Greener Than Them: Environmental Bias and Commitment in Norway

Abstract

States promote reputations for both internal population consumption and international promotion. While the Scandinavian states are frequently recognized as 'welfare states,' recent years have seen active promotion of their reputations as 'ecological states' for both domestic and international audiences. Scandinavian societies are considered to be among the most sustainability-conscious in the world, yet a growing body of scholars within the Scandinavian eco-thought literature suggests that individuals belonging to minority ethnic or racial groups-as well as the groups themselves-are considered to be less sustainable or eco-consciousness than white Scandinavians by members of the white, ethnically homogenous minority. The findings of this research projects suggests that within Norwegian communities, members of the 'Nordic' majority population tend to view minority groups as less capable of ecological commitment. These perceptions are facilitated by the 'us-vs-them' mentality of homogenous societies, non-inclusion of local knowledge in public environmental dialogue, and the adoption of majority practices among circumpolar minority communities. By conducting a survey experiment on racial bias and environmental priorities, I examine emergent patterns in environmental bias towards Indigenous Saami and racial minority immigrants in Norway. Results indicate that minority populations in Norway are e perceived as less 'green' by members of the ethnic Norwegian majority. This finding has serious implications for minority policies as a whole in Norway, as well as social acceptance of ongoing (and frequently contentious) immigration into Norway.

Full text

0
Greener Than Them: Environmental Bias and Commitment in Norway
Ellen Ahlness
University of Washington
eahlness@uw.edu
Session: International Environmental Perspectives
Friday May 15, 8:30am
Abstract:
States promote reputations for both internal population consumption and international
promotion. While the Scandinavian states are frequently recognized as ‘welfare states,’ recent
years have seen active promotion of their reputations as ‘ecological states’ for both domestic
and international audiences. Scandinavian societies are considered to be among the most
sustainability-conscious in the world, yet a growing body of scholars within the Scandinavian
eco-thought literature suggests that individuals belonging to minority ethnic or racial groups—
as well as the groups themselves—are considered to be less sustainable or eco-consciousness
than white Scandinavians by members of the white, ethnically homogenous minority. The
findings of this research projects suggests that within Norwegian communities, members of the
‘Nordic’ majority population tend to view minority groups as less capable of ecological
commitment. These perceptions are facilitated by the ‘us-vs-them’ mentality of homogenous
societies, non-inclusion of local knowledge in public environmental dialogue, and the adoption
of majority practices among circumpolar minority communities. By conducting a survey
experiment on racial bias and environmental priorities, I examine emergent patterns in
environmental bias towards Indigenous Saami and racial minority immigrants in Norway.
Results indicate that minority populations in Norway are e perceived as less ‘green’ by members
of the ethnic Norwegian majority. This finding has serious implications for minority policies as a
whole in Norway, as well as social acceptance of ongoing (and frequently contentious)
immigration into Norway.
Keywords: Norway, environmental politics, ethnic politics, perception, homogenous society

1
The 21st century has shaped the identity-forming processes of the Scandinavian nations,
with the governments and societies of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark increasingly identifying
themselves as ‘ecological states’ over their previous reputations as ‘welfare states’.
1
The
Norwegian state broadly considers itself very environmental, despite the existence of the ‘oil
paradox’, the contradiction between the state’s projected goals toward carbon neutrality by 2030,
financing of green energy abroad, and nature-based culture and its wealth, which is based on
dependence on fossil fuels. Government surveys find that the majority of residents consider
Norway to be a ‘green’ state, even though the majority of Norway’s sovereign wealth fund
comes from oil and gas extraction in the North Sea and the state-run Statoil company pushes
further into the Arctic Ocean. Going deeper into the paradox of perception versus behavior,
environmental politics and eco-literature scholarship on Norway identifies preliminary evidence
that find that members belonging to the majority, homogeneous Norwegian society are highly
skeptical of the ability of minority populations, such as Indigenous peoples and immigrants, to
‘behave green’ (Gangaas, Kaltenborn, and Andreassen 2015; Kumar et al. 2006). Initial inquiries
in scholarship and popular media has suggested that Norwegians tend to believe immigrants are
not as committed to environmental sustainability as the majority society (Lofthus, 1998; Green-
Pederssen and Odmalm 2008; Pettersen and Ostby 2014).
This puzzle presents an opportunity to focus on the under-addressed connections between
individual perceptions, ethnic bias, and environmental racism. How do members of majority
groups view minority ecological commitment and capability for environmentally sustainable
behavior? Moreover, what facilitates these perceptions of minority capabilities or commitments?
1
In this paper, Scandinavia comprises the ethnic Scandinavian states on the Scandinavian Peninsula: Denmark,
Norway, and Sweden. The geographically separate (but politically linked) Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland are
not included in this discussion, nor is the Uralic-Finn based Finland.

2
By looking at environmental racism and justice trends in the United States and Canada we are
informed of the likelihood of certain trends in Scandinavia. Studies on environmental justice
have shown that minorities, both Indigenous and immigrant, are more likely than members of
majority populations to live in polluted areas while having the fewest resources to combat
damaging policies (Bullard 2018). Moreover, environmental groups have a disproportionately
low number of minority individuals in leadership, a trend that persists across the Atlantic,
manifesting in Scandinavian and North American organizations. Environmental racism trends
consequently emerge at both domestic and international levels, connecting to broader
conversations on the global north and south (Bullard 1993). Moreover, environmental racism can
perpetuate ‘environmentalism for the rich’ mentalities, which deny the role vulnerable and
minority groups play in environmental movements.
Norway is a largely homogenous country. With a population of 5.4 million in 2019,
14.1% of the country consisted of immigrants and Norwegian-born to immigrant parents in
Norway. Of these, 20% of all immigrants entering Norway were from other Nordic countries
(about 6,900) (Statbank Norway” 2019.). Immigrants are largely defined as ethnic and racial
‘others’ in government statistics, and in the Nordic imaginary, to be immigrant is to be visibly
different: religiously, ethnically, and socially. Nordic sociologists describe the racialization of
‘immigrants as a category’ as Norwegians ‘forgetting’ about the many European immigrants—
particularly Polish, Swedish, and Danish immigrants—and think of immigrants, and all the social
consequences that being an immigrant supposedly entails, in the context of race (Hernes and
Knudsen 1992).
The effects of ethnic bias and racism against immigrants in the Nordic countries is well
documented, affecting perceptions of minority lawfulness and work ethic (Holmberg and

3
Kvysgaard 2003; Knocke 2000; Bunar 2007), social hostility toward immigrants (Thomsen
2012), and ultimately encouraging assimilation models (Castles 2010). However, the effect of
bias and racism has not been explored within the environmental realm on the Scandinavian stage.
How do majority societies view minority groups’ ecological commitment and capability for
environmentally sustainable behavior? Moreover, what facilitates these perceptions of minority
capabilities or commitments?
Living in Discrepancy: Environmental Justice Illuminating Environmental Trends
Minority groups are more likely to live in polluted areas of cities and rural spaces. This is
an effect of environmental racism in society that persists across communities, regions, and even
nations, though it is most frequently explored in the continental United States and Southern
Canada (Fears, 2013; Sherman, 2016). Low-income communities of color have been the biggest
victims of industrial pollution for decades. These individuals also often have the fewest resources
and clout (either political or social organizational capabilities) to fight these environmental
problems. Additionally, institutions and government agencies are perceived to be powerful
agents who propagate unilateral decisions. These institutions tend to lack ethnic minorities in
leadership. Scholarship on environmental justice has developed from relatively simple
comparisons of demographic characteristics to complex methodological modeling. Studies have
revealed that the environmental performance of energy plants located by poor and minority
populations are less regulated, and face fewer enforcement actions (Wayne, Shadbegian, and
Wolverton 2010). In Norway, the correlation between race and levels of poverty is high.
Immigrants tend to be people of color, religious minorities, and are the top demographic most
likely to experience poverty or near-poverty incomes or standards of living). Observation alone
can result in assumptions of the poverty level of an individual (Widfeldt 2018; Jensen 2011).

4
Furthermore, there is a lack of diversity in both leadership and staff in among
environmental policy or activism institutions or associations in Norway, or Scandinavia more
broadly (Fears, 2013). The environmental movement’s reputation as being a wealthy white
community is not limited to the United States. In most Western European countries, these
organizations have histories of not hiring professionals of color. The Norwegian Green Party has
never had a person of color, first, or second generation immigrant represented in the Norwegian
Parliament. A combination of ethnic minorities living in sub-par environmental conditions
combined with a lack of representative leadership in social and political environmental groups
may create conditions that shape generalizations of environmental commitment among ethnic
minorities.
A Misinterpretation of Cause and Effect
Environmental justice literature proposes a distinctive causal flow between a group’s
social and economic conditions and their interactions with their local environment. Those of
lower socioeconomic status have greater exposure to detrimental environmental conditions at
home or work (Brulle & Pellow, 2006). Yet the literature also recognizes that the everyday
person in society is not necessarily aware of this causal flow. One trend that has emerged from
studying social knowledge and attitudes in environmental justice indicates that those in higher
socioeconomic classes are liable to misinterpret the link between poverty and negative
environmental conditions; they believe that because the groups are in a lower socioeconomic
class they consequently care less about the environment and are less capable of acting in costly
ways that benefit the environment (e.g. not buying ‘green’ products or refraining from
participating in fundraising) (Gangaas, Kaltenborn, and Andreassen 2015). This trend illustrates
the way in which complex or abstract information, even in the form of causal flows, can be

5
difficult for the ‘everyperson’ or individual with an average understanding of environmental
knowledge to grasp or interpret. A consequence of this trend, often called ‘environmentalism of
the rich,’ assumes that the only meaningful sustainable actions are those that are necessarily
costly (e.g. buying a Prius). A potential and harmful consequence of this way of thinking is that
individuals then assume that poor individuals (whose lower socioeconomic class often intersects
with racial or ethnic minority status) are causing environmental degradation (Dauvvergne 2016).
Manifestations of Ethnic Bias in Society
It is known that ethnic bias manifests in many ways in both homogenous and
heterogenous societies. Extensive and engaging work has been done detailing the causes and
effects of ethnic bias in largely homogenous societies, such as in Japan or Scandinavian states.
Norway is a prime example of a historically homogenous society that has experienced recent,
rapid, and ongoing heterogenization due to an influx of immigrants and refugees, particularly
post-2009. A wide body of literature discusses ethnic bias among the Scandinavian states given
their good fit for ‘us-versus-them’ narratives (also called ‘othering,’ Privman, Hiltz, and Wang,
2013; Jensen 2011; Powell and Menendian 2017). It is worth discussing what we know about
how bias manifests itself in different realms of Norwegian society.
In Norway, first generation immigrants are not automatically Norwegian citizens (there is
no automatic citizenship by birth, as in the United States). A persisting bias on the
unsustainability of immigrant populations emerges from the legacy of the 1970s, when many
Middle Eastern immigrants migrated to Norway to be employed in the burgeoning oil industry.
From the 1990s-on, the primary cause of immigration into Norway was for general employment,
but older generations of Norwegian typically recall the ‘oil immigrants’ of the 70s when asked
about current immigration trends (Lofthus 1998; Pettersen and Ostby 2014). National statistics

