The RI.P.R.O.VA.RE. Project for the Regeneration of Inland Areas: A Focus on the Ufita Area in the Campania Region (Italy)

Abstract

The depopulation of inland areas has reached very high levels in recent years. Among the actions to enhance these areas, the Strategia Nazionale Aree Interne (SNAI) was established in Italy in 2012, which proposed a delimitation of inland territories in light of criteria and indicators related to the distance of small towns from major urban poles. In doing so, SNAI gave less weight to some critical issues and potentialities that are considered, in many cases, particularly significant. In light of these considerations, this paper presents the results of a research project developed by three University Departments of Southern Italy that are in continuity with the activities carried out by SNAI. This project, entitled Re-inhabiting Countries. Operational Strategies for the Valorisation and Resilience of Inland Areas (RI.P.R.O.VA.RE), lasted 22 months, ending in 2022. Funded by the Ministry of the Environment and Protection of Land and Sea, it provided a theoretical–methodological contribution to the implementation of the National Sustainable Development Strategy, as well as operational tools to promote sustainable and resilient development processes. The paper focuses, in particular, on the results achieved in one of the selected focus areas, namely the Ufita valley in the Campania region of Southern Italy.

1. Introduction

According to the latest data (2018) of the European Commission, inland areas occupy 83% of the European Union territory, hosting about 30% of its population. In these places, the percentage of residents at risk of poverty and social exclusion is higher than in cities, standing at 22.4% compared to 21.3% in big cities and 19.2% in suburbs and medium-sized cities [1]. Added to this, there is the lack of many essential services, which are often difficult to reach because of their location in the major urban “poles”, mostly far away, and are poorly connected due to inefficient infrastructure and public transport systems. It is estimated that while in an urban area, the average distance needed to reach an emergency centre is 3.5 km, in inland areas, it is 21.5 km [1]. These are not only issues related to the morphological and physical accessibility of places, but also problems concerning digital “relationships”. The percentage (60%) of households that have access to a broadband connection is particularly low compared to the percentage (86%) of households in more urbanised areas [1]. Furthermore, although the employment rate is higher in inland areas than in cities, the number of people actually active in the labour market is stable. This condition is the tangible result of the substantial demographic decrease that these territories are rapidly undergoing. The consequences are evident: social and economic isolation, together with degradation of the environmental, and built and cultural heritage are increasingly pressing. In addition, the substantial migration to medium- and large-sized cities is leading to a sharp decline in births, which is being replaced by an exponential increase in the older adult population. This is triggering social isolation phenomena, with major impacts on the economic and cultural fabric of these places [2].

On the other hand, today, a significant interest in inland areas is gradually emerging in institutional and scientific spheres, induced by an awareness of their great potential, as well as of the possible new settlement scenarios that can be envisaged in these areas. In this regard, scientific production on this topic has increased. This provides a constantly updated picture of inland areas, with an analysis of existing problems and numerous ongoing strategies. In particular, the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) gives data and information on the demographic decline of rural areas, illustrating some current actions to strengthen the territorial governance of European countries [3]. There are also studies by university researchers belonging to different disciplinary fields that investigate the “issue of inland areas” from several points of view: economic–cultural [4,5,6,7], infrastructure and services [8], political [9], surveying and mapping [10,11], environmental and risk mitigation [12], social [13], etc.

In addition, over the last decade, actions and programmes have been pursued to contrast demographic decline both at the European level and in individual countries. Among these, there is the recent Long-term Vision for the EU’s rural areas (2021), drafted by the European Commission, with the aim of making rural inland areas stronger, more prosperous, more connected and more resilient. In order to achieve this goal, the Rural Pact has been set up, involving different partners—companies, individual citizens and associations, public authorities and research institutions—committed to carrying out common purposes: to give voice to the rural territories’ needs so as to put them at the top of the political agenda; to encourage collaboration between stakeholders and different local practices; to support voluntary activities in inland areas. For the implementation of the above, the Rural Action Plan has been proposed, articulated in “flagship initiatives” aimed at strengthening territorial cohesion, creating new opportunities for the birth of innovative enterprises, stimulating job creation, promoting skills, improving the infrastructure and service system, and facilitating the spread of diversified economic activities as well as sustainable agricultural practices [1].

There are also the actions carried out by the European Network for Rural Development, which disseminates models and programmes for the regeneration of rural areas, sharing experiences and information. One of these is the Smart Villages strategy, which aims to transform “marginal” small towns into active and participative places, where the will of individual residents and the use of technology play a decisive role in shaping new development scenarios. There are many publications that have explored this strategy in depth. For example, the authors Doloi, Green and Donovan, starting from an overview of current economic development practices for rural areas, illustrate the advantages of the Smart Villages model from multiple points of view (production, basic services, infrastructure, energy, etc.) [14]. Simonato frames this issue within European policies, offering a critical and in-depth analysis [15]. Visvizi, Lytras and Mudri present a wide-ranging overview of the topic which, starting from the concept and characteristics of Smart Villages, describes concrete and virtuous experiences. Due to these, the authors articulate and outline the possibilities and advantages associated with this model [16].

Some individual countries are also proposing plans and actions to limit the strong demographic contraction of their inland areas. In first place is Spain, whose inland territories are strongly affected by substantial migration flows to cities, especially the coastal ones. Here, in 1984, the government set up the Programa Experimental de Recuperaciòn y Utilizaciòn Educativa de Pueblos Abandonados, with the intention of reactivating the territories of the “Empty Spain” [17] with the promotion of cultural events and educational workshops. An interesting job is also carried out by the associations that, in the Iberian country, offer employment opportunities in rural areas to those families interested in moving there. Among them, there is the Nuevos Senderos association, which provides teams of professionals with the aim of “accompanying” new residents on their integration path [18].

Like Spain, Portugal is also working to enhance its inland areas. In this regard, in 2018, the government launched the Programa de Captação de Investimento para o Interior, with the purpose of attracting new investors and strengthening existing activities by simplifying the administrative procedures required to undertake an investment. The Programa provides “a set of supports and incentives for inland territories, mitigating the dispersion that often occurs and the timelines that are not always adapted to business opportunities and priorities, and offering investors a portfolio of benefits” [19] (p. 12).

In 2012, Italy also set up the Strategia Nazionale per le Aree Interne (SNAI), which in addition to providing an univocal definition of an “inland area”, identified priority intervention areas throughout the country in which pilot projects for territorial enhancement are currently underway [20,21].

It is precisely from the results achieved thus far by SNAI that the Italian project RI.P.R.O.VA.RE—Riabitare i Paesi. Strategie Operative per la Valorizzazione e la Resilienza delle Aree Interne (Re-inhabiting Countries. Operational Strategies for the Enhancement and Resilience of Inner Areas), financed by the former Ministry of the Environment and Protection of Land and Sea—gets underway. This Project, starting from the core principles of the 2030 Agenda (i.e., Inclusion, Universality, Transformation and Integration), as well as from the five areas (Planet, People, Prosperity, Peace, Partnership) in which the National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) is articulated, investigates the issue of Italy’s inland areas, proposing a new delineation of them in order to outline development strategies based on sustainability and resilience criteria. Sustainability and resilience have been guiding concepts for the entire RI.P.R.O.VA.RE Project, finding in the proposed strategies a privileged field of application.

Therefore:

• Starting from the statement that inland areas, in Europe and in the international context, are experiencing an important demographic shrinkage, driven by a shortage of employment, inadequate infrastructure and a lack of essential services (with consequent repercussions in economic, social and cultural dimensions);
• With the growing awareness about the multiple potentialities of these places, to be considered key elements for new territorial arrangements and balances;
• In view of the several actions and strategies undertaken in the European context and in some countries to revitalize inland areas and small towns:

This paper describes and presents the results of the RI.P.R.O.VA.RE Project, highlighting in particular what has been achieved in the Ufita focus area, a territorial context belonging to the historical–geographical district of Irpinia, located in the Campania region of Southern Italy.

To this end, the three goals of the Project, to which three methodological steps are associated, are briefly presented. Then, the methodology is shortly outlined, which uses evaluation criteria and indicators to identify the “new inland areas”, to be added to those already proposed by the SNAI.

From the outcomes achieved in this first phase, which led to the selection of three in-depth focus areas, it was decided to investigate specifically the one of the Ufita valley, whose integrated development strategy is presented in light of the conducted investigations.

The paper has been structured into four main steps, divided as follows: Section 2 contains the summary of the Project, whose goals, methodology and first results are highlighted; Section 3 contains the description of the Ufita focus area and restitution of the degree of territories’ resilience, as well as a report on the participative processes necessary for the drafting of the area strategy; Section 4 contains the exposition of results, with the presentation of the Smart Ufita vision, of which the strategic axes are illustrated and organised into goals, sub-goals and lines of action; Section 5 contains the discussion of the results, in relation to what is currently underway in the European and Italian contexts, summarising what has been previously exposed and configuring the method’s exportability and replicability.

2. The RI.P.R.O.VA.RE Project

The RI.P.R.O.VA.RE Project started in 2019 in response to a Call for Proposals of the former Ministry of the Environment and Protection of the Territory and Sea, aimed at promoting research projects to support the implementation of the National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS). The Project, which lasted three years, ended in June 2022 and involved three research units from three different universities of Southern Italy. Specifically, the departments involved are: the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design (DADI) of the University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”; the Department of Civil Engineering (DICIV) of the University of Salerno; the Department of European and Mediterranean Cultures (DICEM) of the University of Basilicata.

The co-participation of different departments and, therefore, working groups ensured the interdisciplinary nature of the project, which benefited from multiple competences related to urban planning, engineering architecture, anthropology, economic valuation, design and risk engineering (seismic, geotechnical and hydraulic).

Starting from the five principles of the National Sustainable Development Strategy (People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, Partnership), the Project focused on two of these criteria, People and Planet, emphasising both the need to struggle against poverty and social exclusion, by exploiting the human potential of places, and the need to sustainably manage natural resources, especially by acting on the resilience of communities and territories.

The decision to study the most “marginal” areas is due, on the one hand, to their condition of fragility, which can be seen in the significant phenomena of abandonment and depopulation, and, on the other hand, to the presence of a great unexpressed potential, consisting of a valuable cultural and natural, material and immaterial heritage.

2.1. Objectives

The main objective of the RI.P.R.O.VA.RE Project is to “outline integrated visions for the development of inland areas” [22] (p. 305), offering answers and additions to what SNAI has already done thus far. Although recognising the relevance of the SNAI in transferring the issue of inland areas from the level of scientific debate to that of structured public action and in delineating an innovative process of multi-level and multi-actor governance—in addition to and in completion of the SNAI’s work—the RIPROVARE Project intends to provide answers to some of these questions and, first and foremost, to the complex relationship between socio-economic causes, geographical–environmental causes and natural hazards that is almost always at the root of the depopulation and abandonment of inland areas in Italy.

The abandonment phenomena of small towns in inland areas have often found an accelerating factor in their high fragility, exposed to heterogeneous hazard factors. This is usually one of the reasons why many residents move elsewhere, deeply speeding up the dynamics of demographic contraction that plague the most marginalised places. Added to this, there is the need to implement demo-ethno-anthropological as well as historical–cultural factors within the “new delineation” criteria. These elements are crucial in defining the resilience of territories, and although SNAI recognises and explicitly refers to this concept, it does not “provide any operational guidelines for the analysis and measurement of resilience in reference to inland areas” [22] (p. 306).

Thus, it was decided to articulate the RI.P.R.O.VA.RE Project according to three distinct goals to which three methodological steps are associated. The identified goals are:

• Redesigning the geographies of inland areas;
• Understanding the resilience of inland areas;
• Defining strategies for sustainable and resilient development.

This last point, in particular, involves the contribution of local stakeholders, whose input is considered essential for the development of area strategies.

2.2. Methodology and First Results

As mentioned in the previous sub-paragraph, each identified goal corresponds to a methodological phase, according to the diagram in

Table 1. Methodological outline of the RI.P.R.O.VA.RE. Project.

Step 1	Goal 1	= Redesigning the geographies of inland areas
Step 2	Goal 2	= Understanding the resilience of inland areas
Step 3	Goal 3	= Defining strategies for sustainable and resilient development

.

Goal 1, Redesigning the geographies of inland areas, involves the selection of new criteria to be added to those already used by SNAI for the delimitation of inland areas [23]. The choice of criteria is made according to the study of the sector’s literature, considering parameters that are not only “negative”, i.e., describing the criticalities and fragilities of the territories, but also “positive”, outlining the present potential that needs to be preserved and valorised as a decisive factor in characterising the resilience of inland areas. To this end, existing panels of evaluation criteria relating to multiple fields of investigation are considered, such as climate change [24], landscape features [25], risk factors [26], cultural and social attributes [27,28], quality of life and urban prosperity [29,30], as well as broader parameters of sustainability and territorial governance [31,32].

From the collected panels, the criteria most relevant to the research topic (inland areas and small towns) are selected and divided into several categories, defined as “geographies”, i.e., into thematic macro-areas useful for summarising quality and critical factors:

• Geography of contraction;
• Geography of marginality;
• Geography of fragility;
• Geography of quality;
• Geography of innovation;
• Geographies of migration;
• Geography of relationships.

Among these, the first three describe the fragilities of inland territories, while the last four outline their potentials.

Each geography is described by one or more criteria as shown in

Table 2. Correlation between geographies and criteria.

Criticalities	Geography of contraction	- Demographic dynamics - Economic–productive fabric
	Geography of marginality	- Economic–productive fabric - Accessibility - Infrastructure and service equipment - Morphological features
	Geography of fragility	- Social fabric - Risk dynamics - Environmental features
Potentialities	Geography of quality	- Environmental features - Built heritage features
	Geography of innovation	- Economic–productive fabric
	Geography of migration	- Demographic dynamics - Social fabric
	Geography of relationships	- Institutional and relational context

.

The geography of contraction is defined by the demographic dynamics of inland areas, whose decline is becoming more and more substantial and pressing. The depopulation phenomenon has significant consequences, especially on the productive fabric, which unable to find resources and labour to employ, tends to shrink compared to more populated areas.

The geography of marginality also includes economic and production issues. Inland areas, as they are characterised by problems related to accessibility—not only physical, but also digital—and by poor or inadequate quality of infrastructures and services, suffer from social isolation but also, and above all, from economic isolation.

The geography of fragility is linked to the demographic contraction, designating it as the first element of inland areas’ vulnerability, induced by the lack of job and employment opportunities. Added to this, there are the risk factors, natural and anthropic, to which the territories are subjected.

With regard to qualities, it is first necessary to highlight the value of cultural and natural heritage, described and included within the geography of quality.

The geography of innovation refers to virtuous examples in the economic–productive sector based on the use of new technologies and the application of advanced production methods.

The geography of migration relates to the opportunities provided by the presence of foreign families who choose to move permanently to inland areas, triggering positive dynamics of resettlement.

Finally, the geography of relationships investigates the capacity of territories to network, considering institutional and administrative relationships.

Once the criteria for each geography had been identified, the next step was to collect and select the most suitable assessment indicators to quantitatively describe the highlighted issues. As with the definition of the criteria, several existing panels had to be consulted for the indicators, leading to the definition of a new dataset with 41 indices. The elaboration of this innovative panel required not only the review of open access databases, but also a collegial work, which engaged the different competences of the research units to review and select the most appropriate indicators to describe the issues to be investigated.

Then, the leading unit (the DADI—Department of Architecture and Industrial Design) drew up synthesis indicators useful for summarising each geography. Through the attribution of a score to each index and the restitution in a GIS environment of the sum of each value, it was possible to establish, for each geography, synthesis maps referring to all the municipalities of the Campania and Basilicata regions.

From these synthesis maps, it was possible to identify areas characterised, on the one hand, by a high level of fragility and, on the other hand, by a great unexpressed potential that determines a good degree of resilience.

With reference to the existing mountain communities, the Matese, Fortore, Ufita, Tanagro/Alto and Medio Sele areas stood out for the Campania region, while for the Basilicata region, the identified areas were the Alto Agro, Camastra/Alto Sauro, Medio Agri and Basso Sinni.

Figure 1 highlights in red the new inland areas configured by the RI.P.R.O.VA.RE Project, alongside those already selected by SNAI.

Among the eight areas identified by the Project (as shown in Figure 1), Matese and Ufita (Campania region), Alto and Medio Agri (Basilicata region) were chosen for further investigation. For this reason, the next two methodological steps, Understanding the resilience of inland areas and Defining strategies for sustainable and resilient development, focused exclusively on these selected study areas.

For a better organisation of the work, the DADI research group dealt with the Matese area, the DICIV research group with the Ufita and the DICEM research group with the Alto and Medio Agri.

Hence, the in-depth studies carried out in this paper focused on the Ufita area and were supervised by the authors as members of the Research Unit of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Salerno.

3. The Ufita Focus Area

The Ufita area is part of the historical–geographical district of Irpinia, located on the border with the Puglia region in Southern Italy (Figure 2). It is an area characterised by the presence of the Ufita river, from which it takes its name. The tributaries of the latter, which extends for about 50 km, are the Fiumarella and the Miscano. Specifically, the territorial area under investigation roughly coincides with the administrative borders of the Ufita Mountain Community, counting a total of 21 municipalities with a number of inhabitants equal to 55,727 (ISTAT data, 2020).

There are three main road axes. To the south, there is the A16 (Naples-Canosa-Bari) motorway, which runs east-west/west-east through the territory, connecting the city of Naples with Bari, and State Road 303, which follows the north-south axis, tracing a large part of the Via Appia Antica (Appian Way). In addition, in the upper part of the Ufita, there is State Road 90, connecting the Campania city of Benevento with the Apulian city of Foggia. The reference railway station for the entire territory is that of Ariano Irpino. However, substantial works are underway to complete the Naples-Bari high-capacity/high-speed line, whose route will not only cross the whole area under investigation, but will also include the construction of a new railway station, called Hirpinia, on the border between Ariano Irpino and Grottaminarda.

The focus area is also characterised by an important material heritage, recognisable in the presence of castles, museums and monumental buildings. Added to this, there is the system of ancient roads and sheep-tracks, together with the presence of many geosites and environmental highlights. Demo-anthropological traditions are also manifold. These include gastronomy, handicrafts, religious rituals [33].

3.1. The Resilience Degree of the Ufita Territories

With reference to the methodological scheme (Table 1) illustrated in sub-paragraph 2.2, and more specifically to Goal 2, the next step of the research work was to define the resilience degree of the Ufita territories.

In order to achieve this, it was first necessary to investigate the notion of “resilience” through the study of the sector’s scientific literature. The word “resilience” comes from the Latin resilire, meaning “to bounce back”, and was first used by T. Tredgold to describe the ability of wood to withstand sudden loads without collapsing [34]. In the mid-19th century, R. Mallet associated the concept of “resilience” with the property of materials to stand up to certain conditions and he also developed a module, called the modulus of resilience, to measure it [35]. Only in 1973, C.S. Holling linked “resilience” to ecosystems and their ability to “absorb” sudden changes while continuing to exist [36,37]. From this point on, there is the evolution of the concept, which finds its culmination in the definition dictated by the Stockholm Resilience Centre in 2009. Here the idea of “resilience” “refers to the capacity of a social-ecological system both to withstand perturbations from for instance climate or economic shocks and to rebuild and renew itself afterwards. Loss of resilience can cause loss of valuable ecosystem services, and may even lead to rapid transitions or shifts into qualitatively different situations and configurations, evident in, for instance people, ecosystems, knowledge systems, or whole cultures” [35] (p. 4).

Therefore, from the collected and analysed sources and data, the RI.P.R.O.VA.RE Project identified four resilience principles:

• Robustness, seen as the ability of a system to withstand sudden shocks;
• Adaptability, understood as the propensity to change in view of new conditions;
• Transformability, i.e., the aptitude for transformation in the projection of new development opportunities;
• Learning capacity of the territories, seen as an indispensable feature to make the previous factors verifiable and to imagine possible growth scenarios.

Once the four dimensions had been defined, it became necessary to create a new panel of indicators to describe and quantitatively return the resilience degree of territories. Also in this case, as was done for the Geographies’ criteria and indices, a study was conducted on existing datasets and on the sector literature. Due to the absence of indicators panels on the resilience of inland areas, it was necessary to consult those related to cities and metropolises, “filtering” the indices closest and most relevant to the research topic. In particular, datasets on city resilience [38,39] and on risk and mitigation factors [40] were investigated. This made it essential to also compare with the bibliography on the subject, thanks to which it was possible to quantitatively assess resilience factors for risk mitigation (especially for the seismic one [41]) and urban vulnerability through multi-criteria approaches [42,43], with a focus on energy issues [44].

From this analysis, 84 evaluation indicators were collected, organised in two layers: level I indicators (59); level II indicators (25). The first ones, taken from open access panels (ISTAT database, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, ISPRA, etc.), investigate the issue of territorial resilience at a large scale; the second ones, which are more detailed, include information and data related to each municipality, thus requiring more analysis, carried out through unstructured interviews and questionnaires, administered not only to citizens, but also to local administrative representatives. Further and more in-depth studies can be found in several contributions by the DADI research group [45,46]. In particular, the work of Galderisi, Bello and Limongi [46] returns in Table 2 some indicators, extracted from the total set of the 84 selected indices.

At the end of the phase of collecting and organising the evaluation indicators, a score was assigned to each of them. This required a process of normalisation of the obtained data, since the prepared panel of indices is composed of a particularly heterogeneous set of indices. Therefore, it was decided to adopt a score scale from 0 to 5 where 0 represents the total absence of information and 5 the maximum score. With regard to information of qualitative nature, the same measurement scale gave a value of 0 to the total absence of the fulfilment of the required standards, while 5 indicates the full fulfilment of these criteria.

Then, these values were entered into a GIS environment that provided a mapping of each of the 84 indicators for the Ufita focus area. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show, as an example, the graphics for two indices.

Lastly, an overall resilience index was derived from the sum of the scores given to all indicators. The result is a thematic map highlighting the criticalities and potentialities of the municipalities belonging to the Ufita focus area, in which each value is grouped into three classes (High, Medium, Low), representative of the territorial resilience degree. Figure 5 gives the summary map of the resilience.

3.2. The Participation Process

Over the past two decades, there has been an increasing involvement of local stakeholders in decision-making processes related to urban development planning. This is due “not so much to ethical reasons, but to the effects that such procedures induce on the efficiency and effectiveness of the project results” [47] (p.4). The advantages of such approach are increasingly evident. As the urban planner Patsy Healey argues, “the preferability of a given project or plan cannot be established a priori through standards, goals, and principles that define the terms within which it must fit, but on the basis of dialectical consensus-building procedures” [48] (p. 64).

Within this framework, the choice of the RI.P.R.O.VA.RE Project to involve the different local stakeholders in the definition of strategies for the sustainable and resilient development of territories fits in.

To this end, in addition to the aforementioned questionnaires and interviews designed to define the degree of areas’ resilience, listening and participation workshops were organised aimed at: raising awareness of resilience and sustainability; thoroughly investigate territories’ potentials and criticalities; collect ideas and suggestions for outlining effective strategies and action lines.

With regard to the Ufita focus area, two workshops were held: the first involved the students of a high school in the Ariano Irpino municipality (“Pietro Paolo Parzanese” high school); the second saw the participation of young people and workers of the Youth Forums operating in the area.

Both meetings were structured in two steps:

• Step 1: Telematic presentation of the Project, briefly illustrating its goals and methodology, together with the introduction of the “inland area”, “resilience” and “sustainability” concepts;
• Step 2: Administration of a questionnaire to understand the participants’ future expectations regarding the development of their area, as well as to investigate their level of knowledge on the issues addressed by the Project. This step was carried out in presence, with the distribution of paper exercises to be worked on in small groups (of 4 to 5 people). Four panels were given to the participants’ groups: the first three showed the outline of the focus area with each municipality, the last one presented the “Tree of Problems and Solutions”. The first panel asked people to indicate, starting from their own municipality, the most easily accessible towns and the less accessible ones, reporting travel times, either by car or by bus; the second one asked to highlight on the map the identity elements of the territory (archaeological sites, castles, museums, churches, monasteries, historical paths, festivals, etc.) located in the different municipalities; the third proposed a reflection on the essential features to increase the liveability of places, suggesting functions and services considered strictly necessary; the fourth panel, focusing on well-defined and pre-selected topics (- Innovation and digitalisation; Tourism; Mobility and accessibility; Quality of housing and services; Job opportunities; Networking capacity; Natural risks; Local production and traditions; Environmental quality; Historical, artistic and architectural heritage), illustrated the so-called “Tree of problems and solutions”. On this panel, it was required, first of all, to identify the main problems of some of the given topics and, subsequently, to find one or more causes and one or more solutions. Finally, the goals of the 2030 Agenda were associated with each solution, asking for a ranking of “priorities for action” for each of the investigated topics.

The results obtained from the workshops, extracted from the exercises carried out in presence, are summarised below:

• High school students: they showed little knowledge of the proposed topics and a willingness to move away from their local territory, especially in view of future studies. This need arises from an awareness of the site’s critical issues, particularly related to its accessibility (both territorial/road and digital) and prospects for economic and employment growth. The students proved to be very dynamic in moving around the area in order to reach leisure and recreational services and facilities. A good knowledge of the identity elements/landmarks of the Ufita area emerged, in terms of historical, artistic, landscape and architectural heritage, as well as local traditions. They were particularly well-informed about the municipalities’ environmental and cultural heritage, listing many natural sites (e.g., the Montaguto park, the Frigento belvedere, the “malviza bubbles,” etc.); traditions (the arbëreshë dialect of Greci, traditional dresses, etc.) and typical products (e.g., chestnuts, truffles, wine, “caciocavallo” cheese, wheat, etc.); archaeological sites (located in Ariano Irpino and in the “Fioccaglie” place); castles (in Montecalvo Irpino, Savignano Irpino, etc.); museums (the Museum of Ceramics in Ariano Irpino, Museum of Castles in Casalbore, Museum of San Pompilio in Montecalvo Irpino, etc.).
• Young people from the Ufita Forums: compared to high school students, they demonstrated a greater mastery on inland area issues and sustainability principles, with a strong desire to remain in their home territory by starting their own business. This willingness is well evident despite the awareness of the problems identified, especially in the area’s accessibility and growth prospects. The area’s accessibility has been described as difficult because there are few main highways (as mentioned in Section 3, these highways are the A16, SR 303 and SR 90); the secondary roads are mostly country roads, characterised by uneven road surfaces; bus routes are infrequent and require long waiting times and many transfers. Work-related problems depend on the centralisation of many services in the major cities (e.g., Ariano Irpino and Grottaminarda). The main companies and offices are located in these municipalities. This drives people to relocate, favouring the depopulation of smaller municipalities and the decline of local economies. Moreover, compared to the high school students, less knowledge of the territory’s cultural and landscape heritage was detected, as well as a marked negative opinion of the infrastructure system, which is particularly poor in the road-connections between the upper part of Ufita (which includes the municipalities of Ariano Irpino, Greci, Savignano Irpino, Melito Irpino, Casalbore and Montecalvo Irpino) and the lower part of the area (i.e., the municipalities of Zungoli, Villanova del Battista, Flumeri, San Sossio Baronia, San Nicola Baronia, Vallesaccarda, Vallata, Scampitella, Gesualdo, Sturno, Castel Baronia, Frigento, Carife and Trevico). Other weaknesses surfaced in job opportunities, in the lack of promotion of the territory and its products, and in the absence of a strong cooperative will among the municipalities.

In light of what came out during the workshops and from the interviews with local institutions, together with the previous studies carried out in the area, the DICIV working group drew up three strategic axes for the sustainable and resilient development of the Ufita focus area. These axes, which will be explained in detail in the next paragraph, are:

• Accessibility, services and risk mitigation;
• Productive activities and energy;
• Historical, cultural and environmental heritage.

Each of these macro-areas of action was then declined into several goals.

Although they will be the subject of the next section, it is essential to mention already now the identified strategic axes and goals because of their importance in the organisation of the living lab held with local Public Administrations and Development Bodies.

The event, structured as a face-to-face meeting, involved the presentation of the Project’s methodology and workshops’ results, followed by an explanation of the three axes and their goals. At the end of this first phase, the audience was asked to create working groups in order to facilitate discussion and propose the articulation of the goals defined for each strategic axis. Thus, starting from an initial declination of the axes into goals, it was possible—together with the living lab participants—to structure them into sub-goals and then into lines of action.

Table 3. Hierarchical structure of strategic axes, goals, sub-goals and lines of action.

Layer 1	Strategic Axis
Layer 2	Goals
Layer 3	Sub-goals
Layer 4	Lines of action

shows the hierarchical organisation of the strategic axes with goals, sub-goals and lines of action.

During the meeting, a productive debate ensued, which highlighted a number of priority issues: the need for Administrations and Development Bodies to have concrete and replicable tools for territorial development, starting with legislation that must provide planning and management guidelines for small municipalities; the need for an organic master plan that takes into account the real requirements of the places and incorporates the future Hirpinia railway station; the urgent necessity of networking, collaborating and cooperating between municipalities and between these and the supra-municipal institutions, so as to transfer what has been planned into real and tangible actions of territorial enhancement.

4. Results: The SMART Ufita Vision

The criticalities and strengths, detected by the carried out resilience analyses, reworked and deepened thanks to the listening and participation workshops and the living lab with the local administrations, allowed the outlining of an overall vision for the development of the Ufita territory. This vision is based on the three strategic axes, as already mentioned in the previous paragraph, which take into account the area’s criticalities and potentialities, providing a response of the most urgent issues: 1_Accessibility, services and risk mitigation; 2_ Productive activities and energy; 3_ Historical, cultural and environmental heritage. The criticality detected, and most felt by residents, is the accessibility of the area, which is mostly perceived in the municipalities of Casalbore, Montecalvo Irpino, Greci, Montaguto and Savignano Irpino, since they are located in the “high” part of the area, the most peripheral with respect to transport routes. The rest of the territory, which includes the municipalities of Flumeri, San Sossio Baronia, Vallesaccarda and San Nicola Baronia, is more easily accessible thanks to the A16 motorway crossing, which connects the Campania Region to Puglia in the west-east direction. In addition, there is the State Road 303 in the north-south direction. Moreover, it should be emphasised that the lower part of the focus area, closer to the Grottaminarda territory, will benefit from the significant repercussions induced by the completion of the High Capacity-High Speed Railway, with the construction of the Hirpinia station on the Naples-Bari railway line. This rail link, designed to transport not only people but also goods, is part of the wider European Scandinavia-Mediterranean corridor, connecting Finland to southern Italy and then continuing by sea to the Balkans. In order to better understand the spatial and infrastructural relationships in the focus area, Figure 6 illustrates an interpretative outline.

However, despite the greater infrastructural marginality of the northern municipalities, the upper part of the Ufita territory is crossed by the Regio Tratturo Pescasseroli-Candela and the Via Francigena (see Figure 7), potential strategic elements for a territorial reconnection, also in terms of tourism and culture. Moreover, in this area, as reported in the Provincial Coordination Territorial Plan (PTCP) of the Avellino Province, there is a transversal regional ecological corridor and many linear elements also of ecological interest (see Figure 7).

With regard to the Natura 2000 Network, the Ufita area has the Special Protection Area (SPA) called “Boschi e Sorgenti della Baronia”, which extends between the municipalities of Zungoli, Vallata, Trevico, Vallesaccarda, Scampitella, Carife, Castel Baronia, San Nicola Baronia, San Sossio Baronia, Villanova del Battista and Flumeri. To date, this SPA constitutes the Intermunicipal Urban Park “Boschi, Sorgenti e Geositi della Baronia”. In this regard, it is important to underline the high number of geosites in the Ufita area, mainly located in the municipalities of Casalbore, Montecalvo Irpino, Montaguto, Zungoli and Vallesaccarda (see Figure 7).

In light of the issues outlined above, the vision for the Ufita area included, as a priority intervention, the strengthening of territorial accessibility, both from a physical and digital point of view. For the first one, it seems necessary to reorganise mobility, reinforcing existing roads and planning new connections, opting for shared management and use among municipalities of local public transport, with “green” and low environmental impact solutions.

For the second one, there is an urgent necessity to connect the Ufita area with a widespread broadband network, supporting not only residences, but also production and manufacturing activities. Hence the name SMART Ufita Vision, which has as its main goal to align the focus area with the European models of Smart Villages, focusing on the one hand on the processes of residents’ participation and cooperation, so as to make them more aware of the environmental and cultural resources of their area, and on the other hand on the use of new technologies to be applied both in upgrading services and improving living comfort. All of this must include the safety of the built heritage and the territory, as well as the implementation of housing quality, in terms of performance upgrading, comfort and convenience of use, also extended to neighbourhood outbuildings and services.

Furthermore, in the Ufita territory, it is necessary to reorganise the distribution of services in a capillary way. These, to date, are mainly located in the municipality of Ariano Irpino, forcing the residents of other small towns to constantly travel in order to access first aid medical care and higher education (secondary school), as well as leisure and sports activities. Therefore, there is a clear need to equip the territory with multifunctional hubs, to be located in the upper part of the Ufita as well as in the south.

With regard to the landscape and natural environment aspects, it is essential to strengthen the ecological corridors (Ufita Corridor, Delt. Fiumarelle/Calaggio, Transversal Regional Corridor), to be used as physical connections between agricultural, food and wine and tourism activities. The vision inserts this system into a broader territorial framework, which also involves historical routes—not only the aforementioned Regio Tratturo and Via Francigena, but also the Via Appia Antica (which crosses the municipalities of Gesualdo, Frigento, Sturno, Castel Baronia, Carife and Vallata), the Via Traiana and Aemilia—and the existing Via Francigena cycle route, which runs through the municipalities of Ariano Irpino, Montecalvo Irpino and Savignano Irpino (see Figure 7).

What has been anticipated thus far will be explored in more detail in the following paragraph with the definition, for each axis, of the goals, sub-goals and lines of action necessary in prefiguring the sustainable and resilient development of the Ufita territory.

4.1. “Accessibility, Services and Risk Mitigation” Strategic Axis

Accessibility, read in both its physical–infrastructural and digital meanings, is one of the key topics for the Ufita focus area. According to the conducted analyses, supported by the results of the listening and participation workshops, the Ufita area is particularly fragile in terms of infrastructure quality and mobility. The latter is compromised in almost all municipalities, with the exception of Ariano Irpino, where the major services are mainly located. During the workshops with young people, many participants clearly expressed the difficulty in reaching several municipalities of the area, as they were often forced to head to Grottaminarda and then “re-enter” the Ufita territory. Moreover, public transport services are not well organised and managed, covering an insufficient number of routes compared to the actual demand. Added to this, there is the digital marginalisation of many municipalities, which have not yet been included in a systematic plan for ultra-broadband network coverage. This condition aggravates the so-called digital divide of these places, leading to the isolation of many buildings, public and private, as well as common open areas (squares, parks, gardens, etc.).

Another issue particularly felt is the lack of main services. This, coupled with the difficulties of public transport, forces residents of smaller municipalities to use cars for many transfers.

In light of the above, for the strategic axis “Accessibility, services and risk mitigation”, the DICIV working group identified five main goals to be pursued:

• Improving the accessibility of the territory;
• Encouraging participation and cooperation processes;
• Strengthen service equipment;
• Increasing the territory’s security;
• Increasing the housing quality.

Among the goals listed above, particular importance is given to participation and cooperation processes (Goal “Encouraging participation and cooperation processes”), the inclusion of which is decisive in the successful implementation of the other four goals. During the living lab, given the complexity of this goal, it was considered necessary to break it down into two distinct sub-goals: awareness raising and activation of young people in the promotion of the territory; strengthening of cooperation networks. The involvement of young people plays a fundamental role in ensuring the construction of an awareness of the territory’s potential, useful in triggering phenomena of “restancy” in places [49].

The goal “Improving the accessibility of the territory”, in view of the previous considerations, has been divided into three sub-goals: improving physical accessibility; improving digital accessibility; setting up integrated mobility systems. In particular, it is considered a priority to strengthen the existing main infrastructures (A16, SR90, SR303) and to reinforce and/or construct secondary roads to connect the more distant municipalities to the three primary routes.

With regard to the goal “Strengthen service equipment”, the living lab with the administrations revealed the need to: strengthen primary and secondary urbanisation works; strengthen basic and leisure services. All of this translates not only into improving the existing water, electricity and sewage supply network, but also into setting up two multifunctional hubs, to be located, respectively, in the upper and lower parts of the Ufita area. Specifically, the municipalities most suited to host such functions are Greci (as regards the area to the north-west of Ariano Irpino) and Castel Baronia (as concerns the area to the south of Ariano Irpino). These municipalities enjoy a mostly central position with respect to the two interest areas (north and south of the Ufita) and are located close to the main roads (SR90 and A16).

Also essential is the goal “Increasing the territory’s security”, structured into: hydraulic and hydrogeological risk mitigation; seismic risk mitigation.

Finally, with regard to the goal “Increasing the housing quality”, it was considered significant to deepen the issues on: raising the functional performance of the built environment; energy requalification; urban requalification. In order to imagine a possible and concrete repopulation of the area, it is necessary to intervene on the quality of the historical building, so as to better respond to the current housing needs, in terms of performance, comfort and more generally of pertinent services, in support of residences. To this end, it seems useful to exploit new technologies to enhance the user-friendliness of buildings, taking advantage from smart house and home automation systems. Added to this, there is the need to promote the use of photovoltaics and solar heat, as well as rainwater harvesting for civil use. However, it is also necessary to look at the context in which the building is set, taking care of public spaces and street furniture, favouring the redesigning of unused places to be reconverted into urban gardens or leisure areas.

Table 4. Declination of the “Accessibility, services and risk mitigation” strategic axis into goals and sub-goals.

Strategic Axis
Accessibility, Services and Risk Mitigation
Goals
Improving the accessibility of the territory	Encouraging participation and cooperation processes	Strengthening service equipment	Increasing the territory’s security	Increasing the housing quality
Sub-goals
- Improving physical accessibility - Improving digital accessibility - Setting up integrated mobility systems	- Awareness raising and activation of young people in the promotion of the territory - Strengthening of cooperation networks	- Strengthening primary and secondary urbanisation works - Strengthening basic and leisure services (health, leisure, etc.)	- Hydraulic and hydrogeological risk mitigation - Seismic risk mitigation	- Raising the functional performance of the built environment - Energy requalification - Urban requalification

illustrates the hierarchical organisation of goals and sub-goals, while

Table A1. Declination of the sub-goals for the strategic axis “Accessibility, services and risk mitigation” into lines of action.

Goal	Sub-Goals	Lines Of Action
Improving the accessibility of the territory	Improving physical accessibility	- Planning maintenance work on the existing road network. - Strengthening local public transport, promoting the use of electric vehicles. - Encouraging the development of a shared system between municipalities for the management and use of local public transport. - Improving interconnections between rail and road transport and establishing shuttle services to link with the main railway stations, the nearest hospitals, and the neighbouring primary and secondary schools. - Strengthening the cycling and walking network with the creation of routes that enhance and exploit the system of ancient roads and historical paths.
	Improving digital accessibility	- Increasing the level of digitisation by upgrading the existing broadband connection (both public and private). Digital connectivity also needs to be extended to urban public spaces. - Using new digital technologies to improve the usability of public buildings for people with reduced motor and sensory abilities. - Experimenting with innovative teaching methods through the use of digital technologies and the creation of widespread teaching laboratories.
	Setting up integrated mobility systems	- Introducing DRT services. - Strengthening slow and “green” mobility networks (bike sharing, car sharing, etc.). - Integrating footpath circuits into a national network.
Encouraging participation and cooperation processes	Awareness raising and activation of young people in the promotion of the territory	- Promoting knowledge of the area’s cultural and environmental resources both in schools and in other youth organisations (associations, forums, etc.). - Activating “community educational pacts”, i.e., agreements between educational institutions and local stakeholders (organisations, museums, associations, etc.) aimed at enriching the schools’ educational offers. - Promoting knowledge of CAI routes (or other routes) useful for rediscovering the local natural heritage.
	Strengthen cooperation networks	- Strengthening the role of the Ufita Mountain Community in coordinating and mapping the different local initiatives aimed at promoting the territory. - Promoting the creation of networks between associations and entrepreneurs belonging to several sectors (production, tourism, social, cultural) also with the setting up of special organisations useful for the coordination of initiatives and dialogue between the different stakeholders. - Promoting the creation of youth cooperatives for the management of cultural spaces and public and/or private assets for public use. - Promoting forms of associationism and unification of school offerings in the territory, locating the different schools in strategic areas and connecting them with a dedicated shuttle system. - Giving free loans for use of public buildings in order to open economic activities.
Strengthen service equipment	Strengthen primary and secondary urbanisation works	- Scheduling maintenance and improvement works on the water, sewage and electricity supply networks. - Revising the allocation of standards in urban planning instruments. - Proposing the integration of new town planning standards.
	Strengthen basic and leisure services (health, leisure, etc.)	- Strengthening the role of pharmacies in the delivery of community health services. - Setting up first aid health centres and community houses. - Diversifying the offer of sports and leisure facilities in the area. - Promoting public/private partnerships for the implementation and management of leisure facilities. - Facilitating the creation of multifunctional spaces (co-working, toy libraries, educational workshops, etc.) equipped for the inclusion of people with reduced motor and sensory abilities. - Establishing centres dedicated to the hospitality and/or care of senior citizens.
Increasing the territory’s security	Hydraulic and hydrogeological risk mitigation	- Characterising the urban area and its surroundings on the basis of an integrated approach able to effectively describe the various fragility factors, including hydraulic and hydrogeological risks. - Knowing the current degree of resilience of the urban environment in relation to hydraulic and hydrogeological forcing. - Identifying integrated strategies and measures to increase resilience by combining actions aimed at regenerating and enhancing the potential of territories with the implementation of measures designed to mitigate hydraulic and hydrogeological risks.
	Seismic risk mitigation	- Defining a seismic risk index according to two levels of detail: at the municipal scale (level 1), the detail degree relates to a specific and simplified statistical model, in combination with the basic seismic hazard, thus taking into account the risk factors for each homogeneous area referred to in the ISTAT (National Institute of Statistics) census sections; at the urban scale (level 2), the model takes into account, in addition to the assessments of level 1, more detailed information and analytical data on seismic hazard. - Identifying strategies, measures and tools for seismic risk mitigation.
Increasing the housing quality	Raising the functional performance of the built environment	- “Smart house” and home automation systems. - Restoration, rehabilitation and renovation of historic buildings. - Use of sustainable materials and innovative building systems/components. - Implementation of thermo-hygrometric and acoustic comfort of buildings.
	Energy requalification	- Promoting the use of photovoltaics and solar thermal energy. - Promoting the recovery and reuse of rainwater for domestic purposes. - Promoting active and passive building energy efficiency.
	Urban requalification	- Setting up community urban gardens. - Renovating squares and open areas (streets, alleys, stairways, etc.). - Creating parking areas for residents, tourists and customers of shopping activities. - Improving the quality of street furniture and more generally of urban decorum.

in Appendix A breaks these down into several lines of action.

Figure 8 graphically summarises the key points of the area strategy with regard to the strategic axis “Accessibility, services and risk mitigation”.

4.2. “Productive Activities and Energy” Strategic Axis

In order to pursue the effective revitalisation of the territory, it is essential to understand its productive vocations, so as to provide targeted interventions aimed at promoting local traditions. The Ufita focus area is characterised by the production of many typical products, including oil, caciocavallo cheese, ham, durum wheat flour, chestnuts, etc. Therefore, fostering their knowledge and production in a smart way is a priority issue, not only to protect their manufacture—handed down from generation to generation—but also to create positive and constant economic benefits. In this field, young people play a crucial role, representing the link between ancient traditions and new modes of production. For this reason, it is essential to encourage and support the creation of youth enterprises, facilitating their access to funding and creating special service organisations to assist their participation in public calls for tenders.

In light of the above, the main goal of the “Productive activities and Energy” strategic axis is to “Foster the economic development of the territory and youth entrepreneurship”, subdivided into two sub-goals: accessibility to funding; valorisation of local economic activities and productive vocations. The latter issue, in order to respond concretely and fully to the target goal, must inevitably refer to the new technological systems related to “precision agriculture” and 4.0 Industry. These systems are based on the controlled management of production activity and the use of modern instruments, designed to act precisely and punctually on the real production and cultivation needs. Closely linked to the previous goal is that one of “Promoting the sustainability of the agri-food supply chains” made up of two sub-goals: innovation and diversification of agricultural production; valorisation of products and supply chains. In this case, the focus is more on agricultural products and traditional crops, with an emphasis on the use of permaculture practices and solutions aimed at sustainability, rainwater harvesting and recycling of waste materials.

Finally, the third goal concerns the “Improvement of tourism supply and other forms of hospitality”. This is subdivided into two distinct topics, described through their sub-goals: increasing tourism reception; increasing the hospitality of migrants and political refugees. On the one hand, issues relating to the tourism sector are addressed, with the upgrading/adaptation of existing structures for the reception and promotion of new forms of visiting and discovering places (experiential routes, food and wine and religious-themed paths, etc.); on the other hand, issues related to another type of reception are investigated, targeted at migrants and political refugees, creating dedicated centres and providing language courses, cultural mediation and local craft schools.

As with the previous strategic axis, the hierarchical organisation of goals and sub-goals is set out in

Table 5. Declination of the “Productive activities and energy” strategic axis into goals and sub-goals.

Strategic Axis
Productive Activities and Energy
Goals
Foster the economic development of the territory and youth entrepreneurship	Promoting the sustainability of the agri-food supply chains	Improvement of tourism supply and other forms of hospitality
Sub-goals
- Accessibility to funding - Valorisation of local economic activities and productive vocations	- Innovation and diversification of agricultural production - Valorisation of products and supply chains	- Increasing tourism reception - Increasing the hospitality of migrants and political refugees

. Subsequently,

Table A2. Declination of the sub-goals for the “Productive activities and energy” strategic axis into lines of action.

Goal	Sub-Goals	Lines of Action
Foster the economic development of the territory and youth entrepreneurship	Accessibility to funding	- Proposing the simplification of procedures for accessing funds, especially for youth enterprises. - Promoting the creation of service organisations to support the participation of local enterprises in calls for tenders. - Promoting the creation of networks between the different enterprises and institutional actors, managing and coordinating by designated bodies; necessary for participation in future RDP calls for proposals.
	Valorisation of local economic activities and productive vocations	- Creation of community cooperatives for the valorisation of traditional activities. - Promoting the recovery and valorisation of local agri-food supply chains. - Encouraging public and private investment in technologies to promote 4.0 Industry and “precision agriculture”. - Promoting the use of photo-agri-voltaics. - Encouraging the creation of shared systems of renewable energy production and distribution (energy communities).
Promoting the sustainability of the agri-food supply chains	Innovation and diversification of agricultural production	- Encouraging the recovery of traditional local crops. - Promoting the creation of young agricultural enterprises by focusing on defiscalisation. - Promoting the creation of synergies and mixing between ancient cultivation techniques and innovative technologies. - Encouraging the use of water collection, recycling and reuse systems. - Promoting the recycling of agricultural waste for bioenergy production.
	Valorisation of products and supply chains	- Implementing the pathway for the recognition of typical local products. - Promoting the establishment of integrated networks between producers, processors and retailers to facilitate the diffusion of km0 products. - Promoting the setting up of community cooperatives (based on the sustainability, permaculture and ecology principles).
Improvement of tourism supply and other forms of hospitality	Increasing tourism reception	- Improving tourist hospitality through: upgrading/adaptation of existing structures; providing incentives for the creation of new structures also by reusing disused building stock; creating info-points. - Promoting the creation of different tourist itineraries: experiential; religious; food and wine; “slow”; as well as cycle tourism.
	Increasing the hospitality of migrants and political refugees	- Identifying and implementing spaces and facilities for the reception of migrants and/or political refugees. - Promoting the integration of migrants/refugees through courses, cultural mediation, local craft schools, etc.

in Appendix A brings together and illustrates the lines of action.

4.3. “Historical, Cultural and Environmental Heritage” Strategic Axis

The Ufita focus area has a wide tangible and intangible heritage, including cultural, historical and artistic, as well as environmental and landscape assets. The precise knowledge of this heritage was made possible due to the listening and participation workshops, which provided a clearer and more detailed view of the existing cultural and natural potentials.

Therefore, in light of the above, the “Historical, cultural and environmental heritage” strategic axis was divided into two goals:

• Valorisation of tangible and intangible heritage;
• Valorisation of the environmental heritage.

The first goal (“Valorisation of tangible and intangible heritage”) includes not only valuable architectural artefacts, such as historic palaces, castles, churches, convents, etc., but also archaeological sites and buildings belonging to tradition, such as rural churches, vernacular and ancient architecture. Added to this, there are the demo-ethno-anthropological assets, both tangible and intangible. While the first class refers to artefacts with a historical–cultural value, closely linked to the place, the second class includes festivities, ancient knowledge, local handicrafts, traditional recipes, etc.

In view of the complexity of the investigated goal, it was decided to structure it into three sub-goals: historical–architectural heritage; traditions; historical–artistic and archaeological heritage.

Specifically, before setting out the strategy, Ufita area, in addition to hosting several castles (located in Zungoli, Casalbore, Montecalvo Irpino, Savignano Irpino, Ariano Irpino, Gesualdo) and churches, is also crossed by ancient roads and the Regio Tratturo Pescasseroli-Candela (see Figure 9). In this regard, the main historical routes are listed below:

• Regio Tratturo Pescasseroli-Candela: runs diagonally across the territory, extending in a north-west/south-east direction, passing through the municipalities of Casalbore, Montecalvo Irpino, Ariano Irpino, Zungoli, and then continuing towards Sant’Agata di Puglia.
• Via Francigena: involves the municipalities of Casalbore, Montecalvo Irpino, Ariano Irpino and Greci, presenting a fork where it intercepts the Regio Tratturo. Along the route, it is possible to find many historical artefacts of considerable value, mostly concentrated in the Casalbore area. Among the most significant are the Italic Temple of Casalbore (3rd century B.C.), the Rural Chapel of Santa Maria dei Bossi (around 450 A.D.) and the Grotta di San Michele Arcangelo (Cave of St Michael Archangel, probably dating back to the 7th century A.D.).
• Via Aemilia: constitutes a south–north branch of the Via Appia Antica. Today, much of the route has been lost, with the exception of a small segment within the municipality of Ariano Irpino. This segment is particularly relevant, as it is the only evidence of the direct connection between the Via Appia Antica and the Roman vicus Aequum Tuticum, located at the crossroads of the Via Aemilia, the Via Minucia (whose route is unknown, but it is assumed to correspond to the later Via Traiana) and a probable third road, identified with the Via Herculea. Probably, the Via Aemilia also crossed the current archaeological area of Fioccaglia, in the municipality of Flumeri.
• Via Traiana: as mentioned above, this road probably follows the older Via Minucia, running through the upper part of the focus area and more precisely through the municipalities of Casalbore, Melito Irpino, Ariano Irpino and Greci. The Via Traiana, like the Via Francigena, goes through the locality of Santa Maria dei Bossi and then continues along the same route as the Regio Tratturo. Along the way, in addition to the aforementioned rural chapel of Santa Maria dei Bossi, there is the Ponte di Santo Spirito, also known as the Devil’s Bridge.
• Via Appia Antica: located in the southern area of the Ufita territory, supposedly runs through the municipalities of Gesualdo, Frigento, Sturno, Castel Baronia, Carife and Vallata. However, this claim is uncertain, since having passed the Roman city of Aeclanum, the track of the road is unclear and difficult to read. Therefore, it is assumed that once the Ufita territory was reached, the road split northwards so as to reach the site of Fioccaglia and join the Via Aemilia.

In addition to the many ancient roads, there is also a cycle route, called Ciclovia Francigena, which starting from Como (a city located in northern Italy), reaches Brindisi, in Apulia, passing through the municipality of Ariano Irpino (see Figure 9).

With reference to the goal “Valorisation of tangible and intangible heritage”, the identity elements described thus far are subject to valorisation within the two sub-goals: historical–architectural heritage; historical–artistic and archaeological heritage. For these sub-goals, the strategic vision includes the creation of a cultural–historical itinerary, aimed at connecting the most significant landmarks (archaeological sites, castles, monuments, historical town centres, etc.) by means of the ancient routes. The aim is to set up a heritage circuit that can lead the visitor to the punctual discovery of the historical, artistic and architectural heritage of the place.

On the other hand, as far as the sub-goal “Traditions” is concerned, it appears necessary to encourage the promotion of ancient knowledge, handicrafts and traditional festivities. In this sense, it would be desirable to set up courses and schools of local handicrafts and tradition (traditional workshops), preferably to be located in some existing buildings, suitably recovered and adapted. Such workshops could represent the meeting point between traditional processing and the advantages offered by the use of innovative technologies.

With regard to the goal “Valorisation of the environmental heritage”, the environmental and landscape heritage of the Ufita area is characterised by a vast ecological network, including the transversal regional corridor (branch of the Main Apennine Corridor) and many river corridors, which are connected to existing watercourses (Ufita River, Miscano River, Fiumarella Torrent, Cervaro Torrent). Added to this, there is the Special Protection Area (SPA) called “Boschi e Sorgenti della Baronia” and the existence of several geosites, located in almost every municipality. For these reasons, the outlined sub-goals are: Ecological corridors; Parks, forests, geosites and protected areas; Rivers. The issues investigated within the sub-goals have a strategic resolution in the creation of an environmental and landscape itinerary to partially overlap with the cultural one, described above, so as to connect all the most representative natural elements. This circuit can be used, not only to set up new tourist routes related to hiking and trekking, but also to create links between agricultural and food and wine activities.

For this strategic axis, as for the previous ones,

Table 6. Declination of the “Historical, cultural and environmental heritage” strategic axis into goals and sub-goals.

Strategic Axis
Historical, Cultural and Environmental Heritage
Goals
Valorisation of tangible and intangible heritage	Valorisation of the environmental heritage
Sub-goals
- Historical–architectural heritage; - Traditions; - Historical–artistic and archaeological heritage	- Ecological corridors; - Parks, forests, geosites and protected areas; - Rivers

illustrates the hierarchical organisation of goals and sub-goals, while

Table A3. Declination of the sub-goals for the “Historical, cultural and environmental heritage” strategic axis into lines of action.

Goal	Sub-Goals	Lines Of Action
Valorisation of tangible and intangible heritage	Historical–architectural heritage	- Promoting the recovery and valorisation of the real estate heritage with historical–architectural value. - Promoting incentives for the recovery of architectural artefacts that are considered direct evidence of typical local building typologies and systems. - Creating itineraries to rediscover castles, monasteries, mills, farms, wells/wash houses, farmyards, etc., and all artefacts with identity and historical memory value.
	Traditions	- Fostering carnivals and traditions with anthropological value. - Safeguarding languages, dialects and ancient idioms. - Enhancing religious rituals and festivals (e.g., Patron Saints’ festivities, the Festivity or “Tirata del Giglio”, the Mysteries of Frigento, the Transhumance Festival of Zungoli, etc.). - Enhancing craft production (e.g., straw and wheat processing, bobbin lacework, ceramics). - Enhancing products and traditional recipes (e.g., “Nusja e Panari”, “Li curn’ciell’ a callariell’”, “caciocavallo podolico and silano” cheese, Ravece oil, bread, Trevico ham, Zungoli “capocollo”, garlic, Lo pelieo, etc.). - Enhancing events and festivals (e.g., Melito Music Beer Festival, Frigento “Svicolando”, Frigento Organ Festival, “Pizzilli and Tammorre”, “Tracciatura del solco” in Sturno, etc.). - Setting up courses and schools of local crafts and traditions, also using the possibilities offered by innovative technologies.
	Historical–artistic and archaeological heritage	- Recovering and systematising the ancient paths (Via Francigena, Via Appia Antica, etc.) that cross the territory, as well as the Regio Tratturo, favouring the creation of a large-scale cultural itinerary. - Improving and systematising archaeological areas and landscapes, as well as sites of cultural interest. - Improving the museum system, creating a network to promote the local historical and artistic heritage. - Establishing courses and schools for the restoration of the historical–artistic heritage.
Valorisation of the environmental heritage	Ecological corridors	- Making use of ecological corridors (Ufita Corridor and Fiumarelle/Calaggio Corridor) as links between agricultural, food and wine and tourism activities. - Setting up linear parks in the two ecological corridors, accessorising them with information points and rest and refreshment areas. - Organising courses and information days dedicated to discovering the local fauna and flora. - Creating study and observation points of the natural environment (e.g., birdwatching areas).
	Parks, forests, geosites and protected areas	- Activating playful–recreational forms for environmental education aimed at awareness raising on sustainable development and environmental protection issues. - Systematising the parks, geosites and the SPA “Bosco e sorgenti della Baronia”, also by means of dedicated routes and cycle paths. - Improving signage for pathways. - Creating dedicated areas for outdoor sports activities (e.g., “life trails”). - Creating recreational areas for children in forests or parks.
	Rivers	- Promoting water sports activities with the establishment of dedicated facilities. - Creating cycle routes and paths with information, refreshment and recreation points. - Improving water quality by implementing oxygenation weirs and phyto-purification systems.

in Appendix A breaks down the sub-goals into lines of action. Figure 9 graphically presents the area strategy for the “Historical, cultural and environmental heritage” strategic axis.

5. Discussion

Currently, in Europe, no action taken has led to the reasoned drafting of an organic strategy, useful for investigating inland areas in order to set up strategic development guidelines. In this sense, only the experience of the Strategia Nazionale Aree Interne (SNAI), undertaken in Italy since 2012, can be mentioned. This Strategia can be considered one of the most significant and concrete actions taken at the European level to address the rapid demographic decline of marginal areas. For the first time, a univocal definition of “inland area” is provided based on the classification of all Italian municipalities into four distinct groups (belt, inter-medium, peripheral, ultra-peripheral), determined according to their distance, expressed in minutes, from the main urban poles. SNAI’s work also included the “restitution”, throughout the country, of inland areas, mapped according to demographic parameters, the accessibility to essential services and the associative vocation of municipalities. In this way, a pilot area was selected for each region in which to start the experimentation, implementing the planned interventions within the specifically prepared area strategy.

However, although the work carried out by SNAI is crucial and constantly evolving (new inland areas have recently been added to the 72 previously selected), it does not give much importance to certain determining factors in the classification of inland areas. Significant among these are socio-economic issues and those related to risks—both anthropic and natural ones—as well as the existing potentials, which may be relevant in determining the territorial resilience degree. Resilience determination requires targeted and in-depth investigations, which are only possible through discussions with local stakeholders and the people who live and inhabit places.

Given these considerations, the RI.P.R.O.VA.RE Project is in line with what SNAI has been doing thus far, however, broadening the investigation criteria. As seen, there is firstly the new delineation of inland areas considering not only the SNAI results [20,21,23] but also parameters related to seismic and hydrogeological risks, environmental and cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible. This is a novelty of the Project since these issues—especially impactful in the demographic shrinking dynamics of inland areas—are not considered either in the SNAI or in current international enhancement strategies. With reference to these strategies, the Smart Villages model, while it is crucial in reducing the digital divide, does not consider the territories’ vulnerability and cultural and historical features [6,8]. As the Long-term Vision for the EU’s rural areas provides two important documents, the Rural Pact and the Rural Action Plan, it does not offer a concrete operational tool useful for transferring the envisioned concepts to the territory [1]. The same happens with all actions carried out by individual countries, associations and institutions (e.g., Nuevos Senderos, the Programa de Captação de Investimento para o Interior, etc.). What often occurs is the absence of an organic development vision that leads to a “selection” of action fields. In addition to those already mentioned, there are further strategies, such as the “Albergo Diffuso”, the “village of well-being,” the “ecovillage,” the “village of tradition,” the “village of literature,” etc., which focus only on some issues concerning small towns in inland areas [4,5,6,7]. From these experiences and the literature review, stakeholder involvement in decision-making processes is minimal and, in any case, “sectorialized”. One example again is the Smart Villages model, which, despite providing for the organization of living labs, addresses the economic, productive and social issues of villages always through the “digital tool”, not considering additional heritage aspects. This last point also represents a novelty of the RI.P.R.O.VA.RE Project: it places a strong emphasis on direct dialogue with stakeholders, considering it an essential element in building a higher awareness of the territory, better understanding the most urgent needs, and seizing all potentials to enhance them.

Moreover, the methodology proposed by the Project is easily exportable and replicable, mainly due to the generic nature of the investigated criteria that yield different results—and thus different “geographies”—depending on the analysed inland areas. The application of the proposed model is valid in Italy as well as in other countries. What differs is the characterisation and “population” of the “geography” and “resilience” databases, whose information varies as the territories under investigation differ. Direct evidence of this replicability is demonstrated by the RI.P.R.O.VA.RE Project itself, in which the same methodology is applied to two distinct Italian regions (Campania and Basilicata), very different from each other in terms of extension, population density, natural, landscape and cultural heritage. The application process, illustrated for the Ufita area, was implemented equally in the Matese focus area (Campania region) and in the Alto and Medio Agri (Basilicata region). As in the case of Ufita, it was also possible to draw up strategies and lines of action for these two territorial areas, which are the result of the studies conducted on the resilience degree and the outcomes obtained from the living labs with the local stakeholders.

This work also needs European and international applications in order to be validated. Therefore, future research developments will concern the application of the method to other European and non-European territories as well, in order to test its limits and potential. Only this further verification will make it possible to declare its effective replicability and adaptability to very different territorial contexts.

6. Conclusions

The depopulation of inland areas is a complex issue. To date, with the worsening climate crisis and the growth of metropolises, the enhancement of these places is a common goal of many countries. The recovery of small towns, mainly located in inland areas, is seen as a fundamental action to establish a sustainable territorial balance aimed at rebuilding human–nature and town–country relationships. Although there are many strategies in progress, they do not offer an organic vision of the actions to be implemented. It is from this criticality that the RI.P.R.O.VA.RE Project moves, which, by thoroughly investigating the needs and potentials of territories, gives effective answers in line with the real needs. This is possible due to the continuous and direct dialogue with local stakeholders that the Project strongly enacts.

In light of the RI.P.R.O.VA.RE Project experience and the guidelines drawn up for the Ufita area strategy, the following recommendations arise:

• It is essential, as well as unavoidable, to consider factors such as climate change, economic and social disparities, and access to sustainable energy sources in the development of inland areas;
• The creation of digital platforms to facilitate continuous dialogue and exchange between local stakeholders, policy makers and other interested parties would be advisable;
• It is important to set up an international network of experts that can provide input on the definition of “inland area”, read from multiple points of view (economic, social, cultural, environmental, etc.);
• It is relevant to establish an international fund for the development of inland areas in order to facilitate the implementation of the proposed strategies;
• It is necessary to investigate the potential of using open data sources to gain a better understanding of the needs of inland areas;
• It is useful to promote knowledge sharing and partnerships between stakeholders in different countries to find innovative solutions to the challenges posed by inland areas;
• It is essential to incorporate local stakeholders within the decision-making process to ensure that the proposed strategies are tailored to the needs of the area;
• It is important to evaluate the impact of current development strategies in inland areas and to use the data to inform future strategies;
• It is necessary to increase public awareness of the importance of inland areas and their sustainable development;
• It is relevant to develop educational programs to educate local stakeholders on the importance of sustainable development and the challenges posed by inland areas.

In this way, it will be possible to gain useful tools for “reading” inland areas and prefigure effective actions for their development and revitalisation.