This contribution starts off from taking account of the crisis in the agricultural sector. This sector has been “trivialised” by erroneous policies and market rules. However, at present the trend is changing: “demand for environment” is increasing, as well as the attempt of taking actions and policies favouring sustainable development. At the same time, notwithstanding the different meanings attached to the concept of sustainability, a wave of revaluation of rural areas is rising: the countryside is now considered as a source of local cultural values. Its exploitation as a tourist attraction, which is progressively taking off, is to be considered in this context. Natural and cultural assets are acknowledged to be “tourist environment”, namely they are considered as a primary component of local promotion and development. This arises some relevant issues. Under this interpretation, “the relationship between environment and tourism appears to be conflictual and cooperative simulateously: natural and cultural assets are part of growth determinants and, at the same time, the growth tourism generates has a negative impact on them, sometimes even significant.” Such an impact is not limited to the “use” tourists make of the attracting assets, but it is amplified in the valorisation process: in fact, this process tends to realise structures, infrastructures and services in the most sensitive areas, in order to improve their attractiveness. In this regard, new models of tourism can pave the way to the improvement of local architectural heritage and infrastructure. Furthermore, they can also favour the upgrading of the agricultural techniques towards higher qualitative standards. Globalisation allows transnational actors to condition local development, which causes marked social and cultural changes. In this context, traditional policies and planning are hampered. This contribution also aims at exploring the potential of a shared process to move to a form of tourism grounded on the agricultural component of the countryside, highlighting that the inclusion of different stakeholders in the process cannot be put off. Moreover, such inclusion must not be considered as anonyme consensus building based on inertia: it needs to be a continuous self-feeding learing process constituting the cornerstone of a new planning method.