6
detail that immigrants tend to have lower education levels that the population as a whole, with
college completion among immigrants (across all sexes and all countries of origin) being less
than 19%, while the national average is 35% (Center for Public Education, 2016). Immigrants
are more likely to be employed in cleaning, oil, and hotel and restaurant (hospitality) services.
Many of these fields fit within the tourism industry, which often receives domestic criticism as a
‘less-green’ industry due to the high carbon footprint of travel (Heberlein, Fredman, and Vuorio
2002; Engström and Boluk 2012).
Within Norway, ethnic minority children, youth, and families are often burdened with
negative social identities. This is exacerbated by approaches to research that perpetuate
inequalities for ethnic minorities (Phenice & Griffore, 2010). Van Dijk focuses on discourse
analysis and its application in understanding ethnic and racial inequality in society. He has also
studied the ways majority group members write and talk about minorities in everyday
conversations, textbooks, news reports, films, jokes, debates, and in academic and corporate
discourse (1993). In Norway, social perceptions frame perceptions of the criminality or
employment capabilities of immigrants (the most focused-on broad category of ethnic minorities
in the country) (Holmberg & Kvysgaard 2003; Knocke, 2000; Bunar, 2007). They also affects
social hostility toward immigrants while discouraging distinct cultural or behavioral practices
(Thomsen, 2012; Castles, 2010).
We are Not Like Them: Cultural Identification Distinction
When groups of people come into conflict over environmental issues, their social
identities come to the fore. Social groups tend to distinguish themselves from the behavior of
‘others,’ those from social out-groups. Social identity theory posits that in order to maintain clear
and positive self-concepts, group members are motivated to see their groups as simultaneously

7
distinct and more positive than other groups. Additionally, group members favor ingroup
members over outgroup members in evaluations and distribution of resources (implying they also
favor ingroup members for resource management strategies) (Suls & Wills, 1991). To respond to
Fielding and Hornsey’s inquiry: “does ethnocentrism have clear implications for environmental
outcomes?”, the literature prepares us respond positively (2016: p. 123.). Ethnocentrism and
positive ingroup perceptions may explain why Norwegians living in Oslo (the most densely
populated and least green city in Norway) are still likely to consider their ecological behavior as
different from immigrants living in close proximity to them in the same city.
Precedence in Experiments
I have discussed how ethnic bias manifests itself in many ways. Yet the impact of ethnic
bias on the realm of perceptions of environmentalism or sustainability among minority groups
remains underdeveloped. I conducted an exploratory survey to speak to explore the
transferability of existing ethnic bias literature to the concepts of environmental commitment.
There is solid ethnographic evidence to support the idea that words can have a powerful effect on
everyday thought, ethnic identification influencing how people reason about situations, people,
and events in their world. Studies on metaphor and hyperbole have shown that people’s risk
perception changes when they encounter metaphor, such as a natural disaster being portrayed as
a ‘major’ wildfire versus a ‘monster’ wildfire (Matlock, Coe, and Westerling 2017). The present-
versus-present perfect use of tenses can affect people’s levels of support for a political candidate
(Fausey and Matlock 2011).
Yet most notably for the prospects of this study, substantial research conducted on ethnic
bias in hiring and firing demonstrates that a candidate’s name can prompt bias in managers,
leading to vast discrepancies in perceptions of a candidate’s efficiency, trustworthiness, and

8
qualification based on the ethnicity of the candidate’s name (the findings of studies along this
trend persist over time, spannign from Neckerman and Kirschenman 1991 to Griffin, Attaway,
and Griffin 2019). Job applications with a stereotypically ‘white names’ needed to send out, on
average, ten resumes to get one callback, white candidates with ‘black’ sounding names needed
to send out, on average, 15 resumes to get a callback (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2003).
Similarly, in a seminal work from the UCLA Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture,
participants read two nearly identical stories about a main character who bumped into a man at a
bar, and the man angrily responds. In one version of the story, the man had a stereotypically
“black” name, whereas in the other, he had a stereotypically white name. Respondents were told
to rate their impressions of main character. The researchers found that respondents rated the
black character as having more prestige while having attributes that were more ‘physically
threatening, whereas the white characters were less physically unified in description, but was
given far higher impressions of prestige or social status (Holbrook, Fessler, and Navarrete 2016).
Norway is an excellent case study for examining the emergence of us-versus-them
mentalities of homogenous states, also called ‘othering’. Social identity theory posits that in
order to maintain clear and positive self-concepts, group members are motivated to see their
groups as simultaneously distinct and more positive than other groups (Nurullah 2010).
Additionally, group members favor ingroup members over outgroup members in evaluations and
distribution of resources (implying they also favor ingroup members for resource management
strategies).
Methodology
Within Norwegian society and the country’s political spaces, there is a high level of
concern over the effects on climate change. Norwegian society generally values citizen

