Just Accepted Manuscripts
Original Articles - Appraisal and Rural Economics

Quality of Life in Basilicata’s Inner Areas (Italy): A Q-Methodology pilot study on Mayors’ perceptions for local development

pdf
  • Maria Andreoli,
  • Mario Cozzi,
  • Severino Romano,
  • Job van Exel,
  • Mauro Viccaro
Maria Andreoli
Department of Agricultural, Forestry, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Basilicata
Mario Cozzi
Department of Agricultural, Forestry, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Basilicata
Severino Romano
Department of Agricultural, Forestry, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Basilicata
Job van Exel
Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Mauro Viccaro
Department of Agricultural, Forestry, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Basilicata
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/aestim-20564

Published 2026-10-13

Keywords

  • capabilities approach,
  • territorial vulnerability,
  • rural governance,
  • place-based policy,
  • mixed method,
  • factor interpretation
    • ...More
    Less

Copyright (c) 2026 Maria Andreoli, Mario Cozzi, Severino Romano, Job van Exel, Mauro Viccaro

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

This study examines how mayors in Basilicata’s inner areas perceive factors shaping quality of life and local development. Using an exploratory pilot design combining the Capabilities Approach and Q methodology, it investigates the priorities and meanings local decision-makers assign to territorial well-being. Thirty-one mayors from peripheral and ultra-peripheral municipalities ranked 24 statements on quality of life. Factor analysis identified five viewpoints, emphasizing institutional and bureaucratic barriers, community resilience and social ties, inter-municipal cooperation, strategic planning, and essential services. Findings portray inner areas as complex systems where structural vulnerabilities coexist with social and territorial resources. The study highlights the territorial nature of capabilities and supports place-based policies aimed at strengthening services locally and cooperation, simplifying administrative processes, and expanding opportunities for younger generations.

pdf

References

  1. Agency for the Territorial Cohesion (2024). National strategy for “Inner Areas” (SNAI). Available at: https://www.agenziacoesione.gov.it/strategia-nazionale-aree-interne/?lang=en (Accessed 27 September 2026).
  2. Alkire, Sabina, ‘The Capability Approach and Well-Being Measurement for Public Policy’, in Matthew D. Adler, and Marc Fleurbaey (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy, Oxford Handbooks (2016; online edn, Oxford Academic, 2 Nov. 2016), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199325818.013.18
  3. Andreoli, M., Gerini, F., Cozzi, M., Romano, S., Boncinelli, F., Casini, L., Marone, E., Burger, M., & Viccaro, M. (2026). Stakeholders’ perceptions of factors shaping quality of life in rural areas: Evidence from two Italian case studies. Aestimum, 88, 3–27. https://doi.org/10.36253/aestim-18753
  4. Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2021). Co-creation: The new kid on the block in public governance. Policy & Politics, 49(2), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16115951196045
  5. Aschbrenner, K. A., Naslund, J. A., Scherer, E. A., Pratt, S. I., Wolfe, R. S., Barre, L. K., & Bartels, S. J. (2022). Applying mixed methods to pilot feasibility studies to inform intervention trials. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 8(1), 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-022-01178-x
  6. Banasick, S. (2019). KADE: A web application for Q methodology. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(36), 1360. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01360
  7. Barca, F., & Terribile, F. (2019). Regional development: Why places matter for better policies. OECD Observer, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1787/f755cea3-en
  8. Barca, F., Carrosio, G., & Lucatelli, S. (2018). Le aree interne da luogo di disuguaglianza a opportunità per il paese: Teoria, dati, politica. In Carrosio, G. (Ed.). Le sostenibili carte dell’Italia. Venezia, Marsilio.
  9. Basile, G. (2020). Rural identity, authenticity, and sustainability in Italian inner areas. Sustainability, 12(3), 1272.
  10. Bautista, T. G., Roman, G., Khan, M., Lee, M., Sahbaz, S., Duthely, L. M., Knippenberg, A., Macias-Burgos, M. A., Davidson, A., Scaramutti, C., Gabrilove, J., Pusek, S., Mehta, D., & Bredella, M. A. (2023). What is well-being? A scoping review of the conceptual and operational definitions of occupational well-being. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 7(1), e227. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2023.648
  11. Beer, A., Sotarauta, M. & Ayles, K. (2021) Place, city, regional, rural … leadership: a review. In Sotarauta, M. & Beer, A. (Eds.). Handbook on City and Regional Leadership. pp. 19–40. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing.
  12. Beltramo, R., Peira, G., Pasino, G., & Bonadonna, A. (2024). Quality of life in rural areas: A set of indicators for improving wellbeing. Sustainability, 16(5), 1804. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051804
  13. Bernard, J., & Šimon, M. (2017). Inner peripheries in the Czech Republic: The multidimensional nature of social exclusion in rural areas. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review, 53(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2017.53.1.299
  14. Bertolini, P., & Pagliacci, F. (2017). Quality of life and territorial imbalances. A focus on italian inner and rural areas. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, 6(2), 183–208. https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-18518
  15. Blecic, I. (2023). A critical comparison between inner areas and territorial approaches: Evidence from Italy. Land, 12(2), 312. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020312
  16. Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, Yale University Press.
  17. Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3–4), 91–138. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.1993.002
  18. Cannings, L., Egerer, M., & Gill, B. (2024). Opposing objective and subjective wellbeing outcomes in environmentally vulnerable contexts. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1401480. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1401480
  19. Carrosio, G. (2020). La crisi socio-ambientale nelle aree interne: Riconnettere ambiente e welfare. Working papers. Rivista online di Urban@it, 2/2020, 1–7.
  20. Chiappero-Martinetti, E., Osmani, S., & Qizilbash, M. (2020). The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  21. Cicco, N., Candido, V., Coluzzi, R., Imbrenda, V., Lanfredi, M., Larocca, M., Lorusso, A., Benelli, C., & Sofo, A. (2025). Revitalizing marginal areas of Basilicata (Southern Italy) with saffron: A strategy approach mixing alternative cultivation system and land suitability analysis. Land, 14(4), 902. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040902
  22. Collantes, F., Pinilla, V., Sáez, L. A., & Silvestre, J. (2014). Reducing depopulation in rural Spain: The impact of immigration. Population, Space and Place, 20(7), 606–621. https://doi.org/10.1002/PSP.1797
  23. Coppola, E. (2022). La partecipazione ed il coinvolgimento della comunità nella costruzione delle politiche di contrasto all’abbandono delle aree interne e rurali. Urbanistica Informazioni, 306, 55–58
  24. Coppola, E. (2023). I centri storici minori delle aree interne tra valorizzazione e restanza. BDC – Bollettino Del Centro Calza Bini, 23(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.6093/2284-4732/10469
  25. D’Oronzio, M. A., De Vivo, C., & Ricciardi, D. (2018). Rivitalizzare le aree interne: Il caso della Basilicata. Paper presented at XXXIX Conferenza scientifica annuale AISRe, September 17–19, 2018, Bolzano, Italy.
  26. Damio, S. M. (2016). Q methodology: An overview and steps to implementation. Asian Journal of University Education, 12(2), 106–118. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1207820.pdf
  27. Davies, B. B., & Hodge, I. D. (2007). Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK. Ecological Economics, 61(2–3), 323–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.002
  28. De Toni, A., Vizzarri, M., Lasserre, B., Carrosio, G., Sallustio, L., & Di Martino, P. (2020). Inner peripheries: dealing with peripherality and marginality issues within the European policy framework. TERRA: Revista De Desarrollo Local, (7), 24–47. https://doi.org/10.7203/terra.7.17239
  29. Dezio, C., D’Armento, S., Kërçuku, A., Moscarelli, R., Pessina, G., Silva, B., & Vendemmia, B. (2021). Inner areas in Italy: A testbed for interpreting and designing marginal territories. Trento, LIStLab.
  30. Dieteren, C. M., Patty, N. J. S., Reckers-Droog, V. T., & van Exel, J. (2023). Methodological choices in applications of Q methodology: A systematic literature review. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 7(1), 100404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100404
  31. Fabbricatti, K., Picone, A., Tenore, V., Ascione, F., Berruti, G., Formato, E., Mattiucci, C., & Sgobbo, A. (2022). Quality of housing for inner areas between specialised supply, proximity welfare and production of new economies. TECHNE - Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, (24), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.36253/techne-12875
  32. Ferretti, M., Favargiotti, S., Lino, B., & Rolando, D. (2022). Branding4Resilience: Explorative and Collaborative Approaches for Inner Territories. Sustainability, 14(18), 11235. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811235
  33. Forrester, J., Cook, B. R., Bracken, L. J., Cinderby, S., & Donaldson, A. (2015). Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems. Applied Geography, 56, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.019
  34. Grignoli, D., D’Ambrosio, M., & Boriati, D. (2024). Vulnerability and inner areas in Italy—“Should young stay or should young go”? A survey in the Molise region. Sustainability, 16(1), 359.https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010359
  35. Hallingberg, B., Turley, R., Segrott, J., Wight, D., Craig, P., Moore, L., Murphy, S., Moore, G. F., Roberts, A., & Moore, S. C. (2018). Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale effectiveness studies. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 4, 104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-018-0290-8
  36. Hensel, D., Toronto, C., Lawless, J., & Burgess, J. (2022). A scoping review of Q methodology nursing education studies. Nurse Education Today, 109, 105220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105220
  37. Intriago Zambrano, J. C. (2024). Results of semi-systematic literature review on the application of Q-methodology in the rural Global South, as part of the DARE-TU PhD project. Dataset. DataverseNL. https://doi.org/10.34894/K252KB
  38. ISTAT - Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (2022). The geography of inner areas in 2020: Territories between potential and weaknesses. Available at: https://www.istat.it/en/press-release/the-geography-of-inner-areas-in-2020-territories-between-potential-and-weeknesses/ (Accessed 27 September 2026).
  39. ISTAT - Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (2024). Il benessere equo e sostenibile dei territori: Basilicata – Report BesT 2024. Available at: https://www.istat.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Basilicata_BesT_2024.pdf (Accessed 27 September 2026).
  40. Long, E., Stevens, S., Topciu, R., Williams, A. J., Taylor, T. J., & Morrissey, K. (2022). Wellbeing and social network characteristics in rural communities: Findings from a cohort in social housing in Cornwall, United Kingdom. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 5(3), 559– 570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-022-00167-5
  41. Loveridge, R., Souter-Brown, G., & Marlow, D. (2020). Measuring human wellbeing: A protocol for selecting local indicators. Land Use Policy, 94, 104909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104909
  42. Lucatelli, S., & Monaco, F. (Eds.). (2018). La voce dei sindaci delle aree interne: Problemi e prospettive della Strategia nazionale. Soveria Mannelli, Rubbettino Editore.
  43. Lucatelli, S., Monaco, F., & Tantillo, F. (2019). The strategy for inland areas serving as a new local development model for Italy. Rivista Economica del Mezzogiorno, 33(3–4), 739–771.
  44. Malmqvist, J. (2019). Conducting the pilot study: A neglected part of the qualitative research process? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919878341
  45. Mantino, F. (2022). Rural areas between locality and global networks. Local development mechanisms and the role of policies empowering rural actors. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, 10(4), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-12364
  46. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. B. (2013). Q methodology. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications.
  47. Moliterni, S., Zulauf, K., & Wagner, R. (2025). A taste of rural: Exploring the uncaptured value of tourism in Basilicata. Tourism Management, 107, 105069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2024.105069
  48. Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  49. OECD (2018). Rural 3.0: A framework for rural development. OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2018/03/rural-3-0_fe038f7c/618f702b-en.pdf (Accessed 27 September 2026).
  50. OECD (2020). How’s life? 2020: Measuring well-being. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9870c393-en
  51. Pike, A., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Tomaney, J. (2017). Shifting horizons in local and regional development. Regional Studies, 51(1), 46-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1158802
  52. Pinto, S., Fumincelli, L., Mazzo, A., Caldeira, S., & Martins, J. C. (2017). Comfort, well-being and quality of life: Discussion of the differences and similarities among the concepts. Porto Biomedical Journal, 2(1), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbj.2016.11.003
  53. Piras, F., & Pedes, F. (2025). The impact of socio-economic factors on the development of rural tourism: Italian case based on a regional analysis. Tourism and Hospitality, 6(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010003
  54. Porta, A., Arauzo-Carod, J. M., & Segre, G. (2022). The Italian National Strategy for Inner Areas: First insights from regions’ specialization in cultural and creative industries. Working Paper No. 4/2022. University of Florence. Available at: https://www.disei.unifi.it/upload/sub/pubblicazioni/repec/frz/wpmmos/pdf/wp04_2022.pdf (Accessed 27 September 2026).
  55. Punziano, G., & Urso, G. (2016). Local development strategies for inner areas in Italy: A comparative analysis based on plan documents. Italian Journal of Planning Practice, 6(1), 76–109.
  56. Rimondi, T. (2025). Fragilità molteplici nel mosaico aree interne. Leggere le disuguaglianze territoriali oltre la dicotomia centro-periferia. In Perocco, F., & Pirina, G. (Eds.). Le disuguaglianze territoriali in Italia: Cause, forme, conseguenze. pp. 201–224. Venezia, Edizioni Ca’ Foscari. https://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-991-7/008
  57. Robeyns, I. (2011). The capability approach. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 ed.). Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/ (Accessed 27 September 2026).
  58. Sabbi, M. (2023). ‘We Did Many Projects Together’: Boundary-Spanning Strategies of Councillors in Rural Ghana. Progress in Development Studies, 23(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/14649934221149610
  59. Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N., & Rockström, J. (2019). Six transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability, 2, 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0352-9
  60. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  61. Shakya, M., & Vagnarelli, G. (2024). Creating value from intangible cultural heritage—the role of innovation for sustainable tourism and regional rural development. European Journal of Cultural Management and Policy, 14, 12057. https://doi.org/10.3389/ejcmp.2024.12057
  62. Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  63. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/8131721/8131772/Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi- Commission-report.pdf (Accessed 27 September 2026).
  64. Sudau, M., Celio, E., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2023). Application of Q-methodology for identifying factors of acceptance of spatial planning instruments. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 66(9), 1890–1917. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2043259
  65. United Nations (2022). The Sustainable Development Goals report 2022. Available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/ (Accessed 27 September 2026).
  66. van Exel, J., & de Graaf, G. (2005). Q methodology: A sneak preview. White paper. Erasmus University Rotterdam. Available at: https://qmethod.org (Accessed 27 September 2026).
  67. van Popering-Verkerk, J., Molenveld, A., Duijn, M., van Leeuwen, C., & van Buuren, A. (2022). A Framework for Governance Capacity: A Broad Perspective on Steering Efforts in Society. Administration & Society, 54(9), 1767–1794. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211069932
  68. Viccaro, M., Romano, S., Prete, C., & Cozzi, M. (2021). Rural planning? An integrated dynamic model for assessing quality of life at a local scale. Land Use Policy, 111, 105742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105742
  69. Voukelatou, V. (2021). Measuring objective and subjective well-being: Dimensions, data sources and the way forward. SN Computer Science, 2(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060-020- 00224-2
  70. Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications.
  71. Weckroth, M., Ala-Mantila, S., Ballas, D., & Ziogas, T. (2022). Urbanity, neighbourhood characteristics and perceived quality of life (QoL): Analysis of individual and contextual determinants for perceived QoL in Finland. Social Indicators Research, 164, 139– 164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-022-02943-7
  72. Whitaker, S. H. (2024). The impact of government policies and regulations on the subjective wellbeing of farmers in two rural mountain areas of Italy. Agriculture and Human Values, 41, 1791–1809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-024-10586-z
  73. World Health Organization. (1995). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science & Medicine, 41(10), 1403–1409. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00112-K
  74. Zabala, A., & Pascual, U. (2016). Bootstrapping Q methodology to improve the understanding of human perspectives. PloS One, 11(2), e0148087. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148087
  75. Zabala, A., Sandbrook, C., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Conservation Biology, 32(5), 1185–1194. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13123
  76. Zarecor, K.E., Peters, D.J., Hamideh, S. (2021). Rural Smart Shrinkage and Perceptions of Quality of Life in the American Midwest. In Martinez, J., Mikkelsen, C. A., & Phillips, R. (Eds.). Handbook of Quality of Life and Sustainability. International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life. Cham, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50540-0_20
  77. Zawilińska, B., Nestorová Dická, J., Matei, E., & Švajda, J. (2023). Applying Q-methodology to investigate the perception of the social and economic role of the national park by local stakeholders: Cases of national parks in the Carpathians. Journal for Nature Conservation, 75, 126459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2023.126459

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>