Governance of sponge landscapes in sandy uplands of the Netherlands: Between resilience and reluctance

Restoring “sponge” capacity in sandy uplands is a governance challenge as much as a hydrological one. Yet land-use instruments and land tenure dynamics shaping implementation are under-examined. We assess whether governance of Dutch sandy uplands is moving toward resilience or stuck in reluctance, and why. We combine Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development framework with boundary spanning concepts. Two widely debated interventions structure the analysis: raising groundwater levels and influencing agricultural practices for soil vitality. We analysed provincial/municipal/water-board policy documents and conducted 12 semi-structured interviews with officials in Noord-Brabant and Overijssel. For groundwater, rules-in-form (visions, regulations) increasingly favour retention and occasionally translate into rules-in-use through boundary spanning initiatives between provinces, water boards and municipalities. For soil vitality, instruments exist but binding ordinances are absent. Officials cite political sensitivity around farmers’ rights, limited capacity, and uncertainty about standards; concerns over tenure often impede implementation. Governance sits on a spectrum between resilience and reluctance: resilience emerges where boundary spanning activates existing tools; reluctance prevails where actor incentives, institutional fragmentation and land tenure concerns deter regulation. These dynamics unfold within institutional settings that have been changing since the implementation of the Environment and Planning Act. Climate-resilient land use requires (i) converting rules-in-form into rules-in-use via resourcing and leadership, (ii) confronting tenure issues explicitly in soil vitality policy, and (iii) targeted boundary spanning roles to connect agricultural and water governance. These findings are relevant not only to sandy uplands, but also to other landscapes where drainage was historically prioritised to serve agriculture or urban development. • Governance tools exist, but rules-in-use lag behind rules-in-form. • Tenure sensitivities stall soil-vitality regulation. • Boundary spanning advances groundwater retention more than soil reform. • Hybrid governance defaults to minimal action if no strong leadership is present.