Perceptions of power in environmental inequality : a Dutch gas quake context

(1)

Perceptions of power in environmental

inequality

A Dutch gas quake context

Nikki Catlender

Master Thesis Political Science International Relations

Supervisor: Dr. R. J. Pistorius Second Reader: Dr. L. W. Fransen

(2)

(3)

3

Abstract

This thesis investigates how perceptions of the role of power can be envisioned in current environmental inequality. The term environmental inequality implies any undue imposition of environmental harm on innocent bystanders who are not involved in generating such harm. Power is understood by the spaces of participation, the levels where the conflicts take place, and the forms of power stakeholders have. This understanding of power is applied to a case of environmental inequality concerning gas extraction in Groningen, the Netherlands. The findings show that (a) the levels of the conflict eventually encompass multiple scales and can become increasingly intertwined; (b) elaborating on the spaces of power, closed spaces are linked to formal decision-making power, formal and informal power come together in invited spaces and stakeholders with informal power claim/create spaces; (c) discussing the forms of power, visible power overlaps with closed spaces, hidden power is linked to agenda-setting power, and all stakeholders have invisible power, they can shape meaning within the conflict. However, the findings show that power of stakeholders is not ‘static’, but can change over time when important events happen or when stakeholders with informal power find a way to claim/create power. This static notion of power (envisioned by spaces, levels and forms) should therefore be strengthened by a more ‘fluent’ form of power, incorporating the importance of (event-driven) change.

Nikki Catlender – 10151869 nikkicatlender@gmail.com Number of words: 20.790

(4)

4

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Robin Pistorius for his guidance; his valuable quick responses to my many questions and interesting recommendations have been essential. Furthermore, my gratitude goes to Dr. Luc Fransen for taking the time to read and assess this thesis as a second reader. Finally, I would above all like to thank the ten interview respondents that I consulted for this thesis for their openness and willingness to help me. I wish these people all the best in their work regarding the Groningen situation.

(5)

5

List of tables, figures and illustrations

Figure 1. Schematic representation of powercube: levels, spaces and forms of power 21

Table 1. Hypothetical representation of power in environmental inequality 24

Figure 2. Groningen as part of the Netherlands and the Netherlands as part of Europe 36

Figure 4. Timeline - Important events in Groningen 38

Figure 3. Production induced earthquakes 37

Figure 5. Overview of involved stakeholders in the gas conflict in Groningen 39

Illustration 1. Justice for Groningen 54

Table 2. Preliminary perceptions of power in current environmental inequality 61

(8)

8

List of Abbreviations

EBN Dutch Supervision of Energy (Energie Beheer Nederland) GBB Groningen Ground Movement (Groninger Bodem Beweging) GGB Groningen Gas Assembly (Groninger Gasberaad)

Groningers Inhabitants of the province of Groningen, the Netherlands NAM Dutch Petroleum Company (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij) RUG State University Groningen (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen)

SodM State Supervision of Mines (Staatstoezicht op de Mijnen) US United States

(9)

9

1. Introducing power in environmental inequality

1.1 Research Question

‘Think back to the movie Erin Brockovich. The basic plot, based on a true story, goes like this: A woman with no legal training learns that many residents in a small town have gotten cancer due to exposure to contaminated groundwater. After investigating a large factory believed to be responsible for the contamination, Brockovich proceeds to kick ass. She files a lawsuit against the company, bringing justice to the sick families. It’s the perfect drama-filled Hollywood plot. Yet what is even more dramatic is that the basic story of communities living in contamination isn’t rare at all’ (Brehm and Pellow – The Society Pages, 2013).

This plot perfectly describes the intricacy of an increasing scholarly concern. Studies have established a general pattern whereby environmental hazards are located in such a way that poor and ‘people of colour’ bear the brunt of the nation’s pollution problem (Pellow, 2005: 147). In many places around the world, people live in neighbourhoods with hazardous waste, toxic incinerators and health-threatening chemical contamination (The Society Pages, 2013). Certain classes of people are more likely to be affected by these environmental hazards than others, namely, people of colour, working class people, immigrants, and indigenous communities (Schlosberg and Carruthers, 2010; Adeola, 2000: 701). Scholars refer to this as ‘environmental inequality’ (Adeola, 2009: 148; Pellow, 2000: 582).

Research around environmental inequality started in the early 1970s and mostly focuses on theoretical considerations, social movements fighting against environmental inequalities and for environmental justice, or the application of an environmental justice analytical framework on specific issues (such as air pollution) (London, et al., 2008: 257). Many other studies argue that environmental inequalities do not just disproportionately affect minorities, but can also encompass other social categories, such as gender, age, class and immigration status (Day, 2010; Sze and London, 2008).

Whilst there is an abundance of literature debating how best to establish an empirical basis for the existence of environmental inequality, the scholarship has been much thinner on the question of why these relationships among race, class, and other structuring identities exist (Sze and London, 2008: 1344). This scholarship refers to a discussion between the economic, socio-political and racial explanations of

(10)

10 environmental inequality (Mohai et al., 2009: 413). The more striking question is why these inequalities still exist. What obstacles do these affected groups encounter to change their situation? Scholarship in this field problematizes the access of the injured party to decision-making capabilities, democratic processes, and power therein (The Society Pages, 2013; Čapek, 1993). Scholars who seek social change are aware of the need to engage with and understand this phenomenon called ‘power’ because much depends on the nature of the power relations surrounding environmental inequalities (Gaventa, 2006: 23). After all, environmental inequality is about the critical analysis of power relations as they play out in the (mal)distribution of harms and opportunities related to the environment. However, research on the specific role of power in environmental inequalities is underexposed (Pellow and Brulle, 2005: 17; Sze and London, 2008: 1332). In an effort to filling this gap in the literature, this thesis focuses on the perceptions of the role of power in environmental inequality, hence resulting in the following research question:

How can perceptions of the role of power be envisioned in current environmental inequality?

1.2 Theoretical framework: conceptualising power in environmental inequality

In order to answer the research question, both environmental inequality and power therein must be conceptualised. Adeola uses the term environmental inequality to imply any undue or undeserved imposition of environmental harm on innocent bystanders who are not directly involved in the industry or market operation generating such harm (2009: 148). It is therefore convenient to adopt a conceptualisation of power that focuses on the social side of power, linking power to broader issues of poverty, exclusion, economic inequality and social injustice. Scholars engaged in power for social change have established a more practical notion of the concept of power, which will be utilised to obtain accurate reliable data about power.

Therefore, this thesis’ conceptualisation of power is shaped by three interrelated concepts: the spaces, levels and forms of power (Gaventa, 2006: 26). Linking this to the concept of environmental inequality reveals a prototype of (a) the spaces of participation stakeholders have in environmental inequality conflicts, (b) the levels where

(11)

11 environmental inequality conflicts take place, and (c) the forms of power stakeholders in environmental inequality conflicts have.

There are many examples of research that apply this interpretation of power for an analysis on social issues (Pearce, 2007; Mgala and Shutt, 2011; Mascarenhas and Wisner, 2012). Therefore, I expect that an understanding of power as proposed above is applicable in environmental inequality situations as well. However, it is uncertain whether the spaces, levels and forms provide a complete image of power in environmental inequalities, incorporating all aspects of such environmental frictions.

1.3 Research design: case study ofenvironmental inequality in Groningen

In order to test this proposition, this thesis requires a methodological framework that functions as a bridge between the above-motioned theoretical prototype of power and current environmental inequality conflicts. The research design of a case study suits this aim. A case study can be defined as ‘an intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a larger class of (similar) units (Gerring, 2004: 342), corresponding with

this thesis’s tentative, theory-building ambitions. Case studies have the advantage that they allow for a detailed study in which a multitude of factors can be included, which I believe is necessary for a study on the perceptions of power.

The earthquakes associated with the gas extraction in the province of Groningen, the Netherlands, cause conflictions and can be seen as an environmental inequality conflict. The injured Groningers (the locals) experience environmental harm, while they are not directly involved in the industry generating the harm (NRC, 2017a). The Groningen situation is chosen as this thesis’ case study because of its feasibility due to available data. Although the Groningen case may not seem the most obvious choice in light of the theoretical angle, as the environmental inequality literature mostly focuses on minority groups, the social circumstances surrounding the Groningen situation are representative for other environmental inequality conflicts (Čapek, 1993). This will be set forth in paragraph 3.3, which further justifies the choice for this case.

In order to study the perceptions of the role of power, ten semi-structured interviews have been conducted with key players in the Groningen conflict. The observation of an informal meeting of Groningers and an analysis of relevant documents complements the interviews.

(12)

12 1.4 Relevance

This thesis has both theoretical and empirical ambitions. The theoretical relevance lays in the absence of literature on the role of power in environmental inequality conflicts. Describing how exactly these power relations work contributes to the formulation of answers and problem-solving mechanisms, which is the empirical relevance of this thesis. Theoretically speaking, it is thus important to describe the role of power in environmental inequality (Pellow and Brulle, 2005: 17). As mentioned above, a large portion of the academic research on environmental inequality has either focused on social movements, or the application of environmental justice analytic frameworks to different issues. Additionally, many studies focus exclusively on public actors, thereby neglecting the interrelationships within the social movement/law/policy-making apparatus. A thorough analysis is needed to truly understand and explain the patterns of power in environmental inequality (London, et al., 2008: 257). Understanding the dynamics of power relations and the relative strengths and weaknesses of the parties as they intersect to form this policy arena is critical to a full analysis of environmental inequality (ibid: 288). Thus, it is imperative to refine the mechanisms and processes behind environmental inequality and clarify the conceptualisation of environmental inequality (Sze and London, 2008: 1343).

The empirical relevance lies in the idea that the parties most responsible for industrial pollution are the ones with power and privilege, reaping the economic benefits while avoiding the environmental burdens (Adeola, 2000: 688). Natural resource exploitation and inequitable distribution of environmental hazards (or externalization of costs by production) by corporations and nation states with particular interests, remains a serious treat to the ‘global commons’ (Adeola, 2000: 689). Additionally, it is important to touch upon the praxis of addressing environmental inequalities (London, et al., 2008: 257). Since studying how environmental inequalities are socially produced and also socially generative, ‘we hold open the possibility of opposition to power’ (Williams, 1999: 68).

As mentioned above, there exists a rich field of literature on environmental inequality. Scholarship is much thinner on the question of why these environmental inequality relationships among race, class, and other structuring identities still exists. That question is particularly applicable in the Groningen situation. 26 years after of the first production-induced earthquake in the province of Groningen, things have not

(13)

13 changed much. This was demonstrated by the gas quake (2.6 on the Richter scale) in the municipality of Slochteren on the 27th_{of May 2017 (NRC, 2017b). How is it possible that}

Groningers still did not find a way to alter their situation? 1.6 Structure and outlook

In the next chapter, I will elaborate on the role of power in environmental inequality. The chapter will determine that a focus on the social side of power is necessary to envision the role of power in environmental inequality. Therefore, power in relation to social change will be used, describing the spaces, levels and forms of power building on Gaventa’s notion of the powercube. The section concludes with a visual outline of the prototype of the spaces of participation, the levels where environmental inequality conflicts take place, and (c) the forms of power stakeholders in environmental inequality conflicts have.

Subsequently, Chapter 3 will be used to bridge between theory and praxis by outlining how the field of power in environmental inequality could possibly be studied, concluding that a case study will come closest to the aims of this thesis. The second part of Chapter 3 will therefore describe the case: environmental inequality in the conflict over gas extraction in the province of Groningen, the Netherlands.

Building on the prototype outlined in Chapter 2, Chapter 4 elaborates on the empirical findings. This thesis shows that (a) when looking at the different types of power, spaces, levels and forms, there is an important distinction between formal and informal power shaping the power relations; (b) the levels of the conflict eventually encompass multiple scales and can become increasingly intertwined; (c) elaborating on the spaces of power, closed spaces are linked to formal decision-making power, formal and informal power come together in invited spaces and stakeholders with informal power claim/create spaces; (d) discussing the forms of power, visible power overlaps with closed spaces, hidden power is linked to agenda-setting power, and finally, all stakeholders have invisible power and can thus shape meaning within environmental inequality conflicts.

Before concluding, Chapter 5 will supplement the proposed theory by arguing that the theory cannot incorporate all aspects of power in environmental inequality conflicts. Findings show that power of stakeholders is not ‘static’, but can change over time when important events happen or when stakeholders with informal power find a way to claim/create power. Therefore, this thesis aims to add to the proposed theory by arguing

(14)

14 that one should also take into account the importance of (event-driven) change, a more ‘fluent’ form of power.

(15)

15

2. Conceptualising power in environmental inequality

2.1 Introduction

‘Power, in practice, can be repressive and even lend itself to violence; conversely, power is crucial for producing healthy changes in social relations, such as would profit those subsisting in conditions of poverty or those subjected to various forms of injustice; repressive power is most potent and durable when people accept and uphold the (mis)perceptions and conditions that underpin their own inequality; therefore, much hinges on the extent to which, in the emerging social contexts, people are adequately challenged to recognise, confront and transform the socially acquired dispositions that allow for repression’ (Bourdieu, as referred to in Eyben, et al., 2006: 9).

I believe that the above words describing the duality of power can be seen demonstrative of the crux of this chapter and link power to social issues. The rapidly changing nature and expressions of power requires decision-making on what conceptualisation of power best suits this thesis’ analysis of power in environmental inequality. Environmental inequality is in this thesis defined as any undue or undeserved imposition of environmental harm on innocent bystanders who are not directly involved in the industry or market operation generating such harm (2009: 148). I believe it is thus convenient to use a conceptualisation of power that focuses on the social side of power, linking power with boarder issues of poverty, exclusion, economic inequality and social injustice.

Therefore, it is practically impossible to separate this thesis’ interpretation of the concept of power from the concept of environmental inequality while answering the research question – How can perceptions of the role of power be envisioned in current environmental inequality? In other words: the conceptualisation of both power and environmental inequality are intertwined, as will become clear in the following paragraphs. Those paragraphs first elaborate on defining environmental inequality through highlighting the historical background of the concept and by distinguishing between environmental racism, injustice and inequality. Additionally, the usage of the ‘powercube’ is introduced with its corresponding spaces, levels and visibility of power. Linking the powercube with the notion of environmental inequality results in a comprehensible conceptualisation of power in environmental inequality (visually

(16)

16 represented in Table 1), mainly informed by the work of Gaventa (2006), Gaventa and Cornwall (2008), Pellow (2000) and Sze and London (2008).

2.2 Theory and praxis of environmental inequality scholarship

In the early 1970s, a substantial body of literature was developed that documents the existence of environmental inequalities in the United States (US) (United Church of Christ. Commission for Racial Justice, 1987; Brulle and Pellow, 2006: 105). It began with research primarily focused on toxic waste impacts in low-income groups and communities of colour. This earliest literature used the term ‘environmental racism’ to define the disproportionate effects of environmental pollution on racial minorities, or the ‘unequal distribution of environmental benefits and pollution burdens on race’ (Sze and London, 2008: 1332). As defined by Bullard, environmental racism refers to ‘any policy, practice, or directive that differentially affects or disadvantages (whether intended or unintended) individuals, groups, or communities based on race or colour’ (1993, 451). Although it is important to give the reader an idea of why and how research on environmental racism initiated, this thesis will not go into detail on environmental racism but uses the broader term of environmental inequality of which environmental racism is a specific form (Brulle and Pellow, 2006: 104).

Starting from environmental racism, contemporary environmental inequality research has undergone spectacular growth and diffusion in the last three decades (Sze and London, 2008: 1331). As touched upon in paragraph 1.1, it has since expanded the kinds of environmental inequalities being studied, such as transportation, health, housing, smart growth/land use, water, energy development, brownfields, and militarization (Sze and London, 2008: 1337). Research also has broadened the scope including other racial and ethnic groups (e.g., Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans) and disparities between age and gender (idem). Furthermore, the ‘local’ versus ‘global’ came on the environmental inequality agenda. Studies not only concern the US anymore, but research expanded to the other western countries, as well as non-western countries (Schoolman and Ma, 2012). Transnational studies compare countries and involve inequalities between countries (Agyeman and Evans, 2004; Sze and London, 2008: 1342; Bond, 2000; and Carruthers, 2008). Several works have also reworked the theoretical bases of environmental justice ‘by linking it to debates about neoliberalism and globalization, as well as the discourses of sustainable development’ (Sze and London, 2008: 1343).

(17)

17 Many scholars specifically look at the social movements that can be distinguished from environmental inequality conflicts: environmental justice movements. These movements emerged in response to the particular problems mentioned above (idem; Williams, 1999: 50). One could state that environmental justice is a conceptual construction; ‘fashioned simultaneously from the bottom up (local grass-roots groups discovering a pattern for their grievances) and from the top down (national organizations conveying the term to local groups)’ (Čapek, 1993: 5). Environmental justice can be understood as a form of social praxis because is it a field that draws from and integrated theory and practice in a mutually informing dialogue (Sze and London, 2008: 1332).

Thus, one could argue that environmental inequality and justice research is as a field on a crossroad: ‘rising through the convergence of social movements, public policy, and scholarship’, having both the possibilities and the perils of this dynamic situation (Sze and London, 2008: 1332).

2.2.1 Defining environmental inequality

Many authors use the term ‘environmental injustice’ in the same way as environmental inequality (Sze and London, 2008: 1333). So does this thesis. The term environmental injustice implies any undue or undeserved imposition of environmental harm on innocent bystanders who are not directly involved in the industry or market operation generating such harm (Adeola, 2009: 148). It also involves the failure to include minority communities in decisions concerning undesirable environmental outcomes of industrial activities posing potential threats to their livelihood, health, and well-being. Relaxation of environmental laws or lack of environmental regulation enforcement in marginalized community and the treatment of such community as a national sacrifice zone that could be appropriated for the purpose of ecological withdrawal or as the sinks to accommodate wastes and other industrial effluents constitute environmental injustice (Adeola, 2009: 148).

The term environmental inequality has emerged more recently to include both additional factors that are associated with disproportionate environmental impacts (such as gender, class, or immigration status) as well as the inter-connections between these factors (Sze and London, 2008: 1332-1333). Environmental inequality ‘allows for greater inclusiveness of affected populations and does not require the stringent and hard to acquire evidence of intentional targeting of racial minorities for environmental harms’

(18)

18 (ibid: 1333). Throughout this thesis, I will use the definition of environmental injustice, with in mind the greater inclusiveness of affected populations related to environmental inequality.

2.3 Linking power to social change

Chapter 1 touched upon the difficulties of defining ‘power’. Robert A. Dahl stated in 1957 that scholars have not provided a ‘statement of the concept of power that is rigorous enough to be of use in the systematic study of this important social phenomenon’ (p. 201). Although the concepts of power vary widely, ranging from Weber’s (1964) ‘pluralistic notion of the command of force to Foucault’s (1890) discourses of truth and knowledge’ (Mosse, 2005: 52), most people have an intuitive idea of what that concept means (Eyben, et al., 2006: 2). Thus, the meanings of power and how to understand it, are diverse and often contentious. More concretely, there are many ways in which power could be thought of, something the quote in this introduction touched upon. Some see power as held by actors, some of whom are powerful while others are relatively powerless. Others see it as more pervasive, embodied in a web of relationships and discourses affecting everyone, but which no single actor holds. Otherwise, power is not a finite resource; it can be used, shared or created by actors and their networks in many multiple ways (Gaventa, 2006: 23).

While understanding power is critical to acting upon a multitude of issues that we face, the nature of power itself is also changing (Powercube, 2017a). There are three trends affecting how power relations are experienced nowadays: changing patterns of globalization, a movement from government to governance and, ‘largely because of rapidly changing ideas about knowledge and rapid changes in forms of communication, whose knowledge is seen as legitimate also affects how issues are constructed and how power is experienced’ (Powercube, 2017b).

Scholars concerned with seeking social change, whether they are concerned with participation and inclusion, realising rights or changing policies, are becoming aware of the need to engage with and understand this phenomenon called power (Gaventa, 2006: 23). Gaventa argues that, ‘despite the more widespread rhetorical acceptance, it is […] becoming clear that simply creating new institutional arrangements will not necessarily result in greater inclusion’. Rather, much depends on the nature of the power relations that surround and imbue these new, potentially more democratic spaces (2006: 23).

(19)

19 To be able to address the role of power in environmental inequality, this thesis uses a more practical notion of the concept of power. Practical in a way that it will later on be possible to use as a measuring instrument by means of which it is possible to obtain accurate reliable data about power (see paragraph 3.2 for explanation of methods). Therefore, this thesis builds its conceptualisation of power on that of the powercube. The powercube is a framework for analysing the spaces, levels, and forms of power and their interrelationship, established by Gaventa (2006: 26).

2.4 Introducing the powercube: forms of power

Referring to the powercube, this paragraph first explains the ‘forms’ of power by building on Lukes. Lukes’ argues that power is exercised and could be envisioned in three ways. The first way is based on a traditional pluralists’ approach (Gaventa, 1980: 4). This one-dimensional view says that ‘power involves a focus on behaviour in the making of decisions on issues over which there is an observable conflict of (subjective) interests, seen as expressed policy preferences, revealed by political participation’ (Lukes, 1974: 300). The second dimension of power, based on Bachrach and Baratz (1962), considers power’s second face. This is a two-dimensional view in which ‘power involves a qualified critique of the behavioural focus of the first view and it allows for consideration of the ways in which decisions are prevented from being taken on potential issues over which there is an observable conflict of (subjective) interests, seen as embodied in express policy preferences and sub-political grievances’ (Lukes, 1974: 304). Finally, the third view is a three-dimensional view on power and

‘[i]nvolves a thoroughgoing critique of the behavioural focus of the first two views as too individualistic and allows for consideration of the many ways in which potential issues are kept out of politics, whether though the operation of social forces and institutional practices or through individuals’ decisions. This, moreover, can occur in the absence of actual, observable conflict, which may have been successfully averted - though there remains here an implicit reference to potential conflict. This potential, however, may never in fact be actualised’ (ibid: 306).

Gaventa and Cornwall argue that the three dimensions have been useful in understanding power, but that they have also been critiqued by a number of differing perspectives

(20)

20 (2008: 71). Namely, the approach can be too limited in its understanding of power as a ‘power over’ relationship, i.e. all three dimensions focus on the repressive side of power (idem: 72).

2.4.1 Power ‘in a context’: spaces and levels of power

Therefore, Gaventa goes further by arguing that the three forms of power as presented by Lukes ‘must also be understood in relation to how spaces for engagement are created and the levels of power (from local to global), in which they occur’. These are the spaces and levels mentioned in paragraph 2.3. To understand how Gaventa theoretically gets to spaces and levels of power, it is necessary to underline the importance of context. Describing the importance of context contributes to a clear understanding of why spaces and levels of power must be taken into account when discussing environmental inequality.

Different contexts ask for different approaches to power, because the significance, dynamics and interrelationships of the dimensions are constantly changing and vary enormously from context to context (Gaventa, 2006: 30). In his article about transforming power, Robert Chambers introduces the idea of ‘uppers’ and ‘lowers’:

‘Upper can refer to a person who in a context is dominant or superior to a lower in that context. Lower can refer to a person who in a context is subordinate or inferior to an upper in that same context. Being an upper or a lower is, […] situational and positional, summarised by ‘in a context’. It is common experience, […], that a person can be an upper to another in one context, and a lower to the same person in another, and that many reflexes and habits, tacit agreements, mirrorings of views, concealments, evasions, lies and unspoken understandings can be at play, sometimes known only to the actors and not always even consciously to them’ (2006: 99).

Gaventa builds on Chambers’ notion of the importance of context when discussing the forms of power and envisions ‘context’ as space and place of power (Eyben et al., 2006: 7). By space Gaventa means ‘the ways in which participation or political engagement occurs’, for example whether power is contested in formal parliamentary institutions or though autonomous social movements; by place he means the arenas of political struggle, from the very local level of the community up to national and even global levels (Eyben et al., 2006: 7). These will be elaborated on in paragraphs 2.5-2.7.

(21)

21 Understanding the spaces, levels and forms of power, as themselves separate but interrelated dimensions, each of which had a least three components within them, could be visually linked together into a powercube (ibid: 25). Like a Rubik’s cube, the blocks within the cube rotate, thus the cube should not be thought of as fixed or static. Figure 1 schematically represents the powercube.

The powercube is not only useful for understanding who exercises what kind of power but also for paying attention to the nature of relationships that provide or sustain certain power dynamics. It raises questions about the ways in which spaces are shaped and conditioned by less visible forms of power – ‘through rules of access, norms of engagement and socio-cultural boundaries which delineate who can do what or have a voice within those spaces’ (Pantazidou, 2012: 10).

Linking power to environmental inequality, the following paragraphs explain the spaces, levels and forms of power as understood by the powercube in relation to the concept of environmental inequality (visually represented by Table 1). The following paragraph starts with the notion of space.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of powercube: levels, spaces and forms of power

Source: Gaventa (2006)

2.5 Spaces of power: closed, invited and claimed/created

The powercube envisions spaces as opportunities, moments, and channels where citizens can act to potentially affect policies, discourses, decisions and relationships that affect their lives and interests (Gaventa, 2006: 26). These spaces are not neutral, but are formed

(22)

22 by power relations. Important in examining the spaces is to explore how they were created, with whose interests and what terms of engagement. The powercube suggests three different spaces: closed, invited, and claimed/created. Although the spaces differ in meaning, it is important to remember they are interacting with each other.

Closed spaces are seen as decision-making spaces that are closed. That is, ‘decisions are made by a set of actors behind closed doors, without any pretence of broadening the boundaries for inclusion’ (idem). From a state perspective, these are ‘provided spaces’ in the sense that elites make decisions and provide services without the need for broader consultation or involvement.

Besides closed spaces, there are invited spaces. To move away from closed spaces to more open ones, new spaces are created. One could refer to them as those spaces into which people (as users, citizens or beneficiaries) are invited to participate by various kinds of authorities (be the government, supranational agencies, non-governmental organizations). Invited spaces may be regularised, ‘they are institutionalised on-going, or more transient, through one-off forms of consultation. Increasingly with the rise of approaches to participatory governance, these spaces are seen at every level’ (ibid: 27; Cornwall, 2002: 2).

Claimed/created spaces on the other hand, are the spaces that are claimed by less powerful actors from or against the power holders, or created more autonomously by them. One could see these spaces as ‘organic spaces’ because they emerge out of sets of common concerns or identifications and can come into being as a result of popular mobilization. These spaces range from ones created by social movements and community associations, to those involving natural places where people gather to debate, discuss and resist, outside of the institutionalized policy arenas (Powercube, 2017a).

As becomes clear in Table 1, linking the notion of spaces in power to the concept of environmental inequality raises the question of what opportunities, moments, and channels stakeholders have to potentially affect policies, discourses, decisions and relationships. This ranges between a possible situation in which there is no opportunity to affect policy and a possible situation in which there are moments to affect policy and discourse. Thinking critically is to expose who creates the spaces, because those who create space are likely to have more power in it. However, referring to the importance of context, those who have power in it may not have power in another space (Gaventa, 2006: 27).

(23)

23 Discussing how and by whom these spaces for participation are shaped is linked to debates on the levels or places where critical social, political and economic power resides (referred to as ‘context’ in paragraph 2.4.1) (Gaventa, 2006: 27). These levels will be elaborated on in the following paragraph.

(24)

Table 1. Hypothetical representation of power in environmental inequality

Power in environmental inequality (hypothetical)

Spaces Levels Forms

Closed  Decisions are made by a set of stakeholders behind closed doors;  Elite decision-making

Invited  Stakeholders with less power are invited to participate by various kinds of authorities

Claimed/created  Claimed power by less powerful actors;  Emerges out of common concerns and can come into being as a result of popular mobilization

One scale  An environmental conflict takes place at

one scale

Multiple scales  The conflict ranges from local to global;

 In between are many other levels potentially involved in the power struggle

Intertwined  Rather than being different spheres, the

levels are increasingly interrelated

Visible  Observable decision-making power;

 Formal rules, structures, authorities, institutions and procedures of decision-making

Hidden  Who gets to the decision-making table and

what gets on the agenda;  Setting the political agenda

Invisible  Power of stakeholders to shape meaning

and the idea of what is acceptable;

 Shapes stakeholders’ beliefs, sense of self and acceptance of the status quo

(25)

2.6 Levels of power: one, multiple and intertwined scales

Paragraph 2.5 elaborated on the context of spaces of power following the powercube in its distinction between closed, invited and claimed/created spaces of power. This paragraph

does the same with the notion of levels of power although the literature on levels of power does not provide a clear-cut distinction of the different types of levels.

One could argue that research into participatory practice must begin locally, since that is the level of everyday life in which people are able to resist power and to construct their own voice. However, other scholars state that ‘power is shifting to more globalized actors and struggles for participation must engage at that level’ (Gaventa, 2006: 28). In between there are many other levels potentially involved in the power struggle. Moreover, rather than being different spheres, the levels are increasingly interrelated. Local actors affect and shape global power, conversely, ‘expressions of global civil society or citizenship may simply be vacuous without meaningful links local actors’ (idem).

I believe that in this thesis all levels are potentially significant and therefore the analysis (Chapter 4) should consider them all, and their interrelationship. This means that the global, national and local levels of decision-making, thus the public sphere, are included (Gaventa, 2006: 27). However, they can equally apply to non-public sphere (trans)national organisations, for instance social movements or multinational corporations.

As in the types of spaces, the relevance and importance of levels for engagement varies according to the context and to the purpose of differing civil society organisations and interventions, the openings that are being created in any given context (Gaventa, 2006: 27). Linking the idea of levels for power to environmental inequality asks for the question of how to theoretically define levels of power.

Some authors discuss the matter of levels (scale) in environmental inequality research, of which most of them cover the politics of scale regarding environmental justice movements (Williams, 1999; Pellow and Brulle, 2005). Williams argues that there are varying ways in which environmental inequality issues are conceived and through which fights for justice are being fought. The extent and causes of the problems are usually cast in multi-scale terms, starting with the local but also regarding the State and national scales (1999: 57). The environmental justice movements usually focus on a place-specific concern. On the other hand, the scale of problem solution is generally

(26)

26 recognized as spanning a multitude of scales (idem). One could also make a distinction between ‘static’ and ‘continuous’ levels of power, as Pellow does. He argues that scholars should not envision environmental inequality conflicts (as scholar tend to do before) as taking place at a single scale, but they should be described as events encompassing different intertwined scales (Pellow, 2000). Pellow’s arguments regarding intertwined scales will be elaborated on in paragraph 5.4.

The above described thus claims that there is a distinction between the local and higher levels. It remains unclear whether levels are public, non-public, or encompass different levels. Therefore, this thesis will see the levels of power in environmental inequality ranging between a situation in which an environmental inequality conflict takes place at one (for instance on a local) scale and a situation in which there are many levels involved in the conflict (multiple scales). Furthermore, these scales could be intertwined or not at all. This is visually represented in Table 1.

2.7 Forms of power: visible, hidden and invisible

Following Lukes’ three dimensions of power elaborated on in paragraph 2.4, it is important to include the dynamics of power that shape the inclusiveness of participation within each. Much of the literature dealing with power is concerned with the degree to which conflict over key issues and the voices of key actors are visible in given spaces and levels (ibid: 29). Following the powercube, this thesis distinguishes between visible, hidden and invisible power.

Visible power is the observable decision making power (VeneKlasen and Miller, 2002: 40). This type includes the visible and definable aspects of political power: the formal rules, structures, authorities, institutions and procedures of decision-making. Stakeholders willing to change this level usually try to change the who and what of policymaking so that the policy process is more democratic and accountable (ibid: 29).

Additionally, hidden power is about setting the political agenda:

‘Certain people and institutions maintain their influence by controlling who gets to the decision-making table and what gets on the agenda. These dynamics operate on many levels to exclude and devalue the concerns and representation of other less powerful groups’ (idem).

(27)

27 To maintain their power and privilege, stakeholders with power use hidden forms of power by creating certain barriers to participation. This is done by excluding key issues from the public arena or organizing some issues ‘into politics’ and others ‘out of politics’. This not only occurs in political processes but in workplaces, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or community-based organizations (Powercube, 2017c).

Finally, invisible power is about the power to shape meaning of what is acceptable (VeneKlasen and Miller, 2002: 40), shaping the psychological and ideological boundaries of participation. Significant problems and issues are not only kept from the decision-making table, but also from the minds and consciousness of the different players involved, even those directly affected by the problem (idem; Gaventa, 2006: 29). Influencing how people think about their place in the world, invisible power shapes people’s beliefs, sense of self and acceptance of the status quo. The processes of socialization, culture and ideology uphold exclusion and inequality by defining what is normal, acceptable and safe (idem).

Combining the concept of environmental inequality with the notion of forms in power asks for the level of inclusiveness of participation in power of stakeholders involved in the environmental inequality conflict. Table 1 visually represents this: that ranging from a situation in which stakeholders are invisible to a situation in which stakeholders are visible in given spaces and levels.

2.8 Conclusion and hypothesis

This chapter has elaborated on the role of power in environmental inequality with the aim to provide an understanding of how power could be envisioned in environmental inequality, combining the notion of power for social change with the powercube. Linking the concept of environmental inequality with the notion of forms of power asks for the level of inclusiveness of participation in power of stakeholders involved in the environmental inequality conflict, possibly ranging from a situation in which stakeholders are invisible, to a situation in which stakeholders are visible in given spaces and levels.

Spaces and levels of power provide the idea of context. Linking the spaces of power to the concept of environmental inequality raises the question of what opportunities, moments, and channels stakeholders have to potentially affect policies, discourses, decisions and relationships. This ranges between a possible situation in which there is no opportunity to affect policy (closed spaces) and a possible situation in which there are

(28)

28 moments to affect policy and discourse (claimed/created spaces). In between there might be invited spaces, when stakeholders with less power are invited to participate by more powerful stakeholders.

Additionally, context is also given by formulating power in levels. These levels could be a distinction between the national, regional and local scales, or formal (pubic) and informal (non-public). As it is not clear how many scales are involved in environmental inequality conflicts and whether they interact or not, this thesis envisions levels of power as possibly ranging between one, multiple or intertwined scales.

The above-described theory is relevant for answering the research question – How can perceptions of the role of power be envisioned in different interpretations of environmental inequality? – because it can provide a clear measuring instrument by means of which it is possible to obtain accurate reliable data about power. In order to do so, based on this theoretical chapter, the following hypothesis can be introduced:

The role of power in current environmental inequality can be envisioned by the spaces, levels and forms shaping power.

In order to research this proposition and to further answer the research question, the next chapter will develop a research design that will make it possible to study the types of power (spaces, levels and forms) and explains how data will be collected and analysed.

(29)

29

3. Methodology: environmental inequality in Groningen

3.1 Introduction

The previous chapter concluded that the role of power in environmental inequality could be envisioned in three reinforcing ways: by looking at spaces, levels and forms of power. This chapter examines how power in environmental inequality could be studied. Therefore this chapter functions as a bridge between the concepts from the previous chapter (paragraphs 2.5-2.7) and the case study this research relies on (paragraph 3.4-3.5). I believe that a qualitative research method offers an efficient way of collecting accurate data, which neatly fits this thesis’ research question: How can perceptions of the role of power be envisioned in different interpretations of environmental inequality?

A case study, in line with the standards of qualitative research, is characterised by an ‘inductive view of the relationship between theory and research, whereby the former is generated out of the latter’ (Bryman, 2008: 366). A case study can be defined as ‘an intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a larger class of (similar) units (Gerring, 2004: 342). A unit within a case study is a spatially bounded phenomenon observed at a single point in time or over some delimited period (Gerring, 2004: 342).

As mentioned above, to generate theory out of research this thesis is not intended to be just a description of a case study. Rather, it strives to say something about the role of power in environmental inequality by identifying the spaces, levels and forms of power in environmental inequality. To do so, the research design of a case study has been chosen because case studies generally partake of two empirical worlds. They are both studies of a particular case and of something more general (Gerring, 2004: 345). This study has an exploratory nature in the sense that the research question asks for an explanation of the role of power in environmental inequality conflicts. Since there is none, this thesis aims to build one. Additionally, case studies have the advantage that they allow for a detailed study in which a multitude of factors can be included, something a study of the perceptions of power asks for (Flyvbjerg, 2006: 219).

Providing the above-mentioned bridge between theory and the case study, the following paragraphs first explain decisions for data collection, by (a) covering ‘document analysis’ as the applied research method, which is particularly applicable to qualitative case studies (Bowen, 2009: 29), (b) explaining the relevance of the case and (c) providing a reflection on the proposed inquiry (interwoven into the paragraphs). The second part of

(30)

30 this chapter introduces the case study: the situation around gas extraction in the province of Groningen in the Netherlands. The complexity of the Groningen case asks for an extensive overview of both the historical events (see timeline in paragraph 3.4) and the relevant stakeholders involved.

3.2 Data gathering: Snowball Sampling

The concept of power, in this thesis identified by its spaces, levels and forms, asks for a case study design that allows for a detailed study in which a multitude of factors can be included. A case study is a research design that is compatible with a variety of methods. Therefore, three methods for data collection are used: semi-structured interviews as the primary method and document analysis and participant observation to supplement the findings (paragraph 3.2.1).

As mentioned above, the conflict over gas extraction in Groningen is a particularly complex conflict with many stakeholders and different organisations involved (as will be further explained in paragraph 3.4). Therefore, collecting data for answering the research question entailed contacting key informants (people/organisations) who would help me to get started.

A first contact with relevant scholars and Friends of the Earth (who campaign against gas extraction in Groningen; Milieudefensie, 2017) led, like Snowball Sampling1_{, to}

more interviews and documents. The same happened after speaking to those interviewees. Eventually, this ended in a sample of ten semi-structured interviews with stakeholders and an invitation to join a local meeting (which gave me the opportunity to observe the participants).

3.2.1 Semi-structured interviews, document analysis and participant observation

The sample of ten semi-structured interviews is divided into five groups. First, the ‘local governmental level’, including three interviews: one with Albert Rodenboog, Mayor of harmed municipality of Loppersum, one with Erica van Lente, Mayor of harmed municipality of Bedum, and one with Jinko Rots, Policy Adviser gas extraction for the

1_S_{nowball Sampling: ‘when the researcher accesses informants through contact information that is}

provided by other informants. This process is, by necessity, repetitive: informants refer the researcher to other informants, who are contacted by the researcher and then refer her or him to yet other informants,

and so on’. Snowball Sampling is useful for studies about power relations, since that data is sometimes hard

(31)

31 municipality of Loppersum. Furthermore, the ‘local societal level’, including an interview with Susan Top from the Groninger Gas Assembly (Groninger Gasberaad, GGB) and an interview via e-mail with the Groningen Ground Movement (Groninger Bodem Beweging, GBB) (both local movements). Additionally, the ‘regional governmental level’, including an interview with Eelco Eikenaar, delegate from the Provincial Executive of the province of Groningen. Fourth, the ‘national governmental level’, including one interview with Jan Vos, Parliamentarian between 2012-2017 representing Labour Party PvdA (at the time member of the Cabinet) and Meindert Smallenbroek, Director of Energy and Environment at the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (EA). Finally, two additional interviews with Lotte Kortbeek, an intern at Friends of the Earth who researches decision-making in the Groningen situation and an interview with Professor Herman Bröring from the Faculty of Law at the University of Groningen (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, RUG). Although the analysis might become less readable, I believe that it is necessary to refer to the interviewees’ name and function during the analysis because it is important to know what particular respondent said what.

The above-listed interviewees are all key players in the conflict, as detailed more thoroughly in paragraph 3.5. Interviewees with the involved private sector are missing in this list because of two main reasons. First, since the focus of the thesis is on the social side of power, I believe that an interview with representatives of the private sector would not add up to the analysis. Additionally, recently, the private sector came under attack, and its popularity declined (NRC, 2017c). Because of the delicacy of the topic, I believe that interviewing them would not reveal any perceptions of the role of power.

The interviews took place in May 2017 and lasted 30 minutes to an hour. The first set of questions2_{aimed to describe the levels where critical social, political and economic}

power resides. The next questions asked the informants about their perception of the spaces (opportunities, moments, and channels) where stakeholders can act to potentially affect policies, discourses, decisions and relationships that affect their lives and interests. The interviewees were asked about their perceptions of the forms of power in the final questions. The questions thus neatly fitted the theoretical framework and Table 1 (paragraphs 2.5-2.7). Interviews were fully transcribed and analysed in Dedoose (as will be elaborated on in paragraph 3.2.2). I translated the interview quotes into English.

(32)

32 Besides ten interviews, relevant documents are used to complement the findings. Examples of documents are newsletters from the local Groningen movements and academic literature.

Finally, in addition to semi-structured interviews and document analysis, a key informant invited me to a meeting organised by the GGB (local movement). The meeting involved the juridical aspects of the conflict. In my role as an observer, I interacted with the Groningers and talked with them about their situation. Therein, my role as a researcher was clear, and I did not participate in the meeting as such (Bryman, 2008: 411).

3.2.2 Coding and interpreting the data

This study thus draws upon three sources of evidence, seeking convergence and collaboration through the use of different data sources and methods (Bowen, 2009: 28). Document analysis, a systematic procedure for evaluating documents, is applied to analyse these data. This requires data to be examined and interpreted to extract meaning, gain understanding and develop empirical knowledge (ibid: 27). Document analysis yields data – excerpts, quotations, or entire passages – that are then organised into major themes, categories, and case examples specifically through content analysis (ibid: 28).

The first step involved a superficial examination. In that stage, I primarily searched for words in the documents (transcripts of interviews, documents and notes of the participant observation) that were likely to say something about the three types of power. Examples of such words are: ‘interest’, ‘powerlessness’, ‘influence’, ‘decision-making’, ‘decisions’, ‘participation’, ‘negotiation’, ‘stakeholder’, ‘actor’, ‘involvement’, ‘opportunities’, ‘changes’ or ‘injustice’.

The second step was a more thorough examination of the documents, highlighting the relevant sentences related to the role of power in the conflict. Dedoose, a cross-platform app for analysing qualitative and mixed methods research with text, photos, audio, videos, spreadsheets data and more, is a useful tool for doing this (Dedoose, 2017a).

The third stage is interpretation: organising information into categories related to the central questions of the research using codes (Bowen, 2009: 32). Therefore, neatly related to theoretical Chapter 2 (paragraphs 2.5-2.7), codes in Dedoose distinguish between the spaces (closed, invited and claimed/created), the levels (one, multiple and

(33)

33 intertwined) and the forms (visible, hidden and invisible) of power. This resulted in ten codes (see Appendix III for the codes, child codes and their meaning). Codes are applied on the case study’s gathered data (interviews, documents and participant observation notes). The excerpts that originated as a result thereof were interpreted.

Since the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis, I rely on skills as well as intuition to filter data, necessarily through an interpretive lens. To reduce bias, the analysis is done by deriving codes from the theoretical Chapter 2 (paragraphs 2.5-2.7) and provided corresponding words referring to that meaning (as explained in this paragraph). I believe that although the analysis is an interpretation of the social world through my ‘eyes’, the outcomes would still be the same if another researcher would do the analysis.

Thus, reliability is concerned with the question of whether the results of a study are repeatable (Bryman, 2008: 31). For case studies, this is a difficult criterion to meet because it is impossible to ‘freeze’ a social setting and redo the study (Yin, 2013). However, besides coding the data, I tried to reduce the impact of potential biases that can exist in a single method of data gathering by relying on more sources: semi-structured interviews, document analysis and participant observation (as explained in this paragraph) (Bowen, 2009: 28).

3.3 Relevance: environmental inequality in Groningen as typical and exceptional

The complexity of the Groningen conflict characterises the value of this case, which resides both in its typicality and its uniqueness. First, the chosen case study is a particular case of environmental inequality. As mentioned in paragraph 2.2.1, the term environmental inequality builds on the term environmental injustice, which implies any undue or undeserved imposition of environmental harm on innocent bystanders who are not directly involved in the industry or market operation generating such harm (Adeola, 2009: 148). The concept of environmental inequality goes further than that and encompasses both additional factors that are associated with disproportionate environmental impacts (such as gender, class, or immigration status) as well as the interconnections between these elements (Sze and London, 2008: 1332-1333). Environmental inequality ‘allows for greater inclusiveness of affected populations and does not require the stringent and hard to acquire evidence of intentional targeting of racial minorities for environmental harms’ (ibid: 1333).

(34)

34 The gas conflict in Groningen is a specific form of environmental inequality because the involved Groningers experience environmental damage, while they are not directly involved in the industry generating the harm. Environmental harm is visible because of several social impacts caused by the earthquakes as a consequence of the extraction of gas. Examples are: damage to property, a decline in house prices, concern about the change of dykes (levee banks) breaking, feelings of insecurity (Dagblad van het Noorden, 2017a), health issues, increased distrust and anger (Van der Voort and Vanclay, 2015: 7-9).

Furthermore, the chosen case study is useful for an analysis of the role of power in environmental inequality because of the availability of data. Relevant documents are available, and stakeholders (regarding willingness to speak about the conflict) are accessible in a short period available within a Master’s Thesis.

The chosen case study’s exceptionality could be seen as a drawback of this study. The Groningen case may not seem the most obvious choice in light of the theoretical angle because the environmental inequality literature focuses on minority groups (paragraph 2.2). There is no intentional targeting of such groups in this case. In this thesis, the concept of environmental inequality encompasses both minority groups and other social groups, part of a community that is being treated ‘as a national sacrifice zone’ (paragraph 2.2.1). Additionally, the social circumstances surrounding the Groningen situation are representative of other environmental inequality conflicts3_{: a joint culpability of}

corporations and (local) governments in producing environmental harms; the experience of Groningers in unsafe areas of being ignored (interview, Kortbeek, Friends of the Earth,

22 May 2017); and injured parties need not only ‘convince themselves but also crucial outsiders of the injustice of their situations in order to achieve remedies’ (interview, Van Lente, Mayor Bedum, 15 May 2017; interview, Eikenaar, Provincial Executive, 10 May 2017; Čapek, 1993: 20).

External validity or generalizability is concerned with the question of whether the results of a study can be generalised beyond the specific research context and is this study’s main drawback. Although the chosen case study is generalizable to other environmental inequality conflicts, it is unclear how far this goes. The depth of the analysis, one of the virtues of a case study, is supposed to be detailed and rich in its

3_{Čapek suggests that ‘injured parties in other environmental inequality situations are likely to face similar}

structural obstacles to full participation in decisions that affect their lives, what she calls the ‘environmental justice frame’ (1993: 7). These claims are, to a certain extent, visible in the Groningen conflict as well.

Perceptions of power in environmental inequality : a Dutch gas quake context