Goal finding and longterm ambition:
the final WP2 report
Menko Wiersema, Evelyne Lord-Tarte
This report synthesizes the WP2 results of the GIFT-T! project to inform governmental
staff, professional landscape planners and mediators in participatory planning, as well as
members of social networks engaged in Green Infrastructure planning practice.
The emphasis here is on what we have learned in the GIFT-T! about goal finding and
long-term ambition. More information is available in the interactive manual and toolbox
presented at the GIFT-T! website www.gift-t.eu.
This report captures the intensive exchange of experiences and deliberations in the GIFTT! partnership, as we went through applications of the GIFT-T! approach in our five case
studies. All members of the team contributed to these contents.
This is the final report of GIFT-T! Work Package 2 (output 2.6.1).
The province of South-Holland, The Hague, July 2015
2
Contents
Table of contents
1. Introduction
4
2. About GIFT-T!
5
3. The approaches in the five GIFT-T! cases
6
4. The role of valuation
9
5. Lessons learnt
11
3
1. Introduction
1. What did the GIFT-T! project aim to achieve?
Successful experiments in The Netherlands (the Hoeksche Waard area and in the city of
Leiden) were used to describe the GIFT-T! prototype for the first phase of the community
based planning of Green Infrastructure. Aim of the first phase of the GIFT-T! project is to
develop a long-term ambition plan bottom-up with stakeholders.
The GIFT-T! partnership teamed up with the users (or clients) of the local landscapes to
identify their needs and desires related to Green Infrastructure (GI) and the Ecosystem
Services it provides and to define a shared long-term vision for our five case study areas
in the UK (2), Belgium (2) and The Netherlands (1).
We opted for a bottom-up approach in which the users of Green Infrastructure (such
as citizens, farmers, walkers, scout groups, anglers, consumers, allotment-keepers, beekeepers, but also enterprises and nature organisations) are actively involved in
identifying the demand for Green Infrastructure (nature) and ecosystem services
(asking them: 'which ecosystem or landscape services do you consider important in your
area?') and identifying the desired quality of those services (objectives/ambition).
This information was integrated into a shared long-term vision for Green
Infrastructure in the area. This long-term vision is the starting point for the 2nd GIFT-T!
phase in which the landscape is diagnosed and a shared design is delivered, and
consequently for the 3th GIFT-T! phase, in which a joint programme, a so-called green
Infrastructure Business Plan (GIBP) which defines specific business cases and projects to
develop GI, is delivered.
Ecosystem services (ES) or landscape services, provided by natural and semi-natural
processes in the Green Infrastructure (GI) are useful for humans, as they provide many
different functions. The landscape yields products such as wood, food, drinking water and
clean air (production services). People find peace, inspiration and relaxation there
(cultural services). Both agriculture and nature benefit from pollination, natural pest
control and healthy soil organisms (regulating services). In short, the Green
Infrastructure connects landscape elements (over land and water) to the benefit of
animals and humans, supporting many essential ES’s such as flood prevention, clean
water, counteracting soil erosion, etc.
In the GIFT-T! approach, citizens and enterprises were recognized as important users of
the GI inside and outside the city. It is the demand from citizens and enterprises rather
than the supply of nature and recreational opportunities, which determines the content of
the long-term vision and ambition plan.
4
2. About GIFT-T!
1. What did the GIFT-T! project aim to achieve?
The European INTERREG programme GIFT-T! is made up of so-called work packages or
WP’s. Each WP has a specific goal and outcome. WP’s 2-4 are directly related to the three
phases of the spatial planning process as defined in the GIFT-T! approach:
•
•
•
Developing a shared long-term vision and ambition plan (WP2)
Diagnosis and design (WP3)
Developing a Green Infrastructure Business Plan (WP4),
In WP2, the focus is on (1) identifying the ecosystem or landscape services and their
desired quality (objective-setting) in a bottom-up process with stakeholders and (2)
defining a shared, inspiring long-term vision based on GI and the ES’s it provides.
When we started five questions were considered relevant in this regard:
1. What is the optimum scale/size of the area for a bottom-up process?
2. Which stakeholders are representative and how do we recruit them? Do we recruit
those with an interest in GI or those who are the suppliers of GI?
3. What are the most important ES’s for the stakeholders? Which ES’s are considered
important and why?
4. What is the ambition level of the most important ecosystem services listed by the
stakeholders?
5. Can a shared long-term vision be defined based on targets set by a very mixed
group of stakeholders?
These five questions are the connecting thread to the GIFT-T! approach in the five case
areas. There are major differences between the case areas however, which may influence
the answer to the questions above. For example:
•
•
•
Differences in area size: the case study Woluweveld (VLM, B) in the peri-urban
region outside Brussels is significantly smaller than the area between the towns of
Leiden, Alphen aan de Rijn and Zoetermeer (South-Holland, NL) or that in the Hoo
Peninsula (Medway Council, UK)
Differences in ES’s focus: In Merseyside and North Cheshire (The Mersey Forest,
UK) the main focus is on ES’s related to trees, while in the Landduinenregio
(Province of Antwerp, B) the focus is more on regulating services.
Differences in applied tools: In the Hoo Peninsula so-called Community
conversations were applied, and in Leiden en surroundings so-called dream
sessions were applied.
The questions and differences will be discussed in chapter 5.
5
3. The approaches in the five GIFT-T! cases
1. What did the GIFT-T! project aim to achieve?
Merseyside and North Cheshire (UK)
The vision of The Mersey Forest (TMF) is to turn Merseyside and North Cheshire into one
of the best areas to live in in the country by working
together to create and manage woodland landscapes
in the immediate vicinity of people. The aim is to
increase woodland cover to 20% of the area. Within
the ‘more from trees’ vision, multiple goals have
been defined: a highly attractive living environment,
strengthening the economy, increasing access for
recreation and travel, improving the health of our
citizens, creating jobs, adapting to climate change
and a positive impact on biodiversity. There has been
very intensive citizen involvement in where and how
to achieve these benefits. Some 55 organisations
were involved in the consultation and several
hundred individuals participated in the on-line
consultation process to a greater or lesser extent.
As part of the highly extensive ‘community consultation’ for the purposes of refreshing
the existing Mersey Forest Plan, two campaigns were launched: the ‘Love Your Woods?’
campaign and a ‘mapping campaign’. The heart of the consultation process is an
interactive map (‘Map a Woodland Wonderland’). On the internet, as well as at events,
citizens can specify where extra trees and woodland are needed, where improvements
are considered necessary and where they are satisfied with the existing woodland. This
interactive map provides a continuously updated desired vision for the area. It has
proved a highly successful means of communicating with citizens and brings supply and
demand of ES’s together. The evidence of local demand (via the interactive map) proved
decisive in securing local funding for the GI implementation.
In addition to the two campaigns, extensive consultation was carried out with key
organisations and members of the public by email, phone and face to face. This was vital
to ensure buy-in of actors and to ensure that nuanced opinions, constraints and
opportunities were taken into account.
http://www.merseyforest.org.uk/consultation_write_up.pdf
The Hoo Peninsula (UK)
The Hoo Peninsula in North Kent is an isolated peninsula situated between the Thames
and Medway estuaries with a difficult combination of a very large-scale industrial
landscape with many unused open spaces, adjacent Natura 2000 marshlands and
grasslands, and within those isolated residential areas. The objective of Medway Council
is to make the area more attractive for investment and
residential use and to boost tourism. In a number of socalled Community Conversations (involving a mix of local
residents, companies and other actors), three alternative
visions were drawn up. Extra effort was made to involve
young people in the consultations. An interactive map was
used to invite actors to give their opinion.
139.165.29.43/Gift/Hoopeninsula/index_jquery.php
6
The area Leiden, Alphen aan de Rijn en Zoetermeer (Mijn Groen-Ons Groen)(NL)
The objective of the Province of South-Holland is to better link the towns and their
citizens with the countryside and the nature reserves in the immediate vicinity. The
emphasis is on a client-focused (bottom-up) approach. By means of a large number of
dream sessions in which citizens were asked what importance they attach to Green
Infrastructure (which ES’s they consider important) and
what dreams they have about it, a large number of
area-specific and thematic dream images were collected
and ultimately brought together in an inspiring vision for
the area. Based on that long-term vision, a GI
programme is being developed which has already
attracted 18 million euros in funding. An experiment in
developing a social network has been launched around a
single ES (pollination) a so-called bee landscape (a
dream landscape for bee-keepers and walkers, designed
to reduce deaths of honeybees over the winter).
www.mijngroenonsgroen.nl/
Woluweveld (B)
In this peri-urban area around Brussels, VLM payed much attention for the last 10 years
to preserve and strengthen the remaining open spaces by improving GI. The link with
economic development and the development of many industrial zones of European
economic and strategic importance, however, was neglected for years in this process.
In this GIFT-T! case study the first steps were taken to
involve the business sector in a bottom-up way in
enhancing the GI. VLM focused on two areas, in which
previously the instrument for land development lead to
development of an overall area vision for-improving GI
in the not build areas.
Within the bounds of the existing overall area vision, a
network of companies and other organizations is being
created in the Woluwe and Horing areas (the eastern
periphery of Brussels) with the aim of getting
companies to take ownership of concrete actions in the field or funding for those actions
in order to create a GI across existing company premises. Main difference with the other
case study area is its primary focus on the business sector. An important innovation was
the introduction of vouchers (representing concrete measures which the company could
choose and achieve).
http://www.landscapingyourfuture.be/
Landduinenregio (B)
The Province of Antwerp aimed to investigate together
with local authorities and stakeholders in a bottom-up
way, whether a redesign of the landscape might yield a
larger number of ES’s and how these services could be
delivered. A network of ten partners was established
and a joint mission was drawn up.
7
In the sub-area the Volsbergenbossen (an area characterised by small scale
landownership), a participatory consultation was launched with landowners and forest
users. An old future vision from 2007 was transformed into a new one, taking account of
possible ES’s and the wishes of both owners and users. The case is limited to a very
small area but is focused on a large number of ES’s. Incorporating new ES’s identified by
owners and users helped create a new vision in which the scenario with the highest score
was selected by the stakeholders.
In the BIODIVA case, companies work on landscape improvement on a voluntary basis.
By way of inspiration, landscape images have been developed to serve as examples and
possible visions for a future GI outside nature reserves.
8
4. The role of valuation
The main role of the GIFT-T! valuation within the long-term ambition plan is to harvest
stakeholders’ wishes. It provides complementary information to the decision-making
process of vision building. The complementarity of valuation relies on two of its inherent
elements: a) its sampling ability and b) its capacity to collect stakeholders’ both revealed
and stated preferences.
The first element is the valuation sampling abilities through its consultation methods:
mainly its capacity to gather information from specific target groups and to deal with
large sample size data.
Haag (2012) analysed some the dream session in South-Holland. He found that people
attending GIFT-T!’s small group discussions (maximally 30 persons) are likely to exhibit a
similar profile in terms of social characteristics (e.g. education level, professional status,
age, etc.). Also, by deliberately spending their own time to the cause of GI improvement,
participants sharing strong environmental values are likely to be over-represented. Thus,
a vision built solely from the standpoint of small group discussion attendees may not fully
represents the heterogeneity local stakeholders.
9
Valuation may reach participants not yet integrated within small group discussions and
overcomes such potential selection bias. The main idea of the valuation sampling
selection is to target diverse types of stakeholders. These may vary according to the
characteristics of case studies and may include; GI visitors, residents, community
groups, local authorities, and businesses (including farming activities). During the GIFTT! valuation process, these stakeholders were interviewed via online and face-to-face
questionnaires (see Vision building and goal setting tools in the GIFT-T! manual).
Secondly, valuation may collect and aggregate large sample of quantitative and
qualitative data (to a lesser extent through comments and explanations). After being
encoded, these are analysed using non-parametric statistical analyses. Statistical
analyses results may serve different purposes, including investigating the relationship
between users and GI. Ultimately, large sample sizes are preferred for their population
representativeness and statistical robustness. Accordingly, through its sampling ability,
valuation may provide key information from specific stakeholders through facts and
figures to make better informed decisions about the long term ambition plan.
The valuation may also complement small group discussions by providing insights on
stakeholders’ both revealed and stated preferences. Preferences examination is
conducted to identify stakeholder’s GI wishes and priorities.
The stakeholders “revealed preferences” are the results from an observation of a factual
behaviour and use of GI. This information is used to understand better the relationship
between stakeholders and their environment, and may serve to estimate the value yield
by the GI (as further explained in the final WP3 report). This information is available
through on-site data collection. For instance, as inspired by the travel cost valuation
techniques, GIFT-T! examined the attraction of sites for visitors. This was estimated upon
the frequency and purpose of visit; along with the distance travelled to reach the site and
mode of transport used. Along with the demographic profile of stakeholders, revealed
preferences is used as background information to understand better the relationship
between users and GI.
Stated preferences refer to explicit preferred scenario alternatives for the GI as well as
the reasons behind stakeholders’ choices (see Vision building and goal setting tool in
GIFT-T! manual). Using decision modelling techniques provides useful information on
stakeholder’s favourableness on different options. As found in the case of the Hoo
Peninsula, the results from the stated preferences may challenge decision makers’
expectations about stakeholders. Thus, stated preferences provide clear indications for
decision makers on stakeholders level of acceptance for given alternatives. Furthermore,
seeking to identify further stakeholder’s desires, interview respondents were also asked
to identify their favourite spots within the case study area together with the explanation
of their choice.
Therefore, the valuation role for the long term ambition plan is to provide insights
through complementary information to decision-makers for vision building. This
information then feed into the second GIFT-T! phase, the diagnosis and design.
10
5. Lessons learnt
A. What is the optimum size of an area for a bottom-up process in relation to
the specific regional focus?
The possibilities for a bottom-up process within the GIFT-T! approach is largely
determined by the scale and complexity (the specific regional focus or theme). For
example, due to its large area and population size (1,370 km2 with 1.7 million
people), The Mersey Forest decided against applying ‘dream sessions’ as developed
by South-Holland. In dream sessions, different small groups of stakeholders meet one
another. The Mersey Forest decided that this approach was not realistic in view of the
scale and population size of their area, and opted instead for an interactive map on
the internet which can reach the population of the entire area and allow them to
interact with each other (i.e. a virtual ‘dream session’).
Differences in scale and complexity:
Diversity in ecosystem services and stakeholders
Small
Scale
Large
Average
Large
Woluweveld (VLM)
Volsbergenbossen (Antwerp)
Bee landscape (South-Holland)
Mijn Groen Ons-Groen (South-Holland)
Hoo Peninsula (Medway Council)
Landduinenregio (Antwerp)
Merseyside and North Cheshire (TMF)
The Woluweveld is a relatively small area in the Vlaamse Rand, a peri-urban area around
Brussels), with the aim to achieve a 'greening' of company premises in order to create an
uninterrupted green ribbon and to integrate GI development for a larger area to the
sustainable development of the business areas. A bottom-up process with companies was
successfully launched. The Volsbergenbergen (Antwerp) case is only 125 hectares in size
but conversely focuses on a relatively large number of ES’s. The TMF case comprises a
very large area (1,370 km2) and focused on ES’s of trees and woodlands. ‘Mijn GroenOns Groen’, the Hoo Peninsula, and the Landduinenregio are many tens of thousands of
hectares in size and many ES’s play a role there.
Due to their large seize and the stakeholder diversity and stakeholder-related ES’s, the
choice of stakeholders for the bottom-up process proved a challenge. In order to get a
good picture of stakeholders wishes, it was necessary to organize a much larger number
of dream sessions in South-Holland than originally anticipated and the area was
eventually divided into different sub-areas (Zoetermeer, Leiden and Alphen). An extra
programme ( the bee-landscape) was launched for the entire area around a limited
number of Ecosystem Services (pollination, well-being and honey production). In the Hoo
Peninsula four community conversations were held, but this was not enough to establish
the building blocks for a shared vision. Eventually, Medway Council decided to design
three different scenario’s which were incorporated into the GI Business Plan in an
interactive way, enabling stakeholders to voice their preferences. Faced with a similar
large area in the Landduinenregio, Antwerp opted to apply the bottom-up approach in a
smaller area (Volsbergenbossen). However, at the same time an analysis (more topdown) of possible ES’s was conducted, a landscape education project was started and
biodiversity landscape images were developed for the entire area, which were used in
11
communicating with the stakeholders in the larger are of the Landduinenregio. In the
largest case area, Merseyside and North Cheshire, TMF decided to use ‘virtual dream
sessions’ and launched a consultation process via an interactive map (‘Map a Woodland
Wonderland’).
B. Which stakeholders are representative and how do we recruit them? Do we
recruit those with an interest in GI or those who are the suppliers of GI?
An important factor in the success/failure of the GIFT-T! approach is the selection and
recruitment of representative stakeholders. The landscape clients are highly diverse and
all have specific wishes and ideas. An important lesson learned is that the quality
(diversity of ES’s and objectives) and outcomes of the bottom-up process are determined
to a very large extent by good preparation when identifying and recruiting landscape
clients who are relevant for the process.
In the different cases, there a clear distinction can be made between the suppliers and
the users or clients of the landscape. Examples of users of the landscape are e.g.
citizens, examples of supplier of the landscape are e.g. farmers and companies. It is
important to realize that the same group of stakeholder can be a supplier and a user at
the same time, depending upon the ES. All demand a specific approach:
Area owners and suppliers of ecosystem services
In the Volsbergenbossen Antwerp worked actively with the landowners. Here, a relatively
small area of woodland is owned by a very large number of people. This is not a situation
which often arises in the Netherlands or the UK but in Belgium it is common. In the
course of a participatory consultation process, a large number of Ecosystem Services
were collectively listed, resulted in a new vision which clearly differed from the one
drawn up in 2007, and evaluated in relation to possible management scenarios.
In South-Holland, an experiment was carried out to organize separate dream sessions
with users and with landowners/farmers from the same area (Geerpolder). When the
listed ES’s were integrated, the results were significantly broadened.
In the pre GIFT-T! period a partnership of suppliers, involving particularly owners of the
remaining open spaces, developed a limited vision on GI for the Woluweveld. This vision
did not encompass the GI in the business areas intersecting the remaining open spaces.
GIFT-T! complemented the existing partnership with new stakeholders and developed a
voucher booklet to open up the partnership tousers of the landscape from the business
sector.
Users of the landscape and demanders for ecosystem services
Many clients of the landscape can be identified: walkers,
riders, bee-keepers, anglers, surfers, swimmers,
birdwatchers, members of scout groups, children and old
people, people engaged in leisure activities with different
lifestyles, all of them associated with different activities and
objectives. It became quickly apparent in ‘Mijn Groen-Ons
Groen’ that when casting the invitations wide, many target
groups were insufficiently represented. Non-white people and
young people, but also specific target groups and users of the landscape such as beekeepers or anglers were absent from the dream sessions. In general it was the elderly
people and members of green organisations that attended the dream sessions. There was
also greater representation from the urban peripheries than from the town centres. In
order to get a good idea of the needs of these users too, separate sessions were held
with e.g. bee-keepers, water sports enthusiasts, young people and stakeholders from
deprived areas.
12
When recruiting stakeholders for dream sessions, South-Holland first contacted
organisations representing the different sectors such as the agricultural sector, anglers,
bee-keepers etc. to ask them whether they could provide active, knowledgeable
members to attend the dream sessions. Other cases reported similar findings. For
example, on the Hoo Peninsula an extra community conversation was held for young
people. In the Volsbergenbossen forest users (e.g. beekeepers, mountain bikers,
walkers) were consulted together with the forest owners.
By taking account of the great diversity of landscape suppliers and users and involving
‘hard to reach’ stakeholders, it is possible to broaden the listed ES’s to encompass an
even wider range of objectives with regard to, for example, the desired water quality (for
angling, swimming), silence, types of recreational areas: edible forest, exciting forest,
play forest, biodiverse forest etc.
The Business sector
VLM’s aim was to build up a social network of companies with the
objective of creating GI across adjacent company premises and
connecting that GI to the existing green network to the east of the
city of Brussels. In order to build up the network, VLM first gained
a picture of the world in which the companies operate. How do
they work? How do they take decisions? What place does
corporate social responsibility (CSR) take in operational
management? To answer these questions, specific consultants
were hired with knowledge of the relevant sectors and relations
established with the Flemish business network VOKA. In-depth
interviews were held with senior business management. VLM
decided to keep the interactive sessions short (e.g. lunch sessions), to avoid using too
jargon, to use the power of visual demonstration, and to work with testimony from
managers and examples. The 'go-and-see-the-site-with-your-own-eyes' approach proved
very effective. Together with the manager, the interviewer would clarify what might and
might not be possible directly on the site and the suggestions were incorporated into a
plan. The same strategy also proved effective in approaching the Heineken brewery in
South-Holland.
One successful approach was a ‘GIFT-T! voucher booklet’ offered to the companies, which
contained ten measures they could take themselves. Companies were able to sign a
voucher on the spot and a press event would be organised for them. The companies in
one of the (sub)areas (Horing) committed themselves straight away and signed multiple
vouchers. A success factor was that if one of the companies took the lead, others
followed.
Antwerp especially developed a tool for companies, called BIODIVA. It includes a scan
and define subsequent actions for GI improvement. The companies decide – on a
voluntary basis – to apply the tool, and are free to choose their own ambition level.
South-Holland worked with Heineken based on the TEEB approach (The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity) for companies. Heineken's dependencies on the landscape
(the ES’s which Heineken is dependent on) were catalogued, opportunities and threats
formulated and, based on those, a shared dream was drawn up.
C. What are the most important ES’s for the stakeholders? Which ES’s are
considered important by them and why?
In identifying the most important ES’s, the GIFT-T! uses two different strategies: a) a
bottom-up interactive approach asking stakeholders to list their preferred ES’s, and b) a
13
more top-down approach involving scientists and policy makers to identify the potential
ES’s that could be of importance to the area and the stakeholders.
South-Holland and Medway Council started asking users
of the landscape was what they considered important and
why, identifying the ES’s in a bottom-up process. The
Mersey Forest drew up a list of potential ES’s which the
other cases could use. This top-down list (based on
ecosystem services theory), was extensively discussed in
the Antwerp case. First, the services important for the
Landduinenregio were identified: wood production,
agricultural production, water supply, climate regulation
through carbon storage in the trees, water purification
through nutrient retention in the soil, air purification and pollination. Secondly, the
factors were analysed that determine the delivery of these services. The relation between
the delivery of the services and factors influencing the delivery were evaluated on
scientific knowledge and expert opinion. Thirdly, services were categorized (low delivery
to high delivery) and weighted (based on a survey held during workshops).
These strategies (bottom-up/top-down) may be regarded as two extremes along a
gradient. The bottom-up strategy resulted in primarily cultural services, such as
an edible and beautiful landscape, a place for rest and reflection, atmosphere, destressing, a landscape with sufficient food to prevent the deaths of bees over winter,
walking with children, angling, skating, cooling down, a safe place to play, health of body
and mind, countering obesity in children, experiencing the landscape, a place for regional
produce and even a holiday feeling in your own back garden. The top-down strategy
resulted in production and regulating services, such as natural pest control, pollination,
self-cleaning capacity, material cycles, soil fertility and the water-storage capacity of the
soil.
•
•
•
•
•
The weakness of the bottom-up strategy was that a large number of mainly
regulating services were not listed by the stakeholders; the services listed were
primarily cultural services.
In dream sessions the facilitator plays an important role, decisive for the group
dynamic and in particular for the quality of the outcomes. Large differences between
different dream sessions could be explained in part by the experience of the group's
facilitator. Asking more and stimulating questions ('why do you consider that
important?') gained a better picture of the underlying objectives of the stakeholders
and resulted in more and better ideas.
In the top-down strategy, the stakeholders identify less with the listed services, as
they are only involved in final weighting of the services. Moreover, the weighting
factors themselves and the type of services considered important may vary strongly
depending on the stakeholder group questioned.
The group size is also important. Both in the VLM and the South-Holland case we
observed that splitting up participants into smaller groups resulted in trust being
established more quickly. This consequently resulted in talking in greater depth at an
earlier stage.
Explaining to stakeholders the function and role of biodiversity and ES’s influences
the outcome positively (quality and quantity). In most dream sessions South-Holland
showed a video clip about the services provided by GI. This film was translated into
English and also used by the UK partners later in the process.
D. What is the ambition level of the most important ecosystem services listed by
the stakeholders?
After the most important ecosystem services were listed, the desired quality and
ambition level were discussed and described in workshops in a fairly classical way.
14
There were two distinct approaches:
In The Mersey Forest approach, stakeholders indicated on a digital map
(on the internet) where they considered the existing GI quality to be
adequate and where they felt extra trees and woodland planting were
required. For each location they could offer suggestions as to where
and how the use of the forest could be improved.
In South-Holland, after jointly agreeing and listing the most important
ES’s, each individual actor was given the opportunity to put down a
large number of dreams/ideas about the ES’s he or she considered important on A4
sheets. At the end of the dream session, all of the – sometimes hundreds of –
ideas/dreams are prioritised by the stakeholders present (by placing stickers). What is
striking is the huge productivity and creative capacity displayed in all the dream sessions.
A provisional analysis shows that the outcomes of dream sessions differ markedly from
those of the more classical objective-setting in the other cases. The ambitions and
dreams often extend further and stakeholders also list fewer 'bureaucratic' ones: 'Leiden
a paradise for children'; the 'holiday feeling in your own back garden' cluster; Alzheimer's
gardens; green school playgrounds, play forest, edible forest etc.
E. Can an inspiring shared long-term vision be developed based on targets set
by a mixed group of stakeholders?
Developing a shared long-term vision and ambition plan is a complex process. The ‘Help
to Map a Woodland Wonderland’ campaign allows citizens to participate in refreshing The
Mersey Forest Plan. An initial campaign to raise awareness to the wider community, was
followed by an interactive, online and offline map campaign inspired by a mapping
technique used in ‘Mijn Groen-Ons Groen’. On this map, individuals are able to plot both
existing qualities and areas for improvement, and it provides an excellent picture of both
the existing quality (as judged by citizens) and the shared desired long-term situation.
This instrument provided one of many inputs into a description of a desired long-term
situation. Another input was the results of a programme of meetings with core
stakeholders.
Generating a shared vision based on the many
outcomes of some 20 dream sessions proved equally
complex. Hundreds of ideas and dreams were put
forward. Many dozens of ES’s and underlying and
overlying objectives were identified. As an interim step
towards a shared vision, an ordering instrument was
used: the goal tree (or goal hierarchy). This allows
clustering goals around a theme, e.g. a paradise for
children, more exercise thanks to more green space to
play in, green playgrounds, play forest, green
adventure paths, a barefoot path, swimming
opportunities in the city, etc. can be placed under the
theme 'A healthy living environment', and slowly but surely a picture of a highly
attractive living environment emerges. The outcome of this process has been captured in
a cartoon, an inspiring landscape image, summarising the dreamed landscape.
In the Landduinenregio, too, inspiring long-term landscape images based on the value of
ES’s were used as an important communication tool to communicate the shared longterm vision. In the Woluweveld, a broad area-based long-term vision already existed.
This enabled companies to identify their place and contribution to the whole and provided
an aid for partner organisations to coordinate in terms of the level of ambition and
strategy.
15
An important lesson learned from all the cases is that having an appealing shared longterm vision, represented in a clearly readable and inspiring map image, provides a robust
basis for the follow-up in terms of GI implementation. An inspiring vision with which the
stakeholders identify is an important success factor in developing a GI Business Plan,
generating local or national government support and ultimately securing sufficient
funding.
In some of the case areas, social networks were formed with actors that feel the same
sense of urgency for a specific theme or area. This speeds up the process and can take a
specific part of the GI Business Plan forward.
One example is the Bee landscape in South-Holland. In this case, a social network was
formed (a 'green circle') with actors feeling a sense of urgency to reduce the death of
bees and making the landscape more attractive, resulting in the creation of an unbroken
green-blue ribbon for pollinators. The Woodland Wonderland map was used by The
Mersey Forest to demonstrate the level of societal support for investment to a group of
funding organisations, resulting in GI budget. The cartoon of the dreamed landscape in
South-Holland generated a lot of political support and recognition, and is now the basis
for a GI Business Plan with a value of over 18 million euros. The landscape images of
Antwerp, and the area vision of the VLM resulted in support, recognition and the direct
explanation of the possibilities of connecting green-blue ribbons.
16