Gijs Maas 5964792
A master thesis presented for the degree of Master of Sociology,
Urban Sociology
Supervisors: Dr. Lex Veldboer & Dr. Stefan Metaal University of Amsterdam
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my first reader dr. Lex Veldboer, for his pa-tience and openess to my alternative approach to sociology. He always helped to find literature and keep calm.
My second reader, dr. Stefan Metaal, for his thorough critisism on my thesis proposal.
Another special thanks goes to Jorren Scherpenisse, his critisism has led me to deeper insight on my own study.
I would also like to thank Ryan Bogaars, Sam Monohon and Bob Woudenberg for their support and their encouragement in times when it was most needed.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents for providing me with the privilege of studying. They gave me all the love and support in the world.
Wind energy is becoming increasingly financially attractive and the interest in placing wind turbines is growing. However, the imple-mentation of wind turbines by wind power entrepreneurs has a large variety in its success. Therefore, the aim of this study is to ana-lyze to what extend social capital influences the effectiveness of wind power entrepreneurs in the implementation of wind turbines (speed and quantity). An exemplifying case-study was performed on the implementation of wind turbines in the city of Vlaardingen. The research consisted of an extensive literature study, analysis of doc-uments from the case and interviews with the key stakeholders to get a deeper understanding of the network behind the implementa-tion. First, the process of implementation was divided by the de-cision round model (Teisman, 2000). Then, the network theory of social capital (Lin, 2008) was used to explain the effectiveness of im-plementation. The results indicate that the network in Vlaardingen provided the local government with the highest level of access, mak-ing the wind power entrepreneur dependent on the interests of the local government. This suggests that an investment in social capital by the wind power entrepreneur could have resulted in an increase of implemented wind mills. The results did not hold any implications on the relation between time and social capital. In conclusion, the implementation problem of wind turbines can be interpreted as a so-ciological problem, where the agency of the wind power entrepreneur is dependent on the network structure in which it is embedded.
Contents
Contents iii
1 Introduction 1
2 Current research on implementation capacity 4
3 Complexity perspective 10
4 Social capital 16
5 Conceptual model 24
6 Methodology 27
7 Case description: Vlaardingen 34
8 Results 37
9 Conclusions/Discussion 53
Bibliography 61
Introduction
The Kyoto protocol (Kyoto-protocol, 1998; DoHa, 2012) has increased the de-mand for renewable energy and has heightened the pressure for nations to im-plement sustainable forms of energy production. One of the largest renewable energy sources is wind energy. The goal for the Netherlands is to have 6.000 MW of wind energy by 2020 (Wervelender, 2010). Because of the changing institu-tional context, wind energy is becoming financially attractive and the interest in placing wind turbines is growing (Wolsink & Breukers, 2007). This attracts many new investors in placing wind mills (Agterbosch, Vermeulen, & Glasbergen, 2004; Agterbosch, Meertens, & Vermeulen, 2009).
However, despite these developments, the implementation of the necessary tur-bines shows a large variety in its success (Toke, Breukers, & Wolsink, 2008; Agter-bosch, 2006). The ambitions that the Netherlands had set in 2001 to significantly increase the amount of wind power has not been realized (Jorritsma-Lebbink, Kuiper, & Van Kemenade, 2001). Although some projects do succeed, others do not. How can this be explained?
Early research on this variance in successful implementation of wind turbines focused on the acceptance by the public. The research problem was that there is acceptance towards wind energy but objection on the local level by citizens (Krohn & Damborg, 1999). This gap has resulted in various theories on the accep-tance of wind turbines. The not in my backyard (nimby) theory presupposes that
2
people accept wind energy as long as the turbines do not get near to them (Lake, 1993; Dear, 1992). This theory has been largely criticized for portraying objec-tion as deviant behavior (Wolsink, 2012); overstating the argument of locality and thereby overlooking other reasons for objection (Burningham, 2000; Van der Horst, 2007) and for not acknowledging the difference between the abstract con-cept of wind energy and the physical object of the wind turbine (Devine-Wright, 2005). The critique has led to the social representation (Batel & Devine-Wright, 2014) and social acceptance theory on wind turbines (Wustenhagen, Wolsink, & Burer, 2007; Wolsink, 2012). These two theories overcame this attitude-behavior gap by recognizing acceptance of wind energy and acceptance of wind turbines as two separate concepts. Like the nimby-theory, these theories mainly focus on the arguments that are used by citizens that are in favor or against the placement of wind turbines.
Studies on the actual process of implementation of wind turbines have been underrepresented. Agterboschs work demonstrates that there is reason to be-lieve that different outcomes result from different social and institutional factors (Agterbosch, 2006). This body of literature takes the social factors into account but fails to explain them by sociological concepts. On a more abstract level, the implementation of wind turbines has been recognized as a complex decision process (Koning, 2005). The decision model that is used for these types of deci-sion take the complexity of the network into account (Teisman, 2000) but, like Agterbosch, fails to incorporate sociological concepts. The current thesis aims to enrich this field by treating the implementation of wind turbines as a sociological issue.
Furthermore, it explores the possibilities to use the concept of social capital as a tool to analyze the implementation of wind turbines. The wind power en-trepreneur is embedded into a network of multiple actors (local government, cit-izens, businesses) that hold different resources, the access to these resources is captured in the concept of social capital (Lin, 2008). Social capital refers to the investment into social ties in order to gain access to those resources. Social capital is used for a variety of studies, among them studies on: the successful obtaining
of jobs (Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981); school drop-outs (Coleman, 1988) and the reproduction of inequality (Cleaver, 2005). This list is not exhaustive, however the use of social capital in the research on the implementation of technological systems such as wind turbines has been limited. Moreover, to the knowledge of the author there has been no use of social capital for the specific analysis on the implementation of wind turbines. The general interest of this thesis is in what ways the social capital of the wind power entrepreneur affects the implementation capacity of the wind turbines. The main question is:
To what extend does social capital influence the effectiveness of wind power en-trepreneurs in the implementation of wind turbines?
The concept of social capital is applied to the implementation of turbines in the city of Vlaardingen. Specifically, at the locations of De Groote Lucht and T’ Scheur. These cases are described in chapter 7. In the following chapters, The network theory of social network (Lin, 2008) will be explained together with the theory on implementation capacity (Agterbosch, 2006). The research questions will be deduced from this theoretical framework.
Chapter 2
Current research on
implementation capacity
Susanne Agterbosch (2006) coined the concept of implementation capacity. The concept was created specifically to study the implementation of wind turbines. The definition of implementation capacity is ”the total of relevant systemic con-ditions and mutual interdependencies, and indicates the feasibility for wind power entrepreneurs to adopt a technology (wind turbines)” (Agterbosch, Vermeulen, & Glasbergen, 2004, p. 2050). The concept is a heuristic measure, meaning that it is not a readily quantifiable measure but rather gives an indication. This is made clear in the following example: one wind power entrepreneur is capable to implement 10 wind turbines within 7 years, while in another case an entrepreneur can only install 5 wind turbines in 10 years. In this example it is clear that the implementation capacity of the first case is higher than in the second case. The downside of the heuristic measure is that the differences in implementation ca-pacity, both in quantity and in time, have to be considerably large in order to recognize them.
The definition of implementation capacity introduces the term ’relevant systemic conditions’. These conditions are subdivided into 4 direct conditions and 2 indi-rect conditions. The diindi-rect conditions are:
- Technical - Economic - Institutional - Social
The indirect conditions are: - Governmental policy - Wider societal context
Direct conditions
The technical conditions that determine the implementation capacity are the physical aspects of the implementation of wind turbines. Examples of techni-cal conditions are: wind speed at a certain location, capacity of a wind turbine (amount of MW) and the size of the turbine. These aspects are independent of any human interference.
The economic conditions refer to the financial feasibility of the project. This is case specific in two different ways. First, it depends on the entrepreneur. When the entrepreneur is financially secure the economic condition will be less of a problem than when an entrepreneur has little funding. Second, in a case where two wind turbines are placed the economic costs will be lower than a wind park of twenty turbines. So both the costs of the project and the financial security of the entrepreneur are part of the economic dimension of the implementation capacity.
The institutional conditions introduce the ”expectations or obligations that pat-tern the behavior of stakeholders” (Agterbosch, Vermeulen, & Glasbergen, 2004, p. 2051). These expectations and obligations are made clear through permits, covenants and other institutional documents. The assumption here is that the
in-6
dividual stakeholders change their behavior according to these obligations. Note, that this condition is not focusing on the entrepreneur, but is taking all the stake-holders into account that are within these obligations.
Finally, the social conditions introduce the social aspect of the implementation of wind turbines. It focuses on the interaction between the different stakeholders, both in cooperation as in conflict. Here Agterbosch hints at the social capital theory by taking into account the power positions of the different stakeholders. However, she does not introduce the concept of social capital. This convergence with social capital will be explained further in the operationalization of the cur-rent paper.
Indirect conditions
Governmental policy focuses on the different levels of policy making: European, national, provincial and municipal. It is assumed that ”policymaking at higher levels of government institutionally restricts policymaking at the lower levels” (Agterbosch, Vermeulen, & Glasbergen, 2004, p. 2051). These policies are indi-rect because they are not created for specific cases, furthermore it only involves one stakeholder in the implementation, the government. The difficulty of this condition is that every single case is embedded indirectly into a larger network of governmental layers.
The wider societal context is the second indirect measure and involves condi-tions that cannot be changed by the stakeholders. Agterbosch, Vermeulen and Glasbergen (2004) give the fluctuation of the coal prices as an example. This fluc-tuation is not directly influenced by the stakeholders in the implementation but does change the financial attractiveness of wind power energy. If coal prices are low than coal generated electricity will be relatively low. This price can decrease below the price of wind power energy thereby making it financially beneficial to have coal generated power over wind power energy.
These six conditions constitute the concept implementation capacity. These con-ditions are not mutually exclusive. Part of the definition of implementation ca-pacity is the interdependence of these six conditions.
Mutual interdependencies
Agterbosch (2006) shows the interdependencies of the conditions in the case of Zeewolde. In this case, social factors overcame the institutional objection on the placements of wind turbines. This was done through the creation of a wind power project team consisting of citizens, entrepreneurs (in this case farmers), the municipality and experts on wind power. The spread of knowledge created a positive attitude towards the placement of the wind mills, this social factor was so powerful that the laws that were made to stall the placement of the turbines were nullified. Thus, the outcome of the indirect condition of governmental policy was changed due to the direct social condition.
The finding that the conditions for implementation capacity are mutual inter-dependent introduces some complexity into the concept. What is the purpose of the conditions if they do not predict an outcome? Agterbosch does not introduce any prioritization of one condition over the other. Moreover, she claims that ”ev-ery type of condition is necessary but not in itself sufficient for implementation” (Agterbosch, Meertens, & Vermeulen, 2009, p. 395). However, in her case study she concludes that ”the importance of social conditions prevails” (Agterbosch, Meertens, & Vermeulen, 2009, p. 404). This is contradicting to the statement that all conditions are equally important. Additionally, she does not explicitly mention the interdependence of the individual conditions in her conclusion on the case study (Agterbosch, 2006; Agterbosch, Meertens, & Vermeulen, 2009). This does not mean that her research has been invalid or that the concept is useless, it rather leaves room for investigation.
8
This difficulty with explaining the mutual interdependency can be overcome by addressing the implementation as a sociological problem. It is important to study the network that constitutes the implementation of the wind turbines. By study-ing the network, one can establish where the necessary conditions are localized and more importantly how these conditions are mobilized by the wind power entrepreneur. This also addresses the interdependency of the conditions. For ex-ample, if an institutional condition such as the approval of the local government is dependent on the economic conditions of the entrepreneur, this can be shown in the network. The resource (approval) is held by the local government and it is the role of the entrepreneur to mobilize this resource by showing economic safety. This is not a real case but it shows how the network theory can show the mutual interdependency. Therefore, the current study will try to use the network theory of social capital to add to the previous study of Agterbosch.
A second way for this study to add to Agterbosch’s theory is by incorporat-ing the complex decision model. This model addresses the outcome of a complex decision as the result of various rounds of decision. Rather, than assigning the outcome of a decision as solely depending on institutional and social factors, this study will argue that the investment in social capital in different rounds are an important factor in explaining the implementation.
Conclusion
The concept of implementation capacity helps to identify the necessary conditions for the implementation of wind turbines. It categorizes the conditions into four direct and two indirect conditions, that are supposedly interdependent. However, the theory seems to overlook the complexity of the implementation in two ways: network complexity and a time dimension. The aim of the current thesis is to see if these dimensions add to the existing literature on wind turbines. This is done by incorporating Teisman’s model of decision rounds (Teisman, 2000) and Lin’s network theory of social capital(Lin, 2008).
Chapter 3
Complexity perspective
The next theory will give a more in-depth description of the complexity of the im-plementation of wind turbines. So far, the process seemed to consists of necessary conditions that are embedded in a network and by investing in social relationships resources can be mobilized to attain these conditions. Marsden (1990) warns for the possible ’static bias’ that can occur in this type of network research. The static bias refers to the researcher that perceives the ties in a network as some-thing stable. It is important to refrain from this bias and understand a network as a complex phenomenon that has a time component in the form of ties that can strengthen, loosen or break. The time aspect is especially apparent in complex implementation procedures. This problem is addressed in the theory of Teisman (2000) on complex decision-making processes. The following chapter gives an ex-planation on complex decision-making processes and why the implementation of wind turbines is one of these complex systems. Furthermore, the decision-making rounds model will be described.
Complex decision-making processes
Koning (2005) describes the implementation of wind turbines as a complex decision-making process. There are five factors that make the implementation complex:
1. There are multiple actors and these actors cooperate in a network. The entrepreneur is dependent on others to realize a wind park.He is not able to make changes single handed.
2. The technology behind wind turbines is developing fast. 3. Each case is different, there is no standard procedure 4. There is uncertainty about the policy of the government
5. There is a shortage of knowledge.(Koning, 2005, p. 9 translated)
The multitude of actors is evident in the implementation of wind turbines and is the main focus of the current research. The fast development of technology is a problem for the implementation on two accounts. First, a project generally takes up to six or seven years (Agterbosch, 2006) in this time new and improved technology might have been developed, thereby making the turbine, that has been discussed in the implementation, outdated. It can be decided to go for the new technology but this in turn sets of a new round of permit applications. The second complexity that the fast developing technology introduces is the problem of starting. Knowing that in ten years from now the wind turbines will be more efficient it becomes a dilemma to implement less efficient turbines now or those efficient turbines in ten years (Sommer, 2014).
12
The third point states that there is no standard procedure, but this point can be disputed. There is a standard procedure made by the state government. The procedure goes through the following steps:
1. Pre-investigation
2. Specific location investigation 3. Planning
4. Placement
5. Maintenance and Exploitation (RVO, translated)
This does not contradict the fact that each case is different. This difference is not due to the lack of a standard procedure but rather the result of the dif-ferent conditions of each case. This problem is addressed by Agterbosch’s the-ory on implementation capacity. The uncertainty of the government makes the decision-making process complex because, changes in policy can introduce signif-icant changes on all conditions that are identified in the implementation capacity theory. The shortage of knowledge can refer to the public opinion who are scared for the negative effects of the turbines (Elthama, Harrison, & Allena, 2008), it can also show the lack of knowledge in implementation processes by entrepreneurs and governments (Kamp, Smits, & Andriesse, 2004). This lack of knowledge is a reason for objection and slowing down of the project.
From the five points that have been explained it can be concluded that the im-plementation of windturbines is a complex decision making process. In these processes three models are categorized. The phase, stream and decision rounds model. The last one being the most applicable to the implementation of wind-turbines. The next part will give a short explanation on the other two models and give an exstensive review on the decision round model.
The decision models
Teisman (2000) describes three models that are used in analyzing complex de-cisions: the phase, the stream and the rounds model. The first two models are
already well established within the field of policy analysis. The third model is made by Teisman himself and tries to tackle some of the flaws of the other two models.
The phase model perceives the decision as going in one line from the problem to the execution of the solution. This line is divided into phases, where one phase succeeds the other. The phases that are specified as the formation, the adoption, the implementation and finally the evaluation phase. In the formation period the problem is defined and possible solutions are suggested. These suggested so-lutions are deliberated upon by the involved stakeholders. Once a solution has been decided upon the adoption phase is reached. In this next phase the solutions are translated into policy proposals. The final stage of producing the decision is then to implement the policy proposals through the executive administrative powers. Once, the implementation has been fulfilled the effectiveness of the pol-icy is assessed in the evaluation phase. This last phase closes the loop between implementation and formation. If any flaws or new problems are found with the new decision, a new process starts again at the formation phase. The problem with this model is that it assumes that there is one clear problem statement and that there is a strict linearity in the process of decision making (Teisman, 2000).
This linearity is challenged in the stream model. This model categorizes three stream: problems, solutions/policies and politics. It is assumed that these streams are not chronological or fully dependent on each other as with the phase model. The streams are simultaneously in existence, ”There are three separate worlds where specific products are developed and transformed into their own dynamics and therefore are not linked in any temporal sequence” (Teisman, 2000, p. 7). The idea is that a decision is made once all three streams get interconnected and form one consensus. This model is better in addressing the complex system behind the problem statement, since each stream has its own set of stakeholders, rather than a fixed amount of stakeholders, both in time and quantity, for the phase model.
14
of decision making, the decision rounds model. The model does not perceive a decision as one solution to one problem made by one actor, as in the phase model. It rather assumes that in the process of a decision there are many stakeholders each with their own set of interest. ”To understand decision-making, the re-searcher focuses on the variety of actors, objectives and solutions, their dynamics as well as the interaction between these elements” (Teisman, 2000, p. 8). This is in agreement with the stream model, however the round model tries to combine the best of both models. First, it takes into account the chronology of the phase model by focusing on specific time periods within the process. The difference with the phase model is that in this model there are no predefined phases (for-mation, adoption, implementation and evaluation). The periods are defined by decisions by the actors during the progress, ”that in a later period of decision-making serve as an important point of reference for the behavior of the actors that are present at the time” (Teisman, 2000, p. 10). This makes it possible to point out different stages within the decision making process without forcing a fixed chronological order upon the process. For example, the decision to place wind turbines in the municipality of Rotterdam would be categorized by the phase model in the following way: The problem statement is that the burning of fossil fuels is detrimental for the environment so alternative sources of energy should be created. Then possible solutions are posed one of them being that in-land wind turbines can provide the city of Rotterdam with energy. Subsequently, this solution is translated into policy by the responsible alderman. Finally, the policy is implemented through the placement of wind-turbines. This example does not try to describe a real situation, but depicts how the phase model makes a lin-ear chronological model. In this case it might be well overlooked that after the formation phase Greenpeace objected against the idea of inland wind turbines, which introduces a new problem and a new decision. This simple example shows that it is hard to put complex decision progress into simple linear chronological order. In the rounds model the choice for wind turbines will be the end of one round, the objection of Greenpeace is the start of a new round. There is no fixed amount of rounds but each round influences the behavior of the actors that are involved and thereby the end result.
As described earlier, the implementation of wind turbines can be studied as a complex decision process. Therefore, the decision round model is a useful tool to analyze the process behind the implementation. It then becomes the goal for the researcher to depict ”which actors are participating at what time. Actors are units capable of developing a recognizable course of action (individuals, groups or collective / corporate entities)” (Teisman, 2000, p. 9). In short, the rounds model adds the dimension of time to the study and helps to identify important sequences in the chronological order. A sub-questions can be addressed by this theory:
Subquestion 1: What rounds can be identified in the implementation of wind turbines?
Conclusion
Teisman (2000) describes three models that help to explain decision making. The decision round model seem to be best applicable to the question of wind turbine implementation. This theory will be used to add the dimension of time to the current study. Thereby, addressing one of the two components of complexity that have been identified in the previous chapter. The remaining component is that of the network this will be addressed in the following chapter.
Chapter 4
Social capital
Social capital is criticized for being too ambiguous and the way to overcome this is by starting ”with a precise and a priori definition and develop operational-ization explicitly on the basis of this definition” (Van Deth, 2008, p. 153). In order to have a clear conception of the meaning of social capital, this chapter will give a short overview on how the concept started with Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s theory. These two theories exemplify the different interpretations of social cap-ital. These two apparent different interpretations are re-conceptualized into one theory by recent studies of Lin (2008). This new conceptualization will provide the guidelines of this paper.
Development of social capital theory
In his work on capital, Bourdieu, distinguishes three types of capital: economic, cultural and social. He made this distinction as a reaction to the field of eco-nomics that reduced ”the universe of exchanges to mercantile exchange” (Bour-dieu, 1986, p. 241), thereby not taking into account any transaction that cannot be described by financial profit. Social capital is defined, by Bourdieu, as ”the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquain-tance and recognition which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectively-owned capital” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 248). This definition of social
capital assigns both the potential and the actual resources within a network to social capital. So the resources that are in the network do not have to be capi-talized in order to be part of the social capital. The potential of the resource is enough to add to the social capital.
Furthermore, the network in this definition consists of ties that recognize each other, meaning that both ends of the tie have to realize that they are within the relation. For example, in a lecture hall where one teacher addresses hundreds of students the relationship is one sided. The student receives the information given by the teacher but the teacher does not know who the specific students are, at least not all of them. This means that there is no mutual relationship established, hence no social capital.
Bourdieu believes that the network that results from these mutual recognized ties is ”the product of investment strategies, individual or collective” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 249). Individuals or collectives apply these strategies to establish ties that can be used in the near or distant future. This implies that the structures of networks are not random, nor are they the only possible outcome for a specific case. They depend on the individual strategies of the nodes within the network. What we can deduce from these statements is that social capital is the aggregate of resources within a network which results from the strategies of the individuals within the network. Note that in Bourdieu’s definition social capital can only refer to the aggregate level i.e. the group level. Social capital is an asset of the group of which the individuals can benefit, but it is not an asset held by an indi-vidual. Within Bourdieu’s definition, social capital has to benefit all individuals within the network. Here Bourdieu’s definition disagrees with Coleman’s defini-tion.
Coleman (1990) defines social capital by its function. He states that ”it is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect of a social structure and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure” (Coleman, 1990, p. 300). The most striking difference with Bourdieu’s definition is that social capital
18
does not have to benefit all actors in the network but can facilitate the actions of one actor in the network. Social capital can be both a group and an individual asset. Coleman gives the example of network with three players where both A and C are connected to B but not to each other. In this case actor B has more social capital than A and C. It would be wrong to conclude that this social capital is held by actor B, because it only facilitates the actions of actor B. If either actor A or C would decide to withdraw from the relation than actor B’s social capital will diminish. The capital is thus emergent from the relation and not owned by any of the actors individually.
The notion of social capital can also be perceived on the group level. This is somewhat in concordance with Bourdieu’s definition, because the group level so-cial capital is a form of capital that all individuals can draw upon. He gives the example of an organization of protest groups in South-Korea. This organization has made it possible to demonstrate against the political power, which is benefi-cial for all actors within the organization.
Coleman also argues that social capital, or any other social concept, is the re-sult of behavior by the individuals. He states that: ”the only action takes place at the level of individual actors and the system level exists solely as emergent properties characterizing the system of action as a whole” (Coleman, 1990, p. 28). This relates to Bourdieu’s idea that social capital is the result of investment strategies by individuals or collectives. In essence, both scholars argue that the actions of the individuals within the network constitute the outcome of social capital. Another point of agreement between Bourdieu and Coleman is the dif-ficulty to grasp social capital. Bourdieu argues that social capital is often not recognized because the dominant class does not want to recognize the reduction of social relations to economics. He goes so far as to say that the field that only looks at exchanges that can be expressed in monetary values ”can see itself and present itself as a realm of disinterestedness” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 281). Coleman, similarly, argues that ”although it is a resource that has value in use, it cannot be easily exchanged” (Coleman, 1990, p. 315). Physical capital such as owning a house can be easily exchanged for money, money can be easily exchanged for
education (human capital), but someone with a lot of social capital cannot easily exchange that for money nor education. Both these statements show that social capital is a concept which is not readily recognizable. It cannot be expressed in monetary value and is hard to exchange for another type of capital.
In all, the theories of Bourdieu and Coleman mainly differ in the effect that social capital has on the individuals. In Bourdieu’s conception it is a collective good that benefits all within the network. In Coleman’s conception this is just one of many examples of social capital, as long as the social ties facilitate ones action it is a form of social capital. Another difference is that Bourdieu includes both the potential and the actual resources within the network whereas Coleman only involves the resources that are actually used to facilitate a specific action. Lin’s network theory of social capital draws upon the strengths of both theo-ries(Lin, 1999; Lin, 2008).
Network theory of social capital
The theory on social capital has been further advanced by Lin, who incorporated elements of both theories in his network theory of social capital. He overcomes the problem with the theories of Coleman and Bourdieu by combining the defi-nitions of both scholars. This theory has proven to be valuable in a wide range of studies (Florin, Lubatkin, & Schulze, 2003; McDonald & Elder, 2006; Dalisay, Hmielowski, Kushin, & Yamamoto, 2012), but has not been applied to wind tur-bine implementation yet.
Bourdieu looks at the accumulation of resources within a network, while Coleman focuses more on the function that social capital has for the individual. This am-biguity is answered by Lin’s network theory of social capital (Lin,1999; Lin 2008). Like Bourdieu and Coleman, Lin believes that social capital is a fundamental dif-ferent form of capital than human or economic capital. Social capital has three attributes that cannot be explained by other forms of capital or as Coleman puts it: ”Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making possible the
20
achievement of certain ends that would not be attainable in its absence” (Cole-man, 1990, p.302). In the case of social capital these ends are made attainable by information flow, influence and social credentials or reinforcement (Lin, 1999). Information flow through a network can enhance the chance of an individual in, for example, a job search (Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981). This attribute is founded in social ties and cannot be explained by mere human or economic capital. The influence-attribute refers to the idea that having social ties has an effect on the outcome. To continue the same example: an applicant to business A, has a better shot at a job when he has a tie to someone who has power within that business. This tie can in turn influence the decision of the recruiter that has the interview with the applicant. Social credentials or reinforcement refers to the support that comes from other individuals, it refers both to the support and the reinforcement of one’s identity. A company can have a trustworthy image due to the social credentials given by previous clients.
Starting from Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s theory and the three attributes of social capital, Lin defines social capital as the ”investment in social relations by individ-uals through which they gain access to embedded resources to enhance expected returns of instrumental or expressive actions” (Lin, 1999, p. 35). This definition considers the embedded resources that are also found in the theory of Bourdieu. The embedded resources only indicate that there are resources and that there is potential access to these resources by the individuals within the network. This is referred to as the problem of accessibility. However, the embedded resources by themselves are not sufficient for social capital, the use of them should also be taken into account. This is done by incorporating the expected returns into the definitions. These expected returns are related to the functionality of social capital as defined by Coleman. The use of the embedded resources is referred to as the problem of mobilization. These two dimensions, accessibility and mobiliza-tion, of the definition of social capital are apparent in the sources of social capital.
There are three sources of social capital categorized: structural positions, net-work locations and the purpose of action (Lin, 2008). The structural positions refer to the general structure of the network. It takes an eagle eye perspective
on the network, thereby focusing on the hierarchical structure. Furthermore, the structural positions entail where the embedded resources are located within the network. Bourdieu’s statement about the non-randomness of the structure still holds here: different structures yield different accessibility to the individuals in the network. However, the structure is a result of the purposeful investment in social relationships by the individuals.
The network locations indicate the position of the individual node within the network, if the node is a bridge or close to a whole in the network. For example, in a network with a central node that connects all the other nodes, it is easier for the central node to have access to all nodes thereby potentially having access to all embedded resources. Bourdieu argues, concerning the network locations, that a closed network enhances social capital. However, this statement does not hold in the network theory of social capital anymore. In Bourdieu’s definition the individual within the network has no specific intended goal, here there is a clear discrepancy with the definition of social capital by the network theory. The network theory does take the function of social capital for the individual into account. The result is that a closed network is not necessarily beneficial. For example, if the goal for the individual is to gain new information it is better to have an open network (Granovetter, 1973). The question thus becomes what network locations enrich the chances for the individual to attain a goal.
Both structure and network locations revolve around the problem of accessibility. The purpose of action takes the problem of mobilization into account. As the name already suggests, the purpose of action is about the expected return for the individual. The expected return can be either instrumental or expressive. An instrumental return is the acquirement of a resource not previously possessed by the individual. Expressive results are about the maintenance of already owned resources (Lin, 2008). The assumption is that a different intended outcome, instrumental or expressive, will lead to a different social investment strategy, thereby resulting in a different network. It also implies that not all resources are as useful to the individual but the usefulness depends on the desired outcome.
22
Two main questions come to the surface in the network theory of social capital: ”(1) how individuals invest in social relations, and (2) how individuals capture the embedded resources in the relations to generate a return.” (Lin, 1999, p. 32). These questions can be translated to the purpose of the current study into:
Subquestion 2:How did the stakeholders in the placement of the wind turbines in Vlaardingen invest in their social relations? (accessibility)
Subquestion 3:To what extend did the stakeholders capture the em-bedded resources in the relations to generate a return? (mobilization) These two questions can be posed for every separate decision round. The question that arose from the decision round model can be enhanced when social capital is taken into account. The previous two questions will help to explain how a decision was made per round, the question of the decision round model helps to explain the eventual outcome.
This perspective of social capital looks at the individual level, this does not imply that social capital is held by an individual. It is the result of the above mentioned sources and is thereby always founded in social ties. An individual can invest in its social network in the hope to have a higher social capital but this is not the result of the individual’s action but rather a result of the interaction between the individual and the other. So the individual’s action is a necessary but not a sufficient factor for the establishment of social capital.
Resources
The final concept that needs clarification within the definition of social capital is the embedded resources. There are two types of resources in the network theory on social capital: contact resources and network resources. Network resources are ”resources embedded in one’s ego-networks” (Lin, 1999, p. 36). A network
resource is thus any resource in one’s ego regardless of the use of the resource. For example, a choreographer who wants to start a new dance show, in his net-work there is someone who has knowledge about construction. This knowledge is a resource but will remain a network resource, because it is unlikely that the choreographer will use the knowledge to create a dance show. The knowledge of construction can also be a network resource in a case where the knowledge is valuable. If a dance venue is constructed the person with the knowledge is valuable for the desired result. However, if the knowledge of this person is not used it will remain a network resource.
The second type of resources are contact resources, these are defined as: ”mo-bilized resources in instrumental actions” (Lin, 1999, p. 36). So in the previous example of the construction of a new dance venue, the person with knowledge of construction possesses a contact resource if his knowledge is used to fulfill the desired result. The conclusion is thus that the resources within a network are defined by the expected outcome. The distinction between these types of resources makes it possible to focus both on the potential and actual resources. The assumption is that more investment in social capital results will result in an increase in contact resources and a decrease in network resources.
Conclusion
Social capital is defined as a personal asset that is created by the investment into social ties, the actual gain of social capital is thus dependent on both ends of the tie. This investment is made in order to access resources. These resources are sub-divided into non-mobilized resources, network resources, and mobilized resources, contact resources. The value of these resources depends on the expected outcomes of the individual that makes the initial investment. These outcomes can be either to gain something new, instrumental results, or to maintain something already owned, expressive results. This covers the second component of complexity that this thesis tries to include in the understanding of the implementation of wind turbines.
Chapter 5
Conceptual model
The theories that are used within this thesis have been described in the previous chapters. This chapter aims to highlight the concepts from these theories that are used. The definitions of these concepts are based on the literature, however for the purpose of the paper some definitions have to be redefined. After the presentation of the used concepts, a description of the framework of the study is given.
Definition of Central concepts
The independent variable in the current thesis is social capital. The definition of this concept is given in the previous chapter. The concept takes two problems into account for the implementation of wind turbines, the problem of accessibil-ity and that of mobilization. Both refer to the resources that are embedded in a network. The question of accessibility is: Where are the resources located? The question of mobilization is: Are these resources shared to the one who wants to benefit from it? In order to answer the question of accessibility and mobilization it is crucial to identify the embedded resources within the network of the wind power entrepreneur. Chapter 4 shows that resources are defined by the intended goal of the actor. In the case of implementation capacity (Agterbosch, 2006) these resources are categorized into four types of resources: technical, economic, institutional and social. The social level is insignificant for the current study
be-cause it is argued that all resources have to be mobilized through a social network. This makes all resources, at least, partially social. For example, a bank has plenty of economic resources but if the wind power entrepreneur does not mobilize the bank’s resources there is no benefit for the entrepreneur. The economic resource only works if it becomes a social resource. Therefore, the social level is not used in the current study.
Moreover, the social level is already included in the definition of resources. Valu-able resources are not necessarily mobilized by the wind power entrepreneur. The mobilized resources are referred to as contact resources. The non-mobilized re-sources are defined as network rere-sources. This distinction between network and contact resources shows if a resource has become a social resource. Therefore, social conditions as defined by Agterbosch (2006) will not be incorporated in the current operationalization.
Using these resources as the independent variable poses a threat of a circular argumentation if the dependent variable is implementation capacity. Because it is these resources, or conditions, that constitute the implementation capac-ity. The capacity refers to the possible implementation, however the aim of the current research is to study the actual success of implementation. Thus, this the-sis does not take the indication of the feasibility to adopt turbines (Agterbosch, 2006) as its independent variable but the actual success of implementation. The success is measured by two conditions. First, the time it took from the start of the process until the placement of the turbines. The time is compared to the average of implementation time which is six to seven years (Agterbosch, 2006). If a project takes less time it is considered fast in this thesis, when it takes longer than average it is considered as a slow process. Second, the quantity of turbines that has been realized. This will be different per case due to the technological conditions i.e. if there is enough space. Therefore, the success depends on the intended quantity by the entrepreneur. For example, if an entrepreneur wants to implement 5 turbines but the output is actually 3 than that is considered to be unsuccessful. This unsuccessfulness has different levels since it ranges from complete failure to complete success.
26
Research Framework
The idea behind the thesis can be depicted within a frame. The basic premises is that the output of the implementation of wind turbines is the result of various rounds. Each round has its own network configuration of stakeholders, thereby changing the accessibility and mobilization of resources in every round. The or-der of these changes accessibility and mobilization influence the eventual output. This output is measured in two ways: time and quantity of turbines. It is evi-dent that if resources are accessible and mobilized in an early round it will take less time to implement the turbines, hence more successful in the perspective of the current thesis. However, the quantity of the turbines is something that can change in every single round. The result of this frame is a simple diagram that resembles the complex decision making.
figure 1. The framework of the current study, complex decision consisting of dif-ferent rounds each round has its own network.
Methodology
Research design
In order to address the research questions of this thesis it is evident that a thor-ough understanding of the rounds of decision making is necessary. The prefer-able research design for this understanding is a longitudinal study that follows the process from beginning to end. However this is both costly in both a time and financial way and therefore undesirable for a master thesis. The best alter-native is to have an in-depth case study. The ’exemplifying case approach’ is used (Bryman, 2008). This approach chooses a case ”because it exemplifies a broader category of which it is a member”, ”they will provide a suitable context for certain research questions” (Bryman, 2008, p. 56). The studied case has to be an example of a slow project. This allows the study to answer the question if social capital was of influence on the speed of implementation. With a slow case there has to be a bottle neck somewhere, and this bottle neck can be the result of the lack or over investment in social capital. Furthermore, since it is not a longitudinal study it is important that the case is either already implemented or in a late stage, because that gives a better insight in different rounds.
The research questions focus on the wind power entrepreneur, therefore it is the egocentric network of the entrepreneur that is mapped. It could be argued that the best way of establishing all resources within the network is by mapping out the entire network of implementation. Lin (1999) calls this saturation sampling.
28
This name is confusing because it assumes that one knows all actors within a network beforehand. In Lin’s idea all actors can be addressed directly. In the current study this is unpractical since it is not clear which actors were active in the implementation. Marsden (1990) argues that ”for both complete and ego-centric network data, the researcher faces the problem of specifying boundaries on the set of units to be included in a network” (p. 439). This specifying of the boundaries can be done through the social ties by snowball sampling (Marsden, 1990; Erickson & Nosanuck, 1983). In this case the boundaries of the network are set at the second-level ties of the wind power entrepreneur. These actors are sampled through a snowball method. In practice this means that the first interviewees are distilled from public records on the implementation, these are perceived as first level ties. In the first interviews the interviewee is asked to indicate which stakeholders had direct contact with him. The names that the are provided are the next interviewees, these actors are asked the same question until the second level ties of the entrepreneur are reached. This results in both the finding of the second level ties and the interconnection of the first level ties.
Case selection
The city of Vlaardingen was chosen as the test case because the placement of two turbines was in progress during the research and another project was in a developing stage. Both these projects are part of the current study, but since the placement of the two turbines started around 2000 and the second project started in 2013, the first will take up the majority of the case study. The case of Vlaardingen fits the previous described exemplifying case, because it took the city approximately 14 years to place two turbines. This is an example of a slow case that can provide deeper insights into what the context is for such a slow process. Furthermore, because there are two projects in the city a deeper insight on social capital can be attained by researching if there was any interaction between these projects.
Research activities
The aim is to interview all first level ties through a semi-structured interview. To address the question of accessibility the interview gathers information on what resources the actor has with regards to the implementation of wind turbines. Furthermore, the interviews address the question in what ways these resources were mobilized. Six main questions are used to minimize the difference in the in-terviews, however the nature of the interviews remained semi-structured through the spontaneity of the follow up questions. Interviews always raise the question of reliability. Since the answers of respondents are intrinsically subjective it is hard to guarantee the reliability of the findings of the study. This is especially problematic because the current study focuses on the actual resources and not on the perception of the actors within the network. According to Marsden (1990)it is important to make a clear distinction between the actual relations and the perception of the actors on the relations. The sample provided eight interviews. The interviewees were:
1. NUON
2. Local government project manager 3. Local government alderman
4. Local government public administrator for sustainability 5. Water board Delfland
6. DCMR
7. Jansen Recycling Group 8. Citizen
The citizen was the only one who did not result from the snowball sampling. Citizens were asked if they knew about the placement of the turbines: 4 citizen boards were asked if they wanted to participate, only one citizen wanted to par-take in the study. None responded that they knew about the placement of the turbines. The citizen was interviewed because the documentation states that ”It
30
is important to create support with the citizens, this is done by a timely, open and transparent communication” (Vlaardingen, 2013).
The interviews are completely recorded and transcribed to secure that there is no loss of information. These transcriptions are analyzed through a qualitative content analysis (Jacoby & Siminoff, 2008; Mayring, 2000). This form of anal-ysis ”consists of maintaining the systematic nature of content analanal-ysis for the various stages of qualitative analysis, without undertaking over-hasty quantifica-tions” (Mayring, 2000, p. 266). This is accomplished by coding all the transcript according to the following operationalization. This will categorize the answers of the respondents systematically which aids in shaping a conclusion.
In addition to the interviews, the formal communication between stakeholders will also be analyzed. This serves both as a form of triangulation and as way to find cut off point for the decision rounds (see next chapter).
Limitations of the research design
Even though this study is executed as fair and logical as possible, a research design inherently has flaws. The main limitations of the current research design can be addressed by the way they impact the trustworthiness of the study. The trustworthiness consists of the credibility, transferability, dependability and the conformability of the study (Bryman, 2008).
The effectiveness of the snowball sampling depends on the names that are given by the actors, therefore it jeopardizes the credibility of the study. If a name is for-gotten by the entrepreneur or the first level ties it will be recorded as non-existent thereby possibly losing a valuable player. This is a common form of critique on this type of sampling (Marin & Hampton, 2007; Marsden, 1990; Erickson & Nosanuck, 1983), however this problem is more apparent in very large networks. For the current paper the sampling method fits well due to the relatively small network that is studied. Moreover, it is assumed that if the entrepreneur fails
to name a tie it is not very likely that this tie played an important role for the entrepreneur or that the entrepreneur mobilized it’s resources.
A second problem with regards to the credibility is the focus on social capital. Other variables maybe overlooked by focusing on social capital as the explanatory variable. Internal problems within the wind power entrepreneurs could well be the reason for major delays within the implementation of the turbines, by solely focusing on the social capital of the wind entrepreneur this simple explanation might be missed. However, the semi-structured interviews leave space for the interviewees to address problems that do not have to do with social capital. This way non-social capital problems will be addressed.
Several limitations are introduced because the interviews are conducted late after the actual process. People have to make a recollection of what happened which introduces a bias since the memory of people tends to be selective and inaccurate. Moreover, some of the necessary respondents might be retired and other respon-dents might have joined the process in a later stage. Then the interviewee has to base it’s story on a previous recollection which subsequently increases the bias.
Transferability is always a limitation of case studies. In this case especially be-cause the wind power entrepreneur is a big company that has enough economic resources to fund the project. This is incomparable with a smaller company or a wind power collective of citizens. However, the deeper understanding of the pro-cess will form a valuable source of data for other researchers to make ”judgments about the possible transferability of findings to other milieux” (Bryman, 2008, p. 378).
As mentioned before, all interviews are transcribed and correspondence between researcher and interviewee is documented and the documents that are analyzed are all publicly available. Dependability will thus not pose a big threat on the current thesis.
32
Operationalization
Definition of rounds
In order to identify the rounds for the decision rounds model, the formal docu-ments of the decisions are used as cut off points. For example, the first round involves the contact between the water board Delfland and the Windenergie On-twikkelings Maatschappij (WEOM) to investigate if the area is suitable for the implementation of wind turbines. This round ends with the presentation of the results of the study performed by WEOM. Each round has its own cut off point in the form of formal communication. This makes it readily identifiable where one round ends and the other one starts. It is the aim of this research to answer the question of accessibility and mobilization within the network of each round.
Accessibility
The question of accessibility is addressed by coding for statements of accessibil-ity. The table of embedded resources shows which resources are embedded in the network but does not clarify where these resources are found within the network. In order to address the question of accessibility it is necessary to find where these resources are embedded. This is done by coding the transcript for accessibility. An answer is coded as a statement about accessibility when it involves a resource that is held by one specific actor. This code can be further specified into identi-fication of the stakeholder’s own resources or the resources of someone else. This distinction is made to guarantee the credibility of the findings. If the statement is about another actor’s resources this has to be acknowledged by the other to make the statement credible. Preferably, this should also be done if an actor talks about its own resources. However, the assumption is that an actor has a better understanding of its own resources than of another. Therefore, the priority of double checking is higher with the statement about another actor’s resources.The result of this analysis will be a map of a network in which the locations of the resources are identified. This map gives insight into which actor holds which re-sources.
Mobilization
The final step in the mapping of the resources is to show how resources were mobilized within the network. The interviews are coded for the mobilization problem. This is done whenever an interviewee mentions the need of another one’s resources and if this resource was shared. If the resource was not shared it is coded as a network resource. If it was shared then it is coded as a contact resource. The challenge with the mobilization problem is to incorporate the deci-sion round model. Ideally, there will be several maps that show the chronological order of decisions that were made i.e. resources that were mobilized. This would give an insight into how the mobilization of resources effects future mobilization and decision making. The result will thus be several networks that show the chronological order of the mobilization of resources.
Chapter 7
Case description: Vlaardingen
Vlaardingen is situated on the west side of the Netherlands, about 13 kilometers west from Rotterdam. The municipality has 70.981 citizens (CBS, 2014) and is part of the overarching ’stadsregio Rotterdam’ which includes fifteen municipali-ties around (and including) the city of Rotterdam. The city lies at the river Maas which functions as an international harbor. On the opposite side of the river is the petrochemical industry of Rotterdam. The side of Vlaardingen that borders the river is filled with industrial areas. On the west side of these industrial areas lies the water treatment plant: ’De Groote Lucht’ which is part of the Delfland Water Board. This area was considered as a place for wind turbines since 2002 (Delfland, 2012). It has taken until the year 2014 until the placement of the tur-bines was finalized. The initial company that wanted to build the turtur-bines was NUON. In March 2013, NUON sold their leasehold estate of the wind turbines to an external party, YARD Energy Group (Delfland, 2014). This group did not want to partake in the current study, so the time of analysis is 2002 until the sale of the leasehold estate by NUON in 2013.
figure 2. The map of Vlaardingen, with the research area highlighted. (Maps, 2014)
The location of De Groote Lucht is a water treatment plant which is responsible for the cleaning of sewer water. Their area consists of several office buildings and ten settlement tanks. It is located on the west of Vlaardingen close to the border between Vlaardingen and Maassluis. The two wind turbines are placed on the south-west and south-east end of the area. The two turbines are Vestas V-90 that together have a capacity of 6 MW (YARD, 2014). The height of the turbines is 99 meters with a rotation diameter of 101 meters (Van de Bilt, Pigge, & Janssen, 2014).
36
figure 3. The location of De Groote Lucht on the left and T Scheur on the right. (Maps, 2014)
The second location in Vlaardingen where windmills could be placed is the in-dustrial area of t Scheur. Specifically, the area of the company,Jansen recycling group. In 2013 the company decided to perform a quick-scan on all of their owned land. This includes a location in Dordrecht, Rotterdam and Vlaardingen. The person responsible for this scan within the company states that this quick-scan concludes that it would be possible to place one wind turbine on the companies’ terrain. This area was added to the current research because the industrial area of T’ Scheur was already recognized as a potential space for wind turbines in 2003 by the province of Zuid-Holland (Zuid-Holland, 2003). Moreover, the terrain of Jansen recycling group lies close to De Groote Lucht. Figure 2 shows both cases: De Groote Lucht on the left side and Jansen recycling group on the right side. The area in between is empty on the image but is now filled up with several com-panies. It is of interest to see what influence social capital had on the 12 years of decision making that has resulted in two turbines and one possibility of placement.
Results
The results of the current study are presented in the following chapter. The quotes in this part are all translated from Dutch to English. Five rounds were identified, these rounds are: 1) the analysis of the location, 2) setting up the real estate lease between WEOM and the water board Delfand, 3) the request for the construction and environmental impact permits, 4) the plan of action of the municipality Vlaardingen and the covenant of the Stadsregio and 5) the final round is the analysis of the location at T’ Scheur and the sale of the real estate lease from NUON to YARD.
Round 1: The analysis of the location
The first round of the implementation in Vlaardingen is defined by the relation-ship between WEOM (later NUON) and the water board Delfland. In 2001, the state signed an agreement with all the provinces of The Netherlands to signifi-cantly increase the generation of wind power. This covenant agreed that by ”the 31st of 2010 at least 1500 MW of wind power in the Netherlands will be installed” (Jorritsma-Lebbink, Kuiper, & Van Kemenade, 2001, p. 2). The province of Zuid-Holland was assigned to install a total of 205 MW of wind energy.
38
The province is the direct authority of the water board, in this case the province of Zuid-Holland controls the water board Delfland. Through, this connection the question was put to the water board Delfland to investigate the possibility to implement wind turbines. The interviewee of Delfland stated that the main reason that they were asked is: ”We own a large piece of land. This area has a lot of wind, the question was if we liked to cooperate in a research to the possi-ble placement of wind turbines”. According to the same interviewee, the water board agreed to the idea of wind energy on their compound, because it tied into their ideology to become an energy neutral facility and gain an image of sustain-ability: ”We are a governmental institution and we have our goals with regards to sustainability. Back then and today as well, the question of sustainability is important. This satisfied the climategoals, the sustainability goals of the govern-ment”. For the water board itself it is impossible to make such large investments in wind power projects, because their funds are gained through public taxes. The interviewee of Delfland sums it up by stating: ”the taxes are to pay for water treatment and wind turbines do not treat the water”. Therefore, the water board needed another party to invest and take the financial risk of implementation.
The water board requested if WEOM was interested in investigating their lo-cation. The WEOM reacted positively to this request and started their analysis of the location. This is done by a so called risk-zone analysis (AgentschapNL, 2013 ). This analysis divides the problems into location specific risks, the risks for passing individuals risk, the societal risk and the groups risk. All of these risks refer to the possibility that the turbine can cause serious harm to people. The bottom line of the analysis is the question if the turbines are far enough removed from the civil world. On top of this WEOM tested to see if the placement of the wind turbines would be financially beneficial for WEOM and the water board Delfland. In 2002, the research by WEOM was finalized and indicated that the placement of the turbines would be both technically and financially feasible (De Korte, 2011). The location is big enough to house two turbines of 2 MW. No significant risks were found for the environment of De Groote Lucht and WEOM would be able to pay for the placement themselves. Moreover, WEOM found that the area around De Groote Lucht would also be suitable for placement. The
interviewee from NUON stated that the initial plan was to implement seven tur-bines: two on De Groote Lucht, four in the recreational area to the west of De Groote Lucht and then one or two on the industrial area to the east.
The network that can be drawn in this first round is thus the connection from state to province to water board to WEOM. The resources that are evident in this round can be identified per stakeholder. The agreement between state and province is an institutional resource for the placement of wind turbines in the province. It provides the individual local governments in the province with the possibility to implement wind turbines. This possibility is realized by the water board Delfland. The water board owns land that is both windy and does not pose any risks for the environment, these are clear technical resources. The eco-nomic resources are already held by the wind power entrepreneur. This results in network 1.
Round 2: Setting up the real estate lease
In 2003, the province of Zuid-Holland signed a covenant with the local government about the implementation of wind turbines (Zuid-Holland, 2003). This covenant is a direct result of the previous mentioned agreement between the state of The Netherlands and its provinces. In this agreement, Zuid-Holland complies to have 250 MW of wind power by the year 2010. This was an ambitious task if one takes into account that by 2001 there was only 43 MW of wind power. In the covenant with the local governments, the province states that there should be at least a reservation of space for 350 MW of wind power. This is done because not all of these areas will end up with a wind turbine. In this covenant three types of areas are categorized: study, potential and placement. The study area
40
means that an area has yet to be studied for the possibility of placement, the potential areas are already studied and are ready for placement, the placement areas are the areas where the placement of the turbines is already realized. In this covenant Vlaardingen is recognized as a study location (Zuid-Holland, 2003).
On the local level, WEOM wanted to guarantee that they could use the ter-rain of Delfland for the placement of wind turbines. The interviewee of NUON stated that the normal procedure is to file a real-estate lease, which gives the owner of the lease the possibility to use the ground for their purposes. This was also desired by WEOM in this case. This lease was signed in May 2004 and started in June of that same year. The lease was valid for 6 years, giving WEOM time to do the necessary researches and permit requests without losing the possibility to place them on the terrain of De Groote Lucht. In this case this lease was especially valuable because the intention of WEOM was to incorporate the neighboring areas to place more than just the two turbines on De Groote Lucht. However, these areas were still only considered as a study area and not as potential areas. In effect this means that it would take some time to incorporate these areas, therefore the lease was a welcome resource for WEOM.
The resources in this round that were available is the covenant between province and the local government of Vlaardingen. This forms an institutional resource, just as in round one where the agreement between state and province provided the incentive to start the implementation process at Delfland. However, in round one this resource was mobilized whereas in round two this resource was not
mo-bilized yet. Meaning, that the government of Vlaardingen did agree on the study location of the harbor but WEOM did not use this resource for its benefit since there was no link between government and WEOM at this stage. Another institu-tional resource is the real estate lease which guarantees the mutual expectations between Delfland and WEOM.
Round 3: Request of the construction permit and
Envi-ronmental impact permit
Round 3 is a key round in the implementation of the wind turbines in Vlaardin-gen. The request of the construction permit and environmental impact permit shifted the scope of the social network from only WEOM and the water board to a network that incorporates the local government, the neighboring companies and the environment study group of Rotterdam, DCMR.
The construction permit was necessary for WEOM in order to build the tur-bines. The permit has to be granted by the municipality of Vlaardingen. Part of the deal for the Water Board was that WEOM takes full responsibility for the necessary permit request and steps of implementation. As the interviewee of the water board stated: ”the entire application for permits was all done by WEOM and NUON themselves”. So it was WEOM that requested the construction and environmental impact permit. The first step that WEOM took was to approach Ecofys to do an official risk analysis for the construction of the turbines (Delfland, 2012). This analysis uses the previous mentioned risk-zone analysis, the results were that there is a negligible chance of someone getting injured by the turbines (4.8 * 10-5) and ”the situation fulfilled the requirements that are set by the Rijk-swaterstaat for all roads, cycling lanes and waterways in the vicinity” (Folkerts, 2007, translated). This process did not led to any inconvenience, there were two problems that did lead to some inconvenience. In the neighboring area that was designated to be an industrial area the plans by the government were clashing with the safety zone of the wind turbines. The second problem was that there
