In general there are two different situations in terms of how the Spencer and the Regge cases manage private property aspects within their project development and implementation. In the Spencer, voluntary agreements are made with landowners to alter aspects of their property (and generally use) for the benefi t of the restoration. Whereas in the case of Regge, they work through voluntary land purchase and exchange agreements and change the ownership of the area where the desired changes in land use are needed (most often ultimately into the hands of a nature management organization). These different approaches can be seen to happen for a few reasons. In the Regge case there is a generally higher level of funding (as mentioned above), however more importantly private property owners have a stronger position in the Canadian context in terms of actions that the government can take on their property. The historic usage of large scale land reconsolidation and land expropriation in the Netherlands has provided a different context within which the two bodies see each other as compared with Canada. Even though the land expropriation tool that is available as a regime characteristic is most often publicly forsaken to benefi t the open mindedness of landowners towards the offers made, the mere concept of “land ownership” is somewhat less a self-evident right in the Netherlands than in the Canadian case. In the Canadian case the accepted statute of limitations is one example of the state’s limited ability to interfere with private land use.