Landscape services as boundary concept in landscape governance: Building social capital in collaboration and adapting the landscape

Land Use Policy

Volumn 60, Issue , 2017, Pages 408-418

  Westerink, Judith ^a   Opdam, Paul ^a   van Rooij, Sabine ^a   Steingröver, Eveliene ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Agri environmental schemes; Boundary management; Collaborative governance; Self governance; Social learning; Social ecological networks

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT; AGRICULTURAL LAND; LAND MANAGEMENT; LEARNING; SELF GOVERNMENT; SOCIAL CAPITAL;

NETHERLANDS;

EID: 84995380593     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.006     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Benedict, M.A., McMahon, E.T., Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. 2012, Island Press.
2. Bianchi, F.J.J.A., Booij, C.J.H., Tscharntke, T., Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 273 (2006), 1715–1727.
3. Bodin, Ö., Crona, B.I., Management of natural resources at the community level: exploring the role of social capital and leadership in a rural fishing community. World Dev. 36 (2008), 2763–2779.
4. Bodin, Ö., Crona, B.I., The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference?. Glob. Environ. Change 19 (2009), 366–374.
5. Bodin, Ö., Robins, G., McAllister, R.R.J., Guerrero, A.M., Crona, B., Tengö, M., Lubell, M., Theorizing benefits and constraints in collaborative environmental governance: a transdisciplinary social-ecological network approach for empirical investigations. Ecol. Soc., 21, 2016.
6. Brittain, C., Kremen, C., Klein, A.M., Biodiversity buffers pollination from changes in environmental conditions. Glob. Change Biol. 19 (2013), 540–547.
7. Buizer, M., Arts, B., Westerink, J., Landscape Governance as Policy Integration ‘from Below’: A Case of Displaced and Contained Political Conflict in The Netherlands. 2015, Government and Policy, Environment and Planning C.
8. Carr, A., Wilkinson, R., Beyond participation: boundary organizations as a new space for farmers and scientists to interact. Soc. Nat. Resour. 18 (2005), 255–265.
9. Creswell, J.W., Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2009, Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
10. Cumming, G.S., Bodin, T., Ernstson, H., Elmqvist, T., Network analysis in conservation biogeography: challenges and opportunities. Divers. Distrib. 16 (2010), 414–425.
11. De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41 (2002), 393–408.
12. Dewulf, A., Gray, B., Putnam, L., Lewicki, R., Aarts, N., Bouwen, R., Van Woerkum, C., Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: a meta-paradigmatic perspective. Hum. Relat. 62 (2009), 155–193.
13. Driessen, P.P.J., Dieperink, C., Van Laerhoven, F., Runhaar, H.A.C., Vermeulen, W.J.V., Towards a conceptual framework for the study of shifts in modes of environmental governance – experiences from The Netherlands. Environ. Policy Gov. 22 (2012), 143–160.
14. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., Balogh, S., An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 22 (2012), 1–29.
15. Fürst, C., Opdam, P., Inostroza, L., Luque, S., Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balanced score card. Landsc. Ecol. 29 (2014), 1435–1446.
16. Faehnle, M., Tyrväinen, L., A framework for evaluating and designing collaborative planning. Land Use Policy 34 (2013), 332–341.
17. Franks, J.R., Emery, S.B., Incentivising collaborative conservation: lessons from existing environmental Stewardship Scheme options. Land Use Policy 30 (2013), 847–862.
18. Franks, J., Boundary organizations for sustainable land management: the example of Dutch Environmental Co-operatives. Ecol. Econ. 70 (2010), 283–295.
19. Frede, H.G., Bach, M., Fohrer, N., Breuer, L., Interdisciplinary modeling and the significance of soil functions. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 165 (2002), 460–467.
20. Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P.L., Montes, C., The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 1209–1218.
21. Görg, C., Landscape governance: the politics of scale and the natural conditions of places. Geoforum 38 (2007), 954–966.
22. Garmendia, E., Apostolopoulou, E., Adams, W.M., Bormpoudakis, D., Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure in Europe: boundary object or ecological trap?. Land Use Policy 56 (2016), 315–319.
23. Granovetter, M., The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociol. Theory 1 (1983), 201–233.
24. Healey, P., Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. 1997, Macmillan, Press London.
25. Herringshaw, C.J., Thompson, J.R., Stewart, T.W., Learning about restoration of urban ecosystems: a case study integrating public participation, stormwater management, and ecological research. Urban Ecosyst. 13 (2010), 535–562.
26. Herzon, I., Helenius, J., Agricultural drainage ditches, their biological importance and functioning. Biol. Conserv. 141 (2008), 1171–1183.
27. Huntjens, P., Eshuis, J., Termeer, C.J.A.M., Van Buuren, A., Forms and foundations of action research. Van Buuren, A., Eshuis, J., Van Vliet, M., (eds.) Action Research for Climate Adaptation. Developing and Applying Knowledge for Governance, 2015, Routledge, Oxon/New York, 19–34.
28. Innés, J.E., Booher, D.E., Consensus building and complex adaptive systems a framework for evaluating collaborative planning. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 65 (1999), 412–423.
29. Isbell, F., Calcagno, V., Hector, A., Connolly, J., Harpole, W.S., Reich, P.B., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Schmid, B., Tilman, D., Van Ruijven, J., Weigelt, A., Wilsey, B.J., Zavaleta, E.S., Loreau, M., High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477 (2011), 199–202.
30. Jones, L., Norton, L., Austin, Z., Browne, A.L., Donovan, D., Emmett, B.A., Grabowski, Z.J., Howard, D.C., Jones, J.P.G., Kenter, J.O., Manley, W., Morris, C., Robinson, D.A., Short, C., Siriwardena, G.M., Stevens, C.J., Storkey, J., Waters, R.D., Willis, G.F., Stocks and flows of natural and human-derived capital in ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 52 (2016), 151–162.
31. Jones, R., Categories: borders and boundaries. Progress Hum. Geogr. 33 (2009), 174–189.
32. Kuindersma, W., Boonstra, F.G., The changing role of the state in dutch regional partnerships. Environ. Plann. C: Gov. Policy 28 (2010), 1045–1062.
33. Kull, C.A., Arnauld de Sartre, X., Castro-Larrañaga, M., The political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum 61 (2015), 122–134.
34. Lamont, M., Molnár, V., The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Ann. Rev. Sociol., 2002, 167–195.
35. Leys, A.J., Vanclay, J.K., Social learning: a knowledge and capacity building approach for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes. Land Use Policy 28 (2011), 574–584.
36. Lopez-Gunn, E., The role of collective action in water governance: a comparative study of groundwater user associations in La mancha aquifers in Spain. Water Int. 28 (2003), 367–378.
37. Menzel, S., Teng, J., Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 24 (2010), 907–909.
38. Metze, T.A.P., Deliberative governance in synergy with government: a case study of credible environmental improvements in the dairy gateway International USA. Rev. Adm. Sci. 77 (2011), 31–49.
39. Miller, C., Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 26 (2001), 478–500.
40. Mills, J., Gibbon, D., Ingram, J., Reed, M., Short, C., Dwyer, J., Organising collective action for effective environmental management and social learning in Wales. J. Agric. Edu. Ext. 17 (2011), 69–83.
41. Mills, M., Álvarez-Romero, J.G., Vance-Borland, K., Cohen, P., Pressey, R.L., Guerrero, A.M., Ernstson, H., Linking regional planning and local action: towards using social network analysis in systematic conservation planning. Biol. Conserv. 169 (2014), 6–13.
42. Mollinga, P.P., Boundary work and the complexity of natural resources management. Crop Sci., 50, 2010 S-1-S-9.
43. Morris, C., Networks of agri-environmental policy implementation: a case study of England's Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Land Use Policy 21 (2004), 177–191.
44. OECD, Providing Agri-Environmental Public Goods Though Collective Action. 2013, OECD Publishing, Paris.
45. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Berkes, F., Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environ. Manage. 34 (2004), 75–90.
46. Opdam, P., Steingröver, E., Rooij, S.V., Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plann. 75 (2006), 322–332.
47. Opdam, P., Coninx, I., Dewulf, A., Steingröver, E., Vos, C., van der Wal, M., Framing ecosystem services: affecting behaviour of actors in collaborative landscape planning?. Land Use Policy 46 (2015), 223–231.
48. Opdam, P.F.M., Westerink, J., Vos, C.C., Vries, E.A.d., The role and evolution of boundary concepts in transdisciplinary landscape planning. Plann. Theory Pract. 16 (2015), 63–78.
49. Opdam, P.F.M., Using ecosystem services in community-based landscape planning: science is not ready to deliver. Fu, B., Jones, K.B., (eds.) Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture, 2013, Springer, Dordrecht, 77–101.
50. Ostrom, E., Governing The Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
51. Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., Taillieu, T., Social learning and water resources management. Ecol. Soc., 12, 2007.
52. Palacios-Agundez, I., Fernández de Manuel, B., Rodríguez-Loinaz, G., Peña, L., Ametzaga-Arregi, I., Alday, J.G., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Madariaga, I., Arana, X., Onaindia, M., Integrating stakeholders’ demands and scientific knowledge on ecosystem services in landscape planning. Landsc. Ecol., 2014, 1–11.
53. Parker, J., Crona, B., On being all things to all people: boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42 (2012), 262–289.
54. Peerlings, J., Polman, N., Wildlife and landscape services production in Dutch dairy farming; jointness and transaction costs. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 31 (2004), 427–449.
55. Prager, K., Reed, M., Scott, A., Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale-rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 29 (2012), 244–249.
56. Prager, K., Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 12 (2015), 59–66.
57. Pretty, J., Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302 (2003), 1912–1914.
58. Putnam, R., Light, I., de Souza Briggs, X., Rohe, W.M., Vidal, A.C., Hutchinson, J., Gress, J., Woolcock, M., Using social capital to help integrate planning theory, research, and practice: preface. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 70 (2004), 142–192.
59. Rhodes, R.A.W., The new governance: governing without government. Polit. Stud. 44 (1996), 652–667.
60. Sørensen, E., Triantafillou, P., The Politics of Self-Governance. 2009, Ashgate, Farnham.
61. Sandström, A., Rova, C., Adaptive co-management networks: a comparative analysis of two fishery conservation areas in Sweden. Ecol. Soc., 15, 2010.
62. Schleyer, C., Görg, C., Hauck, J., Winkler, K.J., Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming the ecosystem services concept in the multi-level policy-making within the EU. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 (2015), 174–181.
63. Schneider, M., Scholz, J., Lubell, M., Mindruta, D., Edwardsen, M., Building consensual institutions: networks and the national estuary program. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 47 (2003), 143–158.
64. Schut, M., Van Paassen, A., Leeuwis, C., Beyond the research-policy interface: boundary arrangements at research-stakeholder interfaces in the policy debate on biofuel sustainability in Mozambique. Environ. Sci. Policy 27 (2013), 91–102.
65. Skelcher, C., Mathur, N., Smith, M., The public governance of collaborative spaces: discourse, design and democracy. Public Adm. 83 (2005), 573–596.
66. Sol, J., Beers, P.J., Oosting, S.J., Geerling-Eiff, F.A., Action Research in a Regional Development Setting: Students as Boundary Workers in a Learning Multi-Actor Network, Knowledge in Action: The Search for Collaborative Research for Sustainable Landscape Development. 2011, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, 133–152.
67. Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19 (1989), 387–420.
68. Star, S.L., This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 35 (2010), 601–617.
69. Steingröver, E.G., Geertsema, W., van Wingerden, W.K.R.E., Designing agricultural landscapes for natural pest control: a transdisciplinary approach in the Hoeksche Waard (The Netherlands). Landsc. Ecol. 25 (2010), 825–838.
70. Taylor, M., Communities in the lead: power, organisational capacity and social capital. Urban Stud. 37 (2000), 1019–1035.
71. Termeer, C.J.A.M., Bruinsma, A., ICT-enabled boundary spanning arrangements in collaborative sustainability governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 18 (2016), 91–98.
72. Termorshuizen, J.W., Opdam, P., Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc. Ecol. 24 (2009), 1037–1052.
73. Tippett, J., Searle, B., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rees, Y., Social learning in public participation in river basin management—early findings from HarmoniCOP European case studies. Environ. Sci. Policy 8 (2005), 287–299.
74. Turnhout, E., Stuiver, M., Klostermann, J., Harms, B., Leeuwis, C., New roles of science in society: different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Sci. Public Policy 40 (2013), 354–365.
75. Van Berkel, D.B., Verburg, P.H., Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol. Indic. 37 (2014), 163–174.
76. Van Bommel, S., Röling, N., Aarts, N., Turnhout, E., Social learning for solving complex problems: a promising solution or wishful thinking? A case study of multi-actor negotiation for the integrated management and sustainable use of the Drentsche AA area in the Netherlands. Environ. Policy Gov. 19 (2009), 400–412.
77. Van Broekhoven, S., Boons, F., Van Buuren, A., Teisman, G., Boundaries in action: a framework to analyse boundary actions in multifunctional land-use developments. Environ. Plann. C: Gov. Policy 33:Oct (5) (2015), 1005–1023.
78. Wals, A.E.J., Rodela, R., Social learning towards sustainability: problematic, perspectives and promise. NJAS – Wageningen J. Life Sci. 69 (2014), 1–3.
79. Warner, J., Lulofs, K., Bressers, H., The fine art of boundary spanning: making space for water in the East Netherlands. Water Altern. 3 (2010), 137–153.
80. Westerink, J., Melman, T.C.P., Schrijver, R.A.M., Scale and self-governance in agri-environment schemes: experiences with two alternative approaches in the Netherlands. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 58 (2015), 1490–1508.
81. Westerink, J., Kempenaar, A., Van Lierop, M., Groot, S., Van der Valk, A., Van den Brink, A., The participating government: shifting boundaries in collaborative spatial planning of urban regions. Environ. Plann. C: Gov. Policy, 2016 (online first).