Warning
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author in order to protect the interviewed experts who shed their light on a sensitive topic. The transcripts made from audio
recorded interviews and their analysis are only available for assessors of the thesis in the appendix. They are not included in this version. Some interviewees have requested this before
contributing to this bachelor thesis.
This thesis aims to demonstrate a variety of opinions and point of views from multiple experts. None of these opinions have been modified or judged upon.
Title: ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle Name: Nina van Lierop
Student Number: 10703454
Supervisors: Andres Verzijl and Arjen Zegwaard Assessor: Dennis Arnold
Study: Future Planet Studies, Major Urban Planning Email: nina.vanlierop@student.uva.nl
‘Hand on the Tap’ principle
Highly involved experts with their point of view
Photo on cover by Frans Lemmens, Alamy Stock Photo
Colophon
Title ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle
Subtitle Highly involved experts with their point of view
Author Nina van Lierop
Nina.vanLierop@student.uva.nl
Student Number 10703454
Student Card Number 0020702898
Commissioned by The University of Amsterdam Faculty of Science
Bachelor Future Planet Studies Science Park 904
1098 XH Amsterdam Major: Urban Planning
Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences Amsterdam Roeterseilandcampus
Nieuwe Achtergracht 166 1018 WV Amsterdam
Course Bachelor Thesis Social Geography and Urban Planning
Course Code 734301500Y
Thesis Supervisors Arjen Zegwaard Andres Verzijl
Place Amsterdam
Warning
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author in order to protect the interviewed experts who shed their light on a sensitive topic. The transcripts made from audio
recorded interviews and their analysis are only visible for assessors of the thesis in the appendix. Some interviewees have requested this before contributing to this bachelor thesis.
This thesis aims to demonstrate a variety of opinions and point of views from multiple experts. None of these opinions have been modified or judged upon.
A humble thank you to all of the experts, my respondents, who contributed to the bachelor thesis
None of this would have been possible without your help
Dré van Elzen Jeroen Janssen Ellen Kuipers Ger de Lange Jaap van der Meer
Pieter Slim Zheng Bing Wang
Abstract
In 2006 the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle, an environmental policy regarding gas extraction in the Wadden Sea in the Netherlands, was implemented. The principle aims to prevent the natural characteristics of the Wadden Sea and the North Sea coastal zones from damage caused by gas extraction. Actors publicly disagree on the functionality, efficiency and methodology of the principle. Some actors have their own interest regarding gas extraction. Apparently ways of looking at gas extractions and their consequences and agenda of actors are strongly connected. As a result ‘truth’ about the matters is in the eye of the beholder. This thesis is an effort to gain an insight in the complexities of such a controversy. Seven experts from five highly involved actors; The Ministery of Economic Affairs and Climate, The NAM, Deltares, The Wadden Association and WaLTER have been interviewed. A discourse analysis, a study of language-in-use is conducted to conclude the existence of multiple social constructed realities regarding the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle.
Index
1.0 INTRODUCTION _________________________________________________________________ 15
1.1 ‘HANDONTHE TAP’ PRINCIPLEINTRODUCTIONANDPROBLEMSTATEMENT___________________________15
1.2 THEORETICALFRAMEWORK___________________________________________________________17
1.2.1 DISCOURSEANALYSIS______________________________________________________________18 1.2.1.1 Defining discourse____________________________________________________________18 1.2.1.2 Particular strengths of discourse analysis__________________________________________19 1.2.1.3 Discourse and power__________________________________________________________20 1.2.2 WICKED PROBLEMS_______________________________________________________________21 1.2.3 LEGITIMACY, CREDIBILITYANDSALIENCEOFARGUMENTATION___________________________________22 1.2.4 RESILIENCE, RISK, AND UNCERTAINTY___________________________________________________23
1.3 RESEARCHQUESTIONANDSUBQUESTIONS________________________________________________24
1.4 METHOD_______________________________________________________________________27
1.4.1 TYPEOFRESEARCH________________________________________________________________27 1.4.2 METHODOFDATACOLLECTIONANDANALYSIS_____________________________________________28 1.4.2.1 Choice of respondents_________________________________________________________28 1.4.2.2 Contacting respondents________________________________________________________29 1.4.2.3 Interviewing experts__________________________________________________________30 1.4.2.4 Analysation of content discussed in interviews______________________________________31 1.4.2.5 Analysing interviews__________________________________________________________31 1.4.3 CRITERIAOFQUALITATIVERESEARCHANDDISCOURSEANALYSIS__________________________________33
1.4.4 CONCEPTUAL SCHEDULE____________________________________________________________35
1.5 READINGGUIDE___________________________________________________________________36
2.0 BACKGROUND __________________________________________________________________ 37
2.1 POLITICALASPECTSOFGASEXTRACTIONINTHE NETHERLANDS___________________________________37
2.2 THE ‘HANDONTHE TAP’ PRINCIPLE, ANINTRODUCTION_______________________________________39
2.3 ‘HANDONTHE TAP’ PRINCIPLEINTHENEWS_______________________________________________40
2.3.1 SEALEVELRISESCENARIO’S__________________________________________________________41 2.3.2 ‘NA-IJLEFFECTEN’________________________________________________________________41
2.3.3 POSSIBLESUDDENSOILSUBSIDENCEAT PINKEGAT___________________________________________42
3.0 ANALYSED INTERVIEWS __________________________________________________________ 44
3.1 ACTORS________________________________________________________________________44
Dré van Elzen - Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate____________________________________44 Jeroen Janssen - NAM_______________________________________________________________44 Zheng Bing Wang - Deltares___________________________________________________________45 Ger de Lange - Deltares______________________________________________________________45 Ellen Kuipers - Wadden Association____________________________________________________46 Jaap van der Meer - WaLTER, NIOZ, SIBES________________________________________________46 Pieter Slim - WaLTER, Alterra__________________________________________________________46
3.2 STAKES_________________________________________________________________________47
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate________________________________________________47 NAM_____________________________________________________________________________47 Wadden Association________________________________________________________________48 WaLTER__________________________________________________________________________48 Deltares__________________________________________________________________________48
3.3 ARGUMENTATION__________________________________________________________________50
3.3.1 ‘HANDONTHE TAP’ PRINCIPLE, EXPERTSWITHTHEIRPOINTOFVIEW______________________________51 Dré van Elzen - Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate____________________________________51 Jeroen Janssen - NAM_______________________________________________________________51 Zheng Bing Wang - Deltares___________________________________________________________52 Ger de Lange - Deltares______________________________________________________________53 Ellen Kuipers - Wadden Association____________________________________________________53 Jaap van der Meer - WaLTER, NIOZ, SIBES________________________________________________54 Pieter Slim - WaLTER, Alterra__________________________________________________________55 3.3.2 GASEXTRACTIONINTHE WADDEN SEAINTERMSOFRESILIENCE, RISKANDUNCERTAINTY________________56
Dré van Elzen - Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate____________________________________56 Jeroen Janssen - NAM_______________________________________________________________56 Zheng Bing Wang - Deltares___________________________________________________________57 Ger de Lange - Deltares______________________________________________________________58 Ellen Kuipers - Wadden Association____________________________________________________58 Jaap van der Meer - WaLTER, NIOZ, SIBES________________________________________________58 Pieter Slim - WaLTER, Alterra__________________________________________________________59 3.3.3 ‘HANDONTHE TAP’ PRINCIPLEINTHENEWS______________________________________________60
Jeroen Janssen - NAM_______________________________________________________________60 Zheng Bing Wang - Deltares___________________________________________________________61 Ger de Lange - Deltares______________________________________________________________61 Ellen Kuipers - Wadden Association____________________________________________________62 Jaap van der Meer - WaLTER, NIOZ, SIBES________________________________________________62 Pieter Slim - WaLTER, Alterra__________________________________________________________63 3.3.4 FUTURE PREDICTIONSAND EXPECTATIONS________________________________________________64
Dré van Elzen - Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate____________________________________64 Jeroen Janssen - NAM_______________________________________________________________64 Zheng Bing Wang - Deltares___________________________________________________________65 Ger de Lange - Deltares______________________________________________________________65 Ellen Kuipers - Wadden Association____________________________________________________65 Jaap van der Meer - WaLTER, NIOZ, SIBES________________________________________________66 Pieter Slim - WaLTER, Alterra__________________________________________________________66
4.0 CONCLUSION ___________________________________________________________________ 67 5.0 DISCUSSION ____________________________________________________________________ 70 5.1 RESTRICTIONS____________________________________________________________________70 5.2 POINTSOFIMPROVEMENT____________________________________________________________70 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS_______________________________________________________________71 6.0 APPENDIX _____________________________________________________________________ 72
6.1 ANALYSEDTRANSCRIPT PIETER SLIM_____________________________________________________72 6.2 ANALYSEDTRANSCRIPT JAAPVANDER MEER_______________________________________________72 6.3 ANALYSEDTRANSCRIPT GERDE LANGE___________________________________________________72 6.4 ANALYSEDTRANSCRIPT JEROEN JANSSEN__________________________________________________72
6.5 ANALYSEDTRANSCRIPT ELLEN KUIPERS___________________________________________________72
6.6 ANALYSEDTRANSCRIPT DRÉVAN ELZEN___________________________________________________72 6.7 ANALYSEDTRANSCRIPT ZHENG BING WANG_______________________________________________72
1.0 Introduction
1.1 ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle introduction and problem statement
Over the last five years articles about gas extraction in the Netherlands was featured prominently in the news. These articles often refer to gas extraction on land in the province of Groningen causing soil subsidence and minor earthquakes that consequently cause damages to infrastructure. In 2016 research conducted by the University of Groningen, the GGD (National public health institute) and the municipality of Groningen concluded that 100.000 residents currently live in houses damaged by these earthquakes1. In 2017 NOS, Dutch
Broadcast Foundation, published an article based on the publication called ‘municipalities Atlas’, which concluded from their research that houses in Groningen decreased in value of 2,2 % on average since 20122 . In Loppersum, a village in Groningen where gas was
distracted, the value declined the most with 8 %, this can be referred to as reputation damage2.
Since 2015 the gas exploitation on land has been reduced in steps as a consequence of a verdict from court to reduce the extraction. In Loppersum the exploitation has been shut down completely due to safety issues for residents3.
Figure 1. Locations of gas extraction in the Wadden Sea4.
1 NOS (2016). 100.000 mensen met aardbevingsschade in Groningen.
https://nos.nl/artikel/2129869-100-000-mensen-met-aardbevingsschade-in-groningen.html (requested on 9 December 2017)
2 NOS (2017). Huizen Groningen 2,2 procent minder waard door imagoschade.
https://nos.nl/artikel/2201790-huizen-groningen-2-2-procent-minder-waard-door-imagoschade.html (requested on 9 December 2017)
3 NOS (2017). De strijd om het laatste Groningse gas.
https://nos.nl/artikel/2202902-de-strijd-om-het-laatste-groningse-gas.html (requested on 9 December 2017) 4 NOS (2016). Hoe groot is het ‘probleem’ van boren op de Waddenzee?
https://nos.nl/artikel/2113044-hoe-groot-is-het-probleem-van-boren-op-de-waddenzee.html (requested on 8 October 2017)
Next to these on land extractions, over the last thirty years, gas exploitation has been expanded from land to sea. The NAM (Dutch Petroleum Company) estimates there to be 200 billion cubic meters of natural gas below the Wadden Sea in various smaller fields5, which is
claimed to equal the use of all Dutch households for ten years6. Since 1986 the NAM exploits
gas from location Oost-Ameland and it has slowly expanded with multiple locations such as, Moddergat, Lauwersoog and Vierhuizen shown in figure 1. In the meantime the Wadden Sea has been granted a Natura 200078 status and has become UNESCO World Heritage Site9. This
has caused the policy to change the drilling technique to drilling from land diagonal under the Wadden Sea towards the gas fields. In recent years gas extraction under the Wadden Sea has been appearing more often in the news, for example due to a possible sudden soil subsidence in Pinkegat. Gas extraction causes soil subsidence, in this case uncertainty remains if there is actual soil subsidence or if a measurement error has occurred10.
The Wadden Association, a national organization that stands up for the interests of the Wadden Sea, refers in their ‘Future of the Wadden Sea’ Report to the unpredictability of sea level rise, the existing natural soil subsidence and the extra soil subsidence caused by salt and gas extraction11. These factors cause a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty regarding possible
consequences of the gas extraction below the Wadden Sea. However the Wadden Association does state that they are opposed gas extraction below the Wadden Sea because of its potential to increase risks of soil subsidence, pollution and impact on the landscape12. On the other
5 NOS (2017). De strijd om het laatste Groningse gas.
https://nos.nl/artikel/2202902-de-strijd-om-het-laatste-groningse-gas.html (requested on 9 December 2017) 6 NAM (n.d.). Gaswinning onder de Waddenzee.
https://www.nam.nl/gas-en-oliewinning/wadden/gaswinning-onder-de-waddenzee.html (requested on 9 December 2017)
7 “Natura 2000 is a network of core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species, and some rare natural habitat types which are protected in their own right. It stretches across all 28 EU countries, both on land and at sea.” According to the European Union (n.d).
