protected landscapes in the netherlands: changing ideas and approaches
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 12 November 2014, At: 06:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Planning PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rppe20
Protected landscapes in the Netherlands:changing ideas and approachesJoks Janssen aa Department of Spatial Planning , Province of North‐Brabant ,‘s‐Hertogenbosch, The NetherlandsPublished online: 07 Dec 2009.
To cite this article: Joks Janssen (2009) Protected landscapes in the Netherlands: changing ideas andapproaches, Planning Perspectives, 24:4, 435-455, DOI: 10.1080/02665430903145689
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02665430903145689
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Planning Perspectives
Vol. 24, No. 4, October 2009, 435–455
ISSN 0266-5433 print/ISSN 1466-4518 online© 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02665430903145689http://www.informaworld.com
Protected landscapes in the Netherlands: changing ideas and approaches
Joks Janssen*
Department of Spatial Planning, Province of North-Brabant, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
Taylor and FrancisRPPE_A_414741.sgm
(
Received March 2008; final version received April 2009
)
10.1080/02665430903145689Planning Perspectives0266-5433 (print)/1466-4518 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & [email protected]
Following international initiatives to safeguard the most valuable cultural landscapes, theDutch government has recently introduced National Landscapes; these are landscapes ofinternational importance because they are either unique to the Netherlands or are seldomfound elsewhere. The main policy goal is to preserve the existing landscape quality, whileat the same time promoting sustainable social and economic development of the area’scommunities. The designation of 20 National Landscapes represents the youngest attemptto introduce IUCN-Category V protected landscapes in the Netherlands. Earlier attempts topromote the preservation of cultural landscapes date back to the 1970s. However, theoriginal ideas were already formulated during the inter-war period. This paper traces backthese earlier ideas on landscape conservation. During the period under investigation, theevolution of ideas on landscape conservation shifted from regulatory to more developmentalmodes of planning and from authoritative to decentralized-liberal arrangements. It is arguedthat factors influencing this shift are the changed position and function of agriculture, thealtered role of government planning and a paradigm shift in natural heritage management.
Keywords:
landscape conservation; National Landscapes; natural heritage; countrysideplanning; the Netherlands
Introduction
In the Netherlands, the National Parks form arguably the most established example of natureconservation designation, having been in operation for nearly 25 years. The Dutch NationalParks form a colourful mosaic of nature areas, characterized by their exceptional landscapesand rare plants and animal species. In common with guidelines and definitions of the Inter-national Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), these parks foster the wildernessconcept of nature, are mostly state owned and managed for ecosystem conservation andrecreation.
1
Recently, however, a new example of nature conservation designation has beenintroduced by the Dutch government; more in line with IUCN protected area Category V:Protected Landscape/Seascape.
2
In 2004 the Dutch Government has adopted the National Spatial Strategy. This policydocument sets out a policy framework for the designation of 20 so-called National Landscapes,whose qualities must be preserved, sustainably managed and strengthened where possible (seeFigure 1). National Landscapes cover large areas of inhabited countryside, largely owned andused economically by local people. In National Landscapes a more Arcadian view on natureis fostered. A management regime for National Landscapes is established that endeavours tointegrate the needs of owners and other interest groups.
3
Figure 1. In 2004 the Dutch government designated 20 so-called National Landscapes. These protected landscapes are considered to provide an answer to the rapid loss of landscape quality in the Netherlands. Some of the National Landscapes, such as the Defence Line of Amsterdam, are on the UNESCO World Heritage list.Source: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer.
Nota Ruimte
[National Spatial Strategy]. Den Haag, 2004.
*Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
436
J. Janssen
Figure 1. In 2004 the Dutch government designated 20 so-called National Landscapes. These protectedlandscapes are considered to provide an answer to the rapid loss of landscape quality in the Netherlands.Some of the National Landscapes, such as the Defence Line of Amsterdam, are on the UNESCO WorldHeritage list.Source: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer. Nota Ruimte [NationalSpatial Strategy]. Den Haag, 2004.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Planning Perspectives
437
Since National Landscapes are important landscapes of (inter)national interest thatcentral government wants to preserve for future generations they are included in a so-calledNational Spatial Framework. The National Spatial Strategy indicates for each topic in theNational Spatial Framework what central government expects. For example, clear standardsare set to protect and maintain the specific qualities of these landscapes. Plans for newdevelopment will have to respect recreational interests, green spaces and water managementrequirements.
With its policy for National Landscapes, central government seems to have recognized thevalue of a priceless and indispensable asset: the Dutch landscape. The policy for NationalLandscapes can be considered as the fulfilment of the emancipation of the cultural landscape.Landscape protection is now finally embedded in the spatial planning system with an indepen-dent position next to nature conservation. As a result, the Netherlands are catching up withother Western European countries that have recognized the cultural landscape in terms ofheritage value.
4
By putting the recent establishment of National Landscapes into proper historical perspec-tive this paper discusses the evolution of the Dutch protected landscape system. The paperaddresses the tension around what nature conservation means in a country which has a longhistory of human settlement, and of the exploitation of land and natural resources. Based onboth historical and contemporary documents, a broad overview is sketched of the evolvingconcept of protected landscapes as well as the key factors that have shaped its specific coursein the Netherlands in the period from 1900, when the first ideas emerged to set aside specifictracts of land for amenity and recreational purposes, to the beginning of the twenty-firstcentury when central government designated National Landscapes. The paper focuses on therelationship between nature conservation and landscape protection in defining protectedlandscape systems for the country amid social, economic and political changes over time,especially in agriculture, government planning and heritage management.
Nature preservation and landscape conservation
Generally, the decades around 1900 are described as the birth period of the nature and land-scape conservation movement in the Netherlands.
5
The original idea to retract nature from itssurrounding environment was first introduced by the biologist Frederik van Eeden Senior(1860–1932). In the late nineteenth century he used the term ‘natural monument’ to describethe Beekbergerwood near the city of Utrecht. According to van Eeden this century-old naturalforest should have become a natural monument, since it represented a vital part of Dutchhistory. He was one of the first Dutch intellectuals to make a connection between nature andthe history of the nation. Frederik van Eeden talked about nature as a monument, therebyemphasizing the monumental status of certain natural areas. He used the term ‘monument’ asan equivalent for the German
Natur-Denkmäler
, as put forward by the botanic scientistConwentz.
6
Although van Eeden suggested the preservation of the Beekbergerwood, it would takeseveral decades before the actual creation of a natural monument took place. Dutch natureand landscape conservation officially started in 1905 when Natuurmonumenten (the Societyfor the Protection of Natural Monuments), the Dutch equivalent to the English NationalTrust, was founded to protect the Lake Naarden (Figure 2), located southeast of Amsterdam,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
438
J. Janssen
Figure 2. Drawing by L.W.R. Wenckebach of a typical dikehouse along the lake Naardermeer, the firstnatural monument in the Netherlands. Jac P. Thijsse, one of the promoters of the preservation of theNaardermeer, published on the specific cultural and natural qualities of the lake in a special issue of thepopular Verkade albums. These albums successfully popularized nature during the pre-war period, andcontinued to have importance after the Second World War.Source: Jac P. Thijsse, Het Naardermeer, 1912.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Planning Perspectives
439
from becoming a waste disposal site. This was prevented after strong societal protest initi-ated by Jac P. Thijsse, the founding father of the Dutch nature conservation movement.
7
Eventually, the Lake was bought by Natuurmonumenten and turned into the first naturalmonument.
8
Figure 2. Drawing by L.W.R. Wenckebach of a typical dikehouse along the lake Naardermeer, the first natural monument in the Netherlands. Jac P. Thijsse, one of the promoters of the preservation of the Naardermeer, published on the specific cultural and natural qualities of the lake in a special issue of the popular Verkade albums. These albums successfully popularized nature during the pre-war period, and continued to have importance after the Second World War.Source: Jac P. Thijsse,
Het Naardermeer
, 1912.
The notion of conserving natural heritage became more pressing in the 1920s when thecenturies-old agricultural practices started to change because of technological innovations andincreased market globalization. Furthermore, growing government intervention due to achanged food production strategy in the Great War (1914–1918) and the creation of jobsduring the Great Depression (1929–1940) resulted in large land reclamation and land consoli-dation projects.
9
As a consequence, large areas of heathland and sand dunes were turned intorational agricultural farming landscape, and semi-natural landscapes disappeared.
Among the urban elite the yearning for the pre-industrial landscape, past land use practicesand traditional ways of life and countryside values grew. As a result, regional nature conser-vation organizations, such as the Provincial Landscapes, a regional offshoot of Natuurmonu-menten, came to the fore. These organizations were founded in reaction to the various landreclamation projects that were started in the 1920s to combat agricultural unemployment.Provincial Landscapes opposed the drying out of dunes through drinking water extraction ordrainage for agriculture, disappearance of landscapes through new infrastructure, bringingheathlands under cultivation, division of country estates for housing, the forestation of heath-lands, drainage of swamps, and pollution of rivers and streams. Furthermore, ProvincialLandscapes were eager to strengthen regional identity by cultivating and protecting typicalregional landscapes.
During the inter-war period the idea that most Dutch nature areas were somehow modifiedby human influence got widespread. Nature conservationists, biologists and planners recog-nized the fact that virtually all the Dutch landscape had been influenced by human activities.The Arcadian instead of the wilderness-concept of nature became especially popular amongconservationists since biodiversity was highest in such low-intensity management land-scapes.
10
Illustrative of the growing importance of landscape conservation next to nature pres-ervation was the fact that during the Second World War the newly founded Contact Committeefor the preservation of Nature and Landscape (1932), an influential network of experts andagents in nature and landscape conservation without any legal form or statue, was expandedwith the task to promote the preservation of cultural landscapes.
11
Several urban and regional planners also put forward the importance of landscape conser-vation. Their idea of nature was primarily socially and aesthetically grounded. Nature was seenas a necessary complement for urban and industrial life. Green spaces, it was believed, couldoffer important recreational opportunities and amenities for citizens. Therefore landscapesshould be protected and the encroachment of the countryside opposed. The primary concern ofmost spatial planners in these days was parasitic building that led to ‘ribbon development’along roads and streams. According to Van der Valk
12
the cries against such ‘indiscriminateexpansion’ were many. Although the arguments varied, the wish to preserve the countrysidewas shared by both spatial planners and nature conservationists.
Most Dutch urban planning ideas on nature and landscape conservation were derived frominternational examples, mainly from the USA and Great Britain. The American and Britishideas on nature and landscape preservation were disseminated through the profession of urbanplanning at conferences since the beginning of the twentieth century. One particularly crucial
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
440
J. Janssen
event was the International Urban Design Conference held in Amsterdam in 1924, which tookthe regional plan as its theme. This conference included the presentation of a substantiveprogramme for (national) parks and nature spaces as vital part of a modern, urban region to aninternational gathering of experts, including renowned urban designers as Abercrombie andSchumacher.
13
Several pioneers in Dutch nature conservation and urban planning were member of inter-national committees and attended these and other international conferences. Jac P. Thijsse, forexample, was a member of the International Council of Bird Preservation from 1923 onward,and in the same year attended an international conference on nature preservation in Paris. DirkHudig (1872–1934), Secretary-Director of the Nederlands Instituut voor Volkshuisvesting enStedebouw (NIVS – Netherlands Institute for Public Housing and Urban Design), took up thejob to coordinate the provincial organizations for landscape conservation and affiliated initia-tives drawing inspiration from the British models of Trusts. Another pioneer of Dutch urbanplanning, H. Cleyndert Azn (1880–1958), travelled to North America, where he came in touchwith the national park movement. The American park system inspired him to plea for anational ‘nature space plan’ as vital part of a national plan for The Netherlands.
14
In the 1924Amsterdam conference on regional planning he already addressed this theme. Cleyndert envis-aged a national system of functionally different, but interconnected nature and landscape areasthat could supply the necessary ‘green quality’ (nature, open space, scenery) for an urbanizedsociety.
Besides Thijsse, Hudig and Cleyndert, several other Dutch conservationists tried topersuade national government to establish national parks by officially designating landscapesof national importance. One of the most remarkable calls was done by the Utrecht geogra-pher Louis van Vuuren, who in 1933 proposed the designation of a man-made agrarian land-scape near Utrecht as a national park.
15
For van Vuuren preservation of this ‘natural’ areaexpressed national pride; it could sustain traditional life-ways, and enable traditional valuesto endure. In line with van Eeden’s thoughts on the link between nature and history, vanVuuren believed that such a national park could exemplify the typical Dutch relationshipbetween nature and society. Although this interpretation clearly differed from the originalAmerican park model with its emphasis on the pristine qualities of wilderness, it also bearsresemblance since it transforms the landscape into a culturally constructed object called‘nature’.
16
In contrast to the internationally accepted practice of establishing government-administeredprotected areas of conservation, the pre-war Dutch nature conservation movement largelydepended on private initiatives. In spite of arguments put forward by nature and landscapeorganizations, central government was reluctant to designate national parks. This was notsurprising in view of the economic crisis of the 1930s that severely hit the agricultural sector,and the novelty of the concept of national parks, a form of land use that required considerableinvestment and yet provided no obvious monetary return. Nevertheless, the idea of nature andlandscape conservation took root, even in government circles. Just before the Second WorldWar the Contact Committee composed a list of endangered nature and landscape areas that,later on, was used by the newly founded Rijksdienst voor het Nationale Plan (RNP – NationalSpatial Planning Office), responsible for coordinating all activities and procedures in the fieldof urban design in the widest sense, to oppose large-scale spatial developments in valuablenature and landscape areas.
17
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Planning Perspectives
441
National parks and national landscape parks
In the years of reconstruction and economic development after the Second World War, naturepreservation (let alone landscape conservation) was not a priority issue in the Netherlands. TheRNP had to hand over important authorities in the field of rural conservation to the Ministryof Agriculture and Food Supply. Post-war countryside planning emphasized the importance offood production. Land consolidation became a popular instrument to increase the scale andproductivity of the agricultural sector. Reclamation and land improvement measures pushedagricultural production to ever higher levels. Although in theory landscape conservation hadto be dealt with in land consolidation (by way of an obligatory landscape plan), in practicelandscape was largely neglected. Concrete restrictions in the practice of land reclamation, landconsolidation and physical planning in favour of landscape conservation were mostly resisted.(Figure 3)
Figure 3. After the Second World War land consolidation became a popular instrument to increase the scale and productivity of the agricultural sector. Land consolidation radically altered the traditional, pre-industrial landscape. Landscape quality rapidly diminished. Situation of land consolidation blocks, completed, in execution and applied for in the years 1955 and 1960.Source: Land Consolidation Service, Utrecht.
At the beginning of the 1960s, the first changes in this modernistic stance took place.Central government halted further reclamations of heathlands and wetlands. The remainingparts were to be protected as nature reserves and recreational space. Furthermore, the SecondMemorandum on Spatial Planning (1966) drawn up by the Ministry of Housing and Spatial
Figure 3. After the Second World War land consolidation became a popular instrument to increase thescale and productivity of the agricultural sector. Land consolidation radically altered the traditional, pre-industrial landscape. Landscape quality rapidly diminished. Situation of land consolidation blocks,completed, in execution and applied for in the years 1955 and 1960.Source: Land Consolidation Service, Utrecht.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
442
J. Janssen
Planning emphasized the importance of nature and landscape beauty for outdoor recreation.Following the pre-war ideas of Cleyndert, Hudig and others, the Memorandum proposed anational system of park spaces that would connect urban and rural areas.
It was only in the 1970s, however, that the Dutch government undertook serious effort toprotect valuable cultural landscapes. As the pace of landscape changes increased, concern forthe future of the landscape became more pressing, and the government found it necessary tointervene. The broad environmental protest regarding the deterioration of the countrysidecertainly contributed to this. The disadvantages of large rural reconstruction schemes andheavily subsidized production measures became clearer, as well as the separated prospects forurban and rural development brought about by the distinctive planning system. Whereassmall-scale farming assured a stable and rich semi-natural landscape that could be enjoyed bycity dwellers, the agricultural production system developed in the opposite direction of mech-anization and industrialization. Furthermore, the nature conservation movement grew inpopularity as a result of the increase in welfare. The 1970s saw an ever-growing number ofpeople who became member of some sort of environmental organization.
18
Since organiza-tion sizes grew, they could influence governmental policy more effectively. Beside it,national conservation organizations, like Natuurmonumenten, and international organizations,in particular IUCN and the World Wide Fund for Nature, encouraged the Dutch governmentto take action.
The 1970s discussion on nature and landscape conservation continued ideas and conceptsalready formulated in the pre-war period; however, it did so in an increasingly politicizedcontext. Vehement conflicts emerged because of the claims articulated by the agriculture andnature conservation lobbies. In 1970 the Contact Committee published a new list of areas itconsidered deserving a special status. It was not only a list of potential nature and landscapeparks, but also a strategic answer to the so-called Mansholt plan. This plan, made up by theEuropean Commissioner for Agriculture, Sicco Mansholt, proposed to phase out agriculturalproduction in certain parts of Europe (less favoured areas) in favour of intensification in otherparts.
19
The Contact Committee’s selection of possible landscape parks would help to imple-ment the Mansholt plan since it provided a strategy for those areas where agriculture wouldbecome more extensive in character.
Shortly thereafter, in 1971, the Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Work (CRM),responsible for nature conservation, came up with a policy document for nature and land-scape conservation. It contained a proposal for the designation of both national parks andnational landscape parks.
20
This distinction followed the internal organization of the Ministryas well as international guidelines on nature protection.
21
These guidelines were formulatedand published in 1967 by the International Commission for Natural Parks of IUCN. Next, theGeneral Assembly of IUCN accepted a definition of what a national park should be, namelyan unaltered, rather wild or pristine natural landscape, largely owned and managed by thestate. This so-called New Delhi resolution excluded inhabited and exploited areas as nationalpark.
Following the IUCN definition, most of the Dutch countryside could never be designatedas national park, simply because it was highly modified by human activity. According toF.C.M. van Rijckevorsel, together with W.G. van der Kloet, one of the most prominent advo-cates of protected landscape policy, the New Delhi resolution was used to synchronize Dutchnature and landscape conservation with international standards.
22
From that moment, the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Planning Perspectives
443
concept of a national park was reserved for those relatively remote natural areas that were lessmodified by human activity. Emphasis in these areas had to be on protecting ecosystems andbiodiversity. The designation of a number of strict nature reserves as national parks proved asolid (and internationally accepted) concept that was successfully executed during the follow-ing decades.
23
The concept of national landscape parks, however, proved more difficult toimplement.
National landscape parks were considered to provide the urban population with recre-ational space and landscape beauty.
24
According to the Ministry of CRM (Figure 4), nationallandscape parks would function as a designation that conferred special protection upon landwithin it, because of its landscape quality.
25
This meant that resources should be available topromote and manage tourism within the area, special funds should be distributed to land
Figure 4. A brochure of the Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Work that promoted the ideaof national landscape parks. In 1980 when the brochure was published, however, national landscapeparks were renamed. An adhesive label indicated that from that point onward central government wouldspeak of National Landscapes.Source: Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk. Nationale landschapsparken. Omde schoonheid van ons land. Den Haag, 1980.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
444
J. Janssen
owners, and that certain restrictions were to be applied on spatial development. Agriculturewas considered of crucial importance. However, serious constraints had to be set on the scale-enlargement of agricultural farm holdings since they were potentially damaging for theharmony of the landscape. Although tourism and recreation should be promoted, the mainemphasis was on the conservation of landscape and the preservation of the regional identity ofthe areas involved.
Figure 4. A brochure of the Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Work that promoted the idea of national landscape parks. In 1980 when the brochure was published, however, national landscape parks were renamed. An adhesive label indicated that from that point onward central government would speak of National Landscapes.Source: Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk.
Nationale landschapsparken. Om de schoonheid van ons land
. Den Haag, 1980.
A solid planning framework for national landscape parks was presented in the so-calledGreen Documents, part of the Third Memorandum on Spatial Planning (Figure 7). ThisMemorandum focused on the relation between agriculture, nature and landscape and introducedthe concept of ‘conservation grants’, subsidizing farmers for not harming natural and culturalvalues.
26
The idea was that farmers would refrain from potentially damaging measures, suchas drainage or levelling their land, when they were financially compensated. The national land-scape parks and the farmers’ subsidies would make it possible to protect a number of landscapesfor reasons of ecological and heritage values, and by supporting relatively extensive types offarming.
Figure 5. Late twentieth century Dutch public opinion was greatly in favour of nature, but less in favour of on-farm nature conservation. This rather romantic image of a farmer against the background of an idyllic rural landscape was used by farmers’ organizations to promote the idea of farmers as adequate managers of nature.Source: Eric Denig,
Boer of parkwachter? Enige gedachten over nationale landschapsparken
, Ministerie van Landbouw en Visserij, Den Haag, 1977.
Because national landscape parks were lived-in, working landscapes, a different conserva-tion approach had to be developed. According to CRM more responsibility had to be given toregional and local authorities since it was recognized that protected landscapes would notsurvive, nor achieve their aims, without local support. In the late 1970s preparations started toexperiment with the proposed park model in five regional pilot areas. Provinces would take thelead in cooperation with municipalities, water boards and nature organizations. Four of thefive pilots turned out to be relatively successful.
27
Projects included, for instance, small-scalerural development, promotion of local foods, green tourism and maintaining local landscapeidentity.
Despite the fact that the pilot projects were still ongoing, a final advice on national landscapeparks was presented in 1980 by a parliamentary commission.
28
This advice differed from theearlier documents, principally that of 1971. Because of fierce opposition from farmers’ orga-nizations in several pilot areas, a less rigid conservation approach was proposed (Figure 5). Thecommission advised central government not to place any constraints on agricultural develop-ment in the landscape parks. In addition, from the 1980s onward, officials and policy-makersspoke of National Landscapes instead of national landscape parks. This semantic shift was intro-duced to depoliticize the contested meaning of the word ‘park’. According to farmers’ organi-zations the term ‘park’ referred to a closed enclave with almost no possibilities for agriculturalmodernization (Figure 6).
29
Figure 6. In the 1970s and early 1980s farmers’ organizations often protested against the establishment of national landscape parks. The word ‘park’ was associated with surveillance and guards that would control the activity of farmers.Source:
Plan; Maandblad voor ontwerp en omgeving
8 (1976): 18.Figure 7. The Third Memorandum on Spatial Planning indicated 20 possible national landscape parks. These protected landscapes were characterised by the specific inter-dependency of the different facets of landscape, such as nature, relief, land use and historic buildings.Source: Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk.
Nota Nationale Landschapsparken: Advies van de interdepartementale commissie nationale parken en nationale landschapsparken
. Den Haag, 1975.
The proposed national landscape parks were not legally designated in the years thereafter.When the first Lubbers administration took office in 1982, it was decided that the Ministry ofCRM would be abolished and that the Departments of Nature and Landscape Conservation andOutdoor Recreation would be transferred from CRM to the Ministry of Agriculture. Althoughthe Ministry was willing to implement the nature and landscape policy, the former CRMDepartments had to sacrifice the national landscape parks. The then neo-corporatist Ministryof Agriculture was not motivated to protect cultural landscapes. Farming had priority overrural conservation and landscape protection was neglected. Furthermore, this Ministry was notinclined to devolve responsibilities from the central to regional and local tiers of governmentas proposed by CRM. In the years thereafter, the experiments in the pilot areas were stoppedand national government funding was cut back.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Planning Perspectives
445
Figure 5. Late twentieth century Dutch public opinion was greatly in favour of nature, but less infavour of on-farm nature conservation. This rather romantic image of a farmer against the backgroundof an idyllic rural landscape was used by farmers’ organizations to promote the idea of farmers asadequate managers of nature.Source: Eric Denig, Boer of parkwachter? Enige gedachten over nationale landschapsparken, Ministerievan Landbouw en Visserij, Den Haag, 1977.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
446
J. Janssen
National landscapes
Towards the end of the 1990s cultural landscape conservation was put back on the politicalagenda again, because of both national and international initiatives. Regarding the latter, it isworth mentioning the 1995 UNESCO designation of the isle of Schokland as World HeritageSite, followed in 1999 by the Beemster polder, the oldest area of reclaimed agricultural land inthe Netherlands. Central government increasingly recognized that protected landscapes are inpart an international responsibility. Beside it, a group of local and regional authorities inEurope, of which some were Dutch, was working under the auspices of the Council of Europeon a draft convention for the protection of European landscapes, stressing the need to protectthe most valuable cultural landscapes from a sustainable development perspective. Theyargued that some landscapes possess exceptional features and are therefore of interest toEurope as a whole.
Another reason for the renewed interest in cultural landscape protection had to do with thechanged position of agriculture in the Dutch countryside. From the 1990s onward agriculturecould not play its role as the undisputed supporter of rural areas any longer. Furthermore, theexclusive domain of closed economic–political networks in which agrarian actors and theirrepresentatives dominated came under increasing pressure. As a result, fierce protest fromagrarian organizations supported by conservative political parties against introducing landscapeparks lost strength.
