ABSTRACT
The project initiators could in principle choose to set the project up under various types of agreements or “rules of the game”: voluntary on a case-bycase basis, a voluntary “area development” process or more legally specifi ed forms of land reconsolidation. The last option was deliberately not chosen and only the fi rst two were used. A setting that on the one hand appears to be “stronger” with more public authority (legal land reconsolidation) can be on the other hand perceived as risky and confl ict prone. Preventing opposition is now regarded as superior to overcoming opposition. The nearby experiences where such processes under the traditional rules-ofthe-game were implemented took up to 20 or 30 yr. Instead, in Diepenheim they tried to “dissolve” rivalries through a voluntary approach that would not evoke fear and preliminary anger and instead tried to create win-win package deals that would satisfy all stakeholders.
