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, 101–117 COMMONS AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO SUSTAINING SLOVENIAN CULTURAL LANDSCAPES Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Matija Zorn Grazing communities are key in contributing to sustaining mountain pastures. M AT E JA Š M ID H R IB A R 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 101 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Matija Zorn, Commons and their contribution to sustaining Slovenian cultural landscapes 102 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.11591 UDC: 911.53:332.38(497.4) Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Mateja Šmid Hribar1, Mimi Urbanc1, Matija Zorn1 Commons and their contribution to sustaining Slovenian cultural landscapes ABSTRACT: The main challenge of cultural landscapes is how to manage them, and the concept of com- mons through collective actions can help in this regard. Based on a questionnaire, 21 collective actions related to cultural landscapes in Slovenia were examined using descriptive statistics. Results show that 1) traditional and transforming commons deal with forests and pastures, whereas new ones are more diverse regarding land use but in significantly smaller areas; 2) new commons indicate possible future mechanism, but they do not (yet) have an impact on cultural landscapes; 3) the main benefits of commons refer to social aspects followed by non-material and regulative benefits; material benefits are ranked last; and 4) new col- lective actions, especially in urban areas, have difficulties obtaining lands which threatens their existence. KEY WORDS: commons, new commons, transforming commons, collective actions, nature’s contribution to people, cultural landscape, Slovenia Prispevek skupnega k vzdrževanju slovenskih kulturnih pokrajin POVZETEK: Glavni izziv kulturnih pokrajin je, kako z njimi upravljati. Pri tem je lahko v pomoč kon- cept skupnega, ki prek skupnostnih praks upravlja s skupnimi zemljišči. Na podlagi vprašalnika smo z opisno statistiko preučili 21 skupnostnih praks, povezanih s kulturnimi pokrajinami v Sloveniji. Rezultati kaže- jo, da 1) se tradicionalno in preoblikovano skupno veže na gozdove in pašnike, medtem ko je novo skupno bolj raznoliko glede rabe tal, vendar na bistveno manjših območjih; 2) novo skupno nakazuje možne pri- hodnje mehanizme, vendar (še) ne vpliva na kulturne pokrajine; 3) glavne koristi skupnega se nanašajo na socialne vidike, sledijo jim nematerialne in uravnalne koristi; materialne koristi so na zadnjem mestu; in 4) nove skupnostne prakse, zlasti v urbanih območjih, imajo težave pri pridobivanju zemljišč, kar ogroža njihov obstoj. KLJUČNE BESEDE: skupno, skupna zemljišča, novo skupno, preoblikovano skupno, skupnostne prakse, prispevek narave ljudem, kulturna pokrajina, Slovenija The article was submitted for publication on January 18th, 2023. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 18. januarja 2023. 1 Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia mateja.smid@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5445-0865), mimi.urbanc@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8394-9892), matija.zorn@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5788-018X) 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 102 1 Introduction The manifestations of the interaction between humankind and its natural environment are manifold and ubiquitous. The cultural landscape is undoubtedly one of the finest, reflecting the characteristics and lim- its of the natural environment (UNESCO 2019) and socio-cultural features. In the past, land cultivation was generally associated with a high degree of individual and collective responsibility embedded in the every- day practices of larger communities (Petek and Urbanc 2007; Rodela 2012). Such practices created traditional landscapes composed of multiple ecosystems and habitats known for their diversity, dynamics, multi- functionality, and resourcefulness (Šmid Hribar and Urbanc 2016). These last two characteristics of cultural landscapes are particularly relevant in the context of the goods and benefits that people receive from ecosys- tems, and they are identified as ecosystem services (ES) (Millenium … 2005) or nature’s contributions to people (NCP) (Diaz et al. 2018). In recent decades, cultural landscapes have faced numerous challenges, most of which are related to a convoluted set of modern social and economic processes. The first among these include population trends in rural areas: rapid aging, depopulation, and increased rural–urban migration (Mauerhofer et al. 2018; Jarzebski et al. 2021), and the second are related to increasingly market-oriented agriculture and trade in agricultural products (Takeuchi, Ichikawa and Elmqvist 2016). In addition, urbanisation has occurred in peri-urban areas (Saito and Ichikawa 2014). The combination of these processes leads either to overgrowth or overuse of agricultural land, both of which result in biodiversity loss (Ribeiro and Šmid Hribar 2019). These sometimes contradictory development trends threaten landscapes in many ways and raise concerns about landscape impoverishment. One possible option for addressing the challenges posed by the short-term interests of today’s world that lead to landscape depletion is through the concept of commons. This form of governance is based on »commoners«; that is, people that share a broad set of natural and cultural resources (Anderies and Janssen 2013). Based on several examples worldwide, Ostrom (e.g., 1990; 2005) and several other researchers (e.g., Bromley 1992; McKean 2000; Kissling-Näf, Volken and Bisang 2002; Gatto and Bogataj 2015; Haller et al. 2021) have demonstrated that through collective action communities can govern common-pool resources (CPRs) without resulting in their degradation. Some collective actions of this type have conse- quently influenced local cultural landscapes (Hrvatin and Perko 2008). In this context, the best-known type of commons in Slovenia are probably agrarian communities (Petek and Urbanc 2007; Rodela 2012; Bogataj and Krč 2014; Premrl et al. 2015; Šmid Hribar, Bole and Urbanc 2015; Šmid Hribar et al. 2018; Bogataj and Krč 2023), which have been under severe threat in recent decades. Among other studies that directly link commons with landscapes, we highlight a few cases from around the world. Hirahara (2020) and Shimada (2014) examined collective actions in regenerating underused seminatural grasslands and local forests and grasslands in Japan respectively. Duraiappah et al. (2014) sug- gested that commons could play a role in shared management of ES and biodiversity on private and public lands. Woestenburg (2018) used the concept of the »heathland farm« in the Netherlands as an approach to regenerating traditional and typical cultural landscapes of heathlands with heaths, fields, and mead- ows, aiming to restore the link between food production and the management of protected natural areas. Haller et al. (2021) investigated Swiss commons