the case is in mountain landscapes in
Eastern Africa. However, the relationship between pop-
ulation growth, land degradation and natural hazards is
neither unidirectional nor necessarily linear [2,26]. As
Kiage [2] noted, whereas population growth cannot be
absolutely discounted in the causation of hazards and land
degradation, it is seldom the primary cause, but one that
acts in conjunction with other factors. Some noteworthy
studies and situations pertaining in Eastern Africa indi-
cate that increasing population on the contrary can spur
land stewardship and improved land conditions. A signa-
ture and revealing influential study on population and
natural resources at meso scale by Tiffen et al. [28] in
Machakos district in Kenya based on trend data analysis
for 60 years yielded a U-shaped relation between popu-
lation pressure and soil conditions. Tiffen et al. [28] found
that rather than igniting more landscape degradation as
assumed in the classical paradigm, population growth
instead led to intensification through diverse land man-
agement measures which culminated into improved en-
vironmental conditions. Attributions to the observed
environmental positivity tilted to an economic dimension
pointing to linkages of communities to markets, which
ultimately incentivized them to improve land manage-
ment, cognizant of the monetary benefits that would
(b)
Population density
0 - 25
25 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 150
150 - 200
200 - 250
250 - 300
300 - 400
400 - 500
>500
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
www.sciencedirect.com

ensue from improved crop yields. At a macro scale,
Rwanda geographically located in a complex topography
forming part of the Africa rift system is a typically moun-
tainous country with elevation ranging from 950 masl to
4507 masl. At about 447 persons/km2, Rwanda probably
has the highest population density in SSA. Despite high
population densities living almost entirely in an ecolog-
ically sensitive mountainous region, Rwanda has regis-
tered a 40% increase in forest cover between 1990 and
2011 [29]. Government steadfastness and commitment
through formulation and implementation of environmen-
tally friendly policies, provision of incentives and citizen
efforts through onsite soil and water conservation prac-
tices have been mentioned as the factors attributed to this
positive environmental stewardship. These lessons from
these cases highlight strong aspects of socio-ecological
resilience and re-affirm a positive landscape stewardship
of the population in the face of challenging environmen-
tal conditions and situations.
Niches of sustainability and socio-ecological
resilience in the face of soil erosion and
natural hazards
Patterns of accelerated soil erosion are diverse and
inconclusive
Accelerated soil erosion which looks at loss of soil at a rate
greater than soil formation on landscapes is inextricably
linked to human activities. Accelerated soil erosion fig-
ures prominently in the sustainability debate of mountain
landscapes and is considered to be the most significant
form of land degradation owing to the deleterious onsite
and offsite effects that emerge due to detachment, trans-
portation and deposition of the topsoil containing most of
the desirable nutrients for crop growth. It must be em-
phasized that soil erosion occurs if the transportation
capacity which is a function of slope gradient exists in
situ. By default, mountain landscapes are at high risk to
soil erosion processes due to terrain conditions and sites
with slope gradients >30% are considered critical espe-
cially if agricultural activities are undertaken.
Because soil erosion is both a natural and human induced
process, the concept of tolerable soil loss is used as a proxy
to inform on (un)sustainability of land use practices and
land health. The tolerable soil loss concept is widely
covered by Verheijen et al. [30] and refers to erosion
Table 1
Varied soil loss rates measured from cropped sites on the Mt. Elgon landscape
No. Source Measurement Land use
technique
1 Tenywa (1993) Rainfall simulation Maize
2 Nakileza (1994) Runoff plots Maize intercrop
3 Bamutaze (2005) Runoff plots Annual and perennial
4 Bamutaze (2010) Runoff plots Annual and perennial
a
Up scaled from season to year.
www.sciencedirect.com
Sustainable socio-ecological resilience in SSA Bamutaze 261
occurring below a crucially defined threshold determined
as a function of a range of site conditions. Tolerable soil
loss rate values are based on properties of specific root-
limiting subsurface soil layers, current climate regions and
economic feasibility grouped by land resource regions
[31]. Long term empirical data to quantitatively guide
the thresholds for the tolerable soil loss in the large, varied
and heterogeneous (soil types, terrain and climate) East-
ern Africa landscape are lacking. However a generic
tolerable soil loss threshold of 5 t/ha/yr for tropical soils
[32] is commonly invoked. The applicability of this
threshold value in mountain landscapes has been con-
tested by Morgan [33] as being too conservative and
restrictive to the inhabitant population. Morgan has in-
stead advocated for a much higher soil loss tolerance limit
of 10 t/ha/yr. Irrespective of the adopted soil loss tolerance
threshold, case studies from mountain landscapes reveal
that in terms of magnitude, soil loss rates are highly
variable and inconclusive across geographic space in East-
ern Africa mountain landscapes as exemplified below.
