6.2 Comparing Informality 133 6.3 Advancing Informality 138
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen The following full text is a publisher's version. For additional information about this publication click this link. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/183214 Please be advised that this information was generated on 2021-10-05 and may be subject to change. Community-led, Government-fed and Informal Community-led, Government-fed and Informal Exploring Planning from Below in Depopulating Regions across Europe Marlies Meijer Marlies Meijer Community-led, Government-fed and Informal Exploring Planning from Below in Depopulating Regions across Europe Marlies Meijer Marlies Meijer Community-led Government-fed and Informal, Exploring planning from below in depopulating regions across Europe, 190 pages. PhD thesis, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen, NL (2018) Graphic design cover and inside: Rachel van Esschoten, DivingDuck Design (www.divingduckdesign.nl) Printed by: Proefschriftmaken.nl, Vianen (www.proefschriftmaken.nl) ISBN: 978-94-6295-836-4 Community-led Government-fed and Informal Exploring planning from below in depopulating regions across Europe Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. dr. J.H.J.M. van Krieken, volgens besluit van het college van decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 20 februari 2018 om 14.30 uur precies door Marlies Meijer geboren op 25 juli 1985 te Meppel Promotoren: Prof. dr. Huib Ernste Prof. dr. Erwin van der Krabben Copromotor: Dr. Stefan Dormans Manuscriptcommissie: Prof. dr. Gert-Jan Hospers Prof. dr. Brita Hermelin (Linköpings Universitet, Zweden) Prof. dr. Ina Horlings (RUG) Acknowledgements Writing a thesis often feels like a journey. This journey has been an adventurous one, yet sometimes lengthy, and I am grateful for all the people I met on the way and who travelled with me. This journey allowed me to travel to the periphery of rural Europa (and sometimes a little further) and to the periphery of planning practice and research. Travelling can be demanding, and I would like to thank all of you who made this journey possible. First I would like to thank my supervisors. Huib and Erwin: thank you for the opportunity to write a PhD thesis. As promotors you have provided me with the freedom to find my own path, often off the beaten track. For me this was very important, yet for you it must have been challenging at times. Allthough it was not in the initial project proposal, you did not object to include Spain and Sweden as case study areas. Huib, thank you for our discussions and the opportunity to present my work in Hannover, at the Planning Cultures workshop of which you were one of the organisers. Erwin, visiting De Achterhoek together for focus groups was not only inspiring and productive, but also fun. I have learned a lot from your pragmatic and no-nonsense approach and the fruitful experience of writing an article together. Stefan, you joined the supervision team after a few months, but your presence always had impact. I really enjoyed all our walks and all the discussions we had (about pancakes, travelling to Chili, everyday life philosophy and families). But mostly I would remember your problem-solving capacities, personal approach and the faith you always showed in this journey, no matter what. You are an excellent and dedicated PhD supervisor and I am very grateful you were willing to join our team. This research would not have been possible without the input from my colleagues in Spain and Sweden. Thank you Marta, Emilio and Josefina for hosting me, providing me with practical advice and for collaborating with me on this research. I hope this is not the end of our research collaborations. Indispensable are all those who participated in this research and saved ample time for interviews, field visits and focus groups discussions. Many of you offered me a warm welcome and invited me to your homes and families. This gave me the opportunity to not only learn about how you plan for your community, but also let me experience everyday live in remote areas. Thank you for your trust in my research and for sharing your stories with me. The colleagues of GPM formed a warm nest from the beginning. With a little help of the coffee machine I got to know many of you very well in a short period of time. However, I also will remember our theoretical and policy-oriented discussions, the reading groups and scapes seminars. Yvonne, Jol and Gerda, thank you for offering support in all practical (and sometimes less practical) issues. Yvonne, special thanks to you for giving this thesis its ‘final push’. Rianne, Henk-Jan, Bianca, Daan, Joren and Jacques: Tallinn was something I looked forward to every year, and not only for the good food. Maria and Marjolein, you were great fellow PhD’s and lunch mates. And Marieke, we shared so much more than just an office during the past years. I miss those Friday afternoons of thorough deep-theoretical discussions, and off course sharing PhD-related and some not so PhD-related troubles. This PhD wouldn’t be complete without you as my paranimph. Dear friends, LARPers and others, thank you for your support, diners, walks, that allowed me to have a fresh look at my research again or that put the pressure of all the other things that had to be done in meanwhile. Thank you too, my old colleagues from Wageningen - for keeping in touch, and the new ones from Utrecht - for providing another warm nest. Thank you Raoul, for your good advice whenever it was necessary. Jasper, special thanks to you, not only for being my paranimph. As a friend and a fellow researcher I really enjoyed taking some steps together along this journey. Lieve papa en mama, bedankt voor de vaste grond onder mijn voeten. Dit onderzoek was niet mogelijk geweest zonder de Drentse nuchterheid, trotse roots, en het vertrouwen dat jullie hebben meegegeven: ‘Angst is maar veur even, spiet is veur altied’. Maarten en Ellen, Jorien en Jeremy, Ton en Willemien, Marieke en Dani, Jenneke en Sebastian, jullie ook bedankt voor jullie begrip en support, al was het maar door af en toe even op Abel te passen. Lieve Mathijs en Abel, dit laatste stukje is voor jullie. Mathijs, we hebben er nu allebei een PhD-avontuur opzitten. Bedankt dat je mij liet reizen voor het mijne, ook al betekende dat dat jij af en toe voor een paar maanden alleen achterbleef. Bedankt voor je geduld, al je goede raad en dat je er altijd bent. Samen vormen we een sterk team. Abel, met jouw komst begon een heel nieuw avontuur. Samen met jou de wereld ontdekken is fantastisch, verveelt nooit en relativeert alles. Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Setting the scene 12 1.2 Theoretical and analytical points of departure 19 1.3 Research approach 27 1.4 Outline of this thesis 32 2 Broadening the scope of spatial planning: Making a case for informality in the Netherlands 35 2.1 Introduction 36 2.2 Theoretical and conceptual points of departure 38 2.3 Informality in De Achterhoek 44 2.4 Conclusion 52 3 Planning practices in Galicia: How communities compensate the lack of statutory planning using bottom up planning initiatives 55 3.1 Introduction 56 3.2 The dialectic of formal and informal planning practices 58 3.3 Material and methods 60 3.4 Results 64 3.5 Discussion 71 3.6 Conclusion 74 4 Getting ahead in depopulating regions. How linking social capital is used for informal planning practices in Sweden and The Netherlands 77 4.1 Introduction 78 4.2 Theoretical and conceptual points of departure 81 4.3 Methods 85 4.4 Results 91 4.5 Conclusion 99 5 Informal Institutional Change in De Achterhoek Region. From Citizen Initiatives to Participatory Governance 103 5.1 Introduction 104 5.2 Citizen Initiatives in De Achterhoek 106 5.3 Informality in Western Planning Traditions 107 5.4 Understanding Institutional Change 108 5.5 Research Strategy 114 5.6 Results 115 5.7 Discussion and Conclusion 121 6 Conclusions 125 6.1 Answering informality 127 6.2 Comparing informality 133 6.3 Advancing informality 138 Addendum References 150 Summary 165 Samenvatting 172 About the author 180 Selected scientific publications 181 Appendices Appendix 1: List of interviews and focus groups 184 Appendix 2: Script and topic list of focus group meetings 188 1 Introduction Chapter 1 On 11 February 2008, the inhabitants of Ganzedijk were informed that it was inevitable that their village would be demolished in view of the projected decline in population. This decision, taken by the municipality of Reiderland, led to a chain of events and 1 quite an unexpected climax. Ganzedijk is a small rural and peripheral hamlet, situated in the north-east of the province of Groningen. To prevent the village from falling into decline and to adapt to the present-day standard of living and housing quality, a consultancy bureau had indicated that of the 80 houses in total, 57 were to be demolished (KAW architecten and adviseurs, 2008). The inhabitants of Ganzedijk strongly objected to this decision, and in so doing they received considerable media attention. Soon Ganzedijk became a national symbol of insensitive, top-down and technocratic planning. A month later, the province of Groningen and the municipality of Reiderland, apologised for having caused social unrest among the villagers and they announced that they would seek other solutions together with the inhabitants (RTV Noord, 2008). The bold decision to demolish Ganzedijk released unforeseen sentiments among its inhabitants. United by the impending calamity and a shared sense of place, they regained a feeling of ownership and quickly established an action group (‘Comité Ganzedijk blijft’: translation in English, Committee Ganzedijk Remains).