IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v33y2019i12d10.1007_s11269-019-02347-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing a Closed-Loop Water Conservation System at Micro Level Through Circular Economy Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Mousumi Roy

    (National Institute of Technology)

  • Lassi Linnanen

    (Lappeenranta University of Technology)

  • Sankha Chakrabortty

    (National Institute of Technology)

  • Parimal Pal

    (National Institute of Technology)

Abstract

A closed loop system for micro-level conservation of fresh water at household user point has been developed in this work in a comprehensive circular economy (CE) framework encompassing technical, environmental and economic aspects in a concurrent manner. The system has been developed through field survey of households in an urban setting in Indian context and experimental investigation on membrane filtration and recirculation of grey water generated from domestic use like cooking, bathing, washing etc. Pollution load of the grey water utilized in the sample involved high alkalinity (pH = 9.00), total suspended solid (TSS = 536 mg/L), odour (TON 2). Membrane based filtration process has been developed to ensure that the reclaimed water is of acceptable quality as alkalinity decreases to 7.2, TSS reduces to 95 mg per litre and odour in terms of TON reduces to one. Economic feasibility of implementing such a system is assessed by cost benefit analysis. Estimated annualized total cost (capital and operating) for treating and reusing a cubic meter of waste water in this CE framework amounts to US $1.5 only. Preference score derived from utility estimates of conjoint analysis (CA) reveal that consumers have positive attitude to accept water conservation strategy in circular economy framework. The ideal composition of reclaimed grey water to be preferred is odourless (TON value near 1), low TSS (less than 102 mg/L) and neutral pH (nearly7.00) The study reveals that about half of fresh water demand per day per capita can be saved by developing a closed-loop production system at micro level, where grey water generated as waste from domestic use is not discharged as followed in traditional open-ended economic model. Instead of take-make-use-discharge, waste water is added in the production system as a resource. After applying an advanced cost-effective clean technology, grey water is kept in a material loop and usage creating further value for a longer period. Sustainable water system development by this holistic circular water conservation approach is no longer an option but a necessity to protect the life-sustaining valuable freshwater resource. Developing water conservation system in closed-loop model provides a novel solution as it will yield positive and significant utility and economic value in a very cost effective green design.

Suggested Citation

  • Mousumi Roy & Lassi Linnanen & Sankha Chakrabortty & Parimal Pal, 2019. "Developing a Closed-Loop Water Conservation System at Micro Level Through Circular Economy Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(12), pages 4157-4170, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:33:y:2019:i:12:d:10.1007_s11269-019-02347-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11269-019-02347-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-019-02347-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11269-019-02347-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Encarnación Gil-Meseguer & Miguel Borja Bernabé-Crespo & José María Gómez-Espín, 2019. "Recycled Sewage - A Water Resource for Dry Regions of Southeastern Spain," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(2), pages 725-737, January.
    2. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    3. Ekin Birol & Katia Karousakis & Phoebe Koundouri, 2006. "Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: A survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application," DEOS Working Papers 0607, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    4. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    5. Garrod, G. D. & Willis, K. G., 1997. "The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 45-61, April.
    6. F. Thomas Juster, 1966. "Consumer Buying Intentions and Purchase Probability: An Experiment in Survey Design," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number just66-2.
    7. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick, 2002. "Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 107-116, January.
    8. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    9. Hunt Allcott & Todd Rogers, 2014. "The Short-Run and Long-Run Effects of Behavioral Interventions: Experimental Evidence from Energy Conservation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(10), pages 3003-3037, October.
    10. Mousumi Roy, 2010. "Managing the village-level open-access water resources in a region facing rapidly declining water availability," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(6), pages 999-1012, December.
    11. Harry Telser & Peter Zweifel, 2002. "Measuring willingness‐to‐pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 129-139, March.
    12. Liang Lu & David Deller & Morten Hviid, 2019. "Price and Behavioural Signals to Encourage Household Water Conservation: Implications for the UK," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(2), pages 475-491, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    2. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Peter Zweifel & Harry Telser & Stephan Vaterlaus, 2006. "Consumer Resistance Against Regulation: The Case of Health Care," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 319-332, May.
    4. Komarek, Timothy M. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2011. "Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: Choice experiment evidence from a research institution," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5105-5115, September.
    5. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    6. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mura, Marina & Contu, Davide, 2012. "Combining choice experiments with psychometric scales to assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: A latent class approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 334-347.
    7. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    8. Bakti Hasan-Basri & Mohd Zaini Abd Karim & Normizan Bakar, 2015. "Willingness To Pay For Recreational Attributes Of Public Parks: A Choice Experiment Approach," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 60(05), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    10. Bergmann, Ariel & Hanley, Nick & Wright, Robert, 2006. "Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1004-1014, June.
    11. Asgary, Ali & Rezvani, Mohammad Reza & Mehregan, Nader, 2011. "Local Residents’ Preferences for Second Home Tourism Development Policies: A Choice Experiment nalysis," MPRA Paper 29703, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    13. Qingbin Wang & Laurel Valchuis & Ethan Thompson & David Conner & Robert Parsons, 2019. "Consumer Support and Willingness to Pay for Electricity from Solar, Wind, and Cow Manure in the United States: Evidence from a Survey in Vermont," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    14. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2012. "Generating electricity with forest biomass: Consistency and payment timeframe effects in choice experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 798-806.
    15. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Ohl, Cornelia & Hartje, Volkmar, 2010. "Landscape externalities from onshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 82-92, January.
    16. Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Calhoun, Kayla & Colson, Gregory & Kriesel, Warren, 2015. "Effects of Uncertainty on Support for Water Quality Improvement Programs," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205419, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Ladenburg, Jacob & Lutzeyer, Sanja, 2012. "The economics of visual disamenity reductions of offshore wind farms—Review and suggestions from an emerging field," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(9), pages 6793-6802.
    18. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    19. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    20. Qin, Pin & Carlsson, Fredrik & Xu, Jintao, 2009. "Forestland Reform in China: What do the Farmers Want? A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Working Papers in Economics 370, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:33:y:2019:i:12:d:10.1007_s11269-019-02347-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.