Eastern African mountains are intimately related to the
African Rift system. With the exception of the Rwenzori
ranges, most major mountains are volcanic in origin
comprising generally productive soils especially for agri-
culture, which have attracted disproportionately high
human populations. Although the volcanic soils are quite
young and productive, they are also prone to high soil
erosion rates. Table 1 gives a trajectory of results from
four soil erosion studies conducted on the Ugandan side
of the volcanic transboundary mountain Elgon for a
period spanning about 20 years. Tenywa [34] studied soil
erosion at plot scale (80 m2) on a site cropped to maize, on
Humic Oxisols soils at an altitude of 2000 masl. Nine
replicated rainfall simulations at mean rainfall intensity of
127  28 mm h 1 were administered on the lower, mid-
dle and upper hillslope segments for a period of about
60 min per simulation. The mean site soil losses regis-
tered were 595 kg/ha on the upper slope segment, 121 kg/
ha on the middle slope segment and 61 kg/ha on the lower
slope segment. In another study, Bamutaze [35] used
runoff plots measuring 150 m2, to quantify soil loss for
two years on a site located at an altitude of 1500 masl
cropped to maize, beans and banana. The mean observed
soil losses varied from 1 t/ha/yr to 11 t/ha/yr. In these two
cases, soil loss rates are conspicuously low and generally
Temporal Soil erosion Soil erosion Scale
scale magnitude categorization
Events 61–594 kg/ha Very low Plot
Seasonal 12.8 t/ha/yr a High Plot
Annual 25–45 t/ha/y Very high Plot
Annual 1–11 t/ha/yr Low Plot
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:257–265
262 Open issue

within the tolerable soil loss thresholds, although the area
is heavily populated (>250 persons/km2) and the sites are
intensively cultivated. The site soils were found to have
high steady state infiltration rates of up to 363 cm h 1
[36].
In the same mountain Elgon landscape system depicting
tolerable soil loss rates, other soil erosion measurement
studies reveal a different dynamic at sites bearing almost
the same land use practices. Nakileza [37] measured and
quantified seasonal runoff and soil loss of 6.4 t/ha (ap-
proximately 12.8 t/ha/yr) at a plot scale on a site located
2000 masl bearing maize crops. Plot scale (150 m2) mea-
surements by Bamutaze [38], at sites located at about
1800 masl yielded annual soil losses of 25 t/ha/yr and 45 t/
ha/yr for perennial crops (banana and coffee intercrops)
and annual crops (maize, beans intercrops) respectively.
The contrasts and variations in soil loss rates are not
peculiar only to Mt. Elgon and similar patterns exist
elsewhere in the Eastern Africa mountain landscapes.
These can be ascribed to the spatially differentiated
delicate combination of interacting factors including soil
type, slope steepness, rainfall intensity and land use
practices. They emphasize the complexity of using site
studies to infer the land degradation status in mountain
landscapes.
High soil losses, mild productivity consequences
Another sustainability perspective on soil erosion in the
land degradation domain relates to the resultant impact.
Ordinarily, emphasis is put on ensuring that soil erosion
rates should be below the rate of soil formation to ensure
sustainable landscapes. Yet it is generally known that soil
formation rates in the tropical mountain landscapes are
painfully slow [39,40] and operate at geomorphological
timescales. Table 2 shows annual soil losses and the
associated computed changes in soil depth change from
selected mountain landscapes in Eastern Africa. The
derived changes would imply rapidly depleting soils in
depth and nutrient status since most nutrients exist in
the topsoil. However, it is inconceivable that mountain
landscapes would to-date still be agriculturally productive
with that magnitude of change. If this situation was
widely true, it would probably trigger the collapse of
economies and livelihoods [2] since they are strongly
agricultural economies dependent on natural fertility.
Such communities would also be prone to resource based
conflicts in agitation for better livelihood conditions from
their governments. Currently, there is no evidence to that
effect of the above situations in Eastern Africa mountain
landscapes. On the contrary, Nyssen et al. [6] reported
that many mountain regions in the tropical highlands
have substantially gotten better.
What then explains the high magnitude of soil losses
measured from experimental plots? This paradox cata-
lyzes the need to look soil erosion process at a landscape
not as unidirectional, but through a lens of in situ input
and output balance. Across hillslopes and across catch-
ments in mountain landscapes, soil erosion processes are
characterized by both runoff and run-on, through lateral
flows albeit in relatively short distances due high spatial
differentiation especially of slope morphology, relief, soils
and rainfall. Thus, depending on the location of a given
field in the landscape, there are likely to be losses through
runoff and gains through run-on and deposition. There-
fore, the issue of net loss vis-à-vis net gain of soil in
mountain landscapes becomes paramount in assessing the
un(sustainability). The intricacies of runoff and run-on is
a crucially element in the ecological and social resilience
of mountain landscapes. Unfortunately, most soil erosion
experimental plot studies from which quantitative data
are captured and reported do not, by design account for
the possibility of gains since they are closed systems by
nature. This possibly creates an alarming situation that
does not embed the potential mitigation due to deposi-
tion from upslope.
Hazard prone mountain landscapes reflect strong
aspects of ecosystem resilience and recovery
Apart from soil erosion, another prominent process that
has strong imprints in Eastern Africa mountain landscapes

Table 2

Annual change in soil depth due to soil loss in selected mountain landscapes in Eastern Africa

No Reference Mountain system Country Soil loss Crops Soil depth

change (mm)
1 Bamutaze [38] Elgon Uganda 25–45 t/ha/yr Maize and beans 3.4
2 Nakileza [37] Elgon Uganda 12.8 t/ha/yr a Maize 1.0
3 Bamutaze [35] Elgon Uganda 1–11 t/ha/yr Maize and beans 0.8
4 Tukahirwa [41] Kigezi Uganda 38 t/ha/yr Maize 2.9
5 Bagoora [42] Kigezi Uganda 130 t/ha/yr Maize 10
6 Kimaro et al. [43] Uluguru Tanzania 69–163 t/ha/yr Maize 12.3
7 Kagabo et al. [44] Rwanda highlands Rwanda 18–42 t/ha/yr Maize, potatoes 3.2
8 Zegeye et al. [45] Ethiopian highlands Ethiopia 8–32 t/ha/yr Teff, maize, finger millet 2.4
9 Vaje et al. [46] Kilimanjaro Tanzania 12–32 t/ha/yr Maize 2.4
10 Tefera and Sterk [47] Ethiopian highlands Ethiopia 24–160 t/ha/yr Beans, maize, teff 12
a
Computed by the author.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:257–265 www.sciencedirect.com


Figure 3
(a)
Aspects of landscape resilience in Bududa on Mt. Elgon with a landslide ravaged site in 2010 (a) which had regenerated by 2013 (b).
and raises sustainability questions is slope failures or
landsliding. Indeed, hundreds of slope failures do occur
on various sites in mountain landscapes annually, but
these seldom translate into disaster situations. In general,
the impact of landslides on landscape productivity is far
more severe, but landslides usually occur over much
smaller areas in spatial terms compared to soil erosion
which is much wider [48]. Mountain Elgon is one of the
landscapes in Eastern Africa with a high frequency of
landslide hazard occurrence of diverse typologies and
magnitudes as various studies indicate [49–51]. In the
last 20 years, over 300 landslides have been registered on
Mt. Elgon. Indeed, the history of human populations
living in this high risk environment with frequent land-
slide events is quite long and evident in the communities.
The most catastrophic landslide that has ever occurred to-
date on Mt. Elgon is the one registered in Bududa in
2010 which killed over 300 hundred people. The ecologi-
cal and human footprints of this landslide were conspicu-
ously visible across the socio-cultural landscape of Mount
Elgon. Notwithstanding the fatalities and property
damages, the mountain Elgon landscape reflects some
strong aspects of resilience. For example, the site which
was severely affected by this gigantic landslide has sub-
stantially recovered in about two years (Figure 3). This is
common in tropical mountain landscapes and is certainly
attributed to the soil and climatic conditions, both tem-
perature and climate which enable quick recovery and
regeneration. These attributes enable the communities to
continue utilizing the landscape for livelihood activities
albeit with some short interruptions. While the specific
landslide incidences are problematic in terms of the
disaster situations created, they also yield great socio-
ecological resilience opportunities at a wider scale.
According to Gardner and Dekens [8], the great socio-
ecological value from catastrophes lies in taking advan-
tages of the aftermath opportunities. Clearly, this is seen
in the case of East Africa where the 2010 disastrous
landslide on the Ugandan side of Mt. Elgon significantly
influenced the formulation of new national and regional
www.sciencedirect.com
Sustainable socio-ecological resilience in SSA Bamutaze 263
(b)
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
level policies, spurred multi-stakeholder commitments,
land management measures and livelihood programmes
geared at protecting mountain landscapes and the inhab-
itant populations. These are expected to catalyze and
elevate landscape and social resilience to natural hazards.
Conclusions
The biophysical conditions of mountain landscapes make
them prone to a range of slow and dramatic processes like
soil erosion and landslides due to the high energy. Un-
doubtedly, human land use activities on the fragile moun-
tain landscapes in Eastern Africa alter the rates of these
processes and account for random hotspots of land degra-
dation particularly soil erosion. However, human popula-
tions have long lived in mountain landscapes in Africa
culminating into a complex socio-ecological dynamic that
reflects use, but also management of landscape resources.
This review has illustrated some socio-ecological resil-
ience paths in mountain landscapes. In a coupled but
topographically diverse mountain landscape, the scale
dimension in resilience and sustainability is crucial as
each level raises different exposures in terms of processes,
but also in terms of actors and opportunities. Land
degradation processes are existent in Eastern Africa
mountain landscapes but not as ‘pervasively’ alarming
as often reported. Equally substantial evidence of posi-
tive environmental stewardship in densely populated
mountain landscapes exist, illustrating socio-ecological
resilience. This synthesis also underpins the need for
long-term geomorphological research in Eastern Africa
mountain landscapes that will yield geographically tagged
sustainability systems.
Acknowledgements
Some of the data used in the presented case studies on Mt. Elgon were
generated from studies funded the Directorate of Research and Graduate
Training (DRGT) under SIDA support to Makerere University, the
National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and the Network
of Uganda Researchers and Research Users (NURRU). That financial
contribution is greatly appreciated. The spatial population data used was
obtained from the Center for International Earth Science Information
Network (CIESEN), Earth Institute/University of Columbia. I extend my
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:257–265
264 Open issue
thanks to Lisa Lukang for the assistance rendered to furnish me with the
gridded spatial data.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1. Hardt JN: Critical deconstruction of environmental security
 and human security concepts in the anthropocene. In Climate
Change, Human Security and Violent Conflict. Edited by Scheffran
J et al.: Springer; 2012:207-221.
This paper discusses the contemporary global environmental threats and
engages theories from both natural science and social science and
deconstructs the universality of issues related to human security. It
emphasizes context and geographic specific framework of addressing
issues.
2. Kiage LM: Perspectives on the assumed causes of land
 degradation in the rangelands of Sub-Saharan Africa. Prog
Phys Geogr 2013, 37:664-684.
The paper deeply analyses human environmental interactions in African
societies giving the current state of land degradation. It crucially ques-
tions the current narrative of high degradation.
3. Stocking M: Soil erosion in developing countries: where
geomorphology fears to tread! Catena 1995, 25:253-267.
4. O’Farrell PJ, Anderson PML: Sustainable multifunctional
landscapes: a review to implementation. Curr Opin Environ
Sustain 2010, 2:59-65.
5. Marincioni F et al.: Enhancing resistance and resilience to
disasters with microfinance: parallels with ecological trophic
systems. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2013, 4:52-62.
6. Nyssen J, Poesen J, Deckers J: Land degradation and soil and
water conservation in tropical highlands. Soil Till Res 2009,
103:197-202.
7. Jodha NS: Global change and environmental risks in mountain
ecosystems. In Global Environmental Risk. Edited by Kasperson
JX, Kasperson RE. 2001:306-342.
8. Gardner J, Dekens J: Mountain hazards and the resilience of
social–ecological systems: lessons learned in India and
Canada. Nat Hazards 2007, 41:317-336.
9. Tenywa MM, Zake J, Lal R: Building upon traditional knowledge
to enhance resilience of soils in Sub-Saharan Africa. In
Principles of Sustainable Soil Management in Agroecosystems.
Edited by Lal R, Stewart BA. CRC Press; 2013:109-140.
10. Nogues-Bravo D et al.: Exposure of global mountain systems to
climate warming during the 21st Century. Global Environ
Change 2007, 17:420-428.
11. Fairhead J, Scoones I: Local knowledge and the social shaping
of soil investments: critical perspectives on the assessment of
soil degradation in Africa. Land Use Policy 2005, 22:33-41.
12. Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P: Land use transitions: socio-ecological
feedback versus socio-economic change. Land Use Policy
2010, 27:108-118.
13. Koning N, Smaling E: Environmental crisis or lie of the land? The
 debate on soil degradation in Africa. Land Use Policy 2005,
22:3-11.
This paper questions whether there is an environmental crisis or just a lie
about soil degradation in Africa. This paper gives a trajectory of land
degradation issues in Africa highlighting how it is visualized by natural
scientists and social societies. It explains how the phenomenon has been
framed differently.
14. Derissen S, Quaas MF, Baumgartner S: The relationship
between resilience and sustainability of ecological–economic
systems. Ecol Econ 2011, 70:1121-1128.
15. Adger WN: Ecological and social resilience. In Handbook of
Sustainable Development. Edited by Atkinson G., Dietz S,
Neumayer E. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2007:69.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:257–265
16. Li Y et al.: Applying the concept of spatial resilience to socio-
ecological systems in the urban wetland interface. Ecol Indic
2014, 42:135-146.
17. Carpenter S et al.: From metaphor to measurement: resilience
of what to what? Ecosystems 2001, 4:765-781.
18. Dearing JA: Landscape change and resilience theory: a
 palaeoenvironmental assessment from Yunnan, SW China.
Holocene 2008, 18:117-127.
The papers detail the resilience theory as it pertains of long term
landscape change. It illustrates phased changes and multi-level resi-
lience indicators, properties and pathways, which are crucial is sustain-
ability.
19. Drever CR et al.: Can forest management based on natural
disturbances maintain ecological resilience? Can J Forest Res
2006, 36:2285-2299.
20. Holling CS: Understanding the complexity of economic,
ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 2001, 4:390-405.
21. Fisher SG et al.: Functional ecomorphology: feedbacks
between form and function in fluvial landscape ecosystems.
Geomorphology 2007, 89:84-96.
22. Drechsel P et al.: Population density, soil nutrient depletion,
and economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecol Econ 2001,
38:251-258.
23. Headey DD, Jayne TS: Adaptation to land constraints: is Africa
different? Food Policy 2014, 48:18-33.
24. Jayne TS, Chamberlin J, Headey DD: Land pressures, the
evolution of farming systems, and development strategies in
Africa: a synthesis. Food Policy 2014, 48:1-17.
25. Pricope NG et al.: The climate-population nexus in the East
African Horn: emerging degradation trends in rangeland
and pastoral livelihood zones. Global Environ Change 2013,
23:1525-1541.
26. Muchena FN et al.: Turning the tides of soil degradation in
 Africa: capturing the reality and exploring opportunities. Land
Use Policy 2005, 22:23-31.
The paper gives trajectories of land degradation and uses developed
indicators to validate issues at multiple scales. The paper highlights
realities and myths of land degradation in Africa.
27. Slaymaker O: Mountain hazards. In Geomorphological Hazards
and Disaster Prevention. Edited by Alcantara-Ayala I, Goudie A.
Cambridge: Routledge; 2010:33-47.
