- •Series Editor’s Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1 Introduction
- •References
- •2.1 Methodological Introduction
- •2.2 Geographical Background
- •2.3 The Compelling History of Viticulture Terracing
- •2.4 How Water Made Wine
- •2.5 An Apparent Exception: The Wines of the Alps
- •2.6 Convergent Legacies
- •2.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •3.1 The State of the Art: A Growing Interest in the Last 20 Years
- •3.2 An Initial Survey on Extent, Distribution, and Land Use: The MAPTER Project
- •3.3.2 Quality Turn: Local, Artisanal, Different
- •3.3.4 Sociability to Tame Verticality
- •3.3.5 Landscape as a Theater: Aesthetic and Educational Values
- •References
- •4 Slovenian Terraced Landscapes
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Terraced Landscape Research in Slovenia
- •4.3 State of Terraced Landscapes in Slovenia
- •4.4 Integration of Terraced Landscapes into Spatial Planning and Cultural Heritage
- •4.5 Conclusion
- •Bibliography
- •Sources
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.3 The Model of the High Valleys of the Southern Massif Central, the Southern Alps, Castagniccia and the Pyrenees Orientals: Small Terraced Areas Associated with Immense Spaces of Extensive Agriculture
- •5.6 What is the Reality of Terraced Agriculture in France in 2017?
- •References
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.2 Looking Back, Looking Forward
- •6.2.4 New Technologies
- •6.2.5 Policy Needs
- •6.3 Conclusions
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 Study Area
- •7.3 Methods
- •7.4 Characterization of the Terraces of La Gomera
- •7.4.1 Environmental Factors (Altitude, Slope, Lithology and Landforms)
- •7.4.2 Human Factors (Land Occupation and Protected Nature Areas)
- •7.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •8.1 Geographical Survey About Terraced Landscapes in Peru
- •8.2 Methodology
- •8.3 Threats to Terraced Landscapes in Peru
- •8.4 The Terrace Landscape Debate
- •8.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 Australia
- •9.3 Survival Creativity and Dry Stones
- •9.4 Early 1800s Settlement
- •9.4.2 Gold Mines Walhalla West Gippsland Victoria
- •9.4.3 Goonawarra Vineyard Terraces Sunbury Victoria
- •9.6 Garden Walls Contemporary Terraces
- •9.7 Preservation and Regulations
- •9.8 Art, Craft, Survival and Creativity
- •Appendix 9.1
- •References
- •10 Agricultural Terraces in Mexico
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.2 Traditional Agricultural Systems
- •10.3 The Agricultural Terraces
- •10.4 Terrace Distribution
- •10.4.1 Terraces in Tlaxcala
- •10.5 Terraces in the Basin of Mexico
- •10.6 Terraces in the Toluca Valley
- •10.7 Terraces in Oaxaca
- •10.8 Terraces in the Mayan Area
- •10.9 Conclusions
- •References
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Materials and Methods
- •11.2.1 Traditional Cartographic and Photo Analysis
- •11.2.2 Orthophoto
- •11.2.3 WMS and Geobrowser
- •11.2.4 LiDAR Survey
- •11.2.5 UAV Survey
- •11.3 Result and Discussion
- •11.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.2 Case Study
- •12.2.1 Liguria: A Natural Laboratory for the Analysis of a Terraced Landscape
- •12.2.2 Land Abandonment and Landslides Occurrences
- •12.3 Terraced Landscape Management
- •12.3.1 Monitoring
- •12.3.2 Landscape Agronomic Approach
- •12.3.3 Maintenance
- •12.4 Final Remarks
- •References
- •13 Health, Seeds, Diversity and Terraces
- •13.1 Nutrition and Diseases
- •13.2 Climate Change and Health
- •13.3 Can We Have Both Cheap and Healthy Food?
- •13.4 Where the Seed Comes from?
- •13.5 The Case of Yemen
- •13.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2 Components and Features of the Satoyama and the Hani Terrace Landscape
- •14.4 Ecosystem Services of the Satoyama and the Hani Terrace Landscape
- •14.5 Challenges in the Satoyama and the Hani Terrace Landscape
- •References
- •15 Terraced Lands: From Put in Place to Put in Memory
- •15.2 Terraces, Landscapes, Societies
- •15.3 Country Planning: Lifestyles
- •15.4 What Is Important? The System
- •References
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.2 Case Study: The Traditional Cultural Landscape of Olive Groves in Trevi (Italy)
- •16.2.1 Historical Overview of the Study Area
- •16.2.3 Structural and Technical Data of Olive Groves in the Municipality of Trevi
- •16.3 Materials and Methods
- •16.3.2 Participatory Planning Process
- •16.4 Results and Discussion
- •16.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •17.1 Towards a Circular Paradigm for the Regeneration of Terraced Landscapes
- •17.1.1 Circular Economy and Circularization of Processes
- •17.1.2 The Landscape Systemic Approach
- •17.1.3 The Complex Social Value of Cultural Terraced Landscape as Common Good
- •17.2 Evaluation Tools
- •17.2.1 Multidimensional Impacts of Land Abandonment in Terraced Landscapes
- •17.2.3 Economic Valuation Methods of ES
- •17.3 Some Economic Instruments
- •17.3.1 Applicability and Impact of Subsidy Policies in Terraced Landscapes
- •17.3.3 Payments for Ecosystem Services Promoting Sustainable Farming Practices
- •17.3.4 Pay for Action and Pay for Result Mechanisms
- •17.4 Conclusions and Discussion
- •References
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Tourism and Landscape: A Brief Theoretical Staging
- •18.3 Tourism Development in Terraced Landscapes: Attractions and Expectations
- •18.3.1 General Trends and Main Issues
- •18.3.2 The Demand Side
- •18.3.3 The Supply Side
- •18.3.4 Our Approach
- •18.4 Tourism and Local Agricultural System
- •18.6 Concluding Remarks
- •References
- •19 Innovative Practices and Strategic Planning on Terraced Landscapes with a View to Building New Alpine Communities
- •19.1 Focusing on Practices
- •19.2 Terraces: A Resource for Building Community Awareness in the Alps
- •19.3 The Alto Canavese Case Study (Piedmont, Italy)
- •19.3.1 A Territory that Looks to a Future Based on Terraced Landscapes
- •19.3.2 The Community’s First Steps: The Practices that Enhance Terraces
- •19.3.3 The Role of Two Projects
- •19.3.3.1 The Strategic Plan
- •References
- •20 Planning, Policies and Governance for Terraced Landscape: A General View
- •20.1 Three Landscapes
- •20.2 Crisis and Opportunity
- •20.4 Planning, Policy and Governance Guidelines
- •Annex
- •Foreword
- •References
- •21.1 About Policies: Why Current Ones Do not Work?
- •21.2 What Landscape Observatories Are?
- •References
- •Index
284 |
L. Fusco Girard et al. |
17.3Some Economic Instruments
17.3.1Applicability and Impact of Subsidy Policies in Terraced Landscapes
The value of conservation of traditional agriculture can be described as the “contribution that would be socially fair to provide to farmers who preserve traditional landscapes” (Tempesta 2013). Subsides can be thus conceived as “mechanisms of societal recognitions to farmers for their historical stewardship of ecosystem services” (Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. 2017).
Agro-environmental measures (such as the EU CAP instrument) typically envisage subsidies for farmers, but the amount provided has usually weak correlation with ES. Land abandonment and change towards more intensive agricultural uses are still the largest causes of loss of traditional agrarian landscapes and related ES (Bignal and McCracken 2000; MacDonald et al. 2000; Thiene et al. 2006).
Taking into account ecosystem services in land use planning and policies “requires participatory approaches that combine multiple values and languages of valuation, as recognition of the many incommensurable values” provided by traditional farming practices (Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. 2017). The question is how governments can link the economic valuation of ES to agro-environmental policy choices.
A possibility could be to compare the average economic return of farms in terraced landscape to the actual average returns of intensive farms in close locations and use the opportunity cost as a measure of compensation to more costly agricultural practices, which in turn provide ES. This method could be socially acceptable and provide the necessary income to farmers for halting and reverse land abandonment.
However, in terraced landscapes the majority of land managers are often unprofessional farmers, who cultivate for self-consumption, and non-resident owners, who do not entrust terraces management to professional farmers. Moreover, the average properties often do not exceed the single hectare; thus, the amount of subsidy provided to the few professional farmers can be of low significance.
These factors substantially reduce the impact of agro-environmental subsidy policies in terraced landscapes, increasing the need of more innovative financing and management mechanisms that empower unprofessional farmers and foster social and technological innovation.
17.3.2Sharing Economy Innovation in Eco-Labelling Mechanisms
Voluntary eco-labelling represents a viable economic instrument to raise awareness between farmers, residents, visitors and consumers, of the multiple benefits of
17 The Multidimensional Benefits of Terraced Landscape … |
285 |
preserving cultural landscapes. In terraced landscapes, eco-labelling can be challenging due to the large presence of unprofessional farmers, who lack the technological and economic means necessary to follow the standards of eco-labels.
Social innovation in eco-labelling mechanisms has been promoted by civic associations in the UNESCO World Heritage Site of the Amalfi Coast (Italy) for the recovery and regeneration of the terraced landscape.
A bottom-up project (Effetto Costiera) has connected small local farmers with ethical consumers groups (Ethical Purchasing Groups) in the territory surrounding the UNESCO site. Consumers’ groups can buy local products from terraces directly from local farmers, creating a market for the residual products from self-consumption.
Local associations are in charge of ‘labelling’ the products and collect them from local farmers. All actors (farmers, intermediary associations and consumers) operate in a “network of trust” that enables sharing economy practices. The activity of the associations ensures additional income to farmers and healthy Km0 products to consumers, creating circular beneficial loops at local level.
The opportunities of the sharing economy have been exploited in the Amalfi Coast for preserving local agro-biodiversity. A crowdfunding campaign to recover the autochthonous seeds of a special variety of tomato (Fiascone) has been promoted in 2016, resulting in a first experimental production and the launch of an agro-business start-up for its commercialization.
Impact assessment and evaluation tools can support these initiatives by providing the necessary evidence base for upscale and replication of experimental tools, and for informing policy choices towards the operationalization of the circular economy in terraced landscapes.
17.3.3Payments for Ecosystem Services Promoting Sustainable Farming Practices
The term payments for ecosystem services (PES) is used to describe economic schemes in which the beneficiaries, or users, of ecosystem services provide direct payment to the stewards, or providers (FAO 2011; Smith et al. 2013). PES often involve a series of payments to land managers in return for a guaranteed flow of ecosystem services (or, more specifically, for management actions likely to enhance their provision).
This mechanism is a type of subsidy that aims to protect ecosystem services by providing an economic incentive by the beneficiaries—directly and voluntarily—to land managers to adopt land use or management practices favourable to the protection of ecosystem services. According to the OECD (2010), there were already more than 300 PES or PES-like programmes in place by 2010 at national, regional and local levels. PES schemes are considered a viable model for supporting rural livelihoods integrating agri-environmental subsidies (Wynne-Jones 2013; Ingram et al. 2014).
286 |
L. Fusco Girard et al. |
In north-eastern France, the Vittel company (Nestlé Waters), world leader in mineral water bottling, developed a payment scheme to compensate local farmers who adopted sustainable farming practices, which reduced nitrate contamination in the aquifer, thus reducing the cost to the company for bottling water in that area.
Incentives, in the forms of contracts between the company and farmers, were structured according to the cost structure and location of the individual farms, and the link between ecosystem service (water filtration and maintenance of adequate levels of nitrate in the plant sub-root system) and management practices had been established scientifically at the sub-basin and plot level.
Despite the difficulties of balancing conflicting interests (Déprés et al. 2008), in ten years all 26 farms in the area had adopted the new farming system; 1700 ha of intensive crop cultivation were converted to more sustainable farming, and 92% of the sub-basin enhanced its capacity of provision of the ecosystem service related to freshwater. A clear indicator of success has been the request from young farmers who have taken over the family farm to enter into 30-year contracts (Perrot-Maître 2006).
The experience of Vittel shows that PES is a complex tool that requires the consideration of scientific but also social, economic, political, institutional relationships and conflict-solving ability (Perrot-Maître 2006). The ability to support farmers’ income and finance the technological changes needed to shift to sustainable farming was an important element of success, but the key factor of success was not financial. Trust-building, through the creation of an intermediary institution (locally based and led by a “champion” sympathetic to the farmers’ cause); the development of a long-term participatory process to identify alternative practices and a mutually acceptable set of incentives; the ability to link incentives to land tenure and debt cycle issues and to substitute the traditional technical and social support networks with new ones, was all fundamental conditions of success (Perrot-Maître 2006; Smith et al. 2013).
17.3.4 Pay for Action and Pay for Result Mechanisms
“Pay for action” and “Pay for result” mechanisms have been experimented in the “Burren Programme” on Ireland’s western Atlantic coastline, to recover an area internationally recognised for its cultural and natural heritage, which includes dry-stone walls, traditional farming and pastoralism, and priority habitats listed in the Habitats Directive.
Recent years have seen the withdrawal, restructuring and reduction of farming activity, which has led to the slow degradation of priority habitats due to under-grazing, abandonment and loss of land management traditions.
The Burren LIFE project (2005–2010) started the regeneration process. Demonstrative actions were implemented involving 20 pilot farms, with the aim of recover priority habitats and the cultural built heritage and increase farmers’ income (BLP 2010). Burren LIFE promoted an extensive survey to assess the willingness to