Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems

ISSN: 2168-3565 (Print) 2168-3573 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21

Mountain farmers’ intangible values foster

agroecological landscapes: case studies from
Sierra Santa Victoria in northwest Argentina and
the Ladin Dolomites, northern Italy

Cornelia Steinhäuser

To cite this article: Cornelia Steinhäuser (2019): Mountain farmers’ intangible values foster
agroecological landscapes: case studies from Sierra Santa Victoria in northwest Argentina
and the Ladin Dolomites, northern Italy, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, DOI:
10.1080/21683565.2019.1624285

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1624285

Published online: 20 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 178

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsa21
AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1624285

Mountain farmers’ intangible values foster agroecological

landscapes: case studies from Sierra Santa Victoria in
northwest Argentina and the Ladin Dolomites, northern
Italy
Cornelia Steinhäuser
Institute of Landscape Ecology Research Group Applied Landscape Ecology and Ecological Planning,
University of Münster, Munster, Germany

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Agroecological landscapes, which promote critical features Agroecology; cultural
such as agrobiodiversity, represent valuable global commons. ecosystem services; cultural
These landscapes are products of ways of life, local knowledge, landscapes; human-
environment relationships;
and rural practices. Recent studies agree on the need to better
intangible values; transition
understand such rooted social-ecological systems by more
deeply exploring their human-environment relationships. To
address this, we investigated agroecological landscapes in
two communities, one in the Andean highlands of northwest
Argentina, the other in the Dolomites in northern Italy. This
research applies discourse-ethnographic methods to explore
how the communities build institutions to protect their culture,
how they manage change, and how the environment is per-
ceived and used. Based on the results, we identified several
dimensions of farmers’ intangible values, their understanding
of well-being, and how they contribute to the genesis of land-
scapes (maize terraces, alpine pastures). This work shows that
many interviewees did not perceive nature merely as
a resource or service for humans, as suggested by the widely
held discourse of agricultural industrialization, and that alter-
native relationships to nature are possible and do exist in
practice. Further, this work raises relevant issues for how to
imagine the transition to agricultural systems that do not
define well-being only from the perspective of materiality
and of humans.

Introduction
In its detached, mechanical understanding of ecosystems, the modern dis-
course of industrialized agriculture largely ignores the intangible cultural
values that societies experience in landscapes (Ingold 2011; Latour 2018).
Industrialized agriculture has critically reduced many of the vital functions of
ecosystems (Dendoncker et al. 2018), and due to the intensive use of energy

CONTACT Cornelia Steinhäuser cornelia.steinhaeuser@uni-muenster.de Institute of Landscape Ecology,

Westfalische Wilhelms-Universitat Munster Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultat, Munster 48149,
Germany
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at Www.tandfonline.com/wjsa.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
2 C. STEINHÄUSER

and technologies, it has contributed to the depletion of natural resources at

unprecedented levels of acceleration (Rockström et al. 2009; Steffen et al.
2015). This globally interconnected environmental and social crisis was
initially addressed via the concept of the Anthropocene by Crutzen (2002);
recently, Steffen et al. (2018) have reinstituted the need for “a deep transfor-
mation [of humanity’s relationship with the rest of the Earth System] based
on a fundamental reorientation of human values, equity, behavior, institu-
tions, economies, and technologies”.
In light of this need, transformative agroecology research investigates
pathways of change to more sustainable and resilient agri-food systems
(Altieri and Toledo 2011; Gliessman 2018; Nicholls and Altieri 2018; Wezel
et al. 2009). Valuable global commons, such as agrobiodiversity, are regen-
erated in landscapes where local communities apply certain agroecological
practices that rely on key factors: experiential environmental knowledge
(Berkes 2012; Ingold 2000); reciprocal relationships between people and
nature (Chan et al. 2016; Sponsel 2017); and “discourses of landscape” that
create landscapes as a consequence of beliefs, attitudes, and everyday prac-
tices (Wylie 2007, 110). As these factors are clearly complex and nuanced,
this paper uses a discourse-ethnographic methodological approach to
uncover a deeper theoretical understanding of what precisely are these
intangible values found in such agroecological landscapes. By making these
values more explicit, it is possible that they may be more easily discussed in
or adapted to other contexts.
To address the intertwining of natural and social sciences in agroecology,
the current work aims to complement the concepts of ecosystem services and
cultural landscapes. Ecosystem services represent a workable framework for
distinguishing the providers and beneficiaries of ecosystem services (Barnaud
et al. 2018), covering the measurable, quantifiable fluxes of landscape.
Conversely, the concept of cultural landscapes refers to the historical and
evolving way that people identify with a landscape (Bürgi et al. 2017;
Cumming 2011; Plieninger and Bieling 2012). In order to gain deeper
insights into human-environment relationships, these perspectives are
further complemented by looking at certain aspects through the lens of
environmental anthropology (Brondizio, Adams, and Fiorini 2017).
This study explores two case studies in very different geographical loca-
tions: an indigenous community in Sierra Santa Victoria, North Argentina,
and a Ladin community in the Dolomites of South Tyrol, Italy. Both com-
munities ascribe themselves to an ethnic group (Kolla and Ladin, respec-
tively), build institutions to protect their identity, and apply small-scale
farming practices. To investigate their lifeworld, this study uses a discourse-
ethnographic methodology. Discourse ethnography links the worldviews and
actions of a community in its specific context (Elliker, Wundrak, and Maeder
2017). Therefore, this paper combines the analysis of institutions and value
 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 3

systems (expert interviews, literature analysis) with insights into the lifeworld
of mountain farmers (ethnographic field work, walking interviews, partici-
pant observation).
In the following, key concepts will be specified: ecosystem services, cultural
landscapes, and human-environment relationships. The subsequent section
describes the foundations of the research design, the methodology and the
study areas. The results section present the analysis of the interviews and
observations bundled in three main topics: institutions and discourses;
adapting livelihood to change; and correspondence with landscape. The
discussion then analyzes how local practices reproduce discourses and pro-
poses an understanding of well-being that comprises humans and nature
alike, as observed in the field. The article concludes with an outlook about
the relevance of analyzing cultures in starting to transition to agroecology.

Theories of human-environment relationships

According to Guzmán and Woodgate (2013), any agroecological research
should consider the wider social context in which a society constructs its
reality; in other words, its lifeworld (Berger and Luckmann 1966/1991). In
such situated research, (Debaise et al. 2015, 174) describe agroecology as “a
scientific field whose specialists insist that what they find only has value and
significance to the extent that it responds to the knowledges and require-
ments of farmers”. Since sustainable agricultural systems cannot be realized
at the farm level alone, Wezel et al. (2016) propose the concept of “agroecol-
ogy territories” at the landscape level. To study landscapes, several
approaches exist in landscape ecology and human geography, such as “eco-
system services” and “cultural landscapes” (Díaz et al. 2015; Plieninger and
Bieling 2012). Complementing these approaches is landscape phenomenol-
ogy, which includes insights of “being-in-the-world” that do not separate
humans and the environment (Wylie 2007, 149).
The framework of ecosystem services recognizes the importance of food
provision without dismissing other vital ecosystem functions, such as biodi-
versity. It defines four categories – supporting, provisioning, regulating and
cultural services – that contribute to the well-being of humans (Díaz et al.
2015; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). However, the concept has
been criticized for its anthropocentric and utilitarian view of nature (Chan
et al. 2016) as well as for ethical issues arising from the institutional framings
that determine how services are substituted (trade-offs) (Bennett et al. 2015;
Jax et al. 2013). Flint et al. (2013) explored how the framework of ecosystem
services relates to theories about human-nature relationships, and they found
that the concept of ecosystem services assumes a separateness of humans and
nature, positioning humans above nature and often reducing interactions to
monetary terms. They argue that non-material relationships – which could
4 C. STEINHÄUSER

be included to the category of cultural services – are often dismissed. They

conclude that due to a reductionist view of landscape, the framework of
ecosystem services does not account for the more affective or intrinsic
motivations people have in their interactions with the landscape.
The concept of cultural landscapes deals with the interaction between
humans and the environment. It has been subject to different approaches
in geography: On the one hand, Wylie (2007) argues that a landscape can be
examined as a material result of a people’s influence on their environment.
This presupposes that humans are detached from a landscape that is mea-
sured and described by experts. Other approaches focus on how the percep-
tion of a landscape is shaped by the discourses that prevail in a given society.
Discourses provide a knowledge framework that includes the unquestioned
assumptions of a society, within which certain behaviors may be considered
normal at a certain time point while others are not (Wylie 2007).
Although the above-mentioned concepts describe certain perspectives of
how humans interact with nature, little consideration is given to the fact that
the well-being of people can arise from the well-being of nature.
Relationships that do not distinguish between the well-being of society and
nature are described by the cosmovision of Andean indigenous cultures
(Acosta 2015), and this vision can be found where reciprocal affective values
in landscapes are recognized (Mallarach 2008). Such human-in-ecosystem
models address the environment/society detachment (Davidson-Hunt and
Berkes 2008; Wylie 2007) as symbolic ecology, which is based on theories by
Descola, Ingold, and Latour (described below), among others. They aim to
dissolve the dichotomy between culture and nature and assume a social
construction of the environment (Brondizio, Adams, and Fiorini 2017;
Davidson-Hunt and Berkes 2008).
Descola explores how humans “ascribe a myriad of particular meanings to
their interactions with other entities in the world” (Descola 2014, 78). He
offers a helpful framework to analyze the behavior of societies and to
“recognize in others or deny them distinctive characteristics that are derived
from one’s own” (Descola 2014, 117). In Naturalism, which Descola describes
as the predominant Western modern worldview, the interiority of humans
(mind, soul, consciousness, feelings) is attributed with higher and – above
all – more relevant capabilities than the interiority of non-humans. For this
reason and on the basis of “Nature as an autonomous ontological domain”,
nature can be used as an object (Descola 2014, 69).
Ingold disagrees in some respects to Descola’s theories, arguing that in
many situations, interiority and physicality are merged. Landscape percep-
tion, for example, is achieved by the whole organism rather than simply
through data processing by the mind (Ingold 2016a). Ingold describes living
beings as bundles of lifelines that build a flowing meshwork where life cannot
 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 5

perpetuate in isolation. This leads to an intertwinement that Ingold denotes

as “correspondence”, a process of accompanying each other:
To make a living, farmers and woodsmen must join with the ways of plants;
hunters and herdsmen with the ways of animals; artisans with the ways of their
materials. Production, in such an ecology of correspondence, is about attending to
the trajectories of these nonhuman lives (Ingold 2016b, 22).

In this first approach to the concept, Ingold proposes “attention” (awareness

in joining and participating), “care” (answering of needs), and “longing”
(memory and imagination) as dimensions of correspondence.
Latour (2018) argues that modern science studies nature from a detached
position, and criticizes the mechanistic approach that denies sensitivity.
Instead, nature should be understood as a process in which beings have no
boundaries and constantly interact with each other. An essential assumption
for this paper is to take the view that well-being is the state in which humans
satisfy their needs and concede nature to meet basic needs as well (Nussbaum
2011). Max-Neef (1991) presents a taxonomy that defines as fundamental
human needs “subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participa-
tion, idleness, creation, identity, freedom”. These needs go beyond physical
subsistence. Not all people need to live out such immaterial bonds with
nature (Flint et al. 2013), but many people decide to stay, and to keep
biodiverse rural landscapes alive by nurturing such relationships.
Developing and reviving these skills are necessary conditions for the transi-
tion to agroecology (Nicholls and Altieri 2018).

Methods and research site

Research design
To study the discursive framings and lifeworlds of the communities at the
two research sites, a discourse-ethnographic design was applied, which com-
bines discourse analysis with ethnographic methods. According to Elliker,
Wundrak, and Maeder (2017, 236), this type of design allows one to study
“how discourses are implicated in constructing and transforming reality”. To
address this relationship between discourses and landscape creation, expert
and walking interviews were conducted together with literature analysis and
participant observation (Figure 1).
The purpose of the expert interviews was to frame the shared values at
the institutional level with respect to the local landscapes. The participants
who were interviewed were involved in landscape planning and agricul-
tural development, education, the church, and popular art. The aim was to
explore their specific knowledge and reflexivity about the role of their
institutions with respect to the local landscapes; as Bogner, Littig, and
Menz (2018, 656) put it: “they [experts] exert influence by establishing
6 C. STEINHÄUSER

Figure 1. Research design showing different levels of landscape perception.

a particular issue-framing”. The expert interviews were first used for

orientation in the study sites. Then, they were followed up during the
field work by iterative data triangulation with the insights gained through
the walking interviews, participant observation and the analysis of local
literature.
The core elements of the ethnographic methods were walking and ethno-
graphic interviews together with participant observation in order to gather views
about the landscape, experiential knowledge, land use practices, emotional
bindings or reciprocity, and self-perception in the landscapes. Walking inter-
views were performed as “go along”, that is, as narrative interviews while
walking along a trajectory chosen by the participant (Carpiano 2009;
Kusenbach 2003). This interview type was particularly suitable for the study
for various reasons: selecting the route empowers the interviewee, narratives
gain from their spatial context, rhythmic physical movement supports empathy
between the interviewer and interviewee, changing scenery prompts speech, and
informal conversational situations promote narrative depth (Evans and Jones
2011). In other words, walking in the same direction created a shared perspec-
tive, where participants were the local experts. Finally, ethnographic interviews
can give answers to questions that emerge from participant observation or
occasional encounters (see Bogner, Littig, and Menz 2018).
 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 7

A field diary was also used so the researchers could reflect on their own
role, as an affirmative presence vs. a critic in the field (Pfadenhauer 2017), as
well as on their own perception of the landscape. Because researchers’
observations are shaped by their own socialization (Charmaz 2014), using
a differentiated approach from one’s own reality is a more suitable method of
observation than attempting to explain one’s own observations through the
eyes of others (Ingold 2016a).

Data collection and analysis

The fieldwork was done between 2015–2017 (12 weeks in Nazareno and 5 weeks
in Val Badia) (Figure 2). Access to the community of Nazareno was permitted by
the Bishop and the Catholic priest of the Prelature of Humahuaca. Once permis-
sion was obtained, my presence was then announced on the local radio, and
during the stays I was invited to three radio interviews. People stopped me on the
street an began talking with me. The contact to the Val Badia community began
when I started working in a dairy farm through the “Bauernhilfe”, an organization
that places volunteers to help with farm work. Because of my European

Figure 2. Study sites in Nazareno, Argentina, and Alta Badia, Italy. Graph: Jan Lehmann.
8 C. STEINHÄUSER

appearance and the usual presence of tourists, I did not attract attention in the
streets of Val Badia.
Experts were selected because of their specific expertise in the topic and by
snowballing. The interviews were performed outside and inside the study
areas. Some interviewees were themselves part of the community, and some
interviewees were visited several times. The questions focused on their view
of how the “indigenous cosmovision” or “Ladinism”, respectively, is to be
understood through the landscape and what the role is of their institution.
Questions asked about their professional activities; changes that have hap-
pened to the landscape over time; and their perspectives for the future.
Participants were encouraged to expand on their own relevancies.
Participants of the walking interviews were either recommended by the experts
or contacted by snowballing or casual encounters. To get in contact with potential
participants, I asked for people to talk with about their perception of and the
making of the local landscape. After the initial sample of interview candidates was
obtained, I then searched for complementary views by gathering participants from
different institutions or situations (Charmaz 2014) to gain access to different social
networks (Small 2009). During the process of comparing and refining data,
I selected candidates from whom I expected opposing views. Before starting
with the walk, interviewees were asked to choose a destination that was especially
meaningful to them. During the walk they were asked about the relevance and
values of the place, what they used to do there, and what they expect for the
location in the future. The questions sought to create narratives about the
participants’ landscape perception and land use routines.
Ethnographic interviews focused on different aspects of every day life, such
as gardening, agricultural practices, recipes, medicinal herbs, festivities, work
conditions, or school activities.
Most expert and walking interviews were audio recorded, and some were
written as memory protocols. The ethnographic interviews were recorded as
memos and field notes. The interview length varied between a half an hour
and two hours. While transcribing, the interviews were kept in their original
languages (Spanish, German) and translated into English only for the present
paper. When referring to the “landscape”, people in Nazareno said “Mother
Earth” and in Val Badia “Nature”. This wording and the female gender were
retained (and are used throughout this article). To get more insight into the
relevance of the topic during the walking interviews, the prosody was high-
lighted with colors (Wilson and Wharton 2006). To maintain anonymity, the
participants are labeled by the case study (N: Nazareno, L: Ladinia),
a random interview number, the interview type (EI: expert, WI: walking),
the gender (f: female, m: male) and the approximate age (e.g. N23-WI-m-70).
A total of 18 expert interviews (9 for Nazareno, 9 for Val Badia) and 24
walking interviews (13 for Nazareno, 11 for Val Badia) were coded and
analyzed in a qualitative data analysis software (https://atlasti.com). At the
 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 9

beginning, the coding was performed in the original languages and for both
study sites separately. In the first interviews, incident by incident and induc-
tive coding were used. Deductive coding was used in the following process of
focusing and aggregating the analysis categories (Charmaz 2014).

Selection of study areas

The sites (Figure 2) were selected because the communities self-attribute to
an ethnic community, and the research question was how the building of
such communities and their discourses influences landscapes. Notably
though, this does not suppose ethnic homogeneity. The sites are low-
productivity landscapes with mostly small-scale farming. Based on their
characteristics, they could be defined as agroecology territories, as proposed
by Wezel et al. (2016), meaning that they are biodiverse, agrarian landscapes
that are collectively protected by the formation of institutions.
The first study site, Nazareno in Sierra Santa Victoria, in the province of Salta,
Argentina, is a remote location at 3,000 meters altitude in the Andes. It has around
3,000 inhabitants (Data for 2015, hospital of Nazareno). It is located in one of the
poorest regions in Argentina: In 2015, only 40% of the average gross national
product was generated per person (Secretaría de Política Económica
y Planificación del Desarrollo 2015). Nazareno is in the Prelature of Humahuaca,
founded by the Catholic Church. The Prelature supports the livelihoods of margin-
alized indigenous peoples through its aid organization OCLADE (Obra Claretiana
para el Desarrollo) (Occhipinti 2013). The missionaries, who arrived in 1970 after
the Second Vatican Council, gained deep insights into the indigenous cosmovision
and incultured it (see also Olmedo 2016; Pliego 2006); according to this Andean
worldview, people live with Mother Earth. This has a strong territorial relevance
and has been invoked in current negotiations for property rights of indigenous
peoples. The Catholic Church in Nazareno was actively involved in the creation of
the indigenous organization OCAN (Organización de Comunidades Aborígenes
de Nazareno). The main objectives of the OCAN are the integral development of
the community and the defense of the ancestral territory.
The area is known for its diversity of native maize varieties grown on terraces
through subsistence agriculture (Cámara Hernández et al. 2012; Hilgert and Gil
2005). The varieties are used in different dishes and drinks and consumed at
different times of the year (Cámara Hernández and Arancibia de Cabezas 2007).
On the west side of the Sierra Santa Victoria mountain chain, the Quebrada de
Humahuaca was nominated as a cultural landscape by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2003 (https://
whc.unesco.org/en/list/1116). However, the increase of tourism led to social and
economic marginalization of the original indigenous population (Bergesio,
Montial, and Scalone 2012; Bidaseca 2011). With the aim of avoiding a similar
10 C. STEINHÄUSER

process in Nazareno, the community blocked the opening of a three-star hotel in

2010 by a referendum.
The second study site, Val Badia, is one of the five Ladin valleys around the Sella
group in the Dolomites in South Tyrol, northern Italy. The Ladin language is
spoken by about 10,000 people in Val Gardena and Val Badia (Pescosta 2013).
Important institutions for the preservation of the Ladin are the educational
institutions and the Ladin Cultural Institute “Micurà de Rü”. Preliminary results
by Valentin (2018) in a participatory digital project about Ladin cultural heritage
support the observation that the Ladin is an imagined, collective-minded
community.
The area is known for agrobiodiversity in the extensively used meadows.
They are threatened by land use change, that is, by fertilization with slurry
and machine mowing, or by land abandonment (Tasser and Tappeiner 2002;
Unterluggauer 2016). Several peaks of the Dolomites are Natural Heritage
Sites of UNESCO because of the unique geological formations combined
with woods and meadows (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1237). Tourism has
grown exponentially since the second half of the 20th century. It is now an
important economic factor, and the area hosted more than 350,000 visitors in
2012 (Gary, Steingress, and Wendel 2014). Agriculture today is organized to
benefit from tourism, e.g. by offering tourist accommodation on farms.

Results: visions of livable landscapes

The interviewees in Nazareno and Val Badia showed very different imaginaries of
a livable landscape. Because of the qualitative approach, the following code
frequencies in Tables 1 and 2 are simply an overview of the topics that emerged
frequently. Also, because of the different number of interviews and questions
asked, the frequency is only to be compared within each interview type. Based on
these codes, as well as on local literature and observations, the following aspects
will be outlined: (i) institutions and discourses (church, land development, educa-
tion, popular arts); (ii) adapting livelihood to change (tourism, technologies); and
(iii) correspondence in the landscape. In the latter, the dimensions “longing”
(memory and imagination), “attention” (awareness in joining and participating),
and “care” (answering to needs), as proposed by Ingold (2016b), will be discussed
more deeply for the data from the walking interviews.

The nazareno case study

Institutions and discourses: “the andean cosmovision”
The participants of the expert interviews focused on identity, tourism, re-
skilling, and Mother Earth (Table 1).
 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 11

Table 1. Most frequent codes in the Nazareno case study. In bold, the four most frequent codes
for each interview type: EI = expert interview; WI = walking interview.
Nazareno case study Frequency (absolute counts)
Codes EI (n = 9) WI (n = 13)
Having a cultural identity 22 47
Not being prepared for tourism 18 11
Recovering ancestral knowledge 17 31
Feeling empathy for Mother Earth 12 49
Loosing identity because of changing habits 7 41
Living isolated in a remote place 7 30
Developing the community’s own potential 6 23
Practicing subsistence agriculture 3 27
Giving value through dedication 2 35
Having community activities 1 31

Table 2. Most frequent codes in the Alta Badia case study. In bold are the four most frequent
codes for each interview type: EI = expert interview; WI = walking interview.
Val Badia case study Frequency (absolute counts)
Codes EI (n = 9) WI (n = 11)
Ladinia is a small homeland 20 25
Speaking Ladin is part of my being 16 13
Tourism is an important pillar for our economy 8 43
Land use is heavily regulated 6 35
Experiencing Nature with the body 5 26
Farmers caring for the cultural landscape 4 38
Appreciating gifts of free nature 3 39
Relationship with Nature must be build and nurtured 3 24
Working on a farm is exhausting 3 23
Mountain farming is not competitive 0 46

Church. The importance of the cultural identity was strongly supported by

the Catholic Church. The priest in Nazareno defines himself as “we the
indigenous peoples” and “we the Catholic Church”. As mentioned above,
the missionaries of the prelature incultured the indigenous cosmovision (see
also Olmedo 2016; Pliego 2006). This was not the case in other Christian
Churches of Nazareno (N51-WI-f-30, peasant). The inculturation, according
to the Catholic bishop, is intended to give his Andean fellow citizens a sense
of belonging to a pluri-ethnic society, helping marginalized indigenous
communities to gain a recognized position in today’s society (Pliego 2006,
in the foreword by Olmedo). Associated with this is an ongoing process of
revaluation of the indigenous cosmovision, which involves a harmonious
reciprocal relationship between Mother Earth and the community of
human beings and deities, constantly recreated through rituals and practices.
I observed how Mother Earth (Pachamama) was celebrated during the
Catholic service on Mother’s Day.
12 C. STEINHÄUSER

Land development. The advisory services for agriculture of the Salta

Province have adapted their former agricultural extension practices of top-
down knowledge transfer. Now they are implementing agroecology for
family farmers, trying to recover ancestral knowledge through participant
investigation. However, they do not have capacities to reach such remote
places as Nazareno on a regular basis (N32-EI-m-40, agricultural institution).
Instead, two peasants of the community of Nazareno are in charge of
agricultural development and coordination (N46-EI-m-50, agricultural
institution).

Education. The school must comply with a program proposed by the central
education authorities. While several teachers are trying to recover and inte-
grate local experiential knowledge, many parents and school leaders prefer
formal education in the classrooms because they expect better job perspec-
tives (N54-EI-m-40, educational institution). Students have access to com-
puters, but not always to the Internet. Another challenge is to get teachers
who want to stay in such an isolated place. That is why a tertiary school was
established in place, where teachers are trained within the community.
Among other things, the tertiary school aims to recover the Quechua lan-
guage of the Kolla (N42-WI-f-30, peasant and student).

Popular arts. The folklore music about the Andean indigenous way of living
is widespread in Argentina and reaches the capital, Buenos Aires. A musician
who migrated to Buenos Aires mentioned that people say to him: “Look,
thanks to you I learned to love the Humahuaca valley, because through your
songs you draw so much the landscape” (N44-EI-m-60). Another musician
who stayed in Humahuaca aims to teach about the local values with his songs
and poems, because the expansion of tourism had led to gentrification and
had degraded indigenous peasants so that they now perform jobs with low-
level pay (N23-EI-m-70). For both interviewees, through their folklore, they
keep alive in the collective memory the relationship between Mother Earth
and indigenous people in the north Andean regions.

Adapting livelihood to change: “knowledge, technical and food sovereignty”

Tourism. There are no industrial or service enterprises in Nazareno except
for several small shops. Available work is mainly in the public sector, so
many people migrate to the cities for work or education. Nevertheless, the
community has precluded tourism as a factor for economic development.
In a 2010 referendum, the community narrowly voted against the opening
of a three-star hotel to be run by a foreign company. Afterwards, the
OCAN published a book with the aim of constructing a collective memory
about the three-year conflict. The people of Nazareno had demanded
community tourism, where any profits would have remained in the
 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 13

community and not in the hands of foreign companies. A member of the

community summarized this desire: “Landscape and culture are common
goods; an individual does not have the right to earn money by bringing
strangers” (Asociación de comunidades aborígenes de Nazareno 2012, 51,
transl. CS). Overall, the OCAN book is consistent with the views of experts
interviewed in the Quebrada de Humahuaca: During the process for the
UNESCO nomination as cultural landscape, the indigenous people were
not prepared for tourism at the level of services expected by foreign
travelers (N23, 32, 33, 44, all of them EI). In Nazareno, people were not
prepared for the behaviors of the visitors either; many rules are implicit,
evolved over a long period of time and are communicated orally.

Technologies. The remote location of Nazareno is seen by several interviewees as

an opportunity to slowly adapt innovations and to develop in accordance with the
Andean indigenous cosmovision. Peasants do not see subsistence farming as
gainful occupation, but as a means of providing their families with healthy food.
Hardly any agrochemicals or technologies are used. Livestock consists of sheep,
goats and cattle and is kept in different forms of transhumance. The fields are
cultivated without machines. The irrigation channels are maintained by hand
mostly through community work. Families are, to a large extent, dependent on
a good harvest. “If the Earth somewhere along the way gives us nothing … What
do we eat? We all die, and the story is over” (N37-WI-m-50, peasant). This
requires fertile soils and seeds, skills and knowledge, and a favorable climate.
New varieties and practices such as intercropping with legumes are introduced by
imitating other practices in the Andes and by trial and error. One goal is to again
increase the diversity of native seeds. Genetically modified maize varieties are
rejected. Farmers are trying to have their crops recognized as organic on
a community level (N46-EI-m-50, agricultural institution).
Nevertheless, because of labor migration and changing lifestyles, fields are
becoming abandoned and the variety of crops is shrinking. There is
a particular concern about how to incentivize younger community members
to continue growing the fields, as cultivating fields is a requirement to be
considered an indigenous community (OCAN) (N37-WI-m-50, peasant).

Correspondence in the landscape: “practicing reciprocity with mother earth”

During the walking interviews, most participants talked about ethnicity,
Mother Earth and the value that peasants add to soil, as well as to harvest,
through their dedication (and the concerns about losing identity, as men-
tioned above) (Table 1).

Longing. To explain their relationship with landscape, all participants

referred to their grandparents (abuelos), not specifying how many genera-
tions back they meant. The lifestyle of the abuelos was felt to be desirable and
14 C. STEINHÄUSER

in contrast to today’s consumption-driven, accelerated life in the cities. Many

interviewees believe cities offer no decent work, no housing, and are violent
places (N4-WI-f-40, N37-WI-m-50, peasants). So, participants said they find
shelter in Mother Earth. When he dies, an older man says, he wants to
become the earth again, and he wishes the earth to be tightly compacted on
his grave (N6-WI-m-70, peasant). The community still has no property
rights, but they say that they are connected by this bond to the earth.

Attention. A peasant explains that one must take into consideration the
production capacity of the earth. “Sow what is necessary, water the land,
let it rest, […] respecting the cycles, be content with what she gives us” (N47-
WI-m-50, peasant). It would be despicable, he continues, to overburden the
earth with chemicals and, as soon as it becomes unproductive, abandon it. In
fact, they pay tribute to the seeds. Mindfulness results from the attention to
the needs and rhythms of Mother Earth, as well as from the time-consuming
handling of the seed and harvest.

Care. Several interviewees express that it is the responsibility of peasants to care

for the earth. They describe various rituals by which they express their gratitude.
“We feel that the earth feeds us, gives us fruits and we live on the earth. That’s
why we give thanks. That is our habit. We give thanks in every moment” (N4-
WI-f-40, peasant). In doing so, the earth is included in the community. Some
people pour water on the floor before drinking themselves. Permission is
requested to cross a river or to cultivate the fields. This interaction makes
tangible the immaterial bond of repayment to Mother Earth. Some peasants
describe an aesthetic awareness in which a quiet, liberating dialogue with
Mother Earth takes place (N4-WI-f-40, N8-WI-f-30, N37-WI-m-50, peasants).

The val badia case study

Institutions and discourses: “a small threatened homeland”
The expert interviews dealt comprehensively with “Ladinism” (Table 2). It is
supported by several institutions and defined primarily by the use of the
Ladin minority language. Nevertheless, the connection of language and land
makes up a significant part of the Ladin’s identity (Crazzolara 2009; Moroder
2009; Valentin 2018). In her quest for Ladinism, Crazzolara (2009) combines
Ladin roots with a vulnerable home.

Church. Religiosity was mentioned as an important Ladin trait. Hymnals

have been translated into Ladin, and in several communities, fairs are held
exclusively in Ladin (L6-EI-m-70, Catholic Church). However, the Catholic
Church does not occupy a central role in constituting an ethnic identity as in
Nazareno. Following the research of Pescosta (2013, 77) the first written
 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 15

testimonies of peasant settlements in the Ladin Valleys are documents of the

Catholic Church in the late ninth century, a time when legends and customs
were forbidden. So, no inculturation took place. Today there is no nexus
between (Mother) Earth and the Christian faith (L12-EI-m-60, Catholic
Church). When asked if people go back to the earth when they die, an
interviewee answered: “Back to earth? No, here is the other thing – that the
soul goes up” (L28-WI-f-60, Ladin institution).

Land development. Land use is highly regulated by the European Common

Agricultural Policy and several regional institutions (L14-f-60, L17-f-60, L21-
m-50, L32-m-30, WIs). Farmers can opt to comply with regulations for
regional or organic products (L23-f-70, L38-m-30, WIs). At the local level,
farm succession is recognized by an award ceremony (L14-WI-f-60). The
formation of institutions for collective management, such as grazing of alpine
meadows, has been comprehensively regulated and documented (Nössing
2016; Pechlaner 2016).

Education. In the Ladin Education and Culture Directorate, a “Cherta di

raions ladins” can be seen, which is a map with a bold red line showing the
border of “Ladinia” within the northern Italian provinces. This map illus-
trates how the language relates to land. Within this border, language parity is
given in schools to German, Italian and Ladin. Speaking Ladin opens up job
opportunities: a minority policy is in place ensuring that the Ladin people are
represented by officials in government. The “Istitut Ladin Micurá de Rü”
institutionalizes language publishing Ladin dictionaries and literature.

Popular arts. Musicality was mentioned by many interviewees when asked

about characteristics of Ladinism. But Ladin music is performed in private.
During the annual Spring Music Festival in Val Badia in 2017, which was
mainly visited by local peoples, the music was international. Only the syn-
chronized slideshow showed pictures of the cultural landscape of the
Dolomites. This underlines the difference of scale in the imaginary of both
study sites: Ladinia as a small home, and Nazareno pertains to a broadly
spread Andean cosmovision.

Adapting livelihood to change: “between heritage and innovation”

Tourism. As confirmed by all interviewees, tourism is an important eco-
nomic factor. In contrast to the development in the Quebrada de
Humahuaca, the ownership of tourism services is largely in the hands of
Ladin people. But due to tourism, the cost of living and land prices have
increased. This has changed land use, consumer behavior, and living stan-
dards. It burdens households and leads to an even heavier workload. The
change is visible in the landscape through ski slopes and urbanization. “On
16 C. STEINHÄUSER

the altar of this prosperity, even more alpine pastures, even more meadows,
even more forests perish” (L30-EI-m-50, Ladin institution). The farmers are
credited with the role of guardians of tradition: “The peasant still feels like
the keeper of tradition. The rooted Ladin, so to speak” (L1-EI-m-60, Ladin
institution). For tourism, the farmers represent an idyllic and sustainable way
of life – that is “not globalized” (L4-EI-m-40, Ladin institution). They make
the cultural landscape attractive for tourism (Gary, Steingress, and Wendel
2014), such that the Ladin cultural landscape is associated with the
Dolomites, the alpine meadows and forests, viles (typical Ladin settlements)
and cottage gardens (Asche et al. 2007; Forni 2005, Mischı̀ and Clara 2002;
Pescosta 2013). “They [the tourists] come mainly because of the landscape.
The peasant is the gardener of the landscape” (L19-WI-f-50, peasant).

Technologies. In contrast to Nazareno, most farmers own their land. Due to the
small volume of agricultural products, the farms are hardly competitive in the
European market. Mechanization has made it possible to continue to run a farm
and have a second occupation – to better match modern lifestyles. Crops are no
longer cultivated by the great majority of farmers because they are unprofitable.
Pesticides and synthetic fertilizers are scarcely used. Not every cattle farm has
adapted the old technologies and installations; in some cases, there is
a discrepancy between modern lifestyles and precarious living conditions for
animals. The faster lifestyles affect peoples’ relationship with nature and within
the community: “Now with the machines there is a lot to work, we have to do
everything too fast … eating and all has to go fast … . This doesn’t suit me” (L23-
WI-f-70, peasant). However, young farmers seek out new agricultural practices:
“And then I just said to my dad: Either we set up machines to make things go
a little faster, or else we have to give it up” (L38-WI-m-30, peasant).

Correspondence in the landscape: “farmer’s knowledge of nature’s needs”

The walking interviews highlighted economic aspects of farming, the role of
farmers’ experiential knowledge for cultural landscapes, and landscape plan-
ning (which they sometimes did approve and sometimes not) (Table 2).
Longing was related to the continuation of the farm in honor of ancestors.
“To now stop cultivating the landscape, where the ancestors worked for
a long time … I think that would be foolish” (L32-m-30, peasant). From
childhood they grow, in their words, not “in” nature, but “with” nature. This
socialization with nature is the explanation participants gave when asked why
they wanted to stay on the farm. An outstanding line of “longing” is the
Ladin language. “We prefer to speak Ladin, that’s very clear” (L28 WI-f-60,
Ladin institution). It is extremely important for all interviewees to speak it in
the family. At the same time, as explained above, it is territorial, and herein
lies the relationship between landscape and language. Things can be named
 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 17

in the native language. “Ladin is just what’s around me. I have the name for
all things” (L14-WI-f-60, peasant).
Attention, was observed when considering the bareness of the mountain soils.
“Well, if we can get a good milk price, then you can produce well with nature. If,
on the other hand, the price of milk goes down, you just must try to produce a bit
more milk” (L34-m-30, peasant). This statement highlights the attitude to
produce “with” nature and not “from” nature. This becomes clearer by the
interviewee’s use of the verbs “can” and “must”: Economic constraints alone
would force him to conquer nature against its own will. Another reason for
staying on the farm is joining and resonating with nature: “And then, the rhythm
with nature, that’s it too: that you just go with nature” (L19-f-50, peasant).
Working on the farm allows an aesthetic, empathetic and sensual experience: “I
see so much, I feel so much, I smell so much” (L14-f-60, peasant).

Care. A special sentient bond with nature arises, according to the farmers, in
manual work, referring to the non-mechanical, careful handling and, at the
same time, the haptic, sensual, painstaking experience of mowing steep
meadows with the scythe, collecting hay with a hand rake, and distributing
dung: “Yes, just a lot of care and a lot of love” (L34-WI-m-30, peasant). The
meadows reciprocate this mindful care with a particularly beautiful, colorful
bloom: “Compare this meadow and the below. Then you will see the differ-
ence. There are all colors: violet, yellow, green, white, pink. Here you can
only see this same herb” (L17-WI-f-60, peasant). Machines compact the soil,
and spilled manure changes the composition of the flora in favor of the
grasses, “but nature suffers, I’m sure. This can be seen in the flowering” (L14-
WI-f-60, peasant). Another interviewee said: “Management with the scythe is
very gentle. With tractors and mowing racks, you go into nature very
invasively” (L21-WI-m-50, peasant). The word “invasive” here contains an
empathic evaluation of nature’s capacity for suffering. The emotionally
tolerable limit of intensification is, by these interviewees, measured by the
presence of flowers.

Discussion: dimensions of reciprocal well-being

The discourse-ethnographic approach of this study aimed to analyze the
interaction between the detached discourse on landscape at the meso-level,
gathered mainly in expert interviews, complemented with non-discursive,
pre-linguistic perceptions of landscape on the local level, gathered mainly in
walking interviews (as “being-in-the-world” through bodily movement and
experiential knowledge). This was an analytical distinction between the way
that “cultures of organizations or institutions [structure discourses and the
way that] local social settings and life-worlds […] reproduce and contest at
18 C. STEINHÄUSER

the same time […] the larger social settings in which they are embedded”
(Elliker, Wundrak, and Maeder 2017, 237).
Both communities belong to an ethnic group: in Nazareno, being indigenous
indicates a way of living, while Ladinism is mostly confined to the Ladin
language. When asked about landscape, the interviewees said “Mother Earth”
(Nazareno) or “Nature” (Val Badia). From the semantic perspective, this points
to differing pre-linguistic, non-verbalized semantic fields that structure the
shared stock of knowledge and value systems (Berger and Luckmann 1966/
1991). By studying such structures in language, different mentalities and their
conceptualization of landscapes can be visualized, as shown by Steinhäuser and
Buttschardt (forthcoming) for cultural landscapes. Such knowledge frames dis-
pose (but do not determine) land use, in that certain practices are discursively
considered as normal while others are not (Wylie 2007).
The prevailing discourse found in the institutions that support the indigenous
communities of northwest Argentina and Nazareno was connected to the “buen
vivir”. It is discussed by Vanhulst and Beling (2014) as emergent degrow
discourse that proposes a social renewal in harmony with cultural values and
with nature. Boff (2016) describes “buen vivir” as an ethic attitude of moderation
on behalf of the needs of a human-nature community and as a holistic concep-
tion of humans. For this reason, he underlines the spiritual dimension of “buen
vivir”. With the inculturation of the Andean cosmovision in the pastoral of the
Catholic Church in the Prelature of Humahuaca, the Christian faith is merged
with the degrow discourse proposed by the “buen vivir” and nurtures the
perception of tangible and intangible bindings between humans and Mother
Earth. Also, the popular arts support this imaginary of cohabitation of the Kolla
people who live together with their Pachamama in the harshness of the high
mountains. These discourses reinforce the self-perception of the indigenous
community of Nazareno. The walking interviews reflected that “having
a cultural identity” and “feeling empathy for Mother Earth” (Table 1) are
important drivers for such a dedicated way by which the land use practices,
routines and festivities are performed by many members of the community.
In Val Badia, there is a prevailing discourse of “ecological modernization”
oriented on solutions that satisfy both environmental protection and eco-
nomic prosperity, as described by Dryzek (2005). For example, mechaniza-
tion is widely implemented, and tourism is recognized as “an important
pillar” for the local economy (Table 2). For tourism, maintaining the char-
acter of the Ladin cultural landscape is of outstanding importance, which is
why “land use is heavily regulated”. The farmers are in charge of “caring for
the cultural landscape”. But especially in the walking interviews, some “eco-
centric” transformative approaches to sustainability were expressed that
reject a categorical human/nature divide (as described by Vanhulst and
Beling 2014). With respect to the methodology of this study, many of the
participants of the walking interviews may have accepted the offer to go for
 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 19

a walk because of their affinity to the landscape. This presumes openness to

the perception of intangible bindings between humans and non-humans
(Nature/Mother Earth).
At this point, it can be discussed how alternative worldviews co-exist
within Naturalism (Descola 2014). As I was also socialized in Naturalism,
I find it fruitful to include the ontology of Descola in this study to sharpen
the awareness about the attribution of interiority in non-humans and, con-
sequently, the intangible bindings that are perceived and described by the
interviewees between the interiority of humans and non-humans. According
to the interviews, several people in Ladinia cannot be fully attributed to
Naturalism (which would concede very little interiority to nature). Namely,
dignity was attributed to nature, whereby she has the capability to offer gifts
and she is especially valued in what is perceived as her self-determined form
(wilderness). On the other side, Gudynas (2011) argues that the concept of
Mother Earth is often used as a metaphor (that rejects the human/nature
divide) to denote alternative perspectives on European anthropocentrism,
without completely conforming to any of Descola’s ontologies. Ingold
observes: “that the Western tradition of thought, closely examined, is as
richly various, multivocal, historically changeable and contest-riven as any
other” (Ingold 2000, 6).
From the perspective of cultural landscapes, understood as the interrela-
tion between communities and their environment, this paper focuses on the
ability to establish intangible bindings with Nature/Mother Earth (in other
words, reciprocity within their interiorities). Therefore, the codes were
further refined and integrated with memos (Charmaz 2014). After merging
the codes of both communities, an understanding of well-being emerged,
which extends community building in that it includes Nature/Mother Earth.
These refined codes were sorted to several “dimensions of correspondence”
(longing, attention and care) (Ingold 2016b) and several “basic human needs”
(subsistence, participation and sentiment) (Max-Neef 1991) (Figure 3).
“Longing” can be discussed together with “subsistence” and “participation”.
These ties are described in depth by Kuehne (2013) in an autoethnographic
paper on the sale of his farm. To him, the sale meant losing his identity and
shared values with his peer group. This becomes particularly clear in Nazareno,
where peasants are not the owners of the fields. They say they belong to the place
because they build a recognized ethnic community that includes ancestors and
Mother Earth. In Val Badia, longing is enforced by the responsibility of con-
tinuing the work of the former generations and keeping the meadows free from
woods. They build community from an imagined view of Ladinia as a small
home with a native language. While sharing this language, they are “reality-
maintaining others” (Berger and Luckmann 1966/1991, 173). The farmers in
both places emphasize that their experiential knowledge should be passed on to
the following generations. They want to offer them the opportunity to run
20 C. STEINHÄUSER

Figure 3. Constituents of well-being in community and reciprocity with Nature/Mother Earth as

coded from the interviews. Outer ring: refined codes about landscape perception (both commu-
nities); middle ring: dimensions of correspondence and human needs.

a farm because it means doing meaningful work (see also Timmermann and
Félix 2015). In sharing these values, landscape gets an identifiable character
(Cumming 2011).
“Attention” results from a sentient adapting to each other. Chan et al.
(2016) argue that not only indigenous communities are capable of such
reciprocal relationships; on the contrary, many people see a good life in
entering mutual relationships with nature. This includes attending to life
cycles and rhythms as well as to the joy of aesthetic awareness. Some farmers
in Nazareno attribute to Mother Earth a dignity that they respect by asking
for permission before cultivating her. For some Ladin farmers, the dignity of
nature is perceived in the beauty of meadows, which are thought to be hurt
by the speed of mechanical processing. Here, the code “Being free” clearly
refers to a way of life (as farmer) and to conceding freedom (wilderness) to
nature as well.
“Care” is necessary to enable nature to offer humans a variety of maize,
wild herbs, colorful flowers, or forage. According to Ingold (2016b), exchan-
ging gifts creates lasting changes in donor and recipient. For Max-Neef
(1991), the ability to make a present is one of the basic needs for a good
life. In such a relationship of mutual acceptance, a peasant explains: “Work
cannot please me anymore if I no longer contact nature … I have to take my
time and observe nature. Only then you really get in contact. And then you
appreciate her, and then you fall in love with her” (L17-WI-f-60). This
statement is in line with the findings of Vieira Botelho, Cardoso, and
Otsuki (2015) in the region of Zona da Mata in Brazil. There, the transition
 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 21

to agroecology had strengthened the observation ability of farmers who came

closer to their environment. This embeddedness transformed their thinking
about nature, “enabling them to care for the land with love” (Vieira Botelho,
Cardoso, and Otsuki 2015, 126). The authors named this reconnecting with
nature as “deep agroecology”.
Looking at the two studied sites from the perspective of ecosystem
services, they provide people with agricultural products such as maize or
forage. Due to careful extensive management and small-scale fields, they
still maintain regulatory services, such as biodiversity, which are common
goods. However, in terms of cultural services, there is a contrast between
providers and beneficiaries (Barnaud et al. 2018), depending on the user
perspective (tourism or farmers). For tourism, in both Nazareno and Val
Badia, the cultural services are mainly aesthetics and recreation. Tourists
pay for this enjoyment with money. This fleetingness of experiencing
nature and landscape consumption contrasts with the slow rhythm of
landscape evolution. Farmers generate provisioning, regulatory and cul-
tural services through their reciprocal relationships, their corresponding
with Nature/Mother Earth, as described above. With their culture, way of
life, and vision of a livable landscape they generate an intangible common
good. They acquire knowledge involving the body, the mind and the
senses. This experiential knowledge is a constituent part of agroecological
cultural landscapes.

Conclusion: knowledge and skills are constituents of agroecological

landscapes
Neither the communities nor the agroecological landscapes of the study sites
were homogenous. As stated by Wezel et al. (2016, 140), “in the majority of
territories studied, stakeholder actions for agroecology are less organized, less
visible, less publicized, quite specific, or just emerging”. Common features of
both study sites are the small-scale farming structures in a mountain land-
scape that cannot easily be intensified due to the slope and altitude. This
permitted access to people who still have direct daily contact with nature. In
both communities, discourses relate to visions that reinforce the character of
the landscapes and influence land use practices. In Nazareno, a broader
“Andean cosmovision” prescribes reciprocity rules for the community in
everyday life. Being a peasant is part of the indigenous identity. The agro-
biodiversity of maize races is needed for subsistence over the year, and to be
used in festivities. Ladinia is a “small threatened homeland” that is greatly
maintained for tourism. Ladin is the language shared in the families and
builds identity. The biodiverse alpine meadows are maintained by farmers
and land use regulations. This study highlights the intangible values of
correspondence with landscape, lived and renewed by several members of
22 C. STEINHÄUSER

these communities. Their knowledge and skills are constituents of the land-
scape. Altieri and Toledo (2011) recognize these as sources for transition to
agroecology.
The social transformation to sustainability in modern societies in the
Anthropocene could connect to traditional, local knowledge. Following
Latour (2018), this is not about musealization of landscapes, it is about
understanding people as rooted on earth again and cultivating bonds
between living beings. If landscape is an inner, subjective construction,
then transition to agroecology can only take place when there is
a regeneration of both landscape and society. This research doesn’t deny
the plurality of societies but has denoted the abilities of people who work
daily with nature to build up well-being in this interrelation. This abilities
can be acquired as Vieira Botelho, Cardoso, and Otsuki (2015) describe for
the farmers in Zona da Mata, Brazil. After two decades of transition to
agroecology, the farmers had rediscovered traditional knowledge and chan-
ged their belief systems: “nature is no longer subordinate to human interests
but is seen as an entity with its own characteristics and intentions” (Vieira
Botelho, Cardoso, and Otsuki 2015, 124).
This study proposes several dimensions as constituents of reciprocal well-being
in farming between humans and nature in cultural landscapes: subsistence, long-
ing, participation, care, sentiment, and attention. In the lifeworld of many inter-
viewees, living out all of these dimensions provided well-being only in coexistence
with the well-being of Nature/Mother Earth. These findings expand the concept of
ecosystem services, which inherently tends to reduce these interrelations mainly to
subsistence (in the sense of physicality), as a service for humans. Future research
could deepen these insights into other rural communities or agroecological move-
ments such as community-supported agriculture or urban farming.

Funding
This work was supported by the IP@WWU, the project for "International PhD Study at the
WWU" of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).

References
Acosta, A. 2015. El Buen Vivir como alternativa al desarrollo. Algunas reflexiones económicas y no
tan económicas. Política Y Sociedad 52 (2):299–330. doi:10.5209/rev_POSO.2015.v52.n2.45203.
Altieri, M. A., and V. M. Toledo. 2011. The agroecological revolution in Latin America:
Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. The Journal of
Peasant Studies 38 (3):587–612. doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.582947.
Asche, R., G. Mischì, G. Asche, and E.-D. Schulze. 2007. Larjëi: 1000 Jahre Bewirtschaftung
der Lärche im Campilltal, Südtirol. San Martin de Tor: Uniun ladins Val Badia.
Asociación de comunidades aborígenes de Nazareno. 2012. La hostería que convertimos en
albergue estudiantil. Salta: OCAN.
 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 23

Barnaud, C., E. Corbera, R. Muradian, N. Salliou, C. Sirami, A. Vialatte, J.-P. Choisis,

N. Dendoncker, R. Mathevet, C. Moreau, et al. 2018. Ecosystem services, social interde-
pendencies, and collective action: A conceptual framework. Ecology and Society 23:1.
doi:10.5751/ES-09848-230115.
Bennett, E. M., W. Cramer, A. Begossi, G. Cundill, S. Díaz, B. N. Egoh, I. R. Geijzendorffer,
C. B. Krug, S. Lavorel, E. Lazos, et al. 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and
human well-being: Three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:76–85. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007.
Berger, P. L., and T. Luckmann. 1966/1991. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Bergesio, L., J. Montial, and L. Scalone. 2012. Territorio imaginado. El caso de la Quebrada de
Humahuaca (Jujuy, Argentina). Pampa: Revista Interuniversitaria De Estudios Territoriales
8:111–36. doi:10.14409/pampa.v1i8.
Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred ecology. 3. ed ed. New York: Routledge.
Bidaseca, K. 2011. “World Heritage Listing Policies, Local Knowledge and Indigenous Peoples
in Argentina’s Quebrada de Humahuaca.” 5th Global Conference: Multiculturalism,
Conflict and Belonging, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Bogner, A., B. Littig, and W. Menz. 2018. Generating Qualitative Data with Experts and
Elites. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, ed. U. Flick, 652–65.
London: Sage.
Botelho, M. I. V., I. M. Cardoso, and K. Otsuki. 2015. ‘I made a pact with God, with nature,
and with myself’: Exploring deep agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems
40 (2):116–31. doi:10.1080/21683565.2015.1115798.
Brondizio, E., R. T. Adams, and S. Fiorini. 2017. Historiy and scope of environmental
anthropology. In Routledge Handbook of Environmental Anthropology, ed. H. Kopnina
and E. Shoreman-Ouimet, 10–30. London: Routledge.
Bürgi, M., P. H. Verburg, T. Kuemmerle, and T. Plieninger. 2017. Analyzing dynamics and values
of cultural landscapes. Landscape Ecology 32 (11):2077–81. doi:10.1007/s10980-017-0573-0.
Cámara Hernández, J., A. M. Miante Alzogaray, R. Bellón, and A. J. Galmarini. 2012. Razas
de maíz nativas de la argentina. Buenos Aires: Editorial Facultad de Agronomía-
Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Cámara Hernández, J., and D. Arancibia de Cabezas. 2007. Maíces Andinos y sus usos en la
Quebrada de Humahuaca y regiones vecinas. Buenos Aires: Facultad de Agronomía. UBA.
Carpiano, R. M. 2009. Come take a walk with me: The ‘go-along’ interview as a novel method
for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health & Place 15
(1):263–72. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.05.003.
Chan, K. M. A., P. Balvanera, K. Benessaiah, M. Chapman, S. Díaz, E. Gómez-Baggethun,
R. Gould, N. Hannahs, K. Jax, S. Klain, et al. 2016. Opinion: Why protect nature?
Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America 113 (6):1462–65. doi:10.1073/pnas.1525002113.
Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing grounded theory. 2. ed ed. Los Angeles: Sage: Introducing
qualitative methods.
Crazzolara, R. 2009. Unsere Erbschaft im Zeitalter der Globalisierung: 360° Ladinität?.
Ladinia 33:201–06.
Crutzen, P. 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature 415 (6867):23. doi:10.1038/415023a.
Cumming, G. S. 2011. Spatial resilience: Integrating landscape ecology, resilience, and
sustainability. Landscape Ecology 26 (7):899–909. doi:10.1007/s10980-011-9623-1.
Davidson-Hunt, I. J., and F. Berkes. 2008. Nature and society through the lens of resilience:
Toward a human-in-ecosystem perspective. In Navigating social-ecological systems:
24 C. STEINHÄUSER

Building resilience for complexity and change, ed. F. Berkes, J. Colding, and C. Folke, 53–82.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Debaise, D., P. Jensen, P. Montebello, N. Prignot, I. Stengers, and A. Wiame. 2015.
Reinstituting Nature: A Latourian Workshop. Environmental Humanities 6:167–74.
doi:10.1215/22011919-3615943.
Dendoncker, N., F. Boeraeve, E. Crouzat, M. Dufrêne, A. König, and C. Barnaud. 2018. How
can integrated valuation of ecosystem services help understanding and steering agroeco-
logical transitions?. Ecology and Society 23:1. doi:10.5751/ES-09843-230112.
Descola, P. 2014. Beyond nature and culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabias, C. Joly, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash, A. Larigauderie,
J. R. Adhikari, S. Arico, A. Báldi, et al. 2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework —
Connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:1–16.
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
Dryzek, J. S. 2005. The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Elliker, F., R. Wundrak, and C. Maeder. 2017. Introduction to the thematic issue and
programmatic thoughts on the Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse
Ethnography. Journal for Discourse Studies 5 (3):232–48.
Evans, J., and P. Jones. 2011. The walking interview: Methodology, mobility and place.
Applied Geography 31 (2):849–58. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.09.005.
Flint, C. G., I. Kunze, A. Muhar, Y. Yoshida, and M. Penker. 2013. Exploring empirical
typologies of human–Nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept.
Landscape and Urban Planning 120:208–17. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.002.
Forni, M. 2005. Ladinische Einblicke: Erzählte Vergangenheit, erlebte Gegenwart in den
ladinischen Dolomitentälern. San Martin de Tor: Istitut ladin Micurà de Rü.
Gary, C., M. Steingress, and M. Wendel. 2014. Die ladinische Kultur als touristischer
Angebotsfaktor: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung in Gröden und im Gadertal. In Das
neue Portrait Ladiniens: Ethnizität, Tourismus, Kulturlandschaft in den Dolomiten, ed.
L. Insam, C. Drackert, H. Kölbesberger, and E. Steinicke, 63–96. Innsbruck: Geographie
Innsbruck.
Gliessman, S. 2018. Defining Agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42
(6):599–600. doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1432329.
Gudynas, E. 2011. Imágenes, ideas y conceptos sobre la naturaleza en América Latina. In
Cultura y Naturaleza, ed. L. Montenegro Martínez, 268–93. Bogotá: Jardín Botánico José
Celestino Mutis.
Guzmán, E. S., and G. Woodgate. 2013. Agroecology: Foundations in Agrarian Social
Thought and Sociological Theory. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 1:32–44.
Ingold, T. 2000. The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill.
London: Routledge.
Ingold, T. 2011. Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Abingdon,
Oxon: Routledge.
Ingold, T. 2016a. A Naturalist Abroad in the Museum of Ontology: Philippe Descola’s
Beyond Nature and Culture. Anthropological Forum 26 (3):301–20. doi:10.1080/
00664677.2015.1136591.
Ingold, T. 2016b. On human correspondence. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
23:9–27. doi:10.1111/1467-9655.12541.
Jax, K., D. N. Barton, K. M. A. Chan, R. de Groot, U. Doyle, U. Eser, C. Görg, E. Gómez-
Baggethun, Y. Griewald, W. Haber, et al. 2013. Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecological
Economics 93:260–68. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008.
 AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 25

Kuehne, G. 2013. My decision to sell the family farm. Agriculture and Human Values 30
(2):203–13. doi:10.1007/s10460-012-9393-7.
Kusenbach, M. 2003. Street phenomenology. The go-along as ethnographic research tool.
Ethnography 2 (3):455–85. doi:10.1177/146613810343007.
Latour, B. 2018. Das terrestrische Manifest. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Mallarach, J. M. 2008. Cultural and spiritual values of protected landscapes and seascapes: an
overview. In Protected landscapes and cultural and spiritual values, ed. J. M. Mallarach, 9–
20. Heidelberg: Kasparek.
Max-Neef, M. A. 1991. Human scale development: Conception, application and further reflec-
tions. New York: Apex Press.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment series, Washington, DC: Island Press.
Moroder, L. 2009. “Ladinersein heute. Und Morgen?” Ladinia 33:213–20.
Nicholls, C. I., and M. A. Altieri. 2018. Pathways for the amplification of agroecology. Agroecology
and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (10):1170–93. doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1499578.
Nössing, J. 2016. Gemeinschaftlicher Besitz: Geschichte und Gegenwart der Bürgerlichen
Nutzungsrechte in Südtirol und im Trentino. Bozen: Athesia.
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011. Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Occhipinti, L. 2013. Liberating Development: Religious Transformations of Development
Discourse. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 12 (3):427–43.
doi:10.1163/15691497-12341265.
Olmedo, J. 2016. Una misión - Una iglesia. 47 Años de la Prelatura de Humahuaca.
Humahuaca: Prelatura de Humahuaca.
Pechlaner, E. 2016. Agrargemeinschaften und Gemeingüter in Südtirol: Beobachtungen zum
Spannungsfeld österreichischer und italienischer Rechtsordnungen. In Rural Commons;
Collective Use of Resources in the European Agrarian Economy, ed. N. Grüne, J. Hübner,
and G. Siegl, 128–137. Innsbruck: Studien Verlag.
Pescosta, W. 2013. Geschichte der Dolomitenladiner. San Martin de Tor: Istitut ladin Micurà
de Rü.
Pfadenhauer, M. 2017. Boundary Making, Borderlines, Border Crossing. Forum: Qualitative
Social Research 18 (1). doi: 10.17169/fqs-18.1.2782.
Pliego, M. 2006. Sabiduría y espiritualidad indígena. Humahuaca: Prelatura de Humahuaca.
Plieninger, T., and C. Bieling. 2012. Resilience and the cultural landscape: Understanding and
managing change in human-shaped environments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, S. Chapin, E. Lambin, T. Lenton,
M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H. J. Schellnhuber, et al. 2009. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring
the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society 14 (2):32. doi:10.5751/ES-
03180-140232.
Secretaría de Política Económica y Planificación del Desarrollo. 2015. Ficha Provincial - Jujuy.
Accessed March 14, 2017. http://www.mecon.gov.ar/peconomica/dnper/fichas_provin
ciales/Jujuy.pdf.
Small, M. L. 2009. 'How many cases do I need?' On science and the logic of case selection in
field-based research. Ethnography 10 (1):5–38.
Sponsel, L. E. 2017. Spiritual ecology, sacred places, and biodiversity conservation. In
Routledge Handbook of Environmental Anthropology, ed. H. Kopnina and E. Shoreman-
Ouimet, 132–43. London: Routledge.
Steffen, W., J. Rockström, K. Richardson, T. M. Lenton, C. Folke, D. Liverman,
C. P. Summerhayes, A. D. Barnosky, S. E. Cornell, M. Crucifix, et al. 2018. Trajectories
26 C. STEINHÄUSER

of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America 115 (33):8252–59. doi:10.1073/pnas.1810141115.
Steffen, W., W. Broadgate, L. Deutsch, O. Gaffney, and C. Ludwig. 2015. The trajectory of the
Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review 2 (1):81–98. doi:10.1177/
2053019614564785.
Steinhäuser, C., and T. K. Buttschardt. forthcoming. Kuturelle Bezüge zu außerordentlichen
und alltäglichen Landschaften. Zum Verständnis der Konzepte von Kulturlandschaft
seitens deutscher und argentinischer Landbewirtschafter/innen. In Diskurse - digital, ed.
E. Gredel. https://majournals.bib.uni-mannheim.de/diskurse-digital/issue/archive
Tasser, E., and U. Tappeiner. 2002. Impact of Land Use Changes on Mountain Vegetation.
Applied Vegetation Science 5 (2):173–84. doi:10.1111/avsc.2002.5.issue-2.
Timmermann, C., and G. F. Félix. 2015. Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice.
Agriculture and Human Values 32 (3):523–38. doi:10.1007/s10460-014-9581-8.
Unterluggauer, P. 2016. Traditionally and intensively managed meadows in South Tyrol –
Vegetation types as estimates of the management intensity. Tuexenia - Mitteilungen Der
Floristisch-Soziologischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft 36:37–62.
Valentin, E. 2018. ‘Memovoice’: Approaches to participative identification of heritage. In
Cultural heritage care and management: Theory and practice, ed. C. L. Salvatore, 219–32.
Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Vanhulst, J., and A. E. Beling. 2014. Buen vivir: Emergent discourse within or beyond sustainable
development?. Ecological Economics 101:54–63. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.017.
Wezel, A., H. Brives, M. Casagrande, C. Clément, A. Dufour, and P. Vandenbroucke. 2016.
Agroecology territories: Places for sustainable agricultural and food systems and biodiver-
sity conservation. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 40 (2):132–44. doi:10.1080/
21683565.2015.1115799.
Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. 2009. Agroecology as
a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29
(4):503–15. doi:10.1051/agro/2009004.
Wilson, D., and T. Wharton. 2006. Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics 38
(10):1559–79. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012.
Wylie, J. W. 2007. Landscape. Milton Park: Routledge: Key Ideas in Geography.