IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v34y2016i3p448-462.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landscape governance as policy integration ‘from below’: A case of displaced and contained political conflict in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Marleen Buizer
  • Bas Arts
  • Judith Westerink

Abstract

Agrienvironmental schemes (AES) have been a predominant manifestation of environmental policy Integration in the EU. However, rather than strictly following formal AES policy, farmers across Europe have taken various other initiatives to integrate environmental and agricultural practices. Mostly, these integrative initiatives were based on dynamic actor networks at various levels, responding to local problems and challenges. Compared with situations where, from the top down, one (mostly weaker) policy domain is integrated into another, the kind of integration taking place in these examples may be called more ‘fundamental’. Here, integration is already embedded in the practical outcomes envisioned in specific places. The parts of the outcome require each other. However, this fundamental form of integration may render problems at other levels and sectors of governance. In this paper we present a case study of an initiative called Farming for Nature. The initiative aimed to integrate farming and nature more thoroughly than EU and national policies and incorporated some important other characteristics of the area, such as its water dynamics and relationships with the urban environment. However, it also involved some key differences from mainstream policy; and although it resonated with EU support for participative governance, these differences rendered a lengthy process towards implementation lasting more than half a decade. We use the concept of ‘landscape governance’—operationalized as the interplay of discourses, institutional practices, and natural–spatial conditions—to understand the politics of scale involved when mainstream government policies and local integrative initiatives meet. Particular attention is paid to how the local ideas toned down some of their integrative ingredients in order to comply with mainstream sectoral policy discourse. We find that the type of landscape governance implemented shaped the initiatives into a form that contributed to their implementation, but simultaneously displaced and contained political conflict in a way that prevented public debate.

Suggested Citation

  • Marleen Buizer & Bas Arts & Judith Westerink, 2016. "Landscape governance as policy integration ‘from below’: A case of displaced and contained political conflict in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(3), pages 448-462, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:34:y:2016:i:3:p:448-462
    DOI: 10.1177/0263774X15614725
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0263774X15614725
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0263774X15614725?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Evelien Van Rij & Jasper Dekkers & Eric Koomen, 2008. "Analysing The Success Of Open Space Preservation In The Netherlands: The Midden‐Delfland Case," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 99(1), pages 115-124, February.
    2. Eggers, Jorg & Mettepenningen, Evy & Beckmann, Volker, 2008. "Assessing local action groups and auctions as institutional alternatives for designing and implementing agri-environmental measures in the EU – results from an expert survey," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 57(07), pages 1-9.
    3. Buizer, Marleen & Van Herzele, Ann, 2012. "Combining deliberative governance theory and discourse analysis to understand the deliberative incompleteness of centrally formulated plans," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 93-101.
    4. Volker Beckmann & Jorg Eggers & Evy Mettepenningen, 2009. "Deciding how to decide on agri-environmental schemes: the political economy of subsidiarity, decentralisation and participation in the European Union," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 689-716.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mettepenningen, E. & Beckmann, V. & Eggers, J., 2011. "Public transaction costs of agri-environmental schemes and their determinants--Analysing stakeholders' involvement and perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 641-650, February.
    2. Catharina Druckenbrod & Volker Beckmann, 2018. "Production-Integrated Compensation in Environmental Offsets—A Review of a German Offset Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, November.
    3. Wojciech Sroka & Jaroslaw Mikolajczyk & Tomasz Wojewodzic & Boguslawa Kwoczynska, 2018. "Agricultural Land vs. Urbanisation in Chosen Polish Metropolitan Areas: A Spatial Analysis Based on Regression Trees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-22, March.
    4. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    5. Blicharska, Malgorzata & Van Herzele, Ann, 2015. "What a forest? Whose forest? Struggles over concepts and meanings in the debate about the conservation of the Białowieża Forest in Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 22-30.
    6. François Bareille & Matteo Zavalloni, 2020. "Decentralisation of agri-environmental policy design," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(4), pages 1502-1530.
    7. Yelizaveta Mikhailovna Sharonova, 2021. "Quantitative Cross-country Analysis of Nuclear Power Discourse in Politically Distinct India and Russia," South Asian Survey, , vol. 28(2), pages 205-221, September.
    8. Targetti, Stefano & Schaller, Lena L. & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2021. "A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach for the assessment of public-goods governance in agricultural landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Kuhfuss, Laure & Jacquet, Florence, 2012. "Le dispositif des MAEt pour l’enjeu eau : une fausse bonne idée ?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 93(4).
    10. Darnhofer, Ika & Schermer, Markus & Steinbacher, Melanie & Gabillet, Marine & Daugstad, Karoline, 2017. "Preserving permanent mountain grasslands in Western Europe: Why are promising approaches not implemented more widely?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 306-315.
    11. Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 87-97.
    12. Unay Gailhard, Ilkay & Bavorova, Miroslava & Pirscher, Frauke, 2012. "The Influence of Communication Frequency with Social Network Actors on the Continuous Innovation Adoption: Organic Farmers in Germany," 131st Seminar, September 18-19, 2012, Prague, Czech Republic 135786, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. McCarthy, Jack & Bonnin, Christine & Meredith, David, 2018. "Disciplining the State: The role of alliances in contesting multi-level agri-environmental governance," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 317-328.
    14. Dekkers, J. & Koomen, E., 2008. "Valuation of open space: Hedonic house price analyses in the Dutch Randstad region," Serie Research Memoranda 0024, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    15. Daniel E Orenstein & Amnon Frenkel & Faris Jahshan, 2014. "Methodology Matters: Measuring Urban Spatial Development Using Alternative Methods," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 41(1), pages 3-23, February.
    16. Hege Hofstad, 2015. "Handling Tensions in the ‘Everyday Landscape’: Moving beyond the Development—Conservation Conflict?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(2), pages 358-375, April.
    17. Andreas Niedermayr & Lena Schaller & Petr Mariel & Pia Kieninger & Jochen Kantelhardt, 2018. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    18. Thiel, Andreas & Schleyer, Christian & Hinkel, Jochen & Schlüter, Maja & Hagedorn, Konrad & Bisaro, Sandy & Bobojonov, Ihtiyor & Hamidov, Ahmad, 2016. "Transferring Williamson's discriminating alignment to the analysis of environmental governance of social-ecological interdependence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 159-168.
    19. Bredemeier, Birte & Herrmann, Sylvia & Sattler, Claudia & Prager, Katrin & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Rex, Julia, 2022. "Insights into innovative contract design to improve the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    20. Bareille, F. & Zavalloni, M., 2018. "Agri-environmental policy decentralization: theoretical analysis and application to abandoned wetland in Brittany," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277109, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:34:y:2016:i:3:p:448-462. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.