IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i9p4925-d544967.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From Pilot Projects to Transformative Infrastructures, Exploring Market Receptivity for Permeable Pavement in The Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Rutger de Graaf-van Dinther

    (Research Centre Sustainable Port Cities, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, 3089 JB Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Anne Leskens

    (Research Centre Sustainable Port Cities, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, 3089 JB Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Ted Veldkamp

    (Research Program Urban Technology, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, 1000 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Jeroen Kluck

    (Research Program Urban Technology, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, 1000 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Floris Boogaard

    (Research Centre for Built Environment NoorderRuimte, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, 9747 AS Groningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Climate change and changing land use challenge the livability and flood safety of Dutch cities. One option cities have to become more climate-proof is to increase infiltration of stormwater into soil through permeable pavement and thus reduce discharge of stormwater into sewer systems. To analyze the market receptivity for permeable pavements in the Netherlands, this article focuses on the perception of end-users towards key transition factors in the infrastructure transformation processes. Market receptivity was studied on two levels: (1) on the system level, by analyzing 20 key factors in the Dutch urban water sector that enable wider application of permeable pavements; and (2) on the technology level, by analyzing 12 key factors that explain why decision makers select permeable pavements or not. Results show that trust between cooperating partners was perceived as the system level key factor that needs to be improved most to facilitate the wider uptake of permeable pavements. Additionally, the association of end-users with permeable pavement, particularly their willingness to apply these technologies and their understanding of what kinds of benefits these technologies could bring, was regarded the most important receptivity attribute. On the technology level, the reliability of permeable pavement was regarded as the most important end-user consideration for selecting this technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Rutger de Graaf-van Dinther & Anne Leskens & Ted Veldkamp & Jeroen Kluck & Floris Boogaard, 2021. "From Pilot Projects to Transformative Infrastructures, Exploring Market Receptivity for Permeable Pavement in The Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:4925-:d:544967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4925/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4925/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lea Fuenfschilling & Niki Frantzeskaki & Lars Coenen, 2019. "Urban experimentation & sustainability transitions," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 219-228, February.
    2. Timo von Wirth & Lea Fuenfschilling & Niki Frantzeskaki & Lars Coenen, 2019. "Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 229-257, February.
    3. Kayhanian, Masoud & Weiss, Peter T & Gulliver, John S & Khazanovich, Lev, 2015. "The Application of Permeable Pavement with Emphasis on Successful Design, Water Quality Benefits, and Identification of Knowledge and Data Gaps," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt7fp5s5g2, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    4. Rebekah Brown & Richard Ashley & Megan Farrelly, 2011. "Political and Professional Agency Entrapment: An Agenda for Urban Water Research," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(15), pages 4037-4050, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlos Smaniotto Costa & Marluci Menezes & Petja Ivanova-Radovanova & Tatiana Ruchinskaya & Konstantinos Lalenis & Monica Bocci, 2021. "Planning Perspectives and Approaches for Activating Underground Built Heritage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Lindsay P. Galway & Charles Z. Levkoe & Rachel L. W. Portinga & Kathryn Milun, 2021. "A Scoping Review Examining Governance, Co-Creation, and Social and Ecological Justice in Living Labs Literature," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Devon McAslan & Farah Najar Arevalo & David A. King & Thaddeus R. Miller, 2021. "Pilot project purgatory? Assessing automated vehicle pilot projects in U.S. cities," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Rachel Greer & Timo Wirth & Derk Loorbach, 2023. "The Circular Decision-Making Tree: an Operational Framework," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    5. Frans Sengers & Bruno Turnheim & Frans Berkhout, 2021. "Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1148-1171, September.
    6. Waes, Arnoud van & Nikolaeva, Anna & Raven, Rob, 2021. "Challenges and dilemmas in strategic urban experimentationAn analysis of four cycling innovation living labs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    7. Daniel Black & Susanne Charlesworth & Maria Ester Dal Poz & Erika Cristina Francisco & Adina Paytan & Ian Roderick & Timo von Wirth & Kevin Winter, 2023. "Comparing Societal Impact Planning and Evaluation Approaches across Four Urban Living Labs (in Food-Energy-Water Systems)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Paula Kivimaa & Karoline S. Rogge, 2020. "Interplay of Policy Experimentation and Institutional Change in Transformative Policy Mixes: The Case of Mobility as a Service in Finland," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-17, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Tim Strasser & Joop de Kraker & René Kemp, 2020. "Three Dimensions of Transformative Impact and Capacity: A Conceptual Framework Applied in Social Innovation Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-40, June.
    10. Fedoua Kasmi & Ferney Osorio & Laurent Dupont & Brunelle Marche & Mauricio Camargo, 2022. "Innovation Spaces as Drivers of Eco-innovations Supporting the Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review," Post-Print hal-03590438, HAL.
    11. Inés Aquilué & Angélica Caicedo & Joan Moreno & Miquel Estrada & Laia Pagès, 2021. "A Methodology for Assessing the Impact of Living Labs on Urban Design: The Case of the Furnish Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-29, April.
    12. Kelly Bronson & Rachana Devkota & Vivian Nguyen, 2021. "Moving toward Generalizability? A Scoping Review on Measuring the Impact of Living Labs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, January.
    13. Kivimaa, Paula & Rogge, Karoline S., 2022. "Interplay of policy experimentation and institutional change in sustainability transitions: The case of mobility as a service in Finland," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    14. Uyarra, Elvira & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Flanagan, Kieron & Magro, Edurne, 2020. "Public procurement, innovation and industrial policy: Rationales, roles, capabilities and implementation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    15. Chris McPhee & Margaret Bancerz & Muriel Mambrini-Doudet & François Chrétien & Christian Huyghe & Javier Gracia-Garza, 2021. "The Defining Characteristics of Agroecosystem Living Labs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    16. Wilde, Kerstin & Hermans, Frans, 2021. "Deconstructing the attractiveness of biocluster imaginaries," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 23(2), pages 227-242.
    17. Kristiaan P. W. Kok & Alanya C. L. den Boer & Tomris Cesuroglu & Marjoleine G. van der Meij & Renée de Wildt-Liesveld & Barbara J. Regeer & Jacqueline E. W. Broerse, 2019. "Transforming Research and Innovation for Sustainable Food Systems—A Coupled-Systems Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-23, December.
    18. Shahryar Sarabi & Qi Han & A. Georges L. Romme & Bauke de Vries & Rianne Valkenburg & Elke den Ouden & Spela Zalokar & Laura Wendling, 2021. "Barriers to the Adoption of Urban Living Labs for NBS Implementation: A Systemic Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-15, November.
    19. Marina Van Geenhuizen & Razieh Nejabat, 2021. "Municipalities’ Policy on Innovation and Market Introduction in Sustainable Energy: A Focus on Local Young Technology Firms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.
    20. Laatsit, Mart & Grillitsch, Markus & Fünfschilling, Lea, 2022. "Great expectations: the promises and limits of innovation policy in addressing societal challenges," Papers in Innovation Studies 2022/9, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:4925-:d:544967. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.