INTRODUCTION

Semi-natural habitats and spatial heterogeneity are declining in many agricultural landscapes, which has a negative impact on farmland biodiversity (Fahrig et al. 2011, Martin et al. 2020, Ridding et al. 2020). The combination between ongoing “optimization” of agricultural lands, which results in less diverse landscapes, and increased use of external inputs, such as fertilizer and pesticides (Jeliazkov et al. 2016), leads to an even stronger negative impact on biodiversity. For example, European bumblebees appear to be more affected by pesticides in simplified landscapes than in more diverse landscapes (Nicholson et al. 2024). Restoring biodiversity in rural landscapes requires implementing changes that extend beyond individual farms to the landscape and policy levels. These changes must address both the direct and indirect drivers that have led to homogeneous, intensively farmed landscapes with low biodiversity.

This need for a multi-level, driver-focused approach is generally referred to as the need for “transformative change for biodiversity” (Visseren-Hamakers et al. 2021). The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services defines transformative change as ”a fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals, and values” (IPBES 2019:14). However, how to realize transformative change for biodiversity, how to govern biodiversity in a truly transformative manner, remains an open question (Patterson et al. 2017, Pascual et al. 2022, Visseren-Hamakers and Kok 2022).

A mode of governance that is seen as promising and thus potentially transformative is the landscape-oriented partnership (Meijer et al. 2021, Mupepele et al. 2021), a voluntary arrangement with multiple actors working on a specific landscape. A review on the role of landscape-oriented partnerships in transformative change for biodiversity showed that many have a positive impact, but that these initiatives rarely realize fundamental changes within the landscape nor have an impact beyond the specific landscape they work in (de Koning et al. 2023). Therefore, it is important to understand how, and to what extent landscape-oriented partnerships could be able to contribute to transformative change, and how this contribution can be enhanced.

Because landscape-oriented partnerships represent innovative ways of managing rural landscapes and hold promise for contributing to transformative change, they resonate with the idea of “seeds”: existing, often small-scale innovations, practices, or initiatives that embody elements of, and have the potential to shape, more just, sustainable, and desirable futures (Bennett et al. 2016). The “Seeds of Good Anthropocenes” project advances this framing by conceptualizing how seeds contribute to systemic change, and using participatory scenario methods to explore how diverse initiatives and their connections can collectively shape desirable futures (Pereira et al. 2018, Pereira et al. 2020, Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2020).

From this literature, we draw on the concept of amplification to study how the impact of landscape-oriented partnerships can be strengthened, enlarged, or deepened (Lam et al. 2020, 2022). In applying this lens, we complement the work by de Koning et al. (2023), who mainly looked at the transformative potential of landscape-oriented partnerships by studying their current impact. By analyzing how landscape-oriented partnerships try to enhance their impact in practice, how the different forms of amplification interact with each other, and how attempts to amplify are influenced by (institutional) conditions, we also contribute to the literature on seeds, which only recently began to address such contextual factors (Bachi et al. 2023, Tuckey et al. 2023).

To investigate these amplification processes and the institutional conditions that shape them, we conducted a comparative case study of three landscape-oriented partnerships that emerged within a Dutch agricultural landscape facing several sustainability challenges: the Dune and Bulb Region. This region is globally renowned for the production of flower bulbs such as tulips, hyacinths, and daffodils, contributing significantly to the local economy and national cultural identity. It is an intensively used, monocultural landscape, characterized by high amounts of pesticide use, as well as the application of fertilizers (Tiktak et al. 2019), thus sparking societal discussions on the long-term sustainability of this agricultural sector and the need for (transformative) change. The partnerships we selected for our study work on two objectives: (1) improving the sustainability of bulb farming practices, i.e., reducing pesticide use; and (2) restoring semi-natural habitats via landscape elements.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Landscape-oriented partnerships as “seeds”

In this paper, we focus on landscape-oriented partnerships for biodiversity. Landscape-oriented partnerships for biodiversity are “voluntary arrangements in which combinations of state, market and/or civil society actors collaborate to contribute to biodiversity restoration or conservation in a specific landscape” (de Koning et al. 2023).

We conceive these landscape-oriented partnerships as potential seeds of change. In the “Seeds of Good Anthropocenes” (SOGA) project, scientists focus on studying existing initiatives (seeds) that represent different or new ideas and practices that have not (yet) become dominant or widespread but could lead to radically different futures (Bennett et al. 2016, Pereira et al. 2018). Seeds are defined by Bennett et al. (2016) as future-oriented “initiatives (social, technological, economic, or social-ecological ways of thinking or doing) that exist, at least in prototype form, and that represent a diversity of worldviews, values, and regions, but are not currently dominant or prominent in the world” (p. 442).

Transformative change

The fundamental changes that Bennett et al. refer to and to which landscape-oriented partnerships may potentially contribute are often conceptualized as “transformative change.” Transformative change can encompass transitions (a concept generally used for changes in subsystems) and transformations (changes in society as a whole; Feola 2015, Hölscher et al. 2018). Though these concepts have different origins and foci, they always involve fundamental changes in either subsystems of society or society as a whole and focus on the (root) causes of sustainability problems (Feola 2015, Visseren-Hamakers and Kok 2022).

Following the definition of transformative change from the IPBES Global Assessment (2019), we will look at technological changes (e.g., introduction of new technologies or moving toward less dependence on particular technologies), economic changes (e.g., different business models or different approaches toward measuring value), social changes (e.g., changing power relations), and changes in paradigms, values, and goals. We assume that most changes, such as economic and social changes, follow discursive changes (Schmidt 2008). Therefore, changing paradigms, values, and goals is generally seen as the leverage point with the highest transformative potential (Meadows 2008, Horcea-Milcu et al. 2019, IPBES 2019).

Transformation processes are not linear or straightforward, but complex and lengthy. The amplification literature enables us to unpack these processes in a more detailed and nuanced manner by identifying/differentiating different processes through which partnerships can enhance their contribution to transformative change.

Amplification

Based on different strands of theory Lam et al. (2020) developed a typology of “amplification processes.” Lam et al. (2020) distinguish between amplification processes that occur within initiatives, out of initiatives, and beyond initiatives (see Table 1). Amplifying within an initiative can refer to “stabilizing” (strengthening of the initiative itself) or “speeding up” (increasing the speed of their work; Lam et al. 2020). Although these two processes may not seem to contribute to transformative change directly, they can enhance the impact of transformative partnerships and their local impact on biodiversity.

Amplifying out of an initiative can refer to expanding the impact of an initiative via “growing” (same initiative, same context), “replicating” (same initiative, different context), “transferring” (similar initiative, same context), and “spreading” (similar initiative, different context; Lam et al. 2020). This could lead to biodiversity conservation in various places, but often at the same (local) level. However, if these initiatives accumulate in many different places, this might be regarded as transformative change.

When initiatives impact other governance levels, we do not only witness amplifying out, but also amplifying beyond an initiative. Amplifying beyond generally involves higher level changes in terms of formal rules (“institutionalization”) and/or changing societal values (“value change”; Lam et al. 2020). Regarding values, this can also happen at the initiative, and thus local or even personal, level (O’Brien and Sygna 2013). Thus, understanding how initiatives can amplify beyond, might be key to unlocking the transformative potential of seeds, as well as understanding how seeds themselves transform in that process (Boezeman 2015).

Within the typology of Lam et al. 2020, the role of the discursive dimension in amplification processes is relatively underdeveloped, even though discourses can be an important leverage point in transformative change processes. The concept of “frame amplification,” developed by Benford and Snow (2000), focuses on how actors can effectively promote a particular understanding of the problem by connecting it to broader discourses (e.g., sustainable business or new fashions in governmental steering). This may increase the resonance of their interpretation with a wider audience, which may enable them to attract more powerful sponsors or supporters. We see “frame amplification” therefore as a separate, more discursive, process of amplifying beyond, next to changing rule systems or values. A Swedish case study on seeds indeed showed that, among other things, connecting to narratives on a national level and incorporating changes at the municipality level, are ways in which initiatives can amplify and contribute to transformative change (Sellberg et al. 2020). Table 1 provides an overview of all the amplification processes derived from the literature and used in the analysis of this study, including “frame amplification.”

METHODS

Case study

To enable an in-depth study of amplification processes we opted for a comparative case study that originated in a single landscape: the Dutch Dune and Flower Bulb Region (see Fig. 1). Located in the densely populated west of the Netherlands, the landscape is characterized by agricultural fields predominantly dedicated to flower bulb cultivation, situated along sand dunes that are largely designated as protected areas. Because of agricultural intensification, the landscape has lost many landscape elements, such as hedgerows. This loss of landscape complexity and the use of pesticides went hand in hand with the loss of local biodiversity, including a decrease in the population of characteristic species, such as the Gray Partridge (Perdix perdix; Van Dam 2020). The distinctiveness of this landscape is that its agricultural production is export-oriented, but that it is still valued for its cultural significance, contribution to the national identity, local economy, and the protection of the open landscape, something that is particularly important to the local community (de Koning 2024).

Within the landscape, we found two ways in which actors try to contribute to biodiversity restoration: increasing the sustainability of bulb farming and bringing back landscape elements. Based on extensive desk research, participant observation and exploratory interviews, we selected three partnerships actively working on these issues. The partnerships are all landscape-oriented and try to connect farmers with other actors, such as the government (municipalities, water boards, and the province) or researchers. Two partnerships focus on bulb farming via a regional certification scheme and a demonstration field (see Fig. 2), and one focuses on landscape elements via a project targeted at partridge conservation (see Table 2 for an overview of the partnerships).

Research approach

For studying the different partnerships, including their interactions with other actors within and beyond the Bulb Region, we combined different methods to get a rich and in-depth understanding. Our research took place in the context of a Living Lab aimed at biodiversity restoration in the Bulb Region, which enabled us to observe and participate in partnership activities (Living Lab B7 2024a). Living Labs are projects in which transdisciplinary research is conducted within a real life environment, in our case, a landscape (Toffolini et al. 2021, Kok et al. 2023). To get to know the different partnerships and actors and establish a working relationship (for example, to develop a partnership or events together), we held 21 exploratory interviews. For the specific purpose of this paper, we additionally conducted 21 in-depth interviews with actors within and outside of the studied partnerships. Both the exploratory and in-depth interviews were held in Dutch, generally lasted about one hour, and were held either online or in-person using a semi-structured interview guide (see List A in Appendix 1). Before the interview, consent for recording the interview was asked verbally or via email. As some actors were interviewed twice via follow-up interviews, the total number of respondents interviewed was 38. To study interactions between actors, as well as follow new policy and partnership developments, we conducted participant observation in 28 meetings and events related to the studied partnerships and spatial, nature, and agricultural policies of the region and bulb sector and organized one workshop on biodiversity on bulb farms (see Tables A and B in Appendix 1 for an overview of interviews and events). During the participant observation, we noted down the different themes that were discussed during the meetings and events, as well as specific quotes related to the partnerships or to policies impacting the partnerships.

Additional to the field research, we analyzed policy documents from public and private actors, political motions and news articles to look for potential interactions between different governance levels and the landscape-oriented partnerships. The documents corpus had a time span of 5 years (2018–2023). We looked at 30 policy documents on a national, provincial, and local level, which were selected based on the interviews, participant observation, and desk research and seemed relevant to the Bulb Region (see Table C in Appendix 1). By starting in 2018, we included major events and documents, such as the development of a sectoral vision for sustainable bulb farming (2018), the development of the Deltaplan Biodiversiteitsherstel (2019), and the local partridge project (2018). However, some documents from before that time were included, such as the latest spatial planning policy for the Bulb Region (2016) and the last landscape-scale investment program for recreation and nature (2016).

Additionally, we searched for relevant political motions regarding landscape elements or (sustainable) bulb farming in the Dutch national parliament, the provincial parliament (Zuid-Holland), and municipalities (Hillegom, Katwijk, Lisse, Noordwijk, and Teylingen), and looked at regional and local news articles about landscape elements and bulb farming. For both searches (motions and news articles) the timespan January 2018 to November 2023 was used. The searches resulted in 19 parliamentary motions, no provincial motions, 7 municipal motions, and 54 news articles. Eight news articles were found before the formal search, via LinkedIn or personal communication, and 2 were added afterwards. For a list of motions and articles, see, respectively, Tables D, E, and F in Appendix 1.

Data analysis

All data (fieldwork and desk research data) was analyzed using Atlas.Ti by the first author (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH 2024). Based on the theoretical framework, we deductively developed codes to structure the data and analyze the different partnerships and amplification processes (see also Table 1). The codes were used to map the different events and amplification processes, as well as the different conditions influencing these processes. For the study of the amplification processes, we started off deductively, while for the study of conditions for amplification we used an inductive approach. During the coding process, by iteratively comparing data with data and data with concepts, we inductively specified the recurring themes in the data within the categories used from the start. An overview of the codes and how frequently they were applied can be found in Table G in the Appendix 1.

Positionality and reflexivity

The first author is an active member of the Living Lab and was, dependent on the specific case, involved in initiating, adapting, or supporting the partnership(s). Therefore, this research provided the possibility to have a rich account of the initiation and amplification of partnerships, as well as opportunities to rediscuss these processes in follow up encounters with actors in the field. To mitigate potential bias and maintain reflexivity, we (1) organized peer debriefing through meetings with the other authors and in conferences and (2) used a normative, critical theoretical framework (see previous section). After writing the results section, two people from the partnerships (one key actor in both the demonstration field and regional certification scheme and one key actor in the partridge project) checked our results for factual correctness.

RESULTS

Bulb farming partnerships

Partnerships under study

Key themes that emerged from our data in relation to bulb farming were pesticide use, phosphate leakage to surface waters, and conversion to organic farming. Although turning to organic farming seems to be a solution in many agricultural sectors, bulb farmers exhibit reluctance toward such a conversion. Farmers regard organic bulbs as economically unviable because of their export orientation, as importing countries have strict phytosanitary requirements and bulbs are highly susceptible to pests (Snoek et al. 2002, Raaijmakers 2016, de Koning 2024). Therefore, farmers, governments, and partnerships between them focus on making bulb farming more sustainable in terms of a reduction in pesticide use and a decrease in the emissions of pesticides and phosphate. In the Bulb Region, there are two partnerships that explicitly focus on more sustainable bulb farming: (i) a regional certification scheme demanding better environmental performance of individual farmers and the region as a whole, and (ii) a demonstration field to experiment with extensive and nature-inclusive bulb farming.

The regional certification scheme was initiated by a prominent farmer in the region as a response to the increasingly strict EU environmental legislation like the 7th Nitrates Action Program (Ministerie van Landbouw Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit and Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat 2021), the Water Framework Directive (European Commission 2000), and Pesticide Regulation (European Commission 2022), and an increasing number of negative stories in the media about pesticide use in bulb farming. Through Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), the performance of individual farmers and the collective of farmers with regard to environment and climate will be measured. The goal of the certification is to improve environmental performance, to communicate the efforts of farmers to citizens of the region and society as a whole, and to comply with the environmental goals of the provincial policy plan for rural areas (Kager et al. 2023, Provincie Zuid-Holland 2023). In terms of compliance, they focus mainly on the goals relating to the Water Framework Directive (Kager et al. 2023). In 2025, 14 farmers participated in the first pilot of the certificate. In 2026, it is expected that approximately 45 farmers will join the certificate.

The second partnership, the demonstration field, was developed as part of the Living Lab for biodiversity restoration. The idea was to establish a demonstration field in which farmers together with researchers could gain experience with sustainable farming practices. The field was developed in collaboration with a group of young bulb farmers, the Greenport (a partnership between local governments and the bulb sector) and agricultural company Agrifirm-GMN. It is a 0.4-hectare plot on which tulips are grown in two ways: extensively, which excludes the use of synthetic fertilizer and preventive use of pesticides, and nature-inclusive, which excludes any form of pesticide use, fertilizer, or manure and includes the development of a wildflower strip to enhance functional agrobiodiversity. The two parts of the plot are separated through a hedge consisting of native species (Mariën et al. 2024).

Based on the plans, goals, and current achievements of these partnerships, we expect them to potentially contribute to transformative change by stimulating changes in practices, including technological changes. Additionally, in the case of the demonstration field, we anticipate changes in values as well, as it emphasizes alternative farming methods that align with different perspectives on nature and farming (such as organic practices).

Amplification processes

In the two bulb farming partnerships, we observed the following amplification processes: amplifying within (stabilizing and speeding up), amplifying out (growing, spreading, and transferring), and amplifying beyond (frame amplification; see Fig. 3). Interestingly, we also observed another type of process that was not part of our initial typology, and we term “converting,” as part of amplifying out. Both partnerships started in 2023 and are currently focused on stabilizing their efforts. If we take the efforts of individual frontrunner farmers who were already experimenting with more sustainable bulb farming as a starting point, then both partnerships also contribute to the speeding up of the efforts of these frontrunner farmers by providing a benchmark and new practical knowledge.

The stabilizing and speeding up processes become intertwined in the application for a new field lab, which will serve as a follow-up to the current Living Lab. If the field lab is granted, the partnership will use those resources for the expansion (growing) of the demonstration field and to “embed this cooperation in a more permanent way in the region” (stabilizing; Greenport Duin- en Bollenstreek 2023:2). The idea is to enlarge the original demonstration field, add new facilities, and conduct new experiments. Additionally, there will be new fields dedicated to experiments on different farms throughout the landscape. Here, stabilizing, speeding up, and growing go hand in hand.

One of the goals of the expansion of the demonstration field through the field lab is that more farmers will be engaged in the experiments and therefore contribute to a more sustainable bulb sector. Moreover, they want to ensure the integration of the two partnerships (regional certification scheme and demonstration field) by directly implementing the knowledge they gain on the demonstration field(s) in the regional certification scheme: “speeding up the application of new knowledge in [farmer’s] practice” (Greenport Duin- en Bollenstreek 2023:5).

Although the beforementioned amplification processes are all within the landscape, the partnerships are also already planning to amplify outside of the landscape via spreading. The insights of the field lab will be shared with the whole sector via workshops and demonstrations (Greenport Duin- en Bollenstreek 2023):

There are many initiatives such as ours, but the problem is that the information often stays among the [participating] bulb farmers. We are going to try to share it with the outside world in an open and transparent manner. (Olivier 2023a)

Both the regional certification scheme and the demonstration field gained prominent attention in the local newspaper and the national floriculture magazine, which may have contributed to the speeding up and growing of the partnership (Greenity 2023, 2024a, 2024b, Olivier 2023b). Currently, there is also a discussion on adapting the regional certificate to include dairy farming as well. This is similar to spreading and transferring (disseminating core principles and approaches) but instead of doing a similar initiative in a similar or dissimilar context, it happens in the same landscape (context), but is aimed at a different sector, problem, and/or goal. Therefore, we propose to call this type of amplification “converting”: Taking an initiative, keeping its core principles but adapting these to a dissimilar sector/problem/goal in the same landscape. This process is different from transferring because the partnership itself, within the same geographical area, is focusing on a new sector and thereby developing new principles. In this case, it is a partnership initiated by bulb farmers and tailored to a specific agricultural sector in one region, whose principles will be applied to another sector, but still within the same specific geographical region and context. It will be interesting to see whether this certification for dairy farmers would become part of the current partnership, or will lead to the establishment of a new, independent partnership. From a biodiversity perspective, connecting between different agricultural sectors in one landscape may be a transformative way forward. One of the theories that currently exists about the alleged success of bird species like the Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava) in the Bulb Region proposes that this can be explained by the mosaic structure of dairy and bulb farms in the region (Living Lab B7 2024b). Another way in which there could be a connection between the two types of farming is via the use of locally produced manure on the bulb fields, which enhances biodiversity but is currently difficult because of phosphate regulations that stimulate farmers to use compost.

Amplifying out of the landscape is also starting to take place, as the national association for bulb farming wants to transfer the certification scheme to other bulb regions. The concept has sparked enthusiasm at the provincial government and, via interprovincial collaboration, gained attention in other provinces. The media coverage of the certification scheme in the national floriculture magazine may have contributed to this (Greenity 2023, 2024a). The strength of the scheme lies in its bottom-up approach according to its partners: “it is a beautiful way to create enthusiasm among entrepreneurs [bulb farmers], without having things being imposed upon them by the government” (Bulb farmer, interviewed in Olivier 2023b).

Moreover, the farmers engaged in both partnerships, but especially in the certification scheme, are strategically aligning with the policy goals from the Nitrate Action Program and the Water Framework Directive. Here we can observe the process of frame amplification. By deliberately amplifying the narrower frame of nature-inclusive or organic farming to sustainable farming, they align it with different policy goals and present the initiative as the solution to the problems highlighted in that discourse. Via this process, the local and provincial governments became eager to support these partnerships in terms of financial and human capital. Their support is a key factor explaining why these two initiatives have started to amplify very quickly after their initiation. Frame amplification has led to more support, which in turn enabled other forms of amplification such as growing and spreading.

Thus, the partnerships are adapting to existing policy goals, rather than trying to influence these. With regard to changing values, both are more focused on showcasing sustainability than changing values of farmers or consumers: “That [the demonstration field] is a good initiative. And also especially a showcase to show what you are already doing” (Employee of an agricultural company [A2]).

Although some of the young bulb farmers did show an interest in organic farming, and biodiversity is mentioned as one of the goals in the regional certification, biodiversity has not (yet) been converted into a concrete KPI. During growing and frame amplification, ambitions have been lowered because of alignment with policy goals that are not necessarily focused on fundamental changes in agricultural practices or biodiversity, but rather on concrete and single-issue top-down sustainability goals such as improving chemical water quality (Kager et al. 2023).

Landscape elements partnership

Partnership under study

Landscape elements, such as hedges, pollard willows, and ditches, have been an essential part of rural landscapes for centuries. Not only did they have several functions, such as providing fuel and fencing of animals, they also contributed to a biodiverse landscape by enhancing landscape complexity (Grashof-Bokdam and Van Langevelde 2005, Cormont et al. 2016, Rijsdijk 2022). Because of intensification (Collier 2021), 60% of landscape elements in rural landscapes have disappeared over the last 100 years in the Netherlands (Deltaplan Biodiversiteitsherstel 2022), including around 225,000 kilometers of hedgerows (Dirkmaat 2006). Bringing back landscape elements in Dutch rural landscapes could thus be a way to restore biodiversity, although it is a pathway that is opposite to the current development toward more efficient, large-scale agriculture.

The local nature organization Geestgrond has since 2017 been collaborating with farmers on bringing back landscape elements for biodiversity. Using the Gray Partridge as an indicator for biodiversity, the initiative was coined “the partridge project” (Venderbosch and van Servellen 2021, Venderbosch et al. 2024). These elements included hedges, wildflower strips, and shrubs and was complemented with measures for less disturbance and the provision of feed during the winter months, such as the so-called winter bird crops (Van den Boogaard et al. 2019, Neyens et al. 2023). Volunteers approached farmers to collaboratively develop a list of suitable measures and aided them and private individuals in taking these measures, which could be partly financed via the project (ANLV Geestgrond 2020). The project has resulted in (amongst other things) the planting of 6 km of hedges. In the Bulb Region, there used to be 270 km of hedges in 1900, which decreased to 10 km of hedges on bulb fields in 2000 (Dwarswaard 2019), and has increased (including these 6 km by the partridge project) to 20 km in 2024.

Based on the plans, goals, and achievements of this partnership, we expect them to potentially contribute to transformative change by changing values through enhancing enthusiasm for the intrinsic value of bird species and biodiversity measures. Additionally, although not part of the IPBES definition of transformative change but relevant in the context of biodiversity restoration, the partnership focuses on changing the natural-spatial conditions of the landscape.

Amplification processes

Within the partridge project, we observed amplifying within (stabilizing), amplifying out (growing), and intentions to amplify beyond (value change; see Fig. 4). A couple of years after the start of the project, bulb farmers became eligible to receive payments for planting and maintaining hedges via agri-environmental schemes (AES). At this point, the agri-environmental collective de Groene Klaver (of which Geestgrond is a member) took over the coordination of landscape elements on farmland, and Geestgrond started to focus on planting hedges on land of private individuals. During the project, Geestgrond was able to attract different provincial funds to continue their work. Here, growing and stabilizing go hand in hand. The project was frequently covered in local media and national farmer magazines and newspapers (Luimes 2020, Smakman 2020, van Cooten 2021, Wilgenhof 2021, Wouda 2021, Hendriks 2022, Kruisselbrink 2022), which may have contributed to the growing and stabilizing of the partnership. However, the growth of this project is limited. As the specific funds of the AES for partridge conservation in this area are depleted, additional provincial funding would be necessary to plant and maintain more hedges.

Another problem is the willingness of farmers to contribute to biodiversity conservation. Although the partridge project set out to create more enthusiasm for biodiversity on farms, volunteers feel that “there is a lack of intrinsic motivation” (participant observation, nature organization [N2]) and a lack of knowledge among farmers to contribute to biodiversity (Venderbosch et al. 2024), while “for that [more biodiversity/landscape elements] farmers really need to shift the way they are thinking” (civil servant [G1]). In contrast, private individuals are more motivated to plant and maintain landscape elements on their land. However, Geestgrond also attributes this lack of motivation among farmers to contextual factors, such as the high land prices and the capital intensive nature of bulb farming that creates a situation in which financial risks quickly become very high (Venderbosch et al. 2024).

This lack of intrinsic motivation has hampered the growth of this partnership. In the Bulb Region, a restructuring of the landscape is taking place organized by the Greenport Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij, a regional area-development company. Part of the funds that are created through the restructuration are dedicated to biodiversity conservation (Greenport Duin- en Bollenstreek 2016). Geestgrond, together with the restructuration company, came up with the idea to restore landscape elements on so-called overhoekjes, i.e., parts of bulb fields that are not suitable for production because of their location or shape. To fund this via the local restructuration funds, farmers would need to sign an official contract for maintenance, which in their perspective diminishes their control over their land, and which made them reluctant to support this idea. To amplify, the partnership is stuck in a stalemate in which value change is needed for growing, but only a limited number of farmers are willing to engage because of a lack of motivation and the difficulty they experience in fitting biodiversity measures into their farm operations. Currently, measures are only taken on field edges. To have a substantive impact on biodiversity, measures on the field should be encouraged and facilitated as well. But as the abovementioned situation shows, the partnership is far from able to realize this.

Although the partnership itself is not actively pursuing frame amplification, frame amplification on the national level has helped the partnership to grow. The Deltaplan Biodiversiteitsherstel, a national partnership between governments, the farming sector, and nature organizations, is actively framing restoring landscape elements as a goal in itself, not only for biodiversity, but also for climate change and water quality (Deltaplan Biodiversiteitsherstel 2022). The Deltaplan actively supports initiatives like the partridge project financially and changes the focus from landscape elements as a mean to protect specific species, like in the Dutch AES, to something with a value on its own. They are connecting the restoration of landscape elements to more policy goals than just biodiversity, thereby connecting to the different challenges within landscapes. This enhanced focus on landscapes and landscape elements is also reflected in the new Dutch National Program on Rural Areas, which attributed extra resources to the restoration of landscape elements (Boezeman et al. 2024). The acceptance of the European Nature Restoration Law in 2024 may function as an additional push for the amplification of landscape elements.

DISCUSSION

Our case study analysis aimed to advance our understanding of how the impact of landscape-oriented partnerships can be amplified, which strategies and conditions play a role in this, and how these amplification processes affect the contribution of these partnerships to transformative change for biodiversity. The research yielded insights on (1) the diversity and interactions of amplification processes and conditions, and (2) the importance of combining different types of seeds and supportive policies of national, regional, and local governments for transformative change.

Interactions of amplification processes

Diverse amplification pathways

We have seen three partnerships that are amplifying through combinations of different amplification processes. We observed stabilizing and speeding up (amplifying within), growing, spreading, and transferring (amplifying out) in interplay with frame amplification (amplifying beyond). Moreover, we found a new form of amplifying out that we called converting and refers to taking an initiative, keeping its core principles, but adapting these to a dissimilar sector/problem/goal in the same landscape. Hence, our cases offer support for expanding the typology of amplification processes by Lam et al. (2020) by adding the processes of frame amplification (amplifying beyond) and converting (amplifying out).

We also found several conditions that enable amplification, such as alignment with policy goals, farmer support, pressure from rules, regulations, and society and financial support. As will be discussed below, these different strategies and conditions might enable amplification, but they may not always contribute to the transformative character of the landscape-oriented partnership and its impact.

However, the key finding is that amplification is not an independent or isolated process. Rather, it emerges through the combination and interaction of multiple processes, where one amplification process can be the enabling condition for another process. For example, two specific processes that were most prominent and seemed intrinsically linked are stabilizing and growing. We call this process “interactions of amplification,” which emphasizes that the existing forms and types of amplification processes are not acting in isolation but are simultaneously or consecutively interacting with each other.

A lack of value change and institutionalization

The crux in the amplification of seeds for transformative change could be in the combination and interaction of different amplification processes, where institutionalization and value change seem key to be transformative. A study by Fleury et al. (2015) showed that farmers who implemented a new, results-based, agri-environmental measure for non-instrumental reasons, such as relational or intrinsic values, did alter their farming practices. In contrast, farmers who justified their choice for implementing this measure based on instrumental values, did not alter their practices. Thus, promoting and embedding non-instrumental nature values within partnerships could be key to contribute to transformative change. However, this may also come at the cost of losing actors involved or support from (higher) government (levels) who are not supportive of non-instrumental values of nature and therefore impede processes of amplifying within and out.

This challenge was clear in our cases, in which value change, and its institutionalization, appeared to be most challenging. This can be explained by the fact that in a partnership with many different actors, support of partners is necessary, and they therefore tend to try to connect with broad, pre-existing values rather than changing these. Institutionalization did not seem to be an objective of any of the studied partnerships, as we did not observe actions aimed at changing rules, norms, or protocols. The bulb farming partnerships rather functioned as instruments for implementing higher-level policy goals in a locally adapted way. Farmers see this as a deliberative strategy to avoid top-down interventions: by showing that local actors are implementing, and ideally also achieving these higher-level policy goals in a locally suitable and accepted way, the farmers assume that this will prevent stricter and less favorable policies for bulb farming.

Frame amplification: a double-edged sword

The studied cases show that for amplification processes, especially outside of the landscape, more/powerful actors need to be engaged. By framing the partnerships more broadly in terms of sustainability (frame amplification) and connecting to a variety of policy goals (e.g., water, climate change), the initiators were able to gather more support and partners than they would probably have had if the main goal had been biodiversity. This could be seen as a fit and conform strategy, in which the sustainability ambitions are lowered to increase the chance of amplification (Smith and Raven 2012).

In the landscape element case, frame amplification at national and provincial levels framed landscape elements not just as a means to restore biodiversity but also to restore landscapes themselves. This reframing might lead to new policies that have the potential to amplify the current restoration of landscape elements in the Bulb Region. Compared to the previous example, the frame amplification in this case results in a process of stretch and transform, in which changes in the discursive-institutional context enable the partnership to amplify (Smith and Raven 2012). Thus, frame amplification can either have a positive or negative impact, with the risk of inducing lower ambitions leading to a lesser contribution or no contribution at all to transformative change (Pel and Bauler 2014). Moreover, frame amplification is a good example of an amplification process that can be a strategy and condition, dependent on who is amplifying the frame.

These frame amplification processes show that governments can play a significant role in constructing the goals and boundaries for the amplification of landscape-level partnerships. If their objectives are framed in a narrow, status quo, and thus non-transformative manner, this means that through amplification, the transformative potential of the partnerships will decrease. This shift in focus or goals during amplification processes such as frame amplification can also be explained by the fact that throughout amplification, the direction of an initiative such as a partnership becomes harder to control, and this could eventually even lead to alienation of the original founders and their principles (Sherwood et al. 2012, Moore et al. 2014, Smith et al. 2014, Hermans et al. 2016). This is because the ideas initially underpinning a partnership are reinterpreted by the different actors in and outside of the partnership during the amplification process (Pel and Bauler 2014).

Risk of stabilizing unsustainable practices

This problem of decreasing transformative potential through amplification processes relates to criticism by Lam et al. (2022) and Feola (2015) on the stabilizing of seeds within an unsustainable system. They argue that this process can hamper transformative change and contribute to continued unsustainability. In the case of bulb farming, there is certainly a risk that the regional certification will aid in legitimizing current unsustainable practices if it will not stimulate farmers to reach higher sustainability standards and adopt new practices, for example those that will be tested on the demonstration field and in the field lab. Currently, the focus in the bulb farming partnerships is mainly on technological innovation, which can lead to further path dependency on the current export-oriented, productivity-focused, capital-intensive pathway in which there is little attention for biodiversity (Van Den Ende et al. 2024). With path dependency, we refer to a process in which the history of a system, in combination with self-reinforcing feedbacks that developed throughout that history, is keeping the system in a certain state (Pierson 2000, Appel 2018). Because of this potential furthering of path dependency, it is indeed questionable whether these partnerships will become seeds of change after all.

Implications for transformative landscape governance: three recommendations

The necessity of combining distinct types of seeds

On the one hand it seems that partnerships become successful in amplifying when they are less transformative, as this means that they are better aligned with existing, incumbent discourses, policy goals, and actors. On the other hand, partnerships such as the partridge project, which did not aim to fundamentally change the agricultural system, can nonetheless be transformative. This can occur if through growing, replication, transferring, or spreading of such partnerships, landscape elements become more widely present across agricultural landscapes in the Netherlands. Not only would this have an impact on biodiversity, but this would also consequently entail changes in agricultural practices. Transformative change might therefore require a combination of more and less radical seeds.

Radical seeds, such as the only full-organic bulb farm in the Netherlands, show that an alternative is possible, but difficult to amplify because conventional farmers perceive this as non-feasible (de Koning 2024). Less radical seeds might have a less profound effect on biodiversity, but are easier to amplify, and can therefore, as a whole, have an accumulated transformative impact as well (Pel and Bauler 2014). This relates to the work from Westerink et al. (2023), in which they see three different roles for networks in transformative change: to collaborate, challenge, and disrupt. Radical seeds are probably more apt at challenging and disrupting current unsustainable systems. Although the organic bulb farm can be seen as challenging the current system, court cases in other places in the Netherlands about pesticide use in bulb fields near houses could be seen as examples of disruptive seeds (Bollenboos 2023, Rutting et al. 2023). To enable transformative change for biodiversity in rural landscapes, one could say that a diversity of initiatives adopting these different roles must be sought. Moreover, it is important to strategically combine these different initiatives, for example, through institutional bricolage or via strategically forming networks of complementary initiatives (Haider and Cleaver 2023, Westerink et al. 2023).

The need for transformative policies at higher levels

Another critical issue identified in this study is the role of different levels of government. The responsibility for environmental issues is increasingly transferred to local levels, not only in biodiversity conservation, but also for example in the field of energy (Fudge and Peters 2009, Fudge et al. 2016). Our study shows that landscape-oriented partnerships in the context of the Netherlands are dependent on the support of government, in this case especially the national and provincial government. Top-down instruments such as rules and regulations can have a ripple effect and spur local collaborations for sustainability while at the same time forcing different types of actors to change (e.g., farmers or local governments; McPhearson et al. 2021). In our case study, we saw, for example, that forthcoming pesticide and water legislation spurred the development of the regional certification scheme. However, as discussed in the previous section, these policies also steered this partnership toward a narrow vision of sustainability, including narrow KPIs. Transformative governance approaches, which include inclusive, integrative, adaptive, transdisciplinary, and anticipatory approaches, could help to make top-down instruments more supportive of partnerships that are trying to contribute to transformative landscape governance (Visseren-Hamakers et al. 2021, de Koning et al. 2023). For example, governments could make more integrated policies that do not only focus on environmental targets (like phosphate levels in groundwater), but also enable farmers to become more sustainable, or that enhance the market demand for sustainable products. Thus, for transformative change, transformative policies at these levels are necessary, and by combining these with landscape-oriented partnerships, the risk of underutilizing the power of place-based and locally adapted seeds for sustainability can be avoided (Bours et al. 2022).

The supportive role of regional and local governments

Supporting landscape-oriented partnerships could be a suitable strategy for governments such as provinces who could facilitate amplification through regulatory experiments and innovation platforms and communicate the knowledge and experiences gained through the partnerships to higher level policy making (Bours et al. 2022). However, municipalities could also play a significant role, dependent on the context. In our case study, municipalities support the partnerships via both financial and human capital via existing partnerships such as the Greenport. Sellberg et al. (2020) showed that among seeds for sustainable food in Sweden, seeds had most confidence in municipalities to support change in comparison with other governance levels. In the Dutch and Swedish context, this level of government could thus play an important role, which shows the importance of contextual factors that differ among countries, and probably also within countries.

Study limitations and future research

In this study, we focused on the amplification of the work of landscape-oriented partnerships as seeds for a sustainable, biodiverse future in an agricultural landscape. Our study was limited to three landscape-oriented partnerships in a highly specific context, followed over a limited period in which two of them have just started (regional certification scheme and demonstration field), so that their long-term impact could not yet be assessed. In this study, we have therefore focused on both their current activities and the plans they have been making for the future. For our results, this means that some of the processes we observed have not yet finished (such as the development of the field lab with which partnership has been formed but is still dependent on the granting of government funding) and we can therefore in these cases only draw conclusions on the factors that have influenced the initiation of these amplification processes. Moreover, we might not have been able to explore the full spectrum of amplification processes because some, for example value change, might take more time.

By studying the partnerships over several years, we saw that their amplification led to the initiation of a new partnership (e.g., the field lab) and changes within the partnerships itself (for example, the converting process within the regional certificate). Where one partnership ended and the other started appeared to be more fluid than expected. Thus, in the future study of seeds we propose an approach in which instead of a particular initiative, we follow the new “social, technological, economic, or social-ecological ways of thinking or doing” itself (Bennett et al. 2016:442), which can be amplified in many ways (e.g., new behaviors, policies) and take on different forms (e.g., a partnership, a protest group, or a new discourse).

CONCLUSION

Through studying the amplification of landscape-oriented partnerships for biodiversity in the Dutch Dune and Flower Bulb Region, we have made several contributions to the seeds and amplification literature. First, we have identified a new amplification process called converting, in which the core principles of an initiative are applied to a dissimilar sector in the same landscape. Second, we show that instead of various isolated, independent amplification processes, there is an ongoing interaction between processes leading to interactive amplification. In this interactive amplification, the particular combination of amplification processes determines the contribution to transformative change. The processes of stabilizing and growing are intrinsically connected, but do not necessarily contribute to transformative change. Value change appears to be a necessity for all other forms of amplification to be transformative, while frame amplification can either aid or inhibit the transformative impact of partnerships that are amplified. Third, we show that the most important condition determining amplification seemed to be alignment with policy goals. Because most policies, rules, and regulations relevant to the farmers are very specific, the partnerships also become narrowly focused, which hinders a transformative, integrated landscape approach.

Based on the results, we propose several ways forward for transformative change in rural landscapes. Different types of seeds are needed, from collaborative ones such as partnerships, to more disruptive ones, like initiatives for strategic litigation. Additionally, there is a vital role for national, regional, and local governments in developing transformative policies at higher levels and in providing local support for seeds.

LITERATURE CITED

Agrarische Natuur- en Landschapsvereniging (ANLV) Geestgrond. 2020. Zeven makkelijke maatregelen voor de patrijs: uw agrarisch bedrijf onderdeel van het groene netwerk. ANLV Geestgrond, Lisse, The Netherlands.

Appel, F. 2018. Between path dependence and path creation: the impact of farmers’ behavior on structural change in agriculture. Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg, Germany.

ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. 2024. Atlas.ti 25. https://atlasti.com

Bachi, L., D. Corrêa, C. Fonseca, and S. Carvalho-Ribeiro. 2023. Are there bright spots in an agriculture frontier? Characterizing seeds of good Anthropocene in Matopiba, Brazil. Environmental Development 46:100856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2023.100856

Benford, R. D., and D. A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26:611-639.

Bennett, E. M., M. Solan, R. Biggs, T. McPhearson, A. V. Norström, P. Olsson, L. Pereira, G. D. Peterson, C. Raudsepp-Hearne, F. Biermann, S. R. Carpenter, E. C. Ellis, T. Hichert, V. Galaz, M. Lahsen, M. Milkoreit, B. Martin-López, K. A. Nicholas, R. Preiser, G. Vince, J. M. Vervoort, and J. Xu. 2016. Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14(8):441-448. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1309

Boezeman, D. 2015. Transforming adaptation. Authoritative knowledge for climate change governance. Dissertation. Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. https://hdl.handle.net/2066/141636

Boezeman, D., N. Van Maaswaal, and B. Silvius. 2024. Inventarisatie provinciale maatregelen landelijk gebied gefinancierd uit het transitiefonds. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Bollenboos. 2023. Bollenboos. http://www.bollenboos.nl/

Bours, S. A., I. Wanzenböck, and K. Frenken. 2022. Small wins for grand challenges. A bottom-up governance approach to regional innovation policy. European Planning Studies 30(11):2245-2272. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1980502

Collier, M. J. 2021. Are field boundary hedgerows the earliest example of a nature-based solution? Environmental Science & Policy 120:73-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.02.008

Cormont, A., H. Siepel, J. Clement, T. C. P. Melman, M. F. Wallis DeVries, C. A. M. van Turnhout, L. B. Sparrius, M. Reemer, J. C. Biesmeijer, F. Berendse, and G. R. de Snoo. 2016. Landscape complexity and farmland biodiversity: evaluating the CAP target on natural elements. Journal for Nature Conservation 30:19-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2015.12.006

de Koning, S. 2024. Landscape discourses and rural transformations: insights from the Dutch Dune and Flower Bulb Region. Agriculture and Human Values 41:1431-1448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-024-10559-2

de Koning, S., D. Boezeman, M. Kaufmann, and I. J. Visseren-Hamakers. 2023. Transformative change for biodiversity: a review on the contribution of landscape-oriented partnerships. Biological Conservation 277:109858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109858

Deltaplan Biodiversiteitsherstel. 2022. Aanvalsplan landschap: Realisatie van 10% groenblauwe dooradering. Deltaplan Biodiversiteitsherstel, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Dirkmaat, J. 2006. Nederland weer mooi: op weg naar een natuurrijk en idyllisch landschap. ANWB Media-Boeken & Gidsen, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Dwarswaard, A. 2019. Ruimte voor de haag. Greenity: 43.

European Commission. 2000. Water Framework Directive. Official Journal of the European Communities (2000/60/EC). EC, Brussels, Belgium.

European Commission. 2022. Proposal for the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sustainable use of plant protection products and amending Regulation (2022/0196). EC, Brussels, Belgium.

Fahrig, L., J. Baudry, L. Brotons, F. G. Burel, T. O. Crist, R. J. Fuller, C. Sirami, G. M. Siriwardena, and J. L. Martin. 2011. Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecology Letters 14(2):101-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01559.x

Feola, G. 2015. Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: a review of emerging concepts. Ambio 44(5):376-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0582-z

Fleury, P., C. Seres, L. Dobremez, B. Nettier, and Y. Pauthenet. 2015. ‘Flowering meadows’, a result-oriented agri-environmental measure: technical and value changes in favour of biodiversity. Land Use Policy 46:103-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.007

Frantzeskaki, N., K. Hölscher, M. Bach, and F. Avelino, editors. 2018. Co-creating sustainable urban futures. A primer on applying transition management in cities. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69273-9

Fudge, S., and M. Peters. 2009. Motivating carbon reduction in the UK: the role of local government as an agent of social change. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 6(2):103-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/19438150902732101

Fudge, S., M. Peters, and B. Woodman. 2016. Local authorities as niche actors: the case of energy governance in the UK. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 18:1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.06.004

Gorissen, L., F. Spira, E. Meynaerts, P. Valkering, and N. Frantzeskaki. 2018. Moving towards systemic change? Investigating acceleration dynamics of urban sustainability transitions in the Belgian City of Genk. Journal of Cleaner Production 173:171-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.052

Grashof-Bokdam, C. J., and F. Van Langevelde. 2005. Green veining: landscape determinants of biodiversity in European agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecology 20(4):417-439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-004-5646-1

Greenity. 2023. Ontwikkeling regiocertificering Bloembollenstreek van start. 10 March. Leiden, The Netherlands.

Greenity. 2024a. Belangstelling provincies: Regiocertificering is blauwdruk voor sector. 26 January. Leiden, The Netherlands.

Greenity. 2024b. Demoveld moet Fieldlab worden. 26 January. Leiden, The Netherlands.

Greenport Duin- en Bollenstreek. 2016. Intergemeentelijke Structuurvisie Greenport. Hillegom, Katwijk, Lisse, Noordwijk, Noordwijkerhout, Teylingen. Greenport Duin- en Bollenstreek, Hillegom, The Netherlands.

Greenport Duin- en Bollenstreek. 2023. Ontwerpplan Fieldlab Bollenstreek: Samen Bouwen aan een Bloeiende Bollenstreek. Greenport Duin- en Bollenstreek, Hillegom, The Netherlands.

Haider, L. J., and F. Cleaver. 2023. Capacities for resilience: persisting, adapting and transforming through bricolage. Ecosystems and People 19(1):2240434. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2240434

Hendriks, J. 2022. Hekken in Bollenstreek moeten worden vervangen door heggen en hagen. Leidsch Dagblad, 16 September.

Hermans, F., D. Roep, and L. Klerkx. 2016. Scale dynamics of grassroots innovations through parallel pathways of transformative change. Ecological Economics 130:285-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.011

Hölscher, K., J. M. Wittmayer, and D. Loorbach. 2018. Transition versus transformation: What’s the difference? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 27:1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.007

Horcea-Milcu, A. I., D. J. Abson, C. I. Apetrei, I. A. Duse, R. Freeth, M. Riechers, D. P. M. Lam, C. Dorninger, and D. J. Lang. 2019. Values in transformational sustainability science: four perspectives for change. Sustainability Science 14:1425-1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00656-1

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2019. The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Summary for Policymakers. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579

Jeliazkov, A., A. Mimet, R. Chargé, F. Jiguet, V. Devictor, and F. Chiron. 2016. Impacts of agricultural intensification on bird communities: new insights from a multi-level and multi-facet approach of biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 216:9-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.09.017

Kager, H., L. Jansen, and D. de Maijer. 2023. Regiocertificering in de Duin- en Bollenstreek: Projectplan voor de ontwikkeling van een vitale teelt in een gezonde omgeving. Schuttelaar & Partners, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Kok, P. W., M. G. van der Meij, P. Wagner, T. Cesuroglu, J. E. W. Broerse, and B. J. Regeer. 2023. Exploring the practice of labs for sustainable transformation: the challenge of ‘creating impact.’ Journal of Cleaner Production 388:135994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135994

Kruisselbrink, E. 2022. Heggen en bloemblokken voor patrijs rondom Bentwoud en Bollenstreek. Agraaf, 12 December.

Lam, D. P. M., A. Jimenez-Aceituno, L. G. Lara, M. M. Sellberg, A. V. Norström, M. L. Moore, G. D. Peterson, and P. Olsson. 2022. Amplifying actions for food system transformation: insights from the Stockholm region. Sustainability Science 17(6):2379-2395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01154-7

Lam, D. P. M., B. Martin-Lopez, A. Wiek, E. M. Bennett, N. Frantzeskaki, A. I. Horca-Milcu, and D. J. Lang. 2020. Scaling the impact of sustainability initiatives: a typology of amplification processes. Urban Transformations 2:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-020-00007-9

Living Lab B7. 2024a. Met Boeren, Bewoners, Bezoekers en Beleidsmakers werken aan een Betere Biodiversiteit in de Bollenstreek. Living Lab B7. https://www.livinglabb7.nl/home

Living Lab B7. 2024b. Verbinden en vergroenen in de Bollenstreek. Uitgelicht, 28 November. https://www.livinglabb7.nl/uitgelicht/2024-uitgelicht/2024-11-28-verbinden-en-vergroenen-in-de-bollenstreek

Loorbach, D., N. Frantzeskaki, and F. Avelino. 2017. Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42:599-626. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340

Luimes, R. 2020. ANLV Geestgrond wil bollentelers stimuleren om maatregelen te nemen voor de patrijs. Agraaf, 8 May.

Mariën, B., C. Vonk, and T. Riem. 2024. De transitie naar een natuurinclusieve bollenteelt. HAS green academy. ’s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.

Martin, A. E., S. J. Collins, S. Crowe, J. Girard, I. Naujokaitis-Lewis, A. C. Smith, K. Lindsay, S. Mitchell, and L. Fahrig. 2020. Effects of farmland heterogeneity on biodiversity are similar to—or even larger than—the effects of farming practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 288:106698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106698

McPhearson, T., C. M. Raymond, N. Gulsrud, C. Albert, N. Coles, N. Fagerholm, M. Nagatsu, A. Stahl Oloafsson, N. Soininen, and K. Vierikko. 2021. Radical changes are needed for transformations to a good Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustainability 1:5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00017-x

Meadows, D. H. 2008. Thinking in systems: a primer. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, Vermont, USA.

Meijer, J., M. Kok, C. van Oosten, S. M. Subramanian, and E. Yiu. 2021. Seizing the landscape opportunity to catalyse transformative biodiversity governance: a contribution to the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Ministerie van Landbouw Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, and Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat. 2021. 7e Nederlandse actieprogramma betreffende de Nitraatrichtlijn (2022-2025). The Hague, The Netherlands.

Moore, M.-L., O. Tjornbo, E. Enfors, C. Knapp, J. Hodbod, J. A. Baggio, A. Norström, P. Olsson, and D. Biggs. 2014. Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations. Ecology and Society 19(4):54. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06966-190454

Moore, M.-L., D. Riddell, and D. Vocisano. 2015. Scaling out, scaling up, scaling deep: strategies of non-profits in advancing systemic social innovation. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 58:67-84.

Mupepele, A. C., H. Bruelheide, C. Brühl, J. Dauber, M. Fenske, A. Freibauer, B. Gerowitt, A. Krüß, Sebastian Lakner, T. Plieninger, T. Potthast, S. Schlacke, R. Seppelt, H. Stützel, W. Weisser, W. Wägele, K. Böhning-Gaese, and A.-M. Klein. 2021. Biodiversity in European agricultural landscapes: transformative societal changes needed. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 36(12):1067-1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.08.014

Naber, R., R. Raven, M. Kouw, and T. Dassen. 2017. Scaling up sustainable energy innovations. Energy Policy 110:342-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.056

Neyens, T., O. Petrof, C. Faes, W. Vandenrijt, P. Ulenaers, T. Artois, N. Beenaerts, and R. Evens. 2023. Winter agri-environment schemes and local landscape composition influence the distribution of wintering farmland birds. Global Ecology and Conservation 45:e02533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02533

Nicholson, C. C., J. Knapp, T. Kiljanek, M. Albrecht, M.-P. Chauzat, C. Costa, P. De la Rúa, A.-M. Klein, M. Mänd, S. G. Potts, O. Schweiger, I. Bottero, E. Cini, J. R. de Miranda, G. Di Prisco, C. Dominik, S. Hodge, V. Kaunath, A. Knauer, M. Laurent, V. Martínez-López, P. Medrzycki, M. H. Pereira-Peixoto, R. Raimets, J. M. Schwarz, D. Senapathi, G. Tamburini, M. J. F. Brown, J. C. Stout, and M. Rundlöf. 2024. Pesticide use negatively affects bumble bees across European landscapes. Nature 628:355-358. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06773-3

O’Brien, K., and L. Sygna. 2013. Responding to climate change: the three spheres of transformation. Pages 16-23 in Proceedings of Transformation in a Changing Climate International Conference, 19-21 June. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. ISBN 978-82-570-2000-2.

Olivier, E. 2023a. De giftige realiteit van Tulpen uit Amsterdam. Niemand stond erbij stil dat het gevaarlijk zou kunnen zijn. Leidsch Dagblad, 7 October.

Olivier, E. 2023b. Jonge bollenkwekers werken aan een duurzaam keurmerk: We moeten als Bollenstreek laten zien waar we mee bezig zijn. Leidsch Dagblad, 8 November.

Pascual, U., P. D. McElwee, S. E. Diamond, H. T. Ngo, X. Bai, W. W. L. Cheung, M. Lim, N. Steiner, J. Agard, C. I. Donatti, C. M. Duarte, R. Leemans, S. Managi, A. P. F. Pires, V. Reyes-García, C. Trisos, R. J. Scholes, and H.-O. Pörtner. 2022. Governing for transformative change across the biodiversity-climate-society nexus. BioScience 72(7):684-704. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac031

Patterson, J., K. Schulz, J. Vervoort, S. van der Hel, O. Widerberg, C. Adler, M. Hurlbert, K. Anderton, M. Sethi, and A. Barau. 2017. Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 24:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001

Pel, B., and T. Bauler. 2014. The institutionalization of social innovation: between transformation and capture. TRANSIT, Dutch Research Institute For Transitions, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/103%20TRANSIT_Governance_Positionpaper_Pel%20%20Bauler%202014%20(2).pdf

Pereira, L., K. K. Davies, E. den Belder, S. Ferrier, S. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, H. Kim, Jan J. Kuiper, S. Okayasu, M. G. Palomo, H. M. Pereira, G. Peterson, J. Sathyapalan, M. Schoolenberg, R. Alkemade, S. Carvalho Ribeiro, A. Greenaway, J. Hauck, N. King, T. Lazarova, F. Ravera, N. Chettri, W. W. L. Cheung, R. J. J. Hendriks, G. Kolomytsev, P. Leadley, J.-P. Metzger, K. N. Ninan, R. Pichs, A. Popp, C. Rondinini, I. Rosa, D. van Vuuren, and C. J. Lundquist. 2020. Developing multiscale and integrative nature-people scenarios using the Nature Futures Framework. People and Nature 2(4):1172-1195. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10146

Pereira, L. M., T. Hichert, M. Hamann, R. Preiser, and R. Biggs. 2018. Using futures methods to create transformative spaces: visions of a good Anthropocene in southern Africa. Ecology and Society 23(1):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09907-230119

Pierson, P. 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review 94(2):251-267. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586011

Provincie Zuid-Holland. 2023. Zuid-Hollands Programma Landelijk Gebied: Naar een nieuwe balans in het landelijk gebied. The Hague, The Netherlands.

Raaijmakers, M. 2016. Factsheet biologische bollenteelt voor professionals. Bionext, Ede, The Netherlands.

Raudsepp-Hearne, C., G. D. Peterson, E. M. Bennett, R. Biggs, A. V. Norström, L. Pereira, J. Vervoort, D. M. Iwaniec, T. McPhearson, P. Olsson, T. Hichert, M. Falardeau, and A. Jiménez Aceituno. 2020. Seeds of good Anthropocenes: developing sustainability scenarios for Northern Europe. Sustainability Science 15(2):605-617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00714-8

Ridding, L. E., S. C. L. Watson, A. C. Newton, C. S. Rowland, and J. M. Bullock. 2020. Ongoing, but slowing, habitat loss in a rural landscape over 85 years. Landscape Ecology 35(2):257-273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00944-2

Rijsdijk, K. F. 2022. Heg: Een behaaglijk landschap voor mens en natuur. Noordboek Natuur, Gorredijk, The Netherlands.

Rosenthal, J., K. Balakrishnan, N. Bruce, D. Chambers, J. Graham, D. Jack, L. Kline, O. Masera, S. Mehta, I. Ruiz Mercado, G. Neta, S. Pattanayak, E. Puzzolo, H. Petach, A. Punturieri, A. Rubinstein, M. Sage, R. Sturke, A. Shankar, K. Sherr, K. Smith, and G. Yadama. 2017. Implementation science to accelerate clean cooking for public health. Environmental Health Perspectives 125(1):A3-A7. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1018

Rotmans, J., and D. Loorbach. 2008. Transition management: Reflexive governance of societal complexity through searching, learning and experimenting. Pages 15-46 in J. C. J. M. van den Bergh and F. R. Bruinsma, editors. Managing the transition to renewable energy: theory and practice from local, regional and macro perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

Rutting, L., J. Vervoort, H. Mees, L. Pereira, M. Veeger, K. Muiderman, A. Mangnus, K. Winkler, P. Olsson, T. Hichert, R. Lane, B. Bottega Pergher, L. Christiaens, N. Bansal, A. Hendriks, and Peter Driessen. 2023. Disruptive seeds: a scenario approach to explore power shifts in sustainability transformations. Sustainability Science 18(3):1117-1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01251-7

Schmidt, V. A. 2008. From historical institutionalism to discursive institutionalism: explaining change in comparative political economy. The 104th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Sellberg, M. M., A. V. Norström, G. D. Peterson, and L. J. Gordon. 2020. Using local initiatives to envision sustainable and resilient food systems in the Stockholm city-region. Global Food Security 24:100334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100334

Sherwood, S., M. Schut, and C. Leeuwis. 2012. Learning in the social wild: farmer field schools and the politics of agricultural science and development in Ecuador. Pages 102-137 in H. Ojha, A. Hall, and R. Sulaiman V, editors. Adaptive collaborative approaches in natural resource governance: rethinking participation, learning and innovation. Routledge, London, UK.

Smakman, S. 2020. Actie nodig om patrijs in Bollenstreek te behouden. Leidsch Dagblad, 28 July.

Smith, A., M. Fressoli, and H. Thomas. 2014. Grassroots innovation movements: challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production 63:114-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.025

Smith, A., and R. Raven. 2012. What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy 41(6):1025-1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012

Snoek, A. J., M. J. Wondergem, J. E. Jansma, and J. A. A. van Zuilichem. 2002. Biologische bloembollenteelt: Ervaringen proefbedrijven de Noord en de Zuid 1994-2001. Praktijkonderzoek Plant & Omgeving, Lisse, The Netherlands.

Tiktak, A., A. Bleeker, D. Boezeman, J. van Dam, M. van Eerdt, R. Franken, S. Kruitwagen and R. den Uyl. 2019. A closer look at integrated pest management. Interim assessment of the policy document Healthy Growth, Sustainable Harvest. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Toffolini, Q., M. Capitaine, M. Hannachi, and M. Cerf. 2021. Implementing agricultural living labs that renew actors’ roles within existing innovation systems: a case study in France. Journal of Rural Studies 88:157-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.10.015

Tuckey, A. J., Z. V. Harmáčková, G. D. Peterson, A. V. Norström, M.-L. Moore, P. Olsson, D. P. M. Lam, and A. Jiménez-Aceituno. 2023. What factors enable social-ecological transformative potential? The role of learning practices, empowerment, and networking. Ecology and Society 28(2):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14163-280227

Valkering, P., G. Yücel, E. Gebetsroither-Geringer, K. Markvica, E. Meynaerts, and N. Frantzeskaki. 2017. Accelerating transition dynamics in city regions: a qualitative modeling perspective. Sustainability 9(7):1254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071254

van Cooten, A. 2021. ‘Patrijs hoort in Bollenstreek’; Initiator patrijzenproject blij met premie van Deltaplan Biodiversiteitsherstel. Boerderij Vandaag, 17 September.

Van Dam, A. 2020. Project Patrijs in de Duin- en Bollenstreek. ANLV Geestgrond, Lisse, The Netherlands.

van den Boogaard, B., R. G. Verbeek, and J. D. Buizer. 2019. Icoonsoorten Zuid-Holland: Projecten en maatregelen voor icoonsoorten in de Provincie Zuid-Holland. Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg, The Netherlands.

Van Den Ende, M. A., D. L. T. Hegger, H. L. P. Mees, and P. P. Driessen. 2024. The transformative potential of experimentation as an environmental governance approach: the case of the Dutch peatlands. Environmental Policy and Governance 34(5):524-537. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2098

Venderbosch, P., and A. van Servellen. 2021. Project Patrijs in de Duin- en Bollenstreek. ANLV Geestgrond, Lisse, The Netherlands.

Venderbosch, P., S. Warmerdam, and A. Van Servellen. 2024. Hagen en stepping stones in de Bollenstreek: Biotoopverbeteringen voor de patrijs. ANLV Geestgrond, Hillegom, The Netherlands.

Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., and M. T. J. Kok. 2022. The urgency of transforming biodiversity governance. Pages 3-22 in I. J. Visseren-Hamakers and M. T. J. Kok, editors. Transforming biodiversity governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108856348.002

Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., J. Razzaque, P. McElwee, E. Turnhout, E. Kelemen, G. M. Rusch, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, I. Chan, M. Lim, M. Islar, A. P. Gautam, M. Williams, E. Mungatana, M. Saiful Karim, R. Muradian, L. R. Gerber, G. Lui, J. Liu, J. H. Spangenberg, and D. Zaleski. 2021. Transformative governance of biodiversity: insights for sustainable development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 53:20-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.06.002

Westerink, J., J. L. Nel, R. I. van Dam, A. L. Wortel, R. Włodarczyk-Marciniak, M. S. Orta Ortiz, E. Kelemen, K. Locher-Krause, S. Schroer, C. Mihai Adamescu, K. Korhonen-Kurki, M. Vandewalle, R. Dianoux, S. Knauss, E. Falco, S. Rantala, and S. Schouten. 2023. A framework for the assessment of transformative potential of networks. BioAgora, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Wilgenhof, S. 2021. Duizend meter heggen en hagen voor Patrijs in Bollenstreek. Agraaf, 25 May.

Withycombe Keeler, L., A. Wiek, D. J. Lang, M. Yokohari, J. van Breda, L. Olsson, B. Ness, J. Morato, J. Segalàs, P. Martens, L. A. Bojórquez-Tapia, and J. Evans. 2016. Utilizing international networks for accelerating research and learning in transformational sustainability science. Sustainability Science 11:749-762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0364-6

Wouda, T. 2021. Kwekers Bollenstreek planten heggen aan voor patrijs. Nieuwe Oogst, 17 December.