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm (requested on 9 January 2018) 8 Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (n.d.).
https://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/Natura2000/gebiedendatabase.aspx?subj=n2k&groep=1&id=n2k1 (requested on 9 January 2018)
9 UNESCO World Heritage List (n.d.) http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1314 (requested on 9 January 2018) 10 NRC (2016). Was het een foute meting, of zinken de wadden echt?
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/12/06/de-meting-was-fout-of-de-wadden-zinken-5671047-a1535343 (requested on 9 December 2017)
11 Waddenvereniging (2017). De toekomst van de Waddenzee: een stijgende zeespiegel over een dalende bodem. De Waddenvereniging, Harlingen
https://waddenvereniging.nl/wv/images/PDF/Toekomst%20van%20de
%20Waddenzee/ToekomstvandeWaddenzee_rapport.pdf (requested on 24 September 2017) 12 Waddenvereniging (n.d.). De strijd tegen gaswinning.
https://www.waddenvereniging.nl/onswerk/gaswinning1 (requested on 9 December 2017)
hand the NAM states that extraction takes place within the given norms and given permit and the possibility of sudden subsidence at Pinkegat is a measurement error13.
In 2006 the Dutch Government introduced the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle for gas extraction in the Wadden Sea, which focussed especially on the mudflats Pinkegat and Zoutkamperlaag in a ‘Rijksprojectbesluit’14. The Dutch government has started to create the set of rules in
which the conditions focus on the fact that the extraction can continue while the ecological value of the Wadden Sea will remain the same. In short the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle means that when the decline of the soil layer due to the extraction is higher than the growth potential of the tidal basin adding sediment to the surface, the extraction rate must go down or be completely stopped14. For that reason it is called the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle.
News articles about the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle show disagreement from multiple actors on gas extraction in the Wadden Sea, the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle itself in terms of functionality, efficiency and even methodology. Although some actors have their own interest regarding gas extraction. Apparently ways of looking at gas extractions and their consequences and agenda of actors are strongly connected. As a result “truth” about the matters is in the eye of the beholder. This thesis will be an effort to gain an insight in the complexities of such a controversy. Therefore the following research question will be answered:
How does the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle discursively intervene in the status quo between experts from highly involved actors in relation to the issue of gas extraction in the Wadden Sea since the implementation of the principle in 2006?
1.2 Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework gives a scientific introduction to the discourse analyse, this analysis method will be used in this bachelor thesis for analysing interviews with experts. Also this chapter gives a scientific basis of important concepts of which the sub questions will arise. These sub questions will contribute to answering the research question of the thesis, in addition the sub questions also indirectly demonstrate how the interviews are going to be analysed.
13 NRC (2016). Was het een foute meting, of zinken de wadden echt?
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/12/06/de-meting-was-fout-of-de-wadden-zinken-5671047-a1535343 (requested on 2017)
14 Rijksprojectbesluit (2006) Gaswinning binnen randvoorwaarden. Passende beoordeling van het
rijksprojectbesluit over de aardgaswinning vanaf de locaties Moddergat, Lauwersoog en Vierhuizen. https://nam-feitenencijfers.data-app.nl/download/rapport/329ac91d-c41d-40e7-96e2-bc0750aa265b?open=true (requested on 8 October 2017)
1.2.1 Discourse analysis
The introduction and problem statement have shown that there are multiple actors in disagreement about the functionality, efficiency or even the methodology of the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle. The disagreement or their opinion about the principle could possibly be linked to their scientific backgrounds and stakes. If so there could be reasons to assume that the argumentation often based on scientific knowledge with different outcomes of predictions on measurements or sea level rise tries to reveal their actual interests. A discourse analysis will enable me to answer this question, for discourse is not simply a neutral device for imparting meaning. People seek to accomplish things when they talk or when they write. Discourse analysis is concerned with the strategies that employ in trying to create different kinds of effects15.
1.2.1.1 Defining discourse
According to philosopher Habermas16 ‘discourse’ is a range of meanings, varying from the
analysis of linguistic regularities to the normative quality of discussion, as in the ‘practical discourse’ by Habermas. Hajer & Versteeg 16 set out the contribution of discourse analysis to
the study of environmental politics. Their article could be of great importance since the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle is part of environmental politics. Hajer & Versteeg16 stresses the
importance of the fact that the terms discourse and discussion are often used interchangeably but the two should be distinguished analytically. ‘Discourse’ is defined here as an ensemble of ideas, concepts and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices16.
The ‘discussion’ is the object of analysis; discourse analysis sets out to trace a particular linguistic regularities that can be found in discussions or debates16. According to Wetherell et
al.16 a discourse analysis is a study of language-in-use, it can be placed in the interpretative or
social constructionist tradition in the social science stressed by Guba & Lincoln16 .The
tradition has an anti-essentialist ontology, which assumes the existence of multiple social constructed realities instead of a single reality governed by immutable natural laws16. Reality
is seen as socially constructed and the meaning becomes central for interpreting environmental policy research16 . The environmental phenomenon itself is not important but
15 Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press.
16 Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of environmental policy & planning, 7(3), 175-184.
the way society, or in this case highly involved actors, make sense of the phenomenon17.
Discourse analysis is an approach that takes a critical stance toward ‘truth’ and emphasize communication through which knowledge is exchanged17. The discourse analysis seems to fit
conducting research on the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle well, since it takes a look at how experts from highly involved actors make sense of the environmental phenomenon of subsidence in the Wadden Sea and interpret the environmental policy. The outcome could show multiple social constructed realities through language-in-use. The discourse analysis in this thesis takes a critical stance towards discourse from experts by interviewing. Interviews show language-in-use from experts which includes discussion that could confirm the existence of multiple social constructed realities.
1.2.1.2 Particular strengths of discourse analysis
A social constructivist perspective and related discourse analysis appreciates the complex and messy interactions which make up the environmental policy process as Richard & Sharp cited Hajer & Versteeg 17 observe. Concepts used in environmental politics and policy cannot be
imposed in a top-down way, but are continuously contested in a struggle about their meaning, interpretation and implementation17 . The discourse analysis tries to make sense of this
struggle and therefore has three particular strengths: it has the capacity to reveal the role of language in politics, to reveal the embeddedness of language in practice and to illuminate mechanisms and answer ‘how questions’17.
First, discourse analysis assumes that language shapes one’s view of the world and reality17.
The use of metaphors matters when the environment is being discussed. Use of different type of terms can create different types of environmental discussion which can lead to the revision of rules, enactment of laws or creation of institutes17. So the meaning affects the outcome and
becomes the context in which the environment will be discussed. In addition environmental arguments might seem factual and scientific, but they are also meaningful, suggestive an atmospheric17. By questioning actors about their point of view on the ‘Hand on the Tap’
principle might show reference to different types of reality, the use of different terms or even a different type of environment.
Secondly, discourse analysis tries to reveal the embeddedness of language in practice17. Hajer
& Versteeg17 stress the importance of rendering nature linguistically. Even though actors
debate the same environmental phenomena and nature, it does not mean they understand each 17 Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of environmental policy & planning, 7(3), 175-184.
other. The assumption of mutual understanding is often false, it conceals discursive complexity18. Nevertheless, the effect of misunderstanding can be used for creating a political
coalition. The study of discourse does not only show the embeddedness of language in practices but also allows one to see how a diversity of actors actively try to influence the definition of the problem18. This strength could show if the involved actors understand the
‘Hand on the Tap’ equally or if the interpretations differ and more importantly how these interpretations vary. In addition the discourse analysis can contribute to show how actors actively try to influence the definition of the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle and subsidence in the Wadden Sea phenomenon.
The last strength of the discourse analysis is its capacity to answer ‘how’ questions18. A
discourse analysis can help illuminate why some definition do or do not catch at a certain time and place, also it could help explaining the mechanism of a policy which does or does not come about18. The analysis insists that the meaning of policy never solidifies18. This strength
can help illuminate why for instance definitions and terms used for the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle are not mutual understood, which can explain possible contestation about the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle.
1.2.1.3 Discourse and power
The discourse analysis cannot be used to sharpen practical engagement with environmental policy making18. The analysis does not acknowledges extra discursive foundation to determine
what is true, right or good, it could easily end up in a situation where ‘anything goes’18.
Foucault attempts to trace the development of social discourses during the modern era instead of providing a judgement about ‘what should be done’18. The approach therefore generates
only limited policy recommendations18. The real contribution of the approach lies in the
ability to trace the discursive power struggles underlying environmental politics18. It allows to
see environmental politics as a critical struggle where conflicts between discourses may be exacerbated, sidestepped or resolved, and a process seeking to find an answer to a real world problem according to Richardson cited in Hajer & Versteeg18. Foucault regards knowledge
and power as fundamentally intertwined. The discourse analysis could contribute to trace the discursive power struggles underlying environmental politics regarding the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle, in which knowledge and power as fundamentally intertwined can play a role. But
18 Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of environmental policy & planning, 7(3), 175-184.
the discourse analysis cannot provide a judgement about ‘what should be done’ or determine what is true or good, it only generates limited policy recommendations.
1.2.2 Wicked Problems
The problem statement has already showed that the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle seems to be disputed by multiple highly involved actors. Some actors do believe that the system of the principle works satisfactorily, others do not seem to agree and complain about the monitoring and methodology of the principle. In addition, the selected analysis method suggests that ‘discourse’ is defined as an ensemble of ideas, concepts and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, it is a study of language-in-use with anti-essentialist ontology19. Which assumes the existence of multiple social constructed realities
instead of a single reality governed by immutable natural laws19. The real contribution of the
approach lies in the ability to trace the discursive power struggles underlying environmental politics19. Basically, it shows that the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle is a very complicated policy
with methodology creating ‘problems’ for some actors, with possible underlying interests for other actors, therefore the concept wicked problems can be introduced.
Wicked problems are a highly interesting topic within public administration and policy research circles20. According to Kettl cited in Weber & Khademian20 in the last two decades
the clash between wicked problem and traditional problem solving has produced a need for institutions to work across many organisations and agencies also the members of the public needed to build wicked problem-solving capacity. Weber & Khademian20 introduce three
dimensions of wicked problems; wicked problems are unstructured, cross-cutting and relentless. Unstructured meaning that the cause and effect are extremely hard to identify and model, thus adding complexity and uncertainty and engendering a high degree of conflict because there is little consensus on the problem or the solution according to Robert cited in Weber & Khademian20. Secondly, the wicked problem space comprises multiple, overlapping,
interconnected subsets of problems cutting across multiple policy domains and levels of government20 . These problems are inevitable connected to other problems, such as
environmental preservation and economic development according to Weber cited in Weber &
19 Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of environmental policy & planning, 7(3), 175-184.
20 Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public administration review, 68(2), 334-349.
Khademian20. Finally, wicked problems are relentless meaning the problems cannot be solved
once and for all despite all the best intentions21.
Rittel & Weber22 distinguish ten properties of planning-type wicked problems, that planners
have to be alert to. The ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle might not be solely related to planning, though these properties seem to be applicable to wicked problems in general. The following properties are; there is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem, wicked problems have no stopping rule, solutions are not true or false, good or bad, there is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem, every solution is a ‘one-shot’ operation, there is no enumerable set of potential solutions, it is essentially unique, can be considered a symptom of another problem, the existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways and in this case the ‘planner’ has no right to be wrong22.
1.2.3 Legitimacy, credibility and salience of argumentation
The this focuses on argumentation used by experts in interviews. All experts work at different companies, organisations and institutes therefore they all have different specializations. When experts refer to their discourse about the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle they use argumentation, most likely based on for them relevant information. However since their expertise varies, experts are expected refer to different types of relevant information complementing their point of view. Cash23 introduces three pillars of knowledge production: salience, credibility and
legitimacy. They are perceived and judged differently by different actors, in addition their experts. Salience refers to the relevance of information for an actor’s decision choices, or for the choices that affect a given stakeholder23. Credibility refers to whether an actor perceives
information as meeting standards of scientific plausibility and technical adequacy23.
Legitimacy refers to whether an actor perceives the process in a system as unbiased and meeting standards of political and procedural fairness23. The argumentations used can differ
per actor and experts. The thesis emphasizes on what argumentation experts use with a high salience, credibility and legitimacy. And what experts refer to be less legitimate or salience.
1.2.4 Resilience, Risk, and Uncertainty
Based on disagreement about the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle in the news has been decided to feature the concepts; resilience, risk and uncertainty in the thesis. These three concepts appear 21 Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public administration review, 68(2), 334-349.
22 Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). 2.3 planning problems are wicked. Polity, 4, 155-169.
23 Cash, D., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., & Jäger, J. (2002). Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: linking research, assessment and decision making.
in the sub questions and conducted interviews. Disagreement in the news seems to be about different points of view towards the resilience of the Wadden Sea. More in-depth information about it is given in the chapter ‘background’. Currently only the three concepts are being introduced, in addition also how they can be linked with the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle. In the 70s theoretical ecologist Holling introduced the term resilience, since that moment multiple meanings of the concept have appeared in literature24. The ecological resilience has
been defined in two ways. Many authors have defined resilience the time required for a system to return to an equilibrium or steady-state following a perturbation24. In this case gas
extraction can be seen as a cause of perturbation. The second type of ecological resilience emphasizes conditions far from any steady state condition, here instability can flip the system into another regime of behaviour24. The distinction between both types of resilience lies in
assumptions regarding the existence of multiple states24. According to Holling cited in
Gunderson24 ecological resilience also refers to the width or limit of a stability domain and is
defined by the magnitude of disturbance that a system can absorb before it changes stable states. The second type of resilience implies the existence of multiple stable states. The question is how much disturbance the ecosystem of the Wadden Sea can handle before flipping to another regime, if there is another state. Resilience is concerned with its adaptive capacity. It can be described as a systems robustness to changes in resilience24. The resilience
of an ecosystem is a topic on which discussion can be held. In this case, experts are able to identify different viewpoints on the resilience of the Wadden Sea. It can describe their discourse about the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle. The effects of gas extraction can disturb the resilience of the Wadden Sea ecosystem. To what extent, varies depending on risk and uncertainty identified by experts will most likely differ. Risk is defined as the probability that a substance or situation will produce harm under specified conditions25. It is a combination of
two factors: the probability that an adverse event will occur and the consequences of the adverse event25. Within the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle, concept risk can play a role in for
instance predicting sea level rise. In the following chapter the methodology of the principle will be explained in which will become clear why sea level rise plays a role regarding the principle. For now, every expert could identify the risk of sea level rise for the Wadden Sea differently, this could influence their discourse about the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle. One expert might identify the risk of a drowning Wadden Sea in the next century, another expert 24 Gunderson, L. H. (2000). Ecological resilience—in theory and application. Annual review of ecology and
systematics, 31(1), 425-439.
25 Jones, R. N. (2001). An environmental risk assessment/management framework for climate change impact assessments. Natural hazards, 23(2), 197-230.
might not at all and has not even considered that scenario. The example of sea level rise scenarios are surrounded with uncertainty, most likely identified differently by every experts. While the methodology of the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle is based on a sea level rise scenario and measurements on soil subsidence and the sediment’s growth potential. News articles present disagreement on the methodology of the principle based on uncertainty and risk. It is expected that experts identify a variety of risk and uncertainty regarding the resilience of the Wadden Sea as argumentation for their discourse.
The theoretical framework has given an scientific introduction to the discourse analysis, used in the thesis. Emphasized the definition of discourse analysis, its strengths and its relation to power. The concepts wicked problems, three pillars of knowledge production, resilience, risk and uncertainty have been introduced in relation to this research.
1.3 Research question and sub questions
In the thesis a discourse analysis is conducted to answer the following research question:
-How does the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle discursively intervene in the status quo between experts from highly involved actors in relation to the issue of gas extraction in the Wadden Sea since the implementation of the principle in 2006?
The research question is concerned with the following terms: ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle, discursively intervene in status quo, experts from highly involved actors and gas extraction in the Wadden Sea .
‘The ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle’ refers to ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle implemented in 2006 in the Netherlands regarding gas extraction under the Wadden Sea. More information on the principle will be provided in chapter ‘background’.
‘Discursively intervene in status quo’ refers to the current situation in which experts from highly involved actors refer to and discuss the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle.
‘Experts from highly involved actors’ refers to people that work or have worked at a company, institute or organisation that often work or deal with the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle. It is one of their tasks to be involved in the principle.
‘Gas extraction in the Wadden Sea’ refers to gas extracted under the Wadden Sea from the locations Moddergat, Lauwersoog and Vierhuizen, since these locations are included in the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle. East Ameland officially is not involved in the principle since the principle was implemented in 2006, later then exploitation started in East Ameland in 1986. Most experts possess knowledge on all locations and do not specifically distinguish both locations based on which location the principle is applied on or not. Therefore their opinion about the extraction in Ameland has also been included in the thesis.
To answer the research question interviews have been conducted with experts. The interviews are analyse based on: actors, stakes and argumentation. These will answer the following sub questions:
1. Who are the experts from highly involved actors?
The first question presents the experts that were interviewed. Especially in a way they introduced themselves to me.
2. How do experts refer to highly involved actors in terms of their stakes?
The second sub question analyses how the experts have referred to their own company, institute or organisation. But also if they have made a significant reference about another actor.
3. What argumentation do the experts from highly involved actors use?
The last sub question focusses on the argumentation used in the interviews. The experts have used a lot of argumentation and this has to be presented in an organized way. Therefore it has been decided to divide it in to four sections. This division makes it easier to compare and analyse opinions and argumentations on a smaller scale between experts. Eventually all of the arguments given by the experts tell their story and idea of the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle and are seen as a whole. The sub question regarding argumentation has not only been divided in four sections but these sections also have been given their own sub question. In short the sub question regarding argumentation consists of the following four sub questions:
This sub question answers how the interviewed experts referred to the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle. It is expected that some experts might refer to some sort of a problem regarding the principle. Although others might not at all. The analysis of how experts refer to the ‘Hand of the Tap’ principle displays the message the experts have tried to come across in the interviews, based on their opinion and vision of the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle.
3.2 How do the experts refer to gas extraction in the Wadden Sea area in terms of resilience, risk and uncertainty?
This sub question demonstrates how experts view the Wadden Sea area in terms of the natural dynamics, their idea about ‘na-ijleffecten’ and assumptions on expected sea level rise. Since this view and opinion could be different in terms of how they see resilience, risk and uncertainty in the area. More information on ‘na-ijleffecten’ and sea level rise are given in chapter ‘background’.
3.3 How do the experts refer to recent developments?
The experts will be asked about their opinion on two items that recently have appeared in the news. One of them is the possible sudden subsidence at Pinkegat in terms of; do they think there is a subsidence and why or why not? They will be given the freedom to say anything about the current situation in Pinkegat. The other item they will shed their light on is about a report published by the NAM which would get a penalty payment if an improved report was not handed in on the 31st of October 2017. The chapter ‘background’ gives more information on both items.
3.4 How do experts refer to the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle in terms of future predictions and expectations?
The experts will be asked about the expectation for the upcoming years about the gas extraction in the Wadden Sea, nature and soil subsidence. By letting experts talk about their ideas or expectations about the upcoming years, it places their story and argumentation in perspective. It could show their biggest concern, fear or maybe they do not have a concern at all. This question adds up to how they have referred to the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle and if they have identified a problem.
1.4 Method
Methods describe how research has been conducted and mostly why. First the ‘type of research’ focusses on qualitative research, constructionism, interpretivism and inductivism and a unique case study. In the ‘method of data collection and analysis’ will be emphasized which respondents have been selected, how they have been contacted and interviewed. In addition how the interviews have been analysed. Also the criteria of qualitative research and discourse analysis will be discussed. Lastly, a conceptual schedule is presented.
1.4.1 Type of research
Quantitative and qualitative research are two major approaches26. Quantitative research
usually emphasizes quantification in the collection and analysis of data. The research strategy is deductivist, objectivist and incorporates a natural science model of the research process26.
In contrast qualitative research usually emphasize words rather than quantification in the collection and analysis data26. The research strategy is inductivist, contructionist and
interpretivist however not all researcher subscribe to all three features26. In this bachelor thesis
the qualitative research approach will be used since the thesis focuses on discourse used by highly involved experts about the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle. A discourse analysis is a qualitative type of research. The thesis focusses on the following terms; constructionism, interpretivism and inductivism. Constructionism is an ontological position that asserts that social phenomena and their meaning are continually being accomplished by social actors26.
The research question of the thesis focusses on collecting and showing different meaning and interpretations of the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle from social actors. The collected data has to be analyse and interpreted, analysing interviews will be explained in more detail further on. Interpretivism is an epistemological position that requires the social scientist to grasp the subjective meaning of social action26. The thesis uses an inductive approach. It is an approach
to the relationship between theory and research in which the former is generated out of the latter26. Since articles in the news about the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle demonstrate
disagreement on gas extraction in the Wadden Sea and the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle itself in terms of efficiency and functionality. The thesis conducts research on social constructed realities from various actors to determine whether multiple constructed realities surrounding the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle exist. For this research a case study will be used, it entails the detailed and intensive analysis of a single case. According to Stake cited in Bryman27 a case
26 Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press. 27 Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press.
study research is concerned with complexity and particular nature of the case in question. Yin cited in Bryman27 identifies five types of cases, one of them is a unique case study. The
‘Hand on the Tap’ principle for gas extraction under the Wadden Sea can be seen as a unique case study, based on what the principle entails, the gas extraction locations and unique characteristic of the Wadden Sea. The chapter ‘background’ will give more context regarding the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle and gas extraction in the Netherlands. Also this research focusses on discourse from highly involved experts on the principle therefore it can be seen as unique case study.
1.4.2 Method of data collection and analysis
1.4.2.1 Choice of respondents
In the thesis a discourse analyse on the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle will be conducted. The question will be answered based on the outcome of interviews with experts from highly involved actor. In this case these interviews are the research unit of the thesis. To answer the research question first the actors will have to be identified. For this research has been decided to focus on highly involved actors with the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle. Highly involved actors are actors that deal with the principle often. A huge list can be created based on this criteria. The thesis aims to demonstrate different points of view by interviewing to create a variety of opinions and social constructed realities. Therefore the decided was made to initially focus on four actors and to conduct per actor two interviews. The initially actors identified were:
- The NAM (Dutch Patroleum Company), - The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate
- The Wadden Association (a national organization that stands up for the interests of the Wadden Sea)
- WaLTER (Wadden Sea Long-Term Ecosystem Research).
The decision for these four actors is based on the fact that at least the NAM, Ministry and Wadden Association are most involved with gas extraction in the Wadden Sea. Also the NAM and the Wadden Association publicly disagree on gas extraction in the news. The NAM and Ministry financially profit from gas extraction. WaLTER has been added to the list to add discourse from at least two researchers for a different perspective as expected.
While conducting this research practice learned, it very difficult to schedule interviews with some actors due to the sensitive and controversial topic. I have been very fortunate to arrange one interview at the Ministry and the NAM. The two experts from WaLTER seemed to be connected differently to the ‘Hand of the Tap’ principle then initially expected. Most interviewed experts recommended me to interview Mr. Wang at Deltares due to his expertise in morphodynamics, which added Deltares to the list of actors. In total seven highly involved experts were interviewed from five actors. The experts will be introduced in the chapter ‘analysed interviews’ and are treated as individuals with their own discourse. Their argumentation will also be presented per expert instead of actor. Only ‘stakes’ will be presented per actor with individual opinions about an actor.
Actors Experts NAM Mr. Janssen
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate
Mr. van Elzen
Wadden Association Mrs. Kuipers
WaLTER Mr. Slim
Mr. van der Meer
Deltares Mr. Wang Mr. de Lange
Figure 2. Interviewed experts
1.4.2.2 Contacting respondents
The experts were contacted by mail or LinkedIn. Initially the actors were send an email introducing my research and a request for an interview with an expert they would suggest. None of these mails have been answered therefore the decision has been made to contact experts individually, shown in figure 2. The names of Mr. van der Meer and Mr. Slim appeared as author on the website of WaLTER on the topic gas and salt extraction in the Wadden Sea. Mr. de Lange has been contacted since his name appeared in a news article on possible subsidence in Pinkegat, eventually turns out Mr. de Lange is more or less specialized on soil subsidence in Groningen not the Wadden Sea. For an interview with an expert at the NAM I have contacted Mr. Ardesch press officer for Offshore locations via LinkedIn. He accepted my request by referring me to contact Mr. Janssen, it is Mr. Janssen’s expertise. For an interview with an expert at the Wadden Association I contacted Mr. Schuttenhelm author of the ‘Future of the Wadden Sea’ report published by the Wadden Association. An interview
with Mr. Schuttenhelm did not work out due to time restrictions but he referred me to contact Mrs. Kuipers. Finding a respondent for the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate was very difficult it is almost impossible to even find names of people that are involved with the ‘Hand on the Tap’ Principle. Mr. Janssen helped me by contacting Mr. van Elzen for me. Lastly I contacted Mr. Wang from Deltares since all six interviewed experts recommended me to contact him for his expertise.
1.4.2.3 Interviewing experts
The initial plan was to invite experts to talk about the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle without giving away too much information on what I would ask and why, to really capture their discourse and to make sure I would not capture fully prepared answers. Unfortunately the topic might be too sensitive for this approach. Most experts did not want to cooperate if I did not provide more information. Therefore I have decided to do the exact opposite by letting them know who I would and had interviewed, but also what the purpose is of the interview. Specifically focused on the fact that I am looking for different discourses, these discourse will be compared but not judged upon. Since that is not a part of my research and not the goal of a discourse analysis. This approach seemed to work eventually everyone wanted to cooperate. For the interviews the semi-structured interview technique has been used. I created a list of topics I wanted the experts to shed their light on without asking them the exact same questions. Structured interviewing would not be working well since all experts have their own expertise and some know more about the principle policy related and others on the morphodynamics. Also I had to gain their trust and create an in-depth conversation, a structured interviewing technique would achieve the exact opposite. I started off by asking them to introduce themselves. Most of the experts after they introduced themselves instantly referred to the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle with their opinion. The tactic was to just let them talk so they had the time to make their point and felt some conformation from me on their opinion. Eventually I made sure they would shed their light on the list of topics I had written down. The interview ended after all topics were discussed. With topics I refer to for instance their point of view of resilience of the Wadden Sea area or possible subsidence in Pinkegat. More in-depth information on these ‘topics’ itself can be found in chapter ‘background’. These ‘topics’ contribute in answering the sub questions. Below more information is given on why and how the topics were chosen.
1.4.2.4 Analysation of content discussed in interviews
The following chapter ‘background’ will give context to the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle. It will give a more in-depth introduction to the principle, what the principle entails. It also gives an introduction to gas extraction in the Netherlands and its controversy. News articles demonstrate disagreement on the principle between certain actors on specific ‘topics’. For instance if there is a possible sudden subsidence at the mudflat Pinkegat or disagreement on the expected sea level rise. ‘Methods’ will only give an introduction to why and how these topics have been chosen and how the news articles and documents have been read. The information presented in the chapter ‘background’ gives context about the principle and recent developments. Therefore news articles and policy documents have been read to ensure the chapter ‘background’ to only provide the information that is needed to understand what the current situation is. It does not entail technical details or how the principle has been established. Therefore the articles and documents have been read in a way in which the most important message has been obtained that contributes to the thesis. Chapter ‘background’ starts with an introduction of gas extraction and its controversy in the Netherlands and secondly it explains the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle. Lastly the controversy regarding the principle is demonstrated, it entails sea level rise, ‘na-ijleffecten’, the possible sudden subsidence at Pinkegat and the report published by the NAM which would get a penalty payment if an improved report was not handed in on the 31st of October 2017. The first two have to deal with different perspectives on resilience and are being argued by the Wadden Association. The last two topics could more or less be identified as being discussed in the news. These four topics in total seem to be discussed currently in the news or have been discussed by certain actor. Therefore these topic have been discussed in the interviews.
1.4.2.5 Analysing interviews
The interviews have been audio recorded, everyone has given permission for me to record the conversation. The recordings have been converted to a transcript, visible in the appendix only for the assessors. Some of the experts have requested this explicitly since it contains sensitive information. Also the transcripts will only be used for this thesis. The experts were given the option to read the transcripts or the written text about the discourse from experts in the chapter ‘analysed interviews’, if they referred to it. Only Mr. Wang has requested the transcript and written text on his discourse based on the analysed transcript. He made some
minor adjustments in the text. He shared his discourse of the principle but explicitly asked me to remove some references towards other actors and their stakes.
First, all audio recorded interviews were converted into a transcript before the transcripts were analysed except the transcript of the interview with Mr. Wang since the interview was scheduled quite late on 2 January 2018. The transcripts have been typed out in the language in Dutch in which the conversation was held. The transcripts have been printed out and checked along with the audio for any mistakes, in spelling. After double checking the transcripts they have been analysed by using highlighters. In total six colours, corresponding to the six sub questions.
The first sub question introduces the experts from highly involved actors. With the colour yellow all text has been highlighted in which the expert introduced themselves or made a claim towards their research or work. All of the highlighted text has been entered into the digital transcript on a laptop. The analysed transcripts were added to the appendix of the thesis to ensure transparency.
With the colour bright green text has been highlighted in which the experts made a reference towards an actor. This could be their own company, institute or another company, institute or organisation. Highlighting these references will answer the sub question: How do experts refer to highly involved actors in terms of their stakes? Within the first two highlighted colours in the text, the first two sub questions could be answered. The amount of highlighted texts differs per transcript but is mostly quite a lot of text. More than can be touched upon in the thesis therefore only the main point or central issue can be displayed. In this case only a short introduction of the experts themselves is displayed which is fundamental to their discourse of the principle and their position. For the sub question regarding stakes it has been decided to let an expert or experts from the actor introduce the actor in term of their stakes. Thereafter opinions are displayed from experts from other actors towards a certain actor concerning their stakes.
The analysed transcript can be divided in three parts namely, actors, stakes and arguments. The first two have been touched upon, the argumentations have not been touched upon. Argumentation is slightly more complicated to analyse than actors and stakes since almost the entire transcript consists of argumentation. For this reason ‘argumentation’ was divided in four sub questions that have already been introduced before. The transcripts were analysed for argumentation based on those four questions. The following questions were marked with the following colours:
Highlighted colour Sub questions regarding argumentation
Blue - How do the experts refer to the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle?
Dark green - How do the experts refer to gas extraction in the Wadden Sea area in terms of
resilience, risk and uncertainty? Pink - How do the experts refer to recent
developments?
Grey - How do experts refer to the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle in terms of future predictions and expectations?
Figure 3. Highlighted colours used for analysing transcripts for sub questions regarding argumentation
The operationalisation of the sub questions was discussed before. It is not discussed again in-depth. The transcripts were analysed based on these four sub questions and they were marked with the corresponding colours. Once a transcript on printed paper has been fully analysed, the digital version would be adjusted. In every transcript the text was sorted out by colour and combined in a word file. The marked text from the same colour was read again to understand the bigger picture of what the expert is trying to tell me in the interview. After this step, the most important statements about a topic including their argumentation were summarize in an average of 300 words. The experts message was translated into English as good as possible without trying to distorting their discourse towards the principle.
1.4.3 Criteria of qualitative research and discourse analysis
Within the evaluation of social research the following three criteria are the most prominent: reliability, replication and validity28. According to Bryman28 reliability is concerned with the
question of whether the results of the study are repeatable. The idea of reliability is very close to another criterion of research: replicability28. Within qualitative research both reliability and
replicability are lower compared to quantitative research. Also the validity of a research can be determined, Bryman28 identifies four types of validity; measurement validity, internal
validity, external validity and ecological validity. A discourse analysis is concerned with strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and threats. The strength of a discourse analysis is a high measurement validity, it identifies interpretative repertoires or detailed procedures, it is also 28 Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press.
concerned with sceptical reading. The opportunities of discourse analysis are concerned with a high ecological validity, it aims to understand the deeper meaning, it is also concerned with external validity to uncover politics of expertise. The weaknesses of a discourse analysis are defined by reliability, it is more a craft than a method and replicability, there is no codification of procedures. In this thesis has been tried to diminish these weaknesses by explaining the analysation process using highlighters corresponding to sub questions in which a codification process has been developed and applied. Also by adding the analysed transcripts to the thesis in the appendix it ensures transparency. The replicability of the thesis remains a difficult task due to the fact that it uses a discourse analysis based on interviews as research units. Conducting semi-structured interviews can be personal and the information given by experts can indeed vary in the details. But overall experts will not suddenly change their discourse or opinion about the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle if someone else would conduct the same research. The threats of a discourse analysis are concerned with collecting to much data and internal validity, arbitrary interpretation. These threats have been diminished by focussing on discourse from experts towards the principle, by only focussing on actors, stakes and argumentation, and only giving context and information about what is being discussed in the interviews and mostly why it is included. The threat of arbitrary interpretations has been diminished by presenting the experts with their opinion as true as possible. In addition presenting the main point they have tried to tell me based on all sub questions separately also by using highlighters and creating a codification method. Although conducting interviews in Dutch and eventually translating their discourse into English is tricky, the used expressions and phrasings can never be translated one on one. It has been translated as truthfully as possible, mistakes can never be fully ruled out.
1.4.4 Conceptual Schedule
Figure 4. A conceptual schedule of how the discourse analysis is conducted in the thesis, Own creation
The thesis focuses on used discourse. It focuses on experts from highly involved actors, stakes and argumentation. Therefore the three point have been presented within the discourse in figure 4. The thesis examines the discourse about the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle, which explains the arrow towards the principle in the figure. The discourse of an expert depends on the actor they represent, the stakes of that actor and the used argumentation. Many other factors can influence a discourse about the principle but in the thesis is focussed on these three points. The argumentation experts use will contain various relevant information with different values of salience, legitimacy and credibility for themselves. How the experts ‘view’ the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle various on how they ‘see’ the Wadden Sea in terms of resilience, risk and uncertainty.
1.5 Reading guide
The following chapter ‘background’ gives context to political aspects of gas extraction in the Netherlands, a more in-depth introduction to the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle and how the principle has recently appeared in the news.
The chapter ‘analysed interviews’ emphasized the analysed transcripts from the seven interviews. First, experts from highly involved actor are being introduced in a way they introduces themselves to me. It answers the following sub question: Who are the experts from highly involved actors? Secondly, is analysed how the experts have referred to their own company, institute or organisation. But also if they have made a significant reference about another actor. It answers the following sub question: How do experts refer to highly involved actors in terms of their stakes? Lastly the argumentations used by experts have been analysed and divided in four sections namely:
- ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle, experts with their point of view
- Gas extraction in the Wadden Sea in terms of resilience, risk and uncertainty - ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle in the news
- Future Predictions and Expectations
This division makes it easier to compare and analyse opinions and argumentations on a smaller scale between experts. Eventually all of the arguments given by the experts tell their story and idea of the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle. Together they will answer the following sub question: What argumentation do the experts from highly involved actors use?
Chapter ‘conclusions’ demonstrates the discourse from every expert about the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle. The sections: actors, stakes and argumentations from chapter ‘analysed interviews’ are combined so the research question can be answered. Chapter ‘discussions’ elaborates on how the research could have been improved and provides recommendations for further research.
2.0 Background
This chapter provides context regarding the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle to create a better understanding. First, the political aspects of gas extraction in the Netherland are being discussed. Secondly the ‘Hand on the Tap’ principle will be explained more in-depth. Lastly, the recent developments are being discussed on which the experts will shed their light in the interviews.
2.1 Political aspects of gas extraction in the Netherlands
On the 22th of July 1959 the Dutch Petroleum Company better known as the NAM discovered a natural gas field under the municipality of Slochteren29. At the time, the amount
of gas in this natural field was estimated at 60 billion cubic meters, which led towards governmental policy to transition the Dutch society towards a society with access to natural gas and reducing the use of other types of fuel29. Since 1963 the Gasunie, a Dutch company is
responsible for this physical transition including transportation. The most recent estimated amount of natural gas below Slochteren in total is between 2700 and 2800 billion cubic meters30. According to the Algemene Rekenkamer31, an independent body that audits the
spending of the national government, the total government income from Dutch natural gas revenues is approximately € 265 billion in the period of 1960-2013. The natural gas benefits have therefore been a substantial source of income for the State for over fifty years.
In 2006 former Minister of Economic Affairs L Brinkhorst wrote in a letter, Vision on the Gasmarket32 that the government should try to maintain their position as gas ‘roundabout’ or
hub of Northwest Europe. The Dutch strategy to further strengthen the position in the European gas market and to extend the Netherlands to the gas ‘roundabout’ or hub of Northwest Europe leads to extra economic activities33. The report ‘Economic Impact of the
29 Groninger Archieven (n.d.). Casus Slochteren.
https://www.groningerarchieven.nl/educatie/primair-onderwijs/archieven-in-erfgoededucatie/gemeente-slochteren/slochteren-in-stukken-casus (requested on 8 October 2017)
30 NAM (n.d.) Brochure Gasveld Groningen ‘Slochteren’.
https://www.nam.nl/algemeen/mediatheek-en-downloads/brochers/_jcr_content/par/textimage.stream/1474410748285/70797b9b4c4fe21a9e1e5b22d329e7ca1 70dd1a2c4e7abe8abd1b696a593b779/flyer-namg50ned.pdf (requested on 8 October 2017)
31 Algemene Rekenkamer (2014) Rapport Besteding van aardgasbaten: feiten, cijfers en scenario’s. Den Haag: Algemene Rekenkamer
32 Eerste Kamer (2006). Brief van L.J. Brinkhorst aan de Voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer over Visie op de gasmarkt. https://www.eerstekamer.nl/eu/behandeling/20060317/brief_2/f=/vh93ee5cs2vo.pdf (requested on 9 December 2017)
33 Rijksoverheid (2010). Gasrotonde goed voor Nederlandse economie.
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2010/12/08/gasrotonde-goed-voor-nederlandse-economie (requested on 9 December 2017)
