Sustainability For All?
The Role of Income and Policies on the Accessibility of
Sustainability in Buiksloterham
Jan van 't Hek 10243674 University of Amsterdam Master Urban & Regional Planning Supervisor: dr. B.M. (Bas) Hissink Muller
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Bas Hissink Muller first and foremost. He supported me through the hard times, especially at the start of this project. And he continued to offer his guidance where necessary. I would have never been able to deliver this piece of work without his help. I am grateful to my parents and brother, who have stood by me throughout my years on the University of Amsterdam and helped me during this study. I have the same gratitude towards my friends, who have had the ability to distract me from this process whenever I needed. A special mention goes out to my roommates Yorick and Tristan, who I have been sharing my achievements and failures with over the last three years. I also would like to thank the people who have taken the time to read my research and provide with necessary feedback. Last acknowledgements go out to all the professors who lectured me during my study. It has been a wonderful time.
Abstract
Sustainability has evolved into one of the main goals for planning over the last decades, but different actors have their own interpretation of what sustainability entails. The concept is concerned with economic, environmental and social issues. However, the latter seems to gain the least attention in the design of planning policies. The result is an economic and environmental scope, which could lead to exclusion of the poor from acting sustainable.
International agreements on improving our current energy consumption have led to ambitious goals in the Netherlands. This also affects the area of Buiksloterham in Amsterdam. Sustainable development needs to be accelerated in order to reach these goals. That can only be achieved if a transition is implemented on a large scale, and everyone needs to profit from this transition.
This study explored the phenomenon ‘exclusive sustainability’ in the area of
Buiksloterham in Amsterdam. Research has been done on the impact of income on the accessibility of dominant sustainable activities, and the influence of policies on this relationship. There is no reason to assume that households are being excluded from all sustainable activities. The lowest incomes are nonetheless significant less participating in the most dominant sustainable activities. A combination of rising energy prices and a lack of sustainable activities have resulted in a growing number of fuel poor households.
Policies have an important influence on the relationship between income and the
accessibility of sustainable activities. The highest incomes benefit the most from policies in absolute terms. However, policies also make sure that the impact of income on the accessibility of sustainable activities is being reduced. They enable low incomes to participate in activities they would otherwise not be participating in. Nonetheless, it is hard to explain how policies influence this behaviour directly. The time interval between the implementation of these policies and this research has been too short to make clear statements about the overall behavioural effects of all of these policies.
Some of these new policies have led to positive expectations when it comes to enhance
the sustainability of all income groups. This study argues that the housing associations and other organisations should be granted more freedom in developing new concepts. Moreover, the government should be willing to take risks in order to accelerate large scale implementation of new sustainable concepts.
Table of Contents
1.1 Introduction ... 1
1.2 Outline ... 1
2.1 Introduction Theoretical Framework ... 2
2.1.1 Relationship Between Income and Sustainability ... 2
2.1.2 Environmental Elitism ... 2
2.2.3 Impact of Policies on Sustainability ... 5
2.3.3 Fuel poverty ... 7
2.3.6.4 Collection of Sustainable Activities ... 13
2.4 Conceptual Model ... 15
3. Introduction Methodology Chapter ... 17
3.1 Research Methodology ... 17
3.2 Case Study ... 18
3.2.1 Case Selection and Criteria ... 18
3.3 Survey Research ... 18
3.4 Survey Design ... 19
3.5 Data Collection ... 20
3.4.2 Interviewee Selection ... 20
4.1 Case Buiksloterham ... 25
4.3 Division Between Different Home-types ... 28
5. Introduction Reaction of Policy-makers ... 31
5.1 Opinions about Policies on Sustainability ... 31
5.2 Summary of the Reactions of Policymakers ... 32
6. Introduction Policy Chapter ... 33
6.1 International Agreements ... 33
6.1 Role of Housing Associations ... 34
6.1.1 Housing in General ... 35
6.1.2 Local Subsidies and Loans on Housing ... 36
6.1.3 National Subsidies and Loans on Housing ... 36
6.2 Appliances ... 36
6.3 Energy ... 37
6.4 Vehicle Choice ... 37
6.5 Sustainability Goals and Directives in Amsterdam ... 38
6.5.1 Policies on Buiksloterham ... 39
6.6 Summary of Policies on Sustainability ... 39
7. Introduction Influence of Policies on Behaviour ... 41
7.1 General Policies on Sustainability ... 41
7.2 Housing ... 41
7.2.2 Influence of Energy efficiency Policies on Retrofitting ... 44
7.2.3 Influence of Energy efficiency policies on Residents ... 45
7.2.4 Summary of Influence of Policies on Housing ... 46
7.3 Appliances ... 46
7.3.1. Adoption of energy-efficient appliances ... 47
7.3.2 Summary of Influence of Policies on Appliances ... 48
7.4.3 Influence of microgeneration policies on residents ... 49
7.4.4 Summary on Energy ... 50
7.6 Conclusions on the Influence of Policies ... 51
8.1 Main findings ... 52
8.2.1 Relationship between income and sustainability ... 53
8.2.2 Policy impact ... 53
8.2.3 Exclusive Sustainability ... 54
8.3 Scientific Relevance ... 54
8.4 Limitations of this Study ... 55
8.5 Opportunities for further research ... 55
8.6 Policy Recommendations ... 56
References ... 57
List of Abbreviations
BENG - Bijna Energieneutraal Gebouwen
CO2 - Carbon Dioxide
EPC - Energieprestatiecoëfficiënt
EPV - Energoeprestatievergoeding
Esco - Energy Service Company
kWh - Kilowatt Hour
PV - Photovoltaic
List of Tables and Figures
Chapter 2Table 1 – Collection of Sustainable Activities 14
Figure 1 - Conceptual Model 15
Chapter 3
Table 2 – Anonymous Overview of Interviewed Residents 21
Table 3 – Overview of Interviewed Professionals 22
Table 4 – Descriptive Statistics 23
Table 5 - Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 24
Chapter 4
Figure 2 – Legend Buiksloterham 25
Graph 1 – Prognoses on Inhabitants in Buiksloterham, 2012 26
Graph 2 – Prognoses on Housing Stock Buiksloterham, 2012 26
Graph 3 – Amount of sustainable activities per income group 28
Graph 4 – Amount of sustainable activities per income group 29
Graph 5 – Amount of Activities Compared to Home Type 30
Chapter 5
Table 6 – Selection of Policies on Sustainability on local and nationwide scale 34
Chapter 7
Graph 6 - Energetic quality of homes in the Netherlands according to construction
1.1 Introduction
Sustainable development is the new guidance for planning in the twenty-first century (Saha & Peterson, 2008). Beneath the wide celebration of the concept lies a deep conflict over the meaning and the implementation of sustainable development (El-Kamel Bakari, 2014). It has transformed into a dominant discourse and it is embraced by a wide variety of actors, all of which have their own interpretation of what sustainable development means (Hopwood et al., 2005; Giddings et al., 2005).
The debates about sustainability no longer consider sustainability as only an
environmental concern, but also incorporate economic and social dimensions. The different associated aspects of sustainability, as well as the wide interpretation of the concept have led to a variety of urban forms that are characterized as ‘sustainable’; from the construction of high-density blocks to retrofitting abandoned neighbourhoods (Demspey et al., 2011). This ambiguity also has his influence on the policies on sustainability. Even though many sustainable urban development programs have the right intentions, most of them fall short of addressing the issues of social justice and equity (Agyeman & Evans, 2003; Giddings et al., 2002).
A lot of scholars stress the importance of the issues of social justice and social equity
as vital components of sustainability (Campbell 1996; Giddings et al., 2002; Dempsey et al., 2011; Egelston, 2013). The original concept of sustainability had the ambition to create more equality between and within generations (Brundtland, 1987), which should lead to a more inclusive society. However, there is almost no literature on the question whether sustainability is exclusive or inclusive itself. This research will focus on the possible exclusivity of sustainability, by looking at the relationship between income and sustainable activities. After that, the way in which policies on sustainability influence this relationship will be discussed. The problem statement that will be addressed in is: How do policies on
sustainability influence the impact of income on the accessibility of sustainable activities?
1.2 Outline
This study is structured as follows. A theoretical framework is presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 explains the methodology of this research, including criteria for a case-selection and the design of a survey. The results of this survey will be presented in Chapter 4. In Chapter 5 I will present the reactions of policymakers on the results of my survey, and the background of my research. After that, attention is given to the policies on sustainability on various scales. These policies are collected in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 is concerned with the influence that these policies have on people’s behaviour in my case in particular, and on professionals in a wider sense. Chapter 8 entails the discussion of this research, including main findings, results in relation the theoretical framework, limitations of this study and opportunities for further research. This chapter ends with Recommendations for the design of policies.
2.1 Introduction Theoretical Framework
I have searched for related theories, in order to do research on whether sustainability is exclusive to some. This chapter starts out with theories on the relationship between income and the accessibility of sustainable activities. After that, theories about the influence that policies have in general, and on sustainable activities are being discussed. Then, the chapter continues with theories on social exclusion. After that, my own definition of the exclusivity of sustainability is presented. The chapter ends with models on the measurement of the exclusivity of sustainability and sustainable activities.
2.1.1 Relationship Between Income and Sustainability
I assume that income has an influence on the accessibility of sustainable activities. The main perception of the public is that it takes green to be green (Brisman, 2009; Bennett & Williams, 2011). In the United States there is a fundamental belief among the mass population that they are being excluded from sustainable activities because they just aren’t cool or rich enough to participate in this behaviour (Bennett & Williams, 2011). The authors do not present evidence to back this up. This is the gap in academic literature that I want to research, but I am only focusing on income because, as I will show in chapter 2.3.1, that is the most important determinant of exclusion. I am not interested in whether people are effectively sustainable or not, but I am interested in the possibility of purchasing eco-friendly goods. I do this because, as I will show in chapter 2.2.3, some of these goods are inaccessible to some because of the high investment costs, while they are providing financial benefits to others through rebates and other tax-benefits. This can be described as a form of elitism. I argue that this form of elitism is problematic when sustainable development is becoming the new guidance for planning. It could lead to an uneven distribution of the costs and benefits of this transition, and the possibility of fuel poverty.
2.1.2 Environmental Elitism
Elitism has been a major issue from the early days of the environmental movement (Morrison & Dunlap, 1986). There is no easy answer on the question whether sustainability is elitist or not. Both the articles of Morrison and Dunlap (1986) and Brisman (2009) have distinguished three types of accusations against the environmental movement: compositional elitism, ideological elitism and impact elitism. Compositional elitism claims that the supporters of environmentalism are drawn primarily from the privileged or upper socioeconomic strata (Brisman, 2009). It is true that the supporters of environmentalism are better educated than non-supporters, but their income levels range from low to high (Morrison & Dunlap, 1986). Ideological elitism follows the accusation that environmental reform propositions are used to direct social and economic resources away from problems that are important to the poor and toward the priorities of the environmentalists. It is a pretext to pursue the self-interest of environmentalists in this view (Morrison & Dunlap, 1986). There has so far been no evidence to back-up this claim.
I am most concerned with the idea of impact elitism since the claims on compositional and ideological elitism have been proved to be ungrounded. Impact elitism entails the accusation that environmental policies have regressive distributional impacts. They have, whether intentionally or not, distributed benefits to environmentalists and costs to others, especially to the least privileged (Brisman, 2009). I follow this claim since most eco-friendly goods that are stimulated by policies require a certain investment, which makes it hard for poorer households to access these goods. Impact elitism is, however, a problematic claim since the distributional impacts of environmental policies have not been registered, and it also not clear what type of analysis should be needed (Brisman, 2009). Nevertheless, Morrison and Dunlap (1986) speculate that policies on sustainability are in general regressive in their impacts. This speculation will be backed up in the next section.
2.2.1 Impact of Policies in General
My research is concerned with the influence that policies on sustainability have, because some policies on sustainability have regressive impacts (Sutherland, 2008). This might lead to undesired outcomes, like the exclusion of sustainability. I will explain this later, but first an
explanation of policy impact in general is needed.
Policies are, at their most basic level, seeking to change behaviour in order to produce
desired outcomes. They are designed to incentivize: they are implemented to provoke a type of behaviour on the one hand. They are also designed to try to avoid or limit undesired outcomes on the other hand. Policies do not only affect the behaviour of those who are targeted, but it can lead to several different kinds of outcomes, intermediate and ultimate, desired and undesired (Cogliansese, 2012). Incentives can lead to undesired effects when people misuse the given opportunities (Gneezy et al., 2011). Policies do vary a lot. They can be described through very different labels: constitutions, statutes, legislation, standards, rules, and so forth. Measuring their impact depends on a wide variety of factors and the question whether activities, behaviours, or outcomes are being measured (Coglianese, 2012). In the field of program evaluation, like a subsidy program, evaluation refers to studies focused on outcomes. Then again, outcomes could be measured in monetized or non-monetized terms and this also the case for the costs. I am focusing on monetary incentives, because a lot of policies on sustainability have monetary incentives attached to them, and because I am particularly focusing on income.
Monetary incentives have two kinds of effects. On the one hand, the standard and
direct price effect. This effect makes the incentivized behaviour more attractive. And on the other hand, it creates an indirect psychological effect, which could work in an opposite direction. Monetary incentives might weaken the intrinsic motivations of people, which means that certain behaviour would not be adopted if it were not for the money. It is not the aim of this study to research behavioural responses to monetary incentives, but it is important to highlight that monetary incentives do not result in solely positive effects. They can have adverse effects on the long term since the desired change in behaviour can disappear (Gneezy
et al., 2011). That raises the question if the funded incentive can be legitimized in the first place.
It is very difficult to present a clear-cut result of the impact of a single policy. There
are a lot of the different factors that have to be taken into account. I am therefore not trying to measure the outcome of a specific policy. However, theories do show that policies have a particular influence. In this study the focus is on policies on sustainability. How they emerged is discussed below. In chapter 4 is explained how the influence of policies will be researched.
2.2.2 Policies on Sustainability
Policies on sustainability started to emerge widely in the 1980’s, under the title ‘sustainable development’. It was the result of growing awareness on environmental problems, socio-economic issues and concerns about a healthy future for humanity (Hopwood et al., 2005). This growing concern was first and most famously expressed in the Brundtland Report. It defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Brundtland
Report, 1987, 41). This definition recognized the dependency of humans on the environment in a much wider sense than just exploiting recourses. It also stresses the need to take care of our planet (Hopwood et al., 2005). The growing international consensus indicates that something should be done; yet, fewer consensuses have been reached on what should be done (Svara et al., 2013). This might lead to opposing strategies and undesired outcomes. There is, however, a majority of scholars that agree on the most important aspects of sustainable development, as I will show below.
Sustainable development is often divided into three sectors: the economy, the
environment and the society (Giddings et al., 2002). It is often called the ‘Three E’s’ (environment, economy, equity) or the three P’s (people, planet, profit). Scott Campbell (1996), among others, has argued that sustainable development can act as a solution to the conflict between economic, environmental and social interests. It can generate a green, profitable and just city at the same time (Campbell, 1996). How this can be reached has not been defined clearly (Dempsey et al., 2011; Egelston, 2013), and the implementation of sustainable development in practice remains muted and uneven (OECD, 2011). Sustainable development should act as the balance between these important planning goals. However, various actors emphasize on different aspects of sustainability, and planners usually represent one particular goal (Campbell, 1996; Agyeman & Evans, 2003; Egelston, 2013; Giddings et al., 2002).
Policymaking on sustainability is influenced by the environmental and
socio-economic views of the policymakers, and the political landscape they are situated within (Hopwood et al., 2005). This has consequences for the influence of policies on the accessibility of sustainable activities. A left-wing paternalistic government will, in all probability, implement other policies then a right-wing liberal government. The more active the government, the more influence policies will have. If they have any influence at all to start with. An overall conclusion from research in the US is that policymaking on sustainability
seems to be more and more concerned with the understanding of the relationship between the pursuit of local economic development and sustainability (Portney, 2013; Saha & Paterson, 2008; Jepson, 2004), and less with social issues. I want to see whether social issues are of equal consideration as economic and environmental issues in Amsterdam and the Netherlands.
2.2.3 Impact of Policies on Sustainability
There are concerns about the short-term consequences of policies to protect the environment on the distribution of household income (OECD, 2001). I already described that the main objective of all policies on sustainability is to change the patterns of consumption and production. As such, they have, by their very nature, distributional impacts on households. Even when power is fairly and equally distributed, many environmental goods may produce compromise allocations of that good that under-supply the good to higher income groups and over-supply it to low income groups, producing an equity problem (Pearce, 2006). Another problem is that subsidies on these activities also affect people who do not belong to the target group. The risk is that too many free riders reduce the effectiveness of the measure (Boonekamp, 2006).
Literature shows that quite frequently both the costs of environmental policy and the
distribution of environmental quality are regressive. In other words, higher income households receive a proportionately larger share of the environmental benefits and a lower share of the financial costs of environmental policies (Sutherland, 2006). Research of Sutherland (1994) shows that high income households are eight times more frequently participating in electric utility conservation programs than low income households (Sutherland, 1994). Sutherland (2006) has argued that the equity results of energy efficiency programs can be generalized to other policies on sustainability that require households to make investment decisions with expected future benefits.
Sustainable activities with attached subsidies that require a high investment benefits
those households that are capable of making this investment in the first place. High income households save and invest a larger share of their income than low income households, and are therefor able to benefit from subsidies that require a high initial investment. Subsidies and tax benefits encourage the rich to make investments that enhance their own welfare. This mechanism can exclude low income households from these benefits, and the sustainable activities they belong to. This is a controversial assertion. What is clear is that environmental policies have the potential to raise distributional concerns, and the possibility to exclude households from these activities. I will research the phenomenon that I call exclusive sustainability. Exclusive sustainability is based on the concept of social exclusion.
2.3.1 Social Exclusion
The term social exclusion has its foundations in the 1970’s in France, where it was used to refer to people who slipped through the social insurance system (Burchardt et al., 1999; Nowosielski, 2012). Social exclusion could be described as a failure of the state in protecting
social cohesion (Bhalla & Lapeyre, 1997). Nowadays, it has developed into an inherent feature of modern capitalism (Byrne, 1999). The growing gap between the rich and poor has led to a huge increase of people who are socially excluded (Burchardt et al., 1999). However, there are many different interpretations of the concept. The term is widely used despite the fact that it has no precise definition. For some, social exclusion is simply a currently popular way of talking about poverty (Burchardt et al., 1999). For others, it consists of a multi-dimensional and dynamic process that places a plurality of social problems within a single framework for analysis and policy development (Dale Parent & Lewis, 2002; Burchardt et al., 1999). These scholars emphasize on the relational aspect of a variety of concepts, such as poverty, social inequality, discrimination, segregation, unequal access, alienation and exploitation, which could leave individuals stranded in a social no-mans land (Berman & Phillips, 1999). Most literature on social exclusion is concerned with the prevention of acquiring the basic necessities of life, but the concept so multidimensional and elastic that it is defined in many different ways (Nowosielski, 2012).
For my research on exclusive sustainability I will follow the definition of Howarth et
al. (1998), since I do not want to look the accessibility of basic necessities of life, but at the accessibility of a dominant lifestyle. Social exclusion concerned with an inability to do things that are in some sense considered normal by society as a whole in the view of Howarth et al. (1998). I want to research if, and which households are being excluded from sustainable activities. The reason behind this approach is the danger that the original concept of sustainability might be affected further when not everyone is capable of participating in the sustainable transition. How I will going to research this is explained in the following sections
2.3.2 Exclusive Sustainability
I have developed the definition of exclusive sustainability, since there is not much literature on whether sustainability is exclusive itself. Bennett & Williams (2011) have come to the conclusion that the people who reject the importance of sustainable activities, also seem to be disconnected from their communities. These so-called ‘green-rejecters’ are not only rejecting sustainable activities, but are also not participating in social activities. Other scholars argue that the exclusion of sustainable activities can lead to fuel poverty (Delbeke et al., 2013; Walker & Day, 2012). Fuel poverty can also lead to non participation in social activities, as I will show in the next section. Green-rejecters may have chosen to reject the green movement, but other households might not act sustainable for a whole other reason. This can have consequences for their financial well being, as I will show in the next section. Both scenarios have social consequences. This link makes the exclusion of sustainability an issue that needs more clarification. It might reflect the overall social exclusion of people (Bennet & Williams,
2011).
The concept of exclusive sustainability that I have formulated is based on the concept
of social exclusion. It is not as wide ranging as social exclusion, which is focusing on the overall socio-economic status of individuals. I am following the definition of an inability to do things that are considered normal by society.
Vucetich & Nelson (2010) argue that sustainability may well be the dominant notion of what it means to be a good person in today’s world. Bennett & Williams (2011) published a big paper that was called ‘Mainstream Green: Moving sustainability from niche to normal’. Sustainability was, already in 2007, one of Yahoo’s most popular searches (Brisman, 2009), and there are hundreds of websites with guides towards a more sustainable lifestyle. When being sustainable is moving towards becoming considered normal by society as a whole, and it is developing into a dominant lifestyle, it has consequently the ability to create social exclusion.
Brisman (2009) is also concerned about the exclusion from environmentally
beneficial activities, behaviours, and consumption patterns as a result of desires to claim membership in a particular group or class. He is worried that the recent consciousness and concern about the environment will develop into a race to be green, which could alienate those without the economic means to adopt sustainable activities. The exclusion of sustainable activities can to lead to fuel poverty, as I will show below.
2.3.3 Fuel poverty
Fuel poverty is a relative new concept in the Netherlands, but it is becoming increasingly common. Households are dealing with fuel poverty when more than ten per cent of their spendable income has to be spent on their energy bills (Delbeke et al., 2013). Some scholars argue that fuel poverty should be recognised an unacceptable feature of 21st century living, which can be related to the matter of social justice (Walker & Day, 2012). Current legislation does not include the right to energy. However, energy is a basic need of life in our current society.
Most occurring reasons for fuel poverty are of combination rising energy prices and
energy inefficient homes. The prices of energy and gas have risen a lot in the period between 2000 and 2010. The price for gas doubled, and the price of electricity rose with 20% (Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland, 2015). This has consequences for the households that were already struggling to make ends meet. A lack of sustainable activities will result in a higher demand of energy, and consequently higher energy bills, which can lead to poverty in the end. Poverty can in turn lead to non-participation in social activities (Levitas, 2006).
The rest of this research is particularly focusing on exclusive sustainability but it is
important to highlight the possible phenomenon of fuel poverty. The issue of fuel poverty is becoming increasingly aware in the minds of policymakers, as I will show in Chapter 5.
2.3.4 Working Definition of Exclusive Sustainability
In order to examine exclusive sustainability, a working definition of the term is needed. It is also important to know what is causing exclusion in order to research it. Levitas (1998) has identified three contrasting discourses: the social integration view, the moralistic view and the redistributive view. The social integration view sees unemployment as the main cause for exclusion. It sees the poor as potential workers that need to be reintegrated into society through paid work. The moralistic view emphasizes cultural causes of poverty. It sees the
excluded as undeserving individuals with lacking morals. I am interested in the redistributive view, which sees low income as the main cause of exclusion (Turok et al., 1999), because it fits the most within our current society. A small amount of unemployment is inevitable, and excluded people are not treated as undeserving individuals. Burchardt et al. (1995) also showed that low income was the dominant cause of exclusion. Within the redistributive view, poverty is principally about the resources to which people (do not) have access. I want to research whether income has influence on the amount of sustainable activities in which households participate in order to see whether they are excluded of what is becoming a dominant way of life.
For the practicability of this research I solely focus on income levels, and not savings,
since it is the main cause for exclusion (Levitas, 2006). Research of Bennett & Williams (2011) showed that the number one barrier holding Americans back to behavioural change on the issue of sustainability was money. What can be concluded is that income seems to be of great importance when it comes to the participation in sustainable activities.
2.3.5 Measurement of Exclusive Sustainability
The definition of exclusive sustainability that I am following is based on a definition of social exclusion. This definition is concerned with the inability to do things that are in some sense considered normal by society as a whole. Exclusive sustainability is concerned with an inability to access sustainable activities. One major problem with the measurement of social exclusion is that there is no agreement on a single set of indicators for the identification of social exclusion. It is multi-dimensional and may therefor require a wide variety of indicators (Dale Parent & Lewis, 2002). That also means that I cannot just simply implement social exclusion indicators in my concept of exclusive sustainability. Another problem is that there is no consensus on whether objective or subjective measures should be included (Labontè et al., 2011). Most researchers on social exclusion only use objective measures. I want to focus on both objective and subjective measures, which I will explain later in Chapter 4. I want to research what impact income has on the accessibility of sustainable activities, but I also want to research how policies influence this relationship.
Levitas (2006), in her research on social exclusion, has looked at the relationship
between poverty, non-participation and choice. She looked directly at the relationship between income and non-participation in activities of individuals, regardless of the stated reasons. She plotted the number of activities that people were not participating in against their income. Of course, no correlation can establish a causal link in itself, but she could not detect any other plausible account of causation at work. She argued that it seems reasonable to assume that poverty has a direct impact on levels of participation (Levitas, 2006). It is also reasonable to assume that poverty has a direct impact on levels of participation in sustainable activities, because money is the number one barrier to adopt sustainable activities as I showed in the last section. Levitas (2006) has also shown that the objective effect of poverty is stronger than one would think if people were asked whether they could afford particular activities. My approach shows that whatever people say about not wanting to participate in, or
not being interested in, particular activities, income levels are an important determinant of accessibility. However, I do am interested in the influence of policies. This will be explained and executed in chapter 7. My definition of exclusive sustainability is concerned with an inability to access sustainable activities. It consists of two important concepts: accessibility and sustainable activities.
2.3.6 Accessibility
Accessibility has, just like any other concept, different definitions and determinants. Early scientific work in planning was mostly concentrating on both the spatial and non-spatial dimension of the concept. There are some authors that have reflected on the non-spatial dimensions (means of access) as integral part of accessibility (Bight et al., 2010). But the trend of the recent years is literature where the accessibility has been operationalized using a spatial component. These authors used GIS based measures of accessibility (Bight et al., 2010; Handy & Niemeier, 1997).
I am more interested in the non-spatial dimension of accessibility, with a focus on
financial accessibility. The reason for this scope is the given that subsidies and tax-benefits on sustainable activities, benefit high income households at the expense of low income households. It is, in many cases, difficult or sometimes even impossible to financially access these activities for low income households (Steg, 2007). Stern (2000), in his widely cited article on environmental significant behaviour, also concluded that for activities that are expensive, contextual factors and personal capabilities like income are likely to account for differences in this behaviour. In other words, income plays an important role when it comes
to accessing expensive environmental significant behaviour.
2.3.7 Sustainable Activities
The definition and operationalization of sustainable activities is complex. Sustainable activities are activities or consumption patterns that contribute to one or a combination of the aspects of sustainability: economy, environment or society (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2005). The word sustainable is often used interchangeable with the words green, environmental, carbon-neutral or words beginning with eco (Brisman, 2009). Being green, or acting sustainable can be done in so many ways that it is impossible to measure everything. Conscious non-consumption is also a form of sustainability, but I want to look at the inability to access sustainable activities. Brisman (2009) identified numerous sustainable activities, behaviours and consumption patterns ranging from eco-houses to carbon-neutral real-estate brokerages and from carbon-neutral dental activities to eco-friendly funerals. I am adopting findings of a rapport from the British Sustainable Roundtable Commission (SRC). The rapport identified four categories with the biggest impact of households on the local and global environment: energy, food, housing, and vehicle choice. This will be operationalized further in my survey design.
I want to look at activities that require a certain investment, because income plays an important role when it comes to accessing expensive environmental significant behaviour. There are many different definitions of the word investment. I am following the definition that an investment is the sacrifice of money at a specific time for a purpose that is achieved in the long term (Belastingdienst, n.y.). I want to look at goods that need to be accessed at one particular time, and that require a certain investment. Most of the sustainable activities that are selected will earn there investment back only after a couple of years, which means that they are investments on the long term. That also means that I will not be looking at the dimension food, since food requires relative small daily investments, and also because food entails very different dimensions in contrast to the other activities. As I said, food requires daily investments, while the other activities are one-time purchases with expected monetary revenue. I want to diminish the ambiguity between these dimensions, and to look at activities that are harder to access than local and organic food in terms of investment costs.
Studies on investment-based green products have been rare in comparison to low-investment product purchasing (Young et al., 2012). It requires me to develop my own strategy. Activities that require an investment pose the risk of exclusivity. I want to see if some of these activities that require an investment are indeed exclusive. I have divided the categories of activities that will be researched into energy (microgeneration), housing and vehicle choice.
2.3.7.1 Energy
Energy is an overarching aspect of daily sustainable activities, as I will show later. I will only look at a specific aspect of energy under the banner of energy: the generation of renewable energy on household level. The technology that provides small-scale energy-generation is called microgeneration. Microgeneration gives tenants the possibility to produce energy in order to (partly) sustain their homes or buildings. There are four dominant ways of micro-generation technologies (see table 1, p. 16). These technologies do not only satisfy demand, but could also create a more reliable energy system and a more competitive market. Furthermore, it helps tackle fuel poverty and adds to a reduction in emissions. In particular photovoltaic (PV)-panels, represents a key option in meeting energy demand and emissions reductions in the residential sector (Bahaj & James, 2007; Sauter & Watson, 2007; Rai & Sigrin, 2013). Microgeneration can be divided in terms of direct and indirect benefits. The direct benefits are sustainable energy production and financial savings. Indirect benefits are subtler and contain issues like increased energy awareness, what can lead to more efficient user-behaviour (Sauter & Watson, 2007; Bahaj & James, 2007).
An important aspect is the social acceptance of these microgeneration technologies.
Acceptance can be expressed in various ways: attitudes, behaviour and—most importantly— investments. Microgeneration impacts an individual’s environment and requires passive consent, but also requires active acceptance in terms of willingness to pay. Research from the UK shows that only a minority of the general public sees a personal responsibility to invest in these technologies. People expect the government and the industry to invest in these
technologies (Sauter & Watson, 2007). 90% agreed that renewable energy is a good idea, but only 20% said that it was ‘very likely’ that they would install microgeneration technology. Many studies point out that individuals rarely behave as rational economic agents, and do not consider future savings or revenues fully. Lack of knowledge is a major barrier for investments (Sauter & Watson, 2007). The government has an important task eliminating this barrier.
2.3.7.2 Housing
Sustainable housing consists out of more factors than the presence of sustainable activities in a home. It is also depending on the economic sustainability and social safety and security (Priemus, 2004). I am only focusing on environmental sustainable activities associated with housing, since I want to look at the possibility to access eco-friendly items. I have collected a wide variety of eco-friendly items by studying several documents. Most of the aspects of housing are in fact energy-related.
• Housing Construction
An average household in the Netherlands uses about 1650 m3 of gas and about 3400 kWh of electricity. 1650 m3 of gas equals 6600 kWh of electricity, which means that we use a lot more gas then electricity (Milieucentraal, n.y.). Most of this gas use, an average of about 80%, is used for space heating. Well-insulated homes use less gas, which means that the quality of construction is very important. Not only the engineering ‘hardware’ qualities of a home are important, but also the ‘software’ is key. Boilers have become increasingly economical, and new energy-efficient devices, which reduce the demand of gas, like pellet-stoves and heat pumps have been introduced over the last years. Energy-efficient features do not only make up for a more comfortable home, they also generate long-term financial rewards. The activities that are subsidized or receive other tax-benefits change over the course of time. Research of Boonekamp (2006) shows that in the period 1990-2000 subsidies often amounted to 20–25% of the extra investments in more energy efficient options. The government delivers a substantial contribution when it subsidizes more energy efficient options.
• Appliances
A home does not only consist out of construction features, but is also filled with energy-consuming products. Energy-use in residential estates has dropped with 5% between 1990 and 2010. New requirements on constructions have led to more efficient homes and therefor a decrease of gas use. Incidentally, there is a substantial increase in the energy consumption. This is mainly due to the growing amount of appliances (Boonekamp, 2006). There are currently in the Netherlands no subsidies or tax-benefits for energy- or water saving appliances. They have existed, and especially the reinforcing combination of energy premiums and labels proved to be very successful. Energy premiums were designed to redistribute money from households raised via an energy tax. This money was used to create a rebate on
energy efficient appliances, building facilities and sustainable energy production (Siderius & Loozen, 2003). It led to such a heavy transformation in the appliances market that, in few years, the bulk of the sales consisted of high efficiency appliances. However, the energy premium was cancelled in 2004 for most saving options. The expectation is that this will diminish the saving effect of labels and (still subsidized) energy advice for a great part, because of the withdrawn rebates (Boonekamp, 2006).
Energy-efficient appliances accommodate the danger of the rebound effect (Greening
et al., 2000). The widely used definition of the rebound effect entails that potential energy conservation resulting from technological improvements may be reduced or vanished by a behavioural response of consumers (Greening et al., 2000; Berkhout et al., 2000). For example, people are less inclined to switch off energy efficient products than they are with energy inefficient products. Nonetheless, the rebound effect is relatively small. Greening et al. (2000) made an overview of 75 studies on the rebound effect. Their review suggested that there is variation in the size of the effect, depending on the definition that was used. The size of the rebound is ranging from 0% to 40%. Research of Berkhout et al. (2000) also showed that estimates range from 0% to 30%, which means that the effect of the technological progress is not outweighed by behavioural changes. The government does stimulate the supply of greener products by setting requirements for the design of products.
2.3.7.3 Vehicle Choice
There is a lot of misconception about the amount of pollution of conventional cars and electric cars. Some scholars argues that electric cars cause as much particulates as conventional cars, other say that they cause more particulates because of their weight, and there are also scholars who argue that they cause less particulates than conventional cars (Steg & Gifford, 2005). We do not know which statement is true. We do know that drivers of energy-efficient cars might be tempted to use their vehicles more often because of the lower costs and more environmentally friendly aspects (Steg & Gifford, 2005). Vehicles that are equipped with environmental beneficial technical measures generally require initial investments, and are therefore often rather expensive. Which makes them not easily accessible for low income groups (Steg & Gifford, 2005).
I want to see if households possess any of these ‘sustainable’ vehicles. They are not as
sustainable as cycling or walking would be, but some of them do have several tax benefits and subsidies attached to them because of their expected environmental benefits. These sustainable vehicles only have positive results on the environment when it replaces conventional cars and scooters, not if would replace public transport or bicycles.
The share of electric and hybrid cars is growing exponentially. In 2013 only 6000 hybrid or electric cars were registered in the Netherlands. In July 2016, this number had risen up until 95.000. This grow is stimulated by technological developments, pilot-projects and subsidies. It is, however, still a marginal share compared to the 6 million conventional cars in this country. The government aims to register 1 million electric cars in 2025 (Bal & Vleugel, 2015). Bal & Vleugel argue that environmental mobility policies are mainly short-term policy.
The budget available for each measure depends on macroeconomic and political considerations, which pushes sustainability in a supporting role instead of a leading role. Next to that, the tax arrangements for businesses are more interesting than those for private use. Figures show that electric cars are despite retrenched arrangements especially interesting for the business market (Bal & Vleugel, 2015). 94% of all the electric cars in the Netherlands are registered as business-vehicle (Nederland Elektrisch, 2016). The private market for electric cars is still very marginal.
2.3.6.4 Collection of Sustainable Activities
Table 1 shows all the sustainable activities that are selected in this research. The activities that I selected are the most common activities. That means that they will have the biggest overall impact.
Table 1 – Sustainable Activities
Housing & Appliances* Energy Vehicle Choice
Tax-benefits
• Roof insulation
• Floor insulation
• Cavity wall insulation
• Ventilation • Pellet stove • Heat pump • Biomass boiler • Double-glazing or insulation glazing • Green roof • VR or HR-Boiler • Generating photovoltaic (PV) energy • Electric car • Hybrid car • Charging point Non tax-benefits • LED-lightning • Rainwater collection • Low-energy appliances* (A++ or A+++): o Refrigerator o Washing machine o Tumble dryer o Dishwasher o Television o Vacuum cleaner o Oven o Air-conditioning
• Water saving products*
o Toilet o Shower o Dishwasher • Generating wind energy • Generating solar thermic energy • Geothermal heating (WKO) • Electric bike • Electric scooter
2.4 Conceptual Model
Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework. The framework that I am using reflects the theory that is presented in the literature review combined with the research question that was proposed earlier on. I am arguing that income has a direct relationship with the accessibility of sustainable activities. This relationship is influenced by the several policies on sustainability that are implemented on various scales.
Figure 1 – Conceptual model
2.5 Summary of Theoretical Framework
Several studies have shown that there is a perception among the public that money is the main barrier for adopting sustainable activities. This perception can be described as a form of elitism. There are, however, no strong evidences that environmentalism or sustainability is indeed only accessible for the elite: the supporters of sustainability are very diverse, and environmental reforms have not served the self-interest of sustainability supporters. Morrison & Dunlap (1986) do speculate that environmental reforms, whether intentionally or not, have the potential to be regressive in its impacts. This is called impact elitism.
Policies on sustainability started to emerge widely in the 1980’s. The original concept
consisted of three important aspects: environmental protection, economic prosperity and social equity. However, the implementation of sustainability is muted and uneven. Planners usually seem to represent one particular aspect. Especially social issues seem to be neglected within the design of policies on sustainability.
Policies have, by their very nature, a certain impact. They are designed to incentivize
and influence the behaviour of individuals, which can be done in various ways. This research has a focus on monetary incentives, because I am interested in the policies on sustainability with attached monetary incentives. These policies stimulate activities with long-term financial rewards.
There are concerns about the short-term consequences of policies on sustainability on
the distribution of household income. There is a risk that these policies are indeed subject to impact elitism. Literature shows that quite frequently both the costs of environmental policy and the distribution of environmental quality are regressive. In other words, higher income households receive a proportionately larger share of the environmental benefits and a lower share of the financial costs of environmental policies. This mechanism can exclude low income households from these benefits, and the sustainable activities they belong to. I have
Income Sustainable Activities
Policies on Sustainability
called this exclusive sustainability, and it is based on the definition of social exclusion. Social exclusion has a variety of meanings and definitions. I am following the definition that is concerned with the accessibility of a dominant lifestyle, since sustainability seems to emerge into a dominant notion of what it means to be a good person in today’s world. This could alienate those without the economic means to adopt better environmental practices, which could lead to fuel poverty and overall poverty.
This theoretical framework needs to be translated into a practical research on
exclusive sustainability. Literature has shown that low income is the main cause of exclusion, and that money is the number one barrier of behavioural change towards a more sustainable lifestyle. I will look directly at the relationship between income and participation in sustainable activities of households. The selected sustainable activities are household activities with the most impact on the environment: energy, housing and vehicle choice. The next chapter is concerned with the methodology of this research. I will show which type of research I will conduct and the reasons behind my choices.
3. Introduction Methodology Chapter
This chapter is concerned with the methodologies of this research. I will start by explain my research methodology. After that, I will contemplate on my approach and the mixed-methods type of research that I will carry out. This requires me to do two types of research: a qualitative and quantitative part. The case study that I am going to carry out will be discussed, and after that I will present the details about my data gathering and the design of the survey. I will also explain how my qualitative research is designed, and I will present the respondents selection criteria for both qualitative and quantitative parts.
3.1 Research Methodology
The question that I am trying to answer in this study is: How do policies influence the impact
of income on the accessibility of sustainable activities?
I am starting off with an inductive approach, which is based on learning from
experience. I have begun with identifying a possible phenomenon: the exclusion from sustainability. The literature on this subject is scarce, and no theories apply, which requires me to have an inductive approach. It gives me the freedom to explore a new theory. I will not be able to generalize the findings of this study, as I will show later. This means that I am not
able to develop a trustworthy theory, but it may be the beginning of a possible theory. I have
worked towards more abstract generalisations and ideas by turning related theories on social exclusion into my own definition of exclusive sustainability.
I will be using a mixed-methods research design in order to execute my inductive
approach. I am having a complementary, or completeness mixed-methods research approach. This approach combines the qualitative and quantitative approaches within different aspects of the study. The qualitative part is my priority, and the quantitative part is my set-up (Brisman, 2008, 607). I have chosen for this quantitative set-up because I first want to test whether exclusive sustainability exists in the first place. The primary focus is to explain the quantitative results by exploring certain results in more detail, or helping explain unexpected results (Terrell, 2012).
In the first part of this research I will answer the question what the impact of income
is on the accessibility of sustainable activities. I will do this in a quantitative way. I am making a divergence between tax benefit and non-tax benefit activities. This is the difference between monetary incentivized or non-monetary incentivized activities, which can give me insights on which income groups are profiting from policies with tax benefits, and who are not. I will elaborate further on my quantitative research in section 3.3 and 3.4.
The second part is focusing on the question how policies on sustainability have led to
the outcomes of my first part. I have showed that it is hard to measure policy impact in a quantitative way. I have therefor chosen to include a qualitative part. In this qualitative part, all sorts of policies on sustainability will be collected, and interviews will be conducted. There are three types of people that I want to interview: residents, professionals and policymakers. I assume that they all have their own interpretation of the influence that rules and regulations
on sustainability have on behaviour. Combining these different views will provide me with a more comprehensive view on how the related policies on sustainability influence of the behaviour of residents in Buiksloterham.
It is important to realize that mixed-methods research is subject to the same
considerations and constraints as any research design or method (Bryman, 2008, 625). I will discuss these considerations at the end of this chapter.
3.2 Case Study
I am executing a case study. This allows me to do an in-depth research. Case studies are the preferred method when a ‘how’-question is being posed and when the focus in on a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context on which I have little or no control (Yin, 2009, 2). Most case studies are being executed in a qualitative way. It is however possible to use a mixed-methods approach (Yin, 2009, 19). Executing a case study also ensures me that my population is dealing with the same rules and regulations. This is an important aspect because since I want to research the influence both local and national policies.
3.2.1 Case Selection and Criteria
I have chosen the area of Buiksloterham because of the circular ambition that is crafted in this area. Buiksloterham has positioned itself as an extreme, or unique case. It is presented as the testing ground for a sustainable city. The municipality of Amsterdam, along with several partners, has the ambition for a real conversion towards a citywide circular economy (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015). A circular economy tries to cycle all materials at high quality, all energy should be derived from renewable or other sustainable sources, and natural and human capital should be supporting each other through economic activities. The area offers the physical and legal space necessary to manage a climate-proof population growth. I am very interested in researching this area, because of its ambitious goals. I want to examine how this new way of regulating influences the impact of income on the accessibility of sustainability.
The case that I researched turned out to be not as extreme as I imagined at the start of
my research. The circular pilot is small based, and most developments are still in the pipeline. The bulk of my respondents did not live within the pilot area, but just outside of it. It turned out that the surrounding areas have nothing to do with the circular ambition that is tested nearby. The case has turned out to be a representative or typical case when it comes to recent constructed high-density neighbourhoods. The lessons that are learned from this case can be useful for future projects with high-density blocks.
3.3 Survey Research
I will conduct a survey research, since I want to collect a large amount of data that does not exist so far. Survey research compromises a cross-sectional design where data are collected by questionnaires or structured interviews on (a) more than one case, (b) at a single point in time in order to collect a body of (c) quantitative data in connection with two or more variables, which are then examined to detect (d) patterns of association (Bryman, 2008, 46). In
reflection to point (a), I am gathering data from multiple households. For (b), I will be asking whether people engage in sustainable activities at a simultaneous time, and I am not researching whether this changes over a course of time. In case of (c), the variables that I am using are sustainable activities on the one hand, and income on the other hand. And for (d), I will research whether there is a relationship between these different categories of activities and income level or not.
I am using self-completion questionnaires as a survey-form. I have visited the area on
multiple occasions. Residents were asked to answer my survey directly, using my iPad. An important issue with surveys is sampling. I am using a convenience non-probability sampling. Social research is frequently based on convenience sampling. It is one of the least desirable forms of sampling, but one important justifiable use of a convenience sample is for exploratory purposes (Ferber, 1977). No quantitative research has been done on the type of exclusion that I want to research. Research based on convenience sampling could provide a springboard for further research (Bryman 2008, 183). I will use the population of the neighbourhood Buiksloterham in Amsterdam. I am still not able to generalize my findings, but by looking at a specific neighbourhood I eliminate as much policy variables as possible.
3.4 Survey Design
I want to plot income against the number of sustainable activities that people are participating in. I am using income as an ordinal interval and not as a ratio interval because many people are reluctant to report their exact incomes, even in anonymous questionnaires. And even if they do want to share their income, it is not certain that people can recall their exact income (Engel & Schutt, 2006). I expect that using categories of income will result in more valid data. I will look at household income and not at individual income, since most sustainable activities are only applicable on a household level. The categories of income will start from €0-1915 gross income a month, and will be multiplied by the same amount. An overview of the representation of the income groups in my survey is shown in table 4. I have chosen this range because the threshold level in Amsterdam is set on €1915 (RTL, 2015). Most studies on social exclusion focus on the most financial vulnerable people of society. I want to research if the most financial vulnerable people of society, the ones below the threshold level, are being excluded from environmental beneficial activities.
There are no fixed amounts of income that can be used in order to refer to high- or
low incomes. I will refer to both high- and low incomes in the remainder of this study, which means that have to divide these categories myself. The average monthly gross income per household in the Netherlands was €4875 in 2014 (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2014). I will refer to low incomes for the two lowest groups of 0-1980 and 1980-3960, because the average income fits within the third income group. I will refer to the two highest income groups as high incomes to balance the bandwith.
The impact of the different activities on the environment is diverse, and the degree of
between the activities that I selected. I am only looking at the amount of activities that people are participating in, just like Levitas (2006) in her research on social exclusion.
3.5 Data Collection
I will use several sources in order to collect the data that is relevant for my research. I will be studying documents from both national and local governments in order to discover which relevant policies have been implemented over the last couple of years, and which policies are about to be implemented. I will also use respondents for both my quantitative and qualitative research part. I will discuss the selection of these respondents in the next two sections.
3.5.1 Respondents Selection
Residents from all over the area were asked, face-to-face, if they were willing to participate in my research. One of them proposed to send my survey link to their residents association. This almost doubled my amount of respondents, creating an n=138. Since I am conducting an explorative research, the use of a convenience non-probability sample is not an issue. Next to that, the results of this second group of participants not substantially differ from the first group. The members of this residents association are either representatives of the whole population, or the first group of respondents that were selected by myself was just as unrepresentative as the members of the residents association. I will be using the total group of respondents, since I do not know which of both options is true. Another problem that I discovered later is that some of my respondents lived just outside of the Buiksloterham-area, in the van der Pekbuurt. This has contaminated my data. It does, however, provide me with some extra insights. A lot of these homes are old structured social-renting dwellings, while the area of Buiksloterham mainly consist of newly structured high segment dwellings. It enriches my data, but it weakens my claim on my case.
3.4.2 Interviewee Selection
The interviewees that I selected are also not a representative sample of the population of the area. Constructions in the area of Overhoeks and the rest of Buiksloterham has only started recently, so no updated data on the population is obtainable. The population does consist of various income groups. The population of my interviewees also consist of various income groups. They can provide me with useful insights, since I am mainly focusing on income.
I am not only interviewing residents in order to discover what the influence of policies
is. Also professionals and policymakers who are directly involved in the area or the profession are interviewed. They can provide me useful backgrounds stories, since actors like housing associations are responsible for a lot of sustainable related measures. I will use semi-structured interviews to research my qualitative part because semi-semi-structured interview gives me opportunity to discover specific topics (Bryman, 2008, 438).
Table 2 and 3 give an overview of the people I interviewed. Table 2 shows that a total
of eleven interviews were held with residents. The length of these interviews varied between three and fifteen minutes, and they were all semi-structured. I have ensured these people that
they would stay anonymous just like I did with my surveys. I did that in order to get an as high as possible response rate.
Table 2 - Interviews Residents
Interview Number Income Category Income in €
1 3 3830-5745 2 1 <1915 3 2 1980-3830 4 1 <1915 5 6 9575-11490 6 6 9575-11490 7 7 11490> 8 5 7660-9575 9 6 9575-11490 10 4 5745-7660 11 4 5745-7660
Table 3 shows all the professionals and policymakers that have participated with an interview. Two of the respondents, Sven Hillecamp and Jan Sjaarda, are working at housing associations. They were both involved in projects within my case. Ralf Peters is working at real estate developer Amvest, and is also involved in projects surrounding my case. Another two of the respondents, Maartijn de Bruijn and Sebastiaan Jacobs are policymakers on sustainability at the municipality of Amsterdam. I also spoke to Wybrand Pieksma, working at housing association Eigen Haard. He was involved in a pilot-project concerning the lease of appliances.Jan-Willem van de Groep is director of de Energiesprong, and he is commissioned by the national government to accelerate the sustainability rate within the built environment. Finally, I had a briefly conversation with Eveline van der Molen about policies on vehicle choice and Peter-Paul Ekker about general policies on sustainability. These interviews all lasted between 20 and 70 minutes, except for the brief conversations with van der Molen and Ekker.
