From terroir knowledge to socio-ecological governance: through a rethinking of wine typicity concept?

Abstract

Typicity is a key concept in the world of Geographical Indications (GI) and terroir-driven wines (Leriche et al., 2020; Souza Gonzaga et al., 2021). It is commonly approached from a sensory perspective, whereby typicity is assessed through the identification of specific sensory characteristics (Cadot et al., 2010; Maitre et al., 2010). This understanding plays a major role in the development of quality schemes and GIs systems. However, it captures only part of what typicity represents. Building on the work of Casabianca et al. (2006), typicity can be understood as a collective construction rather than a simple sensory property of products. According to this definition, typicity relies on several forms of knowledge that are distributed among the different actors involved in the production system. This knowledge-based perspective is consistent with recent work conceptualizing GIs as knowledge commons, emphasizing that their long-term sustainability depends on the collective creation, governance and transmission of knowledge (Mazé, 2023). I argue that typicity should be understood not only as a property of products, but as a collective knowledge system supporting the adaptation and long-term sustainability of GIs.

Climate change, environmental challenges and evolving societal expectations are transforming the conditions under which terroir-driven wines are produced. Preserving typicity can therefore no longer mean simply maintaining existing practices unchanged; instead, it requires the collective capacity to adapt while preserving the identity of the product and maintaining trust and guarantees provided to consumers (INAO, 2025). To address this challenge, I extend the framework developed by Casabianca et al. (2006) by introducing two additional forms of knowledge:  the first is “knowing how to evolve”, which refers to the collective capacity to adapt practices, rules and references to changing ecological and socio-economic conditions; the second is “knowing how to promote”, which refers to the ability to communicate, justify and transmit typicity to consumers, institutions and society by highlighting both the intrinsic characteristics of the product and the practices and production methods that underpin it. Together, the six forms of knowledge contribute to the creation of ecological, market and cultural value.

To better understand the dynamics involved, I propose analyzing typicity through the lens of Social-Ecological Systems (SES) (Ostrom, 2009). From this perspective, typicity is not a fixed attribute of a product but an emergent property arising from continuous interactions between ecological resources, collective knowledge of the actors, governance arrangements and market dynamics. The different forms of typicity knowledge can be viewed as collective processes through which actors continuously define, reproduce, adapt and legitimize typicity. These processes generate feedback loops between environmental changes, institutional decisions, production practices and consumer expectations. In this conceptual approach, typicity is not simply preserved but collectively negotiated, maintained and transformed over time by the actors involved in each territory or Geographical Indication. The resilience of a GI therefore depends on its capacity to collectively mobilize, renew and transmit these forms of knowledge while preserving the guarantees of origin, authenticity and trust associated with the product.

These considerations have important implications for the governance of GIs. If typicity is understood as a dynamic and collectively negotiated property, then GI specifications cannot be regarded as static documents that merely codify existing practices. Instead, they should be conceived as adaptive governance instruments capable of supporting innovation, integrating sustainability objectives and enabling the collective evolution of typicity while ensuring the long-term sustainability of terroir-driven production systems.

This conceptualization also calls for new research approaches. Understanding typicity as a dynamic and collective process requires moving beyond the characterization of products toward the analysis of interactions, learning processes and governance mechanisms through which typicity is continuously constructed. It therefore provides a useful lens for understanding how place-based production systems can adapt to environmental and societal challenges while maintaining their identity and legitimacy. More broadly, it reinforces the idea that GIs are not only quality schemes but also instruments for territorial development, capable of supporting the sustainable management of local resources, strengthening collective action and creating ecological, cultural and economic value within territories.

References

Cadot, Y., Caillé, S., Samson, A., Barbeau, G., & Cheynier, V. (2010). Sensory dimension of wine typicality related to a terroir by Quantitative Descriptive Analysis, Just About Right analysis and typicality assessment. Analytica Chimica Acta, 660(1), 53-62. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2009.10.006

Casabianca, F., Sylvander, B., Beranger, C., Coulon, J.-B., & Giraud, G. (2006, 3-7 juillet 2006). Terroir et typicité : propositions de définitions pour deux notions essentielles à l’appréhension des indications et du développement durable. VIe Congrès international des Terroirs Viticoles, Bordeaux, Montpellier.

INAO. (2025). Durabilité des AOP viticoles et cidricoles, des boissons alcoolisées et des boissons spiritueuses : guide d’appui aux Organismes de Défense et de Gestion.

Leriche, C., Molinier, C., Caillé, S., Razungles, A., Symoneaux, R., & Coulon-Leroy, C. (2020). Development of a methodology to study typicity of PDO wines with professionals of the wine sector. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 100(10), 3866-3877. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10428

Maitre, I., Symoneaux, R., Jourjon, F., & Mehinagic, E. (2010). Sensory typicality of wines: How scientists have recently dealt with this subject. Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 726-731. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.06.003

Mazé, A. (2023). Geographical indications as global knowledge commons: Ostrom’s law on common intellectual property and collective action. Journal of Institutional Economics, 19(4), 494-510. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137423000036

Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science, 325(5939), 419-422. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.1172133

Souza Gonzaga, L., Capone, D. L., Bastian, S. E. P., & Jeffery, D. W. (2021). Defining wine typicity: sensory characterisation and consumer perspectives [Review]. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 27(2), 246-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12474