and highlighted the role of commoners’ organisations in sustainable use of natural resources, the provision of ES, and the management of cultural landscapes. When speaking about cultural landscapes, one should not forget about urban landscapes. Poljak Istenič, Šmid Hribar and Kozina (2023) contributed insights into collective action in an urban community garden in Slovenia that goes beyond the mere production of food, but is perhaps even more important when it comes to creation of urban green areas, socialisation, and community building. Based on a comparative study between Slovenian and Japanese commons, Šmid Hribar et al. (2023) identified different types of com- mons (e.g., traditional, transforming, and new commons) related to the management of cultural landscapes. However, the implications of commons for cultural landscape governance and management remain under- studied. It is still not fully understood how different types of commons affect landscapes and whether there is a way to sustainably maintain and manage landscapes through collective actions in the future. Therefore, the aim of this study, in which we focus specifically on commons related to cultural land- scapes, is to explore how commons can contribute to cultural landscape governance and management through collective actions. Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023 103 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 103 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Matija Zorn, Commons and their contribution to sustaining Slovenian cultural landscapes In this study, we understand commons as shared resources (mainly common lands) and also as an institution or governance regime behind the collective action; that is, the use of resources (e.g. agrarian communities). These institutions are by some authors called also commoners’ organisatons (Haller et al. 2021). The term collective actions is referred to actions taken collectively by members of above men- tioned institutions to achieve common objectives. The term governance has been used for processes by »… which the repertoire of rules, norms, and strategies that guide behavior within a given realm of policy interactions are formed, applied, interpreted, and reformed. … A useful shorthand … is that governance determines who can do what to whom, and on whose authority« (McGinnis 2011, 6). The term manage- ment refers to all concrete actions performed in physical landscapes. Thus, when referring to arrangement processes, we use the term governance, whereas when referring to concrete actions and tasks we use the term management. The objectives of this study are 1) to identify commons and collective actions that help sustain cul- tural landscapes in Slovenia; 2) to understand which natural resources and landscape elements are associated and managed by collective actions, and whether there are any barriers to doing so, and 3) to identify ben- efits (i.e., NCPs) of commons and their collective actions for beneficiaries. 2 Methods 2.1 Study area: Slovenia This study was conducted in Slovenia for several reasons. First, Slovenia has a long tradition of local self- governance, which was introduced as early as the mid-eighteenth century. From the mid-1950s until 1994, it only functioned at the local level (the sub-municipal level) (Kukovič and Brezovšek 2016). During the socialist Yugoslav period (1945–1991), it became necessary for local communities to take the initiative to meet their most urgent needs. The instrument referred to as a »self-imposed contribution« (slv. samoprispevek), approved in a referendum, made such implementation possible (Kukovič and Brezovšek 2016). Second, Slovenia has a strong inclination towards participation in non-governmental organisations and clubs (Urbanc, Šmid Hribar and Kumer 2020). Third, Slovenia has a rich tradition of studying commons (Petek and Urbanc 2007; Rodela 2012; Bogataj and Krč 2014; Premrl et al. 2015; Šmid Hribar, Bole and Urbanc 2015; Šmid Hribar et al. 2018) and also of examining new commons and collective actions (Šmid Hribar et al. 2023; Pipan, Šmid Hribar and Urbanc 2023). Although commons are recognized as a phenomenon in Slovenia and have been studied extensively, there is a lack of available data regarding areas managed by communities. The existing reliable data pertains solely to land owned by agrarian communities, which represent just one form of community ownership. According to Premrl (2013), the total land area owned by agrarian communities is 77,486.47 hectares, corresponding to approximately 3.67% of Slovenia’s territory. 2.2 Selection of collective actions Similar to a study by Šmid Hribar et al. (2023), we focused on different types of collective actions and not on all possible cases. In doing so, we sought to obtain comprehensive results and broad insights into the topic. Therefore, from the list of Slovenian commons (Šmid Hribar et al. 2023) we first singled out those types of commons (sixteen in total) that had a connection to the landscape or at least to landscape ele- ments while implementing collective actions. In addition, based on improved knowledge not taken into account in the previously mentioned study, we added five new cases: the Božca grazing community (no. 3 in Table 2; grazing community differ slightly from agrarian communities, and their collective action is on common pastures), the Goriče Water Cooperative (no. 9; a traditional water cooperative), the Krater Creative Laboratory (no. 18; an urban green space created from degraded land), the Škocjan Lagoon Nature Reserve (no. 19; an example of a collective action forming a protected area), and Mountain hiking trails (no. 21; referring to freely accessible paths across Slovenian landscapes). The final pool consists of twenty-one types of collective actions (Table 2). 104 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 104 2.3 Data collection We created a data-collection questionnaire with a set of variables formulated as questions of two basic types: 1) open questions (free response) and 2) closed questions (three types: yes/no questions, multiple-choices questions with predefined categories, and open-choice questions) (see Table 1). The data were collected through telephone and online interviews with the collective action represen- tatives in September and October 2022. Altogether, nineteen interviews were carried out. Data for two actions (no. 2 and no. 16) were acquired from study Šmid Hribar et al. (2023). 2.4 Data analysis After data collection basic descriptive statistics was performed with the survey tool 1KA. For further numeri- cal analyses Microsoft Excel was used. Comparisons between two variables were analysed using cross tabulations. For quantitative analysis data in open-ended questions were categorised and converted into numerical values. In addition, we attributed data on the type of origin of collective actions: if they were established prior to Slovenian independence in 1991, they were understood as traditional or transforming; if they were estab- lished after 1991 but based on an earlier origin, they could also be treated as traditional or transforming. The label transforming was assigned to those cases that evolved significantly in their functioning (such as the manner of sharing profit, investing in the local community, and similar). If practices were established after 1991 with no prior origin, they were treated as new. 3 Results 3.1 Collective actions that help sustain cultural landscapes in Slovenia In terms of their key benefits, landscape-related collective actions were divided into the following categories of commons: • Food commons (grazing associations, community gardens, farms, seed and vegetable exchanges); • Water commons (water cooperatives); • Energy commons (energy communities and development cooperatives that supply electricity and heat); • Recreational commons (hiking trails that provide access to and movement through the natural landscape); • Land improvement commons (dry stone walls that improve other land); • Nature reserve commons (a patchwork of habitats); • Social commons (community gardens and green areas, whose primary focus is on educating and empow- ering individuals); • Multi-benefit/complex commons (forests with a wide variety of benefits). Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023 105 Table 1: Set of variables used in the questionnaire. Group Variables A. Basic information Name; Brief description; Number of members (2022); Basic activities; Initiators of collective actions and their purpose; Achievements of the objectives; Type of environment (rural, suburban, urban); Exact location; Level (local, regional, national); Starting year B. Natural resources Natural resource(s) (water, forest, pastures, etc.); Size (2022) of the resource C. Benefits Benefits (from the list of NCPs): climate regulation, fresh water regulation, food and feed, learning and inspiration, social benefits, shared norms and values, etc.; Measures to maintain and regulate the environment; Beneficiaries (local residents, tourists, administrative bodies, etc.); Action taken to manage regulating NCP (managing forests, planting trees, planting bee forage, etc.) D. Ownership Owner of the resource (individual/private owner, administrative authority, company, etc.) E. Changes Changes of activities over recent decades and reasons for them Figure 1: Landscape-related collective actions and their commons in Slovenia in terms of their key benefits and time of establishment. p p. 106 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 105 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Matija Zorn, Commons and their contribution to sustaining Slovenian cultural landscapes 106 2 1 6 7 4 8 3 10 12 14 13 15 17 16 20 21 18 19 5 9 11 Le ge nd N ew Tr an sf or m at iv e Tr ad iti on al Ty pe o f c ol ec tiv e ac tio n by o ri gi n C ol le ct iv e ac tio n no t l im ite d to a si ng le lo ca tio n M or e st tle m en ts C on te nt b y: M at ej a Šm id H rib ar , M im i U rb an c, M at ija Z or n M ap b y: D om en T ur k So ur ce : G IA M 2 02 3; G U RS 2 02 3 © Z RC S A ZU , A nt on M el ik G eo gr ap hi ca l I ns tit ut e A U S T R I A H U N G A R Y C R O A T IA ITALY Lj ub lja na 0 10 20 30 km C om pl ex co m m on s W at er co m m on s Fo od co m m on s So ci al co m m on s Re cr ea tio na l c om m on s N at ur e re se rv e co m m on s En er ge tic co m m on s La nd im pr ov em en t c om m on s Ty pe o f c ol le ct iv e ac tio n by th e ke y be ne !t N am e of co le ct iv e ac tio n A dr ia tic se a 1 - R ož ar A gr ar ia n C om m un ity 2 - L iv ek A gr ar ia n C om m un ity 3 - B ož ca G ra zi ng C om m un ity 4 - P la ni ka D ai ry 5 - P ra še a nd Z bi lje C om m un ity E co lo gi ca l G ar de ns 6 - K on op ko C oo pe ra tiv e 7 - Z el em en ja va (S ee d an d Ve ge ta bl e Ex ch an ge ) 8 - N ar av no ži vl je nj e (N at ur al L ife ) F ar m in P iše ce 9 - G or ič e W at er C oo pe ra tiv e 10 - Č ad rg W at er S up pl y Sy st em 11 - So ča –T re nt a D ev el op m en t C oo pe ra tiv e 12 - Je se ni ce C om m un ity S ol ar P ow er P la nt 1 3 - Lo šk i P ot ok W oo d C oo pe ra tiv e 14 - Lu če S el f- Su ' ci en t E ne rg y C om m un ity 15 - O d vz ni ka d o ev ra (F ro m S pr ou t t o Eu ro ) s tu dy c irc le 16 - O nk ra j g ra db išč a (B ey on d th e C on st ru ct io n Si te ) C om m un ity G ar de n 17 - Li va da LA B C om m un ity G ar de n 18 - K ra te r C re at iv e La bo ra to ry 19 - Šk oc ja n La go on N at ur e Re se rv e 20 - K ar st D ry S to ne W al l C on st ru ct io n Pa rt ne rs hi p 21 - M ou nt ai n H ik in g Tr ai ls 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 106 Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023 107 In 2022, twenty-one types of collective actions with a direct or indirect impact on the cultural landscape were identified in Slovenia and thus selected for the analysis (Table 2, Figure 1). Of these, four are tradi- tional (related to agrarian and grazing communities), fifteen are new (they include a wider range of activities, with food provision being predominant), and two are transforming. With the exception of four, all these collective actions were established after Slovenia’s independence in 1991. Regarding collective actions we have to note that both types of agrarian communities (traditional and transforming) have originated already from before the Second World War, after which they were dissolved, to be re-established after the independence in 1991. Over half (twelve) of the collective actions were established in or after 2010, when the first one was also introduced in the urban environment. Among the new collective actions, four are in urban areas, nine are in rural areas, and two have a mixed urban–rural character (they involve the exchange of crops and seeds between members, and the production and processing of crops and products). As a rule, the traditional and transforming collective actions are present in rural areas, even though there is also one isolated case of a tra- ditional urban collective action in Slovenia: the Kamnik Urban Citizen Cooperation (Deisinger 2012). The new collective actions arose individually; only in 2011, 2013, and 2014 two were established each year. The motives for establishing collective actions vary, but they are mostly practical. The traditional and trans- forming ones largely have to do with an inherited legacy that the current community members are governing out of economic interests (e.g., agrarian communities no. 1 and no. 2 in Table 2, and grazing community no. 3) or with the organization of a collective production for selling one’s own products (a dairy, no. 4). New col- lective actions are being established to improve urban degraded areas (no. 18), educate and encourage people to actively participate in the environment (some community gardens and green areas, such as no. 16, no. 17, and no. 18), use one’s own example to show how healthy food can be produced (no. 5 and no. 8), or in some cases also how food can be produced and sold collectively (a community rural farm, no. 8, a cooperative, no. 6), preserve and protect habitats (no. 19), supply energy and heat (energy cooperatives, no. 11, no. 12, no. 13, and no.14), provide safe drinking water (water cooperatives, no. 9 and no. 10), promote rural development (certain energy cooperatives, no. 11 and no. 13), or to restore landscape elements, strengthen awareness of the importance of dry stone wall construction, and transfer knowledge (dry stone walls, no. 20). U rb an R u ra l R u ra l– u rb an Number of casesNumber of cases Water commons Social commons Recreational commons Nature reserve commons Multi benefit/complex commons Land improvement commons Food commons Energy commons Type of origin New Traditional Transformative Ownership Yes No, but owners included 0 1 2 3 4 5 No 012345 Social commons Energy commons Food commons Figure 2: The main categories of commons by type of origin, ownership, and type of environment. 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 107 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Matija Zorn, Commons and their contribution to sustaining Slovenian cultural landscapes 108 Ta ble 2: Se lec ted co lle cti ve ac tio ns re lat ed to Sl ov en ian cu ltu ral la nd sca pe s i n 2 02 2. No . Na m e o f c oll ec tiv e a cti on Ye ar of Ty pe of Or igi n Ke y b en efi ts No . o f Na tu ral re so ur ce / lan ds ca pe el em en t g ov ern ed as co m m on s es tab lis hm en t en vir on m en t m em be rs 1 Ro ža r A gr ari an Co m m un ity 19 94 Ru ral Tra dit ion al M ult i-b en efi t/c om ple x c om m on s 70 Fo res t ( 21 0 h a) , M ea do w an d p as tu re (to a sm all er ex ten t) 2 Liv ek A gr ari an Co m m un ity 19 96 Ru ral Tra ns for m ing M ult i-b en efi t/c om ple x c om m on s 96 Fo res t ( 50 0 h a) , A lpi ne pa stu re (3 3.3 ha ), Pa stu re (to a sm all er ex ten t) 3 Bo žc a G raz ing Co m m un ity 19 84 Ru ral Tra dit ion al Fo od co m m on s 7 Pa stu re (7 3 h a) 4 Pla nik a D air y 19 75 Ru ral Tra ns for m ing Fo od co m m on s 20 9 f arm ers Pa stu re (1 00 ha )1 (o wn ers ) 5 Pr aš e a nd Zb ilje Co m m un ity 20 11 Ru ral Ne w Fo od co m m on s 10 0 M ea do w (0 .31 ha ), Ec olo gic al Ga rd en s, Ga rd en (0 .26 ha ), Or ch ard (0 .13 ha ) 6 Ko no pk o C oo pe rat ive 20 13 Ru ral –u rb an Ne w Fo od co m m on s Ab ou t 1 00 Ar ab le fie ld2 7 Se ed an d V eg eta ble Ex ch an ge 20 14 Ru ral –u rb an Ne w Fo od co m m on s 20 –4 0 Ga rd en (i nd ire ctl y) 3 8 Na tu ral Li fe Fa rm in Pi še ce 20 17 Ru ral Ne w Fo od co m m on s 20 –3 0 M ea do w (4 ha ), Ga rd en (0 .28 ha ), Or ch ard (1 .32 ha ) 9 Go rič e W ate r C oo pe rat ive 19 38 Ru ral Tra dit ion al W ate r c om m on s 24 8 W ate r ( 15 0,0 00 m ³ o f w ate r f or ho us eh old s a nd ca ttl e p er ye ar; 25 0 h ou se ho lds ) 10 Ča dr g W ate r S up ply Sy ste m 20 11 Ru ral Ne w W ate r c om m on s 46 W ate r ( 3,6 50 m ³ o f w ate r p er ye ar; 24 ho us eh old s) 11 So ča –T ren ta De ve lop m en t 19 92 Ru ral Ne w En erg y c om m on s 48 W ate r Co op era tiv e 12 Je se nic e C om m un ity So lar 20 13 Ur ba n Ne w En erg y c om m on s 55 –6 2 Su n ( 1 s tru ctu re; 33 ho us ing un its ) Po we r P lan t 13 Lo šk i P ot ok W oo d C oo pe rat ive 20 16 Ru ral Ne w En erg y c om m on s 23 Fo res t4 14 Lu če Se lf- Su ffic ien t E ne rg y 20 18 Ru ral Ne w En erg y c om m on s 35 (m ete rin g Su n ( 9 s tru ctu res ) Co m m un ity po int s) 15 Fro m Sp rou t t o E ur o S tu dy 20 00 Ru ral Ne w So cia l c om m on s 5– 12 Fo res t ( 50 0 h a) , M ea do w (2 ha ), Ro ck s ( 20 ha ) Cir cle 16 Be yo nd th e C on str uc tio n 20 10 Ur ba n Ne w So cia l c om m on s 80 Ga rd en (0 .1 ha ) Sit e C om m un ity G ard en 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 108 Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023 109 No . Na m e o f c oll ec tiv e a cti on Ye ar of Ty pe of Or igi n Ke y b en efi ts No . o f Na tu ral re so ur ce / lan ds ca pe el em en t g ov ern ed as co m m on s es tab lis hm en t en vir on m en t m em be rs 17 Liv ad aL AB Co m m un ity 20 14 Ur ba n Ne w So cia l c om m on s 15 M ea do w (0 .14 ha ), Gr ee n a rea (0 .18 ha ), Ga rd en (0 .02 ha ) Ga rd en 18 Kr ate r C rea tiv e L ab or ato ry 20 20 Ur ba n Ne w So cia l c om m on s 6 Gr ee n a rea w ith tr ee s ( 1.6 ha ), Sm all m us hr oo m ga rd en 19 Šk oc jan La go on Na tu re 19 98 Ru ral Ne w Na tu re res er ve co m m on s 10 Br ac kis h l ag oo n ( 12 2.7 ha ), M ea do w, pa stu re, se a, wa ter ar ea s Re se rve 20 Ka rst D ry St on e W all 20 15 Ru ral Ne w La nd sca pe im pr ov em en t c om m on s 70 Dr y s to ne w all s ( es tim ate d a t 1 1,7 25 km ; d en sit y: 3.2 km /k m ²)5 Co ns tru cti on Pa rtn ers hip 21 M ou nt ain H iki ng Tr ail s 18 74 Ru ral Tra dit ion al Re cre ati on al co m m on s 1,2 00 Hi kin g t rai ls (1 0,0 00 km ; d en sit y: 0.5 km /k m ²)6 1 T he re are no da ta on th e a m ou nt of gr az ing la nd ow ne d b y f arm ers fro m w ho m th e d air y b uy s m ilk . 2 T he m ini m um ar ea pe r m em be r is 1 ha . 3 Z ele me nja va dir ec tly ad m ini ste rs on ly th e d igi tal pl atf or m , b ut it ind ire ctl y i nf lue nc es ga rd en s v ia its m em be rs. 4 T he y d o n ot ha ve sh are d f ore st ow ne rsh ip, bu t e ac h o wn er co nt rib ut es bi om as s f rom hi s p riv ate fo res t. 5 E xte nd ing ac ros s m ea do ws , p as tu res , a nd fo res ts an d s ur rou nd ing ar ab le fie lds , g ard en s, an d w ate r r es er vo irs in tw en ty- on e m un ici pa liti es in w es ter n a nd so ut hw es ter n S lov en ia. 6 R un nin g t hr ou gh m ea do ws , p as tu res , fo res ts, gr ee n a rea s, an d r oc ks ac ros s t he en tir e c ou nt ry. 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 109 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Matija Zorn, Commons and their contribution to sustaining Slovenian cultural landscapes 110 3.2 Relations between collective actions and landscape elements The following landscape elements and natural resources are directly or indirectly managed as part of col- lective actions (Figure 3; the order is based on frequency): meadows, gardens, pastures, and forests (most actions), water resources, orchards, and green areas or trees (some actions, to a minor extent), and arable fields, rocks, brackish water, and the sea (in rare individual actions). The use of solar energy stands out among the new collective actions. The ranking of landscape elements per area is somewhat different (Table 2 the most right column): forests account for the largest share, followed by (alpine) pastures; other resources and landscape elements, which are usually related to new actions, cover significantly smaller areas. The most frequently represented urban landscape elements include gardens, followed by green areas and the sun; all other natural resources and landscape elements except green areas with trees are represented in rural areas. Most landscape elements are areal units (e.g., forests) of varying size, but some of them are linear (e.g., dry stone walls). Two-thirds (i.e., fourteen) of the collective actions include special measures to maintain balance and a healthy environment. These measures do not provide any special benefits, but they affect the individu- al’s or social wellbeing (among them, planting bee shrubs and trees predominate). Activities have a direct and indirect impact on landscapes, and most collective actions perform both (Figure 4). Among the first, activities connected with land management and cultivation stand out, such as timber har- vesting or vegetable growing. Among the indirect activities, all kinds of events, training organisation, and knowledge transfer are most pronounced. In this group, activities that provide basic services for everyday life stand out as well; for instance, keeping a local shop or post office, or supplying electricity. Direct impacts refer to the immediate and visible changes that occur to the landscape, for instance gar- den cultivation. Indirect impacts may not be immediately visible, but can still have significant consequences through behaviour changes, for instance learning. The members of rural collective actions, regardless of their type of origin, are also largely the owners of the natural resources and landscape elements that they govern (no. 1, no. 2, no. 3, no. 4, no. 8, no. 9, Sea Arable fiel Rocks Brackish lagoon Solar energy Green area (with trees) Orchard Water Forest Pasture Garden (rural, urban) Meadow Share % N at u ra l re so u rc e/ L an d sc ap e el em en t 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Figure 3: Share (%) of natural resources and landscape elements listed by relative frequency. 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 110 no. 10, no. 11, and no. 14; Figure 2). The only exceptions are the wood cooperative (no. 13, where only the cooperative is jointly owned, whereas the wood is contributed by individual forest owners), the nature reserve (no. 19), and the two community gardens (no. 5). The situation is significantly different with urban collective actions, which are all new and in which the resources are not owned but leased; the only excep- tion is the Jesenice Community Solar Power Plant, in which homeowners are involved (no. 12). For five collective actions, the ownership could not be unambiguously defined because only the infra- structure was collective and not also the resource (no. 6, no. 14, and no. 15), or the collective action is widely presented in Slovenia and owners are only indirectly involved in it (e.g., maintaining dry stone walls included in no. 20 and hiking trails in no. 21). 3.3 Benefits provided by commons for users and other beneficiaries Even though collective actions and their commons are usually established based on a tangible need (see the motives under Section 3.1), the results (Figure 5) show that social benefits are by far the most preva- lent, which practically all types of commons contribute to. Among these benefits, enhancing trust and reciprocity stands out the most. In terms of importance, this is followed by non-material benefits, espe- cially learning and inspiration, and strengthening collective identity. These, too, are largely contributed to by all types of commons. Regulative benefits, which follow in terms of importance and, among which, habi- tat creation and maintenance, and the regulation of air quality and climate predominate, are importantly contributed to by the social commons, nature reserve commons, and multi-benefit/complex commons. The last two types manage sustainable landscape elements with minimal intervention, whereas social commons introduce the natural environment into urban space. This group of benefits is also contributed by food commons, which are the most heterogeneous type of commons from the viewpoint of natural resources (pastures, meadows, orchards, arable fields, and gardens). Collective actions through their commons provide various benefits not only to their members, but also other beneficiaries, especially locals in general, organized groups, administrative bodies, society in gen- eral, and, to a smaller extent, tourists or visitors and, almost insignificantly, to protected area managers (Figure 5). From a spatial perspective, rural commons also provide benefits to tourists or visitors and pro- tected area managers, whereas urban commons do not provide any benefits to these stakeholders. Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023 111 Figure 4: Cloud tags generated with a WordArt tool from keywords associated with activities performed by collective actions that have a direct (left) and indirect (right) impact on landscapes. 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 111 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Matija Zorn, Commons and their contribution to sustaining Slovenian cultural landscapes 112 Figure 5: Benefits contributed by collective actions and their commons. Light gray indicates the type of origin, dark gray the geographical area, orange the beneficiaries, green the regulative benefits, yellow the material benefits, light blue the non-material benefits, and blue the social benefits. Božca Grazing community 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 112 4 Discussion The study revealed that urban areas only contain food, energy, and social commons, and that other types of commons are related to the rural areas (Figure 5). In addition, it found two types of food commons (no. 6 and no. 7) that combine urban and rural areas. Hence, this study advances current literature by identifying rural, urban, and rural–urban differentiation of commons. Furthermore, typical traditional and transforming collective actions involve the multi-benefit/complex commons, food commons, water commons, and land improvement commons, and typical new collective actions involve the energy commons, social commons, and nature reserve commons. New collective actions are more flexible and react faster to the current situ- ation in society, which fully agrees with the findings in the literature (Tornaghi 2012). Some traditional actions have also revealed themselves in a new light. One of these is the recreational commons, which refers to hiking trails (Stritar 2020). This involves an important collective action, which, through freely accessible trails, makes it possible for the general public to traverse practically the entire country. Nevertheless, so far it has never been considered in the light of the commons. The Krater Creative Laboratory stands out among the urban collective actions (https://krater.si/; no. 18). It uses a degraded or overgrown urban area (such land was also used for the Beyond the Construction Site Community Garden; no. 16) (Jurman and Lovšin 2021) to study ecological processes. This is a type of out- door lab or test area for various experiments at the nexus of culture and ecology. The analysis of urban commons showed that most likely their key role is primarily in providing urban residents a place for estab- lishing contact with nature, education, experimenting, and socializing. Because the new commoners usually manage urban space sustainably, at the same time they contribute to biodiversity in the urban areas, which is in agreement with Duraiappah et al. (2014) and their statement about the positive impact of co-man- agement on biodiversity. Ownership is another important aspect highlighted here. In principle, new commons are more het- erogeneous in this regard. Especially in urban areas, managers own barely any natural resources or landscape elements. They pay insufficient attention to this or are not sufficiently heard by the city’s decision-mak- ers. During the study, in October 2022, the Beyond the Construction Site Community Garden (no. 16) had to shut down because the owner, the City of Ljubljana, decided to build public rental housing on that site. On the other hand, the purchase of forest for forest-dwelling bird species can be highlighted as a future best practice (this common is only in the making, which is why it was not included on the list). In 2022, the Slovenian Bird Watching and Bird Study Association (DOPPS) raised EUR 45,000 to purchase a forest that will be left to develop naturally, thus providing a habitat for endangered bird species (see https://www.gozdnispecialisti.si/). This demonstrates that the DOPPS is aware of the impact of ownership on natural resource management. Food commons are the most important from the viewpoint of sustaining cultural landscapes, which is hardly surprising. Agriculture, which underpins food commons, is widely acknowledged as the sector with the most extensive impact on landscape development (Kristensen 2016). Food commons also con- siderably contribute to biodiversity, which is additionally supported by nature reserve commons, land improvement commons, and multi-benefit/complex commons. The importance of multi-benefit commons, in particular agrarian communities, for landscapes and landscape-related issues has been well established in the literature (Ledinek Lozej 2013; Šmid Hribar, Bole and Urbanc 2015; Urbanc, Ledinek Lozej and Šmid Hribar in press). The potential abandonment of common grazing in mountain pastures (no. 3) will endan- ger these pastures, which are already becoming heavily overgrown. It is anticipated that in the future the appearance of the rural cultural landscape could be changed the most by the energy commons; for exam- ple, if solar power plants spread from roofs in the built environment to farmland. This will become especially evident if it is accompanied by the abandonment of agriculture on the one hand and its intensification on the other. Transition from the agricultural sector to the energy sector – in particular, photovoltaic plants developed on rural land – is widely considered to contribute (at least indirectly) to various forms of envi- ronmental degradation (Delfanti et al. 2016). Paradoxically, energy commons, as long as they are small, build the local community and act as a cohesive bond. As soon as the economies of scale change, or as energy infrastructure spreads to green spaces, energy commons will have a major impact on the appear- ance of the rural landscape. In turn, social commons are important in the urban environment because they provide or sustain small natural areas in cities. Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023 113 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 113 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Matija Zorn, Commons and their contribution to sustaining Slovenian cultural landscapes It was found that two types of commons (no. 20 and no. 21) have a linear shape, and they therefore play a different role in the landscape. Dry Stone Walls, a remnant of past agricultural activities, are the best example of human adaptation to the natural environment (Šmid Hribar and Urbanc 2022); they pro- vide spatial organisation, diversity, and wind/erosion protection. Collective action no. 20 was created to preserve cultural heritage values. Mountain Hiking Trails (no. 21), the only country-wide commons, also have a long tradition but are maintained for practical reasons. Offering access to numerous hills and moun- tains, they have made the nationally popular leisure activity of hiking possible. Collective actions are important not only for the management or maintenance of resources, but also for the processes involved. The cultural landscape is much more than a form; it is also, and above all, a process of dynamic interaction between people and their environment (Urbanc, Fridl and Resnik Planinc 2021). In this respect, the connection between collective actions and landscapes is most intense when it comes to activities. This study clearly supports the idea that the collective actions studied are very activity-based (Figure 4). Collective actions have an explicitly distinct dynamic aspect, much like the landscape. Furthermore, collective actions have a wide range of impacts, both direct and indirect, and in most cases a combination of both. We cannot favour one over the other. It is likely that in the future some indi- rect activities will become direct, such as the impact of energy commons. As solar installations spread on agricultural land, their impacts will become direct impacts. As for impacts, multiplier effects should also be highlighted. One such example is the Planika Dairy (no. 4), which directly cultivates only its own farm, but indirectly supports the management of hundreds of hectares of farmland in less-favourable mountain areas through milk purchases. Without solid land management support from the dairy to the owners, it is anticipated that many parts of the Soča Valley Region would be subject to land abandonment and con- sequent natural succession. The most diverse benefits are provided by food and social commons, and the least diverse are pro- vided by water commons. Energy and water stand out among the material benefits, for which Figure 5 paradoxically suggests they are the least important. As expected, most of material benefits are provided by the food, water, and multi-benefit/complex commons, which are largely found in the rural areas and are more traditional. Historically, the commons arose precisely from the need for additional food resources (pastures) and energy (firewood) (Petek and Urbanc 2007), but the findings of this study demon- strate that contemporary collective actions with their commons are also established to meet other needs. This is also confirmed by Section 3.3, which examines the contribution of commons to various types of benefits. Based on Figure 5, it seems that most regulative benefits are contributed precisely by new com- mons. However, because traditional and transforming commons govern and manage the largest landscape elements in terms of area covered (i.e., forests and pastures), they ultimately contribute the most regula- tive benefits. 4.1 Policy recommendations Due to the extremely small areas they manage, the new commons (especially the urban and urban–rural ones) do not (yet) have an impact on sustaining cultural landscapes. However, the collective actions stud- ies indicate how, through them, communities could influence the governance of specific, more natural, landscape elements. The findings of this study could be useful for agricultural, nature-conservation, and spatial-policy decision-makers. The traditional and transforming collective actions (especially agrarian and grazing communities) are key in contributing to sustaining mountain pastures and governing forests; without them, alpine pastures are under serious threat of being overgrown, which has already been demon- strated by Urbanc, Ledinek Lozej and Šmid Hribar (in press). Therefore, agricultural decision-makers should encourage the continuation of these types of collective actions (through simplified administrative proce- dures, tax relief, and financial incentives). Furthermore, the mechanism established by the DOPPS may be of interest to the nature-conservation policy. It is presented in the Škocjan Lagoon Nature Reserve (no. 19), and it illustrates an alternative approach to protecting a patchwork of more natural landscape elements that serve as habitats for endangered species and are connected into reserves. The DOPPS has already applied this mechanism to three sites (in addition to the Škocjan Lagoon Nature Reserve, to the Ig Marsh Nature Reserve and the Ormož Lagoons Nature Reserve; see https://www.ptice.si), and it should also be expanded to other sites. Spatial and nature-conservation decision-makers should take into account the value that community gardens, orchards, meadows, and green areas provide to both the urban and rural environments; 114 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 114 this mechanism helps educate people, provide information about growing healthy food, understand ecological processes, and preserve biodiversity. 5 Conclusion This study showed that three types of collective actions and their commons can be distinguished in Slovenia in terms of origin: traditional, transforming, and new commons. Traditional and transforming commons largely deal with large areas of forests and alpine pastures, whereas new ones are oriented toward more diverse land use, such as meadows, gardens, orchards, rocks, arable fields, and even brackish lagoons, but in significantly smaller areas. They indicate possible future paths or a mechanism that may be used by deci- sion-makers in the future, but, unlike the other two types, they do not (yet) have an impact on the current cultural landscape. General understanding was that the main motive to establish most commons was practical in nature (natural resource management and the supply of certain goods). However, the questionnaire, in which the representatives of studied commons could reflect on their actions through a series of benefits they might have not even thought about before, demonstrated that the main benefits refer to social aspects, especially trust and reciprocity between members. This was followed by non-material benefits, especially learning and inspiration, and regulative benefits, such as habitat creation and maintenance, and the regulation of air quality and climate. Material benefits, which mainly come in the form of food, water, and energy, are ranked last. This suggests that today people do not form commons to gain material benefits, which was the main motive in the past, but, first and foremost, to strengthen their social ties and realize non-mate- rial aspects, while also recognizing the importance of these types of commons for maintaining or even improving their living environment. Last but not least, this study also revealed that new commons, especially in urban areas, have dif- ficulties obtaining their own natural resources. This makes governance very difficult, which is why decision-makers should help out (e.g., with free or favorable long-term leases). It seems that many new urban commoners are insufficiently aware that it is only ownership or at least some kind of management right that facilitates decision-making and long-term existence. Through networking, new commons could learn from the traditional and especially the transforming ones because they have rich experiences (good and bad) in governance issues. The findings of this study should be used by agricultural, nature-con- servation, and spatial decision-makers in formulating future initiatives and financial incentives for managing and sustaining cultural landscapes, nature reserves, and urban green areas, and for preserving biodiversity. ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency core funding Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101). For the help with the interviews the authors would like to thank Tinkara Mazej. 6 References Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A. 2013: Sustaining the commons. Internet: http://sustainingthecommons.asu.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Sustaining-the-Commons-v101.pdf (1. 3. 2015). Bogataj, N., Krč, J. 2014: A forest commons revival in Slovenia. Society and Natural Resources 27-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.918225 Bogataj, N., Krč., J. 2023: Towards the efficient response of forest owners to large-scale forest damage: An example of forest commons. Acta geographica Slovenica 63-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.11084 Bromley, D. V. 1992: Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice, Policy. San Francisco. Deisinger, M. 2012: Po poteh dediščine meščanske korporacije. Kamnik. Delfanti, L., Colantoni, A., Recanatesi, F., Bencardino, M., Sateriano, A., Zambon, I., Salvati, L. 2016: Solar plants, environmental degradation and local socioeconomic contexts: A case study in a Mediterranean country. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.07.003 Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023 115 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 115 Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc, Matija Zorn, Commons and their contribution to sustaining Slovenian cultural landscapes Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R. T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K. M. A., Baste, I. A., Brauman, K. A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P. W., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., van der Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bukvareva, E., Davies, K., Demissew, S., Erpul, G., Failler, P., Guerra, C. A., Hewitt, C. L., Keune, H., Lindley, S., Shirayama, Y. 2018: Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359(6373). DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.aap8826. Duraiappah, A. K., Asah, S. T., Brondizio, E. S., Kosoy, N., O’Farrell, P. J., Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Subramanian, S. M., Takeuchi, K. 2014: Managing the mismatches to provide ecosystem services for human well-being: A conceptual framework for understanding the new commons. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.031 Gatto, P., Bogataj, N. 2015: Disturbances, robustness and adaptation in forest commons: Comparative insights from two cases in the South-eastern Alps. Forest Policy and Economics 58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.forpol.2015.03.011 Haller, T., Bertogliati, M., Liechti, K., Stuber, M., Viallon F.-X., Wunderli, R. 2021: Transformation and diver- sity: Synthesis of the case studies. Balancing the Commons in Switzerland: Institutional Transformations and Sustainable Innovations. London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003043263-13 Hirahara, S. 2020: Regeneration of underused natural resources by collaboration between urban and rural residents: A case study in Fujiwara district, Japan. International Journal of the Commons 14-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.977 Hrvatin, M., Perko, D. 2008: Landscape characteristics of common land in Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 48-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS48101 Jarzebski, M. P., Elmqvist, T., Gasparatos, A., Fukushi, K., Eckersten, S., Haase, D., Goodness, J., Khoshkar, S., Saito, O., Takeuchi, K., Theorell, T., Dong, N., Kasuga, F., Watanabe, R., Sioen, G. B., Yokohari, M., Pu, J. 2021: Ageing and population shrinking: Implications for sustainability in the urban century. npj Urban Sustainability 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00023-z Jurman, U., Lovšin, P. 2021: Onkraj vrtičkov: skupnostni vrt Onkraj gradbišča. Ljubljana. Kissling-Näf, I., Volken, T., Bisang, K. 2002: Common property and natural resources in the Alps: The decay of management structures? Forest Policy and Economics 4-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1389-9341(02)00013-8 Kristensen, S. B. P. 2016: Agriculture and landscape interaction – landowners’ decision-making and drivers of land use change in rural Europe. Land Use Policy 57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.025 Kukovič, S., Brezovšek, M. 2016: The development of local government in Slovenia. Democratisation Processes in Poland and Slovenia: comparative study. Maribor. Ledinek Lozej, Š. 2013: Paša in predelava mleka v planinah Triglavskega narodnega parka: kulturna dediščina in aktualna vprašanja. Traditiones 42-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/Traditio2013420203 Mauerhofer, V., Ichinose, T., Blackwell, B. D., Willig, M. R., Flint, C. G., Krause, M. S., Penker, M. 2018: Underuse of social-ecological systems: A research agenda for addressing challenges to biocultural diversity. Land Use Policy 72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.003 McGinnis, M. 2011: An introduction to IAD and the language of the Ostrom Workshop: A simple guide to a complex framework. Policy Studies Journal 39-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00401.x McKean, M. A. 2000: Common property: What is it, what is it good for, and what makes it work? People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance. Cambridge. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment  – MEA, 2005: Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC. Ostrom, E. 1990: The governing of commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763 Ostrom, E. 2005: Understanding institutional diversity. New Jersey. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7s7wm Petek, F., Urbanc, M. 2007: Skupna zemljišča v Sloveniji. Geografski vestnik 79-2. Pipan, P., Šmid Hribar, M., Urbanc, M. 2023: Motivation, robustness and benefits of water commons: Insights from small drinking water supply systems. Acta geographica Slovenica 63-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ AGS.11592 Poljak Istenič, S., Šmid Hribar, M., Kozina, J. 2023: Nexus of urban gardening and social sustainability in post-socialist cities. Urban Agriculture and Regional Food Systems: Building Resilient Food Systems. London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820286-9.00013-3 116 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 116 Premrl, T. 2013: Analiza stanja agrarnih skupnosti v Sloveniji na podlagi podatkov upravnih enot. Ekspertiza, Gozdarski inštitut Slovenije. Ljubljana. Gozdarski inštitut Slovenije. Ljubljana. 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 Ribeiro, D., Šmid Hribar, M. 2019: Assessment of land-use changes and their impacts on ecosystem services in two Slovenian rural landscapes. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.6636 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. Saito, O., Ichikawa, K. 2014: Socio-ecological systems in paddy-dominated landscapes in Asian Monsoon. Social-Ecological Restoration in Paddy-Dominated Landscapes. Tokyo. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-4-431-55330-4_2 Shimada, D. 2014: External impacts on traditional commons and present-day changes: A case study of Iriai forests in Yamaguni district, Kyoto, Japan. International Journal of the Commons 8-1. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.18352/bmgn-lchr.348 Stritar, A. 2020: Planinski geografski informacijski sistem – PlanGIS. Modeliranje pokrajine. GIS v Sloveniji 15. Ljubljana. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/9789610504696_15 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., 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., 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-2018-29-01-004 Šmid Hribar, M., Urbanc, M. 2016: Thee nexus between landscape elements and traditional practices for cultural landscape management. Biocultural Diversity in Europe. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-26315-1_28 Šmid Hribar, M., Urbanc, M. 2022: Enclosed landscapes in Slovenia. Enclosed Landscapes as Part of the European Agricultural Heritage. London. Takeuchi, K., Ichikawa, K., Elmqvist, T. 2016: Satoyama landscape as social–ecological system: Historical changes and future perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.11.001 Tornaghi, C. 2012: Public space, urban agriculture and the grassroots creation of new commons: Lessons and challenges for policy makers. Sustainable Food Planning: Evolving Theory and Practice. Wageningen. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-187-3_29 UNESCO 2019: Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris. Urbanc, M., Fridl, J., Resnik Planinc, T. 2021: Landscapes as represented in textbooks and in students’ imag- ination: Stability, generational gap, image retention and recognisability. Children’s Geographies 19-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2020.1817333 Urbanc, M., Ledinek Lozej, Š., Šmid Hribar, M. in press: Mountain pastures in the Slovenian Alps: Their role in shaping and sustaining the cultural landscape. Discourses on Mountains of Montenegro and Slovenia. Cham. Urbanc, M., Šmid Hribar, M., Kumer, P. 2020: Culture in Slovenia. The Geography of Slovenia: Small But Diverse. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14066-3_13 Woestenburg, M. 2018: Heathland farm as a new commons? Landscape Research 43-8. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01426397.2018.1503236 Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-3, 2023 117 63-3_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 7:21 Page 117