D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document · 2018-11-13 · D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document...

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354

Deliverable Title D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document Deliverable Lead: IREN, IT

Related Work Package: WP4: Solutions and tools for integration and implementation of water and waste in the EIP Smart Cities Framework.

Related Task: T 4.2 Analysis and preparation of Recommendations for research and technological actions (M16-M20)

Author(s):

Mona Arnold, Nicola Bazzurro, Alexandre Bredimas, Melek Cevza Kazezyilmaz Alhan, Frederic Clarens, Katia Dahmani, Peter Easton, Richard Elelman, Bernd Manfred Gawlik, Stef Koop, Alessandra Marchese, Leonardo Piccinetti, Anna Strzelecka, Nicola Tucci, Bogumil Ulanicki, Kees Van Leeuwen.

Dissemination Level: Public/Confidential

Due Submission Date: 30.11.2016

Actual Submission: 15.11.2016

Project Number 642354

Instrument: Coordination and Support Action

Start Date of Project: 01.02.2015

Duration: 24 months

Abstract

This document, named the Practical Guidance Document, integrates the results of previous WPs and seeks to demonstrate the benefits of an integrated approach to the challenges in the management of water and waste in urban settings, within the smart city logic. Best practices in water management are linked to current approaches in waste, transport, logistics and energy. Target readers are relevant stakeholders willing to integrate water and waste sectors into different policy areas through effective measures aimed at filling current gaps and overcoming critical issues. This PGD is presented here as a project deliverable but is designed to be a printed publication.


Project funded by the European Commission as part of the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation

Table of Contents Foreword .................................................................................................................................. 4

1 The BlueSCities philosophy .............................................................................................. 5

2 Project results: The BlueSCities Package ......................................................................... 7

2.1 The City Blueprint ...................................................................................................... 9

2.2 The City Amberprint ................................................................................................. 11

2.3 The BlueSCities Self-Assessment software ............................................................. 12

3 The BlueSCities Package: Operating Instructions .......................................................... 16

3.1 Blueprint indicators, requested parameters and data source .................................. 16

3.1.1 Trends and Pressure Framework ..................................................................... 16

3.1.2 City Blueprint Performance Framework ............................................................ 16

3.2 Amberprint indicators, requested parameters and data sources ............................. 25

Requested parameters to calculate this indicator are: ........................................................... 29

3.3 The Self-assessment Software Guide and related procedures ............................... 32

4 Water and Waste Management Best Practices (to improve the indicators) ............ 34

5 Gaps to be filled and recommendations to integrate water and waste in the Smart Cities Framework ............................................................................................................................. 48

5.1 The integration of water and waste in EU policy and legislation – a trend in the right direction .............................................................................................................................. 48

5.1.1 Sewage sludge directive (1986) ....................................................................... 48

5.1.2 Urban wastewater treatment directive (1991) ................................................... 49

5.1.3 Drinking water directive (1991 with important amendment in 2015) ................. 49

5.1.4 Landfill Directive (1999) .................................................................................... 50

5.1.5 Waste Incineration Directive (2000) .................................................................. 50

5.1.6 Water framework directive (2000) ..................................................................... 51

5.1.7 Bathing water directive (2006) .......................................................................... 51

5.1.8 Floods Directive (2007) ..................................................................................... 52

5.1.9 Waste Framework Directive (2008) .................................................................. 52

5.1.10 Renewable energy directive (2009) .................................................................. 53

5.1.11 Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy (EU Commission Communication, 2015) .................................................................................................... 55

5.2 Technical aspects .................................................................................................... 58

5.2.1 Gaps ................................................................................................................. 59

5.2.2 Other gaps identified ......................................................................................... 59

5.2.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 60


5.3 Business analysis approach and applicable models ................................................ 65

5.3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 65

5.3.2 Business models analysis ................................................................................. 65

5.3.3 Value chain analysis ......................................................................................... 68

5.3.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 69

5.3.5 References ....................................................................................................... 73

6 Stakeholder involvement and capacity building .............................................................. 74

6.1 Promotion of intercity collaboration .......................................................................... 74

7 Citizen engagement and participation ............................................................................. 75

7.1 Science cafè ............................................................................................................ 75

7.2 School competitions and related ‘Science & Art’ Initiatives ..................................... 76

8 Further in-depth analysis and research material ............................................................. 78

8.1 Links & short descriptions to trends and pressures ................................................. 78

8.2 Links to detailed and academic findings reported in other deliverables ................... 78

8.3 Operating instructions to foster cross sector integration and synergies between utilities ................................................................................................................................. 79

8.3.1 Introductory remarks on the utilities and sector integration .............................. 79

8.3.2 Utilities mapping ............................................................................................... 82

8.3.3 Instructions and recommendations ................................................................... 84

8.3.4 Special focus on ICT contribution to cross-sector integration ........................... 93

8.3.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 94

8.3.6 References ....................................................................................................... 94

About BlueSCities .................................................................................................................. 95

9 Who wrote this document ................................................................................................ 96

10 References .................................................................................................................. 98

Versioning and Contribution History

D4.1 Practical Guidance document first draft – August, 2016 - see authors list above

D4.1 Practical Guidance document draft – Mid-September, 2016 - see authors list above

D4.1 Practical Guidance document draft – v.01 – September, 2016 - see authors list above

D4.1 Practical Guidance document draft – v.02 – October, 2016 - see authors list above

D4.1 Practical Guidance document draft – v.03 – October, 2016 – after proofreading

D4.1 Practical Guidance document draft – v.04 – October, 2016 – after further refinements before portal uploading

D4.1 Practical Guidance document draft – v.04 – October, 2016 – after further refinements from EAB External Advisory Board


Foreword

The twelve partners of the BlueSCities project hold the firm conviction, shared by an increasing number of international institutions that the creation of the sustainable society of the future can only become a reality if all relevant sectors and stakeholders are capable of joining forces in establishing a global strategy. In order to be capable of confronting the challenges posed by climate change and the dramatic increase in urban populations around the World, it is necessary to consider all environmental, economic and social factors.

The BlueSCities partnership, financed by the HORIZON 2020 programme of the European Union, have been working for two years to develop a methodology for the integration of the water and waste sectors within the established 'Smart Cities and Communities' approach which had previously been designed exclusively for the implementation of actions concerning energy, transport and ICT.

The result is the creation of a BlueSCities package consisting of the City Blueprint, the City Amberprint and the BlueSCities Self-Assessment Software which together constitute an effective, dynamic and accessible mechanism that allows public administrations and other stakeholders in Europe and beyond the possibility of effecting a long-term sustainable urban roadmap which includes water and waste.

The Practical Guidance Document is designed so that it may be employed by both the expert and layman, thus guaranteeing its accessibility to all concerned whilst encouraging further citizen awareness and engagement of the vital issues in question. The reader will be introduced to the underlying philosophy behind BlueSCities and will learn what the City Blueprint and City Amberprint are. The Self-Assessment Software is carefully explained so that the reader is capable of applying the BluesCities approach themselves. Further sections describe a series of recommended political, technical, economic and social best practices supported by the in-depth research material which the project has produced.

The BlueSCities partners trust that the material presented in this Practical Guidance Document will prove of value to all those who are concerned for the future of our communities and that it will provoke not only practical results but will also be a catalyst for further necessary action.

Richard Elelman

Coordinator of the BlueSCities Project


1 The BlueSCities philosophy

In a social and political context, it has been clearly demonstrated in various environmental sectors such as sustainable transport, energy, green urban design and the protection of biodiversity, that municipalities no matter what their size have a major role to play in converting a supranational policy paper or the desires of international forums into a certain degree of reality.

The capacity for the small-scale implementation of local policies reflecting a greater global need has proved invaluable in a series of issues. Many examples of supranational entities working with and through local authorities in order to reach out to a wider audience exist such as the work of CIVITAS in the subject of public transport, the Covenant of Mayors in energy and the LEED programme of the OECD concerned with the creation of employment within the dynamics of a green growth economy.

Within a municipal context, there is no social sector that cannot be more easily reached than as the result of direct local administrative intervention. This not only offers far more potential for the creation of citizen awareness and the promotion of citizen engagement activities but also provides stakeholders with the possibility of establishing channels of communication which reflect strong political commitments with a top-down approach, a broader networking attitude which could be described as a middle-out approach or just as importantly, the engagement of hitherto ignored potential stakeholders with the bottom-up approach.

The importance of the latter is being further reinforced at this time with the formal presentation of Mayors-Adapt (15.10.2015) an initiative of DG Climate Action supported by The European Environment Agency whereby municipalities are encouraged to “show leadership on climate adaptation and support further activities and participation….to capture the opportunities of taking action on adaptation…..to implement adaptation plans, to learn from best-practices, and encourage an active network among cities who benefit from each other’s experiences in the field of climate adaptation and to increase their profile as leaders in action on climate change adaptation”.

This truly reflects the philosophy which lies behind BlueSCities which as a project was the result of the work of the EIP WATER Action Group: CITY BLUEPRINTS and prior to that, the creation of an accessible, easy-to-interpret analysis of the current water situation in any given municipality.

BlueSCities is based on the conviction that municipalities are the key to meeting the environmental challenges facing our society. It recognizes the importance of municipality-orientated policies and applauds the application of both citizen-engagement and smart city methodology as tools employed during the last decade.

A reflection of this approach is the hitherto commendable work of the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) Smart Cities and Communities. However, what has also become increasingly clear is the need for the integration of water and waste within the Strategic Implementation Plan of the EIP Smart Cities and Communities which to date has focused exclusively on Energy, Transport and ICT. The absence of other relevant topics such as water, wastewater, solid waste and climate change mitigation and adaptation is a great omission. Smarter cities are cities with a coherent long-term social, economic and ecological agenda. Smarter cities are water-wise cities that integrate water, waste water, energy, solid waste, transport, ICT, climate adaptation and nature (blue-green infrastructure) to create an attractive place to live. Smarter cities implement a circular economy, focus on social innovation and, last but not least, greatly improve on governance. This is the BlueSCities mission.


BOX 1: European policy context on water, waste and the smart city

Smart Cities is a strategic concept promoted by the European Commission for a more efficient implementation and greater integration of key components of city life. Initially focused on integrating energy, transport and ICT, it is more recently accepted that water and waste must be included. There is no specific ‘Smart Cities’ legislation. Instead, it is promoted through a combination of policy initiatives, innovation partnerships and targeted funding programmes. For example: EIP Smart Cities and Communities1; SETIS European Initiative on Smart Cities2; and the European Economic and Social Committee Smart Cities Portal3. The strongest promoter for the integration of water and waste within the Smart City concept are more recent Horizon 2020 calls. It will take time before project outcomes are integrated into formal policy. Policy is the first step for change, but active implementation is highly dependent on legislation.

In place of specific legislation, what is required is for existing, updated and new legislation (principally through Directives) to promote integration between the different sectors, and enforce the approach where appropriate. A review of existing Directives associated with the stated sectors demonstrates a clear trend over recent decades towards such an integrated approach. In addition, we see a trend towards prevention rather than cure, waste as a resource, and improved governance in place of specific requirements.

Earlier directives focused on ‘fixing’ individual problems according to priority. For example, water and wastewater were presented as threats to be reduced, rather than as a resource to support a circular economy (e.g., Sludge Dir 1986, Urban Wastewater Dir 1991).

The trend is towards a modern approach to sustainability, which highlights that all aspects of society and the natural environment are interdependent. More coordinated policy facilitates the early identification of potential problems and reduces the consequences of isolated, and sometimes, conflicting policy development. We see a move from ‘problem solving’ to ‘problem prevention’. For example, the Floods Directive 2007, explains that land use and management are relevant to flood prevention instead of just focusing on flood defences. The 2015 amendment to the Drinking Water Directive now promotes a ‘water safety plan’ approach whereby quality specifications are preferentially achieved through prevention rather than cure (i.e. in place of total reliance on treatment).

The trend is to move away from specific controls and requirements towards improved governance (and the flexibility which this implies), to stakeholder engagement and community participation. The Water Framework Directive 2008 is a good example. The Renewable Energy Directive 2009 is one of the most progressive in stressing the benefits of a multi-sector, multi-stakeholder approach, including opportunities for citizens to influence energy choices, and mentioning waste as a potential energy resource. It creates a valuable precedent for revised or new directives to follow in the interests of Smart City integration.

Smart City policy initiatives: 1. http://ec.europa.eu/eip/smartcities/files/sip_final_en.pdf

2. https://setis.ec.europa.eu/set‐plan‐implementation/technology‐roadmaps/european‐initiative‐smart‐cities

3. http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.smart‐cities


2 Project results: The BlueSCities Package

Cities have become the place where development challenges and opportunities increasingly come face to face. Cities play a prominent role in our economic development as more than 80% of the Gross World Product (GWP) comes from cities. Water links the local to the regional, and brings together global questions of food security, public health, urbanization, transport, climate change, the circular economy and energy. Water demands and other such challenges are often managed in silos with each focused on meeting specific developmental objectives, rather than as part of a coherent strategic framework that balances these different sectorial challenges. Inadequate maintenance of water and wastewater infrastructures and poor solid waste management may lead to flooding, water scarcity, water pollution, adverse health effects, and rehabilitation costs that may overwhelm the resilience of cities. Urban water management is a shared responsibility across levels of government responsible for several water functions (e.g. water security, water supply and sanitation, etc.), requiring multi-level coordination. Moreover the mismatch between hydrological (basin) and administrative (city) boundaries calls for a functional approach to combine multiple scales. Cities are the major problem holders but at the same time municipal action can provide local solutions for these global challenges we face.

Developing a long-term vision together is an important prerequisite to bring about change. This can be summarized as participative scenario planning and backcasting. This approach aims to envision a coherent future picture for the long term together with the actors/stakeholders involved and from that, by working backwards (backcasting) to arrive at a plan of action for that period (i.e. for the short term). This process begins by involving the most relevant actors (open and inclusive development), and doing so as early as possible in the process

Ideally, cities should develop a cohesive set of long-term objectives that should be SMART: Specific (target a specific area for improvement), Measurable (quantify or at least suggest an indicator of progress), Assignable (specify who will do it), Realistic (state what results can realistically be achieved, given available resources), Time-related (specify when the result(s) can be achieved). Very often clear objectives are not set and—as a result—many cities are neither smart nor future proof. The cost of inaction (or ad hoc sectoral action) is generally very high.

Governance of cities is never simple (Figure 2.1). It is a matter of cooperation in complexity. Transparency, accountability and participation are the criteria for good governance. In the development of a long-term vision for a city with different stakeholders, there will be differences of outlook, interests, short-term and long-term perspectives, ‘generation times’, planning horizons, investments and returns. Those transitions regarding infrastructures, in particular, need to be flexible and adaptive, because, as indicated above, the investments are huge and, in principle, must create value. Colliding short and long-term interests will threaten the success of the process. Long-term goals are often not served by short-term political thinking as cities have long generation times.


Fig 2.1: Simplification of a city. The red items ICT, transport and energy are part of the EU Smart City Policy (European Commission 2013). Governance is considered to be a horizontal activity. Recently, water and waste have been included in the EU policy on smart cities (European Commission 2015c). Source: Koop and Van Leeuwen (2016)

The cost of preventable accidents in urban areas is high, and smart coherent transitions in cities are likely to prevent both human and capital losses. For instance, the overall economic impact of water scarcity and drought events in the past 30 years was estimated to be €100 billion in the European Union (EU). From 1976–1990 to the following 1991–2006 period, the average annual impact doubled, rising to € 6.2 billion per year in the most recent years. The price tag of the exceptional European heat wave in 2003 was estimated at €8.7 billion and caused up to 70,000 excess deaths over a four-month period in Central and Western Europe (EEA 2012).

In the development or reconstruction of cities, optimal use should be made of the exploration of win–win options or co-benefits for the different issues that need to be addressed in cities. For instance, road reconstruction can be combined with the renewal or installing of water distribution networks, sewer systems, and the creation of blue and green space. This would save a lot of time, money and nuisance for citizens.

Figure 2.1 represents a simplified city in which nine urban sectoral agendas are shown: ICT (Information and Communications Technology), energy and transport, solid waste, green and blue space, water supply, wastewater, climate adaptation, houses and factories.

Governance is considered to be a horizontal issue linked with all other agendas in a city. At a recent public consultation, the European Commission decided on an upgraded and more holistic Smart Cities and Communities policy in order to better integrate and connect energy, transport, water, waste and ICT (European Commission 2015c).


Policy Number of issues (n)

Number

of P.I.a

Issues addressed

Interactions addressed

Missed P.I. Missed P.I.

(%)

Smart citiesb 9 36 3 3 33 92

Smart citiesc 9 36 6 15 21 58

SMARTER citiesd 9 36 9 36 0 0

aP.I. is the total number of potential interactions. The number of potential interactions is calculated as follows: P.I. = ½n x (n-1) bIssues addressed are ICT, transport and energy (European Commission 2013) cIssues addressed are ICT, transport, energy, waste (taken as solid waste and waste water) and water (European Commission 2015c). The BlueSCities package covers all five sectors: water and waste within the BluePrint® and, ICT, energy and transport in the Amberprint® package. dExample of a cohesive integral urban agenda addressing all nine topics in a city

Table 2.1: Illustration of the relevance of co-benefits of integration in city planning as part of a cohesive long-term strategy for cities. The total number (n) of issues in cities is nine.

From Table 2.1, it can be deduced that a smart city policy addressing only ICT, transport and energy can be considered as a maximization of missed opportunities in cities as more than 90% of the potential interactions or win–win situations between these sectoral agendas are not explored. The recent decision to include also waste and water is a step forward, but still many opportunities (58 %; Table 2.1) are not explored, including climate adaptation in cities, which is another important omission. The obvious conclusion is that smarter cities need to develop a cohesive long-term plan and integrate/combine agendas as this will save time and money and better serve the needs of their taxpayers.

2.1 The City Blueprint Rapid urbanization, climate change and inadequate investments lead to water and climate challenges that may overwhelm the resilience of many urban areas. Cities need to develop action plans that can be based on three steps: 1) knowing what their current water management baseline situation is; 2) setting long-term goals supported by intermediate targets required in order to anticipate long-term impacts, risks and uncertainties; 3) developing comprehensive plans and strategies to implement and achieve said measures and objectives.

Figure 2.2: Function of the City Blueprint (red box) in the strategic planning process for IWRM according to SWITCH (Philip et al. 2012)

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 The City Blueprint (Koop and Van Leeuwen, 2015 a, b) combined with the City Amberprint are the first attempts to perform a baseline assessment of Integrated Water Resources Management in cities together with the baseline assessment of Energy, Transport and ICT. It serves as a first step in the strategic planning process towards climate adaptive and resilient urban water management. The 25 indicators of the City Blueprint performance framework consist of 7 broad categories that together provide a comprehensive and integrated overview of the entire urban water cycle. The indicators are scored between 0 and 10 points (where 0 points means that further attention is needed and 10 points is an excellent score). The indicators are summarized in an overall score, the Blue City Index (BCI). A separate indicator framework provides an important local context regarding the social, environmental and financial trends and pressures that may affect urban water management decisions. The City Blueprint is designed to be: 1) easy to access, 2) easy to understand, 3) timely and relevant, 4) reliable and consistent, 5) credible, transparent and accurate and 6) developed with the end-user in mind. At present, 50 cities in 30 different countries have been included in the City Blueprint platform. We found that the current water crisis is largely a water governance crisis as the technology is often available and best practices are already applied in frontrunner cities. In fact, cities can benefit a lot if they share experiences, implementing knowledge and best practices. Cities need long-term planning that combines sectoral agendas in order to maximize the co-benefits of adaptation and to minimize the cost of inaction. In a rapid urbanizing world that is threatened by climate change, politicians need to act now, or else, adaptation measures will become increasingly expensive while the danger for citizens and the economy increases.

Figure 2.3: Example of City Blueprint radar chart


2.2 The City Amberprint According to World Health Organization the urban population in 2014 accounted for 54% of the total population which means that 4 billion people are living in cities. The United Nations estimates that by 2050 another 2.5 billion people will live in urban areas. Most of the predicted urban growth will take place in developing countries, mainly Africa and Asia. These countries will have to manage numerous challenges resulting from such a rapid growth, i.e. providing housing, expanding and maintaining infrastructures for all five aspects: water, waste, energy, transport and ICT, facilitating education and health care, etc.

The City Amberprint Framework is a complement to the City Blueprint and the Trends and Pressures Framework. The main goal of the City Amberprint is a baseline assessment of the sustainability of Energy, Transport and ICT in cities. Each of the indicators has a score between 0 (there is a concern) to 10 (no concern). The quantitative indicators were “normalised” on a scale from 0 to 10, where 10 points were assigned to cities that met or exceeded certain criteria on environmental sustainability. The visual representation of the City Amberprint is a radar chart. The overall score of sustainability is expressed as Amber City Index (ACI). The ACI is the geometric mean of the 22 indicators.

Figure 2.4: Example of the City Amberprint radar chart

The indicators are constructed in such a way to consider:

1) The environmental impact of the city

2) The quality of life

3) The risks, for instance interruption of services provision

4) Actions of the city to improve all three.

The higher value of an indicator corresponds to the low environmental impact of the city, high quality of life, low risks and proactive actions undertaken by the city.

The indicators in the City Amberprint are also introduced in order to:


(i) Evaluate the current state of sustainability in cities

(ii) Identify best practices regarding energy, transport and ICT and share them with other municipalities

(iii) Identify direct links between the City Amberprint indicators and the five aspects of a smart city: water, waste, energy, transport and ICT

(iv) Inform citizens and stakeholders about the current situation in the city.

2.3 The BlueSCities Self-Assessment software The BlueSCities Independent Analysis Software packages are self-assessment cloud based tools created to promote the implementation of the City BluePrint and the City Amberprint indicators. This is a platform which enhances city-to-city learning, the exchange of best practices and will be a valuable support for citizen and general stakeholder engagement. Using them, cities can learn important practical lessons from other cities that have already implemented best practices.

The two parallel methodologies incorporated into the BlueSCities Software permit target users, both professional and non-professional including municipal administrations to generate a concise, clear and effective analysis of the situation concerning Water and Waste (City Blueprint) and Energy, Transport and ICT (City Amberprint) in any given town or city, so that decision makers can truly appreciate the full global picture. The results reveal at a glance precisely where a municipality’s strong and weak points lie and can serve as the key first step in a local, regional, national or supranational strategic approach so that all stakeholders will be better equipped to create broad, long-term visions in order to plan for the sustainable urban communities of the future.

Presented in an easily-accessible format which will permit one to obtain and provide the necessary information in a logical step-by-step procedure, the BlueSCities Independent Analysis Software packages produces visual results which converts it into an effective communication methodology which enables stakeholder engagement, city-to-city learning and the exchange of best practices. The final step is the benchmark for the indicator scores from the rest of participating cities. The anonymized benchmark is calculated from the average from the selectable criteria: country, population, land area, GDP per capita and population density.


Figure 2.5: Welcome page of the City BluePrint self-assessment software

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 In order to guarantee the quality of the data, a validation process is mandatory before the results can be used for external actions and before the city results will be incorporated into the package database for benchmarking purposes.

Figure 2.6: Results page of the City Amberprint self-assessment software

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Access to the BlueSCities Independent Analysis Software packages and their operating instructions can be found in Table 2.2.

Report (put hyperlink to the place or related documents)

Internet link

City BluePrint D2.2 (preferably or document indicated by kees)

Pending

City Amberprint D3.1 Report on the applied methodology

Pending

User manual D2.8. Guidance document http://www.bluescities.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/BLUESCITIES-D2_8_Blueprint_manual.pdf

Table 2.2: Links to the BlueSCities Independent Analysis Software


3 The BlueSCities Package: Operating Instructions

3.1 Blueprint indicators, requested parameters and data source

The City Blueprint consists of the trends and pressure framework and the City Blueprint performance framework. For both frameworks a detailed description of the indicators definition, scoring methods and examples for each indicator are available in the City Blueprint questionnaire.

3.1.1 Trends and Pressure Framework The Trends and Pressure Framework provides an important local context of the situation in which water managers have to operate. It consists of 12 descriptive indicators divided into social, environmental and financial categories. (Table 3.1). The average of the 12 indicators is the Trends and Pressure Index (TPI). Each indicator has been scaled from 0 to 4 points, where a higher score represents a higher urban pressure or concern.

Table 3.1: Overview of the City Blueprint trends and pressure framework. Indicators 5, 6, 7 and 8 are the aggregate of sub-indicators.

3.1.2 City Blueprint Performance Framework The City Blueprint Performance Framework consists of 25 indicators divided into 7 broad categories, i.e., water quality, solid waste treatment, basic water services, wastewater treatment, infrastructure, climate adaptation and governance (Table 3.2). The indicators are scored between 0 and 10 points (where 0 points means that further attention is needed and 10 points is an excellent score). The geometric average of the 25 indicators is the Blue City Index (BCI).


Table 3.2: Overview of the City Blueprint performance framework indicators and categories

I Water quality

Secondary WWT

Tertiary WWT

Groundwater quality

II Solid waste treatment

Solid waste collected

Solid waste recycled

Solid waste energy recovered

III Basic water services

Access to drinking water

Access to sanitation

Drinking water quality

IV Wastewater treatment

Nutrient recovery

Energy recovery

Sewage sludge recycling

WWT energy efficiency

V Infrastructure

Stormwater separation

Average age sewer

Water system leakages

Operation cost recovery

VI Climate robustness

Green space

Climate adaptation

Drinking water consumption

Climate-robust buildings

VII Governance

Management and action plans

Public participation

Water efficiency measures

Attractiveness

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Category 1: Water Quality

Indicator 1 – Secondary WWT

Measure of the urban population connected to secondary waste water treatment plants. The focus on secondary treatment is chosen because primary treatment is considered rather insufficient for BOD and nutrient removal.

Requested parameters:

X = Percentage of population connected to secondary sewage treatment. Assumed that there is only tertiary treatment after secondary treatment has been done.

Indicator 2: Tertiary WWT

Measure for the urban population connected to tertiary waste water treatment plants. This treatment step is important for water quality because much nutrients and chemical compounds are removed from the water before it inters the surface water.


X = Percentage of population connected to tertiary sewage treatment.

Indicator 3: Groundwater quality

Measure of relative groundwater quality. A lower Indicator score is given for poorer quality.


Base the calculation on national or regional data where city - level data are not available.

For EU countries, data are available to estimate a measure of national groundwater quality. An EU database shows the number of groundwater samples of ‘good chemical status’ out of a total number of samples.

X = Number of samples of ‘good chemical status’

Y = Number of samples of ‘poor chemical status

Category 2: Solid waste treatment

Indicator 4: Solid waste collected Represents waste collected from households, small commercial activities, office buildings, institutions such as schools and government buildings, and small businesses that threat or dispose of waste at the same used for municipally collected waste (OECD, 2013). Requested parameters:

X = kg/cap/year of collected solid waste.

Indicator 5: Solid waste recycled Percentage of solid waste that is recycled or composted. Requester parameter: This indicator represents the percentage of the total collected municipal waste that is recycled or composted.

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 However, when solid waste is used for incineration with energy recovery, it is not possible to also use it for recycling while both practices are sustainable. Therefore the % solid waste that is incinerated is subtracted from the total

Indicator 6: Solid waste energy recovery Percentage of solid waste that is incinerated with energy recovery. Requested parameter: This indicator represents the percentage of the total collected municipal waste that incinerated with energy recovery (techniques). However, when solid waste is recycled or composted, it is not possible to also use it for incineration with energy recovery, while both practices are sustainable. Therefore the % solid waste that is recycled or composted is subtracted from the total (100%) of collected municipal waste to obtain the potential percentage of solid waste that can be incinerated with energy recovery.

Category 3: Basic water services

Indicator 7: Access to drinking water The proportion of the population with access to affordable safe drinking water. A lower Indicator score is given where the percentage is lower. Requested parameter: X = Percentage (%) of total urban population with access to potable drinking water.

Indicator 8: Access to sanitation A measure of the percentage of the population covered by wastewater collection and treatment. A lower Indicator score is given where the percentage is lower. Requested parameter: X = Percentage (%) of total urban population with access to proper sanitation facilities.

Indicator 9: Drinking water quality A measure of the level of compliance with local drinking water regulations. A lower Indicator score is given where compliance is lower. Requested parameters: The result is expressed as a percentage of the samples meeting the applicable standards. X = Total number of samples meeting standards Y = Total number of samples

Category 4: Wastewater treatment

Indicator 10: Nutrient recovery

Measure of the level of nutrient recovery from the wastewater system.


A = Wastewater treated with nutrient recovering techniques at the wastewater treatment plants (Mm3 year-1)

B = Total amount of wastewater passing the wastewater treatment plants (Mm3 year-1)


Indicator 11: Energy recovery

Measure of energy recovery from the wastewater system.


A = Total volume of wastewater treated with techniques to recover energy (Mm3/year).

B = Total volume of water produced by the city (Mm3/year).

Often only the total volume of wastewater that enters the treatment facilities is known together with wastewater treatment coverage’s (% of water going to the treatment facilities). In this case:

C = Total volume of wastewater treated with techniques to recover energy (Mm3/year).

D = Total volume of wastewater treated in wastewater treatment plants (Mm3/year).

Indicator 12: Sewage sludge recycling

A measure of the proportion of sewage sludge recycled or re-used. For example, it may be thermally processed and/or applied in agriculture.


A = Dry weight of sludge produced in wastewater treatment plants serving the city

B = Dry weight of sludge going to landfill

C = Dry weight of sludge thermally processed

D = Dry weight of sludge disposed in agriculture

E = Dry weight of sludge disposed by other means

(As a check, A should = B + C + D +E)

Indicator 13: Energy efficiency WWT A measure of the energy efficiency of the wastewater treatment. A lower Indicator score is given where efficiency measures are more limited. The following guidance is proposed to make self-assessment score for Indicator 13.

Indicator score

Assessment

0 no information is available on this subject 1 limited information is available in a national document 2 limited information is available in national and local documents 3 the topic is addressed in a chapter in a national document 4 the topic is addressed in a chapter at the national and local level 5 a local policy plan is provided in a publicly available document 6 as 5 and the topic is also addressed at the local website 7 plans are implemented and clearly communicated to the public 8 as 7 plus subsidies are made available to implement the plans 9 as 8 plus annual reports are provided on the progress of the

implementation and/or any other activity indicating that this is a very high priority implemented

10 as 9 and the activity is in place for = 3 year

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Category 5: Infrastructure

Indicator 14: Storm water separation

A measure of the proportion of the wastewater system for which sanitary sewage and storm water flows are separated. In principal, a separate system is better than a combined system as extreme weather events may lead to sewer overflows into surface water. These sewer overflows are a major source of pollution. Also flooding vulnerability is larger if storm water separation ratio is low. A lower Indicator score is given where the proportion of combined sewers is greater.


A = Total length of combined sewers managed by the utility (km)

B = Total length of storm water sewers managed by the utility (km)

C = Total length of sanitary sewers managed by the utility (km)

Indicator 15: Average sewer age

The age of the infrastructure for wastewater collection and distribution system is an important measure for the financial state of the UWCS. Requested parameter:

The average age of the infrastructure is an indication of the commitment to regular system maintenance and replacement. The method compares the average age of the system to an arbitrarily maximum age of 60 years. Moreover, it is assumed that an age of <10 years receives a maximum score since younger systems generally well maintained.

X = Average age sewer

Indicator 16: Water system leakages

A measure of the percentage of water lost in the distribution system due to leaks (typically arising from poor maintenance and/or system age). Requested parameters: Leakage rates of 50% or more are taken as maximum value and thus scored zero. A best score of 10 is given when the water system leakage is zero. X = Water system leakages (%)

Indicator 17: Operating costs recovery (ratio)

Measure of revenue and cost balance of operating costs of water services. A higher ratio means that there is more money available to invest in water services, e.g. infrastructure maintenance or infrastructure separation. Requested parameters: Only the operational cost and revenues for domestic water supply and sanitation services are requested. Definitions: -Total annual operational revenues: Total annual income from tariffs and charges for drinking water and sanitation services -Total annual operating costs: Total annual operational expenditures for drinking water and sanitation services/year

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Category 6: Climate robustness

Indicator 18: Green space

Represents the share of green and blue areas which are essential to combat the heat island effect in urban areas (area defined as built-up area lying less than 200 metres apart). Requested parameters: X = Share of blue and green area (%) Country average: Share of green and blue areas is available for all European cities. The EEA city database presents data for 367 European cities

Indicator 19: Climate adaptation

A measure of the level of action taken to adapt to climate change threats. A lower Indicator score is given where actions or commitments are more limited.

The following guide is proposed in order to obtain a self-assessment score for Indicator 19.

Indicator score

Assessment




Indicator 20: Drinking water consumption

Measure of the average annual consumption of water per capita. A lower Indicator score is given where the volume per person is greater.

The definition of the International Water Association (IWA) is employed. Thus it is the total volume of metered and/or non-metered water that, during the assessment period (1 year), is received by registered customers, by the water supplier itself, or by others who are implicitly or explicitly authorised to do so by the water supplier, for residential, commercial, industrial or public purposes.

Requested parameter:

X = m3/person/year drinking water consumption

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Indicator 21: Climate Robust Buildings

A measure of whether there is a clear policy for buildings to be robust regarding their contribution to climate change concerns (principally energy use). A lower Indicator score is given where policies are weaker.


Indicator score

Assessment




Category 7: Governance

Indicator 22: Management and action plans

A measure of the application of the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in the city. A lower Indicator score is given where plans and actions are limited.


Indicator score

Assessment




Indicator 23: Public participation

A measure of those people who are involved in or who are undertaking voluntary work. To avoid unrealistic values due to extrapolations (e.g. negative number of people being involved in or undertaking voluntary work), the minimum for public participation is set at 5%.

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Extrapolations from the indicator which reflects percentages for public participation that are below 5% are set to 5% and consequently scored zero in the CBF.

Requested parameter: X = Involvement in voluntary work

Indicator 24: Water efficiency measures

Measure of the application of water efficiency measures by the water users of the city. A lower Indicator score is given where efficiency measures are more limited.


Indicator score

Assessment




Indicator 25: Attractiveness

A measure of how surface water features are contributing to the attractiveness of the city and well-being of its inhabitants. A lower indicator score is given where ‘attractiveness’ is less.


Indicator score

Assessment





3.2 Amberprint indicators, requested parameters and data sources

The direct links between each City Amberprint indicator and water, waste, energy, transport and ICT were identified and analysed in order to optimize current sector approaches with the aim of reducing resource use, costs and time in an integrated smart city. They are summarised after the definition of each indicator. In some cases one or more aspects are greyed out to avoid self-reference.

Energy indicators

Indicator 1 – Carbon footprint (Environmental impact)

How does a city’s carbon footprint (CF) per person per year compare to the international range?

A lower indicator score is given for a larger carbon footprint.

A Carbon Footprint is the total set of greenhouse gas emissions caused by an organization, event, product or person.

The requested parameter X is the CF/capita (tonnes CO2/capita/year) value for the city.

Indicator 2 – Fuel poverty (Quality of life)

What is the proportion of households in the city that are considered to be fuel poor? The lower indicator score is given when the proportion is higher.

Under the Low Income-High Costs definition, a household is considered to be fuel poor if:

They have required fuel costs that are above average (the national median level) Were they to spend that amount, they would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line.

Requested parameter X is the percentage of households in the city that are considered to be fuel poor.

Indicator 3 – Energy consumption (Environmental impact)

This indicator presents how total energy consumption (domestic, industrial, commercial, and transport) per capita in the city compares with the international range (kgoe/cap/yr). A lower indicator score is given where the consumption is greater.

The total energy consumption in the city is placed between the highest 10% and the lowest 10% of international values of energy consumption per capita per year. Requested parameter X is the total energy consumption for city (kgoe/cap/yr).

Indicator 4 – Energy self-sufficiency (Risk reduction)

A measure of the proportion of a city’s demand that could be met through indigenous production including renewable resources, waste, and traditional sources generated locally in the city. A lower indicator score is given where self-sufficiency is lower.

Requested parameters are the amount of energy generated locally X (kgoe/cap/yr) and the total energy consumption in the city Y (kgoe/cap/yr).

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Indicator 5 – Renewable energy ratio (Environmental impact)

A measure of the proportion of total energy derived from renewable sources in the city, as a share of the city’s total energy consumption compared to the international range. A lower indicator is given where the percentage is lower. Requested parameter X is the percentage of energy derived from renewable sources.

Indicator 6 – Energy efficiency plans (Action plans)

A measure of the application of energy efficiency strategies by the energy users across the city. A lower indicator score is given where efficiency measures are more limited. This measure is unlikely to already have a value applied. Therefore, what is suggested is the application of a self-assessment based on information from public sources (national/regional/local policy document, reports and websites of actors (e.g. energy companies, cities, provincial or national authorities). It should consider plans, measures and their implementation to improve the efficiency of energy usage:

At a household level, e.g. efficient household appliances, At a community level with energy efficient buildings or energy recycling, e.g. heat can

be collected in summer, and stored to use it in winter, By encouraging people to change their behaviour. The following guide is proposed in order to obtain a self-assessment score for Indicator 6. Indicator score Assessment




Indicator 7 – Energy infrastructure investment (Action plans)

A measure of the investment in the infrastructure for energy distribution compared to the international range. A lower indicator score is given where the investment is lower. The infrastructure investment is an indication of the commitment to regularly invest in the energy infrastructure. Investment can be in:

A new infrastructure Maintenance The refurbishment of the existing infrastructures. The requested parameters for indicator 7 are the investment in the city/region per capita (X) that is calculated as the investment in the city/region (A) in a year (values of the investment

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 over the last 5 years should be taken and an average value per year employed) divided by the local population of the city/region (B): X = A/B Subsequently, the investment in the city/region per capita (X) is divided by the GDP per capita in the country (Y).

Transport indicators

Indicator 8 – Commuting time (Quality of life)

A measure of the proportion of time spent commuting (minutes per day). Includes average time spent in: public transport (bus, coach, train, underground, tram, light railway), car (as driver or passenger), motorcycle, moped, scooter, bicycle, taxi on the way to and from work.

A lower indicator score is given where the time spent on commuting is greater.

The requested parameter is the average time spent on commuting within the city or region (X).

Indicator 9 – Public transport use (Environmental impact)

Kilometres travelled using public transport and bicycles compared to overall kilometres travelled using all means of transport. A lower indicator score is given where the use of public transport and bicycles is higher.

Requested parameters for indicator 9 are the average kilometres travelled using public transport and bicycles (X) divided by overall kilometres travelled on all means of transport (Y).

Indicator 10 – Bicycle network (Environmental impact)

Length of bicycle network per inhabitant compared to the international range. The lower indicator score is given where the length of the bicycle network per inhabitant is lower.

Requested parameters are the total length of the bicycle network in metres A divided by number of inhabitants B (X = A/B).

Indicator 11 – Transportation fatalities (Quality of life)

A measure of transportation fatalities per 100 000 population in the city per year. A lower indicator score is given where the number is greater.

Requested parameters are transportation fatalities related to transportation of any kind within the city limits (X) and the city’s total population (Y).

Indicator 12 – Clean energy transport (Action plans)

Clean energy transport and clean energy sharing transport. A lower indicator score is given where efficiency measures are more limited. This measure is unlikely to already have a value applied. Instead, obtain a self-assessment based on information from public sources (national/regional/local policy document, reports and websites of actors (e.g. transport companies, cities, provincial or national authorities). It should consider plans, measures and their implementation to improve the transport efficiency by e.g.

Efficient public transport (electric train, subway/metro, tram, cable railway) Efficient private transport (electric taxis or cars, electric scooter, bicycling) Measures implemented to encourage the use of public transport.

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 The following guide is proposed in order to obtain a self-assessment score for Indicator 12.

Indicator score Assessment

0 no information is available on this subject 1 limited information is available in a national document 2 limited information is available in national and local documents 3 the topic is addressed in a chapter in a national document 4 the topic is addressed in a chapter at the national and local level 5 a local policy plan is provided in a publicly available document 6 as 5 and the topic is also addressed at the local website

7 plans are implemented and clearly communicated to the public 8 as 7 plus subsidies are made available to implement the plans 9 as 8 plus annual reports are provided on the progress of the



Indicator 13 – Transport-related pollution (Environmental impact)

Air pollutant emissions (Sulphur oxides (SOx), Nitrogen oxides (NOx), Ammonia (NH3), Non-methane volatile organic compounds, Particulates (PM10) - airborne particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 micrometres) derived from transport measured in kg per capita per year. A lower indicator score is given where the pollutant emissions are greater.

Requested parameters for the calculation of this indicator are:

A: SOx emissions from the city (kg/cap/yr).

B: NOx emissions from the city (kg/cap/yr).

C: NH3 emissions from the city (kg/cap/yr).

D: Non-methane volatile organic compounds emissions from the city (kg/cap/yr).

E: PM10 emissions from the city (kg/cap/yr).

Indicator 14 – Transport infrastructure investment (Action plans)

A measure of the investment in the transport infrastructure compared to the international range. A lower indicator score is given where the investment is lower. The infrastructure investment is an indication of the commitment to regularly invest in the transport infrastructure. Investment can be in:

A new infrastructure Maintenance The refurbishment of the existing infrastructure The requested parameters for this indicator are the investment in the city/region per capita (X), calculated as the investment in the city/region (A) divided by the local population of the city/region (B), and the GDP per capita in the country (Y).

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 ICT indicators

Indicator 15 – ICT access (Quality of life)

ICT access is a measure of access to information and communication technology (ICT) in the city. It includes: (i) Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. (ii) International Internet bandwidth (bit/s) per Internet user. (iii) Proportion of households with a computer. (iv) Proportion of households with Internet access. A lower indicator score is given where the ICT access is lower.

Requested parameters to calculate this indicator are:

X = the number of mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in the city Y = the International Internet bandwidth (bit/s) per Internet user in the city Z = the percentage of households with a computer in the city Q = the percentage of households with Internet access in the city

Indicator 16 – ICT use households (Quality of life)

ICT use in households is a measure of use of ICT in the city. It includes: (i) The proportion of individuals using the Internet. (ii) Fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. (iii) Wireless-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. A lower indicator score is given where the ICT use is lower.

Requested parameters to calculate this indicator are:

X= the percentage of the population in the city using the Internet Y= the number of fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in the city Z= the number of wireless-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in the city

Indicator 17 – ICT use water utilities (Environmental impact, Quality of life, Risk reduction)

A measure of the ICT implementation at the city-utility level. It includes: (i) Operation, e.g. SCADA system, energy management. (ii) Maintenance, e.g. asset management data base and GIS. (iii) Planning and design, e.g. optimisation, GIS interface. (iv) Customer service, e.g. smart metering. A lower indicator score is given where there are less ICT tools employed.

Indicator 17 is calculated as an arithmetic average of the scores (1-10) given for each category. Description

Score (0-10) evaluated locally

Comments

Operation e.g. SCADA system, energy management

Maintenance e.g. asset management data base and GIS

Planning and design e.g. optimisation, GIS interface Customer service e.g. smart metering

Indicator 18 – ICT use in energy utilities (Environmental impact, Quality of life, Risk reduction)

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 A measure of the ICT implementation at the city-utility level. It includes: (i) Operation, e.g. SCADA system, energy management. (ii) Maintenance, e.g. asset management data base and GIS. (iii) Planning and design, e.g. optimisation, GIS interface. (iv) Customer service, e.g. smart metering. A lower indicator score is given where there are less ICT tools implemented.

Indicator 18 is calculated as the arithmetic average of the scores (1-10) given for each category. Description


Comments

Operation e.g. SCADA system, energy management

Maintenance e.g. asset management data base and GIS

Planning and design e.g. optimisation, GIS interface Customer service e.g. smart metering

Indicator 19 – ICT use in transport (Environmental impact, Quality of life, Risk reduction)

A measure of the ICT implementation at the city-utility level. It includes: (i) Operation, e.g. coverage of the installation of road sensor terminals and traffic control in the city. (ii) Maintenance, e.g. Is there an ICT system for planning road maintenance and public transport vehicles? (iii) Planning and design, e.g. Is there an ICT system for planning transport infrastructure expansion and improvement? (iv) Customer service, e.g. mobile bus tickets, online feedback forms. A lower indicator score is given where there are less ICT tools implemented.



Comments

Operation E.g. coverage of installation of road sensing terminals and traffic control in the city

Maintenance E.g. is there ICT system for planning the road maintenance and public transport vehicles?

Planning and design E.g. is there ICT system for planning transport infrastructure expansion and improvement?

