1. On the Role of Geography and Business Models
in Social Niche Up-Scaling
The Development of Wind Energy Cooperatives in the
Netherlands (1986 – 2014)
Student name: B. W. Volger
Student number: 1734717
Date: 24 April 2015
Document: Master Thesis Earth Sciences and
Economics
Track: Energy
Course number: AM_1150
First supervisor: Dr. E. Vasileiadou
Second supervisor: Dr. M. Waterloo
Date: April 30, 2015

3. On the Role of Geography and Business
Models in Social Niche Up-Scaling
The Development of Wind Energy Cooperatives in the
Netherlands (1986 – 2014)2014)
Student name: B. W. Volger
Student number: 1734717
Date: 24 April 2015
Document: Master Thesis Earth Sciences and
Economics
Track: Energy
Course number: AM_1150
First supervisor: Dr. E. Vasileiadou
Second supervisor: Dr. M. Waterloo
Date: April 30, 2015

5. ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Eleftheria Vasileiadou. Her
thoughtful comments on this research and her enthusiasm for scientific research in general have
been an inspiration to me. I would like to thank my parents, Bob and Marianne, for believing in me,
at times when I did not believe in myself and my abilities, to accomplish what has been a difficult
journey; the road to graduation. My two brothers Berry and Boyd for making me want to get the best
out of myself. Roxanne van den Bosch for showing me that it takes hard work and long nights
without any sleep to finalize a Master’s thesis. I would like to express a special word of thanks to my
grandmother Wilhelmina (Wil) van Heusden† without her dedication to her grandchildren my
graduation would not have been possible. Lastly, I would like to thank the eight wind energy
cooperatives that were involved in this research for the time and efforts they have devoted to
providing me with all the information that was needed to complete my research.

6. iii

7. iv
Summary
The transition to a sustainable energy system is a defining challenge of the current generation. Wind
energy is expected to play an important role in this sustainable future. At the same time, the Dutch
government has great difficulty achieving targets set for the implementation of new capacity,
because current policies suffer from a lack of social embedding and the resulting public resistance.
Empirical research has shown that local participation can increase the acceptance of new wind
energy projects and why wind energy cooperatives (WECs), wherein citizens i.e. members collectively
own and operate one or more wind turbine(s), could provide a business form to successfully
implement wind energy in the Netherlands and contribute to the sustainable energy transition. WECs
may be seen as specific business models for the exploitation of wind turbines, but there is great
variation in the degree to which they appear in the Dutch energy landscape e.g. in the amount of
members and production capacity they have. Which factors have contributed to the growth of WECs
in the Netherlands over the last 30 years? The prevailing framework for studying sustainable
transitions, the multilevel perspective (MLP), has difficulty addressing questions concerning
geographical unevenness. Therefore, in this research the analytical framework is supplemented by a
conceptual notion from economic geography; proximity, and insights from business model theory.
The development of WECs in the Netherlands between 1986 and 2014 took place within three
distinct time periods; an emergence phase (1986-1996), characterized by monopoly conditions, a
consolidation phase (1997-2012) and the entry of a new business model (2013-2014), both in a
competitive electricity market. During the research period, the socio-technical conditions in which
the WECs had to realize membership and production capacity growth became increasingly complex.
Two different business models can be distinguished, the first, which signaled the emergence of the
socio-technical system, or niche, was introduced by the Organization for Renewable Energy
(Organisatie voor Duurzame Energy, or ODE, in Dutch), and propagates the exploitation of wind
turbines in local communities. The second business model was introduced by Windcentrale and has
no connection with any specific region in the Netherlands. WECs that use the former model, except
Windvogel, rely on factors in geographical proximity to their founding location to expand their
production capacity, whereas WECs that use the latter business model do not have this dependence
on local conditions. Expansion to other regions decreases the local dependence, a strategy first put
to use by Windvogel, and can thereby contribute to growth. A second important business model
development has been the professionalization a number of WECs. These WECs developed from
idealistic initiatives that relied on volunteers and active members into organizations with paid
employees that have greater abilities to cope with the more demanding circumstances. The
professionalization coincides with a simplified role of members in the organization, wherein paid
employees are now responsible for managing the growth of the WEC.
The main conclusions of this research are that, with respect to their production capacity and
members, WECs have developed organizationally, and, with respect to their founding locations,
WECs have expanded their activities geographically. The factors that have contributed to the growth
of WECs in the Netherlands over the last 30 years are their geographical location, geographical
expansion and the hiring of paid staff members, which enabled them to increase both members and
production capacity.

8. v

9. vi
Nederlandse samenvatting
De transitie naar een duurzame energievoorziening is een van de belangrijkste uitdagingen van de
huidige generatie. Windenergie zal naar verwachting een belangrijke rol spelen in deze duurzame
toekomst. Op hetzelfde moment heeft de Nederlandse overheid grote moeite met het bereiken van
haar doelstellingen voor tot de installatie van nieuwe windturbines, omdat het huidige beleid te
lijden heeft onder een gebrek aan maatschappelijke inbedding en maatschappelijke weerstand.
Empirisch onderzoek heeft aangetoond dat de lokale participatie het draagvlak voor nieuwe
windenergieprojecten kan vergroten en daarom zouden windenergie coöperaties (WECs), waarin
burgers als leden gezamenlijk een of meer windturbine(s) bezitten en exploiteren, als bedrijfsvorm
een bijdrage kunnen leveren aan het succesvol implementeren van windenergie in Nederland en
zodoende aan de duurzame energietransitie. WECs kunnen worden gezien als een specifiek
bedrijsmodel voor de exploitatie van windturbines, maar er bestaat een grote mate van variatie
waarin WECs zich voordoen in het Nederlandse energielandschap, bijvoorbeeld met betrekking tot
de hoeveelheid leden en production capaciteit die ze hebben. Welke factoren hebben bijgedragen
aan de groei van WECs in Nederland de afgelopen 30 jaar? Het meest gebruikte raamwerk voor het
bestuderen van duurzame transities, het multilevel perspective (MLP), heeft moeite met het
verklaren van geografische oneffenheden. Daarom is in dit onderzoek het analytisch kader aangevuld
met een conceptueel begrip vanuit de economische geografie; nabijheid of proximiteit, en met
inzichten uit de theorie voor bedrijfsmodellen.
De ontwikkeling van WECs in Nederland tussen 1986 en 2014 hebben plaatsgevonden binnen drie
verschillende perioden; een opkomst fase (1986-1996), gekenmerkt door monopolie
omstandigheden, een consolidatiefase (1997-2012) en de introductie van een nieuw bedrijfsmodel
(2013-2014), beide in een competitatieve elektriciteitsmarkt. Gedurende de onderzoeksperiode zijn
de sociaal-technische omstandigheden waarin de WECs hun lidmaatschaps en
productiecapaciteitsgroei moesten realiseren steeds complexer geworden. Twee verschillende
bedrijfsmodellen kunnen worden onderscheiden, de eerste, die de opkomst van de sociaal-technisch
systeem, of niche, kenmerkt werd geïntroduceerd door de Organisatie voor Duurzame Energie (ODE),
en het propageert de exploitatie van windturbines in de lokale gemeenschappen. De tweede
business model werd geïntroduceerd door Windcentrale en houdt geen verband met een specifieke
regio binnen Nederland. WECs die het eerste model gebruiken, behalve Windvogel, zijn afhankelijk
van de factoren in de geografische nabijheid van hun locatie om hun productiecapaciteit uit te
breiden. Integenstelling hiervan zijn WECs die gebruikmaken van het tweede bedrijfsmodel niet
afhankelijkheid van de lokale omstandigheden. Uitbreiding naar andere regio's kan de lokale
afhankelijkheid verlagen, een strategie die voor het eerst werd beproeft door Windvogel, daarmee
bijdrage aan groei. Een tweede belangrijke ontwikkeling is de professionalisering van een aantal
WECs. Deze WECs hebben zich ontwikkeld van idealistische initiatieven die vertrouwnde op
vrijwilligers en actieve leden binnen hun organisaties naar organisaties met betaalde medewerkers
die beter in staat zijn om om te gaan de veeleisende omstandigheden. De professionalisering valt
samen met vereenvoudigde rol die leden hebben gekregen in de organisatie, waar betaalde
medewerkers nu verantwoordelijk zijn voor het realiseren van de groei van de WEC, een taak
waaraan betaalde medewerkers meer tijd kunnen besteden dan vrijwilligers.

10. vii
De belangrijkste conclusies van dit onderzoek zijn dat, met betrekking tot hun productiecapaciteit en
leden, WECs zich organisatorisch hebben ontwikkeld, en dat, met betrekking tot hun locaties, WECs
hun activiteiten ook geografisch hebben uitgebreid. De factoren die een bijdrage hebben geleverd
aan de groei van WECs in Nederland de afgelopen 30 jaar zijn hun geografische locaties, geografische
expansie en het in dienst nemen van betaalde medewerkers, wat hen in staat heeft gesteld te
groeien in zowel ledenaantallen en productiecapaciteit.

11. viii
Contents
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................ii
Summary .................................................................................................................................................iv
Nederlandse samenvatting .....................................................................................................................vi
List of Figures and Tables .........................................................................................................................x
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research aim and research question ............................................................................................ 2
1.3 Outline of the thesis...................................................................................................................... 3
2. Theory.................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Multi-level perspective on sustainable transitions ....................................................................... 5
2.2 Role of geography in transitions ................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Wind energy cooperatives as business models............................................................................. 9
3. Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Data collection............................................................................................................................. 13
3.2 Geographical Information Systems ............................................................................................. 14
3.3 Multivariate regression analysis.................................................................................................. 15
4. Development of WECs in the Netherlands........................................................................................ 17
4.1 Quantitative development .......................................................................................................... 17
4.1.1 Emergence phase: 1986 - 1996............................................................................................ 19
4.1.2 Consolidation phase: 1997 - 2012........................................................................................ 21
4.1.3 New business model: 2013 - 2014 ....................................................................................... 22
4.2 Geographical development......................................................................................................... 23
4.2.1 Emergence phase: 1986 - 1996............................................................................................ 24
4.2.2 Consolidation phase: 1997 - 2012........................................................................................ 26
4.1.3 New business model: 2013 - 2014 ....................................................................................... 27
5. Factors determining the growth of WECs ......................................................................................... 31
5.1 Factors determining production capacity growth....................................................................... 31
5.1.1 Descriptive statistics............................................................................................................. 31
5.1.2 Model results........................................................................................................................ 32
5.2 Factors determining the number of members............................................................................ 33
5.2.1 Descriptive statistics............................................................................................................. 33
5.2.2 Model results........................................................................................................................ 35

12. ix
6. Discussion and conclusion................................................................................................................. 37
Bibliography........................................................................................................................................... 41
Appendices............................................................................................................................................ 49
Appendix 1 List of active WECs in the Netherlands .......................................................................... 49
Appendix 2 List of interviewees ........................................................................................................ 51
Appendix 3 Interview protocol.......................................................................................................... 52
Appendix 4 Correlation table ............................................................................................................ 53

13. x
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Multi-level perspective on transitions....................................................................................... 6
Figure 2 Relationship between local projects and an emerging global community with shared rules .. 7
Figure 3 Distribution of WECs based on founding year and size .......................................................... 13
Figure 4 WECs, members and installed production capacity in the Netherlands 1986-2014 .............. 17
Figure 5 Development of production capacity shares per WEC 1986-2014 ......................................... 18
Figure 6 Development of membership shares per WEC 1986-2014..................................................... 19
Figure 7 Spatial distribution of quantitative development of WECs 1996............................................ 25
Figure 8 Spatial distribution of quantitative development of WECs 2012............................................ 27
Figure 9 Spatial distribution of quantitative development of WECs 2014............................................ 28
Table 1 Input variables multivariate regression analysis ...................................................................... 16
Table 2 Descriptive statistics on explanatory variables for production capacity growth ..................... 32
Table 3 Model results production capacity growth .............................................................................. 33
Table 4 Descriptive statistics on explanatory variables for membership growth................................. 34
Table 5 Model results member growth................................................................................................. 35

14. xi

15. 1
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Completing the transition from a fossil fuel based energy system towards a system based on
renewable energy technologies is a defining challenge of this generation, as continued greenhouse
gas emissions are very likely to lead to increased risk of societal impacts from climate change related
events (IPCC, 2012). Currently, wind energy is one of the renewable energy technologies that are
expected to play a major role in completing this task (IEA, 2014; Daniëls & Kruitwagen, 2010).
However, in most countries, the implementation of wind energy has suffered from a systematic
neglect of the social embedding of the technology. Especially in the Netherlands, local protest groups
oppose to, and halt, wind energy projects, because they see wind turbines as “a disturbance to the
natural landscape, wild life, and as noisy and ugly objects.” (Verbong, Geels, & Raven, 2008, p. 560).
Empirical studies in Denmark and Germany have shown that getting people socially and economically
involved in wind energy projects through local ownership increases acceptance of wind energy
projects (Christensen & Lund, 1998; Krohn & Damborg, 1999; Musall & Kuik, 2011). To this end, wind
energy cooperatives (or WECs) could provide a way to successfully implement wind energy in the
Netherlands and contribute to the sustainable energy transition.
A WEC consists of members that collectively procure wind turbine technology to achieve shared
goals. Currently, there are twenty-three WECs active in the Netherlands, of which the eldest was
founded in 1986 (Van Loenen, 2003). In total the WECs have 24,000 members and owned 60
megawatt1
(MW) of production capacity, but individual projects differ to a great extent in
membership numbers and installed production capacity (Elzenga & Schwencke, 2014). But why are
some WECs more successful in their quantitative expansion than others? Which factors determine
their success and overall growth? Answering these questions can help us understand the
circumstances under which renewable energy technologies can start to influence the current energy
regime and contribute to the sustainable energy transition and may subsequently help speed-up the
transition (Geels & Schot, 2007; Geels, 2011). We can understand a sustainable energy transition as
“large scale transformations within society or important subsystems during which the structure of
the societal system fundamentally changes.” (Verbong & Loorbach, 2012, p. 6)
In transitions research, the multi-level perspective (MLP) is one of the most influential frameworks of
explaining how such transitions come about (Raven, Schot, & Berkhout, 2012), namely through the
alignment of processes within, and between, its three constituent levels; niche, regime and
landscape (Geels & Schot, 2010). Strategic Niche Management (SNM) provides an approach to
governing the alignment processes within an emerging, global, innovative community (Geels &
Raven, 2006) by building shared expectations between actors through interactive learning in
expanding social networks (Geels, 2011). This dynamic process should eventually result in an
increasing application of the socio-technical concept under study i.e. up-scaling (Coenen, Raven, &
Verbong, 2010). By conceptualizing WECs as such socio-technical niches I aim to understand the
processes that lead to their growth and the factors that determine their up-scaling.
1
In 2013 WEC in the Netherlands owned 58.34 MW in production capacity, which constituted 2.35% of the total
land-based wind turbine capacity in the Netherlands in that year (CBS, 2014)

16. 2
Even though the MLP framework has been extremly influential, it has had difficulty in addressing
questions related to geographical uneveness (Coenen, Benneworth, & Truffer, 2012), because the
framework lacks an explicity notion of geography. Therefore, recently, efforts have been made to
supplement transitions research with insights from economic geography (Coenen, Raven, & Verbong,
2010; Coenen, Benneworth, & Truffer, 2012; Raven, Schot, & Berkhout, 2012). In this research the
geographical dimension of the transition process is made explicit through the concept of proximity
(Boschma, 2005). Additionally, the concept of business models is used to conceptually assign
economic maneuverability to WECs and to show how they strategize, cooperate and adapt in a
dynamic economic and socio-technical environment.
1.2 Research aim and research question
The main aim of this thesis is to find out what has driven the growth of WECs in the Netherlands over
the time period 1986-2014 and to distil from this factors that contribute to niche up scaling.
The research question I will answer in this thesis is:
“Which factors have contributed to the growth of WECs over the last 30 years in the Netherlands?”
The sub-questions that will be answered in order to answer the main research question are:
1. How have WECs in the Netherlands developed the last 30 years with respect to their
production capacity and members?
2. How have WECs in the Netherlands developed the last 30 years with respect to their
geographical locations?
3. Which factors determine the growth of WECs in the Netherlands?
The research question will be answered through a combination of qualitative and quantitative
methodologies. To answer question 1, a series of interviews were conducted. Data from the
interviews is supplemented with document analysis like newsletters, annual (financial) reports and
websites of WECs. To address question 2, I make use of Geographical Information System software
(ArcGIS 10.0) to make a visual representation of the, spatial distribution of WECs and the local (bio-)
physical conditions at their locations and I use build-in tools of the program to collect data for my
data set. For question 3, I use the multivariate regression method on quantitative indicators of WECs,
with a dataset constructed for this reason.
WECs can function as vehicles for societal change (Huijben & Verbong, 2013). They have the ability to
implement wind energy technology in a way that incorporates the social embeddedness that has
been lacking from national governmental policies (Verbong, Geels, & Raven, 2008). This is needed
because, wind power has become a controversial renewable energy technology (Verbong & Geels,
2007), but it is also a technology that is expected to make an important contribution to meeting CO2
emission reductions goals (Daniëls & Kruitwagen, 2010). By better understanding how it is that WECs
grow, the WECs can get better support in their further diffusion (Geels & Schot, 2007). However, it
can also highlight limitations of the contribution of WECs to the energy transition in the Netherlands,
which is, after all, one of the most densely populated areas in the world (The World Bank, 2014).

17. 3
1.3 Outline of the thesis
In the next section, chapter 2, an overview is given of the relevant literature on transitions, economic
geography and on business models. Chapter 3 comprises of the methodology section, followed by
the first analysis section; chapter 4. In chapter 4 the results of the case analysis are presented. It
forms the qualitative section of this research and addresses sub-questions 1 (section 4.1) and 2
(section 4.2). The goal of chapter 5 is to find factors that determine the growth of WECs in members
and production capacity (sub-question 3) and it comprises of the quantitative section of this
research. Here the results of a multivariate regression analysis are presented and analyzed. Inputs in
the two statistical models include relevant variables that were uncovered in chapter 4. Chapter 5 is
followed by a discussion and conclusion section, chapter 6, in which a reflection is made on the
implications of the results in this research for transition studies, methodological and practical
implications, possible limitations and further research.

18. 4

19. 5
2. Theory
2.1 Multi-level perspective on sustainable transitions
The research is positioned in the broader sustainability transition literature, drawing from the multi-
level perspective (MLP) on transitions (see Figure 1). The MLP framework has been widely used in
transitions research in general (see Geels & Schot, 2010) and for the analysis of the sustainable
energy transition more specifically (Verbong & Geels, 2007). The MLP consists of three analytical
levels: i) the socio-technical landscape ii) the socio-technical regime iii) and the niche level. MLP has
two conceptual dimensions; a structural dimension indicating the degree of structuration of activities
(vertical axis), increasing from bottom (niche) to the top (landscape). Structures contain rules and
institutions that coordinate and guide the behavior of actors, giving direction and stability to learning
processes from which it is hard to deviate, resulting in a lock-in in a socio-technical regime (Geels &
Schot, 2010). The temporal dimension (horizontal axis), indicates the length of the processes taking
place at the three levels from relatively short-term processes at the niche level to long-term
dynamics at the landscape level (Raven, Schot, & Berkhout, 2012).
The core notion of MLP is that: “transitions happen through interactioning processes at the three
levels.” (Geels & Schot, 2007, p. 400) At the landscape level long-term processes condition the
activity of actors (Rip & Kemp, 1998), it forms a broad and exogenous environment, which is, in the
short-term, “beyond the direct influence of regime and niche actors.” (Geels & Schot, 2010, p. 23)
Changes at the landscape level can put pressure on the regime level forcing it to adapt (Geels &
Schot, 2007). Pressures can be the result of e.g. increasing concerns about climate change or the
privatization of the electricity market (Verbong & Geels, 2010). Landscape pressures that are exerted
on the regime can result in tensions, creating windows-of-opportunity for new socio-technical
configurations to up-scale, as regime actors disagree about rules to accommodate them (Geels,
2011). The regime consists of an interdependent network of actors such as users, policy-makers and
firms embedded in a semi-coherent set of structural rules (Giddens, 1984) reproduced in institutions,
or global rules, that act as “historical accretions of past practices and understandings” (Barley &
Tolbert, 1997, p. 99) and as “carriers of history” (David, 1994) leading to technological trajectories
(Kemp, Schot, & Hoogma, 1998).
Socio-technical innovations emerge in protected spaces called niches. New socio-technical concepts
are able to contribute to the transition if they are sufficiently developed (Geels & Schot, 2007) and
when they are able to link up with on-going socio-technical dynamics (Rip & te Kulve, 2008). At the
niche level, activities are unstructured and actors in local practices have high levels of interpretative
freedom (Bijker, 1995). Key internal processes for niche development are second-order learning,
construction of social networks and the articulation of expectations (Kemp, Schot, & Hoogma, 1998).
Radical innovations require the formation of heterogeneous social networks (Kemp, Schot, &
Hoogma, 1998) that provide resources and protection against the selection environment, carry
expectations and enable learning across actors and locations (Coenen, Raven, & Verbong, 2010).
Second-order learning in niche experiments serves to learn “about user preferences, cultural and
symbolic meaning, industry and production networks, regulations and government policy and
societal and environmental effects of the new technology.” (Coenen, Raven, & Verbong, 2010, p.
299)

20. 6
Figure 1 Multi-level perspective on transitions (from Geels, 2011)
Expectations are “a set of cognitive rules that are oriented to the future and related to actions that
give direction to search and development activities.” (Geels & Raven, 2006, p. 375) Cognitive rules
may be seen as existing cognitive structures where actors (unconsciously) draw from “to interpret
situations and challenges.” (Geels & Schot, 2010, p. 49) Articulating expectations helps mobilize
resources and enroll more actors into the support network by providing promises about future
benefits (Kemp, Schot, & Hoogma, 1998). Initially cognitive rules guiding projects “are diffuse, broad
and unstable.” (Geels & Schot, 2010, p. 86) Knowledge that is gathered in local projects and shared
between practices starts an external learning process (Raven, 2005). Aggregation and generalization
of local lessons by intermediary organizations (Geels & Deuten, 2006) leads to the selection of best
practices and structuration of cognitive rules, activities and alignment of expectations in a global
community (Geels & Raven, 2006). The local-global model is shown in Figure 2.
Expectations can be adjusted by new actors as they reinterpret lessons from preceding activities,
thereby revealing latent opportunities (Chesbrough, 2010; Geels, 2011), which, in turn, can help
mobilize new, and more global, actors (Geels & Raven, 2006; Seyfang, Hielscher, Hargreaves,
Martiskainen, & Smith, 2014) by envisioning a future that is better aligned with socio-technical
developments (Rip & te Kulve, 2008). Up-scaling may then be referred to as “increasing the scale,
scope and intensity of niche experiments by building a constituency behind a new technology, setting
in motion interactive learning processes and institutional coordination and adaptation, which help to
create the necessary conditions for its successful diffusion and development.” (Coenen, Raven, &
Verbong, 2010, p. 296).

21. 7
Figure 2 Relationship between local projects and an emerging global community with shared rules (from Coenen et al.,
2010)
Thus in this research I study WECs as socio-technical niches developed in the electricity regime and,
based on previous work in MLP, I would expect that their up-scaling depends on factors such as
heterogeneous learning, construction of social networks and the alignment of expectations among
different actors (internal) and projects (external). However, according to Coenen et al. (2012)
transition studies in general, and MLP in particular, should put more emphasis on spatial variety as a
result of the occurrence of “[a] ’natural’ variety in institutional conditions, networks, actor networks
and resources across space.” (p. 976) What matters for niche development, next to the factors
specified above, are specificities of place, uneven endowments and access to resources, possible
advantages associated with local geography. This is problematic for the MLP framework, since it has
no explicit notion of geography (see Figure 1; Raven, Schot, & Berkhout, 2012). In the next section I
review literature on economic geography and the related concept of proximity in order to make the
analysis of the development of WECs in the Netherlands geographically sensitive.
2.2 Role of geography in transitions
There is an ongoing endeavor to supplement research on transition with insights from economic
geography (Coenen, Raven, & Verbong, 2010; Coenen, Benneworth, & Truffer, 2012; Raven, Schot, &
Berkhout, 2012). Focal point in the debate is the nature of space itself (Yeung, 2005); either space is
relative and emergent, or space is absolute, defined as a territory with spatial boundaries (Raven,
Schot, & Berkhout, 2012). The first perspective considers space for innovations to emerge out of
interactions between actors who are “creating and reconfiguring networks and power within them,
causing knowledge, resources, technologies and innovations to flow” (Raven, Schot, & Berkhout,
2012, p. 70). No causal power is assigned to territorial factors, because “networks are not inherently
bound by geography” (Boschma, 2005, p. 69). Malmberg and Maskell (2006) argue that a distinction
must be made between inputs that are suscentible to become fluid, like natural and financial
resource endowments, and resources that are less prone to flow across geographic boundaries,
including the institutional set-up, which, in line with the second perspective, can provide a relatively
durable comparative advantage to projects (Raven, Schot, & Berkhout, 2012). I use the absolute
notion of space in this research because there exists, at least for the majority, a clear territorial
connection between WECs and their locations (Van Loenen, 2003), indicating that territorial
boundaries are relevant.

22. 8
Boschma (2005) argues that geographical proximity, the absolute distance between actors in a
network, tends to reinforce other forms of relational promixity2
important to niche development by
facilitating face-to-face interaction and the creation of shared experiences (Storper & Venables,
2004). Increasing levels of relational proximity can weaken the necessity of colocation (Boschma,
2005). The extent to which the niche development process leads to a decreasing need to be within
geographical proximity to certain actors in a network remains unclear. For example, the institutional
set-up as captured in the concept of institutional thickness, the comparative ability of governance
bodies to work together locally (Amin & Thrift, 1995), explains why regions differ in their ability to
support innovative activities (Coenen, Benneworth, & Truffer, 2012). Over time local governments
can create experiences with local cooperation, which can result in “a common sense of purpose,
shared expectations or vision around a widely held agenda for regional development.” (Coenen,
Benneworth, & Truffer, 2012, p. 974). Therefore, a co-creation of local benefits between WECs and
local goverments could provide the durable means for growth identified by Malmberg and Maskell
(2006).
Using five notions of proximity of Boschma (2005), Coenen et al. (2010, pp. 297-298) explore how
proximity can affect the growth of local niche projects. Geographical proximity fosters social
proximity, which is conductive for building social networks, and refers to build-up of mutual trust
from shared experiences and past cooperation. Trust between actors is needed before they can start
commiting resources. Organizational proximity can play a complementary role where mutual trust is
insufficient, by exercising control during the emergence of innovative projects. It refers to the extent
to which relationships are shared in a formal and organizational arrangment, where activities of
actors can be controlled, coordinated and structured. Articulation of shared expectations is requires
social and cognitive proximity. Cognitive proximity relates to an overlap in knowledge and
competences amongst organizations. Building shared expectation in a network increases cognitive
proximity, and can eventually lead to an increase in institutional proximity; the extent to which
actors share similarities in the contextual norms and values on the regime level.
Proximity can also act in a constraining way on niche development (Boschma, 2005; Coenen, Raven,
& Verbong, 2010). Short geographical distances can bring actors together, but a secluded
geographical territory can also put restrictions on the access to resources. Furthermore, too much
relational proximity can hamper second-order learning and induce lock-in (Geels & Schot, 2010).
Cognitive proximity, for example, is needed for actors to share knowledge in a meaningfull way, but
too much cognitive proximity can lead to recycling of prevelant ideas, guiding principles and problem
solving strategies, which makes projects less adaptive when faced with changing (market) conditions
and challenges (Geels & Raven, 2006; Geels & Schot, 2010). Therefore, I will identify the impact of
the geographical locations of WECs with respect to the concept of proximity, and I will explore to
what extent different concepts of proximity may influence the growth of WECs. In addition, it is
interesting to study how WECs incorporate proximity (or distance) in their business model (Geels,
2011), a concept that is addressed in the next section.
2
Relational proximity indicates the relative distance between actors, and is a function of interaction: frequent
interactions can build stronger networks of actors that can support more distant relationships. Actors “define
and create spaces with their own institutional arrangements, power relations, governance institutions and
dynamics, which offer ‘proximity’ between actors.” (Coenen, Benneworth, & Truffer, 2012, p. 969)

23. 9
2.3 Wind energy cooperatives as business models
The starting point of this research is that WECs offer specific business models for wind turbines to
operate. We can think of a business model as containing the instructions for combining physical and
social technology under a strategy (Beinhocker, 2007)3
: “the rational of how to create, deliver and
capture value” (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, p. 14). Physical technologies refer to “methods and
designs for transmitting matter, energy and information from one state to another in pursuit of a
goal.” (Beinhocker, 2007, p. 244) Social technologies refer to “methods and designs for organizing
people in pursuit of a goal.” (Beinhocker, 2007, p. 262) The socio-technical context that the BMs are
embedded in is a vital part of understanding up-scaling of a niche, as shown by Jolly et al. (2012) who
analyze the up-scaling of individual solar-PV BMs in India. Similar to radically new technologies, local
business models experiments can provide lessons on their desirability (Chesbrough, 2010). Johnson
and Suskewicz (2009) argue that business models coevolve with four elements: “an enabling
technology, an innovative business model, a market-adoption strategy, and a favorable government
policy.” (Johnson & Suskewicz, 2009, p. 3) In order for innovative BM to up-scale, coordination of all
the four elements is needed (Huijben & Verbong, 2013).
For this research I am interested in the extent to which the business model of WECs, so the way they
organize the social and physical technology, plays a role in their up-scaling. A WEC may be seen as a
collection of social entrepreneurs that need to coordinate their activities in order to achieve shared
goals (Jolly, Raven, & Romijn, 2012). Social entrepreneurs combine “a social goal with a business
mentality.” (Witkamp, Raven, & Royakkers, 2011, p. 667) According to Dóci et al. (2015) social
entrepreneurs, in order to up-scale, have to “create the necessary physical and social infrastructure”
(p. 88) like user and producer networks and institutional arrangements “to legitimate, regulate and
standardize new practices” (Jolly, Raven, & Romijn, 2012, p. 202). Individual projects usually do not
possess the necessary resources and competences to establish this infrastructure, therefore
cooperation between multiple projects may be needed for the up-scaling (Jolly, Raven, & Romijn,
2012). WECs in the Netherlands with overlapping goals can thus be expected to organize themselves,
under a coherent strategy in their attempt to grow, giving rise to a distinct business model (Huijben
& Verbong, 2013).
A (wind energy) cooperative is a legal business form, akin to an association that engages in
commitments with, and for the benefit of its members. In contrast to a regular association the
cooperative is allowed to redistribute the profits across its members. A formal definition is provided
by the Dutch Civil Code:
“A cooperative is an association established by notarial deed as a cooperative. It
must be clear from the statutes that the objective of the cooperative is to provide in
certain material needs of its members through agreements, other than insurance,
concluded with them in the business that for their benefit practices or is being
practiced.” (Van Loenen, 2003, p. 7)
3
Beinhocker (2007) uses the term business plan instead of business model. The term has been altered to bring
it more in sync with the relevant business model literature.

24. 10
A cooperative has to have a registration at the Chamber of Commerce and subsequently has a
registration number (KvK-nummer in Dutch), and either has the legal title Cooperative with Excluded
Liability (shortly EL, or UA in Dutch, for Uitgesloten Aansprakelijkheid) or Cooperative with Limited
Liability (abbreviation LL, or BA in Dutch, for Beperkte Aansprakelijkheid), which protects members
from financial liability arising from (financial) commitments that the cooperative engages in. In case
of wind energy cooperatives the main activity is the collective procurement and/or operation of one
or more wind turbine(s), or the demonstrable ambition to do so in the near future, for the benefits of
the members, which are mostly related to the promotion of the use of renewable energy
technologies (Elzenga & Schwencke, 2014).
The first WECs in the Netherlands were founded in 1986 with help from the Organization for
Renewable Energy (Organisatie voor Duurzame Energy, or ODE, in Dutch) (Van Loenen, 2003;
Agterbosch, 2006). ODE stimulated locally active environmental protection groups financially and
organizationally to establish wind energy cooperatives after a Danish model, where WECs first
arrived on the scene in 1980 (Verbong, 2001; Van Loenen, 2003). In Denmark local communities
collectively own and operate wind turbines and use the benefits for local purposes. Over a period
ranging from 1986 until 1992, in this vein, fifteen WECs were established in Dutch coastal areas (Van
Loenen, 2003; Agterbosch, 2006) with a low degree of urbanization (Oteman, Wiering, & Helderman,
2014). It took until 2009 for new projects to initiate; between 2009 and 2014 a total of twelve new
WECs were founded. Remarkably, eight of these were set up by a new ‘organization of
organizations’: Windcentrale, a commercial company that facilitates the purchase of wind turbines by
aspiring shareholders through crowdfunding. The company started in the highly urbanized
municipality Amsterdam.
Currently, WECs in the Netherlands differ greatly in size and organization (an overview of the WECs
can be found in appendix 1); WECs like Deltawind and Zeeuwind have more than 1,500 members and
close to 20 MW in production capacity (Elzenga & Schwencke, 2014) and have become professional
organizations with full-time employees (Van Loenen, 2003; Agterbosch, 2006). At the other end of
the spectrum there are WECs that have fewer than 200 members, own less than 1 MW of wind
turbine capacity and fully rely on volunteers for their daily operation (Elzenga & Schwencke, 2014).
Another salient difference between the WECs can be found in their work areas. Most cooperatives
are bound to the location where they were founded e.g. ZEK was founded in Zaanstad and aims to
promote renewable energy in the Zaanstreek (an industrial area consisting of a collection of
municipalities in the north-west of the Netherlands connected via the river Zaan). However, there
are also WECs with a national scope such as Windvogel (Van Loenen, 2003; Elzenga & Schwencke,
2014) and the cooperatives founded by the Windcentrale.
As the discussion above has shown, even though WECs follow a specific business model, in practice
there is variation in the degree to which they appear in the Dutch energy landscape, with respect to
e.g. production capacity, number of members and their geographical location. Jolly et al. (2012)
analyze the up-scaling of local projects over a number of business model dimensions including the
organizational, functional and geographical dimension. Organizational up-scaling concerns the
growth of the organization. Development in the functional dimension entails the increase in the
number and types of activities that are undertaken by an initiative. Expansion to new geographical
area is captured by the geographical dimension.

25. 11
Oteman, Wiering and Helderman (2014) argue that the up-scaling of local energy projects is
conditioned by the (bio-) physical conditions at the location where they start. Relevant conditions
include natural resource endowments such as wind conditions, but also urbanization levels, because
“urbanized regions will be less suitable for large-scale plans as physical space is limited, contested
and expensive.” (Oteman, Wiering, & Helderman, 2014, p. 3). Moreover, renewable energy projects
are more likely to start in rural areas, because it can create jobs in economically subordinate regions.
Urban residents, by contrast, have a preference for projects with low spatial impact, contrary to wind
turbines, because they assign a high value to the quality of their local environmental (Bergmann,
Colombo, & Hanley, 2008).
The extent to which adjustments made in the organizational, functional and geographical dimension
of the WECs have had an impact on the quantitative dimension (Jolly, Raven, & Romijn, 2012) is the
subject of chapter 5. In addition, (bio-) physical conditions at the municipal and provincial level are
included in the statistical analysis to test their influence on the growth of WECs in the Netherlands.
The five categories are operationalized in sixteen variables that are presented in Table 1.

26. 12

27. 13
3. Methodology
3.1 Data collection
The data for this research was collected through various sources; first of all through a series of semi-
structured interviews with representatives from eight different WECs (list of participants can also be
found in Appendix 2). The group of WECs that was founded between 1986 and 1992 (𝑛 = 11) has
had time to develop and some initiative did so to a relatively large extent. A second group entered
from 2009 and onwards (𝑛 = 12), these WECs have had relatively little time to expand their member
base and most initiatives are still in the process of installing their first wind turbine. However, a
number of initiatives in this group have grown to a size that surpasses most of the WECs in the first
group. Figure 3 shows this distribution graphically. The figure shows on the horizontal axis the
number of standard deviations from the average year of founding (𝑥̅ = 1995.94). On the vertical
axis it indicates the standard deviations from the average amount of production capacity (𝑥̅ =
4145.12) per case.
Figure 3 Distribution of WECs based on founding year and production capacity
Zeeuwind
WWC
Meerwind
Eendragt
Windvogel
ZEK
NDSM Energie
Windcentrale
Kennemerwind
CWW
Deltawind
UWindWDE
Onze Energie
Zuidenwind
WP Nijmegen
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Selected cases
Other cases

28. 14
In this way Figure 3 can be divided into four quadrants; first, the top-left (high age and above average
performance), second is top-right (low age and above average performance), third in the bottom-left
corner (high age and below average performance) and the fourth in the bottom-right (low age and
below average performance). Potential interviewees were identified based on a balanced sample
from the four quadrants, which allows a comparison between cases over age and performance in
order to find factors for up-scaling. This follows the selection of interviewees based on a design of
increasing variation on the dependent variables and context (Weiss, 1995). Identified participants
were send an email and asked if they were prepared to participate in an interview for the research.
Individuals that were willing to cooperate were included in the research. In total eight interviews
were conducted, from quadrant one Meerwind, Windvogel and Zeeuwind were included. Quadrant
two only contains WECs from Windcentrale4
; therefore Windcentrale was the only participant from
that section. WECs from the third quadrant include Eendragt, WWC and ZEK. In quadrant four, eight
out of twelve WECs belong to Windcentrale. In addition to including Windcentrale, the
representation of the fourth quadrant was supplemented by NDSM Energie. The interviews took
place in June and July of 2014 and they lasted approximately one hour. The interviews were recorded
and transcribed verbatim (see Appendix 3 for the interview protocol).
Data collection was supplemented by document analysis and academic resources such as van Loenen
(2003) and Elzenga and Schwencke (2014). Van Loenen (2003) provides an overview of the
development of WECs in the Netherlands from 1986 until 2002, which includes, amongst other
things, annual member numbers and production capacity. Elzenga & Schwencke (2014) give an
overview of cooperatives and their members and production capacity in February 2014. This was
supplemented by information identified in the annual reports of the cooperatives and their strategic
documentation to construct an overview of WEC development over time. For all case, data for 2014
is used as input for the multivariate regression analysis. Statistics on population density of
municipalities and provinces were retrieved via the Dutch Central Statistical Office (or CBS in Dutch).
Coordinates of the locations of the WECs and their wind turbine locations were obtained using
Google Maps. The coordinates were subsequently added into a Geographical Information System
(ArcGIS) file, which allowed the measurement of the distance between the founding places and
production capacity.
3.2 Geographical Information Systems
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) can facilitate scientific analysis with the description and
explanation of patterns and processes at geographic scales (Longley et al., 2005). ESRI’s ArcGIS allows
the visualization of the patterns and processes. The collected data from the interviews and
miscellaneous resources was combined with the spatial data from Google Maps i.e. x and y
coordinates, added to an ArcGIS file and made into a Point Events layer. The layer is geo-referenced
with the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 1984) coordinate reference system, which is a reference
system based on a model for the ellipsoid of the Earth and is generally used to display Global
Positioning Systems (GPS) locations (NIMA, 2000). In order to make the layer functional, the Point
Events layer is turned into a shape-file and projected onto the Rijksdriehoek coordinate system using
4
WECs founded by the Windcentrale are the WECs Blauwe Reiger, Bonte Hen, Grote Geert, Jonge Held, Ranke
Zwaan, Rode Hert, Trouwe Wachter and Witte Juffer, which are included separately in the regression analysis.

29. 15
Data Management tools included in ArcGIS 10.0. Background data on provinces and municipalities is
included through ArcGIS Online. The end result of this process is a geographical representation of the
spatial distribution of WEC development over time. The number of observations varies per period,
depending on the entry in, and exit out of, the population of cooperatives. Three distinct time frames
are included: 1986-1996, with 𝑁 = 13 observations, 1997-2012, with 𝑁 = 15 observations and
2013-2014 with 𝑁 = 23 active WECs. For these years, the number of members and the production
capacity per WEC, together with their corresponding locations, are projected on a map of the
Netherlands.
3.3 Multivariate regression analysis
The collected data is divided into four quantitative variable groups based on the analysis of up-
scaling performance of individual business models by Jolly et al. (2012): a) variables related to
quantitative up-scaling of the WECs; b) organizational variables related to the size of the organization
of the different cooperatives; c) functional variables related to the means of production activities and
d) variables related to the geographical expansion of productive activities per WEC. From Oteman et
al. (2014) the variable category (bio-)physical is included to account for the locational level of
urbanization and natural resource endowments (see Table 1). The variables are used as input in the
statistical software package SPSS 21.0.
SPSS 21.0 permits the performance of a stepwise linear regression method, which allows the
regression of multiple variables and simultaneously removing the variables that are insignificant. This
entails a succession of regression runs, removing the weakest correlated variable with each run,
leaving, at the end, the variables that best explain the distribution of observations (Arbuckle, 2012).
Multivariate regression models are designed to estimate the effect on dependent variable (𝑌𝑖) of
changing an independent variable e.g. (𝑋1𝑖) while holding the other independent variables (𝑋 𝑛𝑖)
constant (Stock & Watson, 2007). Accordingly, the linear regression model that is used in the analysis
is:
𝑌𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑋1𝑖 + 𝛽2 𝑋2𝑖 + ⋯ + 𝛽 𝑝 𝑋 𝑝𝑖 + 𝜀𝑖, 𝑖 = 1 , … , 𝑛
Where subscript 𝑖 indicates the 𝑖 𝑡ℎ
of 𝑛 observations, 𝛽 𝑛 represents the coefficients, or slope of the
independent variables, that are estimated and 𝜀𝑖 is the error term.
The objective of this analysis is to find how the different business model elements contribute to
quantitative up-scaling of WECs. Therefore the number of members registered to a WEC and amount
of production capacity owned by a cooperative are included as the dependent variables in the
regression analysis. The variables derived from the other three groups are included as independent
variables (𝑁 = 23). Input data comes from the WECs’ documents and websites and the eight
interviews with the included cooperatives. The article by Elzenga and Schwencke (2014) was
consulted for information on the number of members and production capacity of WECs that were
not included in the interviews. Furthermore, Dr. E. Vasileiadou provided additional information
concerning membership levels of eight WECs based on her own research.

30. 16
Table 1 Input variables multivariate regression analysis
Up-scaling
dimension
Primary indicators Input variables Unit of measurement
Quantitative Expansion in number of members and amount of
production capacity
Number of members Count number
Production capacity Kilowatt (kW)
Organizational Organizational expansion related to managerial and
financial capacity
Number of paid employees Count number
Height registration fee for new members Euro's
Height annual contribution Yes/No [0-1]
Interest rate members Percentage
Functional Expansion in the number of related activities
besides the production of wind energy
Number of activities5 besides the production of wind power (including
the production of electricity using micro-turbines)
Count number
Geographical
Geographical expansion from the location of
founding
Location of founding
Degrees longitude (x-coordinate)
Degrees latitude (y-coordinate)
Distance location of founding to production location Kilometers (km)
Number of different municipalities with production capacity owned Count number
Number of different provinces with production capacity owned Count number
(Bio-)physical Natural factor endowments and urbanization Wind speed Meters per second (m/s)
Population density municipality of founding Inhabitants per square kilometer (inh./km2)
Population density province of founding
Urbanization level
Inhabitants per square kilometer (inh./km2)
High-Low [1-5]
5
Activity classes are based on Boon and Dieperink (2014). The authors use five business model categories, amongst other characteristics, to distinguish between local
renewable energy organizations, namely: i) collective procurement of energy; ii) collective procurement of technology; iii) education and facilitation; iv) delivery of energy;
v) collective generation of electricity. Categories (iii) and (v) are not included in the analysis, because, in the case of (iii) it was beyond the scope of this research to construct
the necessary conceptual boundaries in order to rightly quantify this category, and (v) is dropped because this is already taken into account, indrectly, in the variable
Production capacity, since WECs that do not have any production capacity do not have the means for the collective generation of electricity under the definition used in this
research. WECs that do own production capacity per defenition collectively produce electricity. The two categories are replaced by the category Other forms of renewable
electricity production. Collective solar power production falls under this category for example, as well as the collective electricity production using micro wind turbines
(ranging between 0.4 and 2.5 kW, see Peacock, Jenkins, Ahadzi, Berry and Turan (2008)). Per case it was counted in how many of the categories the WECs were active, in
the case of the added category Other forms of renewable electricity production this sums over the number of technologies used in collective production, which provides the
total number of activities score.

31. 17
4. Development of WECs in the Netherlands
4.1 Quantitative development
After the emergence of the first WECs in the Netherland in the late 1980s, the number of initiatives
has increased to twenty-three in 2014. In 2014, the cooperatives have about 24,000 members and
own 66,315 kW of installed wind turbine capacity. Figure 4 shows the development of the number of
WECs in the Netherland, the amount of people that are registered as members of a cooperative and
the production capacity owned by WECs from 1986 until 2014. Figure 4 shows roughly three periods
with different growth rates: 1986-1996, 1997-2012 and 2013-2014. These time periods overlap with
electricity market conditions as distinguished by Agterbosch (2006), but they deviate to an extent
because this research has a different emphasis; Agterbosch (2006) argue that the difference in
production capacity growth of WECs is determined by a dichotomy in organizational
profesionalization in response to changing institutional and social conditions (pp. 121-145). I will
broaden this focus to a wider set of dimensions wherein WECs can adapt. Furthermore, this research
spans a wider time period, beyond 2004, and therefore I make a slightly different temporal
distinction than Agterbosch (2006)6
.
Figure 4 WECs, members and installed production capacity in the Netherlands 1986-2014
6
Agterbosh (2006) distinguishes three phases of changing conditions for WECs: the “monopoly phase” (1989-
1995), a transitional period, “interbellum”, lasting two years (1996-1997), followed by an electricity market
phase characterized as a “free market” 1998 until 2004 (pp. 121 – 139).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
WECs
Members (x 1,000)
Production Capacity (MW)
Emergence phase: 1986-1996
Consolidation phase: 1997-2012
New Business model: 2013-2014

32. 18
Figure 4 shows an initial rapid expansion in total member numbers and production capacity; the
amount of members grows from approximately 180 in 1986 to around 4,400 in 1996 and production
capacity increased to a total installed capacity of 11.1 MW. This period represents the initial stage of
niche development, and will be referred to as the “emergence” phase wherein new projects entered
the scene and started to form a new socio-technical configuration. After 1996 the figure indicates an
increased growth rate in both quantities. Membership numbers nearly double from 4,400 to
approximately 8,700 members in 2012, while the production capacity owned by WEC increases from
11.1 MW to 49.1 MW. This period will be referred to as the “consolidation” phase in the niche
development. WECs that were founded before 1996 either grew further, at differing rates, or
stopped, during the second phase, but all the growth was realized by projects that started during the
emergence phase. Then, in the last period, there is a rapid growth in member numbers and
production capacity. The last period is characterized by the introduction of new WECs with a new
business model.
The start of the niche development took place in an electricity market that was characterized by
monopoly conditions (Agterbosch, 2006). In 1989 the Electricity Law set the stage for the
deregulation of the Dutch electricity market in 1998, and introduced the electricity distribution
companies (or EDCs, see Verbong and Geels, 2007, p. 1029) that bought the electricity production
from the first cooperatively owned wind turbines (Agterbosch, 2006; Verbong & Geels, 2007). After
1998, the monopoly power of EDCs was broken by the opening of the electricity whole-sale market
to electricity retailers (Agterbosch, 2006; Verbong & Geels, 2007), the economic conditions for the
production of wind energy improved and a more competitive environment arose (Agterbosch, 2006;
IEA, 2013). Figure 5 shows the changes the shares WEC have in the total production capacity during
the research period. Starting from 1996, Zeeuwind and Deltawind have had a disproportionately
large share in the total production capacity; a combined share that peaked in 2004 at 87%. After
2004, this share started to decrease, inter alia, in favor of Windvogel. Since 2013, Windcentrale has
founded eight WECs that have been quick to take a relatively large share of the total installed
capacity; together they realized more than 75% of the growth in installed capacity since 2013.
Figure 5 Development of production capacity shares per WEC 1986-2014
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Zeeuwind
Deltawind
Cooperatives Windcentrale
Meerwind
Windvogel
CWW
Kennemerwind
Eendragt
WWC
ZEK
WDE
Delft

33. 19
Figure 6 shows the individual shares of WECs in the total member numbers between 1986 and 2014.
The figure indicates that members are more evenly distributed tan production capacity across the
initiatives. Windvogel can be seen to account for a relatively large share of the total members in the
data set, the largest by 2011, but, what stands out in the figure is that the rapid production capacity
growth attributed to the Windcentrale has been accompanied by a rapid growth in memberships.
Together the eight WEC had almost 14,000 members in 2014, which constitutes a share of
approximately 57% of the total. In the next three sub-paragraphs of this section I look at how the
growth in production capacity and memberships can be related to adjustments in organizational,
functional and geographical business model dimensions. Hereby, I look specifically at the obstacles
and barriers that individual WECs faced within the three time frames and how they have tried to
overcome them in their pursuit to growth.
Figure 6 Development of membership shares per WEC 1986-2014
4.1.1 Emergence phase: 1986 - 1996
ODE played an important role in the emergence of WECs in the Netherlands. The organization
stimulated the founding of WECs. ODE wanted to challenge the reigning centralized powers in the
Dutch electricity system and provide an alternative to nuclear power favored by the national
governments (Verbong, 2001; Agterbosch, 2006). To accomplish this ODE approach locally active
Environmental movement groups: “Eendragt was founded from a group active in the Environmental
movement […] ODE stimulated this group to start a WEC.” (Interviewee 8) The organization of the
first cooperatives was based on a successful model from Denmark “promoted and explained by
employees of ODE.” (Van Loenen, 2003, p. 15) Local communities could earn money from the
participation in wind turbines by selling locally produced electricity (Verbong, 2001). Therefore, right
from the start, there has been a territorial connection between WECs and their economic activities.
The territorial connection was further reinforced by an agreement made between the WECs in
collaboration with ODE; WECs agreed not to install production capacity in territory of other WECs
(Van Loenen, 2003), which was meant to avoid mutual competition (Agterbosch, 2006).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Cooperatives Windcentrale
Windvogel
Zeeuwind
Deltawind
Meerwind
Kennemerwind
CWW
WP Nijmegen
Onze Energie
ZEK
UWind
WWC
Eendragt
WDE
Zuidenwind
NDSM
Kennemerland
Alkmaarse WC
Delft

34. 20
Initial growth came from existing social structures: members of the local environmental movements
that founded the cooperative also provided initial funding for the establishment of the organization
(Agterbosch, 2006) and the financial means to install the first wind turbines: “a small group of
members from the [regional environmental federation in Zeeland] pooled up money and made an
effort to install wind turbine.” (Interviewee 5) In return the members received a return on their
investment and a vote in the General Members Meeting (or ALV in Dutch), the principle decision-
making body of the organization (Van Loenen, 2003). Returns were initially low or absent, because
electricity produced by wind turbines was relatively expensive (SFI, 2009) and the energy distribution
companies paid low electricity tariffs7
(Agterbosch, 2006). WECs that were able to construct strong
links with the local and regional energy distribution companies (LEDCs and REDCs) got relatively high
feedback tariffs such as Deltawind and Zeeuwind8
(Agterbosch, 2006). Zeeuwind indicated that “the
biggest obstacle was getting permission to supply power to the grid. The law dictated that the power
company had a monopoly and no one else was allowed to supply power. We needed to negotiate an
amount [of electricity] and a price with the energy company.” (Interviewee 5) The first wind turbines
were mainly installed in the municipalities where the WECs were founded. All WECs that were
interviewed and that were active during the initial period indicated that they had little problem
finding locations for their wind turbines; ZEK indicated that they “even got our fees for free from the
municipality.” (Interviewee 6)
ODE provided a platform for WECs: “every month, someone from our organization went to ODE to
exchange experiences.” (Interviewee 6) ODE redistributed this knowledge through its journal,
currently named WindNieuws9
. Windvogel indicated that “from the beginning ODE has been a
coordinator of cooperative developments, of which WindNieuws is a lasting result.” (Interviewee 1)
Members of ODE supplied each other with loans as well; Deltawind provided a loan for ZEK to
finance a part of their first turbines (Interviewee 6) CWW financed part its first production capacity
by a loan from Frisse Wind (Mars, 2003). However, wind turbine technology continuously grew in size
and, accordingly, their capacity also increased over this period (IEA, 2013), which made turbines
more capital intensive. Therefore, for the installation of their first three wind turbines between 1992
and 1994 CWW was also partially dependent on a mortgage granted by the local Rabobank (Mars,
2003). This not only illustrates the importance of social structures, but also the influence of the
evolution of wind turbine technology on the function of members in WECs; already at the beginning
of the 1990s, wind turbines had grown to a scale that made them capital intensive to a degree that
made it difficult to be funded by local members alone. Furthermore, the WECs paid their members
above market interest rates at the end of the first stage (Agterbosch, 2006), members became a
relatively expensive financial source; WWC indicated that they arranged for a (partial) mortgage to
finance the realization of two turbines in 1995 “because a loan at ASN was less expensive than a loan
from our members.” (Interviewee 7)
7
Members were prepared to accept low financial returns because their motivations were idealistic rather than
financial, which is also reflected by the voluntary basis on which they operated, an exception is Zeeuwind that
hired its first paid staff member in 1989 (Agterbosch, 2006).
8
Another WEC that received favourable tariffs was Kennermerwind. The WEC was also allowed to use a former
wind turbine test-site formerly owned by Provincial Electricity Company Noord-Holland (PEN, later changed into
NUON, now part of Vattenfall).
9
The journal changed names a number of time of the course of its existence, see Verbong (2001) for a historic
overview.

35. 21
4.1.2 Consolidation phase: 1997 - 2012
During the second period, competition became an important element in the development of WECs in
the Netherlands. The deregulation meant that the territorial connection between WECs and the
energy distribution companies weakened, but it also meant that cooperatives were free to choose
from a larger set of electricity retailers that offered better tariffs for their electricity (Agterbosch,
2006). At the same time, continuing improvements in wind turbine technology (IEA, 2013) and
subsidy schemes on green electricity improved the economic conditions for wind energy. This led to
increasing demand for turbine locations by market parties other than WECs (Agterbosch, 2006).
Negative publicity concerning wind turbines (Verbong & Geels, 2007) made local and regional
administrations more reluctant to allow the installation of new wind turbine projects putting
restrictions on the supply of available locations (Breukers, 2006). This made the opportunities for
production capacity growth scarcer, while demand grew. Additionally, increased procedural
requirements to start new projects made installing a new wind turbine a complex process
(Agterbosch, 2006; Elzenga & Schwencke, 2014)
Cooperatives with paid staff members were better equipped to grow in this increasingly complex and
competitive environment; organizational functions that were performed by active members during
the initial phase on a voluntary basis were now being done by professionals (Elzenga & Schwencke,
2014). Zeeuwind indicated that:
“[…] are dealing with a lot of competition, because the locations are
becoming increasingly scarce. Currently, energy companies are our
competitors […] but also farmers, because they realize that they can make
good money with the production of wind energy.” (Interviewee 5)
But this was not always the case; Windvogel did not hire any staff until 2013 (Interviewee 1), and
managed to install the third largest share of the total production capacity at the end of the second
time-period. Windvogel invested in production capacity beyond the area where it started in, in
contrast to the other ODE related WECs (Agterbosch, 2006). Although the largest share of their
production capacity came from the installation of a 600 kW wind turbine in 2000, which was added
to the production capacity of the WECs first turbine (80 kW), the remaining capacity of their total 840
kW came from mergers with two local wind turbine associations around 200210
, one of these
locations was scaled-up in 2005 from 80 kW to 2 MW. Windvogel also adopted the members of the
associations, (partly) explaining their membership growth11
(Agterbosch, 2006). Windvogel indicated
that an important reason for them to expand to locations beyond their municipality was that “local
regulations made it difficult to install new turbines.” (Interviewee 1) This illustrates that a potential
strategy after the first period was to look outside the area of founding for opportunities to grow. The
case further shows that the complex conditions under which WECs have to achieve production
capacity growth can be circumvented by purchasing existing wind turbines, which, in addition, makes
production capacity growth less financially demanding (Interviewee 1).
10
Haagse Windmolenvereniging (80 kW) and Windvereniging De Amstelmolen (80 kW), Schoonstroom, Zuid-
Holland Wind and Frisse Wind owned no production capacity (Windvogel, 2002; Van Loenen, 2003).
11
Windvogel indicated that they realized substantial membership growth by allowing (new) members to profit
from a discount on solar-PV cells through a collective procurement program (Interviewee 1; Windvogel, 2014).

36. 22
4.1.3 New business model: 2013 - 2014
The third stage starts with the founding of the first of eight WECs under the umbrella of the private
company Windcentrale in 2013. Windcentrale facilitates the acquisition of existing wind turbines and
divides them into shares (or “winddelen”), which are then sold to members online through
crowdfunding. Individuals are then placed into cooperatives. The shares entitle the members to a
part of the yearly production12
of their cooperatively owned wind turbine over a period of fifteen
years (Windcentrale, 2014). Members pay a purchasing price per share, but thereafter members
don’t pay a unit price per electricity consumed. Electricity produced by the designated wind turbine
is supplied to the wind-shareholders through energy retailer GreenChoice. This business model is
different from the model introduced by ODE, valid for both the first and second phase, where WECs
mainly received revenues from selling their electricity production to retailers. Members are paid an
interest over a loan they supplied to the cooperative13
. Instead, members of WECs that were
founded by Windcentrale receive no interest over their investment, but speculate on the future
increase of the consumer price of electricity14
(Windcentrale, 2014).
Windcentrale introduces a new business model, but also incorporates elements of previous one.
Windcentrale acts as the management board of the eight WECs (Windcentrale, 2013) with a paid
staff of eight employees (Interviewee 4). Therefore, like Zeeuwind, Windcentrale operates in a
professional way. Comparable to Windvogel, Windcentrale buys existing production capacity without
being restricted to a specific territory, but has adopted a national scope for the growth of its
production capacity. However, unlike all other ODE-related WECs, Windcentrale removed the
territorial connection between members and wind turbines from its business model. Once
Windcentrale has found a party that is willing to sell a wind turbine, everybody in the Netherlands is
able to purchase a share, irrespective of their location. Restrictions on the location of potential
members are also absent at Zeeuwind, but members would be contributing to the goals set by the
WEC that are regional; namely: “a completely sustainable energy supply in Zeeland by 2050.”
(Zeeuwind, 2014) Funding from members is the only financial input with which Windcentrale buys
wind turbines and therefore a large member base is needed. The disconnection of members and
production capacity has expanded the potential to find new members.
Parallel to this geographical development, the function of members in the organizations of the WECs
is increasingly simplified. Windcentrale, and the other professionalized WECs, have replaced the
central organizational role of (active) members with paid employees. A further simplification was
made with the development of members as consumers, which was coupled with the reinstatement
of their role as principle financiers. These steps make it easier for a more general public to join the
niche concept, because it decreases the relative distance between the active member and the non-
active consumer, the latter being more in line with current user-practices and norms for electricity
consumption, which is important in the up-scaling of renewable energy technologies (Verbong &
Geels, 2010). Therefore, switching from a conventional electricity supplier to a model based on
12
Typically around 500 kilowatt hours (kWh) per share at a price between €200 and €500 (Windcentrale, 2014)
13
Part of the revenues is often allocated to local organizations such as a bird asylum (Eendragt) or used to
support sustainable energy related education programs at local schools (ZEK).
14
The company Windcentrale earns a commission fee per wind share sold as well as an annual fee per wind
share for the management of a cooperative (Windcentrale, 2015).

37. 23
consumers that own their own production capacity has become easier and available to a broader set
of people, instead of the culture of “idealistic autonomy” (Verbong, 2001) from the first two periods.
The increase in potential for member growth is reflected in the large amount of members placed in
the eight WECs founded by Windcentrale, which, at the same time, is needed to be able to buy the
costly wind turbines.
During the first and second period the WECs acquired the competences for the operation of a WEC:
“we can assemble a wind turbine ourselves, because we have the knowledge to do this and we have
proved this for ourselves and others.” (Interviewee 1) Interviewee 1 indicated that this knowledge
came from within the organization and that “everybody has their own specialty about which they
know something.” (Interviewee 1) Meerwind indicated that they did the project development of two
new wind turbines in 2012 on their own. In order to do this, the chairman formed a building
committee from specialized members (Interviewee 2). In contrast, NDSM Energie has appointed
Renewable Energy Factory (REF), a consultancy firm, as their “wind advisor who does the subsidy
application, helps with the financial close and the negotiations with the wind turbine manufacturer,
and builds the business case.” (Interviewee 3) The interviewee also indicated that this is expertise
that they do not (yet) have at their disposal (Interviewee 3), whereas WECs that were established
during the initial period explicitly indicated that they are aware of this possibility for outsourcing
some of their activities to external parties, such as REF, but that this is expensive and unnecessary
since they have this expertise in their organization (Interviewee 2, 6, 8).
Results in this section indicate that the socio-technical conditions in which WECs had to realize
membership and production capacity growth became increasingly complex. Two different business
models can be distinguished, the first, from the initial period, propagates the exploitation of wind
turbines in local communities. The second has no connection with any specific region in the
Netherlands. WECs that use the former model, except Windvogel, rely on geographical proximity to
their founding location to expand production capacity, whereas, WECs that use the latter model, do
not have this dependence on local conditions. The professionalization of WECs coincides with the
simplified role of members in the organization, wherein employees are now responsible for
managing growth to which they can devote more time. Next, I look at how the development of WEC
is reflected in spatial patterns and how growth can be related to local conditions.
4.2 Geographical development
The previous section showed the impact of socio-technical dynamics on the growth of memberships
and production capacity of WECs. The spatial distribution of WECs over time is expected to be
affected by these dynamics as well. Wind conditions affect the feasibility of new projects, therefore,
with the initially low economic performance of wind turbines; I expect the first initiatives to be
founded at locations with relatively good wind conditions. Later, as the technologic and economic
conditions for wind energy improve, locations with increasingly less available wind resources can be
occupied. The degree of urbanization at the founding location of a WEC is expected to give an
indication of how contested the possible space for local expansion is i.e. wind placement competing
with other land-use functions like housing, agriculture, businesses etcetera (De Groot, 2006). These
local (bio-) physical circumstances condition the emergence and growth of WECs (Oteman, Wiering,
& Helderman, 2014) and form the starting point for the analysis of the geographical development of

38. 24
WECs in the Netherlands. The maps in this section indicate the statutory founding places of active
WECs in a particular year. Maps on the left display the amount of members registered with the WECs
and on the right the maps show the production capacity owned by the WECs. Maps on the left side
also display population density figures of 2013 for the Dutch municipalities (CBS, 201315
), the
population density data is supplemented by data on urbanization levels16
(CBS, 2013). On right the
average yearly wind speeds measured over the period 1971-2000 (KNMI, 201517
).
4.2.1 Emergence phase: 1986 - 1996
ODE stimulated the founding of the first WECs coastal regions first, because at these locations the
feasibility of the first projects would be highest (Agterbosch, 2006). Figure 7 shows the spatial
distribution and the production capacity and membership quantities of the WECs for 1996. The maps
indicate that WECs are located in areas with varying, but generally good wind conditions, and
relatively low population densities, although the degree of urbanization varies; Eendragt,
Kennemerwind and ZEK started in municipalities which are strongly urbanized, while CWW,
Deltawind and WDE were founded in hardly urbanized municipalities. The rest of the WECs started in
moderately urbanized areas. These local (bio-) physical conditions do not seem to be the main
factors driving their establishment; rather, their location of founding is related to the pre-existence
of social cohesion in the form of environmental groups (Agterbosch, 2006). Furthermore, although
the performance of wind turbine technology improved during the 1990’s, which meant that turbines
“could also run economically more in land” (Van Loenen, 2003, p. 17), after 1992 no new WECs were
established. Van Loenen (2003) mentions that “ODE lacked the organizational and financial resources
to support the founding of new initiatives in other provinces” (p. 17), indicating that the coordination
and structuration of activities by ODE played a decisive role during the emergence of the niche. Wind
turbines that were installed during this period were located in close proximity to the founding places
of the WECs; on average within 10 kilometers distance, ZEK also highlights their symbolic value, as
they indicated that: “our wind turbine is really our totem pole.” (Interviewee 6)
Deltawind owned more than 40% of the total production capacity in 1996, which amounts to 4.58
MW. According to Figure 7 the WEC is located in a relatively windy region of the Netherlands.
Deltawind is also located in a sparsely populated municipality, Goeree-Overflakkee, with a population
density of 184 inhabitants per km2
and a hardly urbanized character. Therefore, Deltawind would
have had ample room for their growth, and, even more importantly at this stage, access to relatively
abundant natural resources. However, these local (bio-) physical conditions are to a large extent
comparable to the local conditions for CWW. This WEC was founded in the same year, has an
average annual wind speed, identical to Deltawind, of 5.25 meter per second, the municipality where
15
Figures from 2013 are comparable to population density patterns from previous years (see CBS, 2015)
16
CBS (2015) ranks the urbanization of municipalities from 1 - 5, from highly urbanized to not urbanized, based
the amount of addresses per km2
: 1 = highly urbanized (≥ 2,500 Addr./km2
), 2 = strongly urbanized (1,500 –
2,500 Addr./km2
), 3=moderately urbanized (1,000 – 1,500 Addr./km2
), 4=hardly urbanized (500 – 1,000
Addr./km2
) , 5=not urbanized (< 500 Addr./km2
).
17
Figures from this period are comparable to previous years, because wind speeds depend to a large extent on
the roughness of the surface which is low for flat surfaces such as open water (Stepek & Wijnant, 2011) and
therefore wind speeds remain highest in areas surrounded by open water. The wind maps only illustrate this
notion, but do not show any local variation. Local variations (Stepek & Wijnant, 2011) are used for the
regression analysis in chapter 5 (see KNMI, 2015).

39. 25
it was founded has a comparable population density (328 inh./km2
)18
and the same urbanization
level, but WWC has by 1996 installed six times less production capacity than Deltawind. CWW
encountered obstruction from provincial administration of Noord-Holland that rejected the WECs
initial plans for a 70 kW turbine, because of disturbance to the landscape (Mars, 2003). Additionally,
Deltawind was able to profit from their relationship with the local energy distribution company,
which gave them more financial leeway to start new projects (Agterbosch, 2006). This example
shows the relative importance of relational proximity over local (bio-) physical conditions for the
growth of WECs.
Figure 7 Spatial distribution of quantitative development of WECs 1996
Developments in wind turbine technology also meant that relying on local members as a financial
resource could impose a restriction production capacity growth, but WECs started to adapt their
visions on external financiers and turned to banks for capital (Agterbosch, 2006). CWW was the first
WEC that financed the installation of wind turbine capacity through a mortgage indicating that “to
acquire this money by recruiting new members would be a long way to go and could mean a delay
[of the installation] for years” (Mars, 2003). WWC indicated that they choose ASN Bank as an
external resource to partly finance the realization of two wind turbines in 1995, because it is a “green
bank.” (Interviewee 7) Similar motivations were given by other WECs; interviewees 1, 7 and 8 have
indicated that they exclusively loan money from either ASN Bank or Triodos Bank, which are
nationally operating banks but have shared sustainability goals19
, which made the step to these
nationally operating financial institutions smaller. At the same time, Triodos has had experience with
financing wind energy projects and could thus better anticipate the risks “demanded less equity” and
other banks “imposed stricter conditions for a mortgage.” (Interviewee 2)
18
This figure is almost twice as high as the population density in Goeree-Overflakkee, but this has been caused
by the merger of Broek in Waterland in 1991, the initial municipality where CWW started (145 inh./km2
in
1986), into the municipality Waterland where CWW is now located.
19
See (ASN, 2015) and (Triodos, 2015).

40. 26
4.2.2 Consolidation phase: 1997 - 2012
Socio-technical dynamics made it increasingly difficult for WECs to install new capacity (Agterbosch,
2006). According to Windvogel “the most important [step in in the process of installing a new wind
turbine] is acquiring the permit to build.” (Interviewee 1) Windvogel also indicated that they
experienced hardly any problems around the installation of their first wind turbine, but that the
problems came with the increasing size and impact of wind turbines “and the government that
started to regulate.” (Interviewee 1) At the end of the second period, Windvogel owned six wind
turbines in five different municipalities in four different provinces (Windvogel, 2014). In comparison,
the production capacity of Zeeuwind is distributed over eight municipalities, but all in Zeeland
(Zeeuwind, 2015). Zeeuwind stated that “all thirteen municipalities in Zeeland are members of the
cooperative” (Interviewee 5), which indicates that they endorse the vision of the WEC. Furthermore,
Zeeuwind has established partnerships with municipalities (Borsele and Sluis) and the province for
the experimentation with other forms of renewable energy technologies (Zeeuwind, 2015), further
adding to the interaction between local government bodies and the WEC.
A similar sense of common purpose can be found in the case of Deltawind. The national government
has made an inter-provincial agreement (or IPO) that divides and makes room for 6,000 MW of wind
turbine capacity on land by 2020 (Rijksoverheid, 2014). Province Zuid-Holland has to realize 735.5
MW of this production capacity (Zuid-Holland, 2014), an additional 466.5 MW compared to 2013
(CBS, 2014). Goeree-Overflakkee has been designated as a suitable area for the large-scale
development of wind energy (≥100 MW) by the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (MIE,
2014) and has to find room for the implementation of 200 - 300 MW of wind turbine capacity on the
island. The municipality attaches great importance to local participation in realizing this ambition, a
means to increase acceptance amongst local stakeholders (Goeree-Overflakkee, 2013). Local
participation is at the locus of the business model of the WECs that were established during the
emergence phase. Zeeuwind stated that “We have the experience with creating support through
communication, compensation and participation.” (Interviewee 5) Goeree-Overflakkee has signed an
agreement with the Windgroep for the participation in the development of wind projects on the
island (Goeree-Overflakkee, 2015), a cooperative of local wind energy initiators including amongst
others, local farmers and Eneco, but coordinated by Deltawind (van Rixoort, 2013).
Three new cooperatives were founded during the second time period, but none of them has installed
any production capacity as of December 2014. Onze Energie and NDSM Energie focus on increasing
the renewable energy production in the northern district of Amsterdam, and work together to realize
new wind turbines. NDSM Energie has indicated that they have “acquired the exclusive right from the
municipality to four locations in the industrial area surrounding the former shipyard of the NDSM,
but building plans are obstructed by Provincial regulations.” (Interviewee 3) Since December 2012
the Deputy States of the province Noord-Holland restricted the issuing of permits for new wind
energy projects, because of “visual pollution, quality of the living environment and the cultural
history of the landscape.” (HaarlemsDagblad, 2012) The measure entails that for every new wind
turbine that is implemented two need to be removed, with a minimum of six (Echo, 2014), meaning
that a WEC should have at least twelve turbines, but of the WECs based in Noord-Holland only
Kennemerwind is able to meet that amount. Eendragt, Meerwind, WWC and ZEK have indicated that
their plans for production capacity expansion were hampered by the provincial regulations.

41. 27
Figure 8 Spatial distribution of quantitative development of WECs 2012
The case of Windvogel illustrates that merging with projects in other regions can help with realizing
growth by avoiding the opposition of local policies. The territorial connection between the members
and their wind turbines is still valid for Windvogel, since the participation of local citizens still forms
the locus of the business model of Windvogel (see Windvogel, 2014), but the place of founding has
lost most of its siginificance20
. Other WECs that were interviewed indicated that they were not
prepared to participate in projects outside their work areas (Interviewees 2, 3, 5, 6, 7), despite the
unwillingness of the local or provincial governing bodies to support the local cooperative ownership
of wind turbines. Meerwind indicated that do not want to participate in the installation of production
capacity outside their region (municipality Haarlemmermeer) because they “are a local wind energy
cooperative and want to use the benefits locally; the revenues go to the members as well as to
sponsoring local associations.” (Interviewee 2) Conversely, Deltawind and Zeeuwind have the
capabilities and organizational capacity to contribute to the major challenge that has been bestowed
upon local governments to implement national CO2 mitigation targets.
4.1.3 New business model: 2013 - 2014
WECs that were founded by Windcentrale in 2013 and 2014 are all located in the Amsterdam (see
Figure 7). The eight cooperatives founded by Windcentrale owned eight wind turbines by 2014. The
turbines are located in three different municipalities and three different provinces. Furthermore, the
production locations are at a large distance from the place of founding; the first two wind turbines
that were purchased for cooperatives Grote Geert and Jonge Held are located at almost 173
kilometer distance from Amsterdam. The founders of Windcentrale have a background in the
business environment, a contrast with the idealistic environmental movement of the WECs that were
20
An image that is amplified by the fact that Windvogel moved its office from Gouda to Utrecht (Windvogel,
2012), which is in another province.

42. 28
established during the first period. WEC that use wind energy in a local context initially look for
locations that are nearby. NDSM Energie for example wants to profit from wind energy production
locally and wants to install production capacity close by, but this also means that they have to deal
with local restrictions. Windcentrale by contrast, does not have to bother with processes at the policy
level to add more production capacity. According to Windcentrale “we are not very much involved in
the preliminary process: finding a suitable location, the permit process. Until now this has been a
part that we have left to the companies that are specialized in this process.” (Interviewee 4)
Figure 9 Spatial distribution of quantitative development of WECs 2014
WECs that were established by Windcentrale share no connection with ODE, or with its successor
RESCoopNL21
. Windcentrale indicated that they have had no support from other cooperatives: “the
cooperative model we have is really one-of-a-kind, so it is difficult to ask others for help when they
do not have the experience either.” (Interviewee 4) The purchasing of existing wind turbines relieves
Windcentrale from the dependence on local and regional authorities, but shifts the focus towards to
alignment with electricity consumers through the internet. Online telecommunication can decouple
the specifically local and help to approach more potential members on a wider scale. This also allows
Windcentrale to act quickly when they have found a party that is willing to sell production capacity:
the company then buys the turbine and sells the available shares. For the WEC Het Rode Hert, for
example, were sold within thirteen hours (Windcentrale, 2014).
21
RESCoopNL is the spin-off of the wind energy section of ODE and aims to actively involving citizens-based
(wind) energy associations and cooperatives i.e. citizens in exploiting sustainable resources in the Netherlands
(RESCoopNL, 2014). The organization started in 2013 (RESCoopNL, Founding of RESCoopNL, 2013), is a
cooperative of wind energy cooperatives and has the same function as ODE has had in the past (Interviewee 5):
it supports starting WECs by facilitating knowledge exchange and networking with experienced WECs e.g. by
organizing workshops (RESCoopNL, 2014).

43. 29
The results in this section indicate that there are spatial variations in the size of WECs. In the case of
WECs that use the local business model, production capacity growth is associated with the relational
proximity to local parties that have control over constraining resources for their quantitative
development. Firstly, during the emergence phase, increased relational proximity to local and
regional energy distributors (LEDCs and REDCs) resulted in higher financial returns on electricity
production. Secondly, after the emergence phase, through the build-up of shared expectations
between WECs and municipal and provincial governments for the future development of local and
regional wind energy capacity. This indicates that geographical proximity can lead to institutional
proximity and that it is this process that creates the local conditions that lead to growth, but in the
absence of these conditions geographical proximity can work as a constraint. Geographical expansion
is then a potential strategy to grow, although the territorially-based model is holding back most of
the WECs that were founded during the emergence phase of the niche. Windcentrale creates
relational proximity with national users and consumers of electricity, and (potential) members,
mainly through virtual interaction. In the next chapter I will look at which business model
developments determined the growth of WECs in a statistically significant way.

44. 30

45. 31
5. Factors determining the growth of WECs
Chapter 4 showed that adjustments in the business model have contributed to the growth of the
memberships and production capacity of WECs. In this chapter two statistical models are used to test
the influence of changes in the business model dimensions on the membership and production
capacity growth of WECs. The first multiple regression model includes the production capacity as the
dependent variable and the second model uses the amount of members in an equivalent form.
Results that are presented in the next paragraphs are the outcomes of the final model
configurations, but a preceeding step has been the generation of a bivariate table including the
correlation, or the absence of it, between all the variables included in the datat set (see Appendix 4).
The selection of the independent variables is based on the correlations with dependent variables,
which are then entered into the model. Cases are excluded pairwise in order to cope with missing
data entries (IBM, 2014).
5.1 Factors determining production capacity growth
5.1.1 Descriptive statistics
Production capacity entries in the data set include two outlying cases: Deltawind and Zeeuwind. In
order to handle this, a new variable is created; logProdCapacity, which is the logarithmic
transformation of the production capacity data. Figure 10 shows the distribution of the dependent
variable for this analysis. Fifteen of the cases fall within one standard deviation from the mean. Five
cases22
are without any production capacity as of December 2014 and are at two standard deviations
below the mean. Deltawind and Zeeuwind are each between two and three standard deviations
larger than the mean.
22
Uwind has a wind turbine project in which the WEC is actively involved, but it is in 100% ownership of Eneco.
Therefore the entry for this case equals zero.