||In the Netherlands, the view of Green-Blue-Infrastructure (GBI) originally focused on the requirements for nature conservation at a national level, and developed to include nature conservation from an international perspective and conservation of nature in the face of climate change. In recent years, the perspective of the GBI has come to include the functional aspects of GBI at local and regional level. With this new perspective, researchers in the Netherlands have been trying to determine how the effectiveness of the GBI in providing services could be maintained or increased by management and planning. In the Netherlands, the green-blue infrastructure is composed of three different elements: protected nature areas, ecological corridors and the finer network of elements in the regional landscape. The GBI was originally aimed to conserve biodiversity by connecting N2000 sites with ecological corridors, where the latter should allow biodiversity to migrate from degrading habitats to new habitats. In more recent years, the interests for the GBI have shifted to the functional dimension, the societal use and the acceptance of the GBI. Given the high population density, there are many managers of the GBI in the landscape (farmers, NGO’s, nature conservation agencies, regional authorities) all having different priorities. Thus to increase the effectiveness of the GBI, it is important to determine which services should be considered and what these services require from the GBI in terms of spatial cohesion, type of habitat or type of management of the elements. In this presentation, two case studies will be presented. Firstly, an example will be presented of farmers in the South West of the Netherlands whom, instead of seeking to increase production at the individual farms, decided to collaborate on a regional level to increase the effectiveness of the GBI for pest regulation. To increase the effectiveness, Alterra helped them to identify how they could increase the spatial cohesion of the GBI and the enhance quality of the habitats (Steingrover et al., 2010). Additionally, a wetland case study will be presented that includes multiple targets for the GBI: i.e. water regulation, biodiversity conservation, quality of the landscape and sustainable agricultural production; and included the relevant stakeholders farmers, local authorities, national authorities and inhabitants. In this region the benefits from GBI could be considered individually, but to increase the effectiveness of the GBI for the whole region, all targets should be looked at simultaneously in order to identify the synergies and compromises (Steingröver et al., 2011). Due to changes in politics, policies and allocated budgets, the regional commitment for GBI is increasingly becoming important in the Netherlands. The most optimal spatial cohesion and management of GBI is crucial in maintaining its role in nature conservation. Although considering the multiple targets for GBI simultaneously may lead to compromises in the optimal maintenance of the GBI for nature conservation solely, it allows for an increase in nature-friendly-areas which would otherwise not likely to be achieved. References: Steingröver, E.G., W. Geertsema, W.K.R.E. van Wingerden (2010) Designing agricultural lanscapes for natural pest control: a transdisciplinary approach in the Hoeckse Waard (the Netherlands), Landscape Ecology 25: 825-838. Steingröver, E.G., S. van Rooij, M. van Eupen (2011) Adaptation of landscapes to climate changes, presentation at the 8th world IALE meeting in Beijing August 2011. Paper to be submitted.