Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative social life cycle assessment of urban domestic water reuse alternatives

  • SOCIETAL LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The social benefits and impacts of four alternative approaches to urban domestic non-potable water reuse were compared: (1) central wastewater treatment, no urban reuse. Reclaimed water is discharged to nature; (2) central wastewater treatment and urban reuse of the wastewater treatment plant’s tertiary effluent; (3) semi-distributed greywater treatment and reuse, at cluster scale (8 residential buildings); (4) distributed greywater treatment and reuse, within each apartment building.

Methods

The impacts of the four aforementioned approaches to water reuse on three relevant stakeholders were investigated: public, community, and consumer. A hierarchical structure of impact categories and sub-categories under these stakeholder groups was established. Expert judgment elicitation was used to attribute weights to the social criteria, through an analytical hierarchy process (AHP). AHP is an established multi-criteria decision analysis method, based on series of pairwise comparisons. It was also used to evaluate impact intensities for both quantitative and qualitative social indicators. All expert judgements were integrated into an overall weight vector, and a comprehensive social score was calculated for each compared scenario.

Results and discussion

Public commitment to water saving was ranked as the most important factor in assessing the social impacts of urban domestic reuse, with a weight of 29.6%. Two sub-categories of the community category ranked second: urban landscape and community engagement (12.6% and 12.0%, respectively). The two distributed alternatives are advantageous over the other two approaches in terms of water saving and urban landscape. The semi-distributed alternative has a significant benefit of community engagement, which the other three lack. The business-as-usual (BAU, no reuse) scenario scored highest in the categories: public equality, consumer health concerns, and consumption habits. Final scores for the compared scenarios indicate that central reuse is somewhat more socially beneficial than no urban reuse, but the two distributed alternatives are far better.

Conclusions

In social life cycle assessment (SLCA) often quantitative and qualitative criteria/indicators exist side by side and their harmonious integration is challenging. The challenge arising is twofold: quantifying qualitative indicators and homogenizing all indicator evaluations into a uniform comparable scale. Both tasks were achieved in this study using the AHP. The AHP also successfully served as a platform for participatory processes of eliciting expert judgments regarding criteria weights and may be very useful for stakeholder participation in any social assessment. Regarding the case study—distributed urban water reuse was found to be socially beneficial, both in terms of promoting public commitment to conservation of natural water resources and in advancing community engagement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alfiya Y, Gross A, Sklarz M, Friedler E (2013) Reliability of onsite greywater treatment systems in Mediterranean and arid environments - a case study. WWPR 2012 - Wastewater Purification and Reuse. Crete, Greece

  • Aparcana S, Salhofer S (2013) Development of a social impact assessment methodology for recycling systems in low-income countries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(5):1106–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basurko OC, Mesbahi E (2014) Methodology for the sustainability assessment of marine technologies. J Clean Prod 68:155–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoît C, Norris G, Valdivia S, Ciroth A, Moberg A, Bos U, Prakash S, Ugaya C, Beck T (2010) The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):156–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buyukkamaci N, Alkan SH (2013) Public acceptance potential for reuse applications in Turkey. Resour Conserv Recycl 80:32–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • California Water Plan (2009) Chapter 11— recycled municipal water, vol 2. Department of Water Resources, California, p 22 http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/cwpu2009/index.cfm#volume2

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinelli M, Coles SR, Kirwan K (2014) Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol Indic 46:138–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabeled notebook: consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. GreenDeltaTC,Federal Public Planning Service Sustainable Development, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Leskinen P, Stillitano T, Falcone G, Strano A, Gulisano G (2017) Life cycle tools combined with multi-criteria and participatory methods for agricultural sustainability: insights from a systematic and critical review. Sci Total Environ 595:352–370

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Strano A, Falcone G, Gulisano G (2015) Social life cycle assessment and participatory approaches: a methodological proposal applied to citrus farming in Southern Italy. Integr Environ Assess Manage 11(3):383–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolnicar S, Schäfer AI (2009) Desalinated versus recycled water: public perceptions and profiles of the accepters. J Environ Manag 90(2):888–900

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Domènech Pretus L (2011) Decentralised water managemnet: household use of rainwater and greywater in Spain and Nepal. PhD thesis, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona

  • Domènech Pretus L, Saurí D (2010) Socio-technical transitions in water scarcity contexts: public acceptance of greywater reuse technologies in the metropolitan area of Barcelona. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:53–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontes J (2014) Handbood for product social impact assessment. Sustainability Consultant at PRé Sustainability

  • Franze J, Ciroth A (2011) A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):366–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedler E, Gilboa Y (2010) Performance of UV disinfection and the microbial quality of greywater effluent along a reuse system for toilet flushing. Sci Total Environ 408(9):2109–2117

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Friedler E, Lahav O, Jizhaki H, Lahav T (2006) Study of urban population attitudes towards various wastewater reuse options: Israel as a case study. J Environ Manag 81(4):360–370

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gorener A (2012) Comparing AHP and ANP: an application of strategic decisions making in a manufacturing company. Int J Bus Soc Sci 3(11):194–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Grießhammer R, Benoît C, Dreyer L C, Flysjö A, Manhart A, Mazijn B, Méthot A-L, Weidema B (2006) Feasibility Study: Integration of social aspects into LCA. Life Cycle Initiative (UNEP-SETAC), pp. 14

  • Hartley TW (2006) Public perception and participation in water reuse. Desalination 187:115–126

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hattis Rolef S (2006) Public trust in parliament - a comparative study. The Knesset (Israeli parliament), Jerusalem, p 53 in Hebrew

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurlimann A (2011) Household use of and satisfaction with alternative water sources in Victoria Australia. J Environ Manag 92:2691–2697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlimann A, Hemphill E, McKay J, Geursen G (2008) Establishing components of community satisfaction with recycled water use through a structural equation model. J Environ Manag 88(4):1221–1232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iofrida N, De Luca AI, Strano A, Gulisano G (2016) Can social research paradigms justify the diversity of approaches to social life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1206-6

  • Jeffrey P, Jefferson B (2003) Public receptivity regarding “in-house” water recycling: results from a UK survey. Water Sci Technol Water Supply 3(3):109–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):96–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaminsky J, Javernick-Will A (2013) Contested factors for sustainability: construction and management of household on-site wastewater treatment systems. J Constr Eng Manag 139(12):A4013004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahdi IM, Alreshaid K (2005) Decision support system for selecting the proper project delivery method using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Int J Proj Manage 23(7):564–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matos C, Friedler E, Monteiro A, Rodrigues A, Teixeira R, Bentes I, Varajão J (2014) Academics perception towards various water reuse options: University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto-Douro-UTAD Campus (Portugal) as a case study. Urban Water J 11(4):311–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels L, Parag Y (2016) Motivations and barriers to integrating ‘prosuming’ services into the future decentralized electricity grid: findings from Israel. Energy Res Soc Sci 21:70–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nancarrow BE, Porter NB, Leviston Z (2010) Predicting community acceptability of alternative urban water supply systems: a decision making model. Urban Water J 7(3):197–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opher T, Friedler E (2016) Comparative LCA of decentralized wastewater treatment alternatives for non-potable urban reuse. J Environ Manag 182:464–476

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parag Y, Roberts JT (2009) A battle against the bottles: building, claiming, and regaining tap-water trustworthiness. Soc Nat Resour 22(7):625–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pham TTN, Ngo HH, Guo W, Dang HPD, Mainali B, Johnston A, Listowski A (2011) Responses of community to the possible use of recycled water for washing machines: a case study in Sydney, Australia. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:535–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto U, Maheshwari BL (2010) Reuse of greywater for irrigation around homes in Australia: understanding community views, issues and practices. Urban Water J 7(2):141–153

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Po M, Kaercher J, Nancarrow BE (2004) Literature review of factors influencing public perceptions of water reuse. Australian Water Conservation and Reuse Research Program, Water C. L. a. pp. 32

  • Portman ME, Shabtay-Yanai A, Zanzuri A (2016) Incorporation of socio-economic features’ ranking in multicriteria analysis based on ecosystem Services for Marine Protected Area Planning. PLoS One 11(5)

  • Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C (2012) Application of fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran. Nat Hazards 63(2):965–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prathapar SA, Jamrah A, Ahmed M, Al Adawi S, Al Sidairi S, Al Harassi A (2005) Overcoming constraints in treated greywater reuse in Oman. Desalination 186(1–3):177–186

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ross VL, Fielding KS, Louis WR (2014) Social trust, risk perceptions and public acceptance of recycled water: testing a social-psychological model. J Environ Manag 137:61–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan AM, Spash CL, Measham TG (2009) Socio-economic and psychological predictors of domestic greywater and rainwater collection: evidence from Australia. J Hydrol 379:164–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rygaard M, Godskesen B, Jørgensen C, Hoffmann B (2014) Holistic assessment of a secondary water supply for a new development in Copenhagen, Denmark. Sci Total Environ 497–498(0):430–439

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic Hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill Book Co, N.Y

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2012) International Series in Operations Research & Management Science Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer Science+Business, Second New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013) Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1653–1672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapira A, Shoshany M, Nir-Goldenberg S (2013) Combining analytical hierarchy process and agglomerative hierarchical clustering in search of expert consensus in green corridors development management. J Environ Manag 52(1):123–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapira A, Simcha M (2009) AHP-based weighting of factors affecting safety on construction sites with tower cranes. J Constr Eng Manag 135(4):307–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shmueli L, Bas Y (2012) Cost-benefit analysis of greywater reuse system installation in new buildings in Israel and an investigation of business models for such systems. Ecofinance. pp. 20 (in Hebrew)

  • Taboada-González P, Aguilar-Virgen Q, Ojeda-Benítez S, Cruz-Sotelo S (2014) Application of analytic hierarchy process in a waste treatment technology assessment in Mexico. Environ Monit Assess 186:5777–5795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjandraatmadja G, Sharma AK, Grant T, Pamminger F (2013) A decision support methodology for integrated urban water management in remote settlements. Water Resour Manag 27(2):433–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Life Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, p 104

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP/SETAC (2010) Methodological Sheets for 31 Sub-Categories of Impact for Social LCA. Life Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme

  • UNEP/SETAC (2011) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment. Making informed choices on products. Life cycle Initiative. United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, p 86

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu Z, McKay J, Keremane GB (2012) Issues affecting community attitudes and intended behaviours in stormwater reuse: a case study of Salisbury, South Australia. Water 4:835–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Feschet P, De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Buttol P (2015). Social life cycle assessment. In: Sustainability Assessment of Renewables-Based Products. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp 229–240

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all the experts who took part in this study, contributing their time and expertise.

We thankfully acknowledge Dr. Rozann Saaty and Prof. Thomas Saaty for their helpful consultation.

This study was partially financed by the Israel Water Authority, under Grant No. 4422444402.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, 3200003, Haifa, Israel

    Tamar Opher, Aviad Shapira & Eran Friedler

Authors
  1. Tamar Opher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aviad Shapira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eran Friedler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tamar Opher.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Marzia Traverso

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Opher, T., Shapira, A. & Friedler, E. A comparative social life cycle assessment of urban domestic water reuse alternatives. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 1315–1330 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1356-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1356-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation