*corresponding author

tel. +39.050.883.503

fax: +39.050.883.512

e-mail: davide@sssup.it

main driving factors offarmers’ choices

description of the areas surrounding farmhouses

Aim & methodology

Landscape functionalities of farming activitiesthe case studies of Lunigiana (Tuscany, Italy)

Davide Rizzo*, Mariassunta Galli, Stefano Bacci, Enrico Bonari

Territorial framework

Agri-territorial framework

farming systems

•agritourism accommodations

Study area

Conclusions

2

3

landscape functionalities

aspect

slope

4 classes

4 classes

overlay & ranking

Potential farm mechanization

Favorable aspect

geopositioning of farmhouses

“Farming units”: land uses aggregated for homogeneous landscape attributes.

The methodology was addressed to a progressivefocus on signs (generated by “farming units” andfarm buildings) summarized in farming systems andrelated to a farm sample.

Lunigiana (973 km2) is theN-W part of Tuscan region,central Italy.

Farm buildings:expression of complementary activities, typifying landscape profiles.

% buffer with slope <12.5%

% buffer with aspect from S-E to N-W

Territorial framework

• Survey of indirect sources of informationto set a cognitive framework.

• Interviews to local stakeholders involvedinto the conservation and promotion of thelocal resources.

woods: wide volumes with dense andhomogeneous texture

meadows: stable open spaces, usedas pasture or for growing hay

arable land: open spaces seasonallymodified for tilling or crop rotation.

• drainage systems on slope surface(e.g. terraces, benches, etc.)

• livestock buildings(e.g. barns, sheds, etc.)

• buildings for food processing

The 60% of farms has an agri-territorial surround scarcelymechanizable, both the proximal and the peripheral buffers.

proximal buffer

peripheral buffer

<25%

Buffer proportion with slope <12.5%

25÷50%

hardly mechanizable

50÷75%

<75% easily mechanizable

Landscape functionalities, as answers to the agri-territorial constraints are expressed:

Signs recurrence (farm buildings on right and“farming units” on left) and histograms oftheir proportional distribution as function ofthe farm surroundings mechanizability.

Recurrence of the farmingsystems (left) and “farmingunits” combinations (right).

• the great part of farms has threeor two “farming units”;

• the most frequent associationgroups meadows, woods and groves;

• the majority of the agritourismsare associated with two units andfrequently located in scarcelymechanizable surroundings;

• the meadows production is almostcompletely (88%) used as pasture.

Outlines from the co-presence of“farming units” and farm buildings,and from their combination infarming systems:

The “active management” of the present agrarian landscape

is possible conjugating the traditional complexity

of the farming systems and new farming styles

needed to ensure the economic competitiveness of this system.

• mainly by a mix of matrix with different textures,based on the co-existence of meadows, woods andgroves (mixed farming systems)

• secondarily by the concentration of dense matrix,based on intensive crops, optimizing the hill “terraced-belt” for high quality viticulture and for olive and fruitgroves (specialized cropping systems).

• the recovery of abandoned woods units, throughinnovative agricultural practices (i.e. grazing of rusticspecies);

• the betterment of rural houses and small townsthrough agritourism activities.

1

Farming framework

It is a mountainous area:54.9% of the surface is higher than 500 m and86,0% exceeds the 12.5% of slope.

Results and discussion

Farming framework

2

3

The aim was to explicit thefunctional relationshipsbetween farming activitiesand landscapes.

Slope and aspect data crossing withspatial analysis shapes (buffers)

intensive crops: spaces with denseand defined signs

On farm surveys to collect data on“farming units” and farm buildings andtheir combination into farming systems.

Generation of buffers:•proximal: 7.1 ha •peripheral: 50.2 ha

territorial data

• The maintenance of traditional fenced meadowsassociated with extensive livestock;

• the active conservation and protection oftranshumance routes (tratturi) and summer pastures(alpeggi);

Key referencesBonari E., Galli M., Rizzo D., 2005. Gestione del territorio rurale e paesaggio.In Proceeding of the workshop “La tutela del paesaggio tra economia e storia:dal restauro dei monumenti al governo del territorio, Pisa, 25-26 February2005.Bonin M., Lardon S., 2002. Recomposition des exploitations agricoles etdiversification des pratiques de gestion de l’espace. In A. Torre (ed.) Le local àl’épreuve de l’économie spatiale. Agriculture, environment, espaces ruraux :Etud. Rech. Syst. Agraires Dév., 33: 131-148.Deffointaines J.P., Thenail C., Baudry J., 1995. Agricultural system andlandscape patterns: how can we build a relationship?. Landscape and UrbanPlanning 31(1-3): 3-10.

Agri-territorial framework

1

Number of “farming

units” Woods

Gro

ves

Ara

ble

lands

Inte

nsiv

e c

rops

Meadow

s

3

2

1

5

4

Proportion on the farm

sample

43.1%

27.6%

8.6%

3.5%

5.8%

groves: spaces with coarse texture,where each single element (tree orrow) is well readable

Land LabSaint Anna School of Advanced Studiesp.zza Martiri della Libertà, 3356127 Pisa (Italy)

practices

farm

signsFarmer’s choices

doi: 10.13140/2.1.3719.6489 Biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in mountain areas of Europe, Ioannina (GRE) 20-24 Sept. 2005