Systems Level Approaches to Create More Sustainable Water Resources

John C. Crittenden, Ph.D., P.E., NAE (US & China)1

Zhongming Lu, Ph.D.2

Sun Xiao1, Osvaldo Broesicke1

August 27-29, 2017, Beijing1Brook Byers Institute for Sustainable Systems, School of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA2School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Chinese Academy of Engineering International Summit

Forum＆the 20th Anniversary of PACE Association

Reductionism versus Systems Analysis“There will always be room for engineering reductionism but the greatest sustainability gains in the 21st century will be from systems analysis. In addition, stakeholder engagement and managing complexity will drive greater adoption of more sustainable infrastructure.” John Crittenden, Presented at the Science Summit for Sustainable Water, July 13, 2014, Dalian, China

Water, Nutrient

Recovery, Energy

Recovery, Recreation,

Heat Island

Mitigation, Air Quality

Improvement and

Transportation

Low Impact Development (Reducing Storm Water Runoff, Erosion and Surface Water Contamination) -LID Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Rain Water Harvesting from Roof Rain Harvesting, Cooling Condensate and Footing Dewatering and Treatment Using a Wet Land (Georgia Techs Engineered Biosystems Building)

Interdependency between Water Infrastructure

and Socio-Economic Environment

Source: Philadelphia Water Department (2009) Philadelphia combined sewer overflow long term control plant update, supplemental document

volume 2; Triple bottom line analysis

Philadelphia case

– LID (low impact development) options instead of

storage tunnel for CSO (combined sewer overflow)

control in watershed areas;

– Total net benefit over the 40-year projection : 2

billion (LID for 25 % runoff), 4.5 billion (LID for 100 %

runoff), 2009 USD.

Advance Planning Group

Xiamen Transit-Oriented Development| Xiamen, China

Advance Planning Group

Xiamen Transit-Oriented Development| Xiamen, China

Same Size

Waste Water

Treatment

Plant

Smaller Flow,

More

Concentrated;

Smaller Plant:

Better energy

and nutrient

recovery.

Water Flows with LID and Grey Water Reclamation:

2-story Apartment in Atlanta, GA (Gal/Capita-day)

Smaller

Water

Treatment

Plant

Potential of

off-grid water

supply

Potential Water SavingsGR = greywater reclamation systems

RH = rainwater harvesting

XR = xeriscaping

• The error bars indicate maximum non-potable water savings for a combination of

technologies when water use is not restricted to toilet flushing and irrigation.

Normalized Impacts by Category for 1 m3 of water(% annual US emissions per capita in 2008)

Central Water Supply Rainwater Harvesting Greywater Reclamation

Ozone depletion

Global warming

Smog formation

Acidification

Eutrophication

Carcinogenic effects

Non-Carcinogenic effects

Respiratory effects

Ecotoxicity

Fossil fuel depletion

Single Score

0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.015 0.025 0.035

Energy for Water in the U.S. (Reduced By LID)

21

Water Treatment* kWh/MGal

Surface Water Treatment 220

Groundwater Treatment 620

Brackish Groundwater Treatment 3,900-9,700

Seawater Desalination 9,700-16,500

Wastewater Treatment kWh/MGal

Trickling Filter 950

Activated Sludge 1,300

Advanced Treatment without Nitrification

1,500

Advanced Treatment with Nitrification 1,900

Average Energy requirement for different water and wastewater treatment technologies2

*Includes collection but does not include distribution

About 4% of the total electricity consumption in the US is for the water and wastewater sector1

Of the total energy required for water treatment, 80% is required for conveyance and distribution

1 EPRI, Water & Sustainability, Volume 4, 20022 Stillwell, A S, et al. Energy-Water Nexus in Texas, 2009

Water & Wastewater• Stormwater

management• Stormwater treatment• Water recharge

Social Benefits• Well-being• Public health• Property values• Urban gardens

Green Infrastructure

• Rainwater• Surface water• Groundwater• Reclaimed water

Water Resources

• Storm sewers• Combined sewers• Wastewater systems

Wastewater/Stormwater

System-based Benefits of LID Best Management Practices

Reduced/Delayed FlowWater Retained/Slowedby Green Infrastructure

Enables:• Energy Efficiency and

Recovery (reduces energy demand)

• Nutrient Recovery (can be utilized for green infrastructure projects)

More Concentrated Wastewater

• Pedestrian walkways• Cycling

Transportation Infrastructure

Can EnhanceOther Infrastructures

• Urban agriculture

Food Infrastructure

• Reduced heat island

Energy Infrastructure

Chicago Is Hoping to Retire the Word “Waste”

Plan: “Recovering Resources, Transforming Water”

Resources: Phosphorus, Class A biosolids, Energy & Water

The Stickney Water Reclamation Plant in Stickney,

Illinois, the largest wastewater treatment plant in

the world.

Transportation, Land

Use, Water

Water for Transportation: Impact of Fuel

Types and Vehicle Technologies

0.1

1

10

100

Co

al +

Carb

on s

eq

ue

str

ation

So

lar

PV

Co

nce

ntr

ate

d S

ola

r P

ow

er

Un

lea

de

d

Co

rn e

tha

no

l

Sw

itch

gra

ss—

no

irr

iga

tio

n

Sw

itch

gra

ss—

irrig

atio

n

So

y b

iod

iese

l

Alg

ae

bio

die

se

l—open

Alg

ae

bio

die

se

l—clo

se

d

Plug-in hybrid electricvehicle (PHEV)

Conventional (internal combustion engine)

Ga

llon

s p

er

ve

hic

le m

ile tra

ve

led

Life-cycle Water Consumption Per Vehicle Mile

Fuel consumption

Vehicle production

0.77 0.590.79

0.32

4.35

0.44

12.25

2.453.85

0.97

Harto, C.; Meyers, R.; Williams, E., Life cycle water use of low-

carbon transport fuels. Energy Policy 2010, 38, (9), 4933-4944.

Water for Mobility Network: Metro Atlanta, 2010 and 2030 Conditions

Source: Jeffrey Yen (2011) A system model for assessing water consumption across transportation modes in urban mobility networks,

Masters thesis

The Impact of the Hierarchy of

Transportation Network On Land

Development and Transportation

Carbon Emissions

3,258 Person Per Square Mile

1.07 metric ton per capita per year

Structural Fractal Dimension = 2.80

1,378 Person Per Square Mile

1.52 metric ton per capita per year

Structural Fractal Dimension = 3.36

The geometric form of road network is similar between Washington DC and Atlanta.

The difference in the hierarchy of transportation network accounts for 30% of density

difference and 20% of carbon difference between Washington DC and Atlanta.

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

1.2000

1.4000

1.6000

2.400 2.800 3.200 3.600 4.000

Carb

on

Pe

r C

ap

ita

(Me

tric

to

ns2

00

5)

Structural Fractal Dimension

2 miles

42% More Water For

Transportation!

The Connection between Autonomous Vehicles, Green Space and Water

80% penetration of autonomous vehicles

28% of the cars we have today

At least 72% reduction in parking space

24.7% reduction of impervious area and stormwater runoff

Additional 17% of city land for green space and

stormwater management

Energy and

Water

Recapturing Lost Heat in Combined Heat & Power System

Air-cooled

Microturbine

Absorption

Chiller

Electricity

Heating

Cooling

Decentralized Energy Production at Perkins

+ Will, Atlanta Office• Air Cooled Microturbines are used to for heating and cooling

using Absorption Chillers and supply 40% of the total electricity.

Adsorption Chiller 65 kW Microturbine Perkins+Will Office Building

Water Reduction: >50%

CO2 Reduction: 15 - 40%

NOX Reduction: ~90%

Adding Distributed Generation as part of the Grid:

Water as a Heat Source: False Creek

Neighborhood Energy Utility Vancouver, BCSewage heat recovery supplies

70% of annual energy demand and

reduces GHG emission by 50%

Agriculture: Urban

Farming

Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA)

Hydroponic Indoor Farms vs. Traditional Field

Growth

CEA Fresh Farms Romaine

(Local Grown, Georgia)

Filed-Growth Romaine

(California)

Land Requirements 20 Acres 620 Acres

Leafy Green Production Yields Per Year 33 Million Heads 33 Million Heads

Fossil Fuel used during Growth Cycle

(not including crop transport)200 Gallons equiv. Diesel 3,720 Gallons Diesel

Food Miles 100 miles/truckload 2,577 miles/truckload

Fossil Fuel to Transport 100 Miles or CA

to Local Markets22,200 Gallons Diesel 571,000 Gallons Diesel

Carbon Footprint 3,000 metric ton CO2 12,000 metric ton CO2

Fresh Water used during Growth Cycle 1.2 Gallons per Head 9-42 Gallons per Head

Fresh Water Used to Wash Lettuce per

heat for market 0.7 One Water per Head 2.5 Three Washings per Head

Total Fresh Water Annually 64 Million Gallons 0.3-1.5 Billion GallonsTime from Harvest to Market 6-12 Hours 4-7 Days

Source: CEA Capital Holdings

Caveat: CEA have not build the farms at scale. The optimistic yields and

operational parameters need verification.

[13] D. Despommier, The Rise of Vertical Farms, Sci. Am. (2009) 80 – 87. http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v301/n5/box/scientificamerican1109-80_BX3.html (accessed December 6, 2015).

[14] M. Al-Chalabi, Vertical farming: Skyscraper sustainability?, Sustain. Cities Soc. 18 (2015) 74–77. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2015.06.003.

[15] SkyGreens, Singapore - http://www.skygreens.com/

[16] VertiCrop, Vancouver, CA - http://www.verticrop.com/

[17] Farmed Here, Chicago, IL - http://farmedhere.com/

[16

]

[17

]

Vertical FarmingWhat is Vertical Farming:

• Produce grown in racks with natural or artificial light

• Hydroponic or Aquaponic

Produce:

leafy greens, fruits, vegetables, microgreens

• Claim 90 - 97% less water

• Serve local regions → smaller carbon footprint from

transportation

• 75% less labor

• Smaller impact on land use

• Grow year-round

Current Investigations:• Production capacity

• Nutrient, Energy, Emissions, and Water (NEEW) Flows

• Economic viability

• Impact on urban system resilience and sustainability

• Relationship with food supply and availability

[15

]

Ecosystem Services

Land use and ecosystem services in Beijing

Carbon

storage＋

(108tons/yr)

Water

yield＋

(109m3/yr)

Nitrogen

export－

(106kg/yr)

Phosphorus

export －

(106kg/yr)

Sediment

export －

(105tons/yr)

Habitat

quality＋

(107/yr)

Grain

production＋

(106tons/yr)

Vegetable

production＋

(106tons/yr)

Fruit

production＋

(105tons/yr)

Year 1984 2.76 7.92 9.46 1.95 3.88 1.41 2.90 1.14 1.76

Year 2015 2.67 7.60 8.47 1.53 3.28 1.26 0.61 2.05 7.14

Change

rates－3% －4% －11% －22% －16% －11% ＋80% ＋306% ＋79%

• Woodland and cropland were the two largest land use types.

• Built-up land expanded the most, by 157%. Cropland had

the greatest decrease of 38%.

－ means the negative indicator, the larger the indicator value, the worse the ecosystem service.

＋ means the positive indicator, the larger the indicator value, the better the ecosystem service.

PCR:

Political and cultural region.

UFR:

Urban functional region.

UER:

Urban expansion region.

ECR:

Ecological conservation

region.

The changes of comprehensive

ecosystem service from 1984 to 2015.

The average

comprehensive

ecosystem service

of Beijing showed

a decreasing trend

over the past 30

years.

Land use and ecosystem services in Atlanta

Carbon storage (108 tons)

1985 1992 1999 2005 2012

0

1

2

3

4

Water yield (1010

m3)

1985 1992 1999 2005 2012

0.0

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Nitrogen export (106 kg)

1985 1992 1999 2005 2012

0

2

4

6

8

10

Phosphorus export (106

kg)

1985 1992 1999 2005 2012

0.0

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Sediment export (105

tons)

1985 1992 1999 2005 2012

0

2

4

6

8

10

Habitat quality index (107)

1985 1992 1999 2005 2012

0.0

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Recreation opportunity index (106)

1985 1992 1999 2005 2012

0

2

4

6

8

10

Food supply (1011

kcal)

1985 1992 1999 2005 2012

0.0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

• Forest and wetland had the greatest

proportion of decreases, which were

42% and 34%, respectively.

• From 1985 to 2012, the forest

accounted for the largest proportion in

Atlanta.

• Low and high intensity developed

land increased most, by 157% and

394%, respectively.

IndicatorsChange

rates

Carbon storage －23%

Water yield －22%

Nitrogen export ＋28%

Phosphorus

export＋49%

Sediment export ＋17%

Habitat quality

index－27%

Recreation

opportunity －35%

Food supply －36%

ADOPTION AND PREFERENCES

Urban Systems Complexity Emergence of desirable amenities (high Tax Revenue and Quality of Life) & undesirable

amenities (e.g., poor air quality, low tax revenue, traffic congestion, flooding, etc.)

Macro

Micro

Infrastructure

Systems

Socio-

Economic

Environment

53

Big Data for Social Decision and Urban

Complexity ModelingTopic Modeling

Collect

• Social Media

• Blogs

• Twitter

• News

• Product Reviews

Analyze

• Enrich and prepare social media content with metadata

Modeling

• Agent-based urban model and visualization

65%

35%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Year

Percentage of households as compared to total households after30 years

Percentage of households in single-family houses as comparedto total households after 30 years

Percentage of households in apartments as compared to totalhouseholds after 30 years

0.412680267

0.587319733

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Year

Business As Usual

(BAU)

More Sustainable Development

(MSD)

Agent-based Modeling: Simulating the Adoption

Rate for More Sustainable Urban Development

Impact fee for Low Impact Development

non-compliance penalty:

• $13,000 per unit for single-family

house

• $1,500 per unit for apartment home

Principal Agents: Prospective

Homebuyer, Homeowners, Developers,

Government

Implemented Policy Tool

After 30 years:

• 40% reduction in potable water

demand from centralized plant in MSD

as compared to BAU

• 36% increase in net property tax

revenue generation in MSD as

compared to BAU

Policy Implementation Effect

Source: Lu. et al., ES&T, 2013

Water, Energy, Cost

and Air Quality

SPATIAL DATABASES FOR URBAN MODELING - 1

The SMARTRAQ project

Supports research on land use

impact on transportation and air

quality

1.3 million parcels in the 13

metropolitan Atlanta non-

attainment counties

RESIN Meeting Sept. 24, 2009

SMARTRAQ DATA AND ATTRIBUTES

Address

Road Type

City

Zip Code

Owner Occupied

Commercial/Residential

Zoning

Sale Price

Sale Date

Tax Value

Assessed Value

Improvement Value

Land Value

Year Built

No. of Stories

Bedrooms

Parking

Acreage

Land Use Type

Number of Units

X,Y Coordinate

Estimated Sq Feet

Total Sq Feet

Projected Growth Scenarios for Atlanta

Business As Usual

Year 2030More Compact Development

Year 2030

Atlanta Water Demand for New Residential and

Commercial Buildings in More Compact Growth

Scenario (with low flow fixtures + decentralized CCHP system)

Installation of

Air Cooled

Microturbines

save 2.8 times

the amount of

water used for

domestic

consumption

-63%

-78%

-58%

-72%

12.1

11.0

9.9

9.0

10.7

Potential GHG and Cost Reductions in 2030By 2030, implementation of CCHP in all new and existing residential and

commercial buildings could reduce CO2 emissions by~ 0.04Gt CO2, NOx

emissions by ~ 25000 Tons ,and decrease energy costs by $600 million per

year for the Metro Atlanta region.

Energy Cost

-47%

CO2 Emissions

-69%

NOX Emissions

-89%

-64% 0% -8%

Emergent Property: Ozone in

ATLCredit: Ted Russel

ECONOMIC ANALYSES

Can virtual water trade save water resources? Insights from production fragmentation and water scarcity

Xi Liu, College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China

Huibin Du* , College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China

Zengkai Zhang, College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China

John Crittenden*, Brook Byers Institute for Sustainable Systems, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA,

USA

Juan Moreno-Cruz, School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

Guozhu Mao*, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China

Jian Zuo, School of Architecture & Built Environment; Entrepreneurship, Commercialisation and Innovation Centre (ECIC), The University of Adelaide, SA

5005, Australia

1 11 11 12 1 1

2 22 21 22 2 2

1 2

G rg

r

G rg

r

g g g gg gG gr g

r

Y EXX A A A X

Y EXX A A A X

X A A A XY EX

This section explains the methodology and is based on a country composed of G

regions and N sectors. These regions are connected through the interregional trade of

intermediate and final products, and each region is connected with the world economy

through international imports and exports. The economic linkages among these

regions can be described by the following equation:

Virtual water flow direction: northwest, northeast, central regions to north coast and east coast;

southwest, central regions to south coast.

Policy implications: virtual water trade may aggravate the water stress

Interprovincial water flows in Final Goods Trade

(a) Final goods trade, 79.8 billion m3/yr (b) Intermediate goods trade for the final stage of

production, 58.8 billion m3/yr

(c) Value chain-related trade, 66.3 billion m3/yr

11.3

11.9

8.1

21.1

10.1

7.6

12.5

17.3

8.4

16.3

16.1

8.6

24.8

9.1

12.3

4.3

14.4

7.2

10.9

19.9

12.6

7.6

14.0

13.4

8.9

26.6

10.8

12.2

18.6

12.3

8.1

2.5

12.9

7.0

11.1

20.4

15.2

7.2

13.6

12.6

7.9

24.6

8.9

9.1

26.3

16.5

5.1

1.6

Sankey diagram for

the bilateral water

trade in eight regions

for three trade

patterns