Abstract
Background Ensuring the economic, climate and social urban resilience may be achieved within by Commoning. This collective practice of multi-actor governance is applied in both of urban and rural contexts. The authors present the outcomes of their research on the commonnig type of spatial management. Putting in parallel urban and rural contexts conducted to the comparison, through which typical aspects of commonnig come into light. The theoretical debate on common goods (Ostrom 1990) is at the center of interest in various disciplines since 3 decades (Rodotà 2013; Hardt and Negri, 2010; Mattei, 2011; Coriat, 2015; Dardot, Laval, 2015). The international exchange of practices and knowledge let to the boom of commoning initiatives around the globe. Scope They stand often for civic and climate rights and resilience. In spatial planning this concept is strongly connected to the just city idea (Fainstein, 2010; Moroni 2019). Nevertheless commoning generated also scepticism (Vitale, 2013, Swyngendouw, 2004), concerning the tendency of exclusivity along the way of formalising the firstly spontaneous structures. One of the emerging ideas in research on commons is the centrality of commoning, i.e. the practice of recognizing the commons, conducted by a community of commoners (Capra and Mattei, 2017; Euler, 2018). Research Question Questions are raised on: the variety of actors involved in such practices of commonning, their permeability to newly involved in the process and the implied relations of power. A reflection on forms of governance sustaining such complex processes, involving the community of commoners and public Institutions, is undertaken in the presented work. The aim of this paper is to examine current tendencies of multi-actor and multi-scalar spatial planning initiatives in both urban (Warsaw, Mazovia, PL) and rural (Simeto Valley, Sicily, IT) contexts in the light of the debate on commons. In both cases, the presence of an active community of commoners, contributing to the revitalization of natural and cultural heritage in rapidly changing environment was examined. Their flexible operating structure enabled the adaptation to the planning and administrative system requirements. We argue that the way the process is being held pre-defines the potential beneficiaries of the commoning practice and the forms of governance are the key for the place-sensitive processes. Research Method Both described practical examples were elaborated within an engaged approach to research (participatory observation in polish case and action research in italian one) and their outcomes were finally put in parallel, revealing many analogies. Tools such as interviews, field visits, collective actions with observation were used to reflect deeper on commons functioning. Statement and Results A comparative study focusing on two European cases that take up multi-actor and multi- scale perspectives in Mazovia (in a capital city urban area) and Sicily (rural inner areas) was held. This contrast allowed authors to discuss their argument on the specificity of commonning as a practice permitting to achieve temporary resilience on definied conditions in different environments. Achieving long lasting results in collaborative land land use and management would require another set of actions focussing on equitable perennisation of the effects of commonning, defined by authors of the presented research.
