Sustainable Development Options for the Chestnut Supply Chain in South Tyrol, Italy

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect

Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 5 ( 2015 ) 96 – 106

1st International Conference on Asian Highland Natural Resources Management, AsiaHiLand 2015 Sustainable development options for the chestnut supply chain in South Tyrol, Italy

Valérie Bossi Fedrigottia*, Christian Fischera

aFree University of Bozen-Bolzano, Faculty of Science and Technolog, PiazzaUniversità5, 39100 Bolzano, Italy

Abstract

Italy is the largest producer of table chestnuts in Europe. This study focuses on the chestnut supply chain in South Tyrol (Alto Adige/Südtirol), a northern Italian province where chestnuts are currently of minor importance in relation to other crops such as apples and grapes. Nevertheless, a small number of chestnut farmers keep a historically rooted tradition alive. A detailed survey of the chestnut supply chain, involving interviews of 138 producers, 49 distributors and 272 consumers revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the local niche market. Moreover, it appeared that a significant production and marketing heterogeneity exists when analysing four sub-regions separately. Three different characteristics, regarding orchard management as well as purchasing and consumption habits, could be identified: (i) commercial chestnut production and direct sales around Merano; (ii) chestnut wood production around Bressanone; and (iii) the use of chestnut trails as spare time activities around Chiusa. New regional development strategies will therefore have to take into account the geographical disparities when trying to innovate a traditional agricultural activity. © 2015 ThePublished Authors. by PublishedElsevier B.V by. ElsevierThis is anB.V. open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (Peer-reviewhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ under responsibility of the Faculty of Agricu). lture, Chiang Mai University. Peer-review under responsibility of the Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University Keywords: chestnuts; market; supply chain; South Tyrol

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 348 5110773; fax: +39 0471 017009. E-mail address: [email protected]

2210-7843 © 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University doi: 10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.08.014 Valérie Bossi Fedrigotti and Christian Fischer / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 5 ( 2015 ) 96 – 106 97

1. Introduction

Despite the leading position of Italy in the European ranking of chestnut producers, sweet chestnuts (Castanea sativa, Mill.) in South Tyrol (Alto Adige/Südtirol), a northern Italian province, are a marginal crop compared to more important fruit and vegetable species such as apples and grapes in the production of which more than 8,000 farmers are involved and almost 18,000 hectares (ha) of land are used (ASTAT, 2012). Thus, in the area, the presence of chestnuts in the last decades have constantly decreased. According to ASTAT (2012), the number of chestnut-growing farms has almost halved from 461 in 2000 to 262 in 2010. However, the growing area has only decreased by about a quarter from 160 ha to 123 ha during the mentioned period. This resulted in an increase in the average size of a chestnut-growing farm from 0.35 ha to 0.47 ha. Chestnut production quantities for South Tyrol are not officially recorded but one estimate puts its potential production at about 400 tons per year (Bender, 2002; Scartezzini, 2002), or a little less than 1kg per inhabitant. On the other hand, in Italy overall, the total orchard area has increased slightly from 23,500 ha to 24,000 ha during 2000 to 2006 while production has increased from 50,000 to 52,000 tons during this period (Pierrettori and Venzi, 2009; Castellini et al., 2010). However, like in many mountain regions of the Southern Alps, chestnut cultivation is historically rooted (De Rachewiltz, 1981). The reasons of its long lasting decline are not univocal and not specifically ascribable to South Tyrol. It can, nevertheless, be assumed that what happened in most of the chestnut-growing regions of Europe also applies here:, an improvement and modernization of production techniques of other competitive crops, the change of consumption habits (Adua, 1999a), the spread of diseases such as chestnut blight, gall wasp and ink disease (Hennion and Vermin, 2000) and climate change (Conedera et al., 2010; Conedera et al., 2011). Finally, one may add, a lack of competitiveness in comparison to other more advanced and well-organized Italian regions, such as Tuscany, Campania, Calabria and Piedmont (Pierrettori and Venzi, 2009). In spite of this local negative trend, many experts believe that a revival of the chestnut culture is taking place at a national level, assuming that although the weaknesses in technological development and in marketing strategies, a new interest towards sweet chestnut and new promising market opportunities are arising (Adua, 1999b). As a matter of fact, the general demand for “natural” products has substantially increased in Italy and other chestnut countries, in the last few years (Bounous, 2006; Bounous, 2009; Pettenella, 2001). The chestnut fruits’ main value today is not so much nutritional as cultural. Given its historical significance as a major food source in many countries (Bender, 2002), and the ecological importance of the trees (Bonilla Gurzeler, 2010), there is wide social appreciation to preserve this crop and its trees as a cultural asset. Chestnut orchards are, as a matter of fact, one of the few “traditional” surviving crops in South Tyrol that represent a unique combination of grassland and forest elements. As a consequence, there have been initiatives in many countries to conserve chestnut growing or even to increase it (e.g., Gold et al., 2006; Pierrettori and Venzi, 2009; Pirazzoli and Castellini, 2000; Caramalli and Caramalli, 2009). Traditional forms of chestnut growing are extensive, labour intensive and costly. Moreover, chestnuts are ripe at the same time as apples and grapes: therefore their harvest is often neglected in favour of the latter crops. The reduced size of chestnut farms and the fragmented production in South Tyrol limit farmer bargaining power, compromise the stability of supply and increase production costs (Castellotti and Grassi, 2011). Market prices for this crop are therefore relatively high and exceed many consumers’ willingness to pay for a food product that in addition to being perceived as expensive is inconvenient to prepare and consume, and relatively perishable. For these reasons, chestnuts are, and will remain, a niche-market product. Moreover, unlike many other Italian regions, South Tyrol currently does not take advantage of any European Union chestnut quality label which might have revitalized its marketing. The challenge is finding ways to make the production and distribution of the crop sufficiently financially viable (i.e., profitable) for all involved organizations and individuals while covering existing market demand for the fruit and thus keeping chestnut orchards in use to preserve their ecological benefits. According to Shani and Chaslani (1992), Campbell-Hunt (1999) and Cuthbert (2008), one should expect the local chestnut market to have sufficient bargaining power and size to be profitable. The local chestnut market should also have growth potential and be identifiable as a clear strategy a farm may select and not be the result of existing circumstances (Cuthbert, 2008). Moreover, chestnuts should be distinguishable by originality, quality and scarcity (Segrè and Politano, 2010). Their local identity, mutual interdependence between seller and consumer as well as a strong chestnut-customer orientation should also represent the main ingredients for a winning niche-marketing 98 Valérie Bossi Fedrigotti and Christian Fischer / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 5 ( 2015 ) 96 – 106

strategy (Dalgic, 2006). Nevertheless, reasons for choosing a niche-market strategy can be diverse and may include avoiding competition or exploiting an existing market opportunity (Gaudes, 2004). This paper aims at investigating how and why the market of chestnuts in South Tyrol keeps alive and demonstrating whether this can be considered a performing niche market or not, through the analysis of the local chestnut supply chain, from the farmer to the final consumer, identifying weaknesses and strengths and highlighting perspectives and opportunities for the future. By doing so, the study takes into consideration potential heterogeneity in the regional chestnut market.

2. Context and previous work

Supply chain management emphasises active collaboration between independent actors of different economic activities such as production, processing/manufacturing, distribution and consumption in order to increase value creation and efficiency (Fawcett et al., 2007). Supply chains can vary in complexity ranging from international supply networks (e.g., in the car industry) to very short food supply chains (e.g., direct marketing of farm products). The creation and continued operation of short food supply chains (SFSCs) have been identified to be a potentially highly effective tool in rural development initiatives (Renting et al., 2003). Due to different approaches to SFSCs and to the extensive literature, a common definition is difficult to find. Several authors identify three different positions, corresponding to as many mechanisms for extending SFSCs across time and space that can be distinguished with respect to its organisational structure: Face-to-face, Spatial Proximity and Spatially Extended (Bertazzoli et al., 2010; Renting et al., 2003; Marsden et al., 2000).. Another broad distinction is based on market arrangements involved: Direct-to-consumer SFSCs include direct arrangements with final customers, while Intermediate SFSCs also concerns intermediaries such as cooperatives, buying groups and retailers selling regional food (Fondse et al., 2012). Some authors finally prefer other terms to interpret more or less the same concept: filiera chiusa (closed supply chain, Segrè and Politano, 2010), alternative food supply chain (Renting et al., 2003; Fondse et al., 2012) or simply food community network (Pascucci, 2010). SFSCs also play a role in rural development schemes: key players such as farmers or distributors can create additional value for rural areas by fostering local production and consumption, i.e., by encouraging local economic activities (Marsden et al., 2000). Thus SFSCs can help the implementation of the 3rd Axis of the rural development strategy within the 2nd Pillar the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy by promoting diversification of the rural economy and extending the concept of additional value to a more social definition that includes environment, quality, ethics, employment, culture and conviviality. A necessary requirement for good supply chain performance is the awareness of customer needs and the exchange of this information (Revoredo-Giha and Leat, 2010). In particular, consumers’ quality perception becomes essential in a customer-oriented marketing strategy (Bruhn et al., 2007), where quality is often associated with product origin (Burnett et al., 2011) as well as with organic and other eco-friendly production, traceability and corporate social responsibility (Caccioni, 2005). In general, quality certifications are a recommended marketing tool (Jahn and Spiller, 2007). The scientific literature inherently relates local food to the definition of SFSC (Fondse et al., 2012), thus suggesting that if the number of intermediaries as well as the spatial distance between producers and consumers are reduced, consequently the production has to develop locally. Guptill and Wilksins (2003) generally define local foods as the ones offering “a connection with the point of production and an opportunity to support the local economy”. Other authors associate with local food different concepts such as sustainability, fair trade and health (Ilbery and Maye, 2006), naturalness, animal welfare (Fondse et al., 2012) and social empowerment (Hinrichs, 2003). As to chestnuts, since in South Tyrol most of them are consumed fresh (more than 80% in the rest of Italy, according to Pierrettori and Venzi, 2009), promoting a short supply chain strategy seems to be a promising option. In fact, as compared to other more chestnut-oriented regions of the Southern Alps, the current supply chain in South Tyrol is already rather short and the existing market conditions additionally seem to favour such a development approach (Bender, 2002). Valérie Bossi Fedrigotti and Christian Fischer / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 5 ( 2015 ) 96 – 106 99

