Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilDossiers114-1Apennines in Transitions: Between...

Apennines in Transitions: Between Tourism Monoculture, Depopulation and Emerging Community-Based Practices

Daniele Bagnoli et Giorgia Iovino
Cet article est une traduction de :
Appennini in transizione tra monocultura turistica, abbandono e pratiche di comunità [it]

Résumé

This paper examines, through the lens of degrowth, the tensions currently reshaping tourism in the Apennines, a mountain system marked by uneven and polarised trajectories. On the one hand, tourist flows are increasingly concentrated in a limited number of highly infrastructure-intensive hubs, predominantly oriented toward winter sports and developed according to market-driven logics. On the other hand, vast out-of-the-loop areas remain largely invisible within tourism circuits, experiencing long-term decline driven by demographic shrinkage, population ageing, and the erosion of local functions. Tourist colonisation and abandonment are thus interpreted as two interrelated outcomes of the same growth-oriented paradigm, whose structural limits are further exacerbated by climate change and persistent socio-demographic fragilities.
Alongside these dominant trajectories, a ‘third way’ is emerging in specific contexts, grounded in slow, relational and community-based tourism practices. These initiatives can be read as territorially embedded experiments that challenge the structural lock-in of growth-dependent tourism models.
The paper pursues three main objectives: (a) to map the morphological, socio-demographic, and functional discontinuities shaping the Apennine ridge; (b) to analyse the (un)sustainable trajectories of Apennine tourism, highlighting the coexistence of high-intensity extractive models and emerging place- and community-based practices; and (c) to examine, through a case study in the Monti Picentini, the transformative potential of these practices.
The findings highlight the uneven emergence of territorial micro-innovations even in the most fragile contexts of the southern Apennines, while showing that such slow and uncertain processes can contribute to regeneration only when community-led initiatives are supported by sustained institutional commitment, thereby preventing forms of involuntary or recessionary degrowth.

Haut de page

Notes de l’auteur

Although the paper is the result of joint reflection, DB served as the corresponding author and contributed to the Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, and Visualization, Writing – Original Draft (Section 2, 4), and Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision. GI contributed to the Conceptualization, Literature review, Data curation, Writing – Original Draft (Sections 1, 3, 5), and Writing– Review & Editing, Supervision. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Texte intégral

The authors would like to thank Prof. Mauro Varotto and Prof. Giuliano Bonanomi for their valuable discussions, as well as the members of the AMA – Next Generation association and the Montella community for the support provided during the fieldwork for the case study.

Theoretical Framework, Research Objectives and Methods

1Mountain tourism in Italy has developed unevenly, following divergent trajectories and producing variable impacts across different territorial contexts. While the Alpine system is strongly integrated into supranational networks and firmly embedded in the national tourism imaginary, the Apennines occupy a far more peripheral position within dominant representations, remaining less visible and less clearly defined as a mountain region ( Cosmo, 2025; Bagnoli, 2024). Despite being traversed by deep geomorphological, socioeconomic, and institutional discontinuities, they retain widespread cultural and ecological assets and resilient forms of community life that continue to shape local development trajectories (Varotto, 2020).

2Within this context, tourism assumes an ambivalent role. On the one hand, it has driven profound transformations, particularly in areas specialising in winter sports—territories that can be described as colonised (Dematteis & Nardelli, 2023), reshaped by extractive logics and externally driven decision-making processes. On the other hand, tourism can also open up spaces for more equitable, slower, and territorially embedded economies, enabled by the persistence of de-intensified territorial configurations and by practices of care directed toward socio-ecological heritage in areas that have remained at the margins of tourism industrialisation (Caravaggi & Imbroglini, 2016; Meini, 2024).

3The degrowth paradigm provides a particularly relevant critical framework for interpreting this tension. Situated within the tradition of critical political ecology—which fundamentally challenges development models based on continuous expansion—authors such as Latouche (2009, 2019), Kallis (2011), and others (Clémentin & Cheynet, 2003; Schneider et al., 2010) advocate the construction of a socio-economic system in which quality of life, equity, territorial care, and ecosystem preservation take precedence over quantitative growth. This post-growth political project reimagines the relationships between people, economies, and nature by placing the habitability of places, rather than their attractiveness or competitiveness, at the centre. As Parrique (2022, p. 220) argues, embracing the degrowth paradigm means operating within the limits of a ‘social floor’ and an ‘ecological ceiling,’ that is, between a minimum threshold of collective well-being and respect for planetary ecological boundaries.

4A comparable critical perspective informs scholarship that conceptualizes tourism as a device of capitalist accumulation (Andriotis, 2018; Fletcher et al., 2019, 2020; Hall et al., 2020; Bourdeau & Berthelot, 2008; Murray et al., 2023). Fletcher (2011) defines the tourism–growth nexus as a mechanism that reorganises imaginaries, spaces, and economies according to extractive logics, even when framed through the rhetoric of sustainability or responsibility. Read through this critical lens (McGrath & Sharpley, 2017; Sharpley, 2000; Saarinen, 2020), so-called sustainable tourism largely remains embedded within the logic of green capitalism, which seeks to mitigate excesses without fundamentally questioning the structural foundations of growth-oriented development.

5Murray et al. (2013) emphasise the dissipative nature of tourism, understood as a system grounded in intense energy use and material mobilities and therefore structurally incompatible with ecological limits, especially in mountain contexts. The ski monoculture represents the most emblematic case: a highly infrastructure-intensive and resource-consuming model, sustained by substantial public subsidies, yet increasingly fragile in the face of climatic volatility and the rising costs of artificial snowmaking (Legambiente, 2025).

6At the opposite end of tourist overexploitation lie vast portions of the Apennines, marked by processes of abandonment, depopulation, and the erosion of essential services (Ciuffetti, 2019; Varotto, 2025; Meini, 2024; Tantillo, 2023).

7This dualism—the colonised mountain versus the abandoned mountain—is interpreted here as the structural outcome of a selective, growth-oriented, and territorially polarised development paradigm. In this sense, depopulation and marginalisation in the Apennines constitute the systemic counterpart of tourism-led growth, resulting from the concentration of investments, infrastructures, and flows in a limited number of hyper-specialised poles oriented toward short-term profitability.

  • 1 The well-known metaphor of the ‘bone’ and the ‘flesh’, introduced by Rossi-Doria (1958), conceptual (...)
  • 2 The term post-growth is used here in an analytical sense to refer to trajectories of territorial re (...)

8From this perspective, the emerging practices of slow and community-based tourism currently observable in the osso (literally, the ‘bone’ of the territory)1 are read as territorially embedded experiments, capable of revealing both the possibilities and the contradictions of post-growth trajectories2.

9The absence of full tourism industrialisation makes these contexts particularly conducive to slow and territorialised tourism practices, grounded in co-production between residents and visitors, the valorisation of local memory, and community-based management of ecological and cultural heritage. This is what may be referred to as relational tourism, drawing on a line of reflection already present in the literature on slow and community-based tourism (Okazaki, 2008; Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011; Pileri & Moscarelli, 2020). Such forms of tourism reject functional hyper-specialisation and reclaim the plural dimension of mountain dwelling, the use-value of places, community-based narratives, and the co-management of common goods. Heritage communities, neo-inhabitation processes, local agri-food chains, walking trails, eco museums, and a wide range of bottom-up micro-initiatives for territorial regeneration illustrate how the voids left by disinvestment can become spaces for experimentation (Dematteis, 2025; Marchetti et al., 2017; Membretti, 2025).

10Documents such as the Manifesto of Camaldoli promoted by the Italian Society of Territorialists (SdT, 2019) and the Apennines Manifesto launched by Slow Food (2014) insist on a vision of the mountain as a common good, in which slow, relational, and community-based tourism is not a residual segment but a potential social infrastructure for the repopulation and regeneration of the most peripheral areas.

11The operational implications of this vision include the reduction of the ecological footprint of tourist flows, support for local economies, the restoration of agency to host communities, and the promotion of forms of travel grounded in proximity and reciprocity.

12Building on this theoretical framework, the paper pursues three complementary objectives: (i) to analyse the structural divides shaping the Apennine ridge, with special attention to the demographic, functional, and infrastructural hollowing-out of the southern Apennines, where processes of depopulation, the thinning out of essential services, and institutional marginality assume particularly acute forms; (ii) to investigate the (un)sustainable trajectories of Apennine tourism, highlighting the often contradictory coexistence of high-intensity models and emerging place- and community-based practices; (iii) to explore, through a case study, the potential—and the limits—of bottom-up tourism initiatives developed in a structurally fragile context such as the Campanian Apennines.

13From these objectives derives the research question guiding the study: how does the coexistence of intensive tourism models currently in crisis, processes of abandonment, and emerging community-based practices shape contemporary trajectories of change in the Apennines, and under what conditions can the latter activate credible pathways of post-growth regeneration?

  • 3 A univocal definition of the Apennines is complicated also by the presence of peripheral reliefs lo (...)

14From a methodological standpoint, the study adopts a mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative and qualitative tools. For the purposes of the analysis, the territorial perimeter is defined by the ‘inland mountain’ areas identified by ISTAT, which includes 1,001 municipalities along the Apennine ridge3. To reconstruct the territorial framework, socio-demographic indicators and institutional classifications from multiple sources were mapped in a GIS environment, including, for example, the SNAI territorialisation, disadvantaged municipalities as defined by Directive 75/268/EEC, and marginal municipalities as identified under Decree of the Prime Minister (DPCM) 296/2021.

  • 4 Article 182 assigns ISTAT the responsibility for classifying economic activities in areas with high (...)

15For the analysis of Apennine tourism, the study draws on two classifications developed by ISTAT (2022a) pursuant to Law 77/20204, relating to tourism specialisation and the tourism density index, which, thanks to their disaggregation at the municipal scale, allow the uneven geography of tourism across the Apennines to be highlighted.

16The case study is based on a qualitative field investigation aimed at exploring how community-based tourism practices are perceived, enacted, and negotiated. The case examined is the Re.Start Picentini project, an initiative launched by the association AMA – Next Generation in the municipality of Montella, aimed at territorial regeneration through the environmental, cultural, and social valorisation of the mountain area. Conducted between February and August 2025, the fieldwork was based on 20 semi-structured interviews with four types of actors, selected because they hold differentiated yet complementary positions with respect to the project: (a) regular users of the mountain environment residing in Montella; (b) hikers and participants in activities at the Candraloni mountain hut, coming from neighbouring areas; (c) members of the AMA – Next Generation association managing the project; (d) local administrators.

17The interviews were complemented by numerous informal conversations with residents and visitors to the Refuge, as well as by an analysis of grey literature, including materials produced by the association and content from its websites and social media channels.

18The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a socio-demographic and functional overview of the Apennine ridge. Section 3 analyses the territorial asymmetries of tourism along the mountain chain, highlighting the imbalance between a limited number of highly infrastructure‑intensive hubs and vast out-of-the-loop areas. Section 4 focuses on a case study, examining both the potential and the fragilities of community-based practices in contexts characterised by structural vulnerability, such as the Campanian Apennines. Finally, Section 5 discusses the conditions and critical issues shaping possible post-growth transitions.

The Apennines in the Plural: Definitional Ambiguities and Socio-Demographic Fragilities

  • 5 Legally defined mountain areas are identified on the basis of altimetric criteria (80% of the munic (...)
  • 6 In the ISTAT classification, mountain territories are defined as areas above 600 metres in northern (...)

19Mountain regions occupy a central place in Italy’s physical geography and cultural imagination, yet this symbolic relevance has not been matched by coherent institutional recognition. Since the post-war period, Italian mountain areas have been classified through heterogeneous and partly conflicting systems, all applied at the municipal scale. On the one hand, legally defined mountain areas, introduced by Law 991/1952, rely on altimetric and cadastral-economic criteria5 and have subsequently shaped EU designations of ‘disadvantaged mountain areas’. On the other hand, the statistically defined mountain areas identified by ISTAT (1958) are part of a broader classification based on elevation6 and distance from the sea, which is structured into five categories (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Legislatively (a) versus statistically defined mountain areas (b)

Figure 1. Legislatively (a) versus statistically defined mountain areas (b)

Source: authors’ elaboration based on ISTAT data.

  • 7 Unlike the Alps, which benefit from supranational cooperation instruments such as the Alpine Conven (...)

20Although useful for administrative or statistical purposes, these frameworks remain partial, technocratic attempts at rationalisation and fail to capture the historical and socio‑territorial complexity of Italy’s highlands. Their coexistence generates significant inconsistencies: some municipalities qualify as mountain areas by law but not according to ISTAT, and vice versa. The absence of a unified approach has also contributed to institutional fragmentation, with competences dispersed across multiple bodies and mountain‑specific institutions (such as IMONT and Mountain Communities) being suppressed or significantly downsized7.

21A more recent shift emerged with the place-based approach of the National Strategy for Inner Areas (SNAI), which moves beyond the traditional centre–periphery dichotomy. Instead of relying solely on altimetry, SNAI identifies ‘inner areas’ through innovative parameters such as distance from essential services, settlement sparsity, and socio‑demographic fragility, as well as the presence of environmental and ecosystem resources (ISTAT, 2022b). Inner areas are thus interpreted as territories marked by depopulation and remoteness yet also endowed with significant but untapped territorial capital. While not explicitly a mountain classification, SNAI overlaps substantially with mountain territories: roughly 75% of ‘inner’ municipalities fall within ISTAT’s mountain zones, with the notable exclusion of certain urbanised mountain centres such as Potenza and L’Aquila (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Latitudinal segmentation of the Apennine chain: comparison between ‘legally defined’ mountain areas and ISTAT’s ‘inland’ mountain areas (a); Apennine inner areas in the SNAI 2021–2027 classification (b)

Figure 2. Latitudinal segmentation of the Apennine chain: comparison between ‘legally defined’ mountain areas and ISTAT’s ‘inland’ mountain areas (a); Apennine inner areas in the SNAI 2021–2027 classification (b)

Source: authors’ elaboration based on ISTAT data.

22The Apennines—crossing 13 of Italy’s 21 regions—form a 1,200 km chain characterised by orographic coherence, average elevations between 1,000 and 2,000 metres, traversable slopes and significant seismicity (Ciuffetti, 2019). Their pronounced latitudinal extent creates sharp geomorphological and socio-economic discontinuities, projecting the image of a mountainscape of variable geometry (Piva & Tadini, 2021). Moving from North to South, the landscape shifts from more accessible mountain ranges and integrated economies to isolated, fragile territories marked by more acute demographic and employment challenges (UNCEM & FMI, 2025). Alongside these structural differences lies a gap in public representation: while the Tuscan-Emilian Apennines have long served as the archetype of the Apennine imaginary, the central and southern mountains have received more sporadic media and political attention (Bagnoli, 2024).

23One constant thread across the entire range is its demographic fragility (Fig. 3). The population resides predominantly in very small settlements: 90% of municipalities have fewer than 5,000 inhabitants, and only a minimal share exceeds 10,000. This demographic decline, which began as early as the twentieth century, is particularly acute in the Abruzzo Apennines and the Mezzogiorno, where the highest concentration of 'marginal municipalities' is found (DPCM 296/2021). These areas are characterised by negative population growth, low incomes, and high social and material vulnerability. Since 2011, depopulation has accelerated further, driven by a falling birth rate and an increase in deaths. This has resulted in significant population ageing, a rising dependency ratio, and a generational imbalance that, according to ISTAT projections, will become even more pronounced in central and southern areas (Iovino and Bagnoli, 2025).

Figure 3. Municipalities by population size (a); population change 2001–2019 (b)

Figure 3. Municipalities by population size (a); population change 2001–2019 (b)

Source: authors’ elaboration based on ISTAT data.

24Alongside these dynamics of decline, recent years have seen emerging signs of resilience: voluntary resettlement, the arrival of migrants, the presence of remote workers, and slow-tourism practices are gradually redrawing the geographies of marginality (Membretti, 2025; Corrado, 2017). The internal Apennine range remains a mobile space, traversed by economic networks and slow connections. Di Cosmo (2025) defines it as a ‘low-definition mountain’—a notion that reflects both its distance from the canons of Alpine aesthetics and its limited exposure to extractive tourism models. This positions the region as a privileged site for experimenting with new forms of habitability, social relations, and territorial care. As Varotto (2020) notes, it is precisely in these ‘middle mountains’—often invisible in official narratives—that one of the most significant challenges for territorial sustainability is being played out today.

Tourism in the Apennines: Territorial Asymmetries and Ongoing Transformations

25Twentieth-century industrialism produced a deep rupture between lowlands and highlands, concentrating investments, services, and infrastructures in the most accessible areas while leaving large portions of the Apennines in conditions of marginality (Pazzagli, 2017; Borghi, 2017; Bevilacqua, 2018). Under the influence of a productivist and urban-centred model, the Apennines have thus been shaped by polarising logics: on the one hand, a mountain landscape colonised by extractive tourism and infrastructure development driven by profit-oriented dynamics; on the other, the mountain of abandonment (Di Cosmo, 2025; Tantillo, 2023), characterised by depopulation, deprivation of essential services, and a return to processes of passive re-naturalisation.

26This dichotomy, still visible today in the landscape and socio-economic gaps of the Apennine ridge, reflects the structural outcomes of a Fordist development ideology grounded in unlimited growth, intensive resource exploitation, and the exclusion of territories deemed ‘unproductive’ (De Rossi, 2018; Varotto, 2020).

  • 8 Tourism specialisation is defined on the basis of geographic and anthropogenic parameters, as well (...)

27ISTAT classifications relating to municipalities’ prevailing tourism specialisation and tourism density8 confirm and spatially articulate these imbalances (Fig. 4), highlighting the differentiated weight that tourism assumes across the Apennines.

Figure 4. Apennine tourism in ISTAT classifications

Figure 4. Apennine tourism in ISTAT classifications

Source: authors’ elaboration based on ISTAT data (2019).

28More than 31% of municipalities are classified as non-tourist, while 51.6% fall into the category of tourist municipalities without a specific specialisation, generally referring to territories characterised by a weakly structured tourism offer. Both categories show a clear spatial concentration in the central and southern Apennines, particularly in Campania, Lazio, Abruzzo, and Calabria. Only about 18% of municipalities exhibit a mountain or mountain-cultural specialisation, mainly located in the central-northern Apennines.

29With regard to the tourism density index, almost half of the 687 municipalities classified as tourist fall within the two lowest quintiles, with a strong prevalence of tourist municipalities not belonging to a specific category (over 84%). By contrast, municipalities included in the fourth and fifth quintiles largely display a mountain or mountain-cultural specialisation. A relatively small cluster of 14 municipalities consistently ranks at the top of the distribution, including some of the main Apennine ski resorts, such as Roccaraso, Rivisondoli, Pescasseroli, Ovindoli, and Abetone Cutigliano.

30However, these same localities currently appear among the most exposed to the impacts of climate change. In the Apennines, snow cover has decreased by 94% compared to historical averages9, leading to the closure or intermittent operation of more than 70% of the 101 ski resorts surveyed (Fig. 5). At present, only 28 resorts remain operational, with highly reduced profitability horizons (Bonanomi et al., 2024)10.

Figure 5. Ski resorts in the Apennines

Figure 5. Ski resorts in the Apennines

Source: authors’ elaboration based on www.skiresort.it (2024).

31Global warming shortens and destabilizes winter seasons, increases the costs of artificial snowmaking, and turns skiing into an increasingly elitist activity (Dematteis & Nardelli, 2023).

  • 11 Since 2023, the website of the Italian Ministry of Tourism has published calls for non-repayable gr (...)

32Within this context, the continued growth of public funding11 aimed at supporting ski areas in crisis and financing infrastructures with high environmental impact and low returns appears deeply contradictory. These include ski lifts, water reservoirs, and snowmaking systems—highly energy- and water-intensive works (approximately 95,000 litres per hectare of snow-covered surface) that consume land and landscape and risk compromising any future reconversion.

  • 12 The Nevediversa Dossier (Legambiente, 2025) documents a substantial increase in cases of infrastruc (...)

33This form of therapeutic obstinacy12 signals the failure of a monocultural model that has subordinated the habitability of mountain territories to exogenous—and at times speculative—logics, largely indifferent to social and environmental resilience. The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed this fragility, showing how tourism, when not rooted in local communities, can turn into a ‘sandcastle’ in moments of global crisis (Di Gioia & Dematteis, 2020).

34In response to the structural crisis of the colonising tourism model and its growing social, environmental, and economic costs, a set of alternative practices—still fragmented but increasingly visible—has begun to take shape under the label of community-based tourism (Okazaki, 2008; Salazar, 2012). This term encompasses heterogeneous practices and project-based initiatives that nonetheless share a participatory and inclusive approach grounded in self-organisation, proximity, and mutualism (Bianchi, 2021; Consiglio & Riitano, 2014; Mori & Sforzi, 2019).

35By shifting the focus from quantitative growth to the care of common goods, these practices draw on the principles of degrowth (Latouche, 2022; Clémentin & Cheynet, 2003; Bourdeau & Berthelot, 2008), advancing models that seek to rebalance ecological limits, social justice, and the valorization of local resources.

36The Tuscan-Emilian Apennines emerge as the most dynamic context, reflecting a consolidated mutualistic tradition and the long-standing embeddedness of civic networks that have fostered the development of numerous community cooperatives. These cooperatives integrate dispersed forms of hospitality, landscape stewardship, high-quality agriculture, environmental education, and the provision of essential services. Bottom-up initiatives such as those developed in Succiso, Cerreto Alpi, and the Maira Valley, examined by Dumont (2019) and other scholars (Dematteis, 2025; Varotto, 2025; Lombardini et al., 2019), can be interpreted as innovative forms of territorial governance that move beyond the traditional dichotomy between intensive tourism and desertification, instead emphasising continuity, shared practices, and community embeddedness.

37In the southern Apennines and in the Sicilian mountain areas such experiences remain less widespread, constrained by more challenging contextual conditions, including administrative weakness, limited access to essential services, geographic isolation, and lower levels of social cohesion. Nevertheless, recent years have also witnessed signs of experimentation in these areas, supported by a gradual shift in territorial development policies.

38In particular, the Italian National Strategy for Inner Areas has increasingly framed mountain tourism as a priority policy domain, promoting identity-driven and place-based models (Lucatelli et al., 2022). This approach places greater emphasis on social capital and local welfare than on the quantitative growth of tourist flows. In doing so, the strategy has helped to create a more favorable institutional environment for the emergence of community-led tourism practices, which are now further supported by broader socio-economic transformations.

39Among these, two drivers appear particularly relevant. The first concerns tourism demand, which is increasingly oriented toward slow and authentic experiences that prioritize contact with the environment and encounters with local cultures (Guiver & McGrath, 2016; McGrath & Sharpley, 2017; Pileri & Moscarelli, 2021). The second relates to climate change, which may, over time, encourage multilocal forms of dwelling (Membretti, 2024; 2025). Rising temperatures and the growing frequency of urban heat waves are making temporary or seasonal relocation to higher elevations increasingly attractive, an option further enabled by the availability of vacant housing in osso territories and by the expansion of remote work.

40As emphasised by Membretti (2024) and Tantillo (2023), these forms of temporary and recurrent presence tend to blur the boundary between dwelling and visiting, fostering more stable relationships with places and local communities, as well as practices of participation, care, and service co-production. From this perspective, multilocality does not fuel forms of tourism characterised by high temporal compression and weak territorial integration; rather, it contributes to creating more favorable conditions for the emergence of relational and community-based tourism practices, grounded in permanence, reciprocity, and local embeddedness.

Case Study: the Re.Start Picentini Project

41The case of the Monti Picentini provides a lens through which to observe, at a local scale, the tangible interplay of the three trajectories outlined in the previous sections. While not ranked among the primary hubs of the colonised mountain, the Picentini territory was historically caught up in the dynamics of growth-oriented tourism. This occurred through short-lived ski development projects, situated within a physical, climatic, and socio-economic context structurally ill-suited to the stabilization of an intensive tourism model. Simultaneously, the progressive decommissioning of these infrastructures, combined with a lack of functional reconversion, has reinforced conditions of marginality, underuse of local assets, and the thinning of economic opportunities—all characteristic of the trajectory of abandonment. It is precisely within this residual space, produced by the selective mechanisms of high-intensity tourism, that community- and place-based tourism practices emerge, representing a possible ‘third way’. Before analyzing these practices through the Re.Start Picentini project, it is necessary to reconstruct the key territorial characteristics of the context from which they arise.

42The Monti Picentini—a limestone massif of approximately 1,100 km² located in Campania, spanning the provinces of Avellino and Salerno—are characterised by extensive woodlands, karstic plateaus, and a complex network of springs that defines its environmental value. A large portion of the territory falls within the Monti Picentini Regional Park, established in 1993, a 922 km² area encompassing 30 municipalities and seven designated Natura 2000 sites.

43Historically characterised by pastoralism and forestry, the area underwent a brief period of ski-based development during the 1970s and 1980s, which yielded differentiated yet convergent outcomes. In the case of the Laceno–Monte Raiamagra facilities (Bagnoli Irpino), this era was marked by a temporary phase of significant tourist appeal; conversely, the infrastructure at Monte Terminio (Volturara Irpina) never fully became operational and was decommissioned in 1980. In both instances, the skiing experiment provided only transient benefits without establishing a sustainable development trajectory. The recent decision to reopen and expand the Laceno ski area—supported by more than €12 million in public funding—signals the persistence of a revitalisation strategy that continues to favour high‑intensity, infrastructure‑driven interventions despite altered climatic conditions13.

  • 14 Of the 30 municipalities included in the Park, 6 are classified as non-tourist, 8 have a very low t (...)

44Montella, a municipality of 7,197 residents classified as ‘intermediate’ by the National Strategy for Inner Areas (SNAI), lies at the centre of the study area and is among the municipalities most influenced by the presence of the Monti Picentini Regional Park (Fig. 6). The town combines significant historical and cultural assets with prominent agri‑food resources—ranging from IGP‑certified chestnuts to a well‑established dairy sector (Matarazzo, 2023). Despite this endowment, Montella maintains medium‑low tourism density and is classified by ISTAT as a tourist municipality without a specific vocation14.

Figure 6. Montella, the Candraloni Hut and disused ski facilities within the Monti Picentini Regional Park

Figure 6. Montella, the Candraloni Hut and disused ski facilities within the Monti Picentini Regional Park

Source: authors’ elaboration based on Bergfex/OSM cartography.

45It is within this context that the association AMA–Next Generation has been active in Montella since 2019, promoting initiatives aimed at recovering local identity and revitalising mountain spaces. The group—composed of young professionals aged 25–35 who have studied or worked outside the region yet maintain strong local ties—launched the Re.Start Picentini project in 2022. The initiative seeks to protect, valorise and promote the municipality’s mountain areas through sustainable, community‑led practices.

  • 15 The former Forest Guard Station (Caserma Forestale), a municipally owned building, was originally o (...)

46AMA’s actions follow multiple trajectories, ranging from environmental regeneration to the creation of social and professional opportunities and cultural outreach, together with elements of technological innovation. In 2022, through an agreement with the municipality, the association obtained the management of the former Forest Guard Station at Candraloni, located at 1,200 m a.s.l. along the Sentiero Italia CAI15. The building has been converted into a mountain hut and operational base for the project. This initiative is particularly significant within southern Italy, where high-altitude accommodation is scarce and many existing facilities remain closed or underused (Bagnoli, 2024).

47Equipped with satellite Internet and dedicated workstations for remote working, the hut has become a space for meeting, collaboration, and hands‑on experimentation. Activities have included trail restoration, the improvement of rest areas, the production of detailed cartography, and training courses for Hiking Guides, alongside scientific events and cultural initiatives supported by universities and research institutions. Since 2024, the municipality has also designated AMA as the manager of the ‘Vito Bianucci’ Environmental Education Centre.

48Re.Start Picentini can thus be interpreted as a situated attempt at territorial re‑appropriation within an area shaped by incomplete tourist colonisation and persistent abandonment. The strategic choice to invest in the historic trail network, to adaptively reuse existing structures, and to create shared social and work spaces reflects a post‑growth orientation. This approach seeks to rebuild conditions of habitability and continuity of use through practices characterised by low infrastructural intensity and strong relational dimensions (Fig. 7).

Figure 7. Disused ski lift on Mount Terminio (a); Re.Start Picentini activities in the surroundings of the Candraloni Hut (b)

Figure 7. Disused ski lift on Mount Terminio (a); Re.Start Picentini activities in the surroundings of the Candraloni Hut (b)

49Source: Courtesy of AMA – Next Generation

50To assess levels of interest and engagement among residents and visitors, qualitative fieldwork was carried out through semi‑structured interviews with local stakeholders (including AMA members, private actors and institutional representatives) and visitors (both residents and non-local users). The interviews explored themes such as territorial identity, employment opportunities, infrastructural constraints and expectations regarding sustainable tourism.

51The mountain emerges as a powerful symbolic space in local imaginaries, particularly around the Terminio and Accellica peaks, which are perceived as core markers of territorial identity. The plateaus are frequented by local hikers and visitors from nearby urban centres, yet their use is described as episodic and only weakly structured. The disused ski infrastructures in neighbouring municipalities are viewed with a largely detached and disillusioned attitude, which could reflect both a limited engagement with supra-local dynamics and a desire to safeguard the mountain from forms of tourism perceived as predatory. This orientation is also shared by hikers, who regard Candraloni Hut as an innovative form of territorial stewardship capable of attracting environmentally conscious visitors and fostering longer, more seasonally balanced stays.

  • 16 Approximately 20 agreements were activated, and more than 30 local associations and enterprises con (...)

52At the same time, interviewees emphasised enduring structural constraints—limited public transport, summer water scarcity and the fragility of slow‑mobility networks—which continue to hinder the full development of the area. AMA members expressed strong commitment and planning capacity but also reported significant concerns regarding economic sustainability. Although the project won an NRRP call (National Recovery and Resilience Plan), it could not access the allocated funds due to the impossibility of covering ancillary costs and the lack of upfront co-financing. In the absence of stable public support, Re.Start Picentini has relied primarily on local territorial networks and volunteer work16.

53The project’s territorial scope—initially limited to Montella—has progressively expanded into a dialogue with the wider Monti Picentini Regional Park. This protected area brings together 17 municipalities in the province of Avellino and 13 in the province of Salerno, along with several Local Action Groups (GALs) and Mountain Communities. Local administrators interviewed expressed confidence in the path opened by Montella’s young residents, while also acknowledging persistent challenges linked to the fragmented configuration of supra‑local governance, inadequate infrastructure and services, and the limited diversification of the local economic system.

54Overall, Re.Start Picentini can be read as an ‘embryonic system of territorial regeneration’ (Meini, 2024, p. 23) grounded in the care and valorisation of local resources. Yet, as a young and still evolving initiative, its outcomes must be interpreted with caution. In the long term, sustainability and resilience will depend on securing managerial continuity, stable funding, and stronger forms of cooperation between community actors and formal institutions.

Discussion and Conclusions

55This study underscores the specificity of the Apennine context within the Italian mountain tourism system, bringing to light the profound asymmetries that differentiate it from the Alpine model in terms of institutional recognition, infrastructural endowment, and attractiveness. The Apennines thus emerge not as a secondary mountain context, but as a qualitatively different one—fragmented and fragile, yet at the same time potentially generative.

56It is precisely this condition of relative marginality that makes the Apennine ridge a particularly relevant empirical setting for critically examining the structural limits of growth-oriented tourism models.

57As discussed throughout the paper, the dual process of tourism overload in a limited number of hyper-specialised poles and widespread abandonment across the rest of the territory does not reflect a simple spatial dichotomy. Rather, it represents the interrelated outcome of the same accumulation-driven paradigm in which investments, infrastructures, and flows are selectively concentrated in contexts deemed profitable in the short term. Tourist colonisation and depopulation therefore appear as complementary expressions of a polarised growth regime. Climate change acts today as a powerful multiplier of these imbalances, further destabilising winter tourism and fueling forms of infrastructural therapeutic obstinacy in ski areas that are structurally vulnerable.

58Against this backdrop, emerging practices of slow and community-driven tourism acquire particular analytical relevance. They can be interpreted as territorially situated experiments that challenge, in practical terms, the tourism ‘growth trap’ (Kallis, 2011). In line with the degrowth perspective, these experiences shift the focus from quantitative growth toward quality of life, from attractiveness toward habitability, and from competition toward the care of territories (Hall et al., 2020; Fletcher et al., 2020). Degrowth is thus mobilised here not as an abstract normative project, but as a critical lens that renders the social and ecological costs of growth-oriented tourism visible and allows for a systematic interrogation of the conditions under which post-growth trajectories may emerge.

59However, the replicability of such trajectories is far from guaranteed. The more structured experiences observed in the Tuscan-Emilian Apennines are difficult to transpose to the southern Apennines, where depopulation, limited service provision, and institutional weakness are more pronounced. In these contexts, community-based tourism often takes the form of fragile and isolated experimentation rather than a scalable or automatically virtuous model.

60The Re.Start Picentini case provides an empirical illustration of these dynamics. Embedded in a territory shaped by the combined effects of incomplete tourist development and long-standing abandonment, the project advances practices aimed not at increasing visitor flows, but at rebuilding conditions of liveability and fostering territorial care.

61In this sense, Re.Start Picentini should not be read as a best practice in a celebratory sense, but rather as an experience that makes visible both the potential and the fragilities of post-growth reconfigurations in the southern Apennines. The findings indicate that the sustainability of such initiatives depends to a large extent on the presence of a supportive institutional ecosystem. In the absence of coherent and continuous public policies, community-based tourism practices risk remaining episodic and precarious, without generating structural change. This calls for caution against naïve applications of degrowth to peripheral territories: without stable public accompaniment, reductions in economic activity may take the form of involuntary or recessionary degrowth (Schneider et al., 2010; Kallis, 2011).

62These critical issues are further exacerbated by a fragmented and often contradictory institutional framework, marked by limited integration between national strategies—such as the National Strategy for Inner Areas (SNAI) and Green Communities—governance instruments, including Local Action Groups, and sectoral funding instruments, such as Rural Development Programs, protected areas, and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP). Combined with the continued support for high-intensity infrastructural models, this fragmentation contributes to weakening emerging post-growth shifts. The National Strategic Plan for Inner Areas 2023–2027 further accentuates this tension by narrowing spaces for co-design and normalising the notion of the irreversibility of depopulation in the most fragile contexts.

63Avoiding forms of degrowth that translate into imposed decline requires an integrated vision capable of bringing together three complementary dimensions: bottom-up initiatives, stable institutional support, and a renewed territorial imaginary able to restore dignity to the “ordinary mountain,” beyond the rhetoric of borghi (Barbera et al., 2021) and narratives of inevitable decline.

64Within this horizon, the Apennines can be interpreted as an empirical laboratory for critically reflecting on degrowth: a territorial context in which the conflicts, limits, and regenerative potential of a transition beyond growth become visible.

65In an era marked by climatic and demographic crises, the future of these left-behind areas (Pike et al., 2023) will depend on their capacity to transform structural fragilities into political and cultural resources, turning diversity from a constraint into a principle of territorial regeneration. As recalled in the Manifesto of Camaldoli (SdT, 2019), it is precisely within fragility that the possibility for transformation emerges. Viewed in this light, the Apennines are not a periphery, but a frontier of possibility.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Andriotis K., 2018.– Degrowth in tourism: Conceptual, theoretical and philosophical issues, CABI, New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/9781786390645.0000.

Bagnoli D., 2024. “Le montagne del sud attraverso lo sguardo dei camminatori: dualismi e impatto discorsivo dalle esplorazioni storiche all’escursionismo”, in G. Messina, E. Nicosia, C.M. Porto (eds.), Oltre la globalizzazione – Sud/South, Società di Studi Geografici. Memorie geografiche NS, no 26, pp. 799–806.

Barca F., Casavola P., Lucatelli S. (eds.), 2014.– Strategia Nazionale per le Aree Interne: definizione, obiettivi, strumenti e governance, Materiali UVAL, no 31, Roma.

Barbera F., Cersosimo D., De Rossi A. (eds.), 2021.– Contro i Borghi. Il Belpaese che dimentica i paesi, Donzelli, Roma.

Bevilacqua P., 2018.– “L’Italia dell’«osso». Uno sguardo di lungo periodo”, in A. De Rossi (ed.), Riabitare l’Italia. Le aree interne tra abbandoni e riconquiste, Donzelli, Roma, pp. 111–122.

Bianchi M., 2021.– “Le cooperative di comunità come nuovi agenti di aggregazione sociale e sviluppo locale”, Impresa Sociale, no 2, pp. 71–83.

Bonanomi G., Gherardelli M., Spigno S., Idbella M., 2024.– “Winter is coming for ski resorts: Insights from the Apennines (Italy)”, Journal of Mountain Science, vol. 21, no 11, pp. 3847–3858. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-023-8539-y.

Borghi E., 2017.– Piccole Italie. Le aree montane e la questione territoriale, Donzelli, Roma.

Bourdeau P., Berthelot L., 2008.– Tourisme et décroissance: de la critique à l’utopie? First International Conference on Economic De-growth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity, Paris, April 18-19. Online: http://events.it-sudparis.eu/degrowthconference.

Caravaggi L., Imbroglini C., 2016.– “La montagna resiliente”, Scienze del Territorio, no 4, pp. 145–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13128/Scienze_Territorio-19400.

Clémentin B., Cheynet V., 2003.– “La décroissance soutenable: vers une économie saine”, in M. Bernard, B. Clémentin, V. Cheynet, (eds.), Objectif décroissance. Vers une société harmonieuse, Parangon, Lyon, pp. 9–16.

Ciuffetti A., 2019.– Appennino. Economie, culture e spazi sociali dal medioevo all'età contemporanea, Carocci, Roma.

Consiglio S., Riitano A. (eds.), 2014.– Sud innovation. Patrimonio culturale, innovazione sociale e nuova cittadinanza, FrancoAngeli, Milano. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3280/RT2014-001-SI01.

Corrado A., 2017.– “Migranti per forza o per scelta nelle aree appenniniche. L’accoglienza e l’inserimento socio-economico”, in A. Membretti, I. Kopfler, P.P. Viazzo (eds.), Per forza o per scelta. L’immigrazione straniera nelle Alpi e negli Appennini, Aracne, Ariccia, pp. 4–56.

De Rossi A. (ed.), 2018.– Riabitare l’Italia. Le aree interne tra abbandoni e riconquiste, Donzelli, Roma.

Dematteis M., 2025.– “Dal turismo alpino al turismo dolce”, in F. Di Cosmo (ed.), Montagne a bassa definizione. Gli Appennini tra crisi di identità e cambiamento, Donzelli, Roma, pp. 123–133.

Dematteis M., Nardelli M., 2023.– Inverno liquido: La crisi climatica, le terre alte e la fine dello sci di massa, DeriveApprodi, Roma.

Di Cosmo F., 2025.– “Appennini: montagne a bassa definizione”, in F. Di Cosmo (ed.), Montagne a bassa definizione. Gli Appennini tra crisi di identità e cambiamento, Donzelli, Roma, pp. 7–29.

Di Gioia A., Dematteis G., 2020.– “I rischi della specializzazione mono-funzionale turistica dei sistemi montani rivelati dal Covid-19”, Scienze del territorio, no 8. Special issue: Abitare il territorio al tempo del Covid, pp. 126–132.

Dumont I., 2019.– “Le «Cooperative di Comunità», un’opportunità per le aree marginali. I casi di Succiso e Cerreto Alpi nell’Appennino reggiano”, in F. Pollice, G. Urso, F. Epifani (eds.), Ripartire dal territorio. I limiti e le potenzialità di una pianificazione dal basso, Università del Salento. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1285/i26121581n2p155.

Ferlaino F., Rota F.S., 2010.– La montagna nell’ordinamento italiano: un racconto in tre atti, XXXI Conferenza italiana di scienze regionali, Aosta, 20-22 settembre 2010.

Ferlaino F., Rota F.S., 2013.– “Introduzione. Verso una nuova programmazione della montagna italiana”, in F. Ferlaino, F.S. Rota (eds.), La montagna italiana. Confini, identità e politiche, FrancoAngeli, Milano, pp. 19-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3280/RT2013-001-LMI01.

Fletcher R., 2011.“Sustaining tourism, sustaining capitalism? The tourism industry’s role in global capitalist expansion”, Tourism Geographies, vol. 13, no 3, pp. 421–443. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2011.570372.

Fletcher R., Murray Mas I., Blanco-Romero A., Blázquez-Salom M., 2019.– “Tourism and degrowth: an emerging agenda for research and praxis”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 27, no 12, pp. 1745–1763. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1679822.

Fletcher R., Murray Mas I., Blanco Romero A., Blázquez-Salom M., 2020.– Tourism and Degrowth, Routledge, London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/978042932059.

Guiver J., McGrath P., 2016.– Slow tourism: Exploring the discourses”, Dos Algarves: A Multidisciplinary e-Journal, no 27, pp. 11–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18089/DAMeJ.2016.27.1.

Hall C.M., Lundmark L., Zhang, J.J., 2020.– Degrowth and tourism: New perspectives on tourism entrepreneurship, destinations and policy, Routledge, London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429320590.

Hickel J., 2020.– Less is more. How degrowth will save the world, Heinemann, London.

Iovino G., Bagnoli D., 2025.– “Depopulation, Ageing and Place Memory in Campania’s Inner Areas. A Focus on the Cilento Interno Pilot Area”, Bollettino Della Società Geografica Italiana, vol. 8, no 1, pp. 199–215.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36253/bsgi-7541.

ISTAT, 2022a.– Classificazione dei Comuni in base alla densità turistica, Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, Roma.

ISTAT, 2022b.– La geografia delle aree interne nel 2020: vasti territori tra potenzialità e debolezze, Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, Roma.

Jackson T., 2017.Prosperity without Growth, Earthscan, London (2nd ed.).

Kallis G., 2011.– “In Defence of Degrowth”, Ecological Economics, vol. 70, no 5, pp. 873880. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.007.

Latouche, S., 2009.– Farewell to Growth, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Latouche S., 2019.– La décroissance, Presses universitaires de France, Paris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.latou.2019.01.

Latouche, S., 2022.– Ralentir ou périr: L’économie de la décroissance, Seuil, Paris.

Legambiente, 2025.– Report Nevediversa. Una montagna diversa è possibile?, Legambiente.

Lombardini G., Rossi M., Butelli E. (eds.), 2019.– Dai territori della resistenza alle comunità di patrimonio: percorsi di autorganizzazione e autogoverno per le aree fragili, SdT Edizioni, Collana Ricerche e Studi Territorialisti, Firenze.

Lucatelli S., Luisi D., Tantillo F. (eds.), 2022.– L’Italia lontana. Una politica per le aree interne, Donzelli, Roma.

Lumsdon, L.M., McGrath, P., 2011.– “Developing a conceptual framework for slow travel”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 19, no 3, pp. 265-279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.524704.

Marchetti M., Panunzi S., Pazzagli R. (eds.), 2017.– Aree interne. Per una rinascita dei territori rurali e montani, Rubbettino, Soveria Manelli.

Matarazzo N., 2023.– “La classe creativa non vive solo in città: agricoltura multifunzionale e innovazione delle filiere alimentari nei territori a mobilità «lenta» dell’Appennino Campano”, in L. Rocca , B. Castiglioni, L. Lo Presti (eds.), Geografie in movimento. Atti del XXXII Congresso Geografico Italiano, vol. 3, A.Ge.I., Roma, pp. 357–363.

McGrath P., Sharpley R., 2017.– “Slow travel and tourism: New concept or new label?”, in M. Clancy (ed.), Slow tourism, food and cities, Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 49–62.

Meini M., 2024.– “Tra colonizzazione turistica e abitare mobile. Sistemi embrionali di rigenerazione territoriale nelle montagne appenniniche”, in Meini M. (ed.), Ricerca di terreno e montagne di mezzo: metodi, pratiche, discorsi, Società di Studi Geografici, Memorie geografiche NS, no 25, pp. 23–30.

Membretti A., 2024.– “Introduzione. La montagna ci salverà?”, in A. Membretti, F. Barbera, G. Tartari (eds.), Migrazioni verticali La montagna ci salverà?, Donzelli, Roma, pp. 3–11.

Membretti A., 2025.– Diventare montanari. Viaggio tra i nuovi abitanti delle terre alte, People, Busto Arsizio.

Mori P.A., Sforzi J. (eds.), 2019.– Imprese di comunità: Innovazione istituzionale, partecipazione e sviluppo locale, il Mulino, Bologna.

Murray I., Fletcher R., Blázquez-Salom M., Blanco-Romero A., Cañada E., Sekulova F., 2023.– “Tourism and degrowth”, Tourism Geographies, vol. 27, nos 3–4, pp. 547–557.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2023.2293956.

Okazaki E., 2008.– “A Community-Based Tourism Model: Its Conception and Use”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 16, no 5, pp. 511–529.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802159594.

Parrique T., 2022.– Ralentir ou périr: L’économie de la décroissance, Seuil, Paris.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/seuil.parri.2022.01.

Pazzagli R., 2017.– “Un Paese scivolato a valle. Il patrimonio territoriale delle aree interne italiane tra deriva e rinascita”, in M. Marchetti, S. Panunzi, R. Pazzagli (eds.), Aree interne. Per una rinascita dei territori rurali e montani, Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli, pp. 17–25.

Pike A., Béal V., Cauchi-Duval N., Franklin R., Kinossian N., Lang T., Leibert T., MacKinnon D., Rousseau M., Royer J., Servillo L., Tomaney J., Velthuis S., 2023.– “‘Left behind places’: A geographical etymology”, Regional Studies, vol. 57, no 3, pp. 485–497.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2023.2167972.

Pileri P., Moscarelli R., 2020.– “From slow tourism to slow travel: an idea for marginal regions” in P. Pileri, R. Moscarelli (eds.), Cycling & Walking for Regional Development: How Slowness Regenerates Marginal Areas, Springer, Cham, pp. 3–16.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44003-9.

Piva E., Tadini M., 2021.– “La geografia della montagna tra interpretazioni, progettualità e percorsi di sviluppo turistico”, Semestrale di Studi e Ricerche di Geografia, vol. 23, no 2, pp. 117–133.

Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri – Dipartimento per le Politiche di Coesione, 2023.– Piano Strategico Nazionale per le Aree Interne 2023–2027 (PSNAI), Roma.
Online: https://politichecoesione.governo.it/it/strategie-tematiche/aree-interne/psnai-2023-2027/.

Rossi-Doria M., 1958.– 10 anni di politica agraria nel Mezzogiorno, Laterza, Bari.

Saarinen, J., 2020.– “Sustainable growth in tourism? Rethinking and resetting sustainable tourism for development” in C.M. Hall, L. Lundmark, J.J. Zhang (eds.), Degrowth and tourism: New perspectives on tourism entrepreneurship, destinations and policy, Routledge, London, pp. 135–151.

Salazar N.B., 2012.– Community-based cultural tourism: issues, threats and opportunities, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, no 1, pp. 9–22.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.596279.

Schneider F., Kallis G., Martínez-Alier J., 2010.– “Crisis or Opportunity? Economic Degrowth for Social Equity and Ecological Sustainability: Introduction to this special issue”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 18, no 6, pp. 511–518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.014.

SdT – Società dei Territorialisti, 2019.– Manifesto di Camaldoli per una nuova centralità della montagna. Online: https://www.societadeiterritorialisti.it/2020/04/12/manifesto-di-camaldoli/.

Sharpley R. 2000.– “Tourism and sustainable development: exploring the theoretical divide”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 8, no 1, pp. 1–19.

Slow Food, 2014.– Manifesto dell’Appennino. Online: https://www.slowfood.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/MANIFESTO-APPENNINO3-A3.pdf.

Tantillo F., 2023.– L’Italia vuota. Viaggio nelle aree interne, Laterza, Roma-Bari.

UNCEM, FMI - Fondazione Montagne Italia, 2025.– Rapporto Montagne Italia 2025, Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli.

Varotto M., 2020.– Montagne di mezzo. Una nuova geografia, Einaudi, Torino.

Varotto M., 2025.– “Dall’alpinismo all’appenninismo. Abitare montagne mobili”, in F. Di Cosmo (ed.), Montagne a bassa definizione. Gli Appennini tra crisi di identità e cambiamento, Donzelli, Roma, pp. 107–121.

Haut de page

Notes

1 The well-known metaphor of the ‘bone’ and the ‘flesh’, introduced by Rossi-Doria (1958), conceptualises the Italian territory as divided between central, dynamic and productive areas, and marginal, less accessible regions largely corresponding to mountain and inner areas.

2 The term post-growth is used here in an analytical sense to refer to trajectories of territorial regeneration that do not prioritise economic growth or the expansion of tourist flows as primary objectives. Degrowth provides the critical theoretical framework of reference, aimed at questioning the growth-oriented paradigm, whereas post-growth refers to heterogeneous and context-specific empirical practices and processes through which these tensions become observable within territories (Kallis, 2011; Jackson, 2017; Hickel, 2020).

3 A univocal definition of the Apennines is complicated also by the presence of peripheral reliefs located away from the main ridge, often characterised by distinct settlement and tourism dynamics due to their proximity to urban centres or coastal areas. The territorialisation of ISTAT’s ‘inland mountain areas’ category proves useful in capturing these specificities.

4 Article 182 assigns ISTAT the responsibility for classifying economic activities in areas with high tourism density, in order to identify eligible territories and sectors for post-pandemic support measures.

5 Legally defined mountain areas are identified on the basis of altimetric criteria (80% of the municipal surface above 600 metres, or an altitudinal range exceeding 600 metres) and economic criteria (average taxable income per hectare). For a reconstruction of the regulatory framework, see Ferlaino and Rota (2010; 2013).

6 In the ISTAT classification, mountain territories are defined as areas above 600 metres in northern Italy and above 700 metres in central and southern Italy.

7 Unlike the Alps, which benefit from supranational cooperation instruments such as the Alpine Convention and EUSALP, the Apennines do not have a unified institutional framework. The APE project (Appennino Parco d’Europa) represented only a partial and geographically limited attempt in this direction.

8 Tourism specialisation is defined on the basis of geographic and anthropogenic parameters, as well as minimum thresholds of tourist arrivals, while the composite tourism density index is based on three sub-indices relating to accommodation capacity, tourist flows and the incidence of tourism-related economic activities. For a detailed discussion of the methodology, see ISTAT (2022a).

9 Data from the CIMA Foundation, available at: https://www.cimafoundation.org/aggiornamenti-neve-italia/, retrieved March 9, 2025.

10 The analysis conducted by Bonanomi et al. (2024) identifies low altitude, southern exposure and the limited spatial extent of ski areas as the main factors associated with abandonment.

11 Since 2023, the website of the Italian Ministry of Tourism has published calls for non-repayable grants in support of ski resorts, amounting to a total of €430 million. These funds are complemented by additional regional contributions.

12 The Nevediversa Dossier (Legambiente, 2025) documents a substantial increase in cases of infrastructural overpersistence in artificial snowmaking in Italian ski resorts, rising from 149 to 218 between 2022 and 2025 (across 36 ski areas). These cases are mainly concentrated along the Alpine arc and in the Abruzzo Apennines (47 cases) and the Emilian Apennines (34 cases).

13 On the decommissioning of ski lifts, see: http://modelcablewayav.altervista.org/sciovia-m-terminio/ and http://modelcablewayav.altervista.org/laceno/. On refinancing see: BURC, no 176. Online: https://burc.regione.campania.it/eBurcWeb/publicContent/archivio/archivio.iface, retrieved March 9, 2025.

14 Of the 30 municipalities included in the Park, 6 are classified as non-tourist, 8 have a very low tourism density, and the remaining 16 show low or medium-low values.

15 The former Forest Guard Station (Caserma Forestale), a municipally owned building, was originally operated by the Italian State Forestry Corps — a national environmental enforcement body disbanded on 31 December 2016 under Legislative Decree 177/2016 and subsequently incorporated into the Carabinieri as of 1 January 2017.

16 Approximately 20 agreements were activated, and more than 30 local associations and enterprises contributed to the project, providing goods and services either as sponsorships or at reduced costs.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. Legislatively (a) versus statistically defined mountain areas (b)
Crédits Source: authors’ elaboration based on ISTAT data.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/17393/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 253k
Titre Figure 2. Latitudinal segmentation of the Apennine chain: comparison between ‘legally defined’ mountain areas and ISTAT’s ‘inland’ mountain areas (a); Apennine inner areas in the SNAI 2021–2027 classification (b)
Crédits Source: authors’ elaboration based on ISTAT data.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/17393/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 270k
Titre Figure 3. Municipalities by population size (a); population change 2001–2019 (b)
Crédits Source: authors’ elaboration based on ISTAT data.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/17393/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 248k
Titre Figure 4. Apennine tourism in ISTAT classifications
Crédits Source: authors’ elaboration based on ISTAT data (2019).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/17393/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 229k
Titre Figure 5. Ski resorts in the Apennines
Crédits Source: authors’ elaboration based on www.skiresort.it (2024).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/17393/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 201k
Titre Figure 6. Montella, the Candraloni Hut and disused ski facilities within the Monti Picentini Regional Park
Crédits Source: authors’ elaboration based on Bergfex/OSM cartography.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/17393/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 765k
Titre Figure 7. Disused ski lift on Mount Terminio (a); Re.Start Picentini activities in the surroundings of the Candraloni Hut (b)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/17393/img-7.png
Fichier image/png, 2,0M
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Daniele Bagnoli et Giorgia Iovino, « Apennines in Transitions: Between Tourism Monoculture, Depopulation and Emerging Community-Based Practices »Journal of Alpine Research | Revue de géographie alpine [En ligne], 114-1 | 2026, mis en ligne le 27 avril 2026, consulté le 12 mai 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rga/17393 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/165gp

Haut de page

Auteurs

Daniele Bagnoli

Department of Political and Communication Sciences (DISPC), University of Salerno, ORCID ID: 0009-0003-9390-7807

Giorgia Iovino

Department of Political and Communication Sciences (DISPC), University of Salerno, ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7428-4120

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search