Barlo

Introduction

This is the report of the first round of talks on the environmental vision in Barlo subarea. A total of 54 residents participated in the conversation. The conversation was guided by four employees of the municipality of Aalten.
Do you have any comments on this report? Please pass them on via omgevingsvisie@aalten.nl. If you have any suggestions for the new environmental vision of the municipality of Aalten, please also use this e-mail address.

What was the purpose of this first conversation?

On January 1, 2024, the Environment Act came into force nationwide. Within three years of this date, municipalities must draw up a new Environment Vision that meets the requirements set by the Environment Act.
One of these requirements is that governments must work in a more area-oriented way. Another requirement is that the new Environment Vision must be drawn up together with stakeholders (and thus residents). The municipal council has the final say.
The municipality of Aalten is conducting area-oriented discussions about the new Environmental Vision in the period from September to March 2025. A total of twelve subareas have been distinguished in Aalten for this purpose. Three talks will be held per subarea.

Visit www.aalten.nl/omgevingsvisie for more information. You can find all the pieces (photos report, explanatory presentation) by sub-area here.

What was the format and format of this first interview?

This first interview consisted of three parts:

1. a short conversation about what makes the subarea (in this case: Barlo) unique, different from other areas, and what points of interest it has for the future;
2. a short conversation about topics (themes) in the living environment that the participants consider most important for their own subarea or for Aalten as a whole (top 3) in the future;
3. a somewhat longer conversation about how participants envision the desired living environment in 2024, and what they think (along those lines) are and are not desirable developments toward the future.

The conversation was conducted in three different subgroups, at three different tables, under the guidance of one employee of the municipality.

What were the outcomes of this initial conversation?

Below by section one the results of this initial conversation.

Component 1: About the subarea itself

So in section 1, the question was about what makes the subarea unique, different from other areas, and what are points of interest in this. The following was said about this:

Table 1:

• Nice balance between agriculture, housing and nature.
• Barlo has its own school (must be preserved).
• Rolling landscape (eastern Dutch Plateau).
• Association Building Groot Deunk.
• Green environment/nature.
• Childcare 0-4 years.

Table 2:

• Accessibility (as long as it is maintained it is sufficient, you also lean on the neighbors).
• Innovative forms of energy generation (e.g., in conjunction with agriculture).
• Roofs with solar panels (solar carports) - industrial site, Lichtenvoordsestraatweg also offers space Wind energy/mills on industrial site (generate where it is used).
• Willingness to move from large home to a smaller one.
• Realize housing around the core.
• Plan favored by people from Barlo - rent and buy, over 30 homes Barlo's courtyard. 
• Energy infra must be reinforced, otherwise you cannot dispose of self-generated energy and not be profitable.
• Amenities: what you're looking for here is here, and otherwise nearby.
• Possibility in zoning plan in core Barlo to build in for example 2 á 3 building layers. apartments, suitable for elderly people - location Markerinkdijk/ Lichtenvoorde.
• Room for initiative, for example, informal care in the farmyard.
• Senior housing, housing splits and starter homes.
• Residential development - right side to insert road to Sweenen (on map oblique to core Barlo).
• Plan for 16 homes at discontinuing pig farm (Rotink) (shown on map).
• Rather live smaller here than anywhere else, like to live among the youth.

As points of interest for the core qualities of Barlo into the future were mentioned:

• School is small (+), also attracts children from other cores (because of small scale).
• Ensure that it is retained (school) - depending on emphasis, also encourage out-of-school care (BSO).

Table 3:

• Social cohesion, naoberschap, cooperation.
• Beautiful area, fine habitat, no rest area please.
• Unique landscape, central location (between Aalten, Lichtenvoorde and Bredevoort).
• Elementary school.
• Agricultural habitat maintenance initiative.
• Rolling landscape with ash trees and country roads, nature in conjunction with agriculture.
• Agriculture combined with nature.
• Housing construction sufficient to maintain facilities.
• Sustainability.
• This participation.
• Borough costs - municipal costs (taxes?).
• Neighborhood activities.

Component 2: On the main topics toward the future 

Part 2 asked for the topics (themes) in the living environment that the participants consider most important for their own subarea or for Aalten as a whole. They were asked to indicate their own top 3 on a list of 24 topics in the living environment (ranging from noise, water etc. to building, infrastructure, agriculture and nature). The results were as follows:

Table 1: (most often mentioned, in order):

1. Residential development and construction.
2. Livability and quality of life.
3. Social Services.
4. Nature/biodiversity.
5. Economy and employment.
6. Landscape quality/values, leisure economy/tourism, agriculture.
7. Mobility/traffic safety, safety, land use & soil quality, cultural heritage, waste management/circular economy, archaeology/cultural history values.

Table 2: (most often mentioned, in order):

1. Residential development and construction.
2. Education.
3. Agriculture.
4. Nature/biodiversity, infrastructure, technological innovations, landscape.
5. Spatial planning, water management, landscape quality, basic social services, leisure economy/tourism/energy supply - renewable energy.

Table 3: (most often mentioned, in order):

1. Residential development and construction.
2. Livability/quality of life, agriculture.
3. Social cohesion/participation, economy and employment, scenic quality/values, education.
4. Water management.
5. Spatial planning, mobility & traffic safety, sustainability, safety & social safety, nature & biodiversity, energy supply and renewable energy, soil and soil quality.

Component 3: What is and is not desirable toward the future

Component 3, then, focused on how participants envision the desired living environment in 2024, and what they consider (along those lines) desirable and undesirable developments toward the future. The results were as follows:

Table 1:

For Aalten as a whole, desired:

• Conservation of heathland ('t Klooster) and 't Goor (nature reserve) i.c.m. agriculture.
• Preserve space/nature.

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable:

• Not additional windmills, but invest for this at sea or the IJsselmeer.
• No large-scale solar parks, but panels on large buildings (encourage/mandate).
• No higher wind turbines.
• No solar parks
• No expansion of wind farms.
• Accessibility municipality inadequate.

Specific to Barlo, desired:

• Preserve space/nature (3x mentioned).
• Allow additional dwelling on large yards (mentioned twice).
• Retain school in Barlo and child care (mentioned twice).
• Expand with after-school/pre-school care (to retain youth/families in Barlo).
• Continue to invest by building/splitting homes.
• Making it easier to split homes/ tiny houses/mantle care home (taking care of each other).
• Split existing buildings for multiple residences/entrepreneurs.
• Attention to cultural buildings/farms: watch out for decay.
• Making landscape iconic through the hedge project (this attracts tourism, provides a beautiful habitat and sequesters_CO2 ).
• Beautiful wooded areas along the meadows.
• Own solar panels, available grid (grid congestion).
• Affordable housing for youth.
• Senior housing for advancement.

Specific to Barlo, unwanted:

• Do not expand existing windmill area (mentioned twice).
• No higher wind turbines to replace existing ones (3x mentioned).
• No solar parks (3x mentioned).
• Noise pollution in Barlo from shooting range (clay pigeons) and the windmills, therefore not more windmills.
• No AZC.
• No windmills.
• Noise nuisance due to (clay pigeon) shooting range (opening hours 8:00-20:00). Nuisance increases due to closure of other shooting ranges (year-round New Year's Eve) [received anonymously].

Table 2:

For Aalten as a whole, desired:

• Hospital Winterswijk retained.

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable:

• Nothing appointed.

Specific to Barlo, desired:

• Existing landscape, additions that enrich the landscape, rural look.
• Ash trees - iconic elements.
• Community spirit, associational life, businesses.
• Social connection looking out for each other.
• Zilverbeek (never runs dry).
• School.
• Lots of togetherness (Orange Society).
• Different landscapes (altitude).
• New tree planting.
• Orange association/school/club/music.
• Large agricultural area with necessary nature (good balance).
• Compact core with little possibility of expansion (negative aspect?).
• Association life + linking business with society.
• Doing things together/being there for each other.
• Agriculture.
• Social society.
• Small school, but there is a school.
• Many associations that are active.
• Openness - height differences.

