Mountains in Motion, Visions in Nutshells. The Alpine Way for Common Living

Abstract

Architectural research is defined as community practice and for communities. Architecture has always been constituted as an action of territorial settlement and domestication for the community liveability of places.

This article, referring to the concepts of resilience and transformability of mountain systems, proposes to reflect on how rural mountain areas have always been able to adapt to changes thanks to the ability of communities to conceive common and shared design directions.

The paper reflects on the conceptualization of commons and how they can be a model for resilient development in socially inclusive contexts. For this reason, an extensive review of historical palimpsests was conducted to understand how to start from the roots of the operating models.

The article includes a field approach in Trentino’s valleys. The results are exploratory, as the process cannot be concluded and requires a long time for validation. From it, some working hypotheses are derived to be explored in further studies, such as reintroducing the commons into projects and societies in transformation.

Architectural research in these contexts contributes to orienting knowledge through fundamental collaboration with other disciplines, which is helpful in defining regenerative processes consistent with specific environmental contexts.

1 Domesticated Mountains

The mountains result from a lengthy process of human domestication aimed at rendering them inhabitable.

This adaptation is closely tied to the various forms of exploitation that have emerged from the study of the knowledge of these spaces, with their inherent natural and environmental characteristics. In this regard, collective practices have fostered a transformative relationship between architecture, landscape, and community actions within these mountainous territories. In this line, the value of the mountains lies in their capacity for self-regeneration, and today, the existing connection with the local community remains a foundational practice that imbues these places with meaning, transforming them through new relationships (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Abandoned Masi in Celado, Tesino Valley (TN) (©Tognon 2023)

The paper focuses on the ongoing research¹ which deals with understanding how new regenerative possibilities on the mountain’s territories emerge from the interaction of ecological, cultural, and social criteria that underlie mountain civilization and appear to be fundamental to living and producing in the mountains and, therefore, non-negotiable. Envisioning a future for mountains means basing it on the reestablishment of a strong relationship between communities and the land by integrating what Pazzagli refers to as the three “P’s”: “landscape,” “villages,” and “products,” which are endogenous elements for the long-term care of the area. It is necessary to direct the narrative towards a conscious appreciation of the territory, investigating and emphasizing latent knowledge capable of including the individual, uniting the community, generating sustainable economies, and reconstructing a history while containing the future one. In this perspective, the concept of “fragility” [1] as a lens for examining the territory seeks to explore the specificities that can be related not only from a natural perspective but also from a social, economic, and architectural standpoint.

The research focuses on the alpine region, a “unique region at the center of Europe” [2], to which special attention must be paid. Operating in a design logic on these territories, it is not necessary to limit to a national perspective, but it is essential to think of the territory in a transnational key [3] since the Alpine territories belong to the same mountain range, although with their regional peculiarities. Moreover, the Alps geographically range from high snowy peaks to the sea, resulting in a rich complexity of interconnected variables: different topographies or orographic masses, variations in the shapes and environmental conditions, and unique conditions imposed by life [4]. Overlapping with these geographical components is the immaterial aspect defined by their close relationship with humanity.

2 Alps, Common Ground

As Ferrari [5] states, defining the Alps could even lead to tautology: the mountain is what is perceived as such. In other words, the mountain is perception and representation and what we perceive in our minds through our eyes. How to view the Alps is a complex theme that has evolved over the years because it encapsulates the ability to create a mental geography that transcends the physical aspect. The changes in perceptual direction have portrayed them in muted ways over the years: from inhospitable places inhabited by wilderness communities to valleys as romantic expressions of a new Arcadia for regenerating city dwellers, from John Ruskin’s “cathedrals of the earth” for explorers, to playful places with ski total resorts [6]. Even today, the challenge lies in the multiplicity of perspectives from which we view the Alps. Nevertheless, it is essential to understand the implications these interpretations have on the physical landscapes and the future. In this context, the Alps should be recognized as having an intrinsic value that goes beyond economic considerations [5] while avoiding falling into an ideologically driven environmentalism that disregards the necessary balances for human life in a region that has been historically influenced by human activity.

Humans in the Alps should be seen as active participants in the natural balance, historically shaping and preserving this equilibrium. The Alps could be described as an anthropogeographical landscape, the result of millennia of gradual transformations. Initially, the Alps were covered with dense and almost impenetrable forests up to high altitudes, while the extensive and flat valley bottoms were often marshy, threatened by floods, and only passable and usable during dry seasons [7]. Only the alpine meadows above the tree line were suitable for immediate exploitation, albeit to a limited extent.

To establish permanent settlements in this region, humans had to intervene in the ecosystems and transform them according to their needs, shaping the alpine region as an architecture.

2.1 The Vertical Dimension

The alpine territory, analyzed systemically for design purposes, should be scanned and considered not only in the horizontal connection of valley systems but mainly in the vertical relationship between bottom valleys and peaks. The vertical component leads to reading the valley system as a tomographic series of cross-sections. This analytical, interpretive key stems from the vertical structure of the valleys, which required the inhabitants to cope with natural catastrophic events that threatened settlements both downstream and upstream. This made settling the land and its use for people's livelihoods challenging. Nonetheless, human interventions also took the form of modifying plant species and individual ecosystems, as well as landscape structuring to mitigate the discontinuous dynamics of natural risks into more manageable and controllable events.

In a general sense, according to Bätzing [2], the transformation of the Alpine ecosystem can be categorized into three levels of interventions: (a) creation of the Alpine pastureland - expanding pastures through clearing and transforming vegetation cover via deforestation, and other related activities; (b) creation of valley farmland - clearing and cultivating land in the valley areas; (c) reclamation and clearing of large valley bottoms. This involved drainage and clearance of extensive low-lying valley areas. These actions led to the development of an architectural landscape, the signs and features of which can still be observed today [2: 111–126].

This type of landscape is an ideal vertical section, which reflects the construction of an artificial space divided into three parts to make it habitable. This scenery is referred to a cultural (or anthropized) environment and is situated alongside the natural land in dynamic and intermediate stages, and it is often described as a “semi-natural” or a “semi-cultural” landscape. Aligning with Bätzing's definition, the “cultural landscape” is understood as an area in which human activities have shaped the natural ecosystem in such a way that an ecosystem has replaced it with a cultural imprint. The stability of this new ecosystem is now the responsibility of humans, as the new ecosystem is not inherently stable [2: 117].

This landscape was also shaped by a collective management model, which has been fundamental in caring for the territory in the Alps by land (agricultural, pastures, forests) and maintaining the built environment associated with them. As already highlighted, the regulation of the mountain territories is an ancient process that began around the XII Century in the Alpine region, where ecological and social systems have historically co-evolved and become deeply rooted [8, 9]. Traditionally, highland areas have been regulated by “civic use”, and these models of collective management [10] were developed to address local populations’ need to manage resource scarcity autonomously and collectively. They created specific norms of land use to ensure their livelihoods while maintaining a balance between productive activities and environmental preservation.

From a spatial perspective, it is interesting to note how these management models have been physically translated into spatial contexts and, consequently, into environmental and social palimpsests deeply ingrained in local traditions [11]. We highlight that preserving these practices has facilitated the care of the material and immaterial cultural heritage over time.

The model continues to serve as an essential historical and cultural framework for local development in mountain regions [12]. Indeed, within the context of mountain societies and ecosystems’ changes and management challenges today, commons represent unique habitats. They warrant not only in preserving traditional knowledge but also in upholding ecological resources and in their ability to anticipate future scenarios.

2.2 Rural Commons, the Palimpsest of the Alps

The cultural relevance of this approach to territorial management for the Alps also reverberates in contemporary principles of local administration. In fact, within the evolving concept of economic development, “commons” have established themselves as foundational areas of interest, defined as “sustainable local economies” [13].

In the ongoing research we consider commons not as a mere subsistence economy but rather as a rational mode of resource management and utilization [14], where the use of local natural resources, combined with a system of mutual management, enables the creation and survival of communities even in challenging and isolated territories [15]. The “Regole” [16] created a connection between the collective of inhabitants, known as “vicini”, and the territory on which they lived. This regulation established a link between people and territory (understood as a natural reality), the assembly of household heads, and individual local entities within the broader valley context. The purpose of the administration under these regulations was to control the standardized exploitation of common lands and safeguard small private holdings, referred to as “divisi”.

Over the years, the methods of utilizing natural resources, based on communal use of common assets, have remained essentially unchanged. Cultivable plots of land belonged to families, although even privately defined areas of cultivated fields could be subject to limitations in favor of the community. According to Nequirito[16], analyzing the community's territory, four distinct levels are structured. (a) The village represents the private side of each family unit and worked as core of the housing area. (b) Cultivated lands, typically located near the inhabited centers, consisted of fields and meadows defined by hedges, fences, or dry-stone walls. The route is allowed during unproductive seasons for all the community. (c) Forests: broadleaf forests were situated in areas bordering the village settlements and were used for firewood. Meanwhile, coniferous forests at higher altitudes provided timber for trade. (d) Pasturelands were collectively exploited at various altitudes and utilized according to the seasons. They were overseen by common huts (“malghe”), where those appointed by the community, including herdsmen and shepherds, produced milk from flocks or herds brought to pasture. (Fig. 2).

In addition, the infrastructure of the territory was structured, and the water system was planned by the community, which were involved maintaining canals and embankments, monitoring the purity of water sources, regulating water flow, and managing its use through mills and sawmills, among other facilities. The road system was also a matter of mandatory contributions from the community or those with property along the roads. The “regola” defined specific control regulations and imposed strict penalties for those who damaged public roads and places. Additionally, essential activities such as butchery or baking, as well as specific aspects related to religious life regulations, were governed and managed by the “Carte di Regola” (trad. Regulation Charters).

The long life of these “regole” has left visible traces in various Alpine areas. The forms of land use for silvo-pastoral assets are reflected today in the toponymic heritage of places, a reminder of ancient customs and methods of using Alpine resources. This historical legacy is also visible in the landscape's configuration and the enduring institutions.

The Trentino case

The two autonomous Italian provinces of Trentino and South Tyrol are a peculiar case in the Italian Alps, since historically encompass the highest number of collectively managed lands, covering a significant percentage of their territory [14]. Together the provinces create a region where the concept of “common good” has been expanded not only to material assets, but also to a substrate of traditions and practices of intangible heritage.

Looking specifically to Trentino, the commons as management model are still strongly present in several valleys (e.g., Magnifica Comunità of Val di Fiemme, Regola of Spinale and Manez, etc.), defining a model of virtuous land management, but also identifying a community closely linked by a strong sense of identity with the land in which they live over generations [17].

As profit motives did not drive these communities, all proceeds were reinvested for the benefit of the territory, with fair resource distribution. Due to their ability to self-regulate, these local communities have achieved a degree of autonomy, which still reflects in local autonomy of Trentino South Tyrol. Over the past 60 years, both the Autonomous Provinces have invested in policies to preserve the social and cultural fabric and safeguard natural resources [18]. They recognize the intangible value of collective institutions, which play a fundamental role in shaping the landscape [19]. In accordance with this, the legacy of the collective management model is still prominently evident in a participatory planning approach involving the local community, predominantly indigenous, who can identify with the region’s agricultural and production systems. An illustrative example is the presence of cooperatives for community production of goods (e.g., Melinda, Mezzacorona, Famiglia Cooperativa, etc.), which are a manifestation of this cultural heritage.

Fig. 2.

The sketch translates into imagery the analyses that Nequirito has read regarding the subdivision of the community’s territory into four levels, elements, and infrastructure (©Tognon 2023)

3 The Community as the Driving Force of Territorial Development

As illustrated in the previous chapters, communities have long been the driving force behind the domestication of complex regions such as mountainous areas. Therefore, even today, when architects and researchers investigate how these territories can be resilient and capable of meeting the challenges related to climate change and ecological transition through innovative approaches, it is essential to understand how communities traditionally found internal solutions to ensure their adaptability.

Over the past three years of research on mountainous areas, particularly in the Trentino province, we highlighted how architecture, in its dual form of discipline and utility, becomes a conspicuous part of the “solid memory”, which becomes a tool for understanding how to operate in a regenerative manner. From this perspective, architectural research, thanks to the multiplicity of its meanings, works in the present, establishing a systemic relationship between the territory and the community, which is seen as a driving element. This becomes an essential combination for transmitting values from one generation to the next and is crucial in regeneration processes.

As discussed in the previous chapters, through the analysis of the historical significance of collective properties in Trentino, the Separate Administrations of Civic Use (ASUC) are today considered the heirs of the ancient rights exercised over the territory by rural or village communities since their origins. However, it is difficult, except in a few cases, to reconstruct their history philologically due to various political and administrative upheavals. Indeed, apart from well-known cases such as the Magnifica comunità della Val di Fiemme, Regola Feudale di Predazzo, and Regola di Spinale e Manez, which have survived over time, most collective properties have been lost along with their archives too. Their gradual disappearance is linked to political changes from the enlightened absolutism of the XIX Century through the despotisms of the fascist period. Subsequently, the first ASUCs were established within the municipalities, and over time, they multiplied and are now unevenly distributed across the provincial territory (numerous in Val di Sole, almost absent in the Valsugana land).

As reflected in the temporal analyses carried out on certain valleys², the survival or demise of collective properties also reflects the care they exercised in maintaining the territory. Signs such as spontaneous reforestation, the loss of pastures, the thickening of forests, and the disappearance of profitable trees such as chestnut groves, are indicative of the broader trend of abandoning productive mountain areas. Conversely, it is evident that the presence of collective properties serves as an irreducible stronghold that cares for and preserves the land. However, we can assert that, although the model of collective resource management has been deeply rooted in the Alpine region, current socioeconomic changes are challenging how resources are conceived, utilized, and managed by communities, as well as the very concept of community as a reference for a collective resource. As Della Torre et al. ii [20] point out, few studies have focused on the transformation and adaptation to ongoing changes, such as the gradual penetration of global economic and demographic megatrends at the local level, to decode the new tension between community needs and societal demands.

However, among the initial outcomes of the studies conducted on the territory, it is essential to acknowledge that there is a particularly fervent vitality within valley communities to implement “bottom-up” actions toward regeneration processes, as stands in chapter 2.2. These initiatives are promoted by the commitment of administrations, decision-makers, and stakeholders (valley communities, tourism boards, etc.), who actively involve the community in defining future visions.

The methodologies adopted during the community engagement processes since 2022³ range from “visioning” to “capacity building”. This alternative depends on the objectives set by the project leaders and the collaboration approaches with varied communities from different backgrounds. The translation of ideas into tangible, spatial, or directive results is always entrusted to specialized external mediators (research centers, universities, specialized companies). Using various tools such as brainstorming sessions, workshops, debates, interviews, drawings, and keywords, whose outcomes have been recorded and translated into mappings, the bottom-up process requires a varying degree of community engagement. Additionally, the translation of stimuli from fragments into a coherent system of actions and spaces requires several months of evolution, while a series of follow-up meetings with the community integrates the visions for the territory.

Indeed, the aim of the engagements is to establish a conscious connectivity between the community and the territory through a guided questioning of the current state, with the goals of viewing the territory from innovative and holistic perspective. This involves identifying the needs of the community, as well as preserving biodiversity and safeguarding the cultural heritage and the identity value of the places.

Within this experimental framework, ongoing research considers the model of “commons” as collective practices and strategies of care that can aid in the revitalization and enhancement of the territory and its resources, deemed important by a community of people. The fundamentals are the “community” that recognizes certain “common goods”, both tangible and intangible, which are collectively understood through actions and agreements of “ommuning,” where rules are established by the community for the collective management of the good [21]. In this way, especially in contexts often considered marginal, the commons promote the enhancement of tangible and intangible heritage, triggering transformative capacities through social innovation actions, space regeneration projects, and measures to counter abandonment at various scales, as well as fostering diversified economies.

3.1 Two Experiments in the Trentino Context

The application to the Trentino case has allowed work over the past two years on a territory characterized by a completely mountainous landscape⁴. The urban areas of Trento are matched by peri-urban areas, regions with significant infrastructure (Valsugana), areas with intensive tourism (Val di Sole), and areas impacted by intensive monoculture (Piana Rotaliana Königsberg). Despite their diverse characteristics, these zones share the feature of being in an Italian Alpine region, peripheral to main urban centers and interconnective nodes, and characterized by small-scale planning.

A consideration of the participatory design activities underway highlights the significant European interest in creating resilient communities through bottom-up actions.

This paper selects the pan-European project SATURN [22] which aimed to explore the value of the landscape in the context of three European regions (Italy, United Kingdom, Sweden) and to create tools and methods to support places pursuing climate resilience. In the Italian context, the case studies are developed in three areas of Trentino (Pergine, Valle dell’Adige, Arco). Fostering on the success of the SATURN approach, several other experiments have been conducted in various areas of the province of Trento, including the “Participatory Pathway for Creating a 2050 Vision for Borgo Valsugana” (February 2022). The team consisted mainly of experts who had participated in the SATURN project, using the “vision” method as a participatory and co-creation tool. Through a multi-phase participatory process, the goal was to develop solutions to improve specific areas of the Borgo in Valsugana territory, reducing negative impacts and increasing the overall well-being of residents and visitors (considering the impact of Arte Sella). The “vision” tool proved effective in involving local stakeholders in the development of policies and actions for territorial or strategic planning. However, at the time of writing, it is still unclear what the concrete impacts on pragmatic administrative planning have been.

A second case study is currently being tested in the Piana Rotaliana Königsberg area, where the tourism consortium began a series of workshops in 2021 (with various monthly follow-ups), coordinated by an external consulting agency. Specialists from different sectors (agricultural, tourism, entrepreneurs,…) and associations were invited to work together. The goal is to build coordination among the various individual needs, envision a sustainable and “beautiful” future for the “wine garden of Europe” through the development of innovative ideas. For this reason, with the association of Politecnico di Milano (DAStU), the project was presented in Brussels and partaken in the NEB Festival [23] fully embracing the three pillars: “sustainability,” from climate goals to circularity, zero pollution, and biodiversity; “aesthetics,” quality of experience and style beyond functionality; “inclusion,” from valuing diversity to securing accessibility and affordability. In this latter case, the process is ongoing, and it is not yet possible to provide an initial assessment. However, the multidisciplinary nature of the three partners (Politecnico di Milano – DAStU, Fondazione E. Mach CTT, PRK Tourism Consortium) allows for constant consideration on the objectives set for the next three years.

4 Consideration

As previously noted, the limited time available for leading community engagement experiences does not currently allow for testing their efficiency in terms of their decline rate. However, when compared with the historical model of commons, it is already possible to recognize how the activation of a shared and inclusive design process contributes to the construction or reinforcement of identities, reinterpreting territorial values. By starting from the (even latent) resources already present in the territory, possible alternative futures can be imagined, protecting the collective interest. Furthermore, in the creation of “communities of communities”, it is also possible to reflect on the complex interdependencies between rural and urban areas and to negotiate forms of hybrid coexistence between humans and nature that respond more effectively and resiliently to current challenges.

Moreover, the motivation to include these projects within European research and the interest shown by Europe ensure the broad scope that alliances and network building can create through fruitful collaborations with territories facing similar challenges and finding common solutions. By recognizing these interdependencies, communities and commons can become catalysts for a concrete and feasible alternative for territorial management and governance.

Notes

• 1. This paper presents some experiences that were conducted by the authors in the field as research fellow for the Territorial Fragilities Project [2018–2022] at DAStU “Departments of Excellence” (L. 232/2016), Ministry of University and Research (MIUR); as Assistant Professor (RTDa), DAStU, Department of Excellence 2023–2027 (MUR); as Associate Researcher [2022–2026] at LabiSAlp USI Mendrisio (CH), with a research project titled “Rural Commons, Spatial Relationships, and Memory in the Contemporary Alpine Landscape: The Trentino Case”.

• 2. The analyses conducted are part of the research at LabiSAlp and the Politecnico di Milano, specifically focusing on two areas (Adige Valley and Valsugana) between 2022–2023. These analyses involved comparing historical archive maps with the evolution of orthophotos between 1972 and 2015, aiming to assess the permanence and mutations in the territory over time.

• 3. Projects with communities have been carried out in different valleys and municipalities located at altitudes with peculiar environmental characteristics and economies. These include Val di Sole, Valsugana, Valle dell’Adige, Piana Rotaliana Königsberg.

• 4. The classification by degree of mountainousness, which provides for the subdivision of municipalities into “totally mountainous,” “partially mountainous,” and “non-mountainous,” is the outcome of the application of Article 1 of Law 991/1952 - Determination of mountain territories. This classification was transmitted to Istat by UNCEM.