Haart

Introduction

This is the report of the first round of conversations about the environmental vision in De Haart subarea. A total of 22 residents participated in the conversation. The conversation was guided by four employees of the municipality of Aalten. The participants gave their prior consent for photographs to be taken and used for the report and placed on the website of the municipality of Aalten for the environmental vision.
Do you have any comments on this report? Please pass them on via omgevingsvisie@aalten.nl.
If you have any comments for the new environmental vision of the municipality of Aalten, please use this e-mail address as well.

What was the purpose of this first conversation?

On January 1, 2024, the Environment Act came into force nationwide. Municipalities must prepare a new environmental vision that meets the requirements of the Environment Act within three years of this date.

One such requirement is that governments must work in a more area-oriented way. Another requirement is that the new environmental vision be drafted together with stakeholders (and thus residents). The municipal council has the final say.

In the period from September to March 2025, the Municipality of Aalten is conducting area-specific discussions about the new environmental vision. A total of twelve subareas have been distinguished in Aalten for this purpose. Three talks will be held per subarea.

For more information, visit www.aalten.nl/omgevingsvisie. 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: De Haart) 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 are the outcomes of this initial conversation, item by item.

Component 1: About the subarea itself

Part 1 dealt with the question of what makes the De Haart subarea unique, different from other areas, and what are points of interest in it. The following was said about this:

Table 1:

• Social cohesion and community spirit (outdoor play, Orange festivals, club life.
• Close community through school, Atlantic, clubs, outdoor play, Orange festivals.
• Space, vastness of environment.
• Small-scale agricultural landscape (wings) interspersed with greenery/nature.
• The Haart has a nice ratio of youth/young families to the elderly. This should be maintained.
• The social factor that the Ring Camp has must be maintained, The Haart is strong in associations, which are run entirely by volunteers.
• Youth return to De Haart from Aalten for club life.
• Agriculture: creators of the landscape.
• There is an ample supply of different homes.
• Maintaining social contacts (Ringkamp).
• Business: agricultural and other enterprises.
• Livability through youth, school and Atlantic.
• Living space (agriculture).
• Peace and quiet, open spaces and vistas.

As areas of concern for the core qualities of De Haart into the future were mentioned:

• Preservation of school and youth center Atlantic.
• Space for agriculture and biodiversity (through wooded banks, field edges, among others).
• Importance of agricultural zoning.
• Youth: Chain are also important (social, networking, learning and solving) - strengthens local appeal with De Haart.
• Conservation of the elementary school.
• How can we provide housing for youth? First step with tiny houses is a great start. But how after that?
• One downside is housing opportunities for young people.
• Transportation for the elderly is non-existent.
• Biodiversity of nature may be increased (flora and fauna).
• Pool close by is nice (Bredevoort) - how is this looked at? Development?

Table 2:

• The Haart has everything: community spirit/ agriculture (intensive land use)/ forest & nature/ growing core/ good education/ Yes "a resident village "
• You live AT De Haart.
• Togetherness, there is something for young to old to do.
• Tranquility, Space, Landscape.
• Landscape - agricultural area - natural values.
• Atlantic and Ringkamp.
• Togetherness, active club life.
• Mixed composition - age population nice balance young and old.
• Social involvement - association life - neighborhood life.
• Facilities for children including school (before and after school care), school in green area.
• Positive is no aging at De Haart.
• Ring Camp Forest is one of De Haart's main green play areas.
• Facilities for youth / adolescents / BSO.
• Livability, quality of life.
• Ringkampsbult/forest, school- playing field, forests, agricultural life.

As areas of concern for the core qualities of De Haart into the future were mentioned:

• Flow-through housing so possibly keep senior housing, freeing up other housing for young families.
• Children should be able to play in greenery, preserve and also maintain forest and greenery.
• Youth Center Atlantic - volunteers are under pressure (especially board positions).
• Build starter homes. But don't build all starter homes in the core, also build them outside the core.
• Retain greenery in new construction project.
• Nature preserve and Ringkampsbult/forest, school- playing field, forests, agricultural life.
• Conservation elementary school.
• Beautiful green surroundings.
• House building for young people and 70+.
• Youth: preserve (elementary) school and Atlantic youth center.
• Facilities for youth / adolescents / BSO.
• Making flow-through housing feasible for Haart people.
• Public order and safety.
• Conservation elementary school.
• Landscape (forest and farms).
• Youth Center Atlantic.
• Youth are active in neighborhood community - so preserved.
• Flowing old and young.

Table 3:

• Space, silence and natural beauty.
• Association building and youth box managed by volunteers.
• Beautiful scenery, togetherness and naoberschap.
• Only hamlet where you live OP.
• The Ring Camp without an administrator, only with and by volunteers.
• The spacing of buildings, non-straight streets and canals.
• Coherent architectural style provides visual harmony.
• Social safety especially for children.
• Fiberglass.
• For some things you have to be a little farther (large cores), which is logical and not an objection.
• Very lively and livable.
• Landscape, 't Möllenveld, Atlantic and the Ring Camp.
• Beautiful location on the border, rolling, beautiful scenery.
• Space - distance between houses/buildings. Maintain this.
• Recreation is balanced with habitation.
• Positives are the sense of belonging, commitment to each other. Festival week in summer is unique. Youth facility Atlantic and community center De Ringkamp (activities).
• The safety (I feel with safe).
• Elementary school is important to neighborhood. Child care preschool, before and after school care.
• Fortunately, no (large-scale) solar parks.

As areas of concern for the core qualities of De Haart into the future were mentioned:

• No housing for young people on De Haart, housing is unaffordable for young people.
• Aging in a few years because the "urbanites" can get housing here "cheaply.
• Space for agriculture: allow agriculture freedom of choice, not impose things.
• Agriculture and landscape in good relationship with future.
• Too narrow roads for agriculture, public transportation not present.
• Elementary school with a future?
• Overpriced housing in core gives concern for starters, 60+ from Randstad gives aging.
• Solar panels only on the roof.
• Telephone coverage.
• Opportunity for recreation too little, bike path - horse trail.
• Work traffic too large vehicles.
• Few new volunteers.
• To keep it lively, young people must stay.
• Despite the 60 km, people drive fast on Haartseweg, among other roads.
• Inner roads too narrow for agricultural traffic, among other things.
• No public transportation, people are not very familiar with it, mostly car.
• School should remain open, important for club life.
• No solar lawns, they belong on a roof.
• Re-purpose existing barns, e.g. houses or other uses.
• Maintain space/distance between houses/buildings.

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. Social cohesion and participation.
2. Housing and development, Basic social services, Agriculture. 
3. Nature and Biodiversity, Livability and quality of life, Landscape quality and values.
4. Cultural Heritage, Sustainability, Climate Adaptation.

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

1. Social cohesion and participation.
2. Housing and development, Nature and Biodiversity, Agriculture, Livability and quality of life, Landscape quality and values.
3. Spatial planning, Health, Exercise-friendly environment, Public space and greenery, Basic social services, Safety, Water management, Image quality and urban design.

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

1. Livability/quality of life, Social cohesion and participation.
2. Agriculture, Housing and development, Landscape quality/values, Public space and greenery.
3. Health/Care/Vitality, Nature/Biodiversity.
4. Infrastructure, Basic Social Services, Cultural Heritage, Climate Adaptation-Water Management.

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

Strand 3 focused on how participants envision the desired living environment in 2024, and what they consider (along that line) desirable and not desirable developments toward the future. The results were as follows:

Table 1:

For Aalten as a whole, desired:

• Nothing appointed.

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable:

• Nothing appointed.

Specific to The Haart, desired:

