Abstract: Resource recovery and reuse from domestic wastewater has become an important subject for the current development of sanitation technologies and infrastructures. Different technologies are available and combined into sanitation concepts, with different performances. This study provides a methodological approach to evaluate the sustainability of these sanitation concepts with focus on resource recovery and reuse. St. Eustatius, a small tropical island in the Caribbean, was used as a case study for the evaluation. Three source separation-communityon-site and two combined sewerage island-scale concepts were selected and compared in terms of environmental (net energy use, nutrient recovery/reuse, BOD/COD, pathogens, and GHG emission, land use), economic (CAPEX and OPEX), social cultural (acceptance, required competences and education), and technological (flexibility/ adaptability, reliability/continuity of service) indicators. The best performing concept, is the application of Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Bed (UASB) and Trickling Filter (TF) at island level for combined domestic wastewater treatment with subsequent reuse in agriculture. Its overall average normalised score across the four categories (i. e., average of average per category) is about 15% (0.85) higher than the values of the remaining systems and with a score of 0.73 (conventional activated sludge – centralised level), 0.77 (UASB-septic tank (ST)), 0.76 (UASB-TF – community level), and 0.75 (ST – household level). The higher score of the UASB-TF at community level is mainly due to much better performance in the environmental and economic categories. In conclusion, the case study provides a methodological approach that can support urban planning and decision-making in selecting more sustainable sanitation concepts, allowing resource recovery and reuse in small island context or in other contexts.

Abstract: A new reductive catalytic fractionation biorefinery process (RCF) is currently being developed transforming wood into high-value end-products. RCF is considered to be in the pilot stage with a technology readiness level of 5–6. Apart from the RCF-process characteristics, the economic feasibility also depends on the investment decisions that are made upstream and downstream within the wood value chain, increasing the level of uncertainty. Two investment options within the value chain are considered: an option to invest in harvesting equipment and an option to invest in the RCF. To understand the impact of multiple sources of uncertainty on the decision to invest in an innovative RCF-driven wood value chain, an analytical two-factor real options model is presented, accounting for correlated cost and price uncertainties. Two different scenarios, separated and united investments in harvesting equipment and RCF, are analyzed. In both scenarios, market uncertainty postpones investment in comparison to the traditional NPV approach. When both investments are considered separately, the investment in RCF is expected to be earlier than the investment in harvesting equipment. When both investment decisions are united, the probability of investment increases. The study reveals that RCF has the potential to stimulate investments from different investors, –upstream and midstream–, within the wood value chain. Besides, the introduced real options model proofs its ability to assess the economic feasibility of innovative technologies (e.g RCF) individually or within the value chain, taking into account multiple sources of uncertainty.

Abstract: As of 2017, the sale and use of the refrigerants most commonly used in automotive cooling systems – hydrofluorocarbons – are entirely banned in all new vehicles placed on the market in the European Union. These refrigerants have been recognised as potent greenhouse gases and, therefore, direct contributors to climate change. It is within this regulation-driven market that the technologies for a sustainable solution have been developed. However, this paper argues that the market for automotive cooling systems has been 'locked-in', which means that competing technologies, operating under dynamic increasing returns, will allow for one – potentially inferior technology – to dominate the market. Whilst such a situation is not uncommon, this paper discusses the way that regulation has reinforced a patented monopoly in 'picking winners': to the advantage of a synthetic chemical, R-1234yf, as opposed to the natural solution, which is CO2. By developing a generic conceptual framework of path dependence and lock-in, the presented evidence seeks to show how a snowballing effect has led to the intensification of differences in market share. We also argue that the automotive industry is potentially promoting short-term fixes, rather than long-term, sustainable and economically viable solutions. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: As a response to increasing urbanization and changing weather and climatic patterns, urban green infrastructure (UGI) emerged as a concept to increase resilience within the urban boundaries. Given that implementing these (semi-) natural solutions in practice requires a clear overview of the costs and benefits, valuation becomes ever important. A range of decision-support tools for green infrastructure and ecosystem services exist, developed for various purposes. This paper reviews the potential of 10 shortlisted and existing valuation tools to support investment decisions of urban green infrastructure. In the assessment, the functionality is regarded specifically from the urban planning and decision-making viewpoint. The toolkits were evaluated on 12 different criteria. After analyzing the toolkits on these criteria, the findings are evaluated on the (mis)match with specific requirements in the urban planning and management context. Secondly, recommendations and guidelines are formulated to support the design of simple valuation tools, tailored to support the development of green infrastructure in urban areas. Approaching the valuation toolkits biophysically and (socio-)economically provides an integral overview of the challenges and opportunities of the capacities of each framework. It was found that most tools are not designed for the peculiarities of the urban context. Several elements contribute to the hampering uptake of GI valuation tools. Firstly, the limited effort in the economic case for green infrastructure remains a burden to use toolkits to compare grey and green alternatives. Secondly, tools are currently seldom designed for the peculiarities of cities: urban ecosystem (dis)services, multi-scalability, life-span assessments of co-benefits and the importance of social benefits. Thirdly, toolkits should be the result of co-development between the scientific community and local authorities in order to create toolkits that are tailor made to the specific needs in the urban planning process. It can be concluded that current tools, are not readily applicable to support decision making as such. However, if applied cautiously, they can have an indicative role to pinpoint further targeted and in-depth analyses.