Customer service E.g. mobile bus tickets, online feedback forms

Indicator 20 – ICT use waste management (Environmental impact, Quality of life, Risk reduction)

A measure of the ICT implementation at the city-utility level. It includes: (i) Operation, e.g. ICT system for the logistics of waste collection. (ii) Maintenance, e.g. Is there an ICT system for the pro-active maintenance of the waste collection infrastructure? (iii) Planning and design, e.g. Is there an ICT system for planning future enhancements and improvement of

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 the waste infrastructure? (iv) Customer service, e.g. smart labelling of waste bags, online feedback forms, citizen engagement. A lower indicator score is given where there are less ICT tools implemented.



Comments

Operation E.g. ICT system for logistics of waste collection

Maintenance E.g. is there ICT system for the pro-active maintenance of waste collection infrastructure?

Planning and design E.g. is there ICT system for planning future enhancements and improvement of waste infrastructure?

Customer service smart labelling of waste bags, online feedback forms, citizen engagement

Indicator 21 – Digital public service (Quality of life)

A measure of the ICT implementation within the public administration (percentage of Internet users that have engaged with the public administration and exchanged filled forms online) and the health system. It includes: (i) Proportion of eGovernment Users. Proportion of individuals sending filled forms over the internet to public authorities, or contacting public authorities by e-mail or website, or obtaining information from public authorities over the internet. (ii) Medical Data Exchange. Proportion of General Practitioners using electronic networks to exchange medical data with other health care providers and professionals and to transfer prescriptions to pharmacists. A lower indicator score is given where there are less ICT tools implemented.

Requested parameters to calculate the indicators: X= The percentage of individuals sending filled forms over the internet to public authorities, or contacting public authorities by e-mail or website, or obtaining information from public authorities over the internet Y= The percentage of General Practitioners using electronic networks to exchange medical data with other health care providers and professionals and to transfer prescriptions to pharmacists.

Indicator 22 – ICT infrastructure investment (Action plans)

A measure of the investment in the ICT infrastructure compared to the international range. A lower indicator score is given where the investment is lower. The infrastructure investment is an indication of the commitment to regularly invest in the ICT infrastructure. Investment can be in:

• A new infrastructure

• Maintenance

• The refurbishment of the existing infrastructure.


X= The investment in the city/region per capita, calculated as the investment in the city/region (A) divided by the local population of the city/region (B). Y= GDP per capita in the country.

3.3 The Self-assessment Software Guide and related procedures

The BlueSCities Users Guide to the City Blueprint and City Amberprint is the manual which will accompany the BlueSCities Independent Analysis Software packages.

The two parallel methodologies incorporated into the BlueSCities Software permit target users, both professional and non-professional, including municipal administrations, to generate a concise, clear and effective analysis of the situation concerning Water and Waste (City Blueprint) and Energy, Transport and ICT (City Amberprint) in any given town or city. The results reveal at a glance precisely where a municipality’s strong and weak points lie and can serve as the key first step in a local, regional, national or supranational strategic approach so that all stakeholders will be better equipped to create broad, long-term visions in order to plan for the sustainable urban communities of the future.

Presented in an easily-accessible format which will permit one to obtain and provide the necessary information in a logical step-by-step procedure, the BlueSCities Independent Analysis Software package produces visual results which converts it into an effective communication methodology which in turn, enables stakeholder engagement, city-to-city learning and the exchange of best practices.

The Guidance document describes the structure for both the Blueprint and Amberprint packages and summarises the procedure to be followed:

Welcome page: includes essential information concerning the benefits of the application together with a description of the methodology and a link to register and contact with the software developers.

Register: To register you enter this page and fill in the required information. It is also important to have read and accepted the legal terms of use which in turn can be accessed by clicking on the link. Having submitted the information you will receive an e-mail which will confirm that your Blueprint account has been successfully created and which asks you to validate your account following the link provided.

Study definition and selection. At this step the user can decide to undertake one of four actions: to create a new study, to create a new study based on an existing one, to modify a study or to delete a study.

Filling the data: A series of pages request information regarding the different categories to be analysed. For the City Blueprint these categories are Water Quality, Solid Waste Treatment, Basic Water Services, Waste Water Treatment, Infrastructure, Climate Robustness and Governance. While the categories are Energy, transport and ICT for the City Amberprint package. Each indicator, 25 and 22 for Blueprint and Amberprint respectively, are described and the user is expected to enter the relevant information in the box provided. The user may then save the information or save and continue with the next indicator. Each indicator is calculated as soon as the information in provided in the same pages.

Validate the data: In order to be able to have external use of the indicators, data must be validated by experts as defined in the terms of use. This step can only be taken by authorised organizations.


Summary: In the Summary appears at the top of the page a number of general statistics concerning the city in question which the user will have supplied at the beginning of the creation of the study. Below appears a report reflecting the numerical values of all the indicators which the user has answered. At the bottom of the same page, the resulting graph or City Blueprint/Amberprint can be observed.

Final report: By clicking on the ‘Report’ button the user can generate a Preliminary City Blueprint for their own private, non-commercial use. Once the analysis of the city in question has been validated by the BlueSCities’ experts, the user can generate a PDF report and compare their data to the benchmark consisting of the anonymous data of other municipalities according to different criteria such as Country, Population, Land Area, Population Density, GDP per capita and Climatic Zone.


4 Water and Waste Management Best Practices (to improve the indicators)

Rapid urbanization, climate change, and the inadequate maintenance of water and waste infrastructures in cities may lead to flooding, water scarcity, water pollution, adverse health effects, and rehabilitation costs that may overwhelm the resilience of cities. These megatrends pose urgent challenges in cities as the cost of inaction is high. The best practices here described can really increase the performance of current Urban Water Cycle Services (UWCS) and improve the resilience of cities.

The availability of new equipment in the utility and encouraging results of its use contribute to the motivation of water professionals in the organization and thus to the overall performance of the utility. Additionally, sufficient knowledge of key characteristics of the physical (and social) water network is an important factor contributing to successful sustainable practices. Furthermore, the embedding of a coherent long-term strategy and vision contributes to the success of sustainable practices. In fact, cities face many diverse challenges and need to start investing in adaptation measures based on a long-term vision and strategy and by sharing best practices. The longer political leaders wait, the more expensive adaptation will become and the more the danger to citizens and the economy will increase.

To tackle the challenges of water in the city it is necessary to take numerous aspects, interests and actors into account. These can be brought together under the heading of water governance. Good governance is the real challenge. Governance is the range of political, institutional and administrative rules, practices and processes (formal and informal) through which decisions are taken and implemented, stakeholders can articulate their interests and have their concerns considered, and decision-makers are held accountable for management.

The wide variation in the way cities deal with their water, waste water, and solid waste and climate adaptation issues offers key insights for improving their resilience and sustainability. These challenges are all too often not adopted, because people are waiting for new technological breakthroughs and fail to make use of existing knowledge and technologies. Therefore, there are probably two necessary steps to make our cities more sustainable and resilient:

1. Cities can learn from each other, provided they make that knowledge available and actively share it (city-to-city learning).

2. Given the megatrends and challenges in cities, existing technologies may not always suffice. Therefore there will always still be a role for new technologies which could gradually be introduced and for which options should be left open.

Best practices are related to:

BOX 2: Best Practices for Water Demand Management Water Demand Management (WDM) is the implementation of policies or measures that serve to control or influence the amount of water used (UKWIR/EA, 1996). A definition from a social perspective is that WDM is a practical strategy that improves the equitable, efficient and sustainable use of water (Derevill, 2001).

Public awareness The adoption of new strategies for water planning is crucial, especially in the areas where the overexploitation of water can endanger sustainable development. A plan should take into consideration the water resources and its management issues, as well as institutional and regulatory issues. A plan should also increase the level of public awareness concerning

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 water issues including programmes which seek the creation of a water conservation ethic amongst the general population, implemented water-saving technologies to achieve significant savings, and the institutionalization of the processes employed.

Water budget rate Semi-arid climate regions face frequent and prolonged droughts. In a typical policy intervention, state agencies and water utilities respond by either cutting water allocations to users or by dramatically increasing water tariffs, or both. Prolonged droughts have resulted in many cases where water utilities went bankrupt, due to the fact that the conservation impact of their water pricing decreased dramatically the demand for water and the stream of revenue to cover their fixed costs. Motivated by that previously described, water utilities in Southern California have since 1991, pioneered the Water Budget Rate Structure (WBRS), implementing four basic targets of a successful pricing scheme that are revenue sufficiency, economic efficiency, equity and poverty alleviation.

Progressive water tariff structure The Public Utilities Board of Singapore is using a progressive water tariff structure that penalizes inefficient water usage. In addition, the Water Conservation Tax (WCT) that is levied by the Government to reinforce the water conservation message is 30% of the tariff for the first 40 m3/month for domestic consumers and all consumption for non-domestic consumers. However, domestic consumers pay 45%, when their water consumption exceeds 40 m3/month. In other words, there is a financial disincentive for higher water consumption by the households.

Water Metering Metering is also used to implement conservation measures such as pricing and mandatory rationing of water and these cannot be implemented without meters. In addition, meters are also necessary to determine system losses. Excessive leakage within a distribution system and leakage inside buildings are more easily identified if the system is completely metered. Moreover, it is argued that metering, and hence cost is a direct incentive to reduce household consumption. Thus, metering perhaps is more than an indirect conservation measure. Studies of water consumption in Sofia showed that users who installed individual meters consumed about 10% less water than those with common meters. According to the Ministry of the Environment of Finland (2009) water consumption is reduced by 15–20 % when installing meters. The true reduction is dependent on water tariffs and financial benefits from reduced water consumption.

Residential water conservation In response to increasing water demand, water conservation incentives for the residential customers are usually implemented. These incentives include rebates and unit exchange programmes for showerheads, toilets and washing machines. Water conservation practices assist end-users to implement efficiency measures which reduce water demand. The adoption of more than one type of water efficient appliance contributed to additional saving in residential water use.

Pressure control Pressure management, as a means of combating leakage, can be used in most systems whether they are pumped or gravity fed, although the design of the scheme will change dramatically due to different hydraulic patterns. Often the reduction of pressure from one level to another can be a controversial subject, and one which sometimes utility managers

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 prefer to ignore as there is a potential for customer dissatisfaction. Various types of control were deployed and tested, including: “Flow-based dynamic modulation of a hydraulic valve”, “Time-based modulation of a hydraulic valve” and “Fixed outlet hydraulic control” (Burn et al. 1999).

Integrated management Total water-cycle management is the integrated management of all components of the hydrological cycle within urban areas and landscapes and includes water consumption, storm water, wastewater and groundwater to secure a range of benefits for the wider catchment. Melbourne has recently revised the Total Watermark to place it within a city as a catchment context. Within this context, the city implemented a series of actions affecting both the public and private sectors (City of Melbourne, 2009).

Water efficiency In Sydney, Water Efficiency Initiatives in 2010-11 included residential, business and school programmes. These programmes were supported by community education and research and development activities (Sydney Water, 2011). It included (1) residential water efficiency, (2) non-residential water efficiency and (3) water efficiency in schools.

Use of seawater for toilet flushing To secure a sufficient water supply and to reduce the reliance on imported water from Dongjiang (East River) in Mainland China, the government has implemented water conservation measures which include the use of seawater for toilet flushing. The seawater is first filtered by strainers to remove solid particles. It is then disinfected with chlorine or hypochlorite before being pumped to service reservoirs for distribution to consumers. Nearly 80% of the population is now supplied with seawater for flushing. This practice saves energy as seawater is extracted near the consumer centres. Currently, the supply of seawater for flushing is a free service to the community.

Centralized rainwater harvesting Nolde, (2007), presents a novel approach to the collection and reuse of rainwater: He suggests that rainwater draining from the streets and courtyard surfaces could also be reused. This could be a viable option for densely populated urban areas and reduces drinking water consumption and wastewater production. It also minimizes the entry of pollutants into the surface water without the need for a sewer connection. He found that 70% of the toilet-flush demand can be replaced by treated storm water without any comfort loss. Excess water is discharged into surface water. Biological treatment of the rainwater takes place in a planted substrate filter which has been installed in the building.

Low water gardening Smart gardening techniques can be used to reduce significantly the water demand for garden irrigation. For example, in a garden a spaghetti tube water system can be installed and the ground covered with a landscaping fabric. Afterwards the area is mulched with white gravel. Mulching trees and shrubs is a good method to reduce landscape maintenance costs and to keep plants healthy. Mulch helps conserve moisture by achieving a 10 to 25 percent reduction in soil moisture loss from evaporation. Mulches help keep the soil well aerated by reducing soil compaction that results when raindrops hit the soil. They also reduce water runoff and soil erosion (Evans 2000).


BOX 3: Best Practices for Water Reuse and Recycling

Non domestic uses

Wastewater reclamation and reuse Reclaimed water generated in a wastewater treatment plant can be reused for maintaining the ecological flow in neighbouring rivers, irrigating farm areas, supplying additional water to wetlands in the river delta area and for acting as a barrier against seawater intrusion. Water with the quality required for all reuse purposes can be obtained by modifying the existing biological treatment to remove nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) including the construction of a tertiary reclamation facility, which for recharge against seawater intrusion purposes may include a reverse osmosis plant.

Aquifer recharge management Aquifer recharge management may come from the need to develop management strategies for the reliable, sustainable production of water of potable quality sourced from a multisource water system. In more detail, Aquifer Storage, Transfer and Recovery (ASTR) uses separate wells for injection to and recovery from a confined aquifer, rather than the same well for both. This type of managed aquifer recharge ensures a longer minimum residence time for re-charged water than for simple aquifer storage and recovery, thus providing a more consistent treatment barrier for water recycling.

Cooling Water Recirculation The use of water for cooling in industrial applications represents one of the largest water uses in the United States. Water is typically used to cool heat-generating equipment or to condense gases in a thermodynamic cycle. The most water-intensive cooling method employed in industrial applications is once-through cooling, in which water comes into contact with and lowers the temperature of a heat source. It is then discharged. Recycling water with a recirculating cooling system can greatly reduce water use by using the same water to perform several cooling operations. The water savings are sufficiently substantial to result in overall cost savings to the industry.

Rinsing Deionized water contains no ions and industries have used it to ensure the maximum risk reduction of contaminated products. Deionized water can be recycled after its first use, but the treatment for recycling can include many of the processes required to produce deionized water from municipal water. The potential of saving water by recycling spent rinse water from the process lines has been verified. The product water treated using this hybrid process is being recycled for use in plant operation with no detrimental effects. The process is more applicable for reclaiming wastewater containing mainly heavy metals but low in monovalent ions.

Recycling water for industry Water recycling plants can use micro-filtration and reverse-osmosis membrane processes to produce very high quality recycled water, suitable for a range of industrial purposes. Wastewater is screened and settled to remove large solids and grit. Biological treatment uses microorganisms to reduce nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous. The treated wastewater is clarified to further improve quality. Microfiltration uses hollow fibres to remove some fine particles, bacteria and viruses. Reverse osmosis improves the quality of the water

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 by removing viruses, nutrients and dissolved salts at high pressure, employing fine barrier membranes. The recycled water is then disinfected before it is pumped for industrial use.

Domestic uses

Indirect wastewater reuse through infiltration Wastewater can be indirectly reused for groundwater recharge of water catchment after appropriate treatment. The indirect potable reuse scheme is based on a multiple barrier approach. The highly treated water may be introduced into the aquifer through an infiltration pond and recharges the unconfined aquifer. The groundwater is extracted by pumps and treated with existing water treatment plant procedures which comprise aeration and rapid sand filtration. The final product is then supplied to the potable water distribution system. An additional benefit of this methodology is an increase in groundwater levels and the reduction of the risk of sea-water intrusion.

Local greywater recycling Plants for treatment of greywater are adapting Membrane Bio-Reactor (MBR) systems for greywater treatment to the specific conditions required in small cities. Wastewater from kitchen sinks and bathrooms can be cleansed in the treatment procedure. The resulting water can be used for toilet flushing. The system operation is usually stable and can show very high COD elimination rates (more than 90%). Greywater recycling can therefore also involve economic benefits in addition to ecological advantages. Particularly in densely populated cities greywater recycling could be an appropriate method to save water.

Integrated water recycling An integrated water cycle approach to household water supply includes both individual and communal rainwater tanks for potable water supply, a household-scale greywater recycling system and bio retention basins for storm water treatment and discharge. Each household can be equipped with a rainwater tank to supply all household uses, communal tanks to store excess flow from household tanks and to provide an emergency supply for extra household and fire-fighting needs. A float valve and trickle feed from the water mains ensures the supply security. All tank water can be treated through a geotextile filter sock (to prevent leaves and sediment entering the tank), a carbon filter, and a UV disinfection unit for treatment to potable standards. Water supply is pressurised by a submersible pump, triggered automatically when pressure drops below a fixed threshold.

Wastewater use for garden irrigation Policies to reduce potable water consumption from the distribution networks could imply undertakings aimed at encouraging the construction of domestic boreholes for garden irrigation and the connection of a borehole to toilet cisterns for flushing. These can also integrate the installation of domestic grey water recycling systems, and hot water re-circulators. The rationale and underlining policy objective of a Water Service company can reduce demand for distributed drinking water in households (more so if a proportion is derived from desalination) that is too expensive to be used for gardens and toilet flushing, especially during drought periods.

Zero fossil energy development Zero fossil energy development is something of a modern icon in terms of assembling simultaneously on the same site new construction methods, the best of available green technology and social engineering combined with new periurban lifestyles. The related water

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 management strategy is based on a four-fold approach. (i) To reduce the overall consumption of potable water by the installation of water efficient appliances. (ii) To make householders aware of their own water consumption and to be able to monitor it. (iii) To install a rainwater harvesting system by draining surplus water from the slightly arched green roofs. (iv) To install a Living Machine in a greenhouse located in the service building for the purpose of full on-site waste water treatment.

BOX 4: Best Practices for Water and Energy Water utilities face the challenge of being more energy efficient. After manpower, energy is the highest operating cost item for most water and wastewater companies. High energy consumption will affect the water industry world-wide and is inextricably linked to the issue of climate change. Climate change confronts the water sector with the need to optimise energy use and to limit greenhouse gas emissions of their operations (Smith et al. 2009). By doing so, water utilities contribute to the target of the European and national governments for substantial energy reductions in the coming years of up to 40%. In this section some of the European best practices, from drinking water to waste-water treatment and sludge processing, are presented.

Variable frequency drives at a water collection well The application of variable frequency drives at the pumps of a water collection well result in an energy saving of approximately 15-20%. The drinking water collection wells of Grobbendonk are sensitive to clogging, increasing the pumping head by up to 10 metres over the years. Moreover, the groundwater level has a two-metre seasonal variation, and mutual influence on collection between wells can have an effect on the level by approximately 5 metres. Thus, originally the wells were equipped with oversized pumps. To overcome the related energy loss, variable frequency drives have been installed at the low pressure pumps of 11 new wells. Variable frequency drives alter the frequency and voltage of the electrical supply to a motor, and allow speed and torque control without wasting power.

Micro turbines at drinking water treatment plants The installation of 4 micro turbines in a drinking water supply network: 4.5 million kWh/y generated. The drinking water treatment plant of SUPER RIMIEZ is located higher than the customers leading to an excess pressure (>17 bars) at domestic network inlets. Micro turbines installed in the drinking water supply network permit the hydraulic potential energy loss resulting from this hydraulic design being converted into electrical energy.

Energy efficient plate aerators Plate aerators have a higher efficiency compared with conventional fine bubble aeration, resulting in a 25% decrease of energy demand. Due to an increase of the load and stricter effluent standards in the WWTP of Sliedrecht (NL) the aeration capacity had to be extended approximately by 25%. In the advanced design, the extension of aeration was carried out by installing supplemental plate aerators with a high specific OC capacity. Compared to the conventional fine bubble aerators, plate aerators have a much higher efficiency. Compared with surface aerators, the energy efficiency is even higher and furthermore, this type of aeration has lower maintenance costs.

Sludge age depending on temperature Design of activated sludge plants is mainly based on waste water characteristics, effluent standards and the temperature of the waste water. Lower temperatures during winter

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 operations lead to variations in the volume of the aeration tank. A low sludge load at low temperatures is the result of the low growing rates of nitrifying bacteria. Growing rates of the nitrifying elements very much depend on temperature. The total sludge volume in the aeration (and consequently the reduction of the oxygen demand) might be reduced during summer operations. Depending on temperature differences between summer and winter, a 10-15% energy reduction is achievable.

Sharon/Anammox in N-rich sludge water from dewatered digested sludge The oxygen demand and therefore the energy consumption of the Sharon/Anammox treatment process is very low, due to partial oxidation. Introduction of this process in the digester effluent resulted in extra nitrogen removal at an equal energy consumption. In a WWTP where the N-removal is optimal, the introduction of the SHARON/ANAMMOX can achieve a significant reduction of the energy demand.

Energy and economic savings by using biogas for electricity and heat generation Fossil fuel energy required for the sewage and sludge processing was reduced significantly by using the biogas generated during anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge instead of natural gas (around 25%). Using advanced sludge treatment technologies in order to decrease sludge disposal requirements and to reduce the energy consumption may seem controversial, but a project in Spain shows that it can be easily achieved by using biogas as fuel in the process. Energy from sewage sludge allows WWTPs to save energy and therefore contribute to climate change mitigation.

Energy savings using sludge combustion exhaust gases for thermal drying Energy required for sludge processing drops radically after the implementation of heat recovery steps. In fact, nowadays, the process saves up to 90% of the fossil fuels that were previously consumed. Upgrading a wastewater treatment plant with advanced processes to achieve new, strict water quality regulations and save energy may seem paradoxical, but a project in France, illustrates how these facilities can improve their overall energy balance by using sludge and other organic waste as fuel in the process. These two facilities were designed to treat exclusively carbon pollution in order to comply with regulations.

Optimised use of sewage gas with micro gas turbines If a municipal sewage treatment plant carries out sludge digestion, produced sewage gas can be employed as an energy source. The use of sewage gas for power and heat production has become more attractive, particularly since the introduction of guaranteed revenue for electricity fed into the grid within Switzerland in 2008. Micro gas turbines provide an additional technology alongside tried-and-tested thermal power stations. The individual constraints of a plant and its size determine which sewage gas usage concept generates the highest added value. For several decades, sewage gas has been used for the generation of electricity in Switzerland in cogeneration power plants (CPP).


BOX 5: Best Practices for leakage and water loss reduction The main methodology of leak detection is the establishment of District Metered Areas (DMAs) and a following detailed localisation of leaks. This is mostly achieved by searching for leaks with listening equipment or with an acoustic correlator. All of the technologies which are presented below are being used and applied in municipalities and water companies today. They represent therefore, tried and tested methods.

Acoustic techniques for leak localisation There are many sounds generated by pipes such as the noise of water flowing and surrounding factors such as the sound of pumping and street noise. Every distribution system has its own unique acoustic signature that changes from one point in the system to another. It takes time to recognize and understand the various noises that are part of a normal system operation. Acoustical instruments are designed to assist the operator in detecting and identifying those sounds that are most characteristic of a main water loss. Acoustic emission-based techniques can be applied for the proactive condition monitoring of pipelines including corrosion detection, mechanical wearing/thinning of the pipe wall and ageing effects in welds. MEMS (Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems) technologies constitute an affordable option for sensors that has not yet been fully exploited. The main benefits are low power consumption and easy installation.

Listening rod Listening rods are among the simplest and oldest forms of leak detectors in use. A listening rod aids the user to hear the noises that water makes as it is forced from a pipe. The listening rod in its simplest form is a steel rod, approximately one metre in length, with an earpiece at one end to help block out outside noises and to identify and pinpoint the leak by listening directly to the sound generated in sections of the network. Sounds from the water loss site are transmitted through the steel rod to the listener. The method is mostly used in areas with metallic pipes as with this type of material leak noise travels further and can be more easily identified with geophones.

Geophone The ground microphone or geophone is used for surface sounding to pinpoint leakage. It is very useful for leak detection in plastic pipes under a hard surface, losing its efficiency in grass and non-fabricated surfaces. The geophone is a completely mechanical listening device that operates much like the physician’s stethoscope. A set of listening tubes extend from the operator’s ears down to listening-heads placed directly on the ground above the pipe to be evaluated.

Noise loggers Sets of noise loggers help water system managers to reduce and keep the leakages low. When these are used, one noise logger is placed on manholes (at hydrants, valves or house connections) in the zone over a night. When all measuring is finished, the data is imported to a computer where it is analysed and leaks are located. This innovative technology offers the possibility of temporary or continuous, permanent monitoring for leakage for the entire distribution system or just for those parts that are known problem areas. A further step is the automatic cross-correlation analysis between permanently installed loggers.

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Permalog+ Permalog + enables water suppliers to quickly and efficiently locate leaks in the water network. Loggers are deployed in areas of the distribution system to provide continuous monitoring of leakage. Easily installed on pipe fittings, they are retained in place by a strong magnet and are powered by low cost replaceable batteries. When a potential leak is detected, the logger initiates an alarm and transmits a radio signal to indicate a leak condition. Water suppliers can monitor 100% of their distribution system confidently and effectively, enabling leakage to be reduced quickly, and easily maintained at a low level.

District Metered Areas monitoring (DMA) DMAs are often applied in leakage reduction strategies. When using DMAs to monitor the network, the water distribution system is divided into several zones - District Metered Areas (DMA) - according to the topology and topography of the system, and the number of consumers supplied by a pipe on which is installed a flow meter. The DMAs are created by closing valves. The purpose of DMA technology is to control all the inflows and outflows in the area, as well as to monitor the pressure variation during the day, using volumetric methods or the minimum night flow. Only in this way is it possible to control the hydraulic performance of the network and to estimate leakage volume, eventually, determining the location of leaks by step testing or other methods.

Step testing This method consists of the temporary division of the DMA in sub-areas by valve closure inside the DMA, or by the installation of moveable flow meters. This method consists of a progressive valve closure in the direction of an installed flow meter and the measurement of the corresponding flow. The success of step testing requires a well-organised plan for the valve closure and meters which are sensitive to very low flows. It should be applied during the night, so that any significant increase in flow with no apparent cause, points out to the presence of a leak. The testing starts at the end of the system and successively works backwards towards the head of the area where the area meter is located. A comparison of the measured results, coupled with a knowledge of the area, can indicate incidences in the system showing a higher than expected flow rate and one where leak detection is most likely.

Active leakage control When leaks are located they are repaired quickly in order to reduce the amount of lost water. Repair orders are continuously being sent to the repair teams. The leakage reduction strategy can help water system managers to reduce leakage levels.

Pressure management Leakage is closely related to network pressure. When overall pressure is reduced, the same happens to leakage. Pressure control also reduces the frequency of sudden bursts and delays leakage evolution. The investment in measures to reduce pressure in the network are in most cases very efficient with regards to reducing leakage with the subsequent financial savings in water treatment and pumping costs. In cases where it proves to be economically and technically appropriate, the leakage control policy can be complemented with pressure control measures.

GIS Systems for registration of failures and water leaks GIS (Geographic Information Systems) systems are used to store all system and operational and maintenance data about a water or sewer network. The GIS systems contain visual data and an overview of the networks with an integrated database for the whole system. Each

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 pipe in the system is stored with metadata which describes the pipe. The pipes in the GIS database are connected to another database called “diary”, which collects operational data. In the diary every single incident (such as pipe break or repair) with all the necessary information can be registered regarding the specific pipe it has occurred in thus constituting the history of the pipe.

Real-Time Monitoring Systems Real time monitoring systems can be used both for water and wastewater networks. Monitoring within these systems is performed continuously where relevant parameters are measured and monitored while instruments can be accessed and controlled, for example through valve operation. SCADA systems: SCADA stands for Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition. Continuous measurement of water flow in DMAs (District Metering Areas) during the night, linked to a real time monitoring system, makes it possible to implement a decision support tool which allows Minimum Night Flow (MNF) profiles to be analysed, in conjunction with recorded pressure profiles to identify where an intervention with active leakage control is economically justified.

BOX 6: Best Practices for solid waste The European Commission has adopted a circular economy strategy, which includes proposals on waste minimisation, recycling and recovery. The aim is to reduce environmental impacts from the waste sector by minimising waste generation, increasing recycling and recovery, while reducing disposal.

In the European Union's Landfill Directive, Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is defined as waste from households, as well as other waste which, because of its nature or composition, is similar to waste from households. This includes similar waste from sources such as commerces, offices and public institutions.

In Europe, this kind of waste represents approximately 10% of the total. Its composition is diverse and linked to consumer habits. The main fractions are bio-waste (kitchen and garden waste) paper, plastic and glass. The environmental issues related to MSW management are highly visible to citizens.

The European Commission has set a number of targets for the reduction of specified fractions of MSW and obviously, the Commission will also provide instruments in order to help states achieve the ambitious objectives:

• Recycling and preparing for re-use of municipal waste to be increased to 70% by 2030

• Recycling and preparing for reuse of packaging waste to be increased to 80% by 2030, with material-specific targets set to gradually increase between 2020 and 2030 (to reach 90 % for paper by 2025 and 60% for plastics, 80% for wood, 90% of ferrous metal, aluminum and glass by the end of 2030)

• Phasing out landfilling by 2025 for recyclable (including plastics, paper, metals, glass and bio-waste) waste in non-hazardous waste landfills – corresponding to a maximum landfilling rate of 25%

• Measures aimed at reducing food waste generation by 30 % by 2025;

• Introducing an early warning system to anticipate and avoid possible compliance difficulties in Member States

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 • Promoting the dissemination of best practices in all Member States, such as better

use of economic instruments (e.g. landfill/incineration taxes, pay-as-you-throw schemes, incentives for municipalities) and improved separate collection

• Improving traceability of hazardous waste

• Increasing the cost-effectiveness of Extended Producer Responsibility schemes by defining minimum conditions for their operation

• Simplifying reporting obligations and alleviating burdens faced by SMEs

• Improving the reliability of key statistics through harmonised and streamlined calculation of targets

• Improving the overall coherence of waste legislation by aligning definitions and removing obsolete legal requirements

Integrated Waste Management System The developed system, based on the Waste Management Hierarchy, consists of an integrated waste management process concentrated on waste sorting and recycling. It is considered one of the most advanced systems for source separation of household waste and waste-to-energy working together.

In order to minimise the incineration and landfill of waste, different waste management systems are being developed concentrating on the behavioural habits of citizens and their awareness. In consequence, collaboration with different local/regional bodies, voluntary organisations, and awareness raising campaigns and ICT tools are used to implement the strategy.

Waste reduction

Waste reduction includes strategies for eliminating or reducing the amount of materials consumed and waste generated. Education and awareness is increasingly important for waste reduction. Methods of reduction include reuse of products, repairing broken items instead of buying new, designing products to be refillable or reusable, encouraging consumers to avoid using disposable products, and designing products that use less material to achieve the same purpose. Some of the most widely-used concepts of waste reduction include:

• Source reduction – refers to any change in the design, manufacture, purchase, or use of materials or products to reduce all waste streams connected with a specific product or service.

• Extended Producer Responsibility – a strategy designed to promote the integration of all costs associated with products throughout their life cycle into the market price of the product (including end-of-life disposal costs). The producers/importers are required to take care of the waste management of their products.

• Polluter Pays Principle – a principle where the polluting party pays for the impact caused to the environment. This generally refers to the requirement for a waste generator to pay for appropriate disposal of the waste.

Reuse

Reuse is to use an item more than once. This includes conventional reuse where the item is used again for the same function, and new-life reuse where it is used for a new function. (In contrast, recycling is the breaking down of the used item into raw materials.) By taking useful products and exchanging them, without reprocessing, reuse help us save time, money, energy and resources.

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Sorting and Separation

Separation of waste materials can be done either as source separation carried out manually on-site, or as mechanical separation based on different physical properties of the waste, such as magnetic properties, density, size, and optical properties (often additional manual pre-separation is needed). Site sorting improves the quality of the waste fractions and increases the recycling rate, but also increases the need for collection infrastructure. Mechanical separation reduces the number of waste fractions, the infrastructure, and increased transport demand associated, but the recovered material is not as clean as it would be when source separated.

Collection

There are alternative MSW collection systems commonly in use; door-to-door collection, bring systems, and civic amenity sites. All collection systems work for mixed fractions, co-mingled fractions and sorted fractions. It is common to combine several collection systems, offering door-to-door collection of some fractions and bring systems and civic amenity sites for other fractions, as well as different systems for urban/rural and single family/apartment buildings. The door-to-door collection is commonly done by collection vehicles, but automated collection systems, based on underground vacuum networks, are popular in e.g. eco-friendly neighborhoods.

Vacuum waste collection systems controlled by ICT The vacuum waste collection system is a practical case where innovative ICT technologies have a great impact on social processes as well as the transport system. Basically, the technology uses airflow to transport waste through pipes towards a centralized collection site. Having arrived, waste is separated, compacted and packed into containers. Waste inlets are close to the access points (1.5 meters from surface level) and connected to the pipeline network. The pipes have a diameter of 50cm and transport the waste to the collection point employing 2 km waste inlets. It is possible to collect all waste of a specific fraction from the collection points in only 30 seconds. Fans can create vacuum conditions that transport waste at a speed of 70 km/h to the joining facility and can redirect the waste to the corresponding container. Finally, the air is completely cleaned with a filter system before it is emitted.

Waste collection routing optimisation Many regions in southern Europe experience similar problems concerning waste collection. The final objective of a new optimised system is the minimisation of the collection time, distance travelled and the labour-effort. Consequently, a new system aims to produce a financial and environmental impact reduction. The key point to perform it is the replacement and relocation of the existing small bins with a reduced number of standardised larger ones (1100 L). The implemented solution is based on data collection and interconnection with analytical tools of GIS software.

Sensors on trash and recycling bins ICT technologies are here applied to introduce improvements in waste collection routes. Innovative aspects are the result of data collection. The experience has been developed in Sant Cugat del Vallés (Spain). Waste management has been complemented with an innovative collection system (MOBA). Through volumetric sensors, the filling level can instantly be determined in both external and underground waste containers. In this manner, collection routes and schedules can be optimised immediately. In general, data provided by the antenna installed in trucks that recover information from containers can be analysed. For example, trucks do not collect containers under 75% of its capacity.

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Recycling

Recycling involves processing waste into new products to prevent disposal of potentially useful materials, aiming to reduce the consumption of virgin raw materials and related environmental impacts. Recycling is a key component of modern waste management. The aim of recycling is to produce a fresh supply of the same material to be used for similar purposes, but this is often difficult or too expensive, and the recovered material is of less value. It is commonly called down cycling when the recovered material cannot be used for the production of a similar product.

Recycling bio waste and WWTP sludge

Bio waste can be recycled using biological composting and/or digestion processes to decompose the organic matter, which then can be used for landscaping purposes (and sometimes in agriculture). In addition, methane gas from the anaerobic digestion process can be captured and used as a fuel. Ethanol can be produced by fermentation of sugar or starch crops. The major problem with the fermentation of bio waste into alcohol fuels is the diverse characteristics of the bio waste; different types of carbohydrates need different fermentation processes. Moreover, collection and transport of the waste to the bioethanol plant requires an important investment.

Biogas from waste for public transport The standard technology for bio-waste treatment is anaerobic digestion, producing biogas. This method is especially applied to sludge from wastewater treatment plants. Biogas is considered a valuable resource, which can be upgraded from a biofuel for (internally used) heating and power and vehicle fuel. This approach requires investment in gas upgradation and a new business model for its sales. The first applications have been in Sweden with the objective to develop locally produced biogas to meet the biofuel requirements to run biogas buses. Co-digestion with other wastes and nonfood crops (grass) enables significantly larger biogas production justifying the investment in an upgradation plant. For instance in Örebro, Sweden, biogas production was quadrupled with a new codigestion plant which became the biggest in Sweden. At this plant, crop based raw materials are transformed into fuel for all of the inner city buses in Örebro and for a growing regional bio-methane market.

Waste Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) The ArrowBio process is a waste treatment process for Municipal Solid Waste that unlike other similar processes uses the water content of the waste to permit its gravitational separation, transportation and digestion. In consequence, all the steps of the process are conducted in wet conditions. It recovers, recycles and produces renewable energy while also helping to reduce carbon emissions. The process can be divided in two phases:

1. Water based separation and organic pre-treatment.

2. Anaerobic digestion, water cleaning and energy generation.

Material recycling Material recycling. Scrap metals, paper and cardboard can be recycled to be used similarly to virgin raw materials. Glass is commonly recycled as insulation (glass wool) used in construction. Plastic is recycled either to become new raw materials or down cycled and used as material for flower pots and plastic profiles (substituting wood in e.g. verandahs). Only PET plastic waste fractions from deposit return systems can be sufficiently homogeneous to be recycled into new plastic bottles or used in textiles instead of virgin PET.

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Energy recovery Energy recovery is the process of creating energy in the form of electricity and/or heat. Most WtE processes produce electricity directly through combustion, or produce a refuse derived fuel (RDF), which can be stored and transported for incineration. Mechanical sorting is the easiest technology for RDF production, other non-thermal technologies are anaerobic digestion (produces biogas), fermentation (produces ethanol and hydrogen) and esterification (produces biodiesel). Thermal technologies are e.g. gasification (produces combustible gas, hydrogen, synthetic fuels), and pyrolysis (produces combustible tar/bio oil).

Automated Biological Reactor The waste treatment process by an Automated Biological Reactor is considered a best practice case due to the high waste recovery rate achieved and the important reduction in the amount of biological fraction being landfilled. The main objective is to reduce the amount of biodegradable wastes landfilled by turning them into high quality compost or Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) which have an application in the local and international market. In a first step, the organic fraction is separated from the total waste and afterwards, it is processed and stabilized under aerobic conditions in enclosed ventilated reactors to produce high quality compost. Part of the compost produced is sold as a fertilizer while the rest is used as coating material.


5 Gaps to be filled and recommendations to integrate water and waste in the Smart Cities Framework

5.1 The integration of water and waste in EU policy and legislation – a trend in the right direction

There are a number of EU directives, regulations and policy documents relevant to water, and waste management in cities. This section reviews to what extent they require or encourage an integrated approach, identifying gaps and opportunities for future amendments or replacements. We also consider the integration of energy, which has potentially strong links to both water and waste.

The documents reviewed are presented, and discussed in time order of their year of publication. Although this gives a random flow in terms of subject, it helps show the tendency to move from a single-subject approach to a more integrated multi-sector one. This in turn reflects the evolution in EU policy approach towards supporting the concept of the circular economy and smart cities, and promotion of synergies across sectors to avoid conflicts and inconsistencies. Examples include:

- Earlier directives focused on ‘fixing’ individual problems according to their priority. The trend is to a modern approach to sustainability, which highlights that all aspects of society and the natural environment are interdependent.

- We see a move from problem solving to problem prevention. In particular, earlier approaches to waste and wastewater present them principally as a threat, and not as a resource to support a circular economy.

- The trend is away from specific controls and requirements towards improved governance (which implies flexibility), stakeholder engagement and community participation.

More coordinated policies enable the identification of potential problems at an earlier stage and reduces the consequences of isolated policy development.

Improved coordination between national and local level (where policies are actually applied) is important. The Water Framework Directive, Waste Framework Directive and Renewable Energy Directive are the best examples of establishing an improved governance and stakeholder engagement approach to support such coordination, establishing a model for new or amended directives to follow.

The following are assessments of specific legislation and their approach (or lack of) to sector integration.

5.1.1 Sewage sludge directive (1986) Sludge is presented more as a threat than a resource with the focus on protecting soil, vegetation, animals and humans from pollution and health risks. Nutrients are only mentioned in the sense they are a component of the sludge – both positive for plants, and negative in terms of pollution risk. No reference is made to the potential to extract nutrients as a separate resource

Sector integration: Minimal reference

Gaps: Apart from its direct use as fertiliser, there is no reference to the potential use of sludge as a resource, for example for nutrients extraction or energy.


Opportunities: Emphasise the potential role of sludge as a resource. Emphasise sector integration and sustainability. For example, efficient waste and wastewater management in the industrial and domestic sectors will reduce the volumes of sludge.

5.1.2 Urban wastewater treatment directive (1991) The directive is focused on responsible waste management to protect the natural environment from wastewater related pollution. Reference to sector integration is very limited. Some integration is implicit in the sense that wastewater arises from many sectors, including domestic. Wastewater is presented more as a threat than resource, although some progress is made, for example:

⁻ Treated waste water shall be reused whenever appropriate. (Art. 12) ⁻ Sludge arising from wastewater treatment shall be re-used whenever appropriate (Art.

14).

Urban areas are assumed to be a major source of wastewater, and therefore poor urban water management is a threat to the natural and water environment.

Sector integration: Limited.

Gaps: No mention is made of wastewater as a resource.

Opportunities: To highlight that wastewater can be a resource for energy, nutrients and reducing the demand on water resources through recycling. Wastewater is not a ‘problem’ but an inevitable and integrated part of the urban water cycle.

5.1.3 Drinking water directive (1991 with important amendment in 2015)

The original (DWD) Drinking Water Directive (1998) is fully focused on defining the quality of water for human consumption, and includes no reference to other sectors or how actions in other sectors could impact on drinking water quality. It states that keeping surface and groundwater sources clean is important, but also accepts that the same goals can be achieved through water treatment (Preamble, 8).

An important change in approach is introduced through the 2015 amending directive. This introduces the water safety plan approach as previously adopted by the WHO Drinking Water Guidelines in 2005. A water safety plan approach stresses the principal of prevention rather than cure. More attention should be applied to protecting raw water resources (surface and groundwater) and the distribution network, from pollution, and to thus reduce the dependence on water treatment. By implication, this requires an integrated approach to water management, taking into account the impacts of other sectors on water quality.

Sector integration: Limited, but implicit, where a water safety plan approach is applied.

Gaps: No explicit mention that other sectors (including waste and energy) can have an impact on drinking water quality, from either a negative or positive aspect.

Opportunities: Build on the water safety plan approach to further highlight how the activities of other sectors, around the raw water source, and along the delivery infrastructure, can impact on the risk to drinking water quality. Protecting raw water sources is better for the natural environment and biodiversity. It can reduce costs (eg. of water quality monitoring and

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 treatment), and reduce risks to human health, including those from water treatment and disinfection by-products.

5.1.4 Landfill Directive (1999) As with earlier waste-related directives, landfilling is presented principally as a threat. The main aim is to prevent or reduce negative impacts on the natural environment, in particular pollution of surface water, groundwater, soil and air. It includes detailed requirements – for example, through landfill design – in an annex.

An integrated approach is partly addressed in the requirement to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill (Art 5.1), including the use of recycling, composting, biogas production and materials/energy recovery.

Sector integration: Limited to a requirement to reduce non-biodegradable waste (but not all waste), and to prevent pollution from landfill activities.

Gaps: There is an absence of requirement to reduce all forms of waste going to landfill, and of the potential role of waste management in the circular economy. There is no mention of the potential to extract energy from landfill gas (typically 50 % methane), although this is already a well-established benefit carried out at many landfill sites. However, EU waste management policy, as set out in the Waste Framework Directive (2008, see below), puts landfilling (along with incineration without energy recovery) as a last resort on the waste hierarchy after prevention, reuse, recycling and recovery.

Opportunities: To re-enforce the principles of the Waste Framework Directive, that landfilling should be seen as a last resort after prevention, reuse, recycling and recovery of waste. Where landfilling is used, then energy recovery should be promoted.

5.1.5 Waste Incineration Directive (2000) As for other waste-related directives, the principle focus of the Directive is “to prevent or to limit as far as practicable negative effects on the environment, in particular pollution by emissions into air, soil, surface water and groundwater, and the resulting risks to human health, from the incineration and co-incineration of waste”.

On the constructive side, it requires that the heat generated during waste incineration is recovered as far as practicable e.g. through combined heat and power, the generating of process steam or district heating (Art 4.2 (b), Art 6.6).

Sector integration: Promotes the recovery of energy and heat for beneficial use, and includes a requirement to protect water bodies from pollution.

Gaps: Apart from the above examples, there are no other references to sector integration.

Opportunities: To link waste incineration to a circular economy approach. Waste incineration should be part of a wider waste management programme, for example to reduce waste creation in the first place, and to first find other ways to re-use or recycle waste.


5.1.6 Water framework directive (2000) The Water Framework Directive (WFD) provides some encouragement towards sector integration, but no specific requirements. It contains minimal reference to the urban environment, mainly related to the issue of urban pollution on water.

This directive is perhaps the first to make a direct reference to an integrated multi-sector approach, but with little additional substance:

Further integration of protection and sustainable management of water into other Community policy areas such as energy, transport, agriculture, fisheries, regional policy and tourism is necessary. This Directive should provide a basis for a continued dialogue and for the development of strategies towards a further integration of policy areas. (Paragraph 16 of preamble).

The most important achievement of the WFD is to establish a governance model for water resources management and protection. This includes the introduction of River Basin Management Plans. The river basin model establishes the principle that anything that happens across the basin can have an impact on the water environment, in terms of quantity and quality. Good application of WFD principles should mean that sector integration is taken into account.