3. Data

A face-to-face survey along the chestnut supply chain was conducted involving interviews of farmers, distributors and consumers in May 2011. In order to properly representing the South Tyrolean chestnut supply chain, the four most chestnut-oriented areas were identified: Merano, Bolzano, Chiusa and Bressanone. This geographical selection led to a stratified sample of 160 producers (138 interviews), 60 distributors (49 interviews) and 300 consumers (272 interviews). Three questionnaires were developed with specific questions for each stakeholder group: agronomic care, harvest and orchard management were mainly included in the farmer questionnaire; purchase and sales, stocks and turnovers were asked the distributors, whereas consumption habits, purchases and spare time preferences were the focus of consumers’ questionnaire. All three categories were also encouraged to express personal perceptions about future trends of the local chestnut market by open-ended questions. Socioeconomic information was eventually collected. To ensure high survey participation, all farmers had been previously contacted by phone while distributors and consumers were directly approached face-to-face, during their selling and shopping activities respectively. On average, each interview lasted about 20 minutes. The farmer sample is equally distributed across the four chestnut zones † even though the names of survey participants were all taken from the list of farmers applying for Provincial aid grants for chestnut orchards in 2010 (Ufficio Amministrazione Forestale, Autonomous Province of Bolzano). As to the representativeness of the sample (Tab.1), the official publication of the 6th General Census of Agriculture was taken as a benchmark (ASTAT, 2012). As intended in the study design, the survey captured a wide range of chestnut farmers and the good correspondence on some general measures, i.e. farm total area and farm chestnut area, as well as the age distribution of farmers and the level of education, allows to safely state that the sample is adequately representing the population.

Table 1. Representativeness of the sample

Socioeconomic characteristics of South Tyrolean farming units General census of agriculture - 2010 Own survey - 2011 Number of farms 20,212 - Number of chestnut farms* 262 138 Family business 96.1% 100% Average area/farm (ha) 14.75 15.31 Average chestnut area/farm (ha) 0.47 0.54 Age of the farmer <45: 42% <45: 30% Education of the farmer Lower education: 97% Lower education: 98% University: 3% University: 2% Note: *The number of chestnut farms in South Tyrol is controversial. The provincial Forest Service reports about 700 chestnut-tree owners in year 2000 (Ufficio Amministrazione Forestale), corresponding to the official data of 1982 provided by ASTAT: this incongruence depends on how the farmer declares his activity. Many farmers own spare chestnut trees without considering themselves proper chestnut farmers, i.e., a higher number of trees still exists but the chestnut farming activity has decreased. Source: 6th General Census of agriculture.

Interviewed chestnut farmers are predominantly male (77%) and married (79%); most have a secondary school degree (50%) and are older than 45 (70%) (mean age = 56 years). They all run directly private family farms of 15.3 ha of size on average: 3.5% of the area (0.5 ha) is dedicated to chestnuts with a mean of 27 chestnut trees per farm. The farms are traditionally rooted in the local landscape, averaging 305 years of activity, and family units are composed on average of 4.5 members, with about half of respondents being part-time farmers (47%). Seventeen per cent of landowners host overnight tourists on their farms and 9% of them have refreshment stands or small seasonal

† Chi-square test of one-dimensional classification: X² = 7.565, p = 0.56. 100 Valérie Bossi Fedrigotti and Christian Fischer / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 5 ( 2015 ) 96 – 106

taverns. All farmers consider chestnut growing a secondary activity, with the main professional activity for 78% of them being the production of other crops or livestock husbandry. About 8% of chestnut producers are retired while the remaining 14% are employed somewhere else. The main reason for keeping the chestnut production alive is growing chestnuts for a sense of tradition and identity (90%), while only 5% grow them for business purposes. Most of the participating chestnut distributors are located in Bolzano (51%) and Merano (26%), much fewer in Bressanone (17%) and only a few in Chiusa (6%). Different types of distributors were interviewed: retailers (13%), groceries (19%), market stands including farmer markets (22%), supermarkets (36%) and wholesalers (6%). The remaining 4% include occasional distributors and farm taverns. As to the respondent position, 48% are owners, 46% are employees and the 6% belong to the administrative staff. Regarding the consumer sample, almost all interviewees live in South Tyrol (96%), 42% of which in Bolzano and surroundings (Bassa Atesina), 26% in Merano and Val Venosta, 17% in Bressanone and 15% in Chiusa. Genders are balanced (50% and 50%) and the average age is 36 years, which is below the Province average (41 years) according to ASTAT (2012). About half of the sample have earned a high school degree (49%) and a bit less than a third of them hold a middle school degree (29%), while 16% hold a university degree.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Supply chain characteristics

According to the survey, every farm produces on average about 300 kg of chestnuts yearly: if this result is extended to the population, then all of South Tyrol produces almost 80 tons every year, accounting for about one fourth of its real production potential (Scartezzini, 2002). Farmers’ estimation of own production per ha averages 950 kg of chestnuts, expanding therefore the range of total production for the Province of Bolzano to about 120 tons. The adjacent Province of Trento under similar conditions, however, registers an average of about 600 kg of nuts per ha (Department of Agriculture and Mountain, Autonomous Province of Trento, 2001). Fig. 1 provides an overview of the local chestnut supply chain as reconstructed from the survey data. Income generation deriving from chestnut production is a consequence of the generally low productivity: almost half of farmers (48%) declare to receive an income from chestnut growing, though rather low and volatile: only for 2% of farmers income generated by chestnuts represents at least a fifth of total income. Predictably, nut production is significantly higher for income perceivers (515 kg on average) rather than for farmers declaring no income originated by chestnuts (86 kg on average)‡: this reveals the existence of a productivity threshold below which farmers do not consider chestnut a saleable good. Another significant difference suggests that younger farmers care more about chestnuts: farmers younger than 45 produce on average more than the double as compared to older farmers§.

4.2. Territoriality as a synonym for quality

South Tyrolean chestnuts are marketed with no quality certifications with exception of the origin, mentioned on the price tag. Hence, territoriality becomes one of the most frequently perceived quality appreciation: the majority of consumers (78%) buy local, despite the common perception (54%) that local nuts are more expensive than non-local nuts (imported from other Italian regions and from abroad). Despite the high prices of local chestnuts as compared to cheaper foreign chestnuts, distributors also recognize a high quality in local nuts, although they stress the need of a label certification.

‡ T test (t =-4.8; p = 0.00). §540 kg and 216 kg of chestnuts per farm and year respectively. T test (t = -3.1; p = 0.00). Valérie Bossi Fedrigotti and Christian Fischer / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 5 ( 2015 ) 96 – 106 101

However, to improve niche marketing performances, quality being equal, it is fundamental to pursue originality and differentiate the production from competitors (Segrè and Politano, 2010), focusing first on the product itself and then on process attributes (Hartmann et al., 2010). According to our study, these objectives are still at an immature stage in South Tyrol. About 300 cultivars compose the national chestnut-varietal assortment (Bellini, 2005) but among South Tyrolean farmers the attention to specific varieties does not seem to be very common: only 20% of respondents are consciously growing any precise cultivar. This percentage does not differ with income, meaning that the variety awareness is not linked to the business attitude of farmers **. Post-harvest treatments, which might contribute to the originality of the product and to add value, lack at the farm level but not at the distribution level: almost half of distributors make a selection before selling the product, mainly according to size and presumed variety of the chestnuts. Thus, two basic ingredients for SFSCs, quality and originality, can be achieved and expressed through the local concept; the selection of a local variety may lead to the development of a differentiated and competitive chestnut, with specific attitudes and quality characteristics.

Fig. 1. The chestnut supply chain in South Tyrol (source: survey data).

** The lack of current variety selection can be interpreted as a legacy of the past, when several chestnut varieties (used for various purposes: fresh consumption, conservation, flour, animal fattening) were all allocated in the same farm for self-sufficiency. Growing in different attitudes, chestnuts ripened gradually and covered a longer gathering period. Nowadays, consumer demand has changed and competitiveness has led to variety homogeneity within the same farm. For an in-depth study, see Conedera 1994 and Conedera et al. 1994. 102 Valérie Bossi Fedrigotti and Christian Fischer / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 5 ( 2015 ) 96 – 106

4.3. Outlook into the future

Still, considering agronomic investments and tree conditions, producers are satisfied with their current production (62%) and almost all (90%) would not use the same area for other crops. Moreover, 39% of farmers believe chestnut orchards to be attractive for tourism and younger farmers are especially aware of their aesthetics (57%)††. However, despite the positive perception about their own production, the majority of farmers (54%) have no intention to continue growing chestnuts in the future, primarily because of lack of time, space and interest. The more optimistic farmers (38%), on the other hand, are determined to constantly renovate their orchards in order to keep traditions alive. In general, South Tyrolean farmers, probably for the mentioned lack of business ambition, are uninformed about chestnut management: almost 67% of them are incapable to detect the right treatment to heal their trees and agronomic care becomes one of the challenge for the future. Unlike farmers, 62% of distributors consider the current market trend positive or not negative (26%), stating that restaurant business is increasing on the wake of the Törggelen‡‡ phenomenon, which brings tourists to South Tyrol and promotes chestnuts to residents as well. Indeed, a majority of consumers (81%) regularly visits farm taverns. The future seems to be promising according to 55% of distributors: the chestnut market will grow and 79% will continue selling chestnuts believing in its opportunities. Events such as chestnut tastings, publication and circulation of recipes and innovative communication strategies might increase the demand for 21% of distributors. As for consumer demand, the majority of interviewees (68%) have maintained their purchasing habits constant in the last five years. The satiating feeling that chestnuts provide and their price represent the limit for not increasing the demand, while, on the other hand, the good taste, the healthy nature and the sense of tradition avoid the consumption decline. Older consumers, however, have increased their purchases during the last five years, suggesting that younger consumers might be the target of innovative communication campaigns§§.

4.4. Sub-regional differences

The situation differs across sub-regions (see Fig 2 and 3). Merano is characterised by some area-distinctive marketing particularities, which are not affecting the marketing activity of other areas (Ingene and Parry, 1995). In Merano, chestnut growing represents a profitable activity for most farmers. Agronomic investments, such as irrigation, are more frequent and determinant than in other sub-regions, leading consequently to a higher yearly production (more than 500 kg per farm). Two of the three active producer associations are located in this area: they assist producers with the direct sale, organize workshops on chestnut orchard management and constantly update their website. In fact, Merano records the lowest percentage of self-consumption (58%) of chestnuts by farmers and the highest share of direct sale (61%). Consumers are concerned about territoriality and express their buy-local awareness by purchasing almost exclusively South Tyrolean chestnuts (94%) and mainly directly from the farmer (52%). An opposite attitude can be observed in the Bressanone area, where the lower yearly production (183 kg per farm) is mostly consumed by farmers (95% of self-consumption) and only one fifth of producers sell nuts at the farm. Bressanone, however, has the highest share of chestnut-wood producers (76% of chestnut farmers), although only 6% of them also sell the wood, the majority employing and consuming it inside the farm. A reason for this trend may be attributable to a different level of management of chestnut stands: orchards in Bressanone are older, more woody and dense. The average number of new trees planted in every farm in the last five years are a confirmation of the opposite profiles of the two mentioned areas: 13 chestnut trees in Merano and only 2 in Bressanone, the South Tyrolean average being something less than 7 trees per farm.

†† Chi square test for independence shows significant association between touristic-appeal believers/age X² (1) = 6.1; p = 0.01. ‡‡Törggelen is a dialect word, used only in South Tyrol, and stems from Torggl, i.e., the wine press. Törggelen indicates, thus, the tradition of tasting the new wine together with chestnuts and other typical specialties in autumn. In the last years, Törggelen has become more broadly a term for chestnut-related tourism. §§Chi-square test with Fisher‘s Exact test indicates significant association between purchasing trend and age groups (Fisher‘s Exact test) X² (4) = 13, p = 0.01. Valérie Bossi Fedrigotti and Christian Fischer / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 5 ( 2015 ) 96 – 106 103

Fig. 2. Significantly different producer performances (source: survey data)

Fig. 3. Significantly different consumer behaviors (source: survey data)

Castellini et al. (2010) define ancillary business as the collateral gastronomic events that link the market of chestnuts to tourism, while Bounous (2005) refers to the chestnut as a multipurpose resource able to provide different externalities contributing to social welfare, such as aesthetic elements and recreation. Almost half of consumers (45%) have walked a chestnut-theme trail at least once and 43% usually attend chestnut festivals, showing the high value of those positive externalities also to residents. In Bressanone 96% of consumer respondents have walked a chestnut trail, while 81% attend folk festivals. This consciousness of chestnut amenities is also reflected by farmers living in the same area; in fact 70% of farmers in Chiusa and 52% in Bressanone are especially aware of the aesthetic and recreational benefits provided by their orchards. Despite the contribution of chestnuts to 104 Valérie Bossi Fedrigotti and Christian Fischer / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 5 ( 2015 ) 96 – 106

the attractiveness of the landscape, the area registers the lowest presence of tourists during the year, as well as in autumn, during the chestnut season (ASTAT, 2012). This points to the genuineness of the farmer feeling, since aesthetic appreciation currently does not seem to be coupled with a higher income provided by tourism activity.

5. Conclusions

For more than half of the chestnuts produced in South Tyrol, the supply chain ends within the farm, being those either consumed by the farmer family or sold directly at the farm; thus, a proper marketing activity is difficult to describe. The market of chestnuts in South Tyrol generally displays some main niche-market characteristics (i.e., quality, scarcity and growth potential) while it is also mainly regionally rooted. This study showed the existence of at least two opposite sub-regional profiles: the more commercial and business-oriented Merano contrasts the “forest” and sceptical attitude of Bressanone. However, a third economic activity profile, emphasizing the landscape components of chestnut orchards, may be present in the area around Chiusa. The mentioned sub-regional characteristics must be taken into account when conceiving development strategies for chestnut farmers, as they reflect the different purposes chestnut are grown for (tradition and selfconsumption, business, tourism) and consequently the significantly different productivities. Without observing the sub-regions individually, the picture of regional chestnut cultivation would be mediocre, unclear and confusing: well organized and successful spots like Merano would end up unnoticed. Lack of agronomic investments, for instance, might be not only the cause of a poor chestnut growing, but also the effect of a negative selling activity. Further conditions for enhancing niche marketing also depend on the area; profitability, for instance, has achieved higher levels in Merano, whereas originality of the product (obtained with variety selection and or post-harvest treatments) is generally weak in the whole province. Future approaches to marketing improvements should focus on the local farmer organizations and their structure: production and productivity can increase, where applicable, by linking producers and by encouraging a shared/cooperative management of orchards, in order to avoid productivity losses due to the reduced plot sizes (Pierrettori and Venzi, 2009). Better structured farmers may also contribute to the standardisation of post-harvest operations for an homogenous level of quality, durable in the long term. When the product sold through a SFSC is not very much differentiated, such as local chestnuts, operational relations between supply chain parties can be insufficient to enhance chain performance (Fondse et al., 2012). A communication-and-networking strategy along the SFSC may instead affect the not visible buying decision process of consumers, composed among others by personal attitudes, motivation, thinking and knowledge (Zenner et al., 2007). Since the “buy local” concept is already appreciated among distributors and consumers, it may be beneficial to keep the chestnut supply chain short. Promoting direct sales among farmers, creating an origin label and strengthening inter-category communication for better informed distributors and customers (Pascucci et al., 2011) are all strategies which might contribute to the development of local initiatives linked to chestnut growing. Another way of fostering territoriality is to promote related chestnut activities such as chestnut festivals, theme trails, didactic itineraries, public tastings and cultural events. The latter can be accomplished through the use of modern information and communication technology, which might give a significant contribution to the development of future networking patterns. Forming active producer and potentially marketing associations, as they are already exist in the highly successful South Tyrolean apple and milk sectors, may help to bundle marketing initiatives and to communicate in a more focused and effective way.

References

Adua M., 1999a. The sweet chestnut throughout history from the Miocene to the third millennium. Acta Horticulturae 494, 29-36. Adua M., 1999b. Sweet chestnut production and marketing in Italy. Acta Horticulturae 494, 49-54. ASTAT, 2012. 3° Censimento generale dell'agricoltura 1982, Provincia di Bolzano. ASTAT, 2012. 6° Censimento generale dell'agricoltura 2010, Provincia di Bolzano. ASTAT, 2012. Turismo in Alto Adige. Anno turistico 2010-2011, Provincia di Bolzano. Bellini E., 2005. The chestnut and its resources: images and considerations, Acta Horticulturae 693, 85-96. Valérie Bossi Fedrigotti and Christian Fischer / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 5 ( 2015 ) 96 – 106 105

Bender O., 2002. Die Edelkastanie – Regionalentwicklung mit einer traditionellen Kulturart in den südlichen Alpen. Patermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 146, 28-37. Bertazzoli A., Ruggeri A., Samoggia A., 2010. Short supply chain: analysis of the competitiveness of organic horticultural farmers at Italian regional level. Proceedings of the 118th seminar of the EAAE: Rural development: governance, policy design and delivery, Ljubljana, Slovenia, August 2010. Bonilla Gurzeler V., 2010. Die Rückkehr der Brotbäume. Natürlich Leben 10, 38-41. Bounous G., 2005. The chestnut: amultipurpose resource for the new millennium. Acta Horticulturae 693, 33-40. Bounous G., 2006. Revival of chestnut culture in Mediterranean countries: factors to improve the quality of productions. Advances in Horticultural Science 20,7-15. Bounous G., 2009. Chestnut industry development and quality of the productions. Acta Horticulturae 844, 21-26 Bruhn M., Grebitus C., 2007. Food quality from a consumer’s perspective, in Theuvsen L., Spiller A., Peupert M. (Eds.), Quality Management in Food Chains. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp. 243-254. Burnett P., Kuethe T.H., Price C., 2011. Consumer preference for locally grown produce: an analysis of willingness-to-pay and geographic scale, Journal of Agriculture. Food Systems, and Community Development 4 (1), 269-278. Caccioni D.R.L., 2005. Ortofrutta & marketing: promozione, gestione e category management dell'ortofrutta, Agra, Roma. Campbell-Hunt C., 2000. What have we learned about generic competitive strategy? A meta-analysis. Strategic Management Journal 21, 127- 154. Caramalli P., Caramalli C., 2009. Produzione di marroni a Casola Valsenio (RA) nel ventennio 1988-2007. Atti del Terzo Congresso Nazionale di Selvicoltura. Taormina (ME), 16-19 ottobre 2008, Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali, Firenze, pp. 804-811. Castellini A., Palmieri A., Pirazzoli C., 2010. Economic Aspects of the Chestnut Market in Italy. Acta Horticulturae 866, 485-492. Castellotti T., Grassi G., 2011. Situation and prospects of chestnut fruits in Italy. Agriregionieuropa 24. Cernusca M.M., Aguilar F.X., Gold M.A., 2012. Post-purchase evaluation of U.S. consumers’ preferences for chestnuts. Agroforest Syst 86, 355- 364. Conedera M., 1994. Inventario e caratterizzazione genetica delle varietà nostrane di castagno da frutto. Bollettino Società Ticinese Scienze Naturali (Lugano) 82 (2), 39-50. Conedera M., Barthold F., Torriani D., Pezzati G.B., 2010. Drought sensitivity of Castanea sativa: case study of summer 2003 in the Southern Alps. Acta Horticulturae 866, 297-302. Conedera M., Barthold F., Spinedi F., Ferrario F., Pezzati G.B., 2011. Siccità estiva e castagno: un’ulteriore minaccia dagli estremi climatici? Sherwood 178, 16-21. Conedera M., Müller-Starck G., Fineschi S., 1994. Genetic characterization of cultivated varieties of European chestnut (Castanea sativa) in Southern Switzerland. Proceedings of the International Congress on Chestnut, Spoleto 1993. Cuthbert R.H., 2008. Strategic planning – niche marketing in the agriculture industry. Project Report, Department of Rural Economy, Faculty of Agriculture & Forestry and Home Economics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Dalgic T., 2006. Handbook of Niche Marketing Principles and Practice, Haworth Hospitality Press, Binghamton, New York, USA. De Rachewiltz S.W., 1981. Brot im Südlichen Tyrol, Arunda Ed., Schlanders, Italy. Fawcett S., Ogden J., Ellram L., 2007. Supply Chain Management: from Vision to Implementation. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, US. Fondse M., Wubben E., Korstee H., Pascucci S., 2012. The Economic Organization of Short Supply Chains. Proceedings of the 126th EAAE Seminar: New challenges for EU agricultural sector and rural areas. Which role for public policy? Capri (Italy), June 2012. Gaudes A., 2004. The skinny on being narrow: a longitudinal study on the influence of niche-width in the presence of market turbulence. Journal of Comparative International Management 7 (2), 12-30. Gold, M., Cernusca, M., Godsey, L. 2006. Competitive market analysis: chestnut producers. HortTechnology 16 (2), 360-369. Guptill A., Wilkins J.L., 2002. Buying into the food system: trends in food retailing in the US and implications for local food. Agriculture and Human Values 19, 39-51. Hartmann M., Frohberg K., Fischer C., 2010. Building Sustainable Relationships in Agri-food Chains: Challenges from Farm to Retail, in Fischer C., Hartmann M. (Eds.), Agri-food Chain Relationships. CAB International, Oxford, pp. 25-44. Hennion B., Vermin X., 2000. Sweet chestnut. Infos – Centre Technique Interprofessionnel des Fruits et Legumes 166, 14-17. Hinrichs C.C., 2003. The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1), 33-45. Holloway L., Kneafsey M., 2000. Reading the space of the farmers’ market: a preliminary investigation from the UK. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (3), 285-299. Ilbery B., Maye D., 2006. Retailing local food in the Scottish–English borders: A supply chain perspective. Geoforum 37, 352–367. Ingene C.A., Parry M.E., 1995. A note on multi-regional marketing. Management Science 4 (7), 1194-1201. Jahn G., and Spiller A., 2007. Controversial positions about the QS System in agriculture: an empirical study, in Theuvsen L., Spiller A., Peupert M. (Eds.), Quality Management in Food Chains, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp. 355-367. Marsden T.K., Banks J., Bristow G., 2000. Food supply chain approaches: exploring their role in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (4), 424-438. Pascucci S., 2010. Governance structure, perception and innovation in credence food transactions: the role of food community networks. International Journal on Food System Dynamics 3, 224-236. Pascucci S., 2011. Factors affecting farmers’ networking decisions. Journal on Chain and Network Science 11(1), 7-17. Pettenella D., 2001. Marketing perspectives and instruments for chestnut products and services. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 76(3), 511-517. Pierrettori S., Venzi L., 2009. The chestnuts "Filiere" in Italy: values and developments, EFI Proceedings 57, 85-96. 106 Valérie Bossi Fedrigotti and Christian Fischer / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 5 ( 2015 ) 96 – 106