Figure 6. In the 1970s and early 1980s farmers’ organizations often protested against the establishmentof national landscape parks. The word ‘park’ was associated with surveillance and guards that wouldcontrol the activity of farmers.Source: Plan; Maandblad voor ontwerp en omgeving 8 (1976): 18.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Planning Perspectives
447
To survive, agriculture more and more became dependent on the urban society and its repre-sentatives in planning and politics. New organizational principles were needed in order to diver-sify and revitalize the rural economy and at the same time strengthen the greatly appreciatedecological and socio-cultural qualities of rural space. As a result, the Ministry of Agricultureexperimented with a more integral conservation policy for the Dutch countryside. In 1994 anew policy for the development of so-called valuable man-made landscapes (VMLs) was intro-duced that combined an integrated approach with a bottom-up strategy. The main VML-policygoal was to decrease the tension between agriculture, nature, landscape and recreation.
30
Thisran parallel with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform in the early 1990s, introducingan extended environmental programme. CAP aimed at promoting land uses which are compat-ible with the protection and improvement of the countryside, the landscape and land manage-ment for public access and leisure activities.
Figure 7. The Third Memorandum on Spatial Planning indicated 20 possible national landscape parks.These protected landscapes were characterised by the specific inter-dependency of the different facetsof landscape, such as nature, relief, land use and historic buildings.Source: Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk. Nota Nationale Landschapsparken:Advies van de interdepartementale commissie nationale parken en nationale landschapsparken. DenHaag, 1975.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
448
J. Janssen
From a national viewpoint, it is noteworthy to mention a renewed belief in town and countryplanning, particularly in left-wing political circles.
31
When in the late 1990s the left-of-centregovernment (coalition of Labour Party and liberals) was urged to produce a new, (Fifth)National Memorandum on Spatial Planning, the concept of National Landscapes was re-intro-duced. The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (HSPE) indicated sevenNational Landscapes, mostly situated in the highly urbanized region of the Randstad. Behindthis selection the wish to protect a number of rural regions, most notably the Green Heart, fromurban expansion seemed more important than the preservation of specific landscape values.
32
Consequently, restrictions on urban development were stringently worded. Green contours weredrawn along these landscapes to counter processes of urbanization.
Consistent with the left-wing political ideas of the minister of HSPE, central governmentwould take the lead in protecting National Landscapes, leaving marginal room to manoeuvrefor local government. The provinces, in the 1970s put forward as the main governmental tierfor implementing the conservation policy, were given their own protected landscapes, namely:provincial landscapes. The Ministry of Agriculture would be responsible for these (less strin-gently protected) landscapes, located in the more rural regions outside the Randstad-GreenHeart area (Figure 8). The protection of the existing natural values was considered of primeimportance here, albeit in combination with regional (rural) development. Regional landscapeswere to be established in a bottom-up manner with the involvement of municipalities and localpeople.
Figure 8. The Randstad-Green Heart is the most famous Dutch planning doctrine. Since the early 1920s national spatial policy is aimed at keeping the meadow landscape between the Randstad cities (Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam, and Utrecht) open and unspoiled. Since 2004 the Green Heart region is designated as National Landscape.Source: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer.
Randstad en Groene Hart. De groene wereldstad
. Den Haag, 1996.
When the Lower House discussed the Fifth Memorandum, it turned out to be very criticalof the distinction between national and regional landscapes. In the end, following a motionfrom the Member of Parliament Van Gent, the Lower House voted against this ‘unnecessaryand indefensible distinction’.
33
The Ministries of HSPE and Agriculture were forced to reacha compromise. This resulted in the abolishment of regional landscapes altogether, and a newproposal for the designation of 13 instead of the original seven National Landscapes. However,the designation was not enacted. April 2002 saw the collapse of the left-of-centre government.As a result, the reading of the Fifth Memorandum was deferred.
The new right-of-centre government (liberals remained in government, but the ChristianDemocrats replaced the Labour Party), which took office in 2002, introduced some fundamen-tal changes, especially with regard to the restrictions on urbanization. Furthermore, the newgovernment had a different vision on its role in relation to the provinces and municipalities. Inparticular it envisaged ‘fewer rules and regulations dictated by central government, more scopefor local and regional considerations, more development planning and less developmentcontrol’.
34
The national government wanted to tie in with socio-cultural and economic trends,rather than combating them, thereby moving from ‘imposing restrictions’ to ‘promoting devel-opments’.
35
This resulted in a shift from a plan-led towards a development-led and market-oriented planning system, making greater use of market mechanism to effect change, deliverservices or manage spatial processes.
Decentralizing spatial policy was part and parcel of this new approach. It was decided thatthe policy for National Landscapes would (once again) be deferred to the provincial and localgovernments. Furthermore, the Ministry of Agriculture would be the coordinating Ministry forNational Landscapes. However, the classical planning approach, in which each ministry (withaffiliated institutions) acts separately from other ministries, was withdrawn. Since the SpatialPlanning Memorandum was a joint effort of several ministries, National Landscapes had to be
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Planning Perspectives
449
supported by the Ministry of HSPE and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science,responsible for the Dutch cultural heritage (including some National Landscapes), as well. Itwas clearly felt that the Dutch situation of separated rural and urban planning was no longereffective, for the interests of city and countryside became too much entangled in each other.
Figure 8. The Randstad-Green Heart is the most famous Dutch planning doctrine. Since the early1920s national spatial policy is aimed at keeping the meadow landscape between the Randstad cities(Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam, and Utrecht) open and unspoiled. Since 2004 the Green Heartregion is designated as National Landscape.Source: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer. Randstad en GroeneHart. De groene wereldstad. Den Haag, 1996.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
450
J. Janssen
The above-mentioned emphasis on development rather than conservation per se, however,was not only the result of changing political opinions and theories of government, but alsorelated to a paradigm shift in conservation and heritage management. This shift was mostexemplary recorded in the Belvedere Memorandum (1999) that stimulated the use of culturalhistory in spatial planning projects. It indicated so-called Belvedere-areas where regional andlocal government were stimulated to explicitly link cultural heritage with the fields of rural andcity planning, nature and landscape.
36
An integrated and proactive approach was adopted,expressed with the ‘conservation through development’ philosophy, meaning a more dynamicview of heritage and a closer connection between heritage management and spatial planning.According to the Belvedere Memorandum, the classical way of preserving natural or culturalheritage, as was the case in the 1970s, was no longer apt. A more dynamic approach was advo-cated, focusing on integrated development instead of classical conservation, and on opportuni-ties rather than constraints.
Linked to the broadened and integrated concept of protected landscape management wasan enlargement of the number of National Landscapes. The National Spatial Strategy desig-nated 20 unique or characteristic regions as national landscape; about 800,000 hectares in all,covering almost 25% of the country’s surface. Former VMLs as well as several Belvedere-areaswere united into the newly founded National Landscapes. The purpose of this designation is toenable greater care and attention to be given to the preservation, management and strengtheningof the landscape and its natural, cultural–historical and recreational values.
As a result of the above-mentioned changes, the current policy for National Landscapesfocuses on conservation, sustainable management and, where possible, strengthening of land-scape quality. Central government has defined several so-called ‘core qualities’, such as ‘open-ness’ or ‘geometric parcel allotment’, that are typical for each of these National Landscapes.The main policy goal is to protect these ‘core qualities’ while at the same time stimulating asustainable socio-economic development of the area’s communities. The policy on NationalLandscapes makes spatial developments possible provided that the ‘core qualities’ of the land-scape are maintained or developed. This approach is typified as ‘yes, provided that’, and bearsresemblance with the Belvedere policy. Within the National Landscapes, the existing land-scape quality is the guiding principle as far as developments are concerned. This means:managing and developing with respect for the genesis of the area and its (historic and cultural)values. Central government recognizes the fact that looking after valuable landscape is adynamic process that cannot be achieved simply by putting a halt on change.
Conclusion: government action on landscape protection
This paper has analyzed the development of the protected landscape approach in theNetherlands and sought to explain why this approach has recently come to the fore after a longperiod of time being relatively unsuccessful in comparison with strict nature conservation. Thepolicy response has been rather slow in coming, but today there is an emerging framework forprotecting the most valuable cultural landscapes in the country, by establishing so-calledNational Landscapes.
The present-day call for the dynamic protection of National Landscapes bears resemblancewith the early twentieth century call for nature conservation that was not so much derivedfrom a strict preservation concept (as in American national parks), but rather from a landscape
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Planning Perspectives
451
protection concept. Although images of a wild, unspoiled nature did play a role in the pre-wardebate on nature and landscape conservation, the Arcadian and pastoral image of naturedominated.
37
Consequently, the early history of nature and landscape conservation in theNetherlands was driven by the need to develop a conservation system that would protect themost beautiful and vulnerable parts of Dutch ‘Arcadia’.
After the Second World War, the conservation movement was largely excluded from ruralconservation issues. Their pre-war plea for an integrated nature and landscape conservationmodel by means of a national plan did not get through. Different ministers of Agriculture,responsible for countryside planning, claimed the time for creating designated areas for natureand landscape conservation was inopportune since food production had first priority. Theycould do so because up to the late 1960s the agricultural sector was exempt from spatial plan-ning and had almost absolute power over the countryside. Agriculture relatively flourishedand the state of nature, landscape and environment deteriorated. In the 1970s, however,central government took up the job of nature conservation more seriously and two distinctpolicies evolved: one rather strict and authoritative for national parks, based on the interna-tional ideas of nature conservation as stimulated by IUCN, and a more decentralized andbottom-up one for national landscape parks, stemming from the pre-war ideas on landscapeconservation.
From the 1980s onward, the concept for national parks was successively executed.Contrary to national parks, national landscape parks lacked institutional support at nationallevel and hence had no opportunity to get established in the years thereafter. The Dutch situa-tion of separated rural and urban planning certainly contributed to this. Recently, however, thissituation has changed. National Landscapes as a contemporary successor to national landscapeparks have been introduced and established. Although this success can be interpreted as theresult of the growing influence of urban and green interests in rural conservation, this paperreveals that other factors are relevant as well.
One reason for the recent breakthrough in establishing protected landscapes in theNetherlands is the changed position and function of agriculture. In contrast to the 1970s theclassical and modernist agricultural policy has lost its strength. The discussion on the future ofagriculture has shifted from a unilinear development to a multi-linear one. European andnational agricultural policies emphasise the contribution of extensive and biological agricul-tural production methods on characteristic landscapes. Agri-environmental schemes are morespecifically directed towards green farming. Beside it, the Ministry of Agriculture has broad-ened its focus, encouraging regional and local governments as well as NGOs to develop land-scape management policies in which local and regional identities are integrated.
A second reason is the paradigm change in heritage management. Up to the late 1970semphasis in Dutch landscape conservation was on the preservation of a rather ‘harmonious’landscape. From the 1980s onward, however, policy changes were introduced since the ideasbehind the 1970 concepts, like ‘harmony’ and ‘harmonious’ evolution, led to uncertainties anddifficulties in the area’s management. These changes resulted in a shift from a rather closedand protective concept (national landscape parks) towards a more open and developmental one(National Landscapes).
This also holds true for the administrative arrangements that were influenced by the alteredrole of government planning as outlined above. A transition including a strong increase in theinfluence of private parties and NGOs can be observed, which means that the government has
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
452
J. Janssen
to play a new, less autonomous and absolute role in countryside development. Since the late1990s, a different form of conservation governance is adopted; one that accepted the fact thatthe needs of local people living and working in the landscape should be integrated with theneeds for conservation and enhancement of landscape qualities.
Epilogue: challenges for the future
The above-mentioned changes in the field of agriculture, heritage management and govern-ment planning have been invaluable in improving the present-day public as well as politicalacceptance and support for establishing protected landscape areas in the Netherlands. Althoughthe situation for the implementation of protected landscape policy has greatly improvedwith the recent designation of National Landscapes in government policy, it still is far fromperfect. The values of a qualitative landscape can only be safeguarded by permanent steward-ship, finance, local support, and, above all, political commitment.
An important precondition to successful policy whereby the National Landscapes can beconserved and developed on an ongoing basis is to embed policy addressing valuable culturallandscapes in a sustainable manner. Learning from the history of Dutch protected landscapepolicy it can be stated that political support is an unstable factor. Taking this instability intoaccount, it seems necessary to give National Landscapes a more durable status. This calls forlegislation in which the main objectives of conservation are established, as already exists incountries such as Germany, France and the UK.
38
The conservation of cultural landscapes is,by definition, a process which demands both time and patience. The approaches adopted byother countries demonstrate that public support will indeed be gained over time, as peoplebecome accustomed to the idea and gradually come to recognize the advantages of protectedstatus. Where there is neither public acceptance or political support (or where the level of polit-ical support varies according to the government of the day), confidence will be eroded and itwill be even more difficult to achieve consensus. Long-term continuity of policy can only beguaranteed by means of legislation.
Moreover, those responsible for the implementation of National Landscapes policy must begiven greater authority at the local level. This can be achieved by delegating greater responsi-bility for design and management to the existing area commissions and/or project bureaus. Inthat regard it is necessary to give National Landscapes a greater autonomy. One could arguethat the higher the autonomy of a protected landscape, the lower the degree and its dependenceon the political climate, and the better possibility to develop and implement rules and long-term conservation activities adapted to the site-specific situation.
39
Besides having effectivelegislation and appropriate government agency structures to deliver the intended policies, afuture challenge for the National Landscapes is keeping a balance between landscape protec-tion and sustaining the economic and social well-being of protected areas. Currently, the ‘yes,provided that’ approach is rather loose and permits a wide range of possible developments inthe National Landscapes. To what extent these developments strengthen or enhance the corelandscape qualities is still to be seen.
40
Although serious policy challenges and dilemmas remain, we are now at a time of extraor-dinary promise for National Landscapes, after a long period when central government and theagricultural sector counteracted protected landscape measures. There is a new mood of under-standing and common sense, a new determination to move away from an authoritative and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Planning Perspectives
453
rather closed protective area system and devote political effort instead to the task of dynami-cally preserving the most valuable Dutch cultural landscapes.
Notes on contributor
Joks Janssen (1975) works as a Strategist on policy development at the Province of North-Brabant’s spatialplanning department. In recent years Joks has worked as a Researcher at the Netherlands Institute forSpatial Research. Janssen’s research focus is on planning history and cultural landscape studies. He studiedurban planning at Eindhoven University of Technology. He was awarded a Ph.D. with distinction fromTilburg University in 2005. His Ph.D. dissertation focuses on countryside images in twentieth centuryDutch rural planning. He has published widely on the transformation of post-war Dutch rural landscapes.
Notes
1.
IUCN distinguishes protected areas in six categories. Category II (National Park) is defined as:‘Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or moreecosystems for present and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to thepurposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational,recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compati-ble’. United Nations Environment Program website, http://www.unep-ucmc.org/protected_areas/categories/eng/ii.pdf (accessed July 30, 2009).
2.
IUCN Protected Area Category V (Protected Landscape) is defined as: ‘Area of land, with coast andsea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area ofdistinct character with significant aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value, and often with highbiological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protection,maintenance and evolution of such an area’. United Nations Environment Program website, http://www.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/categories/eng/v.pdf (accessed July 30, 2009).
3.
See for a short overview of the current policy for National Landscapes: Netherlands Environmen-tal Assessment Agency.
Nature balance 2007
. Bilthoven: MNP, 2007, 66–70. A more in-depthanalysis is provided by: J. Janssen, N. Pieterse, and L. van den Broek,
Nationale Landschappen.Beleidsdilemma’s in de praktijk
(Den Haag/Rotterdam: RPB/NAI Publishers, 2008).
4.
In the mid-1990s a benchmark of protected landscape systems in Western Europe identified theNetherlands as one of the few countries without any formally or legally protected landscapes accord-ing to the standards of IUCN (Protected Area Category V – Protected Landscapes). See: J. Aitchison,‘Cultural Landscapes in Europe: A Geographical Perspective’, in
Cultural Landscapes of UniversalValue: Components of a Global Strategy
, ed. B. von Droste et al. (Jena: Fischer Verlag, 1995), 272–88.
5.
H. van der Windt,
En dan: wat is natuur nog in dit land? Natuurbescherming in Nederland
(Amsterdam /Meppel: Boom, 1995).
6.
K. van Berkel,
Vóór Heimans en Thijsse: Frederik van Eeden sr. en de natuurbeleving in negentiende-eeuws Nederland
(Den Haag: KNAW, 2006), 24.
7.
J. Woudstra and P. Jacobus, ‘Thijsse’s Influence on Dutch Landscape Architecture’, in
Nature andIdeology: Natural Garden Design in the Twentieth Century
, ed. J. Wolschke-Bulmahn (Washington,DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1997), 155–85.
8.
‘Natuurmonumenten’ still exists today and has approximately one million members. It is the largestNGO for nature conservation in the country.
9. For instance, during the 1930s the Dutch constructed a dike 19 miles (31 km) long across theentrance of the Zuiderzee, thus creating a shallow freshwater lake called the IJsselmeer; they thenproceeded to reclaim some three-fifths of the former sea for use as farmland. R. J. Hoeksema, ‘ThreeStages in the History of Land Reclamation of the Netherlands’, Irrigation and Drainage 1 (2007):113–26.
10. The difference between notions as unspoiled nature, (cultural) landscapes and the introduction ofconcepts like ‘half-nature’ and ‘landscape monuments’ within the circles of the privately-drivennature conservation movement in the years from 1940 onward reflect the awareness of the idea that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
454 J. Janssen
Dutch nature was modified by human influence. Terms like ‘half-nature’ and ‘semi-natural land-scapes’ were coined by the biologist Vic Westhoff (1916–2001), who played a prominent role in theDutch nature conservation movement. Van der Windt, En dan: wat is natuur nog in dit land, 117.
11. The Contact Committee was an interest-promoting organization on nature and landscape conservation.Although it did not have a formal or institutional status, its advice reports and calls for the preservationof specific nature/landscape areas did have expressiveness. The power of the Committee originatedfrom its members, who had influential positions in politics, industrial life and non-governmental orga-nizations, such as Natuurmonumenten. For example, M. van der Goes van Naters, who became chair-man of the Contact Committee after the Second World War, was Member of Parliament for the DutchLabour party. In 1978, however, the Contact Committee fell apart. J.N.M. Dekker, Dynamiek in deNederlandse Natuurbescherming (Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, 2002), 31–2.
12. A.J. van der Valk, Planologie en natuurbescherming in historisch perspectief (‘s-Gravenhage:NIROV, 1982).
13. H. Cleyndert Azn., ‘De bescherming en de opbouw van het Nederlandsche landschap. Voordracht inde algemene ledenvergadering van 18 maart 1939’, in Jaarboek der Vereniging tot behoud vanNatuurmonumenten in Nederland 1936–1940 (Amsterdam, 1941), 101–21.
14. K. Bosma, ‘Regional Planning in the Netherlands 1920–1945’, Planning Perspectives 2 (1990):125–47.
15. L. van Vuuren, Een nationaal park in Nederland (Utrecht: Kemink, 1933).16. The pre-war ideas on establishing national parks in the Netherlands, as put forward by van Vuuren,
Thijsse and others, participated in the production of Dutch national identity. This interlinkagebetween environmental protection, nation building and identity formation can also be traced inAmerica after the Civil War. R. Grusin, Culture, Technology, and the Creation of America’sNational Parks (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
17. The National Planning Office advised the head of the Department of Housing on several spatial plan-ning issues. Because the head of the Department of Housing used his title to make objection to thecarrying out of any work incompatible with the National Plan (in preparation) some highly valuednature and landscape areas could be protected.