Sector integration: Limited to stating that different sectors can impact on the water environment with no specific examples. The river basin model is an implicit approach to sector integration.

Gaps: No explicit reference to the fact that other sectors (eg. waste management and energy) can have a direct impact on the water environment in terms of both quantity and quality.

Opportunities: There is a clear opportunity for future revisions of the WFD to make more explicit reference to sector integration. The establishment of the river basin concept provides a highly appropriate foundation for this.

Related policy review by the EU: A Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources (2012).

The EU Commission carried out a detailed review of the content and progress of implementation of the WFD. The review identified gaps and made recommendations for improvements to implementation (not to modifications to the directive itself). It includes some general comments on the need to improve multi-sector integration, but without specific recommendations:

“There is a need for better implementation and increased integration of water policy objectives into other policy areas, such as the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), the Cohesion and Structural Funds and the policies on renewable energy, transport and integrated disaster management.”

“Member States … should make full use of RBMPs that require an integrated approach to managing water resources across policy areas such as agriculture, aquaculture, energy, transport and integrated disaster management.”

5.1.7 Bathing water directive (2006) This takes a similar approach to the drinking water directive in that its focus is on defining, monitoring and protecting water in the interests of human health. It does not take into

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 account what may cause pollution of bathing waters. Its focus is natural surface water bodies used by large numbers of people for bathing.

Sector integration: Limited to a statement that its application should be coordinated with other water-related legislation, such as the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, the Nitrates Directive and the Water Framework Directive. (Preamable, 7).

Gaps: No explicit mention that the quality of bathing waters can be impacted by various sectors.

Opportunities: Protecting bathing water quality is analogous to protecting drinking water quality, (although with less rigorous standards). Therefore, a water safety plan could also be applied (as recently introduced for the Drinking Water Directive), with explicit mention of how land use and activities of various sectors (eg. industry, waste management, agriculture) can impact on bathing water quality. A less direct connection is that access to safe bathing waters makes an important contribution to the health and wellbeing of urban residents.

5.1.8 Floods Directive (2007) The Floods Directive is progressive in explaining that land use and management in the river basin (as defined and established in the Water Framework Directive) can impact on flood risk. In addition to the obvious risks to humans and the natural environment, it stresses the economic impact of damaging floods. It also stresses that other policy initiatives could potentially increase flood risk (Preamble 1, 2, 3, Art.1). Some specific examples:

- In developing policies referring to water and land uses Member States and the Community should consider the potential impacts that such policies might have on flood risks and the management of flood risks. (Preamble, 9)

- Flood risk management plans should focus on prevention, protection and preparedness. With a view to giving rivers more space, they should consider where possible the maintenance and/or restoration of floodplains (Preamble, 14).

- Flood risk management plans may include the promotion of sustainable land use practices… (Art. 7 (3) ).

Sector integration: Emphasis that land use across a river basin can impact on flood risk, and that floods can cause significant economic impact.

Gaps: The focus is on reducing the negative aspects of floods. It does not emphasise that good flood management, through water retention and flood plain inundation can provide positive benefits such as increased groundwater recharge and support to biodiversity.

Opportunities: To build on the existing reference to river basins, and some mention of an integrated approach. Most significantly, there is the opportunity to highlight the positive aspects of good flood management on water resources management and biodiversity.

5.1.9 Waste Framework Directive (2008) The principal aim of the Directive is to prevent or reduce the negative impacts of waste on human health and the natural environment. However, representing an important step forward in waste management, it goes beyond just the impacts of waste itself, but includes requirements to aim to reduce waste generation in the first place.


The Directive introduces and defines a waste hierarchy (Art 4), making a powerful contribution to the circular economy principles. The waste hierarchy is:

1. prevention, 2. re-use, 3. recycling, 4. recovery (eg. energy recovery), 5. disposal (eg. landfill, incineration without energy recovery). Member States must take

measures to encourage the options with the best overall environmental outcome, which may include departure from the hierarchy if justified by life-cycle thinking (Art 4.2).

Development of waste legislation and policy must be a fully transparent process, observing

National rules on consultation, citizen participation and stakeholder engagement (Art 4.2 and Art. 31). Waste reduction is, in effect, encouraged by defining ways that waste can be reclassified as ‘not waste’ when it is used as a resource or other beneficial purpose (eg. relocation of sediments within water courses to aid flood protection and management).

Sector integration: The Directive makes some links to energy, through energy recovery from incineration and biogas. It also makes a valuable contribution to promoting the circular economy principles by encouraging the re-use, recycling and recovery of waste as a priority to disposal.

Gaps: It is quite a comprehensive Directive, which probably goes as far as it reasonably could on sector integration.

Opportunities: Like the Renewable Energy Directive (below), this Directive provides a good model for policy integration and promotion of a circular economy.

5.1.10 Renewable energy directive (2009) Of all the directives reviewed, the Renewable Energy Directive is the most advanced in terms of promoting sector integration and taking negative impacts on the natural and water environment into account. It gives a strong indication this is the way forward for future Directives (or amendments of existing ones). Some examples:

Connecting sectors:

- The use of energy efficiency technologies and the use of energy from renewable sources in transport are some of the most effective tools [to] reduce dependence on imported oil in the transport sector (Preamble, 2);

- The use of agricultural material such as manure, slurry and other animal and organic waste for biogas production has …significant environmental advantages. (Preamble, 12);

- It will be incumbent upon Member States to make significant improvements in energy efficiency in all sectors in order more easily to achieve their targets for producing energy from renewable sources (Preamble, 18);

- The Community and the Member States should strive to reduce total consumption of energy in transport and increase energy efficiency in transport. (Preamble, 28);

- Passive energy systems use building design to harness energy. This is considered to be saved energy. (Preamble, 32);


- Planning rules and guidelines should be adapted to take into consideration cost-effective and environmentally beneficial renewable heating and cooling and electricity equipment. (Preamble, 41);

- There is a need to ensure that architects and planners properly consider an optimal combination of renewable energy sources and high-efficiency technologies in their plans and designs. (Preamble, 51).

In a progressive approach, the Directive also promotes citizen participation and influence:

- In order to stimulate the contribution by individual citizens to the objectives set out in this Directive, the relevant authorities should consider the possibility of replacing authorisations by simple notifications to the competent body when installing small decentralised devices for producing energy from renewable sources. (Preamble, 43);

- Member States should be able to require electricity suppliers [to] disclose their energy mix to final customers [ie. to encourage consumer choice, and to enable individual citizens to influence the growth in renewable energy] (Preamble, 53).

As for many other Directives, negative environmental impacts are taken into account, but more broadly than usual:

- Where biofuels and bio liquids (liquid biofuels) are made from raw material … they should comply with environmental requirements for agriculture, including those concerning the protection of groundwater and surface water quality… (Preamble, 74);

- The Commission should take due account of … those areas that provide basic ecosystem services in critical situations such as watershed protection and erosion control. (Preamble, 77);

- It is appropriate to monitor the impact of biomass cultivation, such as through land-use changes, including displacement, the introduction of invasive alien species and other effects on biodiversity, and effects on food production and local prosperity... (Preamble, 78);

- Reference to: the conservation of areas that provide, in critical situations, basic ecosystem services (such as watershed protection and erosion control), for soil, water and air protection, the restoration of degraded land, the avoidance of excessive water consumption in areas where water is scarce… (Art 18.4).

The Directive is mainly focused on the use of renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It does not emphasise the potential benefit of reducing conventional air, soil and water pollution.

Sector integration: More than most other directives, it emphasises the need for a multi-sector and multi-stakeholder approach, including opportunities for citizens to influence the take-up of renewable energy. It mentions waste as an energy resource. It mentions the contribution to a green economy and related employment. It does not represent a perfect model, but creates a precedent for integration and consideration of wider issues and impacts of actions a directive intends to promote.

Gaps: The focus is on reducing GHG’s. Apart from mention of contributing to the green economy, there is limited mention of other potential benefits of renewable energy, such as reducing conventional air, soil and water pollution, or on the general benefits of conserving conventional energy resources.


Opportunities: This directive forms the basis of a model that others could imitate. That is, to provide an approach that looks beyond the principal focus of the directive, to address the wider benefits of the required or promoted actions, to take account of negative impacts and to promote citizen participation. For this specific directive, the opportunities are to promote the wider benefits of renewable energy, such as reducing conventional pollution, and its role in the circular economy.

5.1.11 Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy (EU Commission Communication, 2015)

This document sets out a vision for a circular economy in Europe. Its focus is, in effect, on reducing waste through efficiency, re-use and recycling.

⁻ The transition to a more circular economy, where the value of products, materials and resources is maintained in the economy for as long as possible, and the generation of waste minimised, is an essential contribution to the EU's efforts to develop a sustainable, low carbon, resource efficient and competitive economy.

⁻ The circular economy will boost competitiveness by protecting businesses against scarcity of resources … it will save energy and help avoid the irreversible damages caused by using up resources at a rate that exceeds the Earth's capacity to renew them.

Through a progressive approach, it includes consideration of product design, production processes, promoting ‘green’ consumption, re-use and recycling of goods and materials, and re-enforcing the waste hierarchy approach introduced in the Waste Framework Directive.

In the context of Smart Cities

Many directives and regulations exist regarding Smart Cities concept, such as waste, energy, transport, water and ICT. European policies have evolved over time from single sector and “fixing “ individual problems to a multi sector/multi-stakeholder approach taking progressively more into account: sustainability, prevention and the circular economy concept. The notions of waste and wastewater have therefore changed from being considered as a “threat” into being considered more as a resource. However, policies remain mainly sector-specific and each resource/sector under the responsibility of different political bodies (energy by Directorate General (DG) ENER, environment by DG ENV, mobility and transport by DG MOVE and ICT by DG CNECT).

However, directives and regulation could evolve to more comprehensively support the Smart Cities concept, to develop synergies and align across sectors to avoid incoherencies and inconsistencies. Moreover, developing more coordinated policies will enable the identification of potential problems at an early stage and reduce the consequences of isolated policy development. A better coordination between national level, where policies and regulations are decided, and the local level where they are implemented, would constitute a major step forward as well.

Many other European directives exist concerning sectors and areas of Smart Cities concept. Table 5.1 gives a short description of them. They can also be linked with the Business analysis approach and applicable models (See Section 5.3):

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Table 5.1 EU regulatory and policy documents relating to the Smart Cities concept

Name of directive Sector

Directive 97/640/EC Basel Convention on the transfer and disposal of dangerous waste

Waste and Transport

Directive 2015/720 Reducing the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags in the EU

Waste - Consumption phase (see Section X p X)

Directive 2012/19/EU Electrical and electronic devices Waste

Directive 2006/66/EC Batteries and accumulators Waste and Transport

Directive 2005/64/EC Recycling and recovery of vehicle parts and materials

Waste and Transport

Directive 94/62/EC Packaging and packaging waste Waste - Consumption phase (see Section X p X)

Directive 2000/53/EC End of life vehicles Waste and Transport

Directive 2003/55/EC Internal market for natural gas Energy

Directive 2012/27/UE Energy Efficiency Directive Energy

Directive 2002/91/EC Energy Performance of Buildings Directive

Energy and Consumption phase (see Section X p X)

Energy Labelling Directive

Directive 2009/125/EC Eco Design Directive Energy and Consumption phase (see Section X p X)

Directive 2002/20/EC/Directive 2002/19/EC/ Directive 2002/22/EC/ Directive 2002/58/EC

Regulatory framework for electronic communications.

ICT

Directive 2000/31/EC Electronic Commerce Directive ICT

Data Protection Regulation/Directives

ICT

Directive 2002/58/CE Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications (or e-Privacy directive)

ICT

Directive 93/83/EEC Satellite and Cable Directive ICT

Network and Information Security Directive

ICT


Figure 5.1: Evolution of the approach of European directives


5.2 Technical aspects Water protection and management are important at both national and international levels. For a sustainable environment, integrated water and waste management strategies should be developed and applied. Legislative regulations related to integrated water and waste are helpful to protect and manage drinking water, wastewater and solid waste. Within this context, City Blueprint Indicators provide a baseline assessment for the sustainability of water and waste aspects. The City Blueprint process aims to promote best practices by stimulating the sharing of knowledge and experiences. This can be described as a city learning alliance or as city-to-city learning. Thus, the gaps, which should be filled, can be determined for all cities or countries by using City Blueprint Indicators besides other evaluation models. After evaluation of the scores obtained, the highest score per indicator provides a clear indication of the more significant impacts when cities share experiences, and start to develop a vision and a strategy. Therefore, it will be helpful to transfer experience, information, knowledge and procedural interaction between the integrated water and waste sectors. Integrated water and waste analysis tools may offer a wide spectrum of valuable information. And sharing of this information is important between the cities or countries.

Helsinki constitutes a good example for integrated water and waste management by having a single unit, the Helsinki Area Environmental Service (HSY), responsible for both water services and waste management and providing regional and environmental information. Moreover, based on extensive biogas production and landfill gas collection and utilisation, HSY is producing more energy than is needed in its waste and water management operations.

Integrated water management links all aspects, which affect the water cycle, to maximise social, environmental and economic outcomes. Rather than isolating water from other systems such as waste or energy, considering the linkage between these systems helps us develop sustainable and long term solutions. Integrated water management has many advantages in terms of the natural environment, liveability, the economy, affordability and long-term resilience.

The following examples are given (http://www.melbournewater.com.au/whatwedo/Liveability-and-environment/Pages/Alternative-water-sources.aspx):

Environment – leaving more water for healthy river flows and reducing stormwater pollution and contaminant transport

Liveability – creating green open spaces, reducing the heat island effect and minimising flood risk

Economy – supporting industry and agriculture

Affordability – reducing costs over the long run

Long-term resilience – diversifying water sources for resistance to future shocks like droughts and floods

Integrated solid waste management (ISWM) comprises activities of waste prevention, recycling and composting, and combustion and disposal in properly designed, constructed, and managed landfills. ISWM considers preventing, recycling and managing solid waste in ways that most effectively protect human health and the environment. One can select and combine the most appropriate waste management activities by evaluating local needs and conditions. Each activity is done by careful planning, financing, collection, and transport (https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/overview.pdf).


5.2.1 Gaps City Blueprint Indicators have been developed for the purpose of enhancing the transition towards water wise cities and having an internationally standardized framework for Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). As part of the BlueSCities project, City Blueprint Indicators of 45 cities are executed and reported (Koop and Van Leeuwen, 2015). Based on the evaluation of the City Blueprint of these 45 cities, the following gaps and insufficient coverage of integrated water and waste are identified:

Access to sanitation facilities is insufficient.

Cities have insufficient basic water and waste services.

Access to potable drinking water of sufficient quality is lacking.

Water leakages are high due to serious infrastructure investment deficits.

For some geographical locations, flood risk is relatively high and the relevant precautions are missing.

Only primary and a small portion of secondary wastewater treatments (WWT) are applied leading to large scale water pollution. Tertiary WWT is very limited in many cities.

Urban heat island effect and drainage-derived flooding occur due to poor adaptation strategies, lack of stormwater separation and limited green to built surface area ratios.

While energy recovery from WWT is relatively high, nutrient recovery is limited.

Water consumption and infrastructure leakages are high due to the lack of environmental awareness and infrastructure maintenance.

Basic water services cannot be expanded or improved due to rapid urbanization.

In some cities, solid waste production is relatively low but is only partially collected and, if collected, almost exclusively put in landfills. In the rest of the cities, solid waste production is high and waste is almost entirely dumped in landfills.

Solid waste recycling and energy recovery are partially applied in some cities.

5.2.2 Other gaps identified Integration of concepts. In many municipalities the waste and water sectors are run by separate entities with little or no internal cooperation. In order to integrate these fields there must be cooperation on institutional level.

Water and Energy. Water heating is the most energy consuming activity of the water management sector. Commonly when using hot water in households, the wastewater retains a significant portion of its initial heat energy. Warm water consumption minimization can be executed through water saving measures, such as installation of water saving fixtures, but there is also a need for technologies for heat recovery from the wastewater.

Recycling efficiency. Sometimes (due to technical or financial restrictions) recycling can only salvage certain materials from complex products, either due to their intrinsic value, or due to their hazardous nature. Especially for used batteries and WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment), current separation technologies target certain materials, reducing the value or eliminating the recovering possibilities of other materials. New technology solutions are needed for enabling a more holistic recovery of these waste streams.

Plastic recycling. Plastic is a heterogeneous waste stream, although the recovered material should be very homogeneous to reach high quality. Currently, the poor quality of separated materials reduces their value and prevents utilisation and recycling. The main problem is identification and separation of different plastic types including black and dark plastics, as well as contaminants, such as chlorine, flame retardants and heavy metals. Currently

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 packaging plastics are mainly down-cycled to plastic profiles for construction or to flower pots.

Biowaste recycling. Biowaste originating both from households (e.g. food waste) and from wastewater treatment plants has proven quite difficult to recycle. Commonly the waste is first sent to a digestion plant to extract biogas, commonly doe use as fuel. The digestate is then composted, after which it can be used in landscaping. However, in many European countries it has proven difficult to find takers for the compost. Therefore incineration of biowaste, digestate and compost has been favoured, as the only alternative is landfilling which is strongly advised against by EU policies (e.g. landfill directive, circular economy strategies).

Nutrient recycling. The sludge and digestate from WWTPs is very rich in nutrients (N, P). In particular, the recovery of phosphorous, which has restricted global supplies and is of great importance in agriculture, is of great interest. In the WWTP a chemical is added to react with the phosphorous forming phosphate sludge; suitable chemicals are iron, aluminium and calcium based compounds. The most commonly used floccing chemical (to combine fine suspended particles into larger ones that will settle out) is ferrous sulphate. The phosphorous binds very strongly to iron, a bound that is later very hard to brake. There is currently no technology for extracting the phosphorous from the iron, which is both applicable large scale and economically feasible.

Identification, separation, and quality monitoring of municipal solid waste (MSW). The separation of valuable materials is becoming more important both due to increasing recovery targets and to the growing recycling business and the increased value of recovered materials. Currently, the poor quality of separated materials reduces their value and prevents utilisation and recycling. One of the challenges is that most of the current optical detection methods are hampered by contaminations or visual obstructions. Development of identification and quality monitoring technologies would enable higher standard materials with increased utilisation opportunities.

5.2.3 Recommendations Integration of sectors

Integration of water and waste management institutions enables complementary and common use of in-house services. Thus, services that otherwise have to be bought from an external party are now easily available and in many cases cheaper due to economy of scale and combining of resources. One example is the co-treatment of residue sludge from drinking water treatment with wastewater digestate and other bio-wastes. Liquids arising from bio waste treatment are again treated at the WWTP.

Watershed Management

Water quality monitoring. Besides standards for drinking water, there are also standards for the safety of human contact, and for the health of ecosystems. Water quality can be assessed through the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of water, of which the first two can be integrated to an automated monitoring system with data processing and warning systems.

Storm water management - sustainable urban hydrology. Urban structures affect the hydrology due to increased non-permeable surfaces and sub-surface drainage. Thus, rain water will not infiltrate and the ground water table will fall. This will lead to diminished aquifers (e.g. for potable water demands), increased watering demands and increased risks for flooding in case of heavy precipitation. By decreasing paved surfaces and increasing use of permeable pavements, a more natural urban hydrology can be achieved.

Water resources management. An early warning system with the aid of satellite remote sensing and local sensor networks, which provides timely and quantitative knowledge to monitor the quality of water, may be a solution to the grand challenge in water resources

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 management (Chang and Imen 2015). Such an early warning system can empower the urban water infrastructure systems with the integration of advanced data science, environmental monitoring, computational intelligence, and satellite remote sensing data.

SOLUTIONS is a European Union Seventh Framework Programme Project (EU-FP7: 2013-2018) which aims at delivering a conceptual framework to support the evidence-based development of environmental policies with regard to water quality. SOLUTIONS will develop the tools for the identification, prioritisation and assessment of those water contaminants that may pose a risk to ecosystems and human health (Brack et al. 2015).

WMS is a Watershed Modeling System software which involves GIS tools, web-based data acquisition tools and terrain data import and editing tools. It has the capability of automatic watershed delineation. Storm drain modelling, hydrologic and hydraulic modelling can be done using WMS. Furthermore, floodplain mapping is possible after hydraulic modelling (http://www.aquaveo.com/software/wms-watershed-modeling-system-introduction).

SWMM is the US EPA's Storm Water Management Model. It is used throughout the world for planning, analysis and design related to stormwater runoff, combined and sanitary sewers, and other drainage systems in urban areas. SWMM tracks the flow rate, flow depth, and quality of water in each pipe and channel during a simulation period made up of multiple time steps. SWMM 5 has recently been extended to model the hydrologic performance of specific types of low impact development (LID) controls which include permeable pavement, rain gardens, green roofs, street planters, rain barrels, infiltration trenches and vegetative swales. SWMM can estimate the production of pollutant loads associated with stormwater runoff. Its applications include designing and sizing of drainage system components and detention facilities for flood control, mapping flood plains of natural channel systems, designing control strategies for minimizing combined sewer overflows and evaluating the effectiveness of BMPs (best management practices) for reducing wet weather pollutant loadings (https://www.epa.gov/water-research/storm-water-management-model-swmm).

QUAL2E is an enhanced stream water quality model. It can be operated either as a steady-state or dynamic model for conventional pollutants in branching streams and well mixed lakes. The model can be used to study the impact of waste loads on in-stream water quality. It can also be used to identify the magnitude and quality characteristics of non-point waste loads as part of a field sampling programme. Using QUAL2E, one can model effects of diurnal variations in meteorological data on water quality, primarily dissolved oxygen and temperature and examine diurnal dissolved oxygen variation caused by algal growth and respiration. (http://www.scisoftware.com/environmental_software/product_info.php?products_id=160&sessid=oeilphspbafkatr7ghohfmhae7)

Preserving ground water quality plays also an important role in water management. Helsinki and Istanbul have practices which set good examples for groundwater protection: Groundwater areas are not currently used to supply water for household consumption in Helsinki. Wild landfill areas are converted into the sanitary landfill sites in Istanbul. Therefore, ground water contamination decreases significantly since volume of leachate decreases with this implementation.

Water quality and consumption

Water quality. Drinking water quality should meet the national legislation for quality of water intended for human consumption. Therefore, innovative and cost-effective technologies for improving and monitoring drinking water quality are essential. This practice includes sensors to detect emerging compounds, automation and control systems, and real time monitoring systems. Wider use of ICT in treatment technology will help increase the energy efficiency of water treatment plants and for monitoring groundwater quality. Smarter management of landfills and industrial waste can decrease pollution of groundwater.

Water consumption in households. By installing water saving fixtures and appliances, the water consumption can be reduced without reducing the living standard and convenience.

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Installing water meters in all apartments together with billing based on consumption will reduce water consumption. Alternative water saving solutions for households are, for example (Motiva 2016, Vesiverto 2008):

Water saving taps and showers have a capacity of as little as 4 l/min, while traditional taps use approximately 10–15 l/min, thus reducing this water consumption to a third

Water saving washing machines use less than 60 l/wash, while traditional ones use approximately 120–130 l/wash, thus reducing this water consumption by 50 %.

Dishwashers consume less water than washing by hand; water efficient machines use less than 20 l/wash, while washing by hand can consume approx. 50–150 litres.

Water saving dual flush toilets use 2.5 or 4 l/flush, while traditional ones use approximately 7–15 l/flush; through the installation of water saving toilets the daily water consumption can be reduced to approximately 20 l/cap/day

According to the Ministry of the Environment of Finland (2009) the water consumption is reduced by 15–20 % when installing meters; the change comes from people’s attitudes and habits.

Wastewater treatment

There is a need for an integrated approach in the framework of which outputs from the drainage system model become the input to the waste water treatment plant (WWTP) model Then the quality and quantity of waste water in dry and wet weather periods can be predicted using mathematical simulation models encompassing both the drainage system and the WWTP. For this purpose, Sewer CAD, WMS, EPA SWMM, and QUAL2E can be used to simulate the waste water system.

Sewer CAD is a modelling software for design and analysis of sanitary sewers. Its capabilities include designing sanitary sewers, allocating and estimating sanitary loads, building and managing hydraulic models and simulating gravity and pressure hydraulics. It recommends the most cost-effective pipe sizes and invert elevations, avoiding unnecessary pipe trench excavation, while meeting design restrictions

(https://www.bentley.com/en/products/product-line/hydraulics-and-hydrology-software/sewercad).

Water and Energy

Heat recovery from wastewater. Commonly when using hot water in households, the wastewater retains a significant portion of its initial heat energy. There are two options for wastewater heat recovery; either recovery at the wastewater treatment plant for district heating, or recovery within the building using simple heat exchangers to preheat the cold water. However, it seems there are currently no technology suppliers offering solutions for in-building energy recovery from wastewater.

Water distribution and wastewater collection infrastructure

Inadequate maintenance of water and waste infrastructures in cities may lead to leakage, flooding, water pollution and adverse health effects, as well as high repair costs. For the resilience of the city, it is of great importance to keep the infrastructure in good shape. Special emphasis should be given to the maintenance of the distribution network and the optimisation of operational scheduling.

Traditionally, storm drains were linked to wastewater collection systems. In principal, new sewers should be built separated from stormwater drains so as to avoid overloading and overflowing of the wastewater system at times of heavy rain, which can result in surface water pollution and excessive pressure on WWTPs.

Smart water distribution networks. Leakage can never be fully eliminated, only reduced. Leakage is dependent mainly on the state and maintenance of the network. Smart networks

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 enable the introduction of automatic network surveillance and leaking detection systems, where water towers and booster stations as well as valve grids are remotely monitored and controlled. Such systems ensure leaks are rapidly located, and the water pressure (which influences leakage rates) optimised at all times.

Monitoring of water consumption should be extensively done using automatic meter reading (AMR) applications. AMR applications enable water managers to better know what happens at the point of delivery to the customer in terms of meters, characterizations and related errors, customer profile, correspondence of the meters with the expected delivery flow rate and anomalous measurements. Water demand monitoring enables water managers to also perform better water balance assessments, detecting leaks when minimum night flow increases in the distribution network overtake an alarm threshold.

Detailed analysis and modelling of flow rate and pressure in a distribution network allow better pressure management with pressure reduction valves and pressure metering at the critical point (the most distant and/or highest from the inflow point). Advanced monitoring should be used for analysis and detection of leaks in water transient sources using synchronized high resolution pressure meters including low cost noise loggers feeding on-line correlators supporting the evaluation and localization of real and apparent water losses.

Basic water services. Inline monitoring of water supply using distributed smart sensors should be extended to improve basic water services. For this purpose, conventional and innovative sensors can be used for comparison of measurements and detection of pollutants concentrations. An effective inline monitoring system includes monitoring of water quantity parameters (i.e. flow rates, pressure and water levels in tanks), and water quality parameters (e.g. pH, DO, BOD, COD, nitrogen, phosphorus, residual disinfectant, hardness, ammonia, chlorates).

Solid waste

Best Practices related to solid waste collection should take into account undifferentiated, semi-differentiated, and differentiated components and their potential collection as close as possible to production sites. Special emphasis should be put on increasing education of citizens related to solid waste collection moving towards maximised separation of recyclable fractions. The remaining mixed waste can be incinerated to produce electricity, although the EU trend is to favour recycling of the organic fraction including food waste and sewage sludge may be pursued by future technologies which will be developed and tested by R&D Projects.

Helsinki sets a very good example among cities in terms of waste collection. A door-to-door separate collection system covers all fractions, except plastics. Plastic is not targeted for recycling, but is instead incinerated together with other mixed waste. The door-to-door system is accompanied with public collection centres (except for bio-waste) and civic amenity sites. The city is among the top three best performers with respect to capture rate for metals, paper/cardboard and bio-waste. Further improvement is possible by increasing the effectiveness of glass collection and introducing, as exist in many other countries, separate collection for plastic wastes.

Re-using items instead of discarding them as waste can be facilitated through ICT technology (e.g. apps for mobile phones, web based platforms for second-hand trading). Re-use can be enabled through e.g. reducing the need of ownership by rental services of goods (e.g. cars, power tools and other equipment), by easy access to second-hand shopping. Education and awareness is of great importance for waste reduction activities, including reduction of ownership and second-hand selling/purchasing.

There is a need for improved separation technology in order to increase waste recovery rates and enable utilization of recovered materials, while also reducing the losses and contamination of the sorted waste. The main challenges that need to be addressed are:


• Real-time quality monitoring systems (with online communication systems) for different waste streams.

• The materials produced by source separation practically always contain impurities and further purification steps are needed

• Poor quality of the produced materials due to the insufficient separation of impurities in the current treatment chains

• Large amounts of mixed residues produced in recycling processes • Material losses due to the insufficient separation. • The identification of harmful fractions from energy waste, e.g. treated wood, metals

and PVC, as these fractions cause problems in the incineration process and reduce the utilization possibilities for the ash.

• Separation of the metals from mixed waste. • Identification of different plastic types including black and dark plastics, as well as

contaminants, such as chlorine, flame-retardants and heavy metals.


5.3 Business analysis approach and applicable models

5.3.1 Introduction Smart Cities result from the digital convergence of the sectors of water, waste, energy, transport and ICT (Information and Communications Technology). However, as stated above, the policies on these sectors remain mainly sector specific. The European Smart City strategy has to date focused only on energy, transport and ICT. The sectors of water and waste are surprisingly left aside while their integration would naturally create a sizable high potential to reduce cities’ environmental impact and achieve sustainable management and energy efficiency.

This section aims to improve the integration of water and waste within the framework of Smart Cities by developing a simple and easy analysis relying on the use of business models (BM). Those business models are also applied to a trans-sector value chain. This analysis helps on one hand to identify cross sector integration and on the other, gaps and barriers. Eventually, recommendations are given to adapt regulations and policies and/or facilitate the deployment of solutions for a better cross sector integration.

5.3.2 Business models analysis Implementing synergies and integration of sectors creates new added value and generates new business models to exploit commercially. The business rationale is at the core of the development of any innovation. We have developed five different business models to categorize the different utilities [1].


BM #1 Infrastructure asset management

Infrastructures refer to physical means handling water, energy, transport and waste. It gathers plants (e.g. drinking water plants or power plants) and networks. The BM describes the management of those infrastructures meaning their design, construction, commissioning and maintenance.

BM #2 Infrastructure operators

This BM refers to the use of infrastructures by a party that is not necessarily the owner. The sale of resources transiting through this infrastructure ensures the generation of incomes. This type of BM implies fixed maintenance and operation costs. The pricing of resources, competition and market policies are key parameters of profitability.

BM #3 Management of resource

In this case, the infrastructure is only used to transport a resource (e.g. electricity aggregators use the electrical grid owned by the grid manager to sell electricity to their clients). Resource managers do not own nor operate infrastructure, they only trade the resource through them. It has to provide the resource at the right quality at the best time and price. The design of the resource markets (e.g. pricing regulations or access restrictions) is therefore key.

BM #4 Digital infrastructures

This BM is core to cross sector integration, as digital infrastructures are highly transverse. They gather the development of hardware, middleware, sensors (design, fabrication, and sale) and data management (collection, transmission, storage).

BM #5 Application and software systems

This BM requires the access to digital infrastructures and critical mass of users. It includes the development of software and applications.

Table 5.1: Description of Business Models (BM) (Source: Strane Innovation)

To develop the rationale and analysis of business models, we have categorized and extended to a wider scope than the resource itself (e.g. production, distribution, recycling) the sectors of water, waste, energy and transport (See Table 5.1). The ICT sector is considered transverse to any other sector and is therefore not described in Table 5.1 and Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3.

Sector Scope Type of resources

Water Pumping, transport, storage, treatment, distribution, recycling

Water and wastewater

Waste Collection, treatment, recycling, recovery, redistribution and disposal

Household waste, industrial waste, tertiary waste, wastewater sludge

Energy Production, transport, distribution, recovery

Resources to produce energy (electricity, natural gas, oil, coal, biomass) and heat

Transport Mobility (good and persons)

Transport capacities (networks, hubs, vehicles…)

Table 5.2: Categorisation of sectors (Source: Strane Innovation)

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 The business models are used in Figure 5.2 to quantify and characterize the interactions between the different sectors of a Smart City and to identify gaps and weaknesses that can be reinforced by policies and regulation:

Figure 5.2: Cross sectors business models mapping (Source: Strane Innovation)

Figure 5.2 reveals that business models relevant for cross sectors integration are BM #3, BM#4 and BM #5. Cross sector interactions are based on immaterial and non-physical links and businesses. BM#3 is especially key to cross-sector links but requires access to data to promote new opportunities for the implementation of the circular economy. Physical infrastructures are most of the time sector specific (except for waste and energy in incineration or biogas plants) and restricted to the resource they handle, whereas digital infrastructure is transverse crossing other infrastructures. Therefore, access of data and digitalization of infrastructures are core factors required for cross integration success (See Recommendations Section). Whereas no directives address the integration of water and ICT or waste and ICT, water and waste are especially demanding sectors regarding digitalization (for example, for water quality regarding waste water treatment plants [2], real time and geographical data acquisition, leakage and illicit connections detection, sensors in waste bins allowing efficient collection routes [2]). A small step forwards would be the regulation (Waste management statistics) No 2150/2002 allowing in EU countries data on waste to be transmitted to Eurostat. The statistics collected allow the EU waste policy implementation to be monitored and evaluated. This practice could be extended to other sectors such as water or transport to implement more efficient regulation or to better integrate sectors between them.

The differentiating factor when assessing business analysis is the ownership of physical infrastructure. BM #1 requires massive investment for infrastructure maintenance and operation and therefore, long term visibility (See recommendations section). That visibility is not required for the ones not owing an infrastructure and business cycles are much shorter. In a more general way, the main concerns of infrastructures, whereas it is regarding physical (networks, vehicles) or nonphysical ones, are improving energy efficiency and increase low carbon footprint.

We can see from Figure 5.2 that the sectors of water and transport are lacking synergies and that the transport sector is poorly integrated to the one of waste within the frame of Smart Cities concept. The waste and energy sectors are strongly linked and European regulations have started setting the frame for a cross sector integration. The water and energy sectors are well connected since large amounts of water are required to produced energy and vice versa. However, no directives framework exists to set the rules of a tangible integration.

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Water is affected by pollution coming from other sectors such as transport, energy and waste. Therefore, water would benefit from a cross-sector, integrated policy and regulation covering all pollution induced by smart city sectors.

5.3.3 Value chain analysis To assess cross sectors integration, highlight key spots for integration and identify gaps and barriers to be overcome, the business models defined above have been confronted to the value chain presented on Figure 5.3. This value chain includes the following phases: production, transport and distribution, consumption, treatment, recycling and disposal. It is applicable independently to the water, energy, transport and waste sectors.

Figure 5.3: Business models mapping on the utilities’ value chains

(Source : Strane Innovation)

Figure 5.3Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata. reveals that cross-sector interactions are particularly important in three phases: production, consumption and recycling. The consumption phase gathers all utility resources consumed (such as water, energy or transport as people are brought through it to the consumption spot) and generates waste. Therefore, the consumption phase stands out as crucial with a high impact on the global value chain.

A key item of the consumption phase is buildings. This underlines once again the importance of infrastructures within the concept of Smart Cities. In their actual state, buildings represent 40 % of EU final energy demand [3] due to heating and cooling systems, lighting and devices consuming energy (computers, coffee machines, TV, phones, washing machines, etc.). Developing smart technologies to enhance energy efficiency by modelling and on line control (heating and cooling retrofitting, smart lighting), reduce carbon footprint, find technical building solutions (smart material), automation, smart energy networks and storage, optimal use and consumption of water are needed. Specific directives (Energy Efficiency Directive and the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive – see Section 5.1) are already aiming at improving energy efficiency in buildings, especially with the statement that every new building should become a nearly zero energy building by 2020. However, it will require digitalization and smart metering of the building infrastructure to establish the link with users and realize those optimizations and gains.


The consumption phase generates waste that will be consumed as raw material in another consumption site in a circular economy approach. Therefore, waste is a significant part of the consumption phase. As the final recipient of consumed resources, the waste sector can be considered as totally cross cutting to all other sectors and offers large opportunities for smart city integration. Apart from waste and energy, policies remain once again sector specific and do not cover cross sector integration.

5.3.4 Recommendations

Infrastructures

‐ Decrease risks and uncertainties by developing an investment strategy and a dedicated structure/committee

Various risks and uncertainties impact the decision to proceed to investments in capital-intensive infrastructure requiring long-term planning. They could come from price volatility, modifications in regulations, legislation or contract renegotiation [4], market and institutional risks (uncertainties due to Brexit or Greek debt), technological risks (lack of technical maturity or technical uncertainty regarding technologies such as carbon capture technologies, energy storage) or geopolitical risks (security of supply on oil, gas and uranium due to conflicts in Middle East, Africa or Russia) [5].

Without a stable framework, investors hesitate to invest. Strong political signals are needed to establish confidence in long-term planning. A stable regulation and an overall, long-term smart city policy, with the related budget engagement, should be developed to facilitate investments [5]. It would also create more market opportunities.

An investment strategy on infrastructures decided at the European level should be established and composed of strong political orientations, project planning and budgeting [5]. A dedicated structure such as a Department or Directorate General of the European Commission or a special commission/committee depending on the European Parliament, should be established for long-term strategic infrastructure projects, including Smart Cities [5]. Long-term policies on infrastructure could also reinforce the EU and its cohesion.

‐ Set a stable and clear contractual and legal framework with standardized elements to develop investments in infrastructure

As stated above, the management of physical and digital infrastructures requires long-term vision and large investments. The key questions regarding major financial investments are: who will pay and will the quality of services be preserved? Attracting investors could be a solution to ensure funding. The market design is therefore a major issue to support the long-term confidence for investors.

Projects related to infrastructures involve a large range of stakeholders (construction companies, operators, public authorities, private and public investors, insurers and citizens). Risk sharing and legislation are issues to be handled when establishing a contract. A stable and clear contractual and legal framework with standardised elements could be a way of developing infrastructure investment [4].

Investing in European infrastructures goes beyond simply building new airports, modernizing railways, reducing carbon emissions or increasing energy efficiency; it is also about developing innovation as the main driver of change.


Open data and digitalisation

‐ Foster the development of opening data and digitalization to reach interoperability The European Commission has developed the Digital Single Market to ensure that Europe is ready for the emerging challenges of digital products and services. Open data is a major engagement already taken up by the European Union that is critical for Smart Cities. The digitalisation of infrastructures enables the sharing of information and improving operational performance and resource efficiency. It would help implement the concept of demand and response in Smart Cities [2] by using sensors and smart meters, by providing solutions for smart water and waste management, increase energy efficiency (for instance with infrared cameras in buildings [6]), waste tracking or air pollution assessment).

Open data means making data accessible in a usable format, but it was also found during the research in the BlueSCities project that the key business model to create resource efficiency and promote the circular economy, concerns the management of resources (BM#3). These businesses need a consistent access to all data and resources, across the whole value chain and across sectors to enable the mobility of resources and market liquidity. Smart Cities would be both a key enabler by offering an open platform for such businesses and a key beneficiary by offering a resource-efficient environment to their citizens.

Open, real time data constitutes one of the best economic ways of achieving interoperability across a city's sectors and services. Policies to foster cross-sector integration should focus on the access to data and the openness, flexibility and transparency of resource markets. ‐ Building communities of data owners, developing models for open data Dealing with open access data raises several questions. The first one is the respect of private life. To do so data could be made “open by default” with a rigorous process of anonymity and within the context of respect for privacy [3]. Data can come from very diverse sources (private, public, societal or commercial). Therefore, the second question is how to deal with different types of quality or formats and which one would be the best to support data interoperability.

To ensure that all those issues are addressed, communities of data owners [6] could be built within the frame of Smart Cities. They would be composed of citizens willing to publish their data. For instance, a web service could be developed upon it to make those data available to third parties. Models for open data validation could be created such as certifications to ensure high quality of data and interoperability [6]. A dedicated position could be created in Smart Cities to handle and coordinate the access of data [6]. It could be additionally a way to create jobs and support growth. This measure would have a great impact on buildings and more generally on the consumption phase by improving smart metering and involve more users in their consumer behaviour.

Standardization and interoperability

‐ Foster the development of data standards, especially for water efficiency Interoperability is a key issue to data accessibility and could be supported by development of standards. Indeed, standardisation can provide confidence at different levels by supporting industrialisation of solutions and scalability by gaining confidence in markets, and by helping implement and deploy the Smart City concept across countries. Regarding the specific topic of infrastructures (see above), it could contribute to decreasing risks and uncertainties regarding long term investments, and reassuring investors.

A reduction in energy consumption would result in a reduction in water consumption since large amounts of water are required to produce energy (roughly 5% of total global water

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 withdrawal is attributed to energy generation [1]). It is acknowledged [2] that the low cost of water compared to energy means water efficiency does not often receive enough attention compared to energy efficiency. Development of standards on water efficiency could be an effective way to fight this phenomenon. This measure would address the challenges of impacting the consumption phase of the utility value chain.

‐ Creation of a dedicated committee to develop new standards and set a frame to compare

Smart Cities and spread best practices In Europe, standards are developed and agreed by three organisations: the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), the European Committee for Electro technical Standardization (CENELEC) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). The collaboration between CEN and CENELEC was consolidated in 2010 by the creation of a common CEN-CENELEC Management Centre (CCMC) in Brussels [7]. Such initiatives could be applied to water and waste sectors by creating a dedicated committee [3] to develop specific and new standards to reinforce their integration into the Smart Cities concept. This measure could also help compare Smart Cities between each other and spread best practices. That way, Europe could benefit from a significant advantage in being able to promote the Smart Cities concept worldwide.

Water and transport integration, development of a legal framework

As stated above, water and transport sectors are poorly integrated within the frame of the Smart Cities concept. So far, even if most European cities are located near water bodies, the Smart Cities concept applies to both water and transport but separately, not in a cross sector and integrated way. Regulations are also relatively sector specific. The Flood Directives and the Bathing Water Directive are evolving in the direction of more integration (See Section 5.1). However, many links could be reinforced. For example: transport of people and goods by waterways, maintenance of roads coordinated with water infrastructure works, addressing the pollution of water by transport. Development of a legal framework on water and transport integration could improve long-term planning and help detect potential problems at an earlier stage [2].

Optimising the “consumption phase”

‐ Development of open data, digitalization and standardization As stated above, the digitalisation of infrastructure enables the sharing of information, and provides gains in operational performance and resource efficiency. Once again, a reduction of energy consumption would result in a reduction of water consumption as well. Buildings could be designed or adapted to optimise consumption phase. For example, smart meters could be developed and implemented to optimize the use of heating and cooling systems or lighting. Issues regarding format of data and respect of privacy remain. Communities of data owners could for example be implemented in Smart Cities [6]. Interoperability is a key issue to data accessibility and could be supported by development of standards. The European Commission has already acknowledged the importance of digitalisation with the Digital Single Market.

‐ Aligning national policies to reduce consumption of goods and the related production of waste

The Directive 2015/720 targets a reduction in the consumption of plastic bags in the European Union, a measure directly affecting the consumption phase. In the same spirit, other measures should be taken to reduce the consumption of goods. Regarding planned obsolescence, some European countries, like France in 2015, have programmes to inform consumers on product lifespans and help them making consumer responsible choices. The

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 European Union has started addressing the question but no regulation or directives have been developed yet.

‐ Decrease the quantity of waste produced and increase its quality to promote the circular economy

As stated above waste is a significant part of the consumption phase. The Landfill Directive promotes this by setting rules to decrease the volume of final waste and increase its value (in particular of biodegradable waste). In a global context of natural resources, price increases and pressures on raw materials, re-use of waste by giving it value as a resource, is a key aspect to be reinforced by policies. Digitalisation of the waste sector (to optimize waste collection by placing sensors inside bins for instance) could be a starting point for cross sector integration (Transport-Waste-Energy) and could help organize waste streams to reinforce recycling. Policies should act towards improving waste quality and treatment, reducing their quantity and enhance the concept of circular economy by encouraging their reuse.

‐ Creation of a dedicated committee and strategy addressing consumption issues Once again policies are mostly sector specific, with none addressing the issue of integration of sectors and utilities. Due to its significant role, the consumption phase should benefit from a dedicated policy. Similarly as for infrastructures (see above), a dedicated structure such as a DG or a special committee could be created to manage the consumption phase and work on a cross sector integration basis between energy, water, waste and transport to gain in efficiency. Beyond setting rules and a framework for standardization and digitalization, a dedicated policy could trigger developing new market opportunities and reduce monopolistic situations. A functional market with clear rules and no distortions can optimise the consumption phase towards more sustainable practices.

Creation of innovation zones

The creation of incubators such as “innovation zones” ([6], [3]) could be developed at different scales (district, cities of different sizes) to test new policies or regulations, or simplified forms of regulations, new technologies and materials, integrations, new standards, digitalization of infrastructure or open data. Those areas could be free from the constraints of regulation and for limited duration in order to test solutions and evaluate also their cost at a significant scale [6]. Transferable lessons could be taken and up-scaled. At the same time, new business models could be developed and implemented.

The Human factor

In the development of cross sector integration within the frame of Smart Cities, the human factor must not be left aside. It appears as a major opportunity but also as a major challenge. When merging utilities or working on cooperation basis, the working culture of each entity has to be taken into account. It can result in pooling experts together and increase the cross cutting knowledge, innovation and creativity. However, it can also lead to job suppression due to fusion of activities. Therefore, policies should support cross-sector training and the exchange of best practices. This could be done for instance by organising conferences targeting experts and utility managers or staff exchange programmes [6] between cities or even between utilities to share experience and knowledge, spread best practices and develop innovations.


5.3.5 References [1] Mingxu Cao, Katia Dahmani, Alexandre Bredimas, Mona Arnold, Kees Van Leeuwen, Peter Easton, Frederic Clarens, Richard Elelman, Industrial and commercial analysis of the integration of water and waste in Smart Cities, article currently under review by Journal of Cleaner Production

[2] Arnold M., van Leuwen K., Easton P., Elelman R., Clarens F., Ulanicki B., Review of regulatory aspects and integrative aspects in Smart Cities, BlueSCities Project no.643354

[3] European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities, Strategic Implementation Plan, 2013

[4] UN NOUVEAU DÉPART POUR L’INVESTISSEMENT, Confrontation Europe la revue n° 107

[5] Herzog, Contribution pour une stratégie européenne d’investissement, Confrontations Europe n°36

[6] European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities, Operational Implementation Plan: First Public Draft

[7] Cencenelec Website : http://www.cencenelec.eu/aboutus/Pages/default.aspx


6 Stakeholder involvement and capacity building

6.1 Promotion of intercity collaboration The exchange of examples of best-practices in urban water management can best be achieved by establishing a direct contact between cities of similar profiles and needs. This mechanism was successfully used by BlueSCities under the label “winning-by-twinning” in close collaboration with and support by the European Commission’s science and knowledge service (the Joint Research Centre or JRC) and the Network for Water in European Cities and Regions (NETWERCH2O), both also partners of the BlueSCities Project.

As a stepping-stone towards a more integrated and collaborative approach towards “self-aid” of medium-sized municipalities interested in improving the water resilience, a multi stakeholder workshop was organised in Dubrovnik (Sept 2015) facilitating the encounter between mayors or other representatives of municipal administrations with special focus on Eastern Europe, the Danube basin and the Near East. The participants joined their forces and know-how to investigate the importance of the role of local administrations in resolving common urban environmental issues, to ensure improved synergies between cities, and to employ tools for integration and implementation, stakeholder engagement and international networking.

This desire was channelled and expressed through the so-called Dubrovnik Declaration of Intent, presented at the end of the workshop and subsequently, signed by the adhering municipal council or contributing work parties.

The Dubrovnik Declaration and the involved Dubrovnik Process presented for the first time during this workshop has aroused the interest of many supranational and national entities, and a number of cities and regions have signed, or are in the process of signing it. The Dubrovnik Process “Winning-by-Twinning” is building on the already successful implementation of the EIP Water Action Group City Blueprints and capitalises on the work undertaken in the context of the BlueSCities Project.

The workshop participants and subsequently, the signatories of the Dubrovnik Declaration, showed their intention to collaborate with other cities, to involve the local administrations and stakeholders in a participatory context and to formulate the regulatory framework that will promote the successful design and implementation of novel and smart urban water management solutions leading to more resilient cities. In collaboration with experienced experts and academics from a wide range of disciplines, the participating municipalities are committed to design and monitor solutions in order to promote a series of innovations that will address urban resilience under climate change stress and sustainable water resource management.

During the workshop, participants discovered themselves as “living labs” on various environmental fronts that deal with water management and climate mitigation and adaptation actions. In various exercises and hands-on experiments the participants were shown how to employ tools for integration and implementation, stakeholder engagement and international networking whilst emphasising the dialogue between different levels of public administration and the different sectors engaged. This supported municipal integration and inter-municipal cooperation beyond the workshop.

At the same time, the role of the Joint Research Centre continues to play a fundamental role by working in close cooperation with policy Directorate-Generals, addressing key societal challenges within cities that can be resolved through novel approaches, while stimulating innovation through developing tools and standards and sharing its know-how with the Member States, the scientific community, international partners and in cities beyond the EU.


7 Citizen engagement and participation

Communities with the greatest and most diverse citizen participation are often resilient and strong. Engaging citizens to address common issues is essential for educated decision-making. Like in no other field of urban infrastructure, intervention on water infrastructure and, to a lesser extent waste management, benefits from active citizen participation and engagement.

In this context, the successful deployment on a local social and community-level of innovative and novel solutions, be it technology or governance driven, is of vital importance to establish the EU as a world leader in such technologies and in its striving for the creation of green jobs, healthier societies and better economies through the implementation in our cities of the future.

Public engagement is key to ensure the necessary political continuity beyond a single mandate in a local administration. To achieve this, it is also necessary to ensure that a collective knowledge on what solutions are to be selected and implemented is cultivated and at the basis of any consensus building process.

To this end, the BlueSCities Project experienced three successful types of interaction with the general public at local level: the ‘Science Café’, school competitions and a ‘Science & Art’ initiative.

7.1 Science cafè A Science Café is an event that brings scientists and the public together in an informal setting such as a restaurant, bar or coffee shop. Science Cafés are happening all over the world and have many different formats. Some are lectures with audience-guided questions and answers, some have a moderated discussion between the scientist and the audience, and some focus more on round-table discussion. There is no right or wrong way to put on a Science Cafe, and each organiser is free to design theirs based on their goals and what their audience likes. A main feature of a Science Café is that it is held in a public place other than in the Host University or institution. Bringing a science discussion into an informal venue, such as a restaurant or bar, is useful for making the audience feel comfortable to discuss the topic at hand and ask questions – it can be seen as much less threatening and there are fewer barriers between the public and the expert. Hosting the event in a restaurant is also a great way to reach new audiences not already involved in science. People who might not come to a lecture at a university are often more likely to attend one in a bar or café, and there is the added benefit of potentially drawing in people who are already at the venue socially.

Redinn and Istanbul Universitesi developed the first Science Cafes in Istanbul on February 2016. The title of the event was “Istanbul and Water” and the event was hosted in the Civil Engineering Department Canteen in Istanbul University. A total of 70 students and academics attended the event.

The second café in Istanbul was planned for September 2016 but, for security reasons related to the hosting country, it has been delayed.

A Science Café event is planned for Athens for late October or early November 2016. Several conference calls were held to organize the event and a draft agenda has been delivered for internal use.

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Another two Science Café events will be organized by the end of the project: in Helsinki and in Genoa.

7.2 School competitions and related ‘Science & Art’ Initiatives

Initiatives involving schools, such as for instance painting competitions, are an elegant way to engage, not only with children, but also their families and ultimately the local society. BlueSCities has used this approach, but evolved it further into a tool to stimulate intercity collaboration through what is commonly known as the Science-and-Art movement (SciArt). The idea of SciArt is actually very simple, yet ground breaking. It assumes the processes of art creation and discovery of knowledge in research are the same, involving human reasoning, SciArt tries to stimulate a cross-fertilisation between the two domains with the goal to shift perspectives and paradigms on traditional ways of doing and using science. Successful examples of such crossovers are for instance, the ARTS-AT-CERN Programme. ARTS-AT-CERN is one of the leading art and science. programmes, which promotes the dialogue between artists and particle physics. It fosters the creation of new expert knowledge in the arts by extending artists' practice in connection with fundamental research.

Similarly for instance, the Science Gallery is an award-winning international initiative pioneered by Trinity College Dublin that delivers a dynamic new model for engaging 15–25 year olds with science. Through a cutting-edge programme of exhibitions and experiences that ignite creativity and discovery where science and art collide, Science Gallery encourages young people to learn through their interests. The Global Science Gallery Network was launched in 2012 with the support of Google.org with the aim of establishing Science Gallery locations in eight cities around the world by 2020. The network is supported by Science Gallery International, which also acts as an agent for touring exhibitions created within the Network.

The JRC and NetwercH2O developed in close collaboration with the University of California and a young artist from Poland, a concept deployed first in BlueSCities and known as “SciArt Water Diplomacy”. Art can convey complex principles related to water in a visually compelling way that connects imagination, emotion, and reason (the latter, exemplified by science). At the same time, the arts – visual as well as performing – communicate these principles on a person-to-person, individual level. As a result, the role of the arts in disseminating powerful ideas and principles regarding water, to diverse groups of people, and across national boundaries, may in some cases be more effective than that of more conventional forms of political communication.

To this purpose, the emerging Polish artist Natalia Głowacka, who is also working as a biotechnologist, created seven paintings known as “The Water Cycle”.

“The Water Cycle” paintings address various dimensions of water: the political challenge, the aspects of fairness, the water-energy nexus, the connecting aspect of water but also its force as an element of nature. Presenting a divine trinity of water, vapour and ice and hence a common element to the spiritual reality of mankind, they were used to inspire pupils aged eight to twelve years for a school competition on water. The competition was organised in the cities of Amman, Jerusalem, London, Manresa, Sfantu Gheorghe and Istanbul, and the children were inspired by these artworks to express their view and feelings on water around them. As a result of this, further initiatives of collaboration between the participating schools are now under preparation with the result of having also established dialogue at local level. The winners of the paintings competition together with the Water Cycle Paintings will also be a contribution to the thematic work on an Atlas on Urban water management in European cities.

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Parallel to this, further exhibitions are being organised to reach out to larger audiences and with the intention to recruit further followers to the process. So far, exhibitions took place in Jordan and Italy. Additional ones on occasion of the Slovak EU Presidency are planned. The simple competition is also now opening the door for further intercity exchanges on water management solutions and best practices as an expression of which the JRC has called for proposals for an innovation prize on water.

The SciArt Water Diplomacy concept is also attracting attention at international level.

REDINN organized the first Italian Prize for school pupils in Colleferro (Rome, Italy) in March 2016. Institutions involved were the Municipality of Colleferro and Istituto Comprensivo 1 (GPD) di Colleferro. The Prize was focused on World Water Day as an international observance and an opportunity to learn more about water related issues, be inspired to tell others and take action to make a difference.


8 Further in-depth analysis and research material

8.1 Links & short descriptions to trends and pressures Links & short description to City Blueprints and Trends and Pressures

The full list of reports and publications is available on the City Blueprint website:

http://www.eip-water.eu/City_Blueprints (click on documents).

Other websites:

http://www.watershare.eu/

http://www.netwerch2o.eu

http://ec.europa.eu/eip/smartcities/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/innovationpartnership/about_en.htm

http://www.bluescities.eu/

8.2 Links to detailed and academic findings reported in other deliverables

Further details and academic findings aimed at identifying innovative technological gaps and formulating research and technological actions in the water and waste management areas can be found in another project deliverable named D4.5 Recommendations for research and technological actions.

The document includes further models, best practices and technological examples available to fill gaps, summarised as follows:

Implementation of the ‘water sensitive cities’ concept

Comprehensive introduction of ICT in managing urban water systems

Managing water quality inside water distribution systems

Managing leakage and water losses in water distribution systems

Managing energy in water distribution systems

Application of smart water meters

Introduction of sustainable drainage systems

Efficient storm water management

Solutions for flood prevention and management

Solutions for nutrient recovery in wastewater treatment

Solutions for energy recovery from wastewater

Efficient grey water recycling and utilisation

Solutions for collection and sorting of solid waste

Enhancing material recovery from mixed waste


Innovations for the organic fraction of municipal solid waste

Physical and cyber security issues in water systems

Vision for future Integrated utility services provision

Each component is described following the urban water cycle approach and therefore separated into the following macro areas: water treatment for potable purposes, water distribution, consumption, wastewater collection and wastewater treatment.

A further section addresses with waste management system in urban areas.

8.3 Operating instructions to foster cross sector integration and synergies between utilities

This section aims at providing guidance on fostering cross sector integration and synergies between utilities. Section I provides introductory remarks on characterisation of utilities, ways to proceed to closer collaboration between utilities and examples of cities where it has already been done. Section II presents the method for municipalities to quickly map their utilities and identify roughly where there may be potential for cross sector synergies and integrations. This method has been developed by Strane Innovation. Recommendations to improve integrations are proposed in Section 8.3.3 based on the practical guidelines best practices. ICT cuts across all sectors and a special section (See Section 8.3.4) is dedicated to recommendations for its implementation in the Smart Cities concept.

8.3.1 Introductory remarks on the utilities and sector integration

Figure 8.1: Utilities categorisation (Source: Strane Innovation)

Utilities are characterized by different features (See Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata.):

‐ Sector scope. Some utilities operate in several sectors (energy, waste, water) whereas others operate exclusively in one sector. In this guide, the first case will be referred to as multi-sector and the second as mono-sector. The sector positioning corresponds to a strategic decision. Mono-sector utilities choose to focus on a core competency to avoid dilution and exposure to complex sectorial regulations. Multi-sector utilities choose to diversify their services to decrease the risk and seek for cross-sector synergies and cross-fertilisation.

‐ Geographic coverage. The utility can operate in one city (mono-city) or several cities (multi-city). Energy and transport networks are highly integrated at regional,


national and European levels so the related utilities are typically multi-city whereas water and waste utilities are by nature restricted to local activities within cities.

‐ Ownership. Utilities can be either private or public. Water and waste infrastructures are usually owned by public authorities and may be operated by private or public utilities. Private utilities are more common in the energy and transport sectors. The type of ownership affects directly the access to the market since local public monopolies have a captive market while private utilities need to tender and compete.

Different types of integration exist:

- Merging. Two utilities are merged into one entity resulting in the integration of many services and assets, as exemplified by the municipalities of Helsinki and Stockholm.

- Cooperation. In this case, utilities are not merged but closely cooperate, as exemplified by the municipalities of Amsterdam and Hamburg.

The cities of Helsinki and Stockholm each have about 1.3 million inhabitants.

HELSINKI. Waste management and air pollution were originally handled by a public owned utility that integrated the water management services in 2010. Transport and energy are managed separately, by two distinct publicly owned utilities. The merger of both sectors was driven by economies of scale.

STOCKHOLM. The merging of water and waste activities took place in 2014. Both sectors are run by public owned companies. The merger was driven by the potential for synergies, in particular through the creation of a common customer base.

The examples of Helsinki and Stockholm show that the integration of water and waste sectors within local public utilities is possible and can lead to sizable benefits (cost saving, data sharing, increased visibility, common customer base). However, those examples also reveal that integration of water and waste sectors with the one of energy remains difficult due to policies and market considerations. Indeed, waste and water management remain local activities whereas the energy utility needs to comply to international directives. Integration of several utilities into one entity can thus complicate future strategic moves.


- Service diversification. This case relates typically to private utilities such as Veolia (or Suez Environnement). These utilities are active in many cities and aim to offer integrated services across several sectors.

The different models eventually impact the approach of sector integration. Public utilities with a captive local market have to merge to become cross-sector, whereas a private utility is typically diversified and can expand by setting up new business units or by acquiring new companies.

Several tracks exist to work on utilities integration and develop cross sector synergies (Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata.). They also constitute several advantages:

- Develop a centre of expertise: increase visibility, share expertise and best practices,

- Integration in the support services (Human Resources (HR) management, purchasing, account management),

- Marketing: build a common database, share customers data, develop new services,

- Develop resource efficiency and circular economy concept.

AMSTERDAM. Amsterdam and its surroundings contain a population of 1.3 million inhabitants. The merger of water and waste activities never took place. Instead, the city has developed a circular economy approach and has encouraged these utilities, all publicly owned, to cooperate. The municipality thinks indeed that a cooperation is cheaper than merging (due to reorganisation costs). Integration of ICT, normalization, security and communication of data are being further investigated as potential synergies in the frame of the open data strategy of the city.

HAMBURG. Hamburg has a population of 1.7 million inhabitants. The merger between Hamburg Waterworks (HWW) and Hamburg Sewage Works (HSE) to form Hamburg Wasser group (Hamburg Water Group) took place in 2006. However, due to the German federal organisation, the model maintains a sufficient separation of structures although many synergies are developed. Achieving this approach has been driven by the history of the city (tradition of independency and importance of water as Hamburg is a major European harbour) and by the will to increase customer benefit.

The Amsterdam and Hamburg examples depict the situation where cooperation between local, sector-specialised publicly owned utilities was preferred over merging. These examples show that generating tight links between several sectors such as waste, water, energy, transport and ICT within local public utilities is possible and can lead to sizable results and advantages (cost saving, increase of efficiency and coordination, development of new projects, gain in transparency, standardised structures and uniformity, common customer base).

Veolia exemplifies the case of large-scale privately owned utilities, active in several cities, in several sectors, aiming to develop an integrated offer of services. Present in 48 countries, with its 2,500 subsidiaries, Veolia ranks among the largest private utilities in the world. It proposes services covering a large range of activities in water, waste and energy. Since 2013, the company has undertaken a transformation programme aiming to integrate its activities into geographically autonomous, cross-sector business units and integrated support services (e.g. business development, strategy, marketing, R&D, procurement, human resources…). Data and digital systems appear at the core of integration since different sectors must communicate together.


Figure 8.2: Potential for integration and synergies implementation within utilities (Source: Strane

Innovation)

8.3.2 Utilities mapping This section presents the methodology for municipalities and other city stakeholders to quickly map their utilities (See Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata.) and spot areas where there may be potential for cross sector synergies and integrations (See Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata.). Recommendations are proposed in the next section (See Section 8.3.3) to improve integrations. Five cross sector interactions are investigated:

- Water – Energy,

- Water – Transport,

- Waste – Energy,

- Waste – Transport,

- Water – Waste.

ICT is considered transverse to all sectors and a special section (See Section 8.3.4) is dedicated to recommendations for its implementation in the Smart Cities concept.

Step 1: Characterisation of utilities and identification of their potential for integration

For each utility in the city (Water, Waste, Transport, Energy), by answering the two questions below (Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata.) and looking at the figure below (Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata.), the user can identify quickly the potential for integration of the utility.

Table 8.1: Questionnaire 1

Is the utility mono or multi sector?

Is the utility mono or multi city?


Sector scope

Mono-sector Multi-sector

Geographic scope

Mono-city High potential Medium potential

Multi-cities Medium potential Low potential

High potential: The utility is very likely not cooperating with other utilities in the city and there is a high potential for cross sector synergies; Municipalities should start strategic discussions with other utilities

Medium potential: Synergies may be already done and questions should focus on assessing whether there is room for more integration and optimisation

Low potential: Synergies and cross sector integrations may be well established by the integrated utilities and municipalities should see whether they benefit fully from the value of this integration.

Figure 8.3: Potential for integration and synergies implementation within utilities (Source: Strane)

Step 2: Deeper analysis and quantification of cross sector integration potential between two utilities

The questionnaire below (See Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata.), supported by Figure Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata., is to support the municipalities in spotting potential areas for cross-sector integration and synergy. This questionnaire aims to raise awareness from the users and serve as a basis for further discussions and reflections on possible collaboration. This questionnaire is to be done for each of the 5 cross sector interactions proposed above.

For instance, to analyse the potential of integration of the cross sector interaction Waste – Energy, the questionnaire has to be undertaken as Utility 1 = Waste and Utility 2 = Energy or vice versa.

Each question should be answered by YES or NO.

Table 8.2: Questionnaire 2

Question 1 Are both sectors addressed by the same utility?

If YES, the potential is low; If NO, please proceed to the rest of the questionnaire

Question 2 Do both utilities have a cooperation agreement?

Question 3 Do both utilities share services (e.g. procurement, offices, human resources)?

Question 4 Are both utilities sharing data and information systems (e.g. geographic information software, customer database, data related to resource management)?

Question 5 Do both utilities share expertise (e.g. exchange of experts, common workshops…)?

Question 6 Do both utilities share infrastructures or are there local infrastructures positioned on both sectors (e.g. a WWT plant


producing biogas, waste incineration)?

Question 7 Are there exchanges structured and organised on a same standards baseline between 2 utilities?

Question 8 Do both utilities share ICT tools and their related data (e.g. smart meters, sensors)?

Question 9 Are data collected from these utilities shared at a wider scale (other utility, City scale, national scale)?

Question 10 Have utilities developed interoperable standards between them?

If the questionnaire contains:

- between 8 and 10 ‘NO’s, the potential of integration is high,

- between 4 and 7 ‘NO’s, the potential of integration is medium,

- between 0 and 3 ‘NO’s, the potential of integration is low.

10 to 8 7 to 4 3 to 0

Figure 8.4: Scale for potential for cross sector integration between two utilities (Source Strane)

Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata. provides a visual depiction of the potential for integration that can help structure discussions.

In order to improve cross sector integrations between utilities, please refer to the next Section 8.3.3 where concrete recommendations are provided. If you have answered “No” to question 8, please refer to Section 8.3.4 for specific recommendations on ICT tools.

Figure 8.5: Potential for cross sector integration between two utilities (Source: Strane)

8.3.3 Instructions and recommendations Mainly based on the best practices available in this guide, Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata. provides recommendations to foster the following interactions: Water – Energy, Water – Transport, Waste – Energy, Waste – Transport, and Water – Waste.

For further details on best practices, please refer to BOX 2 (Best Practices for Water Demand Management), BOX 3 (Best Practices for Water Reuse and Recycling), BOX 4

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 (Best Practices for Water and Energy), BOX 5 (Best Practices for leakage and water loss reduction), BOX 6 (Best Practices for solid waste).

Recommendations are distributed according to the phases of the following value chain (See Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata.), applicable to all sectors.

Figure 8.6: Cross sector value chain (Source: Strane Innovation)

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document BlueSCities15.11.2016 642354 Table 8.3: Recommendations to foster cross sector integration between utilities

Value chain Production Transport and distribution

Consumption Recycling Treatment

Water

integrated in Smart Cities

General management

- Integrated management for the water cycle (Box 2)

- Zero fossil energy development (Box 3)

Reduce water losses

- Water leakage reduction (See Box 5 + Box 2 : Water Metering to prevent leakage and Pressure control)

Improve production

- Recycling water for industry (Box 3)

- Indirect wastewater reuse through infiltration (Box 3)

General management

- Integrated management for the water cycle(Box 2)


Reduce water losses


Improve transport and distribution

- Variable frequency drives at a water collection well (Box 4)

- Micro-turbines on drinking water treatment plant (Box 4)

- Wastewater use for garden irrigation

General management

-Increase social awareness (Box 2)



Incentives

- Water budget rate (Box 2)

- Progressive water tariff structure (Box2)

- Residential water conservation (Box 2)

Reduce consumption

- Use of seawater for toilet flushing (energy saving) (Box 2)

- Centralized rainwater harvesting (reduce wastewater production) (Box 2)

- Low water gardening

General management


- Human factor : support cross-sector training, exchange of best practices, organizing conferences targeting experts and utility managers, staff exchange programs

Improve recycling

-Use of seawater for toilet flushing (energy saving) (Box 2)

- Centralized rainwater harvesting (reduce WW production) (Box 2)

- Wastewater reclamation and reuse (Box 3)

-Managed aquifer recharge (Box 3)

- Rinsing (Box 3)



- Local greywater recycling

Reduce water losses


General management



Improve water treatment

- Use of seawater for toilet flushing (energy saving) (Box2)

- Centralized rainwater harvesting (reduce WW production) (Box 2)

- Rinsing (Box 3)



- Local greywater recycling (Box 3)

- Integrated water recycling (Box



(reduce consumption from distribution network) (Box 3)

(Box 2)

- Cooling Water Recirculation (Box 3)


- Wastewater use for garden irrigation (Box 3)

(Box 3)

- Integrated water recycling (Box 3)


3)


- Energy efficient plate aerators (Box 4)

- Sharon/Anammox in N-rich sludge water from dewatered digested sludge (Box 4)



Waste integration in Smart Cities

General management

-Integrated Waste Management System (Box 6)

- Develop the concept of circular economy

General management

- Integrated Waste Management System (Box 6)

Improve collection by innovation

-Vacuum waste collection systems controlled by ICT (Box 6)

- Waste collection routing optimization (Box 6)

X

There is no actual waste consumption phase. This phase can be associated with recycling.

General management



Improve waste recycling and valorization

- Increase the production of energy from waste (by producing heat and electricity from waste incineration or digestion, natural gas or fuel for vehicles from waste digestion)

- Biogas from waste for public transport (Box 6)

General management


Improve waste treatment and valorisation

- Biogas from waste for public transport (Box 6)

- Automated Biological Reactor (Box 6)


Water – Energy

Reduce water losses


Improve production




- Develop hydropower

- Increase the use of heat pump

Reduce water losses



- Use of seawater for toilet flushing (energy saving and extraction near consumers) (Box 2)


- Micro-turbines on drinking water treatment plant (Box 4)

Reduce water losses


Reduce consumption of water and energy

- Use of seawater for toilet flushing (Box2)



- Electricity demand management in the water sector

Improve recycling

- Use of seawater for toilet flushing (Box 2)




Improve treatment processes

- Use of seawater for toilet flushing (energy saving) (Box 2)




- Decrease water pollution from power plants

Water – Transport

‐ Develop waterways and water transport (pipelines, trucks) for people and goods

‐ Decrease water pollution from transport




Waste - Energy

General management


- Increase the production of energy from waste (by producing heat and electricity from waste incineration or digestion, natural gas or fuel for vehicles from waste digestion)

Energy production from waste

- Energy and economic savings using biogas for electricity and heat generation (Box 4)

- Optimized use of sewage gas with microgasturbines (Box 4)

-Biogas from waste

General management


-Traffic management to manage congestion from waste collection (energy saving)

Improve collection of waste and reduce energy use



- Sensors on trash and recycling bins (Box 6)

General management

-Decrease the consumption of energy and volume of waste by producing energy from waste (by producing heat and electricity from waste incineration or digestion, natural gas or fuel for vehicles from waste digestion)


Reduce energy consumption


-Energy savings using sludge combustion exhaust gases for thermal drying (Box 4)

-Optimized use of sewage gas with

General management

-Improve waste recycling by valorizing it in energy (by producing heat and electricity from waste incineration or digestion, natural gas or fuel for vehicles from waste digestion)




Waste recycling and valorisation


-Biogas from waste for public transport (Box 6)

General management

- Treat waste, decrease the consumption of energy and volume of waste by producing energy from waste (by producing heat and electricity from waste incineration or digestion, natural gas or fuel for vehicles from waste digestion)



Improve waste treatment processes and save energy

- Sludge age depending on temperature (Box 4)

- Sharon/Anammox in N-rich sludge water from dewatered digested sludge (Box 4)


- Energy savings using sludge combustion exhaust gases for thermal drying (Box 4)

- Waste Mechanical Biological


for public transport (Box 6)

- Waste Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) (Box 6)


microgasturbines (Box 4)


Treatment (MBT) (Box 6)

-Biogas from waste for public transport (Box 6)



Consumption Recycling

Waste – Transport

General management


-Traffic management to manage congestion from waste collection

General management



Optimization of waste transport



- Sensors on trash and recycling bins (Box 6)

General management



General management


- Set a redistribution plan for recycled waste





Water - Waste

(and more generally wastewater use)

General management


Improve production


-Centralized rainwater harvesting (reduce waste water production and drinking water use) (Box 2)

General management



- Wastewater use for garden irrigation (reduce consumption from distribution network) (Box 3)

- Centralized rainwater harvesting (reduce sewer connection) (Box 2)

General management


Reduce consumption

-Centralized rainwater harvesting (reduce waste water production and drinking water use) (Box 2)


General management




Improve recycling of waste and water

- Centralized rainwater harvesting (reuse of rainwater and less waste water production) (Box 2)

- Wastewater reclamation and reuse (Box 3)




- Energy and economic savings using biogas for electricity and heat generation (energy production from waste water treatment plant) (Box 4)

- Waste Mechanical Biological

General management




- Decrease water pollution from waste disposal and from waste discharge in oceans and rivers

Waste, water and wastewater treatments

- Centralized rainwater harvesting (reduce waste water production) (Box 2)





- Sludge age depending on temperature (Box 4)

- Sharon/Anammox in N-rich sludge water from dewatered


Treatment (MBT) (Box 6)

digested sludge (Box 4)




Page 93 of 101

8.3.4 Special focus on ICT contribution to cross-sector integration

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are a strong enabler for cross-sector integration between utilities. IT expenses represent 2.8% of utilities’ total revenue (Source: Gartner IT Key Metrics Data 2012). Developing information system integration can bring several advantages:

‐ It can lead to cost savings by for instance limiting redundancy or cost on extra applications, or on software compatibility issues.

‐ It can lead to more efficiency by for instance facilitating exchange of information or by enabling smart monitoring and real time data analysis leading to real time decision making.

Many functions can be integrated and shared with such an approach like communication, quality management or procurement. However some items cannot be shared between utilities (except in case of a full merging) such as asset and plant management or shareholders reporting (See Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata.).

In order to develop, ICT and more generally digitalization of infrastructures and open data, communities of data owner and dedicated positions could be created in cities (See Section 5.3).

Figure 8.7: ICT contribution to cross-sector integration (Source Strane adapted from @qua ICT Thematic Network)

Can be shared across different utilities

Cannot be shared => only integrated multi‐

utilities


Page 94 of 101

8.3.5 Conclusion This part of the practical guidance gathers operating instructions to foster cross sector integrations and synergies between utilities. A questionnaire is provided as a basis to raise awareness among municipalities and cities stakeholders and start dialogue and reflections on possible collaboration between utilities. Examples from large cities such as Amsterdam, Hamburg, Helsinki and Stockholm clearly demonstrate that cross sector integration is achievable in different ways (services merging, cooperation, diversification of services and integration) and can generate several benefits. Information systems (sharing of hardware / software, fusion of data regarding customer management, human resources, administration, and procurement) are a great enabler of cross sector integration.

8.3.6 References Veolia official website : www.veolia.fr


Page 95 of 101

About BlueSCities

BlueSCities was designed to facilitate the integration of water and waste management within the concept of the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) Smart Cities and Communities Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) and funded by the European Union, was a HORIZON 2020 project which was implemented between February, 2015 and February, 2017.

Based on the fact that the water supply crisis had been identified as one of the top three global risks for both impact and likelihood, the project team at KWR had developed a process to provide a City Blueprint as a baseline assessment for the sustainability of UWCS of cities and regions. A City Blueprint is the result of a transparent assessment of the sustainability of water management in a city. It engages citizens in water-related questions and provides them with insight into how their city compares with other leading cities around the globe. City Blueprints are targeted at citizens on the basis of the idea that it is they who are the drivers of innovation in their city. It is they who ensure the political continuity needed to accelerate innovations and to implement them through state-of-the-art water technology, thereby strengthening the city’s sustainability.

KWR, together with CTM coordinated a proposal which in turn became the EIP WATER Action Group, City Blueprints. The framework of this Action Group was to develop and implement further initiatives: (a) by creating awareness among potential partners (cities and regions), (b) by networking, (c) by sharing best UWCS practices among cities, and by (d) further development of tools that can facilitate implementation, such as a simple UWCS cost- benefit tool to allow cities and regions to provide their own solutions to the urban water challenges ahead. The Group, which continues to involve an increasing number of knowledge providers, administrative bodies, networks and regional authorities, continued disseminating its activities proactively. It published its proof of concept in a publication for 11 cities. An interim report on urban water management with blueprints of 25 cities was published in February 2014, whilst preparations with the Joint Research Council for a European Atlas of Urban Water Management began.

During this period, what also became increasingly clear was the need for the integration of water and waste within the Strategic Implementation Plan of the EIP Smart Cities and Communities, which previous to the BlueSCities project had focused exclusively on Energy, Transport and ICT. The absence of other relevant topics such as water, wastewater, solid waste and climate change mitigation and adaptation was, and in some cases, still is a great omission. Smarter cities are cities with a coherent long-term social, economic and ecological agenda. Smarter cities are water-wise cities that integrate water, wastewater, energy, solid waste, transport, ICT, climate adaptation and nature (blue-green infrastructure) to create an attractive place to live. Smarter cities implement a circular economy, focus on social innovation and, last but not least, greatly improve on governance with improved citizen engagement and more developed channels of knowledge exchange between different cities and regions. Thus, the concept of BlueSCities was born.

The partners KWR, De Montfort University, Easton Consult, Strane Innovation, REDINN, IREN, NTUA, The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, the University of Istanbul, VTT and TICASS under the coordination of the Fundació CTM Centre Tecnològic have created the necessary socio-technological tools whilst improving exchange synergies between researchers and users, decision-makers and consumers, industry, SMEs and national and international authorities. The project, in order to achieve this, reviewed the current situation in 50 cities employing its unique methods of analysis. It produced detailed case studies of four specifically chosen municipalities, Genoa, Helsinki, Athens and Istanbul and demonstrated a self-assessment baseline assessment tool for water, waste, energy, transport and ICT in cities, which enhances the implementation of European Smart City activities. In a carefully planned step-by step process, BlueSCities has collected data and formulated sufficient recommendations in order to produce an administrative methodology


Page 96 of 101

capable of eliminating cross sector barriers between water, waste and Smart City sectors the use of all relevant stakeholders.

This was supported by a programme of dissemination ensuring a wider public understanding of the nature of water and waste systems within the structures of European municipalities, regions and countries exemplified by the publication, The European Atlas of Urban Water Management.

9 Who wrote this document


Page 97 of 101

www.bluescities.eu


Page 98 of 101

10 References

Reports and Publications on City Blueprints

Van Leeuwen, C.J., Frijns, J., van Wezel, A., van de Ven, F.H.M. (2011). Duurzaamheid stedelijke waterketen af te leiden uit 24 indicatoren. H2O 13 35-38.

Van Leeuwen, C.J. (2012). City Blueprints voor elf steden: wat zeggen de sterren?. H2O 25/26 35-39.

Van Leeuwen, C.J., Frijns, J., van Wezel, A., van de Ven, F.H.M. (2012). City Blueprints: 24 indicators to assess the sustainability of the urban water cycle. Water Resources Management 26: 2177–2197.

Van Leeuwen, C.J., Chandy, P.C. (2013). The city blueprint: experiences with the implementation of 24 indicators to assess the sustainability of the urban water cycle. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 13.3 769-781.

Van Leeuwen, C.J. and N-P Bertram (2013). Baseline assessment and best practices in urban water cycle services in the city of Hamburg. Bluefacts 2013: 10-16. http://wvgw.de/blaettern/bluefacts/2013/

Van Leeuwen, C.J. and N-P Bertram. (2013). Wasserwirtschaftliche Grundlagenbeurteilung europäischer Metropolen und Regionen – Ergebnisse für Hamburg. energie | wasser-praxis – DVGW-Jahresrevue 12/2013.

Van Leeuwen, K., Marques, RC. 2013. Current State of Sustainability of Urban Water Cycle Services. TRANSITIONS TO THE URBAN WATER SERVICES OF TOMORROW. D11.1 TOWARDS A BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF THE SUSTAINABILITY OF URBAN WATER CYCLE SERVICES. BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF THE SUSTAINABILITY OF URBAN WATER CYCLE SERVICES. http://www.trust-i.net/downloads/index.php?iddesc=68

Van Leeuwen, C.J. (2013). City Blueprints: baseline assessment for water management in 11 cities of the future. Water Resources Management 27:5191–5206 DOI 10.1007/s11269-013-0462-5. Open access on SpringerLink: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11269-013-0462-5

Van Leeuwen, K. (2014). Water in the city. Inaugural speech (in Dutch; Figures in English). Oratie Universiteit Utrecht. Faculteit Geowetenschappen-Universiteit Utrecht. ISBN 978 90 6266 358 33. Available at: http://www.kwrwater.nl/uploadedFiles/Website_KWR/Over_KWR/Kwaliteitsborging/UU_Oratie-Van%20Leeuwen.pdf

Van Leeuwen, C.J., Sjerps, R. (2014). City Blueprints® of 30 cities and regions (Report and Annexes). KWR Watercycle Research Institute. Project T550004. Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.

Van Leeuwen, K. (2015). Too little water in too many cities. Learning Discourse. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 11/1: 171-173. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.1596/pdf

Easton, P., Sjerps, R., Van Leeuwen, K. (2015). Istanbul, City of Water. Revolve Magazine. Water & Energy Around the Mediterranean, 20-29. Available at:

http://issuu.com/revolve-magazine/docs/water___energy_around_the_mediterra


Page 99 of 101

Van Leeuwen, C.J., Sjerps, R. (2015). The City Blueprint of Amsterdam. An assessment of integrated water resources management in the capital of the Netherlands. Water Science and Technology; Water Supply 15.2: 4040-410. Available at: http://www.eip-water.eu/City_Blueprints(click on documents)

Van Leeuwen, C.J., NP Dan and C. Dieperink. (2015). The challenges of water governance in Ho Chi Minh City. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 12/2: 345–352. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.1664/abstract

Van Leeuwen, C.J. (2015). Water governance and the quality of water services in the city of Melbourne. Urban Water Journal. DOI 10.1080/1573062X.2015 (published online).

Koop, S., van Loosdrecht, L., van Leeuwen, K. (2015). City Blueprints. Duurzaamheidsanalyse van de stedelijke waterketen in 45 steden. (2015) H2O 10: 60-61. http://www.vakbladh2o.nl/index.php/h2o-online/recente-artikelen/entry/city-blueprints-duurzaamheidsanalyse-van-de-stedelijke-waterketen-in-45-steden.

Koop, S.H.A. and C.J. Van Leeuwen. (2015). Application of the Improved City Blueprint Framework in 45 municipalities and regions. BlueSCities Deliverable D2.2. Coordination and Support Action 642354 of the European Commission (KWR report 2015.025), 130 pp. http://www.bluescities.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/D-2-2-BlueSCities-642354-Final-03-08-2015.pdf.

Koop, S.H.A. and C.J. Van Leeuwen. (2015). Assessment of the Sustainability of Water Resources Management: A Critical Review of the City Blueprint Approach. Water Resources Management. 29:5649–5670. DOI: 10.1007/s11269-015-1139-z Open Access on SpringerLink: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11269-015-1139-z#/page-1

Koop, S.H.A. and C.J. Van Leeuwen. (2015). Application of the Improved City Blueprint Framework in 45 municipalities and regions. Water Resources Management, 29(13), 4629-4647. DOI: 10.1007/s11269-015-1079-7 . Open Access on SpringerLink: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11269-015-1079-7.

Mottaghi, M. Aspegren, H., Jönsson, K. (2015). The necessity for re-thinking the way we plan our cities with the focus on Malmö. Towards urban-planning based urban runoff management. Vatten 2015-1: 37-44. http://www.tidskriftenvatten.se/part.asp?partID=477

Van Leeuwen, C.J. and Elelman, R. (2015). E-Brochure City Blueprint. http://www.eip-water.eu/sites/default/files/E-Brochure%20City%20Blueprint%20%28v.3%29.pdf

Stef Koop, Kees van Leeuwen, Alexandre Bredimas, Mona Arnold, Christos Makropoulos and Frederic Clarens (2015). D2.3. Compendium of best practices for water, waste water, solid waste and climate adaptation. (KWR report 2015.025) http://www.bluescities.eu/project-view/compendium-of-best-practices-for-water-wastewater-solid-waste-and-climate-adaptation/.

Van Leeuwen, C.J. and Sjerps R. (2016). Istanbul: the challenges of integrated water resources management in Europa's Megacity. Environment, Development and Sustainability Istanbul: the challenges of integrated water resources management in Europa's Megacity. Environment, Development and Sustainability. Volume 18(1), 1-17. DOI 10.1007/s10668-015-9636-z. Open Access

Van Leeuwen, CJ, Koop, SHA, Sjerps, RMA (2016). City Blueprints: baseline assessments of water management and climate change in 45 cities. Environment, Development and Sustainability 18 (4), 1113–1128. DOI 10.1007/s10668-015-9691-5. Open Access

Koop, S.H.A. and Van Leeuwen, C.J.(2016). The challenges of water, waste and climate change in cities. Environment, Development and Sustainability, DOI :10.1007/s10668-016-9760-4. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10668-016-9760-4


Page 100 of 101

Koop, S., van Loosdrecht, L., van Leeuwen, K. (2016). City Blueprints. Duurzaamheidsanalyse van de stedelijke waterketen in 45 steden. (2016) TVVL Magazine 01: 26-29.

Drewes, J.E., Verstraete, W., Van Leeuwen, K., Elelman, R. 2016. The role of water in the circular economy. The Source (the quarterly magazine of the International Water Association), Q1, 62-67. http://www.thesourcemagazine.org/the-role-of-water-in-the-circular-economy/

Van Leeuwen, K. and Koop, S. 2016. City Blueprints: Assessment of sustainable water management in European cities. Global Water Forum. Posted on March 21, 2016 in Urban Water. http://www.globalwaterforum.org/2016/03/21/city-blueprints-assessment-of-sustainable-water-management-in-european-cities/

Koop, S.H.A. and Van Leeuwen, C.J. 2016. Water management and governance in cities. Global Water Forum. Submitted March 21, 2016 in Urban Water.

Mingxu CAO, Katia DAHMANI, Alexandre BREDIMAS, Mona ARNOLD, Kees VAN LEEUWEN, Peter EASTON, Frederic CLARENS, Richard ELELMAN. Industrial and commercial analysis of the integration of water and waste in smart cities. Journal of Cleaner Production (submitted).

Strzelecka A, Ulanicki B, Koetsier L, Van Leeuwen C.J., Koop S.H.A. 2016 City Blueprint and City Amberprint for the City of Leicester, United Kingdom. (will be submitted this week)

Koop, S.H.A., Koetsier, L., Doornhof, A., Dieperink, C., Van Leeuwen, C.J. Driessen, P. Introducing the Governance Capacity Assessment Framework and assessing Amsterdam.

Scheurs, E., Koop, S,H.A., Van Leeuwen, C.J. The Water Management and Governance Challenges of Quito

Koop, S. and Van Leeuwen, K., 2015, Application of the Improved City Blueprint Framework in 45 municipalities and regions, BluesCities Project report D2.2 http://www.bluescities.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/D-2-2-BlueSCities-642354-Final-03-08-2015.pdf

Chang, N.B., and Imen S. (2015). “Multi-Sensor Acquisition, Data Fusion, Criteria Mining and Alarm Triggering for Decision Support in Urban Water Infrastructure Systems”IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, DOI 10.1109/SMC.2015.105.

Brack et al. (2015). “The SOLUTIONS project: Challenges and responses for present and future emerging pollutants in land and water resources management”, Science of the Total Environment, 503–504 (2015) 22–31.

Motiva. 2016. Vedenkulutus – Water consumption (in finnish). [Internet document, visited 22/08/2016] Available online at: http://www.motiva.fi/koti_ja_asuminen/mihin_energiaa_kuluu/vedenkulutus/

Ministry of the Environment of Finland. 2009. Työryhmämuistio. Huoneistokohtaistenvesimittareidenkäyttö ja vaikutuksetrakennustenenergiankulutukseen – The use of appartment specific water meters and their impact on the energy consumption of buildings (in finnish). [Internet document, visited 22/08/2016] Available online at: http://www.motiva.fi/files/5725/Tyoryhmamuistio_Huoneistokohtaisten_vesimittareiden_kaytto_ja_vaikutukset_rakennusten_energiankulutukseen.pdf

Vesiverto. 2008. Opasjärkeväänvedenkäyttöön – A guide to sensible water consumption (in finnish). [Internet document, visited 22/08/2016] Available online at: http://docplayer.fi/1842073-Opas-jarkevaan-veden-kayttoon.html


Page 101 of 101

Mingxu Cao, Katia Dahmani, Alexandre Bredimas, Mona Arnold, Kees Van Leeuwen, Peter Easton, Frederic Clarens, Richard Elelman, Industrial and commercial analysis of the integration of water and waste in Smart Cities, article currently under review by Journal of Cleaner Production

Arnold M., van Leuwen K., Easton P., Elelman R., Clarens F., Ulanicki B., Review of regulatory aspects and integrative aspects in Smart Cities, BlueSCities Project no.643354

European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities, Strategic Implementation Plan, 2013

UN NOUVEAU DÉPART POUR L’INVESTISSEMENT, Confrontation Europe la revue n° 107

Herzog, Contribution pour une stratégie européenne d’investissement, Confrontations Europe n°36

European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities, Operational Implementation Plan: First Public Draft

Cencelec Website : http://www.cencenelec.eu/aboutus/Pages/default.aspx

Date post:	30-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document · 2018-11-13 · D4.2 Revised Practical Guidance Document...

Documents