- 1 In this text, collective property refers to the property paradigm in which a set of assets belongs (...)
1Collective land tenure systems, based on principles of self-governance and solidarity, have ensured the subsistence of mountain populations for centuries through the shared management of resources such as pastures, forests and water resources (Grossi, 2012). These systems have not only contributed to environmental conservation, but have also fostered the creation of essential infrastructure, such as roads, aqueducts and communal living spaces (Ciuffetti, 2019; Gobbi, 2004). Beyond the various forms they take, which depend on the territory in which they are expressed, three fundamental elements characterise them, as Nervi (2003) points out: the community linked to a territory; the land as a plural asset subject to collective co-ownership (patrimonial nature); and the purpose of common use (teleological nature). Collective property, therefore, is a form of ownership in which the community has continuously held tenure over the assets across time (Grossi, 1990).1 However, the 20th century marked a process of unmaking of collective property due to depopulation, industrialisation, urbanisation and the transition to private property and intensive agriculture (Ciuffetti, 2019; Woods, 2007). Nevertheless, neither the processes of deterritorialisation (Raffestin, 2012) nor attempts to liquidate promiscuous forms of ownership have ever truly erased the presence of these institutions, which are veritable bastions in mountain areas.
2In particular, since the 1990s—and increasingly in recent years, spurred by the enactment of national Law 168/2017 on Collective Domains—historical and legal studies of these forms of shared land ownership have gained prominence. Geography, among other disciplines, plays a key role in interpreting these centuries-old tenure systems within local development, highlighting the inherent heterogeneity that characterises them. In fact, although the relationship between environment and society is central, the form that this relationship takes differs from case to case (Carestiato, 2008; Iob and Villa, 2025), favouring a geographical analysis of these legal and cultural entities. Studies have also highlighted the ecological value of collective properties (Louvin, 2022; Forte and Cupo, 2024), their ability to transform the territory (Dalla Torre et al., 2021), to influence rural development (Bassi and Carestiato, 2016; Daici, 2021) and commoning processes (Zanolin, 2020; Ravaioli, 2024), opening up new perspectives on collective management models capable of generating alternative imaginaries for mountain territories (Dax, 2022). The mountains – once a source of sustenance – are now the scene of more or less visible tensions between the use and non-use of collective goods.
3Today, these entities operate within a much more complex governance framework than in the past, involving formal and informal actors at multiple levels: local, supra-local, regional, national and European. This configuration often leads to the non-use of collective properties, especially in mountain areas, and to conservative strategies. The presence of new institutions such as park authorities has also led to further discontinuity in the territorialisation process (Zanolin, 2020) and increased complexity in the multi-actor management of mountain areas, which has given rise to conflicts arising from conflicting interests and a lack of effective mediation tools (Turco, 2010b). This is particularly evident in the management of protected areas, where nature conservation is integrated with the presence and needs of local communities.
4In line with Zinzani (2023) and Turco’s (2010a) approach to territorialisation, conflict can be understood as a socio-ecological process in which conservation logics and power asymmetries intersect with demographic decline and cultural tensions. In this sense, conflict should not be understood solely as resistance, but as a generative and transformative process with its own evolutionary temporality: it can produce changes in territorial management and allow communities to claim spaces of governance and experiment with new practices (Piermattei, 2013; Favero et al., 2016; Dalla Torre et al., 2021). In Italian Apennine parks – and emblematically in the Gran Sasso and Monti della Laga national Park – this territorial relationship is often marked by an unresolved tension between environmental protection and local development, between utilitarian ecological use and conservation. This tension has been further accentuated by the marginality of the area and by the seismic events (L’Aquila in 2009 and Cental Italy in 2016-17) that transformed the entire park area into a seismic crater (Leone and Calandra, 2019).
Figure 1: The geographical location of the Gran Sasso and Monti della Laga National Park and the Chiarino Valley
Own elaboration based on MASE, 2022
- 2 As stated in Article 1 of the Statute approved in 2023:“The Separate Administration of Civic Assets (...)
5Interpreting collective properties not merely as land or legal regimes, but as territorial infrastructures within mountain areas and embedded in processes of territorialisation (Turco, 2010a), entails recognising their role in sustaining community cohesion, enabling the social and ecological reproduction of the territory, and mediating interactions with supra-territorial institutions (Carestiato, 2008). To illustrate this perspective, I present a field study examining the relationship between the community of Arischia and the Chiarino Valley—a territory historically marked by disputes and claims over mountain use (Colageo, 2015), and today promoted as “a natural amphitheatre, one of the wildest places in the heart of the Gran Sasso and Monti della Laga National Park” (Clementi and Osella, 2001). Rich in both natural and anthropogenic biodiversity, Chiarino functions as an ecological and cultural hotspot, reflecting centuries of human-environment interaction. Unique in its kind, the statute of the Arischia Collective Domain in Article 5, p. 44, states2:
The Arischia Administration considers the Chiarino forest and other fractional assets to be an ecological asset as well as the heritage of the Arischia community. For this reason, the forest should be considered not only an aesthetic projection, but also a natural heritage with its own individuality and a complete ecosystem, including all components such as soil and subsoil, surface and groundwater, air, climate and microclimate, plant formations such as trees, grasses and undergrowth, fauna and microfauna, in their mutual and profound interrelationships.
- 3 The fieldwork, conducted over one year and five months, included active participation in the Listen (...)
- 4 As a methodological choice, this paper primarily reports the results derived from participant obser (...)
6This preamble forms the starting point for the discussion in the following paragraphs. This study is based on my doctoral research, which began in May 2024 and is still ongoing at the time of writing. The research is conducted using ethnographic methods (Delamont, 2004), including, in particular, participant observation (Semi and Bolzoni, 2022).3 The methodological approach focuses on local knowledge through observation, mapping, dialogue and the focus on shared local knowledge.4 Walking ethnography, implemented at the beginning of the research process (May 2024), provided an initial ecological understanding of Chiarino, reached after five days of walking 97 kilometres through the Laga mountains. The research also included participation in public meetings and initiatives, as well as seasonal returns to the valley to observe the mountain and its uses at different times of the year. Semi-structured and informal interviews were conducted with administrators, residents, artisans, shepherds, farmers and representatives of associations to investigate the current relationship with the collective property of Chiarino. In addition to field research, the analysis of documents, archives and studies was fundamental, in particular the archival research carried out and shared by Abramo Colageo, a resident of Arischia and a profound connoisseur of the territory.
7This article aims to extrapolate part of the doctoral research, focusing on the relationship between the community and the mountain when it loses its use value but remains in the collective identity. After analysing the processes of territorialisation that have affected collective property, the text explores the Abruzzo context of the Gran Sasso and Monti della Laga national Park and presents the case of Chiarino and Arischia, offering reflections to broaden the debate on collective property in the Apennine mountains, particularly in relation to supra-local institutions such as parks.
8Collective properties, based on customary practices and self-governance, have historically been widespread in Italian mountain areas, but also across Europe (Greco, 2014). Their implementation (making) is grounded in the balance between a subsistence economy and resource stewardship, attending not only to the use of pastures and timber but also generating infrastructures such as aqueducts, communal buildings, and ovens. These properties embody forms of communal and solidaristic territorialization (Gobbi, 2004; Marinelli, 2019).
9From the late 19th century to the post-World War II period, a process of disintegration (unmaking) of collective properties began, driven by complex phenomena of urbanization, industrialization, and privatization that eroded the foundation of mountain life. While affecting territories differently and without completely erasing them, these transformations altered the role of collective properties in the landscape. An even more significant impact arose from legislation enacted under the Fascist regime (Law 1766/1927), which aimed to “normalize” them: on one hand, it formally recognized civic uses, but on the other, it initiated a rationalization that effectively dispossessed them of their traditional functions (Lorizio, 2019).
10The reconfiguration (remaking) through institutionalization began with Law 278/1957, which regulated the establishment of Committees for the separate administration of fractional civic assets through elections, granting local communities the possibility to autonomously manage collective assets for civic use (Politi and Marinelli, 2019). With the progressive depopulation and the decline of services and social infrastructures in the central Apennine mountain areas between the 1950s and the early 2000s, collective properties remained primarily in the role of managing agrosilvopastoral resources. Used mainly by those actively engaged in this sector, the collective management value of the territory gradually weakened.
11Law 168/2017 marked a real turning point in the institutionalization and recognition of collective properties as original, imprescriptible, and intergenerational, with a perpetual agro-silvo-pastoral purpose, granting them private law legal personality and statutory autonomy, as well as a strong ecological significance in territorial management (Politi and Marinelli, 2019). Particularly significant in this context are Ruling No. 71/2020, which prohibited changes in land use on areas encumbered by civic rights, and the 2022 reform of Article 9 of the Constitution, which reinforced the protection of the environment, biodiversity, and ecosystems with explicit reference to future generations (Louvin, 2022). The intergenerational character of Collective Domains underpins their legal legitimacy, as they exist and are transmitted beyond the temporal scope of current ownership or wills (Iob and Villa, 2025).
12At the regulatory level, other instruments affect the same areas covered by collective properties and explicitly refer to civic uses and collective property, such as the Galasso Law (Law 431/1985)5, which placed extensive portions of mountain and rural territory under landscape protection, and the Framework Law 394/19916, which established the system of protected areas, defining rules and tools for their management to strengthen environmental protection, while potentially conflicting with local autonomy. European directives and instruments such as the Nature Charter have made civic self-governance more difficult due to environmental restrictions, which, while limiting traditional uses, have also historically preserved these territories (Bassi et al., 2022). The regulatory framework is further complicated by specific regional legislation7.
13The overall normative system, and the practices through which it is locally enacted, appear to orient the representation of the mountains toward a value of non-use, centered on biodiversity preservation, historical memory, and wilderness landscapes, moving beyond purely productive functions (Mayer and Mose, 2017). This approach emphasizes the importance of maintaining a respectful relationship between communities and the environment, even through practices of non-use, which can foster contemplative or spiritual experiences. While such non-use may yield indirect economic benefits, for example through ecosystem services or sustainable tourism, several scholars have noted that it also carries risks of marginalization for local communities. This dual nature highlights the complex interplay of ecological, cultural, social, and economic dimensions inherent in non-use (Haddaway et al., 2021; Benetti and Langemeyer, 2021). Environmental conservation institutions, such as parks and nature reserves, often embody the most explicit expression of non-use values. These values can generate tensions between traditional ecological and utilitarian practices—linked to collective property—and newer approaches focused on habitat protection and ecosystem restoration. In contemporary management, this apparent contradiction invites moving beyond a simple dichotomy of use versus non-use, opening space for what might be described as a “third way” in territorial governance.
- 8 Focusing on the province of L’Aquila alone, the data are comparable to those of the autonomous prov (...)
14Abruzzo is the Apennine region with the largest extent of collective properties, accounting for 57.9% of the Total Agricultural Area (TAA) owned by “Entity (communanze, universitas, regole, etc.) or municipality managing collective properties.” This figure exceeds 90% in both the province and the municipality of L’Aquila (ISTAT data, 2020).8 While in northern Italy models of collective property based on “closed” family communions, founded on inheritance rights, have prevailed until today, in the South a form of “universal civic domain” (demanio civico universale) has been more prominent, in which usage rights belong to all residents (cives), in a shared and collective manner, according to “open” rules historically traceable to the universitas civium (Lorizio, 2018).
15In this context, the municipality of L’Aquila is a peculiar case, resulting from the forced merger of eight former municipalities (including Arischia) during the Fascist regime, under Royal Decree No. 1564/1927 (Cavalli, 2003). This union, imposed without genuine urban integration and in support of the regime’s centralist ideology, nevertheless left a network of fractions with strong autonomous identities, today often managed through Separate Administrations of Civic Assets (A.S.B.U.C.). Not by chance, here A.S.B.U.C.s act as social infrastructures that produce a territorial system based on inhabitation and participation in the management of collective resources. In this sense, residing in and engaging with the collective life of a fractionally managed property provides not only direct access to the environmental resources it contains, but also channels economic benefits back to the territory through rents and compensation, supporting its social and cultural development.
16Beyond the strong presence of collective property lands, Abruzzo is also the Italian region with the highest share of protected areas (36.3% of the territory) (Varotto, 2020), including three national parks and one regional park. Among these, the Gran Sasso and Monti della Laga National Park (PNGSML) is the largest in Central Italy, covering 148,000 hectares and featuring a polycentric network of small urban settlements historically linked to the collective use of forests and pastures. The Park encompasses 44 municipalities distributed across three regions – Abruzzo, Marche, and Lazio – and includes approximately 41% of the territory subject to civic use within the protected area, particularly in the zones of highest protection where it exceeds 50% (Corona et al., 2013). Within the municipal boundaries of L’Aquila, there are 12 collective properties, seven of which – Arischia, Collebrincioni, Aragno, Camarda, Filetto, Assergi, and Paganica – own significant land within the Park.
17Although the Framework Law 394/1991 (arts. 11 and 11bis) on protected areas recognizes the usage rights of local communities, it does not provide clear mechanisms to manage potential conflicts between environmental conservation and traditional uses. In particular, in the PNGSML such conflicts arise in the extensive zones designated as highest protection (Zones A and B), where the exercise of civic uses is subordinated to compatibility with conservation objectives. The Park Operational Plan9, approved in 2020, should be aimed to reconcile environmental protection and traditional uses – excluding hunting – promoting collaboration among public and private entities and local communities.
18The most significant experience in this direction was the LIFE Praterie project (LIFE11/NAT/IT/234)10 carried out between 2012 and 2017, which defined guidelines for pasture management through a participatory process involving local communities, farmers, and institutions, including the representatives of collective properties (Calandra, 2015). However, following the project, no systematic implementation of the guidelines took place (Leone and Calandra, 2019), and today the relationship between the Park and the representative bodies of collective properties is limited to punctual approvals (forest cutting, pasture use, tourism interventions), without real co-management or formal involvement of the collective property entities in decision-making processes of the Park.
19The Chiarino – which takes its name from the stream that runs through it – is one of the largest and most unspoilt mountain areas on the L'Aquila side of the Gran Sasso. Its beech forest is the only large continuous forest system in this area (Rotellini, 2020). It is located between the Monti della Laga, dominated by sandstone and rich in surface water, and the limestone massif of Gran Sasso, which has the highest peaks in the Apennines.
Figure 2: Overview of the Chiarino Valley and Monte Corvo, the fourth-highest peak of the Gran Sasso
Google Earth: https://earth.google.com/
20This intermediate space, which acts as a border and junction and extends from Lake Campotosto (1313 m above sea level) to Monte Corvo (2623 m above sea level) (Image 1), tells a long story of interactions between society and the environment and how coexistence in the mountains has created what is now described as one of the most evocative and “wild” valleys in Abruzzo, in the heart of the Gran Sasso and Monti della Laga national Park.
Image 1: View of Monte Corvo from Campotosto lake
Author’s personal archive
- 11 This portion of the forest was acquired by the Italian State in 1994, as documented in the Minister (...)
21In terms of management, the Chiarino area is currently divided between two administrations: approximately 610 hectares belong to the Chiarino State Forest, managed by the State Forestry Corps11 – now the Carabinieri Biodiversity Department of L'Aquila – while approximately 1,769 hectares are owned by the Arischia administration (see Image 2).
Image 2: Entrance sign of Chiarino Valley showing territorial division
Author’s personal archive
22The fact that Chiarino is now largely collectively owned by Arischia is the result of a troubled history. Used for centuries by the community of Arischia to supply resources essential to mountain life, Chiarino was privatised in the 19th century for industrial purposes by the Cappelli family. A ruined mill, used for the production of beech nut oil, and the old farmhouse date back to this period. After a long legal dispute and uprisings lasting over a century, in 1923 the inhabitants decided to purchase the forest (approximately 1,800 hectares) from the Marquises Cappelli, raising funds from 600 families. This move sanctioned the recognition of the civic right to use the mountain for wood, grazing, charcoal, tool making and agriculture, essential resources for local survival. The conflict between the Arischia community and the Cappelli family, which began in 1844, reflected two opposing visions of land use at that time: the mountain as a resource for the community's livelihood versus the mountain as a proto-industrial capital investment. After the purchase, the management of the land was jeopardised by the loss of Arischia's municipal autonomy in 1927 and its incorporation into the “Grande Aquila” project (Cavalli, 2003). However, in 1946, the people of Arischia obtained recognition of the separate administration of collective assets, managed by a committee elected every four years (Colageo and Mastrangelo, 2011; Colageo, 2015). This remaking took place immediately after the declaration of the Republic and the de-fascistisation of Italy, even before Law 278/1957, which then regulated the “Constitution of Committees for the separate administration of fractional civic assets”. Retracing history allows us to emphasise civic use beyond ownership. In fact, civic use is used here to defend an identity resource, as an ecological struggle and as a living space for the community.
23Today, Arischia (860 m above sea level, approximately 1,100 inhabitants) is a peripheral hamlet of the municipality of L'Aquila, from which it is about 9 kilometres away. Since the 1990s, with the establishment of the protected area in 1995, Arischia has become one of the gateways to the PNGSML, and Chiarino has found itself at the centre of a sort of shared administration sanctioned by an official agreement, signed in 2000, between the Park and the Arischia Administration, which, however, has had few visible effects on the territory.
24With the adaptation of the Arischia Administration's statute to Law 168/2017 in 2023, the entity obtained full statutory autonomy with respect to the interventions of the municipality and the Region. However, the need to co-manage the mountain territory with the Park remains. While dialogue between the parties remains sporadic and linked to individual projects or constraints, the mountains appear increasingly “distant” to the community, even symbolically, contributing to a redefinition of the relationship between the village, the community and the territory and transforming the value of use (and non-use) that it represents. Article 5 of the Arischia statute – already mentioned in the introduction – recognises that the use of collective resources can evolve to respond to new ecological, hydrological, biological or tourist needs: this is precisely the situation facing the territory today, as suggested by the words of a resident of Arischia:
- 12 Excerpt from an informal interview with a resident of Arischia (female, aged 50–65), conducted duri (...)
We used to live here from April to October! Now we come two or three times a year. For picnics, walks. Walks like this one. It’s far away, and the road isn’t well maintained. But it’s paradise here.12
- 13 As emerged from the community meetings held in July 2024 to discuss the establishment of a communit (...)
- 14 Following the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, the entire historic centre of Arischia was declared uninhab (...)
25It is difficult to grasp the mountain context without considering the village to which it is linked. Today, few activities connect the settlement to Mount Chiarino, while the typical characteristics of a peripheral village persist. Services remain limited: only a single shop for essential goods is still open, whereas a few decades ago dozens of small businesses operated here.13 The 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, followed by the seismic events of 2016–2017, heavily affected the village, slowing reconstruction and exacerbating existing socio-economic challenges.14
26The primary school ensures a daily presence in local life, and the cultural and associative fabric remains vibrant thanks to long-standing cultural initiatives, local production, and the persistence of artisanal practices. There are two bars, and the De Santis farm stands out for its production of sheep and goat cheese and ricotta certified by the Park. Despite the historical and landscape value of places such as Fonte degli Archi, Arischia is not a tourist destination and lacks facilities suitable for welcoming visitors. A Wood Museum has also been built, but it is currently inactive. Yet, to reach Chiarino or destinations such as Lake Campotosto, one must pass through Arischia. The physical distance from Chiarino, combined with the growing need to enhance livability within the village, is shaping how collective property is perceived and managed. In response to these needs, the Arischia administration has gradually shifted its focus toward the urban context, allocating resources not only to the maintenance and care of Chiarino but also to the creation of community spaces within the village—such as the community centre, playground, and sports area (Image 3).
Image 3: Inauguration of the Arischia sports field, funded by the A.D.U.C., 17 July 2025
Author’s personal archive
27Historical collective governance and territorial struggles have contributed to preserving the valley’s integrity, making it a significant example of balance between nature and human intervention (Clementi and Osella, 2001). It is precisely this ecological integrity that led to its designation as a “Zone A” within the protected area. This protection regime has ensured environmental conservation but has also generated frictions with the local community (Pompeo, 2024), particularly regarding the traditional use of resources such as pastures and, above all, forests. The Park is primarily experienced as an institution dedicated to conservation, while the continuity of material culture and agrosilvopastoral activities receives less attention, despite significant investments by the Park Authority across the territory.
28In 2000, an agreement was signed between the Park, the administration of the State Forest, and the Arischia Administration, covering various aspects related to the use of the Chiarino territory. However, most of the provisions—particularly those related to “uses” and socio-economic development — have never been fully implemented. The following table (Table 1) summarizes the main areas and activities outlined in the Management Agreement for the Chiarino Valley, comparing the intended objectives with their current level of implementation. Data were drawn from archival documentation and complemented through field interviews and participatory observation with members of the Arischia Administration.
Table 1: Planned activities under the program agreement for the management principles of the “Chiarino Valley”
Author’s elaboration based on the official Agreement document and fieldwork
29The analysis reveals how the implemented actions represent an ongoing negotiation between environmental conservation, local practices, and the evolving possibilities of co-management between institutions and the community. The agreement indicates that there was significant initial interest in proactive co-management of the Chiarino, although many of the actions related to economic and collaborative development have not yet been realized. It was intended to serve as a replicable example in other territorial contexts involving the Park and the Administrations of collective properties, but it has so far remained a unique case of its kind.
30Chiarino is today perceived as distant from the inhabited centre of Arischia. This distance can be measured in kilometres, that is, as physical distance: to reach the lowest point of the valley, at the Provvidenza dam, one must travel 20 kilometres by car from the village. A further 7 kilometres along a disused dirt road are required to reach the innermost part of the valley, where the Fioretti refuge and the area of interest of the Administration are located. This section, not accessible to everyone, discourages car traffic in an area classified by the Park as a strict nature reserve for habitat conservation, while at the same time reinforcing the perception of a mountain of great environmental value yet “distant,” separated from the daily life of its inhabitants.
Figure 3: Map of historical connections between Arischia and the Chiarino and map of possible routes to reach it
Colageo, 2015 (historical map); author’s elaboration (current map)
- 15 From an informal interview conducted during fieldwork in Arischia, 25 June 2024 (female, 35–50 year (...)
- 16 From an informal interview conducted while walking toward the Chiarino, 19 July 2025 (male, over 70 (...)
31This physical distance does not correspond to an emotional detachment. The Chiarino lives on in the stories, memories, and collective imagination of the people of Arischia, who refer to it with familiarity in social contexts and consider it an integral part of their everyday life. “Can you taste how good this water is? It’s from the Chiarino!”15 I was told in the bar during one of my visits to the village. “The Chiarino is ours! We bought it back, and our fathers and grandfathers went into debt for it, that’s how important it was.16”
32This identity-based relationship, though scarcely visible in the current economy, is deeply felt: “for the people of Arischia, the Chiarino is like the air they breathe” (Clementi and Osella, 2001).
33Another significant connection between Arischia and the Chiarino is represented by the so-called Via dei Pastori e della Fatica (“Path of Shepherds and Toil”), a 17-kilometre trail with an elevation gain of 800 metres that leads from the village to the ancient grazing areas of the valley. The few shepherds who still practise vertical transhumance walk it in three stages, driving their animals up to the Castrato, at the foot of Mount Corvo, where in the summer months the flows of hikers, sheep, and shepherds intersect. Over the past two decades, this route has been revitalised through a new community tradition: on the full-moon night of July, residents are invited to walk together up to the upper Chiarino Valley, where they spend the night in tents (Image 4). The following day, other members of the community join to share a day in their mountain, renewing the collective bond with the place. This annual gathering is experienced as a central moment of community life, capable of strengthening the inhabitants’ sense of belonging and identity with the mountain (Olson, 2016).
Image 4: The night walk to Chiarino, a community tradition. 20 July 2024
Author’s personal archive
34This relationality also manifests itself indirectly, through the value attributed to historical memory and to the narration of the enduring relationship between Arischia and its mountain. This heritage has been reconstructed and transmitted through archival research, supported by the Arischia Administration and carried out by the local community to perpetuate and safeguard local knowledge.
Image 5: Arrival at Rifugio Fioretti and tourist reception. 6 July 2025
Author’s personal archive
35Looking at the relationship between the Arischia community and the Chiarino, a bond emerges through practices, knowledge, and customs passed down over time, which have guided the use of the mountain according to needs, seasonality, and available resources. In recent decades, many of these uses have diminished, transformed, or disappeared, making room for new forms of engagement, such as slow tourism (Image 5), and a more occasional use of resources.
36The table that follows (Table 2) highlight the evolution of land use in the Chiarino Valley, highlighting the continuity and transformation of agro-silvo-pastoral, artisanal, and recreational practices from the 12th century to the present, as well as the forms of non-use imposed by environmental conservation and new modes of recreational use.
Table 2: Past and present uses/non-uses of the Chiarino Valley
Author’s elaboration based on archival documents and interview analysis.
37As summarized in Table 2, rather than a complete non-use, it can be said that the use of the territory has decreased in numerical terms, while profound traces of material and cultural relationality with the Chiarino remain (as the “residual” grazing activity in images 6). This connection is now evident in occasional and recreational activities, such as picnics, Sunday walks, symbolic events, or the gathering of undergrowth products like mushrooms and truffles (Image 7). Field observations confirm that, although many historical practices have diminished or transformed, the valley continues to host material and cultural relations that reflect the persistence of a collective identity and an active bond with the territory.
Image 6: Shepherd Marcello with sheep grazing at Castrato, in the Chiarino Valley. 5 August 2024
Author’s personal archive
38Today, this bond is visible in occasional and recreational activities such as picnics, Sunday outings, and symbolic events, as well as in the collection of undergrowth products like mushrooms and truffles (Image 7).
Image 7: Mushroom foraging with a member of the Administration council in the Chiarino forest. 13 October 2024
Author’s personal archive
39The situation is more complex for those still exercising more demanding civic-use rights, such as firewood collection. Forestry enterprises no longer derive an economic benefit from woodcutting in the valley—which is difficult to access—and today those who engage in these activities do so almost entirely for customary family use. As a result, only around 14 users (i.e., families) currently exercise this right, while traditional heating methods have largely shifted toward methanol and gas.
40From what has been presented so far, it can be inferred that the relationship with the Chiarino, although alive in the identity of the people of Arischia, risks remaining anchored today to historical memory and customs considered immutable. The Chiarino is an ecological asset, as mentioned in the statute of the Arischia administration, to be not only preserved but also experienced, managed, and transmitted in relation to contemporary social concerns. It is in the creation of a new balance between conservation and sustainable use that the dialogical relationship with the Gran Sasso and Monti della Laga national Park (PNGSML) can be situated, initiated from the earliest planning stages of the protected area.
41Although relations between local communities and Parks, here as elsewhere, have often been complex and sometimes conflictual, in the case of Arischia this relationship had developed in the early 1990s as an open and constructive dialogue, based on mutual recognition of the shared goal of preserving and valorising the Chiarino. This objective was materialised in the signing of a forward-looking agreement grounded in a long-term vision, although it has largely remained on paper.
- 17 For further details on the arche and arcari— and their artisanal production still present today—see (...)
42Tangible projects have nevertheless been implemented, as evidenced by the restoration of mountain refuges and the creation of the Wood Museum: a symbolic space connecting the village and the mountain, tradition and innovation, but also offering potential for co-management between the Park and the residents of Arischia. The Museum, located in the village of Arischia and established by the Park, was conceived as one of the entrances to the Park itself and, not coincidentally, dedicated to the theme of wood. It preserves examples of arche—beech wood chests crafted exclusively through interlocking joints, typical of Arischia and once produced only at the Chiarino17—and was envisioned as a space for storytelling, as well as cultural and educational activities, dedicated to the material and symbolic resource of the territory: wood.
43However, the attempt by local associations to keep it active proved too costly, and today the Museum, although it could serve as a point of renewal for identity and the connection with the mountain and forest, remains closed. Bureaucratic issues related to its location have contributed to its absence from collective knowledge, even among the inhabitants of Arischia.
44This example illustrates that, in order to give current purpose to these spaces, a dialogue is necessary that does not merely aim to resolve technical or emergency needs—often a source of objective conflicts (Turco, 2010b)—but is proactive and shares a long-term vision capable of integrating the needs of the resident community with those of the ecosystem and its species.
45The analyses presented in this article are part of a broader research project conducted in the Gran Sasso and Monti della Laga National Park and the Chiarino area, exploring the relationship between collective land tenure systems and public institutions in mountain contexts. This reflection arises from the observation that these institutions, although historical, remain alive and rooted today, and confront the increasing valorisation of the “non-use of the mountain”—that is, the tendency to interpret these places primarily through the lens of conservation and aestheticisation.
46Within this framework, conflict should not be read as a rupture, but as a socio-ecological construction: a process of negotiation manifested in dialogue and the pursuit of a shared objective, namely fostering a mountain experienced in harmony between environment and community, including the economic activities that take place there. This objective is shared by different actors in the territory, but pursued through diverging visions: on the one hand, the progressive decline of the use value associated with traditional practices; on the other, the emergence of new value systems, often tourist and aesthetic in nature, that prioritise the value of non-use (De Marchi, 2001).
47The case of the Chiarino demonstrates how conflict can generate forms of relational continuity between communities and institutions, creating spaces for discussion even on objectively divisive issues. The Park has prioritised the protection of agrosilvopastoral culture and economy, supporting the continued presence of shepherds as landscape stewards, including through projects such as LIFE Praterie. In the case of the Chiarino, the Park also signed a co-management agreement for the area, incorporating ecological and economic development perspectives alongside the Administration of Arischia, although this has largely remained on paper without translating into concrete territorial projects. These initiatives appear as isolated episodes, with effects on the territory that remain limited, and a perception of distance persists: the institution is often experienced as bureaucratic and somewhat removed from everyday local life.
48Observations suggest that one of the key dynamics concerns the relative scarcity of ongoing spaces for dialogue and participation—beyond individual projects—where community members and institutional actors can exchange perspectives on the values of use and non-use of the territory. In the absence of such spaces, integrating the identity-based contributions of local communities into territorial management remains a challenge, especially in areas where the historical presence of collective properties has deeply shaped both the landscape and the social relations that animate it..
49The case of Arischia and the Chiarino is also a narrative of peasant struggle and territorial claim, in which civic uses are interpreted not merely as rights of use but as collective rights to land and territorial justice (Clementi and Osella, 2001). As highlighted in this article, despite the physical distance separating the Arischia community from the Chiarino territory, the mountain remains a space maintained by memory and the desire for access, even in the absence of concrete shared planning among institutional actors in the area.
50In a heterogeneous national context, ranging from cases of direct protected area management such as the Regole di Ampezzo (Bassi, 2016) to numerous situations of conflict between collective properties and Park Authorities, the role of collective properties in protected area management remains unresolved—not only as custodians of past use but also as guarantors of the possibility to inhabit the mountain. From this perspective, the conflict between use and non-use appears as a hybrid field, where the decline of use value—linked to historical and socio-economic changes—can correspond to an enrichment of non-use value. This dynamic is expressed through practices that maintain the identity-based bond between community and mountain while contributing to narrowing the ideological gap between the local population and the Park.
51This reading suggests a shift in perspective: conservation and renaturalisation should be understood not merely as forms of non-use, but as different modalities of territorial use, embedded within complex policies of mountain territorialisation (Zinzani, 2023). Simultaneously, the residual use value—although drastically reduced—can be interpreted as a significant dimension of the present, still deserving attention and recognition.
52Despite the limitations of research focused on a single case study, it seeks to raise questions of broader relevance: how can collective properties be recognised not only as legal institutions but also as social infrastructures capable of supporting otherwise fragile territorial systems? How can their capacity for adaptation and transformation be valorised in the face of the dominant economic model, demographic pressures, and the current ecological crisis? These questions guided the research towards a deep-place study approach (Tomaney, 2023) and a more thorough exploration—still ongoing—of potential new economies for the territory. The aim is to identify strategies to revitalise places in a non-extractive perspective, in contexts where a local community, through the management of collective properties and its relationship with the Park, is able to activate resources (e.g., regional and European funds) to restart artisanal supply chains—such as woodworking—combining tradition and innovation. An idea that emerged during field observations concerns the potential to reimagine the Wood Museum as a space for transmitting traditional techniques of interlocking woodwork of the Arischia arche, while also highlighting the Chiarino beech. This remains a preliminary suggestion, to be further discussed with the community. This remains a preliminary suggestion, to be further discussed with the community, and is situated within a necessarily partial perspective: the ethnographic and participant observation methodology has allowed for capturing the complexity of local experiences, but also highlights the limitations of a study based on a single case. Future research, including comparative studies, will be needed to further explore and expand these reflections, in line with an ethical and dialogical approach to research.
53In this sense, if embraced by the community, Article 5 of the Arischia Administration statute - which opened the analysis presented here – stands as a forward-looking statement, reconsidering the ecological ecological value of the Chiarino as dynamic, evolving, and in continuous dialogue with those who inhabit it. The words of Clementi and Osella (2001) complement the reflection introduced with the Administration statute:
Now Chiarino, returned to wilderness as in the High Middle Ages, is still available to humans [and women] to restore to them the sense of what was the chain of existence of the living. The Gran Sasso [and Monti della Laga] Park, which designs exciting naturalistic projects for Chiarino, will certainly be able to interpret its message. And this entrusts it to us for the future. (Clementi and Osella, 2001, p. 242)
54Rooted in history yet open to change, this perspective shows that the connection with the Chiarino—straddling use and non-use, tradition and transformation—is not just a remnant of the past, but a guiding thread for imagining new possibilities and sustaining a community that continues to recognize itself in its mountain.