ACTA GEOGRAPHICA
SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKIZBORNIK
2023
63
3
0101661851779
ISSN 1581-6613
A
C
TA
 G
E
O
G
R
A
P
H
IC
A
 S
LO
V
E
N
IC
A
 •
G
E
O
G
R
A
FS
K
I 
Z
B
O
R
N
IK
 •
63
-3
 •
20
23ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA
GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK
63-3 • 2023
Contents
SPECIAL ISSUE – The role of traditional, transforming and new commons in
landscapes
POSEBNA IZDAJA – Vloga tradicionalnega, preobraženega in novega skupnega
v pokrajinah
Mimi Urbanc, Keiko Hori, Mateja ŠMid Hribar
Commons, collective actions and landscapes: A short introduction 9
Hans renes, alexandra KrUse, Kerstin PottHoff
Transhumance, commons, and new opportunities: A European perspective 15
nevenka bogataj, janez Krč
Towards the efficient response of forest owners to large-scale forest damage: An example
of forest commons 33
joana nogUeira, josé Pedro araújo, joaquim Mamede alonso, sara siMões
Common lands, landscape management and rural development: A case study in a mountain
village in northwest Portugal 51
tanja ŠUMrada, emil erjavec
Will farmers cooperate to conserve biodiversity? The use of collective bonus in the High
Nature Value farmland in Slovenia 69
Primož PiPan, Mateja ŠMid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc
Motivation, robustness and benefits of water commons: Insights from small drinking water
supply systems 85
Mateja ŠMid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Matija Zorn
Commons and their contribution to sustaining Slovenian cultural landscapes 101
lucia PalŠová, Zina MacHničová
Common lands as a system of joint management to contribute to community resilience?
Case from Slovakia 119
naslovnica 63-3_naslovnica 49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:23  Page 1
ACTA GEOGRAPHICA
SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKIZBORNIK
2023
63
3
0101661851779
ISSN 1581-6613
A
C
TA
 G
E
O
G
R
A
P
H
IC
A
 S
LO
V
E
N
IC
A
 •
G
E
O
G
R
A
FS
K
I 
Z
B
O
R
N
IK
 •
63
-3
 •
20
23ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA
GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK
63-3 • 2023
Contents
SPECIAL ISSUE – The role of traditional, transforming and new commons in
landscapes
POSEBNA IZDAJA – Vloga tradicionalnega, preobraženega in novega skupnega
v pokrajinah
Mimi Urbanc, Keiko Hori, Mateja ŠMid Hribar
Commons, collective actions and landscapes: A short introduction 9
Hans renes, alexandra KrUse, Kerstin PottHoff
Transhumance, commons, and new opportunities: A European perspective 15
nevenka bogataj, janez Krč
Towards the efficient response of forest owners to large-scale forest damage: An example
of forest commons 33
joana nogUeira, josé Pedro araújo, joaquim Mamede alonso, sara siMões
Common lands, landscape management and rural development: A case study in a mountain
village in northwest Portugal 51
tanja ŠUMrada, emil erjavec
Will farmers cooperate to conserve biodiversity? The use of collective bonus in the High
Nature Value farmland in Slovenia 69
Primož PiPan, Mateja ŠMid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc
Motivation, robustness and benefits of water commons: Insights from small drinking water
supply systems 85
Mateja ŠMid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Matija Zorn
Commons and their contribution to sustaining Slovenian cultural landscapes 101
lucia PalŠová, Zina MacHničová
Common lands as a system of joint management to contribute to community resilience?
Case from Slovakia 119
naslovnica 63-3_naslovnica 49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:23  Page 1
ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA
63-3
2023
ISSN: 1581-6613
UDC: 91
2023, ZRC SAZU, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika
International editorial board/mednarodni uredniški odbor: Zoltán Bátori (Hungary), David Bole (Slovenia), Marco Bontje (the Netherlands),
Mateja Breg Valjavec (Slovenia), Michael Bründl (Switzerland), Rok Ciglič (Slovenia), Špela Čonč (Slovenia), Lóránt Dénes Dávid
(Hungary), Mateja Ferk (Slovenia), Matej Gabrovec (Slovenia), Matjaž Geršič (Slovenia), Maruša Goluža (Slovenia), Mauro Hrvatin
(Slovenia), Ioan Ianos (Romania), Peter Jordan (Austria), Drago Kladnik (Slovenia), Blaž Komac (Slovenia), Jani Kozina (Slovenia),
Matej Lipar (Slovenia), Dénes Lóczy (Hungary), Simon McCarthy (United Kingdom), Slobodan B. Marković (Serbia), Janez Nared
(Slovenia), Cecilia Pasquinelli (Italy), Drago Perko (Slovenia), Florentina Popescu (Romania), Garri Raagmaa (Estonia), Ivan Radevski
(North Macedonia), Marjan Ravbar (Slovenia), Aleš Smrekar (Slovenia), Vanya Stamenova (Bulgaria), Annett Steinführer (Germany),
Mateja Šmid Hribar (Slovenia), Jure Tičar (Slovenia), Jernej Tiran (Slovenia), Radislav Tošić (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Mimi Urbanc
(Slovenia), Matija Zorn (Slovenia), Zbigniew Zwolinski (Poland)
Editors-in-Chief/glavna urednika: Rok Ciglič, Blaž Komac (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia)
Executive editor/odgovorni urednik: Drago Perko (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia)
Chief editors/področni urednik (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia):
• physical geography/fizična geografija: Mateja Ferk, Matej Lipar, Matija Zorn
• human geography/humana geografija: Jani Kozina, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc
• regional geography/regionalna geografija: Matej Gabrovec, Matjaž Geršič, Mauro Hrvatin
• regional planning/regionalno planiranje: David Bole, Janez Nared, Maruša Goluža
• environmental protection/varstvo okolja: Mateja Breg Valjavec, Jernej Tiran, Aleš Smrekar
Editorial assistants/uredniška pomočnika: Špela Čonč, Jernej Tiran (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia)
Journal editorial system manager/upravnik uredniškega sistema revije: Jure Tičar (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia)
Issued by/izdajatelj: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU
Published by/založnik: Založba ZRC
Co-published by/sozaložnik: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti
Address/naslov: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Gosposka ulica 13, p. p. 306, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija;
ags@zrc-sazu.si
The articles are available on-line/prispevki so dostopni na medmrežju: http://ags.zrc-sazu.si (ISSN: 1581–8314)
This work is licensed under the/delo je dostopno pod pogoji: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Ordering/naročanje: Založba ZRC, Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, SI – 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija; zalozba@zrc-sazu.si
Annual subscription/letna naročnina: 20 € for individuals/za posameznika, 28 € for institutions/za ustanove
Single issue/cena posamezne številke: 12,50 € for individuals/za posameznika, 16 € for institutions/za ustanove
Cartography/kartografija: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU
Translations/prevodi: DEKS, d. o. o.
DTP/prelom: SYNCOMP, d. o. o.
Printed by/tiskarna: Present, d. o. o.
Print run/naklada: 300 copies/izvodov
The journal is subsidized by the Slovenian Research Agency and is issued in the framework of the Geography of Slovenia core research pro-
gramme (P6-0101)/Revija izhaja s podporo Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije in nastaja v okviru raziskovalnega
programa Geografija Slovenije (P6-0101).
