Journal of Environmental Management 94 (2012) 61e68

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

To centralise or to decentralise: An overview of the most recent trends in

wastewater treatment management
Giovanni Libralato*, Annamaria Volpi Ghirardini, Francesco Avezz
Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, University C Foscari Venice, Campo della Celestia 2737/b, I-30122, Venice, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An overview of recent trends in wastewater management is proposed concerning the role of central-
Received 6 November 2010 isation and decentralisation in wastewater treatment. The main advantages, criticisms and limitations
Received in revised form considering social, economic and environmental issues have been summarised. It resulted that none of
3 May 2011
the approaches could be excluded a priori, but were generally shown to integrate one another on the
Accepted 15 July 2011
basis of the specic required situation.
Available online 19 September 2011
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Centralisation
Decentralisation
Wastewater treatment

1. Introduction Wastewater is nowadays considered as a renewable resource from

The need for sustainability in the management of water
resources is becoming day-by-day more necessary due to their
levels of contamination and the frequency of shortages. Indeed, the
environment is repeatedly experiencing highly stressing
phenomena related to decient or non-existent wastewater and
waste treatment plants, compromising the accessibility to water
and sanitation with the resulting health troubles. To cope with this
problem, decentralisation, in association with local governance, is
increasingly recognised as a potentially suitable way to contribute
towards reducing the worlds population with no access to a clean
water supply or lacking proper sanitation (Bieker et al., 2010; IDRC,
2010; Larsen and Maurer, 2011), as well as increasing the efciency
of wastewater treatment and treated wastewater recovery and
reuse. The goal of environmental sustainability should be pursued
to reduce all discharge dilution phenomena, maximise treated
wastewater reuse and by-products recovery. The treatment tech-
nologies should be efcient and reliable, with low costs for
construction, management and maintenance that support self-
sufciency and acceptance by stakeholders and the general public
(Chung et al., 2008; Massoud et al., 2009; Afferden van et al., 2010).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 39 0412347737/8596; fax: 39 0415281494/39
0412348596.
E-mail address: giovanni.libralato@unive.it (G. Libralato).
which potable/non-potable water and energy (e.g. from anaerobic
digestion processes) as well as fertilisers could be derived
(Pettygrove and Asano, 1985; Mann and Liu, 1999; Lazarova et al.,
2001, 2003; Metcalf and Eddy, 2003; Lazarova and Asano, 2004;
Guest et al., 2009; IWA, 2011).
Decentralisation seems to increase the possibility of achieving
some of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, i.e.
mainly to halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without
sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation,
ensuring environmental sustainability and reversing the loss of
environmental resources. Increasing the accessibility to water and
sanitation does not imply overexploitation of the existing resources,
but improving their management by reducing, recycling and reusing
as well as identifying new water sources such as stormwater and
reclaimed wastewater (UN, 2010). This topic has also recently gained
the attention of the general public thanks to a reader friendly book
discussing the importance of decentralisation in both developed and
underdeveloped countries (George, 2008).
Centralisation in the urban context is the norm in the developed
world, whereas in the developing world the opposite is generally
the case. In the latter, wastewater from houses, businesses and
industry remains untreated or is frequently treated on-site, and
discharged (whether treated or not) into the ground or nearby
drains and watercourses. The question facing communities in the
developing world is, however, the same, i.e. whether they should
install a centralised or decentralised system if they want to deal

0301-4797/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.07.010
62 G. Libralato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 94 (2012) 61e68
with their wastewater. Indeed, nowadays, decentralisation
processes seem to be able to satisfy all traditional centralised
treatment requirements, with some added values mainly related to
the ability of minimising potential residual efuent contamination
as well as ecosystem disruption by removing emerging micro-
pollutants such as metals, pharmaceuticals and personal care
products (Borsuk et al., 2008).
Some years ago, Jefferson et al. (2000) highlighted the fact that
small wastewater treatment plants have begun to play an important
role at global level in the management of water quality of rivers,
lakes, estuaries and aquifers, with a greater numerical growth
compared to centralised systems (IPPC, 2003). Indeed, in some
countries the total number of small plants can treat a greater volume
of wastewater than the existing centralised ones (Deininger and
Widerer, 2000). In Italy, more than 9000 wastewater treatment
plants present <2000 person equivalent (p.e.) (one p.e. corresponds
to a biodegradable organic load of 60 g BOD/day) and in some areas
(ISTAT, 1999), mainly due to morphological conditions, decentral-
isation is the only suitable option. As an example, in Venice (Italy)
historical centre, there are more than 140 small decentralised bio-
logical wastewater treatment plants as well as a huge number of
septic tanks (Tromellini, 2008; MAV, 2007; IWA, 2011).
The international debate has evinced the existence of various
economic, social, technological and environmental constraints in
the centralisation/decentralisation dichotomy, and that it is not
possible to accept or refuse one of them a priori, being necessary to
proceed on a case-by-case basis. The main outcome, is that,
apparently, no economic connotation can be dened in general
terms, except for the fact that the major costs in centralisation are
absorbed by the collection system (Bakir, 2001) and, conversely, in
decentralisation by the treatment technology (Hong et al., 2005).
This paper tries to highlight the main aspects of decentral-
isation, pointing out the fact that it is not at all in contrast with
centralisation, but is a way to integrate and increase the general
performance of wastewater treatment.
1.1. Who is involved?
The importance gained by and given to decentralisation can also
be monitored through the high and increasing number of govern-
mental and non-governmental institutions that are currently
researching on this topic. Among the most important of these are
the World Bank, the United Nations, the US Environmental
Protection Agency, the Eigenssische Anstalt fr Wasserversor-
gung, Abwasserreinigung und Gewsserschutz (EAWAG), the
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Deutsche Gesell-
schaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GTZ), the Stichting
Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer (STOWA) and the Rijksinstituut
voor Kust en Zee (RIKZ).
At the International Water Association (IWA), a Specialist Group
for Small Water and Wastewater Systems has been constituted in
order to deal with small water and wastewater systems serving
individual households, clusters of households or communities. The
emphasis is on localised systems that lend themselves to the
recycling and reuse of water and the removal and recycling of
nutrients, because it is expected that sustainability can be achieved
through the closing of the water and nutrient cycles. More recently
the Groups interest has also included package plants and other
systems serving small-scale industry, as well as treating industrial
wastewater.
1.2. Denitions
How can decentralisation be dened? Certainly, it is an
approach related to wastewater treatment in a not centralised way,
meaning that there is not just one wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) serving a population in a dened area, but surely more
than one and, probably, with an assortment of treatment
technologies.
The treatment ability classication at European level is dened
by the Directive 91/271/EEC and is mainly based on the treated
organic load expressed as person equivalent. According to the
English Institute of Water Pollution Control a WWTP can be
deemed as small with less than 1000 p.e. treated, whereas the US
Environmental Protection Agency xed the same threshold at
10,000 p.e. (De Fraja Frangipane and Pastorelli, 1997). Moreover,
these authors considered a threshold level of 2500 p.e. for small
WWTPs, evidencing that the same WWTP congurations could be
applied until 5000 p.e. (De Fraja Frangipane and Pastorelli, 1997;
Avezz et al., 2010). A decentralised system has been assumed by
Ho and Anda (2004) to supply <5000 p.e., which is one order of
magnitude greater than the denition for small systems arbitrarily
set by the IWA Specialist Group for Small Water and Wastewater
Systems as systems treating less than 100,000 l day1, but still two
orders of magnitude smaller than for a centralised system. More-
over, it confuted the previous denition for small systems given by
the IWA Specialist Group on Design and Operation of Small
Wastewater Treatment Plants reporting a treatment ability
<2000 p.e. or having an average daily ow <200 m3 (degaard,
1997).
Finally, it can be stated that decentralisation and small plants do
not have a one-to-one correspondence, because small WWTPs act
locally in a decentralised way, but at the same time decentralised
WWTPs cannot always be deemed as small. Moreover, as a general
statement it can be said that decentralisation cannot be associated
either to small plants or to a dened threshold of p.e. due to the fact
that it denitely involves a general matter of scale, as also sug-
gested by Gikas and Tchobanoglous (2009).
1.3. Treatment scaling
Decentralised treatment is principally dened by the fact that
raw wastewater is treated next to the source (Wilderer and Schreff,
2000). Wastewater still requires to be collected, but the use of large
and long pipes is avoided, as well as the related excavation works to
create a more or less composite collection system network.
Decentralisation in wastewater treatment can consist of from
one to several decentralised systems: from individual on-site
systems, to a series of larger clusters or semi-centralised plants,
going to a range of various potential alternative options that are
summarised in Fig. 1. Starting from the extreme level of decen-
tralisation, there is the individual based treatment such as in the
Consisting of a sewer system collecting wastewater
Centralisation that is conveyed to a wastewater treatment plant
generally located outside of the limits of the city
Satellite Treatment Plant facilities are integrated with
STP
centralised systems for solids processing
SESATS SEmi-centralized Supply And Treatment Systems
Wastewater from individual buildings (e.g. schools)
Great Block can be managed with complete recycle systems
Typically, 4 to 12 or more houses are grouped to form
Cluster a cluster system for improved wastewater management
The extreme scenario: treatment systems vary from
Individual conventional to advanced
Fig. 1. Transition from centralisation to decentralisation.
 G. Libralato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 94 (2012) 61e68
case of the NoMix approach where urine and faeces are separated
directly at source via an ad hoc WC (McCann, 2010). Indeed, it
seems to allow a better treatment efciency (Ho, 2005) and great
energy saving (Otterpohl et al., 2003). In 2003, the NoMix dry toilet
was already used by 700,000 Chinese households, as reported by
Larsen et al. (2009). Moreover, besides the source collection of
Anthropic Nutrient Solutions (ANSs), the possibility has been
shown of a mix between local decentralised diversion of ows and
their centralised treatment based on a pulse recovery of urine into
the existing sewers that are practically empty during the night
time, eliminating the expensive morning peak of ammonia at
treatment plants, as well as the need for any treatment of urine on-
site or its truck transport to a plant for centralised treatment
(Larsen et al., 2009; Larsen and Maurer, 2011). Further examples of
streams separation at source have also been proposed by Otterpohl
et al. (2003), Nolde (2005) and Peter-Frhlich et al. (2007) mainly
about the diversion of grey water ows from the black ones.
A second level is a cluster of typically 4e12 more or less isolated
houses, although it might be possible to nd groups of clusters. A
third level could be attributed to great blocks such as school,
hospital and shopping centre buildings that could also support the
direct treated wastewater reuse that is generally on-site. In Japan,
this kind of application has gained a broad success with about 2500
decentralised WWTPs in the great block conguration, mainly
addressed to single building wastewater treatment nalised at on-
site efuent reuse (Yamagata et al., 2002; Kimura et al., 2007).
Dimension-wise, the following levels have the potential to be
dened as a SEmi-centralised Supply And Treatment System
(SESATS) or Satellite Treatment Plant (STP) that could be also
integrated within the existing centralised system even if only for
solid sludge processing. Finally, there is the most common cen-
tralised WWTP with a wide range of treatment ability and ef-
ciency supported by the relative sewage collection network.
According to Orth (2007), decentralisation could also be classi-
ed in three main categories: (1) simple sanitation systems (i.e.
toilets) (e.g. pit latrines, pour-ush toilets, composting toilets and
aquaprivies), (2) small-scale mechanical-biological treatment
plants and (3) recycling systems. The purpose of simple sanitation
systems (i.e. toilets), which have simple technology and relatively
low cost, is mainly to minimise sanitary problems by retaining
faecal matter and discharging the liquid phase, with control of
water pollution being of minor signicance. Small-scale mechan-
ical-biological treatment plants have at least a mechanical and
a biological treatment stage or, alternatively, might offer a natural-
like treatment such as ponds and wetlands. They are designed to
limit water pollution and are generally upgraded with facilities
enhancing nutrient removal, disinfection or solids removal, also by
means of membranes. In the case of recycling systems, environ-
mental protection has top priority. This approach can also support
ow diversion while complying with modern hygienic standards,
the production of high-quality fertilisers and, eventually, biogas, as
well as the possibility of treated wastewater reuse for non-potable
purposes. Indeed, there still remains a great potential for waste-
water ows separation besides urine (yellow wastewater) and faecal
matter (brown wastewater) diversion, which are both components
of black wastewater. Indeed, it is possible to organise the separa-
tion, treatment and reuse of white (rain/storm water) and grey
wastewater (e.g. kitchen, bathtub, washing machine) (Otterpohl
et al., 2003; Nolde, 2005; Peter-Frhlich et al., 2007; Li et al., 2010).
2. Centralisation or decentralisation: which is the best?
The analysis of more recent trends in wastewater management
inevitably led to identifying the major advantages and disadvan-
tages of both centralised and decentralised treatment approaches.
63
This section summarises some statements reporting their pros and
cons mainly referring to the essential information that, according to
Brown et al. (2010), should be provided: life span of system
elements, estimated capital and operating costs, periodic mainte-
nance and operation costs, energy use, residuals, water and
nutrient budgets and water reuse potential. Due to their impor-
tance, economic and social issues are discussed in the following
relative sections. On centralisation, some general statements may
be provided from a series of authors such as that:
- the wastewater treatment cost per unit volume is still
competitive compared to decentralisation where the waste-
water collection system already exists (Crites and
Tchobanoglous, 1998; Bakir, 2001; Ho and Anda, 2004; Ho,
2005; Maurer et al., 2006);
- about 80e90% of the capital costs are related to the collection
system with potential economies of scale associated to densely
populated areas (Otis, 1996; Bakir, 2001; Maurer et al., 2006);
- it is predicted that the whole collection system or of part of it
has to be renewed every 50e60 years, besides the required
periodic maintenance, potentially generating disruptions to
trafc and other public utilities (Maurer et al., 2006);
- wastewater treatment generally means to sanitise, but
nutrients and other micropollutants might not be removed (Van
Lier and Lettinga, 1999; Tidaker et al., 2007; Crites et al., 2006);
- potential eutrophication phenomena may occur in the
receiving water body due to the large volumes of treated
wastewater discharged (Wilderer and Schreff, 2000; Ho and
Anda, 2004; Ho, 2005; Crites et al., 2006; Libralato et al., 2008);
- rainwater is frequently drained from residential areas by
inltration into the collection system, potentially causing the
lowering of the aquifer (Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998; Ho
and Anda, 2004; Ho, 2005);
- diluted wastewater requires more expensive treatment
approaches (Ho and Anda, 2004; Ho, 2005; Maurer et al., 2006;
Libralato et al., 2008);
- heavy rainfall events or contamination by industrial waste-
water may generate overow phenomena (Ho and Anda, 2004;
Libralato et al., 2008);
- natural disasters such as earthquakes and terroristic attacks
may cause disruptions to the system generating strong pollu-
tion phenomena in the receiving water body (Wilderer and
Schreff, 2000; Ho and Anda, 2004);
- diseconomies of scale are possible where long distances have
to be covered or as a consequence of rainwater inltration
(Bakir, 2001; Maurer et al., 2006);
- there is a strong dependency on electrical energy supply that
might not be adequate due to an economic or political crisis
(Wilderer and Schreff, 2000; Bakir, 2001; Maurer et al., 2006);
- huge volumes of potable water are required to keep the sewage
system clean (Wilderer and Schreff, 2000; Bakir, 2001; Maurer
et al., 2006).
On decentralisation, other general statements may be high-
lighted from various authors such as that:
- it may respond to suburban areas and rural centres, industrial,
commercial and residential areas (re)development, as well as
to population growth in rural areas and developing countries
(Wilderer and Schreff, 2000; Tchobanoglous, 2003;
Tchobanoglous et al., 2004; Ho and Anda, 2004; Ho, 2005;
Lamichhane, 2007; Weber et al., 2007; Brown et al., 2010);
- it tends to stop the decrease of surface water quality
(Tchobanoglous, 2003; Tchobanoglous et al., 2004; Brown
et al., 2010);
64 G. Libralato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 94 (2012) 61e68
- it may be of some help in the case of great block construction in
metropolitan areas, pre-treating/treating and reusing waste-
water, even if in part, thus limiting the volume of discharged
wastewater into the existing sewage collection system and
obviating its upgrading to support greater volume loads (Ho and
Anda, 2004; Ho, 2005; Weber et al., 2007; Brown et al., 2010);
- it may contribute in the planning of isolated communities
development (Hong et al., 2005; Lamichhane, 2007; Borsuk
et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2010);
- it supports treated wastewater recovery and reuse (Rauch
et al., 2003; Tchobanoglous, 2003; Tchobanoglous et al.,
2004; Ho and Anda, 2004; Ho, 2005; Hong et al., 2005;
Ronteltap et al., 2007; Weber et al., 2007; Borsuk et al., 2008;
Brown et al., 2010);
- it reduces or excludes the inconveniences related to discharges
collection, with much smaller and shorter pipes compared to
centralisation (Rauch et al., 2003; Tchobanoglous, 2003;
Tchobanoglous et al., 2004; Ho and Anda, 2004; Ho, 2005;
Brown et al., 2010);
- it is applicable to various levels from individual to community
(Bakir, 2001; Tchobanoglous, 2003; Tchobanoglous et al., 2004;
Borsuk et al., 2008);
- small WWTPs are considered as viable if a medium-high
technological level is implemented that is efcient, robust,
easy to manage and maintain (Tchobanoglous, 2003;
Tchobanoglous et al., 2004; Ronteltap et al., 2007), although
some unexpected bad performances were experienced mainly
due to their managing (Liang and van Dijk, 2010);
- small WWTPs are eligible to be easily remote controlled
facilitating their management (MAV, 2007);
- much of the cost could be related to possible economies of
scale that could be achieved organising wastewater treatment
on a cluster basis such as in Australia (Fane and Fane, 2005);
- the cost of technologies in decentralisation is becoming
comparable to that of centralisation per unit of treated organic
load (Fane and Fane, 2005);
- small WWTPs may assure a greater level of environmental
sustainability by supporting the potential reuse of treated
wastewater as well as nutrients recovery (Rauch et al., 2003;
Tchobanoglous, 2003; Tchobanoglous et al., 2004; Fane and
Fane, 2005; Ronteltap et al., 2007; Borsuk et al., 2008;
Libralato et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2010);
- the potential contamination of nutrients to be reused by
metals and xenobiotics in general could be greatly reduced
(Ronteltap et al., 2007; Libralato et al., 2008);
- it is possible to reduce eutrophication events (Wilderer and
Schreff, 2000; Rauch et al., 2003; Ho and Anda, 2004; Fane and
Fane, 2005; Ho, 2005; Crites et al., 2006; Ronteltap et al., 2007;
Borsuk et al., 2008; Libralato et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2010);
- it allows urine source separation and to reduce/remove
micropollutants such as metals and other emerging
compounds (e.g. pharmaceuticals and personal care products)
(Rauch et al., 2003; Tchobanoglous, 2003; Tchobanoglous et al.,
2004; Ronteltap et al., 2007; Borsuk et al., 2008);
- small WWTPs allow the separation of domestic wastewater
and rainwater, avoiding dilution phenomena (Ho and Anda,
2004; Ho, 2005);
- it is possible to operate a separation of contaminants at source,
easing their treatment and potential reuse and at the same
time increasing treatment efciency and saving energy (Rauch
et al., 2003; Tchobanoglous, 2003; Tchobanoglous et al., 2004;
Borsuk et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2010);
- it is possible to exclude the possibility of domestic wastewater
contamination by industrial wastewater as well as the relative
sludge produced (Bakir, 2001; Borsuk et al., 2008);
- it is possible to maximise the in situ reuse of treated waste-
water, as a consequence of diminishing the nal discharge
volume and the potential cumulative impacts on the receiving
water bodies (Tchobanoglous, 2003; Tchobanoglous et al.,
2004; Brown et al., 2010);
- it is possible to considerably reduce the health risk for the
population, also by preventing catastrophic events (Bakir,
2001; Tchobanoglous, 2003; Tchobanoglous et al., 2004;
Libralato et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2010);
- small WWTPs are suitable for isolated or scattered settlements
or in the case where only a small amount of space is available
for the installation (Bakir, 2001; Brown et al., 2010);
- small WWTPs are generally compact, with highly exible
operating conditions and reduced aesthetic impact (Bakir,
2001; MAV, 2007; Libralato et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2010).
2.1. Economic issues
In centralised systems, it is well recognised that most of the
nancial costs are related to the construction and maintenance of
the sewage collection system. Conversely, most of the decentral-
isation costs are related to the treatment unit (Hong et al., 2005),
but some economies of scale could be achieved mainly on the basis
of a cluster treatment organisation (Ho and Anda, 2004). In Japan,
Kimura et al. (2007) stated that the recovery and reuse of treated
wastewater in small decentralised treatment plants is comparable
to that of tap water. In particular, having a discharge with a daily
ow of between 50 and 200 m3, the specic costs in both circum-
stances were estimated to be about 7 US$ m3.
Taking into account the Australian urban context, Ho and Anda
(2004) afrmed that considering similar building and operational
techniques as well as pollution removal abilities (20 mg l1 BOD and
30 mg l1 SS) decentralised and centralised systems present very
similar costs. It has been estimated that the connection to a public
sewage collection system could vary between 4500 and 10,000 US$
per property, with routine maintenance between 500 and 1000
US$ y1 per property. In Italy, Rocca (2010) found that the energy
consumption of decentralised plants is not so signicantly different
from that of centralised ones considering both the volume (m3) of
treated wastewater and the kg of COD removed per unit time.
Maurer et al. (2006) tried to estimate in Europe and USA when the
cost of decentralisation technologies would be competitive compared
to centralisation, showing its competitiveness only when savings are
also able to cover the costs related to the abandonment of the
previous wastewater treatment system. Nevertheless, it has been
highlighted that decentralisation costs tend to diminish when
considering a scenario implying the use of an existing sewage
collection system with a rate of 262e679 US$ per person in the case of
a city with more than 50,000 and less than 10,000 inhabitants, in that
order. Vice versa, the total absence of an existing collection system
network coupled to urine source separation make costs oscillate
between 665 and 2179 US$ per person, considering a city with
>50,000 and <10,000 inhabitants, respectively (Maurer et al., 2006).
Brown et al. (2010) reported that on-site wet composting systems
(i.e. similar to a waterless composting toilet with worms degraded
compost to be removed about every 5 years) and cluster greywater
treatment in Australia are about 10,000 AU$/household in capital
cost. Options with an individual on-site urine storage tank have
capital costs about 25% higher than equivalent options without urine
separation due to the provision of an individual urine storage tank
for each household. For activity centres, it has been estimated that
the increase is only about 1000 AU$/household due to the economies
of scale. Brown et al. (2010) compared analysis on 18 decentralised
and on-site WWTPs in Melbourne (AU), showing that total costs per
 G. Libralato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 94 (2012) 61e68
household are signicantly lower for the cluster option than for the
on-site one and that they are higher for wet composting systems
than for dry ones. Anyhow, the urine separation option provided the
greatest opportunity to recover and reuse nitrogen.
2.2. Social implications
Social repercussions of small WWTPs, and of decentralisation
processes in general, are frequently underestimated compared to
the economic and environmental ones. Actually, the general feeling
is that centralisation has no reason to be substituted by decen-
tralisation where it is already in force (Ho and Anda, 2004). This
sounds rather obvious, but sometimes it may not be. Centralised
systems are already accepted by the general public. Indeed, the
public is aware that treatment processes are ongoing in continuum
and are generally guaranteed by a public authority that is in charge
of the management of WWTPs, as well as of the sewage collection
system requiring a corresponding pay per unit volume tariff. This
means that wastewater treatment is operated by third parties: the
wastewater producers are not directly involved in wastewater
treatment and probably most of them wish not to be involved
(Lienert and Larsen, 2006). In the case of decentralisation, apart
from the authorisation and implementing processes, it is the end
user who is in charge of its management: this is the most important
aspect to take into account. Moreover, it has been veried that
some NoMix pilot projects developed in Austria, Denmark,
Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland
have been widely accepted, thanks to the environmental awareness
of contributing to nutrient recycling in agriculture. However, some
inconveniences have been reported mainly about clogging and
smelling (Larsen et al., 2009).
Centralised WWTPs satisfy the demand of highly populated
areas, but they do not t with the new expectations about water
recycling and reuse as well as nutrients recovery and elimination of
emerging pollutants. At the moment, the new concept of urban
village could strongly favour decentralisation. This approach is
characterised by the presence of alternating urbanised and
unurbanised areas that could permit the reuse of treated waste-
water for both watering and fertilising the green zones (Ho and
Anda, 2004). Anyway, some criticisms have been highlighted
about regulations, which are generally lacking for decentralisation
processes, as well as about management and performance rates
that do not always reach very high-quality standards (Fane and
Fane, 2005).
3. Decentralisation in practice
In the urban context of developed countries, centralisation is
sometimes the unique wastewater treatment solution, thus it is
surely the most applied approach to treat wastewater. Conversely,
in developing countries decentralisation has been assuming great
importance (Ho and Anda, 2004). Anyway, decentralisation
processes are already recognised worldwide and accepted by both
water professionals and lawmakers. As an example, 25% of the USA
population is served by small decentralised WWTPs, mainly in rural
areas or where the construction of a sewage collection system is not
economically viable (UNEP, 2002).
Small end-of-pipe decentralised WWTPs are fast growing in
USA due to their generally low costs and to the fact that the
perception related to their existence does not differ from the
traditional centralised ones (Bakir, 2001). Analogously, in Colombia,
the costs related to one big centralised WWTP have been reduced
in favour of two decentralised WWTPs (Bakir, 2001), which could
also be seen as a lower level of local centralisation.
65
Japan is in the avant-garde of decentralisation processes, where
Kimura et al. (2007) reported the presence of 2500 decentralised
WWTPs, principally devoted to wastewater treatment and reuse in
great blocks of commercial and residential buildings. It has been
estimated that decentralised WWTPs are installed by 26% of public
ofces, 13% of private buildings and another 15% in schools, hospital
and sporting centres.
In Australia, the city of Melbourne with an approximate pop-
ulation of 3.9 million is studying a portfolio of decentralised and
on-site design concepts of WWTPs. This is a strategy to cope with
the uncertainty in future sewage production and its reuse and the
need to prepare for integrated water cycle planning. The existing
Melbourne sewerage system is largely centralised, thus about 90%
of sewage discharges are conveyed to two major centralised plants.
However, several small satellite treatment plants service local
urban areas generally more distant from the centralised system.
The use of decentralised WWTPs in Melbourne is still rare, but the
aim of the future integrated water planning is to combine cen-
tralisation with various levels of decentralisation as well as on-site
operations (Brown et al., 2010).
In Italy, 6% of the population is served by WWTPs with less than
2000 p.e., which represent 73% of existing Italian WWTPs (Avezz
et al., 2010): this is mainly for reasons of morphology. Moreover, an
interesting case study is represented by Venice. This well-known
ancient city that was built on a series of 119 islands located in the
middle of a 540 km2 lagoon with an average depth of 0.5 m does
not have a real sewage collection and treatment system due to it
peculiar urban characteristics, but has a huge number (4493) of on-
site decentralised WWTPs (MAV, 2007). Their installation, sup-
ported by policy and lawmakers, has been reducing the total load of
inorganic and organic contamination, enhancing the general health
and environmental status of Venice lagoon.
4. Increasing potentiality
Today, the growth of urban fringes, rural centres and the
refurbishment processes of industrial, residential and commercial
areas have imposed the consideration of alternative scenarios to
traditional wastewater treatment systems (Bakir, 2001; Ho and
Anda, 2004). There are several variables that might inuence the
future development of decentralisation processes such as the
population growth in rural areas and developing countries, the
decrease in surface water quality, the construction of great blocks of
buildings in metropolitan areas, the planned development of iso-
lated communities, the growing scarcity of water resources as well
as the attention paid to water recovery and reuse (Randall, 2003).
The approach to be followed to support and integrate other than
centralised options should be assessed attentively, examining
management, administrative and environmental protection issues.
Some variables that should not be underestimated are the pop-
ulation density, the morphological characteristics of the area to be
served as well as the scale factor, the costs of investment, mainte-
nance and management, environmental protection and long-term
sustainability, the conservation of energy and water resources,
the possibility to reuse treated wastewater, the protection of public
health, the policy of human settlements development and the role
of technological content that is strictly related to treatment ef-
ciency (Ho, 2005; Chung et al., 2008).
The dichotomy centralisationedecentralisation is nowadays at
the centre of the debate in wastewater treatment science, but it can
be said as a consequence of the present analysis that one approach
cannot exclude the other and vice versa. The possibilities for
wastewater treatment are quite huge and a sort of transition exists in
decentralisation processes moving from individual on-site treat-
ment, to cluster or community type (e.g. great blocks), to satellite
66 G. Libralato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 94 (2012) 61e68
treatment and semi-centralised WWTPs. Each type is substantially
related to the characteristics and volumes of wastewater to be
treated as well as to the possibility of ow separation at source.
It is evident that the adoption of decentralised strategies is not
in contrast with centralised ones, as shown by Brown et al. (2010).
Indeed, highly dense populated areas are in general historically
served by a sewage collection system and one or more centralised
WWTPs, thus decentralisation would not represent a suitable and
viable economic alternative (Avezz and Anselmi, 2007). Anyway,
the general approach would be to support a true coexistence
between centralised and decentralised systems with various levels
of applicability, which appears to be more realistic especially in the
case of great blocks such as commercial centres, hospitals, airports
or in new developing areas where treated wastewater reuse might
be effectively planned (Guest et al., 2009). However, it is frequently
veried that the theoretically more suitable approach results as
inadequate in the real world principally because of regulatory
requirements and urban and industrial models of development,
which may have led to the creation of situations that are hard to
manage especially on the economic side. Under this point of view,
decentralisation might be supported by a new hypothesis of
legislative requirements related to population density or to the
total surface of developed areas.
Historically, the collection and treatment systems have been set
up to manage wastewater ow generated in urban contexts that are
typically conveyed by gravity to the central treatment facility. In the
meantime, the development, redevelopment and growth of urban
and peri-urban areas have made the centralised WWTP frequently
unable to satisfy the treatment requirement of the grown waste-
water ow. Moreover, most of the time the existing WWTPs often
cannot be enlarged because the urban and industrial development
has occupied the areas that could have been used for this. Besides,
the extension of collection systems may lead to the interruption of
roads and other public services and this is an option not well
accepted by policymakers. As a consequence some alternatives
should be introduced, such as decentralised and satellite treatment
systems (Gikas and Tchobanoglous, 2009). The continued growth of
urban areas has determined an increasing demand for water
resources from both surface and groundwater for potable and non-
potable purposes. Indeed, as a consequence they are already over-
exploited in several areas. High quality treated wastewater might
be a very interesting solution in order to cope with water scarcity,
representing a stable and sustainable clean and controlled water
source. Decentralised as well as satellite WWTPs may allow actions
to be taken in this direction, obtaining at the same time a reduction
in potable water demand and increasing awareness of sanitary and
environmental issues. Indeed, the recent discoveries about the
importance of water resources are making policymakers particu-
larly attentive to tightening water legislation, which is becoming
increasingly strict about concentrations limit values, and support-
ing recovery and reuse policies under this viewpoint. Treated
wastewaters are nding a lot of applications from agricultural and
landscape irrigation to industrial, environmental and recreational
uses (Gill and Rainville, 1994). Direct potable reuse is still extremely
unusual (Harrhoff and Van der Merwe, 1996), but some indirect-
potable reuse such as groundwater recharge and surface water
augmentation are becoming increasingly frequent (Crites et al.,
2006; Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998). Treated wastewater reuse
could be particularly strengthened in those areas that are histori-
cally affected by drought phenomena or are expected to suffer from
water scarcities in the near future as a consequence of global
warming. A rst reuse classication could be provided on the basis
of reuse application scales into two major categories: reuse from
on-site treatment and reuse from cluster treatment units (Brown
et al., 2010). In relation to the rst option, reuse is mainly focused
on a local basis, such as in-house cold water washing machine
inlets, toilet ushing, car washing at home, garden/lawn irrigation
or subsurface irrigation, compost from dry toilet used in the garden,
except for urine that can be transported to remote commercial farm
sites. Concerning the reuse from cluster units, this is mainly focused
on in-house cold water washing machine inlets, toilet and car
washing at home through a third pipe from cluster units to houses,
public open space irrigation or subsurface irrigation, release of
efuents to an environmental buffer/raw water storage for further
water treatment as part of an indirect-potable reuse scheme.
Moreover, urine can be collected in on-site storage tanks and
transported to remote commercial farm sites (Brown et al., 2010).
For urine treatment, it has been estimated that in Europe an
investment of 260e440 US$/person would cover the difference
between the NoMix approach and traditional treatment systems
(Oldenburg et al., 2007). According to Larsen et al. (2009), this could
be veried only when the NoMix becomes really widespread.
Moreover, considering the need to remove micropollutants (e.g.
pharmaceuticals), the source separation approach still appears to be
more stringent, as traditional WWTPs are not capable or efcient
enough in treating this new category of pollutants. Conversely, small
decentralised WWTPs, especially those operating at source, have
shown a high efciency in their reduction/removal (Larsen et al.,
2004; Kujawa-Roeleveld and Zeeman, 2006; Joss et al., 2008).
Indeed, 60e70% of pharmaceutical and hormone-like substances
tend to concentrate in urine (Lienert et al., 2007a), although a certain
amount is present in faecal matter, determining a distribution of the
ecotoxicological potential that seems to be equally split between the
liquid and solid fractions (Lienert et al., 2007b). Nevertheless, the
elimination of even half of the organic micropollutants load would in
itself represent an interesting success due to the environmental
impact that they generate to the target environmental compart-
ments and their relative biota (Lienert and Larsen, 2006; Burkhardt
et al., 2007; Larsen et al., 2009).
Other aspects related to decentralisation also involve national
security concerns. Centralised WWTPs can be seen as an easy-to-
attack target that could seriously affect life in some urban areas,
due for example to the physico-chemical and microbiological
contamination of surface water preventing its use as a drinking
water source. A series of decentralised WWTPs may considerably
reduce the risk and potential impact to the receiving water body
without compromising the system functions. Moreover, decen-
tralisation processes can reduce the impact of natural disasters
such as a ood, tornado, hurricane, volcanic eruption, earthquake,
or landslide that could in this way affect only a limited part of the
territory keeping the rest safe.
Wastewater source separation and decentralised treatments are
in general more appealing when there is no sewage collection
system. Traditionally, source separation has mainly been considered
as more appropriate in rural areas (Nelson and Murray, 2008), but
recent trends have demonstrated how this kind of approach may
also be of some interest in highly dense populated areas, especially
in developing countries (Nhapi, 2004; Nhapi and Hoko, 2004).
Larsen et al. (2009) evidenced how in the Chinese city of Kumming,
characterised by rapid industrialisation combined with water
shortages, local experts tend to support the separation of ows at
source (Medilanski et al., 2006). In coastal areas with no wastewater
treatment facilities, the containment of N-compounds in order to
prevent water eutrophication phenomena has been prioritised by
urine diversion at source (Larsen et al., 2007). Indeed, small decen-
tralised WWTPs are able to retain and variously dispose of up to 80%
of N-based compounds, i.e. 20e30% more than a traditional cen-
tralised activated sludge WWTP (Larsen et al., 2009).
A frequent criticism about decentralisation is the absence of
economies of scale, and thus specic regulations about (Fane and
 G. Libralato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 94 (2012) 61e68
Fane, 2005). This means that the decentralised option is taken into
account only when the construction of a sewage collection system
is not economically viable. However, the technological innovations
in wastewater treatment processes have increased the competi-
tiveness of decentralisation, an example of this is membrane
technology (Di Giano et al., 2004), which is becoming less expen-
sive year by year (Tewari et al., 2010). Anyhow, this is not only
a technical matter, but also an issue related to economy of numbers:
today large amounts of membranes are produced and their cost is
decreasing. Moreover, other technologies for source separation are
already economically viable, making some decentralisation
processes more easy to realise (Oldenburg et al., 2007).
5. To plan within a decentralised perspective
Four elements exist that may inuence the decision-making
process in decentralisation such as cost, exibility of land use,
maintenance and environmental protection, especially in the case of
small communities (Engin and Demir, 2006). Chung et al. (2008)
proposed a model to assess the suitability of decentralisation,
showing that it ts best to territories with mixed morphology and
scattered urban centres. Comparing a centralised WWTP and
a series of satellite WWTPs for a community of 1.2 million inhabi-
tants, it has been observed that economies of scale would surely
favour centralisation, except in the case of an area with a range of
signicantly different heights above sea level that would make the
latter option more suitable. Innovators must tackle the costs related
to initial infrastructural investments and concerted actions are
required between the various stakeholders involved to support the
overall costs. On the contrary, the centralised model has received
huge public capital investments making it sustainable due to the
economies of scale that are created. Moreover, it is possible that the
major costs that could be required to terminate the collection system
would be saved by reducing the technological investment compared
to initial expectations. There is also the risk that the support offered
to innovators able to create high value content niche products in the
wastewater treatment sector could be in contrast with the interest
generated by new and economically viable options, even though the
denition of a risk assumption policy is compulsory.
In Europe, the water sector management is already oriented
towards considering the full costs of the resource. The effects of
water policy changes will become evident in the near future.
However, they will not be overestimated because the benets
obtained from a good quality water environment are still consid-
ered as intangible, which is the main reason for the lack of support
for innovation in this sector. The nancial support could be
strengthened if the water resource received greater development
mainly in the domain of public health, tourism, education and
research. These uses requiring a high water quality would justify
the support for innovation and innovators (Krozer et al., 2010).
6. Conclusions
This paper provided a general overview about the new trends in
wastewater treatment, highlighting how the traditional centralised
approaches are changing in favour of new decentralised treatment
levels. When talking about decentralisation, it is not possible to
refer to just the NoMix toilet or any other extreme individual
treatment system, but to a range of wastewater treatment facilities
presenting a strong scaling transition. It is evident that in most
cases the adoption of a decentralised approach in highly dense
populated areas with an already existing sewage collection system
could not be a viable alternative to the centralised treatment. It is
not possible to give a general clue on how to approach decentral-
isation due to the high number of conditioning factors (e.g. social,
67
economical and environmental) and the creativity of engineers
puzzling their brains to make alternatives to traditional wastewater
treatment modes. The suggestion is to support the coexistence of
various level of centralisation and decentralisation in WWTPs
considering the potentiality of the full series of decentralised
approaches that are currently showing a highly realistic appeal,
mainly in the case of great blocks (hospitals, shopping centres,
airports, schools) and refurbished urban areas, especially in relation
to the new trend of treated wastewater recovery and reuse.
Moreover, it could be of some interest to speculate upon the
upcoming future necessity of current centralised WWTPs substi-
tution as well as refurbishment and upgrading of their collection
system due to their ageing. Major interventions are estimated to be
required every 50e60 years, but how to tackle this problem?
Would it be better to have the pristine centralised facilities,
generating trafc and other public utilities disruption? Or would it
be possible to introduce some kind of decentralisation in the
system? Today, this second option appears to be sometimes more
suitable, mainly due to the continual growth of urban areas as well
as the increasing demand for water resources. The use of decen-
tralised and satellite systems will allow treated wastewater
recovery and reuse, making them a stable and sustainable water
source, especially for those areas that historically suffer or have
recently been suffering from water scarcity.
References
Afferden van, M., Cardona, J.A., Rahman, K.Z., Daoud, R., Headley, T., Kilani, Z., Subah, A.,
Mueller, R.A., 2010. A step towards decentralised wastewater management in the
Lower Jordan Rift Valley. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 10, 181e192.
Avezz, F., Anselmi, M., 2007. Il bilancio complessivo degli inquinanti. In: Il riutilizzo
delle acque reue urbane e industriali. In: Proceedings of 34th Giornata di
Studio di Ingegneria Sanitaria-Ambientale, Palazzo Cittanova e 29the30th
October, Cremona Italy.
Avezz, F., Faletti, L., Riganti, V., 2010. La gestione dei piccoli impianti di depu-
razione. CIPA, Milan, Italy.
Bakir, H.A., 2001. Sustainable wastewater management for small communities in
the Middle East and North Africa. J. Environ. Manage. 61, 319e328.
Bieker, S., Cornel, P., Wagner, M., 2010. Semicentralised supply and treatment
systems: integrated infrastructure solutions for fast growing urban areas. Water
Sci. Technol. 61, 2905e2913.
Borsuk, M.E., Maurer, M., Lienert, J., Larsen, T.A., 2008. Charting a path for innovative
toilet technology using multicriteria decision analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42,
1855e1862.
Brown, V., Jackson, D.W., Khalif, M., 2010. 2009 Melbourne metropolitan sewerage
strategy: a portfolio of decentralised and on-site concept designs. Water Sci.
Technol. 62, 510e517.
Burkhardt, M., Kupper, T., Hean, S., Haag, R., Schmid, P., Kohler, M., Boller, M., 2007.
Biocides used in building materials and their leaching behaviour to sewer
systems. Water Sci. Technol. 56, 63e67.
Chung, G., Lansey, K., Blowers, P., Brooks, P., Ela, W., Stewart, S., Wilson, P., 2008.
A general water supply planning model: evaluation of decentralized treatment.
Environ. Modell. Softw. 23, 893e905.
Crites, R.W., Tchobanoglous, G., 1998. Small and Decentralized Wastewater
Management Systems. MacGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Crites, R.W., Middlebrooks, E.J., Reed, S.D., 2006. Natural Wastewater Treatment
Systems. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL.
De Fraja Frangipane, E., Pastorelli, G., 1997. Piccoli Impianti di Depurazione e
Manuale di Progettazione. CIPA, Milan, Italy.
Deininger, A., Widerer, P.A., 2000. Small wastewater treatment plants IV. Water Sci.
Technol. 41, vii.
Di Giano, F.A., Andreottola, G., Adham, S., Buckley, C., Cornel, P., Daigger, G.T.,
Fane, A.G., Galil, N., Jacangelo, J.G., Pollice, A., Rittmann, B.E., Rozzi, A.,
Stephenson, T., Ujang, Z., 2004. Membrane bioreactor technology and sustain-
able water. Water Environ. Res. 76, 195e196.
Engin, G.O., Demir, I., 2006. Cost analysis of alternative methods for wastewater
handling in small communities. J. Environ. Manage. 79, 357e363.
Fane, A.G., Fane, S.A., 2005. The role of membrane technology in sustainable cen-
tralised wastewater systems. Water Sci. Technol. 51, 317e325.
George, R., 2008. The Big Necessity: Adventures in the World of Human Waste.
Portobello Books Ltd, London, England, UK.
Gikas, P., Tchobanoglous, G., 2009. The role of satellite and decentralized strategies
in water resources management. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 144e152.
Gill, G., Rainville, D., 1994. Efuent for Irrigation. Wastewater Reuse for Golf Course
Irrigation. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
68 G. Libralato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 94 (2012) 61e68
Guest, J.S., Skerlos, S.J., Barnard, J.L., Daigger, G.T., Hilger, H., Jackson, S.J., Karvazy, K.,
Kelly, L., Macpherson, L., Mihelcic, J.R., Pramanik, A., Raskin, L., Van
Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Yeh, D., Love, N.G., 2009. A new planning and design
paradigm to achieve sustainable resource recovery from wastewater. Environ.
Sci Technol. 43, 6126e6130.
Harrhoff, J., Van der Merwe, B., 1996. Twenty-ve years of wastewater reclamation
in Windhoek, Namibia. Water Sci. Technol. 33, 25e35.
Ho, G., 2005. Technology for sustainability: the role of on site, small and community
scale technology. Water Sci. Technol. 51, 15e20.
Ho, G., Anda, M., 2004. Centralised versus decentralised wastewater systems in an
urban context: the sustainability dimension. In: Second IWA Leading-Edge
Conference on Sustainability.
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, 101e108.
IDRC, International Development Research Centre, 2010. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-
1-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html (accessed 30.06.10).
IPPC, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, February, 2003. Reference
Document on Best Available Techniques in Common Waste Water and Waste
Gas Treatment/Management Systems in the Chemical Sector. European
Commission.
ISTAT, 1999. Il Sistema delle Indagini sulle Acque. Anno 1999. ISTAT, Rome (Italy).
IWA, 2011. 10th Specialized Conference on Small Water and Wastewater Systems
and 4th Conference on Decentralised Water and Wastewater International
Network. 18the22nd April 2011, Venice, Italy.
Jefferson, B., Laine, A.L., Judd, S.J., Stephenson, T., 2000. Membrane bioreactors and
their role in wastewater reuse. Water Sci. Technol. 41, 197e204.
Joss, A., Siegrist, H., Ternes, T.A., 2008. Are we about to upgrade wastewater treat-
ment for removing organic micropollutants? Water Sci. Technol. 57, 251e255.
Kimura, K., Mikami, D., Funamizu, N., 2007. On-site wastewater reclamation and
reuse in individual buildings in Japan. In: Il monitoraggio della qualit delle
acque con stazioni sse e i sistemi di trattamento decentralizzati. Analisi delle
soluzioni internazionali e lapproccio in Laguna di Venezia. Magistrato alle
Acque di Venezia Congress 3rde5th October, Palazzo Franchetti, Venice, Italy.
Krozer, Y., Hophmayer-Tokich, S., van Meerendonk, H., Tijsma, S., Vos, E., 2010.
Innovations in the water chain - experiences in the Netherlands. J. Clean. Prod.
18, 439e446.
Kujawa-Roeleveld, K., Zeeman, G., 2006. Anaerobic treatment in decentralised and
source-separation-based sanitation concepts. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 5,
115e139.
Lamichhane, K.M., 2007. On-site sanitation: a viable alternative to modern waste-
water treatment plants. Water Sci. Technol. 55, 433e440.
Larsen, T.A., Lienert, J., Joss, A., Siegrist, H., 2004. How to avoid pharmaceuticals in
the aquatic environment. J. Biotechnol. 113, 295e304.
Larsen, T.A., Maurer, M., Udert, K.M., Lienert, J., 2007. Nutrient cycles and resource
management: implications for the choice of wastewater treatment technology.
Water Sci. Technol. 56, 229e237.
Larsen, T.A., Maurer, M., 2011. Source separation and decentralization. In:
Wilderer, Peter (Ed.), Treatise on Water Science. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 203e229.
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,
6121e6125.
Lazarova, V., Levine, B., Sack, J., Cirelli, G., Jeffrey, P., Muntau, H., Salgot, M., Brissaud, F.,
2001. Role of water reuse for enhancing integrated water management in Europe
and Mediterranean countries. Water Sci. Technol. 43, 25e33.
Lazarova, V., Hills, S., Birks, R., 2003. Using recycled water for non-potable, urban uses:
a review with particular reference to toilet ushing. Water Sci. Technol. 3, 69e77.
Lazarova, V., Asano, T., 2004. Challenges of sustainable irrigation with recycled
water. In: Lazarova, V., Bahri, A. (Eds.), Water Reuse for Irrigation: Agriculture,
Landscapes, and Turf Grass. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 1e30.
Li, F., Wichmann, K., Otterpohl, R., 2010. Review of the technological approaches for
grey water treatment and reuses. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 3439e3449.
Liang, X., van Dijk, M.P., 2010. Financial and economic feasibility of decentralized
wastewater reuse systems in Beijing. Water Sci. Technol. 61, 1965e1973.
Libralato, G., Anselmi, M., Avezz, F., 2008. Criteri di scelta tra centralizzazione e i
piccoli impianti decentralizzati. In: Proceedings of the 36th Giornata di Studio
di Ingegneria Sanitaria-Ambientale: La Gestione dei Piccoli Impianti di Depu-
razione e 11th April Piacenza, Italy.
Lienert, J., Larsen, T.A., 2006. Considering user attitude in early development of
environmentally friendly technology: a case study of NoMix toilets. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 40, 4838e4844.
Lienert, J., Burki, T., Escher, B.I., 2007a. Reducing micropollutants with source
control: substance ow analysis of 212 pharmaceuticals in faeces and urine.
Water Sci. Technol. 56, 87e96.
Lienert, J., Gudel, K., Escher, B.I., 2007b. Screening method for ecotoxicological
hazard assessment of 42 pharmaceuticals considering human metabolism and
excretory routes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 4471e4478.
McCann, B., June 2010. Exploiting wastewater potential through nutrient recovery
research. Water 21.
Mann, G.J., Liu, Y.A., 1999. Industrial Water Reuse and Wastewater Minimization.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Massoud, M.A., Tarhini, A., Nasr, J.A., 2009. Decentralized approaches to wastewater
treatment and management: applicability in developing countries. J. Environ.
Manage. 90, 652e659.
Maurer, M., Rothenberger, D., Larsen, T.A., 2006. Decentralised wastewater treat-
ment technologies from a national perspective: at what cost are they
competitive? Water Sci. Technol. 5, 145e154.
MAV, Magistrato alle Acque di Venezia, 2007. In: Ferrari, G., Tromellini, E., Marsilio
(Eds.), Venezia, una scelta obbligata. I trattamenti individuali di depurazione
Venice, Italy.
Medilanski, E., Chuan, L., Mosler, H.-J., Schertenleib, R., Larsen, T.A., 2006. Waste-
water management in Kunming, China: a stakeholder perspective on measures
at the source. Environ. Urban 18, 353e368.
Metcalf & Eddy, 2003. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, fourth ed./.
McGraw Hills, New York. revised.
Nhapi, I., 2004. A framework for the decentralised management of wastewater in
Zimbabwe. Phys. Chem. Earth 29, 1265e1273.
Nhapi, I., Hoko, Z.A., 2004. A cleaner production approach to urban water
management: potential for application in Harare, Zimbabwe. Phys. Chem. Earth
29, 1281e1289.
Nelson, K.L., Murray, A., 2008. Sanitation for unserved populations: technologies,
implementation challenges and opportunities. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33,
119e151.
Nolde, E., 2005. Greywater recycling systems in Germany e results, experiences and
guidelines. Water Sci. Technol. 51, 203e210.
degaard, H., 1997. Preface: small wastewater treatment plants III. Water Sci.
Technol. 51, vii.
Oldenburg, M., Peter-Frhlich, A., Dlabacs, C., Pawlowski, L., Bonhomme, A., 2007.
EU demonstration project for separate discharge and treatment of urine, faeces
and greywater e part II: cost comparison of different sanitation systems. Water
Sci. Technol 56, 251e257.
Orth, H., 2007. Centralised versus decentralised wastewater systems? Water Sci.
Technol. 56, 259e266.
Otis, R., 1996. Small diameter gravity sewers: experience in the Unites States. In:
Mara, D. (Ed.), Low-Cost Sewerage. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester,
pp. 123e133.
Otterpohl, R., Braun, U., Oldenburg, M., 2003. Innovative technologies for decen-
tralised wastewater management in urban and peri-urban areas. Water Sci.
Technol. 48, 23e32.
Peter-Frhlich, A., Pawlowski, L., Bonhomme, A., Oldenburg, M., 2007. EU demon-
stration project for separate discharge and treatment of urine, faeces and
greywater e part I: results. Water Sci. Technol. 56, 239e249.
Pettygrove, G.S., Asano, T., 1985. Irrigation with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater:
a Guidance Manual. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Randall, C.W., 2003. Changing needs for appropriate excreta disposal and small
wastewater treatment methodologies or the future technology of small
wastewater treatment systems. Water Sci. Technol. 48, 1e6.
Rauch, W., Brockmann, D., Peters, I., Larsen, T.A., Gujer, W., 2003. Combining urine
separation with waste design: an analysis using a stochastic model for urine
production. Water Res. 37, 681e689.
Rocca, A., 2010. Indagine sui consumi energetici negli impianti di depurazione delle
acque reue urbane. Graduation thesis, University of Brescia, Italy.
Ronteltap, M., Maurer, M., Gujer, W., 2007. The behaviour of pharmaceuticals and
heavy metals during struvite precipitation in urine. Water Res. 41, 1859e1868.
Tchobanoglous, G., 2003. The strategic importance of decentralised wastewater
management in the twenty-rst century. In: Proceedings of the DA Conference
on Water Reuse and Desalination, 25e26 February 2003, Singapore.
Tchobanoglous, G., Ruppe, L., Leverenz, H., Darby, J., 2004. Decentralized waste-
water management: challenges and opportunities fort he twenty-rst century.
Water Sci. Technol 4, 95e102.
Tewari, P.K., Singh, R.K., Batra, V.S., Balakrishnan, M., 2010. Membrane bioreactor
(MBR) for wastewater treatment: ltration performance evaluation of low cost
polymeric and ceramic membranes. Separ. Purif. Technol. 71, 200e204.
Tidaker, P., Sjoberg, C., Jonsson, H., 2007. Local recycling of plant nutrients from
small-scale wastewater system to farmland e a Swedish scenario study. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 49, 388e405.
Tromellini, E., August 2008. Centralised control for Venices decentralised waste-
water treatment. Water 21.
UN, 2010. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010. UN, New York.
UNEP, 2002. Environmentally Sound Technologies for Wastewater and Stormwater
Management e an International Source Book. IWA Publishing and UNEP e
International Environmental Technology Centre, London and Osaka. http://
www.unep.or.jp.
Van Lier, J.B., Lettinga, G., 1999. Appropriate technologies for effective management
of industrial and domestic waste waters: the decentralised approach. Water Sci.
Technol. 40, 171e183.
Weber, B., Cornel, P., Wagner, M., 2007. Semi-centralised supply and treatment
systems for (fast growing) urban areas. Water Sci. Technol. 55, 349e356.
Wilderer, P.A., Schreff, D., 2000. Decentralised and centralised wastewater
management: a challenge for developers. Water Sci. Technol. 41, 1e8.
Yamagata, H., Ogoshi, M., Suzuki, Y., Ozaki, M., Asano, T., 2002. On-site insight into
reuse in Japan. Water Sci. Technol. 21, 26e28.