1 Introduction
-
how to foster ‘problem’ identification in water utilities and thereby the initiation of innovation,
-
how to influence the choice of specific types of innovation, such as source control versus end-of-pipe technologies,
-
how to encourage a wider adoption of environmental innovations, particularly SCIs, within and across water utilities.
2 Conceptual Framework
2.1 The Innovation Process
2.2 Diagnosis and Evaluation
2.3 Factors Influencing Innovation
2.3.1 Institutional Environment
2.3.2 Natural Physical
2.3.3 Characteristics of the Innovator
2.3.4 Innovation Attributes
3 Methodology
3.1 Interviews
3.2 Linking Interview Data to Process Stages
-
Agenda Setting: Reference or statement describing the identification of a problem or issues.
-
Choice between Alternatives: Reference to alternatives to resolve the problem identified.
-
Re-innovation: Reference to design of the innovation or alternatively adaptation of the organisation to the innovation.
-
Diffusion: Reference to further adoption of an intervention within the organisation.
-
Routinisation: Reference to intervention as a standard response mechanism embedded in organisational practice
3.2.1 Proximity Analysis
4 Results and Discussion
Regulation and Institutional Factors
|
Drinking water quality standard (DWQS). The minimum quality standard for drinking water defined by the EC (EC 1998). |
Drinking water safety plans (DWSPs). A multi barrier approach – from catchment to tap - to ensure potable water delivery (WHO 2005). |
Water Framework Directive. EU legislation as adopted by E&W (EC 2000). |
Economic regulation. The price water utilities in E&W can charge to customers is determined by economic regulation (Allan 2006). |
Strategic Direction Statements. Water utilities are periodically required to published their business objectives for the next 25 year in Strategic Direction Statements (Ofwat 2009). |
Environmental Initiatives. Governmental and voluntary schemes that aim to reduce agricultural water pollution in E&W (Dolan et al. 2012). |
Farmer participation. Participation of farmers is crucial for the success of SCIs requirements (Brouwer et al. 2003). |
Natural physical
|
Trends and Peaks. This includes the rate and variability of water quality improvement or deterioration, including short term (seasonal) peaks. |
Hydrogeology, water source and catchment size. The properties of an aquifer water source, whether the water source is groundwater or surface water, catchment size – in terms of km2 or the extent to which farmers have a stake (Spiller et al. 2009). |
Land use. The type of agricultural land, peat land or urban land (Spiller et al. 2009). |
Organisational characteristics
|
Land ownership. Whether the raw water catchment is owned by the water utilities. |
Catchment and agricultural knowledge. Whether a water utility had already experience or knowledge in land management (Brouwer et al. 2003). |
Asset characteristics. Whether water treatment technologies were currently able to meet the DWQS and whether it was anticipated that they would fail this standard in the future. This factor also includes costs of operating the assets and costs of construction of new assets. |
Managerial attitudes. The way managers frame environmental problems and solutions (Sharma 2000). |
Customer preference. Whether customers give preference to pollution prevention rather than end of pipe treatment (Brouwer et al. 2003). |
Innovation attributes
|
Uncertainty. SCIs are associated with a risk of failing legal requirements, as quality improvements cannot be guaranteed (Brouwer et al. 2003). |
Risk reduction. SCIs can mitigate operational risks – lower likelihood of contamination or investment in the future e.g. reduction of Cryptosporidium risk in the catchment, reversal of nitrogen pollution to groundwater (Spiller et al. 2013b). |
Delayed response. Achieving water quality improvements with SCIs can take several years or decades (Brouwer et al. 2003). |
Low costs of entry and operation. SCIs are perceived as being less costly than competing end of pipe treatment alternatives (Spiller et al. 2013b). |
Low CO
2
footprint. SCIs are argued to be less greenhouse gas emission intensive than treatment solutions. |
4.1 Agenda Setting – Performance gap and Direct Regulation
-
asset lifetimes are shortened,
-
drinking water standards are tightened or customers make demands to exceed the drinking water standard (as for instance in Germany (Brouwer et al. 2003)),
-
or the raw water quality is deteriorating.
4.2 Choice Between Alternatives – Matching and Aligning Factors
-
support for SCIs by economic regulation (7),
-
the legal requirement to protect drinking water at source i.e. Article 7 of the WFD (6) and the DWSPs (5),
-
short term action in a long term framework (i.e. SDS – 5) and,
-
the existence of agri-environmental initiatives (3) are also required.
4.3 Re-Innovation and Restructuring – Matching and Design
-
Lobbying –to influence policy development to better protect drinking water resources,
-
Liaison –built around influence and collaboration with intermediary organisations,
-
Advice and support –the provision of technical advice and financial support directly to farmers,
-
Education activities –water utilities directly engage with farmers with a focus on raising awareness on water quality issues.