© 2023 The Authors Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 359 doi: 10.2166/wp.2023.

267

Need to adopt scaled decentralized systems in the water infrastructure

to achieve sustainability and build resilience

Pradip P. Kalbar a,b,c, * and Shweta Lokhande a

a
Centre for Urban Science and Engineering (CUSE), Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 076, India
b
Interdisciplinary Programme in Climate Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 076, India
c
Ashank Desai Centre for Policy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 076, India
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

PPK, 0000-0002-1436-3609

ABSTRACT

Urban water infrastructure (UWI) in cities faces enormous pressure to cope with increased water demands, handle extreme
events and improve the service with minimum resource consumption and environmental impacts. The current study presents
an approach for addressing the challenges in UWI, specifically in water supply and sewerage. The article argues a need for a
paradigm shift that simultaneously includes the sustainability and resilience aspects throughout the life cycle of UWI. The article
further highlights the issues in the prevailing approach of centralized infrastructure and demonstrates the necessity of moving
away from such an approach and shifting towards decentralized infrastructure. Understanding the factors accelerating decen-
tralization to attain a paradigm shift to decentralization is necessary. Hence, the study first identifies the drivers of
decentralization. Secondly, the need for an appropriate scale to be considered while implementing decentralized UWI is high-
lighted in this study. Furthermore, the effect of the scale of infrastructure is discussed through the trade-offs between life-cycle
costs, ease of governance, resilience and recycling benefits. The approach of scaled decentralization outlined in the study will
be useful for developing countries to plan new infrastructure and also for developed countries to replace the ageing UWI to
create future sustainable and resilient urban systems

Key words: Decentralization, Resilience, Scale of decentralization, Sustainability, Urban water systems, Water and wastewater
infrastructure

HIGHLIGHTS

• Problems prevailing in the current infrastructure planning are documented.

• Sustainability and resilience aspects need to be considered in the planning of urban water infrastructure.
• Drivers for decentralized water and wastewater infrastructure are identified.
• The concept of scaled decentralized systems is proposed in water infrastructure.
• Scaled decentralization will create future sustainable urban systems.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits
copying and redistribution for non-commercial purposes with no derivatives, provided the original work is properly cited (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 360

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

1. INTRODUCTION
Urbanization has become a global trend of the 21st century. Due to subsequent economic development, the
per-capita water consumption of the common person has intensified with the usage of appliances such as washing
machines, dishwashers and showers (Roshan & Kumar, 2020). Globally, the water crisis is a challenge in terms of
quality and quantity, which is attributed to improper water management and infrastructure planning. The lack of
adequate infrastructure creates hurdles to sustainable growth and intensifies poverty. Along with the advance-
ment in economic infrastructure, the necessity of investing in social infrastructure, i.e., education, health,
water supply and sanitation, for sustaining economic growth has also been realized in recent times. Under con-
sumer and political pressure, the municipal authorities (and utility providers) are obligated to supply water
catering to the demands of citizens concentrated in urban clusters. The priority for clean water compels the
municipal authorities to search for nearby surface water sources to create water supply infrastructure. Studies
have shown that even if an economic and political will has enabled the use of resources for fetching freshwater
or groundwater from long distances, two out of three cities cannot escape the water stress (McDonald et al.,
2014). The cities using long-distance resources ultimately affect the ecology of rivers and streams subject to the
excess withdrawal of freshwater and result in unexpected consequences such as shoreline erosion and stream
depletion, impacting human beings socially and economically (Leigh & Lee, 2019).

1.1. Need for both sustainability and resilience perspectives

The prevalent urban water cycle is dominantly linear since the used water is returned to the natural water bodies
in an untreated form and freshwater is abstracted for non-potable uses. The prevailing linear economy of take-
make-dispose is not sustainable, due to which a shift towards the circular economy is suggested to manage the
water resources (Kakwani & Kalbar, 2020; Kalbar, 2021). Additionally, the resilience of urban water infrastruc-
ture (UWI) has also become the focus of discussion recently (Lawson et al., 2020). Hence, the current approach
of UWI provisioning needs an assessment where sustainability and resilience aspects are evaluated.
It was only in the late 20th century that questions were raised on the prevailing development paradigm. Fur-
thermore, the significance of conserving the natural environment and including social aspects in planning was
realized to sustain resources on the planet (Marques et al., 2015). Several organizations have acknowledged
this need and have defined sustainability (Keeble, 1988; Walker, 1991). Additionally, in recent times, climate
change has emerged as a challenge of this century; hence, the other important aspect of infrastructure planning
and development is resilience. Infrastructure systems presently face the uncertainty emerging from the planning

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 361

and design stage, which is magnified due to growing climate change-related stress (Bondank et al., 2018). Hence,
environmental resource governance is observing a shift in focus from attaining only optimized and efficient sys-
tems to those capable of adapting during stress periods (Lawson et al., 2020). Moreover, it is not economically
viable to design infrastructure to prevent failure from all possible disasters. Hence, resilience has to be incorpor-
ated to achieve a good design strategy. From a systems and information engineering perspective, resilience has
been defined as ‘the ability of the system to withstand a major disruption within acceptable degradation par-
ameters and to recover within an acceptable time and composite costs and risks’ (Ouyang et al., 2012).
Adaptive and resilient approaches in all stages of an infrastructure project can minimize the effects of climate
change and urbanization (Radhakrishnan et al., 2018).
With economic development on the rise, several cities are booming. However, the metro cities have been sig-
nificantly impacted due to uncertain factors and are hence the most vulnerable. In this context, UWI needs to
fulfil the expectations of sustainability and resilience. Sustainability is essential to make the water infrastructure
affordable, acceptable, environmentally prudent and relevant for the given location, whereas resilience in the
water infrastructure is essential to cope with the emerging hazards related to climate change. The water infra-
structure should have flexibility, adaptability and reliability to deliver the varying service levels expected
during emergencies.
A conceptual framework has been proposed by Zhang & Li (2018) to capture the differences between urban
resilience and urban sustainability. While sustainable systems cannot necessarily be resilient and vice versa, it is
important for the UWI to fulfil the expectations of both these aspects. However, hardly any studies have
approached UWI planning that simultaneously addresses both sustainability and resilience.

1.2. Focus of the present study

The present work puts forth the sustainability and resilience aspects of UWI individually and discusses the sig-
nificance of decentralized systems in adopting both approaches throughout the planning, design,
implementation and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of UWI. This study identifies the drawbacks of the con-
ventional approaches of the centralized planning of UWI and proposes a shift towards decentralization for
achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and mitigating climate change. Furthermore, the article
identifies various drivers of decentralization to develop an understanding of decentralized water infrastructure’s
ability to simultaneously achieve sustainability and build resilience. Prominently, the concept of incorporating the
scale of decentralization in the planning aspects of UWI is introduced and emphasized. Stormwater is excluded
from the broad scope of the article and the scope of UWI in discussion is limited to water supply and sewerage.
With this background, the objectives of the study are:
1. To identify the lacunae in current urban water management
2. To identify the drivers for decentralized UWI
3. To introduce the concept of scaled decentralization in UWI and highlight its significance to achieve sustain-
ability and build resilience

2. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CURRENT UWI

The current UWI is mainly focused on a centralized approach to infrastructure creation. Historically, such an
approach had evolved to provide clean drinking water and maintain hygienic conditions in emerging cities in
the early 1900s (Luby et al., 2020). During that time, the cities and urbanization scales were not of the scale
in current times. The centralized approach has commonly been adopted without thinking about the needs of
future scenarios after it achieved the expected results of controlling disease outbreaks. The centralized infrastruc-
ture approach is conceived and proliferated in developed countries and since colonial periods, it has been

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 362

adopted in developing countries. Similarly, the wastewater treatment technologies that emerged in developed
countries are being adopted in developing countries without considering the appropriateness of these technol-
ogies (Singhirunnusorn & Stenstrom, 2009; Kalbar et al., 2012b).
The disadvantages of centralized UWI are now evident (Libralato et al., 2012; Eggimann et al., 2015; Jung et al.,
2018). Centralized systems are no longer deemed appropriate to address the challenges of UWI (Böhm et al.,
2011), suggesting an urgent need to rethink how UWI is planned and implemented. The coordination among var-
ious departments in a utility becomes complex with an increased level of centralization, especially for large-scale
systems. In extreme events, a centralized system might fail to deliver even a basic service due to the failure of
critical routes. In contrast, decentralized systems cannot get support from other subsystems due to the absence
of interconnections. Hence, ‘Centralized Control of Decentralized Execution’ is an emerging approach that com-
bines the advantages and disadvantages of centralized and decentralized systems (Diao, 2021). The following
sections describe the major lacunae in the centralized UWI by discussing the water supply and wastewater treat-
ment infrastructure. In summary, the lack of a holistic approach in planning UWI is highlighted.

2.1. Water supply

The shrinking budgets for public infrastructures and the lowering of subsidies amidst the massive cost of main-
tenance and restoration works make investments in centralized projects questionable (Eggimann et al., 2015).
Mumbai city, withdrawing over 3,220 million litre per day (MLD) water from outside its boundary, ranked
third in the list of the top 20 urban agglomerations responsible for massive cross-basin water transfer to meet
the needs of the urban population (McDonald et al., 2014).

2.1.1. Treatment
A major discrepancy posing problems in the funding of water supply projects is that the government allots funds
based on the current population, whereas the treatment plants are designed for the future population forecasted.
Additionally, centralized treatment systems are more vulnerable to extreme events and a lack of alternate water
supply arrangements can cause severe inconvenience to the users. The recent example of the failure of Asia’s lar-
gest water treatment plant in the Bhandup water complex in Mumbai clearly shows the impact due to the failure
of a centralized system (Hindustan Times, 2021). Water supply to the entire Mumbai region was affected as this
treatment plant got inundated for the first time in its life due to the sudden heavy rainfall.

2.1.2. Transmission and distribution

Conventional water infrastructure is planned and designed on a largely centralized basis, and hence efficient
coordination among and within systems is essential, thereby making the operations complicated (Arora et al.,
2015). Additionally, there is a risk of leakage during long-distance water transportation from the source to treat-
ment facilities and households. Leakages have an economic and environmental impact on pipelines, resulting in
considerable piping system expenditures. The leakage losses are estimated to be around 20%, whereas in some
cases, it escalates to more than 50% of distributed freshwater (Haghighi & Ramos, 2012; Ghorpade et al.,
2021a). The significant variation in losses may be attributed to the age of the infrastructure system and the
location. Challenges in monitoring a long network by a central authority increase the chances of illegal connec-
tions in centralized water supply systems as people deprived of water access resort to illegal means to extract
water from municipal pipelines.
The large-scale centralized water supply systems tend to lose hydraulic efficiency as the network becomes
unmanageable (Ghorpade et al., 2021b). Also, the service tanks in such systems are located outside the service
zone, which is not an ideal hydraulic design (Kalbar & Gokhale, 2019). The US Fire Administration guidelines
suggest adopting a decentralized approach for water supply provisioning and creating small-scale storage tanks

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 363

instead of providing central storage with equivalent capacity (Harry, 2008). Such decentralized systems will have
net lower capital costs and will have many other operational benefits. For example, the multi-outlet tank usage
demonstrated by Ghorpade et al. (2021a) will help in the formation of district-metered areas without numerous
valve operations and achieve equitable water supply.

2.2. Wastewater
The challenges of the wastewater sector are severe, as it is only visible developments such as infrastructure and
water supply that receive priority from politicians and a lack of commitment by the government of developing
countries is identified as the real problem in sanitation (Mara, 2012). Furthermore, to tackle sanitation issues,
the provision of toilets is focused on, whereas sewage treatment is neglected. Even if sewage treatment plants
(STPs) are constructed, the planning is not ensured from the perspective of sustaining technologies or operational
and maintenance aspects of STPs. The incorporation of life-cycle thinking in sewerage infrastructure planning is
lacking, resulting in several obstacles or failures in achieving effective wastewater treatment.

2.2.1. Collection
The exclusion of sewage conveyance in the planning of STPs is a major hindrance that has resulted in the failure
of centralized STPs. Research on the life cycle of conventional wastewater systems, including sewers and STPs,
has shown the significant environmental impact of sewer infrastructure alone in both the construction and oper-
ation phases (Ranjan et al., 2019). The optimum degree of centralization depends on terrain conditions and
settlement dispersion, with the latter having a prominent impact (Eggimann et al., 2015). A typical sewerage net-
work consists of laterals, branch sewers and trunk sewer lines that ultimately deliver the sewage to the treatment
plant. Gravity sewers are constructed at a slope, and hence, the depth of the sewer is proportional to the length of
the network, reaching higher depths in a centralized system. The increased excavation for underground sewers
results in high capital costs (Sood et al., 2023). Although centralized infrastructure helps achieve a greater
scale of economy in treatment, it tends to diseconomy in the scale regarding sewer network construction,
where long distances have to be covered and vast volumes of potable water are required to keep the sewerage
system clean (Libralato et al., 2012). Moreover, since almost 80% of investment costs are attributed to the
sewer network, it becomes pertinent to give more importance to the economics of sewage conveyance in the plan-
ning phase (Eggimann et al., 2015).
There is a lack of scientific guidelines regarding the effective and regular maintenance of sewerage and septage
systems. Additionally, safety measures are often neglected during the O&M of sewers. Despite the prevalence of
norms regarding the usage of safety devices during sewage disposal, a lack of stringent monitoring and authoriz-
ation on the ground results in severe accidents onsite (Scroll, 2019). Also, unregulated practices such as
construction over sewer networks are prevalent in congested cities leading to accidents. The recent explosion
underneath a private bank in Pakistan due to gas accumulation in sewers is an example of such unsafe practices
(TOI, 2021).

2.2.2. Treatment and disposal

The polluted water disposed by the cities is typically abstracted by cities located at the downstream end or used
for irrigation purposes, which can again enter the food cycle. Thus, the cities do not have any incentives or obli-
gations for reusing or recycling the wastewater generated and are not accountable for treating their effluent or
recycling it. The World Bank considers the unbundling of services as an opportunity to improve operational effi-
ciency by introducing the private sector (Parkinson & Tayler, 2003). In case of uncertainty and not reaching the
expected urban growth, centralized systems tend to remain idle for long periods. For example, the Kamothe STP
in Navi Mumbai, India was designed for 80 MLD; however, currently, only 20 MLD of wastewater is treated and

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 364

disposed of in a nearby creek (TOI, 2016). In these circumstances, the construction of smaller decentralized units
tends to reduce the financial risks (Roefs et al., 2017) and achieve complete infrastructure utilization. The centra-
lized STPs are commonly designed based on the conventional activated sludge process or the sequential batch
reactor (CPCB, 2021). Irrespective of the size of STPs, the use of aerators in mechanized treatment systems con-
sumes around 75% of energy during biological treatment (Kalbar et al., 2012a; Maktabifard, 2018). As the energy
delivered to the STPs from external grids is obtained through fossil fuels, wastewater treatment contributes to sig-
nificant greenhouse gas emissions.
The treated effluent from centralized systems in developing countries such as India is commonly disposed of in
nearby water bodies. Their distant location hampers the possibility of providing treated wastewater for secondary
usage. The quantification of environmental benefits in decentralized systems is significant in economic feasibility
assessments since decentralized-level reuse projects become economically viable only after considering environ-
mental benefits (Kuttuva et al., 2018). On these lines, the need to implement circular economy principles of
reduce, reuse, recycle, reclaim, recover and restore has been identified for urban water management (Kakwani
& Kalbar, 2020).

2.3. Lack of a holistic approach for planning UWI

The present approach to water provisioning in cities and its implications on the environment is depicted in
Figure 1. There is a common practice of transporting freshwater from long distances to meet the domestic, indus-
trial and agricultural needs for the development of cities, which involves huge transportation costs and consumes
energy. Agriculture involves an indiscriminate use of artificial nitrogen fertilizers, while nitrogen manufacturing
utilizes 1–2% of the global energy supply (Batstone et al., 2015), making fertilizer production highly energy-inten-
sive. Almost 60% of annual nitrogen consumed in food production is not recovered in usable forms or products,
and it accumulates in the soil or is lost in the environment (Mosier et al., 2004). Also, the soilless agriculture
intensively practiced in urban areas relies on the use of inorganic fertilizers that consume the non-renewable
nutrient phosphorus, thereby resulting in both local and global impacts (Arcas-Pilz et al., 2021). Furthermore,
urban citizens are increasingly consuming synthetic detergents containing phosphorus. Also, the food imported
into the urban environment has increased the accumulation of nutrients in the cities (Wu et al., 2019). The exces-
sive nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in soil, water and the atmosphere due to agricultural activities and
synthetic detergent usage are causing nitrate pollution, eutrophication and greenhouse gas emissions, respect-
ively, and eventually disturb the natural nitrogen and phosphorus cycles (Cui et al., 2021).
The stringent norms for nitrogen and phosphorus removal at the STPs demand the adoption of tertiary treat-
ment processes requiring a significant amount of energy, as shown in Figure 1. Instead, the treated wastewater
from STPs can be stringently monitored to meet irrigation water standards and thus be reused for agriculture.
This practice will prevent additional expenses of removing nutrients from domestic wastewater and the use of
nutrient-laden treated wastewater for irrigation will increase the crop yield. Furthermore, studies have reported
that fertilization with human urine from areas near the farms also uses less energy (Lima et al., 2020). Thus,
instead of disposing of the treated wastewater in rivers, it can be used for non-potable purposes such as irrigation
and toilet flushing, thereby reducing freshwater demand in agriculture. The saved quantity of freshwater can
further be diverted for catering to the drinking water requirements of people who are still deprived of a clean
water supply.
Wastewater treatment facilities should be looked at as factories manufacturing valuable resources in all three
forms such as solids, liquids and gases. There is a possibility of recovering energy as well as materials from STPs.
Technologies such as anaerobic digestion, microbial fuel cells for recovering energy and struvite precipitation for
recovering phosphorus have been implemented at different scales in the urban settings. The use of by-product

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 365

Fig. 1 | Energy and nutrient flows in a centralized urban wastewater system and envisaged changes.

sludge can become valuable in agriculture. Furthermore, energy recovery can make the operation of STPs eco-
friendly and financially viable. In this manner, incorporating circular economy principles for managing waste-
water can transform sanitation into a sustainable service (Rodriguez et al., 2020).
Furthermore, apart from domestic sewage, the modern lifestyle of urban citizens has introduced emerging con-
taminants through pesticides, insecticides, toxic wastes from industries, etc. Emerging contaminants are defined
as any natural as well as synthetically occurring chemical or micro-organism that can potentially cause damage to
the ecology or human health after it is received by the environment and is left unmonitored (Philip et al., 2018).
Analysis of historical data has proved the deteriorating water quality of rivers to be associated with increasing
urbanization taking place in cities lying on the banks of rivers (Lokhande & Tare, 2021). A longitudinal
survey along the Ahar River in Udaipur, India has reported concentrations of emerging contaminants in the
wastewater similar to those of high-income countries, even up to 10 km downstream of the high-density areas
(Williams et al., 2019). The UWI in developing countries such as India should thus be capable of responding
to upcoming challenges such as handling emerging contaminants.
The intrinsic limitations of centralized systems do not meet the expectations of holistic planning required for
future-ready UWI. The new generation of UWI should have the capability to address all the concerns of sustain-
ability as well as resilience right from the planning stage. This is possible by shifting the current paradigm of

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 366

infrastructure creation to decentralized systems. Decentralization is the only viable approach to overcome these
issues, making decentralized UWI in urban planning a fundamental requirement.

3. DRIVERS FOR DECENTRALIZATION

In the current scenario of India and other developing countries, the centralized approach has become a favourite
of consultants, contractors and politicians. It offers an opportunity to plan large projects, allowing all the stake-
holders to utilize the funds in a single project proposal. Although this leads to great convenience for some
stakeholders, such large projects result in the wastage of financial and environmental resources due to the
under-utilization of infrastructure in the initial years. For example, a recent report by the Central Pollution Con-
trol Board (CPCB), India shows that out of 1,631 STPs (planned and installed) with a total capacity of 36,668
MLD, only 1,093 STPs are operational treating approximately 73% of sewage, i.e., 26,869 MLD of sewage
(CPCB, 2021). On the contrary, well-planned and phase-wise infrastructure development will completely utilize
the infrastructure and reduce operational costs. Despite decentralized infrastructures gaining popularity,
inadequate efforts have been made in developing planning tools to harness these opportunities. Apart from effi-
cient resource utilization, there are numerous other benefits associated with decentralization, whose
understanding will only escalate the adoption of decentralized UWI. Hence, some of the drivers who may accel-
erate the use of decentralized systems have been identified from the perspectives of sustainability and resilience
and are discussed in the following sub-sections.

3.1. Sustainability
The sustainability definition in the context of water infrastructure has been extended as ‘infrastructure designed
and managed to fully contribute to the objectives of society, now and in the future, while maintaining their eco-
logical, environmental and hydrological integrity’ (Marques et al., 2015). The triangular framework of
sustainability based on economic growth and efficiency, social justice and environmental protection is widely
used for managing natural resources (Sahely et al., 2005). Furthermore, the sustainability of any product or
system has been commonly associated with the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach, including social, environ-
mental and economic dimensions (Marques et al., 2015), which is inadequate in addressing sustainability
issues. Hence, subsequent studies have also considered technical and functional aspects such as durability,
reliability, performance and flexibility, evaluation of policy initiatives and governing institutions (Kalbar et al.,
2016; Rathnayaka et al., 2016). Sustainability is, thus, a critical perspective to be considered by planners and
decision-makers while creating UWI. Achieving sustainability is one of the main drivers for decentralized
UWI and it is gained by virtue of various factors, which are described in detail in Table 1.

3.2. Resilience
Water sensitivity has become a key transition in urban areas and accordingly, cities have begun to adapt to major
changes happening in the world. The worldwide expansion of urban areas, population growth, limitations due to
resource scarcity and the accompanying climate change have enhanced the need for resilient water systems. In
the context of UWI, resilience refers to the ability of water systems to minimize the magnitude and duration of
water supply service failure when subjected to extreme conditions (Diao, 2021). In this regard, a paradigm
shift occurred from fail-safe design strategies to safe-fail (resilient) design strategies, penetrating water infrastruc-
ture systems (Ahern, 2011). Water infrastructure resilience is relatively a new topic in both research and industry
and has been identified as a requirement for the future.
Resilient design systems aim to sense, absorb and adapt to disturbances while maintaining essential function-
alities (Leigh & Lee, 2019). Resilience has been associated with characteristics such as robustness, rapidity or

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 367

Table 1 | Sustainability aspects of decentralized UWI

Driver Description

Economic benefits • Improved pressure in water supply networks

• Energy savings due to the phased and modular development of infrastructure
• Easy operation of sewerage systems owing to less depth of excavation
• Decentralized systems prove economical over the long operational life of the UWI
• Create opportunity to adopt nature-based solutions for wastewater treatment
Social benefits • Equitable water distribution can be achieved in the tail-end of cities
• Utilization of local labour and women can generate employment
• Delegating O&M authority to community may imbibe a sense of ownership that sustains STPs
• Modular designs of decentralized treatment units are relatively easy to install
• Decentralized systems strengthen local government and achieve equity of resources
Market for recycled • The availability of treated water close to the end-use location avoids the redistribution cost of
water reclaimed water (point-of-sale reuse)
• Decentralized systems suitable for mixed land-use pattern wherein a water exchange network can
be established between residential, commercial and industrial thus reduce freshwater dependency
Resource recovery • Wastewater and sludge, recognized as resource carriers amidst the energy-intensive production of
nitrogen fertilizers and the depleting reserves of phosphorus rock, can be recovered in
decentralized systems
• Plant-based solutions for phosphorus recovery from wetlands or algal ponds are an attractive
option
• Adoption of natural treatment systems in a decentralized manner can generate useful by-products
such as fish feed, biomass, animal feed, and biodiesel
Environmental impacts • Reduced operational energy in the decentralized UWI results in reduced greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions
• Opportunity to create circular economy at the local scale and closing the nutrient loops resulting
in better water quality
• Full capacity utilization happens in decentralized systems reducing unnecessary wastage of
resources
Ease of governance • The installation of decentralized systems involves less complexity due to lesser number of
institutions involved
• The tendency of delays in large infrastructure projects due to land acquisition and tendering is
avoided in decentralized systems

recovery, redundancy, reliability and buffering. The concept of resilience has multidisciplinary origins, which
leads to multiple interpretations. The changes appear to be gradual, with many cities still investing in traditional
strategies. However, with a growing awareness of the importance of climate change, disasters, increased water
demand, the urban communities are progressively expecting resilience in UWI to cater to the future uncertainties
in urban water supplies. Spiller et al. (2015) have considered robustness, adaptive capacity and flexibility as the
three main components of resilience.
The robustness of technical systems denotes their ability to function and perform to meet the set objectives even
amidst changing environments and vulnerable operating conditions (Spiller et al., 2015). Robustness is the
capacity of a treatment system to withstand a disturbance without entering a phase of unsatisfactory performance
(Cuppens et al., 2012). For example, a robust water supply and sewerage infrastructure is the one that continues to
function satisfactorily till the end of the design period amidst varying loads, influent characteristics and effluent
quality standards. Interestingly, a resilient system is allowed to fail under extreme conditions, but the ability to
recover quickly from stress and sustain the minimum functionality and service is referred to as adaptability or

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 368

adaptive capacity. The time taken by the system to recover from a perturbation and regain its satisfactory perform-
ance plays a key role and is referred to as rapidity (Cuppens et al., 2012). Furthermore, the flexibility of a system
denotes the ability of the infrastructure to cope with changing operational conditions in response to emerging
circumstances by entailing changes in scale, functionality, structure and operational objectives (Spiller et al.,
2015). Flexibility refers to the ability of UWI to meet the newer guidelines with minimal infrastructural changes.
It facilitates the integration of unpredicted advances in technologies, such as easy retrofitting for resource recov-
ery options or capacity expansion (Spiller et al., 2015). The advantages of decentralized systems with regard to
resilience have been outlined in Table 2.

4. SCALED DECENTRALIZED UWI

Decentralized UWI is beneficial in multiple ways for all the stakeholders, as such systems have the potential to
achieve equitable resource distribution, SDG 10 (reduced inequalities) and SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation).
Decentralized treatment can be an ideal pathway for establishing socio-techno-economically viable wastewater
treatment solutions in developing areas. However, the crucial challenge in implementing these systems is decid-
ing the scale of decentralization.
Every engineering system has its own scale of economy, which offers economic benefits during construction
and operation. However, there are no further benefits associated with scaling up after achieving a particular
scale in a given system. Also, the management-related challenges of smaller decentralized infrastructure increase
with the number of small systems, subsequently escalating the maintenance cost in proportion. For example,
Kigali city completely failed in handling onsite sanitation systems at the individual and collective levels
(Kazora & Mourad, 2018). Also, the effluent violation rates for small-sized plants (0.01 MGD) are reported to
be 10 times higher than those observed in larger plants, exceeding 100 MGD (Vedachalam et al., 2015). Thus,
too-small systems also do not offer benefits due to the scale of the economy or attain the water quality standards
and, instead, pose additional challenges related to the operation and governance of the system. With regard to
integrated water and wastewater treatment systems, deciding an appropriate degree of decentralization for

Table 2 | Resilience aspects of the decentralized UWI

Driver Description

Robustness • Decentralized systems are less vulnerable to extreme weather events

• Failure of centralized system performance affects the entire region, whereas decentralized systems allow
to cater small regions and non-performance of the single system does not affect another, hence more
robust approach
• Varying hydraulic loads and water quality emerging from future changes can be easily tackled in
decentralized systems
Adaptive • Creating a new infrastructure to continue the service provision in the case of failure can easily be
capacity achieved for decentralized systems of smaller capacity
• Decentralized systems have greater adaptability and hence resilience as they can draw water from
multiple water sources
Flexibility • Decentralized systems facilitate flexibility by virtue of phasing out the construction of wastewater
treatment infrastructure with time
• Decentralized systems are easy to retrofit and hence can be modified to achieve newer regulations
• The learnings from localized problems can be incorporated while designing the future phases of
decentralized STPs

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 369

implementation has been identified as an engineering challenge (Woods et al., 2013). The issue of the scale of
implementation has been pointed out to have significance in the implementation of decentralized systems
(Arora et al., 2015). Hence, it is essential to plan the UWI, so that maximum benefits of scale of the economy
are gained. Such a decentralized approach with an optimum scale of operation is essential for the smooth
functioning of UWI (Kalbar & Gokhale, 2019). Moreover, climate change, population expansion and
ageing infrastructure pose unprecedented challenges to urban water systems in this century. With developed
countries on the verge of replacing their age-old infrastructure amidst the systems outliving their initial design
periods (Nikolopoulos et al., 2019), the proposed scaled decentralization can be used to replace the conven-
tional UWI.
The distinction between centralized and decentralized treatment systems is depicted in Figure 2. Various defi-
nitions of the decentralized approach are documented in the literature and have been framed around population
services or development characteristics. For example, Sharma et al. (2013) have defined a decentralized approach
as the ‘water, wastewater and storm water services at property, cluster and development scale that utilize alterna-
tive water resources based on fit-for-purpose concept’. Libralato et al. (2012) have systematically defined various
configurations of centralization and decentralization. Furthermore, decentralized wastewater treatment includes
systems that treat wastewater from small households or groups of dwellings and dispose of the effluent near the
point of waste generation itself (Ranjan et al., 2019). Also, Paul et al. (2019) have proposed classification of cen-
tralization and decentralization based on potable and non-potable water reuse systems. Recently, Sood et al.
(2023) have comprehensively documented the advantages and disadvantages of centralized and decentralized
water systems.

Fig. 2 | Centralized and decentralized infrastructures.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 370

4.1. Trade-offs between centralized and decentralized UWI

The trade-offs between adopting a highly centralized or highly decentralized UWI are depicted in Figure 3, where
the effects of these systems on sustainability and resilience are notionally depicted. The x-axis denotes the scale of
decentralization, for example, city level or community level or household level. The y-axis denotes the parameter
representative of drivers that are normalized on a scale of low to high. The sustainability aspect is discussed
through six parameters, namely life-cycle costs, the potential for recycling water, resource recovery, social
benefits, environmental impacts and ease of governance, while the resilience aspect is indicated through three
parameters, namely robustness, adaptive capacity and flexibility. Based on the discussion on drivers for decentra-
lization in Section 3, this section summarizes the notional trends of all parameters for sustainability and resilience
based on the author’s understanding of UWI.
With respect to sustainability, the life-cycle cost (comprising both capital and O&M costs) of highly centralized
systems tends to be higher and it reduces towards decentralization (Tjandraatmadja et al., 2005) up to a certain
point beyond which the treatment cost increases due to an increased number of STPs. The social benefits in terms
of community involvement, women participation and local labour employment are higher in decentralized sys-
tems (Lekshmi et al., 2020). Decentralization provides greater opportunities for a market for recycled water
and further reducing the redistribution cost (Kobayashi et al., 2020). Hence, the potential for recycling water
is higher for decentralized UWI and is more economical as compared to centralized systems (Kavvada et al.,
2018). Furthermore, decentralized systems favour a higher resource recovery ratio due to the ease of source sep-
aration. Also, the resource recovery is economically viable at a larger level than at household levels (Libralato
et al., 2012). Coupling the scale and source separation aspects, resource recovery is the highest for an appropriate
scale of implementation. Considering the environmental impacts of wastewater treatment, centralized systems
tend to consume more energy and hence emit more greenhouse gas emissions (Kavvada et al., 2016). The

Fig. 3 | Ideal zone of UWI for achieving sustainability and resilience based on various parameters.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 371

environmental impacts reduce towards decentralized systems up to a certain point, beyond which a greater quantity
of materials and resources consumed in treatment systems are associated with greater embodied emissions. Further-
more, the coordination among the service providers is better managed in decentralized systems operating at a
community scale as against individual households. The O&M of small-sized infrastructure systems is relatively
easy. Also, the complexity involved in outsourcing infrastructure projects increases for highly centralized systems
and causes inconvenience in implementation, for example, delays due to tendering, land acquisition, involvement
of multiple agencies, etc. Coupling the above trends, it is observed that the ease of governance is on the lower side
for centralized systems, increasing towards decentralization up to a point, beyond which it further reduces.
As far as resilience is concerned, decentralized systems function well amidst changing environments and can
resume service in less time than centralized systems. Centralized systems are less robust and more vulnerable to
failures. For example, water supply systems use natural water bodies as their source, which might be at greater
risk of flood or drought or any other case of water contamination (Liu et al., 2021). Decentralized systems can
have multiple or localized water sources, for example, reclaimed water for non-potable purposes thus increasing
their resilience. Hence, the robustness of centralized systems is the lowest and it increases towards decentraliza-
tion. With regard to adaptive capacity, the time within which service can be provided after failure is crucial. This
can be easily achieved for decentralized systems of smaller capacity, which can be installed in a few days or
months as against large centralized systems that may take even years to get commissioned. Also, moderate invest-
ments are suggested to achieve increased recoverability, which also result in enhanced robustness (Liu et al.,
2021). Additionally, the organizational aspect of resilience plays a key role in implementation. Decision-making
during a crisis can be better achieved at the community level than individual households, while it may get prolonged
in highly centralized projects. Thus, adaptive capacity increases towards decentralization up to a certain point,
beyond which it decreases slightly. Furthermore, the need for large systems is suggested for increased resilience;
however, a large capacity of such large systems remains idle in the initial years resulting in capital costs being
futile. In this background, reducing investments by building infrastructure that provides service for only 10 years
is suggested instead of planning the service provision for 50 years (Giordano, 2012). Implementing decentralized
systems in a phase-wise manner proves to be cheaper, more efficient and also capable of responding to new devel-
opments occurring in the area, earning higher flexibility. Thus, the decentralized UWI provides greater flexibility
than their centralized counterparts and hence is depicted by an increasing trend in Figure 3.
To holistically plan and implement UWI, the culmination of all the above parameters is needed. Hence, the
notional trends of these parameters are collectively shown in Figure 3. In an ideal UWI, the sustainability and
resilience of UWI should be the maximum, which can be only possible through the appropriate level of decen-
tralization. As Figure 3 depicts, the resilience of UWI increases towards decentralized systems and stabilizes
after one size or scale, whereas sustainability decreases beyond one point. It is observed that the most economical
systems having maximum benefits tend to fall between the highly centralized and highly decentralized systems.
Consequently, the mid-zone becomes most favourable from the perspective of simultaneously achieving sustain-
ability and resilience. This hypothesis is supported by the results of a comparative life-cycle assessment of
centralized, community, neighbourhood and household scales that have shown the community level to perform
better among others for the same treatment technology and end-use (Kobayashi et al., 2020). Also, amidst the high
O&M costs making greywater reuse uneconomical at the household scale, the use of sewer mining at a neigh-
bourhood scale is suggested as a potential reuse scheme (Makropoulos et al., 2018).

4.2. The concept of scaled decentralization

Decentralized systems are often considered equivalent to onsite treatment systems. Furthermore, nature-based
solutions such as constructed wetlands or waste stabilization ponds are also suggested as potential technologies

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 372

that can be implemented in a decentralized manner. However, either onsite or natural treatment systems
cannot be solely categorized as decentralized solutions. Decentralized systems can operate at different spatial
scales, namely, onsite scale (operated by property holders); cluster or development scale (operating under
shared ownership) and distributed systems serving large developments (owned by water utilities) (Sharma
et al., 2013). Decentralization cannot always be deemed small scale and needs to be context-specific (Libralato
et al., 2012). Cluster systems are often used in communities and keep a balance between onsite and centralized
treatment facilities (Vedachalam et al., 2015). Similarly, a semi-centralized approach has been suggested as a
viable solution for old city centres as well as the growing expansions, and the guiding principle for scaling
semi-centralized systems is ‘as small as possible as big as necessary’ (Böhm et al., 2011). In our study, the water
supply or wastewater collection and treatment systems designed for a discretely selected population size to achieve
the scale of the economy that can maximize sustainability and resilience at a given location are referred to as
‘scaled decentralized systems’ (SDSs). SDSs should be designed considering population density, land availability,
regulations, stakeholder interests and fund availability with the Urban Local Body (ULB). SDS has the advantage
of diffusing the risk of extreme weather events, making them more climate-resilient. The focus of the current study
is to bring out the importance of planning and implementation of SDS to achieve sustainable and resilient UWI.
Planning urban water supply involves decision aspects such as the location of elevated storage reservoirs, the
sizing of networks and deciding appropriate zones. Similarly, planning water reuse involves numerous decisions,
for example, location, size, treatment technology, sewer size and appropriate end-use. Several trade-offs are
involved in the decision of deciding the scale of implementing decentralized infrastructure. Computing the tip-
ping point where the advantages of peripheral water reuse will outweigh the benefits of centralized treatment
is complicated (Woods et al., 2013). Amidst these practical difficulties, the present study proposes using the
size of cities to determine the scale of decentralization for UWI. Based on the author’s experience and discussion
with experts, a scale of decentralization is suggested depending on the size of the city and the estimated sewage
generation. For example, as illustrated in Figure 4, small cities can be regarded as those generating approximately

Fig. 4 | Scaled decentralized UWI for different sizes of cities.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 373

10 MLD of sewage as against a metro city generating sewage around or exceeding 2,000 MLD. The authors pro-
pose the scale of decentralization to range from 1 to 2 MLD STP for small cities, whereas it can go up to as high as
50–80 MLD for metro cities. A centralized scale for a smaller city can be a decentralized scale for a metro city.
Thus, it should not be the absolute magnitude of plant capacity but the relative magnitude with respect to the size
of the city that decides the scale of decentralization in UWI planning.
Unless such an appropriately scaled decentralization is adopted, equitable pressure distribution in water supply
systems and cost-efficient sewage treatment cannot be achieved. Also, the recycling of treated wastewater and
resources recovered from the system cannot be economically redistributed and efficiently used. Such an optimally
scaled decentralized UWI will offer the following benefits compared to the prevailing centralized approach of
UWI:

• Attainment of SDG 6 Clean Water and Sanitation, SDG 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities and SDG 13
Climate Action;
• High flexibility, which will address hazards emerging from climate change;
• High adaptability will be useful for responding to different rates of urbanization in the city;
• High reliability, as at least some of the systems will function during the catastrophic events;
• An opportunity for low-cost and land-based solutions for UWI;
• Reduced O&M cost as phasing of the UWI is possible;
• Opportunity to accelerate the circular economy in the water sector.

4.3. Lack of studies on scaled decentralized configurations

Despite the growing inclination towards decentralization, the cost optimization of various decentralized UWI
alternatives has not been studied in detail. Very few studies have used optimization models analysing the cost
of wastewater management systems across the varied extent of decentralization (Eggimann et al., 2015; Jung
et al., 2018; Sood et al., 2023). Population density can be used as one of the criteria for determining the scale
of decentralization. For example, Mara (2012) has reported that beyond a population density of 160 persons
per hectare, the conventional underground drainage system becomes more economical than onsite or decentra-
lized systems. In another review, the study by Paul et al. (2019) shows decentralized treatment systems to have
two–three times more costs than centralized treatment systems. Zanni et al. (2019) have demonstrated that the
energy consumed in the distribution system plays a crucial role in the overall environmental performance. Ironi-
cally, the cost of the network is 70–80% of the total sewerage project cost which should actually determine
the scale of the implementation rather than treatment plant costs. On these lines, Sood et al. (2023) have com-
pared the costs of centralized and decentralized sewerage systems for the city of Ludhiana in India and have
found the capital costs to be almost comparable. However, there are no such studies available for different
alternatives of scaling, and hence, scaling factors for sewage collection networks are also not available.
There is no consensus reached due to the case-specific nature of the problem, and also, there is a need to estab-
lish adequate knowledge through in-depth assessments. The ‘optimal size’ of a city has been discussed in
academia; however, the question remains unsolved (Batty, 2008). In the science of establishing the ideal size
of a city, the role of physical infrastructure, particularly UWI, is significant. The complexity involved in planning
facilities at various scales in uncertain conditions necessitates using system-analytical tools complementing engin-
eering decisions in this sector (Woods et al., 2013). As there is no defined metric to determine the exact scale of
decentralization of UWI, the authors propose that for every city, the decentralization scale can be decided based
on the scale of the city.
A number of technology options are prevalent for planning the water supply and wastewater systems in a
decentralized manner that may include mechanized or nature-based solutions and low-cost or high-tech

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 374

advanced treatment technologies. Murphy et al. (2009) emphasized that ‘soft aspects’ of wastewater treatment
technology such as knowledge transfer mechanisms, capacity building and other social aspects need to be equally
considered with physical properties ‘hard aspects’. The study also mentioned that the situation or the context of
decision-making decides the appropriateness of technology, despite the proven success of technology in a labora-
tory or other field conditions. Hence, the decision regarding technology selection should be done on a case-by-
case basis, depending on the scale of implementing the UWI.
Several researchers have pointed out the benefits of decentralization in UWI. Additionally, the present study
has systematically discussed the significance of decentralized systems through various drivers from the perspec-
tives of sustainability and resilience. The variation of drivers across the scale of decentralization is illustrated
through notional trends, which has led to the definition of SDS, an approach that is a prominent contribution
to the existing literature. However, the study is based on a theoretical understanding emerging from the literature
review. This work can be regarded as a starting point in the discussion of SDS. Researchers can take up individual
drivers and quantify their variation across the scale of decentralization. Also, this quantification can be done for
different classes of cities, which can prove the hypothesized optimal scales proposed in Figure 4 through compu-
tational analysis.

5. CONCLUSION
The evolution of water infrastructure historically has been inclined towards planning and designing centralized
infrastructure. The cities are currently going through changes such as urbanization and climate change that posed
various stresses on the UWI. To cope with these challenges, there is a need for a paradigm shift in the way the
current UWI is planned, designed, implemented and operated. It is essential to consider sustainability and resi-
lience perspectives while creating new UWI or retrofitting the existing UWI. The current centralized UWI does
not allow enough opportunities for the water sector to practice a circular economy in the cities. Also, it is not
economical and environmentally sustainable to recycle the treated water and create new water sources in the pre-
vailing practice of centralized UWI. Moreover, centralized UWI does not offer any flexibility, adaptability and
overall resilience, which have recently gained significance amidst the emerging extreme events due to climate
change.
This study has identified the drivers for decentralized UWI from the perspectives of sustainability and resili-
ence. The present work argues that along with an emphasis on decentralization, there is a need for
considering the appropriate scale of implementation in decentralized UWI. The trade-offs between governance
aspects, redistribution costs, recycling opportunities, life-cycle costs and resilience between highly centralized
and highly decentralized systems are highlighted in this work. Although it is difficult to establish a perfect
number for scaled decentralization in a given context, the approach of moving towards the optimal zone combin-
ing centralized and decentralized treatment systems is the take-away message of this study. Lastly, the study
emphasizes that the overall UWI strategy is more important than the actual technological choices and presents
a perspective that technologies for decentralization can be both high-tech or low-tech and depends on the site
conditions and the scale of implementation. We hope that this study reaches the appropriate target audience
of researchers, practitioners and urban local bodies who will implement the learnings and further contribute
to quantifying the economic scale of decentralization through optimization models, case studies and policy
changes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The second author is grateful for the scholarship under the ‘Prime Minister’s Research Fellowship’ category at the
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 375

FUNDING
This work has received partial funding for the work from the Department of Science and Technology, Govern-
ment of India through the project ‘Fast Forward to SDG6: Acceptable and Affordable Water in Secondary
Indian Cities (4WARD)’ (project no. DST/TM/EWO/WTI/2K19/ UWS-03(C4)).

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS

All authors have read, understood, and have complied as applicable with the statement on ‘Ethical responsibil-
ities of Authors’ as found in the Instructions for Authors.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare there is no conflict.

REFERENCES

Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban
Planning 100(4), 341–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021.
Arcas-Pilz, V., Rufí-Salís, M., Parada, F., Petit-Boix, A., Gabarrell, X. & Villalba, G. (2021). Recovered phosphorus for a more
resilient urban agriculture: assessment of the fertilizer potential of struvite in hydroponics. Science of the Total
Environment 799, 149424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149424.
Arora, M., Malano, H., Davidson, B., Nelson, R. & George, B. (2015). Interactions between centralized and decentralized water
systems in urban context: a review. WIREs Water 2(6), 623–634. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1099.
Batstone, D. J., Hülsen, T., Mehta, C. M. & Keller, J. (2015). Platforms for energy and nutrient recovery from domestic
wastewater: a review. Chemosphere 140, 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.10.021.
Batty, M. (2008). The size, scale, and shape of cities. Science 319(5864), 769–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151419.
Böhm, H. R., Schramm, S., Bieker, S., Zeig, C., Anh, T. H. & Thanh, N. C. (2011). The semicentralized approach to integrated
water supply and treatment of solid waste and wastewater – a flexible infrastructure strategy for rapidly growing urban
regions: the case of Hanoi/Vietnam. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 13(4), 617–623. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10098-011-0378-9.
Bondank, E. N., Chester, M. V. & Ruddell, B. L. (2018). Water distribution system failure risks with increasing temperatures.
Environmental Science and Technology 52(17), 9605–9614. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01591.
CPCB (2021). National Inventory of Sewage Treatment Plants March 2021. March, 183. Available at: https://cpcb.nic.in/
openpdffile.php?id¼UmVwb3J0RmlsZXMvMTIyOF8xNjE1MTk2MzIyX21lZGlhcGhvdG85NTY0LnBkZg.
Cui, M., Guo, Q., Wei, R. & Wei, Y. (2021). Anthropogenic nitrogen and phosphorus inputs in a new perspective :
environmental loads from the mega economic zone and city clusters. Journal of Cleaner Production 283, 124589. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124589.
Cuppens, A., Smets, I. & Wyseure, G. (2012). Definition of realistic disturbances as a crucial step during the assessment of
resilience of natural wastewater treatment systems. Water Science and Technology 65(8), 1506–1513. https://doi.org/10.
2166/wst.2012.040.
Diao, K. (2021). Towards resilient water supply in centralized control and decentralized execution mode. Journal of Water
Supply: Research and Technology – AQUA 70(4), 449–466. https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2021.162.
Eggimann, S., Truffer, B. & Maurer, M. (2015). To connect or not to connect? Modelling the optimal degree of centralisation for
wastewater infrastructures. Water Research 84, 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.07.004.
Ghorpade, A., Sinha, A. K. & Kalbar, P. (2021a). Multi-outlet storage tanks to improve water distribution networks in India.
Urban Water Journal 18(7), 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2021.1914117.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 376

Ghorpade, A., Sinha, A. K. & Kalbar, P. P. (2021b). Drivers for intermittent water supply in India: critical review and
perspectives. Frontiers in Water 3(September), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2021.696630.
Giordano, T. (2012). Adaptive planning for climate resilient long-lived infrastructures. Utilities Policy, 23, 80–89. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jup.2012.07.001.
Haghighi, A. & Ramos, H. M. (2012). Detection of leakage freshwater and friction factor calibration in drinking networks using
central force optimization. Water Resources Management 26(8), 2347–2363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0020-6.
Harry, H. E. (2008). Water Supply Systems and Evaluation Methods. US Fire Administration, II(October).
Hindustan Times (2021). Mumbai’s Water Supply Hit as Bhandup Water Complex Inundates in Heavy Rainfall. Available at:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/mumbais-water-supply-hit-as-bhandup-water-complex-inundates-
in-heavy-rainfall-101626584402637.html (accessed 25 November 2021).
Jung, Y. T., Narayanan, N. C. & Cheng, Y. L. (2018). Cost comparison of centralized and decentralized wastewater management
systems using optimization model. Journal of Environmental Management 213, 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2018.01.081.
Kakwani, N. S. & Kalbar, P. P. (2020). Review of circular economy in urban water sector: challenges and opportunities in India.
Journal of Environmental Management 271(August 2019), 111010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111010.
Kalbar, P. P. (2021). Hybrid treatment systems: a paradigm shift to achieve sustainable wastewater treatment and recycling in
India. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 23(4), 1365–1373.
Kalbar, P. & Gokhale, P. (2019). Decentralized infrastructure approach for successful water supply systems in India: use of
multi-outlet tanks, shafts and manifolds. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology – AQUA 68(4), 295–301.
https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2019.158.
Kalbar, P. P., Karmakar, S. & Asolekar, S. R. (2012a). Technology assessment for wastewater treatment using multiple-attribute
decision-making. Technology in Society 34(4), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2012.10.001.
Kalbar, P. P., Karmakar, S. & Asolekar, S. R. (2012b). Selection of an appropriate wastewater treatment technology: a scenario-
based multiple-attribute decision-making approach. Journal of Environmental Management 113, 158–169. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.025.
Kalbar, P. P., Karmakar, S. & Asolekar, S. R. (2016). Life cycle-based decision support tool for selection of wastewater treatment
alternatives. Journal of Cleaner Production 117, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.036.
Kavvada, O., Horvath, A., Stokes-Draut, J. R., Hendrickson, T. P., Eisenstein, W. A. & Nelson, K. L. (2016). Assessing location
and scale of urban nonpotable water reuse systems for life-cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
Environmental Science & Technology 50, 13184–13194.
Kavvada, O., Nelson, K. L. & Horvath, A. (2018). Spatial optimization for decentralized non-potable water reuse.
Environmental Research Letters 13. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabef0.
Kazora, A. S. & Mourad, K. A. (2018). Assessing the sustainability of decentralized wastewater treatment systems in Rwanda.
Sustainability (Switzerland) 10(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124617.
Keeble, B. R. (1988). The Brundtland report: ‘our common future’. Medicine and War 4(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07488008808408783.
Kobayashi, Y., Ashbolt, N. J., Davies, E. G. R. & Liu, Y. (2020). Life cycle assessment of decentralized greywater treatment
systems with reuse at different scales in cold regions. Environment International 134(September 2019), 105215. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105215.
Kuttuva, P., Lele, S. & Mendez, G. V. (2018). Decentralized wastewater systems in Bengaluru, India: success or failure? Water
Economics and Policy 4(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2382624X16500430.
Lawson, E., Farmani, R., Woodley, E. & Butler, D. (2020). A resilient and sustainable water sector: barriers to the
operationalisation of resilience. Sustainability 12(5), 1797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051797.
Leigh, N. & Lee, H. (2019). Sustainable and resilient urban water systems: the role of decentralization and planning.
Sustainability 11(3), 918. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030918.
Lekshmi, B., Sharma, S., Sutar, R. S. Parikh, Y. J., Ranade, D. R. & Asolekar, S. R. (2020). Circular economy approach to women
empowerment through reusing treated rural wastewater using constructed wetlands. In Waste Management as Economic
Industry Towards Circular Economy. Ghosh, S. (ed.). Springer, Singapore, pp. 1–10.
Libralato, G., Volpi Ghirardini, A. & Avezzù, F. (2012). To centralise or to decentralise: an overview of the most recent trends in
wastewater treatment management. Journal of Environmental Management 94(1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2011.07.010.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 377

Lima, D., Matos, L., Cohim, E., Almeida-neto, J. A. D. & Kiperstok, A. (2020). Human urine fertiliser in the Brazilian semi-arid:
environmental assessment and water-energy-nutrient nexus. Science of the Total Environment 713, 136145. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136145.
Liu, J., Shao, Z. & Wang, W. (2021). Resilience assessment and critical point identification for urban water supply systems under
uncertain scenarios. Water (Switzerland) 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13202939.
Lokhande, S. & Tare, V. (2021). Spatio-temporal trends in the flow and water quality: response of river Yamuna to urbanization.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 193, 117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-021-08873-x.
Luby, S. P., Davis, J., Brown, R. R., Gorelick, S. M. & Wong, T. H. F. (2020). Broad approaches to cholera control in Asia: water,
sanitation and handwashing. Vaccine 38, A110–A117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.07.084.
Makropoulos, C., Rozos, E., Tsoukalas, I., Plevri, A., Karakatsanis, G., Karagiannidis, L., Makri, E., Lioumis, C., Noutsopoulos,
C., Mamais, D., Rippis, C. & Lytras, E. (2018). Sewer-mining: a water reuse option supporting circular economy, public
service provision and entrepreneurship. Journal of Environmental Management 216, 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2017.07.026.
Maktabifard, M. (2018). Achieving energy neutrality in wastewater treatment plants through energy savings and enhancing
renewable energy production. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology 17(4), 655–689. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11157-018-9478-x.
Mara, D. (2012). Sanitation: what’s the real problem? IDS Bulletin 43(2), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2012.
00311.x.
Marques, R. C., da Cruz, N. F. & Pires, J. (2015). Measuring the sustainability of urban water services. Environmental Science &
Policy 54, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.003.
McDonald, R. I., Weber, K., Padowski, J., Flörke, M., Schneider, C., Green, P. A., Gleeson, T., Eckman, S., Lehner, B.,
Balk, D., Boucher, T., Grill, G. & Montgomery, M. (2014). Water on an urban planet: urbanization and the reach of
urban water infrastructure. Global Environmental Change 27(1), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.
04.022.
Mosier, A., Freney, J. & Syers, J. K. (2004). Agriculture and the Nitrogen Cycle: Assessing the Impacts of Fertilizer Use. (Vol. 65).
Island Press, Washington.
Murphy, H. M., McBean, E. A. & Farahbakhsh, K. (2009). Appropriate technology - A comprehensive approach for water and
sanitation in the developing world. Technology in Society 31(2), 15–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2009.03.010.
Nikolopoulos, D., van Alphen, H. J., Vries, D., Palmen, L., Koop, S., van Thienen, P., Medema, G. & Makropoulos, C. (2019).
Tackling the ‘new normal’: a resilience assessment method applied to real-world urban water systems. Water (Switzerland)
11(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020330.
Ouyang, M., Dueñas-Osorio, L. & Min, X. (2012). A three-stage resilience analysis framework for urban infrastructure systems.
Structural Safety 36–37, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2011.12.004.
Parkinson, J. & Tayler, K. (2003). Decentralized wastewater management in peri-urban areas in low-income countries.
Environment and Urbanization 15(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1630/095624703101286556.
Paul, R., Kenway, S. & Mukheibir, P. (2019). How scale and technology influence the energy intensity of water recycling systems
– an analytical review. Journal of Cleaner Production 215, 1457–1480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.148.
Philip, J. M., Aravind, U. K. & Aravindakumar, C. T. (2018). Emerging contaminants in Indian environmental matrices – a
review. Chemosphere 190, 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.09.120.
Radhakrishnan, M., Pathirana, A., Ashley, R. M., Gersonius, B. & Zevenbergen, C. (2018). Flexible adaptation planning for
water sensitive cities. Cities 78(January), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.01.022.
Ranjan, R., Kumar, L. & Sabumon, P. C. (2019). Process performance and reuse potential of a decentralized wastewater
treatment system. Water Science and Technology 80(11), 2079–2090. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.046.
Rathnayaka, K., Malano, H. & Arora, M. (2016). Assessment of sustainability of urban water supply and demand management
options: a comprehensive approach. Water (Switzerland) 8(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/w8120595.
Rodriguez, D. J., Serrano, H. A., Delgado, A., Nolasco, D. & Saltiel, G. (2020). From Waste to Resource: Shifting Paradigms for
Smarter Wastewater Interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank, Washington, DC.
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(2017), 274–286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.051.
Roshan, A. & Kumar, M. (2020). Water end-use estimation can support the urban water crisis management: a critical review.
Journal of Environmental Management 268(336), 110663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110663.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest
 Water Policy Vol 25 No 4, 378

Sahely, H. R., Kennedy, C. A. & Adams, B. J. (2005). Developing sustainability criteria for urban infrastructure systems.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 32(1), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1139/l04-072.
Scroll.in, India’s Dirty Secret (2019). The Frequent Deaths of India’s Sewer Workers Isn’t A Governance Failure – They Are
Rooted in Caste. Available at: https://scroll.in/article/943264/the-frequent-deaths-of-indias-sewer-workers-isnt-a-
governance-failure-they-are-rooted-in-caste (accessed 25 November 2021).
Sharma, A. K., Tjandraatmadja, G., Cook, S. & Gardner, T. (2013). Decentralised systems – definition and drivers in the current
context. Water Science and Technology 67(9), 2091–2101. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2013.093.
Singhirunnusorn, W. & Stenstrom, M. K. (2009). Appropriate wastewater treatment systems for developing countries: criteria
and indictor assessment in Thailand. Water Science and Technology 59(9), 1873–1884. https://doi.org/10.2166/
wst.2009.215.
Sood, B., Lokhande, S., Kalbar, P. & Krishnankutty, M. (2023). Economic assessment of centralized and decentralized sewerage
network systems – a case study of Ludhiana City. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. doi:10.1061/JUPDDM/
UPENG-4095.
Spiller, M., Vreeburg, J. H. G., Leusbrock, I. & Zeeman, G. (2015). Flexible design in water and wastewater engineering –
definitions, literature and decision guide. Journal of Environmental Management 149, 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2014.09.031.
The Times of India (2016). 20 MLD Water From Kamothe STP Goes Down the Creek. Available at: https://timesofindia.
indiatimes.com/city/navi-mumbai/20-mld-water-from-kamothe-stp-goes-down-the-creek/articleshow/51500389.cms
(accessed 25 November 2021).
The Times of India (2021). Sewer Explosion Under Pak Bank Kills 12, Injures 13. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.
com/world/pakistan/sewer-explosion-under-pak-bank-kills-12-injures-13/articleshow/88364617.cms (accessed 22
December 2021).
Tjandraatmadja, G., Burn, S., McLaughlin, M. & Biswas, T. (2005). Rethinking urban water systems – revisiting concepts in
urban wastewater collection and treatment to ensure infrastructure sustainability. Water Science and Technology Water
Supply 5, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2005.0031.
Vedachalam, S., Vanka, V. S. & Riha, S. J. (2015). Reevaluating onsite wastewater systems: expert recommendations and
municipal decision-making. Water Policy 17(6), 1062–1078. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2015.159.
Walker, J. (1991). Caring for the earth. In Mining Survey, Vol. 2, pp. 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813147720_0019.
Williams, M., Kookana, R. S., Mehta, A., Yadav, S. K., Tailor, B. L. & Maheshwari, B. (2019). Emerging contaminants in a river
receiving untreated wastewater from an Indian urban centre. Science of the Total Environment 647, 1256–1265. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.084.
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. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000249.
Wu, J., Hartmann, T. E. & Chen, W. S. (2019). Toward sustainable management of phosphorus flows in a changing rural–urban
environment: recent advances, challenges, and opportunities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 40, 81–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.09.012.
Zanni, S., Cipolla, S. S., Fusco, E. d., Lenci, A., Altobelli, M., Currado, A., Maglionico, M. & Bonoli, A. (2019). Modeling for
sustainability: life cycle assessment application to evaluate environmental performance of water recycling solutions at the
dwelling level. Sustainable Production and Consumption 17, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.09.002.
Zhang, X. & Li, H. (2018). Urban resilience and urban sustainability: what we know and what do not know? Cities
72(December 2016), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.08.009.

First received 28 July 2022; accepted in revised form 17 February 2023. Available online 13 March 2023

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wp/article-pdf/25/4/359/1211942/025040359.pdf

by guest