Utrecht
University
Wind Power Legitimacy in the
Netherlands
Bachelor Thesis
Sosef, M.N. (3508943)
Word count: 3594
1/24/2014
Supervisor: prof. dr. M. Hekkert
Summary
For an innovation to be successful it does not only rely on its physical attributes. It also needs
integration in the environment in which it is developed. This environment is also called the
Technological Innovation System which consists of several functions. One of these is Legitimacy. A
high legitimacy aids the integration in the environment and is influenced through the actions of
organizations and individuals that frame the technology in a particular way to influence how others
see the technology. In this research legitimacy in the Dutch wind power discourse has been
examined through analysis of newspaper articles. The resulting database is used to answer how
legitimacy changed and which actors where involved in this. It is found that legitimacy for wind
power decreased from slightly more positive to slightly more negative and that this is accompanied
by a change in dominant frames which is likely the result of a group of actors with the strongest
support for these frames.
Samenvatting
Een innovatie heeft meer nodig dan zijn fysieke eigenschappen om succesvol te worden. Het moet
ook voldoende integratie in de omgeving vinden waarin het ontwikkeld word. Deze omgevind wordt
ook wel het Technologische Innovatie Systeem genoemd bestaande uit verschillende functies. Een
van deze functies is Legitimiteit. Een hogere legitimiteit helpt bij de integratie in de omgeving en
wordt beinvloed door de acties van organisaties en individuen die de innovatie op en bepaalde
manier omschrijven. Hiermee proberen ze andere actoren te overtuigen van hun standpunten door
het gebruik van frames. In dit onderzoek is de legitimiteit voor wind energie in de nederlandse
redevoering onderzocht door het analyseren van kranten artikelen. De database die hieruit
voortvloeide is gebruikt om the kijken hoe de legitimiteit is veranderd en welke actoren daarbij
betrokken waren. Het is gebleken dat de legitimiteit voor wind energie in nederland gedaald is van
lichtelijk positief naar lichtelijk negatief en dat dit vergezeld is door een verschuiving in de dominante
frames. Deze verschuiving is waarschijnlijk het gevolg van een select aantal actoren dat sterke steun
toonde voor deze frames en in meer of mindere mate succesvol was dit over te brengen naar de
andere actoren.
2
Contents
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4
2.
Theory.......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Technological Innovation Systems ............................................................................................ 5
2.2 Discourse Theory and the Creation of Legitimacy..................................................................... 5
3.
Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Research design and Method .................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Gathering and analyzing data .................................................................................................... 7
4.
Results ......................................................................................................................................... 8
4.1 Data overview............................................................................................................................ 8
4.2 Actors examined ........................................................................................................................ 9
4.3 The creation of Legitimacy? .................................................................................................... 16
5.
Conclusion & Discussion ............................................................................................................ 18
6.
Bibliography............................................................................................................................... 19
7.
Appendix.................................................................................................................................... 22
8.1 Tabel met labels en hun categorieen ...................................................................................... 22
8.2 Actor contribution ................................................................................................................... 23
8.3 Distribution of positive and negative arguments over time ................................................... 25
8.4 Actors arguments by category throughout the years. ................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
3
1. Introduction
In the quest for sustainability the search for renewable energy sources has attracted enormous
attention, both in the scientific and business environment. One of these new sustainable energy
sources is wind power. Wind power provides a sustainable source of energy but not a very consistent
one due to the variations in wind speed. Despite this fact, it could play an important part in our
future energy system. For this reason the Dutch government has set the goal to have a total power
capacity of 10.450 megawatt for on- and offshore wind energy in 2020. Promising as may be, the
adoption of wind power is still low compared to the goals set in policy as the installed capacity is only
roughly 2260 megawatt at this moment (Negro, Alkemade, & Hekkert, 2012; Rijksoverheid, 2013). To
understand why, it is important to comprehend that an innovation does not depend solely on its
physical features for success. Rather, innovations need sufficient and balanced integration in the
business environment, regulation environment and the wider society to succeed (F.W. Geels &
Verhees, 2011). This integration has not been very successful for wind power as developments are
lagging and resistance has increased over the years (Breukers & Wolsink, 2007) despite the efforts of
policy makers to stimulate it.
Innovations thus depend heavily on their environment in which they are developed for their
diffusion speed and direction, their application and chances on successful adoption (Bergek,
Jacobsson, & Sandén, 2008; Negro et al., 2012). This environment is often referred to more or less
the same way as Technological System or Technological Innovation System (TIS). TIS focusses on the
innovative activities in the environment and is made up of several components and functions that
influence the integration in the environment (Bergek et al., 2008). One of these functions describes
the creation of legitimacy as a socio-political process through the actions of organizations and
individuals as important for successful adoption because it aids the integration with the environment
(Bergek et al., 2008; Frank W. Geels, Pieters, & Snelders, 2007; Hekkert & Negro, 2009). This gives
power to the ability to create legitimacy because it gives control over the integration in the
environment. This is done through articulating positive discourses around new technologies (F.W.
Geels & Verhees, 2011). These discourses are “collections of interrelated texts that cohere in some
way to produce both meanings and effects in the real world” ((Maguire & Hardy, 2009). Discourses
act as public stages for the contested process in which actors aim to influence attitudes, feelings and
opinions of other relevant actor to their own advantage. The groups that compete with each other
use frames to portray the technology in a particular way and in turn influence the main discourse
(F.W. Geels & Verhees, 2011). Partially responsible for the slow development of wind power is the
failure of policy makers to gain insights in the motivations of the opposition. Assumed to be fueled by
Nimbyism, the not-in-my-backyard type of arguments, the opposition has largely been disregarded,
implying that their arguments are inherently less valid that those of proponents arguing for a greater
good (Breukers & Wolsink, 2007). Understanding how in the discourse these processes take place
over time in and which actors participate in it, can give useful insights into the Legitimacy function of
the TIS. An increased understanding of this can identify causes for resistance which can help to
increase the effectiveness of policy makers.
Investigating the discourse around wind power in the Netherlands can thus increase our
understanding in its integration and adoption process. This has not yet been done through the focus
of legitimacy. Therefore, the main question of this research is: How did the legitimacy in the Dutch
wind power discourse change since 2004 and what is the role of the actors therein? To answer this
4
question a database of relevant newspaper articles will be made and analyzed using Discourse
Analysis. Newspapers are suited for this because they can give an indication of the perceived
importance of wind power in the public sphere, the actors involved in the system and how legitimacy
is created through texts. Discourse Analysis denies that there is an external reality waiting to be
described. Rather, it sees reality as a construct of the way in which actors depict an object through
frames in order to comprehend it. In this way the discourse forms a version of the object which
comes to constitute it (Bryman, 2008).
2. Theory
This chapter will start with a brief introduction into the Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) theory
with a focus on one of its functions; Legitimacy. Following this will be an examination of Discourse
theory explaining framing, some important propositions and with help of the five dimensions of
legitimacy creation we will see how frames can be evaluated for their chances on success.
2.1 Technological Innovation Systems
In the literature there are multiple definitions for technological innovation systems (TIS).
Carlsson and Stankiewicz (1991) defined TIS as “a dynamic network of agents interacting in a specific
economic/industrial area under a particular institutional infrastructure and involved in the
generation, diffusion, and utilization of technology”. This theory derived from the Innovation System
theory and also embraced the idea that the environment with its societal structure, actors and
institutions determine technological change. This implies that every technology has its own unique
TIS which, if favourable, enables it to diffuse more successfully (Hekkert & Negro, 2009). The
components of a TIS are the actors, networks and institutions that help develop and diffuse a
particular technology and the technology itself (Bergek et al., 2008). Determining whether or not a
TIS is in favour or against a technology on more that only the outcome of possible success can be a
challenge. The concept of system functions has been developed to provide a tool for this assessment
which defines these functions as “… a contribution of a component or a set of components to a
system’s performance.” (Hekkert & Negro, 2009). There is no definitive list of these functions in the
literature but there are many similarities between them. In this research to following list of system
functions will be adhered: Entrepreneurial Activities, Knowledge Development (Learning),
Knowledge Diffusion through Networks, Guidance of the Search, Market Formation, Recourse
Mobilisation and Creation of Legitimacy/Counteract Resistance to Change (Hekkert & Negro, 2009).
Of special importance to this research is the Legitimacy function. According to Hekkert and Negro
(2009) a new technology needs to embed itself in an incumbent regime or even overthrow it in order
to be successful. Actors with interests in the technologies’ diffusion can oppose or propose it through
the undermining or creation of legitimacy (Hekkert & Negro, 2009; Wieczorek et al., 2013). According
to Bergek et al. (2008) the creation of legitimacy is a socio-political process through actions by
various organizations and individuals.
2.2 Discourse Theory and the Creation of Legitimacy
As mentioned in the introduction, discourse theory states that texts are integral to the
creation of meaning, but do so only through interrelated collections of texts called discourses. These
discourses are dynamic as more texts are produced, distributed and consumed over time (Maguire &
Hardy, 2009). In order to support new technologies, actors aim to create legitimacy for them through
5
the production of texts which positively frame them. On the other hand opponents of this new
technology try to undermine its legitimacy by framing it negatively. In the resulting framing struggle
actors contest to influence the interpretations of reality among others on public stages at which they
seek to strengthen their own frame and weaken those of their opponents (Fiss & Hirsch, 2005; F.W.
