The Planning of Fit
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The planning of fit A GIS study of scale challenges in community-based planning for landscape services in South Holland. Martijn Haag 1 2 The planning of fit: A GIS study of scale challenges in community-based planning for landscape services in South Holland. MSc Thesis Land Use Planning Course code: LUP-80436, 36 ECTS Wageningen, September 2015 Martijn Haag Reg. nr: 880702-291-040 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Paul Opdam Examiners: Prof. Dr. Paul Opdam Dr. Martha Bakker Wageningen University Land Use Planning Group Postbus 47 6700 AA Wageningen the Netherlands Cover photo: A slope model of the border between the municipalities Leiden and Zoeterwoude. In the generally flat landscape of South Holland, minor changes in elevation become pronounced, giving a highly detailed image of the landscape. The image was made in ArcGIS 10.2, using the Slope tool on the AHN2 dataset. 3 4 Abstract Community-based planning is used globally to manage landscapes and natural resources. The approach promises many advantages over top-down planning. One weakness of community-based planning is the reliance on the local scale, foregoing planning at the regional or higher levels of scale. This thesis examines two key scale challenges, the problem of fit and the plurality of relevant scales. Through GIS, I studied the demand from local actors for three landscape services and the scale necessary to supply them, using a planning process in the Netherlands as case study. Both scale challenges were found to be prevalent in the study area. The combination of multiple problems of fit and many relevant scales results in a significant planning challenge that is unlikely to be tackled through community-based planning alone. This thesis suggests that planning should be integrated across multiple levels of scale, and that guidelines based on multi-scale governance theory can aid in resolving these problems. Keywords: community-based planning, scale challenges, GIS, landscape services, multi-scale governance Acknowledgements: This thesis received support from the province of South-Holland in the form of (cartographic) datasets. It was not financed by the province. Numerous researchers at Alterra provided thoughtful input or discussion, for which I am grateful: Claire Vos, Sabine van Rooij, Janien van der Grift, Michiel van Eupen, Wieger Wamelink, Sjerp de Vries. Outside Alterra, Kees Verdouw (province South Holland) and Chris Versteegh (Heineken brewery Zoeterwoude). A special thanks goes to my supervisor, Paul Opdam, who continued to devote his time to this thesis after his retirement. 5 Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................. 5 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 8 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9 Problem description and research questions ................................................................................. 11 Theoretical framework .............................................................................................................. 13 Scale theory: multi-level, cross scale linkages ........................................................................... 13 Community based Planning within a social network .................................................................... 13 Social-ecological networks from a community-based planning perspective ..................................... 14 Conceptual framework: scale dependency of landscape services .................................................. 15 Methods ................................................................................................................................. 16 Landscape service demand: dream sessions ............................................................................. 16 Landscape service potential supply .......................................................................................... 20 Mismatch between supply and demand .................................................................................... 21 Plurality and municipal demand for landscape services ............................................................... 21 Actor involvement ranking...................................................................................................... 24 Synthesis............................................................................................................................. 24 Outdoor recreation ................................................................................................................... 25 Results ................................................................................................................................ 25 Dream session demand ....................................................................................................... 25 Municipal demand .............................................................................................................. 26 Potential supply ................................................................................................................. 27 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 29 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 30 Mismatch .......................................................................................................................... 30 Plurality ............................................................................................................................ 31 Actor involvement .............................................................................................................. 32 Pollination .............................................................................................................................. 35 Results ................................................................................................................................ 35 Dream session demand ....................................................................................................... 35 Municipal demand .............................................................................................................. 35 Potential supply ................................................................................................................. 36 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 38 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 39 Mismatch .......................................................................................................................... 39 Plurality: Actor involvement ................................................................................................. 40 Water purification .................................................................................................................... 44 Results ................................................................................................................................ 44 Dream session demand ....................................................................................................... 44 Municipal demand .............................................................................................................. 44 Hoogheemraadschap Rijnland (Water board) .......................................................................... 45 6 Potential supply ................................................................................................................. 45 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 46 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 47 Mismatch .......................................................................................................................... 47 Plurality ............................................................................................................................ 47 Actor involvement .............................................................................................................. 47 Synthesis ............................................................................................................................... 49 Interaction between the identified scale challenges .................................................................... 49 Actor ranking ....................................................................................................................... 52 Final discussion and conclusions ................................................................................................ 54 Identifying scale challenges .................................................................................................... 54 The mismatch challenge ...................................................................................................... 54 The plurality challenge .......................................................................................................