Monitoring functionele agrobiodiversiteit : achtergronddocument bij 'Kwalitatieve monitorsysteeminnovaties verduurzaming landbouw'

Dit onderzoek richt zich op de percepties over de ontwikkeling van de systeeminnovatie ’Functionele agrobiodiversiteit’ als één van de graadmeters voor de verduurzaming van de landbouw. Hiertoe zijn interviews gehouden met respondenten uit de primaire sector, beleid, onderzoek, maatschappelijke organisaties en de retail. Uit de interviews komt naar voren dat de ontwikkeling van functionele agrobiodiversiteit zich nog steeds in een experimenteel stadium bevindt. Het opvullen van kennislacunes en de financiering van functionele agrobiodiversiteit als ecosysteemdienst worden als de twee belangrijkste uitdagingen gezien van de komende tijd

Morfologische, ecologische en governance principes voor ecodynamisch ontwerpen: toegespitst op de 'Bouwen met Natuur' pilots Friese IJsselmeerkust : building with nature, case Markermeer IJsselmeer, MIJ 4.2, Deliverable 1.6

Het concept ‘Bouwen met Natuur’ richt zich op gebiedsgerichte ontwerpprocessen langs kusten met het doel om de interactie tussen menselijke ingrepen en ecosysteem processen te vergroten. Het concept maakt maximaal gebruik van dynamiek van natuurlijke processen en van de inzet van bio@engineers bij de ontwikkeling van nieuwe kustlandschappen. De uitdaging bij ‘Bouwen met Natuur’ projecten is om een menselijke ambitie m.b.t. waterbouw te realiseren op een wijze die maximaal gebruik maakt van het ecosysteem en tevens dit ecosysteem versterkt. Het zoeken naar een win@win situatie voor zowel de menselijke waterbouwambitie als voor de natuurwaarden is dus iets anders dan natuur behouden die er is of nieuwe natuur ontwikkelen. Ook is het concept fundamenteel anders dan het compenseren van natuur die elders verloren gaat

Monitor Bouwen met de Natuur

Part I Introduction and justification of the Monitor Building with NatureThis report describes the Monitor Building with Nature in the IJsselmeer region. When itcomes to implementing the concept of building with nature the main issue is not how it istechnically possible, but whether stakeholders consider it possible and desirable. The monitorgives insight into perceptions of stakeholders and provides possibilities for improvements indecision making and in generating societal support for Building with Nature projects. Theproject that developed this monitor is part of the Building with Nature research andinnovations programme.The monitor has the following goals:Describe the (changes in) perceptions and actions related to ‘building with nature’ inhydraulic engineering projects. Among which:1.Describe the situation of the project at the start of the monitoring, include the history of the project, the broad context, the assignment of the project, and the (formal) involvement of stakeholders.2.Make an inventory of the (developments in) observed threats and opportunities at project level (design, project management, process).3.Make an inventory of the (developments in) observed threats and opportunities for building with nature within the external field of force.4.Make an inventory of perceptions related to improvements and the involvement of the different stakeholders.The focus of the monitor is on perceptions of people who are involved in hydraulicengineering projects. For the development of the monitor, existing monitor approaches areused. The focus of the monitor is gathering of information and has characteristics ofconstructivist monitoring. However, the monitor aims to show the diversity of the availableperceptions and actions. The focus of the monitor is not merely on ‘learning’, although whenthe monitor is used in meetings or workshops, it can contribute to learning about building with nature. The monitor is qualitative of nature, with implicit use of indicators. The monitor is one of the initiatives of monitoring within the Research programme Building with Nature. Oneother initiative is for example the monitoring of the Community of Practice in the IJsselmeerregion.Part II The Monitor – QuestionnaireIn preparing for the use of the monitor, three main questions are to be asked. The firstquestion is: what is the focus in the project? The second question is: who are the respondentsand why? There are no universal criteria, nor are these desirable. And the third question is:how do we use the questionnaire? Are we interested in doing face to face interviews, orinterviews by phone? How the questionnaire is used depends largely on the goal of themonitor and the resources (i.e. time, money, people) availableThe questionnaire consists of four different parts. Part A discusses issues related to buildingwith nature within the project and deals with stakeholders’ perceptions of the concept. Part Bdiscusses factors influencing the feasibility of building with nature. Part C is about placingissues on the agenda and possibilities for improvements. Part D rounds up the questionnaire.For analysing the results of the monitor the following elements compromise the framework ofanalysis:1.Aspects perceived as characteristic for building with nature2.Aspects of building with nature in the project3.Best practices of building with nature according to respondents4.Perceptions of factors and conditions which stimulate or obstruct building with nature.5.Perceptions of the future and future possibilities for realizing building with nature6.Perceptions of action perspectives to realize building with nature on large scale in multiple7.projects in the IJsselmeer region.Part III The Monitor testedTo test the monitor two projects were selected as pilots: the dike strengthening project Edam-Amsterdam and the silt catch pit. Applying the monitor in these projects has lead to animproved version of the monitor and lessons learned on how to apply the monitor. It was notpossible to apply the monitor itself in the dike strengthening project, although the process wasvery useful. We found that interesting projects to apply the monitor also are subject tosensitive issues. Great concern is necessary to deal with these issues. Therefore, sensitiveissues require more preparation time.In the project ‘silt catch pit’ we were able to apply the monitor and make a case description ofthe project. Applying the questionnaire and developing the case description lead toimprovements of the monitor and recommendations on its use.On the development of the monitor, the following is concluded:•Applying the monitor results in a broad insight into the feasibility of the building with nature concept, factors which are of influence and insight into the decision making in building with nature projects.•It is recommended to have an exploratory interview before using the questionnaire. This is necessary to gain enough information relevant for the case description, gain permission to apply the monitor and get in contact with the relevant stakeholders.•Applying the monitor in the silt catch pit showed that it is very suitable to find factors influencing the feasibility of building with nature in projects. Because it was only possible to develop one pilot, we recommend to again reflect critically on the monitor when applied.•Sensitive issues may make a project an (more) interesting one for applying the monitor. However, it may be more difficult to acquire permission for application and it may require more time. During application of the monitor one should be aware of the issues. Demarcation of concepts is important for the sake of comparing results, as the questionnaires are used for different persons and in different moments in time•The questionnaire can be combined with workshops or meetings to stimulate the realization of the building with nature concept.•The case description is based on a monitor that is incomplete and is part of developing the monitor. Therefore the case description should not be used as a complete example and should be considered together with the conclusions and recommendations made

