This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 10 November 2014, At: 17:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of GeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rdgs20

Fighting for a future: an actor-oriented planningapproach to landscape preservation in GaliciaPaul Swagemakersa, Damian Copena Rodrígueza, María Dolores Domínguez Garcíaa & XavierSimón Fernándeza

a Facultade de Ciencias Económicas e Empresariais, Grupo de Investigación EconomíaEcolóxica e Agroecoloxía (GIEEA), Universidade de Vigo, Lagoas-Marcosende s/n, Vigo36310, Pontevedra, SpainPublished online: 04 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Paul Swagemakers, Damian Copena Rodríguez, María Dolores Domínguez García & Xavier SimónFernández (2014) Fighting for a future: an actor-oriented planning approach to landscape preservation in Galicia, GeografiskTidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 114:2, 109-118, DOI: 10.1080/00167223.2013.876206

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2013.876206

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Fighting for a future: an actor-oriented planning approach to landscape preservation inGalicia

Paul Swagemakers*, Damian Copena Rodríguez, María Dolores Domínguez García and Xavier Simón Fernández

Facultade de Ciencias Económicas e Empresariais, Grupo de Investigación Economía Ecolóxica e Agroecoloxía (GIEEA),Universidade de Vigo, Lagoas-Marcosende s/n, Vigo 36310, Pontevedra, Spain

(Received 15 February 2013; accepted 11 December 2013)

Economic optimisation of the gross margin per hectare in agriculture reduces diversity, coherence and identity of culturallandscapes. Hence, landscape preservation calls for changes in the social-ecological organisation of places, which impliescomplex transitional processes towards new management regimes. These are supported by CAP reforms (Horizon,2014–2020) that increasingly turn from individual production subsidies to farmers to the collective management ofnatural resources and the related ecosystem services. This article explores the opportunities for landscape preservation inGalicia, Spain. The central question is: ‘How to develop a successful planning approach in the context of a geographi-cally peripheral area facing severe ecological, social and economic vulnerabilities?’ In the case study area contrastingviewpoints on landscape preservation among rural dwellers, entrepreneurs and representatives of institutions point topower issues on control over the natural environment, but also provide input for the development of an actor-orientedapproach to landscape preservation. This article provides a ‘tool’ for catching up with the EU objectives of sustainable,inclusive and smart growth and contributes to our understanding of how place-based development in EU programs canbe combined with landscape management in Galicia.

Keywords: CAP reforms; endogenous development; grassroots initiatives; participatory planning approaches

1. Introduction

Economic optimisation of the gross margin per hectarein agriculture reduces diversity, coherence and identity ofcultural landscapes (Antrop, 2005; Baudry et al., 2003;Calvo-Iglesias et al., 2009; Díaz-Maroto & Vila-Lameiro,2008; Groot et al., 2007). In response, the European2020 goals of smart, inclusive and sustainable develop-ment and the EU policy on territorial development reflecturgency for ‘place-based’ policies and the generation ofinsights on how to implement the place-based dimension(EC, 2007, 2010a, 2010b). The OECD ‘Green GrowthStrategy’ (OECD, 2011) for the coming decades impliessolving environmental problems while creating economicbenefits and human welfare, objectives that have beentaken as EU position (Refsgaard & Bryden, 2012; EC,26 June, 2013). The recently published report of theUnited Nation’s Special Rapporteur Olivier De Schutter(United Nations, 2010) generates attention for greeningregional economies and the recovery of cultural land-scapes and their intrinsic values more in particular.Managing a territory implies ‘fostering adaptive capabili-ties and creating opportunities’ (Holling, 2001) andpresumes the interaction between all stakeholders and thedevelopment and improvement of policies (Raadgeveret al., 2008; Wellbrock et al., 2012). Hence, attention inpolicy, land-use planning and research directed to

landscape management increasingly includes the role ofstakeholders in landscape preservation.

In order to improve landscape preservation, thechallenge is to align people and interests rooted interritorial capital, that is, ‘the amount and intertwinementof different forms of capital (or different resources)entailed in, mobilized and actively used in (and repro-duced by) the regional economy and society’ (van derPloeg et al., 2009, p. 13). Case study research providesinsight in how grassroots initiatives optimise landscapepreservation and landscapes provide new functions.The results should be of value in increasing understand-ing among researchers and policymakers of the valueof endogenous development potential in governinglandscape preservation.

2. Territorial capital and endogenous developmentpotential

In a transitional process from solely production orientedland-use patterns to provision of multiple services andfunctions the successful adaptations to environmentaland resource vulnerabilities need to be inherentlyterritorially rooted (Groot et al., 2007; Marsden, 2003;Mettepenningen et al., 2012; Pike, 2011; Swagemakers,2008; Wiskerke, 2009). In analytical terms, territorial

*Corresponding author. Email: paul.swagemakers@uvigo.es

© 2014 The Royal Danish Geographical Society

Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 2014Vol. 114, No. 2, 109–118, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2014.876206

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:10

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

capital evolves when institutions, as the ‘collective andobjective patterns of acting, thinking and feeling, whichexert a stimulating and controlling influence on individ-ual and subjective actions, thoughts and feelings’ (Zijder-veld, 2000, p. 32) get incorporated in daily practices ofactors and these practices mutually relate and strengtheneach other. Consequently, human intervention influenceslandscape preservation – to the better or the worse.

Taking into account Born and Purcell’s (2006)warning for the over-idealization of the ‘local’, this arti-cle takes the concept of ‘activity space’ as heuristicdevice for understanding the spatial network of linksand activities, of spatial connections and of locations(Massey, 1995). Thereby spatial dynamics are interpretedin terms of ecosystem services (ES), which includecultural (e.g. landscape, recreation), environmental (e.g.biodiversity), supporting (e.g. nutrient and water cycles)and provisioning services (e.g. food, timber and biomassproduction). Based on the work of geographers such asAllen et al. (1998), Massey (1995, 2004, 2005) and Rose(1995) three issues on the relational conceptualisation ofspace can be distinguished: (1) ES result from processesand should be conceptualised in terms of the socialinterrelations and interactions in which landscape preser-vation is tied together; (2) boundaries may be necessary,for example for the purpose of study, but are not essen-tial for defining ES; and (3) ES are always contested;they are subject to conflicts and claims of variousstakeholders.

2.1. Capital accumulation

The role of stakeholders in landscape preservationbecomes more evident when interpreting the landscape’sintrinsic values in terms of capital as ‘accumulatedlabour (in its materialised form or its ‘incorporated’,embodied form)’ Bourdie (1986, p. 241). Here, it isabout the ES so as valorised and reproduced by stake-holders, starting from the meaning these stakeholdersgive to the landscape. Following Bourdie’s definition oncapital accumulation, territorial capital is temporary innature and is unequally shared among stakeholders, andtherefore might be differentially valued and, hence, dif-ferently be optimised (see e.g. Swagemakers et al.,2009).

According to Bourdie, the creation of networks withinstitutionalised relations of mutual knowledge, recogni-tion and appreciation strengthen the process of materiali-sation of cultural values. Hence, sharing, translating andexchanging cultural values that are part of traditionallandscapes might result in its reproduction and in theshort or long run benefit to the participants of such anetwork. In such a process the importance and increaseof territorial capital is related to the social reproductionof a network and the interests among its participants.

Different territorial strategies initiated at different aggre-gation levels (e.g. the regional government, cooperationamong a group of rural dwellers) and in differentnetworks can cause conflicts and power clashes.

2.2. Actor-oriented planning approach

The central question is: ‘How to develop a successfulplanning approach in the context of a geographicallyperipheral area facing severe ecological, social andeconomic vulnerabilities?’ Such under the condition thatthe right to define priorities under self-created andmanaged resources prevails over a neo-liberal marketordering. Territorial capital strengthens when endogenousknowledge (Bruckmeier & Tovey, 2008; Swagemakers &Wiskerke, 2011) ‘travels’ at and between different its pri-mary constitution, its exchange to relative outsiders, andits influence and acceptance within the broader society.Learning about territorial capital is a multi-level process(Geels, 2002). Network members learn individuallythrough their interaction in and outside the group, andcontribute to collective learning at a higher, social level(Geels & Schot, 2007). Hence, an agent-based approachas the actor-oriented approach (Long, 2001; Rentinget al., 2009) is useful for the improvement of the spatialorganisation of landscapes.

A successful territorial strategy cannot be simplyimplemented by governmental agencies and/or regulatedby strict laws and regulatory schemes (Benvenuti, 1982;Wynne, 1996). Instead, a territorially rooted adaptationprocess implies its performance optimisation, valorisationand translation both internally (in the region, amongstakeholders) and to the outside world. The interrelationsbetween the knowledge infrastructure, supportingpolicies and grassroots initiatives get optimised in alearning region (Domínguez García et al., 2012;Wellbrock et al., 2012; Woods, 2011). In such a learningregion territorial capital accumulates, and consequentlylandscape preservation might succeed.

2.3. Identification of territorial capital

In order to successfully preserve vulnerable landscapesthe actors at the multiple-levels are in need of a ‘tool’ toidentify and improve (the so far theoretically defined)territorial capital. Territorial capital can be researched asa point of intersection of coherent dimensions. Thesedimensions are:

(1) the point of intersection of nature and cultureIdentification and valorisation of cultural land-scapes demand the availability of endogenousknowledge on the potentials of the naturalresource base (or ecological stock) in an areaand its local transformation into products andservices;

110 P. Swagemakers et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:10

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(2) the point of intersection of the local and theglobalTranslation of intrinsic values of culturallandscapes to the outside world demands a role ofgrassroots initiatives, politicians and scientists inthe accumulation and conversion of these prod-ucts and services into ‘benefits’ for consumersand/or citizens; and

(3) the intersection of niches and established regimesAligning the understanding, interests and partici-pation among grassroots initiatives and relativeoutsiders implies a shift in the (often controversial)orientation among a wide range of stakeholders.

It seems difficult to describe and specify a single dimen-sion in isolation from the others. Rather, the descriptionsof the dimensions illustrate their mutual interrelations.By means of these three dimensions territorial capitalcan be made visible, be applied in research and be madeproblematic in a way it corresponds to debates andproportions in force in present society.

By the application of the concept of activity space asoutlined so far this article aims to bring understanding ofhow endogenous development potential can be unlockedand matched with future CAP reforms. The next sectionoutlines the case study area and reviews the researchapproach and methodologies employed. This is followedby describing and discussing the experiences of grass-roots initiatives with landscape preservation. We draw onthe viewpoints, practices and features related to theimprovement of cultural landscapes and the identificationin terms of ES. We conclude that support for grassrootsinitiatives has a potential for the further improvement oflandscape preservation.

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Case study area

The case study focuses on landscape preservation inGalicia, a woodland area in the north western part ofSpain (Díaz-Maroto & Vila-Lameiro, 2008). Over thelast decades, massive migration (Domínguez Garcíaet al., 2012; Domínguez García et al., in press) causedan exodus from its most remote rural areas. Figure 1shows the location of the case study area. About 60% ofthe Galician territory consists of ‘Monte’ (Consellaría doMedio Rural, 2010), traditionally a multifunctionalmountainous zone covered by trees, bushes and scrubs(Soto, 2006).

For centuries Monte represented an importantresource for rural dwellers and has been indispensable tosustain farming practice in Galicia. During Franco’sdictatorship (1939–1975) land-use patterns changed. Atthe end of the Franco period cattle farming industrialised

(Domínguez García, 2007), people migrated to elsewhere(Domínguez García et al., 2012) and often commonMonte was expropriated of the ‘comuneiros’ (ruraldwellers who together own Monte situated in the parish)and given in ownership to municipalities (private Monteremained owned by rural dwellers). The abandonment ofthe traditional land-use system (Calvo-Iglesias et al.,2009; Domínguez García & Soto Fernández, 2013; Soto,2006) resulted in the improper and/or inefficient use ofthis resource base (Corbelle-Rico et al., 2012; Soto,2006; Timmermans et al., 2011).

After the political regime changed common Montehas been returned to the comuneiros in the parishes butyet this landscape-type had lost its functionalities. Theabandonment of common Monte resulted and still resultsin forest fires (Barreiro Carracedo, 2008). In line withconclusions drawn by Gunter-Diringer (2000), in thecase study area political and socio-economic conditionsdetermine landscape development. Political interven-tions mostly support the productivist model, i.e. themono-forestation and industrialisation of marginal farm-lands (Calvo-Iglesias et al., 2009; Domínguez García &Soto Fernández, 2013), which combines the Fordistsolution for the growth of cities and towns with a clearallocation of functions for the countryside (Marsden,2012). The Xunta de Galicia (the regional, autonomousgovernment) continues the top-down implemented policystrategy by the implementation of wind parks and miningactivities operated by (often foreign, multi-national)enterprises that hardly leave benefits to these communi-ties (Simón & Copena, 2012). Different from experienceselsewhere in Europe (see e.g. Refsgaard & Bryden,2012) in Galicia landowners are excluded from takingadvantage in the newly emerging (policy-induced) mar-kets for renewable energy. A series of requirements,founded in regional laws, are impossible to comply withby local communities or newly founded collectives.Between 1995 and 2010 plans for wind parks have been100% approved by the Xunta de Galicia, whereby landexpropriation is a key element in the support strategiesto foreign enterprises (Simón Fernández & CopenaRodríguez, 2013).

3.2. Alternative land-use types

For the provision of ES such as landscapes, farm-landbiodiversity, soil life and stability, the availability ofwater, water and air quality, resilience to fire as well associal goods including food security and rural vitality(Cooper et al., 2009) a fundamental re-orientation ofinterrelations between society and economy is required(Haberl et al., 2009). This re-orientation should allow forprocesses of change that last in the long-term and can beassessed as an ‘open evolutionary process of improving

Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:10

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the management of social-ecological systems’ (Rammelet al., 2007, p. 9). Thereby the systems’ capacity toadapt (Holling, 2001; Stagl, 2007; van der Ploeg, 2008)and its ability ‘to reconcile the impacts of human activityon the environment’ (Murphy, 2000, p. 2) are importantdynamics. These should be interpreted and analysed asmulti-product, multi-actor and multi-level process (vander Ploeg et al., 2000).

In contrast with the mono-functional land-usepatterns advocated and supported by the dominantpolitical regime, progressive private entrepreneurs and‘Comunidades de Montes Veciñais en Man Común’(CMVMCs, Neighbourhood Communities for the Com-mon Management of Monte) manage (common as wellas private) Monte in a multi-functional land-use model.Next to food and timber production these grassrootsinitiatives produce ES such as health, well-being andbiodiversity.

Within the Galician contemporary power structuresthe development of alternative land-use models is keptout of the policy frames. Following Geels and Schot(2007) analysis on transition pathways, the transitionalprocess of greening the Galician economy as initiated

by these grassroots initiatives is constrained by theestablished regime.

Whilst from a theoretical and methodologicalstandpoint an actor-oriented planning approach would beuseful for the improvement of the spatial organisation ofGalician vulnerable landscapes the potential of thesealternative land-use types and the characteristics of socialorganisation of landscapes remain largely invisible. Inorder to identify and map territorial capital in terms ofES we have used the notion of activity space as heuristicconcept.

3.3. Research approach

Over the past ten years our research group at theUniversity of Vigo has carried out fieldwork in thecontext of research projects, assisted in informal plan-ning processes and has been frequently invited to speechand discuss in stakeholder meetings in rural areas. Inmany cases our research activities have been based onquestions that were raised by these stakeholders. Theoverall S/T methodology is inspired by the Integrated

Figure 1. The location of the case study area. Map of Galicia (Galicia Viaje, 2013)

112 P. Swagemakers et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:10

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Sustainability Assessment approach, which is ‘a cyclical,participatory process of scoping, envisioning, experi-menting, and learning through which a shared interpreta-tion of sustainability for a specific context is developedand applied in an integrated manner, in order to exploresolutions to persistent problems of unsustainable devel-opment’ (Weaver & Rotmans, 2006). This cyclical,participatory process also implies research principlessuch as interdisciplinary research, non-linear knowledgegeneration, social learning and a focus on systems inno-vation rather than sub-system optimization (Rotmans,2006).

In the case study research we applied a qualitativemicro-sociological approach, which included in-depthinterviews with key informants: two entrepreneurs recov-ering Monte as a valuable resource, three comuneirosbelonging to innovative CMVMCs, the president ofOrganización Galega de Comunidades de MontesVeciñais en Man Común (the Galican Organisation ofCMVMCs), two project leaders, and two representativesof regional administration. Also, as members of theresearch group we participated frequently in activitiesand seminars organised all over Galicia. Our knowledgeon natural resource management, Monte in particular,further stems from consultancy tasks for CMVMCs,parishes and villages that contacted our group to receiveinformation. Finally, the findings and the dynamics,opportunities and constraints related to putting Monteinto value have been discussed and tested in the manymeetings the group members were invited to bycomuneiros in all parts of Galicia, often initiated by thelocal groups with the aim to gain information on legalprocedures and communal benefits of the implementationof wind parks.

Along the research process, the interviews andcase studies directed our iterative and interactive casestudy research to landscape preservation. Thereby thedimensions of territorial capital have been employed assensitizing concepts to draw stakeholders’ views onthe dynamics of landscape management and theirinterrelations.

4. Results and discussion

In this section we further explore and analyse thedeviations of mono-forestation and industrialisation tra-jectories. We use three examples of collective and privatemanagement or combinations of these land-ownershiptypes that valorise the functions provided by the Galiciantraditional landscape.

4.1. Comarca de Verín

In the Comarca de Verín, a mountainous area located insouth eastern Galicia, various stakeholder and business

initiatives contribute to the maintenance of Montes andits landscape and natural qualities (Domínguez Garcíaet al., in press; Swagemakers et al., 2012). The wine cel-lar Quinta da Muradella for example recovers traditionalvineyards and endogenous varieties in order to producequality wine that is sold in niche markets worldwide.The production of the grapes in the remote vineyards inMonte areas, based on endogenous knowledge recoveredamong villagers, is processed in the modern wine cellarin the town of Verín.

In the same provincial town, cooperative VerínBiocoop S.C.L. (http://verinbiocoop.com/) gradually hasconverted into the regional promoter of the recovery anduse of five autochthonous breeds that were in danger ofextinction before Verín Biocoop S.C.L.’s action. Thesebreeds perfectly adapt to the local environment, i.e. thepoor conditions of Monte areas and its diverse vegetationtypes. Verín Biocoop S.C.L. is the marketer of organicmeat and the supplier of service and advice regardingthe application of organic certification.

In one of the most remote villages in the Comarcathe chestnut association O Souto aims to improve thecondition of the plantations, the classification of varietiesand the revenues from individual fruit picking. O Soutoaimed at fostering the chestnut economy of the region,realising added value to what we have defined as thetraditional landscape by creating money flows directly tothe small-scaled producers and collectively bargaining agood price. Recently, their efforts were picked up by oth-ers and chestnuts can now be sold, individually, underthe banner of ‘Protected Geographical Indication’.

The NGO O Grelo Verde aims at the sustainment oflocal food production and consumption by organisingorganic school meals and listing organic producers andretailers (all over Spain). O Grelo Verde would like tocontinue these experiments with local (and organic) foodprocurement but under current funding regimes have noopportunities to continue these activities.

4.2. Monte Cabalar

Since 2006, in the council of A Estrada, in the centralpart of Galicia, 1000 individuals (partly living outsidethe area) have been organised to bring 3600 smallparcels together and start extensive livestock breeding at700 hectare of Monte.

Nowadays, the grassroots initiative Monte Cabalar(http://montecabalar.com) counter fights land abandon-ment and the spread of small parcels among the manyprivate landowners (Barreiro Carracedo & Romar Cortés,2010). The scattered small parcels are grouped togetherand commonly managed by a cooperative structure.

Autochthonous breeds like the Caldelás cow andCeltic pig are kept together with extensively grazingPura Raza Galega horses and Rubia galega (a common

Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 113

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:10

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and productive cow breed in Galicia). The cooperativeruns experiments with the production of ‘salchichónMonte Cabalar’, a sausage made of locally producedyoung horse meat and Celtic pork.

Monte Cabalar operates far beyond mono-productiv-ist models. It combines multiple land-use types, includesthe protection of different local breeds and above allgenerates social innovation (the cooperative manage-ment). It brings a hold to land abandonment and forestfires and regenerates the local appreciation of localresources. Monte Cabalar is an example of how thelandscape gets reshaped along its ‘traditional’ intrinsicvalues, and through the organisation of a process ofsocial interaction results in new functions and values.

Next to the provision of a series of non utilitarian ESthe initiative brought landowners together, set up produc-tive activities and created employment. More recentlythe initiative aims at transforming the local produce intoeconomic revenues, which implies a further shift of theboundaries of the activities and its network.

4.3. CMVMC Vincios

At ten kilometres from Vigo, Galician’s largest city(about 300,000 inhabitants), in south western Galicia theCMVMC Vincios (200 comuneiros) manages about 670hectare communally owned Monte distinctively from themono-functional, industrial model.

Among CMVMC Vincios’ core activities are thereplacement of Eucalyptus globulus trees by autochtho-nous varieties (chestnut, pine and oak) and harvestingand composting the scrubs and bushes. Next to therestoration of autochthonous tree plantations, theCMVMC has people cropping mushrooms, keepinghorses, sheep and cow breeding (by external enterprises),running a dog training centre, and coordinate the conser-vation of archaeological sites and restoration of old watermills.

The area marked by the high peak ‘Galiñeiro’ isattractive for city-dwellers thanks to its indicated walkingtracks and the many dust roads for mountain biking andhorse riding and alpinism facilities. In addition to theseproducts and services, the recovery and/or creation ofwater ponds in combination with fruit tree plantationsand the stimulation of apiculture activities are futureperspectives.

4.4. Governance and planning

In the three described transitional processes ecologicalconditions and other elements of territorial capital contin-uously are reproduced, adopted and/or revised throughsocial relationships (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). InGalicia, however, formal support structures are poorlyprepared for organizing such interaction processes.

Since about 25% of the 700,000 hectares of GalicianMonte is communally owned and managed by around2800 CMVMCs the management structure of theseCMVMCs nonetheless has a great potential to safeguardand strengthen the landscape’s intrinsic values. The man-agement conditions of collectively owned and managedMonte can be understood in terms of four ‘I’s:

(1) Monte is ‘Inalienable’: comuneiros can never selltheir share, and neither a government nor anyother authority can neglect this ownership.

(2) Monte is ‘Imprescriptible’: owners never losetheir right on the land, and only expropriation forpublic needs (social utility such as the construc-tion of roads and hospitals but also wind parksand mines) can take the rights of the comuneiros.

(3) Monte is ‘Indivisible’: Monte cannot be divided,is and remains a commonly managed unit, andpeople have to decide together on the objectivesand the management of this common property.

(4) Monte is ‘Inembargable’: in case of debts ofcomuneiros the government or banks cannotconfiscate their land.

The descriptions of the grassroots initiatives togethershape an image of how the preservation of vulnerablelandscapes can be achieved. In the Comarca de Verín thelandscape is preserved by entrepreneurs. In the case ofMonte Cabalar the landscape is preserved by collectiveaction: individually owned, small plots nowadays arecollectively managed. In the case of CMVMC Vinciosalternative land-use model and related ES are developedin order to keep access to the commonly managedresource base. These storylines bring different elementsfor an alternative model on landscape management withdeparture points in society.

4.5. Competing interests and social exclusion

However, mono-forestry and industrialisation of Monteis expected to negatively impact on natural resources andenergetic balances of biomass use and production, andnegatively affect the cultural landscape. Althoughgrassroots initiatives develop alternative land-use types,policy frames and laws do not take up these dynamics.Instead of protecting, stimulating and translating Monte’sintrinsic values into ES, recently developing legislationignores socio-ecological values and relationships, or evenput these in danger. Even the institutions that are consid-ered good examples of institutional support get, by theapplication of new laws in combination with the supportstructure for companies building plants for renewableenergy (biomass, wind energy), a detrimental role to theinclusion of people in new activities and the protectionof vulnerable landscapes.

114 P. Swagemakers et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:10

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

An example of a possible shift in the benefits fromorganisational-institutional support is the Land Bank(http://www.bantegal.com). This institution mediatesbetween land-owners and those who need land underclear norms and juridical guarantees. The Land Bank forexample aims at giving properties in use to cattle breed-ers. Since cattle breeders suffer from rising fodder pricesat the world market they increasingly are in need ofland. In this situation, abandoned land can be rented outvia the Land Bank under conditions that both benefit theowner and the land-user. However, in the scenario thisvoluntary character disappears the Land Bank mightbecome a vehicle to arrange access to land for enter-prises that have different objectives and conditions thanlandowners agree upon.

Another example of a possible shift in thebenefits from organisational-institutional support is theso-called Sociedade de Fomento Forestal (SOFOR,Forest Development Association). This juridical entityaims at the private management of Montes underprivate ownership (Consellería do Medio Rural, 2010).Like the Land Bank, the SOFOR construction allowsprivate stakeholders to give land in use to others underclear norms and juridical guarantees, in this particularcase to forestry companies. The SOFOR however doesnot interfere in the land-use type. Further, among itsconditions is a minimum surface of 50 hectares. In theGalician context this implies that mainly largerenterprises will access the land under SOFOR conditions.Recent studies on the rapid growth of plant materials(Instituto Energético de Galicia, 2012) and the legislativedevelopment on the planning of electricity plants basedon biomass (e.g. Royal Decree 661/2007, Decree 149/2008 and adaptation in the laws on Monte 2012) indicatethe rapid and exponential increase of mono-forestationand industrialisation in the decade to come.

Despite the regional government provides a juridicalbasis to give privately owned properties in use to others(wind parks, biomass plants) it insufficiently supportsgrassroots initiatives to develop alternative activities.Moreover, at the Monte of the CMVMC Vincios (nota-bly nearby Vigo, Galician’s largest city), mining activi-ties have been announced, which endanger ES provisionfor inhabitants of Vigo’s metropolitan area. Among theES are landscape assets (a.o. the Galiñeiro peak), localwater provision (communal in the parish but also drink-ing water storage for the city of Vigo) and the multipleland-use activities as employed by the comuneiros andthe private land-users in the common Monte.

In order to stop the mining activities, the CMVMCVincios is associated to the platform for the defence ofthe Galiñeiro (http://serragalinheiro.wordpress.com/). Atpresent, this platform fights against the externallydesigned plans. A realistic scenario however is that theparcels required for these activities will be expropriated

by legal procedures (Law 54/1997, November 27,electric sector nr 285, November 28 1997).

4.6. Theoretical reflections

Although stakeholders in the examples intend to combinelandscape preservation with economic activity they areconfronted with legal planning procedures that favourthe further mono-forestation and industrialisation of thecountryside. Hence, activities that contribute to thepreservation of the landscape’s intrinsic values do notreceive particular support. Bourdie’s definition on capitalaccumulation brings some implications to the actor-oriented planning approach. A first implication ofBourdie’s capital definition is that different groups withina rural community and/or in other parts of society mightunequally have access, benefit and thus differently relatethemselves to territorial capital. Other empirical studiesconfirm that perceptions and practices toward landscapeand nature differ within and between European regions(e.g. Boonstra et al., 2011; Schmitzberger et al., 2005;Swagemakers & Wiskerke, 2006; Swagemakers et al.,2009). These differences result in vague notions andmisunderstandings on the number, range and impact ofgood environmental practices among a wide range ofstakeholders. Thereby the identification and valorisationof territorial capital is at stake. This has been illustratedfor the Galician case study: there is a battle for theaccess to the natural resource base. Without valorisationof the intrinsic values by policy frames it is expectedlower optimisation levels of landscape preservation willbe reached. A second implication is that capital accumu-lation is a time consuming process. In this processinnovative practitioners generate and gain endogenousknowledge (Swagemakers & Wiskerke, 2011) and rele-vant experience (Swagemakers et al., 2012). Sharing thisaccumulated knowledge and experience with others iseven more time consuming but a common orientation onwhat and how to optimise territorial capital results in itsfurther strengthening and increase. In the Galician situa-tion there is no support system for strengthening such adynamic. Since capital accumulation is time consuming,a third implication arises that is that territorial capitalnever is available from one day to another, nor is easilysold in global markets, and thus is difficult to convertinto money. Hence, comuneiros and entrepreneurs turnintrinsic values into practices that result in the provisionof ES and mutually reproduce the non utilitarian valuesamong these ES. Further, since territorial capital isgrounded in endogenous practices and potentialities itmight become available with fewer monetary invest-ments (often it is already there). Fourth, capital asembodied and objectified labour is difficult to pass on toothers. Hence, knowledge and experience needs timeand again individually to be embodied and objectified.

Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 115

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:10

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Therefore, context-specific learning is an intrinsicand crucial element of territorial capital, and ideallyshared in and among CMVMCs or similar but moreentrepreneurial oriented networks.

5. Conclusions

This article provides a framework for the relationalconceptualisation of space and the inclusion of stake-holders in successful landscape preservation. It docu-ments case study research carried out on sustainablemanagement of Monte in Galicia, and aims to feedback‘co-produced’ knowledge to the political and thegrassroots level.

Central in the case study is the exploration of the con-nections between endogenous knowledge and landscapepreservation. The theoretical and empirical boundaries ofan actor-oriented planning approach illustrate the needfor the development of a supporting knowledge struc-ture, new inter-sector relations and policy frames andstrategies on landscape preservation. Such an approach isbased on the cultural values that are translated andtransformed into a wide range of often interrelatedfunctionalities such as landscape elements, water qualityand food products.

Despite the future land-use dynamics imply solvingenvironmental problems while creating economic benefitsand human welfare, objectives that have been taken asEU position, the views on the dynamics of landscapemanagement and their interrelations differ between thegrassroots initiatives and the regional government. Thecase study research indicates how land-use types as wellas organisational–institutional structures that deviate fromthe mono-functional, industrial model lack governmentalsupport. Moreover, citizens who organise collectiveaction although protected by legal structures are increas-ingly affected by the adaptation of old and implantationof new laws.

Hence, a planning approach in which stakeholdershave a say, contribute to and benefit from greeningthe regional economy and the recovery of cultural land-scapes and their intrinsic values, and hence can make aliving in one of Europe’s most marginal areas very likelyremains a bumpy battle in the nearby future. In Galicia,fighting for a future and the preservation of vulnerablelandscapes is and remains to a large extent an informalaffair. The question rises if and how the ES produced inthese informal planning processes are supported bythe new, formal CAP regulations, or that funding andlegislation continue to develop along the old-fashionedprinciple of economic optimisation of the gross marginper hectare, and benefit to foreign industries rather thanto unlock endogenous development potential and besocial inclusive.

AcknowledgementsThis article results from research carried out in the DERREG(http://www.derreg.eu/) and SUPURBFOOD (http://supurbfood.eu/) projects, financed by the European Union, and aims to con-tribute to the share of experience and good practice in the areasof innovation, the knowledge economy, the environment and riskprevention.

We are grateful to all who commented on earlier versions ofthis article. We especially thank the inspiration we receivedfrom working with Joost Jongerden (Rural Sociology Group,Wageningen University), Stephan Barthel (Stockholm ResilienceCentre and the Department of History, Stockholm University)and Flamina Ventura and Pierluigi Milone (Department of Civiland Environmental Engineering, University of Perugia). Furtherwe thank the anonymous peer reviewers for their valuablecomments and contributions to improve our work.

ReferencesAllen, J., Massey, D., & Cochrane, A. (1998). Rethinking the

region: Spaces of neo-liberalism. London: Routledge.Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important

for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 21–34.Barreiro Carracedo, F. X. (2008). A recuperación do equilibrio

tradicional: experiencia Monte Cabalar [The recovery ofthe traditional balance: The case of Monte Cabalar]. InX. Simón Fernández & D. Copena Rodríguez (Eds.),Construíndo un rural agroecolóxico [Constructing anagro-ecological countryside] (pp. 71–86). Vigo: Grupo deInvestigación en Economía Ecolóxica e Agroecoloxía(GIEEA), Universidade de Vigo [in Galician].

Barreiro Carracedo, F. X., & Romar Cortés, J. I. (2010).Capital social e estrutura de oportunidades no proceso xera-do pola cooperativa Monte Cabalar [Social capital andopportunity structure resulting from the process constructedby the Monte Cabalar cooperative]. In X. Simón Fernández& D. Copena Rodríguez (Eds.), Soberanía alimentaria eagricultura ecolóxica: Propostas de acción [Foodsovereignty and organic agricultura: Proposals for action](pp. 225–235). Vigo: Grupo de Investigación en EconomíaEcolóxica e Agroecoloxía (GIEEA), Universidade de Vigo[in Galician].

Baudry, J., Burel, F., Aviron, S., Martin, M., Ouin, A., Pain,G., & Thenail, C. (2003). Temporal variability of connec-tivity in agricultural landscapes: Do farming activities help?Landscape Ecology, 18, 303–314.

Benvenuti, B. (1982). De technologisch-administratievetaakomgeving (TATE) van landbouwbedrijven [The techno-logical-administrative task environment]. Marquietalia, 5,111–136.

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction ofreality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London:Penguin Press.

Boonstra, W. J., Ahnström, J., & Hallgren, L. (2011). Swedishfarmers talking about nature – A study of the interrelationsbetween farmers’ values and the sociocultural notion ofnaturintresse. Sociologia Ruralis, 51, 420–435.

Born, B., & Purcell, M. (2006). Avoiding the local trap: Scaleand food systems in planning research. Journal of PlanningEducation and Research, 26, 195–207.

Bourdie, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociologyof education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenword.

116 P. Swagemakers et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:10

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Bruckmeier, K., & Tovey, H. (2008). Knowledge in sustainablerural development: From forms of knowledge to knowledgeprocesses. Sociologia Ruralis, 48, 313–329. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00466.x

Calvo-Iglesias, M. S., Fra-Paleo, U., & Diaz-Varela, R. A.(2009). Changes in farming system and population asdrivers of land cover and landscape dynamics: The case ofenclosed and semi-open field systems in Northern Galicia(Spain). Landscape and Urban Planning, 90, 168–177.

Consellería do Medio Rural. (2010). SOFOR Sociedade deFomento Forestal: consultas frecuentes [SOFOR ForestDevelopment Association]. Santiago de Compostella:Dirección Xeral de Montes [in Galician].

Cooper, T., Hart, K., & Baldock, D. (2009). Provision of publicgoods through agriculture in the European Union (Reportprepared of DG Agriculture and Rural Development,Contract No. 30-CE-0233091/00-28). London: Institute forEuropean Environmental Policy.

Corbelle-Rico, E., Crecente-Maseda, R., & Santé-Riveira, I.(2012). Multi-scale assessment and spatial modelling of agri-cultural land abandonment in a European peripheral region:Galicia (Spain), 1956–2004. Land Use Policy, 29, 493–501.

Díaz-Maroto, I. J., & Vila-Lameiro, P. (2008). Historicalevolution and land-use changes in natural broadleaved for-ests in the north-west Iberian Peninsula. ScandinavianJournal of Forest Research, 23, 371–379.

Domínguez García, M. D. (2007). The way you do, it matters:A case study: Farming economically in Galician dairyagroecosystems in the context of a cooperative (Doctoraldissertation). Wageningen University, Wageningen.

Domínguez García, M. D, & Soto Fernández, D. (2013). Froman ‘integrated’ to a ‘dismantled’ landscape. In C. M. vander Heide & W. J. M Heijman (Eds.), The economic valueof landscapes (pp. 204–223). London: Routledge.

Domínguez García, M. D., Swagemakers, P., Bock, B. B., &Símon Fernández, X. (2012). Making a living: Grassrootsdevelopment initiatives, natural resource managementand institutional support in Galicia, Spain. EuropeanCountryside, 4, 17–30.

Domínguez García, M. D., Swagemakers, P., Wiskerke, J. S.C., & Símon Fernández, X. (in press). Constitutingconnections and rural revitalization in ‘The Comarca deVerín’. In J. McDonagh, B. Nienaber, & M. Woods (Eds.),Globalization in Europe’s rural regions. London: Ashgate.

EC. (2010a). Investing in Europe’s future: Fifth report oneconomic, social and territorial cohesion. Report from theCommission Luxembourg: Publications Office of theEuropean Union.

EC. (2010b). A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusivegrowth. Communication from the Commission. Brussels:Author.

EC, (2013, June 26). Political agreement on new direction forcommon agricultural policy. Brussels: Press release of theEuropean Commission.

EU. (2007, May). Territorial Agenda of the European Union:Towards a more competitive and sustainable Europe ofdiverse regions, agreed on the occasion of the informalministerial meeting on urban development and territorialcohesion. Leipzig: Author.

Galicia Viaje. (2013). Mapa de Galicia [Map of Galicia].Retrieved October 7, 2013, from http://galiciaviaje.blogspot.com.es/2011/03/mapa-de-galicia.html

Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionaryreconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and acase-study. Research Policy, 31, 1257–1274.

Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnicaltransition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399–417. doi:org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003

Groot, J. C. J., Rossing, W. A. H., Jellema, A., Stobbelaar, D.J., Renting, H., & Van Ittersum, M. K. (2007). Exploringmulti-scale trade-offs between nature conservation, agricul-tural profits and landscape quality – A methodology tosupport discussions on land-use perspectives. Agriculture,Ecosystems & Environment, 120, 58–69.

Gunter-Diringer, D. (2000). Evaluation of wetlands andfloodplain areas in the Danube River basin. In H. J. Nijland& M. J. R. Cals (Eds.), River restoration in Europe (RIZAReport 2001.023) (pp. 91–94). Lelystad: RIZA.

Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Martinez-Alier, J., & Winiwarter, V. (2009). A socio-metabolictransition towards sustainability? Challenges for anothergreat transformation. Sustainable Development, 19, 1–14.

Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic,ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390–405.

Instituto Energético de Galicia. (2012). Análisis de viabilidaddel mercado de biomasa en Galicia y norte Portugal [Via-bility study of a biomass market in Galicia and northernPortugal]. Retrieved from http://www.inega.es/publicaciones/enerxias renovabeis/publicacion_0029.html

Long, N. (2001). Development sociology. London: Routledge.Marsden, T. K. (2003). The condition of rural sustainability.

Assen: Van Gorcum.Marsden, T. (2012). ‘Solving’ the problems of sustainability

and food security: Exploring the new disorder and itsscientific and spatial responses. Draft for keynotes speechTerry Marsden at the 10th IFSA Symposium, July 1–4,Aarhus, Denmark. Retrieved from http://ifsa2012.dk/wp-content/uploads/Keynote-Terry-Marsden.pdf

Massey, D. (1995). Spatial divisions of labour. Basingstoke:Macmillan.

Massey, D. (2004). Geographies of responsibility. GeografiskaAnnaler, 86B, 5–18.

Massey, D. (2005). For space. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Mettepenningen, E., Vandermeulen, V., Van Huylenbroeck, G.,

Schuermans, N., Van Van Hecke, E., Messely, L., …Bourgeois, M. (2012). Exploring synergies between placebranding and agricultural landscape management as a ruraldevelopment practice. Sociologia Ruralis, 52, 432–452.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2012.00575.x

Murphy, J. (2000). Ecological modernisation. Geoforum, 31,1–8.

OECD. (2011). Towards green growth. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/48224539.pdf

Pike, A. (2011). Placing brands and branding: A sociospatialbiography of Newcastle Brown Ale. Transactions of theInstitute of British Geographers, 36, 206–222.

Raadgever, G. T., Mostert, E., Kranz, N., Interwies, E., &Timmerman, J. G. (2008). Assessing management regimesin transboundary river basins: Do they support adaptivemanagement? Ecology and Society, 13, 14. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art14/

Rammel, C., Stagl, S., & Wilfing, H. (2007). Managingcomplex adaptive systems – A co-evolutionary perspectiveon natural resource management. Ecological Economics,63, 9–21. doi:org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.12.014

Refsgaard, K., & Bryden, J. M. (2012). Green innovation:Co-learning and conflict resolution. Paper presented at the10th IFSA Symposium, July 1–4, Aarhus, Denmark.Retrieved from http://www.ifsa2012.dk/downloads/WS2_3/Refsgaard_Bryden.pdf

Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 117

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:10

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Renting, H., Rossing, W. A. H., Groot, J. C. J., Van der Ploeg,J. D., Laurent, C., Perraud, D., … Van Ittersum, M. K.(2009). Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review ofconceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative tran-sitional framework. Journal of Environmental Management,90, S112–S123.

Rose, G. (1995). Place and identity: A sense of place. InD. Massey & P. Jess (Eds.), A place in the world?(pp. 88–105). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rotmans, J. (2006). Tools for integrated sustainabilityassessment: A two-track approach. Integrated Assessment,6, 35–57.

Schmitzberger, I., Wrbka, T., Steurer, B., Aschenbrenner, G.,Peterseil, J., & Zechmeister, H. G. (2005). How farmingstyles influence biodiversity maintenance in Austrianagricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environ-ment, 108, 274–290.

Simón, X., & Copena, D. (2012). Eolic energy and ruraldevelopment: An analysis for Galicia. Spanish Journal ofRural Development, I, 13–28. doi:10.5261/2012.GEN3.02

Simón Fernández, X., & Copena Rodríguez, D. (Eds.). (2013).Enerxía Eólica en Galicia: O Seu Impacto no Medio Rural[Wind energy in Galicia: Its impact on the countryside].Universidade de Vigo, Servizo de Publicacións, Vigo [inGalician].

Soto, D. (2006). Historia dunha Agricultura Sustentábel:Transformacións productivas na agricultura galega con-temporánea [History of sustainable agricultura: Productivechanges in todas Galician agricultura]. Colección EIDOS 4.Santiago de Compostella: Dirección Xeral de Montes [inGalician].

Stagl, S. (2007). Theoretical foundations of learning processesfor sustainable development. International Journal of Sus-tainable Development & World Ecology, 14, 52–62.

Swagemakers, P. (2008). Ecologisch kapitaal: over het belangvan aanpassingsvermogen, flexibiliteit en oordeelkundig-heid [Ecological capital: On the importance of adaptability,flexibility and power of judgment] (Doctoral dissertation).Wageningen University, Wageningen [in Dutch].

Swagemakers, P., & Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2006). Integratingnature conservation and landscape management in farmingsystems in the Friesian Woodlands (N-Netherlands). InB. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, & P. Opdam (Eds.), Fromlandscape research to landscape planning (pp. 321–334).Dordrecht: Springer.

Swagemakers, P., & Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2011). Revitalizingecological capital. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal ofGeography, 111, 149–167.

Swagemakers, P., Wiskerke, J.S.C., & Van der Ploeg, J. D.(2009). Linking birds, fields and farmers. Journal of Envi-ronmental Management, 90, S185–S192. doi:org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.020

Swagemakers, P., Domínguez García, M. D., Simón Fernández,X., & Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2012). Unfolding farm practices:Working toward sustainable food production in theNetherlands and Spain. Journal of Agriculture, FoodSystems, and Community Development, 2, 129–145.doi:org/10.5304/jafscd.2011.022.001

Timmermans, W., van Dijk, T., van der Jagt, P., Onega Lopez,F., & Crecente, R. (2011). The unexpected course ofinstitutional innovation processes: Inquiry into innova-tion processes in land development practices acrossEurope. International Journal of Design & nature andEcodynamics, 6, 297–317.

van der Ploeg, J. D. (2008). The new peasantries: Struggles forautonomy and sustainability in an era of empire andglobalisation. London: Earth Scan.

van der Ploeg, J. D., Renting, H., Brunori, G., Knickel, K.,Mannion, J., Marsden, T., … Ventura, F. (2000). Ruraldevelopment: From practices and policies towards theory.Sociologia Ruralis, 40, 391–408.

van der Ploeg, J. D., van Broekhuizen, R., Brunori, G.,Sonnino, R., Knickel, K., Tisenkopfs, T., & Oostindie, H.(2009). Towards a framework for understanding regionalrural development. In J. D. van der Ploeg & T. Marsden(Eds.), Unfolding webs: The dynamics of regional ruraldevelopment (pp. 1–28). Assen: Van Gorcum.

United Nations. (2010, December 20). Report submitted by thespecial Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier DeSchutter (Report A/HRC/16/49). New York, NY: Author.

Weaver, P., & Rotmans, J. (2006). Integrated sustainabilityassessment: What is it, why do it and how? InternationalJournal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 1,284–303.

Wellbrock, W., Roep, D., & Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2012). Anintegrated perspective on rural regional learning. EuropeanCountryside, 4, 1–16.

Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2009). On places lost and places regained:Reflections on the alternative food geography and sustain-able regional development. International Planning Studies,14, 369–387.

Woods, M. (2011). Regions engaging globalization: A typologyof regional responses in rural Europe. Paper presented tothe Anglo-American-Canadian Rural Geographers Quadren-nial Conference, Manitoba, July 2011. Retrieved fromhttp://www.derreg.eu/system/files/Regions%20Engaging%20Globalization.pdf

Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive viewof the expert-lay knowledge divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszyn-ski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity.Towards a new ecology (pp. 44–83). London: Sage.

Zijderveld, A. C. (2000). The institutional imperative: Theinterface of institutions and networks. Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press.

118 P. Swagemakers et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:10

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14