Next Article in Journal
Integrating Irrigation Decision Support Systems for Efficient Water Use: A Case Study on Mediterranean Agriculture
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Dynamics of Specialized and Sophisticated Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises on New High-Quality Productive Forces from an Evolutionary Economic Geography Perspective
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/land14010006
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

New Possibilities for Planning the Recovery of Abandoned Agricultural Land in Mediterranean Mountain Communities: The Case of Troodos in Cyprus

by
Dimitris Goussios
1,
Dimitra Gaki
1,
Prodromos Mardakis
1 and
Ioannis Faraslis
2,*
1
Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, Pedion Areos, 38334 Volos, Greece
2
Department of Environmental Sciences, Campus Gaiopolis, University of Thessaly, 41110 Larissa, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(1), 6; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010006
Submission received: 2 December 2024 / Revised: 15 December 2024 / Accepted: 16 December 2024 / Published: 24 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Land, Soil and Water)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper addresses the issue of abandoned agricultural land (AAL) as a phenomenon whose containment is crucial due to its extent, the agro-ecological transition, and the development challenges faced by mountain communities. The research is organised on two levels: (a) the mountain region of Troodos, Cyprus, where the stance of local communities regarding the impacts of abandonment is investigated, and (b) representative communities where the findings from the diagnosis, with the contribution of spatial analysis, are used as a guide in planning the process of recovering AAL. At this scale, an interactive methodology is proposed that incorporates the spatial and production dimensions through a “zone for recovery”. The paper results in a recovery process based on the correspondence between the differentiated agricultural land uses in mountains (intensive/extensive models, self-consumption, management, etc.) and the various user groups (existing and potential farmers, diaspora, etc.). This process indicates that, as long as there is a combined institutional intervention by communities, spatial planning, and local governance, integrating recovery into the local multifunctional production system leads to its differentiation and increased resilience.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, Mediterranean mountain communities have witnessed a decrease in agricultural activity as well as difficulties in sustaining livelihoods and managing the environment [1,2]. Having experienced this degradation of their spaces, these communities have had their visions restricted between the development expected from the city and the state’s perception of the quasi-absolute protection of the natural environment due to abandonment [3,4]. In this spatial context and operating in a more favourable international context in which they are recognised as hotspots of biodiversity and natural resources, mountain areas are today seeking their own path through to future needs [5]. This new approach is based on endogenous growth and specific mountain resources [6,7]. In recent years, there has been a growing concern in the European Union (EU) about agricultural land abandonment, with an estimated 30% of agricultural land at moderate risk of land abandonment by 2030 [8]. In mountain areas, this risk is three times higher than in non-mountainous areas [9]. Faced with this prospect, the disarray of the agro-silvo-pastoral system [10] and the dwindling resilience of their agricultural production systems, mountain communities are recognising the necessity, and the possibility, of spatial reorganisation, both as a basis for and a factor in sustainable development [11,12]. In view of these changes, the mass abandonment of agricultural land in recent decades [13] can be interpreted as a multidimensional issue: (a) it renders a large portion of the agricultural production capital idle, (b) disrupts the relationship with local ecosystems and landscapes, and (c) reduces the attractiveness of areas [14]. Halting this trend is therefore imperative given the frequency of land abandonment, the agro-ecological transition, and the development challenges faced by mountain communities [4,5,15]. However, global research limits the approach to this issue (abandonment) in the field of management. On the contrary, despite the favourable environment that is beginning to take shape, the relevant research does not explore the possibilities and procedures for the recovery of the abandoned agricultural land (AAL), which is confirmed by the state of the art.
Numerous studies have addressed AAL, investigating the socio-economic factors that have led to the abandonment of Mediterranean mountain areas. The majority have focused on the ecological impact [13,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Recently, many have approached the issue in the context of the agroecological transition [21,22,23] and its contribution, or lack thereof, to enhancing biodiversity [24]. More recent studies have connected the issue to the globalisation of food systems [24]. Lastly, the search for solutions has been limited to the adoption of cross-sectoral policy measures that cover land management, taking into account the rural shrinkage trend [9,25,26,27] and the prospects offered by a territorial mode of development [28]. Some suggest that this action take the form of a rational land management and governance system in order to simultaneously satisfy agro-ecological and territorial objectives [29,30,31,32] at the community level [33].
However, while it is recognised that the issue of AAL is linked to spatial management and consequently to territorial resources, few studies have examined the role of communities in the search for solutions to the bottom-up recovery of these lands [34,35]. Undoubtedly, depopulation and the decline in production of Mediterranean mountain communities raise the question of whether they retain the ability to perform such a role. Furthermore, in recent decades, the creation of new social groups within the now enlarged (permanent residents-internal migrants, diaspora) mountain communities [36,37] has led to the emergence of different interests and pressures for a change in land uses (second residences). Nevertheless, over the last few years the multifunctional role of agriculture has been recognised through policies that support the agro-ecological transition and a territorial mode of development (PAC, leader, etc.). These bottom-up policies and initiatives define new areas for interventions and arrangements by communities and for communities. The “commons” (political dimension of the term) constitute one such field, where communities link the use and management of natural resources to agricultural activity [38]. In this context, the use of agricultural land meets the new socio-ecological and production needs of communities [39,40]. This development of multifunctional agriculture on a small scale also incorporates AAL. However, in this context of change, the incorporation of AAL into a collective management plan at the community level relies on rupturing the ownership-use relationship and, therefore, on the harmonisation of property rights. Despite losing its production function (agricultural use), AAL remains in the “agricultural land” category [41], raising the issue of the control of property rights in the cession of land use for collective management [42].
The issue of cession of land use is determined by the traditional attachment to inherited land, particularly in Mediterranean countries [43], as well as the pressures for urbanisation as a profitable change in land use. However, while these two obstacles delay adjustments to the legal and institutional framework in the evolution of the relationship between ownership and use [4], the shift in environmental and climate change law towards limiting ownership rights is visible. Another contribution in this direction is the goal of a carbon-free economy, which is based on restrictions and shared use and broadens the approach to land beyond its economic dimension, affecting individual ownership as an institution [44,45]. Studies have already shown that the interdependence between ownership and the management of territorial resources and the space [46] strengthens the social dimension of ownership [4,47]. This change opens the way for the cession of the right to use AAL in order to satisfy the requirements of managing the commons, the provision of ecosystem services, the enhancement of terroirs, etc. Efforts are already being strengthened in numerous European countries (France, Switzerland, Italy, etc.) to “force” owners to cede their abandoned land to meet such needs [48].
The need for institutional adjustments in the context of these land tenure relations underlines the need for communities themselves to intervene in certain facets of the traditional relationship between agricultural land ownership and use by its residents. This is particularly true in Mediterranean communities where ownership rights also pertain to the diaspora who own large portions of agricultural land [4,49]. They are from the communities but reside in neighbouring towns/cities or abroad, are organised in communities and associations, and retain links to their villages (second residences, maintaining land ownership, etc.). Therefore, as long as such ownership rights are exercised in community spaces, changes in uses will impact these ownership rights, as well as the relationship between communities and their residents, through the necessary spatial adjustments [50]. Until recently, efforts by communities to collectively manage abandoned land have been confronted by the interests of agricultural landowners [4]. However, it appears that to reduce the asymmetry between the goals of communities and those of landowners, the former can now argue that the management of this land as part of potentially high-value and multifunctional agriculture appears to confer a common benefit [40,51,52]. Communities and their collectivities can now claim that this management ensures the quality of resources, the place’s image, and, consequently, the territorial nature of development [53] [37,54,55]. On this basis, multifunctional agriculture, which is spatially anchored, “legitimises” interventions by communities in the control of the relationship between ownership and use [56]. At the same time, it provides a territorial rather than sectoral dimension to the process of recovering abandoned agricultural land as it links it to resources and the advantages that mountain communities could use to steer a territorial development process [55,56,57,58,59].
This paper approaches the recovery of AAL through the dynamics exerted on land tenure relations and the prospects of agricultural use at the community level by the synergy between the agro-ecological transition and territorial development. The question arises of whether these dynamics can activate a bottom-up spatial process of recovery within the context of a local production system with a multifunctional orientation. At the same time, the factors that contribute to the recoverability of AAL are examined, such as the institutional role of communities in the control of the ownership–use relationship and the common benefits created by the multifunctionality of the sector and the space. This paper seeks the appropriate planning scale where land relations, cultural ties, and local resources can be activated. The study is conducted in the mountain region of Troodos in Cyprus, where a diagnosis identified the extent of abandonment, the obstacles, and the possibilities for the recovery of this land by investigating the stance of local communities. Then, the recovery process is planned at the community level, taking into account the spatial and production characteristics of AAL and matching production and functions offered by agricultural use with user groups in the community. Finally, the paper explores the combination of institutional issues with local community, spatial planning, and governance, contributing to the agro-ecological and territorial logic of AAL recovery.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Area

