IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/roaaec/196625.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory Landscape Planning: The Case Of The “Westvaardersplassen” In The Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • GEVAERT, Anouk
  • KUPERS, Stefan Jonathan
  • HEIJMAN, Wim

Abstract

Although it has been recognised that a stakeholder approach is important in effective landscape planning, a lack of objective methods which include stakeholder opinions in planning projects exists. In this paper we describe a new experimental method for creating landscape planning maps based on stakeholder opinions. During interviews, stakeholders are asked to rate the suitability of individual landscape elements and to visualise their ideal landscape plan. The results of the interview are then used to create a new landscape plan for the area. This method is illustrated by means of a case study in the Netherlands in which four stakeholders were included: the municipality, an agricultural organisation, the water board and a nature conservation organisation. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was performed in order to determine the robustness of the proposed method. Changing weights given to the individual stakeholders did not have a significant influence on the resulting landscape plan, indicating that this is a promising method for participatory landscape planning.

Suggested Citation

  • GEVAERT, Anouk & KUPERS, Stefan Jonathan & HEIJMAN, Wim, 2014. "Participatory Landscape Planning: The Case Of The “Westvaardersplassen” In The Netherlands," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 17(2), pages 1-11, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:roaaec:196625
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.196625
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/196625/files/RAAE_02_2014_Gevaert_et_al.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.196625?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. Paul Selman, 2004. "Community participation in the planning and management of cultural landscapes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 365-392.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    3. Tialda Haartsen & Leo Van Wissen, 2012. "Causes And Consequences Of Regional Population Decline For Primary Schools," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 103(4), pages 487-496, September.
    4. Guy Garrod & Kenneth G. Willis, 1999. "Economic Valuation of the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1368.
    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. Otieno, David & Ogutu, Sylvester, 2015. "Consumer willingness to pay for animal welfare attributes in a developing country context: The case of chicken in Nairobi, Kenya," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212602, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Ruto, Eric, 2009. "Modeling Farmers Prefences For Agrienvironmental Scheme Design: A Spanish Case Study," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50328, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Venus, Terese E. & Sauer, Johannes, 2022. "Certainty pays off: The public's value of environmental monitoring," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Xenarios, Stefanos & Sharma, Bharat R. & Amarasinghe, Upali & Singh, A., 2011. "Research analysis on the effects of agricultural water and landholdings to rural livelihoods in Indo-Gangetic Basin: with emphasis on Bihar State. [Report of the NAIP-IFAD Project on Water and Rural L," IWMI Research Reports H043776, International Water Management Institute.
    5. Bénédicte Rulleau & Jeoffrey Dehez & Patrick Point & Dominique Ami & Olivier Chanel, 2009. "Approche multidimensionnelle de la valeur économique des loisirs de nature, suivi d'un commentaire de Dominique Ami et Olivier Chanel," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 421(1), pages 29-51.
    6. Rolfe, John & Loch, Adam & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2002. "Framing effects and benefit transfer in the Fitzroy basin," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 174038, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Xenarios, Stefanos & Sharma, Bharat R., 2011. "Assessing institutional and environmental parameters of agricultural water use in South Asia: evidences from the Indo-Gangetic Basin," IWMI Research Reports H043779, International Water Management Institute.
    8. van der Heide, C.M. & Blaeij, A.T. de & Heijman, Wim J.M., 2008. "Economic Aspects in Landscape Decision-making: a Participatory Planning Tool based on a Representative Approach," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43949, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.
    10. Xenarios, Stefanos & Sharma, Bharat R. & Singh, A., 2011. "Environmental services and agricultural water in South Asia: evidence from Indo-Gangetic Basin," IWMI Research Reports H043780, International Water Management Institute.
    11. Marcial Echenique & Raghavendra Seshagiri, 2009. "Attribute-Based Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Services: A Developing Country Application," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(3), pages 384-397, June.
    12. Wang, Xuehong & Bennett, Jeff & Xie, Chen & Zhang, Zhitao & Liang, Dan, 2007. "Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: A choice modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 114-125, June.
    13. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Xenarios, Stefanos & Sharma, Bharat R., 2011. "Assessing institutional and environmental parameters of agricultural water use in South Asia: evidences from the Indo-Gangetic Basin," IWMI Reports 158840, International Water Management Institute.
    15. Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.
    16. Uwamariya, Beatrice, 2014. "Assessment of Consumer Awareness and Preferences for Quality Certification and Origin-Labeling in Fruit Salads in Kigali,Rwanda," Research Theses 198512, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    17. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    18. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    19. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    20. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:roaaec:196625. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feuagsk.html .

    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.