A system dynamics approach for urban water reuse planning: a case study from the Great Lakes region

  • Fuzhan Nasiri
  • Troy Savage
  • Ranran Wang
  • Nico Barawid
  • Julie B. Zimmerman
Original Paper

Abstract

Water reclamation and reuse practices are recently receiving growing attention due to increasing water scarcity, concerns about the effect of wastewater discharges on receiving water, and availability of high-performing and cost-effective water reuse technologies. However, incorporation of water reuse schemes into water/wastewater infrastructure systems is a complex decision making process, involving various economical, technological, and environmental criteria. System dynamics (SD) allows modeling of complex systems and provides information about the temporal and feedback behavior of the system. In this sense, a SD model of the existing water/wastewater system in Kalamazoo-Michigan, an urban area in the Great Lakes region, was created with the hypothetical incorporation of water reuse. The model simulates and optimizes the overall water system cost (including water, wastewater and water reuse components), accounting for future scenarios of population, economic growth and climate change. Results indicate significant levels of water reuse after an infrastructure build delay. The model also indicates that a decision to implement water reuse yields remarkably lower water withdrawals and lower water treatment costs even in a location with a relatively abundant water supply like Kalamazoo. This study emphasizes the fact that a true understanding of the practice of water reuse cannot be achieved without taking regional and climatic parameters into account.

Keywords

Water reuse Water/wastewater treatment System dynamics Kalamazoo Great Lakes Climate change 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are extremely thankful to Kalamazoo water and wastewater treatment authorities, and in particular Mr. Barry Boekeloo. We are also thankful to two anonymous reviewers of this paper for their insightful comments and suggestions. This research is supported by Materials Use: Science, Engineering, and Society (MUSES) Program of the National Science Foundation (NSF).

References

  1. Almasri MN, McNeill LS (2009) Optimal planning of wastewater reuse using the suitability approach: a conceptual framework for the West Bank, Palestine. Desalination 248:428–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez-Vazquez LJ, Balsa-Canto E, Martinez A (2008) Optimal design and operation of a wastewater purification system. Math Comput Simul 79:668–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews JF (1994) Dynamic control of wastewater treatment plants. Environ Sci Technol 28:434–440Google Scholar
  4. Asano T, Burton F, Leverenz H, Tsuchihashi R, Tchobanoglous G (2007) Water reuse: issues, technologies, and applications. McGraw-Hill Professional, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. AWWA (2008) Water reuse rates and charges: survey results. American Water Works Association, DenverGoogle Scholar
  6. Balkema AJ, Preisig HA, Otterpohl R, Lambert FJD (2002) Indicators for the sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems. Urban Water 4:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. BEA (2009) Per capita real GDP by state. Regional Economic Accounts. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 09-22). Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Benedetti L, Dirckx G, Bixio D, Thoeye C, Vanrolleghem PA (2008) Environmental and economic performance assessment of the integrated urban wastewater system. J Environ Manag 88:1262–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chung G, Lansey K, Blowers P, Brooks P, Ela W, Stewart S, Wilson P (2008) A general water supply planning model: evaluation of decentralized treatment. Environ Model Softw 23:893–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuthbert RW, Hajnosz AM (1999) Setting reclaimed water rates. J Am Water Works Assoc 91:50–57Google Scholar
  11. De Melo JJ, Cfimara AS (1994) Models for the optimization of regional wastewater treatment systems. Eur J Oper Res 73:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deviney FA Jr, Brown DE, Rice KC (2012) Evaluation of Bayesian estimation of a hidden continuous-time Markov chain model with application to threshold violation in water-quality indicators. J Environ Inform 19(2):70–78Google Scholar
  13. Dolnicar S, Hurlimann A (2010) Desalinated versus recycled water: what does the public think? In: I.C. Escobar, and A.I. Schafer, Editor(s). Sustain Sci Eng 2:375–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Easterling DR, Karl TR (2001) Potential consequences of climate variability and change for the Midwestern United States. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Ch. 6:167–188. www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/midwest.htm. Accessed 9 Dec 2011
  15. EPA (2002) Community water system survey 2000, EPA 815-R-02-005A. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Exall K, Marsalek J, Schaefer K (2004) A review of water reuse and recycling, with reference to Canadian practice and potential: incentives and implementation. Water Qual Res J Can 39:1–12Google Scholar
  17. Guest JS, Skerlos SJ, Barnard J, Brucebeck M, Daigger G, Hilger H, Jackson SJ, Karvazy K, Kelly L, MacPherson L, Mihelcic JR, Pramanik A, Raskin L, Van Loosdrecht MCM, Yeh D, Love NG (2009) A new planning and design paradigm to achieve sustainable resource recovery from wastewater. Environ Sci Technol 43:6126–6130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. GWI (2009) Municipal water reuse markets 2010. Global Water Intelligence, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Huang GH, Cao MF (2011) Analysis of solution methods for interval linear programming. J Environ Inform 17(2):54–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jodicke G, Fischer U, Hungerbuhler K (2001) Wastewater reuse: a new approach to screen for designs with minimal total costs. Comput Chem Eng 25:203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalamazoo (2008) Comprehensive financial report (No. 12-31-08 CAFR). City of Kalamazoo, KalamazooGoogle Scholar
  22. Kalamazoo (2009a) The 2009 adopted budget. City of Kalamazoo, KalamazooGoogle Scholar
  23. Kalamazoo (2009b) The 2010 adopted budget. City of Kalamazoo, KalamazooGoogle Scholar
  24. Kalamazoo (2009c) The 2010 Kalamazoo master plan. City of Kalamazoo, KalamazooGoogle Scholar
  25. Kalamazoo (2010c) Water and wastewater rate schedules (No. 557-2/1/10). Department of Public Utilities, City of Kalamazoo, KalamazooGoogle Scholar
  26. Kalamazoo (2011a) Kalamazoo water facts: protect your water. City of Kalamazoo. http://www.kalamazoocity.org/portal/water.php?page_id=623. Accessed 9 Dec 2011
  27. Kalamazoo (2011b) Kalamazoo water reclamation: facility design. City of Kalamazoo. http://www.kalamazoocity.org/portal/government.php?page_id=567. Accessed 9 Dec 2011
  28. Khan S, Yufeng L, Ahmad A (2009) Analyzing complex behavior of hydrological systems through a system dynamics approach. Environ Model Softw 24:1363–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kranhold K (2008) Water, water, everywhere. Wall Str J, 17 Jan 2008Google Scholar
  30. Leewongtanawit B, Kim JK (2009) Improving energy recovery for water minimization. Energy 34:880–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lessard P, Beck MB (1991) Dynamic modeling of wastewater treatment processes. Environ Sci Technol 25:30–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Li YP, Huang GH (2011) Planning agricultural water resources system associated with fuzzy and random features. J Am Water Resour Assoc 47(4):841–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li YP, Huang GH (2012) A recourse-based nonlinear programming model for stream water quality management. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 26:207–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li YP, Huang GH, Chen X (2009) Multistage scenario-based interval-stochastic programming for planning water resources allocation. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 23:781–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liu Z, Tong TY (2011) Using HSPF to model the hydrologic and water quality impacts of riparian land-use change in a small watershed. J Environ Inform 17(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mo W, Nasiri F, Eckelman MJ, Zhang Q, Zimmerman JB (2010) Measuring the embodied energy in drinking water supply systems: a case study in Great Lakes Region. Environ Sci Technol 44:9516–9521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. NCSL (2008) Assessing the costs of climate change-Michigan. National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington, DC. ISBN 978-1-58024-511-1Google Scholar
  38. Nilsson J, Bergstrom S (1995) Indicators for the assessment of ecological and economic consequences of municipal policies for resource use. Ecol Econ 14:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Orona G, Campos C, Gillerman L, Salgot M (1999) Wastewater treatment, renovation and reuse for agricultural irrigation in small communities. Agric Water Manag 38:223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Starkl M, Brunner N, Flogl WJ (2009) Design of an institutional decision-making process: the case of urban water management. J Environ Manag 90:1030–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strutt J, Wilson S, Shorney-Darby H, Shaw A, Byers A (2008) Assessing the carbon footprint of water production. J Am Water Works Assoc 100:80–91Google Scholar
  42. TWC (2011) Monthly averages for Kalamazoo-MI. Weather Channel. ttp://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USMI0442. Accessed 9 Dec 2011
  43. UNESCO (2009) World water assessment program. The United Nations World Water Development Report 3: water in a changing world. UNESCO, Paris and Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. USCB (2011) State and county quick facts: Kalamazoo, MI. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/26077.html. Accessed 9 Dec 2011
  45. USGS (2002) Estimating water use in the United States: a new paradigm for the national water-use information program, Chapter 6: regression models of water use. Committee on USGS Water Resources Research, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Vasiloglou V, Lokkas F, Gravanis G (2008) New tool for wastewater treatment units location. Desalination 248:1039–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vensim (2010) The Ventana simulation environment (Vensim)—version 5.9e. Ventana Systems Inc. (Copyright © 1988–2010), HarvardGoogle Scholar
  48. Verhoeven JTA, Meuleman AFM (1999) Wetlands for wastewater treatment: opportunities and limitations. Ecol Eng 12:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Winz I, Brierley G, Trowsdale S (2009) The use of system dynamics simulation in water resources management. Water Resour Manag 23:1301–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zimmerman JB, Mihelcic JR, Smith JA (2008) Global stressors on water quality and quantity. Environ Sci Technol 42:4247–4254CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fuzhan Nasiri
    • 1
  • Troy Savage
    • 3
    • 4
  • Ranran Wang
    • 3
    • 4
  • Nico Barawid
    • 5
  • Julie B. Zimmerman
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of the Built EnvironmentUniversity CollegeLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Chemical and Environmental EngineeringYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Center for Green Chemistry and Green EngineeringYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  4. 4.School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  5. 5.Blavatnik School of GovernmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations