Condities voor natuurinclusief handelen : Analyse van vier praktijken van natuurinclusief ondernemen

Abstract

Conditions for natureinclusive practices. Analysis of four types of nature-inclusive businesses. Statutory Research Tasks Unit for Nature & the Environment, WOt Technical Report 121. 94 pp; 12 fig.; 70 ref.; 2 Appendices.This report examines which conditions determine whether or not businesses and individuals will make their activities more nature-inclusive and what options there are to improve the opportunities for scaling them up. The study was limited to nature-inclusive social initiatives, in particular those taken by businesses and entrepreneurs, focusing on initiatives in four economic domains: nature-inclusive farming, urban agriculture, the construction industry and the holiday accommodation sector. The initiatives examined are not cases studies as such, but more in the way of interesting practices from which conclusions can be drawn. To supplement this, some overarching conclusions and recommendations have also been formulated. The analytical framework used in the study was a combination of the transition and policy arrangement approaches. The research was an explorative study based on a document analysis, interviews and group discussions with stakeholders who have a good grasp of the trend in nature-inclusive practices in their sectors, rather than detailed knowledge of specific initiatives. The main conclusions of the overarching analysis are: 1) that the scaling up of natureinclusiveness in economic sectors would benefit if businesses and government embraced a strategic vision, and 2) that a networking and responsive government can promote cooperation between businesses and social actors.

Natuur-en-zorgcombinaties: barrières, kansen en opschaling : Een verkenning van institutionele barrières, kansen en opschalingsmogelijkheden voor natuurinclusieve innovaties in de zorg

“…In deze beschermde ruimtes kunnen nieuwe technologieën "een tijd lang rijpen voordat zij de concurrentie kunnen aangaan met de regimetechnologieën" (Van der Hoeven, 2010, p. 33). Farjon (2018;p. 22) geeft aan dat een transitie zich pas echt kan voltrekken wanneer "het tot veranderingen op het zogenaamde regimeniveau leidt, waarbij dominante structuren, culturen en praktijken veranderen".…”

“…sturen "op experimenteerruimte, netwerkontwikkeling en kennis delen of het bieden van startup subsidies" (Gerritsen et al, 2018, p. 22). Farjon et al (2018) noemen een mogelijke bijdrage van overheden aan het vormen van niches, bijvoorbeeld met pilots, regelvrije zones of via onderzoeksprogramma's.…”

Indicatoren voor burgerbetrokkenheid bij natuur : Een zoektocht naar nieuwe aanknopingspunten voor monitoring

“… Burgers als consumenten van (al dan niet natuurvriendelijke) producten van bedrijven (Onwezen et al 2016).  Burgers als natuurbelevers van groene bedrijventerreinen (Farjon et al 2018).…”

Towards biodiversity conservation in natural resource-intensive sectors: Understanding dynamics of social-ecological transformations

“…In response to this resistance from the incumbent regime, front runners in NIA seek to increase their legitimacy by demonstrating the value and viability of nature-inclusive approaches. A common strategy is to try to counteract the arguments of critics with data and information about the performance of NIA on environmental, social and economic aspects (Farjon et al, 2018;van Dijk et al, 2020), and to demonstrate that viable business models based on multiple value creation are possible (Polman et al, 2015). This reinforces the need for new knowledge and monitoring systems that specifically focus on NIA (ISA functions 2 and 3) and that use indicators that go beyond efficient food production as the main performance indicator (De Olde et al, 2016;van Dijk et al, 2020).…”

“…An underlying systemic problem for the aforementioned problems is that externalities are not priced, so a level playing field is missing in the market (TEEB, 2018;Farjon et al, 2018): agricultural practices which negatively impact biodiversity are not taxed, and those practices that enhance biodiversity are not sufficiently rewarded or compensated. Ultimately these problems result from a lack of regulation and binding agreements which would oblige value chain actors to account for biodiversity and ecosystem services in product prices, and to pay for negative externalities, such as water pollution or soil depletion (Van Grinsven et al, 2015).…”