Agricultural and non-agricultural jobs in rural mountain communities

Abstract/Description

Farm diversification has been studied as a way to buffer structural changes and maximize income generation, including in mountain areas. Two key dimensions are typically examined: 1) the location of activities (on-farm or off-farm); 2) the nature of activities (agricultural or non-agricultural). These approaches often focus on activities as sources of income generation, rather than as occupations requiring regular labor and time. In this sense, we define farm diversification as an activity requiring a regular labor and time engagement of farmers, regardless of income. We hypothesize that income-centered approaches hide the diversity of farm diversification strategies. However, putting farmers’ labor allocation in the center of analysis could better represent the plurality of farm diversification. Our aim is to qualify the different strategies of farm diversification. Data collection was based on 15 semi-structured interviews with farmers and non-farmers involved in inclusive sustainable development initiatives in highlands. These interviews were part of the transdisciplinary research project Highlands 3.0, in collaboration with Cape Verde University, conducted in November 2024. Since our focus is on farm diversification, we selected nine interviews with farmers to perform a case-by-case analysis. The framework for analysis was developed by comparing these cases based on: 1) the location of activities (on or off-farm); 2) the type of activities (agricultural production, processing, marketing, non-agricultural activities). Our results show five types of farm activity diversification: 1) agricultural (mixed crop-livestock farm); 2) structural (food processing); 3) environmental (preservation of biodiversity); 4) socio-cultural (traditional knowledge); 5) economic (off-farm job). They cover activities that are not exclusively related to income generation (off-farm employment, entrepreneurship, direct sales), as environmental and social diversification (volunteer engagement in groups for environmental preservation, traditional knowledge preservation, respectively). The types of farm diversification can be combined. The most common one is the combination of agricultural diversification and structural diversification (farmers produce crops and livestock and market them through direct selling). We suggest that a labor centered-approach offers a broader understanding of farm diversification strategies and provides insights to support farm and local development.

Abstract/Description

The agricultural model characterized by the high specialization of farming systems is facing a multidimensional crisis (societal, environmental, economic). Additionally, the agricultural sector is challenged by increasing uncertainties related to climate change, ageing of rural population, and lack of attractivity to easily renew the agricultural workforce. This situation is particularly severe in mountainous areas, where the steep slopes limit the potential for highly productive agriculture, compared to flatter regions, and where low population density further complicates agricultural activities. Diversification of on-farm activities has emerged as a key strategy to maintain farm viability. Diversification is defined as activities beyond food production developed at farm level that generate income. New forms of farms providing services on-farm are emerging: they combine food production with non-agricultural service activities, such as leisure, culture, tourism, education, and energy production. In 2020, the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region, a mountainous area in France, reported that 7% of farms were engaged in service activities on-farm, which is comparable to the national level at 7.5%. The development of these service activities can be a major strategy for transitioning to sustainable farming systems (more livable and viable for workers, and socially acceptable by society). The combination of farming and service activities within the farming system can take different forms depending on the objectives assigned to the agricultural or livestock production in relation to the service activity, the adaptation of farming practices, and the organization of work between the two activities. However, the association between farming and service activities are rarely considered in terms of the changes they induce on the farm. Service activities interfere with farming, generating tensions over the use of productive resources (e.g., feeding the herds, managing land, choosing equipment, etc.) and work-related tensions (e.g., workload, skill, on-call duties, mental load, etc.). These tensions on productive resources and labor could weaken the farming system and raise questions about the resilience and viability of these new forms of diversified farms. Therefore, acquiring the necessary knowledge and methods to bridge this gap is crucial for effectively supporting these emerging diversified farming systems.

Abstract/Description

Agritourism is an increasingly important strategy for sustainable rural development in the Alpine region, but its models differ significantly across territories. In the neighbouring provinces of South Tyrol and Trentino, two distinct agritourism approaches have emerged: an accommodation-based model in South Tyrol and a gastronomy-focused model in Trentino. These differences reflect broader regional variations in cultural traditions, land use patterns, and policy frameworks. Understanding how these divergent agritourism models impact rural development is essential to designing effective, place-based policies for mountain areas.

This study aims to investigate the rural development implications of these two agritourism models, focusing on five dimensions: employment dynamics, local economic linkages, territorial identity and landscape preservation, resilience to shocks and seasonality, and institutional embeddedness. The research adopts a comparative case study approach, combining quantitative data from national and regional databases with qualitative insights from ten semi-structured expert interviews conducted in both regions.

Preliminary observations suggest that agritourism models in the two provinces may differ in their integration into local economies, labour structures, and capacity to preserve cultural landscapes. The interviews are expected to provide further insight into how institutional frameworks, branding strategies, and market profiles shape these outcomes.

The study will contribute to a more nuanced understanding of agritourism’s role in rural development, particularly in culturally and structurally diverse mountain contexts. Findings are expected to inform policy design and regional development strategies not only in the Alps but also in other mountain areas facing similar socio-economic and environmental challenges.