values and meanings of nature of the urban green
environments of Amsterdam.
Javier Koole, 10444599: University of Amsterdam
E-mail: javier.koole@hotmail.com
Programme: General Sociology
First reader: Adeola Enigbokan
Second reader: Thea Dukes
Date: 9 July 2018
Foreword
All forces of nature are interlaced and interwoven
how organic and inorganic nature interacted.
Man needs to strive for ‘the good and the great’,
‘the rest depends on destiny’
(Alexander von Humbold cited in Wulf 2016:45)
It was June 1802 when Alexander von Humboldt climbed the inactive volcano the Chimborazo. He began to see the world differently as he stood upon the top of this mountain or better said on the top of the world looking down upon the mountain ranges. It led him to conceive a bold vision on nature that was never envisioned before during his time. A concept of nature where everything is connected,
interlaced and interwoven like a ‘web of life’. His concept of nature still holds today and is something to be cherished as it demonstrates the fragilities this beautiful earth contains. Von Humboldt’s adventures inspired me to do my sociological research on nature. But what does sociology have to do with nature? This question guided me to do my research at allotment garden park Nieuw Vredelust. When Leo Douw answered that: “this should not be lost” when an interviewer asked about his feelings concerning the plans of the municipality of Amsterdam and Ouder-Amstel to remove this allotment garden park, I knew nature has a unique value, something often neglected. Therefore, I started my journey to research at this allotment garden park where I asked what ‘nature’ is and for whom and a quest began where
I examined the values of nature for people.
My 5 years of studying sociology at the University of Amsterdam brought me great experiences and a great desire to learn more about the social realities wherein we live. This study introduced me to so many inspiring professors and friends that I will never forget and cherish. But, now the time has come to continue my journey and end my studies. That is why I proudly present my final project, my master thesis for the General Sociology track. In this thesis, I researched in what way different meanings and values of ‘nature(s)’ are locally reproduced, negotiated and contested between the allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust and the municipality of Amsterdam. I could never have done this without Marijke van Stigt chair of the council of Nieuw Vredelust who permitted me to do my research at Nieuw Vredelust and Leo Douw council member of Nieuw Vredelust who was willing to explain the complicated situation of this allotment garden park. I also want to thank all the
allotment gardeners of Nieuw Vredelust who made me feel so welcome when I was working in the gardens. Additionally, special thanks for all the respondents who participated in my research, you truly carried this research to a higher level with all the great conversations about nature! I also want to thank and acknowledge the great work of Marijke Jansen who designed this thesis so beautifully, what you did is priceless, thank you so much! Furthermore, I want to acknowledge the great supervisors I had for this master project. Firstly, Adeola Enigbokan, who is such an inspiring figure, she illustrated what it means to live like a ‘scholar’. Without you, this research would not have come this far. Secondly, I want to thank Thea Dukes who was willing to supervise me and always believed in the importance of this project. Writing a thesis can be a lonely project; however, I was never truly alone. I was surrounded by such amazing friends and family who helped me through the struggle. First of all, I want to thank the friends that were willing to comment and correct the grammar of my thesis. So, thank you, Kim van Loon, Maud Jansen, Caitlin Schmid, Timo van Loon, without your corrections this thesis would not have been the same. I also want to thank Mélanie Hessels and Iris Kingma for all the study times in the university library, when things got though you helped me through it! Furthermore, I want to thank my friends from the urban thesis group #The Last Stand. Leo Jusiak and Marco Alioni, your critical minds inspired me to work harder for this thesis than ever and Lizl Moeskop thank you for all your great advice and comments.
Lastly, my gratitude goes to my parents that always supported and believed in me no matter what. Because of them, I could study at the University of Amsterdam and live in this city. My gratitude also goes to my brother Raoel Koole. You are the best, with you on my side I can face the world! So, thank you for all the encouraging conversations and support. I would not have been the same without you.
Algemene Samenvatting
Volkstuinpark Nieuw Vredelust kwam meteen onder hevige druk toen dit park de brief van 3 november 2017 van de gemeente Amsterdam ontving. Deze brief informeerde dit park over de samenwerkingsovereenkomst om het woningbouwproject de Nieuwe Kern te realiseren samen met de gemeente Ouder-Amstel waarbij Nieuw Vredelust permanent verwijderd moet worden om ruimte te maken voor dit project. Door in de complexe situatie van Nieuw Vredelust te duiken bleek dat de verschillende betrokkenen verschillende waardes aan de natuur toekennen. Om de situatie van Nieuw Vredelust te onderzoeken werd onderzocht op welke manier verschillende betekenissen en waardes van ‘nature(n)’ lokaal geproduceerd, onderhandeld en gecontesteerd worden tussen de volkstuinders van Nieuw Vredelust en de gemeenteAmsterdam. Om de vraag te beantwoorden werden verschillende kwalitatieve methodes gebruikt zoals: participant observaties, interviews, een focus groep en een discourse analyse. Uit de resultaten bleek dat volkstuinders en de gemeente de natuur zagen als een middel om de stad leefbaarder te maken. Wel zijn er contrasterende waardes hoe de groene omgeving de stad leefbaarder maakt tussen de volkstuinders en de gemeente. De volkstuinders noemen en beleven de waardes: gezondheid, zingeving, vrijheid en ontsnapping van de stad en ze zien hun volkstuin als een tweede huis of dwelling. De gemeente echter kent de waardes van duurzaamheid, biodiversiteit, recreatie, gezondheid en economie toe aan de groene stedelijke omgeving. De volkstuinders van Nieuw Vredelust ondersteunen niet alle waardes die de gemeente toekent. Doordat de volkstuinders andere waardes aan hun groene omgeving toekennen dan de gemeente wordt aangetoond dat de publieke groene stedelijke gebieden niet voor iedereen gelijk zijn. Dit komt doordat de gemeente de verschillende waardes die mensen toekennen aan de natuur niet meeneemt in hun beleid bij het herinrichten van groene publieke ruimtes. Verder leidt de economische waarde die de gemeente toekent aan de natuur tot het omvormen van groene gebieden tot economische producten, oftewel het commodificeren van de groene gebieden van de stad. Hierdoor wordt beargumenteerd dat bij de commodifcatie van natuur door de gemeente er altijd een discussie blijft bestaan over hoe waardevol volkstuinparken zijn voor de stad. Dit zal altijd een politieke afweging zijn. Dit betekent dus dat tuinparken zoals Nieuw Vredelust nooit geheel veilig zullen zijn en altijd afhankelijk zijn van de gemeente en hoe die de groene omgeving waardeert. Door de verschillende betekenissen van natuur aan te tonen laat dit onderzoek zien dat de natuur een sociaal construct is waarin we niet kunnen spreken van ‘een natuur’ maar van ‘meerdere naturen’.
Het bevestigt dat er opnieuw gekeken kan worden naar het inrichten van de groene leefbare stad Amsterdam, waarin de groene publieke ruimtes wellicht de ‘tuinen voor alle Amsterdammers’ kunnen worden.
Abstract
Allotment garden park Nieuw Vredelust was directly under pressure when this park received the letter of 3 November 2017 of the municipality of Amsterdam. This letter informed about the collaboration agreement concerning the plans to envision the residential development project de Nieuw Kern with the municipality of Ouder-Amstel which implies that this allotment park had to face permanent removal to make way for this residential project. This research investigated the complicated situation of Nieuw Vredelust where it turned out that the different actors involved assigned various meanings and values to nature. Therefore, to understand the situation of Nieuw Vredelust, this research assessed in what way are different meanings and values of ‘nature(s)’ locally reproduced, negotiated and contested between the allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust and the municipality of Amsterdam. This research used various qualitative methods such as participants observations, interviews, a focus group and a discourse analysis to answer this question. It became evident that the allotment gardeners and the municipality of Amsterdam valued the green urban environments as they improved the liveability of the city. However, contrasting values exists in what manner the green areas improved the liveability of the city between the allotment gardeners and the municipality of Amsterdam. The allotment gardeners assigned the values of health, purpose, freedom and escape from the city and see their allotment as a dwelling. The municipality, on the other hand, assigned the values of sustainability, biodiversity, recreation, health and economy to the green urban environments. It came to light that the allotment gardeners of Nieuw Vredelust do not support all the values the municipality envisions for the green environments. These contrasting demonstrates that the allotment holders connect differently with the green environment than the municipality realises and shows that the green public areas of the city are not for everyone. The reason for this is that the municipality does not envision the various values people tend to assign to nature when restructuring the public green areas. Furthermore, the economic value that the municipality assigns to the green environments enables these environments to be commodified. The commodification of nature brings allotment parks in constant discussion because the political decision-making process can always try to assess the economic value of these parks for the
city. Therefore, allotment parks like Nieuw Vredelust are never safe from removal and are dependent on the municipality and how they value the green environments. This research demonstrates by assessing the various meaning of nature, and what nature is, that nature is a social construct, and that we cannot speak of ‘one nature’ but only of ‘natures’. It reconfirms that a new vision in the socio-ecological arrangements is necessary for the public green areas in order to make Amsterdam the liveable green city, whereby these areas can be the ‘gardens for all Amsterdammers’.
Table of content
Introduction 10
Theoretical framework 13
A. The urge to modernise allotment garden parks,
another form of governmentality? 13
B. Nieuw Vredelust, a place where localities can be produced 14
C. Just a garden? 15
Methodology 17
A. Finding the participants 17
B. The pathway to understand what an allotment gardener is 17 C. Let’s talk about ‘nature’ and the future imagination
of Nieuw Vredelust 18
D. Discourse analysis, a method to understand the vision
on nature of the municipality 21
Chapter 1. Nieuw Vredelust, a peaceful dwelling in peril 23
Summary 24
Samenvatting 25
1.1 Introduction 26
1.2 The perpetual struggle of allotment parks in the Netherlands 30 1.3 The organisational structure of Nieuw Vredelust 28 1.4 The complicated situation and the resolution of
Nieuw Vredelust to modernise 30
1.5 The modernisation policy, just another form of governmentality? 38
Conclusion 44
Chapter 2: The locally reproduced Nature(s)
and future imaginations of reinventing Nieuw Vredelust 45
Summary 46
Samenvatting 47
2.1 Introduction 47
2.2 Nieuw Vredelust, a place to escape the rowdy city 48 2.3 Are we ready to open our gates?:
2.4 We cannot speak of one Nature but only of Nature(s) 60
2.5 More than just a garden 61
2.6 Nieuw Vredelust a dwelling space for gardeners 64 Chapter 3: The locally reproduced, negotiated and contested Nature(s) in the liveable green story-line of Amsterdam 67
Summary 68
Samenvatting 69
3.1 Introduction 70
3.2 Ecological modernisation in the context of Amsterdam 70 3.3 The Municipality’s quest for the liveable green city 71 3.4. Production & contestation of nature at the municipal level. 77 3.5 The green public spaces, the gardens for everybody? 79
Conclusion 83
Final Conclusion 85
References 88 Appendix 92
Interview topic list. 92
Focus group Topic list 93
Table 1 Research group. 95
Table 2: Sources for the discourse analysis 96 Table 3: different forms of allotment garden parks 96 Image 1: map of the allotments that reside in
the Hoofdgroenstructuur (HGS) 97
The stakes concerning concerning Nieuw Vredelust 97
Introduction
An account of ‘environmental expressivism’:
“nature saving us, for only if we abandon modernist
notions of control and domination …
can we know what to do.”
(Szerszynski 1996:121)
“This should not be lost!” states Leo Douw council member of the 58-year-old allotment garden park Nieuw Vredelust when asked how he felt about the plans of the municipalities of Ouder-Amstel and Amsterdam to remove this park (Meeshoek 2017). In 2020, this allotment park will face permanent removal to make way for the residential building plans ‘de Nieuwe Kern’, made by the real-estate agency VolkersWessels (Gemeente Ouder-Amstel 2013; Meeshoek 2017). An allotment is a private piece of land where people can grow ornamental plants or vegetables. In addition, allotment keepers usually own a small garden house wherein they can live for a certain amount of time (Gemeente Amsterdam 2005:18). The municipality of Amsterdam regards allotment parks as important since it supports their urban environmental policy of improving the ‘liveability’ of Amsterdam (Gemeente Amsterdam 2015).
However, allotment parks in Amsterdam fall into a precarious position due to the urban expansion policy ambitions of Koers 2025. In the upcoming years, the ambition of this policy is to densify the areas of Amsterdam by building 50.000 residential homes within the city borders (Gemeente Amsterdam 2016). Hence, allotment parks in the city are targeted for removal to make way for residential areas (Gemeente Amsterdam 2005; Meeshoek 2017). The reason for this is that allotment parks require a considerable amount of space (Gemeente Amsterdam 2005). Therefore, the municipality introduced the modernisation policy in 2005 to increase the social relevance of allotment parks that could protect them from being removed (Gemeente Amsterdam 2005). The modernisation policy is essential because it is now a policy that Nieuw Vredelust tries to implement to prevent removal.
Allotment holders do have a history of resisting removal of their parks with considerable effort (Wildschut 2012). Therefore, this research uses qualitative methods to understand why the allotment holders of Nieuw Vredelust resist so actively. Substantial research is done on understanding the meaning of gardens or community gardens within the city (Gardenworks 2006; Krasny 2007; Veen et al.
2016; Wakefield et al. 2007), but researchers neglect allotments garden parks in that regard. Furthermore, sociologists have assessed a wide range of research on topics such as: ‘environmental justice, environmental risk and social movements’ (see for more: Pellow and Nyseth Brehm 2013). However, sociologists often ignore the engaged connection people have with ‘nature’ and how they value the green environments (Macnaghten 2005; Macnaghten and Urry 1995). For this reason, a focus on what allotment parks mean for their keepers and how they relate to their green environment is examined. By examining how the allotment keepers in Nieuw Vredelust value their green environment can provide new insights into how nature is socially constructed and often contested between various actors in society.
This research is relevant as it can analyse how environmental policies are
contradictory and produce ecological inequalities in cities (Heynen 2003). Also, this research can shed light on how urban environmental policies often obsess about a singular ‘nature’ that forecloses to ask political questions of alternative socio-ecological arrangements in the city (Kaika and Swyngedouw 2017:9). For instance, this research demonstrates that it is necessary to understand how people engage and connect with the green environment that most public bodies tend to neglect (Macnaghten and Urry 2000:24)
Drawing on the works of Arjun Appadurai (2009), Phil Macnaghten and John Urry’s (1995), this research investigates how the allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust produce localities at their park and how they value the green environment. Nieuw Vredelust is a suitable case-study to examine these aspects due to its current precarious position. This research will use Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality to analyse the modernisation policy of the municipality of Amsterdam. This concept enables this research to illustrate the configuration of how this municipality addresses allotment parks and how the municipality wants to use these green environments (Hajer and Versteeg 2005:180). Furthermore, this research does a discourse analysis on the urban environmental policies of this municipality. The discourse analysis on these policies enables this research to assess how the municipality of Amsterdam values the green environment (Hajer and Versteeg 2005). Examining these policies enables this research to monitor the “dissensus” between the different actors involved (Kaika 2017:94). At stake is the political decision-making process determining which actors may use the green areas of Amsterdam and how these actors may use them (Swyngedouw and Kaika 2014). This research investigates how the different actors relate and give value to the different ‘natures’ in the urban areas of Amsterdam as we cannot speak of ‘one nature’ but of ‘natures’ with different values attached to them (Harvey 1996; Macnaghten and Urry 1995; Swyngedouw and Kaika 2014). Therefore, the following research question is made
to understand the situation of Nieuw Vredelust: In what way are different meanings and values of ‘nature(s)’ locally reproduced, negotiated and contested between the allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust and the municipality of Amsterdam?
The first chapter will assess the history of allotment parks in Amsterdam to understand the current position of Nieuw Vredelust. It will also dive into the complicated situation of this park to understand its resolve to modernise. Further, it will examine how the modernisation policy influences the allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust to self-govern themselves to make their park socially relevant. Therefore, the following sub-questions are suitable:
1: What does the ‘modernisation policy’ entail for Nieuw Vredelust?
2: How does the modernisation policy influence the allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust to self-govern themselves to make their park socially relevant?
The second chapter analyses how the allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust produce locality at their park and how they value their green environment. It will also assess how the allotment keepers envision the modernisation policy. This focus is covered in these sub-questions:
3: In what way do the allotment keepers produce locality at Nieuw Vredelust and value to their green environment?
4: In what way is modernising Nieuw Vredelust reproduced, negotiated and contested by the allotment keepers?
The final chapter uses a discourse analysis to examine how the municipality of Amsterdam values the green urban environment. It also sheds light on how these values produce contradictions in the environmental policies. Besides, this chapter investigates how these values are reproduced, negotiated and contested between the municipality and the allotment holders. The sub-questions for this chapter will be: 5: What values does the municipality of Amsterdam assign to the green urban
environments?
a: How do these values lead to contradictions within the urban environmental policies of Amsterdam?
6: In what way do the allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust reproduce, negotiate and contest the imposed values of the municipality of Amsterdam?
Theoretical framework
This section will present the theoretical frame that
supports this research. Firstly, I will outline Michel Foucault’s
notions on discourse and governmentality. Secondly,
the concept of production of locality from anthropologist
Arjun Appadurai will be discussed. Finally, I will delineate
the environmental sociology theories and explain why I need
to use the production of locality concept and these theories
to understand the situation of the allotment holders of
Nieuw Vredelust.
A. The urge to modernise allotment garden parks, another form of governmentality?
This research uses a discourse analysis to assess how the municipality of Amsterdam values the green urban environment. This method is useful, because it could reveal the potential differences in how the municipality and the allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust value these environments (Hajer and Versteeg 2005). The discourse analysis draws on theories of philosopher Michel Foucault (1977). In his theories, the general theme is the question of how individuals turn themselves into ‘subjects’ (Foucault 1977:327). Power plays an important role in this because Foucault focusses on what techniques of power influences the individual. For him, power is intertwined with discourse as “all regimes of power are constituted by discursive formations” (Bevir 1999:66). The methodology section will discuss what discourse approach will be used in this research. Furthermore, this research examines how the modernisation policy made by the municipality affects the allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust (Gemeente Amsterdam 2005). Foucault’s concept of governmentality is fitting as the modernisation policy can be considered as an urban environmental management program that tries to modify the social behaviour to the dilemmas and demands of the government (Brand 2007:619).
Before going into this concept, it is necessary to note that within Foucault’s work there is a gap between his earlier works and later studies that distinguishes how individuals get turned into subjects (Bevir 1999; Hajer 1997). In Discipline and Punish, he examined discipline as a technique that is used to exert power and illustrated the formation of the “disciplinary society” (Calhoun 2012:316) through “disciplinary
technology” (Dreyfus and Rabinow 2014:153). As discipline gets infused with already existing institutions made it possible to exert power “to the most minute and distant elements” (Dreyfus and Rabinow 2014:153). Furthermore, in History and Sexuality, Foucault examined how pastoral power influence individuals to police themselves, by continuously trying to fit in with the concept of normality through “examining, confessing, and regulating their own thoughts and behaviour” (Bevir 1999:66). Foucault’s latest work digs into governmentality which can be regarded as “the emergence of the modern deployment of power” (Hajer and Versteeg 2005:180). In governmentality resides the notion that the modern state combines sovereignty and discipline with a power that is like pastoral power. Whereas bio-power techniques that force subjects and “control the subject without his collusion”, this will not do in this modern form of power (Bevir 1999:72). Within governmentality, power must face resistance as it needs to be “convincing the other of the rightness of certain acts” (Bevir 1999:73). To do this, the subject must receive certain forms of agency (Bevir 1999: 72-73). The concept of governmentality receives prominent attention in environmental research as it can enlighten the “respective responsibilities of government and citizens” in environmental policies, and therefore, the respective responsibilities between allotment keepers and the municipality of Amsterdam (Hajer and Versteeg 2005:180).
This research analyses how the modernisation policy influences the allotment keepers to self-govern themselves. Examining the influence of the modernisation policy enables this research to examine how the municipality wants to use these green environments. To analyse this, it is necessary to look at the history of allotment parks as all power structures reside in socio-historical contexts (Bevir 1999). In the end, it is only the question whether the allotment keepers will go along with the imposed modernisation policy as they can negotiate and contest these notions of the municipality. The following section will reflect on how the allotment keepers can produce values of nature that leads them to reproduce, negotiate and contest the imposed notions of the municipality.
B. Nieuw Vredelust, a place where localities can be produced
The purpose of this research is to understand why the allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust are reluctant to the removal or modification of their park. Therefore, this research uses the production of locality concept of anthropologist Arjun Appadurai (1996, 2009, 2013). The production of locality is in a sense a broad concept, whereby “the idea of the imagination as a social practice” comes to the forefront (Appadurai 2009:46). This concept does not only emphasise the “reproductive logics”, like certain “rules, regulations and regularities” (Appadurai 2009:46). It is an actual expansion of these logics because it focusses on how the imagination transforms into wishes,
visions, ideas and relates to social practices. This concept is useful, because it can aid in examining how the allotment keepers envision and value their allotment gardens. Furthermore, it aids in exploring how the community manifests in the allotment park as the imagination is the cement that connects people with each other and form collectives (Appadurai 2009). In addition, this concept broadens the framework to get a better understanding of the “logic of the spatial” (Appadurai 2009:46). To emphasise on the spatial logic means considering the importance of physical spaces. For example, this implies to consider the routine practices of managing the gardens at Nieuw Vredelust. The logic of the spatial involves the “collective ideas of what is possible” (Appadurai 2009:46). Therefore, it is necessary to understand how the allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust imagine the future of their park while in its current precarious position. Still, regarding the imaginations of the allotment holders is not sufficient to understand their situation. To truly grasps their situation, it is essential to investigate how the allotment keepers give value and meaning to the green environment they are located in. Using Appadurai’s work is not sufficient to do this as he does not specify enough how different physical environments affect localities (Heyman and Campbell 2009:136). He also argues that group identities should not be seen as spatially bounded (Appadurai 1996:183). For these reasons, Appadurai’s work cannot provide a complete picture of how the allotment keepers produce locality. Therefore, it is necessary to draw on the work of the environmental sociologists Phil Macnaghten and John Urry (1995). For instance, previous research indicate that people value the green environments with deep meanings when they engage in them (e.g. woods or gardens), which differs from other environments (Kieft and Hassink 2004; Macnaghten and Urry 2000). Therefore, drawing on the environmental sociology theories aids in examining in what manner the green environment influences the context wherein localities can manifest. The following section will describe these social environmental theories while explaining how it will be used in combination with the production of locality.
C. Just a garden?
To understand the way allotment keepers value the green environment at their park, a focus on understanding how they are “reading” nature is vital (Macnaghten and Urry 1995:210). As “the ‘reading’ and production of nature is something that is learnt; and the learning process varies greatly between societies, different periods and different social groups within a society” (Macnaghten and Urry 1995: 210). Knowing this makes it clear that “there is no pure ‘nature’ as such, only natures” which means that nature is socially constructed (Macnaghten and Urry 1995:207). For instance, people value woods and forests in various and often contested manners (Macnaghten et al. 1998; Macnaghten and Urry 2000). The valuation of nature
strongly depends on the personal experience people have with nature. It also relates to the way people engage with nature as the “specific ‘local’ circumstances and experiences shape people’s sense to what is necessary or desirable for their bodily engagement with such spaces”(Macnaghten and Urry 2000:23). Allotment keepers work regularly in their gardens, interacting with other gardeners and even staying the night at their garden houses. Therefore, doing these practices can make it turn into “their ‘everyday ” and could shape an environment where these gardeners “actually feel really at home” (Macnaghten and Urry 2000:2). The practices that the allotment holders do at these green environments creates the context in how locality manifests. Thus, drawing on the environmental theories and Appadurai’s work can help to examine the context these allotment holders reside and how their localities influence the way they produce nature(s) and value nature. Additionally, seeing allotments gardens as homes or dwellings highlights the importance of these green environments to which these spaces are full of fragilities (Appadurai
2013:128) . This means that the modifications or even the imagination that these spaces will change could destabilise the gardeners at the allotment park because the “integrity of their communities” is often “embodied and embedded in their housing forms” (Appadurai 2013:116).
Seeing the allotment garden park with its green environment through this lens can pave the way for understanding the deep layers of connections the gardeners have with this park. It is not just the community revolving around it, but also the practices that are done that solely relates to this environment that contributes to how they value nature. Therefore, they can ‘read’ or ‘value’ nature differently than the municipality (Macnaghten and Urry 1995). Beyond that, this allotment park could be a dwelling for the allotment keepers which can be the source of why they are reluctant for the modification or removal of their park.
Methodology
According to Mills, theory and methods should
“become part of the practice of a craft” (Mills 1970:246).
Further, he argues that “perspectives and materials,
the ideas and methods, of any and all sensible studies
of man and society” is necessary to answer a significant
research question (Mills 1970: 247). Therefore, this research
uses various qualitative methods such as participant
observations, in-depth interviews, a focus group and
a discourse analyses to better interpret the social world of
the allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust.
A. Finding the participantsThis research used a convenience sample, thus this research included the allotment gardeners of Nieuw Vredelust based on their accessibility and availability (Bryman 2012:201). For this research, 8 allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust were
interviewed and 5 allotment keepers participated in the focus group. The chair of the council of Nieuw Vredelust permitted me to do this research at the allotment park. In fact, the chair was my gatekeeper for this research and aided me in finding willing respondents as she sent out an e-mail to the allotment keepers to ask whether they were interested (Hennink, Hutter, and Bailey 2011:93). The e-mail successfully aided in finding 7 respondents for the interviews and 3 for the focus group. The participant observations allowed me to directly ask allotment holders to participate in my research. This method resulted in finding 2 willing respondents for the interviews and 2 for the focus group. Furthermore, I interviewed Stephan about the complicated situation of Nieuw Vredelust as he is one of the council members of Nieuw Vredelust that investigates this situation to save the park. Additionally, Natalie policy advisor of the department Space & Sustainability of the municipality of Amsterdam was interviewed. I gained access to her as I first interviewed somebody else of the same department. This respondent redirected me to Natalie as she creates policies for allotment parks in Amsterdam.
B. The pathway to understand what an allotment gardener is
It was necessary to act as a gardener to understand how the allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust value their green environment and produce locality. Therefore,
participant observation while staying in an overt role was useful (Bryman 2012:433). I received permission from the chair of Nieuw Vredelust to participate in eight ‘werkbeurten’ from March to May.1 These werkbeurten entail the maintenance work that the allotment holders do for the park. After each werkbeurt, jotted notes were made to capture the core of the observation (Bryman 2012:450). Additionally, I used an observation scheme that I added on my notebook to focus my observations on the research questions I wanted to answer.