18. J.L. van Zanden and S.W. Verstegen, Groene geschiedenis van Nederland (Utrecht: Het Spectrum,1993).
19. S. Mansholt, ‘The Mansholt Plan’ as established in CEC, 1968: Memorandum on the Reform ofAgriculture in the European Economic Community, COM (68) 100 (Brussels: European Commission,1968).
20. Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk [MCRM]. Nota inzake een systeem vannationale parken en nationale landschapsparken in Nederland. Den Haag: MRCM, 1971.
21. The Department of Nature and Landscape Conservation adopted the national parks, whereas theDepartment of Outdoor Recreation became responsible for the national landscape parks. Obviously,national landscape parks were thought of as designated areas that could satisfy the heavy demandsof residents for recreation and amenities.
22. In an appendix of the 1971 budget for the Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Work, policy-makers stated that the New Delhi resolution would be used as guideline for official consultation onthe establishment of nature conservation areas. For the Netherlands it was more easy to adhere to theIUCN’s concept of national parks simply because these conservation areas still had to be establishedon the date IUCN came up with the New Delhi resolution. Other European countries, in particularGreat Britain, already established national parks in the early post-war period. The national parks ofEngland and Wales are areas of relatively undeveloped and scenic landscape that are designatedunder the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949. Despite the name, national parksin England and Wales are different from the IUCN’s national park concept; they adhere more closelyto IUCN Category V – Protected Landscapes. See: F.C.M. van Rijckevorsel, De ontwikkeling vannationale landschapsparken in Nederland (‘s-Gravenhage: Staatsdrukkerij, 1972), 4. See for ageneral account of the IUCN protected area system: P.H.C. Lucas, Protected Landscapes: A Guidefor Policy-makers and Planners (New York: Chapman & Hall, 1992).
23. In total the Netherlands has 20 National Parks. The two oldest parks, Veluwezoom (1930) and HogeVeluwe (1935), were founded by private persons. This is in line with the pre-war dominance of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Planning Perspectives 455
private initiatives in nature conservation. After the Second World War, more particular the periodfrom 1980s onward, successive ministers for Agriculture, Nature and Food quality established theremaining 18 parks.
24. Because landscape parks would be important for recreation and access to the countryside, from theoutset the Dutch motoring and tourist organization (ANWB) actively supported the idea of theirestablishment. ANWB. De nationale landschapsparken. Inhoudende de beschouwingen van derecreatie-studiedag 1971 en aanvullende artikelen. Den Haag: ANWB, 1972.
25. Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk [MCRM]. Advies van de Interdeparte-mentale Commissie nationale parken en nationale landschapsparken: deel 2 Interimadvies NationaleLandschapsparken [Advice on national parks and national landscape parks]. ’s-Gravenhage:Staatsuitgeverij, 1975.
26. Ministerie van Landbouw en Visserij [MLNV]. Nota betreffende de relatie landbouw en natuur- enlandschapsbehoud: gemeenschappelijke uitgangspunten voor het beleid inzake de uit een oogpuntvan natuur- en landschapsbehoud waardevolle agrarische cultuurlandschappen [Policy frameworkon the relation between agriculture and nature and landscape conservation]. ’s-Gravenhage:Staatsuitgeverij, 1975.
27. These pilot areas were: Noordwest-Overijssel, Waterland, Winterswijk, De Veluwe, and Mergel-land. See for a detailed evaluation of these pilots: W.G. van der Kloet, ‘Nationale landschapsparken’,Nederlands Bosbouwtijdschrift 11–12 (1980): 277–317.
28. Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk [MCRM]. Eindadvies NationaleLandschapsparken [Final advice on national landscape parks]. ’s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij, 1980.
29. E. Denig, Boer of parkwachter, enige gedachten over nationale landschappen (Den Haag: SDUUitgevers, 1975).
30. Since 1994, 11 areas in the Netherlands have been designated as VMLs. Countryside areas desig-nated as such were financially supported by the Ministry of Agriculture to execute projects stimulat-ing agricultural and recreational practices that would enforce landscape quality. In 2002 the policywas halted. Most former VMLs have become part of a National Landscape. See for a more detailedaccount of the VML-policy: M. Pleijte et al., WCL’s ingekleurd: Monitoring en evaluatie van hetbeleid voor Waardevolle Cultuurlandschappen (Alterra: Wageningen, 2000).
31. M. Hajer and F. Halsema, eds., Land in zicht! Een cultuurpolitieke visie op de ruimtelijke inrichting(Amsterdam: Wiarda Beckman Stichting/Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 1997).
32. The Dutch landscape architect H. Lörzing has quite extensively elaborated on the the controversybetween the national planning policy towards the Green Heart (which is aimed at preserving theGreen Heart as an open, unspoiled meadow landscape between the largest urban areas of the country)and the aspirations of local politicians to make their towns and cities grow. See: H. Lörzing,‘Planning System and Landscape: A Dutch Example’, Landscape Research 4 (2004): 357–69.
33. Verslag van een notaoverleg, April 15, 2002 (TK vergaderjaar 2001–2002, 27 578, nr. 103)34. Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu [MVROM]. Nota ruimte; ruimte
voor ontwikkeling [National Spatial Strategy]. Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers, 2004, 3.35. B. Vink and A. van der Burg, ‘New Dutch Spatial Planning Policy Creates Space for Development’,
DISP 1 (2006): 42.36. F. Schoorl, ‘On Authenticity and Artificiality in Heritage Policies in the Netherlands’, Museum
International 3 (2005): 79–85.37. Up until today, the Arcadian tradition is most influential in the Netherlands. See for a detailed account
of contemporary visions on Dutch nature: H.J. van der Windt, J.A.A. Swart, and J. Keulartz, ‘Natureand Landscape Planning: Exploring the Dynamics of Valuation, the Case of the Netherlands’,Landscape and Urban Planning 3–4 (2007): 218–28.
38. E.H. Hamin, ‘Western European Approaches to Landscape Protection: A Review of the Literature’,Journal of Planning Literature 3 (2002): 339–58.
39. For instance, National Parks in the UK are governed by National Park Authorities (NPAs). They arecorporate bodies with executive powers. The NPAs are strategic and local planning authorities fortheir area, and have all the ‘countryside’ powers available to local government.
40. Council for the Rural Area. National Landscapes: A Steady Course and Ceaseless Effort. Amersfoort:RLG, 2005.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
6:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14