Content uploaded by Mark Koelman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark Koelman on Jun 27, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjoe20
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjoe20
It’s not all about the money—landowner
motivation and high voltage grid development
Mark Koelman, Thomas Hartmann & Tejo J. M. Spit
To cite this article: Mark Koelman, Thomas Hartmann & Tejo J. M. Spit (2022): It’s not all about
the money—landowner motivation and high voltage grid development, Journal of Environmental
Policy & Planning, DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2022.2093175
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2022.2093175
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 26 Jun 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
RESEARCH ARTICLE
It’s not all about the money—landowner motivation and high voltage
grid development
Mark Koelman
a
, Thomas Hartmann
b
and Tejo J. M. Spit
a
a
Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands;
b
TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
ABSTRACT
The transition to a renewable energy future requires the extensive expansion of
current high voltage grids. Due to the amount of land needed for expansion,
issues related to land use have led to increased grid development opposition
among landowners which in turn leads to significant project planning and budget
overruns. Yet knowledge about why landowners support or object to high voltage
grid development is limited. In this study, we use a theory on pluralism to uncover
and categorize the multiplicity of motivations of 200 individual landowners in the
Netherlands. Our results indicate that only a small number of landowners who
oppose grid development focus on individual monetary gain through
compensation for limits on their land use. Furthermore, most landowners find the
fair and equal distribution of both the advantages and disadvantages of such limits
more important than individual financial compensation. As such, overcoming
contentious land use issues related to high voltage grid development by way of
high individual financial compensation isn’t the only solution.
Highlights
.Land use conflicts affect expansions of high voltage grids crucial for meeting CO2
objectives
.Motivations of landowners are unevenly divided among different rationalities
.Most individual landowners do support high voltage grid developments
.Individual financial compensation isn’t the only solution
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 15 December 2021
Accepted 19 June 2022
KEYWORDS
Land use conflicts; high
voltage grid development;
landowner motivation;
rationalities; egalitarianism
1. Introduction
As many industrialized governments have committed to the renewable energy transition, high voltage grids
are expected to expand significantly. This grid expansion will in turn drastically increase the need for land
as high voltage grid developments often span vast areas (van Zalk & Behrens, 2018). For example, large
wind farms and solar parks, as the primary renewable electricity sources, often require large tracts of land
and so are mainly located in rural areas and far from where the demand is situated. To connect these devel-
opments to existing high voltage grids, new development is needed; this search for suitable land frequently
interferes with the private property rights of individual landowners. As a result, the claim on privately
owned land for the development of high voltage grids proves to be controversial as addressed in studies on
issues with local acceptance in the UK (Bailey et al., 2016; Devine-Wright & Sherry-Brennan, 2019), France,
and Spain (Ciupuliga & Cuppen, 2013) as well as in Sweden (Soini et al., 2011), Germany (Zoellner et al., 2008)
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and
is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACT Mark Koelman m.koelman@uu.nl Deparmant of Human Geography and Planning, Utrecht University, Princetonlaan 8a,
3584 CB Utrecht, the Netherlands
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING
https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2022.2093175
and Switzerland (Lienert et al., 2015). Such controversy results in opposition to electricity transmission and
distribution grid development (both overhead and underground lines) and some of these cases even doubled
both planning and construction times (Cohen et al., 2016). Projects that experience such opposition can take
over a decade to be completed resulting in significant financial costs of construction for high voltage grid
developers (Nelson et al., 2018, p. 568; Winn, 2014). In other cases, this has led to congestion of high voltage
grids, leading to unstable and non-accessible systems (Koecklin et al., 2021). With the massive extent of future
expansions, the opposition taking landowners’motivations behind support or opposition seriously in high
voltage grid development is urgent.
After three decades (or waves) of social research on public acceptance (Batel, 2020), recent studies have
focused on individual motivation to gain a better understanding of why development plans are opposed.
Devine-Wright (2011) went beyond NIMBYism –or Not in My Backyard –by focusing on public engagement.
Bridge et al. (2013) studied different energy technologies and their impacts on policy acceptance. With a focus
on energy dispossession, Baka (2017) studied the effect of uneven power relations on individual landowners’
position in energy development. Instead of approaching opposition as something that needs to be mitigated,
Wolsink (2018) encourages a better understanding of public attitudes in the social context of energy technol-
ogies more broadly. New studies, supporting data collection methods such as social media analysis, have thus
led to interesting findings on the role of social media within the public discourse on grid development (Borch
et al., 2020). However, few studies have considered individuals affected by high voltage grid development
(Batel & Devine-Wright, 2020). Even fewer studies have addressed the rationalities and motivations of indi-
vidual landowners. As such, this study revolves around the following question: Why do landowners support or
oppose high voltage grid development?
To increaseour understanding, we conducted a qualitativestudy focused on key actors within the field of high
voltage grid development. Specifically, the results presented in this paper draw upon 15 in-depth interviews with
Transmission System Operator (TSO) and civil servants who were engaged in conversations with over 200 land-
owners concerning the case studied in this research, namely ‘High voltage grid development kop van Noord-
Holland’in the Netherlands. While we are aware of the limits of indirect interviewing, this approach offers a
way to gain insight into the plurality of motivations from over 200 landowners. This approach allowed very rea-
listic conditions, as the interviewees directly engage in conversations with landowners to eventually reach an
agreement. Their perspectives thus prove insightful for both understanding the motivations of landowners as
well for the context in which these conversations took place (Aitken et al., 2016).
Considering the potential number of motivations among the 200 landowners, we needed an approach that
could manage multiple outcomes without compromising pluralism. In other words, we aim to include all
different motivations, while being able to analyze plural ways of thinking. Cultural Theory provides such a
framework: it reduces the number of possible motivations to four underlying rationalities, namely Hierar-
chism, Individualism, Egalitarianism, and Fatalism (Douglas, 1999), and at the same time offers a useful
way to categorize and operationalize plural rationalities behind landowner motivations without neglecting
mutual contradictions and plurality (Douglas, 1999). The focus is thereby on the behavior of landowners in
specific situations –i.e. the negotiations about land for the energy transition. The aim is not to reveal a per-
son’soverall rationality. Therefore, the situational approach of Cultural Theory helps to focus on understand-
ing how rationalities act out in specific social situations to gain new insights into individual motivations in
these situations. This situational approach, namely, assumes that persons can act out different rationalities
in different social situations (Davy, 2004).
The remainder of this paper consists of seven sections. In the next part, we elaborate on three waves of
social research on issues of high voltage grid development (Batel, 2020). Section three of this paper then intro-
duces the grid and scheme model of Cultural Theory as the analytical framework. Section four presents our
methodology while sections five and six present our case study and elaborate on the results. Within the per-
spective of our analytical framework, section seven contains a discussion of the results. The paper concludes
with section eight where a claim is made for a critical approach to gain a better understanding of landowner
motivations as well as the need for a new approach to overcoming opposition to high voltage grid
development.
2M. KOELMAN ET AL.
2. Addressing opposition to high voltage grid development
Understanding the individual motivations underlying local acceptance and opposition has been part of studies
on energy infrastructure development for at least three decades divided over three waves (Batel, 2020). In fact,
the focus on opposition to high voltage grid development can be found in the extensive research on the social
acceptance of renewable energy technologies and associated infrastructure. Most people support grid devel-
opment in general, however, there are important exceptions; transmission and distribution line projects for
example experience significant public opposition (Carley et al., 2020). The first wave of research on public
acceptance focused mainly on the Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) motivations of individuals and organized
opposition groups (Batel, 2020). In the second wave, criticism of the NIMBY concept for explaining social
acceptance led to new critical approaches. The third wave started with scholars arguing for a better under-
standing of the motivations of individuals who object to renewable energy technologies (Batel, 2020). Here
we briefly address these three waves.
The first wave of research on public acceptance of energy technologies and associated infrastructure, which
took place in the 1990s, was focused mainly on the NIMBY motivations of individuals and organized opposi-
tion groups (Batel, 2020). As a concept, NIMBY was often used to explain public opposition towards energy
technology developments and line siting projects. Project proponents slapped the NIMBY label on opponents
to degrade all forms of opposition (Davy, 1996; Fischer, 1995; Wolsink, 1996). Hence, opponents were labeled
ignorant of scientific and technical facts, and above all were accused of only being concerned with their prop-
erty values (Burningham, 2000; Burningham et al., 2006). However, concerns expressed by individuals affected
by high-voltage power line development led to multiple studies about the effects on people’s health during this
first wave (Tenforde, 1992; Verkasalo et al., 1993). Priestley and Evan’s(1996) research for example has shown
that the proximity of high voltage power lines does not correlate with the level of concern around property
values nor the health risks of landowners. As a result, these concerns and the studies that followed further
rebut the ignorant NIMBY label given to concerned individuals.
In the second wave, criticism of the NIMBY concept for explaining social acceptance led to new critical
approaches (Batel, 2020). Following Priestley and Evan’s earlier research, Devine-Wright (2005), Braunholtz
(2003), and Warren et al. (2005) all argued that line siting issues cannot be adequately explained by simply
correlating proximity to line siting projects and the opposition that arises. On top of that, the opposition
can be seen as rational behavior, especially when individuals must incur personal disadvantage for the sake
of another’s advantage (Peterson & Hansson, 2004). Other scholars, who claim that the opposition is ignorant
or misinformed, are criticized as well, as there are no clear relationships between knowledge and acceptance of
energy technologies (Ellis et al., 2007, p. 520). These discussions correspond with the acknowledgment that,
despite the amount of literature available on public acceptance of energy technologies, the ‘genuine under-
standing of the dynamics of public acceptance remains elusive’(Devine-Wright, 2007). This elusiveness
started the third wave.
The third and most recent wave argues for the inclusion of more multilevel and polycentric perspectives
that look at how the roles of stakeholders at different levels impact individuals’responses to renewable energy
technologies at the local scale (Swyngedouw, 2010). Such a critical approach is supported as well by Batel and
Devine-Wright (2017) and Batel (2018) to better understand the individual responses towards renewable
energy technologies and so overcome opposition. In consideration of this recent wave, individual rationalities
are increasingly introduced into the scientific debate on the acceptance of renewable energy technology devel-
opment. For example, studies have shown that place attachments (Bailey et al., 2016), procedural injustices
(Winn, 2014), and landowner compensation (Cotton & Devine-Wright, 2012) heavily influence people’s
motivations toward renewable energy technologies. More recently, examining power relations is deemed
important for understanding the dynamics between actors in renewable energy technology developments
(Gailing et al., 2020). For example, Cotton and Devine-Wright (2010) argue that there is a lack of trust in
these operators due to the lack of local embeddedness and unfamiliarity with these companies. Additionally,
residents have low expectations of network operators effectively engaging the public in high voltage grid devel-
opment processes (Aitken et al., 2016). Marshall et al. (2017) argue that to balance out the power differences
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 3
between grid operators and the public, individual motivations need to be incorporated into high voltage grid
development processes, especially to further empower landowners in these developments. In contrast, Wol-
sink (2018) argues that, as participation becomes more established in decision-making processes, social confl-
ict or disagreements become recognized as part of the transformation from top-down policies and regulations
to more bottom-up practices that include all stakeholder interests (Marres, 2016).
While the third wave does have a stronger focus on power relations, the elusiveness that Devine-Wright
(2007) spoke about at the end of the second wave remained. This can be translated into the lack of a genuine
understanding of the individual motivations behind objections to energy technologies (Batel, 2020). Taking
into consideration the lack of understanding of individual motivations about energy technologies and looking
at how this knowledge can influence power relations between grid operators and landowners, we argue that
this study adds to the body of knowledge acquired at the end of the second wave.
3. Analytical framework
Based on the importance of understanding individual motivation, we question the underlying rationalities of
cooperation and opposition toward high voltage grid development. Grid developments are regularly an
analytical framework that can reduce the number of possible rational explanations –without compromising
the diversity of motivations –is necessitated. Cultural Theory seems promising as it provides a model to distill
many possible expectations into four categories, namely: Hierarchism, Individualism, Egalitarianism, and
Fatalism (see Figure 1). To distinguish between the four rationalities, Cultural Theory is built on a grid-
and-group scheme where every social action takes place within the grid and its group dimensions. The extent
to which individuals are bound to one or a combination of external structures, rules, and prescriptions is indi-
cated in the grid dimension. For example, individualism and egalitarianism are rationalities in which individ-
uals deem themselves less bound to rules and other external obligations (weak grid) in comparison to
individuals in the fatalism and hierarchism rationalities (strong grid). Individual preferences to join a
group (strong group) or act as an individual (weak group) are indicated along the group axis (for more details
see Thompson et al., 1990).
Douglas (1978) introduced Cultural Theory as a concept to understand pluralistic behavior and was devel-
oped further by Douglas and Wildavsky (1982), Dake (1991), and Wildavsky and Dake (1990). It assumes that
actors behave based on a certain worldview (e.g. the four rationalities). Within Cultural Theory there are two
views on assigning rationalities to individuals. An actor-oriented approach is more concerned with whom
rationalities are involved and rather strict in assigning single rationality to a particular individual. It is this
rationality that determines how an individual acts in every situation (Davy, 2004). The second view, situ-
ation-oriented polyrationality, regards social systems in such a way that situations determine the actions of
Figure 1. The rationalities of cultural theory (‘grid-and-group’scheme).
4M. KOELMAN ET AL.
individuals (Davy, 2004). Individuals can act from different rationalities depending on the situation at hand.
The situation-oriented approach overcomes the fundamental attribution error that exaggerates the single
rationality approach while underestimating the situation-dependent behavior of individuals (Hartmann,
2016).
While Cultural Theory has been employed within spatial planning on locally unwanted land uses (Davy,
1997), restricted and shared uses of land (Davy, 2012), and participation (Hartmann, 2012), it has not been
used for social acceptance of high voltage grid developments. Cultural Theory can help us to find out if
there is any dominant rationality shared among landowners affected by high voltage grid development. It
also allows us to simultaneously address notions of power relations between landowners, TSO, and govern-
ments (Gailing et al., 2020). Furthermore, the four rationalities of Cultural Theory help us to identify the
motives behind situational individual opposition. They also enable the telling of different rational stories
about a situation that is rational on its own but appears to be irrational from the perspective of other ration-
alities (Paterson, 2007, p. 516). This diversity is crucial because it helps us understand why, in certain situ-
ations, additional information, communication, and roundtable discussions often fail (see also Billé, 2008).
As a result, reducing the number of possible individual motivations to four rationalities makes addressing
and categorizing a less complex endeavor. Here we brieflydefine the four rationalities concerning landowner
motivation and energy grid development.
3.1. Egalitarianism
Landowners with motivations based on egalitarian arguments embrace community- and trust-based schemes.
Egalitarians are eager to unite and organize themselves against top-down development plans and will not sup-
port or object to such plans at first. Their position will depend on how the distribution of gains and losses is
executed. As such, the fair and equal distribution of compensation will be favored by egalitarians and will most
likely result in cooperation. However, when a fair and equal distribution is not met, egalitarians are then sen-
sitive to deadlocks because interference of any authority to solve issues is not accepted. Considering the impor-
tance of equality for egalitarians, participative and collaborative approaches could notably reflect egalitarian
rationality (Healey, 2003, p. 104).
3.2. Individualism
In terms of grid development, viewing individualism rationality from a landowner’s perspective means that
plans must both increase economic welfare and respect individual property rights (Hartmann, 2011). Individ-
uals are free to negotiate with the grid operator. However, due to the position of individual landowners within
this non-competitive context, the opposition can arise when the property rights aren’t, in the eyes of land-
owners, justly monetized (Bidwell, 2013). Consequently, while individualism rejects regulation, it is not com-
pletely against governmental intervention. Instruments such as (co-)ownership, tradable development rights,
and active land policy are acceptable if public interventions facilitate economic development (Sorensen & Day,
1981).
3.3. Hierarchism
As with egalitarian rationality, hierarchism values the collective over individuals. The difference between ega-
litarianism and hierarchism is that hierarchism rather promotes top-down approaches instead of being against
them. Institutions or experts are exclusively deemed capable of balancing all interests and finding the optimal
solution with a fair and binding outcome. Hierarchists are most likely to agree with grid development because
of the high level of expertise and presence of grid developers and public professionals; these institutions can be
seen as trustworthy because of the level of experience and knowledge they possess. However, when institutions
or experts are not seen as capable or are suspected of abusing their position, Hierarchists will be skeptical of
top-down advice and plans.
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 5
3.4. Fatalism
In contrast to the other more ‘active’rationalities, fatalism is the most passive. Motivations based on fatalism
derive from the belief that there is no justice at all, just luck. This rationality neglects any top-down steering or
bottom-up action due to the wicked complexity of the world around them. Considering high voltage grid
development, landowners adhering to fatalistic rationality will supposedly at first oppose development
plans but eventually cooperate as there is no way to stop the development anyway.
Given our increasing understanding of individual motivations, the grid-and-group scheme (see Figure 1)
derived from Cultural Theory helps us to address and categorize the multiplicity of individual motivations. As
a result, we can identify the motives behind the landowner arguments while avoiding dualisms such as state
versus the market or top-down versus bottom-up since there is no preferred option between the rationalities
(Thompson et al., 1990, p. 21). The four rationalities are mutually exclusive and therefore, as Hartmann (2012)
argues, ‘enable the telling of different rational stories about a situation that are rational on their own but
appear to be irrational from the perspective of the other rationalities.’Addressing individual motivations with-
out losing plurality in the process is crucial because it brings an understanding of why certain approaches to
managing or coping with individuals’motivations might succeed or fail (Billé, 2008).
4. Methodology
To address and categorize landowner motivations, we employ a mixed-method analysis on a major high vol-
tage grid development in the Netherlands that has both local and regional character and where the capacity of
energy distribution networks is under significant pressure. While the number of detailed studies on the expan-
sion of high voltage grids is limited, the importance of such development is recognized abroad. Our case study
on the regional high voltage grid development project ‘Net uitbreiding Kop van Noord-Holland’has a strong
focus on the development of substations and underground transmission lines. It is important to note that in
the literature on issues with transmission lines, studies are mainly focused on the visibility of these develop-
ments. In this specific case, we argue that arguments related to visibility and landscape degradation feature less
in landowner motivations.
For the 15-in depth interviews with TSO-employed land agents and civil servants, we constructed a stan-
dardized interview protocol with questions on the four rationalities of Cultural Theory. This approach helped
reveal how over 200 landowners’motivations are divided among the grid-and-group scheme. The interviewed
civil servants work for the local and regional governments that are public landowners within the project of our
case study. The TSO interviewees were asked to recall the rationalities of private landowners, with the help of
transcripts of the conversations. As for the civil servants, they were able to represent their rationalities at the
time of the conversations with the TSO representatives. Specifically, we asked questions about the following
topics: the roles of stakeholders, local communities, and landowners; the legislative and policy context of pub-
lic engagement in electricity infrastructure siting; and finally, the communication and engagement methods
employed by the TSO. Due to both the delicate situation between landowners and TSO and the practical limit-
ations of interviewing a large amount of sometimes hostile landowners within a small period we specifically
applied the situation-oriented approach of Cultural Theory as addressed in section 3.
The results presented in section 6of this paper draw upon information obtained from local and regional
government representatives and land agents who work directly for –or were hired by –the TSO, the main
actor of our case study. The employees chosen for the interviews had multiple conversations with over 200
landowners during the project. This paper also draws upon a larger sample of high voltage grid development
issues and approaches that are discussed in the literature and elaborated on in section 2.
With the help of the grid-and-group scheme, this study analyzes motivations to reveal the underlying
rationalities behind project support or objection. During the interviews, we asked research participants to cat-
egorize motivations among the four rationalities of the grid-and-group scheme. As a result, we were able to
discuss with the interviewees which rationalities were more likely behind support or opposition to high voltage
6M. KOELMAN ET AL.
grid development and why. Due to the mutual exclusiveness of the four rationalities, this study clearly illus-
trates the differences between individual landowners.
5. Our case study: ‘high voltage grid development Kop van Noord-Holland’
Given the effects of climate change, the governments of many industrialized countries have committed them-
selves to drastically reducing their CO2 levels. A widely debated measure for CO2 reduction is the transition
from a fossil-fueled energy system to a more renewables-based energy system. In the Dutch province of
Noord-Holland, the generation of renewable electricity is becoming more decentralized through wind tur-
bines built on land, causing a volatile influx of power on the existing electricity grid. Simultaneously, new
economic development is increasing electricity demand which affects the capacity and reliability of high vol-
tage grid systems (Haakana et al., 2018; Mikellidou et al., 2018). As a result of the combined pressure, the
national TSO, TenneT, decided to expand the regional energy distribution network in the north of Noord-
Holland by way of a project called ‘High voltage grid development kop van Noord-Holland’–the focus of
our study –which requires underground high voltage cables to be installed on over 200 parcels of public
and private land.
For the development and maintenance of high-voltage power lines, the national TSO needs to access a 30-
meter-wide strip of land around power lines. To use this land, the TSO attempts to reach an amicable agree-
ment with all landowners, other entitled parties, and users of the land at the location of the high-voltage power
lines and the adjoining land strip, by establishing a ‘right in rem’(TenneT, 2019). These contracts consist of
arrangements concerning the use of land, the amount of compensation, and which rights the entitled party has
for future compensation. A ‘Right in rem’is a development right and an independent right that is an infringe-
ment on the exclusive user rights of the owner and other rights in rem parties. When establishing a right in
rem, the TSO follows the principle of indemnification originated from the ‘Belemmeringenwet Privaatrecht’
(or law on limits to private law). This means that every financial damage incurred by proprietors, that is direct
and essentially an effect of the right in rem establishment, must be fully compensated.
Whenever a fair and reasonable agreement for both parties is not reached, network operators such as TSO’s
can use the law on limits to private law for the construction and maintenance of high-voltage power lines.
Through this law, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment can issue the landowner a ‘Gedoogplicht’
which is the Dutch equivalent of a ‘rights of way’. This procedure obliges landowners to tolerate use limits on
their private property. Within this whole project, multiple obligations have been issued because private owners
were not willing to reach an agreement with the TSO for the development of 150 kV power lines on their land.
For each of these cases, at least six months to a year is needed to reach a court ruling when such rights of way
procedures are issued.
The whole project spans more than 200 public- and privately-owned plots that are mainly used for agricul-
tural purposes. The ownership of these plots is divided between local and regional governments, private own-
ers, and businesses. Many of the private owners are well known for conducting business and in some cases, the
land has been owned by their families for decades. As such, the TSO held at least 600 consultations with land-
owners before concluding whether individual landowners will cooperate or object to their development plans.
Eventually, both the construction of multiple power lines and substations encountered resistance from differ-
ent landowners; they also received several objections to permits granted by local, regional, and water auth-
orities. After various conversations with landowners and their legal counsel, an irreconcilable gap remained
between what the TSO could offer and what the landowners regarded as a minimum to reach an agreement.
Due to this gap, the TSO started procedures including limits on private law and rights of way, to legally enforce
both the construction of high-voltage power lines and the limits on the land owned by the opposers. While the
outcomes have been mainly in favor of the TSO, dealing with this kind of procedure is a time-consuming
process.
Within spatial planning, both regional and local governments perform a cross-sectoral and unifying role.
However, a province has different interests, roles, objectives, and instruments for resolving spatial challenges
which are supplementary to those of local governments. In comparison to the local land use plans developed
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 7
by local governments, spatial developments at the provincial level that diverge from local plans are established
through provincial land use plans. These provincial or regional plans are used for developments that have
regional importance or transcend municipal borders, such as infrastructure projects. As regionally embedded
plans overrule local land use plans, such plans are often not used lightly by regional governments.
In this case, the Province of Noord-Holland decided to establish a provincial land use plan.
1
Two reasons
were at hand: First, the Dutch National government has imposed an objective upon all provinces to develop an
agreed number of land-based wind turbines, and second, such a plan follows the provincial policy strategy.
Network expansion is of regional importance since the expansion will connect current and future wind tur-
bines and other major electricity-consuming developments (e.g. data centers) to the electricity network in the
upper part of the province of Noord-Holland. Without going into too much detail, a provincial land use plan
has the same legal standing as a local land use plan and any legal content will be part of existing local land use
plans (art. 3.28, lid 3 Wro).
During the project, the initial provincial land use plan was changed six times between 2016 and the end of
2019 for the following reasons: (1) Legally honored objections from landowners brought up during the rights
of way procedure; (2) change of location of high-voltage power lines due to agreements with landowners; and
(3) change of location of high-voltage power lines due to technical reasons. Both the initial provincial land use
plans and permit as well as deviation from permitted land uses received objections from land use owners at the
planned location of the high-voltage power lines. These objections have delayed the project independently of
each other for at least six months. Also, location changes of the high-voltage power lines (resulting from ami-
cable negotiation with landowners) in turn received new objections from other people living near the planned
location of the high-voltage power lines, further delaying the process.
6. Results
The following results derive from an analysis of 15 in-depth interviews and accompanied documents con-
cerning conversations the interviewees had with over 200 landowners during the project ‘Kop van Noord-
Holland’. Based on the interviewee’s estimation, consisting of recollection and transcripts of the conversa-
tions held, the overall distribution of motivations behind support or objection among the grid-and-group
scheme (Figure 1) came out as follows: Around 75 percent of landowners based their arguments on the
egalitarian rationality while arguments based on the hierarchism and fatalism rationalities both accounted
for around 10 percent. Finally, five percent of landowners had arguments based on the individualism
rationality.
In terms of motivations based on egalitarianism, the most surprising and common argument concerned the
fair and even compensation for them and their neighbors. An interesting quote stated ‘…we don’t care about
any personal compensation, we prefer an honest distribution of compensations among all my neighbors’.In
many cases, after the first two exploring conversations, individuals that showed an egalitarian rationality,
accepted the terms received from the land agents. The most common question asked was if the offer they
received was comparable with the ones their neighbors did. During the interviews, several TSO interviewees
‘…had the idea that they (i.e. the landowners) knew this already, but wanted to hear it from us.’Other more
collectively organized landowners hired advisors to inform them about their rights to compensation. Among
these landowners, the interviewees heard the following argument many times: ‘…we know you are experts,
and possibly have good intentions, but we want to make really sure everything is all right.’In addition, some
landowners felt a moral responsibility to cooperate with the development plans. As a result, besides fair and
even compensation, these landowners felt in some way obliged to cooperate to reduce the increasing pressure
on the existing high voltage grid.
Landowners with motivations based on hierarchism were identified as the more public landowners such as
the municipalities of Hollands Kroon and Medemblik as well as the province of Noord-Holland. These tiers of
government recognized and shared an interest in energy transition objectives. This willingness is illustrated by
a government employee who stated, ‘…we need to play our part in reducing CO2 and therefore we need a
strong electricity system. By offering space underground, this is a relatively easy way to do so.’Public
8M. KOELMAN ET AL.
landowners, therefore, seem to understand the importance of the developments and their roles in the process.
With motivations based on hierarchism, these actors trust in the expertise of TSO’s.
In contrast to the pro-development landowners who based their motivations on egalitarianism and hierar-
chism, landowners that used arguments based on fatalism were less cooperative. For example, some land-
owners felt that they did not have a say in the whole project; the TSOs and other government
organizations always implemented their plans top-down and without any way to participate. For example,
most heard comments where ‘…you are already the fifth company that wants something from our land’
and ‘…we know a better location than you do.’While some landowners hired an agent to negotiate more
fair compensation in their eyes, the TSO is bound to legislative preconditions for compensation. Some of
these landowners hired advisors to help them through the objection process, but as no compensation is
received when a right of way is imposed, the landowners residing in the fatalism quarter of the grid-and-
group scheme eventually cooperated.
An in-depth analysis of landowners who did not voluntarily cooperate with development plans
showed that motivations were mostly based on individualism. Motivations were divided between self-
interest, such as not enough compensation for their loss of income and uncertainty about the continuity
of their business, and more principled ones such as illustrated by this statement by a TSO employee: ‘…
the land has been in their families for a long time and has never been interfered with.’Compensation
strongly influenced the motivations of these landowners. Advisors or agents were hired –by individuals
and not collectively as with the egalitarians –to receive the highest possible compensation. These advi-
sors were also instructed to find permit violations and investigate other agreements of grid operator
employees.
The time factor in this case study is another interesting finding to emerge from our analysis. Three inter-
viewees working for the TSO stated that some landowners object from the start, some change from objection
to acceptance while others start positively but then suddenly oppose. As one of the land agents stated
at first there are a lot of landowners that cooperate. After a while they get suspicious because the process takes too long …
and if then from standard procedure research on possible World War two explosives or archeology does suggest there is a
possibility of finding something, that leads to restlessness and worrying among landowners.
This change over time especially concerned landowners who were initially willing to cooperate based on
motivations driven by egalitarianism. Another example was when it became known that the project was
most needed because of new wind turbine developments and datacenters (instead of the initial reason to
cope with the increased use of electricity by new and expanding companies and businesses within the region),
some landowners started to object to the plans as described in the following statement of one landowner: ‘…
first you inform us about the pressure we all put on the high voltage grid and now it is for the wind turbines.’In
contrast to the egalitarian argument changing over time, the landowner motivations that corresponded with
fatalist rationalities did not change except in terms of their stance on cooperation.
7. Discussion
The land use conflicts emerging from opposition to high voltage grid development have led to significant and
negative effects including project delays and overspending of the TSO’s budget. With increasing pressure on
existing high voltage grids, these conflicts have also hampered economic development as well as placed
pressure on meeting national renewable energy objectives. To overcome the consequences of land use confl-
icts, taking landowners and their motivations seriously in high voltage grid development is urgent. Our case
study illustrates crucial points on the multiplicity of motivation among landowners affected by high voltage
grid development. To better understand individual motivations, conducting in-depth interviews and analyz-
ing comprehensive documentation about and with interviewees that employed conversations with over 200
individual landowners is a promising approach to do so. By examining the social struggles individual land-
owners face over access to and control over land, this paper adds to the social science research literature
on planning and energy.
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 9
Considering the situational approach of Cultural Theory and how the rationalities of the individual land-
owners are obtained by mediating parties, it can be discussed if this thoroughly reflects on the rationalities of
the same or other individuals in similar or different situations. While we address the rationalities of individuals
in specific situations, we do aim to assign these rationalities to the person’s character in general, but merely to the
specific situation. The goal of this paper is rather to focus on the rationalities shown by individual landowners in
the process of acquiring land to resolve the societal problem of grid development issues. Considering the litera-
ture on Cultural Theory, we do expect that landowners, within a certain bandwidth, will act differently in other
or similar cases (Douglas, 1999). This doesn’t change the fact that the results of this study add to the knowledge
and overall information provision for grid operators grid developments in future grid developments. For
example, future research could show if other forms of communication such as neighborhood sessions instead
of coffee table conversations are a more effective way to make agreements with landowners.
While the main takeaway in the literature is that most landowners oppose renewable energy technology
development, the results from this study suggest something a bit more nuanced. Only a minority of land-
owners opposed or were less amenable to cooperation with the TSO. Those landowners had individual or
fatalistic motivations based within the left half (or weak group) of the grid-and-group scheme. Most land-
owners in our sample (85 percent) were willing to cooperate after the first few conversations with the TSO.
This number corresponds with the percentages of landowners’motivations based on hierarchism and egali-
tarianism. Both rationalities are located within the strong group side of the grid-and-group scheme (Figure 1).
The dispersion of rationalities contradicts findings from previous studies, and we question why individual
landowners persist much more significantly in the egalitarian rationality when compared to the other three
rationalities. The results illustrate that the interests of grid operators and landowners differ a great deal but
based on our analysis we argue that these differences are not the main reason for landowners to support or
object to electricity grid development. For landowners, it was of crucial importance that advantages, and dis-
advantages are fairly and equally shared among all landowners (Cowell et al., 2011; Marshall et al., 2017). Most
landowners do not oppose electricity grid development when they and their neighbors are treated in the same
way and are compensated equally. The TSO invests a lot of time communicating with and reaching agreements
with individual landowners; multiple conversations occur. Differences in treatment are most definitely noticed
among neighbors since egalitarian individuals are more likely to cooperate in groups and therefore are in close
contact with each other. This corresponds with research that found that the community-based distribution of
resources and shared common interests in other renewable energy technologies projects were the main
reasons for support among landowners (Cowell et al., 2011; Marres, 2016).
While egalitarian rationality has a large presence among individual landowners, individuals who are mainly
focused on their interests are the ones that oppose electricity grid development (Batel, 2020); this small group
of individual landowners therewith delayed the development process. The amount of effort grid development
companies expends in laying claim on property to develop crucial infrastructure shows how well property
rights are protected. Without a landowner agreement, the entire grid development process can take up to
an additional year on top of the already long planning horizon of major electricity grid developments. Wolsink
(2018) argues that such opposition is an inevitable part of electricity grid development. Therefore, interesting
subjects for future research include whether individual rationality should be better incorporated into the cur-
rent approach with help of participation or streamlining the process and directly employing a rights-of-way
procedure. While the latter approach could overcome delays and additional public costs, it also could ignite
more opposition. Furthermore, this paper did not specifically address different rationalities among different
landowner types. We did discuss some differences between public and private owners, but future research
could analyze these differences more thoroughly. Besides these differences, it would be interesting to see
what the outcomes would be in other countries where the dispersion of rationalities could be entirely different.
8. Conclusion
Three waves of social research suggest that landowner motivations are more diverse than traditional NIMBY
claims (Batel, 2020); similar discoveries are made in this study. NIMBY arguments, based on concerns of
10 M. KOELMAN ET AL.
property devaluation resulting from electricity grid development on their land, were mostly made by land-
owners who resided in the weak group rationalities of Fatalism and Individualism; each was not in favor of
the specific development. The individuality expressed by these landowners corresponds with motivations
deriving from individual interests and so seems to be less influenced by grid aspects such as expertise or hier-
archy. While these landowners used traditional NIMBY arguments to avoid cooperation, and therefore the
project was delayed, these arguments can be seen as rational behavior considering the determination of the
imposed use of their land (Cotton & Devine-Wright, 2010; Peterson & Hansson, 2004).
The strong community-based focus among landowners goes along with the claim of Wolsink (2018) that
further establishing bottom-up practices such as participation could help include all stakeholder interests. This
argues for TSOs that support landowner organizations to increase trust or at least cultivate a more positive
attitude among landowners –in this case especially since landowners were mostly in favor of development
plans. Interestingly, more negative landowners did not organize themselves in the same quantity as the pro-
ponents. As a side note, landowners that were against electricity grid development in principle likely do not see
themselves engaging in such participation schemes (Cowell et al., 2011).
The effectiveness of bottom-up development however depends on the fair and even treatment of all land-
owners. Fair and even compensation, but also the complete and timely sharing of information and updates,
can help balance out the power and knowledge positions of grid operators and landowners, and therewith
can increase trust (Marshall et al., 2017). Conversely, any honest mistake can fuel the lack of trust that already
exists towards the TSO (Cotton & Devine-Wright, 2010) as well as lower expectations among landowners
which has a negative influence on electricity grid development processes (Aitken et al., 2016).
The uneven dispersion of motivations found in our case study can be used to discuss the right approach for
future electricity grid development. Although all four rationalities are present in this case, 75 percent of land-
owners have an egalitarian motivation to support electricity grid development. It can therefore be questioned
if all four rationalities need to be addressed evenly when finding a solution for land use conflicts. Considering
the smaller number of landowners who oppose and obstruct, it remains to be seen if other approaches will
overcome individual opposition to these developments. To prevent most future land use conflicts as discussed
in this study, a strong egalitarian approach –based on fair and even distribution of advantages and disadvan-
tages –is recommended above high individual compensation. Clearly, it’s not all about the money.
Note
1. The provincial land use plan is called ‘Netuitbreiding Kop Noord-Holland.’
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Mark Koelman is a PhD student at the Utrecht University. His research focuses on the relation of energy transition policies and
land uses, and specifically on the land use conflicts that emerge and the governance of such conflicts. He also works in the more
problem-oriented world of municipalities and regions.
Thomas Hartmann is the chair of land policy and land management (www.bodenpolitik.de). His research focuses on strategies of
municipal land policy, and the relation of flood risk management and property rights. He is also president of the international
academic association on planning, law, and property rights (www.plpr-association.org).
Tejo J. M. Spit is Professor in the Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning at Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
He specialises in land policy, planning methodology, infrastructure planning, and administrative aspects of spatial planning. He
has worked both in the academic world and the more problem-oriented world of municipalities.
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 11
ORCID
Mark Koelman http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1804-6165
References
Aitken, M., Haggett, C., & Rudolph, D. (2016). Practices and rationales of community engagement with wind farms: Awareness
raising, consultation, empowerment. Planning Theory & Practice,17(4), 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.
1218919
Bailey, E., Devine-Wright, P., & Batel, S. (2016). Using a narrative approach to understand place attachments and responses to
power line proposals: The importance of life-place trajectories. Journal of Environmental Psychology,48, 200–211. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.10.006
Baka, J. (2017). Making space for energy: Wasteland development, enclosures, and energy dispossessions. Antipode,49(4), 977–
996. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12219
Batel, S. (2018). A critical discussion of research on the social acceptance of renewable energy generation and associated infra-
structures and an agenda for the future. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning,20(3), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1523908X.2017.1417120
Batel, S. (2020). Research on the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies: Past, present, and future. Energy Research
and Social Science,68, 101544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101544
Batel, S., & Devine-Wright, P. (2017). Energy colonialism and the role of the global in local responses to new energy infrastruc-
tures in the UK: A critical and exploratory empirical analysis. Antipode,49(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12261
Batel, S., & Devine-Wright, P. (2020). Using NIMBY rhetoric as a political resource to negotiate responses to local energy infra-
structure: A power line case study. Local Environment,25(5), 338–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2020.1747413
Bidwell, D. (2013). The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy. Energy Policy,58, 189–199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.010
Billé, R. (2008). Integrated coastal zone management: Four entrenched illusions. SAPI EN. S. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating
Environment and Society,1(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.5194/sapiens-1-75-2008
Borch, K., Munk, A. K., & Dahlgaard, V. (2020). Mapping wind-power controversies on social media: Facebook as a powerful
mobilizer of local resistance. Energy Policy,138, 111223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111223
Braunholtz, S. (2003). Public attitudes to windfarms. Scottish Executive, Social Research.
Bridge, G., Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., & Eyre, N. (2013). Geographies of energy transition: Space, place, and the low-carbon
economy. Energy Policy,53, 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.066
Burningham, K. (2000). Using the language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers. Local Environment,5
(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/135498300113264
Burningham, K., Barnett, J., & Thrush, D. (2006). The limitations of the NIMBY concept for understanding public engagement
with renewable energy technologies: A literature. Retrieved March 3, 2021, from https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/
publications/the-limitations-of-the-nimby-concept-for-understanding-public-eng
Carley, S., Konisky, D. M., Atiq, Z., & Land, N. (2020). Energy infrastructure, NIMBYism, and public opinion: A systematic lit-
erature review of three decades of empirical survey literature. Environmental Research Letters,15(9), 093007. https://doi.org/10.
1088/1748-9326/ab875d
Ciupuliga, A. R., & Cuppen, E. (2013). The role of dialogue in fostering acceptance of transmission lines: The case of a France–
Spain interconnection project. Energy Policy,60, 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.028
Cohen, J., Moeltner, K., Reichl, J., & Schmidthaler, M. (2016). An empirical analysis of local opposition to new transmission lines
across the EU-27. The Energy Journal,37(3). https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.37.3.jcoh
Cotton, M., & Devine-Wright, P. (2010). Nimbyism and community consultation in electricity transmission network planning.
Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation, 115–128. https://doi-org.proxy.library.uu.nl/10.1111/j.1541-
1338.2012.00568_2.x
Cotton, M., & Devine-Wright, P. (2012). Making electricity networks “visible”: Industry actor representations of “publics”and
public engagement in infrastructure planning. Public Understanding of Science,21(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0963662510362658
Cowell, R., Bristow, G., & Munday, M. (2011). Acceptance, acceptability, and environmental justice: The role of community
benefits in wind energy development. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,54(4), 539–557. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09640568.2010.521047
Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,22(1), 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022191221006
Davy, B. (1996). Fairness as compassion: Towards a less unfair facility siting policy. Risk,7(2), 99.
Davy, B. (1997). Essential injustice: When legal institutions cannot resolve environmental and land use disputes. Springer.
Davy, B. (2004). Die Neunte Stadt –Wilde Grenzen und Städteregion Ruhr2030. Müller + Bussmann.
Davy, B. (2012). Land policy: Planning and the spatial consequences of property. Ashgate.
12 M. KOELMAN ET AL.
Devine-Wright, P. (2005). Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind
energy. Wind Energy: An International Journal for Progress and Applications in Wind Power Conversion Technology,8(2), 125–
139. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.124
Devine-Wright, P. (2007). Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: A critical
review. Working Paper No. 15, Beyond Nimbyism: A Multidisciplinary Investigation of Public Engagement with Renewable
Energy Technologies.https://geography.exeter.ac.uk/beyond_nimbyism/deliverables/bn_wp1_4.pdf
Devine-Wright, P. (2011). Public engagement with large-scale renewable energy technologies: Breaking the cycle of NIMBYism.
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change,2(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.89
Devine-Wright, P., & Sherry-Brennan, F. (2019). Where do you draw the line? Legitimacy and fairness in constructing commu-
nity benefit fund boundaries for energy infrastructure projects. Energy Research & Social Science,54, 166–175. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.erss.2019.04.002
Douglas, M. (1978). Cultural bias (No. 35). Royal Anthropological Institute.
Douglas, M. (1999). Four cultures: The evolution of a parsimonious model. GeoJournal,47(3), 411–415. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1007008025151
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). How can we know the risks we face? Why risk selection is a social process1. Risk Analysis,2
(2), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01365.x
Ellis, G., Barry, J., & Robinson, C. (2007). Many ways to say ‘no’,different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-methodology to under-
stand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,50(4), 517–551. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09640560701402075
Fischer, F. (1995). Hazardous waste policy, community movements and the politics of Nimby: Participatory risk assessment in the
USA and Canada. In Greening environmental policy (pp. 165–182). Palgrave Macmillan.
Gailing, L., Bues, A., Kern, K., & Röhring, A. (2020). Socio-spatial dimensions in energy transitions: Applying the TPSN frame-
work to case studies in Germany. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,52(6), 1112–1130. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0308518X19845142
Haakana, J., Haapaniemi, J., Lassila, J., Partanen, J., Niska, H., & Rautiainen, A. (2018, June). Effects of electric vehicles and heat
pumps on long-term electricity consumption scenarios for rural areas in the nordic environment. In 2018 15th international
conference on the European energy market (EEM) (pp. 1–5). IEEE.
Hartmann, T. (2011). Clumsy Floodplains: Responsive Land Policy for Extreme Floods. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
Hartmann, T. (2012). Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: Planning as expectation management. Planning Theory,11(3),
242–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212440427
Hartmann, T. (2016). Clumsy floodplains: Responsive land policy for extreme floods. Routledge.
Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory,2(2), 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/
14730952030022002
Koecklin, M. T., Longoria, G., Fitiwi, D. Z., DeCarolis, J. F., & Curtis, J. (2021). Public acceptance of renewable electricity gen-
eration and transmission network developments: Insights from Ireland. Energy Policy, 151, 112185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2021.112185
Lienert, P., Suetterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Public acceptance of the expansion and modification of high-voltage power lines in
the context of the energy transition. Energy Policy,87, 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.09.023
Marres, N. (2016). Material participation: Technology, the environment, and everyday publics. Springer.
Marshall, N., Adger, N., Attwood, S., Brown, K., Crissman, C., Cvitanovic, C., De Young, C., Gooch, M., James, C., Jessen, S.,
Johnson, D., Marshall, P., Park, S., Wachenfeld, D., & Wrigley, D. (2017). Empirically derived guidance for social scientists
to influence environmental policy. PLoS One,12(3), e0171950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171950
Mikellidou, C. V., Shakou, L. M., Boustras, G., & Dimopoulos, C. (2018). Energy critical infrastructures at risk from climate
change: A state of the art review. Safety Science,110,110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.12.022
Nelson, H. T., Swanson, B., & Cain, N. L. (2018). Close and connected: The effects of proximity and social ties on citizen opposi-
tion to electricity transmission lines. Environment and Behavior,50(5), 567–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517708598
Paterson, J. (2007) Sustainable development, sustainable decisions and the precautionary principle. Natural Hazards,42(3), 515–
528.
Peterson, M., & Hansson, S. O. (2004). On the application of rights-based moral theories to siting controversies. Journal of Risk
Research,7(2), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987042000171933
Priestley, T., & Evans, G. W. (1996). Resident perceptions of a nearby electric transmission line. Journal of Environmental
Psychology,16(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0006
Soini, K., Pouta, E., Salmiovirta, M., Uusitalo, M., & Kivinen, T. (2011). Local residents’perceptions of energy landscape: The case
of transmission lines. Land Use Policy,28(1), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.009
Sorensen, A. D., & Day, R. A. (1981). Libertarian planning. Town Planning Review,52(4), 390–402. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.52.
4.t851976n42252x10
Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Apocalypse forever? Theory, Culture & Society,27(2-3), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0263276409358728
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 13
Tenforde, T. S. (1992). Biological interactions and potential health effects of extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields from power
lines and other common sources. Annual Review of Public Health,13(1), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pu.13.
050192.001133
TenneT. (2019). Kop van Noord-Holland. Retrieved April 7, 2021, from https://www.tennet.eu/nl/ons-hoogspanningsnet/
onshore-projecten-nederland/kop-van-noord-holland/
Thompson, M., Ellis, R. J., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1990). Cultural Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
van Zalk, J., & Behrens, P. (2018). The spatial extent of renewable and non-renewable power generation: A review and meta-analy-
sis of power densities and their application in the US. Energy Policy,123,83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.023
Verkasalo, P. K., Pukkala, E., Hongisto, M. Y., Valjus, J. E., Järvinen, P. J., Heikkilä, K. V., & Koskenvuo, M. (1993). Risk of cancer
in Finnish children living close to power lines. British Medical Journal,307(6909), 895–899. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.307.
6909.895
Warren, C. R., Lumsden, C., O’Dowd, S., & Birnie, R. V. (2005). ‘Green on green’: Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland
and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,48(6), 853–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09640560500294376
Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus,41–60. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/20025337
Winn, R. (2014). Landowner compensation in transmission siting for renewable energy facilities. The Electricity Journal,27(5),
21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2014.05.010
Wolsink, M. (1996). Dutch wind power policy: Stagnating implementation of renewables. Energy Policy,24(12), 1079–1088.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(97)80002-5
Wolsink, M. (2018). Social acceptance revisited: Gaps, questionable trends, and an auspicious perspective. Energy Research &
Social Science,46,287–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.034
Zoellner, J., Schweizer-Ries, P., & Wemheuer, C. (2008). Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in
Germany. Energy Policy, 36(11), 4136–4141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.026
14 M. KOELMAN ET AL.
