Although these specific recommendations emphasize the Dutch institutional framework, there are many similar characteristics in other countries, so these recommendations might inspire institutional change elsewhere. More de-tailed recommendations for the Dutch context can be found in Van Rij and Korthals Altes (2007a and 2007b).
Considering the general recommendations, the question can be asked whether, in order to improve Dutch institutions, contemporary institutions might simply need to be replaced by the traditional Dutch institutions that are currently being abandoned? To a certain extent this might be the case, be-cause traditional ways of supporting farmers through land consolidation can be very helpful to revitalize metropolitan green areas. The Dutch Government Service for Rural Areas’ (Dienst Landelijk Gebied/Bureau Beheer Landbouwgronden:
DLG/BBL) land bank for rural areas, together with land reallocation, land con-solidation and leasing out plots to farmers, can help to revitalize metropoli-tan farmers. Established binding zoning policy can prevent construction and can help to keep land prices low.
Although the value of traditional planning institutions should not be un-derestimated, the current Dutch context also requires new institutions.
Former rural policy aimed at improving conditions for all Dutch farmers. This egalitarian approach needs to be revised for various reasons. First, the social role of agricultural areas varies. Agricultural areas near cities are primarily used for recreation, to enjoy the historic landscape, the rural idyll and nature, whereas more remote agricultural areas are primarily used for agricultural production. Second, subsidizing all Dutch farmers does not fit the general pol-icy goal of reducing government expenditure. Third, EU polpol-icy prohibits state aid for agriculture as such. Fourth, green types of land use are not the only claim on metropolitan areas; land is also needed for construction. This urged me to make a distinction between three types of rural areas: (1) cultural-his-toric recreational areas, (2) mixed areas, and (3) agricultural production areas.
Cultural-historic recreational areas
The main function of cultural-historic recreational areas is recreation, to give city dwellers the opportunity to enjoy nice green areas. The appearance of these areas is determined by the cultural-historic landscapes, which con-sist of peat polders with ditches, windmills and attractive cultural-historical villages. Farmers play a crucial role as land owners and maintainers of this landscape. These are the landscapes city dwellers visit on their bikes and show their children. Most of this land is maintained by medium sized dairy farms of about 30 to 60 hectares. The specific landscape provides a habitat for rare species. With its small parcels, high water-levels and small-scale infra-structure, the landscape puts restraints on agricultural production. Because of the proximity of the city, land prices are high. The recreational value, the nature conservation value and the cultural historic value all depend on the farmers maintaining the landscape. Basically, these are the most valued and most threatened rural areas.
Agricultural production areas
The main aim of agricultural production areas is to provide agricultural prod-ucts. Because they are in non-metropolitan areas, away from the cities, land prices are based on agricultural production. Farmers using these lands com-pete in a global economy. In general, the landscape is adjusted to create opti-mal circumstances for agricultural production, land prices are based on agri-cultural revenues and farm enlargement continues to take place.
Mixed areas
The mixed areas combine characteristics of the other areas, though they are less clear in these. Urban influences can be felt with land prices higher than in pure agricultural production areas. The mixed areas are not as attractive as the cultural-historic recreational areas and they therefore attract fewer visitors.
Policy for agricultural production areas
Due to their different functions and characteristics, the different types of ar-eas require different policy approaches. In the agricultural production arar-eas, market forces are dominant; farmers organize their business in such a way that they can compete globally. If they are not able to do so, their farm will be bought by other farmers and farm enlargement takes place. The role of the government is rather limited. With respect to spatial planning, a restric-tive planning policy may be needed to obstruct urban influences. Besides that, these areas are the object of pure agricultural policy, which is not the subject of this dissertation.
Policy for cultural-historic recreational areas
Since cultural-historic recreational areas are the most threatened and most valued areas. Their maintenance and preservation requires a distinguished combination of institutions. Because the cultural-historic appearance is one of the core values of these areas, policy for these areas might aim at preserva-tion instead of development. In order to develop these areas’ full recreapreserva-tional potential, recreational developments that fit the context might be supported.
Because maintenance by farmers is the most efficient way to maintain these landscapes, policy might aim at keeping farmers in the area. Using the model presented in Chapter 2, the following measures can be taken:
Zoning: To make it clear that construction in these areas is out of the
ques-■
tion, Slow Planning is required. This means that policy at all levels of gov-ernment makes it clear that no construction will be allowed in the future, not even using cross-subsidy strategies. If the procedures to change these zones are complicated and time consuming and if they are carefully en-forced, they are more likely to be effective. A special act including long-term planning processes and hearings before specific committees could contribute to this.
Landownership: A land bank that buys land at market prices and leases
■
out land at prices based on agricultural production could help farm-en-largement and farm-succession in these areas. To facilitate these land banks, a pre-emption right might be considered. Land-reallocation might also help to create a durable ownership situation. In addition, a parceling subdivision permit can prevent land being purchased by city dwellers. This can prevent messy types of land use by these city dwellers and support the presence of farmers in the landscape.
Spatial quality: Peoples’ valuation of these areas supports measures to
pro-■
tect these areas. Therefore, it is important that the landscape is accessible and attractive. The government can take measures to make the landscape more accessible. It can require that the attractiveness of the landscape be taken into consideration when decisions are made that might affect the landscape.
Economic position of the guardians of the landscape: To support the
guard-■
ians of the landscape, whether farmers or nature conservation unions, the government can provide subsidies for nature conservation, cultural-histor-ic preservation, and recreational servcultural-histor-ices. Transaction Cost Theory can be used to make these subsidy strategies more efficient.
Available government budgets: All these measures require sufficient
gov-■
ernment budgets. To properly disburse these budgets, distinctions must be made between areas and money only needs to be provided for those areas that are valued most and that need it most. A distinction between areas can also help to explain why state aid for farmers in cultural-historic recreational areas does not conflict with EU state aid policy. Because these farmers face specific restraints due to the landscape characteristics and the urban proximity, reduced ground rents and subsidies do not necessar-ily imply unfair competition, since the farmers are only compensated for dealing with these restraints and paid for their work as providers of cul-tural historic recreational areas.
Policy for mixed areas
Because of their mixed character, policy for mixed areas may vary. Some of these areas will be needed for construction. In other areas, a cross-subsidy approach might be applied to combine an increase of spatial quality in green areas with the development of houses. Other parts of mixed areas will con-tinue to be used for agriculture. In order to make cross-subsidy strategies pos-sible, restrictive land-use plans are needed in these areas too. Especially for these areas, it is particularly important to monitor the working of the new Dutch Land Servicing Act.
Deregulation and decentralization
As has been explained, decentralization and deregulation can affect institu-tions for green landscapes in metropolitan areas. The way provinces carry out their new tasks with respect to zoning, subsidies and green area projects will influence changes in the metropolitan landscape to a large extent. To influ-ence municipal bestemmingsplannen, provinces might use their power to make ordinances. It is not yet clear whether provinces used this power, and wheth-er they will use this powwheth-er in the future. It is also not yet clear whethwheth-er the province will decide to take measures that have an effect on the ownership situation and spatial quality, or whether the decentralized budgets are large enough to do this. One way to obtain an overview of this process would be for central government to monitor the use of institutions by the provinces.