The participant observations at the werkbeurten helped me to understand the routine efforts in managing this allotment park and on what basis the communities take form (Appadurai 2009). It also contributed to obtain an insider’s point of view of what it means to be an allotment gardener (Hennink et al. 2011:18). During the observations, I anonymised the gardeners with whom I worked with to keep the data confidential.
C. Let’s talk about ‘nature’ and the future imagination of Nieuw Vredelust In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted which means that an interview guide was used with various topics, whereby the interview process was “flexible” (Bryman 2012:471). The observations aided in formulating the right question, because I had a better understanding of why the allotment keepers have an allotment. Additionally, the research of Kieft & Hassink (2004) and Macnagthen et al. (1998) that focus on the meaning of gardens and nature supported the preparation of the interviews. I used their questionnaires and topic’s as an inspiration for my interview
1 During this period, I also did my interviews and discourse analyses.
Image: observation scheme in notebook
guide.2 Doing the in-depth interviews was necessary to understand the believes and perceptions of the participants regarding the green environment, but also how they envisioned the policies of the municipality (Hennink et al. 2011:110).
I let the allotment holders decide where they felt most comfortable to be interviewed. Almost all the respondents chose to be interviewed at their garden house. Only one interview was conducted at the clubhouse of Nieuw Vredelust and another interview was done at the respondent’s home. It was important to conduct the interviews at the chosen location of the respondents as this enables them “to talk freely” (Hennink et al. 2011:121). Especially, when the interviews were conducted at their allotment garden houses led them to discuss the green environment freely as respondents pointed out what they liked about their garden or could describe with more detail what nature is for them. It also enabled this research to understand the environment of the allotment keepers whereby I could use their gardens as a topic to ‘break the ice’ (Bryman 2012:212).
The focus group was conducted with 5 allotment keepers of Nieuw Vredelust. This number of participants was just enough to oversee the discussion as I was the sole moderator. The purpose of this focus group was to understand how the allotment keepers imagine their future allotment park and if their imaginations match with what the municipality of Amsterdam envisions. Conducting the focus group was essential to capture the variety of opinions the allotment gardeners have regarding the modernisation policy and the future of their park (Hennink, Hutter, and Bailey 2011:136). 2 See appendix to see the interview guide. Image: preparation focus group
The focus group was done outside the clubhouse of Nieuw Vredelust due to the warm weather. Fortunately, there were sufficient garden tables and chairs outside. The chairs were put around the tables so that the participants could face each other directly. The manner how the focus group was set up enabled discussions between the participants and helped with the photo-method as I could scatter the photos on the tables.
I used 50 different photos for the photo-method. These photos illustrated different gardens (ornamental or vegetable), attributes of allotment parks (e.g. playground, gates, clubhouse) and gardens in the city or people in the gardens doing things actively. The observations, previous interviews with allotment gardeners and the modernisation policy of the municipality inspired me to choose these photos. The photo-method made the focus group interactive for the participants and aided as a stimulus for the conversations. It also allowed the participants to quickly relate to each other as doing something together helped clear the ‘ice’ (Macnaghten et al. 1998:8). The participants could pick three photos that give a representation of what their ideal allotment park entails. Afterwards, different topics were used to assess how they perceived their green environment, the threat of de Nieuwe Kern and how they wanted to change Nieuw Vredelust.3
The focus group and the interviews were held in Dutch and lasted approximately 45 to 90 minutes. The respondents were asked if I could record the interviews with a mobile device and the same was done for the focus group. Additionally, I told the Image: conducting
focus group
3 See appendix to see the
participants that their data and possibly sensitive information remained confidential by using pseudonyms in this research.4 The interviews and focus group were
transcribed simultaneously to stay close to the data. I also included the pauses and speech fillers in the transcript to better understand “the meaning of what is said” (Hennink et al. 2011:211). However, no qualitative analysis tool was used as I felt it was better to make notes in the transcripts directly. These notes were afterwards ordered per topic. For instance, ‘value nature’ or ‘negotiation modernisation policy’. By making these notes enabled me to reflect directly on the crucial elements of my collected data and to understand the connections with the other data (e.g. the observation notes).
D. Discourse analysis, a method to understand the vision on nature of the municipality
The discourse analysis of this research draws on the Foucauldian discourse theory where a part of the argumentative approach of policy-analysist Maarten Hajer is used (1997:58). This approach gives space to analyse the interpersonal discursive (inter) action between actors which is difficult to analyse when only using the Foucauldian approach (Hajer 1997:51). The argumentative approach corrects Foucault’s theory as it has a specific focus on how actors position themselves in the discourse, referred to subject-positions (Hajer 1997: 53). Subject positions imply that actors make sense of the world by the discourse that is available to them. For this research, discourse is defined as “an ensemble of ideas, concept and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices” (Hajer and Versteeg 2005:175). This means that discourse provides the framework for what is meaningful (and what is not), but more specifically it determines how people should act. Power plays an important role wherein some actors can use the discourse to their advantage due to their position while others cannot (Hajer 1997). The concept of story-lines is an essential addition to the discourse analysis which the argumentative approach includes. Story-lines refer to “a generative sort of narrative that allows actors to draw upon various discursive categories to give meaning to specific physical or social phenomena” (Hajer 1997: 62). For instance, the municipality of Amsterdam and the allotment keepers can envision the importance of the green environment in the urban areas; however, they can draw from different discursive categories on how these spaces should be valued and used. This research focuses on these visions between the allotment holders and the municipality that illustrate how certain elements “appear as fixed or appropriate while other elements appear problematic” (Hajer 1997: 54). These discussions will demonstrate why contested values of the green environment between the allotment holders and the municipality exist. The discourse analysis primarily focuses on the policy documents from the department Space and Sustainability (Ruimte en
4
See appendix table 1 to see the research group list.
Duurzaamheid) because this department creates policies that affects the green urban environments and allotment parks of Amsterdam.5 Furthermore, this research used the interview with Natalie to understand how contradictions can emerge in the environmental policies of the municipality of Amsterdam. Additionally, this interview helped me understand how actors in the municipality could use their subject-position to promote their vision on how the green environment should be used. The discourse analysis was finished before the interviews of the allotment holders were transcribed. Therefore, this process enabled this research to directly connect the discourse analysis with the transcripts and linking the line of the allotment keepers with the story-line of the municipality.
ATLAS.ti was used for analysing the policy documents where I first coded inductively, i.e. directly from the data (Hennink et al. 2011:218). Thus, I looked at what concepts repeatedly came back and where the emphasises lies in these policy documents. For instance, I looked at how these policies describe the use of the green urban areas. Afterwards, I used scientific literature to conduct a deductive approach to analyse these policy documents. The research on ecological modernisation discourse of environmental policy-analysists John Dryzek (2013) and Maarten Hajer (1997) received a prominent role in this deductive approach. To finalise the analysis, I used conceptual codes which consists of a group of codes that collectively describe something about the data (Hennink et al. 2011:224). Here the concept of “liveability” that Hajer also outlines in his research got connected with various values on how the municipality of Amsterdam values the green urban environments (1997:176).
It is necessary to note that Hajer’s argumentative approach does focus on how discourses change, but this aspect will not receive attention in this research (1997:59). This research primarily focuses on explaining the reproduction, negotiations and contestations in how the green urban environments gets valued between the allotment holders of Nieuw Vredelust and the municipality of Amsterdam.
5 See appendix: Table 2 "sources for the discourse analysis" to see the policy documents used for this discourse analysis.
Nieuw Vredelust,
a peaceful
dwelling in peril
Summary
This first chapter examined why allotment garden parks are
currently in a precarious position in Amsterdam. To analyse
this, the historical background of allotment garden parks in
Amsterdam received attention. The history demonstrated that
a perpetual struggle exist for allotment garden parks to prove
their social relevance for the city. When urban expansion
policies emerged, the allotment garden parks are the most
vulnerable which is now a recurrent theme. What followed
is an in-depth investigation of the complicated situation
of Nieuw Vredelust and their resolution to modernise. The
municipality of Amsterdam created the modernisation policy
to protect allotment parks from urban expansion policies, and
it is now a measurement that allotment gardens parks such
as Nieuw Vredelust try to implement to prevent removal. The
final section of this chapter explained that the modernisation
policy is a form of environmental governmentality that
intrudes the personal lives of the allotment holder without
firm collusion. To conclude, this section argues that this form
of governmentality potentially influences allotment holders
to change their spatial rules to have an increasing economic
purpose.
Samenvatting
Dit eerste hoofdstuk beschrijft waarom volkstuinen in
Amsterdam worden bedreigd. Om dit te analyseren werd
de geschiedenis van volkstuinen in Amsterdam onderzocht.
Hieruit bleek dat volkstuinparken continue strijd moeten
voeren om hun sociale relevantie voor de stad te bewijzen.
Vooral wanneer stedelijke uitbreidingen opkomen zijn
volkstuinparken het meest bedreigd. Dat is een terugkerend
thema. Na de geschiedenis wordt er ingezoomd op de
complexe situatie van Nieuw Vredelust en waarom dit
tuinpark moet moderniseren. De gemeente Amsterdam
heeft het moderniseringsbeleid gemaakt om volkstuinen te
beschermen tegen stedelijke uitbreidingsplannen. Volkstuinen
als Nieuw Vredelust zien dit beleid als een middel om
verwijdering van het park te voorkomen. De laatste sectie van
dit hoofdstuk beargumenteert dat het moderniseringsbeleid
een vorm van ‘environmental governmentality’ is die het
persoonlijke leven van volkstuinders binnen treedt zonder
een sterkte botsing. Tot slot, wordt in deze sectie beschreven
dat deze vorm van governmentality de volkstuinders
mogelijk beïnvloedt om de ruimtelijke regels van hun park te
combineren met economisch doeleinden.
1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to outline why allotment parks, including Nieuw Vredelust, are currently in a precarious position and why they must modernise. For this reason, this chapter first assesses the historical background of allotment garden parks (afterwards allotment parks) in the Netherlands. Then this chapter focuses on the complicated situation of Nieuw Vredelust which invovles the collaboration between the municipality of Amsterdam and Ouder-Amstel to envision the
residential building plans of de Nieuwe Kern (De Nieuwe Kern 2017). By explaining the complicated situation enables this research to understand the resolve of Nieuw Vredelust to modernise. The final section of this chapter will illustrate how the modernisation policy delineated in ‘Nota Volkstuinen’ policy document is a governmentality practice.
1.2 The perpetual struggle of allotment parks in the Netherlands
The Netherlands has about 25.000 allotment garden keepers (afterwards allotment keepers or holders) of which half are members of an allotment garden association (e.g. De Bond van Volkstuinders). Most of these associations reside in the Randstad region that consists of the cities: Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and Rotterdam. Amsterdam has 6000 allotment gardens across 41 allotment parks that use 343 hectares of space in the city (Gemeente Amsterdam 2005). There are various reasons why urban residents rent an allotment garden. For instance, in Amsterdam, many citizens do not have a garden, or they want to find a peaceful recreational space (de Vries and Schöne 2004).
Mother and daughter working on allotment garden park Hofwijck in Amsterdam 1913 Derived from (Gemeente Amsterdam 2017c:11)
However, initially, allotment parks did not have a recreational function because the Dutch government decided to provide allotments for working-class families as a form of charity in 1838. The idea behind allotments was to provide poor labourers with a tool to care for themselves and their families after finishing their working-day. The allotments were primarily utilitarian; the labourers used them to gain an additional
food supply by growing vegetables on their allotments. It is important to note that the utilitarian function of allotments was the direct basis for the social relevance of allotment parks (Vermooten 1958).
Originally, the allotment holders did not have any say in the organisational structure of the allotment parks. However, during World War I (1914-1918), the government leased allotments for a low-priced rent which enabled the gardeners to receive more rights on how they want to organise their parks (Zantkuijl 1974). It also led them to form communities and ultimately to form an allotment park association. The first one was founded in 1917 in Amsterdam, which is now called ‘Association of Allotment Gardeners’6 (BVV) (Wildschut 2012:17).
The allotment associations are worth mentioning in the history of allotments as they still play an essential role for allotment parks. The BVV worked on strengthening the collaboration of allotment parks in Amsterdam and fought against urban expansion plans which would remove allotment parks (Jansen 1967:26, 37). After World War I, the role of allotments became increasingly ‘recreational’ because the labourers had more time to spend in their gardens due to the 8-hour labour law as well as urban residents of non-labourer classes used the allotments to be able to connect with nature (Wildschut 2012:8).
Utilitarian allotment during WW1 in 1918 derived from (Gemeente Amsterdam 2017c:13)
6
Dutch translation:
This trend led the BVV to focus on changing the image of allotment parks and to dissociate them from poverty. Thereby, allotment keepers from Amsterdam wanted allotment parks throughout the Netherlands to become a place where labourers could enjoy coming to with their families. To achieve the vision of their members, the BVV collaborated with different allotment associations distributed throughout the Netherlands under the slogan “In unity, there is power”7 (Wildschut 2012:9, 14). This collaboration made it possible to establish a national allotment association in 1929, which was called the ‘General Association of Allotment Gardeners in the Netherlands’8 (AVVN). The AVVN functioned to support in six aspects of the national organisation structure of allotment parks. These aspects are: providing the legal protection of allotments, cultural improvement of allotments, attaining definitive locations for allotment parks, sharing knowledge on gardening, providing general legal counsel to support allotment parks and to be a central point of organisation for allotment parks (Wildschut: 12).
During World War II (1939-1945, the allotments regained their utilitarian function to provide an extra food supply for the gardeners, but also for the broader Dutch population (Louwes 1954). After WWII, the recreational purposes for allotment parks returned. A new approach was necessary to attract allotment gardeners and to uphold the societal functions of allotments. Therefore, the AVVN created a discourse that demonstrated the positive social influence of allotment gardens for the people and the cities. For instance, the relaxation aspects of allotment parks for the labourers was prominent in this discourse (Wildschut 2012:34).
Family posing at their allotment garden house in 1912 indicating the increasing recreational purpose of allotments derived from (Gemeente Amsterdam 2017c:41)
7 Dutch translation: Eendracht maakt macht 8 Dutch translation: Algemene Verbond van Volkstuin Verenigingen in Nederland
The continuing recreational character of allotments after World War II gave the municipality of Amsterdam reason to change the rental law of allotment parks. In 1949, allotment parks were initially leased on similar terms as the ‘farming leases’. The farming lease implied that the allotment parks could not be removed solely on the demand of the tenant of the land, in this case, usually the municipality. With this farmer lease, the ‘Grondkamer’9 had to approve the removal. In addition, when removal was approved, then the allotment park did get compensation for its removal. However, the farming lease changed into a normal ‘rental agreement’ (Jansen 1967:146). By changing the lease-construction, the municipality could remove allotments with greater ease. Moreover, in 1958 a report created by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Food Provision10 advised that the municipalities should manage the allotment parks. This report is the reason why there are no current national policies on allotment parks because the national government handed down the responsibility to the municipalities to address the allotment parks (Ruys 1958). Although allotment parks did receive more fixed locations through membership with the AVVN, removal or relocation was and still is not inevitable because allotment parks must rely heavily on the municipalities and their policies. For instance, during the 1990’s, the urban policies of the national government directed the municipalities to intensify the use of city spaces. The idea for cities was to create a “compact urban conurbation,” which entailed that housing and industries remained in the city (Salet 2002:180). The borders of the city had to become the “green buffers” (Salet 2002: 180). This powerful imagination on structuring urban areas is part of the “process of actual boundary shaping” institutionalised by the government and carried out by the municipalities (Dikeç 2007:280). Therefore, this urban policy led to serious confrontations between the municipalities of different cities and allotment parks as the municipalities wanted to relocate the green environments of allotment parks in the outlying areas to carry out this policy (Wildschut 2012:54). These confrontations indicate that allotment parks with their green spaces are “governable spaces” with certain spatial rules attached to them imposed by the municipalities (Dikeç 2007:279). These changes of the spatial rules for the green environments led to “oppressing subordinate groups” (Certomà 2015:25), like the allotment holders to which their parks had to be relocated or removed to the outlying areas of the city. For this reason, a relationship exists between how the municipalities imagine and value the use of the green environment as it immediately affects the allotment parks and its holders. The AVVN did manage to preserve some allotment parks due to their strong negotiation tactics with the municipalities. Moreover, they focused on demonstrating the societal functions of allotment parks, like sharing their gardens with non-members, or the ecological value of the parks (Wildschut 2012:48–50). Nevertheless, allotment parks continued to be relocated, which proved difficult as the
9
The grondkamer is a Dutch institution that tests lease agreements of the land for more information: http://www. grondkamers.nl/pages/werkwijze.aspx 10
Now the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food quality, Dutch translation: Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
scarcity of land made it almost impossible to find new locations for displaced parks (Wildschut 2012:50). The scarcity of land in cities is still the main reason to replace allotments parks and is now a recurrent theme in the urban environmental policies of Amsterdam (Meeshoek 2017).
Newspaper Parool article about Nieuw Vredelust in 1972 from the archives of the Nieuw Vredelust website
11 For more information on the different forms of allotments parks see appendix table 3.
The municipality of Amsterdam did try to support the allotment parks by creating the modernisation policy delineated in the ‘Nota Volkstuinen’ policy document introduced in 2005 (Gemeente Amsterdam 2005). This policy document gives a delineation on how allotment parks in Amsterdam should improve their societal functions in order to protect them from urban expansion policies that could threaten them in the future (Gemeente Amsterdam 2005). The modernisation policy seems to support allotment parks, but the policy does imply that allotment holders need to self-govern themselves to change their parks in the vision of how the municipality wants these parks to operate (Gemeente Amsterdam 2005:7). Thus, this policy does pose the question whether it was solely designed to support allotment parks. The policy can also be a measurement to bind them to the will of the municipality because it stays a management programme that tries to regulate and modify behaviour patterns of the allotment holders in Amsterdam (Brand 2007:624). This research tries to examine how the modernisation policy affects the allotment holders and their parks. Nieuw Vredelust is one of the allotment parks in Amsterdam that must modernise to prevent removal and will be used as a case-study. But, it is first necessary to describe the organisational structure and the complicated situation of this allotment park to examine why Nieuw Vredelust must modernise. By describing these aspects will enable this research to understand the resolve of Nieuw Vredelust to modernise and how this modernisation policy will affect this allotment park. 1.3. The organisational structure of Nieuw Vredelust
Nieuw Vredelust is a ‘residential recreational allotment park’11, which means that allotment members can sleep over at their gardens between the 31st of March and the 1st of October each year (Gemeente Amsterdam 2005:19). This allotment park
is not protected by the Hoofdgroenstructuur12, which is a policy that protects green recreational areas from urban expansion policy (Gemeente Amsterdam 2017b). Therefore, the municipality of Amsterdam gives this park a yearly rental contract that can be terminated before the 1st of January.13 The park consists of 4.3 hectares of land with 103 gardens including garden houses (Gemeente Ouder-Amstel 2013). It is important to note that this allotment park is only accessible for non-members during spring and summer, meaning that only members are fully able to benefit from this park. To become a member of this park, one must apply to become a candidate renter. Further, the candidate must be above 18 years old, speak Dutch, have a residence in the Netherlands and must be a member of the BVV. The renter pays a monthly fee (50-60 euros) depending on the size of the rented area, including the costs of insurance, water supply and environmental tax. When the new member rents an allotment on which no house or shed is built, a 1000-euro deposit is demanded, and the new member must construct an allotment garden house or shed. If the new member rents an allotment on which a shed or house already is situated, then the member must pay the valuation amount which is calculated by the allotment park council.14
Nieuw Vredelust runs on the voluntary participation of its members. For instance, the park is run by a voluntary council consisting of 5 members that are democratically elected by the allotment members. However, one aspect is not on voluntary basis because the members should do 8 maintenance work days on Saturday per year called ‘werkbeurten’. It is necessary to note that Nieuw Vredelust is member of the
12
See the appendix allotment parks in the Hoofdgroenstructuur see appendix image 1 13 Derived from https://www. tuinparknieuwvredelust.nl/over-nieuw-vredelust/algemeen 14
Information derived from the website: http://www.tuinparknieuwvredelust. nl/ook-een-tuin/hoe-kan-ik-een-huisje-kopen
Image 1: The different allotment parks that are a member of the BVV including Nieuw Vredelust (Gemeente Amsterdam 2017c)
BVV which implies that the BVV provides the general rules on how Nieuw Vredelust should operate.15 Additionally, the BVV is the legal body of their members, meaning that the municipality must ultimately negotiate with the BVV to remove or transform Nieuw Vredelust (Douw 2016). The images 1 and 2 illustrate the location of Nieuw Vredelust:
Image 2: Nieuw Vredelust in the border of
Duivendrecht/Ouder-Amstel derived from (Meeshoek 2017)
When looking at the pictures it is noticeable that Nieuw Vredelust is in is the governing region of Duivendrecht, which the municipality of Ouder-Amstel governs (between Amsterdam Oost and Zuid-Oost). However, the confusing thing is that the land of Nieuw Vredelust is property of the municipality of Amsterdam (Meeshoek 2017). The location of this allotment park creates the basis of its complex situation which gets attention in the following section.
1.4 The complicated situation and the resolution of Nieuw Vredelust to modernise
This section examines the complicated situation of Nieuw Vredelust and will de-monstrate why the municipality of Amsterdam is the main actor in this situation. To demonstrate the complicated situation, an interview was conducted with Stephan, one of the council members of Nieuw Vredelust. Additionally, Natalie, who is a policy advisor for the department Space and Sustainability of the municipality of Amster-dam that advises on how to manage allotment parks in AmsterAmster-dam was interviewed. By clarifying the complicated situation enables this research to examine why this allotment park must modernise itself.
15 See for more information on the general rules see this link: https://www.bondvanvolkstuinders.
nl/bestanden/ statutenenreglementenbvv2017-08-16. pdf
On November the 3rd, 2017, the municipality of Amsterdam sent a letter to the allotment holders of Nieuw Vredelust, Ons Lustoord, Dijkzicht and de Federatie. This letter informed the allotment holders about the collaboration agreement between the municipality of Amsterdam and Ouder-Amstel to envision the residential building plans of de Nieuwe Kern.16 The construction plans of de Nieuwe Kern implies the complete or partial removal of these parks. Nieuw Vredelust faces the greatest threat because they potentially face removal in 2020. For the other allotment parks it is still uncertain when they will face removal but it will happen after the removal of Nieuw Vredelust (Gemeente Amsterdam 2017a).
The building plans for de Nieuwe Kern got initiated by the municipality of Ouder-Amstel. To envision their plans, they hired the real-estate developer VolkerWessels to produce a plan for building the residential areas of de Nieuwe Kern (Gemeente Ouder-Amstel 2013; De Nieuwe Kern 2017). Following the line of Stephan’s
explanation, it is important to note that the municipality of Ouder-Amstel wants to build on occupied land with different landowners. For instance, the land of Nieuw Vredelust is a property of Amsterdam. For Ouder-Amstel this means that they must collaborate with the municipality of Amsterdam to envision their goal hence their collaboration agreement (De Nieuwe Kern 2017). Besides, it is necessary to note that the municipality of Ouder-Amstel has decided to build only when all landowners accept the compensation offers that Ouder-Amstel is willing to provide for their removal or replacement. The following table and picture will clarify the involved actors and landowners that Ouder-Amstel must get in alignment with before they can permit VolkerWessel to start building de Nieuwe Kern.17
Table 1: Actors & landowners
Actors Landowners
Allotment parks (including Nieuw Vredelust) The Municipality of Amsterdam* (Owns most of the land where the allotments reside, about 100 hectares) Borchland (catering industry) Borchland**
Golf course: Oldcourse Nederlandse Spoorwegen/National Dutch railway (NS)**
Sports park: De Toekomst Amsterdam Football Club Ajax (AFC Ajax) Table 1: Note: symbols represent which parties are ready to sell the land and which are not. The
symbols ‘*’, represents a willingness to sell but they are still in a negotiation phase, and ‘**’ represents a strong willingness to sell the land for the right amount of compensation.
Table 1 illustrates the parties that Ouder-Amstel must get in alignment with. The parties do have different interests and Ouder-Amstel only needs to receive approval
16
It is necessary to note that this thesis will only focus on Nieuw Vredelust and not the other allotment parks. 17
Source interview with Stephan 10-04-2018
of the landowners. For instance, the land for Oldcourse is owned by National Dutch railway and is willing to sell and could force Oldcourse to leave. For Borchland, this does not apply, but they are nevertheless willing to sell their land when there is permission to envision the building plans of de Nieuwe Kern. These actors play a role in the situation of Nieuw Vredelust, however, one of the principal actors is Sports park De Toekomst that is owned by AFC Ajax (Amsterdam Football Club Ajax). It is necessary to describe a meeting between the allotment holders of Nieuw Vredelust and Ouder-Amstel that took place in 2009 to understand why de Toekomst is a principal actor.
In 2009, the allotment holders of Nieuw Vredelust were invited by Ouder-Amstel to discuss the building plans of de Nieuwe Kern. During this meeting, four different scenarios of developing de Nieuwe Kern were presented to the allotment holders. In two of these scenarios, the replacement or removal of the parks was an option. However, the relocation of de Toekomst whereby the allotment parks could remain as presented in the following image was seen as most desirable by the municipality (Gemeente Ouder-Amstel 2010:14).
Google Maps locations actors: the blue markers indicate the actors that reside on the land that Ouder-Amstel wants to use for the Nieuwe Kern.
The reason for this, is that some areas of the allotment parks are under the air routes of Schiphol. Regulations prescribe a maximum height for residential homes under a flight path, therefore, these regulations could block the plans of de Nieuwe Kern to build (Gemeente Ouder-Amstel 2013). However, the pressure to build on Nieuw Vredelust and the other parks increased tremendously when AFC Ajax rejected the plans to relocate their sports park de Toekomst. Stephen said the following about this:“First there was the plan to build on ‘de Toekomst’ and to propose to Ajax that they could expand their thing all to the east of the Holterbegstreet. And that was the idea, but Ajax just did not agree with it.”
Research indicate that governments usually invest in sports facilities or stadiums as they anticipate the economic benefits that come along with them (Coates and Humphreys 2000). The same applies for the municipality of Amsterdam as they actively collaborate with AFC Ajax and have 48 percent of the stocks (AFC AJAX NV 2014:19; Gemeente Amsterdam 2016a:48). However, the municipality does not have a formal say in the managerial board of AFC Ajax which means they cannot enforce this organisation to comply with the plans of de Nieuwe Kern (Gemeente Amsterdam 2016a:48). Thus, AFC Ajax had the freedom to reject the plans for de Nieuwe Kern to relocate their sports park De Toekomst.
When AFC Ajax rejected the plans of de Nieuwe Kern, the planned homes in the sports park had to be located elsewhere, and the most vulnerable targets with the right amount of space is the allotment parks. Due to the shift of focus, the
Preferential building plans for de Nieuwe Kern with the replacement of football field de Toekomst (Gemeente Ouder-Amstel 2010:16)
