- •Series Editor’s Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1 Introduction
- •References
- •2.1 Methodological Introduction
- •2.2 Geographical Background
- •2.3 The Compelling History of Viticulture Terracing
- •2.4 How Water Made Wine
- •2.5 An Apparent Exception: The Wines of the Alps
- •2.6 Convergent Legacies
- •2.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •3.1 The State of the Art: A Growing Interest in the Last 20 Years
- •3.2 An Initial Survey on Extent, Distribution, and Land Use: The MAPTER Project
- •3.3.2 Quality Turn: Local, Artisanal, Different
- •3.3.4 Sociability to Tame Verticality
- •3.3.5 Landscape as a Theater: Aesthetic and Educational Values
- •References
- •4 Slovenian Terraced Landscapes
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Terraced Landscape Research in Slovenia
- •4.3 State of Terraced Landscapes in Slovenia
- •4.4 Integration of Terraced Landscapes into Spatial Planning and Cultural Heritage
- •4.5 Conclusion
- •Bibliography
- •Sources
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.3 The Model of the High Valleys of the Southern Massif Central, the Southern Alps, Castagniccia and the Pyrenees Orientals: Small Terraced Areas Associated with Immense Spaces of Extensive Agriculture
- •5.6 What is the Reality of Terraced Agriculture in France in 2017?
- •References
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.2 Looking Back, Looking Forward
- •6.2.4 New Technologies
- •6.2.5 Policy Needs
- •6.3 Conclusions
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 Study Area
- •7.3 Methods
- •7.4 Characterization of the Terraces of La Gomera
- •7.4.1 Environmental Factors (Altitude, Slope, Lithology and Landforms)
- •7.4.2 Human Factors (Land Occupation and Protected Nature Areas)
- •7.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •8.1 Geographical Survey About Terraced Landscapes in Peru
- •8.2 Methodology
- •8.3 Threats to Terraced Landscapes in Peru
- •8.4 The Terrace Landscape Debate
- •8.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 Australia
- •9.3 Survival Creativity and Dry Stones
- •9.4 Early 1800s Settlement
- •9.4.2 Gold Mines Walhalla West Gippsland Victoria
- •9.4.3 Goonawarra Vineyard Terraces Sunbury Victoria
- •9.6 Garden Walls Contemporary Terraces
- •9.7 Preservation and Regulations
- •9.8 Art, Craft, Survival and Creativity
- •Appendix 9.1
- •References
- •10 Agricultural Terraces in Mexico
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.2 Traditional Agricultural Systems
- •10.3 The Agricultural Terraces
- •10.4 Terrace Distribution
- •10.4.1 Terraces in Tlaxcala
- •10.5 Terraces in the Basin of Mexico
- •10.6 Terraces in the Toluca Valley
- •10.7 Terraces in Oaxaca
- •10.8 Terraces in the Mayan Area
- •10.9 Conclusions
- •References
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Materials and Methods
- •11.2.1 Traditional Cartographic and Photo Analysis
- •11.2.2 Orthophoto
- •11.2.3 WMS and Geobrowser
- •11.2.4 LiDAR Survey
- •11.2.5 UAV Survey
- •11.3 Result and Discussion
- •11.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.2 Case Study
- •12.2.1 Liguria: A Natural Laboratory for the Analysis of a Terraced Landscape
- •12.2.2 Land Abandonment and Landslides Occurrences
- •12.3 Terraced Landscape Management
- •12.3.1 Monitoring
- •12.3.2 Landscape Agronomic Approach
- •12.3.3 Maintenance
- •12.4 Final Remarks
- •References
- •13 Health, Seeds, Diversity and Terraces
- •13.1 Nutrition and Diseases
- •13.2 Climate Change and Health
- •13.3 Can We Have Both Cheap and Healthy Food?
- •13.4 Where the Seed Comes from?
- •13.5 The Case of Yemen
- •13.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2 Components and Features of the Satoyama and the Hani Terrace Landscape
- •14.4 Ecosystem Services of the Satoyama and the Hani Terrace Landscape
- •14.5 Challenges in the Satoyama and the Hani Terrace Landscape
- •References
- •15 Terraced Lands: From Put in Place to Put in Memory
- •15.2 Terraces, Landscapes, Societies
- •15.3 Country Planning: Lifestyles
- •15.4 What Is Important? The System
- •References
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.2 Case Study: The Traditional Cultural Landscape of Olive Groves in Trevi (Italy)
- •16.2.1 Historical Overview of the Study Area
- •16.2.3 Structural and Technical Data of Olive Groves in the Municipality of Trevi
- •16.3 Materials and Methods
- •16.3.2 Participatory Planning Process
- •16.4 Results and Discussion
- •16.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •17.1 Towards a Circular Paradigm for the Regeneration of Terraced Landscapes
- •17.1.1 Circular Economy and Circularization of Processes
- •17.1.2 The Landscape Systemic Approach
- •17.1.3 The Complex Social Value of Cultural Terraced Landscape as Common Good
- •17.2 Evaluation Tools
- •17.2.1 Multidimensional Impacts of Land Abandonment in Terraced Landscapes
- •17.2.3 Economic Valuation Methods of ES
- •17.3 Some Economic Instruments
- •17.3.1 Applicability and Impact of Subsidy Policies in Terraced Landscapes
- •17.3.3 Payments for Ecosystem Services Promoting Sustainable Farming Practices
- •17.3.4 Pay for Action and Pay for Result Mechanisms
- •17.4 Conclusions and Discussion
- •References
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Tourism and Landscape: A Brief Theoretical Staging
- •18.3 Tourism Development in Terraced Landscapes: Attractions and Expectations
- •18.3.1 General Trends and Main Issues
- •18.3.2 The Demand Side
- •18.3.3 The Supply Side
- •18.3.4 Our Approach
- •18.4 Tourism and Local Agricultural System
- •18.6 Concluding Remarks
- •References
- •19 Innovative Practices and Strategic Planning on Terraced Landscapes with a View to Building New Alpine Communities
- •19.1 Focusing on Practices
- •19.2 Terraces: A Resource for Building Community Awareness in the Alps
- •19.3 The Alto Canavese Case Study (Piedmont, Italy)
- •19.3.1 A Territory that Looks to a Future Based on Terraced Landscapes
- •19.3.2 The Community’s First Steps: The Practices that Enhance Terraces
- •19.3.3 The Role of Two Projects
- •19.3.3.1 The Strategic Plan
- •References
- •20 Planning, Policies and Governance for Terraced Landscape: A General View
- •20.1 Three Landscapes
- •20.2 Crisis and Opportunity
- •20.4 Planning, Policy and Governance Guidelines
- •Annex
- •Foreword
- •References
- •21.1 About Policies: Why Current Ones Do not Work?
- •21.2 What Landscape Observatories Are?
- •References
- •Index
28 |
M. Varotto et al. |
3.1The State of the Art: A Growing Interest in the Last 20 Years
Terraced landscapes in Italy were, with few exceptions, long neglected by twentieth-century academic studies (Scaramellini 2010). However, this trend saw the first signs of reversal between 1980 and 1990, likely due to increasing terrace abandonment and consequent slope instability (Terranova 1989; see Tarolli et al. 2014, Bonardi and Varotto 2016).
Today, the growing awareness of terraced landscapes’ value goes hand-in-hand with their degradation and disappearance, which has, in turn, given rise to scientific and institutional initiatives to counter this decay. Over the past few decades, scientific surveys focusing on terraced landscapes have increased due to various European cooperative projects, such as the pioneering “Terrasses” program in France (1982–1989), the Swiss recovery program “Proterra” (1996), and the SUDOE cooperation project “PATTER—Heritage of terraces in the western Mediterranean” (1999–2001). These projects were followed by the Mallorca Council’s European project “TERRISC—Récupération des champs de terrasses prévention et des risques naturels” (2004–2006) and finally by the Interreg IIIB Alpine Space Project “ALPTER—Terraced landscapes of the Alps” (2005–2008) (www.alpter.net).
Society has also contributed to raising awareness about Europe’s terraced landscapes through various movements, associations, and local and international initiatives. Among the first were the “Dry Stone Walling Association (DSWA)”, born in Great Britain in 1968, the “Société scientifique internationale pour l’étude pluridisciplinaire de la Pierre Sèche (SPS),” founded in France in 1997, and the “Center for research and studies for the development of viticulture in the mountains (CERVIM)”, founded in Aosta in 1987. The International Alliance of Terraced Landscapes was founded in 2010, following the first World Conference on Terraced Landscapes in Honghe (China), and an Italian branch was added in 2011. Both national and international organizations have been supplemented by local initiatives, such as those of museums and eco-museums (e.g., in Italy, the Ecomuseum of the Terraces of Cortemilia in 1995 or the Ethnographic Museum of Brenta Valley in 2004), and, more recently, dry-stone wall handicraft courses and schools, as in the Province of Trento (2016).
After the first inscription of a terraced landscape on UNESCO’s World Heritage List (Ifugao in the Philippines, 1995: see Guimbatan and Baguilat 2006), several European vineyard terraces were also recognized. Among these were two Italian terraced landscapes, both inscribed in 1997: Cinque Terre (with a National Park later instituted in 1999) and the Amalfi Coast. By the end of 2013, 17 European agrarian landscapes were included on the list, with 12 of them related to vineyards and five specifically related to terraces. Another five candidates were also added to UNESCO’s Tentative List (Bonardi 2011).
A number of contemporary European official documents stimulated giving right value to the rural landscapes of the Alps and beyond—the Alpine Convention
3 Italian Terraced Landscapes: The Shapes and the Trends |
29 |
(1991) and its Mountain Farming Protocol, the European Landscape Convention (2000), the recent National Register of Historic Rural Landscapes, promoted by the Italian Ministry of Agricultural Food and Forestry Policies (2012), and the measures of the Common Agricultural Policy specifically oriented for restoring and enhancing cultural landscapes (Asins Velis and Romero González 2015).
Despite growing attention and initiatives, knowledge of the extent, distribution, and conservation of Italian terraced landscapes still appears fragmented and incomplete. Some studies are detailed but are also limited to areas considered most significant—those recognized by UNESCO (Cinque Terre and the Amalfi Coast) or other important terraced areas, such as Valtellina in Lombardy, Brenta Valley in Veneto, Cembra and Terragnolo Valleys in Trentino, or Costa Viola in Calabria (see for example Brancucci et al. 2000; Italia Nostra 2004; Di Fazio et al. 2005; Bonardi 2008; Brandolini et al. 2008; Sarzo 2009; Gravagnuolo 2016). Regional censuses and mapping have, so far, been carried out in only five regions: Liguria, Tuscany, Sicily, Trentino, and Veneto (see Varotto 2008; Barbera et al. 2010; Agnoletti et al. 2015; Alberti and Lodatti 2016). Such studies have adopted different mapping methodologies, from aerial and satellite photos to field surveys, or, in the best cases, micro-relief analysis obtained from LIDAR data (e.g., in Trentino, which probably represents the most detailed survey of terraced systems at the national level: see Osservatorio del Paesaggio Trentino 2017). These local and regional studies have not yet been matched at the national level. A detailed map of national terraced heritage is still lacking, despite the fact that recent hydrogeological diseases, caused by climate change, have repeatedly highlighted the need for monitoring and safeguarding these crop systems. Bonardi (2008, 2010, 2016) carried out an initial estimate of the extent and distribution of Italian terraces, distinguishing between great or “regional” terraced areas for commercial production (such as Valtellina), intermediate or “sovralocal” systems (such as Cembra or Brenta Valleys), and “local” terraced areas built for subsistence agriculture (Bonardi 2010). Even without exact quantification as to the extent of terraced landscapes in the Alps and in Italy (Bonardi suggests more than 200,000 ha: see Bonardi and Varotto 2016), several measurement and classification methods have been proposed and tested in sample areas based on the extent and intensity of terracing found there (Scaramellini 2005; Varotto and Ferrarese 2008; Ferrarese et al. in this book).
3.2An Initial Survey on Extent, Distribution, and Land Use: The MAPTER Project
The MAPTER project was launched in 2016 with the aim of giving order and coherence to a cognitive landscape made up of highly differentiated knowledge levels, in terms of both information quality and geographical coverage. The project unified researchers and universities for an initial national survey of terraced areas, leading up to the third Meeting of the International Terraced Landscapes Alliance (ITLA) on October 6–15, 2016. MAPTER collected and harmonized georeferenced
30 |
M. Varotto et al. |
data available on local and regional scales, integrating them, where possible, with further surveys on the most significant uncovered areas, to achieve the first quantification of the extent and distribution of Italian terraces. (For further information on the methodology, see Ferrarese et al., in this volume). This is, however, still a provisional result; it requires new additions since it combines great precision (e.g., research based on LIDAR survey in Trentino: Osservatorio del Paesaggio Trentino 2017) with rigorous, but less precise, regional, morphometric investigations (e.g., surveys of aerial photos and on-site surveys, such as in Sicily and Veneto: see Barbera et al. 2012; Varotto 2008), and information gathered in areas like Calabria and Sardinia where an accurate and complete survey is still missing, and the data, therefore, is underestimated.
Combining the abovementioned research at regional, sub-regional, or local levels has allowed the first georeferentiation and quantification of terraced areas on a national scale: 169,153 ha, still recognizable on land or in aerial photos. This is a partial datum, since a vast portion of the terraced area is hardly visible or recognizable as a long-abandoned heritage, and there are not yet accurate surveys for some Italian regions (Lombardy, Calabria, Sardinia; see Table 3.1). It can, therefore, be assumed that the maximum extent reached by terracing in Italy, before the abandonment processes of the twentieth century’s second half, could have been between 200,000 and 300,000 ha (as also suggested by Bonardi 2016). This would have been the result of desperate and heroic slope-colonization for agricultural purposes, mostly linked to the demographic growth of the Italian mountains between the mid-eighteenth and early twentieth centuries. The terraced landscape is, therefore, a built heritage that today is already more than half abandoned or largely unused, covered by part of the 5 million ha of woodland that grew between 1960 and 2010 (Fondazione Montagne Italia 2015).
Observing this initial mapping’s distribution structure (Fig. 3.1 and Table 3.1), the largest terraced region, in extent, is Sicily, with over 63,000 ha surveyed, followed by Liguria with 42,000 and, more detached, Tuscany, Campania, and Lazio. This classification confirms the predominantly Apennine and, specifically, Tyrrhenian nature of the Italian terraces, already suggested by Bonardi 2016 and now more strikingly highlighted by the emergence of vast terraced areas, even in previously underestimated regions such as Lazio. This also helps to explain the prevailing orientation of terracing toward the southwest (average of the azimuthal directions of 188°), probably determined by climatic factors related to atmospheric conditions and less cold winter stress indexes.
However, considering the percentage of terraces on the regional surface, it is Liguria that boasts the highest ratio (almost 8%), followed at a long distance by Sicily (2.46%) and Tuscany (about 1%).1 Though characterized by important sub-regional terraced systems in lower Valle d’Aosta, Valtellina (Lombardy), Lagarina Valley, Cembra, and Terragnolo (Trentino), or in the Venetian Prealps (Veneto), Alpine
1Nevertheless Agnoletti et al. (2015): 4572 estimate over 102,000 ha of terraced lands in Tuscany (about 4.5% of the regional surface), mostly occupied by olive trees.
3 Italian Terraced Landscapes: The Shapes and the Trends |
31 |
Table 3.1 Ranking of Italian regions by size of the terraced areas surveyed. The letter “a” indicates the regions where the census was carried out only partially
Classification |
Region |
Terraced surface (ha) |
1 |
Sicilia |
63,554 |
2 |
Liguria |
42,636 |
3 |
Toscana |
22,730 |
4 |
Campania |
11,357 |
5 |
Lazio |
5671 |
6 |
Lombardiaa |
4974 |
7 |
Trentino-A. Adigea |
4815 |
8 |
Veneto |
2688 |
9 |
Valle d’Aosta |
2364 |
10 |
Piemonte |
2324 |
11 |
Calabriaa |
1753 |
12 |
Puglia |
1731 |
13 |
Friuli-V. Giulia |
1142 |
14 |
Abruzzo |
1078 |
15 |
Marche |
141 |
16 |
Molisea |
76 |
17 |
Umbriaa |
49 |
18 |
Sardegnaa |
26 |
19 |
Emilia Romagna |
10 |
20 |
Basilicataa |
1 |
|
Total |
169,127 |
Source MAPTER project, 2016; elaboration: Francesco Ferrarese, Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo, Mauro Varotto
terracing is not as extensive as Apennine terracing. (Lombardy, the first Alpine region in the ranking, is only in sixth place). Here, terraces reach the highest altitudes of the peninsula, with the municipality of Argentera (province of Cuneo) holding the record for the average altitude (over 1800 m above sea level). More than half of the Italian terraced areas, however, are located at lower altitudes, within 300 m asl, highlighting the importance and spread of the phenomenon—especially in coastal areas, in the insular regions, and in the foothill areas near valleys or plains also characterized by important urban phenomena (Figs. 3.1 and 3.2).
Without mapping the dry-stone retaining walls for most of the areas surveyed, it is not possible to quantify the overall wall length, which has been georeferenced in detail only for some areas (e.g., Cinque Terre, Terragnolo, Cembra, Canale di Brenta, Pont Saint Martin). In the absence of an overall survey, each region or terraced area has its own primacy. For example, Liguria boasts 40,000 km of dry-stone walls—enough to wrap around the earth—and the Amalfi Coast boasts of having a quantity of walls equivalent, in total length, to the Great Wall of China (8000 km). These data are only estimated, but they do not appear very far from reality. Assuming a retaining wall average of 1 km/ha (an average calculated from heterogeneous sample areas scattered in the Alps), we can reasonably state that at
32 |
M. Varotto et al. |
Fig. 3.1 Map of the national distribution of the main terraced areas. Source MAPTER project, 2016; elaboration: Francesco Ferrarese, Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo, Mauro Varotto
least 170,000 km of dry-stone walls are still present in the peninsula. These walls are, on average, less than 2 m high. However, they can reach cyclopean heights of 8–10 m in areas such as the Amalfi Coast or the Brenta Valley, due to steep slopes, favorable lithological conditions and materials, and a high cultivation profitability to compensate construction investment.
3 Italian Terraced Landscapes: The Shapes and the Trends |
33 |
Fig. 3.2 Map of the altimetric distribution of the main Italian terraced areas. Source MAPTER project, 2016; elaboration: Francesco Ferrarese, Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo, Mauro Varotto
Analyzing municipal terracing, the data show another peculiar aspect of Italian terraces—their strong character of insularity, with high concentrations in islands’ municipalities. For example, in absolute values, Italy’s most terraced municipality is Pantelleria Island (5500 ha), followed by other Sicilian municipalities (Genoa, the first non-Sicilian municipality, is in fifth place). However, in percentage terms,
34 |
M. Varotto et al. |
signifying terrace impact on individual municipal landscapes, the ranking sees other island territories in the first places, some with approximately 80% of their territory filled with terraces, as in the Aeolian Island municipalities of Leni and Santa Maria di Salina (Tables 3.2 and 3.3).
Regarding land use (Fig. 3.3), applying data from the Corine Land Cover 2012 to the approximately 170,000 ha of documented terraced areas shows that over 30% of this heritage is now unused and has been reconquered by natural afforestation and shrubs. Additionally, “pastures and grasslands” could be defined as substantial under-utilization. Thirty-two percentage of terraced areas is occupied by arable land, 19% by olive groves, 3% by orchards (lemon groves, chestnut woods), and only 3% by vineyards, while the advance of urbanization on agricultural terraces is
Tables 3.2 Ranking of the first 10 Italian municipalities for absolute width of terraced areas
|
Municipality |
Province |
Terraced area (ha) |
1 |
Pantelleria |
TP |
5503.1 |
2 |
Modica |
RG |
4267.7 |
3 |
Ragusa |
RG |
3825.0 |
4 |
Lipari |
ME |
3130.1 |
5 |
Genova |
GE |
2304.2 |
6 |
Noto |
SR |
2199.9 |
7 |
Roccamonfina |
CE |
1812.2 |
8 |
Castiglione di Sicilia |
CT |
1649.3 |
9 |
Mazzarino |
CL |
1606.9 |
10 |
Adrano |
CT |
1540.7 |
Source MAPTER project, 2016; elaboration: Francesco Ferrarese, Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo
Tables 3.3 Ranking of the first |
10 Italian |
municipalities for percentage incidence of terraced |
|||
areas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipality |
Province |
|
Terraced area (ha) |
% Municipality area |
1 |
Leni |
ME |
|
717.8 |
81.7 |
2 |
Santa Marina Salina |
ME |
|
701.3 |
79.9 |
3 |
Roccafiorita |
ME |
|
79.7 |
68.3 |
4 |
Pantelleria |
TP |
|
5503.1 |
65.1 |
5 |
Villa Faraldi |
IM |
|
605.0 |
63.6 |
6 |
Cervo |
IM |
|
227.3 |
63.4 |
7 |
Roccamonfina |
CE |
|
1812.2 |
58.4 |
8 |
Malfa |
ME |
|
491.7 |
56.3 |
9 |
Gaggi |
ME |
|
414.7 |
54.2 |
10 |
Graniti |
ME |
|
504.8 |
50.2 |
Source MAPTER project, 2016; elaboration: Francesco Ferrarese, Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo
3 Italian Terraced Landscapes: The Shapes and the Trends |
35 |
||
6% |
7% |
|
pastures, grassland |
|
|
|
|
19% |
|
15% |
|
growing woods and bushes |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
woods |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3% |
|
|
|
|
croplands |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
orchards, groves |
|
3% |
|
|
15% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
vineyards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
olive grove |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32% |
|
|
disconƟnous and mixed |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
urban areas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 3.3 Land use classification of the Italian terraced areas. Source MAPTER project—Corine land cover 2012; elaboration: Francesco Ferrarese, Mauro Varotto
estimated at around 6%. This is certainly rough data, calculated on a minimum cell area of 25 ha, which does not reflect the originally promiscuous nature of these plots. Still, it is useful at a small scale to capture the great variety of terrace use in Italy, where terracing has been wrongly associated in the contemporary image with the profitable and officially celebrated vineyard, which, in reality, concerns an extremely limited portion of terrace extent. This leads to some perplexity on whether such minimal land use, thanks to its economic profitability, can really affect the fortune and maintenance of such a vast terraced heritage.
An aspect of further interest is the remarkable development of terraced areas around the active or extinct volcanic cones of the Tyrrhenian coast (Etna, Somma and Vesuvius, Roccamonfina, and the Latium Volcanoes), particularly sought after for the peculiar soil minerality, used for orchards, chestnut groves, citrus groves, olive groves, and vineyards.
The data thus highlight the main threat Italian terraced landscapes face—namely abandonment and the advance of spontaneous reforestation. These are opposed, albeit less widespread, by the opposite trend toward urbanization and productive intensification, which transforms these complex landscapes into simplified, high-yield agrarian systems, often breaking down retaining walls or replacing them with gabions or concrete walls, compromising a valuable historical and cultural landscape. This is the “extremization” of habitats that characterized the Italian mountains during the second half of the twentieth century (Bätzing 2005).
36 |
M. Varotto et al. |
3.3A Second Survey: Toward a “Third Way” Between Abandonment and Agribusiness
In the last decades, in Italy and in other European countries, there has been a tendency to come back to abandoned lands and to the mountains (Dematteis 2011; Varotto 2013; Corrado et al. 2014; Varotto 2015). We have also observed this in some terraced landscapes (Bonardi and Varotto 2016: 115), as the Manifesto “Terraced landscapes: choosing the future” at the back of this book underlines. These new paths aim to overcome the profound dichotomy that characterized the mountains of the twentieth century, the gap between development processes and protection claims; they attempt to reconcile environmental, historical, and economic values, overcoming and reducing the fractures and poor territorial outcomes of twentieth century specialization (Du Guerny and Hsu 2012). Modern technologies and materials (concrete, plastics) and heavy agricultural mechanization are caesuras with a past considered outdated, and they have led to the gap between useful and useless, separating functional spaces from wasteland (Gri and Pascolini 2005; Bätzing 2005).
“Every stone is good”, the dry-stone craftsmen say. Every stone, sooner or later, finds its place in building a wall, and there is no room for the “culture of waste.” The stones are, at the same time, “alive” for those who cultivate around them, for the animal and plant microcosms that inhabit the interstices, for those who gaze on them from the outside as tourists or visitors. They welcome modernity, not as opposition, but as an integration of the plots inherited from the past. They live in the present, without erasing the past and without blocking the future. In this effort to reunite different functions, sometimes precarious and not always with a happy ending, we should forge a new “pact” (Camanni 2002; Donadieu 2006) between the urban and the rural (Guiseppelli 2005, 2006; Luginbuhl 2007), between mountains and plains, between local microcosms and the macrocosm crossed by globalization challenges. In fact, for many trajectories, the fruition, proximity, and relationship between the outside world and the terracing, the slope, the valley, and, more generally, the Alpine and Apennine mountains, are not oppositional but are proposed as a new alliance promoting development to enhance the starting context.
Despite diverse declinations; historical and geographical areas; individual or collective initiatives; spontaneous or structured efforts; or social, agronomic, and leisure values, these paths are crossed by common denominators outlining a “third way” for terraced landscapes. This “third way” escapes today’s dominant tendencies: abandonment and degradation on the one hand, and the opposing intensifi- cation of production that stiffens, waterproofs, and trivializes the functional complexity of the dry-stone walls, of the crops, and of the people who work them.