Managing the landscape as a common good? Evidence from the case of “Mutonia” (Italy)

Land Use Policy 87 (2019) 104022

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Managing the landscape as a common good? Evidence from the case of “Mutonia” (Italy)☆

T

Mara Cerquetti , Caterina Nanni, Carmen Vitale ⁎

University of Macerata, Department of Education, Cultural Heritage and Tourism, p.le Bertelli 1, Macerata (MC), Italy

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Landscape Common goods Public management Sustainable land use Subsidiarity Urban regeneration

This paper aims to verify from an interdisciplinary perspective the possible relationship between and the convergence of the categories of landscape and common goods. First, the international economic and managerial literature on the landscape as a common good is reviewed, with a focus on some recent innovations. Then, the Italian legal framework on cultural heritage and the landscape is discussed. In the second part of the paper, a case study is provided which analyses the regeneration of a disused quarry in the town of Santarcangelo di Romagna (Italy), where the artists’ association “Mutoid Waste Company” has created a theme park with works of art made from recycled materials. The field research investigated the administrative process carried out since the end of the 1990s, the current perception of the area’s value and its possible future development. The results are summarised in a SWOT analysis. The case study highlights the benefits of a bottom-up approach involving different stakeholders through a site-specific urban planning tool in terms of landscape protection, urban regeneration, community well-being and tangible and intangible externalities. The conclusions also point out how the case study could be a model for the sustainable management and use of the landscape.

1. Introduction

landscape as a complex value, which includes the need of citizens to establish a sensitive relationship with the territory, to benefit from this relationship and to participate in the definition of its qualitative features (Sciullo, 2008). In this way, all the interests underlying the landscape take a central role. However, despite the mature awareness of the wide conceptual relevance of the landscape, the tools for its protection and enhancement – namely landscape and urban planning – are still inadequate. Meanwhile, in 2001, the principle of vertical and horizontal subsidiarity was introduced by the Constitutional Reform (Articles 117 and 118). Moreover, owing to scant financial resources, public administrations have had difficulty in efficiently facing public needs, e.g. the fruition of places as an expression of citizenship rights. As a consequence, legal doctrine has paid an increasing attention to the category of common goods and the notion of shared administration, which is about the definition of tools and rules which assign a central role to citizens and private organisations in the management of common goods. In this context, the present paper aims to verify the possible relationship between and the convergence of the categories of landscape and common goods (Olwig, 2003) by testing an interdisciplinary

The landscape is a complex object, which has evolved from a pictorial scenery to the social and cultural expression of the human relationship with the environment (Menatti, 2017: 644). According to the current definition, it is both a continuous process and a product of human actions in time and space. The European Landscape Convention (ELC) has finally recognised the dynamic and relational nature of the landscape as an area “whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (Council of Europe, 2000, Article 1). This notion includes both environmental and cultural aspects and gives a central role to people who share, value and use the landscape. According to this vision, the landscape expresses people’s perceptions and is shaped by their practices (Olwig, 2007). As a consequence, it is not only experts, but all those whose activity shapes the physical and social landscape are responsible for its planning and development and could be agents of its safeguard, including through active protection. In Italy, national legislation adopted this open approach in 2006, when the Code for Cultural Heritage and the Landscape ratified the ELC defining the

☆ A first preliminary draft version of this research (Landscape as a common good. Tools for its protection and enhancement in a legal and managerial perspective) was presented at the 26th ENCATC Congress ‘Beyond EYCH2018. What is the cultural horizon? Opening up perspectives to face ongoing transformations’ (Bucharest, September 26–29, 2018). ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Cerquetti), [email protected] (C. Nanni), [email protected] (C. Vitale).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104022 Received 14 December 2018; Received in revised form 26 April 2019; Accepted 27 May 2019 Available online 18 June 2019 0264-8377/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Land Use Policy 87 (2019) 104022

M. Cerquetti, et al.

approach to scientific research on the landscape and its sustainable development which takes into account both legal and managerial issues. As already argued, “landscape and commons share a political communal vision of the management of the land. They both imply a direct management of the land from the inhabitants. Their history and etymology carry evidence of a sense of identity and a politics” (Menatti, 2017: 653). The second chapter provides the theoretical framework of the research, through a close examination of the international literature on this matter and a focus on the Italian legal framework on cultural heritage and landscape. Specifically, the critical issues and future challenges for the sustainable management of the landscape are underlined. In the third and fourth chapters, a case study is discussed, analysing the regeneration of a disused quarry in Santarcangelo di Romagna (RN, Italy), where the artists’ association “Mutoid Waste Company” (MWC) has created a theme park with works of art made from recycled materials (Mutonia). The fifth chapter discusses the main legal and managerial issues arising from the case study, in order to draw initial suggestions for further research and practice. The conclusions highlight the distinctiveness of the case under investigation and point out how it could be a model for the sustainable use and management of the landscape.

integration should be understood both as collaboration between various public and private entities operating at different institutional levels – i.e. international, national, regional and urban –, and as the integrated protection of different types of natural and cultural resources (Petraroia, 2006, 2007; Cerquetti, 2015). At a European level, the ELC has stated that: “acknowledging that the quality and diversity of European landscapes constitute a common resource, […] it is important to co-operate towards the protection, management and planning” (Council of Europe, 2000, Preamble). 4 Inclusiveness. The sustainability of landscape management depends on the participation and involvement of local communities in decision-making in a voluntary and spontaneous process, thus via a bottom-up rather than or in addition to a top-down approach (Pittaluga, 2013). 5 Sustainable use. According to this principle, the false dichotomy that exists between protection and enhancement in the management of both the landscape and cultural heritage can only be solved by highlighting the virtuous relationship between the two functions (Hockings, 2003; Petraroia, 2010, 2014; Golinelli, 2015; Saviano et al., 2018). This paradigm shift – from preservation per se to purposeful preservation, sustainable use and development (Loulanski, 2006) – is based on the assumption that enhancement can help protection, not only by attracting more resources for safeguard, but also by increasing awareness of the landscape’s value among a wider number of people (Cerquetti, Ferrara, 2018). This virtuous relationship can increase the well-being of people and boost local development.

2. Theory 2.1. The international debate on landscape management Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, landscape protection has been considered to be “actions to conserve and maintain the significant or characteristic features of a landscape, justified by its heritage value derived from its natural configuration and/or from human activity” (Council of Europe, 2000: Article 1, d). By balancing heritage and innovation (Antrop, 2017), a holistic, dynamic, multicultural and adaptive approach to the theory and practice of landscape protection has ensued which is based on the following principles:

These principles underpin a proactive and change-oriented behaviour in landscape management, which is aimed at attaining multi-dimensional innovation in the culture of protection, concerning: 1) the object, which must no longer be made up of things (i.e. the above mentioned “crystallised islands”), but rather contexts; 2) the subject, which cannot be the State alone, but must involve civil society and other stakeholders; 3) the process, by replacing administrative constraints with civic bonds; and 4) tools, by adopting planned maintenance instead of dot-like practices of aesthetic restoration (Covatta, Cammelli, 2013: 295). In order to achieve this purpose, some recent studies have been focusing on the role of a systemic approach to landscape management through cross-sector coordination and long-term strategies (Heuer, 2011; Hossu et al., 2017; Simone et al., 2018; Aragona, 2019). In particular, the Viable Systems Approach (vSa) has highlighted “the role of the governing subject in interpreting the context relating with the relevant actors in the system’s plan, to define and redefine the boundaries according to conditions of consonance among key stakeholders about the development goals of the whole territory” (Saviano et al., 2018: 291). However, if the focus is shifted to governance, the literature highlights that both public authorities and private entities have failed to accomplish this process: the former are unsuccessful at protecting and maintaining landscapes, while the latter have been “commodifying and subtracting them from the real estate accessible to local society” (Pittaluga, 2013: 184). As already argued, it is not just a matter of institutional engineering (Montella, 2015), but of cooperation among different actors and sustainable management of common resources. As a consequence, new policy and management models have been emerging based on cooperative and participatory landscape governance. Originally known as models for ensuring the collective management of natural resources such as pastures or forests (Vejre et al., 2012; Šmid Hribar et al., 2015) shared “by a community of commoners with customary use rights in the land” (Olwig, 2013: 20), these models are now widely used to manage more complex “cultural objects”, too. The maintenance of roads and parks in the USA, the construction of collective gardens in Paris (jardin partagés), and the cultivation of abandoned land in Cinque Terre (Italy) provide some examples of new forms

1 Openness. Landscape protection is the protection of its biodiversity and cultural diversity as a whole, not of “crystallised islands”. As already argued, the traditional system of preservation, a set of crystallised “islands” immersed in an ever-changing world, amplifies the negative effects of intensive land use, environmental degradation of the urban and natural landscape and the process of fragmentation that human activity determines. These “islands” of conservation favour the progressive “genetic weakening” of natural outdoor environments as well as the overwhelming reduction in their level of biodiversity (Pittaluga, 2013: 181). First, this perspective recognises a close and bonding relationship between natural phenomena and human actions that cannot be severed. Second, it points out the need to break down barriers between areas to be protected (e.g. natural parks) and the external environment, by loosening constraints and regulating the interaction between in and out. Following this approach, the openness results as something to be governed, not to be prevented (Barile et al., 2015). 2 Prevention. Sharing an open approach to conservation, policies for landscape protection have to take into account the role of prevention as opposed to post-factum intervention. The latter is, at best, able only to repair damage, but certainly not to avert it, or even to prevent it. As argued by Urbani more than 30 years ago, when focusing on a country like Italy, given the ubiquitous distribution of cultural heritage in the territory as well as the high seismic and hydro-geological risks that characterise the peninsula, it becomes mandatory to ensure constant maintenance or better planned and preventive conservation (Urbani, 1976). 3 Integration. Since protection involves multiple goods and actors, 2

Land Use Policy 87 (2019) 104022

M. Cerquetti, et al.

of collective management. In line with Ostrom’s theory on commons (1990, 1994)Ostrom et al., 1994Ostrom’s theory on commons (1990, 1994), these goods are managed by endogenous institutions which share common rules. Knowledge, trust and communication among the members of the community ensure the effective management of collective resources both for the benefit of appropriators and users and for the long-term survival of resources. When analysing the sustainable management of common goods, Ostrom has provided effective solutions to prevent the risk of congestion or overuse discussed in Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons (1968) by identifying eight principles which ensure long-enduring common-pool resources (1990: 90). On the one hand, she has explained that commons are not free-access, but well-defined spaces and resources, which are self-organised and self-managed by a limited group of people, sharing common rules or institutions; on the other hand, she has emphasised the role of shared knowledge, information and communication among the members of the community to solve conflicts (Ricoveri, 2013). Also known as adaptive co-management, this model is based on flexibility and institutional learning: its sustainability relies on a participatory process of institutional building which includes the users of resources and requires their social commitment and collective responsibility (Bravo, 2005; Menatti, 2017; Cleaver, Whaley, 2018). Following these principles, the sustainable management of the landscape as a common good should trigger a continuous process of coevolution which promotes the participation and involvement of people sharing, valuing and using the landscape. Moreover, from a systemic and holistic perspective, it should be considered that different communities might share the same landscape and that a community is not a “stable object”, but might change in time. As a consequence, suitable forms of multi-level regulation have to be set (Donolo, 2003; Palermo, Ponzini, 2010; Ponzini, 2013), especially when complex common goods are taken into consideration, in order to avoid the paradoxes created by the rhetoric of community participation (O’Rourke, 2005). As recently pointed out, if an effective dynamic and long-lasting approach is adopted, the management of the landscape as a common good could promote sustainable local development (Donolo, 2003; Becattini, 2015; Caselli, 2018). First of all, it ensures landscape protection and increases both human and environmental well-being without requiring additional costs (Dennis, James, 2016): landscape resources are actively maintained by the local community and people living in the same community benefit from an increased environmental and service quality, thus have a better quality of life. Secondly, the management of the landscape as a common good can create not only intangible positive externalities for the territory, but also tangible ones. On the one hand, it leads to increased biodiversity, environmental care, awareness of the value of the landscape, trust, inclusiveness, etc., while, on the other, it increases the economic value of properties as well as boosting business. As shown by the framework provided in Fig. 1, a virtuous cycle is triggered, which generates benefits for different stakeholders by involving them in a sustainable process of value co-creation, thus favouring a local competitive advantage and activating an incremental learning process (Hayek, 1982; Coleman, 1994; North, 2005). According to Predieri, the coordination of landscape protection and economic development finds its main tool of implementation and management in “coordinated urban planning” as the regulation of human settlements in the territory, and not only as a discipline for the development of cities (1969: 423). Following the model suggested for nature conservation (Jongman, 1995; Jones et al., 2016), criteria, indicators and planning methods must be set, in order to ensure the sustainability of human interventions on the landscape. In a nutshell, “in the era of participatory democracy and knowledge society, value, value creation, and especially value co-creation are urgent imperatives” (Cerquetti, 2017: 121). As a consequence, new approaches should be experimented, which effectively measure and evaluate the inputs, outputs and outcomes of human actions.

Fig. 1. Value co-creation in the management of the landscape as a common good (Source: own elaboration).

2.2. The Italian debate on common goods Over the last ten years, in Italy, the debate on common goods has become unusually lively for at least three reasons (Maddalena, 2011; Arena, Iaione, 2012; Marella, 2012; Rodotà, 2013; Cerulli Irelli, De Lucia, 2014)1 . First of all, it can be considered a consequence of the financial crisis of 2007–2008 and the lack of public resources (Harvey, 2012: 86). These factors also seriously worsened local and urban degradation, thus pointing to a need to identify effective alternative solutions in urban policy, such as the management of common goods (Bombardelli, 2016). Second, a different kind of relationship between citizens and institutions has taken root. Indeed, citizens have stopped delegating “every public responsibility and/or exclusive monopoly of the power to manage public affairs” and started participating in a “collaborative/polycentric urban governance” (Iaione, 2015: 170). Finally, a process of re-appropriation of the “social urban space” by citizens is emerging, which aims to affirm the “right to the city” (Lefebvre, 1970). In this context, in the Italian legal system, many references to common goods can be found in Italian laws at both national and regional level2, especially regarding urban planning, public services and land use (Fidone, 2017: 27-34). Local services, for example, can and must be considered as common goods. Through the analysis of normative references, common goods can be understood as a “variable geometry concept”, which can be related to both tangible (i.e. water, land) and intangible goods (i.e. public security, culture, education), irrespective of formal ownership (Giannini, 1963; Grossi, 1977; Cerulli Irelli, 1983). Indeed, common goods can exist in private hands. Otherwise, if the ownership of common goods is

1 See the conclusions reached on this matter by the so-called Rodotà Commission. With the decree of 21 June 2007, the Ministry of Justice set up a study commission to introduce changes on common goods into the Italian Civil Code. At the end of its discussions, the Commission defined common goods as goods that are functional to the exercise of fundamental rights and to the development of a person. Therefore, common goods need to be preserved for future generations (Article 1, paragraph 3, letter c). This category includes rivers, streams, springs, lakes, other waters, air, archaeological, cultural, environmental and other protected landscape areas. 2 See: Law No. 221 of 28 December 2015; Law No. 107 of 13 July 2015; Legislative Decree No. 154 of 26 May 26 2004.

3

Land Use Policy 87 (2019) 104022

M. Cerquetti, et al.

public, “they are placed not for sale but their concession is allowed only in the single cases provided by law” (Iaione, 2015: 177), including for future generations. Furthermore, the concept of common goods can be used to define some of the procedures required for the common nature of goods3 . Sometimes, instead, this concept is related to the democratic governance of common goods (as for cultural and landscape common goods). The ability to use this term in different contexts and to extend regulation tools designed for different objects stems from the abovementioned meanings. From a different perspective, this concept would lose its legal sense (Vitale, 2013). Finally, if common goods can be described as an open category, the most significant thing to note is that they only exist because they are part of a qualitative relationship with one or more subjects (not related to acquisition or appropriation), so that a common good brings some specific benefits to a community that it does not bring to others (Fidone, 2017: 414). Therefore, focusing on the subject of this investigation, namely the relationship between common goods and the landscape, we hold the view that only those goods with which a given community has a specific relationship can be considered common goods. According to Mattei (2011), it means, for example, that a square is not a common good in itself, merely because it is an urban space: it becomes a common good given its nature as a place for social access and for existential exchange. Indeed, jurisprudence has defined the main elements of common goods (Cortese, 2011). In 2011, during full-bench sessions in which it analysed Articles 2, 9, and 42 of the Italian Constitution, the Italian Court of Cassation stated that it is possible to identify a principle of the protection of the human personality, implemented not only on the basis of State ownership or other public property4 . It can also occur for those goods that prove functional to the pursuit and fulfilment of the community’s interests (Lalli, 2015: 271), for their intrinsic nature or purpose, on the basis of a complete interpretation of the entire regulatory system and irrespective of preventive identification by the legislature. Also, “the Court was keen to stress the irrelevance of formal ownership and the close functional link between the common goods and the exercise of social rights” (Iaione, 2015: 177). In fact, where an immovable property seems intended for the implementation of the state of wellbeing, this good has to be considered common, regardless of ownership, because of its intrinsic value, especially in environmental and landscape terms. That is to say, the ownership status of the good that is instrumental to fulfilling the interests of all citizens is not taken into consideration. Thus, the Court emphasised that any immovable property is a common good if it helps to provide benefits for the community. Moreover, the Court stated that the public nature of the goods should relate to the state-community, as an exponential entity which is representative of the interests of citizens and as a body responsible for the effective implementation of these needs, rather than to the stateapparatus, as an individual, public legal person. “The Supreme Court took care to remind the state-apparatus of renewal of common goods on the state as the state-community, as an entity which exhibits everybody interests, «involves the charges of a governance that makes effective the various forms of enjoyment and public use of the good»” (Iaione, 2015: 177-178). In conclusion, the “common” nature of urban common goods comes from the fact that they are closely connected to an area’s identity, culture, traditions and/or directly functional to the development of the social life of the communities settled in that area (e.g. a square, a park, a roundabout, a mountain path, a garden, a historical building, a

school, coffee tables, etc.). On this matter, the concept of “right to landscape” is emerging as one of the primary applications of the Article 9 of the Italian Constitution (Piperata, 2017: 255). From a general viewpoint, the right to common goods can be investigated, by considering the role and procedures of local institutions (Lucarelli, 2015) as application of the final paragraph of the Article 118 of the Italian Constitution concerning horizontal subsidiarity. Indeed, locally owned common goods include public spaces, urban green areas, abandoned buildings, the so-called “urban commons”, which could be given new life, if governed by citizens. The breadth of this theme requires an analysis that needs to go beyond the boundaries of the law, in order to ascertain whether and how these instruments produce the desired benefits on the goods in economic and managerial terms, and thus leaves behind a “phenomenological” and “unruly” approach to the problem (Mattei, 2011). As already argued, in addition to the normative aspects, the growing interest in the governance of common goods can be seen in the actions of local institutions, which have produced regulatory instruments based on the model of the Municipality of Bologna’s Regulations for the regeneration and care of urban common goods5 . The experiences already carried out and those still in progress clearly show how the governance of common goods is a phenomenon that stems from the initiative of citizens (Arena, 2015), through participatory procedures. Only at a second stage, are regulatory instruments passed. “This urban governance strategy will substitute the current system of top-down regulation with one focused on urban planning, collaboration, and consultation with stakeholders” (Iaione, 2015: 214). In general, public administrations are required to facilitate the spontaneous initiative of citizens and mediate between opposing interests (the interest of a group, the public interest and individual interests). This kind of “dialectic of interests” is a typical expression of the exercise of discretionary power. As the Bologna’s regulation confirms, the governance of common goods can be considered as related to urban regeneration – as an administrative function –, on account of common purposes, the tools of regulation and public and private interests (Chiti, 2017). All these components lead to the use of the “enabling State” formula (Cassese, 2009: 513; Cottino, Zeppetella, 2009: 15). 3. Materials and methods 3.1. Research design In order to understand the implications of the innovative approaches emerging in the international and national debate, a case study is submitted here (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003). We analyse the experience implemented by the Municipality of Santarcangelo di Romagna and the Mutoid Waste Company Association for the construction of the Mutonia theme park. The case study examined policy documents, regional laws, local rules, records and agreements, in order to draw a picture of the administrative process that has taken place since the late 1990s. Moreover, semi-structured interviews were conducted with some key informants, with the aim of shedding light on: 1) the main critical issues already faced or in progress; 2) current perceptions of the value of the area; 3) possible future development. Interviews focused on the following topics: the relationship of the community with nature, Public Administration and territory; the transformation of the community and its management; public involvement; and future perspectives. In-depth face-to-face interviews took place with: two people living in Mutonia, two experts who took part in the study and enhancement project of the area (a geologist and an architect), the mayor of Santarcangelo di Romagna, the former vice prefectural commissioner, and three people working in the cultural and tourist sector in the Municipality of

3 On water services see: Sicily Regional Law No. 19 of 11 August 2015; Liguria Regional Law No. 1 of 24 February 2014; Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Law No. 5 of 15 April 2016. 4 Italian Court of Cassation (Supreme Court), full-bench sessions of 14 February 2011 (No. 2665), 16 February 2011 (No. 3811), 16 February 2011 (No. 3812), 18 February 2011 (No. 3936, No. 3938, No. 3939).

5

4

Municipality of Bologna, Council Resolution, No. 45010/2014.

Land Use Policy 87 (2019) 104022

M. Cerquetti, et al.

effects on the territory, and consequently give status to those structures that had been considered unlawful. Consistent with the opportunities for landscape enhancement set out in Regional Laws No. 20/2000 and No. 23/2009 of the EmiliaRomagna Region, the municipal administration established the “Mutonia Art Park” on that specific portion of territory as part of a landscape enhancement project. Technically, the initiative can be considered designed to increase the cultural status of the town without neglecting the environmental importance of the area, for which the Provincial Plan (PTCP)6 and the Local Urban Plan (PSC) had already envisaged possible interventions and single-implementation projects. In these plans, the site is classified as a Natural Value Area (AVN), included in a Community-wide Environmental Network (Natura 2000 Network) (Fig. 3). It is identified as a Natural and Environmental Protection Area (PAN), and also part of the Plan for Extraction and Quarrying Activities (PAE), which maps the location of excavation sites and coordinates the implementation of projects in disused quarries. It is also classified as a protected area in other sectoral plans. The area was subject to landscape restrictions, but for the same reason was also covered by certain rules on land-use owing to its particular environmental significance. The instrument used for the enhancement intervention was a sitespecific Municipal Plan of Operation (POC)7 which was integrated with the intended use by the artists, including habitation, that was closely linked to the artistic and social purposes pursued by the group who, in the meantime, had formed an association. The project was concluded through an official document (the above-mentioned POC) and a formal agreement clearly stating the terms of the collaboration between the Mutoids and the Municipality and the intended use of the area.