2.1.1. Troodos Mountain Area, Cyprus (Lat 34.9803/Long 32.8461)

The area is located near the centre of the free part of Cyprus and covers a large section of the Troodos mountain range. Its surface area is 1477 km2 (15.7% of the total area of the island) and includes 115 mountain communities (Figure 1). The area has a varied relief, characterised by deep valleys with smooth slopes. It is a reservoir of valuable natural resources for the island and has a dense hydrographic network. The area receives 1000 mm of precipitation, and snowfalls occur every winter. The ecosystem is varied, with dense forest coverage and ‘islands’ of cultivated land in the valleys.
Despite the difficulties in accessing mountain areas, agricultural land use was extensive, as shown by the density of infrastructure [4]. Tree cultivation dominates the centre of the area, whereas terraced vineyards and natural pastures are found in the southern section. Since 1980, the rural exodus and a sharp decline of 56.2% in agricultural land between 1985 and 2020 have disrupted local production systems that were adapted to the Mediterranean agro-silvo-pastoral system (Table 1). A substantial part of this land abandonment has occurred mostly since 2010 in the central part of the Troodos Mountains (Figure 2). The abandonment of this agricultural land has visible impacts on the landscape (aridity, forestation, erosion) of the region and directly affects the relationship with other uses (forests, semi-natural vegetation, etc.) and protection zones (landscapes, Natura 2000 areas, high nature value areas (HNV), etc.). Specifically, areas where agricultural land has been abandoned have been overrun by woody vegetation, terraces have not been maintained, and erosion phenomena occur in certain locations. Abandoned land now also covers high productivity zones (irrigation, land consolidation) as well as zones of recognisable value (terroirs).
An acceleration in the abandonment of farmland is expected due to the ageing agricultural population and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events that affect agricultural production [4]. At the same time, land abandonment has disrupted the production system in the area in sectors of particular value to consumers (nuts, fruit, etc.). Sheep and goat farming is found at lower altitudes (300–500 m) in the northern and southern parts of Troodos.
In the last 35 years (1985–2020), despite fluctuations, livestock numbers have stabilised (Table 2). The 2020 census shows that in Troodos, there are 229 farms with 33,386 sheep and goats (Figure 3). Pastoral livestock farming is supported by a combination of private (owned) and leased land incorporated into livestock farms and the existence of grazing land of moderate productivity. However, the high fragmentation of grazing lands and their inadequate management have a negative effect on the productivity of farms. Ultimately, it seems that the abandonment of agricultural land in the entirety of the region of Troodos represents a complex issue that involves a large number of owners, users, and local actors and affects land uses as well as spatial organisation and management. In order to approach this issue and support a recovery plan, the proposed methodology was implemented in three representative mountain communities of Troodos.

2.1.2. Communities: Lagoudera–Saranti–Dora

The three communities are representative of Troodos in terms of their geographical features, the frequency of agricultural land abandonment, and the decrease in the number of farms (for the period 1985–2020) and population (over 70% for the period 1960–2011) (Table 3).
The neighbouring communities of Lagoudera and Saranti are located at an altitude of approximately 1000 m. They have areas of 9.6 and 7.9 km2, respectively, and form part of a small valley with two zones of agricultural land. The first zone, in the SW, is dominated by vines, and the second, in the N-NE, by tree cultivation (almonds, etc.). Figure 4 shows that cultivation is more extensive in the first zone, where the diaspora continues to maintain their family vineyards. In contrast, in the second zone where intensive agriculture was promoted due to soil quality and irrigation, etc., abandonment is more prevalent. The community of Dora is located on the fringes of the mountain (450 m above sea level), with an area of 17.2 km2. It retains a mixed production system (cereals, sheep and goat farming).
Agricultural land is abandoned in its remote areas or incorporated into a set-aside scheme [Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) measure].

2.2. Methodology

In order to approach the issue of recovering abandoned agricultural land (AAL) in the Troodos mountain region (Cyprus), the research uses as a framework of theoretical analysis the concept of spatial system focusing on the subsystems of land use and land exploitation [60]. For its application, it utilises spatial analysis methods in the context of an interactive and participatory methodology that combines sources, methods, and techniques with the participation of actors concerned. The methodological pathway based on a diagnosis and consultations aimed to supplement qualitative information through the activation of various local interest groups [61]. The second objective was to enhance interactivity and participation in order to strengthen the capacities of local actors to mobilise [62] and control the process of land recovery [63], aiming to activate informal institutions within land relations.
The methodology used to identify Zones for the Recovery of Abandoned Agricultural Land (ZRs) was organised on two spatial scales: (a) the “large” scale of the mountain range where an extensive diagnosis was conducted and (b) the “small”, community scale where the organisation of the recovery process was attempted. The available sources were identified, including a literature review, and information collection methods and techniques were used at both scales.
Lastly, Figure 5 presents the key methodological steps that were implemented at both scales as follows:
At the large scale, the steps are as follows:
(a)
Analysis of the current situation in terms of the extent of abandonment and the dynamics of change in land use.
(1)
Correlation between supralocal challenges (climate change, biodiversity, natural disasters) and the impacts of abandonment on a local level.
(2)
Mapping the distribution of abandoned and cultivated parcels of land in the whole mountain region and in each community.
(b)
The organisation and consultation topics are as follows:
(1)
Ownership rights and environmental commitments (policies);
(2)
Workshops with the participation of local actors, officials, and the research team.
At the small scale, the steps for spatial and multicriteria analysis are as follows:
  • Identification of Zones of Concentration of Abandoned and Cultivated Parcels (ZCs) within communities;
  • Evaluation based on suitability criteria;
  • Matching ZCs and suitability zones;
  • Matching production systems and various types of producers.

2.2.1. Sources (Information Collection Methods and Techniques, 3D GIS, and Consultations)

Regarding the collection of reliable and detailed information at both the Troodos and the mountain community scales, the following were used as sources: (a) official statistics (annual records of crops per parcel and per farm for the years 2010, 2017, and 2020 by the CAPO—Cyprus Agricultural Payments Organisation), agricultural–livestock censuses by the Statistical Service of Cyprus for the years 1985, 1995, 2010 and 2016, as well as population censuses for the years 1961, 1982, and 2011, censuses by Veterinary Services for 2017 and 2020, as well as cartographic data (relief, cadastre, protection zones, irrigation zones, road network, etc.); and (b) consultations and interviews. The diagnosis was conducted at the Troodos scale between January and September 2018. Fourteen consultations in seven central communes were organised with the participation of the majority of the 115 communities of the area and approximately 60 local actors per meeting. For the ‘farmer group’, there were seven individual meetings and one at the Local Office of the Ministry of Agriculture (30 people) as well as at the livestock farming villages of Pachna and Dora. The consultations were completed with two three-day workshops with representatives from the thematic groups, researchers, and local authorities (environment, water, and agriculture). Information was organised and coded in a GIS environment, with the creation of a geodatabase and the option of enriching and visualising results in two and three dimensions (3D-GIS). Informal information (toponyms, areas of interest, terroirs, emblematic landscapes, etc.) provided by local actors was used to enrich the 3D-GIS model. The interoperability of information, communication, and visualisations through virtual navigation contributes to the activation of actors, collective intelligence, and memory, which serve both as an additional source of information and in the transfer of the spatial results from the diagnosis to the consultations.

2.2.2. Diagnosis at the Troodos Scale

The main objective of the diagnosis was to assess the scale of the abandonment phenomenon and the correlation between the social (owners), spatial (spatial organisation), and institutional (rights–duties) dimensions of the relationship between land ownership and use. The main actors were community members, as holders of property rights, and the communities, as guarantors of the sustainability of their spaces. Groups of actors were selected and included in the participatory process with different expectations, interests, or decision-making powers with respect to the various land uses and immovable property (residence, agricultural land). Permanent residents, internal migrants, second-residence owners from the diaspora, newly established farmers, artisans, agritourism entrepreneurs, and representatives of the competent authorities and communities participated in the groups. With regard to the issue of ceding land use, the diagnosis considered the various potential forms of use and/or management of AAL.
The aim of the consultations was to investigate the stance of local actors regarding the impacts of AAL, the level of consent on readjusting the ownership-use relationship, and the recovery possibilities for this land. The consultations focused on examining (a) the level of awareness regarding the dangers of abandonment and the non-management of agricultural land in terms of climate change and (b) the responsibility and duties of the communities as managers of heritage and defenders of territorial cohesion and of their members as owners and users of this land. The importance of local community values (social relationships, solidarity, and reciprocity), the interests of property-owning members (residence, land), and environmental obligations (biodiversity, landscapes) was investigated with respect to the cession of rights to use AAL. Lastly, proposals for the use of available land were examined along with the contribution of improved yield from agricultural use in the establishment of new farmers.

2.2.3. Community Scale

At the scale of the three communities (Figure 4), an attempt was made to combine local land tenure relations and structures for each of the communities with the results from the diagnosis and consultations at the large scale. The objective was to plan and propose a recovery process based on the zones resulting from (a) the distribution and concentration of abandoned and ‘non-abandoned’ parcels, (b) the current and potential production and management systems, and (c) the existing and potential forms of recovery of abandoned land. At this scale, the main elements for the agricultural communities of Lagoudera and Saranti were recently AAL and existing parcels, while for the livestock farming community of Dora, land under different ownership regimes. In the first case, the objective was to identify recovery zones for agricultural use, while in the case of livestock farming, the creation of grazing-exclusive zones. The suitability and recoverability of abandoned parcels were addressed via this aim. Suitability is determined by the yield from the use of parcels according to the production characteristics (natural and acquired) and production models (intensive, self-consumption, territorial, etc.), which in turn correspond to existing and potential users with analogous interests. Recoverability is linked to the mobility of land tenure relations and the existing institutional framework for agricultural land. It is defined as the ability of a potential candidate to “access” rights of use for a parcel.
The process of recovering AAL was organised using the following sequence: parcel, ZC, production zone (high productivity, high value, etc.), and polymorphic system. In the first phase, the distribution and concentration of recently abandoned parcels (post-2010) were determined, followed by the incorporation of the parcels into ZCs. These zones result from the simultaneous presence of abandoned and cultivated parcels as a criterion for increased recoverability. In the second phase, criteria were selected to evaluate the geographical and production characteristics of all the agricultural land, including the zones above (Table 4), which are mapped. This choice also considered the yields from agricultural use (productivity and/or added value) and/or other functions (environmental, terraces) that are linked to various cultivation systems and production models.
In the third phase, the spatial correlation between these criteria in relation to the above systems and models (Table 4) was sought using a multicriteria model. This process allowed the suitability of agricultural land to be classified. Lastly, in the fourth phase, the ZCs from the first phase were matched to the suitability zones on the basis of their integration into production zones (high productivity, high value, etc.). Combining these final spatial results with the results from the consultations enabled the matching of production systems and types of producers, thus defining the ZRs. This phase established the organisation of a polymorphic production and management system for agricultural land.
Finally, addressing the recoverability of AAL via a diagnosis focused on institutional access. This concerns, on the one hand, the informal institutions that apply to the relationship between communities and their members–landowners and, on the other hand, the official institutions regarding the arrangement of property rights and management rules. In livestock farming, the objective of creating extensive grazing exclusive zones was approached through the availability of land from the following:
  • Different ownership regimes (church, state, and private) that determine the degree of transferability of their use.
  • Different subcategories of agricultural land use (AAL, private meadows, permanent pastures, and fallow land).
More specifically, the following spatial information was taken into consideration to determine grazing exclusive zones: (a) AAL before 2010 with natural vegetation cover; abandoned prior to 2010 with shrubs and forest vegetation, and abandoned after 2010, (b) permanent pastures, (c) fallow land, and (d) parcels with forage crops (private meadows). The land with shrubs and forest vegetation was excluded first from the proposed grazing zones as they are not suitable for grazing [64].
The availability of these land categories and areas is spatially conveyed by the distribution, concentration, and area of the exclusive zones that were formed. The degree of transferability of this land, depending on ownership regime, uses, and cover, was considered. Identifying coherent zones (uninterrupted spatial continuity between available parcels) is particularly important to facilitate grazing. The basic criteria used to identify coherent grazing zones were, on the one hand, recoverability (institutional access to parcels), which affects the possibility of establishing a zone, and, on the other hand, spatial continuity within each zone in order to ensure its functionality. In terms of recoverability, the following hierarchy is proposed based on ease of institutional access and compatibility with existing use: permanent (public and private) pastures and state land are prioritised as the most easily ceded, followed by fallow land and, where appropriate, private meadows, recently AAL first (post-2010), which is less likely to involve multiple ownership, and then, land abandoned before 2010.

3. Results

Firstly, the results from the consultations with target groups about addressing land abandonment and the process of recovering AAL on behalf of the communities are presented. Next, ZCs are identified, and the factors that determine the production characteristics of these zones are mapped. Then, the degree of suitability and recoverability of these zones is evaluated. Lastly, the process of recovery within ZCs is completed by matching production systems and types of producers.

3.1. Consultation Results at the Troodos Scale

The results from the diagnosis and consultations at the Troodos scale confirm that local communities are aware of the risks engendered by the extent of agricultural land abandonment as well as the individual and collective benefits derived from its management. These risks concern the whole community (resources, commons, property) rather than just isolated groups of residents (farmers, second homeowners, etc.). The benefits stem from the prevention of natural disasters through the management of heathland, the increase in biodiversity, and the management of natural resources and landscapes of high aesthetic value.
Participants have started to make the connection between this collective dimension of risks and the social dimension of agricultural land ownership. The consultations showed that any restrictions to ownership rights derived from the management of AAL are offset by the creation of mutual and common benefits (management of heathland, landscapes, residences, etc.). Ultimately, local communities appear more ready to accept a process that offsets the cession of use of private land by avoiding the management costs and reaping the mutual benefits that result for their members and the communities. In addition, the recovery of the productive land capital is now viewed by communities themselves as a factor in creating value and attracting new people. Lastly, the workshops showed that the State as well, which retains a central regulatory role in land uses, understands the need for adjustments in this field [65], mainly due to the high cost of addressing the impacts of climate change [66].
In this framework for dialogue, the diagnosis confirmed that there are various potential forms of recovery that correspond to distinct groups of users: The first group comprises existing young farmers whose interests concern the integration of abandoned neighbouring parcels into their own farms through incentives. The second recovery group includes newly established farmers, subsidised by the CAP Strategic Plans (2023–2027). They can choose available abandoned parcels within the high productivity zone or a terroir. The third group concerns the diaspora who, through incentives, could continue or start cultivating a family parcel for self-consumption or in the exercise of pluriactivity. Their interest also concerns parcels outside zones of high productivity when they are part of a family inheritance (e.g., vines, vegetable plots, etc.). Lastly, the fourth group is composed of people who will adopt the new forms of maintaining agricultural land proposed by the CAP. This can be aimed at recovering land of high natural value (in an HNV area, terroir, etc.) or parcels close to wetlands and habitats. These groups reflect the current social structure of mountain communities, family farming, and civil society more generally [67].

3.2. Processes to Recover AAL

Spatial analysis in the communities of Lagoudera and Saranti showed that agricultural land is divided into the following categories: (a) universally abandoned marginal land between 1980 and 2009, (b) AAL after 2010, and (c) cultivated land. It is noted that the diaspora retains a significant part of both abandoned and cultivated agricultural land. The spatial distribution of parcels from categories b and c creates ZCs (Figure 6). These ZCs are a priority since they also include active farms. These farms can more easily absorb recently abandoned parcels as these are less degraded, can yield immediately, and either neighbour or border their own parcels. This could be achieved by young farmers in particular by integrating these parcels into their farms. In Figure 6, zones with young farmers are shown with a red outline and those with mostly older farmers with a black outline.
Next, a series of maps showing the geophysical and production characteristics of emerging thematic zones (infrastructure, irrigation, access, soil quality, terroirs, etc.) within the communities were processed (Figure 7). The composition of these maps reflects the classification of agricultural land into three main categories (Figure 8), which portray the different production conditions within each community on the basis of geomorphology, soil, climate, and the inherited cultivation and production systems.
This categorisation highlights, on one hand, high-yield terroirs (Zone A: tree cultivation) with infrastructure and, on the other hand, high-value terroirs with traditional crops (Zone B: vineyards). Additionally, zones C1 and C2 concern marginal land (unfavourable orientation, steep slopes, difficult access, etc.) that are located on the limits of or outside the terroirs. The map also shows the ZCs. This superimposition displays the integration of these zones into the above geo-production units (A, B, C). Combining the two types of spatial and production evaluation above allows these zones of agricultural land to be categorised on the basis of their production orientation, their territorial anchoring, and, lastly, their potential response to the requirements of various production systems (intensive, territorial, etc.). The ZRs are a result of this categorisation.
The cultivation and production systems that traditionally existed and/or can be developed in each zone reflect the degree of (a) suitability on the basis of potential yield from agricultural use and response to different production models (intensive, territorial, self-consumption, etc.) and (b) accessibility to recovery based on the control of land tenure relations. Despite their differences, and apart from C1 and C2, all the categories are part of a terroir, have a desirable orientation (NA or SW), and are accessible by road. Categories A1 and B1 are the most suitable zones. They contain parcels abandoned after 2010 that largely border currently cultivated land. Zone A1 is considered highly productive as it also has good soil quality and irrigation infrastructure. Zone A2 has good soil quality without the irrigation infrastructure. Zone B1 has Mediterranean features for viticulture (medium to low soil quality, slopes, and lack of irrigation, but good orientation, access, and reputation). The difference between B1 and B2 lies in the fact that the former maintains crops and includes a number of young producers (Figure 8).
These zones form the basis for the correspondence between existing (young producers, diaspora) and potential (prospective farmers, new agricultural land managers) forms of recovery identified by the diagnosis and consultations (Table 5).

3.3. Creation and Definition of Grazing Exclusive Zones in Pastoral Livestock Farming

A combination of qualitative and cartographic data was used to map available areas that could be integrated into grazing zones (Figure 9). These areas comprise various ownership regimes (church, state, and private) and subcategories of agricultural land use (AAL, permanent pasture, forage crops, and fallow land). The spatial distribution of the various land categories creates concentrations, which form grazing-exclusive zones as a result of their relatively large areas and the compatibility between ownership regime and grazing use. Figure 10 shows the demarcation of more or less coherent grazing zones, depending on the availability of parcels for integration (accessibility) and the degree of spatial discontinuity.
These zones surround parcels and land from the following categories: (a) AAL before 2010 with natural vegetation cover and AAL abandoned after 2010, (b) permanent pastures, and (c) fallow land. The incorporation of these zones into a grazing system addresses the growing nutrition needs of sheep and goat farming.
The same zones can be used for the production of animal feed or for grazing by combining the use of cover and forage crops. This plan can be implemented on a case-by-case basis, according to the needs and prospects of an individual farm or a community and/or cross-community zone. In communities such as Dora, with a large concentration of animals but a limited capacity to meet their nutritional needs with local resources, the creation of extensive grazing exclusive zones is crucial for the agro-ecological transition and the future of pastoral livestock farming. The existence of a grazing management plan creates the necessary conditions for a decrease in stocking rate. The diagnosis showed that producers understand the need for such a plan in these zones, and public officials have agreed to the development of a framework for cooperation between their departments and livestock farmers.

3.4. Composition of the Diagnosis and Spatial Analysis

The ZR is an intermediate-scale unit, between the parcel and the zones of agricultural and livestock use within communities. However, this zone operates on three levels. Firstly, within the zone, where, on the basis of its establishment and position, it combines (a) availability of AAL, (b) informal institutions for the cession of land use (family relations, community solidarity), (c) proximity of the available abandoned parcels to farms, (d) homogeneity of the cultivation system, and (e) infrastructure availability (road and irrigation networks, terraces…). This combination facilitates the restructuring of land tenure relations at an individual level (through the expansion of existing units and the establishment of new ones) and on a collective level with the creation of grazing zones (Figure 9 and Figure 10). Secondly, on the production system, where the recovery process contributes to the incorporation of marginal elements (abandoned parcels, plants, etc.) that expand and strengthen its functions and specific characteristics (terroirs, pastures, terraces, critical mass for production, etc.). Thirdly, at the community level (land area), where zones form the basis for the organisation of the management of AAL, which includes the aim of environmental protection (natural resource management, natural disaster prevention, biodiversity…). The contribution of a recovery zone to the restructuring of land tenure relations is based on the fact that it constitutes the field where land tenure relations and cultural ties, local resources, and actions by local policies can be simultaneously activated in order to meet the new socio-ecological and production needs of communities.

4. Discussion

The recovery issue is not limited to halting the phenomenon of AAL. It seems that wherever maintenance of ownership is connected to the maintenance of the socio-cultural links between owners and communities, the recovery process can contribute to a broader reconstruction of communities [21,68]. In this case, the recovery processes transform communities into laboratories, contributing to the understanding of the commons, mutual benefit, and collectivity between community members and owners. The research confirmed that the value acquired by mountain resources, the potential increase in yield from agricultural use, and the natural resource management needs create a rationale for the recovery of AAL [4,69,70]. This paper enriches this rationale by demonstrating that the various yields and functions offered by agricultural use in mountains (high natural value land, high productivity, terroirs, etc.) now correspond to various groups of users (existing and prospective farmers, expatriate heirs, etc.). Articulating the various types of producers, which stem from the socio-economic incorporation of communities, and the production systems formed during the transition of the agricultural model leads to new forms of producers and land management. A dynamic of reorganisation of the traditional agricultural land use spatial subsystem emerges, which also incorporates land management [60]. This dynamic foster the conditions for the creation of a polymorphic, multifunctional production system [5]. The pairing of the various forms of holdings and production systems enabled by the recovery process leads to the differentiation of the functions in this system [71]. The entire recovery process constitutes a dynamic element in the adaptation of agricultural land use in the transition of the socio-economic development model. By revealing the informal facets of the mobilisation of land relations, this paper reinforces the importance attributed by Long et al. [72] to the contribution of qualitative characteristics of land use in adapting to the dynamics and the needs of this transition.

4.1. The Feasibility of Recovery and the Role of Communities

By creating new prospects for the future of mountain communities, more general transitions (social, agro-ecological, digital, etc.) impact the transition of land uses in particular through the emergence of the multifunctionality of mountains and mountain farming. The differentiation of recovery forms and production systems highlighted by the research already reflects the capacity of the space to support multiple functions: the production of goods and services, employment, environmental management, etc. In this context, the recovery of AAL is an element of strategic importance to communities. The paper showed that the feasibility of this recovery depends on combining the suitability of agricultural use with the recoverability of parcels. The former, which is determined by the market (yield, reputation, and quality) and policies (environmental restrictions and incentives), is partly ensured by the capacity of mountains to respond by activating available resources. The latter is activated because communities can intervene in land tenure relations and in the creation of informal and formal institutions.
Communities fill the institutional gap created by the rupture of the relationship between ownership and use in order to mitigate the difficulties of readjusting land tenure structures [73] and relations [74] by mobilising the links with their members. This need for intervention becomes more imperative due to the continued lack of institutional adjustment and regulation of the relationship between the respect of ownership rights and the cession of AAL use [75]. The input of communities in the control of land tenure relations and ownership rights frames recovery as an issue in the relationship between communities and their residents. However, this research shows that communes are supported by an increasing portion of the local communities in the adoption of this new institutional and coordinating role. Community members are rapidly becoming aware of the risks posed locally to their assets by the extent of abandonment and climate change. Therefore, they accept that landowners have the “duty and responsibility” to either assume or cede the management of their land. The exercise of rights is no longer considered limitless insofar as the object of property (the land) is of general and collective interest. These admissions reflect the maturation of the idea that the recovery of AAL contributes to the protection of immovable property and the landscape, which are of high value to expatriate owners of second residences, entrepreneurs (tourism), etc. The consultations showed that the activation of principles in communities such as solidarity and reciprocity motivates a portion of owners to incorporate their land into a local collective management system with mutual benefits [76,77,78]. This means that the objective of creating a multifunctional agricultural system through the recovery of AAL becomes collective. This collectivity concerns the enhancement of local community participation, understanding of the commons, and the creation of mutual benefits within communities [79]. In this context, communities and local actors can propose informal institutions to manage anything that emerges as common and anything that is shared [80]. This possibility of bottom-up institutionalisation of the commons can help harmonise the relationship between private ownership and common rights (resources, terroirs, landscapes [81]). By drawing on these new collectivities and activating informal institutions, communities are in a position to create and coordinate institutional processes and recognised management forms [82,83,84].

4.2. Integration into Spatial Planning

ZRs constitute spatial units in an intermediate scale of intervention, between the parcel and zones of land use within communities. These zones delimit a particular form of “land consolidation” that is not fulfilled by merging a landowner’s fragmented parcels into a single coherent parcel but rather through the cession of inactive rights to use AAL. In contrast with traditional land consolidation, where infrastructure is aimed at increasing productivity, in ZRs it contributes to the articulation of various functions (production, environmental, etc.). The recognition of ZRs facilitates their integration into the local production system as well as the spatial organisation of multifunctional mountains as territorial anchoring cells for mountain agriculture and livestock farming [70,85]. This recognition needs to be accompanied by implementation rules, incentives (Rural Development Programmes), or disincentives (restrictions, taxation, etc.) as well as the integration of these zones into special management plans. The demarcation of these zones is a continuous process that can be revised at regular intervals depending on the recovery dynamics. The integration of AAL in ZRs enriches planning, mostly as an idea and practice that contribute to spatial development [86].

4.3. Governance

The horizontal organisation of the multifunctional and polymorphic production and management system that emerges from the recovery process requires an effective coordination structure. The organisation of the governance framework at the local level [25,37] addresses the issue of harmonising the various functions (production, management, and tourism) and corresponding partners [9,87]. This horizontal structure can contribute to the institutional framing of this multifunctional system and to the incorporation of the various local users of local resources. It can also support the necessary “institutional” adjustments between owners–producers, communities, and the state, which are decisive in the arrangement of informal facets of the relationship between private ownership and the cession of agricultural use, as well as the management of the commons. This structure can be founded on the vision and collectivities of local communities.
Through the bottom-up planning of the spatial recovery process for AAL, this paper enriches the literature, which is mainly limited to the causes and impacts of abandonment [13,25,26,27,75]. The research focuses on mountain areas that maintain ties with their diaspora, revealing a recovery path based on their own resources and institutions.
Future research will have to focus on integrating a recovery plan into broader spatial planning of the agro-ecological transition, territorial development, and the relevant policies [12]. The connection between the recovery process and the local multifunctional production system will have to occupy a central position in future research [88].

5. Conclusions

The recovery of AAL constitutes an intervention in the adjustment of agricultural land use and the differentiation of the mountain production system. Traditional, disorganised mountain agriculture looks to its future through a multifunctional activity that responds to a territorial rationale [89]. This paper shows that Mediterranean mountains can support this differentiation by matching the variety of producers and production systems to a variety of users who represent the dispersed, yet anchored in the place, communities of their communes. At the same time, it highlights the role of communities in this recovery process when they view it as a redeployment of their resources and a rational adaptation to globalisation [90]. The links between communities and potential users place communities at the centre of the dialogue on the readjustment of the ownership-use relationship, while the differentiation of the local production system as a product of recovery strengthens the resilience of the system and mountain communities [25]. Ultimately, multifunctional agriculture is of interest to communities because it supports a new specificity system that results from incorporating the ecological dimension into a place’s image (territorial quality mark/label) and resources [90]. This means that recovery contributes to the reconnection of the links between places of intimacy, production, and sociality [55,91,92]. In this new spatial context for mountains, hybrid development initiatives are already emerging as precursors to a differentiated economy [93,94]. Policies ought to consider the recovery of AAL as a process that supports this economy as well as the active incorporation of various groups of users from the communities of the communes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.G. (Dimitris Goussios) and P.M.; methodology, D.G. (Dimitris Goussios); software, I.F.; validation, D.G. (Dimitris Goussios); investigation, D.G. (Dimitra Gaki); resources, P.M.; data curation, P.M. and I.F.; writing—original draft preparation, D.G. (Dimitris Goussios); writing—review and editing, D.G. (Dimitris Goussios), D.G. (Dimitra Gaki), P.M., and I.F.; visualization, I.F.; supervision, D.G. (Dimitris Goussios). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Macdonald, D.; Crabtree, J.R.; Wiesinger, G.; Dax, T.; Stamou, N.; Fleury, P.; Gutierrez Lazpita, J.; Gibon, A. Agricultural Abandonment in Mountain Areas of Europe: Environmental Consequences and Policy Response. J. Environ. Manag. 2000, 59, 47–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Goussios, D.; Gaki, D.; Garnier, A.; Lerin, F. (Eds.) Mountain Areas of Large Mediterranean Islands. European Issues, National and Regional Policies and Local Mechanisms, 1st ed.; University of Thessaly Press: Volos, Greece, 2021; p. 120. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ives, J.D. The Evolution of the Mountain Cause. In Sustainable Mountain Development, 2nd ed.; Ives, J.D., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 265–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Goussios, D.; Gaki, D.; Mardakis, P.; Faraslis, G. The Territorial Dimension of the Development of the Mediterranean Mountains: National Strategy for the Development of Mountain Communities Troodos Cyprus; Parembassi: Kozani, Greece, 2024; p. 490. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  5. Rieutort, L. Τerritorial challenges of European mountain areas. In Mountain Areas of large Mediterranean Islands. European Issues, National and Regional Policies and Local Mechanisms, Proceedings of the European Conference of Troodos-Cyprus, Troodos, Cyprus, 28–31 January 2020; University of Thessaly Press: Volos, Greece, 2021; pp. 31–34. [Google Scholar]
  6. Lefebvre, M.; Espinosa, M.; Gomez y Paloma, S.; Paracchini, M.L.; Piorr, A.; Zasada, I. Agricultural landscapes as multiscale public good and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2014, 58, 2088–2112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nigmann, T.; Dax, T.; Hovorka, G. Applying a social-ecological approach to enhancing provision of public goods through agriculture and forestry activities across the European Union. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2018, 120, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Schuh, B.; Andronic, C.; Derszniak-Noirjean, M.; Gaupp-Berghausen, M.; Hsiung, C.H.; Münch, A. Research for AGRI Committee—The Challenge of Land Abandonment After 2020 and Options for Mitigating Measures; European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dax, T.; Schroll, K.; Machold, I.; Derszniak-Noirjean, M.; Schuh, B.; Gaupp-Berghausen, M. Land Abandonment in Mountain Areas of the EU: An Inevitable Side Effect of Farming Modernization and Neglected Threat to Sustainable Land Use. Land 2021, 10, 591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Paoli, J.-C. Land issues in the Mediterranean island mountains. In Mountain Areas of Large Mediterranean Islands. European Issues, National and Regional Policies and Local Mechanisms. Proceedings of European Conference of Troodos-Cyprus, Troodos, Cyprus, 28–31 January 2020; University of Thessaly Press: Troodos, Cyprus, 2021; pp. 62–63. [Google Scholar]
  11. Torre, A.; Wallet, F. Innovation and governance of rural territories. In Renewing Innovation Systems in Agriculture and Food; Coudel, E., Devautour, H., Soulard, C.T., Faure, G., Hubert, B., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 147–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dax, T. Regional perspective of mountain policy. Lessons from implementation in Austria. In Mountain Areas of Large Mediterranean Islands. European Issues, National and Regional Policies and Local Mechanisms. Proceedings of European Conference of Troodos-Cyprus, Troodos, Cyprus, 28–31 January 2020; University of Thessaly Press: Troodos, Cyprus, 2021; pp. 38–41. [Google Scholar]
  13. Lasanta, T.; Arnáez, J.; Pascual, N.; Ruiz-Flaño, P.; Errea, P.M.; Lana-Renault, N. Space–time process and drivers of land abandonment in Europe. Catena 2017, 149, 810–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. FAO. Globally Agricultural Heritage Systems. Available online: https://www.fao.org/giahs/fr/ (accessed on 1 April 2023).
  15. Kerckhof, A.; Spalevic, V.; Van Eetvelde, V.; Nyssen, J. Factors of land abandonment in mountainous Mediterranean areas: The case of Montenegrin settlements. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Chontos, K.; Tsiripidis, I. Open Habitats under Threat in Mountainous, Mediterranean Landscapes: Land Abandonment Consequences in the Vegetation Cover of the Thessalian Part of Mt Agrafa (Central Greece). Land 2023, 12, 846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Quintas-Soriano, C.; Buerkert, A.; Plieninger, T. Effects of land abandonment on nature contributions to people and good quality of life components in the Mediterranean region: A review. Land Use Policy 2022, 116, 106053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kiziridis, D.A.; Mastrogianni, A.; Pleniou, M.; Karadimou, E.; Tsiftsis, S.; Xystrakis, F.; Tsiripidis, I. Acceleration and Relocation of Abandonment in a Mediterranean Mountainous Landscape: Drivers, Consequences, and Management Implications. Land 2022, 11, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Llena, M.; Nadal-Romero, E.; Zabalza-Martínez, J.; Cortijos-Lopez, M.; Lasanta, T. Effects of post-abandonment management on surface runoff in a Mediterranean mid-mountain basin. Catena 2024, 237, 107775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Romero-Díaz, A.; Pérez-Morales, A.; Marín-Sanleandro, P. Prevalence, causes, and consequences of agricultural land abandonment: A case study in the Region of Murcia, Spain. Catena 2024, 241, 108071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Delgado, I. Ensemencer les terres abandonnées? Quelques solutions contre la désertification. Courr. l’Environ. l’Inra 2010, 58, 69–73. [Google Scholar]
  22. Elzen, B.; Augustyn, A.; Barbier, M.; van Mierlo, B. AgroEcological Transitions: Changes and Breakthroughs in the Making; Wageningen University & Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2017; p. 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fayet, C.; Verburg, P. Modelling opportunities of potential European abandoned farmland to contribute to environmental policy targets. Catena 2023, 232, 107460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lasanta, T.; Nadal-Romero, E.; José, A. Managing abandoned farmland to control the impact of re-vegetation on the environment. The state of the art in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 52, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Copus, A.; Kahila, P.; Fritsch, M.; Dax, T.; Kovacs, K.; Tagai, G.; Weber, R.; Grunfelder, J.; Löfving, L.; Moodie, J.; et al. European Shrinking Rural Areas: Challenges, Actions and Perspectives for Territorial Governance (Final Report); Project ESCAPE; ESPON EGTC: Luxembourg, 2020; p. 64. Available online: https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/ESPON%20ESCAPE%20Main%20Final%20Report.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2024).
  26. Genovese, D.; Culasso, F.; Giacosa, E.; Battaglini, L.M. Can Livestock Farming and Tourism Coexist in Mountain Regions? A New Business Model for Sustainability. Sustainability 2017, 9, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Montrasio, R.; Mattiello, S.; Zucaro, M.; Genovese, D.; Battaglini, L. The Perception of Ecosystem Services of Mountain Farming and of a Local Cheese: An Analysis for the Touristic Valorization of an Inner Alpine Area. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Campagne, P.; Pecqueur, B.; Civici, A.; Guri, F.; Bédrani, S.; Laribi, S.; Nawar, M.; Abdelhakim, T.; Ceña-Delgado, F.; Gallardo-Cobos, R.; et al. Processus D’émergence des Territoires Ruraux Dans les Pays Méditerranéens: Analyse Comparée Entre les 3 Pays du Maghreb, la France et 6 Pays Méditerranéens du Nord, du Sud et de l’Est; Options Méditerranéennes. Série B: Études et Recherches, 69; CIHEAM: Paris, France, 2009; p. 615. ISBN 2853524868 978285352486. [Google Scholar]
  29. IASS-ONU. Organisation des Nations Unies Pour L’alimentation et L’agriculture; IASS: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  30. Liniger, H.P.; Mekdaschi Studer, R.; Hauert, C.; Gurtner, M. La Pratique de la Gestion Durable des Terres. Directives et Bonnes Pratiques en Afrique Subsaharienne, TerrAfrica-Regional Sustainable Land Management, Panorama Mondial des Approches et Technologies de Conservation (WOCAT); Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2011; p. 252. ISBN 978-92-5-000000-0. [Google Scholar]
  31. Abolina, E.; Luzadis, V.A. Abandoned agricultural land and its potential for short rotation woody crops in Latvia. Land Use Policy 2015, 49, 435–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Smaliychuk, A.; Mueller, D.; Prishchepov, A.; Levers, C.; Kruhlov, I.; Kuemmerle, T. Recultivation of abandoned agricultural lands in Ukraine. Glob. Environ. Change 2016, 38, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bonnet, B. (Institut de Recherches et d’Application des Méthodes de Développement (IRAM), Parc Scientifique Agropolis, Montpellier, France). Gestion Commune des Ressources Naturelles: Vers un Renforcement des Capacités Locales. 2000. Available online: https://www.iied.org/fr/9016iied (accessed on 22 April 2024).
  34. Kieninger, P.R.; Yamaji, E.; Penker, M. Urban people as paddy farmers: The Japanese Tanada Ownership System discussed from a European perspective. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2011, 26, 328–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Subedi, Y.; Kristiansen, P.; Cacho, O. Drivers and consequences of agricultural land abandonment and its reutilisation pathways: A systematic review. Environ. Dev. 2022, 42, 100681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Goussios, D. The Territorial Approach of the Development of Mountain Areas in Greece and the Role of Expatriates, 1st ed.; Papazisi: Athens, Greece, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  37. Requier-Desjardins, M.; Melot, R.; Paoli, J.C.; Rodrigues, O.; Riaux, J. Le foncier en Méditerranée: Une dichotomie entre Nord et Sud? Développement Durable Territ. 2019, 10, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Samuelson, P.A. The pure theory of public expenditure. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1954, 36, 387–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Arnauld de Sartre, X.; Charbonneau, M.; Charrier, O. How ecosystem services and agroecology are greening French agriculture through its reterritorialization. Ecol. Soc. 2019, 24, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pecqueur, Β. Territorial resources: An opportunity for local development. In Mountain Areas of Large Mediterranean Islands. European Issues, National and Regional policies and Local Mechanisms, Proceedings of European Conference of Troodos-Cyprus, Troodos, Cyprus, 28–31 January 2020; University of Thessaly Press: Troodos, Cyprus, 2021; pp. 50–51. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lussault, M.; Ghorra-Gobin, C. Au-delà de l’espace public. Propositions pour l’analyse générale des espaces d’actes. In Réinventer la Ville. Les Espaces Publics à l’ère Globale; Ghorra-Gobin, C., Ed.; L’Harmattan: Paris, France, 2001; pp. 33–46. [Google Scholar]
  42. Boisson, J.-P. La Maîtrise Foncière, clé du Développement Rural: Pour une Nouvelle Politique Foncière, Rapport au Conseil Economique et Social; Rapport présenté au Conseil Economique et Social; République Française: Paris, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  43. Le Coz, J. Espaces Méditerranéens et Dynamiques Agraires: État Territorial et Communautés Rurales. CIHEAM: Paris France, 1990; p. 393. [Google Scholar]
  44. Grimonprez, Β. Le droit français d’accès à la terre agricole est-il socialement performant? Rev. Droit Rural. 2024, 33, 8. [Google Scholar]
  45. van der Zanden, E.H.; Verburg, P.H.; Schulp, C.J.E.; Verkerk, P.J. Trade-offs of European agricultural abandonment. Land Use Policy 2017, 62, 290–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gumuchian, H.; Pecqueur, B. La Ressource Territorial; Economica: Paris, France, 2007; p. 252. [Google Scholar]
  47. Cournil, C.; Perruso, C. Réflexions sur «l’humanisation» des changements climatiques et la «climatisation» des droits de l’Homme. Émergence et pertinence. La Rev. Droits L’homme 2018, 14, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Leal Filho, W.; Mandel, M.; Al-Amin, A.Q.; Feher, A.; Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J. An Assessment of the Causes and Consequences of Agricultural Land Abandonment in Europe. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2017, 24, 554–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Korma, L. Migrations et diaspora grecques: Un aperçu historiographique, années 1970–2020. Diasporas 2022, 40, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Le Roy, É. La Terre de L’autre: Une Anthropologie des Régimes D’appropriation Foncière; Fondation Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Ed.; LGDJ: Paris, France, 2011; ISBN 978-2-275-03777-6. [Google Scholar]
  51. Lehmann, B.; Steiger, U.; Weber, M. Landschaften und Lebensräume der Alpen: Zwischen Wertschöpfung und Wertschätzung; Vdf Hochschulverlag Ag: Zurich, Switzerland, 2007; p. 110. [Google Scholar]
  52. Rieutort, L. Dynamiques rurales françaises et re-territorialisation de l’agriculture. L’Inform. Géographique 2009, 73, 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Duvillard, S. Ressource territoriale et multifonctionalité des territoires: Éléments de réflexion. In Proceedings of the Territoires et Action Publique Territoriale: Nouvelles Ressources Pour le Développement Régional, Rimouski, QC, Canada, 26–29 August 2008. [Google Scholar]
  54. Campagne, P.; Pecqueur, B. Le Développement Territorial-Une Réponse Emergente à la Mondialisation; Charles Leopold Mayer: Paris, France, 2014; p. 268. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pecqueur, B. Can the territorial food system provide solutions to recurring crises in the global food system? Ital. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2024, 79, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Grêt-Regamey, A.; Brunner, S.H.; Kienast, F. Mountain ecosystem services: Who cares? J. Mountain Res. 2012, 32, S23–S34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kretzman, J.P.; McKnight, J.L. Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets; Acta Pubns: Chicago, IL, USA, 1993; p. 376. ISBN 13978-0879461089. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gibson-Graham, J.K.; Cameron, J.; Healy, S. Take Back the Economy; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2013; p. 264. [Google Scholar]
  59. Gibson-Graham, J.K. Surplus Possibilities: Postdevelopment and Community Economies. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2005, 26, 4–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pinchemel, P.; Pinchemel, G. La Face de la Terre: Éléments de Géographie, 1st ed.; Armand Colin: Paris, France, 1997; p. 520. ISBN 978-2200019327. [Google Scholar]
  61. Goussios, D.; Faraslis, I. The Driving Role of 3D Geovisualization in the Reanimation of Local Collective Memory and Historical Sources for the Reconstitution of Rural Landscapes. Land 2023, 12, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bergez, J.E.; Audouin, E.; Therond, O. Agroecological Transitions: From Theory to Practice in Local Participatory Design; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; p. 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Deffontaines, J.P.; Marcelpoil, E.; Moquay, P. Le développement territorial: Une diversité d’interprétations. In Représentations Spatiales et Développement Territorial; Lardon, S., Maurel, P., Piveteau, V., Eds.; Hermès Science Publications: Paris, France, 2001; pp. 39–56. [Google Scholar]
  64. Noitsakis, V.; Papanastasis, V. Rangeland Ecology; Giahoudi-Giapouli: Thessaloniki, Greece, 1992; p. 256. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  65. Torré, A.; Wallet, F.; Huang, J. Le foncier agricole, nouvel enjeu des politiques d’aménagement de l’espace. Économie Rural. 2023, 383, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Cyprus CAP Strategic Plan 2023–2027. Available online: http://www.paa.gov.cy/moa/paa/paa.nsf/All/F29B375ED985BD28C22588FE002B7433 (accessed on 24 July 2024). (In Greek)
  67. Goussios, D.; Rieutort, L. Politiques d’accueil et dynamiques collectives dans les territoires ruraux de montagne en Grèce. In Les Campagnes Européennes: Espaces D’innovations Dans un Monde Urbain; Presses Universitaires du Midi: Toulouse, France, 2018; pp. 183–196. [Google Scholar]
  68. Terres de liens. La Propriété des Terres Agricoles en France. Sesame 2024 No15 Sciences et Société, Alimentation, Mondes Agricoles et Environnement, p. 4. Available online: https://terredeliens.org/documents/686/RAPPORT_LA_PROPRIETE_DES_TERRES_AGRICOLES_EN_FRANCE.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2024).
  69. Gouriveau, F.; Beaufoy, G.; Moran, J.M.; Poux, X.; Herzon, I.; Ferraz de Oliviera, M.-I.; Gaki, D.; Gaspart, M.; Genevet, E.; Goussios, D.; et al. What EU policy framework do we need to sustain High Nature Value (HNV) farming and biodiversity? 2019. Available online: https://hal.science/hal-02568129/document (accessed on 1 April 2024).
  70. Goussios, D.; Gaki, D.; Faraslis, I. A Development Path for the Mountains; Parembassi: Kozani, Greece, 2023; ISBN 9786188662872. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  71. Aschan-Leygonie, C. Vers une analyse de la résilience des systèmes spatiaux. L’Espace Géographique 2000, 29, 64–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Long, H.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, L.; Tu, S. Land Use Transitions: Progress, Challenges and Prospects. Land 2021, 10, 903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gueringer, A. L’articulation entre propriété et usage des terres agricoles: Application au cas de Pise (Toscane). Dév. Durable Territ. 2019, 10, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Purseigle, F.; Jeanneaux, P.; Bodiguel, L.; Hervieu, B. Eclatement et fragilisation du modèle de l’exploitation familiale à 2 UTH. Agron. Environ. Sociétés 2020, 8, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pinto-Correia, T. Recovery of Abandoned Agricultural Lands. Report. EU CAP Network Focus Group. Évora. 2023. Available online: https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-09/FG_AbandonedLands_StartingPaper.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2024).
