Facing Climate Vulnerability in Mountain Areas: The Role of Rural Actors’ Agency and Situated Knowledge Production

Abstract

Climate change is challenging in mountain areas, and initiatives to define resilience programs appear essential to face global warming impacts. Despite the participatory strategy being primarily considered the best solution to involve local actors in adopting resilience actions, the literature stresses how mountain dwellers, like farmers, are often considered passive subjects, and their ability to understand climate change and the actions to adopt is inadequate. Based on this consideration, we aim to highlight the relevance of the mountain actors’ agency, their “lay” situated knowledge, and the epistemology for co-defining resilience actions. Adopting a “weak version” of the Actor-Network Theory as the research posture, we argue that farmers’ perceptions of climate vulnerability is based on their experience of it, and their resilience actions or suggestions are coherent with their endowment resources (financial and knowledge) and their position in the economic system. In this sense, local actors’ initiatives to face climate change can be limited by their specific position in the socioeconomic contest-related value chain and their specific relationship with local natural settings. A participative strategy to co-define resilience actions can help identify more effective initiatives according to the context between actors. Moreover, it can contribute to the knowledge exchange among “lay” local actors, experts, and policymakers, benefiting everyone; farmers could identify suitable solutions to face climate vulnerability, experts could increase their knowledge of local contexts, and policymakers could define adequate policies. Focusing on a specific area in “Alto Molise” (Italy), we present research results to contribute to the debate on climate resilience in mountain areas, stressing the significance of the local actors’ agency, the presence of the different epistemologies put in play (lay and expert ones), the co-production of knowledge, and the need to actively involve local actors in designing practices and policies to face climate change.

1. Introduction

Mountains can be described as socio-ecological systems (SES), a complex set of relationships and connections involving not only natural aspects, but also human communities with their culture and economic activities strictly related to the local environmental conditions [1]. Due to this complexity, SES need an interdisciplinary research perspective to analyse the interactions between natural and social spheres, as some research is proposing [2]. Mountain SES are relevant because they provide a wide range of valuable ecosystem services indispensable to life. They play a crucial role in freshwater supply, oxygen generation, and carbon storage. They are also home to an extensive variety of flora and fauna species, many of which are specific to certain areas, preserving biodiversity. These SES also offer recreation and leisure opportunities and food specialities that characterize local and national cultural heritage. All these elements could be strategic resources for local actors for market competition; the peculiar environment and distinctive processing conditions make mountain foods special high-quality goods [3], while mountain landscapes and nature are relevant tourist attractions [4]. In short, mountains have a pivotal role in the ecological balance and have several precious resources for production processes and services delivery.

In the case of the European Union, these areas cover nearly 30% of its surface and are home to almost 17% of its population [5], which has an important part in the socio-ecological system contributing to ensuring the precious role of mountains. Forests regenerate air and play a key role in wood, chestnut, and honey value chains, while permanent grasslands and meadows preserve biodiversity and are pivotal for breeding activities related to dairy and meat value chains. However, these resources need forms of maintenance to avoid their depletion due to natural causes (e.g., fires, the spread of invasive alien vegetation, and wildlife) or over exploitation. Nevertheless, mountains are fragile areas affected mainly by two problems: depopulation and climate change. On the one hand, the population decrease is a long-standing occurrence that is reducing the human presence in these areas, affecting not only mountain agricultural production but also the ecological balance of mountains [6,7]. On the other hand, climate change is a quite recent event that is redefining temperature and rainfall regimes, with consequences for the vegetative cycles of plants influencing, for example, agricultural production, the health of livestock, wildlife, and pollinating insects. For this reason, climate change is also a driving factor that increases the depopulation trend, accelerating the damage to socio-ecological systems, with significant consequences in the mountains but also in valleys and cities [8,9].

In short, global warming is a driver of change and several pieces of research have focused on the way mountain communities try to face climate change or on how they perceive the risk and natural hazards related to global warming, which tends to worsen the conditions related to the dynamics of depopulation [10,11]. These studies report which actions communities have put into practice or which policies should be set, both to face the effects and to combat climate change. Understanding how local people perceive and react to the climate change vulnerability seems worthy of analysis for two reasons: (1) to increase the resilience of these communities and (2) to promote appropriate policies. In this sense, farmers’ perceptions and expertise should be integrated into discussions to define land management and climate change adaptation in mountains. Yet, as observed [12], with some exceptions, policies and research seem not to substantively embrace farmers’ perceptions as contributing elements to the adaptation discourse, generally because farmers are considered mainly passive and vulnerable actors, rather than viably reacting to challenges. It appears that farmers’ agency capacities, as an effect of situated social relationships [13,14], are not taken into consideration in adaptive policies. The gap between policymakers, researchers, and local actors can affect the possibility to effectively face climate change. These actors have different epistemic cultures and social values that need to be linked together to deal with climate change challenges.

In this paper, we want to contribute to the studies on climate vulnerability in mountain areas, focusing on testing the working hypothesis that mountain actors constantly face the SES’s climate change vulnerability, and identify or practise suitable solutions in the specific situated condition within which they are embedded (in natural, cultural, and market contexts) and constrained. Theoretically, we adopt the “weak version” of the Actor-Network Theory (ANT) as the research theoretical viewpoint (see Section 2). This paradigm helps us to state the rule of non-human elements in co-defining the knowledge and perception of climate change. From this perspective, a specific concept on situated agency will be outlined. The idea is that mountain subjects act within a localized agency capacity combining a large set of elements (values, expectations, natural settings, and resources, etc.), as some studies seem to suggest [11,13,15,16]. At the same time, these actions may have limited effectiveness due to their perception/experience of climate change, in other words, their epistemology, and the allocated resources (e.g., knowledge and financial) they can use in the socioeconomic context within which they are embedded. For more effective climate resilience actions, they would need more extensive scientific knowledge and greater experiences of climate risks to forecast future conditions and identify new solutions, which could involve academia and policymakers. In this sense, an epistemology dialogue between lay persons and experts could be effective to face climate change.

To test this hypothesis, here we investigate the climate change vulnerability being faced by mountain actors, focusing on the case of the dairy value chain in the north of the Italian region of Molise, called “Alto Molise”, between the central and southern Apennines in Italy. The “Alto Molise” is one of the case studies in the project MOVING (MOuntain Valorisation through INterconnectedness and Green growth), a Horizon 2020 project coordinated by the University of Cordoba, more details can be found here: https://www.moving-h2020.eu/ (accessed on 1 October 2023). Through a participatory and interdisciplinarity process, MOVING aims to promote policy frameworks to establish new or upgraded/upscaled value chains for the resilience of mountain areas to climate change. In this paper, the authors reflect on the actors’ ability to face global warming, adopting a social sciences viewpoint. Based on data collected in the first research step of the project, we specifically describe the perception/experience of climate change vulnerability according to local actors and the resilience actions that local stakeholders related to the main local value chains can identify and enact. In this sense, we investigate their agency capacity, their “lay” epistemology, and the way to influence and be influenced by experts’ knowledge. The area of “Alto Molise” was selected because it presents some peculiar settings, including marginal rural mountain areas (e.g., depopulation trend, relevance of agricultural and related activities), and severe seasonal drought, an event linked to climate change, that affects the area more frequently. Moreover, the authors carried out study experiences there and have some gatekeeper contacts that are helpful for research activities.

In the following, we report on the research framework (Section 2) and methodology (Section 3, see also acknowledgments), then provide a description of the case study area (Section 4). The main outcomes are presented in two sections: the perception of climate change vulnerability (Section 5) and the actors’ reactions and proposed policies (Section 6). The conclusion details a critical discussion on the research outcomes.

2. Agency, Epistemology, and Knowledge Production

In the last ten years, several pieces of research have discussed the issue of climate change in mountain areas [17,18]. These studies focused on the effect of global warming, both on biophysical systems (e.g., reduction in forest carbon, soil erosion, changes in the vegetation and plant population) and human systems (i.e., water availability, agricultural production, impact on tourism). The literature also refers mainly to technical options to face climate change (like wetland conservation or changing the cropping and cultivation cycle), while the governance process to implement climate adaptation or the role of local communities (and their resilience actions or knowledge) in facing extreme weather events in mountain zones appear less represented in scientific papers. In short, some works suggest that the role of social sciences in climate impact and adaptation research appears limited [17]. However, the social dimensions of climate change adaptation or resilience (that refers to local culture and knowledge, the issue of power, decision-making on design, etc.) are critically important, if the goal is to promote (and accelerate) the adoption of climate resilience policies by existing mountain communities, who play a relevant role in socio-ecological systems [19].

Mountain communities face climate change and often they adopt their own solutions for it. Works that take into consideration social dimensions [20,21,22,23,24,25], stress that those communities experiment with climate crises and adopt solutions that come from their traditional knowledge and local experiences, or options developed by local networks that involve both local and non-local actors (like national agricultural institutions) in a participatory process on resilience initiatives. Moreover, studies have reported limits to adopting adequate practices to handle the effects of climate change by mountain actors, such as a lack of scientific knowledge, financial resources, and so on. In short, works suggest, on the one hand, that mountain actors, like farmers, notice changes in the “ordinary” climate regime, because it directly affects farming practices and intersects with other issues involving mountain communities (e.g., depopulation, economic crisis). On the other hand, their adaptation initiatives rely on their own understanding of the causes of climate vulnerability related to their local knowledge, place-based experience, values, and specificity of the actors (e.g., financial capacity, land ownership status, debt arrangements, age, and gendered participation) that enable or constrain their adaptive actions.

In this sense, policies to face climate change in mountain areas need to combine local-based competences and knowledge with scientific expertise. A more contextualized engagement with farming communities and experts helps to co-develop climate actions that combine two forms of knowledge (and knowledge production) based on different perspectives [26]. Despite these considerations, these works appear not to adopt a specific theoretical viewpoint to describe and analyze the agency of mountain actors in facing climate change effects, their epistemology, and the knowledge production. In this paper, we aim to contribute to the debate on resilience initiatives in mountain areas, offering a specific framework based on social science. Specifically, we assume a theoretical framework that allows the adaption to climate change to be considered, as a result of a situated agency enacted by local actors that emerges in a specific relationship with the natural context and the agents’ positions in the local economic system.

As reported by Rebughini [27], agency is a familiar and widespread term in social science, but it recalls a variety of theoretical approaches and meanings. It is a polymorphic concept that could refer to an individual’s capacity for decision-making, to define the performativity of practices, or it is associated with actors’ self-reflexivity. Thus, using agency as a conceptual category can be problematic, and it needs to clarify the boundaries encompassing the concept. In our contribution, we adopt a specific idea for agency that lies in theoretical reflections on social sciences. This paper refers to the so-called “material turn” that took place in the social sciences, which analyzed the interaction between human societies and the material world [28]. This perspective seems useful to investigate the agency capacity of local mountain actors (like farmers and cheesemakers), their epistemology, and why it seems useful to involve them in co-defining resilience policies and initiatives to face climate change in mountain areas.

Despite criticism of this perspective [29], it overcomes the subject/object dualism in understanding knowledge production, because cognition and materiality are considered as mutually constituted and are constantly being reshaped. From this perspective, agency is not an individual attribute or the power of social actors in relation to objective conditions or elements, but a practice that emerges at the interconnections in the distributed “enact capacity” of human and nonhuman entities embedded in a specific socio-ecological (and technical) configuration. In this sense, the know-how and internalized dispositions of social actors can change according to the environment, the context normativity, and according to more suitable aims and goals of who is acting. For this, Bruno Latour [30], and the Actor-Network Theory (ANT), considers the critical capacities of the agency based on learning experiences and the possibility to innovate by starting from the objects in the environment.

In short, in this approach, agency, in other words, everyday actions, resistance, or creativity in regard to social change, is not the effect of the subject’s intentional actions or the consequences of linked events. Agency is understood as a localized practice related to how individuals are embedded in an ongoing engagement within the world. In other words, agency takes place in contextual, dynamic, and temporal forms of activity, where the cognitive and material aspects cannot be separated. Moreover, their experience of the world is specific, and, in this sense, it defines subjects’ epistemologies, and several actors, because of their specific world experiences and relationships, have their own epistemology. In fact, considering what Pierre Bourdieu [31] suggests, in any social field, actors play a specific role knowing the game rules, but their capital resources (social, economic, and cultural) define their opportunity to move and act. In this sense, their agency is also affected by the way they can experiment and understand the world, which depends on their positions and resources. For this, we should take into consideration what Castree, referring to the ANT, called the “weak version” of this perspective, because the agency is:

“social and natural but not in equal measure, since it is the ‘social’ relations that are often disproportionately directive; that agents, while social, natural and relational, vary greatly in their powers to influence others; and that power, while dispersed, can be directed by some (namely, specific ‘social’ actors) more than others”.

[32], p. 135

The theoretical framework, here outlined, is adopted in our work as a set of “sensitizing concepts” [33], providing a general reference and guidance for the empirical research by merely suggesting directions to look at. Sensitizing concepts draw attention to essential features of social interaction and provide guidelines for research in specific settings. In our case, the focus is on the main value chain in a specific mountain socio-ecological system considering climate change and resilience actions. As it was reported [34], value chains are a useful point of analysis to investigate human–natural interactions because they mobilize resources and connect actants beyond territorial boundaries and economic sectors to generate socioeconomic and environmental values. Specifically, by adopting the theoretical viewpoint outlined here, this research aims to contribute toward the understanding of resilience actions and initiatives against climate uncertainties [15,35,36], considering different mountain stakeholders’ agency and epistemologies, specifically farmers and experts, and how to connect them to deliver effective climate actions preserving mountain socio-ecological systems.

3. Method and Database

To explore the perceptions and experiences of global warming by local mountain actors, we use data collected in the first step of the MOVING project (see acknowledgments). In that stage, the focus was on evaluating the susceptibility and vulnerability of the socio-ecological system to specific drivers of change, like climate change, according to local stakeholders. Moreover, we investigated the adaptive mechanisms for resilience enacted by them. The “susceptibility” estimates whether an element (e.g., extreme events) can affect the SES, while the “vulnerability” indicates how much the SES can be affected by some drivers of change (

Table 1. List of the drivers of change.

Drivers of Change
Soil physical degradation	Over exploration
Temperature	Pests and invasive species
Extreme events	Pollution
Land-use and land-cover change	Demographic changes
Another possible driver of change?	Precipitation
Wildfire	Others (to be defined)

Source: Adapted from the MOVING guidelines.

). In our case, we aimed at identifying which specific “reference variable” in the SES (the critical resource that influences and makes the local value chains possible) is recognised by local actors, which elements affect it, and what kind of actions they enact to face the drivers of change. Then, to investigate these aspects, we adopted a participatory approach, and the collected information were compared with the scientific knowledge on the same issue and discussed with experts.

Two preliminary aspects needed to be outlined to accomplish the research steps: the investigation area and the local value chain considered. Based on previous studies and the expertise of the research team [37], a set of five contiguous municipalities, Agnone, Capracotta, Carovilli, Pescolanciano, and Vastogirardi (see paragraph 4), in the mountain area of Alto Molise were selected (northern area of the Molise region, in between the central and northern Apennines). Here, prevails the agro-sylva-pastoral land use, the dairy value chain is prominent, and Caciocavallo cheese is a pivotal element of the territorial identity and local economy. Moreover, this area presents trends that characterize marginal mountain areas, like depopulation, and the effects of climate change, on the temperature and rainfall regime, for example, appear evident and affect the local economy (see Section 4.2). The decision to target these municipalities was also favored thanks to the previous research experience in the area, which helped the authors to involve some gatekeepers to identify and involve stakeholders in the participatory research approach. In the research field, the Mayor of Agnone was a relevant gatekeeper, allowing the authors to overcome local actors’ mistrust and increasing their interest in the research. A first set of 10 crucial stakeholders were identified considering some of their features (age, gender, expertise, etc.), which later reached 44 actors during the research activities (

Table 2. Some features of stakeholders and experts involved in the research.

Demographic Data		Stakeholder Types
Female	18	Farmers/milk producers	16
Male	26	Cheesemakers (in some cases they were also farmers)	10
Total	44	Innovation broker/adviser	1
		Policy authority/policymakers	9
Average age	48.1	Researchers/experts	3
Median age	49	Others	5
		Total	44

Source: Research data.

).

As it was noted [38], the actors’ involvement in the research stages has some advantages. First, it helps identify and assess aspects that are difficult to define in advance by researchers and are considered relevant by the subjects involved (e.g., the choice of the set of variables to analyze). Second, it allows the actors’ viewpoint on the functioning of the socio-ecological systems to be grasped, especially aspects related to sustainability and resilience dimensions. To take advantage of the stakeholders’ engagement, we interviewed and invited them to validate the research data, and considerations emerged during the study through four actions:

• Interviews. This activity involved 10 local stakeholders (cheesemakers, farmers, and researchers/experts) to identify: (i) the plausible reference variable for the local dairy value chain, (ii) the main drivers of change (Table 2) related to the reference variable and their interconnections, and (iii) adaptive mechanisms for the drivers of change. These qualitive data were used in the second step.
• Questionnaire. It involved 20 actors, half of them did not take part in the previous step, and it was administrated remotely. In this phase, the data that emerged in the previous step were estimated in a quantitative way. The questionnaire involved a set of “if” and “how” questions about 10 drivers of change (Table 2), describing the susceptibility to define the vulnerability in the context. Stakeholders had to estimate five aspects: (i) whether they agree or not that each of them affect the reference variable using a scale of 1 (not agree at all) to 5 (agree completely); (ii) whether the drivers have changed compared to the last 20 years (using a 5-point scale from “decreased” to “increased”) and whether they think it will be relevant in the future (yes, no, I do not know); (iii) ranking the drivers of change; (iv) a qualitative assessment on the impact magnitude of the drivers on the reference variable (using a 7-point scale from “totally positive” to “totally negative”); (v) an assessment on the adaptative mechanisms related to their economic, technical, social, and environmental feasibility considering which actors would be responsible for implementation. The data from steps 1 and 2 were presented, discussed, and assessed in the third stage.
• Workshop. During this step, many stakeholders were invited, including 20 subjects involved in the previous phases. Due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, only 23 people participated in the workshop, and it was not easy to design interaction activities in the meeting. Nevertheless, the participants expressed their opinions using an online tool and interventions, collecting qualitative and quantitative data. The aim of the workshop was to assess, specify, and enrich the research outcomes through interaction with local stakeholders, according to the actions reported in

  Table 3. Workshop activities.

  Activities	Actions
  Validation of the drivers of change	- Present the ranking of the drivers. - Show and validate the list of drivers to work with.
  Discussion on the susceptibility and sensitivity of each driver	- For each driver: - Present a summary of the components; - Show the relevant maps on susceptibility; - Discuss the sensitivity of the reference variable to the drivers.
  Outline the priority list of adaptive mechanisms	- Present the base list on the adaptive capacity mechanism. - Make contributions to the mechanisms. - Prioritize 6–8 mechanisms.

  Source: Adapted from the MOVING guidelines.

  . Scientific data on the current and forecasted climate change effect in the area were also shared, discussed, and compared with stakeholders’ opinions. The information collected on adaptive mechanisms was used in the last research step.
• Expert assessment. In this stage, three academic experts were involved. The aim was to evaluate the potential effect of the adaptive mechanisms, identified in the research, on the reference variable toward 2040.

By elaborating on the data collected during the research steps, we obtained a plausible stakeholder viewpoint on their perception and experience of climate change impacts on the local value chain. Comparing these data with scientific evidence and elaborations helped us to understand the differences between the lay and expert epistemologies in a specific context, which is also useful to promote appropriate resilience policies.

4. The Context of Alto Molise

Specifying the research outcome seems useful to describe the area where the research was carried out, reporting on the peculiarities of the SES and the scientific information on the plausible effects of climate change in relation to some relevant elements (e.g., droughts, average temperatures, etc.). As it was reported in Section 3, the area in the Alto Molise lies in a specific southern zone of the central Apennines in Italy and our research investigates the context enclosed within the borders of five specific municipalities: Agnone, Capracotta, Carovilli, Pescolanciano, and Vastogirardi (Figure 1). These towns are geographically contiguous, with a similar mountain ecological setting, and the dairy value chain and collateral activities like tourism are prevalent. The area neatly depicts the socio-ecological system in Alto Molise. The features of the area are reported as follows.

4.1. Features of the Socio-Ecological System

The southern zone of the central Apennines consists of a hilly mountainous structure, with a few valleys close to rivers and streams. Several natural areas are in the most extreme southern zone of the area, which extends over the north of the Molise region, the “Alto Molise”. The Alto Molise has a rich biodiversity, and some tree species located there are considered rare, like the Apennines’ white fir woods. This remarkable ecological aspect is also confirmed by the fact that, since 1977, the only UNESCO biodiversity reserve in the central Apennines is located here: the Collemeluccio-Montedimezzo reserve.

The context is characterized by extensive pastures and wooded areas that are involved in the mountain economy, such as livestock production (cheese and meat) and forestry-related production (wood, honey, and truffles). There is also a tradition of craftsmanship rooted in the local food, confectionary, and metalworking tradition. The Marinelli Pontifical Foundry deserves a special mention, an ancient family factory of bells that has been active for the last 1000 years [39]. In Alto Molise, dairy production in mountain pastures is a peculiar traditional activity developed over centuries, and Caciocavallo cheese (stretched-curd cheese made from cow’s milk) is a symbol of the area and one of the main food products. The local dairy value chain can take place with the involvement of several natural elements and human practices: the land-use system (meadows and pastures and their peculiar vegetable species), cattle breeding activities (cattle species, breeding systems and practices), and the cheese production process (milk, microorganisms, cheesemaking practices). Historically, even here, human communities’ exploitation of local natural resources for the dairy value chain involved a specific activity: “transhumance” [40,41]. Transhumance is an old pastoralism practice that in Alto Molise involved the seasonal movement of livestock, for example between higher pastures in summer and lower valleys in winter. Through this practice, the dairy products from the transhumant herds (milk, cheese, meat) circulated, creating a socioeconomic system with related services and more sustainable exploitation of nature. The transhumance and breeding activities promoted the management of forests and water basins essential for herds, but with benefits for downstream activities (e.g., flood prevention) and ecosystem services (i.e., preventing forest degradation).

The socioeconomic changes in the last sixty years have redefined the context in Alto Molise, transhumance has been radically reduced, but the dairy value chain continues to be a relevant part of the area’s economic weft and the local culture. In the municipality of Agnone, two of the largest family cheese factories in the area have their headquarters: Di Nucci (since 1600, more information: https://www.caseificiodinucci.it/ (accessed on 10 September 2023)) and Di Pasquo (since 1952, see: https://www.caseificiodipasquo.com/it/ (accessed on 10 September 2023)). However, as with other mountain areas, this zone is characterized by depopulation and land abandonment that affect and change both the outline of the SES and the dairy value chain. According to the Italian National Institute of Statistics (Istat), in the January 2019–January 2023 timeframe, the depopulation of the five municipalities investigated was −6.4% compared to −4.6% in Molise, while the utilized agricultural area has decreased in the last decade by more than 30%. These phenomena cause both a greater socioeconomic and environmental vulnerability in the area. The contraction of livestock activity is a problem for cheesemaking using local, high-quality milk, and less management of the natural mountain environment.

4.2. Climate Change in the Area

As mentioned in the introduction, climate change has worsened the effect of depopulation, accelerating the damage to the socio-ecological system [8,9]. Studies report that the consequence of global warming is pretty evident in Alto Molise, considering not only the change in air temperature and rainfall [42], but also the change in the vegetation [43]. In the area, a process of thermophilization seems to have been confirmed, meaning that ongoing climate change is gradually transforming the mountain plant communities: the more cold-adapted species decline, and the more warmth-adapted species increase, which suggests a progressive decline in the current mountain habitats and their biota.

Some data (

Table 4. Some climate indicators. Average data 1960–1990, information on 2020 and forecast indication in 2050, according to two scenarios.

	1960–1990	2020	2050 RCP 4.5	2050 RCP 8.5
Mean seasonal temperature (summer)	18.3	20.3	21.5	22.5
Mean seasonal temperature (winter)	2.8	4.0	4.6	5.3
Total seasonal precipitation (summer)	133.8	124.3	106.1	101.8
Total seasonal precipitation (winter)	2.8	4.0	202.4	204.3
Precipitation as snowfall	31.2	17.8	13.6	10.0
Frost-free period (number of consecutive frost-free days)	231.6	255.0	267.8	282.0

Source: Adapted from Deliverable 3.2 in the MOVING project.

), elaborated by researchers involved in the MOVING project (see acknowledgments), offer information on plausible future climate and environmental conditions in the area, in the case of moderate climate interventions and policies (Representative Concentration Pathways 4.5, RCP 4.5, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) and in the business-as-usual scenario (RCP 8.5 by the IPCC).

Table 4 clearly shows that the mean seasonal temperature in Alto Molise will tend to be higher compared with baseline data, and the precipitation could dramatically increase in warm winters with consequences on the vegetation and agricultural activities. In this climate scenario, extreme events will be relevant and not uncommon too.

These climate conditions could also have an impact on breeding activities and change meadows’ and pastures’ vegetation species, while also forcing farmers to identify both cattle species that can adapt to the new climate regime and coherent forms of livestock breeding. To do so, farmers must clearly understand the risk of climate change to put into practice some actions to combat the effect of global warming in the area.

5. Perception and Experience of Climate Change

According to the theoretical and methodological perspective adopted, we highlight which initiatives are implemented or suggested, when facing climate change, by different local actors. They perceive climate change differently because of their epistemology. In other words, the way in which they experiment with global warming is linked to their relationship to the consequences from it, their knowledge, and interests. In this sense, farmers are aware of climate change as much as experts, but their perception and reactions depend on their viewpoints on it. In the following, we report the similarities and differences emerging from stakeholders’ interviews on the climate change issue. The information reported refers particularly to two stakeholder groups, on the one hand researchers/experts/advisers, on the other farmers/cheesemakers. They seem more affected by the consequences of climate change than policymakers, and the policy authorities that were involved specifically to evaluate the adaptive mechanisms to global warming.

5.1. Natural Resources and the Effects of Climate Change

During the first research step, we detect what is considered the main natural resource (or reference variable) for the local dairy value chain by ten key actors. Despite the stakeholders’ differences, they seem to agree that permanent grassland is the pivotal natural resource (

Table 5. Natural resources identified by the first ten stakeholders.

Stakeholders	Natural Resource
1. Researcher/experts/advisers	Permanent grassland
2. Researcher/experts/advisers	Permanent grassland
3. Researcher/experts/advisers	Permanent grassland and pasture
4. Researcher/experts/advisers	Permanent grassland
5. Farmer and/or cheesemakers	High-quality hay
6. Farmer and/or cheesemakers	Permanent grassland and pasture
7. Farmer and/or cheesemakers	Permanent grassland and hay
8. Farmer and/or cheesemakers	Permanent grassland and pasture
9. Farmer and/or cheesemakers	Pasture and hay
10. Farmer and/or cheesemakers	Permanent grassland and hay

Source: Elaboration of interview data.

). However, the actors directly involved in the breeding activities, like farmers and cheesemakers, report two elements: permanent grassland and hay.

While permanent grassland is a natural resource relevant for breeding activity to obtain high-quality milk that provides uniqueness to local cheeses, grazing in these areas tends to be costly and difficult to manage. In this sense, the cultivation of herbaceous hay varieties and their mowing to feed cattle seem to be a viable alternative to grazing on permanent grassland. Despite their differences, these two resources (permanent grassland and hay) present high similarities in relation to the challenges triggered by global warming. With some distinctions (

Table 6. Drivers of change that affect the reference variable by first ten stakeholders.

Drivers of Change	Stakeholder Groups
	Researchers/experts /advisers	Farmers and/or cheesemakers	Mean
Precipitation	Yes	Yes	Yes
Temperature	Yes	Yes	Yes
Extreme events	No	Yes	Possibly
Wildfire	No	Possibly	No
Land-use and land-cover change	Possibly	Possibly	Possibly
Soil physical degradation	No	Yes	Possibly
Over exploitation	Possibly	No	No
Pests and invasive species	No	Possibly	Possibly
Pollution	No	No	No
Demographic changes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Source: Elaboration of interview data. No = no more than 33% agree; possibly = no more than 66% agree; yes = more than 66% agree.

), there are three relevant problems stakeholders report for the reference variable, two of them are directly related to climate change: temperature and precipitation. The third one depends on a human presence; it refers to depopulation. Others have a possible effect on the main resource. Two are an outcome from a combination of natural and human aspects, like the physical degradation of soil and the change in land use and land cover, while the last two are more linked to climate change (extreme events, pests, and invasive species).

As Table 6 clearly shows, stakeholders consider in a different way some drivers of change because of their relationship with breeding activity and their knowledge.

Although interviewees agree to consider some elements particularly impactful to the main natural resources, based on their experiences and interests, farmers and cheesemakers report two other aspects that affect the natural resources, compared to researchers or experts.

One is extreme events, in particular late spring frosts; the other is the physical degradation of the soil, specifically, they refer to rainfall erosion and landslides. Another difference is that farmers and cheesemakers refer to a possible element that affects the natural resources, the spread of wildlife in the area, specifically wild boars, caused by human depopulation, and the reduction in their predators and competitors. It is also important to report that the spread of wild boars was promoted by an ill-advised repopulation policy, involving a highly prolific allochthonous species. Wild boars have compromised the cultivated land and grassland quality by snuffling and digging up the fields, affecting the natural resources essential for dairy activity. They are also concerned about the possibility of fires becoming more frequent in the area in the future. Differences persisted when we questioned an enlarged number of stakeholders (second research step, 20 subjects), to rate the impact of the drivers of change on the reference variable. While all stakeholders considered precipitation the main relevant driver of change, and they agreed on the relevance of the others (e.g., temperature and demographic change), they still ranked them in a different way (

Table 7. Ranking on the drivers of change by 20 stakeholders divided into groups.

Stakeholder Groups
Researchers/experts /advisers	Farmers and/or cheesemakers	Mean
Precipitation	Precipitation	Precipitation
Temperature	Extreme events	Temperature
Land-use and land-cover change	Temperature	Extreme events
Demographic changes	Demographic changes	Demographic changes
Extreme events	Land-use and land-cover change	Land-use and land-cover change
Over exploitation	Soil physical degradation	Soil physical degradation
Soil physical degradation	Pests and invasive species	Pests and invasive species
Wildfire	Wildfire	Wildfire
Pests and invasive species	Over exploitation	Over exploitation
Pollution	Pollution	Pollution

Source: Elaboration of survey data.

). The findings seem to confirm, on the one hand, that farmers and cheesemakers perceive the impact of climate change considering its effects on the natural resources and its economic consequences on the value chain. Experts, on the other hand, report a more systemic view on the effects of global warming in Alto Molise.

The respondents also identify interactions among the drivers of change that affect the reference variable. Still, the data seem to confirm that “lay” actors and experts, with their specific knowledge and epistemology, use different resources to interpret the systemic socio-ecological complexity (Figure 2 and

Table 8. Interactions among the drivers of change.

Drivers of Change	Interactions
Researchers/experts/advisers
Precipitation	The change has negative effects on land use and land cover (new arid-resistant species, less grass cover), and the physical condition of the soil (erosion from rainfall)
Temperature	Anomalous temperature regime can foster extreme events (late frosts, heat stress) and wildfires
Extreme events	They can increase the physical degradation of the soil (pulverized soil and landslides)
Land-use and land-cover change	The spread of uncultivated land can worsen the effects of extreme events on the physical degradation of the soil, and the spread of invasive species
Demographic change	Depopulation increases the non-use of soil, changing its cover, reducing land maintenance and the control of natural resources
Farmers and/or cheesemakers
Precipitation	The change negatively affects temperatures (warm periods), promotes extreme events (drought, late frosts), wildfires, and soil degradation (pulverized soil)
Temperature	Anomalous temperature regime favors extreme events (drought), wildfires, and physical degradation of the soil (pulverized soil)
Extreme events	Prolonged drought and abnormal rainfall affect the quality of grassland and hay, as well as the soil condition
Demographic change	Depopulation leads to the abandonment of farmland, land-use and land-cover change, and less care of forests, increasing the risk of fires and invasive species (wild boars, in particular).

Source: Elaborated from interview notes.

). Experts, for example, report a relatively simple pattern considering how a shift in the rainfall regime has adverse effects on the physical state of the soil and influences the land-cover change. At the same time, the land-cover change can not only have a worsening indirect effect on the state of the soil because of a change in the vegetation, but due to depopulation, the effects of extreme events could worsen, which could also directly favor the spread of pests and invasive species. In this sense, experts identify the main problem caused by climate change with two parameters (temperature and precipitation), in particular, which compromise the natural resources, and identify depopulation as an incremental factor in the negative effect of climate change. In short, experts and advisers assume an “analytical” scheme to explain the effect of climate change. Farmers and cheesemakers, conversely, consider the effects of global warming with no plain correlation patterns, and the indirect effects of some drivers are not reported. However, they stress the relevance of demographic changes affecting the main natural resource related to the local value chain and the specific effect of some drivers. It seems in this case, that these actors propose a “holistic” image related to the change in the mountain area.

This can explain why the farmers and cheesemakers interviewed seem to link feedback from some drivers of change in an unclear way, despite recognizing how human activities in the area can reduce some negative aspects on the natural settings. Other interesting evidence emerges when considering stakeholders’ opinions about the climate future of the area, and which actions they imagine adopting or are already adopted to face the effects of global warming in the area.

5.2. Climate Future and Initiatives to Face it

Considering four drivers that stakeholders report as particularly relevant (namely: temperature, precipitation, extreme events, and demographic change), in the second research step we ask whether they observed a change in the last 20 years (

Table 9. How have the drivers of change changed in the last 20 years? Will the trend change in the next 20 years?

Drivers of Change	In the Last 20 Years		Change in the Next 20 Years
	Assessment	N. response	No	I do not know	Yes
Temperature	Much worse	14	8	6	0
	Slightly worse	6	4	2	0
	Not changed	0	0	0	0
Precipitation	Much worse	10	6	4	0
	Slightly worse	9	7	2	0
	Not changed	1	1	0	0
Extreme events	Much worse	10	4	6	0
	Slightly worse	7	5	2	0
	Not changed	3	0	3	0
Demographic change	Much worse	17	14	3	0
	Slightly worse	2	1	1	0
	Slightly improvement	1	0	0	1

Source: Elaboration from survey data.

). In general, the actors report a worsening of those drivers in the last 20 years. Moreover, their opinion on the future tends to be quite pessimistic, and the negative effects on the reference variable will be relevant in the next 20 years. At the same time, stakeholders have an uncertain opinion on the future impact of the other drivers of change on the leading natural resource related to the local dairy value chain. Largely, they suppose climate change will worsen, and grassland and hay will drastically suffer as a result of that.

Again, farmers and experts have a different perception and opinion on how these stressors changed and how they will change in the future. Researchers and experts consider indicators of global warming, particularly temperature and precipitation, as having slightly worsened over the last 20 years and believe that this trend may continue in the future. Moreover, they recognize that the population significantly decreased, but they are not able to define a clear trend because it is influenced by several variables, mainly rural policies, and the determination manifested by people in investing and living in these places.

Farmers and cheesemakers show a highly negative attitude on climate change and on the demographic future of the area. At the same time, they are also more proactive than one might assume considering what is reported in Table 9. Some solutions to face the effects of global warming in the area are proposed and, in some cases, actually enacted by them. During the interviews, farmers report some actions they undertook to reduce the effect of climate change, but also to restrain depopulation. Some of them adopted cultivation and technological innovations as a solution to reduce, particularly, the risk of a late frost. Some of them anticipate the mowing of lawns, and are using dryers before using hay. Policies to promote higher milk prices and the exploitation of local natural resources (e.g., carbon credits for forests, tax reductions for traditional breeding practices) seem to be a solution to promote local development and reduce depopulation. Over time, farmers replaced local breeds of cattle (such as the “Podolica”) with more productive ones, generally bred in stables. Breeders have adopted this solution for economic reasons: the relatively low milk price made breeding outside the barn and using traditional local cattle breeds (less productive) unprofitable. Moreover, inadequate grazing services (e.g., drinking troughs) and difficulty accessing or mapping permanent municipal grassland, reduce the chances of using this resource. However, climate change impacts permanent grassland and hayfields, and some solutions can be applied in either case.

Table 10. Solutions to combat the effects of climate change by farmers.

Solutions	Description
Innovation	Machinery for climate adaptation (e.g., a dryer that reduces the humidity rate for early harvested hay)
Experiments	New crop varieties resistant to temperature changes, drought, and late frost (e.g., late or early species in permanent grassland and hayfields)
Diversification	Agroforestry techniques for organic appealing market production and new goods (e.g., honey); exploiting ecosystem services (e.g., carbon credits)
Services	Grazing services in grassland areas (e.g., water supply to reduce drought-related problems) and community services for a better quality of life (e.g., health services)
Policies	Incentives and tax breaks for farms with positive environmental and economic impacts; a new pricing regime for raw milk obtained from grazing livestock

Source: Elaboration of survey data.

reports the possible solutions indicated by farmers. It seems evident that they are aware of the innovations needed to face the effects of global warming. At the same time, farmers stress how policies must support resilience initiatives related to the reference variable and the community (and its economy), another essential part of the local socio-ecological system that supports the dairy value chain.

Experts and researchers express similar solutions compared to farmers, but they report two other aspects. On the one hand, experiments with reintroducing hardy cattle breeds or native cattle species for production diversification (milk and meat) are suggested. On the other hand, monitoring the state of permanent grassland, the presence of alien plant varieties, and stimulating the practice of grazing on permanent grassland to manage the environmental quality are suggested. Political institutions should coordinate and support initiatives with territory and local actors to implement these actions, the results of which will only be visible after a few years.

During the workshop (the third research step), the proposed solutions were discussed, and it emerged that most stakeholders (two-thirds of them) considered just a few of them as appropriate and easy options to implement. According to them, two solutions could promote resilience to climate change, directly affecting the reference variable: experimenting with new crop varieties and adopting technological innovations. Moreover, only improving services for grazing activities and communities can curb depopulation by promoting better living conditions and economic possibilities. Stakeholders do not have a clear opinion on the other possible solutions, except for expressing highly negative opinions on experiments to introduce new cattle breeds or reintroducing rustic and local ones. During the workshop, they seemed to confirm that all possible solutions proposed must consider the current market conditions of the dairy value chain and the necessity of an adequate milk price for breeders. The farmers seemed willing to consider this option only if the price of raw milk produced by rustic cattle breeds through grazing was appropriate compared to the higher costs to produce it and the low milk production from these cows. If not, the stable breeding of specialized dairy breeds appears to be the most reasonable solution.

Even in the experts’ assessment (the fourth and last research step), experimenting with diverse cow breeds appears a risky solution in the current market conditions, where the milk price is generally defined by cheesemakers that consider a few parameters (such as the percentage of fat and protein, the presence of somatic cells), which do not contemplate the possible high quality of raw, pasture-fed milk.

6. Discussion

The research data suggests that among the stakeholders, the ability to link local evidence on global warming with the big picture on climate change presents some differences. Even the resilience actions proposed or suggested are slightly different. The reason for this divergence seems to lie, at least, in three explanations: (1) the way climate change affects them, (2) their position in the value chain, (3) their resource endowment (knowledge and financial). In short, the results suggest that the working hypothesis, according to the stakeholders, to enact a specific agency capacity is influenced by their position in the socio-ecological system, which explains their perception of climate change. Moreover, we need to consider their position in the socioeconomic system, in the value chain, to understand solutions considered suitable and affordable. Our data indicate that their peculiar agency capacity is enacted and shaped by their position in the socio-ecological and socioeconomic system. However, studies suggest that due to their position and resources, farmers may adopt inefficient solutions to deal with global warming, whose effects on production they do not fully grasp (e.g., they tend to consider intensive cattle breeding in cowsheds as an adequate solution instead of adopting/adapting other breeding techniques and/or cattle breeds, like Podolica or others).

Analysis on complex socio-ecological systems, like sub-Saharan and savannah areas, report how most farmers noticed changes in the climate and, consequently, adjusted their farming practices to adapt [23,44]. In general, they vary the planting dates, using drought tolerant and early maturing varieties and tree planting. In this sense, these studies confirm farmers’ agency capacities, but some of them have limits in adapting due to both a lack of information on suitable adaptation measures and liquidity. Farmers’ perceptions of climate risk are complex. According to studies [45], farmers are aware of climate variability, but they tend to overestimate the risks of negative impacts and/or do not sufficiently understand the implications for their farms. They also fail to make use of good conditions when they occur (in some cases they remain unresponsive to climate change policy). Also, it seems that farmers who observe decreasing crop production may not be distinguishing between the causes, such as rainfall change, a decline in soil fertility, or other conditions. For this, they are not able to adopt coherent solutions. As it was stressed [20], local knowledge, place-based experience, values, and the perceptions of fairness (that varies across farmers) intersect with their identity, enabling or constraining the adaptive actions they are willing, or potentially able, to engage in. The works conclude that to ensure successful agriculture adaptation to climate change, and to adopt resilience initiatives, we should design and promote planned adaptation measures that fit into the local context and educate farmers on climate change and appropriate adaptive and self-regulating measures.

Although the research reports relevant points stressing the epistemology distance between farmers and experts or policymakers, and the need to reduce the knowledge and epistemology gap between them to face global warming, our work shows that farmers and experts are distant but their perceptions present similarities. Essentially, farmers are not passive or unaware actors, and their actions are driven by their resources and positions in the field. In this sense, the concept of agency adopted herein allows the differences and similarities, as well as actors’ difficulties in implementing adequate solutions, to be explained. As it was stressed, conceptualizing “agency as practice” [30,31] means focusing not only on the single agent capacity, but on the network of elements that allows people to act. In this regard, farmers’ resilience to economic uncertainties and climate risks can be seen through a relational perspective [35,36] that involves not only human actants (farmers, cheesemakers, experts, policymakers, etc.), but also non-human ones (climate situation, cattle productivities, market conditions, laws, etc.). In this regard, ecological and social processes interact to undermine or strengthen actors’ resilience, as well as the relationalities enacted within a specific context. Assuming this theoretical viewpoint, it is possible to explore farmers’ diversity on climate resilience that is differently constructed in each context. As scholars have shown, for example, in difficult socioeconomic contexts within traditional agriculture, farmers sustain resilience practices through local community interconnections and agroecological practices, while in modern ones (where local actors somewhat paradoxically place their territory), farmers rely more on institutional support, extensive access to information, and new technologies [46]. In those situations, their approach is one that focuses on relationships questioning the perception of climate change, because of interactions and experiences, and not as the self-perceived experience of isolated actors.

In light of this reasoning, participatory approaches may pave the way to context-specific actions to strengthen farming system resilience involving all relevant stakeholders (also considered as spokespersons of non-human actants) in the field, a starting point for developing a shared vision and an action plan on climate resilience for farming systems [38].

7. Conclusions

The work aimed to contribute to the scientific debate on climate resilience in mountain areas, particularly regarding agricultural activities. Specifically, it was dedicated to stressing the relevance of “lay” mountain actors in co-defining appropriate local initiatives, considering the epistemic distance among local stakeholders. To this end, a theoretical perspective was adopted to stress the agency capacity of mountain area actors, as a localized practice that emerges in the way they experiment with (or are engaged in) the socio-ecological system. In this sense, the agency is the product of a heterogeneous collective, not an individual’s quality. Therefore, although the epistemic distances are quite clear among the mountain stakeholders, they share the field within which their actions and perceptions are structured.

The data show, on the one hand, that farmers appeared competent and aware of the socioeconomic and ecological interactions in which they are embedded and of the spaces to define solutions to resist the adverse effects of climate change and depopulation (a further element to consider in the socio-ecological system and which climate change risks aggravating). However, their position in the field (in the economic system and the socio-ecological ones) affects the responses they can deploy (financial and cognitive), limiting the chance to adopt more consistent solutions or initiatives. In short, due to their relationship with natural and market conditions, farmers have a local-centered perception of the drivers of change that are important but insufficient to promote consistent solutions. On the other hand, experts, adopting an “analytical” vision of the problem (that showed their epistemic position), identified some technically functional solutions. At the same time, this vision risks not being centered locally and not considering farmers’ conditions adequately.

Consequently, participatory ways of defining policies and initiatives to face climate change should consider the socio-ecological (but also socioeconomic) system and “lay” knowledge, which is as valid as those of experts. Experts, in fact, are often disengaged from the specific social dynamics that make countering initiatives possible.

Finally, we should report some weaknesses in our analysis that require further investigation. First, the stakeholders interviewed are mainly farmers and cheesemakers, while other stakeholders are less represented. This did not allow us to indicate the differences between mountain actors adequately. Second, we adopted a qualitative research methodology that does not allow us to quantify the differences between the social actors. It also does not help us to precisely delineate the stakeholders’ evaluations of the various aspects investigated. Third, the work focuses on a case study, and it does not allow for adequate verification of the relationships between the socio-territorial, economic, and climatic context with the perception on the effects of global warming by the various actors questioned. Considering these reasons, and limits, future studies could better investigate the validity of the working hypothesis in this work, and the usefulness of adopting a theoretical perspective taking into account the agency as a collective product of a localized heterogeneous set of actants.