Fig. 2. Mutonia: open-air sculpture park (Source: own elaboration).

Santarcangelo di Romagna (Tourist Office, Local Tourist Services, Civic Museums). 3.2. Mutonia as a hybrid boundary object Mutonia, an artistic community formed in 1990 by a London-based group, the Mutoid Waste Company (MWC), is situated in an abandoned quarry on public land, a concession to the Municipality on property owned by the Region Emilia Romagna about two kilometres from the centre of Santarcangelo di Romagna. The Mutoids are a group of international artists, performers and artisans creating art from scrap and other waste materials. Some of the group were asked to take part in the Santarcangelo theatre festival and, after a successful collaboration, started to use the site as a base-camp for their artistic work, here and abroad. The town welcomed the artists and allocated the area to them – informally until 2003 and then on a loan-for-use basis –, enabling them to experiment with the sustainability of their community for more than twenty years. The site has grown slowly and organically, becoming a large open-air sculpture park, which includes habitable structures and workshops, all removable and self-built from recycled materials (Fig. 2). Mutonia was conceived as a publicly accessible place, communicating a remarkable ethically-valued message, based on the creative reuse of discarded objects and abandoned places. The residency of the artistic community has also generated an intense relationship and collaboration with the local community and surrounding area, which is already known for its cultural liveliness and its famous experimental theatre festival. In 2012, a number of urban-planning and construction irregularities were raised in a complaint brought by a private citizen opposed to the occupation of the site by the Mutoids. The complaint was followed by a ruling of the Regional Administrative Court ordering the Municipality to issue an eviction order and to demolish all structures, on account of unauthorised building development on region-owned land and violations of landscape restrictions established by law (Legislative Decree No. 42/2004, Italian Code for Cultural Heritage and the Landscape) and linked to the close proximity of Mutonia to the River Marecchia. This legal obligation led to the risk of scattering and dividing this important artistic community and losing what was already considered a valuable resource for the cultural status of the city. Contemporary art is not subject to protection, so not even cultural heritage laws could upturn the demolition ruling and safeguard the value of the site. A huge surge of support and public mobilisation for Mutonia, both on-line and in person, resulted in a petition which collected over 12,000 signatures. This led the municipal administration to take urban planning action, in order to find a strategy specifically for this case. The urban planning route was taken as there was no legal basis for considering the heritage value of the artefacts. It would also produce legal

4. Results Within the detailed cognitive framework of Emilia Romagna Regional Law, planning activities and plans themselves are coordinated and shared among the various levels of government. Making continuous reference to the planning tools and the classifications that form the analytical basis for the conditions and characteristics of the territory, this arrangement ensures that implementation of interventions is accurate, but always consistent with a systemic approach to the territory (Fig. 4). In this framework, the guidelines that previously qualified the settlement as “unlawful” were modified as a result of the new classification, which in turn led to its being regularised in the public interest. Indeed, the impetus for the planning law was driven by at least three levels of public interest, for which the Municipality made specific requests to the appropriate administrations: 1) cultural: it was primarily functional to the protection of the settlement as a contemporary artistic and cultural resource whose importance was recognised by the National Historical and Artistic Heritage Office; 2) social: local administration supported a bottom-up motion, also founded on a thirty-year relationship between the local community and the community of Mutoids, enabling them to continue their artistic activity and provide a cultural service, with no management charges from Municipality (the economy of Mutonia is entirely and autonomously organised by the Mutoids); 3) legal: it formalised and regulated the regeneration of the quarry by the MWC, bypassing the pre-existing constraints of landscape compatibility assessment conducted by the Head of the National Office responsible for the protection of this interest.

6 7

5

All the acronyms are left here in the original language (Italian). See: Emilia Romagna Regional Law No. 20/2000, Article 30, paragraph 6.

Land Use Policy 87 (2019) 104022

M. Cerquetti, et al.

Fig. 3. The Natural Value Area (AVN) near the River Marecchia (Source: Local Urban Plan).

Fig. 4. The congruence of the higher systems with the site-specific solution (Source: own elaboration).

This point deserves further analysis. The settlement has been assessed as being integrated within and non-prejudicial to the protected values of the surrounding environment. It consists of totally reversible structures that do not involve soil sealing or masonry constructions. It ensures controlled occupation of the area, preserving its safety and, above all, it contributes to improving a landscape that had deteriorated significantly after the abandonment of the quarry. Indeed, the huge gash in the landscape left by the decommissioning of production (Mutonia measures approximately 16,000 m2) has gradually been reinstated by the occupancy of the Mutoid Waste Company and, moreover, enriched with creative ideas in perfect balance with the natural elements, widely recognised as worthy of maintaining. As happened spontaneously for years, the area has now officially been given collective-use status, while preserving the privacy of some of

the spaces. These measures have been implemented through the agreement8 between the Mutoid Waste Company and the Municipality that was attached to the POC. These measures consist of a division of tasks and responsibilities between the two parties. On the one hand, the Mutoids must ensure the continuation of their artistic work and the care of the park in order to facilitate its public use, while, on the other, the Municipality of Santarcangelo di Romagna is required to give its support to initiatives aimed at improving accessibility to and the promotion of the park as a public art gallery, as well as monitoring the construction activities of the Mutoids and their compliance with the agreements. Given the intended use assigned through the POC, if the

8

6

See: Tuscany Regional Law No. 65/2014.

Land Use Policy 87 (2019) 104022

M. Cerquetti, et al.

artists leave the site of their own accord, it would be open to new enhancement projects, subject to the appropriate assessments that the Municipality would conduct. This intervention took into account the transformations which had already occurred in the landscape, confirming the need for conservation practices consistent with the evolutionary nature of the concept of landscape. As formalised by the ELC, this is an inevitable consequence of a notion of the landscape as a result of a system of relations within the communities. The paradox of the demolition order showed that the uncritical imposition of protection constraints on the landscape would only have had the effect of restoring the environmental degradation that the Mutoids had found when they arrived. On the other hand, acknowledging the rehabilitation carried out by the artists and the identification of new values, recognised by the local community, was an extremely intricate process, for two reasons: first, because it required the use of the “challenging” tool of an urban plan; and also because this particular plan is still considered only just legal, in that it authorises the construction of houses and other structures on a region-owned, bounded area. It was extremely difficult to achieve effective coordination among the various administrations, which, independently, had no authority to resolve the dispute.

site-specific Municipal Plan of Operation and the agreement between the Municipality and the Mutoid Association could be considered a shared system of rules. As emerged during the interviews, Mutonia could be considered a large “horizontal condominium”. However, rules are not shared by the Mutoid community alone, but also by the Municipality, which widens the community perspective to the entire town. The inclusive method also appears to be a constant two-way approach. On the one hand, the Mutoids participate in several initiatives organised by the Municipality, in cooperation with its cultural institutions, such as the local museum, and associations (e.g. for Christmas, Liberation Day, etc.). On the other hand, citizens and local cultural associations are actively involved in initiatives led by the Mutoids (e.g. during festivals, such as the Vertigo Truth10). Finally, this case overcomes the dichotomy between protection and enhancement, or better still, shows the positive relationship between these two functions. While the site contributes to the regeneration of a disused quarry and the protection of natural resources, it also plays an important role in enhancing the protected area near the river. First of all, citizens are aware of the natural and cultural value of the site and take care of its protection. The artistic park is considered a unique and distinctive local resource which has attracted international artists and people since the late 1990s. More recently, it has been gaining an important role in local tourism policies, especially in strategies aimed at promoting slow tourism (e.g. natural tourism, bike tourism, etc.). As stated by the mayor of Santarcangelo di Romagna, the value of Mutonia is related to the tourist and cultural development of the town through support of the arts and development of the nature along the River Marecchia. Following the responsibilities specified in the formal agreement, the Municipality has approved specific signs pointing towards Mutonia and has also started to promote the site through its website, tourist maps and brochures11 . Some hotels in the area are doing the same. Of the positive externalities generated by the sustainable use of the landscape in Mutonia, the specific features of Mutoid art should be emphasised. Since the waste collected at this site is reused to create artefacts, the Mutoids support environmental protection through recycling. As confirmed by the interviews with local policy makers, in addition to recycling, their lifestyle is also a model that promotes positive values such as social inclusion, equality, freedom and creativity. In addition, the benefits for the public administration should be highlighted, in terms of lower costs for the maintenance of a protected area. Indeed, the case study shows how a planning initiative can become an opportunity to unburden the public administration of economic and organisational loads deriving from ownership of the area, but even more so to broaden the cultural offer to the community with undoubted benefits in terms of local development. Developing the model based on perceived reality → beliefs → institutions → policies → altered perceived reality (North, 2005), this case study exemplifies a path-dependent co-evolution of the relationship between communities and institutions, in which an artistic community’s way of life has triggered an incremental learning process by which the beliefs and preferences changed. Therefore, after having recognised the inefficiency of laws in force, the Municipality adopted a site-specific urban planning tool, in order to come into line with a changing society, thus entailing new perceptions and values and generating positive externalities (Fig. 5). In conclusion, Mutonia is a sustainable transforming landscape and the artistic activity of the Mutoids contributes to landscape enhancement. Key elements of this case are summarised in the SWOT analysis in

5. Discussion 5.1. Towards the sustainable development of Mutonia as a transforming landscape The case of Mutonia effectively exemplifies the above-mentioned emerging approach to landscape protection based on openness, prevention, integration, inclusiveness and sustainable use. First, both natural and cultural resources are enhanced here. More precisely, the ecosystem of the River Marecchia and the contemporary artistic community of Mutoids are not a ghetto, but an open space dialoguing with the town and its citizens. As confirmed by the interviews, the cycle path which goes around the artistic park and the bikesharing service have recently improved accessibility to the area, so that citizens can freely and deliberately share and use the landscape. Second, as effectively stated by Francesco Careri in the video Transforming landscapes: Mutonia, from an abandoned industrial site to a community of artists9, in Mutonia new behaviours, new ways of living, new freedoms are developed. The nomadic town merges with the sedentary town, feeding on its waste, and, in return, offering its presence as a new nature. It is the future of the abandonment caused spontaneously by the city’s entropy. Indeed, Mutonia could be considered a “third landscape” (Clément, 2004) or a “drosscape” (Berger, 2006) where the presence of the Mutoid artists has prevented the deterioration of the environment and contributed to the regeneration of an abandoned area and increased its biodiversity. Third, the POC is an innovative site-specific model, which combines the dual need of obeying the national and regional legal system and ensuring the flexibility and transformation of the place. It is the result of a multi-stakeholder approach and a participatory process, involving not just the Mutoid community, but also politicians, technicians and institutional higher systems (Region and Province). If the Italian legal framework is taken into consideration, it could be considered an example of the above-mentioned “coordinated urban planning” (Predieri, 1969). Moreover, it is also an example of participatory democracy, promoting dialogue and cooperation among different communities according to a bottom-up approach. Following Ostrom’s principles, the

10

See: http://www.darsmagazine.it/vertigo-truth-urban-art-a-mutonia/#.W_ wISOhKhPY. 11 See: http://www.santarcangelodiromagna.info/mutoid-waste-company/ and http://www.santarcangelodiromagna.info/wp-content/uploads/ santarcangelo/Brochure%20A3_Santarcangelo-it.pdf.

9

Transforming landscapes: Mutonia, from an abandoned industrial site to a community of artists, video by Filippo Piva, Studio Pampa – Progetto Ambiente Paesaggio, https://www.facebook.com/292509967518881/videos/ 733236346779572/. 7

Land Use Policy 87 (2019) 104022

M. Cerquetti, et al.

Fig. 5. The path-dependent co-evolution model developed in Mutonia (Source: own elaboration). Table 1 Key elements of the Mutonia SWOT analysis (Source: own elaboration). STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

OPPORTUNITIES

THREATS

and natural diversity of the area; • Cultural of the area thanks to the presence of the Mutoids; • Regeneration and successful cooperation between the Municipality and the Mutoid Waste • Long Company; emotionally attached to Mutonia: they welcomed the artists and got • Townspeople mobilised for the safeguard of Mutonia; two-way collaboration between the Mutoids and the local community (e.g. • Intense cultural activities and initiatives); ethically-valued message conveyed by the Mutoid Waste Company • Remarkable through the creative reuse of discarded objects and abandoned places; Municipal Plan of Operation (POC) and formal agreement specifying • Site-specific the cooperation between the Mutoids and the Municipality on the use of the area; park as a unique and distinctive local resource attracting international • Artistic artists and people since the end of the 1990s; path around the artistic park and bike-sharing service; • Cycle • Promotion of Mutonia in websites, tourist maps and brochures.

of a private citizen concerning urban-planning and construction • Complaint irregularities; Plan of Operation, only just legal, in that it authorises the construction of • Municipal houses and other structures on a region-owned bounded area; difficult to achieve effective coordination among the various • Extremely administrations and levels of government; of artists who settled in the area in the late 1990s; • Aging • Temporary settlement: artists can come and go, hence can leave and abandon the area.

growing demand for alternative slow tourism (e.g. natural tourism, cycle • New tourism, etc.); awareness of the value of the landscape and focus on its protection; • Increasing interest in industrial archaeology; • Growing interest in contemporary cultural trends (e.g. experimental theatre, poetry, • Local figurative art, Mutoid art, etc.); local sense of belonging; • Strong local social model and open mindedness; • Non-rigid community accustomed to collective use of public space and welcoming • Local diversity and experimentation; of the regional law system on territorial governance and landscape • Effectiveness protection and enhancement; • Growing focus on circular economy.

number of actors involved in the process; • Large of the national landscape protection system; • Rigidity of the legal system (see: Emilia Romagna Regional Law No. 24/2017: the • Instability adoption of new urban planning tools, in compliance with the new regional

• •

Table 1. In addition to the strengths discussed above, a number of weaknesses are identified, including the nature of a temporary settlement and the aging of the artists. However, it should be noted that the POC states that, if the artists leave the site, the Municipality must design new enhancement projects. Moreover, while the increasing demand for slow tourism and the focus on a circular economy are opportunities that have only partially been exploited, the high number of actors involved and the instability of the legal and political system are threats to be taken into account for the future of Mutonia. In order to exploit the opportunities arising from the global market and prevent emerging social and political threats, scientific literature on city marketing and branding as well as on arts and cities could provide a substantial contribution (Nakagawa, 2010; Guinard, Margier, 2018; Lucarelli, 2018). Moreover, as already stated, from the point of view of public management, the sustainable development of Mutonia depends on the

framework, could lead to a different evaluation by the public administration and therefore to a different set of interests); Instability of the governance of common goods, conditioned by the decisive (voluntary) contribution of the private sector; Instability of the political system.

ability to involve all local actors and to support its continuous transformation through criteria and indicators monitoring, measuring and evaluating both outputs and outcomes. 5.2. Mutonia between the governance of common goods and landscape enhancement The procedural complexity that led to this solution also offers some food for thought on urban regeneration, specifically when applied to the landscape. It provides a contribution as an experience, as a further suggestion on a possible approach to urban regeneration, which still does not fit within a legally-defined path, despite having a growing importance within local government policies. While, on the one hand, there is the central role attributed to the idea of converging the safeguard of Mutonia with the rehabilitation of a disused industrial site through the establishment of a publicly accessible artistic park, on the 8

Land Use Policy 87 (2019) 104022

M. Cerquetti, et al.

other hand, there is the collaborative perspective adopted by the municipal administration since the arrival of the artists, and the search for an effective legal instrument tailored to this situation. This is also an important point in the current process of redefining relationships between private individuals and institutions, and the increasing move towards the consent and cooperation of citizens in the decision-making and management processes of the administration, especially where common goods are concerned. This points to a perspective whereby the ownership of the property is no longer central to this category, but rather the concept of “designated use” of the goods, according to which they are suitable for participatory administration. The landscape, for example, is considered a common good because it is intrinsically public, given that it is publicly visible and usable. In fact, it has a twofold nature: one aspect can be traced back to its material presence, consisting of concrete elements and the inevitable inclusion of private goods, while the other is linked to the communication of its meaning and its cultural value. In this case study, everything had taken place organically for many years without regulation, and, on closer inspection, it seemed more a matter of “compliant administration” than shared administration. The reason is that, in the first stage (between settlement and the demolition order), it did not seem appropriate to identify the area as a common good: in fact, it was basically intended for private use. The artists, in fact, came from a past of squatting, rave parties and street performances, and undoubtedly the ideological component of their artistic project also included the concept of collective and shared fruition, as well as the stimulus for reflection on the transformation of abandoned places (and this aspect is also reflected in the morphology of Mutonia). This reasoning, however, is different from the mechanism of identifying a common good. Of course, it cannot be said that the Mutoids have made direct demands on this urban space as active citizens with widespread interests, or that the reference community could be identified as stakeholders. Nor did they intend to coordinate their utopian way of life with the municipal administration. In short, Mutonia was not born with the intention of carrying out a public service according to the rules of shared administration, but it self-determined and simply found an environment willing to accept it. Basically, although the Municipality and the MWC have set up a collaborative relationship, one supporting it and the other taking care of the space in a respectful and non-invasive way, using it as a common good, we cannot talk of shared administration, at least not in a legal sense. However, in the second stage (from the start of the planning process onwards), the relationship became a formal collaboration on the design and governance of the use of the area. Therefore, only at this stage was a complete form of shared administration achieved. First, because the Mutoids and the municipal administration co-designed the intervention, also because the demands of the public had been accepted as a prevailing interest on which to base the planning procedure, and finally because the landscape enhancement intervention involved sharing tasks and responsibilities between the administration and MWC, as detailed in the agreement associated with the plan. The concept of common good emerges at this point, as the transformation of the landscape by the artists is publicly perceivable, usable, and communicates values with which citizens identify, even though the group makes private use of the public space. This private use is still linked to the performance of a public service, which is noticeable both in the management of the settlement as an artistic park and in the regeneration and maintenance of a degraded landscape, albeit one with restrictions. This form of public-private collaboration, therefore, is specifically oriented towards improving the public fruition of the park and to enriching the environmental context in a manner that is compatible with its protection, which is guaranteed as a condition imposed on MWC, in an exchange for the formalisation of their occupancy. From a legal perspective, it should also be noted that a group of citizens, namely the Mutoids, has produced effects on landscape enhancement, through action aimed at the management of a region-

owned property in an area subject to landscape restrictions, thereby restoring the landscape for use by the community. Thanks to a regeneration project on a degraded and unused site, the abandoned quarry is not a cost for the local institutions responsible for ensuring the security of the property, but has become an opportunity for the development of the local community. The case study evokes “new generation” common goods such as disused or abandoned buildings that the public opens up to community use for cultural activities (Fidone, 2017: 417). Moreover, the hospitality of the Romagna community and the cultural liveliness of the region helped the company remain and satisfied the requirement for intergenerationality in the relationship between goods and the community, to eliminate the risk of selfish and utilitarian use, incompatible with the common good concept. In this case, a group of citizens “shares” with a public administration one of the most characteristic functions of public power, namely urban planning. Indeed, the case study represents an example of collaborative urban planning, applying horizontal subsidiarity (Chiti, 2017: 36). It is, therefore, a model in which authority precedes and is accompanied by negotiation. The presence of an artistic association is an innovative factor in this case. Moreover, the association is not replaceable for the purposes stated in the POC. Therefore, public procedures for selecting the operator are unnecessary. In any case, allocating the management of the area to an association does not preclude access to it by the community as a whole. On the contrary, the wider community is even functional to the cultural purposes of the settlement. Finally, it should be mentioned that the area considered in the case study is classified as a protected area in other sectoral plans and for this reason subject to landscape restrictions. As a consequence, the planning document adopted here (POC) is not only a tool for implementing municipal town planning regulations, but also a vehicle for landscape protection and enhancement. From another point of view, the case confirms that urban regeneration is an “atypical” administrative function, which could also become a tool for landscape enhancement. In conclusion, when the landscape is analysed (Settis, 2016), urban regeneration becomes the element of convergence between landscape enhancement and the governance of common goods12, because it is one of the tools for implementing the former and one of the possible applications of the latter. Moreover, the fact that these two concepts are atypical makes room for the interchangeability of regulation tools that can produce – as in the case of the Mutonia theme Park – positive effects on both fronts, including making up for the legislative gaps when it comes to suitable tools for landscape enhancement (Casini, 2016). 6. Conclusions The management strategy adopted in Mutonia could be considered an attempt to mediate between the need to protect a settlement with an independent cultural value and the need to increase the value of the existence and use of the environment. The Mutonia community emerges as a hybrid object involved in a process of continuous evolution. It is a contemporary landscape, an artistic laboratory and a settlement where private, common and public spaces coexist. It is an open and inclusive space which has generated and continues to generate, albeit unintentionally, positive externalities for a wider community, particularly for the citizens of Santarcangelo di Romagna, in terms of the regeneration of an abandoned and degraded space, increased and shared awareness of the value of the landscape and its sustainable use, promotion of art and creativity, support for the culture of recycling. In short, it is also a good practice activating positive behaviours among citizens. The case study also shows the urban system’s “ability to resist, adapt and positively respond, with innovative forms and techniques, to the changing strains and stresses – climatic, historical, economic and social – it is subjected to” (Mellano, 2017: 3). Finally, as argued by 12

9

See: Italian Code for Cultural Heritage and the Landscape, Article 143.

Land Use Policy 87 (2019) 104022

M. Cerquetti, et al.

Ostrom, the site-specific urban planning tool adopted in this case suggests that:

Arena, G., 2015. Introduzione. Rapporto Labsus 2015. Labsus, Roma, pp. 7–9. Arena, G., Iaione, C., 2012. L’Italia dei beni comuni. Roma, Carrocci. Barile, S., Tomassetti, A., Saviano, M., 2015. I parchi e le aree protette tra funzione di tutela e finalità di valorizzazione in ottica di sostenibilità. In: Golinelli, G.M. (Ed.), Patrimonio culturale e creazione di valore. La componente naturalistica. Wolters Kluwer Italia, Milan, pp. 67–113. Becattini, G., 2015. La coscienza dei luoghi. Il territorio come soggetto corale. Donzelli, Roma. Berger, A., 2006. Drosscape: Wasting Land in Urban America. Princeton Architectural Press, New York. Bombardelli, M. (Ed.), 2016. Prendersi cura dei beni comuni per uscire dalla crisi. Editoriale scientifica, Napoli. Bravo, G., 2005. Istituzioni e partecipazione nella gestione di risorse comuni. In: Pellizzoni, L. (Ed.), La deliberazione pubblica. Roma, Meltemi, pp. 265–280. Caselli, R., 2018. I cittadini che si prendono cura dei beni comuni creano ricchezza. July, 3. Labsus. http://www.labsus.org/2018/07/i-cittadini-che-si-prendono-cura-deibeni-comuni-creano-ricchezza/. Casini, L., 2016. Ereditare il futuro. Il Mulino, Bologna. Cassese, S., 2009. Le prospettive. In: Torchia, L. (Ed.), Il sistema amministrativo italiano. Il Mulino, Bologna pp. 507–517, 593–594. Cerquetti, M., 2015. Tutela e valorizzazione integrata del patrimonio culturale per lo sviluppo dei territori. Verso un nuovo paradigma gestionale. Estrategia innovativas en la gestión y valorización del paisaje cultural: experiencias italianas y argentinas en comparación. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, Bernal, pp. 9–24. Cerquetti, M. (Ed.), 2017. Bridging theories, strategies and practices in valuing cultural heritage. eum, Macerata. Cerquetti, M., Ferrara, C., 2018. Marketing Research for Cultural Heritage Conservation and Sustainability: Lessons from the Field. Sustainability. 10 (3), 1–16. Cerulli Irelli, V., 1983. Proprietà pubblica e diritti collettivi. Cedam, Padova. Cerulli Irelli, V., De Lucia, L., 2014. Beni comuni e diritti collettivi. Politica del diritto. 45 (1), 3–36. Chiti, E., 2017. La rigenerazione di spazi e beni pubblici: una nuova funzione amministrativa? In: Di Lascio, F., Giglioni, F. (Eds.), La rigenerazione di beni e spazi urbani. Contributo al diritto della città. Bologna, Il Mulino, pp. 15–40. Clément, G., 2004. Manifeste du Tiers paysage. Sujet/Objet, Paris. Cleaver, F., Whaley, L., 2018. Understanding process, power, and meaning in adaptive governance: a critical institutional reading. Ecol. Soc. 23, 2. https://doi.org/10. 5751/ES-10212-230249. Coleman, J.S., 1994. Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London. Cortese, F., 2011. Dalle valli da pesca ai beni comuni: la Cassazione rilegge lo statuto dei beni pubblici? Giornale di diritto amministrativo. 1170–1178. Cottino, P., Zeppetella, P., 2009. Creatività, sfera pubblica e riuso sociale degli spazi. Forme di sussidiarietà orizzontale per la produzione di servizi non convenzionali. Cittalia – Fondazione ANCI Ricerche, Roma, pp. 4. Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention. Florence, 20.X.2000, European Treaty Series – No. 176. Available at:. https://rm.coe.int/1680080621. Covatta, L., Cammelli, M., 2013. I beni e le attività culturali. Per il governo del Paese. Proposte di politiche pubbliche. Passigli, Bagno a Ripoli, pp. 295–300. Dennis, M., James, P., 2016. User participation in urban green commons: exploring the links between access, voluntarism, biodiversity and well-being. Urban For. Urban Green. 15, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.11.009. Donolo, C., 2003. Il distretto sostenibile. Governare i beni comuni per lo sviluppo. Franco Angeli, Milano. Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14 (4), 532–550. Fidone, G.F., 2017. Proprietà pubblica e beni comuni. ETS edizioni, Pisa. Giannini, M.S., 1963. I beni pubblici-dispense delle lezioni del Corso di Diritto Amministrativo tenute nell’Anno accademico 1962-1963. Bulzoni, Roma. Golinelli, G.M. (Ed.), 2015. Cultural Heritage and Value Creation. Towards New Pathways. Springer, Cham. Grossi, P., 1977. “Un altro modo di possedere”. L’emersione di forme alternative alla proprietà alla coscienza giuridica post unitaria. Giuffrè, Milano. Guinard, P., Margier, A., 2018. Art as a new urban norm: Between normalization of the City through art and normalization of art through the City in Montreal and Johannesburg. Cities. 77, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.04.018. Hayek, F.A., 1982. Law, Legislation and Liberty. A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy. T.J. Press, Padstow. Hardin, G., 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162 (3859), 1243–1248. https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243. Harvey, D., 2012. Rebel Cities. From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. Verso, London-New York. Heuer, M., 2011. Ecosystem cross-sector collaboration: conceptualizing an adaptive approach to sustainability governance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 20, 211–221. https://doi. org/10.1002/bse.673. Hockings, M., 2003. Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas. Biosceince. 53 (9), 823–832. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003) 053[0823:SFATEO]2.0.CO;2. Hossu, C.A., Ioja, I.C., Nita, M.R., Hartel, T., Badiu, D.L., Hersperger, A.M., 2017. Need for a cross-sector approach in protected area management. Land Use Policy 69, 586–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.012. Iaione, C., 2015. Governing the urban commons. Italian Journal of Public Law 7 (1), 170–221. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2589640. Jones, P.J., Andersen, E., Capitani, C., Carvalho Ribeiro, S., Griffiths, G.H., Loupa-Ramos, I., Madeira, L., Mortimer, S.R., Parracchini, M.L., Pinto Correia, T., Schmidt, A.M., Simoncini, R., Wascher, D.M., 2016. The EU societal awareness of landscape

instead of there being a single solution to a single problem, […] many solutions exist to cope with many different problems. Instead of presuming that optimal institutional solutions can be designed easily and imposed at low cost by external authorities, […] “getting the institutions right” is a difficult, time-consuming, conflict-invoking process. It is a process that requires reliable information about time and place variables as well as a broad repertoire of culturally acceptable rules. New institutional arrangements do not work in the field as they do in abstract models unless the models are well specified and empirically valid and the participants in a field setting understand how to make the new rules work (Ostrom, 1990: 14). Currently, Mutonia is not a common good. However, despite its particular origins and evolution, it has achieved the same results and effects that common goods can generate, even more so if the landscape is taken into consideration. Indeed, it shows the primary elements of a common good as defined in jurisprudence: its common nature is the result of a specific relationship between the good and a defined community and its connection with the implementation of the state of wellbeing. As a consequence, it can be considered a compelling boundary object, making a useful contribution to the debate on the governance of common goods in terms of landscape enhancement, and a model which can provide useful recommendations for the public management – for sustainable use of the landscape, especially as regards suburban, inland or fragile areas and their promotion. Even though the article discusses a case study, the detailed analysis conducted in the previous sections highlights relevant characteristics and provides valuable suggestions that may be extended to similar cases (Mitchell, 1983). The typicality of Mutonia pertains to its morphology, both from the object side – i.e. an abandoned area – and the subject one – i.e. the involvement of many and varied actors. For this reason, it could be a benchmark which suggests a paradigm shift in the relationship between communities and institutions. In conclusion, this case generates positive effects, as the management of common goods is expected to do, by: a) running small-scale projects without additional costs for the public administration – e.g. the regeneration of a degraded urban district; b) increasing the quality of life and attractiveness of the territory and its cultural offer; c) facilitating public administrations, sometimes unable to take proper care of common goods, owing to the lack of governance capacity and/or adequate public funds. Moreover, like common goods, it has “pedagogical and ethical effects” (Iaione, 2015: 187). Indeed, the initiative propagates positive multiplier effects and imitation: participants are affected by the initiative through a fostered sense of community, and nonparticipants (i.e. other inhabitants of the neighbourhood and other citizens) are also encouraged to join. As already argued, research limitations are related to the rigidity of the national landscape protection system, the instability of the legal and political system and the uncertainty of the governance of common goods. Further research should monitor the evolution of these higher systems. References Antrop, M., 2017. Balancing heritage and innovation – the landscape perspectives. BSGLg. 69 (2), 41–51. Aragona, S., 2019. Ecological resilience and care of the common house to build the landscape of contemporaneity and future scenarios of territories and cities. in: new metropolitan perspectives. Local knowledge and innovation dynamics towards territory attractiveness through the implementation of Horizon/E2020/Agenda2030. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies 101, 522–533.

10

Land Use Policy 87 (2019) 104022

M. Cerquetti, et al. indicator: a review of its meaning, utility and performance across different scales. Land Use Policy 53, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.038. Jongman, R.H.G., 1995. Nature conservation planning in Europe: developing ecological networks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 32 (3), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/01692046(95)00197-O. Lalli, A., 2015. I Beni Pubblici-imperativi Di Mercato E Diritti Della Collettività. Jovene, Napoli. Lefebvre, H., 1970. Il Diritto Alla Città. Marsilio, Padova. Loulanski, T., 2006. Revising the concept for cultural heritage: the argument for a functional approach. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 13, 207–233. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0940739106060085. Lucarelli, A., 2015. Beni comuni e funzione sociale della proprietà. Il ruolo del Comune. In: Sacconi, L., Ottone, S. (Eds.), Beni comuni e cooperazione. Il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 111–122. Lucarelli, A., 2018. Place branding as urban policy: the (im)political place branding. Cities. 80, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.08.004. Maddalena, P., 2011. I beni comuni nel codice civile, nella tradizione romanistica e nella Costituzione della Repubblica italiana. Federalismi.it 19. Marella, M.R., 2012. Oltre il pubblico e il privato. Per un diritto dei beni comuni. Ombre corte, Verona. Mattei, U., 2011. Beni comuni. Un manifesto. Laterza, Roma-Bari. Mellano, P., 2017. Regaining the culture of cities. City Territ. Archit. 4 (6), 1–6. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s40410-017-0063-3. Menatti, L., 2017. Landscape: from common good to human right. Int. J. Commons 11 (2), 641–683. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.738. Mitchell, J.C., 1983. Case and situation analysis. Sociol. Rev. 31 (2), 187–211. Montella, M., 2015. Identità e missione dei beni ambientali e delle aree protette. In: Golinelli, G.M. (Ed.), Patrimonio culturale e creazione di valore. La componente naturalistica. Wolters Kluwer Italia, Milan, pp. 3–66. Nakagawa, S., 2010. Socially inclusive cultural policy and arts-based urban community regeneration. Cities 27, S16–S24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.03.003. North, D.G., 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Olwig, K.R., 2003. Commons and landscape. In: Berge, E., Carlsson, L. (Eds.), Commons Old and New. Oslo, Centre for Advanced Study. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, pp. 15–22. Olwig, K.R., 2007. The practice of landscape “conventions” and the just landscape: the case of the European Landscape Convention. Landsc. Res. 32 (5), 579–594. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552738. Olwig, K.R., 2013. Globalism and the enclosure of the landscape commons. In: Rotherham, I.D. (Ed.), Cultural Severance and the Environment – The Ending of Traditional and Customary Practice on Commons and Landscapes Managed in Common. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 31–46. O’Rourke, E., 2005. Landscape planning and community participation: local lessons from Mullaghmore, the Burren National Park. Ireland. Landscape Research. 30 (4), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390500273205. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., Walker, J.M., 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Palermo, P.C., Ponzini, D., 2010. Spatial Planning and Urban Development: Critical Perspectives. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York. Petraroia, P., 2006. Il governo. In: Barbati, C., Cammelli, M., Sciullo, G. (Eds.), Il diritto dei beni culturali. Il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 165–191. Petraroia, P., 2007. Modelli di governance per i beni culturali. Economia della cultura. XVII 1, 47–53. Petraroia, P., 2010. Tutela e valorizzazione. In: Montella, M., Dragoni, P. (Eds.), Musei e valorizzazione dei beni culturali. Atti della Commissione per la definizione dei livelli minimi di qualità delle attività di valorizzazione. Clueb, Bologna, pp. 43–54. Petraroia, P., 2014. La valorizzazione come dimensione relazionale della tutela. In: NegriClementi, G., Stabile, S. (Eds.), Il diritto dell’arte. 3. La protezione del patrimonio artistico. Skira, Milano, pp. 41–49. Piperata, G., 2017. Paesaggio. In: Barbati, C., Casini, L., Cammelli, M., Piperata, G., Sciullo, G. (Eds.), Diritto del patrimonio culturale. Il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 243–284. Pittaluga, P., 2013. Landscape as a “common”: collective protection and management. In: Serreli, S. (Ed.), City Project and Public Space. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 179–195 [etc.]. Ponzini, D., 2013. Despite the absence of the public sphere: how common goods can generate opportunities for the design of public spaces. In: Serreli, S. (Ed.), City Project and Public Space. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 97–110 [etc.]. Predieri, A., 1969. Significato della norma costituzionale sulla tutela del paesaggio. In Studi per il XX Anniversario dell’Assemblea Costituente, vol. II, Le libertà civili e politiche. Vallecchi, Firenze, pp. 381–428. Ricoveri, G., 2013. Nature for Sale: Commons Versus Commodities. Pluto Press, London. Rodotà, S., 2013. Il terribile diritto. Studi sulla proprietà privata e i beni comuni. Il Mulino, Bologna. Saviano, M., Di Nauta, P., Montella, M.M., Sciarelli, F., 2018. Managing protected areas as cultural landscapes: the case of the Alta Murgia National Park in Italy. Land Use Policy 76, 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.052. Sciullo, G., 2008. Il paesaggio tra la Convenzione e il Codice. Aedon. 3. Settis, S., 2016. Il paesaggio bene comune. Cositutizione! Perché attuarla è meglio che cambiarla. Einaudi, Torino, pp. 143–146. Simone, C., Barile, S., Calabrese, M., 2018. Managing territory and its complexity: a decision making model based on the viable system approach (VSA). Land Use Policy 72, 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.070. Šmid Hribar, M., Bole, D., Urbanc, M., 2015. Public and common goods in the cultural landscape. Geogr. Vestn. 87 (2), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.3986/GV87203. Urbani, G., 1976. Premessa del progetto esecutivo. In: Istituto Centrale del Restauro. Piano pilota per la conservazione programmata dei beni culturali in Umbria. Progetto esecutivo. Roma, Tecneco s.p.a., now in Urbani, G. Intorno al restauro, edited by Zanardi, B. Milano, Skira, 2000, pp. 103-105. Vejre, H., Abildtrup, J., Kærgaard, N., Fritzbøger, B., Busck, A.G., Olsen, S.B., 2012. Revitalisation of common use in management of modern multifunctional landscapes. Landsc. Res. 37 (6), 637–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.705821. Vitale, E., 2013. Contro i beni comuni, una critica illuministica. Laterza, Roma-Bari. Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research. Design and Methods, third edition. Sage, London.

11