Barriers to Innovation in Urban Wastewater Utilities: Attitudes of Managers in California

Environmental Management

Volumn 57, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 1204-1216

  Kiparsky, Michael ^a,i   Thompson, Barton H ^b,i   Binz, Christian ^c,i   Sedlak, David L ^d,i   Tummers, Lars ^e,f   Truffer, Bernhard ^g,h,i  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b STANFORD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Berkeley   (United States)

^e UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^f ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^g SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF AQUATIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Switzerland)

^h UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

ⁱ NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Innovation; Risk; Technology; Wastewater

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; MANAGERS; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE; RISKS; TECHNOLOGY; WASTEWATER;

BARRIERS TO INNOVATIONS; COLLECTIVE ACTION; DECISION MAKERS; INNOVATION SYSTEM; UNDERINVESTMENT; URBAN WASTEWATER; URBAN WATER SYSTEMS; WASTEWATER UTILITIES;

INNOVATION;

COLLECTIVE ACTION; DECISION MAKING; INNOVATION; INVESTMENT; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RISK PERCEPTION; UTILITY SECTOR; WASTEWATER; WATER TECHNOLOGY;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO CHANGE; CALIFORNIA; COST; DECISION MAKING; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; MANAGER; SELF CONCEPT; TECHNOLOGY; URBAN AREA; WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER QUALITY; ANALYSIS; ATTITUDE; ORGANIZATION; PROCEDURES; QUESTIONNAIRE; SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION; URBANIZATION; WASTE WATER; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER SUPPLY;

CALIFORNIA; UNITED STATES;

WASTE WATER;

ATTITUDE; CALIFORNIA; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; URBANIZATION; WASTE WATER; WATER PURIFICATION; WATER RESOURCES;

EID: 84961205402     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: 14321009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-016-0685-3     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Ajami NK, Thompson BH Jr., Victor DG (2015) The path to water innovation. The Hamilton Project and Woods Insitute for the Environment, Stanford University
2. Hanak E et al (2014) Paying for water in California. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California
3. Albury D (2005) Fostering innovation in public services. Public Money Manag 25:51–56. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9302.2005.00450.x
4. Andreen WL (2003) Water quality today-has the clean water act been a success. Ala Law Rev 55:537
5. Bakker K, Cook C (2011) Water governance in Canada: innovation and fragmentation. Int J Water Resour Dev 27:275–289. doi:10.1080/07900627.2011.564969
6. Baumert J, Bloodgood L (2004) Private sector participation in the water and wastewater services industry. Office of Industries, US International Trade Commission, Washington, DC
7. Baur R, Prasad R, Britton A (2008) Reducing ammonia and phosphorus recycle loads by struvite harvesting. Proc Water Environ Fed 2008:6262–6270. doi:10.2175/193864708788809671
8. Bekkers V, Edelenbos J, Steijn B (2011) Innovation in the public sector. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
9. Britton A, Prasad R, Balzer B, Cubbage L (2009) Pilot testing and economic evaluation of struvite recovery from dewatering centrate at HRSD’s Nansemond WWTP. In: Proceedings of the international conference on nutrient recovery from wastewater streams, pp 193–202
10. Carlsson B, Stankiewicz R (1991) On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. J Evol Econ 1:93–118. doi:10.1007/bf01224915
11. Chavas J-P (2004) Risk analysis in theory and practice. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego
12. Conca K (2006) Governing water: contentious transnational politics and global institution building. MIT Press, Cambridge
13. Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL (2000) A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys educational and psychological measurement 60:821–836. doi:10.1177/00131640021970934
14. Coyne IT (1997) Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? J Adv Nurs 26:623–630. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.t01-25-00999.x
15. Damanpour F (1991) Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad Manag J 34:555–590. doi:10.2307/256406
16. Dobbie MF, Brown RR (2014) A framework for understanding risk perception, explored from the perspective of the water practitioner. Risk Anal 34:294–308. doi:10.1111/risa.12100
17. Dominguez D, Worch H, Markard J, Truffer B, Gujer W (2009) Closing the credibility gap: strategic planning for the infrastructure sector. Calif Manag Rev 51:30–50
18. Dowd R (1984) Safe Drinking Water Act Environmental science & technology 18:340. doi:10.1021/es00129a604
19. Farrelly M, Brown R (2011) Rethinking urban water management: experimentation as a way forward? Glob Environ Change 21:721–732. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.007
20. Grant SB et al (2012) Taking the “waste” out of “wastewater” for human water security and ecosystem sustainability. Science 337:681–686. doi:10.1126/science.1216852
21. Hartley J (2005) Innovation in governance and public services: past and present. Public Money Manag 25:27–34. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9302.2005.00447.x
22. Heidemeier H, Moser K (2009) Self–other agreement in job performance ratings: a meta-analytic test of a process model. J Appl Psychol 94:353
23. Hekkert MP, Suurs RAA, Negro SO, Kuhlmann S, Smits REHM (2007) Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 74:413–432. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002
24. Hoorens V (1993) Self-enhancement and superiority biases in social comparison. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 4:113–139. doi:10.1080/14792779343000040
25. Kiparsky M, Sedlak DL, Thompson BH Jr, Truffer B (2013) The innovation deficit in urban water: the need for an integrated perspective on institutions, organizations, and technology. Environ Eng Sci 30:395–408. doi:10.1089/ees.2012.0427
26. Lach D, Ingram H, Rayner S (2005) Maintaining the status quo: how institutional norms and practices create conservative water organizations. Tex Law Rev 83:2027–2053
27. Lieberherr E, Truffer B (2015) The impact of privatization on sustainability transitions: a comparative analysis of dynamic capabilities in three water utilities. Environ Innov Soc Trans 15:101–122. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2013.12.002
28. London Economics (2009) Innovation in the water industry in England and Wales: Final report, Cave review of competition and innovation in water markets. London Economics, London
29. Luthy RG, Sedlak DL (2015) Urban water-supply reinvention. Dædalus 144(3):72–82
30. Markard J (2011) Transformation of infrastructures: sector characteristics and implications for fundamental change. J Infrastruct Syst 17:107–117. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000056
31. McCormick IA, Walkey FH, Green DE (1986) Comparative perceptions of driver ability—a confirmation and expansion. Accid Anal Prev 18:205–208
32. Metselaar EE (1997) Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of the DINAMO. Ph.D. Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
33. Miller P, Klokgieters K, Brankovic A, Duppen F (2012) Managing innovation: an insider perspective. Cap Gemini, London.
34. Moore GE (1965) Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics. doi:10.1109/JPROC.1998.658762
35. Musiolik J, Markard J, Hekkert M (2012) Networks and network resources in technological innovation systems: towards a conceptual framework for system building. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 79:1032–1048. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.01.003
36. O’Connor RE, Yarnal B, Dow K, Jocoy CL, Carbone GJ (2005) Feeling at risk matters: water managers and the decision to use forecasts. Risk Anal 25:1265–1275. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00675.x
37. Osborne SP, Brown L (2011) Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK. The word that would be king? Public Adm 89:1335–1350. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01932.x
38. Parker DS (2011) Introduction of new process technology into the wastewater treatment sector. Water Environ Res 83:483–497. doi:10.2175/106143009x12465435983015
39. Potts J (2009) The innovation deficit in public services: the curious problem of too much efficiency and not enough waste and failure. Innov Manag Policy Pract 11:34
40. Potts J, Kastelle T (2010) Public sector innovation research: what’s next? Innov Manag Policy Pract 12:122–137. doi:10.5172/impp.12.2.122
41. Rayner S, Lach D, Ingram H (2005) Weather forecasts are for wimps: why water resource managers do not use climate forecasts. Clim Change 69:197–227. doi:10.1007/s10584-005-3148-z
42. Rogers EM (1962) Diffusion of innovation. Free Press, New York
43. Schaller RR (1997) Moore’s law: past, present and future Spectrum. IEEE 34:52–59. doi:10.1109/6.591665
44. Scherson YD, Criddle CS (2014) Recovery of freshwater from wastewater: upgrading process configurations to maximize energy recovery and minimize residuals. Environ Sci Technol 48:8420–8432. doi:10.1021/es501701s
45. Scott WR (2001) Institutions and organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
46. Sedlak D (2014) Water 4.0: the past, present, and future of the world’s most vital resource. Yale University Press, New Haven
47. Stoddard A, Harcum JB, Simpson JT, Pagenkopf JR, Bastian RK (2003) Municipal wastewater treatment: evaluating improvements in national water quality. Wiley, New York
48. Svenson O (1981) Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychol 47:143–148
49. Thomas D, Ford R (2005) The crisis of innovation in water and wastewater. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
50. Tidd J, Bessant J (2013) Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change, 5th edn. Wiley, New York.
51. Tummers L (2012). Policy alienation of public professionals: the construct and its measurement. Public Admin Rev 72(4):516–525.
52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014) Promoting Technology Innovation for Clean and Safe Water: Water Technology Innovation Blueprint—Version 2. EPA 820-R-14-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. Washington, DC.
53. Water Environment Federation (2013) The energy roadmap: a water and wastewater utility guide to more sustainable energy management. Water Environ Fed, Alexandria
54. Zuckerman EW, Jost JT (2001) What makes you think you’re so popular? Self-evaluation maintenance and the subjective side of the” Friendship Paradox”. Soc Psychol Q 64:207–223