Abstract
In this chapter, we analyze and discuss outcomes of a collaborative landscape planning process carried out over a long period and involving different types of farmland owners and other stakeholders, including public authorities. The case study concerns a small watershed drained by the Odderbæk stream in Denmark. We see the case as a comprehensive study of what can be considered a successful collaborative landscape planning process. Different types of landowners, organized in a collaborative stream association (OSA), and in collaboration with public authorities and other actors worked together to manage landscape-related problems. At an early stage, the OSA developed a strategy that subsequently became highly influential for the overall collaboration between the farmland owners and for guiding a large number of landscape changes within the watershed. These include re-meandering the stream, establishing new walking trails, converting arable land to extensive grazing pastures, re-grazing of abandoned pastures, preserving historic features, and establishing and restoring ponds for amphibians. We conclude that a well-functioning board of OSA, capable of raising funds for activities, making connections with different knowledge and power institutions including the local government, and not least creating thrust among its members, has been essential for the governance processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albrechts L (2004) Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined. Environ Plan B Plan Des 31:743–758. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3065
Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18:543–571
Arnouts R, van der Zouwen M, Arts B (2012) Analysing governance modes and shifts—governance arrangements in Dutch nature policy. Forest Policy Econ 16:43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.04.001
Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manag 90(5):1692–1702
Bodin Ö, Robins G, McAllister RRJ, Guerrero AM, Crona B, Tengö M, Lubell M (2016) Theorizing benefits and constraints in collaborative environmental governance: a transdisciplinary social-ecological network approach for empirical investigations. Ecol Soc 21(1):40. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08368-210140
Brand R, Gaffikin F (2007) Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Plan Theory 6:282–313. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08368-210140
Busck AG, Kristensen LS, Primdahl J (2007) The hedgerow planting scheme in Denmark: a case study of objectives, context, effects and implications. In: Hodge I, Reader M (eds) Maximising the provision of public goods from future agri-environment schemes. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, pp 110–127
Conley A, Moote MA (2003) Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 16:371–386
Cundill G, Rodela R (2012) A review of assertions about the processes and outcomes of social learning in natural resource management. J Environ Manag 113:7–14
Daniels SE, Walker GB (1996) Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environ Impact Assess Rev 16(2):71–102
Deelen JG, Mulders A (2015) A collective approach to agri-environment actions: the Dutch case. Ministry of Economic Affairs, European Agriculture Policy Department. https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/uploaded-files/w1_deleen_20150414.pdf. Accessed 12 Sep 2016
Emerson K, Nabatchi T (2015) Evaluating the productivity of collaborative governance regimes: a performance matrix. Public Perform Manag Rev 38(4):717–747
Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S (2012) An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J Public Adm Res Theory 22(1):1–29
European Parliament/Council (2013) Regulation (EU) no 462/2013 of the European Parliament and of the council of 21 May 2013 amending regulation (EC) no 1060/2009 on credit rating agencies
Faehnle M, Tyrväinen L (2013) A framework for evaluating and designing collaborative planning. Land Use Policy 34:332–341
Forester J (2012) On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Plan Theory 12(1):5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212448750
Fritzbøger B (2002) Bag hegnet. Historien om levende hegn i det danske landskab. Landsforeningen De Danske Plantningsforeninger. Give
Hassenforder E, Pittock J, Barreteau O, Daniell KA, Ferrand N (2016) The MEPPP framework: a framework for monitoring and evaluating participatory planning processes. Environ Manag 57:79–96
Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan, Hampshire
Healey P (2009) In search of the ‘strategic’ in spatial strategy making. Plan Theory Pract 10:439–457
Innes JE, Booher DE (1999) Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. J Am Plan Assoc 65:412–423
Innes JE, Booher DE (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Plan Theory Pract 5(4):419–436
Jørgensen I, Primdahl J, Stahlschmidt P, Jørensen MB, Christiansen H, Primdahl K (2004) Kollektiv naturplan Odderbæk. Eksempel på lokal landskabsforvaltning ved Thyregod. Frederiksberg, Center for Skov, Landskab og Planlægning, Landbohøjskolen
Klijn EH, Edelenbos J, Steijn B (2010) Trust in governance networks: its impacts on outcomes. Admin Soc 42(2):193–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399710362716
Koontz TM (2006) Collaboration for sustainability? A framework for analyzing government impacts in collaborative-environmental management. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 2(1):15–24
Kristensen LS, Primdahl J (2020) Landscape strategy making as a pathway to policy integration and involvement of stakeholders: examples from a Danish action research programme. J Environ Plan Manag 63(6):1114–1131. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1636531
Leach W, Pelkey NW, Sabatier PA (2002) Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. J Policy Anal Manage 21:645–670
Mandarano LA (2008) Evaluating collaborative environmental planning outputs and outcomes. J Plan Educ Res 27:456–468
Nevens F, Frantzeskaki N, Loorbach D, Gorissen L (2013) Urban transition labs: co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. J Clean Prod 50:111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.001
Olsson P, Folke C (2001) Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem management: a study of Lake Racken watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems 4(2):85–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100210000061
Opdam P, Westerink J, Vos C, de Vries B (2015) The role and evolution of boundary concepts in transdisciplinary landscape planning. Plan Theory Pract 16(1):63–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2014.997786
OSA website (2018). http://www.odderbaek.dk/. Accessed Mar 2018
Pinto-Correia T, Kristensen L (2013) Linking research to practice: the landscape as the basis for integrating social and ecological perspectives of the rural. Landsc Urban Plan 120:248–256
Prager K (2015) Agri-environmental collaboratives as bridging organisations in landscape management. J Environ Manag 161:375–384
Primdahl J, Kristensen LS, Swaffield S (2013) Guiding rural landscape change. Current policy approaches and potentials of landscape strategy making as a policy integrating approach. Appl Geogr 42:86–94
Primdahl J, Kristensen LS, Arler F, Angelstam P, Christensen AA, Angelstam P (2018) Rural landscape governance and expertise: on landscape agents and democracy. In: Egoz S, Jørgensen K, Ruggeri D (eds) Defining landscape democracy. A path to spatial justice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 153–164
Sanders EBN, Stappers PJ (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J, Pfund JL, Sheil D, Meijaard E, Venter M, Boedhihartono AG, Day M, Garcia C, Oosten C (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. PNAS 110:8349–8356
Sørensen E, Triantafillou P (2009) Introduction. In: Sørensen E, Tritafillou P (eds) The politics of self-governance. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 1–24
Vejre H, Vesterager JP, Andersen PS, Olufsson AS, Brandt J, Dalgaard T (2015) Does cadastral division of area-based ecosystem services obstruct comprehensive management? Ecol Model 295:176–187
Voorberg WH, Bekkers VJJM, Tummers LG (2015) A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag Rev 17(9):1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
Wesselink A, Paavola J, Fritsch O, Renn O (2011) Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners’ perspectives. Environ Plan A Int J Urban Reg Res 43:2688–2704. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44161
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kristensen, L.S., Pears, D.Q., Primdahl, J. (2022). Guiding Multifunctional Landscape Changes Through Collaboration: Experiences from a Danish Case Study. In: Rizzo, D., Marraccini, E., Lardon, S. (eds) Landscape Agronomy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05263-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05263-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05261-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05263-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)