Ecological citizenship
in Amsterdam
Qualitative empirical research on a promising concept
Thijs Haverkamp
Universiteit van Amsterdam
StudentID: 10002063
Master thesis
Master: Bestuur en Beleid
Program: Globalization and Its Critics
Supervisor: dr. Annette Freyberg-Inan
Second Reader: dr. Imrat Verhoeven
1
Preface
This master’s thesis is written for the master Political Science and the specialization ‘Bestuur en
Beleid’ at the University of Amsterdam. That the subject is connected to sustainability, after my
upbringing in Wageningen and bachelor in Future Planet Studies, is no surprise. In this research,
I was able to meet a lot of inspiring people that confirm my passion to work in the world of
sustainability. With this thesis, I hope to contribute to the transition to a sustainable world.
Writing this thesis was an enormous test for my mental and emotional resilience. I would not have
been able to finish it in a good manner without the help of several people. I would like to thank
the people who supported me in the process of this thesis. First, many thanks to Annette
Freyberg-Inan for her great feedback, motivation and time. As well as to Imrat Verhoeven for taking the
time to read and grade my thesis. Also, I would like to thank my friends and my family for the
mental support and advice they have given me. Finally, many thanks to Maaike for the mental and
emotional support in my worst and most stressful moments.
2
Abstract
This research sought to answer the question: What does ecological citizenship (EC) mean in policy
practice in the region of Amsterdam? This question has been answered by doing a literature
research on the meaning of EC in political theory and by interviewing both ecological pioneers
and policymakers in Amsterdam. The research shows that EC is seen by these groups as fitting
predominantly a certain group that is already intrinsically motivated and enjoys a certain amount
of basic welfare and security. The rest of the population might, however, be persuaded to act along
the lines of EC by external motivations. The four aspects of EC - social justice, the dismantling of
the private-public distinction, non-territorial responsibility and asymmetrical obligations - are all
considered important and useful elements of the concept. A difference from the political theory on
EC we can observe is that in policy practice in Amsterdam the concept seems to be directly linked
to nature and the preservation of the planet. Policymakers and ecological pioneers find the
anthropocentric bias in the current political theory on EC problematic. Also, the ecological
footprint is considered a flawed metaphor for social justice by ecological pioneers. This research
contributes to the theoretical development of EC by comparing current EC theory to practice. This
has led to some criticisms on EC that could help develop the concept so it can be practically more
useful and feasible. This research also provides insight into how EC is understood and accepted in
Amsterdam and similar locations. Lastly, this thesis can be used as a starting point for ideas to
promote EC. This could lead to more environmentally sustainable behaviour in the every-day
practices of people. This is vital in combatting environmental problems like climate change and
pollution.
3
Table of contents
Preface... 1
Abstract ... 2
1. Introduction ... 5
1.1 Human behaviour and environmental problems ... 5
1.2 Research goal and questions ... 6
1.3 Relevance ... 7
1.4 Structure of the thesis ... 8
2. Ecological citizenship in theory ... 10
2.1 Citizenship ... 10
2.1.1 Liberal, communitarian and civic republican thought ... 10
2.1.2 Modern citizenship ... 11
2.1.3 Post-national citizenship and cosmopolitanism ... 12
2.2 Ecological citizenship ... 13
2.2.1 Ecological citizenship as a form of green citizenship ... 13
2.2.2 Ecological citizenship in four aspects ... 14
2.3 Empirical research on ecological citizenship ... 16
3. An empirical research on ecological citizenship ... 19
3.1 Setup interviews ... 19
3.1.1 Semi structured in-depth interviews ... 19
3.1.2 Respondents ... 20
3.1.3 Interview topics ... 20
3.2 Analysis of the data ... 21
4. Ecological citizenship according to policymakers and ecological pioneers ... 22
4
4.1.1 Policymakers ... 22
4.1.2 Ecological pioneers ... 24
4.2 Criticisms on a normative concept ... 25
4.2.1 Social Justice and ecology ... 25
4.2.2 Ecological footprint ... 26
4.2.3 Private and public ... 28
4.2.4 Non-territorial responsibility ... 29
4.2.5 Asymmetrical obligations ... 30
4.3 Ecological citizenship in practice in Amsterdam ... 31
4.3.1 Ecological citizenship for whom? ... 31
4.3.2 How can ecological citizenship be promoted in general? ... 33
4.3.3 How can ecological citizenship be promoted by the government? ... 35
5. Discussion and Conclusion ... 39
5.1 Conclusions ... 39
5.2 Further research and policy advice... 41
References ... 45
Appendix 1: List of interviews ... 48
5
1. Introduction
1.1 Human behaviour and environmental problems
With climate change already happening, the need for a sustainable transition is growing. To
address the present environmental problems, it is necessary not only to change institutions, systems
and modes of governing. Many environmental problems are caused by the way individuals act in
everyday life (Jagers, Martinsson, & Matti, 2014, p. 434). For example, at the start of the
nineteenth century, people would wash themselves once or twice a week; now it is common in the
western world to shower every day. This change in behaviour or lifestyle has an enormous impact
on the environment. To address environmental problems, it is therefore also necessary to
incorporate ecological considerations in the day-to-day life of individuals (Jager et al., 2014, p.
434).
Some authors have embraced ecological citizenship (EC) as a way to frame a
reconceptualization of the relationship between human and nature and the mutual relationships of
humans (Christoff 1996, Barry 1999, Dobson 2003, Mason 2009, Middlemiss 2010, Jagers et al.
2014). Dobson (2003) developed the idea of EC by using existing ideas about citizenship and
adding to them. The primary aspect that constitutes the frame of reference in EC is social justice.
EC uses the metaphor of the ecological footprint to balance civic rights and duties and, by doing
so, create a method for social justice (Jagers, Martinsson, & Matti, 2016, p. 4). This leads to three
secondary aspects of EC: 1) The dismantling of the public-private distinction: civil rights and
duties are located in the public as well as in the private sphere; 2) Nonterritorial responsibility:
civil rights and duties are not bound to the nation or country one lives in; 3) Asymmetrical
responsibilities: everyone has the right to a certain ecological footprint. Someone with a footprint
smaller than the standard has the right to extend his or hers, whereas someone with a footprint
greater than the standard has the obligation to make his or hers smaller. The four above aspects
distinguish EC from traditional citizenship and will be described in more detail in the next chapter.
EC seems to be a promising concept to change human behaviour in a way that can help
combat environmental problems. Jagers et al. (2014, p. 449) find in their study that “individuals
who think along the lines of ecological citizenship are more likely than others to behave in an
environmentally friendly way in their daily lives.” However, only little empirical research has been
done considering the concept of EC (Jagers et al. 2014; Kenis, 2015). One exception is the work
6
by Jagers et al. (2014, p. 449), who find that certain aspects of EC are more important in order to
induce pro-environmental behaviour than others. They conclude that this means there is a need for
further development of the EC concept (Jagers et al., 2014, p. 434). Kenis (2015) did
comprehensive research on EC in Transition Towns and Climate Justice Action in Flanders. She
concludes her research with the notion that different forms of EC exist and must be distinguished
(Kenis, 2015, p. 95). There is also clearly a need for more work on what the concept can and does
mean in practice (Jones & Gevanta, 2002, p. 28).
1.2 Research goal and questions
To contribute to the current literature considering EC and help develop this promising concept,
this research will use in-depth interviews to find out what EC means in practice to those who
promote it. To find this out, and also to find an indication of how policymakers can change policy
to encourage EC, both policymakers and ‘ecological pioneers’ in and around Amsterdam have
been interviewed. The Amsterdam region was chosen because it is quite advanced in EC compared
to other parts of the world. Amsterdam was overall rated the fourth (2015) and eleventh (2016)
most sustainable city of the world in the ‘Sustainable City Index’ of Arcadis (Arcadis, 2015;
Arcadis, 2016).
This leads to the following main research question: What does EC mean in policy practice
in the region of Amsterdam?
To answer this main research question, first, literature research has been conducted on the
concept of EC. This reveals the different aspects of the EC concept. To find out which aspects of
EC are considered important by both categories of people identified above and why, the method
of in-depth interviews was used. Two groups of interviewees were chosen: ecological pioneers
and policy makers. Ecological pioneers seem to be closest to being ‘ecological citizens’ and
promote the concept through their work. Therefore, they are the most logical people to interview
to learn more about the practical meaning of EC. Also, they have ideas about what policymakers
should do to promote the concept, so this has been asked in the interviews as well. Policymakers
may or may not have heard (much) about the concept EC. They were interviewed to find out in
how far and how the concept has made it into policy-making and about their ideas regarding how
7
the concept should and can feasibly be promoted through policy-making practice. The specific
choice of respondents will be addressed in chapter 3.
The above strategy, allows me to answer the following sub-questions:
- What does EC mean in the current literature?
- What does EC mean according to ecological pioneers and policymakers in the region of
Amsterdam?
- Which aspects of EC are considered more important by these groups than others, and why?
- How can EC be promoted in the region of Amsterdam, according to ecological pioneers
and policymakers?
Answering the first question will lead to an understanding of the current scholarly debate around
EC. The answer to the second question will reveal the extent of match or mismatch between the
scholarly concept and realities on the ground, and in particular what the concept means to those
who do and those who can do most to promote it. The answer to the third question builds upon this
to examine the concept-in-practice in more detail. Lastly, the answer to the fourth question will
reveal what EC can mean and what changes it can bring for the region of Amsterdam in the future.
By answering these sub-questions, the meaning of EC in policy practice in the region of
Amsterdam can be revealed and the main research question answered.
1.3 Relevance
Because EC is a relatively young normative concept, it still needs more theoretical deepening and
investigation of its empirical relevance and usefulness (Jagers et al., 2014, p. 434). Jagers et al.
(2014) did empirical research considering EC, but this was only limited to surveys. This research
will complement the current research by using in-depth interviews in a particular locality in which
the concept is relatively strongly developed. This qualitative research will not only find out which
aspects of EC are considered more important than others by those who work with and implement
the concept, but also why. It will lead to an overview of the arguments made by ecological pioneers
and policymakers which can then inform and help further develop the debate around the theoretical
concept of EC.
8
Jagers et al. (2014) found that the aspects of non-territorial responsibility and asymmetrical
obligations were considered less important to promote pro-environmental behaviour by their
respondents than the other two factors. However, the authors consider the possibility that they have
not succeeded completely in operationalising these two aspects sufficiently distinctly with respect
to other aspects of EC (Jagers et al., 2014, p. 449). The importance of the same four aspects will
be assessed using the empirical data collected in this research. Because this research uses
semi-structured in-depth interviews, it can fine-tune the operationalisation of these factors to address
the weaknesses indicated by Jagers et al. (2014) and thereby strengthen the validity of its
conclusions regarding the relative importance of the various facets of EC. In this research, different
results regarding the relative importance of the four aspects were found, compared to Jagers et al.
(2014). In chapter 5, this difference and propositions for further research on this issue will be
discussed.
Besides further developing EC as a normative and empirical concept, the practical
feasibility of promoting EC in the region of Amsterdam will be explored in this research.
Environmental crises are considered to be one of the biggest challenges for humanity of the
twenty-first century. To combat these risks, only technical solutions are not sufficient. To tackle these
issues, social change is necessary as well (Wolsink, 2013, pp. 1788-1790). EC is a promising
concept in order to change every-day behaviour in such a way that individuals will have a smaller
negative impact on the environment (locally and globally) (Jagers et al., 2014, p. 434). If this
concept is developed, it might be a tool to combat looming environmental crises such as climate
change. This research will find out more about how this concept can be promoted according to
‘practical experts’. This will lead to a theoretical refinement of the concept as well as to practical
advice about policy measures that can be taken in order to promote EC in the region of Amsterdam
and elsewhere.
1.4 Structure of the thesis
The thesis is divided into five chapters. In chapter 2 the theoretical concept ‘Ecological
Citizenship’ (EC) will be explained. This will be done by explaining where the concept originates
from and giving an overview of the scientific debate around the concept. Chapter 3 will give an
outline of the setup of the empirical research including the used method, the choice of respondents,
the interview topics and the technique used for analysing the data. In chapter 4 the results of the
9
empirical research will be presented. This will include criticisms of the EC concept, its practical
feasibility and the ways it can be promoted, both in general and by the government more
specifically. In the last, concluding chapter the research questions will be answered and the
research will be critically discussed. Also, further research and guidelines for policy to promote
EC, based on the empirical findings of this research, will be suggested.
10
2. Ecological citizenship in theory
As described in the above paragraph, this chapter will give an outline of the debate around the
concept of EC in the current literature and thereby answer the first sub-question: What does EC
mean in the current literature? To understand where the concept comes from, first the evolution of
the concept of citizenship is outlined. In the second section the origins of the EC concept are
clarified to make a distinction between EC and environmental citizenship in order to avoid
misconceptions. Also, the concept of EC as well as its elements are clearly defined. In the last
section, an overview of the sparse existing empirical research on EC is given.
2.1 Citizenship
To understand what EC is, it is useful to understand where it originates from. To understand that,
it is necessary to understand the evolution of the concept of citizenship more generally. In section
2.1.1, the three major schools of thought on citizenship will be outlined; this provides a better
grasp of the diverse thinking around citizenship (Jones & Gaventa 2002, p. 3). In 2.1.2, a short
summary of the evolution of modern citizenship will be given; in this way, the emergence of
post-national citizenship and more specifically cosmopolitanism (section 2.1.3) can be placed into
context. The specific attention for cosmopolitanism in this section has the following reason: Saíz
(2005, p. 164) argues that EC is a form of cosmopolitanism but also has characteristics of a new
form of citizenship. Therefore, cosmopolitanism can be seen as part of the origin of the
contemporary EC concept, and must be discussed to properly grasp it.
2.1.1 Liberal, communitarian and civic republican thought
In their review on concepts of citizenship in political theory, Jones and Gevanta (2002) argue that
it is useful to make a distinction between liberal, communitarian and civic republican thought on
citizenship in order to understand the diverse thinking around citizenship (Jones & Gaventa 2002,
p. 3). Liberal thought sees citizenship as a status that gives an individual (or citizen) a certain set
of rights, granted by the nation state (Jones & Gevanta, 2002, p. 3). Central to liberal theories is
the idea that citizens act rationally to advance their own interests and that the state should protect
citizens so they can exercise their rights (Oldfield, 1990, p. 2). Jones and Gevanta (2002, p. 3) note
that liberty is here seen in the negative sense: freedom from external factors and state intervention.
11
Citizens can choose whether to exercise their rights; this assumes that they have the needed
resources and opportunities (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 7).
Communitarian thought has criticized the liberal ideas of self-interest and the independent
individual. This line of thought argues that an individual’s sense of identity is an outcome of
relations with others in the community he or she is a part of (Jones & Gevanta, 2002, p. 4). This
implies that communitarian theories centre around the notion of the socially embedded citizen and
the notion of community belonging (Smith, 1998, p. 117). It is reasoned that an individual can
realise his or her own identity and interests only through deliberation over the common good.
Communitarian thought argues that the prioritization of the common good over self-interest in fact
leads to maximized individual liberty (Smith, 1998, p. 118). Communitarian theories define
citizenship through civic virtues, such as respect for others (Smith, 1998, p. 118). Where liberal
theories centre around the individual, communitarian theories see the group as the defining centre
(Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 2).
Civic republican theories try to incorporate the liberal notion of self-interest within the
communitarian framework (Isin & Wood, Citizenship and Identity, 1999, p. 8). The emphasis on
what binds citizens together in a community is shared with communitarian theories. However, in
civic republican thought, this notion is supported with a focus on the role of the individual in
communal affairs (Oldfield, 1990, p. 145). Unlike liberal thinkers, civic republican authors argue
that basic resources and opportunities are necessary to participate in community life (Jones &
Gevanta, 2002, p. 4). Central to much civic republican literature is the idea that citizenship should
be understood as a common civic identity, shaped by common public culture (Jones & Gevanta,
2002, p. 4). Civic republican theories focus on the identity of the individual rather than rights or
obligations.
These three basic views on citizenship have here been introduced because they help to
clarify the thinking and debate about various forms of citizenship. For example, in section 2.2.1
they will become important to understand the differences between different forms of green
citizenship.
2.1.2 Modern citizenship
In the last decennia, the modern conception of citizenship as merely a status held under the
authority of the nation-state has been widely contested and broadened (Isin & Turner, 2002, p. 2).
12
Still, for most types of thinking on citizenship, it is the starting point. To understand
cosmopolitanism and with that EC, a basic understanding of modern citizenship as a starting point
is needed.
The centre of debate surrounding modern citizenship are the balance between and the
nature of rights and obligations. According to el-Ojeili & Hayden (2006, p. 90), the lectures of
1949 by T.H. Marshall on ‘Citizenship and Social Class’ have become the central reference point
for thinking on modern citizenship. Marshall argued that the rights of modern citizenship had come
in three waves. First, in the eighteenth century, came civil rights; they are necessary for individual
freedom (for example freedom of speech). Second, in the nineteenth century, came political rights:
the opportunity to participate in the exercise of power (for example the right to vote). Third, in the
twentieth century, came social rights, providing citizens with a minimum social standing (el-Ojeili
& Hayden, 2006, p. 90). The first two types of rights fit with the liberal way of thinking, as
described in section 2.1.1. Social rights go beyond the formal rights of classic liberalism; they
provide the conditions in order to exercise the other rights, as is asked for by civic republican
theories (Jones & Gevanta, 2002, p. 9).
These rights of modern citizenship are thus both liberal and civic republican. Besides,
forms of modern citizenship can vary. For example, a citizen of the Netherlands has more social
rights than a citizen of the United States. The one thing all forms of modern citizenship have in
common is that they are all bound to the nation state.
2.1.3 Post-national citizenship and cosmopolitanism
In a context of globalisation and migration, the restriction of citizenship as being bound to the
nation state can be considered problematic (Jones & Gevanta, 2002, p. 19). People are belonging
to different groups within and beyond the nation-state. Isin and Wood (1999) argue that citizenship
should nowadays be understood as an ensemble of belongings to different groups of different
forms and scales, national citizenship being one of them. In trying to move away from a nationally
defined form of citizenship, Delanty (1997, p. 294) distinguishes four dimensions to post-national
citizenship: rights, responsibilities, participation and identity. According to Delanty (1997, p. 294)
rights must be considered as transnational rights, such as human rights. Responsibilities as well
are broader than only responsibility to the state, for example one has responsibilities towards other
social groups or the environment (Delanty, 1997, p. 294). Participation is a way to democratize
13
post-national citizenship. According to Delanty (1997, p. 295) it should be a form of active
participation within but also across nation-state boundaries. He also argues that the identity of
citizens should not be reduced to a national identity; it should be uncoupled from the nation state.
One form of post-national citizenship is global citizenship or cosmopolitanism. The key
aspect in this kind of post-national citizenship is that it aims for shared rights, responsibilities,
participation and identity for all global citizens, regardless of the state they live in or culture they
share. As mentioned before, cosmopolitanism is considered part of the origin of the EC concept in
citizenship studies (Sáiz, 2005, p. 164). Cosmopolitanism tries to overcome the dichotomy
between citizens and aliens (Sáiz, 2005, p. 168). Because everyone is a global citizen, no one is
excluded. Cosmopolitanism suggests that next to being a national citizen, each individual will have
to be a cosmopolitan citizen as well, “that is, a person capable of mediating between national
traditions, communities of fate and alternative styles of life” (Held, 2001 in Sáiz, 2005, p. 168).
This means that cosmopolitan thinkers make citizenship a mediator concept in the dialogue
between diverse political communities. This makes cosmopolitanism a principle for dialogue as
well as a starting point for global governance (Saíz, 2005, p. 168).
2.2 Ecological citizenship
To answer the main research question of this thesis, the theoretical concept of EC and the scientific
debate around it must be understood. First the difference between ecological and other green forms
of citizenship will be explained using the different kinds of thought on citizenship laid out in
section 2.1.1. Then the concept of ecological citizenship will be defined, following the theory of
Dobson. The analysis of Jagers et al. (2014) will be used to highlight the four most important
factors of EC as conceptualized in Dobson’s theory. Because empirical research on EC is scarce,
the little research that has been done on the topic will be outlined to use as a basis for the research
of this thesis. It must be considered that EC is still ‘under construction’ (Sáiz, 2005, p. 165) or an
infant concept (Melo-Escrihuela, 2008, p. 114) and that more theoretical deepening is needed
(Jagers et al., 2014, p. 434), to which this thesis aims to contribute.
2.2.1 Ecological citizenship as a form of green citizenship
In an extensive review on green citizenship as an umbrella concept that also includes ecological
citizenship, Gabrielson (2008) finds that there are many different approaches to green citizenship.
14
She states that most normative work on green citizenship in the current body of literature is guided
by liberal and civic republican theories (Gabrielson, 2008, p. 430). Green liberal and civic
republican theories include several approaches that all have their own problems. For both
categories of theories, the biggest problems according to Dobson (2003) are the connection of
green citizenship to the nation-state and the idea of it being exclusively practised in the public
sphere. Dobson (2003) therefore makes a difference between environmental citizenship and EC.
Environmental citizenship is a term he uses for liberal forms of green citizenship. EC is different:
It not only aims for a sustainable society but also for a just one (Melo-Escrihuela, 2008, p. 121).
This is a more civic republican form of green citizenship. EC is defined and further clarified in the
section below.
2.2.2 Ecological citizenship in four aspects
EC is a virtue-based form of citizenship. This means that, unlike environmental citizenship, it is
centred around non-contractual and non-reciprocal duties (Melo-Escrihuela, 2008, p. 120). EC
aims to promote global and environmental justice (Melo-Escrihuela, 2008, pp. 120-121). In the
literature about EC, the work of Dobson is widely used (for example: Saíz (2005), Seyfang (2006),
Gabrielson (2008), Melo-Escrihuela (2008), Jagers et al. (2014), Jagers et al. (2016)). To
understand what the complications of this different view on citizenship can be, the work of Jager
et al. (2014) will be used. A review of EC theory by Jagers et al. (2014) leads to a distinction of
four characteristic ideals.
First, the most important, primary characteristic of EC is social justice. Dobson (2003) uses
the concept of the ecological footprint (Rees & Wackernagel, 1996) to explain how an ecological
citizen should live (Seyfang, 2006, p. 388). Every human being has the right to use a certain
amount of the earth’s resources. This amount is environmentally just because it ensures that the
earth’s resources are not depleted. It is socially just because everyone is allowed an equal amount
of ecological consumption. Jagers et al. (2014, p. 436) explain that ecological citizens are not
asked to change their behaviour because they could personally gain from doing so, but because
doing so is just. They should always act in consideration of their social responsibility.
A second aspect of EC is the dismantling of the private-public distinction in citizenship
(Jagers et al., 2014, p. 437). Modern citizenship exclusively takes place in the public sphere. In
EC, by contrast, acts of a citizen in the private sphere are considered to influence the public sphere
15
and, with that, other humans and environments. For example, buying and consuming meat is a
private act, but has a big impact on the environment and therefore uses a large part of an
individual’s rightful ecological footprint. Ecological citizens act in both the public and the private
sphere, according to the principles of EC (Jagers et al., 2014, p. 437).
The third aspect derived by Jagers et al. (2014, p. 437) is the extension of the citizenship
concept beyond the nation state. As described in section 2.1.2, modern citizenship is bound to the
nation state. In accordance with cosmopolitanism, EC instead extends beyond geographical
borders. EC is not bound to a contingent political space or institution. One should not only act
socially just in consideration of the members of one’s own nation state, but also in consideration
of other world citizens. Unlike in classical cosmopolitanism, however, in EC theory the borders of
citizenship also extend through time. Not only other world citizens in the current time should be
taken into consideration, world citizens of future generations should also be taken into
consideration. The scope of the civic duties of an ecological citizen ranges across both territorial
borders and generations. Dobson (2003) stresses that not only justice is here unbounded from a
certain space or time, but obligations are as well. For example, if pollution does not stop at a
national border, neither should the duties of an ecological citizen (Dobson, 2003 in Jagers et al.,
2014, p. 437).
Fourth, Jagers et al. (2014, p. 437) explain that EC embraces the notion asymmetrical
obligations. The balance of an individual’s rights and duties is not defined by his or her relation to
the state, as with modern citizenship (see section 2.1.2), but by the size of the ecological footprint
of each individual. If someone has an ecological footprint that is bigger than average, this person
has the obligation to reduce his or her footprint. By contrast, if someone has an ecological footprint
that is smaller than average, he or she has the right to increase his or her environmental impact.
As mentioned before, social justice is a primary aspect of EC that leads to the other three
(secondary) aspects described above. EC is considered a normative rather than a descriptive,
explanatory concept. The ideals of the concept should lead to behaviour that favours the
environment. All this is visualized by Jagers et al. (2016) in the following way.
16 Figure 1: Schematic Model of Ecological Citizenship (Derived from Dobson, 2003 in Jagers et al., 2016, p. 5)
Not only do the above four characteristics clarify what EC means, they also provide a framework
to research EC in practice.
2.3 Empirical research on ecological citizenship
As mentioned a couple of times above, only little empirical research has been done on EC. To gain
a better understanding of the setup of this research as well as the significance and utility of its
results, a short summary of the empirical research that has been done so far will be given below.
First, the research of Martinsson and Lundqvist (2010) about the differences between attitudes and
behaviour with respect to ecological citizenship will be described. Then, the research of Jagers,
Martinsson and Matti (2014 and 2016) will be addressed. As this research has also been used in
the section above, this section will only focus on their empirical findings. Finally, the research on
EC in Flanders by Kenis (2015) will be discussed.
Following the work of Dobson (as discussed in sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2), Martinsson and
Lundqvist (2010, p. 520) place citizens in four categories based on the relationship between their
attitudes and their specific behaviours: 1) Believers are citizens with green attitudes and green
behaviour; 2) Diehards are citizens with grey attitudes and grey behaviour; 3) Coverts are citizens
with grey attitudes but green behaviour; 4) Hypocrites are citizens with green attitudes and grey
behaviour. Green behaviour and attitudes reflect the virtues of ecological citizenship proposed by
Dobson. Grey attitudes and behaviour reflect the absence of these virtues (Martisson & Lundqvist,
2010, p. 521). Martinsson & Lundqvist (2010, p. 527) research the attitudes and behaviour of 5,531
Swedes. The majority of the respondents are Diehards (81%), a much smaller group are Coverts
17
(11%), and only a small part of the respondents are Hypocrites (5%) or Believers (3%) (Martisson
& Lundqvist, 2010, p. 527). Besides the fact that the Diehard group is by far the biggest, the
authors note that the difference between the Coverts and the Believers/Hypocrites is notable. They
conclude that green behaviour is possible without a green attitude, while a green attitude is no
guarantee for green behaviour (Martisson & Lundqvist, 2010, p. 532). This could be seen to
suggest that ecological citizenship might not work in practice, as it expects that a belief in social
justice would lead to socially just behaviour. Such a link between attitudes and behaviour might,
however, be weak and/or precarious. In the research of this thesis, the difference between attitudes
and behaviour is repeatedly revealed to be salient. This will be further explained in section 4.3.1.
Jagers et al. (2014 & 2016) research the correlation between attitudes supporting EC and
voluntary pro-environmental behaviour among a random sample of the Swedish population. In
both articles, they conclude that individuals that think along the lines of EC are more likely to
perform pro-environmental behaviour. In their research in 2014, Jagers et al. test the four aspects
of EC (as described in section 2.2.2). They find that the respondents agree with the aspects of
social justice and non-territorial responsibilities. Less support is found for the dismantling of the
public-private distinction and the asymmetrical obligations (Jagers et al., 2014, p. 448). No
explanation is provided for these findings. The research for this thesis will test these findings and
try to find explanations for why some aspects of the concept are considered more important than
others by ecological pioneers and policy-makers.
Kenis (2015, p. 78) did comprehensive research on how Transition Towns and the Climate
Justice Action movement in Flanders give shape to EC. Kenis (2015, p. 80) argues that the
obligations of EC apply not only to individuals but also to social groups. She looked at the
discourse of EC in groups as well as the behaviour of individuals in these groups (Kenis, 2015, p.
81). She concludes that several different versions of EC exist and must be distinguished. These
versions differ in five aspects: 1) the groups’ definitions of the boundaries of their collective; 2)
how they conceive of the social relations within the collective; 3) how they conceive of the social
relations between their community and society at large; 4) where the group situates the motor of
change; and 5) how the common good is conceived. In her own research, Kenis (2015, p. 95) can
distinguish an agnostic (Climate Justice Action) and a communitarian (Transition Towns) version
of EC. The focus on groups instead of the individual reflects a communitarian approach to green
citizenship. This is interesting, because, as we have seen above, most green citizenship thought is
18
guided by civic republican or liberal citizenship (Gabrielson, 2008, p. 430). However, the EC
concept as it is defined in this thesis does not fit the communitarian school of thought, because it
is focussed more on the individual. Therefore, the research by Kenis (2015), while worth
mentioning, is not further used in the research for this thesis.
The above chapter has given an overview of the theory around EC and has provided an
answer to the first sub-question of this interview: What does EC mean in the current literature? In
the next chapter, the setup of the empirical research that has been conducted in order to answer the
other sub-questions will be described.
19
3. An empirical research on ecological citizenship
To answer three of the four sub-questions defined in section 1.2 empirical research has been carried
out. In this research answers are sought to the following three questions:
- What does EC mean according to ecological pioneers and policymakers in the region of
Amsterdam?
- Which aspects of EC are considered more important by these groups than others, and why?
- How can EC be promoted in the region of Amsterdam, according to ecological pioneers
and policymakers?
This chapter describes how the empirical research is set up and how the data is analysed.
3.1 Setup interviews
To be able to judge and replicate this research the setup of the research is described in the following
sections. First the choice for semi-structured in-depth interviews and the selection of respondents
will be explained. Then the topics addressed in the interviews will be described.
3.1.1 Semi structured in-depth interviews
Because the concept EC is not commonly known, a survey is not sufficient to find out what EC
means, how it can be promoted and what aspects are considered important according to
policymakers and ecological pioneers. To get the needed data to answer the main research
question, the method of semi-structured in-depth interviews was chosen. This method gives the
researcher the ability to ask about and discuss topics that are chosen beforehand. On the one hand,
it gives the interviewer the ability to choose the topics he or she wants to discuss beforehand, e.g.
to lead the respondent through the important aspects of EC. On the other hand, it makes it possible
to let the respondents, who are considered experts, talk about the topics freely, which generates
new information in each interview. Also, it gives the interviewer the ability to clarify what EC
means in the current literature, so the respondents are enabled to talk about EC and not, for
example, a different form of green citizenship. By this means, it becomes not only possible to find
out what aspects of EC are considered important by the respondents; it is also possible to ask why.
This will give a better understanding of the meaning of EC in policy practice.
20
3.1.2 Respondents
As explained in section 1.2, two groups of interviewees were chosen: ecological pioneers and
policy makers. Because the main research question is focussed on Amsterdam, all the respondents
live or work in the region of Amsterdam. The policy makers that are interviewed for this research
are all working for the municipality of Amsterdam, all claim to have affinity to sustainability, and
all work in a department of the municipality which is focussed on sustainability. This selection
criterion was chosen because EC is a quite complex concept and some basic knowledge about
sustainability is necessary to say useful things about the practicality of the concept. Besides that,
because the policymakers all work with different sustainability issues, they have ideas about how
to implement sustainable policy in Amsterdam.
For this research, ecological pioneers are defined as people that are successful in reaching
ecological or sustainable goals in their work. In order to find these people, the ‘Trouw Duurzame
100 2016’ list was used. This is an annual list published in the Dutch newspaper Trouw of the 100
“most sustainable” people in the Netherlands, according to twelve experts (Trouw, 2016). These
people are awarded a place on this list because of their success in their work considering a certain
sustainability-related goal. It is therefore possible to make a convincing argument that the people
on this list are ecological pioneers. One of the interviewed ecological pioneers is not on this list;
this respondent is in the jury that makes up the list and can therefore also be considered an
ecological pioneer. Also, the respondent in the jury was in the ‘Trouw Duurzame 100’ in the years
before being part of the jury (Trouw, 2012).
In total 14 respondents were interviewed, 7 policymakers and 7 ecological pioneers. A list
describing the team (policymakers) or occupation (ecological pioneers) and gender of the
respondents, as well as the dates, duration and location types of the interviews can be found in
Appendix 1. All interviews were recorded and transcribed (see Appendix 2). The interview reports
are anonymized in consideration of the privacy of the respondents.
3.1.3 Interview topics
To answer the three sub-questions presented at the start of this chapter, the interviewees were asked
to talk about some topics that were chosen beforehand. After a short introduction of the interviewer
and the research, the respondents were asked what EC means in their view. Because most of the
respondents were not familiar with the concept, the resulting answers are very diverse. However,
all answers contained various aspects of the EC concept. After this, EC and its four aspects as
21
described by Jagers et al. (2016, pp. 436-437) were (as much as necessary) introduced by the
interviewer and talked about. The importance of the aspects was asked about, as well as the reasons
for the given importance. This gave an idea of which aspects are considered important and which
aspects are useful in order to trigger citizens to act more ecologically responsibly. After this part
of the interview, all respondents had basic knowledge about EC as used in the current literature.
The last topics addressed in the interviews were then practicality and policy relevance. Is EC
possible? In Amsterdam? And how can it be promoted with policy (by local government)? The
interviews were concluded with any last remarks the respondents wanted to make about EC. This
has led to an understanding of whom EC might fit and how to reach people to act along the lines
of EC.
3.2 Analysis of the data
To analyse the data and answer the main research question and the sub-questions, the following
method was used: different topics (see the different sections of chapter 4) were chosen. These
topics also structured the interviews; this way the information is presented in the same order as it
was gathered. In all interview reports, the parts of the text that describe a certain topic were marked
on paper. The marked parts of the interviews were all used in order to get a clear overview of the
data about every topic. This led to composite reports about all topics, based on all 14 interviews,
making distinctions between the two groups where necessary. Quotes are used to illustrate certain
arguments or opinions.
This chapter has outlined the setup of the empirical research that has been conducted to
find out what EC means in policy practice in Amsterdam. In the following chapter, an overview
of the results of this empirical research is given.
22
4. Ecological citizenship according to policymakers and ecological
pioneers
The empirical part of this thesis sought to answer the following three questions:
- What does EC mean according to ecological pioneers and policymakers in the region of
Amsterdam?
- Which aspects of EC are considered more important by these groups than others, and why?
- How can EC be promoted in the region of Amsterdam, according to ecological pioneers
and policymakers?
To answer these question, the data is analysed along the structure of the interviews. This leads to
the following topics: First, in section 4.1 an overview of the original ideas held by the respondents
about the meaning of EC is given. This leads to an idea of how EC is understood by both
policymakers and ecological pioneers. Only one respondent (ecological pioneer 4) had already
thought about the concept extensively before the interview took place. For the others, as will
become clear, it was quite a new and unknown concept. Second, in section 4.2 the criticisms on
EC derived from the interviews are discussed. The four aspects of EC by Jagers et al. (2014; 2016)
are discussed, as well as the use of the ecological footprint. Finally, in section 4.3, the practical
feasibility of EC in Amsterdam is discussed, alongside the results regarding for which citizens EC
would be a fit and how it can be promoted, in general and by government more specifically. This
includes the very specific example of using festivals to motivate a specific group of people to act
like ecological citizens.
4.1 First ideas about ecological citizenship
Before more information about the theory around EC was provided, all respondents were asked
what they think EC means or can mean. The answers to this question were very diverse. All
answers contained several aspects of EC as it is described in the current literature. The answers
give an idea of how EC is understood and accepted by both policymakers and ecological pioneers
in Amsterdam.
4.1.1 Policymakers
“Dus hoe bewoners met hun voedsel, gezondheid en de leefomgeving bezig zijn. Dat ze daar bewust over nadenken en dat ze de afweging maken. En daar ook actief mee
23
aan de slag gaan. Dat is voor mij ecologisch burgerschap.” (Interview with policymaker 2)
This above quote is an example for the two most striking observations in this section. First, when
asked about EC, most respondents seem to focus on individual behaviour or on individual action
in society or in the neighbourhood. Five out of seven policymakers speak about EC as a form of
active citizenship. Active citizenship, other than the legal norm, is the act of any citizen to engage
in social and political affairs (Lister, 1997, p. 4). In the policymakers’ understanding of EC, the
focus is on the individual behaviour of a citizen instead of on the relationship between citizen and
state. This is conform with theory about EC, as described in 2.2.2.
Another notable observation is the fact that five out of seven policymakers instantly start
to talk about behaviour in the private sphere. The respondents are quick to name several aspects
of life that are bound to the private sphere, for example the use of transportation, or dealing with
waste and food: “Ik kan me voorstellen dat je alles op de fiets doet, of wandelen. Dat je je afval
scheidt. Dat je biologisch en van dichtbij eet.” (Policymaker 6) Or:
“Burgers die betrokken zijn bij de inrichting vaan hun eigen leven. Groene daken, nestkassen voor vogels, vleermuizen en bijen. Heel veel bewoners zijn daar actief in.
Dat is ecologie en burgerschap, betrokkenheid.” (Interview with policymaker 7)
Policymaker 7 names several things a citizen can do in their own backyard or neighbourhood in
order to create more facilities for nature. While behaviour in the private sphere was mentioned
quite a lot, both the aspects of non-territorial responsibility and asymmetrical obligations were not
mentioned in any of the answers.
Two of the responding policymakers named the ecological footprint in their answer. This
stands out, because it is quite a specific concept to talk about, and it was not introduced in the
introduction to the interviews. The way the concept is understood by policymakers is further
explained in section 4.2.2.
Finally, the role of nature in the city was named in four of the seven answers, by referring
to, for example, birdhouses or green roofs. This led to some discussions about the role of nature in
relation to social responsibility. This is further discussed in section 4.2.1.
24
4.1.2 Ecological pioneers
First, it is worth noting that the ecological pioneers, when answering the question: ’What do you
think EC means?’, gave answers that were shorter and more restrained than the policymakers’.
They gave less information about the aspects that EC could consist of. This could be because they
wanted to know what the concept consists of, or because they are less inclined to use and therefore
think about the word ‘burger’, or in English: citizen. Policymakers might have more affinity with
citizenship.
The most notable aspect, similar to the policymakers (section 4.1.1), is the (both explicit
and implicit) mentioning of active citizenship and the focus on the individual within a group
(society or the neighbourhood). For example:
“Ik denk dat het een verbijzondering van het goed burgerschap is. Wat een normatief begrip is dat gaat over burgers die zichzelf actief inzetten voor hun eigen leefomgeving, voor ook wel de democratische rechtstaat, voor mensen in hun
omgeving, voor het in stand houden van voorzieningen enzovoort. En de verbijzondering zit het er hier natuurlijk in dat de focus ligt op ecologische vraagstukken en op ecologisch goed burgerschap.” (Interview with ecological pioneer
7)
This respondent thinks EC is a specialized form of good citizenship, where the specialization lies
in the focus on ecological issues. EC will probably be understood as a form of active citizenship.
The focus on active citizenship can be a problem. This ecological pioneer cautions that EC might
lead to a displacement of responsibilities by the state:
“In het slechtste geval, dit is een normatieve opmerking, is het een soort instrumentalisering van burgers door de staat. Het afschuiven van verantwoordelijkheden die eerst bij de staat lagen.” (Interview with ecological
pioneer 7)
EC could lead to the state pushing off responsibility to citizens. Making them instruments to reach
ecological goals. Further in the interviews, the danger of this approach being paternalistic was
mentioned by policymakers as well; this will be further discussed in 4.3.2.
A few respondents noted that EC is about the private as well as the public sphere. With one
exception (sustainable pioneer 3), none of the ecological pioneers, just like none of the
policymakers, mention non-territorial responsibility and asymmetrical obligations.
25
In their understanding of EC, policymakers and ecological pioneers do not seem to differ
much. Just like in the theory about EC, the focus of EC in the understanding of the respondents is
on the behaviour of the individual within society. For both policymakers and ecological pioneers,
the aspects of non-territorial responsibility and asymmetrical obligations do not directly come to
mind when talking about EC. A risk is perceived that the understanding of EC with a focus on the
individual and the private sphere could lead to the state pushing off responsibilities onto private
citizens and/ or to paternalism.
4.2 Criticisms on a normative concept
The respondents in all interviews agreed with the ideals of EC. In all interviews the idea of people
living as ecological citizens in a broad sense was seen as a good one. However, there were, next
to practical feasibility (see section 4.3), several criticisms raised on the concept as it is explained
in the current theory. In this section these criticisms are outlined and discussed. Besides the four
aspects of EC that are distinguished by Jagers et al. (2014), the ecological footprint is discussed
separately because of the limitations of this concept mentioned by most ecological pioneers.
4.2.1 Social Justice and ecology
The primary aspect of EC, social justice, is essential in explaining what EC means. All respondents
agreed with social justice being a ‘good’ and honest way of living. However, several respondents
(both policymakers and pioneers) had concerns about this aspect: it is anthropocentric. Acting
socially just is focussed on humans and forgets to take the planet directly into consideration,
limiting EC. As one respondent said: “Het gaat wel degelijk over sociale rechtvaardigheid, maar
het gaat ook over hoe je met de planeet omgaat. […] het [sociale rechtvaardigheid] verengt het
concept te veel.” (Interview with ecological pioneer 7)
Of course, the planet, biodiversity and nature are indirectly linked to social justice. For
example, if bees go extinct, this could lead to a food crisis, leading to a shortage of food for some
people. Therefore, it would be socially just to make sure bees do not go extinct. Still, the
anthropocentric character of social justice does not seem to fit the idea of both ecological pioneers
and policymakers that see EC as a way to create citizens that care for ecology as much as for
humans and economy. This calls for a different term to be used as the primary aspect of EC. A
term that takes people, profit and planet directly into consideration.
26
4.2.2 Ecological footprint
Dobson (2003) uses the ecological footprint to illustrate what social justice is or can be. Most
policymakers find this concept a useful one. However, six out of seven ecological pioneers
mentioned limitations around the concept of the ecological footprint. There were three kinds of
criticisms mentioned.
The first criticism voiced by some responding ecological pioneers is that this concept
would only work if it is also measured. This means the footprint of every citizen in the world
should be measured and compared with an average footprint. This is practically impossible. One
respondent argues:
“Ja, het moeilijk van die footprint is natuurlijk dat je eerst per person dat verschil in kaart moet brengen. […] Je kan het wel invullen hoe negatief jouw impact op het klimaat is. Maar ik denk dat die film van Leonardo DiCaprio veel beter is daarvoor. En
laat zien dat er een handelingsperspectief is. Ik denk dat dat zinniger is dan een voetafdruk.” (Interview with ecological pioneer 6)
It is argued here that without a form of measurement, the concept is only a way to explain the
negative impact someone’s behaviour has on the world and the urgency of the problem. However,
the movies of Al Gore (An Inconvenient Truth) or Leonardo DiCaprio (Before the Flood) might
be more effective in getting across the same message. Both movies also give an idea of what to do
to help and solve the problem. This need for more action perspective for citizens is further
explained in section 4.3.2.
The second criticism relates to the above idea that the ecological footprint does not point
to a solution for the problem it introduces. The most often mentioned problem with the ecological
footprint is that it works in a discouraging way. A negative perception of the ecological footprint
could in fact lead to less rather than more pro-environmental action. One respondent describes how
the concept can actually discourage people:
“Ik heb vandaag een slavink gegeten en gisteren heb ik een deelauto gebruikt om naar mijn werk te komen. […] Ben ik daarmee onrechtvaardig?” (Interview with
ecological pioneer 2)
The respondent asks if he is unjust because he used a (shared) car to get to work. He states further
in the interview that the concept works as a way to give people insight into their impact on the
27
world but that it is too much of an ‘accountant’ term to use as a starting point for EC. Another
respondent says:
“… het is tot nu toe verteld als: trek een dikke trui aan want je gebruikt te veel [aarde]. Het is een beetje negatief, een beetje kleine aarde achtig gebracht. Je mag
niet meer en je moet stoppen met. [...] Die footprint is belerend en berekenend.” (Interview with ecological pioneer 5)
This respondent says the ecological footprint is too negative and therefore too limited. It focusses
on what we should not do instead of what we can do. This is a danger as the following quote
illustrates:
“Maar ergens is het heel erg ontmoedigend. Als je kijkt wat je mag en wat je doet zal je vele malen jouw budget overschrijden. Dat je dan ook snel hebt: laat maar, het gat
is zo groot, daar is geen beginnen aan.” (Interview with ecological pioneer 6)
The focus on the negative impact on the earth of one’s behaviour alone could lead to some level
of desperation among the citizens. It presents a problem without a solution, which can lead to
abandoning any action because the task seems too great.
Ecological pioneer 4 voiced a third criticism. She argues that the ecological footprint is
limited by taking only the future consequences of a single action into account. This respondent
uses an example to clarify this point: If you had no other option than to take a taxi to this interview,
this would have a negative impact on your footprint. However, this interview could lead to you
changing society in such a way that all taxis become electric. The concept only takes a single action
into account. This makes the ecological footprint oppressive.
Ecological pioneer 7 mentioned an alternative for the ecological footprint that does not
suffer from the above limitations. This is the metaphor of material cycles:
“Dat gaat over sociaaleconomische indicatoren en over stofkringlopen. En we laten dus zien vanaf 1850 tot 2010 hoe die zich allemaal hebben ontwikkeld. Je ziet gewoon dat er stoffen het land uitgaan die nooit meer terugkomen of juist andersom.
Bijvoorbeeld met fosfaat. Dat kunnen we zien en we kunnen ook zien welke keuzes er zijn gemaakt die daartoe leiden. […] Je stelt gewoon de vraag: hebben we het huishoudboekje op orde? […] Er zijn wel meer metaforen. Die voetafdruk is er ook zo een, maar die is al moeilijker te bevatten over de tijd heen. Maar zo’n huishoudboekje
snapt iedereen. (Interview with ecological pioneer 7)
A material cycle indicates the material flow of a specific material, for instance phosphate. If it is
possible to obtain insight into how much of every material enters and leaves a country, it is possible
28
to use this alternative. We already do this with our economy. We know the value of goods sold
and purchased. We know how much money comes into the country and how much money leaves
the country. If this were done with phosphate, it would show that in South America, a lot of
phosphate leaves, while a lot is entering Europe. The conclusion would be that this resource is not
properly managed. This alternative gives the option to manage cycles of elements like household
expenses. Just as with household expenses, it is possible to have a small surplus or deficit, but as
long as this is temporary, this is fine. The same can be done on a smaller scale, in the city, in the
neighbourhood or even in a house. This alternative to the ecological footprint needs measurement,
but that is possible; it places the emphasis on what can be done, and it does take future
consequences of a single action into account. However, it does not focus on individual action but
on action in a physical space. Where this alternative metaphor might not suffer from the same
problems as the ecological footprint, it does not focus on individual action and might therefore not
fit the EC concept well.
4.2.3 Private and public
With EC, the distinction between the private and the public sphere becomes obscured. Most of the
respondents agree that EC should be part of both the public and the private sphere. One respondent
gave the following description of EC at the start of the interview:
“Het gaat over de participatie van mensen in het verduurzamen van eerst hun eigen omgeving en daarna de invloed die ze kunnen uitoefenen op hun eigen gemeenschap.
Verantwoord ecologisch burger zijn en dat ook uitdragen naar de wereld om hun heen. Zoiets zou ik ervan maken.” (Interview with ecological pioneer 6)
This respondent says that EC is about participation of people in making their own surroundings
more sustainable and carrying this out to society. She names both the public and the private sphere
as important for EC. However, there was one small but interesting comment by one policymaker.
This policymaker argues that asking ecological citizens to act socially just in the private sphere is
logical following the ideas of EC, but that asking them to enter also the public sphere might be
going too far:
“Ik kan me voorstellen dat het ook weer een drempel voor mensen opwerpt. Want dan vraag je niet alleen doe alleen goed in je eigen leven in je eigen sfeer, waar je dat
kan doen. Maar dat je ook vraagt om anderen dit te laten zien. Dat is een extra verantwoordelijkheid. Dan zeg je: gedraag je goed. En dat doet iemand heel goed. En
29
dan moet hij ook nog die buren ervan overtuigen dat die dat ook moeten doen.” (Interview with policymaker 6)
EC is based on intrinsic values, therefore the behaviour in the private sphere should be following
these values. But asking people to act socially just in the public sphere might be a barrier for some.
To act as an ecological citizen in your private sphere is already a lot of responsibility. Trying to
convince neighbours and being politically active might be asking too much of ecological citizens.
As we have seen in chapter 2, one major difference between modern citizenship and EC is that EC
also includes the private sphere. However, this respondent questions whether the public sphere
should be a part of EC.
4.2.4 Non-territorial responsibility
Another of the major aspects of EC is non-territorial responsibility. This means that ecological
citizens act just towards all people in the world and future generations. Both geographical borders
and borders in time fade away. All respondents agreed with the normative argument that there is a
responsibility to both other places in the world and other generations. However, there were some
practical criticisms.
Some respondents argued that many people do not care about others in the world. This
means that, ideally, people are responsible for others in the world, but many in fact do not care.
This is different for the responsibility to other generations. People do feel responsible for their
children and grandchildren. Therefore, it is easier to act socially just with respect to your offspring
than with respect to people on different continents. Ecological pioneer 3 goes further and says:
“Het gaat vooral over mensen die nu in een dictatuur en in armoede leven over 20 jaar. Het is een drempel hoor. Het is nu al moeilijk om mensen zich druk te laten
maken over creperende mensen in Aleppo of Afrika.” (Interview with ecological pioneer 3)
