Sustainability transitions in Los Angeles’ water system: the ambivalent role of incumbents in urban experimentation

Figures & data

Table 1. Definitions of important terms used throughout the paper.

Term	Definition
Incumbent	Powerful companies, utilities, or other actors who ‘mainly have competencies related to the current technological regime’ (Smink et. al., 2015, p. 87), and who ‘are assumed to strategically enact their interest’ (Späth et al., 2016, p. 4)
Incumbency	Incumbency can be understood in relation to a status and position of power (and by extension mastery of key resources and processes) at a given time, which confers (a) privileged agency over the current workings and fate of established systems, and (b) exposure to potential overthrow or defeat, but (c) may also be leveraged to influence and shape transition efforts (Turnheim & Sovacool, 2020, p. 183)
Experimentation	An inclusive, practice-based and challenge-led initiative designed to promote system innovation through social learning under conditions of uncertainty and ambiguity (Sengers et al., 2019, p. 161)
Incumbent-enabled experimentation	Experimentation encouraged or facilitated by incumbents with a liminal character: they are not entirely external to an incumbent, nor are they internal (i.e. heavily controlled), due to this and their embeddedness they face certain opportunities and limitations

Figure 1. Analytical framework.

Table 2. Institutional dimensions which may influence how incumbents engage with experimentation (adapted from Raven et al., 2019).

	Description	What to look for	Potential influence on incumbent-enabled experimentation
Regulative	Rules and processes with formalized authority can set rules for, monitor and sanction activities.	References to policy frameworks, agendas and incentive schemes, or formalized collaboration frameworks.	Technical standards (Smink et al., 2015); Regulations (e.g. water quality); Vertical network ties (Bai et al., 2009); Inspections and sanctions
Normative	Values and norms specifying what goals and visions are important and prescribing how they should be accomplished.	Evidence of prioritizations for water experiments, through which means, and whose involvement.	Shared visions of change and sustainability (Kemp et al., 1998)
Cultural-cognitive	Shared conceptions and frames through which meaning is given and interpreted.	Common conceptions of sustainable experiments and their influence on and relation to broader systems.	Conservative, risk-averse and techno-rationalist operating culture among utilities (Farrelly & Brown, 2011)

Table 3. Characteristics of the experiments analyzed.

	Rain Systems	Saya Life	Advantageous Systems	Greywater Corps
Type of innovation / experiment	Water conservation	Water conservation & preventing water risks	Water conservation/ recycling	Water conservation/recycling & education
Relationship to LACI	Incubation Program	Incubation Program	Sponsor	None
Founding date	2016	2016	2008	2009
Joining date	2016	2016	2016	n/a
Purpose	Reduce water usage and cost by reducing the need for irrigation by injecting hydrogel in soil	Prevent water-related losses, safe water and reduce cost through monitoring water and detecting leaks	Purify and recycle water cheaply by treating it with magnetic nanoparticle	Reduce water usage and reuse water through eco-friendly greywater systems
Technology	Hydrogel installation machine	‘Smart’ water metering	Water purification system	Greywater system
Level of technology	High-tech	High-tech	High-tech	Low-tech
Number of employees	2–10	2–10	10–20	2–10

Table 4. LA’s institutional environment and the mediation possible through the campus.

Dimension	Examples	Mediation through the campus
Regulative	Public-private partnerships between DWP and the La Kretz Innovation Campus; City-level sustainable water management plans defining key areas for experimentation; City-level agencies’ policies, regulations, rebates, incentives, and research funding.	Influence in structuring experimental spaces and setting expectations for what is pursued.
Normative	Explicit focus on sustainability within water management; DWP’s power to shape experimental spaces and experiments through its monopoly position; Emphasis on technological innovation; Maintenance of DWP’s public character.	Values and norms guiding experimental spaces, mainly decided by the City and City-level Agencies focus on achieving sustainability through technology.
Cultural-cognitive	Innovation ‘ecosystem’ where technological entrepreneurship is rewarded; Residents expectation that water is cheap and innovations will maintain culturally significant practices (e.g. irrigated lawns)	Shared expectations of technological innovation through entrepreneurial ecosystem. Driven by start-ups and focused on establishing patents and for-profit innovation.

Table 5. Opportunities of incumbent-enabled experimentation within the La Kretz Innovation Campus.

Opportunities	Rain Systems	SayaLife	Advantageous Systems	Greywater Corps
Network factors
Vertical linkages	✓	✓	✓	✓
Horizontal linkages	✓		✓	✓
Political and institutional factors
Rules, regulations, policies				✓
Rebates and incentives	✓
Legitimacy and representation			✓
Economic and financial factors
Investors/grants	✓		✓
Pilot projects	✓	✓	✓
Technological factors
Technological compatibility	✓	✓	✓
Personal and human-capital factors
Skills	✓	✓	✓
Motivation			✓	✓

Table 6. Limitations faced by incumbent-enabled experiments within the La Kretz Innovation Campus.

Limitations	Rain Systems	Saya Life	Advantageous Systems	Greywater Corps
Network factors
Vertical mis-linkages	✓	✓	✓	✓
Horizontal mis-linkages
Political and institutional factors
Workplace culture			✓
Rules, regulations, policies		✓		✓
Economic and financial factors
Long procurement	✓		✓
Money and pilot projects	✓		✓	✓
Technological factors
Technological compatibility
Personal and human-capital factors
Lack of knowledge and skills	✓	✓

Table

R1	DWP Official (Sustainability Projects)	R9	Former DWP Official (Environmental Affairs)
R2	Founder individual experiment 1	R10	DWP Official (Water Conservation)
R3	Founder individual experiment 2	R11	DWP Official (Water Conservation and Recycling Policy)
R4	Founder individual experiment 3	R12	LA Sanitation Official (Water Recycling Implementation)
R5	Founder individual experiment 4	R13	LA’s Mayors Office of City Services Official (Infrastructure Policy)
R6	Director sustainable water non-profit	R14	DWP Official (Environmental Affairs)
R7	Director sustainability non-profit	R15	Metropolitan Water District Official (Resource Development)
R8	Founder sustainable water non-profit	R16	UCLA Official (California Center for Sustainable Communities)

Späth, P., Rohracher, H., & Von Radecki, A. (2016). Incumbent actors as niche agents: the German car industry and the taming of the “Stuttgart E-Mobility Region”. Sustainability, 8(3), 252. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030252

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Turnheim, B., & Sovacool, B. K. (2020). Forever stuck in old ways? Pluralising incumbencies in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35, 180–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.10.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sengers, F., Wieczorek, A. J., & Raven, R. (2019). Experimenting for sustainability transitions: A systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.031

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Raven, R., Sengers, F., Spaeth, P., Xie, L., Cheshmehzangi, A., & de Jong, M. (2019). Urban experimentation and institutional arrangements. European Planning Studies, 27(2), 258–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1393047

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Smink, M. M., Hekkert, M. P., & Negro, S. O. (2015). Keeping sustainable innovation on a leash? Exploring incumbents’ institutional strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(2), 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1808

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bai, X., Wieczorek, A. J., Kaneko, S., Lisson, S., & Contreras, A. (2009). Enabling sustainability transitions in Asia: The importance of vertical and horizontal linkages. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(2), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.03.022

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Farrelly, M., & Brown, R. (2011). Rethinking urban water management: Experimentation as a way forward? Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 721–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar