Wastewater

Pay Drechsel • Manzoor Qadir • Dennis Wichelns

Editors

Wastewater
Economic Asset in an Urbanizing World

1  3
Editors
Pay Drechsel Dennis Wichelns
International Water Management Institute Agricultural Water Management
(IWMI) Bloomington
Colombo IN
Sri Lanka USA

Manzoor Qadir
United Nations University Institute
for Water, Environment and Health
Hamilton
Ontario
Canada

ISBN 978-94-017-9544-9       ISBN 978-94-017-9545-6 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6
Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015931115

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts
in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of
being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright
Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained
from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance
Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply , even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Foreword

Urbanization – coupled with improved living standards, population increase, and

economic development – is generating ever greater volumes of wastewater. Once
stigmatized as a waste, wastewater is increasingly recognized as a valuable source
of water, nutrients, organic matter, and energy. When managed safely, wastewater
supports agricultural production and industrial needs in urban and peri-urban areas
and contributes to the livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers in many parts
of the world. In addition, wastewater has shown its potential for reclaiming potable
water, aquifer recharge, sustainable implementation of aquaculture and agroforest-
ry, and the support of various ecosystem services.
It is clear that achieving universal treatment of waste will take many generations
and so alternative, more cost effective solutions are needed in parallel. And yet the
scale of planned resource recovery from wastewater is currently quite limited, es-
pecially in low- and middle-income countries. The public sector and the emerging
private sector, which could play important roles in resource recovery, often struggle
with operational challenges, inadequate regulatory frameworks, and often the lack
of capacity to develop or evaluate business plans pertaining to resource recovery
and reuse.
Based on the most up to date information and data, this book showcases waste-
water from on-site sanitation as well as sewered systems as an asset that can be
valued financially and economically. By changing the paradigm of ‘treatment for
disposal’ to ‘treatment for reuse’ a variety of value propositions for water, nutrient
and energy recovery can support cost savings, cost recovery, or even profit genera-
tion, contingent upon management of possible health and environmental risks.
The book editors and chapter authors have undertaken a challenging and ex-
citing task of providing insights into the economics of wastewater use and ‘busi-
ness thinking’ in a sector that traditionally relies on public funding. We believe
that with continued applied research and technological advances, effective policy
messages, private sector involvement, and successful business development, the
prospects of achieving national and international sanitation and water reuse targets
can be greatly enhanced for the benefit of millions of households. This book offers

v
vi Foreword

a pertinent and credible analysis of the challenges and opportunities in transforming

wastewater into an economic asset and turning urbanization from a challenge into
an opportunity.

Jeremy Bird   Zafar Adeel

Director General   Director
International Water Management  United Nations University Institute
Institute (IWMI)   for Water, Environment and Health
  (UNU-INWEH)
Contents

Part I  Introduction and Background

1  Wastewater: Economic Asset in an Urbanizing World..........................   3

Dennis Wichelns, Pay Drechsel and Manzoor Qadir

2  Global Wastewater and Sludge Production, Treatment and Use.........   15

Javier Mateo-Sagasta, Liqa Raschid-Sally and Anne Thebo

3 Health Risks and Cost-Effective Health Risk Management in

Wastewater Use Systems..........................................................................   39
Bernard Keraita, Kate Medlicott, Pay Drechsel
and Javier Mateo-Sagasta

4 Environmental Risks and Cost-Effective Risk Management

in Wastewater Use Systems���������������������������������������������������������������������    55
Manzoor Qadir, Javier Mateo-Sagasta, Blanca Jiménez,
Christina Siebe, Jan Siemens and Munir A. Hanjra

Part II  Socio-economics of Wastewater Use

5  Social and Cultural Dimensions in Wastewater Use..............................   75

Pay Drechsel, Olfa Mahjoub and Bernard Keraita

6 Policy and Institutional Determinants of Wastewater

Use in Agriculture.....................................................................................   93
Dennis Wichelns and Manzoor Qadir

7 Assessing the Finance and Economics of Resource Recovery

and Reuse Solutions Across Scales...........................................................  113
Munir A. Hanjra, Pay Drechsel, Javier Mateo-Sagasta,
Miriam Otoo and Francesc Hernández-Sancho

vii
viii Contents

Part III  Costs and Benefits

8 Wastewater Use in Agriculture:

Challenges in Assessing Costs and Benefits............................................  139
Pay Drechsel, George Danso and Manzoor Qadir

9   Costs and Benefits of Using Wastewater for Aquifer Recharge.........  153
 Manzoor Qadir, Eline Boelee, Priyanie Amerasinghe
and George Danso

10 Economics of Water Reuse for Industrial,

Environmental, Recreational and Potable Purposes........................... 169
  Miriam Otoo, Javier Mateo-Sagasta and Ganesha Madurangi

Part IV  Thinking Business

11 Business Models and Economic Approaches

Supporting Water Reuse......................................................................... 195
  Krishna Rao, Munir A. Hanjra, Pay Drechsel and George Danso

12 Business Models and Economic Approaches

for Recovering Energy from Wastewater and Fecal Sludge...............  217
 Solomie Gebrezgabher, Krishna Rao, Munir A. Hanjra
and Francesc Hernández-Sancho

13 Business Models and Economic Approaches

for Nutrient Recovery from Wastewater and Fecal Sludge................  247
  Miriam Otoo, Pay Drechsel and Munir A. Hanjra

Part V  Outlook

14 Transforming Urban Wastewater into an Economic Asset:

Opportunities and Challenges...............................................................  271
 Munir A. Hanjra, Pay Drechsel, Dennis Wichelns
and Manzoor Qadir

  Chapter Reviewers���������������������������������������������������������������������������������   279

  Index.........................................................................................................  281
About the Editors

Pay Drechsel is a trained environmental scientist working since 20 years in

the domain of applied natural resources management in developing countries.
Pay has worked extensively on biophysical, social and economic aspects of safe
wastewater use and the recovery of nutrients from solid and liquid waste for urban
and peri-urban farming systems. After several years with the International Board
for Soil Research and Management, Pay joined in 2001 the International Water
Management Institute (IWMI) where he is currently leading the global Theme
on ‘Resource Recovery, Water Quality and Health’. Under the IWMI-led CGIAR
Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems, Pay is coordinating the flagship
program on ‘Recovering and Reusing Resources in Urbanizing Ecosystems’. Pay
has worked extensively in West and East Africa, but also South and South-East Asia
and is based at IWMI HQ in Sri Lanka.
Manzoor Qadir is water and soil management scientist with focus on water
recycling and safe and productive use of wastewater, water quality and
environmental health, and amelioration of salt-induced land degradation. Manzoor
has implemented multidisciplinary projects and directed research teams in Central
and West Asia and North Africa. Before joining the United Nations University
Institute  for  Water,  Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH) in Canada in
2012, Manzoor previously held professional positions as Senior Scientist jointly
appointed by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas
(ICARDA) and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI); Visiting
Professor at the Justus-Liebig University, Giessen, Germany; and Associate
Professor at the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. He is a fellow of
the Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation and serves on the Editorial Boards of
several international journals.
Dennis Wichelns  is an agricultural and natural resource economist, with particular
interests in water, irrigation, food security, and livelihoods. Dennis has served as
a lecturer and researcher for many years, including a 3-year assignment with the
International Water Management Institute (IWMI) in Sri Lanka, from where he
interacted regularly with colleagues and research partners across Asia and Africa.
In the United States, Dennis has served as an economist with the California Water

ix
x About the Editors

Institute and also with the Rivers Institute at Hanover College. Dennis serves
currently as one of the editors of Agricultural Water Management and as chief editor
of Water Resources & Rural Development.
Contributors

Priyanie Amerasinghe  IWMI Hyderabad Office, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh,

India
Eline Boelee  Water Health, Hollandsche Rading, The Netherlands
George Danso  University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Pay Drechsel  International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo,
Sri Lanka
Solomie Gebrezgabher  International Water Management Institute (IWMI),
Accra, Ghana
Munir A. Hanjra  International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Pretoria,
South Africa
Francesc Hernández-Sancho  Department of Applied Economics II, University
of Valencia, Valencia, Spain
Blanca Jiménez  Division of Water Sciences, International Hydrological
Programme, UNESCO, Paris, France; and Institute of Engineering, Universidad
Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico
Bernard Keraita  Copenhagen School of Global Health, University of Copenhagen,
Copenhagen, Denmark; and International Water Management Institute (IWMI),
Colombo, Sri Lanka
Ganesha Madurangi  c/o International Water Management Institute (IWMI),
Colombo, Sri Lanka
Olfa Mahjoub  National Research Institute for Rural Engineering, Water, and
Forestry, Ariana, Tunisia
Javier Mateo-Sagasta  International Water Management Institute (IWMI),
Colombo, Sri Lanka
Kate Medlicott  Department of Public Health and Environment, World Health
Organization (WHO) Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland

xi
xii Contributors

Miriam Otoo International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo,

Sri Lanka
Manzoor Qadir  United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and
Health, Hamilton, ON, Canada; and International Water Management Institute
(IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka
Krishna Rao  International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo,
Sri Lanka
Liqa Raschid-Sally  c/o International Water Management Institute (IWMI),
Colombo, Sri Lanka
Christina Siebe  Instituto de Geología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México, Cd. Universitaria, Mexico City, D.F., Mexico
Jan Siemens  Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, Division Soil
Science and Soil Ecology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Anne Thebo  University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
Dennis Wichelns  Bloomington, IN, USA
 Part I
Introduction and Background
Chapter 1
Wastewater: Economic Asset in an Urbanizing
World

Dennis Wichelns, Pay Drechsel and Manzoor Qadir

Wastewater is only wastewater when we choose to waste it

(Michael J. Wilson)

Abstract  The challenge of providing food, water, and nutritional security for
households and communities in 2050 will be greater than the challenge today. The
increasing demands, especially from urban areas, will place significant pressure
on land, water, and energy resources. While water recycling and reuse offer the
opportunity to augment water resources, there are other valuable resources that
can be recovered, as well. Innovative technologies are available that can transform
wastewater and bio-solids into energy, fertilizer and other useful materials. With
additional investment in resource recovery and reuse, the potential for achieving
cost recovery in the sanitation sector increases. A key step is to introduce ‘business
thinking’ and private sector investments in a sector that traditionally relies on pub-
lic funding. With continued applied research, effective policies, supportive institu-
tional capacities, private sector involvement, and successful business development
and advocacy, the prospects of transforming wastewater from an environmental
burden into a safe economic asset are quite promising.

Keywords  Wastewater business · Costs and benefits · Water recycling and reuse ·
Energy · Nutrients · Resource recovery · Value proposition · Urbanization

D. Wichelns ()
P.O. Box 2629, 47402 Bloomington, IN, USA
e-mail: dwichelns@mail.fresnostate.edu
P. Drechsel
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
e-mail: p.drechsel@cgiar.org
M. Qadir
United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, 175 Longwood Road
South, L8P 0A1 Hamilton, ON, Canada
e-mail: manzoor.qadir@unu.edu

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 3

P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_1
4 D. Wichelns et al.

1.1 Introduction

The 2013 Global Monitoring Report highlights the unique opportunity that urban-
ization offers to governments striving to accelerate progress toward achieving their
development goals. Rural-urban linkages, in particular, offer notable potential for
eradicating poverty, opening new markets, and promoting investments in pro-poor
services (World Bank 2013). This message applies also to the global challenges of
improving access to clean water and sanitation, and reusing wastewater across the
rural-urban corridor. Lazarova et al. (2013) illustrate the water reuse potential in the
IWA benchmark publication, “Milestones in Water Reuse: The Best Success Sto-
ries.” The authors show that planning for water reuse is gaining significant momen-
tum in discussions of sustainable water resources management, green economies,
and urban planning. Increasingly, wastewater use is seen as an essential component
of local and national efforts to adapt to climate change, enhance food security, ex-
tend potable water supply, and optimize industrial and recreational water use.
Global Water Intelligence is projecting a 271 % increase in the planned reuse
of treated municipal wastewater, from about 7 km3 per year in 2011 to 26 km3 per
year in 2030 (GWI 2014). At present, agriculture accounts for about one-third of the
global use of tertiary treated wastewater. This number does not reflect the signifi-
cantly larger share of untreated or partially treated wastewater, which is supporting
irrigated crop production, especially in low- and middle-income countries, where
treatment levels are less advanced and overall treatment capacities are not keeping
pace with population growth and urbanization (Raschid-Sally and Jayakody 2008).
Wastewater irrigation occurs here on an estimated 6–20  million  ha around 3 out
of 4 cities in the developing world (Fig. 1.1), with the largest, mostly unplanned
shares in China and India. Much of that use is indirect, as farmers divert water from
streams carrying a commingled blend of untreated wastewater and fresh water.
Wastewater use is gaining momentum for several reasons (GWI 2010; Jimenez
et al. 2010):
1. Water scarcity is moving up on the global political agenda, including the Sus-
tainable Development Goals (SDG). Increasing demands for water, due to eco-
nomic and population growth are placing substantial pressure on the fixed global
supply.
2. Environmental concerns are gaining prominence. Historically, the solution
to water scarcity was to build a new dam, or transfer water from one basin to
another. Both approaches have notable costs and environmental impacts that
limit their suitability in the twenty-first century. By comparison, water reuse
requires less energy than desalination, and its planned introduction is generally
beneficial to the environment, especially if combined with the recovery of non-
renewable resources, such as phosphorus.
3. Governments are beginning to realize the ‘double value proposition’ in water
reuse. Without reuse, wastewater treatment has an environmental value, but no
financial value. Water, nutrient and energy reuse add new value streams to the
proposition.
1  Wastewater: Economic Asset in an Urbanizing World 5

Fig. 1.1   Countries with recorded wastewater use for irrigation. (Source: www.fao.org/nr/water/
aquastat/wastewater/index.stm; and IWMI, unpublished)

4. The informal irrigation sector is increasingly recognized as an engine of growth,

especially in peri-urban areas of developing countries. The widespread use of
unsafe water in these areas has prompted WHO to test on- and off-farm options
for safeguarding farmers and public health to support the safe development of
this booming sector.

1.2 Changing Demographics and Resource Flows

Although the rate of growth in world population is slowing down, the size of the
global population will continue increasing for many decades. Thus, the challenge
of providing food and water security for families, households, and communities in
2050 will be greater than the challenge today. By then the global population will
likely be in the range of 9–11 billion, as compared with the current 7 billion (UN
2012). Aggregate incomes will be higher in many regions, and the households earn-
ing higher incomes will demand more goods and services than their predecessors
consume today, especially among the booming urban populations. We expect global
demands for meat and vegetables to increase, over time, as households change their
consumption patterns, replacing cereals and other staples with more desirable and
more nutritious food items (Falkenmark 2012). Feeding future population on more
nutritious diets will require much more water use even to supply the same calorie
needs.
6 D. Wichelns et al.

The increasing demands for food and fiber will place greater pressure on land,
water, and energy resources. Universities, research institutes, agricultural com-
panies, and millions of farm families must rise to the challenge of increasing ag-
ricultural output, while sustaining and enhancing the natural resources that sup-
port agriculture and ecosystems. Advances in agricultural science, innovations
in production technology and extraordinary genetic enhancements have enabled
farmers to produce sufficient food globally throughout the nineteenth and twenti-
eth centuries. With the notable exception of sub-Saharan Africa, food supply has
increased faster than population, such that food availability per person has risen,
over time. To maintain and build on this success in future, we must increase food
production, improve distribution, and ensure access and affordability for the poor.
And we must serve an additional 2–3 billion persons, most of whom will reside
in urban areas.
Between now and 2030, the sourcing of water for human needs is expected to
change, as the pressure on natural freshwater resources becomes more intense. This
pressure is likely to come primarily from agriculture, as increasing demands for
higher protein diets and biofuels will require a significant increase in agricultural
output, which can only be met through greater water use. This might lead to greater
impairment of groundwater resources and over-exploitation of surface water, in-
cluding a 66 % increase in non-renewable groundwater withdrawals which is likely
to affect millions of people by 2030, and billions by the end of the century (GWI
2014). Under these circumstances, there will be limited alternatives to maintain-
ing the balance between water supply and demand. Water reuse, including indi-
rect potable reuse and desalination, will gain prominence, as public agencies seek
economically and socially acceptable solutions to water demand and supply imbal-
ances. Matching waters of different qualities with appropriate uses, and implement-
ing helpful reuse incentives, will become an essential component of public agency
activities.
The common call to “produce more food with less water,” or to obtain “more
crop per drop” might sound compelling in this context, but opportunities actually
are limited. Water demand is projected to increase by 55 % globally between 2000
and 2050 (OECD 2012), and if we are to produce more food in 2050 than today,
crops must transpire more water. The relationship between transpiration and bio-
mass production is mostly linear, such that an increase in crop production requires
a proportionate increase in the amount of water consumed by plants. The linear
relationship can be shifted with improvements in crop breeding, and such gains cer-
tainly have been realized in the past. Yet it seems sensible to plan for larger volumes
of transpiration in future, while not taking for granted the prospect of continuous
improvements in genetic performance.
Many fast-growing cities face substantial, practical challenges in develop-
ing water resources or infrastructure to meet their citizens’ needs, and many are
­consequently sourcing water from distant sources which implies significant pump-
ing costs. Across India, to give an example, urban water sources are as far as 300 km
away from the cities or can only be found in a depth of 1000  m (Anon 2011).
1  Wastewater: Economic Asset in an Urbanizing World 7

I­ ncreasing water demands are placing substantial pressure on urban and peri-urban
areas, leading to increasing calls for water reuse and inter-sectoral water transfers
(Falkenmark 2012), as described, for example in the case of water-wastewater
swaps in Spain and Mexico (Winpenny et al. 2010).
Inter-sectoral transfers might look first at agriculture which accounts in many
countries for about 70 % of water withdrawals, while industry requires 20 %, and
domestic demand is about 10 %. Thus, moving water away from agriculture to uses
with higher economic value is widely seen as desirable, especially in view of com-
monly reported inefficiencies in agricultural water use. In return, cities can offer
farmers treated wastewater.
However, Molle and Berkoff (2006) argue that urban growth generally is not
constrained by competition with agriculture. In general, rather than using a nar-
row financial criterion, cities select options that reflect a “path of least resistance,”
whereby economic, social and political costs are considered together. The authors
conclude that the popular perspective that reallocating a small portion of irrigation
water to cities would satisfy increasing urban demands is deceptive. In their view,
both the arithmetic and the causality are potentially misleading. Much of the water
used by irrigation might be diverted at times and places where there is no alterna-
tive use, and a large part of the wastewater return flow is already used downstream
(Molle and Berkoff 2006).
Given the strong agricultural demand for water, one might still argue that agri-
culture should be given priority in water reuse strategies. However, the trend in the
water reuse industry is toward uses with higher economic value, rather than serving
agricultural customers (GWI 2010). GWI also expresses the concern that free or
heavily-subsidized ‘reclaimed’ water will only supplement, rather than substitute,
for the water farmers draw from nature.

1.3 Recovering Costs

While the economic analysis of environmental and social benefits will help to
decide whether or not wastewater treatment should be carried out, the financial
analysis will determine if the project could be financed and how. Reuse offers a
variety of means to support financial cost recovery, although the options related
to agricultural reuse alone are often limited. There are plenty types of resources
that can be recovered such as energy, metals, nutrients, and valuable organics, and
some revolutionary technologies have appeared that can transform wastewater or
bio-solids into energy and useful materials. Figure 1.2 shows the variety of selected
value propositions and options for cost recovery from wastewater treatment to reuse
which center around the recovery of water, nutrients and energy which are the thrust
of this book.
In many areas, reclaimed water must be priced attractively, relative to potable
water, to gain public acceptance. In such cases, motivating reuse takes precedence
8 D. Wichelns et al.

Fig. 1.2   Ladder of increasing value propositions related to wastewater treatment based on increas-
ing investments and cost recovery potential. (Source: IWMI)

over cost recovery, as the rationale for water pricing (Mantovani et  al. 2001). A
survey of 26 public utilities in the United States found that 29 % recover 100 % of
their annual operating costs via sales revenue from reclaimed water. About 43 %
of respondents cover less than 25 % of their operating costs, with the remaining
respondents covering more than half of their costs. In another survey conducted by
the Water Environmental Research Foundation which includes a more diverse sam-
ple, only 12 out of 79 projects set reclaimed water rates aimed at full cost recovery
(GWI 2010). In a report of the Tunisian Ministry of Agriculture, cost recovery rates
from different areas irrigated with treated wastewater range between 13 and 76 %
of operational expenses for agricultural supply component (Chenini et  al. 2003).
In many cases, like this, sales revenues from reclaimed water are not sufficient to
cover any substantial amount of the operational and maintenance costs of the water
treatment facility itself.
The finance of wastewater recovery and use becomes more favorable when treat-
ment costs are low and the value proposition goes beyond recovering water from
wastewater and includes for example the recovery of nutrients and energy (see be-
low). In such cases, the likelihood of recovering both the fixed and variable costs of
wastewater use, and parts of the operational and maintenance costs of the treatment
process is improved. Technology choice is important, particularly in developing
countries. Wastewater use, especially in agriculture, can be supported by relatively
simple treatment processes of proven technology, with low investment costs and
affordable operation and maintenance. Such processes are particularly suited to
1  Wastewater: Economic Asset in an Urbanizing World 9

countries with warm climates, as biological processes perform better at higher tem-
peratures. The investment costs for such simple or ‘appropriate’ treatment facilities
are in the range of 20–50 % of conventional treatment plants, and more importantly,
the operation and maintenance costs are in the range of 5–25 % of conventional ac-
tivated sludge treatment plants. These cost differentials are substantial from a finan-
cial point of view (Libhaber and Orozco-Jaramillo 2013). Appropriate technology
processes include (but are not limited to) the following: Lagoon treatment, upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors, anaerobic baffled reactors (ABRs), con-
structed wetlands, or stabilisation reservoirs for wastewater use. Various combina-
tions of these processes can be set up.
In view of the significant variations in costs and cost recovery, Lazarova et al.
(2013) call for more attention to economic viability also of the reuse component.
Yet even where resource recovery and reuse fail to cover their extra costs, invest-
ments in reuse generally compare well vis-à-vis dams and other options to increase
water supply. Thus, to maximize the net benefits of water reuse, it is important to
examine its social, environmental and financial costs and benefits, including the
cost of no action, and to compare results to the next-best alternative, like desalina-
tion or water transfer.
Based on the social and environmental benefits of wastewater treatment, it is
natural that today about 85 % of water utilities are publicly financed and operated,
typically by municipal agencies. During the 1990s, there was strong growth in pri-
vate-sector participation in the international water sector, but this trend was later re-
versed, due to heavy losses and public opposition to privatizing water utilities (GWI
2010). Rather than supporting large-scale utility concessions, the focus of private
finance has shifted to individual projects, such as desalination plants and wastewa-
ter treatment plants, including nutrient recovery. The combination of wastewater
use’s “double value proposition” and the fact that there is little public opposition
to private-sector participation in the wastewater industry suggests this market will
evolve rapidly, especially where policies and regulations are strongly supporting
reuse, like in Australia, India, and Mexico (GWI 2014).

1.4 From Cost Recovery to a Viable Business

Wastewater use is not only about reclaiming water. As urban areas expand and more
food is consumed in cities, an increasing portion of the plant nutrients contained in
harvested crops will find their way into the waste products of consumers. Depend-
ing on the region and local waste management capacity and treatment levels, many
of these nutrients will re-appear in human waste streams, including the waste dis-
charged from households into septic tanks and sewers.
The plant nutrient content of wastewater is viewed by many farmers as a positive
feature of wastewater irrigation. Indeed, farmers can benefit from the non-priced
supplies of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients. However, unless farmers can
10 D. Wichelns et al.

access the effluent directly, it will be difficult for them to estimate the concentra-
tion of any nutrient in the wastewater. The concentrations will change with distance
from a treatment plant, through dilution in the commingled streams and canals from
which most farmers withdraw irrigation water.
The increasingly promoted alternative is to capture the nutrients during the treat-
ment process and to make them available to farmers. However, only an estimated
10–20 % of the wastewater generated globally reaches a treatment facility. The cur-
rent global capacity to treat wastewater to advanced levels is only 4 % of the volume
generated (USEPA 2012). This is much less than the capacity needed to sustain-
ably close the rural-urban nutrient loop, which is even more important where com-
mercial fertilizers are not affordable for smallholder farmers. However, there are
strong pull and push factors driving nutrient recovery in the treatment industry. On
one hand, there are stricter environmental regulations supporting nutrient recovery
from sewage and the re-utilization of sewage sludge. And on the other hand, it is
financially today more interesting to go for controlled P recovery than the chemical
treatment needed to remove unwanted P precipitation in the treatment plant. Finally,
with increasing mining costs of rock-phosphate, P recovery generation becomes
more cost competitive. Smart subsidies supporting resource recovery can certainly
enhance the viability of reuse businesses, whereas subsidies for industrial fertilizers
are often a barrier to break even.
While extensive sewer systems require advanced technology to separate nutri-
ents from sewage or sewage sludge, it is technically and financially easier to trans-
form septage from on-site treatment facilities, such as septic tanks and latrines into
an organic or organic-mineral fertilizer, which can be sold at market price. The
advantage of fecal sludge from septic tanks is the significantly lower risk of chemi-
cal contamination than from biosolids produced in the sewage treatment process
(Koné et al. 2010).
With more investments in resource recovery and reuse also the potential of cost
recovery increases. The next step on the value proposition ladder, in addition to
water, nutrient and organic matter recovery, is energy. Many treatment processes,
especially aerobic ones, require substantial energy. Yet, energy can be generated
from fecal sludge, thus reducing the net energy cost of treatment. Energy recovery
improves the benefit-cost ratio of wastewater use, and provides opportunities to
serve local energy markets. Related carbon credits can offer another attractive rev-
enue stream.
Another value proposition is based on the products the recovered water or nu-
trients will be used for. Where for example, nutrient removal in wastewater treat-
ment ponds is based on aquatic plants, such as duckweed, the pond operator-cum-
entrepreneur might use the duckweed as fish feed or to produce biofuel. In these
cases, the operator can create even more value to recover the operational costs of the
business and also the construction of the treatment ponds as the duckweed examples
from Peru and Bangladesh show.
1  Wastewater: Economic Asset in an Urbanizing World 11

1.5 Economic Asset in an Urbanizing World

The existing literature on water reuse shows a strong bias toward technical publica-
tions, and those addressing the topic from a water quality guidelines perspective,
or describing public perceptions and health risks. There is an increasing number of
publications providing frameworks for evaluating the benefits and costs of water
reuse, such as Hussain et al. 2001; Morris et al., 2005; Raucher, 2006; Hernandez
et al. 2006; and Winpenny et al. 2010. However, a larger gap exists regarding analy-
sis of the trajectory from cost recovery to business opportunities, taking into account
options for water, nutrient and energy recovery in sewered and unsewered systems
(e.g. Koné 2010; Murray et al. 2011a, 2011b). There are many promising options,
particularly in low income countries of “making wastewater an asset” which could
motivate public and private sector to stronger engage in sanitation, and ideally feed
revenues from reuse back in the sanitation chain (Otoo et al. 2012). However, re-
use is not without institutional challenges. The recovery of different value streams
could for example involve a single business model and service provider or involve
multiple stakeholders through mutually negotiated agreements. The idea that value
created through reuse can help maintaining the sanitation service chain will require
clearly agreed on benefit sharing mechanism if different entities are responsible for
different parts of the service chain.
Given the extensive and increasing interest in the economics of treated and un-
treated wastewater use, we have tapped into the Resource Recovery & Reuse flag-
ship program of the IWMI led CGIAR Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems
(WLE) to assemble key authors within and outside the program working in the field
of wastewater finance, economics and business modeling. We have asked them to
provide current assessments of key features regarding reuse in agriculture and for
other purposes, with a non-exclusive focus on low and middle income countries.
The reader will see that a few chapters reference the same reuse cases, partly be-
cause of their well-known illustrative value, but also to show different perspectives
and motives for wastewater use, as well as different value propositions where more
than water is reclaimed.
This resulting book is structured in five sections:
Part I (Introduction and Background)  provides with Chapters 1–2 introduction
and a general overview of wastewater and fecal sludge generation, treatment, and
use in agriculture across the globe. Chapters 3 and 4 address the health and environ-
mental risks of using insufficiently or untreated wastewater, especially for irrigation
in developing countries. These risks must be evaluated when fully assessing the
potential costs and benefits of wastewater use. We need to know more about those
risks, and also about cost effective methods of reducing the probabilities of harmful
outcomes.
Part II (Socio-economics of Wastewater Use)  describes in Chapters 5 and 6 the
social, cultural and institutional aspects of wastewater use and management, with
the goal of promoting a better understanding of the policy environment required to
12 D. Wichelns et al.

initiate interest in wider uses of wastewater at local, regional, and national scales.
Our authors look among others at cultural and gender implication drawing from
the literature and from their experience in describing how the initial constraints
to wastewater use can be overcome, and how sustainability might be achieved. In
Chapter  7, we provide a framework for assessing the finance and economics of
water related resource recovery and reuse solutions across scales. The framework
covers water reuse, energy recovery, carbon credits, and nutrient capture from
wastewater as well as fecal sludge and biosolids.
Part III (Costs and Benefits)  examines the challenges in applying a cost-benefits
framework in Chapter 8, drawing from empirical case studies of wastewater use in
agriculture, while Chapters 9 and 10 look at examples related to aquifer recharge,
industrial, environmental, recreational and potable purposes. Taken together, these
chapters provide a current and comprehensive overview of the economics of waste-
water use, while also offering guidance regarding the prospect for reducing costs
and enhancing benefits in future.
Part IV (Thinking Business)  is perhaps the most innovative and important section
of the book. Several authors summarize in Chapters 11 (water recovery), 12 (energy
recovery), and 13 (nutrient recovery) recent examples of resource recovery and
reuse value propositions that enhance cost recovery and the prospects of financial
sustainability and might help to promote water reuse, not only in high-income but
also low- and middle-income countries. As the title of our book suggests, wastewa-
ter is an asset that has value in many uses. If we can determine how to monetize that
value in ways that enable public and private sectors to achieve higher degrees of
cost recovery or to generate profits in the delivery of wastewater services, including
options for resource recovery, we might greatly enhance the pace of investments
in a ‘circular economy’ (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2012). Greater water reuse
would also enhance social benefits, provided that the well-known health and envi-
ronmental risks can be managed appropriately.
Part V (Outlook)  concludes the book with Chapter 14 with a brief reflection on
the potential of urbanization as a positive force for catalyzing the recovery of water,
nutrients and energy from wastewater and a summary of the ‘take home messages’
and challenges discussed in the various chapters.
Our excitement in presenting these chapters builds largely from the opportunity
to support ‘business thinking’ in a sector traditionally relying on public funding, and
the goals of a ‘circular economy’ to revise the common ‘take-make-dispose’ para-
digm. We believe that with continued applied research, effective policy messages,
private sector involvement, and successful business development, the prospects
of achieving national and international sanitation and reuse targets will be greatly
enhanced for the benefit of millions of households in the sanitation—agriculture
interface.
1  Wastewater: Economic Asset in an Urbanizing World 13

References

Anon (2011) 71-City Water—Excreta Survey, Period 2005–06, Centre for Science and Environ-
ment, New Delhi
Chenini F, Huibers FP, Agodzo SK, van Lier JB, Duran A (2003) Use of wastewater in irrigated
agriculture. Country studies from Bolivia, Ghana and Tunisia, vol 3. WUR, Tunisia
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012) Towards the Circular Economy 1: Economic and business ra-
tionale for an accelerated transition; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey & Company, UK
Falkenmark M (2012) Food security: overcoming water scarcity realities. In: Jägerskog A, Jønch
Clausen T (eds) Feeding a thirsty world—challenges and opportunities for a water and food
secure future. Report Nr. 31. SIWI, Stockholm, pp 13–18
Global Water Intelligence (GWI) (2010) Municipal water reuse markets 2010. Media Analytics
Ltd., Oxford
Global Water Intelligence (GWI) (2014) Global water market 2014, volume 1. Introduction and
the Americas. Media Analytics Ltd, Oxford
Hernandez F, Urkiaga A, De las Fuetes L, Bis B, Chiru E, Balazs B, Wintgens T (2006) Feasibility
studies for water reuse projects. Desalination 187:253–261
Hussain I, Raschid L, Hanjra MA, Marikar F, van der Hoek W (2001) A framework for analyzing
socioeconomic, health and environmental impacts of wastewater use in agriculture in devel-
oping countries, Working Paper 26, Colombo, Sri Lanka, International Water Management
Institute
Jiménez B, Drechsel P, Koné D, Bahri A, Raschid-Sally L, Qadir M (2010) Wastewater, sludge and
excreta use in developing countries: an overview. In: Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L,
Redwood M, Bahri A (eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigating risk in
low-income countries. Earthscan, London, pp 3–27
Koné D (2010) Making urban excreta and wastewater management contribute to cities economic
development: a paradigm shift. Water Policy 12:602–610
Koné D, Cofie OO, Nelson K (2010) Low-cost options for pathogen reduction and nutrient re-
covery from faecal sludge. In: Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A
(eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigating risk in low-income countries.
Earthscan, London, 171–188
Lazarova V, Asano T, Bahri A, Anderson J (2013) Milestones in water reuse: the best success
stories. IWA, London. 408 pp
Libhaber M, Orozco-Jaramillo A (2013) Sustainable treatment of municipal wastewater. Water21
(October 2013). IWA Publishing, London, 25–28
Mantovani P, Asano T, Chang A, Okun D (2001) Management Practices for Nonpotable Water
Reuse, pp 4–15, Water Environment Research Foundation, United States
Molle F, Berkoff J (2006) Cities versus agriculture: revisiting intersectoral water transfers, po-
tential gains and conflicts. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute
(IWMI), Comprehensive Assessment Secretariat. vi, 70p. (Comprehensive Assessment of Wa-
ter Management in Agriculture Research Report 010)
Morris J, Lazarova V, Tyrrel S (2005) Economics of water recycling for irrigation. In: Lazarova V,
Bahri A (eds) Irrigation with recycled water: agriculture, turfgrass and landscape. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, 266–283
Murray A, Cofie O, Drechsel P (2011a) Efficiency indicators for waste-based business models:
fostering private-sector participation in wastewater and faecal-sludge management. Water Int
36:505–521
Murray A, Mekala GD, Chen X (2011b) Evolving policies and the roles of public and private
stakeholders in wastewater and faecal-sludge management in India, China and Ghana. Water
Int 36:491–504
OECD (2012) OECD environmental outlook to 2050: the consequences of policy inaction. OECD
Publishing, Paris
14 D. Wichelns et al.

Otoo M, Ryan JEH, Drechsel P (2012) Where there’s muck there’s brass—waste as a resource and
business opportunity. Handshake (IFC) 1:52–53
Raschid-Sally L, Jayakody P (2008) Drivers and characteristics of wastewater agriculture in de-
veloping countries: results from a global assessment. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water
Management Institute (IWMI). 29 p. (IWMI Research Report 127)
Raucher RS (2006) An economic framework for evaluating the benefits and costs of water reuse.
WateReuse Research Foundation, Alexandria
United Nations (2012) World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. United Nations, Depart-
ment of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, NY, USA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2012) Guidelines for Water Reuse. EPA.
EPA/600/R-12/618. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C
Winpenny J, Heinz I, Koo-Oshima S (2010) The wealth of waste: the economics of wastewater use
in agriculture. FAO Water Report 35, Rome
World Bank (2013) Global monitoring report 2013: rural–urban dynamics and the millennium
development goals. (Washington, DC) World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-9806-7
Chapter 2
Global Wastewater and Sludge Production,
Treatment and Use

Javier Mateo-Sagasta, Liqa Raschid-Sally and Anne Thebo

Abstract  Cities produce large amounts and very diverse types of waste including
wastewater. The quality of these wastes depends on their source, the way in which
they are collected and the treatment they receive. The final fate of these wastes is
also very diverse. To better understand these systems this chapter provides defini-
tions and reuse typologies and describes common reuse patterns and their driving
factors. The chapter also shows that, while the prospects for resource recovery from
wastewater and sludge are promising the potential is still largely untapped, except
in the informal sector. The resources embedded in the approximately 330 km3/year
of municipal wastewater that are globally generated would be theoretically enough
to irrigate and fertilize millions of hectares of crops and to produce biogas to supply
energy for millions of households. However, only a tiny proportion of these wastes
is currently treated, and the portion which is safely reused is significantly smaller
than the existing direct and especially indirect use of untreated wastewater, which
are posing significant potential health risks. The chapter ends with a call for stan-
dardized data collection and reporting efforts across the formal and informal reuse
sectors to provide more reliable and updated information on the wastewater and
sludge cycles, essential to develop proper diagnosis and effective policies for the
safe and productive use of these resources.

Keywords  Global wastewater production · Treatment options · Sludge production ·

Water reuse patterns

J. Mateo-Sagasta ()
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075,
Colombo, Sri Lanka
e-mail: j.mateo-sagasta@cgiar.org
L. Raschid-Sally
c/o International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
e-mail: liqa.raschid@gmail.com
Anne Thebo
University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
e-mail: thebo@)berkeley.edu
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 15
P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_2
16 J. Mateo-Sagasta et al.

2.1 Introduction

The worlds’ population is increasing and concentrating in urban centres. This trend
is particularly intense in developing countries, where an additional 2.1 billion peo-
ple are expected to be living in cities by 2030 (United Nations 2012). These cities
produce billions of tons of waste every year, including sludge and wastewater. The
fate of these wastes is very different depending on the local context: they can be
collected or not, treated or not and finally used directly, indirectly or end without
beneficial use. In literature, data on these waste streams is scarce and scattered
and comprehensive reviews and assessments at global level are missing, with only
few and partial exceptions. Nevertheless, recent efforts from global organizations
such as FAO/IWMI through AQUASTAT, UN-Habitat (2008) and the Global Wa-
ter Intelligence (GWI 2014) allow to renew these assessments and provide a more
updated review.
Municipal wastewater and sludge contain valuable resources such as water, or-
ganic matter, energy, and nutrients (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus) which can be
recovered for many and very diverse economic, social and environmental purposes.
However, and as a consequence of the deficient global data on these waste flows,
the total amount of resources that is recovered for beneficial uses has not been well
quantified so far.
This chapter offers a systematic and synthesized review of urban wastewater
and sludge flows and provides definitions and key figures to better understand the
subsequent chapters of this book. The chapter also tries to look at the dimension
of valuable resources embedded in waste streams and the extent to which these
resources are so far being recovered for beneficial uses, making wastewater and fe-
cal sludge economic assets. Where data are weak or scarce, the causes of such data
gaps are discussed.

2.2 Typology of Reuse and Definitions

Wastewater use can range from the formal use of ultrapure recycled water for ad-
vanced industrial purposes to the informal use of untreated and raw wastewater
for vegetable production in a peri-urban area. The diversity of cases is as large as
the diversity of types of wastewater and sludge, types of reuse and types of users
(Box 2.1 and 2.2).
2  Global Wastewater and Sludge Production, Treatment and Use 17

Box 2.1:  Types of Wastewater Treatment

Before being treated, sewage usually goes through pre-treatment to remove

grit, grease and gross solids that could hinder subsequent treatment stages.
Later, primary treatment aims to settle and remove suspended solids, both
organic and inorganic. The most common primary treatments are primary set-
tlers, septic and imhoff tanks.
In secondary treatment soluble biodegradable organics are degraded and
removed by bacteria and protozoa through (aerobic or anaerobic) biological
processes. Typical secondary treatments include aerated lagoons, activated
sludge, trickling filters, oxidation ditches and other extensive processes such
as constructed wetlands.
Tertiary treatment aims at effluent polishing before being discharged or
reused and can consist the removal of nutrients (mainly nitrogen and phos-
phorous), toxic compounds, residual suspended matter, or microorganisms
(disinfection with chlorine, ozone, ultraviolet radiation or others). Neverthe-
less this third stage/level is rarely employed in low-income countries. Tertiary
treatment process can include membrane filtration (micro-, nano-, ultra- and
reverse osmosis), infiltration/percolation, activated carbon, disinfection
(chlorination, ozone, UV).
Finally, water reclamation refers to the treatment of wastewater to make it
suitable for beneficial use with no or minimal risk.

2.2.1 Types of Wastewater, Treatment and Uses

Wastewater can be defined as ‘used water discharged from homes, businesses, in-
dustry, cities and agriculture’ (Asano et al 2007). According to this definition there
are as many types of wastewater as water uses (e.g. urban wastewater, industrial
wastewater, or agricultural wastewater). Where the wastewater is collected in a mu-
nicipal piped system (sewerage) it is also called sewage. The term ‘wastewater’ as
used in this book is basically synonymous with urban (or municipal) wastewater
which is usually a combination of one or more of the following:
• Domestic effluent consisting of blackwater (from toilets) and greywater (from
kitchens and bathing)
• Water from commercial establishments and institutions, including hospitals
• Industrial effluent where present
• Stormwater and other urban runoff
Wastewater can be collected or not, treated or not, and finally used directly or dis-
charged to a water body, and then, be either reused indirectly downstream or sup-
port environmental flow (Fig. 2.1).
18 J. Mateo-Sagasta et al.

Fig. 2.1   Municipal wastewater chain, from production to use. (Source: Adapted from Mateo-
Sagasta and Salian 2012)

Box 2.2:  Types and Examples of (Treated or Untreated) Wastewater

Usages (GWI 2009):

Agricultural Irrigation: Crop Irrigation, Commercial Nurseries

Landscape Irrigation: Parks, School Yards, Freeway Medians, Golf
Course, Cemeteries, Greenbelts, Residential
Industrial Recycling and Reuse: Cooling Water, Boiler Feed, Process
Water, Heavy Construction
Groundwater Recharge: Groundwater Replenishment, Saltwater Intrusion
Control, Subsidence Control
Recreational/Environmental Uses: Lakes and Ponds, Marsh Enhancement,
Stream-Flow Augmentation, Fisheries, Snowmaking
Non-potable Urban Uses: Fire Protection, Air Conditioning, Toilet
Flushing
Potable reuse: Blending in Water Supply Reservoirs, Pipe-To-Pipe Water
Supply

The direct use of wastewater implies that treated or untreated wastewater is used
for different purposes (such as crop production, aquaculture, forestry, industry, gar-
dens, golf courses) with no or little prior dilution. When it is used indirectly, the
wastewater is first discharged into a water body where it undergoes dilution prior to
use downstream (Fig. 2.2).
Finally reuse can be planned or unplanned. Planned use of wastewater refers
to the deliberate and controlled use of raw or treated wastewater for example for
2  Global Wastewater and Sludge Production, Treatment and Use 19

Fig. 2.2   Simplified example of direct and indirect reuse. (Source: Authors)

irrigation. Most indirect use, i.e. after dilution, occurs without planning. Aquifer
recharge might be an exception (see also Chap. 9).

2.2.2 Types of Sludge, Treatment and Uses

Excreta which gets collected in a toilet remain either on-site (e.g. in a pit latrine
or septic tank) or is transported off-site in sewer systems. When collected on-site,
excreta is commonly called fecal sludge which is usually pumped and transported
through trucks to fecal sludge treatment ponds or if there are no treatment facilities
discharged untreated. The combination of sludge, scum and liquid pumped from
septic tanks is called septage, although, many times the terms “septage” and “fecal
sludge” are interchangeably used. Sewage treatment plants also produce sludge,
called sewage sludge, when suspended solids are removed from the wastewater
and when soluble organic substances are converted to bacterial biomass which also
become part of the sludge (Fig. 2.3).
The characteristics of sludge depend on the origin and quantity of flushing water
(public toilet, private toilet), its collection type (on-site, off-site) and subsequent
treatment level, for example digestion (Table 2.1). Fresh and untreated sludge will
have many pathogens, a high proportion of water, high biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) and is normally putrid and odorous. Nevertheless, sludge also contains es-
sential nutrients for plants (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus) and is potentially a very
beneficial fertilizer. The organic carbon in the sludge, once stabilized, has also po-
tential as a soil conditioner because it improves soil structure for plant roots, or can
be transformed into energy through bio-digestion or incineration. As sewage may
receive harmful pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pharmaceuticals) from industries
and other activities which may accumulate in its sludge, the sludge collected from
20 J. Mateo-Sagasta et al.

Fig. 2.3   Sludge types. (Source: Authors)

Table 2.1   Typical properties of untreated and digested sewage sludge. (Source: Metcalf and Eddy
2003, modified)
Item Untreated primary sludge Digested primary sludge
(% dry weight) Range Typical Range Typical
Total dry solids 2–8 5 6–12 10
Volatile solids 60–80 65 30–60 40
N 1.5–4.0 2.5 1.6–6.0 3.0
P2O5 0.8–2.8 1.6 1.5–4.0 2.5
K2O 0–1 0.4 0–3 1
pH 5–8 6 6.5–7.5 7

on-site systems is normally considered safer in view of reuse unless households use
their toilets for general waste disposal.
The treatment required will be dependent on the initial characteristics of the
sludge and its final use. The main purposes of treatment are to reduce the water
content, BOD, pathogens and any bad odors. Options for sludge treatment include
thickening, dewatering/drying as well as stabilization/composting (Strauss et  al
2003; Koné et al 2010).
Water content in raw sludge is as high as 98 % which makes it unsuitable for
composting and makes handling and transport difficult and costly. With sludge
thickening in a sedimentation pond water content can be lowered up to 90 %. De-
watering and drying reduce the water content further so that the solid part of the
sludge remains about 20 % (UNEP 2001). Dewatering is faster but requires energy
to press-filter or centrifuge while drying takes more time (even weeks) but does not
require energy as water is lost through evaporation and drainage.
Both aerobic and anaerobic processes can be used for sludge stabilization.
Aerobic stabilization is typically done through composting at higher temperatures
(55 °C) which imitates an accelerated natural process that takes place on a forest
floor where the organic material (leaf litter, animal wastes) is broken down, result-
ing in an overall reduction of volume, or converted to more stable organic materials.
In anaerobic stabilization, bacterial decomposition through anaerobic processes,
reduces BOD in organic wastes and produces a mixture of methane and carbon
dioxide gas (biogas).
2  Global Wastewater and Sludge Production, Treatment and Use 21

Once properly treated, sewage sludge is called biosolids and if safe can be mar-
keted for beneficial uses e.g. in landscaping. The application of biosolids on land
can contribute to the generation of new soil, where there was virtually none, or
increase the physical and chemical fertility of existing soils, thus reducing the need
for other soil ameliorants (see Chap. 13).
Sludge can also be used for energy recovery, if sufficiently dry directly, through
incineration or, indirectly, through anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis or gasification,
which produce bio-fuels such as methane-rich biogas, bio-oil and syngas (Kalogo
and Monteith 2012). Anaerobic digestion is the cheapest option as there is no en-
ergy input needed and the residual ‘cake’ can still be used as soil ameliorant. How-
ever, when sludge has high concentrations of heavy metals or persistent pollutants,
anaerobic digestion would not be the best option as the resulting digested sludge
would not be suitable for agricultural application. In these circumstances incinera-
tion, pyrolysis or gasification may be more suitable. A thorough analysis of options
is provided in Chap. 12.

2.2.3 Reuse Types and Patterns

As outlined in Chap. 1, the increasing scarcity of water and fertilizers in many parts
of the world is one of the motivations of wastewater use, be it treated or not. The
physical, economic, social, regulatory and political environments greatly influence
the type of wastewater use that takes place, resulting in very heterogeneous situa-
tions (Scheierling et al 2011; Raschid-Sally 2013). Yet, common reuse patterns can
be identified for wastewater (Mateo-Sagasta and Burke 2010). Generally, in low
income countries, where wastewater collection and treatment has limited cover-
age, wastewater and sludge tend to be used mostly informally, with no prior treat-
ment, while in high income countries, with high health and environmental aware-
ness, wastewater and sludge are generally treated, and their use is regulated and
planned. While this does not look surprising, the magnitude of informal wastewater
use which is probably ten times higher than formal reuse (Scott et al 2010) appears
remarkable, as well as the limited data on the use of sludge.
Direct use of untreated wastewater occurs in low income settings where al-
ternative water sources are scarce, i.e. usually in drier climates but also in wetter
climates in the dry season. The reasons for such use can be lack or low quality of al-
ternative water sources (e.g. groundwater salinity), or the unaffordable costs of ac-
cessing freshwater (e.g. costs of pumping). Although officially disapproved in most
countries direct use of untreated wastewater takes place in many urban and peri-ur-
ban areas of the developing world (Raschid-Sally and Jayakody 2008; WHO 2006).
The most common reuse form is in agriculture. For example, untreated wastewater
is used on farms located downstream of many cities in Pakistan, because treated
wastewater and groundwater are too saline for irrigation (Ensink et al 2002). In the
semi-arid climate of the twin city of Hubli–Dharwad in Karnataka, India, farmers
irrigate with untreated wastewater from open sewers (locally known as sewage nal-
las) and underground sewer pipes (Bradford et al 2002) because it is cheaper than
22 J. Mateo-Sagasta et al.

using groundwater from boreholes, for which farmers have no capacity to pay. In
other cases, such as Cochabamba in Bolivia, or Accra and Tamale in Ghana, farmers
use wastewater from malfunctioning treatment plants or sewers, taking advantage
of the already collected resource (Huibers et al 2004; Abdul-Ghaniyu et al 2002).
In Haroonabad, Pakistan, and Hyderabad, India, wastewater is the only water flow-
ing in irrigation canals in the dry season and at the tail-ends of irrigation schemes
(Ensink 2006). In some extreme cases, farmers rupture or plug sewage lines to ac-
cess the wastewater. This practice has been reported in Nairobi in Kenya, Bhaktapur
in the Katmandu Valley in Nepal, and for example Dakar in Senegal (Hide et  al
2001; Rutkowski et al 2007; Faruqui et al 2004). At Maili Saba in Kenya, as well as
Addis Ababa in Ethiopia, farmers have removed sewage line inspection covers to
block the sewer, causing raw sewage to rise up the manholes and flow out over the
farm land (Hide et al 2001; own observation).
Indirect use of untreated wastewater is by far the most extensive type of use
(Jimenez and Asano 2008; Keraita et al 2008; Scott et al 2010). It occurs in drier and
wetter climates, when untreated wastewater is discharged into freshwater streams
where it becomes diluted and is subsequently used—mostly unintentionally—by
downstream users (e.g. farmers, households or industries). Untreated wastewater
discharge occurs more frequently in low and middle income countries with little or
no capacity for collecting and treating wastewater effectively. Additionally, the op-
portunity to sell crops into urban food markets encourages farmers to seek irrigation
water in the city vicinity.
Several examples of indirect use of untreated wastewater have been reported in
sub-Saharan Africa, Nepal, India, and around many cities in Brazil, Argentina, and
Colombia, which lack adequate sanitation facilities (Keraita et al 2008; Jimenez 2008;
Raschid-Sally and Jayakody 2008). In West Africa, there is extensive irrigation of veg-
etables in city vicinity with highly polluted water. Up to 90 % of vegetables consumed
in the cities are grown within or near the same urban areas (Drechsel et al 2006).
Planned use of reclaimed water occurs more frequently in high income coun-
tries where the main motivation for water reclamation and reuse is water scarcity,
although in many countries with no scarcity problems but with high environmen-
tal awareness, wastewater is also being reclaimed and used to preserve freshwater
ecosystems. Reclaimed water can be used directly for many purposes such as ag-
ricultural irrigation, for city landscaping, golf courses, toilet flushing, washing of
vehicles, groundwater recharge, and also as a source of potable water supply, like
the case of Windhoek in Namibia testifies (Lahnsteiner et al 2013). Within indus-
tries wastewater may be purified to industrial standards and recycled within the
system. In all of these cases reclaimed water is seen as vital resource, essentially
for its “water” value (see also chap. 10). Planed use of reclaimed water is today a
common pattern in countries of the Middle East and North Africa, Australia, the
Mediterranean, and the United States of America (AQUASTAT 2014; Global Water
Intelligence 2010). In all these cases, highly effective sanitation and treatment tech-
nology supports water reclamation, while the main challenge for reuse is public
acceptability (see Chap. 5).
Informal use of untreated sludge. While sludge can be used on farm if safety
precautions are followed, the enforcement of regulations (if they exist) is weak in
2  Global Wastewater and Sludge Production, Treatment and Use 23

many low-income countries. Although reuse is usually disapproved in such condi-

tions, it can be a thriving business. As any use of untreated sludge happens in a very
informal way, there are however only few data available. Many farmers consider
sludge, even untreated, to be a valuable nutrient source similar to farmyard ma-
nure and prefer that septic trucks discharge their content onto their farms to use
it after drying as fertilizer. This has been reported in West Africa and South Asia
(Kvarnström et al 2012; Cofie et al 2005). The delivery of sludge from on-site sani-
tation facilities via septic trucks to farmers who pay for it is an interesting model of
resource recovery if the on-farm treatment is able to reduce the obvious health risks
(Keraita et al 2014; see also Chap. 13).
There can also be indirect reuse of sludge, but probably not in a planned way.
Fact is that in many cities in developing countries, septage haulers empty waste
into sewers, vacant land, landfill sites or water bodies, simply due to the lack of
designated treatment facilities. When untreated sludge is discharged to water bodies
it becomes diluted and might find its way back into the food chain where the water
is used in farming.
Formal use of biosolids in agriculture is strictly regulated in developed coun-
tries but can be encouraged like in Michigan’s biosolid and septage programs. Re-
use is driven by the intention of closing nutrient loops to ensure that nutrients are
returned to agricultural land to improve soil fertility while reducing the pressure on
final deposal sites. Nevertheless, in many industrialized countries, there is a grow-
ing opposition to the use of biosolids in agriculture, due to concerns regarding the
potential content of persistent and toxic pollutants such as heavy metals. In these
countries energy recovery from sludge, mainly through bio-digestion and incinera-
tion, is gaining momentum.

2.3 Wastewater and Sludge Production and Treatment

2.3.1 Wastewater

Information describing current levels of wastewater generation and treatment is glob-

ally important for the post—2015 discussion as well as national policy makers, re-
searchers, practitioners, and public institutions, to develop national policy and action
plans aiming at wastewater treatment and productive use of wastewater (e.g. in agri-
culture, aquaculture, and agroforestry systems, or industry). Nevertheless this infor-
mation is frequently not systematically monitored or not reported in many countries
as stressed by Sato et al 2013, with a significant paucity of data on the rural sector.
In 2010, global annual domestic water withdrawals modeled by WaterGAP3 ac-
counted for 390 km3 (Flörke et al 2013) compared to 477 km3 estimated time back
by Shiklomanov 2000. The WaterGAP model further estimated a global produc-
tion of wastewater in the domestic and manufacturing sectors of 450 km3 in 2010,
approximately 70 % (315 km3) of which was accounted for by the domestic sector
(Flörke et al 2013).
24 J. Mateo-Sagasta et al.

Empirical records compiled from a variety of sources for example by AQUA-

STAT and Sato et al 2013 suggest that globally more than 330 km3 year-1 of (most-
ly) municipal wastewater are produced. The countries in Table  2.2 alone, which
account for more than 80 % of the global urban population, produce an estimated
volume of 261  km3 of wastewater annually, and this is a conservative figure, as
some of the national data appear outdated. Together, China, India, United States,
Indonesia, Brazil, Japan and Russia produce more than 167  km3 of wastewater,
which represents half of global municipal wastewater production.
Globally, on average, and according to the data available from AQUASTAT,
60 % of the produced municipal wastewater is treated. Nevertheless, this figure
needs to be taken with caution. First, actual treatment figures are likely to be lower,
as many wastewater treatment plants, particularly in middle and low income coun-
tries are functioning below expectation if at all (Oliviera and von Sperling 2008;
Murray and Drechsel 2011) which means that actual treatment capacities are below
the installed and usually reported capacity. Secondly, data from some low-income
countries with large urban populations, such as Nigeria, are not available and there-
fore not reported in AQUASTAT. And thirdly, while most countries report only sec-
ondary and tertiary treated wastewater as “treated wastewater” some countries also
include primary treated wastewater, thus making country data aggregation and com-
parisons difficult. Relatively well documented is the small global tertiary treatment
and advanced reuse capacity, which has been estimated for 2014 as about 24 km3/
year globally (GWI 2009). On the other hand and for obvious reasons, treatment
capacity is strongly correlated with the countries’ income: in lower-middle-income
countries on average 28 % of the generated wastewater is reported to be treated, and
in low-income countries, only 8 % is treated, while in high income countries the
ratio is closer to 70 % (Sato et al 2013).
The cross-city comparison reported by Raschid-Sally and Jayakody (2008) high-
lighted the contrast between cities in developed and developing countries. In the
latter, the capacity for collection and treatment is notably limited, as is the degree of
treatment. Figure 2.4 provides a snapshot of the situation which is representative of
much of the developing world and flags in particular that collection does not mean
treatment. In fact, many sewers end in natural water bodies, not to speak about dys-
functional treatment plants.

2.3.2 Sludge

With wastewater treatment increasing, many countries are solving one problem, but
creating a new challenge: managing or disposing sewage sludge. While, thanks to
wastewater treatment, cleaner water is discharged to seas, rivers and lakes, large
amounts of sewage sludge are produced in the process (Table 2.3) especially in high
and middle income countries with high treatment coverage. This sludge has the
added drawback that it tends to accumulate heavy metals and other persistent toxic
compounds coming from industrial discharges, traffic related pollution and other
commercial activities which is limiting its reuse potential.
2  Global Wastewater and Sludge Production, Treatment and Use 25

Table 2.2   Municipal wastewater production, collection and treatment in countries with the largest
urban populations. (Sources: Data from AQUASTAT 2014; GWI 2014)
Country Municipal wastewater (km3)
Produced (Year) Treated (Year)
United States 60.40 2008 40.89 2008
China 37.98 2010 26.61 2009
Japan 16.93 2011 11.56 2011
India 15.44 2011 4.42 2011
Indonesia 14.28 2012 NA –
Russian Federation 12.32 2011 NA –
Brazil 9.73 2009 2.51 2009
Korea, Rep. 7.84 2011 6.58 2011
Mexico 7.46 2011 3.08 2011
Egypt, Arab Rep. 7.08 2012 3.71 2012
Canada 6.61 2009 3.55 2009
Germany 5.30 2007 5.18 2007
Thailand 5.11 2012 1.17 2012
Malaysia 4.22 2009 2.60 2009
United Kingdom 4.09 2011 4.05 2011
Italy 3.93 2007 3.9 2007
France 3.79 2008 3.77 2008
Turkey 3.58 2010 2.72 2010
Iran, Islamic Rep. 3.55 2010 0.89 2012
South Africa 3.54 2009 1.92 2009
Spain 3.18 2004 3.16 2004
Pakistan 3.06 2011 0.55 2011
Venezuela, RB 2.90 1996 NA –
Argentina 2.46 2010 0.29 2000
Colombia 2.40 2010 0.60 2010
Poland 2.27 2011 1.36 2011
Vietnam 1.97 2012 0.20 2012
Netherlands 1.93 2010 1.88 2010
Australia 1.83 2007 2.00 2013
Saudi Arabia 1.55 2010 1.06 2010
Philippines 1.26 2011 NA –
Peru 1.00 2011 0.28 2012
Algeria 0.82 2012 0.32 2012
Bangladesh 0.73 2000 NA –
Iraq 0.58 2012 0.10 2012
 26 J. Mateo-Sagasta et al.


WUHDWHGRUFROOHFWHG









$OHSSRB6\ULD
&KLQDQGHJDB1LFDUDJXD
*UDQDGDB1LFDUDJXD
$KPHGDEDGB,QGLD
*DERURQHB%RWVZDQD
(O$OWRB%ROLYLD
%DQJDORUHB,QGLD

$OPDW\B.D]DNKVWDQ
2XDJDGRXJRXB%XUNLQD
7HKUDQB,UDQ
6DQWDIpGH
$FFUDB*KDQD
6KLMLD]KXDQJB&KLQD
&KHQQDLB,QGLD
3KQRP3HQKB&DPERGLD
=KHQJ]KRXB&KLQD
6X]DQRB%UD]LO
6DQWLDJRB&KLOOH

7DVKNHQWB8]EHNLVWDQ
'DNDUB6HQHJDO
.DQSXUB,QGLD
)DLVDODEDGB3DNLVWDQ
/LPDB3HUX
+RFKLPLQKB9HLWQDP
$GGLV$EDEDB(WKLRSLD
<DRXQGHB&DPHURRQ
0H[LFRFLW\B0H[LFR

RIZDVWHZDWHUFROOHFWHG 3HUFHQWDJHWUHDWHG

Fig. 2.4   Proportion of waste water collected and proportion of the collected wastewater that is
treated. (Source: Raschid-Sally and Jayakody 2008)

Table 2.3   Estimated sewage Country Sewage sludge (thou- Year

sludge production in selected sands of dry metric
countries tons)
EU-27b 8909 2010
USA a
6514 2004
Chinaa 2966 2006
Japana 2000 2006
Korea Repc 1900 –
Iran a
650 2008
Jordana 300 2008
Turkeya 580 2004
Canadaa 550 2008
Brazil a
372 2005
Australia and New 360 2008
Zeelanda
Norwaya 87 2008
a
UN-Habitat 2008
b
EUROSTAT 2014
c
Asian Development Bank 2012

In low income countries, wastewater and sludge treatment systems, if they ex-
ist, are minimal, and therefore sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plants is
not a pressing issue. In these countries, the accumulation of fecal sludge in house-
hold based onsite systems is the larger challenge as both, collection services and
designated treatment sites are seldom developed (USAID 2010; WSP 2014). It is
2  Global Wastewater and Sludge Production, Treatment and Use 27

Table 2.4   Septage collection and treatment in selected countries of South and Southeast Asia.
(Source: USAID 2010)
Country Known population connected to septic Known % of septage treated
tanks (in %)
Indonesia 62 (urban) 4 (national)
Malaysia 27 (national) 100 (national)
Philippines 40 (national) 85 (Metro Manila) 5 (Metro Manila)
Thailand All except for highly urbanized areas 30 (national)
Vietnam 77 (urban) < 4 (national)
India 29 (urban) < 1 (national)
Sri Lanka 89 (national) < 1 (national)

estimated that billions of residents in urban and peri-urban areas of Africa, Asia,
and Latin America are served by onsite sanitation systems (e.g. various types of
latrines and septic tanks) while related septage treatment capacity is in many coun-
tries nearly inexistent. Table 2.4 provides some examples of septage collection and
treatment coverage for South and Southeast Asia.
Until recently, the management of fecal sludge from onsite systems has been
largely neglected, partly because they have been viewed as temporary solutions
until sewer-based systems will be implemented. Thus many countries lack legisla-
tion addressing fecal sludge management and septage haulers have been emptying
raw septage into water bodies, vacant land, drains, and landfills. These have become
major sources of groundwater and surface water pollution, with significant environ-
mental, public health, and economic impacts (Narain 2012).
However, the perception on the need for onsite or decentralized sanitation tech-
nologies for urban areas is gradually changing, and they are increasingly being con-
sidered as a long-term, sustainable option in urban areas, especially in low–and
middle-income countries that lack sewer infrastructure (WSP 2014). The guidance
note on septage management developed by the Indian Government has been an
important recent milestone.
Despite the increasing recognition of on-site sanitation, data availability remains
a key challenge. There is a lack of data on the location and condition of onsite
systems, on the amounts of waste those systems accumulate, and what is most im-
portant, about the fate of these wastes after collection, particularly in developing
countries.

2.4 Potential for Resource Recovery and Reuse

Both wastewater and sludge contain valuable resources, mainly water, nutrients
(nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc.), organic carbon and related energy, which
can be recovered for many uses. Water is the most important and abundant asset in
wastewater and can be used as a substitute for freshwater if appropriately treated.
28 J. Mateo-Sagasta et al.

Table 2.5   Typical nutrient production (in kg/cap/year) in human excreta (after Drangert 1998)
Nutrient In urine (500 l/year) In feces (50 l/year) Total
Nitrogen (as N) 4.0 0.5 4.5
Phosphorus (as P) 0.4 0.2 0.6
Carbon (as C)a 2.9 8.8 11.7
a
Indicative of the potential for soil conditioning or energy generation

Table 2.6   Typical composition of raw municipal wastewater of different strengths. (Source: Met-
calf and Eddy 2003)
Contaminants/resources Unit Concentration
Weak Medium Strong
Nitrogen (total as N) mg L−1 20 40 85
Phosphorus (total as P) mg L−1 4 8 15
Total organic carbon (TOC) mg L−1 80 160 290

Table 2.7   Resources potentially embedded in the globally produced municipal wastewater for
different strengths of wastewater. (Source: IWMI)
Strength of wastewater N (Tg/yr) P (Tg/yr) C (Tg/yr)
Weak 6.6 1.3 26.4
Medium 13.2 2.6 52.8
Strong 28.1 5.0 95.7
Note: Tg Teragram = 109  kg

Nutrients are valuable in agriculture and aquaculture; and organic carbon can be
used as a soil conditioner or to generate energy.
Water in municipal wastewater comes from households, from the rainwater that
drains our cities and, in less proportion, from industries and commercial activities.
Most of the nutrients in wastewater come from human excreta. The excretion of
nutrients per capita is highly dependent on diets (e.g. protein consumption) which
differ with countries, wealth status and cultures. Table 2.5 provides average values,
showing that most nutrients are in urine. In wastewater, phosphorus does not come
only from human excreta but also from detergents used in laundry and dish wash-
ing, although this share decreased with the introduction of P-free washing powder
in countries, like the USA. As a result of these material flows, municipal wastewater
concentrates valuable resources (Table 2.6). The concentration of these resources
depends very much on the sanitation system, household water use and rainfall enter-
ing sewage systems (dilution).
Based on a typical composition of a weak, medium and strong wastewater
(Table  2.6) it is possible to estimate ranges of nitrogen, phosphorus and organic
carbon potentially contained in municipal wastewater globally. This would be the
maximum theoretical amount of resources that could be recovered from wastewater
(Table  2.7) disregarding technical and economic limitations. Unlike wastewater,
2  Global Wastewater and Sludge Production, Treatment and Use 29

sludge concentrates nutrients and organic matter, which results in a higher efficiency
for nutrient and energy extraction (see Chaps. 12 and 13). However, the global re-
source recovery potential from sludge is hard to assess due to severe data limita-
tions, particularly with respect to fecal sludge production and collection.
The potential energy value from carbon in wastewater could be estimated assum-
ing an anaerobic conversion factor for organic carbon to methane of 0.14 m3 CH4
per m3 of wastewater, at 20°C, (Frinjs et al 2013; Verstraete et al 2009) considering
that the caloric value of methane is 35.9 MJ/m3 CH4. Therefore, the 330 km3 of mu-
nicipal wastewater estimated to be produced globally, assuming a medium strength
wastewater, could potentially produce 46.2 km3CH4 with a global caloric value of
1660 · 109 MJ, which, if fully recovered, would be enough to provide electricity for
about 130 million households, considering an average electricity consumption of
3500 kWh/household (World Energy Council 2013).
The 330  km3 of municipal wastewater could theoretically irrigate more than
40 million hectares, even if we assume a relatively high application rate of 8000 m3/
ha/yr (FAO 2012). The related ‘free’ fertilizer application would be in the order of
322 kg N/ha/yr and 64 kg P/ha/yr assuming a medium strength wastewater. While
such figures might help to raise awareness of wastewater as an asset, they are far
from reality for various reasons like the assumption of 100 % system efficiency. On
the other hand, these prospective figures only capture the generation of resources in
municipal settings, not rural areas.
With increasing population growth, also the global demand for fertilizer is in-
creasing and has reached in 2008/2009 more than 130 million t of N and almost
38 million t of P2O5 (16 million t of P) (FAO 2008). Nutrient recovery from waste-
water, sludge and other wastes (such as food waste) can regionally and locally help
to meet this demand and is particularly interesting in and around cities, close to
where these wastes are produced, and where intensive agriculture is expanding in
an attempt to feed the increasingly hungry cities. Moreover, for an essential nutrient
like phosphorous, its recovery from waste is decreasingly an option but a necessity
as it is a non-renewable resource obtained from mining of finite deposits in a few
countries (Mihelcic et al 2011).

2.5 Actual Use of Wastewater and Sludge

Despite the apparent opportunities for resource recovery from wastewater and
sludge the potential is still untapped and only a small proportion of these wastes
is treated and reused in a planned and sustainable manner. The most promising
cases and models of safe resource recovery and reuse which achieve cost recovery
or even profits are discussed in Chaps.  11–13, while informal agricultural reuse
of wastewater (and to smaller extent of sludge) remain popular in many low and
middle income countries.
30 J. Mateo-Sagasta et al.

2.5.1 Wastewater

Describing the present use of wastewater, particularly in developing countries, is

challenging, due to the lack of reliable and sufficient information. In addition, much
of the available information does not use uniform terms and units when describing
wastewater use, making it difficult to compare data or establish global inventories.
The lack of data is due partly to the informal character of the majority of waste-
water irrigation or even, in some cases, to the intention not to disclose data. This
may be done because farmers fear difficulties when trading their produce or when
governments do not want to acknowledge what could be perceived as a malpractice
(Jimenez et al 2010).
Assuming an average farm size of 0.1 ha, an estimated 200 million farmers irri-
gate with treated and untreated wastewater, on an estimated 20 million ha (Hussain
et al 2001; Scott et  al 2004; Raschid-Sally and Jayakody 2008). Although these
figures have been reported in several publications and scientific presentations, there
is no comprehensive study that reveals the basis or verifies the number of farmers
using wastewater, the area under wastewater irrigation, or the volumes of waste-
water used at the global scale. Based on empirical information from research and
country reports, at least 6 million ha are irrigated with wastewater or polluted water
(Jimenez et al 2010) with China ranking highest (Scott et al 2010).
AQUASTAT is currently making an attempt to collect, analyze and validate data
on direct use of wastewater for irrigation per country. Nevertheless, as illustrat-
ed by the data gaps in Table 2.8, which describes countries with the largest urban

Table 2.8   Direct use of wastewater in countries with the largest urban populations (data from the
last 15 years). (Source: AQUASTAT 2014; GWI 2014; van der Hoek 2004)
Country Direct use of treated municipal wastewater Direct use of
untreated wastewater
All uses (year) Use in irrigation Use in irrigation Use in irrigation
(year) (year) (year)
km3 km3 1000 ha 1000 ha
China 3.37 (2010) 0.48 (2008) NA NA
India NA NA NA NA
USA 2.77 (2008) 0.33 (2004) 15 (2004) N.A
Brazil 0.009 (2008) 0.008 (2008) NA NA
Indonesia NA NA NA NA
Japan 0.19 (2006) 0.012 (2009) NA NA
Russian NA NA NA NA
Federation
Mexico 0.68 (2010) 0.40 (2010) 70 (2008) 220 (2000)
Nigeria NA NA NA NA
Pakistan NA NA NA 33 (2005)
NA not available
2  Global Wastewater and Sludge Production, Treatment and Use 31

Fig. 2.5   Global water reuse after advanced (usually tertiary) treatment: Market share by applica-
tion. (Adapted and modified from GWI 2009)

populations, there is still an important lack of information, even of direct use of

treated wastewater, which is normally a planned practice and should thus be well
documented.
It is interesting to note that agricultural reuse also ranks highest if we compare
different reuse options of advanced treated wastewater (Global Water Intelligence
2009) while groundwater recharge and indirect potable reuse are still relatively
small uses (Fig. 2.5)
The unplanned use of untreated wastewater is much more extensive than the
planned use of treated wastewater (Scott et al 2004; Jimenez et al 2010; Raschid-
Sally and Jayakody 2008). Where wastewater treatment does not exist, the direct
and indirect use of untreated wastewater for irrigation are common place. Most of
the use of untreated wastewater occurs in an informal to semi-formal manner, with
little government intervention. Thus, data describing this practice consists primar-
ily of case studies rather than official statistics (Ensink et al 2002; Raschid-Sally
and Jayakody 2008; van der Hoek 2004). Given the extent of the direct and indi-
rect use of untreated wastewater, alternative assessment approaches of wastewater
generation (e.g. via population densities) and water quality are being explored, us-
ing ‘earth observations, novel data collection and data integration’ (UNEP, WHO,
UN-Habitat 2014). An example is an ongoing study in partnership between IWMI
and University of California, Berkeley, which is implementing a Remote Sensing
and GIS supported spatial model to obtain estimates on the use of polluted water in
farming at a global scale. The spatial model identifies areas equipped for irrigation
within a certain distance downstream of an urban center in regions with low levels
of wastewater treatment. Early results show globally 24 Mha of irrigated croplands
located within urban agglomerations and 130 Mha of irrigated croplands within 20
km of urban areas (Thebo et al. 2014).
Refinements of this model will include consideration of irrigation water source,
the size of upstream populations, and consideration of differential downstream
32 J. Mateo-Sagasta et al.

distances. The results will provide a reasonable upper bound of areas where there
is a high probability of the indirect use of wastewater for irrigation. Given the
combination of high population densities and large areas equipped for irrigation,
India and Eastern China are dominating the global extent of probable areas of in-
direct use of untreated wastewater both in total area and as a proportion of total
irrigated area which corresponds well with empirical data on the use of diluted
wastewater or highly polluted water (Thebo et al. 2014).

2.5.2 Sludge

The global extent of sludge use refers mostly to sewage sludge and biosolids, and is
only documented in developed countries (UN-Habitat 2008). Many of these coun-
tries experienced difficulties in disposing their sewage sludge from treatment plants
realizing that the traditional sewage sludge disposal in open waters or landfills is not
sustainable. Policies and guidelines were developed which are supporting sludge
valorization e.g. by the EU and USEPA (see also Chap. 13). As a result increasing
shares of sewage sludge are being processed and used for beneficial purposes, such
as land application and energy recovery. Extensive research has examined the pos-
sible biochemical impacts of such sludge use for soil amelioration and guidelines
on regulating acceptable amounts. Emerging economies are starting to be aware of
these challenge as also here policies and regulations are changing (Harper 2013)
although so far most of the sewage sludge is still disposed of in landfills. Figure 2.6
illustrates these differences using the cases of Europe, United States and China.
The beneficial uses of sludge vary between countries. In countries where there
is a deficit of soil organic matter, agricultural use is most common. For example
in Spain almost 100 % of biosolids are valorized in agriculture. In those industrial
economies where heavy metals are of concern and soil organic matter content is
high, energy generation is the preferred option. For example in the Netherlands
almost 100 % of sewage sludge is incinerated (Fig. 2.7).
Globally, the use of treated sewage sludge is still low. In countries such as
Brazil, Jordan, Mexico and Turkey the use of biosolids in agriculture is so far mod-
est (< 5 %) but growing, while in Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria and

Fig. 2.6   Sewage sludge use and landfill disposal in EU-27, USA and China. (Source: Authors
based on Eurostat 2014, UN-Habitat 2008 and Asian Development Bank 2012)
2  Global Wastewater and Sludge Production, Treatment and Use 33

ϲ͕ϬϬϬ

ϱ͕ϬϬϬ
DŝůůŝŽŶ<ŐƉĞƌLJĞĂƌ

ϰ͕ϬϬϬ

ϯ͕ϬϬϬ

Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ

ϭ͕ϬϬϬ

ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƵƐĞ /ŶĐŝŶĞƌĂƟŽŶ ŽͲĐŽŵƉŽƐƟŶŐ >ĂŶĚĮůů KƚŚĞƌƐ

Fig. 2.7   Annual sewage sludge use/disposal in the United States and Europe (selected countries).
(Source: Authors based on UN-Habitat 2008; Eurostat 2014)

Germany their use in agriculture is decreasing due to environmental concerns re-

lated to pollutants (UN Habitat 2008).
In contrast, in low income countries, where more septage than sewage sludge is
produced, disposal remains a priority while formal resource recovery, like through
co-composting, is only emerging. Cases of agricultural reuse of biosolids (e.g.
Senegal, Uganda) or raw fecal sludge from septic trucks (e.g. Ghana, India) occur in
the informal sector with limited information on extent and location of these types of
reuse which limits the implementation of required safety measures (see Chap. 13).
Traditional areas of excreta use in rural settings include backyards and home
gardens. In Vietnam, fecal sludge after some stabilization, has been applied to fields
regularly for centuries. Today an estimated 30,000–40,000 t of well composted hu-
man feces are applied annually to vegetable crops (Khoa et  al 2005). Cash crop
and aquaculture production systems in and around cities also are popular for their
ability to utilize significant quantities of fecal sludge and other waste, as reported
from Vietnam, the Philippines, China, Nepal, India, Mexico and Peru (Strauss 2000;
Midmore and Jansen 2003).

2.6 Conclusions

Although cities produce large amounts of wastewater and sludge the global extent
of the production, collection, treatment, use and disposal of these wastes is not well
known. Even less known is the proportion of the valuable resources (i.e. water,
organic matter, energy, nitrogen and phosphorus) embedded in these waste streams
that is recovered and safely reused for beneficial uses, including agriculture.
34 J. Mateo-Sagasta et al.

Few global organizations such FAO/IWMI (AQUASTAT: from wastewater

generation to use), UN-Habitat (Sludge management atlas), UNEP (Global water
quality assessment), the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) of the World Bank
(IBNET: Water and sanitation utility performance), and Global Water Intelligence
(Wastewater treatment and reuse market reports), are trying to systematically col-
lect, select and harmonize the best available data around water quality, wastewater
and sludge production, treatment, and/or use. But the task is challenging as much of
the available information from the countries does not use uniform terms when de-
scribing for example wastewater and its use, thus making it difficult to compare data
or establish homogenous global inventories. Furthermore, particularly in develop-
ing countries, the systems for data collection along the water—wastewater cycle
are not in place and data is not generated. With fecal sludge the situation is worse
as septage management is only now gaining attention while data are still scarce and
unreliable, and there is no global monitoring system so far.
Data on the use (e.g. in agriculture) of wastewater and sludge are particularly
deficient, which makes it difficult to analyze and support the trajectory from unsafe
informal to a more safe and formal reuse. In fact, without reliable data the diagnosis
of the health and environmental risks associated to the disposal or use of wastewa-
ter and sludge, and the potential for resource recovery from these wastes cannot be
adequately quantified, nor can the opportunties be modeled across regions, and their
possible impact assessed. Therefore, it is advisable to invest in increasing the coun-
tries’ capacities to generate comparable data on the wastewater and sludge cycles
supported by standard definitions and methodologies for data generation. This will
help public authorities to design well targeted policies while improving interna-
tional comparability and global monitoring efforts, which will be crucial to assess
progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The rough estimates presented in this chapter suggest that wastewater has a sig-
nificant potential to support those in need of water, nutrients and energy. These
resources can be regionally very important, particularly in periurban areas, close to
where these wastes are produced, and where food and energy are massively con-
sumed. Despite the opportunities for resource recovery from wastewater and sludge
the existing potential of resource recovery and reuse is largely untapped and only a
small portion of these wastes is so far used in a planned and safe manner.

Take Home Messages

• Standardized data collection and reporting efforts are needed at national
and global level, to provide reliable and updated information on the waste-
water and sludge cycles, vital to develop proper diagnosis and monitoring
mechanism for effective policies supporting the safe and productive use of
these resources.
• The available information suggests that the role of wastewater and sludge
as a source of water, energy and nutrients can be regionally and locally
2  Global Wastewater and Sludge Production, Treatment and Use 35

important, particularly near cities, where wastewater and sludge are pro-
duced, and where demand for resources is growing.
• The potential for resource recovery from wastewater and sludge is largely
untapped and in developing countries only a small portion of these wastes
is used in a planned and safe manner, while the majority remains untreated
or partially treated, and is more commonly used in the informal (unregu-
lated) than formal irrigation sector.

References

Abdul-Ghaniyu S, Kranjac-Berisavljevic G, Yakubu IB, Keraita B (2002) Sources and quality of

water for urban vegetable production, Tamale, Ghana. Urban Agric Mag 8:10
AQUASTAT (2014) FAO global information system on water and agriculture. Wastewater section.
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/wastewater/index.stm. Accessed 18 July 2014
Asano T, Burton FL, Leverenz HL, Tsuchihashi R, Tchobanoglous G (2007) Water reuse: issues,
technologies, and applications. McGraw-Hill, New York
Asian Development Bank (2012) Promoting beneficial sewage sludge utilization in the People’s
Republic of China. Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City
Bradford A, Brook R, Hunshal CS (2002) Crop selection and wastewater irrigation, Hubli–
Dharwad, India. Urban Agric Mag 8:31–32
Cofie O, Kranjac-Berisavljevic G, Drechsel P (2005) ‘The use of human waste for peri-agriculture
in northern Ghana’. Renew Agric Food Syst 20(2):73–80
Drangert J-O (1998) Fighting the urine blindness to provide more sanitation options. Water SA
24(2):157–164
Drechsel P, Graefe S, Sonou M, Cofie OO (2006) Informal irrigation in urban West Africa: an
overview. IWMI Research Report 102, International Water Management Institute, Colombo
Ensink JHJ (2006) Water quality and the risk of hookworm infection in Pakistani and Indian sew-
age farmers [PhD thesis]. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of
London, UK
Ensink JHJ, Van der Hoek W, Matsuno Y, Munir S, Aslam MR (2002) Use of untreated wastewater
in peri-urban agriculture in Pakistan: risks and opportunities. Research Report 64, International
Water Management Institute, Colombo
EUROSTAT (2014) Environment data base. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/
environment/data/database. Accessed 30 June 2014
FAO (2008) Current world fertilizer trends and outlook to 2011/12. Food and Agriculture Organi-
zation of the United Nations, Rome
FAO (2012) Crop yield response to water. Irrigation and drainage paper 66. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome
Faruqui NI, Niang S, Redwood M (2004) Untreated wastewater reuse in market gardens: a case
study of Dakar, Senegal. In: Scott CA, Faruqui NI, Raschid-Sally L (eds) Wastewater use in ir-
rigated agriculture: confronting the livelihood and environmental realities. CABI, Wallingford,
pp 113–125
Flörke M, Kynast E, Bärlund I, Eisner S, Wimmera F, Alcamo J. (2013) Domestic and industrial
water uses of the past 60 years as a mirror of socio-economic development: global simulation
study. Glob Environ Change 23(1):144–156
Frinjs J, Hofman J, Nederlof N (2013) The potential of (waste) water as energy carrier. Energy
Convers Manage 65(2013):357–363
36 J. Mateo-Sagasta et al.

Global Water Intelligence (GWI) (2009) Municipal water reuse markets 2010. Media Analytics
Ltd, Oxford
Global Water Intelligence (GWI) (2014) Global water market 2014. Volume 1. Introduction and
the Americas; Media Analytics Ltd. Oxford
Harper, M (2013) The Money in Sludge. China Water Risk Review April 9, 2013. http://chinawa-
terrisk.org/resources/analysis-reviews/the-money-in-sludg/#sthash.M4VwYFwR.gyxnzSPf.
dpuf. Accessed 5 July 2014
Hide J, Hide C, Kimani J (2001) Informal irrigation in the Peri-urban Zone of Nairobi, Kenya:
an assessment of surface water quality for irrigation. Report OD/TN. HR Wallingford Ltd,
Wallingford
Huibers FP, Moscoso O, Duran A, van Lier JB (2004) The use of wastewater in Cochabamba,
Bolivia: a degrading environment. In: Scott CA, Faruqui NI, Raschid-Sally L (eds) Wastewater
use in irrigated agriculture. CABI, Wallingford pp 135–144
Hussain I, Raschid L, Hanjra MA, Marikar F, van der Hoek W (2001) A framework for analysing
socioeconomic, health and environmental impacts of wastewater use in agriculture in develop-
ing countries. Working Paper 26, International Water Management Institute, Colombo
Jimenez B (2008) Water reuse overview for Latin America and Caribbean. Chapter 9. In: Jimenez
B, Asano T (eds) Water reuse: an international survey of current practice, issues and needs.
IWA, London, pp 648
Jimenez B, Asano T (2008) Water reclamation and reuse around the world. In: Jimenez B, Asano T
(eds) Water reuse: an international survey of current practice, issues and needs. IWA, London,
pp 1–26
Jimenez B, Drechsel P, Kone D, Bahri A, Rashid-Sally L, Qadir M (2010) Wastewater sludge
and excreta use in developing countries: an overview. In: Drechsel P, Scott A Rashid-Sally L,
Redwood M, Bahri A (eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigating risk in
low-income countries. Earthscan, London, UK, pp 3–27
Keraita B, Jimenez B, Drechsel P (2008) Extent and implications of agricultural reuse of untreated,
partly treated, and diluted wastewater in developing countries. CAB Reviews: perspectives in
agriculture, veterinary science, nutrition and natural resources 3(058)
Keraita B, Drechsel P, Klutse A, Cofie O (2014) On-farm treatment options for wastewater, grey-
water and fecal sludge with special reference to West Africa. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Interna-
tional Water Management Institute (IWMI).CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and
Ecosystems (WLE). 32p. (Resource Recovery and Reuse Series 1).
Kalogo Y, Monteith H (eds) (2012) Energy and resource recovery from sludge. IWA, London, UK
Khoa LV, Duc L, Cu NX, Cuong TT (2005) Research on rural environmental issues in specific
ecozones of Vietnam, diagnosis of the directions for their occurrence and suggesting the policies
and appropriate control measures. Hanoi University of Science, KC.08.06. (in Vietnamese).
Koné D, Cofie OO, K Nelson (2010) Low-cost options for pathogen reduction and nutrient re-
covery from fecal sludge. In: Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L Redwood M, Bahri A
(eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries.
Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI, UK, pp 171–188
Kvarnström E, Verhagen J, Nilsson M, Srikantaiah V, Ramachandran S, Singh K (2012) The busi-
ness of the honey-suckers in Bengaluru (India): the potentials and limitations of commercial
fecal sludge recycling—an explorative study. (Occasional Paper 48) [online] The Hague: IRC
International Water and Sanitation Centre
Lahnsteiner J, Pisani P, Menge J, Esterhizen J (2013). More than 40 years of direct potable reuse
experience in Windohek. In: Lazarova V, Asano T, Bahri A, Anderson J (eds) Milestones in
water reuse. The best success stories. IWA, London, pp 351–364
Mateo-Sagasta J, Burke J (2010) Agriculture and water quality interactions: a global overview.
SOLAW Background Thematic Report—TR08. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome
Mateo-Sagasta J, Salian P (2012) Global database on municipal wastewater production, collection,
treatment, discharge and direct use in agriculture: AQUASTAT methodological paper. Food
2  Global Wastewater and Sludge Production, Treatment and Use 37

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/

catalogues/Wastewater_Methodology_paper_20121130.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2014
Metcalf, Eddy (eds) (2003) Wastewater engineering—treatment, and reuse, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill,
New York
Midmore DJ, Jansen HGP (2003) Supplying vegetables to Asian cities: is there a case for peri-
urban production? Food Policy 28:13–27
Mihelcic JR, Fry LM, Shaw R (2011) Global potential of phosphorus recovery from human urine
and faeces. Chemosphere 84:832–839
Murray A, Drechsel P (2011) Why do some wastewater treatment facilities work when the majority
fail? Case study from the sanitation sector in Ghana. Waterlines 30(2):135–149
Narain S (2012) Excreta matters. State of India’s Environment. A citizens’ report. Centre for Sci-
ence and Environment (CSE), New Delhi
Oliveira SC, von Sperling M (2008) ‘Reliability analysis of wastewater treatment plants’. Water
Res 42(4–5):1182–1194
Raschid-Sally L (2013) City waste for agriculture: emerging priorities which influence agenda
setting. Aquat Procedia 1:88–99
Raschid-Sally L, Jayakody P (2008) ‘Drivers and characteristics of wastewater agriculture in de-
veloping countries: results from a global assessment’. IWMI Research Report 127, Interna-
tional Water Management Institute, Colombo
Rutkowski T, Raschid-Sally L, Buechler S (2007) Wastewater irrigation in the developing world—
two case studies from Katmandu Valley in Nepal. Agric Water Manage 88:83–91
Sato T, M Qadir S Yamamoto T Endo, A Zahoor (2013) Global, regional, and country level need
for data on wastewater generation, treatment, and reuse. Agric Water Manage 130:1–13
Scott CA, Faruqui NI, Raschid-Sally L (2004) Wastewater use in irrigation agriculture: manage-
ment challenges in developing countries. In: Scott CA, Faruqui NI, Raschid-Sally L (eds)
Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture confronting the livelihood and environmental realties.
CABI-IWMI-IDRC, Wallingford, pp 1–10
Scott C, P Drechsel, L Raschid-Sally, A Bahri, D Mara, M Redwood, B Jiménez (2010) Wastewa-
ter irrigation and health: challenges and outlook for mitigating risks in low-income countries.
In: Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A (eds) Wastewater irrigation
and health: assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries. Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI,
UK, pp 381–394
Scheierling S M, Bartone C. R, Mara D, Drechsel P. (2011) Towards an agenda for improving
wastewater use in agriculture. Water Int 36(4):441–454
Shiklomanov, I., 2000. World water resources and water use: present assessment and outlook for
2025. In: Rijsberman FR (ed) World water scenarios: analyzing global water resources and use.
Earthscan Publications, London
Strauss M (2000) Human waste (excreta and wastewater) reuse. Sandec/Eawag http://www.eawag.
ch/forschung/sandec/publikationen/wra/dl/human_waste_use_ETC_SIDA_UA.pdf. Accessed
18 July 2014
Strauss M, Drescher S, Zurbrügg C, Montangero A, Cofie O, Drechsel P (2003) Co-composting of
fecal sludge and municipal organic waste a literature and state-of-knowledge review. Sandec/
Eawag and IWMI, http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/sandec/publikationen/ewm/dl/CCP_FS_
orgWaste.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2014
Thebo AL, Drechsel P, Lambin EF (2014). Global Assessment of urban and peri-urban agriculture:
irrigated and rainfed croplands. Environmental Research Letters 9 114002. http://iopscience.
iop.org/1748-9326/9/11/114002/article. Accessed 9 Dec 2014
United Nations (2012). World population prospects: the 2012 revision. United Nations, Depart-
ment of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, NY
UNEP (2001) Environmentally sound technologies in wastewater treatment for the implementa-
tion of the UNEP Global Program of Action (GPA) “Guidance on municipal wastewater”.
IETC Technical Publication Series [21] Version 1, 22 November 2001 Osaka/Shiga
38 J. Mateo-Sagasta et al.

UNEP, WHO, UN-Habitat (2014) Monitoring sustainable development goal on water task team
on earth observations, novel data collection and data integration. Report on the first meeting,
Tokyo: 30–31 May 2014
UN-Habitat (2008) Global Atlas of excreta, wastewater sludge and biosolids management: mov-
ing forward the sustainable and welcome uses of a global. United Nations Human Settlements
Programme, Nairobi. http://esa.un.org/iys/docs/san_lib_docs/habitat2008.pdf. Accessed 18
July 2014
USAID (2010) A rapid assessment of septage management in asia: policies and practices in India,
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam. http://pdf.usaid.gov/
pdf_docs/PNADS118.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2014
Van der Hoek, W. 2004. A framework for a global assessment of the extent of wastewater irriga-
tion: the need for a common wastewater typology. In: Scott CA, Faruqui NI, Raschid-Sally L
(eds) Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture: confronting the livelihood and environmental
realities. CABI Publishing, IWMI, and IDRC, Wallingford, pp 11–24
Verstraete W, Van de Caveye P, Diamantis V. (2009) Maximum use of resources present in domes-
tic “used water”. Bioresour Technol 100(23):5537–5545
WHO (2006) Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, greywater and excreta in agriculture and
aquaculture. World Health Organization, Geneva
World Energy Council (2013) Energy efficiency indicators. http://www.wec-indicators.enerdata.
eu/household-electricity-use.html. Accessed 9 Dec 2014
WSP (2014) The missing link in sanitation service delivery: a review of fecal sludge management
in 12 Cities. Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank
Chapter 3
Health Risks and Cost-Effective Health Risk
Management in Wastewater Use Systems

Bernard Keraita, Kate Medlicott, Pay Drechsel and Javier Mateo-Sagasta

Abstract  The increasing extent and diversity of wastewater use, even without
appropriate treatment, present public health risks. We describe existing approaches
and options to managing health risks in various wastewater uses. Traditionally,
regulators have used water quality standards achieved through wastewater treat-
ment for health protection. The chapter presents some of the treatment technolo-
gies, including membrane filtration, which is increasing popular and effective in
removing pathogens and other pollutants. However, the high investment, operation
and maintenance costs of these technologies limit their use in resource constrained
settings. In these settings, the use of health-based targets achieved through placing
multiple barriers along the food chain is recommended. In this approach, firms,
farmers, and public agencies have flexibility to choose from a range of low-cost risk
management options which in combination can achieve the health targets. Returns
on Investment (ROI) of these interventions are high (US$ 4.9 per US$ invested), if
incentive systems and institutional arrangements are in place to support the applica-
tion and adoption of these risk management measures.

Kate Medlicott is a staff member of the World Health Organization. She and her co-authors alone
are responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent
the decisions or policies of the World Health Organization.

B. Keraita ()
Copenhagen School of Global Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
e-mail: bernard.keraita@sund.ku.dk
P. Drechsel · J. Mateo-Sagasta 
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
P. Drechsel
e-mail: p.drechsel@cgiar.org
J. Mateo-Sagasta
e-mail: j.mateo-sagasta@cgiar.org
K. Medlicott
Department of Public Health and Environment, World Health Organization (WHO)
Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland
e-mail: medlicottk@who.int
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 39
P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_3
40 B. Keraita et al.

Keywords  Wastewater and health · Water quality guidelines · Disability-adjusted

Life Years (DALYs) · Multi-barrier approach · Pathogens · WHO

3.1 Introduction

Wastewater contains pathogens and pollutants, which may pose health risks if not
well managed. These pollutants include salts, metals, metalloids, residual drugs, or-
ganic compounds, endocrine disruptor compounds, and active residues of personal
care products (WHO 2006). The kind and extent of health risks depends on many
factors including the treatment level, types and concentrations of contaminants, hu-
man exposure, and regional risk relevance. For example, in low-income countries,
where access to safe drinking water and improved sanitation remain challenging,
risks from pathogens receive most attention. Residents are mostly affected with
diarrhoeal diseases and helminthic infections, and high loads of pathogenic mi-
croorganisms are common in their wastewater systems (Prüss-Ustün and Corvalan
2006). The situation is different in transitional and high-income economies, where
microbiological risks are largely under control. In this context, chemical pollution
from the industrial sectors and emerging pollutants such as pharmaceuticals, are of
a major concern to public health.
The health risk posed also depends on how the wastewater is used. Asano (2001)
considers seven categories of wastewater use. Arranged in order of decreasing ex-
tent of wastewater use, these are (i) agricultural irrigation, (ii) landscape irrigation,
(iii) groundwater recharge, (iv) industrial use, (v) environmental and recreational
uses, (vi) non-potable urban uses, and (vii) indirect or direct potable use. In Europe,
Bixio et al. (2006) identify four major wastewater uses (i) agriculture (ii) industry
(iii) urban, recreational and environmental uses, including aquifer recharge; and (iv)
combinations of the above (mixed uses). In many low and middle income countries,
there is limited wastewater treatment and most wastewater is used in agriculture, ei-
ther directly or indirectly after dilution in surface water bodies (Keraita et al. 2010).
An example of the specific health risks associated wastewater irrigation is shown
in Table 3.1.
Risk management is an important component of wastewater use. Public health
can be protected through three measures: (i) reducing or eliminating concentra-
tions of pathogenic bacteria, parasites, and enteric viruses in wastewater; (ii) con-
trolling chemical constituents in wastewater, and (iii) limiting public exposure
(contact, inhalation, or ingestion) to wastewater (EPA 2012). There exist a num-
ber of risk management approaches. Commonly used is the water quality approach
which associates water quality levels with different degrees of health risks, imply-
ing wastewater has to be treated to meet particular water quality criteria to avoid
the corresponding risks (WHO 1989; EPA 2012). In recent revisions of the WHO
3  Health Risks and Cost-Effective Health Risk Management in Wastewater … 41

Table 3.1.   Simplified presentation of the main human health risks from wastewater irrigation.
(Modified from Abaidoo et al. 2010)
Type of risk Health risk Who is at risk Exposure pathway
Occupational risks Parasitic worms such as A. Farmers/field Contact with irrigation
(contact) lumbricoides and hook- workers water and contaminated
worm infections Marketers of soils
Bacterial and viral wastewater- Contact with irrigation
infections grown produce water and contaminated
Skin irritations caused by soils
infectious and non-infec- Contact with con-
tious agents—itching and taminated soils during
blister on the hands and feet harvesting
Nail problems such as Exposure through
koilonychias (spoon-formed washing vegetables in
nails) wastewater
Consumption- Mainly bacterial and viral Vegetable Eating contaminated
related risks infections such as cholera, consumers vegetables, especially
(eating) typhoid, ETEC, Hepatitis A, those eaten raw
viral enteritis which mainly
cause diarrhoeas
Parasitic worms such as
ascaris
Environmental Similar risks as those Children play- Soil particle intake
risks exposed to occupational ing in waste- Aerosols
and consumption risks, but water-irrigated
decreasing with distance fields
from farm People walking
on or nearby
fields

guidelines, the ­Stockholm Framework, which uses health-based targets, has been
used (WHO 2006). It encourages countries to take into consideration their social,
cultural, economic and environmental circumstances, so as to develop and imple-
ment the locally most sustainable and cost-effective risk management interventions
(Bos et  al. 2010). Even in the water quality based approach, there is increasing
understanding that the level of treatment must fit the purpose of reuse (Murray and
Buckley 2010; NRC 2012). It is therefore important to assess the cost-effectiveness
of risk management options, including treatment, to support decision making on the
choice of options and resource allocation priorities, especially in low-income set-
tings with constrained public budgets (WHO 2003).
42 B. Keraita et al.

3.2 Water Quality Guidelines Vary with Wastewater Use

To protect public health without unnecessarily discouraging wastewater use, regu-

latory approaches stipulate water quality standards (Asano 2001). However, there
are no universal water quality guidelines for wastewater use. The US-EPA Guide-
lines provide the most comprehensive water quality guidelines (Table 3.2). In the
European Union, substantial pan-European guidelines for wastewater recycling and
use have been proposed for selected applications, but no action has yet been taken
(AQUAREC 2006; Bixio and Wintgens 2006).
The WHO guidelines, which focus on pathogenic contamination, have been adopted
in many in low-income countries (Keraita et al. 2010). The 1989 edition of the WHO
Guidelines relied primarily on water quality thresholds; i.e., critical pathogen levels
in the irrigation water. The Guidelines provide specific recommendations on treating
wastewater to achieve these quality standards (Havelaar et al. 2001). For example, the
WHO 1989 Guidelines recommend fecal coliform levels of ≤ 1000 per 100 ml and
≤ 1 nematode egg per litre for unrestricted irrigation. However, the 2006 revision of the
Guidelines adopts a different approach, which moves the control point from the water
to a health-based target of a tolerable additional disease burden of ≤ 10−6 DALYs per
person per year (see text box 3.1 for explanation on DALYs). The Guidelines translate
the health based target into a performance target of 6–7 log units of pathogen reduction
at the point of exposure, however and wherever it can be achieved, between wastewa-
ter treatment and food intake. A lower health based target of ≤ 10−4 or ≤ 10−5 DALYs
per person per year might be appropriate as suggested by Mara et al. (2010).

Box 3.1: Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs)

DALYs are a measure of population health expressed as burden of disease due

to specific diseases or risk factors. DALYs attempt to measure the time lost
because of disability or death from a disease compared with a long life free of
disability in the absence of the disease. DALYs are calculated by adding the
years of life lost to premature death (YLL) to the years lived with a disability
(YLD). Years of life lost are calculated from age-specific mortality rates and the
standard life expectancies of a given population. YLD are calculated from the
number of cases multiplied by the average duration of the disease and a sever-
ity factor ranging from 1 (death) to 0 (perfect health) based on the disease (e.g.,
watery diarrhoea has a severity factor from 0.09 to 0.12 depending on the age
group) (Prüss and Havelaar 2001). DALYs are an important tool for comparing
health outcomes because they account for not only acute health effects but also
for delayed and chronic effects, including morbidity and mortality (Bartram
et al. 2001). Thus, when risk is described in DALYs, different health outcomes
(e.g., cancer vs giardiasis) can be compared and risk management decisions pri-
oritized. More details and explanations on the relationship between DALYs and
log pathogen reduction are in the WHO wastewater Guidelines (WHO 2006).
Table 3.2   Water quality guidelines for wastewater use as used in USA. (Adapted from: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2012))
pH BOD (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) TSS (mg/l) Fecal coliform Residual
(/100 ml) Cl2 (mg/l)
Urban use Unrestricted 6.0–9.0 ≤ 10 ≤ 2 – No detectable 1
Restricted 6.0–9.0 ≤ 30 – 30 ≤ 200 1
Agricultural use Food crops 6.0–9.0 ≤ 10 ≤ 2 – No detectable 1
Processed food/Non-food crops 6.0–9.0 ≤ 30 – 30 ≤ 200 1
Impoundments Unrestricted 6.0–9.0 ≤ 10 ≤ 2 – No detectable 1
Restricted – ≤ 30 – 30 ≤ 200 1
Environmental Environmental reuse – ≤ 30 – 30 ≤ 200 1
use
Industrial use Once-through cooling – ≤ 30 – 30 ≤ 200 1
Recirculating cooling towers – ≤ 30 – 30 ≤ 200 1
Groundwater Non-potable reuse Site specific and use dependent
recharge Indirect potable use—Spreading/ 6.5–8.5 Meet drinking ≤ 2 ≤ 2 TOC of No detectable 1
injection into potable aquifers/aug- water standards wastewater
mentation of surface supply systems origin
3  Health Risks and Cost-Effective Health Risk Management in Wastewater …
43
44 B. Keraita et al.

3.3 Options for Cost-Effective Risk Management

There are many options for managing risks from wastewater use. The best option
in a given setting will vary with the end use application, socio-cultural acceptance,
and economic, institutional, biophysical and technological factors (Balkema et al.
2002). Whenever human exposure (via food or direct contact) is more likely, more
stringent risk management measures will be required. For example, when waste-
water used is for irrigation of non-food crops on a restricted farming site less
stringent management measures could be used compared to when wastewater is
used for landscape irrigation at a public park or school, while much more strin-
gent measures will be required when wastewater is used to augment potable sup-
plies. Cost efficiencies can be gained by matching levels of risk management to
intended uses, while considering likely exposure, rather than applying same risk
management levels across board. However, while this sounds fine in theory, it is
seldom that all water will be absorbed by the designated reuse. There might be
seasonally lower demand (winter, rainy season) or just more effluent available
than what crops can transpire. The implication is that the treatment level also has
to consider possible unintended uses downstream of any designated reuse. An
example of one of the risk management measures, wastewater treatment, is given
on Table 3.3.

Table 3.3   Wastewater uses and appropriate treatment levels

,QFUHDVLQJ/HYHOVRI7UHDWPHQW

7UHDWPHQW 3ULPDU\ 6HFRQGDU\ 7HUWLDU\±)LOWUDWLRQDQG $GYDQFHG

/HYHO 'LVLQIHFWLRQ
3URFHVVHV 6HGLPHQWDWLRQ %LRORJLFDOR[LGDWLRQDQG &KHPLFDO $FWLYDWHGFDUERQUHYHUVH
GLVLQIHFWLRQ FRDJXODWLRQELRORJLFDORU RVPRVLVDGYDQFHG
FKHPLFDOQXWULHQWUHPRYDO R[LGDWLRQSURFHVVHV
PHGLDILOWUDWLRQDQG VRLODTXLIHUWUHDWPHQWHWF
GLVLQIHFWLRQ
6XUIDFHLUULJDWLRQ /DQGVFDSHDQGJROIFRXUVH
RIRUFKDUGVDQG LUULJDWLRQ
YLQH\DUGV ,QGLUHFWSRWDEOH
(QG8VH 1RXVHV 1RQIRRGFURSLUULJDWLRQ )RRGFURSLUULJDWLRQ XVHLQFOXGLQJ
UHFRPPHQGHG 5HVWULFWHG 9HKLFOHZDVKLQJ JURXQGZDWHUUHFKDUJHDQG
ODQGVFDSHLPSRXQGPHQWV VXUIDFHZDWHUUHVHUYRLU
*URXQGZDWHUUHFKDUJH 7RLOHWIOXVKLQJ DXJPHQWDWLRQ
IRUQRQSRWDEOHXVHV
:HWODQGVZLOGOLIH 8QUHVWULFWHGUHFUHDWLRQDO
KDELWDWVWUHDP LPSRXQGPHQW
DXJPHQWDWLRQ
,QGXVWULDO ,QGXVWULDOV\VWHPV
FRROLQJSURFHVVHV
$FFHSWDQFH

,QFUHDVLQJ$FFHSWDEOHOHYHOVRI+XPDQ([SRVXUH
&RVW
,QFUHDVLQJ/HYHOVRI&RVW

6RXUFH (QYLURQPHQWDO3URWHFWLRQ$JHQF\(3$

3  Health Risks and Cost-Effective Health Risk Management in Wastewater … 45

Treatment-Based Options for Improving Water Quality  Many options exist for
reducing microbial and chemical contaminants to achieve wastewater quality goals
(NRC 2012; EPA 2012). Removal rates of pathogens and chemicals vary with the
degree of treatment and the treatment technology (Table 3.4). The cost of treatment
varies substantially with the choice of technology and location. In general, treatment
costs increase with treatment levels. However, it is possible to remove microbial
and chemical contaminants using land-intensive treatment methods such as waste
stabilization ponds that are less costly than capital-intensive options (Scheierling
et al. 2010; Libhaber and Orozco-Jaramillo 2013).
Biodegradable organics and pathogens are removed during secondary treatment.
Yet more advanced treatment is needed when wastewater is used to augment drink-
ing water supplies or used in the food preparation industry. Tertiary and advanced
treatment involves filtration with either media filters (sand, charcoal) or membranes
(citations). Recent advances in membrane filtration include the use of microfiltra-
tion, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration and reverse osmosis, (van der Bruggen et  al.
2003; Jacob et al. 2010; EPA 2005). Reverse osmosis is the most extensively used
process in desalination of wastewater for industrial and domestic uses (Al-Sahali
and Ettouney 2007). Singapore’s NEWater is produced from treated wastewater
that is purified further using advanced membrane filtration technologies and ul-
traviolet (UV) disinfection, making the water ultra-clean and safe to drink (Seah
2012). Though membrane filtration may be cost-effective (US$/m3) for industrial
and potable water use, its high investment and operation costs limit its application
potential e.g. in irrigation (Lazarova et al. 1999).
Combined Treatment and Non-treatment Based Options in Agricultural Irri-
gation  Irrigation is one of the most extensively studied uses of wastewater. Several
authors have shown that wastewater treatment, coupled with strict implementation
of water quality standards should be sufficient to safeguard public health when
wastewater is used for irrigation. (Norton-Brandão et al. 2013: WHO 2006; Amoah
et al. 2011). However, in many low-income countries, such as those in sub-Saharan
Africa where less than 1 % of wastewater is treated, this approach is not feasible
in preventing pathogens from entering the food chain or getting in contact with
farmers.
The 2006 WHO guidelines propose a multi-barrier approach in which waste-
water treatment is just one of several treatment and non-treatment options to pro-
tect public health (WHO 2006). The advantage of the multi-barrier perspective
is that it goes beyond irrigation water quality and can address e.g. post-harvest
contamination concerns, giving particular protection to consumers. Hence, treat-
ment, where possible, is combined with other health protection measures at farmer,
trader and consumer levels. Barriers are placed at critical control points along the
food chain from production to consumption, aiming to minimise risk and build a
cascade of barriers which can be effective even if one fails. For example, barriers
can be placed at wastewater generation points, on farms, at markets, and at the
consumer level (Fig.  3.1). While this approach appears to be more applicable in
low-income countries, where irrigation with untreated wastewater is common, and
 46

Table 3.4   Removal rates (in log units) of microorganisms and chemicals, by wastewater treatment option. (Adapted from multiple sources reviewed and
reported by EPA (2012))
Secondary Media Membrene Aquifer Ozonation UV Advanced Chlorination
treatment filtration filtration storage disinfection oxidation
Indicator microorgan- E. coli (for bacteria) 1–3 0–1 4–> 6 1–5 2–6 2–> 6 > 6 2–> 6
isms (log units) Clostridium perfringens 0.5–1 0–1 > 6 N/A 0–0.5 N/A N/A 1–2
Phage (virus) 0.5–2.5 1–4 2–> 6 1–4 2–6 3–> 6 > 6 0–2.5
Pathogenic microorgan- Enteric bacteria 1–3 0–1 > 6 1–5 2–6 2–> 6 > 6 2–> 6
isms (log units) Enteric viruses 0.5–1 0.5–3 2–> 6 1–4 3–6 1–> 6 > 6 1–3
Giardia lamblia 0.5–2.5 1–3 > 6 3–4 2–4 3–> 6 > 6 0.5–1.5
Cryptosporidium parvum 0.5–1 1.5–2.5 4–> 6 1–3.5 1–2 3–> 6 > 6 0–0.5
Helminths 0–2 2–3 > 6 1.5–> 3 N/A N/A N/A 0–1
Organic chemicals (% B(a)p nd nd > 80 nd > 80 – – > 80
removal) Antibiotics 10–50 50–80
< 20 50–> 95 50–90 > 95 20–> 80 > 80
Pharmaceuticals—DZP nd < 20 50–> 95 10–50 50–80 < 20 50–80 20–50
Hormones- steroid > 90 < 20 50–> 95 > 90 > 95 > 80 > 80 > 80
UV is ultra-violet
B. Keraita et al.
3  Health Risks and Cost-Effective Health Risk Management in Wastewater … 47

Fig. 3.1   The multi-barrier approach for reducing consumption-related risks along the food chain,
as applied in wastewater irrigation. (Source: Amoah et al. 2011)

wastewater treatment is limited, the approach already is institutionalized in most

developed countries which have adopted the hazard analysis and critical control
points ­(HACCP) principles (Ilic et al. 2010).
Table 3.5 provides examples of some of the risk management measures and their
pathogen reduction potential, based on reviews by the WHO and fieldwork from
Ghana (WHO 2006; Amoah et al. 2011). For example, combining a minimal (low-
cost) wastewater treatment (1–2 log units pathogen reduction) with drip irrigation
(2–4 log units pathogen reduction) and washing vegetables after harvesting (1 log
units pathogen reduction) can achieve a 4–7 log unit pathogen reduction. However,
some challenges remain, including (i) verification of the cumulative risk reduction
(ii) field testing and implementation of the suggested measures (iii) how to monitor,
at low cost, the acceptance and effectiveness of combined measures and (iv) how to
translate the flexibility of the multi-barrier approach into specific policies as policy
makers prefer unambiguous regulations. So far, the concept of health-based targets
and performance targets expressed as log reductions remains challenging for policy
makers and practitioners in developing countries who are the primary audience of
the guidelines. Specialists preparing the next revision of the WHO guidelines will
consider expressing the rather complex health based targets in a simpler way and
entry points where compliance is easier to monitor.
Cost effectiveness of Combined Options Used in Irrigation Systems in
Ghana  Drechsel and Seidu (2011) assessed for selected treatment and post-
treatment or non-treatment options their cost-effectiveness in terms of the costs of
preventing one DALY at the end of the consumer. The interventions included two
wastewater treatment options i.e. (i) construction of smaller new wastewater treat-
ment plants (WWTPs with capacity: 6400 m3/day), (ii) rehabilitation of five currently
dysfunctional smaller WWTP, and sets of non-treatment options to be implemented
(iii) as farm-based interventions to improve water quality and reduce vegetable con-
tamination, and (iv) as post-harvest interventions focusing on vegetable-washing
Table 3.5   Effectiveness of treatment and non-treatment options in pathogen removal. (Sources: EPHC-NRMMC-AHMC 2006; WHO 2006; Amoah et al. 2011)
48

Control measure Pathogen reduc- Notes

tion (log units)
A. Wastewater treatment 6−7 Reduction of pathogens depends on type and degree of treatment selected
B. On-farm options
Crop restriction (i.e., no food 6−7 Depends on (a) effectiveness of local enforcement of crop restriction, and (b) comparative profit
crops eaten uncooked) margin of the alternative crop(s)
On-farm treatment
(a) Three-tank system 1−2 One pond is being filled by the farmer, one is settling and the settled water from the third is being
used for irrigation
(b) Simple sedimentation 0.5−1 Sedimentation for ~ 18 h
(c) Simple filtration 1−3 Value depends on filtration system used
Method of wastewater application
(a) Furrow irrigation 1−2 Crop density and yield may be reduced
(b) Low-cost drip irrigation 2−4 Reduction of 2 log units for low-growing crops, and reduction of 4-log units for high-growing crops
(c) Reduction of splashing 1−2 Farmers trained to reduce splashing when watering cans used (splashing adds contaminated soil
particles on to crop surfaces which can be minimized)
Pathogen die-off (cessation) 0.5−2 per day Die-off between last irrigation and harvest (value depends on climate, crop type, etc.)
C. Post-harvest options at local markets
Overnight storage in baskets 0.5−1 Selling produce after overnight storage in baskets (rather than overnight storage in sacks or selling
fresh produce without overnight storage)
Produce preparation prior to sale 1−2 (a) Washing salad crops, vegetables and fruits with clean water
2−3 (b) Washing salad crops, vegetables and fruits with running tap water
1−3 (c) Removing the outer leaves on cabbages, lettuce, etc.
D. In-kitchen produce-preparation options
Produce disinfection 2−3 Washing salad crops, vegetables and fruits with an appropriate disinfectant solution and rinsing with
clean water
Produce peeling 2 Fruits, root crops
B. Keraita et al.

Produce cooking 5−6 Option depends on local diet and preference for cooked food
3  Health Risks and Cost-Effective Health Risk Management in Wastewater … 49

practices in kitchens. For farm and post-harvest based (non-treatment) interven-

tions, a comparison was done for adoption rates of 25, 50, 75 and 100 %. As pre-
sented in Table 3.6, the CERs range from US$ 13 to 352/DALY, on average. Based
on the Ghana’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) benchmark, all these interventions
could be considered cost-effective. However, only a few meet the combined criteria
of high DALY aversion, low absolute cost, and high cost-effectiveness.
Drechsel and Seidu (2011) conclude that among the treatment interventions, the
rehabilitation of existing treatment plants appears to be both, a low-cost and cost-
effective way to avoid most of the wastewater irrigation related DALYs. However,
this requires that farmers move to sites with safer (treated) water, which requires
well accepted incentives, closure of current sites, and enforced monitoring, which
might not be possible in every country and situation. Among the non-treatment
options, the most effective and cost-effective low-cost interventions include a com-
bination of on- and off-farm interventions, reaching at least an on- or off-farm adop-
tion rate of 75 %. A higher impact can be achieved if broader adoption is attained.
However, it is challenging to identify appropriate incentives for behaviour change
(Karg and Drechsel 2011). Finally, combining either WWTP rehabilitation or con-
struction and the non-treatment options would offer farmers and authorities more
choices, and probably less risk (multi-barrier approach) against non-compliance on-
or off-farm. Such combinations have a high positive impact on averting DALYs,
and can still be considered cost-effective, according to the GDP related threshold.
From an investment perspective the high cost-effectiveness of US$ 20–80 per
averted DALY through farm-based and postharvest safety options indicate a return
of US$  4.9 per dollar invested, using an economic DALY value for low-income
countries according to John and Ross (2010).
In the larger context of safeguarding public health, pathogen exposure through
wastewater irrigation is only one of many health threats that household members
face. Additional barriers for the prevention of diarrhea should be put in place in
other areas of water, sanitation and hygiene. The estimated CERs for interventions
related to wastewater irrigation are among the most cost-effective ones (Table 3.7),
especially when compared to improved urban water supply and sewerage systems.
The CER of treatment plants would be even more attractive if environmental ben-
efits also were considered.
While cost-effectiveness of safeguarding potential consumers of contaminated
food is important, given the complexity of outreach to the target group, it is usu-
ally easier to protect farmers’ health. A factor often overlooked is this context is
the absolute cost of risk mitigation. Irrigating farmers who, for example, produce
exotic vegetables for urban markets face mostly occupational contact risks, not con-
sumption risks. These risks concern their contact with different types of helminthes,
such as hook- and roundworms. While estimating the costs of being sick is a sig-
nificant challenge given that farmers do not know the (rather unspecific) symptoms
of worm infections, and tend to over-estimate health impacts resulting in costs be-
tween US$ 50 and 350 (see Chap. 8) which can create a significant distortion in any
cost-benefit analysis, a simple chemical deworming would cost less than US$ 1 per
person per year (Hall and Horton 2009).
Table 3.6   Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness ratios of interventions. (Source: Drechsel and Seidu 2011)
50

Interventions DALYs averted (%) CER (US$ per DALY)

Mean CI (5–95 %)
Wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) options
Basic rehabilitation of five urban WWTPs, without work on sewer and household connections 82 41 35–47
Construction of five new WWTPs (waste stabilization ponds), without sewer and household 93 338 278–402
connections
Farm- and postharvest options
100 % adoption rate (AR) on-farm 92 13 11–15
75 % AR on-farm (best realistic on-farm case) 69 17 14–20
25 % AR on-farm 23 51 43–60
100 % AR postharvest 88 20 17–24
75 % AR postharvest (best realistic off-farm case) 66 27 23–32
25 % AR postharvest 22 81 68–96
100 % AR on-farm + 100 % AR postharvest 99 30 25–35
75 % AR on-farm + 75 % AR postharvest 75 40 33–47
50 % AR on-farm + 50 % AR postharvest 49 59 49–70
75 % AR on-farm + 25 % AR postharvest 70 42 35–49
25 % AR on-farm + 75 % AR postharvest 68 43 36–51
25 % AR on-farm + 25 % AR postharvest 24 123 103–145
Combined options
Rehabilitation + on farm (75 % AR) 86 43 37–49
Rehabilitation + postharvest (75 % AR) 83 52 45–60
Rehabilitation + on farm + postharvest (each 75 % AR) 90 61 52–70
Construction + on-farm (75 % AR) 98 339 279–403
Construction + postharvest (75 % AR) 97 339 279–403
Construction + on farm + postharvest (each 75 % AR) 99 352 289–417
B. Keraita et al.

DALY is disability adjusted life years (see Box 3.1)

3  Health Risks and Cost-Effective Health Risk Management in Wastewater … 51

Table 3.7   Cost effectiveness ratios of interventions for diarrhoea disease reduction. (Source: Vari-
ous studies referenced by Drechsel and Seidu 2011)
Intervention CER (US$ per DALY) Country/Region
Mean Range
Hygiene behavior-change campaign 3–20 Developing
Chlorination at household level 46–266 Africa
Solar disinfection 54 40–74 Africa
Ceramic filtration 125 83–159 Africa
Basic sanitation (pit latrine) construction and ≤ 270 – Developing
promotion
Basic sanitation (promotion only) 11 – Developing
Water supply via hand pumps/stand posts 94 – Developing
Water supply via house connection 223 – Developing
Oral rehydration therapy 988 4–1972 Sub-Saharan Africa
Rotavirus immunization 2478 1402–8357 Developing
Cholera immunization 2945 1658–8274 Developing
Improved rural water supply and sanitation 1974 – Developing
Improved urban water supply and sanitation 6396 – Developing
Safer irrigation and vegetable-washing prac- 59 49–70 Ghana
tices adopted by every second farmer and trader
DALY is disability adjusted life years (WHO 2006)

3.4 Conclusion

Wastewater use is seen as one of the alternatives to address global water scarcity.
By far, agricultural and landscape irrigation are the largest users of wastewater al-
though in industrialized countries, industrial applications and groundwater recharge
have high reuse portfolios as well. However, untreated wastewater can have many
pathogens and chemical pollutants, which if not well treated and managed, pose
human health and environmental risks. In low-income countries, contamination
from pathogens resulting from inadequate sanitation (poor excreta disposal) and
low coverage of wastewater treatment poses greatest health risks to farmers and
consumers benefiting from irrigated crop production (the most common reuse op-
tion). In middle and high income countries, where sewer systems serve domestic
and industrial areas, pathogenic hazards are largely controlled, and the discussion is
focusing on heavy metals or other chemical contaminants, like those deriving from
pharmaceutical and personal care products. Regardless the possible complexity of
conventional or emerging contaminants, safeguarding public health remains an in-
tegral pillar of any reuse system.
To protect public health without unnecessarily discouraging wastewater use,
regulatory approaches need to stipulate water quality standards and other health
protection measures. There is also in increasing global understanding of “treating to
fit the purpose” and many treatment options exist to meet specific wastewater uses
52 B. Keraita et al.

and related water quality objectives. Advances in membrane filtration enable the
treatment of wastewater to meet standards sufficient for potable water use. Howev-
er, more cost-effective technologies need to be developed, especially for irrigation,
which is globally represents the largest use of wastewater.
The water standards approach might be more pertinent in middle to high income
countries where wastewater receives adequate treatment and where strong institu-
tions exist for regulating wastewater use. The approach will also remain a pillar of
risk reduction in low and middle income countries aiming to use wastewater for
potable purposes and in the food industry. However, as low and middle income
countries work towards improving sanitation and wastewater treatment, the WHO
(2006) promoted approach of health-based targets, which relies on a combination
of treatment and non-treatment options, might be more feasible and offer more flex-
ibility of compliance, especially if operationalized through the WHO promoted
Sanitation Safety Plans. Research from Ghana has shown that such combined bar-
riers can be cost-effective with a high ROI. However, more research is needed in
other countries to develop a catalogue of risk mitigation options with verified risk
reduction, limited costs in set-up and operations, and thus high cost effectiveness in
terms of disease prevention in resource constrained settings.

Take Home Messages

• With food production being the most widespread water reuse application
and potable use the financially most attractive, public health concerns will
be an important component of any reuse discussion.
• Depending on treatment coverage and quality, different types of contami-
nants are of priority concern.
• Water quality based guidelines and health-based targets are the most
widely discussed approaches in health risk mitigation.
• Many options and treatment technologies exist for risk mitigation, but
more focus should be placed on cost-effective options, especially in
resource constrained settings.

References

Abaidoo RC, Keraita B, Drechsel P et al (2010) Soil and crop contamination through wastewater
irrigation and options for risk reduction in developing countries. In: Dion P (ed) Soil biology
and agriculture in the tropics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 498–535
Al-Sahali M, Ettouney H (2007) Developments in thermal desalination processes: design, energy,
and costing aspects. Desalination 214(1–3):227–240
Amoah P, Keraita B, Akple M et  al (2011) Low cost options for health risk reduction where
crops are irrigated with polluted water in West Africa. IWMI Research Report 141, Colombo.
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/IWMI_Research_Reports/PDF/PUB141/RR141.pdf.
­Accessed 9 Dec 2014
AQUAREC (2006) Guideline for quality standards for water reuse in Europe. EU Project Report,
EVK1-CT-2002-00130, Work package 2, Deliverable D15. European Commission Brussels,
Belgium
3  Health Risks and Cost-Effective Health Risk Management in Wastewater … 53

Asano T (2001) Water from (waste) water—the dependable water resource. 2001 Stockholm Water
Prize Laureate Lecture, Stockholm
Balkema JA, Preisig HA, Otterpohl R et al (2002) Indicators for the sustainability assessment of
wastewater treatment systems. Urban Water 4:153–161
Bartram J, Fewtrell L, Stenström TA (2001) Harmonised assessment of risk and risk management
for water-related infectious disease: an overview. In: Fewtrell L, Bartram J (eds) Water quality:
guidelines, standards and health—assessment of risk and risk management for water-related
infectious disease. World Health Organization (WHO). IWA Publishing, London
Bixio D, Wintgens T (2006) Water reuse system management manual AQUAREC. Directorate-
General for Research, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium
Bixio D, Thoeye C, De Koning J et al (2006) Wastewater reuse in Europe. Desalination 187:89–101
Bos R, Carr R, Keraita B (2010) Assessing and mitigating wastewater related health risks in low-
income countries: an introduction. In: Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M,
Bahri A (eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigation risks in low-income
countries. Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI, UK, pp 29–47
Drechsel P, Seidu R (2011) Cost-effectiveness of options for reducing health risks in areas where
food crops are irrigated with wastewater. Water Int 36(4):535–548
EPA (2005) Membrane filtration guidance manual. United States Environmental Protection Agen-
cy report EPA 815-R-06-009. Office of ground water and drinking water, Cincinnati, OH
EPA (2012) Guidelines for water reuse. United States Environmental Protection Agency, office of
wastewater management office of water, Washington, DC. Office of research and development
Cincinnati, OH
EPHC—NRMMC—AHMC (2006) Australian guidelines for water recycling: managing health
and environmental risks (Phase 1). Natural resource management ministerial council, envi-
ronment protection and heritage council and Australian Health Ministers’ conference. http://
www.environment.gov.au/resource/national-water-quality-management-strategy-australian-
guidelines-water-recycling-managing-0. Accessed 5 July 2014
Hall A, Horton S (2009) Deworming. Copenhagen Consensus Center. Best practice paper: New
advice from cc08. http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/deworming.pdf.
Accessed 30 Jan 2014
Havelaar A, Blumenthal UJ, Strauss M et al (2001) Guidelines: the current position. In: Fewtrell
L, Bartram J (eds) Water quality: guidelines, standards and health; Assessment of risk and risk
management for water-related infectious diseases. International Water Association (IWA) on
behalf on the World Health Organization, London, UK, pp 17–42
Ilic S, Drechsel P, Amoah P et al (2010) Applying the multiple-barrier approach for microbial risk
reduction in the post-harvest sector of wastewater irrigated vegetables. In: Drechsel P, Scott
CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A (eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing
and mitigation risks in low-income countries. Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI, UK, pp 239–259
Jacob M, Guigui C, Cabassud C et al (2010). Performances of RO and NF processes for waste-
water reuse: tertiary treatment after a conventional activated sludge or a membrane bioreactor.
Desalination 250(2):833–839
John RM, Ross H (2010) Economic value of disability-adjusted life years lost to cancers,
2008. J Clin Oncol 28:15  s (suppl; abstr 1561). http://media.marketwire.com/attachments/
EZIR/627/18192_FinalJournalManuscript.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2014
Karg H, Drechsel P (2011) Financial and non-financial incentives and triggers to enhance the
adoption of safer irrigation and post-harvest practices in West Africa. Water Int 36(4):476–490
Keraita B, Drechsel P, Konradsen F (2010). Up and down the sanitation ladder: harmonizing the
treatment and multiple-barrier perspectives on risk reduction in wastewater irrigated agri-
culture. Irrigation and drainage systems. Special issue on wastewater reuse 24(1–2):23–35.
doi:10.1007/s10795-009-9087-5
Lazarova V, Savoye P, Janex ML et  al (1999) Advanced wastewater disinfection technologies:
state of the art and perspectives. Water Sci Technol 40(4):203–213
Libhaber M, Orozco-Jaramillo A (2013) Sustainable treatment of municipal wastewater. Water
21(2013):25–28
54 B. Keraita et al.

Mara D, Hamilton A, Sleigh A et al (2010). More appropriate tolerable additional burden of disease.
Improved determination of annual risks. Norovirus and Ascaris infection risks. Extended health-
protection control measures. Treatment and non-treatment options. Discussion paper: options
for updating the 2006 WHO Guidelines. WHO-FAO-IDRC-IWMI, Geneva. http://www.who.
int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/guidance_note_20100917.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2014
Murray A, Buckley C (2010) Designing reuse-oriented sanitation infrastructure: the design for
service planning approach. In: Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A
(eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries.
Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI, UK, pp 303–318
National Research Council (NRC) (2012) Water reuse: potential for expanding the nation’s water
supply through reuse of municipal wastewater. The National Academies Press, Washington,
DC
Norton-Brandão D, Scherrenberg SM, van Lier JB (2013) Reclamation of used urban waters for
irrigation purposes: a review of treatment technologies. J Environ Manage 122:85–98
Prüss A, Havelaar A (2001) The global burden of disease study and applications in water, sani-
tation and hygiene. In: Fewtrell L, Bartram J (eds) Water quality: guidelines, standards and
health—assessment of risk and risk management for water-related infectious disease. World
Health Organization (WHO). IWA Publishing, London, UK
Prüss-Ustün A, Corvalan C (2006) Preventing disease through healthy environments, towards an
estimate of the environmental burden of disease. WHO, Geneva
Scheierling SM, Bartone C, Mara DD et  al (2010) Improving wastewater use in agriculture:
an emerging priority. World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper no.  WPS 5412. http://
go.worldbank.org/UC28EAWNI0. Accessed 5 July 2014
Seah H (2012) The multi-barrier safety approach for indirect potable use and direct nonpotable use
of NEWATER. In EPA 2012. Guidelines for water reuse. United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Office of wastewater management office of water, Washington, DC. Office of
research and development Cincinnati, OH
Van der Bruggen B, Vandecasteele C, van Gestel T et al (2003) A review of pressure-driven mem-
brane processes in wastewater treatment and drinking water production. Environ Prog Sustain
Energy 22(1):46–56
WHO (1989) Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater and excreta in agriculture and aquaculture.
World Health Organization, Geneva
WHO (2003) Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. World Health
Organization, Geneva
WHO (2006) Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, greywater and excreta in agriculture and
aquaculture. World Health Organization, Geneva
Chapter 4
Environmental Risks and Cost-Effective Risk
Management in Wastewater Use Systems

Manzoor Qadir, Javier Mateo-Sagasta, Blanca Jiménez, Christina Siebe,

Jan Siemens and Munir A. Hanjra

Abstract  Wastewater use in agriculture has many potential benefits, yet it also
poses environmental risks. In particular, the use of untreated or partially treated
wastewater over the long run may result in negative impacts on irrigated crops, soils,
and groundwater through the addition of excessive levels of metals and metalloids,
nutrients, salts and specific ionic species, and micro- pollutants. The environmental
risk reduction strategies for wastewater can be categorized into: (1) treatment of
wastewater to a desired effluent quality; (2) on-farm wastewater treatment options;
and (3) farm-based measures to reduce risks in areas irrigated by untreated or

M. Qadir ()
United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, 175 Longwood Road
South, Ontario, L8P 0A1 Hamilton, Canada
e-mail: manzoor.qadir@unu.edu
J. Mateo-Sagasta 
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
e-mail: j.mateo-sagasta@cgiar.org
B. Jiménez
Division of Water Sciences, International Hydrological Programme, UNESCO, rue
Miollis—75732 Paris Cedex 15, Paris, France; and Institute of Engineering, UNAM, Mexico
City, Mexico
e-mail: b.jimenez-cisneros@unesco.org
C. Siebe
Instituto de Geología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cd. Universitaria, CP 04510
Mexico City, D.F., Mexico
e-mail: siebe@unam.mx
J. Siemens
Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, Division Soil Science and Soil Ecology,
University of Bonn, Nussallee, 53115 Bonn, Germany
e-mail: jan.siemens@uni-bonn.de
M. A. Hanjra
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Pretoria, South Africa
e-mail: m.hanjra@cgiar.org

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 55

P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_4
56 M. Qadir et al.

partially treated wastewater. However, the number of strategies that have been eco-
nomically assessed and have proven to be cost-effective is rather limited, although
all mention a positive impact. Despite limited examples, the economics of risk man-
agement reveal that cost-effective options for improving water quality by removing
undesirable constituents are available at the treatment plant level and beyond.

Keywords  Wastewater and environment ⋅ On-farm treatment ⋅ Metals and

metalloids ⋅ Salinity ⋅ Micro-pollutants

4.1 Introduction

Wastewater is used increasingly to irrigate crops in urban and peri-urban areas. Yet,
irrigation with untreated or partially treated wastewater poses chemical and patho-
genic risks to farmers, consumers, and ecosystems (Pescod 1992; Qadir et al. 2007;
Keraita et al. 2010). Wastewater contains different types and levels of undesirable
constituents, depending on the source from which it is generated and the level of its
treatment. The non-pathogenic components of wastewater include organic and in-
organic chemicals that can be harmful or beneficial, depending on their concentra-
tions, solubility, and inherent toxicity. For example, some of the elements in waste-
water are essential plant nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Among the
undesirable compounds are salts, metals and metalloids, pesticides, organic toxic
compounds and micro-pollutants (Siemens et al. 2008; Simmons et al. 2010). The
pathogenic components include viruses, bacteria, protozoa, and multicellular para-
sites (Bos et al. 2010). The concentrations of these constituents above the permis-
sible limits have bearing on human and environmental health (WHO 2006).
Past research has been restricted mainly to assessing situation-specific environ-
mental risks and risk management (Stevens and McLaughlin 2006; Abaidoo et al.
2010; Qadir and Scott 2010). Environmental risk is different from economic, social
or health risk (Hanjra et al. 2011), as it focuses on environmental capital; i.e. eco-
systems. It may refer to a pollutant concentration exceeding the carrying capacity
of an ecosystem receiving the pollution load or the over recharge of an upper aqui-
fer that leads to waterlogging in agricultural land, thus leading to its degradation
and reducing its productivity. In addition to environmental risk assessment stem-
ming from the use of untreated or partially treated wastewater, studies have also
addressed economic valuation of the environmental benefits from wastewater treat-
ment processes and the use of treated wastewater for irrigation (Tziakis et al. 2009;
Hernández-Sancho et al. 2010; Ganoulis 2012; Molinos-Senante et al. 2012).
We describe the environmental risks resulting from the use of untreated or par-
tially treated wastewater and provide insight into cost-effective risk management,
through economic valuation of the environmental benefits from safe and productive
approaches leading to water recycling and reuse. Health risks related to untreated
or partially treated wastewater and cost-effective risk management are addressed in
the previous Chap. 3.
4  Environmental Risks and Cost-Effective Risk Management in Wastewater … 57

4.2 Environmental Risks Stemming from Wastewater

Several constituents of wastewater are essential for human needs, but even these
‘essential’ constituents can become undesirable and considered environmental pol-
lutants when their concentrations exceed the carrying capacity of an ecosystem
(Corcoran et al. 2010). Based on these environmental thresholds and the specific
use of wastewater (irrigation, aquaculture, or groundwater recharge), a maximum
allowable pollutant concentration in wastewater is usually specified in environmen-
tal quality standards or guidelines (WHO 2006). In addition to concentration of
a specific constituent, its pollution loads over time are also important. Therefore,
continuous use of wastewater having concentration of a specific pollutant over and
above the maximum allowable concentration would lead to the pollutant-specific
environmental risk.
With the potential for environmental risks due to concentrations and loads
above the maximum allowable levels, the constituents that need to be addressed
in wastewater-irrigated environments can be broadly grouped into: (1) Metals and
metalloids, such as cadmium, chromium, nickel, zinc, lead, arsenic, selenium,
mercury, copper, manganese, among others (Römkens et al. 2001; Hamilton et al.
2005; Rai 2012); (2) Nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous, and magnesium,
which in high concentrations might suppress other nutrients or affect plant growth
otherwise negatively (Nhapi et al. 2002; Lazarova and Bahri 2005; Simmons et al.
2010); (3) Salts and specific ionic species such as sodium, boron, and chloride
(Oster et al. 1999; Tanji and Kielen 2002; Money et  al. 2009); and (4) Micro-
pollutants also known as persistent organic pollutants, such as pesticides as well
as residual pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptor compounds, active residues of
personal care products, among others (Boxall et al. 2006; Dalkmann et al. 2012;
Durán-Álvarez et al. 2012).

4.2.1 Toxic Metals and Metalloids

All of the potentially toxic metals and metalloids are naturally present in the en-
vironment in trace amounts and are ingested with food, water, and air. Several of
these metals and metalloids are of particular concern due to their adverse effects
on agricultural productivity as well as environment (Römkens et al. 2001; Gupta
et al. 2012). For example, metals such as cadmium, mercury, and lead do not have
essential function but they are detrimental, even in small quantities, to plants, ani-
mals and humans, and accumulate because of their long biological half-life. Other
metals and metalloids, such as manganese, zinc, and copper are essential micro-
nutrients in small concentrations, but harmful to crops when they reach above
maximum allowable concentrations (Table  4.1; Hamilton et  al. 2005; Simmons
et al. 2010).
58 M. Qadir et al.

Table 4.1   Four distinct groups of selected metal ions based on their bioavailability, phytotoxicity,
and risks. (Modified from Hamilton et al. 2005)
Group Metala Soil adsorption Phytotoxicity and risks
1 Ag, Cr, and Ti Low solubility and strong Low
retention in soil
2 As, Hg, and Pb Strongly adsorbed by soil Plant roots may take up but not
colloids translocate to shoots; generally
not phytotoxic except at very high
concentrations
3 B, Cu, Mn, Ni, Less strongly adsorbed by soil Readily taken up by plants and phy-
and Zn colloids than Groups 1 and 2 totoxic at concentrations that pose
little risk to human health
4 Cd, Co, Mo, Least adsorbed of all metals Pose human and animal health risks
and Se at plant tissue concentrations that
are not generally phytotoxic
a
 bbreviations for metals refer to Ag Silver, As Arsenic, B Boron, Cd Cadmium, Co Cobalt,
A
Cr Chromium, Cu Copper, Hg Mercury, Mn Manganese, Mo Molybdenum, Ni Nickel, Pb Lead,
Se Selenium, Ti Titanium, Zn Zinc

4.2.2 Excess Nutrients

Wastewater usually contains valuable plant nutrients, such as nitrogen, phospho-

rous, potassium, and magnesium, among other elements. Although availability
of these nutrients is one benefit of wastewater irrigation in developing countries,
maintaining appropriate levels of nutrients in wastewater is a challenging task. The
nutrient concentrations vary significantly in wastewater due to wastewater source
and treatment level, and may reach levels that are in excess of crop needs (Lazarova
and Bahri 2005).
Continued irrigation with wastewater having nutrient concentrations and loads
over and above the crop requirement would result in nutrient leaching, such as ni-
trates, to groundwater and subsequent groundwater pollution (Tang et al. 2004). In
addition, disposal of nutrient-rich wastewater to surface water bodies may cause
water quality deterioration in the form of algal blooms (particularly excess of some
phosphates) and eutrophication (excess of total phosphorus and total nitrogen). Once
a water body is eutrophicated, it loses its primary functions and/or subsequently in-
fluences sustainable development of economy and society (Mayer et al. 2013).

4.2.3 Salts and Specific Ionic Species

Wastewater contains more soluble salts than freshwater because salts are added
to it from different sources. The amount and type of salts used in an industry and
the relevant treatment affect the quality of wastewater. For example, in the tan-
4  Environmental Risks and Cost-Effective Risk Management in Wastewater … 59

nery industry, skins are usually salted with 50–100 % salt by weight and hides with
40–50 % salt (Money et al. 2009). These values suggest that each ton of salted skins
contributes 500 kg of salt to the environment if wastewater treatment is not in place.
Wastewater from tanneries contains salt in the range of 10–50 g L−1 while domestic
wastewater contains salt 0.3–0.5  g  L−1 (Qadir and Drechsel 2010). There are no
economically viable means to remove salts from wastewater. Cation exchange and
reverse osmosis, which are only used to produce high-quality recycled water, are
too expensive for most applications of wastewater (Toze 2006).
Salt management is complicated when industrial or commercial brine waste
streams are not discharged into separate waste sewers, rather into main urban sew-
ers that convey wastewater to the treatment plants or to disposal channels leading
to farmers’ fields. Compared to other wastewater constituents, there are indeed no
restrictions on salt concentrations wastewater to be discharged into urban sewers
(Lazarova and Bahri 2005).
The adverse effects of salts from wastewater irrigation on crop growth and soil
stem from: (1) increasing the osmotic pressure and thereby rendering the water in
the soil less available for the plants; and (2) specific effects of some elements pres-
ent in excess concentrations, such as sodium, which exhibit structural problems as
a result of certain physical processes (slaking, swelling, and dispersion of clay) and
specific conditions (surface crusting and hard-setting); and (3) imbalances in plant
nutrition (Qadir and Schubert 2002).

4.2.4 Micro-Pollutants

The continuous release of micro-pollutants such as pharmaceutical and personal

care products (PPCPs) into the environment through wastewater is an emerging
concern. The environmental risk assessments for micro-pollutants are regulated by
the European Medicines Agency in their guidelines on the environmental risk as-
sessment of medicinal products for human use (European Medicines Agency 2006).
These risk assessments begin with an estimation of the exposure by calculating a
predicted environmental concentration (PEC), based on dosage of pharmaceuticals
or consumption data. These PECs are then compared to predict no effect concentra-
tions (PNEC) to assess potential risks.
Although pharmaceuticals and other emerging pollutants can accumulate in
soil as a result of long-term irrigation with wastewater (Dalkmann et  al. 2012;
Durán-Álvarez et  al. 2012) and may transfer from soils to crops, the amounts
taken up by plants seem too small to cause acute toxic effects to humans (Boxall
et al. 2006). However, little is known regarding health risks arising from the long-
term uptake of small concentrations of mixtures of micro-pollutants in food and
drinking water.
60 M. Qadir et al.

4.3 Environmental Risk Management

Several research-based options are available for environmental risk management

with regard to the use of wastewater in agriculture (WHO 2006). Yet, the number of
risk reduction strategies that have been economically assessed and have proven to
be cost-effective is limited. The risk reduction strategies can be categorized into: (1)
treatment of wastewater to a desired quality as many wastewater treatment options
with a proven track record are available and produce a range of effluent quality; (2)
treatment beyond wastewater treatment plants such as on-farm wastewater treat-
ment options; and (3) farm-based measures to reduce environmental risk in areas
where untreated or partially treated wastewater is used for irrigation.

4.3.1 Wastewater Treatment Systems and Technologies

Appropriate, effective and low-cost wastewater treatment technologies are needed

to increase the coverage of wastewater treatment in developing countries. These
can be simple treatment processes that provide required effluent quality with low
investment costs and, in particular, low operational and maintenance costs (Jiménez
2011; Libhaber and Orozco-Jaramillo 2013). Such processes exist and are particu-
larly suited to countries with warm climates, as biological processes perform better
at higher temperatures. Most developing countries are in warm climates.
Many wastewater treatment options are available to generate a range of effluent
quality (Libhaber and Orozco-Jaramillo 2013) and include: preliminary treatment
by rotating micro screens; vortex grit chambers; lagoon treatment (anaerobic, fac-
ultative and polishing), including recent developments in improving lagoon perfor-
mance (using upgraded lagoons); anaerobic treatment processes of various types,
mainly anaerobic lagoons, up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors, an-
aerobic filters, piston anaerobic reactors (PARs), anaerobic baffled reactors (ABRs),
and activated sludge treatment; physicochemical processes of various types, mainly
chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT) or advanced primary treatment
(APT); constructed wetlands; stabilization reservoirs for wastewater use and other
purposes; overland flow; infiltration-percolation; septic tanks; and submarine and
large river outfalls. Various combinations of these processes can be set up. Com-
binations can also include some other simple processes such as sand filtration and
dissolved air flotation (DAF). Table 4.2 presents the treatment capacities and costs
of some technology units and combined processes for wastewater treatment.
A number of methodologies can be used to evaluate the benefits from waste-
water treatment, which can be integrated in a broader cost-benefit analysis (CBA)
to appraise wastewater treatment options. Undertaking CBA of actions with envi-
ronmental impacts is complex because many environmental resources, including
most water resources, have public good dimensions and do not trade in markets that
determine prices (Hernández Sancho et al. 2010).
Table  4.2   Treatment capacity and costs of some wastewater treatment units and combined processes. (Adapted from Libhaber and Orozco-Jaramillo 2013)
Process Total BOD removal TSS removal Investment cost Operation and maintenance cost
capacity (%) capacity (%) US$ per capita % of activated US$ per capita % of activated
sludge cost sludge cost
Conventional activated sludgea 80–90 80–90 100–150b 100 4–8 100
Rotating micro screens 0–30 0–30 3–10 4–10 0.1–0.15 1.9–2.5
Conventional lagoon systems 70–90 70–90 20–40 25–40 0.2–0.4 5–8
Mixer aided lagoon systems 70–95 80–90 20–40 25–40 0.2–0.4 5
c
Covered anaerobic + mixer lagoons 80–95 80–90 20–50 25–50 0.2–0.4 5
UASB Reactors 60–75 60–70 20–40 25–50 1.0–1.5 19–25
Anaerobic filters 70–80 70–80 10–25 10–25 0.8–1.0 13–20
CEPT 70–75 80–90 20–40 20–40 1.5–2.0 25–38
Constructed wetlands 80–90 80–90 20–30 20–30 1.0–1.5 19–25
Stabilization reservoir systems 75–95 75–90 30–50 30–50 0.2–0.4 5
Submarine outfalls 99.9 99.9 3–30 3–30 0.1–0.15 1.9–2.5
Overland flow 70–80 70–80 15–30 15–30 0.8–1.5 19–20
UASB-anaerobic filter combination 80–90 80–90 20–40 20–40 1.0–1.5 19–25
UASB-lagoon combination 80–90 70–80 30–50 30–50 1.0–1.5 19–25
CEPT-sand filtration combination 80–90 80–90 40–50 40–50 1.5–2.0 25–38
UASB-sand filtration combination 80–90 80–90 30–50 30–50 1.0–1.5 19–25
4  Environmental Risks and Cost-Effective Risk Management in Wastewater …

UASB-dissolved air flotation combination 80–90 80–90 30–40 30–40 1.0–1.5 19–25
a
Conventional activated sludge is used for reference. It is not an appropriate process
b
The investment cost of an activated sludge plant used for the calculation is $ 100 per capita
c
Covered anaerobic lagoons, followed by mixer-aided facultative lagoons
61
62 M. Qadir et al.

Table 4.3   Reference price of treated wastewater and shadow prices for undesirable outputs reveal-
ing environmental benefits (environmental damage avoided) from disposal of treated wastewater
into wetlands, rivers, or the sea. (Modified from Hernández-Sancho et al. 2010)
Destination Reference price of Shadow prices for undesirable outputs (€ kg−1)a
wastewater (€ m−3)a N P SS BOD COD
Wetlands 0.9 − 65.21 − 103.42 − 0.010 − 0.117 − 0.122
River 0.7 − 16.35 − 30.94 − 0.005 − 0.033 − 0.098
Sea 0.1 − 4.61 − 7.53 − 0.001 − 0.005 − 0.010
a
1.00 € in 2010 = 1.31 US$

Hernández-Sancho et  al. (2010) evaluate the benefits of wastewater treatment

through the removal of pollutants and estimated shadow prices for each pollutant,
depending on disposal of effluent into a river, sea, or wetland. The pollutants inves-
tigated include nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), suspended solids (SS), biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD). The shadow price
of each of the pollutant is helpful in estimating the costs avoided by removing the
pollutant during wastewater treatment. These avoided costs represent the economic
value of the minimal environmental benefits obtained from the treatment process.
The estimated shadow prices of disposing wastewater into wetlands are greater in
absolute value than those of disposing wastewater into rivers or the sea (Table 4.3).
This ordering of incremental damages might reflect the limited dilution and the
environmental vulnerability and importance of wetlands (Hernández-Sancho et al.
2010). The estimated shadow prices, which reflect the incremental benefits of
wastewater treatment, are highest in absolute value for phosphorus and nitrogen
(Table 4.3). Both nutrients are essential, but excessive concentrations in water bod-
ies cause eutrophication and reduce biodiversity by causing algal blooms in water
bodies (Mayer et al. 2013).
Wastewater treatment options are available to substantially decrease or even
eliminate micro-pollutants such as PPCPs in spite of their low concentrations. Mo-
linos-Senante et al. (2013) estimate environmental shadow prices for five PPCPs
(diclofenac, later referred to as DCF; tonalide, AHTN; galaxolide, HHCB; sulfa-
methoxazole, SMX; and ethynilestradiol, EE2). Shadow prices represent the en-
vironmental benefits from treating effluent using a pilot-scale ozonation reactor.
These estimated benefits are equivalent to the incremental values of avoiding the
discharge of these PPCPs into water bodies. Molinos-Senante et al. (2013) consider
two scenarios: (1) sensitive areas where in case the wastewater is treated, the dam-
age avoided is significantly greater; and (2) non-sensitive areas where the damage
avoided with wastewater treatment is significantly smaller than sensitive areas. In
the first scenario, the values obtained for eliminating PPCPs from wastewater, ex-
pressed in € kg−1 of material, are higher than non-sensitive areas (Table 4.4). Esti-
mates of the environmental benefits stemming from wastewater treatment are useful
in developing feasibility studies for wastewater management projects, justifying
the implementation of technologies aimed to increase the level of environmental
protection.
4  Environmental Risks and Cost-Effective Risk Management in Wastewater … 63

Table 4.4   Average values of shadow prices for undesirable outputs (€ kg−1)a and their standard
deviation in parenthesis. (Adapted from Molinos-Senante et al. 2013)
Scenario DCF AHTN HHCB SMX EE2
Non-sensitive − 42.20 − 10.98 (4.33) − 8.67 − 34.95 − 73.73
(− 4.63) (− 3.97) (− 17.76) (− 24.13)
Sensitive − 53.47 − 13.98 (5.88) − 11.06 − 44.46 − 93.76
(− 5.21) (− 4.85) (− 23.06) (− 28.57)
DCF diclofenac, AHTN tonalide, HHCB galaxolide, SMX sulfamethoxazole, EE2 ethynilestradiol
a
1.00 € in 2013 = 1.38 US$

Wastewater treatment generates value also by providing useful water in water-

short areas. In a field survey involving 32 wastewater treatment plants using differ-
ent treatment options in Nicaragua, Jiménez et al. (2011) find that irrigation with
treated wastewater, even in this humid country, increases crop yields, due to year
round availability of water. The range of crops cultivated is also extended (21 in-
stead of 14 under rainfed conditions), and there is less dependence on fertilizers.
Irrigation with treated water caused a two-fold increase in farmers’ income (from
US$ 340 ha−1 to US$ 680 ha−1). Although the increase in net income in Nicaragua
is lower than that reported for arid or semi-arid regions (Keraita et al. 2008), the
increase is significant for a humid area. In economic terms, the nutrients contained
in the effluent from just 5 stabilization ponds resulted in yearly savings for farmers
of US$ 265,170 for nitrogen and US$ 167,636 for phosphorus (Jiménez et al. 2011).
In another example, Jiménez et al. (2014) highlight the importance of both nutri-
ents and the water content in wastewater, in an economic assessment of irrigating
90,000 ha with untreated wastewater in the Mezquital Valley, Mexico. The farmers
realized benefits (and damages avoided) due to nutrients in water, increases in crop
yields, increase in land rental prices, provision of water, and the avoided costs for
treatment.
Risk management in the wastewater-irrigated area in the Mezquital Valley pri-
marily involves crop restrictions. Only fodder crops and large stem grains or veg-
etables are allowed, but all vegetables that are either produced in direct contact with
wastewater and soil, and particularly those that are consumed raw, are prohibited.
The risk of soil degradation through the accumulation of soluble salts is limited, as
most farmers over-irrigate, which provides groundwater recharge. To minimize en-
vironmental and health risks, a large wastewater treatment plant is under construc-
tion and expected to begin operating in 2015 (Conagua 2014). The plant is expected
to treat urban wastewater from Mexico City at the rate of 23 m3 s−1 (2 million m3 d−1
or 725 million m3 yr−1) using a biological activated sludge system. During the rainy
season, the plant will also treat 12 m3 s−1 of surface runoff by advanced physico-
chemical treatment. The investment costs are US$  751.1  million (49 % from the
government and 51 % from a private investor), and the annual estimated operation
costs are US$ 85.3 million. This is equivalent to US$ 0.12 m−3 of biologically treat-
ed wastewater and US$  0.07  m−3 of physical and chemically treated wastewater.
64 M. Qadir et al.

These costs will be charged to consumers in Mexico City, through their potable
water bills (Ariel Flores Robles, personal communication).

4.3.2 On-Farm Wastewater Treatment Options

Current estimates suggest that low-income countries on average treat 8 % of the
generated wastewater (Sato et al. 2013). There are several reasons for the low lev-
els of wastewater treatment in developing countries, including: (1) allocation of
limited financial resources to wastewater treatment; (2) weakness of governance at
central and local government levels; (3) limited institutional and technical capacity
at utility level; (4) priority for expanding water supply and sewerage in advance of
expanding wastewater collection and treatment; (5) inadequate planning for waste-
water treatment coverage; (6) poor quality planning that does not match wastewater
treatment plant capacity with anticipated population growth and urbanization; and
(7) tendency to construct new treatment plants based on cutting-edge technology,
rather than relying on low-cost and affordable treatment options.
Given these issues and challenges, it is unlikely that the low levels of wastewater
treatment in developing countries will increase substantially in near future unless
some innovative and affordable strategies for expanding wastewater treatment cov-
erage are adopted. Driven by the lack of wastewater treatment capacity in low-
income countries, some on-farm options for wastewater treatment have been used
for environmental and health risk reduction (WHO 2006; Keraita et al. 2008; Bino
et al. 2008; Reymond et al. 2009).
Using sedimentation as the treatment process, affordable pond-based on-farm
treatment systems such as dugouts, drums or concrete tanks are used in many coun-
tries (Keraita et al. 2008; Reymond et al. 2009). Primary sedimentation through on-
farm ponds, and systems of interconnected ponds, can remove 60 % of suspended
solids, 35 % of BOD, and reduce the concentrations of pathogens and toxic com-
pounds attached to the sediments. Part of heavy metals and other toxic chemicals
can adsorb to the sediments carried in wastewater, and thus reducing the concentra-
tion of undesirable metals and toxic chemicals. Ponding of wastewater also is help-
ful in reducing such concentrations, as some organic pollutants and pathogens de-
grade photochemically in ponds and reservoirs (Keraita et al. 2008; Reymond et al.
2009). For example, a pond system constructed in a peri-urban agricultural area in
Accra, Ghana, enhanced fecal coliform removal from 106–107 MPN 100 mL−1 by at
least 2 log units from the first to the last pond. Individual ponds showed a removal
of 1–1.5 log units over 2 days. Helminth eggs were not frequently found in the
source water (up to 2 eggs L−1) but when present, decreased to ≤ 1 egg L−1 in the
first pond (Reymond et al. 2009).
The costs of on-farm ponds include labor for construction for simple land pond
systems, and machinery cost for more sophisticated ponds (Reymond et al. 2009).
The cost of constructing the simple on-farm pond in Accra includes the wages for
4  Environmental Risks and Cost-Effective Risk Management in Wastewater … 65

2 days of labor and $ 50 for construction materials. These systems, although robust
and simple, need maintenance (e.g. sediments dredging) and have opportunity costs
associated with the loss of crop production on the piece of land that is allocated to
on-farm ponds (Reymond et al. 2009).
Wastewater treatment can be achieved through filtration systems at farm level
using a range of media such as sand, gravel or soil. Sand filters (sand size: 0.15–
0.40  mm) can be used in water containers feeding drip irrigation systems where
untreated wastewater tends to clog the outlets. These filters can remove 0–3 log
units for bacteria and 1–3 log units for helminth (WHO 2006). The sand filters need
frequent cleaning to avoid clogging of the filtration medium.
Gravel sand filters are used to treat greywater from small streams or households
before irrigating crops, flowers, and fruit trees. The gravel under anaerobic condi-
tions facilitates biological treatment with retention times of 2–3 days. Pathogens
and total suspended solids can be reduced to 50 %. The filters need cleaning to
prevent odors and with time clogging of the gravel media (Bino et al. 2008). Based
on the economics of greywater treatment systems in Jordan, the capital cost of one
unit may range between US$ 260 to 300 for site preparation, gravel media, plastic
sheets, and PVC pipes. The average annual operation and maintenance cost would
be US$ 39. Based on the Net Present Values, interest rates of 3 and 5 %, and life-
span of the system for 5 and 10 years, the system proves to be economically feasible
with benefit-cost ratios of 1.76 and 1.83 for 5 years at 3 and 5 % interest rates, re-
spectively; for 10 years period at 3 and 5 % interest rates, the respective benefit-cost
ratios would be 2.58 and 2.75 (Bino et al. 2008).
Some components of irrigation infrastructure such as weirs and water storage
tanks in irrigation schemes can also be used to improve the microbiological quality
of domestically polluted water. For example, in the case of Musi River which passes
Hyderabad in India, the natural remediation efficiency of the river system, aided
by the construction of irrigation infrastructure, particularly weirs can reduce fecal
coliforms, helminth eggs, BOD, and nitrogen at rates comparable with the treatment
efficiency of a well-designed waste stabilization pond system. The improvement in
water quality over a distance of 40 km with 13 weirs is due to the combined effects
of different remediation processes such as sedimentation, dilution, aeration, natural
die-off, and exposure to UV-light (Ensink et al. 2010).

4.3.3 Farm-Based Measures While Irrigating with Untreated

Wastewater

Under conditions where untreated or partially treated wastewater is used for irriga-
tion, some specific farm-based measures can reduce environmental risk stemming
from toxic metals and metalloids, excess nutrient, salts and specific ionic species,
and micro-pollutants.
66 M. Qadir et al.

4.3.3.1 Toxic Metals and Metalloids

The risk management steps for metals and metalloids may consist of: (1) identi-
fying farms with elevated risks from specific metal sources; (2) testing soil and
plant samples to verify levels of risk from specific metals; (3) developing irriga-
tion, fertilization, and residue management strategies that reduce metal uptake by
plants; (4) recommending crops with less risk as some crops are more prone than
others to contamination with metals and metalloids or pose a greater risk to human
health, due to levels of dietary intake; and (5) identifying varieties of a specific crop
that take up less of the metal or convert the toxin to less toxic forms when grown
in high-risk areas, if such varieties are available (Hamilton et al. 2007; Simmons
et al. 2010). The available techniques that have been applied to remediate metal
and metalloid contaminated soils include in-situ and ex-situ engineering options,
in-situ soil based immobilization, phytoremediation, chelate enhanced phytoextrac-
tion, and the use of transgenic crops (Salt et al. 1996; Qadir et al. 2000; Römkens
et al. 2001; Rai 2012).

4.3.3.2 Excess Nutrients

As long as untreated or partially treated wastewater is used informally, the issue

of disproportional application of nutrients will remain pertinent since wastewater
seldom contains nutrients in optimal ratios. However, to minimize the effects of ex-
cessive or unbalanced additions of nutrients to wastewater-irrigated soils and crops,
farmers can select crops less sensitive to high nutrient levels or which utilize high
amounts of major nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous. For example, leafy
vegetables can accommodate higher levels of nitrogen. Some grasses and fodder
crops are well suited to wastewater irrigation, as they safely accumulate the nutri-
ents added via wastewater. For example, reduction efficiencies of 84 % for nitrogen
and 54 % for phosphorus have been reported from wastewater irrigated pastures in
Zimbabwe (Nhapi et al. 2002).
Soil based options also can be used to reduce nutrient impacts. For example,
medium to fine textured soils may hold more nutrients than sandy soils, thereby
releasing fewer amounts in the water percolating through the soil and adding to
groundwater (Simmons et al. 2010). However, there is a need for groundwater qual-
ity monitoring when groundwater is shallow and used for drinking. In areas where
farmers do not have the option to grow crops which benefit from high nutrient lev-
els, the irrigation water might first be passed through other systems that transform
some of the nutrient load into biomass.
To regulate nutrient input to wastewater-irrigated soils, guidelines are needed
to optimize wastewater irrigation and nutrient input (Lazarova and Bahri 2005). In
addition, nutrient loads at different stages of crop growth should be considered in
the guidelines. For example, most nutrient input occurring at early crop develop-
ment stages is taken up by the crop, but most nutrient input at later stages of crop
development is not taken up by the crop due to less nutrient requirement at maturity.
4  Environmental Risks and Cost-Effective Risk Management in Wastewater … 67

4.3.3.3 Salts and Specific Ionic Species

Irrigation with saline wastewater needs specific on-farm preventive measures and
management strategies, which may include: (1) appropriate selection of crops or
crop varieties capable of producing profitable yield with saline wastewater (Maas
and Hoffman 1977; Maas and Grattan 1999); (2) selection of saline wastewater irri-
gation methods reducing crop exposure to salts (Oster et al. 1999); (3) application of
saline wastewater in excess of crop water requirement (evapotranspiration) to leach
excess salts from the root zone (Qadir and Drechsel 2010); (4) saline wastewater
irrigation in conjunction with freshwater, if available, through cyclic applications
or blending interventions (Tanji and Kielen 2002); (5) use of agronomic interven-
tions such as sowing on relatively less saline parts of ridges, raising seedlings with
freshwater and their subsequent transplanting and irrigation with saline wastewater,
mulching of furrows to minimize salinity buildup and maintain soil moisture for
longer period, and increasing plant density to compensate for possible decrease in
growth (Tanji and Kielen 2002; Hassan et al. 2013); and (6) application of calcium
supplying amendments, such as gypsum, to the soils in case of irrigation with highly
sodic or saline-sodic wastewater to mitigate the negative effects of sodium on soils
and crops (Oster et al. 1999; Murtaza 2014).

4.3.3.4 Micro-Pollutants

Chemical stability and slow natural attenuation of some micro-pollutants makes

remediation of these pollutants a particularly intractable environmental challenge.
The degree to which wastewater containing persistent organic pollutants needs to
be treated depends on (1) pollutant loads, i.e. concentration in wastewater × waste-
water volume over time; (2) behavior of these compounds in the soil, which can
be assessed through bioavailability tests to be performed before costly remediation
strategies are undertaken The toxic effects of some compounds begin diminish-
ing soon after they are added to soil, due to diffusion and sorption processes that
sequester harmful compounds and reduce their toxicity; (3) soil properties, as soils
with large buffer capacities (adequate pH, high soil organic matter content, loamy
clay texture, high cation exchange capacity, and medium to deep profile) can re-
ceive and filter larger pollutant loads. For the sites already contaminated with these
compounds, the approach usually taken is to isolate the affected sites, and either
remove the contaminated soil or rely on phytoremediation. However, it remains
crucial to ensure that industrial wastewater is treated at source and/or separated
from other wastewater streams used for irrigation.
Pesticide contamination is more likely to reach significant levels through direct
on-site application. Thus, farm based measures such as the use of alternative pes-
ticides or integrated pest management are important for risk reduction. Pesticide
entry into streams can be reduced by constructing buffer zones, reducing run-off,
and using wetlands for remediation (Simmons et al. 2010). Containment of contam-
inated water in dams or wetlands may provide time for pesticides to be removed by
68 M. Qadir et al.

sedimentation or through degradation. Farming practices that reduce runoff such as

cover crops or vegetative buffer strips can reduce environmental impacts. The key
removal mechanisms for most organic substances are sorption and biodegradation
(WHO 2006). Removal efficiencies for pesticides are usually greater in soils rich in
silt, clay and organic matter.

4.3.3.5 Trade-Offs

The major environmental challenge stemming from irrigation with untreated or par-
tially treated wastewater is maintaining suitable salt balance in the root zone by
applying water in excess of crop water requirement for salt leaching vis-à-vis man-
aging metal ions, metalloids, and other undesirable constituents that also move with
salts. The generation of drainage water by saline wastewater irrigation is a necessity
to maintain root zone salinity at acceptable levels for crop growth. However, it is no
longer sufficient to set leaching requirement objectives based solely on irrigation
water salinity, soil salinity, and crop salt tolerance. There are crucial implications
when irrigating with untreated or partially treated wastewater, over the long-term,
which may cause adverse effects on groundwater quality in terms of accumulation
of microbiological, inorganic, and organic contaminants.
Monitoring of groundwater quality is essential while irrigating with untreated
or partially treated wastewater, particularly in areas where soils are coarse- to me-
dium-textured, and groundwater is shallow and used for drinking. In the case of
irrigation with highly polluted water, water, crop and soil quality evaluations are
necessary to determine potential negative implications for farmers, their families,
and consumers.

4.4 Conclusions

The constituents of major concern with regard to environmental risks from untreated
or inadequately treated wastewater include metals and metalloids, nutrients, salts and
specific ionic species, and micro- pollutants. The environmental risk reduction strate-
gies can be categorized into: (1) treatment of wastewater to a desired effluent quality;
(2) on-farm wastewater treatment options; and (3) farm-based measures to reduce
environmental risks in areas irrigated by untreated or partially treated wastewater.
The costs and efficiency of wastewater treatment systems at the treatment plant
level differ widely both in terms of cost and efficiency. For example, the cost of
establishing wastewater treatment unit using conventional activated sludge is
US$ 100–150 per capita and BOD and total TSS removal capacity is 80–90 %. Once
established, its annual operation and maintenance cost is US$ 4–8 per capita. With
the same level of treatment efficiency, the constructed wetland system would cost
US$ 20–30 per capita along with annual operation and maintenance cost of US$ 1.0–
1.5 per capita. In addition to cost and efficiency aspects, the choice of wastewater
4  Environmental Risks and Cost-Effective Risk Management in Wastewater … 69

treatment systems depends on the availability of relevant skilled human resources,

local conditions, and targeted use or disposal options for the treated wastewater.
Evaluating the economics of wastewater treatment options for environmental
risk reduction is not simple and straight forward because many environmental com-
modities have public good dimensions and do not trade in markets that determine
prices. Alternatively, shadow prices of pollutants can be used in estimating the costs
avoided by removing the pollutants during wastewater treatment, i.e. economic
value of the environmental benefits.
With only 8 % of wastewater treated, low-income countries can benefit from
some affordable on-farm treatment options such as ponds, dugouts, drums, concrete
tanks, or filtration systems. For example, primary sedimentation through on-farm
ponds, and systems of interconnected ponds, can remove 60 % of suspended solids,
35 % of BOD, and reduce the concentrations of pathogens and toxic compounds
attached to the sediments. Under conditions where untreated or partially treated
wastewater is used for irrigation, certain farm-based measures can reduce environ-
mental risks from pollutants. However, there may be adverse effects on groundwa-
ter quality in the long run, necessitating monitoring of groundwater quality.

Take Home Messages

• The constituents of major concern with regard to environmental risks from
untreated or inadequately treated wastewater include metals and metal-
loids, nutrients, salts and specific ionic species, and micro- pollutants.
• The number of strategies that have been economically assessed and proven
to be cost-effective for environmental risk reduction when irrigating with
wastewater is rather limited, but all mention a positive impact.
• In addition to cost and efficiency aspects, the choice of wastewater treat-
ment systems depends on the availability of relevant skilled human
resources, local conditions, and targeted use or disposal options for the
treated wastewater.
• There is a need to design and implement tools and models for the evalu-
ation of risks and risk reduction approaches to help policy makers decide
on available treatment options under specific environmental, social, and
economic conditions.

References

Abaidoo RC, Keraita B, Drechsel P, Dissanayake P, Maxwell AS (2010) Soil and crop contamina-
tion through wastewater irrigation and options for risk reduction in developing countries. In:
Dion P (ed) Soil biology and agriculture in the tropics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 498–535
Bino M, Al-Beiruti S, Ayesh M (2008) Greywater use in rural home gardens in Karek, Jordan. In McIl-
waine S, Redwood M (eds) Greywater in the Middle East; technical social and policy issues. http://
www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publications/Pages/IDRCBookDetails.aspx?PublicationID=92.
­Accessed 25 Aug 2014
70 M. Qadir et al.

Bos R, Carr R, Keraita B (2010) Assessing and mitigating wastewater related health risks in low-
income countries: an introduction. In: Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M,
Bahri A (eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigating risks in low-income
countries, Earthscan-International Development Research Centre (IDRC)-International Water
Management Institute (IWMI), pp 29–47, London and Ottawa
Boxall ABA, Johnson P, Smith EJ, Sinclair CJ, Stutt E, Levy LS (2006) Uptake of veterinary
medicines from soils into plants. J Agric Food Chem 54:2288–2297
Conagua (2014) National water commission. www.conagua.gob.mx. Accessed 25 Aug 2014
Corcoran E, Nellemann C, Baker E, Bos R, Osborn D, Savelli H (eds) (2010) Sick water? The cen-
tral role of wastewater management in sustainable development. A rapid response assessment.
UNEP/UNHABITAT. Available at http://www.unep.org/pdf/SickWater_screen.pdf. Accessed
25 Aug 2014
Dalkmann P, Broszat M, Siebe C, Willaschek E, Sakinc T, Hübner J, Amelung W, Siemens J
(2012) Accumulation of pharmaceuticals, enterococcus, and resistance genes in soils irrigated
with wastewater for zero to 100  years in central Mexico. PLoS One e45397. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0045397
Durán-Alvárez JC, Prado Pano B, Jiménez B (2012) Sorption and desorption of carbamazepine,
naproxen and triclosan on soil irrigated with raw wastewater: the influence of the initial con-
tent. Chemosphere 88:84–90
Ensink JHJ, Scott CA, Brooker S, Cairncross S (2010) Sewage disposal in the Musi-River, India:
Water quality remediation through irrigation infrastructure. Irrig Drain Syst 24:65–77
European Medicines Agency (2006) Pre-Authorisation evaluation of medicines for human use.
Doc. Ref. EMEA/CHMP/SWP/4447/00 corr 1*. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/doc-
ument_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/10/WC500003978.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2014
Ganoulis J (2012) Risk analysis of wastewater reuse in agriculture. Int J Recycl Org Waste in
Agric 1:1–9
Gupta N, Khan DK, Santra SC (2012) Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables grown in a long-
term wastewater-irrigated agricultural land of tropical India. Environ Monit Assess 184:6673–
6682
Hamilton AJ, Boland A-M, Stevens D, Kelly J, Radcliffe J, Ziehrl A, Dillon PJ, Paulin R (2005)
Position of the Australian horticultural industry with respect to the use of reclaimed water.
Agric Water Manage 71:181–209
Hamilton AJ, Stagnitti F, Xiong X, Kreidl SL, Benke KK, Maher P (2007) Wastewater irrigation
the state of play. Vedose Zone J 6:823–40
Hanjra MA, Blackwell J, Carr G, Zhang F, Jackson TM (2011) Wastewater irrigation and envi-
ronmental health: Implications for water governance and public policy. Int J Hygiene Environ
Health 215:255–269
Hassan AK, Nangia V, Singh M (2013) Soil salinity management in Iraq using indigenous soil
management techniques-analysis of biophysical and socioeconomic data. Paper presented at
the ASA-CSSA-SSSA Annual International Meeting, November 3–6, Tampa, FL, USA
Hernández-Sancho F, Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R (2010) Economic valuation of envi-
ronmental benefits from wastewater treatment processes: an empirical approach for Spain. Sci
Total Environ 408:953–957
Jiménez B (2011) Safe sanitation in low economic development areas, treatise M.Sc. 82. In: Wil-
derer P (ed) Treatise on water science, vol 4. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 147–201
Jiménez B, Carranza F, Medina N (2011) Wastewater agricultural reuse in nicaragua: extent, actual
practices, perception and perspectives. J Water Reuse Desalin 1:185–201
Jiménez B, Chavez A, Barrios J, Durán Álvarez J (2014) Ecosystem services balance for the Valley
of Tula and the metropolitan area of Mexico City (in press)
Keraita B, Drechsel P, Konradsen F (2008) Using on-farm sedimentation ponds to improve mi-
crobial quality of irrigation water in urban vegetable farming in Ghana. Water Sci Technol
57:519–525
Keraita B, Drechsel P, Konradsen F (2010) Up and down the sanitation ladder: harmonizing the
treatment and multiple-barrier perspectives on risk reduction in wastewater irrigated agricul-
ture. Irrig Drain Syst 24:23–35 (Special Issue on Wastewater Reuse)
4  Environmental Risks and Cost-Effective Risk Management in Wastewater … 71

Lazarova V, Bahri A (2005) Water reuse for irrigation: agriculture, landscapes, and turf grass.
CRC, Boca Raton
Libhaber M, Orozco-Jaramillo A (2013) Sustainable treatment of municipal wastewater. Water
21(2013):25–28
Maas EV, Grattan SR (1999) Crop yields as affected by salinity. In: Skaggs RW, van Schilfgaarde
J (eds) Agricultural drainage. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, pp 55–108
Maas EV, Hoffman GJ (1977) Crop salt tolerance—current assessment. J Irrig Drain Div 103:115–
134
Mayer BK, Gerrity D, Rittmann BE, Reisinger D, Brandt-Williams S (2013) Innovative strate-
gies to achieve low total phosphorus concentrations in high water flows. Crit Rev Environ Sci
Technol 43:409–441
Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2012) Economic feasibility study for
new technological alternatives in wastewater treatment processes: a review. Water Sci Technol
65:898–906
Molinos-Senante M, Reif R, Garrido-Baserba M, Hernández-Sancho F, Omil F, Poch M, Sala-
Garrido R (2013) Economic valuation of environmental benefits of removing pharma-
ceutical and personal care products from WWTP effluents by ozonation. Sci Total Environ
461–462:409–415
Money CA, Ramasami T, Chandra Babu NK, Muralidharan C, Ragava Rao J, Saravanan P,
Amudeswari A, Mandal AB, Montgomery K, Hickey M, Simpson C, Huynh C, Siekris R (2009)
Salinity reduction in tannery effluents in India and Australia. ACIAR project (AH/2001/005)
Final Report, Australian centre for international agricultural research, Canberra
Murtaza G (2014) Economic aspects of growing rice and wheat crops on salt-affected soils in
the Indus Basin of Pakistan (unpublished data). Institute of Soil and Environmental Sciences,
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
Nhapi I, Mawere M, Veenstra S, Gijzen H (2002) Effluent polishing via pasture irrigation in
Harare, Zimbabwe. Water Sci Technol 46:287–295
Oster JD, Shainberg I, Abrol IP (1999) Reclamation of salt affected soils. In: Skaggs RW, van
Schilfgaarde J (eds) Agricultural drainage. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, pp 659–691
Pescod MB (1992) Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture. Irrigation and drainage Paper
No. 47, Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome
Qadir M, Drechsel P (2010) Managing salts while irrigating with wastewater. CAB Rev Perspect
Agric Vet Sci Nutr Nat Resour 5(016):1–14
Qadir M, Schubert S (2002) Degradation processes and nutrient constraints in sodic soils. Land
Degrad Develop 13:275–294
Qadir M, Scott CA (2010) Non-pathogenic tradeoffs of wastewater irrigation. In: Drechsel P, Scott
CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A (eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing
and mitigating risks in low-income countries. Earthscan-International Development Research
Centre (IDRC)-International Water Management Institute (IWMI), UK, pp 101–126
Qadir M, Ghafoor A, Murtaza G (2000) Cadmium concentration in vegetables grown on urban
soils irrigated with untreated municipal sewage. Environ Develop Sustain 2:11–19
Qadir M, Sharma BR, Bruggeman A, Choukr-Allah R, Karajeh F (2007) Non-conventional water
resources and opportunities for water augmentation to achieve food security in water scarce
countries. Agric Water Manage 87:2–22
Rai PK (2012) An eco-sustainable green approach for heavy metals management: two case studies
of developing industrial region. Environ Monit Assess 184:421–448
Reymond P, Cofie O, Raschid L, Koné D (2009) Design considerations and constraints in apply-
ing on-farm wastewater treatment for urban agriculture. Paper presented at the 4th SWITCH
Scientific Meeting, 4–7 October 2009, Delft, the Netherlands
Römkens P, Bouwman L, Japenga J, Draaisma C (2001) Potentials and drawbacks of chelate-
enhanced phytoremediation of soils. Environ Pollut 116:109–121
Salt DE, Blaylock M, Kumar PBAN, Dushenkov S, Ensley BD, Chet I, Raskin I (1996) Phytore-
mediation: a novel strategy for the removal of toxic metals from the environment using plants.
Biotech 13:468–474
72 M. Qadir et al.

Sato T, Qadir M, Yamamoto S, Endo T, Zahoor A (2013) Global, regional, and country level need
for data on wastewater generation, treatment, and reuse. Agric Water Manage 130:1–13
Siemens J, Huschek G, Siebe C, Kaupenjohann M (2008) Concentrations and mobility of human
pharmaceuticals in the world’s largest wastewater irrigation system, Mexico City-Mezquital
Valley. Water Res 42:2124–2134
Simmons RW, Qadir M, Drechsel P (2010) Farm-based measures for reducing human and envi-
ronmental health risks from chemical constituents in wastewater. In: Drechsel P, Scott CA,
Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A (eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and
mitigating risks in low-income countries. Earthscan-International Development Research Cen-
tre (IDRC)-International Water Management Institute (IWMI), pp 209–238
Stevens D, McLaughlin MJ (2006) Managing risks to soil and plant health from key metals and
metalloids in irrigation waters. In: Stevens D (ed) Growing crops with reclaimed wastewater.
CSIRO Publishing, Canberra, Australia, pp 139–146
Tang C, Chen J, Shindo S, Sakura Y, Zhang W, Shen Y (2004) Assessment of groundwater contam-
ination by nitrates associated with wastewater irrigation: a case study in Shijiazhuang region,
China. Hydrol Process 18:2303–2312
Tanji K, Kielen NC (2002) Agricultural drainage water management in arid and semi-arid areas.
Irrigation and drainage paper no. 61, Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy
Toze S (2006) Reuse of effluent water-benefits and risks. Agric Water Manage 80:147–159
Tziakis I, Pachiadakis I, Moraitakis M, Xideas K, Theologis G, Tsagarakis KP (2009) Valuing
benefits from wastewater treatment and reuse using contingent valuation methodology. Desali-
nation 237:117–125
WHO (World Health Organization) (2006) Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and
grey water: (vol 2) wastewater use in agriculture. WHO, Geneva
 Part II
Socio-economics of Wastewater Use
Chapter 5
Social and Cultural Dimensions in Wastewater
Use

Pay Drechsel, Olfa Mahjoub and Bernard Keraita

Abstract  Even when wastewater use projects are technically well-planned, appear
financially viable, and have incorporated appropriate health protection measures,
reuse can fail if planners do not adequately account for the dynamics of social
acceptance. Drawing from practical cases of project failure or success, we present
a number of factors that commonly influence the introduction or improvement of
wastewater use for potable and non-potable purposes. While water scarcity supports
a discussion about reuse, decisive factors might be the level of direct exposure,
availability of alternative water sources, education levels and perceptions of health
risks, extent of public participation and buy-in, religious concerns, and the means
and messages used in knowledge sharing and communication. Overall, acceptance
of (safe) wastewater use varies with the development stage of the society, and can be
a very dynamic process which makes social feasibility studies, close participation of
target groups, and trust building essential components of successful reuse programs.

Keywords  Wastewater acceptance · Potable water · Religion · Risk awareness ·

Gender · Perceptions

P. Drechsel ()
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
e-mail: p.drechsel@cgiar.org
O. Mahjoub
National Research Institute for Rural Engineering, Water, and Forestry, Ariana, Tunisia
e-mail: olfama@gmail.com
B. Keraita
Copenhagen School of Global Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
e-mail: bernard.keraita@sund.ku.dk

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 75

P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_5
76 P. Drechsel et al.

5.1 Introduction

Globally, Australia, the United States, Namibia and Israel are among the most
successful countries in introducing planned wastewater use for different purposes.
Scholars and public officials in those countries have gained substantial experience
in addressing public perceptions and attitudes toward the reuse of reclaimed water,
be it for direct, indirect, potable and non-potable uses (Dolnicar and Schafer 2009;
Higgins et al. 2002; Hurlimann 2009; Hurlimann and McKay 2006; USEPA 2012).
Since the first reuse projects, it became clear that acceptance of reuse is not straight-
forward even when key factors like high levels of water scarcity, education and
treatment capacities are in place, although there can be exceptions like in Israel
(Dishman et al. 1989).
In general, for social acceptance of wastewater use, public and private concerns
and benefits must be aligned. Concerns about real or perceived risks are weighed
against the benefits of using treated (reclaimed) water. Given the many determi-
nants of social acceptance and the need to improve wastewater management and
use in many areas, a comprehensive approach including educational, policy, and
management strategies is needed to support public acceptance (Keremane 2007).
Especially discussions around the introduction of direct and indirect potable
reuse sparked public interest and research on social acceptance. However, also
recreational or agricultural reuse requires stakeholder buy-in (Wegner-Gwidt 1991;
Po et al. 2004, 2005; Marks 2004; Marks et al. 2006; McKay and Hurlimann 2003;
WHO 2006; USEPA 2012). Failure to gain public acceptance can result in program
stalling or becoming unviable (Keremane 2007; Friedler and Lahav 2006; Wegner-
Gwidt 1991). Depending on the region and case, cultural, religious, educational and/
or socio-economic factors can support or constrain the development of wastewater
use in a given location (Po et al. 2004). These social acceptance challenges pertain
to both the introduction of new wastewater use schemes and also to improvements
in existing situations where wastewater is already informally used. This chapter will
highlight some key consideration and lessons learnt drawing from examples mostly
in the domains of agricultural and potable reuse.
For agricultural wastewater use, we have to distinguish two contrasting common
situations:
1. First, are those schemes that are planned and formally designed to use treated
wastewater as a source of irrigation water. These are common in many water
scarce regions of middle and high income countries, where wastewater is pro-
moted as an economic good. Wastewater is treated before being released to irri-
gation schemes and there are usually strict regulations guiding its use.
2. The second category pertains mostly to low to middle income countries with
limited treatment capacity, in which untreated or partially treated wastewater is
polluting water bodies which are used for informal irrigation. Thus wastewater
is used either in diluted or raw form, largely opportunistically, unregulated and
unplanned. In this situation the cultural and social challenge is not the ‘introduc-
tion of reuse’ but to prevent it, or better to support a ‘transition to safe reuse’.
5  Social and Cultural Dimensions in Wastewater Use 77

Due to the significant scale of water pollution in many low-income countries, and
limited capacity to monitor water quality, banning the unsafe practices would be
difficult to enforce as the example of for instance Ghana showed (Obuobie et al.
2006). Thus the use of polluted water remains often in a state of “laissez-faire,”
without ability of authorities to enforce restrictions or assistance to reduce potential
risks (Drechsel et  al. 2006). Introducing risk reduction efforts would have to
rely on occupational safety measures, crop restrictions, safer irrigation practices,
and good post-harvest handling, following for example the WHO (2006) multi-
barrier approach. In this situation, the conventional ‘technical responsibility’ of
treatment plants to safeguard public health becomes a social task involving various
stakeholders along the food chain. Thus, the challenge ‘formalizing’ informal
wastewater, by introducing pathogen barriers, will eventually be as much a cultural
and social challenge as the introduction of reuse.

5.2 Factors Influencing Social Acceptance

of Wastewater Use

Across the spectrum of reuse purposes, social acceptance of wastewater use is

influenced by many factors, ranging from expressions of disgust to calculated
costs and benefits, issues of choice, trust and knowledge, attitudes toward the
environment, and socio-demographic factors (Po et al. 2004; USEPA 2012). While
these criteria appear relevant in many planned wastewater schemes, the situation is
obviously different where wastewater irrigation is a common practice and behavior
change is needed to improve its safety. However, there are a number of common
factors which play an important role in both situations, like knowledge and risk
awareness, the availability of alternative water sources, the financial implications
for those directly concerned, and the need to progress in mutual agreement. These
and other factors will be discussed in the following two section on planned (5.2.1)
and unplanned (5.2.2) reuse.

5.2.1 Accepting the Use of Treated Wastewater for Potable

and Non-Potable Purposes

The acceptance of planned reuse can vary strongly depending on a range of factors,
such as the degree of contact, education and risk awareness, the degree of water
scarcity or availability of alternative water sources, economic considerations,
involvement in decision making, and experience with treated wastewater. Some of
these factors will be looked at in more detail:
Knowledge and Direct Exposure  Several authors have investigated the association
of socio-demographic descriptors with the acceptance of treated wastewater. The
two factors that have been frequently found to be associated with the acceptance
78 P. Drechsel et al.

Fig. 5.1   Attitudes towards Wastewater Use Options, as expressed by 303 participants in a tele-
phone survey in southeast United States. (Source: Robinson et al. 2005)

levels are the education/knowledge of the individuals expressing their opinion, and
the personal proximity or involvement in the planned reuse. In Kuwait or Greece, for
example, the willingness to accept or pay for reuse increased with the educational
attainment (Alhumoud and Madzikanda 2010; Tsagarakis and Georgantzís 2003).
However, as much as knowledge can support decision making, direct exposure to
the water during the intended reuse can strongly influence its acceptance (Po et al.
2005; Hamilton et al. 2007). Positive perceptions towards reuse are usually directly
the inverse of the level of physical contact with the reclaimed water. For example,
despite significant technical advances, potable use usually is rejected due to health
concerns (Higgins et al. 2002; Dolnicar and Saunders 2006). Assuming stakehold-
ers have the choice, then wastewater use in agriculture generally is preferred to
potable use, while more distant uses, such as landscape irrigation, are the most
preferred (Fig. 5.1). A similar perspective has been reported for Kuwait, Israel, UK,
USA and Australia (Po et al. 2004; Friedler et al. 2006; Hartley 2006; Alhumoud
and Madzikanda 2010; USEPA 2012).
Availability of Alternative Water Sources  Even when advanced processes are used to
treat wastewater and known health risks are well managed, negative public percep-
tion can prevent well-planned projects from moving forward, especially if it concern
potable use and there are still alternative water sources. The case of Singapore is
such an example where the produced NEWater is technically safe but the public
remains hesitant to accept it, even for indirect potable use. As a result, only a small
portion (2.5 % in 2011) of NEWater has been injected into Singapore’s freshwater
reservoirs (Lim and Seah 2013). In Windhoek, Namibia, which lacks affordable
water alternatives, up to 35 % of the city’s wastewater is treated and blended with
other potable sources to increase the drinking water supply. The success of Wind-
hoek is supported by the fact that since the wastewater use program began in 1968,
no health problems have been reported (Lahnsteiner et  al. 2013). The Windhoek
example shows that absolute water scarcity is an important factor in support of
5  Social and Cultural Dimensions in Wastewater Use 79

wastewater treatment for reuse. Where an alternative freshwater source is a crucial

disincentive to the adoption of reuse, as it was reported e.g. for Jordan, Spain, and
Tunisia (Molinos-Senante et al. 2010; Ben Brahim and Duckstein 2011), restrictions
on the use of freshwater, especially if it concerns agricultural use, can be set and
enforced; in contrast to potable reuse (Box 5.1).

Box 5.1: Resistance to Re-use

Queensland’s Toowoomba in Australia is an often cited case illustrating the

strength of public opinion regarding wastewater use. A plan to turn wastewater
into drinking water failed in Toowoomba at a referendum in 2006, although
water scarcity in the community was severe, to the point that water use for gar-
dening was completely prohibited in the “Garden City”. With no major river
nearby, the community water supply had to be pumped uphill. During several
years of drought, the 140,000 residents of Toowoomba and surrounding areas
endured tough water restrictions. Local officials considered that the city had
no choice but to treat and use parts of its wastewater for drinking water, and
given the water crisis, they expected the program would be acceptable. How-
ever, the proposal met with fierce opposition from the community. In 2006,
the residents of Toowoomba voted strongly against treating and using 25 %
of the city’s wastewater. They relied instead on water piped from Brisbane’s
Wivenhoe Dam, at a cost to ratepayers of nearly $ 100 million more than the
reuse program would have cost.
The Toowoomba proposal was an indirect wastewater use program, in
which highly treated wastewater would be passed through an environmen-
tal buffer before being treated again, as part of the drinking water system.
The public poll was accompanied by two dynamic campaigns building on the
“yuck” and “fear” factors on one side, and social and financial arguments on
the other. In the end, 62 % of those polled opposed the project.
Sources: The Source (2006), Wikipedia (2013), SBS (2013)

Financial Feasibility  If we assume that the reuse, be it for potable or non-potable

purposes, is legally supported and has been suggested for sound economic reasons,
it is still important for the concerned (direct or indirect) user to know if the change
is financially viable from his/her perspective. In the case of wastewater irrigation,
for example, crop acceptance by the consumer remains the most crucial criterion.
Assuming the source of the crop is known to the consumer, his/her decision to buy
or not to buy a crop produced with reclaimed water is determined by public views,
knowledge and perceptions. To identify the actual consumer and to understand con-
sumer’s views, the crop marketing channels needs to be analyzed before assessing
the perceptions (Amoah et  al. 2007; Abu-Madi et  al. 2008). In many countries,
not only those with planned reuse schemes but in particular those where informal
wastewater irrigation is a common reality, the existing marketing system does not
differentiate between different farms or water sources, and wastewater irrigated
80 P. Drechsel et al.

Fig. 5.2   Strategy for public participation in planned wastewater use. (Modified from WHO 2006;
based on Crook et al. 1992 and Helmer and Hespanhol 1997)

crops are on offer together with freshwater irrigated crops. This could be an incen-
tive to farmers but not to consumers with high risk awareness who would prefer
dedicated marketing channels showing in the situation of planned reuse the crops
produced with reclaimed water, and in the situation of common unplanned reuse the
crops produced under safe conditions. However, unless consumers clearly articulate
their preference there will not be much advantage for traders to separate and display
produce according to its source.
Public Involvement and Buy-in  A general consensus across many cases is that
to achieve general acceptance of planned wastewater use schemes, especially in
a social environment with the power to influence the implementation process, it
is important to ensure active public involvement from the planning phase to full
implementation (USEPA 2012; WHO 2006). Public involvement begins with early
contact with potential users, and can involve the forming of an advisory committee,
and public workshops on reasons, benefits and risks of reuse (Fig. 5.2). The exchange
of information between authorities and public representatives should ensure that
concerns from perceived health or environmental impacts to lower property values
have been shared and addressed (Crook et al. 1992; Helmer and Hespanhol 1997).
The dialogue should build on mutual trust to provide the right climate for nego-
tiation and conflict resolution. Timing might be an important factor. Gaining pub-
lic acceptance is easier once water scarcity is affecting the public and the need
to conserve high quality water sources for domestic purposes is established. In a
sense, the use of wastewater becomes a solution to a problem, rather than a problem
(Fawell et al. 2005). However, good timing alone is not a guarantee of success, as
the Toowoomba example showed (Box 5.1). It will also require a sensitive approach
to avoid a polarization of stakeholders in favour and against reuse.
Results from Australia indicate that actual exposure (see above) and practical
experience can positively influence trust building in water authorities and community
5  Social and Cultural Dimensions in Wastewater Use 81

acceptance of reclaimed water, indicating the importance of demonstration projects

(Hurliman 2008). Dolnicar and Saunders (2006) propose reuse pilots in high-status
communities first, as socio-demographic characteristics of the population can influ-
ence wider acceptance rates.
Jordan has succeeded in informing and convincing its population about the
importance of wastewater use in agriculture, by implementing an active educational
campaign with strong community outreach (EMWATER 2004). Program compo-
nent included the distribution of newsletters, guidebooks, coverage of water issues
in newspapers and on television and radio, websites, public educational places, and
the education of land-use decision makers. Additionally, educational materials were
distributed in schools, universities, and libraries (Al-Momani 2011).
In Jordan, like for example also in Tunisia or Kuwait, also religious concerns
were expressed (Box 5.2) but not among the top reasons for farmers’ rejection or
hesitation to use reclaimed wastewater for irrigation (Abu-Madi et al. 2008; Alhu-
moud and Madzikanda 2010). Also in view of potable water reuse, no fundamental
religious objections appear to exist either internationally or locally, as a multi-level
survey in Durban showed (Wilson and Pfaff 2008).

Box 5.2: Religious Concerns

Religious concerns were mentioned in surveys carried out in Islamic

countries. However, the attitudes of Islam can actually be considered as an
incentive for irrigation with reclaimed wastewater although some farmers and
rural dwellers might not be aware of this (Abu-Madi et al. 2008). In 1978,
the Council of Leading Islamic Scholars (CLIS) in Saudi Arabia stated that
treated wastewater can be used if its treatment included advanced techni-
cal procedures that remove impurities with regard to taste, colour and smell
(Faruqui et al. 2001). According to Farooq and Ansari (1983), there are three
ways in which impure water may be transformed into pure water:
• self-purification of the water (for example, removal of the impurities by
sedimentation);
• addition of pure water in sufficient quantity to dilute the impurities; and
• removal of the impurities by the passage of time or physical effects (for
example, sunlight and filtration).
It is notable that the first and third of these transformations are essentially
similar to those achieved by wastewater treatment processes (WHO 2006).

In any community outreach program, care must be taken that the use of negative
language and images does not stigmatize the wastewater use. Negative branding,
especially by some media, including such headlines as “Toilet to Tap” or “Recycled
Sewage” prevents unbiased thinking and can generate fear, stigma, and disgust
(Gunderson 2008). Also, technical terms might not be convincing, as learned in a
study in the United States (Fig. 5.3). While inadequate and negative terminology
82 P. Drechsel et al.

Fig. 5.3   Water reclamation terms in order of declining public reassurance. (USEPA 2012, based
on data from the Water Reuse Association www.watereuse.org/product/07-03)

can impede clear communication, positive images and terms that enhance knowl-
edge and understanding of water and wastewater can enhance the likelihood of
success (Macpherson 2010).

5.2.2 Accepting Safety Interventions for Raw or Diluted

Wastewater Use in Agriculture

Where the use of untreated or partially treated wastewater, either directly or

indirectly from receiving streams, is common, and any enforcement to limit or
regulate this practice is weak, the adoption of safety interventions and any related
behaviour change will largely depend on (i) personal risk awareness and percep-
tions, which inter-link with educational standards, cultural and social factors, and
(ii) financial benefits and cost for those whose livelihoods depend directly on using
wastewater. Some of these factors appear similar to those discussed above for the
introduction of reuse, such as the availability of alternative water sources, while
experienced responses might be very different.
Risk Awareness  In many low-income countries, health-related risks are common-
place and many poor households face numerous risk factors daily. The risks include
insufficient food and water, inadequate or missing sanitation facilities, and exposure
to malaria and other diseases. In such a setting, food safety hazards which would
concern consumers in developed countries do usually not merit special attention or
a priority claim on the households’ financial resources as we are experiencing it in
a more developed environment (Whittington et al. 2013). Thus, the normal living
5  Social and Cultural Dimensions in Wastewater Use 83

environment in large parts of for example Africa is characterized by several notable

health hazards, such that the health risks of producing or consuming vegetables
irrigated with unsafe water is usually not a primary concern of farmers, traders, or
consumers, and also only one of many challenges authorities are facing.
Typically, farmers rank other farming constraints (crop pests, input supply, etc.)
higher than any health related challenges. In addition, whenever health risks are
identified, farmers link them more to off-farm activities such as sanitation and
drinking water than to farm based activities (Ouedraogo 2002; Obuobie et al. 2006;
Weldesilassie et al. 2010; Chaudhuri 2008; Kilelu 2004). Thus, there are often no
significant differences in risk perception between farmers using safe and unsafe wa-
ter from a scientific perspective (Gbewonyo 2007; Gerstl 2001), even when risk as-
sessments predict or confirm likely health impacts (Seidu et al. 2008; Niang 2002).
A limited risk awareness applies in particular to the most common situation
in which wastewater is diluted (indirect use), compared to the use of raw sewage
or where chemical contamination is visually evident (Binns et  al. 2003). The
invisibility of pathogens and the lack of connection made between symptoms of
potential illnesses and exposure show the need for mutually agreed on risk indicators
(Box 5.3).

Box 5.3: The Challenge of Visualizing Invisible Risks

A significant challenge for the introduction of safety options for wastewater

use is getting farmers and traders to understand health risks stemming from
‘invisible’ contamination, such as from pathogens or chemicals in water and
soil, and their possible transmission to crops and consumers (e.g. with UV
fluorescent powders; www.glitterbug.com). Especially where farm house-
holds do not consume the (exotic) vegetables they produce, only occupational
exposure problems, such as skin rashes appear to be suitable indicators. How-
ever, the common measures to avoid water contact, for example through the
use of rubber boots, will not protect the consumer.
Studies in West Africa of traders and consumers show a generally low
risk perception which is limited to visible quality characteristics, such as the
colour, size and cleanliness of produce (Hope et al. 2008; Obuobie et al. 2006;
Acheampong et al. 2012). Thus it is important to identify also other risk indi-
cators to increase awareness (Knudsen et  al. 2008). In Kano, Nigeria, for
example, severe chemical contamination from tanneries resulted in different
water colors well known and distinguished by local farmers in terms of pos-
sible risks (Binns et al. 2003).
Source: Keraita et al. (2008; modified).

Economic Benefit  Studies show that farmers in West and East Africa, South-East
Asia and the MENA region generally are concerned about the quality of their irriga-
tion water, yet they consider the potential gains from irrigating with wastewater to
be greater than their occupational risks and the risks to consumers. The common
84 P. Drechsel et al.

lack of safer (and equally beneficially) alternatives makes the use of polluted water
an accepted, hardly avoidable professional trade-off (Kilelu 2004; Keraita et  al.
2008; Gbewonyo 2007; Gerstl 2001; Abu-Madi et al. 2008; Knudsen et al. 2008).
A challenge related to some of the recommended safer irrigation practices, such
as drip irrigation, furrow irrigation, or cessation of water application, is that these
practices do not only reduce microbial contamination, but can also reduce crop
yields if they are not well adapted to local conditions (Amoah et  al. 2011). For
example, introducing drip kits with too wide spacing in Ghana, was counterpro-
ductive to the space constrains urban farmers face. Participatory research helped
to understand farmers’ constraints and adjust the technology to farmer’s particular
crops and farming conditions.
In general, health risk reduction measures will be adopted more easily if they
appeal to farmers’ priority challenges. For example, drip kits reduce pathogen
exposure for farmers and crops, and they also enable farmers to save water and
labor (Keraita et al. 2010). Mixing saline water with wastewater reduces pathogen
concentration in the commingled irrigation water, while also transforming two
unsuitable resources into a valuable asset (Keraita et al. 2010). In Ghana, Keraita
et al. (2008) concluded that cost/labour savings and market incentives are the main
factors which would motivate farmers to adopt best practices in the long term. How-
ever, marketing channels or an institutional framework to promote safer vegetable
production and marketing are missing. To build such value chains, gender related
work distribution will have to be addressed. In Ghana, for example, the marketing
of most exotic vegetables is only done by women, while vegetable farming is mostly
the domain of men (Drechsel et al. 2013). These gender roles prevent farmers from
direct marketing, and result in ‘safe’ vegetables usually becoming mixed with
unsafe vegetables in markets.
In general, the net beneficiaries of safe vegetables are the urban consumers, who
might pay more for safe produce and dedicated marketing channels (Ngigi et  al.
2011). So far only specialist markets for more wealthy population groups show
interest to pay for safety (Danso et al. 2002; Acheampong et al. 2012; Lagerkvist
et al. 2013). A challenge will be how to make safe produce accessible for the most
vulnerable, who have the lowest ability to pay a premium.
Availability of Alternative Water Sources  In contrast to the planned introduction of
reuse, where the availability of freshwater can be a strong disincentive for accepting
reclaimed water, stakeholder preference can be very different in informal irrigation,
especially if the driver of choice is income and not personal safety. Where waste-
water is highly concentrated, farmers are often also aware of its fertilizer value
(Van der Hoek et al. 2002). There are many cases described where farmers actively
seek the wastewater, and preferably untreated wastewater. In Pakistan, for example,
treated wastewater did not find the same acceptance among farmers than untreated
wastewater given its increase in salinity in treatment ponds (Ensink et al. 2004).
In Mexico, farmers protested against treatment to maintain the fertilizer value of
the water (Scott et al. 2000; Silva-Ochoa and Scott 2004). In Bangladesh, farmers
appeared to be well aware of actual and possible risks but still preferred wastewater
5  Social and Cultural Dimensions in Wastewater Use 85

for its fertilizer value or due to lack of alternative or equally (year round) reliable
water sources (Mojid et  al. 2010). A rather indifferent view was observed when
reuse was indirect from streams carrying diluted wastewater. In this situation, the
nutrient value of wastewater can be negligible (Erni et al. 2010).
In the Mezquital Valley, Mexico, the possibility of irrigating with wastewater
instead of (only) rainwater caused land rents to increase many times as the addi-
tional water enabled three crops to be harvested per year instead of one (Jimenez
2005). Only where wastewater use was actively banned, like in Tunisia, its use
became unattractive (Al Atiri et al. 2002).
Trust Building  Participatory research has shown high potential to facilitate the
adoption of innovations among farmers (Chambers and Ghildyal 1985; Drechsel
and Gyiele 1998). Participatory research allows for a mutual diagnosis of farmers’
constraints and the identification of appropriate solutions to those constraints. The
goal is to minimize the required behavior change (and possible discomfort), while
maximizing risk reduction, based on mutual learning loops and modifications
(Martin and Sherington 1997; Collinson 2000). Offering for example an alternative
water source, such as safer groundwater would enhance safety without demanding
new skills, although there can be additional pumping costs. A lesson from Benin
showed that such safer water source should ideally be identified on the existing
farm, as any site further away could jeopardize farmers’ competitive advantage of
market proximity and not be accepted (Drechsel et al. 2006).
Trust is important for participatory research, particularly in the domain of food
safety, as farmers and traders might feel a threat for their business and use denial or
defensive strategies, which can greatly hinder risk communication and are difficult
to separate from low risk perception (Siegrist 2000). Alternatively, farmers might
exaggerate possible risks if they perceive a likelihood of external support. These
examples show that these types of perception studies require naturally a very high
degree of professionalism in the design and execution of questionnaire based inter-
views, also in view of the often low degree of literacy.
Facilitating the Adoption of Safer Behavior  Behavior change is a particular chal-
lenge where wastewater irrigation is common, and safety measures are required
to facilitate a transition from informal to formal use. Such safety measures can
be introduced along the food chain (from “farm to fork”) as described e.g. by
Amoah et al. (2011) and WHO (2006). Where risk awareness is low, and not easy to
develop, research is needed to determine how best to motivate and trigger adoption
of risk mitigation measures. Gender specific roles can be an important factor in this
context (Box 5.4).
Measures to support behavior change can include economic or social incentives,
such as access to credit, labelling, dedicated marketing chains, tax exemptions, and
institutional support, like the provision of extension services, awards, or tenure
security, but also restrictive regulations if they can be enforced (Drechsel and Karg
2013). Labeling of food products in a manner that reveals safe or unsafe irriga-
tion methods will be needed to support a market response to changing consumer
behavior.
86 P. Drechsel et al.

Box 5.4: Gender Roles

Thoughtful safety interventions must be gender sensitive. In many cultures,

women carry the main responsibility for hygiene and health, also vis-à-vis
greywater or wastewater use as reported for example from Jordan (Boufaroua
et al. 2013), Vietnam (Knudsen et al. 2008) and Tunisia (Mahjoub 2013). The
strong connection between water use at a household level and women, offers a
significant potential for innovative training approaches to improve the social
acceptance of safe water reuse as recently demonstrated in Jordan (Boufaroua
et al. 2013). Also the acceptance and use of protective clothing can be gender
specific. In Vietnam, women were observed wearing with more consistency
than men protective gloves and boots. The differences was attributed to the
gender specific work separation on the farm, with men walking around the
farms much more than women, where protective clothing constrained men’s
movements (Knudsen et al. 2008).

In many cases, increased education and risk awareness will not be sufficient to
motivate the desired changes in behavior. Economic incentives might be helpful in
motivating wastewater farmers who are usually engaged in cash crop production,
while consumers might respond better to social marketing which aims to respond to
inner desires, fears and motivations (Scott et al. 2007). Successes with social mar-
keting have been reported from promoting latrine use and hand washing (Box 5.5).
Where regulations and monitoring are weak, media publicity can encourage
farmers to adopt safety practices including safer water sources, in the same way
that negative media exposure can harm business activity (Obuobie et al. 2006).

Box 5.5: Social-Marketing Studies in the West African Context

“Health in your hands”: A marketing approach was applied in a nationwide

hand-washing campaign in Ghana (“Health in your hands”), involving the
use of professional marketing techniques facilitated through a private–public
partnership to promote “socially useful products” (in this case, hand washing
with soap) through generation of demand. The underlying research revealed
two main drivers for hand washing with soap: disgust of dirt (yuck factor)
and caring for a child, whereas health (protection from disease) was a weak
motivator. The communication campaign was thus designed to evoke the feel-
ing of disgust without mentioning health or sickness. The campaign was fairly
successful: soap use after toilet use increased by 13 % and soap use before
eating increased 41 % (Scott et al. 2007).
“A wanted latrine is a used latrine”: Many sanitation projects in devel-
oping countries have failed because they relied only on subsidized latrine
construction and health education without generating demand. Thus the
5  Social and Cultural Dimensions in Wastewater Use 87

target community did not change established habits (like open defecation)
and the latrines remained unused. In Benin, the social marketing approach
was applied to improve sanitation. Research was conducted to determine
what triggers people to invest in a latrine and to use it. Health benefits did
not appear in the top ten triggers, whereas safety, dignity and prestige were
among the top five (Martinsen 2008).

5.3 Conclusion

The documented experience on the social and cultural dimension of wastewater was
grouped into two contrasting scenarios: those where the use of treated wastewater
is being promoted in societies largely aware of potential risks, and those where risk
perceptions are low and public health is potentially challenged by the common use
of untreated, partially treated or diluted wastewater in the informal irrigation sector.
Commonalities between both situations concern for example the need to gain
trust and work closely with those of whom a behavior change is expected. Another
commonality is that the availability of an alternative water source, might in both
situations function as a disincentive to change.
While for potable reuse, individual and group perceptions related to risks and
disgust and the possibility of alternatives appear to be the main decisive criteria for
potential users of reclaimed water, farmers’ main arguments for or against changing
their water source or behavior was usually related to economic arguments, like
market perceptions affecting sales and revenues or cost and benefits in general
(saving on fertilizer, extra harvest, reliability of supply). Even when own health
impacts were experienced, these were perceived as controllable, or as an acceptable
professional challenge, balanced by economic gains.
The review showed that the need to change behaviour, be it for using treated
wastewater or assisting in making informal wastewater irrigation safer calls for a
strong integration of social science research and related strategic partners and stake-
holders in the strongholds of engineering and epidemiology to address possible
adoption barriers and opportunities. These concern in particular:
• Public perceptions and group dynamics which can easily jeopardize any reuse
project,
• Educational levels which might be too low to understand risks and related
responsibility;
• The lack of economic or social incentives for changing practices.
Compared to the significant body of references on each of the two discussed situa-
tions, there is comparatively little information on strategies and achievements along
the trajectory from unplanned to planned reuse, or informal to formal, like in Peru,
Mexico or several MENA countries where both systems co-exist. The reason might
be that there are only a few developing countries, like Tunisia which started early
88 P. Drechsel et al.

in the 1980s to combine in one program and from the planning stage on wastewater
treatment and use needs (Bahri 2009). Of the treated 97 % of its wastewater, 72 %
is used for agricultural and landscape irrigation, supported by well-enforced regula-
tions that are reviewed to encompass new fields of reuse (ONAS 2012). Most other
success stories derive from well-resourced developed countries with own reuse
regulations. These regulations are however seldom transferable to other countries
due to differences in institutional and technical capacities.
Locally adapted and applied regulations and reuse guidelines are essential to
support reuse project. The global WHO (2006) guidelines provide this flexibility
for local adaptation and are particularly strong in supporting the transition from
informal to formal reuse even where treatment plants are not yet able to safeguard
public health. They are building on the adoption of multiple barriers (safety options)
along the contamination pathway from farm to fork, similar to the well accepted
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) concept of the food industry.
However, the guidelines fall short in explaining how the behavior change towards
their adoption could be facilitated and sustained.
So far, the 2006 guidelines face limited acceptance probably due to their loss
of simplicity by moving away from irrigation water quality thresholds to more
flexible, human exposure based targets based on local risk assessments. This shift
in itself requires a behavior change among those familiar with the previous WHO
guidelines (Scott et al. 2010).

Take Home Messages

• Public acceptance of water reuse is more likely when wastewater is suf-
ficiently treated and in locations which have water scarcity. However, both
criteria are not necessarily sufficient reason for the acceptance of reuse.
• Social and cultural dimensions are critical factors for successful introduc-
tion or improvement of safe water reuse practices. Stakeholder participa-
tion and trust building at the earliest stages of any reuse project are crucial.
• For many of the world’s poor, wastewater exposure is a common reality
and an issue of no choice. Education, awareness creation and incentives
will be required to facilitate behavior-based safety measures unless treat-
ment systems gain sufficient coverage.
• To move from informal to formal reuse, social sciences will have an impor-
tant role including the development of culturally acceptable and locally
feasible guidelines and regulations.

References

Abu-Madi M, Al-Sa’ed R, Braadbaart O, Alaerts G (2008) Perceptions of farmers and public

towards irrigation with reclaimed wastewater in Jordan and Tunisia. Arab Water Counc J 1(II)
18–31. http://www.academia.edu/1152959/Public_perceptions_towards_wastewater_reuse_in_
Jordan_and_Tunisia. Accessed 11 Dec 2014
5  Social and Cultural Dimensions in Wastewater Use 89

Acheampong PP, Braimah H, Ankomah-Danso A, Mochiah MB (2012) Consumers behaviours and

attitudes towards safe vegetables production in Ghana: a case study of the cities of Kumasi and
Cape Coast. Sci J Agric Res Manage 2012:11 (Article ID sjarm-109). doi:10.7237/sjarm/109
Al Atiri R, Rezgui F, Aniba B (2002) Wastewater reuse. The case of Tunisia. Water demand
management forum. Rabat
Alhumoud JM, Madzikanda D (2010) Public perceptions on water reuse options: the case of
Sulaibiya wastewater treatment plant in Kuwait. Int Bus Econ Res J 9:141–158
Al-Momani SS (2011) State of the wastewater management in the Arab Countries. UAE-Dubai
Amoah P, Drechsel P, Abaidoo RC, Henseler M (2007) Irrigated urban vegetable production in
Ghana: microbiological contamination in farms and markets and associated consumer risk
groups. J Water Health 5(3):455–466
Amoah P, Keraita B, Akple M, Drechsel P, Abaidoo RC, Konradsen F (2011) Low cost options
for health risk reduction where crops are irrigated with polluted water in West Africa.
IWMI Research Report Series 141, Colombo http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/
IWMI_Research_Reports/PDF/PUB141/RR141.pdf
Bahri A (2009) Managing the other side of the water cycle: making wastewater an asset. TEC
background paper 13. Global Water Partnership, Sweden
Ben Brahim H, Duckstein L (2011) Descriptive methods and compromise programming for pro-
moting agricultural reuse of treated wastewater. In: do Prado HA, Barreto Luiz AJ, Filho HC
(eds) Computational Methods for agricultural research: advances and applications. IGI-Global,
Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA. www.igi-global.com/book/computational-methods-agricultural-
research/41780
Binns JA, Maconachie RA, Tanko AI (2003) Water, land and health in urban and peri-urban
food production: the case of Kano, Nigeria. www.cityfarmer.org/WaterLandHealthKano.rtf.
Accessed 28 Dec 2013
Boufaroua M, Albalawneh A, Oweis T (2013) Assessing the efficiency of grey-water reuse at
household level and its suitability for sustainable rural and human development. Br J Appl Sci
Technol 3(4):962–972
Chambers R, Ghildyal BP (1985) Agricultural research for resource poor farmers: the farmer-first-
and last model. Agric Adm 20:1–30
Chaudhuri N (2008) Using participatory education and action research for health risk reduction
amongst farmers in Dakar, Senegal. In: Redwood M (ed) Agriculture in urban planning: gener-
ating livelihoods and food security. Earthscan/IDRC, London, UK/Ottawa, Canada. www.idrc.
ca/en/ev-135178-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Collinson M (2000) Evolving typologies for agricultural research and development. In: Collinson
M (ed) A history of farming systems research. CABI-FAO, Wallingford, pp 51–58
Crook J, Ammermman DK, Okun DA, Matthews RL (1992) Guidelines for water reuse. Camp
Dresser and McKee Inc., Cambridge
Danso G, Fialor SC, Drechsel P (2002) Perceptions of organic agriculture by urban vegetable
farmers and consumers in Ghana. Urban Agric Mag 6:23–24
Dishman M, Sherrard JH, Rebhum M (1989) Gaining support for direct potable water reuse. J Prof
Issues Eng 115(2):154–161
Dolnicar S, Saunders C (2006) Recycled water for consumer markets—a marketing research
review and agenda. Desalination 187(1–3):203–214
Dolnicar S, Schafer AI (2009) Desalinated versus recycled water: public perceptions and profiles
of the accepters. J Environ Manage 90:888–900
Drechsel P, Gyiele L (eds) (1998) On-farm research on sustainable land management in Sub-
Saharan Africa: approaches, experiences, and lessons. IBSRAM proceedings 19, Bangkok,
p 254
Drechsel P, Karg H (2013) Motivating behaviour change for safe wastewater irrigation in urban
and peri-urban Ghana. Sustain Sanitat Prac 16:10–20. http://www.ecosan.at/ssp/issue-16-be-
haviour-change/SSP-16_Jul2013_10–20.pdf/view
Drechsel P, Graefe S, Sonou M, Cofie O (2006) Informal irrigation in West Africa: an overview.
IWMI Research report no. 102. International Water Management Institute, Colombo
90 P. Drechsel et al.

Drechsel P, Hope L, Cofie O (2013) Gender mainstreaming: who wins? Gender and irrigated urban
vegetable production in West Africa. J Gender Water (wH2O) 2:15–17
EMWATER (2004) Prospects of efficient wastewater management and water reuse in Palestine.
Country study Palestine. EM Water Project, “Efficient management of wastewater, its treat-
ment and reuse in the Mediterranean countries”
Ensink J, van der Hoek W, Matsuno Y, Munir S, M.Islam R (2004) Use of untreated wastewater in
peri-urban agriculture in Pakistan: risks and opportunities. IWMI Research Report 64
Erni M, Drechsel P, Bader H-P, Scheidegger R, Zurbruegg C, Kipfer R (2010) Bad for the
environment, good for the farmer? Urban sanitation and nutrient flows. Irrig Drain Sys (Special
Issue on Wastewater reuse) 24(1–2):113–125. doi:10.1007/s10795-009-9083-9
Farooq S, Ansari ZI (1983) Water reuse in Muslim countries—an Islamic perspective. Environ
Manage 7(2):119–123
Faruqui NI, Biswas AK, Bino MJ (eds) (2001) Water management in Islam. International Develop-
ment Research Centre/United Nations University Press, Ottawa
Fawell J, Fewtrell L, Hydes O, Watkins J, Wyn-Jones P (2005) A protocol for developing water
reuse criteria with reference to drinking water supplies (UKWIR report ref no. 05/WR/29/1).
UK Water Industry Research Limited, London
Friedler E, Lahav O (2006) Centralised urban wastewater reuse: what is the public attitude? Water
Sci Technol 54:423–430
Friedler E, Lahav O, Jizhaki H et al (2006) Study of urban population attitudes towards various
wastewater reuse options: Israel as a case study. J Environ Manage 81:360–370
Gbewonyo K (2007) Wastewater irrigation and the farmer: investigating the relation between
irrigation water source, farming practices, and farmer health in Accra, Ghana. Harvard College,
Cambridge (unpublished thesis)
Gerstl S (2001) The economic costs and impact of home gardening in Ouagadougou, Burkina
Faso. PhD dissertation, University of Basel, Switzerland
Gunderson J (2008) The language of water. W E & T Mag 20(7). http://w.weftec.com/publications/
page_wet.aspx?id=4423&page=news. Accessed 10 Dec 2014
Hamilton AJ, Stagnitti F, Xiong X, Kreidl SL, Benke KK, Maher P (2007) Wastewater irrigation
the state of play. Vadose Zone 6(4):823–840
Hartley TW (2006) Public perception and participation in water reuse. Desalination 187:115–126
Helmer R, Hespanhol I (eds) (1997) Water pollution control—a guide to the use of water quality
management principles. Published by E and FN Spon on behalf of the United Nations Environ-
ment Programme, Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council and the World Health
Organization, London
Higgins J, Warnken J, Sherman PP, Teasdale PR (2002) Surveys if users and providers of recycled
water: quality concerns and directions for applied research. Water Res 36:5045–5056
Hope L, Keraita B, Akple MSK (2008) Washing of vegetables grown in urban farms in irrigation
water in Kumasi, Ghana. Urban Agric Mag 20:29–30
Hurlimann AC (2008) Community attitudes to recycled water use: an urban Australian case
study—part 2 research report 56. The Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and
Treatment, Australia
Hurlimann AC (2009) Water supply in regional Victoria Australia: a review of the water cartage
industry and willingness to pay for recycled water. Resour Conserv Recycl 53:262–268
Hurlimann A, McKay JM (2006) What attributes of recycled water make it fit for residential
purposes? The Mawson lakes experience. Desalination 187:167–177
Jimenez B (2005) Treatment technology and standards for agricultural wastewater reuse: a case
study in Mexico. Irrig Drain J 54(1):23–35
Keraita B, Drechsel P, Konradsen F (2008) Perceptions of farmers on health risks and risk
reduction measures in wastewater-irrigated urban vegetable farming in Ghana. J Risk Res
11(8):1047–1061
Keraita B, Drechsel P, Seidu R, Amerasinghe P, Cofie O, Konradsen F (2010) Harnessing farmers’
knowledge and perceptions for health risk reduction in wastewater irrigated agriculture. In:
Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A (eds) Wastewater irrigation and
5  Social and Cultural Dimensions in Wastewater Use 91

health: assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries. Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI, UK,

pp 337–354
Keremane GB (2007) Urban wastewater reuse for agriculture: governance paradigms and insti-
tutional arrangements in Australia and India, PhD thesis, University of South Australia http://
www.irrigationfutures.org.au/imagesDB/news/GaneshKeremaneThesis.pdf
Kilelu C (2004) Wastewater irrigation and farmer’s perception of health risks and institutional
perspectives: a case study from Maili Saba, Nairobi. CFP Report 38. IDRC, Ottawa
Knudsen LG, Phuc PD, Hiep NT, Samuelsen H, Jensen PK, Dalsgaard A, Raschid-Sally L,
Konradsen F (2008) The fear of awful smell: risk perceptions among farmers in Vietnam
using waster and huma excreta in agriculture. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health
39(2):341–352
Lagerkvist CJ, Hess S, Okello J, Karanja N (2013) Consumer willingness to pay for safer veg-
etables in urban markets of a developing country: the case of Kale in Nairobi, Kenya. J Dev
Stud 49(3):365–382
Lahnsteiner J P, Pisani Du, Menge J, Esterhuizen J (2013) More than 40 years of direct potable
reuse experience in Windhoek. In: Lazarova V et al (eds) Milestones in Water reuse. The best
success stories. IWA, London, pp 351–364
Lim M-H, Seah H (2013) NEWater: a key element of Singapore’s water sustainability. In: Lazarova
V et al (eds) Milestones in water reuse. The best success stories. IWA, London, pp 53–62
Macpherson L (2010) Talking About Water. Presentation Nov. 5, 2010, at WateReuse Association,
Northern California Chapter Meeting. https://www.watereuse.org/sections/california/northern-
california/meeting/presentations. Accessed 11 Dec 2014
Mahjoub O (2013) Ateliers de sensibilisation au profit des agriculteurs et des femmes rurales
aux risques liés à la réutilisation des eaux usées en agriculture: application à la région de
Oued Souhil, Nabeul, Tunisie. In: UN-Water. Proceedings of the Safe use of wastewater in
agriculture, International wrap-up event, Teheran, 2013
Marks JS (2004) Advancing community acceptance of reclaimed water. Water J Aust Water Assoc
31(5):46–51
Marks JS, Martin B, Zadoroznyj M (2006) Acceptance of water recycling in Australia: national
baseline data. Water J Aust Water Assoc 33(2):151–157
Martin A, Sherington J (1997) Participatory research methods—implementation, Effectiveness
and Institutional Context. Agric Syst 55(2):195–216
Martinsen C (2008) Social marketing in sanitation. More than selling toilets. Stockholm Water
Front 1:14–16
McKay JM, Hurlimann A (2003) Attitudes to reclaimed water for domestic use: Part  1 Water
30(5):45–49
Mojid MA, Wyseure CL, Biswas SK, Hossain ABMZ (2010) Farmers’ perceptions and knowledge
in using wastewater for irrigation at twelve peri-urban areas and two sugar mill areas in
Bangladesh. Agric Water Manage 98:79–86
Molinos-Senante M, Hernandez-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2010) Economic feasibility study for
wastewater treatment: a cost-benefit analysis. Sci Total Environ 408:4396–4402
Niang S (2002) Maitrise des risques dans la valorisation des eaux usées en agriculture urbaine.
In: Akinbamijo OO, Fall ST, Smith OB (eds) Advances in crop-livestock integration in West
African cities, International Trypanotolerance Centre, ISRA, IDRC, Ottawa, pp 17–36
Ngigi MW, Okello JJ, Lagerkvist CL, Karanja NK, Mburu J (2011) Urban consumers’ willingness
to pay for quality of leafy vegetables along the value chain: the case of Nairobi Kale consumers,
Kenya. Int J Bus Soc Sci 2(7):208–216
Obuobie E, Keraita B, Danso G, Amoah P, Cofie O, Raschid-Sally L, Drechsel P (2006) Irrigated
urban vegetable production in Ghana: characteristics, benefits and risks. IWMI-RUAF-CPWF,
IWMI, Accra
ONAS (2012) Annual Report. Office national de l’assainissement, Tunis
Ouedraogo B (2002) Perceptions of Ouagadougou market gardeners on water, hygiene and disease.
Urban Agric Mag 8:24–25
92 P. Drechsel et al.

Po M, Kaercher JD, Nancarrow BE (2004) Literature review of factors influencing public

perceptions of water reuse. Australian water conservation and reuse research program, CSIRO
Land and Water, April 2004
Po M, Nancarrow BE, Leviston Z, Poter NB, Syme GJ, Kaercher JD (2005) Predicting community
behaviour in relation to wastewater reuse: what drives decisions to accept or reject? CSIRO,
Perth
Robinson KG, Robinson CH, Hawkins SA (2005) Assessment of public perception regarding
wastewater reuse. Water Sci Technol Water Supply 5(1):59–65
SBS (2013) Time to take the plunge on recycled water? http://www.sbs.com.au/news/arti-
cle/2013/10/16/time-take-plunge-recycled-water. Accessed 17Nov 2013
Scott CA, Zarazua JA, Levine G (2000) Urban-Wastewater reuse for crop production in the water-
short Guanajuato river basin, Mexico. Research report 41. International Water Management
Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Scott B, Curtis V, Rabie T, Garbrah-Aidoo N (2007) Health in our hands, but not in our heads:
understanding hygiene motivation in Ghana. Health Policy Plan 22(4):225–233
Scott C, Drechsel P, Raschid-Sally L, Bahri A, Mara D, Redwood M, Jiménez B (2010) Wastewater
irrigation and health: challenges and outlook for mitigating risks in low-income countries. In:
Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A (eds) Wastewater irrigation and
health: assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries. Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI, UK,
pp 381–394
Seidu R, Heistad A, Jenssen PD, Drechsel P, Stenström TA (2008) Quantification of the health
risks associated with wastewater reuse in Accra, Ghana: a contribution toward local guidelines.
J Water Health 6(4):461–471
Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of
gene technology. Risk Anal 20:195–204
Silva-Ochoa P, Scott CA (2004) Treatment plant effects on wastewater irrigation benefits:
revisiting a case study in the Guanajuato river basin, Mexico. In: Scott CA, Faruqui NI,
Raschid-Sally L (eds) Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture: confronting the livelihood and
environmental realities. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International, Orient-Longman,
and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, p 145
The Source (2006) Drastic action, the source—a magazine by Melbourne water, Issue 37, March
2006. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42641/20070117–0000/thesource.melbournewater.com.
au/content/Issue/March2006/drastic.html. Accessed 29 April 2014
Tsagarakis KP, Georgantzís N (2003) The role of information on farmers’ willingness to use
recycled water for irrigation. Water Sci Technol Water Supply 3(4):105–113
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2012) Guidelines for water reuse (Chap 8. EPA.
EPA/600/R-12/618). Environmental Protection Agency. Washington DC
Van der Hoek W, Ul-Hassan M, Ensink J, Feenstra S, Raschid-Sally L, Munir S (2002) Urban
wastewater: a valuable resource for agriculture. International Water Management Institute
Research Report 63. Colombo, Sri Lanka
Wegner-Gwidt J (1991) Winning support for reclamation projects through pro-active
communication programs. Water Sci Technol 24:313–322
Weldesilassie AB, Boelee E, Drechsel and P, Dabbert S (2010) Wastewater use in crop production
in peri-urban areas of Addis Ababa: impacts on health in farm households. Environ Devel Econ
16:25–49
Whittington D, Sadoff C, Allaire M (2013) The economic value of moving toward a more water
secure world. Global water partnership technical committee (TEC) background papers 18.
GWP, Stockholm
WHO (2006) Guidelines of the safe use of wastewater, excreta and grey water (vol 2) wastewater
use in agriculture. World Health Organization, Geneva
Wilson Z, Pfaff B (2008) Religious, philosophical and environmentalist perspectives on potable
wastewater reuse in Durban, South Africa. Desalination 228:1–9
Wikipedia (2013) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toowoomba_Water_Futures_referendum,_2006.
Accessed 28 Dec 2013
Chapter 6
Policy and Institutional Determinants
of Wastewater Use in Agriculture

Dennis Wichelns and Manzoor Qadir

Abstract  We describe policies, interventions, and institutions pertaining to waste-

water use in agriculture, with particular emphasis on low and middle income coun-
tries. Designing policies and implementing interventions are challenging in such
countries, where most of the wastewater used for irrigation is untreated and much
of the use is informal and unintentional. Farmers, communities, and consumers are
at risk from harmful constituents in the untreated wastewater, yet each group also
obtains important benefits. There are no simple or easily affordable policy choices
regarding the use of untreated wastewater in developing countries, particularly
where the institutional support for wastewater collection, treatment, and reuse also
is not yet well developed. In many countries, the responsibilities for wastewater
management are shared among several ministries or agencies, and there is too little
coordination regarding policies and programs pertaining to wastewater. Legislation
alone is not sufficient in motivating or enabling greater use of wastewater in agri-
culture. Guidelines or regulations regarding specific water quality criteria, moni-
toring programs, and enforcement plans also are needed to provide farmers and
consumers with the information and assurances needed to engender widespread
support for wastewater irrigation.

Keywords  Wastewater policies � Institutions � Legislation � Regulations � Costs

D. Wichelns ()
P.O. Box 2629, Bloomington, IN, 47402, USA
e-mail: dwichelns@mail.fresnostate.edu
M. Qadir
United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH),
175 Longwood Road South, Hamilton, Ontario, L8P 0A1 Canada
e-mail: manzoor.qadir@unu.edu

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 93

P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_6
94 D. Wichelns and M. Qadir

6.1 The Rationale

Many farmers in developing countries use untreated wastewater for irrigation,

often because it is the only source of water available. Many small-scale farmers
obtain irrigation water from streams or ditches that are polluted with effluent from
a nearby city, industry, or housing development. Polluted waterways are common
in many developing countries, as wastewater treatment is not yet widely practiced.
The average estimated rates of wastewater treatment are just 8 % in low-income
countries and 28 % in lower-middle-income countries (Sato et al. 2013).
Most farmers irrigating with untreated wastewater likely would prefer higher
quality water, but in most cases they have no alternative source. There can be agro-
nomic value in the nitrogen and phosphorus in the untreated wastewater, but there
are also pathogens and chemicals that threaten the health of farmers, food vendors,
and consumers. Irrigating with untreated wastewater is risky business in developing
countries, yet it generates household income for families with limited livelihood
alternatives. Many farmers irrigating with untreated wastewater likely would vote
to continue using the wastewater, even if they understood the risks, in the absence
of an alternative, higher quality source.
In a sense, farmers using untreated wastewater provide a public service by
removing effluent from polluted streams and applying it to soils, thus reducing the
pollutant load in downstream locations. However, wastewater irrigation also gener-
ates risk for farm communities and consumers of farm products. Polluted canals and
ditches, and wastewater-irrigated fields create hazards in which children and other
residents are exposed to harmful pathogens and chemicals (Grangier et al. 2012).
Consumers of farm produce also are at risk of illness when they handle and ingest
contaminated vegetables, particularly when the food is eaten raw or prepared with
inadequate care toward reducing contamination risk.
In this chapter, we describe the important roles of policies and institutions in
motivating and assuring the safe use of wastewater in agriculture, with particular
emphasis on low and middle income countries. The policy issues in higher income
countries are somewhat straightforward and mature, as public agencies have largely
determined appropriate water quality criteria and implemented treatment protocols
to support wastewater use in irrigation. Future issues will include refining those
standards and protocols and evaluating the costs and benefits of alternative levels
of wastewater treatment and use in agriculture and other activities. There will
also be discussions of who should pay for wastewater treatment and who should
have priority in receiving limited supplies of treated wastewater. Those issues
involve costs, returns, and the allocation of economic rents, but they generally do
not involve decisions that can support or destroy livelihood opportunities, either
intentionally, or as the unintended consequences of seemingly beneficial policy
choices.
Policy issues are more challenging in developing countries, where most of the
wastewater used for irrigation is untreated and much of the use is informal and unin-
tentional (Wichelns and Drechsel 2011). In addition, institutional arrangements are
6  Policy and Institutional Determinants of Wastewater Use in Agriculture 95

unclear and few specialists are trained to manage wastewater collection and treat-
ment. Farmers, communities, and consumers are at risk from harmful constituents in
the untreated wastewater, yet each group also obtains important benefits (Scheierling
et al. 2011). Farmers generate financial returns that enhance their livelihoods and
improve the economic status of farm communities. Consumers gain nutritional
value by having affordable access to locally grown fresh vegetables (Weldesilassie
et al. 2011). The public, more generally, benefits also when farmers divert effluent
for use in irrigation, rather than allowing it to continue flowing downstream.
Public funding for treating all wastewater will not be available in many regions
within the foreseeable future. Lacking the treatment alternative, public agencies
must identify measures that will reduce the risks of using untreated wastewater,
while maintaining the benefits that accrue to farmers, consumers, and the larger
community (Drechsel and Seidu 2011). The best policies and programs will address
both farm-level and societal concerns regarding the costs and benefits of wastewater
irrigation. Farmers will seek assurances that they can maintain their access to waste-
water for irrigation, while consumers will need assurances that the crops irrigated
with wastewater are safe to consume. Crafting policies that address both sets of
concerns will be challenging in some settings. Yet the potential rewards of imple-
menting successful risk reduction measures that will enable the safe and profitable
use of wastewater in agriculture are substantial.

6.2 A Conceptual Framework

From a policy perspective, the use of wastewater in agriculture provides opportunities

and challenges that require public intervention. In one sense wastewater is an
effluent requiring treatment or disposal, subject to regulations that protect public
health. In the absence of regulations, private generators of wastewater would have
little incentive to reduce volume or to manage the flow of wastewater beyond their
property line. Because wastewater generation is a negative externality in most set-
tings, regulations and incentives are needed to minimize the potential harm from
wastewater in the environment.
Wastewater management has public good characteristics in that once it is
provided, many members of society benefit. At the same time, it is difficult to
exclude individuals from enjoying the benefits of a cleaner, healthier environment
once the decision has been made to collect and treat all wastewater in a community.
The non-rival nature of the benefits and the difficulty of exclusion provide the basis
for managing wastewater treatment within the public sector.
The public goods perspective is appropriate when viewing wastewater as an
effluent requiring treatment or disposal. However, when viewing wastewater as a
resource, there are notable private benefits for which individuals will be willing to
invest time, effort, and funding to enhance their opportunities. The private goods
perspective pertains to both treated and untreated wastewater. Several water agen-
cies in Australia, Israel, and the United States sell treated wastewater (directly or
96 D. Wichelns and M. Qadir

through an aquifer recharge program) to farmers and golf course owners who obtain
private benefits through irrigation (Mills et al. 2004; van Roon 2007). Often there
is a price differential between treated wastewater and fresh water, thus providing
a financial incentive for irrigators to select the treated wastewater (Hurlimann and
McKay 2007).
Farmers in developing countries also obtain private benefits, but the distribution
of wastewater among them is much less formal and the wastewater generally has not
been treated. An estimated 80 % of the sewage generated in developing countries
is discharged untreated into the environment, and half the population is exposed to
polluted water sources (UNESCO 2003; Drechsel and Evans 2010). Many farmers
acquire untreated wastewater when they divert irrigation water from a stream or
ditch that carries effluent from a nearby city or from households in an urban, peri-
urban, or rural area. Water diversions and the use of wastewater in such settings
generate private benefits for the farmers. The public gains also as the farmers remove
the low-quality water from streams and ditches. However, the primary motivation
for farmers is to boost their productivity and increase their net returns. By doing so,
they risk the health of their families through exposure to untreated wastewater and
they create situations in which consumers also are at risk of eating harmful produce.
Public policies are needed to reduce these risks and to optimize the management of
wastewater from the public’s perspective.

6.3 Policy Challenges in Low and Middle Income

Countries

Policy issues pertaining to wastewater irrigation in developing countries are notably

challenging, in part, because much of the wastewater irrigation takes place in
decentralized, informal settings in which individual farmers gain access to wastewa-
ter simply by diverting polluted water from a stream or ditch. Property rights to the
water are not defined and there is no communal agency or water user association that
coordinates irrigation activities. Millions of individual farmers will be reluctant to
stop diverting polluted water for use in irrigation, given that their livelihoods depend
on the sale of irrigated farm produce. In addition, financial resources are limited in
developing countries and there are many competing demands on public funds. Thus,
it is unlikely that large gains will be made in treating wastewater in the near future.
Public officials in developing countries must determine how to minimize the
risks to farmers and consumers, while not destroying or severely diminishing
the livelihoods of those farmers who currently irrigate with wastewater. This will not
be easily achieved. Public officials will be mindful of the benefits that farmers pro-
vide by diverting and using polluted water for irrigation. If not for that activity, larger
volumes of wastewater would continue flowing downstream in many watercourses,
creating greater risk for downstream residents and causing environmental harm over
a larger area. Farmers who irrigate with wastewater generate one set of risks for their
families and consumers, while reducing another set of risks to residents downstream.
6  Policy and Institutional Determinants of Wastewater Use in Agriculture 97

In summary, farmers generate both private and public benefits when they divert
polluted water from streams and ditches to irrigate crops in urban areas. Public offi-
cials in developing countries must determine how to sustain these beneficial aspects
of wastewater irrigation and the livelihoods of farm families, while minimizing
risks to those same families and the consumers of their produce.

6.4 Interventions Include Treatment and Non-treatment

Alternatives

The interventions available to public officials for reducing the risks associated with
wastewater irrigation in developing countries, while sustaining livelihood benefits,
might be placed in four categories:
1. Improve and extend centralized wastewater treatment
2. Improve and extend de-centralized wastewater treatment
3. Regulate (with enforcement) the use of untreated wastewater in agriculture
4. Complement existing wastewater use patterns with risk reduction interventions
to protect farm families, communities, and consumers
The first category is likely the most costly and the least likely to be implemented
along a reasonable timeline. There might be affordable opportunities in some settings
within developing countries, in which new, large-scale wastewater treatment plants
can be constructed to improve the quality of water available for agriculture. Yet it
seems that if such opportunities were affordable, if they compared favorably with
alternative public investments, and if an affordable source of finance were available,
then such efforts would already be underway. It is difficult to imagine that the pace
of investments in large, centralized wastewater treatment plants will be sufficient
to improve water quality for many of the farmers who currently use wastewater for
irrigation in developing countries.
Some developing countries are beginning to invest in wastewater collection,
treatment, and reuse systems. For example, in the Mezquital Valley, Mexico where
about 90,000 ha are irrigated largely with untreated wastewater, the government has
invested in wastewater treatment. Initiated in 2010 on the basis of a build-operate-
transfer contract, a large wastewater treatment plant is under construction, and is
expected to be completed in 2015 (see also Chap. 9 of this book).
The second category includes interventions that should be more affordable
than building large, centralized wastewater treatment plants. The goal within this
category is to identify opportunities for enhancing irrigation water quality at an
appropriate scale and within a meaningful distance from the point of wastewater use.
Small-scale wastewater treatment plants might be designed with the expressed pur-
pose of making higher quality water available for irrigation. The construction costs
and operating criteria for such plants might be different—and less expensive—than
those pertaining to centralized wastewater treatment plants that discharge water
intended for uses outside agriculture (van Lier and Huibers 2010). For example, it
98 D. Wichelns and M. Qadir

is important to remove solids, salts, and pathogens from water intended for use in
irrigation, but farmers can accommodate higher nutrient levels than wastewater us-
ers in municipal and industrial settings.
The third category likely will be challenging in many developing country settings,
given the decentralized, informal nature of wastewater use and the strong dependency
of farm households on wastewater. Regulations will be politically unpopular and
enforcement will be difficult to achieve. In Syria, for example, the government
disallows the irrigation of vegetables with wastewater, but compliance with the
restriction is not complete. Syrian officials resort to destroying vegetable crops
irrigated with wastewater when they find such situations. As a result, less than 7 %
of the area irrigated with wastewater near the city of Aleppo is in vegetable produc-
tion (Qadir et al. 2010). The opportunity costs involved in planting and cultivating
crops, only to have them destroyed by the government, can be substantial for farm
households with limited sources of income.
The financial burden of treating wastewater in developing countries and the
challenge of regulating wastewater use by farmers will remain substantial for the
foreseeable future. Hence, many farmers will continue using wastewater and their
workers and families will remain at risk of infection while applying irrigation water.
Consumers will remain susceptible to sickness caused by handling and consuming
the irrigated produce. Given this near-term outlook, public agencies in developing
countries should seek opportunities to reduce the risks of infection and sickness by
intervening at selected stages of the process that includes wastewater generation,
capture, irrigation, crop production, harvest and handling, and food preparation and
consumption. Thus we focus on the fourth category of policy options—reducing
risk to farm households, communities, and consumers.

6.5 Interventions Should Focus on Reducing Risk

Conventional wastewater treatment might be viewed as the ultimate risk reduction

measure when considering the use of wastewater in irrigation (Keraita et  al.
2010a). Establishing and enforcing water quality standards, in conjunction with a
wastewater treatment program, can be effective in removing potentially harmful
constituents. However, the cost of treating wastewater and enforcing water quality
standards will exceed affordability in many developing countries. Recognizing this
challenge, the World Health Organization recommends shifting the policy focus
from reliance on wastewater treatment and water quality standards, to establish-
ing health-based targets that might be achieved by implementing a range of risk
reducing interventions (WHO 2006a; Keraita et al. 2010a).
The World Health Organization (WHO 2006b) describes three sets of health
protection measures pertaining to the three groups most susceptible to health
impacts of wastewater irrigation: (1) farmers and their families, (2) agricultural
communities, and (3) consumers of farm products. We consider each group in turn.
6  Policy and Institutional Determinants of Wastewater Use in Agriculture 99

6.5.1 Farmers and Their Families

When delivering irrigation water or working in fields irrigated with wastewater, farm-
ers, family members, and other farm workers can be exposed to microbial pathogens
including viruses, bacteria, helminths (nematodes and tapeworms), and protozoa (Toze
2006). Wastewater also can contain endocrine disrupting chemicals, pharmaceutically
active compounds, and residuals of personal care products (Ternes et al. 2007; Lapen
et al. 2008; Siemens et al. 2008; Topp et al. 2008). Exposure to wastewater can result
in skin irritation and diseases related to pathogens in human waste products. The
World Health Organization (WHO 2006b) recommends considering the following
measures when designing interventions to protect farmers and their families:
1. Treating wastewater
2. Supporting the use of personal protective equipment
3. Providing access to safe drinking water and sanitation on farms
4. Promoting good health and hygiene practices
5. Providing chemotherapy1 and immunization
6. Controlling disease vectors and intermediate hosts
7. Reducing contact with disease vectors
One or more of these measures would be helpful in breaking or disrupting the
pathway of contamination from wastewater to farm family members and farm
workers. However, success will be determined by how effectively the benefits of
these measures are communicated to farmers, and how aggressively farm workers
adopt them. The farm-level cost of any measure also will be a key determinant of
its successful adoption.

6.5.2 Agricultural Communities

In a sense, many residents of agricultural communities are susceptible to the

same type of risks as farmers and their families, particularly if they utilize water
in irrigation canals or ditches, or they have access to farm fields. In many irri-
gated areas, community residents use water from irrigation canals or ditches for
cleaning clothes, washing livestock, and watering kitchen gardens (Meinzen-Dick
and van der Hoek 2001). Young children often swim or play in irrigation ditches,
while some residents rely on irrigation canals as a source of household drinking
water (Senzanje et al. 2008). The lack of knowledge regarding the potential health
risks in many rural and peri-urban settings, and the scarcity of fresh water supplies,
create situations in which many residents are at substantial risk. The World Health
Organization (WHO 2006b) recommends the following measures to protect mem-
bers of agricultural communities:

1 
The term refers in this context to the use of, for example, deworming tablets, i.e. chemical
treatment of infections.
100 D. Wichelns and M. Qadir

1. Treating wastewater
2. Restricting access to irrigated fields and canals and ditches
3. Providing safe recreational water, particularly for adolescents
4. Providing safe drinking water and sanitation facilities to communities
5. Promoting good health and hygiene practices
6. Providing chemotherapy and immunization
7. Controlling disease vectors and intermediate hosts
8. Reducing contact with disease vectors
Several of these measures are similar to those recommended to protect farm families
and farm workers, given the similarity in exposure opportunities on farms and in the
larger community. Many of the challenges involved in implementing the measures
and encouraging sustainable adoption also would be similar.

6.5.3 Consumers of Farm Products

In many settings, in the absence of policy intervention, consumers might be the

least informed group regarding the potential health risks due to wastewater irriga-
tion. They might be unaware that farmers using wastewater have produced some of
the fruits and vegetables for sale in local markets. They might also be unaware that
some of the farm produce carries harmful pathogens and chemicals, or that cooking
the produce might reduce the likelihood of damage from infectious pathogens. Given
these considerations, the World Health Organization (WHO 2006b) recommends
the following measures to reduce the risk to consumers:
1. Treating wastewater
2. Restricting the crops that are irrigated with wastewater
3. Promoting irrigation practices that minimize contamination of plants
4. Implementing withholding periods that allow pathogens to die between the last
irrigation and harvest
5. Promoting hygienic practices at food markets and during food preparation
6. Promoting good health and hygiene practices
7. Promoting produce washing, disinfection, and cooking
8. Providing chemotherapy and immunization.
Although enforcement will be difficult, public agencies might consider disallowing
wastewater irrigation of vegetables and other crops that consumers often eat without
cooking. Leafy vegetables, such as lettuce and spinach, are particularly prone to
accumulating pathogens on edible portions of the plant when wastewater is applied
directly over the plants and when irrigators splash contaminated soil particles on
the leaves (Keraita et al. 2010b). Modifying the spouts of watering cans will reduce
contamination by reducing the splashing of soil particles (Keraita et  al. 2010b).
Drip irrigation on the soil surface or below ground will minimize contamination
(Capra and Scicolone 2007), but many poor farmers will not have the funds to
invest in such systems.
6  Policy and Institutional Determinants of Wastewater Use in Agriculture 101

Withholding periods between the date of last irrigation and harvest are sensible
approaches, as well, but monitoring and enforcement might be problematic in areas
where wastewater irrigation is prevalent. Some farmers report that irrigating lettuce
on the morning of the day of harvest freshens the crop and enhances its appearance
in local markets (Keraita et al. 2010b). Encouraging farmers to change such prac-
tices will be challenging, particularly given the perishable nature of leafy vegetable
crops. Farmers generally want to obtain the highest price possible and to sell their
produce quickly, before its appearance and quality begin to fade.
Public efforts to improve hygienic practices and food preparation at homes and
in the marketplace also will be challenging. In areas where small-scale farmers sell
produce to small-scale vendors who re-sell the produce in a restaurant or fast-food
outlet, individuals have little incentive to assume the extra cost of enhanced food
treatment. This situation in which information is limited and asymmetric, can be
described also an externality involving producers and consumers. The benefits of
a cleaner, safer food supply accrue to consumers and communities, rather than to
the farmers and food shop owners who will incur higher costs if they implement
improved production, washing, and handling practices. Public policy is needed to
ensure that farmers and vendors internalize the external costs of their activities.

6.6 Examples of Public Policies

Helpful examples of public policies regarding wastewater use in irrigation are

found in the Middle East and North Africa, and other regions where farmers have
been using treated and untreated wastewater for many years. In some countries,
such as Egypt, the volume of municipal wastewater exceeds the treatment capacity,
and large volumes of untreated wastewater enter agricultural drains (Abdel-Day-
em et al. 2007). The government attempts to manage the blending of treated and
untreated wastewater with agricultural drainage water, and the use of blended water
by farmers, but success is limited by the scale of the problem and the strong demand
for supplemental water supplies in the Nile Delta. Irrigation with treated wastewater
will increase over time, with the expansion of wastewater treatment capacity.
The Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture, which regulates the use of treated waste-
water on the West Bank, requires color coding of pipelines carrying fresh water and
wastewater, and the posting of lands irrigated with treated wastewater (Mizyed 2013).
In addition, farmers irrigating with treated wastewater are required to wear protective
clothing, although it is not clear if the monitoring and enforcement of the clothing
regulation is effective. The extent of wastewater treatment and use in agriculture on
the West Bank is limited partly by the lack of funding for treatment facilities and also
by limited public acceptance of wastewater irrigation (McNeill et al. 2009).
Several countries in the region, including Algeria, Cyprus, and Tunisia, do not
allow the irrigation of vegetables with treated wastewater. Cyprus also disallows the
irrigation of ornamental plants destined for sale in international markets (Angelakis
et al.1999). Wastewater policies are well developed in Cyprus and Tunisia, where
102 D. Wichelns and M. Qadir

the governments actively support and regulate wastewater treatment and use. In
Cyprus, the government pays for large portions of the cost of water treatment plants
in cities and villages, while also paying for the distribution of wastewater to farmers
(Bazza 2003). Tunisia requires that industries comply with wastewater discharge
standards designed to support reuse on farms, golf courses, and landscapes, and
also for aquifer recharge (Bazza 2003). Saudi Arabia plans to use all of its treated
wastewater, primarily in agriculture. The city of Muscat in Oman has installed an
extensive drip irrigation system for irrigating landscapes with treated municipal
wastewater (Bakir 2001).
Several autonomous provinces in Spain have developed legal prescriptions or
recommendations regarding wastewater use in agriculture (Angelakis et al. 2003).
Wastewater accounts for an estimated 41 % of the irrigation water used on Spanish
golf courses (Rodriguez Diaz et al. 2007). Much of the agricultural use of waste-
water in Spain occurs along its arid Mediterranean coast and on nearby islands
(Pedrero et al. 2010).
In Italy, legislators have acknowledged the potential value of treated wastewater
use in irrigation, yet the implementing regulations are not sufficiently accommo-
dative to promote widespread use of wastewater by farmers (Cirelli et al. 2012).
In particular, there are many water quality parameters to be considered (54) and
there is no allowance made for the impacts of alternative methods of irrigation on
the likelihood of harm when applying wastewater. The same regulations apply to
farmers using furrow irrigation and to those using sprinklers or drip systems. Yet
the likelihood of contaminating vegetables is much smaller with drip irrigation, as
less wastewater comes in contact with the plants. The government of Botswana has
encouraged greater use of wastewater in irrigation and mining, in part, by ending
its policy of providing fresh water supplies at subsidized prices (Swatuk and Rahm
2004). Botswana also is considering how to account for wastewater volumes within
its national water accounting framework (Arntzen and Setlhogile 2007).
The city of Beijing, China uses a combination of administrative orders and
financial incentives to motivate greater use of wastewater, as part of its strategy to
accommodate increasing water demands. Households and industries in Beijing can
purchase treated wastewater for 1 RMB per m3 ($ 0.16), which is much lower than
the prices of 4.0 RMB per m3 for conventional water for household use and 6.2 per
m3 for industrial use (Chang and Ma 2012). Farmers can purchase treated wastewater
for 0.05 RMB per m3 ($ 0.008), which is less than the cost of pumping groundwater
in agricultural areas of the city. Since 2003, the proportion of treated wastewater in
Beijing’s water deliveries has increased from 5.7 to 19.3 % (Chang and Ma 2012).
Beijing’s progressive development of wastewater use has been motivated, in
part, by a management directive issued by the city in 2009. The directive addresses
the sectoral allocation of wastewater and calls for constructing safe distribution
channels, as stated in four key points (Chang and Ma 2012):
1. Treated wastewater will be integrated into the city’s water allocation system, and
will be blended with surface water and groundwater.
6  Policy and Institutional Determinants of Wastewater Use in Agriculture 103

2. Treated wastewater will be used primarily in industry and agriculture, and also
for landscaping and to supplement lakes and rivers.
3. Wastewater suppliers and users will be guided by contracts they sign for the
purchase and delivery of treated wastewater.
4. The delivery channels for wastewater must be constructed to ensure that water
quality is maintained.
Not all efforts to implement wastewater treatment and management are successful
as the program in Beijing. In the city of Hermosillo, Mexico, farmers lacking access
to freshwater supplies continue to irrigate with untreated wastewater, despite several
attempts by the city to fund and construct a water treatment plant (Scott and Pineda
Pablos 2011). Absent that investment, much of the city’s wastewater is discharged
into irrigation canals managed by an irrigation district, which charges farmers a
fee for the wastewater they divert. The farmers are pleased to have any source of
irrigation water, although their production options are constrained to fodder crops,
due to uncertainties regarding health effects and the possible deterioration in soil
quality, over time.
Also in Mexico, farmers irrigating crops near the city of Durango have
increased their production of corn, alfalfa, and oats by using treated wastewater
during periods of drought (Heinz et  al. 2011). In addition to achieving a 30 %
increase in output, the farmers have reduced their fertilizer use by about 50 %.
The city benefits, as well, from the reduced demand pressure on its limited
groundwater supply.
Public officials in countries with little experience in regulating the use of
wastewater in irrigation can gain value by reviewing the examples presented here
and by considering ways to engage producers and consumers in active discussion
of wastewater issues. As in many regulatory settings, the prospect of new rules and
procedures regarding wastewater irrigation and food preparation will be viewed
initially as a cost-increasing outcome that will harm the financial performance of
individual farmers and food vendors. Hence the rational strategy from an individ-
ual’s perspective, involves a combination of maintaining a low profile and quietly
lobbying against the adoption of any new programs. Yet, in aggregate, net social
welfare is decreased if the sum of damages from using wastewater in irrigation
exceeds the sum of the benefits.
Perhaps the key to starting policy discussions is to demonstrate the potential
gains in aggregate net benefits. Farmers, food vendors, and consumers can gain
value together as they work with public officials to develop safe practices in crop
production and food preparation. Individual farmers and food vendors will not be
disadvantaged if everyone agrees to adopt safe practices, and if consumers are will-
ing to pay higher prices in return for safety assurances. Details regarding policy
parameters, and effective monitoring and enforcement programs can be developed
over time, once all parties appreciate the potential gains in net benefits made
possible through the safe and efficient use of wastewater in agriculture and the
preparation of healthful food products.
104 D. Wichelns and M. Qadir

6.7 Policies and Interventions Differ, But the Goals Are

Similar

Policies and interventions regarding the use of wastewater in irrigation are quite
different in developed and developing countries. In developed countries, most
municipal and industrial wastewater is treated, and thus most of the wastewater used
in agriculture is treated. Protective guidelines regarding the quality of wastewater
used for irrigation have been in place for many years. Interventions in developed
countries pertain largely to financial and economic considerations regarding the
improvement and expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. Public officials and
water management agencies motivate greater use of wastewater by providing finan-
cial incentives and increasing public awareness of the safety and benefits of using
treated wastewater on farms, golf courses and urban landscapes.
Public officials in developing countries also consider financial and economic
questions regarding investments in wastewater treatment and use. However, in
many countries, the pace of such investments will not be sufficient to meet demand,
or remains uncoordinated. For instance, national water policy framework and
reuse guidelines in India denote the need for wastewater use but with little prog-
ress towards specific treatment standards, types of reuse, operation and maintanace
issues, and tariff structures for various reuses. Many reuse projects led by various
states and cities across India operate in isolation and locally, often with a delink to
national policy and programs.
Much of the wastewater generated in cities and rural areas will remain untreated
for many years. As a result, farmers will continue to use untreated wastewater for
irrigation, and their use will be largely unintentional and informal. Public officials
must therefore implement risk reduction programs that protect farm families, com-
munities, food vendors, and consumers from the potentially harmful effects of
exposure to the pathogens and chemicals in untreated wastewater.
Public investments and interventions in developing countries will reflect a range
of activities along a pathway that includes wastewater generation, irrigation water
capture and use, crop production and harvest, food preparation, and consumption.
Public officials can implement risk-reducing guidelines and programs at each stage
along the wastewater exposure pathway. For example, public officials can support
improvements in wastewater treatment at the point of generation, when funds for
such improvements are available. Officials also can call for changes in house-
hold and industrial production practices that would reduce the loads of harmful
constituents in wastewater, thus reducing concentrations of those constituents in the
irrigation water diverted from streams and ditches by farmers.
At the farm level, public agencies can provide technical assistance regarding
water diversion and irrigation methods that would reduce potential exposure of
farm workers to harmful pathogens and chemicals. Technical assistance regarding
irrigation methods that reduce contamination of leafy vegetables and other produce
consumed without cooking is essential for reducing risks to food vendors and
consumers. Although difficult to enforce, regulations that establish a minimum time
period between the dates of last irrigation and harvest would be helpful in reducing
the risk of contamination from agricultural products.
6  Policy and Institutional Determinants of Wastewater Use in Agriculture 105

Public officials in developing countries might also consider implementing certi-

fication programs for “consumer safe” farm produce, particularly in markets where
local farmers sell their irrigated vegetables. Public agencies can begin such pro-
grams, with support from farmers and food vendors, but eventually market forces
must arise to sustain them. Consumers must find value in certified produce and they
must be willing to pay a small premium that compensates farmers and vendors for
their costs in providing the safer produce. Educational and marketing campaigns
can be helpful in boosting demand for safe produce among consumers. Box 6.1
presents examples of key policy and institutional drivers of uptake of water reuse
in selected counteries.

Box 6.1: Policy and Institutional Factors Driving Wastewater Use in

Selected Countries

Global: The World Health Organization guidelines shift the policy focus from
reliance on wastewater treatment and water quality standards, to establishing
health-based targets that might be achieved by implementing a range of risk
reducing interventions (WHO 2006a; WHO 2006b; Keraita et al. 2010a).
Australia: Water scarcity driven policy change is a defining feature of
Australian society. Australia launched an extensive program to encourage the
use of treated wastewater in agriculture and other sectors, including heavy
manufacturing and water intensive industrial customers, such as power
plants. This involved policy actions at national and state levels, resulting in
National Guidelines for Water Recycling and Reuse (ARMCANZ-ANZECC
2000 2000) for the protection of public and environmental health and com-
munity amenities (Hanjra et al. 2012). Many entities now purchase recycled
water from water providers. The new policy framework enables third party
access to wastewater for recycled water projects. Increasing investments in
infrastructure and research have aimed at a broadening the scope of reuse
options. National policy has set a target of 30 % of Australia’s wastewater
being recycled by 2015 (Marsden Jacob Associates 2012).
Israel: Israel implemented a substantial wastewater use program in
irrigation in the 1970s, and today almost all crops are safely irrigated with
wastewater. Israel uses about 70 % of its sewage in rrigation, and national
water policy describes wastewater as an important asset (Kislev 2011). Key
factors that led to the wider uptake of wastewater irrigation include (Lawhon
and Schwartz 2006; Dreizin 2007; Kislev 2011):
• State water security concerns
• The National Policy on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development,
which includes wastewater irrigation
• Collaboration between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of
Environment
• Development of regulations and reuse guidelines through the Inter- Minis-
terial Committee
106 D. Wichelns and M. Qadir

• Research and development on reuse, and its uptake into national policy
• The transfer of knowledge from research to farmers, via the government
extension service
• Requiring farmers to obtain permits for irrigation with effluent
• Linking environmental and economic sustainability with establishing stan-
dards for wastewater use
• Regulating private investments in wastewater use and providing incentives
for investments in technology, infrastructure and partnerships.
Singapore: So far Singapore only meets its water needs through water
imports from Malaysia. During the past 20 years, policy makers have reduced
reliance on outside sources in part by incorporating the best available tech-
nology in water supply and wastewater treatment. The Public Utilities Board,
which serves as the single entity for managing water supply and wastewater
treatment, initiated the NEWater Program, in which municipal wastewater is
treated to achieve drinking water standards. Although most NEWater is used
for non-potable purposes, it will meet 40 % of Singapore’s total water demand
by 2020. The Public Utilities Board has adopted a full metering policy,
introduced proper accounting of water, and implemented measures to prevent
illegal water taps. The success in Singapore is due to strong government sup-
port and effective public education and communication (Lim and Seah 2013).
Ghana: Wastewater use is not high on the political agenda in Ghana, even
though some areas of the country experience a long dry season, and many
urban centers are challenged to provide a continuous water supply. Within
the sanitation sector, priority is given to increasing wastewater collection
and treatment capacity, rather than increasing wastewater use. However, the
National Environmental Sanitation Strategy and Action Plan supports the
principles of waste reduction, recovery, use, and recycling. The political moti-
vation for addressing wastewater use is the need to safeguard public health.
The National Irrigation Policy, Strategies and Regulatory Measures of 2011
encourage research on safe irrigation practices in urban and peri-urban agri-
culture and support of best practices for the safe use of marginal quality water,
in accordance with the WHO Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater,
Excreta and Greywater in Agriculture.
USA: Many American cities implement best practices in wastewater use.
The US Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines for Reuse (revised in
2012), and state specific standards support wastewater use. Increasing water
scarcity and the rising costs of providing water supply and environmental reg-
ulations motivate states and cities to implement wastewater use. Four states—
Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas account for 90 % of all wastewater
use. About 30 states have adopted grey water regulations that vary however
in their comprehensiveness (Sheikh 2010).
6  Policy and Institutional Determinants of Wastewater Use in Agriculture 107

6.8 Institutional Aspects of Wastewater

Use in Agriculture

Many authors have examined wastewater use at different scales and many also have
described methods and guidelines for promoting the safe use of wastewater (Ensink
and van der Hoek 2009; Keraita et al. 2010a; Qadir et al. 2010; Abdulai et al. 2011).
By contrast, there is limited information available regarding institutional aspects of
wastewater use in agriculture, particularly in lower-middle-income and low-income
countries, where respectively only 28 and 8 % of the wastewater generated is treated
(Sato et al. 2013).
A recent assessment of the institutional aspects of wastewater management,
undertaken in a UN-Water project addressing capacity assessment and development,
examined the safe use of wastewater in agriculture (Raschid-Sally and Jayakody
2008). The project included an inception workshop and five regional workshops,
involving representatives from 51 countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the
Caribbean. Feedback was collected in the form of responses to questionnaires and
workshop discussions. This feedback from the country representatives was given in
their personal capacity and views, and provided the basis for an assessment of the
institutional aspects of wastewater management.
The representatives report a variety of institutional arrangements regarding the
responsibility for wastewater management at the national or central government
level. In India, wastewater management is the responsibility of the Ministry of the
Environment and Forests, while in Iran, the Ministry of Energy has the responsibility.
In Iraq and China, wastewater management falls within the Ministry of Agriculture,
while in Jordan, the Ministry of Water and Irrigation is responsible. In some countries,
several ministries share responsibility for wastewater management. For example,
in Thailand, the Ministries of Industry (industrial wastewater), Interior (commu-
nity wastewater), Natural Resources and Environment (water quality of natural
water resources), and Public Health (human excreta collection, transportation and
treatment) share the responsibility. In many countries, the ministry responsible for
wastewater management and sanitation is not the ministry responsible for irrigation.
Similar diversity in wastewater management is observed at the municipal level,
where a many institutions are responsible for wastewater collection, treatment,
use, and disposal. None of the representatives reports excellent inter-ministerial
or inter-institutional collaboration in wastewater management. Only 10 countries
report adequate collaboration (20 %), 20 countries report inadequate collaboration
(40 %) and 18 countries report average collaboration (36 %). Three countries report
no inter-ministerial collaboration in managing wastewater.
There is also a lack of coordination between national agencies and local institu-
tions for wastewater management, institutional arrangements are not sufficiently
clear, and there are overlapping responsibilities across institutions. As a result,
there are bureaucratic limitations in wastewater management at different scales.
In terms of rating governments’ commitment and budget allocation to wastewater
management, a trend similar to inter-ministerial collaboration was reported by the
108 D. Wichelns and M. Qadir

participants of the capacity development workshops. Only 7 countries reported

adequate commitment and budget allocation for wastewater management (14 %).
Twenty-two countries reported an inadequate level (44 %) and 18 countries reported
an average level (36 %). Four countries reported very little budget allocation for
wastewater management. In cases in which wastewater treatment is not the primary
objective of the responsible authority, the transaction costs of implementing pro-
grams can be substantial. In Ghana, for example, the Ministry of Defense manages
its own treatment plants, while the Ministry of Health manages the treatment plants
in hospitals, and the Ministry of Education manages their plants in universities.
Only seven countries report that farmers in peri-urban areas pay a local institu-
tion or organization for the wastewater they use for irrigation. In Tunisia, farmers
pay for the volume of irrigation water required, the area to be irrigated, and the
number of hours corresponding to the contract, at a rate of TND 0.02–0.03 per m3
(US$  0.012 to US$  0.018 per  m3 in 2013). In some areas of South Africa, such
as in eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality, the cost of wastewater is much lower
than the cost of potable water. As drinking water often is subsidized, it is difficult
to achieve substantial cost recovery for water reuse where wastewater is sold at a
very low price.
In some areas of India, treatment is not available or sought for much of the
collected wastewater, and it is sold to nearby farmers by the respective Water and
Sewerage Board. In areas that lack alternative sources of water, such as Vadodara in
Gujarat, one of the most lucrative income-generating activities for the lower social
classes is the sale of wastewater and the renting of pumps for lifting wastewater. In
Jordan, farmers sign contracts for wastewater with the Water Authority of Jordan,
usually at 20 fils per m3 (US$ 0.028 per m3 in 2013). In Pakistan, wastewater is
auctioned, and the highest bidder in turn sells the water to small farmers on an
hourly basis. In Mexico, wastewater irrigators in the Mezquital Valley pay US$ 0.80
per ha.
There are only nine countries where farmer associations or water user associations
collaborate with local institutions for wastewater delivery. In the Tula Irrigation
District (District 03, Mezquital Valley, in Mexico), there are several farmer
associations that have been operating since the 1990s. These associations develop
irrigation plans, ensure water distribution, and conduct assessments of farm-level
fertilizer and pesticide use, to improve crop yields. In South Africa, there is a private
network of local communities for wastewater use in the eThekwini Metropolitan
Municipality area. In addition, there are farmer groups in Mauritius that collaborate
with the Wastewater Management Authority regarding the amount and quality of
wastewater delivered. In general, however, there is a divide between the agriculture
and sanitation sectors, and a lack of collaboration between farmer associations or
water user associations and institutions responsible for wastewater management.
The subjects of wastewater management and use do not appear in the standard
course offerings of many primary or secondary schools. Most countries have yet
to introduce the importance of water quality and wastewater management in their
standard curriculum. However, in recent years, several universities have added new
courses on wastewater management and use.
6  Policy and Institutional Determinants of Wastewater Use in Agriculture 109

6.9 Summing Up

The policies and interventions we describe pertain largely to near-term strategies

for minimizing the risk of negative health effects, while also enabling farmers to
gain the potential benefits of using untreated and partially treated wastewater in
agriculture. This approach is appropriate for countries that presently cannot afford
to build, operate, and maintain a full complement of modern wastewater treatment
facilities. Over time, as the demand for water in agriculture and other uses continues
to increase, public officials in all countries should endeavor to provide wastewater
treatment that matches end uses, including the irrigation of crops, landscapes,
and golf courses. In developing countries, it will be necessary also to ensure that
small-scale farmers retain access to a reliable source of irrigation water when the
untreated and commingled wastewater they once relied on becomes unavailable,
with the expansion of wastewater treatment programs.
Institutional arrangements regarding wastewater collection and reuse are unclear
in many countries. In some countries, the responsibility for wastewater manage-
ment is divided among several ministries or departments, rather than placed within
a single agency. This can increase the transaction costs of managing wastewater
effectively and delay the pace with which improvements are implemented. In
addition, the annual budgets of many countries are not sufficient to support the
collection, treatment, and reuse of all wastewater in an environmentally acceptable
manner.
In most countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, supportive
institutional arrangements are needed to facilitate wastewater collection, treatment,
and reuse. These arrangements must be implemented at several levels and may
include some of the following components: relevant policies facilitating water recy-
cling and reuse at the local and national scales; strategic campaigns regarding water
quality protection and wastewater treatment and productive reuse; and institutional
collaboration such as private sector participation. A flexible policy framework,
implemented with effective institutional support across sectors, can be helpful in
addressing rapid demographic changes and protecting public health and the envi-
ronment. To champion the concept of a ‘Circular Economy’ where recycling is taken
seriously, the right combination of smart policies, effective institutional linkages,
and wise financial planning will enable cities, provinces, and countries to achieve
the potential private and public benefits made possible by collecting, treating, and
using wastewater and its byproducts in agriculture and other sectors.

Take Home Messages

• Limited information is available regarding institutional aspects of waste-
water use in agriculture, particularly in lower- and low-income countries.
• Information is limited also regarding the trajectory toward comprehensive
regulatory frameworks in high-income countries.
110 D. Wichelns and M. Qadir

• Future policy issues include refining wastewater use guidelines and pro-
tocols, and continually evaluating the costs and benefits for pro-develop-
ment policy.
• In addition, policy interventions should focus on reducing risks by moti-
vating safer practices by those who use wastewater, consume wastewater
irrigated crops and get in contact with parks or landscapes irrigated with
wastewater.
• Smart policies, effective institutions, and financial instruments are needed
to enhance the public and private benefits of wastewater use programs.

References

Abdel-Dayem S, Abdel-Gawad S, Fahmy H (2007) Drainage in Egypt: a story of determination,

continuity, and success. Irrig Drain 56 (Suppl. 1):S101–S111
Abdulai A, Owusu V, Bakang JA (2011) Adoption of safer irrigation technologies and cropping
patterns: evidence from Southern Ghana. Ecol Econ 70:1415–1423
Angelakis AN, Marecos do Monte MHF, Bontoux L, Asano T (1999) The status of wastewater
reuse practice in the Mediterranean Basin: need for guidelines. Water Res 33:2201–2217
Angelakis AN, Bontoux L, Lazarova V (2003) Challenges and prospectives for water recycling
and reuse in EU countries. Water Sci Tech: Water Supply 3(4):59–68
ARMCANZ-ANZECC (2000) Guidelines for sewerage systems—use of reclaimed water.
Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand and the
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, 2000
Arntzen JW, Setlhogile T (2007) Mainstreaming wastewater through water accounting: the
example of Botswana. Phys Chem Earth 32(15–18):1221–1230
Bakir HA (2001) Sustainable wastewater management for small communities in the Middle East
and North Africa. J Environ Manage 61:319–328
Bazza M (2003) Wastewater recycling and reuse in the near East region: experience and issues.
Water Sci Tech Water Supply 3(4):33–50
Capra A, Scicolone B (2007) Recycling of poor quality urban wastewater by drip irrigation
systems. J Cleaner Produc 15:1529–1534
Chang D, Ma Z (2012) Wastewater reclamation and reuse in Beijing: influence factors and policy
implications. Desalination 297:72–78
Cirelli GL, Consoli S, Licciardello F, Aiello R, Giuffrida F, Leonardi C (2012) Treated municipal
wastewater reuse in vegetable production. Agric Water Manage 104:163–170
Drechsel P, Evans AEV (2010) Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture. Irrig Drain Sys 24:1–3
Drechsel P, Seidu R (2011) Cost-effectiveness of options for reducing health risks in areas where
food crops are irrigated with treated or untreated wastewater. Water Int 36:535–548
Dreizin Y (2007) Wastewater reuse—risk assessment: the Israeli case study, Water Commission,
Israel
Ensink JHJ, van der Hoek W (2009) Implementation of the WHO guidelines for the safe use of
wastewater in Pakistan: balancing risks and benefits. J Water Health 7(3):464–468
Grangier C, Qadir M, Singh M (2012) Health implications for children in wastewater-irrigated
peri-urban Aleppo, Syria. Water Qual Expo Health 4:187–195
Hanjra MA, Blackwell J, Carr G, Zhang F, Jackson TM (2012) Wastewater irrigation and
environmental health: implications for water governance and public policy. Int J Hyg Environ
Health 215(3):255–269
Heinz I, Salgot M, Mateo-Sagasta Davila J (2011) Evaluating the costs and benefits of water reuse
and exchange projects involving cities and farmers. Water Int 36:455–466
6  Policy and Institutional Determinants of Wastewater Use in Agriculture 111

Hurlimann A, McKay J (2007) Urban Australians using recycled water for domestic non-potable
use—an evaluation of the attributes price, saltiness, colour and odour using conjoint analysis.
J Environ Manage 83:93–104
Keraita B, Drechsel P, Konradsen F (2010a) Up and down the sanitation ladder: harmonizing
the treatment and multiple-barrier perspectives on risk reduction in wastewater irrigated
agriculture. Irrig Drain Sys 24:24–35
Keraita B, Konradsen F, Drechsel P (2010b) Farm-based measures for reducing microbiological
health risks for consumers from informal wastewater-irrigated agriculture. In: Drechsel P, Scott
CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A (eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing
and mitigating risk in low-income countries. Earthscan, London, pp 188–207
Kislev Y (2011) The water economy of Israel, TAUBC centre for social policy studies in Israel,
policy program paper No 2011.15, Jerusalem, Israel
Lapen DR, Topp E, Metcalfe CD, Li H, Edwards M, Gottschall N, Bolton P, Curnoe W, Payne
M, Beck A (2008) Pharmaceutical and personal care products in tile drainage following land
application of municipal biosolids. Sci Total Environ 399:50–65
Lawhon P, Schwartz M (2006) Linking environmental and economic sustainability in establishing
standards for wastewater re-use in Israel. Water Sci Technol 53:203–212
Lim, M-H, Seah H (2013) NEWater: a key element of Singapore’s water sustainability. In:
Lazarova V et al (eds) milestones in water reuse. The best success stories. IWA Publishing,
London, pp 53–62
Marsden Jacob Associates Australia (2012) Progress against the national target of 30 % of Australia’s
wastewater being recycled by 2015, Report prepared for the department of sustainability,
environment, water, population and communities (DSEWPaC), Canberra, Australia
McNeill LS, Almasri MN, Mizyed N (2009) A sustainable approach for reusing treated wastewater
in agricultural irrigation in the West Bank—Palestine. Desalination 248:315–321
Meinzen-Dick R, van der Hoek W (2001) Multiple uses of water in irrigated areas. Irrig Drain Sys
15:93–98
Mills RA, Karajeh F, Hultquist RH (2004) California’s task force evaluation of issues confronting
water reuse. Water Sci Technol 50:301–308
Mizyed NR (2013) Challenges to treated wastewater reuse in arid and semi-arid areas. Environ
Sci Policy 25:186–195
Pedrero F, Kalavrouziotis I, Alarcón JJ, Koukoulakis P, Asano T (2010) Use of treated municipal
wastewater in irrigated agriculture—review of practices in Spain and Greece. Agric Water
Manage 97:1233–1241
Qadir M, Wichelns D, Raschid-Sally L, McCornick PG, Drechsel P, Bahri A, Minhas PS (2010) The
challenges of wastewater irrigation in developing countries. Agric Water Manage 97:561–568
Raschid-Sally L, Jayakody P (2008) Drivers and characteristics of wastewater agriculture
in developing countries: results from a global assessment. IWMI Research Report 127,
International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 35 p
Rodriguez Diaz JA, Knox JW, Weatherhead EK (2007) Competing demands for irrigation water:
golf and agriculture in Spain. Irrig Drain 56:541–549
Sato T, Qadir M, Yamamoto S, Endo T, Zahoor A (2013) Global, regional, and country level need
for data on wastewater generation, treatment, and reuse. Agric Water Manage 130:1–13
Scheierling SM, Bartone CR, Mara DD, Drechsel P (2011) Towards an agenda for improving
wastewater use in agriculture. Water Int 36:420–440
Scott CA, Pineda Pablos N (2011) Innovating resource regimes: water, wastewater, and the institu-
tional dynamics of urban hydraulic reach in northwest Mexico. Geoforum 42:439–450
Senzanje A, Boelee E, Rusere S (2008) Multiple use of water and water productivity of communal
small dams in the Limpopo Basin, Zimbabwe. Irrig Drain Sys 22:225–237
Sheikh B (2010) White Paper on Graywater, Prepared for the WateReuse Association, Water
Environment Federation, and American Water Works Association, pp 1–51
Siemens J, Huschek G, Siebe C, Kaupenjohann M (2008) Concentrations and mobility of human
pharmaceuticals in the world’s largest wastewater irrigation system, Mexico City-Mezquital
Valley. Water Res 42:2124–2134
112 D. Wichelns and M. Qadir

Swatuk LA, Rahm D (2004) Integrating policy, disintegrating practice: water resources
management in Botswana. Phys Chem Earth 29:1357–1364
Ternes TA, Bonerz M, Herrmann N, Teiser B, Andersen HR (2007) Irrigation of wastewater
in Braunschweig, Germany: an option to remove pharmaceuticals and musk fragrances.
Chemosphere 66:894–904
Topp E, Monteiro SC, Beck A, Coelho BB, Boxall ABA, Duenk PW, Kleywegt S, Lapen DR,
Payne M, Sabourin L, Li H, Metcalfe CD (2008) Pharmaceutical and personal care products in
tile drainage following land application of municipal biosolids. Sci Total Environ 396:52–59
Toze S (2006) Water reuse and health risks—real vs. perceived. Desalination 187:41–51
UNESCO (2003) Water for people, water for life. UN world water development report. Paris:
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Publishing
van Lier JB, Huibers FP (2010) From unplanned to planned agricultural use: making an asset out
of wastewater. Irrig Drainage Sys 24:143–152
van Roon M (2007) Water localization and reclamation: steps towards low impact urban design
and development. J Environ Manage 83:437–447
Weldesilassie AB, Amerasinghe P, Danso G (2011) Assessing the empirical challenges of
evaluating the benefits and risks of irrigating with wastewater. Water Int 36:441–454
Wichelns D, Drechsel P (2011) Meeting the challenge of wastewater irrigation: economics,
finance, business opportunities and methodological constraints. Water Int 36:415–419
World Health Organization (WHO) (2006a) Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and
greywater. vol 1: policy and regulatory aspects. World Health Organization,Geneva
World Health Organization (WHO) (2006b) Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and
greywater. vol 2: wastewater use in agriculture. World Health Organization,Geneva
Chapter 7
Assessing the Finance and Economics of
Resource Recovery and Reuse Solutions
Across Scales

Munir A. Hanjra, Pay Drechsel, Javier Mateo-Sagasta, Miriam Otoo and

Francesc Hernández-Sancho

Abstract  The recovery and reuse of wastewater can contribute to reducing pov-
erty, improving food security, improving nutrition and health, and managing natu-
ral resources more sustainability to protect ecosystems and build climate resilient
communities. Reusing wastewater generates both private and public benefits, yet
care must be taken to minimize environmental harm and risks to human health.
Assessing the costs and benefits of wastewater use is challenging for decision mak-
ing. Financial analysis of wastewater and other reuse options can underpin decision
making from a business standpoint, and economic analysis provides the information
needed to support public policy decisions. In this chapter, we provide a framework
for assessing the finance and economics of wastewater and other reuse options. We
examine several components of resource recovery and reuse, including water reuse,
energy recovery, and nutrient capture from wastewater as well as fecal sludge and
biosolids. We describe the cost-savings and partial cost-recovery made possible by
wastewater use and we discuss value propositions for possible business models.
Many water reuse solutions do not achieve financial cost recovery but are viable

M. A. Hanjra ()
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Pretoria, South Africa
e-mail: m.hanjra@cgiar.org
P. Drechsel · J. Mateo-Sagasta · M. Otoo
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
P. Drechsel
e-mail: p.drechsel@cgiar.org
J. Mateo-Sagasta
e-mail: j.mateo-sagasta@cgiar.org
M. Otoo
e-mail: m.otoo@cgiar.org
F. Hernández-Sancho
Department of Applied Economics II, University of Valencia, Campus dels Tarongers,
46022 Valencia, Spain
e-mail: francesc.hernandez@uv.es

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 113

P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_7
114 M. A. Hanjra et al.

from an economic perspective. However, public agencies can enhance revenue

streams by supporting more than water recovery and/or by targeting high-end users.

Keywords  Resource recovery · Value · Energy · Nutrient capture · Biosolids ·

Externalities

7.1 Introduction

Wastewater use can be one important component of a wise resource recovery and
reuse (RRR) program for sustainable development. Reuse program can contribute
to prosperity through the reuse of water in wastewater and other useful constituents.
Improved management of wastewater use can offer positive-sum solutions in hu-
man health and ecosystem protection. Concern about the sustainability of water use
for future food security provides motivation to understand the potential of water
reuse and nutrient capture and energy recovery through energy generation from
biogas during the treatment process as well as small hydropower to generate energy
upstream before the influent enters the plant due to elevation difference and then
from the treated effluent before it is discharged downstream to the environment.
Wastewater can also be used for aquifer recharge, water swaps with irrigators to de-
liver more freshwater to urban users, reducing extraction from groundwater through
exchange of entitlements, environmental restoration as well as for earning carbon
credits and trading in the future markets. Fecal sludge and sludge from wastewater
can also contribute to biogas and energy production to help address the future en-
ergy resource challenges while reducing emission to the environment and contribut-
ing towards climate change adaptation and mitigation. We use the term RRR to refer
to the several components of resource recovery and reuse, including water reuse,
energy recovery and nutrient capture from wastewater as well as fecal sludge and
biosolids—RRR Solutions.
Wastewater use can contribute to reducing rural poverty, improving food se-
curity, improving nutrition and health, and managing natural resources more sus-
tainability to protect ecosystems and build climate resilient communities. Securing
sustainable water, nutrients, and energy for all is a post-2015 Global Goal for Water
(UN-Water 2014). Towards that goal, addressing wastewater use and water quality
issues will promote the following development outcomes, among others, via several
pathways as shown in Fig. 7.1.
However there are negative externalities of waste water use such as risks to
public health and environmental risks due to excess nutrients (Kalavrouziotis et al.
2008), pathogens (Kazmia et al. 2008), saline salts and heavy metals (Li et al. 2009).
These can negatively impact human health (Toze 2006), biosafety (Feldlite et al.
2008), soil and groundwater resources (Walker and Lin 2008; Khan et al. 2008),
and the natural and built infrastructure (Rong-guang et al. 2008). These can also
result in negative consumer attitude and societal back lash towards reuse (Chap. 8).
Research findings compiled from studies around the globe (Keraita et  al. 2010)
7  Assessing the Finance and Economics of Resource Recovery … 115

+HDOWK\SHRSOH   • ,PSURYHGZDWHUVHFXULW\K\JLHQHVDQLWDWLRQDQGKHDOWK
,QFUHDVHGSURVSHULW\ 7KURXJK • 1HZUHYHQXHLQFRPHVLQYHVWPHQWVFRVWVDYLQJVVHUYLFHVDQGKXPDQ
NH\ GHYHORSPHQWRXWFRPHV
(TXLWDEOHVRFLHWLHV ,PSDFW • 3DUWLFLSDWLRQLQWRPDUNHWVDQGLPSURYHGUHVRXUFHJRYHUQDQFH
3URWHFWHGHFRV\VWHPV SDWKZD\V • ,PSURYHGZDWHUTXDOLW\DQGUHVRXUFHPDQDJHPHQWZLWKLQFDUU\LQJ
FDSDFLW\RIWKHHFRV\VWHPV
5HVLOLHQWFRPPXQLWLHV • /RZHUULVNDQGH[SRVXUHWRGLVDVWHUVDQGHFRQRPLFORVV

Fig. 7.1   Wastewater use for better development outcomes. (Source: Authors based on UN-Water
2014)

suggest that awareness of health risks is not high among farmers. However, 89 % of
the farmers interviewed in two case studies in Nepal linked untreated wastewater
use with negative health outcomes, specifically skin irritations (Rutkowski et  al.
2007). Wastewater governance issues, due to weak institutions and policy failures
in most developing countries, increase these environmental and health risks (Asano
and Levine 1996). They may accept the environmental and health risks due to the
economic benefits of using wastewater for irrigation (Wichelns and Drechsel 2011).
The socio-economic benefits from wastewater use in agriculture, for instance,
have often been inadequately differentiated and quantified. A better understanding
of the costs and benefits of reuse in agriculture can improve understanding of the
significance of wastewater as a resource and can highlight implications of its use on
public health and ecosystems. Economics and finance of other correlated benefits,
including groundwater recharge and entitlement trading, water swaps and water
transfers across sectors, energy recovery and ecosystem services have generally not
been assessed. This chapter will provide a framework for assessing financial and
economic costs and benefits of wastewater use at different scales and for different
reuse options and also point at useful handbooks.

7.2 Values of Wastewater and Costs and Benefits

of Reusing

We examine the empirical evidence on the costs and benefits of water reuse and we
place these into a unifying conceptual framework for guiding the financial and eco-
nomic analysis. In particular, we examine water reuse, nutrient capture, and energy
recovery with a special emphasis on options related to water.
Water recovered from wastewater serves as a key resource in the face of water se-
curity and climate change issues. Bulk of the water that is diverted for consumption
purposes in urban areas is returned back to the sewage network or drains as waste-
water. Humans create vast quantities of wastewater through inefficiencies and poor
management of water systems. Further, the wastewater is often a more reliable and
local source of water supply for reuse in agriculture and other reuse options since
wastewater discharge will continue to rise with urbanization and urban use have a
higher priority over any other water use. Wastewater has become a strategic asset
116 M. A. Hanjra et al.

serving many constituencies including the reuse for economic purposes and its po-
tential commodification as an instrument for exercising economic control and gain-
ing access to lucrative future markets, and for inter-sectoral water transfers (Molle
and Berkoff 2006; Winpenny et al. 2010). New approaches are emerging for reusing
wastewater in agriculture and beyond and in some cases business propositions have
been put forward to promote reuse options including nutrients and energy recovery
based on business principles (move from partial to full cost recovery and earning
net profits). However, their widespread adoption will require how freshwater is
sourced, managed, used, and priced (Grant et al. 2012). The reuse options involving
water, nutrients, energy, and carbon credits offer economic value and fresh business
opportunities. The details of value propositions, costs and benefits of various RRR
Solutions can be found elsewhere in this book (see in particular Chaps. 11–13). In
Table 7.1 we summarize the main ideas based on selected empirical evidence (Qadir
et al. 2010; Hanjra et al. 2011; Hussain et al. 2002; Weldesilassie et al. 2011).
Potential benefits from RRR Solutions are health and environmental benefits
from the averted human exposure to waste that would otherwise be traditionally
disposed of into the environment, contaminating water bodies and even groundwa-
ter. In specific cases, traditional roles of women are associated with waste manage-
ment at the household level. This implies that in the instance of status quo (poor
waste collection systems), women are exposed to waste first hand. Additionally, in
the case where water from water bodies is used directly by women for household
activities, they are the most directly exposed to the contamination and pollution.
Thus from this perspective, benefits from RRR Solutions that seek to change the
status quo can accrue directly to women and children via health cost savings, and
improvements in productivity and human capital. This suggests the need for consid-
eration of gender aspects in RRR Solutions. It is important that RRR activities are
not assessed in isolation of other subsectors whether in the sanitation, agricultural,
energy, or related value chains as the interlinkages between these subsectors have
the potential to create benefits or costs to actors outside the sector. Therefore, RRR
Solutions must support gender empowerment, ecosystem services and climate resil-
ient development (Table 7.1).

7.3 Assessing the Finance and Economics

Much of the existing literature on wastewater use has focused on the financial anal-
ysis (GWI 2009). Yet there is a need also for economic analysis for decision making
from a policy perspective. Financial analysis considers the private costs and cash
flows of a water reuse project, while economic analysis considers also the public
costs and benefits of wastewater use (Fig. 7.2; GWI 2009). If one considers only the
financial analysis, the sales revenue must at least equate costs and this is often not
the case such that most reuse options have bad financials. This is because the cost
of construction, operation, and maintenance is high and prices, e.g., of water reuse,
fertilizer from sludge, are generally kept low to encourage uptake. The financials
7  Assessing the Finance and Economics of Resource Recovery … 117

Table 7.1   Value propositions and costs and benefits of RRR Solutions. (Source: Authors)
$SSURDFK 9DOXH 0DLQLGHDV /LQNWRWKH 0HWKRGVFRPPRQO\
SURSRVLWLRQ FKDSWHUV XVHG
9DOXHVLQZDVWHZDWHU
/RZHFRQRPLF :DWHU :DVWHZDWHULVEHLQJJHQHUDWHGE\KXPDQDWDOOWLPHVDQGLWVUHXVH &KDSWHU &%$
YDOXH DFURVVVHFWRUVFDQKHOSDGGUHVVZDWHUVHFXULW\LVVXHVDQG
PRWLYDWHDEHKDYLRUDOFKDQJHIRUHIILFLHQWXVHRIQDWXUDO
UHVRXUFHV
1XWULHQWV 1XWULHQWFDSWXUHIURPZDVWHZDWHUVWUHDPVVXFKDVZDVWHZDWHU &KDSWHU &%$HQYLURQPHQWDO
IHFDOVOXGJHELRVROLGVLVWKHNH\VWUDWHJ\WRUHF\FOH13.UHFRYHU DQDO\VLV
SUHFLRXVPHWDOVZKLOHDGGUHVVLQJUHVRXUFHVFDUFLW\
%LRJDVHQHUJ\ %LRJDVDQGHQHUJ\SURGXFWLRQIURPIHFDO VOXGJHVOXGJHIURPWKH &KDSWHU &%$/&$
ZDVWHZDWHUDQGELRJDVFDSWXUHIRUFRQYHUVLRQLQWRWKHUPDOSRZHU
FDQFXWHQHUJ\FRVWDQGHQKDQFHFRVWUHFRYHU\EXWPLJKWQRW
EHFRPHQHWHQHUJ\QHXWUDOZLWKFXUUHQWWHFKQRORJ\
&DUERQ ,QYHVWPHQWVWRFDSWXUHWKHPHWKDQHQRUPDOO\HPLWWHGWRWKH &KDSWHU &%$H[DQWH
FUHGLWV HQYLURQPHQWIRUFDUERQFUHGLWVFDQJHQHUDWHQHZUHYHQXHIRU FDOFXODWLRQRI
UHXVHEXVLQHVVHVDQGSURYLGHLQYHVWPHQWRSSRUWXQLWLHV HPLVVLRQUHGXFWLRQV
&RVWVDQGEHQHILWVIURPUHXVH
)RUWKH 5HGXFHGGLVFKDUJHRIQXWULHQWVDQGJDVHVLQWRWKHQDWXUDO &KDSWHU (QYLURQPHQWDODQG
HQYLURQPHQW HQYLURQPHQWDQGEHWWHUHFRV\VWHPKHDOWKDQGVHUYLFHV HFRQRPLFDQDO\VLV
)RUIDUPHUV )DUPHUEHQHILWIURPDPRUHUHOLDEOHZDWHUVXSSO\ZLWKEHWWHU &KDSWHU &%$
ORFDOFRQWUROQXWULHQWUHXVHIHUWLOL]HUFRVWVDYLQJVKLJKHUFURS
\LHOGPDQ\FURSVDQG\HDUURXQGSURGXFWLRQJURXQGZDWHU
UHFKDUJHDQGKLJKHUODQGUHQWDQGSURSHUW\YDOXHV
)RUWKHFLWLHV 5HXVHRSWLRQVVDYHFRVWVRIGHYHORSLQJQHZ XUEDQVXSSOLHV &KDSWHU &%$RWKHU
SURPRWHWRXULVPLQGXVWU\SURWHFWSXEOLFKHDOWKDQGDWWUDFW
LQYHVWPHQWLQIXWXUHUHXVHPDUNHWV
&URVVFXWWLQJLVVXHV
(FRV\VWHPV 1RDSSUHFLDEOHKDUPRQWKHHQYLURQPHQWDQGHFRV\VWHPVDQG &KDSWHU (QYLURQPHQWDODQG
SXEOLFKHDOWKPXVWEHHQVXUHGE\UHXVHEXVLQHVVHV HFRQRPLFDQDO\VLV
*HQGHU 5HXVHRSWLRQVPXVWDWOHDVWEH*HQGHU1HXWUDO± QRWGLVDGYDQWDJH &KDSWHU 6RFLDODQDO\VLV
QHXWUDO ZRPHQDQGRWKHUPDUJLQDOL]HGVRFLDOJURXSVGXHWRWKHQDWXUHRI ,QVWLWXWLRQDODQDO\VLV
WKHWHFKQRORJ\HGXFDWLRQDQGORZPDUNHWSDUWLFLSDWLRQ
+LJKVRFLDO &OLPDWH 5HXVHRSWLRQVPXVWUHGXFHH[DQWHFDUERQHPLVVLRQVDQGLPSURYH &KDSWHUDQG &%$HFRQRPLF
YDOXH FKDQJH QHWFDUERQEDODQFHVWRHQVXUHORQJWHUPVXVWDLQDELOLW\VRFLDO RWKHUV PRGHOLQJ
ZHOIDUHDQGLQWHUJHQHUDWLRQDOHTXLW\
1RWH&%$± &RVWEHQHILWDQDO\VLV/&$± /LIHF\FOHDVVHVVPHQW DQGRWKHU LQFOXGHDUDQJHRIXQVSHFLILHGPHWKRGV

Fig. 7.2   Financial versus economic analysis of RRR Solutions. (Source: Authors modified from
GWI 2009)

can improve where multiple resources are recovered, e.g., not just water but also
nutrients and energy, supported e.g. by carbon credits.
Multiple resource recovery requires economic analysis which incorporates all
financial, environmental and social costs and benefits (Table  7.2) for decision
Table 7.2   Economic costs and benefits of wastewater use. (Source: Authors based on the literature survey (GWI 2009; Hanjra et al 2011))
118

Economic costs ≤ Economic benefits

Financial costs: Include project planning, regulatory Financial benefits: Depends on the fee, charges, and prices paid for the reuse options
approvals, public consultation, building upgrade, O&M, by considering all the outputs where multiple resources are recovered such as water,
conveyance and distribution, monitoring and compliance, nutrients, energy and organic matter
billing, and legal costs of reuse options
Capital expenditure (CAPEX): Includes construction Subsidies: Account for the transfer payments received from government and other
costs of pipes (80 % of all project costs in water reuse), partners that help incentivize the reuse options, for instance, installation of water
distribution network (200 % higher than construction), and reuse systems (rainwater harvesting, reuse of treated wastewater), nutrient recovery
engineering (sludge for fertilizer), and energy recovery
Operating expenditure (OPEX): Includes energy Benefits of cost savings—reuse options offer dual financial benefits, one from subsi-
consumption, chemicals, materials, transport (sludge and dies and another from cost savings of not having to invest in new projects for water,
nutrients), operator training, and salaries cost of treatment nutrients and energy
plants and reuse facilities
Environmental costs: Includes cost of land clearing, Environmental benefits:
biodiversity loss, environmental risks, health risks, envi-  Avoids pollution—reuse options help reduce the discharges of water, nutrients and
ronmental impact assessment costs, and cost of mitigation gases to the environment with numerous environmental benefits such as better envi-
measures to minimize the environmental impacts ronmental quality and ecosystems.
Avoids aquifer depletion—through wastewater use for aquifer recharge, reduce
abstractions of groundwater, and replacing extraction entitlements with reuse water
 Reuse benefits of water, sludge, and nutrients—nutrients such as N and P from
wastewater and sludge as fertilizer, and energy have economic value for farming,
domestic and other uses
M. A. Hanjra et al.
Table 7.2   (continued)
Economic costs ≤ Economic benefits
Social costs: Includes negative externalities such as noise Social benefits:
and environmental health risks that cause disturbance to  Water security—Water reuse enhances water security due to a more dependable and
the community, and result in productivity loss and impose continuous water source. Nutrient capture and energy recovery is a renewable source
a cost on society. Another example is the loss of prop- of economic benefits
erty values due to proximity to reuse facilities such that  Healthy people—reuse options can be implemented anywhere because waste is
economic value of loss in property values is a cost to the everywhere, and it also help to protect public health
residents  Increased prosperity—reuse options enhance community education and environmen-
tal awareness. Energy recovery empowers the community and girls are able to study
at night and go to school for the first time in some cases, improving human capital
and prosperity
 Protected ecosystem and recreational benefits—reuse solutions offer multiple reuse
benefits such as reduce waste, protect ecosystems through better environmental qual-
ity, stream flow augmentation, wetlands, wildlife and aesthetics
Life cycle costs: Includes the entire costs and benefits Life cycle benefits: Environmental benefits from reusing water, nutrients, sludge
from commissioning to eventual disposal of the reuse and energy and reduction in carbon footprint over the life cycle of the reuse options
infrastructure and whole-life carbon costs should be included as part of economic analysis
7  Assessing the Finance and Economics of Resource Recovery …
119
120 M. A. Hanjra et al.

making. It is important to note that while financial costs are higher than financial
benefits, the economic and social benefits typically are indicative of investments
in different reuse options. Such an analysis can be helpful also in describing how
wastewater and other reuse options offer environmental and social benefits that
benefit wider community (AQUAREC 2006; Urkiaga et al. 2008).
In the economic analysis it is also important to consider externalities, the costs
or benefits that are external to the market transactions and arise due to consump-
tion or production linkages. These external costs are called negative externalities,
e.g., environmental risk to general public not directly involved in wastewater use,
and the external benefits are called positive externalities, e.g., flow-on benefits in
consumption due to less pollution in the environment (AQUAREC 2006). For ex-
ample, wastewater and sludge disposal into the environment have negative produc-
tion externalities for downstream users of water and have not just financial im-
plications but the consequences are also environmental and social. For instance,
aquaculture farming downstream may be affected due to water pollution; vegetation
surrounding the polluted stream might wilt and larger environment affected; dying
habitat gives off foul odors affecting the living conditions of the community (GWI
2009)—and investors may shy away from such affected areas—a distinct financial
externality. There is no market for externalities to make the transaction to absorb/
allocate this cost. Therefore wastewater use must value these externalities in eco-
nomic terms, but also in qualitative terms, and involve a mechanism for appropri-
ate payments for these costs and internalizing the externalities. Similarly, positive
externalities should be valued in economic terms, where possible, and incorporated
into the analysis.
The costs and benefits for which there is no market should be assessed by using
non-market based approaches such as the contingent valuation method, conjoint
analysis, and choice experiments to elicit stated preferences in hypothetical markets
that could serve as a proxy for economic valuation of the environmental impacts
that cannot be valued through revealed preference or cost-based approaches. Where
impacts cannot be valued in monetary units, it must be quantified and reported in
non-monetary units and no attempt should be made to conflate monetary and non-
monetary indicators. A conceptual framework for assessing the economic costs and
benefits of RRR Solutions is given in Fig. 7.3. Further details of these non-market
valuation approaches can be found in appropriate sources (Carson et al. 1997; Mo-
linos-Senante et al. 2013; Ko et al. 2004; Tziakis et al. 2009). These approaches are
particularly helpful for valuing the environmental impacts.
The economic valuation could also become the basis of mechanisms for deal-
ing with the negative externalities (e.g., taxes on pollution, permits, cap and trade
instruments; laws, legislation and guidelines on pollution). Then there is also the
need to incorporate opportunity cost of reuse options into the economic analysis.
The opportunity cost refers to the economic value of next best alternative fore-
gone due to the decision making (cost of 2nd or 3rd best alternative or cost of no
action). It is also important in the economic analysis to incorporate the opportu-
nity cost of not using the reuse options, such as the damages to agriculture of not
7  Assessing the Finance and Economics of Resource Recovery … 121

Fig. 7.3   Conceptual framework for economic analysis of RRR Solutions. (Source: Authors)

using the wastewater and nutrients and releasing to the environment. We provide
as example an estimate of annual economic cost of damages due to wastewater
shortages for irrigated agriculture in Israel in the next section. The opportunity
cost of investments is often estimated at real interest rates but the most funda-
mental aspect is the economic value of next-best alternative. For example, de-
veloping water reuse instead of constructing a desalination plant, using sludge
for briquettes instead of cutting the trees and causing deforestation; capturing
nutrients for reuse in agriculture, aquaculture and forestry instead of discharging
wastewater and sludge to the waterways and causing eutrophication damages. The
economic value of foregoing these 2nd best alternatives is the opportunity cost of
not using reuse options.
Once all financial, environmental and social costs and benefits have been esti-
mated, these must be discounted to the net present value. Then sensitivity analysis
must be conducted on water prices, energy, nutrients and interest rates. Further,
the supply of materials for RRR solutions is subject to uncertainty and variability.
Uncertainty is derived due to the lack of knowledge and understanding on the RRR
solutions (e.g., energy prices and chemical cost affect financial costs, new regula-
tions affecting environmental and social costs) whereas variability arises due to
natural variation caused by external factors. For instance, demand for and genera-
tion of wastewater and sewage sludge is subject to natural variability. Handling un-
certainty and variability in the economic analysis requires risk analysis. It considers
probability of occurrence of events, i.e., various states of nature, and consequences
of the event. For instance, drought have a strong bearing on the water reuse in RRR
122 M. A. Hanjra et al.

Fig. 7.4   Results Framework for policy analysis of RRR solutions. (Source: Authors)

solutions where as food prices affect nutrient capture decisions via the fertilizer
prices and subsidy linkages. The net present value of all costs and benefits along
with non-monetary values of some environmental costs and benefits that cannot
be valued through market-based approaches must be used for the decision making.
Such robust economic analysis on reuse options could then become the basis of de-
cision on funding, policy reforms, and guidelines on reuse options (Fig. 7.4). This
framework supports the Results Framework of the World Bank, widely adopted
by global development partners. However, a key requirement before the results of
economic analysis can be used for decision making is that reuse options must dem-
onstrate the principal of no appreciable harm and thus must not pose environmental
and human health risk and must be gender neutral. That means that from the busi-
ness model perspective the reuse options must leave no one worse off while gener-
ating benefits for some.
The cost benefit analysis remains the most widely used method in the water
economics field (Ward 2007) and for reuse options despite methodological limita-
tions (Wichelns and Drechsel 2011). Natural data limitations in most developing
countries make any reuse options economics difficult. For instance, the analysis
of wastewater use in four countries in Asia and Africa, where research has been
conducted for many years, found a significant patch work of results, but almost no
robust overall economic assessment to inform policy decisions on reuse (see the
following Chap. 8 for related challenges).
7  Assessing the Finance and Economics of Resource Recovery … 123

7.4 Assessment of Economics of Reuse

This section presents empirical evidence on how different approaches have been
used worldwide to assess the economic costs and benefits of not just wastewater
use but also nutrient capture, energy recovery and carbon credits. The empirical
evidence comes across scale and includes micro level, meso-level and macro level
analysis. Detailed guidelines for preparing economic analysis for water recycling
projects can be found in other sources (Smith 2011, and those listed in Box 7.1).
At the national or macro level, treated wastewater use can be an additional
source of water, which could be integrated with the national water systems. One
country case example of this is the state of Israel, where wastewater is integrated
into national water framework. The analysis of costs of treatment in the Emek Hef-
fer area in Israel (Haruvy et al. 2008) shows that average wastewater treatment costs
are lower than seawater desalinization, and in particular the infrastructure costs are
the lowest (Fig. 7.5). Further, the net present value of the total costs over 100 years
(data not shown here) for treating wastewater to an agriculturally acceptable level is
lower than seawater desalination (Haruvy et al. 2008). This shows that wastewater
use is a cost-effective strategy and better alternative than sea water desalinization.
Wastewater management and use is essential since it is being generated and the
volume is expected to rise with urban development and hence its management is
essential.
Treated wastewater in Israel is used mainly for large scale irrigated farming and
value-added agriculture. The plant operators have gained experience in adjusting
treatment levels and quality of the effluent to suit land and crops. The treatment
costs range from $ 0.16–0.30/m3 for the sequencing batch reactor and $ 0.25–0.45
for tertiary treatment and the effluent is of acceptable quality and within the maxi-
mum permissible limits for the main parameters for unlimited irrigation and for

86FHQWVP

,QIUDVWUXFWXUH 'HVDOLQDWLRQ











6HDZDWHU :DVWHZDWHU %UDFNLVK

Fig. 7.5   Net present value of the annual cost of water supply to agricultural threshold in the Emek
Heffer area in Israel. (Data source: Haruvy et al. 2008)
124 M. A. Hanjra et al.

ϯϬϬ ϱϯϰ

:DVWHZDWHU VKRUWDJHPLOOLRQP\HDU

ϮϱϬ ϯϲϳ͘ϱ

ϮϬϬ Ϯϯϰ

ϭϱϬ ϭϲϯ͘ϱ

ϭϬϬ ϭϬϮ

ϱϬ ϰϬ͘ϱ

Ϯϱ ϭϰ͘ϱ dŽƚĂůĚĂŵĂŐĞĐŽƐƚ;ΨŵŝůůŝŽŶͬLJĞĂƌͿ

Fig. 7.6   Estimated annual economic cost of damages due to wastewater shortages (million m3/
year) for irrigated agriculture in Israel. (Source: Authors based on the cost-function cited in
Dreizin 2007)

river flow restoration. Wastewater irrigation is cost-effective due to high levels of

water scarcity and national concerns on water security and is a much cheaper alter-
native than seawater desalination or abandoning agriculture. Wastewater irrigation
is a profitable and booming business across Israel. Although there are no major epi-
sodes of disease outbreaks for wastewater irrigated crops, the potential risks include
human health risk, environmental risk, and economic risk.
Economic risks include strategic risks due to mismatch between supply and de-
mand and lost investment opportunities in wastewater treatment systems. Israel is
a pioneer in the use of wastewater for irrigation at the global level. However, this
also exposes the state to a strategic risk due to (Dreizin 2007): reduction in de-
mand—wastewater cycle and its supply are fully managed and controlled whereas
agricultural demand is uncertain and fluctuates greatly. Farmers could abandon
wastewater irrigated field due to economic losses for numerous factors operating
outside the wastewater ‘box’ such as labor shortages and loss of land to housing,
leading to a reduction in demand; cut in wastewater supply—the wastewater sup-
pliers may incur economic losses due to low demand, leading to the closure of
the treatment plants and wastewater being discharged to the sea; and wastewater
shortage damages—wastewater supply is not enough to meet the demand for cost-
effective farming. The economic cost of the damages due to wastewater shortages
has been rarely estimated in the literature, although most framework suggest using
the damages avoided or cost of no action if wastewater was not reused in agricul-
ture and discharged to the sea. Figure 7.6 based on the cost-function cited in Dreizin
(2007) shows the damage costs. The damage costs could be huge if any emerging
environmental, health and public regulations issue prevents the use of wastewater
for irrigation. This analysis must also consider the opportunity cost of not build-
ing the wastewater project, the next alternative foregone. That cost is much higher
as the alternatives would be to decrease the irrigated areas or seawater desalination
and both of these options are either politically unacceptable or not cost-effective. It
must be noted that Israel treated about 350 million m3 of wastewater in 2010, such
7  Assessing the Finance and Economics of Resource Recovery … 125

that the estimated damages consider the full continuum from lowest to full scale
wastewater shortages for agriculture.
Israel has made tremendous efforts in linking environmental and economic sus-
tainability in establishing standards for wastewater re-use (Lawhon and Schwartz
2006) and this had helped reconcile cost-effectiveness goal with environmental and
public health protection. Further, private investments in wastewater infrastructure
are regulated and protected by the state and this provides incentives for investment
in technology, infrastructure and partnerships.
At the micro level, studies on willingness to pay for the provision of wastewater
treatment infrastructure (Tziakis et al. 2009; Menegaki et al. 2008; Massoud et al.
2009) and farmer’s willingness to pay for recycled wastewater (Tziakis et al. 2009;
Dolnicar and Schäfer 2009; Birol et al. 2008) imply that there are significant risks to
public health and the socioeconomic benefits associated with wastewater are posi-
tively valued by the stakeholder. The above empirical evidence also implies that
there is a need for the valuation of environmental and health risks of wastewater by
applying a comprehensive conceptual framework. Only then the stakeholder values
can be incorporated into policy decisions. A case study by Agunwamba (2001),
based on total irrigated area of 5.5 ha and 66 respondent farmers in Nsukka, Niregia
estimated the economic impact values as reported in Table 7.3 (Agunwamba 2001).
The results of surveyed farms in MENA region (Jordan and Tunisia) show that
irrigation with reclaimed wastewater, especially when blended with fresh surface
water, can be as profitable as, if not better than, irrigation with only freshwater
(Abu-Madi et al. 2008). This is mainly due to the low water tariff and less use of
expensive fertilizers because of the entrained nutrients in wastewater, both result-
ing in net cost savings. For instance, net farm profit/ profitability of using secondary
treated wastewater for irrigation of fruit trees averages about US$ 800 (including
own labor) and 3430/ha/year (excluding own labor), compared with that using fresh
groundwater that averages about US$ 2710 and 3230/ha/year, respectively. Profit-
ability of using reclaimed wastewater that is blended with fresh surface water for
irrigation of vegetables averages about US$ 2550 and 4770/ha/year, respectively,
compared with that irrigated with fresh groundwater that averages about US$ 370
and 3160/ha/year, respectively (Abu-Madi et al. 2008).
At the meso level, beyond the farm economics of wastewater use, studies on
multiple-resource recovery show that greater benefits become possible when the
resource reuse trajectory extends to energy and also targets carbon credits. For
example, data from the As-Samra wastewater treatment shows that the total cost
of the plant is $ 223 million, with $ 93 million funding from the Millennium Chal-
lenge Corporation; $ 20 million from the Government of Jordan; and the remaining
$  110  million by private debt and equity sources. The total cost of the As-Samra
wastewater treatment includes depreciation, salary, electricity, operation and main-
tenance, chemicals, sludge disposal and contracted testing. The average total cost is
about $ 1.51 per m3, average variable cost is $ 0.53 per m3 and the marginal cost is
$ 1.23 per m3 (SPC 2012). The plant generates revenues (full cost recovery) from the
payments made by the government to cover the operational expenditures plus private
capital expenditure. The government pays for the provision of water services which
126 M. A. Hanjra et al.

Table 7.3   Valuation of the impacts of wastewater use in irrigation at Nsukka, Nigeria. (Data
source: Authors based on Agunwamba 2001)
Item Valuation approach Estimated value
Crop production Incremental crop production $ 58,890 in output
Nutrient capture (gains)
Increase in productivity due to $ 4710 wastewater value
adequate water
Fertilizer cost savings $ 175 for inorganic fertilizer
Soil resources Production losses caused by fall $ 16,990 for fertilizer;
in land productivity, estimated as $ 3740 for humus
the cost of replacement by fertil-
izer or humus
Ecology Destruction of fowl $ 440
Public health Medical treatment costs (malaria, Around $ 23,110 for
typhoid, diarrhea) malaria; $ 1430 for diarrhea;
$ 900 for typhoid
Productivity losses caused by
illness (forgone earnings) and
absenteeism (replacement cost for
medical expenses)
Environment Improvement costs, estimated as $ 2240
the cost of two training programs
Effluent quality monitoring costs $ 770
Cost of chemicals for odour $ 1000
control
Onsite facilities for bathing $ 500
Total economic benefit $ 63,775
Total cost of improvements $ 27,620
Benefit: cost ratio 2.4

is currently $ 0.17 per m3. This represents the unit cost of wastewater treatment only
and this is fully recovered by the private consortium from the payment made by
the government (Personal communication with As-Samra plant manager, 2013). The
government then recovers its costs through tariffs to water users. In sum, the plant
generates total revenue of 15  million  JD (US$  1 = 0.71 Jordanian Dinar in March
2014) per year of about 1.3 million JD per month to cover operation and maintenance
less government payments (personal communication with plant manager, 2014).
The Phase 2 plant generates 103,000 kWh of green energy per day. The Phase
2 upgrade involves multi-resource recovery strategy to abandon the previous la-
goon treatment system, implementing biogas capture and conversion to energy and
creating carbon credits through reduction of emissions to the atmosphere, and in-
troducing hydraulic turbines for production of renewable energy to be used onsite.
Expected revenue due to greenhouse gas emission reduction (about 300,000 Carbon
Credits) is around $ 7.5 million per year with a total of about $ 74 million by 2020.
Multiple-resource reuse streams beyond water recovery such as hydraulic energy
7  Assessing the Finance and Economics of Resource Recovery … 127

Table 7.4   Summary of the ex-ante estimates of emission reductions. (Source: Authors based on
UNFCCC 2006)
Year Baseline Projected Emission New revenue,
emissions emissions reduction ($ 25/Carbon credit)
2011 327,350 16,740 310,610 USD 7,765,300
2012 337,760 17,320 320,440 USD 8,010,980
2013 348,160 17,900 330,270 USD 8,256,630
2014 358,570 18,480 340,090 USD 8,502,300
2015 368,980 19,060 349,920 USD 8,747,980
2016 378,840 19,610 359,240 USD 8,980,930
2017 242,810 12,030 230,780 USD 5,769,400
2018 248,700 12,360 236,340 USD 5,908,430
2019 254,590 12,690 241,900 USD 6,047,480
2020 260,480 13,020 247,460 USD 6,186,500
Total 3,126,200 159,200 2,967,000 USD 74,175,900
Average 312,600 15,900 296,700 USD 7,417,600

and carbon credits increase the revenue frontier and help the plant move beyond
government payments to net profits (Table 7.4; UNFCCC 2006).
At the global level, economic assessments are lacking. Table 7.5 gives the key
approaches for assessing the economic feasibility of RRR projects.
The assessment by GWI (2009) shows that the total capacity of global advanced
water reuse industry is around 32 million m3/day and the total revenue generated
is about $ 700 million. The broader water reuse market including water treated to a
lower standard has a global capacity of around 54 million m3/day and the total rev-
enue is around $ 730 million. Assuming that a switch to advanced wastewater treat-
ment adds about $ 0.20 to the cost of wastewater treatment process, the estimated
total operating cost of advanced treatment is about $  2.3  billion, which means a
30 % cost recovery rate. This estimate does not include the damage cost avoided via
the energy recovery pathway and protection afforded to the humans and ecosystem
health due to water reuse. Inclusion of carbon credits, ex ante reductions in emis-
sions, has the potential to turn the global market head on and transition from 30 %
cost recovery rate to net profit trajectory, due to the huge potential that reuse market
offers for generating and trading carbon credits and the expected rise in credit prices
(from current about $ 24) in the future. Even if the credit prices fall to $ 10, the reuse
credit market will remain competitive due to low investment cost and long-term re-
turns. Where the RRR solutions include wastewater use in agriculture, typical costs
of water reuse reflect fairly well on the financial costs and can serve as a proxy for
the value of costs avoided in increasing supply (Table 7.6)
A key determinant of the cost of RRR Solutions is the technology used and the
scale of operations. Typically costs have a linear relationship with the scale and
their extent varies across technologies (Molinos-Senante et al. 2011). Most impor-
tant cost item is staff (about 1/3rd of total cost) followed by maintenance (21 %)
and energy (18 %), while waste management (15 %) and regent costs (14 %) have a
Table 7.5   Key methodologies for assessing the economic feasibility of reuse projects. (Source: IWMI based on the literature survey)
128

Reuse options Approach Remarkable aspects of the approach References

Wastewater Asano Needs assessment—assess wastewater treatment needs (Asano 2002; Kampas et al.
Supply and demand—ascertain the supply and demand of water 2007)
Market assessment—study the market of reclaimed water
Economic analysis—carry out a technical and economic analysis of the alternatives
Implement—design the implementation plan based on a financial plan
Standish-Lee Legal and social framework—greater focus on social and legal aspects of wastewa- (Roma et al. 2013)
ter use
Seguí Integrated framework—includes technical, social, economic, financial, environmen- (Haq and Cambridge 2012)
tal and legal aspects
Hernandez and Modeling approach—outlines the mathematical approach examining the environ- (Hernández et al. 2006)
others mental, social and financial aspects
World Bank Expert consultation—involves consultation with experts from a variety of disci- (Karak and Bhattacharyya
plines such as public health specialists, sociologists and economists 2011; Mihelcic et al. 2011)
IWMI Comprehensive economic framework—includes reuse options, impacts, financial, (Hanjra et al. 2011; Hussain
economic, social, environmental and public costs and benefits to link investments to et al. 2002; Hussain et al.
sustainable development such as reduction in poverty 2001)
Nutrients Mo and Zhang Integrated resource recovery—analysis of available resource recovery approaches (Mo and Zhang 2013)
of wastewater treatment including onsite energy generation, nutrient recycling, and
water reuse, valuation from a life cycle perspective
M. A. Hanjra et al.
Table 7.5   (continued)
Reuse options Approach Remarkable aspects of the approach References
Sludge Lundin and Environmental and economic analysis—analysis of four recycling and disposal (Lundin et al. 2004)
others options for municipal sewage sludge including: agricultural application; co-incin-
eration with household waste combined; incineration combined with P recovery by
the Bio-Con process; and fractionation including phosphorous recovery with the
Gambi-KRBPRO process, to showcase the economic and environmental restrictions
Tsagarakis and Life cycle approach—Estimation of life cycle cost functions of WWTPS in Greece. (Tsagarakis et al. 2001)
others It considers costs of sludge treatment and disposal. Life cycle cost functions are
estimated for land usage, construction costs and O&M costs
Molinos-Senante Cost modeling—estimation of cost functions for sludge and waste management (Molinos-Senante et al. 2013)
and others in WWTPs. Costs of sludge and waste management are modelled as a function of
the volume of evacuated sludge, sand, solid waste and grease. Shows that costs for
sludge management are the most important cost factor in waste management
Energy Jackson and Risk analysis approach to energy modeling—models energy savings from conver- (Jackson et al. 2011)
Hanjra sion of inefficient flood irrigation method to pressurized irrigation systems such as
drip and pivot, in the context of climate change and water scarcity scenarios and
economic value of water. The model can be used for wastewater irrigation
Nogueira and Cost modeling—Estimation of cost functions of investment and O&M costs of (Nogueira et al. 2013)
others small decentralized energy saving wastewater treatment systems
Carbon credits World Bank Ex Ante calculation of emission reductions—Comprehensive step-wise methodol- UNFCCC (2006)
7  Assessing the Finance and Economics of Resource Recovery …

ogy to estimate emission reduction (CO2e/year) for any given year of the crediting
period, which is obtained by subtracting projected emissions (CO2e/year) and leak-
ages from base line emissions (CO2e/year), based on methane conversion factor for
domestic wastewater, sludge, and electricity used, as developed by the IPCC
129
130 M. A. Hanjra et al.

Table 7.6   Typical cost/value of water reuse solutions. (Data source: Adapted from GWI 2009)
Reuse solution Market potential Reuse price ($/m3)
Informal reuse of wastewater agriculture, untreated 0
Informal reuse of wastewater agriculture, primary 0.01
treated
Reuse in restricted agriculture after secondary treated 0.02–0.10
Municipal and leisure reuse, tertiary treated 0.12–0.35
Bulk municipal and industrial reuse at 10 km, tertiary 0.45–0.80
treated
Groundwater recharge, quaternary treated 0.45–1.20
Unrestricted reuse with dual piping system, tertiary 0.45–0.85
treated
Industrial water recycling with zero discharge 0.80–1.50
Urban sewage network for agriculture reuse 50 km 1.50–2.5
away, secondary treated

similar weight. Cost also depends on if single (water) or multiple resource recovery
is involved in the RRR Solution. For instance, data from 22 WWTPs in Spain show
that the average cost of plants with nutrients removal processes is 0.2149 EUR/m3
while cost is reduced to 0.1827 EUR/m3 if plants do not remove nutrients (Molinos-
Senante et al. 2011).
Energy cost is the most important cost factor for systems with extended aera-
tion while volume treated is the most relevant cost factor for activated sludge sys-
tems without nutrient removal. Based on the estimates of total annual estimated
economic costs which includes land use, construction and O&M costs, extended
aeration with natural drying is the most economic system, followed by extended
air with mechanical dewatering, and conventional secondary treatment have lowest
economic performance due mainly to energy costs.
What is more important is that energy costs account for bulk of the cost of RRR
solutions such as water reuse, nutrients and energy. Most RRR solutions recovering
energy at best can achieve up to 85 % self-sufficiency and save on energy costs.
Further, energy cost is the best available indicator of the operating costs of the RRR
solutions. For instance, typical energy cost of different treatment options for water
reuse is given in Table 7.7. Exiting business cases on energy recovery but also nutri-
ent recovery and water reuse can be found in Chaps. 11–13, this book.

7.5 Conclusion and Policy Implications

National or state level assessments of the costs and benefits of wastewater use are
commonly lacking. Such economic analysis could make a stronger business case
for investments in reuse solutions for integrated cost recovery and support a move
towards overall profitability.
7  Assessing the Finance and Economics of Resource Recovery … 131

Table 7.7   Typical energy use by treatment process for innovative reuse solutions. (Data source:
Adapted from GWI 2009)
Reuse solutions Energy use (kWh/m3)
Drinking water supply
 Activated sludge 0.0–1.74
 Extended aeration 0.37–1.32
 Waste stabilization ponds 4.94–5.41
Biological wastewater treatment for reuse
 Activated sludge 0.43–1.09
 Extended aeration 0.49–1.01
 Waste stabilization ponds 0.05
Recreational treatment for pathogen removal for reuse
 Direct filtration (pulsed beds) and UV disinfection 0.18
 Direct filtration and UV disinfection 0.20–0.63

This chapter presents a framework for that purpose which goes beyond those
developed earlier (Hussain et al. 2001, 2002). However, the studies conducted to
date reflect only a patchwork of information. In particular, the social benefits of
wastewater use have seldom been quantified (Weldesilassie et al. 2011; see also the
following Chap. 8). Many frameworks focus mainly on water reuse in agriculture
(e.g. Winpenny et al. 2010). Other reuse options such as nutrients, energy, and the
link e.g. to carbon credits were not included. Thus there is a need for a validated and
agreed framework that considers other reuse options across scales in the face of ever
increasing demand for policy relevant economic input. This chapter contributes to
filling that gap in the literature and likes also to point at useful handbooks and pa-
pers providing guidance for practical application (Box 7.1).

Box 7.1 Recommended References Addressing the Economics of

Wastewater Use

AQUAREC (2006) Handbook on feasibility studies for water reuse systems.

Integrated concepts for reuse of upgraded wastewater, EESD Programme,
European Commission.
De Souza S, Medellín-Azuara J, Burley N, Lund JR, Howitt RE (2011)
Guidelines for preparing economic analysis for water recycling projects,
prepared for the State Water Resources Control Board by the Economic
Analysis Task Force for Water Recycling in California, University of
Califiornia, Davis, Centre for Watershed Sciences, CA, USA.
Hussain I, Raschid L, Hanjra MA, Marikar F, van der Hoek W (2001) A
framework for analyzing socioeconomic, health and environmental impacts
of wastewater use in agriculture in developing countries, Working Paper 26,
Colombo, Sri Lanka, International Water Management Institute.
132 M. A. Hanjra et al.

Otoo M. and Drechsel, P. (2015) Resource Recovery from Waste: Business

Models for Energy, Nutrients and Water Reuse. Earthscan, London
WateReuse Research Foundation (2006) An economic framework for
evaluating the benefits and costs of water reuse. Final Project Report and
User Guidance. WateReuse Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA
Winpenny J., Heinz I., Koo-Oshima S. (2010) The Wealth of Waste: The
Economics of Wastewater Use in Agriculture. FAO Water Report 35, Rome,
Italy

We argue that wastewater use can contribute towards key social benefits such as
reducing rural-urban poverty, improving food security, improving nutrition and
health, and managing natural resources more sustainability to protect ecosystems
and build climate resilient communities. Wastewater and other reuse options have
elements of positive externalities and public goods. The economic feasibility would
vary if only market impacts are integrated in the economic assessment such that
some reuse projects are not feasible. For instance, in the context of water reuse
domain only, most reuse projects such as those supplying water for irrigation and
value added farming activities, are unlikely to achieve financial cost recovery and
might only cover the operation and maintenance costs of supplying the water for
reuse and some projects could well only be cost-saving models. Full cost recov-
ery remains elusive. However, wastewater use has implications beyond the water
domain and include nutrient, organic matter and energy recovery which can sup-
port better financials and a higher probability of cost recovery or even profitable
revenue streams. The key argument is that while in the short run and purely from
the financial perspective, reuse solutions may only achieve second-best results, but
when the continuum of activities along the reuse value chain are considered, the
economic assessment provides a rationale for investments in reuse options. A stron-
ger rationale for reuse options comes however from the public benefits such as
healthy people, increased prosperity, equitable societies, resilient communities, im-
proved resource governance and protected ecosystems. As the opportunities grow
and experience accumulates, the trajectory of business models from cost savings
and cost recovery towards profitability will improve. Thus, the key to economic
sustainability of the reuse options is having a government or stewardship willing
to engage for cost-sharing and able to cover the rest of the costs through subsidies
and incentives for its reuse to generate public goods. There is a need to look at the
financial analysis of wastewater use from the business standpoint, and economic
analysis of reuse options for a policy perspective. The existing regulations and in-
stitutional frameworks are antiquated and not geared to harness the emerging busi-
ness opportunities in the market place. This is a serious knowledge gap from the
institutional perspective. Among the emerging RRR solutions those showing clear
results-based outcomes in human development could then underpin the guidelines,
uptake, and policy reform.
7  Assessing the Finance and Economics of Resource Recovery … 133

Take Home Messages

• Wastewater and other reuse options can contribute to reducing poverty,
improving food security, improving nutrition and health, and managing
natural resources more sustainability to protect ecosystems and build cli-
mate resilient communities.
• There is a need to look at the financial analysis of water reuse from the
business standpoint, and economic analysis of reuse options for a public
policy perspective.
• Reclaiming water, and recovering nutrients and energy can improve cost
recovery and pave the way for new investments into wastewater use, based
on business principles of profit maximization while supporting a move
towards greater sustainability.

References

Abu-Madi M, Al-Sa’ed R, Braadbaart O, Alaerts G (2008) Viability of increasing the tariff of

freshwater for irrigation as a tool to stimulate wastewater reuse in the MENA region. Water Sci
Technol 57(9):1475–1481
Agunwamba JC (2001) Analysis of socioeconomic and environmental impacts of waste stabliza-
tion pond and unrestricted wastewater irrigation: interface with maintenance. Environ Manage
27(3):463–476
AQUAREC (2006) Handbook on feasibility studies for water reuse systems, integrated concepts
for reuse of upgraded wastewater, EESD Programme. European Commission
Asano T (2002) Water from (waste)water—the dependable water resource (The 2001 Stockholm
Water Prize Laureate Lecture). Water Sci Technol 45(8):23–33
Asano T, Levine AD (1996) Wastewater reclamation, recycling and reuse: past, present, and future.
Water Sci Technol 33(10–11):1–14. (Special issue)
Birol E, Koundouri P, Kountouris Y (2008) Evaluating farmers’ preferences for wastewater: quan-
tity and quality aspects. International J Water 4(1/2):69–86
Carson R, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Smith VK et al (1997) Testing the temporal reliability from
contingent valuation. Land Econ 73(2):151–163
Dolnicar S, Schäfer AI (2009) Desalinated versus recycled water: public perceptions and profiles
of the accepters. J Environ Manage 90(2):888–900
Dreizin Y (2007) Wastewater reuse—risk assessment: the Israeli Case Study. Water Commission,
Israel
Feldlite M, Juanicó M, Karplus I, Milstein A (2008) Towards a safe standard for heavy metals in
reclaimed water used for fish aquaculture. Aquaculture 284:115–126
Grant SB, Saphores J-D, Feldman DL, Hamilton AJ, Fletcher TD, Cook PLM, Stewardson M,
Sanders BF, Levin LA, Ambrose RF, Deletic A, Brown R, Jiang SC, Rosso D, Cooper WJ,
Marusic I (2012) Taking the “Waste” out of “Wastewater” for human water security and eco-
system sustainability. Science 337(6095):681–686. doi:10.1126/science.1216852
GWI (2009) Municipal water reuse markets 2010. Global Water Intelligence, Oxford
Hanjra MA, Blackwell J, Carr G, Zhang F, Jackson TM (2011) Wastewater irrigation and environ-
mental health: implications for water governance and public policy. Int J Hyg Environ Health
215(3):255–269
134 M. A. Hanjra et al.

Haq G, Cambridge H (2012) Exploiting the co-benefits of ecological sanitation. Curr Opin Envi-
ron Sustain 4(4):431–435
Haruvy N, Shalhevet S, Bachmat Y (2008) A model for integrated water resources management
in water-scarce regions: irrigation with wastewater combined with desalination processes. Int
J Water 4(1/2):25–40
Hernández F, Urkiaga A, De las Fuentes L, Bis B, Chiru E, Balazs B, Wintgens T (2006) Feasibil-
ity studies for water reuse projects: an economical approach. Desalination 187(1–3):253–261
Hussain I, Raschid L, Hanjra MA, Marikar F, van der Hoek W (2001) A framework for analyzing
socioeconomic, health and environmental impacts of wastewater use in agriculture in devel-
oping countries, Working Paper 26, Colombo, Sri Lanka, International Water Management
Institute
Hussain I, Raschid L, Hanjra MA, Marikar F, Van Der Hoek W (2002) Wastewater use in agricul-
ture: review of impacts and methodological issues in valuing impacts. (With an extended list
of bibliographical references). Working Paper 37, Colombo, Sri Lanka, International Water
Management Institute
Jackson TM, Hanjra MA, Khan S, Hafeez MM (2011) Building a climate resilient farm: a risk
based approach for understanding water, energy and emissions in irrigated agriculture. Agric
Syst 104(9):729–745. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2011.08.003
Kalavrouziotis IK, Robolas P, Koukoulakis PH, Papadopoulos AH (2008) Effects of municipal
reclaimed wastewater on the macro- and micro-elements status of soil and of Brassica oleracea
var. Italica, and B. oleracea var. Gemmifera. Agric Water Manage 95:419–426
Kampas P, Parsons SA, Pearce P, Ledoux S, Vale P, Churchley J, Cartmell E (2007) Mechanical
sludge disintegration for the production of carbon source for biological nutrient removal. Water
Res 41(8):1734–1742
Karak T, Bhattacharyya P (2011) Human urine as a source of alternative natural fertilizer in agri-
culture: a flight of fancy or an achievable reality. Resour Conserv Recycl 55(4):400–408
Kazmia AA, Tyagia K, Trivedi RC, Kumar A (2008) Coliforms removal in full-scale activated
sludge plants in India. J Environ Manage 87:415–419
Keraita B, Drachsel P, Seidu R, Amerasinghe P, Olufunke CO, Konradsen F (2010) Harnessing
farmers’ knowledge and perceptions for health-risk reduction in wastewater-irrigated agricul-
ture. In: Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A (eds) Wastewater ir-
rigation and health. Assessing and mitigating risk in low-income countries. Earthscan/IWMI/
IDRC, Ottawa, pp 337–354
Khan S, Cao Q, Zheng YM, Huang YZ, Zhu YG (2008) Health risks of heavy metals in con-
taminated soils and food crops irrigated with wastewater in Beijing, China. Environ Pollut
152:686–692
Ko J-Y, Day JW, Lane RR, Day JN (2004) A comparative evaluation of money-based and energy-
based cost–benefit analyses of tertiary municipal wastewater treatment using forested wetlands
vs. sand filtration in Louisiana. Ecol Econ 49(3):331–347
Lawhon P, Schwartz M (2006) Linking environmental and economic sustainability in establishing
standards for wastewater re-use in Israel. Water Sci Technol 53:203–212
Li P, Wang X, Allinson G, Li X, Xiong X (2009) Risk assessment of heavy metals in soil previ-
ously irrigated with industrial wastewater in Shenyang, China. J Hazard Mater 161:516–521
Lundin M, Olofsson M, Pettersson GJ, Zetterlund H (2004) Environmental and economic assess-
ment of sewage sludge handling options. Resour Conserv Recycl 41(4):255–278
Massoud MA, Tarhini A, Nasr JA (2009) Decentralized approaches to wastewater treatment and
management: applicability in developing countries. J Environ Manage 90(1):652–659
Menegaki AN, Mellon RC, Vrentzou A, Koumakis G, Tsagarakis KP (2008) What’s in a name:
framing treated wastewater as recycled water increases willingness to use and willingness to
pay. J Econ Psychol. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2008.1008.1007
Mihelcic JR, Fry LM, Shaw R (2011) Global potential of phosphorus recovery from human urine
and feces. Chemosphere 84(6):832–839
7  Assessing the Finance and Economics of Resource Recovery … 135

Mo W, Zhang Q (2013) Energy-nutrients-water nexus: integrated resource recovery in municipal

wastewater treatment plants. J Environ Manage 127:255–267
Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2011) Cost-benefit analysis of wa-
ter-reuse projects for environmental purposes: a case study for Spanish wastewater treatment
plants. J Environ Manage 92(12):3091–3097
Molinos-Senante M, Reif R, Garrido-Baserba M, Hernández-Sancho F, Omil F, Poch M, Sala-
Garrido R (2013) Economic valuation of environmental benefits of removing pharmaceuti-
cal and personal care products from WWTP effluents by ozonation. Sci Total Environ 461–
462(0):409–415
Molle F, Berkoff J (2006) Cities versus agriculture: revisiting intersectoral water transfers, po-
tential gains and conflicts. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute
(IWMI), Comprehensive Assessment Secretariat. vi, 70 p. (Comprehensive Assessment of Wa-
ter Management in Agriculture Research Report 010)
Nogueira SF, Pereira BFF, Gomes TM, de Paula AM, dos Santos JA, Montes CR (2013) Treated
sewage effluent: agronomical and economical aspects on bermudagrass production. Agric Wa-
ter Manage 116(1):151–159. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2012.07.005
Qadir M, Wichelns D, Raschid-Sally L, McCornick PG, Drechsel P, Bahri A, Minhas PS (2010)
The challenges of wastewater irrigation in developing countries. Agric Water Manage
97(4):561–568. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2008.11.004
Roma E, Benoit N, Buckley C, Bell S (2013) Using the Receptivity model to uncover ‘urine
blindness’: perceptions on the re-use of urine. Waste Manage Res 31(6):648–654.
doi:10.1177/0734242x13482160
Rong-guang S, Sheng-wei P, Yue-hua W, Hao Z, Yu-jie Z, Feng-zhi L, Qi-xing Z (2008) Counter-
measures of reclaimed municipal wastewater for safety of agricultural use in China. Agric Sci
China 7(11):1365–1373
Rutkowski T, Raschid-Sally L, Buechler S (2007) Wastewater irrigation in the developing world—
two case studies from the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal. Agric Water Manage 88:83–91
Smith T (2011) Overcoming challenges in wastewater reuse: a case study of San Antonio. Texas.
Thesis presented to Harvard College Cambridge, Mass, USA
SPC (2012) Environmental & social impact assessment study for the expansion of As-Samra
wastewater treatment plant FINAL ESIA REPORT, Samra Wastewater Treatment Plant Com-
pany (SPC), Jordan
Toze S (2006) Reuse of effluent water—benefits and risks. Agric Water Manage 80:147–159
Tsagarakis KP, Tsoumanis P, Chartzoulakis K, Angelakis AN (2001) Water resources status includ-
ing wastewater treatment and reuse in Greece—related problems and prospectives. Water Int
26(2):252–258
Tziakis I, Pachiadakis I, Moraitakis M, Xideas K, Theologis G, Tsagarakis KP (2009) Valuing
benefits from wastewater treatment and reuse using contingent valuation methodology. Desali-
nation 237(1–3):117–125
UNFCCC (2006) Clean development mechanism, project design document. CDM-PDD, Version
03, 28 July 2006, UNFCCC
UN-Water (2014) A post 2015 global goal for water, synthesis of key findings and recommenda-
tion form UN-Water, 27 Jan 2014, UN-Water
Urkiaga A, de las Fuentes L, Bis B, Chiru E, Balasz B, Hernándeze F (2008) Development of anal-
ysis tools for social, economic and ecological effects of water reuse. Desalination 218:81–91
Walker C, Lin HS (2008) Soil property changes after four decades of wastewater irrigation: a
landscape perspective. Catena 73:63–74
Ward FA (2007) Decision support for water policy: a review of economic concepts and tools.
Water Policy 9(1):1–31
WateReuse Research Foundation (2006) An economic framework for evaluating the benefits and
costs of water reuse. Final Project Report and User Guidance. WateReuse Research Founda-
tion, Alexandria, VA
136 M. A. Hanjra et al.

Weldesilassie AB, Amerasinghe P, Danso G (2011) Assessing the empirical challenges of evaluat-
ing the benefits and risks of irrigating with wastewater. Water Int 36(4):441–454. doi:10.1080/0
2508060.2011.595056
Wichelns D, Drechsel P (2011) Meeting the challenge of wastewater irrigation: economics, finance,
business opportunities and methodological constraints. Water Int 36(4):415–419. doi:10.1080/0
2508060.2011.593732
Winpenny J, Heinz I, Koo-Oshima S (2010) The wealth of waste: the economics of wastewater
use in agriculture. FAO Water Reports 35, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome
 Part III
Costs and Benefits
Chapter 8
Wastewater Use in Agriculture:
Challenges in Assessing Costs and Benefits

Pay Drechsel, George Danso and Manzoor Qadir

Abstract  Estimating the benefits and costs of planned or unplanned, ongoing or

future, water reuse projects is not without challenges. In additional to the common
difficulties of applying cost benefits analysis in agriculture or for justifying the use
of reclaimed wastewater, the chapter tries to present some particular challenges
with respect to the assessment of wastewater irrigation in the developing country
context where treatment might be minimal or lacking and irrigation an informal
activity along wastewater canals as well as natural streams. Challenges start with
the term ‘wastewater’, and the comparison of crop yields and farm incomes under
wastewater and freshwater irrigation and cumulate in the difficulties of assessing
and costing likely health and environmental impacts. Bottlenecks related more often
to the correct quantification of differences or impacts than their economic valuation.

Keywords  Wastewater planning · Farmers · Crops · Quantitative microbial risk

assessment

8.1 Introduction

Public agencies and private firms are investing in wastewater use in many water
scarce regions and countries. The investments are driven largely by increasingly
limited supplies of freshwater, increasing populations, rapid urbanization and in-
creasing amounts of wastewater. In many settings, wastewater is already used infor-
mally as a low-cost and reliable alternative to freshwater. Wastewater irrigation and

P. Drechsel ()
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
e-mail: p.drechsel@cgiar.org
G. Danso 
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
e-mail: gdanso@ualberta.ca
M. Qadir
United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health,
175 Longwood Road South, L8P 0A1 Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
e-mail: manzoor.qadir@unu.edu
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 139
P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_8
140 P. Drechsel et al.

wastewater-based aquaculture often support large numbers of livelihoods and gener-

ate considerable value in the local economies especially where other water sources
are scarce (Scott et al. 2004; Bunting 2004; Van Veenhuizen and Danso 2007).
Estimating the costs and benefits, in particular of planned wastewater collection,
treatment, and use program is generally straightforward (Morris et  al. 2005) with a
clearly outlined methodology (Urkiaga et al. 2008; Winpenny et al. 2010; Condom et al.
2012). Many of such appraisals are carried out as part of feasibility studies (Box 8.1).

Box 8.1. Planning for Reuse

Lienhoop et al. (2013) investigated the likely costs and benefits of introduc-
ing decentralized wastewater treatment and use at two locations in Jordan.
The cost-benefit analysis included non-market and market benefits associated
with the environment, health and irrigation. To monetize the economic value
three valuation techniques were applied: (1) the contingent valuation method
(CVM) to value environmental benefits, (2) the cost of illness approach (COI)
to assess the health benefits, and (3) gross margin analysis to estimate the
benefit of additional water made available to agriculture. The findings sug-
gested that it is worthwhile to introduce treatment for reuse, especially if it
can be based on low-cost treatment technology.
Haruvy (1997) estimated that the reuse of wastewater in central and south-
ern Israel would generate additional agricultural output with economic value
of US$ 0.14/m3, benefits of aquifer recharge at US$ 0.07/m3, and damage to
the aquifer due to nitrogen at US$ 0.10/m3, resulting in a net national benefit
of US$ 0.11/m3 such that water reuse in agriculture is a cost-effective option
compared to, for instance, disposal to rivers which has a net cost of US$ 0.40/
m3 for the society. The study confirmed the importance of evaluating exter-
nalities at watershed level for an integrated management of water resources
(Winpenny et al. 2010).
Scott et  al. (2000) described an interesting scenario where improved
wastewater treatment with increased nutrient removal capacity would reduce
a key benefit of wastewater for famers resulting in significant expenditures on
fertilizers. The improved technology would support local and regional com-
munities and discharge standards related to water eutrophication. Social cost–
benefit analysis could help in this case to determine the net welfare effects of
reuse, whether reuse could be considered an alternative to treatment, or if the
treatment facility should be constructed and, if so, how the costs and benefits
of operating the plant could be distributed. Eventually, the impact for farmers
was very limited as treated and untreated discharges mix in the river down-
stream of the plant (Silva-Ochoa and Scott 2004).

However, when farmers use untreated (raw or diluted) wastewater for irrigation or
aquaculture, the assessment and valuation especially of potential health benefits and
costs along the food chain becomes a particular challenge. The same applies to studies
that compare farm performance indicators of freshwater and wastewater irrigation.
8  Wastewater Use in Agriculture: Challenges in Assessing Costs and Benefits 141

In this chapter, we will highlight selected methodological challenges as they are

common in the assessment of the benefits and costs of productive wastewater use.
As the perspective of the treatment and reuse operator is well covered in the litera-
ture (Morris et al. 2005), the chapter will focus on the perspective of the farmers
engaged in water reuse and of the public sector in charge of safeguarding public
health. Thus, we are looking at empirical examples from both treated and untreated
wastewater applications with a bias towards informal wastewater irrigation as it is
predominant in low-income countries and poses the larger assessment challenges
within the flexible framework as presented in Chap. 7 (this volume).

8.2 Farmers’ Perspectives

In many water scarce regions, wastewater—where available—is a valuable asset

and often the only source of water for irrigation, or even the preferred one. The
reasons are several: reliable supply, high nutrient content unless the water is diluted,
usually at no cost, resulting in an increased and/or less variable crop yield, or new
opportunities for high value crops, fish or livestock production systems. There is
a large number of reports which show that the availability and use of treated or
untreated wastewater can be beneficial for farming (Hamilton et  al. 2007; Qadir
et al. 2007b; Scott et al. 2004; Scheierling et al. 2011) and outweigh possible health
impacts if safety guidelines are followed (WHO 2006; Grangier et al. 2012). This
is however not the case in the majority of informal reuse situations where compli-
ance with safety measures is uncommon (Drechsel et al. 2010; Raschid-Sally and
Jayakody 2008).
A standard approach for assessing benefits and costs of crop production with
wastewater is to compare it with similar systems using fresh water, ideally in one
and the same community to reduce biophysical and socio-economic variability. This
situation is however seldom and more common are studies comparing different
communities, each with a particular water source. In a recent and still unpublished1
study in peri-urban Aleppo, Syria, for example, 6 villages using a mix of untreated
and partially treated urban wastewater from Aleppo city and its surroundings car-
ried by the Qweik River were compared with 6 villages depending on freshwater
(unpolluted groundwater). The comparative evaluation of wastewater and ground-
water irrigation for crop production revealed higher yields from wastewater irri-
gated fields (Table 8.1).
Similar results are frequently reported as summarized by Qadir et al. (2007a),
who showed that yields of wastewater irrigated crops are often about 10–30 % high-
er than those of freshwater irrigated crops (Table 8.2). The presentation of data like

1 
As some examples will be used to describe possible traps and shortcomings in economic assess-
ments we tried to focus as much as possible on cases where we can validate the approaches and
the assumptions used.
142 P. Drechsel et al.

Table 8.1   Comparison of crop yields harvested from wastewater and freshwater irrigated areas in
Aleppo region, Syria. (Qadir et al. unpublished data)
Crop Wastewater Freshwater Change
Mg ha −1
Mg ha −1
%
Wheat 4.49 3.29 36
Cotton 4.24 4.14 2
Faba bean 3.65 1.50 143
Vegetablesa 35.90 19.20 87
a
Sum of different vegetables grown in a year, but mostly eggplant

Table 8.2   Comparison of freshwater and wastewater irrigated crop yields in India and Syria.
(Qadir et al. 2007a)
Crops Average Crop Yield (Mg ha−1)
Wastewater Freshwater
Carrot 11.75 9.71
Radish 8.33 7.26
Potato 9.33 6.12
Cabbage 12.13 9.27
Tomato 13.38 10.01
Tobacco 1.25 1.12
Rice 3.3 3.8
Wheat 3.1 2.8
Soybean 2.1 1.6
Cauliflower 18.2 16.4
Sugarcane 44.4 42.7
Cotton 4.24 4.14

in Tables 8.1 and 8.2 requires however several additional information on the meth-
odology as we will discuss in Sect. 8.3.
In the study in Syria, the gross income per unit area (US$  ha−1) was tabulat-
ed from the market price of the agricultural produce. The cost of production was
differentiated into different components:
1. Cost on cultivation, which included seed costs and seed bed preparations, use of
farm equipment, insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides, where needed
2. Expenditures on the purchase, transport, and application of fertilizers
3. Labor cost for sowing, cleaning of field, harvesting, and post-harvest management
4. Cost of irrigation based on pumping costs.
The net income was tabulated as the difference between the gross income and total
cost (Table  8.3). In case of certain crops irrigated with wastewater, such as veg-
etables, farmers often received a higher price than for those irrigated with fresh-
water (groundwater). The reason rests with the greenish and seemingly healthier
8  Wastewater Use in Agriculture: Challenges in Assessing Costs and Benefits 143

Table 8.3   Economic evaluation of wastewater and freshwater irrigated agriculture in Aleppo
region, Syria. (Qadir et al. unpublished data)
Crop Costs Incomes
Cultivation Fertilizer Labor Irrigation Total Gross Net
(US$ ha−1) (US$ ha−1)
Wastewater irrigated
Wheat 74 68 36 1 179 951 772
Cotton 85 77 275 4 441 2282 1841
Faba bean 79 0 129 4 212 1123 911
Vegetables 69 96 203 2 370 2767 2397
Freshwater irrigated
Wheat 74 163 29 4 270 632 362
Cotton 81 154 185 6 426 2228 1802
Faba bean 38 0 96 14 148 433 285
Vegetables 96 96 240 16 448 1474 1026

appearance of the crops harvested from wastewater irrigated fields. Overall, the
cost-benefit ratio indicated up to twice the returns on wastewater than groundwater
irrigation farms (Qadir et al. unpublished data).
Farmers interviewed in Aleppo preferred wastewater for three reasons: (1)
wastewater is available throughout the year (57 % of farmers consider this as the
most important reason), (2) wastewater is a source of nutrients (26 % of the farm-
ers), and (3) pumping cost of wastewater is less than that groundwater pumping
(17 % of the farmers) (Qadir et al. unpublished data).
The first reason is often the most important, as in many water scarce areas the
availability of wastewater can help to convert unproductive land to productive land.
A well-known example is the Mezquital Valley in Mexico, where about 75,000 farm-
ers irrigate 90,000 ha using wastewater from Mexico City (Carlos Pailles, personal
communication 2013). Also, downstream of several Indian cities up to 33,000 ha of
crops depends on urban wastewater (Amerasinghe et al. 2013). The livelihood ben-
efits of these activities extend far beyond the farm (Buechler and Devi 2003).
However, there can also be costs for farmers aside those from potential health
issues. A likely cost factor for the farmer is a change in the production potential of
the soil, like through increased salinity levels or over-fertilization from frequent
wastewater irrigation (Hamilton et al. 2007). There can also be higher expenditures
for plant pest control given the higher nutrient load (Amerasinghe et al. 2013). This
will force farmers to invest in remediation measures, change crops or accommo-
date lower yields (McCartney et al. 2008; Zimmermann 2011). These adaptations
or changes e.g. in soil productivity can be quantified and their value be estimated
(Drechsel et al. 2004). There is a significant body of literature comparing the posi-
tive and negative impacts of wastewater irrigation on the soil; however, the conclu-
sions are very site-specific depending on water quality and quantity, soil type and
texture, and the cultivated crop which will be reflected in the cost benefit assess-
ment (Hamilton et al. 2007; Qadir et al. 2007b; Chap. 4 this volume).
144 P. Drechsel et al.

Table 8.4   Annual monetary value of health cost from intestinal illness among farmers using pol-
luted river water for irrigation in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. (Weldesilassie et al. 2010)
Variables Mean SD
Frequency of illness per year 1.8 1.4
Treatment cost for one short period of illness in Birr 106 168
Treatment cost per year in Birr 203 342
Working days lost per year due to illness 58 223
Wage loss for a typical farmer per year in Birr 231 1052
Monetary cost of intestinal illness per year in Birr 580 1521
1 US$ = 8.62 Ethiopian Birr during the survey period (2006)

Health risk assessments and valuations are particularly challenging. As men-

tioned in Chap. 5 of this volume, risk perception can vary significantly, ranging
from no risk awareness to risk denial or exaggeration, especially among farmers
using wastewater or polluted water sources informally, that is not in formal reuse
schemes where water is treated and stakeholders are informed about any residual
risk. Where health risk assessment cannot be based on official records, a common
approach is to use interviews to assess farmer’s risk via experienced illness. Weld-
esilassie et al. (2010), for example, used interviews and an econometric approach
to compare the health status of farmers using freshwater ( n = 175) and wastewater
( n = 240) in and around Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The authors quantified treatment
costs and wage losses based on symptoms, which can be related to intestinal ill-
ness through contact with wastewater. The mean annual total cost for an average
household member who works on a wastewater irrigated farm was estimated for
the year of the survey (2006) as about Birr 580 or US$ 67 (Table 8.4).
Controlling for observed and unobserved differences in individual behavior
and farm location characteristics, the marginal health-related cost for household
members working on wastewater irrigation farms was US$ 37 higher compared
to those working on freshwater farms. These results varied with the econometric
approach and the financial burden was lower using other models (Weldesilassie
et al. 2010).

8.3 Challenges in Assessing Farmer’s Costs and Benefits

In addition to the often discussed traditional challenges (i.e., no equity consider-

ations and aggregation of values into a single metric, etc.) of valuing the use of
water resources or other inputs in agriculture (Turner et al. 2004; Boardman et al.
2010) including the use of reclaimed wastewater (Winpenny et  al. 2010), we try
to present some particular on-farm challenges with respect to the assessment of
wastewater irrigation in the developing country context where treatment might be
minimal or lacking and irrigation an informal activity along wastewater canals as
8  Wastewater Use in Agriculture: Challenges in Assessing Costs and Benefits 145

well as natural streams (Weldesilassie et al. 2011). The challenges will be illustrated
using as far as possible the examples presented above:
a. Water Quality: The comparison of ‘wastewater’ and ‘freshwater’ irrigation is
often missing its basic biophysical justification, which is the difference in water
quality. This challenge is common where wastewater is used indirectly from pol-
luted streams or rivers. The term “wastewater” is used in the literature with-
out any stringent definition, and can refer to grey or black water, raw sewage,
diluted sewage or polluted stream water, the latter being the most common in
publications on informal “wastewater” irrigation in urban and peri-urban areas.
However, concentrations of pathogens and beneficial nutrients vary considerably
between these different expressions of wastewater, as they can vary between
seasons, irrigation methods as well as with increasing distance from the pollu-
tion source(s) within the same irrigation area or ‘scheme’. In some cases, farmers
using wastewater reduced their expenditures for fertilizer (van der Hoek et al.
2002), while in others, the diluted nutrient levels in the wastewater are marginal
and did not influence farm-level practices regarding soil-fertility management
(Erni et al. 2010). The same variation in possible benefits can be seen in view of
potential risk. Thus costs and benefits can vary substantially with location, even
along the same river, and sometimes the supposed clean water source might also
carry an unacceptable pathogen load. It appears very common that farmers and
researchers might have different views of the local water quality, and terms such
as ‘wastewater’ can bias assessments, or when asking farmers to express their
willingness to pay for ‘safer’ water.
b. Freshwater control group: In many situations all streams within and around
urban areas are polluted and it is difficult to find a control group using con-
tinuously safe water. Communities relying on safe groundwater could be an
options if soils are comparable (see below). This lack or inability to produce
an appropriate control group e.g. for health risk assessment is a common chal-
lenge of economic appraisals as also flagged by Weldesilassie et al. (2011). In
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for example, the control community using freshwater
could only be located at a distance of 40 km from the urban wastewater sites.
The control farmers had different housing conditions and produced different
crops on different soils than farmers in the wastewater-irrigated area. In Ghana,
where all urban streams are polluted, the livelihood characteristics of irrigating
farmers using unoccupied plots near streams have been compared with those of
farmers without access to irrigation water. In this case, both groups had similar
living conditions, but the crops and farm sizes differed (Danso et  al. 2002).
This difference can result in a significant misrepresentation. In Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, for example, the annual average net income from wastewater use is
with US$  1600 per hectare more than twice as high as from freshwater use
(US$ 700). However, presenting data per hectare (like in Table 8.3) might hide
that e.g. in the Addis Ababa urban wastewater farmers cultivate on average less
than half the irrigated area than freshwater farmers, thus the income based on
146 P. Drechsel et al.

actual farm sizes did not much differ between both groups (Weldesilassie et al.
2009, 2010).
c. Spatial heterogeneity occurs also within much shorter distance e.g. in view
of soil fertility, crop varieties, or farm management. The yields presented for
example in Tables 8.1 and 8.2 can only be related to differences in water quality
if the crops or better crop varieties have been the same and the soils have been
of similar initial fertility before irrigation started. This might be the case where
wastewater is conveyed and accessed from a canal, and compared with ground-
water irrigation nearby, but if one of the two sources is a natural stream or river
conveying the water, there is a high probability of fertile soils in the floodplain.
These might not be comparable with soils near wells further away. Another more
common challenge can be the cultivation history of the plots which might entail
different fertilizer rates and irrigation application methods and rates, etc. If these
differences are not captured, wrong conclusions on yields, but also farmer’s
exposure to pathogens are possible. Thus for Tables, like 8.1 and 8.2 details on
site conditions, water source, soil quality and crops are needed. With the move
from experimental station research to smallholder on-farm research statistical
analysis often gets difficult. However, statistical tests are needed to verify if
any differences are significant. In an ideal situation, that is if farmers agree and
have the available land and capacity to cultivate it, a completely randomized
experimental design could be applied, even within a farmer’s field, to control
e.g. for plot selection effects, or several farmers’ field where similar practices
are undertaken may be considered as replications. Without such control, we do
not know how much of the yield effect might be due to farmer’s choice of plots
that receive certain input, including irrigation, or residual nutrients, or due to the
previous crop sequence.
d. A too common disease? As mentioned in Chap. 3 in this volume, irrigating
farmers who produce exotic vegetables for urban markets face mostly occupa-
tional contact risks, less consumption risks. These risks concern possible skin
infections and contact with different types of helminthes, such as hook- and
round-worms (WHO 2006). The challenge of assessing the related costs (sick
days and treatment costs) is based on the common nature of these infections
and their rather unspecific or hidden symptoms. This makes a correct attribu-
tion very data demanding. Much better would be a stool test, or to compare
(irrespectively of symptoms and disease) the total health expenditures between
the wastewater and freshwater irrigating communities, through interviews or
hospital records.
As worm infection signalize poor sanitation in general, it should not surprise if
infection are more frequent in the rural control groups than in peri-urban communi-
ties using wastewater (Amerasinghe et al. 2009; Weldesilassie et al. 2010).
In the above reported case of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, farmers were interviewed
and the range of symptoms was kept relatively broad to include also diarrhea.
Farmers using water from the polluted river estimated on average 57.8 sick days
per year (Table 8.4) which appears exaggerated, if attributed to irrigation activi-
ties only. In India, Srinivasan and Reddy (2009) reported 24–72 days per year of
8  Wastewater Use in Agriculture: Challenges in Assessing Costs and Benefits 147

wage income loss due to various common sicknesses farmers reported. In both
studies different sets of recall (reference) periods from one week to 12 months
were applied2.
In the Ethiopian study, the farmer estimated loss of income and treatment costs
(Table 8.4) were probably creating distortion in the cost-benefit analysis. Treat-
ment costs were for example estimated at 23.5 US$; although deworming costs
less than US$ 1 per person and year (Hall and Horton 2009). Another example of
the challenge of perception based costs assessments is presented in Box 8.2.
e. Remaining risks. It has to be flagged that the health risks described so far relate
to pathogens. Even where wastewater is treated and the main pathogenic threats
are under control, most treatment plants in low-income countries will not remove
chemical contaminants from the water, which can have a potential long-term
impact on soils, plants and humans (Hamilton et al. 2007). These risks vary with
the wastewater source (share and type of industrial effluent), are still difficult to
quantify and to cost in view of a potential health impact, and can only be con-
trolled through more sophisticated treatment and/or a shift to low-risk reuse, like
irrigated forest plantations.

Box 8.2   Assessing Farmer’s Health Burden

Baig et al. (2011) compared in Faisalabad, Pakistan, wastewater and freshwa-
ter use for wheat, clover, sorghum and maize production. The results revealed
that wastewater use has a higher benefit-cost ratio in the study area irrespec-
tive of its negative externalities like health risk. Net benefit from crop pro-
duction per US$ invested for wastewater irrigation returned US$ 5.56 on an
average as compared to US$ 2.20 for freshwater irrigation. Also, the average
days of illness in the wastewater area, irrespective of reason, were 3.4 days
per person per annum more than in the fresh water area. Very contrasting
results were reported from the same peri-urban area of Faisalabad by Kouser
et al. (2009), who focused on cauliflower production. While the financial
analysis showed also in this study, a clear advantage of using wastewater
compared to freshwater (US$ 13 per year and acre), internalizing the health
externalities showed an economic loss of US$  − 58 per acre largely based
on 347.8 sick days, which farmers attributed to different types of possibly
wastewater related illness they experience over the year. As farmers continue
to use wastewater around Faisalabad without spiraling into poverty, the case
might show the difficulty of assessing health risks externalities based on a
long recall period, even within a sophisticated analytical approach.

A maximal one-week recall period for diarrheal related symptoms has been recommended
2 

(Arnold et al. 2013). As worm related infections can be without symptoms in otherwise healthy
people, perception surveys are not recommended while a stool test (laboratory analysis) is the best
option of verification.
148 P. Drechsel et al.

8.4 Challenges of Health Risk Assessments at Scale

The primary concern related to the use of wastewater from the perspective of society
is public health. Thus the primary objective of wastewater treatment or sanitation in
general is prevention of human contact with the hazards of wastes. If treatment is
combined with reuse, the added value of resource recovery has to be compared with
potentially increased cost through the added reuse for environment and society. The
quantification and valuation of actual or likely risks and benefits are important steps
for informing public policy decision.
There can be substantial benefits from reuse for the environment or other stake-
holders than farmers who might be direct or indirect wastewater ‘users’, benefiting,
for example, from water swaps, i.e. fresh water savings the reuse enables (Condom
et al. 2012; see also Chap. 11). Reuse can impact society at large especially where
alternative freshwater sources for providing for example fresh fruits and vegetables
are missing. Benefits can extend across the value chain and the food-energy nexus
by reducing refrigerated transport or storage, packaging costs, food spoilage, etc.
However, there might not be a large difference between beneficiaries and those at
risk. In the case of Accra, Ghana, for example, every day, about 280,000 people
from different parts of life consume fresh vegetables produced on urban farms, as
part of popular street food or in canteens and restaurants (Amoah et al. 2007). As
most of these farms use polluted water, the same 280,000 urban dwellers are also
potentially at risk, not only of getting sick but also transmitting infections within
their families and communities. An increasingly used option to assess the likely dis-
ease burden of a larger number of stakeholders is probabilistic exposure modeling
via quantitative microbial risk assessment (Box 8.3).

Box 8.3   Risk Assessment at Scale

Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) can be applied at farmer or

consumer level, and in situations of treated or untreated wastewater use, to
assess for example the probability of residual health risks in formal reuse
schemes (Mara et al. 2007). The results can be expressed as disability-adjusted
life years (DALY) which is a measure of overall disease burden, expressed
as the number of years lost due to ill-health, disability or early death. In other
words, mortality and morbidity are combined into a single, common metric.
This loss of healthy life years is in principle an economic indicator and can
be valued within an economic assessment, although this is not without meth-
odological as well as ethical questions (Anand and Hanson 1997; Winpenny
et al. 2010).

A time-saving alternative or supplement to a comprehensive assessment of health

risks and related health costs at larger scales, is to compare the costs of different op-
tions to reduce or eliminate identified risks. If for example worm infections within
8  Wastewater Use in Agriculture: Challenges in Assessing Costs and Benefits 149

a larger community are difficult to quantify and cost, the cost of controlling the
risk through protective gear and chemical deworming would be easy to estimate.
Or in other words, instead of costing for example the possible health implications
for children passing wastewater irrigated farms, the actual costs of fencing the area
might be a more practical step for comparing costs and benefits. If the risk re-
duction potential of certain interventions has been quantified, it is also possible to
compare their cost-effectiveness in terms of US$ per DALY averted (Drechsel and
Seidu 2011).
However, based on the WHO (2006) promoted multi-barrier approach for health
risk reduction, a realistic cost assessment in low-income countries should not rely
on wastewater treatment only, but also consider for example investments in food
hygiene and disinfection as powerful means for pathogen removal. Multiple barriers
are important as in many low-income countries, centralized as well as decentralized
wastewater treatment plants appear to follow after commissioning a run-to-failure
trajectory (Murray and Drechsel 2011). The costs of risk prevention might be shared
among different control points and actors depending on reuse purpose and water
quality needs. These needs will also depend on local effluent standards of the re-
ceiving water body, as it is unlikely that a reuse scheme will absorb all wastewater
(Morris et al. 2005).

8.5 Conclusions

The use of wastewater after appropriate treatment is an important component of

sustainable water resources management, and cost benefit analysis a key instrument
to inform decision makers about related benefits and costs for the different stake-
holders involved, and to determine whether the water reuse activity is worthwhile
also compared to other possible solutions.
In this chapter of the book we flagged selected methodological challenges as
they are common in the assessment of the benefits and costs of productive waste-
water use, with special emphasis on the common comparison of wastewater and
freshwater systems and the challenges of assessing actual or possible health risks.
Many commonly cited studies indicate the advantage of wastewater irrigation in
terms of crop yields based on the additional or more reliable access to wastewater or
its nutrient content where the wastewater is not diluted in other water bodies. We are
not questioning these findings, but see significant space for an improved analysis
where fresh- and wastewater systems are compared which considers among others
the common spatial difference between both systems in terms of soil fertility, and
actually analyze the water to verify the assumed nutrient content compared to crop
yields. The same applies to the assessment of health risks. In many cases, especially
of ‘indirect’ wastewater use, where farmers irrigate along streams or rivers which
are receiving wastewater, the difference between freshwater and diluted wastewater
can be marginal compared to other socio-economic differences between the test and
control groups. The same ambiguity in water quality can occur between ‘treated’
150 P. Drechsel et al.

and ‘untreated’ wastewater given the challenges and low coverage many treatment
plants in low-income countries have. Based on the experience, also with students,
it is very important to have multi-disciplinary teams in place to build any economic
appraisal on locally verified physical differences which are often most visible in
the dry season. This applies even more to likely health risks and related perception
studies which can turn out to be a Pandora’s box for an economic assessment. Since
the valuation method in particular for health related externalities is still not stable,
and can result in different answers, also based on the applied methodology, specific
sensitivity analyses will be important to show the impact of uncertainties on the
presented valuation (Condom et al. 2012).

Take Home Messages

• The analysis of costs and benefits is an important instrument for assessing
the value of reuse compared to alternative options, for reuse operators, the
farmer as well as society.
• The type and scale of benefits and costs of water reuse are location-spe-
cific, such that generalizations or case comparisons are difficult and can
be misleading unless the biophysical and socio-economic conditions have
been verified.
• Risk management, in particular safeguarding public health, receives most
policy attention and thus requires special care in any assessment. This
includes appropriate recall periods if assessments are based on the experi-
ence of stakeholders.
• The analysis of the costs and cost-effectiveness of different risk mitiga-
tion options might facilitate the economic appraisal compared to a detailed
costing of the risk.

References

Amerasinghe P, Simmons R, Evans A, Blummel M, Drescher A (2009) Ensuring health and food
safety from rapidly expanding wastewater irrigation in South Asia: BMZ final report 2005–
2008. Hyderabad, India: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 24 p. http://www.
iwmi.cgiar.org/publications/library-catalog/
Amerasinghe P, Bhardwaj RM, Scott C, Jella K, Marshall F (2013) Urban wastewater and agricul-
tural reuse challenges in India. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute
(IWMI). 28 p. (IWMI Research Report 147)
Amoah P, Drechsel P, Abaidoo RC, Henseler M (2007) Irrigated urban vegetable production in
Ghana: microbiological contamination in farms and markets and associated consumer risk
groups. J Water Health 5(3):455–466
Anand S, Hanson K (1997) Disability adjusted life years: a critical review. J Health Econ 16:658–
702
Arnold BF, Galiani S, Ram PK, Hubbard AE, Briceño B, Gertler PJ, Colford JM Jr (2013) Optimal
recall period for caregiver-reported illness in Risk Factor and Intervention Studies: a Multi-
country Study. Am J Epidemiol 177(4):361–370
8  Wastewater Use in Agriculture: Challenges in Assessing Costs and Benefits 151

Baig IA, Ashfaq M, Hassan I, Javed MI, Khurshid W, Asghar A (2011) Economic impacts of
wastewater irrigation in Punjab, Pakistan. J Agric Res 49(2):261–270
Boardman AE, Greenberg DH, Vining A, Weimer D (2010) Cost-benefit analysis. Concepts and
practice, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, New York
Buechler S, Gayathri Devi M (2003) Wastewater as a source of multiple livelihoods? A study in
rural Andhra Pradesh, South India. In: Devi R, Ahsan N (eds) Water and wastewater: develop-
ing country perspectives. International Water Association, London, pp 939–947
Bunting SA (2004) Wastewater aquaculture: perpetuating vulnerability or opportunity to enhance
poor livelihoods? Aquat Resour Cult Dev 1(1):51–75
Condom N, Lefebvre M, Vandome L (2012) Treated wastewater reuse in the mediterranean:
lessons learned and tools for project development. Plan Bleu, Valbonne. (Blue Plan Papers 11)
Danso G, Drechsel P, Wiafe-Antwi T, Gyiele L (2002) Income of farming systems in and around
Kumasi, Ghana. Urb Agric Mag 7:5–6
Drechsel P, Seidu R (2011) Cost-effectiveness of options for reducing health risks in areas where
food crops are irrigated with wastewater. Water Int 36(4):535–548
Drechsel P, Giordano M, Gyiele L (2004) Valuing nutrients in soil and water: concepts and tech-
niques with examples from IWMI studies in the developing world. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Inter-
national Water Management Institute (IWMI). v, 33 p (IWMI Research Report 082)
Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A (eds) (2010) Wastewater irrigation
and health: assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries. Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI,
UK, London, 404 pp. http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-149129-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Erni M, Drechsel P, Bader H-P, Scheidegger R, Zurbruegg C, Kipfer R (2010) Bad for the environ-
ment, good for the farmer? Urban sanitation and nutrient flows. Irrig Drain Sys 24(1–2):113–
125 (Special Issue on Wastewater reuse)
Grangier C, Qadir M, Singh M (2012) Health implications for children in wastewater-irrigated
Peri-Urban Aleppo, Syria. Water Qual Expo Health 4:187–195
Hall A, Horto S (2009) Deworming. Best practice paper: new advice from cc08. Copenhagen
Consensus Center, Frederiksberg
Hamilton AJ, Stagnitti F, Xiong X, Kreidl SL, Benke KK, Maher P (2007) Wastewater irrigation
the state of play. Vadose Zone J 6(4):823–40
Haruvy N (1997) Agricultural reuse of wastewater: nation-wide cost-benefit analysis. Agric Eco-
syst Environ 66:113–119
Kouser S, Abedullah, Samie A (2009) Wastewater use in cauliflower production and farmer’s
health: an economic analysis. Pakistan Dev Rev 48(1):47–66
Lienhoop N, Karablieh E, Salman A, Cardona J (2013) Environmental cost—benefit—analysis
of decentralized wastewater treatment and re-use: a case study of rural Jordan. Water Policy
16:323–339
Mara DD, Sleigh PA, Blumenthal UJ, Carr RM (2007) Health risks in wastewater irrigation: com-
paring estimates from quantitative microbial risk analyses and epidemiological studies. J Water
Health 5(1):39–50
McCartney M, Matthew McCartney, Christoher CS, Ensink, J, Jiang B, Biggs T (2008) Salinity
implications of wastewater irrigation in the Musi river catchment in India. The Ceylon J Sci
(Biol Sci) 37(1):49–59
Morris J, Lazarova V, Tyrrel S (2005) Economics of water recycling for irrigation. In: Lazarova V,
Bahri A (eds) Irrigation with recycled water: agriculture, turfgrass and landscape. CRC Press,
Boca Raton pp 266–283
Murray A, Drechsel P (2011) Why do some wastewater treatment facilities work when the majority
fail? Case study from the sanitation sector in Ghana. Waterlines 30(2):135–149 (April 2011)
Qadir M, Sharma BR, Bruggeman A, Chukr-Allah R, Karajeh F (2007a) Non-conventional water
resources and opportunities for water augmentation to achieve food security in water scarce
countries. Agric Water Manage 87:2–22
Qadir M, Wichelns D, Raschid-Sally L, Minhas PS, Drechsel P, Bahri A, McCornick P (2007b)
Agricultural use of marginal-quality water—opportunities and challenges. In: Molden D (ed)
Water for food, water for life: a comprehensive assessment of water management in agricul-
ture. Earthscan, London, pp 425–457
152 P. Drechsel et al.

Raschid-Sally L, Jayakody P (2008) Drivers and characteristics of wastewater agriculture in de-

veloping countries: results from a global assessment. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water
Management Institute (IWMI). 29 p (IWMI Research Report 127)
Scheierling SM, Bartone CR, Mara DD, Drechsel P (2011) Toward an agenda for improving
wastewater use in agriculture. Water Int 36(4):420–440
Scott CA, Zarazua AJ, Levine G (2000) Urban-wastewater reuse for crop production in the water-
short Guanajuato River Basin, Mexico. IIMI Research Report no. 41, International Irrigation
Management Institute (IIMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka
Scott CA, Faruqui NI, Rashid-Sally L (2004) Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture: management
challenges in developing countries. In: Scott et al (eds) Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture:
confronting the livelihood and environmental realities. CABI Publication in association with
IWMI and IDRC
Silva-Ochoa P, Scott CA (2004) Treatment plant effects on wastewater irrigation benefits: revisit-
ing a case study in the Guanajuato River Basin, Mexico. In: Scott CA, Faruqui NI, Raschid-
Sally L (eds) Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture: confronting the livelihood and environ-
mental realities. CABI Publishing/IWMI/IDRC, Wallingford/Colombo/Ottawa, pp 145–152
Srinivasan JT, Reddy VR (2009) Impact of irrigation water quality on human health: a case study
in India. Ecol Econ 68:2800–2807
Turner K, Georgiou S, Clark R, Brouwer R, Burke J (2004) Economic valuation of water resources
in agriculture: from the sectoral to a functional perspective of natural resource management,
FAO Water Reports 27, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
Urkiaga AL, de las Fuentes B, Bis E, Chiru B, Balasz F, Hernández F (2008) Development of anal-
ysis tools for social, economic and ecological effects of water reuse. Desalination 218:81–91
Van der Hoek W, Hassan MU, Ensink JHL, Feenstra S, Rashid-Sally L, Munir S, Aslam R, Ali N,
Hussain R, Matsuno Y (2002) Urban wastewater; a valuable resource for agriculture. A case
study from Haroonabad, Pakistan. IWMI Research Report No.63. International Water manage-
ment Institute, Colombo
Van Veenhuizen R, Danso G (2007) Profitability and sustainability of urban and peri-urban agri-
culture. Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Occasional Paper (FAO), no. 19/
FAO, Rome (Italy). Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Div., 95 p
Weldesilassie AB, Frör O, Boelee E, Dabbert S (2009) The economic value of improved waste-
water irrigation: a contingent valuation study in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J Agric Resour Econ
34(3):428–449
Weldesilassie AB, Boelee E, Drechsel P, Dabbert S (2010) Wastewater use in crop production in
peri-urban areas of Addis Ababa: impacts on health in farm households. Environ Dev Econ
16:25–49
Weldesilassie AB, Amerasinghe P, Danso G (2011) Assessing the empirical challenges of evaluat-
ing the benefits and risks of irrigating with wastewater. Water Int 36:(4)441–454
WHO (2006) Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and grey water: wastewater use in
agriculture, vol 2. WHO, Geneva
Winpenny J, Heinz I, Koo-Oshima S (2010) The wealth of waste: the economics of wastewater
use in agriculture. FAO Water Reports 35. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome
Zimmermann T (2011) Wastewater irrigation in Hyderabad, India: economic costs and benefits.
Humboldt University of Berlin, Department of Geography. Unpublished Bachelor’s thesis
Chapter 9
Costs and Benefits of Using Wastewater
for Aquifer Recharge

Manzoor Qadir, Eline Boelee, Priyanie Amerasinghe and George Danso

Abstract  While direct use of wastewater in treated, partially treated, untreated,

and diluted forms has been in practice in irrigation systems for a long time, planned
use of wastewater for aquifer recharge has been practiced over the last few decades
only. We address tradeoffs of using wastewater for aquifer recharge and present the
case studies on (1) recharge of groundwater in the Mezquital Valley, Mexico to pro-
vide a source of water supply for irrigation and other uses; (2) recharge of depleting
Ezousa and Akrotiri aquifers in Cyprus to support irrigation of a range of crops
and landscape; (3) supply of wastewater to Amani Doddakere Lake close to Ban-
galore in India for groundwater recharge, later to be used in irrigation; (4) injection
of wastewater into the Bolivar aquifer in Australia in winter for recovery in sum-
mer when peak horticultural demands exceed supply; and (5) revitalization of the
over-exploited Mashhad Plain aquifer in Iran to reduce contamination and improve
water quality for irrigation. While valuation of treated wastewater use for aquifer
recharge reveals favorable environmental and economic benefits, public acceptance
of indirect use is not yet universal. Moreover, related legal frameworks and sup-
portive policies and institutions are lacking in many countries. These aspects need
to be addressed to implement and promote planned use of wastewater for aquifer
recharge for multiple benefits.

M. Qadir ()
United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, 175 Longwood Road
South, L8P 0A1 Hamilton, ON, Canada
e-mail: manzoor.qadir@unu.edu
E. Boelee
Water Health, Tolakkerweg 21, 3739 JG Hollandsche Rading, The Netherlands
e-mail: e.boelee@waterhealth.nl
P. Amerasinghe
IWMI Hyderabad Office, c/o ICRISAT, 401/5, 502324 Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India
e-mail: p.amerasinghe@cgiar.org
G. Danso
Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
e-mail: gdanso@ualberta.ca
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 153
P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_9
154 M. Qadir et al.

Keywords  Aquifer recharge · Mezquital valley · Ezousa and Akrotiri aquifers ·

Amani Doddakere lake · Bolivar aquifer · Mashhad plain

9.1 Introduction

Aquifer recharge is the enhancement of natural groundwater supplies with the pur-
pose of both augmenting groundwater resources during times when water is avail-
able, and recovering the water from the same aquifer in the future when it is needed
for various uses (Dillon et  al. 2006; Khan et  al. 2008; Bahri 2009). This can be
deliberately planned using for instance man-made conveyance systems such as in-
filtration basins having permeable media, or direct injection through wells. Other
terms commonly used for planned aquifer recharge are artificial recharge and man-
aged aquifer recharge. Aquifer recharge may also be unplanned, resulting from in-
filtration through unlined canals and water courses, excess irrigation, rainfall, and
agricultural drainage systems.
Similarly, aquifer recharge with wastewater can be planned or unplanned. Soil-
aquifer treatment (SAT) is another form of recharge where soil and groundwater
conditions are favorable and partially-treated sewage effluent, such as primary
treated wastewater, is used to infiltrate into the soil and move down to the ground-
water (Bouwer 1991; Pescod 1992). Research and practice on the use of wastewater
for aquifer recharge have focused primarily on planned aquifer recharge in devel-
oped countries and on unplanned aquifer recharge in developing countries (Ying
et al. 2003; Jiménez and Chávez 2004; Dillon et al. 2006).
While direct use of treated, untreated, and partially treated wastewater in irriga-
tion systems has been in practice for a long time, planned use of treated wastewa-
ter for aquifer recharge has been practiced over the last few decades only. Aquifer
recharge with partially treated wastewater or municipal water has been described
under suitable soil and groundwater conditions (Bouwer 1991; Pescod 1992; Fos-
ter et al. 2005; Voudouris 2011). The principle behind the treatment is that most
of the suspended solids, biodegradable materials, and an array of microorganisms,
nitrogen, phosphorous, and metals and metalloids are minimized at the unsaturated
or “vadose” zone, which acts as a natural filter. For example, certain metals and
metalloids and some organic substances may be effectively removed from waste-
water through the sorption process during aquifer recharge (Dillon et  al. 2006).
With increase in the recycling time, aquifer recharge also allows more time for
biodegradation, which is particularly relevant for those contaminants that degrade
slowly (Ying et  al. 2003). However, in case of using highly polluted wastewater
for recharging good-quality groundwater, there may be obvious implications for
groundwater quality deterioration which have to be avoided.
This chapter addresses economics of planned and unplanned use of wastewater
for aquifer recharge primarily in developing countries, while providing also some
examples from developed countries. The focus is on the tradeoffs in the context of
benefits such as contributions to water banking and ecosystem services as well as
9  Costs and Benefits of Using Wastewater for Aquifer Recharge 155

potential negative impacts like health risks and groundwater contamination. The
chapter also touches upon the challenges with regard to public acceptance, legal
frameworks, and policies for aquifer recharge with wastewater.

9.2 Mechanisms of Aquifer Recharge with Wastewater

Wastewater infiltration to groundwater occurs directly from effluent handling fa-

cilities and indirectly from unlined wastewater channels as well as through the ap-
plication of agricultural irrigation in excess of crop water requirement; a common
practice in wastewater-irrigated areas. Water stored through aquifer recharge by
treated wastewater can provide a reliable supply of water during times of water
shortages, reverse falling groundwater levels, reduce water losses associated with
leakage and evaporation, and provide ecosystem and economic benefits. However,
planned aquifer recharge is practiced in developed countries (Dillon et  al. 2006;
Khan et  al. 2008; Birol et  al. 2010) while mostly unplanned aquifer recharge in
developing countries (Jiménez 2008; Alaei 2011; Fig. 9.1).

Wastewater irrigation

Public water supply1

P
Urban area
S SS

a
Separate industrial
wastewater Groundwater irrigation
Treatment/recharge Public water supply1
lagoons2
P
Urban area
S T

b
P/S/T P/S/T dotted box indicates incidental (unplanned) process

1
Should have appropriate surveillance and treatment
2
Treatment plant can substitute for lagoons (especially where land is at a premium) if higher capital and running costs are acceptable

Fig. 9.1   General mechanisms of wastewater generation, treatment, use and infiltration to aquifers
with reference to a commonly-occurring unplanned and uncontrolled situation; and b economical
interventions aimed at reducing groundwater source pollution risk. (Adapted from Foster et  al.
2005)
156 M. Qadir et al.

While most wastewater generated in developing countries remains in untreat-

ed or partly treated forms, use of highly contaminated wastewater for aquifer re-
charge may pose health and environmental risks in the long run, particularly if the
wastewater receiving groundwater is used for drinking. The potential pollutants in
groundwater moved through wastewater infiltration may include pathogenic micro-
organisms, excess nutrients, and dissolved organic carbon; and where significant
volume of industrial effluent is combined, toxic metals and organic compounds may
also concentrate (Foster et al. 2005; Jiménez 2008; Heinz et al. 2011). However, the
actual impact on groundwater quality varies widely with: (1) the pollution vulner-
ability of the aquifer; (2) the quality of natural groundwater and its potential use;
(3) the origin of sewage effluent and likelihood of persistent contaminants; (4) the
scale of wastewater infiltration; and (5) the quality of wastewater, and its level of
treatment and dilution (Foster et al. 2005). In general, wastewater would have to be
treated before recharge to the lowest level that would not affect overall groundwater
quality. Periodic monitoring of groundwater quantity and quality would be needed
to assess long-term effects.

9.3 Aquifer Recharge in Relation to Water Banking and

Ecosystem Services

As one of the important strategies for water banking, water stored through aqui-
fer recharge can provide a reliable supply of water during times of inter-seasonal
and inter-year water shortages. It can reverse falling groundwater levels, and also
reduce water losses associated with leakage and evaporation, as compared with
surface water storage (McCartney and Smakhtin 2010; O’Donnell and Colby 2010;
Box  9.1). Similarly, aquifer recharge through wastewater can provide ecosystem
services through a range of mechanisms (MEA 2005; TEEB 2013; Box 9.2). Also
by increasing access to water, aquifer recharge may contribute to achieving food
security (Van Steenbergen et al. 2011).

Box 9.1: Aquifer Recharge and Water Banking

In many countries, water supply and availability remain highly variable
across seasons and years and may become even more difficult to manage
and predict with increased climate variability and change. Water banking is
one of the strategies that may help in addressing variability in water supply
and availability under specific situations (O’Donnell and Colby 2010). As a
mechanism designed to facilitate transfers of water on a temporary, intermit-
tent, or permanent basis through voluntary exchange, water banks are gener-
ally established to (1) create a more reliable water supply for use during dry
seasons or years; (2) ensure a future water supply for various water needs;
9  Costs and Benefits of Using Wastewater for Aquifer Recharge 157

(3) promote water conservation by encouraging water users to conserve and

deposit conserved water into the bank; (4) facilitate and enhance water market
activity; and (5) resolve issues between groundwater and surface water users
(Clifford et al. 2004).
Where legal frameworks and institutions governing water rights and water
use allow for water banking activities, water banks may result in great vari-
ety in their geographic coverage, objectives, services they provide, and legal
authorizations under which they operate. Water banks range in geographic
scale from involving local water users in a specific urban area or a county to
offer services across broad regions, sometimes including several provinces
or states.

Box 9.2: Aquifer Recharge and Ecosystem Services

Many ecosystem services relate to water, directly or indirectly (MEA 2005;
TEEB 2013). These can be categorized as provisioning services such as water
supply, production of food, fish, and timber; regulating services such as con-
trol of floods and disease; cultural services such as spiritual, recreational,
and cultural benefits; and supporting services, such as nutrient cycling, that
maintain the conditions for life on the earth in the long term (MEA 2005;
TEEB 2013).
Wastewater collection, treatment, and use provide ecosystem services
(GWI 2009). Aquifer recharge through wastewater also provides benefits to
ecosystems by (1) providing a source of water and counterbalancing ground-
water pumping through groundwater replenishment (Dillon et al. 2006; Birol
et al. 2010); (2) recycling and reusing water and essential nutrients such
as nitrogen and phosphorus for irrigation (Jiménez and Chávez 2004); (3)
avoiding or minimizing pollution of surface water bodies and safeguarding
environmental, human, and animal health (Papaiacovou and Papatheodoulou
2013); (4) reducing the costs of technologies to treat wastewater to a required
standard where it can be considered (Nema et al. 2001); and (5) contributing
to climate change adaption (Van Steenbergen et al. 2011).

9.4 Economics of Aquifer Recharge with Wastewater

Depending on the recharge method, estimated costs of artificial recharge with

freshwater in Australia range from US$ 0.05 m−3 (1000 US$ = 1195 Aus$ in 2008)
to US$ 0.15 m−3 (Khan et al. 2008). In the case of wastewater, the recharge cost
depends on the level of wastewater treatment in addition to the recharge system.
In developed countries where tertiary treatment of wastewater is practiced, the
158 M. Qadir et al.

Table 9.1   Cost analysis (US$)a of soil-aquifer treatment (SAT system) compared with other con-
ventional wastewater treatment systems based on 55,000 m3 d−1 (55 MLD) system capacity (Modi-
fied from Nema et al. 2001)
Treatment system Capital cost Annual costb Treatment costc
Conventional acti- 3,073,988 1,047,276 0.052
vated sludge process
Trickling filter 2,961,628 1,151,155 0.057
Anaerobic filter 2,755,989 909,476 0.045
Up-flow anaerobic 2,331,991 794,997 0.040
sludge blanket
Soil-aquifer 1,907,992 674,157 0.034
treatment(SAT)
a
Capital, annual, and treatment costs converted from Indian Rupee (IRs) to US$ (1  US$ in
2001 = 47.17 IRs)
b
Annual cost consists of all operational and maintenance costs
c
Treatment cost per m3 based on annual cost only without including capital cost of treatment
systems

cost of recharge (including the cost of wastewater treatment and recharge system)
may range from US$ 0.45–1.20 m−3 (GWI2009). According to the Water Reuse
Inventory of the Global Water Intelligence, artificial recharge projects using ter-
tiary treated wastewater constitute 2.17 % of the total water reuse projects (GWI
2009).
In developing countries, few studies have been undertaken on the economics of
aquifer recharge with wastewater (Nema et al. 2001; Papaiacovou and Papatheo-
doulou 2013; Zekri et  al. 2014). Using a soil-aquifer treatment (SAT) system,
Nema et al. (2001) carried out a pilot study in Sabarmati River bed at Ahmed-
abad, India. The infrastructure for the SAT system comprised of two wastewater
primary settling basins, two infiltration basins, and two production wells located
in the center of infiltration basins for pumping out recharged water. They com-
pared SAT with other treatment systems such as conventional activated sludge
process, trickling filter, anaerobic filter, and up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket
(Table 9.1).
The performance data indicated that SAT had potential for removal of organic
pollutants (90 %), nitrogen (50 %), phosphorus (90 %), and bacteria (4–5 order of
magnitude). The cost of wastewater treatment by the treatment systems evaluated
was lower than generally reported (Table 9.1), which was due to exclusion of the
capital cost in economic analysis and consideration of primary treatment of waste-
water. Based on the economic estimates undertaken more than a decade ago, Nema
et al. (2001) found the SAT system to be more economical than the conventional
wastewater treatment systems and recommended for adoption under Indian condi-
tions. Similar conclusions were drawn also more recently from riverbank filtration
trials in New Delhi (Sprenger et al. 2014).
9  Costs and Benefits of Using Wastewater for Aquifer Recharge 159

9.4.1 Mezquital Valley Aquifer in Mexico

In the Mezquital Valley, north of Mexico City, about 75,000 farmers irrigate
90,000  ha with mostly untreated wastewater (Carlos Pailles, personal communi-
cation 2013). Wastewater irrigation allows agricultural development in the valley
where annual average rainfall is 550 mm and soils are characterized by low organic
matter content and low levels of nutrients essentially need for crop growth. On
an annual per hectare average basis, the contribution of wastewater to the soils
is 2400  kg organic matter, 195  kg nitrogen, and 81  kg phosphorus (Jiménez and
Chávez 2004). Due to the anticipated benefits of irrigation, the annual rental value
for land irrigated with wastewater is about US$ 1000 ha−1. By comparison, the rent-
al value for non-irrigated land in the valley is about US$ 400 ha−1 (Carlos Pailles,
personal communication 2013).
With small land holdings (1.2 ha per farmer), the farmers try to maximize pro-
ductivity of the land they cultivate with wastewater irrigation. In doing so, they tend
to over-irrigate at the annual rate of 15,000–22,000 m3 ha−1 with the goals of (1)
avoiding any water deficit to crops; (2) providing adequate/excess nutrients from
wastewater; and (3) leaching potential contaminants and salts from the root zone.
The aquifer is being recharged due to infiltration from (1) high rate of irrigation; (2)
unlined dams and water channels; (3) rainfall; and (4) drainage systems.
Based on the estimates of the British Geological Survey in the 1990s, the water
infiltration rate in the wastewater irrigated area would be around 25  m3 s−1, i.e.
8760  m3 ha−1 yr−1, indicating that 40–58 % of the applied irrigation would pass
through the soil profile and contribute to groundwater. This unplanned recharge,
which has been in practice for several decades, has raised the water table in some
places in the Mezquital Valley from 50  m deep to the surface. Springs have ap-
peared and have become a source of water supply to the people living in the valley.
The infiltration of wastewater through the soil profile to groundwater has im-
proved its quality in certain aspects. Organic matter is reduced by 95 %, heavy met-
als by 70–90 %, and levels of more than 130 organic compounds by about 99 % by
the time water enters aquifer. Salt concentration, however, has increased over time
(Jiménez and Chávez 2004). To bridge the gap between freshwater demand and
supply in Mexico City, the government is planning to return 6–10  m3 s−1 (0.19–
0.32 billion m3 yr−1) of recharged water to the city. This option would be more cost-
effective than transporting freshwater from areas that are more than 1000 m lower
than Mexico City and 200 km away.
Amid several benefits, wastewater irrigation and aquifer recharge can generate
negative impacts as revealed from the Mezquital Valley in some studies (Jiménez
2008; Heinz et al. 2011). For example, research on the health implications of waste-
water in the valley indicated that children living in wastewater irrigated areas have
higher rates of helminth infections than children not living in wastewater irrigated
areas (Jiménez 2008; Heinz et al. 2011). The government has initiated many pro-
grams to educate the affected population on how to reduce risks associated with
the use of wastewater. In addition, the government has moved forward with the
160 M. Qadir et al.

construction of a large wastewater treatment plant in recent years to improve waste-

water and groundwater quality and expected decrease in health risks.
Initiated in 2010 on the basis of Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) contract, the
wastewater treatment plant is expected to be completed in the final quarter of 2015.
Once completed, the treatment plant will treat wastewater at 35 m3 s−1; i.e. about
1.1 billion m3 yr−1. The total expected cost on the completion of this plant will be
Mexican Peso 10,022 million or US$ 763 million (1 US$ = 13.14 Mexican Peso).
Of this cost, 49 % will be covered by the government, 31 % credit from the govern-
ment, and 20 % by private partner. The plant will be run for 25 years by the private
partner to recover their investment and then it will be handed over to the govern-
ment. The annual operational cost of plant is estimated at Mexican Peso 1066 mil-
lion (US$ 81 million). The cost of wastewater supply for irrigation will be Mexican
Peso 1.05 m−3 (US$ 0.08 m−3), which is expected to be affordable by the farmers.
The sludge from the treatment process will be landfilled around the treatment plant
on contours or used, based on its quality. In terms of energy requirement and supply,
the plant will generate 70 % of its own energy requirement through biogas produc-
tion and its utilization. There are also plans to build three relatively small treatment
plants in other parts of Mezquital Valley.
With the perception that nutrients in wastewater would be removed during the
treatment process, the wastewater irrigating farmers in Mezquital Valley have ex-
pressed displeasure with the program of wastewater treatment. To address farmers’
concern, the treatment plant management plans to establish demonstration sites us-
ing treated wastewater and growing the same crops farmers grow, to demonstrate
that the amount of nutrients left in the treated wastewater would be sufficient for
crop growth without yield reduction.

9.4.2 Ezousa and Akrotiri Aquifers in Cyprus

All of the treated wastewater produced in the southwestern coastal city of Paphos in
Cyprus is used for Ezousa aquifer recharge, which is subsequently pumped for irri-
gation through diversion in an irrigation channel. Irrigation with treated wastewater
in the country is regulated by the Code of Good Agricultural Practice. The treated
wastewater can be applied to all crops except leafy vegetables, bulbs, and corn eaten
raw. The major crops irrigated with treated wastewater are citrus trees, olive trees,
fodder crops, industrial crops, and cereals. In addition, it is used for landscape and
football field irrigation (Papaiacovou and Papatheodoulou 2013).
Similar to Paphos, wastewater generated by the southern coastal city of Limassol
in Cyprus is collected, treated, and used for many purposes. During winter when
the demand for water in agriculture decreases, treated wastewater is pumped to an
irrigation dam for storage or recharge of Akrotiri aquifer. In 2010, about 15 % of
treated wastewater was used for the aquifer recharge. There are considerations to
increase the volume of treated wastewater to replenish the Akrotiri aquifer.
9  Costs and Benefits of Using Wastewater for Aquifer Recharge 161

Based on a comprehensive literature review, focus group discussions, and infor-

mal interviews with local experts, policy makers, farmers, and members of the gen-
eral public, Birol et al. (2010) evaluated stakeholders’ participation and economics
of Akrotiri aquifer recharge by wastewater. They identified local farmers and the
residents of Limassol city as the main stakeholders that would benefit from aquifer
recharge. Farmers in and around the area depend on both direct use of treated waste-
water and/or from the aquifer. Limassol residents, on the other hand, derive indirect
use values through the consumption of locally produced vegetables, as well as non-
use values from the ecological status of the local environment and the employment
of local population in agriculture, both of which are supported by the aquifer.
Under the aquifer management plan, Birol et al. (2010) estimated the total annual
value for the 6 million m3 of treated wastewater to replenish the Akrotiri aquifer as
US$ 1.182 million (1.000 US$ = 0.442 Cyprus Pound in 2010); i.e. US$ 0.20 m−3.
The economic evaluation revealed that the net benefit generated by the aquifer re-
charge is positive and the benefits extend well into the future. The continuation of
Akrotiri aquifer recharge by wastewater would yield a welfare improvement that
would increase the economic benefits to all the stakeholders in both the short-and
long-term, and would help Cyprus in its efforts to meet the European Union’s (EU)
Water Framework Directive, WFD (2000/60/EC) requirements by 2015. In compli-
ance with Article 9 of the WFD (2000/60/EC), Cyprus has launched a new water
pricing policy to recover the cost of water services. To encourage the use of treated
wastewater for agricultural irrigation, it is supplied to potential users without full
cost recovery at a cost lower than freshwater (Table 9.2) while full cost recovery is
expected to be implemented gradually.

9.4.3 Aquifer in Bangalore, India

In 2011, the Department of Minor Irrigation, Bangalore launched a long planned lift
irrigation project to provide water from Yellemallappashetty Lake to Amani Dodda-
kere Lake in the Hoskote area. Yellemallappashetty Lake receives mostly untreated
wastewater from northeastern and eastern parts of Bangalore. The Amani Dodda-
kere Lake was dry for more than 20 years, due to reduced rainfall in its catchment
area. The project aimed at refilling Amani Doddakere Lake, which resulted in seep-

Table 9.2   Proposed charges (US$ m−3) for the different uses of treated wastewater and unfiltered
freshwater used for irrigation in Cyprus. (Adapted from MANRE 2010)
Potential use Treated wastewater Freshwater
Agricultural organizations for agricultural production 0.07 0.20
Individuals for agricultural production 0.09 0.23
Sports activities 0.20 0.45
Landscape and hotel gardens irrigation 0.20 0.45
Abstraction from aquifer recharged by wastewater 0.11 ―
162 M. Qadir et al.

age of wastewater from the lake to groundwater and as a consequence an increase

in the water level in the existing wells. Intense tube well drilling in the past had de-
creased the groundwater level, which led to dysfunction of many wells in the area.
The increase in the water level in the existing wells around Amani Doddakere
Lake has provided the local farmers a cost-effective means of acquiring water for
irrigation, which tends to reduce their farm production costs and increases crop
yields. This strategy has also helped the farmers to remain in the local community
and be productive by contributing to the agricultural economy of the city. There are
indirect benefits associated with this project, as land with access to (waste) water
would have more value than land without access to water/wastewater. In addition,
there is another business opportunity as many truck operators in the Hoskote area
are selling water from recharged wells to several small and medium businesses
(Scharnowski 2013).
A recent study stemming from the farmers’ perspectives on the project shows
that farmers in Hoskote area who faced serious problems with the supply of ir-
rigation water in the past due to the dysfunction of many wells are willing to pay
US$  30  ha−1 for each crop season for the recharged groundwater to be used for
irrigation (Scharnowski 2013). Furthermore, the farmers are willing to contribute
around 25 % of the operation and maintenance costs. The payment mechanisms by
the farmers are expected to be finalized and operational soon.
Empirical analysis of the sustainability of the project (Scharnowski 2013) sug-
gests that the planned use of wastewater in this scheme could serve as a viable op-
tion to reduce water scarcity challenges in similar peri-urban and rural areas in In-
dia. However, the research also suggests that variables such as education, household
size, health perceptions, and quality of wastewater may affect farmers’ willingness
to pay for groundwater recharge.

9.4.4 Bolivar Aquifer in Australia

The first reclaimed water aquifer storage and recovery project in Australia was pro-
posed in 1996 in Bolivar, which is 25 km north of Adelaide. The project aimed at
testing the technical, economic and environmental viability of storing reclaimed
water in an aquifer in winter, for recovery in summer, when peak horticultural
demand may exceed the capacity of the water reclamation plant to supply water
through its pipeline. Surface storage was prohibitively expensive and recharge by
surface infiltration was not viable, due to thick surficial clay formation. Therefore,
wastewater was injected for groundwater recharge.
A unique aspect of the project is that the injected water is treated only to a level
suitable for unrestricted irrigation. Thus, the water retains substantial nutrient con-
centrations (Dillon et al. 2006). Given the proximity to farm drinking water supplies,
it was vital that the drinking water supplies were protected. After initial drilling, suit-
ability of the site for aquifer recharge and drinking water protection was confirmed
and a monitoring program has been in place for water quality assessment.
9  Costs and Benefits of Using Wastewater for Aquifer Recharge 163

The estimated cost of the recharge project, excluding water treatment and pipe-
line costs, is between Aus$ 0.06 and 0.14 m−3 (1.000 US$ = 1.328 Aus$) depending
on the volume of water recovered per well, the depreciation rate, and the assumed
working lives of wells and pumps. This overlaps the range of costs for ground-
water extraction by individual irrigators for typical annual production volumes
(US$  0.09 to 0.26  m−3), taking into account capital and operating costs and the
expected lifetimes of wells and pumps. However, the initial sale price of reclaimed
water, Aus$ 0.06–0.11 m−3 depending on season, was not sufficient to cover the cost
of aquifer storage and recovery, leading to a gradual increase in pricing. In terms of
technical and environmental assessment, when summer demand would exceed the
pipeline’s capacity, the option of aquifer storage and recovery would be technically
and environmentally viable. Preliminary modelling suggests that the aquifer has
adequate storage capacity for annual storage and recovery volumes in the range of
5–10 million m3.

9.4.5 Mashhad Plain Aquifer in Iran

The metropolitan city of Mashhad is located in Mashhad Plain in the northeast of

Iran. Mashhad is the second largest city of Iran. Water demands have increased
with the city’s expanding population and industrial growth. The annual volume of
water withdrawn from the Mashhad Plain aquifer (1492 million m3) exceeds an-
nual recharge (1203 million m3), which is contributed by surface water of the plain
(252 million m3) and water infiltration into aquifer (951 million m3). As a result of
overexploitation of groundwater through excessive pumping, groundwater balance
in the area has been disturbed and its level is declining every year (Alaei 2011). At
the same time, the volume of wastewater from domestic and industrial sectors is
increasing.
Since 2005, much of the untreated wastewater from the city has been injected
into the aquifer, through wells, while the remainder has been disposed into the Ka-
shafrud River and its tributaries. This approach has resulted in: (1) the contamina-
tion of groundwater ‘Ab-khan’ of Mashhad with a range of pollutants; (2) excessive
pumping from the eastern part of the aquifer, resulting in depletion of water at a fast
rate and abandoning of drinking water wells east of Mashhad, thereby affecting the
well-being of the city population; and (3) contamination of Kashafrud River and
its tributaries, particularly with microbiological pollutants (Alaei 2011). With con-
tamination of both surface water and groundwater, farmers in urban and peri-urban
Mashhad irrigate several crops, including vegetables, with polluted water.
To minimize pollution of water resources and augment water supply of good qual-
ity, the government has constructed wastewater treatment plants to produce treated
wastewater for groundwater recharge, disposal into the Kashafrud River, or direct
use for irrigation. Two treatment plants have been completed and another is un-
der construction. With the implementation of the water recycling plan of Mashhad,
the following allocations have been made for annual volume of the 253 million m3
164 M. Qadir et al.

wastewater (Alaei 2011): (1) 150 million m3 per year to replace the use of existing
and permitted use of groundwater; (2) 95 million m3 per year to stabilize ground-
water level and to prevent mixing of saline and good-quality groundwater; and (3)
8 million m3 per year to supply water needed for industry and green spaces.

9.5 Public Acceptance, Legal Frameworks, and Policies

for Aquifer Recharge

Several municipalities worldwide are augmenting their drinking water supplies

with treated wastewater through aquifer recharge or reservoir enhancement. Yet
public acceptance of indirect use is not universal (Asano and Cotruvo 2004; Nijha-
wan et al. 2013; Zekri et al. 2014; see also Chap. 5). While assessing the potential
of treated wastewater for aquifer recharge as a favorable and appealing project in
Oman, Zekri et al. (2014) suspect that the project may face rejection from domestic
users, who may be unwilling to accept mixing treated wastewater with the current
water supply due to perceived health risks.
In a recent online survey conducted in India, 64 % of 194 respondents favored
using treated municipal wastewater for groundwater recharge, while 28 % opposed,
and 8 % remained indifferent (Nijhawan et al. 2013). The primary concern among
respondents was skepticism that wastewater might not be treated properly before
being injected into the aquifer. If the survey is indicative of broader public per-
ceptions, then efforts to ensure residents that only fully treated wastewater will
be used in the recharge program would be helpful in securing public support. Pro-
viding additional information, e.g. details on wastewater treatment and quality of
treated wastewater, would enable residents to better evaluate the pertinent risks and
benefits.
In addition to public concerns for acceptance of aquifer recharge with wastewa-
ter and indirect use of recharged water, legal frameworks and supportive policies
and institutions are lacking in many countries to implement and promote planned
use of wastewater for aquifer recharge (Asano and Cotruvo 2004). Therefore, rel-
evant legislation and pertinent policies and institutional settings are essentially re-
quired to accommodate and regulate the use of wastewater for recharge.

9.6 Conclusions

Water stored through aquifer recharge by treated wastewater can provide a reli-
able supply of water during times of inter-seasonal and inter-year water shortages,
reverse falling groundwater levels, reduce water losses associated with leakage
and evaporation, and provide ecosystem and economic benefits. However, there
is clear distinction between developed and developing countries with regard to the
quality of wastewater used for aquifer recharge. Research and practice on the use
9  Costs and Benefits of Using Wastewater for Aquifer Recharge 165

of wastewater for aquifer recharge have been mainly focused on planned aquifer
recharge in developed countries and on unplanned aquifer recharge in developing
countries.
While most wastewater generated in developing countries remains in untreat-
ed or partly treated forms, use of highly contaminated wastewater for aquifer re-
charge may pose health and environmental risks in the long run, particularly if the
groundwater-receiving wastewater is used for drinking. In general, wastewater
would have to be treated before recharge to the lowest level that would not affect
overall groundwater quality. Periodic monitoring of groundwater quantity and qual-
ity would be needed to assess long-term effects.
Site-specific economic analysis has revealed that underground storage capacity
can possibly be developed at less cost than surface storage facilities without evapo-
ration losses. In addition, aquifer recharge through certain approaches such as the
SAT system could be more economical than the conventional wastewater treatment
systems. However, presence of permeable media in infiltration basins or injection
wells is essential for effective recharge.

Take Home Messages

• Wastewater use for aquifer recharge can yield many benefits through
increase in groundwater level for later reuse, decrease in environmental
pollution by preventing indiscriminate discharge into surface water bodies,
and decrease in evaporation losses.
• Wastewater needs treatment before recharge to the lowest level that would
not affect overall groundwater quality negatively.
• In many countries, (new) legislation and institutional arrangements are
required to accommodate and regulate the use of wastewater for aquifer
recharge and related ecosystem services.
• Efforts are needed to address public concerns for acceptance of aquifer
recharge with wastewater and indirect use of recharged water for different
uses.

References

Alaei M (2011) Water recycling in Mashhad plain (Effluent management: opportunities and
threats). In: Proceedings of the ICID 21st International Congress on Irrigation and Drainage,
15–23 October 2011, Tehran, Iran (Paper Number R.56.3.08). http://www.irncid.org/english/
ArticlesDet.aspx?ID=115&CatId=17
Asano T, Cotruvo JA (2004) Groundwater recharge with reclaimed municipal wastewater: health
and regulatory considerations. Water Res 38(8):1941–1951
Bahri A (2009) Managing the other side of the water cycle: making wastewater an asset. Global
Water Partnership Technical Committee (TEC), Background Paper 13, Global Water Partner-
ship
166 M. Qadir et al.

Birol E, Koundouri P, Kountouris Y (2010) Assessing the economic viability of alternative water
resources in water-scarce regions: combining economic valuation, cost-benefit analysis and
discounting. Ecol Econ 69:839–847
Bouwer H (1991) Role of groundwater recharge in treatment and storage of wastewater for reuse.
Water Sci Technol 24:295–302
Clifford P, Landry C, Larsen-Hayden A (2004) Analysis of water banks in the western states.
Washington Department of Ecology. Publication Number 04-11-011
Dillon P, Pavelic P, Toze S, Rinck-Pfeiffer S, Martin R, Knapton A, Pidsley D (2006) Role of
aquifer storage in water reuse. Desalination 188:123–134
Foster S, Garduño H, Tuinhof A, Kemper K, Nanni M (2005) Urban wastewater as groundwater
recharge: evaluating and managing the risks and benefits. Sustainable Groundwater Manage-
ment Concepts & Tools. GWMATE Briefing Note Series Note 12. The World Bank, Washing-
ton DC, USA. http://www.un-igrac.org/dynamics/modules/SFIL0100/view.php?fil_Id=173.
Accessed 25 Aug 2014
GWI (Global Water Intelligence) (2009) Municipal water reuse markets 2010. Media Analytics
Ltd., Oxford
Heinz I, Salgot M, Koo-Oshima S (2011) Water reclamation and intersectoral water transfer be-
tween agriculture and cities-a FAO economic wastewater study. Water Sci Technol 63(5):1068–
1074
Jiménez B (2008) Unplanned reuse of wastewater for human consumption: the Tula valley, Mexi-
co. In: Jimenez B, Asano T (eds) Water reuse: an international survey of current practice issues
and needs. IWA Publishing, London
Jiménez B, Chávez A (2004) Quality assessment of an aquifer recharged with wastewater for its
potential use as drinking source: “El Mezquital Valley” case. Water Sci Technol 50(2):269–276
Khan S, Mushtaq S, Hanjra MA, Schaeffer J (2008) Estimating potential costs and gains from an
aquifer storage and recovery program in Australia. Agric Water Manage 95(4):477–488
MANRE: Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment (2010) Water framework
directive EU—reporting sheets on economics. Nicosia, Republic of Cyprus
McCartney M, Smakhtin V (2010) Water storage in an era of climate change: addressing the chal-
lenge of increasing rainfall variability. IWMI Blue Paper: International Water Management
Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and Human well-being: wetlands
and water synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DC
Nema P, Ojha CSP, Kumar A, Khanna P (2001) Techno-economic evaluation of soil-aquifer treat-
ment using primary effluent at Ahmedabad, India. Water Res 35(9):2179–2190
Nijhawan A, Laghasetwar P, Jain P, Rahate M (2013) Public consultation on artificial aquifer re-
charge using treated municipal wastewater. Resour Conserv Recycl 70:20–24
O’Donnell M, Colby B (2010) Water banks: a tool for enhancing water supply reliability. Depart-
ment of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Arizona, USA. http://ag.arizona.
edu/arec/pubs/facultypubs/ewsr-Banks-final-5-12-10.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2015
Papaiacovou I, Papatheodoulou A (2013) Integration of water reuse for the sustainable manage-
ment of water resources in Cyprus. In: Lazarova V, Asano T, Bahri A, Anderson J (eds) Mile-
stones in water reuse. IWA Publishing, London, pp 75–82
Pescod MB (1992) Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture. irrigation and drainage Paper
No. 47, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
Scharnowski P (2013) Farmers willingness to pay for groundwater recharge with urban wastewater
in rural Bangalore, India. Master Thesis, University of Bonn, Germany, p 117
Sprenger C, Lorenzen G, Grunert A, Ronghang M, Dizer H, Selinka H-C, Girones R, Lopez-
Pila JM, Mittal AK, Szewzyk R (2014) Removal of indigenous coliphages and enteric viruses
during riverbank filtration from highly polluted river water in Delhi (India). J Water Health
12(2):332–342
TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) (2013) The economics of ecosystems and
biodiversity for water and wetlands, p 77
9  Costs and Benefits of Using Wastewater for Aquifer Recharge 167

Van Steenbergen F, Tuinhof A, Knoop L (2011) Transforming landscapes transforming lives—

The business of sustainable water buffer management. 3R Water Secretariat, Wageningen, The
Netherlands. http://www.bebuffered.com/3rbook.htm. Accessed 25 Aug 2014
Voudouris K (2011) Artificial recharge via boreholes using treated wastewater: possibilities and
prospects. Water 3(4):964–975
Ying GG, Kookana RS, Dillon PJ (2003) Sorption and degradation of five selected endocrine
disrupting chemicals in aquifer material. Water Res 37(15):3785–3791
Zekri S, Ahmed M, Chaieb R, Ghaffour N (2014) Managed aquifer recharge using quaternary-
treated wastewater: an economic perspective. Int J Water Res Dev 30(2):246–261
Chapter 10
Economics of Water Reuse for Industrial,
Environmental, Recreational and Potable
Purposes

Miriam Otoo, Javier Mateo-Sagasta and Ganesha Madurangi

Abstract  Water reuse offers considerable economic value through the provision of
health and environmental benefits, water and energy cost-savings and opportuni-
ties for businesses. In addition, activities associated with water reuse can generate
revenue through the sale of water, energy, carbon credits, and by-products. Data
limitations restrict the degree to which we can conduct a fully informed economic
analysis of all pertinent costs and benefits. Yet the available information suggests
the net benefits of water reuse can be substantial. We examine selected empirical
cases of water reuse, highlighting the costs and benefits, and also reflecting on the
enabling environment, challenges and opportunities for selected reuse options. The
country-level experiences we describe provide insight for countries whose water
resources are stretched by increasing urbanization and a changing climate.

Keywords  Wastewater economics · Data limitations · Landscaping · Water reuse ·

Value proposition

10.1 Introduction

Reuse of water for industrial, domestic and agricultural purposes has occurred
throughout history. However, planned reuse only gained importance two or three
decades ago with increasing demands for water due to technological advance-
ment, population growth, and urbanization (AQUAREC 2006). In many emerging
economies, such as India, Mexico and Thailand, rapidly growing industries such

M. Otoo () · J. Mateo-Sagasta
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
e-mail: m.otoo@cgiar.org
J. Mateo-Sagasta
e-mail: j.mateo-sagasta@cgiar.org
G. Madurangi
c/o International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
e-mail: ganesha.madurangi@gmail.com
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 169
P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_10
170 M. Otoo et al.

as textiles place new demands on limited groundwater, while also degrading water
quality by discharging untreated effluent (Lazarova et al. 2013). The reuse of in-
dustrial wastewater for water-intensive processes such as washing, bleaching and
dyeing reduces the industry’s demand on water resources up to 75 % (WRG 2013).
The reduction in urban water withdrawal can improve water availability for other
users such as farmers operating near cities. In addition, the cessation of untreated
effluent discharges improves the return flow to water bodies.
Water reuse for recreational, environmental and potable purposes is also increas-
ingly relevant. There are cases in numerous countries where wastewater has been
used to create artificial lakes or wetlands, restore natural wetlands, and irrigate golf
courses, parks and gardens (Alfranca et al. 2011; Jimenez 2013; Muciñio 2001). In
countries such as Kuwait, Morocco and Mexico, alternative water sources, such as
brackish water, continue to be insufficient to meet the growing demands for water
for landscaping, agriculture, and other non-potable uses. Reclaimed water is used
in combination with brackish water and supplied for non-potable uses, such as ir-
rigating landscapes along highways, roads and public gardens, and for agricultural
lands and groundwater recharge. These practices have resulted in a reduction in
freshwater withdrawal and increased urban supply.
Related benefits also extend to cases of wastewater use for potable purposes.
Unplanned and indirect use of wastewater for potable purposes has always oc-
curred, however planned and indirect potable reuse (PIPR) spans now for more
than 60 years. This practice has been reported mainly, but not only, in industrialized
countries (Royte 2008; Rodriguez et al. 2009; Quayle 2012). Several cases exist in
Australia, England, Belgium and the United States (Meehan et al. 2013; Essex and
Suffolk Water 2008) where recycled effluent contributes on average about 5–8 %
of the water supply during dry periods. Direct “pipe to pipe” potable reuse is also
possible, and occurs in practice, as the case in Windhoek, Namibia, demonstrates,
although it is a unique case (Lahnsteiner et al. 2013b; WRG 2013).
The socio-economic and environmental benefits of wastewater use must be con-
sidered along with the direct or indirect costs. In the textile industry, for example, en-
ergy-intensive processes are required for effluent treatment. This has profitability and
competitiveness implications for the businesses and represents an increased urban
energy demand, in a context of energy scarcity and intersectoral competition. Land-
scaping competes with potable uses for wastewater in some cities (Jimenez 2013;
Muciñio 2001). The use of inadequately treated wastewater for irrigation of parks and
gardens carries the risk of groundwater contamination and potential health hazards.
In addition, many urban households and industries are not yet ready to accept treated
wastewater as potable, choosing instead to rely on alternative sources of water.
Advocating for water reuse for industrial, landscaping and potable uses requires
that the reuse options demonstrate the principle of no appreciable harm. Thus,
wastewater use must not impose a net economic loss, or increase environmental
and human health risk. This means the reuse options must leave no one worse off
while generating benefits for some (Chap.  7). Several studies have assessed the
socio-economic benefits and costs of the multiple uses of wastewater (Lazarova
et al. 2013; Weldesilassie et al. 2011). Cost assessments are often straightforward,
while benefits are typically associated with monetary and non-monetary factors that
10  Economics of Water Reuse for Industrial, Environmental … 171

are difficult to measure. Furthermore, although there are many valuation methods
for estimating socio-economic benefits, none is universally accepted, such that the
comparison of results is difficult. In addition, economic assessments are particularly
scarce in developing countries.
Despite these complexities in the economic assessments of water reuse, there
are examples where the introduction of water reuse has served the dual purpose of
addressing water scarcity and waste management challenges. From that perspec-
tive, one would expect an extensive application of reclaimed water for industrial
use, landscaping, and potable purposes. However, the potential for water reuse has
not yet been fully exploited in many developing countries and emerging economies
(Asano 2002). To the best of our knowledge, a comprehensive documentation of
water reuse for industrial, potable and non-potable purposes is not available. Moti-
vated in part by this lack of information, we assess the costs and benefits of water
reuse for industrial, environmental, recreational, and potable uses in developing
countries and emerging economies. In particular, we examine selected examples of
wastewater use that might provide helpful insight for countries in which water re-
sources are stretched by increasing urbanization and changing climatic conditions.
We apply the conceptual framework outlined in the previous chap. 7.

10.2 Motivation and Trends in Using Wastewater for

Industrial, Landscaping and Potable Purposes

Globally, about 80 % of the water produced by tertiary treatment in wastewater

facilities is used for irrigation of crops or landscape, for industrial purposes, or
for environmental enhancement (GWI 2010). While water scarcity is the primary
motivation for reuse, each type of reuse contributes to a well-defined purpose and
follows a notable pattern or trend. While chap.  8 in the volume looked at agri-
cultural water and the challenge of assessing its costs and benefits from a larger
economic perspective, in this chapter, we will examine the use of wastewater in
non-agricultural settings.
Water Reuse for Industrial Purposes  Increasing incentives for industrialization in
many developing countries have resulted in increased groundwater abstraction and
water quality degradation as a result of effluent discharges from industries. Many
industries have the capacity to use recycled water in their operations (Asano 2002)
as shown in Table  10.1. Many textile firms in India, Thailand and Vietnam, use
wastewater for water intensive processes such as washing, bleaching and dyeing.
Internal process water, with appropriate treatment, is also used for washing tanks,
and in boilers and cooling towers in the food industry as seen in the examples of
Nestlé and Unilever in South Africa (WRG 2013).
While these practices are implemented largely as part of a water use reduction
strategy, particularly for industrial purposes, a key motivation is also to reduce
water pollution. Increasing enforcement of legislative mandates related to environ-
mental protection, such as zero industrial effluent discharge standards, is motivating
Table 10.1   Examples of water reuse projects for industrial, environmental/recreational and potable purposes. (Source: IWMI (based on secondary data sources))
172

Type of Name of the Country Type of Scale of Freshwater Driving factors of Purpose of Technology Source of
Reuse reuse project industry/ production consump- water reuse water reusea for wastewater data
use tion without treatment
reclamationa
Industrial Tiruppur India Textile 121,600 tons/ 1,200,000 m3/ Zero liquid dis- Washing, Reversed WRG
purposes textile sector year of textile year charge legislative bleaching, osmosis and (2013);
mandate dyeing, cool- thermal evapo- Buvaneswari
Production risk ing towers ration system (2014)
reductionb
Essar Steel India Steel 10,000,000 3,900,000 m3/ Reduce freshwater Cooling tow- Pressure WRG 2013
and Power industry tons/year of Year consumption ers, furnace filtration
steel Water and energy cleaning,
cost-savings fire lighting
systems
Panipat India Petro- 12,000,000 Data not Stringent regula- Boiler makeup Pressure sand Lahnsteiner
refinery chemical tons/year of oil available tion—zero liquid water; process filtration, et al. (2013a)
industry discharge for production ultra filtration
Fluctuating raw of purified and reverse
water quality terephtalic osmosis
Diversify regional acid; cooling
water supply tower
portfolio
Unilever South Food 65,000 tons/ 88,000m3/year Reduce demand for Fabrication, Lagoon biore- WRG (2013)
Africa industry year of dry municipal water washing, dilu- actor, filtration
foods; 320 m3/ supply tion and cool- and reverse
day of milkc Reduce production ing towers osmosis
risk technologies
Middle Saudi Paper 400,000 tons/ 8,000,000 m3/ Water cost-savings All production Aerobic and Jung and
East Paper Arabia industry year of paper year processes anaerobic treat- Pauly
Company ment; reverse (2011);
M. Otoo et al.

osmosis WRG (2013)

Table 10.1  (continued)
Type of Name of the Country Type of Scale of Freshwater Driving factors of Purpose of Technology Source of
Reuse reuse project industry/ production consump- water reuse water reusea for wastewater data
use tion without treatment
reclamationa
Rio Tinto Australia Mining Data not 3,645,000 m3/ Reduce freshwater All production Retention pond WRG (2013)
Argyle Mine available year abstraction processes
Environ- Marrakech Morocco Green- Not applicable 287,000– Water cost-savings Landscape and Micro-filtra- Weblinkd;
mental wastewater ing of 600,000 m3/ Insufficient alterna- agricultural tion; reverse Sun et al.
and treatment landscapes Day tive water resources land irrigation; osmosis (2013)
Recrea- plant groundwater
tional Sulaibiya Kuwait recharge
purposes wastewater
reclamation
project
Quighe and China
BeiXiaoHe
Water
Reclamation
Plant
10  Economics of Water Reuse for Industrial, Environmental …

Jonan Japan Restora- Not applicable 43,200– Drying up of natural Water chan- Activated Jimenez
Three River tion of 380,000 m3/ water resources— nels and river sludge; sand (2013);
Project wetlands day restoration of water restoration filtration; Muciñio
Texcoco Mexico and channels, lakes and advanced (2001)
Lake reservoirs rivers treatment with
A20 nutri-
ent removal
process
173
Table 10.1  (continued)
174

Type of Name of the Country Type of Scale of Freshwater Driving factors of Purpose of Technology Source of
Reuse reuse project industry/ production consump- water reuse water reusea for wastewater data
use tion without treatment
reclamationa
Potable Windhoek Namibia Direct Not applicable 70,000 m3/day Shortage of drinking Potable water Micro-filtra- Lahnsteiner
purposesb municipality potable water due to severe use; non- tion;, reverse et al.
water & long droughts potable use osmosis; UV/ (2013b);
Alternative (eco- (landscape H2O2 WRG (2013)
nomical) sources of irrigation)
potable water
NEWater Singapore Indirect Not applicable 20,000– Replenish ground- Indirect pota- Advanced Houtte et al.
project potable 350,000 m3/ water levels and ble water use dual-mem- (2013);
Toreele Belgium water day reservoirs to address via groundwa- brane (micro- WRG (2013)
project limited natural ter recharge filtration &
water resources & reservoir reverse osmo-
replenishment; sis); activated
artificial aqui- sludge process;
fer recharge; denitrification
non-potable
uses
a
For potable purposes and environmental/recreational purposes, we define by the reclaimed water used
b
As related to unreliable availability/supply of water
c
Data applicable only to cases of Unilever and Nestlé, South Africa
d
Source: http://www.xylemwatersolutions.com/scs/Middle-East/en-us/press/Case%20Studies/Documents/Biological%20treatment%20%20
%E2%80%A2%20%20Water%20Reuse%20Sulaibiya,%20The%20World%E2%80%99s%20Largest%20Water%20Reuse%20Plant%20in%20Kuwait.pdf
M. Otoo et al.
10  Economics of Water Reuse for Industrial, Environmental … 175

industries to install infrastructure for wastewater treatment and to comply with ef-
fluent discharge standards both in developed and developing countries. Investments
for wastewater treatment particularly in the paper industry, steel production, tex-
tile manufacturing and food industries are increasing, as non-compliance usually is
more costly (Wang et al. 2008).
Additionally, particularly in the food sector, businesses face increasing produc-
tion risk with growing variability in urban water supply (Asano 2002). To reduce
the risk of any impact on the plant operation due to poor water availability, these
businesses make use of alternate sources of water, such as rainwater harvesting and
condensate recovery. These practices often come with high investment costs and
some businesses choose to invest in additional revenue-generating or cost-saving
activities such as energy recovery or the sale of by-products, noting the incremental
benefits from wastewater treatment and use as related to new revenue generation
opportunities. An example is the Indian textile industry in Tiruppur, which uses large
amounts of salts in the dyeing process. The water reclamation process regenerates
these salts as a byproduct, providing an additional revenue stream to the water reuse
process and contributing to the business’ sustainability strategy (Buvaneswari 2014).
Water Reuse for Landscaping  Many cities and environmental agencies use waste-
water to create artificial lakes or wetlands, restore natural wetlands or irrigate golf
courses, parks and gardens. In water-stressed countries such as Peru, Kuwait and
parts of South Africa, water reuse represents a sustainable water management strat-
egy, especially given that the country’s water resources, including brackish water,
are insufficient to meet the increasing demands from landscaping, agriculture and
other non-potable uses. Water scarcity and the increasing cost of importing water
from afar motivate much of the water reuse to irrigate landscaping along highways,
roads and public gardens. In addition to landscape irrigation, reclaimed water has
been used to restore natural wetlands areas in Spain and Mexico (Jimenez 2013;
Muciñio 2001).
Water Reuse for Potable Purposes  Unplanned and indirect use of wastewater for
potable purposes has always occurred. There is a long history of human settlements
withdrawing water for drinking from rivers receiving wastewater from upstream
communities. This happens in both developed and developing countries, although
for the latter, wastewater is mostly discharged untreated, posing health risks for
downstream communities. Planned and indirect potable reuse (PIPR) occurs when
treated wastewater is deliberately blended with conventional drinking water sup-
plies (i.e., a reservoir, river, or aquifer) and then re-treated to meet drinking water
standards before delivery. This practice has been reported mainly, but not only, in
industrialized countries. For example, Singapore (NEWater) mixes its potable sup-
ply with 2.5 % recycled effluent (Liam and Seah 2013). Drinking water in Cali-
fornia’s Orange County Water District contains 10 % recycled effluent (Rodriguez
et al. 2009); and the drinking water supply of Atlantis, South Africa, consists of
25–40 % recycled effluent (Quayle 2012). During dry periods, the Langford Recy-
cling Scheme in Essex, England, is capable of contributing 8 % recycled effluent to
the overall water supply (Essex and Suffolk Water 2008). Other examples of indi-
176 M. Otoo et al.

rect potable reuse are found in Australia and in Torreele in Belgium (Houtte et al.
2013; Troy et al. 2013; Meehan et al. 2013).
Historically, much of the use of wastewater for industrial, environmental, and
potable purposes has been motivated by water scarcity or by a desire to reduce
water pollution and protect the aquatic environment (Asano 2002). In recent years,
technological innovations, such as ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet ir-
radiation have generated perceptions of enhanced safety of blending reclaimed wa-
ter in reservoirs or aquifers for potable purposes, such as those shown in Table 10.1.
Adoption of technology-driven approaches that promote advanced reuse is increas-
ing, as indicated by the example of NEWater project in Singapore. In this case, a
Water Efficient Homes Programme was launched to alter behavior at the domes-
tic level. Additional community engagement, educational programmes regarding
wastewater treatment and development of programmes encouraging Singaporeans
to take ownership of their surrounding water bodies engaged the public in under-
standing the value of water (WRG 2013). This strategy increased public acceptance
of indirect potable water reuse.

10.3 Economics of Water Reuse for Industrial Purposes,

Landscaping and Potable Purposes

10.3.1 Empirical Cases of Water Reuse for Industrial

Purposes

Water reuse for industrial purposes is motivated largely by one or more of three con-
siderations: (1) water scarcity; (2) business sustainability strategy and (3) compli-
ance with legislative mandates. While many business sustainability strategies and
related new investments are geared towards mitigating production risk (mostly due
to poor water availability—in our case), compliance with legislative mandates is
gaining importance in many investment decisions. In Tiruppur, India, a high court
mandated zero liquid discharge for all textile businesses (WRG 2013). The sum of
the investments required to achieve zero discharge by the nine effluent treatment
plants in Tiruppur was $ 84 million1, due largely to the scale of the businesses and
the need for highly advanced technologies (combined reverse osmosis and ther-
mal evaporation systems). The implicit cost of non-compliance was comparatively
higher, as the industry generates more than $ 1 billion in annual exports.
The sale of captured dye salts provides an additional revenue stream to the water
reclamation process. The industries reclaim 95 % of effluent discharge, which is
resupplied as freshwater for process use, thus satisfying 75 % of the textile plant’s
water requirement. As a result, the demand on urban water supply reduced by
900,000 m3 per year. With an estimated unit cost of water of $ 5.00 per m3, the esti-
mated cost savings generated from water is $ 4,500,000 per year (Table 10.2). The

1 
All $ values refer to United States dollars.
Table 10.2   Economic assessment of water reuse for industrial, landscaping and potable purposes. (Source: IWMI (based on secondary data sources))
Financial costs Financial benefits Economic benefits
Purpose Type of Name of reuse Type of Volume O&M costs Investment Cost savings Revenue A = Reduced fresh-
of water industry/ projects water of Treated cost for from water reuse generation water withdrawal
reuse Specific reuse Wastewater treatment B = Reduced
reuse groundwater
contamination
C = Reduction in
effluent discharge
Indus- 1.Textile Tiruppur textile Washing, 922,000 m3/ $ 4.0/m3 $ 84,000,000 $ 450,000/month Sale of A = 900,000 m3
trial sector, India bleaching year captured dye (− 75 %)
purposes and dyeing salts B = 691,500 m3/year
processes C = Zero discharge
2. Steel Essar Steel, Washing NAa $ 0.05/m3 b $ 380,000 $ 32,200/monthc NA A = 644,000 m3/
India tanks and month
cooling B = 86 % of gener-
towers, ated wastewater
sludge for
horticulture
3. Power Essar Power, Cooling, 1,500,000 $ 0.05/m3 $ 380,000 $ 381,000/year NA A = 835,000 m3/year
10  Economics of Water Reuse for Industrial, Environmental …

India Electricity m3/year B = 718,000 m3/year

(86 % of generated
wastewater)
Matimba Cooling, 327,000,000 Not available $ 3,600,000d $ 3,125,000/yeare A = 62,500,000 m3/
Power, South Electricity m3/year year
Africa B = not provided
177
Table 10.2  (continued)
178

Financial costs Financial benefits Economic benefits

4. Petro- Panipat refin- Cooling 11,000,000 $ 0.46/m3 NA $ 66,000– NA A = 2,400,000 m3/
chemical ery, India towers m3/year 165,000/ year
month Increased indus-
RARE Project, 4,280,000 NA $ 55,000,000 $ 2,300,000/year trial water supply
USA m3/year security
A = 6,000,000 m3/
year
5. Food Unilever, Washing 95 m3/hour $ 5.0 m3f $ 2,900,000 $ 720,000/year Sale of elec- A = 12,000m3
industry South Africa tanks and tricity, carbon B = 88,000m3 (lower
cooling credits and limit)
Nestlé, South towers; NA $ 0.10/m3g $ 145,000 H20 A = 120,000 m3/year
Africa Energy (50 % reduction)
generation
6. Paper Middle East Process- 8.0 million $0.10/m3h $ 5.7 million $ 2.3 million/ NA A = 6,000,000 m3
industry Paper Com- ing, m3/year [1.2 mil- year
pany, Saudi washing, lion—internal
Arabia dilution, recycling unit;
cooling 4.5 million—
effluent treat-
ment unit]
7. Mining Rio Tinto Process- 3,600,000 $ 0.10/m3i $ 4,500,000 $ 392,000 NA A = up to 95 %
Argyle Mine, ing, m3/year [reduced costs of of original
Australia washing, pumping water = consumption
dilution, $ 150,000/year)
cooling
M. Otoo et al.
Table 10.2  (continued)
Financial costs Financial benefits Economic benefits
Envi- 1. Green- Quighe and Landscape 180,000 m3/ 0.12 euros/ NA 113,800 euros/ NA A = 1,800,000 m3/
ron- ing of BeiXiaoHe irriga- day m3 year year
mental public Water Recla- tion; road B = 360,000 m3/day
& city areas mation Plant, washing;
Recrea- China potable
tional Sulaibiya water 600,000 m3/ $ 0.65/m3 $ 11.0 billion
use wastewater day over lifetime
purposes reclamation
project, Kuwait
2. Golf Marrakech Landscape 110,000 m3/ NA 110.0 million $ 2,000,000; NA A = 19.0–20.0 mil-
courses Wastewater irrigation; day euros Supply of 30 % lion m3
Treatment energy of WWTP B = 110,000 m3/day
Plant, Morocco gen- electricity C = 30 % treated
eration; consumption; water discharged to
ground- 624,880 CERs river bed
water
recharge
3. Res- Texcoco Lake Restora- 37,300,000 $ 0.99/m3 $ 3,000,000 $ 12,000,000/ NA Avoided costs of
10  Economics of Water Reuse for Industrial, Environmental …

ervoir Restoration, tion of m3/year year $ 1.3 million/year

restora- Mexico channels from protection of
tion to supply 11,000 ha of urban
drinking area, 20,000 ha of
water ag. land and 750 ha
and for of the airport from
irrigation floods.
purposes
179
Table 10.2  (continued)
180

Financial costs Financial benefits Economic benefits

Potable 1. Direct Windhoek Potable 6,700,000 $ 0.35/m3 $ 27,700,000 $ 2,350,000/year Potable Supply 15–30 %
purposes potable Municipality, (drinking) m3/year water sale = $ of potable water
use Namibia water; 0.33–0.98/m3; demand; increased
Landscape Non-potable water supply
irrigation water sale = $ security result-
0.25–0.98/m3 ing in industrial
development
2. NEWater proj- Aquifer/ 511,000,000 1.22 SDG NA NA NA Supplies currently
Indirect ect, Singaporeground- m3/day (Singaporean 30 % of overall
potable water dollar)/m3 non-potable water
use (and recharge; demand; 2.5 % of
non- Water for potable demand;
potable industrial reduced future
use) and com- water supply risk
Managed Aqui- mercial 3,300,000 0.64 Euros/ 7,000,000 0.15–0.33 Euros/ NA A = 1.8–2.17 million
fer Recharge purposes m3/year m3 Euros m3 (0.27–0.6 m3/year
of Torreele, million Euros/
Belgium year)
a
NA means data is not available for the considered case
b
Defined by the unit cost of water
c
Assuming estimated unit cost of water is less than US$ 0.05/m3
d
Based on the annualized capital cost of a 500 MW wet cooled system
e
Based on the assumption that the estimated unit cost of waster is US$ 0.05 and the water savings is 62.5 million m3 /year
f
As measured by the unit cost of water
g
As measured by the unit cost of water
h
As measured by the unit cost of water
i
As measured by the unit cost of water
M. Otoo et al.
10  Economics of Water Reuse for Industrial, Environmental … 181

scale of reuse in the textile industry is large and increasing, resulting in improved
water quality and significant reductions in freshwater withdrawals. This however
comes at a high financial cost to businesses, which affects their profitability and
competiveness. Additionally, the use of energy intensive processes necessary to
meet zero effluent discharge implies that city authorities must now face the ad-
ditional challenge of supplying energy to an increasing population in competition
with these other sectors.
Similar cases can be found in other industries including petro-chemical business-
es, power-generating entities and mining in India, South Africa, Australia, and the
United States (Lahnsteiner et al. 2013a; Towey et al. 2013; WRG 2013). Good ex-
amples include the Panipat refinery project in Haryana, India and the RARE project
in California (Lahnsteiner et al. 2013a). Wastewater treatment for the RARE project
occurs on a large-scale basis and produces up to 4.3 million m3 per year of treated
wastewater, fulfilling their own water requirements for cooling towers and boiler
makeup. The use of advanced treatment technologies results in high investment
costs, up to $ 55 million. Innovative public-private partnerships creating a win-win
for all parties can mitigate the challenge of sourcing capital investment. In this proj-
ect, the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)—publicly-owned water sup-
plier utility to eastern San Francisco has established a unique collaboration with a
Chevron crude oil refinery. EBMUD agreed to supply 3.5 million gallons per day of
recycled water to Chevron. The direct economic benefit to EBMUD is the saving of
an equivalent amount of potable water at virtually no cost to its taxpayers, while for
Chevron (a 240,000 barrel per day crude oil processor); this represented a drought-
resistant water supply for its boilers. EBMUD’s commitment to sustainability and
reliability motivated Chevron to bear all the capital and O&M costs for the project
(EBMUD 2014). In some cases, such as the Panipat refinery in India, where all
costs are self-absorbed by the refinery, there is no direct economic benefit to the
business, as the cost of boiler make-up water production from the treated Yamuna
Canal water is much lower than the cost of using treated wastewater ($ 0.46/m3)
(Lahnsteiner et al. 2013a).
Water-intensive industries such as pulp and paper producers and food indus-
tries reuse treated wastewater to mitigate production risk (Jung and Pauly 2011).
Especially in high-water stress areas, imminent droughts and less sustainable wa-
ter management approaches, for example desalination, are causing businesses such
as Nestlé (Durban, South Africa), Unilever (Mossel Bay, South Africa) and Thai
Biogas Energy Company-TBEC (Thailand) to rethink their business sustainability
strategies. Wishing to reduce plant operation risk due to poor water availability,
Nestlé self-financed the installation of a water treatment and capture plant at the
cost of $ 145,000. Depending on the scale of the industry, the cost can vary sig-
nificantly (Table 10.2). It is noted that although these plants can reduce their out-
side water requirements from 50 to 80 %, invariably contributing to increased water
availability to other users, there are no significant financial gains to the businesses,
as these water reuse measures come at a significant cost. This is comparable to Uni-
lever, which invested $ 2.9 million to reduce its municipal water demand, as part
of its sustainable policies on implementing alternative water efficiency measures.
182 M. Otoo et al.

This suggests that the value businesses place on reliability of water supply is great-
er than the cost of capital investments and operations. Many food industries are
geared towards total water self-sufficiency under their water saving strategies. This
however does not refute the opportunities for additional revenue generation that
exist from treatment of industrial wastewater although limited to specific food/agro-
processing industries such as palm oil, cassava and ethanol processing. An example
is The Thai Biogas Energy Company (TBEC) which generates treated water and
electricity for its industrial processes and earns direct financial benefits via the sale
of excess water, energy and carbon credits to other agro-industries, the Electricity
Authority and European market respectively (TBEC 2014).
While revenue-generation from industrial water reuse may be limited and sector-
specific, cost-savings for water and energy, and industrial effluent disposal often
involve many industrial sectors. Some sectors, such as pulp and paper industries,
treat and use their own wastewater, thus reducing their municipal water demands
and the cost of effluent disposal. The Middle East Paper Company (MEPCO) in
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, once purchased treated wastewater from the Khumarh waste-
water treatment plant (WWTP) and paid for sending its process effluent back to the
WWTP (Jung and Pauly 2011; WRG 2013). Expansion of the paper plant implied
both increased cost of water supply and effluent treatment. As a cost-savings mea-
sure (to minimize business costs and water demand), MEPCO invested $ 5.7 mil-
lion in an onsite water reclamation system ($ 1.2 million for internal recycling unit,
with a 2-year payback period; $ 4.5 million for effluent treatment, with a 2-year
payback period). MEPCO was able to reduce its annual urban water demand by
6.0 million m3 and realized an annual cost-savings of $ 2.3 million. Using an inno-
vative biological treatment unit to reduce organic loading in effluent, the business
reduced its operating cost for effluent discharge. The primary societal economic
benefit is the increased availability of water to meet competing demands.
Water reuse for industrial purposes extends across many sectors providing both
monetary and non-monetary benefits such as (1) boosting industrial water supply
security; (2) reducing freshwater withdrawal; (3) improving quality of surface water
and groundwater. The empirical cases presented suggest that although opportunities
for additional revenue generation for wastewater treatment may exist, water-inten-
sive industries traditionally adopt water reuse measures at a significant cost with
limited to no financial benefits, and mainly as part of their sustainability policy.
High investment costs result from the use of advanced treatment technologies given
the requirement of low to zero effluent discharge in some cases. Economic ben-
efits include minimized environmental stress from averted discharge of untreated
wastewater in water bodies and resulting averted health risks particularly for direct
users of these water bodies. Decreased urban water demand implies increased water
availability to other competing sectors, especially agriculture where the main actors
are traditionally poor, smallholder farmers in developing countries.
Economic costs to society have been notably related to the challenge faced by
municipalities in supplying energy to a growing population in competition with
industrial businesses. In the case of energy-poor countries, increased energy de-
10  Economics of Water Reuse for Industrial, Environmental … 183

mand for industrial wastewater treatment suggests the possibility of leaving certain
sectors or communities worse off while generating benefits for some. This may re-
sult from increased energy prices to curtail demand or simply not supplying to some
sectors. There is very limited data available on economic costs of water reuse for
industrial purposes (Table 10.2), thus difficult to assess the related impacts. Based
on the empirical cases presented here, it is fair to state that while businesses receive
limited financial benefits from treatment and use of wastewater, the net economic
benefits can be substantial.

10.3.2 Empirical Cases of Water Reuse for Environmental and

Recreational Purposes

There are numerous cases of water reuse for the creation of artificial lakes and
restoration of natural wetlands which have demonstrated significant environmental
and recreational benefits (Wang et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2010). To conserve their
limited water supply, governments in countries such as Kuwait, are investing in
water reclamation system such as Sulaibya—the world’s largest membrane-based
water reclamation facility. The plant treats 600,000 m3 (60 %) of domestic waste-
water daily. The reclaimed water is mixed with brackish water and then supplied
for non-potable uses, such as irrigation of landscapes along highways, public gar-
dens in Kuwait city and agricultural lands and groundwater recharge. The plant also
provides potable quality water at approximately $ 0.65 per m3 ($ 0.40 per m3 for
conventional wastewater treatment and pipeline costs and $ 0.38 per m3 for tertiary
treated wastewater). While no data are available on the possible sources of cost
recovery for operational and maintenance costs, the plant is expected to generate
about $ 11.0 billion over its lifetime (Alfranca et al. 2011; Jimenez 2013).
With large landscapes serving as leisure areas for residents in Beijing and Xi’an,
China, similar driving factors of urban expansion, decreased water availability and
frequent droughts have increased reclaimed water use for irrigation, urban plan-
ning and river and lake restoration (Wang et al. 2008). In Beijing, two water recy-
cling facilities (Qinghe and Bei Xiao He Water Reclamation plants) supply up to
180,000 m3 per day of treated domestic wastewater for many purposes with 33 %
for city landscaping, 28 % for urban agriculture irrigation and 11 % for non-potable
purposes such as road washing and flushing toilets. With a capacity of reclaimed
water usage of 1.8  million m3 per year, the city of Beijing saves approximately
$ 160,000 annually, assuming the price of tap water is $ 1.04 (Wang et al. 2010).
With all costs borne by the city, operational cost-recovery strategies are imperative
for sustainability. Although not stated, viable revenue stream options that can be
considered include charging entrance fees to users of recreational parks.
Chen and Wang (2009) assess the cost-benefit evaluation of a decentralized grey
water treatment and reuse system for landscaping and environmental purposes. The
authors note that the city of Xi’an (China) increased its water tariff from $ 0.16 per m3
184 M. Otoo et al.

to $ 0.48 per m3 to generate revenue to cover related treatment costs2. The estimated
annualized construction cost of the decentralized system was $ 0.04 per m3 under an
assumption of 25  years lifetime for the treatment facilities. Direct operational and
maintenance cost was $ 0.22 per m3, but at full operational design capacity (current
operation is 50–60 %), the unit cost would be $ 0.13 per m3. The total cost, assuming
operation at full capacity, would be $ 0.17 per m3. From a cost-effectiveness point of
view, greywater reclamation and reuse at a cost of $ 0.17 per m3 remains a competitive
alternative, when compared to using tap water at a cost of $ 0.47 per m3 (Wang et al
2008; Wang et al 2010).
City landscapes extend beyond parks to include recreational areas, such as golf
courses which are rapidly increasing due to changing urban lifestyles. Even in wa-
ter-stressed regions such as Marrakech, Morocco and Arizona, U.S, large amounts
of water (19–27  million m3 per year) are used to irrigate golf courses. With an
increasing population and changes in household water use behavior, the city of Mar-
rakech began collecting all its wastewater for treatment and use for irrigation of
its groves and golf courses, while producing electricity for internal plant use. The
plant treats 82 % of the 36 million m3 of wastewater collected annually, generating
electricity with a capacity of 30 MW (Table 10.2). Similar initiatives are tradition-
ally publicly-funded. However, this Moroccan case was implemented via a public-
private collaboration with investment contributions from the government, the Mar-
rakech Electricity and Water Board, and private promoters including golf course
organizations. While the operational and maintenance costs of the WWTP will be
borne by the government, the viability of the project is reinforced by the generation
of certified emission reductions (expected volume of 624,880 of CERs).
The economic benefits from irrigating parks, gardens, and golf courses with
wastewater include: (a) Cost savings to the wastewater treatment plant (33 % of
WWTP’s electricity consumption from national grid replaced from plant generated
electricity); (b) cost-savings of water equivalent to $ 2.0 million/year3; (c) future
earnings from touristic (golf) destinations; (d) averted health risks to users of recre-
ational areas4; (e) increased water availability for other users and averted environ-
mental degradation5. Although not all of these benefits were monetized in the pre-
sented cases, Chen and Wang (2009) estimate the benefits of reducing wastewater
discharge at $ 4089 per year and the local environment improvement at $ 13,825 per
year; approximately equivalent to the total annual costs of $ 21,300 per year, assum-
ing a plant capacity with wastewater flow rate of 100 m3 per day.
The restoration of natural wetlands and reservoirs with reclaimed water is in-
creasing in arid cities such as Mexico City and Catalonia, Spain with limited avail-

2 
Exchange rate: 1 Chinese yuan = US$ 0.16 (2014 data).
3 
Assuming an estimated unit cost of water = 10 cents/m3 and 70 % of all treated wastewater is
used for recreational purposes (i.e. irrigation of golf courses, palm groves, etc.)
4 
Prior to the project, untreated wastewater from the Marrakesh-Tensift-El Haouz region was dis-
posed directly into open fields, palm tree groves, rivers (e.g. Tensift Wadi) and finally to the sea,
resulting in severe pollution of the phreatic water and Atlantic Ocean; and increasing exposure of
the local population to the waterborne diseases.
5 
As related to unreliable availability/supply of water. Same as for footnote 2.
10  Economics of Water Reuse for Industrial, Environmental … 185

able water resources and overexploited local aquifers (Pearce and Crivelli 1994;
Alfranca et al. 2011; Jimenez 2013; Muciñio 2001). Mexico City continues to pro-
mote water reuse as a response to water scarcity, as the alternative of importing
water from distant sources (e.g. 130 km far away and 1100 m below the level of the
city) is not a sustainable option. At present, a total volume of 248 million m3 per
year of wastewater is treated using public facilities and reused as follows: 54 % for
agricultural irrigation, 31 % for industrial cooling, 11 % to restore lakes and 5 % for
the urban solid wastes and car washing. In Mexico City, the discharge of untreated
wastewater into the Texcoco Lake has had a negative impact on the water body as
well as its surrounding ecosystem. The total disappearance of some flora and fauna
species as well as increased vector borne diseases have been observed as a result of
this practice. As a solution, one of the biggest water reuse projects in the city was
implemented to restore the Texcoco Lake. Capital investments for the restoration of
the lake remain relatively high, with construction of the facultative lagoons costing
$ 7.2 million (2014 prices)6 and operational costs estimated at $ 2.36 per m3 (prices
of 2014).
In Mexico City and surrounding areas there is a gap between the cost of water
supply and amounts recovered from service users. The Texcoco area is no excep-
tion: the cost recovery of the lake restoration project via tariffs is very low7 and
the gap is effectively bridged though subsidies, which are justified given the wide
range of environmental and recreational benefits created from the project (Jimenez
2013; Muciñio 2001). The economic benefits of restoring the Texcoco lake area
and creation of different artificial ponds, lakes (Nabor Carrillo lake-1000 ha) and
wetlands exceed the financial costs. The Narbor Carrillo Lake and its surrounding
environment have played a major role in dust storm control, flood control, flora and
fauna restoration, regulation of the local temperature and humidity, and reduced the
burden of disease as compared when wastewater flowed untreated. The recreational
value of the wetland was estimated to be $ 1.56 per m3, calculated with the travel
cost method8. The construction of lakes protected 3  million people and 550,000
households in Ciudad Netzahualcoyotl, Ecatepec, and the airport area from floods.
Considering that only 20 % of the area is vulnerable to floods, 11,320 ha of urban
area, 20,100 ha of agricultural land and 750 ha of the airport were protected. This
represents avoided costs of 500 million pesos per year ($ 1.9 million per year—
prices of 2014). The scenic beauty of the lake has attracted many individuals for
recreation and bird watching. The lake has also had a positive impact on the lo-
cal weather. In the Twentyth century, the temperature in Mexico City increased by
2.5°C due to drainage of water bodies in the Texcoco basin (Jazcilevich et al. 2000).
Jazcilevich et al. (2002, 2003) assert that the restored lakes would increase superfi-

6 
The sources were not clear on whether this cost includes the cost of the activated sludge treat-
ment, or if the activated sludge treatment is connected to the lagoons. Cost of land was not in-
cluded as it was considered as federal property and land purchase was not required.
7 
The average tariff across users in Mexico is US$ 0.32 m3 which is just half of the Latin American
and Caribbean average of US$ 0.65/m3 (CONAGUA, 2014).
8 
The expenditures incurred by households or individuals in reaching these sites are considered to
be lower-bound estimates of the willingness to pay for the recreational activity.
186 M. Otoo et al.

cial air flow as a result of the land-water breeze increasing ventilation and disper-
sion of pollutants and decreasing local air contamination. Environmental, social and
health costs (negative externalities) were assumed to be negligible.

10.3.3 Empirical Cases of Water Reuse for Potable Purposes

The practice of planned and indirect potable reuse (PIPR) has been reported main-
ly, but not only, in industrialized countries (Essex and Suffolk Water 2008; Royte
2008; Rodriguez et al. 2009; Quayle 2012). Severe droughts and increasing popula-
tion growth increased the search of alternative sources of potable water in Beaufort,
South Africa and Texas, U.S.A.; and several options were implemented such as
managing water losses, optimizing existing aquifers and exploring new ground-
water sources (Table 10.3). Water reclamation was found to be more economical
than transporting water from distant sources or seawater desalination (Ivarsson and
Olander 2011; Meehan et al. 2013).
Direct “pipe to pipe” potable reuse is also possible and occurs in practice, as the
Windhoek (Namibia) example demonstrates, although it is still a unique case world-
wide. Windhoek’s total water demands amount to 25  million m3 per year which
is partly covered by reclaimed water (28 %). Plant treatment capacity is around
21,000 m3 per day and produces about 5.8 million m3 of treated water annually. A
multi-barrier approach is used for reclaimed domestic wastewater which is blended
(maximum 35 %) with treated surface water (Goreangab dam water). Differences in
the percentage of reclaimed water blended with freshwater are dependent on nation-
al guidelines, treatment, technologies, and public acceptance. The treatment tech-
nologies (i.e. level of sophistication) are traditionally correlated with investment
costs. The cost of building the Windhoek reclamation plant was $ 17.3 million.
The total annualized costs amount to $  1.04/m3 (capital costs $  0.28/m3, op-
erational costs $  0.88/m3), which was less expensive than importing water from
alternative sources (e.g. transport from Okavango river would cost US$ 19.4/m3 and
from the Tsumeb Karst Aquifer, US$ 5.55/m3). The estimated annual cost savings is
between $ 9.0 and $ 36 million.
While the plants in Beaufort, South Africa and Texas, U.S.A. generate revenue
via tariffs and grants to cover costs—achieving only partial cost-recovery, the plant
in Windhoek fully recovers all costs using a differentiated pricing strategy. The
plant earns revenue from potable water sales at the following prices: municipal
consumers = $ 0.35/m3, commercial consumers = $ 0.98/m3 and non-potable water
sale for landscape irrigation = $ 0.25–0.98/m3 (depending on consumer type). The
project has been sustained for many years, due to its progressive consumption-re-
lated pricing for potable water. These tariff rates allow for full cost-recovery of
annualized costs of the reclamation plant. Although, relatively high for Windhoek
urban dwellers, the public has accepted the project and has been willing to pay the
tariff rates partly due to their awareness of acute water scarcity problem and under-
Table 10.3   Estimated costs and benefits of treating wastewater for direct potable purposes in three selected cases. (Source: IWMI (based on various secondary
data sources))
Economic factors Countries
Windhoek, Namibiaa Beaufort, South Africa Texas, U.S.A
1. Driving factors for water Severe droughts, water stress, popula- Severe and lengthy drought, Need for additional water
reclamation tion growth; shortage of drinking water sources, offset reductions in
non-economical alternative sourcing of supply reservoir yield
water
2. Percentage of treated wastewater 35 % 20 % 15 %
blended with freshwater
3. Scale treated wastewater 5.8 million m3/year 0.75 million m3/year 5.0 million m3/year
4. Alternative uses of treated Recreational areas irrigation Non-potable irrigation and
wastewater industrial use
5. Investment cost for treatment ($) 17.3 million 2.24 millionb –
6. O&M costs ($/m3) 0.88 0.16c –
3
7. Cost savings from water $ 4.14–18.0/m $ 0.12 million/year –
($/m3 or $/year)
8. Revenue generated via tariffs/water Potable water sale = $0.33–0.98/m3 $ 0.08/m3d Via tariffs
Sale Non-potable water sale = $0.25–0.98/m3
10  Economics of Water Reuse for Industrial, Environmental …

9. O&M cost recovery status Fully based on water tariffs Government grants support Unknown
(partial)
10. Reduced freshwater withdrawal ~ 2.0 million m3/year ~ 1.0 million m3/year ~ 2.5 million m3/year
a
2011 data
b
Estimation based on data for Namibia, assuming similarities in prices and cost of living standards
c
Estimate based on assumption that the cost of treating wastewater with the reclamation system is approximately double that of purified drinking water using
a conventional system
d
Estimate based on cost of drinking water, purified with a conventional system
187
188 M. Otoo et al.

standing of limited affordable alternatives9. The main economic benefit of potable

water supply security, guaranteed by reclamation, has benefited tourism, industrial
and commercial development and urban dwellers well-being. Citizens now have
secure access to clean water to fulfill their need for drinking, cleaning, cooking, and
leisure. Without reclaimed water there would be an unfulfilled demand for water of
almost 30 %, with deleterious effects on development in Windhoek.
Severe water shortages and growing interest in ecological systems has led many
countries (South Africa, Singapore, and Belgium) to search for alternative sourc-
es to replenish decreasing groundwater levels and guarantee future water supply
(Ivarsson and Olander 2011; Houtte et al. 2013). In Torreele (Belgium), artificial
recharge of an unconfined dune aquifer with wastewater effluent from the Wulpen
WWTP was implemented due to the unavailability of any alternative year-round
water source in the area. The managed aquifer recharge scheme of Torreele/St-
Andre operates through the multi-barrier principle, and consists of an activated
sludge wastewater treatment plant and an advanced water reclamation plant in Wul-
pen. The capital investment of $ 9.7 million was borne by the Inter-municipal Wa-
ter Company (IWVA) with a ten-year maintenance contract. The cost of recycled
water is recovered as part of the overall cost of drinking water, even though the
incremental increase in drinking water price was only $ 0.35/m3 (increased from
$ 1.62 to $ 1.97/m3). Even with increasing production costs due to reductions in
water production quantities10 (from 2.17 million m3 in 2005 to 1.8 million m3 in
2011), the water reclamation process seems to be more economical, as the cost of
importing water from neighboring areas ($ 1.1/m3) is higher than the cost of the
water reclamation process ($ 0.64/m3 in 2005 and $ 0.89/m3 in 2011). The project
facilitates the sustainable management of groundwater with high ecological interest
while reducing future water supply risk.
Driven by similar factors for reservoir replenishment, the NEWater reclamation
project in Singapore reclaims water from sewerage network (used water from do-
mestic and non-domestic sources) with stringent purification and treatment pro-
cesses using advanced dual-membrane and ultraviolet disinfection. ‘NEWater’ is
supplied and mostly used for non-potable industrial and commercial uses in wafer
fabrication plants, electronics factories and power generation plants and supple-
ments Singapore’s potable water supply via indirect potable use (blending with res-
ervoir water), which represented 1 % of the daily water consumed (13,500 m3/day)
in 2003 and about 2.5 % in 2011 (Lim and Seah 2013). As seen with water reclama-
tion for direct potable use, operations of indirect potable use of treated wastewater
via reservoir replenishment like the case of NEWater is funded by a public tariff
(SGD 1.22/m3); which is between the normal domestic water tariffs of SGD1.17
and 1.40/m3 depending on consumption11.

9 
The cost of treating wastewater with the reclamation system is approximately double that of
conventional treatment of freshwater, but still less costly than desalination of seawater, which costs
about four times as much.
10 
This is noted to be attributable to decreasing demand and infiltration rates.
11 
http://www.pub.gov.sg/general/Pages/WaterTariff.aspx (accessed 23 June 2014).
10  Economics of Water Reuse for Industrial, Environmental … 189

These water reuse practices have facilitated the sustainable management of

groundwater while reducing future water supply risk. In contrast to the case in
Windhoek, Namibia, where society is hugely accepting of reclaimed water blended
with freshwater; in Singapore with the NEWater project, the public remains dif-
fident in accepting even the indirect use of reclaimed water for potable purposes.
This is clearly indicated by the marginal percentage of 2.5 % of NEWater that was
injected into Singapore’s freshwater reservoirs in 2011 in comparison to that of
35 % in Namibia (see Chap.  5). The key driving forces for the experienced suc-
cess with public acceptance in Namibia has been attributed to absolute water scar-
city, no reported related health problems since its initiation and unaffordable water
alternatives.

10.4 Conclusions

Despite the increasing number of cases of water reuse and recycling for indus-
trial, environmental, recreational and potable purposes, the potential is yet to be
fully exploited, particularly in many developing countries and emerging economies.
Planned reuse and recycling is gaining importance in many industries, including
steel production, mining industries, food processing industries and power plants,
with the capacity and capability to use recycled water in their operations. The key
(and non-mutually exclusive) factors driving water reuse and recycling for indus-
trial purposes are: (1) water scarcity; (2) business sustainability and (3) compliance
to legislative mandates. While water reuse and recycling practices are noted to be
mainly implemented as a water use reduction strategy, compliance to environmental
water quality standards is taking a forefront in the decision to invest in treating for
recycling rather than treating for discharge. Water recycling for industrial purposes
has both monetary and non-monetary benefits such as (1) boosting industrial wa-
ter supply security; (2) reducing freshwater withdrawals with increased availability
to other competing sectors, especially agriculture; (3) improving quality of water
bodies from reduction of raw wastewater discharge, to name a few. This however
comes at a very high financial cost to businesses from the use of advanced treat-
ment technologies, with no direct financial benefits, thus affecting business profit-
ability and competiveness. Nevertheless related total annualized costs are noted to
be significantly cheaper than alternative approaches like importation of water from
other and often distant sources and seawater desalination. Additionally, these prac-
tices are often adopted by many water-intensive businesses mainly as part of their
sustainability policy, with image benefits. Although rarely documented or simply
not considered, some economic costs to society exist from increased wastewater for
industrial purposes. For example, in the case of energy-poor countries, increased
energy demand for industrial wastewater treatment suggests a possible trade-off
with supplying one sector over another, leaving one better than the other. While
there is very limited to no data available on economic costs to society, there are
190 M. Otoo et al.

many examples that suggest substantial net economic benefits from wastewater use
for industrial purposes.
Water reuse for environmental and recreational purposes occurs in many coun-
tries where reclaimed water is used for irrigation of golf course, landscapes along
highways, roads and public gardens or for wetland or forestry restoration. A key
driving force for this practice remain related to looming water scarcity conditions
and increasing costs of importing water from distant sources. Capital investments
and operational costs remain relatively high for practices of water reuse of envi-
ronmental and recreational use. With traditionally huge gaps between the cost of
water supply and amounts recovered from service users via tariffs, cost recovery
is effectively bridged though subsidies which are justified given the wide range of
environmental and recreational benefits created from the projects. Related benefits
of wastewater use extend beyond potable purposes. Confidence in technological in-
novations has risen to the point at which the public is beginning to have an absolute
assurance of the safety of reclaimed water blended in reservoirs or aquifers for pota-
ble purposes as seen with the NEWater project in Singapore. Water reclamation was
found to be more economical compared to transporting water from distant sources
or seawater desalination. The main economic benefit is that potable water supply se-
curity is guaranteed by reclamation, benefiting tourism, industrial and commercial
development and urban dwellers well-being. Without reclaimed water there would
be an unfulfilled demand for water of almost 30 % with deleterious effects on devel-
opment in the case of Windhoek, Namibia. Many of these initiatives are tradition-
ally fully publicly-funded with limited to no operational cost recovery. However,
exceptions exist as with the ‘pipe-to-pipe’ water reclamation plant case of Wind-
hoek, Namibia, which fully recovers all costs using a differentiated pricing strategy.
Although, relatively high for Windhoek urban dwellers, the public has been willing
to pay the tariff rates partly due to their awareness of acute water scarcity problem
and understanding of limited affordable alternatives. Gaining public support for po-
table reuse project like this will prove vital to the reuse industry in general.

Take Home Messages

• Wastewater use for industrial, environmental and recreational, and potable
purposes is motivated by water scarcity, compliance with legislative man-
dates and business sustainability strategies.
• Many water-intensive industries initially adopt water reuse measures at a
cost, with limited financial benefits. Yet the alternative costs of non-com-
pliance with legislative mandates, importing water, or accepting business
production risk are potentially higher.
• Successful collaborations between public and private entities can mitigate
the challenge of sourcing capital investment, particularly for wastewater
treatment for industrial purposes.
• Water reuse for wetland restoration and parks irrigation is frequently sub-
sidized, due to the environmental benefits. Yet the increasing water reuse
10  Economics of Water Reuse for Industrial, Environmental … 191

for golf courses tends to achieve full financial cost recovery, as the benefi-
ciaries are clearly identified and their capacity to pay is usually high.
• Although usually funded by public grants, there are options for full opera-
tional cost-recovery for potable water reclamation plants through innova-
tive pricing strategies.

References

Alfranca O, Garcia J, Varela H (2011) Economic valuation of a created wetland fed with treated
wastewater located in a peri-urban park in Catalonia, Spain. Water Sci Technol 63(5):892–899
(IWA Publishing)
AQUAREC (2006) Handbook on feasibility studies for water reuse systems, Integrated concepts
for reuse of upgraded wastewater, EESD Programme, European Commission.
Asano T (2002) Water from (waste)water—the dependable water resource. (The 2001 Stockholm
Water Prize Laureate Lecture) Water Sci Technol 45(8):23–33
Buvaneswari G (2014) http://www.indiantextilejournal.com/articles/FAdetails.asp?id=5542. Ac-
cessed May 2014
Chen R, Wang XC (2009) Cost–benefit evaluation of a decentralized water system for water reuse
and environmental protection IWA Publishing 2009 Water Sci Technol 59(8):1515–1522
CONAGUA (2014) http://www.conagua.gob.mx/CONAGUA07/Noticias/dSAPAS_2008.pdf
Comisión. Nacional del Agua, Situación del Subsector Agua Potable, Alcantarillado y Sa-
neamiento, Edición 2008, p 43. Accessed May 2014
EBMUD (2014) EBMUD's website: www.ebmud.com. Accessed 7th March 2014
Essex & Suffolk Water 2008. News Release, Water example for down under. 25 January 2008.
GWI. 2010. (Ref. Global Water Intelligence (GWI). 2010. Municipal Water Reuse Markets 2010.
Media Analytics Ltd. Oxford, UK.
Houtte Van E, Verbauwhede J (2013) Torreele: indirect potable water reuse through dune aquifer
recharge. In: Lazarova V, Asano T, Bahri A, Anderson J (eds) Milestones in water reuse: the
best success stories. IWA Publishing, UK, pp 315–322
Ivarsson O, Olander A (2011) Risk assessment for South Africa's first direct wastewater recla-
mation system for drinking water production: Beaufort West, South Africa. Masters’ thesis,
Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Di-
vision of Water and Environment Technology
Jazcilevich AD, Fuentes V, Jáuregui E, Luna E (2000) Simulated urban climate response to histori-
cal land use modification in the basin of Mexico. Clim Change 44:515–536 (February)
Jazcilevich AD, García AR, Ruiz-Suárez LG (2002) A modelling study of air pollution modulation
through land-use change in the Valley of Mexico. Atmos Environ 36:2297–2307
Jazcilevich AD, García AR, Ruiz-Suárez LG (2003) An air pollution modelling study using three
surface coverings near the New International Airport for Mexico City. J Air Waste Manage
Assoc 53:1280–1287 (October)
Jiménez B (2013) Improving the air quality in Mexico City through reusing wastewater for envi-
ronmental restoration. In: Lazarova V, Asano T, Bahri A, Anderson J (eds) Milestones in water
reuse: the best success stories. IWA Publishing, UK, pp 283–291
Jung H, Pauly D (2011) Water in the pulp and paper industry. In: Wilderer P (ed) Treatise on water
science, vol 4. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 667–684
Lahnsteiner J, Goundavarapu S, Andrade P, Mittal R, Ghosh R (2013a) Recycling of secondary
refinery and naphtha cracker effluents employing advanced barrier systems. In: Lazarova V,
192 M. Otoo et al.

Asano T, Bahri A, Anderson J (eds) Milestones in water reuse: the best success stories. IWA
Publishing, UK, pp 225–234
Lahnsteiner J, Pisani PD, Menge J, Esterhuizen J (2013b) More than 40 years of direct potable
reuse experience in Windhoek. In: Lazarova V, Asano T, Bahri A, Anderson J (eds) Milestones
in water reuse: the best success stories. IWA Publishing, UK, pp 351–363
Lazarova V, Asano T, Bahri A, Anderson J (eds) (2013) Milestones in water reuse. The best success
stories. IWA publishing, London
Lim M-H, Seah H (2013) NEWater: a key element of Singapore’s water sustainability. In: Laz-
arova V et al (eds) Milestones in water reuse. The best success stories. IWA Publishing, Lon-
don, pp 53–62
Meehan K, Ormerod KJ, Moore SA (2013) Remaking waste as water: The governance of recycled
effluent for potable water supply. Water Altern 6(1):67–85
Muciñio D (2001) Sistemas integrados de uso y tratamiento de aguas residuales en América La-
tina: realidad y potencial. Estudio de caso: lago de Texcoco, México, convenio Centro Interna-
cional de Investigaciones para el Desarrollo de Canadá (IRDC)-Organización Panamericana de
la Salud. Available at: http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsaar/e/proyecto/generales/casos/texcoco.
pdf (Spanish). Accessed May 2014
Pearce F, Crivelli AJ, (1994) Characteristics of Mediterranean wetlands. In: Crivelli AJ, Jalbert J
(eds) Conservation of Mediterranean wetlands. MedWet publications, Station Biologique de
la Tour du Valat
Quayle T (2012) Recycling wastewater to bolster ground water supply: the Atlantis story. www.
accessanitation.org/fileadmin/accessanitation/Case_studies/Sub_Saharan_Africa/ACCESS_
Case_study_Atlantis_SA.pdf. Accessed May 2014
Rodriguez C, Van Buynder P, Lugg R, Blair P, Devine B, Cook A, Weinstein P (2009) Indirect po-
table reuse: a sustainable water supply alternative. Int J Environ Res Public Health 6(3):1174–
1209
Royte E 2008. A tall, cool drink of… sewage? New York Times Magazine. www.nytimes.
com/2008/08/10/magazine/10wastewater-t.html?pagewanted=all. Accessed 8th March 2014
Sun Y, Hu H, Lahnsteiner J, Bai Y, Gan Y, Klegraf F (2013) Creation of a new recreational water
environment: the Beijing Olympic Park. In: Lazarova V, Asano T, Bahri A, Anderson J (eds)
Milestones in water reuse: The best success stories. IWA Publishing, UK, pp 273–282
TBEC (2014) http://www.tbec.co.th/e_index.htm. Accessed on 20th April 2014
Towey A, Lee J, Reddy S, Clark J (2013) High purity recycled water for refinery boiler feedwater:
the RARE project. In: Lazarova V, Asano T, Bahri A, Anderson J (eds) Milestones in water
reuse: the best success stories. IWA Publishing, UK, pp 235–242
Troy W (2013) Western corridor recycled water scheme. In: Lazarova V, Asano T, Bahri A, An-
derson J (eds) In Milestones in water reuse: the best success stories. IWA Publishing, UK,
pp 339–350
Wang XC, Chen R, Zhang QH, Li K (2008) Optimized plan of centralized and decentralized water
reuse systems for housing development in the urban area of Xi’an, China. Water Sci Technol
58(5):969–975 (IWA Publishing)
Wang XC, Cheng BB, Chen R (2010) A decentralized grey water treatment and reuse system in a
residential area for landscaping and environmental purposes. Water Pract Technol 5(4). http://
www.iwaponline.com/wpt/005/0092/0050092.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2014
Water Resources Group (2013) Managing water use in scarce environments:catologue of case
studies. 2030 Water Resources Group (WRG), USA
Weldesilassie AB, Amerasinghe P, Danso G (2011) Assessing the empirical challenges of evaluat-
ing the benefits and risks of irrigating with wastewater. Water Int 36(4):441–454. doi:10.1080/
02508060.2011.595056
 Part IV
Thinking Business
Chapter 11
Business Models and Economic Approaches
Supporting Water Reuse

Krishna Rao, Munir A. Hanjra, Pay Drechsel and George Danso

Abstract  Water reuse has significant environmental benefits that include mitigat-
ing water scarcity, and offering opportunities for revenue generation, especially if
more resources than water are recovered, or if treatment can deliver water of potable
quality. Options for achieving cost recovery or cost savings range from the promo-
tion of greywater use at household or community level, to inter- and intra-sectoral
water swaps, the replenishment of natural resources, on-site value creation through
treatment related aquaculture, and reclaimed water sales for different purposes.
Value might also be derived from emerging models of water hedging for future
reuse markets. A key element of the business model approach is the move toward
operational cost-recovery at minimum and profit maximization at best. Although
cost recovery is typically low in wastewater use projects and treatment is primar-
ily a ‘social business model,’ several empirical examples highlight opportunities
for enhancing the business character of wastewater use by pursuing different value
propositions and innovative mechanisms to achieve overall system sustainability.

Keywords  Cost recovery · Benefit sharing · Private sector · Institutions · Water

swap · Value proposition · Potable water · Industrial reuse · Irrigation

K. Rao () · P. Drechsel
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
e-mail: k.c.rao@cgiar.org
P. Drechsel
e-mail: p.drechsel@cgiar.org
M. A. Hanjra
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Pretoria, South Africa
e-mail: m.hanjra@cgiar.org
G. Danso
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
e-mail: gdanso@ualberta.ca
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 195
P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_11
196 K. Rao et al.

11.1 Introduction

Given the common situation of public financed wastewater collection and treatment,
the term “business models” might appear to be an oxymoron, attention grabber, or
over-ambitious wording. However, with increasing calls for cost recovery and private
sector participation, the sector and the thinking are changing (Koné 2010). While
wastewater treatment has been primarily a ‘social business model’ with a strong eco-
nomic justification and returns on investments through safeguarding public health
and the environment, cost recovery is a significant advantage from the financial per-
spective, not only for private sector engagement, but also within the public sector
where in low income countries overdue and delayed payments for repairs and salaries
accelerate the breakdown of treatment infrastructure. Also regular household bill-
ing to cover the costs of conveyance, treatment, and disposal of wastewater or fecal
sludge, as known from developed countries to finance their treatment systems, might
not reach far in low-income countries where fees are low, and enter the same mu-
nicipal cashbox which has to support all bottlenecks the municipality at large is fac-
ing. Effective billing and dedicated accounting systems, as reported by Choukr-Allah
et al. (2005), are seldom put into place. As a result, most facilities—especially high-
end-facilities, appear to be on a run-to-failure trajectory from their inception (Nhapi
and Gijzen 2004; Murray and Drechsel 2011; Libhaber and Orozco-Jaramillo 2013).
Shifting incentives for financing sanitation from “front-end users” to “back-end
users” could build on demand for the products of sanitation (e.g., treated wastewa-
ter) to motivate a shared finance model and more robust operation and maintenance
of complete sanitation systems (Murray and Ray 2010). This requires a reuse-ori-
ented planning approach to sanitation, like the Design for Service paradigm shift
promoted by Murray and Buckley (2010). In this approach, treatment is matching
reuse needs (Box 11.1) and water reuse business models are seen as a component of
the overall sanitation service chain which starts with the toilet and ideally feed parts
of its reuse revenues back into the functioning of the overall chain.

Box 11.1 Reuse Oriented Planning

The state of North Carolina, USA, has long been a leader in implementing
alternative wastewater treatment technologies to handle new growth and
development. Quality standards for the treated water reflect the level of
risk associated with particular use the reclaimed water is intended to meet.
Thus, the intended use of the water is determined early in the design process
through collaboration with stakeholders and end users. Once the intended
use is known, risk associated with that end use can be determined–and from
the risk; appropriate standards are set. When the proposed use of reclaimed
water carries a high potential for human contact (for instance, treated domes-
tic wastewater used for lawn irrigation), the highest standards for both water
quality and treatment system redundancy/reliability are applied to protect the
11  Business Models and Economic Approaches Supporting Water Reuse 197

public against both bacteriological and chemical contaminants, but if the risk
is lower, also lower standards are applied (CAWT 2009).

However, this is not as easy as said given the number of often independent operators
along the chain; thus the first cost recovery target of the treatment operator will be
to regain the extra cost induced by the resource recovery and reuse value proposi-
tion. In other words, if the reuse requires for example additional water treatment or
water conveyance towards the beneficiary which are not straight away borne by the
beneficiary, these costs should be recovered first. There can be large variations in
this regard. Chenini et al. (2003) reported a cost recovery of 13 to 76 % of the opera-
tional expenses for the agricultural water supply component in water reuse schemes
across Tunisia. Better is if any extra costs can be covered by the beneficiary. For
industrial reuse, for example, the industry (and not the treatment provider) can un-
dertake further quality refinement through own investments.
The second target is to recover as much as possible the normal operational and
maintenance cost of the treatment process. This can be very ambitious, but is not
impossible as we see in case of energy recovery or the reclamation of potable water.
The third target, i.e. to break even and to start making profit to recover capital
costs, is seldom but also possible for example where (i) treatment technology is low
cost (like pond based systems), (ii) more than water is recovered allowing a more
sophisticated value proposition (Fig. 11.1), and (iii) the corresponding market for
the recovered resources or their products is sufficiently large.

Fig. 11.1   Ladder of increasing value propositions related to wastewater treatment and water,
nutrient and energy recovery. (Source: IWMI)
198 K. Rao et al.

This chapter introduces water reuse examples that depict different value proposi-
tions and business models for social or financial benefit. Some of these examples
were introduced in an earlier chapter drawing on Otoo and Drechsel (2015). As
most of the examples are located in low-income countries, agricultural reuse is a
common element.
It is difficult to capture in one grand business typology the various forms of
reuse, even if limited to irrigation (direct and indirect reuse, formal and informal,
treated and untreated, etc.) (Van der Hoek 2004; Evans et al. 2013). However, there
are options cutting across different forms of reuse based on the actors involved,
and the purpose or the value proposition. A possible typology could be based, for
example, on the ownership of the “business” and the motivation of the owner(s)
between welfare maximization, cost recovery, and profit maximization. As resource
recovery and reuse usually cut across sectors, decisions might not only depend
on the supply end but also be driven by demand where resources are increasingly
scarce. This change in motives sets the scene for new opportunities and innovative
solutions for the reuse businesses. In this chapter, the typology used to describe the
business models for wastewater use is differentiating between opportunities related
to advanced water treatment and low-cost water treatment and largely based on the
value proposition the reuse solution offers. As illustrated in Chap. 1 ( this volume)
many governments and the private sector actors are beginning to realize the ‘double
value proposition’ in water reuse: Without reuse, wastewater treatment has a sig-
nificant economic value in terms of environmental safety and public health, but
no financial value. Water, nutrient and energy reuse adds new value streams to the
recovery value proposition (Fig. 11.1). The water recovery options shown in this
figure could be expanded to the examples as shown in Fig. 11.2.

11.2 Advanced Treatment for Producing High Quality

Water

The most common business model is aiming at cost recovery by treating wastewater to
a standard acceptable by a user. Cost recovery from sale of treated wastewater for ir-
rigation is however very limited although it is the largest reuse sector. Especially in de-
veloping countries farmers seldom pay for fresh- or groundwater (except for pumping)
while treated and piped water is usually significantly subsidized. Therefore it is not
feasible to price treated wastewater as required to achieve cost recovery of treatment
plant operations. However in the case of industries, there is potential for pricing treated
wastewater at a higher sale price and achieve greater cost recovery if not profit. Ac-
cording to GWI (2009) the market for high end water reuse on the verge of major ex-
pansion while migrating to higher value applications with the greatest market growth
being expected is the highest grade of urban water reuse using the three step process
of ultrafiltration (or microfiltration), reverse osmosis and UV irradiation (or similar
advance disinfection technology). This will create water of and beyond that standard
normally expected of tap water and can be sold to high value industrial or domestic
customers, injected in aquifers or blended in reservoirs for indirect potable reuse.
11  Business Models and Economic Approaches Supporting Water Reuse 199

Reclaiming water for potable and high

end industrial use

Treatment for Agriculture and

Aquaculture
Selected water
reuse opons

Inter- and intra-sectoral water swap,

environmental flows and groundwater
recharge

Grey water reuse at household or

community scale

Fig. 11.2   Selected value propositions related to the use of wastewater. (Source: IWMI)

Recent major successes include Singapore’s NEWater programme, the Orange

County Water Reclamation Scheme in California, and the Western Corridor in
South East Queensland in Australia, which have set the standard for a new approach
to urban water reuse (GWI 2009).
High quality water output has its costs but can be a key driver in improving
the cost recovery within the treatment sector. Singapore’s NEWater factories sup-
ply reclaimed water directly to industries such as wafer fabrication, electronics,
power generation, and commercial complexes for cooling purpose. The operational
and maintenance costs of NEWater factories were about US$ 0.26/m3 in 2010 and
the Singapore Public Utilities Board NEWater project charged industries and oth-
ers since 2012 about US$ 0.98/m3 based on a full cost recovery approach which
includes the capital cost, production cost, and transmission and distribution cost
(NRC 2012; www.pub.gov.sg/general/Pages/WaterTariff.aspx). Other examples of
water reuse and pricing are shown in Table 11.1.
In general, the potential for industrial water reuse for cooling, boiler feed, and
process water differs from one industry to another. Tertiary treatment is not always
needed, at least not originally. In Baotou City, Inner Mongolia, for example, the
Baotou Donghua Power Plant is using reclaimed municipal secondary effluent as
make-up water for its cooling water circuit after an additional nitrifying biologi-
cal aerated filters (BAF) processing step performed by a private reclamation plant
(Lahnsteiner et al. 2007).
Industries consuming a large volume of water obviously have greater potential
for internal recycling, while others can absorb domestic wastewater treated by the
200 K. Rao et al.

Table 11.1   Water reuse and pricing examples from around the globe. (Source: Based on Xu et al.
2001; ADB 2014; GWI 2009)
Setting Reuse project Capacity (m3/day) Price of reuse
water (US$/m3)
Australia Rese Hill, Sydney, 13,000 $ 1.28 (residential)
recycled water scheme
China Shiweitou Sewage Treat- 24,000 $ 0.04 (greenbelts
ment Plant, Xiamen, in the city)
Fujian province, China
French island of Noir- La Salaisière secondary 220,000 $ 0.32–0.42
moutier (Atlantic coast) effluent (irrigation)
Israel Shafdan wastewater treat- 397,000 $ 0.22
ment facility
Kuwait Sulaibyia water and 375,000 $ 0.01(tertiary
wastewater reclamation treatment)
plant $ 0.02 (reverse
osmosis)
Mexico Durango wastewater 173,000 $ 0.23 (irrigation
treatment plant and other reuse)
Morocco Ben Slimane water recla- 6600 $ 0.81 (landscape
mation system irrigation)
Spain Valle de San Lorenzo 4000 $ 0.22 (recharge,
WWTP agricultural reuse)
Singapore Sembcorp Changi NEWa- 227,000 $ 0.98
ter Factory
USA Tampa, Howard F Curren 365,000 $ 1.60 (industrial)
WWWP, Florida

public or private sector. The premier target is cost savings. Visvanathan and Asano
(2002) reported a saving of A$ 1 million per year by using 4000 m3d−1 reclaimed
water in the Earing power station near Newcastle, Australia. There was an addition-
al cost savings by eliminating the need to pump wastewater 15 km from the treat-
ment plant to the disposal site. Sappi Pulp and Paper Group’s Enstra mill in South
Africa is fulfilling 50 % of its water demand from a municipal wastewater treatment
plant effluent thereby reducing the burden on fresh water resources. Reports on
area-wide use of reclaimed water in Japan indicate the second highest volume is in
the industrial sector with a utilization rate of reclaimed water of 15 million m3 d−1
and a total reclamation of 85.5 million m3 d−1 (Visvanathan and Asano 2002).

11.3 Treatment for Other Value Propositions

There are many options for turning used water into an asset. A cost reduction model
based on reduced fresh and wastewater treatment volumes could start with the de-
centralized support for grey water reuse at household level before any conventional
treatment. Grey water generated through bathing and in kitchens can be locally
11  Business Models and Economic Approaches Supporting Water Reuse 201

captured, treated and reused at household, garden and community level. This reuse
can be encouraged through subsidies for the installation of on-site treatment and
reuse equipment, or through reduced drainage/wastewater fees and green building
environmental rating tools for buildings benchmark and new building zoning laws,
where not every cubic meter of grey water is needed to flush the sewer. Studies
in Jordan showed that grey water reuse can also be financially attractive for the
household with cost-benefit ratios of about 1.80 (over 5 years) and 2.58–2.75 over
a 10 year period (Bino et al. 2010).
Where greywater and blackwater (from toilets) are captured within the same
sewer system feeding into a decentralized or centralized treatment plant, the treated
water can be reclaimed and made available for agricultural irrigation, groundwater
recharge, aquaculture, as well as inter- and intra-sectoral water swaps with fresh-
water users and newly emerging models such as water hedging in futures markets
depending on demand and required treatment standards. (Table 11.2)

11.3.1 Inter- and Intra-Sectoral Water Swaps

Against the backdrop of worsening water scarcity situations in many parts of the
world, policy makers are looking for sustainable solutions to ensure safe and adequate
water supplies for society. As part of a broad strategy encompassing inter-sectoral wa-
ter transfers, water swaps have been suggested which aim at the provision of treated
water for example to farmers for irrigation, in exchange for freshwater for domestic
and industrial purposes (Winpenny et al. 2010). The business model can equally be
applied to water swaps with other water-intensive users such as golf courses.
Water swaps will not change total water availability in the river basin context but
more freshwater might be allocated to higher valued uses. This system is possible
where water allocations are controlled and changeable and farmers get an incentive
to agree to the trade. The incentive could be financed from the gains of the urban
center through higher revenues based on a larger freshwater supply and treatment
cost savings. If the farmers are upstream of the city, there will be costs for pumping
the wastewater back to the farm areas (Fig. 11.3). Distance will matter as distribu-
tion system costs can be the most significant component of costs for non-potable
reuse systems, i.e. the cost of electricity to access and pump freshwater from long-
distance sources and then to pump the waste out of the city (NRC 2012). If distances
are short, water swaps could be a feasible mean of mitigating water scarcity prob-
lems with economic benefits both from the perspective of farmers and the society
(Heinz et al. 2011).
However, what looks in theory to be straight forward can be complicated in prac-
tice. This concerns the required institutional and incentive arrangements but also
physical bottlenecks, like increased water salinity through (pond) treatment, mak-
ing reclaimed water less suitable for farmers. Another challenge would be that in
water scarce regions, where cities struggle to access water, also agricultural produc-
tion is water limited. Providing farmers with an additional water source might result
in expansion or intensification of irrigated farming, but not in a release of water.
202 K. Rao et al.

Table  11.2   Examples of water reuse cases with business potential. (Source: Authors based on
Otoo and Drechsel (2015))
Business Busi- Business concept, Treatment Key figures Drivers and
model ness case products/services type opportunities
location and beneficiary
Water Barcelona, Government initi- Secondary 19 million m3/ Unavailabil-
swap Spain ated treated waste- treatment year of treated ity of fresh
water exchanged + mixing wastewater to water during
for freshwater with well irrigate 600 ha drought,
used in agriculture. water increased
Treated wastewater pollution and
used by farmers for salinity of
cultivation river water and
groundwater
overexploita-
tion
Mashhad Agreement Secondary About 185 mil- Water scarce
city, Iran between regional treatment lion m3/year region; and
water company of treated need to reduce
and association of wastewater stress on
farmers for water freshwater
exchange. Transfer
of farmer’s water
rights from dams
and groundwater in
exchange for treated
wastewater
Replen- Mezquital Wastewater No Around Rising water
ishing valley, disposed in Tula treatment 60 m3 per sec- security
natural Mexico valley for large ond of concerns and
capital  (see scale irrigation. wastewater is impact on eco-
Chap. 9) Wastewater areas produced by the system health
has higher prices city and farm-
for land; wastewater ers get 26 m3
naturally recharges per second
groundwater, for irrigating
potentially to be 76,000 ha
used for drinking
water provision for
Mexico city
Hoskote Department of No treat- Variable vol- Need for lake
lake, minor irrigation ment ume adequate restoration
Bangalore, diverting untreated except to recharge the and replenish-
India sewage from one natural lake depend- ing depleting
part of the city to processes ing on drought groundwater
another. Recharg- conditions and table and dry-
ing of dry lake and groundwater ing wells
groundwater wells levels
benefits small farm-
ers and households
around the region
11  Business Models and Economic Approaches Supporting Water Reuse 203

Table 11.2  (continued)
Business Busi- Business concept, Treatment Key figures Drivers and
model ness case products/services type opportunities
location and beneficiary
On-site Terraqua Private Public Secondary Investment cost Partnership
valoriza- Barranca, Partnership(PPP) to treatment $ 22.5 million; with city
tion via Peru treat city’s waste- including $ 14.8 million authorities and
aqua- water to produce nutrient revenue from support from
culture duckweed and fish removal sale of fish, Inter-American
and cultivate crops through payback period Develop-
for supply to dairy duckweed 2.8 years; ment Bank to
processing company treatment cost finance the
$ 0.1 per m3 investment
Agri- Treatment of Tertiary Full cost recov- Partnership
quatics, wastewater from treatment ery through between
Bangladesh hospital facility to using series local sale of hospital
produce fish feed of ponds fish and crops, complex and
(duckweed), raise and net profits the technology
fish, and water due to low promoter and
market crops as side cost treatment high demand
products (ponds) for fish in the
region
Mar- Gabo- Treatment of Second- About 50,000 Frequent
keting rone city, wastewater from ary treated m3/day of droughts and
reclaimed Botswana Gaborone and reuse wastewater wastewater water scarcity
water for irrigation of treated and facing the city
Glen valley farms 0.03 % of this is
and river flow used to irrigate
augmentation 203 ha of crops
at $ 0.086 per
m3
Drarga, Treat wastewa- Second- Pilot scale, Need for treat-
Morocco ter from Drarga ary treated water treated ment of waste
municipality. wastewater 1000 m3/day water, reduce
Treated wastewater pollution and
is reused for irriga- improve living
tion, reed grass environment,
and compost from and water scar-
sludge are sold city. Strategic
partnership
among several
stakeholders
Hedging Prana Wastewater treat- Tertiary or Investment Knowledge
for future sustain- ment pre-financed secondary for hedging management
water able water, by future water treatment & matchmak- on water
markets Switzer- sales via contrac- ing of about markets, water
land tual agreements to US$ 0.5 million trading and
secure water shares commodity
and finances pricing along
with strong
partnerships
204 K. Rao et al.


hƌďĂŶƵƐĞƌƐ
ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƵƐĞƌƐ

ϭ͘hƌďĂŶǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌŝƐƌĞĐůĂŝŵĞĚĨŽƌĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƉƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶ͘
Ϯ͘&ĂƌŵĞƌƐǁŝůůƌĞůĞĂƐĞĂĨƌĞƐŚǁĂƚĞƌƐŚĂƌĞĨŽƌƵƌďĂŶŽƌĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŶĞĞĚƐ͘
ϯ͘dŚĞƐǁĂƉǁŝůůŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŽƚĂůǁĂƚĞƌĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJŝŶƚŚĞƌŝǀĞƌďĂƐŝŶĐŽŶƚĞdžƚďƵƚ
ŵŽƌĞĨƌĞƐŚǁĂƚĞƌĐŽƵůĚŐĞƚƌĞĂůůŽĐĂƚĞĚƚŽŚŝŐŚĞƌǀĂůƵĞĚƵƐĞƐ͘

Fig. 11.3   Theoretic business model for an inter-sectoral water swap. (Redrawn from GWI 2009)

GWI (2009) is therefore suggesting an alternative model of water reuse where

the urban water agency retains control of the reclaimed water for higher-value urban
purposes. For example some water may be sold directly to industrial water users
within the urban sector, and some may be blended in reservoirs or confined aquifers
for indirect potable reuse. The related revenues per cubic meter would be higher
than selling water to agricultural customers. Public agencies can also earmark some
of the additional water supply for environmental amelioration, lowering urban wa-
ter withdrawals from nature, while cross subsidizing this with revenues from higher
value reclaimed water sales (Fig. 11.4).
In contrast to agricultural production which increases with increasing availabil-
ity of water, GWI (2009) argues that in the urban context, there is no direct rela-
tionship between water availability and productivity in industry. And if meaningful
tariffs are charged, there is no reason why domestic demand should increase with
availability of additional water.
While GWI (2009) is thus pushing for high-end treatment for high-value use,
and argues that farmers have no incentive to invest in water saving technologies if
they receive free or very low-cost reclaimed water from cities. Huibers et al. (2010)
argue for treatment levels matching reuse needs, especially from agriculture. Also
Libhaber and Orozco-Jaramillo (2013) argue that especially in developing countries
cutting-edge treatment pants are a risky investment for institutional capacity and
financial reasons and appropriate technologies relying on simple processes with
lower capital and operational costs will be much more sustainable, while offering
various quality levels, also for agriculture.
11  Business Models and Economic Approaches Supporting Water Reuse 205

1. High quality treated

water is recovered from
urban wastewater

2. Some is sold
directly to 3. Some is returned to
industrial users aquifers or blended in
6. Farmers get no addional
drinking water reservoirs
water, but are supported in
improving water producvity
and adopng conservaon
measures Urban users

Agricultural users 4. Addional water

augments urban water
supply

5. The lowered urban fresh water supply need

can be used to offset declining water availability
and to reduce demands on ecosystems

Fig. 11.4   Business case model for high value water swaps. (Redrawn from GWI 2009)

Examples of planned or existing water swaps are reported by Winpenny et al.

(2010) and Otoo and Drechsel (2015): In Mexico and in Spain, the feasibility of
water swaps has been evaluated and confirmed for different locations and wastewa-
ter treatment plants (Winpenny et al. 2010). In the case of the Spanish Sant Feliu de
Llobregate wastewater treatment plant, for example, the treated effluent can replace
freshwater from the main river which is used for irrigation. Currently, only a small
proportion of the effluent is actually used by farmers (about 0.2 million m3/year),
who view it as a last resort to be used in drought periods when sufficient fresh water
is not available. Further, the treated wastewater is used to recharge groundwater
aquifer, which is used for irrigation. The economic net-benefit of water exchange
between agriculture and municipality has been estimated at about € 7 million/year
(Winpenny et al. 2010; Heinz et al. 2011).
The Mashhad Plain in Iran, is another example (see also Chap.  9) of a water
swap where wastewater is collected, transferred and treated according to scientific
standards and 15.6 million m3 are exchanged against agricultural freshwater rights
of farmers (Alaei 2011). This case had four sub-projects, involving diverse reuse
options. The business model appears promising because of the diverse water swap
strategies including: volumetrically more water for farmers, replacing freshwater
rights of the farmers with wastewater instead of diversion of water from a dam;
replacing the right of groundwater withdrawal with effluent reuse; storing part of
the acquired water in groundwater aquifer to stabilize the water table; and supply-
ing freshwater from the dam and aquifer to the city to help improve urban water
supply, and achieve cost-savings and protect public health. Alongside, there were
206 K. Rao et al.

other instruments used to facilitate the water swap. For instance, before implement-
ing the water swap, wastewater users association was formed and the contract was
signed between the association and the regional water company. This participatory
strategy enhances cooperation and limits any future potential conflicts associated
with water allocation. Subsequently, the transfer of treated wastewater from the
treatment plants to the fields of farmers in the downstream of dams was executed.
However, a missing element in the business model is that low valued users such as
agriculture get wastewater to reuse but farmers are not incentivized to undertake
water conservation practices.
In summary, the above business cases demonstrate that water swaps business
models are likely to be more successful in situations where local water security con-
cerns are high and rising water demand motivates the utilities to find creative solu-
tions and enter into cooperative bargaining agreements with farmers. Water scarcity
is the main driver, while clearly defined water rights and incentives for farmers
are the main anchors of a successful water swap. Diverse reuse strategies can offer
more flexibility and value propositions as in the Mashhad water swap. Exchange of
water to high value urban users such as households and industries, to recover costs
and linking farmers to the high valued agricultural value chains is also an important
incentive. Yet, using a business approach to facilitate water swaps across sectors
faces some critical economic and policy challenges (Box 11.2) and can also fail
due to safety concerns. In Cochabamba, Bolivia, for example, the release of treated
wastewater to farmers was stopped to avoid potential problems due to the quality of
the effluent (Zabalaga et al. 2007).

Box 11.2: Potential gains and conflicts in water swaps: Cities versus agri-
culture users

Water swap business models are not a panacea and not without their own
problems, particularly where large inter-sectoral water transfers are involved.
Moving water away from its main use in agriculture to higher economic value
uses is one of the main measures widely seen as desirable, especially in view
of inefficient water use in the agricultural sector. This apparent misallocation
is often attributed to the failure of government to allocate water rationally.
However, Molle and Berkoff (2006) argue that cities’ growth is generally little
constrained by the competition with agriculture. In general, rather than using a
narrow financial criterion, cities select options that go along the “path of least
resistance,” whereby economic, social and political costs are considered in
conjunction. The authors conclude that the frequent statement that reallocat-
ing a minor fraction of irrigation water to cities would suffice to cater to the
needs of people with poor water supply conditions is deceptive: both the arith-
metic and the causality are erroneous. Much of the water used by irrigation is
diverted at times and places where there is no alternative use and a large part
of return flows—in water short basins–is reused downstream. Thus the causal
11  Business Models and Economic Approaches Supporting Water Reuse 207

association between, on the one hand, the insufficient and precarious condi-
tions of access to water in “thirsty cities,” highlighted in times of crises, and,
on the other, water scarcity allegedly caused by a wasteful irrigation sector,
is according to the authors largely misleading as the problem (in developing
countries) lies more in the lack of capital, itself a notion relative to the local
political economy and distribution of power in society (Molle and Berkoff
2006).

11.3.2 Replenishing Natural Capital

Secondary treated wastewater can be used to recharge groundwater, which can be

a critical factor in water stressed regions. As the benefit is with the drinking water
agency, a business model could be based on benefit sharing principles, where the
drinking water agency or local government pays the treatment entity. In case they are
the same entity or different ones, the drinking water entity would compare potential
benefits with the costs for developing alternative freshwater supplies. Operational
cost recovery will depend upon the prevalent price for fresh/potable water. The
other primary beneficiaries from groundwater recharge are the private stakeholders
neighboring the groundwater recharge zone who will gain from higher groundwa-
ter levels and can potentially sell the water through private tankers. Examples of
intentional and unintentional aquifer recharge have been presented by Dillon and
Jiménez (2008). An example of planned groundwater recharge has been presented
in Chap. 9 for the city of Bangalore, India, where urban wastewater is been used to
refill depleted irrigation tanks in the rural vicinity, which in turn helps to replenish
the groundwater level and improves farmer access to irrigation water through tube
wells. A typical case is the depleted Amanni Doddakere tank, situated in Hosakote
in rural Bangalore which receives now excess water from Yele Mallappa Shetty
Kere (YMSK) tank in urban Bangalore which serves as a stormwater and wastewa-
ter reservoir and is full year round. Farmers from Hosakote appealed successfully
to the Department of Minor Irrigation to access the water of YMSK. It took more
than a decade to complete the lift irrigation scheme. After some initial skepticism,
farmers started to compete for the water, resulting in a number of illegal water di-
versions along the 20 km pathway with little water eventually arriving at its planned
destination. Farmers who received water expressed their commitment to benefit
sharing principles by stating an average willingness-to-pay of US$ 11.3 per acre,
per season for the possibility to continue using their tube wells (Scharnowski et al.
2014). The results show that the farmers who could benefit in Hosakote are will-
ing to contribute about 25 % towards the monthly operation and maintenance costs
of the water lifting project. Extending the benefit sharing principle to those farm-
ers currently excluded but illegally accessing the water along the canal probably
finance even more. Other benefits that could enhance cost recovery and promote
a move towards benefit sharing will be the transformation of the YMSK overflow
208 K. Rao et al.

from an environmental hazard into an economic asset, and the ability of the Irriga-
tion authority in meeting its water supply obligations.
An important lesson was that engaging stakeholders in the process of formula-
tion and the set-up of clear institutional arrangements could have avoided some of
the observed challenges. This applies to various scales as the redistribution of the
wastewater also resulted in additional water related tension between Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu states of India.
A well-known case of unintentional recharge described in Chap. 9 of this volume
is the “Mezquital Valley” in Mexico where wastewater of Mexico city is being dis-
charged since 1789 into the Tula Valley1 and is used to irrigate about 70–90,000 ha
(Jiménez 2005, 2008). The irrigation activities, especially their low water use ef-
ficiency, are multiplying the benefit of natural aquifer recharge while the soil filters
pollutants making the water with some additional treatment re-usable by Mexico
City. Due to wastewater irrigation over 90 % of the aquifer in the valley is formed
by urban wastewater; however, it was only in 1995 that the city realized due to
observed changes in water salinity that its original groundwater had been replaced
by infiltrated wastewater. Comprehensive water quality analysis found that the un-
intentional soil aquifer treatment worked better than the currently best wastewater
treatment plant (Jiménez 2008).
Due to groundwater over-exploitation within Mexico City, additional water ab-
straction from soil is today prohibited and water rights markets support water real-
location from agriculture to urban use.

11.3.3 On-Site Value Creation

Business cases on wastewater based aquaculture can be found in Egypt, Morocco,

Tunisia and Peru. Fish production can take place within or after the treatment pro-
cess. Within the treatment process the reuse value proposition can be integrated by
absorbing nutrients from the wastewater in biomass which can feed fish or other
animals. Where such a low-cost treatment solution can be combined with high-
revenue generation, businesses can move beyond cost recovery. An example is the
pond-based treatment system supporting the production of duckweed as fish food,
and/or fish itself. The operational cost recovery from this system is high and the low
investment cost make the business model attractive for smaller treatment plants in
towns and cities in developing countries. Agriquatics—Bangladesh, for instance,
achieves 100 % cost recovery and makes net profits like its sister project Terraqua
Barranca in Peru which is using comparable treatment technologies and achieves a
payback period on capital costs of just 2.8 years. In the case of Peru, value proposi-
tions include well-treated wastewater at a nominal value of $ 0.1 per cubic meter
which generates approximately $ 1 million in “new water value” to the community;
and about 2500 tons of fish per year valued at $ 14.8 million in local revenues. In West

As one of the first irrigated areas within the Tula Valley is called El Mezquital, the whole reuse
1 

case is also often referred to as the Mezquital Valley.

11  Business Models and Economic Approaches Supporting Water Reuse 209

Africa, fish are grown directly in the last pond of the treatment systems or in fresh-
water ponds which are fed with wastewater from livestock production. In Ghana,
for example, Waste Enterprisers pioneered a model using existing wastewater treat-
ment pond systems which limited their investment costs to the fish stock. Revenues
from fish sales are shared with the municipal authorities to maintain the ponds, and
to monitor fish quality and safety (Murray et al. 2011).
Given the favorable revenue situation, both duckweed cases do not rely on water
fees or any subsidies. In Terraqua net profits are shared among the stakeholders
including farmers, while there are no such arrangements in Agriquatics. Yet, the
local community benefits from local sale of fish and crops, treated wastewater, and
services made possible through the social enterprise model.

11.3.4 Marketing Reclaimed Water

As discussed in Chap. 1 and other chapters in this book, a cost recovery business
model is usually constrained by low freshwater prices, making it difficult to charge
appropriately for reclaimed water to achieve full cost recovery, unless high end
treatment meets high end users (see 11.2). The values of using reclaimed water
are multiple from freshwater savings to environmental benefits and cost recovery.
Detailed business cases and examples can be found in Otoo and Drechsel (2015).
Here we give a few examples only.
Lazarova et  al. (2013) present a number of well-known and successful water
reuse cases, some of which include agricultural reuse. In Milan, Italy, high quality
filtered and disinfected wastewater is used for indirect use in agriculture, river res-
toration and environmental enhancement. In the case of one treatment plant, farm-
ers pay a symbolic amount for a concession to use recycled water, while in the other
case, a farmer association pays for water pumping. Charges are low to encourage
farming in that area, but also based on historical reasons as formerly the mix of raw
sewage and channel water was free. Based on impact assessments the environmen-
tal benefits of the reuse model are however significant.
In the case of the island of Noirmoutier, France, tertiary treated wastewater is
sold at 40 % of the freshwater price to grow potatoes, allowing farmers to produce
potatoes also in the dry summer period, while the authorities reduce their wastewa-
ter disposal costs, reduce environmental pollution and save on drinking water. In
Australia, wastewater is used for various purposes depending on its treatment level.
The largest (66 %) customer across the country is irrigation which allows farmers to
deal with droughts and increasing water competition, which is strongly contribut-
ing to urban water supply security. Melbourne Water, for example, is a wholesale
supplier of recycled water to the retail water companies, who then distribute it to
customers. Recycled water prices include a variable component and are set so as
to (i) consider the price of any substitutes and customers’ willingness to pay; (ii)
cover the full cost of providing the service with the exception of services related
to specified obligations or maintaining balance of supply and demand (South East
Water 2013).
210 K. Rao et al.

In Botswana, the city of Gaborone is using a dual strategy for wastewater use—
part for flow restoration in the tributary of the Limpopo river and drought mitiga-
tion, and part for irrigation for producing high value fresh vegetable for sale to
the local super markets. Treated wastewater has been supplied by the Water Utili-
ties Corporation of Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources since the
scheme’s inception in 2005. In principle, a tariff of US$ 0.06/m3 has been set by
the Ministry of Agriculture for irrigation water. In practice, water fees are not col-
lected at Glen Valley. Farmers have had to invest in the piping and control gear for
drip-irrigation but not in pumps or water storage. When there are no major inter-
ruptions to water supply and farmers can use drip irrigation it is very profitable to
grow tomatoes. The net return to tomato growing is around US$ 17,800/ha. If the
water tariff was raised to its full economic cost (of an estimated US$ 0.36/m3) the
net return would fall by only 7 % as water supply costs make up a small proportion
of the total production cost. Post-harvest losses can have a much bigger impact on
the profitability of this enterprise (Yaron et al. 2012).
The sale of fresh vegetables at the farm gate to a buyer provides security in terms
of market fluctuations and saves transportation cost, while making fresh vegetables
available to the public. Yet, the water sale via the farmer association is only recover-
ing a small fraction of the wastewater treatment costs. A higher level of cost recov-
ery is achieved in the case of Mauritius, where the Irrigation Authority uses a more
complex revenue strategy and tri-partite partnership for full cost recovery. This
includes (a) generating income from the sale of treated water to the government
from irrigated farming, (b) supply of treated wastewater to the farmers at a lower
price than the price these farmers had otherwise to pay to the Irrigation Authority
for irrigation water, (c) government subsidies to avoid financial shortfall for the
Ministry of water and agriculture, and (d) energy production from sludge for on-site
use thus saving electricity costs. The key stakeholders include Irrigation Author-
ity, and Wastewater Management Authority, both represented by the Government;
farmers with clear water rights; and international development partners including
EU and Berlinwasser International providing finances and management services.
Construction of the treatment plant, which has a capacity of 69,000 m3 per day, was
funded by the European Union in partnership with the Government of Mauritius.
It was completed in 2005. Berlinwasser International has been responsible for the
operation and maintenance of the treatment plant since 2008 and their contract will
end in 2015.
Water reuse as a social business model saving freshwater with environmental
benefits and a cost recovery component is common across the MENA region (Qadir
et al. 2010). A particular case with multifold social objectives such as to reduce
environmental pollution and promote better living, and a multi-resource recovery
strategy for revenue generation is the Drarga plant near Agadir in Morocco. The
Municipality collects sewage fees to recover its operation and maintenance costs
and designed the plant to generate additional revenue from sale of (i) treated waste-
water to crop farmers, (ii) reed grass from the constructed wetland, (iii) sludge
compost, and (iv) methane gas from energy recovery. Although not all of these com-
ponents have been implemented so far, a noteworthy innovation in this case is that
all sales revenues and revenues from the water and sewage tariff and connection fee
11  Business Models and Economic Approaches Supporting Water Reuse 211

are deposited into a special account, independent of the main community account to
serve solely the wastewater treatment plant. This special arrangement is a response
to common bottlenecks in public financing of O&M costs like spare parts which
contributed to the breakdown of about 70 % of the wastewater treatment plants in
the country (Choukr-Allah et al. 2005). The examples show the advantages of mul-
tiple value propositions and revenue streams. Chaps. 12 and 13 which focus on the
recovery of nutrient and energy from wastewater will provide more examples.

11.3.5 Hedging Future Water Markets

This business model is based on the premise that the demand for reclaimed waste-
water by industries and agriculture will increase in the future. The business concept
is to hedge and match future suppliers of wastewater treatment and future buyers
of treated wastewater through trading of water titles, and in this way securing parts
of the investment capital beforehand for wastewater treatment projects. Supply side
actors are municipalities, cities and/or entities producing wastewater. The demand
side actors are organizations and companies wishing to offset their increasing water
footprints via the purchase of water titles, or simply agro-industrial complexes in
need of water. A private enterprise, like Prana Sustainable Water, based in Switzer-
land, would act as a broker, bringing together wastewater suppliers and wastewa-
ter buyers using a water title exchange platform. Similar platforms with a broader
scope are provided for example by Mission Markets Earth (http://www.mmearth.
com/; http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com) which aims to be a one-stop shop
that allows sellers to sell and buyers to buy credits from a variety of environmental
markets including wetland banking, biodiversity offsets, water quality trading and
voluntary carbon markets. By packaging environmental assets in a manner familiar
to traditional investors, these platforms try to open untapped capital for environ-
mental markets. An example for trading commoditized treated wastewater between
water rich and water poor regions is provided here http://www.pranasustainablewa-
ter.ch/en/solution/trading.php.

11.4 Conclusions

The overarching priority of any wastewater treatment system is to safeguard public

health, which requires that it remains continuously operational. This characteristic
often is not achieved in many low-income countries where capital costs are covered
by foreign aid and operations are the duty of national authorities with insufficient
institutional, financial, or technical capacity (Murray and Drechsel 2011). Resource
recovery and reuse offers opportunities for dedicated revenue streams to support
sustainable operations.
Potential solutions vary with market opportunities, ranging from appropriate
treatment for low-revenue but large volume agricultural reuse to high-end treatment
212 K. Rao et al.

for high value (potable) reuse. While GWI (2009) sees best opportunities for high-
end treatment and high-value reuse, which might indeed be appropriate for many de-
veloped countries and emerging economies, others argue that especially in develop-
ing countries, cutting-edge treatment plants are risky investments and combinations
of appropriate technologies with lower capital and operational costs will be a better
fit, also in view of reuse (Huibers et  al. 2010; Nhapi and Gijzen 2004; Libhaber
and Orozco-Jaramillo 2013). Combining reuse with low-cost treatment increases the
probability of full cost recovery as the ‘duckweed’ cases demonstrate, especially if
there is a sufficiently large market for the value proposition that reuse offers.
On the other hand, choosing a level of treatment which treats water to a quality
beyond that is required for its safe use will burden the service provider with higher
capital and operational costs, with not enough revenue realization in the absence of
demand for this high quality water.
Libhaber and Orozco-Jaramillo (2013) show that the investment costs in combi-
nations of appropriate technology solutions are 20–50 % of the investments in e.g.
activated sludge treatment, and in most cases only 20–25 % of the operation and
maintenance cost, compared to activated sludge (Table 11.3). Such solutions will
have a higher probability of sustainability within the revenue generation potential of
towns and smaller urban communities and offer a range of non-potable water reuse
opportunities.
One way to avert over-investments in treatment is that utilities treat water to the
required regulatory standards and provide water to bulk industrial users first and
the rest to the low valued agricultural market. Industrial users can further treat their
water allocation through their own on-site advanced treatment facilities to match
quality to their internal process needs. In settings where a reuse market for high
quality water is well developed and higher grade treated water reuse is in demand,
the utility can engage with users to co-fund the investments to provide advanced
treatment and charge the additional cost thereof to the end users including third
party customers.
Offering treated wastewater for agriculture only will struggle with low water
prices. Charging farmers the full cost of water treatment would discourage them
from converting to irrigation with wastewater and participating for example in wa-
ter swap models, despite significant interest from urban users. In these cases, cost
recovery has to be supported through the water bill; i.e., of wastewater producers
following user/polluter pays principles, or subsidies justified by positive externali-
ties for human and environmental health and savings on freshwater consumption.
However, the degrees of freedom available when designing taxes and tariffs in low-
income settings are limited, as tariffs must be pro-poor.
The water in wastewater is just one of the important economic assets in reuse
solutions. Recovering several products from wastewater enables new opportunities,
enhances revenue, and moves the business up on the economic value proposition
ladder (Fig. 1.1). The As Samara wastewater treatment plant near Amman, Jordan
and the Drarga plant in Morocco are examples of treatment plants designed to offer
multiple revenue streams from resource recovery (water, organic fertilizer, carbon
credits and especially energy).
11  Business Models and Economic Approaches Supporting Water Reuse 213

Table 11.3   The capital (capex) and operational (opex) expenditures of some appropriate technol-
ogy options for wastewater treatment solutions. (Libhaber and Orozco-Jaramillo 2013)
CAPEX OPEX
US$/capita % of activated US$/year/capita % of activated
sludge costs sludge costs
Rotating micro screens 3–10 4–10 0.1–0.15 1.9–2.5
UASB reactors 20–40 25–40 1.0–1.5 19–25
Chemically enhanced pri- 20–40 20–40 1.5–2.0 25–38
mary treatment (CEPT)
Mixer aided lagoon systems 20–40 25–40 0.2–0.4 5
Anaerobic filters 10–25 10–25 0.5–1.0 13–20
Conventional lagoon 20–40 25–40 0.2–0.4 5–8
systems
Covered anaerobic lagoons 20–50 25–50 0.2–0.4 5
and mixer aided facultative
lagoons
Stabilization reservoir 30–50 30–50 0.2–0.4 5
systems
Constructed wetlands 20–30 20–30 1.0–1.5 19–25
UASB-anaerobic filter 20–40 20–40 1–1.5 19–25
combination
UASB-lagoon combination 30–50 30–50 1–1.5 19–25
CEPT-sand filtration 40–50 40–50 1.5–2 25–38
combination
UASB-sand filtration 30–50 30–50 1–1.5 19–25
combination
UASB-dissolved air flota- 30–40 30–40 1–1.5 19–25
tion combination
Reference case—conventional activated sludge plant used for comparison with low cost
technology
Conventional activated 100–150 100 4–8 100
sludge
Note: The investment cost of an activated sludge plant was set at US$ 100/capita. Compared
to the conventional activated sludge (80–90 % removal of biological oxygen demand and total
soluble solids) the treatment capacity of individual appropriate technologies can be lower and
combinations are recommended which will still have the advantage of lower costs

However, recovering several resources can pose institutional challenges. For in-
stance, should recovering these value streams involve a single business model and
service provider or involve multiple private-public partnerships and models. If the
target is that value created through reuse can help maintaining the sanitation service
chain, it will require mutually negotiated and agreed on benefit sharing mecha-
nism. Particular attention will be needed for the institutional and financial setup
that revenues from reuse support overall sustainability of the system. The Moroccan
example of an independent wastewater account to prevent the erosion of fees and
revenues within common public budget gaps is a model to follow.
214 K. Rao et al.

While the architecture of business approaches in facilitating local reuse solu-

tions is dynamic, the salient factors that might shape the future of business models
in promoting resource recovery solutions include appropriate technology, transi-
tion to multiple and higher value propositions, and well-designed institutional link-
ages. The interplay of these factors in delivering sustainable water and sanitation
solutions to local communities through innovative business models, partnerships
and strategic applications of science and technology requires further investigation.
Existing and emerging challenges such as stricter regulations, changing risk aware-
ness, new green market opportunities and adaptation to climate change will increas-
ingly allow us to witness fresh ideas and new business approaches.

Take Home Messages

• Water scarcity will continue to drive the need for reuse solutions and shape
the economic value of wastewater as an asset in an urbanizing world.
• Wastewater use business models offer several value propositions, which
can extend the treatment benefits beyond the safety of human and environ-
mental health and support industry, agriculture, domestic and institutional
demands.
• Harnessing key resources in wastewater—water, nutrients, and energy, can
extend the probability of recovering operational and maintenance costs,
and even capital costs if these are low and the reuse market large.
• Distance, i.e. electricity costs for water transport via pumping are the key
cost factor.
• Appropriate low cost technology holds the key to sustainability of treat-
ment and reuse in developing countries, while high-end treatment for high
value reclaimed water has a significant market potential in developed
countries.
• Full cost recovery remains elusive in most (agriculture based) reuse cases,
but not impossible especially if water quality allows also for industrial
reuse. The inter-institutional arrangements for benefit sharing and dedi-
cated accounting require particular attention to support overall system
sustainability.

References

ADB (2014) From toilets to rivers: experiences, new opportunities and innovative solutions. Ma-
nila
Alaei M (2011) Water recycling in Mashhad plain (Effluent management: opportunities and
threats). ICID 21st International Congress on Irrigation and Drainage. 15–25 Oct, Iran.
Bino M, Al-Beiruti S, Ayesh M (2010) Greywater use in rural home gardens in Karek. In: McIl-
waine S, Redwood M (eds) Greywater use in the Middle East: technical, social, economic and
policy issues. IDRC, Practical Action, Center for the Study of the Built Environment, Jordan.
http://web.idrc.ca/openebooks/466–6/
11  Business Models and Economic Approaches Supporting Water Reuse 215

Chenini F, Huibers FP, Agodzo SK, van Lier JB, Duran A (2003) Use of wastewater in irrigated
agriculture. Country studies from Bolivia, Ghana and Tunisia. Volume 3: Tunisia. WUR, Wa-
geningen
Choukr-Allah R, Thor A, Young PE (2005) Domestic wastewater treatment and agricultural re-
use in Drarga, Morocco. In: Hamdy A (ed) The use of non-conventional water resources. CI-
HEAM/EU DG Research, Bari, pp 147–155 (Options Méditerranéennes: Série A. Séminaires
Méditerra éens; n. 66)
Coalition for Alternative Wastewater Treatment (CAWT) (2009) Case studies: building blocks for
decentralized wastewater. Update of the advanced on-site wastewater treatment and manage-
ment market study, WERF project 05-DEC-3SG, under EPA cooperative agreement X-830851-
01. http://ndwrcdp.werf.org/documents/05-DEC-3SG/05-DEC-3SGb%20Case%20Studies.
pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2014
Dillon PJ, Jiménez B (2008) Water reuse via aquifer recharge: intentional and unintentional prac-
tices. In: Jimenez B, Asano T (eds) Water reuse. An international survey of current practice
issues and needs. IWA, London, pp 260–280
Evans A, Otoo M, Drechsel P, Danso G (2013) Developing typologies for resource recovery busi-
nesses. Urban Agric Mag 26:24–30
GWI (2009) Municipal water reuse markets 2010. Global Water Intelligence, Oxford
Heinz I, Salgot M, Koo-Oshima S (2011) Water reclamation and intersectoral water transfer be-
tween agriculture and cities-a FAO economic wastewater study. Water Sci Technol 63(5):1068–
1074
Huibers F, Redwood M, Raschid-Sally L (2010) Challenging conventional approaches to manag-
ing wastewater use in agriculture. In: Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M,
Bahri A (eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigation risks in low-income
countries. Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI, UK, pp 278–301
Jiménez B (2005) Treatment technology and standards for agricultural wastewater reuse: a case
study in Mexico. Irrigation Drainage 54:23–33
Jimenez B (2008) Unplanned reuse of wastewater for human consumption: the Tula Valley, Mexi-
co. In: Jimenez B, Asano T (eds) Water reuse. An international survey of current practice issues
and needs. IWA, London, pp 414–433
Koné D (2010) Making urban excreta and wastewater management contributes to cities’ economic
development. A paradigm shift. Water Policy 12:602–610
Lahnsteiner J, Klegraf F, Mittal R, Andrade P (2007) Reclamation of wastewater for industrial
purposes—advanced treatment of secondary effluents for reuse as boiler and cooling make-up
water. Paper presented at the 6th IWA Specialist Conference on Wastewater Reclamation and
Reuse for Sustainability, 9–12 Oct 2007, Antwerp, Belgium
Lazarova V, Asano T, Bahri A, Anderson J (2013) Milestones in water reuse: the best success sto-
ries. IWA, IWA Publishing London, UK, p 408
Libhaber M, Orozco-Jaramillo A (2013) Sustainable treatment of municipal wastewater. Water 21
Magazine of the IWA October 2013, pp 25–28
Molle F, Berkoff J (2006) Cities versus agriculture: revisiting intersectoral water transfers, po-
tential gains and conflicts. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute
(IWMI), Comprehensive Assessment Secretariat. vi, p 70. (Comprehensive Assessment of Wa-
ter Management in Agriculture Research Report 010)
Murray A, Buckley C (2010) Designing reuse-oriented sanitation infrastructure: the design for
service planning approach. In: Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A
(eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries.
UK, Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI, pp 303–318
Murray A, Drechsel P (2011) Why do some wastewater treatment facilities work when the majority
fail? Case study from the sanitation sector in Ghana. Waterlines 30(2):135–149
Murray A, Ray I (2010) Back-end users: the unrecognized users in demand-driven sanitation.
J Plan Educ Res 30(1):94–102
Murray A, Cofie O, Drechsel P (2011) Efficiency indicators for waste-based business models:
fostering private-sector participation in wastewater and faecal sludge management. Water Int
36(4):505–521
216 K. Rao et al.

Nhapi I, Gijzen HJ (2004) Wastewater management in Zimbabwe in the context of sustainability.

Water Policy 6:501–517
NRC (2012) Water reuse: potential for expanding the nation’s water supply through reuse of mu-
nicipal wastewater. Committee on the Assessment of Water Reuse as an Approach to Meeting
Future Water Supply Needs, Water Science and Technology Board, Division on Earth and Life
Studies, National Research Council, National Academies Press, USA, 31 July 2012
Otoo M, Drechsel P (2015) Resource recovery from waste: business models for energy, nutrients
and water reuse. Earthscan and IWMI. (in press)
Qadir M, Bahri A, Sato T, Al-Karadsheh E (2010) Wastewater production, treatment, and irrigation
in Middle East and North Africa. Irrigation Drainage Syst 24:37–51
Scharnowski P, Danso G, Amerasinghe P, Drechsel P (2014) Farmers’ demand for groundwater
recharge from wastewater in Bangalore, India. Paper presented at the International conference
on peri-urban landscapes: water, food & environmental security, 8–10 July 2014, Australia
South East Water (2013) South East water price manual 2013–14-tariffs and charges. http://
southeastwater.com.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/AboutUs/Picelistandcharges.pdf. Accessed
29 May 2014
Van der Hoek W (2004) A framework for a global assessment of the extent of wastewater irriga-
tion: the need for a common wastewater typology. In Scott CA, Faruqui NI, Raschid-Sally L
(eds) Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture: confronting the livelihood and environmental
realities. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 11–24
Visvanathan C, Asano T (2002) The potential for industrial wastewater reuse. Encyclopedia of life
support systems. UNESCO Publication, Paris
Winpenny J, Heinz I, Koo-Oshima S, Salgot M, Collado J, Hernandez F, Torricelli R (2010) The
wealth of waste: the economics of wastewater use in agriculture. FAO Water Report, Rome
Xu P, Valette F, Brissaud F, Fazio A, Lazarova V (2001) Technical-economic modelling of integrat-
ed water management: wastewater reuse in a French island. Water Sci Technol 43(10):67–74
Yaron G, Moepeng P, Mmopelwa D, Mookodi L Lekobane R (2012) A study of the contribu-
tion of sustainable natural resource management to economic growth, poverty eradication and
achievement of NDP 10 goals. Case studies. Botswana Institute for Development Policy Anal-
ysis in association with GY Associates Ltd. Submitted to Ministry of Finance and Development
Planning, Gaborone, Botswana. http://www.unpei.org/sites/default/files/e_library_documents/
Case%20Studies.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2014
Zabalaga J, Amy G, von Muench E (2007) Evaluation of agricultural reuse practices and relevant
guidelines for the Alba Rancho WWTP (primary and secondary facultative ponds) in Cocha-
bamba, Bolivia. Water Sci Technol 55(1–2):469–475
Chapter 12
Business Models and Economic Approaches
for Recovering Energy from Wastewater
and Fecal Sludge

Solomie Gebrezgabher, Krishna Rao, Munir A. Hanjra

and Francesc Hernández-Sancho

Abstract  Universal access to water, sanitation and energy services are key chal-
lenges in low income countries. The conventional model of providing water, sani-
tation and waste disposal as a social service is no longer viable because national
authorities lack financial and human resources for operation and maintenance and
for addressing the sanitation needs locally. Human excreta and wastewater repre-
sent resources that can be used to generate new income and support livelihoods
through use as a source of energy. The reduction, removal and reuse of wastes must
become financially feasible and economically profitable and yield high returns.
This requires innovative and sustainable business models and financing instru-
ments for their implementation. This chapter presents an overview of successful
and emerging business cases for recovering energy and other useful products from
wastewater and fecal sludge from low and middle income countries. The business
cases are analysed for their business concepts and opportunities and challenges for
scaling-up and scaling-out. Key policy implications and conclusions for supporting
the business model approach in the developing world are discussed.

S. Gebrezgabher ()
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Regional Office Ghana, PMB CT 112,
Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
e-mail: s.gebrezgabher@cgiar.org
K. Rao
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
e-mail: k.c.rao@cgiar.org
M. A. Hanjra
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Pretoria, South Africa
e-mail: m.hanjra@cgiar.org
F. Hernández-Sancho
Department of Applied Economics II, University of Valencia, Campus dels Tarongers,
46022 Valencia, Spain
e-mail: francesc.hernandez@uv.es
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 217
P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_12
218 S. Gebrezgabher et al.

Keywords  Energy recovery · Fecal sludge · Business models · Biogas · Biomethane

· Value proposition · Private sector · Cost recovery

12.1 Introduction

Rapid urbanization, increased economic growth coupled with increased consump-

tion levels determine the amount of waste generated in a region or a country. With
rapid urbanization in developing countries, greater volumes of wastewater are gen-
erated (Qadir et  al. 2010). Most of the waste generated in developing countries
ends up in open dumps and wetlands, contaminating surface and ground water and
posing major health hazards. This poses substantial challenges for financing water,
sanitation and waste management services (UNWATER 2013). The larger challenge
might however be to maintain installed infrastructure operational as in many devel-
oping countries national authorities lack the required financial and human resourc-
es. Thus, cost recovery is high on the agenda and one way to address this is through
waste reduction and recycling. In fact, there is an urgent need to go beyond business
as usual and the linear ‘take, make, dispose’ pathway. Emerging recommendations
propose a ‘circular economy’ (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2012) which builds on
resource recovery and reuse (RRR).
To achieve success, RRR must be technically feasible and profitable, be it with
or without subsidies. It must yield high returns and the rewards must go beyond
business certainty to health risk reduction. This requires innovative, inclusive and
sustainable business models for RRR and financing instruments for their imple-
mentation to transform ‘pollution’ into assets that smart political leaders can accept
voluntarily, from the bottom up, for benefit sharing across sectors and actors. How-
ever, scale matters. The RRR options must relate to local communities, economic
circumstances, socio-cultural norms, safe use, public awareness and local capacity.
Energy security is a critical issue facing municipal authorities in the developing
world. More than 2.8  billion persons are without access to electricity worldwide
and most live in developing countries. This includes about 550 million in Africa and
400 million in India. Almost 2.8 billion use solid fuels such as wood, charcoal, coal
and dung for cooking and heating. To achieve universal access by 2030, new capital
investment of $ 35–40 billion per year is needed, in addition to the $ 450 billion
needed just to sustain existing services (WEO 2011). Providing universal access to
water, sanitation and energy services will remain a key challenge for many decades.
The RRR approach offers affordable local solutions to water and energy security
issues.
While the need to provide universal access to water, sanitation, and energy is
well recognized, mechanisms to support implementation and enhance compliance
are lacking. Human excreta and wastewater represent resources that can be used to
generate new income, create livelihoods, and improve ecosystems. However, there
are threats to human and environmental health, and negative social perceptions of
nutrient recovery from wastewater, human excreta, and urine for use as fertilizer in
12  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Recovering Energy … 219

agriculture (Jewitt 2011b). Examples of hurdles identified from the literature relate
to poor understanding of the potential for urine reuse, social stigma to using dry
sanitation and urine in agriculture, and poor operational knowledge of application
practices (Roma et al. 2013). Taboos regarding human waste create barriers for the
development of more appropriate excreta management systems, with consequenc-
es for human, economic and ecosystem health (Jewitt 2011a). However, there are
some best practice case examples where the business approach has been used for
energy recovery form wastewater and fecal sludge.
Against this backdrop, we examine the need for energy recovery from waste-
water and fecal sludge (Sect. 12.2). We present several wastewater to energy busi-
ness cases, and fecal sludge to energy business cases from developing countries
(Sect. 12.3). We examine the economics of waste-to-energy business models, and
we describe opportunities for scaling-up those models (Sect. 12.4). We also provide
policy recommendations for supporting the business model approach in developing
countries (Sect. 12.5).

12.2 The Need for Energy Recovery from Wastewater

and Fecal Sludge

Water treatment, delivery, and wastewater recovery and treatment require substan-
tial energy. Thus, water and wastewater management decisions are also energy man-
agement decisions. Wastewater can also be used to generate energy (GWRC 2010).
There is a strong scientific consensus that the consequences of climate change will
impact the water cycle, both directly and indirectly affecting all economic and so-
cial sectors, and the effects are likely to be much stronger in developing regions and
for the poorer citizens (Kriegler et al. 2012; Oate et al. 2014; Qureshi et al. 2013).
In particular, the water industry is one of the first to be significantly impacted by
climate variability. Hence, issues associated with and links between climate, energy
and water will become more critical in future. Reduced rainfall and declining in-
flows have placed pressure on traditional water supplies and forced reconsideration
of current water use practices in many areas (Lempert and Groves 2010). Therefore,
increased concern about climate change and the need for greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission abatement options has focused attention on water-related energy use and
GHG implications (CSIRO 2008).
In this context, water authorities are facing the challenge of implementing a wide
range of integrated water management initiatives including water reuse, desalina-
tion, decentralised water supply options, etc. On the one hand, the non-conventional
water sources are more energy-intensive than conventional sources (Medeazza and
Moreau 2007). On the other hand, energy consumption for treating wastewater has
grown considerably, both through increases in treated volume and the implementa-
tion of new technologies aimed at achieving higher protection of the environment
(Hernández-Sancho et al. 2011). Hence, simultaneously addressing urban water cy-
cle issues while reducing energy use and GHG emissions represents a challenge that
will require fresh concepts coordinated across both the water and energy sectors.
220 S. Gebrezgabher et al.

Table 12.1   Average sewage

Country Energy consumption per cubic meter
energy consumption per
of wastewater treated (kwh/m3)
cubic meter of wastewater
treated by country. (Source: United States 0.45
WERF 2010; GWRC 2010; Netherlands 0.36
IDAE 2010) Singapore 0.56
Switzerland 0.52
Germany 0.67
United Kingdom 0.64
Australia 0.39
Spain 0.53

Reducing carbon footprint of the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) is not

just an environmental issue; there are also important economic implications. For
instance, the trend of rising energy costs in recent years is likely to continue. Carbon
credits and carbon trading programs also offer incentives for reducing the carbon
footprint of WWTPs. Hence, water authorities and wastewater operators are mo-
tivated to reduce energy consumption, both from an economic and environmental
point of view. Nonetheless, average energy consumption per cubic meter of waste-
water treated does not differ much across developed countries, despite any technol-
ogy differences (WERF 2010; Table 12.1).
Energy demand in wastewater treatment plants will grow over time due to a
number of factors, such as population growth and the corresponding growth in the
waste load to be treated, as well as increasing international calls for universal ac-
cess to these services for all in the developing world and more stringent regulatory
and environmental protection standards for effluent quality and water reuse in the
developed world. These changes are expected to result in more energy intensive
processes (Schosseler et  al. 2007). Thus, optimization of energy consumption,
energy efficiency in design, equipment and technology operations, energy recov-
ery processes, and energy pricing are being increasingly considered in the field of
wastewater treatment.
For the network-based wastewater treatment in urban areas, energy costs are
5–30 % of total operating costs among water and wastewater utilities. Energy costs
are generally higher in developing countries and can be 40 % or more of the total
(World Bank 2012). Such high energy costs contribute to high and unsustainable
operating costs and directly affect the financial health of utilities. Improving energy
efficiency is a core measure to cut operational costs and many energy efficiency
measures have a payback period of less than 5 years (World Bank 2012). Investing
in energy efficiency makes cheaper to operate the system, supports quicker and
greater expansion of access to the poor, helps alleviate fiscal constraints, and less-
ens upward pressure on water and wastewater tariffs. At the national and global lev-
el, it reduces the need to add new power generation capacity and emissions of local
and global pollutants (World Bank 2012). Alongside energy efficiency programs,
12  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Recovering Energy … 221

onsite energy generation from wastewater and human waste can enhance the energy
cost savings and reduce the pressure on the national electricity grid in the develop-
ing countries.
Energy generation along the wastewater value chain from household and indus-
trial wastes offers greater opportunities for energy cost savings. Examples of energy
recovery from wastewater in the existing literature include: electricity and natural
gas generation from wastewater treatment plant sludge (Bidart et al. 2014); evalu-
ation and control of WWTPs for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and economic
costs (Flores-Alsina et al. 2008); energy savings through the utilization of munici-
pal wastewater for cooling in power plants (Walker et al. 2013); and for biodiesel
production (Phalakornkule et al. 2009).

12.3 Waste-to-Energy Business Cases in Developing

Countries

12.3.1 Wastewater to Energy Business Cases

The energy content of wastewater is in the form of thermal, hydraulic and chemi-
cal energy. Thermal energy is the heat energy contained in the wastewater, which
could be from users of hot water, flow by gravity or forced through sewer mains
by pumps. This type of energy from wastewater is useful in places requiring large
amounts of energy for heating water, as the heat can be used to preheat the water via
heat exchangers or heat pumps. An example of such application is in Dalian, a mod-
ern city in southernmost part of the Liaodong peninsula in northeast China, where
heat from sewage is reclaimed to meet part of the heating and cooling requirements
of the Xinghai Bay business district, resulting in savings of more than 30 % energy
compared to conventional solutions (Friotherm 2012). In most developing countries
with warmer climates, there is a limited need for using thermal energy in wastewa-
ter for space heating. However, there is an opportunity to meet industrial cooling
needs by using wastewater as a heat sink.
Hydraulic energy is of two types—potential energy from water elevation and
kinetic energy from moving water due to gravity or from pump stations. Most treat-
ment plants are located at lower elevation; however few have the opportunity to take
advantage of significant difference in elevation that makes it technically viable to
run a hydro turbine. At an elevation difference of 50 m, the potential energy content
of wastewater is 6 kwh/capita/year (Meda et al. 2012). The As-Samra wastewater
treatment plant serving Amman, Jordan is a well-known example that benefits from
its favourable elevation. The difference in elevation from the city and the As-Samra
treatment plant and between the treatment plant and the outlet enables the installa-
tion of upstream and downstream turbines, generating about 3 MW of electrical en-
ergy. The hydraulic energy content in wastewater is relatively small, however in the
case of As-Samra, 30 % of the plant’s energy needs are met by hydraulic turbines.
222 S. Gebrezgabher et al.

Chemical energy is from the organic content in the wastewater, and anaerobic
treatment using bacteria converts the organic matter into biogas that comprises pri-
marily methane and carbon dioxide. Biogas can be used as a fuel to either gener-
ate electricity or as heat energy. Based on the maximum chemical oxygen demand
(COD) load per capita of 110–120 g/L, Meda et al. (2012) estimate the maximum
theoretical chemical energy content of wastewater to be 146 kwh/capita/year.
Anaerobic digestion can provide several benefits in wastewater treatment plants,
such as (a) ease of biogas generation from wastewater and sludge resulting in a
renewable and green energy source, (b) reduction in sludge volumes and reduced
disposal costs, and (c) significantly eliminating pathogens and potential use of
dehydrated sludge as a fertilizer. Many treatment plants use anaerobic digestion
(Table 12.2). The As-Samra plant, in addition to harnessing hydraulic energy up-
stream and downstream, captures and uses biogas for electricity generation. As-
Samra has met 90 % of its electricity needs through this combination since its com-
missioning in 2008. Other examples include the St. Martin wastewater treatment
plant in Mauritius and the Okhla sewerage treatment plant in New Delhi, which
capture biogas and meet 25 and 60 % of their energy needs, respectively.
Anaerobic digestion technology is also used by agro-industrial units to treat the
effluent discharged during production. Nyongara slaughter house in Nairobi, Kenya
piloted a biogas plant to treat the effluent and waste generated when processing
meat. Similarly, Thailand Biogas Energy Company (TBEC) uses a covered lagoon
bio-reactor to treat the effluent from cassava palm oil and other starch processing
agro-industrial units (Otoo and Drechsel 2015).
There are other technology options emerging to harness the energy in waste-
water. For instance, Aqwise, a private Israeli company, specializes in developing
customized wastewater treatment systems using patented Attached Growth Airlift
Reactor (AGAR) technology. Aqwise implemented its patented system to treat raw
sewage supply from the local sanitation facility and filter it for use in cooling a large
Telmex data center in Queretaro State, Mexico. The wastewater-based cooling sys-
tem provided an eco-friendly alternative to common data cooling systems such as
air conditioning or potable water-based systems, thus reducing Telmex’s electricity
costs and consumption of potable water. The data center is located near a sewage
drainage system whereby the company could buy raw sewage from the municipal
government for a low price of 0.5 pesos/m3 (1 US $ in 2012 = 13.147 Mexican pe-
sos) of water. Telmex saves an estimated $ 2 million per year by using wastewater
rather than electricity for the air cooling system. The municipality saves 200 m3/day
of potable water, which is a notable volume in this arid region of Mexico (Otoo and
Drechsel 2015).
Coupling wastewater treatment with algal biofuel production has been evalu-
ated in several studies (Lundquist et al. 2010; Clarens et al. 2010). Other emerg-
ing processes include the incineration of bio-solids in wastewater into heat energy
(Stillwell et al. 2010), converting solids to synthetic gas or bio-fuels (Domingues
et al. 2006, 2008), and using microbial fuel cells to generate electricity (Zhuwei
et al. 2007) from organic matter.
Table 12.2   Energy recovery from wastewater business cases. (Source: Based on Otoo and Drechsel 2015)
Business case Start-up year Business Products/ Organization Scale and key Drivers and Challenges Key to success
concept services and type figures opportunities
beneficiary
Okhla Treat- Built 1937, Government Biogas for on- Public 60 % of plant Reduce pol- Threat that Ideal setting
ment Plant, expansion in funded social site use; treated energy is met lution and government for placing
New Delhi, 2011 business model wastewater from biogas, increase food funding might a number of
India to treat waste- for irrigation; 5400 m3 production shift to other WWTPs
water from compost to of biogas, projects
New Delhi farmers 600 kW of
power genera-
tion, installed
power genera-
tion capacity
of 1.5 MW
As Samra Built 1985, Treat waste- Hydropower Public private Biogas—two Water scarcity, High capital Strong
Treatment expansion in water from from influent partnership gas holders demand investment, partnerships,
Plant, Amman, 2008 Amman city and effluent each of 5000 for treated operational institutional
Jordan on a Build and biogas for m3, 3 MW of wastewater and mainte- support, favor-
Own Transfer on-site energy hydroelec- in agricul- nance costs, able elevation
(BOT) model use; treated tricity, 90 % ture, target to large land difference
wastewater for self-sufficient achieve energy requirement; to generate
irrigation in energy self-sufficiency technological hydropower
barriers
12  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Recovering Energy …

Thailand 2003 Treat effluent Electricity Private Generates Environmental Getting license Strong
Biogas Energy generated from generation 1.4 MW from conservation to sell power partnerships
Company agro-industries from biogas to biogas
on a BOOT national grid
model
223
Table 12.2  (continued)
224

Business case Start-up year Business Products/ Organization Scale and key Drivers and Challenges Key to success
concept services and type figures opportunities
beneficiary
St. Martin 2005 Treat waste- Biogas for on- Public Private Generates 25 % Scarce water Water pollution Clear water
Treat- water from site use; treated Partnership of its electric- for irrigation, issues rights; scarcity
ment Plant, Plaines Wil- wastewater ity requirement reduction of of water for
Mauritius hems region for sugar cane from biogas pollution from irrigation;
farming sugar planta- Clean, green
tions entering image for
coast society and
tourism
Nyon- 2011 Process meat, Biogas for Private 25 m3 biogas, Reduce pol- Cost of gas Participa-
gara Slaughter treat effluent on-site use, 10 KVA lution to meet deliveries tion by other
House, Nai- and waste households, electricity local environ- slaughter
robi, Kenya generated other slaughter mental norms house units
during meat house units;
processing compost
Aqwise, 2012 Patented Cooling sys- Private 350 m3/day High cost Prices of Proximity of
Mexico system to treat tem (air condi- of wastewater of common raw sewage data center to
raw sewage tioning units) treated data cooling fluctuates by sewage drain-
supply and for Telmex systems such municipality age system;
filter it for use data center as electricity or low price of
in cooling a potable water raw sewage
large Telmex based systems
data center
S. Gebrezgabher et al.
12  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Recovering Energy … 225

12.3.2 Fecal Sludge to Energy Business Cases

Recently, a number of initiatives for energy recovery from fecal sludge have
emerged in several sub-Saharan African cities, Southeast Asia, and Latin Ameri-
ca. The objective of these initiatives is to improve sanitation and find a business-
orientated solution to sanitation problems that create economic incentives for the
public and private sector institutions to invest in sanitation and to generate income
for private operators. Total Sanitation and Hygiene Access (TOSHA), a bio-centre
managed by a community based organization (CBO) in Kenya is one such initiative
(Table 12.3). The bio-centre project was initiated in 2004 and thus far there are 52
bio-centres in Nairobi informal settlements.
TOSHA 1 is one of the bio-centres within the informal settlements of Kibera.
The bio-centre is a multi-purpose facility consisting of toilet facilities, a bio-digest-
er, a rental space and a meeting hall. The facility is designed to improve access to
sanitation services, while providing affordable and clean energy sources and other
income generating opportunities for the urban poor. It is used by an average of 1000
people per day, making it one of Nairobi’s busiest toilets (Otoo and Drechsel 2015).
The biogas produced at TOSHA 1 is used either within the toilet complex and thus
saves on operational costs or it is sold to community or other productive end uses.
Using a pay-for-use revenue model, the bio-centre currently makes an average net
income of about US $ 1100 per month (Otoo and Drechsel 2015). The Trust which
initiated the bio-centres offers technical support and builds capacity of the members
of TOSHA 1 to run the bio-centre successfully.
Another case example of a business-oriented solution to sanitation with energy
recovery from fecal sludge is the Sulabh public toilet complex with biogas plant in
India. Sulabh is a pioneering organization in biogas generation from public toilet
complexes. Based on the “Sulabh Model” it has thus far installed 200 biogas plants
with a digester capacity of 35–60 m3 in different states of India. It implements a
build operate and transfer (BOT) model for public toilets. For the construction of
the public toilets, Sulabh is approached by the municipality or other local govern-
ment agencies and private sponsors to build a public toilet in a specific location. The
sponsoring agency is responsible for capital expenditures, while Sulabh takes care
of the operational and maintenance expenditure. Sulabh charges a consultation fee
of 20 % of the project cost, which is the primary source of income that covers the
overhead and administrative costs (Otoo and Drechsel 2015). Sulabh has thus far
installed more than 1.2 million household toilets, over 7500 public pay-and-use toi-
let complexes, and 200 public toilets with biogas systems in several states of India.
Biogas production from human waste provides opportunities in the domestic,
institutional, commercial and industrial sectors for cooking, power generation, and
lighting. Energy recovery from fecal sludge through the installation of biogas sys-
tems has been a success in institutions such as schools, hospitals, and prisons. Good
examples include the Rwanda, Nepal and Philippines prison biogas systems which
aim at reducing prison costs, reducing wastewater pollution and improving pris-
oner’s lives through the installation of biogas systems. These systems were installed
Table 12.3   Energy recovery from fecal sludge business cases. (Source: Based on Otoo and Drechsel (2015)
226

Business Start-up Business concept Products/ Organization Scale and key Drivers and Beneficiary Challenges Key to success
case year services type figures opportunities
Sulabh, 1970 A pay-and-use Biogas NGO Community. Lack of access Access to Low-cost
India public toilet with for heat, Constructed to affordable affordable technology;
a biogas system; sanitation 200 public basic sanitation sanitation to partnership with
implements service, toilets with facilities communities local govern-
build operate and compost biogas systems; ments, local
transfer (BOT) Capacity 35–60 authorities, inter-
model m3 national organi-
zations and local
communities
Rwanda 2001 Cost recovery Biogas for Public Communities Health hazard Reduction in Over Partnership with
prison bio- in institutions cooking of prison (5000 for surrounding prison costs, dependent local expertise,
gas plants, through instal- and nutrient inmates) communities reduce use on one provision of
Rwanda lation of a large from sewage of fuelwood technology technical and
scale bio-digester disposal from for cooking, provider, business training
prisons, defor- better living absence of to local residents
estation due to conditions installation including
high demand for detainees manuals prisoners
for fuelwood
for cooking
TOSHA 1, 2004 A bio-centre with Biogas for Community Community. Lack of access Livelihood No market Community-lead
Kenya a multiple-stream cooking, based organi- 54 m3 biogas, to affordable and jobs to for strategy with
revenues from sanitation zation (CBO) 1000 toilet basic sanita- the members bioslurry support from
toilet facilities, a service, users/day tion facilities of the CBO, other entities
bio-digester, and rental in urban areas; street food (NGO, national
rental space space, high and rising vendors, entities); proper
compost cost of fuel farmers, construction of
private bio-digester
businesses
S. Gebrezgabher et al.
Table 12.3  (continued)
Business Start-up Business concept Products/ Organization Scale and key Drivers and Beneficiary Challenges Key to success
case year services type figures opportunities
Nepal 2008 Cost recovery Biogas for Public Communi- Poor sanitation Reduction Stigma Partnership with
district in institu- cooking ties of prison conditions in prison against local expertise
jail biogas tions through and nutrient (100–270 costs, reduce use of bio- and technical
plants, installation of a inmates) health risk slurry as a institutes
Nepal bio-digester of detain- fertilizer
ees, reduce
wastewater
pollution
Philippines 2009 Cost recovery Biogas for Public Communities Ban on the use Reduce Partnership with
Prison bio- in institutions cooking of prison (1000 of firewood prison costs, local expertise.
gas plants, through the and nutrient inmates) for cooking in reduce waste- Ban of the use
Philippines installation of a prisons; Poor water pollu- of firewood for
bio-digester, and sanitation, tion, improve cooking in pris-
setting-up of a inappropriate prisoner’s ons by Bureau of
new inmate-run treatment of lives Jail Management
bakery fuelled waste, high cost and Penology
in part by the of cooking fuel
biogas
12  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Recovering Energy …
227
228 S. Gebrezgabher et al.

through partnerships between different local and international institutions. Partners

include Kigali Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) in Rwanda, Biogas Sec-
tor Partnership Nepal (BSP-N) in Nepal and Practical Action consulting in Philip-
pines. In Rwanda, dissemination of large-scale biogas digesters to prisons to treat
toilet wastes and generate biogas for cooking has registered significant success. The
initiative by KIST won the Ashden Award for Sustainable Energy in 2005. The first
prison biogas digester became operational in 2001 and currently KIST has installed
biogas digesters in almost half of the 30 prisons in the country. The Ministry of
Internal Security purchases the biogas plants for the prisons.
Biogas systems are installed in several prisons in the Philippines. In the jail with-
in the City of Cagayan de Oro, in addition to reducing costs to the prison by reduc-
ing the need for the purchase of cooking fuel, the biogas systems empower the lives
of the prisoners by engaging them in a new inmate-run bakery that is fuelled in part
by the biogas (ICRC 2011). In Nepal, in collaboration with the local expert partner,
Biogas Sector Partnership Nepal, five biogas systems were installed in three district
jails. An important factor for the success of the initiative is that local residents, in-
cluding prisoners, have received technical and business training.

12.3.3 Upgrading Biogas to Biomethane

In sections 12.3.1 and 12.3.2, in the cases described, biogas is a common factor for
energy recovery and the cases highlight commercial production of biogas from sew-
age sludge and fecal sludge through the process of anaerobic digestion. In general,
biogas can be classified into two types: (a) raw biogas which has often around 60 %
methane and 30 % Carbon dioxide, with trace components of Hydrogen Sulfide and
moisture, and (b) upgraded biogas which has more than 90 % methane and compa-
rable to natural gas. Upgrading biogas to biomethane involves the process of re-
moval of Carbon dioxide, Hydrogen Sulfide and other possible pollutants from the
biogas. Removal of Carbon dioxide increases methane concentration and therefore
increase in the calorific value of upgraded biogas.
Most often biogas is combusted on-site either in a gas engine or as a fuel in a
stove for cooking and boiler to generate heat and/or electricity. The upgraded bio-
gas can be directly injected into a natural gas grid/pipeline and/or directly used as a
vehicular fuel. Raw biogas due to its low percentage of methane content is not ideal
for use as a vehicle fuel apart from local on-site use (e.g. farm tractors), and it is also
not suitable for direct injection into natural gas pipeline. Hydrogen sulfide in bio-
gas produce sulfuric acid which corrodes the inside of pipes, fittings etc. Upgrad-
ing biogas is increasingly gaining popularity on both economic and environmental
grounds. In regions, where there are no existing natural gas pipelines, distribution of
upgraded biogas through dedicated pipelines can be impractical. Upgraded biogas
can be compressed and bottled so as to facilitate ease of storage and transportation
(Krich et al. 2005).
12  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Recovering Energy … 229

Table 12.4   List of biogas upgrading plants at wastewater treatment. (Source: PURAC Puregas
2013; VALORGAS 2011)
City, Country Technology Plant capacity Nm3/h Operating Utilization
of biogas input since
Ulricehamn Sweden PSA 20 2003 Vehicle fuel
Zalaegerszeg, Water scrubber 50 2010 Natural gas grid,
Hungary Vehicle fuel
Gothenburg, Chemical 1600 2006 Natural gas grid
Sweden Aasorption
Oslo, Norway Chemical 750 2010 Vehicle fuel, local
adsorption biomethane grid
Karlstad, Sweden Chemical 200 2010 Vehicle fuel, local
adsorption biomethane grid
Asten, Austria Water scrubber 500a 2009 Gas grid
a
Total annual production of raw gas is 4.4 million m3

In Europe—Germany, Austria, Denmark, France, Sweden, Switzerland and the

Netherlands are the leading countries that upgrade biogas for vehicle fuel or grid
injection. Table 12.4 provides examples of the wastewater plants in Europe that are
generating biogas from sewage sludge and are coupled with biogas upgrading plant.
Several cities in Europe use biomethane as fuel for buses in the public transporta-
tion system. However in the developing countries, despite huge potential for biogas,
upgrading and bottling of biogas are being carried out as research projects. The
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) in India has sanctioned central
financial assistance up to 50 % of the cost (excluding land) for 14 bottling biogas
for demonstration purpose. Some of these plants have been commissioned and are
operating in an entrepreneurial mode (MNRE 2014). None of these demonstration
or commercial plants are targeted for biogas generated from feedstock—sewage
sludge and fecal sludge. Upgraded biogas for grid injection and vehicle use requires
composition and quality similar to that of natural gas. There is no international
standard on quality either for grid injection or vehicle use. Several European coun-
tries (Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland) have
defined national standards and have developed regulations on the use of biomethane
for vehicle fuel or grid injection, however, these standards vary from country to
country and also differ according to the end use (VALORGAS 2011).
In Europe, commercially there are five biogas upgrading technologies used—
chemical absorption, pressure water scrubbing, pressure swing adsorption (PSA),
cryogenic process and membrane separation (VALORGAS 2013). High pressure
water scrubbing and pressure swing absorption are considered to be most appropri-
ate at a small scale due to their low cost, easy maintenance, high purity and yield
(Kapdi et  al. 2005). Most upgrading plants in Europe are focused on large-scale
biogas production sites, and are optimised for maximum methane and energy ef-
ficiency.
230 S. Gebrezgabher et al.

:DVWHWRHQHUJ\
EXVLQHVVPRGHOV

)HFDO VOXGJHWR :DVWHZDWHUWR

HQHUJ\ HQHUJ\

2QVLWHHQHUJ\ 2QVLWHHQHUJ\ 2QVLWHXVHHQHUJ\ 2IIVLWHVDOHHQHUJ\

JHQHUDWLRQLQ JHQHUDWLRQLQ JHQHUDWLRQPRGHO JHQHUDWLRQPRGHO
HQWHUSULVHVSURYLGLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQV
VDQLWDWLRQVHUYLFH

Fig. 12.1   Simplified typology for sewage and septage based business models for energy recov-
ery (see Otoo and Drechsel, 2015); without consideration of fecal sludge based off-site dry fuel
production

12.4 Typology of Business Models

The typical business concept employed in wastewater treatment in developing

countries is that the utility treats sewerage generated from the city or effluent gener-
ated by agro-industrial units to produce value added products, high quality treated
wastewater for use in agriculture, biogas production to generate electricity or heat
and dried sludge as fertilizer. In the case of recovering energy from fecal sludge,
the business concept is cost recovery through the installation of biogas systems,
while simultaneously improving waste management and reducing environmental
and health risks.

12.4.1 Wastewater to Energy Business Models

The energy component in the examples described above is from generation of bio-
gas, which is used as fuel for electricity generation and for thermal energy; except
in the case of the As-Samra wastewater treatment plant, which also harnesses hy-
draulic energy. The typology of business model (Fig. 12.1) is based on the value
proposition along the waste value chain and the end use of the energy generated.
The examples in Table 12.2 can be broadly classified into two key business models,
(a) energy generation for on-site use and (b) energy generation for off-site sale.
Onsite use Energy Generation Business Model  In the onsite use energy generation
business model, the energy generating unit is set up by the utility primarily for its
own internal needs. Most of the examples mentioned in Table 12.2 fit under this
model—the As Samra treatment plant in Amman, Jordan, Okhla treatment plant
in New Delhi, India, and St. Martin in Mauritius. In each of these cases, biogas is
produced in anaerobic digesters during the process of sludge stabilization. Biogas is
used to power gas engines, generating electricity that is mainly consumed onsite for
12  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Recovering Energy … 231

the operation of aeration tanks (approximately 70 % of the total energy consump-
tion). Moreover, the thermal energy from the biogas can be used for prior sludge
heating and during anaerobic digestion. These utilities reduce their energy needs
for operating the treatment plant and hence reduce their operation and maintenance
costs, otherwise incurred due to the purchase of electricity from an external source.
Offsite Sale Energy Generation Business Model  In the offsite sale energy genera-
tion business model, the energy generated during the treatment of wastewater is
sold to the electricity grid or to the households in the neighboring areas. The busi-
ness model employs either a Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) structure or a
service provision structure to deliver energy to its end consumers. In the BOOT
structure, the waste generating entity or the utility partnering with a private entity is
responsible for treating the effluent. The private entity invests in the capital infra-
structure for treating the effluent and operates the facility for an agreed fixed num-
ber of years; the facility is transferred to the waste generating entity or the utility at
the end of the term. For instance, Thailand Biogas Energy Company (TBEC) is a
private entity and uses BOOT structure to partner with agro-industries processing
palm oil and cassava. TBEC invests in the technology to treat the effluent and the
electricity generated from biogas is sold to the national electricity grid. In the case
of service provision, the energy is sold to either households or enterprises for their
energy requirement. The proprietor of the Nyongara biogas plant plans to expand
its operations to treat the waste generated from other slaughter house units and sell
the energy to the units and to nearby households. Okhla treatment plant supplied
the biogas to 4000 households near the plant. However, due to the deterioration
of gas distribution infrastructure, the gas supply for domestic use was stopped in
2008–2009.

12.4.2 Fecal Sludge to Energy Business Models

Energy recovery from fecal sludge in developing countries is predominantly driven

by the need to find a business-orientated solution to sanitation and waste disposal.
There are essentially two business models: (a) onsite energy generation in enter-
prises providing sanitation service and (b) onsite energy generation in institutions.
Onsite Energy Generation in Enterprises Providing Sanitation Service  The primary
objective of the business is to improve access to sanitation services to low-income
settlements, while providing affordable and clean energy sources. The business
generates revenue mainly from the sanitation service fees by applying a pay-and-
use model. The biogas generated can be used onsite for internal consumption, thus
reducing operational costs, or the energy can be sold to other users as cooking fuel.
TOSHA 1 and Sulabh fit in this business model. The slurry produced after diges-
tion can be used directly as fertilizer, but low demand and social taboo is often a
concern.
232 S. Gebrezgabher et al.

Onsite Energy Generation in Institutions  This business model can be applied in

schools, hospitals and other institutions with many residents. The objective is to
improve sanitation in the respective institutions, reduce costs, and reduce waste-
water pollution through the installation of biogas systems. The prison biogas sys-
tems (Table 12.3) are good examples of a model for government to achieve cost
reductions.

12.5 Economics of Wastewater to Energy Business

Models

The economics of water reuse for energy is directly linked to the energy consump-
tion of WWTPs, as treatment is energy intensive and it varies with the type of
treatment process applied. Collecting, treating, and disposing of wastewater to ac-
ceptable standards requires energy (Stillwell et al. 2010). However, wastewater can
be used to generate energy, which results in energy cost savings.

12.5.1 Energy for Wastewater Treatment

There are typically three levels of treatment; primary, secondary and tertiary. Pri-
mary treatment consists of solids removal through sedimentation which is followed
by secondary treatment to remove organic matter and remaining suspended solids
through biological treatment. Activated sludge, which relies on aerobic microorgan-
isms to digest and mineralize organic matter, is the most commonly used in WWTP
(Stillwell et al. 2010). The energy required per volume of wastewater treated var-
ies with the capacity of wastewater treatment plants (Table 12.5). Large treatment
plants require half the electricity requirement of smaller facilities, per unit of water
treated. The energy costs and associated diseconomies of scale pose challenges to
providing low cost systems to suit the needs of smaller communities.

Table 12.5   Energy consumption for wastewater treatment by type of treatment and size of plant.
(Source: EPRI 2002)
Wastewater treat- Electricity consumption (kwh/m3)
ment plant capac- Trickling Activated Advanced wastewa- Advanced wastewater treat-
ity (m3/day) filter sludge ter treatment ment with nitrification
3,785 0.479 0.591 0.686 0.789
18,925 0.258 0.362 0.416 0.509
37,850 0.225 0.318 0.372 0.473
75,700 0.198 0.294 0.344 0.443
189,250 0.182 0.278 0.321 0.423
378,500 0.177 0.272 0.314 0.412
12  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Recovering Energy … 233

Table 12.6   Theoretical energy potential of wastewater (assumptions: water consumption

122 liters/capita/day, flow rate 5 m/s, altitude 50 m, greywater 40 L/capita/day, and 115 g COD/
capita/day). (Source: IWA 2012)
Type of energy Energy content in kwh/capita/year
Potential energy 6
Kinetic energy 0.2
Thermal energy 509
Chemical bound energy 146

12.5.2 Energy Recovery Potential from Wastewater

The theoretical energy potential from wastewater is based on the assumptions that
water consumption is 122 liters/capita/day, with a flow rate of 5 m/s, at an altitude
of 50 m and 40 L/capita/day of greywater generation, with temperature difference
of ~ 15 K and 115 g COD/capita/day. Based on these assumptions, the estimates of
energy potential range from 0.2 kwh/capita/year of kinetic energy to 509 kwh/capita/
year of thermal energy (Table 12.6). However, it is not practical to harness all the en-
ergy content in wastewater. The kinetic energy is too low to harness and the potential
energy varies with geography (IWA 2012). In addition, for elevated settings, the en-
ergy required for pumping can offset considerably the net energy gained. For thermal
energy, it can be harnessed through heat exchangers, however to achieve optimum
recovery, the process has to take place as close to the origin of hot water. Otherwise
within the sewer system, warm greywater is mixed with rain water, infiltration water
and remaining wastewater, causing significantly lower temperature levels.
Among the four forms of energy in wastewater, chemical bound energy has the
highest recovery potential and can be transported in the wastewater via the sew-
er system almost without losses (IWA 2012). The maximum theoretical chemical
bound energy content is 146 kwh/capita/year and at the treatment plant, this chemi-
cal energy content present in the organic constituents are distributed throughout
the process steps and are not completely available in the sewage sludge. At the
treatment plant, about 55 % of the COD load is consumed by either respiration
process or remains within the effluent. Taking only 55 % of the organic content
in wastewater to degrade, from the 146 kwh/capita/year, about 68 kwh/capita/year
is transferred to digestion unit (raw sludge). Of this, 38 kwh/capita/year results in
methane generation which can be converted into electricity. Taking 32 % conver-
sion efficiency rate, net electricity generation from the chemical bound energy in
wastewater is 12 kwh/capita/year (IWA 2012).

12.5.3 Investment in Wastewater to Energy Processes

Wastewater treatment plants can significantly reduce their energy costs by harness-
ing the energy contained in wastewater i.e., energies from sewage flows (2–10 %),
sludge (40–60 %), as well as improving energy efficiency of wastewater treatment
234 S. Gebrezgabher et al.

(up to 20 % energy savings) and generating renewable energy onsite through wind
and solar systems (5–10 %). These are major components of the positive net ener-
gy-zones, yet only some Swiss plants are net energy neutral, and two wastewater
treatment plants in Austria are energy self-sufficient while still other projects are
ongoing (Lazarova et al. 2013). In 2005, the ‘Strass im Zillertal’ Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant near Innsbruck, Austria became the first wastewater treatment plant in
the world to achieve electrical self-sufficiency and ultimately became a net energy
producer. Since then many other wastewater treatment plants have become energy
neutral and net energy producers as well.
The investment costs, operational and maintenance costs and the resulting energy
savings achieved vary with the scale of operation (Table 12.7). The treatment capac-
ity of the plants in Table 12.7 ranges from 4 m3/day in the smallest case, Nyongara
plant in Kenya, to large scale plants with a capacity of 530,000 m3/day in the case
of Okhla Plant in India. The energy savings in the WWTP ranges from 17 to 90 %
of the energy needs of the WWTPs. For example, while Amberpet Plant achieved
17 %, St. Martin 25 % and Okhla plant 60 % energy self-sufficiency, through a com-
bination of biogas and hydraulic energy, As-Samra is able to achieve 90 % energy
self-sufficiency.
Energy generation in wastewater treatment plants offers greater opportunities for
earning additional revenue from carbon credit trading as carbon credits are created
by a project that reduces GHG emissions relative to a baseline scenario (Mitchell
2011). The revenue streams for As-Samra plant and Thailand Biogas Energy plant
include, not only energy cost savings but also revenue from carbon credit sales
(Table 12.7). The value of carbon credits depends on the amount of GHG emissions
savings relative to a baseline scenario and the price of carbon credits. Since the
beginning of carbon credit trading in 2005, the price of carbon credits, with each
credit equal to 1 metric ton of CO2 ranges from € 10–25 (US$ 13–33) per ton traded
on the European Climate Exchange (Brohe et al. 2009).

12.6 Economics of Faecal Sludge to Energy Business: The

Case of Institutional Biogas Systems

The economics of institutional biogas systems consists of investment costs, opera-

tion and maintenance costs with mostly free waste material input. Economic ben-
efits include cost recovery from use of biogas as cooking fuel or electricity and heat
for internal consumption as well as the savings on money previously spent for septic
tank emptying (Amigun and von Blottnitz 2007). Other values such as the slurry
produced after digestion, which can be directly used as fertilizer, can also be added.
When evaluating the performance of institutional biogas systems, in addition to the
technical and financial performance of the plant itself, one should take into account
the cost of fuels and fertilizers under baseline scenario. Moreover, the performance
of the system depends on the efficiencies with which the fuels are currently being
used before the biogas system is installed (Amigun and von Blottnitz 2007).
Table 12.7   Capital investment, operation and maintenance (O & M) cost of wastewater-to-energy cases from developing countries. (Source: Based on Otoo
and Drechsel 2015)
Business case Year Technology Capacity Total capital invest- O & M cost Energy generated or sav- Revenue streams
name (m3/day) ment (million US$) ings achieved
Okhla Plant, 2011 Activated sludge 530,000 9.86 2 million US$/ 60 % energy self-suffi- Energy cost savings;
India process year cient; installed capacity sales of treated waste-
of 1.5 MW water for irrigation
As-Samra, 2008 Hydraulic and 267,000 223.00 3.9 US$/m3 90 % energy self- Energy cost savings;
Jordan Anaerobic sufficient; Biogas, two sales of treated waste-
digestion gas holders of 5000 m3; water for irrigation;
3 MW of hydroelectricity revenue from certified
carbon credits
Thailand 2003 Covered Lagoon 150,000 3.10–3.70 – Installed capacity of Sales of electricity;
Biogas Energy Bio-Reactor 1.4 MW revenue from certified
Company carbon credits
St. Mar- 2005 Activated sludge 69,000 198.56 2 million US$/ 25 % energy Energy cost savings;
tin, Plaines process year self-sufficient sale of treated waste-
Wilhelms, water for irrigation
Mauritius
Nyongara 2011 Anaerobic 4 0.035–0.06 – 25 m3 biogas; 10 KVA Energy cost savings;
Biogas Plant, digestion electricity sale of energy service
Kenya to households
Aqwise, Mexico 2012 Attached Growth 350.00 0.78 66,000 US$/year – Energy cost savings
12  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Recovering Energy …

Airlift Reactor
Amberpet Plant, 2007 Up flow Anaero- 339,000 10.1 3.51 million US$/ 17 % energy self-suf- Energy cost savings
Hyderabad, bic Sludge year ficient; 4.3 mega units
Andhra Pradesh Blanket generated annually
235
236 S. Gebrezgabher et al.

An assessment on the performance of institutional biogas plants in Rwanda by

the KIST showed that the application of biogas at institutional level has resulted in
significant reduction in cost of energy as biogas cook stoves at institutional level are
running on gas generated from human waste. Savings in wood fuel energy realized
from applying biogas technology have been on average 40 % (KIST 2006). Simi-
larly the study on Nepal prison biogas systems by Lohri et al. (2010) reported that
cost savings from replacing conventional cooking fuel ranged between 17 and 41 %.
Table 12.8 shows capacity of biogas plants, the investment cost and the resulting
savings from cooking fuel and savings from septic tank emptying for institutional
biogas plants in prisons of Rwanda, Philippines and Nepal. The data contained in
Table 12.8 were compiled from various studies (Gauthier et al. 2011; ICRC 2011;
Lohri et al. 2010; Munyehirwe and Kabanda 2008; KIST 2006; Butare and Kimaro
2002). Most of the digesters are of a fixed dome type with an estimated useful life
of 20–30 years. The capacity of the digesters in the case of Rwanda prisons varied
between 200  m3 in the smallest installation, to more than 1000  m3 in the largest
plants, while the largest plants in Nepal have a capacity of 35 m3 and in the Philip-
pines, 25 m3.
The investment costs depend on the size of the digester and include cost of raw
materials needed for the construction of a biogas system such as the digester, stoves,
pipes and other accessories. The original cost data were converted from local cur-
rency to US$ at the rate applicable in the year of construction which range from
2002 to 2008 in the case of Rwanda with the majority of the plants installed in 2005
and 2008. Majority of the plants in Nepal and Philippines were installed in 2008.
As the costs reflect data from different years and locations, to account for inflation,
costs for the Rwanda plants were adjusted to the same base year of 2008 using
Consumer Price Index (CPI) published by the National Bank of Rwanda. Average
investment cost per unit was US$ 285 in Rwanda, US$ 201 in Nepal and US$ 230 in
Philippines. Annual operating and maintenance cost is assumed to be 2 % of total in-
stallation cost. The digesters are set up with the objective to treat toilet wastes at the
prisons and, in the process, generate biogas for cooking, which reduces the need for
cooking fuel and septic tank emptying. Annual savings from cooking fuel, per unit
of capacity, is US$ 17 in Rwanda and US$ 29 in Nepal. The estimated savings from
cooking fuel vary with the type of cooking stoves used, the type of cooking fuel
previously used in the institution, and the efficiency with which the biogas is used.
Economies of Scale for Institutional Biogas Plants  Studying the relation between
capital costs and plant capacity of existing institutional biogas plants provides
insights into whether increased opportunities for growth will allow cost reduction
to be achieved (Wibowo and Wuryanti 2007). In theory, individual firms in any
industry can achieve economies of scale which are associated with firm size. The
variation of capital investment cost with plant capacity is used to assess whether
capital cost increases more or less than proportionately with plant capacity. That
is, firms realize economies of scale if technology allows capacity costs to increase
less than proportionately with plant capacity. Conversely, if capacity cost increases
more than proportionately with plant capacity, diseconomies of scale are present.
12  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Recovering Energy … 237

Table 12.8   Overview of institutional biogas plants in Rwanda, Nepal and Philippines. (Source:
IWMI,, based on Gauthier et al. 2011; ICRC 2011; Lohri et al. 2010; Munyehirwe and Kabanda
2008; KIST 2006; Butare and Kimaro 2002)
Item Rwanda ( n =  12) Nepal ( n =  5) Philippines ( n =  5)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Size of digester (m3) 654 350 17 11 16 8
Investment cost ($/m3)a 365 178 201 29 230 0
O & M cost ($/year) 4309 2440 105 57 75 35
Savings from cooking fuel ($/m3/year) 17 11 29 20 – –
Savings from septic tank emptying – – 9 9 – –
($/m3/year)
Saving in fuel wood (ton/year) 29 28 8 3 14 5
a
Costs adjusted to base year of 2008

Thus, understanding the relation between capital costs and plant capacity is impor-
tant in determining the optimal plant capacity.
Taking the institutional biogas plants in prisons of Rwanda, the capacity cost
factor method is used to assess the relation between capital costs and plant capacity.
The empirical relationship between capital investment and plant capacity is given
by (Amigun and von Blottnitz 2007, 2010):
n
C1  Q1 
=
C2  Q2 
Where C1 is the investment cost at a capacity Q1 and C2 is the estimated investment
cost of a new plant at a capacity Q2, n is the cost capacity factor. This can also be
written as C = kQn. The coefficient n depends on the type of industry. In petrochemi-
cal industries, for example, n is normally taken as 0.6 and hence it is called the
six-tenth factor rule (Wibowo and Wuryanti 2007). Economies of scale exist where
the capacity factor value is less one ( n < 1), indicating that capital investment costs
per unit of capacity decrease with an increase in plant capacity, while a value of
n > 1 depicts diseconomies of scale. A value of n = 1, indicates a constant return to
scale and capital costs increase proportionately with plant size. The objective in this
exercise is to determine the coefficient n that holds for institutional biogas plants
in Rwanda.
Table 12.9 shows the plant size, the year of construction and the cost data for
biogas plants in prisons of Rwanda. The data were compiled from various stud-
ies (Gauthier et al. 2011; Munyehirwe and Kabanda 2008; KIST 2006; Butare and
Kimaro 2002). The original data were converted from local currency to US$ at the
rate applicable in the year of construction and also adjusted to base year of 2008 to
account for inflation using Consumer Price Index (CPI) published by the National
Bank of Rwanda. In order to improve the relationship between the investment cost
and the plant size, their values are transformed by taking the natural logarithm of
their values.
238 S. Gebrezgabher et al.

Table 12.9   Total investment cost and capacity of biogas plants in prisons of Rwanda. (Source:
Gauthier et al. 2011; Munyehirwe and Kabanda 2008; KIST 2006; Butare and Kimaro 2002)
Name of Year Size of digester Original Investment Normalized cost to base
prison built (m3) cost (US$) year 2008 (US$)
Cyangugu 2002 600 261,565 489,568
Nyagatare 2004 200 74,432 111,224
Gitarama 2005 1250 210,653 288,510
Rilima 2005 800 180,010 246,541
Kabutare I 2005 600 145,122 198,758
Kabutare II 2008 300 89,552 89,552
Mpanga 2006 1000 292,788 368,593
Remera 2006 700 77,292 97,303
Gikongoro 2007 300 112,994 130,455
Muhanga 2008 500 150,000 150,000
Nsinda 2008 1200 263,246 263,246
Miyove 2008 400 151,640 151,640
>ŶĐŽƐƚ;ĐŽƐƚͿ

ĂƉĂĐŝƚLJĨĂĐƚŽƌ;ŶͿсϬ͘ϲϯ
ZϮсϬ͘ϰϲ
>Ŷ;ĐŽƐƚͿсϬ͘ϲϯ>Ŷ;ƐŝnjĞͿнϴ͘ϭϱ

>ŶƐŝnjĞ;ƉůĂŶƚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJͿ

Fig. 12.2   Investment cost and capacity factor for institutional biogas plants in Rwanda. (Source:
IWMI, based on Gauthier et al. 2011; Munyehirwe and Kabanda 2008; KIST 2006; Butare and
Kimaro 2002)

Figure 12.2 shows the investment cost versus plant capacity on a log-log scale
using least square method. The cost capacity factor, n for the institutional biogas
installations in Fig. 12.2 is 0.63 indicating that a 1 % increase in plant size increases
capital cost by 0.63 %. This means capital cost increase less than proportionately
with plant capacity and thus economies of scale exist in these plants. This is con-
trary to studies by Amigun and von Blottnitz (2007, 2010) in which a cost capacity
12  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Recovering Energy … 239

factor of 1.20 for small and institutional scale biogas industry in Africa has been ob-
tained on the basis of an analysis of 21 projects across eight countries. The strength
of the relationship between the capital cost and plant capacity can be assessed by
looking at the value of the coefficient of determination (R2). The value of the coef-
ficient is 0.46, which is rather low indicating that 46 % of the variation in the capital
investment cost is explained by the variation in plant capacity.
Understanding the relation between cost and capacity of existing institutional
biogas systems provides useful insights into the particular characteristics of the bio-
gas systems and provides simple equations for preliminary cost estimations needed
in investment decision making.

12.7 Economics of Upgrading Biogas to Biomethane

The cost of upgrading biogas to biomethane is a critical factor in commercialization

of the technology as the price of biomethane has to be competitive with competing
fuels. The production costs depend not only on the technology cost but also on cost of
transport of feedstock to generate raw biogas and the cost of delivery of gas to its end
use application. In addition to these, local conditions vary, and it can be a significant
factor for the production cost. For different feedstock used for production of biogas,
sewage sludge has the lowest production cost as it usually takes place at an existing
wastewater treatment plant, where digesters already exist (VALORGAS 2011). The
primary cost is towards the investment for upgrading biogas to biomethane plant.
The upgrading cost depends on the plant size with small-scale units having lower
cost than larger. However, for small scale plants (< 100 Nm3/h of raw biogas), it is
not feasible to upgrade raw biogas to a quality to either inject it directly into natural
gas grid or as commercial fuel at a gas station. At current pricing of competing fuels
with biomethane, small scale plants do not have the economies of scale to pro-
duce biomethane at competitive price point and simultaneously control for quality
and cost incurred in gas transportation to nearest end use commercial application.
There is scope for viability from local application within small community or farms.
Small-scale biogas upgrading can be made economically viable by reducing the
main costs of upgrading (electricity and water costs), upgrading at low temperature
(15–20 °C), use of low cost high pressure storage containers, and compressing to
high pressures (250–270 bars) so as to reduce the electricity costs at filling station
(VALORGAS 2011).
According to Linné and Jönsson (2004), in Stockholm, the cost for production of
biogas from sewage sludge for vehicle use (upgraded and pressurized), excluding
value added tax (VAT) comes to about 0.22–0.48 € Nm−3. In a report by Swedish
Gas Centre in 2003, economic and technical performance of 11 of the Swedish
upgrading plants with longest operation experience concluded that for small-scale
units (< 100 Nm3/h of raw biogas), upgrading costs are between 0.03–0.04 € kWh−1
upgraded gas (NSCA 2006). A study done by SevernWye Energy Agency under
the Bio-methane Regions project (2012), assessed upgrading of biogas plant at
240 S. Gebrezgabher et al.

wastewater treatment facility in Zalaegerszeg, Hungary. According to this study

the total capital of the upgrading facility was estimated at 600,000–700,000 € with
annual operation cost at 25,000 €. The Swedish Gas Centres report also concluded
that upgrading plants in the range of 200–300 Nm3 h−1 of raw biogas have costs
of 0.01–0.016 € kWh−1 of upgraded gas (NSCA 2006). In addition, the electricity
demand for upgrading corresponds to 3–6 % of the energy content in the upgraded
biogas (NSCA 2006).
An example of the upgrading experience in North America in wastewater treat-
ment plant in the case of Greenlane Biogas, a subsidiary of the Flotech Group of
companies. Greenlane biogas uses water scrubbing process for the Woodward
wastewater treatment plant, located in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada to purify raw
biogas and inject it into the gas grid. The plant installed capacity is 10,000 Nm3/
day of raw biogas to biomethane. Greelane Biogas has installations in wastewa-
ter treatment plants in France, Japan and Sweden. The facility in Ontario has total
investment cost of about USD 4  million which includes equipment, engineering,
site preparation, installation and transfer station of biomethane to the Union gas
grid. Annual operation and maintenance cost is just under US$ 150,000. The On-
tario wastewater treatment plant also continues to generate power and recover heat
from its CHP facility where its annual operation and maintenance cost is about
US$ 337,000 (Gorrie 2012).
Experience in Asia on upgrading is limited with most cases are either demonstra-
tion or research oriented. A significant research has been carried out on the applica-
tion of upgraded biogas as vehicle fuel. For example: in Thailand, a study conducted
on the use of bottled biogas in a Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) cylinder to run a
motorcycle found that using upgraded biogas can save energy cost € 0.08/km more
than that of gasoline. According to this study a motorcycle modified with biogas
engine kit costs about € 540 and if used for about 50 km/day, it has a payback period
of 2.5 years (VALORGAS 2012). Another research conducted in Korea on the fea-
sibility of using upgraded biogas as a vehicle fuel produced from food waste water
revealed that the price of the upgraded biogas can be 60–80 % more profitable than
electricity generation with the current feed-in-tariff system (VALORGAS 2012).
Upgrading biogas to biomethane offers new business models in addition to the
business models described under 12.4.1 and 12.4.2. These wastewater and fecal
sludge based business models are already generating biogas and they can make ad-
ditional investment for upgrading plants to purify raw biogas. The purified biogas
can be directly injected into natural gas grid, sold to gas stations or it can be bottled
and sold to households as fuel for cooking and to energy intensive businesses.

12.8 Conclusion and Discussion

Recovering energy from wastewater and fecal sludge requires consideration of a

number of technical and non-technical aspects including policy and institutional en-
vironment, social and economic aspects, private service providers, value chain and
market development, capacity building and pro-RRR regulatory framework to sup-
12  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Recovering Energy … 241

port public-private investments. For instance, since recovering energy from waste-
water and fecal sludge involves several institutions and stakeholders, key national
ministries that must be involved include ministry of water, sanitation, health, agricul-
ture, environment, finance, economic planning, hydropower and energy, roads etc.
Most wastewater treatment plants in developing countries are operated by public
sector utilities and rely on financial support from government and external donors.
The wastewater treatment plant cases discussed in this chapter are primarily driven
by the need for treatment to protect human and environmental health by avoiding
pollution of ground and surface waters and the environment at large, whereas in the
water scarce regions, the treated wastewater has high demand for irrigation in agri-
culture production. Energy is a critical requirement for the running of the treatment
plants and it is the largest controllable cost in the operations and maintenance cost
of a wastewater treatment plant. The ability to control the energy cost and achieve
savings is a key motivation for the wastewater treatment cases to make the neces-
sary capital investment to capture the biogas and generate energy. Moreover, biogas
is a green energy source and it can potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
other air pollutants especially if it replaces fossil fuels. This nonetheless requires
enabling conditions and pro-RRR policy framework. The case example is As-Samra
where aside from favourable elevation difference which was an important reason
for implementing an additional technology option for hydropower generation from
influent and affluent flows, the government support and donor funding catalysed
that investment to promote best practice. In the cases where the energy generated
during the treatment of effluent is sold to external consumers, the key driving factor
for success is the revenue from sale of energy to consumer and public service driven
motive of the public enterprise.
There is also a need to involve private sector investors, financiers, civil society
organizations and international development partners. Stakeholder engagement is
the key to innovation and success. For instance, our case examples show that where
partnerships are stronger, finances are guaranteed, regulations are pro-RRR, and
value addition opportunities are greater, the business model works well and vice
versa. Examples include:
• As-Samra and Okhala case examples of energy generation from wastewater
where the overall framework is supportive and stakeholder engagement is stron-
ger and international partners are involved.
• TOSHA, Sulbah and Prison case examples of energy from human waste where
government ban on the use of firewood and regulations were a catalyst to in-
novation. While partnership with local expertise, capacity building, provision of
technical and business training to local communities constitute important pre-
requisites for successful implementation of the business model and for ensuring
sustainability of the business.
• Nyongara slaughter house case in Nairobi, where meat demand and using waste
for other slaughter house pose challenges.
There are a number of challenges encountered by waste to energy business models
for scaling up and scaling out. Recovering energy from wastewater and fecal sludge
requires high investment costs and high maintenance and operation costs. Project
242 S. Gebrezgabher et al.

developers and financial institutions face challenges in financing of waste to energy

projects. This problem becomes more complicated in the case of waste-to-energy
projects which are funded fully or partially by the government as competition among
projects for limited funds could threaten their sustainability. Moreover, wastewater
to energy projects require large land areas, which poses constraints, especially in
heavily populated cities and with rapid urbanization. Some other challenges are:
• Wastewater treatment plants are dependent upon government or external funding
to manage their capital and operational costs and any cuts in funding allocations
can significantly impact their performance as in the case of Okhla plant in New
Delhi. However this risk can be mitigated if treated wastewater and recovered
energy have market value, enabling the entity to self-finance its operations.
• Fecal sludge based business models such as the Sulabh example and the prison
biogas in Nepal experience can face social stigma against using energy from hu-
man waste used for cooking purpose.
• Social stigma are also associated with bio-slurry as fertilizer in TOSHA, Kenya,
making it potentially difficult to market the product.
• Upgrading raw biogas to biomethane offers increased revenue opportunities with
European case examples providing significant insight on the minimum econo-
mies of scale required to be feasible. However the challenge of regional pricing
of fuels that compete with biomethane is a critical measure that dictate viability
of upgrading in a specific regions and countries.
In order to scale up/out, the business models should be further supported by cutting
edge research on outstanding supply-side issues, such as energy efficiency improve-
ment programs, incentives to reduce the carbon footprint through water-energy effi-
ciency improvements, and public-private financing models to support upscaling and
uptake across communities and at a wider scale. These programs must also consider
demand side measures such as community education to address social attitudes and
taboos, and promote water conservation and water-use efficiency that are key strate-
gies to generate significant mitigation benefits by reducing the energy demand of
wastewater and human waste.

Take Home Messages

• Onsite energy generation from wastewater and human waste has a high
potential to contribute to energy cost savings.
• The ability to control energy cost and achieve savings is a key reason for
wastewater treatment plants to make the necessary capital investment for
energy producing units.
• The economics of water reuse for energy vary with the energy consump-
tion of WWTPs, design features, and end markets for energy and wastewa-
ter products.
• Managing urban water supply and demand, while reducing energy use and
GHG emissions, in an urbanizing world will require fresh concepts involv-
ing both the water and energy sectors.
12  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Recovering Energy … 243

• Upgrading biogas to biomethane can have high applicability to developing

economies under increasing fossil fuel prices if incentives are provided to
help leapfrog this technology from demonstration to commercial stage.

References

Amigun B, von Blottnitz H (2007) Investigation of scale economies for African biogas installa-
tions. Energy Convers Manage 48:3090–3094
Amigun B, von Blottnitz H (2010) Capacity-cost and location-cost analyses for biogas plants in
Africa. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:63–73
Bidart C, Fröhling M, Schultmann F (2014) Electricity and substitute natural gas generation from
the conversion of wastewater treatment plant sludge. Appl Energy 113:404–413
Brohe A, Eyre N, Howarth N (2009) Carbon markets: an international business guide. Earthscan,
London
Butare A, Kimaro A (2002) Anaerobic technology for toilet wastes management: the case study of
the Cyangugu pilot project. World Trans Eng Technol Educ 1(1):147–152
Clarens AF, Resurreccion EP, White MA et al (2010) Environmental life cycle comparison of algae
to other bioenergy feedstocks. Environ Sci Technol 44:1813–1819
CSIRO (2008) Energy use in the provision and consumption of urban water in Australia and New
Zeland. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pntk.pdf. Accessed 7 March 2014
Dominguez A, Menendez JA, Inguanzo M, Pis JJ (2006) Production of bio-fuels by high tempera-
ture pyrolysis of sewage sludge using conventional and microwave heating. Bioresour Technol
97:1185–1193
Dominguez A, Fernandez Y, Fidalgo B, Pis JJ, Menendez JA (2008) Bio-syngas production with
low concentrations of CO2 and CH4 from microwave-induced pyrolysis of wet and dried sew-
age sludge. Chemosphere 70:397–403
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012) Towards the circular economy 1: economic and business ra-
tionale for an accelerated transition, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey & Company, UK
EPRI (2002) Electric Power Research Institute. Water and Sustainability. USA
Flores-Alsina X, Rodríguez-Roda I, Sin G et  al (2008) Multi-criteria evaluation of wastewater
treatment plant control strategies under uncertainty. Water Res 42:4485–4497
Friotherm (2012) Dalian-Xinghai: environment-friendly heating and cooling for a business district
in China, with 3 Unitop® 33/28 units. http://friotherm.com/webautor-data/41/xinghai_e013_
uk.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2014
Gauthier M, Oppliger A, Lohri C, Zurbrugg C (2011) Ensuring appropriateness of biogas sanita-
tion systems for prisons—analysis from Rwanda, Nepal and the Philippines. ICRC, Geneva
Gorrie P (2012) Biomethane production at Ontario wastewater treatment plant. BioCycle 53(11):43
GWRC (Global Water Research Coalition) (2010) An energy and carbon footprint neutral urban
water cycle by 2030. Workshop on water and energy. Singapore: Water HUB. PUB. www.
globalwaterresearchcoalition.net. Accessed 7 Nov 2013
Hernández-Sancho F, Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R (2011) Energy efficiency in Spanish
wastewater treatment plants: a non-radial DEA approach. Sci Total Environ 409:2693–2699
ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) (2011) ICRC—Philippines. Waste no more: in-
troducing renewable energy in Philippine jails. http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/
feature/2011/philippines-feature-2011-03-25.htm. Accessed 20 March 2014
IDAE (2010) Water and energy: the complex interplay of two scarce resources. The energy foot-
print of the water. A first estimate of energy consumption of desalination and urban wastewater
treatment
IWA (2012) Water-energy interactions in water reuse. IWA Publishing, London
Jewitt S (2011a) Geographies of shit: spatial and temporal variations in attitudes towards human
waste. Prog Human Geogr 35:608–626
244 S. Gebrezgabher et al.

Jewitt S (2011b) Poo gurus? Researching the threats and opportunities presented by human waste.
Appl Geogr 31:761–769
Kapdi S, Vijay VK, Rajesh S, Prasad R (2005) Biogas scrubbing, compression and storage: per-
spective and prospectus in Indian context. Renew Energy 30(8), 1195–1202
KIST (Kigali Institute of Science and Technology) (2006) Impact assessment of the CITT dissemi-
nated technologies in Rwanda. KIST, Rwanda
Krich K, Augenstein D, Batmale JP, Benemann J, Rutledge B, Salour D (2005) Biomethane from
dairy waste: a sourcebook for the production and use of renewable natural gas in Califor-
nia. Available from: http://www.calstart.org/Libraries/Publications/Biomethane_from_Dairy_
Waste_Full_Report.sflb.ashx. Accessed 3 July 2014
Kriegler E, O’Neill BC, Hallegatte S, Kram T, Lempert RJ, Moss RH, Wilbanks T (2012) The need
for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate change analysis: a new approach based on
shared socio-economic pathways. Global Environ Change 22:807–822
Linné M, Jönsson O (2004) Summary and analysis of the potential for production of renewable meth-
ane (Biogas and SNG) in Sweden. Biomil Ab and Swedish Gas Center. Available from http://
www.biogasmax.eu/media/summary_and_analysis_april2005__022436100_1644_26042007.
pdf. Accessed 2 July 2014
Lazarova V, Asano T, Bahri A, Anderson J (2013) Milestones in water reuse: the best success
stories. IWA Publishing, London
Lempert RJ, Groves DG (2010) Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to
climate change for water management agencies in the American west. Technological Forecast
Social Change 77:960–974
Lohri C, Vogeli Y, Oppliger A, Mardini R, Giusti A, Zurbrugg C (2010) Evaluation of biogas sani-
tation systems in Nepalese prisons. IWA-DEWATS conferene. Decentralized water treatement
solutions in developing countries conference and exhibition, 23–26 March, 2010, Surabaya,
Indonesia
Lundquist TJ, Woertz IC, Quinn NWT, Benemann JR (2010) A realistic technology and engineer-
ing assessment of algae biofuel production. Energy Biosciences Institute, Berkeley
Meda A, Lensch D, Schaum C et al (2012) Energy and water: relations and recovery potential. In:
Lazarova V, Choo K, Cornel P (eds) Water-energy interactions in water reuse. IWA Publishing,
London
Medeazza G, Moreau V (2007) Modelling of water–energy systems, the case of desalination. En-
ergy 32:1024–1031
Mitchell D (2011) Biofuels in Africa—opportunities, prospects and challenges. The World Bank,
Washington D.C.
MNRE (2014), Technology demonstration projects on biogas generation, purification and bottling
under RDD & D policy of MNRE. http://www.mnre.gov.in/schemes/r-d/rd-projects/. New
Delhi, India
Munyehirwe A, Kabanda P (2008) Performance assessment of institutional biogas systems in
Rwanda. Inclusive Business and Consultance Ltd. GIZ, Rwanda
NSCA (2006) Biogas as a road transport fuel. National Society for Clean Air and Environmental
Protection (NSCA), Brighton
Oate N, Ross I, Calow R, Carter R, Doczi J (2014) Adaptation to climate change in water, sani-
tation and hygiene—assessing risks, appraising options in Africa. http://www.odi.org.uk/
publications/8154-climate-change-adaptation-wash-water. Accessed 26 March 2014, ODI,
London, UK
Otoo M, Drechsel P (2015) Resource recovery from waste: business models for energy, nutrients
and water reuse. IWMI and Earthscan. (in press)
Phalakornkule C, Petiruksakul A, Puthavithi W (2009) Biodiesel production in a small commu-
nity: case study in Thailand. Resour Conserv Recycl 53:129–135
PURAC Puregas (2013) Biogas upgrading plants. http://purac-puregas.com/wp-content/up-
loads/2013/10/BiogasUpgradingPlants.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2014
Qadir M, Wicheln D, Raschid-Sally L, McCornick PG, Drechsel P, Bahri A, Minhas PS (2010) The
challenges of wastewater irrigation in developing countries. Agric Water Manage 97:561–568
12  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Recovering Energy … 245

Qureshi M, Hanjra MA, Ward J (2013) Impact of water scarcity in Australia on global food secu-
rity in an era of climate change. Food Policy 38:136–145
Roma E, Benoit N, Buckley C et al (2013) Using the receptivity model to uncover ‘urine blind-
ness’: perceptions on the re-use of urine. Waste Manage Res 31:648–654
Schosseler P, Lohmann T, Schmitt B, Perbal S, Dubois C, Sauerborn K (2007) Implementing sus-
tainable sanition in Luxembourg—methodological approach and outcomes. Water Sci Technol
56:33–41
SevernWye Energy Agency (2012) Introduction to the production of biomethane from biogas—a
guide for England and Wales. http://www.severnwye.org.uk/Bio-methaneRegions/downloads/
Biomethane_developer_brochure_EN.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2014
Stillwell AS, Hoppock DC, Webber ME (2010) Energy recovery from wastewater treatment plants
in the United States: a case study of the energy-water Nexus. Sustainability 2:945–962
UNWATER (2013) The Post 2015 water thematic consultation report—the world we want http://
www.unwater.org/downloads/Final9Aug2013_WATER_THEMATIC_CONSULTATION_
REPORT.pdf. UNWATER, New York, USA. Accessed 3 March 2014
VALORGAS—Valorization of food waste to biogas (2011) D5.1 Evaluation of potential technolo-
gies and operational scales reflecting market needs for low-cost upgrading systems; Jyväs-
kylän Yliopisto. http://www.valorgas.soton.ac.uk/Deliverables/VALORGAS_241334_D5-
5_130824.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2014
VALORGAS—Valorization of food waste to biogas (2012) D5.2 Evaluation of existing low cost
gas bottling systems for vehicles use adaption in developing economies. http://www.valorgas.
soton.ac.uk/Deliverables/120825_VALORGAS_241334_D5-2_rev[0].pdf. Accessed 4 July
2014
VALORGAS—Valorization of food waste to biogas (2013) Final publishable summary report.
http://www.valorgas.soton.ac.uk/Pub_docs/VALORGAS_241334_Final_Publishable_Sum-
mary_140110.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2014
Walker ME, Theregowda RB, Safari I et al (2013) Utilization of municipal wastewater for cooling
in thermoelectric power plants: evaluation of the combined cost of makeup water treatment and
increased condenser fouling. Energy 60:139–147
Water Enironment Research Foundation (WERF) (2011) Factsheet: energy production and effi-
cency research—the roadmap to net-zero energy, Alexandria
WEO (2011) World Energy Outlook International Energy Agency, Paris, France
Wibowo A, Wuryanti W (2007) Capacity factor based cost models for building of various func-
tions. Civil Eng Dimens 9:70–76
World Bank (2012) A primer on energy efficiency for municipal water and wastewater utilities.
Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), Technical Report 001/12. The
World Bank, Washington D.C.
Zhuwei D, Haoran L, Tingyue G (2007) A state of the art review on microbial fuel cells: a promis-
ing technology for wastewater treatment and bioenergy. Biotechnol Adv 25:464–482
Chapter 13
Business Models and Economic Approaches
for Nutrient Recovery from Wastewater
and Fecal Sludge

Miriam Otoo, Pay Drechsel and Munir A. Hanjra

Abstract  Plant nutrient recovery from wastewater and fecal sludge is high on the
development agenda, driven by the need to feed the global population, the discus-
sion around peak phosphorous, increasing fertilizer prices and stricter regulations
for safeguarding the environment from pollution. With a shift in thinking from nutri-
ent removal to nutrient recovery, new public-private partnerships are developing to
capture nutrients from the waste streams for reuse in agriculture. The prospects for
cost recovery from capturing phosphorous are significant, if savings in wastewater
treatment and sludge disposal costs are considered, as so far the phosphate recov-
ery costs still result in prices higher than those of phosphate rock, unless niche
markets are targeted. The chapter differentiates between nutrient recovery options
commonly seen in sewered and non-sewered (on-site) sanitation systems, looking
at wastewater, fecal sludge, biosolids and urine. To date, nutrient recovery from
wastewater is driven more by the treatment sector and its challenges or by changing
regulations, rather than by market demand for alternative fertilizers.

Keywords  Nutrient recovery · Fecal sludge · Phosphorus · Nitrogen · Struvite ·

Composting · Value proposition · Private sector · Cost recovery

M. Otoo () · P. Drechsel
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
e-mail: m.otoo@cgiar.org
P. Drechsel
e-mail: p.drechsel@cgiar.org
M. A. Hanjra
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Pretoria, South Africa
e-mail: m.hanjra@cgiar.org

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 247

P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_13
248 M. Otoo et al.

13.1 Introduction

Wastewater offers beyond water also nutrients and organic matter with a high appli-
cation potential in farming and landscaping. This reuse opportunity is especially im-
portant where soils are poor and the availability of alternative inputs is constrained.
There is great potential to close the nutrient loop, support a ‘circular economy’
and cost recovery within the wastewater sector or even to create viable businesses.
Where wastewater is captured in sewer systems, extra steps are required to sepa-
rate the organic fraction and/or recover particular nutrients. Where wastewater is
source-separated at the point of generation, such as in urine-diverting toilets, or
excreta are collected in septic tanks and not mixed with other urban wastewater,
resource recovery processes can be even simpler.
Resource recovery and reuse (RRR) struggles with many technical, regulato-
ry, perception and economic challenges, and the scale of planned resource recov-
ery from wastewater and fecal sludge is far below its potential (Shu et al. 2006;
Monteith et al. 2008; Mihelcic et al. 2011), even though the value of these resources
is well recognized by their users. Many waste managers view waste as a problem,
rather than a resource, and sanitation more as a public service than a business. In
theory, RRR seems to be a win-win situation for waste managers and farmers, yet
success stories in low- and middle-income countries often are small scale and sel-
dom viable without significant subsidies. The sanitation-related public sector and
the fertilizer oriented private sector, could play important roles in resource recovery.
However, many RRR examples are driven by the private treatment sector with bias
to technical solutions and with limited attention to the reuse market and its seg-
ments, to base any business plan on more than savings and a potential demand for
a theoretical nutrient value. However, there are also successful examples of private
and public entities engaged in nutrient recovery at different scales (Otoo et al. 2012;
Otoo and Drechsel 2015). This chapter will synthesize, and document information
that showcases emerging and successful RRR business options and models for cost-
recovery or profit.

13.2 Driving Factors for Nutrient Recovery

Recovering water and nutrients from otherwise wasted resources is nothing new
and has been practiced for generations in many countries (Smit and Nasr 1992).
It is expected that RRR will gain momentum where resources for agricultural pro-
duction are increasingly limited under progressing climate change, competition for
clean water, diminishing global nutrient reserves and increasing fertilizer prices.
These challenges are particularly evident in developing countries with lower pur-
chasing power of individual households.
At the global level, the following three topics steer the discussion for increasing
nutrient recovery from wastewater and other forms of human waste:
13  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Nutrient Recovery … 249

• Food security. Increasing amounts of plant nutrients will be needed to feed the
expanding global population. While a century ago, food waste was locally re-
cycled, urbanization has polarized food flows, creating centers of consumption
and waste generation. Nutrient recycling is needed to prevent cities from becom-
ing vast nutrient sinks (Otoo et al. 2012). At present, the primary goals of urban
waste management include waste collection and safe disposal. Nutrient recovery
and recycling often appear only as future targets. This situation must change,
given that agricultural nutrient depletion is advancing with every crop harvested.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, nutrient depletion accounts for more than 7 % of agricul-
tural GDP, with continuously decreasing nutrient stocks (Drechsel et al 2004).
• Circular economy. In a ‘circular economy’ which aims at closed loops of ma-
terials and resources, wastewater treatment plants could be seen as hot spots for
resource recovery (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2012; Wallis-Lage 2013). This
is of particular importance in view of non-renewable resources, like phosphorus.
As large portions of our phosphate rock deposits cannot be mined efficiently at
competitive costs, the discussion on when the world will reach a situation of
‘peak phosphorous’ and how far market prices will regulate the phosphorus sup-
ply is lively (Edixhoven et al. 2013). Agreement exists that the recovery of phos-
phorus is an increasingly important task, especially as in many tropical countries
soils are of very low fertility and fertilizers already now too expensive.
• Environmental regulations. With increasing population growth, nutrients
accumulate in consumption centers and contribute to pollution, wherever the
coverage of waste collection and treatment is insufficient. With increasing envi-
ronmental awareness and regulatory efforts ‘traditional’ options for wastewater
and sludge treatment and disposal are transitioning toward zero-waste options
that protect the resource base and support water and nutrient recovery.

13.3 Business Approaches and Economics of Nutrient

Recovery

Irrigated agriculture is the largest water user, and most wastewater use occurs in
farming. This includes the planned or formal use of advanced treated wastewater
(GWI 2009) and the unplanned or informal use of non- or only partially treated
wastewater including septage (Scott et al. 2010; Kvarnström et al. 2012). However,
based on the driving factors discussed, the situation is changing. The pace is quick-
er in developed countries, yet we see also in low- and middle-income countries
an emerging set of entrepreneurs recognizing the opportunities that RRR offers.
By leveraging private capital, entrepreneurs help realize the commercial value of
waste, shifting the focus from treatment for waste disposal to treatment of waste as
a resource (Murray and Buckley 2010; Murray et al. 2011, EAI 2011).
250 M. Otoo et al.

13.3.1 Typology for Nutrient Recovery Business Models

As described in the previous chapters, there are many options for classifying busi-
ness models, in the emerging RRR business domain (Evans et al. 2013). Isolating
nutrient recovery from the basic function of wastewater treatment for safeguarding
public health and the environment, and from the value proposition of reclaiming
water or energy, appears artificial. However, depending on the local context, the
market demands for water, fertilizer, and energy can be very different, and treat-
ment operators might choose to pursue only markets with the highest probability of
generating positive net returns or social benefits.
Business cases or models for nutrient recovery can be clustered according to
their degree of (in)formality, or basic objective of operations, such as sustainable
service delivery (cost recovery), profit maximization, or social responsibility. Mod-
els could also differentiate between the purposes of nutrient recovery, such as ag-
ricultural or industrial reuse, or crop or livestock farming. Other clustering options
include the treatment technology and mode of financing/procurement (Box 13.1).

Box 13.1. Water Reuse Finance

The globally most popular means of procuring a wastewater treatment and

reuse project is the design-build (DB) model, with 38 % of future plants
where the approach has been disclosed being procured on this model (a DB
project is owned and operated by the municipality). Private finance models,
including build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT) and build-own-operate (BOO)
represent around 33 % of future projects where the procurement method is
known. Design-build-operate (DBO—where the municipality owns but
does not operate the facility) represents 17 % of plants and design-bid-build
(DBB), the standard model for public procurement, ownership and operation
in the US, represents 13 % (GWI 2009).

To address nutrient recovery and reuse options in high- and low-income countries,
including the informal sector, we distinguish between the two main waste streams;
i.e., sewered and non-sewered (on-site) sanitation systems. Examples include nutri-
ent recovery from wastewater/biosolids, septage and urine, with agriculture as the
predominant end use.
Following these waste streams, the RRR value propositions beyond the funda-
mental one of any treatment; i.e.; safeguarding public health and the environment,
are shown in the following figures. Figure  13.1 shows the principle options for
nutrient recovery for sewage based systems, while Fig. 13.2 shows similar options
for septage collected from on-site sanitation facilities. A third variation (Fig. 13.3)
shows the case of ‘ecosan’ toilets, which separate fecal matter and urine at the point
of waste generation, allowing the nutrients in urine to be reused as liquid or after
dewatering as solid fertilizer crystals in the form of struvite (magnesium ammo-
nium phosphate or MAP).
13  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Nutrient Recovery … 251

Fig. 13.1   Value propositions for nutrient and organic matter recovery and reuse from sewage

Fig. 13.2   Value propositions for nutrient and organic matter recovery and reuse from septage
252 M. Otoo et al.

Fig. 13.3   Value propositions for nutrient and organic matter recovery and reuse from Urine
Diverting Dry Toilets (UDDT)

13.3.2 Wastewater from Sewered Systems as a Nutrient Source

The conventional view of wastewater as a public and environmental health concern

results in the linear model where large amounts of energy and chemicals are utilized
to ensure that wastewater is effectively treated and/or transformed into products
which meet stringent human health and environmental standards before they are
released back to the environment (WERF 2010).
Where such treatment is in place, and contaminants are controlled, the beneficial
uses of wastewater and sludge (biosolids) produced during the treatment process
are well documented. There are various technology options for achieving Class A
or Class B biosolids standards for reuse (USEPA 2012). However, technical pos-
sibilities do not imply a business opportunity. There are constraints but also op-
portunities. A common restraint to entering the sludge market is lack of regula-
tory and financial support. However, in a context where landfills are filling and
sludge is being produced in ever greater quantities, growth in sustainable solutions
for sludge treatment are on the horizon. With increasing competition for valuable
landfill space and new government guidelines and compulsory policies emerging,
many countries such as the UK, USA, Australia, South Africa, India, and Japan are
phasing out landfilling of sludge, in favour of sludge dewatering and utilization
(Box 13.2). Land application, soil amelioration, energy and heat recovery, and the
production of bricks and cement blocks are among the value propositions being
considered (Harper 2013; WERF 2010).
13  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Nutrient Recovery … 253

Box 13.2: Sludge Management in China

In China, 80 % of the produced sludge is transferred to landfills, with good

reason, as industrial contamination makes the sludge unsuitable for most
reuse options. However, with government policies setting national goals of
treating 70 % of the sludge in large cities and 50 % in small cities, significant
investments have been made in sewage sludge treatment. The Ministry of
Environmental Protection, together with the Ministry of Housing and Urban-
Rural Development and the Ministry of Science and Technology published the
“Policy on Sludge Treatment and Pollution Prevention Technology in Urban
Wastewater Treatment Plants,” which aims to regulate and promote beneficial
sludge utilization practices, which can be exploited as a Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) project. These plans demonstrate government recogni-
tion that shifting from disposal to utilization is compatible with the idea of a
‘circular economy’. They also provide a clear signal that sludge treatment and
utilization can have a future in the environmental protection industry (Harper
2013; GTZ 2009).

One common problem with biosolids-as-fertilizers in developed countries is that

the amount of nutrients, in particular nitrogen, is too low to support a market price
that enables an independent company to be profitable. Only 5–15 % of the available
nitrogen in the wastewater can be recovered through phosphate based precipitates.
It is more likely that phosphorus recovery will drive the process which can capture
between 45 and 90 % of the P in wastewater. However, making a high value biosol-
ids-fertilizer mix could also become a viable option, due to increasing tipping fees
by municipally operated wastewater treatment plants to dispose of their biosolids,
especially in medium to large municipalities (Burnham 2008).
The currently dominant process to recover phosphorus with market value from
wastewater treatment streams is based on crystallization and precipitation of stru-
vite (magnesium ammonium phosphate) (Rahman et al. 2014; WERF 2010).
While unplanned struvite precipitation within a treatment plant is a common
problem as it blocks pipes and its regular removal can be a severe cost factor, a
steered struvite precipitation offers opportunities for phosphorous recovery, be it
as slow release fertilizer or raw material for the fertilizer industry (Gaterell et al.
2000). Given that the world’s affordable reserves of phosphorous are declining
and the price of high-quality rock phosphate will increase over time, alternative
high-quality phosphorus sources, such as struvite, will become more competitive
(Rahman et al. 2014). Regulatory limits restricting effluent discharge will support
the development of resource recovery. The number of treatment plants recovering
phosphorus is increasing, as is the number of technologies offered for phosphorus
recovery, particularly in the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Canada, and Japan.
Technology plays a significant role in phosphorus recovery business models, as
there are many options with very different costs and efficiencies. While the condi-
tions for the precipitation of struvite can be generated at different entry points in the
254 M. Otoo et al.

treatment process, the greater difficulty is ensuring that the struvite formation oc-
curs in a location where it can be recovered economically. These location or streams
are, among others: the settled wastewater, the sludge liquid and the sludge itself,
and the incinerated sludge ash, each with a different phosphorus concentration and
recovery potential. The ideal location for the recovery of struvite requires that the
flow should have a high concentration of soluble phosphorus and ammonium nitro-
gen, a low concentration of suspended solids and a relatively high phosphorus load.
This is not easy to find. At present, crystallization processes based on the liquid
phase from sludge dewatering are considered most effective from cost and energy
perspectives. Processes building on phosphorus recovery from sludge ash are more
expensive, but have a more favourable phosphorus recovery capability. Options for
recovering phosphorus from sludge can extract similar amounts of phosphorus than
those following incineration, but the additional energy demand and costs makes
them less attractive (Morf and Koch 2009).
Two examples of struvite recovery from digested sludge dewatering, and sewage
sludge ash are described in Box 13.3.

Box 13.3: Phosphorus Recovery Gaining Momentum

The company Ostara in Canada, which is specialized in private-public part-

nerships with wastewater treatment plants, transforms the problem of clog-
ging pipes through unwanted struvite formation into an opportunity. The
applied technology recovers from sludge dewatering liquid 75–90 % of phos-
phorus and 10–40 % of the ammonia load in the liquid as crystalline struvite
pellets. Since 2005, Ostara has installed the phosphorus recovery technology
in sewage works in Canada, USA and UK and purchases the struvite at a guar-
anteed price from the treatment plant operator/city for marketing as a com-
mercial fertilizer (or fertilizer input) under the brand of Crystal Green® (NPK:
5-28-10 + 10 % Mg). Examples of Ostara supported treatment plants are in
Suffolk, Virginia with a capacity to produce one million pounds of Crystal
Green fertilizer annually, while saving US$  450,000 by reducing chemical
use to remove unwanted struvite and reduced sludge disposal. Revenue from
the sale of fertilizer is shared with the city to offset the costs of the facility, as
reported also for treatment plants in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (Canada) and
Gwinnett County, Georgia, USA, and the new Thames Water Sewage Works
at the town of Slough, east of London, UK. In the project Ostara was design-
ing, building and financing the nutrient recovery facility, while Thames Water
has agreed to pay a monthly fee (over 20 years) for the treatment capacity
provided by Ostara, which is less than what is currently required for costly
maintenance resulting from the damaging build-up of struvite in pipes and
valves (www.ostara.com). Ostara’s turn-key solution for treatment plants
costs between € 2–4 million, with an advertised pay-back time of 3–5 years
(Nieminen 2010).
13  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Nutrient Recovery … 255

In Austria, the ASH DEC technology has been successfully tested for
incinerating sewage sludge to completely destruct pathogens and organic pol-
lutant, followed by a chemical and thermal treatment to produce an ash-based
multi-nutrient fertilizer, sold under the PhosKraft® brand, with significantly
lower levels of heavy metals than in other products including conventional
mineral fertilizers. The process can treat ashes with phosphorus concentra-
tions ranging from 5 to 30 %. The feasibility of the recycling technology was
based on large-scale application of 30,000–50,000 t of ash per year and has
been marketed since 2011 (www.outotec.com/en/Products–services/Energy/
Phosphorus-recovery).

It is interesting to note the difference between the amounts of information on the

scale of struvite production compared to the lack of numbers on its use in agricul-
ture. Limited information is available on how far the fertilizer sector is accepting
the product, and if this is at the scale of its production, or only for niche markets. To
date, the market value of the struvite is not a motivation for phosphorus recovery
and recycling (P-REX 2013). The chemical reagents necessary for struvite produc-
tion (in particular magnesium chloride) cost in many regions more than the market
value of the produced phosphate fertilizer. However, savings in removing unwanted
struvite and avoiding blocked pipes, reducing sewage sludge production and dis-
posal, and sustainable development objectives make the innovation an appreciated
and viable value proposition, with payback periods of 3–7 years (Shu et al. 2006).
In those, often low-income countries, where industrial recovery options are not
available, energy supply is a challenge, and treatment plants are based on low-cost
systems, biological processes can be used for recovering nitrogen and phosphorus
from wastewater. Such approaches include using aquatic plants growing in treat-
ment ponds, aquaculture, and wastewater irrigation. Aquatic plants, such as algae
and duckweed that grow naturally as a part of pond and lagoon treatment systems,
can accumulate large amounts of nutrients and be harvested for many purposes,
including biofuels, or a source of protein for animal and fish feeds. Ozengin and El-
maci (2007) reported 83–87 % total nitrogen removal and 70–85 % total phosphorus
removal for duckweed fed with municipal and industrial wastewater. In the U.S.,
most wastewater treatment ponds and lagoons are functionally high rate algae pro-
ducers, and in recent years the systems have been designed to grow specific types of
algae which produce oil to be converted to biodiesel fuel (WERF 2010). Biological
nutrient recovery via the production of fish food (duckweed) and/or fish has been
tested successfully in environments from Bangladesh to Peru with full recovery of
the additional costs and all operational costs of the pond based treatment system
(http://www.agriquatics.com/Case_Studies.html; Otoo and Drechsel 2015).
Table 13.1 provides an overview of selected nutrient recovery options from sew-
ered systems with and without wastewater treatment.
256 M. Otoo et al.

Table 13.1   Trajectory of selected nutrient recovery options from wastewater and biosolids
>ĞǀĞůŽĨ >ĞǀĞůŽĨ tĂƐƚĞ sĂůƵĞƉƌŽƉŽƐŝƟŽŶ dƌĞŶĚƐͬƵƌƌĞŶƚƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐ ĨŽƌƌĞƵƐĞ ĂƐĞ
ď
ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ĨŽƌŵĂůŝƚLJ ƐƚƌĞĂŵ ͬŽƵƚƉƵƚ džĂŵƉůĞƐ
Ă
ǀĂůƵĞ
>Žǁ ,ŝŐŚůLJ /ŶĚŝƌĞĐƚƵƐĞŽĨ ƵĞƚŽĚŝůƵƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌŝŶŽƚŚĞƌǁĂƚĞƌ ŽŵŵŽŶŝŶϯ
ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂů ƵŶƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ ďŽĚŝĞƐƚŚĞŶƵƚƌŝĞŶƚƌĞĐŽǀĞƌLJďĞŶĞĮƚƐĨŽƌĨĂƌŵĞƌƐĐĂŶ ŽĨϰ ůŽǁͲ
Đ
ǀĂůƵĞ ƌĞƵƐĞ ǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌ ďĞůŽǁ͘/ĨĐŽŵďŝŶĞĚǁŝƚŚŽŶͲĨĂƌŵƌŝƐŬƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶ͕ƚŚĞ ŝŶĐŽŵĞ
ƐLJƐƚĞŵƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐĨŽƌĨĂƌŵĞƌƐ ĐŽƵŶƚƌŝĞƐ
ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJǁŚĞƌĞĨƌĞƐŚǁĂƚĞƌĂĐĐĞƐƐŝƐůŝŵŝƚĞĚ͘
ŝƌĞĐƚƵƐĞŽĨ ZĂǁǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌŝƐƌŝĐŚŝŶŶƵƚƌŝĞŶƚƐďƵƚĂůƐŽƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJ DĞdžŝĐŽ͕
ƵŶƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ ŚĂƌŵĨƵůƐƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞƐĨŽƌĐƌŽƉƐ͕ƐŽŝůƐĂŶĚĨĂƌŵĞƌƐ͘ WĂŬŝƐƚĂŶ
ǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌ EƵƚƌŝĞŶƚĐĂƉƚƵƌĞĨƌŽŵƌĂǁǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐƚƌĞĂŵƐĐĂŶ
ŐŝǀĞĨĂƌŵĞƌƐĂƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂĚǀĂŶƚĂŐĞ;ƐĞĞ
ĐŚĂƉƚĞƌϴͿ͘
ŝƌĞĐƚƵƐĞŽĨƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ ĞƉĞŶĚŝŶŐŽŶƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚůĞǀĞů͕ŶƵƚƌŝĞŶƚƐŵŝŐŚƚďĞ DE͕/ŶĚŝĂ
ǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌ ƌĞŵŽǀĞĚ͘dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƐŚŽƵůĚƚŚƵƐďĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚĨŽƌƌĞƵƐĞ
ǁŚŝůĞƚĂŬŝŶŐĐĂƌĞŽĨĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚƌŝƐŬƐĨƌŽŵƵŶƵƐĞĚ
ĞŋƵĞŶƚ͘
tĂƐƚĞͲ hƐĞŽĨƚƌĞĂƚĞĚďŝŽͲ >ĂŶĚƌĞĐůĂŵĂƟŽŶͬƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƟŽŶĂŶĚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐ͕ h^͕hŐĂŶĚĂ͕
ǁĂƚĞƌ ƐŽůŝĚƐ ƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůŽƌƐŝůǀŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƵƐĞ;Ğ͘Ő͘ĨŽĚĚĞƌ h<͕ƵƐƚƌĂůŝĂ͕
ƉƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶ͕ĨŽƌĞƐƚƌLJͿ ƵƐŝŶŐŶŝƚƌŽŐĞŶĂŶĚƉŚŽƐƉŚŽƌƵƐ ^ŽƵƚŚĨƌŝĐĂ͕
ƌŝĐŚƚƌĞĂƚĞĚƐůƵĚŐĞĂƐĂĨĞƌƟůŝnjĞƌĂŶĚŽƌŐĂŶŝĐƐŽŝů ŚŝŶĂ
ĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶĞƌ͘
ŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŶƵƚƌŝĞŶƚ ŽŵŵŽŶŝŶƉŽŶĚͲďĂƐĞĚƐLJƐƚĞŵƐǁŚĞƌĞŶƵƚƌŝĞŶƚƐĂƌĞ WĞƌƵ͕h^͕
ƌĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ ĞdžƚƌĂĐƚĞĚĨŽƌďŝŽŵĂƐƐ;ĨŽĚĚĞƌͿƉƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶǁŚŝĐŚŝƐ ĂŶŐůĂĚĞƐŚ͕
ƵƐĞĚĨŽƌǀĂůƵĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ͕ůŝŬĞĮƐŚĨŽŽĚ͘,ŝŐŚĐŽƐƚͲ ƵƐƚƌĂůŝĂ
ƌĞĐŽǀĞƌLJͬƉƌŽĮƚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůŝĨŽǀĞƌĂůůƐLJƐƚĞŵŝƐůŽǁͲĐŽƐƚ͘
ŚĞŵŝĐĂůͬƚŚĞƌŵĂů DŽƐƚĐŽŵŵŽŶƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝƐƉŚŽƐƉŚŽƌƵƐĂŶĚŶŝƚƌŽŐĞŶ h^͕ĂŶĂĚĂ͕
,ŝŐŚ ,ŝŐŚ ŶƵƚƌŝĞŶƚƌĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ ƌĞĐŽǀĞƌLJǀŝĂƐƚƌƵǀŝƚĞ͘dĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJŝŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂŶĚĐŽƐƚͲ ƵƌŽƉĞ
ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ĨŽƌŵĂůŝƚLJ ďĞŶĞĮƚƌĂƟŽƐĐĂŶǀĂƌLJĂĐƌŽƐƐƐĐĂůĞƐ͘
ǀĂůƵĞͿ ŽĨƌĞƵƐĞ ůĞŶĚŝŶŐ hƐĞĚŽŶƉĂƌŬůĂŶĚ͕ĨĂƌŵůĂŶĚ͕ůĂǁŶƐ͕ŐŽůĨĐŽƵƌƐĞƐĞƚĐ͘ h^
ĂŶĚͬŽƌƉĞůůĞƟnjŝŶŐ &ŽƌƟĨLJŝŶŐƚŚĞŽƌŐĂŶŝĐƉƌŽĚƵĐƚǁŝƚŚĨĞƌƟůŝnjĞƌŽƌĐƌĞĂƟŶŐ
ƚƌĞĂƚĞĚďŝŽƐŽůŝĚƐ Žƌ ĂŶŽƌŐĂŶŝĐĂůůLJͲĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚŝŶŽƌŐĂŶŝĐĨĞƌƟůŝnjĞƌĐĂŶ ĐƌĞĂƚĞĂ
ĞdžƚƌĂĐƚĞĚƐƚƌƵǀŝƚĞ ƉƌŽĚƵĐƚ ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĐŽŵƉĞƟƟǀĞƚŽŝŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůĨĞƌƟůŝnjĞƌ͘

D
7KHOHYHORIHFRQRPLFYDOXHRIWKHUHFRYHUHGQXWULHQWVWRWKHXVHUV
E
'HILQHGDVDFWLYLWLHVJRYHUQHGE\UHJXODWLRQVDQGSROLFLHV
F
:DVWHZDWHULVGHILQHGDVGRPHVWLFLQGXVWULDOFRPPHUFLDODQGVWRUPZDVWHZDWHU

However, even where wastewater is collected by a piped sewer system, treat-

ment might be rudimentary or missing, resulting in widespread pollution of ur-
ban and peri-urban water bodies. Millions of peri-urban farmers depend on these
water sources, often due to lack of alternatives. As described in Chaps. 8 and 11,
many farmers seek untreated and nutrient rich wastewater, as they are aware of
its agronomic benefits. The global area under informal wastewater irrigation with
untreated, raw or diluted wastewater has been estimated as about 10 times the area
under formal irrigation with treated wastewater (Scott et al. 2010). Although this
informal reuse constitutes a viable business sector in many low-income countries
(Raschid-Sally and Jayakody 2008; Kvarnström et al. 2012), the common lack of
conventional treatment requires alternative options for risk reduction (e.g. Amoah
et al. 2011; Keraita et al. 2014) to promote the related business models in the con-
text of this chapter. Adding safety measures to informal reuse businesses could be
seen as a priority ‘value proposition’, and will require incentives for farmers to
change behavior especially where regulations are hard to enforce (Drechsel and
Karg 2013).
13  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Nutrient Recovery … 257

13.3.3 Fecal Sludge from On-Site Sanitation as a Nutrient

Recovery Stream

While developed countries with extensive sewer systems require advanced technol-
ogy to separate nutrients from the waste stream, the low chemical and metal1 con-
tamination in household based on-site treatment facilities, such as septic tanks and
latrines, makes the resulting fecal sludge (septage) a valuable soil ameliorant. The
dried and composted material can be pelletized or blended with particular nutrients
to meet farmers’ needs, as shown in South Africa and Ghana (Harrison and Wilson
2012; Nikiema et al. 2012).
Fecal sludge is an abundant and valuable resource, similar to other organic ma-
nure, such as farmyard manure, which is used as a source of fuel and fertilizer. How-
ever, with diarrhea among the primary contributors to the global disease burden and
88 % of cases of diarrhea attributed to fecal matter contamination, the management
and possible reuse of human waste containing fecal matter receives priority atten-
tion across the water supply, sanitation, food and health sectors (WHO 2010).
A controlled resource recovery approach can reduce the negative impact of fecal
matter on the environment and have a positive public health impact, by turning a
potential threat into an asset for food production. Several nutrient recovery options
are available for use with on-site sanitation systems (Fig. 13.4) as described e.g. by
Tilley et al. (2008) and Koné et al (2010).
One of the possible trajectories for increasing the value proposition for agricul-
tural reuse builds on the use of raw sludge as shown in Fig. 13.5:
1. The simplest option of nutrient recovery is the direct land application of raw
fecal sludge for agriculture or forestry. The value addition occurs in the form of
sludge collection and transportation to the farm or plantation, usually followed
by natural solar-treatment (sun drying) or incorporation in the soil as an alterna-
tive treatment and risk reducing option (Keraita et al 2014).
2. To limit the risks for farmers, the fecal sludge can also be dumped on designated
unplanted drying beds followed by composting (or co-composting with other
organic waste to improve the carbon—nitrogen ratio) before sale. The value
addition lies in removing pathogens, reducing the volume, and concentrating the
nutrients. Moreover, co-composting is an approved Clean Development Mecha-
nism (CDM) activity.
3. Pelletization and blending of fecal sludge-based compost with rock-phosphate,
urea/struvite or NPK could be the third value proposition, allowing the product
to have nutrient levels specific for target crops and soils, and a product structure
improvement (pellets) to improve its competitive advantage, marketability and
field use.

1 
Although heavy metal contamination of sludge from on-site systems is generally
low, it can happen if households throw for example used batteries in the toilet.
258 M. Otoo et al.

Fig. 13.4   Appropriate fecal sludge treatment options in developing countries with options for
nutrient and water recovery. (Source: Strauss 2006, modified)

Fig.13.5   Example of reuse-oriented septage management as implemented in Ghana. (Keraita

et al. 2014)

These steps and trajectories of increasing value proposition have been realized in
different regions and are illustrated in the following.

13.3.3.1 Direct Land Application of Fecal Sludge

With a limited number of septage treatment systems in many parts of the developing
world, entities that empty latrines or cesspits often discharge the waste onto open
lands or into watercourses, instead of driving to remote official dumping sites. In
areas where affordable fertilizer production is limited, smallholder farmers might
use the fecal sludge for fodder, tree (crop) plantation or cereal production. Farm-
ers in West Africa and South India re-direct cesspit truck operators to their fields
to obtain the nutrient rich manure. The observed reuse business model is reversing
the cash flow, as farmers pay the drivers for farm-gate delivery, while otherwise
the transporter must pay a tipping fee for desludging into a treatment pond. In an
13  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Nutrient Recovery … 259

optimized business model the revenue would support the transportation costs of the
cesspit operation, supplementing the fecal sludge collection fees.
An economic drawback in West Africa is the seasonality in demand for fecal
sludge. The sludge is applied only at the start of the dry season, allowing it suffi-
cient time to dry over several months before it is incorporated into the soil, and cere-
als are planted. The marketability is different in India with plantation crops. Health
concerns by authorities concerning the use of raw fecal matter in food production
limit the extent of this activity, although with sufficient solar drying as observed in
Ghana, and crop restrictions, the risks can be minimized (Seidu 2010; Keraita et al.
2014), even where no other regulations govern the process.
Where cesspit emptiers dump the septage in planned drying beds, and not on-
farms, plant operators can sell the dried sludge to farmers with transport facilities or
farms near the treatment site. Although the direct revenues from sludge sale might
be low, as seen in Dakar, Senegal, the cost of sludge removal, transport and final
disposal are reduced. Farmer feedback indicates a higher willingness to pay for a
dry and pulverized product (Diener et al. 2014).

13.3.3.2 Fecal Sludge Composting

To explore business opportunities in agriculture, horticulture, landscaping and gar-

dening, both public and private sector entities across Africa and Asia have adopted
commercial strategies to add value to fecal sludge. The main approach is to dry the
septage followed by aerobic composting of the dewatered sludge, which sanitizes
and reduces its volume. Although fecal sludge can be processed alone, co-compost-
ing with another organic waste, such as organic municipal waste is more common,
as it improves the composting properties, in particular the carbon—nitrogen ratio
and moisture content (Cofie et al 2009). For dewatered sludges, a ratio of 1:2–1:3
of dewatered sludge to solid waste can be used, while liquid sludges can be used at
a ratio of 1:5–1:10 of liquid sludge to solid waste (Tilley et al. 2008).
However, composting also adds additional capital and operation and mainte-
nance costs. Many governmental, community and non-governmental organizations
in Asia and Africa, have introduced composting with varying degrees of success,
cost recovery and sustainability. Key reasons for failure have included: missing
market research, poor institutional linkages and lack of business plans (Evans and
Drechsel 2010). Where farmers use low cost animal manure or already receive raw
sludge for free or at a low fee, field demonstrations will be needed to encourage
their appreciation of a new form of sludge with a likely higher price tag.

13.3.3.3 Pelletization and Enrichment

Value-added waste products such as composted fecal sludge represent alternative

nutrient sources for cash-constrained farmers cultivating on poor lands. Yet the
nutrient levels of composted fecal sludge can be lower than those of alternative
260 M. Otoo et al.

products, such as poultry manure and chemical fertilizer. This nutrient gap repre-
sents additional costs to farmers, as they often must invest in supplementary inputs.
Additionally, the bulky nature of composted fecal sludge acts as a barrier to the
transportation of the product to markets, increasing the distribution costs, which are
borne by the end-users.
Opportunities to increase the accessibility and usability of value-added fecal
sludge products in agriculture are emerging, often driven by research, with cases
identified in Nigeria, Ghana, Sri Lanka and South Africa. A common value-addition
is fortification or enrichment of fecal sludge with nutrients to boost its fertilizer val-
ue, similar to the blending of biosolids as described above. The nutrient source can
be ‘natural,’ such as rock-phosphate, struvite/urine, or industrial fertilizer. Another
option is pelletizing composted fecal sludge, resulting in an easy to handle, safe,
high-value product (Fig. 13.5). These commodity-value based approaches represent
opportunities for both public and private entities to increase their income-generat-
ing options by gaining access to the mainstream fertilizer market.
Most resource recovery programs are driven by the sanitation sector and its chal-
lenges, with an assumed market for the recovered nutrients. This applies to large
scale struvite recovery from sewage, and to nutrient recovery from septage. An
example is the transformation of fecal matter into fertilizer pellets as pioneered in
South Africa by eThekwini Water and Sanitation. The project was motivated by
waste management, rather than agriculture. About 2 million ventilated improved pit
latrines (VIPs) have been installed since the 1990s in the municipality of eThekwini
and incentives were needed to encourage companies to engage in pit emptying.
The LaDePa (latrine dehydration and pasteurization) process converts sludge into
a usable pasteurized dry product. Even though the sale of the resulting fertilizer
does not cover the process costs, the municipality gains through annual disposal
cost savings, which can be used to attract and support private-public partnerships
(Harrison and Wilson 2012).
A particular option for composting is the use of the Black Soldier fly larvae
( Hermetia illucens) which feeds on organic matter, such as fecal sludge and organic
wastes, and leapfrogs the nutrient extraction via crops by generating directly high
value protein and fat which can be marketed for poultry, duck, pig and fish feed
(Diener et al. 2009). The high crude fat content of black soldier flies can also be
converted to biodiesel. There are larger companies building on this technology for
example in USA and South Africa. Current mass production systems are still ex-
pensive, and investments are needed for the development of automation processes
to make plants economically competitive with the production of meat (or meat-
substitutes like soy) from traditional livestock or farming sources (van Huis et al.
2013). Preliminary market surveys in Uganda, Ghana and Senegal show a market
potential also in low-income countries (Diener et al. 2014). Given the increase in
global price for fish meal and the on-going increase of aquaculture, the revenue
potential from alternative protein sources especially as fish feed appears attractive
(Naylor et al. 2009).
Table 13.2 provides an overview about selected nutrient recovery options from
fecal matter/sludge (septage).
13  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Nutrient Recovery … 261

Table 13.2   Trajectory of selected nutrient recovery options from fecal sludge
>ĞǀĞůŽĨ >ĞǀĞůŽĨ tĂƐƚĞ sĂůƵĞƉƌŽƉŽƐŝƟŽŶͬ dƌĞŶĚƐͬƵƌƌĞŶƚƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌƌĞƵƐĞ ĂƐĞ
ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ĨŽƌŵĂůŝƚLJ ƐƚƌĞĂŵ ŽƵƚƉƵƚ džĂŵƉůĞƐ
ǀĂůƵĞ
>Žǁ ,ŝŐŚůLJ hƐĞŽĨƌĂǁĨĞĐĂů tŝŶͲǁŝŶĨŽƌƐĞƉƟĐƚƌƵĐŬŽƉĞƌĂƚŽƌƐĂŶĚĨĂƌŵĞƌǁŝƚŚ 'ŚĂŶĂ͕
D
ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂů ƐůƵĚŐĞĨƌŽŵƐĞƉƟĐ ƚŚĞůĂƩĞƌƌĞĐĞŝǀŝŶŐĂůŽǁͲĐŽƐƚŽƌĨƌĞĞĨĞƌƟůŝnjĞƌďƵƚ /ŶĚŝĂ͕h^ ͕
ǀĂůƵĞ ƌĞƵƐĞ ƚĂŶŬƐĚĞůŝǀĞƌĞĚƚŽ ƐŚŽƵůĚŽďƐĞƌǀĞŽŶͲĨĂƌŵƐĂĨĞƚLJŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ͘ ƵƌŬŝŶĂ
ƚŚĞĨĂƌŵ &ĂƐŽ
hƐĞŽĨƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ tŝŶͲǁŝŶĨŽƌƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŽƉĞƌĂƚŽƌƐ;ůĞƐƐŶĞĞĚĨŽƌ ^ĞŶĞŐĂů͕
ĨĞĐĂů ƐůƵĚŐĞĨƌŽŵ ĚŝƐƉŽƐĂůͿĂŶĚĨĂƌŵĞƌƐǁŚŽĐĂŶĂĐĐĞƐƐĂŚŝŐŚǀĂůƵĞ /ŶĚŽŶĞƐŝĂ
ƐĞƉƚĂŐĞ ĂŶĚƌĞůĂƟǀĞůLJƐĂĨĞƐŽŝůĂŵĞůŝŽƌĂŶƚŽƌĨĞƌƟůŝnjĞƌ͕
ƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƉůĂŶƚƐ ĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚďƵůŬLJͬƐƟĐŬLJŝŶƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂŶĚƵƐĞ͘
hƐĞŽĨĐŽͲ KƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJĨŽƌďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ͘^ĂĨĞƉƌŽĚƵĐƚ͕ƌĞĚƵĐĞĚ ĂŶŐůĂĚĞƐŚ
&ĞĐĂů ĐŽŵƉŽƐƚĞĚĨĞĐĂů ŽƌŐĂŶŝĐǁĂƐƚĞǀŽůƵŵĞĂŶĚĚŝƐƉŽƐĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌǁĂƐƚĞ
ƐůƵĚŐĞ ƐůƵĚŐĞ ŵĂŶĂŐĞƌƐ͕ƐƟůůďƵůŬLJĨŽƌĨĂƌŵĞƌƐ
hƐĞŽĨƉĞůůĞƟnjĞĚ ůĞŶĚŝŶŐĂůůŽǁƐĐƌĞĂƟŽŶŽĨĂĐŽŵƉĞƟƟǀĞŽƌŐĂŶŝĐͲ ^ŽƵƚŚ
ĂŶĚďůĞŶĚĞĚĐŽͲ ŵŝŶĞƌĂůĨĞƌƟůŝnjĞƌǁŝƚŚŶƵƚƌŝĞŶƚĐŽŶƚĞŶƚƚĂŝůŽƌĞĚƚŽ ĨƌŝĐĂ͕
ĐŽŵƉŽƐƚ ĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ;ĐƌŽƉͿŶĞĞĚƐ͘WĞůůĞƟnjŝŶŐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐ 'ŚĂŶĂ͕
ƉƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶĐŽƐƚƐďƵƚƌĞĚƵĐĞƐďƵůŬŝŶĞƐƐǁŚŝůĞ EŝŐĞƌŝĂ
ƐŝŵƉůŝĨLJŝŶŐĐƌŽƉĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ͘
,ŝŐŚ ,ŝŐŚ ŝŽĐŽŶǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ WƌŽƚĞŝŶƐŽƵƌĐĞĨŽƌĞ͘Ő͘ƉŝŐ͕ƉŽƵůƚƌLJĂŶĚĮƐŚĨĞĞĚ͖ƐŝĚĞ h^͕
ƐŽĐŝĂů ĨŽƌŵĂůŝƚLJ ;ŶƵƚƌŝĞŶƚ ƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƐŚĂǀĞǀĂůƵĞĂƐƐŽŝůĨĞƌƟůŝnjĞƌ &ƌĂŶĐĞ͕
ǀĂůƵĞ ŽĨƌĞƵƐĞ ĞdžƚƌĂĐƟŽŶĨŽƌ ^ŽƵƚŚĨƌŝĐĂ
ƉƌŽƚĞŝŶďƵŝůĚŝŶŐͿ
ǀŝĂŇLJůĂƌǀĂĞ

D
6HHHJ0LFKLJDQ6HSWDJH3URJUDPZZZPLFKLJDQJRYGHT±BBKWPO

13.3.4 Urine from Urine Diverting Toilet Systems

Fecal sludge comprises both fecal matter and urine. While feces are high in or-
ganic matter content and pathogens, urine is rich in nutrients, especially nitrogen
and phosphorus. In fact, due to the ban on phosphates in laundry detergents in
many developed countries, human urine can contribute 60–75 % of the total phos-
phate load in municipal wastewater and also up to 80 % of the total nitrogen load
(Wilsenach and Van Loosdrecht 2006; NESC 2013). To recover these nutrients and
prevent eutrophication, the idea of capturing urine before it enters the wastewater
stream and gets diluted appears most logical. Collecting urine in urine diverting
toilets, and dewatering and transforming it into struvite is being explored at differ-
ent scales in developed and developing countries (Pronk and Koné 2010). Although
the yields are relatively low with about 1 kg struvite from 500 l urine, small-scale
and large-scale struvite precipitation from source-separated urine has been piloted
in many countries, such as South Africa, Sweden, the Netherlands and Nepal. In
Nepal, Etter et al. (2011) concluded from their financial analysis that it is difficult
to make struvite production self-sustaining given the current fertilizer prices. While
the costs for building the reactor were kept low, the magnesium source remained
expensive. The cheapest source in their case was a local mine, about 80 km from
Kathmandu.
At larger scale, the Dutch GMB company is operating a urine treatment plant
in Zutphen city, the Netherlands (Box 13.4). The plant has been running success-
fully since 2010, sourcing urine from music festivals, and is currently treating about
1300  m3 of urine per year. The operational costs for the treatment of urine and
262 M. Otoo et al.

recovering nitrogen and phosphorus are comparable with the costs of removing both
elements in conventional wastewater treatment plants (www.gmb-international.eu).

Box 13.4: Nutrient Recovery from Source-Separated Urine at Scale

In the SaNiPhos® technology, the ammonium and phosphate are recovered in

a struvite reactor followed by an acid gas scrubber for the additional recovery
of ammonium. Struvite precipitation is provoked in a reactor compartment
by elevating the pH through addition of NaOH and magnesium for crystal
formation. The process consumes magnesium (MgO 0.6 kg/m3), sulfuric acid
(H2SO4 40 kg/m3), caustic soda (NaOH 17 kg/m3) and electricity (25 kWh/m3).
The struvite reactor achieves phosphorus -removal of 90 ± 5 % and recovery of
85 ± 10 %, attaining a production of up to 5 t of struvite per annum according
to company information. The remaining ammonia rich aqueous solution is
recovered in an acid gas scrubber that is capable of producing 65 m3 of 40 %
ammonium sulfate per year (Winkler et al 2013).

13.4 Cost Advantages and Disadvantages

There are no fertilizer market incentive for implementing phosphorus recovery

technologies in the wastewater sector since it is still cheaper for the fertilizer in-
dustry to continue using rock phosphate as feedstock than struvite. However, based
on an economic feasibility analysis taking into account cost savings and the en-
vironmental benefits, phosphorus recovery appears viable not only from sustain-
able development but also from an economic point of view (Molinos-Senante et al.
2011). There are also cheaper recovery options emerging which are trying to bypass
the costs of magnesium oxide (and NaOH for pH adjustment) for struvite crystal-
lization which are significant challenges2 for keeping production costs sufficiently
low. This challenge applies even more to struvite precipitation from urine diverting
toilets, which cannot base its revenue model on unwanted struvite elimination and
savings for the treatment operator.
The sector should also aim at a better balance between its technology drive and
actual demand and ability to pay for recovered resources, because methods and pro-
cesses are highly engineered, technology- and knowledge-intensive and therefore
only with caution applicable in settings with limited capacity. However, there are
also low-cost alternatives. Instead of extracting phosphorus from the waste stream
chemically, biological means, like duckweed or flies, can be used to extract nutri-

The costs of the magnesium can be up to 75 % of the struvite production costs.
2 

Low-cost magnesium can be found in coastal areas where salt is produced, and
magnesium remains after NaCl extraction (Dockhorn 2009).
13  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Nutrient Recovery … 263

ents directly from the water or sludge while turning them straight into protein as a
potential feed source for domestic animals and fish. These biological means have
a very high transformation rate and leap over the value chain from the raw waste
straight to a high-value product, which could also be biofuel.
From the public sector perspective, sludge treatment and composting are mea-
sures in support of cost saving given the significant volume reduction; i.e., reduced
transport and disposal costs. In Ghana, waste managers suggested to simply burn
the compost instead of struggling with its marketing (Drechsel et al 2010). Similar
responses come from water companies which do not wish to be involved in “mar-
keting” of recovered phosphates. They are happy with the lower sludge volume and
to treat the recovered nutrients as a publicity friendly by-product as long as it is reli-
ably sold/removed at a relatively low price, as it is the case in the Ostara business
model. It is then the task of Ostara to seek a market for the fertilizer.
To optimize the marketability of recovered nutrients, especially for premium or
niche markets, full compliance with quality standards and branding are important,
as all struvite based examples demonstrate. The new products, be it Ostara’s Crys-
tal Green® or Outotec’s PhosKraft® might need to address mixed perceptions in a
cost competitive landscape (Box 13.5). Strong partners who understand agricultural
markets and can bridge between the sanitation and agricultural sectors are needed.

13.5 Conclusions

While the discussion of potable and non-potable water reuse is gaining significant
momentum in particular in water scarce regions, nutrient recovery from wastewater
is still one step behind and is determined more by regulatory pressure and technical
opportunities for cost savings, than by actual market demand for recovering nutri-
ents, food insecurity or responses to “peak phosphorous”.
Environmental regulations can provide an incentive or a disincentive in this con-
text. Following, for example, the passage of the Ocean Dumping Ban Act, New York
had to find other ways to manage its sewage sludge. One option was to produce bio-
solids that are used as soil conditioners for parkland, farms and golf courses. Similar
outcomes resulted from the increasing regulatory control and competition for valu-
able landfill space as mentioned above. However, in many developed countries the
regulations for biosolid reuse became over time so strict that incineration became
the first choice. In other countries more stringent quality thresholds are applied to
recycled phosphate fertilizers than for natural rock phosphate, which undermines
efforts to produce a competitive product (P-REX 2013).
To date, the recovery of nitrogen and phosphorus from waste streams is expen-
sive, but new technologies that involve substitutes for costly inputs are emerging.
From the business perspective, this could offer a financial breakthrough, even if
the phosphorus price increases slowly over time. Winkler et al. (2013) report that
struvite use in agriculture has not been well accepted in Europe, despite full com-
pliance with required standards. A higher economic value on the market is needed
264 M. Otoo et al.

to stimulate phosphorus recovery. While current phosphorus market forecasts see

moderate demand growth but also new rock-phosphate supply, leading to a gradual
increase of potential phosphorus surplus in the near term (Heffer and Prud’homme
2014), there is great uncertainty when the phosphorus price will eventually in-
crease. Until then, the currently produced (surplus of) struvite might have to be kept
in stores.

Box 13.5: Examples of Marketing Strategies for Recovered Phosphorous

In 2011, Outotec acquired the Austrian based ASH DEC Umwelt AG (see
Box 13.1). The ASH DEC phosphorous product, marketed as PhosKraft®, has
been fully licensed for fertilizer use in Austria and Germany. PhosKraft® is
marketed as a high quality PK 12-20 fertilizer with calcium, and NPK 20-8-8
fertilizer. Considering reduced disposal costs, the production price is compa-
rable to commercial fertilizers (Morf and Koch 2009). Investment in a full-
scale plant was estimated as € 15–18 million in 2008 with a payback time of
3– 4 years. The price varies according to whether the plans are to build a plant
producing ready-made fertilizer or a plant purifying the raw material ashes.
To produce fertilizers that meet a wider spectrum of requirements of crops,
soils and markets, the product may be enriched with additional primary, sec-
ondary and trace nutrients and compacted to fertilizer granules. As the pro-
duction costs result in prices still significantly higher than those of phosphate
rock, the ASH DEC process derives its viability from savings compared to
business as usual (Nieminen 2010).
The Berliner Wasserbetriebe developed the AirPrex procedure to precipi-
tate struvite in response to unwanted struvite coatings. The process is com-
paratively low in costs but also the phosphorus recovery potential is modest.
Struvite production is 2.5 t/d and the quality meets the standards of the Ger-
man fertilizer regulations. The nutrient composition is 12 % MgO, 5 % N and
23 % P2O5. The product is sold directly by the Berliner Wasserbetriebe under
the brand name “Berliner Pflanze” in 1 and 2 kg bags to households for flow-
ers, ornamentals and lawns, but is also available as raw material in fertilizer
production. According to Nieminen (2010), the ideal cost-recovery price of
the struvite is € 50/t. Converted to €/t phosphorus, the value is € 400/t which
is a competitive price with commercial fertilizers (Nieminen 2010).
Ostara’s Crystal Green® struvite product has received fertilizer certifica-
tion from the Oregon State Department of Agriculture and does no longer fall
under regulations concerning biosolids which will enhance its public accep-
tance. Ostara has established strong relationships with leading blenders and
distributors across North America and in parts of Europe and target niche mar-
kets where a premium price can be obtained because of the product’s specific
qualities (slow-release, purity, closely defined and consistent mechanical and
granulometry properties of the prills) but also high production price. Crystal
Green is used in blends by the agriculture, turf and horticulture sectors in
13  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Nutrient Recovery … 265

Canada and the United States (www.crystalgreen.com/applications/retail).

Ostara emphasizes that it is the recovery of struvite in a size-controlled, slow
release format that allows the company to realise a financial driver with signif-
icant investments in market exploration. Although the magnesium in struvite
is a valuable nutrient for plants, this is not a monetarised value (P-REX 2013).
Unitika Ltd., Japan, stated that struvite produced through the PHOSNIX
process from returned water of sludge treatment in Japan, which was sold
to fertiliser companies for € 245/t (2001 price) with transport costs from the
sewage works covered by the purchaser. The recovered struvite was then sold
as a premium value fertiliser for rice and vegetable cultivation. The product
is marketed by two fertiliser companies, but not as a ‘green’ recycled product.
The fertiliser, after mixing with other products to provide potassium, is then
sold to the public for € 100–200 per 20 kg bag (Ueno and Fujii 2001).

The fertilizer industry appears to be open to new nutrient sources to help offset
potential supply shortages and in view of environmental conscience, although the
percentage of potential phosphorus recovery from treated wastewater is quite small
compared to the global phosphate rock needs (Shu et al. 2006). There are however
regional opportunities to expand market segments to customers interested in bulk
purchase of soil ameliorants, such as sludge compost for landscaping, and orga-
no-mineral products, such as fortified co-compost. From the wastewater treatment
point of view, a partnership approach would be an advantage, given the marketing
network of the fertilizer sector.
In view of water, nutrient and energy recovery, it could be concluded that waste-
water use can generate revenue streams when the water quality matches industrial
or potable needs, or when wastewater can be transformed into energy. The recovery
of nutrients such as phosphorus is viable for a treatment plant operator based on
savings for removing unwanted phosphorus and due to reducing or avoiding sludge
disposal costs. To transform recovered nutrients into a profitable revenue stream it
might be useful to bypass any uncertainties around nutrient prices and aim at higher
value products such as biofuel or protein.

Take Home Messages

• Nutrient recovery can be accomplished in large scale treatment plants,
pond based systems and on-site sanitation, for the benefit of agriculture
and aquaculture.
• The prospects for costs savings in treatment and disposal through the
recovery of phosphorous are significant, and subsidize the production of a
high quality slow-release fertilizer.
• The market perspectives for recovered phosphorus are large, but currently
limited by strong price competition from rock phosphate and commercial
fertilizers.
266 M. Otoo et al.

• Technological advances will continue to support nutrient recovery pro-

cesses that will improve the competitive potential of waste derived fertil-
izers and soil ameliorants.
• Nitrogen recovery could leap over the value chain through the direct gener-
ation of marketable protein via plant or insect based waste transformation.

References

Amoah P, Keraita B, Akple M, Drechsel P, Abaidoo RC, Konradsen F (2011) Low cost options
for health risk reduction where crops are irrigated with polluted water in West Africa. IWMI
Research Report Series 141, Colombo
Burnham JC (2008) Value-Added Fertilizer Products from Municipal Biosolids. Paper presented
at north east biosolids & residuals association fall meeting 12 November 2008. http://www.
vitagcorp.com/NEBRA-presentation.pdf. Accessed July 2014
Cofie OO, Drechsel P, Agbottah S, van Veenhuizen R (2009) Resource recovery from urban waste:
options and challenges for community based composting in Sub-Saharan Africa. Desalination
248:256–261
Diener S, Zurbrügg C, Tockner K (2009) Conversion of organic material by black soldier fly lar-
vae: establishing optimal feeding rates. Waste Manag Res 27(6):603–610
Diener S, Semiyaga S, Niwagaba CB, Muspratt MA, Gning JB, Mbéguéré M, Ennin JE, Zurbrugg
C, Strande L (2014) A value proposition: resource recovery from faecal sludge—Can it be the
driver for improved sanitation? Resour Conserv Recycl 88:32–38
Dockhorn T (2009) About the economy of phosphorus recovery. In: Ashley K, Mavinic D, Koch F
(ed) International conference on nutrient recovery from wastewater streams, IWA Publishing,
London
Drechsel P, Karg H (2013) Motivating behaviour change for safe wastewater irrigation in urban
and peri-urban Ghana. Sustain Sanit Pract 16:10–20
Drechsel P, Giordano M, Gyiele LA (2004) Valuing nutrients in soil and water: concepts and
techniques with examples from IWMI studies in the developing world. IWMI Research Report
Series 82, Colombo
Drechsel P, Cofie O, Danso G (2010) Closing the rural-urban food and nutrient loops in West
Africa: A reality check. Urban Agric Mag 23:8–10
Edixhoven JD, Gupta J, Savenije HHG (2013) Recent revisions of phosphate rock reserves and
resources: reassuring or misleading? An in-depth literature review of global estimates of phos-
phate rock reserves and resources. Earth Syst Dynam Discuss 4:1005–1034
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012) Towards the circular economy 1: economic and business
rationale for an accelerated transition. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey & Company, UK
Energy Alternatives India (EAI) (2011) Sustainable recovery of energy from fecal sludge in India-
Report on research and findings prepared for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Etter B, Tilley E, Khadka R, Udert KM (2011) Low-cost struvite production using source-separat-
ed urine in Nepal. Water Res 45(2):852–862
Evans A, Drechsel P (2010) Landscape analysis of reuse of waste products, Report to the BMGF,
20.06.2010, IWMI, Colombo
Evans A, Otoo M, Drechsel P, Danso G (2013) Developing typologies for resource recovery busi-
nesses. Urban Agric Mag 26:24–30
Gaterell MR, Gay R, Wilson R, Gochin RJ, Lester JN (2000) An economic and environmental
evaluation of the opportunities for substituting phosphorus recovered from wastewater treat-
ment works in existing UK fertiliser markets. Environ Technol 21:1067–1084
13  Business Models and Economic Approaches for Nutrient Recovery … 267

Global Water Intelligence (GWI) (2009) Municipal Water Reuse Markets 2010. Media Analytics
Ltd. Oxford, UK
GTZ (2009) The Chinese waste water treatment sector. CDM Perspectives in China. Opportunities
for German Know-How and CDM application. GTZ, Beijing Office, Beijing
Harper M (2013) The Money in Sludge. China Water Risk Review April 9 2013–http://
chinawaterrisk.org/resources/analysis-reviews/the-money-in-sludg/#sthash.M4VwYFwR.
gyxnzSPf.dpuf. Accessed 5 July 2014
Harrison J, Wilson D (2012) Towards sustainable pit latrine management through LaDePa. Sustain
Sanit Pract 13:25–32
Heffer P, Prud’homme M (2014) Fertilizer Outlook 2014–2018. Produced for 82nd IFA Annual
Conference, Sydney (Australia), 26–28 May 2014. International Fertilizer Industry Associa-
tion (IFA), Paris
Keraita B, Drechsel P, Klutse A, Cofie O (2014) On-farm treatment options for wastewater, grey-
water and fecal sludge with special reference to West Africa. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Interna-
tional Water Management Institute (IWMI).CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and
Ecosystems (WLE). 32p. (Resource Recovery and Reuse Series 1)
Koné D, Cofie OO, Nelson K (2010) Low-cost options for pathogen reduction and nutrient re-
covery from fecal sludge. In: Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A
(eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries.
Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI, UK p 171–188
Kvarnström E, Verhagen J, Nilsson M, Srikantaiah V, Ramachandran S, Singh K (2012) The busi-
ness of the honey-suckers in Bengaluru (India): the potentials and limitations of commercial
fecal sludge recycling—an explorative study. (Occasional Paper 48) [online] The Hague: IRC
International Water and Sanitation Centre. Available at: www.irc.nl/op48
Mihelcic JR, Fry LM, Shaw R (2011) Global potential of phosphorus recovery from human urine
and feces. Chemosphere 84 (6):832–839
Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R, Garrido-Baserba M (2011) Economic
feasibility study for phosphorus recovery process. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environ-
ment 40(4):408–416
Monteith H, Kalogo Y, Fillmore L, Schulting F, Uijterlinde C, Kaye S (2008) Resource recovery
from wastewater solids: a global review. Proceedings of the water environment federation,
WEFTEC 2008: Session 101 through Session 115, pp 7808–7826
Morf L, Koch M (2009) Synthesebericht für interessierte Fachpersonen, Zürcher Klärschlam-
mentsorgung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ressourcenaspekte. Baudirection Kanton
Zuerich
Murray A, Buckley C (2010) “Designing reuse-oriented sanitation infrastructure: the design for
service planning approach”. In Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A
(eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries.
Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI, UK pp 303–318
Murray A, Drechsel P, Cofie O (2011) “Waste-based business models: a novel mode of private
sector participation in wastewater and fecal sludge management”. Water International, Special
issue on Wastewater 36(4):505–521
National Environmental Services Center (NESC) (2013) Phosphorus and onsite wastewater sys-
tems. Pipeline 24(1):1–9 (West Virginia University, USA)
Naylor RL, Hardy RW, Bureau DP, Chiu A, Elliott M, Farrell AP et al (2009) Feeding aquaculture
in an era of finite resources. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(36):15103–15110
Nieminen J (2010) Phosphorus recovery and recycling from municipal wastewater sludge. MSc
thesis. Aalto University, Finland
Nikiema J, Cofie O, Impraim R, Drechsel P (2012) Fortified excreta pellets for agriculture. Paper
presented at the second international fecal sludge management conference in Durban, 29th to the
31st of October 2012. http://www.susana.org/docs_ccbk/susana_download/2–1624-nikiema.pdf
Otoo M, Drechsel P (2015) Resource recovery from waste: business models for energy, nutrient
and water reuse. IWMI and Earthscan (in press)
268 M. Otoo et al.

Otoo M, Ryan JEH, Drechsel P (2012) Where there’s muck there’s brass—Waste as a resource and
business opportunity. Handshake (IFC) 1:52–53
Ozengin N, Elmaci A (2007) Performance of Duckweed (Lemna minor L.) on different types of
wastewater treatment. J Environ Biol 28(2):307–314
P-REX (2013) Market and regulatory aspects of P recycling. SCOPE Newsletter 94:3–5
Pronk W, Koné D (2010) Options for urine treatment in developing countries. Desalination
251:360–368
Rahman MM, Salleh MAM, Rashid U, Ahsan A, Hossain MM, Ra CS (2014) Production of slow
release crystal fertilizer from wastewaters through struvite crystallization—a review. Arab J
Chem 7(1):139–155
Raschid-Sally L, Jayakody P (2008) Drivers and characteristics of wastewater agriculture in
developing countries: results from a global assessment. International Water Management Insti-
tute (IWMI), Colombo, 29p. (IWMI Research Report 127)
Scott C, Drechsel P, Raschid-Sally L, Bahri A, Mara D, Redwood M, Jiménez B (2010) Wastewa-
ter irrigation and health: challenges and outlook for mitigating risks in low-income countries.
In: Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M, Bahri A (eds) Wastewater irrigation
and health: assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries. Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI,
UK, pp 381–394
Seidu R (2010) Disentangling the risk factors and health risks associated with fecal sludge and
wastewater reuse in Ghana. PhD thesis. Norwegian University of Life Sciences
Shu L, Schneider P, Jegatheesan V, Johnson J (2006) An economic evaluation of phosphorus
recovery as struvite from digester supernatant. Bioresour Technol 97(17):2211–2216
Smit J, Nasr J (1992) Urban agriculture for sustainable cities: using wastes and idle land and water
bodies as resources. Environ Urban 4:141
Strauss M (2006) Low-cost options for treating fecal sludges (FS) in developing countries. Paper
presented at the International symposium on Fecal Sludge Management (FSM) Policy; Dakar
9–12th May 2006
Tilley E, Lüthi C, Morel A, Zurbrügg C, Schertenleib R (2008) Compendium of sanitation systems
and technologies. Published by Sandec, the Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing
Countries of Eawag, the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Düben-
dorf, Switzerland
Ueno Y, Fujii M (2001) Three years experience of operating and selling recovered struvite from
full-scale plant. Environ Technol 22(11):1373–1381
USEPA (2012) Guidelines for water reuse. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (USEPA); Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development
(USAID); Massachusetts, USA: CDM Smith. EPA/600/R-12/618
Van Huis A, Van Itterbeeck J, Klunder H, Mertens E, Halloran A, Muir G, Vantommel P (2013)
Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security. FAO Forestry Paper 171, FAO,
Rome. p 201
Wallis-Lage C (2013) Resource recovery: the next wave. Turning wastewater treatment plants into
recovery centers for valuable resources, May 13 2013, Water and Wastes Digest. http://www.
wwdmag.com/resource-recovery-next-wave. Accessed 22 June 2014
WERF (2010) Nutrient recovery state of the knowledge. Water environment research foundation,
USA. www.werf.org/c/2011Challenges/Nutrient_Recovery.aspx
WHO (2010) GLAAS 2010. UN-water global annual assessment of sanitation and drinking water.
WHO, Geneva
Wilsenach JA, van Loosdrecht MC (2006) Integration of processes to treat wastewater and source-
separated urine. J Environ Eng 132:331–341
Winkler MK, Rossum H, van F, Wicherink B (2013) Approaches to urban mining: recovery of
ammonium and phosphate from human urine. GIT Laboratory Journal Nov 11 2013
 Part V
Outlook
Chapter 14
Transforming Urban Wastewater into an
Economic Asset: Opportunities and Challenges

Munir A. Hanjra, Pay Drechsel, Dennis Wichelns and Manzoor Qadir

Abstract  We conclude the book with a reflection on the potential of urbanization to

catalyze the recovery and use of water, nutrients and energy from wastewater, with
a particular emphasis on low-income countries. We recall the charge set forth in the
introduction and we reflect on the ‘take home messages’ in each of the chapters.
Our goal is to summarize the challenges, requirements and research gaps we must
address to make wastewater an asset and to continue promoting innovative business
thinking in the water and sanitation sector.

Keywords  Economics · Water reuse · Markets · Urbanization · Wastewater business

14.1 Urbanization and Resource Recovery

The resources embedded in the municipal wastewater generated annually across

the globe could theoretically irrigate and fertilize millions of hectares of crop land
and produce energy for millions of households. However, only a small portion of
these waters is currently treated, and the portion which is safely reused is very small

M. A. Hanjra () 
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Pretoria, South Africa
e-mail: m.hanjra@cgiar.org

P. Drechsel
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
e-mail: p.drechsel@cgiar.org
D. Wichelns
P.O. Box 2629, 47402 Bloomington, IN, USA
e-mail: dwichelns@mail.fresnostate.edu
M. Qadir
United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, 175 Longwood Road
South, L8P 0A1 Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
e-mail: manzoor.qadir@unu.edu
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 271
P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_14
272 M. A. Hanjra et al.

compared to the scale of the water scarcity discussion. This apparent disconnect is
due largely to social, institutional and economic issues, including regional gaps in
wastewater collection and treatment capacities, social resistance against reuse, and
poor business planning, leading to limited expectations of cost recovery.
However, global change, and in particular those developments which are chang-
ing resource flows and allocations, such as urbanization, are generating significant
demand for food, water and energy, often more than what is easily available, thus
providing new opportunities for transforming the resources embedded in wastewater
into valuable assets. Planning for resource recovery and reuse is gaining momentum
in water policy and urban development circles, as reuse oriented investment strate-
gies offer notable potential for supporting to different degrees various development
goals, including poverty reduction, food security, achieving sustainable agriculture,
improving potable water supplies, resource conservation, sustainable energy, and
climate change adaptation. Resource recovery and reuse can thus fit well within a
Green Economy or any climate change adaptation strategies.
Water scarcity and water competition will be strong factors in this context, but
growing cities often face also practical challenges in developing water resources to
meet their citizens’ needs. For example, there may be insufficient space for reser-
voirs, or challenges involved in laying pipelines to transport water to new suburbs.
In these circumstances, additional supply from indirect potable reuse may be neces-
sary, even if scarcity is not strictly an issue (GWI 2009).
Increasing urbanization and wastewater generation also brings new responsibili-
ties, given the high risk of pollution and the imperative to safeguard public health
and ecosystems. Thus, safety is a primary requirement of any resource recovery
program, especially in the challenged peri-urban interface, which still receives in
many countries large amounts of untreated urban return flows. Well managed ur-
banization can lead reuse-oriented water systems, yet care is needed to safeguard
public health and sustain ecosystem services at the rural-urban frontier.
Opportunities for investing in reuse are particularly notable where urban and
peri-urban agriculture creates demand for nutrients and water derived from solid
and liquid waste. In many low-income countries, the informal sector is responsive
to these opportunities, and while significant in size, the sector is weak in compli-
ance with safety requirements where most of the recovered resources derive from
untreated wastewater. The challenge is thus twofold: (1) to introduce safety into ex-
isting (informal) reuse activities, and (2) to move beyond the technical possibilities
of the informal sector to enhance the value proposition, by involving more customer
segments and revenue streams, following the successful examples of water, nutrient
and energy recovery from wastewater as reported in Chaps. 11, 12 and 13, and in
USEPA (2012) and Lazarova et al. (2013).
Resource recovery and reuse are increasingly attractive alternatives for enhanc-
ing urban water supply, given the high costs of alternatives, such as inter-basin
transfers and new water storage projects. In addition, environmental concerns re-
lated to marine outfalls and landfills for sludge disposal, and increasing interest in
sustaining ecosystem services, such as water purification and nutrient cycling (Reid
et al. 2005), also motivate investments in resource recovery and reuse.
Governments and the private sector are beginning to realize the advantages of the
“double value proposition”, by which wastewater treatment generates both environ-
14  Transforming Urban Wastewater into an Economic Asset 273

mental and financial values (GWI 2009). Significant cost savings and potential reve-
nue streams can be generated by reclaiming water for potable or ­industrial ­purposes.
There are increasing opportunities also for large scale phosphorous and nitrogen
recovery, and opportunities for in-house generation of the energy the wastewater
treatment process needs. These and other examples, such as transforming wastewater
or sludge into biomass, feed or high value protein, offer new business opportunities,
which in turn can create new incentives for sanitation service delivery.
To go to scale and explore larger markets, reuse investors must look beyond
traditional urban boundaries and support linkages between the sanitation, water
supply, energy, landscaping and agricultural sectors. Much of the phosphorus used
in agriculture today is discharged to rivers or aquifers, and eventually reaches the
ocean floor. Incentives are needed to support phosphorous recovery from wastewa-
ter before a global shortage of phosphorus leads to much higher prices of fertilizer,
with negative consequences for food production and livelihoods in poor countries.
Waiting for phosphorus recovery technologies to become price competitive will be
counter-productive from political, social, and market perspectives.
Building on the double value proposition requires innovative financing solu-
tions and partnerships based on sound planning and business models for opening
new markets, and promoting investments in services and technologies. To this end,
wastewater use can be one important component of a larger resource recovery and
reuse strategy which considers beyond financial aspects all economic and social
benefits of treatment and reuse, and the business and market opportunities that reuse
solutions offer. Opening the waste and sanitation sector to opportunities beyond
safeguarding public health could facilitate a paradigm shift towards other business
models in this sector than ‘the municipality pays’.

14.2 Opportunities and Challenges to Reuse Solutions

Resource recovery and reuse solutions offer diverse economic opportunities, rang-
ing from informal agricultural production to formal reuse of treated wastewater.
Successful programs can support livelihoods and generate considerable value to
regional economies. In many cases, cost savings is the primary goal of resource re-
covery, catalyzing for example on-site energy recovery for wastewater treatment, or
phosphorous recovery before it precipitates where it is not accessible or wanted. In
other cases, cost recovery motivates reuse, extending the reuse proposition to larger
markets to break-even on operational and maintenance costs, or even to pay back
the capital investment. However, there are also several challenges that resource
recovery and reuse programs must address.
Challenge 1: Safety  The primary challenge in promoting reuse is the imperative
of ensuring safety—safeguarding human health and protecting the environment.
Wastewater use in agriculture and other economic activities offers notable eco-
nomic and social benefits, but also poses health and environmental risks, particu-
larly where operational capacities and treatment levels are inappropriate and safety
guidelines are ignored.
274 M. A. Hanjra et al.

Safeguarding public health Advanced treatment technologies, such as membrane

filtration, are increasingly popular and effective in removing pathogens and other
pollutants to allow a large variety of reuse options. However, these technologies
must match their environment, and must fit within the institutional capacity to
maintain treatment standards. Often many treatment plants in developing countries
have little effective impact, given the small percentage of collected wastewater.
Many plants are poorly maintained and hardly performing as planned. Thus, the
high investment, operation and maintenance costs of these technologies can limit
their use in many low income settings. In these situations the use of low-cost tech-
nologies and alternative safety measures can be cost-effective and competitive in
terms of safeguarding public health with about US$ 5 returns per dollar invested
(see Chap. 3), although the range of reuse options will be limited. Where set stan-
dards are too stringent and enforcement capacities weak, there is a high risk that the
informal reuse sector will continue business as usual.
Protecting the environment Environmental (and health) risks resulting from the
disposal of treatment by-products, or the use of inadequately treated wastewater
vary with the origin and type of the wastewater, the receiving water body and arid-
ity. Thus treatment options to protect the environment against any combination of
risk factors should be case specific. Depending on the location the risks can derive
from toxic metals and metalloids above maximum allowable concentrations; excess
nutrients causing nitrate pollution and water quality deterioration; salts or micro-
pollutants such as residues from pharmaceuticals and personal care products, which
can affect aquatic life. Only for some of these hazards, low-cost options based on
biological processes are available, but additional data and further studies are needed
to determine their long-term impact under increasing wastewater flows.
Challenge 2: Socio-economic Dimensions  The second challenge pertains to
social and cultural acceptability of wastewater and fecal sludge use. Stakeholder
participation and trust building at the earliest stages of a reuse project are crucial.
Public acceptance of water reuse is more likely in locations facing water scarcity,
when wastewater is sufficiently treated, and positively branded. However, these cri-
teria are not always sufficient reasons for the acceptance of reuse, especially when
there are alternatives. Social, institutional and economic factors also play important
roles in moving from informal to formal reuse, in understanding financial and social
marketing options, and supporting the development of culturally acceptable and
locally feasible guidelines and regulations. In many instances, gender dimensions
of reuse also must be accounted for. These can include exposure and health risks as
well as income opportunities, especially in peri-urban areas characterized by male
out-migration.
Challenge 3: Appropriate Policies and Supportive Institutions for Motivating
Reuse  The third challenge is designing supportive public policy and building insti-
tutional capacities for the uptake of reuse solutions across scales. With increas-
ing awareness for resource recovery, policy issues appear fairly straight forward
in developed countries where public agencies determine water quality criteria and
implement treatment protocols. However, the regulating and facilitating dimensions
14  Transforming Urban Wastewater into an Economic Asset 275

of reuse protocols differ. In many cases regulations do not match the available reuse
options (Huibers et al. 2010) and can be stricter than necessary, even from a public
health perspective (Mara et al. 2010). This increases treatment costs, while reduc-
ing the cost-competitiveness of resource recovery. An example is the application of
stricter rules regarding the purity of recovered struvite than for mined rock-phos-
phate (Chap. 13).
Policy issues are generally more challenging in developing countries where
waste collection, treatment, and disposal often are overwhelming tasks that absorb
all available capacity, making resource recovery and reuse a secondary or future
target. However, it is in this situation where regulatory capacities are often weak,
and informal use of usually untreated wastewater is common. To minimize possible
health risks, policies must support pathways and incentive mechanisms for inter-
ventions that should build on the long term strategy of achieving comprehensive
wastewater collection and treatment, and also target risk awareness, safer irrigation
practices by farmers, and increased food hygiene by consumers and communities.
Effective institutions and financial instruments also are needed to encourage safe
reuse. These include guidelines for resource recovery, covering technical options
and possible business models, operational manuals on health risk reduction, such as
the WHO supported Sanitation Safety Planning Manual, social, financial and eco-
nomic incentives for increasing reuse, and also compliance with safety measures,
technical assistance, certification programs for reuse businesses, insurance pack-
ages covering personal and business risks, and public awareness regarding social
benefits of reuse solutions across activities and scales. Most existing regulations
and institutional frameworks cover only parts of this spectrum, and are often more
restricting than facilitating or miss whole waste streams, like septage. A confound-
ing institutional challenge relates to water governance with responsibilities for wa-
ter supply, wastewater treatment and reuse spread over different entities. In Ghana,
for example, even wastewater treatment is regulated by different ministries depend-
ing on the ownership of the facility serving e.g. a hospital, university or military
camp (Murray and Drechsel 2011).
Challenge 4: Financing Reuse Solutions  Most reuse solutions have public good
dimensions and generate both private and (long-term) public benefits. The invest-
ment cost is substantial and must be financed by the enterprise promoting safe
reuse. The financial costs are usually higher than financial benefits. Thus the eco-
nomic benefits for environment and society must be assessed and budgeted. This is
particularly important where wastewater must be priced attractively to encourage
reuse and uptake. Such reuse models will struggle to achieve financial sustainability
given the common low fresh water prices.
Economic analysis is helpful in understanding the wider benefits of reuse, which
include the cost savings obtained, in comparison with alternative options for reduc-
ing water stress. Opportunities for generating revenue include the sale of nutrients
and energy recovered from wastewater. The rising price of energy, and the increas-
ing demand for plant nutrients in agriculture, over time, will enhance the profitabil-
ity of businesses engaging in recovery and reuse. In the near term, public support
276 M. A. Hanjra et al.

for new firms will be needed to encourage new entrants to enter the wastewater re-
covery and reuse sector. Such support might be offered as low-interest loans for the
initial investment costs, incentives that promote technology transfer, carbon credits,
or cost-sharing arrangements in the context of public-private partnerships.
Challenge 5: Innovations and Future Markets  Most water reuse projects can
build on well-known wastewater treatment technologies. The situation is more
dynamic in the domain of nutrient and energy recovery, where several innovations
have appeared in recent years. New methods are available for recovering phos-
phorus from wastewater and for transforming dried and co-composted septage into
pelletized fertilizer at low cost. Some of these technologies are not yet cost-com-
petitive across scales. The same challenge applies to the upgrading of biogas to
bio-methane, or the mechanized bioconversion of sludge to protein (e.g., for animal
feed). Innovations will play a significant role in advancing resource recovery and
reuse, especially in emerging markets.
The capital and operational costs of many appropriate technologies will be af-
fordable in future, particularly as adoption becomes widespread. One example is the
technology for treating water for use in irrigation. Agriculture might not generate
the highest returns per m3 but the sector can absorb significant amounts of water,
generating additional benefits through such mechanisms as water trading. Other
low-cost innovations, such as pond-based treatment systems, combined with the
production of fish feed from duckweed, are sufficiently profitable to recover their
capital investment. Where higher quality standards are required, water users (and
not treatment providers) can undertake further treatment through their own invest-
ments on-site by using more advanced or more reuse-targeted technologies. Perhaps
business thinking in itself is the most promising innovation in the sanitation sector,
where enterprises can leap over potential challenges through innovative private-
public partnerships for reaching larger markets and obtaining affordable finance.
For instance, biogas upgrade projects are economically viable and enjoy substantial
market demand, yet bottling remains at the experimental stage. Greater uptake by
industry is needed to achieve economies of scale.
A particular example is phosphorous, recovered as struvite. A viable market for
struvite use in agriculture might develop in future when the price of rock-phosphate
rises substantially, due to increasing scarcity, making struvite production cost-com-
petitive. Yet it might be wise for developing countries to begin investing in struvite
production and marketing in the near term, rather than waiting for rock-phosphate
prices to rise. If the price rise is abrupt, developing countries might be caught in
a costly transition period in which the price of phosphorus becomes unaffordably
high, while the national struvite production capacity is not yet sufficient to sustain
successful agriculture and prevent a food crisis. Given the inherent uncertainty re-
garding precisely when the global supply of rock-phosphate will become limiting,
it is not likely that many developing countries will invest on their own in struvite
production and marketing. Yet support for such a program from international donors
or corporate sponsors, to create for example national phosphorous depots from re-
covered struvite, might be very welcome and well timed.
14  Transforming Urban Wastewater into an Economic Asset 277

Challenge 6: Methodological Issues  Recovery and reuse solutions involve cross-

cutting issues that transcend administrative, and disciplinary boundaries. Many
reuse projects involve issues pertaining to economics, finance, sociology, health,
the environment, engineering, water, energy, food, and plant nutrition. Developing
a methodological framework reflecting these perspectives in a matrix of indicators
that could serve policy makers is challenging. In addition to the financial costs and
benefits, the social and environmental externalities of reuse projects have seldom
been quantified, although an increasing number of tool kits and resources are avail-
able (see Chap. 7).
Despite significant advances in the development and application of environmen-
tal valuation techniques, some costs and benefits remain difficult to estimate em-
pirically. Yet, in many cases, it is helpful to acknowledge the importance of indirect
costs, externalities, and the public good aspects of recovery and reuse programs,
with the goal of achieving a socially optimal level of investment. Some portion of
that investment will continue to come from public sources in the near term, but we
envision greater participation by private firms in future, as further research identi-
fies a larger set of potentially viable business models.

14.3 Outlook

Our excitement in presenting this book builds largely from the opportunity to sup-
port business thinking in a sector that traditionally has relied on public funding, and
to encourage the development of effective business models addressing resource re-
covery and reuse. We believe the private sector, supported by continued applied re-
search and supportive policies and institutions, can spur the achievement of national
and international sanitation and reuse targets within a reasonable time horizon, to
the benefit of millions of households.
Finance will be the key to the reuse sector which has too long been driven by
regulations rather than economic opportunities. The potential to reclaim wastewa-
ter for high value applications can create new revenue streams. GWI (2009, 2014)
predicted that the municipal reuse market is on the verge of major expansion, espe-
cially towards higher value applications with a 2011–2030 growth rate of + 271 %.
The increasing pressure on natural freshwater resources will however be strongest
from the agricultural sector, which can only be met through greater water usage.
Over-exploitation of surface and groundwater resources is likely to be affecting
millions of people by 2030 (GWI 2014), especially in peri-urban areas where ‘treat-
ment for reuse’ as well as water swaps could become popular mitigation options for
balancing urban and rural water stress.
Verifiable targets are needed to encourage reuse at scale also in view of the Sus-
tainable Development Goals (OWG 2014). There is need for better data collection
programs to support the assessment of resource recovery and to develop informa-
tion for designing culturally acceptable reuse options. More research is needed also,
regarding the impacts and cost-effectiveness of risk mitigation options and methods
278 M. A. Hanjra et al.

for promoting their adoption under different environmental, social, and economic
conditions, particularly in peri-urban areas of low-income countries. Investments
in resource recovery and reuse programs generally will enhance efforts to achieve
food and nutritional security, alleviate water scarcity, and improve the reliability of
energy supply, while helping to reduce urban-rural tension. The market for water
and energy recovery from wastewater should become quite lively within the not-
too-distant future.

References

Global Water Intelligence (GWI) (2009) Municipal water reuse markets 2010. Media Analytics
Ltd. Oxford, UK
Global Water Intelligence (GWI) (2014) Global water market 2014. Vol 1. Media Analytics Ltd.
Oxford, UK
Huibers F, Redwood M, Raschid-Sally L (2010) Challenging conventional approaches to manag-
ing wastewater use in agriculture. In Drechsel P, Scott CA, Raschid-Sally L, Redwood M,
Bahri A (eds) Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigating risks in low income
countries. Earthscan, London
Lazarova V, Asano T, Bahri A, Anderson J (2013) Milestones in water reuse: the best success
stories. IWA, London, UK, p 408
Mara D, Hamilton A, Sleigh A, Karavarsamis N (2010) Options for updating the 2006 WHO
guidelines. In: Using human waste safely for livelihoods, food production and health. Second
information kit: the guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater in agricul-
ture and aquaculture. WHO: Geneva (on behalf of WHO-FAO-IDRC-IWMI), http://www.who.
int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/human_waste/en/. Accessed 5 Dec 2014
Murray A, Drechsel P (2011) Why do some wastewater treatment facilities work when the majority
fail? Case study from the sanitation sector in Ghana. Waterlines 30(2):135–149
OWG (2014) Introduction to the proposal of the open working group for sustainable development
goals. Sat 19 July 1:20 pm. http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/. Accessed 29 July 2014
Reid WV, Mooney HA, Cropper A, Capistrano D et al (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being.
A report of the millennium ecosystem assessment. World Resources Institute. Island Press,
Washington, DC
USEPA (2012) Guidelines for water reuse. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wash-
ington, DC
Chapter Reviewers

Priyanie Amerasinghe  IWMI Hyderabad Office, c/o ICRISAT, 401/5, Patancheru

502324, Andhra Pradesh, India (e-mail: p.amerasinghe@cgiar.org)
Philip Amoah  International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Regional Office,
Ghana, PMB CT 112, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana (e-mail: p.amoah@cgiar.org)
Pay Drechsel  International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075,
Colombo, Sri Lanka (e-mail: p.drechsel@cgiar.org)
Solomie Gebrezgabher  International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
Regional Office, Ghana, PMB CT 112, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana (e-mail:
s.gebrezgabher@cgiar.org)
Munir A. Hanjra  International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Pretoria,
South Africa (e-mail: m.hanjra@cgiar.org)
Francesc Hernández-Sancho  University of Valencia, Department of Applied
Economics II, Campus dels Tarongers, 46022, Valencia, Spain (e-mail: francesc.
hernandez@uv.es)
Blanca Jiménez  Division of Water Sciences, International Hydrological
Programme, UNESCO, rue Miollis—75732 Paris Cedex 15, France; and Institute
of Engineering, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico (e-mail:
b.jimenez-cisneros@unesco.org)
Bernard Keraita  Copenhagen School of Global Health, University of
Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark (e-mail: bernard.keraita@sund.ku.dk)
Birguy Lamizana  United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), P.O. Box
30552 (00100), Nairobi, Kenya (e-mail: birguy.lamizana@unep.org)
Tek Narayan Maraseni  University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba
Campus, Queensland, Australia (e-mail: tek.maraseni@usq.edu.au)

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 279

P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6
280 Chapter Reviewers

Josiane Nikiema  International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Regional

Office, Ghana, PMB CT 112, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana (e-mail: j.nikiema@
cgiar.org)
Paul Pavelic  International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Regional
Office, C/o National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI), Ban
Nongviengkham, Xaythany District, Vientiane, Lao PDR (e-mail: p.pavelic@cgiar.
org)
Manzoor Qadir  United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and
Health, 175 Longwood Road South, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (e-mail: manzoor.
qadir@unu.edu)
Mark Redwood  International Development Research Centre (IDRC), 150 Kent
Street Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (e-mail: mredwood@idrc.ca)
Christopher Scott  Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of
Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA (e-mail: cascott@email.arizona.edu)
Camilla Vote  School of Agricultural and Wine Sciences, Charles Sturt Univer-
sity, Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia (e-mail: cvote@csu.
edu.au)
Dennis Wichelns  P.O. Box 2629, Bloomington, IN 47402, USA (e-mail:
dwichelns@mail.fresnostate.edu)
Index

A E
Amani Doddakere Lake, 161, 162 Economics
Aquifer recharge, 12, 19, 40, 96, 102, 154, 155 of aquifer recharge with wastewater, 158
in relation to water banking and ecosystem of faecal sludge to energy business, 234,
services, 156 236
public acceptance, legal frameworks, and of watewater to energy business models,
policies for, 164 232–234
with wastewater Energy
economics of, 157, 158 business cases
mechanisms of, 155, 156 fecal sludge to, 225, 228
business models
B fecal sludge to, 231, 232
Benefit sharing, 11, 207, 213, 218 for wastewater treatment, 232
Biogas, 20, 222, 225, 228, 234, 236, 276 recovery, 219–221
Biomethane recovery potential from wastewater, 233
upgrading biogas to, 228, 229 Energy recovery, 10, 12, 21, 23, 32, 175, 210,
economics of, 239, 240 219, 220, 225, 228, 231, 265, 272,
Biosolids, 10, 12, 21 276
formal use of, 23 Externalities, 150, 277
Bolivar aquifer Ezousa and Akrotiri Aquifers
in Australia, 162, 163 in Cyprus, 160, 161
Business models, 196, 198, 206, 214
typology of, 230 F
fecal sludge to energy business models, Farmers
231 perspective, 141–144
wastewater to energy business models, Fecal sludge, 10, 11, 16, 19, 27, 33, 34, 196,
230, 231 219, 229, 231, 257
wastewater to energy from on-site sanitation as a nutrient
economics of, 232–234 recovery stream, 257, 259, 260
to energy business cases, 225, 228
C to energy business models, 231
Composting, 20, 257, 259, 260
Cost recovery, 7, 10, 12, 108, 212, 273 G
Gender, 12, 84, 85, 86, 274
D
Data limitations, 29 I
Disability-adjusted life years (DALY), 42, 47, Industrial reuse, 197, 250
49, 148

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 281

P. Drechsel et al. (eds.), Wastewater, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6
282 Index

Institutions, 18, 23, 52, 94, 107, 108, 164, 228, Sanitation Safety Plans, 52
232, 241, 275, 277 Sludge production, 29, 34, 255
Irrigation, 45, 47, 49, 144 Struvite, 252, 253, 257, 262, 276

L T
Landscaping, 21, 22, 103, 170, 171, 175, 183, Treatment options, 47, 51, 60, 63, 68, 274
248, 259, 273
Legislation, 27, 164 U
Urbanization, 4, 12, 139, 169, 218, 242, 272
M
Markets, 47, 211 V
Mashhad Plain, 163, 164, 205 Value proposition, 4, 7–10, 230, 250, 252,
Metals and metalloids, 56, 57, 65, 68, 154, 274 256, 257, 272, 273
Mezquital Valley, 63, 85, 97, 108, 143, 159,
160, 208 W
Micro-pollutants, 56, 57, 59, 65, 67, 274 Wastewater
Multi-barrier approach, 40, 45, 47, 49, 149, acceptance, 76, 77, 101
186, 188 and environment, 56, 57
and health, 40, 45, 49
N business, 10, 12
Nitrogen, 9, 16, 19, 27, 28, 33, 56, 57, 253, economics, 176, 181, 182
273 planning, 140, 183, 196
Nutrient capture, 12 policies, 101
Nutrient recovery, 9, 10, 12, 29, 218, 248, Water quality guidelines, 11
249, 250 Water reuse, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 86, 88, 171,
175, 176, 181, 183, 186
O Water reuse patterns, 21, 97
On-farm treatment, 23, 64, 69 Water swap, 148, 201, 205, 206, 277
World Health Organization (WHO), 5, 47
P guidelines, 40, 42, 45
Pathogens, 19, 20, 40, 45, 64, 261, 274
Perceptions, 11, 76, 78, 79, 82, 87, 162, 164,
218, 263
Phosphorus, 4, 9, 16, 19, 27, 28, 33, 56, 62,
63, 66, 158, 249, 253, 262, 276
Potable water, 4, 7, 22, 64, 81, 108, 181, 186,
188, 190, 272
Private sector, 11, 12, 109, 198, 277

Q
Quantitative microbial risk assessment
(QMRA), 148

R
Regulations, 9, 10, 22, 47, 85, 86, 88, 95, 98,
102, 241, 256, 263, 275
Resource recovery, 9, 10, 12, 23, 29, 33, 34,
198, 218, 274, 278
Risk awareness, 77, 80, 83, 86, 275

S
Salinity, 21, 67, 68, 84, 143, 201, 208