The journal is indexed also in/revija je vključena tudi v: Clarivate Web of Science (SCIE – Science Citation Index Expanded; JCR –
Journal Citation Report/Science Edition), Scopus, ERIH PLUS, GEOBASE Journals, Current geographical publications, EBSCOhost,
Georef, FRANCIS, SJR (SCImago Journal & Country Rank), OCLC WorldCat, Google Scholar, CrossRef, and DOAJ.
Design by/Oblikovanje: Matjaž Vipotnik
Front cover photography: Common lands, like the pastures around Čadrg, reflect socio-economic change in the landscape. Their
conservation and successful management are crucial for preserving local culture and biodiversity and supporting sustainable
development (photograph: Jure Tičar).
Fotografija na naslovnici: Skupna zemljišča, kot so pašniki v okolici Čadrga, so odsev družbeno-gospodarskih sprememb v pokrajini.
Njihovo vzdrževanje in uspešno upravljanje sta nujni za ohranjanje lokalne kulture ter biotske raznovrstnosti in zagotavljanje trajnostnega
razvoja (fotografija: Jure Tičar).
63-3-uvod_uvod49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:19  Page 4
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023, 85–100
MOTIVATION, ROBUSTNESS
AND BENEFITS OF WATER COMMONS:
INSIGHTS FROM SMALL DRINKING
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
Primož Pipan, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc
A spring with a village water trough in Čadrg, The Julian Alps, Slovenia.
M
AT
E
JA
 Š
M
ID
 H
R
IB
A
R
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 85
Primož Pipan, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Motivation, robustness and benefits of water commons: Insights from small …
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.11592 
UDC: 91:628.1(497.4)
Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Primož Pipan1, Mateja Šmid Hribar1, Mimi Urbanc1
Motivation, robustness and benefits of water commons: Insights from small
drinking water supply systems
ABSTRACT: The article addresses the governance of water commons with an emphasis on drinking water.
The study applied two conceptual frameworks: Ostrom’s Design Principles and the Social-Ecological Systems
framework. The empirical part refers to two water commons in Slovenia and is based on qualitative data
from semi-structured interviews with locals and professionals. The article follows three objectives: 1) to
identify the drivers and motivations for successful local water governance; 2) to assess the robustness of
water commons in terms of current and future challenges; 3) to identify the benefits of water commons.
The key elements for the functioning of the two local communities under examination are shared inter-
ests, as well as a strong commitment to effective management. In addition to the material benefits (i.e. drinking
water supply), non-material ones are also important. Community building and identity are particularly
noteworthy. The importance of small drinking water supply systems that are well organised and respon-
sibly governed as commons is beneficial not only to a municipality but also to a country.
KEY WORDS: water governance, water cooperatives, community water management, community water
cooperatives, Ostrom’s Design Principles, local water resources management, Slovenia
Motivacija, prožnost in koristi vodnih zadrug: spoznanja iz majhnih sistemov
za oskrbo s pitno vodo
POVZETEK: Članek obravnava delovanje vodovodnih zadrug, natančneje tistih, ki upravljajo s pitno vodo.
Raziskava temelji na dveh konceptualnih okvirih: načelih oblikovanja Elinor Ostrom in socio-ekoloških
sistemih (SES). Empirični del izhaja iz preučevanja dveh vodovodnih zadrug v Sloveniji in sloni na kval-
itativnih podatkih iz polstrukturiranih intervjujev z domačini in strokovnjaki. Članek ima tri cilje: 1)
identificirati dejavnike in motivacijo za uspešno lokalno upravljanje s pitno vodo, 2) oceniti prožnost vod-
nih zadrug v luči aktualnih in prihodnjih izzivov ter 3) opredeliti koristi vodovodnih zadrug. Ključna elementa
za delovanje dveh obravnavanih lokalnih skupnosti sta skupni interesi in močna zavezanost k učinkovitemu
upravljanju z vodnimi viri. Poleg materialnih koristi, kot je zagotavljanje pitne vode, so pomembne tudi
nematerialne koristi, zlasti oblikovanje skupnosti in identiteta. Sklepna ugotovitev je, da so lokalni siste-
mi oskrbe s pitno vodo, s katerimi skupnosti preudarno in odgovorno upravljajo, pomembni in prinašajo
koristi ne le občini, temveč tudi državi.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: upravljanje z vodo, vodovodne zadruge, skupnostno upravljanje z vodo, skupnostne
vodne zadruge, Ostromina načela oblikovanja, upravljanje lokalnih vodnih virov, Slovenija
This article was submitted for publication on January 18th, 2023.
Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 18. januarja 2023.
86
1 Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute,
Ljubljana, Slovenia
primoz.pipan@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2707-618X), mateja.smid@zrc-sazu.si
(https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5445-0865), mimi.urbanc@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-
8394-9892)
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 86
1 Introduction
Water, the quintessential resource that sustains life on Earth, has long been regarded as a vital public good.
Lately, it has been recognised as a common pool-resource. This shift in perception stems from the diffi-
culty in restricting access to water and the undeniable fact that its availability can be limited by use or
mismanagement (Ostrom and Ostrom 1977). Indeed, it is a vulnerable and conflict-prone resource (Amery
2002; Tucker 2014). Pollution and scarcity of drinking water pose pressing problems that compromise
the natural environment and deprive people of a decent quality of life. Climate change, in particular, has
been blamed for its widespread impact on water scarcity (Brunner et al. 2019; Vrzel et al. 2019; Terzi
et al. 2021; Urbanc and Šmid Hribar 2021). Recently, there has been increasing pressure worldwide (Bakker
2007) and in Europe (Staddon 2016) to privatise water, leading to its commodification. Given that water
underpins progress, plays a central role in climate change adaptation and is critical to human society
(https://www.unwater.org), there are many calls for better and more sustainable water governance (Pahl-
Wostl and Kranz 2010; OECD … 2015).
Water governance can take a myriad of forms, practices or principles and can occur at different levels –
(supra)national, regional, and local. The local level is becoming increasingly important. Around the globe,
there are initiatives to give local communities control over water supply. In the last fifteen years, there has
been a trend toward remunicipalisation, with previously privatized water utility companies returning to
municipal hands – already implemented in 235 cities in 37 countries, among which the United States and
European countries predominate (Kishimoto, Lobina and Petitjean 2015). In addition to the two main gov-
ernance models – public or state, and private or corporate, there are two others: a hybrid one, i.e. a combination
of decentralisation and marketisation (O’Reilly and Dhanju 2012), and a model that is often overlooked:
the community or cooperative model (Bakker 2008). Using examples from Bolivia, Wales, and Finland,
Bakker (2008) draws parallels between community participation in water governance and democratisa-
tion of water supply. A new step toward recognising the community relevance in water supply was taken
during the consultation period for the recast of the 2020 European Drinking Water Directive, and as a result,
the Alliance of Community-Owned Water Services in Europe was established (Deane and Domhnaill 2021).
Community drinking water governance exists in many countries around the world, mostly in rural
and suburban areas (Deller et al. 2009; Takala et al. 2011; Arvonen et al. 2017), including 200 in Canada
(Bakker 2007), 1,400 in Finland (Takala et al. 2011), 2,500 in Denmark, 5,000 in Austria (Nikolaou 2014),
and 3,300 in the United States (Deller et al. 2009). In the Global South, the phenomenon is often associ-
ated with impoverished communities (Hofstetter, van Koppen and Bolding 2021); Bolivia: 15, Chile: 137
(International … 2001), Sri Lanka: 37, and Kenya: 5,000 (Arvonen et al. 2017). The headwater position typ-
ically makes it easier to manage water resources and to ensure quality drinking water (Křeček and Haigh
2019), but also brings with it certain responsibilities downstream. 
Lack of community participation is identified as a major impediment to effective water governance,
for example in South Africa (Tyhotyholo and Ncube 2023). It is important to acknowledge the significant
potential of community water governance on both political and implementation levels (Marston 2015; Rana
and Piracha 2018; Katusiime and Schütt 2020). Despite the fact that water commons exist around the world,
few studies have been conducted that address their characteristics, role, relevance, and development. The
first gap is based on a comparative analysis of Finland and Kenya where Arvonen et al. (2017) suggest that
future research on water cooperatives could address an in-depth study of the factors responsible for their
successes and failures in different settings. The second gap is related to the lack of awareness in Slovenia
that water can be governed by water cooperatives in the same way as common land is managed by agrarian
communities. Water commons have been insufficiently studied; the authors of this paper are aware of only
two studies that briefly mention water commons in Slovenia (Šmid Hribar et al. 2023; Šmid Hribar, Urbanc
and Zorn 2023), unlike agrarian communities, which have attracted much scholarly attention (Vilfan 1996;
Petek and Urbanc 2007; Bogataj 2012; Rodela 2012; Premrl et al. 2015; Šmid Hribar, Bole and Urbanc 2015;
Šmid Hribar et al. 2018). 
The aim of this article is to present and evaluate water commons governance in two local communi-
ties in Slovenia – Čadrg and Goriče – based on the Social-Ecological Systems framework (SES) (Ostrom
2009; McGinnis and Ostrom 2014) and Ostrom’s Design Principles (DPs) (Ostrom 1990; 2005). Both cases
provide interesting insights into water commons that independently govern their own water resources to
ensure the supply of sufficient and safe drinking water for their residents. Other uses, such as pumping,
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023
87
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 87
Primož Pipan, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Motivation, robustness and benefits of water commons: Insights from small …
irrigation, and process water, are beyond the scope of this article. This article discusses the material, non-
material, regulatory and social benefits of water commons understood as Nature’s Contribution to People
(NCP) (Díaz et al. 2015; Díaz et al. 2018). The NCP builds upon the concept of ecosystem services, which
recognises that ecosystems provide a wide range of goods and services that are essential for human well-
being. The NCP goes beyond the traditional focus on the direct provisioning of goods such as food, water,
and timber, and also considers the various non-material benefits that nature provides. It highlights the mul-
tiple ways in which nature contributes to human life, culture, health, and overall quality of life. 
The research study addresses three main research questions. Firstly, it examines the motivations that
drive local communities to govern their own water resources. Secondly, it assesses the robustness of water
cooperatives in facing present and future challenges. Finally, it examines the diverse benefits associated
with water commons, including material, non-material, regulatory and social benefits, and identifies the
various beneficiaries of these benefits.
2 Methods
2.1 The territorial context: Slovenia
Within Europe, Slovenia stands out for its low population density and dispersed settling, whereby half of
the population is rural and half urban. The country is rich in water resources due to above-average rain-
fall compared to both Europe and the rest of the world, diverse rock composition, altitude, and topography
(Hrvatin, Komac and Zorn 2020). Institutionalised water supply has a long tradition, e.g. in Celje (Rihter
2008). Three facts are vital for a modern water supply: 1) drinking water is regulated by national legal pro-
visions (Eman, Kuhar and Meško 2020); 2) water supply is the responsibility of individual municipalities;
3) according to the Slovenian legislation, water supply systems are divided into public and private. A pri-
vate system is only possible in cases where the drinking water supply serves less than 50 inhabitants. Public
water systems are organised as municipal utility companies and provide a public service (Uredba … 2012).
In 2002, almost 91% of Slovenian population had access to public water supply systems operated by 102
public service providers (Čuček 2011). The rest, 196,400 inhabitants, use drinking water from small drink-
ing water supply systems (Kozelj and Drev 2017), which are mostly fed from small springs or boreholes.
They require a water permit to operate and a total of 20,013 permits have been issued (Meljo, Krajčič and
Smolar Žvanut 2017). 
The dispersed water supply is related to dispersed settling. Many small water supply systems are the
result of local initiatives, self-organisation of village communities and so-called self-imposed financial and
in-kind contributions dating back to the 1960s. This pattern of the drinking water supply system contin-
ues into the present day. Most often, small water systems – if they are unable to comply with the Decree
on Drinking Water Supply (Uredba … 2012) and Water Framework Directive (2000) – are transferred to
the management of larger public water utility companies due to financial and human constraints (Rejec
Brancelj et al. 2011; WRc 2017).
Between 2010 and 2015, the ownership of some Slovenian food and beverage companies, which
own 17 of the country’s 29 water boreholes, was transferred to multinationals, for example, Heineken
(Golubović 2016). This spurred a heated debate about water as a public good. Indeed, water is widely per-
ceived as a public good available to all (Loen and Gloppen 2021). This led to constitutionalisation of the
right to drinking water in 2016. Article 70a of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia stipulates that
water resources are primarily intended for supplying the population (household needs) with drinking water
and they do not constitute a market good. Water is a public good administered by the state and therefore
cannot be disposed of. Despite the best intentions, the constitutional provision on water raises new dilem-
mas. It transfers the responsibility for water governance from municipalities to the state, which is to govern
water directly and non-profitably through self-governing local communities. 
One form of self-governing local communities in the water supply sector are water commons with differ-
ent levels of formal arrangements. There are currently eleven (Uredba o spremembah … 2013) or twelve
(Avsec and Štromajer 2015) water commons with a set formal status that are legally organised as water
cooperatives. Data on informal water cooperatives are non-existent (Pipan, Šmid Hribar and Urbanc 2018).
88
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 88
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023
89
2.2 Case studies: Goriče Water Cooperative and Čadrg Water Committee
To study the importance of water commons, the authors of this study selected two examples, an informal
Water Committee – Čadrg, and a fully registered one – Goriče. The Čadrg Water Committee is a decade-
old form of local self-governance. Conversely, the Goriče Water Cooperative is seven decades old, but its
legal form has been changing to conform to national and EU legislation.
The community of Goriče is situated in the foothills of the Kamnik and Savinja Alps, ten kilome-
tres north of Kranj, the fourth-largest town in Slovenia and the capital of north-western Slovenia. Kranj
is the seat of the municipality with 58,527 inhabitants. Golnik Hospital, which specialises in lung dis-
eases, has been located in the neighbourhood since the 1920s. Its development had an economic, social
and cultural influence on the wider area. In 2022, the Cooperative supplied water to 248 stakeholders
or households (each with one share) and provides water to 690 inhabitants in four settlements: Goriče
(471 m above sea level), Srednja vas (495 m), Zalog (530 m), Letenice (440 m). This is roughly one tenth
more than when the water system was built. The system supplies 18 large consumers, 17 dairy farms
and one primary school.
Čadrg (685 m) is an isolated mountain village in the Julian Alps in western Slovenia near the border
with Italy. It is part of the sparsely populated municipality of Tolmin with 11,281 inhabitants and is char-
acterised by its border location, remoteness, demographic deprivation and peripheral location. The Water
Cooperative (the so-called Čadrg Water Committee) supplies water to 46 inhabitants, whose number has
been increasing since its establishment. Čadrg stands out in the municipality due to its high proportion
of young inhabitants. The village dairy is the only large consumer.
2.3 Conceptual framework
This study employed two conceptual frameworks for understanding and analysing the governance of water
commons. Firstly, DPs (see Table 1) provide a set of guidelines to assess the robustness of both water com-
mons in self-organising for governing and managing their water resources. Secondly, the SES recognises
that social systems and ecological systems are interconnected and mutually influencing. It emphasizes the
need to consider the interactions between human behaviour, institutions, and the natural environment in
order to understand the dynamics of resource governance.
Furthermore, in order to capture the broader benefits of community water governance, the
authors of this study applied the principles from the concept of NCP (Díaz et al. 2015; Díaz et al. 2018).
In addition, they also considered the social contribution that commons can provide to people as an
essential form of social capital: social networks, trust and norms, similar to those assessed in Šmid Hribar
et al. (2023). 
2.4 Data collection
The empirical part is based on two water commons: The Čadrg Water Committee and the Goriče Water
Cooperative. The primary data is based on fieldwork, which included a workshop in Čadrg (December
2015, 8 participants from different sectors) and seven semi-structured in-depth interviews with stakeholders
(March 2016), followed by a series of interviews with the Committee’s president. In Goriče, a series of inter-
views with three stakeholders took place between June 2016 and May 2017. To complement the data, the
authors interviewed four professionals from the municipalities of Tolmin and Kranj and the public
utility company Komunala Kranj (August 2016). The final stage of data collection was carried out in
September and October 2022. Interviews were carried out by phone with representatives of both water
commons, with a focus on the benefits of water commons. Additional data on benefits were collected as
part of the study on commons related to Slovenian cultural landscapes (for the detailed set of variables
see Šmid Hribar, Urbanc and Zorn 2023). Secondary data is based on available literature and legal docu-
ments concerning drinking water.
Figure 1: Map of the Čadrg and Goriče water commons. p p. 90
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 89
Primož Pipan, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Motivation, robustness and benefits of water commons: Insights from small …
90
C
on
te
nt
 b
y:
 P
rim
ož
 P
ip
an
,
M
at
ej
a 
Šm
id
 H
rib
ar
, M
im
i U
rb
an
c
M
ap
 b
y:
 D
om
en
 T
ur
k
So
ur
ce
: G
IA
M
 2
02
2;
 G
U
RS
 2
02
2
©
 Z
RC
 S
A
ZU
, A
nt
on
 M
el
ik
 G
eo
gr
ap
hi
ca
l I
ns
tit
ut
e
To
lm
in
Č
ad
rg
G
or
ič
e W
at
er
 C
oo
pe
ra
tiv
e
Č
ad
rg
 W
at
er
 C
om
m
itt
ee
M
un
ic
ip
al
ity
 ce
nt
er
Se
ttl
em
en
t
M
un
ic
ip
al
ity
 b
or
de
r
Le
ge
nd
G
or
ič
e
Sr
ed
nj
a 
va
s
Za
lo
g
Le
te
ni
ce
K
ra
nj
0
2
4
6
8
10
km
0
2
4
6
8
10
km
0
10
20
30
40
50
km
C
R
O
A
T
I
A
SL
O
V
E
N
IA
A
U
S
T
R
I
A
ITALY
HU
NGA
RY
A
dr
ia
tic
 S
ea
Lj
ub
lja
na
W
at
er
 co
m
m
on
s a
re
a
C
ap
ita
l c
ity
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 90
3 Results
3.1 What drives local communities to govern their water resources
While both the Goriče Water Cooperative and the Čadrg Water Committee aim to ensure access to safe
drinking water, their drivers differ in terms of initial motivation, ownership structure, and governance
practices. The Goriče Water Cooperative was established to supply healthy food to a nearby hospital and
retains control over the water system, while the Čadrg Water Committee emerged from the need for safe
drinking water for the village dairy and operates as a recognised private water system governed by a com-
munity board.
3.1.1 Goriče Water Cooperative
The need to produce healthy food, especially milk, for the nearby Golnik Hospital generated the idea of
building a water supply system in Goriče and the neighbouring settlements as early as 1937. The Goriče
Water Cooperative was founded in 1938. The Second World War brought preparations to a standstill, but
by 1946 and 1947, inhabitants – members and non-members – had already moved 7,000 m3 of earth by
hand and built the water pipeline (Zadružna … 1995; Košir 2011). When the Goriče Local Community
was established – the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia introduced local communi-
ties as the lowest administrative units (Fink-Hafner and Kropivnik 2006) – the water supply system passed
into its hands.
In 1994, when the Local Self-Government Act came into force, the powers of local communities were
relinquished to municipalities. The residents of Goriče decided not to hand over their water system to the
Municipality of Kranj or to its operator – the public utility company Komunala Kranj. Based on the Cooperatives
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023
91
Figure 2: The area of the Goriče Water Cooperative on the alluvial fan below the Kamnik and Savinja Alps. 
M
AT
E
J 
LI
PA
R
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 91
Primož Pipan, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Motivation, robustness and benefits of water commons: Insights from small …
92
Act (Zakon … 1992), the majority of the households of the Goriče local community re-established the Goriče
Water Cooperative in 1995. It pursues its original purpose, i.e. to supply sufficient quantities of safe drink-
ing water at an affordable price to its stakeholders. To achieve this, the water supply network was renovated
in line with modern standards, including ultraviolet water treatment. All revenues are used exclusively for
the operation of the system.
The water is supplied from three wells: two are located on the Water Cooperative’s land and one is on
the land of a member of the cooperative. The land on which the water reservoirs are located is owned by
the members of the cooperative and the cooperative itself. Despite the ever more challenging precipita-
tion pattern, the Water Cooperative expects to be able to continue fulfilling its ambition, especially because
a big increase in the number of inhabitants is not foreseen.
The initial establishment of the Water Cooperative was incredibly progressive. It reflected forward-
thinking, self-initiative and social cohesiveness. Two factors were important: the Golnik Hospital and existing
examples of water systems in the region. The last reorganisation, which was a de jure reestablishment,
was an act of civil disobedience towards the municipality, again based on self-initiative and social
cohesiveness.
3.1.2 Čadrg Water Committee
The village of Čadrg has extensive experience in community-based initiatives. The villagers themselves
built the road to the village between 1972 and 1990 by hand. In 1998, they made the empty building of
the former school available to the Don Pierino Community for the treatment of drug addicts (Pipan 2004).
Governance of the water supply was another of the community practices, albeit unprofessionally and infor-
mally. In 2010, the location of the old water reservoir was found to be problematic in terms of health standards,
as it was located in a pasture area. The village dairy, which produces organic Tolminc cheese in particu-
lar, was dependent on safe drinking water, therefore an immediate solution to the problem was needed.
Figure 3: The area of the Čadrg Water Committee in the Julian Alps in Triglav National Park.
JU
R
E
 T
IČ
A
R
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 92
There were two options: 1) governance of the water system could be handed over to the public utility com-
pany Komunala Tolmin; 2) villagers’ water rights could be transferred to the Municipality of Tolmin, which
should provide safe water via Komunala Tolmin. Both options foresaw the chlorination of water. The only
way to keep the water unchlorinated was to retain the governance locally. This option was voted through
a full majority at a community meeting. The villagers formed a Water Committee to build a new well and
a new reservoir on a forested land away from the old one. The new water system, equipped with ultraviolet
treatment, became operational in November 2011. 
In view of the Decree on Drinking Water Supply (Uredba … 2012), which defines water systems in set-
tlements with less than 50 inhabitants as private, the Čadrg residents themselves applied for a water permit,
which was issued in 2012. As a result of this act, the community water system officially became a private
water system with joint ownership governed by a seven-member board.
The Water Committee is considered to be a newly established commons whose governance practices
were inspired by centuries-old practices of land commons, i.e. agrarian communities (Premrl et al. 2015).
In Čadrg, the Agrarian Community has survived political, economic and social turbulence in the last hun-
dred years. 
The main external threat is water shortage due to climate change. The greatest internal weakness is
an irresponsible attitude due to the failure to thoroughly check and report leak on a regular basis. The estab-
lishment of the Committee was progressive, especially because commons in Slovenia and globally have
been in decline (Brown 2006; Premrl et al. 2015). It reflected environmental awareness, self-initiative, social
cohesiveness and mutual trust.
3.2 Robustness of water commons
The authors of this study examined the applicability of Ostrom’s (1990; 2010) eight DPs to analyse the robust-
ness of two Slovenian water commons with a clear bottom-up self-governance. Despite the nationally
favourable attitude to commons in general; for example, tradition (Avsec and Štromajer 2015), and speci-
fically for water commons, the challenges in water governance and strict sanitation requirements are leading
to pressure to transfer the governance of water resources to a municipal utility company, for example, in
Goriče.
3.3 Benefits of water commons 
The water resources governed by both rural local communities bring regulatory, material and non-mate-
rial benefits. In addition to accessibility to drinking water, the ability to regulate the drinking water quality
is important to local people (Table 2). The option of chlorinating the water or instead using ultraviolet
lamp treatment is their choice and responsibility. Among the non-material benefits, the locals of Čadrg
identified learning, inspiration and strong support for the local identity. They are proud to drink their own
water. In Goriče, the non-material benefits included strengthening the community and identity, as well
as the ability to use the water resource to preserve the potential for future generations. 
Water governance brings social benefits to both local communities. In Čadrg, members build trust and
share common norms and values through the water commons. In Goriče, there is a perceived outward
integration of the water cooperative with other networks. The Volunteer Firefighters Association and the
Agrarian Community manage and maintain the landscape of the water catchment area.
The interviews revealed that locals also recognise the importance of headwater managing. This brings
additional, mainly regulating benefits. Erosion prevention and landslide control measures are being imple-
mented to maintain the balance and regulate the water source in Goriče. There is an awareness that surface
water needs to be monitored and managed, otherwise it could endanger ground water or cause turbidity
in drinking water. Through regular checks, they ensure that there are no carcasses of dead wild animals in
the water catchment area and that new forest tracks do not interfere with waterways. In Čadrg, no special
regulatory measures targeted at the water source have been taken, but by the time of their self-organisa-
tion, environmentalism had already taken over the media and social discourse. Having had experience with
the unsuitable location of the former water reservoir, they have thoughtfully located the new reservoir to
eliminate potential problems.
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023
93
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 93
Primož Pipan, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Motivation, robustness and benefits of water commons: Insights from small …
94
Table 1: Conformity of both water commons with DPs.
DPs Čadrg Water Committee Goriče Water Cooperative
1 Clearly defined YES. A resource boundary overlaps with the natural YES. A resource boundary overlaps with the natural
boundaries of catchment area of the reservoir and is not signposted. catchment area of the reservoirs and is not signposted.
resource and Use rights are connected to the local residence address. Use rights are connected to the local residence address; 
users The owners of the water supply system are all land no one is to be excluded. The owner of the water supply 
(residential) owners in the village of Čadrg. The owner system is the Goriče Water Cooperative, which is based on 
of the land in the catchment area is the Agrarian voluntary membership (90% of the users are members). 
Community (joint ownership). The land in the catchment area is owned by the Cooperative’s
members and the Agrarian Community (joint ownership).
2 Proportional YES. Once yearly, users pay according to the distribution key, YES. Twice yearly, users pay according to the quantity of
equivalence which follows the water consumption regulations of the water consumed. The payment also covers monitoring and
between benefits Municipality of Tolmin. The payment also covers monitoring operation. A flat-rate for the network charge is added. There
and costs and operation. The quantity ceiling per household is not is no difference in benefits and costs between members and
stipulated. In case of water shortage, users are asked in non-members. The quantity ceiling per user is not stipulated.
advance to reduce water consumption as a precautionary In case of water shortages, there are graduated mitigation
measure to avoid complete interruptions. The responsibility measures (from restrictions on certain activities, e.g. car
of users is to use water sparingly when inflow is low, to washing, to temporary general reductions in supply). The
report immediately when a leak is noticed and to pay responsibility of users is to use water sparingly when inflow
for the service. is low and to pay for the services. 
3 Collective-choice YES. The Committee has tailored its operation to the local YES. The operation has been tailored to the local geographical 
arrangements geographical (quantity of water, location of water sources) (quantity of water, location of water sources) and 
(participation and (supra)national legal environment. There are no rules (supra)national legal environment. General rules of 
in the decision- of operation or statutes. Representatives (one per household) cooperatives apply. There are three levels of governance: 
making process) meet once a year, usually in December, to set the unit price. the president, the board of directors and the general 
If necessary, they may hold additional meetings. assembly (called once a year). The board of directors fixes
the unit price. A group of members can call an extraordinary
general assembly and propose changes. Non-members
cannot participate in modifying rules. Since its establishment,
the operational rules have only been amended to comply
with legislation.
4 Monitoring of YES and NO. National regulations lay down water quality YES and NO. National regulations lay down water quality
resource and users parameters. Water quality monitoring is imposed from parameters. Water quality monitoring is imposed from
above. The resource quantity monitoring is self-imposed. above. The resource quantity monitoring is self-imposed.
There is only one common water meter. Peer pressure Each user has a water meter. Peer pressure becomes 
becomes relevant in case of shortages, as the Committee relevant in case of shortages, as the Cooperative is not 
is not in a position to monitor excessive water consumption. in a position to monitor excessive water consumption. 
They keep a close watch on the water catchment area.
5 Graduated YES. There is a little leeway for rule violations. Misconduct YES. There is a little leeway for rule violation. Misconduct
sanctions takes the form of irresponsible behaviour (failure to comply takes the form of irresponsible behaviour (failure to comply
(proportionate with austerity measures in a dry season or failure to report with austerity measures in a dry season).
sanctions) a leak in the system).
6 Conflict-resolution YES. Conflicts arise only when members do not perform their YES. There are occasional conflicts connected with rights of
mechanisms duties properly, e.g. they do not thoroughly check where usufruct as routes of the water network, which run through
the leak is. Disputes are resolved on an ongoing basis. The private land, are sometimes disputed. Small problems are
stages are: 1) negotiations, 2) a personal warning is issued solved by negotiation, while bigger ones by applying the
to the offenders, 3) a meeting of all users where a specific Cooperative’s rules and at a general assembly.
problem is on the agenda.
7 Minimal YES and NO. The Committee is an informal organisation YES. The Cooperative is a legal entity organised under 
recognition without statutes. It operates within the framework of the the Cooperatives Act (Zakon … 1992). It is listed in 
of rights to Čadrg village council, which in itself is also an informal the Slovenian Business Register.
organize entity, however, the water permit entitles it to provide water. 
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 94
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023
95
Table 2: Benefits of community governance with water resources in Čadrg and Goriče. 
Selected cases Čadrg Goriče
Type of commons Traditional x
Transforming
New x
Geographical area Rural x x
Urban
Nature’s contribution to people (NCP) Regulating Habitat creation and maintenance
Pollination and dispersal of seeds
and other propagules
Regulation of air quality
Regulation of climate
Regulation of ocean acidification
Regulation of freshwater quantity, location 
and timing
Regulation of freshwater and coastal water x x
quality
Formation, protection and decontamination
of soils and sediments
Regulation of hazards and extreme events
Regulation of detrimental organisms and 
biological processes
Material Energy
Food and feed x x
Materials, companionship and labour
Medicinal, biochemical and genetic resources
Non-material Learning and inspiration x
Physical and psychological experiences
Supporting identities x x
Maintenance of options x
Social contribution Social networks x
Trust and reciprocity x
Shared norms and values x
Additional measures to maintain regulation of NCP Yes x
No x
DPs Čadrg Water Committee Goriče Water Cooperative
8 Nested YES and NO. Functioning must comply with legislation YES and NO. Functioning must comply with legislation
enterprises (municipal, national, EU-wide). The Water Committee (municipal, national, EU-wide). The Cooperative is not 
is not vertically integrated into the Municipality and does vertically integrated into the Municipality. Mutual mistrust
not have a legal subjectivity of its own. However, they do between the Municipality and the Cooperative is always
cooperate exemplarily. It is integrated horizontally with present. Pressure from the Municipality is fierce. The
the Agrarian Community, which owns the land in the Cooperative is integrated horizontally with the Agrarian
catchment area. Community and the local Volunteer Firefighters Association. 
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 95
Primož Pipan, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Motivation, robustness and benefits of water commons: Insights from small …
4 Discussion 
The answer to the question of why some local communities have succeeded in retaining successful water
governance until today is complex and structured. There are several decisive factors related to the local-
specific and the general, i.e. national, context. 
The general attitude in Slovenia towards water as a public good available to all (Loen and Gloppen 2021)
and global initiatives for local communities to control water supply (Kishimoto, Lobina and Petitjean 2015)
support the endeavours of both water commons. The cases examined in this study have shown that com-
munity water governance can be an alternative to mainstream governance models – public and private,
which is congruent with evidence in published literature (Bakker 2008). 
Water commons need strong motivation from the outset through to the mature stage of operation. The
key motivation is connected with agriculture, which functions as a backbone activity in both cases. In dairy
farming, the need for sufficient and safe water became evident. In Čadrg, the need for chlorine-free water
for the production of organic cheese was the immediate motive for the setting up of a water common. In
Goriče, the motives were broader and related to the economic and social development of the area half a cen-
tury earlier. The persistence is also attributable to milk production, which requires large quantities of water.
For this reason, the farmers, who are also landowners, are the driving force behind the actions – either
directly or indirectly through the Agrarian Community. Greater momentum for actions is observed if the
communities consist of younger members. The results confirm widely established findings (e.g. Ostrom
1990; Ostrom 2005; Bravo and Marelli 2008; Gatto and Bogataj 2015) that communities are capable of gov-
erning their resources through cooperation and dialogue, provided they have a common interest.
Both water commons have been able to emerge and survive because of the strong commitment of proac-
tive individuals, backed by a strong and cohesive local community. Water commons act as a link between
communities and provide a great example of community building. Hence, this study has advanced the cur-
rent literature by stating that it is not only about water supply or service to residents, but also about social
capital, identity, and coherent vanguard community. This is in line with the findings of Heinmiller (2009)
who claims that in governing many common-pool resources, institutional legacies may be just as impor-
tant as the knowledge, preferences, and mutual trust of current stakeholders.
Both water commons must also be understood in the context of marginality. Both communities are
located in a headwater on the edge of the municipality. Čadrg’s marginality is even more pronounced, not
only because of its position on the western periphery of Slovenia but also because of its mountainous loca-
tion and altitude. The feeling of being ignored and left to one’s own devices is strong in both areas, and
the commons are a form of a local initiative and resistance to municipal centralisation. This feeling is par-
ticularly strong in Goriče, where the pressure from the municipality to take over their local water resource
is ever-present. The governance of water carries an element of mistrust towards the municipality and, as
a consequence, of rebellion and civil-society activism.
Of Ostrom’s eight DPs, DPs 7 and 8 refer to the importance of the state’s role. In this case, the state
sets a general legal framework and requires registration of the water source use, but it does not otherwise
interfere with governing. The commons’ stakeholders can develop self-organising institutions to self-gov-
ern their own water resources. Although the Goriče Water Cooperative was found to be more compliant
with the DPs and is therefore more robust than the Čadrg Water Committee, neither of them meets all
the DPs. Monitoring (DP 4) and Nested enterprise structures (DP 8) – both horizontal, appear to cover
some spectrum in both cases. In the case of the Čadrg Water Committee, Minimal recognition of rights
to organise (DP 7) is informal. It has a right to organise, but the degree of formality is very low. 
Robustness is equated with long duration, lasting from centuries to a millennium, through many ups
and downs, and many adaptive changes to disturbances (Anderies, Janssen and Ostrom 2004). However,
none of the commons studied has such a long tradition, with the Goriče Water Cooperative having a longer
tradition than the Čadrg Water Committee. Therefore, and due to better developed DPs, the Goriče Water
Cooperative is more robust than the Čadrg Water Committee. 
Both cases show that water commons bring various benefits (nature contribution) to people. In addi-
tion to the material benefit, i.e. drinking water, a myriad of non-material benefits can be singled out.
Supporting the identity and providing opportunities for learning and generating inspiration are experien-
tial. Among social benefits, networking with other entities, building trust and reciprocity, and sharing common
norms and values were identified. 
96
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 96
Both water commons demonstrate a high degree of responsibility towards the local community, the
water source, and ultimately the landscape. This level of responsibility – supported by knowledge, aware-
ness and economic stability – enables water commons to provide sufficient and safe drinking water. 
Both water commons have prior positive experiences with self-governance from agrarian communi-
ties and are therefore aware of the benefits of governing their own natural resources. Previous experiences
have empowered them in self-recognition of their know-how and capabilities. This leads to a notion that
was not explicitly mentioned but was sensed throughout the interviews, namely path dependency. Water
commons’ representatives seem to be aware of the complex physical and social environment in which they
function, but when it comes to approaches to achieving goals and missions, they constantly refer to ear-
lier experiences and decisions. Water commons are not perceived as an achievement, but rather as a natural
deed for the benefit of the community. In terms of path dependency, governing one’s own water resources
is not a goal, but a long-term tool to sustain the local community’s independence in water provision. In this
way, they can set their own water price, which is much lower and more affordable than that of the munic-
ipal utility companies. There are no elements of game-playing or tactics, but minimal adjustability to the
legal framework.
The elements that make common governing in both cases possible are: strong motivation, a volun-
tary aspect, and democratic decision-making, which are in agreement with published literature (Arvonen
et al. 2017). The elements that make selected cases different are: size, degree of formality, motivation,
longevity of tradition, and benefits that water caters to local inhabitants, which is consistent with the estab-
lished literature (Takala et al. 2011). 
The results are consistent with other literature showing that water commons are a suitable form of
governing common-pool resources (Deller et al. 2009; Takala et al. 2011; Arvonen et al. 2017), provided
they are able to overcome social dilemmas and recognize a common interest in preserving their resources
(e.g. Ostrom 1990; Ostrom 2005; Bravo and Marelli 2008; Gatto and Bogataj 2015).
The findings of this article can have implications for governance and policy. Raising awareness of each
individual and small communities through a policy of small steps is of paramount importance. Each indi-
vidual influences and changes the common good through their behaviour, whether unwittingly or willingly.
Communities with natural resources should build on informed and empowered local communities that pose
and are aware of the value of natural resources and what they can do for them. Rather than putting pres-
sure on water commons, municipalities should strive to achieve interdependencies between the local and
municipal levels. This would help water commons build greater robustness and municipalities to capitalise
on them to achieve a higher level of municipality coherence and identity.
5 Conclusions 
This study focused on identifying the factors of successful water commons, their robustness and the ben-
efits they bring to a local community. To address the issue of local governance of water resources, case studies
of two contrasting water commons in Slovenia were used.
The conceptual lens consists of the SES and DPs to gain insight into the resources and their users
within the local context. The underlying factors that enable both water commons to function are strong
economic/material interest, passionate commitment, understanding of the commons as a tool to mitigate
marginality and soft resistance towards municipality centralisation. In terms of robustness, none of the
commons fulfils all the DPs. The weak points are monitoring, vertical positioning, and in the case of Čadrg,
additionally lack of formality. The benefits are directly linked to the drivers and motivation. There are mate-
rial and non-material benefits. Among the latter, community building and identity stand out. The concepts
that bind all these aspects together are self-initiative, social cohesiveness and path-dependency.
For this reason, a policy implication would be to deploy local collective actions as a tool to achieve
greater coherence within a municipality. It is important to achieve mutual interdependencies between the
local and municipal levels. The practical implications of the study confirm Ostrom’s findings that com-
munities are capable of governing their resources through cooperation and dialogue, provided they have
a common interest. The importance of local small water systems that are well organised and responsibly
governed should be seen as a benefit, not only to a municipality but also to a country. As examples of shared
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023
97
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 97
Primož Pipan, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Motivation, robustness and benefits of water commons: Insights from small …
water governance, they are good role models for educating the public about the importance and value of
common-pool resources governing.
If local communities want to maintain control over their own small drinking water supply systems and
govern and manage them independently, they should not turn them over to public utility companies, as
this is an irreversible decision. By assuming responsibility for their own governance and management, com-
munities benefit both financially and in terms of the potential advantages of accessing unchlorinated water.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The authors would like to thank Ludvik Janež and Zdravko Klobučar from the
Čadrg Water Committee and Ciril Zaplotnik from the Goriče Water Cooperative for providing valuable
information about their water commons. The authors acknowledge receipt of funding from the Ministry
of Education, Science, and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovenian Research and Innovation
Agency core funding Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101) and Heritage on the Margins: New Perspectives
on Heritage and Identity within and beyond the National (P5-0408). The authors would like to thank Saša
Požek for proofreading the English version. 
6 References
Amery, H. A. 2002: Water wars in the Middle East: A looming threat. The Geographical Journal 168-4.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0016-7398.2002.00058.x 
Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., Ostrom, E. A. 2004: A framework to analyze the robustness of social-eco-
logical systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society 9-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/
es-00610-090118
Arvonen, V., Kibocha, S. N., Katko, T. S., Pietilä, P. 2017: Features of water cooperatives: A comparative
study of Finland and Kenya. Public Works Management and Policy 22-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/
1087724X17715267
Avsec, F., Štromajer, J. 2015: Development and socioeconomic environment of cooperatives in Slovenia. Journal
of Co-operative Organization and Management 3-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2015.02.004
Bakker, K. 2007: The »commons« versus the »commodity«: Alter-globalization, anti-privatization and the human
right to water in the Global South. Antipode 39-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2007.00534.x
Bakker, K. 2008: The ambiguity of community: Debating alternatives to private-sector provision of urban
water supply. Water Alternatives 1-2.
Bogataj, N. 2012: Model delovanja slovenskih agrarnih skupnosti. Soupravljanje naravnih virov: vaške
skupnosti in sorodne oblike skupne lastnine in skupnega upravljanja. Wageningen.
Bravo, G., Marelli, B. 2008: Irrigation systems as common-pool resources. Journal of Alpine Research/Revue
de Géographie Alpine 96-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.536
Brown, K. M. 2006: New challenges for old commons: The role of historical common land in contemporary
rural spaces. Scottish Geographical Journal 122-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00369220600917412
Brunner, M. I., Björnsen Gurung, A., Zappa, M., Zekollari, H., Farinotti, D., Stähli, M. 2019: Present and
future water scarcity in Switzerland: Potential for alleviation through reservoirs and lakes. Science of
the Total Environment 666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.169
Čuček, S. 2011: Water supply, wastewater treatment and irrigation in Slovenia compared to the EU. Water
management in Slovenia. Celje.
Deane, B., Domhnaill, B. M. 2021: The alliance of community-owned water services in Europe: Opportunities
and challenges based on the Irish perspective. Water 13-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/w13223181
Deller, S., Hoyt, A., Hueth, B., Sundaram-Stukel, R. 2009: Research on the economic impact of cooperatives.
Internet: http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/water/ (30. 11. 2022).
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., et al. 2015: The IPBES
Conceptual Framework – connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R.T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R. 2018: Assessing nature’s
contributions to people. Science 359-6373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826 
Eman, K., Kuhar, S., Meško, G. 2020: Access to safe and affordable drinking water as a fundamental human
right: The case of the Republic of Slovenia. The Emerald Handbook of Crime, Justice and Sustainable
Development. Bingley.
98
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 98
Fink-Hafner, D., Kropivnik, S. 2006: Politična udeležba v posocializmu: med deformirano modernostjo,
novo modernizacijo in postmodernostjo. Družboslovne razprave 22-51. 
Gatto, P., Bogataj, N. 2015: Disturbances, robustness and adaptation in forest commons: Comparative insights
from two cases in the Southeastern Alps. Forest Policy and Economics 58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.forpol.2015.03.011
Golubović, B. 2016: Predlogi na osnutek ustavnega zakona – pravica do pitne vode. Internet: http://voda.svo-
boda.si/sprememba-ustave/predlogi-na-osnutek-ustavnega-zakonapravica-do-pitne-vode/Informacijski
sistem javnih služb (28. 12. 2022).
Heinmiller, T. 2009: Path dependency and collective action in common pool governance. International
Journal of the Commons 3-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.79
Hofstetter, M., van Koppen, B., Bolding, A. 2021: The emergence of collectively owned self-supply water
supply systems in rural South Africa – what can we learn from the Tshakhuma case in Limpopo? Water
SA 47-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/wsa/2021.v47.i2.10921
Hrvatin, M., Komac, B., Zorn, M. 2020: Water resources in Slovenia. Water resources management in Balkan
countries. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22468-4_3
International Labour Office, 2001. Promotion of cooperatives. International Labour Conference, 89th Session.
Geneva. Internet: https://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc89/pdf/rep-v-1.pdf (22. 12. 2022).
Katusiime, J., Schütt, B. 2020: Integrated water resources management approaches to improve water resources
governance. Water 12-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123424 
Kishimoto, S., Lobina, E., Petitjean, O. (eds.) 2015: Our public water future. The global experience with
remunicipalisation. Amsterdam, London, Paris, Cape Town, Brussels.
Košir, M. 2011: Moja pot skozi čas. Ljubljana. 
Kozelj, D., Drev, D. 2017: Možnost kontaminacije pitne vode in varnostni ukrepi. Drugi slovenski kongres
o vodah. Ljubljana.
Křeček, J., Haigh, M. 2019: Land use policy in headwater catchments. Land Use Policy 80. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.043
Loen, M., Gloppen, S. 2021: Constitutionalising the right to water in Kenya and Slovenia: Domestic drivers,
opportunity structures, and transnational norm entrepreneurs. Water 13-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/
w13243548 
Marston, A. 2015: Autonomy in a post-neoliberal era: Community water governance in Cochabamba, Bolivia.
Geoforum 64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.08.013 
McGinnis, M. D., Ostrom, E. 2014: Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing
challenges. Ecology and Society 19-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230
Meljo, J., Krajčič, J., Smolar Žvanut, N. 2017: Raba voda v Sloveniji. Drugi slovenski kongres o vodah. Ljubljana.
Nikolaou, K. 2014: Another world exists: Thousands of water co-operatives on the planet. Aigua és Vida.
Internet: https://www.aiguaesvida.org/another-world-exists-thousands-of-water-cooperatives-on-the-
planet/ (10. 11. 2022).
OECD Principles on Water Governance 2015. Internet: https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/
OECD-Principles-on-Water-Governance.pdf (24. 12. 2022).
O’Reilly, K., Dhanju, R. 2012: Hybrid drinking water governance: Community participation and ongo-
ing neoliberal reforms in rural Rajasthan, India. Geoforum 43-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.GEOFORUM.2011.12.001
Ostrom, E. 1990: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge.
Ostrom, E. 2005: Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton.
Ostrom, E. 2009: A general framework for analysing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science
325-5939. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133
Ostrom, E. 2010: Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. The
American Economic Review 100-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641
Ostrom, V., Ostrom, E. 1977: Public goods and public choices. Alternatives for Delivering Public Services.
New York.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Kranz, N. 2010: Water governance in times of change. Environmental Science and Policy
13-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.09.004
Petek, F., Urbanc, M. 2007: Skupna zemljišča v Sloveniji. Geografski vestnik 79-2. 
Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023
99
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 99
Primož Pipan, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Motivation, robustness and benefits of water commons: Insights from small …
Pipan, P. 2004: Čadrg: primer don Pierinove skupnosti kot dodatne priložnosti za razvoj podeželja. Geografski
obzornik 51-4. 
Pipan, P., Šmid Hribar, M., Urbanc, M. 2018: The role of local community in governing water as a common-
pool resource. Alpine water – common good or source of conflicts. Breitenwang.
Premrl, T., Udovč A., Bogataj, N., Krč, J. 2015: From restitution to revival: A case of commons re-estab-
lishment and restitution in Slovenia. Forest Policy and Economics 59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.forpol.2015.05.004 
Rana, M., Piracha, A. 2018: Supplying water to the urban poor: Processes and challenges of community-based
water governance in Dhaka city. Management of Environmental Quality 29-4. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1108/MEQ-11-2017-0127 
Rejec Brancelj, I., Jerič, M., Zupan, F., Nagode, P. 2011: Medresorska odgovornost pri izvajanju Načrta uprav-
ljanja voda 2009–2015 in učinkovitejše poti za doseganje dobrega stanja voda. Upravljanje voda v Sloveniji.
Celje.
Rihter, A. 2008: 100 let vodovoda v Celju. Celje.
Rodela, R. 2012: Uvod v skupno lastnino in skupno upravljanje naravnih virov. Soupravljanje naravnih
virov: vaške skupnosti in sorodne oblike skupne lastnine in skupnega upravljanja. Wageningen. Internet:
https://edepot.wur.nl/205876 (10. 10. 2022). 
Staddon, C. 2016: Managing Europe´s Water Resources. New York.
Šmid Hribar, M., Bole, D., Urbanc, M. 2015: Public and common goods in the cultural landscape. Geografski
vestnik 87-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/gv87203
Šmid Hribar, M., Kozina, J., Bole, D., Urbanc, M. 2018: Public goods, common-pool resources, and the
commons: The influence of historical legacy on modern perceptions in Slovenia as a transitional
society. Urbani izziv 29-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2018-29-01-004 
Šmid Hribar, M., Hori, K., Urbanc, M., Saito, O., Zorn, M. 2023: Evolution and new potentials of landscape
commons: Insights from Japan and Slovenia. Ecosystem services 59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoser.2022.101499
Šmid Hribar, M., Urbanc, M., Zorn, M. 2023: Commons and their contribution to sustaining Slovenian
cultural landscapes. Acta geographica Slovenica 63-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.11591
Takala, A. J., Arvonen, V., Katko, T. P., Pietilä, P. E., Åkerman, M. W. 2011: The evolving role of water
co-operatives in Finland. International Journal of Co-operative Management 5-2.
Terzi, S., Sušnik, J., Schneiderbauer, S., Torresan, S., Critto, A. 2021: Stochastic system dynamics modelling
for climate change water scarcity assessment of a reservoir in the Italian Alps. Natural Hazards and
Earth System Sciences 21-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-3519-2021
Tucker, C. M. 2014: Creating equitable water institutions on disputed land: a Honduran case study. Water
International 39-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2014.888986
Tyhotyholo, T., Ncube, B. 2023: The rhetoric of community participation in urban South African water
governance. Utilities Policy 82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2023.101573
Urbanc, M., Šmid Hribar, M. 2021: Livek: a mountainous border area’s transformation from a ski paradise to
a resilient community. Culture and climate resilience: Perspective from Europe. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-58403-0_4
Uredba o oskrbi s pitno vodo, 2012. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 88/12. Ljubljana.
Uredba o spremembah Uredbe o seznamih naročnikov, področni zakonodaji skupnosti, seznamih gradenj
in storitev, obveznih informacijah v objavah, opisih tehničnih specifikacij in zahtevah, ki jih mora izpol-
njevati oprema za elektronsko naročanje. Priloga 3  – Seznam naročnikov v  sektorju proizvodnje,
transporta ali distribucije pitne vode. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 12/2013. Ljubljana. 
Vilfan, S. 1996: Zgodovinska pravotvornost in Slovenci. Ljubljana.
Vrzel, J., Ludwig, R., Gampe, D., Ogrinc, N. 2019: Hydrological system behaviour of an alluvial aquifer under
climate change. Science of the Total Environment 649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.396
Water Framework Directive, 2000. EUR LEX, Directive 2000/60/EC. Brussels.
WRc 2017: European Level Report: Evaluation of the Contribution of Operational Programmes to the
Implementation of EU Water Policy. Brussels. Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/pdf/
EU_overview_report_%20operational_programmes%20.pdf (22. 12. 2022).
Zadružna pravila vodovodne zadruge Goriče z omejeno odgovornostjo, 1995. Goriče.
Zakon o zadrugah, 1992. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 13/92. Ljubljana.
100
63-3_acta49-1.qxd  17.10.2023  7:21  Page 100