Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:23:34.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The changing role of agriculture in Dutch society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

B. G. MEERBURG ,
H. KOREVAAR ,
D. K. HAUBENHOFER ,
M. BLOM-ZANDSTRA  and
H. VAN KEULEN
B. G. MEERBURG*
Affiliation:
Wageningen University & Research Centre, Plant Research International B. V., Agrosystems Research, P. O. Box 616, 6700APWageningen, The Netherlands
H. KOREVAAR
Affiliation:
Wageningen University & Research Centre, Plant Research International B. V., Agrosystems Research, P. O. Box 616, 6700APWageningen, The Netherlands
D. K. HAUBENHOFER
Affiliation:
Wageningen University & Research Centre, Plant Research International B. V., Agrosystems Research, P. O. Box 616, 6700APWageningen, The Netherlands
M. BLOM-ZANDSTRA
Affiliation:
Wageningen University & Research Centre, Plant Research International B. V., Agrosystems Research, P. O. Box 616, 6700APWageningen, The Netherlands
H. VAN KEULEN
Affiliation:
Wageningen University & Research Centre, Plant Research International B. V., Agrosystems Research, P. O. Box 616, 6700APWageningen, The Netherlands
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Dutch agriculture has undergone significant changes in the past century, similar to many countries in the European Union. Due to economies of scale and in order to remain economically profitable, it became necessary for farmers to increase farm size, efficiency and external inputs, while minimizing labour use per hectare. The latter has resulted in fewer people working in the agricultural sector. Consequently, Dutch society gradually lost its connection to agricultural production. This divergence resulted in a poor image for the agricultural sector, because of environmental pollution, homogenization of the landscape, outbreaks of contagious animal diseases and reduced animal welfare. Although the general attitude towards agriculture seems to have improved slightly in recent years, there is still a long way to go in regaining this trust.

In order to keep the Dutch countryside viable, farmers are considered indispensable. However, their methods of production should match the demands of society in terms of sustainability. This applies both to farming systems that are used in a monofunctional way (production only) and to multifunctional farming systems. For researchers involved in development of these farming systems, this requires new capabilities; contrary to the situation in the past, citizens and stakeholder groups now demand involvement in the design of farming systems. In the current paper, it is suggested that, besides traditional mainstream agriculture, other alternative farming systems should be developed and implemented. Hence, Dutch agricultural research should remain focused on the cutting edge of economy and society. Despite all efforts, not all of these newly developed systems will acquire a position within the agricultural spectrum. However, some of the successful ones may prove extremely valuable.

Type
Review
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 147 , Issue 5 , October 2009 , pp. 511 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anon (1975 a). Advies van de Interdepartementale Commissie nationale parken en nationale landschapsparken. Deel I Nationale Parken. In Tweede Kamer, zitting 1974–1975, 13283, nrs 1–2.Google Scholar
Anon (1975 b). Advies van de Interdepartementale Commissie nationale parken en nationale landschapsparken. Deel II Interimadvies Nationale Landschapsparken. In Tweede Kamer, zitting 1974–1975, 13284, nrs 1–2.Google Scholar
Anon (1975 c). Nota betreffende de relatie tussen landbouw en natuur- en landschapsbehoud. In Tweede Kamer, zitting 1974–1975, 13285, nrs 1–2.Google Scholar
Anon (1991 a). 91/100/EEC: Commission Decision of 15 February 1991 Approving the German Programme of Agricultural Income Aid for Farmers in General in Baden Württemberg. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
Anon (1991 b). 91/258/EEC: Commission Decision of 29 April 1991 on a Specific Measure to Alleviate Difficulties Affecting Whiting Fishery in the North Sea. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
Anon (1999). 99/331/EEC: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – The EU Approach to the WTO Millenium Round. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
Anon (2008). The Common Agricultural Policy – a Policy Evolving with the Times. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
Archibugi, D. & Iammarino, S. (1999). The policy implications of the globalisation of innovation. Research Policy 28, 317–336.Google Scholar
Bieleman, J. (2000). Landbouw, Deel 1. In Techniek in Nederland in de twintigste eeuw. Deel 3: Landbouw & Voeding (Eds Schot, J. W., Lintsen, H. W., Rip, A. & De la Bruhèze, A. A. A.), pp. 11–233. Zutphen, The Netherlands: Walburg Press.Google Scholar
Bijker, W. E. (2002). The Oosterschelde storm surge barrier: a test case for dutch water technology, management, and politics. Technology and Culture 43, 569–584.Google Scholar
Bloemendaal, F. (1995). Het Mestmoeras. The Hague, The Netherlands: SDU Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Bos, A. P. (2008). Instrumentalization theory and reflexive design in animal husbandry. Social Epistemology 22, 29–50.Google Scholar
Bos, B. & Grin, J. (2008). ‘Doing’ reflexive modernization in pig husbandry: the hard work of changing the course of a river. Science Technology Human Values 33, 480–507.Google Scholar
Brundtland, G. (1987). Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brunt, L. N. J. (1974). Stedeling op het platteland: een antropologisch onderzoek naar de verhoudingen tussen autochtonen en nieuwkomers in Stroomkerken. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Buijs, A., Pedroli, B. & Luginbühl, Y. (2006). From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: changing social perceptions of the European landscape. Landscape Ecology 21, 375–389.Google Scholar
Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Boston, Cambridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
De Nijs, T. C. M., De Niet, R. & Crommentuijn, L. (2004). Constructing land-use maps of The Netherlands in 2030. Journal of Environmental Management 72, 35–42.Google Scholar
De Widt, R. (1954). Bedrijfsgrootte en verkaveling in de Nederlandse landbouw. De Economist 102, 358–378.Google Scholar
De Wit, C. T. (1986). Introduction. In Modelling of Agricultural Production: Weather, Soils and Crops (Eds van Keulen, H. & Wolf, J.), pp. 3–10. Wageningen, The Netherlands: PUDOC.Google Scholar
Dessein, J. & Nevens, F. (2007). ‘I'm sad to be glad’. An analysis of farmers' pride in Flanders. Sociologia Ruralis 47, 273–292.Google Scholar
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302, 1907–1912.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, H., Coeterier, J. F., Van Der Haar, M. A., Koomen, A. J. M. & Salden, W. L. C. (1997). Veranderend cultuurlandschap signalering van landschapsveranderingen van 1900 tot 1990 voor de Natuurverkenning 1997. Report 544. Wageningen, The Netherlands: DLO-Staring Centrum.Google Scholar
Dornbusch, P., Nölling, W. & Layard, R. G. (1993). Postwar Economic Reconstruction and Lessons for the East Today. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Elings, M. & Hassink, J. (2006). Farming for health in The Netherlands. In Farming for Health. Green-care Farming across Europe and the United States of America (Eds Hassink, J. & van Dijk, M.), pp. 163–179. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Frouws, J. (1998). The contested redefinition of the countryside. An analysis of rural discourses in The Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis 38, 54–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goossen, M. & Langers, F. (2000). Assessing quality of rural areas in The Netherlands: finding the most important indicators for recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning 46, 241–251.Google Scholar
Grin, J., Felix, F., Bos, B. & Spoelstra, S. (2004). Practices for reflexive design: lessons from a Dutch programme on sustainable agriculture. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 1, 126–149.Google Scholar
Groot Koerkamp, P. W. G. & Bos, A. P. (2008). Designing complex and sustainable agricultural production systems: an integrated and reflexive approach for the case of table egg production in The Netherlands. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 55, 113–138.Google Scholar
Groot Koerkamp, P. W. G., Van Hierden, Y. M., Meerburg, B. G., Struik, P. C. & Wienk, J. F. (2006). The laying hen sector in Europe. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54, 129–132.Google Scholar
Hassink, J., Van Almenkerke, F. & Ketelaars, D. (2002). De betekenis van landbouwhuisdieren in de hulpverlening: resultaten van interviews met professionals op zorg- en kinderboerderijen. Report 45. p. 50. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Plant Research International.Google Scholar
Hassink, J. & Van Dijk, M. (2006). Farming for Health: Green-care Farming across Europe and the United States of America. Proceedings of the Frontis Workshop on Farming for Health, 16–19 March 2005, Wageningen. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Hassink, J., Zwartbol, C., Agricola, H. J., Elings, M. & Thissen, J. T. N. M. (2007). Current status and potential of care farms in The Netherlands. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 55, 21–36.Google Scholar
Haubenhofer, D., Hassink, J. & Elings, M. (2008). Qualities of Dutch green care farms – in general and for specific client groups. In Farming for Health. Proceedings of the Community of Practice Farming for Health, 6–9 November 2007 (Ed. Dessein, J.), pp. 71–80. Merelbeke, Belgium: Erasmus-Euroset.Google Scholar
Heide, C., Overmars, K. & Jongeneel, R. (2007). Land use modelling for sustaining multiple functions in the rural countryside with an application in the Achterhoek Region, The Netherlands. In Multifunctional Land Use (Eds Mander, Ü., Wiggering, H. & Helming, K.), pp. 251–268. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Heins, S. (2004). Rural living in city and countryside: demand and supply in The Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 19, 391–408.Google Scholar
Hendriks, F. & Tops, P. (1999). Between democracy and efficiency: trends in local government reform in The Netherlands and Germany. Public Administration 77, 133–153.Google Scholar
Henkens, Ch. H. (1961). Zinkovermaat op bouwland. Landbouwkundig Tijdschrift 73, 917–926.Google Scholar
Hidding, M. C. & Teunissen, A. T. J. (2002). Beyond fragmentation: new concepts for urban-rural development. Landscape and Urban Planning 58, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huijser, M. P., Meerburg, B. G. & Holshof, G. (2004). The impacts of ditch cuttings on weed pressure and crop yield in maize. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 102, 197–203.Google Scholar
Jongman, R. H. G. (2002). Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European landscape: ecological consequences and solutions. Landscape and Urban Planning 58, 211–221.Google Scholar
Kersting, N. & Vetter, A. (2003). Reforming Local Government in Europe: Closing the Gap Between Democracy and Efficiency. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
Ketelaars, J. J. M. H. (2006). De zeeuwse tong. Aqua Cultuur 21, 23–30.Google Scholar
Ketelaars, J. J. M. H. (2007). Zeeuwse tong en zagers. Visionair: het vakblad van Sportvisserij Nederland 1, 18–21.Google Scholar
Korevaar, H. & Geerts, R. H. E. M. (2007). Productivity, biodiversity and nitrate of multifunctional grasslands. In High Value Grassland. Occasional Symposium 38 (Ed. Hopkins, J. J.), pp. 64–69. Cirencester, UK: British Grassland Society.Google Scholar
Mak, G. (1996). Hoe God verdween uit Jorwerd. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Atlas.Google Scholar
Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. Washington, DC: Potomac Associates.Google Scholar
Meerburg, B. G. & Van Der Werf, A. (2008 a). Man-made wetlands with combined functions: surface water sanitation, water storage and biomass production for energy. In 8th Intecol International Wetlands Conference, Big Wetlands, Big Concerns, p. 123. Cuiabá, Brazil: Federal University of Mato Grosso & Pantanal Research Centre (CPP).Google Scholar
Meerburg, B. G. & Van der Werf, A. (2008 b). Rietzuivering op proef. Vakblad Natuur Bos Landschap 5, 6–7.Google Scholar
Meert, H., Van Huylenbroeck, G., Vernimmen, T., Bourgeois, M. & Van Hecke, E. (2005). Farm household survival strategies and diversification on marginal farms. Journal of Rural Studies 21, 81–97.Google Scholar
Müller, W. C. & Wright, V. (Eds) (1994). The State in Western Europe: Retreat or Redefinition? New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oenema, O., Boers, P. C. M., Van Eerdt, M. M., Fraters, B., Van der Meer, H. G., Roest, C. W. J., Schröder, J. J. & Willems, W. J. (1998). Leaching of nitrate from agriculture to groundwater: the effect of policies and measures in The Netherlands. Environmental Pollution 102, 471–478.Google Scholar
Opdam, P., Foppen, R. & Vos, C. (2001). Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 16, 767–779.Google Scholar
Oude Lansink, A., Van Den Berg, M. & Huirne, R. (2003). Analysis of strategic planning of Dutch pig farmers using a multivariate probit model. Agricultural Systems 78, 73–84.Google Scholar
Peerlings, J. & Polman, N. (2004). Wildlife and landscape services production in Dutch dairy farming; jointness and transaction costs. European Review of Agricultural Economics 31, 427–449.Google Scholar
Reinhard, S. & Thijssen, G. (2000). Nitrogen efficiency of Dutch dairy farms: a shadow cost system approach. European Reviews of Agricultural Economics 27, 167–186.Google Scholar
Renting, H. & Van der Ploeg, J. D. (2001). Reconnecting nature, farming and society: environmental cooperatives in The Netherlands as institutional arrangements for creating coherence. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 3, 85–101.Google Scholar
Rood, G. A., Nagelhout, D., Ros, J. P. M. & Wilting, H. C. (2006). Duurzame viskweek voor behoud van de visvoorraad: evaluatie van transities op basis van systeemopties. MNP-Report 500083006/2006. p. 64. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: Milieu en Natuur Planbureau.Google Scholar
Roseboom, J. & Rutten, H. (1998). The transformation of the Dutch agricultural research system: an unfinished agenda. World Development 26, 1113–1126.Google Scholar
Schröder, J. J. & Bos, J. F. F. P. (2008). Relationships between nutrient cycling, environmental impacts and agricultural production. In Proceedings of the International Fertiliser Society. Proceeding no. 624, 27 pp. York, UK: The International Fertiliser Society.Google Scholar
Ten Berge, H. F. M., Van Ittersum, M. K., Rossing, W. A. H., Van de Ven, G. W. J., Schans, J. & Van De Sanden, P. C. M. (2000). Farming options for The Netherlands explored by multi-objective modelling. European Journal of Agronomy 13, 263–277.Google Scholar
Tjallingii, S. P. (2000). Ecology on the edge: landscape and ecology between town and country. Landscape and Urban Planning 48, 103–119.Google Scholar
Van Boheemen, P. J. M. (1987). Extent, effects and tackling of a regional manure surplus; a case-study for a Dutch region. In Animal Manure on Grassland and Fodder Crops (Eds Meer, H. G. v. d., Unwin, R. J., van Dijk, T. A. & Ennik, G. C.), pp. 175–193. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
Van Dam, F., Heins, S. & Elbersen, B. S. (2002). Lay discourses of the rural and stated and revealed preferences for rural living. Some evidence of the existence of a rural idyll in The Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies 18, 461–476.Google Scholar
Van de Fliert, E. & Braun, A. R. (2002). Conceptualizing integrative, farmer participatory research for sustainable agriculture: from opportunities to impact. Agriculture and Human Values 19, 25–38.Google Scholar
Van Den Ham, A. & Ypma, M. E. (2000). Verbreding op landbouwbedrijven: Met visie en creatieve vasthoudendheid naar succes. LEI Report 7. The Hague, The Netherlands: LEI.Google Scholar
Van der Ploeg, J. D. (2000). Revitalizing agriculture: farming economically as starting ground for rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40, 497–511.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, G. & Van Boekel, P. (2001). Governance of innovation in animal production: new roles for science, business and the public sector. Livestock Production Science 72, 9–23.Google Scholar
Vereijken, P. H. (2003). Transition to multifunctional land use and agriculture. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 50, 171–179.Google Scholar
Vileisis, A. (2008). Kitchen Literacy: How We Lost Knowledge of Where Food Comes From and Why We Need to Get it Back. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Wisserhof, J. (2002). Agricultural policy making in The Netherlands: beyond corporatist policy arrangements. In Political Modernization and the Environment – the Renewal of Environmental Policy Arrangements (Eds Van Tatenhove, J., Arts, B. & Leroy, P.), pp. 175–198. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar