↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Barriers to Innovation in Urban Wastewater Utilities: Attitudes of Managers in California
Published in
Environmental Management, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00267-016-0685-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Kiparsky, Barton H. Thompson, Christian Binz, David L. Sedlak, Lars Tummers, Bernhard Truffer

Abstract

In many regions of the world, urban water systems will need to transition into fundamentally different forms to address current stressors and meet impending challenges-faster innovation will need to be part of these transitions. To assess the innovation deficit in urban water organizations and to identify means for supporting innovation, we surveyed wastewater utility managers in California. Our results reveal insights about the attitudes towards innovation among decision makers, and how perceptions at the level of individual managers might create disincentives for experimentation. Although managers reported feeling relatively unhindered organizationally, they also spend less time on innovation than they feel they should. The most frequently reported barriers to innovation included cost and financing; risk and risk aversion; and regulatory compliance. Considering these results in the context of prior research on innovation systems, we conclude that collective action may be required to address underinvestment in innovation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 18%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 26 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 13 14%
Engineering 11 12%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 32 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2023.
All research outputs
#3,239,975
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#217
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,504
of 315,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#7
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,372 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.