Tap water costs and service sustainability, a close relationship

Water is currently an essential and strategic resource for society and its importance will rise in the future due to the increasing number of threats. However, water management is not currently up to par taking into consideration this well acknowledged importance. Generally speaking, water use is not efficient and loss figures are often too high. The reasons behind this situation are complex and diverse, however, in principle, they can be divided into four categories: cultural, political, social and economic. Since the latter are of most importance, this paper focuses on water costs from source to tap. The economic analysis presented quantifies the costs of a sustainable urban water service in a structured way. The second part of the paper present a case study in which the economic losses linked to leakage are assessed as a function of how expenses are recovered. The cost of apparent losses could also be assessed in a similar way and will always be higher, since apparent losses (unlike real ones) are present throughout the whole water cycle, thus increasing the unit costs.Cabrera Marcet, E.; Pardo Picazo, MA.; Cabrera Rochera, E.; Arregui De La Cruz, F. (2013). Tap water costs and service sustainability, a close relationship. Water Resources Management. 27(1):239-253. doi:10.1007/s11269-012-0181-3S239253271Almandoz J, Cabrera E, Arregui F, Cabrera Jr E, Cobacho R (2005) Leakage assessment through water networks simulation. J Water Resour Plan Manag ASCE. Nov-Dic. 2005 pp 458–466BDEW (German Association of Energy and Water Industries) (2010) Comparison of European Water and Wastewater Prices German Association of Energy and Water Industries, BonnCabrera E, Pardo MA, Cobacho R, Arregui FJ, Cabrera Jr E (2010) Energy audit of water networks. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. ASCE. Nov–Dic. 2010 pp 669–677Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ, October 1960den Blanken M (2009) Asset Management. A necessary tool for a modern water company AWWA International Conference on Strategic Asset Management. Miami 11–13 November 2009EPO (Eurostat Press Office) (2010) Facts and figures on the environment: from environmental taxes to water resources. Eurostat Press Office, Luxembourg, December 2010EU (European Union) (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000. Off J Eur Communities 22.12.2000. Pp L 327/1 to L 327/72IWA (International Water Association) (2010) International statistics for water services. Montreal 2010. Canada. International Water Association, LondonKanakoudis V, Tolikas D (2001) The role of leaks and breaks in water networks: technical and economical solutions. J Water SRT - Aqua 50(2001):301–311Kanakoudis V, Tsitsifli S (2009) Water pricing policies in Greece: is there a Common Understanding?. 2nd International conference on water economics, statistics, and finance Alexandroupolis, Thrace, Greece, 3–5 July 2009.Kanakoudis V, Gonelas K, Tolikas D (2011) Basic principles for urban water value assessment and price setting towards its full cost recovery – pinpointing the role of the water losses. J Water Supply: Res Technol 60(1):27–39Logar I, Van den Berg J (2012) Methods to assess costs of drought damages and policies for drought mitigation and adaptation: Review and recommendations. Water Resour Manag. doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0119-9Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2012) Tariffs and cost recovery in water reuse. Water Resour Manag. doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0111-4NRC (National Research Council) (2008) Desalination a national perspective. NAP Press, Washington, D.C. National Research Council, Ottawa, CanadaOECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2010) Pricing water resources and water and sanitation services. OECD, ParisOFWAT (Office of Water Services) (2009) Future water and sewerage charges 2010-15: Final determinations. OFWAT (Office of Water Services), Birmingham UKRogers P, Bhatia R, Huber A (1998) Water as a social and economic good: How to put the principle into practice. Global Water Partnership, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.Roth A (2001) Water pricing in the EU. A review. European Environmental Bureau (EEB), BrusselsWonnacott P, Wonnacott R (1990) Economics, 4th edn. John Wiley, 1990Zhu X, van Ierland EC (2012) Economic modeling for water quantity and quality management: a welfare program approach. Water Resour Manag. doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0029-

Internet of Things for Water Sustainability

The water is a finite resource. The issue of sustainable withdrawal of freshwater is a vital concern being faced by the community. There is a strong connection between the energy, food, and water which is referred to as water-food-energy nexus. The agriculture industry and municipalities are struggling to meet the demand of water supply. This situation is particularly exacerbated in the developing countries. The projected increase in world population requires more fresh water resources. New technologies are being developed to reduce water usage in the field of agriculture (e.g., sensor guided autonomous irrigation management systems). Agricultural water withdrawal is also impacting ground and surface water resources. Although the importance of reduction in water usage cannot be overemphasized, major efforts for sustainable water are directed towards the novel technology development for cleaning and recycling. Moreover, currently, energy technologies require abundant water for energy production. Therefore, energy sustainability is inextricably linked to water sustainability. The water sustainability IoT has a strong potential to solve many challenges in water-food-energy nexus. In this chapter, the architecture of IoT for water sustainability is presented. An in-depth coverage of sensing and communication technologies and water systems is also provided

Editorial: Urban water works and water cycle management: Advanced approaches

[No abstract available

Editorial/Preface: Advances in water resources and water networks management under climate change conditions, seeking for efficiency

[No abstract available

Using the bimonthly water balance of a non-fully monitored water distribution network with seasonal water demand peaks to define its actual NRW level: the case of Kos town, Greece

Water losses in pipe networks are usually the biggest 'water use' due to the high leakage occurring. The need for conservative water use is today more pressing than ever due to the stressful climate change conditions, forcing water utilities to consider applying effective Non Revenue Water reduction strategies. The assessment of a network's current operating status based on the IWA water balance (WB) is a good start. Although IWA suggests the WB to be annually assessed, this is not ideal for networks experiencing seasonal demand peaks, like in Kos town, capital of Kos Island in Greece. The WB for Kos town network was assessed on a bimonthly basis, following the water billing period used by the local water utility. The results revealed that higher real loss rates occur during the lower water demand periods due to the higher operating pressures. The annual WB can not reveal water loss peak timing

Three alternative ways to allocate the cost of the CF produced in a water supply and distribution system

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are considered to be the main cause of climate change, globally. On one hand, specific targets regarding these emissions have been already adopted in a European level. These targets include 20% reduction of GHGs and 20% reduction of energy consumption until 2020, below 1990 levels. Furthermore, EU leaders, going one step forward, have endorsed the objective of reducing Europe's GHG emissions by 80-95% compared to 1990 levels, until 2050. A number of initiatives have been adopted in order to fulfill these expectations. On the other hand, it is widely recognized that every product's supply chain consists of high energy-consuming processes. Carbon footprint (CF) is a parameter that should be integrated in the improvement of these processes' energy efficiency. In this paper, three new approaches of the CF, which produced cost allocation (end-user pays, production based, and profit based), among producers and users are being analyzed. These approaches' differences are focused to the "blame" put to each stakeholder involved, during the different phases of the "product's" life cycle. Everyone should pay a fair price to fully recover the costs related to the entire process. This could only lead to a socially just pricing policy of a product and to improvements in the performance targets of an organization

Allocating the cost of the carbon footprint produced along a supply chain, among the stakeholders involved

Greenhouse gas emissions are widely considered nowadays one of the main causes for global climate change. Every product's supply chain consists of several energy usage processes. Three new approaches (end-userpays; production based; and profit based) regarding the allocation of the cost related to the carbon footprint (CF) produced, among producers and users are being presented. These approaches vary according to the 'blame' attached to each stakeholder involved, during the several phases of the 'product's' life cycle. According to the first approach, CO2 emissions occur as the need for the product/service exists. The second approach allocates the CF production-related cost in each step of the supply chain according to not only how much of this CF is produced in each step, but considering also the CF produced in the previous steps. The allocation follows the profit rate (profit/selling price) of each step of the supply chain. At the third approach, the profit rate used has to do with the profit of each step compared to the total profit of the entire supply chain. To achieve a socially fair price of a product, all stakeholders involved should pay their fair shares, to guarantee that all costs related to the product's supply chain are being fully recovered