Value chains for sustainable mountain development: a qualitative understanding of 23 European cases
本文通过一种新颖的定性方法评估了16个欧洲国家23个案例的价值链，分析了经济、社会文化和环境价值如何沿生产、加工、分销和消费四个阶段变化，发现经济价值最正面、环境价值最负面，并强调了地方合作与认证对可持续山区发展的支持。
This paper presents findings using a novel, qualitative and interpretative approach to value chain assessment. The approach was used to further understand sustainable mountain development. The findings result from 23 diverse cases across 16 European countries, including value chains that focus on animal production for meat and dairy products, arable, horticultural and alcohol production as well as tourism and public goods. The paper focuses on three types of value (economic, socio-cultural and environmental) that are developed along the four stages of each value chain (Production, Processing, Distribution/Marketing and Consumption). It addresses how and why value chain actors perceived changes to these three types of values, including how the value chain is tele-coupled with other sending or receiving systems; and how the focal value chains intertwine with other mountain value chains. In general, the value chains actors’ perceived that positive values were added, supporting sustainable mountain development in our cases, but the findings were most positive for economic issues and least positive for environmental issues. Findings support neo-endogenous rural development arguments. Local cooperation and certification of sustainable practices seem to support valorisation and retain these values in the mountains. We contend that using a value chain lens for mountain development has helped improve the breadth of analysis and highlights the need to consider non-mountain actors and processes within sustainable development processes. • Empirical application of a comparative, qualitative, extended value chain analysis. • Increased economic but mixed socio-cultural and environmental perceived outcomes. • Approach helps understand how global value chains affect mountain capitals. • Governance, cooperation and business size may explain our case outcomes.