Achieving sustainable urban water systems: identifying
pathways and obstacles in implementing sustainable water
systems using a systems thinking approach
Candice Homewood
Supervised by Dr Sarah Bell
MSc Environmental Systems Engineering
Abstract
With a growing global population and a rising global temperature, there is likely to be reduced water
availability. Peoples’ needs and demands for water use are multifaceted and there is an increase of
water-related environmental problems. Urban areas around the world face the challenge of supplying
their residents with clean, sanitised water, but without leaving an impact of the natural environment.
There is demand for innovative sustainable water infrastructures that will make cities ‘greener’, which
include economic, social and environmental factors that interact with one another. Using various
examples of new sustainable water systems across the world including, BedZED in the United
Kingdom, the Pimpama Coomera scheme in Australia, and the Las Vegas valley in the United States of
America, a critical review was made to determine if there were any recurring factors that were relative
to the success rate of the case study. To evaluate the case studies, a systems thinking approach was
used so to obtain a holistic viewpoint when assessing the sustainable urban water systems. The sense
of hierarchy of urban water systems was described showing that there are many different levels of
systems that have different functions and relationships with urban water systems. In order to achieve
sustainable urban water systems that can be used for future generations, a holistic view is imperative so
that it is not just the innovative water systems that form part of the system, but other social, economic
and political systems. This project has determined that using a systems thinking approach is necessary
when planning and assessing urban water systems as their success rate often relies heavily on the
system users, which is the general public. Using a systems thinking approach, barriers within urban
water systems were identified, along with what can be done to mitigate these barriers. For each case
study the system boundary was identified, along with the system components and also the system
environment. Each component and system interact with one another to produce the urban water
system, so by identifying all relationships and the needs of an urban water system, lessons can be learnt
for future projects.
Keywords: Urban water systems, sustainable, systems thinking approach, stakeholders.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Sarah Bell, who supervised this project and provided useful input and support
throughout. Thanks to the Croydon Advertiser for use of their archives and pictures. Thanks to Ruth
Chait at the Peabody Trust for provision of the BedZED resident satisfaction report.
2
Table of contents
List of tables............................................................................................................................................. 3
List of figures ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 General Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Project purpose and objectives........................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Layout of project ............................................................................................................................. 6
2
3
4
5
6
History of urban water systems and their paradigms ................................................................. 7
Drivers to adapt a new paradigm .................................................................................................. 9
Water use and society ................................................................................................................... 13
Literary review on sustainable development of urban water systems ..................................... 16
Introduction to systems thinking and system approaches ........................................................ 23
6.1 Systems thinking within urban water systems and their environments ........................................ 24
7
In depth discussion of case studies............................................................................................... 27
7.1
BEDZed .................................................................................................................................. 27
7.1.2 Applying a systems thinking approach to identify barriers ................................................... 33
7.2
Las Vegas ................................................................................................................................ 35
7.2.1 History of SNWA................................................................................................................... 36
7.2.2
Future of water conservation in Las Vegas ..................................................................... 37
7.2.3
Applying a systems thinking approach to identify barriers ............................................ 39
7.3
Pimpama Coomera .................................................................................................................. 39
8
7.3.1 Applying a systems thinking approach to identify barriers ................................................... 42
Synthesis......................................................................................................................................... 44
8.1
Systems thinking within urban water systems ........................................................................ 44
8.2
Stakeholders / system components ......................................................................................... 46
9
Final Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 50
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 52
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 55
Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 55
Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 58
List of tables
Table 1 - Comparison of the modern and historial way of thinking about urban water systems ........... 12
Table 2 - Comparison of different case studies....................................................................................... 22
Table 3 - Table showing what Class A+ water can be used from (adapted from
www.goldcoastwater.com.au) ................................................................................................................. 41
Table 4 - Conventional and participatory views of public participation - adapted from lecture notes by
Professor Nick Tyler ............................................................................................................................... 47
3
Table 5 - Components of an urban water systems and its system environment - possible barrier and
pathways derived from literature and case study review, using a systems thinking approach ............... 49
List of figures
Figure 1 – Open drainage channels with stepping stones in Pompeii, Rome. Taken from
http://www.forumromanum.org/life/johnston124.jpg...............................................................................5
Figure 2 - Water use within the house, adapted from chart on www.waterwise.org.uk ......................... 13
Figure 3 - Sphere of influence of the sustainable urban water system ................................................... 25
Figure 4 – GWTP from Shirley-Smith and Butler (2008) ...................................................................... 28
Figure 5 - Guests to BedZED with Architect Bill Dunster with BedZed model – photo from archives at
the Croydon Advertiser ........................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 6 - Colorado River Basin and States derived from
(://www.snwa.com/assets/pdf/wr_plan_chapter1.pdf) ............................................................................ 36
Figure 7 - Map showing location of Pimpama Coomera Water Future scheme (point A), adapted from
Google Maps ........................................................................................................................................... 40
4
1
Introduction
1.1 General Introduction
Over the past one hundred years, water use, especially in urban areas has greatly increased, with the
appearance of new technologies to help sanitise the way we live. This has put such pressure on natural
water resources that water scarcity is now become more and more common, and it has even been said
that the next world war will not be fought over by the lack of energy resources, but rather the lack of
water (Halliday, 2004). With growing urban populations and more erratic rainfall, there has been an
increasing need for clean, sanitised water in these areas. Most urban populations are supplied with a
centralised water system, so that there is a constant supply of clean water, which is then taken away and
treated offsite. With water scarcity on the increase, there has been a need for alternative solutions.
However it is these alternative solutions that pose problems within society and the economy, and there
are many barriers to overcome.
1.2 Project purpose and objectives
The purpose of this project is to identify pathways and obstacles in implementing sustainable water
systems. There are many barriers that projects come up against in the design and introduction of new
sustainable water systems. New technologies need to be of a high standard, and new systems need to
be able to comply with the existing water system in a cost effective manner. Policies written in
accordance to new systems need to be communicated to the general public in a sufficient manner, so
that they understand why they have been written. As it is the general public who will be using
innovative sustainable systems, they are the one of the most important stakeholders.
This project is partly based on a review of literature on sustainable water systems. In recent years there
has been much speculation about the nature of sustainable water systems and the development of
sustainable water and wastewater technologies. This project will include both case study research and
a synthesis of these case studies, using a systems thinking approach. Case studies will include the
Pimpama Coomera scheme in Australia as well as BedZED, which is based in the UK and the Southern
Nevada Water Smart programme in Las Vegas, United States of America.
This project will give a review of problems within urban environments and measures that are being
taken to resolve them. As mentioned before, this is going to be done through looking at particular case
studies and seeing how society has responded to projects that have been implemented already. A
systems thinking approach will be taken to look at the case studies as systems as a whole. Using this
5
method will ensure that future projects will have guidelines to follow so avoid any obstacles that may
be common in urban water systems.
1.3 Layout of project
Chapter 2 will look at the history of urban water systems, and how the centralised systems were first
developed. It will describe the four historical paradigms, and how these have changed over the years to
cope with changing human behaviours and population growth. Chapter 3 will look at the reasons
exactly why a fifth paradigm of urban water systems is needed. It will also compare old and new
paradigms of urban water management. Chapter 4 will then look at the relationship between society
and water use, which is an essential part to understand when developing sustainable urban water
systems through a systems thinking approach. Society at the moment is used to having a constant
supply of clean water within urban areas in developed countries. People see water as being ‘invisible’;
they just need to turn on a tap, and do not see the processes that go into water and wastewater
treatment. The behaviour of society must be understood prior to making decisions on sustainable urban
water systems. Questions that may come up will be ones like will society accept new water systems?
Will they be able to change their behavioural patterns? Or will the new technologies have to be able to
cope with the high amount of water that is being used today? The socio-technology of non-potable
water is going to be an important subject matter within the project. This project will look at public
responses to these technologies and try to determine the reasons for any rejections and find ways to
overcome these problems.
Chapter 5 will provide a literary review, focusing on case studies from around the world. As there are
so many new sustainable urban water systems popping up everywhere, it is important to get a brief
overview on a lot of them, so to have a good comparison and an assessment on the quality of the
literature needs to be taken. Chapter 6 consists of the three case study reviews which will be looked at
in more detail. Lastly, the project will conclude with an in depth evaluation of the case studies, closely
looking at what barriers they came up with and if and how they overcame them. Recommendations can
then be given to help future developers in this forever growing area of sustainability.
6
2
History of urban water systems and their paradigms
Over the centuries, the way cities have used their natural resources has changed a great deal. Their
purposes have changed with varying needs and demands, which has influenced the way in which we
have looked at them. Novotny and Brown (2007) used four different paradigms that reflect this
evolution of urban water systems.
The first paradigm reaches far back into the history of ancient cities, where the use of wells would
supply the city with water. Surface water would be used for functional needs such as transportation,
irrigation and washing, and streets would be used for waste disposal which would be drained away by
rain or melting snow (Novotny and Brown, 2007).
Figure 1 shows how the streets of Pompeii in
Rome would be used as open drainage channels
with clearly visible stepping stones. These would
be used by pedestrians when they needed to cross.
All waste, including faecal matter from humans
and animals was thrown into these open sewers,
leaving it to the street sweepers and night soil
collectors and storm water to get rid of the contents
(Novotny and Brown, 2007).
Figure 1 - Open drainage channels with stepping stones
in Pompeii, Rome. Taken from
http://www.forumromanum.org/life/johnston124.jpg
These conditions
were seen across cities in Europe, China, Japan and
other countries into the middle ages (Novotny and
Brown, 2007).
The second paradigm came about due to water demands and needs for residential and industry
exceeded the amount available from groundwater supplies in growing ancient and medieval cities.
This paradigm saw the beginning of engineering and infrastructure for water systems.
Water
infrastructures included aqueducts as seen in Rome, and the collection and storage of rain water as seen
in many cities and rural castles (Novotny and Brown, 2007). With an increased urban population was
an increased amount of surface run off from urban areas. Open sewers would become over polluted, so
underground sewers were designed to divert waste and run off from the urban areas. The oldest know
sewer is the Roman sewer, Cloaka Maxima, which has been functioning for more than 2000 years.
7
However, this is an anomaly, and most European sewers were not built till much later during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries during the industrial revolution (Novotny and Brown, 2007).
Domestic wastewater was soon added to these storm sewers with the introduction of flushing toilets in
Europe and the United States of America. Again ancient Rome beat the rest of the world to this
centuries before.
These sewers were called combined sewers, and served their purpose well as
removing unwanted waste and water from urban areas, but it was debilitating natural water systems.
The third paradigm emerged at the beginning of the 20th century due to outbreaks of disease from the
polluted water resources. Widespread cholera and typhoid epidemics had previously swept across
European and American cities in the mid to late 19th century, therefore promoting a change in
sanitation. The introduction of the centralised urban water systems dramatically improved sanitation
and hygiene of urban areas (Chocat et. Al., 2001 and Harremoes, 1997). By the beginning of the 20th
century, the British Parliament could not meet during summer months due to the smell of the polluted
River Thames (Novotny and Brown, 2007). By this point as well, urban cities had grown to such an
extent that most surfaces within a city were impervious, which led to a high amount of storm water
runoff that had nowhere to go, so urban flooding was common. The third paradigm introduced primary
then secondary wastewater treatment but did not address the uncontrolled “water-sewage-water cycle”
(Novotny and Brown, 2007).
The fourth paradigm outlined by Novotny and Brown (2007) can be also known as “end-of-pipecontrol”. The United States passed the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments in 1972 (Clean
Water Act), which made this end of pipe treatment mandatory. This paradigm attempts to control
pollution from point source and diffuse pollution. Various policies were being brought in around 30 to
40 years ago to control the quality of water in the water systems. Water at this stage was widely
available through Europe, Australia and the USA to name a few. Water was supplied through mostly
centralised water systems, and was removed through pipes and infrastructure to be treated and disposed
of. The Safe Drinking Water Act was introduced so to maintain a high standard of drinking water and
to protect its sources, which were polluted from diffuse pollution (Novotny and Brown, 2007). The
European Water Framework Directive was not passed until the end of the 20th century, some 30 years
after the Clean Water Act of the USA, therefore the pollution problems were not addressed together,
but separately, instead of working together towards a common goal.
By this paradigm, people realised that no matter how much money is spent on control pollution, the
problem lies in the way that water is quickly removed from areas, and then only treated at the end of
8
the pipe. This infrastructure was first introduced 2000 years ago, and although it was effective then
and a great improvement on previous paradigms, it is not acceptable for the future. Lack of vegetation
in urban areas and a high amount of man made materials is what causes so much pollution. The natural
water cycle has been severely disrupted by humans, and there are now serious consequences.
Although water use has greatly increased, 21% of the global population still, to this day, does not have
access to a clean water supply. Aquatic ecosystems are being affected by deposition of wastewater.
There is an ecological and environment crisis which is affecting development. Eventually water use
will reach its limit; water is limited to certain catchment areas. Environmental demands limit water
extraction; there are land use constraints for storage as well as economic constraints on supply and
distribution. There is still a continued growth in demand and increasing growth in urban areas, putting
strain on existing water systems. This is a global water crisis with lack of access in areas, and over
consumption in many western urban areas (from notes by lecturer Sarah Bell, 2008).
A seen in this chapter, the history of urban water systems has sculpted the cities we see today.
Therefore they should be able to cope with increasing demands and needs from the people living within
the cities, but at the same time they need to sustain the surrounding environment, and be able to supply
generations into the future. With this in mind, a fifth paradigm is beginning to emerge. This paradigm
offers innovative ideas that mean that urban water systems will be able to contribute to the quality,
economy and health of urban life.
3
Drivers to adapt a new paradigm
Chapter two looked at the four historical paradigms of urban water management; this chapter will
concrete on the emerging fifth paradigm. It is this paradigm that will pave the way for future cities,
enabling them to manage urban water in ecological, economical and efficient manner. Brundtland et
al., (1987) used the famous phrase to define sustainable development: “sustainable development meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs”. This is an old phrase, but one that has been the basis for many different definitions of
sustainability. In the case of urban water systems, in order to be sustainable, they need to meet the
demands of not only humans, but of the ecosystems within the environment that is surrounding them
for the present, but also the future. They need to be able to support this at local and global levels.
Mays (2007) came up with this definition, adding that water needs to be used in sufficient quantities
and quality, and to protect humans from damages brought on my natural and human disasters that will
9
affect sustaining life. This is one factor that is often overseen when introducing innovative sustainable
water systems to urban areas: natural disasters can be just as, or more, disastrous than human disasters.
Flooding can be an extreme problem within cities, and is becoming more and more frequent. The
United Kingdom has seen a rapid rise in flooding over the past few years within urban areas. The
Environmental Agency is constantly issuing flood warnings, and offering help to those living in
particularly bad areas. Drought, on the other hand, in other countries is causing extreme problems for
those living there. Australia has been struggling with drought for centuries, and the problem is just
becoming worse. The Australian government have been looking closely as their water resources, and
how these need to be managed. Therefore Australia has been a leader in sustainable water systems.
Obviously climate change is having a major impact on the worlds’ resources, and is causing a great
deal of trouble in many urban areas. There are many drivers that are calling for a change in current
water systems and the fifth paradigm. Using information from the book by Novotny and Brown
(2007), this chapter will identify some of those main drivers:
Population growth
This point has already been mentioned within this project, and although obvious, it is an extremely
important point. The world’s population is said to double in the next 50 years, putting even more strain
on an already stressed water resources. People are migrating to urban areas increasingly, with the
promise of a better life. The future water systems will need to deal with this extra stress in urban areas.
It is the centralised water systems that supply urban areas, and whether privately or publically owned,
they are going to have to deal with a much greater demand. Novotny and Brown (2007) state that the
USA currently supplies 75% of its population by centralised water supply, but this is to increase to 90%
in the future.
Climate Change
Many scientists agree that there is global warming, which is causing consequences all over the globe.
This is set to significantly affect water supplies though quantity, but also quality. Warmer temperatures
leads to warmer water supplies, therefore a need for urban water cooling systems will be required
which are themselves damaging to the environment. Changing climate leads to an increase in natural
disasters, through events like flooding and droughts, as previously mentioned.
10
Protection of aquatic ecosystems and urban waterways
Future generations of people must be able to receive good quality water supplies, but these must not
compromise the ecosystems. The protection of these aquatic ecosystems has actually been
incorporated into laws in many countries. It is common for there to be natural river systems running
through urban areas as many cities were built on rivers, estuaries and natural ports due to the transport
accessibility there was. However, many of these systems have been modified in some way. Many
rivers in London are now underground so that buildings could be built on top of them. Now, there are
regeneration projects that are being development to excavate these rivers, for example in the Camden
area of London. Withdrawing water decreases natural flows, and man made modifications can often
increase flood risks and destroy natural habitats and groundwater supplies.
Grey urban landscape and water infrastructures
As mentioned previously, the inclusion of non-porous man made materials have taken over urban areas.
This has destroyed many natural ecosystems and has increased the risk of flooding and polluted
stormwater runoff into natural systems.
Limits have been reached
Major urban areas have reached their ecological limits. Innovative water management is needed to deal
with this as well as an increasing demand.
To conclude this chapter, Table 1 compares the old paradigms with views from the fifth paradigm. It
summarises findings from Chapters 2 and 3. It is these new ways of thinking that will enable new and
current systems to be built and modified in such a way that will ensure clean and constant supply of
water to future generations. The next Chapter will look closely at water use behaviours within society.
11
Table 1 - Comparison of the modern and historial way of thinking about urban water systems
Historical
Modern
Decentralised / small systems are now possible, and are even
Centralised systems are the best for supplying and treating much better in certain areas. They are safe and
water, and safer when it comes to contamination.
contamination/system failure is easy to spot and more cost effective
to fix
Demand characterises quantity of water needed. All water Demand is multifaceted, end users range from residental homes to
supplied must be potable, all wastewater is collected and
industrial areas. Not all water needs to be potable, wastewater may
treated.
be collected and used elsewhere.
Water is endless.
Water scarcity is a very serious problem.
Water infrastructure must be constructed in a way that will Water infrastructure should reflect differing peoples' needs,
supply potable water to everyone for everyones needs'.
therefore allowing the recycling of water technologies.
Water appliances should be effective in saving water in homes, but
Water appliances within buildings should supply a constant
also in public and industrial places, ie., infrared controlled taps,
source of water with the ease of turning on a tap.
aerated showers, etc..
Greywater should be taken away and treated.
Greywater can be used respectively for other uses such as
watering the garden, or even treated onsite and used to flush a
toilet.
Stormwater needs to be removed from urban areas as
quickly as possible through drains and pipes.
Stormwater should be seen as a resource. It can be collected and
used for things such as supporting vegetation and aquifiers.
Human waste is a safety hazard and not clean, and
therefore needs to be removed as quickly as possible and
then disposed of straight after treatment.
Human waste is a resource, and should be treated in such a way.
It should be collected, processed adequately then used as a
fertiliser for crops.
Integration happens by accident - wastewater, water supply The physical systems and the management of them are integrated
and storm water are managed by one agency historically,
with one another. Links need to be made between each of them
even though the three systems are separated themselve.
with highly coordinated management.
Grey infrastructure - infrastructure is all manmade from
concrete pipes to plastic and metal appliances.
Green infrastucture - infrastructure can include soils and
vegetation. The environment should be used to its full potential.
Top down approach from water companies to other
agencies and the general public - they should only be
approaced for approval of pre-chosen solutions.
General public and other agencies must be included in the
discussion and search of appropriate solutions.
12
4
Water use and society
After the Public Health movement in the 19th century, a continuous and safe supply of water was
available in every household, in the United Kingdom. However today it has become a cultural norm to
think that water is ‘endless’, which makes utility services ‘invisible’. The urban water system is
invisible to people; they don’t see water being pumped to the house for use, nor how wastewater is
removed. Shove (2002) wrote a book on 'Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience', which as the title
suggests, discusses water use in society now that comfort, cleanliness and convenience are number one
priorities, and that the only way consumers in this country can measure the amount of utilities used is
in the way of bills. Translating money into energy consumption is difficult. The social and economic
aspect of provision and consumption has changed over the years to become what is the 'normal' for the
modern environment. Sofoulis (2005) discussed a point called 'Big Water', which is the logic that water
is endless. People now take it as the normal to shower everyday, when in the 1970s it wasn’t that
irregular to just bath once a week.
WithUse
the emergence
laundry technologies now meant that people
Water
in theofHome
can wash there own clothes in the convenience of their own home.
Drinking Water
4%
Other
5%
Clothes Washing
13%
Washing up
8%
Outdoor
7%
Toilet Flushing
30%
Personal Washing Showers
12%
Personal Washing Baths and taps
21%
Figure 2 - Water use within the house, adapted from chart on www.waterwise.org.uk
As Figure 2 above shows, toilet flushing takes up 30% of the average amount of water used within a
house. This is the largest amount of water on one particular appliance. Therefore to replace this with
recycled water would greatly reduce the average amount of water used per person per day. Personal
washing also uses up most of the water, as personal hygiene is of upmost importance. This chart is
13
based on information within the UK, however if you compare it with water use charts for the USA and
Australia, their main priorities consist of irrigating outside areas.
There were old politics that stated that society needs an unlimited supply to water, and that it is up to
the engineers to make decisions about water infrastructure as water provision is a technical issue. It’s
the politicians that provide the power to make decisions about water infrastructure. However the needs
of society mean that water is needed for health, social and cultural reasons, the same as natural
ecosystems need water to survive, so there is a great demand for water (from notes by lecturer Sarah
Bell, 2008).
There needs to be a new way of thinking to deal with this crisis. Relationships between ecology,
economy and the environment are being looked at, as well at the relationships between humans and
nature, and science and technology. The last two decades have seen major changes in the relationships
between utilities and their users. Recent demographic and economic models predict an increase in
demand, so utility companies are working back from this to design infrastructures that meet this
demand. However this research has been one sided as stated by van Vliet et al. (2005) who say all
work has been on ‘macro-institutional transformation of networks or on the micro-manipulation of
household behaviour’. Van Vliet et al. (2005) take a different approach, looking at a more sustainable
system of service and looks at the ‘co-management demand between consumers and providers’.
It is important to point out that water provision isn’t just a decision that needs to be made by engineers,
but it is a socio-technical problem. It is not just engineers and politicians that make decisions about
water provision, but most importantly the general public. Hale (1993) divided the involvement of the
public into three categories: public awareness, which means raising the existing problems; public
education, which provides the information to the public so that they can understand the policies; and
public participation, which gives the public the opportunity to assist in the decision-making. To gain
the appropriate support for sustainable environmental engineering will need at least the first two levels;
raising public awareness and educating them so that they understand potential solutions and system
consequences (Hales 1993).
An example of how water appliances are affected by human behaviour is outlined in a paper by Hills
and Birk (2004). This paper looks at a project taken out by Thames Water’s called the ‘Watercycle’
project, which was taken out at the Millennium Dome. In the washrooms there, various water efficient
devices were installed such as dual flush toilets, waterless urinals and infra-red controlled taps. These
14
were then monitored observing how much water was used, who were using the devices and what was
the behaviour of people in the washroom. There were differences in water use, most significantly
between the different sexes. Most notably was that 86% of females use the washbasin compared to
74% of males. The dual flush was a innovative design at the time and was well received, with them
being correctly used, as were the waterless urinals. The infra-red controlled taps on the other hand
were not so well received with people not using them properly. Some people who used them would not
use the entire length of time that the taps were running, so then saw it as water being wasted. On the
other hand, when it was not long enough, people were reactivating the infra-red, doubling water use.
These infrastructures are being designed in response to the inefficiency of current water devices. If
people can get used to using such things as dual flushes, especially at home, then using them will
become the norm.
As infrastructures of consumption influence cultures on consumption, it is now up to engineers to
design innovative infrastructures that will change our culture to become more sustainable.
It is
important to note that these more sustainable designs need not only cope with the current demand, but
that of the increasing demand of the future.
They need to dramatically reduce the water use.
Sustainability innovators are most notably Norway, Canada and the Netherlands against the apparent
laggards the USA (Lafferty and Meadowcraft, 2000).
One new design is the one of a decentralised water system. In many remote areas where there is no
central supply these are very popular. Water here need not to be pumped off in pipes to waste water
treatment plants, all is done on site. These systems are actually more cost effective than a centralised
system. Rain water can be collected in storage tanks on the roof and used for laundry use, toilet
flushing, or even drinking water. Approval needs to be gotten to implement a decentralised system into
an area where there is already a centralised system, as centralised systems are thought to be superior.
However more are being installed in centralised areas like in areas of Australia, for example Victoria
where since 1995 there has been an approval of the on-site system at Hepburn Springs (Maher and
Lustig, 2003). Indirect potable water reuse is a new and upcoming technology. This is where water at
the end of a river, for example, is taken out at the estuary, treated, then put back in at the source of the
river. This mixed with the water already there will mean that it is diluted. This technology also uses
less energy than other new methods such as desalination. Recent years have seen a rapid rise in water
and effluent disposal (Newton and Solt, 1994) therefore the reuse of water is much more cost effective.
On all these views it is important that society accepts them, and this isn’t always as easy as it seems.
Due to the way the public now see water, they don’t want to reuse water as they do not see it as being
15
clean, even though this isn’t true. The public need to be educated on these different methods, but this
isn’t always enough. They need to be involved with the decision making otherwise they will all be
rejected.
Other new implementations could be as Sofoulis (2005) stated; in Australia they use such methods as
block pricing on water and the use of water meters. On a household scale, innovative types of
appliances and be used such as dual flushes, aerated taps, ‘hippos’ in toilet systems and AAA rated
shower heads are becoming increasingly available and are welcomed by society.
Whilst devices like these will not solve the water crisis, they certainly get society thinking and will
address them to the problem. If people can be influenced by technology to increase their water usage,
surely it can be used to decrease water usage? Twenty years ago recycling and global warming may
not have been much more than someone’s imagination, but with just a few people changing their ways
and expressing their views the problem can not be avoided anymore. Once just a few people change
their ways, others in society catch on, and once this happens governments can write policies on these
matters, as seen with recycling. It is now an offence in many boroughs and counties not to recycle in
the proper way. So with these new infrastructures of consumption being made, will it be enough to
solve the global crisis? Much more needs to be done, and society will need to be able to accept change.
5
Literary review on sustainable development of urban water
systems
With the increase of sustainable living has come a rapid rise in the use and implementation of new
water systems. As the following case studies show, there is a great deal of difference in firstly the
technologies used, and also the way that they have been installed and introduced to the general public.
Some case studies have run smoothly and are currently being used. Others have failed, due to varying
reasons, which are discussed further into this project. A literary review was undertaken using recent
publications from journals, information for the internet, and recent books. To provide a comprehensive
review of all case studies is not possible due to the quantity that there is now, instead a few examples
have been taken from across the world.
16
BedZED, London Borough of Sutton, UK
BedZED an ‘environmentally-friendly’ housing development near Wallington, England, in the London
Borough of Sutton. It was an innovative design, being the first of its kind in the United Kingdom. The
architect Bill Dunster designed it, and was looking for a more sustainable way of building housing in
urban areas. The 99 homes, and 1,405 square metres of work space were built in 2000, and were
completed by 2002 (from www.bioregional.com). This was a bold development, with the introduction
of many innovations from a lot of diverse research. There is nowhere else in the UK where so many
innovative parts had been used together on one particular development, and one of the major elements
was the water and wastewater management systems (Shirley-Smith and Burler, 2008).
The
involvement of a small water company to supply both water, waste water and water recycling services
all on the same site was also something of a novel approach, particularly given that the local incumbent
water supplier was again a different company to the wastewater company (Shirley-Smith and Butler,
2008).
There is a great deal of literature on BedZED, which although gained a lot of publicity when it was first
built has now had many critical papers written on it in regards to the water management as seen in the
paper by Shirley-Smith and Butler (2008). It is these critical papers that are the most useful, as they
state exactly what has happened throughout the project, and specifically highlight areas that need to be
worked on. Reports by the House of Commons also give an unbiased view on the how the project went
at BedZED. It is from this sort of literature that lessons can be learnt for future projects. Later in this
project, an in depth review will be given on BedZED, and a systems thinking approach will be added to
try and draw out common trends throughout the case studies reviewed.
Eastside regeneration project, Birmingham
Literature was found from a current project in Birmingham called the ‘Eastside sustainable
regeneration project’ in which Hunt and Rogers (2005) had written a paper called “Barriers to
sustainable development in urban regeneration”.
They had used the regeneration project in
Birmingham as a case study. Since its completion in 1904, Birmingham has sourced its supply of clean
water from the Elan Valley in Wales via a 73 mile long aqueduct (Hunt and Rogers, 2005). With a
growing urban population in Birmingham, which has increased from 73,670 in1801 to 1,025,000 today,
there has been a growing demand (Hunt and Rogers, 2005).
development will increase demand furthermore.
In addition to this the East side
Therefore there has been a need to implement
sustainable technologies into the new Eastside building.
17
As taken from the literature, the following technologies are going to be used within the Eastside
regeneration project (from Hunt and Rogers, 2005).
1.
Water efficient appliances to be installed in all new builds.
2.
Rainwater harvesting – with some treatment and filtration can supply all non-potable
requirements in offices and residential buildings. Problem – Birmingham has relatively low
rainfall in comparison to rest of UK.
3.
Greywater recycling – only amounts to 33% of the whole 52% of non-potable water
requirement, so can only be used as a supplement to rainwater harvesting.
This again are very similar ideas, that have also been seen in BedZED, and which are cropping up in all
new builds. They became particularly popular in new builds in the UK after a paper by Diaper et. al.
(2000). Two of the developments within the Eastside area (Library and City Park Gate) are likely to
adopt rainfall harvesting/greywater recycling schemes.
Projects like these are being called ‘trophy schemes’ (Hunt and Rogers, 2005), as they are being
developed in isolation, without using a holistic and systems thinking approach, which has led so far to
lack of improvements in service provision. This is a view that will be developed on further into the
future. Work has not started yet, and is planned to do so in January 2010, and completed a year after.
The report by Hunt and Rogers (2005) will therefore be extremely useful if used by the planners
working on the Eastside project as the report addressed possible barriers and how to overcome them.
Rouse Hill
Australia's largest residential recycled water scheme is in the Rouse Hill area in Sydney's north-west.
Information from the Sydney Water website (www.sydneywater.com.au) explained that the scheme
started in 2001, and more than 18,000 homes are now using up to 1.4 billion litres of recycled water
each year for flushing toilets, watering gardens, washing cars and other outdoor uses. The scheme was
finished and completed by December 2008.
Recycled water is treated wastewater, which is water that has been used previously in bathrooms,
laundries and kitchens, and in businesses. It is treated to a high standard so it is safe to use
(www.sydneywater.com.au). The website showed that on average the Rouse Hill scheme has reduced
demand for drinking water by about 40%. Eventually the scheme will serve 36,000 homes. The area
includes parts of Acacia Gardens, Beaumont Hills, Castle Hill, Glenwood, Kellyville, Kellyville Ridge,
Parklea, Quakers Hill, Stanhope Gardens and, of course, Rouse Hill. Work to expand the Rouse Hill
18
Recycled Water Plant finished in December 2008. The expansion will allow up to 4.7 billion litres of
wastewater to be recycled each year for residential use.
Sydney water completed two reports, one before and after the commissioning of the scheme, so to get
views from the residents of Rouse Hill on recycled water (Po et. al., 2003). There was still some
uncertainty amongst residents, but most were aware of what the recycled water needed to be used for,
and were doing so accordingly. This project has been deemed successful by Sydney Water, and there
is little literature on the scheme, other then mentions in papers as a case study. There are no critical
reviews on the case study, and no systems thinking approach was mentioned.
The Pimpama Coomera Water Future Master Plan
This scheme is part of the Gold Coast City Council Development on the Australian east coast. Most
information for this scheme can be obtained from the Gold Coast City Council Development website,
(www.goldcoastwater.com.au/pimpamacoomera). This scheme in ongoing, and they are still in the
stages for speaking with the public.
The Pimpama Coomera Water Future (PCWF) Master Plan aims to secure a sustainable water future
for residents of the 7,000 hectare Pimpama Coomera region by using multiple sources of water in all
new homes approved after August 2005. Recycled water, called Class A+ recycled water, will be used
in all new properties from 2009. It will be used for flushing toilets and other external non drinking
water uses.
The Pimpama Coomera Waste Water Treatment Plant has been commissioned and the Recycled Water
Treatment Plant is expected to complete the commissioning process during 2009. This project is not
yet up and running, and they are currently concentrating on educating the residents on the uses and
benefits of the recycled water. This scheme is cropping up in a lot of recent papers, including one by
Apostolidis (2003), who was using an integrated management approach when assessing case studies on
urban water systems. Unlike BedZED however, there are no critical reviews on it yet, obviously
because this scheme is not up and running, therefore its success is yet unknown.
Zaragossa, Spain
Zaragossa (there are other spellings) is a small town of 40,0000 inhabitants in the North of Spain,
which is regularly struck by water scarcity. In 1997, the city made a first attempt at using new
technologies to keep up people's quality of life during the dry months. As Spain joined the European
19
Union it was given the chance to have a full-scale project financed by the LIFE programme1. Fifty
publicly owned buildings were chosen as models to show how water-saving technologies can be put to
work. When the water rates suddenly went up people began to realise the significance of these new
technologies. The programme gave local businesses the chance to thrive by selling their products and
ideas on an internet page developed by the NGO, Fundación Ecología y Desarollo
(http://www.ecodes.org/).
In 1995, as many as 11 million people in Spain still suffered the direct consequences of repeated water
scarcity1. Faced with this situation the local council of Zaragossa commissioned the Fundación
Ecología y Desarollo to draft a concept that would meet the requirements set out by the EU directives
of the Water Framework Programme1. They came up with the LIFE Programme, which involves
educating residents of the many water saving options1. The people involved with these technologies
were then able to make the necessary contacts.
There was a great deal success by educating people in this manner as show by the 1.17 billion m3 of
water that was saved in one year, just through changes in peoples’ habits and simple new technologies2.
A website was set up to educate and inform people. The local water board also monitored the success
of this new sustainable living. Small businesses were able to benefit as they were the ones actually
producing these new types of water efficiency devices. Customers did not mind paying the higher
water rates as the water of the water supplied was of much better quality. The rest of Spain watched
this project with great interest, and this included cities of a much larger scale to include Madrid and
Barcelona. Although there isn’t much literature on this case study, the interest of the larger cities
showed the importance of it to the rest of Spain.
Las Vegas
Las Vegas is a thriving city in the Nevada State of the United States of America. It is also stuck in the
middle of a desert. Being in Las Vegas however, you would not realise that there were water scarcity
problems. Residential homes boast luscious green grass lawns, full of flowers. The main strip of Las
Vegas has huge hotels with extremely large swimming pools and all the luxuries of five star hotels,
even including large fountains in front of them which act as a tourist attraction. The Southern Nevada
Water Authority (www.SNWA.com) are responsible for the water management within Las Vegas and
its surrounding areas. They produced the Southern Nevada Water Smart programme which is outlined
fully in the SNWA resource plan (2009). They have taken a different stance to other case studies, and
1
2
http://www.bestpractices.at/main.php?page=programme/environment/selected_examples/spain_zaragoza&lang=en
http://www.bestpractices.at/main.php?page=programme/environment/selected_examples/spain_zaragoza&lang=en
20
are not putting their efforts into developing new sustainable urban water systems, but rather to change
the anthropogenic system in changing peoples’ behaviours.
The SNWA consists on seven amalgamated water companies who all serve the Las Vegas region,
meaning that they can all work together towards a common goal. They have been working together for
the last decade to improve water conservation and management of the water from the River Colorado.
Here, the residents are the most important component in the sytem.
Other literature
There are many books out now on sustainable urban water management, including “Cities of the
Future” by Novotny and Brown (2006), who edited and amalgamated many different papers on
sustainable urban water management, the technologies, and what can be done when implementing
future systems. The amount of literature describing sustainable urban water systems is plentiful. There
are excellent descriptions of case studies from around the world, yet few have applied a systems
thinking approach to look at the system as a whole. Table 2 summarises the case studies found, their
technologies and success rate from the literary review. Chapter 6, which follows on, will introduce the
theory behind systems thinking, and how this can be applied to the case study review and synthesis
further in this project.
21
Table 2 - Comparison of different case studies
Name of project
Location
Designed for
Technologies used
BedZED
Wallington, England
Residential
Water efficient devices, education, water
GWTP out of
meter, rainwater harvesting, 'Living
commmision
Machine', GWTP
Birmingham Eastside
regeneration project
Both industrial and
Water saving devices, mostly rainwater
Birmingham, England residential buildiings in a new
harvesting, some grey water recycling
development
Rouse Hill
Sydney, Australia
Residential
Greywater recycling
Pimpama Coomera
Australia
Residential
Wastewater is treated to very high levels No - advertising project
Unknown
to be used for non-potable water use.
to community June 09
Residential
This project concentrated more on
educating the community to change
their habits when using water, with the
help of water saving devices
Yes
Successful - saved 1.17bm3
of water. Led way for other
cities.
Industrial and residential
City uses many ways, including
greywater. SNWP pays people to
convert water thirsty grass to desert
landscaping - all new homes to be built
according to SNWP
Yes
Yes water is being
saved,and money is being
saved
Zaragossa
Southern Nevada
Water Smart
Programme
Spain
Las Vegas, US
In use or not
Success rate
Not carbon free - onsite
treatment plant isn't working
Work starting in January 2010, completed the year
after. Birmingham's 'Green Lung'
Yes - expansion
finished in Dec 08
Reduced demand of potable
water by 40%
22
6
Introduction to systems thinking and system approaches
Sustainability and sustainable development will come across many challenges, and are only originally
just problems of existing complex systems. A great deal of planning, then assessment is required along
with maintaining the system, therefore a method to gain maximum potential from a system would
benefit from a systems thinking approach. Systems thinking is an approach that studies entities as a
whole, and closely looks at the different levels of systems (to include sub-systems and super-systems).
It is important to think about water systems sustainability by looking at the different relationships
between each of the involved systems within a hierarchy of local, regional and global systems. The
word ‘holism’ is often quoted in literature on systems thinking. It is not a new concept, and has been
quoted by Emery back in 1969. Meadows (2001) argued a valid point that to understand a certain
system, knowledge needs to be gained from various studies in different disciplines, which need to be
brought together and integrated. Systems thinking will mean that the synthesis at the end of this
project can look at all the relevant information from each of the case studies independently but then
look at key relationships and trends between all of them, to get a sense of the whole system.
Kay and Foster (1999) described systems thinking as involving a hierarchical understanding of systems
within systems. In order to gain the whole understanding of a system, you may need to either identify
its components, or look at what larger systems it may be included within. Therefore you can look at a
systems hierarchically upwards or downwards, which is quite different to the conventional ‘scientific
thinking’. Bell and Morse (1999) explained this by saying that scientific understandings and methods
are reductionist, whilst systems thinking may use reductionist understandings, but it still holistic.
This project will use a systems approach as a method to applying systems thinking to define systems
and their boundaries. To make sure that this approach will work, a system with its boundary and
system-environment must firstly be defined (Fane, 2005). A system definition includes looking at the
components, and the relationships within them. A system-environment definition includes looking at
the different systems that the particular system interacts with. The boundaries of the system therefore
need to be clearly identified so to be able to identify all super and sub systems. Urban water systems
are open systems, therefore there will be many interactions between them and the environment.
23
6.1 Systems thinking within urban water systems and their environments
It is important to note that definitions of systems will vary depending on who it is observing the
system. When it comes to urban water systems, the different stakeholders are going to have differing
opinions. The different components of an urban water system may be viewed independently as water
supply, water treatment and storm water infrastructures. It is through different consultancies and
companies that each of these components are run, so if they do not interact with one another, they may
miss out vital sustainable developments, such as collecting rain water for use in the house elsewhere.
The boundary of urban water systems may vary. Some people may see it as having a boundary of an
individual property, rather than looking at the whole area that the system is supplying. Different
components and systems of an urban water system are as below:

Water catchment area

Natural water systems (ie., rivers)

Water infrastructure (ie., pipes and pumps)

Water treatment plants

Water suppliers

Storm water management within urban areas

Wastewater treatment plants

Built water systems (ie., dams)

Social systems

Water and waste water companies

Policy makers

Users of the water systems
Each of these may be viewed as separate systems, but this project is going to look at these using a
holistic approach, and assuming that these are all part of the urban water system. However in terms of
sustainability, urban water infrastructures are best understood as being the system which provides the
services to the system-users, which in this case are the consumers. Therefore the users, policy makers
and social systems will all be part of the system environment. This project will concentrate on looking
at supplying, treating and the removal of water and storm water sustainably. The natural environment
and ecosystems within it are also importantly included within the urban water system in terms of
sustainability.
24
Urban water systems themselves can be defined as the water systems that supply a city or a town, and
this project will mainly look at the water supplied to the residents within them rather than looking at
the industrial sector. The three main parts of an urban water system is the water supply, wastewater
treatment and stormwater collection and treatment. Water supply is the provision of potable water,
wastewater treatment is the collection of wastewater, the removal of pollutants, and the disposition
back into the environment. Stormwater services will deal with the drainage of water in urban areas so
to avoid flooding and health issues. A sustainable water system needs to be able to cope with the
changing demand, have a long life cycle, and improve the quality of the surrounding system
environment, both for natural and human systems. When including the sustainability of an urban water
systems, the system environment will contain many more components, and will be of high importance.
Also the system-users, the general public, are a key component within the system, as if they do not use
the system properly it will be deemed as useless. Sustainable urban water systems are included within
many other systems, such as a sustainable project of a local community, which itself is a sub systems of
a city, which can be part of a system of sustainable development of society in general (Grigg, 1999).
Global ecological systems
Social System
City / Region
Local System
Sustainable
water system
Figure 3 - Spheres of influence of the sustainable urban water system
Figure 3 shows what different systems a sustainable water system will lie within. Normally it is the
centre circles in which people concentrate their attentions on when developing an urban water system,
however in terms of sustainability, and using a systems thinking approach, it is the outermost layers
25
that need to be closely looked at. The social system includes both economical and anthropogenic
systems.
The urban water system can be placed into three different levels of hierarchy: the local level, the
regional level and the global level.
Local Level
Grigg (1999) argues that urban water systems have their infrastructure linked with present built, social
and natural systems in a surrounding area. They often incorporate local economic systems, local
community infrastructures and other structures. It will also include local ecosystems and the water
catchment area. Chapter 2 on Water Use and Society clearly explains how water systems are
influenced by social systems in detail.
The City / Regional level
Urban water systems at this level include infrastructures that will control outbreaks of pollutants, and
which will be able to avoid natural disasters, such as flooding. At this level, the natural environment
will affect the built environment, therefore the urban water infrastructure. At this level, urban water
systems are also greatly influenced by policy makers. If they do not support a new sustainable system,
then there will be no possible way to have one.
The global level
The overall goal for humans living within this planet is to live in a sustainable manner, so that future
generations will not suffer the consequences. Energy resources are becoming depleted, there is a
global climate crisis with rising global temperatures, yet there is also a growing population. One Planet
Living, a concept devised by Bioregional (www.bioregional.com) is used to demonstrate how much of
the planets resources humans are using up. By working out an individuals carbon footprint, they will
tell you how many planets would be needed if everyone were to consume at that individuals rate.
Globally there is a water scarcity problem, even within countries like the UK where it is perceived to
rain all the time. This means that most of the population are unaware of any problems. As water
scarcity is a global problem, implementing new sustainable water systems has even more importance
and global significance.
26
The next chapter will look at three case studies in more detail, describing in depth the sustainable water
system that is being used and the success that it has had. Then a systems thinking approach will be
applied to determine similarities and relationships between all case studies so that a conclusion can be
drawn from them. This approach will be used in the following manner:

Firstly the boundaries of the urban water system need to be determined.

Secondly, the components, or stakeholders, of the system will be identified, and will be defined
in the order of their hierarchical importance.

Lastly the system environment will be described.
Then the relationships between the components, and their interactions with the system environment
will be looked at closely, identifying barriers that have occurred, or which could possibly occur. Then
this project will attempt at finding ways to mitigate these barriers, which will be discussed fully in the
synthesis.
7
In depth discussion of case studies
7.1
BEDZed
As previously mentioned, BEDZed is a ‘zero-carbon’ development found in south-east England. The
water management strategy for BedZED, whichwas originally developed by Arup, Bill Dunster
Associates (BDA) and BioRegional, was based on the four following ideas (adapted from ShirleySmith and Butler (2008):
1. Efficient appliances (aerated showerheads, spray taps, lowflush toilets and grade A washing
machines), to be installed as standard appliances. This is reduce the overall consumption of
potable water. This was also to encourage ‘water efficient lifestyles’.
2. They wanted the occupants to be aware of the amount of water that they use so that they can
monitor this. Water meters were installed in a cupboard with a glass front at eye level. These
can be monitored remotely, therefore there will be no need for visits from the water company.
3. Rainwater harvesting system was installed – drains surplus water from the slightly arched green
roofs. Stores 35 m3 of water for toilet flushing and garden watering.
4. ‘Living Machine’ (LM) was installed. This is an on-site waste water treatment service. Water
from this will be used for irrigation of the landscape, reuse in toilets, botantical nursery,
educational resource and to grow plants that will produce essential oils. In 2002 this was not a
foundation of the non-potable supply, but to top up the rainwater system.
27
The design of the 'Green Water Treatment Plant' (GWTP) was a hybrid between a traditional activated
sludge system and which also incorporated some clarifying elements and plants from the 'Living
Machine' system.
At the present time the system is out of commission but lessons have been drawn as to how to
reproduce a small scale modular system such as the GWTP elsewhere (Shirley-Smith and Butler,
2008). This solution is an important tool in the armoury of sustainable water management, especially
on green or brown field development sites.
Figure 4 – GWTP from Shirley-Smith and Butler (2008)
Unfortunately due to unforeseen problems, BedZED is not quite zero-carbon. This is actually due to
the failed Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system there, and there were also problems occurring with
the water schemes (Shirley-Smith and Butler, 2008). Bioregional found that BedZED households use
2,579 kWh of electricity per year which is 45% lower than the average in Sutton
(www.bioregional.com). While the biomass CHP plant is not in use, BedZED uses gas to power the
district heating system. On average, households use 3,526 kWh of heat (from gas) per year – 81% less
than the average in Sutton (www.bioregional.com). It was found that residents only use 72 litres of
28
mains water per day, topped up by 15 litres of recycled or rainwater. This is less than half of the local
average3.
BedZED has been widely covered in literature and has been quoted when talking about sustainable
buildings, and is said to be the best technical and social practice example for new urban housing
(Shirley-Smith and Butler, 2008). However papers that have been written more recently have been far
more critical like as seen by the article by Slavin (2003).
This has gotten such an interest from the government that the Earl of Selborne and Lord Oxburgh of
the House of Commons even went there to visit it and assess the way it works in 2006. They met
consultants and project managers from the BedZED development, but also those from other
developments, including the Thames Gateway development and ones in Australia.
They were
particularly interested in the advanced sustainable water system that they had there. Also, the South
African High Commisioner, Dr Lindiwe Mabuza (pictured in Figure 5 wearing headscarf), and founder
of Motheo Construction, Dr Thandi Ndlovu, visited Bioregional Development's BedZed housing
development with the aim of strengthening links with a sustainable housing project in Johanesburg.
Figure 5 - Guests to BedZED with Architect Bill Dunster with BedZed model – photo from archives at the Croydon
Advertiser
3
http://www.bioregional.com/what-we-do/our-work/bedzed/
29
Chapter 4. ‘Water Use and Society’, describes how the normal day to day habits of people meant that
people were consuming a large quantity of water, around 150 litres of water a day (from Waterwise4).
BedZED wanted to change people’s habits by having introducing different lifestyle practices which
were green and that were also designed to give a further sense of community. These included an
electric car pool where residents could make use of the electric cars available, which in turn could be
charged up on site. There was a small clubroom which was used to held community events, a
comprehensive recycling facility, fresh vegetable delivery and an on-site sport facility (Shirley-Smith
and Butler, 2008).
As mentioned previously here are two main water schemes that were developed at BedZED:
1. The collection of rainwater from green roofs.
2. The recycling of wastewater through the “Living Machine”.
These were supplemented with the instalment of water saving devices within the homes, as already
mentioned. The water from the green roofs was supposed to be collected, filtered and then sent to the
green water storage tank. This water was going to supply all the toilets in the development, however it
became contaminated and would therefore have to be chlorinated to avoid any health risks, in particular
e-coli being a major problem (Shirley-Smith and Butler, 2008). The actual colour of the water had also
turned brown and therefore most of the residents would find this unacceptable. Brown water brings an
image to most people’s mind as being dirty, and therefore would not want it within their households –
even if it is just for flushing the toilets, it’s aesthetically unpleasing.
Another reason for the rainwater scheme being neglected was because that the amount of water that
would be recycled from the wastewater treatment was to such a high volume that it was sufficient
enough to supply the toilets. Therefore the rainwater was to be diverted to soak-away instead5.
The Living Machine was an interesting part of the water management system at BedZED, which was a
small on-site treatment plant for wastewater. The way this system worked was to extract the nutrients
for plants and treat the water to a reasonable standard. This would be pumped into the green storage
tank, mixed with the rainwater, and used to flush toilets (as shown clearly in Figure 4). It was situated
in a greenhouse, which was supposed to provide a pleasant setting with lots of plants life. They didn’t
4
5
http://www.waterwise.org.uk/reducing_water_wastage_in_the_uk/house_and_garden/save_water_at_home.html
House of Commons 8th report
30
want to hide the Living Machine, but do the opposite and make it a prominent part of the development,
something that the residents could be proud of.
BedZED lies in Thames Water’s area for water supply and also wastewater treatment, therefore
developers at BedZED had to try and secure an inset agreement, which would allow a separate
decentralised system to operate within this area. The problem with this was that BedZED required only
6,000 cubic metres of water per year, and the inset agreement required a minimum supply of 50, 000
cubic metres per year (House of Commons report). “An inset agreement is the route by which one
company replaces the incumbent as the appointed water and/or sewerage company for a specified
area”6. In other words, if the mains water company, Thames Water, was to be replaced by an
alternative water and waste water supply, an inset agreement would be necessary. This is where the
project hit a lot of barriers that needed to be overcome. The water system in United Kingdom is
extremely complicated, with some companies supplying water as well as treating water, however some
companies will only do one of the other. Therefore depending on where you live, you may have two
water companies servicing the household, or it may just be one.
At this stage therefore, the contract was given to a private company called Albion Water Limited
(AWL), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Enviro-logic Ltd., which was supported by South West
Water. Due to the lack of the ‘inset agreement’ with Thames Water . However, problems began to
arise with Sutton Borough Council who were originally in favour of the sustainable development, but
now that they realised that the water systems was not to be run by one of the established private water
companies (as seen in Appendix 2). They believed that if it wasn’t one of the established companies,
then there would be numerous health and safety concerns. This is a common misconception with
decentralised systems in comparison to centralised systems. In fact there is little evidence to support
this. If a smaller system was to become contaminated, it would be noticed quicker and would be much
easier to solve the problem.
However it was in June 2003 that the final blow came to BedZED: due to unrelated matters, AWL and
its subsidiary companies were dissolved, leaving the entire responsibility of delivering the water
management of BedZED to South West Water (SWW). SWW did not have the expertise in this field
that AWL had, therefore it was unable to carry on the operation on the GWTP (Shirley-Smith and
Butler, 2008). Currently the GWTP is not producing any potable water. The problems here were that
6
www.ofwat.gov.uk/aptrix/ofwat/publish.nsf/Content/insetappointments1205
31
when designing the system, the whole system life-cycle was not thought out correctly – meaning that
the long term durability of the system was doomed.
Living Technologies was the basis of the design of the Living Machine (LM), which was adapted by
Professor Triggs7. At first the system worked, but Professor Triggs soon realised that to process the
waste water at an adequate rate, the reedbed (living part) tanks would need to be bypassed, and a
conventional activated sludge system should be used. The problem with this was that is meant constant
supervision was needed, and there weren’t the funds to employ someone to do this. Due to a lack of
communication between the client and other parties back in 2000, no one had discussed who would be
taking responsibility for the management of the LM, which included the delivery of water and waste
water services to the residents of BedZED. Not only were there no funds available to employ someone
to supervise the LM, but the issue of billing of these services hadn’t been taken into consideration
(Shirley-Smith and Butler, 2008).
The Living Machine also used much more energy than the centralised mains water and wastewater
system which was mainly due to the pumping and process aeration. Therefore this would be increasing
the amount of carbon used in the system rather than decreasing it, defying the point of the sustainable
system. Added to this the amount of waste sludge produced was much greater than anticipated. All in
all, the Living Machine had to be abandoned.
Thames water were planning on installing a Membrane Bioreactor8 (MBR) at BedZED, which was part
of a a research project that was planned to treat the wastewater there (Birks et al., 2008). The actual
design was derived from a case study of Solaire in New York, United States. The BedZED Wastewater
Reclamation Plant (BWRP) is comprised of the MBR, 3mm screens and granular activated carbon and
chlorination.
Peter Wright, a consultant to the Peabody Trust that developed BedZED reviewed the state of the
original water system (Living Machine and rainwater tanks) and concluded that it was not successful,
mostly because it was not commercially viable due to the small size of the development (House of
Commons report). Mains water is available still and prices were so low that unless another investment
was to take place the small-scale scheme would never be viable. The local council, in this case Sutton,
7
8
House of Commons 8th Report
Community scale non-potable reuse in London using an MBR - http://www.iwaponline.com/wpt/003/wpt0030047.htm
32
could easily set up many obstacles within the induction of this scheme, and mostly for just bureaucratic
reasons as the small size would mean a lack of inset agreements.
The Environment Agency has actually set a standard for the recycled water at BedZED, but it has been
suggested that there should be a more nation-wide standard, as seen in several other countries (House
of Commons report). This would then make it much easier to design and construct systems for water
re-use.
Representative from the One Planet Living development, which consists of 2,000 homes in the Thames
Gateway explained that water efficient devices would be use, but after visiting BedZED did not believe
that recycling water would make financial nor environmental sense for such a small-scale development
(House of Commons report). They were more interested in the eco-friendly treatment of waste, rather
than the use of non-potable water.
In conclusion it is fair to say that BedZED has come up to various barriers in the running of the new
system. Although it was highly publicised during the construction of the site, later reviews and reports
were far more critical. It was supposed to be a model for future sustainable housing, and being the first
of its kind in the United Kingdom, it definitely has paved the way forward. Mistakes made and lessons
learnt for the future. Calling a site ‘zero-carbon’ is a bold statement, and something that is extremely
difficult to achieve. Perhaps a ‘low carbon’ housing development will be for feasible in the future.
7.1.2 Applying a systems thinking approach to identify barriers
To analyse BedZED by using a systems thinking approach, firstly the boundaries of the system need to
be identified, then the components and finally the system-environment it is contained within.
System boundaries
If the Living Machine was working, the system boundary would be on a much smaller scale. Water
would have been supplied from a private company, but treated on site. However this isn’t in use,
therefore the mains supply of water is being used. This will therefore be part of the urban water
system, including the offsite treatment plants. Thames Water are currently removing all wastewater,
but are intending on installing the membrane bioreactor as the principle treatment system (ShirleySmith and Butler, 2008). The residents at BedZED are also part of the system, as well as the
infrastructures at BedZED, including the green roofs.
33
Sustainable community / residents
BedZED is a specifically designed housing community that was aimed at being a zero carbon
community. Therefore the social system already there is an important component of the urban water
system. As the Living Machine failed, the sustainability of the water system there now lies in the
hands of the residents living there. They have been given water saving appliances to promote water
saving practices, as well as having their own water meter to keep an eye on the amount of water they
are using. However not everyone chooses to live at BedZED, some houses there are owned by the
local council. In a visit to BedZED in September 2008, it was said that many people actually cover up
the window in the wall which the water meter can be viewed from. Shirley-Smith and Butler (2008)
also noted in their report how people were even disconnecting the water meters. If the point of these
could be made to the residents, they may be willing to use them. The House of Commons report also
stated that many found them aesthetically unpleasing, so this could easily be resolved.
Infrastructure at BedZED
The instalment of water saving appliances is a major component of the water conservation at BedZED.
There was specific pipes built for the non-potable water, and green roofs were installed. Problems
occurred with the pipes as engineers were unfamiliar with the new technology. The green roofs were
unsuccessful at collecting rainwater – conventional roofs are actually better.
Water Companies
Albion Water was willing to be the supplier of water to BedZED whilst using the Living Machine, as
they believed that setting an example to other developments within the UK was more important than
making a large profit. Thames Water now supply the water through the conventional mains system.
They are also will to lose some profit by installing the membrane bioreactor. Therefore Thames Water
currently supply and treat all water, so this is a large part of the urban water system, but not such a big
component of the sustainable system as of yet.
Local council and policymakers
Sutton Council were responsible for denying having an inset agreement due to health and safety
reasons. There is no current standard for recycled water within the UK. Policy makers need to be
informed about the benefits to this type of sustainable living. Bioregional are the not-for-profit charity
who are involved with the BedZED project, and they actively get in contact with policymakers to build
relationships with the people who influence them.
34
System-environment
The system environment will be the surrounding areas of BedZED, which are the conventional
residential homes seen within the UK. This anthropogenic system includes infrastructures such as
transport and energy resources. BedZED want to promote zero carbon living, and therefore try to
include sustainable day to day living which includes using appropriate transport. This will include
functions between the system and its environment.
7.2
Las Vegas
Las Vegas is a prime example of a growing urban population, and is a thriving city that is stuck in the
middle of the desert therefore water availability is going to be a problem. The Southern Nevada Water
Authority still say that there is enough water available for the population to double in the next decade
from nearby Lake Mead. But people are worried about what it will do to the surrounding environment
if water is drained from this habitat. Therefore the city has begun its somewhat unusual project to
conserve water. This has been achieved as part of the Water Smart Program. As of 2006, more than
700 homes built in the city were in the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s (SNWA) Water Smart
Program.
History of Las Vegas
Las Vegas was an attractive town before all the glitz and glamour of today. It was favoured by
immigrants, wayfarers and the railroads because of its artesian springs. 1905 saw the areas first water
company being formed, that was responsible for moving the springs water. By 1920 the populations of
Las Vegas has reached 50009. The Colorado River catchment area and the states that surround it use
this river basin for their water supply, and back in the 1920s the desert landscape of Southern Nevada
meant that it wasn’t being used for agriculture nor industry, so groundwater was plentiful enough10.
Figure 6 shows just how many states are fighting for the water resources from the Colorado River.
9
http://www.snwa.com/assets/pdf/wr_plan_chapter1.pdf
http://www.snwa.com/assets/pdf/wr_plan_chapter1.pdf
10
35
Figure 6 - Colorado River Basin and States derived from (://www.snwa.com/assets/pdf/wr_plan_chapter1.pdf)
7.2.1 History of SNWA
Th Las Vegas water conservation programme is being run by the Southern Nevada Water Authority
(SNWA). SNWA was formed in 199111 when seven local water agencies amalgamated into the one
authority with the intention of addressing water issues on more of a regional basis, rather than looking
at smaller local areas individually. SNWA has the objective of managing the regions water resources
and to develop sustainable solutions so to make the future of water in Southern Nevada safe.
SNWA includes the management and operation of the Southern Nevada Water System (SNWS), which
began its operations in 197112. SNWS was officially transferred to operate under the SNWA in 2001.
It is the SNWS that plays a large part in the water management of Las Vegas.
11
12
http://www.snwa.com/html/about_history.html
http://www.snwa.com/html/about_history.html
36
SNWS consists of water treatment and distribution of water from the Colorado River which is diverted
from Lake Mead, and supplies potable water to Southern Nevada’s municipal water providers13.
The Southern Nevada Water Project (SNWP) was produced with the collaborated work of the Colorado
River Commission and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, who ended up funding part of the new systems
as a federal water project as Nevada did not have the finance to take on such a ambitious project.
The construction of the SNWP began in 1968, with the system operating in 1971. Improvements were
made over the 1980s, and in the 1990s such improvements increased the treatment and delivery of
water for up to 600 millions gallons per day. This construction was one of the first of its kind, and out
of all the case studies looked at within this project, this by far has the most history to it.
A major part of its history was when the Robert B. Griffith Water Project was transferred ownership by
the federal government, which saved people living in Southern Nevada a great deal of money. It also
gave SNWA more control, and took less pressure off the federal government.
To date SNWA is constructing improvements to meet the high demand for water coming from the Las
Vegas valley. The plan is to ensure that water from the depths of Lake Mead receives superior water
treatment so that it can be a reliable source of water to the residents in South Nevada. To deal with
increasing demand, this project is being operated through a phased approach.
7.2.2 Future of water conservation in Las Vegas
So the SNWA have the problem of water conservation in Las Vegas to solve. The management of the
water will fall into basic categories: increase water supply, or reduce demand. As Stave (2002)
mentioned in their paper, to increase water supply would be politically and economically expensive.
Therefore they are concentrating on conservation of water and educating residents on using water
sustainably.
This is a slightly different view on sustainable systems then what is taken from other case studies.
Sometimes it isn’t quite technologies that make a difference, but the way projects are run. The SNWA
Water Smart Programme is not about installing new technologies, but the selling of synthetic turf to
replace grass, so to conserve water. In fact turf grass in the city parks has been converted to synthetic
13
http://www.snwa.com/html/about_snws.html
37
turf but most have been converted to ‘xeriscapes’, which are landscapes or gardens that are appropriate
for desert conditions (SNWA Resource Plan, 2009).
The SNWA Resource Plan, 2009, state how SNWA want to sustain the regions water resources until at
least 2060. They believe that by using water conservation, they will be able to reach these goals. As
well as this conservation plan there are other schemes in place.
SNWA have watering restriction on irrigation, and the sprinklers have been converted to water efficient
models. The city does not use greywater for residential use, but uses it to irrigate the golf courses. The
waste treatment plant processes generate methane gas, which is captured and used to operate the
system’s two digester gas blower engines, saving more than $1,300 per engine per day in electrical
energy cost in peak summer season (www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/Green_Sheet). Policies here mean
that there are things called ‘return flow credits’. Las Vegas treats 70 million gallons of wastewater a
day
to
return
to
the
Colorado
River,
therefore
gaining
these
credits
(.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/Green_Sheet). New builds in the Kyle Canyon area are being developed to
the standards of the Southern Nevada Water Program (SNWA Resource Plan, 2009).
The Water Smart Landscapes rebate helps property owners convert water-thirsty grass to desert
landscaping, a lush yet water-efficient landscape. They get to get case rebates depending on how many
square foot of their landscapes they convert to water-smart landscaping. They actually get $1.50 per
square foot (http://www.snwa.com/html/cons_wsl.html). There are also various schemes that provide
incentives for businesses within the area, however this project is concentrating mostly on the residential
aspects of urban water systems.
Although SNWA have other schemes in place, water conservation by the residents is by far the scheme
in which they hope to save the most money from. However in the future, they want to rely on
permanent in-state groundwater resources, but there are factors such as cost and environmental factors
that will affect the timing of introducing this more permanent resource (SNWA, Resource Plan 2009).
38
7.2.3 Applying a systems thinking approach to identify barriers
System boundary
This system is part of a very large region in which water management is being governed by SNWA.
This is a system which has its boundaries on a regional scale. This differs from BedZED, which has a
local scale, as does the Pimpama Coomera scheme in Australia. The boundary therefore will include
all areas served by SNWA and the residents that live there.
The general public
Conservation is the SNWA’s primary concept. As 59% of water use is from residents (SNWA, Water
Resource Plan 2009), then it is the residents who need to be educated on water conservation. Residents
want to have lush looking gardens, however this is not the natural environment as Las Vegas is situated
in the middle of the desert. To obtain these gardens, a great deal of water is used up.
SNWA / policymakers
SNWA are responsible for all water management within Las Vegas and its surrounding areas. They
have come up with all the conservation tools previously mentioned. They offer the general public
incentives to change their landscape, and also manage water supplies through regulation pricing and
educating the residents. They are also having to devise more permanent sources of water, and are
doing this through in-state groundwater resources.
System environment
The systems here need to firstly be defined. The urban water system consists of the water catchment
area, are the supply and treatment of water as well as the collection of stormwater and drainage. This is
the supply side to the system. What differs in this case study to the Pimpama Coomera scheme in
Australia or the BedZED project in the UK is that the most important part of the system here is the
demand system. Las Vegas has only one source for water (the Colorado River), so with a growing
demand if conservation does not work, alternative water supplies will need to be found.
7.3
Pimpama Coomera
The Pimpama and Coomera regions are situated on the east coast of Australia, approximately 40 km
south of Brisbane (see below map).
39
Figure 7 - Map showing location of Pimpama Coomera Water Future scheme (point A), adapted from Google Maps
The Pimpama Coomera Water Future (PCWF) Master Plan aims to secure a sustainable water future
for residents of the 7,000 hectare Pimpama Coomera region by using multiple sources of water in all
new homes approved after August 2005. There are two separate water supply networks known as dual
reticulation, which comprises of the conventional centralised drinking water supply, and the new Class
A+ recycled water network (Gold Coast City Council, Case Study on Class A+ recycled water).
Homes are also connected to rainwater tanks, meaning that there are three sources of water supply,
each having their own purposes. The Case Study on Class A+ recycled water by the Gold Coast City
Council, used two residents who had been previously living in Rouse Hill in north western Sydney,
which as mentioned before in this project has been using high quality non-potable water since 2001.
This was the reason that they moved to the Pimpama Coomera region. They liked the fact that they
were able to have green garden, even during drought as explained in the following statement:
“Even
with water restrictions, we could just turn on the tap
and water our garden. Our yard was green whereas other
suburbs were brown. The difference when you drove into
our suburb was unbelievable.”
(from http://www.goldcoastwater.com.au/attachment/goldcoastwater/pc_case_study_class_a+.pdf)
40
The complete Pimpama Coomerma Waterfuture Plan used a sustainable integrated urban water
management which was comprised of the drinking water, rainwater, stormwater, recycled water and
wastewater services.
Class A+ recycled water will be supplying all new properties (residential and industrial) in the
Pimpama Coomera region from 2009, which will be used for toilet flushing and external non drinking
use from 2009. This is to reduce the need for potable water for certain household uses.
It is produced by collecting wastewater, which is then treated in a treatment plant to produce Class B
recycled water. This water is subjected to further treatment, including ultra-filtration, UV disinfection
and chlorination (www.goldcoastwater.com.au).
After this process, the water can be officially
classified as Class A+ water.
They also have included back up technologies within the plan so that no problems will arise. This
mains that potable water can still be used for everything as a back up for the rainwater tanks.
Rainwater tanks will supply washing machine, and the Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)
includes rainwater tanks and engineered landscaping features to help slow, reduce and filter stormwater
run-off and improve environmental outcomes for Moreton Bay. All new homes have two separate pipe
networks supplying water – this means they still have access to potable water, but also the recycled
(Class A+) water.
Table 3 on the following page shows what the Class A+ water can be used for.
41
Table 3 - Table showing what Class A+ water can be used from (adapted from www.goldcoastwater.com.au)
Class A+ Recycled Water can Class A+ Recycled Water should not
be used for
be used for
 Toilet flushing

Garden watering and
irrigation

Filling ornamental ponds

Car washing

Fire fighting

Construction and building
purposes

Dust suppression

Irrigation of food crops

External household cleaning

Drinking

Cooking or other kitchen
purposes

Personal washing

Evaporative coolers

Clothes washing

Swimming pools / recreational
appliances
The Pimpama Coomera Waste Water Treatment Plant has been commissioned and the Recycled Water
Treatment Plant is expected to complete the commissioning process during 2009.
Class A+ recycled water will be available to dual reticulated homes and businesses in the Pimpama
Coomera region during 2009.
The launch of this Class A+ water is going to be teamed with the education of the local community,
who need to be prepared for when the project is started. They have used a variety of methods to
advertise and spread the word about the major infrastructure project which include press
advertisements, flyers and posters. They are also setting up stalls in various local shopping centres to
hand out information and answer any questions that they may have.
7.3.1 Applying a systems thinking approach to identify barriers
Systems boundary
This system has a smaller system boundary than the Las Vegas region, mainly because there is a very
defined area in which the Pimpama Coomera dual reticulation system has been installed. There is also
42
a restricted water catchment area. Again, it is the residents who play the most important role in the
system.
The general public
As always it is the general public whom which will be using the system which play an important part in
the sustainable urban water system to work. In the Pimpama Coomera region, residents and industries
need to know how to use the dual reticulation system. Each property is fitted with two water meters.
One for the recycled Class A+ water, and the other for the conventional potable water. They will
receive two separate water bills for both types of water. Residents have quoted that they find that they
have much smaller bills having the choice of using the recycled water (Gold Coast City Council, Case
Study on Class A+ recycled water). The actual taps within homes and industrial buildings have been
coloured coded so that people know which tap to use. Recycled water taps are purple, and this is
consistent throughout the region, and can also been seen within the Rouse Hill development, near
Sydney.
The website by the Gold Coast City Council is very comprehensive and easily set out for users to learn
about the scheme. They have also been visiting local malls and setting up stands so that residents can
come and ask questions.
The local council
The Gold Coast City Council play a major part of this sustainable urban water system. It was them
who came up with the Master Plan (2004), along with other stakeholders, including engineering
companies who new the technologies. This case study, along with the Las Vegas case study both have
similarities in that it is the local council which has devised with stakeholders, these innovative
sustainable urban water systems. This is unlike BedZED in the UK, which actually encountered
barriers with the local council.
The water system infrastructure
Again this is a principle system (or sub-system) within the whole urban water system. This needs to be
maintained, especially as there are two completely different systems now in use. If the recycled water
system was to malfunction, the conventional potable water system supply can be used for everything.
43
System environment
The catchment area of the region is 242 square kilometers in size, and there are two dams (Hinze and
Little Nerang Dams) which feed the region its potable water. The system-environment includes all
neighbouring councils as they will be watching this scheme closely to see if it works, as they may well
adapt it themselves.
8
Synthesis
8.1
Systems thinking within urban water systems
Stave (2003) used this approach in his paper by using a system dynamics model to facilitate public
understanding of water management options in Las Vegas. This approach may be a useful tool to use
in comparing the different case studies so to draw together relationships between arising problems, and
ways that these have been mitigated. The purpose of this paper was to gain public awareness of the
problems that surround water conservation. Systems dynamics is not a novel approach, but offers a
new way of modelling future dynamics of complex systems (Stave, 2003). From using a model like
this it will be possible to draw together similarities between the case studies so to determine whether all
new systems in the future will face similar problems or not. If the same problems are occuring time
and time again then lessons can be learnt, so to avoid these problems in future water systems.
All case studies reviewed within this paper contain relatively small-scale projects, that are often very
localised. The Pimpama Coomera project was aimed at distributing the Class A+ water to thousands of
people, and this along with the city of Las Vegas conservation programme, were the largest reviewed.
Examples from the United Kingdom were just for one particular town, for example Birmingham, or the
even smaller settlement of BedZED. Fane (2005) explained in their thesis that these are distribution
strategies, and that current system analysis does not adequately include them. He argued that to judge a
new system, an assessment would need to be made on whole-thinking modelling.
When designing a sustainable water system, the deliverables will be for project managers and policymakes to design effective strategies for the particular area that they are looking at. To achieve a
successful system, it will also need to be approved by the stakeholders. So the key success will be to
have a fully running sustainable water system that is reaching the targets it was set out to do so.
44
Applying such a complex system that will affect so many people is going to include a wide range of
stakeholders. Stakeholders range from providing funding, workforce and legistrative changes to being
the general public, who will need to change their behaviours. In sustainable water systems, a major
part is going to be the convincing of the general public to reduce the amount of water that they use by
changing their ‘normal’ day to day activities. Stave (2003) believed that stakeholders would only fully
support the policies if they were to understand the cause of the problem, and why the policies and
systems had to be implemented.
The complexity of a new water system may be difficult to communicate to stakeholders, as they cover
such a broad range of people. For example, the Pimpama Coomera project includes a high level of
technologies that the local residents are going to have to understand, especially as they have to use the
new Class A+ water in a specific manner. The Living Machine at BedZED was also extremely
complex, and people moving in will need to be educated on how exactly all of these technologies work.
Also water companies, governments and engineers will need to be taught exactly what the proposed
project is going to be. Within all these different stakeholders, is a varying amount of technical
expertise, and there is potentially going to be conflicting views between the stakeholders. This has
already happened at BedZED with the problems of the mains water company not supplying the water,
and the conflicts this caused for the local authority, Sutton. This is actually a very barrier that could
have been overcome if a systems thinking approach was used first of all to look at the systems as a
whole.
Looking at water systems in general, they are extremely complex systems that are non-linear with
many variations within the systems.
Traditionally, each separate component was looked at
individually. The different elements include how potable water is brought into a catchment to meet
demands, how the wastewater is collected, treated and discharged, and how stormwater is collected and
discharged (Apostolidis, 2003).
Using a systems thinking approach means that links will be made between all sub-systems at all levels
within an urban water system, by implementing a highly coordinated management. For this to happen,
a systems dynamic model will help managers meet the many challenges they face in a clear systematic
manner. It will also help managers communicate with stakeholders more effectively, as a system
dynamic model represents the key factors within the system (Stave, 2003). Richardson and Pugh
(1989) and Sterman (2000) both agree that “that system dynamics is a problem evaluation approach
which is based on the premise that the structure of a systems, that is, the way essential system
45
components are connected, generates its behaviour. This is a broad view, but which is applicable when
looking at an urban water system. If the designers at BedZED had considered all the different
components of the water system there, to include the general public, policy makers and private water
companies, the obstacles that they reached may not have happened. As Vennix (1996) stated, a
systems dynamics model is well suited to systems that have a “long-term time horizon”. This is
relative to a water system, as it is something which will need to sustain multiple generations.
To really understand urban water systems in a systems thinking approach, each system within it will
need to be defined appropriately. As Fane (2009) said, “sustainability”, “sustainable development” and
a“sustainable urban water” area all multifaceted concepts, therefore there will be varying concepts on
though. This pushes the point that these abstract phrased concepts need their systems to be clearly
explained.
8.2
Stakeholders / system components
A systems thinking approach was used when reviewing the case studies in the previous chapter. From
this, there is one similarity running through all of them – the system users are the most important for a
sustainable urban water system. If it were just a normal water system that did not require any changing
behaviours or use of new appliances, then it would be the systems infrastructure which would be the
most important. Another point that was clear from reviewing the case studies was that
The general public (system-users)
It can be concluded that the system users, the general public, are a key component. All case studies
relied on the public using new technologies in the correct way or changing their behaviours. Residents
within Las Vegas and the Pimpama Coomera region all want to have green gardens, which are not the
natural landscapes in those regions. Las Vegas residents are being tempted with benefits such as
money saving to change their gardens into xeri-landscapes. Residents in the Pimpama Coomera region
also mentioned that having a green garden was important to them, and prided themselves on having
this landscape. The Class A+ water meant that they could use water to irrigate their gardens even in
times of drought. A major barrier to the sustainable urban water system would be if the general public
will unable, or refused to use the new system in the correct manner.
Being the most important stakeholder in sustainable water systems means that there are barriers to
overcome which may not be quite as simple. Chapter 3 on water use and society explained in some
46
depth the way in which people use water. Barrier will therefore be down to humans, which is not as
simple as a technological problem which can be fixed by engineers. To mitigate this problem they will
need to be included in all stages of the projects as explained below. Table 4 compares the conventional
and new participatory view, that need to be adopted in future projects.
Table 4 - Conventional and participatory views of public participation - adapted from lecture notes by Professor
Nick Tyler
Conventional View
Participatory view
These are made using data and models
Include active involvement from the affected
public
Who makes each part of the decision?
Decisions are imposed on the general public
Who needs to make each part of the decision?
There is a one level of public consultation
Decisions made rather than taken?
Decisions are made from a top down approach
Decision is often taken prior to public consultation
Table 4 shows what new ways should be used when it comes to using public participation in decision
making with projects. Pimpama Coomera scheme are using malls throughout the region to educated,
inform and answer any questions from the public there. They also have a comprehensive website that
clearly explains how the actual scheme is going to be used. 150, 000 people are going to be affected by
the new scheme, therefore they make up the majority of all the stakeholders. Often within project,
public involvement is used at a point when a decision has already being made. The public need to be
consulted throughout the project at differing time scales to ensure that when decision are made by the
politicians, it is not just based on information from technical experts and policy makers, but also the
general public. As Van Vliet et al. (2005) stated, the ‘co-management demand between consumers and
providers’ needs to be looked at. Hale (1993) also states that so to gain public support for new urban
water systems, the public need to be made aware of the current problems, and they then need to be
educated so that they can understand why certain policies are being written. Public participation within
the planning stages of these systems is therefore of upmost importance.
The Local Authority / Policymakers
BedZED was proof of how much control the Local Authority, in this case Sutton, had over the project.
They have the final say when it came to deciding to opt out of having a private water company to
supply a decentralised system. Zaragossa was an example of how Local Authorities can really push
forward and make an example to the rest of the country. In the Pimpama Coomera scheme the local
councils had pushed towards developing a new sustainable urban water system. This is different from
47
old politics, as governments and councils would leave the water infrastructure up to the engineers as
they believed that water provision is a technical issue. However, as this project has shown, sustainable
water provision consists of many systems within systems, and is actually an extremely complex system
that needs to be carefully understood.
Sustainable urban water infrastructure
The innovative technologies are obviously an extremely important part of an urban water system. As
previously discussed, these systems require maintenance, and engineers to install and design them who
have the experience of sustainable systems.
Engineers today are more educated in sustainable
technologies, with environmental engineers becoming very sought after. Otherwise engineers will
need to be educated on the new technologies, so that they can be incorporated into all new builds.
Water and wastewater companies
SNWA in Las Vegas is the authority whom looks after urban water management in the Las Vegas
region. This differs from BedZED and the Pimpama Coomera scheme as it is the water company
whom has most of the control and they are responsible for making the policies within that region. The
UK, USA and Australia all have differing ownerships of water and wastewater companies. Appedices
1 and 2 both explain the complexity of these. The companies work in close proximity to one another,
often overlapping areas. There needs to be good communication between them so that relationships are
built and sustained.
They should be working towards a common goal, so therefore should be
amalgamating their resources. SNWA in Las Vegas is a prime example of this, where conflicts
between water companies have been resolved.
The natural environment (system environment)
The overall outcome of implementing a sustainable urban water system is to mitigate the problems
caused by humans to the planet. Historical water systems have polluted the natural environment
destroying so many ecosystems. Current water systems use water in such a way that drinking water is
even used to flush a toilet, with water treatments plants pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
which is adding to the problems of climate change. This system interacts with the sustainable urban
water system on every aspect of it.
48
Table 5 - Components of an urban water systems and its system environment - possible barrier and pathways
derived from literature and case study review, using a systems thinking approach
Stakeholder / system-environment
Possible Barriers
Lack of education and awareness on sustainable
technologies i.e.., water meters (at BedZED),
rainwater harvesting, non-potable water reuse
(Pimpama Coomera), water conservation habits and
practices (Las Vegas)
General Public
Public perception - 'water is endless', 'developed
countries', 'UK has plenty of rain'
Social acceptability - will residents in Pimpama
Coomera accept Class A++ water; accept rainwater
harvesting; water needs to be aesthetically pleased
(BedZED)
Water and wastewater companies
Possible Pathways
Educating public through seminars (Pimpama
Coomera), include public at early stages of
planning, raise awareness on climate change
issues; call 'greywater' recycled water; have good
communication; have demonstrations in public
areas; sustainable living needs; PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
They still need to make a profit - water recycling =
less revenue, not driven towards water efficiency
Educate companies on sustainability issues, work
with them to adapt current systems i.e.., Albion
Water were willing to make a smaller profit so to set
an example
Accept inset agreements (BedZED)
Private supply is often easier to arrange (BedZED)
Companies need to communicate with one another
Differing water and wastewater companies on small
to work towards a common goal i.e., SNWA - 7
regional scales having conflicting views
water companies come together
Mains water is often cheaper (Zaragossa)
Quality of water can be improved (Zaragossa)
Health and safety issues
Set a standard for recycled water quality
Policies need to be accepted
Build relationships with policymakers, making them
aware of sustainable water systems and their
benefits.
Recycled water will need to meet standards set by
current laws
Set a standard for recycled water quality, which is
different from the current potable water quality
standard - uses for recycled water are so much
different
Policy makers
Do not use sustainable designs in thier work
Engineers / Planners
Lack of experience of new technologies
Get engineers who are familiar with these systems
to give seminars to existing engineers
The natural environment
Release of pollutants into natural water systems
Depleting natural resources, damage to ecosystems needs to stop; recycling water helps; recycling and
treating storm water
Global issues
Water scarcity, water wars
Widespread use of sustainable urban water
systems will sustain the water availability
Table 5 gives a summary of findings from the case study and literary review from using a systems
thinking approach. By looking at each component separately, barriers are easy to foresee. Once these
are know, mitigating pathways can be drawn up from previous experience.
As always, each
stakeholder will have a different view on the sustainable urban water system, which makes it even
more important to use a holistic approach.
49
9
Final Conclusions
There are problems and barriers to all of the case studies, however there are huge driving forces which
have led to the introduction of these new technologies. Water is scarce and needs to be used and
managed in the most efficient way possible.
This project has shown how the challenge of implementing sustainable systems is a systems problem,
which involves many complex systems. In order to have a successful sustainable urban water system
when planning, assessing and analysing a system, a systems thinking approach should be used.
This process means that an understanding is built on the systems, their components, their interactions,
their boundaries and the system environment in which they lie. When planning and designing future
sustainable urban water systems, a systems thinking approach should be used so that barriers can be
identified at an early stage so that these can be mitigated effectively.
This project has identified various steps to use when applying a systems thinking approach.

The system needs to be clearly defined. System boundaries must be clear, as must the system
environment.

The general public are key stakeholders of a sustainable urban water system, and therefore need
to be participating in early stages of the projects.

The system can be indentified through the stakeholders and components within it. Their needs
and purpose must be clearly understood.

The holistic nature of the system must be fully understood. This includes the hierarchy of the
systems involved.

It must be understood that systems are subjective dependent on who is viewing them. This
needs to be taken into consideration when defining systems.

Urban water systems and their interactions between their components (stakeholders) and their
system environments are complex.
This project has clearly defined system thinking and what a systems approach actually is in the context
of a sustainable urban water system. It is in the planning and assessment stages of an sustainable urban
water system that the systems thinking approach is most appropriate.
50
Although there have been significant developments towards developing sustainable urban water
systems, the tools used to assess them have not been able to keep up. These are necessary, particularly
when they can identify barriers prior to the running of a system, and also identify pathways in which
future project should take. Adopting this systems thinking approach will enable and improve current
modes of analysis over time to achieve the common goal of developing new sustainable urban water
systems.
9.1 Recommendations for further work
This project has but touched on the subject of using a systems thinking approach to help identify
barriers when implementing a sustainable urban water system. Using a holistic approach prior to
during the planning of a project will mean that it will be able to obtain its maximum result for the
anthropogenic and natural systems alike.
For further study this work, it would be useful to get into contact with planners of a recent project, and
work with them and the public to use a systems thinking approach from an early stage. The more
reviews on case studies done will see more trends and relationships forming. From this models can be
developed as a way to help planners obtain a successful urban water management project.
51
Bibliography
Apostolidis N., 2003. Integrated Water Management — Pushing the Boundaries. Proc 2nd Intl Conf
on Efficient Use and Management of Urban Water Supply, Tenerife.
Beder, S. (1990) ‘Early environmentalists and the battle against sewers in Sydney’, Royal Australian
Historical Society Journal, 76, 1, pp 27-44.
Bell S., and Morse S., 1999. Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable. Earthscan.
Newcastle UK.
Bell, Sarah. Systems, Society and Sustainability. UCL. November 2008.
Best Practice UN-Habitat 2002. Zaragoza, the Water-saving City, Spain
http://www.bestpractices.at/main.php?page=programme/environment/selected_examples/spain_zarago
za&lang=en
BioRegional Development Group (2007), UK: "Beddington Zero Energy Development (BedZED)". Source:
http://www.bioregional.com/
Brundtland, G (ed.). 1987, Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and
Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chocat, B., P. Krebs, J. Marsalek, W. Rauch, and W. Schilling. 2001. Urban drainage redefined: From
stormwater removal to integrated management. Water Science and Technology 43:61–68.
Diaper C., Jefferson B., Parsons S. and Judd S 2000. Water Recycling Technologies in the UK. School
of Water Sciences, Cranfield University, Bedford.
Emery F., 1969. Introduction, Systems Thinking, Emery F., (ed) Pengion. London.
Emlahdi A., 2008. "System Thinking and Multi-Agency Decision Framework for Integrated Water
Resource Management" Adelaide University. Civil and Environmental Dept. Jun.. Available at:
http://works.bepress.com/amgad_elmahdi/25
Fane S., A., 2005. Planning for sustainable urban water: Systems approaches and distributed
strategies. Institute of Sustainable Futures. University of Technology. Sydney.
Feachem RG, Bradley DJ, Garelick H, and Mara DD. (1983) Sanitation and Disease: Health Aspects of
Excreta and Wastewater Management. World Bank Studies in Water Supply and Sanitation No. 3.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Gold Coast City Council Development (www.goldcoastwater.com.au/pimpamacoomera)
Gold Coast City Council, Case Study on Class A+ recycled water, Pimpama Coomera scores A+ for
water savings,
http://www.goldcoastwater.com.au/attachment/goldcoastwater/pc_case_study_class_a+.pdf
Hale, E.O., 1993. Successful public involvement. Journal of Environmental Health 55 (4), 17–19.
52
Halliday, S., 2004. Water: A Turbulent History. Sutton Publishing Limited, Stroud.
Harremoes, P. 1997. Integrated water and waste management. Water Science and Technology 35:11–
20.
Hills S. and Birks R. 2004. Washroom behaviour and users' perceptions of "novel" water-efficient
appliances Water Sciences and Technology: Water Supply 4 (3) pp. 13-23.
HOUSE OF LORDS. 2006 Water Management. Vol. 1. Science & Technology Committee Report. The
Stationery Office, London.
http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/Green_Sheet.doc
Hunt D. V. L., and Rogers, C. D. F., 2005. Barriers to sustainable infrastructure in urban regeneration.
Issue ES2. Engineering Sustainability 158. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Kay J., and Foster J., 1999. About teaching Systems Thinking, in Savage G., Roe. (eds) Proceedings of
the HKK conference , University of Waterloo, Ontario. p. 165 – 172.
Lack, R. 1986). Wastewater engineering and design for unsewered areas, 2nd edn, Technomic,
Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Lafferty M. and Meadowcraft J. 2000. Implementing Sustainable Development: strategies and
initiatives in high consumption societies. United States. Oxford University Press Inc., New York.
Lecture notes (Transport Studies) by Professor Nick Tyler. UCL.
Maher, M and Lustig, T. 2003. Sustainable water cycle design for urban areas, Water Science &
Technology, 47 (7-8) pp. 25-31.
Mays, L. W., 2007. Water Resources Sustainability, McGraw – Hill, New York, and WEF Press,
Alexandria, VA.
Meadows D,. 2001. Dancing with systems. What to do when systems resist change: an excerpt from
Donella’s unfinished book . Whole earth journal. Winter.
Mitchell G., 2006 Applying Integrated Urban Water ManagementConcepts: A Review of Australian
Experience, Environmental Management Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 589–605
Newton N. and Solt.G.,. 1994. Water Use and Reuse. Warwickshire. Institution of Chemical Engineers.
Pinkham, R. 1999. 21st century water systems: Scenarios, visions and drivers, 20 pp. Available at
http://www.rmi.org/ images/other/Water/W99-21 21CentWaterSys.pdf.
Novotny, V., and Brown P., R.,, (edited by) 2007. Cities of the Future. IWA Publishing. London.
Fundación Ecología y Desarollo, http://www.ecodes.org/, visited July 2009.
Po et al 2003 Literature review of factors incluencing public perceptions of water reuse.
http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/technical2003/tr54-03.pdf
Rouse Hill. www.sydneywater.com.au
53
Shirley-Smith and Butler 2008. Water management at BEDZed: Some lessons. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability 161 Issue ES2 pp. 113–122.
Shove E. 2002. Converging Conventions of Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience, available online
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/shove-converging-conventions.pdf
Slavin T., 2006. Living in a Dream. The Guardian, Society section, Environment, p. 6, 17 May.
SNWA Resource Plan, 2009. www.snwa.com
Sofoulis Z. 2005. Big Water, Everyday Water: A Sociotechnical Perspective Continuum: Journal of
Media and Cultural Studies 19 (4) pp. 445-463.
Stave, K. A., 2003. A system dynamics model to facilitate public understanding of water management
options in Las Vegas, Nevada. Department of Environmental Studies, University of Nevada, Las
Vegas, NV, USA
Sterman, J., 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World,
McGraw-Hill, Boston, p. 982.
van Vliet B., Chappells H. and Shove, E. 2005. Infrastructures of Consumption London, Earthscan.
Vennix, J., 1996. Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics, Wiley,
New York, p. 297.
Water use within a household. www.waterwise.org. Visited July 2009.
54
Appendices
Appendix 1
United Kingdom
It was at the end of the 19th century that the Public Health movement sparked a change in the way we
saw sanitation. Chadwick was the first to make the link between poor sanitation and poor health,
which led to the instalment of this movement. The movement stated that there should be a continuous,
not intermittent, water supply in ever household. This then led to a centralised water supply; previous
to this there were open sewers, causing many public health risks. There was a debate and it was
decided that the best way to form a sewer systems was a centralised one that used water (Maher and
Lustig, 2003). They could have used a ‘dry conservancy system’ but thought that a water system was
more modern and progressive (Beder, 1990). Therefore even to this day, people see water-carriage
sewerage systems as being the most safe way to dispose of human waste, but they are actually just a
‘product of history’ (Maher and Lustig, 2003). Little was know in the 19th century about physics and
chemistry, and almost nothing was known about micro-biology, a major component in sewage works.
Therefore according to Feachem et al., (1983), this decision was not very logical nor was it completely
effective and may not be what would be decided today. Lack (1986) went as far as to say that after
considering risk and uncertainty, advantages of a centralised sewerage system may be outweighed.
Today there are around 25 companies who supply and treat water in England and Wales, compared to
the one water authority in Scotland. One area may have a separate company that supplies water to
treating it, or it may just have the one company. Northern Ireland has only one water authority and
domestic customers do not have to pay water rates. New buildings are now being fitted water meters,
but this still only accounts for 10% of the population. Most people will just pay a standing charge,
which means that they can use as much water as they want. People do not have the choice to chance
water suppliers.
Australia
Water supply and sanitation in Australia is universal and of good quality. As the country's supply of
freshwater is increasingly vulnerable to droughts as a result of climate change, there is an emphasis on
water conservation and various regions have imposed restrictions on the use of water. In 2006, Perth
became the first Australian city to operate a reverse osmosis seawater desalination plant, the Kwinana
55
Desalination Plant, to reduce the city's vulnerability to droughts. More plants are planned or are under
construction in Sydney, the Gold Coast, and Melbourne. The use of reclaimed water is also
increasingly common.
Governments of Australian states and territories, through state-owned companies, are in charge of
service provision in Western Australia, Southern Australia and the Northern Territories, while utilities
owned by local governments provide services in parts of Queensland and Tasmania. In Victoria, New
South Wales and Southeast Queensland state-owned utilities provide bulk water, which is then
distributed by utilities owned by local government. The Ministry for Climate Change and Water is
responsible for water policies at the federal level.
United States
Utilities in charge of public water supply and sanitation systems can be owned, financed, operated and
maintained by a public entity, a private company or both can share responsibilities through a publicprivate partnership. Utilities can either be in charge of only water supply and/or sanitation, or they can
also be in charge of providing other services, in particular electricity and gas. In the latter case they are
called multi-utilities. Bulk water suppliers are entities that manage large aqueducts and sell either
treated or untreated water to various users, including utilities.
Public service providers. Eighty-nine percent of Americans served by a public water system are
served by a public or cooperative entity1. Usually public systems are managed by utilities that are
owned by a city or county, but have a separate legal personality, management and finances. Examples
are the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power and Denver Water. In some cases public utilities span several jurisdictions.
Private utilities. About half of American drinking water utilities are privately owned, providing water
to 11% of Americans served by public water systems2 Most of the private utilities are small, but a few
are large and are traded on the stock exchange. The largest private water company in the U.S. is
American Water, which serves 15 million customers in 1,600 communities in the U.S. and Canada.
Overall, about 33.5 million Americans (11% of the population) get water from a privately owned
drinking water utility2 In addition, 20% of all wastewater utilities in the U.S. are privately owned,
many of them relatively small2. About 3% of Americans get wastewater service from private
wastewater utilities. In addition, more than 1,300 government entities (typically municipalities)
contract with private companies to provide water and/or wastewater services2.
56
Multi-utilities. Some utilities in the U.S. provide only water and/or wastewater services as seen in the
United Kingdom, while others are multi-utilities that also provide power and gas services. Examples of
utilities that provide only water and sewer services are the Boston Water and Sewer Commission,
Dallas Water Utilities, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Seattle Public
Utilities and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission2.
57
Appendix 2
Map showing location of water only companies with the UK (from www.water.org.uk).
Water Only Companies
1 - Bournemouth and West Hampshire
2 - Bristol Water
3 - Cambridge Water
4 - Cholderton and District Water
5 - Dee Valley Water
6 - Essex and Suffolk Water
7 - Hartlepool Water (Anglian Water)
8 - Portsmouth Water
9 - South East Water (Mid Kent)
10 - South Staffordshire Water
11 - Sutton and East Surrey Water
12 - Veolia Water Central
13 - Veolia Water East
14 - Veolia Water Southeast
58
Map showing water and wastewater companies within the UK (map from www.water.org.uk
59