Figure 1
Underlying conceptual links of Ostroms’ DPs, SESF and Resilience principles.
Figure 2
Map of the Black Forest biosphere reserve in south-western Germany. The map was created using QGIS, Geographic Information System open source software. Base maps from ArcGIS are intellectual property of Esri and used herein under license.
Table 1
Socio-ecological characteristics of the Black Forest biosphere reserve. Data from * Black Forest Biosphere Reserve (2021) and ‘‘ Statistics Office of Baden-Württemberg (2021).
| VARIABLE | VALUES |
|---|---|
| Nature protected area by German law (ha)* | 9.784 |
| Nature protected area by European law (ha)* | 25.922 |
| Vascular plant species on German red list (n)* | 110 |
| Bovine animal heads 2019 (n)‘‘ | 10.654 |
| Inhabitants (n)* | 38.000 |
| Overnight visitors 2018 (n)* | 2.301.000 |
| Day visitors per year* | 1.729.000 |
Table 2
Distinction of common pasture organisations: grazing collectives and landcare groups.
| REALM | VARIABLE | GRAZING COLLECTIVES | LANDCARE GROUPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Members’ situation | Demographic situation | Regional average and diverse situation | Mostly advanced age structure |
| Link to grazing | Members are livestock farmers | Members are no active farmers, but some have a background in grazing | |
| Motivation | Preservation of the landscape, maintenance of tradition of collective farming, financial interests | Preservation of the landscape, social commitment, leisure activity | |
| Resource | Pasture quality | Regional average in terms of productivity, high in terms of environmental value | Below regional average in terms of productivity, high in terms of environmental value |
| Livestock | Dominance of cattle | Dominance of goats | |
| Property of pasture equipment (machinery, buildings, animals) | Dominance of private property, i.e. of the individual member | Dominance of collective property, i.e. of the landcare group | |
| Use of financial gains | Division among CPOs’ members | Investment in pasture equipment towards a continuity of CPO | |
| Legal framework | Legal form | Mostly private corporations (“Gesellschaften bürgerlichen Rechts” according to German federal law) | Mostly associations (“eingetragene Vereine” according to German federal law) |
Table 3
SESF 2nd tier variables mentioned in interviews.
| SESF VARIABLES | 2NT TIER VARIABLES | VARIABLE SUMMARY |
|---|---|---|
| S (Social, economic, and political settings) | S4 Other governance systems | CPOs and common grazing are considered increasingly less important in local to state governance systems. |
| RS (Resource systems) | RS3 Human-constructed facilities | Pasture infrastructure includes fences, provision of drinking water for cattle, stable or shelters and machinery. This infrastructure is either owned by CPOs or CPOs’ members. Infrastructural support by municipalities exists in some cases. |
| RS4 Productivity of system | Pastureland is unproductive but exhibits high ecological value. Agri-environmental schemes incentivize/favour non-intensive grazing. | |
| RS6 Predictability of system dynamics | Pasture dynamics are relatively well predictable (constant rainfall, vegetative season from April to October). In recent years, summer droughts occurred, as a foreboding of increased weather variability induced by climate change. | |
| RU (Resource units) | RU4 Economic value | The economic value of the resource lies in its ability to generate agricultural subsidies, which exceeds pasture productivity. |
| GS4 Property rights system | Since communal property reform of 1966, municipalities are, de jure, owners of common pastures in the southern Black Forest. CPOs are “claimants”, i.e. they withhold access and withdrawal, as well as management rights. | |
| GS7 Constitutional choice rules | Formal constitutional choice rules have reduced importance of CPOs’ activities. Leadership and readiness of CPOs’ members to take on responsibilities are decisive for constitutional and operational choice rules. | |
| A (Actors) | A2 Socioeconomic attributes | CPOs’ members originate from the municipality of the pasture and are predominantly male. |
| A3 Historic or past experiences | Grazing collectives have a long tradition in the region. However, administrative requirements at the beginning of the 21th century led to important transformations in pasture systems (cf. DP 7). Landcare groups were established in the 1990s by local people with the aim of preserving open land from vegetation overgrowth. | |
| A5 Leadership | Chairpersons and herders take on important roles in CPOs (cf. DP 3). Leadership is an important aspect to functioning of CPOs. | |
| A6 Norms, trust, social capital | Social cohesion, mutual trust and following norms are important elements of CPO functioning. | |
| A7 Knowledge of SES, mental models | CPOs’ socio-ecological-systems knowledge and mental models are distinctive for the functioning of common grazing. Both are important for sustaining CPOs’ activities. | |
| A8 Importance of resource | Pastures generate economic value important for landscape sustenance (cf. RU4). Next to this, pastures have ecologic, cultural and touristic importance that goes beyond the scope of CPOs. | |
| I (Interactions) | I2 Information sharing | In most CPOs, there are arenas for low-cost and efficient information sharing (cf. DP3). |
Table 4
Support measures for building CPOs’ resilience. Effectivity assessment took place in the expert survey and the proposition for actor groups responsible for implementation in focus group interviews. Measures’ link to the following frameworks are depicted: RP = resilience principles, DP = Ostrom’s design principles; SESF = respective 2nd socio-ecologic-systems framework variable (cf. Figure 1).
| MEASURE | MEASURE DESCRIPTION | ASSESSED EFFECTIVITY (NUMBER OF VOTES FOR “EFFECTIVE”/“EFFECT UNCLEAR”/“INEFFECTIVE”) | ACTOR GROUP PROPOSED FOR IMPLEMENTATION | LINK TO FRAMEWORK COMPONENTS TARGET BY MEASURE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Continuous consulting and advisory services | Establishment of voluntary annual or bi-annual meetings for each CPO with an advisor to facilitate exchange between CPOs and administration, following CPOs’ development and needs. | 12/2/1 | Agricultural and nature protection advisory agents | RP2, RP5, SESF-A7 |
| Inter-connecting CPOs | Provide an arena for discussing issues common to all CPOs, such as dealing with pressing challenges, adjustments of institutional rules or meeting administrative requirements. | 10/2/3 | Agricultural advisory agents and Black Forest biosphere reserve | RP1, DP8, SESF-A5 |
| Federating CPOs in higher-level organization | Establishment of a higher-level association of CPOs. In addition to interconnecting CPOs and serving as a basis for addressing internal issues (including conflict resolution, institutional rules, etc.), a higher-level association could be active in lobbying and representing CPOs’ interests. | 9/2/4 | Black Forest biosphere reserve and agricultural advisory agents | RP1, RP2, RP5, RP7, DP8, SESF-A5 |
| Addressing legal and fiscal issues | Regardless of legal form, CPOs expressed the need to address fiscal and legal issues. This measure proposes to bring together relevant actors in this field and to jointly look for solutions. | 12/3/0 | Farmers’ association, administration, CPOs, independent tax consultants | RP4, RP7, DP6, DP7, SESF-S4 |
| Pasture festival – improving visibility, appreciation and added value of CPOs | An existing festival organized by a landcare group is a means to showcase common grazing, to strengthen visibility and appreciation of this unique feature and to have a positive financial effect. Extending this model to other CPOs seems possible given the popularity of existing pasture festivals. | 12/3/0 | CPOs, municipalities | RP5, RP6, DP1, SESF-A6 |
| Making CPOs attractive for new members | This proposal addresses CPOs facing low levels of appropriation and provision and that would be open to extend membership. Activities in this respect include (1) increasing visibility of CPOs, (2) calling attention to the need of adding members, (3) increasing attraction of CPOs’ membership (for instance by allowing machinery use for private purposes). | 8/3/4 | Municipalities, CPOs | RP3, RP6, DP1, DP2, SESF-A2, SESF-S4 |
| Making provision activities more attractive | This proposal addresses CPOs facing low levels or unequally distributed provision activities. By increasing the assumed payoff for provision activities (wage rate for work effort), the balance between appropriation and provision can be re-established towards the required level for CPR sustainment. | 6/8/1 | CPOs | RP6, DP2, SESF-A8 |
| Infrastructural support | Providing special support for services of fencing and water supply for cattle (fencing material, maintenance, renewal of existing infrastructure) to CPOs would make investment in these activities more attractive. | 11/2/2 | Municipalities | DP1, SESF-RS4 |
| Lobbying for CPOs and protecting CPOs from dissolvent | In order to prevent further individualization of grazing, CPOs call for a statement of preference of municipalities of common over individual grazing. The proposition also includes preferential treatments of common grazing in terms of infrastructural support as well as preferential access to pastureland owned by municipalities. | 9/5/1 | Municipalities | DP7, SESF-A6 |