Geels & Verhees, 2011). The actors in the discourse are typically labeled as either proponents or
opponents resulting in an antagonistic dichotomy which is a reoccurring pattern around new
technologies. This division is an effect of, inter alia, the increasing role of mass media which can
easily use the contesting pro- and opponents for dramatic story lines (Rip & Talma, 1998).
When frames acquire a broad enough support in the environment they can evolve into so called
master frames, essentially becoming the discourse itself. Thus, discourses are more shared and
generals way of thinking about a technology and frames are more specific because they focus on the
meaning and interpretation of specific issues (F.W. Geels & Verhees, 2011). The power of discourses
also arises from the fact that it unites individual actors in the system which allows for more
coordination (Lovell, 2008). It is important to understand that in any discourse only a limited number
of frames can be understood as meaningful, legitimate and powerful at any given point in time
(Sengers, Raven, & Van Venrooij, 2010). The interaction between discourses and frames is an
ongoing process in which the discourse sets the general terms and structures for a frames
acceptance. However, salient frames can in turn influence the ways of talking and thinking in a
discourse.
This is closely intertwined with the concept of Legitimacy which is defined as “(…) a generalized
perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper or appropriate within
some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions” (F.W. Geels & Verhees,
2011). The more a frame fits with the general assumptions of this system, the discourse, the more
chance for it to become salient. Legitimacy is not a given fact; it is created through the actions of
individuals and organizations in the discourse. Creating expectations and visions, and aligning with
regulations and policy is central to the creation of legitimacy. However, legitimacy is also derived
from the accumulation of actors that adhere a specific frame or discourse (Bergek et al., 2008). The
support of investors, policy makers and the wider public is important for the technology to integrate
in the environment. Legitimacy can gain the support of these important actors and secures the
provision of recourses, protection or support for the technology (F.W. Geels & Verhees, 2011).
Skilfully using the discourse as a cultural tool is an important ability for actors that wish to be
successful at creating legitimacy for their frame (Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001).
3. Methodology
3.1 Research design and Method
In order to answer the research question in an appropriate manner the single case study with an
explorative character has been used as a research design. This research strategy focuses on
understanding the dynamics, in this case of legitimacy creation, present within a single setting over
the years (Eisenhardt, 1989). This choice has been made because case studies are suited for
exploratory research and provide rich content (F.W. Geels & Verhees, 2011). The unit of analysis in
this research is the Dutch discourse about wind power focused on onshore projects. The distinction
between onshore and offshore has been made because the onshore discourse sets itself apart by
6
conflicting national and local interests, involves a wide range of actors including a lot of individuals
and is fueled by a good amount of projects already in existence. The offshore discourse on the other
hand, involves fewer actors as it is more for the big players and is mostly a national matter in terms
of approval and realization. In order to ensure the research remained in scope several boundaries
have been made. Namely, only texts published from 2004 until the present (3-12-2013) in national
and regional newspapers are included in the data search.
Appropriate scientific literature has been sought in scientific databases using Scopus and Google
Scholar. To focus this search, starting literature as provided by the supervisor, has been used in
combination with keyword searches related to energy transitions, wind power, discourse analysis,
cultural legitimacy and corporate political activity. Relevant articles are used to create a theoretical
framework with which the research question can be answered. Relevant articles were also used for
finding new literature by the use of snowballing and the cited-by function.
3.2 Gathering and analyzing data
To acquire data about the Dutch wind power discourse, newspaper database LexisNexis has
been used with the following search term: atleast2(windenergie) and park! and atleast2(windmolen
or windturbine)) and Date(geq(31/12/2003) and leq(3/12/2013). This gives sufficient articles
between 2004 and the present through the power search option with duplicate options on. This
search term ensures that the articles cover the topic in sufficient depth and filters out those that
merely mention wind power. The newspaper articles acquired through this search are carefully
analyzed through coding in Nvivo. Selecting one statement at a time, labels are used and categorized
to determine if the attitude against wind power is positive or negative, and who said what and where
about wind power, using which type of arguments. These attitude labels fit with the
proponent/opponent dichotomy found in discourses and will help determine if legitimacy for the
wind power technology changed. Obstacles for the diffusion of wind power have been labeled
because these are often used as a supportive condition of the argument made by the author (e.g.
having a positive attitude but acknowledging that certain obstacles need to be overcome). A
distinction between the onshore and offshore discourse has been applied so we can filter out the
arguments from the onshore discourse. The specifics of these labels e.g. the actors name and the
type of the argument were not set in stone as this allowed for additional labels to emerge during the
research when it was deemed appropriate. The complete list of labels and their categories can be
found with a short description in appendix 8.1 and the final list of label categories is presented in
Table 1 below. A combination of these labels should give a good idea about the opinion of the
author. E.g. the combination of Positive, Economic, Policy (Diffusion Obstacle) and Wind Power
Industry would mean that a wind power business has a positive attitude against wind power because
it provides economic benefits but points out that current policy is hampering its development.
Type
Date
Newspaper
Author
Attitude
Category
2004 […] 2013
Regional, National
Energy Companies, Environmental Organizations, Individual Stakeholders,
Local Municipalities & Policy Makers, Other, Politics, Provincial Policy Makers,
Research and Consultancy, Wind Power Industry, Wind Power Lobby Groups
Positive, Negative
7
Argument
Diffusion Obstacle
Alternative, Cooperation, Economic, Emotional, Environmental, Location,
Necessity, Policy, Production of Sustainable Energy, Technological
Economic, Location, Policy
Table 1
The final database has been used to give insights into the framing struggle in the onshore
wind power discourse by displaying the positive and negative arguments by type for each author
over the years. This has been used to see which frames make up the discourse and who advocates it.
4. Results
This chapter will start with an overview of the total contribution of arguments made per category
and per actor over the years. This provides the opportunity to identify changes in the composition of
the discourse over the years and different frame. Following, a closer look at the type of positive and
negative arguments made by each actor in each year gives more detailed information about the
frames they support in the discourse. Finally, a table will give an overview of the changes found in
the actor examination.
4.1 Data overview
In Chart 1 the contribution to the total arguments made ordered by category by all the actors
is presented for each year. A change in the predominantly used arguments can be seen over the
years so a shift in frames has occurred. In the early years (2004-2005) most arguments are focused
on Technological, Production of Sustainable Energy, Location and Location (Diffusion Obstacle) and
are predominantly positive (see chart 8.3 in appendix for attitude). In the last years (2011-2013)
these arguments are barely visible anymore as the focus on Production of Sustainable Energy and
Location (Diffusion Obstacle) arguments almost disappeared and the focus on Technological and
Location arguments shrank considerable. The arguments are now focused on Alternative,
Cooperation and especially Economic, Emotional and Policy (diffusion obstacle) and are overall
slightly negative (see chart 8.3 in appendix for attitude). Herein we can identify two frames in which
the proponents and opponents focus on different issues of wind power to influence legitimacy on
those areas. These frames are:
Frame 1: Focuses positive arguments on Production of Sustainable Energy, Location and
Location (Diffusion Obstacle) and negative arguments on Technological.
Frame 2: Focuses negative arguments on Emotional, Economic, and Alternative and positive
arguments on Cooperation and Policy (Diffusion Obstacle).
8
To see what caused this shift, looking at the contribution to the total arguments made per
actor in each year gives further insights. If the shift would be accommodated by a similar change in
contributing actors it would be a clear sign where to look for the cause. However, such a change in
actors is not clearly visible as all actors retain a relatively steady contribution to the discourse (see
chart 8.1 in appendix 8.3). Thus, the accumulation of actors that support a specific frame is not the
cause of the shift and it must come from a change in the arguments made by the actors instead.
Total percentage of arguments per type
13 : Policy* (Diffusion Obstacle)
100%
12 : Location* (Diffucion Obstacle)
90%
11 : Economic* (Diffusion Obstacle)
80%
10 : Technological
70%
9 : Production of Sustainable Energy
60%
8 : Policy
50%
7 : Necessity
40%
6 : Location
5 : Environmental
30%
4 : Emotional
20%
3 : Economic
10%
2 : Cooperation
0%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
1 : Alternative
Chart 1
4.2 Actors examined
In this section each actor will be closer examined to see what contribution they have in the
shift of frames. Each graph shows the contribution of positive argument per category to the total
above the y-axis and the contribution of and negative arguments per category below the y-axis. The
legend for the arguments is placed at the bottom of each page for readability. These findings are
then summarized in a narrative in which the main contributors of the frames will be pointed out and
a better understanding of the changes in legitimacy for both frames is given.
9
Energy Companies
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25%
-50%
-75%
-100%
Chart 2
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
This actor’s main focus lies with Production of Sustainable Energy, Economic and Technological
arguments and has a predominantly positive attitude throughout the years. This means that the
actor believes there are opportunities for economic benefits and that Wind Power is a suitable
candidate for the production of sustainable energy. However, even though there are positive
Technological arguments made, most of them are negative; mostly expressing concerns about the
variation in electricity production due to unpredictable variance in wind speed. This concern is also
expressed in some of the arguments for alternatives in the later years. Looking over time it becomes
evident that the types of arguments changed from a focus on Technological and Production of
Sustainable Energy fitting with Frame 1 to a focus on Alternative, Economic and Location fitting more
with Frame 2. This actor’s main interest lies with the production and/or supply of energy. Wind
power can thus be of good use as it provides green electricity, which sells at a higher price than grey
electricity. But concerns about the varying output are present.
Environmental Organizations
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25%
-50%
-75%
-100%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Chart 3
This actor’s focus changed from Environmental, Location, Production of Sustainable Energy and
Technological arguments, fitting mostly with Frame 1, to a more narrow focus on Economic and
Emotional arguments fitting more with Frame 2. This means that this actor believes wind power is
10
economically viable but has concerns about visual and noise impact in the later years. A comparable
contribution of positive and negative attitudes is visible in both the early and later years. This actor’s
main interest lies with the conservation of the environment in a sustainable manner. Wind power
can thus be of good use for this actor but as it also disturbs nature due to the production of noise
and the possible hazard for birds the overall attitude is mixed.
Individual Stakeholders
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25%
-50%
-75%
-100%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Chart 4
The focus of this actor’s arguments remained relatively the same over time with mostly Emotional,
Economic, Technological and Alternative arguments. A slight shift in focus can be seen in the last
years as more Economic arguments are made. Overall this actor fits well with Frame 2. A shift in
attitude can be seen from predominantly positive to negative. This means that this actor mostly has
concerns about noise and visual nuisance and about the economic aspects of wind power
technology, mostly the fact that it costs to must tax money for society. This actor is mostly made up
of local residents of which the main interest lies with themselves. Most of them do not want to cope
with the visual or audible nuisance of wind power in their vicinity. Although, some acknowledge the
economic benefits of compensation plans, but those plans and actors are the exception rather than
the rule.
Local Municipalities & Policy Makers
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25%
-50%
-75%
-100%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Chart 5
11
This actor shows a clear shift in the focus of arguments over time. In the early years the focus lies on
Location, Location (Diffusion Obstacle), Production of Sustainable Energy and Cooperation arguments
fitting with Frame 1. This means that this actor is optimistic about the opportunity to produce
sustainable energy, trusts that suitable locations are present and is positive about cooperating with
different stakeholders. While the Location argument remained important, the later years show a shift
in the focus of arguments to predominantly Emotional and Policy (Diffusion Obstacle) arguments
fitting with Frame 2. A change in attitude can also be seen from predominantly positive to
predominantly negative. This means that the trust in finding a suitable location for wind turbines has
become more doubtful and that concerns about noise and visual nuisance have increased
considerably. Policy is also recognized as an obstacle for the development of wind power in the later
years. The main interest of this actor is to implement appropriate policy for wind power. Some
municipalities have more plans for wind power that others which sometimes conflicts with adjacent
municipalities or higher authorities resulting in conflicting policy, one of the main contributors to the
category Policy (Diffusion Obstacle). The fact that this actor is also responsible for assigning locations
for wind turbines explains the Location arguments.
Other
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25%
-50%
-75%
-100%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Chart 6
This actor lacks a real focus on any of the two frames in the early years, although Technological and
Production of Sustainable Energy arguments fitting with Frame 1 make a noteworthy contribution.
However some signs of Frame 2 are also visible here in the form of Economic and Policy (Diffusion
Obstacle) arguments. In the later years the contribution of Emotional and Economic arguments
increases fitting with Frame 2 but so does the contribution of Technological and Production of
Sustainable Energy arguments, fitting with Frame 1. A comparable contribution of positive and
negative attitudes is visible over time. This means that this actor has concerns about the technology
which is mostly expressed with the argument that a variation in wind speeds is a difficulty for the
infrastructure. The actor also questions the economic feasibility but is positive about the amount of
sustainable energy it can produce. As this is a collection of small incoherent actors like journalists,
National Defense and unknown actors. As such, a clear interest for this actor is not present.
12
Politics
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25%
-50%
-75%
-100%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Chart 7
This actor shows a shift in the focus of arguments over the years. In the early years arguments focus
on Necessity, Policy, Policy (Diffusion Obstacle) and Location (Diffusion Obstacle). This means that the
actor is of the opinion that wind power is a necessity in order to increase or sustainable energy
production. The reasoning behind this necessity mostly is the simple fact that the Dutch government
needs to comply with European sustainability goals. Some concern about wind power policy also
becomes apparent as it is recognized as a diffusion obstacle. This focus fits partially with Frame 1. In
the later years the focus changed to Emotional, Economic, Necessity and Cooperation arguments,
fitting with Frame 2. A change from a predominantly positive to a more negative attitude is also
visible although most of the negative arguments are emotional. This means that concerns for visual
and noise nuisance have become more important, mostly resulting from the fact that local politics
are articulating the concerns about individual stakeholders. The main interest of this actor is to make
and implement appropriate policy and policy goals for wind power. Because the Dutch government
needs to comply with European sustainability goals this actor wants to speed up the development of
wind power, resulting in the Necessity arguments. In the later years the Dutch government
implemented laws that allowed them to have the final say in wind power initiatives that exceeded
100MW in capacity. There were some mentions that this caused more harm than good as for like
blindly perusing policy goals does not lead to the best implementations of wind power leading to
some of the negative Emotional arguments.
13
Provincial Policy Makers
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25%
-50%
-75%
-100%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Chart 8
This actor shows a focus on Location and, Location (Diffusion Obstacle) arguments throughout the
years while Necessity and Production of Sustainable Energy arguments also maintain a steady but
smaller contribution fitting largely with Frame 1. While the attitude is predominantly positive a clear
shift in the arguments over time is not visible. Although a mention of the considerable contribution
of Emotional arguments in the year 2012 fitting with Frame 2 is in place. This means that the actor is
of the opinion that suitable locations are available and that wind power is necessary to fulfill policy
goals. The main interests for this actor is implementing appropriate policy for wind power, and to
comply with the overall policy goals of the Dutch government it is tasked to find suitable locations for
wind turbines, explaining the Location arguments throughout the years and justifies these plans with
the notion of the amount of sustainable energy that could be produced.
Research and Consultancy
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25%
-50%
-75%
-100%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Chart 9
This actor shows a slight shift in focus from Technological, Economic and Production of Sustainable
Energy arguments, which fits mostly to Frame 1 and a little to Frame 2, to a focus on Emotional,
Cooperation and Technological arguments in the later years fitting with both Frame 1 and Frame 2. In
the early years most arguments were promisis or doubts about the technology of wind power and
predictions of feasibility. This technological doubt persists until the later years. Noteworthy is the
14
contribution of Economic arguments visible throughout the years except in the later ones which does
not fit whith the shift to Frame 2. The attitude of the arguments shows significant flucuations
throught the years but in total is equally divided. This actor does not have a clear interest as some of
the researchers were in favor and others against wind power, both using conflicting predictions
about costs, feasibility and the amount of the produced sustainable energy.
Wind Power Industry
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25%
-50%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Chart 10
This actor shows a shift in focus from Production of Sustainable Energy and Emotional arguments,
slightly fitting to Frame 1, to a focus on mainly Cooperation and in lesser extent Economic, Production
of Sustainable Energy, Environmental, Location and Location (Diffusion Obstacle) which fits a little
less with Frame 1. The Policy (Diffusion Obstacle) argument maintains a steady and considerable
contribution throughout the years fitting with Frame 2. Noteworthy is the attitude which is almost
exclusively positive as could be expected from this actor. This interest of this actor is clear, aiding the
development of wind power. This actor consists of wind power business owners, individual farmers
with wind power initiatives and others active in the wind power industry. From the argument it
becomes clear that the industry is looking for cooperation with other stakeholders, mostly to take
away the resistance most individual stakeholders have. One of the main arguments for wind power
of this actor is the amount of sustainable energy that can be produced, often expressed in number of
households that could be provided of electricity.
15
Wind Power Lobby Groups
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25%
-50%
-75%
-100%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Chart 11
This actor makes no clear shift in the focus of arguments as Economic and Emotional arguments
maintain a dominant contribution throughout the years fitting with Frame 2. A slight change in focus
from Production of Sustainable Energy fitting with Frame 1, to Policy and Policy (Diffusion Obstacle)
which fits Frame 2 is visible. The attitude fluctuates fast but steadily to a predominant negative
attitude in the later years (also fits Frame 2). This actor consists of several proponents and opponents
for wind power that are organized in lobby groups that range from permanent and very professional
groups to temporary more amateur groups consisting of individual stakeholders. This actor partially
represents individual stakeholder explaining the large amount of negative Economic and Emotional
arguments. But there are also groups that favor wind power which articulate this through arguments
of Production of Sustainable Energy. Policy (Diffusion Obstacle) is also an important aspect for this
actor.
4.3 Changes in discourse and wind power legitimacy
The examination of the separated actors breaks down the shift in the discourse into a more
detailed view of the research period. We can see that some actors adhere one of the two frames to a
great extent while others show support for a mix arguments from both of them. Based upon this
distinction we can divide the actors into roughly three groups; those that show support for Frame 1
to a great extent (green shading in table 2), those that show support for Frame 2 to a great extent
(red shading in table 2) and those that show a mix of support for both of the frames (no shading in
table 2). In table 2 the actors are categorized into these groups for both the early and the later years
showing the main supporters for both frames in these periods. Including is the overall attitude of the
actor for wind power in both periods on the basis of positive +, indifferent +/- and negative - to see
where legitimacy for wind power changed the most. The change in attitude over time is indicated in
front of to the actors name by a ↑ for change to a more positive attitude, a ↓ for a change to a
more negative attitude a — for no change in attitude.
16
Actor
Early years support and attitude
Later years support and attitude
— Energy Companies
F1
+
F1 and F2
+/F2 and little F1
+
F1 and some F2
+
Some F1
+/Some F1
+
F1
+
F1 and some F2
+/Some F1 and some F2
+
F2 and some F1
+/-
+
F2
+/F2 and little F1
Some F1 and some F2
Some F1 and some F2
+/Some F2 and Some F1
F1 and some F2
+/F1 and F2
+/F2 and Some F1
+
F2
-
— Environmental
Organizations
↓ Individual Stakeholders
↓ Local Municipalities and
Policy Makers
— Other
↓ Politics
↓ Provincial Policy Makers
— Research and
Consultancy
— Wind Power Industry
↓Wind Power Lobby
Groups
Table 2
From this table it becomes clear that Individual Stakeholders and Wind Power Lobby Groups are
the main supporters of Frame 2 throughout the years and have both developed a strong negative
attitude which contributes to the shift of frames in the discourse and the overall decrease of
legitimacy. The actors Environmental Organizations, Local Municipalities and Policy Makers, Research
and Consultancy and Wind Power Industry show support for both frames in the early years and drop
some of the arguments for Frame 1 leaving more support for Frame 2 in the later years. Of these
actors only Local Municipalities and Policy Makers changed in attitude from positive to negative.
These actors contribute to the shift of frames and the change in legitimacy in the discourse, albeit to
a lesser extent than the main supporters. The actors Energy Company and Provincial Policy Makers
are the strongest supporters of Frame 1 with the actors Other and Politics following closely.
Provincial Policy Makers stay more or less loyal to the frame 1 throughout the years but do adopt
some arguments of Frame 2 in the later years and stay indifferent in attitude. Energy Companies
adopt a whole different set of arguments in the later years which does not fit with any of the two
frames in this research and stay positive in attitude. Other and Politics both adopt arguments from
Frame 2 while the former stays indifferent and the latter changes from a positive attitude to a
negative one.
Table 2 clearly shows a weakened support for Frame 1 in the later years mostly replaced by
support for Frame 2 as almost all actors adopted arguments that fit Frame 2 in the later years. The
main supporters of Frame 1 stay mostly loyal as Provincial Policy Makers are the only ones that still
show support for Frame 1 in the later years and as Energy Companies do not adopt Frame 2 at all but
develop their own mix of arguments. An increased negative attitude is also visible with many actors
except Energy Companies and the Wind Power Industry which remained positive and Environmental
Organizations, Other and Research and Consultancy that remained indifferent. All other actors
showed at least some increase in negative attitude over the years.
17
5. Conclusion & Discussion
If wind power has to make a relevant contribution to the future of the sustainable energy production
in the Netherlands the cause for its lagging development has to be found and solved. This research
contributes to solving this problem through the investigation of the wind power discourse to gain
insights into a particular function of the wind power TIS, Legitimacy. Legitimacy aids a successful
integration in the environment in which an innovation develops. In this research legitimacy is
measured by labeling newspaper articles to see inter alia, if the discourse is more positive or negative
about wind power. The resulting database strengthened the understanding of discourse dynamics
like framing struggles and provides the insights to answer the following question: How did the
legitimacy in the Dutch wind power discourse change since 2004 and what is the role of the actors
therein? In short, legitimacy in the whole Dutch wind power discourse decreased from slightly
positive to slightly negative since 2004. A shift in the main frames accompanies this change for which
a select group of actors seems responsible.
Two groups of actors are identified as the main supporters for the two frames. Provincial
Policy Makers and Energy Companies show the strong support for Frame 1 in both periods. Individual
Stakeholders and Wind Power Lobby Groups show the strong support for Frame 2 in both periods.
The other actors seem to be more open to persuasion than these two groups as in terms of
arguments they are hovering somewhere between the two frames throughout the years. In the
framing struggle the supporters of Frame 2 have shown to be more successful because almost all of
the actors adapted arguments fitting with Frame 2 to a greater or lesser extent in the later years. The
focus on different aspects of the wind power technology brought about by this change in frames is
likely to be of influence on the decrease of legitimacy as the main arguments (Emotional and
Economic) that are focused by Frame 2 in the later years are predominantly used in a negative
manner throughout the years where as the main arguments of Frame 1 (Production of Sustainable
Energy and Location) are used more positive (see chart 8.2 in appendix 8.2 for the total amount of
positive and negative arguments made per type per actor). With this answer this research can help
smoothing the development of- and policy for wind power in the Netherlands as the main causes for
resistance have been identified. The industry for instance, can target the emotional arguments of
individual stakeholders to reduce their concerns in that area.
One of the shortcomings of this research is that the change in dominant frames cannot be
exclusively held responsible for the change in legitimacy. Changes in wind power technology for
instance could also have an influence. However no major changes in technology have been observed
in this research other than the increase in wind turbine masts and rotor blades to enable higher
production capacity. Although this may have fueled emotional arguments of individual stakeholders
fearing the arrival of these big machines some also argued that the noise and visual impact they
resulted in were minimal. Also it does not investigate how legitimacy is exactly created or
undermined. Further research can use the five dimensions of legitimacy creation proposed by F.W.
Geels and Verhees (2011) which are based on the work of Benford and Snow (2000). With these it is
possible to investigate how likely different frames are to become salient and why.
18
6. Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my super visors for feedbac
19
7. Bibliography
Benford, R., & Snow, D. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and
assessment. Annual review of sociology, 26(2000), 611–639. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/223459
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., & Sandén, B. a. (2008). “Legitimation” and “development of positive
externalities”: two key processes in the formation phase of technological innovation systems.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 575–592.
doi:10.1080/09537320802292768
Breukers, S., & Wolsink, M. (2007). Wind energy policies in the Netherlands: Institutional capacitybuilding for ecological modernisation. Environmental Politics, 16(1), 92–112.
doi:10.1080/09644010601073838
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Carlsson, B., & Stankiewicz, R. (1991). On the nature, function and composition of technological
systems. Journal of evolutionary economics, 93–118. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01224915
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review,
14(4), 532–550. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/258557
Fiss, P. C., & Hirsch, P. M. (2005). The Discourse of Globalization: Framing and Sensemaking of an
Emerging Concept. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 29–52.
doi:10.1177/000312240507000103
Geels, F.W., & Verhees, B. (2011). Cultural legitimacy and framing struggles in innovation journeys: A
cultural-performative perspective and a case study of Dutch nuclear energy (1945–1986).
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(6), 910–930.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.12.004
Geels, Frank W., Pieters, T., & Snelders, S. (2007). Cultural Enthusiasm, Resistance and the Societal
Embedding of New Technologies: Psychotropic Drugs in the 20th Century. Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, 19(2), 145–165. doi:10.1080/09537320601168052
Hekkert, M. P., & Negro, S. O. (2009). Functions of innovation systems as a framework to understand
sustainable technological change: Empirical evidence for earlier claims. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 76(4), 584–594. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.04.013
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and the
acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 545–564. doi:10.1002/smj.188
Lovell, H. (2008). Discourse and innovation journeys: the case of low energy housing in the UK.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 613–632.
doi:10.1080/09537320802292883
Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and Deinstitutionalization: the Decline of DDT. Academy of
Management Journal, 52(1), 148–178. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.36461993
20
Negro, S. O., Alkemade, F., & Hekkert, M. P. (2012). Why does renewable energy diffuse so slowly? A
review of innovation system problems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6),
3836–3846. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.043
Rijksoverheid. (2013). Duurzame Energie - Windenergie. Retrieved November 29, 2013, from
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/duurzame-energie/windenergie
Rip, A., & Talma, A. (1998). Antagonistic patterns and new technologies. In Getting New Technologies
Together (pp. 299–322). Berlin/New York. Retrieved from
http://doc.utwente.nl/34704/1/K358____.PDF
Sengers, F., Raven, R. P. J. M., & Van Venrooij, a. (2010). From riches to rags: Biofuels, media
discourses, and resistance to sustainable energy technologies. Energy Policy, 38(9), 5013–5027.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.030
Wieczorek, A. J., Negro, S. O., Harmsen, R., Heimeriks, G. J., Luo, L., & Hekkert, M. P. (2013). A review
of the European offshore wind innovation system. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
26, 294–306. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.045
21
8. Appendix
8.1 Tabel met labels en hun categorieen
Type
Category
Discription
Date
2004 […] 2013
Newspaper
Regional
National
Author
Energy Companies
Environmental
Organizations
Individual Stakeholders
Local Municipalities &
Policy Makers
Other
Politics
Provincial Policy Makers
Research and Consultancy
Wind Power Industry
Wind Power Lobby Groups
Attitude
Positive
Negative
Argument
Alternative
Cooperation
Economic
Emotional
Environmental
Location
Necessity
Policy,
Production of Sustainable
Energy
Technological
Diffusion
Economic
obstacle
Location
Policy
22
8.2 Actor contribution
Actor contribution to total arguments per year
100%
10 : Wind Power Lobby Groups and
Foundations
9 : Wind Power Industry
90%
8 : Research and Consultancy
80%
7 : Provincial Policy Makers
70%
6 : Politic
60%
50%
5 : Other
40%
4 : Local Municipalities & Policy Makers
30%
20%
3 : Individual Stakeholders (Experience
effects of Wind Power plans)
10%
2 : Environmental Organizations
0%
1 : Energy Companies
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Chart 8.1
23
Total percentage of positive and negative arguments per category per
actor
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
Politics
Wind Power Lobby Groups and Foundations
Wind Power Industry
Research and Consultancy neg arg per year
Provincial Policy Makers neg arg per year
Other neg arg per year
Local Municipalities & Policy Makers neg arg per year
Individual Stakholders neg arg per year
Environmental neg arg per year
Energy Companies neg arg per year
24
Chart 8.2
8.3 Distribution of positive and negative arguments over time
Percentage of positive and negative arguments sorted by category
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Chart 8.3
25