Specific to Barlo, unwanted:

• Sneak traffic increases.

Table 3:

For Aalten as a whole, desired:

• Nothing appointed.

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable:

• Nothing appointed.

Specific to Barlo, desired:

• Space for agriculture.
• Livability - inclusion in Barlo, preserve livability, naoberschap is strength Barlo "weij do it together".
• Residential development from the core northward.
• Starter housing affordable.
• Build housing high and dry, promotes circulation. And put the soil in its power. Farm where it belongs, on the rich scenic esses.
• Traffic safety, as well as keeping it passable for agriculture (thresholds gone).
• Also all amenities in outlying area.
• Affordable housing for people from surrounding areas (not rich people from the west who have no connection to hamlet)
• Ample opportunities for advancement.
• Young and old in balance for the future.
• Mobility for the elderly.
• Applaud agricultural nature initiatives, preserve girdles/essenes (Market Model).
• Housing development need not be mandatory only in the core.
• Enforcement 60 km or 30 km.
• Conservation elementary school.
• Good mix between young and old, opportunities to continue living, looking out for each other. Social bonding Barlo.
• More starter homes, certainly not overpriced homes.
• Affordable housing for first-time buyers, sufficient for the Barlose population.
• Careful use of space - character Barlo must not be lost.
• Living and working in the countryside should remain possible.
• Liveable agricultural policy and profitable.
• Maintain rural character - small core.
• Split housing for youth or elderly (as in Germany).
• Raise taxes on dairy and meat to compensate the livestock industry, that way the farmer can scale down.
• Leaving landscape intact.
• Making room for starters - letting people move on in core.
• Infrastructure for the future, ensuring good power delivery/delivery.
• Good water management i.e. climate.
• Flow-through and affordable housing or housing splits.
• Livability and tolerance, so also party tents, being able to harvest and ride motorcycles - the Achterhoek should not become a silence area for city dwellers.
• Maintaining school.
• Maintaining Naoberschap, being ready for those less fortunate
• Youth should be able to stay and not be forced out.

Specific to Barlo, unwanted:

• No wind farm.
• No forced scaling up - numbers is not a goal. Income is a goal. Agriculture must remain in balance.
• No red for red new construction at demolished farmhouse, but at the core.
• Tourism asks too much of residents.
• Agriculture must remain profitable, so no obligations of nature that are not paid for.
• No solar panels on farmland.

Date of second interview

The second discussion in and about subarea Barlo will take place on Monday evening, November 4, 2024 and will again take place in association building De Markerink, in Barlo (19.00-21.30 hours). Then we will discuss specific choices that have to be made because we also have to take into account policies of other governments, legal and financial restrictions, et cetera.

Looking forward to seeing you then!

Introduction

The municipality of Aalten faces the task of creating a new environmental vision for the entire territory of the municipality together with its residents. One of the ways we do this is by engaging in area-specific discussions with our residents and other stakeholders about what they consider important for the future of their own living environment.

This is the report of the second conversation in and with subarea Barlo. A total of about 40 residents participated in the conversation. The conversation was guided by 6 employees of the municipality of Aalten.

Do you have any comments on this report? Please pass them on via omgevingsvisie@aalten.nl.
If you have any suggestions for the new environmental vision of the municipality of Aalten, please also use this e-mail address.

What was the purpose of this second conversation?

In the first round of interviews, we retrieved (1) what residents find typical about the subarea in question, (2) we retrieved what living environment topics are seen as important(st) toward 2040, and (3) we asked about desirable and undesirable developments toward 2040.

In the second round of interviews, we mainly collected opinions on issues we presented: If we have to choose between A or B, which do residents prefer and why?

How was the format and format of this second interview?

The second interview consisted of the following components:

• Welcome to 2040: Upon entering, all participants were given a post-it with their age in 2040 taped on, followed by a brief presentation on what our world might look like in 16 years.
• The project manager then explained the how and why of the environmental vision, what the first round of discussions yielded and the intent of the second round.
• As a warm-up to the discussions, participants were then presented with a number of thought-provoking statements, which were voted on with pink and blue cards.
• Participants then went into groups to discuss up to 5 issues:

1. Energy supply
2. Climate Change
3. Housing and care
4. Activity in relation to peace and quiet
5. Landscape, biodiversity, water quality

• Plenary wrap-up and look ahead to the sequel.

What were the outcomes of this second conversation?

The conversation on the (up to five) issues was conducted in 4 different subgroups, at 4 different tables, under the guidance of an employee of the municipality. The outcomes of these group discussions were as follows:

Energy supply issue

On the one hand, many people do not want more windmills and preferably no solar parks; on the other hand, energy demand is only increasing, insulation and sun on roofs alone do not provide enough, and we want to be energy-neutral (i.e., generate as much energy as we consume ourselves) by 2030 at the latest. The proposition presented on this line was as follows:
"We will not shift our own energy needs to another area." Agree or disagree?
The answers were as follows:

Table 1

• Agreed. Small-scale solutions can contribute to the challenge. Does cost a lot of money (so subsidy essential).
• Agreed. Looking at where things go well, fit and can be done, but not 1 area completely "filling up", do make a good division between urban and rural.
• Not "postage stamp thinking," but taking a big approach.
• Agreed, and the opportunities do exist in Barlo; the big(er) problems/challenges are more in the business parks and in the large(er) cores; and also look at nuclear power (stable energy source).
• Agreed. We need to make sure we don't become dependent on third parties anyway.
• Disagree. Energy is going to be mostly a combination of solar, wind and nuclear and you don't micromanage that, but anything that you can do yourself, you should do of course.
• Agree, because our energy needs are only increasing, so then take responsibility. Looking at joint storage of energy and building buffers that can be used in winter(s).
• Agree - achievable through rooftop solar, small wind turbines and local energy storage.
• Government should stimulate and facilitate, not complicate unnecessarily about permits etc. and above all invest in the energy network (infra, cabling etc.).

Table 2

• Agreed, but then this applies to all hamlets, villages and towns.
• Agree, with deployment of solar on rooftops (not solar parks).
• Agree and disagree; agree, at least force the Lianders to connect the rooftops; disagree, because wind turbines should be placed as much as possible clustered at sea and the IJsselmeer.
• Disagree, because by doing so, we actually encourage fragmentation.
• Agreed, because I think we can pretty well regulate that need for energy ourselves, tuned of course to what we need.
• Once, via small wind turbines, solar on rooftops.
• Agree: technology is moving fast, more and more possible; solar on roofs, install small wind turbines yourself.
• Using home batteries.
• Government/municipality needs to stop swerving policies; it needs to be much more consistent, much more long-term.
• Invest in network!
• Government/municipality should encourage and facilitate, including with subsidies.
• Put wind turbines along highways and in the median strip of highways.

Table 3

• Agreed, no problem with solitary wind turbines.
• Disagree. Build a good atomic power plant or hydrogen plant, put wind turbines at sea; do solar on roofs and provide energy storage.
• Disagree. Put windmills where there is the most wind and try to generate as much as possible especially there.
• Agreed, we should strive for zero energy homes and businesses.
• Agreed, we should want to be independent.
• Agreed, we solve our energy supply ourselves, with solar panels on roofs and possibly battery storage.
• Agreed, with its own energy storage.
• Agree, with help in funding local plans.
• Agreed; good intention, but whether it is achievable? No idea.
• Agree, individually meet energy needs; solar panels as yard fencing, wind energy via vertical turbines ("wokkels").

Table 4

• Disagree; build a nuclear power plant.
• Consider search areas properly; do nationwide.
• Agreed, but not on farmland; solar mainly on roofs of large farms etc.
• Disagree, excite where it is most profitable; so macro look and arrange.
• Disagree, rely on developments.
• Agree, commit to energy hubs, home storage etc.
• Agree and be creative; think also of floating solar panels, for example.
• Agreed, but proper incorporation is prerequisite.
• Storage needed, both individually and collectively.
• Hydrogen at home?
• Question is: How do you get through the winter? Energy storage needed.
• In addition to self-generation, generate together (e.g., zip code rose).
• Renting out roofs of agricultural farms to install solar panels; no interest in it yet, been working on it for 3 years.
• Technical basics need to be in order before you start coming up with ideas.
• Continue Hagenwind (infrastructure, everything is in place) and involve Barlo residents (as co-owners, but also for support).
• Government/municipality should relax rules, make procedures less complicated, and encourage development of technology (innovation).
• Government/municipality must commit to sustainability, but also raise awareness (can include field trips to small-scale self-sufficient units/communities); show what is possible and help with application.

Climate change issue

Due to the changing climate, we face more and more weather extremes: more frequent periods of extreme drought/heat, more frequent periods of flooding. The choice presented on this line was as follows:
"A. We adapt our land use to the changing climate (such as agriculture and housing, for example, on high dry ashes and the very wet soils we give back to nature) or B. We make every effort to preserve and protect the current use of land, for example, with drainage, raising dikes, pumping dry, sprinkling, etc."
Responses were as follows:

Table 1

• Agreed, we have to.
• Only for new construction could/should this be steering.
• Agree and so innovate.
• Disagree, because I wonder if the ground is that bad.
• Agreed, but after thorough research; and first see if it can be done with minor modifications; plus especially look at new construction.
• Agreed, because life and nature do not adapt; besides: homes are subsiding due to desiccation, so we have to.

Table 2

• Once, manage water well.
• Agree, because water management is essential; but disagree, because farmers do adapt.
• Water board must be able to control water levels; direct more.
• Agreed, sounds logical, but too little knowledge of it.
• Commit to disconnection, deeper gutters, draining water to ponds (storage), drainage.
• More water storage, WADIs, etc.
• Consider climate and water management much better in new construction.
• Government/municipality should encourage, facilitate, including with subsidies.

Table 3

• Agreed, will happen naturally, but changes are slow.
• Agree, the condition of the land should be leading, otherwise it is not profitable and livable.
• Agreed, adapt to the climate as much as possible.
• Agreed and unfortunate that this thesis exists (that we still have to talk about this).
• Agree, because nature does not allow itself to be influenced (mentioned twice).
• Once and inventive use of soil.
• Disagree, land use naturally changes as the climate changes.
• Disagree, we are quite capable of optimizing and using space.
• Once, water and soil should be guiding; build dry and grow fertile moist.
• Disagree, but it must be taken into account and we are already doing that in Barlo.

Table 4

• Agreed. Encourage organic farming; hinges on economic feasibility; but leave it mostly to people who have knowledge/understanding of it!
• Disagree. You have to be directive in land use, or we will soon have insufficient land.
• Agreed, because the climate does not adapt.
• Both are needed, as is already apparent after this extremely wet year, but above all let people choose what suits them.
• Agree, commit to crop rotation, tillage without plowing, circular farming, water retention etc.
• Make it economically attractive to farm and cultivate land in balance.
• Thinking about which system is best suited in a particular area.
• Water board and farmers need to work even more/better together.
• Encourage households to use water and wastewater responsibly.
• Government/municipality should provide education on crops, soil and water use.

Housing and care issue

Many young people find it difficult or impossible to find suitable and affordable housing. Seniors want to move on, but where to? If senior housing must be built for this flow, where do we prefer to put it? As much as possible in their own immediate surroundings? Or as much as possible in the vicinity of facilities on which the elderly often depend at a late(er) age? The question/choice we presented on this line was as follows: "A. Do we bring the elderly toward facilities as much as possible? Or B. Do we bring facilities toward the elderly as much as possible so that they can stay where they live as long as possible (e.g., by making house splitting easier, generational inheritance, arranging good transportation et cetera)."
The answers were as follows:

Table 1

• Commit to generational yards etc., but should people not have such a wide network/family, then to the cores; and more space for young people in the outlying area.
• Nicest would be if there is/will be a parents' square in Barlo, a care hotel or the like; but also make it possible/easier for care housing to come with existing buildings.
• Bringing seniors toward facilities creates flow and opportunities for starters; but no coercion; if seniors prefer to stay in their places as long as possible, try to support that as long as possible.
• Make it easier to split large farms, etc., and provide more senior housing clustered in Barlo.
• A mixture of both would be best, with an elderly-care center in Barlo, because by doing so we maintain a mixed society (of young and old); but also, with new techniques, look at how people can continue to manage themselves for as long as possible.
• If the elderly want it, then more toward the core; key to that is faster access to more complex care; and make generational inheritance etc. especially possible and easy.

Table 2

• Depends on the request for help.
• Preferred A; how will B be paid?
• Preferred B; commit to generational yards, split homes, etc.
• B, looking after the neighbor, jointly reading the newspaper, etc.
• B. Especially use technology that promotes self-reliance.
• B. Younger elders pick up medicine for older elders.
• Municipality/government should especially educate well about staying vital, sports etc.
• Elderly gym in community center.
• Maintain good mix of young and old; young and old living together, plus senior citizens' courtyard(s)/generational courtyard(s).
• Making splitting homes easier.

Table 3

• B, generational inheritance, care close by.
• B, do not force elderly people to leave their places.
• B, more generational housing.
• B, generational yards, young and old living side by side.
• B, take care to the people and do it with modern techniques.
• A, for efficiency and flow, the non-self-reliant must give way.
• B, young and old people mix; this may also make child care easier to arrange.
• B, the elderly would not have to live together in the core.
• B, allow the elderly to live in their places as long as possible, but facilitate home exchanges with younger people.
• B, because the choice must remain personal.

Table 4

• When clustering senior housing, do make sure there is something in return; such as better care.
• B, with babysitting for (grand)children in exchange for informal care.
• B, leveraging technology for care.
• B, because there must remain a healthy mix of young and old (i.e. oldies do not move to the cores).
• B, but then also provide starter homes in the hamlets.

Issue of business activity in relation to peace and quiet

Economic activity is important for the quality of life, but activity (including tourism) is sometimes at the expense of the peace and quiet and the space that are so characteristic of the Achterhoek and that many Aalten citizens want to preserve. The proposition presented on this line was as follows: "To increase employment and job opportunities, we must give more space to business activity, even if this is at the expense of peace, space and (traffic) safety. Agree or disagree?"
The responses were as follows:

Table 1

• Agree, but in balance; surely this should be possible together; and with priority for the companies already located in Aalten and Barlo; no space for new companies.
• Agree, but in a good connection with the environment; and create "incubators" (can also be in barns).
• Agreed, but tourism may reach a limit for me at some point; use space for housing/businesses.
• Agree, because business activity provides work and a future for the area; but in proportion to the surroundings; and do like to have ties to Barlo (no data center, for example).
• Agree, because activity brings life; do preserve business use of old farms
• Agreed, but it should be delineated; small business owners should be given room to flourish; and never take business zoning off of businesses without knowledge/consent!
• Agreed, because an empty countryside is not alive and has no future; we must do it together.
• Municipality should be easier with permits to use existing buildings (even if temporarily) for business.

Table 2

• Agreed, provided that space is available, and then do look carefully at the type of activity.
• Disagree, unless high quality and an important addition, appropriate to the surroundings.
• Agree, but appropriate to the environment (i.e. tourism, orchards, etc. but no industry).
• Agree, because important to keep Barlo livable, but always in balance with.
• Disagree, or in moderation, but peace and space are very important; and less road safety does not seem desirable to me.
• Agreed, as long as they are businesses with at most limited nuisances.
• The government/municipality should allow more small-scale initiatives (SMEs), not hinder them.
• Better look at accessibility and traffic flow, because people need to be able to leave busy areas as quickly as possible.

Table 3

• Agreed, I think by 2040 we will have no choice; it is inevitable.
• Agreed, if you want to preserve business activity and jobs.
• Agreed, because employment is important.
• Agreed, because activity is important to keep society going; but all in proportion.
• Disagree, businesses centralized as much as possible, not dispersed; and only businesses connected to the area.
• Agree, because business activity is important, but only clean business and fit in well.
• Agree, because employment is important for livability.
• Agreed, because if the hamlet is to remain livable, especially for young people, space will have to be made for businesses.
• Disagree, because for businesses we have business parks in Aalten.
• Disagree, because there is already plenty of activity; people need a reason to stay and for that they need peace, space and road safety.

Table 4

• Wider zoning of "agricultural buildings".
• Agree, because employment essential to livability; but not necessarily expansion.
• Agreed, but business activity does also create an influx of workers from outside and that also affects the identity of the area.
• Agreed, but would like to see activity broader than just traditional businesses; consider culture and childcare as well.
• Agreed, but also beware of subversion.

Landscape, biodiversity and water quality issues

In the first round of discussions on the environmental vision, it was often expressed that the landscape should be preserved as it is. At the same time, the landscape is under pressure and is even deteriorating. See for example biodiversity, water quality but also beech trees that die because the soil is too wet, ditches that for a large part already lack life, et cetera. In short, "keep it as it is" does not seem sufficient. The proposition presented on this line was as follows:
"We need to invest in maintenance of our landscape and add landscape elements (such as wooded banks, ditches, footpaths, trees, thickets, etc.) and switch to nature-inclusive agriculture to preserve our landscape, promote biodiversity and improve water quality.
Agree or disagree?"

Note: Because many agreed fairly quickly with this statement, some tables asked the additional question of which investments in the landscape should be made first.

The answers were as follows:

Table 1

• Agreed, because things need to be different, but agriculture itself is already innovating.
• We need to consume differently, wanting to pay higher prices for food.
• Disagree, because current agricultural management is already much better; substances used are already not as harmful as people think.
• Disagree; it can co-exist; see nitrogen-fixing crops, among others, which also help improve biodiversity.
• Disagree, can't because of food security.
• Disagree, agriculture can still innovate a lot, including through precision farming and farm-by-farm innovation.
• Agree, because can't stand the world market and developments in agriculture are moving fast.
• Disagree, the water comes from Germany, so how to improve that? Besides, agriculture knows how to deal with nature well, in fact goes well with nature/biodiversity.
• Disagree, because people should be able to keep eating. We are already on the right track.
• At least not even more coercion.
• Government can help stimulate collective innovation.
• Above all, government must involve people who know about it, who have their feet in the clay; not chamber scholars!
• Be economical with the sector and the knowledge in this sector itself.

Table 2

• Disagree, rules are not made from practice (bureaucracy).
• Adjust agriculture only in conjunction with Europe and no importation of products that have to comply with fewer regulations.
• Disagree, but I think something has to be done, but not as rigorously as they are doing now. It would have to be done at all levels, including industry (see Tata and other big polluters in the chain).
• Disagree, look at polluting industry first.
• Agree, above all use much less pollutants and poisons, because then nature can recover and the consumer has to accept that we eat cucumbers only in summer (because in winter we have to import them); plus look at picking gardens, extra flowers and plants, making our own hedges etc.

Table 3

• Didn't get around to it anymore.

Table 4

• Didn't get around to it anymore.

How to move forward?

After the second round of meetings we will describe all input (including policies of other governments, etc.) into one integral, coherent and as concrete as possible concept/proposal for an environmental vision, in which for Aalten as a whole but also for the individual subareas is indicated what the desired and undesired developments are towards 2040 and (in outline) how we want to realize the desired living environment in 2040. With this concept/proposal we will first return to the subareas in a third and final round, asking: What do you think? Only then will we take the draft environmental vision to the city council.

NOTE: This third and final round of discussions on the environmental vision will NOT be March 2025, but a bit later in the spring! You will be notified of this at a later date.