Landscape Ecology

, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp 791–804 | Cite as

The feasibility of implementing an ecological network in The Netherlands under conditions of global change

  • Martha BakkerEmail author
  • Shah Jamal Alam
  • Jerry van Dijk
  • Mark Rounsevell
  • Teun Spek
  • Adri van den Brink
Research Article



Both global change and policy reform will affect the implementation of the National Ecological Network (NEN) in the Netherlands. Global change refers to a combination of changing groundwater tables arising from climate change and improved economic prospects for farming. Policy reform refers to the abolition of an intermediary organization that organizes land trades with the support of a national land bank.


In this paper we evaluate the effects of these factors on future land acquisition for the NEN.


We applied an agent-based model of the land market based on sales and purchases between farmers and nature-conservation organizations (establishing the NEN) within a case study area.


Our results demonstrate that future land acquisitions for the NEN are constrained by strong competition for land from farmers due to improved economic prospects for farming. Effects of climate change are that fewer parcels will be sold from farmers to nature-conservation organizations in a dry scenario as compared to a wet scenario. An important constraint for land acquisitions is the low willingness to pay (WTP) for land by nature-conservation organizations. We demonstrate that higher WTP increases land purchases considerably. However, the spatial pattern of land acquisition is fragmented, which may undermine its effectiveness from a restoration perspective.


The combination of these processes leads to land acquisitions for the NEN that do not meet the initially-stated policy objectives by far. In addition, the abolition of a land-trade organization supported by a land bank leads to more fragmented pattern of nature reserves.


Ecosystem restoration Agent-based model Climate change Land use change Land market Land use planning 



We would like to thank Tom Kuhlman and Esther Boere for their help with retrieving the required data from the agricultural census. This work was carried out within the Project Climate Adaptation for Rural Areas (CARE), which was funded by the Knowledge for Climate Programme (


  1. Arnell NW, Livermore MJL, Kovats S, Levy PE, Nicholls R, Parry ML, Gaffin SR (2004) Climate and socio-economic scenarios for global-scale climate change impacts assessments: characterising the SRES storylines. Glob Environ Change 14(1):3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker MM, Alam SJ, van Dijk J, Rounsevell MDA (2014) Land-use change as the result of rural land exchange: an agent-based simulation model. Landscape Ecol 2014:1–14Google Scholar
  3. Buijs A, Mattijssen M, Arts B (2014) The man, the administration and the counter-discourse: an analysis of the sudden turn in Dutch nature conservation policy. Land Use Policy 38:676–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Vries W, Wolf J, Britz W, Adenauer M, Enders A, Kanellopoulos A, Van Ittersum M, Kros H, Reinds GJ (2013) Agricultural adaptation to climate change under different policy environments: an integrated assessment of impacts, European Conference of Climate Adaptation, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  5. DLG (2012) Infogroma (land transaction database for the rural area). Dienst Landelijk Gebied, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  6. Geerling Eiff FA, Van der Meulen HAB (2008) Bedrijfsbeëindiging in de land-en tuinbouw: op een kruispunt en dan?. Agricultural Economic Institute (Wageningen University and Research Centre), The HagueGoogle Scholar
  7. Gelderland P (2012) Beleidsuitwerking natuur en landschap (policy elaboration nature and landscape), PS2012-401. Gelderland-Midden, ArnhemGoogle Scholar
  8. Gelderland P (2013) Gevolgen natuurpact voor de beleidsuitwerking natuur en landschap (consequences of ‘natuurpact” for the execution of “policy elaboration nature and landscape”), PS2013-929. Gelderland-Midden, ArnhemGoogle Scholar
  9. Gelderland P (2014) Omgevingsvisie Gelderland (draft) (environmental vision Gelderland (draft)). Gelderland-Midden, ArnhemGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Horlings I, Gersie J (1995) Agriculture and nature in ecological networks in the Netherlands and Europe. Eur Environ 5(1):7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jongman RHG, Bouwma IM, Griffioen A, Jones-Walters L, Van Doorn AM (2011) The pan European ecological network: PEEN. Landscape Ecol 26(3):311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kanellopoulos A, Reidsma P, Wolf J, Van Ittersum M (2014) Assessing climate change and associated socio-economic scenarios for arable farming in the Netherlands: an application of benchmarking and bio-economic farm modelling. Eur J Agron 52(Part A):69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kros J, Bakker MM, Reidsma P, Kanellopoulos A, Jamal Alam S, de Vries W (2014) Impacts of agricultural changes in response to climate and socioeconomic change on nitrogen deposition in nature reserves. Landscape Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10980-014-0131-y
  15. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  16. Matthews RB, Gilbert NG, Roach A, Polhill JG, Gotts NM (2007) Agent-based land-use models: a review of applications. Landscape Ecol 22(10):1447–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paas W (2013) Impacts of climate change and socio-economic drivers dairy farms in ‘the Baakse Beek’, the Netherlands. Wageningen University, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  18. Riedijk A, Van Wilgenburg R, Koomen E, Borsboom-van Beurden J (2007) Integrated scenarios of socio-economic and climate change: a framework for the ‘Climate changes Spatial Planning’ programme. VU, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Roodbol-Mekkes PH, van der Valk AJJ, Korthals Altes WK (2012) The Netherlands spatial planning doctrine in disarray in the 21st century. Environ Plan A 44(2):377–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schouten M, Opdam P, Polman N, Westerhof E (2013) Resilience-based governance in rural landscapes: experiments with agri-environment schemes using a spatially explicit agent-based model. Land Use Policy 30(1):934–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Turnhout E (2009) The rise and fall of a policy: policy succession and the attempted termination of ecological corridors policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sci 42:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vader J, Roza P, van der Meulen H, Leneman H (2012) Meer nieuwe landgoederen? Hoe de overheid landgoedontwikkeling makkelijker kan maken. Agricultural Economics Institute (Wageningen University and Research Centre), WageningenGoogle Scholar
  23. Valbuena D, Verburg PH, Bregt AK, Ligtenberg A (2010) An agent-based approach to model land-use change at a regional scale. Landscape Ecol 25(2):185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Bakel J, Huinink J, Prak H, Van der Bolt F (2005) HELP-2005 Uitbreiding en actualisering van de help-tabellen ten behoeve van het waternood-instrumentarium. STOWA, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Der Valk A (2002) The Dutch planning experience. Landsc Urban Plan 58(2–4):201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van den Brink A (1991) Boerderijverplaatsing in landinrichtingsprojecten (Farm displacements in land reallocation projects). In: Silvis HJ, Slangen LHG, Oskam AJ (eds) Landbouwpolitiek tussen diagnose en therapie. Werkgroep Landbouwpolitiek, Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen, Wageningen, p 47–56Google Scholar
  27. Van Dijk J, Stroetenga M, Van Bodegom PM, Aerts R (2007) The contribution of rewetting to vegetation restoration of degraded peat meadows. Appl Veg Sci 10(3):315–324Google Scholar
  28. Van Ek R, Janssen G, Kuijper M, Veldhuizen A, Wamelink W, Mol J, Groot A, Schipper P, Kroes J, Supit I, Simmelink E, Van Geer F, Janssen P, Van der Sluijs J, Bessembinder J (2012) Van Kritische zone tot Kritische Onzekerheden: case studie Baakse beek. Deltares, DelftGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Straalen FM, Janssen LB, van den Brink A (2014) Delivering planning objectives through regional-based land-use planning and land policy instruments: an assessment of recent experiences in the Dutch provinces. Environ Plan C 32:567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Teeffelen AJA, Vos CC, Jochem R, Baveco H, Meeuwsen H, Hilbers JP (2015) The effectiveness of green infrastructure as a climate adaptation strategy for great crested newt in intensively-used landscapes. Landsc Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10980-014-0079-y
  31. Vos CC, Berry P, Opdam P, Baveco H, Nijhof B, O’Hanley J, Bell C, Kuipers H (2008) Adapting landscapes to climate change: examples of climate-proof ecosystem networks and priority adaptation zones. J Appl Ecol 45(6):1722–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Westhoek HJ, Van Den Berg M, Bakkes JA (2006) Scenario development to explore the future of Europe’s rural areas. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1):7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Witte JPM, Bartholomeus RP, van Bodegom PM, Cirkel DG, van Ek R, Fujita Y, Janssen GMCM, Spek TJ, Runhaar H (2015) A probabilistic eco-hydrological model to predict the effects of climate change on natural vegetation at a regional scale. Landscape Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10980-014-0086-z
  34. Wolf J, Mandryk M, Kanellopoulos A, van Oort P, Schaap B, Reidsma P, van Ittersum M (2011) Integrated assessment of adaptation to climate change in Flevoland at the farm and regional level. Wageningen UR, WageningenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martha Bakker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shah Jamal Alam
    • 2
  • Jerry van Dijk
    • 3
  • Mark Rounsevell
    • 2
  • Teun Spek
    • 4
  • Adri van den Brink
    • 5
  1. 1.Land Use Planning GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlandss
  2. 2.School of GeoSciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Copernicus Institute of Sustainable DevelopmentUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Province of GelderlandArnhemThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Landscape Architecture Group and Land Use Planning GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations