"Who Cares?": The Acceptance of Decentralized Wastewater Systems in Regions Without Water Problems

Overview

Journal Int J Environ Res Public Health

Publisher MDPI

Specialties Environmental Health
Public Health

Date 2020 Dec 9

PMID 33291681

Citations 2

Authors

Cristina Gomez-Roman

Luisa Lima

Sergio Vila-Tojo

Andrea Correa-Chica

Juan Lema

Jose-Manuel Sabucedo

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

There is a growing interest in decentralized wastewater treatment systems, especially in regions with water scarcity problems or water management issues. This study aims to determine whether the perceived advantages and disadvantages (leading to acceptance) of decentralized wastewater plants in such regions are the same in regions where the population is not aware of these water issues. Firstly, this study systematically reviews previous findings on public perceptions of the acceptance of decentralized wastewater treatment systems. Then, the study details the results of a focus group study to determine whether the elements identified in the literature are also relevant in a region where people are unaware of water problems. The results show that a lack of awareness of water issues seems to be a critical factor influencing acceptance. Reframing the usefulness of these systems by focusing on other aspects, such as environmental sustainability, is key.

Citing Articles

The role of information and participation in overcoming users' initial reluctance: a case study of a decentralized wastewater treatment plant.

Vila-Tojo S, Gomez-Roman C, Sabucedo J Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1445320.

PMID: 39564585 PMC: 11573550. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445320.

Environmental Concern Priming and Social Acceptance of Sustainable Technologies: The Case of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems.

Gomez-Roman C, Sabucedo J, Alzate M, Medina B Front Psychol. 2021; 12:647406.

PMID: 34603115 PMC: 8481576. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647406.

References

Gikas P, Tchobanoglous G . The role of satellite and decentralized strategies in water resources management. J Environ Manage. 2007; 90(1):144-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.016. View

Mankad A . Decentralised water systems: emotional influences on resource decision making. Environ Int. 2012; 44:128-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2012.01.002. View

Villarin M, Merel S . Paradigm shifts and current challenges in wastewater management. J Hazard Mater. 2020; 390:122139. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122139. View

Lienert J, Larsen T . High acceptance of urine source separation in seven European countries: a review. Environ Sci Technol. 2009; 44(2):556-66. DOI: 10.1021/es9028765. View

Chen R, Wang X . Cost-benefit evaluation of a decentralized water system for wastewater reuse and environmental protection. Water Sci Technol. 2009; 59(8):1515-22. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2009.156. View

Lamichhane K, Babcock Jr R . Survey of attitudes and perceptions of urine-diverting toilets and human waste recycling in Hawaii. Sci Total Environ. 2012; 443:749-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.11.039. View

Blume S, Winker M . Three years of operation of the urine diversion system at GTZ headquarters in Germany: user opinions and maintenance challenges. Water Sci Technol. 2011; 64(3):579-86. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2011.530. View

Lienert J, Larsen T . Considering user attitude in early Development of environmentally friendly technology: a case study of NoMix toilets. Environ Sci Technol. 2006; 40(16):4838-44. DOI: 10.1021/es060075o. View

Watts L, Todd E, Mulhearn T, Medeiros K, Mumford M, Connelly S . Qualitative Evaluation Methods in Ethics Education: A Systematic Review and Analysis of Best Practices. Account Res. 2016; 24(4):225-242. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2016.1274975. View

10.

Poortvliet P, Sanders L, Weijma J, de Vries J . Acceptance of new sanitation: The role of end-users' pro-environmental personal norms and risk and benefit perceptions. Water Res. 2017; 131:90-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.032. View

11.

Moglia M, Alexander K, Sharma A . Discussion of the enabling environments for decentralised water systems. Water Sci Technol. 2011; 63(10):2331-9. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2011.443. View

12.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med. 2011; 3(3):e123-30. PMC: 3090117. View

13.

Libralato G, Volpi Ghirardini A, Avezzu F . To centralise or to decentralise: an overview of the most recent trends in wastewater treatment management. J Environ Manage. 2011; 94(1):61-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.07.010. View

14.

Prouty C, Mohebbi S, Zhang Q . Socio-technical strategies and behavior change to increase the adoption and sustainability of wastewater resource recovery systems. Water Res. 2018; 137:107-119. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.009. View

15.

Rygaard M, Godskesen B, Jorgensen C, Hoffmann B . Holistic assessment of a secondary water supply for a new development in Copenhagen, Denmark. Sci Total Environ. 2014; 497-498:430-439. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.078. View

16.

van Afferden M, Cardona J, Lee M, Subah A, Muller R . A new approach to implementing decentralized wastewater treatment concepts. Water Sci Technol. 2015; 72(11):1923-30. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2015.393. View

17.

Mankad A, Tapsuwan S . Review of socio-economic drivers of community acceptance and adoption of decentralised water systems. J Environ Manage. 2010; 92(3):380-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.037. View

18.

Roefs I, Meulman B, Vreeburg J, Spiller M . Centralised, decentralised or hybrid sanitation systems? Economic evaluation under urban development uncertainty and phased expansion. Water Res. 2016; 109:274-286. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.051. View

19.

Friedler E, Lahav O, Jizhaki H, Lahav T . Study of urban population attitudes towards various wastewater reuse options: Israel as a case study. J Environ Manage. 2006; 81(4):360-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.11.013. View

20.

Singh N, Kazmi A, Starkl M . A review on full-scale decentralized wastewater treatment systems: techno-economical approach. Water Sci Technol. 2015; 71(4):468-78. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2014.413. View