This article was downloaded by: [Janssen, Joks] On: 1 April 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription

number 910155278] Publisher Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t908394088

Sustainable development and protected landscapes: the case of The Netherlands

Joks Janssen a a Province of North-Brabant, Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands Online Publication Date: 01 February 2009

To cite this Article Janssen, Joks(2009)'Sustainable development and protected landscapes: the case of The Netherlands',International

Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology,16:1,37 47

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13504500902757981 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504500902757981

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology Vol. 16, No. 1, February 2009, 3747

Sustainable development and protected landscapes: the case of The Netherlands

Joks Janssen*
Province of North-Brabant, P.O. Box 90151, 5200 MC,s Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands In 2004, the Dutch government published a policy paper on spatial planning that sets out a framework for the designation of socalled National Landscapes, large areas of inhabited countryside with specific historic elements, geomorphology, natural character and openness. This represents the latest attempt to introduce IUCN Category V protected areas into the Netherlands. National Landscapes are of international importance because they are either unique to the Netherlands or are seldom found elsewhere. The main policy goal is to preserve the existing landscape quality while, at the same time, stimulating social and economic development of the designated area. This article is intended to provide insight into the best ways of sustainable landscape protection in National Landscapes. In order to do so, the Dutch landscape policy is put into a European perspective by comparing National Landscapes with similar large protected landscape areas in Great Britain, France and Germany. In contrast to these wellknown European examples, Dutch National Landscapes do not fully acknowledge the new conservation paradigm that protected landscapes combine social, economic and ecological objectives. Although, in theory, National Landscapes could support regional sustainable development, they currently fall short as test beds for an integrated landscape philosophy. It is argued that policy reform is needed to improve the policy for National Landscapes through more rigorous enforcement of sustainable development goals. A further collaboration and exchange of landscape protection systems across EU countries could support this reform. Keywords: cultural landscape; protected landscape area; The Netherlands; national landscapes; sustainable development

Downloaded By: [Janssen, Joks] At: 20:03 1 April 2009

Introduction Protected landscapes in Western Europe Western Europe has a long-standing tradition of protected landscape management (Hamin 2002; Besio 2003). In contrast to North America, the densely populated character and the existence of few wilderness areas have contributed to the fact that cultural landscapes have become an important management category. Conservation effort in most Western European countries has therefore focused upon lived-in, working landscapes. These landscapes depend on human intervention. Since the European landscape is extraordinarily varied and rich in both natural and cultural interest, designation systems have been developed in order to protect the most beautiful and vulnerable parts. These protected landscapes lie at the heart of the identity of rural Europe and potentially enrich the cultural and natural diversity of both people and places (Pedroli et al. 2007). Against this background it is not unexpected that the European experience with protected landscapes varies. Each country has taken a different course according to its geographic and historical characteristics, social structure, political organization and planning culture. As a result, protected landscapes throughout Europe show many differences, in the number of designated areas they have established, their legal structures, tasks, as well as in their proportion related to the countrys surface area. However, certain common characteristics can be identified. It almost always involves (rural) landscapes that are important for their traditional and less intensive land use. In most cases these landscapes are managed by private land-owners
*Email: jjanssen@brabant.nl
ISSN 1350-4509 print/ISSN 1745-2627 online # 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13504500902757981 http://www.informaworld.com

(mostly farmers), with some small federal or state holdings. Although the officially designated landscapes are often called national or regional parks, they are, according to international guidelines of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), defined as Category V protected areas (Protected Landscape/Seascape). IUCN (1994) defines protected landscapes (Category V) as areas of land, with coast or sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value, and often with high biological diversity. Category V areas represent only some 9% of protected areas globally (6% by area). But in Europe, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) database records that some 46% of the total area under protection is in Category V (Chape et al. 2003). The disparity of landscapes that fall into Category V is substantial. The classifications according to national law include, for instance, Parco Naturale Regionale (Italy), Parc Naturel Regionaux (France), Naturpark (Austria and Germany)  and National Park and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Great Britain). These areas are managed for landscape conservation and recreation. Amenity-oriented purposes are mostly dominant over the scientific pursuit of nature conservation.

Sustainability and landscape Already in the 1980s IUCN recognized protected landscapes as living models of sustainable use (Lucas 1992).

38

J. Janssen preserved, sustainably managed and strengthened where possible (MVROM 2005). Further detailing and implementation of the policy is devolved to the provinces. They are responsible for realizing the governmental targets. Although the introduction of National Landscapes has found general approval, several debates have emerged in the context of the above-mentioned call for sustainable development. In particular, there has been concern over the governance approach and the administrative arrangements set out to balance development and conservation (VROMRaad 2004; Groenfonds 2006; Kalders et al. 2006). Since there is a stronger role for local government in making decisions where to build, and building restrictions have been eased considerably, many are worried that, as a result, the phenomenon of landscape cluttering will increase. Municipalities, it is believed, are all too eager to build, and provinces are politically far too weak to resist the pressure from below (Janssen et al. 2007). This article examines this debate in terms of the evolving conservation experience of protected landscapes throughout Western Europe. Elsewhere, new landscape conservation philosophy seems to work, but not yet in the Netherlands. The objective of this paper, therefore, is to make a comparison among different European countries, in particular Great Britain, France and Germany, in order to put into a suitable context the contemporary arrangements for the Dutch National Landscapes. Does the national governmental landscape policy stimulate the integration of environmental, economic and social objectives in National Landscapes effectively, or is a change in direction and a reordering of priorities for National Landscapes needed in the near future? In order to elaborate the above, this paper first describes and analyses the evolution of different approaches to landscape conservation in Great Britain, France and Germany. Although the landscape protection systems in these countries differ in origin and intention, we argue that since the late 1990s a convergence towards a broadened sustainability role of protected landscapes can be observed. Second, the evolution of the Dutch National Landscapes from the 1970s onward is highlighted and contrasted with the landscape conservation experience in Great Britain, France and Germany. The third part of the paper deals with the challenges and complexities of the current policy for the Dutch National Landscapes and highlights some stumbling blocks on the road to a more sustainable and integrated conservation approach. The fourth and last part discusses the main results of the paper. On the basis of the European comparison of protected landscapes, some recommendations for improving Dutch National Landscape policy are put forward. European approaches to landscape protection Throughout Europe, more and more landscapes are maintained with the specific aim of preserving the cultural landscape regarded as valuable by the society. These landscapes seem to be best supported by sustainable policy objectives

Recent political commitment to sustainable development on a European level further strengthens the idea of an inclusive approach for protected landscapes (Council for the EU 2006). The concept of sustainable development encourages policy officials to address the environmental and social as well as economic dimensions of rural areas. Because of the particular origin and nature of protected landscapes, principally the close relationship between landscape and the people connected with it, Category V protected areas could very well become pioneers in societys search for more sustainable futures (Phillips 2002, 2003). Recently, several public policies in Europe have recognized the role of landscape within the framework of sustainable development. The following objectives have accordingly been articulated: regional policy balanced opportunities for economic development and the provision of services; agricultural policy compliance with environmental standards, cultural landscape preservation and multifunctionality; transportation policy assignment of a high priority to railways and public transport; spatial development rational use of space and the preservation of natural resources; environment and nature conservation improved quality of the human environment, and the conservation of biodiversity and landscape diversity. As demonstrated by the European Landscape Convention (ELC), landscapes are more and more recognized as essential components of peoples surroundings, an expression of the diversity of their shared cultural and natural heritage (Council of Europe 2000: 4). ELC argues that landscape should be valued for reasons of health, education and rural development; it aims to promote landscape protection, management and planning, as well as European co-operation on landscape issues. In light of the perceived acceleration of landscape change, ELC seeks to respond to the publics wish to enjoy high quality landscapes and to play an active part in the development of landscapes. Signatories to the Convention undertake to establish and implement landscape policies aimed at protecting, management and planning; to integrate landscape in the wider context of sustainability. By taking into account landscape, culture and nature, the Council of Europe seeks to protect the quality of life and well-being of Europeans from a sustainable development perspective (Council of Europe 2006). Evolving conservation experience The Dutch government policy paper on housing and the environment, the National Spatial Strategy (MVROM 2004), sets out a policy framework for the designation of National Landscapes; this represents the most recent attempt to introduce Category V protected areas into the Netherlands. Earlier attempts to do so in the 1970s and late 1990s have not been successful (see below). The National Spatial Strategy has underlined the importance of the European Landscape Convention (ratification took place in 2005). Central government designates 20 National Landscapes, whose spatial and visual qualities must be

Downloaded By: [Janssen, Joks] At: 20:03 1 April 2009

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology and measures. The social concept generally considers these landscapes as patrimony; this seems appropriate because changes in traditional cultural landscapes have been very slow, and they seem to be definitely stable and therefore an appropriate symbol of regional and national identity. In the next paragraphs, an overview of British, French and German landscape patrimony is given, focusing specifically on the system of landscape protection and the way in which landscape is related to the concept of sustainable development. British national parks Previously, most protected landscapes were strictly protected as national parks or nature reserves. Good examples are the National Parks of Britain. Their main goal is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the areas (MacEwan A and MacEwan M 1987; Evans 1992). The British National Parks were set up in a system of heavy-handed centralized planning. Development control by the National Park Authorities (NPA), the detailed system by which approval is sought for building and land-use change, is one of the main instruments of park management. Protective measures and financial resources are provided by central government. Because the adopted system manifested major policy performance problems in the 1970s and 1980s, the traditional role of the NPAs in controlling development shifted to one of influencing land management (Curry 1992). The management of land by the NPAs has focused on mitigating the worst effects of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy. This activity was largely reactive, seeking to swim against the tide of changes forced on the parks. Protection took place largely in isolation from, or frequently in opposition to, the most important political pressures on rural life. Because of the emphasis on development control, British parks have alienated local farmers and communities, whose cooperation is needed to carry out conservation policy. Therefore, the 1991 Edwards review of the British National Parks, Fit for the future, resulted in the addition of the economic and social well-being duty in Section 62 (1) of the Environment Act 1995. The Environment Act 1995 makes a move towards integrating functions in respect of National Parks. The purpose of preserving natural beauty is extended to protect, maintain, and enhance the scenic beauty, natural systems, and land forms, and the wildlife and cultural heritage. According to the Edwards review, Park Authorities should foster the social and economic well being of the park communities in partnership with those organizations for whom this is the prime responsibility. Experiences in putting this duty into practice, however, are mixed. A coordinated planning and partnership working in support of the economic and social well-being of park communities is lacking. The (financial) restrictions imposed under Section 62 (1) are not helping either. Section 62 (1) of the Environment Act states that NPAs shall foster the economic and social well-being of local

39

communities within the National Park, but without incurring significant expenditure in doing so, and shall for that purpose co-operate with local authorities and public bodies whose functions include the promotion of economic or social development within the area of the National Park. Consequently, park communities feel that their interests are not served well enough. Park planning and partnerships The failure of socio-economic partnerships within the parks is a major stumbling block on the road to sustainable development (Dower et al. 1998). Since there is a need to seek a new balance between protection of the natural beauty and stimulation of the socio-economic needs of park communities, recent initiatives in Britain increasingly respond to the challenge of sustainability in Category V protected areas. For instance, the newly established Scottish National Parks (2002) are to promote sustainable social and economic development of the areas communities, next to the conservation and enhancement of the natural and cultural heritage (McCarthy et al. 2002). Furthermore, a recent review report of the Welsh National Parks calls for a more integrated sustainable development approach in order to ensure a sustainable future for the (Welsh) National Parks. The report recommends a new park purpose to promote sustainable forms of economic and community development which support the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the areas (Land Use Consultants 2004: IV). In order to act upon these new proposals, British park planning and management must be carried out in close partnership with the local community, private sector and relevant government organizations. According to Phillips and Partington (2005), recent innovative policies in Wales already use protected areas as places where sustainable forms of rural development are pioneered and promoted, giving substance to the British National Parks new purpose. French Parcs Naturels Regionaux  Lessons with community participation and co-production of public and private partnerships can be learned from the French Category V areas, the Parcs Naturels Regionaux  (PNR), with their dual purpose of (1) preservation of the natural and cultural patrimony; and (2) economic development through more efficient agriculture, recreation, local handicrafts, and tourism. The French area protection system also distinguishes national parks, focused on biodiversity and nature conservation. The French regional parks, initiated in 1967, have a history of developing the countryside while at the same time protecting the environment. This is reflected in the PNR emphasis on conservation through appropriate development as Dwyer (1991) has argued. However, in contrast to the British parks, the French PNR lack strong regulatory

Downloaded By: [Janssen, Joks] At: 20:03 1 April 2009

40

J. Janssen 1950s in order to give the expanding cities of West Germany and their population space for recreation and leisure activities (walking, cycling, water sports, etc.), providing opportunities for people to come face to face with nature. As was the case with the British National Parks, German Nature Parks were mainly associated with public recreation. In the late 1950s the Verein Naturschutz Park won state and federal (financial) government support (Ditt 1996). In the following years, different regional and local governments set up nature parks. At first, emphasis solely was on stimulating public access to the German countryside, for instance by setting up visitor information centres. Although the parks were popular and had a positive image, nature conservationists and environmental groups lamented that they were poorly administered, since few restrictions were placed on use (farming and forestry were permitted). Furthermore, nature areas were inadequately protected. As a result, conservation goals became more important, especially since the introduction of the 1976 Bundesnaturschutzgesetz (German nature conservation law), which gave the nature parks legal status. Management authorities were installed, trying to stand up for the best interests of the areas. However, they have been dominated by, for example, agricultural associations who opposed land use regulations that would endanger their idea of agricultural modernization. Since 1995, following updated legislation and responses to international calls for sustainable development, most notably the Rio summit in 1992, as well as the reunification of West and East Germany, there has been a change in orientation towards much more active involvement of local stakeholders in the management of Nature Parks. Model landscapes The German state currently sees Nature Parks as model landscapes with their aim of preserving unique landscapes for and with man and to contribute to sustainable regional development (Deutscher Bundestag 2007). Therefore, the Association of German Nature Parks (Verband Deutsche Naturparke [VDN]) is supporting Nature Parks in correspondence to their tasks by law in the promotion of environmentally friendly and sustainable tourism, in the establishment of ecological land use, which protects and recovers biodiversity and in proceeding regional development, which is maintaining cultural landscapes (VDN 1995). To widen the possibilities of environmental education for visitors and the local population, therefore, is another task of the association, together with the help of the different park authorities. In the parks, emphasis is being placed on promoting regional agricultural and forestry products and tourism services, and in this way encouraging appropriate variants of land use. In addition to nature and landscape conservation, German natural parks also play an important role in preserving local customs, traditional crafts, historical settlement patterns and regional architecture. Different projects,

and enforcement powers. Consequently, a bottom up rather than a top down system has been developed that actively engages local park communities and organizations in a cooperative manner. The French PNR do not provide specific legislation for environmental protection, but instead function through local coordination of existing land-use regulations. A socalled Charter, a contractual document that is approved by several representatives of local and regional agencies and NGOs, signs up park plans. Under the charter, rural communities accept the obligation to apply constraints to themselves concerning the treatment of the environment (Lanneaux and Chapuis 1993). Regional rural development Although in the early years (1970s and 1980s) the French parks mainly emphasized economic development of disadvantaged rural regions, from the early 1990s onward a shift in attitudes away from rigid economic utilitarianism can be observed. Currently, the French Regional Nature Parks develop strategies that either seek directly to support local economic activities or stimulate new socio-economic benefits that strengthen local cultural and natural heritage. Furthermore, park authorities give advice to towns and villages regarding urban organization and the insertion of buildings into the landscape. Underlying this is the idea that environmental protection and economic development are not mutually exclusive. Even more so, it is believed that economic decline could be harmful to the protection of the valued landscape and heritage. After all, in the French context, rural depopulation and marginalization are serious threads. As Buller (2003) has argued, the PNRs have made local economic revitalization their central mission. Since the late 1990s, the French central government has committed itself to the idea that PNRs are perfect units for sustainable policy making (FPNR 2007). The PNRs play a key role in contemporary regional rural development by applying the principles of sustainable development. Although some regional parks fail to implement the conservation objectives of park charters, comparative studies on the British and French system have shown that the French regional parks surpass the British national park system in achieving balanced regional development (Dwyer 1991). According to Freniere (1997), the Park Charters have had a moderating effect on the scale enlargement and intensification of agricultural practices and, furthermore, contributed significantly towards raising the awareness of local park communities regarding environmental impacts of economic development. German nature parks Another example of changing approaches towards the management of protected landscapes is the German Nature Parks (Naturparke). These parks originated in the late

Downloaded By: [Janssen, Joks] At: 20:03 1 April 2009

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology therefore, attempt to guarantee the economic advantages deriving from rural economic renewal and the advantages of a rediscovered sense of regional identity. Towards a regional integration of sectoral interests As the previous section shows, the origins of landscape protection systems throughout Europe differ. In the Britain the case was, first and foremost, to conserve the most spectacular, wild and valued landscapes by establishing National Parks. In France, the main goal was to enhance rural development in fragile but interesting cultural landscapes. In Germany, at last, nature parks were conceptualized as an antidote for an urbanizing society longing for leisure space. Although different in origin and objective, recent policy proposals for protected landscapes in these countries converge towards a broadened sustainable development perspective. A broader inclusive and social view of conservation that links nature and culture is therefore introduced. A commitment to maintain and enhance the landscape quality of rural areas is a central theme of several emerging state and European visions of a sustainable countryside. Against this background, protected landscapes throughout Europe more and more function as flagships for a new and integrated public policy for rural areas. Since landscape conservation and countryside development are aspects of a single whole, conservation, increasingly is seen as an integral part of sustainable management. This is highlighted by the above-mentioned British, French and German protected landscapes, which, since the 1990s, strive towards a regional integration of agriculture, nature and landscape, thereby overcoming the often strong sectoral division of countryside, regional and landscape policy. Since multi-sectoral and multi-level partnerships are essential to an inclusive and participatory approach to landscape conservation, the intention in British, French and German landscape parks is to stimulate and integrate mutual gains between sectoral interests by a conservation through development approach. By working cooperatively with local and regional stakeholders, local, regional and national governments try to increase regional wealth creation, giving greater importance to rural areas, and creating more acceptance for landscape conservation among the local population and increasing awareness of nature and the environment among visitors to the area. For this reason, the concept of sustainable development, supported by national governments, non-profit organizations and a diversity of associations, is put forward in both policy and practice. Despite the ubiquity of sustainability as a concept, within protected landscapes several attempts are made to protect the environment, to promote sound development and to improve the quality of life for people now and in the future. The principles of sustainability, for instance, are applied in a diversity of grassroots projects in order to stabilize and reduce the regions footprint. The intention is not to strive for a zero growth situation, but instead adopt a

