Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 26, Issue 8, pp 2177–2197 | Cite as

City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle

  • Cornelis J. van LeeuwenEmail author
  • Jos Frijns
  • Annemarie van Wezel
  • Frans H. M. van de Ven
Article

Abstract

Climate change, population growth and increased consumption, coupled with urbanization, are all placing increased pressure on water management. This global challenge can often best be addressed at the local level, e.g. in cities by optimizing the role of civil society. Although there are approaches for assessing the sustainability of countries and cities, there is no dedicated framework for the assessment of the sustainability of urban water management. We have therefore compiled a comprehensive list of indicators (the city blueprint) for this. The city blueprint is proposed as a first step towards gaining a better understanding and addressing the challenges of integrated urban water management (IUWM). City blueprints will enable the IUWM of cities to be compared, and stimulate the exchange of success stories (good practices) between cities to address the enormous IUWM challenges which lie ahead. The city blueprint provides a quick scan and baseline assessment. It comprises elements from a variety of methodologies, such as water footprint, urban metabolism and ecosystem services. The indicators have been subdivided into eight broad categories, i.e. (1) water security following the water footprint approach developed by Hoekstra and Chapagain (2007), (2) water quality, which includes surface water and groundwater, (3) drinking water, (4) sanitation, (5) infrastructure, (6) climate robustness, (7) biodiversity and attractiveness and (8) governance. Experience using city blueprints for the cities of Rotterdam, Maastricht and Venlo (in the Netherlands) have been included as practical examples. It was concluded that simplicity (ease of calculation and data availability), transparency and ease of communication makes the blueprint a valuable tool for policy makers, decision makers and resource managers as a first step in the process of understanding, envisioning, developing and implementing measures to transform the water management of cities. The best results are obtained when all the stakeholders are involved and connected right from the start.

Keywords

Sustainability Water management Climate change Urban metabolism Water footprint City blueprint 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted on behalf of Waternet Amsterdam and the KWR Water Cycle Research Institute. The authors were asked to develop a quick scan to assess the sustainability of the urban water cycle in all its aspects. This was easier said than done. Despite all the research efforts and international discussions, sustainable water cycles still mean different things to different people. We would like to thank Wim van Vierssen, Jos Boere, Gertjan Medema, Maarten Nederlof, Theo van den Hoven, Gerard van de Berg, Gertjan Zwolsman, Jan Hofman, Leo Puijker, Merijn Schriks and Andrew Segrave (KWR Watercycle Research Institute). A particular word of thanks also goes to Geurt van de Kerk and Arthur Manuel (Sustainable Society Foundation, the Netherlands) for providing thought-provoking suggestions and material. Last but not least, the two anonymous reviewers are also acknowledged for their valuable comments, references and suggestions.

References

  1. Australian Conservation Foundation (2010) Sustainable Cities Index. Ranking Australia’s 20 largest cities in 2010. Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  2. Barles S (2010) Society, energy and materials: the contribution of urban metabolism studies to sustainable urban development issues. Environ Plan Manag 53:439–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell S, Morse S (2003) Measuring sustainability: learning from doing. Earthscan Publ, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown P (2009) The changing face of urban water management. Water 21(2):28–29Google Scholar
  5. Brown RR, Farrelly MA (2009) Delivering sustainable urban water management: a review of the hurdles we face. Water Sci Technol 59:839–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown RR, Keath N, Wong THF (2009) Urban water management in cities: historical, current and future regimes. Water Sci Technol 59:847–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. C40 Cities (2010) Climate Proof Adaptation Strategy of Rotterdam. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Charlesworth SM (2010) A review of the adaptation and mitigation of global climate change using sustainable drainage in cities. J Water Climate Change 1:165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen D (2007) Earth audit. Cover story. New Scientist 194(2605):34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neil R, Paruelo J et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daigger GT (2009) Evolving urban water and residuals management paradigms: water reclamation and reuse, decentralization, and resource recovery. Water Environ Res 81:809–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Graaf R, van de Giessen N, van de Ven F (2007a) Alternative water management options to reduce vulnerability for climate change in the Netherlands. Nat Hazards 5:407–422Google Scholar
  13. De Graaf RE, van de Giessen NC, van de Ven FHM (2007b) The closed city as a strategy to reduce vulnerability of urban areas for climate change. Water Sci Technol 56:165–173Google Scholar
  14. De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Decker H, Elliott S, Smith FA, Blake DR, Sherwood Rowland F (2000) Energy and material flow through the urban ecosystem. Annu Rev Energy Environ 25:685–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deltares (2009) Land and water management in the urban environment. Utrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  17. EBC (2010) European Benchmarking Co-operation. Learning from international best practices. 2010 water & wastewater benchmark. Leiderdorp, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  18. EEA (2010) European Environment Agency. The European Environment. State and Outlook 2010. Synthesis. Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  19. EFILWC (2006) First European quality of life survey: participation in civil society. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0676.htm. Accessed 21 February 2011
  20. Engel K, Jokiel D, Kraljevic A, Geiger M, Smith K (2011) Big cities. Big water. Big Challenges. Water in an urbanizing world. World Wildlife Fund. Koberich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  21. Ernstson H, van der Leeuw SE, Redman CL, Meffert DJ, Davis G, Alfsen C, Elmqvist T (2010) Urban transitions: on urban resilience and human dominated ecosystems. Ambio 39:531–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. European Commission (1998) Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption. Official Journal of the European Union L 330/32Google Scholar
  23. European Commission (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Union L 327/1Google Scholar
  24. European Commission (2001) European Common Indicators. Towards a local sustainability profile – European common indicators; Methodology sheets. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/pdf/local_sustainability_en.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2011
  25. European Commission (2006) Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration. Official Journal of the European Union L 372/19Google Scholar
  26. European Commission (2011) A Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s Waters. Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/index_en.htm Accessed 21 December 2012.
  27. European green city index (2009) Assessing the environmental impact of Europe’s major cities. A research project conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/corporate/2009-12-Cop15/European_Green_City_Index.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2011
  28. FAO (2011) The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture. Managing systems ant risk. Summary report. Food and Agricultural Organization. Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  29. Fewtrell L, Kay D (2008) Health impact assessment for sustainable water management. IWA Publ, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Fleming N (2008) Understanding ‘what’s really going on’ as a basis for transforming thinking, action and our cities. Paper presented at Enviro 08 Australasia’s Environmental & Sustainability Conference & Exhibition, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  31. Forum for the future (2010) The sustainable cities index. Ranking the 20 largest British cities. http://www.forumforthefuture.org/files/Sustainable_Cities_Index_2010_FINAL_15-10-10.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2011
  32. Frijns J, Hofman J, van Wezel A (2009) Water as energy carrier: climate mitigation and renewable energy options in the water sector. Proceedings IWA Water & Energy Conference, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  33. Global city indicators facility (2008) Global City Indicators Program Report. Preliminary report. http://www.cityindicators.org/Deliverables/Final%20Indicators%20Report%203_21_08_4-23-2008-924597.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2011
  34. Godden L, Ison RL, Wallis PJ (2011) Water governance in a climate change world: appraising systemic and adaptive effectiveness. Water Resour Manage 25:3971–3976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goudie D (2009) The emergent science of engineering and sustainable urban environment. Water Air Soil Pollut 9:469–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hegger DLT, Spaargaren G, van Vliet BJM, Frijns J (2011) Consumer-inclusive innovation strategies for Dutch water supply sector: opportunities for more sustainable products and services. NJAS-Wageningen J Life Sci 58:49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hein L, van Koppen C, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK (2007) Water footprints of nations: water use by people as a function of their consumption. Water Resour Manage 21:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK, Aldaya MM, Mekonnen, MM (2009) The Water Footprint Manual. Setting the Global Standard, 2009. Water Footprint Network, Enschede, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  40. Ishaku HT, Majid MR, Johar F (2011) Rainwater harvesting: an alternative to safe water supply in Nigerian rural communities. Water Resour Manage. doi: 10.1007/s11269-011-9918-7
  41. Ison R, Collins K, Colvin J, Jiggins J, Roggero PP, Seddaiu G, Steyaert P, Toderi M, Zanolla C (2011) Sustainable catchment managing in a climate changing world: new integrative modalities for connecting policy maker, scientists and other stakeholders. Water Resour Manage 25:3977–3992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. IUCN, UNEP and WWF (1991) Caring for the Earth. A Strategy for Sustainable Living, 1991. http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/caring/caring.html, Accessed 20 February 2011
  43. Jenerette GD, Larsen L (2006) A global perspective on changing sustainable urban water supplies. Global Planet Change 50:202–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kane M, Erickson JD (2007) Urban metabolism and payment for ecosystem services: history and policy analysis of the New York city water supply. Ecol Econ 7:307–328Google Scholar
  45. Kennedy CA, Cuddihy J, Engel-Yan J (2007) The changing metabolism of cities. J Ind Ecol 11:43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Klauer B, Rode M, Schiller J, Franko U, Mewes M (2011) Decision support for the selection of measures according to the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive. Water Resour Manage. doi: 10.1007/s11269-011-9944-5
  47. Lafortezza R, Carrus G, Sanesi G, Davies C (2009) Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban Forestry Urban Greening 8:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liu S, Costanza R, Farber S, Troy A (2010) Valuing ecosystem services. Theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. Ann NY Acad Sci 1185:54–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  50. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b) Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis. World Resources Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  51. Minx J, Creutzig F, Medinger V, Ziegler T, Owen A, Baiocchi G (2010) Developing a pragmatic approach to assess urban metabolism in Europe. Report to the European Environment Agency. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  52. Morrison J, Schulte P, Schenck R (2010) Corporate water accounting. UNEP & The CEO Water Mandate. Oakland, USA http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/WEBx0164xPA-CorporateWaterAccounting.pdf, Accessed 20 February 2011
  53. Nederlof MM, Frijns J, Groenedijk M (2010) Cradle to cradle drinking water production: sense or nonsense? Proceedings IWA Water &Energy Conference, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  54. Notovny V (2010) Footprint tools for cities of the future: moving towards sustainable urban water use. Water 21(8):14–16Google Scholar
  55. Philip R, Anton B, van der Steen P (2011) SWITCH training kit. Integrated urban water management in the city of the future. Module 1. Strategic planning, ICLEI, Freiburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  56. RIONED (2010) Factual information on sewage systems in the Netherlands 2009–2010. Stichting Rioned, Ede, The Netherlands. http://www.riool.net/riool/binary/retrieveFile?instanceid=20&itemid=61&style=default. Accessed 20 February 2011 (in Dutch)
  57. Siemens (2011) Website green city index. http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/en/greencityindex.htm Accessed 21 December 2012
  58. Sterk G (2008) Microbial risk assessment for pluvial urban flooding. Dissertation, Technical University, Delft, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  59. Sustainable Society Foundation (2010) The Sustainable Society Index 2010. The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  60. TEEB (2009) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers – Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature. Geneva, Switzerland http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=I4Y2nqqIiCg%3D. Accessed 20 February 2011
  61. TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  62. Traas TP, Van Leeuwen CJ (2007) Ecotoxicological aspects. In: Van Leeuwen CJ, Vermeire TG (eds) Risk assessment of chemicals. An introduction, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 281–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tredoux G, King P, Cave L (1999) Managing urban wastewater for maximising water resource utilisation. Water Sci Technol 39:353–356Google Scholar
  64. UN (1987) Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. New York UN (2007) Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies, third edition, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. UN (2008) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision Population Database. New York http://esa.un.org/unup/. Accessed 20 February 2011
  66. UN (2010) The Millennium Development Goals Report. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. UNEP (2007) Fourth Global Environment Outlook: Environment for Development. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  68. UNEP (2008) Every drop counts; environmentally sound technologies for urban and domestic water use efficiency. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Cauwenbergh N, Biala K, Bielders C, Brouckaert V, Franchois L, Garcia Cidad V, Hermy M, Mathijs E, Muys B, Reijnders J (2007) SAFE – a hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 120:229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Van de Kerk G, Manuel AR (2008) A comprehensive index for a sustainable society: the SSI-the Sustainable Society Index. Ecol Econ 66:228–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Van der Poel P, Brooke D, Van Leeuwen CJ (2007) Emissions of chemicals. In: Van Leeuwen CJ, Vermeire TG (eds) Risk assessment of chemicals. An introduction, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 37–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van der Steen P. (2011) Application of sustainability indicators within the framework of strategic planning for integrated urban water management. Sustainable Water Management in the City of the Future. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  73. Van Engelen JGM, Hakkinen PJ, Money C, Rikken MGJ, Vermeire TG (2007) Human exposure assessment. In: Van Leeuwen CJ, Vermeire TG (eds) Risk assessment of chemicals. An introduction, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 195–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Van Leeuwen CJ (2007) Introduction. In: Van Leeuwen CJ, Vermeire TG (eds) Risk assessment of chemicals. An introduction, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Van Leeuwen CJ, Frijns J, Van Wezel A, Van De Ven, FHM (2011) Twenty-four indicators to asses the sustainability of the urban water cycle. H2O 13:35–38 (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  76. Van Oel PR, Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY (2009) The external water footprint of the Netherlands: geographically-explicit quantification and impact assessment. Ecol Econ 69(1):82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Van Pelt S, Swart RJ (2011) Climate change risk management in transnational River basins: the Rhine. Water Resour Manage 25:3837–3861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Verstraete W, Van de Caveye P, Diamantis V (2009) Maximum use of resources in domestic “used water”. Resource Technol 100:5537–5545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vinjé J, Altena SA, Koopmans MPG (2007) The incidence and genetic variability of small round-structured viruses in outbreaks of gastroenteritis in The Netherlands. Infectious Diseases 176(5):1374–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. VROM (1992) The implementation challenge. Managing environment development trade-offs. Ministry of the Environment (VROM), The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  81. 2030 Water Resources Group (2009) Charting our water future. Economic framework to inform decision-making. West Perth, USA. http://www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Reports/Water/Charting_Our_Water_Future_Full_Report_001.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2011

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cornelis J. van Leeuwen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jos Frijns
    • 1
  • Annemarie van Wezel
    • 1
  • Frans H. M. van de Ven
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.KWR Watercycle Research InstituteNieuwegeinthe Netherlands
  2. 2.DeltaresUtrechtthe Netherlands
  3. 3.TU Delft, Faculty of Civil EngineeringDelftthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations