Technologic resilience assessment of coastal community water and wastewater service options

Schoen, Mary E.; Hawkins, Troy R.; Xue, Xiaobo; Ma, Cissy; Garland, Jay L.; Ashbolt, Nicholas J.

doi:10.1016/j.swaqe.2015.05.001

Cited by 35 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Cape Cod community is evaluating a range of potential water system configurations in order to mitigate the coastal eutrophication, reduce energy consumption, protect public health, and sustain economic development. In order to assist in the evaluation of the technology candidates, we assessed the water system options in a series of work from the environmental, human health [37], resilience [38], and economic [39] and overall metric perspectives [27]. As an integral part of holistic assessment, this analysis followed the LCA standard principle described by the International Organization for Standardization's (ISO) 14040 series to quantify the energy consumption, GHG emissions and nutrient releases of five design options.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Life Cycle Energy Consumption, Global Warming and Eutrophication Potentials of Several Water and Waste Service Options

Xue

Hawkins²,

Schoen³

et al. 2016

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Managing the water-energy-nutrient nexus for the built environment requires, in part, a full system analysis of energy consumption, global warming and eutrophication potentials of municipal water services. As an example, we evaluated the life cycle energy use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and aqueous nutrient releases of the whole anthropogenic municipal water cycle starting from raw water extraction to wastewater treatment and reuse/discharge for five municipal water and wastewater systems. The assessed options included conventional centralized services and four alternative options following the principles of source-separation and water fit-for-purpose. The comparative life cycle assessment identified that centralized drinking water supply coupled with blackwater energy recovery and on-site greywater treatment and reuse was the most energyand carbon-efficient water service system evaluated, while the conventional (drinking water and sewerage) centralized system ranked as the most energy-and carbon-intensive system. The electricity generated from blackwater and food residuals co-digestion was estimated to offset at least 40% of life cycle energy consumption for water/waste services. The dry composting toilet option demonstrated the lowest life cycle eutrophication potential. The nutrients in wastewater effluent are the dominating contributors for the eutrophication potential for the assessed system configurations. Among the parameters for which variability and sensitivity were evaluated, the carbon intensity of the local electricity grid and the efficiency of electricity production by the co-digestion with the energy recovery process were the most important for determining the relative global warming potential results.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Life Cycle Energy Consumption, Global Warming and Eutrophication Potentials of Several Water and Waste Service Options

Xue

Hawkins²,

Schoen³

et al. 2016

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There has been much debate over the definition, implementation, and evaluation of resilience since the seminal work of Hashimoto et al (1982). Resilience has many subtly different definitions (Francis and Bekera 2014) and has been elaborated upon in social, technical, and socio-technical frameworks (e.g., Wong and Brown 2009;Woods 2015;Schoen et al 2015). Fiksel (2003), for example, considers a resilient system one that is able to survive large perturbations.…”

Section: Reliability Resilience and Sustainability Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliable, resilient and sustainable water management: the Safe & SuRe approach

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global threats such as climate change, population growth, and rapid urbanization pose a huge future challenge to water management, and, to ensure the ongoing reliability, resilience and sustainability of service provision, a paradigm shift is required. This paper presents an overarching framework that supports the development of strategies for reliable provision of services while explicitly addressing the need for greater resilience to emerging threats, leading to more sustainable solutions. The framework logically relates global threats, the water system (in its broadest sense), impacts on system performance, and social, economic, and environmental consequences. It identifies multiple opportunities for intervention, illustrating how mitigation, adaptation, coping, and learning each address different elements of the framework. This provides greater clarity to decision makers and will enable better informed choices to be made. The framework facilitates four types of analysis and evaluation to support the development of reliable, resilient, and sustainable solutions: “top‐down,” “bottom‐up,” “middle based,” and “circular” and provides a clear, visual representation of how/when each may be used. In particular, the potential benefits of a middle‐based analysis, which focuses on system failure modes and their impacts and enables the effects of unknown threats to be accounted for, are highlighted. The disparate themes of reliability, resilience and sustainability are also logically integrated and their relationships explored in terms of properties and performance. Although these latter two terms are often conflated in resilience and sustainability metrics, the argument is made in this work that the performance of a reliable, resilient, or sustainable system must be distinguished from the properties that enable this performance to be achieved.

show abstract

“…Our review of the literature suggests that only a small subset of resilience research directly addresses WW system resilience, and most are modeling‐based or are literature reviews that provide frameworks or guidance on what WW systems should do to increase resilience (Schoen et al. ; Butler et al. ; Juan‐García et al.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, related human adaptations (e.g., making changes to address behavioral, social, economic, and governance factors) that also influence WW system performance and resiliency are rarely considered (Juan-Garc ıa et al 2017). Of the studies that do exist, most are modeling-based or are literature reviews that provide frameworks or guidance on what WW systems should do to increase resilience (Schoen et al 2015;Butler et al 2016). To our knowledge, only one published empirical case study discusses what systems are actually doing in practice to increase resilience (Rudberg et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marshaling Adaptive Capacities within an Adaptive Management Framework to Enhance the Resiliency of Wastewater Systems

Mullin

Kirchhoff

2018

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assess adaptive capacity and adaptive management as measures of wastewater (WW) system resiliency using data from interviews with WW system managers (hereafter managers) impacted by past storms. Results suggest the most resilient WW systems are those with high adaptive capacities that employ an adaptive management approach to make ongoing adaptation investments over time. Greater amounts of generic adaptive capacities (i.e., skilled staff and good leadership) help smooth both day‐to‐day and emergency operations and provide a foundation for adaptive management. In turn, adaptive management helps managers both build more generic adaptive capacities, and develop and employ greater amounts and diversity of specific adaptive capacities (i.e., soft and/or hard adaptations) that are especially important for enhancing and sustaining resiliency. Adaptive management also enables managers to better understand their system's vulnerabilities, how those vulnerabilities change over time, and what specific actions may reduce those vulnerabilities. Finally, our work suggests WW system resilience critically depends on the capacities of the human systems for building resilience as much as or more so than relying only on physical infrastructure resilience. Our work contributes to filling an important gap in the literature by advancing our understanding of the human dimensions of infrastructure resilience and has practical implications for advancing resilience in the WW sector.

show abstract

Technologic resilience assessment of coastal community water and wastewater service options

Cited by 35 publications

References 13 publications

Comparing the Life Cycle Energy Consumption, Global Warming and Eutrophication Potentials of Several Water and Waste Service Options

Comparing the Life Cycle Energy Consumption, Global Warming and Eutrophication Potentials of Several Water and Waste Service Options

Reliable, resilient and sustainable water management: the Safe & SuRe approach

Marshaling Adaptive Capacities within an Adaptive Management Framework to Enhance the Resiliency of Wastewater Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About