{"id":23058,"date":"2026-07-27T14:44:10","date_gmt":"2026-07-27T12:44:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/us_portfolio\/paul-de-graaf-2\/"},"modified":"2026-08-14T17:55:49","modified_gmt":"2026-08-14T15:55:49","slug":"paul-de-graaf","status":"publish","type":"us_portfolio","link":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/portfolio\/paul-de-graaf\/","title":{"rendered":"Paul de Graaf"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":10602,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false},"university_us_portfolio":[29],"class_list":["post-23058","us_portfolio","type-us_portfolio","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","university_us_portfolio-wageningen-university"],"acf":{"main_text":"","naam_van_het_proefschift":"Trying the impossible.","samenvatting":"Probleemstelling\n\nDe opkomst van bottom-up burgerinitiatieven in de eerste decennia van deze eeuw vormt een uitdaging voor stadsbesturen in het algemeen en ruimtelijke ordening in het bijzonder. De traditionele rolverdeling tussen planners, die namens de overheid de ruimtelijke inrichting van de stad bepalen, en burgers en andere maatschappelijke actoren die zich hieraan conformeren, staat al geruime tijd onder druk door veranderende inzichten in het functioneren van de samenleving. Bottom-up burgerinitiatieven gaan echter een stap verder: zij nemen het heft in eigen handen en begeven zich op het terrein van de planner. De spanningen die dit oproept voor stedelijke ruimtelijke planning zijn bijzonder zichtbaar in de ontwikkeling van stadslandbouwprojecten. Het is daarom nuttig en noodzakelijk om praktijkervaringen met deze interactie te onderzoeken, te analyseren en te begrijpen. Tot nu toe gebeurde dit meestal vanuit het perspectief van de overheid of vanuit de initiatiefnemers zelf. Er zijn nog weinig studies die deze interactie over een langere periode in een specifieke ruimtelijke context hebben onderzocht, waarbij zowel top-down als bottom-up perspectieven zijn meegenomen. Dit onderzoek onderscheidt zich door de interactie tussen planners en bottom-up initiatiefnemers op het gebied van stadslandbouw in Rotterdam te bestuderen in de periode 2006-2018.\n\nDoel en opzet van het onderzoek\n\nHet doel van dit onderzoek is om inzicht te krijgen in de interactie tussen bottom-up initiatieven en ruimtelijke planners van de overheid bij de realisatie van stadslandbouwprojecten. Er wordt gekeken naar de wereldbeelden en idee\u00ebn over planning (zogenaamde conceptualiseringen van planning) die ten grondslag liggen aan hun acties, en hoe deze interactie de ruimtelijke planning be\u00efnvloedt, in het bijzonder het stadslandbouwbeleid van de gemeente. Het onderzoek is opgezet als een retrospectieve casestudy naar de praktijk van ruimtelijke planning voor stadslandbouw in Rotterdam tussen 2006 en 2018. De casestudy omvat het onderzoek naar tien prominente stadslandbouwprojecten die in deze periode door bottom-up initiatieven zijn ontwikkeld, evenals de acties, plannen en beleidsmaatregelen van ruimtelijke planners met betrekking tot stadslandbouw.\n\nHet is een kwalitatieve studie die gebruikmaakt van interviews met stakeholders in combinatie met een onderzoek van grijze literatuur zoals projectwebsites, projectplannen en lokaal nieuws, en analyse van plannen en voltooide projecten.\n\nDe interviews met planners worden hoofdzakelijk ge\u00efnterpreteerd op basis van theoretische concepten uit de planningstheorie. De interviews met initiatiefnemers zijn op een meer 'gegronde' ('grounded') manier geanalyseerd, waarbij terugkerende thema's zijn gebruikt om te theoretiseren over de mogelijke rol van initiatiefnemers als ruimtelijke planners. De informatie uit de interviews en andere bronnen is tevens verwerkt in een tijdlijn van gebeurtenissen en ontwikkelingen, die het beleidsproces rond stadslandbouw in kaart brengt en koppelt aan de ontwikkeling en planning van individuele projecten.\n\nBelangrijkste bevindingen\n\nDe interactie tussen planners en initiatiefnemers is op drie niveaus bestudeerd: 1) de ontwikkeling van strategie en beleid rond stadslandbouw binnen de Rotterdamse planningscontext; 2) de wereldbeelden en acties van bottom-up initiatieven bij de planning en uitvoering van stadslandbouwprojecten; 3) de interactie tussen planners en bottom-up initiatieven in een aantal belangrijke projecten. Voor elk niveau is een deelvraag beantwoord.\n\n1) Hoe begrijpen en conceptualiseren gemeentelijke planners de ruimtelijke planning en hoe be\u00efnvloedt dit de planning van stadslandbouw in de praktijk? (Hoofdstuk IV)\n\nIk heb aangetoond dat verschillende theoretische conceptualiseringen van planning herkenbaar zijn in de manier waarop planners praten en denken over planning in het algemeen, en over de planning van maatschappelijke initiatieven in het bijzonder. Dit varieert van de Rationele conceptualisering (de basis van de discipline in de vorige eeuw), waarin maatschappelijke actoren het object zijn van analyse door de expert-planner, via Neoliberale planning (focus op de markt) en Pragmatische planning (burgers als lokale experts), tot recente vormen zoals Collaboratieve planning (actoren als gelijke partners) of Poststructuralistische planning (betrokkenheid als mede-scheppers van gedeelde narratieven).\n\nDe crisis van 2008-2014 bood kansen voor deze nieuwe conceptualiseringen. Stadslandbouwinitiatieven die tijdelijk braakliggende bouwgrond wilden gebruiken, werden gefaciliteerd en er werd een beleidsvisie ontwikkeld. In de praktijk waren oude en nieuwe conceptualiseringen echter verweven. Vooral in de stad, met haar complexe stapeling van ruimteclaims, waren sommige planners verontrust over de gevolgen voor hun eigen positie en het functioneren van het huidige systeem. Vragen over verantwoordelijkheid, aansprakelijkheid en representatie speelden hierbij een rol. De betrokkenheid van andere maatschappelijke actoren ondermijnde soms het zelfbeeld van de planner als expert. Initiatiefnemers werden daarom slechts tot op zekere hoogte als gelijkwaardige partners geaccepteerd.\n\n2) Hoe begrijpen en conceptualiseren bottom-up burgerinitiatieven voor stadslandbouw het ruimtelijk ontwerp van hun initiatief en hun rol daarin? (Hoofdstuk V)\n\nHet onderzoek laat zien dat initiatiefnemers vaak sterke idee\u00ebn hadden over de inrichting en het ontwerp van de stad. Dit vertaalde zich in het gekozen actieperspectief en de toegepaste strategie\u00ebn. Het wereldbeeld van de initiatiefnemer was vaak sterk gekoppeld aan de praktijk van het initiatief; zij brachten hun idealen in de praktijk. De precieze definitie van stadslandbouw en de verwachtingen over de bijdrage ervan aan de stad varieerden echter sterk. Dit leidde tot verschillende ambities: van het simpelweg mogen bestaan tot het nastreven van systeemveranderingen in de ruimtelijke ordening.\n\nInitiatieven namen verschillende rollen aan en pasten uiteenlopende planningsstrategie\u00ebn toe, afhankelijk van de locatie en de specifieke omstandigheden. Er konden vier actieperspectieven worden onderscheiden: de actieve burger, de sociale ondernemer, de onafhankelijke ontwerpprofessional en de vertegenwoordiger van een NGO. Deze rollen zijn geen vaststaand blauwdruk, maar referentiepunten.\n\nDit pluralisme en de diversiteit aan stemmen waren essentieel voor de stadslandbouwbeweging in Rotterdam tussen 2006 en 2018. Juist deze diversiteit aan benaderingen biedt creatief potentieel: een experimenteel laboratorium voor ruimtelijke ordening waaruit lessen kunnen worden getrokken. Hun unieke bijdrage bestaat uit het in de praktijk testen van verschillende idee\u00ebn, wat een aanvulling vormt op de kennis van de gemeente.\n\n3) Hoe verhouden de visies op planning van gemeentelijke planners en bottom-up initiatiefnemers en de door hen gebruikte strategie\u00ebn zich tot elkaar, en convergeren of botsen ze bij de realisatie van stadslandbouwinitiatieven? (Hoofdstuk VI)\n\nPlanners en ambtenaren werkten in een spanningsveld tussen beleid en de weerbarstige praktijk. Een kleine groep planners initieerde, met steun van de wethouder, nieuw beleid, terwijl projectleiders op de grond deze ambities moesten waarmaken. Er was behoefte aan maatwerk, maar in de praktijk bleef de afdeling planning vaak steken in een ad-hocbenadering zonder echte beleidsimplementatie.\n\nInitiatiefnemers vonden manieren om om te gaan met deze enthousiaste maar inconsistente overheid. Ze hanteerden situatiespecifieke rollen en strategie\u00ebn, soms bijna als een rollenspel ('good cop, bad cop'), om ruimte te cre\u00ebren voor hun projecten. Opvallend is dat initiatieven die meer steun kregen van planners, zich vaker conformeerden aan traditionele planningsstrategie\u00ebn.\n\nDiscussie\n\nDe casestudy toont aan dat de interactie wordt bepaald door zowel de diversiteit aan wereldbeelden van de initiatieven als de manier waarop de gemeente denkt over planning met bottom-up initiatieven. Een beter begrip van dit pluralisme is een voorwaarde om het potentieel van deze initiatieven te benutten.\n\nEen dialectiek van conceptualiseringen: de pluralistische bijdrage van stadslandbouwinitiatieven\n\nDe bijdrage van stadslandbouw vindt plaats op drie niveaus:\n1) Fysiek-ruimtelijk: fysieke interventies die voedselproductie als functie in de openbare ruimte introduceren.\n2) Professioneel: be\u00efnvloeding van het beeld en de verwachtingen van stedelijk groen.\n3) Politiek en maatschappelijk: het ter discussie stellen van de principes waarop we de inrichting van de stad baseren.\n\nDe interactie tussen planners en initiatiefnemers vormt een 'dialectiek van conceptualiseringen', een proces waarin ruimte wordt gecre\u00eberd voor 'prefiguraties' (het uitproberen van een gewenste toekomst in het hier en nu).\n\nEen parallelle gemeentelijke planningswerkelijkheid\n\nDe integratie van stadslandbouw was geen gemakkelijke taak door de spanning tussen de organisatiestructuur van de gemeente en de vernieuwende beleidsintenties. Men zou kunnen zeggen dat er een 'alternatieve plannings-toekomst' werd uitgeprobeerd: een parallelle werkelijkheid waarin ge\u00ebxperimenteerd werd met Collaboratieve en Poststructuralistische benaderingen. Het lukte echter niet om volledig los te komen van Rationele en Neoliberale kaders die kijken naar rendement en esthetiek. Deze parallelle werkelijkheid bestaat nog steeds.\n\nRelevante conceptualiseringen voor de planning van bottom-up initiatieven\n\nDe lessen uit Rotterdam kunnen leiden tot een meer consistente planning. Er is behoefte aan een groter bewustzijn van co-existerende planningsidee\u00ebn. De prefiguratieve waarde van stadslandbouw is tot nu toe onderbelicht gebleven. Planning zou zich meer moeten richten op het cre\u00ebren van de juiste randvoorwaarden (zelforganisatie) in plaats van op de middelen. Dit vereist vertrouwen van de overheid.\n\nGezien de spanning tussen de systeemwereld en de praktijk, zou de sturing moeten komen van een 'planner als facilitator' of 'curator': een ambtenaar of professional met een mandaat om buiten de gebaande paden te treden. Dit vraagt om een verandering in de werkcultuur binnen de gemeente, met meer aandacht voor langetermijnverbintenis en een goed institutioneel geheugen.\n\nVolgende stappen\n\nStadslandbouwinitiatieven dagen de ruimtelijke ordening uit om anders te denken. Hoewel er structurele beperkingen zijn, laat de studie zien dat het mogelijk is om ruimte te maken voor vernieuwende idee\u00ebn. Gemeentelijke organisaties moeten zich openstellen voor veranderingen in rollen en verantwoordelijkheden. Bij de juiste randvoorwaarden kunnen initiatiefnemers gelijkwaardige partners zijn in planning: creatieve mede-ontwerpers van een nieuwe planningspraktijk waarin het onmogelijke mogelijk wordt gemaakt.","summary":"Problem statement\n\nThe emergence of bottom-up civic initiatives in the first decades of this century poses a challenge for city administration in general and spatial planning in particular. The traditional division of roles between planners who determine the spatial layout of the city on behalf of the government and citizens and other social actors who comply with this arrangement has long been under pressure due to changing insights into how society functions. But bottom-up civic initiatives go a step further. They take matters into their own hands and enter the planner\u2019s territory. The tensions that this creates for urban spatial planning are particularly evident in the development of urban agriculture projects. It is therefore useful and necessary to investigate, analyse and understand practical experiences with this interaction. Until now, this has mostly been done from the perspective of the planning government or from the bottom-up initiators. There are still few studies that have examined this interaction over a longer period of time in a specific spatial context, taking into account both top-down and bottom-up perspectives. This research distinguishes itself by studying the interaction between planners and bottom-up initiators in the field of urban agriculture in Rotterdam in the period 2006-2018.\n\nAim and design of the study\n\nThe aim of this study is to gain insight into the interaction between bottom-up initiatives and government spatial planners in the realisation of urban agriculture projects. It looks at the worldviews and ideas about planning (so-called conceptualisations of planning) that underlie their actions, and how this interaction influences spatial planning, in particular the urban agriculture policy developed by the municipality. The research is designed as a retrospective case study of the practice of spatial planning for urban agriculture in the city of Rotterdam between 2006 and 2018. The case study includes the study of ten prominent urban agriculture projects developed by bottom-up initiatives during this period, and the actions, plans and policy measures of spatial planners with regard to urban agriculture.\n\nIt is a qualitative study that uses interviews with stakeholders in combination with a review of grey literature such as project websites, project plans and local (online) news, and analysis of plans and completed projects.\n\nThe interviews with planners are mainly interpreted on the basis of theoretical concepts from planning theory, while the interviews with initiators have been analysed in a more \u201cgrounded\u201d manner, with recurring themes in the interviews being used to theorise about the possible role of initiators as spatial planners. The information from the interviews and other sources has also been incorporated into a timeline of events and developments that maps the policy-making process around urban agriculture and links it to the development and planning of individual projects.\n\nKey findings\n\nThe interaction between planners and initiators was studied at three levels: 1) the development of strategy and policy on urban agriculture within the Rotterdam planning context; 2) the worldviews and actions of bottom-up initiatives in planning and implementing urban agriculture projects; 3) the interaction between planners and bottom-up initiatives in a number of important projects. A sub-question from the research is answered at each level.\n\n1) How do municipal planners understand and conceptualise spatial planning and how does this influence the planning of urban agriculture in practice? (Chapter IV)\n\nI have demonstrated that different theoretical conceptualisations of planning can be recognised in the way planners talk and think about planning in general and in their thinking about the planning of social initiatives in particular. From the Rational conceptualisation that formed the basis of the discipline in the last century, in which social actors are the object of analysis and solution by the planner-expert, to Neoliberal planning, which focuses on the market and businesses as social actors, and Pragmatic planning, in which citizens are allowed to participate as local experts, to recent conceptualisations of planning such as Collaborative planning, in which social actors are seen as equal partners in arriving at a shared truth, or Post-structuralist planning, in which they are involved as co-creators of one or more shared narratives.\n\nThe crisis of 2008-2014 opened up opportunities for these new conceptualisations of planning. Urban agriculture initiatives that wanted to make use of temporarily available building land were facilitated and a policy vision was developed for this purpose. In practice, old and new conceptualisations were intertwined in the implementation of urban agriculture policy. Particularly in the city, with its complex stacking of space claims, some of the planners involved were alarmed by the consequences of new conceptualisations of planning for their own position and for the functioning of the current system. Real questions about responsibility and liability, support and representation played a role in this. However, the involvement of other societal actors also undermined the authority and thus the self-image of the planner as an expert. Initiators were therefore only accepted as equal partners to a certain extent.\n\n2) How do bottom-up civic initiatives for urban agriculture understand and conceptualise the spatial design of their initiative and their role in it? (Chapter V)\n\nThe research shows that initiators often had strong ideas about the planning and design of the city. These ideas were reflected in the action perspective chosen by the initiators and the strategies they applied in realising their initiative. The initiator\u2019s worldview was often strongly linked to the development and design of the initiative\u2019s practice. These urban agriculture initiatives put ideals into practice. However, the precise definition of urban agriculture, and especially the expectations of what urban agriculture can contribute to the city, varied greatly among the initiators. These expectations translated into different ambitions for what the initiative wanted to achieve in terms of spatial planning.\n\nInitiatives took on different roles and applied a variety of planning strategies in response to both location- and time-specific circumstances and the planning actions, ideas and policies of the municipality. Four different action perspectives could be distinguished, each representing a different attitude towards the government: the active citizen, the social entrepreneur, the independent planning professional and the NGO representative. However, these roles do not constitute a blueprint but rather reference points within a range of different action perspectives.\n\nThis pluralism and diversity of voices were an essential part of the urban agriculture movement in Rotterdam from 2006 to 2018. It is precisely the diversity of approaches in the practice of urban agriculture that offers creative potential; an experimental laboratory for urban spatial planning from which lessons can be learned. Their unique contribution consists of trying out different ideas in practice. The experience and knowledge this yields complements that of the municipality and its planning department.\n\n3) How do the views on planning of municipal planners and bottom-up initiators and the strategies they use relate to each other and do they converge or clash around the realisation of urban agriculture initiatives? (Chapter VI)\n\nThe planners and other civil servants involved in the creation of urban agriculture initiatives operated in a field of tension between planning policy and unruly practice. A small group of planners, with the support of the councillor, initiated new policy, or rather the ambition and narratives that were to lead to new policy, and the people on the ground, often project managers, area managers or members of a neighbourhood team, had to realise those ambitions.\n\nA tailor-made approach was needed to steer this in the right direction, but in practice the planning department remained stuck in an ad hoc approach, without real policy implementation.\n\nThe initiators sought and found ways to deal with this sometimes enthusiastic but always inconsistent government. They actively engaged with different conceptualisations of planning and adapted their action perspective \u2013 as far as possible \u2013 by applying different strategies and associated situated, place- and time-bound roles. They approached their interaction with planners as a role-playing game. With situated roles, they reinforced their strategies to create space for their projects. These roles were used to break through, question or supplement the municipal planning system. The fact that this also has a price is suggested by the fact that the initiatives that were more facilitated by planners conformed more strongly to more classical planning strategies than other initiatives.\n\nDiscussion\n\nThe Rotterdam 2006-2018 case study shows that the interaction between municipal planning and bottom-up initiatives is determined both by the diversity of worldviews and action perspectives of the initiatives and by the way in which the municipality thinks about planning with and for bottom-up initiatives. A better understanding of this diversity and pluralism (multiformity) and a more complete picture of it is an important prerequisite for realising the potential of these initiatives.\n\nA dialectic of conceptualisations: the pluralistic contribution of urban agriculture initiatives\n\nThe plurality of worldviews and action perspectives in bottom-up initiatives in the field of urban agriculture translates into a diversity of ways in which they contribute to urban planning. These contributions take place at three levels:\n\n1) Physical-spatial: initiatives provide physical interventions that introduce food production as a function in the city\u2019s public outdoor space, and in its wake also a place for social interaction and knowledge exchange.\n\n2) Professional: initiatives influence the image, idea and expectations of urban green public space and develop other ways of planning that space bottom-up, from idea to realisation.\n\n3) Political and social: initiatives challenge the principles on which we as a society base the design of space and often implicitly criticise the prevailing social rules and norms. This gives the initiatives a political dimension.\n\nWhen parts of the public outdoor space are designed through bottom-up civic initiatives, spatial, professional and political choices about the design of the city become visible and open to discussion. In this context, food supply is sometimes, but certainly not always, the political theme. It is a broadening of the social debate with spatial means. From this perspective, it is important to give this diversity, this pluralism, a place in the city, regardless of the social and cultural contributions that these initiatives also make.\n\nThe municipal planning of urban agriculture initiatives can be interpreted as a dialectic of conceptualisations. Firstly between different conceptualisations of planning embedded in the municipal organisational structure of which the planning department is a part, and secondly between these conceptualisations and bottom-up conceptualisations of planning. This dialectic between municipal planners and initiators can be seen as the process of creating space for prefigurations in planning, that is is played out in the planning process: in the (strategies of) initiating, shaping and anchoring of urban agriculture.\n\nA parallel municipal planning reality\n\nThe Rotterdam 2006-2018 case study shows how municipal planning sought ways to integrate the emergence of urban agriculture initiatives into the planning of the city. This proved to be no easy task. The reasons for this lie in the tension between, on the one hand, the organisational structure of the municipality and existing policy frameworks and planning practices and, on the other hand, innovative policy intentions in the field of urban agriculture. The diversity of the urban agriculture initiatives themselves also played a role. The ways in which planners dealt with this reflect the different conceptualisations of planning that coexist within the municipality.\n\nOne could say that an \u201calternative planning future\u201d was being tried out, a form of prefiguration of a different way of planning that existed alongside current policy. In this parallel planning reality, Collaborative and Post-structuralist conceptualisations of planning were experimented with in order to get to grips with the diversity and plurality of initiatives. Interpreted as a form of Prefigurative planning its approach can be characterised through three features: 1) the planner as facilitator; 2) a focus on creating conditions; 3) a pluralist multi-disciplinary approach. However, it was not possible to break with the Rational and Neoliberal perspective that attempts to capture the contribution of initiatives in financial terms of yield, revenue model and aesthetic terms of final image and tidiness. The tension between the two had to be constantly mediated by the planners involved, who often adopted a Pragmatic attitude in the implementation of the policy, focusing on the here and now and less on the bigger picture or the long-term vision. The way in which the municipality facilitated initiatives both stimulated and inhibited their innovative character. This parallel reality continues to exist to this day.\n\nRelevant conceptualisations for planning bottom-up initiatives\n\nThe lessons from the Rotterdam 2006-2018 case study can be translated in a number of ways into more consistent and targeted planning of and with urban agriculture initiatives. The study suggests a number of possible lines of thought, each with its own challenges and dilemmas.\n\nThe range of Rotterdam conceptualisations of planning that now coexist are not so much competing ideas as complementary strategies for navigating the current complex reality of Rotterdam planning. Greater awareness of these coexisting ideas about planning, and the implications they have for the way bottom-up initiatives are approached, treated and involved, opens the way for conscious choices to be made about how and when to involve these initiatives.\n\nIn relation to this, the prefigurative value of urban agriculture initiatives has been overlooked until now. Prefigurative planning can be conceptualised as planning that aims to strengthen a city\u2019s resilience by realising and testing possible, and seemingly impossible, futures. Urban agriculture initiatives can play an important role in this, and already do, but they are not always seen in this light, let alone approached in this way in planning. By consciously making room and planning for initiatives that explore possible futures for the city, even or especially if they are critical of current planning, municipal planning can gain valuable knowledge. Planning could focus on creating the right conditions for the emergence of such initiatives (through self-organisation), with less emphasis on use of certain means and more on the goals to which these initiatives contribute. This does require trust on the part of the government and relinquishing a certain degree of control over the end result.\n\nIn addition to the dilemma between control and trust, there is also a tension between equal treatment and equal access to (government) resources on the one hand, and a need for differentiation and tailor-made solutions for initiatives that make a special contribution on the other. A tailor-made approach to initiatives might do justice to the specific character of each initiative, but raises questions to its viability and its legitimacy. It would results in a mosaic of tailor-made administrative arrangements parallel to the traditional municipal planning apparatus. The urban agriculture planning practice studied in Rotterdam already resembles such a mosaic, with the essential difference that it was not guided by a vision; there is no central control from municipal planning. Nor have the lessons learned from various \u2013 sometimes successful \u2013 approaches tried out in Rotterdam been recorded and incorporated into policy.\n\nGiven the tension between this structure and the parallel reality of new inclusive conceptualisations of planning, direction and vision should come from a planning actor who knows how to navigate this tension. This \u2018planner as facilitator\u2019; a civil servant or independent professional, should have personal commitment and a clear mandate to colour outside the lines if necessary.\n\nThis director, curator or broker can act as a representative and guardian of a shared vision, developed together with bottom-up initiatives. Within the framework of such a jointly developed vision, the municipality can collaborate with urban agriculture initiatives on common goals in the longer term. However, a fair, tailor-made approach does require a change in the working culture within the municipality, with long-term commitment from the civil servants involved, a good municipal memory, and scope for civil servants to act in the spirit of legislation and regulations and with a focus on goals. Also, the question of representation and its underlying ideas of democracy needs to be addressed by explicating different ideas about and expectations of democracy and the role of planners and civic initiators in it.\n\nFinally, it is important to remain vigilant about the conforming influence of excessive government interference from planning on the innovative, exploratory nature of bottom-up initiatives.\n\nNext steps\n\nUrban agriculture initiatives challenge municipal spatial planning to think and act differently, but they also contribute ideas about how this could be done and try them out in practice. In doing so, they engage in a form of prefigurative planning that is already being considered in theory but is not yet widely used in municipal planning. Although there are practical and structural limitations, the experiences examined in this study show that it is possible to make room to try out innovative ideas for urban planning in practice, taking into account the complex, multifaceted reality.\n\nIn order for these experiments to find their way into mainstream planning municipal organisations have to open up to changes in the roles and responsibilities of planning and other departments, and commit to the outcomes of these experiments. The implementation of Adaptive framework rules might help to strike a balance between accountability and freedom for civic initiatives to prefigure alternatives. This framework could contribute to the development of a workable interface that in practical terms mediates between surviving in the now and living the \u2018not yet\u2019, and might make the existence of many civic initiators less precarious.\n\nIn any case, under the conditions described above, initiators can be equal partners in planning. It may help if initiators work together more closely. It is not necessary to label them as planners in order to recognise them as creative co-designers of new conceptualisations of planning and of a new planning practice in which the impossible is made possible, even if only for a certain time in a certain place.","auteur":"Paul de Graaf","auteur_slug":"paul-de-graaf","publicatiedatum":"14 september 2026","taal":"EN","url_flipbook":"https:\/\/ebook.proefschriftmaken.nl\/ebook\/pauldegraaf?iframe=true","url_download_pdf":"https:\/\/ebook.proefschriftmaken.nl\/download\/fefa4a4b-f5f2-4a9c-b700-5749e9ea864c\/optimized","url_epub":"","ordernummer":"19303","isbn":"","doi_nummer":"","naam_universiteit":"Wageningen University","afbeeldingen":10602,"video_url":"","podcast_url":"","naam_student:":"","binnenwerk":"","universiteit":"Wageningen University","cover":"","afwerking":"","cover_afwerking":"","design":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/us_portfolio\/23058","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/us_portfolio"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/us_portfolio"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10602"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"university_us_portfolio","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/university_us_portfolio?post=23058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}