Pirazzoli, C., Castellini, A., 2000. Application of a model for evaluating the environmental sustainability of cultures in hill and mountain areas: the case of berries and fruit chestnuts in northern Italy. Agricultural Economics Review 1 (1), 57-69. Provincia Autonoma di Trento Dipartimento Agricoltura, Alimentazione, Foreste e Montagna, Servizio Vigilanza e Promozione dell’Attività Agricola, 2001. Il castagno e il noce nella Provincia di Trento, Artimedia casa editrice, Trento. Renting H., Marsden T.K., Banks J., 2003. Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning A 35, 393-411. Revoredo-Giha C., Leat P., 2010. Enhancing the integration of agri-food chains: challenges for UK malting barley in Fischer C., Hartmann M. (Eds.), Agri-food Chain Relationships. CAB International, Oxford, pp. 135-149. Scartezzini H., 2002. Diffusione e prospettive della Castanicoltura in Alto Adige. Proceedings of the national conference “Il castagno: Re della montagna”, 19-20 October 2002, Brentonico (Tn), Italy. Segrè A., Politano A., 2010. La filiera corta fra mercato globalizzato e mercato di nicchia. Atti dei Georgofili 2009, 615-633. Shani D., Chalasani S., 1992. Exploiting niches using relationship marketing. The Journal of Consumer Marketing 7 (3), 33-42. Zenner S., Wirthgen B., Altmann M., 2007. The importance of emotional quality as buying pattern argument: results of a consumer survey, in Theuvsen L., Spiller A., Peupert M. (Eds.), Quality Management in Food Chains. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp. 293- 301.