• Housing: opportunities for young people may be better (too few - not affordable). This is important for new recruitment, to promote retention of youth and young families.
• Agriculture: originally agricultural area (today many people who are farmers or work in the agricultural sector).
• Housing: housing for young people is crucial to keep young people in the neighborhood so that they do not necessarily move to nearby village or town.
• Social cohesion: The Haart runs on volunteers who run the associations (school, youth center Atlantic and Orange Association are important for this).
• Farms: development opportunities in coordination with the neighborhood. Encourage entrepreneurs and keep/keep them here.
• Make living and living easy so that you also enjoy caring and arranging for each other.
• More hiking trails through greenery.
• Better access: connect Haartseweg to Hamelandroute. Within De Haart is good, speed out, is just a risk for slow traffic.
• Street lighting is good as it is, no less - do retain at intersections.
• Protecting agriculture is conservation - nitrogen buyouts are not.
• Basic social services: elementary school, bus stop, Atlantic increase social cohesion.
• Encourage each neighborhood's own identity.
• Farmers as a base for the environment.
• Facilitate entrepreneurs, do utilize space, no vacancy.
• Atlantic: keep the volunteers, train them for this. Keep young people at the wheel.
• Keet and lofts preserved, important social function.
• Large events, tent parties, neighborhood parties
• Social with a sense of community. Looking out for each other, with basic services especially for youth and the elderly.
• Small-scale agricultural green space, livable, sustainable and prepared for climate change.
• Livability, quality of life: preserve school and youth through housing/separation, must encourage/cooperate with municipality.
• Recreation: there is much, enough, something growth can.
• Importance of sustainability: e.g. choices of construction projects, choice of materials, public spaces, stimulation of civic initiatives in this area.
• Biodiversity and nature: project of field edges is example of increasing biodiversity - may be more from me.
• Atlantic: location is good, make it sustainable asap, school and Ringkamp should be kept here and keep growing, is very important - more young people in De Haart.
• Maintain relationship between young and old by organizing activities, volunteering - doing things together.
• Increase housing opportunities for young people: investigate whether vacancy or willingness to sell to the community to creatively deal with living space, for example, by converting empty farmhouse into multiple studios.

Specific to The Haart, undesirable:

• No data center.
• No new housing development, no high-rise buildings, when red for red: no demolition for new construction, must fit into the landscape.
• Aalten: not expanding neighborhoods De Haart in.
• German neighbors: landscape preservation, so no wind turbines on the border.
• No windmills, no solar farms (may be rooftop).
• No large-scale recreational parks (small-scale is).

Table 2:

For Aalten as a whole, desired:

• Nothing appointed.

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable:

• Nothing appointed.

Specific to The Haart, desired:

• Conservation elementary school. 
• No energy parks. 
• New housing for the young and elderly (generation yard, simplify splitting, care homes). 
• Maintain natural/agricultural distribution.
• Old barns, stables demolish living space back. 
• Maintaining greenery.  
• Recreation: padel court central to Ringkamp. 
• Facilities for recreation such as playground, indoor park, indoor sports, skating rink. 
• Care facilities: such as elderly day care combined with children (shelter) to combat loneliness. 
• Maintaining togetherness, caring for each other and with each other. 
• Maintain own policy - implementation - influence (i.e. no large companies and institutions that will manage the area (such as nature organizations, windmills, solar parks)). 
• Diversity of layout area, agriculture and nature and housing. 
• Ring camp, Ring camp bumps/forest should remain. 
• School and greenery around it, BSO and childcare (0-4 years) - Möllenveld elementary school and BSO. 
• Atlantic should stay. 
• Utilities - power feed back etc. 
• For quitting farmers: red -for- red for a few houses. 
• Meaningful repurposing after cessation of business. 
• Small-scale tourism (BenB). 
• Core more robust through (social) housing development. 
• Preserved Ring Camp Forest/Ring Camp. 
• School Möllenveld + daycare kids. 
• Atlantic. 
• Child care 0-4 years at Möllenveld. 
• Greenery - Views - Space. 
• No residential neighborhood, shore trees but 5 max homes. 
• Acquisition companies, young people, schemes + 
• Atlantic and Ring Camp Elementary School 
• What to do with the business of farmers who quit? 

Specific to The Haart, undesirable:

• No industry. 
• No solar parks (just put it on the roof). 
• No windmills. 

Table 3:

For Aalten as a whole, desired:

• Employment and infrastructure to keep Achterhoek interesting. 
• Public transportation and industry. 
• Maintain population even with young (professional) population, this because of facilities (maintenance). 
• Mobile outreach in the border region. 
• In healthcare, we are much further ahead than Germany. 
• As an elder, I attach great importance to the regional hospital in Winterswijk. 
• We are asking for housing for young people, but do we have jobs/livelihoods for highly educated young people, for example? 

For Aalten as a whole, undesirable:

• Nothing appointed.

Specific to The Haart, desired:

• 2040: The school still exists, along with Atlantic and The Ring Camp.
• Build limited housing, especially for young people.
• Good accessibility, including for care.
• Agriculture and nature go well together, farmer earns a good living.
• Living court with multiple generations, duty of care -on local part care (grandfather - child - grandchild).
• No new residential sites - existing building upgraded, barn becomes home is sustainable.
• Solar panels on roofs and not on the ground/pastures.
• Maintain livability and greenery.
• Better and accessible care.
• Desired is essentially the appearance of development, i.e., additional housing in current yards.
• Not enough youth is a concern, make housing splits easier.
• New housing at the cores should be affordable family or starter homes.
• Agriculture - not just small plots, also preserve larger plots.
• Preserving space for business development such as a new barn should be possible. It is an agricultural area and should remain so. Also important for preserving the current landscape.
• Preserve the appearance of old buildings (farms).
• Energy generation on rooftops and small-scale wind turbines.
• Nurture cultural heritage.
• Digitize elder care, cluster senior housing?
• Flow-through housing (starter - family housing - senior housing).
• Seniors - continue to live in smaller homes, preferably in the core, thus making way for families.
• Better care with request for aids and maintenance/repair of them (takes a very long time now).
• From WMO easier application and re-designation of care. 

Specific to The Haart, undesirable:

• Concern about how livestock production is developing, will there be far fewer farms?
• What happens to agriculture (land)? Sustainable agriculture? Other use for the land?
• Concern over colossal wind turbines on the border in Germany.
• Concern about aging and care housing for the elderly and young people and transit.
• How will we meet our energy needs?
• How does the age structure relate to housing needs? There are many older people now who will not be there in 10-15 years - what and how much to add (a few years ago we were a shrinking community).
• How is air and water quality maintained or improved - including drinking water?
• How do you keep people willing and able to volunteer?

Date of second interview

The second discussion in and about subarea Haart will take place on Wednesday evening, November 13, 2024, and will again take place in association building De Ringkamp, from 7:00 to 9:30 p.m. (walk-in from 6:45 p.m.). Then we will discuss specific choices to be made, because we also have to take into account policies of other governments, legal and financial constraints, et cetera.

Looking forward to seeing you then!

Report 2nd round of environmental vision subarea De Haart

• Date: November 13, 2024
• Time: 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
• Location: De Ringkamp, De Haart, Aalten

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 De Haart. A total of about 20 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.

Learn more

See www.aalten.nl/omgevingsvisie. You can find all reports of all conversations held (including in other subareas) there.

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 for the discussions, participants were then presented with a number of thought-provoking statements.
• 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 discussion of the (up to five) issues was conducted in 3 different subgroups, at 3 different tables, under the guidance (per table) of two municipal staff members. The outcomes of these group discussions were as follows:

Energy supply issue

On the one hand, many do not want more windmills and preferably no solar panel fields; on the other hand, energy demand is only increasing, insulation and solar on roofs alone do not provide enough, and we (nationwide) want to be energy-neutral by 2030 at the latest (i.e. generate as much energy as we consume ourselves). 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

• Disagree, not every area is suitable to be self-sufficient.
• No rejection of De Haart as energy supplier.
• Larger scale seems like a stronger decision economically.
• Also backstop for other areas, for each other.
• Disagree, municipal resolve; larger wind turbines in same location (Dale).
• Agreed, does not seem to me to be a problem for De Haart; leads to thrift and solidarity.
• Self-generate own energy needs with solar and wind, plus storage capacity.
• Disagree; much energy comes from outside the region, due to location (offshore wind etc., nuclear power etc.).
• As such, I don't think shearing off is OK; I see nuclear power as a good solution/addition (in the longer term); and panels and windmills are visually polluting; besides, our area is windless.
• Government/municipality should make financially possible for those with less money.
• Storage/battery subsidies.
• Procedures take endless time; 1 person can stop a windmill.

Table 2

• Disagree, jointly responsible.
• Disagree, it needs to be bigger in scope; nuclear power plant could be an option; and fill roofs with solar panels first.
• Disagree, some areas are better suited to large-scale outreach; but do as much as possible yourself.
• Agreed, because vice versa you wouldn't want them to get energy from here either if it's not for ourselves.
• Disagree, national policy needed; windmills and solar farms take up a lot of space that is scarce anyway; nuclear power can be an alternative; and of course be economical with energy.

Table 3

• Disagree, can be done, but then they will first have to make the grid heavier; plus enable feed-in and storage of energy.
• Technology must improve, plus affordable insurance.
• Agreed, we are doing this together; Liander may still take a big hit with the grid; and it is not affordable to buy batteries to be self-sufficient.
• I think we are on the right track in terms of solar panels etc., but a shame that net-metering was abolished.
• In an ideal world: Agreed; technology already makes a lot possible; the question is, however, whether we should necessarily want to be self-sufficient; that also makes us vulnerable; and furthermore, what is needed above all is a reliable government that does not keep coming up with something else.
• Agreed, with solar on rooftops; windmills and solar farms would be unnecessary.
• Agreed, with government having to be reliable and coordinate and facilitate; energy companies make or break the possibilities.
• Agree, but proportionately; certainly look at it nationwide as well. 

Climate change issue

Due to the changing climate, we are facing 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 ash trees 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

• B, Holland is good at keeping its head above water; at A, it becomes too rigorous.
• B, what is reasonably achievable, mainly preserve; don't go out of your way to implement it.
• A, I think it is inevitable that we have to adapt to climate, given the severity of climate change(s).
• There is no point in fighting a losing battle; it seems to me to be a case-by-case issue.
• B, The Haart is conveniently located; current infrastructure is important for livability; room for water if needed; but what makes economic sense?
• A, climate change is a fact; unsustainable not to adapt to it; for example, give rivers enough space.
• Earth fundamentalism goes way too far; too disruptive to livability and totally unrealistic economically.
• Moving with the climate; trying to control it a little bit in creative ways.

Table 2

• B, specifically for this area (high altitude) it is not so difficult to control this.
• A and B; partly adapt, partly maintain current land use.
• A in the case of new developments (new construction, etc.), but B to be able to change gears as quickly as possible with as little (fuel) consumption as possible.
• B, climate is always changing; with weirs or drainage we can already control a lot.
• A, if possible; but I think B is more realistic; after all, it doesn't seem to me that companies want to give their land to nature.

Table 3

• Didn't get around to it anymore.

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 to the elderly as much as possible, so they can stay where they live for as long as possible (e.g. by making it easier to split houses, generational inheritance, arranging good transportation et cetera)?"
The answers were as follows:

Table 1

• B, more generations in community can help each other; however, should not become an obligation.
• Where feasible; facilitate seniors in a 3-generation yard; where not feasible: create group facilities.
• No duty of care.
• A, care must remain affordable; centralizing then is more efficient/cheaper.
• Prefer to bring care to the elderly; I think in many cases a little care is already sufficient; that care can be provided from the immediate environment; but don't tax it!
• B, voluntariness is the starting point, plus self-reliance (as long as hospital care is not required); good public transport facilities are then essential; also prevent loneliness; connect generations.
• B, wellness of the elderly is important, is good for health; further for maintaining livability in the outlying area (mix of young and old); provides opportunities for youth to have residence at De Haart.
• Mobility, transportation, public transport, cab etc. important for self-reliance.
• Policy is there for people, not the other way around.

Table 2

• A, nursing homes again as before; is cheaper, plus facilities, stores etc. closer; due to aging population fewer and fewer caregivers, so arrange as efficiently as possible.
• A, because by doing so you also counteract social isolation.
• B, keep people in their own environment as long as possible; make splitting homes easier, including for informal care homes; supported by use of modern technology, robotization, self-driving transportation et cetera.
• A, on a voluntary basis; bundling seniors together in senior housing/apartments is practical for caregiving and for other amenities; also, seniors in cores can often remain independent longer due to short(er) distances to amenities; plus more social control by the neighborhood.
• B, older people in general like to stay in their own environment as long as possible (and never move old trees!); us knows us, looking out for each other; one service is worth another.

Table 3

• B, opportunities should be arranged for this; work should be better divided between employer and caregiver; this arrangement and shaping should be facilitated.
• B, the elderly should be able to enjoy their "Haart" as long as possible; to be arranged through neighborhood care, regional cab, etc. provided this is achievable in families; but should be encouraged from the government; plus continue to support informal caregivers.
• B, in the sense of: people should have their own choice; the elderly themselves also have a role in paying, networking and being mobile enough; but A is the solution if B cannot be realized for affordable care.
• B, elderly people should be able to live with each other and/or with the children.
• B would appeal most to me, but there needs to be investment on both fronts, because older people should have a choice
• B, maintain mixed company in cores and outside; then more is done with each other and for each other.
• Keep good mix of young and old; youth keeps older people young(er) too.
• Government/municipality can provide financial relief to family caregivers.

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 jobs, 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 answers were as follows:

Table 1

• Didn't get around to it anymore.

Table 2

• Agreed, all development needs space; the population is growing, which is another reason why additional space is needed; of course, with a finger on the pulse, because things must not get out of hand.
• Agreed, I don't think you can get out of it; employment and livability mean transportation to and from work et cetera.
• Partly agree, but everything in proportion; economy must be increased, so it will (have to) be partly at the expense of peace and space; but up to a certain limit!
• Disagree, growth should never be an end in itself; important is the balance with the environment; and in terms of tourism, the Achterhoek does not have to become an amusement park; good living remains important.
• Disagree; everything needs more space; my preference then is not employment if at the expense of peace and safety; but also agree: increasing livability creates more people and that is good.

Table 3

• Agree, because employment essential, also for livability (but not if it requires additional external labor).
• Disagree, dependent on activity, tranquility and traffic safety are important; activity may grow with it, but not out of control.
• Agree, but activity must fit into the landscape (agriculture, recreation, etc.).
• Agreed, but depends on what activity.
• Agreed, but not at the expense of traffic safety and fitting into the landscape.

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 maintaining our landscape and adding 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 with this statement fairly quickly, some tables were asked the additional question of which investments in the landscape should be made first.
Responses were as follows:

Table 1

• Disagree, do not add more; do add more/better maintenance.
• Agreed, nature must recover, emissions must be reduced; without that, new nature makes little sense.
• Less intensive agricultural activity needed.
• Add nature OK, but then as long as it does not become a large(er) burden.
• Agree, provided lots/plots are preserved.
• Use CAP funds/premiums for maintenance of wooded banks etc.
• Disagree, no investment needed from the government; farmers manage the landscape; don't sacrifice farmland for nature; can also go well together (wooded banks, hedges, etc.); involve farmers in management.
• Agree, the bee is indispensable for generations to come; under current conditions, nature is in bad shape; strengthening biodiversity is badly needed.
• Agree, water storage and climate adaptation important; promote and encourage small-scale farming; and people should be willing to pay more for their food.

Table 2

• Preserve nature that is there now.
• Agree, strengthen existing for biodiversity etc; SAAP, field edges etc.
• Invest in maintenance and preservation of existing nature and give appreciation (government) for it as well.

Table 3

• Beware of all recreational trails; do so at edges and give nature space.
• Agreed, but that does not require hectares to change in nature; and what is the baseline measurement? Are rules being changed in the meantime, making it worse? We should all do something for nature, but not go overboard. And nature should be (better) maintained, although people think not; maybe leave it with the farmer in exchange for subsidies? Because those are the people with experience.
• Agreed, and then do provide/facilitate the opportunities.
• Disagree, because no additional restrictions on mainstream agriculture.
• Agreed, but the outlined decline is up for debate for me; is made bigger than it really is.
• Disagree, I doubt that nature is deteriorating; on De Haart there is a small-scale landscape; investing in it is good, but above all let the landowners decide for themselves; after all, farmers are the creators of the landscape.
• Farmers must be able to produce food security; supply determines price; also make sure minima can continue to afford it; it's about balance.
• Agreed, preserve, improve, maintain is an important part, but could be a lot simpler in my opinion.
• Preserve landscape, but not at the expense of food security and affordability; moreover, different for each group as to what diversity is important.
• EU and national rules make it increasingly difficult to provide customization; more/better consultation with owners/residents of the area is needed.
• Do not leave it to TBOs such as Natuurmonumenten, Staatsbosbeheer, etc., because they mainly go for their own interests.

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.