  76. Leras, G. Le Foncier en Rhône-Alpes: Une stratégie politique pour un bien commun. Pour 2013, 220, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Goussios, D.; Gaki, D.; Mardakis, P. The abandonment of agricultural land in mountain areas: An opportunity for a sustainable and territorial redesign of the agrarian system: The case of Troodos in Cyprus. In Proceedings of the XIIIrd International Seminar of the FONCIMED Network “Agricultural Uses of Water and Intensification of Production Systems: What Impacts on Land Resources?”, Evora, Portugal, 26–28 October 2022. [Google Scholar]
  78. Goussios, D. La reterritorialisation de la Diaspora dans les espaces à faible densité en Grèce. L’exemple de la commune d’Ellinopyrgos. In Vivre et Travailler Dans les Espaces a Faible Densité. Quelles Stratégies de Développement? Devès, C., Ed.; Collection Grale: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  79. Goussios, D.; Gaki, D.; Arvanitidis, P.; Mardakis, P. The multidimensional role of regenerative agriculture in the agroecological transition: New collectivities, new commons institutions and the territorial dimension. In Proceedings of the Forum Origin, Diversity Territories—MounMED Institut—University of Thessaly Titled Territorial Dynamics of Resilience in Rural Areas, Particularly in Mountains, Chania, Crete, 21–23 December 2023. [Google Scholar]
  80. Brousseau, E.; Schemeil, Y.; Sgard, J. Bargaining on law and bureaucracies: A constitutional theory of development. J. Comp. Econ. 2010, 38, 253–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Boccon-Gibod, T. Duguit, et après? Droit, propriété et rapports sociaux. Rev. Int. Droit Econ. 2014, 3, 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gueringer, A.; Duron, E. Caractériser la propriété foncière sur un territoire: L’identification de « profils » de propriétaires pour une meilleure adaptation de l’action publique et collective. Sci. Eaux Territ. 2014, 13, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Perrin, C. Construire les Campagnes Méditerranéennes: Usages, Aménagement et Valorisations du Foncier Agricole Périurbain en Provence et en Toscane (1950–2010). Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Provence Aix-Marseille I, Marseille, France, 2009. (In French). [Google Scholar]
  84. Bertrand, N.; Duvillard, S. Intégration des enjeux environnementaux dans la gestion du foncier agricole: Introduction. Sci. Eaux Territ. 2016, 19, 2–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Cramer, V.A.; Hobbs, R.J.; Standish, R.J. What’s new about old fields? Land abandonment and ecosystem assembly. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Healey, P. Making Better Places: The Planning Project in the Twenty-First Century; Red Globe Press: London, UK, 2010; p. 240. [Google Scholar]
  87. Jiménez-Olivencia, Y.; Ibáñez-Jiménez, Ál.; Porcel-Rodríguez, L.; Zimmerer, K. Land use change dynamics in Euro-mediterranean mountain regions: Driving forces and consequences for the landscape. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Soulard, C. La multifonctionnalité de l’agriculture en pratique: Étude des relations entre exploitations agricoles et étangs de la Dombes. Cybergeo Eur. J. Geogr. 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Gambino, M. Les mutations des systèmes productifs français: Le modèle breton, à revisiter. In France: Les Mutations des Systèmes Productifs, 1st ed.; Dugot, P., Thuillier, G., Eds.; Presses Universitaires du Mirail (PUM): Toulouse, France, 2014; pp. 371–382. ISBN 978-2810703210. [Google Scholar]
  90. Durand, L.; Hirczak, M.; Lapostolle, D.; Senil, N.; Noûse, C. Du développement aux transitions soutenables dans les territoires. Vers un renouvellement de la notion de ressource territoriale. Geogr. Econ. Soc. 2024, 26, 211–230. [Google Scholar]
  91. Horlings, L.; Marsden, T. Exploring the ‘New Rural Paradigm’ in Europe: Eco-economic strategies as a counterforce to the global competitiveness agenda. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2014, 21, 4–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Buclet, N.; Donsimoni, M. Métabolisme territorial et capabilités: Une articulation entre enjeux économiques et écologiques. Nat. Sci. Soc. 2020, 28, 118–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Santos, B.d.S. The world social forum: Toward a counter-hegemonic globalisation. In World Social Forum: Challenging Empires, 1st ed.; Sen., J., Anand, A., Waterman, P., Eds.; The Viveka Foundation: N. Delhi, India, 2004; pp. 336–343. [Google Scholar]
  94. Gibson-Graham, J.K. Diverse economies: Performative practices for “other worlds”. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2008, 32, 613–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 14 00006 g001
Figure 1. Study area: Troodos Mountain, Cyprus.
Figure 1. Study area: Troodos Mountain, Cyprus.
Land 14 00006 g001
Land 14 00006 g002
Figure 2. Cultivated (2020) and abandoned land (2010–2020) in Troodos.
Figure 2. Cultivated (2020) and abandoned land (2010–2020) in Troodos.
Land 14 00006 g002
Land 14 00006 g003
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of sheep and goats in 2020.
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of sheep and goats in 2020.
Land 14 00006 g003
Land 14 00006 g004
Figure 4. The cultivated and abandoned plots in the communities of Lagoudera, Saranti, and Dora.
Figure 4. The cultivated and abandoned plots in the communities of Lagoudera, Saranti, and Dora.
Land 14 00006 g004
Land 14 00006 g005
Figure 5. Methodology for the recovery of abandoned agricultural land.
Figure 5. Methodology for the recovery of abandoned agricultural land.
Land 14 00006 g005
Land 14 00006 g006
Figure 6. ZCs in the communities of Lagoudera and Saranti.
Figure 6. ZCs in the communities of Lagoudera and Saranti.
Land 14 00006 g006
Land 14 00006 g007
Figure 7. Main characteristics of the agricultural surface of the communities of Saranti and Lagoudera.
Figure 7. Main characteristics of the agricultural surface of the communities of Saranti and Lagoudera.
Land 14 00006 g007
Land 14 00006 g008
Figure 8. Geo-production units and ZCs in the communities of Saranti and Lagoudera.
Figure 8. Geo-production units and ZCs in the communities of Saranti and Lagoudera.
Land 14 00006 g008
Land 14 00006 g009
Figure 9. Categories of agricultural land use to be incorporated into grazing zones in Dora.
Figure 9. Categories of agricultural land use to be incorporated into grazing zones in Dora.
Land 14 00006 g009
Land 14 00006 g010
Figure 10. Creation of grazing exclusive zones in Dora.
Figure 10. Creation of grazing exclusive zones in Dora.
Land 14 00006 g010
Table 1. Evolution of cultivated agricultural land and number of holdings in Troodos.
Table 1. Evolution of cultivated agricultural land and number of holdings in Troodos.
Census YearHoldings (Number)Agricultural Land (Ha)Plots of Land (Number)
CYSTAT, 1985959830,312(no data)
CAPO, 201010,96516,46475,251
CAPO, 2017792014,30949,100
CAPO, 2020739313,26847,109
Sources: Cyprus Agricultural Payments Organisation (CAPO) and Statistical Service of Cyprus (CYSTAT).
Table 2. Evolution in the number of animals (sheep and goats) in Troodos.
Table 2. Evolution in the number of animals (sheep and goats) in Troodos.
Animals1985 CYSTAT1995 CYSTAT2003 CYSTAT2010 CYSTAT2016 CYSTAT2017 VS2020 VS
Sheep11,4016920837012,211941810,64233,386
Goats26,52728,63347,61430,97720,42425,382
Source: Statistical Service of Cyprus (CYSTAT) and Veterinary Services in Cyprus (VS).
Table 3. Changes in population (1961–2011) in study area.
Table 3. Changes in population (1961–2011) in study area.
Community1961198220012011
Saranti164925744
Lagoudera31022114284
Dora715371184145
Sources: Statistical Service of Cyprus (CYSTAT).
Table 4. Classification criteria for suitability and recoverability of AAL.
Table 4. Classification criteria for suitability and recoverability of AAL.
Suitability based on incorporation into zones and production models
CriteriaIndicatorsCategory of criteria
IrrigationsYes/noHighly productive land
Land consolidationYes/no
Proximity to riparian zones, etc. Protection zonesHigh-value land, terroirs, and HNV
Soil qualityDepth < 30 cm
Slope<15%
OrientationNE and SW
Agricultural road networkDense, sparseManagement/maintenance of agricultural land
TerracesYes/no
Institutional recoverability (land relations)
CriteriaIndicatorsIntervention agencies
Informal Contribution of the community to recovery
Ownership/use (permanent residents, diaspora)Multiple ownership residence (first, second)
Formal–official Community, regional, and state arrangements
Ownership rightsRestrictions
Cession of rightsManagement rules
Table 5. Correspondence between zones and forms of recovery.
Table 5. Correspondence between zones and forms of recovery.
Zones of Recovery (ZR)Forms of Recovery
ExistingPotential
A1 Irrigated, highly productive agricultural landNew farmersPotential farmers
A2 Non-irrigated, highly productive agricultural landNew farmersPotential farmers
B1 Land with traditional high-value cropsDiaspora,
new farmers		Potential farmers
B2 Land with traditional high-value crops and steep slopesDiasporaPotential farmers
C1 Land with unfavourable production conditions Managers
C2 Land with unfavourable production conditions, AAL before 2010 Managers
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

Goussios, D.; Gaki, D.; Mardakis, P.; Faraslis, I. New Possibilities for Planning the Recovery of Abandoned Agricultural Land in Mediterranean Mountain Communities: The Case of Troodos in Cyprus. Land 2025, 14, 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010006

AMA Style

Goussios D, Gaki D, Mardakis P, Faraslis I. New Possibilities for Planning the Recovery of Abandoned Agricultural Land in Mediterranean Mountain Communities: The Case of Troodos in Cyprus. Land. 2025; 14(1):6. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010006

Chicago/Turabian Style

Goussios, Dimitris, Dimitra Gaki, Prodromos Mardakis, and Ioannis Faraslis. 2025. "New Possibilities for Planning the Recovery of Abandoned Agricultural Land in Mediterranean Mountain Communities: The Case of Troodos in Cyprus" Land 14, no. 1: 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010006

APA Style

Goussios, D., Gaki, D., Mardakis, P., & Faraslis, I. (2025). New Possibilities for Planning the Recovery of Abandoned Agricultural Land in Mediterranean Mountain Communities: The Case of Troodos in Cyprus. Land, 14(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010006

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