Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Empathy for Justice: A Methodology for Expansive Teacher Professional Development through Creative Body-Based Learning
Previous Article in Journal
A Point-Interval Forecasting Method for Wind Speed Using Improved Wild Horse Optimization Algorithm and Ensemble Learning
Previous Article in Special Issue
How Can Multinational Enterprises Effectively Implement Local Consumer-Oriented Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategies? A Multi-Perspective Study on the Differences in CSR Response Mechanisms between Chinese and Japanese Consumers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Bottom-Up Initiatives for Sustainable Mountain Development in Italy: An Interregional Explorative Survey

1
Department of Economics, University of Verona, 37129 Verona, Italy
2
Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, 20123 Milano, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(1), 93; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010093
Submission received: 13 October 2023 / Revised: 3 December 2023 / Accepted: 5 December 2023 / Published: 21 December 2023

Abstract

:
In recent years, citizen-led initiatives have emerged to complement top-down development policies, particularly to pursue sustainability objectives and benefit traditionally left-behind communities and places. Existing research on this phenomenon in Italian mountain areas suggests a primary emphasis on revitalizing the natural environment, preserving local culture and traditions, and delivering social services to address the absence of public facilities. However, there is still a lack of understanding regarding their profiles, key features, social and environmental impacts, and challenges at the national level. As part of a broader research project, this empirical work contributes to the literature on bottom-up sustainability-oriented initiatives in mountain regions by conducting an explorative interregional online survey. We gathered original data on 196 initiatives from the mountain areas of the Italian regions of Basilicata, Lombardia, Marche, Sicilia, and Veneto. The findings indicate that our sample shares common traits, visions, and values, making a positive contribution to the sustainable development of their respective territories. However, these initiatives must contend with internal and external challenges to enhance their resilience and impact. Importantly, the research may support policymakers at various levels in the design of public policies that harness the full potential of bottom-up initiatives, ultimately enhancing the development and sustainability of these lands.

1. Introduction

In Italy alone, mountains cover 35% of the emerging land and are inhabited by 12% of the population [1]. Considering both the Alps and the Apennines, they provide much of the country with water and biodiverse habitats and are strictly connected to cultural practices from the north to the south of the peninsula. Despite this relevance, they have been progressively marginalized from economic and social development, particularly for the reduction of high-land and small-scale agriculture and of extractive activities [2,3,4,5]. Though experimental public programs aimed at supporting rural and mountain development and welfare states with a participatory and place-based approach are in place [6,7,8,9], as of today most mountain areas still suffer of depopulation, aging, unemployment, economic marginalization, and structural under provision of key infrastructures such as rail and road connections or the internet, and a lack of services in health, education, and entertainment, thus further pushing to the abandonment of these high-lands [5,10,11,12].
To partially tackle these structural challenges in mountain regions, constellations of experimental research action projects and local bottom-up micro-enterprises have recently emerged, in many cases initiated or with the support of distinguished scholars who have been working on these issues for years [4,5]. This flourishing of initiatives contributes to changing a certain consolidated perception of Italian mountains, fostering a new (and positive) narrative, promoting social innovation, and defining new potential connections between mountains and urban centers [13,14,15]. These initiatives encompass highly diverse entities, ranging from associations established to reuse dismissed industrial plots or buildings and organize cultural festivals to microenterprises specialized in the production of local foods or artifacts and those operating in the creative, cultural, and environmental sectors. Additionally, there are cooperatives dedicated to supporting minors, immigrants, or women [16,17,18]. Driven by the desire to regenerate the ecological, social, and economic landscape, these initiatives may complement and stimulate top-down public policies in achieving sustainable development for mountain areas and pursuing the Sustainable Development Goals [19].
Although this emerging phenomenon is recognized and the aspirations to establish sustainable enterprises in remote areas have already been explored, along with the analysis of some pilot cases of mountain social innovation [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27], a comprehensive national quantitative mapping of the key features, primary objectives, and local impacts of these initiatives has not yet been provided. An aggregate overview across regions would be beneficial since Italian mountains possess historical, cultural, social, and economic peculiarities that may influence the development, traits, and challenges of these bottom-up initiatives [1,2,5,28]. To partially address this literature gap, we propose an original interregional explorative survey on bottom-up sustainability-oriented initiatives in mountain areas to offer a first comprehensive geographical perspective. This empirical study is part of a three-year research project conducted by the Department of Economics of the University of Verona (Verona, Italy) and the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (Milan, Italy) aimed at developing a participatory and mixed-methods approach to the study of sustainable development in Italian mountain regions [29,30,31,32].
The present study aims to address several key questions: to comprehend the quantitative relevance of these initiatives across regions and their trends; to quantitatively analyze the combination of economic activities, features, challenges, and long-term perspective; to explore the presence of common visions and values across initiatives of different regions; and to assess their contributions to the promotion of sustainable local development. To achieve these objectives, we first identified and collected in a database 395 bottom-up sustainable initiatives from five different mountain regions in Italy (Basilicata, Lombardia, Marche, Sicilia, and Veneto). Then, an online survey was designed and implemented to gather additional original data directly from the mapped initiative. We received 196 responses (response rate: 49.6%), which is a good result for an online survey. The findings indicate that sustainability-oriented bottom-up initiatives exist in mountain areas from the north to the south of the country, with a similar combination of economic activities. Furthermore, these initiatives are relatively young and have seen numerical growth in the last decade. Interestingly, they share common traits, visions, and values, primarily contributing to the social and sustainable development of their respective territories. However, they also exhibit significant weaknesses and vulnerabilities that may, in the long run, hinder their effectiveness and economic survival. Importantly, as these initiatives possess a unique understanding of their environment and socio-economic relationships [33], increasing their engagement would significantly contribute to the effectiveness and legitimacy of national and international policies, including the National Strategy for Inner Areas and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan [9,32,34]. Ultimately, this place-based cooperative governance approach [10] will be crucial for addressing complex environmental and social issues and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals [35,36], particularly considering the challenges associated with their implementation at the national level [37,38].
The remaining paper is structured as follows: The next section provides a brief overview of the main issues related to mountain development in Italy and delineates the theoretical framework underpinning bottom-up initiatives for sustainable development. The third section outlines the approach and methodology employed to identify the initiatives, administer the online questionnaire, and analyze all responses. The fourth section highlights the key findings and compares them with the broader literature. Finally, the fifth section concludes the paper with the most significant take-home messages.

2. Background

2.1. Mountain Sustainable Development in Italy

High altitudes are characterized by major slopes, harsh climates, remoteness, and exposure to natural hazards [39,40]. Previously compensated for by the abundance of natural resources, in the last century these factors have hindered industrialization and economic and human development, leading to socio-economic and infrastructural marginality [41].
Other than purely territorial advantages or disadvantages, in fact, marginalization results from the complex interaction of multiple dimensions, including the availability of adequate infrastructure, the adoption of new technologies, cultural and social variables such as the availability of quality education, and economic competitiveness [5,42]. Lower opportunities available for individuals and organizations initiate a depopulation process, which sets off chain reactions of recessive effects. The demographic decline weakens the population’s structure and invalidates the population’s capacity for consumption, income production, and the provision of local services. These phenomena contribute to the abovementioned depopulation, thus sustaining a vicious cycle of marginalization that is extremely challenging to reverse.
As with other mountainous regions in Europe, the Italian mountains have been significantly impacted by these economic and demographic processes [4,5]. Many mountainous areas continue to endure the adverse consequences. The birth rate remains low, youth outmigration is high, the population is aging, and employment opportunities for young people are scarce, primarily concentrated in the primary sector and in the tourism sector—the main driver of economic growth in recent decades [28,43]. Moreover, these structural challenges are exacerbated by outdated mountain legislation awaiting updates for years [44]. National public policies, largely oriented toward assistance, contributed to the problem. A notable exception is the positive experience with the National Strategy for Inner Areas, reflecting an innovative vision for the development of these territories [7]. Furthermore, recent public funds have been allocated for specific initiatives in mountainous areas to address certain infrastructure challenges [32,34].
Despite the challenges and constraints faced by these territories, academic and public attention to mountain sustainable development has increased over the last two decades. Italian mountain areas contribute to the national income by 16.1% [45] and are essential for the provision of freshwater and clean energy. This can be extensively generated through dams, wood biomass, and wind installations. Similarly, the implementation of schemes for the payment of ecosystem services could create additional income opportunities for residents, especially small-scale farmers or herders [46,47]. Moreover, they represent fertile ground for potential new initiatives in the green transition and the broader scope of local sustainable development.
Furthermore, the physical and functional transformation of brownfields, disused industrial sites present in many mountain regions, could represent a regeneration opportunity for numerous mountain communities. This transformation aims to counteract climate change and enhance socio-economic conditions, bringing positive benefits to younger generations and the local economy [36,48,49].
Additionally, according to scholars, there are interesting signs of recovery in relation to the neo-population phenomenon of mountain areas [5]. Empirical evidence indicates that this “mountain demand” involves various profile types [50]. These include new mountain residents who relocate (or desire to relocate) from urban areas to the mountains [20,25] or returning mountain residents who come back to their places of origin [51]. Additionally, there are foreigners who invest economic and human resources in business projects in the Alpine and Apennine areas [21] and residents “by force”, such as refugees and asylum seekers placed in villages and small towns in areas far from services [52,53]. In addition to these new or potential inhabitants, the phenomenon of voluntary remaining youth, “restanza” [54], is significant, as analyzed in a recent empirical project, “Giovani Dentro” [23,55].
This human capital “in action” has contributed to the establishment of various bottom-up initiatives, projects, and microenterprises that are reshaping the narrative of living, working, and producing in mountain areas [5,27,30,45,56,57]. As supported by the Camaldoli Manifesto [58] and the MATILDE Manifesto [12], this could lead to a new centrality of the mountains, serving as a laboratory to experiment with sustainable innovative practices that foster economic and employment opportunities, encourage collective participation, promote commons and active citizenship, and generate new flows between urban areas and mountain zones [15].

2.2. Bottom-Up Initiatives for Sustainable Development

Issues related to sustainable mountain development have been approached by a multiplicity of disciplines and approaches, often within the framework of multi-level governance [59]. This concept originated in the literature on the commons [59], pointing to the contribution that different societal actors may make to manage complex environmental challenges. As already shown, mountain challenges are often a combination of environmental, social, and economic issues, ranging from climate change to economic depression to depopulation, and are frequently intertwined in a complex network of causal mechanisms [1]. Accordingly, equally complex governance arrangements are required, in which both national and international policies and local actors interact and collaborate with their own resource activities [33,35,36]. Hence, in this perspective, bottom-up initiatives contribute to the sustainable development of their territory by leveraging traditional knowledge and institutions as well as by injecting new resources into their territories [1,27,60].
Indeed, bottom-up initiatives epitomize community-driven efforts that prioritize local participation, self-determination, and a grassroots approach to development [10,11,33,61,62]. This concept is rooted in the principles of community engagement and empowerment, where residents take the lead in identifying and addressing economic challenges specific to their locales [16,23,27,33,61,63]. Academic perspectives emphasize that bottom-up initiatives encompass a diverse range of activities, including the establishment of microenterprises [17], cooperatives [18,64], social entrepreneurship ventures [65], and grassroots associations [66]. These initiatives are characterized by their decentralized decision-making processes [67], with community members actively participating in the planning, execution, and management of projects [68]. The key to their success is the localization of decision-making, enabling residents to design economic solutions tailored to the unique needs, resources, and cultural contexts of communities [16,27,61,62]. Scholars have highlighted the importance of understanding these challenges to create effective, sustainable, and context-sensitive bottom-up initiatives that contribute to the economic well-being and resilience of mountain regions [69]. Moreover, they underscore the significance of bottom-up initiatives in fostering a sense of community ownership and self-reliance, thereby enhancing the prospects for sustainable economic development in mountain areas [27,70].
For these reasons, bottom-up initiatives (regardless of their form) are regarded as a fundamental contribution to the sustainable development of mountain areas, with the potential to rejuvenate local communities and economies while protecting the natural environment [11,61].
Considering the existence of strong community relations and a local sense of identity [62,71] Italian mountain areas may constitute a valuable laboratory ground to explore novel forms of social innovation, rural mountain commons, and green economies that place the community at the center and emerge from the convergence of top-down policies and bottom-up sustainability initiatives [27,30,45,58,61,62,72,73]. Accordingly, this is where bottom-up and sustainability-oriented initiatives could contribute the most by leveraging the richness of natural and human resources available in mountain areas [27,30,62,71,74], particularly to regenerate the natural and social environment and improve the quality of life for residents [11,23,75].
However, to promote the creation of new bottom-up sustainable initiatives in mountain areas and enhance the potential of existing ones, it is crucial to have a clear and comprehensive understanding of their characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, values, and visions, as well as the contribution they provide in terms of social and environmental sustainability. While existing literature has provided some insights, primarily through the analysis of case studies and using a qualitative approach [25,26,27,56,76], there are still unanswered questions. For this reason, our empirical work aims to provide key answers regarding the ongoing bottom-up sustainable initiatives in mountain areas across five Italian regions, aiming to contribute to the development of a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Database Construction

Following an initial conceptualization phase [27,29,31,63], the research questions have been formulated, and the methodological approach has been defined.
Specifically, our empirical analysis aims to answer the following questions on bottom up sustainable initiatives in Italian mountain regions:
  • What is their spread across regions, and what trends do they show over time?
  • What type of economic activity is carried out, what are the main characteristics and challenges they must face, and what are the long-term perspectives?
  • Are there common visions and values across initiatives in different regions?
  • How can their contributions to the promotion of sustainable local development be assessed?
Considering our exploratory approach, we chose to use a technique of investigation that enables us to gather both quantitative and qualitative data.
As mentioned earlier, there is no national mapping of various bottom-up sustainable initiatives launched in Italian mountain areas. Therefore, our data collection was structured in two steps. The first phase involved the identification and selection of initiatives through desktop research and the creation of a dedicated database with the names of the initiatives and some additional information available on the web. The second phase, instead, entailed the collection of original data by directly contacting the initiatives included in our dedicated database.
Furthermore, given that this is a pilot study, we have currently decided to limit our data collection to five regions. Specifically, it was decided to focus on the regions of Basilicata, Lombardia, Marche, Sicilia, and Veneto. They vary in size, level of economic development, and location, spanning different mountain ranges such as the Alps and the Apennines [28]. This heterogeneity enriches our analysis, and since the five regions are situated in the north (Lombardia and Veneto), the center (Marche), and the south (Basilicata and Sicilia), this geographical criterion enhances the representativeness of our findings [46].
Moreover, systematic monitoring of bottom-up sustainable initiatives in these five regions has received limited academic attention in the past.
Now, we will provide a detailed description of the first step of our data collection, which began in October 2020 and lasted approximately 8 months.
Our bottom-up sustainable initiatives were primarily identified through web-based approaches, utilizing Google queries with keywords (e.g., translated from Italian “sustainability AND mountain AND initiative AND region name”) and searching for information in the programs of academic and other public events related to this specific topic. Additionally, some extra initiatives were suggested directly by the participants in the second phase of our research, namely, a dedicated survey.
Before being included in our database, all initiatives were scrutinized to meet the three following selection criteria (Figure 1). Firstly, as they were located within one of the five chosen regions, they also had to be positioned within mountain municipalities as defined by ISTAT based on altitude parameters [77].
Secondly, to qualify as bottom-up, initiatives had to be registered as micro and small enterprises, associations, and cooperatives, or as recurring small-scale projects (such as local festivals) organized by one of the abovementioned organizations or by local public entities (e.g., municipalities, mountain communities, etc.) [10,78]. This heterogeneity was relatively open and free of preconceptions, as these initiatives often adopt different institutional forms according to local circumstances. Accordingly, before being included in the database as bottom-up initiatives, publicly available web materials (such as websites, Facebook pages, and news articles) were scrutinized and interpreted with qualitative content analysis to search for elements indicating both a strong community identity and participation and a strong commitment to increase the wellbeing of the local community [10,11].
Thirdly, as the focus of this study is on the bottom-up initiatives contributing to sustainable local development, the same web material was scrutinized with qualitative content analysis, searching for a robust sustainability narrative [79,80]. Specifically, only initiatives that expressed a concern for sustainability, environmental protection, landscape, and social wellbeing and actively claimed to contribute to one of these aspects were included in the database [19,81]. Hence, both the second and third criteria were based on a structured assessment of publicly available material and self-reported information [82].
This detailed process resulted in a sample of 395 bottom-up sustainable initiatives (Figure 1). For each initiative, a card with the key information (such as name, location, economic sector, and a summary of main activities) was filled, constituting the primary database of this study. An overview of the initiatives’ distribution by region is provided in Table 1.

3.2. Survey Preparation and Analysis

In this section, we provide a detailed description of the second step of our data collection, which aims to gather original data to address our research questions by directly contacting the initiatives mapped in our database during the first phase. To this end, an online survey with CAWI (Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing) has been implemented on Google Forms to obtain first-hand insights into these 395 bottom-up sustainable initiatives through a structured questionnaire titled “We, pioneers of mountain care” [83,84]. The decision to conduct an online survey aimed to maximize reach at a reasonable cost, particularly since potential respondents were geographically dispersed and distant [83,84].
Our original questionnaire counted a total of 37 main open, multiple-choice, checkbox, and linear-scale questions, divided into four different sections (see Appendix A). The first section aimed to collect basic information on the bottom-up sustainable initiative, such as organizational form type, sector, and location. The second section focused on the relationship with the local territory, supporting factors, and challenges. The third section investigated the development vision of these initiatives in terms of balancing economic, environmental, and social priorities, key activities, and actors. Lastly, the fourth section required self-assessment of the impact on environmental, social, and economic dimensions at the local level.
This online questionnaire was shared with the 395 bottom-up sustainable initiatives in our database via email, starting 10 October 2021. We invited responses from founders or managers with sufficient experience in the respective initiatives. Over the following eight months, bi-weekly reminders were sent, and phone follow-ups were conducted to reach those for whom web participation might have been more challenging, especially considering the lack of digital infrastructure and competencies that affect mountain areas [72,85].
By 31 May 2022, when the online questionnaire was ultimately closed, a total of 211 responses to the survey had been recorded. Though they did not include personal information about the respondents, a precautionary approach was adopted to handle the provided information in compliance with existing standards [83]. Once the responses were further cleaned, 196 univocal answers by an equal number of initiatives (response rate: 49.6%) were obtained. An overview of how responses are distributed is available in the results section (Figure 2).
As the first pilot study of its kind in the Italian mountains, the regional sampled bottom-up sustainable initiatives, and the results from the online questionnaire did not aim to be statistically representative of all bottom-up sustainable initiatives in the country. Instead, they were employed to collectively provide a first overview of the key traits that such initiatives possess. Therefore, the objective was to use all initiative as pieces to construct a larger comprehensive mosaic of features rather than as individual observations whose features could be effectively measured to infer on a larger population. This approach was derived from previous similar studies [19] and is common in exploratory and inductive research [86,87].

4. Results

4.1. Bottom-Up Sustainable Initiatives’ Profile

Bottom-up sustainable initiatives could be found in marginal or semi-marginal areas in the North, the Center, and the South of the country (Table 2), as 17 (8.7%) mountain municipalities in Basilicata, 43 (21.9%) in Lombardia, 33 (16.8%) in the Marche, 32 (16.3%) in Sicilia, and 71 (36.2%) in Veneto hosted at least one. This is a positive result, as southern mountain communities have been traditionally more exposed to marginalization than their peers in the Alps [46,88]. Though extremely heterogeneous, most of them could be categorized as a business (48.5%) or as an association or foundation (27.0%), thus indicating a mixture of for-profit and not-for-profit motives. Interestingly, cooperatives only account for 7.1% of all initiatives, despite their traditional relevance in the agricultural sector [89]. Many initiatives spanned across industries, predominantly agriculture, farming, and herding; artisanship, arts, and culture production; tourism and sports; catering; and hospitality. This is not surprising, as tourism is notoriously driving demand for local food and non-food products, and many new successful enterprises are operating at this intersection [47]. Indeed, while the number of small-scale farms is overall decreasing [90], bottom-up initiatives generally start with farming activities to regenerate their territory [11]. Despite minor differences, such as the higher prevalence of arts and culture in the Marche and a lower prevalence of tourist initiatives in Veneto, these trends are generally confirmed at the regional level (Figure 2).
Interestingly, it was found that these initiatives have been launched by locals in the majority of cases (58.1%), and respondents displayed an intimate relationship with the landscape. On the one hand, once asked to describe what mountains mean to them, as the wordcloud shows (Figure 3, see Appendix B for a regional disaggregation), answers highlighted the relevance of terms such as “nature”, “freedom”, and “beauty”, as well as “homeness” and “community”. On the other hand, when they inquired about their relationship with the specific location where the initiative was located (Figure 4, see Appendix C for a regional disaggregation), the same methodology revealed a strong and personal attachment, underpinned by terms such as “home”, “live”, “work”, and “family”, resulting from both their past (e.g., “born" and “roots”) as well as their expectations about the “future”. Accordingly, even if they are foreigners to the location, respondents appear to possess a strong and personal connection with the mountains and specifically with the territory where the initiative is located. These findings are consistent with the new wave of mountain bottom-up initiatives driven by migrants from non-mountain areas, returnees, or young “restanti” aspiring to improve their quality of life by closing the distance with nature [23,25,50,75,89,91]. Indeed, these processes may drive social innovation and rejuvenation in mountain areas by acting as forces or catalysts in environments rich with natural and social resources, breaking social and economic stagnation [23,24,27,92,93,94,95].
Prosecuting the investigation, it was found that young people and women contributed significantly to the functioning and success of initiatives [27]. Indeed, people under the age of 30 were frequently involved (67.2%), playing a significant (57.4%) or fundamental (22.6%) role in more than three-quarters of the initiatives. The same is true for women, as they participated in 90.2% of all initiatives, often with a fundamental (57.2%) or significant (29.4%) contribution. This is extremely positive since the two groups are frequently marginalized from decision-making processes in mountain settings [29].
Last, when the year of founding was available, the relative newness of these initiatives emerged as 37.24% had less than 10 years and 21.43% had less than 5 (Figure 5). While this could be interpreted as a confirmation of the recent emergence of bottom-up initiatives, it hints that they may be relatively short-lived [95,96]. Interestingly, Figure 5 suggests a peak in the number of new initiatives in 2019 and then a sharp decline in the following two years. This is not surprising, as 2020 and 2021 were characterized by high levels of uncertainty due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which severely affected the birth of new economic activities [97,98]. Nonetheless, responding initiatives remain largely optimistic about the future. When asked to imagine what their initiative could look like in ten years (Figure 6, see Appendix D for a regional disaggregation), they largely emphasized terms connected to the expansion and flourishing of the initiative itself (e.g., “grow”, “develop”, etc.), as well as to proactive behaviors (e.g., “aim”, “project”, etc.). This is, of course, a positive finding, even though previous research has shown that entrepreneurs are sometimes incapable of making realistically accurate predictions for their organizations [46]. Accordingly, a follow-up would be required in a few years to see what initiatives will have survived, as well as if the pre-COVID-19 trend will be repristinated. Interestingly, we observe that this growth is particularly strong in Lombardia and Marche, possibly as a result of the major investments in the tourist sector by the two regions in the last few years [99,100].

4.2. Hindering and Supporting Factors in Bottom-Up Initiatives’ Success and Survival

Answers to the questionnaire show that these initiatives are facing multiple challenges to their survival, particularly bureaucracy (49.4%), economic sustainability (33.9%), and internal organizational issues (14.2%). While more in-depth investigations are required to correctly interpret these results, they seem aligned with those faced by the majority of Italian small businesses, even at low altitudes [25,27,96]. On the other hand, 11.1% indicated the mentality of the local community as a key obstacle. This may be more specific to mountain and marginal areas, as they are traditionally less receptive to novelty and innovation, and may hence indicate a peculiar challenge faced when launching projects in similar contexts [23,27,46,101]. Nonetheless, across all regions, respondents consistently indicated the local community (33.9%), local associations (15.8%) or foundations (9.6%), family (13.6%), and peers (7.9%) as key supporting factors (Figure 7), thus further confirming that long-lasting and locally embedded social connections, though they may suffocate innovation, may also be a unique asset of these areas [62,102,103]. Indeed, 84.9% declared to be currently collaborating with at least one other actor from the territory, further confirming this finding. However, the public administration was perceived as supportive only by 13.0% of the organizations, thus confirming the relatively negative perception of public actors as bureaucratic obstacles [10,23,27], and 18.1% of the initiatives declared to have received no support at all.
Interestingly, despite the limited relevance given to public actors and banks as supporting actors, it was found that a significant proportion of bottom-up sustainable initiatives had obtained external funding. Loans were granted to 31.4% of the initiatives, and, most importantly, only a few (7.2%) were refused. Moreover, the wide majority (85.6%) of initiatives knew of crowdfunding campaigns but did not launch one, as only 20 had attempted one. Conversely, more than half of the initiatives had received public funding, whether from their region (28.6%), the municipality (27.0%), the European Union (20.4%), or the national government (18.9%). While it is possible that initiatives only applied for loans when they believed they had good chances of receiving one, the matter may certainly receive further attention as it appears that this source of funding, as well as crowdfunding, remains largely unattempt. Both results are problematic: on the one hand, not being able to obtain funding from private lending actors significantly limits the opportunity to make investments and grow and may be an indicator of the low solidity of these organizations [96]; conversely, not tapping into crowdfunding appears to be a lost opportunity. From one side, crowdfunding is relatively easy and low-risk and could be easily accessible by the majority of the initiatives. On the other hand, given the importance of community and social relations as well as sustainability objectives, these initiatives could probably count on sufficient support from crowdfunding [104,105].
This would not only improve their opportunities to invest but also the sense of participation and ownership of the local community and supporters, such as in successful schemes for ecosystem services [65]. Conversely, the strong dependence on public funding, though justified by cohesion policies and the common benefits resulting from these initiatives, severely exposes them to unreliable external funding [10].

4.3. Bottom-Up Initiatives’ Sustainable Mountain Development Vision

A dedicated section of the questionnaire investigated the sustainable development vision of the bottom-up initiatives. This concept is currently used to describe a multiplicity of ethical, economic, and ecological perspectives. Accordingly, respondents were asked to describe what sustainable development is for them, and their open answers were quantitatively analyzed. Figure 8 (see Appendix E for a regional disaggregation) shows that terms such as “economy”, “respect”, and “growth” are highly used, thus suggesting the idea that “sustainable development” may be a form of development that respects the environment and social life. This intuition was also supported by reading individual replies, and overall it confirms that respondents largely adopted a vision of “sustainable development” extremely similar to the original one proposed in the Brundtland report and the concept of a triple bottom line [106,107], hence a balance between economic development, human and social development, and natural protection.
Despite this belief, however, from the following questions, a stronger focus on the environment and the social dimension than on the economy emerged. They seem to value the preservation of the local culture and identity above all else (55.0%), followed by the protection of the natural environment (30.9%), and to be only marginally interested in purely economic priorities such as industrial development and employment opportunities (14.1%). Conversely, when asked to identify the most important economic activities, 23.2% of initiatives indicated artisans valorizing the local identity, 34.7% indicated art and culture for the local community and tourism, 40.0% indicated green entrepreneurs valorizing the environment, and only four (2.1%) mentioned industrial activities employing local labor (Figure 9). Indeed, despite interpreting sustainable development as a balance between its three dimensions, the initiatives appear mostly focused on environmental and social objectives rather than economic growth for their territories, and only minor differences emerge between regions.
Moreover (Figure 10), 69.3% believe citizens are the most important actors for the sustainable development of their localities, followed by politicians (54.0%) and entrepreneurs (46.6%), researchers and academics (44.4%), and industry associations (23.3%). This centrality of citizens is consistent with the protagonist role that bottom-up initiatives see for themselves and with the place-based approach [10,27,29,33,62]. Most importantly, it appears to be extremely consistent across regions. Since a commitment to the local community was a criterion for the selection of these initiatives in the first place, this result confirms the accurate selection of the sample and the comparability of initiatives across regions.

4.4. Bottom-Up Initiatives’ Impact Self-Assessment

Lastly, and consistent with their worldview, respondents claimed to be actively pursuing objectives related to the protection of the natural environment, the enhancement of social life and relations, and ultimately profit and economic growth. Invited to choose one or multiple alternatives, 75.0% declared to pursue “environmental objectives”, 69.9% “social objectives”, and only 57.6% “economic objectives”. Nonetheless, answers to a dedicated open question revealed that “quality” and “profit” occupy a dominant position, though balanced by an equal emphasis on terms such as “sociality”, “life”, “relationships”, “sustainability”, etc. (Figure 11, see Appendix F for a regional disaggregation). Altogether, these results suggest that the initiative’s vision goes beyond the simple principle of “do not harm” and equilibrium between the three dimensions of sustainable development [106] and rather adopts a proactive and caring behavior towards the local community [27,108]. Moreover, 84.6% affirmed that they could achieve this by combining tradition and innovation. On the one hand, this required employing novel, environmentally friendly processes and technologies in their focal activities. On the other hand, and most importantly, their approach was what they deemed most innovative, as it placed greater emphasis on the wellness of people and the environment than on profit [75,109]. These results are consistent with existing findings on “new farming” practices [11,23,27,30,89].
For last, initiatives were asked to evaluate their impact on several dimensions of local sustainable development (Figure 12). A total of 67.2% deemed having a positive effect on local occupation opportunity and 84.7% on the quality of work. Moreover, 85.2% declared having a positive effect on social relations in the community, 52.9% on social inclusion, and 72.6% on opportunities for young people. Indeed, young people (45.9%) and women (24.0%) appear among the top beneficiary groups, only followed by the local community (19.9%), elders and disabled people both (13.8%), and immigrants (13.0%). However, only 29.7% believe it has a positive effect on mobility, but 78.4% recognize for themselves that it has a positive influence on tourism. A total of 78.4% of the initiatives seem to have a positive impact on the quality of the environment and the landscape. Almost no initiative evaluates the negative impact of either variable.
Accordingly, their self-assessed impacts appear to spread across different sustainability dimensions, which are extremely relevant for mountain areas. The only exception is mobility, which happens to be one of the worst-off as of today [46]. This is likely because of the infrastructural nature of mobility and the high investments required to address issues in this field. However, in the coming years, micro-mobility and the sharing economy may offer opportunities for the expansion of bottom-up initiatives in this sector. Last, it is worth considering that young people, women, and the local community are perceived as the key beneficiaries of these initiatives. This is extremely positive as it further benefits two social groups that are traditionally marginalized in mountain areas and increases the value of their participation as contributors. These results portray a consistent picture of sustainability-oriented initiatives that pursue environmental and social goals above all else. However, previous studies have found that often only a few of them implement the necessary investments to actually achieve their objectives [46]. Hence, additional research is necessary to investigate to what extent good statements are translated into practice.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Though not entirely new, this study presents the first structured mapping and assessment of bottom-up and sustainability-oriented initiatives occurring in five different regions, covering both the Alps and the Apennines. We collected original data from a large number of diverse initiatives through an elaborate research process. The findings provide valuable insights into the features and impact of bottom-up sustainable initiatives in Italian mountain areas, contributing to the quantitative validation of some of the evidence already emerging from studies within this research strand.
The results support the existence of a common growing trend of bottom-up initiatives in mountain areas, characterized by diverse constitutional forms and involvement in various economic sectors. This trend extends beyond regional borders and arises from the entrepreneurial efforts of both locals and “new mountaineers”. Our sample exhibits shared traits, visions, and values, making a positive self-assessed contribution to social and environmentally sustainable local development. From a multi-level governance perspective, these heterogeneous forms of bottom-up initiatives may be fundamental to addressing complex environmental and social challenges and fostering a shared vision on the use of existing resources. Nevertheless, these short-lived initiatives face internal and external challenges that require appropriate public policies to unlock their full potential. The opportunity to create more sustainable and developed mountain areas depends, at least in part, on their capacity to build a critical mass, engage in networking, interact with a multiplicity of actors, and enhance common resources.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.P. and L.C.; methodology, V.P. and L.C.; software, M.S.; validation, V.P., L.C. and M.S.; formal analysis, V.P., L.C. and M.S.; investigation, V.P., L.C. and M.S.; resources, V.P., L.C. and M.S.; data curation, M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.; writing—review and editing, V.P., L.C. and M.S.; visualization, M.S.; supervision, V.P. and L.C.; project administration, V.P. and L.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Authors would consider sharing their data under request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Questionnaire “We, Pioneers of Mountain Care”

  • What is the name of the initiative you are implementing in the mountain area?
  • What is the legal form of the initiative? Mark only one option.
  • Sole Proprietorship; Simple Partnership; General Partnership; Limited Partnership with Shares; Limited Partnership; Limited Liability Company; Joint-Stock Company; Cooperative Association; Public Entity; Other.
  • What role do you play within the initiative?
  • Where is the initiative based (street, house number, municipality)? If the activity takes place in more than one municipality, indicate them.
  • What is the business sector of the initiative? Select all applicable options.
  • Agriculture; Livestock; Herding; Hospitality; Gastronomy; Arts and Culture; Handicrafts; Sports; Tourism; Services; Public Administration; Other.
  • What is the starting year of the initiative?
  • Is/was the founder/originator of the initiative a “mountain man”? Mark only one option.
  • No; Yes.
  • Since the initiative was started, have there been generational changes in management? Mark only one option.
  • No; Yes, but the change in management did not affect the initiative; Yes, and the change in management did affect the initiative.
  • Are young people (under 30) involved in the initiative? Mark only one option.
  • No; Yes, but they make a negligible contribution; Yes, and they make a major contribution; Yes, and they make an essential contribution.
  • Are women involved in the initiative? Mark only one option.
  • No; Yes, but they make a negligible contribution; Yes, and they make a major contribution; Yes, and they make an essential contribution.
  • If the initiative targets particular segments of the population, could you identify them from the following? Select all applicable options.
  • Elderly; Disabled; Women; Youth; Migrants; Other.
Kindly complete the following sentences:
  • In pursuing this initiative, the main support (e.g., economic, psychological, local, legal, social) came from:
  • In pursuing this initiative, the main obstacle (e.g., economic, psychological, local, legal, social) has been:
  • How do you envision the initiative developing 10 years from now?
  • What are the main purposes the initiative seeks to pursue? Select all applicable options.
  • Environmental; Economic; Social.
  • Was it necessary to turn to the banking system to meet investments? Mark only one option.
  • No; Yes, but requests were not fulfilled; Yes, and requests were fulfilled in part; Yes, and requests were fulfilled in full.
  • Has the initiative received any public contributions? Select all applicable options.
  • No; Yes, the initiative received local contributions; Yes, the initiative received regional contributions; Yes, the initiative received national contributions; Yes, the initiative received European contributions.
  • Have financial resources been raised through crowdfunding campaigns? Mark only one option.
  • No; Yes; I am not familiar with these campaigns.
  • Do you think crowdfunding could be useful for the initiative?
  • Does the initiative aspire to combine tradition and innovation? Mark only one option.
  • No; Yes.
  • If you answered positively to the previous question, could you indicate what tradition you are carrying on and what element of innovation you are experimenting with?
  • Is the initiative collaborating with other actors in the area (other associations, businesses, public agencies, etc.)?
  • No; Yes.
  • If you answered positively to the previous question, could you indicate which actors?
  • In your opinion, would it be possible to carry out the initiative with the same goals and results in a different mountain setting?
  • Could you justify your previous answer?
  • In your opinion, would it be possible to implement the initiative with the same aims and results in a non-mountain setting? Mark only one option.
  • No; Yes; Don’t know.
  • Could you justify your previous answer?
  • Is caring for the mountain landscape one of the values of the initiative?
  • For each of the following, could you tell whether the initiative is having spillover effects? Mark only one option (Positive; No effect; Negative; Not applicable) per line.
  • Local employment; Social relations among villagers; Quality of the environment; Sustainable tourism; Professional opportunities for young people to stay in the mountains; Local mobility; Quality of the landscape; Quality of your work and the people you work with; Social inclusion of vulnerable groups.
  • Generally, economic activities pursue profit maximization; what does this initiative want to “maximize”?
  • Could you describe, in a few words, what “sustainable development” is to you?
  • What is the first word you associate with the term “mountain”?
  • What does the area in which the initiative takes place mean to you?
  • In your opinion, what is the most important thing likely to promote the sustainable development strategy of the area where the initiative is implemented? Select the main one.
  • “Green” business activities that can enhance the environment and mountain landscape; Industrial/commercial activities that employ local workforce; Craft activities that enhance local knowledge and identities; Artistic and cultural activities that can weave community networks and open up new prospects for tourism.
  • In general, when selecting projects with local impact, which aspect do you think is most relevant? Mark only one option.
  • Creation of new jobs; Environmental protection; Preservation of local identity and historical and cultural heritage of the community.
  • In the local development process, which actors in the area do you think should be involved? Select the two most important ones.
  • Politicians and administrators; Entrepreneurs; Citizens; Industry associations; Experts/scholars/researchers; Other.
  • The survey is finished, we thank you for your time. We would love to stay in touch to share future developments in our research project. Would you be interested in being contacted again? Please mark only one option.
  • No; Yes.

Appendix B. Wordclouds for Answers to “What Terms Do You Associate with Mountains?”

Figure A1. Basilicata.
Figure A1. Basilicata.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a1
Figure A2. Lombardia.
Figure A2. Lombardia.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a2
Figure A3. Marche.
Figure A3. Marche.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a3
Figure A4. Sicilia.
Figure A4. Sicilia.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a4
Figure A5. Veneto.
Figure A5. Veneto.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a5

Appendix C. Wordclouds for Answers to “What Does the Territory of the Initiative Represent for You?”

Figure A6. Basilicata.
Figure A6. Basilicata.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a6
Figure A7. Lombardia.
Figure A7. Lombardia.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a7
Figure A8. Marche.
Figure A8. Marche.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a8
Figure A9. Sicilia.
Figure A9. Sicilia.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a9
Figure A10. Veneto.
Figure A10. Veneto.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a10

Appendix D. Wordclouds for Answers to “How Do You Think the Initiative Will Look Like in Ten Years?”

Figure A11. Basilicata.
Figure A11. Basilicata.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a11
Figure A12. Lombardia.
Figure A12. Lombardia.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a12
Figure A13. Marche.
Figure A13. Marche.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a13
Figure A14. Sicilia.
Figure A14. Sicilia.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a14
Figure A15. Veneto.
Figure A15. Veneto.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a15

Appendix E. Wordclouds for Answers to “What Terms Do You Associate with Sustainable Development?”

Figure A16. Basilicata.
Figure A16. Basilicata.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a16
Figure A17. Lombardia.
Figure A17. Lombardia.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a17
Figure A18. Marche.
Figure A18. Marche.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a18
Figure A19. Sicilia.
Figure A19. Sicilia.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a19
Figure A20. Veneto.
Figure A20. Veneto.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a20

Appendix F. Wordclouds for Answers to “What Does Your Initiative Aim to Maximise?”

Figure A21. Basilicata.
Figure A21. Basilicata.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a21
Figure A22. Lombardia.
Figure A22. Lombardia.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a22
Figure A23. Marche.
Figure A23. Marche.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a23
Figure A24. Sicilia.
Figure A24. Sicilia.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a24
Figure A25. Veneto.
Figure A25. Veneto.
Sustainability 16 00093 g0a25

References

  1. Gretter, A.; Ciolli, M.; Scolozzi, R. Governing Mountain Landscapes Collectively: Local Responses to Emerging Challenges within a Systems Thinking Perspective. Landsc. Res. 2018, 43, 1117–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cerea, G.; Marcantoni, M. La Montagna Perduta: Come La Pianura Ha Condizionato Lo Sviluppo Italiano; FrancoAngeli: Milan, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  3. Revelli, N.; Fazio, M. Il Mondo dei Vinti: Testimonianze di Vita Contadina; Einaudi: Turin, Italy, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  4. Varotto, M. Montagne Di Mezzo: Una Nuova Geografia; Einaudi: Torino, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. De Rossi, A. Riabitare l’Italia: Le Aree Interne tra Abbandoni e Riconquiste; Donzelli Editore: Rome, Italy, 2018; ISBN 9788868439330. [Google Scholar]
  6. Barca, F. Disuguaglianze Territoriali e Bisogno Sociale; Fondazione Ermanno Gorrieri: Modena, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  7. Barca, F.; Casavola, P.; Lucatelli, S. Strategia Nazionale per le Aree Interne: Definizione, Obiettivi, Strumenti e Governance/[a Cura di Fabrizio Barca, Paola Casavola e Sabrina Lucatelli]; Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Dipartimento per lo Sviluppo e la Coesione Economica, Unità di Valutazione degli Investimenti Pubblici: Rome, Italy, 2014.
  8. Lopolito, A.; Sisto, R.; Barbuto, A.; Da Re, R. What Is the Impact of LEADER on the Local Social Resources? Some Insights on Local Action Group’s Aggregative Role. Riv. Econ. Agrar. 2015, 70, 55–75. [Google Scholar]
  9. Vitale Brovarone, E.; Cotella, G. La Strategia Nazionale per Le Aree Interne: Una Svolta Place-Based per Le Politiche Regionali in Italia. Arch. Studi Urbani Reg. 2020, 3, 22–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Eckerberg, K.; Bjärstig, T.; Zachrisson, A. Incentives for Collaborative Governance: Top-Down and Bottom-Up Initiatives in the Swedish Mountain Region. Mt. Res. Dev. 2015, 35, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gretter, A.; Torre, C.D.; Maino, F.; Omizzolo, A. New Farming as an Example of Social Innovation Responding to Challenges of Inner Mountain Areas of Italian Alps. Rev. Geogr. Alp. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Membretti, A.; Krasteva, A.; Dax, T. The Renaissance of Remote Places: MATILDE Manifesto; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; ISBN 9781003260486. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cersosimo, D.; Donzelli, C. Manifesto per Riabitare L’Italia: Con un Dizionario di Parole Chiave e Cinque Commenti di Tomaso Montanari, Gabriele Pasqui, Rocco Sciarrone, Nadia Urbinati, Gianfranco Viesti; Donzelli Editore: Rome, Italy, 2020; ISBN 9788855221092. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lucatelli, S.; Luisi, D.; Tantillo, F. L’Italia Lontana: Una Politica per Le Aree Interne; Donzelli Editore: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  15. Barbera, F.; De Rossi, A. Metromontagna: Un Progetto per Riabitare L’Italia; Donzelli Editore: Rome, Italy, 2021; ISBN 9788855222570. [Google Scholar]
  16. Marradi, C.; Mulder, I. Scaling Local Bottom-Up Innovations through Value Co-Creation. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2022, 14, 11678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sati, V.P. Sustainable Mountain Development: Challenges and Opportunities. In Towards Sustainable Livelihoods and Ecosystems in Mountain Regions; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 123–135. ISBN 9783319035321. [Google Scholar]
  18. Streifeneder, T. Cooperative Systems in Mountain Regions: A Governance Instrument for Smallholder Entrepreneurs. Rev. Geogr. Alp. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jiménez-Aceituno, A.; Peterson, G.D.; Norström, A.V.; Wong, G.Y.; Downing, A.S. Local Lens for SDG Implementation: Lessons from Bottom-up Approaches in Africa. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 729–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Corrado, F.; Dematteis, G.; Di Gioia, A. Nuovi Montanari. Abitare le Alpi nel XXI Secolo; FrancoAngeli: Milan, Italy, 2014; ISBN 9788820471118. [Google Scholar]
  21. Membretti, A.; Kofler, I.; Viazzo, P. Per Forza o per Scelta. L’immigrazione Straniera Nelle Alpi e Negli Appennini; Aracne: Lanuvio, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  22. Pettenati, G. I Nuovi Montanari. Q. J. Cult. Politics 2020, 6, 977–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Membretti, A.; Leone, S.; Lucatelli, S.; Storti, D.; Urso, G. Voglia di Restare: Indagine sui Giovani Nell’Italia dei Paesi; Donzelli Editore: Rome, Italy, 2023; ISBN 9788855224840. [Google Scholar]
  24. Barbera, F.; Parisi, T. Innovatori Sociali. La Sindrome di Prometeo Nell’Italia che Cambia; Il Mulino: Bologna, Italy, 2019; 221p, ISBN 9788815280275. [Google Scholar]
  25. Barbera, F.; Bacchetti, E.; Membretti, A.; Spirito, A.; Orestano, L. Vado a Vivere in Montagna. Risposte Innovative per Sviluppare Nuove Economie Nelle Aree Interne. 2019. Available online: https://socialfare.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/InnovAree_report_web.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2023).
  26. Varotto, M. La Montagna che Torna a Vivere. Testimonianze e Progetti per la Rinascita Delle Terre Alte; Nuovadimensione: Portogruaro, Italy, 2013; ISBN 9788889100806. [Google Scholar]
  27. Polin, V.; Patanè, S. Orientare Pratiche di Valorizzazione Aziendale per Uno Sviluppo Sostenibile del Territorio. Una Ricerca-Azione Sull’identità Economica Locale Delle Imprese Artigianali del Monte Baldo; Final Report; Università di Verona: Verona, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  28. Fondazione Montagne Italia. Rapporto Montagne Italia 2017: Le Montagne Della Diversità; Rubettino: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  29. Cavalli, L.; Polin, V.; Spinazzola, M. Quali Ingredienti per Una Buona Economia Delle Aree Montane? Voce Agli Esperti. 2022. Available online: https://iris.univr.it/bitstream/11562/1068413/1/feem-brief-01-2022_Polin%20et%20al.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2023).
  30. Polin, V.; Cavalli, L. MostraTi. Noi Pionieri della Buona Economia di Montagna; Visual research project; University of Verona-Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei: Verona, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  31. Cavalli, L.; Lizzi, G.; Polin, V. Quale Visione di Sostenibilità per i Territori Montani? Voce Agli Esperti; FEEM Policy Briefs; Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei: Milano, Italia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  32. Boeri, C.; Cavalli, L.; Polin, V. La Montagna Sull’Isola: La Rotta Verso la Sostenibilità, PNRR e Oltre (The Mountain on the Island: Toward Sustainability, NRRP and Beyond); FEEM Policy Brief; Fondazione Eni En rico Mattei: Milano, Italia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  33. Barca, F.; McCann, P.; Rodríguez-Pose, A. The Case for Regional Development Intervention: Place-based versus Place-neutral Approaches. J. Reg. Sci. 2012, 52, 134–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lucia, M.G.; Rota, F.S. Others La Protezione e Lo Sviluppo Delle Aree Montane Nella Prospettiva Del Piano Italiano Di Ripresa e Resilienza. Doc. Geogr. 2022, 1, 175–204. [Google Scholar]
  35. Spinazzola, M.; Cavalli, L. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the WEF Nexus. In Connecting the Sustainable Development Goals: The WEF Nexus; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 3–12. ISBN 9783031013355. [Google Scholar]
  36. Pahl-Wostl, C. Governance of the Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus: A Multi-Level Coordination Challenge. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 92, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Biermann, F.; Hickmann, T.; Sénit, C.-A.; Beisheim, M.; Bernstein, S.; Chasek, P.; Grob, L.; Kim, R.E.; Kotzé, L.J.; Nilsson, M.; et al. Scientific Evidence on the Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2022, 5, 795–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hickmann, T.; Biermann, F.; Spinazzola, M.; Ballard, C.; Bogers, M.; Forestier, O.; Kalfagianni, A.; Kim, R.E.; Montesano, F.S.; Peek, T.; et al. Success Factors of Global Goal-setting for Sustainable Development: Learning from the Millennium Development Goals. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 31, 1214–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zimmermann, M.; Keiler, M. International Frameworks for Disaster Risk Reduction: Useful Guidance for Sustainable Mountain Development? Mt. Res. Dev. 2015, 35, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stäubli, A.; Nussbaumer, S.U.; Allen, S.K.; Huggel, C.; Arguello, M.; Costa, F.; Hergarten, C.; Martínez, R.; Soto, J.; Vargas, R.; et al. Analysis of Weather- and Climate-Related Disasters in Mountain Regions Using Different Disaster Databases. In Climate Change, Extreme Events and Disaster Risk Reduction; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 17–41. ISBN 9783319564685. [Google Scholar]
  41. Perlik, M. The Spatial and Economic Transformation of Mountain Regions. Landscapes as Commodities; Routledge: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  42. Buran, P.; Aimone, S.; Ferlaino, F.; Migliore, M.C. Le Misure Della Marginalità 1998. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/199702896.pdf (accessed on 17 November 2023).
  43. Omizzolo, A.; Streifeneder, T. Lo Sviluppo Territoriale Nelle Regioni Montane Italiane Dal 1990 Ad Oggi. Available online: https://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/it/content/article/31/27/lo-sviluppo-territoriale-nelle-regioni-montane-italiane-dal-1990-ad-oggi (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  44. Ferlaino, F.; Rota, F.S. La Montagna Nell’ordinamento Italiano: Un Racconto in Tre Atti. 2010. Available online: http://www.grupposervizioambiente.it/aisre/pendrive2010/pendrive/Paper/Ferlaino1.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2023).
  45. Baldi, M.; Marcantoni, M. La ‘Quota’ Dello Sviluppo. Una Nuova Mappa so-Cio-Economica Della Montagna Italiana; FrancoAngeli: Milano, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  46. Fondazione Montagne Italia. Rapporto Montagne Italia 2016. 2016. Available online: https://montagneitalia.it/rapporto-montagne-italia-2016/ (accessed on 9 November 2023).
  47. Bucci, G. L’indicazione Facoltativa “Prodotto Di Montagna”: Una Nuova Etichetta per Promuovere Lo Sviluppo Sostenibile Delle Aree Montane. Econ. Marche J. Appl. Econ. 2017, 36, 55–75. [Google Scholar]
  48. Modica, M.; Solero, E. Brownfield Transformation in Fragile Territories: An Inter-Reg-Based Action Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  49. Modica, M. Alpine Industrial Landscapes. Towards a New Approach for Brownfield Redevelopment in Mountain Regions; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  50. Membretti, A. Le Popolazioni Metromontane: Relazioni, Biografie, Bisogni”. In Metromontagna. Un Progetto per Riabitare L’Italia; Barbera, F., De, R.A., Eds.; Donzelli: Rome, Italy, 2021; pp. 173–200. [Google Scholar]
  51. De Matteis, G. Montanari per Scelta. Indizi Di Rinascita Nella Montagna Piemontese; Franco Angeli: Milano, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  52. Dematteis, M.; Di Gioia, A.; Membretti, A. Montanari per Forza. Richiedenti Asilo e Rifugiati Nelle Montagna Italiana; Aracne: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  53. Perlik, M.; Membretti, A. Migration by Necessity and by Force to Mountain Areas: An Opportunity for Social Innovation. Mt. Res. Dev. 2018, 38, 250–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Teti, V. La Restanza; Einaudi: Torino, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  55. Salvo, C.; Tomnyuk, V.; Membretti, A. Immobility Aspirations among Young Adults in Italian Inner Areas: Towards a «Capability to Stay». Sci. Reg. 2023; early access. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ferrario, V.; Manzo, M.C. La Montagna Che Produce. In La Montagna che Produce; Mimesis International: Milan, Italy, 2020; ISBN 9788857573564. [Google Scholar]
  57. Bolognesi, M.; Corrado, F. La Nuova Centralità Della Montagna. Sci. Territ. 2021, 9, 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. De Matteis, G.; Magnaghi, A. La Visione Della Montagna Nel Manifesto Di Camaldoli, in La Nuova Centralità Della Montagna. Sci. Territ. 2021, 9, 18–24. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ostrom, E. Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990; ISBN 9780521371018. [Google Scholar]
  60. Scolozzi, R.; Soane, I.D.; Gretter, A. Multiple-Level Governance Is Needed in the Social-Ecological System of Alpine Cultural Landscapes. In Scale-sensitive Governance of the Environment; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 90–105. ISBN 9781118567135. [Google Scholar]
  61. Dalla Torre, C.; Ravazzoli, E.; Omizzolo, A.; Gretter, A.; Membretti, A. Questioning Mountain Rural Commons in Changing Alpine Regions. An Exploratory Study in Trentino, Italy. Rev. Geogr. Alp. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Migliorati, L. Moving Alps. Le Conseguenze Sociali della Dismissione Industriale Nello Spazio Alpino Europeo; FrancoAngeli: Milan, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  63. Migliorati, L.; Polin, V.; Veronesi, L. Il disegno della ricerca e la metodologia. In Moving Alps. Le Conseguenze Sociali della Dismissione Industriale Nello Spazio Alpino Europeo; Migliorati, L., Ed.; FrancoAngeli: Milan, Italy, 2021; pp. 27–37. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lompech, M. Mountain Cooperatives in Slovakia. Rev. Geogr. Alp. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lehner, O.M. Crowdfunding Social Ventures: A Model and Research Agenda. Venture Cap. 2013, 15, 289–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Seyfang, G.; Smith, A. Grassroots Innovations for Sustainable Development: Towards a New Research and Policy Agenda. Environ. Polit. 2007, 16, 584–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Daniloska, N. Decentralized Environmental Decision Making. Econ. Dev. 2012, 14, 135–142. [Google Scholar]
  68. Liwanag, H.J.; Wyss, K. What Conditions Enable Decentralization to Improve the Health System? Qualitative Analysis of Perspectives on Decision Space after 25 Years of Devolution in the Philippines. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0206809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pahl-Wostl, C.; Lebel, L.; Knieper, C.; Nikitina, E. From Applying Panaceas to Mastering Complexity: Toward Adaptive Water Governance in River Basins. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 23, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rueff, H.; Inam-ur-Rahim; Kohler, T.; Mahat, T.J.; Ariza, C. Can the Green Economy Enhance Sustainable Mountain Development? The Potential Role of Awareness Building. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 49, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Marcantoni, M.; Vetritto, G. Montagne di Valore. Una Ricerca Sul Sale Alchemico Della Montagna Italiana; FrancoAngeli: Milan, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  72. UNCEM Verso la Nuova Strategia per le Montagne e le Aree Interne 2021. Available online: https://uncem.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/UNCEM-Strategia-Montagne-e-Aree-interne-futuro-giu2021.pdf (accessed on 13 July 2023).
  73. Li, Y.; Westlund, H.; Zheng, X.; Liu, Y. Bottom-up Initiatives and Revival in the Face of Rural Decline: Case Studies from China and Sweden. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 47, 506–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sgroi, F. Forest Resources and Sustainable Tourism, a Combination for the Resilience of the Landscape and Development of Mountain Areas. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 736, 139539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chevalier, M. Les phénomènes néo-ruraux. Espace Geogr. 1981, 10, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Martinelli, L. L’Italia è Bella Dentro: Storie di Resilienza, Innovazione e Ritorno Nelle Aree Interne; Altreconomia: Milan, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  77. ISTAT. Annuario Statistico Italiano 2020; ISTAT: Rome, Italy, 2020.
  78. Mens, J.; van Bueren, E.; Vrijhoef, R.; Heurkens, E. A Typology of Social Entrepreneurs in Bottom-up Urban Development. Cities 2021, 110, 103066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mayring, P.A.E. Qualitative Content Analysis. In International Encyclopedia of Education, 4th ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 314–322. ISBN 9780128186299. [Google Scholar]
  80. Schreier, M. Qualitative Content Analysis. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis; SAGE Publications, Inc.: London, UK, 2014; pp. 170–183. ISBN 9781446208984. [Google Scholar]
  81. Löffler, R.; Beismann, M.; Walder, J.; Steinicke, E. New Highlanders in Traditional Outmigration Areas in the Alps. J. Alp. Res. 2014, 102, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  82. Lu, J.; Liang, M.; Zhang, C.; Rong, D.; Guan, H.; Mazeikaite, K.; Streimikis, J. Assessment of Corporate Social Responsibility by Addressing Sustainable Development Goals. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 686–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ball, H.L. Conducting Online Surveys. J. Hum. Lact. 2019, 35, 413–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Braun, V.; Clarke, V.; Boulton, E.; Davey, L.; McEvoy, C. The Online Survey as a Qualitative Research Tool. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2020, 24, 641–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Taylor, G. Bridging the Urban–Rural Digital Divide: In Frequencies; MQUP: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2020; pp. 162–186. ISBN 9780228003120. [Google Scholar]
  86. Teram, E.; Schachter, C.L.; Stalker, C.A. The Case for Integrating Grounded Theory and Participatory Action Research: Empowering Clients to Inform Professional Practice. Qual. Health Res. 2005, 15, 1129–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Elmi, M.; Streifeneder, T.; Ravazzoli, E.; Laner, P.; Petitta, M.; Renner, K.; Garegnani, G.; D’alonzo, V.; Brambilla, A.; Bassano, B.; et al. The Alps in 25 Maps; Alpine Convention: Bolzano-Bozen, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  88. Valentinov, V. Why Are Cooperatives Important in Agriculture? An Organizational Economics Perspective. J. Inst. Econ. 2007, 3, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. European Commission. EIP-AGRI Focus Group New Entrants into Farming: Lessons to Foster Innovation and Entrepreneurship; Final Report; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  90. Guiomar, N.; Godinho, S.; Pinto-Correia, T.; Almeida, M.; Bartolini, F.; Bezák, P.; Biró, M.; Bjørkhaug, H.; Bojnec, Š.; Brunori, G.; et al. Typology and Distribution of Small Farms in Europe: Towards a Better Picture. Land Use Policy 2018, 75, 784–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Barbera, F.; Membretti, A. Alla Ricerca Della Distanza Perduta. Rigenerare Luoghi, Persone e Immaginari Del Riabitare Alpino. Archalp 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hastings, L.; Barrett, L.; Barbuto, J.; Bell, L. Developing a Paradigm Model of Youth Leadership Development and Community Engagement: A Grounded Theory. J. Agric. Educ. 2011, 52, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Noack, A.; Federwisch, T. Social Innovation in Rural Regions: Urban Impulses and Cross-Border Constellations of Actors. Sociol. Ruralis 2019, 59, 92–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Neumeier, S. Why Do Social Innovations in Rural Development Matter and Should They Be Considered More Seriously in Rural Development Research?—Proposal for a Stronger Focus on Social Innovations in Rural Development Research. Sociol. Ruralis 2012, 52, 48–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Nicolo, D.; Ricca, B.; Nicolò, D. Under-Capitalization and Other Factors That Influence the Survival of Young Italian Companies. Available online: https://iris.unime.it/retrieve/handle/11570/3137677/231693/568-1782-1-PB.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2023).
  96. Giaccio, V.; Giannelli, A.; Mastronardi, L. Explaining Determinants of Agri-Tourism Income: Evidence from Italy. Tour. Rev. 2018, 73, 216–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Baker, S.R.; Bloom, N.; Davis, S.J.; Terry, S.J. COVID-Induced Economic Uncertainty 2020; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  98. Gruber, M.; Lardiés-Bosque, R.; Membretti, A. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Remote and Rural Regions of Europe: Foreign Immigration and Local Development; Gran Sasso Science Institute: L’Aquila, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  99. Gallegati, S. Opportunità e Sfide per Lo Sviluppo Del Turismo Sostenibile: Il Caso Della Regione Marche. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Padua, Padua, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  100. Pencarelli, T.; Dini, M. Idee e proposte per lo sviluppo del turismo nelle Marche post COVID-19. In Una Regione in Metamorfosi e la Necessità di Delineare Percorsi Evolutivi; ITA: Rome, Italy, 2021; pp. 53–73. ISBN 9788860567604. [Google Scholar]
  101. Membretti, A.; Viazzo, P.P. Negotiating the Mountains. Foreign Immigration and Cultural Change in the Italian Alps. Martor 2017, 22, 93–107. [Google Scholar]
  102. Zanon, B. Territorial Innovation in the Alps. Heterodox Reterritorialization Processes in Trentino. Ital. J. Plan. Pract. 2018. Available online: https://iris.unitn.it/handle/11572/198838 (accessed on 12 September 2023).
  103. Bosworth, G.; Rizzo, F.; Marquardt, D.; Strijker, D.; Haartsen, T.; Aagaard Thuesen, A. Identifying Social Innovations in European Local Rural Development Initiatives. Innovation 2016, 29, 442–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Camilleri, M.A.; Bresciani, S. Crowdfunding Small Businesses and Startups: A Systematic Review, an Appraisal of Theoretical Insights and Future Research Directions. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Böckel, A.; Hörisch, J.; Tenner, I. A Systematic Literature Review of Crowdfunding and Sustainability: Highlighting What Really Matters. Manag. Rev. Q. 2021, 71, 433–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Visser, W.; Brundtland, G.H. Our Common Future (‘the Brundtland Report’): World Commission on Environment and Development. In The Top 50 Sustainability Books; Greenleaf Publishing Limited: South Yorkshire, UK, 2013; pp. 52–55. ISBN 9781907643446. [Google Scholar]
  107. Alhaddi, H. Triple Bottom Line and Sustainability: A Literature Review. Bus. Manag. Stud. 2015, 1, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hasselbalch, J.A.; Kranke, M.; Chertkovskaya, E. Organizing for Transformation: Post-Growth in International Political Economy. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 2023, 30, 1621–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Zamagni, S. Beni Comuni Territoriali e Economia Civile. SdT 2018, 6, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Bottom-up sustainable initiatives’ identification and survey strategy. Own elaboration.
Figure 1. Bottom-up sustainable initiatives’ identification and survey strategy. Own elaboration.
Sustainability 16 00093 g001
Figure 2. Bottom-up sustainable initiatives’ distribution by economic sector. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Figure 2. Bottom-up sustainable initiatives’ distribution by economic sector. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Sustainability 16 00093 g002
Figure 3. Answers to the question “What terms do you associate with mountains?”. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Figure 3. Answers to the question “What terms do you associate with mountains?”. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Sustainability 16 00093 g003
Figure 4. Answers to the question “What does the territory of the initiative represent for you?”. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Figure 4. Answers to the question “What does the territory of the initiative represent for you?”. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Sustainability 16 00093 g004
Figure 5. Distribution of bottom-up sustainable initiatives by founding years. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Figure 5. Distribution of bottom-up sustainable initiatives by founding years. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Sustainability 16 00093 g005
Figure 6. Answers to the question “How do you think the initiative will look like in ten years?”. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Figure 6. Answers to the question “How do you think the initiative will look like in ten years?”. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Sustainability 16 00093 g006
Figure 7. Distribution of the most supportive actors. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Figure 7. Distribution of the most supportive actors. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Sustainability 16 00093 g007
Figure 8. Answers to the question “What terms do you associate with sustainable development?”. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Figure 8. Answers to the question “What terms do you associate with sustainable development?”. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Sustainability 16 00093 g008
Figure 9. Distribution of most important economic activities. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Figure 9. Distribution of most important economic activities. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Sustainability 16 00093 g009
Figure 10. Distribution of the most important actors. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Figure 10. Distribution of the most important actors. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Sustainability 16 00093 g010
Figure 11. Answers to the question “What does your initiative aim to maximize?”. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Figure 11. Answers to the question “What does your initiative aim to maximize?”. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Sustainability 16 00093 g011
Figure 12. Self-assessed positive impact on sustainability dimensions. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Figure 12. Self-assessed positive impact on sustainability dimensions. Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Sustainability 16 00093 g012
Table 1. Bottom-up sustainable initiatives’ distribution across different mountain regions, as available in the constructed database.
Table 1. Bottom-up sustainable initiatives’ distribution across different mountain regions, as available in the constructed database.
BasilicataLombardiaMarcheSiciliaVenetoTotal
Total50795894114395
Source: Self-constructed database. Own elaboration.
Table 2. Bottom-up sustainable initiatives’ distribution across different mountain regions.
Table 2. Bottom-up sustainable initiatives’ distribution across different mountain regions.
BasilicataLombardiaMarcheSiciliaVenetoTotal
Total1743333271196
Source: “We, pioneers of mountain care” survey. Own elaboration.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Polin, V.; Cavalli, L.; Spinazzola, M. Bottom-Up Initiatives for Sustainable Mountain Development in Italy: An Interregional Explorative Survey. Sustainability 2024, 16, 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010093

AMA Style

Polin V, Cavalli L, Spinazzola M. Bottom-Up Initiatives for Sustainable Mountain Development in Italy: An Interregional Explorative Survey. Sustainability. 2024; 16(1):93. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010093

Chicago/Turabian Style

Polin, Veronica, Laura Cavalli, and Matteo Spinazzola. 2024. "Bottom-Up Initiatives for Sustainable Mountain Development in Italy: An Interregional Explorative Survey" Sustainability 16, no. 1: 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010093

APA Style

Polin, V., Cavalli, L., & Spinazzola, M. (2024). Bottom-Up Initiatives for Sustainable Mountain Development in Italy: An Interregional Explorative Survey. Sustainability, 16(1), 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010093

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop