Circular governance in Buiksloterham
An exploration into the implications of circular governance on the societal distributions
of responsibilities in the energy sector of the Buiksloterham
By: Job Prins Student number: 11880333 Under supervision of: Jaap Rothuizen
University of Amsterdam Date: January 10, 2021 Total words: 8214, excluding figures
Abstract
This thesis took an explorative approach in trying to uncover the implications of circular governance on the societal distribution of responsibilities. Research took the form of a case study
on the energy sector of Buiksloterham. The research question reads: “What implications does circular governance have on the distribution of societal responsibilities within the energy sector of the Buiksloterham?” In order to answer this question information was gathered by analyzing governmental documents and conducting interviews with relevant actors. This thesis drew the following conclusions. Firstly, circular governance creates new responsibilities at the local level and makes experimentation and innovation become essential. Whilst Buiksloterham as a whole is considered a living lab, there still is a distinction between conventional and unconventional
spaces. Conventional spaces mostly utilize already established centralized energy structures whereas unconventional spaces incorporate more experimental forms of decentral energy structures. To facilitate innovation the municipality opts for a steering approach where they over-reach their subjectivist responsibility somewhat by offering supportive tools. However, the
responsibility and residual risks of experimentation are ultimately still carried by non-governmental actors. Trust was found to be the driving force behind responsibility with accountability, in turn, acting as the most important source of trust. Unconventional spaces lean more towards informal collectivist notions of accountability whereas conventional spaces tend to take a more formal subjectivist approach by forming partnerships. These partnerships could
prove to be problematic as they can cause technological lock-ins of suboptimal technology. Lastly, this thesis identified a subjectivist turn in the government’s interpretation of circular governance which appears contradictory to the current governance structure of Buiksloterham.
Table of contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ...
1Chapter 2: Theoretical framework
...32.1 Governance ...3
2.2 Circularity ...4
2.3 Responsibility ...5
Chapter 3: Methods
...73.1 Nature of research ...7
3.2 Data collection and analysis ...9
3.3 Ethical considerations ...11
Chapter 4: Case description
...124.1 The Buiksloterham ...12
4.2 The energy sector ...14
Chapter 5: Results
...155.1 The new responsibilities of circularity ...15
5.2 Buiksloterham’s need for innovation ...16
5.3 Different spaces, different responsibilities ...17
5.4 Trust, partnership and potential lock-ins ...19
5.5 Changing interpretation of circular governance ...22
Chapter 6: Conclusion
...23Chapter 7: Discussion
...25References
...26Appendix I: Coding schedule
...291
Chapter 1: Introduction
In order to meet national, and by extension European, climate goals the Dutch government is seeking to reduce its emissions by restructuring governance so as to enable sustainable future development (Rijksoverheid, 2020). To achieve this the Dutch government often coins the term of initiating a “circular economy.” The main focus of such a circular economy is on the use and reuse of resources. To more efficiently allocate resources, a circular economy is based on three central principles. Firstly, processes are to be made more efficient which makes them less resource intensive. Another principle is that resources that are used or reused should come from sustainable sources. Lastly, new products should be designed with the intent to be multipurposed and reusable. These principles are echoed by the municipality of Amsterdam as the basis for their sustainable urban development (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2020).
As the driving principles behind such urban development change, so too changes the perspective on how governance is interpreted. In essence, the way (democratic) governance is conducted is legitimized by being accountable and therefore trustworthy (Pellizzoni, 2004). This is achieved by placing different responsibilities across a wide spectrum of actors throughout a society. Traditionally, most responsibilities in governance were put on governmental institutions. However, as Bevir (2008) identifies, from around the 1980s and onwards the way governance is interpreted has changed in two major ways. Firstly, governance started to adopt more neoliberal principles as it embraced privatization of facilities and enterprises which were formally state-owned. This was done as corporations were perceived to more efficiently provide its services in certain sectors. It effectively provided corporate entities with a set of newly acquired accountabilities and thus responsibilities in governance. The second change is the activation of civil society in the process of governance. Giving civil actors more responsibilities was seen as a way of involving more citizens in political decision making; therefore making governance more inclusive. More recently, since around the year 2000, the idea of actively engaging private citizens themselves in governance has garnered increasing attention in both media as well as politics (Van Houwelingen, Boele, & Dekker, 2014).
Recent urban development trends have put civil and corporate responsibility to the fore in in helping facilitate circularity. Whilst policy documents stress the importance of broad societal participation in circular development (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2020), they fail to paint a picture of the general attitudes that civil and corporate entities have in regard to their changing roles and thus responsibilities in such a circular region. This poses a problem as responsibilities are meant to keep actors accountable. If there is no support base among actors, then there will be little to no
accountability. Current circular economic models presuppose actors’ capability and willingness to participate and be responsible. Whether such assumptions are realistic in a practical context remains largely unknown. Moreover, there is uncertainty in regard to the innovative potential of the roles and relations that are appropriated by societal actors (Municipality of Amsterdam, August 2020a).
2 This is important as innovation is pivotal for the creation of successful circular urban structures. That is why this thesis makes an attempt at uncovering both the roles and attitudes of relevant actors in circular governance. It does so by looking at the urban redevelopment project of the Buiksloterham. This specific case is a living lab which aims to become a fully circular region (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2015). The Buiksloterham is relevant to the thesis as the redevelopment relies on new forms of circular governance in order to function properly. Incorporating all facets of circular governance from the Buiksloterham creates a collection of data that is too broad to be effectively interpreted. Therefore, it is important to further demarcate the research topic. As sustainable sources of energy are essential to the existence of a circular region, the energy sector of the Buiksloterham was chosen as the focus of this research.
This thesis will take a qualitative approach on the topic of responsibility in circular
governance. Firstly, it will develop a theoretical framework on the concepts of circularity, governance and responsibility. The framework acts as the foundation for the subsequent analysis on how
responsibilities are impacted by circular governance. This analysis will concern the perspectives of governmental, civil and corporate actors. In order to understand the roles of actors and the attitudes towards their roles, interviews will be conducted with people that are representative of relevant governmental, civil and corporate actors within Buiksloterham’s energy sector. Comparing the perspectives of actors will allow for the illumination of potential friction and or opportunity in the newly crafted field of circular responsibilities. Knowing where common ground can and cannot be found within a specific context will boost chances of more efficient and successful circular urban development (Bevir, 2008). The corresponding research question therefore becomes: “What
implications does circular governance have on the distribution of societal responsibilities within the energy sector of the Buiksloterham?”
3
Chapter 2: Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework will explain the 3 core concepts: governance, circularity and responsibility. It seeks to give an understanding of what these concepts entail and how they relate to each other. This section lays the theoretical foundation on which the topic of this thesis is further explored.
2.1 Governance
In order to understand the implications of governance on the distribution of responsibilities it is important to firstly get a firm grasp on the concept of governance itself. Traditionally governance is equated to the way in which a government uses its power in governing a state or region. However, the term has gradually shifted towards a more multifaceted approach to governing. This has been achieved by accommodating for non-state actors such as corporations and citizens who influence the way in which is governed and therefore contribute to governance (Choudhury & Ahmed, 2002). Governance essentially is the conglomeration of current paradigms that are expressed in shaping the idea of how should be governed. This definition already implicates the everchanging dynamic nature of
governance. Responsibility and power (sometimes but not always mutually exclusive) are allocated to different actors in a society with the goal of legitimizing governance by fostering accountability and trustworthiness (Pellizzoni, 2004). The shape of governance is therefore dependent on the context of a society itself.
Effectively analyzing the distribution of responsibilities within a society firstly requires governance to be conceptualized as multifaceted and dynamic. This recognizes that non-state actors have a role in governance and that these roles can change over time through contention and
cooperation. Due to this dynamic nature, it is therefore important to attune the concept of governance to the context that it is being studied in. Perspectives from actors on whom ought and ought not be involved in governance differ from region to region. Such regional dependency in governance structures is the reason for this theoretical framework to focus on contextualizing developments observed in Dutch governance specifically.
A central change in governmentality is the shift in the role of government. Where government used to have more of a hands-on role in governance by being accountable through its institutions, they now opt to take a more facilitative approach. This retreat of governmental institutions creates an institutional void which is filled by non-state actors who are supported by facilitatory government practices. Bevir (2008) identifies this as a shift in which the government concedes its role as a “rowing” actor towards one that is engaged in “steering.”
4 2.2 Circularity
In context of Amsterdam’s governance the concept of circularity has been articulated through the principles of the Doughnut Economics suggested by Kate Raworth (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2020). The Doughnut Economy model seeks to find a balance between social and planetary
boundaries. It aims to promote a social foundation based on factors such as health, energy, food and education whilst staying within planetary boundaries such as freshwater use, climate change and biodiversity (Raworth, 2017). In order to relieve planetary stress a circular economy applies three main principles consisting of smaller subprinciples to their resource use. The first principle is “useful application of materials.” This principle covers recovering and recycling of materials that would otherwise be discarded as waste. The second principle “extend the lifespan of products and its parts” stresses the importance of repairing and reusing materials. The last principle “smarter product use and manufacture” focusses on decreasing the use of materials by increasing general efficiency in
production processes as well as making more intensive use of materials through shared use (Kirchherr, Reike & Hekkert, 2017).
In order to build towards a successful circular economy current structural practices need to be reworked or reimagined entirely. As these driving forces behind an economy shift, so too does governance (Skelcher, & Torfing, 2010). The introduction of circular principals requires
environmental considerations to be more thoroughly integrated into governance. However, developing circular governance is not a unilateral process. In stride for integration, the concept of circularity itself becomes subject to governance. Leading principles for circularity have been interpreted through the lens of the current governance paradigm which is characterized by the shift of responsibilities towards non-governmental actors. As a result, the responsibilities in facilitating circular development are often placed on citizens and corporations. Circular governance should therefore be understood as the collective interpretation of all societal accountability within the confines of its circular principles.
5 2.3 Responsibility
Responsibilities play a pivotal role in circular governance as they illustrate how regulatory structures are supposed to function from a given governance perspective. How responsibility is understood can be approached in multiple ways. Namely, from a subjectivist as well as collectivist dimension. The subjectivist approach sees responsibilities as a property that one actor (subject) has towards another. These subjects are held accountable by laws and or norms that they are subjected to (Goodhart, 2017). The collectivist approach on the other hand suggests that such a conceptualization is too simplistic as it only concerns identified subjects. This approach advocates for understanding responsibilities in the context of a broader “sphere of responsibility” which operates outside the boundaries of existing regulatory frameworks. It therefore enables the identification of responsibilities between actors which are not formally defined and illuminates potential contestation through processes of responsibilization (Savini & Giezen, 2020).
Combining these two approaches allows for an analysis that includes the responsibilities of institutionalized and non-institutionalized actors whilst understanding that the positions of these actors are constantly contested and reimagined by responsibilization. Redefining actors’ responsibilities goes both ways. An actor can either take on more responsibilities upon itself than it is formally obliged to by emphasizing its collectivist responsibility. This is called over-stretching. The redefinition can mean that an actor overtakes responsibilities that were formerly attributed to another actor which can result in contestation of the claim. When faced with changing responsibilities an actor can also decide to fall back on its formal responsibilities. Here the actor distances itself from its collectivist responsibilities by highlighting its subjectivist responsibilities. If multiple actors recognize that there is a problem outside their subjectivist responsibility but within their collectivist responsibility, then it becomes possible to cooperate and engage in joint-responsibility (Savini & Giezen, 2020).
The responsibilization of non-governmental actors in the paradigm of circular governance has and will continually reshape the sphere of responsibility. In order to accommodate for circular
principles certain actors will need to redefine their subjectivist and collectivist responsibilities through either contestation or cooperation. According to Bevir (2008), for effective policy implementation it is essential to have a constant process of communication and negotiation. Space for such bargaining practice lays mostly within an area of overlapping collectivist responsibilities as these offer room for normative and non-institutionalized interpretation of whom ought to have certain responsibilities which thus enable deeper forms of negotiation.
6 Visualization of responsibility
Figure 1: an adapted recreation of the figure from Savini & Giezen (2020). It is a simplified template of an imagined scenario for the responsibilities of two actors. The dark green area represents
subjective responsibilities of the blue actor that are contested by the red actor’s collective
responsibilities through the process of governmental over-stretching. Here the light-green area has the most potential for efficient cooperative efforts as it is situated in both actors’ collectivist responsibility.
7
Chapter 3: Methods
The methods chapter explains how the research was approached. It starts of by explaining the nature of the research and what its specific units of analysis are. After which the means of collecting and
analyzing data will be discussed. The chapter finishes with a reflection on the ethical considerations that were made for this thesis.
3.1 Nature of research and units of analysis
Amsterdam’s policy documents stress circular governance as the foundation for urban development and therefore governance. These documents however fail to illustrate the societal impact that this type of governance has. As explained in the introduction, the goal of this thesis is to illuminate the
distribution of responsibilities in the social fabric of circular governance and to identify how spaces in this context are shaped as a result of this.
Uncovering the nature of these aspects requires an explorative approach into the subject of responsibilities. Hence a qualitative approach has been chosen for this thesis. Here grounded theory is used as the foundation for research. This implies the application of both deductive as well as inductive reasoning (Bryman, 2016a). The thesis first builds a clear and consistent theoretical framework in order to minimize biased interpretation of data. This part of the thesis is mostly deductive as it subtracts meaning from already established scientific theory. The consequent analysis of data on responsibilities takes on a more inductive character as this part of the thesis uses data gained from fieldwork (interviews) in order to synthesize conclusions which add to the scientific body of knowledge on circular governance and societal responsibilization.
In order to analyze societal responsibilization the thesis focusses on five relevant actors which function as its units of analysis. The first actor is the municipality of Amsterdam. This governmental actor plays a defining role in determining policy principles and their implementation. As a result, they heavily contribute to the shaping of governance and thus to the division of responsibilities. The second actor is Schoonschip which is an owner association characterized by its experimental approach to incorporating circular principles. This organization is a form of decentral housing. In response to a changing form of governance that strides towards circular principles, these associations consisting of individual citizens are required to play a more proactive role in governance. The third actor is housing corporation de Alliantie. As a centralized housing provider they play a relatively big role in the construction of the physical world in which governance is practiced. The fourth actor is Westpoort Warmte. They are a centralized heat provider which supplies a large amount of Buiksloterham’s energy demand in the form of industrial residual heat. The fifth and final actor is Firan. An actor which seeks to find a foothold in Buiksloterham by introducing sustainable technology in the form of decentral heating systems. The context of circular governance has implications for all these actors due to the fact that it requires them to take on new responsibilities or offload old ones.
8 As governance should be understood as a dynamic process, it is pivotal to incorporate the interplay between all involved actors. Therefore, to make useful conclusions, the perspectives of all five actors are required in analyzing responsibilities in circular governance.
The thesis uses a case study in its research design. Meaning that the subject at hand is studied in the context of a real-life example (Bryman, 2016b). The societal distribution of responsibility is a complex phenomenon as it is dependent on many contextual variables. It is intrinsically linked to governance which itself is subject to the context in which it is practiced. In order to effectively study distributional shifts in responsibilities it is therefore important to work with the uniform context of a single specific case. This thesis has chosen to look at the energy sector in Buiksloterham. The case study has an embedded nature as it gains insights by involving multiple relevant actors from within the case and relates them to the overarching context of circular governance. The Buiksloterham is a representative case. This means that the case offers a specific context in which the typical nature of that which is being researched is present (Bryman, 2016b). For this thesis, the energy sector of the Buiksloterham acts as an example of the broader trend in which circular principles are incorporated into governance practice. The case of Buiksloterham’s energy sector allows for the contextualization of how circular governance is structured in practice whilst also offering insights into how such
9 3.2 Data collection and data analysis
This research makes use of triangulation in its data collection which entails that it utilizes various methods of collecting data. Using triangulation will offer a more detailed and accurate analysis which bolsters the validity of the research results (Bryman, 2016a). Specifically for this study, forms of both desk research and fieldwork are employed. The first part of the research will be based on desk
research. Here scientific literature is used in order to establish a theoretical framework using the concepts of circularity, governance and responsibility. The second part of the desk research is
collecting and bundling policy and legislative documents which are relevant to (circular) governance. This offers insights into how governance and by extension responsibilities fit in the municipality of Amsterdam’s vision on the circular governance of the Buiksloterham case study. In addition to this, data will be gathered by conducting semi-structured interviews. Such interviews are structured around certain relevant topics. In the case of this thesis these topics will focus on identifying the formal and informal responsibilities of the interviewees and their perception on how these responsibilities ought to be distributed. Using semi-structured interviews allows for an analysis with a higher degree of validity and reliability as it seeks to gather data by sticking to a central structure whilst at the same time considering the perspectives of the interviewees (Bryman, 2016a).
This thesis opts to find its respondents by making use of purposive sampling. This means that the interviewees are not chosen at random, but rather are specifically selected due to the representative position they hold. A representative sampling method is used in order to bolster the external validity of data and thus results (Bryman, 2016c). This method of sampling holds true for all interviews. For the municipality of Amsterdam Iris Voorwerk from Sustainable Development Amsterdam North was interviewed. The interview with de Alliantie was done by Jürgen Klaassen who is responsible for the company’s area development. On behalf of Schoonschip an interview was conducted with the resident Markus Schmid. Project director Martin Buijck spoke for Wespoort Warmte. And finally, Firan was represented by business developer Brenda Schoumans. The first goal of these semi-structured interviews was to get a grasp on the general layout of Buiksloterham’s energy sector. The other aim was to find out if and how circular governance shaped societal structures of responsibility. This broad approach meant that as information was gained this was reincorporated into the topics and questions of the next interview.
10 Due to the explorative and (mostly) inductive character of this research, this thesis does not utilize sub-questions. As the research topic is very sensitive to the context in which it is studied, this research focusses on relevant subjects instead. Which subjects are relevant has been identified on the basis of either the literature or through the conducted interviews. Here circular governance in
Buiksloterham acts as the starting point which contextualizes the subsequent topics. On theoretical grounds subjectivist and collectivist responsibilities were recognized as essential subjects.
Additionally, the interviews illuminated the importance of governmental support, trust and partnership. In accordance with these subjects the interviews have been thematically coded in the qualitative data analysis program ATLAS.ti (see appendix I for the coding schedule). Doing this allows for the extraction of relevant data from the interviews. Using concentrated data from specific topics consequently enables for a constructive analysis on the implications of circularity on the governance structures within Buiksloterham.
11 3.3 Ethical considerations
In order to conduct transparent research all sources mentioned must be retraceable. Documents must be correctly referenced so that they can be identified by readers. In addition to this, documents should not be locked behind a passwords or other means of selective blockage (Bryman, 2016d). Conducting interviews also brings up ethical considerations regarding informed consent and anonymity. Letting participants know to what research they contribute and how information that they give out is used is essential in establishing informed (and thus ethical) consent (Bryman, 2016e).
Measures have been taken in order to insure informed consent from the interviewees of this thesis. Firstly, permission is asked for the recording of interviews. In addition to this, participants are briefed about what the research entails and how their interview can potentially be integrated into the results. Before the publication of this thesis participants are given a copy of their interview transcript and quotes that are used in the results section. Interviewees can identify elements from the transcript such as: statements, names or other personal information which can be requested to be deleted or edited. These elements are marked as “[redacted]” in the transcript. Doing so safeguards sensitive information and thus allows for partial anonymity where necessary.
In light of the current global pandemic, interviews have been conducted following the official Dutch COVID-19 guidelines (Ministry of General Affairs, 2020) in order to harbor the safety of the researcher as well as that of the interviewees. This has resulted in all five interviews being done digitally via Zoom.
12
Chapter 4: Case description
This case description is meant to give context to the specific case used in this thesis. It is split into two parts. The first part gives a brief overview of Buiksloterham and the role that circularity plays within it. The other part gives a general overview of the Dutch energy sector focusing mostly on its
legislative and organizational structures.
4.1 The Buiksloterham
Buiksloterham is located in Amsterdam North. It used to be a large-scale industrial site which, through its pollution, had put substantial strains on the surrounding environment. Around the 70s and 80s the area started to deindustrialize which made way for less intensive (industrial) activity. In late 2006 the municipality of Amsterdam decided to redevelop this area into a more sustainable mixed space for living and working. The concept of sustainability in the redevelopment project took the fore in the “Manifest Buiksloterham” (2015) which captured the vision of circular development. The document acted as a conglomeration of commitments from a variety of actors in the Buiksloterham to the ambition of such a circular vision.
The Manifest effectively introduced the basis for circular forms of governance in the
Buiksloterham. This new approach was reinforced by converting the Buiksloterham into a living lab. Being a living lab allowed the development of the Buiksloterham to be more experimental. As in practice this status allows for specific innovations to be implemented which under normal
circumstances would be disallowed due to regulations. The recently published reevaluation of the investment plan for Buiksloterham (Municipality of Amsterdam, August 2020b) acknowledges that the Buiksloterham area can play a role in fulfilling Amsterdam’s need for housing. Currently there are over 1900 residences. This number will be expanded upwards to the Buiksloterham’s maximum potential of approximately 8575 residences in the future. The Reevaluation also acts as a sharpened assessment framework on the incorporation of circular principles in urban development.
In summary, the Buiksloterham is an urban redevelopment program which aims to fully implement circularity into its structure. The energy demand of the area comes from its industrial leftovers combined with the growing needs of future residences. In order to safeguard the circular ambitions of this growing area the shape of governance has changed. In Buiksloterham this new circular approach to governance is illustrated by its status as a living lab. This makes it a space which allows actors to potentially circumvent some conventional institutional barriers for the sake of innovation which is essential in satisfying the current and future energy needs of the Buiksloterham.
13 Buiksloterham in perspective
Figure 2: a satellite overview of Amsterdam. The area that is considered Buiksloterham is indicated in a red color. Source: municipality of Amsterdam (August 2020b).
14 4.2 The energy sector
The energy sector consists of three branches: electricity, natural gas and heat. The electricity branch has been thoroughly regulated. Through the “electricity law” (Elektriciteitswet, 2020) national government has designated certain parties to be the only ones responsible for the construction and maintenance of the central electricity infrastructure. In the case of Amsterdam, and by extension Buiksloterham, the responsible parties are TenneT and Liander (as a part of Alliander). Here TenneT has formal responsibility over the high-voltage electricity infrastructure whilst Liander manages the remaining electricity infrastructure. In general, all houses are required to be connected to the national power grid.
However, there are some spaces which are exempt from this rule such as the houses that are a part of Schoonschip, which is connected to the grid via a single central connection. Electricity production is done by either central or decentral means. For electricity, central production should be conceptualized as large-scale sources of power that produce a lot of energy (nuclear powerplants and windmills for example). For parties engaged in central production the primary focus is on the generation of the electricity itself. Decentral production of electricity on the other hand, is smaller in scale and often acts secondary function (solar panels on a house for example).
Just like with electricity, the natural gas branch is rigorously regulated. Here Liander is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the natural gas infrastructure. This has been legally defined in the “natural gas law” (Gaswet, 2020). However, the use of natural gas is considered to be unsustainable and therefore its application in building is being phased out nationally. Natural gas also has no relevant place in the future of Buiksloterham given its circular ambition. For this reason, it will not be integrated into the results-section of this thesis.
Electricity and natural gas both have a relatively straightforward structure due to strong regulations. The heat branch, whilst it does have its own regulatory framework in the “heat law” (Warmtewet, 2020), is more flexible in its structure as it does not feature the same level of regulation as the other branches. There are no specific parties which are lawfully assigned to the construction and maintenance of the heat infrastructure. However, Westpoort Warmte, a 50-50 joint-venture between the AEB (Waste Energy Company, property of the city of Amsterdam) and Vattenfall, is for the most part responsible for the central heat infrastructure and provision. The source for this central means of distribution is power plants’ residual heat. This is referred to as district heating. One can be exempt from having to connect to a central heat provider if an alternative which is just as, or more, sustainable is presented. Thus, any party has the ability to be responsible for its own (decentral) heat provision. Schoonschip is an example of this where aquathermal installations are used in order to provide heat.
15
Chapter 5: Results
Due to the explorative approach of this thesis, the results chapter has been divided into different sections which cover relevant topics regarding the societal implications of circular governance. The first four sections discuss the most relevant observations from the conducted interviews. Whilst the last section utilizes governmental documents in order to analyze changes in the conceptualization of circular governance itself. Quotes used in this chapter have been translated from Dutch.
5.1 The new responsibilities of circularity
Before analyzing how responsibilities are allocated within the energy sector of the Buiksloterham it is firstly important to established how circular ambitions have influenced the energy sector. Circularity has had direct effects on the way in which the energy sector is structured. On a national level natural gas is being phased out of as many future building projects as possible due to sustainability
considerations. As a result, there is an increasing demand for electricity and heat in order to substitute this newly created energy void. In addition to this, sustainability is taken a step further at the local level of Buiksloterham with the introduction of circularity. Whereas regular urban areas are able to satisfy their energy demand by sourcing it from other places, in Buiksloterham the ambition is to close the energy cycle by producing energy sustainably at a local level. Buiksloterham will thus need to invest in the capacity to produce its own energy. This leads to the conclusion that the implementation of circularity in governance means that (capital) risk and responsibility, which could previously be outsourced to other places, is now pulled towards local structures of energy production. Even more pressure is put on this structure as circularity requires the produced energy to be of a sustainable nature.
The circular focus in Buiksloterham’s governance introduces new collectivist ambitions to the energy sector. As a result, the moral sphere of responsibilities described by Savini & Giezen (2020) is expanded. This expansion also materializes in the creation of new subjectivist responsibilities and risks. Thus, it can be concluded that circular governance acts as a motivator for local responsibilization in the energy sector.
16 5.2 Buiksloterham’s need for innovation
The circular mode of governance has put performance of local energy structures under high amounts of pressure. In order to make this system work and foster successful development, innovative measures which allow for smarter and more efficient energy production and distribution will have to be implemented. Such innovation is most likely to be conceived in more experimental spaces which are not impeded by strict regulatory frameworks. This is affirmed in the Manifest (2015) which called for the living lab status to be attributed to the Buiksloterham. It argued that this was necessary given that the national legal frameworks, which mandate the connection to centralized energy infrastructures (as described in paragraph 4.2), hindered the ability to introduce more innovative decentral means of energy production.
This came into play with Schoonschip as the living lab status enabled the exemption from the obligatory connection to the national power grid. Instead of connecting all individual houses, one single connection was made which could be used by all as a back-up for when their own electricity production proved to be insufficient. Doing this enabled Schoonschip to experiment more with decentral production and exchange of electricity through the use of solar panels and smart-grids (Interview: Schoonschip, M. Schmid, 2020). Additionally, the flexibility in legislation for heat allowed Schoonschip to introduce experimental means of decentral heat production in the form aquathermal heat. Housing corporation de Alliantie, on the other hand, mostly relies on connections to central forms of energy as their electricity is provided by the national power grid and heat is supplied by Westpoort Warmte. An exception to the central energy sourcing of de Alliantie is the solar roof that was installed in cooperation with Westpoort Warmte (Interview: de Alliantie, J. Klaassen & Westpoort Warmte, M. Buijck, 2020). This solar roof consists of 1680 solar collectors which provides heat for local housing (Vattenfall, 2019).
This implies that whilst currently the whole of Buiksloterham has garnered the status of a living lab, for the energy sector there still is a clear distinction between conventional and
unconventional spaces wherein conventional spaces, such as de Alliantie, rely more on already established centralized energy structures whilst unconventional spaces, like Schoonschip, experiment more with incorporating new forms of decentral energy structures. It appears that circular governance stimulates experimentation and innovation by offering relative freedom from institutional barriers to actors. However, this opportunity to detach from restrictive subjectivist responsibilities in the energy sector seems to disproportionally be utilized in more unconventional spaces.
17 5.3 Governmental support tools
The structural differences between conventional and unconventional spaces seems to bleed over in the way in which actors relate to the municipality of Amsterdam. From the interview with the
municipality it became clear that for the unconventional space of Schoonschip there were more possibilities for governmental support, be it via subsidies or borrowing land, than for the conventional space of de Alliantie. This was the case for two reasons. Schoonschip took a more experimental approach by engaging in a wide variety of circular pilot projects which enabled them to claim more supportive tools as illustrated by this quote:
“Only what it is in the case of Schoonschip, is that it consists of different pilots. Like the vacuum toilets, like shared mobility, like with the smart-grid. And for those type of things there are just more
often possibilities for subsidies than that there is something for a housing corporation which implements something on a very large scale (Interview: municipality of Amsterdam, I. Voorwerk,
2020).”
In addition to this there was a different type of relationship between the municipality and Schoonschip. The municipality was interested in Schoonschip’s experimental pilots from an urban development perspective. As a result, the municipality was willing to offer support on the condition that they would share the knowledge that they gained from their experimentation. In the interview with the
municipality this was said:
“But there are also conditions associated to it [governmental support]. Also with the subsidies that they received. Like, we will come once in a while to, well, learn from what happened and how we
could, for example, also apply that on a larger scale (Interview: municipality of Amsterdam, I. Voorwerk, 2020).”
This governmental interest in experimentation and the subsequent flow of knowledge exchange reinforces the previously mentioned idea that circular governance requires innovation in order to thrive.
18 Whilst not energy-related, the experiment of the “vacuum toilets” (a more sustainable toilet that uses less water) was the most striking example of the distance between the municipality and actors’ experimental efforts. After the housing corporation de Alliantie experimented with integrating sustainability in the form of vacuum toilets, they proved to be slightly too noisy. The municipality consequently offered no form of financial support and rejected the appeal for an exemptional position regarding the noise-level on basis of the project’s experimental nature.
“Look, when we had those sound issues with the toilets the municipality said: ‘it simply is written in the building regulation.’ And then we said: ‘well yes but nevertheless, it was a living lab right, can we not make a small exemption here?’ And that was difficult for the municipality to talk about and hard to
realize. Whilst those types of living labs with less stringent rules do exist in the Netherlands (Interview: de Alliantie, J. Klaassen, 2020).”
Here the municipality essentially under-reached in its collectivist ambition for circular development as it retreated back to its subjectivist responsibility formulated in formal building regulations.
The municipality’s approach seems to reflect the general trend of governmental retraction in governance described by Bevir (2008). Here the government takes on a “steering” role by formulating rules and redirecting societal responsibilities towards non-governmental actors. This has placed the responsibility and risk of experimentation and innovation in the hands of civil and market actors. Whilst the government tries to not involve itself too directly in projects, they do over-reach their subjectivist responsibilities by alleviating some of the risks of experimentation by offering subsidies and other governmental support tools. However, when experiments fail the residual risk remains the responsibility of the non-governmental actors. Governmental under-reaching therefore has the potential consequence that investing in experimentation will be conceived as riskier which could decrease the regions innovative potential.
19 5.4 Trust, partnership and potential lock-ins
The previous paragraphs have, for the most part, been concerned with explaining the relational structures between actors in circular governance. In this structural analysis most implications of circular governance have been explained through inter-actor relations. It highlighted the societal roles of actors within circular governance and how this shaped relations between actors. However, circular governance also has implications for the internal governance structure of actors (Bevir, 2008). In addition to this, it must be acknowledged that circular governance is not unilateral in the sense that, whilst it does influence actors and their relations, circular governance itself is also shaped by the actors who inhabit it (Pellizzoni, 2004). This section seeks to further explore the implications for actors’ internal structure and how these actors, in turn, contribute to the conceptualization of circular governance.
What has become clear from the interviews is that trust is deemed to be the most fundamental basis on which internal governance structures are built. And again there seems to be a disparity between conventional and unconventional spaces in how trust is created. In the interview with Schoonschip Markus puts it as follows:
“But I cannot emphasize that enough. That with such an innovative thing like we are trying to do here, that trust really makes or breaks it. Also from residents among themselves. And that you also have
trust towards for example the parties that you cooperate with. We see this all around us, in those experiments, in those subsidized projects where we participate in. (...) Every time there is the question:
‘do we really benefit from this? You know, the battery systems that we have, are we ever going to make any money from it? Probably not, you know. And that is only possible when you, as a group, are
solidary (Interview: Schoonschip, M. Schmid, 2020).”
It became apparent that many experimental investments would most likely never have financial returns. Trust in the unconventional space of Schoonschip is, for a large part, expressed in a shared collectivist feeling of responsibility among residents. A feeling of shared commitment to the project itself and a moral appeal to creating a more sustainable world which overshadows financial interests. The conception of Schoonschip itself is illustrative of the importance of trust as the realization of this project heavily relied on shared commitment. Markus reflects on this by noting:
“But that whole phase, that whole run-up phase has taken 12 years. Since the very first initiative that is how long they have been busy with this. And all that time work has been done, you know, by volunteers. And at a given moment everyone had to invest money. Because all those collective facilities and stuff, those of course all, in some way or another, needed to be built. So you really had to
put tens of thousands of euros in this project, all the while you were not really sure that you would actually be able to live there later. And that goes pretty far (Interview: Schoonschip, M. Schmid,
20 More conventional actors such as Westpoort Warmte and de Alliantie use different methods in order to incorporate trust into their governance structures. In an interview with Westpoort Warmte Martin explained:
“There are many parties that simply want long-term certainty. The director of a large building company told that to me a while ago. He said: ‘yeah I actually just want two trustworthy partners with
whom I can develop my energy concepts and not all those cowboys where I am dependent on the whims of the day (Interview: Westpoort Warmte, M. Buijck, 2020).”
The long-term nature of such partnerships creates a sense of shared commitment which in turn translates into trust. It can be observed that where unconventional spaces use collectivist ambitions in order to gain a sense of trust, conventional spaces seek trust in the stability of engaging in
partnerships.
The importance of trust is also experienced by Firan which faces problems in trying to get a foothold in the energy sector of the Buiksloterham. The decentral heating technology that they offer has not yet been established and the municipality of Amsterdam, from which they require permits, have not made a clear and decisive public statement that they want to implement this specific technology. This creates an uncertain environment with lacking forms of trust for project developers which seek new partnerships. Brenda from Firan observes:
“And because the development of new decentral heating technologies is somewhat more uncertain for project developers and other parties. For example, how are these new systems going to look and how will the municipality handle this? Next to that, the city council must also agree with the plans, while a district heating system is already there and working. So in many ways, that is kind of the path of least
resistance (Interview: Firan, B. Schoumans, 2020).”
Parties choosing “the path of least resistance” in forming their partnerships is where trust and
partnership can become problematic for circular development. Because if this trend is to continue than it can potentially result in the creation of a lock-in where the region will become more dependent on central heating technology. The municipality has already established in the Manifest (2015) that district heating is a suboptimal technology in terms of circularity. The lock-in therefore is a potential problem as it causes the more innovate (circular) technologies to remain relatively underdeveloped and or underutilized.
21 Ultimately, trust in Buiksloterham is gained through the existence of accountability. As reflected by Savini & Giezen (2020), utilizing this conceptualization requires moving beyond the narrow idea of accountability as a mere subjectivist expression of responsibility. The unconventional space of Schoonschip creates accountability in its internal governance structures by appealing to informal collectivist ideals and a feeling of shared commitment to the project. More conventional spaces such as Westpoort Warmte and de Alliantie on the other hand rely more on subjectivist forms of accountability by creating formal partnerships that harbor stability. In the future such partnerships might lead to technological lock-ins which would decrease innovative potential and erode circular ambitions.
22 5.5 Changing interpretation of circular governance
This final chapter will go over the tonal shift in the way that circular governance is conducted. In 2015 the Manifest Buiksloterham marked the beginning of a shared commitment to circularity in the
development of the Buiksloterham. This document emphasized the importance of involvement, dedication and supportive relationships between governmental and non-governmental actors in facilitating circularity. Regional development was for a large part characterized by collectivist notions of responsibility as it took the form of ambitions. Now more recently, in 2020, the “Herijking
Investeringsbesluit Buiksloterham” (Investment Annotation Buiksloterham) was released
(Municipality of Amsterdam, August 2020b). In this document the priority seemed to be more set on bolstering its institutional framework by focusing on selection-criteria and assessment checks. The interpretation on how circular governance is conceived, which in the Manifest focused more on collectivist ambitions, appears to have shifted somewhat towards a subjectivist conception with the institutional approach of the Herijking.
The "Nota van Beantwoording” (Note of Answer), is a document made alongside the
Herijking (Municipality of Amsterdam, August 2020a). This document seeks to explain the decisions that were made in the Herijking as well as incorporate feedback into it. In addition, it aims to describe the rationality behind why the Herijking was made. It is clarified that the Herijking is the result of two things. Firstly, the ambitions of Amsterdam’s urban development, especially for housing, have increased since the last investment annotation of 2006. As a result, the Nota concludes that in order to meet this target there is a need for a uniform assessment framework. It also argues that the Herijking seeks to minimize future uncertainty by sketching a final image of what the Buiksloterham is supposed to become. This is achieved by drawing up a strong institutional framework with detailed rules and norms.
This change towards a more formal method of allocating responsibilities could, in theory, indeed provide more security and trust as there is less institutional ambiguity. However, it might also have the opposite effect. As by expanding institutional design it becomes easier for the government to under-reach its collectivist responsibility for circularity which was seen in the example of the
experimentation with the vacuum toilets. This could make actors reconsider experimentation as it now becomes a riskier proposition which consequently negatively impacts the innovative potential of the Buiksloterham as a whole.
Experimentation and innovation has been at the heart of Buiksloterham. The most innovative spaces have been characterized by creating an environment which promotes collectivist notions of responsibility where trust is gained through a feeling of shared commitment to ambitions. The Buiksloterham was given the status of a living lab in order to circumvent institutional subjectivist boundaries to further bolster collectivist innovation. In this sense the shift towards a more subjectivist approach seems almost paradoxical as it contradicts the foundation on which circular governance in Buiksloterham has been built thus far.
23
Chapter 6: Conclusion
This thesis set out to explore the question: “What implications does circular governance have on the
distribution of societal responsibilities within the energy sector of the Buiksloterham?” The first thing
that has become apparent is that engaging in circular governance creates new responsibilities as circular principles pose that energy should be sustainably produced locally. Thus, resulting in Buiksloterham becoming subject to regional responsibilization.
It also meant that in order to meet circular ambitions innovation through experimentation became more important. To meet this innovative demand the Buiksloterham attained the status of living lab which allowed for more freedom in the often tightly regulated energy sector. Whilst this living lab status is meant for the whole of Buiksloterham, there still is a clear distinction between how this is interpreted in conventional and unconventional spaces. Here unconventional spaces are more experimental and engage more in decentral energy systems as opposed to the conventional spaces which are less experimental and rely more on central energy systems. As a result of this
unconventional spaces seem to better be able to utilize governmental over-reaching of subjectivist responsibilities through subsidies and other forms of governmental support tools.
The municipality has showed signs of governmental retraction by taking a steering approach to circular governance. This has meant that societal responsibilities, among which the responsibility for experimentation and innovation, have been redirected towards non-governmental actors. The risk that is inherent to this newfound responsibility of experimentation is somewhat negated by the
governmental over-stretching of their subjectivist responsibility by offering support tools such as subsidies. However, the residual risk inherent to experimentation is still carried by the non-governmental actors.
Another important finding was that trust is essential to the way in which actors allocated their responsibilities. How actors generate trust shapes their internal governance and consequently
influences how they form relationships with other actors. In unconventional spaces trust is
predominantly promoted by accountability which stems from collectivist responsibility in the form of ambitions and a feeling of shared commitment. Conventional spaces gravitate more towards forming partnerships in order to generate a subjectivist sense of trust as engaging with long-term partners offers them the ability to incorporate stability and accountability into their governance structure. This tendency to form partnerships in conventional spaces was identified to possibly prove problematic in the future due to the fact that it can cause technological lock-in of suboptimal technology which, in turn, creates a situation in which innovate technologies remain relatively underutilized.
24 Finally, this thesis identified a tonal shift in the interpretation of circular governance. The focus of the Manifest Buiksloterham was more on collectivist responsibilities formulated in ambitions. This relatively soft tone was somewhat sharpened in the Herijking Investeringsbesluit Buiksloterham as priorities seem to have shifted more towards a subjectivist approach to responsibilities which is achieved via the strengthening of institutional frameworks. Whilst it is argued that this will create trust by removing institutional ambiguity, it also enables the government to more easily under-reach their collectivist responsibility in facilitating experimentation. Thus making experimentation a riskier proposition for the non-governmental actors on which the municipality relies for innovation. The subjectivist turn in the approach to circular governance appears almost paradoxical as it promotes the opposite of the collectivist principles which have been the basis for effective experimentation and innovation in the Buiksloterham.
All in all, the circular mode of governance has had wide-reaching implications for the way in which actors relate to one another as well as the way in which actors structure themselves. However, there seems to be a structural disparity between how conventional and unconventional spaces are influenced by circular governance. Trust remains at the center of importance for responsibility, experimentation and innovation in the Buiksloterham. Lastly, it seems that the concept of circular governance itself has become subject to reinterpretation as it has taken a slight subjectivist turn.
25
Chapter 7: Discussion
In the pursuit of uncovering the implications of circular governance in the energy sector of the Buiksloterham, this thesis identified a variety of different aspects which were important to the structure of societal responsibilities in Buiksloterham. However, circular governance is such an overarching and ever-precent characteristic of Buiksloterham that listing all implications would be unfeasible. There are most certainly aspects of circular governance in regard to how it shapes societal responsibilities which remain unexplored.
It should also be noted that the results are, for the most part, based on interviews conducted with actors which are active in the heat-sector specifically. As the results and conclusions of this thesis have been shaped largely by the conducted interviews, using different actors would most likely have yielded somewhat divergent results. How governance is conducted and how circularity is interpreted are both dependent on the context in which it is practiced. Therefore, as this thesis utilized a specific context, the conclusions do not necessarily epitomize the absolute nature of how circular governance influences the societal distribution of responsibilities. Finally, these results should not be interpreted in a deterministic manner. Whilst the conclusions on circular governance’s impact on Buiksloterham are valuable, circular governance does not represent a singular determining explanation to the nature of these aspects as these are also subject to the larger whole of a multifaceted and complex reality. For future research into the circular governance of Buiksloterham this thesis would
recommend looking into the biggest uncertainty for this region’s future development. Namely, how lock-ins of suboptimal technologies can be prevented and what is needed in order to further facilitate and promote experimentation and innovation in the more conventional spaces of Buiksloterham.
26
References
Bevir, M. (2008). Key concepts in governance. Sage.
Bryman, A. (2016a). Chapter 17: The nature of qualitative research. In, Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Bryman, A. (2016b). Chapter 3: Research designs. In, Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Bryman, A. (2016c). Chapter 8: Sampling. In, Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Bryman, A. (2016d). Chapter 5: Getting started: reviewing the literature. In, Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Bryman, A. (2016e). Chapter 6: Ethics and politics in social research. In, Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Choudhury, E., & Ahmed, S. (2002). The shifting meaning of governance: Public accountability of third sector organizations in an emergent global regime. International Journal of Public
Administration, 25(4), 561-588.
Elektriciteitswet. (2020, July 10). Retrieved 14 December 2020, from https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0009755/2020-07-10
Gaswet. (2020, July 10). Retrieved 14 December 2020, from https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0011440/2020-07-10
Goodhart M (2017) Interpreting responsibility politically. Journal of Political Philosophy 25(2): 173–195
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, conservation and recycling, 127, 221-232.
Manifest Buiksloterham. (2015) Circulair Buiksloterham [Circular Buiksloterham]. Retrieved from https://buiksloterham.nl/project/1301/living-lab-en-manifest--rapport--report
27 Ministry of General Affairs. (2020). Nederlandse aanpak en maatregelen tegen het coronavirus. [Dutch approach and precautions to the coronavirus] Retrieved 29 September 2020, from
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/coronavirus-covid-19/nederlandse-maatregelen-tegen-het-coronavirus
Municipality of Amsterdam. (2020a, August). Concept Nota van Beantwoording [Concept Note of Answer]. Retrieved from
https://www.amsterdam.nl/projecten/buiksloterham/plan-publ-buiksl/
Municipality of Amsterdam. (2020b, August). Investeringsnota Buiksloterham 2020 [Investment Annotation Buiksloterham 2020]. Retrieved from
https://www.amsterdam.nl/projecten/buiksloterham/plan-publ-buiksl/
Municipality of Amsterdam. (2020). Strategie Amsterdam Circulair 2020-2025 [Strategy Amsterdam Circular 2020-2015]. Retrieved from
https://www.amsterdam.nl/wonen-leefomgeving/duurzaam-amsterdam/publicaties-duurzaam-groen/amsterdam-circulair-2020-2025-strategie-0
Pellizzoni, L. (2004). Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental politics, 13(3), 541-565.
Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Savini, F., & Giezen, M. (2020). Responsibility as a field: The circular economy of water, waste, and energy. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 2399654420907622.
Skelcher, C., & Torfing, J. (2010). Improving democratic governance through institutional design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe. Regulation & Governance, 4(1), 71-91.
Van Houwelingen, P., Boele, A., & Dekker, P. (2014). Burgermacht op eigen kracht?: Een brede
verkenning van ontwikkelingen in burgerparticipatie [Civil power on own accord?: A broad
exploration of development in civil participation] (Vol. 2014). Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau [Social
28 Vattenfall. (2019, November). Grootste zonnedak Amsterdam levert klimaatneutrale warmte aan woningen in Buiksloterham [Biggest sunroof Amsterdam supplies climate-neutral heat to houses in Buiksloterham]. Retrieved 14 December 2021, from
https://group.vattenfall.com/nl/newsroom/persbericht/2019/grootste-zonnedak-amsterdam-levert-klimaatneutrale-warmte-aan-woningen-in-buiksloterham
Warmtewet. (2020, October 25). Retrieved 14 December 2020, from https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0033729/2020-10-25
29
30
Appendix II: Interviews
As the five interviews amounted to approximately 29500 words the choice was made to not put these into the appendix directly. Instead, these can be found via the following link in Google Drive; https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1qX92ZIh9thdJ1g7Fqfh2_uhD-8OYqcxk?usp=sharing
