Assessing receptivity for change in urban stormwater management and contexts for action.

Individual and organisational receptivity for change towards the use of sustainable stormwater management systems has been previously examined, but the significance of the different contexts for achieving this has been largely unexplored. This paper examines the significance of contexts associated to the actions to bring this about by proposing and evaluating an emerging framework based on two related receptivity theories: the individual or organisational approach and the contextual approach. Results from a Swedish national questionnaire with professionals in stormwater management have been used, together with a limited number of interviews to develop and understand the validity of the framework. The analysis has indicated that the respondents were professionally prepared for change (action) but not practically prepared due to inadequate supportive contexts. In response, a number of potential contexts associated to the necessary actions were identified. The framework was found to provide new insights into the influence of receptive contexts for a change in water management practice. These insights can be used by policy makers and others to better support the realization of professional openness for change and thus accelerate the process of change to sustainable stormwater practice.

[1]  Megan Farrelly,et al.  Practitioner Perceptions of Social and Institutional Barriers to Advancing a Diverse Water Source Approach in Australia , 2009 .

[2]  Paul Jeffrey,et al.  A Conceptual Model of ‘Receptivity’ Applied to the Design and Deployment of Water Policy Mechanisms , 2004 .

[3]  Frans Berkhout,et al.  Socio-Technological Regimes and Transition Contexts , 2004 .

[4]  Maria Viklander,et al.  An Adaptive Stormwater Culture? Historical Perspectives on the Status of Stormwater within the Swedish Urban Water System , 2012 .

[5]  Andrew Chilvers,et al.  The socio-technology of engineering sustainability , 2011 .

[6]  Adrian Smith,et al.  The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions , 2005 .

[7]  P Harremoës,et al.  Integrated urban drainage, status and perspectives. , 2002, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[8]  Kevin McLoughlin,et al.  Receptivity to Change in a General Medical Practice , 2003 .

[9]  Rebekah R. Brown,et al.  Understanding the nature of publics and local policy commitment to Water Sensitive Urban Design , 2011 .

[10]  Jean Hillier,et al.  Stretching Beyond the Horizon: A Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning and Governance , 2007 .

[11]  Andrew Pettigrew,et al.  Shaping Strategic Change: The Case of the NHS in the 1980s , 1992 .

[12]  A. Einstein,et al.  Inside out , 1991, Nature.

[13]  Rebekah R. Brown,et al.  Towards understanding governance for sustainable urban water management. , 2011 .

[14]  Martyn Cordey-Hayes,et al.  Inward technology transfer as an interactive process , 1995 .

[15]  J. D. Grant,et al.  Receptivity to change. , 1982 .

[16]  T. P. Hughes.  The Seamless Web: Technology, Science, Etcetera, Etcetera , 1986 .

[17]  Richard Ashley,et al.  Stormwater management and urban planning: Lessons from 40 years of innovation , 2013 .

[18]  Rebekah R. Brown,et al.  Fit-for-purpose governance: A framework to make adaptive governance operational , 2012 .

[19]  Chris Zevenbergen,et al.  Collaborative research to support transition towards integrating flood risk management in urban development , 2011 .

[20]  Tim D Fletcher,et al.  Impediments and Solutions to Sustainable, Watershed-Scale Urban Stormwater Management: Lessons from Australia and the United States , 2008, Environmental management.

[21]  Peter Steen Mikkelsen,et al.  SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more – The evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage , 2015 .

[22]  Patrick McAlpine,et al.  Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. , 2006, Journal of environmental management.

[23]  A. Pettigrew,et al.  Studying Organizational Change and Development: Challenges for Future Research , 2001 .

[25]  W. Walker.  Entrapment in large technology systems: institutional commitment and power relations , 2000 .

[26]  Rebekah R. Brown,et al.  Governance experimentation and factors of success in socio-technical transitions in the urban water sector , 2012 .

[27]  J. Niemczynowicz.  Urban hydrology and water management – present and future challenges , 1999 .

[28]  Anne Loeber,et al.  Sustainable development and professional practice , 2011 .

[29]  Rebekah R. Brown,et al.  Professional Perceptions on Institutional Drivers and Barriers to Advancing Diverse Water Options in Australia , 2008 .

[30]  Sarah Ward,et al.  Rainwater harvesting in the UK: a strategic framework to enable transition from novel to mainstream , 2010 .

[31]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Toward a Relational Concept of Uncertainty: about Knowing Too Little, Knowing Too Differently, and Accepting Not to Know , 2008 .

[32]  A. Taylor.  Ten attributes of emergent leaders who promote sustainable urban water management in Australia , 2008 .