Creating an Enabling Environment for WR&R Implementation P-M. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Creating an Enabling Environment for WR&R Implementation

P-M. Stathatou, E. Kampragou, H. Grigoropoulou, D. Assimacopoulos,

• C. Karavitis & J. Gironás

School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece

13th IWA Specialized Conference on Small Water & Wastewater Systems & 5th IWA Specialized Conference on Resources- Oriented Sanitation, 14 - 16 September 2016, Athens, Greece

Why Wastewater Reuse & Recycling?

Pressures

• Rapid economic development
• Continuous population growth
• Varying hydrological cycles

Freshwater: A scarce resource

• Limited quantity
• Degraded quality

Existing water systems

• Most often unable to support natural processes &

population needs

European Policies & Initiatives

• Resource efficiency
• Pollution control
• Circular economy & industrial symbiosis
• Eco-efficiency in the production chains
• Ecosystem services

Recycling & Reusing of treated Wastewater (WR&R)

Benefits of WR&R

• Highly reliable alternative water resource
• Unaffected by climatic conditions
• Constant production of treated WW
• Locally controlled water supply
• Preservation of limited freshwater resources
• Decreased freshwater abstractions
• Enhancement of environmental protection
• Reduced WW discharge
• Protection of aquatic ecosystems
• Contribution to cost reduction
• Reduced Capital and O&M costs of water supply infrastructures & facilities
• Avoided WW treatment & nutrient removal for discharge to sensitive water bodies
• Energy savings
• Limited application of fertilizers in farming

WR&R Implementation Issues

Complex and inadequate legal & institutional frameworks & socio- economic structures hindering WR&R implementation

• 1. Weak governmental policies which discourage WR&R penetration
• 2. Lack of available funding sources
• 3. Negative socio-cultural perceptions on reclaimed water use
• 4. Limited technical capacity & expertise for WW reclamation, supply & use
• 5. Non-existent legal frameworks regulating WRM
• 6. Overlapping jurisdictions among involved institutions

Despite their various benefits, WR&R practices are not widely applied around the globe

The Need for an Enabling Environment

• A paradigm shift is needed to
• vercome WR&R

implementation barriers

• WW to be considered as a

valuable resource and not as waste

• Transformation of traditional

linear patterns of water use into circular pathways incorporating WR&R

• An enabling environment

should be created

• Focus on more than availability &

costs of reclamation technologies

• The political, economic, social,

technical, legal & institutional, conditions which encourage and support WR&R implementation

Aim of the study

• Comprehensive methodology for developing an enabling environment for

WR&R implementation

• Identification of implementation barriers & drivers
• Recognition of the most significant barriers on which priority should be given by

decision-makers

The Proposed Methodological Framework

The Methodological Framework towards an Enabling Environment for WR&R

Step 1

Identification of Drivers & Barriers to the WR&R Implementation Process

• Sub-step 1a: Identification of the

factors influencing WR&R implementation

• Aim
• Identifying the external factors & their

influence on the system

• Method
• PESTL analysis (a common variation of

the PESTLE analysis)

• 22 policy, economic, social, technical, legal

& institutional factors of potential influence

• Some factors are related to specific

reclaimed water uses

• Crop irrigation
• Urban environment
• Industrial processes
• Ecosystem services
• Other factors concern WR&R in general

& apply to all possible reclaimed water uses

• Sub-step 1b: Characterization of

factors as drivers or barriers & assessment of their influence

• Aim
• Map the views of Local Stakeholders on

the identified factors

• Method
• On-line PESTL questionnaire for the

assessment of the 22 factors

• Type of influence of each factor on

implementing WR&R schemes

• Positive: Driver
• Negative: Barrier
• Importance of influence
• Low / medium / high
• Recommendations on how to overcome

factors with negative influence

Factors Explored

Policy factors

• 1. National / regional policies on WRM
• 2. National / regional environmental policies
• 3. Land use policies
• 4. Transnational or transboundary treaties &

agreements

• 5. Trade policies (exports of agricultural products)

Economic factors

• 1. Availability of governmental & public funds
• 2. Indirect financial incentives
• 3. Freshwater pricing schemes for crop irrigation
• 4. Freshwater pricing schemes for industrial uses
• 5. Freshwater pricing schemes for urban uses
• 6. Farm operating costs

Social factors

• 1. Public awareness on water scarcity problems
• 2. Public awareness on WR&R
• 3. Social perceptions on the consumption of crops

irrigated with reclaimed water

• 4. Involvement of different SH groups in decision-

making processes

Technical factors

• 1. Technical expertise & know-how of WW

reclamation & supply

• 2. Technical expertise & know-how of using

reclaimed water

• 3. Irrigation systems used

Legal & institutional factors

• 1. Ownership of treated WW – Water rights law
• 2. Regulatory framework on WR&R
• 3. Enforcement of regulations and laws
• 4. Delineation of responsibilities among the

institutions involved in water & WW management

Step 2a

Definition of the impact of each barrier upon the others

• Aim
• Identification of the causal

interrelationships & impacts among barriers

• Method
• Cross-Impact Analysis
• Cross-Impact Matrix (CIM)
• Rows: Barriers having influence on
• ther barriers
• Columns: Barriers being influenced by
• ther barriers
• Expert judgment
• Each barrier is considered against all

the other barriers to fill up the CIM

• The Question
• If “Barrier i” changes and behaves as a

Driver for WR&R implementation, then what is the impact (of this change) on “Barrier j”?

• Score values
• 0: No improvement / change
• 1: Slight / weak improvement
• 2: Strong improvement
• 3: Very strong improvement / it becomes a

driver

Analysis of the Barriers identified in Step 1

Impact

• n
• f

B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 B 1 3 3 1 B 2 3 2 B 3 1 1 2 B 4 3 3 1

Step 2b

Analysis of impacts & interrelationships among barriers

• Active sum (AS)
• Sum of score values across a row of

the CIM

• Overall impact of the barrier in

question upon all other barriers

• Passive sum (PS)
• Sum of score values across a column of

the CIM

• Overall impact of all other barriers on the

barrier in question

• Product (P = AS x PS)
• Quotient (Q = AS/PS)

Impact

• n
• f

B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4

Active sum (AS)

B 1 3 3 1

7

B 2 3 2

5

B 3 1 1 2

4

B 4 3 3 1

7 Passive sum (PS) 4 7 7 5

Step 2b

Systemic Role of barriers

Based on the corresponding Ps & Qs barriers are classified as follows

• Active barriers (high Q values)
• Barriers strongly influencing other barriers, but not much influenced by others
• Changes on these barriers can have a leverage effect on the system / effective for the system’s

regulation

• Reactive barriers (low Q values)
• Barriers with little influence on other barriers, but strongly influenced by others
• Useful for the observation of the system’s condition
• Critical barriers (high P values)
• Barriers with strong influence on other barriers and also strongly influenced by them
• Changes on these barriers can have destabilizing effects on the system / not easily controllable
• Buffering barriers (low P values)
• Barriers neither influencing other barriers nor influenced by others
• Inert to system change, should be examined separately

Key Barriers: Active & buffering barriers

Step 2b

Visualization of the Systemic Role of Barriers

• Cross-impact grid (axes: AS & PS)
• Made up of straight lines & hyperbolas
• Q values - Barriers’ influence on others
• P values – Barriers’ integration in the system
• Divided into 5 different colour fields/areas
• 1. Critical barriers
• 2. Buffering barriers
• 3. Active barriers
• 4. Reactive barriers
• 5. Transition zone / neutral barriers
• The position of each barrier in the

diagram reveals its role within the system

1 2 3 5

Passive Sum (PS) Active Sum (AS)

4 1

Dotted lines correspond to the average values of AS and PS Adapted from Gausemeier et al., 1996

Key Barriers: Located in fields 2 & 3

Application of the Methodological Framework

The Study Site Area

The Copiapó River Basin, Chile

• Location: Atacama Desert, Chile
• Area: 18,538 km2
• Population: 200,000 inh (census 2012)
• Pressures on water resources
• High temporal variation of rainfall
• Long dry periods
• Uncontrolled trade of water rights
• Rapid population growth
• Water related issues
• Severe water scarcity conditions
• Intense competition over water supply

between the different water use sectors

• Suggested solution (COROADO project)
• WR&R for urban water uses

Location of the Copiapó River Basin

Results

Barriers & Drivers for WR&R Implementation

Barriers outweigh drivers for the implementation of urban WR&R schemes

10 Barriers

2 Policy 1 Economic 2 Social 1 Technical 4 Legal

P2: National/regional environmental policies P3: Land use policies E1: Availability of governmental & public funds S2: Public awareness on WR&R S4: Involvement of different stakeholder groups in decision-making processes L1: Ownership of treated wastewater L2: Regulatory framework on WR&R L3: Enforcement of regulations & laws L4: Delineation of responsibilities among the institutions involved in water & WW management T2: Technical expertise & know-how

• f urban citizens for using

reclaimed water

Results

The CIM of the Identified Barriers

• The CIM was completed by experts of the Copiapó River Basin

expressing expected changes considering the local water resources management frameworks & issues

P2 P3 E1 S2 S4 T2 L1 L2 L3 L4 AS P2 3 2 3 1 1 2 1 13 P3 1 1 1 1 4 E1 1 1 2 1 1 6 S2 1 1 1 2 1 6 S4 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 12 T2 1 1 2 2 2 1 9 L1 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 19 L2 1 2 2 2 1 3 3 14 L3 1 2 2 1 1 2 9 L4 1 2 1 2 2 8 PS 5 3 9 8 15 10 8 13 16 13

0: no improvement/change; 1: slight/weak improvement; 2: strong improvement; 3: very strong improvement

Results

Key Barriers Inhibiting System’s Transition

• Classification of barriers
• Active: L1, P2
• Reactive: L3, L4
• Critical: L2, S4
• Buffering: P3, S2, E1
• Neutral: T2
• Five key barriers inhibit system’s

transition

• Priority should be given on
• L1: Unclear legal framework regarding the
• wnership of treated wastewater
• P2: Lack of environmental policies focusing on

pollution control

• P3: Limited integration of reclaimed water use in

the current land use & development policies

• S2: Limited public awareness on WR&R
• E1: Limited availability of governmental funding

sources for WR&R

P2 P3 L1 S2 S4 T2 E1 L2 L3 L4

5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20

Passive Sum (PS) Active Sum (AS)

The Cross-Impact Grid of the Copiapó River Basin

Results

Instruments to foster an Enabling Environment for WR&R Implementation

• Setting Priorities for Decision-Makers
• From all the initially identified Barriers, priority should be given on 5 Key

Barriers

• Instruments for transforming Key Barriers to Drivers
• Introduction of a coherent water rights system
• Definition & regulation of the ownership of treated wastewater according to its origin
• Institution of environmental policies to control pollution
• Incentives for using reclaimed water & minimizing WW discharges
• Integration of reclaimed water use in land use & development policies
• Redevelopment of abandoned urban zones
• Conduction of awareness raising campaigns on WR&R
• Access to relevant information
• Introduction of funding mechanisms & arrangements
• Fund mobilization & investments on WR&R

Conclusions

• Benefits of the proposed framework
• In-depth understanding of the local water systems
• Exhaustive list of factors with potential influence on WR&R implementation
• Incorporation of local views, perceptions & standpoints
• Novel & systematic method to recognize significant barriers
• Prioritization of enabling instruments & arrangements
• Focus on key barriers to foster WR&R implementation & create an enabling environment
• Participatory process for engaging SH
• Interaction, consultation & active participation of local stakeholders
• Constraints of the proposed framework
• Sufficient number of questionnaire responses is needed
• Subjective scoring of impacts based on SHs interpretation &

understanding

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the EU-funded FP7 project COROADO: “Technologies for Water Recycling & Reuse in Latin American Context: Assessment, Decision Tools and Implementable Strategies under an Uncertain Future” (Grant agreement No: 283025)

Thank you for your attention!