Angelo Bertoni
Full Professor in Town Planning
National School of Architecture, Strasbourg, AMUP
Emma-Sophie Mouret
PhD, History of Spatial Planning and Environmental History, Grenoble Alpes University, LARHRA, Grenoble, France
Ornella Zaza
Associate professor of urban planning, IUAR – Urban planning and regional development, Aix-Marseille University, UMR TELEMMe 7303 CNRS
This thematic issue on mountain infrastructure is dedicated to exploring the planned structures and facilities that ensure the long-term accessibility, habitability (Bertoni & Zaza, 2025) and economic activity of mountain regions. These include not only transport and communications networks, but also assets designed to produce and supply water and energy, store digital data, or protect inhabited areas, such as the check dams used to slow torrential flood water. These infrastructure assets have both a physical and technical materiality (in relation to the practices of the actors who use and/or manage them, and playing a central role in operational issues) and an economic existence (in terms of their management and finance). They therefore need to be approached both through the lens of the sociotechnical and economic systems of which they are a part, and from the perspective of their environmental, political and historical dimensions.
While designed to meet the needs of users (local, regional and supra-regional actors, and their professional and personal networks), this infrastructure is also a powerful instrument of regionalisation, via the devolution of powers to regional authorities (Vanier, 2009). Infrastructure thus plays a role in competition between regions, and is involved in decisions made in favour or to the detriment of certain economic actors and the occupations and values they represent. These aspects come into play at various stages in the life of an infrastructure asset: before and during its construction, and as part of discussions about its maintenance, adaptation or abandonment, or in some cases its replacement. In the past the public discourse largely focused on inter-regional economic equity, but since the 2000s it has come to be dominated by questions relating to environmental issues and natural hazards (Bertram & Chilla, 2022), though without any resolution of the socioeconomic contradictions. One of the objectives of this thematic issue is to successfully bring together interdisciplinary knowledge about these various aspects.
The decision to explore this infrastructure in mountain regions takes its lead from a tradition of historiography in the social sciences that has long recognised the mountain environment as fertile ground for social change, and as facilitating the emergence of often innovative citizen-led initiatives. This is amplified by physical constraints, which have an impact on mobility and impose economic choices (Attali et al., 2014; Torricelli, 1993), leading the communities that live in these areas to develop adaptation mechanisms. Mountain regions are also particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, which in some cases is having a devastating impact on existing infrastructure. Safety concerns are paramount, especially in regions that since the 1970s have become popular locations for homes, second homes and leisure activities. Infrastructure is a particularly fraught topic in mountain regions because of environmental protection considerations (Perlik, 2025; 2019). And growing interest in the socioenvironmental transition among politicians and the general public is prompting a rethink of regional development models and the associated infrastructure (Bourg et al., 2016). Examining infrastructure in mountain regions thus requires research in the field of regional planning to investigate the long centralised policies pursued by the state and its institutions for economic and political purposes (Fournier & Massard Guilbaud, 2016), and the gradual withdrawal of the state from certain sectors in favour of their privatisation. Historians, geographers, urban planners and economists have already begun to explore numerous aspects of this area (FLUX, 2022), including the interplay of actors and the conflicts resulting from the strategies mentioned above (Scognamiglio et al., 2025). But their work has seldom considered mountain regions, other than through the lens of the expansion of the rail network and the development of spa towns, ski resorts and sanatoriums (Soubirou, 2018; Franco, 2019; Hagimont, 2020; Grizard, 2025).
This call for papers invites work on mountain infrastructure that focuses on regional planning processes, with the aim of bringing together a heterogeneous collection of case studies from which we can draw an overall picture of the way in which infrastructure shapes mountains, and vice versa. In other words, we aim firstly to explore the way in which infrastructure has transformed mountains and the human and non-human components of their environments, by increasing their accessibility, habitability and therefore attractiveness, but also through its impact on landscapes and ecosystems. And secondly, we want to examine the way in which the topography and specific geological structure of mountains have influenced the construction and management of infrastructure. This objective is a particularly timely one given the increasing frequency and intensity of natural hazards, dwindling natural and economic resources, and the rise of protest movements against technocratic approaches.
This thematic issue also takes a lifecycle approach to infrastructure in which we consider three stages: planning, construction and operation, and future prospects. In this ideal-typical timeline of an infrastructure asset as a sociotechnical process, these three stages enable us to compare and contrast the temporality specific to an infrastructure asset with that of the strategies of the actors involved, and the contexts in which they are embedded. Here, these three stages are approached from a diachronic perspective, structured by area of focus. We envisage that authors will also want to include synchronic and thematic observations about the ways in which mountain infrastructure is planned, built, used and inherited. Contributors may limit themselves to one of the three areas of focus identified below, or take a cross-cutting approach. We welcome articles from all disciplines, and indeed those that take an interdisciplinary approach, but all papers must examine the mountain environment, based on case studies from the Alps, elsewhere in Europe, or other mountain regions around the world.
This area of focus invites authors to explore the way in which mountain infrastructure assets are thought of as political, economic and socioenvironmental tools that influence relations with mountain regions and with their inhabitants. This involves examining points of view from within and outside mountain communities through the lens of the dynamics of regionalisation, including by looking at relations between the mountains and the plains, and the interests of different groups of actors.
Examining mountain infrastructure as a research object in the humanities and social sciences thus requires analysis of the representations and narratives that surround these assets, with a particular focus on the various political, economic, sociocultural and environmental strategies associated with them. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the development of mountain regions was perceived as proof of the might of the sovereign powers (Gal, 2018), since overcoming the challenges of the mountain environment was a way to illustrate the military, political and technical strength of the ruling powers. Following on from this, in the 19th and 20th centuries the construction of infrastructure represented the first step in the development of mountain regions, their integration into regional systems (such as road and rail networks) and their increased exploitation (including for water abstraction, as a source of timber, and for building dams). Infrastructure became a tool of development that was synonymous with modernity and the victory of technology over a supposedly hostile nature (Mouret, 2023). Tamed, equipped and made more accessible by the construction of road and rail infrastructure, mountain regions were more able to welcome urban dwellers in search of nature, and became increasingly popular tourist destinations, culminating in the establishment of monofunctional ski resorts (Fournier, 2018).
This brief overview highlights the long-standing nature of the immense role assigned to mountain infrastructure, and the close ties between infrastructure and power. We therefore invite authors to consider the ways in which, over the long term, infrastructure constructs multiple different views of the mountains and their inhabitants, and conversely of the political, administrative, financial and military powers involved in their development.
We also welcome articles that explore the preliminary aspects of infrastructure, in particular at the design stage: why and for whom is an infrastructure asset planned? What processes are used to assess, or even create, needs? How important are physical and technical parameters, and are they the main factors in the failure of an infrastructure project? What forces are at work and what territorial models are accepted and/or acceptable in the various case studies? This involves examining any winners and losers, and the processes by which dominant discourses are formed. How important is tourism to the current existence (and survival) of mountain infrastructure? And what idea of the mountains does the infrastructure project convey more broadly?
Exploring mountain infrastructure necessarily means paying attention to its material construction, and to the ways in which it is managed and used: aspects that are central to this area of focus. The gradual liberalisation of public procurement and outsourcing has led to tensions over the maintenance and management of infrastructure, which were originally undertaken by the state, particularly in Europe. The closure of small train lines due to their lack of profitability, the difficulty of covering signal dead zones due to a lack of interest on the part of private telecommunications operators, and the financial and environmental costs of keeping mid-mountain ski resorts open all raise questions about the governance of infrastructure assets as instruments of development (Lascoumes & Galès, 2005). This area of focus is thus intended to explore the points of tension that emerge when infrastructure enters service. Below we sketch out a few lines of inquiry that authors may wish to explore.
Firstly, infrastructure is often managed using a complex multi-stakeholder governance model. This layered administrative structure, which may for example include European bodies alongside national government, local authorities and private investors, can hold projects back due to difficulties coordinating the various stakeholders, funding issues and conflicting political decisions. This slow progress is further exacerbated in mountain regions by their often scarcer economic resources and more complex engineering needs, with a risk that political decisions will largely end up being taken by the central authorities.
Secondly, infrastructure has always attracted controversy (Callon, 2006) as a result of the cost involved in maintaining assets originating from old development models (as with artificial snowmaking), the socioenvironmental impact (for example of high-speed trains), and decisions to permanently close structures and facilities (such as mountain roads). These controversies generate conflict and a desire among citizens to play a greater role in decision-making over the management of abandoned infrastructure.
How do these multi-stakeholder networks form, and what does this mean for the management of infrastructure? How do these stakeholders think about infrastructure, and what impact does this have on the development of mountain regions? How are the tensions that can emerge in these regions from these complex systems of governance produced, exacerbated or mitigated? These questions prompt examination of the emergence of new territorial relations, and the restructuring of the associated economic models. What citizen-led projects are emerging around infrastructure assets, what legal and financial structures do they use, and what prospects does this open up for local development in mountain regions? Who are these politically engaged residents, and how do they organise themselves?
This list of questions is not an exhaustive one: we also welcome work that examines aspects linked to the material construction of infrastructure (such as labour disputes, accidents, hazards, risk management and impact on real estate) or to the financial management of infrastructure.
The third area of focus concerns the future of existing and as-yet unbuilt infrastructure assets. The effects of climate change, the increasing scarcity of both economic and natural resources, and changing user behaviours all mean we need to transform the way we think about existing and future infrastructure.
In relation to existing infrastructure, the issues are primarily sociotechnical, and in some cases make assets obsolete. Along with the technical systems that, from the design stage, enable or prevent future developments, the adaptability of infrastructure assets is a particularly important question in mountain regions due to their higher level of risk. Infrastructure assets – and above all their users – are increasingly vulnerable due to the growing frequency of rockfalls, landslides, avalanches and torrential flooding. Safety has become the prime objective, and the combination of a drive to comply with standards and a focus on ensuring the safety of the public is driving the refurbishment or closure of infrastructure. This is compounded by changes in user behaviour, such as the preference for travelling by road rather than rail, which can bring about the end of certain mountain infrastructure assets. These developments prompt us to consider the maintenance of infrastructure (Magalhães, 2024; Bonnet et al., 2021), by exploring the management and maintenance of inherited infrastructure from a material and environmental perspective, against a backdrop of major socioenvironmental change and challenging sociotechnical issues.
The obsolescence of an infrastructure asset does not mean it necessarily has to be closed down. From the perspective of the present socioenvironmental transition, obsolescence can in fact be fertile ground for a new development model (Lopez, 2019): former train station buildings may be turned into third places, industrial sites repurposed as landscape discovery centres, and factories converted into museums. Since infrastructure assets often have a significant physical footprint, they may also provide attractive real estate opportunities if their initial function becomes obsolete. While tourism-related projects are particularly popular, other development scenarios may also be envisaged.
The construction of new infrastructure assets raises the question of the territorial imbalances that may be created. It also has an impact on land use, particularly given the fierce competition for construction and arable land in mountain regions. And while new infrastructure assets create opportunities for new economic actors and groups of consumers, they can also have a negative effect on the actors formerly involved in management and use, with the potential for social inequality and conflict (Orlandi, 2025). This is because improved connectivity in mountain regions is simultaneously viewed as both a necessary measure for ‘unlocking’ them, and as a source of new flows whose social and environmental impact must not be overlooked.
We therefore invite authors to consider infrastructure in the long term: why and how is an infrastructure asset closed down? What makes a mountain infrastructure asset obsolete, and what logics underpin this definition? Contributors may also wish to explore ‘infrastructure ruins’, as an item of heritage of significant interest in terms of real estate, landscape, culture and even identity. How might they be reused, what repurposing strategies are employed, and how can this be anticipated from the design stage? How is the construction of new infrastructure justified and driven forward? The question of the long-term strategies and necessary social utility of mountain infrastructure is key here, and calls for a particular focus on the intentions and interests involved. How can authorities ensure that the strategies pursued are in the public interest, and prevent the intrusion of special interests via more powerful actors? How are the regions concerned affected by the closure, repurposing or construction of an infrastructure asset?
Exploration of such questions will enable this thematic issue to examine the adaptation of mountain infrastructure to new technical and environmental knowledge.
Article proposals, around 1,000 words in length, should be sent in either French, English, German, Italian or Spanish by 1st September 2026 to: Angelo Bertoni (angelo.bertoni@strasbourg.archi.fr), Emma-Sophie Mouret (emma-sophie.mouret@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr) and Ornella Zaza (ornella.zaza@univ-amu.fr)
as well as the editorial team of the JAR|RGA: Adrien Bayssé-Laine (adrien.baysse-laine@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr) and Maxime Frezat (secretariat-jarrga@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr).
Final articles are expected by 1st December 2026. Final articles must be submitted in one of the languages in which the review is published: Alpine languages (French, Italian, German, Slovenian), Spanish or English. The author must see to it that the article is to be translated into the second language after it has been assessed.
Publication of the articles is scheduled for late 2027.
Rules for publication: https://journals.openedition.org/rga/10534
We also welcome contributions linked to the thematic of this special issue for the thematic sections of the journal, details of which can be found on the journal website:
Transitions https://journals.openedition.org/rga/11018
Localities https://journals.openedition.org/rga/10516
Mountains in fiction https://journals.openedition.org/rga/11244