Nieuwe perspectieven op dynamieken en waarden van de open ruimte in Vlaanderen

Open space is used as a generic term for the non-built areas, the totality of land units with mainly non-built-up soils. These soils are a key-resource and substrate for biological, hydrological and other functions. As far as a distinction can be made, open space covers both the unbuilt component of rural and semi-urban areas, as well as the green spaces within urban environments.Worldwide, the open space is subjected to many different dynamics with or without being influenced by man. Simultaneously, in areas where people and activities concentrate, many functions, urban as well as rural, are getting mixed in a so-called ‘rurban’ area, characterized by strong dynamics and fast transformations. The open space in such areas is acknowledged more and more as a multifunctional medium of land use and environmental services, where production of food or nature conservation are no longer the only objectives. However, it appears that both researchers’ and spatial planners’ feeling of loosing grip in guiding evolutions in the open space has become stronger, since open space dynamics span an ever wider range of subjects. Current monitoring systems and planning instruments are insufficiently prepared to accommodate newly explicated values, functions and services of open space and are connected to traditional categorizations of open space and land use. Both the division of open space into sectors as well as the division between city and countryside are questionable, since they make an abstraction of the numerous spatial and functional gradients within the open space and between city and countryside. Interactions are becoming so dynamic, with a multiplicity of conflicting interests and competition between urban and rural land uses and activities. Development perspectives for other functions or activities that do not fit within the sectors agriculture, nature or forestry are insufficiently incorporated in the spatial visions for open space. We risk overlooking some important values, linked to the complex interaction of different functions and stakeholders in open space, especially in an urbanizing, multifunctional and often strongly fragmented environment.Therefore, this dissertation offers enrichment in the diagnosis of open space and explores strategies to value open space. In particular we concentrate on the case ‘Flanders’, but with an open mind to the universality of the challenge ‘to revisit dynamics and values of open space’. The main hypothesis is that there is a bias in the valuation of open space that has two main components. First, there is a categorization bias: The identification of structures and functions in open space and availability of open space datasets is restricted to existing nomenclature and categorizations of open space and does not (enough) take into account other or new functions that may arise. Second, there is a fragmentation bias: larger units of open space are in general more valued in landscape research and policy, compared to small and fragmented units. Therefore, values of small and fragmented open spaces are often overlooked.The first hypothesis was elaborated through chapters 2-4 for the study area Flanders. In chapter 2, expert interviews and case study research revealed different dynamics in the open space that often do not fit in sectoral categorizations of open space. Especially information on current transformation phenomena such as horsification, garden sprawl or broadening activities in agriculture is limited or missing. The gaps often correspond to conditions in the urban/rural, farming/nature, nature/amenity and other interfaces, exactly those conditions that tend to be ignored by the predominant logic of urban-rural and agriculture-nature divides and allocations. A conclusion of this chapter was also that there is certain circularity in data, planning and research. Official land use data also have this categorization bias and are often used in planning processes as well as in research, which can result in a biased image of reality. Chapter 3 focused on the spatial importance of pasture for horses and considered hobby farming as an underrated function of the open space. By collecting information from different sources – census data, fieldwork and an internet survey – it became clear that the total area, taken up by horses, often for hobby farming, is impressive, although it is mainly ignored in visions for open space. Chapter 4 went into detail into tare land in the horticultural sector, or the space of a farm that is not directly productive. Including tare in land use planning can give a more precise image on what the characteristics and potentials of an area are. Tare is nowadays mainly considered to be ‘marginal’, although the research shows that the area can be significant and that it depends on farm-specific characteristics. Tare is now not or very little present within the nomenclature and classification schemes of land use monitoring and it mainly ‘escapes’ from registration and from land use planning policies. All these findings together confirm explicitly the hypothesis concerning the categorization bias. We therefore present a framework that we think can form a viable alternative to categorize open space, based on structure, functions and values, where change is an inherent characteristic.The second hypothesis was elaborated through chapters 5 and 6, again for the case study Flanders. In fact there is more valuable open space than one would think there is at first sight, especially when also the (potentials of the) many small fragments are taken into account. The open space fragment ‘Woluweveld’ near Brussels proved to have important values when looked at from another perspective than general existing datasets alone. Also, in the case study of chapter 6, it was clear that open space is disappearing significantly, although all the open fragments are by the farmers in the area considered to be of high value. Through focus groups with different local stakeholders, we collected information that is highly complementary to existing datasets and plans for the area, including differences in perspectives. We conclude from these chapters that both ‘exceptional’ and ‘unexceptional’ areas are important within the wider mosaic and within the wider context of sustainability and ecosystem services. Not only ‘the best’ (according to current value datasets), but also ‘the rest’ of the countryside has important functions and values. Finally, with the research presented and the case of Flanders in the back of our mind, we zoom out again and formulate some general reflections for both open space research and policy. We thereby focus on the mixed methods that were used in this research, the complementary between quantitative and qualitative research and the value of case study research. We hope this dissertation can contribute to a sustainable planning for and use of open space in the future.DANKWOORD i TABLE OF CONTENT iii LIST OF FIGURES v LIST OF TABLES vii ABBREVIATIONS ix ABSTRACT xi SAMENVATTING xv INTRODUCTION 3 Open Space? 3 Problem setting 3 Hypothesis 5 Objectives 5 Study Area: Flanders 6 Outline 9 CHAPTER 1 Open space dynamics 13 Waves of open space dynamics 13 A framework for open space dynamics 23 The value of this framework 30 CHAPTER 2 Underrated dynamics in the open space in Flanders 35 Introduction 35 Methods 37 Results 41 Discussion and conclusion 46 CHAPTER 3 The spatial importance of pasture for horses 51 Introduction 51 Literature review 52 Methods 54 Results 62 Discussion and conclusion 72 CHAPTER 4 Tare land in Flemish Horticulture 77 Problem statement 77 Methods 79 Results 84 Discussion 87 Conclusion 93 CHAPTER 5 The fragmentation bias in the valuation of open space: A diagnosis for Flanders 97 Introduction 97 Review of fragmentation literature 99 Methods and techniques 102 Results 110 Discussion & Conclusion 117 CHAPTER 6 Comparing different stakeholder perspectives on the value of open space 123 Introduction 123 The general ‘expert perspective’ on open space values, according to literature 125 The ‘desktop perspective’ on values of open space in a Belgian case study 127 The ‘local perspectives’ on values of open space: focus groups 131 Comparing perspectives 140 Conclusion 149 CHAPTER 7 Conclusions 153 Recalling the research objectives 153 Reflections 156 REFERENCES 165 List of Publications 179nrpages: 180status: publishe