Organisations of land managers in landscape management face the challenge of combining the need to foster bonding social capital within their member groups with the need to develop bridging social capital with other stakeholders and linking social capital with public authorities. This paper compares the concepts of self-governing groups, boundary organisations and quangos, to analyse how agri-environmental collectives in the Netherlands navigate their identity in interactions with public authorities and manage potential trade-offs between different forms of social capital. It shows the paradoxical situation that these self-governing collectives have to adopt characteristics of public agencies, in order to meet the demands of the Dutch government and EU legislation, required to gain the trust of the authorities for more room for self-governance. The resulting ‘professionalization’ and enlargement of agri-environmental collectives is likely to reduce bonding social capital, which in turn is an important asset for effective landscape management. In order to prevent this counterproductive incentive of expecting self-governing groups to behave like public agencies, we recommend to nourish and protect the in-between identity of agri-environmental collectives, to acknowledge their variety, and to allow them to be self-governing groups as well as boundary organisations.

中文翻译：

---

身份冲突？农业环境集体作为农民的自治团体或边界组织

景观管理中的土地管理者组织面临的挑战是，将促进在其成员群体中凝聚社会资本的需要与发展将社会资本与其他利益相关者联系起来，以及将社会资本与公共当局联系起来的需求相结合。本文比较了自治团体，边界组织和quangos的概念，以分析荷兰的农业环境集体如何在与公共机构的互动中引导其身份并管理不同形式的社会资本之间的潜在权衡。它显示了自相矛盾的局面，这些自治团体必须采用公共机构的特征，才能满足荷兰政府和欧盟立法的要求，而这需要赢得当局的信任才能有更大的自治空间。由此产生的“专业化”和农业环境集体的扩大有可能减少社会资本的纽带，而社会资本又是有效景观管理的重要资产。为了防止预期的自治团体像公共机构那样行为产生适得其反的动机，我们建议滋养和保护农业环境集体的中间身份，承认他们的多样性，并允许他们自治团体以及边界组织。