Centralized Wastewater Reuse versus Decentralized Wastewater Reuse: A Case Study for a Touristic Area

Year 2018, Volume: 23 Issue: 2, 309 - 322, 31.08.2018

Selda Murat Hocaoglu , İpek Erzi Şeyla Ergenekon

https://doi.org/10.17482/uumfd.421941

Abstract

In this study, centralized and decentralized
wastewater reuse alternatives were compared in terms of water saving potential
and costs for a touristic case study area in Antalya, Turkey. The results of
decentralized reuse revealed that the maximum water saving of a hotel is
limited with either amount of wastewater generated or ratio of irrigated
landscape area to bed number. The
breakpoint for the case study area is estimated as 50 m²/bed. As a
result, in hotels where the ratio of irrigated area is less than 50 m²/bed,
wastewater reuse may not be cost effective. In case of centralized
wastewater reuse, supply and demand is balanced and as a result 60% more water
saving may be achieved for the case study area. Furthermore, investment and
operation cost of centralized reuse are considerably low and the price of
reclaimed water is lower than price of service water. The average unit price of
reclaimed water used as irrigation water was found to be 1.29 €/m³
in decentralized reuse, while the unit price was found to be 0.35 €/m³
in centralized reuse; which brings forth an internal rate of return by 20% and
a 5-year payback period.

Keywords

Centralized wastewater reuse, Decentralized wastewater reuse, Domestic wastewater reuse, Cost analysis, Net present value, Tourism sector

MERKEZİ VE YERİNDE ATIKSU GERİ KAZANIMININ KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI: BİR TURİZM BÖLGESİ İÇİN ÖRNEK ÇALIŞMA

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, merkezi ve yerinde atıksu geri
kazanım alternatiflerinin, su tasarruf potansiyeli ve maliyeti, Antalya’daki bir
turizm bölgesi için karşılaştırılmıştır. Yerinde atıksu geri kazanımı
uygulamasında, geri kazanılabilecek su miktarının, oluşan atıksu miktarı ve
otelin sulama yapılan yeşil alan büyüklüğünün, yatak sayısına oranı ile ilgili
olduğu belirlenmiştir. İncelenen turizm bölgesi için, kırılma noktasının 50 m²/yatak olduğu tahmin
edilmiştir. Bu doğrultuda, sulanan yeşil alan büyüklüğünün yatak sayısına
oranının, bu değerin altında olduğu otellerde, yerinde atıksu geri kazanımı
ekonomik olmayabilir.  Merkezi
atıksu geri kazanım uygulanması durumunda ise, atıksu kaynağı ve ihtiyaç
arasında denge sağlanabilecek, incelenen turizm bölgesi için yerinde arıtmaya
kıyasla %60 daha fazla su geri kazanılabilecektir. Merkezi atıksu geri
kazanımının ilk yatırım ve işletme maliyetleri de yerinde arıtmaya kıyasla
oldukça düşük bulunmuş ve geri kazanılacak suyun maliyetinin, şebeke suyunun
altında olacağı tahmin edilmiştir. Yerinde geri kazanım için, sulama suyu
olarak kullanılabilecek arıtılmış suyun, ortalama birim fiyatı 1,29 €/m³
olarak hesaplanmış, buna karşın, merkezi atıksu geri kazanımında, arıtılmış
suyun 0,35 €/m³ bedel ile otellere satılması durumunda, % 20 iç
verim oranı ve 5 yıllık geri ödeme süresinin sağlanabileceği belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Merkezi atıksu geri kazanımı, Yerinde atıksu geri kazanımı, Evsel atıksu geri kazanımı, Maliyet analizi, Net Bugünkü Değer, Turizm sektörü

References

• Asano, T. (2005). Urban water recycling, Water Science and Technology, 51 (8), 83-89.
• Bohdanowicz, P., Ivo, M. (2007). Determinants and benchmarking of resource consumption in hotels—Case study of Hilton International and Scandic in Europe, Energy and Buildings, 39 (1), 82-95. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.05.005
• Chen R., Wang X.C. (2009). Cost–benefit evaluation of a decentralized water system for wastewater reuse and environmental protection, Water Science and Technology, 59 (8), 1515-1522. doi: 10.2166/wst.2009.156
• Tortella, B.D., Dolores, T. (2011). Hotel water consumption at a seasonal mass tourist destination. The case of The Island of Mallorca, Journal of Environmental Management, 92 (10), 2568-2579. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.05.024
• Gonzales, P., Ajami, N.K. (2017). An integrative regional resilience framework for the changing urban water paradigm, Sustainable Cities and Society, 30, 128–138. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2017.01.012
• Hocaoglu S.M. (2017). Evaluations of on-site wastewater reuse alternatives for hotels through water balance, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 122, 43-50. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.022
• Hong, S.W., Choi, Y.S., Kim, S.J., Kwon, G. (2005). Pilot-testing an alternative on-site wastewater treatment system for small communities and its automatic control. Water Sci. Technol. 51, 101-108. doi:10.2166/wst.2005.0356
• Joustra, C., Yeh, D. (2014). Demand and source-driven prioritization framework towards integrated building water management (IBWM). Sustainable Cities and Society, 14, 114-125. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2014.08.009
• Chu, J., Chen, J., Wang, C., Fu, P. (2004). Wastewater reuse potential analysis: implications for China's water resources management, Water Research, 38 (11), 2746-2756. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2004.04.002
• Kujawa-Roeleveld, K., Zeeman, G. (2006). Anaerobic treatment in decentralised and source-separation-based sanitation concepts, Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 5, 115-139. doi:10.1007/s11157-005-5789-9
• Lamichhane, K.M. (2007). On-site sanitation: A viable alternative to modern wastewater treatment plants, Water Sci. Technol. 55, 433-440. doi:10.2166/wst.2007.044
• Larsen, T.A., Alder, A.C., Eggen, R.I.L., Maurer, M., Lienert, J. (2009), Source separation: Will we see a paradigm shift in wastewater handling?, Water Sci. Technol. 43, 6121-6125. doi:10.1021/es803001r
• Larsen, T.A., Maurer, M. (2011). Source separation and decentralization. In:Wilderer, Peter (Ed.), Treatise on Water Science. Elsevier, Oxford, 203-229. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53199-5.00083-X
• Libralato, G., Ghirardini, A.V., Avezzù, F. (2012). To centralise or to decentralise: An overview of the most recent trends in wastewater treatment management, Journal Of Environmental Management, 94, 61-68. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.07.010
• Onucyildiz, M., Sevimli, M.F., Gorgulu, G. (2008). Evaluation of decentralized and centralized wastewater treatment plants, 8th International Scientific Conference on Modern Management of Mine Producing, Geology and Environmental Protection, SGEM, 1, 651-658.
• Otterpohl, R., Braun, U., Oldenburg, M. (2003). Innovative technologies for decentralized wastewater management in urban and peri-urban areas, Water Sci. Technol. 48, 23-32.
• Roefs, I., Meulman, B., Vreeburg, J. H. G., Spiller, M. (2017). Centralised, decentralised or hybrid sanitation systems? Economic evaluation under urban development uncertainty and phased expansion, Water Research, 109, 274-286. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.051
• Singh, N.K., Kazmi, A.A., Starkl, M. A. (2015). Review on full-scale decentralized wastewater treatment systems: Techno-economical approach, Water Science and Technology, 71 (4), 468-478. doi: 10.2166/wst.2014.413.
• Tchobanoglous, G., Ruppe, L., Leverenz, H., Darby, J. (2004). Decentralized wastewater management: challenges and opportunities for the twenty-first century, Water Sci. Technol 4, 95-102. doi.10.2166/ws.2004.0011
• Wang, X.C., Chen, R., Zhang, Q.H., Li, K. (2008). Optimized plan of centralized and decentralized wastewater reuse systems for housing development in the urban area of Xi’an, China, Water Science and Technology 58 (5), 969-975. doi: 10.2166/wst.2008.456.
• Werner, C. (2004). Ecological sanitation–principles, urban application and Challenges, Report at UN Commission on Sustainable Development, 12th Session - New York, 14-30 April, USA.
• Woods, G.J., Kang, D., Quintanar, D.R., Curley, E.F., Davis, S.E., Lansey, K.E., Arnold, R.G. (2013). Centralized versus decentralized wastewater reclamation in the Houghton area of Tucson, Arizona, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 139 (3), 313-324. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000249