28. Tiffen M, Mortimore M, Gichuki F: More People, Less Erosion:
Environmental Recovery in Kenya. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 1994.
29. NBI: State of the river Nile Basin 2012. Entebbe: Nile Basin
Initiative; 2012.
30. Verheijen FGA et al.: Tolerable versus actual soil erosion rates
in Europe. Earth Sci Rev 2009, 94:23-38.
31. Renschler CS, Harbor J: Soil erosion assessment tools from
point to regional scales — the role of geomorphologists in
land management research and implementation.
Geomorphology 2002, 47:189-209.
32. Lufafa A et al.: Prediction of soil erosion in a Lake Victoria Basin
catchment using GIS-based Universal soil loss model. Agric
Syst 2003, 76:883-894.
33. Morgan RPC: Soil Erosion and Conservation. John Wiley & Sons;
2009.
34. Tenywa MM: Soil erosion and overland flow processes on
spatially variable soils. Agronomy. Ohio State University: Ohio
State University; 1993, 293.
35. Bamutaze Y: Patterns of water erosion and sediment loading
on Mt. Elgon, Eastern Uganda. Geography. Kampala: Makerere
University; 2011, 233.
36. Bamutaze Y et al.: Infiltration characteristics of volcanic
sloping soils on Mt. Elgon, Eastern Uganda. Catena 2010,
80:122-130.
www.sciencedirect.com

37. Nakileza B: The Influence of Cropping Systems and Management
Practices on Soil Erosion on Mt. Elgon slopes. Kampala: Makerere
University; 1994, 109.
38. Bamutaze Y: The impact of land use on runoff and soil loss in
Wanale micro-catchment, Mt. Elgon. Geography. Kampala:
Makerere University; 2005, 120.
39. Gracheva R: Formation of soil diversity in the mountainous
tropics and subtropics: rocks, time, and erosion.
Geomorphology 2011, 135:224-231.
40. Da Costa PYD et al.: Old landscapes, pre-weathered materials,
and pedogenesis in tropical Africa: how can the time factor of
soil formation be assessed in these regions? Q Int 2014:1-28
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.062.
41. Tukahirwa JMB: Measurement, prediction and social ecology
of accelerated soil erosion in Kabale District, Southwest
Uganda. Geography. Kampala: Makerere University; 1996, 289.
42. Bagoora FDK: Soil Loss in Rukiga Highlands in Eastern Kabale,
Western Uganda in Geography. Kampala: Makerere University; 1998.
43. Kimaro DN et al.: Magnitude of soil erosion on the northern
slope of the Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania: Interrill and rill
erosion. Catena 2008, 75:38-44.
44. Kagabo DM et al.: Soil erosion, soil fertility and crop yield on
slow-forming terraces in the highlands of Buberuka, Rwanda.
Soil Till Res 2013, 128:23-29.
www.sciencedirect.com
Sustainable socio-ecological resilience in SSA Bamutaze 265
45. Zegeye AD et al.: Assessment of soil erosion processes and
farmer perception of land conservation in Debre Mewi
watershed near Lake Tana, Ethiopia. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 2010,
10:297-306.
46. Vaje PI, Singh BR, Lal R: Soil erosion and nutrient losses from a
volcanic ash soil in Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania. J Sustain
Agric 2005, 26:95-117.
47. Tefera B, Sterk G: Land management, erosion problems and
soil and water conservation in Fincha’a watershed, western
Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:1027-1037.
48. Sidle RC et al.: Erosion processes in steep terrain — truths,
myths, and uncertainties related to forest management in
Southeast Asia. Forest Ecol Manag 2006, 224:199-225.
49. Mugagga F, Kakembo V, Buyinza M: A characterisation of the
physical properties of soil and the implications for landslide
occurrence on the slopes of Mount Elgon, Eastern Uganda.
Nat Hazards 2010, 60:1113-1131.
50. Knapen A et al.: Landslides in a densely populated county at the
footslopes of Mount Elgon (Uganda): characteristics and
causal factors. Geomorphology 2006, 73:149-165.
51. Claessens L et al.: Modelling landslide hazard, soil
redistribution and sediment yield of landslides on the
Ugandan footslopes of Mount Elgon. Geomorphology 2007,
90:23-35.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 14:257–265