Environmental Engineering and Management Journal

March 2016, Vol.15, No. 3, 589-598

http://omicron.ch.tuiasi.ro/EEMJ/

Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi, Romania

DRIVING FORCES AFFECTING THE ADOPTION

OF ECO-INNOVATION: A SURVEY ON VACUUM SEWER SYSTEMS
Iulia C. Terryn, Gabriel Lazar
Vasile Alecsandri University of Bacau, Calea Marasesti 157, 600115, Bacau, Romania

Abstract
The article studies the adoption of eco-innovation using the diffusion dynamic as a paradigm for investigating the environmental
reform in providing public goods. The study focused on the wastewater collection systems and analyzed how the structure of the
market, socio-cultural conditions, geographic proximity and the Gross Domestic Product level measured the acceptance or
rejection of eco-innovation. The authors investigated the data in order to test three hypotheses, respectively, the influence of the
period of adoption, general country economic performance, and neighborhood conditions in eco-innovation adoption. The
hypotheses were tested using statistical and geostatistical techniques. The study concluded that the adoption rate slows as the
saturation level is approached and early adopting countries have a broader uptake of the innovation than do latecomers, even
though the latecomers enjoy the benefits of leapfroggers. In addition, the study found that geographic proximity influenced who
was an early adopter and who was a laggard. The results illustrated that the general economic performance of a state does not
directly influence eco-innovation adoption.
Key words: eco-innovation, innovation diffusion, nonparametric test, vacuum sewer system
Received: August, 2015; Revised final: February, 2016; Accepted: February, 2016

1. Introduction
Understanding the nature of innovation
diffusion is important for the policy making arena,
since such an understanding by the policy makers is
significant in conceiving supportive policies for ecoinnovative technologies uptake and a better diffusion
forecast in a diverse world from a social and
economic point of view. The literature on ecoinnovation diffusion is fragmented and approaches
different perspectives of eco-innovation diffusion
focusing mainly on economic, marketing,
sociological conditions etc. (Hautsch and Klotz,
2003; Karakaya et al., 2014).
According to Huber (2008), the distribution of
innovation and best environmental practices cannot
be expected to spread from advanced lead markets
immediately throughout the world.
Innovations are divided into incremental and
radical innovation (Rio et al., 2010; Valle and

Vzquez-Bustelo, 2009). While the radical

innovations have a high level of uncertainty,
especially at early stages, the incremental innovations
are usually used because of their low degree of
uncertainty. A radical project development, as it is
the vacuum sewer system, requires flexibility and
creativity in resource and competency acquisition,
while incremental projects follow more formal and
predictable route, considering the traditional model
of wastewater collection. Incremental innovations do
not have the capacity to radically improve the
environmental conditions; that is why our study
focuses on radical innovations and their uptake by
states found in different stages of socio-economic
development.
The diffusion of innovation theory focuses on
the processes and conditions the eco-innovation is
distributed and adopted by users within society
(Rogers, 2005). Consistent with Rogers (2005), the
process of diffusion of innovation has four elements:

Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed: e-mail: glazar@ub.ro; Phone: + 40234542411

Terryn and Lazar/Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 15 (2016), 3, 589-598

the innovation itself, communication channel, time

and social system.
Rogers (2005) distinguished five categories of
innovation adopters, according to the relative speed
of adoption: innovators, early adopters, early
majority, late majority and laggards.
Eco-innovations imply clean or cleaner
technologies, product design for environment,
extended producer responsibility, recycling, lower
emission processes, and add-on purification
technology in emissions control (OECD, 2008). They
are anticipatory in their nature, integrating the
environmental concerns into their design. Moreover,
the eco-innovations (Duncan, 1996; Ebersberger and
Herstad, 2012; Gonzalez-Moreno et al., 2014;
Johnstone, 2005) are more economically efficient and
environmentally
effective
on
long
term.
Environmental innovations are pro-active and
anticipatory solutions, developed to reduce
environmental harm and mitigate the impact over
natural resources.
Some authors (Beise and Rennings, 2004;
Frondel et al., 2007; Horbach, 2008), sustain that
eco-innovations are more or less regulation driven,
yet, the focus is on the positive role played by costsavings as a motivation for cleaner production
technologies.
A way of determining if a technological
innovation is also an environmental innovation
resides on the fact that the new technology brings
about increased eco-efficiency and improved
metabolic consistency, in line with reducing energy
demand, etc. (Huber, 2008). The vacuum sewer
system is an eco-innovative solution in wastewater
management due to reduction of the environmental
impact, considering the high security of the system in
what concerns the spillage and odors, energy savings,
therefore internalizing the externalities.
Karakaya et al. (2014), reveals that the most
articles in the innovation diffusion have a focus on
the impact of environmental regulations on
company's performance, performance measurement
of environmental supply chain management, or
impact of corporate social performance on company
financial performance.
Based on review of the most relevant studies,
it was not possible to identify any research to
approach the eco-innovation adoption considering the
democratization historical context of adopters, the
economic performance measured on GDP and
proximity conditions.
Building on Roger diffusion theory, the
present study tries to fill this research gap making an
analysis of drivers of eco-innovation adoption.
The eco-innovative technologies and the
growing markets that are receptive to green
technologies do not assure a balanced penetration of
the eco-innovation on developed, emerging or
developing
markets,
leading
to
global
inequalities.The article presents an analysis on the
diffusion of vacuum sewer systems in the field of
wastewater collection (Airvac Inc., 2013; Buchanan

590

et al., 2010; Panfil et al., 2013; Roediger, 2013;

Terryn et al., 2014). By using the diffusion of
innovation theory (Cantono and Silverberg, 2009;
Rogers, 2005), the study tries to explain how, why
and at what rate the use of the wastewater vacuum
system spread through countries since its first
marketing in 1973 through 2008. In contrast with
different authors that have researched innovation
from
economic,
marketing,
sociology
or
anthropology perspectives (Binz et al., 2014; Bleda
and del Ro, 2013; Cruz-Czares et al., 2013;
Ebersberger and Herstad, 2012; Gonzalez-Moreno et
al., 2014), the present study approaches the adoption
of innovation mainly from economic and vicinity
conditions, based on major events in modern history.
Our study provides a cross-nation analysis of
environmental technology investments in the public
sector, investigating 39 states that have implemented
vacuum sewer projects. The study presumes that the
countries placed at the periphery from an economic
perspective, as well as new democracies, have only
recently introduced the eco-innovative technologies
due to a slow democratization process, less intensive
economic and social dynamics and limited
technological knowledge.
We suggest, on the one hand, that radical
innovation, followed periodically by incremental
innovations, generates both environmental and
economic benefits in the long term that easily can be
obtained by the so-called laggards. According to Zhu
et al. (2012), the diffusion of innovation can lead to
wider performance gaps over time as the early
adopters are more proactive in absorbing new ideas
and are more active in seeking innovations due to
their resource allocation capacity for adopting
innovations in comparison with the later adopters.
We pose the idea that laggards might enjoy updated
technologies.
On the other hand, the speed of adoption of
eco-innovation is investigated in relation to
geographic proximity. Innovation decisions mostly
relate to discrete alternatives. This is why decision
makers are likely to be influenced by decisions that
socially neighboring countries have already made
(Ebersberger et al., 2013; Hautsch and Klotz, 2003).
We hypothesize that diffusion depends upon spatial
and historical context conditions, posing an
outstanding challenge to less developed and
emerging economies for adopting these new
technologies. The speed of the technological
innovation process is driven by the pattern of
geographical and social proximity (Hautsch and
Klotz, 2003; Klotz, 2004). This is a reason why
decision-makers are likely to be influenced by
decisions that socially neighboring countries have
already made.
The uptake on an eco-innovation can be
influenced by the geographic conditions. In this
respect, the vacuum sewer system is suitable to be
implemented in flat land; therefore the number of
projects might not be a mirror of adoption of ecoinnovation.

Driving forces affecting the adoption of eco-innovation: A survey on vacuum sewer systems

2. Empirical analysis
This section begins with the hypotheses
postulation and continues with the presentation of
data preparation. Research methods for sampling, the
survey and statistical and geostatistical tools are also
discussed.
2.1. Hypotheses postulation
This section presents the analytical model of
the data analysis and the arguments behind the
hypotheses that were tested in this work. The
structure of the hypotheses was determined by three
factors that were scrutinized and found to influence
the adoption of innovation: period of adoption,
general country economic performance and
neighborhood conditions.
The research aim was to determine the main
factors that facilitate or prevent the diffusion of ecoinnovation in the world on a comparative basis. The
research postulated three hypotheses:
Hypothesis I. There is a direct relationship
between the stage of adoption of eco-innovation and
the number of projects. The number of projects
decreases along the stages of adoption due to
saturation of the market in affluent countries, while
emerging countries lag in the speed of adoption, but
have the advantage of leapfroggers, reaching the
most advanced technologies. This descendent trend
in public investments field it is correlated also with
the high life-span of the system, only some
components being replaced periodically (vacuum
valves).
Hypothesis II. The Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) level influences the level of adoption of ecoinnovation. There is an increase of adoption of ecoinnovation proportional to the GDP level. The lead
market and affluent countries experience the highest
adoption rate, while countries with a small GDP

are situated at the periphery in what concerns the

adoption of innovation.
Hypothesis III. The neighborhood conditions
determine the acceleration of eco-innovation
adoption. The hypothesis tries to quantify the
importance of spatial spillover effects on the
evolution of eco-innovation adoption. The states
neighboring the lead market have a higher adoption
rate due to the facile communication process between
the source and the target and the operational aspects
of the eco-innovation already in place. Neighboring
countries may influence each others technology
uptake choices. We take into account that geography
plays a major role in the distribution of economic
activity, such that neighboring economies are more
likely to converge than are distant ones.
Hypothesis IV. The geographical conditions
influence the uptake of the eco-innovation; states
with a higher percent of flat land have a higher
uptake of vacuum sewer system.
The vacuum system is suitable to be
implemented on flat land; consequently, the measure
of innovation is analyzed based on the percentage of
flat land in participating countries correlated with the
total number of collecting chambers.
2.2. Data preparation
The survey was limited to analyzing only
sewer vacuum projects implemented with
technologies provided by two providers of vacuum
sewer systems: Roediger and AIRVAC (Airvac Inc.,
2013; Brunnermeier and Cohen, 2003; Roediger,
2013).
The extent of greening of the sewer system
was scrutinized on a comparative basis, having as
inputs 39 states that have implemented vacuum sewer
systems. The data made available by the two
companies refer to projects implemented for the
period of 19732008 as represented in the Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Adoption of vacuum sewer system for the selected case studies

591

Terryn and Lazar/Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 15 (2016), 3, 589-598

To determine the level of diffusion of ecoinnovation, a cross-country comparison of vacuum

system projects was performed. Fig. 1 shows the
relationship between the number of projects and the
adopting countries and offers an overview of the
speed of adoption of vacuum technology, without
providing details on the extent of the projects.
In order to test the postulated hypotheses, the
level of adoption of eco-innovation was measured
with the following indicators:
1. Countrys willingness to invest in ecoinnovation, according to the period of adoption and
implementation of the vacuum sewer system, in
relation with the number of implemented projects and
the number of collecting chambers associated with
the number of connections and the dimensions of the
project (lengths of sewers)
2. Countrys
economic
performance
in
accordance with its GDP, and therefore the level of
public investment in eco-innovative technologies
3. Neighborhood
conditions.
Neighboring
countries may influence each others technology
uptake choices.
The cases of 39 countries were analyzed
according to the following variables: stage of
adoption, GDP, type of technology (Roediger or
AIRVAC), year of technology adoption, period of
execution, number of vacuum sewer implemented
projects and collecting chambers: Australia (1);
Austria (2), Bahamas (3) Bahrain (4), Botswana (5),
Brazil (6), Brunei (7), Canada (8), China (9), Croatia
(10), Czech Republic (11), France (12), Germany
(13), Greece (14), Hungary (15), Iran (16), Ireland
(17), Italy (18), Japan (19), Korea (20), Lithuania
(21), Maldives (22), Malaysia (23), Morocco (24),
Mexico (25), Namibia (26), the Netherlands (27),
Oman (28), Poland (29), Portugal (30), Romania
(31), Slovakia (32), Slovenia (33), Spain (34),
Thailand (35), United Arab Emirates (36), United
Kingdom (37), United States of America (38) and
West Indies (39).
The willingness to invest in eco-innovation
adoption in relation to the GDP is analyzed in order
to determine if the general economic performance
influence the level of diffusion of eco-innovation in
different countries. In this regard, we used the index
GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Standards (GDP
PPS), expressed in relation to the European Union
(EU27), with an average set to equal 100 (Eurostat,
2013). In order to analyze the adoption of ecoinnovation in relation to GDP from a statistical point
of view, the GDP PPS of the participating countries
was classified in three groups: first category = 175
(small) includes countries as Czech Republic (11),
Croatia (10), Hungary (15), Poland (29), Romania
(31), and Slovakia (32); second category = 76125
(medium) includes Spain (34), Slovenia (33),
Portugal (30), Greece (14), United Kingdom (37),
Italy (18), Germany (13) and France (12); third
category = 126175 (high) includes Austria (2),
Ireland (17), and United States of America (38). An

592

average of GDP PPS was chosen for each

participating country, according to the available
published data about GDP PPS.
Regarding the stage of adoption of innovation
in different countries, three categories were set up:
first stage (19721989); second stage (19902003);
third stage (20042010). These stages were selected
on the basis of historical turning points: collapse of
the Communist system in 1989 in Europe and
transition to the market economies of the states from
the former central and eastern European communist
bloc, the largest expansion of the European Union in
2004 and the second Eastern E.U. enlargement in
2007. The reason against choosing the three groups
consisted of determining to what extent the West
East disparities in Europe before the fall of the
communist system and after the EU accession of the
former Iron Curtain countries still experienced a low
speed of eco-innovation adoption in comparison with
early adopters. The analysis was expended for all 39
countries, in the same context of analysis, even
though some did not experience the transit to the
market economy as a result of collapse of communist
system. Even though the accession conditions were
clearly set in what concerns the economy
performance, the general performance of the newly
arrived countries in EU was limited.
Having labelled adopters relative to the GDP
level and stage of adoption, we then measured the
number of vacuum projects in terms of the
percentage of users who were early adopters, the
majority adopters or the laggards, according to our
classification. The classification means in this
context the three stages of adoption of eco-innovation
and the three categories of GDP PPS.
The number of collecting chambers was used
as a proxy of eco-innovation and an indicator for
greening the wastewater collection. This variable
measured the level of a countrys investments in ecoinnovations.
2.3. Analysis methods
Statistical and geostatistical techniques were
used to test the hypotheses of the influence of the
period of adoption, general country economic
performance, and neighborhood conditions on ecoinnovation adoption.
Statistical tools. The methodology used a
nonparametric JonckheereTerpstra test associated
with a post-hoc MannWhitneyU test and Monte
Carlo test, comparing the ranks level of the variables.
Nonparametric techniques were recommended due to
the reduced number of analyzed cases that were not
normally distributed (Field, 2005). The Mann
WhitneyU test and the Monte Carlo Test of
Statistical Significance were used to compare
differences between two independent groups when
the dependent variable was either ordinal or interval
but not normally distributed.
These tests required a classification of coded

Driving forces affecting the adoption of eco-innovation: A survey on vacuum sewer systems

variables in ranks according to the value of the

dependent variable in each case (stage of adoption
and GDP PPS). After classifying variables in ranks,
the next step consisted of analyzing whether the
selected groups differed significantly according to
the stage of adoption and the level of GDP PPS. The
JonckheereTerpstra nonparametric test verified
whether the stage of adoption or the value of GDP
PPS had an influence on the diffusion of the vacuum
technology, specifically on the number of
implemented projects, and more particular, on the
number of vacuum chambers.
Geostatistical tools for highlighting the ecoinnovation adoption in Europe. Applying a
Geographic Information System (GIS) for a better
visualization of the outputs was the second step of
the research. GIS was applied to highlight the ecoinnovation adoption in Europe in relation to the
number of collecting chambers of the vacuum system
for each country that implemented vacuum sewer
projects. The main reason for applying GIS in this
study lies in the fact that the statistical tools used to
test the first two hypotheses did not provide a clear
visualization of the output of eco-innovation
adoption as provided by GIS, which was
characterized by more precision in the spatial
realities. The data concerning the introduction of the
vacuum system in Europe were mapped with the help
of ArcGIS software, allowing for a spatial analysis of
eco-innovation adoption.
3. Results
The results present the relationship between
(a) stage of adoption and the number of collecting
chambers, (b) GDP PPS and the number of collecting
chambers and (c) geographic proximity and the
number of collecting chambers, all measuring the
level of eco-innovation adoption.
3.1. Relationship between stage of adoption of
innovation and number of collecting chambers
The relationship between the stage of
adoption of innovation and the number of collecting
chambers was investigated using the nonparametric
test, JonckheereTerpstra (J = 93.5). The robustness
of the findings across the three groups of adoption
stages demonstrated a negative value of z (z = 3.678), indicating a descending trend in the median.
The diffusion of the vacuum system decreased along
the three stages of adoption. The value of p = 0.000
showed a statistically significant correlation between
the stage of adoption and level of diffusion of the
vacuum wastewater sewage system. Effect size (r)
measured the magnitude of the stage of adoption
effect. The effect size in our case (r) is medium to
strong (r = 0.600).
In order to find out the extent of the effect,
each pair of independent groups was compared.
When comparing the first and second stages of
adoption, the mean rank and sum of ranks for the two

tested groups showed the actual significance value of

the test, indicating which group had the highest
means rank. The group with the highest means rank
represented the first stage of adoption. The result
indicated that there was a statistically significant
difference between the first and second stages of
adoption, between the number of projects and the
collecting chambers (U = 30, p = 0.020). There was a
medium effect size (r = 0.457). It can be further
concluded that the group of countries included in the
second stage of adoption elicited a statistically
significant lower number of vacuum chambers than
did the group of countries included in the first stage.
Similarly, the MannWhitneyU Test was
used to compare the second and the third stages of
adoption. It indicated that the second stage had the
highest mean rank, and therefore, the highest number
of collecting chambers, comparing it with the third
stage of adoption. There was a statistically significant
difference between the second and third stages of
adoption regarding the number of projects and
collecting chambers (U = 61.500, p = 0.050, r =
0.360). The median (Mdn) was also calculated for the
variable number of collecting chambers at the three
levels of adoption stages: in the first stage of
adoption, Mdn = 4048, in the second stage, Mdn =
398.5 and in the third stage, Mdn = 103.
The result indicated that the group of
countries included in the third stage of adoption of
vacuum technology (20042010) show a statistically
significant lower number of collecting chambers than
did the group of countries included in the second
stage, certifying the general trend of decreases in the
adoption of innovation over time.
3.2. Relationship between GDP PPS and number of
collecting chambers
The sign of the standardized test (z = 0.451)
was positive, indicating a direct relationship between
the level of GDP and the adoption of the vacuum
system. The value of p (-0.652) showed a statistically
non-significant correlation between the level of GDP
and level of diffusion of the vacuum wastewater
sewage system. The effect size, r = 0.230, was weak.
The MannWhitneyU Test was carried out to
compare the two independent groups: GDP PPS
category one with GDP PPS category two and GDP
PPS category two with GDP PPS category three.
There was not a statistically significant difference
between the first and second group of DGP PPS
regarding the number of projects and collecting
chambers (U = 23, p = 0.950). The value of r=0.130
indicated a small effect size. It can be further
concluded that the group of countries included in
second group of GDP PPS (76125) showed, from a
statistical point of view, a smaller number of
collecting chambers than did the group of countries
included in the first category of GDP PPS (175).
Similarly, the test indicated that the countries
included in the third category of GDP PPS (126175)
have the highest mean rank. There was not a

593

Terryn and Lazar/Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 15 (2016), 3, 589-598

statistically significant difference between the second

and third groups of DGP PPS or between the number
of projects and collecting chambers (U = 8, p =
0.414). The value of r = 0.250 indicated a small
effect size. It can be further concluded that the group
of countries included in the third category of GDP
have, from a statistical point of view, a higher
number of collecting chambers than does the group
of countries included in the second category of GDP
PPS.
The median was calculated for the variable
number of collecting chambers of the three levels of
GDP PPS, resulting the following: for the first
category of GDP PPS, Mdn = 1400.5, for category
two of GDP PPS, Mdn = 529.5 and for category three
of GDP PPS, Mdn = 5820. We therefore conclude
that the countries included in the first category of
GDP PPS demonstrated a higher trend towards
adopting the eco-innovation than did those included
in the second category of GDP PPS. The countries
with the highest GDP PPS values had the highest rate
of adoption of eco-innovation, followed by those
included in the third category of GDP PPS.
The Fig. 2, presents the relationship between
the GDP PPS and number of connections (collecting
chambers) corresponding to the three selected stages
of eco-innovation adoption: a) first (19721989); b)
second (19902003); c) third (20042010) stage
of adoption.
The Fig. 2(a) elicits that in the first stage of
adoption of vacuum sewer system (19721989), the
states with a higher GDP PPS have a higher trend of
eco-innovation adoption than states with medium
GDP PPS that had access to the vacuum system
technology, trend measured by the number of
connecting chambers.
The Fig. 2(b) corresponding to the second
stage of adoption of vacuum sewer system (1990
2003), shows that the states with highest GDP PPS
have the highest uptake of eco-innovative
technology, followed by the states included in the
category small GDP PPS, the states with medium
GDP PPS being placed at periphery.
In what concerns the third stage of adoption
(20042010) of the vacuum sewer system (Fig. 2c) it
can be observed that the states with the smallest
GDP-PPS highlight the highest level of ecoinnovation adoption, followed by the countries with
highest and medium level of GDP PPS.

bordering Germany, the lead European market in

supplying vacuum sewer technology, had a higher
number of connections than did the other states
placed at the periphery regarding the distance from
the lead market, without direct relation with the level
GDP PPS.

(a)

(b)

3.3. The relationship between geographic proximity

and level of eco-innovation in Europe
The assessment of the relationship between
the geographic proximity and the level of adoption of
the eco-innovation in what concerns the two main
providers of vacuum sewer system was relevant with
regard to the distribution of projects and the number
of vacuum chambers (Fig. 3). The relationship is
provided only for the European states that make the
subject of the research. The results of the
geostatistical analysis showed (Fig. 3) that countries

594

(c)
Fig. 2. Relationship between the GDP PPS and number of
connections (collecting chambers) corresponding to: (a)
first (19721989); (b) second (19902003); (c) third
(20042010) stage of adoption

Driving forces affecting the adoption of eco-innovation: A survey on vacuum sewer systems

Fig. 3. Distribution of vacuum sewer systems in Europe in relation to the lead market and number of collecting chambers
performed by GIS application

3.4. The relationship between geographic conditions

and level of eco-innovation in Europe
The data concerning the uptake of sewer
system in Europe were analysed from the perspective
of beneficiary population of the states that make the
subject of the case study. The information about the
population and the number of collecting chambers,
are presented in the Table 1 and Fig. 4, based on the
population level of participating countries, percent of
population living in low-lands areas and number of
collecting chamber (EC, 2004). In what concerns the
target population it was considered that one
collecting chamber serves 12 people.
The main objective of establishing the
correlation between the number of collecting
chambers and population was to determine if the
uptake of eco-innovation is an indicator to the
political response to the social and environmental
problems, related to the percentage of population that
disposes of vacuum sewer system. Even though
Germany is the one of the biggest producer of
vacuum sewer system in Europe, as can be observed
in the Table 1 and Fig. 4, it ranks only on the fourth
place (0.638%), being outranked by Austria,
(3.192%) and Czech Republic (1.449%). States as
Poland and Hungary occupy the next places in this
rank. Romania ranks on the last place in this
hierarchy with a percent of 0.004% from the
population that might represent the target group of
vacuum sewer projects.
Fig. 4 depicts the relation between the
population living on low-lands area and number of
collecting chambers for the states that make the
objective of the case study.

4. Discussion
The survey findings on eco-innovation
supported the first research hypothesis, concluding
that there was a descending trend in adopting ecoinnovation from the time of the introduction of the
innovation on the market until the third stage of
adoption (Beise, 2001; Beise and Rennings, 2004;
Costantini et al., 2015; Epicoco et al., 2014; Ghisetti
et al., 2015; Gonzlez-Moreno et al., 2013). The
situation was confirmed mainly for the affluent
countries.
As observers in our analysis, we are stating
that the Eastern European Countries have manifested
little inclination for this policy approach due to
specific conditions associated with the remainder of
the Iron Curtain ideology, financial constraints and a
still-weak presence or late penetration of the green
markets and technologies in wastewater collection.
Despite the process of national catch-up growth, the
central and eastern European states economies that
are centered on bureaucratic management are still in
a phase of development and restructuring, lagging in
areas including innovation and its adoption (Ezcurra
et al., 2007; Longhi et al., 2004; Monastiriotis, 2011),
but the area still enjoys updated technology.
From this perspective of the market structure
effect, the second research hypothesis cannot be
totally supported, concluding that there is not a direct
obvious relationship between technological catch-up
and economic performance. In these particular cases,
we correlated our findings with third hypothesis that
postulates the existence of a direct relationship
between the level of innovation and neighborhood
conditions that accelerate the adoption of a new
innovative technology.

595

Terryn and Lazar/Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 15 (2016), 3, 589-598

Table 2. Distribution of collecting chambers in relation with population of participating countries living in low-lands area

State

Total
population

Population
living on
low-lands
(%)

Germany
France
Great Britain
Italy
Spain
Poland
Romania
the Netherlands
Greece
Portugal
Czech Republic
Hungary
Austria
Slovakia
Croatia
Irland
Lithuania
Slovenia

82,210,000
65,073,482
61,113,205
59,337,888
46,661,950
38,115,967
22,329,977
16,402,414
11,147,000
10,605,870
10,501,197
10,076,000
8,206,524
5,431,363
4,551,000
4,234,925
3,596,617
2,100,070

85.28
74.75
74.79
40.06
44.41
94.80
62.16
100.00
22.12
60.88
67.74
95.30
26.66
38.02
53.42
89.39
100.00
22.02

Population
living on lowlands (no. of
inhabitants)

Number
of
collecting
chambers

Number of
beneficiary

70,108,688.00
48,642,427.80
45,706,566.02
23,770,757.93
20,722,572.00
36,133,936.72
13,880,313.70
16,402,414.00
2,465,716.40
6,456,853.66
7,113,510.85
9,602,428.00
2,187,859.30
2,065,004.21
2,431,144.20
3,785,599.46
3,596,617.00
462,435.41

37,296
5,900
574
485
1,386
10,238
44
2,896
418
30
8,590
2,450
5,820
351
200
61
70
60

447,552
70,800
6,888
5,820
16,632
122,856
528
34,752
5,016
360
103,080
29,400
69,840
4,212
2,400
732
840
720

Percent of population
connected to the vacuum sewer
system (related to the
population living in low lands
area)
0.638%
0.146%
0.015%
0.024%
0.080%
0.340%
0.004%
0.212%
0.203%
0.006%
1.449%
0.306%
3.192%
0.204%
0.099%
0.019%
0.023%
0.156%

Fig. 4. Relation between the population living on low-lands area and number of collecting chambers

Even though, in general terms, the economic

performance influences the uptake of innovation,
whenever, as the case study demonstrated, some
countries with a medium or small GDP level have
experienced a higher uptake of innovation, due to
vicinity conditions with the lead market and transfer
of information through diverse channels. This trend
is also correlated with the saturation of the market in
the most advanced economies.
From the perspective of the final recipients of
the sewer system reported to the population living in
the low-lands area, the study concludes that Austria
and Czech Republic, outrank Germany, the main
European producer of vacuum sewer system.
Therefore, the hypotheses 4 cannot be proved. There
is not a direct relation between the total low-land

596

area, number of inhabitants of a state and the number

of sewer projects,
Based on theoretical framework and a specific
research case study this paper showed that the
barriers to radical innovations adoption can be
overcome within particular trajectories in an
evolutionary way. In the present study the changes in
the adoption rate of eco-innovative technologies over
time explain the gaps between the developed and
emerging economies. The study also brings critical
reflections and windows of opportunity for the later
adaptors to incorporate the most advanced
technologies in comparison with the pioneer states.
One of the main limitations of this study is
that the research focused only on two main vacuum
sewer system producers, and hence the results over

Driving forces affecting the adoption of eco-innovation: A survey on vacuum sewer systems

the adoption of vacuum sewer system cannot be

considered representative for the whole vacuum
sewer industry. Another limitation concerns the data
basis provided by our respondents concerning the
number of projects implemented in the period 19732008.
Despite these limitations, this study has
several implications for research, policy and
management arena. The findings of this study
contribute to the literature on the adoption of ecoinnovations
While vacuum sewer system represents a key
mechanism for greening of sanitation system, the
economy, market dynamics and the social context,
are significant carriers for ecological reforms.
Considering the poor economic performance of low
profile countries in what concerns the diffusion of
innovation, suitable measures for strengthening the
institutional capacity to induce the introduction of
technological innovation is a path towards ecological
modernization of the wastewater system. In matters
of wastewater collection, the vacuum system is still
an eco-innovative solution for Eastern European
countries.
Overall, our study has added a small but
relevant stream of research on adoption of ecoinnovation of public goods focusing on driving forces
that stimulate or impede eco-innovation, especially in
emerging economies going through institutional
transitions. Moreover, the study has impact on the
traders that are particularly interested in the diffusion
process as it determines the success or the failure of
the products.
This case study illustrates the importance of
applying diffusion of innovation analysis to other
green technologies in order to create the best uptake
scenarios.
5. Conclusions
This study evaluated the adoption of ecoinnovation, providing a different perspective on the
driving forces that stimulate the adoption of vacuum
sewer systems. The analysis evaluated how the
structure of the market, socio-cultural conditions,
geographic proximity and GDP level measure the
acceptance or rejection of eco-innovation relating to
public goods.
The study concluded that the adoption rate
slows as the saturation level is approached; early
adopter countries have a broader uptake of the
innovation than do latecomers, even though the
latecomers enjoy the benefits of leapfroggers. On the
other hand, when look from the perspective of the
final recipients reported at the potential beneficiaries,
the study shows that states as Austria and Czech
Republic have a higher percentage of connections
correlated with the total population living in lowlands area. In addition, geographic proximity
influenced who was an early adopter and who was a
laggard. The results illustrated that the general

economic performance of a state does not necessarily

influence the adoption of eco-innovation.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the DFR Systems Romania and
Roediger Vacuum GmbH Germany for the valuable
databases, comments and discussions on the vacuum sewer
projects.

References
Airvac Inc., (2013), Airvac Presentation, On line at:
http://www.airvac.com/.
Beise M., (2001), Lead Markets: Country-Specific Success
Factors of the Global Diffusion of Innovations, Vol.
14, Physica Verlag, Heidelberg.
Beise M., Rennings K., (2004), Lead markets and
regulation: a framework for analyzing the international
diffusion of environmental innovations, Ecological
Economics, 52, 5-17.
Binz C., Truffer B., Coenen L., (2014), Why space matters
in technological innovation systems-Mapping global
knowledge dynamics of membrane bioreactor
technology, Research Policy, 43, 138-155.
Bleda M., del Ro P., (2013), The market failure and the
systemic failure rationales in technological innovation
systems, Research Policy, 42, 1039-1052.
Brunnermeier S.B., Cohen M.A., (2003), Determinants of
Environmental Innovation in US Manufacturing
Industries, Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 45, 278-293.
Buchanan J.R., Deal N.E., Lindbo D.L., Hanson A.H.,
Gustafson D.G., Miles R.J., (2010), Vacuum sewer
systems,
On
line
at:
www.werf.org/c/DecentralizedCost/C4_Vacuum_Sew
ers.aspx.
Cantono S., Silverberg G., (2009), A percolation model of
eco-innovation diffusion: The relationship between
diffusion, learning economies and subsidies,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76,
487-496.
Costantini V., Crespi F., Martini C., Pennacchio L., (2015),
Demand-pull and technology-push public support for
eco-innovation: The case of the biofuels sector,
Research Policy, 44, 577-595.
Cruz-Czares C., Bayona-Sez C., Garca-Marco T.,
(2013), You cant manage right what you cant
measure well: Technological innovation efficiency,
Research Policy, 42, 1239-1250.
Duncan R.B., (1996), The Ambidextrous Organization:
Designing Dual Structures for Innovation, In: The
Management of Organization Design: Strategies and
Implementation, Kilmann R.H., Pondy L.R., Slevin
D.P. (Eds.), New York, North-Holland.
Ebersberger B., Herstad S.J., (2012), The relationship
between international innovation collaboration,
intramural R&D and SMEs innovation performance:
a quantile regression approach, Applied Economics
Letters, 20, 626-630.
Ebersberger B., Herstad S.J., Koller C., (2013), Does the
composition of regional knowledge bases influence
extra-regional collaboration for innovation?, Applied
Economics Letters, 21, 201-204.
EC, (2004), European Commission Contract No
2002.CE.16.0.AT.136, Mountain Areas in Europe:
Analysis of mountain areas in EU member states,
acceding and other European countries, Final Report,
On
line
at

597

Terryn and Lazar/Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 15 (2016), 3, 589-598

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/s
tudies/pdf/montagne/mount6.pdf.
Epicoco M., Oltra V., Saint Jean M., (2014), Knowledge
dynamics and sources of eco-innovation: Mapping the
Green
Chemistry
community,
Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 388-402.
Eurostat, (2013), GDP per capita in PPS, On line at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table
&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00114.
Ezcurra R., Pascual P., Rapn M., (2007), The Dynamics
of Regional Disparities in Central and Eastern Europe
during Transition, European Planning Studies, 15,
1397-1421.
Field A., (2005), Discovering Statistics using SPSS, Sage
Publications, London.
Frondel M., Horbach J., Rennings K., (2007), What
triggers environmental management and innovation?
Empirical evidence for Germany, Ecological
Economics, 66, 153-160.
Ghisetti C., Marzucchi A., Montresor S., (2015), The open
eco-innovation mode. An empirical investigation of
eleven European countries, Research Policy, 44, 10801093.
Gonzlez-Moreno ., Sez-Martnez F.J., Daz-Garca C.,
(2013), Drivers of eco-innovation in chemical
industry,
Environmental
Engineering
and
Management Journal, 12, 2001-2008.
Gonzalez-Moreno A., Jose Saez-Martinez F., Diaz-Garcia
C., (2014), Attitudes towards eco-innovation in the
chemical
industry:
performance
implications,
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal,
13, 2431-2436.
Hautsch N., Klotz S., (2003), Estimating the neighborhood
influence on decision makers: theory and an
application on the analysis of innovation decisions,
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52,
97-113.
Horbach J., (2008) Determinants of environmental
innovation-New evidence from German panel data
sources, Research Policy, 37, 163-173.
Huber J., (2008), Pioneer countries and the global diffusion
of environmental innovations: Theses from the
viewpoint of ecological modernisation theory, Global
Environmental Change, 18, 360-367.
Johnstone N., (2005), The innovation effects of
environmental policy instruments, In: Indicator
Systems for Sustainable Innovation, Horbach J. (Ed.),
Heidelberg, New York, Physica Verlag, 21-41.

598

Karakaya E., Hidalgo A., Nuur C., (2014), Diffusion of

eco-innovations: A review, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 33, 392-399.
Klotz S., (2004), Cross Sectional Dependence in Spatial
Econometric Models: With an Application to German
Start-Up Activity Data, LIT Verlag Mnster.
Longhi S., Nijkamp P., Traistaru I., (2004), Economic
integration and regional structural change in a wider
Europe: Evidence from new EU and accession
countries, Journal for Institutional Innovation,
Development and Transition, 8, 48-55.
Monastiriotis V., (2011), Regional Growth Dynamics in
Central and Eastern Europe, On line at:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/LEQS/Home.
aspx.
OECD, (2008), Sustainable manufacturing and ecoinnovation: First steps in building a common
analytical framework. DSTI/IND (2008) 16/Rev.1,
OECD, Paris.
Panfil C., Mirel I., Szigyarto I., Isacu M., (2013),
Technical, economical, social and ecological
characteristics
of
vacuum
sewage
system,
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal,
12, 1017-1022.
Rio P., Carrillo-Hermosilla J., Konnola T, (2010), Policy
strategies to promote eco-innovation: An integrated
framework, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14, 541557.
Roediger, (2013), Vacuum sewer systems, On line at:
http://www.roevac.com/page/en/page_ID/42?PHPSES
SID=bc787a142fc280fd831fb0263db6c084.
Rogers E.M., (2005), Diffusion of Innovations, Fifth Ed.,
Free Press, New York.
Terryn I.C.C., Lazar I., Nedeff V., Lazar G., (2014),
Conventional vs. vacuum sewerage system in rural
areas - An economic and environmental approach,
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal,
13, 1847-1859.
Valle S., Vzquez-Bustelo D., (2009), Concurrent
engineering performance: Incremental versus radical
innovation, International Journal of Production
Economics, 119, 136-148.
Zhu Q., Sarkis J., Lai K.-h., (2012), Green supply chain
management innovation diffusion and its relationship
to organizational improvement: An ecological
modernization perspective, Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management, 29, 168-185.