9
knowledge and fluency on political issues, and many citizens and residents consider being
informed on contemporary issues to be a civic duty (Jenssen 2013). Recent opinion polls in
Norway however have seen climate change jump to be the second-most important issue in the
public sphere, up from sixth place in 2010–2014 (Klimabarometeret 2016). Recent surveys have
found that 69% of Norwegians believe climate change is a major threat to their country, and 47%
believe that climate change is primarily caused by human activities (Huang and Fagan 2019).
Within the issue of climate change, there are potentially serious socio-economic
consequences of continued global sea-level rise through the 21st century. Higher sea levels have a
variety of impacts, including the inundation of coastal areas, increased risk of flooding, erosion
of the coastline and the salinization of ground waters (Simpson et al. 2012). Generally speaking,
the Norwegian Sea’s level is expected to rise by 70 cm along the southern and western part of the
Norwegian coast, by 60 cm in the north of Norway, and by 40 cm in the inner part of
Trondheims-and Oslofjorden over the 21st century (Simpson et al. 2012, 13). Ultimately, studies
suggest that Norway will experience an approximately 10 cm greater rise in sea level than the
global average within the year 2100 (Simpson et al. 2012, 24). The glaciers in Svalbard are key
contributors to sea level rise as the archipelago accounts for 11% of Arctic land ice, apart from
Greenland. Consequently, rising sea levels are one of the top concerns among Norwegians when
it comes to the physical consequences of climate change (Magnusson 2017). Thus, the survey
experiment was designed to address potential respondent bias in light of this recognized issue-
area of importance.
An online survey was given to 74 residents of Norway. 67 respondents were Norwegian
citizens, and 5 were permanent residents. 21 were 18-24 years old, 25 were 25-34 years old, 10
were 45-54 years old, and 16 were 55+ years old. All completed the survey online. Slightly over

10
half of the participants were female (57%). The survey was conducted anonymously online, with
all content provided in Norwegian (Appendix 1). The English translation of the script reads:
You read an article about rising sea levels in the newspaper. The article quotes a
Dr. [variable] from the Ministry on Climate and Environment, who says:
“The Arctic’s rising sea levels are a threat. Unless we all take responsibility as
citizens and come together, our country will face many dangers from climate
change. Climate change is causing Arctic ice to melt at a faster rate than we have
seen before. The added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers is causing the
sea level to rise. Scientists have recently released new calculations predicting the
amount the sea level will have risen by 2030 and 2050. The rising sea levels will
contribute to threats to our environment, national security, and human health. It is
important for us to address the rising sea levels before they create problems that
are irreversible. Our department is dedicated to funding research to addressing the
problems resulting from climate change.”
The 74 respondents to the survey were randomly assigned one of three scripts. The scripts were
identical in every way with only one variation: the surname of the Ministry of Climate authority
figure.
2
Surveys were automatically distributed evenly among survey takers: respondent were
given the same script with a surname Norway residents would identify as either recognizably
Norwegian, Indigenous (Saami), or Immigrant (Iranian)
3
, then answered questions designed to
test perceptions of the expert’s credibility and expertise by asking them form estimates on three
questions to test risk assessment, ecological commitment, and expertise.
Table 1. Surname Distribution
Surname
Norwegian
Saami
Iranian
Surname Ethnicity
Larsen
Kappfjell
Almasi
Number of Survey
Respondents
Assigned Surname
24
25
25
2
The script did not indicate the age or gender of the authority figure.
3
A separate survey was conducted to affirm the recognizability of each surname as ‘distinctly Norwegian, Saami, or
Iranian’. Respondents to this initial survey did not participate in the larger project.

11
The respondents were clearly instructed that exact answers to the questions they were asked were
not given in the script. Instead, they were instructed to provide their best guess of the answer
based on context and the impressions they drew from the authority figure’s statement. They were
asked to answer with their best estimate, represented by a numerical value (e.g., answering “10”
in response to being asked the estimated number of centimeters sea levels are expected to rise in
the next 20 years). The respondents provided firm numerical answers on the following three
questions:
1) How many centimeters is the Norwegian sea expected to rise by 2050?
2) How much money from the Ministry on Climate and Environment fund is being spent
to address rising sea levels in 2019?
3) How long has Dr. [Variable] been working at the Ministry of Climate and
Environment?
Before going through results, I converted all non-quantifiable responses (e.g., “N/A,” “don’t
know,” or “many”) to blank data points. These non-quantifiable responses made up 2 responses
to Q1, 4 for question 2, and 1 for question 3.
Table 2: Mean of estimates in response to script prompts based on authority surname
Norwegian:
Larsen
Saami:
Kappfjell
Immigrant: Almasi
How many centimeters is the sea
expected to rise by 2050?
34.84
43.11
62
How much money from the Ministry on
Climate and Environment fund it being
spent to address rising sea levels in 2019?
[in millions of Norwegian kroner]
111
260.71
16.6
How long has Dr. [varies] been working
at the Ministry on Climate and
Environment? [in years]
15.4
7.7
6

12
Results
Question 1: How many centimeters is the sea expected to rise by 2050?
The results of Question 1 revealed that people who had read the passage with the
Norwegian surname gave reliably lower estimates for the number of centimeters the Norwegian
sea is believed to rise by 2050 (M=34.84, SE=10.18) than those who had the passage with the
Saami (M=43.11, SE=20.49) or Iranian (M=62, SE=35.13) surname. The average estimate was
slightly more than half of the estimate given for the Iranian surname
Question 2: How much money from the Ministry on Climate and Environment fund is being spent
to address rising sea levels in 2019?
The results of Question 2 revealed that those who read the passage with a Saami surname
estimated, on average, that significantly more money would be directed to address rising sea
levels (M=260.71 million NOK, or $25.2 million USD, SD=82.29) than when the authority
figure had a Norwegian (M=111 million NOK, or $1.06 million USD, SD=49.86). Notably, the
estimated funding spent on addressing rising sea levels was drastically lower when the authority
figure had an Iranian surname, with respondents assigning, on average, 16.6 million NOK, or
$1.6 million USD (SD=48.95).
Question 3: How long has Dr. [variable] been working at the Ministry of Climate and
Environment?
Respondents estimated that the authority figure with the Norwegian surname had longest
tenure (M=15.4.29, SD=1.34), over twice that of either Saami (M=7.7, SD=1.45) or Iranian
(M=6, SD=2.99) surnames. Additionally, estimates for the Norwegian surnamed figure
contained the narrowest standard deviation, with most answers centering on a significantly
longer tenure.

13
Discussion
Response averages showed that ethnic Norwegian respondents believed sea levels were
in danger of the highest raises when the authority had an identifiably immigrant surname.
Respondents believed that the Ministry on Climate and Environment was likely to provide the
largest amount of money when they had a Saami surname and judged drastically lower rates (less
than 16% the amount of funding estimated for the Saami figure) when the authority had an
identifiably Iranian surname. Additionally, respondents believed, on average, that the Norwegian
authority had 2.6 times as long experience working at the Ministry than the Iranian authority.
The results suggest that participants are likely to assume greater levels of expertise and
commitment to addressing climate changes when the authority figure was portrayed as
Norwegian, instead of immigrant or Indigenous. This finding is particularly troubling when
combined with the findings of the first two questions. Not only did ethnic majority Norwegian
respondents judge the Iranian-identified authority figure to have less professional experience, but
that this shorter time in authority coincided with drastically less funding to address rising sea
levels, as well as a greater potential for negative environmental changes (as the estimated
number of centimeters the Norwegian Sea was expected to rise by 2020 was nearly double that
for the Iranian authority figure than the Norwegian figure).
Holistically, that presents an image of the minority authority figure as potentially less
experienced, less committed or capable of directing necessary funds, and whose presence in the
experiment triggers respondents to imagine climate warming-driven physical changes as
occurring more rapidly, and more dangerously. This coincides with another finding which
supports in-group bias and preference theories: that the ethnically Norwegian respondents judged

14
the hypothetical authority figure of their own ethnic group to be more competent (Strömberg
2015; Buttelmann and Böhm 2014).
Qualitative Data Collection
These trends clearly indicate there is substance behind the idea that ethnic bias plays a
role in environmental perceptions. To dive deeper into the why of this connection, I conducted
eleven semi-structured interviews with Norwegian participants who had participated in the
survey and were willing to provide their contact information for follow-up questions. All
interviews were conducted remotely, via Skype. Interviews ranged from 25 to 40 minutes.
Table 3. Interviewee Demographic Data
Sex
Age Range
Highest Education
Completed
Region of Norway
Female
18-24
High School
Eastern
Female
25-34
High School
Western
Male
25-34
Bachelors
Northern
Male
25-34
Bachelors
Eastern
Female
25-34
Bachelors
Eastern
Male
25-34
Masters of Above
Western
Male
45-54
Bachelors
Eastern
Female
45-54
Bachelors
Central
Female
45-54
Masters of Above
Western
Female
45-54
Masters of Above
Central
Male
65+
Bachelors
Eastern
I conducted a semi-structured interviews with participants, asking four basic questions of
each interviewee, then conducing follow-up questions based on the content and length of their
answers:
1. How do you define sustainability?
2. How would you describe Norway’s reputation abroad?
3. Who in Norway would you consider to be the most environmentally conscientious?
4. Who would you consider to be the least sustainable, or least conscientious?

15
I used a content analysis approach to identity primary and secondary themes within the
interviews, coding them in atlas.ti. All interviewees were given the option to follow-up with
additional comments via skype or email after their initial interview. Two interviewees followed
up with additional thoughts. These interviews discussed participant environmental concerns and
perceptions on sustainability (both who is considered sustainable, as well as what behavior is
considered sustainable). The thematic results center on what respondents defined as sustainable
behavior, also covering what events and categories of people they perceived as limited in their
ability to be ecologically sustainable. After conducting a narrative analysis, three themes
persisted across the interviews:
Interview Themes
Long-term Sustainability
Respondents overwhelmingly defined sustainability as intentional and inherently long-
term. While one could make short-term mistakes and still be considered ‘green,’ the reverse was
not true. One would have to engage in years of environmentally conscious behavior to be
considered sustainable. Some interviewees suggested this requirement meant that Saami
individuals are even more inherently sustainable than others in society, though many within this
subset expressed skepticism that Saami could be considered sustainable if they left ‘traditional’
livelihoods. One respondent, “Nana”
4
defined sustainability as “inherently something that can
last long-term,” three times, while four other interviewees referenced long-term goals four or
more times in answering the first question. Intentional long-term conscientiousness is considered
a requirement for an individual to behave sustainably. Another interviewee, “Jorgen”, addressed
the idea of ‘unintentional sustainability’: actions that may have the end result of being green, but
4
All references to interviewees are pseudonyms.

16
lack intentionality behind the behavior. These behaviors were described as ‘sub-par’ to
intentional environmentalism, not meaning as much because they lack choice or the meta-
cognition that a decision is being made.
Limits to Sustainability
Limits to sustainability were primarily framed as a lack of financial capability by
interviewees. People in lower socioeconomic classes were imagined as being not just ‘less
green’, they were described as being less capable of being green. Jorgen shared, “there are
people that just don’t have the capacity” to be sustainable, and that “there are people who go for
what they can afford: what’s cheap. So obviously there’s going to be a problem.” During follow-
up questions Jorgen added that he was referring to low-income refugees and immigrants and
potentially college students, and that “most Norwegian citizens” do not have that kind of
problem or financial/environmental trade-off. Conversations on this topic also revealed strong
personal assumptions of connotations between ethnicity, race, and socioeconomic status.
Interviewees who talked along this theme illustrated their causal thinking process: immigrants
are poor, and fiscal inability is a (believed) primary cause of non-environmental behavior. In
addition to discussing limits to sustainability, Jorgen’s comment also illustrates an assumed
connotation: immigrants are poor. This poverty acts as a barrier to sustainable behavior, yet it is
not the only barrier. Later, he discussed intentionally in regards to minority versus majority
group attitudes towards nature:
“When you see the way some immigrants treat nature, you’d think they thought it
was just a pretty picture. But that’s a tricky question. For me, if I want to go see
something beautiful, I’m aware this is something beautiful because it is untouched
and there aren’t many humans who actually go there, and to use a phrase, fuck shit
up.”

17
Intentional and circumstantial assumptions combine to influence perceptions of ethnic minority
sustainability Financial limitations are mentioned twenty-nine times across all interviews,
including six times in Jorgen’s interview. This assumption presents the idea that some
individuals or groups are incapable of behaving sustainably, at least in certain situations.
Majority Privilege
As members of the majority society (ethnic Norwegian citizens), several interviewees
believed they get more leeway in being judged for negative environmental behavior. The
distinction between Norwegian and immigrants was largely defined by racial identifiers, such as
skin color and surnames. To illustrate, Anita explained, “I’m Norwegian, so I could litter and no
one would look twice, but the moment someone [who looks like] they’re [from] outside our
borders litters, it gets attention”. This narrative contains a subtheme: racial identification. Nana’s
paternal grandparents are Polish. She recognized she could be in a very different situation if her
paternal grandparents were immigrants of color. Furthermore, the distinction between Norwegian
and immigrants is highlighted based on its capability for visibility distinction. As said by Anita,
“if someone who looks outside of these borders litters [emphasis added],” the figure being
discussed is, at least in part, judged by their racial identifiers. A further implication is that if one
looks racially different, they are likely to be assumed to be a non-Norwegian, and thus an
outsider.
Minority Does Not Represent Majority
Of the 11 respondents, 7 defined right-wing political individuals and figures in the
political sphere as ‘not representative’ of the majority of Norwegian society’s beliefs on climate
change. Said by Nana, “we’re actually really good [at sustainability] but we still have some
people that aren’t.” The implication, that a minority does not represent the majority of

18
Norwegian society, contrasts with descriptors of immigrants. No such distinction between
immigrant subsets and immigrants as a whole was explicitly articulated.
Discussion
As we consider linkages between Scandinavian environmental policy, environmental
racism, and environmental justice, it is important to consider the roles of implicit ethnic bias.
From the survey experiment and consequent interviews, there are many cases of survey
respondents and interviewees making assumptions about socioeconomic capabilities, expressing
hypothesized racial-socioeconomic connections, and defining sustainable and desirable behavior
from a place of privilege as members of the majority society, meshing with the behaviors
anticipated by in-group preference and ethnic bias. When discussing limitations to acting
sustainably, many interviewees referenced lower socioeconomic groups exclusively as
‘immigrant,’ a word that in Norway has high racial connotations (Thomson 2012).
These results fits withing the existing literature on ‘environmentalism for the rich’ and
social identity theory through three main venues. First, assumptions on the socioeconomic
capabilities of immigrants are expressed through interviews, as when Nana stated that “maybe
it’s because we think about how immigrants don’t make that much money,” or when Anita
shared “a lot of immigrants in Oslo don’t seem to believe in climate change. They may not go to
get their car tested for emissions or recycle.” Alternatively, assumptions of out-group capability
emerge in observation when a group expresses belief that they cannot rely on traditional
information collection, as it is unreliable. Each of these excerpts illustrate how groups tend to
assign multiple negative characteristics to an out-group, even when minimal information is
known about them (e.g. if a group is known to be ‘poor,’ they may also be given unqualified
labels of ‘lazy,’ or ‘vice-prone’) (Moussaid, 2013).

19
Second, the observations and interviews revealed themes matching existing literature on
perceived connections between a group’s socioeconomic class and their racial or ethnic
belonging. When discussing limitations to acting sustainably, many interviewees referenced
lower socioeconomic groups exclusively as ‘immigrant,’ a word that in Norway has high racial
connotations (Thomson 2012). Fiscal limitations to buying green products are only discussed in
the context of immigrants. While four in ten first generation immigrant children live in poverty,
the 7.5% of society that lives below the poverty line also consists of ethnically Norwegian
citizens (Statistics Norway, 2014).
Third, the interviews illustrated that most individuals define sustainable and desirable
behavior from a place of privilege as members of the majority society. One interviewee,
Alexander, defined sustainability as “a practice where you’re intentionally doing something to
contribute to a third-party factor long-term.” This definition highlights the role of intentionality
in propagating the longevity of something outside the self. Later on, he described behavior
among immigrants as “in some ways more resourceful, less possession-driven… I think that
cultures teach different practices. Not necessarily for sustainability, but trying to get the most use
out of what they have.” While the outcome of the described behavior may be beneficial for the
environment, it lacks the intentionality she considers a requirement for sustainable behavior. This
fits within a decades-old debate on the role of intentionality in sustainability: ‘do involuntarily
sustainable communities deserve praise for being sustainable, even though this may not be their
intention?’ (Elgin, 1981; Dauvergne, 2016).
Conclusion
The emergent themes from the survey and interviews fit remarkably well within a priori
categories established by environmental justice and ethnic bias literature. From the cases

20
explored, there do appear to be discrepancies between how members of a majority society view
their capability or ecological commitment and sustainable behavior compared the capability or
commitment of minority groups within their society. These discrepancies cause majority
individuals to believe immigrant minority groups to be less capable of being sustainable. It is
crucial to apply the study and implications of environmental bias to Scandinavia, as the bulk of
the exploration on this facet of ethnic bias have been conducted on the United States and Canada.
Furthermore, there are implications for Indigenous policy for Scandinavia’s circumpolar peoples.
Perceptions of minorities as incapable of environmental commitments are present among
Norwegian individuals, illustrating a potential trend in Norwegian society, as well as potentially
in other homogenous societies (including other Fenno-Scandinavian states like Iceland, Sweden,
or Finland). The results from this research may have implications for the interactions between
environmental commitment and ethnic bias in states with similar geographies and climates where
ethnic majorities, immigrant, and Indigenous minorities intersect. The next steps include
applying the implications of this study to the cases of Greenlandic Inuit, Finnish Saami, and
Svalbard-based immigrant communities. Additionally, there is great potential to examine
whether this environmental bias emerges in Scandinavian news and media, and if so, in what
form. This research may also have implications for majority perceptions of other minority groups
in these states, such as the Indigenous Saami. Drawing further implications on the effect of
ethnic environmental bias would require additional interviews that more explicitly investigate
interviewee linkages between Indigenous Saami and environmental-sustainability perceptions.
Furthermore, the initial findings of this experiment illustrate that the effects of ethnic bias have a
far-reaching grasp that can covertly inform perceptions and policy in unanticipated ways. Thus,
it is important to further explore the effects of bias and racism in environmental justice.

21
Bibliography
“05803: Population 1 January and Population Changes during the Calendar Year 1735 - 2020.
Statbank Norway.” n.d. Accessed May 4, 2020.
https://www.ssb.no/en/statbank/table/05803.
Bertrand, Marianne, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2003. “Are Emily and Greg More Employable
than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” National
Bureau of Economic Research 1 (1): 1–40.
Brulle, R.J., & Pellow, D.N. (2006). “Environmental justice: Human health and environmental
inequalities.” Annual Review of Health 27(1): 103-124.
Bullard, Robert. 1993. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots - Google
Books. Cambridge: South End Press.
Bullard, Robert D. 2018. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality, Third
Edition. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality, Third Edition. Taylor
and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429495274.
Bunar, N. (2010). “The controlled school market and urban schools in Sweden.” Journal of
School Choice 4(1), 47-73.
Buttelmann, David, and Robert Böhm. 2014. “The Ontogeny of the Motivation That Underlies
In-Group Bias.” Psychological Science 25 (4): 921–27.
Castles, S. (2010). “How nation-states respond to immigration and ethnic diversity.” Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies 21(3), 293-308.
The Center for Public Education (2019). Getting Back to the Top. Report.
Dauvergne, Peter. 2016. Environmentalism of the Rich. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Elgin, D. (1981). Voluntary simplicity. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Engström, Christina, and Karla Aileen Boluk. 2012. “The Battlefield of The Mountain:
Exploring the Conflict of Tourism Development on the Three Peaks in Idre, Sweden.”
Tourism Planning & Development 9 (4): 411–27.
Fausey, Caitlin M., and Teenie Matlock. 2011. “Can Grammar Win Elections?” Political
Psychology 32 (4): 563–74.
Fears, D. (2013, March 24). “Within mainstream environmentalist groups, diversity is lacking.”
The Washington Post.
Fielding, K.S., & Hornsey, M.J. (2016). “A social identity analysis of climate change and
environmental attitudes and behaviors: Insights and opportunities.” Frontiers in
Psychology 7(1): 121-156.
Gangaas, Kristin E., Bjrn P. Kaltenborn, and Harry P. Andreassen. 2015. “Environmental
Attitudes Associated with Large-Scale Cultural Differences, Not Local Environmental
Conflicts.” Environmental Conservation 42 (1): 41–50.
Green-Pedersen, C. & Odmalm, P. (2008). “Going different ways? Right-win parties and the
immigrant issue in Denmark and Sweden.” Journal of European Public Policy 34(5):
367-381.
Griffin, Parker F., Jill S. Attaway, and Mitch Griffin. 2019. “Bias in the Hiring Process of
Professional Salespeople: The Effects of Gender, Ethnicity, and Religion.” In , 387–92.
Springer.
Heberlein, Thomas A., Peter Fredman, and Tuomas Vuorio. 2002. “Current Tourism Patterns in
the Swedish Mountain Region.”
Hernes, Gudmund, and Knud Knudsen. 1992. “Norwegians’ Attitudes Toward New

22
Immigrants.” Acta Sociologica 35 (2): 123–39.
Holbrook, Colin, Daniel M.T. Fessler, and Carlos David Navarrete. 2016. “Looming Large in
Others’ Eyes: Racial Stereotypes Illuminate Dual Adaptations for Representing Threat
versus Prestige as Physical Size.” Evolution and Human Behavior 37 (1): 67–78.
Holmberg, L., & Kyvsgaard, B. (2003). “Are immigrants and their descendants discriminated
against in the Danish criminal justice system? Journal of Scandianvian Studies in
Criminology and Crime prevention 4(1): 125-142
Huang, Christine, and Moira Fagan. 2019. “Global Concern about Climate Change, Broad
Support for Limiting Emissions.” Pew Research Center. 2019.
Jensen, Sune Qvotrup. 2011. “Othering, Identity Formation and Agency.” Qualitative Studies 2
(2): 63–78.
Jenssen, Anders Todal. 2013. “Widening or Closing the Knowledge Gap?” Nordicom Review 33
(1): 19–36.
“Klimabarometeret 2016 Rapport (Pdf).” n.d. Accessed May 4, 2020. https://kantar.no/tns-
innsikt/klimabarometeret-2016-rapport-pdf?pid=TNS-Report-ReportFile.
Knocke, W. (2000). “Integration or segregation? Immigrant populations facing the labor market
in Sweden.” Economic and Industrial Democracy 21(3), 361-380.
Kumar, B. N., H. E. Meyer, M. Wandel, I. Dalen, and G. Holmboe-Ottesen. 2006. “Ethnic
Differences in Obesity among Immigrants from Developing Countries, in Oslo, Norway.”
International Journal of Obesity 30 (4): 684–90.
Lofthus, E (ed.). (1998). “Immigrants in Norway: A summary of findings.” Statistics Norway.
Oslo, Norway.
Magnusson, Jon Bjarki. 2017. “Why Sea Level Is Falling in Finland and Sweden.” Slate. 2017.
https://slate.com/technology/2017/08/why-sea-level-is-falling-in-finland-and-sweden.html.
Matlock, Teenie, Chelsea Coe, and A. Leroy Westerling. 2017. “Monster Wildfires and
Metaphor in Risk Communication.” Metaphor and Symbol 32 (4): 250–61.
Moussaid, M. (2013). “Social influence and the collective dynamics of opinion formulation.”
PLoS One 8(11).
Neckerman, Kathryn M., and Joleen Kirschenman. 1991. “Hiring Strategies, Racial Bias, and
Inner-City Workers.” Social Problems 38 (4): 433–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/800563.
Nurullah, Abu Sadat. 2010. “Portrayal of Muslims in the Media: "24" and the
‘Othering’ Process.” International Journal of Human Sciences 7 (1): 1021–46.
Pettersen, Silje Vatne, and Lars Ostby. 2014. “Immigrants in Norway, Sweden and Denmark -
SSB.” Samfunnsspeilet. 2014. https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/artikler-og-
publikasjoner/immigrants-in-norway-sweden-and-denmark.
Phenice, L.A., & Griffore, R.J. (2000). “Social identity of ethnic minority families: An
ecological approach for the new millennium.” Michigan Family Review 5(1), 29-39.
Powell, John, and Stephen Menendian. 2017. “Othering and Belonging.” Othering & Belonging,
no. 1.
Privman, R., Hiltz, S.R., & Wang, Y. (2013). “In-group (us) versus out-group (them) dynamics
and effectiveness in partially distributed teams.” IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication 56(1): 33-49.
Sherman, E. (2016, February 4). “If you’re a minority and poor, you’re more likely to live near a
toxic waste site.” Fortune.
Simpson, Matthew, Kristian Breili, Hlfdan Pascal Kierulf, Dagny Lysaker, Mohammed Ouassou,
and Even Haug. 2012. “Estimates OfFuture Sea-Level Changes for Norway.” Oslo.

23
Statistics Norway. (2014). “Large diversity in little Norway.” Statistics Bureau, Norway.
Suls, J., & Wills, T.A. (Eds.). (1991). Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Strömberg, David. 2015. “Media and Politics.” Annual Review of Economics 7 (1): 173–205.
Thomsen, J.P. (2012). “How does intergroup contact generate ethnic tolerance? The contact
hypothesis in a Scandinavian context.” Scandinavian Political Studies 35(2), 159-178.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1993). “Ideologies, racism, discourse: Debates on immigration and ethnic
issues.” Comparative Perspectives on Racism 8(1), 91-115.
Wayne, B.G., Shadbegian, R.J., & Wolverton, A. (2010). “Environmental justice: Do poor and
minority populations face more hazards?” National Center for Environmental Economics
10(1): 1-35.
Widfeldt, Anders. 2018. “The Growth of the Radical Right in Nordic Countries : Observations
from the Past 20 Years.” Washington, DC.

24
Appendix
Text 1: Survey in Norwegian
Du leser en artikkel om stigende havnivå i avisen. Artikkelen siterer Dr. XXX fra Klima- og
miljødepartementet, som sier:
“Arktis stigende havnivå er en trussel. Med mindre vi alle tar ansvar som borgere og kommer
sammen, vil landet vårt møte mange farer fra klimaendringene. Klimaendringene får Arktis til å
smelte raskere enn vi har sett før. Det smeltede vannet fra isflaker og isbreer fører til at havnivået
stiger. Forskere har nylig gitt ut nye beregninger som forutsier hvor mye havnivået vil ha steget i
2030 og 2050. De stigende havnivåene vil bidra til trusler mot vårt miljø, nasjonal sikkerhet og
menneskers helse. Det er viktig for oss å ta opp de stigende havnivåene før de skaper problemer
som er irreversible. Vår avdeling er dedikert til finansiering av forskning for å løse problemene
som følge av klimaendringer.”
Du vil nå bli spurt flere spørsmål som ikke ble direkte besvart i det forrige skriptet. Vennligst
svar på spørsmålene med ditt beste estimat etter informasjonen som er oppgitt.
Text 2: Survey Questions in Norwegian
Q1: Hvor mange centimeter er havet forventet å stige innen 2050?
Q2: Hvor lenge har Dr. XXX jobbet i Klima- og miljødepartementet?
Q3: En måned senere hører du på radioen en spesiell rapport om de stigende havnivåene igjen.
Rapporten sier at den norske regjeringen dedikerer statlige og private midler til å takle det
stigende havnivået. Rapporten drøfter finansieringsarbeidet og målene til den norske regjeringen
og flere fylker, blant annet Finnmark, Troms, Hordaland og Oslo.
Text 1: Interview Questions [in English]
These questions were liable to change in the process of an open-ended interview, though I sought
to reframe them when possible for effective insertion into the dialogue.
How do you define sustainability?
What are your own personal beliefs on climate change?
How do you believe others abroad think about Norway?
If this requires clarification, or elaboration: Do you consider it to have any strengths or
weaknesses?
Who in Norway are the most environmentally conscientious?
How do they behave that leads you to believe this?
Conversely, who is the least sustainable?
How do they behave that leads you to believe this?
Thank you for your time. Before we wrap up, what questions did I not ask? What do you believe
is important for me to know?