Decision model to optimize wastewater treatment in the built environment

Holtzhower, D L (2015) Decision model to optimize wastewater treatment in the built environment. PhD thesis, University of Florida, USA.

Abstract

Water resource conservation and consumption is an integral component of future sustainable development given the increase in global population and subsequent growth in population density. Concern for both water quantity and quality will continue to grow globally as the competition for the resource is increased. Much attention is given to the supply side of the hydrologic cycle in built environment research and little is dedicated to buildings’ wastewater save for quality studies conducted at the centralized treatment facilities. A review of life cycle assessment studies of centralized wastewater treatment facilities, rural septic systems, and constructed wetlands revealed common indicators of ecological performance and maintenance and infrastructure constraints. Typically, indicators are plotted to determine the relationship, and a framework is established to select appropriate systems given a desired outcome. Life cycle assessment data from literature and case studies combined with optimization techniques creates a multivariate tool to assist utilities, municipalities, developers with decisions concerning wastewater handling and treatment. A decision model is created to determine the optimum wastewater treatment approach among the three alternative systems given population densities and land area constraints. The decision model is spreadsheet based, with an interface to change variables and determine the systems that achieve the minimum ecological impact. The decision model uses linear programming and selects for the wastewater treatment system combination with the least environmental impact given available land area and population. The results indicate the process is region and geographic specific. Capital and maintenance costs are not included, and should be included in a final analysis prior to implementation. Future studies could include empirical inputs of integrated constructed wetland performance over an extended period.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Thesis advisor: Ries, R J
Uncontrolled Keywords: built environment; competition; optimization; population; water resource; utilities; conservation; environmental impact; future studies; life cycle; programming; sustainable development; developer; linear programming; case studies; future studies
Index terms: municipality, consumption, built environment research, programming, competition, environmental impact, population, life cycle assessment, sustainable development, future study, maintenance cost, conservation, land, implementation, built environment, utilities, linear programming, life cycle, water resource, case study, spreadsheet, optimization technique, density
Subjects: health safety and environment, algorithms, demography, market analysis, research management, environmental impact, programming, consumer economics, construction type, contractual arrangements, analytical methods, environmental policy, financial management, administrative law, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental engineering, value management, data collection methods, research design and methodology, data science, real estate economics
Topics: Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Legal Issues, Sustainability, Procurement, Project Management, Health and Safety
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here