Science facilitating society : participation and negotiation in multifunctional landscape production

(1)

Figure 1: "Natuurlijk Beheer" (Natural Management). Picture by author ( 28-11-2018) on The Hoeve Biesland.

SCIENCE FACILITATING SOCIETY

PARTICIPATION AND NEGOTIATION IN MULTIFUNCTIONAL LANDSCAPE PRODUCTION

Bachelor thesis by Sam Dijsselbloem

10996818

Supervisor: dr. ir. Yves van Leynseele

14 January 2019

BSc Future Planet Studies, Major Human Geography

University of Amsterdam

(2)

2

ABSTRACT

Landscape initiatives have become more important in recent decades. As a result of the changed relationship between the state and society, there is more potential for multi-stakeholder participation in integrated governance approaches to effect policy, an important aspect of which is the changing roles and responsibilities of stakeholders. This thesis explores the specific role of scientists in landscape initiatives. The results illustrate how scientists from the Alterra Research Institute at Wageningen University have acted as facilitators in a landscape initiative in the green enclave of the Biesland Polder. While conducting their pilot research project Farming for Nature, they facilitated open negotiations and active interactions in various multi-stakeholder platforms. These platforms have contributed to the establishment of effective negotiation and the creation of an integrated multifunctional landscape. The landscape of the Biesland Polder satisfies multiple goals and functional purposes for a diverse group of users, including nature, recreation and agriculture.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research has been made possible through the cooperation of stakeholders actively involved in the pilot initiative of Farming for Nature. Gratitude is expressed to all respondents who participated in interviews and provided valuable insights for this research study. Special gratitude is expressed to Dr. Ir. Judith Westerink for her support and for making her personal archive accessible. The supervisor of this thesis, Dr. Ir. Yves van Leynseele, has provided guidance and feedback during the course of this research. Gratitude is expressed for his contribution and assistance in drafting this final version.

(3)

3

FIGURES

Figure 1: "Natuurlijk Beheer" (Natural Management). Picture by author ( 28-11-2018) on The Hoeve Biesland. . 1

Figure 2. Polder of Biesland. Source: Buizer (2018), p. 65. Section: from Biesland to Brussel. Utilized on: 11/10/2018 ... 15

Figure 3. Polder of Biesland. Source: Maps.Google.nl. Utilised on: 12/10/2018. ... 16

Figure 4. Hoeve Biesland. Picture made personally December 04, 2018. ... 17

Figure 5: Biesland Polder, picture by author (04-12-2018) ... 24

Figure 6: Biesland Upper Polder, picture by author (04-12-2018) ... 24

Figure 7: Storks in front of the IKEA, picture by author (28-11-2018) ... 24

Figure 8: Cow Garden Hoeve Biesland, picture by author (04-12-2018) ... 25

Figure 9: Cow Garden Hoeve Biesland, picture by author (28-11-2018) ... 25

Figure 10: IKEA on the thin border between Delft and the Biesland polder, picture by author (28-11-2018) ... 24

Figure 11: Spoonbills nesting in the polder of Biesland, picture by Frans Eijgenraam ... 27

Figure 12: Kestrel in the polder of Biesland, picture by Frans Eijgenraam ... 27

Figure 13: Spoonbills in the polder of Biesland, picture by Frans Eijgenraam ... 27

Figure 14: A hare in the polder of Biesland, picture by Frans Eijgenraam ... 27

Figure 15: Storks in the polder of Biesland, picture by Frans Eijgenraam ... 27

Figure 16: Meadow birds in the polder of Biesland, picture by Frans Eijgenraam ... 27

Figure 17: Geese in the Biesland polder, picture by Frans Eijgenraam ... 27

(5)

5

1. INTRODUCTION

Over the past hundred years the Biesland Polder and the cultural heritage of its surroundings have

slowly been encrouched upon by the process of urbanization. The ever-growing megalopolis of the

Randstad has devoured much of the traditional meadow landscape of North and South Holland, with

the expanding housing development for a continuously growing population of city-dwellers

(Westerink et al., 2013; Buizer, 2008; Ministry of ANF, 1995). The effects of the growing cities on

rural areas have been recognized by the Dutch state; however, not much has been done to preserve

the vast meadowlands that have been an important part of South Holland culture for a long time.

However, in 1995 the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Food Quality

1

_(Ministry

of ANF) stated in a national policy document that the quality of the rural areas surrounding the

Randstad should be improved. This would be achieved through the development of recreation, forest

and nature areas, at the expense of the original utilisation of the rural area (Buizer, 2008; Ministry of

ANF, 1995). This goal was part of the national policy known as the Randstadgroenstructuur (Randstad

Green Structure) implemented in 1985 (Ministry of ANF, 1995). The main purpose of this policy was

to create a green space that would prevent cities from merging and at the same time meet the

demand for recreational areas for city-dwellers (Ministry of ANF, 1995). These green structures

would consist of forests, because forests are better able to accommodate many recreational users

than other landscapes. Also, forests are not easily converted into new housing projects and would

therefore provide a strong buffer against encroaching cities. This basically meant that farmland could

be expropriated for the creation of recreational areas required by the growing urban population of

the Randstad. These land acquisitions were regulated by the Ministry of ANF (Ministry of ANF, 1995).

The land acquisitions, legitimised by top-down policies such as the Randstadgroenstructuur, reflect a

shift in power from the rural to the urban, with farmers being pressured to make room for

recreational areas required by a whole new population (Ministry of ANF, 1995). In spite of the policy,

the Hoeve Biesland managed to secure its position as the last dairy-producing agricultural business in

the small green enclave surrounded by the bordering cities of Delft, Pijnacker-Nootdorp and The

Hague, which is the governmental capital of the Netherlands (Westerink et al., 2013). The 10

hectares of the Hoeve Biesland destined to become forested under the national forest service,

Staatsbosbeheer (National Forest Control), as part of the Randstadgroenstructuur resulted in many

years of conflict, which was resolved by the cooperation and active participation of a diverse group

of public and private actors and scientists (Buizer, 2008). These role players were able to come

together because of an integrated approach and community-wide participation in political

negotiations and create a sustainable, multifunctional landscape that can withstand the urbanisation

of the surrounding the area. At the core of this initiative is the unifying concept Farming for Nature,

an innovative agro-ecological concept developed by the Alterra Research Institute at Wageningen

University. Scientific support has played a central role in this strategy in terms of negotiation

processes and public support to establish a sustainable and multifunctional landscape.

Farming for Nature has been designed as a response to the idea that agriculture will always be at the

expense of nature and vice versa. This concept, originally developed by Stortelder et al. (2001),

proposes the direct opposite of this assumption, in other words, farmers are able to preserve and

maintain ecological values and still have viable agricultural businesses. The implementation of this

(6)

6

concept on the Hoeve Biesland has brought the sustainable landscape movement to the polder and

stimulated wide participation by a diverse group of stakeholders actively engaged in this project.

Scientists from Wageningen University played a central role in the incorporation of and negotiation

with the stakeholders. The scientists bypassed the discipline of science and became active

negotiators, in effect facilitating the initiative through a process of integrated landscape governance.

This involvement of transdisciplinary research and sustainable innovation has brought the social and

political support to maintain the landscape’s cultural elements and to halt encroaching urbanisation.

The determination of the agricultural business Hoeve Biesland to survive and protect the cultural

landscape from urbanisation has made this a very interesting case. Its efforts have brought together

actors from different levels of society to reshape and reorganize the landscape and to produce a

multifunctional, sustainable landscape (Buizer, 2008). This case demonstrates the ability of scientists

to design policy for bottom-up initiatives with the potential of being integrated into mainstream

policy, contextualised at the landscape level. Policymakers have been advocating the interaction of

multiple actors and stakeholders in decision-making, a trend that is recognized in modern political

approaches (Cornips, 2006). The combination of multi-actor perspectives, their knowledge and their

expertise creates opportunities to solve environmental issues that are being dealt with on multiple

scales simultaneously (Arts & Tatenhove, 2004).

Much has already been written about the integration and governance of multi-level, multi-actor

policy approaches (Ros-Tonen et al., 2018; Kooiman, 2008; Görg, 2007; Cornips, 2006; Fung &

Wright, 2001). Yet a knowledge gap exists with regard to the application and role of science in

multi-stakeholder, landscape-level initiatives for nature restoration, as identified by Ros-Tonen et al.

(2018). A contribution to the academic literature is made by the exploration of the role and

integration of scientists in multi-stakeholder and citizen participation in landscape-level initiatives.

This is relevant for the academic debate, because it constitutes an addition to the established

literature and provides practical insight into traps and possibilities of similar cases. Based on the

above, the following research question has been formulated for this thesis:

In what way can scientists facilitate integrated landscape initiatives, explored through the

scope of integrated landscape governance, and how did multi-stakeholder platforms

contribute to the production of a multifunctional landscape in the polder of Biesland?

To be able to answer this research question, the following sub-questions have been formulated:

• What facilitative processes can be identified in the role/actions of the Alterra scientists?

• In what way was multi-stakeholder participation achieved?

• How did multi-stakeholder platforms contribute to open negotiation?

• How did multi-stakeholder participation contribute to the production of an integrated

multifunctional landscape?

These questions are explored in greater detail in the chapter on methodology.

The following section on the theoretical framework presents the theories and concepts that have

been used in this thesis. Attention was devoted to the conceptual use of integrated landscape

governance, multi-stakeholder participation, negotiation and landscape production. This section is

followed by a discussion of the research methods, including a detailed case description detailing the

(7)

7

social and spatial context of the initiative. The last chapter presents the main findings and gives an

overview of the processes which facilitated a wide network of stakeholders, platforms for

interaction, and the design and planning of a multifunctional landscape through open negotiations.

The conclusion provides answers to the sub-questions and the research question, revisiting the

theories and discussing the conditions of this specific case study.

(8)

8

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This section presents the theoretical framework of the concepts and an overview of the academic

database, drawing on the established literature and theories. First, the theoretical basis of the

concept Farming for Nature is presented, specifying the core principles and effective application. This

is followed by a discussion of governance and the different definitions and utilities of this concept,

after which a connection is made to the integrated landscape approach. Multi-stakeholder

participation is introduced and defined as a key aspect of the inclusive landscape approach in the

latter part of the theoretical framework. A conceptualisation of facilitative processes and open

negotiation in multi-stakeholder platforms is presented and used as a guideline during the analysis.

2.1 FARMING FOR NATURE

Stortelder et al. (2001) from the Alterra Research Institute at Wageningen University developed a

vision for sustainable agriculture, advocating for agroecological farming that includes more than just

primary food production. This vision was developed in response to the trend of declining agricultural

businesses caused by the growing world food market, which forces farmers to intensify their

business, and by the continuing urbanizing pressure in South Holland. Also the demand for locally

produced food is growing, as people become more aware of their environment, a market

opportunity that is exploited (Stortelder, et al., 2001). The developmental vision is incorporated in

the concept Farming for Nature, of which a pilot research study has been conducted in the Biesland

polder. This concept lies at the core of the multifunctional landscape initiative in and around which

the integrated governing processes can be recognized, and therefore is an important aspect of this

research study.

Agroecology has grown as a response to the continuously intensifying agricultural sector in the

period after the Second World War. During this period the so-called ‘baby boom’ caused urban

populations to grow rapidly, demanding a large increase in food production and security (Hopkins &

Holz, 2006). In the decades following, awareness of the effects of intensifying agricultural practices

on human and ecosystem health and the use of heavy pesticides and insecticides in crop production

triggered a movement towards more environmentally friendly methods (Wezel et al., 2009; Hopkins

& Holz, 2006). European nature conservation policy has been implemented to sustain more

biodiversity and to create an European ecological network represented in Natura 2000, launched in

1992. Also, financial incentives were made available for farmers that would maintain biodiversity and

landscape-sustaining practices on their land (Hopkins & Holz, 2006). Agri-environmental

management programmes were set up, funded by these European policies with the main purpose to

conserve biodiversity (Batáry et al., 2015). The concept of agroecology has continued to develop in

the early years of the new millennium, expanding its field from originally a scientific discipline

focusing solely on agricultural practices to a concept that is encountered in multiple disciplines,

ranging from science to political and social movements (Wezel et al., 2009).

In their vision Stortelder et al. (2001) facilitate agricultural entrepreneurs to transform their

businesses into inclusive agricultural businesses combining different primary functions. This vision is

divided into three business types that can be applied on farm: Large-scale agriculture,

landscape-oriented agriculture and nature-landscape-oriented agriculture. These three business types differ from each

other in their intensity of primary food production and the landscape management components that

are included in the business. The main objective of a large-scale agricultural business is competing

(9)

9

with the world market; interventions to reach maximum primary production of the farm have as

their aim to expand and intensify. A landscape-oriented business has a greater emphasis on

landscape management components that are included in this business type. This means that certain

conservational responsibilities of the area are directed to the farmer and his or her business. The

farmer will be compensated for maintaining the values of the cultural heritage of the area and

allowing the increase of biodiversity. The last aspect of their vision is the most far-reaching and

includes many attributes that are in accordance with agri-environmental management. The

nature-oriented agricultural business has as its main focus the development of ecological values in the area

and the closing of the farm’s cycle, meaning that no minerals can go in or out of the business

(Stortelder et al., 2001).

The nature oriented business, which is central in this research, is radically different from the

conventional agricultural business; in fact, most of the standard characteristics of nature

management and agriculture are each other’s opposites. To maximise agricultural primary

production, very rich and homogenic soils with low groundwater levels are desired for the cultivation

of only one specific plant-species. When one looks at soils and vegetation in nature management

areas, one finds heterogenic and poor soils in very wet conditions, depending on the seasons

(Stortelder et al., 2001). This contrast in soil characteristics has fed the assumption that agriculture

and nature should not be intertwined and should always be separated. However, Stortelder et al.

(2001) have opposed this assumption in their concept Farming for Nature. They have advocated the

idea that farmers are very capable of managing a landscape, following principles that are in line with

nature management, notwithstanding the fact that it requires a conscious shift in business type

(Stortelder et al., 2001). Anticipated expenditures are a loss of 50% income from primary production

compared to the large-scale agricultural business type. Such businesses would be compensated by a

nature management subsidy and green investment funds based on different landscape elements that

are integrated into the business (Stortelder et al., 2001). This business model has been applied

following agri-environmental management principles. To achieve this agricultural business model, a

radical transformation is required and the transformation depends heavily on financial support

because of the loss of income in the intermediate period, which can last for multiple years

(Westerink et al., 2018). Also, after the achievement of the transformed agricultural business model,

income will be considerably lower and labour costs higher, and it will therefore take strong

ideological motivation to take this step (Westerink et al., 2018).

A critical assessment of the approach refers to the earlier mentioned justification of the

implementation of intensive farming methods, namely growing populations. The Western European

justification of intensifying the agricultural sector in the post-war era when growing urban

populations were demanding an increase in food production (Hopkins & Holz, 2006) can be seen as a

reason for Western society to look beyond their borders. The total world population is growing

continuously and is expected to reach 9.1 billion in 2050, demanding ever-increasing global food

production (Wezel et al., 2014). Agroecological and environmentally friendly farming methods are

believed to be capable of producing enough food in an economically sustainable way and are still

being advocated; however, these methods still focus primarily on food production (Wezel et al.,

2014). In Farming for Nature, food production is relegated behind nature conservation and therefore

the concept creates less of an incentive to participate in the globally demand for increased food

production. In terms of this concept, a movement that protects the agricultural landscape is

(10)

10

the agri-environmental schemes (AES) of the European Union (De Snoo et al., 2013). The discussions

around food production and food-producing methods in the agricultural sector will remain part of

heated public debate and are unlikely to be solved any time soon. Criticism of the AES include the

lack of real results, emphasizing the limited usefulness for conservation of endangered species (Kleijn

et al., 2006), as well as the neglect of evaluation as a basic aspect of the schemes (Klein & Sutherland,

2003) and the inconsistency of the results (Wilson et al., 2007).

2.2 INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE GOVERNANCE

Governance has become a widely studied and discussed concept in social and political science in

recent decades. Its application in many different fields has given the concept a multi-faceted image

without one clear definition. Governance is more broadly understood, despite the heterogenic use of

the term, as the changed relationship between governments and society, and the way the state

interacts and cooperates with society (Görg, 2007; Treib, Bähr & Falkner, 2007; Kooiman et al., 2008).

Görg (2007) has recognized that many writers extend this definition with the addition of elements

relating to multi-actor co-ordination and cooperation, citizen participation, multi-level politics and

altered actor constellations. Most of the identified elements that are associated with governance

relate to something that has been referred to as the ‘hollowing out of the state’, which underlines

the change in the power of the state and the increasing involvement of societal actors and markets in

modern-day politics (Görg, 2007; Kooiman et al., 2008).

The decentralisation of state regulation can also be recognized in the potentials for the development

of local initiatives and the effect on policy and policy-making through a more integrated

decision-making (García-Martín et al., 2016). In their review, García-Martín et al. (2016) found that integrated

landscape initiatives in Europe have more often been successful in sustaining the socio-spatial

relation between landscape and society as a response to traditional management and global market

forces, making use of the concept of landscape to comprehend the societal relation with a natural

spatial location. They underline the cooperation between public and private actors to accomplish

collective action as an important factor in landscape initiatives, because the support creates capacity

to overcome divergent interests and juridical hurdles (García-Martín et al., 2016). They stress using

multi-stakeholder coordination, which includes community involvement and public support, as one

of the most important factors in successful landscape initiatives (García-Martín et al., 2016). Görg

(2007) has expanded the landscape concept to include a cultural dimension in the relation and

description of landscape as a realm of human-environmental interaction, focusing on the human

values of an environment. Scherr et al. (2013) have included a timescale in the definition of

integrated landscape approaches: ‘long-term collaboration among different groups of land managers

and stakeholders to achieve the multiple objectives required from the landscape’. Southern et al.

(2011) have identified this integrated approach as a key component for the implementation of

governance for sustainable landscapes. They have underlined the integration of stakeholder values,

participation and scenario analysis as part of transdisciplinary research to approach future

uncertainties (Southern et al., 2011).

The concept of landscapes is used in this research to describe the Biesland polder in which the

Farming for Nature pilot is executed. Central to the approach of Farming for Nature is the inclusive

character of the multi-stakeholder initiative. Farming for Nature includes more than just an

agro-ecological dimension where agro-ecological values are applied to the agricultural business, conserving

(11)

11

nature as a primary goal and producing food in a way that is in symbiosis with the landscape

(Westerink et al., 2013; Stortelder et al., 2001). The inclusive character of the concept also demands

that the transformation of the landscape be cohesive with many different elements that all represent

values to stakeholders, requiring it to be an integrated process (Westerink et al., 2013; Stortelder

et al., 2001). The societal relation between social entities and natural places inherent to landscapes is

thus a key aspect of the integrated approach of Farming for Nature and needs to be understood in

terms of an integrated scope of governance processes. Therefore the concept of integrated

landscape governance is used as a tool to understand and explore the processes at hand.

This concept can be used to understand the governing processes that aim for a shift from

single-purpose to multisingle-purpose use of landscapes (Westerink et al., 2017). Southern et al. (2011) have

distinguished the multifunctionality of landscapes into spatial multifunctionality and integrated

multifunctionality. In this article, spatial multifunctionality addresses different goals for different land

use types, while integrated multifunctionality refers to different goals for the same plot of land,

accomplishing those goals either in the same period of time or successively (Southern et al., 2011).

Westerink et al. (2017) have emphasized the latter: in their research they analysed a case of

collaborative landscape governance where farmers worked together with regional governments to

achieve both their goals, allowing agriculture and enhancing healthy water systems and biodiversity.

Opdam et al. (2015) have elaborated in their research on the changing perspective from nature

conservation to nature utilisation with respect to collaborative landscape governance. In their

research they identify how the framing of ecosystem services has an effect on the outcome of

governance (Opdam et al., 2015).

All the researchers mentioned in this section have emphasized the importance of the relation

between nature and the social context for landscapes, intrinsically connected with multifunctional

ecosystem services. Westerink et al. (2017, p. 410) have even recognized social capital as a

prerequisite for landscape governance, whereas social capital is to be understood as ‘the quality of

social networks that enable collaboration to result into collective action’. These networks exist of

bonding and bridging ties, where the former is with the people near one and therefore strong, and

the latter is distant and therefore weak (Westerink et al., 2017). However, collective action can only

be achieved through collaboration, which is enabled through bridging ties, making those weak bonds

vital (Westerink et al., 2017). Here it is key to recognize the importance of engagement, as

emphasized by Emerson et al. (2012). Interactions through engagements advance mutual trust,

understanding, legitimacy and a shared commitment among all actors. This contributes to a shared

motivation, which stimulates the development of a shared theory of action that in turn influences

the scope of the outcomes (Emerson et al., 2012). Engagement is a vital aspect in the establishment

of shared motivation and a shared scope for action, which is needed to achieve outcomes close to

one’s goals, and will be discussed further in the following section.

2.3 MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

As highlighted in the previous section, multi-stakeholder participation is a key element of integrated

landscape initiatives (Westerink et al., 2017; García-Martín et al., 2016; Scherr et al., 2013) and often

strengthens landscape governance (Kusters et al., 2018). Integrated landscape initiatives generally

include multiple aims, due to the involvement of multiple stakeholders from the public, private and

civil society spheres, all bringing different perspectives to the table (Kusters et al., 2018; Giller et al.,

(12)

12

2008). To organize these different perspectives and aims, a multi-stakeholder platform is used,

defined by Kusters et al. (2018, p. 171) as ‘various forms of organized multi-stakeholder

collaboration, including coalitions, partnerships, and management boards’. A multi-stakeholder

platform functions as a medium for cooperation and interaction, contributing to the quality of

decision-making and the integration of landscape governance processes. Decision-making is often

associated with the management of collective natural resources facilitated by multi-stakeholder

platforms (Leeuwis, 2000). Participatory approaches generally conform to a methodological theory

that includes planning, decision-making and social learning. Criticism of this approach is that it

neglects the possibility of conflict and social struggle (Leeuwis, 2000). A proposed solution to this

drawback is the integration of communication theories or conceptual approaches from negotiation

literature as tools for conflict management, while recognising that effective negotiation is not

tangible without proper facilitation and social learning (Leeuwis, 2000). This negotiating method

requires facilitators to adopt new roles and tasks in the participative processes (Leeuwis, 2000).

2.4 FACILITATION

To achieve a multi-stakeholder platform, a bridging organization usually forms a network of

stakeholders that is involved in the landscape governance, acting as facilitator (Kusters et al., 2018).

Facilitators are vital partners of multi-stakeholder initiatives, as they have the responsibility and

capacity to solicit support from governments and the community, to obtain funding, to create

platforms where discussion, negotiation, social learning and conflict resolution can take place, and to

maintain a position where decisions can be made (Kusters et al., 2018; Ros-Tonen et al., 2014).

Facilitators can be all kinds of organizations that have the capacity to become transdisciplinary or

even interdisciplinary brokers, such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or scientific institutes

(Kusters et al., 2018; Giller et al., 2008). This research explores the facilitating role of science, and

more specifically scientists in integrated landscape governance, in the Biesland Polder.

The negotiation processes utilized follow the work of Leeuwis

(2000).

One can expect different views on design in negotiations on the purpose of a landscape where

multiple stakeholders are involved, especially in an heterogenic assembly of stakeholders. Different

disciplines encapsulate different world views based on the knowledge of stakeholders. This results in

certain perspectives on the preferred manner in which a landscape should be utilized and requires a

bridging actor with the capacity to address the issue in a transdisciplinary manner (Giller et al., 2008).

Negotiation is an important aspect of participation and facilitation in multi-stakeholder platforms

because it deals with conflict, something that should not be disregarded in multi-stakeholder

trajectories (Leeuwis, 2000). Conflict can result from differing perspectives and opinions on

landscape use and/or values, and can result in difficulties achieving agreements, keeping promises

and solving large problems overall (Leeuwis, 2000). Conflict is not part of multi-stakeholder

participation by definition, but has to be considered as an important possibility ino the trajectory.

Planning, decision-making and social learning tend to neglect this risk and therefore facilitators

should be armed with appropriate negotiating skills (Leeuwis, 2000). The integrative approach to

negotiation tasks of Meegeren and Leeuwis (as cited in Leeuwis, 2000, p. 948) has been utilized in

this research. An extensive set of guidelines for facilitators has been formulated and divided into

seven categories by Meegeren and Leeuwis (as cited in Leeuwis, 2000, p. 948): (1) preparation, (2)

(13)

13

forging agreement, (6) communication of representatives with constituencies, and (7) monitoring

implementation. These tasks summarize the role of facilitators in multi-stakeholder participation

platforms to achieve effective negotiation, resulting in open communication and perspectives

(Leeuwis, 2000). The guidelines related to the seven task include: (1) selecting and securing

participants, (2) reaching agreements about procedures, (3) exchanging perspectives and analysing

problems, (4) developing action plans, (5) securing agreement on measures, (6) substantiating

agreement with constituencies, and (7) implementing, monitoring and re-negotiating (Leeuwis,

2000). These guidelines indicate the proposed conceptual approach to negotiated facilitation and are

examined in this research in terms of the multi-stakeholder integrated landscape initiative with

scientists playing a facilitating role. This specific formulation has been chosen because of the clear

and detailed outline and because of the special attention paid to the role of the facilitator in the

negotiating process. The tasks and guidelines are presented in a table which can be found in the

Appendix.

Science has for a long time facilitated society with the provision of information and techniques

assuming a certain level of homogeny for comparable cases (Giller et al., 2008). In the early 1990s an

increased understanding of the complexity of socio-ecological landscapes changed the standard

assumptions and ways of dealing with landscape problem. The problem-solving approach became

more integrated and interactive multi-stakeholder participation quickly became part of scientists’

methodologies (Giller et al., 2008). Critics have been sceptical of the approach, declaring it

ineffective, neglecting power relations and not including constraints from all levels.

To overcome opposing perspectives and disagreements, stakeholders need to be creative in their

negotiations to produce integrated solutions. Stakeholders should make use of a social-learning

process, because an open attitude and search for information have the potential to achieve a

win-win outcome (Carnevale, 2006).

Facilitation Integration Decision-Making Negotiation Multifunctionallity Integrated Landscape Governance

Farming for Nature Multi-Stakeholder

(14)

14

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 RESEARCH QUESTION

The research question of this thesis is: ‘In what way can scientists facilitate integrated landscape

initiatives, explored through the scope of integrated landscape governance, and how did

multi-stakeholder platforms contribute to the production of a multifunctional landscape in the polder of

Biesland?’ Qualitive research methods are used, following the social science discipline. Answering the

research question will provide valuable insight into the potential of science and especially scientists

in facilitating integrated landscape initiatives. The contribution of multi-stakeholder, integrated

approaches to the creation of multifunctional landscapes is explored in terms of governance and

multi-stakeholder platforms. The research study constitutes a valuable addition to the academic

database, providing practical insight into negotiating processes, multi-stakeholder platforms,

multifunctional landscape creation and the facilitating capacity of scientists in landscape initiatives.

To answer the research question, four sub-questions have been formulated. The first sub-question

explores the facilitative role and capacity of scientists in integrated landscape-level initiatives: What

facilitative processes can be identified in the actions of the Alterra scientists? The second and third

sub-questions address aspects of stakeholder participation and negotiation through

multi-stakeholder platforms: In what way was multi-multi-stakeholder participation achieved? and How did

multi-stakeholder platforms convey open negotiation? The last sub-question addresses the aspect of

multifunctional landscape creation: How did multi-stakeholder participation contribute to the

production of an integrated multifunctional landscape?

The sub-questions will be answered by collecting and analysing data obtained from qualitative

research methods, namely semi-structured, in-depth interviews, archival documentation analysis and

analysis of project publications. These methodological approaches are used because they allow the

collection of insider information from stakeholders. This provides the researcher with understanding

of and insight into the governing processes and state of affairs needed to answer the research

question.

The first sub-question is examined in terms of the conceptual guidelines for facilitation and

negotiation tasks formulated by Meegeren and Leeuwis (as cited in Leeuwis, 2000, p. 948).

Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with participating stakeholders about the governing

processes, tasks and guidelines. For the analysis of platforms, in-depth qualitative interviews with

stakeholders were conducted to identify cooperative structures and the differences in group

formations and functions. Information was also derived from a personal research documentation

archive to substantiate the findings.

The last sub-question is examined using data gathered from a personal research documentation

archive, which included reports of meetings of various project groups and remarks by different

stakeholders concerning specific landscape uses and values. Through in-depth qualitative interviews

these findings were further examined, elucidating the state of affairs. The follow-up to these findings

is an important aspect of this research. Because the studied case dated to the period 2001 to 2013,

interviewees needed to retrieve information from memory, which includes the risk of uncertainty.

The information could be verified by follow-up interviews and archive documentation, enhancing the

trustworthiness of the results.

(15)

15 Figure 2. Polder of Biesland. Source: Buizer (2018), p. 65. Section: from Biesland to Brussel. Utilized on: 11/10/2018

3.2 CASE DESCRIPTION

The section describes the social and spatial context of the case, including the polder, the farm and

the pilot. This thesis concerns a single-case study, focusing on one specific initiative in the Biesland

Polder. This method has been utilized because it allows in-depth focus and exploration of

case-specific attributes (Bryman, 2012). The research methods used for data collection are in line with the

single-case study of a specific location around which all issues of interest are centred. The polder, the

farm and the pilot project are described in the following sections.

3.2.1 THE POLDER

The polder of Biesland is a green

enclave located in an area that has

been heavily urbanized in recent

decades, and where a glimpse of the

historical occupation remains visible

for those who value the cultural

heritage of South Holland (van den

Top et al., 2003). Prior to 1783, the

polder area, including Delftse Hout,

was a peat moor. In 1783 the area

was dry-milled for farming purposes,

lowering it to five meters below

normal Amsterdam level where a

fertile clay soil was found (van den

Top et al., 2003). On this soil the

characteristic parcel patterned

agricultural landscape was created, recognizable in large parts of South Holland

.

In recent decades the growing world food market has forced agriculture to intensify and extensive

farming has become dominated by large-scale food-producing businesses (Stortelder et al., 2001).

Many small farms have been incorporated into larger farms, or the new housing programmes under

the urbanising power of the Randstad (Westerink et al., 2013; Buizer, 2008; Stortelder et al., 2001;

Ministry of ANF, 1995). The Biesland Polder originally included many food-producing agricultural

businesses, but most of these farmers did not see a future for their farms.

In the 1980s the national government embarked on the creation of multiple forests between

bordering cities to prevent them from merging (Ministry of ANF, 1995; van den Top et al., 2003).

These bufferzones needed to be forested because of the assumption that forests are better able to

facilitate many people than other landscapes. The Biesland Polder is part of such a bufferzone known

as a ‘green-blue’ structure, preventing the bordering cities of Delft, Den Haag and

Pijnacker-Nootdorp from merging (van den Top et al., 2003; Ministry of ANF, 1995). This green-blue structure

includes ‘De Grote Plas’, a large pond located in the western part of the green structure, and the

forested area ‘Bieslandse Bos’, located next to the Biesland Polder in the central to eastern part

(Buizer, 2008). The green structure is surrounded by the cities of Delft (west), Pijnacker-Nootdorp

(southeast) and The Hague (north), and exhibits a sharp transition from city to polder (Westerink

(16)

16

et al., 2013; Buizer, 2008; van den Top et al., 2003). The polder covers 100 hectares, originally

sustaining 10 farms back in 1980. Today the entire polder is used by a single farm, the Hoeve

Biesland (Buizer, 2008). This farm has been abled to maintain the meadows in the polder, resisting

the plans of the national government to cover the area with forest vegetation. It has been able to do

so because of its devotion to managing the area in a conservational manner, incorporating

recreational areas for surrounding citizens as well as meadow bird habitation.

Not only do meadow birds like to nest in this polder, ducks, spoonbills, storks, buzzards and falcons

are also regular inhabitants. Besides the birds, the occasional hare, fox, ermine, polecat and weasel

can be seen scavenging in the area (F. Eijgenraam, pers. comm. 04/12/2018; van den Top et al.,

2003).

3.2.2 THE FARM

The Hoeve Biesland is a dairy-producing farm, owned by Jan and Mieke Duijndam and collectively

managed with Tim van den Bregt, located in the polder of Biesland, South Holland (Westerink, 2013).

Originally the farm consisted of 17 hectares and accommodated 35 cows, where the area was still

utilized by multiple cattle-holding businesses. A new farm was established in the centre of the

Biesland Polder in 1993. This allowed the family to expand the farm to 100 hectares and 130 cows in

2003 (van den Top et al., 2003). The family has acknowledged that the value of the area exceeds the

value of its food-producing capacity, and that the future of the farm depends on social support from

the surrounding community. This realization has been vital for its continued existence. The first

socially focused step was to become a biological farm in 1997 (van den Top et al., 2003). From this

moment onwards its vision has increasingly grown to accommodate nature-inclusive agriculture,

corresponding with the vision of Farming for Nature. When the Duijndams were confronted with the

RandstadGroenStructuur policy, they had to take steps to gain enough public support to convince the

authorities that they would be able to conform to the intensions of the policy. At this point Jan

Duijndam and Jacques Schievink were approached by a journalist who knew about the new concept

Figure 3. Polder of Biesland. Source: Maps.Google.nl. Utilised on: 12/10/2018.

(17)

17

of Alterra and Stortelder et al., Farming for Nature (J. Duijndam, pers. comm. 28/11/2018; Westerink

et al., 2013). The Alterra research team was still searching for locations to implement their concept in

a pilot study. At this point Jan Duijndam and his family, who were no longer sure about the future of

the farm, thought of this as an opportunity to secure the Hoeve Biesland for a number of years

(J. Duijndam, pers. comm. 28/11/2018). This was when the first contact was made between Alterra’s

research team and Hoeve Biesland.

Figure 4. Hoeve Biesland. Own photograph, December 04, 2018.

3.2.3 THE PILOT

After the initial contact made between Alterra’s research team and Jan Duijndam, Farming for Nature

developed an operational model that would be fitting for the Biesland Polder and Hoeve Biesland.

Not only was a thorough transformation of the farm and farming methods required, but much

needed to be done to shape the right policy and obtain the necessary financing from green funds and

research subsidies (Westerink et al., 2013).

To become a nature-oriented business, the first step in the transformation of the agricultural

methods was to stop all mineral in- and output. This meant that all fodder and fertilizers needed to

be produced within the roughly 100 hectares of the farm (van den Top et al., 2003). This also meant

that the primary focus of the business could no longer be to maximize the dairy production. From

this point onwards, the main focus shifted to nature management and food production was

determined based on the soil fertility (van den Top et al., 2003). Because of the anticipated amounts

of fodder that can be produced on the farm, a decrease in livestock was inevitable. Especially the

production of protein-rich fodder at this point seems to be a challenge. Meadow birds are still

breeding on the plots when the grass is at optimum quality to be mowed. To preserve the birds on

the farmland, the mowing is postponed until after the breeding season. This is done at the expense

of the protein levels in the grass and has a detrimental effect on the quality of the fodder (Westerink

et al., 2013; van den Top et al., 2003).

(18)

18

The production of protein-rich crops was attempted to overcome any shortages. This attempt failed,

because the soil of the polder was not suitable for crop production (Westerink et al., 2013). To

prepare a healthy dietary mix for the livestock remained a challenge. As a result of the low protein

levels in the fodder, the dairy production went down significantly and the health of the livestock

came in jeopardy. At this point a decision was taken to reconsider whether this radical closed-cycle

farm management was practically feasible. The conditions became somewhat more tailored and

resulted in changing the closed-cycle farming method to a closed mineral balance in 2012 (Westerink

et al., 2018). The difference here is that the total amount of minerals going in and out of the business

needed to be balanced out. This meant that the farm was allowed to supplement the livestock’s diet

with the minerals they were missing, as long as the input was compensated by the necessary output,

rebalancing the mineral proportions (Westerink et al., 2018). After this change, the dairy production

increased and the livestock’s health was again guaranteed.

Another aspect of the nature-inclusive agricultural business is the conservation of water in the area.

High groundwater levels are used to conserve water, particularly during springtime, as is the

common situation in low-lying natural landscapes. This benefits the development of ecological

diversity and natural biota (Stortelder et al., 2001). However, the groundwater levels also effect the

period in which grass starts to grow. When the groundwater is still high during springtime, the

meadows of Hoeve Biesland are not used for the production of dairy and only serves natural

purposes (Westerink et al., 2013). As the groundwater levels start to decline towards summer, the

grass will start to grow and the meadow birds will leave Hoeve Biesland. It is at this time that the

farm shifts its focus from nature conservation back to dairy production, as it is able to produce more

fodder from the growing grass (Westerink et al., 2013). As explained above, Farming for Nature has

caused a shift in the productive season of Hoeve Biesland towards summer. This is not really part of

the Farming for Nature concept in general, but the farm has made a choice to devote this period to

the meadow birds, as they are considered such an important aspect of the Biesland Polder

(Westerink et al., 2013).

3.3 UNIT OF ANALYSIS

The units of analysis in this research are the stakeholders that have been actively participating in

Farming for Nature in the Biesland Polder, more specifically on Hoeve Biesland. Data collection

targeted a specific group of stakeholders, that is, the research population (Bryman, 2012). This

selection was made based on the different interests of the stakeholders, their position and

participation. A diverse combination of respondents were pursued to gain insights from different

perspectives. The criteria that were used to select the units of analysis comprise the main aspects of

interest as formulated in the sub-questions. Their specific interests in the initiative are important for

their participation and contribution to the inclusion of specific values in the design and planning of

the landscape. The position that they occupied during the initiative is an important indicator of the

amount of involvement and influence they could exert on the outcomes of the initiative.

Participation in this respect implies a larger focus on the specific role that is being fulfilled. Specific

stakeholder information and participation were gathered during the analysis of a personal research

archive made available by Judith Westerink, one of the leading scientists in the Farming for Nature

pilot, who was kind enough to share her network for the benefit of the thesis research.

(19)

19

The selection of the units of analysis was made by involvement of the key stakeholders that

participated in or influenced the decision-making and/or were involved during negotiations between

stakeholders. It was decided not to pursue all different governmental parties that had been involved.

This was decided, first of all, because of the large number of different institutes and governments

that were involved for a short time or not in a significant manner. Second, governmental or

institutional jurisdictions overlapped. Because of this, it was decided that the province of South

Holland would represent the governmental involvement, as it was also a financial partner of the

pilot. Also, this research is primarily focused on the facilitation and participation that were evident at

the landscape level. The units of analysis are representatives from the parties that were actively

participating in the project and were considered during consultations and decision-making. All

respondents will be introduced and located in terms of their activities in and around the project.

3.4 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

During the research, data were collected by a triangulation of methods, which has been a very

valuable contribution to the collection and substantiation of data from different sources and to

obtain the point of data saturation (Bryman, 2012). The combination of multiple research methods

not only enabled the expansion and completion of findings, but also resulted in greater confidence in

the findings, as it was possible to follow up on findings resulting from different research methods

(Bryman, 2012). In this research a combination of social research methods was applied, including

analysis of a personal research archive from one of the Wageningen University Alterra scientists,

in-depth semi-structured interviews with purposively sampled units, and analysis of research reports

and published documents. Observations could not be done, because facilitating processes took place

during a long-term project between 2001 and 2013 (Westerink et al., 2018).

3.4.1 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH

Doing research on a topic that is part of a research and/or research department of which one is not a

member comes at the risk of exclusion. Not all scientists and research departments are enthusiastic

about sharing their data or networks, or allowing research in their field at all. Therefore it is key to

explore the possibilities first and to make contact with the researcher that is the original writer and

executer of the research in which one is interested.

This was one of the first steps in the early process of this research, namely to get in touch with the

researchers of the Alterra Research Institute of Wageningen UR. A first meeting was organized on the

Wageningen UR campus, where one of the leading researchers was introduced to the researcher

who had shown interest in the pilot of Farming for Nature. At this first meeting the outline of this

research was discussed, as well as its objectives. The existence of a personal research archive was

disclosed and the possibilities to use this for data collection were approved, with some provisos. The

archive covers many hours of hard work organizing all processes and aspects of Farming for Nature.

Two time slots were arranged to do the archival research. To perform this research, a location was

set up on Wageningen UR campus in the office of the researcher. Two full days were utilized to

analyse the content of the digital archive and to become acquainted with the interactions,

decision-making processes and participation of the different assemblies of stakeholders. The aim of the

archival research analysis was to get a clear understanding of the key stakeholders and their

responsibilities in the negotiating process. This analysis also fulfilled a key role in terms of the

(20)

20

continuation of the data collection, with follow-up in-depth interviews where the findings of the

archival research could be expanded in more detail. Another aim was to obtain a clear perspective of

the role and involvement of the Friends of Biesland association and its activities. What did these

interactions contribute, what was the intension and how well did they succeed in this? Also the role

of the researchers in the different negotiations and meetings was focused on getting an indication of

their all-round involvement and participation, as well as their ability to attract and include the right

stakeholders in the process.

3.4.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

A significant contribution to the collection of data was done through conducting qualitative

semi-structured depth interviews with the identified units of research mentioned above. Qualitative

in-depth data was gathered to gain insight and detailed understanding of the key stakeholders, the

facilitating role of the researchers and the contribution of interactions (Bryman, 2012).

Semi-structured interviews were chosen as a method because it provides the researcher with the flexibility

to gain access into unknown aspects and experiences by listening and anticipating the direction the

interview might take, but also to control the direction within relevant boundaries (Bryman, 2012). To

maintain these boundaries, an interview guide was utilized to formulate relevant stakeholder-specific

aspects (Bryman, 2012). This research method has the potential of providing the researcher with

different views on the same process or aspect of the research, and to understand how stakeholders

position themselves and others in the process. The facilitating role of the Wageningen UR

researchers, for example, could be examined in more detail when comparing different perspectives.

Data gathered from the research archive analysis was used to prepare and direct the questions.

These data provided information on certain processes where stakeholders were or were not

involved, which contributions had been made, as well as which points of interest had been

represented during meetings and negotiations. This was very valuable information to carefully steer

the conversation to topics that had been identified as valuable or interesting for data collection. The

interviews were therefore used to follow up and expand on the data collected from the research

archive, in addition to the collection of in-depth data on personal perspectives and experiences.

Interview questions were prepared as a tool to guide the conversation to topics relevant to the

research question. The interview questions were formulated in a very open manner, to allow the

respondents to interpret and answer the questions in their own terms. This was intended to get a

sense of the perspective of the respondents on certain aspects of the project. Guiding questions

included: the reasons behind participation and involvement of certain actors; personal perceptions

on his or her own participation; responsibilities and contribution; which stakeholders were actively

pursuing landscape elements and for what goals; and what the personal experience of this

cooperative multi-stakeholder participation were, whether it had been effective in terms of its goals

and whether it had been able to handle any disagreements. In most of the interviews these

questions were barely needed, or were used to get the details right. Respondents were eager to talk

freely and describe the project from their own experiences. One thing stood out and was emphasized

repeatedly in all the interviews, namely that all respondents had really enjoyed working together on

this project and make an effort to achieve its goals. This might also be the reason why respondents

enjoyed talking freely and reliving their memories of Farming for Nature.

(21)

21

Extensive documentation on the pilot in multiple research reports and publications has provided this

research with a strong background. First of all, the publication of Stortelder et al. (2001) provided

this research with theoretical information regarding the concept Farming for Nature and the

execution of the pilot. Farming for Nature occupies a central position in this research and the

visionary concept has facilitated the many interesting processes that have been explored in this

research. A central part of the pilot was monitoring and evaluating the effects witnessed in the

domains focused on in this research, namely the agricultural business, the ecology of the polder and

society (Ekamper et al., 2005). The results of the monitoring and evaluation were summarized in

annual publications called Stories of Biesland (Dutch: Verhalen van Biesland), presenting the main

findings of each year (Ekamper et al., 2005). Also, a PhD research study had been executed during

this pilot by Buizer (2008) and two research reports had been published (Westerink et al., 2013;

Westerink et al., 2018). A report on the experiences of the recreational users of the polder has also

been published, based on monitoring and evaluation through surveys in the Biesland Polder (Nuijten,

2008). These reports and publications were a valuable part of the triangular methodological

approach of this research. They provided the research with the conceptual backbone regarding

Farming for Nature, as well as important aspects derived from monitoring and evaluation, and were

used as a source to follow up on information that had not been fully understood from the archive

material or qualitative interviews.

3.4.4 ANALYSIS

For the analysis of the collected data from the semi-structured qualitative interviews and the

research documentation archive the qualitative analysis program ATLAS.ti was used. To utilize this

program designed for analysing large bodies of text, first the interviews had to be transcribed in full.

A code list based on the sub-questions was drawn up and, during the coding process, further

extended with quotations that had the potential of being valuable for the results. During the coding

special attention was paid to the categorisation of stakeholders, identifying and grouping them based

on interests and representation. Also, special attention was given to identifying specific stakeholder

participation and group formations. Other important codes were facilitation, participation,

interactions, support and conflicts, formulated because of their central role in this research. To gain

insight into the different landscape functions and values, codes were assigned to categorize different

stakes and interests put forward by stakeholders. During coding, parts of text were ascribed a

combination of codes, identifying the stakeholders, interests, platforms and processes. Combining

different codes in quotations is an effective way to gain an overview of who has been involved,

where and how, allowing further analysis.

3.5 VALIDITY

This research study explores the processes witnessed and experienced in this single case, depending

on specific case characteristics. This means that the research is not generalisable for similar or any

cases. Lessons can be derived from the research looking at specific processes that can be used as

examples for other cases, yet any concluding statement is made within the contextual boundaries of

this specific research. The concluding statements are based on specific findings and identifications of

governing processes. These statements cannot be made with the total exclusion of other elements

that might have contributed to the outcomes. In integrative approaches, various processes and

interactions are dynamic and might influence each other directly or indirectly. However, central tasks

(22)

22

and responsibilities recognized as facilitative can be derived from specific stakeholders and therefore

concluding statements can be made regarding internal roles.

3.6 STAKEHOLDERS

The most significant stakeholders in this project were the designers and facilitators of the concept

Farming for Nature. The Alterra Research Institute at Wageningen University created the concept in

the very early years of this millennium and published their developmental vision in 2001 (Storterlder

et al., 2001). During the entire period that the pilot was being conducted in the area, researchers of

Alterra were intimately involved in most if not in all of the processes. They were there during the first

meetings with potential farmers who expressed their interest, when official documents were signed

indicating the start of the implementation of the pilot, during monitoring and evaluation, and during

the reunions, looking back on a decade of research in Biesland. They were key stakeholders in the

process and are indisputably important data sources in this research. They provided their

perspectives on cooperation and participation with multiple stakeholders, the vital negotiations and

activities that contributed to the outcomes, as well as on the concessions that were made with

respect to the initial planning. They allowed this researcher to examine their research

documentation, and gave valuable insights into project group meetings, advisory board meetings,

organization of activities and newsletters.

Another essential source is the stakeholder with the highest stake in this project, the owner and

innovator of Hoeve Biesland, Jan Duijndam. This agricultural entrepreneur has been vital to the

research in the first place, in order to understand his reasons for taking part in the radical turnover of

his business. Originally, the farm was a dairy-producing biological farm. During the transformation

the farm needed to become totally self-sufficient in terms of its fertilizers and fodder. Duijndam was

also actively engaged with most of the meetings and activities, and covered a vital part of assembling

the right people around him and the project. In the process of planning and decision-making, he was

one of the key stakeholders.

The next stakeholder considered in this research is a policymaker from the province of South Holland

who participated in the project since the very beginning, Inge de Vos. She represented the

governmental branch in many meetings and negotiations, and bridged the different policy levels of

the project. The province of South Holland was involved in most if not all of the project groups and

meetings, because it was one of the financial partners. The province also set up an advisory board

concerning the progress of the pilot, including the province’s own policymaker, a representative of

the authorities, a representative of Duijndam and a representative of the Friends of Biesland

association. De Vos’s close involvement as an official from the province made her a very valuable

source of information for insights into the design and negotiations on policy and the cooperation

with different levels of authorities in and around the pilot project.

The next stakeholder represents an association, namely the Friends of Biesland (Dutch: Vrienden van

Biesland) association, brought into existence to gain public support for the pilot on Hoeve Biesland

and to expand the project across the region. This association contributed significantly to the social

support and succeeded in its mission to spread the philosophy behind Farming for Nature across the

entire Biesland Polder. Two interviews were conducted with two separate chairpersons, one active

from the very start and the other one active later on. They were valuable sources to understand the

intensions of the association, how it was created and what its intended purpose was. The

(23)

23

chairpersons gave insight into the reasons and tactics used to gather the right people in and around

the pilot and how they were able to create an ever-expanding social support group, rooted in the

urban area surrounding the polder. As it represents a large part of the neighbouring and citizen

participation and because many of the interactive moments were organized by the ‘friends’, this

stakeholder cannot be ignored, yet its influence in the design and planning of the landscape

functions was minor compared to that of other stakeholders.

The last stakeholder that is afforded special attention is Frans Eijgenraam. He acted on behalf of the

meadow birds nesting in the Biesland Polder. This stakeholder is included in the research because he

represented an important value of the landscape and influenced the design and planning of the

farmland characteristics in the interests of the meadow bird populations. This representative did not

participate directly in official meetings and was less connected to the pilot than others stakeholders.

Notwithstanding, Eijgenraam has been monitoring and evaluating the bird count in this specific area

for a long time and was already a wellknown guest on the farm long before Farming for Nature was

introduced to Hoeve Biesland. The nature-inclusive character of the pilot immediately recognized the

value of these birds, which can be regarded as a indicator species for the health of the agroecological

ecosystem, and realized that they had a responsibility to include these fauna in their planning.

Therefore they needed the birdwatcher to participate in the project and he became a stakeholder

representing the meadow bird populations. Insights gathered from in-depth interviews added value

to the research, because they indicated the way in which all aspects were included and interactions

between the various stakeholders produced integrated outcomes. Also, Eijgenraam’s knowledge of

the area, the farm and the general state of affairs made his position one from which a clear overview

of developments could be attained.

(24)

24 Figure 5: IKEA on the thin border between Delft and the Biesland polder, picture by author (28-11-2018)

Figure 7: Biesland Polder, picture by author (04-12-2018) _{Figure 8: Biesland Upper Polder, picture by author (04-12-2018)}

Figure 6: Storks in front of the IKEA, picture by author (28-11-2018)

(25)

25 Figure 9: Cow Garden Hoeve Biesland, picture by author

(28-11-2018)

Figure 10: Cow Garden Hoeve Biesland, picture by author (04-12-2018)

(26)

Science facilitating society : participation and negotiation in multifunctional landscape production