Pioneering in Green Development: Knowledge in the Bottom-Up Social Network of the Oosterwold Pilot

PIONEERING IN GREEN DEVELOPMENT:

K

NOWLEDGE IN THE

B

OTTOM

-U

P

S

OCIAL

N

ETWORK OF THE

O

OSTERWOLD

P

ILOT

Nikki Nicolai, Tessa Wanders, Naomi Schrandt 30-05-2018

Table of Content

1. Abstract 3

2. The Oosterwold Project 4

3. Theoretical Framework 6

3.1 Knowledge: Availability of Knowledge 7 3.2 Knowledge: Ownership of Information 8

4. Methods & Data 10

4.1 Quantitative methods 11

4.2 Qualitative Methods 13

4.3 Research Criteria 14

4.4 Methodological Limitations 15

5. Results 17

5.1 Quantitative: Social Network Analysis 17

5.2 Qualitative: Thematic analysis 21

6. Integration 24

7. Conclusion & Recommendations 27

References 29

Appendix 31

1. Itemlist Key Informant (Projectmanager) 31 2. Itemlist Key Informant (Initiative takers) 33 3. Transcript Interview Stefan Poot (Projectmanager, 4th May, 2018) 35 4. Transcript Interview Tjalf Bloem (Initiativetaker; 7th May, 2018) 46 5. Transcript Interview Tom Saat (Initiativetaker; 7th May, 2018) 53 6. Transcript Interview Marien Abspoel (Initiativetaker; 7th May, 2018) 55

1. Abstract

This research aims to examine the role of knowledge in the bottom-up social network of the Oosterwold project. The focus is on the concept of knowledge: how is knowledge defined, how does knowledge flow through the community and what kind of knowledge is available in Oosterwold. The concept of knowledge will be examined in line with the 7th set principle “Oosterwold is Green”, which is part of 10 principle guidelines that are set up to stimulate the inhabitants of Oosterwold to work towards a green living and working environment. In order to do this, a mixed methods approach with both primary and secondary data is used. The quantitative data will be retrieved from social media site Facebook, and the qualitative data from Geographic Information System Mapping Technology (GIS) and four interviews with key informants. Combining quantitative and qualitative research creates the opportunity for a comprehensive analysis where information flows between the inhabitants of Oosterwold and the specifics of this information are reviewed, subsequently complementing each other. It was concluded that knowledge is mainly transferred through Facebook and face-to-face contact. The available knowledge is retrieved via pioneering, and little to none from books. From this information, a gap in knowledge can be identified, in accordance with the definition of knowledge that is used in this research. However, different philosophy’s about the motivation of the principles result in debating views about the necessity of knowledge to reach the 7th principle. Moreover, a major constraint for the inhabitants is the communication between them and other parties involved, like project developers or the municipality. Therefore, a communication platform is recommended where all the parties involved can communicate on the same level, as the communication between the inhabitants trough Facebook proved to be effective. Also, to overcome the knowledge gap, it is proposed to stimulate workshops that can be organized by inhabitants with specific knowledge about adding green qualities to their environment, in order to enhance the knowledge flow while at the same time preserving the bottom-up character.

2. The Oosterwold Project

In 2013 the Oosterwold Project started; a development project of 4363 hectares located in the municipality of Almere and Zeewolde (Lekkerkerker, 2016). This is a unique project in the Netherlands, as a bottom-up development strategy is used where initiatives takers can create their own houses and living environment. In the context of the so-called Crisis-en herstelwet (Chw), the Oosterwold Project is seen as an experiment where nothing about the area development is arranged beforehand, but is in the hands of the inhabitants (Oosterwold, n.d.). Thus, the inhabitants of Oosterwold are expected to work towards a green living and working environment. Ten principles are put in place by the two municipalities involved: Almere and Zeewolde. These are set up to create a common goal and an ambition to strive for (S. Poot, personal communication, May 4th, _{2018). The principles are divergent, from building} infrastructure to being self-sufficient by extracting water or energy from their own piece of land (Oosterwold, n.d.) In this research, the focus is on the 7th _{principle (Oosterwold is green). This principle} states that two thirds of the land in Oosterwold must be green and add ecological qualities to the area. This can be achieved in various ways, for example by agriculture, forest, or kitchen gardens. However, to cultivate the land, knowledge is necessary. Due to the bottom-up character of the project, knowledge is transferred differently compared to more traditional top-down communities, where the role of knowledge is usually restricted to policy makers and area developers. In Oosterwold, the knowledge flows are particularly interesting, since initiative takers with divergent backgrounds develop the area. Hence, the initiative takers are seen as the foundation for this project and form the social network of the Oosterwold Project, where knowledge is shared and transferred (Oosterwold, n.d.) The organization RUIMTEVOLK made an evaluation about the progress of the Oosterwold Project of the period 2013-2016 (Lekkerkerker, 2016). From this report it appears that there is still a lot of room for improvement concerning the completion of the 7th principle. This underlines the need to understand the role of knowledge and the possible barriers that might occur in achieving the 7th principle. To make a success of the project is not easy, because it is very complex. This is complexity is explained by using four aspects from Menken and Keenstra (2016). The first aspect is that a variety of stakeholders are present, and second all these stakeholders form an interconnected network. Thirdly, all the stakeholders are self-organizing. And finally, the stakeholders are non-linear, meaning that they are able to adapt to change or can learn. To eventually solve this complex problem, it is thus key to understand its

approach is constituted from contrasting disciplinary approaches that make use of different terminology, methods and perspectives on how to view the world, thus this could become an obstacle. Making use of two different integration techniques, namely redefinition and extension, it was tried to diminish these disciplinary contrasts. Redefinition leads to a common understanding, and in this research especially the concept of knowledge, which is divided into two dimensions, is put central. In these two dimensions the three disciplines (earth sciences, human geography and political sciences) are positioned. However, integration is also reached through the extension of this concept in the two dimensions. Earth sciences constitutes knowledge from information to reach the 7th set principle, political sciences does research on how this knowledge is transferred inside the bottom-up social network and human geography looks at the boundaries of this network concerning the knowledge flows and researches if key informants are already owners of this knowledge. Thus by the redefinition and extending of the concept of knowledge, a shared language and a common context has been created. An interdisciplinary approach is eminently suited to define how knowledge is perceived and transferred in Oosterwold. By using the interdisciplinary approach, the organisation of Oosterwold and the role of knowledge in light of this bottom-up character can be examined, without diminishing the significance of Oosterwold’s ideology. The aim of this research is to find out what role knowledge plays in the bottom-up social network of the Oosterwold project. This is done by proposing the following question: How is knowledge transferred and applied in the bottom-up social network of the Oosterwold project concerning the seven set principle: Oosterwold is green? This question is constituted from three sub questions: ‘What information is necessary to accomplish the 7th principle in Oosterwold?’, ‘Which information is available by the people in the Oosterwold project?’ and ‘How is information transferred in the social network of the Oosterwold project?’. The found answer cannot only be used to make a success out of Oosterwold, but also out of future projects. As Oosterwold is only a pilot, future attempts for bottom-up community development can learn from the shortcomings of Oosterwold. In this paper, the theoretical framework that is worked with is presented first. Secondly, the methods and data are introduced, followed by the found results from both the quantitative and the qualitative studies, subsequently integrated in the discussion. Finally, the research is concluded and subsequently the recommendations are given.

3. Theoretical Framework

The aim of this paper is to discover what role knowledge plays in the Oosterwold project. Therefore, this research examines what knowledge is necessary to achieve the 7th principle, to what extent this knowledge is available and how it is transferred among the initiative takers of Oosterwold. Knowledge is conceptualized into two dimensions: the first dimension being knowledge as information about the 7th principle, and the second dimension of knowledge is defined as the ownership of this information (who knows what and how is this transferred across the community). Knowledge, in the first dimension, is necessary to eventually reach the 7th principle, as presented in figure 1 below. As already mentioned in the introduction, the 7th principle is aiming to make Oosterwold green. This is explained as the goal to make two-thirds of the land green and add ecological qualities to the area (Oosterwold, n.d.). To achieve this, knowledge about the subject must be available. Hence, information about fertile soil is needed, which is a necessity for cultivating successfully. This is constituted from three natural science concepts: nutrients, internal drainage and soil organic matter. The second conceptualization of knowledge is about the level of ownership - of this information on the mentioned theories - in the bottom-up social network of the Oosterwold. The bottom-up social network is based upon the theories of a bottom-up approach and social networks. Before elaborating on these two theories, this section discusses the first dimension of knowledge.

3.1 Knowledge: Availability of Knowledge The abovementioned first dimension of knowledge is composed from three concepts. The information from this dimension is important to attain and eventually maintain a fertile soil, which is required for successful planting. A fertile soil is defined as soil that is suitable for farming and planting (FAO, n.d.). The particular concepts of nutrients, internal drainage and soil organic matter have been chosen, because they all influence either one or more aspects of the soil fertility. So, influenced by the soils’ ability to hold or release nutrients and the ability to withstand the negative influences of humans or natural impact (Lal, 2015). However, other variables are still at play, such as plant choice, even though they are not included in this research. According to Publieke dienstverlening op de kaart (PDOK), a digital geo-information platform of the Dutch National Government, the soil in Oosterwold is a chalk rich clay soil with soil type poldervaaggrond. According to the World Reference Base for Soil Recourses (WRB), this is also called a Fluvisol. The WRB system is used, because it is an international system and can be interpreted by people all over the world. These Fluvisols are relatively young soils, so the soil development is minimal (Wageningen Universiteit, n.d). Adding green to Oosterwold can be done in various ways, for example by agriculture, forests or kitchen gardens. Therefore, in this theoretical framework planting crops, plants or trees will be taken together and referred to as plants. Plants use nutrients to grow and thus a fertile soil is needed, which is why internal drainage of the soil is first discussed, as this is one of the causes of an infertile soil (Sadava, Hillis, Heller & Berenbaum, 2012). Internal drainage is a process where nutrients dissolve in water in the upper layer of the soil and then moved through the soil to deeper layers, where these nutrients become unavailable to plant roots (Sadava, Hillis, Heller & Berenbaum, 2012). The movement in the internal drainage is different in every soil texture. For example, the clayey soils of Oosterwold will hold water well, resulting in less internal drainage (Assouline & Or, 2014). This also means that, the fast loss of nutrients by water running, referred to as leaching, is less likely to occur (Sadava, Hillis, Heller & Berenbaum, 2012). This is favorable for the inhabitants of Oosterwold, as water with dissolved nutrients will not be leached, meaning that the nutrients stay available, which are important for plant growth (Sadava, Hillis, Heller & Berenbaum, 2012). A drawback of the clay soil is that it can cause a shortage of oxygen in the soil, caused by the fine texture of clay. The small texture leads to small pore space in the soil, leaving less room for oxygen. This can ultimately lead to a lower plant growth, because oxygen is an important nutrient for the plant. Consequently, this lack is unfavorable for making Oosterwold green (Sadava, Hillis, Heller & Berenbaum, 2012). To add air to the soil, the inhabitants could use ploughing as a technique. Ploughing could increase oxygen levels, and with that increase plant growth on the Oosterwold soil.

As mentioned above, the soil is relatively young, which means that the soil organic matter has not had the chance to develop. The function of soil organic matter is the release or holding of nutrients that plants need for their growth. Therefore, in this relatively young soil important nutrients could be missing (Lehmann & Kleber, 2015). To improve the nutrient levels of the soil, ploughing could also be used, as it increases the decomposition and accumulates organic matter in the soil. Subsequently, if human intervention is needed to add nutrients, there are several options for the inhabitants of Oosterwold. The most sustainable option is organic fertilizer, such as human or animal manure, because it can be used on a small scale and it is made from organic materials (Cornell University, 2008). When adding this organic fertilizer, it automatically adds to the soil organic matter. After adding, it is important to give the soil time to develop, as a developed soil contains the nutrients for plants to grow. This also relates to the internal drainage and leaching mentioned, because it means that the nutrients added by fertilizer or the organic matter development will not be lost and the soil has time to develop, which is favorable for the inhabitants of Oosterwold. To conclude, all these concepts represent knowledge in the first dimension for the 7th set principle in Oosterwold, because the concepts are interrelated to the fertility of the soil, which is necessary to make Oosterwold green. In addition, it is relevant to understand how this knowledge is transferred in the bottom-up social network of the inhabitants.

3.2 Knowledge: Ownership of Information

In this paragraph, the level of ownership of the abovementioned necessary information is described, in relation to the bottom-up social network of Oosterwold. The conceptualization of the bottom-up social network results from two theories: the bottom-up approach and the social network theory. Firstly, the social network theory is based upon the idea that every individual is embedded in a structure of social relations and interactions (Kadushin, 2012). Rand, Abersman & Christakis (2011) state that human populations are highly cooperative as well as being highly organized. Human interactions are not random but structured in social and dynamic networks. In general, networks are perceived as a set of relationships. To be more specific; a network consists out of a set of nodes or objects and a description of relations between those nodes or objects. The relationship between the two nodes is called an edge. Edges can be more than sharing some kind of attribute or being in the same place at the same time. It is possible that there is a flow between the two nodes, which may lead to an exchange (Kadushin, 2012). Argote & Ingram (2000) define knowledge flows as the process through which one network member is affected by the experience of another network member. One of the most important aspects of

about their direct contacts and consequently they are less aware what is going on in the global network. However, one of the biggest constraints is that the type and quality of information that is exchanged is not visible when conducting a social network analysis. The methods section elaborates further on this (Bruggeman, 2008). Secondly, a bottom-up approach is generally understood to mean a collective process whereby individuals united in a local social network can decide how they want to shape their own neighbourhood, by expressing their own ideas and priorities (Fischler, 2000; Brocklesby & Fisher, 2003). In the literature, it is argued that this approach of area development consists of participation, social structures, sharing of knowledge, initiatives that emerge out of actors from lower levels of the hierarchical structure and a gradual development to a desired neighbourhood (Fischler, 2000; Brocklesby & Fisher, 2003; Alverti et al., 2016; Lekkerkerker, 2016; Fraser et al., 2006). This in contrast to a top-down approach, which is distinctive for its hierarchical character of organization with a power-based structure, heavy governmental involvement and little scope for interference from the inhabitants (Lekkerkerker, 2016). With this in mind, the philosophy of the Oosterwold Project can be seen as typically bottom-up, since they believe that allowing the end-users of the social network, the inhabitants of Oosterwold, to experiment with their environment will eventually lead to an ideal neighbourhood as pursued by the residents, created through the exchange of their ideas, knowledge and ideals (Lekkerkerker, 2016). The knowledge flows will in this way lead to increased ownership of knowledge, which is inseparable from the bottom-up development. To conclude, it can be stated that the bottom-up character of Oosterwold creates a particular social network, where the exchange of information on a local level is pursued to build a living environment in accordance to the 7th principle. This puts the social network in a different perspective, as the knowledge flows regularly travel between direct contacts, now becomes a much more extensive path as the whole community is part of the network. Because of this different character of community development, it is interesting to analyze how the necessary information from the first dimension travels between the bottom-up social network, so as to find out how the bottom-up character influences the social network.

4. Methods & Data

This chapter will explain the methods that were used during this research. First, the choice to use a mixed-method approach is explained, followed with a detailed explanation of the quantitative and qualitative method. Then, the research criteria and subsequently the limitations will be discussed. In order to examine the research problem, a mixed-method approach is used. Ivankova et al., (2006) describes a mixed-methods approach as a procedure for collecting, analyzing and integrating both quantitative and qualitative data at some point in the research process within a single study aiming at better understanding the research problem. Because of the purpose of the mixed-methods and the interdisciplinary (thus broad) nature of this research, this approach is the most suitable in order give a sufficient answer to the research question. The rationale for mixing both methods is, that within one single study only qualitative or quantitative methods are insufficient in capturing trends and specific aspects of a situation. Combining both qualitative and quantitative methods, they complement each other by providing information about the quality of the exchanged knowledge in the network, subsequently allowing to take advantage of the strengths of each method, resulting in a more robust analysis. However, the mixed-methods approach has some shortcomings, such as the sequence of data collection, the prioritising of different types of data, and the integration of different data. Therefor, we briefly address them here. This research follows the mixed-methods sequential explanatory design, where first the quantitative data is collected and analyzed and thereafter the qualitative data. Therefore, the first stage of this research is quantitative; whereby quantitative data is collected and analyzed to structure the social network of the Oosterwold Project. In the second stage, the qualitative data builds on the results of the quantitative phase, and is used to gain more insights on the conclusions of the social network analysis, because the information that is given in the interviews can nuance or complement this. Specifically, the key informants can give information on the ownership of knowledge and how this flows throughout the community, which can subsequently be compared with the findings in the network analysis. For this reason, the qualitative data was prioritised. Subsequently, the two phases have their own results, but are connected throughout the data gathering and integrated in the discussion to answer the research question. Also, the visualization on the next page (figure 2) of the different concepts and stages proved to be necessary for our own conceptual purpose, and can also provide a better understanding to the potential readers.

Figure 2. Visual Model for Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design Procedures. Adapted from “Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice”, by Ivankova et al., 2006, Field Methods, 18(1), p. 16. Copyright 2006 by Sage Publications. 4.1 Quantitative methods In order to structure Oosterwold’s web of interactions, Gephi was used. This is a visualization tool, but is also capable to calculate certain aspects of the network, such as measures of centrality. Social network analysis is a quantitative method - and thus before the analysis could be conducted - data about the nodes and edges had to be gathered. First of all, the nodes were identified. Important to note that it is not in the range of the research to collect data about all the inhabitants and their (mutual) relationships. For that reason, Facebook pages - where the inhabitants of the Oosterwold Project make use of to keep in contact with one and another for

several reasons - were used as nodes. Chiu, Hsu & Wang (2006) acknowledges these virtual communities as online social networks in which people with the same interests, goals or practices communicate to share information and knowledge, and participate in social interactions. Secondly, the persons that are member of the Facebook sites are functioning as edges between the various groups. There can be assumed that information is flowing within the group resulting in the fact that it is more interesting to look at which members are functioning as an edge between the different sites and lead to knowledge exchange between the nodes (Kadushin, 2012). Thus, the first step in the social network analysis is that the nodes should be identified. To find those meeting points the key terms ‘Oosterwold’, ‘Project’ and ‘Almere’ have been used. This resulted into 9 sites. The Facebook page Almere Oosterwold is also mentioned in the Evaluation Report. In table 1 on the next page, all the sites and their aspects are given. Facebook sites with the purpose of a platform to buy and sell stuff are also included in this research. These sites may have a different content, but can also (unconsciously) function as a meeting point for inhabitants. To eventually analyse this network, a focus is put on certain aspects of it. In a social network it is possible that a number of nodes cluster together resulting in various communities. Gephi can identify and calculate the number of these groups. It is interesting to look at communities inside a network, because if a node (or maybe even community) is not connected to any of those communities it has a deflection in knowledge transfer (Bruggeman, 2008). Another important feature of the network is the centrality of the nodes. Centrality in network analysis is the quantification of the importance of an object within the graph relatively. In the analysis, betweenness centrality was used. This can be best explained as the number of shortest paths between any set of pair of node that runs through a particular node. As a result, betweenness centrality can be viewed as a measure of the extent to which a node can regulate information flowing between others (Daly & Haahr, 2007).

Table 1: Data about the social networking sites from Facebook 4.2 Qualitative Methods The first step in the qualitative methods part was to carry out a literature study from secondary data, in particular from scientific journals and the Oosterwold Evaluation. This has been done to answer the sub-question regarding the substantive meaning of knowledge that is relevant to cultivating food (Walliman, 2011). Subsequently, the conclusions found in the literature study have been used for the in-depth semi structured interviews with key informants to collect primary data (Bryman, 2012). Key informants are persons that have specific knowledge or particular involvement in a subject, and can be particularly valuable sources of information (van de Welle, 2017; Payne & Payne, 2004; Tremblay, 1957)1_{. In the case study, key informants were} sampled by using a purposive and snowball sampling strategy. The snowball strategy is a form of purposive sampling, which means that informants are chosen in a strategic way, instead of on a random basis (Bryman, 2012). The snowball strategy secures possible informants by asking already chosen informants for useful people to consult (Bryman, 2012). The first interviewee has recommended three other people with a significant role or knowledge of the project. These

people were all initiative takers with varying backgrounds. This sampling strategy has proven to be especially useful for our case study, since the study concerns a small community and because we research knowledge as a concept in particular. The people sampled are therefore directly relevant for the research question. The number of key informants necessary to gain sufficient data to draw conclusions depends on the data saturation, which poses a problem in qualitative research since there is no definite way to define data saturation (Bryman, 2012). Yet, Bryman (2012) argues that data saturation is reached if new data no longer suggest new insights or dimensions of theoretical categories. Moreover, the sample should not be so large that it becomes too difficult to organise the data. Considering these suggestions and the limited time, four interviews were conducted. As stated above, the interviews with key informants were semi-structured, meaning that a series of questions were asked in a general frame, but with the possibility to react on significant replies and ask further questions. This allowed keeping an open mind about the data that is expected, and instead letting concepts and theories emerge out of the data (Bryman, 2012). The questions of the semi-structured interviews were based on the data that was found in the literature study and the social network analysis, and were focussed on the knowledge and experience of the soil, the communication between the community and the perspective on the bottom-up approach. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim afterwards. Furthermore, a thematic analysis is used on the collected data, where themes were created to structure the data (Bryman, 2012). Using this type of analysis, the theories that are researched in the other disciplines can be acknowledged and ideas and experiences about these theories can be analysed. Themes that emerged are “Know-How & the 7th Principle”, “Ways of Communication” and “Constraints”, which will be detailly discussed in the qualitative analysis chapter. 4.3 Research Criteria To conduct a good research, certain criteria have to be upheld. The criteria that are important for this research are reliability, transferability, dependability and confirmability. This paragraph will briefly explain how these criteria are upheld. Reliability is important to determine the trustworthiness of the founded data, as it refers to the repeatability of the findings (Bryman, 2012). For the interviews, this is hard to say, as some opinions might be temporary because of recent positive or negative experiences. However, given the extensively documented conditions of the interviews (the persons, the item lists, the transcripts), the interviews could be taken more or less the same, so the outcomes will

likely be similar. For the network analysis the outcomes are likely to be the same, as the most central group is relatively big and the centrality is expected not to change in the nearby future. Secondly, the credibility (also called internal validity) of the research refers to the trustworthiness of the data. By beginning the interviews with open and objective questions, we tried to avoid steering for desirable answers. By subsequently crosschecking different opinion among the interviewees and summarizing the answers, we ruled different interpretations of the given data out. Also, in the interviews the findings of the social network analysis were checked, therewith contributing to the credibility of these findings. Thirdly, transferability (also called external validity) refers to the degree that the same kind of research can be done with similar projects (Bryman, 2012). By documenting our methods carefully and by providing all the findings of the interviews, we aimed to provide the necessary tools for other researchers to determine if our findings are applicable for their own case study in a different context. Lastly, confirmability is important to discuss, as this refers to the measure of objectivity in analyzing the results (Bryman, 2012). Therefore, the findings and concepts were discussed at every step of the research to secure conformity. This made sure that the interpretation of the data was the same among the researchers. Combining this with the methods described by credibility, subjectivity of interpretations was reduced as far as practicable. 4.4 Methodological Limitations Here, the most important limitations of the research are discussed. Firstly, the collection of the data is restricted, as the first dimension of knowledge constitutes of concepts focussed on the attainment and maintenance of a fertile soil, while other information might be needed to achieve the 7th principle. In addition, the second dimension of knowledge is limited as well, due to little time to execute interviews. Therefore, it was decided to do in-depth interviews with four key informants, to gather dense information in a limited amount of time. However, since not all inhabitants of Oosterwold were questioned, this restricts the generalization of the data. Also, during the interview with Tom Saat the recorder broke, resulting in a reconstruction of the core messages instead of a full transcript. This limited the usability of the interview, as some important information was lost. Secondly, the quantitative research focuses solely on Facebook, thereby excluding other social media sites in the analysis. For this reason, it is assumed that Facebook is the most important social media platform for data exchange and that the information shared on Facebook is indeed about the 7th principle. Also, by focussing on the virtual social network, people who do not own a Facebook account or do not have access to the Internet are excluded from the

analysis. This method therefore only maps the visible data and does not take invisible relations into consideration. The results of this analysis are therefore only applicable to the social network constituted from the selected Facebook sites. Moreover, the Facebook data does not show the activity of the members, and the quality of the knowledge flows. However, this gap is partly bridged by the information flowing from the interviews.

5. Results

5.1 Quantitative: Social Network Analysis

Making use of the data from Facebook, Gephi visualized the social network and also the characteristics of these nodes: the centrality. The overview of this network is pictured in figure 3 on page 19. In this figure the nodes are circles, while the edges are the lines between these nodes. The function of the colour of the nodes is to clarify which node to which Facebook group belongs. In the overview there are purple nodes with no label as well; these are the members of the groups that function as an edge. This was necessary, because if these persons were not converted to nodes functioning as an edge, the centrality of the Facebook group nodes could not be measured. In figure 4 on page 20, the simplified version of the social network of the Oosterwold Project is pictured: only the weight (how much persons are in both groups) of the edge is seen. Table 2 is a matrix of the number of people that form an edge between the different groups. Table 2. Matrix of the number of people that form an edge between the various groups. From the matrix and the two overviews it becomes clear that Samen Oosterwold and Maak Oosterwold - Forum voor initiatiefnemers are both not connected to the network. However, it should be noted that these findings are not surprising. In table 1 on page 13 it is clear that these groups have very little members, and therefore it is not strange that they are less connected: they have fewer persons who can function as an edge. From these findings, it could also be assumed that the Facebook groups Almere Oosterwold and Marktplaats Oosterwold are the best connected, while they have 393 mutual members. On the contrary, comparing these findings with the data from table 1 it appears that Almere Oosterwold and Bewoners van Oosterwold have

the best connection, because Bewoners van Oosterwold has 124 members and 116 of those members form an edge between the two Facebook groups. This also accounts for Almere Oosterwold and Ruilbeurs Almere Oosterwold, in which Ruilbeurs Almere Oosterwold has 137 members and 125 of them are members of both groups. Looking at the overall network, in figure 3. Gephi calculates that there are 5 communities within this network. However, from figure 4 it becomes clearer that there are 3 communities. The first community is the biggest and involves 5 Facebook groups. The two other communities are the 2 disconnected Facebook groups. In figure 3, the betweenness centrality is visualized as the largest node in the network. This appears to be Almere Oosterwold and this means that it is able to regulate the information flowing between the several nodes.

Figure 3. Overview of the social network of the Oosterwold Project.

5.2 Qualitative: Thematic analysis This section discusses three themes that have emerged from the interviews. The first theme is “Know-how & the 7th Principle”, where both the knowledge available and the opinions about the 7th _{principle will be analyzed. The following theme is “Ways of Communication”, which} outlines how the people in Oosterwold communicate with each other and how the bottom-up character is experienced. The last theme, “Constraints”, presents the most frequently mentioned problems in reaching the 7th _principle. Know-how & the 7th Principle The extent to which knowledge is available about the 7th principle in Oosterwold differs among the interviewees. The project manager (S. Poot, personal communication, May 4th, 2018) mentions that everyone involved knows about the principles, and while this is true to some extent, the other interviewees all mention different numbers or views about the 7th principle. Both T. Bloem (personal communication, May 7th, 2018) and T. Saat (personal communication, May 7th, 2018) do not immediately know what the 7th principle contains. Moreover, the opinions about the 7th principle vary, as T. Bloem and M. Abspoel (personal communication, May 7th, 2018) believe that everyone should have the freedom to apply the 7th principle according to their own wishes, signifying a “live and let live” philosophy. This comes from the strong believe that the people that sign up for the project are inherently interested in green living. This in contrast with T. Saat (2018), as he explicitly mentions that people are interested in Oosterwold for the cheap ground and have no ambition to do something with greening their plot, beside the minimalist efforts to accomplish the norms of the project. Perhaps this follows from his believe that the 7th principle is meaningless because it is not sufficiently defined. Similarly, S. Poot (2018) is critical about the 7th principle, stating that the green principle is quantitatively defined instead of qualitative, which can lead to minimum effort to do something with greening the lot. Nevertheless, the people we spoke with are all actively trying to green their lot in their own way. T. Saat (2018), the city farmer, has a big lot of 40 hectares that he uses for agriculture. T. Bloem (2018), a resident, is creating a public park, a vegetable garden and a paddock. M. Abspoel (2018), also a resident, creates a food forest, which is a long-term process with successive stages of vegetations. From these interviews, it is clear that everyone applies the 7th principle in his or her very own manner. Moreover, it appears that the knowledge that the interviewees use to execute their green wishes, comes from what they call “pioneering”; just doing the things and learning along the way instead of reading books (M. Abspoel, 2018; T. Bloem, 2018; S. Poot, 2018). Subsequently, the things they have learned in practice are shared within the community.

Ways of Communication Overall, the interviewed inhabitants of Oosterwold seem to be satisfied with the communication within the community. As T. Bloem (2018) mentions, the bottom-up communication between inhabitants is going well, sometimes with the necessary fights, but that is part of the deal to eventually work out what is best for the community. He also says that the inhabitants tend to buy land nearby like-minded people, which also makes mutual communication easier. Moreover, the inhabitants communicate through both Facebook and face-to-face contact (M. Abspoel 2018; T. Bloem, 2018; S. Poot, 2018). Also, every initiative taker has to join the lot road association from their area, but the subjects discussed there are very general and the decision-making is hard because of the involvement of many different interests and no mandate to make a decision (T. Bloem, 2018; S. Poot, 2018). The most effective way of communication seems to be Facebook, where almost halve of the community members unite to ask and answer questions, also about the implementation of the 7th principle (T. Bloem, 2018). However, the current problem of this medium is that people that are involved for a longer period of time get tired of the repetition of the questions by new members, and withdrawal from answering, therefore stopping the information flow (T. Bloem, 2016). Furthermore, new initiatives from the community members are rising to enhance the exchange of information; from M. Abspoel (2018) who organizes workshops on how to green your lot, to T. Bloem (2018) who mentions a plan of an interactive learning platform to exchange information. This shows that people are willing to make the pilot succeed by working together, they do however experience some constraints in reaching the 7th principle. Constraints The two most frequently mentioned constraints in the interviews concerned the role of law and legislation and the communication between the inhabitants and companies and project developers involved in Oosterwold. The inhabitants surprisingly perceived a lack of knowledge not as a problem, as mentioned earlier that the communication of pioneering results is experienced as sufficient. Instead, both inhabitants told that they have had negative encounters with the municipality of Almere when realising part of their green initiatives (M. Abspoel, 2018; T. Bloem, 2018). For example, T. Bloem (2018) wanted to build a pond, filed for a permit by water authority that was approved, but was then addressed by the municipality that a permit needed to be filed by them as well. As a result, T. Bloem (2018) had to stop his project, as he mentions that the necessary permit costs 6300 euros and could only be filed by a company, showing that the municipality is not anticipated on this type of private area development. On the same note, S.

municipality, as some argue that there is a strict division between what is allowed and what not, while others say that part of bottom-up development is that law and legislation cannot be handled similarly as with top-down development and should be more flexible (M. Abspoel, 2018). So, this pilot shows that the role of the municipality is not demarcated well and not (yet) fully anticipated on these kinds of projects, resulting in problems for the inhabitants to reach the 7th principle. Lastly, while the communication between the inhabitants of the community seems to be going well, the communication with the involved companies (such as Staatsbosbeheer) and project developers is laboriously. As T. Bloem (2018) mentions, the people that move in houses designed by project developers are not really involved in the bottom-up process, and are therefore hard to make contact with. For this reason, they mostly don’t share the same ambitions to green their lot, and are in that way more similar to the people that T. Saat (2018) criticized for not being ambitious. Similarly, the companies involved in Oosterwold are criticized by the interviewees for making communication difficult (T. Bloem, 2018; M. Abspoel, 2018). T. Bloem (2018) suspects for example that Staatsbosbeheer has different rules to follow than the inhabitants, made on a higher scale, and therefore the companies do not feel the need to discuss strategy with the inhabitants. On the same note, M. Abspoel (2018) mentions that Staatsbosbeheer does not have the manpower, money or time to communicate on such a low scale with the inhabitants, and since they have different ambitions and are not obliged to be a member in a lot road association, this results in difficulties in communication. In the end, as M. Abspoel (2018) says, the companies have ambition to execute initiatives, but eventually it all comes down to bureaucratic difficulties; the same constraint that the inhabitants themselves experience.

6. Integration

This paper researched how information is transferred and applied in the bottom-up social network. From the social network analysis it becomes clear that the most central node in the network is Almere Oosterwold, resulting in the fact that this group has the greatest influence on the information flowing from one node to another. If the number of ties are compared to the number of members, than it seems that “Bewoners of Oosterwold” is best connected to “Almere Oosterwold” and “Marktplaats Oosterwold”. However, the interviewed residents see a trend where the first round of initiative takers are leaving the main Facebook group (Almere Oosterwold), because they get tired of the repetition of questions that are asked. This might lead to the “hollowing out” of the Facebook group in terms of information. From the interviews also emerged that Facebook is indeed the most used tool for knowledge exchange: in these groups people are able to ask questions about their green and how this should be maintained. Inhabitants that hold specialist knowledge answer to other residents with this information. In addition to this exchange in knowledge through Facebook groups, face-to-face contact is also very common inside the social network. Consequently, knowledge is transferred both inside the Facebook social network and in the real bottom-up social network as well. The knowledge to green Oosterwold is mainly based on pioneering, instead of acquiring information via books (S. Poot, 2018; M. Abspoel, 2018; T. Bloem, 2018). The most common method for making land green is the trial and error approach - learning by doing and see if this works - and in this way knowledge is gathered about the fertility of the soil and which crops or trees can grow on that land (T. Bloem, 2018; S. Poot, 2018). The city farmer perceives this differently as he mentioned that people do acquire knowledge from books, but most of the time the information is not applicable to the principle (T. Saat, 2018). The pioneering knowledge is eventually shared in the social network. Thus, the information within the network flows relatively easily, however, the communication with companies and public institutions, such as Staatsbosbeheer, and project developers that are involved in the project are perceived as a major constraint (T. Bloem, 2018; M. Abspoel, 2018). The interviewed residents mentioned that these companies and project developers have different rules to attend to, and are used to top-down communication, making it hard to communicate with them and collaborate in achieving a shared goal. The inhabitants also perceive a conflict between their initiatives and law & legislation, resulting in constant restrictions in developing their green initiatives, therewith not reaching the 7th _princple.

Moreover, it seems that a part of the inhabitants of Oosterwold hire external specialist with knowledge about maintaining the soil, to add green qualities to their lot in accordance with the 7th Principle (T. Bloem, 2018; T. Saat, 2018). This means, that there is no information exchange between the experts and the residents, as the greening is outsourced. From this, a division between “ambitious” inhabitants that bought land themselves and “passive” inhabitants that bought a house via project developers might be recognized (S. Poot, 2018; T. Bloem, 2018). It is however an assumption that the house-buyers can be categorized as the group that hire the external specialist to fulfill the requirements of the 7th principle. If this is indeed the case, it might be a significant barrier for realising the 7th principle, but further research on this is necessary. Has this led to a lack of knowledge to achieve the 7th set principle? As explained in the theoretical framework, the concept of knowledge was centered on fertile soil. From the interviews it became clear that the soil in Oosterwold is extremely fertile and initiative takers are aware of this when buying their land. (S. Poot, 2018). Inhabitants have to hand in a destination plan that describes how they are going to divide their area and also the future amount of green, before they are qualified to buy a lot. This means that the inhabitants must have researched the principles, however, according to an interviewee the plans are often not executed as they were planned (T. Saat, 2018; S. Poot, 2018). When comparing the concepts defined in the first dimension (nutrients, internal drainage and soil organic matter) with the interviews, it becomes clear that this specific knowledge is not present. The inhabitants do not feel the lack of knowledge as a constraint, because it does not comply with their live and let live philosophy. Pioneering will not provide knowledge about the mentioned concepts, but perhaps more valuable knowledge about planting specifically for their lot can be learned from pioneering. Subsequently, the inhabitants are aware that there are generations of plants and that planting takes time (Marien Abspoel, 2018). The inhabitants take this time, as this concerns their home and Oosterwold is a long-term project. At last, it is important to understand the motivation between the principles that were set-up when starting this project. Among the interviewees, the goal of the principles was not always clear. If on the one hand the principles are set in place as guidelines for the project, but are not hard requirements, than the “live and let live” philosophy of the inhabitants and the division between more ambitious or passive initiative takers does not have to be a problem as it is up to the community to prioritize their ambitions. On the same not, it can also be stated that in this case the inhabitants do not necessarily need the knowledge as we have defined in the first dimension. If on the other hand the principles are indeed hard requirements, then the lack of knowledge poses a serious problem as this restricts the application of the green qualities. As S. Poot (2018) has mentioned, it is important to regularly reflect on the philosophy of the

project as this might change in time, but since this is currently not happening it might have resulted in the fact that the application of the 7th principle is now subject to vagueness, and therefore not likely to be reached.

7. Conclusion & Recommendations

This research examined how knowledge is transferred and applied in the bottom-up social network of the Oosterwold Project concerning the 7th set principle: Oosterwold is green. It appears that Facebook and face-to-face contact are the most common ways for interacting and communicating between inhabitants. In the Facebook network Almere Oosterwold is the most central node meaning that it is able to control the information flowing from one group to others. However, the inhabitants see a trend in the fact that the eldest initiative takers are leaving the main Facebookgroup (Almere Oosterwold), which might lead to the “hollowing out” of the Facebookgroup in terms of information. The knowledge defined by three concepts in the first dimension of the theoretical framework was not necessarily needed for the 7th set principle and was not present by the inhabitants of Oosterwold. This is concluded from the fact that the knowledge that is acquired and eventually applied by the inhabitants is obtained by pioneering. So, they obtain their knowledge by trying instead of reading books, thus a knowledge gap might appear between what the inhabitants should know to add green qualities, and their level of ownership of this knowledge. If their mindset and subsequently the level of ownership of knowledge is a problem, strongly depends on the motivation of the principles. In addition, the initiative takers do not perceive this ‘gap’ as a constraint. However, they do notice that there are conflicts between their initiatives and laws and regulations, and feel that this limits the development of their green ambitions. Moreover, they perceive the communication with companies, public institutions and project developers as complicated, as they seem to have different rules to attend to and are used to top-down communication, making it hard to collaborate with them to achieve a shared goal. To conclude, knowledge is overall transferred and applied in the bottom-up social network. However, there are some constraints and this research therefore proposes several recommendations. To preserve the quality of the knowledge and to stimulate the information flows even more it is recommended to provide a budget to capable inhabitants, such as Marien Abspoel, to keep organising workshops. This budget does not need to be large, but just covering the material needed for a workshop. Thereby preserving the bottom-up character in Oosterwold by the inhabitants. In the past, similar events were organised by inhabitants, which were positively received and simulated others to actively do something with the greening of their lot. The second recommendation is to set up a platform so that inhabitants and other public/private actors can communicate more easily. Facebook has proven to work among the residents, so perhaps this network can be extended with other involved parties. This could limit the communication constraint between inhabitants and other parties, as they can communicate on the same level while reaching all involved parties. Lastly, we urge the munincipalities to

regularly reflect on their ambitions for the pilot with the initiativetakers, to prevent that the knowledge gap results in the unfeasibility of the 7th _principle.

References

Alverti, M., Hadjimitsis, D., Kyriakidis, P., & Serraos, K. (2016). Smart city planning from a bottom-up approach: Local communities' intervention for a smarter urban environment. Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering, 9688, 1-12. doi:10.1117/12.2240762 Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 82(1), 150-169. Brocklesby, M., & Fisher, E. (2003). Community development in sustainable livelihoods approaches – an introduction. Community Development Journal, 38(3), 185-198. Bruggeman, J. (2008). Social Networks: an introduction. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press Cornell University (2008) Soil organic matter. Retrieved on 11th of march, 2018 from http://franklin.cce.cornell.edu/resources/soil-organic-matter-fact-sheet Daly, E. M., & Haahr, M. (2007). Social network analysis for routing in disconnected delay-tolerant MANETs. Presented on the Proceedings of the 8th ACM international symposium on Mobile ad hoc networking and computing. Montreal, Canada. DOI 10.1145/1288107.1288113 FAO (n.d.) Preface. Retrieved on 11th of march, 2018 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0100e/a0100e02.htm Fischler, F. (2000). Chapter IV - The Bottom-Up Approach. In F. Fischler (Ed.), LEADER and the European Rural Model (pp. 1-22). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leader2/dossier_p/en/dossier/chap4.pdf Hirschi, C. (2010). Introduction: Applications of social network analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 4, 2-3. Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts, and Findings. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Lal, R. (2015) Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation, Sustainability 7(5) p. 5875-5895 Lehmann, J. & Kleber, M. (2015) The contentious nature of soil organic matter, Nature, 528 p. 60-68 Lekkerkerker, J. (2017). Van inspiratie naar realisatie Evaluatie Oosterwold. Retrieved from http://maakoosterwold.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Evaluatie-Oosterwold-2013-2016.pdf Menken, S. & Keestra, M. (2016) An introduction to interdisciplinary research; theory and practice. Oldeman, L.R., Hakkeling, R.T.A. & Stombroek, W.G. (1991) world map of the status of human-induced soil degradation. Global Assessment of soil degradation. Oosterwold Project (n.d.). Retrieved from http://maakoosterwold.nl

Payne, G., & Payne, J. (2004). Key Concepts in Social Researchw. doi:10.4135/9781849209397.n28 Serrat, O. (2017). Knowledge solutions. DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_9 Scott, J., & Stokman, F.N. (2015). Social Networks. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 15, 10509-10514 Sadava, D., Hillis, D.M., Heller, H.C., & Berenbaum, M.R. (2012) Life: the science of biology. 10th _edition. Tremblay, M. (1957). The Key Informant Technique: A Nonethnographic Application. American Anthropologist, 59(4), 688-701. doi:10.1525/aa.1957.59.4.02a00100 Walliman, N. (2011). Research Methods: the Basics. Retrieved from https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/2317618/mod_resource/content/1/BLOCO%202_Research% 20Methods%20The%20Basics.pdf van der Welle, I. (2017, May 4th). Sleutelfiguren [College Slides]. Retrieved from https://blackboard.uva.nl/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_211194_1&content_ id=_6478489_1&mode=reset WUR (n.d) Poldervaaggronden. Retrieved on 11th of march, 2018 from http://www.bodemenwater.wur.nl/inleidingbodem/leertekst/tekst/Hoofdstuk_03/03_12_01_Poldervaa ggronden.htm

Appendix

1. Itemlist Key Informant (Projectmanager)

Ik ben Naomi en dit zijn Tess en Nikki. Voor onze opleiding Future Planet Studies doen wij een eindproject waarbij we kennisoverdracht in Oosterwold onderzoeken. Hierbij zijn we met name geïnteresseerd in de kennis over het verbouwen van gewassen, maar ook andere manieren van bodemgebruik. Zo kijken we met name naar het zevende principe: Oosterwold is Groen. We hebben alle drie een andere discipline, zo ben ik bezig geweest met Sociale Geografie, Nikki met

Politicologie en Tess met Aardwetenschappen. Deze drie specialisaties combineren we om verschillende onderdelen van het concept kennis te bekijken.

Om meer over kennis in Oosterwold te weten te komen, nemen we dit interview met u af. De bedoeling is dat wij via het stellen van vragen u uitnodigen om zo uitvoerig mogelijk te antwoorden. Dit gesprek willen wij graag opnemen, zodat we het later nog eens na kunnen luisteren. Gaat u hiermee akkoord?

(Interviewer : schakel de opname apparatuur in)

Voordat ik begin wil ik u vragen iets meer over uzelf te vertellen. (geslacht/leeftijd/opleiding of werk)

PERSOONLIJKE ERVARINGEN OOSTERWOLD

1) Hoe heeft u het ervaren om projectmanager van Oosterwold te zijn geweest? 2) Wat voor contact had u met de bewoners of investeerders?

a) Bottom-up en Top-down community als projectmanager b) Inmengen of Aanschouwen

c) Frequentie (maandelijks - dagelijks) d) Op welke manier (meetings - persoonlijk) e) Zijn er barrières ervaren

f) wat ging juist goed?

3) Hoe heeft u het bottom-up karakter van Oosterwold ervaren? (als dit nog niet ter sprake is gekomen)

BESCHIKBAARHEID VAN TECHNISCHE KENNIS 1) Hoe zien de bodems van Oosterwold eruit?

a) Vruchtbaarheid b) Type bodem

c) Wordt er al veel verbouwd

d) Waar heeft u deze kennis vandaan

2) Hoe worden de bodems in Oosterwold ervaren?

a) Problemen met de bodems? b) Aanwezige Plantensoorten

3) Wat weet u over het zevende principe: “Oosterwold is Groen”?

a) Uitvoering ervan b) Haalbaarheid

c) Veranderd door de tijd? d) Hoe wordt dit gecontroleerd?

4) Waar halen de bewoners hun kennis over het bewerken van de bodems vandaan?

a) Eisen aan bewoners

b) Verschilt de kennis per persoon c) Welke kennis is beschikbaar

d) Is er een orgaan in het project dat hierin voorziet e) Aan wie kunnen er vragen gesteld worden hierover f) Bijeenkomsten

NETWERKEN EN KENNISOVERDRACHT

1) Hoe denkt u over de aanwezigheid van kennis in Oosterwold met betrekking tot het zevende principe?

a) Zijn mensen voldoende op de hoogte van de principes b) Weten mensen hoe ze de principes uit moeten voeren

c) Zijn hier problemen mee of juist niet? Wat kan er verbeterd worden? Wat gaat er goed?

2) Hoe wordt kennis gedeeld in Oosterwold?

a) Bijeenkomsten

b) Welke media wordt gebruikt c) Frequentie

d) Door wie / betrokkenen e) Vallen er mensen buiten f) Doet iedereen mee?

3) Hoe wordt de uitwisseling van kennis ervaren?

a) Gebrek aan kennis / overvloed aan kennis b) Implementatie ervan

c) Frequentie

d) Barrières en pluspunten

SLOT

1) Het zevende principe in acht nemend, wat zou u anders doen als in de toekomst een soortgelijk project wordt gelanceerd?

2) Heeft u nog aanvullende opmerkingen?

2. Itemlist Key Informant (Initiative takers)

Ik ben Naomi en dit zijn Tess en Nikki. Voor onze opleiding Future Planet Studies doen wij een eindproject waarbij we kennisoverdracht in Oosterwold onderzoeken. Hierbij zijn we met name geïnteresseerd in de kennis over het verbouwen van gewassen, maar ook andere manieren van bodemgebruik. Zo kijken we met name naar het zevende principe: Oosterwold is Groen. We hebben alle drie een andere discipline, zo ben ik bezig geweest met Sociale Geografie, Nikki met

Politicologie en Tess met Aardwetenschappen. Deze drie specialisaties combineren we om

verschillende onderdelen van het concept kennis te bekijken, en hoe hierover gecommuniceerd wordt binnen de community.

Om meer over kennis in Oosterwold te weten te komen, nemen we dit interview met u af. De bedoeling is dat wij via het stellen van vragen u uitnodigen om zo uitvoerig mogelijk te antwoorden. Dit gesprek willen wij graag opnemen, zodat we het later nog eens na kunnen luisteren. Gaat u hiermee akkoord?

(Interviewer : schakel de opname apparatuur in)

Voordat ik begin wil ik u vragen iets meer over uzelf te vertellen. (geslacht/leeftijd/opleiding of werk)

PERSOONLIJKE ERVARINGEN OOSTERWOLD

1) Hoe ervaart u het om onderdeel uit te maken van het Oosterwold Project?

a) Wat doet u ermee (wat meer over werk/rol vertellen)

2) Wat vindt u van het 7e Principe van Oosterwold?

a) In hoeverre bent u op de hoogte van het 7e principe? b) Hoe implementeert u dit zelf?

c) Hoe kijkt u naar de principes?

d) Hoe vindt u dat de community hiermee omgaat?

3) Hoe heeft u het bottom-up karakter van Oosterwold ervaren? (Dat wil zeggen; het zelf kunnen nemen van initiatieven in de opbouw van de leefomgeving)

a) Hoe denkt u over de schaal waarop Oosterwold wordt uitgevoerd? b) Wat gaat goed, en wat is lastiger?

c) Hoe wordt ervoor gezorgd dat het 7e principe wordt gerealiseerd?

NETWERKEN EN KENNISOVERDRACHT

1) Hoe denkt u over de aanwezigheid van kennis in Oosterwold met betrekking tot het zevende principe?

a) Zijn mensen voldoende op de hoogte van de principes b) Weten mensen hoe ze de principes uit moeten voeren

c) Zijn hier problemen mee of juist niet? Wat kan er verbeterd worden? Wat gaat er goed?

2) Hoe wordt kennis gedeeld in Oosterwold?

b) Welke media wordt gebruikt c) Frequentie

d) Door wie / betrokkenen e) Vallen er mensen buiten f) Doet iedereen mee?

3) Hoe wordt de uitwisseling van kennis ervaren?

a) Gebrek aan kennis / overvloed aan kennis b) Implementatie ervan

c) Frequentie

d) Barrières en pluspunten

SLOT

1) Het zevende principe in acht nemend, wat zou u anders doen als in de toekomst een soortgelijk project wordt gelanceerd?

2) Heeft u nog aanvullende opmerkingen?

Hartelijk bedankt voor uw deelname aan ons onderzoek.

3. Transcript Interview Stefan Poot (Projectmanager, 4th May, 2018)

Wij zijn erg geïnteresseerd in hoeverre de bewoners van Oosterwold weten hoe ze het 7e principe moeten bereiken, welke obstakels komen ze tegen en welke dingen gaan er juist wel goed. Dit is voor ons interessant omdat Oosterwold natuurlijk een bottom-up karakter heeft, en wij zijn erg benieuwd hoe dat ervaren wordt. Hoe heeft u het ervaren om projectmanager van Oosterwold te zijn geweest?

Ik werk er zelf nu niet meer, ik deed dat tot een week of drie geleden maar nu neemt een collega mij over. Ik was met name uitvoeringsgericht, en eigenlijk ook heel veel dingen die niet zozeer met de gebiedsontwikkeling te maken hadden. Ik hield me bezig met interne dingen, maar ook met discussies rondom geluid etcetera. Maar ik weet wel heel veel van allerlei afdelingen, dus volgens mij kan ik heel veel vragen beantwoorden.

Het is natuurlijk bijzonder om als projectmanager te werken in een gebied dat door de mensen zelf ontwikkeld wordt.. Welke rol neem je dan aan als projectmanager?

Het principe is, je doet als overheid zo weinig mogelijk. Dat is niet helemaal zo alleen je rol, taak en verantwoordelijkheid als overheid verdwijnt. Waar je eerst een grootstedelijk bouwkundig plan maakt en wordt bedacht, zoals hoe hoog iets mag zijn, hoeveel woningen moeten erin, hoe gaan we de openbare ruimte inrichten, en daarom zeggen ze dat bij de gebiedsontwikkeling van Oosterwold de keten als het ware omgedraaid wordt, “we gaan het niet allemaal verzinnen, maar we hebben groffe lijnen gemaakt dat er ongeveer 15000 woningen komen”, iedereen mag zijn eigen kavelvorm kiezen, type woning als dat een bedrijfswoning wordt dan is dat ook goed, en wil je meer een boerderij erop dan mag je hem zelf ontwerpen. Dat zijn die tien principes die vrij in te vullen zijn, en groen is er daar een van. Als overheid, stuur je dus eigenlijk op de principes, en niet zozeer de snelheid waarmee de woningbouwproductie voortgaat. Dus ja, wat zijn mijn ervaringen: leuk! Het is anders, je gaat ook anders naar je rol kijken, waar je normaal gewend bent om alles in een plan vast te leggen, dat heb je hier dus helemaal niet. Dus je rol, je taak en je verantwoordelijkheden die zijn heel anders, omdat het ook op een ander tijdstip en in een ander ritme gaat. Ik heb het als buitengewoon leerzaam en interessant ervaren, en je komt ook dingen tegen waarvan je denkt “goh ja, daar heb ik voorheen helemaal niet zo tegenaan gekeken dat het ook zo kan, heel erg creatief en inventief””.

U lijkt er wel heel positief over!

Over Oosterwold? Ja, ik ben over de gebiedsontwikkeling en het doel die het heeft heel positief. Maar natuurlijk heb ik tijdens het proces ook ervaringen die minder zijn, en dat gaat dan met name over dat je niet alles over kan laten aan initiatiefnemers. Die zoektocht maak je met z’n allen door. Het is eigenlijk als je derde huis bouwen: het eerste huis denk je van “god oh god dat gaan we zo en zo doen”, en dan is het klaar en dan denk je “als ik dat had geweten had ik het toch anders gedaan”. Het tweede huis ga je ook weer dat en dat doen en dan denk je “oh wacht even”. Bij het derde huis heb je een beetje hoe je het hebben wilt, en die volgorde zit hier ook een beetje in die pilot natuurlijk. Op een gegeven moment ga je dingen wijzigen, de spelregels aanpassen, dus dat is continue kijken en ook naar jezelf van “hey, wat zijn we eigenlijk aan het doen?” en of dat nog binnen je filosofie past, en zo niet dan moet je het erover hebben. Dan is het makkelijk om terug te vallen in je traditionele rol van “nou gaan we even dit doen”, en dat is lastig want dat zouden hier niet doen, en dat punt is ook lastig gebleken.

Hoe ziet dat proces er een beetje uit? Hoe is de hiërarchie en wie levert de informatie aan?

Als je kijkt naar echt de samenwerking met de initiatiefnemers: je hebt een bestuurlijk overleg Oosterwold, daarin zit de bestuurlijke vertegenwoordiging van de partijen die

Oosterwold heeft zoals de wethouder van Gemeente Zeewolde de wethouder, ook Gemeente Almere heeft een wethouder, en van sommige betrokken bedrijven zit er een afdelingshoofd of directeur bij. Daartegenover heb je de ambtelijke vertegenwoordiging, daarbij zit de gebiedsregisseur, en die is verantwoordelijk voor het redden en zeilen van de uitvoering van de gehele organisatie, en ik was als projectmanager onder haar

verantwoordelijk voor het deel rondom de koopovereenkomst, alle dingen in de uitvoering als het ging om vragen over de wegen die aangelegd moesten worden. Maar, aan de voorkant heb je natuurlijk wel overleggen dus dan gingen we allemaal naar een

informatiebijeenkomst, kregen ze uit eerste hand van de gebiedsregisseur informatie over wat Oosterwold precies is, waar je rekening mee moet houden en hoe werkt het, en hoe ziet het vervolgproces eruit. Maar een van de dingen die uit de evaluatie kwam was ook wel dat je bij Oosterwold op gezette tijden moet reflecteren, niet alleen naar jezelf maar ook met de betrokken mensen. Een van de dingen die tot nu toe misschien minder aan bod kwamen, moet er toch even worden teruggekoppeld van hoe ervaren mensen dat. Als er iets niet naar wens gaat of het gaat niet goed, dan hoor je dat wel, maar de dingen die wel goed gaan daar hebben mensen het vaak niet over. Het is daarom ook moeilijk te peilen hoe die verhouding nou eigenlijk is, maar in zo’n pilot waar echt alles anders is en dat daar dingen niet goed gaan en we dingen moeten leren, is evident. Dat weet elke initiatiefnemer, en elke initiatiefnemer loopt weer tegen bepaalde problemen aan, en al die initiatiefnemers

communiceren ook met elkaar dus iemand die iets al eerder meegemaakt heeft brengt dat onderling wel weer over naar de mensen zelf. En dat is ook het principe van Oosterwold; zelf je informatie vergaren, zelf met je buren overleggen welke problemen je nou eigenlijk tegen komt. Er zijn natuurlijk problemen waar iedereen tegenaan loopt, en daar probeer je in je informatievoorziening dan wel rekening mee te houden, maar als iemand een probleem heeft met het omgaan met de stadslandbouw, hoe je iets moet verbouwen en hoe ga je met de grondkwaliteit om, dan is dat hun dingetje waar wij ons niet mee bemoeien. Maar een discussiepunt rondom geluid bijvoorbeeld, hoe je daar rekening mee moet houden, wat een heel belangrijk punt is geworden in Oosterwold, daar moet je als de overheid wel wat mee want dat betreft de wet en regelgeving en vergunningverlening. Dan kan je wel zeggen, zoek het allemaal maar uit, maar in wezen zit daar een strikte scheiding. Je hebt altijd als

overheid nog je wettelijke taken en daarmee zal je moeilijkheden houden, maar alle overige dingen zou in principe aan alle initiatiefnemers overgelaten worden.

Om nog even terug te komen op het bottom-up karakter van Oosterwold: als ik het goed begrijp was het een moeilijkheid om op sommige momenten je plek als projectmanager te vinden, vooral als het mis ging. Dat de balans tussen de dingen zelf oplossen en het overlaten aan de bewoners soms moeilijk te vinden is. Kan u nog wat vertellen over andere dingen waar u tegenaan bent gelopen, of juist bijzonder goed gingen, dankzij de bottom-up manier van ontwikkelen?

Jeetje dat is een brede vraag. Ik durf wel te zeggen dat deze manier van

gebiedsontwikkeling kan, en dat het werkt, en je ziet dat mensen in staat zijn om naast hun woning ook hun leefomgeving in te richten, en om dat met elkaar te doen. Belangrijke dingen waar we tegenaan gelopen zijn is dat het schaalniveau waarop je zoiets doet wel bepalend is. Stel nou, je koopt een kaveltje met vijf mensen, en je wilt allemaal een huis bouwen, dan komen we er nog wel uit. We zouden dan samen een kavelweg vereniging oprichten, en ik