De betekenis van groene burgerinitiatieven

interest in and appreciation of the green environment, or teach them new skills and give them new
experiences, such as learning to garden or pollard willows. These initiatives often have a mix of
different aims and effects. For example, groups concerned mainly with enjoyment and activities often
also contribute to the green or ecological values of the area. And although many groups do not
explicitly claim to pursue social objectives, their activities often contribute to social values like
awareness-raising and social cohesion. The perceived effects of each type of citizens’ initiative are
listed in Table S2.
Table S2
Main effects of each type of citizens’ initiative
Type No. initiatives No. hectares Ecology and
nature
protection
Conservation management and habitat creation
Use and
enjoyment
Awarenessraising
and
education
Conservation
management
Many 1.5–12 ++ + +
Habitat creation Few 1–8 + 0 0
Species protection Relatively many 0.1–10 + 0 +
Ownership Few 1.5–20 + 0 0
Social Relatively many 2–15 + + ++
Functional green space
Neighbourhood green
space
Enjoyment of green
space
Very many 0.1–1.5 + ++ +
Relatively many 0.1–3 0/- + +
Green politics
Political Many 0.1–1000 ++ + ++
Wider political Relatively many 0.1–500 + + +
Broad
Broad Relatively many 5–40 + 0 +
Besides their green and social effects, citizens’ initiatives also have a significant innovative value. The
wide diversity of citizens’ initiatives and their sometimes divergent visions on nature provide material
for reflection and for broadening the scope of conservation management. This is certainly the case for
political groups, which are unjustifiably left out of many studies of citizens’ initiatives. In a democracy
critical citizens have an important corrective function and can prevent decision making becoming ‘selfreferential’
and divorced from society. Groups that seek ownership, the broad groups and the habitat
creation groups are also a source of inspiration and innovation for existing, institutionalised visions
and funding mechanisms.
Networks, funding and dilemmas
The diversity within green citizens’ initiatives makes it impossible for policymakers to engage with
such initiatives armed with generic policy alone. The aims of most green citizens’ initiatives overlap at
least partly with the objectives of government and conservation management organisations. But many
other initiatives have much wider goals or are concerned with different types of green space. Such
wide goals demand a more flexible response from government officers and conservation managers.
Successful collaboration is only possible if the visions and interests of citizens are taken seriously and
efforts are made to develop shared ambitions based on mutual interests.
The broad goals of self-governance also lead to dilemmas. The activities of groups whose main
interest is the use of a green space may be counterproductive for the biodiversity in the area. In such
situations green citizens’ initiatives can highlight a disconnect within policy between the aim of
ecological protection and that of deinstitutionalisation. The question that then arises is where should
these conflicting interests be weighed up and balanced. Is it up to government as the representative
of the public interest and representative democracy? Or is it up to individual citizens as stakeholders
and representatives of the participatory democracy? A further dilemma is the need for cultural capital
14 | Wot-rapport 127