# Value chains for sustainable mountain development: a qualitative understanding of 23 European cases

Kirsty Blackstock, Rachel Creaney, Mar del Mar Delgado-Serrano, Sharon Flanigan, Corrado Ievoli, Michele Moretti, Gusztáv Nemes, Diana Surovà, Chloe Thompson, Lukas Zagata, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Kirsty Blackstock, Rachel Creaney, Mar del Mar Delgado-Serrano, Sharon Flanigan, Corrado Ievoli, et al.. Value chains for sustainable mountain development: a qualitative understanding of 23 European cases. Journal of Rural Studies, 2025, 118, 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2025.103640. hal-05174566

HAL Id: hal-05174566

https://hal.science/hal-05174566v1

Submitted on 21 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# Value chains for sustainable mountain development: a qualitative understanding of 23 European cases

Article in Journal of Rural Studies · May 2025

DOI: 10.1016/j.jrstud.2025.103640

CITATIONS

0

READS

163

31 authors, including:

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Rachel Creaney
University of St Andrews

13 PUBLICATIONS 356 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Corrado Ievoli
University of Molise

28 PUBLICATIONS 364 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

María del Mar Delgado-Serrano
University of Córdoba

66 PUBLICATIONS 711 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Michele Moretti
University of Pisa

38 PUBLICATIONS 929 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE
# Value chains for sustainable mountain development: a qualitative understanding of 23 European cases

Kirsty Blackstock<sup>a,†</sup>, Rachel Creaney<sup>a</sup>, Mar del Mar Delgado-Serrano<sup>b</sup>, Sharon Flanigan<sup>a</sup>, Corrado Ievoli<sup>c</sup>, Michele Moretti<sup>d</sup>, Gusztáv Nemes<sup>e</sup>, Diana Surová<sup>f</sup>, Chloe Thompson<sup>a,1</sup>, Lukas Zagata<sup>f</sup>, Tarek Allali<sup>d</sup>, Angelo Belliggiano<sup>c</sup>, Ana Carvalho<sup>g</sup>, Ana Paula Conte<sup>g,2</sup>, Catarina Esgalhado<sup>h</sup>, Anna Geiser<sup>i,3</sup>, Jakub Husák<sup>f</sup>, Sandra Karner<sup>j</sup>, Carmen Maestre-Diaz<sup>k</sup>, Raquel Moreno Vicente<sup>l</sup>, Cristina Micheloni<sup>g</sup>, Éva Orbán<sup>m,4</sup>, Lucca Piccin<sup>n,5</sup>, Mark Redman<sup>o</sup>, Nehat Ramadani<sup>p</sup>, Catalina Rogozan<sup>o</sup>, Jean-Michel Sorba<sup>q</sup>, Marco Trentin<sup>r,6</sup>, Sofia Triliva<sup>s</sup>, Murat Yercan<sup>t</sup>, Tamara Zivadinovic<sup>u</sup>

E-mail addresses: kirsty.blackstock@hutton.ac.uk (K. Blackstock), rachel.creaney@hutton.ac.uk (R. Creaney), mmdelgado@uco.es (M.M. Delgado-Serrano), Sharon.flanigan@hutton.ac.uk (S. Flanigan), ievoli@unimol.it (C. Ievoli), michele.moretti@unipi.it (M. Moretti), nemes.gusztav@krtk.hun-ren.hu (G. Nemes), surovad@pef.czu.cz (D. Surová), chloethompson@gmail.com (C. Thompson), zagata@pef.czu.cz (L. Zagata), tarek.allali@phd.unipi.it (T. Allali), belliggi@unimol.it (A. Belliggiano), anasofia_carvalho@hotmail.com (A. Carvalho), anapaula.conte@unavarra.es (A.P. Conte), cesg@uevora.pt (C. Esgalhado), anna.geiser@fibl.org (A. Geiser), husak@pef.czu.cz (J. Husák), sandra.karner@ifz.at (S. Karner), es2madic@uco.es (C. Maestre-Diaz), rmoreno@adegua.com (R.M. Vicente), cristina.micheloni@vinidea.it (C. Micheloni), orbaneva95@gmail.com (É. Orbán), piccinluc@gmail.com (L. Piccin), mark@highclere-consulting.com (M. Redman), nehat.ramadani@cnvp-eu.org (N. Ramadani), catalinaa@highclere-consulting.com (C. Rogozan), jean-michel.sorba@inrae.fr (J.-M. Sorba), marco.trentin@fibl.org (M. Trentin), triliva@uoc.gr (S. Triliva), murat.yercan@ege.edu.tr (M. Yercan), tamara.zivadinovic@gmail.com (T. Zivadinovic).

<footnote><sup>a</sup> James Hutton Institute, Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB158QH, United Kingdom</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Department of Agriculture Economics, WEARE Research Group, Universidad de Cordoba, Campus Rabanales. N-IV km 396, Gregor Mendel Building, E-14071, Córdoba, Spain</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Food Sciences, University of Molise, Via Francesco De Sanctis snc, 86100, Campobasso, Italy</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Pisa, 80 Via del Borghetto, Pisa, Italy</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup> Hungarian Research Network, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies (HUN-REN KRTK), Tóth K. u. 4, 1097, Budapest, Hungary</footnote>

<footnote><sup>f</sup> Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00, Praha-Suchdol, Czechia</footnote>

<footnote><sup>g</sup> Vinidea, Piazza 1° Maggio, 20, 29028, Ponte dell'Olio, Italy</footnote>

<footnote><sup>h</sup> Mediterranean Institute for Agriculture, Environment and Development, University of Évora, Pôlo da Mitra, Apartado 94, 7006-554, Évora, Portugal</footnote>

<footnote><sup>i</sup> Research Group Geography of Food, Institute for Environment and Natural Resources, ZHAW, Grüentalstrasse 14, 8820, Wädenswil, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote><sup>j</sup> Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture (IFZ), Schloëlgasse 2, 8010, Graz, Austria</footnote>

<footnote><sup>k</sup> Water, Environmental and Agricultural Resources Economics, University of Cordoba, Campus Rabanales. N-IV km 396, Gregor Mendel Building, E-14071, Córdoba, Spain</footnote>

<footnote><sup>l</sup> Adegua, Del Moral, 1, 2<sup>nd</sup> Baena, Córdoba, 14850, Spain</footnote>

<footnote><sup>nn</sup> Rural BT - Development and Communication Consultancy, Rural Szociológiai és Kommunikációs, Betéti Társaság, Hungary</footnote>

<footnote><sup>n</sup> Origin for Sustainability, Avenue Parc-de-la-Rouvreie, Lausanne, Vaud, 1018, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote><sup>o</sup> Highclere Consulting SRL, 35 Institutului Street, Room 20, First floor, CATTIA Complex, Braşov, 500488, Romania</footnote>

<footnote><sup>p</sup> CNVP: Connecting Natural Values and People Foundation, Tolakkerweg 68, JP Hollandsche Rading, 3739, the Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote><sup>q</sup> INRAE: Institut nationale de recherche pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement, Mediterranean and Tropical Farming Systems Unit -Livestock Development Research Laboratory, Quartier Grossetti, Corsica, 20250, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>r</sup> CCVD: Communauté de Communes du Val de Drôme, Ecosite du Val de Drôme 96 ronde des Alisiers, 26400, Eurre, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>s</sup> Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Greece</footnote>

<footnote><sup>t</sup> Faculty of Agriculture, EGE University, Faculty of Agriculture Campus, Bornova, 35100, Izmir, Turkey</footnote>

<footnote><sup>u</sup> MENA group, Jovana Ristića 55, 18000, Niš, Serbia</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote n="1">1 Now Countryside and Community Research Institute, University of Gloucestershire, The Park Campus, Cheltenham, GL50 2RH, Great Britain.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 Now enrolled as a PhD student at Departamento de Ciencias. IS-FOOD. Universidad Pública de Navarra. 31006 Pamplona (Spain).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 Now working at the Department of Food System Sciences, FiBL, Frick, Switzerland and enrolled as a PhD student at the Anthropology Institute at the University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 Now PhD student, Doctoral School of Demography and Sociology, University of Pécs, Hungary.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 Current address: Châtillon-en-Diois, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, France.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 Currently working at FiBL: Institut de Recherche de l'Agriculture Biologique, Ecosite du Val de Drôme 150 Avenue de Judée, 26400 Eurre, France.</footnote>
ARTICLE INFO

Keywords:

Value chains

Sustainable development

Multi-actor

Perceptions

Neo-endogenous

Transdisciplinary approach

Mountains

A B S T R A C T

This paper presents findings using a novel, qualitative and interpretative approach to value chain assessment. The approach was used to further understand sustainable mountain development. The findings result from 23 diverse cases across 16 European countries, including value chains that focus on animal production for meat and dairy products, arable, horticultural and alcohol production as well as tourism and public goods. The paper focuses on three types of value (economic, socio-cultural and environmental) that are developed along the four stages of each value chain (Production, Processing, Distribution/Marketing and Consumption). It addresses how and why value chain actors perceived changes to these three types of values, including how the value chain is tele-coupled with other sending or receiving systems; and how the focal value chains intertwine with other mountain value chains. In general, the value chains actors' perceived that positive values were added, supporting sustainable mountain development in our cases, but the findings were most positive for economic issues and least positive for environmental issues. Findings support neo-endogenous rural development arguments. Local cooperation and certification of sustainable practices seem to support valorisation and retain these values in the mountains. We contend that using a value chain lens for mountain development has helped improve the breadth of analysis and highlights the need to consider non-mountain actors and processes within sustainable development processes.

# 1. Introduction

There has been increasing scholarship on value chains from a sociological perspective, drawing attention to the contextualised practices that generate values, and to whom these values accrue. This scholarship, therefore, reimagines the conventional economic concept attributed to Porter (1985) by reframing the concept of value from a business competitiveness concept to encompass sustainable livelihoods and arguing for a meso-level territorially embedded development approach. However, these applications have generally been focussed on one type of commodity, or a specific geographical case, with limited comparative analyses to draw out common themes for rural development in peripheral areas. The approach considers how to reward rural actors for the provision of public goods through sustainable business practices (Graddy-Lovelace, 2021). This paper applied a framework (Moretti et al., 2023) regarding how a value chain (VC) approach can be used to assess and help diagnose whether economic activities undertaken are sustainable. European Mountains are rural areas with specific responses to rural development challenges and opportunities (Soliva et al., 2008), and this paper illustrated how a value chain lens, applied to European mountain areas, can illuminate wider rural development debates.

## 1.1. Sustainable mountain development

Mountains cover a large proportion of the rural world; providing both important public and private goods and facing particular challenges (Price, 2015). Globally, mountain regions are often marginalized due to the political and economic choices that favour lowland areas (Wang et al., 2020; Shao et al., 2015). This paper focused on the European context where, as highlighted in the Sila Smart Mountains declaration (Euromontana, 2022b), mountains face particular challenges e.g., poor infrastructure; lack of employment; population decline and construction that can/has damaged fragile natural environments (European Environment Agency, 2010). There has been an economic structural shift, focussing on economies of scale and minimising costs of production that disadvantages peripheral and small-scale producers, particularly in the primary economic sectors of agriculture and forestry that has consolidated value-added activities away from mountain regions in Europe. Whilst the situation is complex, often these drivers have led to land abandonment and emigration of working age populations (Lasanta et al., 2017; Lieskovský et al., 2015).

However, the declaration also highlights the mountains as places of opportunities (Euromontana, 2022b). In particular, mountains provide diverse ecosystem services such as provisioning services like food and fresh water, regulating services such as climate and erosion control, and cultural

services like community ties, traditions, and opportunities for recreation and tourism which are the foundation for the provision of public and private goods and services (O'Rourke et al., 2016; Mengist et al., 2020). Mountain territories should, therefore, be valued and remunerated for their role in natural risk management processes and provision of ecosystem services. Mountain territories' production of public goods including ecosystem services makes them valuable to society, whether or not non-mountain citizens visit the mountains (Drexler et al., 2016).

The private sector and self-organized community groups can play a significant role in increasing social cohesion and crafting the social fabric at the territorial level, contributing to the vitality of these territories. However, this public good provision arising from private enterprise is sometimes poorly valorised, with providers receiving limited compensation in the past (Dax, 2020). This is changing slowly with the introduction of policy payments for High Nature Value Farming in marginal ecosystems (O'Rourke et al., 2016) and the introduction of an optional mountain 'quality mark' in Europe (Pagliacci et al., 2022) using certification to reward the provision of mountain public goods (Knaus et al., 2017).

These literatures suggest that mountain development should exploit their territorial capital provided by their topography, natural resources and socio-cultural features, which differentiate them from other, more densely populated regions (Dax, 2020, ibid; Euromontana, 2022 ibid). Mountains have been traditionally perceived as sending systems providing primary resources to be consumed in lowland areas, but increasingly, these systems are also receiving visitors or second homeowners (Cocola-Gant, 2018), and in some cases, creating tensions (Hurley and Ari, 2018; Gundersen and Rybraten, 2022). The primary sector (farming and forestry) remains essential as a source of employment and income in southern and eastern Europe, but the service sector is the greatest source of jobs in the mountains of most EU Member States and in Norway and Switzerland (European Environment Agency, 2010).

Such diversified economies in attractive cultural and ecological landscapes help retain young people (Euromontana, 2022a) and attract new residents through amenity-driven migration. However, at the same time, mountain areas often struggle to retain young people due to lack of opportunities for further education, affordable housing (Kordel et al., 2023) and well-paid and secure jobs (Manta, 2022). Place-based development focuses on the territory, not individual economic sectors, and can help tackle such issues as provision of education, childcare and housing, and facilitate ways to use 'abandoned' land without recourse to land sales that might exclude local people (Euromontana, 2023). Sharing best practices and knowledge among mountain communities is essential for building capacity, fostering self-reliance, and ensuring that resilience strategies are tailored to the unique needs of mountain areas
(Dax, 2020; Euromontana, 2020). As such, these ideals reflect the ho-
listic approach of the EU Long-term Vision for Rural Areas (European
Commission., 2021).

Resilience requires the integration of endogenous action and exog-
enous support. For example, functional urban-rural linkages require
strong transport and digital infrastructure to improve connections to
consumers and to formal knowledge institutions. However, resilient
mountain communities also need to practice social innovation, utilising
traditions and cultural heritage to develop dynamic solutions rather
than resisting change. Whilst place-based development should be
community-led, innovation can arise through extra local networks
exchanging good practice and new ideas (Dax, 2020, ibid, Euromontana,
2022; ibid). However, mountain communities may be in a power
asymmetry with non-mountain governance institutions (Tucker et al.,
2021), constraining innovation and agency.

In the future, mountain territories will also need to be resilient to
climate change and threats to food, water and energy security (Drexler
et al., 2016). This shifts the focus to the tele-coupled nature of moun-
tains and lowlands, recognising mountains as sentinels and refugia for
climate change (Dax, 2020). Mountains also face several gaps in climate
adaptation, requiring more resources and collaborative planning pro-
cesses (McDowell et al., 2021). In summary, this paper was situated in
the literature that recognises mountains as a particular form of rural
space: often sharing common themes of wider rural development but
with constellations of constraints and opportunities, which sometimes
remain invisible in wider rural development processes (Browne et al.,
2004). This paper illustrated how a value chain lens, applied to Euro-
pean mountain areas, can illuminate wider debates.

1.2. *Value chains for sustainable development (VC4SD)*

Taking a value chain (VC) approach is one way to explore the op-
portunities of integrating wider economic development with sustainable
mountain outcomes. For this purpose, an analytical approach to assess
how mountain territorial assets can generate values is required
(European Commission, 2018). VCs are particularly useful in that they
extend our analysis beyond the ‘farm gate’ to the wider food (or
equivalent product) system, reflecting wider policy interests such as the
‘Farm to Fork Strategy’ (European Commission, 2020).

However, there are few mountain VC studies. The majority relate to
the global south (Cook, 2019; Tanguay and Bernard, 2020; Baig et al.,
2020; Choudhary et al., 2013; Popp and El Fasskaoui, 2013; Adhikari
et al., 2018) with few European VC studies (Madelrieux et al., 2018;
Nikodinoska et al., 2017), a gap we aim to close. Therefore, it is useful to
combine this thinking with ‘value chains for development’ (Fabre et al.,
2021), to consider how a VC approach can contribute to achieving more
sustainable outcomes in European peripheral areas. Before we explain
the link between value chains and sustainable outcomes, we provide a
brief discussion of our understanding of VCs and values.

VCs recognise that anything consumed undergoes a series of stages
that transform raw resources into the final product or service. Many
different typologies and approaches describe these stages and there is a
consensus that raw materials are produced, processed, distributed,
marketed and provided for consumption via different forms of retail.
Each stage involves distinct structures and practices that can help
explain how a value chain functions. The original concept looked at how
economic actors created value, measuring increases in e.g., market share
and gross-value-added to diagnose and improve the performance of in-
dividual firms (Porter, 1985). The micro-level concept was developed to
address national and international performance of economic sectors
(Kaplinsky and Morris, 2001) to diagnose and improve economic per-
formance. Over time, there has been increased interest in Global Value
Chains (Gereffi and Fernandez-Stark, 2011) and how value creation is
distributed geographically (Crescenzi et al., 2022), particularly how
value chains improve economic development for the Global South, if
economic values were often accrued within the Global North (Mitchell

et al., 2009).

There are two important points from this trajectory for this paper: (1) until recently there has been little meso-level analysis (above the level of the firm but below the level of the national sector), and (2), there has been limited attention to multiple types of values. These questions have generated a new wave of critical literature (Vicol et al., 2018). There has also been an increasing interest in the social aspects of VC analyses, particularly addressing distribution of value and issues of fairness as well as workers' rights (Malapit et al., 2020; Apata, 2019; Anderson and Lent, 2019; Mancini, 2013; Pegler, 2015; Bullock et al., 2018). As evidenced by the FAO (Neven, 2014) and the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative (TEEB, 2018), sustainable development requires consideration of all forms of value that are being added to multiple existing capitals – it is no longer solely an economic concept (Kandrot et al., 2020) but also extends to social and environmental aspects.

Thus, our approach to values draws on theories of funds and flows (Acs et al., 2010) and the cascade of services and benefits being provided by a range of capitals embedded in territories, which can be harnessed by businesses (Rawlins et al., 2018). The concept of value (and value-added) has objective and subjective elements. It is possible to account for the inputs used and the final worth of a product (Noga et al., 2020); but how this value is translated into reward depends on the intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of value (price). Therefore, values reflect perceptions and judgements; which tend to be context dependent and elusive (Kaiser, 2024; Barnaud et al., 2023). This paper took an 'extended' VC approach, where value equates to aspects that matter to actors in terms of understanding socio-ecological system functions (Antrop, 2004; Gradin, 2016; Fourat et al., 2020; Castro-Nunez et al., 2020; Krishnan et al., 2020; MacClay and Sellare, 2022). Thus, we understand valorisation to mean benefits to society are created directly or indirectly (Brouwer et al., 2018) through the practices at each VC stage.

Therefore, the research was not a conventional economic analysis,
but a broader sociological approach. It explored how specific configu-
rations of practices undertaken by VC actors added value to the full
range of mountain territorial capitals and how these flowed across the
VC stages (Deans et al., 2018). The approach recognises that non-market
values (changes to social, natural, cultural capitals) interact with market
values (Fearne et al., 2012) – resources utilised in mountain value chains
have both exchange and use values (Bowman and Ambrosini, 2000).
This paper addresses the changes in values for both public and private
goods to develop the opportunities within, and protect the fragile assets,
of Europe’s mountains. It starts from a potential tension between the
focus on businesses making economic returns within a mountain value
chain (to retain populations and make a viable livelihood) and the
‘extended’ idea of value that includes valorising non-market goods and
services whilst sustaining them for all society including future
generations.

1.3. Analytical approach

The paper operationalised a conceptual and analytical framework
that addresses how practices are assembled by social actors drawing on
natural resource systems but also on socio-cultural and institutional
structures (Moretti et al., 2023). Therefore, it followed the dynamics
within a socio-ecological systems rather than a decoupled abstract
economic approach (Ros-Tonen et al., 2018). It is based on the sub-
jective/perceived values of all elements in the VC and therefore extends
the analysis beyond economic ‘value-added’ metrics.

As such, the unit of analysis is not an individual firm, but the com-
bination of firms and other actors that add value to territorial mountain
capitals at each stage. The framework fits the spatial planning lens of
mountain development, as it highlights how VCs can assemble with
other VCs within the same territory, with positive or negative outcomes.
It also pays attention to the material and power effects of geography,
recognising the flows within VCs between mountains and other lowland
systems, without reifying or romanticising either system. This approach
links actors to territory (De Propris, 2019) whilst recognising that the actors affecting mountains may not be located within the mountains. This relationship between mountain and lowland areas may include flows in either or both directions, referred to as ‘tele-coupling”.

However, we note that most VC scholarship is focussed on specific cases, or at the most, a single sector. There are examples of comparisons between different countries or cases, but these tend to be a 2–3 cases approach (Laursen and Noe, 2017). Therefore, this paper contributed to the ongoing discussion of VCs and their role in mountain development by taking an ‘extended’ approach to consider economic, socio-cultural and environmental valorisation across a diverse range of different VCs.

Specifically, this paper addressed the following research questions.

* How did actors perceive changes in the economic, socio-cultural and environmental values across the VC stages of our 23 mountain VCs, and what sustainability outcomes for the mountain localities emerged?

* What factors might explain these changes and outcomes?

* What might this mean for sustainable mountain and wider rural development?

Therefore, the paper reported on the comparative extended VC analysis but is unable to cover details regarding types of mountain capitals, practices, or actors involved in the VCs. Furthermore, we do not consider the role of enabling infrastructure or institutions which are extremely important when taking a neo-endogenous approach to development (Dax, 2020).

## 2. Method and materials

This section highlights the cases from which the findings arise, and the approach to data collection and analysis. It is an exploratory study, based on interpretative analysis of VC actor perspectives rather than offering a fully explanatory approach.

### 2.1. Cases

The data presented in this paper was collected from 23 cases located

in mountain ranges across Europe (Fig. 1) during 2021-22 as part of the Horizon 2020 MOVING - Horizon 2020 - MOVING (MOuntain Valorisation through INterconnectedness and Green growth). Case selection followed an inventory process which identified and described 454 VCs across 21 European countries (Moretti et al., 2021). This inventory provides an extensive overview of mountain products, including agri-cultural and non-agricultural, traditional and innovative, VC products – already illustrating a diversity of VCs found within Europe’s mountains.

The cases were selected by regional project teams (Blackstock and Flanigan, 2021) from this inventory. Following the overall project objectives, the criteria for selection were primarily that each case was an active mountain VC with connections to the local mountain socio-ecological system. However, we also sought a diverse range to contrast traditional VCs with innovative and emerging VCs to help generate new perspectives on how different VCs could support the sustainable development of mountain regions. Moreover, the identification of the 23 case-study VCs was closely tied to recognising the key stakeholders involved, categorised by their roles, from managing natural assets to contributing through business, government, civic society, and scientific expertise. Due to this participatory approach, the selected cases had to be able to demonstrate how VCs contribute to broader value networks within mountain regions, and the extent to which they are interconnected with systems beyond the mountains in each region, while also ensuring the willingness of local VCs’ actors to contribute to the data collection and verification of our analyses.

Within the study, some service-based mountain VCs were investigated (see cases 2, 7, 11, 14 in Table 1 below), including products such as tourism and knowledge production with different underlying characteristics and processes from the agri-food chains. Most cases include VC products situated within national and international markets, with a few categorised niches with consumption, predominately located within the producing region.

Table 1 provides an overview of the case involved in the project, which corresponds to the locations illustrated in Fig. 1. Data collection for this paper was primarily conducted at the local/municipality level, which we referred to as the locality (see Table 1, column 4). This scale was selected to allow meaningful qualitative investigation with mountain VC actors.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Twenty-three mountain case locations across Europe (Source: AEIDL).</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1**
Overview of value chain products and mountain areas studied. Source:(Blackstock et al., 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>Abbreviation</th><th>Value chain product (additional VC)</th><th>Mountain locality (and area km²)</th><th>Main Land Use System in locality</th><th>Main territorial capitals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>01</td><td>Austrian Lamb</td><td>Lamb (cheese)</td><td>Weiz Bergland (836)</td><td>Extensive open range low land meadows and highland pastures</td><td>Diverse Economic institutions<br>Processing and marketing cooperative<br>Knowledge, social capital, cooperation<br>Landscape mosaic</td></tr><tr><td>02</td><td>Bulgarian HNV<sup>a</sup><br>Farming</td><td>Farmland Biodiversity (none)</td><td>Western Stara Planina (1,660)</td><td>Mosaic (semi-) natural system<br>consisting of Grassland and forest</td><td>Species-rich semi-natural grasslands<br>Plants and animals of conservation interest</td></tr><tr><td>03</td><td>Czech Beef</td><td>Beef (Tourism)</td><td>Strazny, Lenora, Horni Vltavice (125)</td><td>Extensive open rangeland</td><td>Cattle housing and meat processing units<br>Knowledge, social capital<br>Protected habitats</td></tr><tr><td>04</td><td>Corsican Flour</td><td>Chestnut flour (none)</td><td>Bucugnà, Ghisoni and Nuceta (358)</td><td>High intensity forest (Agroforestry)</td><td>Orchards and processing infrastructure<br>Knowledge, traditional buildings<br>Rare plants and animals</td></tr><tr><td>05</td><td>French Lamb</td><td>Spring Lamb (Sheep meat)</td><td>Drome Valley (378)</td><td>Extensive open pastures</td><td>Agriculture buildings, livestock diversity<br>Communal pasture institutions<br>Protected habitats, scenery</td></tr><tr><td>06</td><td>Cretan Flour</td><td>Carob flour for human food<br>(Animal Feed)</td><td>Central Rethymno (394)</td><td>Agro-Silvo-Pastoral</td><td>Diverse Economic institutions<br>Traditions, community support<br>Protected habitats; cultural heritage sites</td></tr><tr><td>07</td><td>Hungarian<br>Knowledge</td><td>Agro-ecological knowledge<br>(Tourism)</td><td>Barnag, Pecsely (32)</td><td>Mosaic land use system (crops, forestry)</td><td>Workforce, land values, equipment<br>Knowledge/skills, cooperation<br>Water, climate, landscape</td></tr><tr><td>08</td><td>Italian Cheese</td><td>Spun paste cheese (Beef,<br>tourism)</td><td>Alto Molise (276)</td><td>Agro-silvo-pastoral system</td><td>Economic institutions<br>Traditions, educated residents,<br>voluntary associations<br>Water, Habitats, geology</td></tr><tr><td>09</td><td>Italian Wine</td><td>Wine (Grappa)</td><td>Trento (158)</td><td>Permanent cropland</td><td>Diverse Economic institutions, winery infrastructure<br>Knowledge, cooperation, heritage<br>Water, climate, biodiversity</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Italian Flour</td><td>Chestnut flour (Chestnut honey,<br>beer)</td><td>Stazzema, Seravezza (120)</td><td>High intensity forest (Agroforestry)</td><td>Landscape character<br>Traditions<br>Water networks</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Macedonian<br>Tourism</td><td>Rural tourism (none)</td><td>Berovo, Pehchevo (806)</td><td>Mosaic land use system (natural and planted forestry)</td><td>Economic growth<br>Socio-cultural development<br>Nature conservation</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Portuguese<br>Cheese</td><td>PDO Cheese (Lamb, curd cheese)</td><td>Serra da Estrela (305)</td><td>Extensive Open Rangeland (highland and lowland pasture)</td><td>Local breeds, fodder<br>Traditions and knowledge<br>Landscape, climate</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Portuguese Wine</td><td>Wine (Tourism, Almonds, olive oil)</td><td>Vila Nova de Foz Coa (90)</td><td>Permanent cropland</td><td>Winery infrastructure, brand, Diverse Economic institutions<br>Designated landscapes, tradition and knowledge<br>Biodiversity, climate, local varieties</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Romanian<br>Ecotourism</td><td>Certified Ecotourism (Tourism)</td><td>Parts of Brasov County and Fundata Argeş county (846)</td><td>Mosaic landscape with forest and extensive semi-natural grassland</td><td>Traditions and heritage<br>Landscape mosaic</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Serbian Lamb</td><td>PDO Lamb (Cheese, dried meat)</td><td>Sjenica (2,541)</td><td>Extensive open rangeland/mosaic of seminatural and cultivated land</td><td>Labour force, cooperatives<br>Traditions, knowledge<br>Biodiversity, alpine forests</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Slovakian Honey</td><td>Bio-honey (pollen based health products)</td><td>Polomka, Bacuch, Bravacovo (161)</td><td>Mosaic landscape with pastures, meadows and forest</td><td>Local consumers<br>Traditions, knowledge, skills<br>Landscape mosaic, biodiversity, biodiversity</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Spanish Olive Oil</td><td>Organic Olive Oil (other organic products e.g. almonds)</td><td>Carcabuey, Priego de Cordoba, Zuheros (410)</td><td>High intensity forest (Agroforestry)</td><td>Agricultural infrastructure, workforce, brands<br>Tradition, community support<br>Landscape Mosaic, local varieties, biodiversity</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Spanish Ham</td><td>Iberian PDO ham (non-PDO ham)</td><td>Villanueva de Cordoba, Pozoblanco, Cardena (1,273)</td><td>Agro-silvo-pastoral system</td><td>Agricultural infrastructure, Knowledge, social capital, cooperation<br>Biodiversity, climate, landscape mosaic</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Spanish Wine</td><td>Wine (almonds)</td><td>Ayerbe and Loarre (138)</td><td>Permanent cropland</td><td>Diverse Economic institutions<br>Traditions, heritage<br>Protected habitats and local species</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Swiss Grain</td><td>Organic Grain (Beef, Milk, Manure)</td><td>Grisons (7,104)</td><td>Permanent cropland</td><td>Diverse Economic institutions<br>Diverse populations, designated landscapes, tradition</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Swiss Cheese</td><td>PDO Cheese (Cheese)</td><td>Jura, Berne (753)</td><td>Extensive open rangeland</td><td>Agricultural infrastructure, Diverse Economic institutions</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>#</th><th>Abbreviation</th><th>Value chain product (additional VC)</th><th>Mountain locality (and area km²)</th><th>Main Land Use System in locality</th><th>Main territorial capitals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>22</td><td>Turkish Tomatoes</td><td>Tomatoes (Peppers, Cucumbers)</td><td>Elmali (1,433)</td><td>Intensive irrigated cropland</td><td>Skills, knowledge, reputation, networks<br>Pastures, local breeds<br>Workforce, Agricultural infrastructure, Diverse Economic institutions<br>Traditions, heritage<br>Local vegetation</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Scotch Whisky</td><td>Malt Whisky (Tourism)</td><td>West Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey (3,414)</td><td>Extensive Rangeland</td><td>Workforce<br>Heritage, knowledge, relationships<br>Water, scenery</td></tr></tbody></table>

Every mountain locality is identified as ‘peripheral’ as they all are listed as “Areas facing natural constraints” as defined by EU regulation 1305/2013 art. 32.2, or as mountain regions by the European Environment Agency (2010). Some area statistics suggest the common challenges outlined in section 1, for example the Zuheros municipality had an average per capita income of 9426 euros per annum, and the population fell by 17.2 % over the past decade (Moretti et al., 2021). However, not all the wider regions have falling populations or low-income levels, for example the Weiz District has an average per capita income of 21,444 euros per year and the population increased by 3.7 % over the last decade. Ten areas reported increasing populations (Corsica (associated with CS 4), Drome Valley, Central Rethymno, Bar-nag, Ayerbe, Trento, Sjenica, Jura, Elmali, and West Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey) whilst eight reported falling populations (Stara Planina, Klatovy (associated with CS 3), Alto Molise, Stazzema, Berovo and Pehchevo, Pozoblanco, Serra da Estrela. Vila Nova de Foz Côa). However, in some cases the population increased in the region, but there was outmigration of workforce in the mountain locality (e.g. Crete, Serbia, Slovakia).

## 2.2. Data collection and analysis

The Moretti et al. (2023) framework was used to ensure consistent data collection across 23 cases, operationalised through structured templates and diagrams to capture the component parts, valorisation process (how value is assigned or changed) at each stage of the chain, and perceptions of the values generated. Here value refers partly to the measurable exchange values (monetary receipts net of costs) but mainly to the use value, by which actors in the VC (including the final consumer) perceives the benefit (or disbenefit) of passing through each phase of the VC. The four key stages are illustrated in Fig. 2 (Production, Processing, Distribution and Marketing, Consumption), each dependent on territorial capitals (economic, socio-cultural and environmental), practices, and actors; and resulting in flows, values, and outcomes. The paper focussed on perceived economic, socio-cultural, environmental value changes across the stages, resulting in VC outcomes at the particular time of analysis. Additionally, we did not assume that values are always ‘added’ to territorial capital: perceptions of positive or negative changes could be captured.

A reporting template with detailed sections on each component in Fig. 2 was completed by partners in each region (Blackstock et al., 2022).

### 2.2.1. Data collection and processing

There were four stages of the data collection process for each case, including synthesis and analysis of each case’s data to provide the overall data set that permitted the comparative analysis for this paper.

Within each of the 23 cases, the case team (compromising one or more researchers) undertook the following steps from August 2021–July 2022. These teams were project partners and ranged from university academics, through non-governmental organisations and small

consultancies. The collaborative design of the data collection process, including the template mentioned in section 2.2.1, helped operationalise the conceptual and analytical framework into the data collection protocol. The process tried to iron out difficulties arising from a range of geographical contexts and different disciplinary backgrounds; and to develop a shared understanding of the purpose of the different categories of data being collated.

1. Secondary data synthesis: desk-based reviews of secondary sources were conducted to gather data published in Eurostat and Member State/local authority data sets, scientific publications, grey literature, and organisational webpages. However, as further discussed in section 4, the secondary data were mainly qualitative as the quantitative data were not specifically focused on the performance of the specific mountain VCs. These data were entered into the template provided.

2. Primary data collection using interviews: interviews were conducted with stakeholders in each case, resulting in 355 interviews in total (see Table 2 below). Each CS selected their interview participants, seeking maximum variability and coverage of all the VC stages. The focus of data collection was to supplement existing information from secondary sources therefore interviews were targeted to elicit specific local or tacit knowledge. The data arising was then added to the template to deepen the analysis.

3. The data in the templates (using secondary and primary data) was then translated into a series of structured diagrams by the case teams. There were four diagrams in total. Firstly a version of Fig. 2 above, then a diagram illustrating the relationship of the VC with the main infrastructure, and government institutions and recognising the governance and market structures characterising each VC stage. The third placing the VC stages, actors, practices and values across the four spatial dimensions (mountain locality through to international). The final diagram illustrated the relationships between the focal and additional VC(s) using a simplified version of Fig. 2. The diagrams were intended to provide a more accessible and user-friendly basis for the validation workshops.

4. Validation workshops were held in the mountain locality with stakeholders: 21 workshops were conducted, involving 278 stakeholders (due to local difficulties, workshops were not held in the Austrian and Corsican cases, see Table 2 below). Participants were presented with accumulated information in the report using a presentation and the diagrams and invited to discuss the findings. Efforts were made to include actors with a range of interests in the VC practices ensuring a wide range of views were heard. As with the interviews, additional insights were added to the template, and findings adjusted or validated depending on the feedback provided.

The outcome of these four stages resulted in an overall synthesis report for each case combining the desk-based review, interviews, and workshops. This final collaborative evaluation of the VC performance is based on transdisciplinary knowledge, generated through academic

<footnote>ª HNV = High Nature Value.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Mountain value chain diagram used to structure data collection and analysis (authors elaboration).</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 2**

Numbers (interviews/workshops) and types of stakeholders involved in the research.</caption><thead><tr><th>Name</th><th>Total interviews/workshops</th><th>Public Authority</th><th>Researcher</th><th>Business (Agricultural)</th><th>Business (other)</th><th>Broker/ advisor</th><th>NGO/CSO/Civil Society</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Austrian Lamb</td><td>15/-</td><td>3/-</td><td>1/-</td><td>2/-</td><td>4/-</td><td>2/-</td><td>3/-</td></tr><tr><td>Bulgarian HNV</td><td>15/10</td><td>1/1</td><td>3/5</td><td>4/0</td><td>2/0</td><td>0/0</td><td>5/4</td></tr><tr><td>Farming</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Czech Beef</td><td>15/14</td><td>4/0</td><td>1/0</td><td>5/11</td><td>2/1</td><td>0/0</td><td>3/2</td></tr><tr><td>Corsican Flour</td><td>18/-</td><td>4/-</td><td>3/-</td><td>6/-</td><td>1/-</td><td>1/-</td><td>3/-</td></tr><tr><td>French Lamb</td><td>8/11</td><td>0/1</td><td>0/1</td><td>0/0</td><td>2/0</td><td>2/2</td><td>4/7</td></tr><tr><td>Cretan Flour</td><td>22/8</td><td>2/2</td><td>1/0</td><td>6/2</td><td>6/2</td><td>0/0</td><td>7/2</td></tr><tr><td>Hungarian Knowledge</td><td>24/6</td><td>2/1</td><td>4/0</td><td>1/0</td><td>2/0</td><td>3/0</td><td>12/5</td></tr><tr><td>Italian Cheese</td><td>25/25</td><td>0/6</td><td>2/2</td><td>7/2</td><td>1/2</td><td>1/0</td><td>14/13</td></tr><tr><td>Italian Wine</td><td>6/10</td><td>2/0</td><td>0/1</td><td>2/1</td><td>0/0</td><td>0/4</td><td>2/4</td></tr><tr><td>Italian Flour</td><td>16/20</td><td>1/4</td><td>0/4</td><td>10/5</td><td>0/2</td><td>0/0</td><td>5/5</td></tr><tr><td>Macedonian Tourism</td><td>12/9</td><td>2/1</td><td>2/1</td><td>2/2</td><td>2/2</td><td>0/0</td><td>4/3</td></tr><tr><td>Portuguese Cheese</td><td>9/15</td><td>1/0</td><td>1/2</td><td>2/1</td><td>2/0</td><td>1/7</td><td>2/5</td></tr><tr><td>Portuguese Wine</td><td>9/21</td><td>0/0</td><td>3/7</td><td>3/5</td><td>0/0</td><td>1/3</td><td>2/6</td></tr><tr><td>Romanian Ecotourism</td><td>9/12</td><td>4/4</td><td>0/3</td><td>0/0</td><td>5/1</td><td>0/0</td><td>0/4</td></tr><tr><td>Serbian Lamb</td><td>18/17</td><td>4/1</td><td>0/2</td><td>2/2</td><td>1/2</td><td>2/3</td><td>9/7</td></tr><tr><td>Slovakian Honey</td><td>13/8</td><td>2/1</td><td>3/0</td><td>1/0</td><td>0/0</td><td>2/2</td><td>5/5</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish Olive Oil</td><td>24/20</td><td>4/8</td><td>1/0</td><td>11/3</td><td>2/1</td><td>2/0</td><td>4/8</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish Ham</td><td>9/9</td><td>1/1</td><td>1/3</td><td>1/1</td><td>1/0</td><td>0/3</td><td>5/1</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish Wine</td><td>29/15</td><td>8/6</td><td>9/1</td><td>3/1</td><td>0/0</td><td>3/3</td><td>6/4</td></tr><tr><td>Swiss Grain</td><td>13/7</td><td>0/0</td><td>1/1</td><td>2/0</td><td>7/3</td><td>0/0</td><td>3/3</td></tr><tr><td>Swiss Cheese</td><td>13/15</td><td>0/1</td><td>1/0</td><td>2/2</td><td>7/1</td><td>0/3</td><td>3/8</td></tr><tr><td>Turkish Tomatoes</td><td>3/11</td><td>2/3</td><td>0/3</td><td>1/1</td><td>0/0</td><td>0/0</td><td>0/4</td></tr><tr><td>Scotch Whisky</td><td>17/15</td><td>4/2</td><td>3/6</td><td>0/1</td><td>5/2</td><td>4/2</td><td>1/2</td></tr><tr><td>total</td><td>355/278</td><td>52/43</td><td>41/42</td><td>71/21</td><td>48/19</td><td>28/32</td><td>23/21</td></tr></tbody></table>

sources and local experiences. The data are therefore subjective perceptions from interested VC actors.

### 2.2.2. Valorisation criteria and potential explanatory factors

This paper built on the template sections focussed on the real boxes (Fig. 2) at each VC stage including.

* Economic valorisation: employment (employment types - primary, manufacturing, services and government for the mountain locality; whether employment rates were higher in the VC than the region;

number of employees; types of employers; average wages in the VC compared to the minimum national wage; perceptions of livelihood viability; estimated distribution of proportion of total Market Value added. Optional data included the VC interaction with taxes and grants and VC contribution to the national GDP. We asked cases to report on the total market value generated by the mountain VC at each stage and the net income or labour productivity statistics, but no case was able to provide these data. Overall, the section of the template asked the case actors to reflect on whether the mountain
locality economic capital base has increased, decreased or stayed the same across the four VC stages.

* Socio-cultural valorisation: accessibility of territorial capitals to local entrepreneurs, local ownership of assets, trust and cooperation, sharing territorial capitals, participation in decision-making, contribution to cultural landscapes and traditions, health impacts, human-environment interactions and VC actor patterns by education, age, gender, and migration status. Overall, the section of the template asked the case actors to reflect on whether the mountain locality socio-cultural capital base has increased, decreased or stayed the same across the four VC stages.

* Environmental: competition for natural and farmed resources; sustainable use of resources; pollution, erosion of waste arising; impacts on biodiversity and habitats, and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Overall, the section of the template asked the case actors to reflect on whether the mountain locality environmental capital base has increased, decreased or stayed the same across the four VC stages.

These valorisation criteria's reflect the issues raised in the broad inventory and the selection of the 23 cases (Blackstock and Flanigan, 2021). They also reflect common issues in mountain and rural development literatures and illustrate the extended approach to values within the VC analysis. Furthermore, data were collected on local stakeholders' judgement of the overall sustainability outcomes (categorised as economic, socio-cultural and environmental) desired for, and arising from, the mountain VCs and their assemblages.

The template also asked for a range of contextual information that was anticipated to help explain the performance of the mountain VC. This included the type of final product (see Table 3) and other potential explanatory factors, such as.

* whether the product could be considered typical for the mountain locality;

* demand and competition for the VC final product;

* governance structures as defined by (Gereffi, 2005); and

* business model (including size of business, business structure, for-profit or not, level of technological uptake).

Further contextual information was provided for many cases, but it was not consistent enough to be used in comparative analysis across all 23 cases.

Two additional aspects of the VC performance were used in the analysis for this paper – the role of tele-coupling and the role of assemblage. Firstly, the VC stages were considered in terms of their activities across space, namely the mountain locality, the wider region (the NUTS2 region in which the locality was nested), the Nation State and any wider relationships internationally. The template asked cases to estimate the proportion of VC practices at each stage across these spatial categories; and at which spatial scales the economic, socio-cultural and environmental outcomes were accrued, by each VC stage. Information on tele-coupled flows of material, informational and/or financial capitals entering or leaving the mountain locality was also requested.

<table><caption>**Table 3**
Value chain clusters by product type.</caption><thead><tr><td>Cluster</td><td>Value chain Product</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Meat-based</td><td>Austrian Lamb, Czech Beef, French Lamb, Serbian PDO Lamb, Spanish PDO Ham</td></tr><tr><td>Crops</td><td>Corsican Chestnut Flour, Cretan Carob Flour, Italian Chestnut Flour, Spanish Olive Oil, Swiss Grain, Turkish Tomatoes</td></tr><tr><td>Cheese</td><td>Italian PDO Cheese, Portuguese PDO Cheese, Swiss PDO Cheese</td></tr><tr><td>Bio-honey</td><td>Slovakian Honey</td></tr><tr><td>Alcohol</td><td>Italian Wine, Portuguese Wine, Spanish Wine, Scotch Whisky</td></tr><tr><td>Tourism</td><td>Macedonian Tourism, Romanian Ecotourism</td></tr><tr><td>Public goods</td><td>Bulgarian HNV Farming, Hungarian Knowledge</td></tr></tbody></table>

Finally, this paper also made use of data collected on how the focal VCs assembled with other mountain VCs in their locality, including common or additional territorial capitals, practices and actors; the flows between VCs at each VC stage; and whether the assemblage amplifies, counteracts or has no effect on the perceived economic, socio-cultural and environmental outcomes reported for the focal VC. The template asks for an overall judgement of synergies and conflicts arising from the assemblage.

### 2.2.3. Data analysis

Comparative data analysis was conducted based on the 23 case templates and diagrams. Data from the 23 reports were uploaded to a structured Excel database, which provided a basis for an analysis of patterns in the categorical data. The Excel sheets provided a clear set of data to analyse descriptively (Miller et al., 2022). The longer narrative passages were also imported into a QSR NVIVO 12 data base to allow for thematic analysis of the text, particularly any quotes from interviews. These original data in NVivo was used to add more qualitative depth to the description of the patterns. In both the Excel and NVIVO cases, an individual from the research team undertook the data entry (excel) and data coding (NVIVO) for different cases, with regular team meetings to discuss and resolve any difficulties. Another member of the team then checked the excel entries and NVIVO coding for specific cases, to help resolve any data entry errors. The final Excel sheets and exported NVIVO coding reports were made available to the case partners to check before further analysis was carried out.

Both the excel and NVIVO databases cover a lot of information, so for the purposes of this paper, the analysis is focused on specific aspects of the data as described in section 2.2.2 above. Due to the heterogeneity of data sources and cases themselves, we did not undertake quantitative analysis and any numbers provided are to give an indication of how the cases were distributed between categories but do not signify significance beyond our set of 23 focal VCs. Where data were missing this is reported in terms of NDP (no data presented) in relation to any patterns identified across cases. As set out in section 3 below, the analysis focussed on how the case reports presented each valorisation criteria for each stage of their VC – spanning 41 columns for economic valorisation; 65 columns for socio-cultural valorisation; and 48 columns for environmental valorisation. The analysis also considered the overall evaluation of whether the VC utilised the territorial mountain capitals in a sustainable manner, contributing to desired sustainability outcomes (see Fig. 3).

To understand the perceived changes in economic, socio-cultural and environmental values across the VC stages, we checked for patterns by product type, contextual factors like governance structures and business models, the influence of tele-coupling and whether the assemblage influences outcomes in the focal VC. We also used the narratives about the perceived performance of the VCs within NVIVO to further understand the patterns, or lack thereof. However, to systematically analyse these 23 diverse cases, we focused on the descriptive categorisations in the excel, rather the rich details about how each VC is conducted or the diverse views expressed within the interviews and workshops. The analysis is based on the performance of the VC at the time of research and does not include analysis of how values have changed over time. Overall, the approach is deductive but applied to an interpretation of qualitative data, not focussed on statistics.

## 3. Findings: valorisation, outcomes and possible explanations

The VCs discussed in this paper are a configuration of social practices that not only generate a product (or products) but also a set of outcomes (Figs. 2 and 3). In this section, we focus on the first two research questions (see Section 1.3), to examine outcomes generated in the 23 mountain localities being studied from the perspectives of economic, socio-cultural, and environmental valorisation processes (RQ1), and consider the factors (described in section 2.2.2) that might explain those valorisations and overall outcomes generated (RQ2). (The full list of
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Main aspects of Value Chain data utilised for this paper (building on Fig. 2).</figcaption></figure>

valorisation results and outcomes attributed to the VCs can be found in
(Blackstock et al., 2022).

**3.1. Economic valorisation and outcomes**

VC analysis was originally designed to identify the competitive
advantage for a firm and, latterly, for an economic sector or region.
Therefore, the first set of valorisation processes giving rise to outcomes
is focussed on economic development, even if not expressed in monetary
units. The focus is on employment, livelihood viability, and contribution
to national economic development. The economic outcomes reported
(income, employment) are predominantly private benefits although the
support for high-quality local food could be seen as a public good.

**3.1.1. Was there a perceived change in the territorial economic capital base?**

An increase in economic capital was perceived by all but two of the
cases returning results<fnref n="7" />; the remaining two (in Hungary and N.
Macedonia) were perceived to have stayed the same. Positive valor-
isation of territorial capital was related within case reports to the pro-
duction of premium products, strong territorial branding, including
certification, reviving traditions, and the synergistic effect through
assemblage with other activities and chains. Some cases, including
Romanian Ecotourism and Cretan Carob Flour, referred to global crises
(Ukraine War, Covid-19) as having an overall negative effect on the
economy and therefore employment in their region. Wider concerns
regarding the general trajectory of economic development were also
reported by some cases despite increasing economic values associated
with the focal VC in question (e.g., Serbian PDO Lamb).

In North Macedonia, tourism is an emergent VC in the Maleshevski
region and may need support to ensure the economic returns accrue to
local people. In Hungary, VC actors in the Transdanubian mountains are

exploring ways to marketize knowledge and expertise, avoiding
dependence on precarious public funding. In this case, the actors are
lifestyle migrants and their standard of living, measured with conven-
tional economic indicators might appear low – however, this is based on
a deliberate choice to prioritize sustainable living and community-
oriented values.

**3.1.2. What types of economic valorisation and outcomes were perceived?**

In terms of the overall economic outcomes achieved, the cases
highlighted income from profits and wages and increased employment
as the main economic outcomes delivered through the VCs (see Fig. 4).
Where there is integration across the VC stages from production,
through processing to distribution and local consumption within the
mountain locality – such as the Czech Beef case and the assemblage with
tourism consumption - there is particularly strong economic valorisation
that increases the ability to invest and innovate. Strong consumer de-
mand was associated with valorisation in some emergent VCs such as
carob and chestnut flour in three Mediterranean mountain localities
(Crete, Corsica, and Tuscany).

Sometimes, the success of increased profitability and wages led to
investment in the VC Production and Processing practices and therefore
investment into the built and human capital in the mountain areas. For
example, investment in physical farm infrastructure supporting the
production of Swiss Cheese. In other cases, such as Portuguese Wine,
profitability has also been strongly associated with investment in ‘par-
allel’ activities and products (i.e. VC assemblage aspects of cultural
tourism), which is believed to support further revenue generation for the
case product.

Additionally, some stakeholders believed that their VCs not only
generated benefits for the local economy, but also through increased tax
revenues, for the regional or national economy. These included a range
of examples, including products such as carob flour in Crete, ecotourism
in Romania, olive oil in Spain and alcohol products in Italy, Portugal,
Spain, and Scotland. In many cases, this was also a form of circularity, as
the viability of the production stage was recognised as dependent on

<footnote n="7">⁷ NDP for this question for the Bulgarian and French (Drome) cases.</footnote>
ECONOMIC VALORISATION AND OUTCOMES

Overall change in mountain economic capitals ↗ 19 cases increased; → 2 cases remained the same

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Most common economic outcomes and factors explaining the valorisation findings.</figcaption></figure>

public subsidies, such as agri-environmental climate schemes, to main-
tain high-nature value and/or organic farming. The combination of
extensive farming practices in areas of natural constraints make these
land use systems particularly eligible for, and often dependent on, public
funding for public goods.

Virtuous cycles were described whereby VC success improved product marketing and built visibility for both new and returning consumers – including the Austrian Lamb and Slovakian Honey cases. However, both these cases also report that the VC product being studied was not the main income generation activity for the local primary producers – instead these products generate supplementary income. Supplementary income generation was also reported to be the case for the Cretan Flour and Hungarian Knowledge VC cases. In some cases, the

additional income provided by these VCs can be important to help cross-
subsidise the other activities undertaken by producers and as inputs into
the local economy.

The economic valorisation of mountain capitals is part of a wider VC 'assemblage' whereby associated VCs provide mutual support, including cheese VCs in the Austrian case, and almond or olive oil VCs in the Portuguese Wine case. Service-based activities, especially tourism, was part of VC assemblage at the production stage in a several localities, including those in Portugal (Serra da Estrela), Spain (Betic systems) and Scotland (Speyside) that helps support investments and provide complementary employment.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. Number of cases with perceived overall economic outcomes accruing to mountain locality by value chain stage. Cases without data have been removed for clarity.</figcaption></figure>
### 3.1.3. Where did the perceived economic outcomes accrue?

For sustainable mountain development, some economic outcomes should accrue to mountain localities. More than half the cases accrued economic outcomes locally during the Production stage (see Fig. 5). However, the proportion of outcomes accrued gradually shifts out of the mountain areas by the later stages in the chain. In particular, most VC activity in the later stages (Distribution & Marketing and Consumption) tend to be run by firms which are not located in the mountains. The need to re-localise these later VC stages in the mountains was stressed by several cases including meat, cheese, crop, and alcohol VCs. These patterns suggest that whilst economic capital is generally increased in our VC cases, not all that value change is located within mountains. ‘Tele-coupling’ geographically connects each of the case areas with other areas outside of the mountains; but patterns are heterogenous, and some cases accrue value internationally. Therefore, as hinted at in section 3.1.1, non-local economic conditions can, and do, affect the VC dynamics in mountain areas.

### 3.1.4. What factors might explain perceived economic valorisation and outcomes?

All factors described in section 2.2.2 were considered, as well as the evaluation narratives from each case and only those offering explanations are described below. As a signifier of product quality, certification was identified as a major contributor supporting positive economic valorisation. The following VC case involved PDO certification (Protected Designation of Origin): Italian Cheese, Spanish Olive Oil, Corsican Flour, Portuguese Wine, Swiss Cheese, Cretan Flour, Serbian Lamb, Spanish Ham, Portuguese Cheese, Italian Wine; while the Spanish Wine, Cretan Flour, and Scotch Whisky VC has PGI certification (Protected Geographical Indication). All these chains reported positive economic valorisation, with some directly attributing certification as a key factor underlying economic performance (Swiss Cheese, Spanish Ham). These certifications were seen to formalise the connection to place and local natural resource systems. Surprisingly, in the case of Serbian PDO Lamb, overall positive economic valorisation was reported despite fluctuating consumer demand. The rising costs of Production and consequences of austerity were combining to make the premium product less affordable for consumers. The presence of alternative products, and/or alternative suppliers did not seem to explain the valorisation findings, suggesting that the Serbian PDO lamb VC was able to provide a livelihood despite competition.

The requirements associated with certification were also identified as a significant factor influencing valorisation, creating the premium product market niche but constraining Production and Processing practices and adding costs. Most (n = 17) of our VC cases involved small size land-based mountain businesses (Swiss Grains were recorded as a large land manager business; and Slovakian bio-honey, French lamb and Serbian lamb recorded some medium sized businesses). Suggestions that cooperative business models may be important in positive economic valorisation were also made (Spanish Ham, Austrian Lamb, Italian Wine), and in the case of Swiss Grain, associated with the ability to secure a higher price per kilogram compared to non-mountain conventional grains. Working collaboratively, whether as a formal cooperative or more informally, is one way to overcome the lack of economies of scale as a small producer.

The two cases reporting neutral economic valorisation outcomes – Macedonian Tourism and Hungarian Knowledge – may be explained by the scale of the businesses. Both are relatively new endogenous developments, managed locally by sole traders or partnerships. Both cases also exhibit a high concentration of Consumption (>75 %) happening locally – exemplifying service-based VCs bringing consumers to the mountains, rather than exporting products for Consumption in lowland urban areas. In these cases, reterritorialization of the Consumption is not yet perceived to add value to the existing economic mountain capitals. In the Hungarian case, the small area (around 10 ha), may explain the difficulty in making the chain economically viable.

Interaction between the focal VC and an additional VC in the area was found to amplify positive economic valorisation in all but one case (Romanian Ecotourism). In this case, a history of unwillingness to cooperate and lack of system supporting cooperation is associated with a fragmented VC assemblage and neutral valorisation for the assemblage. Interactions between VCs are multiple and complex, including examples where the assemblage results in amplification of some negative issues (e. g., Italian cheese, where an increase in non-local milk supply to meet increased cheese consumption by tourists is perceived to undermine the value proposition of the product) and counteraction of positive outcomes (e.g., Spanish Ham where production of non-PDO ham is perceived to limit the production of the PDO product, due to competition for the same natural resources). An overall positive assessment of the assemblage may mask complex synergies and trade-offs.

### 3.2. Socio-cultural valorisation and outcomes

Our extended VC analysis not only considered conventional economic development but integrated wider aspects pertaining to socio-cultural development and human well-being. Elements included collaboration, traditional cultures, human capital, and distribution of opportunities. Preservation of traditional knowledge and heritage (traditional landscapes in particular) were the most reported socio-cultural outcomes for the cases, which linked to strengthening the territorial identity and social connections. These tend to be public goods, although harnessed for private gain by VC businesses (Fig. 6).

#### 3.2.1. Was there a perceived change in the territorial social capital base?

In more than half of our cases (n = 14), socio-cultural capitals were perceived to increase because of the VC. No cases perceived that their socio-cultural capital base had decreased. However, five cases reported that value associated with the socio-cultural capital base remained unchanged: Corsican Flour, Macedonian Tourism, Romanian Ecotourism, Serbian Lamb, and Swiss Grain. No data was provided for four cases (Austrian Lamb, Bulgarian HNV Farming, French Lamb and Portuguese Wine).

#### 3.2.2. What types of socio-cultural valorisation and outcomes were perceived?

The connection between tradition and cultural heritage is strong in many VCs, which contributes to positive socio-cultural valorisation. For example, in the Italian Flour case, preserved knowledge is valorised through cultural practices and observed in the traditional rural landscapes supporting chestnut production. Other cases also stressed the link between early stages of the VC and traditional landscapes in the mountain localities, such as Italian Wine, which contributes to a collective identity for the residents; and in the Swiss Grain promotional materials, traditional (as opposed to industrial) mills also represent cultural landscapes. These values are particularly important where depopulation means that local knowledge and traditions could be lost. Our mountain VC cases included examples that are helping to preserve these traditions, including assemblage with tourism VCs in the area (e. g., Portuguese wine tourism).

Trust and co-operation have increased in some VCs, including the chestnut flour case in Tuscany, Italy. In the Huesca wine case, the VC was using previously abandoned land generating positive momentum for wider local development. However, this was not true for all cases. A lack of co-operation may have explained why the VC was not valorising socio-cultural assets as much as participants hoped (e.g., Czech Beef).

There was a variety of outcomes regarding accessibility and local ownership – most cases reported high or medium local ownership of assets at the Production and Processing stages, but this declined by the stages of Distribution & Marketing or Consumption, particularly when these stages took place outside of the locality. Many cases felt that employment in all stages of the VC was accessible to local residents, and often did not require higher education degrees, suggesting that these
## SOCIO-CULTURAL VALORISATION AND OUTCOMES

Overall change in mountain socio-cultural capitals ↗ 14 cases increased; → 5 cases remained the same

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** Common socio-cultural outcomes and factors explaining the valorisation findings.</figcaption></figure>

mountain VCs can offer a strong endogenous development model.

However, a small number of cases described employment in one or more stage of the chain as highly inaccessible to local residents, including Hungarian Knowledge (all stages), Czech Beef (all except Consumption), Scotch Whisky (Production and Processing), Portuguese Wine and Spanish Oil (Processing and Distribution & Marketing), and Italian Wine (Production). This can attract immigrants with new skills, however it can also limit the ability for the VC to expand in these areas. For example, the Scotch Whisky case attracted international skilled labour, but the housing shortages and lack of services often made keeping such immigrants more difficult. Access to mountain land is also a limiting factor in some cases due to the costs (Italian Wine, Swiss Grain, Hungarian Knowledge), consolidation of land ownership within protected areas (Czech Beef) or due to family inheritance (Portuguese Wine).

The Production and Processing stages of most chains in our cases are staffed by mainly male actors, whereas the Distribution & Marketing and Consumption stages have a mix of genders. However, there are very few cases where the VC is staffed by predominantly females; the exceptions are the Consumption stage of the Cretan Flour, Serbian Lamb, and Spanish Olive Oil chains, and the Distribution & Marketing stage for Swiss Grain. The age profile of actors within the Production and Processing stages for most cases are less than 60 years old with more cases having predominantly young actors (under 40 years) by the Distribution & Marketing and Consumption stages. The actors are predominantly local for the Production and Processing stages of most of the chains studied, but around half involve a mixture of local and immigrant workers in the Distribution & Marketing or Consumption stages of the chain. The exception being the Hungarian Knowledge case, developed by urban migrants moving to the mountain locality.

More cases felt the VC generated positive or mixed, rather than negative, physical and mental health outcomes. The picture was most heterogeneous at the Production stage, where an equal number of cases (n = 7) felt there were positive or negative outcomes. Many cases emphasised the demanding physical work at the Production and Processing stages, including exposure to risks from working with machinery, working in remote or challenging conditions, or exposure to disease or chemicals. By the Consumption stage, most cases (n = 9) felt there were positive health outcomes and only one (Serbian Lamb) felt there were negative health outcomes. There were several cases unable to

provide health data.

### 3.2.3. Where did the perceived socio-cultural outcomes accrue?

As with economic valorisation, there is diversity in where the outcomes are realised; and where the practices are localised, and actors have strong social values, the reported outcomes are positive. Fig. 7 illustrates the predominance of socio-cultural benefits accruing locally in the Production and Processing stages, reducing across the later stages of the chain, but less starkly than in the case of economic outcomes. However, non-local retailers can exploit tradition and local branding for their own gain without generating value for locals. The qualitative data reported from the cases suggest that the symbolic and cultural valorisation practices are a collaborative relational process of meaning-making between the mountain system and the wider receiving or sending systems in the lowlands and abroad. These findings also highlight how the socio-cultural outcomes produced by mountain VCs can add value to capitals utilised by wider society, not just local residents (e. g. traditional knowledge as a public good with existence and bequest value).

### 3.2.4. What factors might explain perceived socio-cultural valorisation and outcomes?

It was difficult to find patterns explaining why some cases reported positive valorisation of mountain socio-cultural capitals and others reported no change. For example, some of the VCs reporting no increase in socio-cultural capitals are global VCs<fnref n="8" /> (Romanian Ecotourism, Macedonian Tourism, Serbian Lamb); but others are not - the Swiss Grain product which is mainly consumed within Switzerland and Corsican flour is mainly consumed locally. Of the twelve cases who reported positive socio-cultural valorisation, four were not global chains (Hungarian Knowledge, Spanish Wine, Portuguese Cheese, Slovakian Honey). This pattern suggests that socio-cultural valorisation is not only determined by the local or international extent of the product market despite hints at non-local commodification of cultural traditions in section 3.2.3.

The cases not to perceive a positive change in socio-cultural mountain capitals were all established for more than 10 years, with two of the

<footnote n="8">⁸ Global in this case means that the products are exported and not only produced for domestic consumption/use.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7.** Number of cases with perceived overall socio-cultural outcomes accruing to mountain locality by value chain stage. Cases without data have been removed for clarity.</figcaption></figure>

five having been operating for more than 50 years (Corsican Flour, Serbian Lamb). Most cases were typical VCs for their region, except for the Romanian Ecotourism chain; in terms of product type, these cases include meat (Serbian Lamb), crops (Corsican Flour, Swiss Grain), and tourism (Macedonia, Romania). Neither changes in demand, the presence of local competition, size of the locality in question, nor the tele-coupling relationship with other areas outside of the locality were factors explaining the perceived change in socio-cultural capitals. The business characteristics – with many of the five cases without positive socio-cultural valorisation results involving small businesses with low to medium technology uptake – does not explain the socio-cultural valorisation results, as there are other similar businesses in other cases that do report an increase in socio-cultural capitals.

The most promising explanation lies in how the VCs were governed. For example, one case (Serbian Lamb) described their governance approach as hierarchical with a high-power asymmetry, which may explain the limited positive socio-cultural outcomes experienced – particularly as there is a lack of cooperation between different local governance actors. Relational governance structures were identified in the Romanian Tourism and Swiss Grain cases (with medium power asymmetries). The Romanian case reported cooperation to be limited particularly in later stages of the VC with reported conflict regarding visions of appropriate tourism development in the locality. The Swiss case reported medium to low trust amongst the larger processors, with high trust between smaller businesses involved in processing. However, the Macedonian and Corsican cases reported market governance

ENVIRONMENTAL VALORISATION AND OUTCOMES

Overall change in mountain environmental capitals ↗ 10 cases increased; → 7 cases same; ↘ 3 cases decreased

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 8.** Common environmental outcomes and factors explaining the valorisation findings.</figcaption></figure>
structures and did not highlight issues with cooperation and trust.

### 3.3. Environmental valorisation and outcomes

Sustainability requires human development to stay within planetary boundaries and work in harmony with nature. Therefore, extended VC analysis requires attention to how natural capital is sustained through VC practices e.g. use of natural and farmed resources and impacts on biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental outcomes resulting from the focal VCs included preserving mountain biodiversity, encouraging eco-friendly farming, and increasing awareness of the environmental aspects of mountain VCs. Again, these are generally public goods, harnessed for private gain (Fig. 8).

#### 3.3.1. Was there a perceived change in the territorial environmental capital base?

Overall, environment-related outcomes relating to our mountain VC cases are less positive in comparison to economic or socio-cultural perspectives. Although almost half cases perceived that environmental capitals have increased (n = 10), several (n = 7) report that environmental capitals remain the same (Cretan Carob, Hungarian Knowledge, Italian Cheese, Cretan Flour, Macedonian Tourism, Portuguese Wine, Romania Ecotourism, Swiss Cheese), and in three cases environmental capitals are judged to have decreased by the end of the VC (Italian Wine, Scotch Whisky, Serbian Lamb). There were missing data for three cases.

For the positive cases, traditional practices were seen to deliver biodiversity and climate outcomes (e.g., increased biodiversity and carbon sequestration from chestnut groves) and the extensive nature of practices helped deliver sustainable use of resources. Stakeholders would like to see local efforts to protect and sustain environmental territorial capital within these mountain localities rewarded by price premiums from consumers, using the optional mountain quality mark in recognition of environmental efforts within mountain VCs, helping ensure effectual communication with consumers (e.g., Spanish Olive Oil, Slovakian Honey) – this was also linked to outcomes associated with increasing environmental awareness/appreciation for local people and consumers. Further efforts to re-localise Consumption to reduce food miles were also noted (e.g., Czech Beef).

#### 3.3.2. What types of environmental valorisation and outcomes were perceived?

The data highlights that there are VCs that are perceived to help protect mountain biodiversity, particularly around mosaic landscape managed for traditional grazing (meat or cheese products) or cropping (nuts, olives, vegetables, wine). These types of landscapes were associated with redevelopment of productive agro-forestry ecosystems (e.g., Cretan Flour) and restorative agriculture practices (e.g., Hungarian Knowledge). However, not all small-scale farming is environmentally positive; for example, in the Portuguese Wine VC, a distinction is made between some small farmers' overuse of pesticides and larger companies adopting good environmental practices and precision agriculture. There were also mixed findings on biodiversity and grazing, with concerns regarding improved pasture monoculture (Swiss Cheese) and grazing pressure (Serbian Lamb), illustrating the complexity of our data.

Cases considered both valorisation of natural resources and functions (e.g., pollination, biodiversity) and valorisation associated with human practices, such as maintaining genetic diversity through heritage varieties (e.g., Serbian Lamb), preventing wildfires (e.g., Portuguese Cheese), afforestation to sequester carbon (e.g., Swiss Cheese), water efficiency (e.g., Italian Flour), and protecting soil quality through organic production (e.g., Spanish Olive Oil). Predation by carnivores was identified as a threat, particularly at the Production stage for meat-based VCs (e.g., French Lamb); but wild species (bears, wolves, lynx) are also the charismatic fauna that ecotourists come to see (e.g., Romanian Ecotourism). There were examples where our focal VCs were competing with other local VCs for natural and farmed resources at the Production

and Processing stages. In the case of Turkish Tomatoes, limited access to ground water constrained production, and water is an important but at times scarce input during Processing in other cases, including Italian Cheese, Scotch Whisky, Serbian Lamb, and Swiss Grain.

A few VCs were reported to contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the Production stage (n = 4), and fewer reported carbon sequestration (n = 3), but a larger number reported GHG neutrality (n = 8) with livestock emissions offset by carbon in the vegetation and soils. However, chains reported more GHGs emissions across the rest of the VC stages. Mountain areas are often remote and difficult to access, which means there are limited options to decarbonise transport networks. Examples of more localised VCs, particularly where Consumption happens mainly within the locality or region, have a lower footprint at this later stage (e.g., Corsican flour, Cretan Flour, Macedonian Tourism, Slovakian Honey). Concerns were also raised about water, waste and air quality impacts at the stage of Distribution.

Whilst the VCs tend to become progressively decoupled from local natural resources through the stages of the chain, some cases, such as PDO products reported that more than 75 % of local natural resources were utilised during the Distribution & Marketing and Consumption stages. A similar pattern is found with dependence on farmed resources. Tourism cases are also strongly associated with the use of natural and farmed resources at the Consumption stage, which largely takes place within the mountain locality.

The reported data suggests environmental territorial capital is largely protected or enhanced, with more negative impacts occurring in the later stages – particularly due to increased reliance on fossil fuels and packaging in the Distribution & Marketing and Consumption stages taking place outside mountain areas (see section 3.3.3 below). Whilst many VCs are practicing responsible management and minimising their negative environmental effects as far as possible, those that are connected to global markets with some large businesses involved (such as the alcohol VCs) make greater use of natural resources than other more extensive land uses.

#### 3.3.3. Where did the perceived environmental outcomes accrue?

Given the territorially embedded nature of VC Production practices in mountain land use systems, it is not surprising that most cases saw most environmental valorisation taking place locally at the Production stage (see Fig. 9). Only in four cases does less than 25 % of the environmental valorisation at the production stage accrue in the locality (Rethymno Carob Flour, Serra da Estrela Cheese, Brasov Certified Ecotourism, and Huesca Wine). In the case of ecotourism, this reflects the ‘Production’ being associated with VC destination selection and travel practices around taking place in non-mountain areas whilst it is consumption that happens in mountain areas. For the others, the VC is strongly associated with the mountain region, not just the locality. Fewer cases see more than half of the environmental outcomes generated at the Processing stage accrue in the locality.

As with economic and socio-cultural valorisation, not all environmental outcomes occur in mountain areas. However, some of the ‘valorisation’ results in negative environmental outcomes (e.g., increased air or water pollution). The findings show that it is important to consider the environmental effects throughout the VC; and to address how externalities flow between the mountain and other sending or receiving socio-ecological systems.

#### 3.3.4. What factors might explain perceived environmental valorisation and outcomes?

Cases reporting decreased or unchanged environmental valorisation were alcohol (Italian Wine, Scotch Whisky); meat (Serbian Lamb); cheese (Italian Cheese, Swiss Cheese); tourism (Macedonian Tourism, Romanian Ecotourism); and crop-based chain (Cretan Carob). All these chains are established and are typical in their respective localities, with the tourism cases established but atypical of mountain VCs in their localities.
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 9. Number of cases with perceived overall environmental outcomes accruing to mountain locality by value chain stage. Cases without data have been removed for clarity.</figcaption></figure>

It is possible that increasing demand is a contributory factor in the two environmentally negative chains (Italian Wine, Scotch Whisky) – in the case of Scotch whisky, local production has almost doubled in the past decade. However, other cases reporting positive environmental valorisation are also experiencing increasing demand; and in the third negative case (Serbian Lamb), demand is reported to be fluctuating. Similarly, tele-coupling may help explain negative environmental valorisation as the global VCs can impact on environmental capitals in the mountains during Production and Processing, and also export impacts through transport emissions and waste disposal from Distribution. However, other chains with similar tele-coupling characteristics did not display the same environmental valorisation results. Again, in terms of business models, there is some commonality between the Italian Wine and Scotch Whisky chains where actors tend to be large international organisations; but while these actors can drive intensive production and processing practices, they also invest in environmental good practice and mitigating technologies. Furthermore, similar business structures are associated with positive and neutral environmental valorisation in other VCs.

Assemblage may start to explain some of the negative results, as the Italian Wine and Scotch Whisky chains reported amplification of negative environmental effects or counteraction of positive environmental effects resulting from association between the case VCs and their additional mountain VCs. However, other cases also reported amplification of negative environmental impacts or counteraction of positive impacts through the assemblage, but their overall valorisation judgements were still positive. The Italian Wine case also found that assemblage could result in some amplification of positive environmental valorisation, therefore it is important to consider the complex relationships in each assemblage closely.

Governance categories fail to provide a common explanation for the results but can help understand individual cases. The hierarchical governance structure in the Serbian Lamb case with low cooperation and power asymmetry favouring processors, distributors and buyers might explain environmental difficulties faced on the ground. In the case of Italian Cheese, the Distribution stage is highlighted as inefficient, and the case of Cretan Carob, part-time farming and poor profitability may hint at reasons for environmental pressures. However, in other cases with comparable governance structures, positive results were being seen

in terms of supporting innovation and sharing environmental management data along the chain. Therefore, as with socio-cultural findings, it has proven difficult to find clear explanatory patterns that hold across the full 23 cases.

## 4. Discussion

Our efforts to implement a systematic framework that uses value chain (VC) analysis for sustainable development discusses how our approach provides a neo-endogenous lens on territorial development in these 23 mountain localities; secondly, the challenges and limitations of the methodology; and finally the potential further research.

### 4.1. *Sustainable mountain development*

The findings presented above from 23 mountain VC cases in Europe illustrate how Moretti et al.'s framework can be used comparatively to illustrate how social practices involved in the four VC stages contribute to sustainable development outcomes. The findings show that participants perceived a variety of mainly positive changes in public and private mountain capitals and a range of mainly positive sustainability outcomes. The data cover economic, socio-cultural and environmental aspects that help to illustrate the diverse constellations of values associated with the three pillars of sustainability. Mountain VCs contribute by providing cultural landscapes, caring for natural resources and biodiversity, safeguarding traditions and traditional products and production methods, and adopting quality schemes or high nature value farming approaches. These outcomes echo other assessments of public good provision in rural areas (Nigmann et al., 2018).

Given the limited number of comparative analyses of European mountain chains (see Introduction), the findings operationalise an integrated and comparative framework for addressing the role of VCs in mountain or rural development. The comparative results highlight the need to consider aspects beyond competitive advantage, such as social (Anderson and Lent, 2019) or environmental (Macclay and Sellare, 2022) outcomes to harness VCs for sustainable livelihoods, protecting public as well as private goods in the fragile mountain territories. Such an extended approach to VC analysis is important to provide a balanced assessment of how all territorial capitals are enhanced or degraded by
VC practices. This paper therefore highlighted the need for public pol-
cies influencing the management of mountain areas to embed a VC
approach with further research providing a policy roadmap to imple-
ment this approach (Redman et al., 2024).

The VCs for sustainable mountain development approach was a
normative orientation to change the narrative from European mountains
as being ‘handicapped’ by natural constraints to being areas of oppor-
tunities (Dax, 2022), if public policies create the enabling conditions
that allow these constraints to be overcome (Euromontana, 2022b). The
findings confirmed that livelihoods were dependent on place-specific
natural and farmed resources, often consolidated through territorial
certification (PDO, PGI) or marketing practices (Delgado-Serrano et al.,
2024). Given the context of farmer protests and retrenching rural
development to more conservative, protectionist and narrowly focussed
approaches in the UK and across Europe (Rabbi et al., 2023), illustrating
the business benefits of sustainability seems appropriate. The findings
suggest there are multiple ways to economically benefit from mountain
assets, and such VCs include tourism and the knowledge economy.
Furthermore, the interaction of different VCs can bolster each other,
making the local economy more resilient and providing diversification
opportunities.

The findings suggest a precautionary approach to mountain devel-
opment. The overuse of natural resources and social inequalities (found
both in areas with shrinking populations and areas of growth) are re-
flected in other studies (Krishnan et al., 2020; Malapit et al., 2020;
Oduol et al., 2017). A changing climate may exacerbate pressures on
montane ecosystems (Scotti et al., 2023) making it even more important
to avoid the degradation of non-economic capitals on which livelihoods
depend. Re-localising later VC stages in the mountains was stressed by
several cases, including meat, cheese, crop, and alcohol VCs. However,
relocating Processing, Marketing or even Consumption practices into
mountain localities may increase the problems of water scarcity,
competition for labour and housing, and increase pollution or waste
unless suitable mitigation can be put in place. Taking a territorial
approach to development becomes important, whereby agricultural
(including forestry) policies also need to interact with wider concerns
around infrastructure, services and support for social cohesion, as well
as environmental protection (i.e. public goods and services) such as
articulated by the EU Long-term Vision for Rural Areas (European
Commission, 2021).

The VC concept is particularly well suited to a neo-endogenous
approach (Olofsson et al., 2021) as in all cases there are tele-coupling
processes taking place. Taking a territorial (meso) level approach was
not just useful to inform sustainable mountain development strategies,
but to help foster bonding, bridging and linking social capitals within
local producer and processor communities and connect previously un-
connected actors with stakes in the VC practices. As such, it promotes
the multi-actor and multi-level approach required to fully understand
how to balance private benefits from rural public good provision
(Brouwer et al., 2018). A neo-endogenous approach, recognising
tele-connections with other systems, helped to focus on the ability of
mountain actors to capture value, not necessarily to promote local
consumption, particularly if the local domestic markets are unable to
pay for premium products, or increased tourism generates negative
socio-cultural or environmental values. However, the results were
muted about working with the constraints of modern agro-food pro-
duction and the asymmetry in relationships between mountain pro-
ducers and non-mountain retail VC actors (Birthal et al., 2017).

One VC strategy seems to be asking price premiums for mountain territorial values particularly strongly expressed through the use of certification, including the optional mountain quality mark (Staffolani et al., 2023). Certification has its own critical literature (Mancini, 2013; Neilson et al., 2018; Vicol et al., 2018), and some of the our cases also reflect the common themes around territorial capital capture by large producers, lack of consumer literacy and ambiguous data on whether profitability is enhanced. Furthermore, our findings suggest the need to

ensure that mountain producers benefit from any premiums such that
private benefits arise from provision of public goods (Brouwer et al.,
2018). It is essential that geographical indications pay attention to the
full suite of sustainability issues including environmental effects
(Guareschi et al., 2023).

Other solutions also echo wider literatures (Galeano-Barrera et al., 2022), such as the focus on improving cooperation (Braunschweiger, 2022); finding ways to support extensive or organic production through assemblage with other VCs (Edelmann et al., 2022); and in cases associated with high value global VCs implementing, considerable technological innovation with corresponding financial and human capital (Smith et al., 2021). Furthermore, whilst traditions are important to protect (see Fig. 6), innovation, social learning and capacity for change are central to resilient development strategies (Knickel et al., 2018). Many studies of public goods derived from rural areas stress the need for community participation, social cohesion and trust e.g. (Rivera et al., 2018), this is not always easy to achieve (Ratinger et al., 2021). Our findings also suggest that conflict or cooperation problems can impede sustainable mountain development.

4.2. Methodological limitations

There is a tension the ‘Value Chain 4 Development’ perspective,
between addressing the foundational concept of VC analysis – ‘adding
value’ for ‘competitive advantage’ and addressing sustainable develop-
ment, whereby many non-market values, are relevant. It is possible that
our findings are more of a sustainability assessment, using the frame-
work of VC stages (see Fig. 2), rather than a full VC Analysis. Further-
more, the findings are presented by separating economic, socio-cultural
and environmental valorisation and outcomes. However, the territorial
capitals, valorisation processes and outcomes are generally often inter-
twined and difficult to categorise – for example, the maintenance of a
landscape mosaic is economically, socio-culturally, and environmen-
tally relevant; and tourism can help maintain public transport that also
benefits residents in terms of accessing employment, meeting friends
and reducing GHGs. The separation was maintained to illustrate the
need to address all aspects of sustainability, and the need to protect
natural resources on which economic and socio-cultural practices
depend. However, it creates somewhat artificial separate lens.

The methodological approach was deductive, using a shared
analytical framework and data collection protocol, using a wide range of
potential factors to explain valorisation and outcomes. The final findings
showed (seemingly) few explanatory patterns and there are limits to
generalisability, as we cannot claim that the cases are representative of
all European mountain VCs. This is not so surprising, given the frame-
work was a socio-ecological systems approach (Moretti et al., 2023),
which highlights complexity and feedback dynamics. Honouring
complexity is important to understand and support sustainable moun-
tain development in its neo-endogenous context. What it might tell us is
that there are no simple, one-size-fits-all, approaches to using VCs for
sustainable mountain development. For example, the findings show that
whilst tourism is not automatically a positive development trajectory for
all mountain areas, the assemblage of practices associated with farming
and tourism can be positive if managed sympathetically (Grillini et al.,
2023).

Furthermore, the VCs are situated in a very diverse range of contexts – this variation, including both land abandonment and rising demand for land is not uncommon in rural/mountain areas (Viaggi et al., 2021). Considering how areas of depopulation and underdevelopment (e.g. Serbian case) alongside areas experiencing amenity migration and revitalization (e.g. Tuscany case, Speyside) helps illustrate that both settings generate opportunities and constraints on value creation. We also considered a range of VCs, from typical agri-food VCs to tourism and knowledge-based VCs, with different business models within as well as between our case. Again, this variability was intentional to illustrate the multiple VC experiences. However, such variability also makes
tracing patterns more difficult.

Original plans to analyse the VC findings considering wider regional benchmarks (Blackstock et al., 2022) were problematic as in most cases, these data were not sufficiently granular to reflect the specificities of the focal VC or their assemblage. Furthermore, there are quantitative analyses of how VCs contribute to regional economies (Crescenzi and Harman, 2023) and our intention was to complement such studies. Therefore, our analysis relied primarily on qualitative primary data regarding how VC actors perceived and evaluated the performance of their VCs. This perspective is coherent with an interpretive approach, but it is difficult to capture heterogenous perspectives on how each VC functions across all the relevant aspects of the framework. Furthermore, whilst we did acknowledge the tele-coupling dimension of the framework, the categories were abstract not cartographical. The research teams operationalised the data collection protocols to fit their context so the data are not perfectly comparable. This is why the approach is interpretative and exploratory.

Finally, our case partners struggled to translate the academic analytical concept of a 'VC' to the lived realities and perspectives of mountain VC actors. The project was primarily about innovation actions to understand and improve mountain VCs, and therefore the choice of cases, and the issues address had to highlight aspects that mattered to our research participants (Tucker et al., 2021). Again, this introduced a tension between transdisciplinary knowledge sharing and providing a systematic explanation of how mountain VCs function. The need to build and maintain the local multi-actor platforms may explain why the data collection tended to focus on the Production/Processing of product and not necessarily the full four VC stages. Undertaking research during Covid-19 restrictions paradoxically made it easier to engage geographically dispersed participants online, but it still proved difficult for many cases to engage non-mountain actors involved in distribution, marketing and consumption stages. Furthermore, such platforms tend to attract success stories and do not always reflect all perspectives equally (Hermans et al., 2017; Van Bommel et al., 2009). Therefore, whilst we present the synthesis of a large and complex data set reflecting the views of many different VC actors, we recognise that such findings are always partial.

### 4.3. Areas for further research

Further research was undertaken to address the systemic nature of clusters of VCs (Delgado-Serrano et al., 2024) and the resilience dynamics of assemblage (Zagata et al., 2023). The lack of strong patterns by structural categories suggests that a focussing on a specific assemblage of practices, actors and resource systems, would also be useful to highlight the specific VC dynamics, as addressed by CS based publications (Belliggiano et al., 2024). Further research on individual cases may also be able to undertake a more sophisticated spatial analyses of VC flows and further detailed analysis of the different roles undertaken by VC actors.

The cases (see Table 1) include focal or additional VCs service-based VCs and there are often, but not always, positive synergies arising from combining primary and service VCs. Exploring these forms of land-based diversification using a comparative VC analysis could broaden and deepen ongoing research trends (Ammirato et al., 2020; Galluzzo, 2022). Given the environmental valorisation findings, the sustainability of VCs and their supporting land use systems under conditions of climate change also needs to be explored further, particularly ensuring that territorial certification process protect public goods sufficiently.

Finally, a critical, political perspective (Coq-Huelva et al., 2017; Ponte, 2021) could be used to further analyse these data, as how value is added to territorial capitals reflects choices about how funds and flows are managed and distributed across socio-ecological systems, something we were not able to address in this paper. There are also interesting tensions between the desired outcomes associated with each VC assemblage and the positionality of the participants (Willett, 2023) that

could be further explored. Governance of the VCs did not provide a simple explanatory variable for our cases but remains essential to understanding the specificities of each VC performance. Policy analysis was outside the scope of this paper, but sustainable mountain development strategies will always require enabling public institutions. Therefore, the governance dynamics of VCs deserves further comparative consideration (Mishra and Dey, 2018; Abbey et al., 2016).

### 5. Concluding remarks

This paper has implemented a new conceptual analytical framework that takes a socio-ecological systems approach to value chain (VC) analysis, to inform sustainable mountain development. The focus was on a meso-level territorial evaluation of how 23 VC assemblages performed in 16 European countries. It offers a rare comparative analysis of European mountain VCs that focusses on a broad range of values that are meaningful to the actors within these VCs, extending conventional economic VC analyses. It responds to, and provides evidence for, more integrated and opportunity-focussed mountain and rural development policies.

The paper set out three guiding research questions. Firstly, cases provided generally positive evaluations of their VC performance. Findings suggest that the VCs and their assemblages were perceived to provide economic, socio-cultural, and environmental outcomes and to add value to territorial capitals. However, the evaluations were more positive for economic than for socio-cultural and environmental valorisation; and there were many cases where the overall evaluation masked trade-offs and tensions (see Figs. 6 and 8). Secondly, we found that all the factors considered (product type, demand, geography, business model, governance structure and assemblage) were useful to understand individual cases, but they did not provide clear patterns for the overall set of cases. This illustrates the need to understand the specificities of the VCs, but also the need for further research to highlight common VC levels for diversified sustainable mountain development. Thirdly, the findings have confirmed themes in the literature on sustainable mountain and rural development – that neo-endogenous development approaches are important, with few ‘silver bullet’ solutions. Focussing on quality products promoted through flexible certification processes; cooperative approaches and conflict resolution; building relationships with consumers through tourism or e-commerce; and empowering mountain producers in the tele-coupled VCs are common across the cases.

The paper has contributed to the discussion of VCs in the Journal of Rural Studies and associated literature. The comparative cases have illustrated the complexity of how European VCs work in practice, including a nuanced appraisal of relocalisation of VC practices. The findings show that a VC lens can be used to evaluate sustainability issues, illustrating the need to consider ecosystem services (often slow change variables) within deliberative approaches. Our cases illustrated the interplay between land-based and service-based VCs – diversification can help resilience, but only if negative impacts are well mitigated. The socio-ecological systems approach supports the holistic framing of the European Union’s Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas, and our application illustrates the challenges and opportunities in mountains. In particular, the opportunities available through mountain VCs require harnessing and managing of complex multi-actor interactions, recognising how VCs are embedded in relational and networked rural spaces (De Rubertis, 2020).

### Credit author statement

**Kirsty Blackstock:** Conceptualization; Methodology; Formal analysis; Investigation; Data curation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review and editing, Supervision; Project administration; Funding acquisition.
**Rachel Creaney:** Methodology; Investigation, Validation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – reviewing and editing; Project
administration. **Mar Delgado Serrano:** Conceptualisation; Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing; Supervision; Project administration, Funding acquisition. **Sharon Flanigan:** Methodology; Investigation, Validation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Visualisation, Writing – original draft; **Corrado Ievoli:** Conceptualisation, Investigation, Verification, Writing – original draft. **Michele Moretti:** Conceptualisation, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing, Supervision. **Gustav Nemes:** Investigation, Verification, Writing – review and editing, **Diana Surova:** Investigation, Validation, Visualisation, Writing – original draft, Writing – reviewing and editing. **Chloe Thompson:** Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Data curation; Writing – reviewing and editing, Visualisation; **Lukas Zagata:** Investigation, Validation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – reviewing and editing. MOVING consortium as named below: **Investigation and verification** for each case study. To be named in the final version: Tarek Allali, Angelo Belliggiano, Ana Carvalho; Ana Paula Conte; Caterina Esgal-hado; Anna Geiser; Jakub Husak; Sandra Karner; Carmen Maestre-Diaz; Raquel Moreno Vicente; Cristina Micheloni; Lucca Piccin; Mark Redman; Nehat Ramadani; Catalina Rogozan; Jean-Michel Sorba; Marco Trentin; Sofia Triliva; Murat Yercan; Tamara Zivadinovic.

## Funding

This research was supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 862739 for the MOuntain Valorisation through INTERconnectedness and Green growth project 2020-2024. Additional funding to support further analysis and revisions was provided by the Scottish Government's Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division through grant KJHI-C3.1 Land Use Transformations; and the Hungarian Research Council funding (NKFIH 135460).

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Acknowledgements

The underlying data analysis was supported by: Matthews, K.M., Hopkins, J., Miller, D., Ahmed, A., Chabdu, A., Bacigalupo, A. Fig. 1 was designed by AEIDL and reproduced from the project website.

These researchers are grateful for the insights and constructive suggestions made from their regional Multi-Actor Platforms. Our findings have been greatly enriched by these views from those living and working in the mountains.

We would like to thank the extensive comments from our reviewers and the editor, that have helped us revise and improve the paper. We also thank Mindi Premarathe for her proof reading.

## Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

## References

Abbey, P., Tomlinson, P.R., Branston, J.R., 2016. Perceptions of governance and social capital in Ghana's cocoa industry. J. Rural Stud. 44, 153-163.

Acs, S., Hanley, N., Dallimer, M., Gaston, K.J., Robertson, P., Wilson, P., Armsworth, P. R., 2010. The effect of decoupling on marginal agricultural systems: implications for farm incomes, land use and upland ecology. Land Use Pol. 27, 550-563.

Adhikari, L., Shrestha, A.J., Dorji, T., Lemke, E., Subedee, B.R., 2018. Transforming the lives of Mountain women through the himalayan Nettle value chain: a case study from Darchula, far West Nepal. Mt. Res. Dev. 38, 4-13.

Ammirato, S., Felicetti, A.M., Raso, C., Pansera, B.A., Violi, A., 2020. Agritourism and sustainability: what we can learn from a systematic literature review. Sustainability 12, 9575.

Anderson, A.R., Lent, M.D., 2019. Enterprising the rural: creating a social value chain. J. Rural Stud. 70, 96-103.

Antrop, M., 2004. Assessing multi-scale values and multifunctionality in landscapes. Multifunctional Landsc., Vol I: Theory, Values History 14, 165-180.

Apata, T.G., 2019. Analysis of cassava value chain in Nigeria: pro-poor approach and gender perspective. Int. J. Value Chain Manag. 10, 219-237.

Baig, S.M., Khan, A.A., Ali, A., Khan, M.Z., Ahmed, S., Shah, G.M., Ali, G., 2020. Enhancing socioeconomic resilience and climate adaptation through value chain development of Mountain products in Hindu Kush Himalayas. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 14, 165-180.

Barnaud, C., De Longueville, F., Gonella, G., Antona, M., Dendoncker, N., Waylen, K.A., 2023. Participatory research on ecosystem services in the face of disputed values and other uncertainties: a review. Ecosyst. Serv. 63, 101551.

Belliggiano, A., Ievoli, C., Bispini, S., Conti, M., 2024. Food value chains configurations and resilience of rural mountain communities: three dairy business models in central Apennines (Italy). Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 8, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/FSUF.2024.1436214.

Birthal, P.S., Chand, R., Joshi, P.K., Saxena, R., Rajkhowa, P., Khan, M.T., Khan, M.A., Chaudhary, K.R., 2017. Formal versus informal: efficiency, inclusiveness and financing of dairy value chains in Indian Punjab. J. Rural Stud. 54, 288-303.

Blackstock, K., Flanigan, S. D.4.2: List of selected value chains and relationship building. MOVING D4.2. https://www.moving-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/D4.2_List-of-selected-value-chains-and-relationship-building.pdf.

Blackstock, K., Flanigan, S., Creaney, R., Matthews, K.B., Hopkins, J., Miller, D., Ahmed, A., Chabdu, A., Bacigalupo, A., Thompson, C., 2022. D4.3: Participatory Value Chain Analysis, p. 191. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10550733.

Blackstock, K., Flanigan, S., Hopkins, J., Creaney, R., 2022. Methodological Guidelines for WP4: participatory appraisal of vulnerability and performance of Value Chains. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13380125.

Bowman, C., Ambrosini, V., 2000. Value creation versus value capture: towards a coherent definition of value in strategy. Br. J. Manag. 11, 1-15.

Braunschweiger, D., 2022. Cross-scale collaboration for adaptation to climate change: a two-mode network analysis of bridging actors in Switzerland. Reg. Environ. Change 22, 110.

Brouwer, F., Mantino, F., Polman, N., Short, C., Sterly, S., Rac, I., 2018. Private sector actions to valorise public benefits from agriculture and forestry. EuroChoices 17, 16-22.

Browne, T., Fox, R., Funnell, D., 2004. The “invisible” Mountains. Mt. Res. Dev. 24, 28-34, 7.

Bullock, R., Gyau, A., Mithoefer, D., Swisher, M., 2018. Contracting and gender equity in Tanzania: using a value chain approach to understand the role of gender in organic spice certification. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 33, 60-72.

Castro-Nunez, A., Charry, A., Castro-Llanos, F., Sylvester, J., Bax, V., 2020. Reducing deforestation through value chain interventions in countries emerging from conflict: the case of the Colombian cocoa sector. Appl. Geogr. 123, 102280.

Choudhary, D., Kala, S.P., Todaria, N.P., Rawat, R.B.S., Kunwar, M.S., Kollmair, M., 2013. Upgrading Mountain people in medicinal and aromatic plants value chains: lessons for sustainable management and income generation from Uttarakhand, India. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 20, 45-53.

Cocola-Gant, A., 2018. Chapter 17: tourism gentrification. In: LEES, L., PHILLIPS, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Gentrification Studies. Elgaronline.

Cook, B., 2019. Organic rural development: barriers to value in the quest for qualities in Jordanian olive oil. J. Rural Stud. 69, 106-116.

Coq-Huelva, D., Sanz-Canada, J., Sanchez-Escobar, F., 2017. Values, conventions, innovation and sociopolitical struggles in a local food system: conflict between organic and conventional farmers in Sierra de Segura. J. Rural Stud. 55, 112-121.

Crescenzi, R., De Filippis, F., Giua, M., Vaquero-Pineiro, C., 2022. Geographical indications and local development: the strength of territorial embeddedness. Reg. Stud. 56, 381-393.

Crescenzi, R., Harman, O., 2023. Harnessing Global Value Chains for Regional Development. Taylor & Francis.

Dax, T., 2020. Neoendogenous rural development in Mountain areas. In: CEJUDO, E., NAVARRO, A. (Eds.), Neoendogenous Development in European Rural Areas. Springer.

Dax, T., 2022. Shaping new rural and Mountain narratives: priorities for challenges and opportunities in Mountain research. In: LARCHER, M., SCHMID, E. (Eds.), Alpine Landgesellschaften Zwischen Urbanisierung Und Globalisierung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden.

De Propris, L., 2019. Local clusters in global value chains: linking actors and territories through manufacturing and innovation. Reg. Stud. 53, 615-615.

De Rubertis, S., 2020. Forward. In: CEJUDO, E., NAVARRO, F. (Eds.), Neoendogenous Development in European Rural Areas: Results and Lessons. Springer Nature, Switzerland.

Deans, H., Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Derkyi, M., 2018. Advanced value chain collaboration in Ghana's cocoa sector: an entry point for integrated landscape approaches? Environ. Manag. 62, 143-156.

Delgado-Serrano, M., Moretti, M., Grando, S., Micheloni, C., Alampi, F., Kleshcheva, E., Lazarini, G., Forrer, C., Husak, J., Unnak, T., Zagata, L., Dinnie, L., Thompson, C., Schmitt, E., Villanuevva, A., Rodriguez-Entrena, M., Arandt, V., 2024. D5.1 Comparative cross-case report on Mountain Value Chains: Value Chain contribution to the sustainability and resilience of the Mountain socio-ecological systems?. Retrieved from. https://www.moving-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/D5.1-Comparative-cross-case-report-on-Mountain-VCs.pdf.
Drexler, C., Braun, V., Christie, D., Claramunt, B., Dax, T., Jelen, I., Kanka, R., Katsoulakos, N., Le Roux, G., Price, M., 2016. Mountains for Europe'S Future-A Strategic Research Agenda. Mountain Research Initiative, Institute of Interdisciplinary Mountain Research, Bern, Switzerland.

Edelmann, H., Quinones-Ruiz, X.F., Penker, M., 2022. How close do you like your coffee? - examining proximity and its effects in relationship coffee models. J. Rural Stud. 91, 24-33.

EUROMONTANA, 2020. Towards a Long-Term Vision for Mountains' Rural Areas. Euromontana, Brussels, Belgium.

EUROMONTANA, 2022a. Being Young in a Mountain Area: Mountain Youth's Needs in 2022 and Aspirations for the Future. Brussels: Euromontana.

EUROMONTANA, 2022b. Sila Declaration: Smart Mountains: Making our Territories More Attractive and Resilient in the Face of Social, Economic and Environmental Transitions. Brussels.

EUROMONTANA, 2023. Booklet of Good Practices for the Sustainable Development of Mountain Areas. Brussels: Euromontana.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2018. Value Chain Analysis for Development (VCA4D), Methodological Brief - Frame and Tools, Version 1.2.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2020. Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. A Farm to Fork Strategy for Fair, Healthy and environmentally-friendly Food System. European Commission, Brussels.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2021. A long-term Vision for the Eu's Rural Areas - towards Stronger, Connected, Resilient and Prosperous Rural Areas by 2020. European Commission, Brussels.

EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, 2010. Europe's Ecological Backbone: Recognising the True Value of our Mountains. Publications Office.

Fabre, P., Dabat, M.H., Orlandoni, O., 2021. Methodological brief for agri-based value chain analyses. Frame and Tools: Key Features.

Fearne, A., Garcia Martinez, M., Dent, B., 2012. Dimensions of sustainable value chains: implications for value chain analysis. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 17, 575-581.

Fourat, E., Closson, C., Holzemer, L., Hudon, M., 2020. Social inclusion in an alternative food network: values, practices and tensions. J. Rural Stud. 76, 49-57.

Galeano-Barrera, C.J., Mendoza-Garcia, E.M., Martinez-Amariz, A.D., Romero-Riano, E., 2022. Theoretical model of territorial agro-industrial development through multi-focus research analytics. J. Rural Stud. 94, 295-304.

Galluzzo, N., 2022. The relationship between agritourism and social capital in Italian regions. J. Rural Stud. 94, 218-226.

Gereffi, G., 2005. The global economy: organization, governance, and development. In: SMELSER, N.J., SWEDBERG, R. (Eds.), The Handbook of Economic Sociology, second ed. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Gereffi, G., Fernandez-Stark, K., 2011. Global Value Chain Analysis: a Primer. Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness (CGGC). Duke University, North Carolina, USA.

Graddy-Lovelace, G., 2021. Farmer and non-farmer responsibility to each other: negotiating the social contracts and public good of agriculture. J. Rural Stud. 82, 531-541.

Gradin, S., 2016. Rethinking the notion of 'value' in global value chains analysis: Adecolonial political economy framework. Compét. Change 20, 353-367.

Grillini, G., Sacchi, G., Streifeneder, T., Fischer, C., 2023. Differences in sustainability outcomes between agritourism and non-agritourism farms based on robust empirical evidence from the Tyrol/Trentino mountain region. J. Rural Stud. 104, 103152.

Guareschi, M., Mancini, M.C., Arfini, F., 2023. Geographical indications, public goods and sustainable development goals: a methodological proposal. J. Rural Stud. 103, 103122.

Gundersen, V., Rybraten, S., 2022. Differing perceptions and tensions among tourists and locals concerning a national park region in Norway. J. Rural Stud. 94, 477-487.

Hermans, F., Sartas, M., Van Schagen, B., Van Asten, P., Schut, M., 2017. Social network analysis of multi-stakeholder platforms in agricultural research for development: opportunities and constraints for innovation and scaling. PLoS One 12, e0169634.

Hurley, P.T., Ari, Y., 2018. Saying "no" to (the) oxygen capital? Awenity migration, counter-territorialization, and uneven rural landscape change in the Kaz Daglari (Ida Mountains) of Western Turkey. J. Rural Stud. 62, 195-208.

Kaiser, M., 2024. The idea of a theory of values and the metaphor of value-landscapes. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11, 268.

Kandrot, S., Cummins, V., Jordan, D., Murphy, J., 2020. Economic and employment impacts of offshore wind for Ireland: a value chain analysis. Int. J. Green Energy 17, 687-696.

Kaplimetz, R., Morris, M., 2001. A Handbook for Value Chain Analysis. IDRC.

Knaus, F., Bonnelame, L.K., Siegrist, D., 2017. The economic impact of labeled regional products: the experience of the UNESCO biosphere reserve Entlebuch. Mount. Res. Dev. 37 (1), 121-130, 110.

Knickel, K., Redman, M., Darnhofer, I., Ashkenazy, A., Chebach, T.C., Sumane, S., Tisenkopfs, T., Zemeckis, R., Atkociuniene, V., Rivera, M., Strauss, A., Kristensen, L. S., Schiller, S., Koopmans, M.E., Rogge, E., 2018. Between aspirations and reality: making farming, food systems and rural areas more resilient, sustainable and equitable. J. Rural Stud. 59, 197-210.

Kordel, S., Weidinger, T., Machold, I., Gruber, M., 2023. Chapter 2: appropriate housing in rural and Mountain areas? Current structures and practices of access for immigrants - the case of Alpine regions in Austria and Germany. Assessing the Social Impact of Immigration in Europe: Renegotiating Remoteness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Krishnan, R., Agarwal, R., Bajada, C., Arshinder, K., 2020. Redesigning a food supply chain for environmental sustainability - an analysis of resource use and recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 242, 118374.

Lasanta, T., Arnáez, J., Pascual, N., Ruiz-Flaño, P., Errea, M.P., Lana-Renault, N., 2017. Space-time process and drivers of land abandonment in Europe. Catena 149, 810-823.

Laursen, K.B., Noe, E., 2017. The hybrid media of economy and moral: a Luhmannian perspective on value-based-food-chains. J. Rural Stud. 56, 21-29.

Lieskovský, J., Bezák, P., Spulerová, J., Lieskovský, T., Koleda, P., Dobrovodská, M., Bürgi, M., Gimmi, U., 2015. The abandonment of traditional agricultural landscape in Slovakia - analysis of extent and driving forces. J. Rural Stud. 37, 75-84.

Maccray, P., Sellare, J., 2022. Value chain transformations in the transition to a sustainable bio-economy. ZEF Discussion Papers on Development Policy. 2022. Center for Development Research.

Madelriebri, S., Bergeret, A., Fillion, L., 2018. Forms of territorial embeddedness in dairy value chains case of the chartreuse massif (French Alps): geographical and historical perspectives. Open Agriculture 3, 618-631.

Malapit, H., Ragasa, C., Martinez, E.M., Rubin, D., Seymour, G., Quisumbing, A., 2020. Empowerment in agricultural value chains: mixed methods evidence from the Philippines. J. Rural Stud. 76, 240-253.

Mancini, M.C., 2013. Geographical indications in Latin America value chains: a "branding from below" strategy or a mechanism excluding the poorest? J. Rural Stud. 32, 295-306.

Manta, O., 2022. Mountain economy, future generations and jobs of the future. SSRN.

Mcdowell, G., Stevens, M., Lesnikowski, A., Hugel, C., Harden, A., Dibella, J., Morecroft, M., Kumar, P., Joe, E.T., Bhatt, I.D., THE GLOBAL ADAPTATION MAPPING INITIATIVE, 2021. Closing the adaptation gap in Mountains. Mt. Res. Dev. 41.

Mengist, W., Soromessa, T., Legesa, G., 2020. Ecosystem services research in mountainous regions: a systematic literature review on current knowledge and research gaps. Sci. Total Environ. 702, 134581.

Miller, D., Creaney, R., Flanigan, S., Thompson, C., Blackstock, K., 2022. Extended Value Chain Analysis Blank Spreadsheet. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13383397.

Mishra, P.K., Dey, K., 2018. Governance of agricultural value chains: coordination, control and safeguarding. J. Rural Stud. 64, 135-147.

Mitchell, J., Coles, C., Keane, J., 2009. Upgrading along value chains: strategies for poverty reduction in Latin America. COPLA briefing paper.

Moretti, M., Belliggiano, A., Grando, S., Felici, F., Scotti, I., Ievoli, C., Blackstock, K., Delgado-Serrano, M.M., Brunori, G., 2023. Characterizing value chains' contribution to resilient and sustainable development in European Mountain areas. J. Rural Stud. 100, 103022.

Moretti, M., Felici, F., Allali, T., Scotti, I., Brunori, G., 2021. Inventory of Mountain Value Chains. MOVING: Mountain Valorisation Through Interconnectedness and Green Growth. EU Horizon 2020.

Neilson, J., Wright, J., Aldimawati, L., 2018. Geographical indications and value capture in the Indonesia coffee sector. J. Rural Stud. 59, 35-48.

Neven, D., 2014. Developing Sustainable Food Value Chains: Guiding Principles. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Nigmann, T., Dax, T., Hovorka, G., 2018. Applying a social-ecological approach to enhancing provision of public goods through agriculture and forestry activities across the European Union. Stud. Agric. Econ. 120, 1-7.

Nikodinosa, N., Buonocore, E., Paletto, A., Franzese, P.P., 2017. Wood-based bioenergy value chain in Mountain urban districts: an integrated environmental accounting framework. Appl. Energy 186, 197-210.

Noga, A., Jarzebowski, S., Maciag, P., 2020. Co-Productivity as a new value theory in value chain analysis. Cent. Eur. Manag. J. 28, 52-65.

O'Rourke, E., Charbonneau, M., Poinsot, Y., 2016. High nature value Mountain farming systems in Europe: case studies from the Atlantic Pyrenees, France and the Kerry Uplands, Ireland. J. Rural Stud. 46, 47-59.

Oduol, J.B.A., Mithofer, D., Place, F., Nang' Ole, E., Olwande, J., Kirimi, L., Mathenge, M., 2017. Women's participation in high value agricultural commodity chains in Kenya: strategies for closing the gender gap. J. Rural Stud. 50, 228-239.

Olofsson, M., Ros-Tonen, M., Gupta, J., Piters, B.D., Van Leynseele, Y., 2021. Rethinking the divide: exploring the interdependence between global and nested local markets. J. Rural Stud. 83, 60-70.

Pagliacci, P., Cei, L., Defrancesco, E., Gatto, P., 2022. The EU Mountain product voluntary quality term as a valorization tool for livestock farms: challenges and opportunities in an alpine context. Sustainability 14, 3292.

Pegler, L., 2015. Peasant inclusion in global value chains: economic upgrading but social downgrading in labour processes? J. Peasant Stud. 42, 929-956.

Ponte, S., 2021. Bursting the bubble? The hidden costs and visible conflicts behind the Prosecco wine 'miracle'. J. Rural Stud. 86, 542-553.

Popp, H., El Fasskaoui, B., 2013. Some observations on tourism developments in a peripheral region and the validity of global value chain theory. The Anti-Atlas Mountains in Morocco. Erdkunde 67, 265-276.

Porter, M.E., 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. The Free Press, New York.

Price, M., 2015. Mountains: a Very Short Introduction. OUP, Oxford.

Rabbi, M.F., Ben Hassen, T., El Bilali, H., Raheem, D., Raposo, A., 2023. Food security challenges in Europe in the context of the prolonged Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Sustainability 15, 4745.

Ratinger, T., Camská, K., Pražan, J., Bavorová, M., Vančúrová, I., 2021. From elite-driven to community-based governance mechanisms for the delivery of public goods from land management. Land Use Pol. 107, 104560.

Rawlins, J.M., De Lange, W.J., Fraser, G.C.G., 2018. An ecosystem service value chain analysis framework: a conceptual paper. Ecol. Econ. 147, 84-95.

Redman, M., Schmitt, E., Ionita, A., Rogozan, C., 2024. D7.1 MOVING Policy Roadmap: Building a more favourable enabling environment for unlocking the power of mountain product value chains, 105. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13617945.
Rivera, M., Knickel, K., De Los Rios, I., Ashkenazy, A., Pears, D.Q., Chebach, T., Sümane, S., 2018. Rethinking the connections between agricultural change and rural prosperity: a discussion of insights derived from case studies in seven countries. J. Rural Stud. 59, 242–251.

Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Reed, J., Sunderland, T., 2018. From synergy to complexity: the trend toward integrated value chain and landscape governance. Environ. Manag. 62, 1–14.

Scotti, I., Ievoli, C., Bindi, L., Bispini, S., Belliggiano, A., 2023. Facing climate vulnerability in Mountain areas: the role of rural actors’ agency and situated knowledge production. Sustainability 15, 15877.

Shao, J.A., Zhang, S., Li, X., 2015. Farmland marginalization in the mountainous areas: characteristics, influencing factors and policy implications. J. Geogr. Sci. 25, 701–722.

Smith, H.E., Sallu, S.M., Whitfield, S., Gaworek-Michalczenia, M.F., Recha, J.W., Sayula, G.J., Mziray, S., 2021. Innovation systems and affordances in climate smart agriculture. J. Rural Stud. 87, 199–212.

Soliva, R., Ronningen, K., Bella, I., Bezak, P., Cooper, T., Flø, B.E., Marty, P., Potter, C., 2008. Envisioning upland futures: stakeholder responses to scenarios for Europe’s Mountain landscapes. J. Rural Stud. 24, 56–71.

Staffolani, G., Rahmani, D., Bentivoglio, D., Finco, A., Gil, J.M., 2023. The Mountain product label: choice drivers and price premium. Future Foods 8, 100270.

Tanguay, L., Bernard, S., 2020. Ecoagricultural landscapes in the dieng Mountains of central Java: A study of their evolution and dynamics. J. Rural Stud. 77, 169–184.

TEEB, 2018. TEEB for Agriculture & Food: Scientific and Economic Foundations. UN Environment, Geneva.

Tucker, C.M., Alcántara-Ayala, I., Gunya, A., Jimenez, E., Klein, J.A., Xu, J., Bigler, S.L., 2021. Challenges for Governing Mountains Sustainably: Insights from a Global Survey, 41. Mountain Research and Development.

Van Bommel, S., Röling, N., Aarts, N., Turnhout, E., 2009. Social learning for solving complex problems: a promising solution or wishful thinking? A case study of multi-actor negotiation for the integrated management and sustainable use of the Drentsche Aa area in the Netherlands. Environ. Pol. Govern. 19, 400–412.

Viaggi, D., Raggi, M., Villanueva, A.J., Kantelhardt, J., 2021. Provision of public goods by agriculture and forestry: economics, policy and the way ahead. Land Use Pol. 107, 105273.

Vicol, M., Neilson, J., Hartatri, D.F.S., Cooper, P., 2018. Upgrading for whom? Relationship coffee, value chain interventions and rural development in Indonesia. World Dev. 110, 26–37.

Wang, Y., Li, X., Xin, L., Tan, M., 2020. Farmland marginalization and its drivers in mountainous areas of China. Sci. Total Environ. 719, 135132.

Willett, J., 2023. Place-based rural development: a role for complex adaptive region assemblages? J. Rural Stud. 97, 583–590.

Zagata, L., Surová, D., Husak, J., Uhnak, T., 2023. D4.5 Vulnerability and Resilience Performance. Retrieved from. https://www.moving-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/MOVING_D4.5_Vulnerability-Resilience.pdf.