41

strategy which develops mutual compatibility between environmental protection and continuing environmental growth. The evolution of Dutch National Landscapes The move away from a protectionist park rationale towards a more dynamic view of landscape that supports sustainable development, as illustrated in the above-mentioned cases, can at least partially also be traced in the evolution of the Dutch National Landscapes. Although the idea to protect certain landscapes from urbanization and industrialization already came to the fore during the interwar period, the first policy proposals to protect valuable cultural landscapes were developed in the 1970s, when the call for a sound planning of the countryside was made by the national government. The broad environmental protest regarding the deterioration of the countryside certainly contributed to this. A series of international and national reports pointed out the long pedigree and diversity of environmental concern, most notably the Club of Rome report Limits to Growth. National landscape parks A first step was taken in 1970 when the Contact Commission for Nature and Landscape, an influential network of experts and agents in nature and landscape conservation without any legal form or statute, published a list of areas it considered deserving of special status. It was not only a list of potential protected nature and landscape areas, but also a strategic answer to the so-called Mansholt plan. This plan, made up by the European Commissioner for Agriculture, Sicco Mansholt, proposed to phase out agricultural production in certain parts of Europe (less favoured areas) in favour of intensification in other parts. The Contact Commissions selection of possible protected areas would help to implement the Mansholt plan, since it provided a strategy for those areas where agriculture would be transformed. Shortly thereafter, in 1972, the Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Work (CRM), responsible for national nature and landscape policy, came up with an unofficial policy document on nature and landscape conservation. It contained a proposal for the designation of national parks and national landscape parks. This distinction followed international guidelines on nature protection. The concept of a national park was reserved for some small, relatively remote semi-natural areas. Emphasis in these areas had to be on protecting ecosystems and biodiversity (MCRM 1975a). The concept of a national landscape park, on the other hand, was created for the protection of valuable agrarian landscapes. In national landscape parks agriculture was considered of crucial importance. However, serious constraints had to be set on the scale enlargement of agricultural farm holdings, since they were potentially damaging to the harmony of the landscape (Rijckevorsel 1972). In line with the British National Park idea, the Dutch national landscape parks were

Downloaded By: [Janssen, Joks] At: 20:03 1 April 2009

42

J. Janssen projects in the pilot areas, National Landscapes were off the political agenda. Central government halted its subsidies. In the years thereafter the policy for National Landscapes became defunct. Reintroducing National Landscapes In the late 1990s, the then left-of-centre government was urged to produce a new (Fifth) National Policy Document on spatial planning. In it, the idea of National Landscapes was re-introduced. The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) indicated seven National Landscapes, mostly situated in the highly urbanized region of the Randstad (MVROM 2001). Behind this selection, landscape values seemed less important than the wish to protect a number of rural regions from urban expansion. Emphasis was more on the conservation of open and green space than on the preservation of regionally differentiated landscape areas, as was the case in the 1970s. As a result, restrictions on (urban) development were stringently worded. Green contours were drawn along these landscapes to counter processes of urbanization. Consistent with the then dominant political ideas, central government would take the lead in protecting the National Landscapes, leaving marginal space to maneouvre for local government. The provinces in the 1970s and 1980s, put forward as the main governmental tier for implementing the National Landscapes, were given their own protected landscapes, i.e. Provincial Landscapes. The Ministry of Agriculture (LNV) would be responsible for these (less stringently protected) landscapes, located in the more rural regions outside the Randstad area. Protection of the existing natural values was considered of prime importance here, albeit in combination with regional (rural) development. Regional landscapes were to be established in a bottom-up manner with the involvement of local people. When the Lower House discussed the Fifth Memorandum, it was very critical of the distinction between National and Regional Landscapes. In the end, following a motion from the Member of Parliament Van Gent, the Lower House voted against this unnecessary and indefensible distinction. The Ministry of VROM and LNV were forced to reach a compromise. This resulted in a new proposal for 13 National Landscapes. However, the designation of National Landscapes was not enacted. April 2002 saw the collapse of the left-of-centre government. As a result, the reading of the Fifth National Policy Document was deferred. The new right-of-centre government, which took office in 2002, introduced some fundamental changes, especially with regard to the restrictions on urbanization. Furthermore, the new government had a different vision of its role in relation to the provinces and municipalities. In particular, it envisaged fewer rules and regulations dictated by central government, more scope for local and regional considerations, more development planning and less development control (MVROM 2004: 3). The national government wanted to tie in with sociocultural and economic trends, rather than combating them,

considered to provide the urban population with recreational space and landscape beauty. Although tourism and recreation should be promoted, according to an interdepartmental commission on national landscape parks, emphasis had to be on the conservation of landscape and the preservation of the regional identity of the areas involved (MCRM 1975b). Pilot areas and experiments A solid planning framework for national landscape parks was presented in the so-called Green Documents, part of the Third Memorandum on Spatial Planning (MLV 1975). This Memorandum focused on the relations between agriculture, nature and landscape, and introduced the concept of conservation grants, subsidizing farmers for not harming natural and cultural values. The idea was that farmers would refrain from potentially damaging measures, such as drainage or leveling their land, when they were financially compensated. By supporting relatively extensive types of farming, the national landscape parks and the farmer subsidies would make it possible to protect a number of landscapes for reasons of ecological and heritage value. In the late 1970s, preparations started for implementing the proposed conservation policy. Five regional pilot areas were selected (Noordwest-Overijssel, Waterland, Winterswijk, De Veluwe and Mergelland) to experiment with the proposed park model. In these pilot areas, provinces would take the lead in cooperation with municipalities, water boards and nature organizations. Despite the fact that the pilot projects were ongoing, final advice on national landscape parks was presented in 1980 (MCRM 1980). This advice clearly differed from the earlier documents, principally that of 1972. After staunch opposition from political groups affiliated with the agricultural sector, a less rigid conservation approach was proposed. From 1980 onward, officials and policy makers spoke of National Landscapes instead of National Landscape Parks. This semantic shift was a response to the political opposition from agricultural groups in previous years. After all, in the view of most farmers the term park referred to a closed enclave with no possibilities for agricultural modernization. This bold view, however, was opposed by the relative success of different conservation schemes and projects executed in the pilot areas. At grassroots level, cooperation between agriculture and landscape could very well be realized. Remarkably enough, the proposed national landscape parks were not legally designated in the years thereafter. In 1983, when the ministry of CRM was abolished, the neo-corporatist Ministry of Agriculture became responsible for implementing Dutch nature and landscape policy. However, this ministry was not motivated in protecting cultural landscapes. Furthermore, it was not inclined to devolve responsibilities to the regional authorities as intended by the former ministry of CRM. Although a few provincial councils continued landscape preservation

Downloaded By: [Janssen, Joks] At: 20:03 1 April 2009

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology thereby moving from imposing restrictions to promoting developments (Vink and Van den Burg 2006). This resulted in a shift from a plan-led towards a development-led planning system. Decentralizing spatial policy was part and parcel of this new approach (Spaans 2006). Therefore, it was decided that the policy for National Landscapes would (once again) be deferred to the provincial and local governments. Furthermore, the Ministry of LNV would be the coordinating ministry for National Landscapes. Conservation through development Emphasis was placed on development rather than conservation per se. This idea was also promoted in the Belvedere Memorandum (1999) that stimulated the use of cultural history in spatial planning projects. It explicitly links cultural heritage with the fields of rural and city planning, nature and landscape. An integrated and proactive approach is adopted, expressed with the conservation through development philosophy, meaning a more dynamic view of heritage and a closer connection between heritage management and spatial planning (Schoorl 2005). Cultural heritage values were a starting point for (spatial) development. According to the Belvedere memorandum the classical way of preserving natural or cultural heritage, as was the case in the 1970s, was no longer appropriate. A more dynamic approach was advocated, focusing on integrated development instead of classical conservation, on opportunities rather than constraints, and on process rather than content. In the National Spatial Strategy (MVROM 2005) the Dutch government has recognized landscape as a vital carrier of cultural heritage, as an economic important asset for tourism, and as positive factor for local socio-economic development. Current policy for the National Landscapes focuses on conservation, sustainable management and, where possible, strengthening of landscape quality. The main policy goal is to protect the so-called core qualities of the landscape without obstructing the socio-economic development of the area. As a result, the National Landscapes are subject to a yes, provided that regime: new developments will be allowed if they add to the core qualities of the existing landscape. Since the economy plays a greater role and the government wants to create more space for development, the municipalities involved are also allowed to build housing for their local populations and provide land for local and regional businesses. However, housing is permitted only to meet demand arising from the natural growth of the area population. Towards an open and developmental policy In general terms, the evolution of the concept of National Landscapes has been influenced by societal demands, political opinions and departmental moves. From the 1970s onward, a gradual but fundamental policy change can be observed, moving from a closed and rather protective concept towards a more open and developmental one. This also

43

holds true for the applied administrative arrangements. For instance, the proposals for National Landscapes in the Fifth Memorandum adopted a rather authorative policy, especially in its intervention discourse. Interventions in agriculture and water management were justified in terms of the national interest, whereby spatial quality was the guiding principle. The Ministry of VROM took a leading role in the planning for National Landscapes and formulated a priori targets for this. The current concept and policy for National Landscapes, however, is more decentralized and liberal in character. The discourse of the new National Spatial Strategy applies to the protection of natural values and regional (rural) development at the same time. Furthermore, coalitions are to be decentralized, since they will involve provincial and local government as well as nature and landscape organizations. Emphasis is more on guiding change in a qualitative direction rather than on pure conservation of nature and landscape. National landscapes and sustainable development As illustrated in the previous sections, the early history of protected landscapes in The Netherlands was driven by the need to provide recreational space and natural beauty by means of a relatively protectionist park model. Emphasis was on the preservation of a rather harmonious landscape. According to policy makers and conservationists of that time, the loss of rural and landscape heritage had to be stopped. The contemporary approach, as advocated by the National Spatial Strategy Memorandum, is characterized by a more dynamic and developmental attitude. A different form of conservation governance is adopted; one that accepts the fact that the needs of local people living and working in the landscape should be integrated with the needs for conservation and enhancement of landscape qualities (Beresford and Phillips 2000). Furthermore, it recognizes the fact that looking after the countryside is a dynamic process that cannot be achieved simply by putting a halt on change. The National Spatial Strategy seeks for a developmental approach that combines the need to stimulate local economic growth with the need to conserve and enhance the landscape. The concept of National Landscapes is clearly adapted to new societal demands as well as to new insights in, and European experiences with, conservation management. For instance, according to IUCN the goal of Category V areas is not preservation but management of change such that the qualities of the landscape are conserved for future generations (Brown et al. 2005). This mirrors the conservation through development approach advocated for the Dutch National Landscapes. Furthermore, IUCN states that protected landscapes should not be seen or managed as living museums to past practices but rather as experimental areas for directing the challenges of globalization for local betterment. Mose (2007) argues that the conceptual view underlying most Category V landscapes, therefore, can be characterized by a dynamic innovation paradigm. This paradigm is typified by a moderate anthropocentrism, where people play an essential integrative role.

Downloaded By: [Janssen, Joks] At: 20:03 1 April 2009

44

J. Janssen Strategy Memorandum will mainly be in the interest of economic growth and protection of private property rights (Zonneveld 2007). There is an absence of real powers and resources at a regional level to protect the most valued landscapes. In contrast to the British National Parks or the French Parcs Naturels Regionaux, National Landscapes are not governed  by a park authority with significant planning powers and semi-independent status. Furthermore, the achievement of the collective aims of socio-economic development and landscape quality may not be possible in the exercise of a planning decision due to the impacts of a particular proposal or project. In those circumstances there is no instrument to resolve occasions when there remains a conflict. Whereas in Britain in those circumstances greater weight is given to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage (known as the Sanford Principle), in the Netherlands there is no overriding criterion that is pivotal in such circumstances. Because of the absence of clear criteria for development planning and statutory powers for park authorities, an imbalance between national and local/regional interests (landscape conservation versus economic growth and social well-being of local communities) will presumably occur in the near future. The yes, provided that approach is rather loose and permits a wide range of possible developments in the National Landscapes. To what extent these developments strengthen or enhance the core landscape qualities is still to be seen. Some even argue that the ability to safeguard the core qualities in the long run is questionable. The same holds true for the condition to create a neutral migration balance within the landscapes. According to the National Spatial Strategy, there is scope for no more than the natural population growth and for local and regional activities. This should give enough room for local economic growth without hindering the objectives of landscape conservation. The Council for the Rural Area (2005) and Zonneveld and Verwest (2005), however, have recognized the fact that this may cause tension, where municipalities do not have the instruments to allocate new housing exclusively to the local population. Shortcomings and drawbacks All in all, one could argue that the current policy strategy does not create a consistent message about the types of change and development that are appropriate in the National Landscapes, leading to confusion and fragmentation in the identity of the designated areas. The multi-functional orientation of National Landscapes bears in equal measure enormous challenges and substantial conflict potential. The multitude of expectations for these areas has great potential to create conflicts about the very purpose of beneficial use of the areas. For instance, there are inherent tensions between promoting economic growth and housing and protecting and promoting environmental sustainability. These tensions will be heightened since the difference between the policy for the National Landscapes and the remaining countryside is rather vague. Because National Landscapes are

Challenges and complexities As a result of the adopted decentralized governance approach, the current policy for National Landscapes has to achieve its management goals mainly by voluntary measures. Central to these measures are techniques for encouraging good stewardship of the landscape. Voluntary methods are increasingly important, not only because regulations are believed to be crude tools for addressing the management of the land, but also because they save the costs of compensation often due from regulatory measures. In due course, provinces and municipalities within the National Landscapes have to encourage desirable action on the part of private landholders. This, however, is increasingly complex, since each of the major stakeholder groups farmers, conservationists and tourists holds different interpretations of landscape conservation. Combining the multiple rationalities and interdependencies of the stakeholders involved is a complex process of social and institutional interaction. However, successful landscape conservation will depend not only on productive collaboration with local people but also on coordinated, integrated planning at provincial, regional and national levels. Of crucial importance for landscape planning is the way in which farming the most dominant land use within the National Landscapes is managed. Although most National Landscapes experience all the (urban) pressures that come with an expanding city system, there are, however, more insidious changes which affect the landscape from within mostly concerned with farming and the demands of modern agro-industrial pressure. Although research shows that farming practice in the National Landscapes is more small-scale and less intensive compared to other areas, further constraints are required on current economic activity, entailing sacrifices by the current generation, if sustainability requirements are to be met (Kuiper and De Regt 2008). After all, good farming practice no longer is conducive to sound conservation. Preservation of the core qualities of the National Landscapes entails the continuation of specific and often economically obsolete farming practices. The question is to what extent future conservation can be ensured by the practice of efficient sustainable agriculture.

Downloaded By: [Janssen, Joks] At: 20:03 1 April 2009

Limitations to protection Given the competing pressures on National Landscapes, and the need to maintain them as cultural landscapes through viable communities and local economies, the government has sought to strike a balance between conservation and change by introducing the yes, provided that approach. As is the case with protected landscapes in Great Britain, France and Germany, protection is never absolute, as the planning of valued landscapes takes place under the influence of changing government politics, economic development and commercial needs. However, the proposed deregulatory measures taken in the Spatial

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology not islands, but related to their surroundings, economically and administratively, policy changes in countryside development will also affect the National Landscapes, either directly or indirectly. Furthermore, the lack of consistency between national, regional and local strategies is of concern, particularly the different approaches to environmental issues in National Landscapes. Most of the strategies adopted by provincial authorities are still very much growth focused. Provinces are reticent to address environmental and social considerations in a more rounded and inclusive approach. Emphasis is on opportunities for, instead of constraints on, development. This has, at least partially, to do with the fact that the benefits of designation for local communities are still not clear, as well as with the fact that the balance of national policy is more on stimulating economic growth instead of landscape conservation. As a result, benefits of development in National Landscapes are taken as manifest, but those of conservation have to be demonstrated with each plan or proposal.
Downloaded By: [Janssen, Joks] At: 20:03 1 April 2009

45

Discussion Although the current policy for National Landscapes represents some aspects of the new conservation paradigm as promoted by IUCN and the Council of Europe, sustainability as an integrating concept remains rather implicit. Conservation is not yet seen as an integral part of sustainable landscape management. The Netherlands is hesitating to transit the concept of sustainable development into its national landscape policy and practice. One reason for this may be that the government is unsure about the consequences of implementation within their legal spatial planning system. Sustainable development may be perceived as a less tangible and more ambiguous concept than, for example, biodiversity, although the latter was no doubt perceived as similarly intangible when the Rio Convention was first adopted in 1992. However, the Rio Convention and Agenda 21 have had an influential impact on environmental legislation and policy in most countries since then. A holistic approach In theory, the promoted governance approach and administrative arrangements could support sustainable development; however, in practice drawbacks will occur. There are several reasons for this, and some have already been discussed in previous section (absence of jurisdiction over agriculture, absence of park authorities, and lack of clear criteria for socio-economic development). Another reason, however, is that there are serious policy conflicts between the national governments deregulatory approach and landscape protection. Extending the scope of permitted development, as implemented since the late 1990s, will have adverse impacts on the natural heritage and the wider countryside (MNP 2007). In other European countries, most notably Britain, France and Germany, the act of balancing national and local interests, conservation and change, is

done in such a way that secures outcomes favourable to landscape conservation. From a European perspective, it is remarkable that the primary focus of conservation effort in Dutch National Landscapes is on landscape quality. National government has defined several core qualities, such as openness, that are typical for each of the National Landscapes. National government has furthermore instructed the provincial councils to translate the broad definitions of these core qualities into more precise descriptions and elaborate on these qualities in their town and country plan in order to ensure that change enhances the landscape values attached to the areas. National government will assess the town and country plan against these core qualities (MVROM 2004). As a result, all attention is drawn towards spatial and visual aspects of landscape, neglecting the broader environment within which these landscapes develop. In the above-mentioned British, French and German examples, however, the importance to protect the quality of life and well being of local people living in protected landscapes is highlighted in a sustainable development perspective. British National Parks, French Parcs Naturels Regionaux and German Nature Parks serve a far wider set  of social, economic and ecological purposes, including for instance addressing quality of life, climate change, conserving biodiversity and protecting cultural heritage. The apparently unbreakable relationship between landscape and visual matters, such as scenery and aesthetics, is, therefore, forced open. Obviously, landscape means more than just a scene appealing to the eye. Landscape can be used as a holistic concept around which a wide array of disciplines can coalesce to explore the integration of humannature relationships. Holism is a fundamental characteristic of the landscape (Naveh 1995) and therefore, landscape is the concept par excellence to address issues of sustainable development (Benson and Roe 2000). Collaboration across the European Union As described above (in the previous section), National Landscapes do not stand apart, but are interwoven with the broader countryside and Dutch rural society in general. What, in this larger context, is the specific role of National Landscapes? Is there a mission that these landscapes can perform in shaping the future of the Dutch countryside? Although limited in its scope, this article provides a number of arguments to positively answer these questions. Learning from experiences with protected landscapes in Britain, France and Germany, it would be interesting to redesign National Landscapes to be flagships or models of state policy on sustainable countryside management (Janssen et al. 2007). Following recent European initiatives on protected landscapes (ELC 2000; EUROPARC 2002; Council of Europe 2006), the Dutch government could commit itself to the idea that National Landscapes are keystones to sustainable development, where vested and institutionalized modes of doing and thinking are circumvented in order to integrate hitherto largely disconnected sectors

46

J. Janssen
Council of Europe, [ELC] European landscape convention. 2000. Florence (Italy). http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/ html/176.htm Council for the European Union. 2006. Review of the EU sustainable development strategy. Brussels (Belgium): European Union. Council for the Rural Area. 2005. National Landscapes: a steady course and ceaseless effort. Amersfoort (The Netherlands): RLG. Curry N. 1992. Controlling development in the national parks of England and Wales. Town Plan Rev. 2:107121. Deutscher Bundestag: Ausschuss fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit. 2007. Naturparke Chancen fur Naturschutz und Regionalentwicklung konsequent nutzen. Berlin (Germany): Deutscher Bundestag. Ditt K. 1996. Nature conservation in England and Germany 190070: forerunner of environmental protection?. Contemp Eur Hist. 5:128. Dower M, Buller H, Asamer-Handler M. 1998. The socio-economic benefits of National parks: a review. Inverness: Scottish National Heritage. Dwyer J. 1991. Structural and evolutionary effects upon conservation policy performance: comparing a U.K. National and a French Regional Park. J. Rural Stud. 3(7):265275. EUROPARC. 2002. Snowdonia Declaration. Llandudno: Wales. Evans D. 1992. A history of nature conservation in Britain. London: Routledge. [FPNR] Federation des Parcs Naturels Regionaux. 2007. La mis   sion de developpement des Parcs naturels regionaux.   Developpement conomique et social. Paris (France): FPNR.  e Freniere GF. 1997. Greenline parks in France: Les Parcs Naturels Regionaux. Agric Human Values. 4(14):337352.  Groenfonds. 2006. Investeren in landschap. Van beleid naar financiele instrumentatie. Hoevelaken (The Netherlands): Nationaal Groenfonds. Hamin E. 2002. Western European approaches to landscape protection: a review of the literature. J Plan Lit. 16:339358. IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. Gland/Cambridge: IUCN. Janssen J, Pieterse N, Van den Broek L. 2007. Nationale landschappen. Beleidsdilemmas in de praktijk. Den Haag/ Rotterdam (The Netherlands): RPB/NAI Uitgevers. Kalders P, Roos E, Verboven M. 2006. Partners in positie brengen. Onderzoek nationale landschappen. Den Haag (The Netherlands): B&A Groep. Kuiper R, De Regt W. 2008. Perspectief van de grondgebonden landbouw als drager van het cultuurlandschap. Bilthoven (The Netherlands): Milieu en Natuurplanbureau. Land Use Consultants and Arwell Jones Associates. 2004. Review of the National Park Authorities in Wales. Bristol: Land Use Consultants. Lanneaux M, Chapuis R. 1993. Les Parcs Regionaux francais. Ann  Geogr 573:519553.  Lucas PHC. 1992. Protected landscapes a guide for policymakers and planners. London: Chapman and Hall. MacEwan A, MacEwan M. 1987. Greenprints for the countryside?. The story of Britains national parks. London: Allen & Unwin. McCarthy J, Lloyd G, Illsley B. 2002. National Parks in Scotland: balancing environment and economy. Eur Plan Stud. 5:665670. [MNP] Milieu-en Natuurplanbureau. 2007. Natuurbalans 2007. Bilthoven (The Netherlands): MNP. [MCRM] Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk. 1975a. Advies van de Interdepartementale Commissie nationale parken en nationale landschapsparken; deel 1 Nationaleparken. s-Gravenhage (The Netherlands): Staatsuitgeverij. [MCRM] Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk. 1975b. Advies van de Interdepartementale Commissie nationale parken en nationale landschapsparken; deel

Downloaded By: [Janssen, Joks] At: 20:03 1 April 2009

(nature, agriculture, recreation, water) and actors (public, market parties, civil society). Complying with these expectations and demands, however, will require a comprehensive, far-reaching and therefore far from easy and long-lasting transition. A first step could be to acknowledge the sustainable development approach in official policy documents and programmes. Another step is to stimulate preparing and drawing up charters for sustainable development on a regional level. Changes in relevant public policies, most notably the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), could furthermore be adopted. Recent CAP reform gives a boost to organic agriculture. Direct aid payments, conditional on compliance with environmental provisions, can be made for the practices necessary to safeguard the landscape and contribute to environmental quality (Stobbelaar et al. 2004). At last, the system of Dutch landscape protection could be strengthened through collaboration and exchange across EU countries. This paper has shown that such guidance from beyond the Netherlands can help national and regional government understand its own landscape resource better, and design improved policies for its protection, management and planning. A European perspective challenges people and institutions at all levels to think innovatively about the Dutch National Landscapes and to value them more highly. Taken together, these actions could create a supportive framework of public policy that will make it easier for National Landscapes to fulfill a positive role in Europes quest for sustainable development. Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to Professor Th.A.M. Beckers (Tilburg University) for his comments on an earlier version of this paper. Furthermore, I would like to thank the editors of this journal and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

References
Benson J, Roe M. 2000. Landscape and sustainability. London: Sponn Press. Beresford M, Phillips A. 2000. Protected landscapes: a conservation model for the 21st century. George Wright Forum. 17(1):1526. Besio M, editor. 2003. Conservation planning: the European case of rural landscapes. In Cultural landscapes: the challenges of conservation. Paris (France): UNESCO World Heritage Centre. p. 6068. Brown J, Mitchell N, Beresford M. 2005. The Protected landscape approach. linking nature, culture and community. Gland: IUCN-The World Conservation Union. Buller H. 2003. The French Parcs Naturels Regionaux: Socio Economic impact and rural development. Newcastle upon Tyne: Centre for Rural Economy (working paper 52). Chape S, Blyth S, Fish L, Fox S, Spalding M. 2003. United Nations list of protected areas. Gland: IUCN. Council of Europe. 2000. European landscape convention. Florence (Italy): Council of Europe. Council of Europe. 2006. Landscape and sustainable development: challenges of the European Landscape Convention. Strasbourg (France): Council of Europe.

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology

2 Interimadvies nationale landschapsparken (advice on national parks and national landscape parks). s-Gravenhage (The Netherlands): Staatsuitgeverij. [MCRM] Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk. 1980. Eindadvies nationale landschapsparken (advice on national landscape parks). s-Gravenhage (The Netherlands): Staatsuitgeverij. [MLV] Ministerie van Landbouw en Visserij. 1975. Nota betreffende de relatie landbouw en natuur-en landschapsbehoud; gemeenschappelijke uitgangspunten voor het beleid inzake de uit een oogpunt van natuur-en landschapsbehoud waardevolle agrarische cultuurlandschappen (policy framework on the relation between agriculture and nature and landscape conservation). s-Gravenhage (The Netherlands): Staatsuitgeverij. [MVROM] Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu. 2001. Ruimte maken, ruimte delen; vijfde nota over de ruimtelijke ordening 2000/2020 (Fifth Memorandum on Spatial Planning). Den Haag (The Netherlands): Ministerie van VROM. [MVROM] Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu. 2004. Nota ruimte; ruimte voor ontwikkeling (National Spatial Strategy). Den Haag (The Netherlands): Ministeries van VROM, LNV, VenW en EZ. [MVROM] Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu. 2005. Nota Ruimte: Uitvoeringsagenda (National Spatial Strategy: Implementation Agenda). Den Haag (The Netherlands): Ministerie van VROM. Mose I. 2007. Protected areas and regional development in Europe: towards a new model for the 21st century. London: Ashgate Publishing. Naveh Z. 1995. Interactions of landscapes and cultures. Landsc Urban Plan. 32(1):4354. Pedroli B, Doorn A van, Blust G de, Paracchini ML, Wascher D, Bunch F. 2007. Europes living landscapes. Essays exploring our identity in the countryside. Zeist (The Netherlands): KNVV.

47

Downloaded By: [Janssen, Joks] At: 20:03 1 April 2009

Phillips A. 2002. Management guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected areas: protected landscapes/seascapes. Gland/ Cambridge: IUCN. Phillips A. 2003. Turning Ideas on their head: the new paradigm of protected areas. George Wright Forum. 20(2):832. Phillips A, Partington R. 2005. Protected landscapes in the United Kingdom. In: Brown J, Mitchell N, Beresford M, editors. The protected landscape approach: linking nature, culture and community. Gland: The World Conservation Union. p. 119130. Rijckevorsel F.C.M. van. 1972. De ontwikkeling van nationale landschapsparken in Nederland. s-Gravenhage (The Netherlands): Staatsdrukkerij. Schoorl F. 2005. On authenticity and artificiality in heritage policies in the Netherlands. Museum Int. 3(57):7985. Spaans M. 2006. Recent changes in the Dutch planning system: towards a new governance model?. Town Plan Rev. 2:127146. Stobbelaar DJ, Hendriks K, Stortelder A. 2004. Phenology of the landscape: the role of organic agriculture. Landscape Res. 29(2):153179. [VDN] Verband Deutscher Naturparke. 1995. Die deutschen Naturparke Aufgaben und Ziele. Luneburg (Germany): VDN. Vink B, Burg A. van den. 2006. New Dutch spatial planning policy creates space for development. DISP. 164:4149. VROMRaad. 2004. Meerwerk: advies over de landbouw en het landelijk gebied in ruimtelijk perspectief (Advice on the spatial future of agriculture and the countryside). Den Haag (The Netherlands): VROM-Raad. Zonneveld W, Verwest F. 2005. Tussen droom en retoriek, de conceptualisering van ruimte in Nederlandse planning. Den Haag/Rotterdam (The Netherlands): RPB/NAI Uitgevers. Zonneveld W. 2007. A sea of houses: preserving open space in an urbanised country. J Environ Plan Manage. 50(5): 657675.