Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 169176

New `rural lifestyle estates' in The Netherlands

Leo van den Berg*, Annoesjka Wintjes
Alterra, Green World Research, P.O. Box 125, 6700 AC Wageningen, The Netherlands

Abstract Recent studies tend to indicate that no longer all presently agricultural land in The Netherlands is required for sustainable agricultural production. Apart from various urban uses and some projects turning agricultural land into nature reserves or giving it a secondary function, like national landscape parks or drinking water supply area, it is not easy to nd alternative users for the land presently managed by farmers. At the same time, many urban companies or families are vainly looking for building lots away from our `compact urban areas'. This paper explores a way to bring this supply and demand together in a landscape-wise more than acceptable manner: the planning concept and experiment of `new rural lifestyle estates'. # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Rural lifestyle estates; Landscape parks; National Ecological Network

1. The problem In the wake of our continuously expanding urban areas the Dutch government has, during the last few decades, been drafting increasingly ambitious plans to create new nature and landscape qualities in our rural areas, including a National Ecological Network. To put these plans into reality requires substantial amounts of money: farmland has to be purchased and at least some water, soil or nature engineering works have to be carried out. So far, most of this money comes from the taxpayers and this is not enough to proceed with these plans at the desired speed. The process is assisted somewhat by the continuing restructuring of the farming industry. The number of farms is continuously decreasing, farm

incomes are under pressure, farm buildings become outdated and more is produced with less land. This means that not only some agricultural land becomes available for purchase every year, but also an increasing proportion of farmers is willing to take special care of the landscape and natural values of their land, provided they can see the nancial benet of doing so. For many farmers, however, the only way to survive lies in turning their land into an increasingly industrial landscape, which makes the need for compensatory natural or park-like landscape even more felt. What alternatives can be offered to those farmers who consider leaving the bank- and technologyinspired rat race? 2. The opportunity Both a problem in itself and a possible source of nance for improving our rural landscapes, is the

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: l.m.vandenberg@sc.dlo.nl (L. van den Berg)

0169-2046/00/$20.00 # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 2 0 4 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 4 0 - 2

170

L. van den Berg, A. Wintjes / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 169176

breakdown of the urbanrural dichotomy, which has become increasingly blurred by two processes: 1. An increasing number of rural functions is assuming urban forms, for instance industrial agriculture in barns and greenhouses and the construction of visitors' centres and headquarters in nature reserves, and 2. At the same time, an increasing number of urban functions is happily performed under a rural disguise; for instance, cottage industries, various ofce-based activities and residences are operating in converted farm buildings. It is also widely proclaimed that some of our most cherished rural qualities were created by urbanites who, already in the nineteenth century, `suburbanised' to their `stately homes'. While physical planning is still focused on separating the rural from the urban, it is important to realise that rural areas are perceived in terms of landscape quality rather than their nonurbanity. In other words, urban functions are able to enhance rural quality, provided they are carried out with an objective to do so. This is the background to a recently common planners' slogan: `let red pay for green', by which we mean: let urban functions directly contribute and nance a rural, park-like landscape. Under the prevailing planning doctrine of separating (compacted) urbanisation from (presumably open) agricultural and other rural areas, there is a suppressed demand for residing or working away from the crowded, urban conditions. This suppressed demand could be set free and tapped selectively in order to help beautifying the countryside, for instance by taking over the maintenance of disused farm buildings with their immediate, agricultural surroundings. People are willing to pay substantially for the prestige attributed to secluded or green-image commercial or residential sites. 3. The resulting `magic trick' One of the eye-catchers from the government memorandum, `Vision on Urban Landscapes', of 1995 was the proposed concept of `Nieuwe Buitenplaatsen' (Bureau Experiment Buitenplaatsen, 1998), which would best be translated into English as `New, Rural Lifestyle Estates.' This planning category would

involve a selective, highly conditional wavering of zoning restrictions if the developer contributes to enrichment of the landscape. Development rights are provided in exchange for the production of new nature and landscape. This concept neatly combines urban functions with predominantly rural appearances in our urbanising countryside. In the memorandum, the concept was dened as: ``a complex consisting of buildings (residential, ofces or utility) and a surrounding park. [F F F] not more than 20% of the surface may be used for the buildings, parking, roads, private gardens and verandas'' (Ministerie LNV, 1995). The new concept proved not only eye-catching, but also highly controversial. This made the Dutch government decide the following year, after a broad, regional and national debate, that a very limited number of experiments would be carried out before a green light could be given to applying the concept in municipal landuse plans. These nine experiments are presently being prepared (DLG, 1998). Meanwhile a study was carried out by two DLO institutes, The Winand Staring Centre for Integrated Land, Soil and Water Research (SCDLO) and the Institute for Forestry and Nature Research (IBN-DLO), to explore the shape and corners of the playing eld for these new rural lifestyle estates (Van den Berg and Wintjes, 1997). 4. Setting the limits The research started off by compiling a list of variables that are used by civil servants dealing with the notion of New Rural Lifestyle Estates in three ministries. In total, 16 variables were distinguished and, for each of these, where appropriate, a maximum and a minimum value were obtained through discussions with the civil servants. The results are found in Table 1. It often took long discussions among the policymakers before agreement was reached on threshold values for any of these variables. For outsiders some of these require an explanation. For instance, why limit the size of these lifestyle estates to 5 ha (variable 1)? This is basically because, for larger units of forest and nature, there is already an act providing for tax concessions and subsidy. Such larger holdings, consisting of a single `Stately Home' amidst a park, containing both agricultural land and woods covering up to 100 ha or sometimes even more, are far less

Table 1 Variables dening the playing eld for New Rural Lifestyle Estates, with minimum and maximum scores and summary of the impact of such scores on landscape quality and costeffectiveness S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
a b

L. van den Berg, A. Wintjes / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 169176

Variable Size of holding Private domain Water Volume of buildings Number of buildings Initiator Furnishing of park Management cost park Public and private domain related? Pre-existing building `Weight' of economic activities private domain Access to public domain Clustering? Distance from town Surrounding landscape Planning restrictions?

Minimum value 0.5 ha 0% 0% 600 m3 1 Original owner Simple Low Closed Not present Light Limited No (just 1) Deep in rural area Unattractive No

Landscape quality a d 0e 0 0

Costeffectiveness b 0

Maximum value 5 ha 20% 70% 30000 m3 20 New Extensive High Open, transparent Present Heavy Open Yes Adjacent to town or village Attractive Yes

Landscape quality c 0 0 0

Costeffectiveness 0

Very difcult to meet criterion at this extreme score. Relatively difcult to meet criterion at this extreme score. c Very easy to meet this criterion at this extreme score. d Easiest to meet this criterion at less extreme score. e This criterion can be met at any approved score.

171

172

L. van den Berg, A. Wintjes / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 169176

controversial in The Netherlands and known under the name of `Landgoederen'. If the creation of nature out of agricultural land were the prime objective of the New Rural Lifestyle Estates, it would probably be cheapest in many parts of the country to turn it into wetlands (variable 3) and have a nice boathouse on it. But this was obviously not the intention. The policymakers agreed that there should always be a component of tree planting, which explains the limitation of water to 70%. This is also stated under variables 7 and 8, whereby developers are left free to opt for either very cheap or high-cost ways of creating a part-like landscape. The three diagrams in Fig. 1, which we presented as theoretical alternatives, are all considered equally acceptable. The maximum number and size of buildings (variables 4 and 5) tell us something about the dual purpose of this concept: it should not only produce more parks and nature, but also accommodate different urban functions, provided that it does not become just another low-density residential area. Also, the two functions together should bring about an embellishment of our countryside: developers are expected to invest in quality. The buildings may serve various categories of home dwellers, certainly not only those with high incomes, as well as ofces, institutions or certain types of productive industry. Provided all necessary measures are taken to keep the environmental impact to a minimum, the intensity of use or machinery in these buildings could be quite high (`heavy' in variable 11). It is also left to the developer to choose a design that integrates the private domain into the publicly accessible part of the Estate, or that isolates it completely from it (variable 9). The New Estates are all supposed to be developed on previously vacant or agricultural land. However, it is always possible that some buildings, like former farms and vacant barns were there already (variable 10). Some policymakers tend to say that, in order to keep rural areas rural, their building stock should no longer increase. This would imply that the New Estates could only be developed by converting existing rural buildings, or by pulling them down and rebuilding them to whatever more attractive shape as long as the total volume does not increase. However, this was, on the whole, considered an undesirable limitation. Re-use of (the volume of) vacated buildings should certainly be promoted, but there are rural areas

where a small addition of the building stock is considered an acceptable price to pay for new bits of woodland. Many urban people consider farmland as too inaccessible and any conservation of it should, therefore, make it more accessible to the general public (variable 12). At least the public should have the illusion of complete access, even if water or wilderness would make this impossible in practice. If it is clear that extra costs were made to create or maintain special features (like statues, ower displays or game sanctuaries), modest entry fees would be perfectly acceptable as part of this public access. The setting of New Estates in their surroundings can vary a great deal. Variables 1316 deal with various aspects of this. An estate could be developed by itself or in a cluster or belt of estates that, together, could become part of our National Ecological Network. While the latter should certainly be encouraged, this would not exclude `incidents' of new estates in completely agricultural or urban surroundings. In an already attractive landscape, there would be less need to turn grazing or arable land into parks than in relatively bleak or empty areas (variable 15). The obligation to develop a substantial amount of new `park' is considered a sufcient guarantee that developers would not merely be parasites of the landscape already there. Although many policymakers have a strong preference for these new estates to be developed only in close proximity to existing urban settlements, there was no reason to forbid them in remote rural areas, even though their nature and size would be expected to differ substantially (variable 14). 5. Two criteria: landscape quality and cost-effectiveness After these extreme scores were set for each variable, we estimated how the scores on these variables relate to two important criteria for the success of the New Lifestyle Estates. These are their impact on landscape quality (which, in turn, consists of ecological value, aesthetic value and use value) and their cost-effectiveness. The way these criteria are, according to expert judgements, responding to extreme scores of the 16 variables is shown in Table 1. On the basis of this table, we were able to identify four

L. van den Berg, A. Wintjes / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 169176

173

Fig. 1. Pictures of reference for three levels of furnishing the public domain of New Rural Lifestyle Estates into which an agricultural lot could be turned: simple, natural and cultural.

174

L. van den Berg, A. Wintjes / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 169176

corners of a eld in which all conditions and the two criteria are met, but in different degrees. The rst corner (or extreme type of Lifestyle Estate) is found by combining extreme scores at which it is probably easy to meet the criterion of cost-effectiveness. It is the most attractive type from the nancial point of view: `Golden investment'. The second type does the opposite. It combines the lowest acceptable scores from the point of view of cost-effectiveness: `Money is unimportant'. The third type combines scores that maximise the positive impact on landscape quality: `Landscape pearl'. And the fourth type is again its antipode by combining those scores that result in the minimum impact on landscape quality that is considered acceptable: `Just on'. A quick look at Table 1 leads one to conclude that the 16 variables are not to be seen independently of one another. Smaller estates should have less building volume than bigger ones and those along a busy road could have environmentally more `heavy' functions than those in remote areas, etc. Therefore, a matrix was constructed of all variables depicting the impact of extreme scores (near the upper or the lower limit for permission) for one variable on all others. This matrix led to a few adjustments to the four corners. The outcome is described in Section 6.
Table 2 Scores of extreme types of New Lifestyle Estates on 16 variablesa S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
a b

6. Four corners of the playing eld Table 2 shows how, after all, the four types score on the 16 variables of Table 1. Two conclusions can be drawn from this table. The rst is that it is highly possible to bring about a great variety of New Rural Lifestyle Estates that stay well within the limitations put forward by policymakers and also meet the criteria of cost-effectiveness and enhancing landscape quality. The second conclusion is that if one criterion is met to the maximum or to the minimum, the other criterion is often also met very well. In the case of `Golden investment' (maximising cost-effectiveness), landscape quality is also maximised for 5 of the 16 variables. The same applies to `Landscape pearl'. The two types that are at the minimum for one criterion can easily meet the other criterion for 7 of the 16 variables. The main points of concern are for `Golden investment' to control the percentage of private domain and the number and size of buildings in order to ensure sufcient impact on landscape quality. And for `Landscape pearl' it is primarily the denial of economic activities with more than the minimum burden on the environment, which may seriously affect its cost-effectiveness.

Variable Size of the holding Private domain Water Volume of buildings Number of buildings Initiative Furnishing of park Management cost of park Public and private domain related? Existing building? `Weight' of economic activities private domain Access to public domain Clustering? Distance from town Surrounding landscape Planning restrictions?

Golden investment Maximum Maximum Maximum Large (not maximum!) Large (not maximum!) Original owner Minimum Minimum b Present High Maximum Yes Minimum Attractive Minimum

Money irrelevant Small Little None Minimum One New Maximum Maximum b Absent Low Minimum No Maximum Unattractive Maximum

Landscape pearl Maximum Little Little Low Few b b b Little Present Low Limited Yes Near Unattractive Minimum

Landscape-wise just on Small Maximum Minimum or Maximum Maximum Maximum b b b Maximum Absent High Maximum No Maximum Attractive Maximum

Where variable is not a minimum or maximum, this is in most cases caused by limitations due to extremes on other variables. Variable is neutral for this type.

L. van den Berg, A. Wintjes / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 169176

175

Fig. 2. Impression of `Golden investment': combining scores on variables maximising for cost-effectiveness.

Fig. 3. Impression of `Landscape pearl': combining scores on variables maximising for enhancement of landscape quality.

176

L. van den Berg, A. Wintjes / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 169176

Figs. 2 and 3 give impressions of the possible appearance of the type `Golden investment' and `Landscape pearl', respectively. 7. Will it work? While it is still too early for the nine experiments in Section 3 to judge their success, so far it has become clear that they are dealing with very delicate borderlines (DLG, 1998). They also do not operate exactly within this playing eld as most of them cover holdings of >5 ha. It also proves difcult to match landscape and architectural requirements formulated by those defending the public interest with the notion of cost-effectiveness, as felt by the developers. However, so far it is not considered impossible. Beyond the scope of these experiments, many developers and local governments all over the country are inspired by the `wind of change' and co-operate in projects that very much resemble the notion of new rural lifestyle lots. Also, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries has commissioned an exploratory study of the market for the four extreme types described above. If a green light would be given to the development of New Rural Lifestyle Estates within the conditions described above or after some adjustments to them, how many of each of the four extreme types can we expect to be developed per annum? Will it be of the order of one or two, or more like 1000 per year? And, if they are likely to be developed, where will it be? Where they are least desired by the rest of society, or indeed where we want them most? The proof of the pudding is in the eating!

References
Bureau Experiment Buitenplaatsen, 1998. Experiment nieuwe buitenplaatsen: Portret met Parels, evaluatie en beleidsadvies op basis van negen proefprojecten (Experiment New Rural Lifestyle Estates: Portrait with Pearls, evaluation and policy recommendations based on nine pilot projects.) DLG (Dienst Landelijk Gebied: Government Service for Land and Water Use) publicatie 1998/4, Utrecht. Ministerie LNV (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and sheries), Directorate of Nature Management, 1995. Visie Stadslandschappen (Government Memorandum `Vision on Urban Landscapes'). Ministerie van LNV, The Hague. Van den Berg, L.M., Wintjes, A.L.W., 1997. Speelveld voor nieuwe buitenplaatsen (Playing eld to new rural lifestyle estates). Wageningen, DLO-Wynand Staring Centrum, Wageningen, Rapport 511. Leo van den Berg is a social geographer and senior researcher at Alterra, Green World Research in Wageningen. His main interest is in land-use dynamics in the ruralurban interface, both in industrialised countries and in the Third World. In 1984, he completed his Ph.D. on land-use and land values in the zone of urban anticipation of Lusaka, Zambia. More recently, his research efforts have been on how farmers in The Netherlands could play a more active role in the various processes of urban growth. Annoesjka Wintjes is a landscape architect at Alterra, Green World Research in Wageningen, since 1996. Her focus is on practical designs for urbanrural interfaces and reconstruction of agriculture. At Alterra, an approach to landscape design is used that integrates knowledge of technical, planning and administrative processes in order to solve problems at regional and national levels. As a free-lance landscape architect she is currently designing a new estate. Before 1996, she worked for five years at the municipality of Haarlemmermeer creating plans for green areas in co-operation with local residents. She worked one year for the province of North-Brabant, evaluating various local zoning plans on their impact for nature and landscape qualities. She studied landscape architecture at the Wageningen Agricultural University.