'Daar botst het weten' : interdisciplinair en transdisciplinair onderzoek binnen Wageningen UR

Welke verschillende vormen van interdisciplinair en transdisciplimnair onderzoek zijn er te onderscheiden inde Wageningse onderzoekspraktijk voor een duurzaam gebruik van de "groen-blauwe ruimte". Wat is de positie van Wageningen UR ten opzichte van een aantal andere Nederlandse wetenschappelijke instituten op het gebied van interdisciplinair onderzoek? Op basis van interviews met betrokken Wageningse onderzoekers van elf internationale projecten en drie onderzoekers van andere Nederlandse instituten zijn antwoorden ontwikkeld. Dit type onderzoek blijkt een specifiek Wageningense benadering te zijn vanwege de probleemoplossende insteek die veel onderzoekers kiezen

Casestudy Peel en Maas : achtergrondrapport van de evaluatie reconstructie zandgebieden, nr. 5

Dit onderzoek is een verslag van een kwalitatief casestudyonderzoek naar het proces en de tussentijdse resultaten van de reconstructie in Peel en Maas. Het onderzoek is een achtergrondstudie van de evaluatie reconstructie zandgebieden. Peel en Maas is een van de zeven Brabantse reconstructiegebieden. Conclusie is dat de reconstructie in Peel en Maas heeft gezorgd voor een nieuwe ontwikkelingsgerichte benadering van het landelijk gebied. Partijen zijn ook beter gaan samenwerken door de reconstructie. Het planeigenaarschap rond het reconstructieplan is groot bij de betrokken gebiedspartijen. In de uitvoering liggen veel verantwoordelijkheden bij gemeenten en waterschap. Daarbij worden ze ondersteund door de provincie en het streekhui

Verantwoording van de methodiek 'Kwalitatieve monitor Systeeminnovaties verduurzaaming landbouw'

Dit werkdocument geeft een beschrijving van een kwalitatieve monitoringsmethodiek die gebruikt is binnen het project ‘Monitor systeeminnovaties verduurzaming landbouw’. In dit project zijn drie systeeminnovaties gericht op een verduurzaming van de landbouw gemonitord namelijk: integraal duurzame stallen, gesloten voer-mest kringlopen en functionele agrobiodiversiteit. Het project is onderdeel van een omvangrijker project ‘Monitoring verduurzaming landbouw’ dat in opdracht van het ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit onder regie van het Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving is uitgevoerd

Glasshouse horticulture in the Netherlands: governance for resilient and sustainable economies

The Netherlands have a strong and competitive horticulture sector, with regional clusters of glasshouse horticulture companies, of which the ‘Greenports’ of Westland – Oostland (near The Hague), Aalsmeer (near Amsterdam) and Venlo (near the German Ruhr Area) are the most important ones. The sector makes a strong contribution to the export position of the Netherlands. Since the 1990s, stimulated by changing societal expectations growers and surrounding actors engaged in improving the sustainability of the glasshouse horticulture sector, especially focussing on reducing energy usage, greenhouse gas emissions, water usage and land use. The glasshouse horticulture sector in the Netherland is often perpetrated as a successful example of a sustainability transition and is therefore interesting to derive lessons for sustainable regional economic development. This paper studies how the glasshouse horticulture sector in the Netherlands did developed, became more sustainable and what modes of governance contributed to this process? To answer this question, an evolutionary transition perspective and mode of governance theory were used. Our expectation was that knowledge governance (Gerritsen et al., 2013) interventions were important for the sustainability transition and would be needed because of the high complexity of transitions. Dutch agriculture as a whole and specially the horticulture sector traditionally has a strong focus on innovation. Over the years, many innovation projects and programs have been executed, and sustainability innovations have been central to it. These seemed examples of knowledge governance interventions; in our study other modes of governance were taken into account as well. The study entailed interviews with stakeholders involved in glasshouse horticulture in the Netherlands and a document analysis