See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327710023

Life Cycle Assessment of Pipes and Piping Process in Drinking Water

Distribution Networks to Reduce Environmental Impact

Article  in  Sustainable Cities and Society · September 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.014

CITATIONS READS

10 3,755

3 authors:

Mohsen Hajibabaei Sara Nazif

University of Innsbruck University of Tehran
18 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS    112 PUBLICATIONS   825 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fatemeh Tavanaei
University of Tehran
11 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of a Coupled Model for Simulation of Urban Drainage Process Based on Cellular Automata Approach† View project

Urban Water Infrastructure - Finding Simplicity in Complexity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohsen Hajibabaei on 18 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Sustainable Cities and Society 43 (2018) 538–549

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

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

Life cycle assessment of pipes and piping process in drinking water T

distribution networks to reduce environmental impact
Mohsen Hajibabaeia, Sara Nazifa, , Fatemeh Tavanaei Sereshgib
⁎

a
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 1417466191, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Engineering Geology, School of Geology, College of Science, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 1461714198, Tehran, Iran

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Drinking water distribution networks (DWDNs) are one of the most significant components of urban water
Water distribution network systems. Although the environmental aspects of DWDNs’ construction could be very important, limited studies
Life cycle assessment (LCA) have considered environmental impact (EI) of DWDN. Using Life Cycle Assessment, this paper evaluates the EI of
Pipe materials five types of pipe materials in DWDNs, including polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high-density polyethylene (HDPE),
Piping
ductile iron (DI), fibrocement, and steel. The results indicate that, in the production phase, DI has more EI in
Environmental impact
most impact categories. In the global warming category of production phase, the EI of one meter of 200 mm DI is
128 kg CO2 eq, six times greater than PVC. With respect to the installation phase, a specific trench was con-
sidered for each pipe type to compare the EI of different trenches. In this phase, due to the EI of bedding
materials, fibrocement trench has the highest impact. To illustrate the applicability of the proposed method, a
part of the Tehran DWDN was selected as a case study, with results demonstrating that a reduction of between 12
and 26% is achievable in the EI of the DWDN from its pipes and piping process by substituting for some of the
pipes with environmentally friendly materials.

1. Introduction increased toxic gas emissions (Daghighi, 2017; Hardoy, Mitlin, &
Satterthwaite, 1992). Consequently, engineers' attentions have been
As stated by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural devoted to investigating the environmental impact of infrastructure
Organization (UNESCO), water is undoubtedly one of the most vital projects such as Urban Water Systems (UWSs). As shown in Fig. 1, an
needs humans (UNESCO, 2012). Today’s global water crisis is the result UWS consists of several components, including a Water Supply System
of different factors that include over-exploitation (Tilman, Cassman, (WSS), a Water Treatment Plant (WTP), a Drinking Water Distribution
Matson, Naylor, & Polasky, 2002), population growth, and climate Network (DWDN), a Waste Water Collection Network (WWCN), and a
change (Hanjra & Qureshi, 2010). On the other hand, water demand Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). DWDNs, one of the most fun-
depends on many factors such as population and urban activities damental parts of UWSs, play a key role in providing public service
(Daghighi, Nahvi, & Kim, 2017; UNESCO, 2012). The world population (Johnson, 2009).
has been predicted to increase from 7349 million in 2015 to 8501 million During the past years, while most DWDN studies have focused on
in 2030 (United Nations, 2015). Noticeably, this growth is predicted to hydraulic, qualitative, and economical aspects of projects, recent in-
happen more in areas more struggling with drought (United Nations, creases in environmental pollution makes it necessary to consider their
2015). Accordingly, the water demand is increasing and, as a result, the environmental impact (Hajibabaei, Nazif, & Vahedizade, 2017). In this
requirement for water infrastructure is also enhanced. In addition to study, the environmental impact of a DWDN is investigated using Life
construction of water infrastructures, since renewal and maintenance of Cycle Assessment (LCA). According to the International Organization
obsolete infrastructures seem essential, it is necessary to consider the for Standardization (ISO), LCA is a standardized method (ISO, 2006)
different environmental and economic aspects of DWDNs in the pro- that assesses the environmental performance of a product, service, or
duction, transportation, installation, and maintenance phases. activity during their lifetimes (Loubet, Roux, Loiseau, & Bellon-Maurel,
The value of the environment must be considered in macro-planning 2014). LCA has demonstrated its worth, and has been employed to
of infrastructure projects, and disregarding the importance of the en- evaluate the environmental impact of water systems for more than 20
vironment has produced many types of environmental pollution and years (Loubet et al., 2014).

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Hajibabaei), [email protected] (S. Nazif), [email protected] (F. Tavanaei Sereshgi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.014
Received 29 March 2018; Received in revised form 13 September 2018; Accepted 14 September 2018
Available online 17 September 2018
2210-6707/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
M. Hajibabaei et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 43 (2018) 538–549

Fig. 1. Position of DWDN within the UWS.

Using LCA, some studies have focused on the specific components of WWCN installation phase. In a similar study, Vahidi, Jin, Das, Singh, and
an UWS. For example, some researchers investigated WWTPs Zhao, (2016) demonstrated that, among six pipe materials, DI pipes were
(Pasqualino, Meneses, Abella, & Castells, 2009; Renou, Thomas, Aoustin, the worst options with respect to environmental impact. In the installa-
& Pons, 2008; Tidaker, Kärrman, Baky, & Jönsson, 2006) and wastewater tion phase, they considered the environmental impact of trench excava-
sludge treatment processes (Suh & Rousseaux, 2002). Some of these tions, while the effects of the equipment and materials used for trenching
studies considered WTPs and WWTPs (Remy & Jekel, 2011), and WTPs, were neglected. Du, Woods, Kang, Lansey, and Arnold, (2012), in com-
WWTPs and WWCNs (Barjoveanu, Comandaru, Rodriguez-Garcia, paring six commonly-used types of water and wastewater pipe materials,
Hospido, & Teodosiu, 2014). There are also some studies that analyzed indicated that DI had the most GWP for pipe diameters ≤61 cm (24 in.),
entire UWSs (Amores, Meneses, Pasqualino, Antón, & Castells, 2013; and among all pipe sizes, concrete pipes had the lowest GWP.
Lassaux, Renzoni, & Germain, 2007; Muñoz, Milà-I-Canals, & Fernández- In previous studies on DWDN, the environmental impact of fibroce-
Alba, 2010; Qi & Chang, 2011; Schulz, Short, & Peters, 2012; Slagstad & ment and steel pipes were also not assessed, and the impacts of different
Brattebø, 2014). Also, since both domestic and industrial users could trenches were not taken into account. In the present study, in addition to
influence environmental impact, other researches, considered water considering the environmental impact of fibrocement and steel pipes, the
users (domestic and industrial) as parts of the system along with the UWS effects of PVC, HDPE and DI pipes are also evaluated. Moreover, to
(Arpke & Hutzler, 2006; Fagan, Reuter, & Langford, 2010; Godskesen, compare the environmental impact of different trenches, a specific trench
Hauschild, Rygaard, Zambrano, & Albrechtsen, 2013). type was considered for each pipe. 200 and 500 mm diameters have been
Venkatesh and Brattebø (2011) evaluated energy and cost con- chosen for comparing the environmental impact of different pipes in
sumption and environmental impact of the UWS during its exploitation production, transportation, and installation phases. To illustrate the po-
and maintenance phases in the period 2000-2006. Their results showed tentials of environmental impact reduction in a real case, a part of the
that 88% of the aggregated environmental impact was related to the Tehran DWDN was selected as the study area, and a trenchless method
WWTP, while only 5% of impact was related to the WTP. In another (pipe bursting) was employed in addition to the traditional methods of
study, Loubet, Roux, Guérin-Schneider, and Bellon-Maurel, (2016), digging trenches to show the importance of installation methods with
showed that the highest environmental impact of the UWS in Paris respect to environmental impact in the case study. The results of this
suburban area was attributed to its WWTP. Amores et al. (2013), based paper can be used as a guide for estimating the environmental impact of
on the Global Warming Potential (GWP) impact category, indicated that different DWDNs in urban areas. Besides, a second point would be that
DWDN is the most impactful component of the UWS because of the high designers and operators can use the results of this research to select pipes
energy consumption of DWDN. and trenches with the least environmental impact. This would be bene-
LCA has been used in different studies to determine environmental ficial because pipe materials and piping processes could have a sig-
impact of different components of UWSs in phases of construction, nificant effect on the environmental impact of DWDNs.
transportation, installation, operation, and maintenance. For example,
Stokes and Horvath (2006) assessed the energy cycle of a WSS, a WTP, 2. Materials and methods
and a DWDN, and concluded that 60–91% of the environmental impact
was associated with the operation phase (including water pumping) and This research employs LCA for analyzing the environmental impact
5%–36% of the environmental impact was associated with the main- of different pipe materials in DWDNs.
tenance phase. Based on these results, the construction phase con- In the LCA method, the environmental effects of a product, service,
tributes only 4%–5% of the environmental impact. An examination of or process during their lives are evaluated, assessed, and calculated
available literature in this regard shows that since the contribution of (Finnveden et al., 2009). The LCA framework consists of four important
each phase of a system to environmental impact was mainly dependent stages (ISO, 2006):
on the case study’s characteristics, the results are local and should not
be utilized in other regions with different specifications. 1 Goal and Scope Definition
Different pipe materials have been considered in investigating the 2 Life Cycle Inventory
environmental effects of DWDNs, and a summary of the studies in- 3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment
vestigating the environmental impact of different pipe materials is 4 Interpretation
given in Table 1.
Using the LCA method, Sanjuan-delmás et al. (2014) compared the 2.1. Goal and scope definition
environmental impact of DWDN pipes of the 90 and 200 mm diameters
commonly used in small to medium cities. The results showed that In this stage, the goal and scope are defined with respect to the
90 mm PVC, HDPE, and LDPE pipes had similar environmental impact, intended applications and assumptions of the study. The purpose of the
but in 200 mm pipes, DI and GFRP had greater negative environmental study, system boundaries, and functional units are defined during this
impact than HDPE and PVC pipes. In another study, Piratla, Asce, stage (ISO, 2006).
Ariaratnam, Asce, and Cohen, (2012) indicated that PVC-O pipes had the
lowest environmental impact compared with 200 mm PVC, HDPE, and 2.1.1. Purpose of the study
DI pipes, based on equivalent CO2. In the installation phase of the study, The purpose of this study is to evaluate environmental impact cre-
unlike in most studies, HDD was considered to be the drilling method. ated by five types of commonly used pipes in DWDNs in order to de-
In previous studies, in LCA analysis of pipes, less attention was paid to termine the pipe having the least environmental impact. In addition to
trench materials used during the installation phase, although Petit-Boix this goal, the specific objectives are as follows:
et al. (2014) considered four types of trenches when evaluating the en-
vironmental impact of sewer construction. The results showed that HDPE • To compare the environmental impact of different trenches, con-
pipes were the worst options in terms of environmental impact, and it was sidering the specific trench for each pipe.
also concluded that approximately 80% of the impact was related to the • To determine the contributions of the environmental impact during
539
M. Hajibabaei et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 43 (2018) 538–549

DWDN = Drinking Water Distribution Network, WWCN = Waste Water Collection Network, CED = Cumulative Energy Demand, GWP = Global Warming Potential, PVC = polyvinyl chloride, HDPE = high-density
polyethylene, DI = ductile iron, CI = Cast Iron, PVC-O = molecular-oriented PVC, LDPE = low density polyethylene, GFRP = glass fibre reinforced polyester, FRP = fibre reinforced polyester, HDD = horizontal di-
production, transportation, and installation phases for each pipe.
• To evaluate the environmental impact of the case study to determine
CML 2 baseline2000,

CML 2 baseline2000,

CML 2 baseline2000,
the potential for reducing the DWDN impact.

None (only GWP)

None (only CO2
LCA method

2.1.2. System boundaries

CED, EI 99
emissions)
The processes and activities included in the LCA study are specified

TRACI
by the system boundaries, and factors such as assumptions and cost
CED

CED constraints are involved in determining those boundaries (ISO, 2006). In

A trench for plastic-made pipes, a trench for DI & Steel and

this paper, the system boundaries encompass a series of activities carried
Same trench for all pipes with the width of 80 cm and the

Two trenches for plastic-made pipes and two trenches for

two trenches for fibrocement pipes and ‘pipe bursting’ in

out in the production, transportation, and installation phases of DWDN
piping. Fig. 2 shows the entire phases of piping in the DWDN, in which
the system boundaries are specified by grey boxes. According to these
system boundaries, the environmental impact of the operation and dis-
posal phases of the DWDN pipes are ignored. During the operation phase,
the features of each DWDN cause various environmental impacts that are
Concrete pipe trench for all pipes

influenced by factors such as topography, nodal pressure, and pump ef-

ficiency (Sanjuan-delmás et al., 2014), that could be mainly site-specific.
The same trench for all pipes
depth of 110 cm + Diameter

On the other hand, the main goal of this study is to compare different
Concrete& Fibrocement

pipe materials from the aspect of environmental impact during the pro-
Excavation method

duction, transportation, and installation phases. While there are defi-

nitely environmental impacts dependent on pipes’ material during op-
eration, maintenance and disposal phases, because operation,
scenarios

maintenance and disposal phases are not included in the defined system
HDD

boundaries of the study, they have not been investigated.

2.1.3. Functional unit

installation, exploitation, end of

The functional unit (FU) is considered as the basis for comparing

Production, transportation,

Production, transportation,
production, transportation,

production, transportation,

environmental impact of products or services, and in the LCA method

production, transferring,

production, transferring,
installation, exploitation

installation, exploitation
LCA phases

installation Demolition

inputs and outputs of a system should be determined based on FU (ISO,

2006). Since a FU must be commensurate with the aim of the study and
the system boundaries, different FUs have been applied in previous
studies. Some authors have considered “supplying 1 m3 of water” as the
installation

installation

FU (Amores et al., 2013; Lassaux et al., 2007; Muñoz et al., 2010;

Schulz et al., 2012). In those studies, the FU is related to system effi-
life

ciency (Loubet et al., 2014). On the other hand, in some studies en-
vironmental effects of UWSs have been assessed based on “1 capita/
Pipe diameters from 4

year” FU (Remy & Jekel, 2011; Venkatesh & Brattebø, 2011). Since this
Pipe diameter

200 and 500 mm

90 and 200 mm

FU expresses sufficient water (from aspects of quantity and quality) as a

800,1200mm

provided service to a water user within the UWS, it depicts user be-
110, 300,

20 inches
200 mm

to 48 in

havior (Loubet et al., 2014). Moreover, “unit pipeline length” has been
considered as the FU in studies that examined the environmental effects
Characteristics of the studies investigated environmental impact of pipe materials.

of different pipe types (Du et al., 2012).

PVC, HDPE, FRP, DI, Vitrified

PVC, HDPE, DI, CI, Concrete,

Since the main goal of this study is comparison of environmental

PVC, HDPE, DI, GFRP, LDPE

impact of various pipe types in DWDNs, user behavior and system ef-
clay, Reinforced concrete
PVC-O, PVC, HDPE, DI

PVC, HDPE, Concrete,

PVC, HDPE, DI, Steel,

ficiency are not included in the system boundaries. The FU chosen is

Pipe material

Reinforced concrete

therefore “one meter of pipe” with a maximum pressure of 10 bar, and

the environmental impact of the production, transportation, and in-
Fibrocement

Fibrocement

stallation phases are defined based on this “one meter of pipe” FU.

2.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI)

DWDN, WWCN

This stage, a principal part of LCA, consists of collecting data to

Boundaries

quantify the inputs and outputs of the system that include resource
WWCN

WWCN
DWDN

DWDN

DWDN

consumption and emission-related information related to the processes

and activities in the system (ISO, 2006; Kirk, Etnier, Kärrman, &
Johnstone, 2005). The pipe production data were obtained from fac-
Country, City

USA, Phoenix

USA, Tucson

Iran, Tehran

tories in Iran. In addition, installation phase data, including the speci-

Betanzos

Betanzos

fications of trenches, diesel consumption (MJ/h), and machinery

Spain,

Spain,

working hours (h) were collected from the Tehran Province Water and
USA

Wastewater Company (TPWWC). To clarify the LCA inventory, both

included and excluded items in the production, transportation, and
Piratla et al. (2012)

Vahidi et al. (2016)

rectional drilling.
et al. (2014)

Du et al. (2012)

installation phases are listed in Table 2.

Sanjuan-delmás

Petit-Boix et al.
Reference

Present Study

After identifying the input information, the environmental impact of

(2014)

the resource consumption and emission of the processes on air, soil, and
Table 1

water should be quantified. Since direct data collection of these impacts

consumes both time and costs, valid databases such as Ecoinvent can be

540
M. Hajibabaei et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 43 (2018) 538–549

Fig. 2. The system boundaries.

Table 2
Summary of included and excluded items in considered phases of LCA.
LCA Phase Included in the study Excluded from the study

Production Raw materials (PVC, polyethylene, cast iron, limestone, cement, synthetic fibers, steel), pipe Production and maintenance of the equipment used in the
manufacturing equipment (extruder for plastic pipes, castings, etc.), protective coatings for production line
pipes (bitumen glue, cement mortar, zinc)
Transportation Transportation distance, vehicle type, fuel consumption Production and maintenance of vehicles.
Installation Environmental impacts of pipe installation (excavator, roller for compaction), materials Production and maintenance of installation machinery,
required in trenches (sand, gravel, concrete) Pipeline dewatering, Hydrostatic testing of the pipelines

Table 3
Inventory data for production, transportation and installation of one meter of 200 mm DI pipe (Hamoun Nyzeh Co (HANY CO) 2016; TPWWC, 2017).
LCA Phase Input (process/ materials) Ecoinvent Process/ Materials Unit Value

Production Cast iron Cast iron {GLO}| market for | Alloc Def, S kg 32.3
Production Process Metal working, average for metal product manufacturing {GLO}| market for | Alloc Def, S kg 32.3
Cement mortar (interior coating) Cement mortar {GLO}| market for | Alloc Def, S kg 3.53
Bitumen (external coating) Bitumen adhesive compound, hot {GLO}| market for | Alloc Def, S kg 0.19
Zinc oxide (external coating) Zinc {GLO}| market for | Alloc Def, S kg 0.08
Zinc coating process Zinc coat, pieces, adjustment per micro-m {GLO}| market for | Alloc Def, S m2 0.63
Transportation Transportation of pipes Transport, freight, lorry > 32 metric ton, EURO4 {GLO}| market for | Alloc Def, S tkm 1.08
Transportation of sand Transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, EURO4 {GLO}| market for | Alloc Def, S tkm 7.23
Transportation of gravel Transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, EURO4 {GLO}| market for | Alloc Def, S tkm 5.32
Transportation of extra soil of the trench excavation Transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, EURO4 {GLO}| market for | Alloc Def, S tkm 6.44
Installation Crushed gravel Gravel, crushed {GLO}| market for | Alloc Def, S kg 177.31
Sand Sand {GLO}| market for | Alloc Def, S kg 241.74
Excavator Excavation, hydraulic digger {GLO}| market for | Alloc Def, S m3 0.87
Vibrating compactor Machine operation, diesel, < 18.64 kW, steady-state {GLO}| market for | Alloc Def, S hr. 0.5

used for this purpose. Ecoinvent offers a larger body of products and processes, the materials and processes used for the internal and external
services information than many other databases, is universally credible, coating are also taken into account, even though most previous studies
and offers a great deal of reliable data such as building materials, me- have ignored the effects of these coatings. Because of the adverse effects
tals, electricity, manufacturing processes, transportation, construction of asbestos on human health and consequential prohibition of asbestos
processes, waste management, water supply, etc. (ecoinvent, 2009). To cement pipes in DWDNs of many countries, the environmental impact
evaluate the environmental impact of pipes and piping processes, Si- of fiber cement pipes was considered. In fibrocement pipes, synthetic
mapro 8 (Pre’ Consultants, 2014), one of the most used LCA software rather than asbestos fibers are used.
tools that contains Ecoinvent v3 database information, was employed. According to Table 3, the transportation phase consists of three
In the next step, the collected data from to the Ecoinvent database were parts:
registered at Simapro software. Pipe diameters of 200 and 500 mm
were chosen to provide detailed comparison of results related to en- • Transportation of the pipes from the factory to the installation site
vironmental impact of different pipes in the LCA phases, although the • Transportation of required materials of the trenches from the
LCA was performed for all pipe diameters used in the DWDN of the borrow pit to the installation site
study area in the same way to determine the potential for reducing • Transportation of extra soil for the trench excavation from the in-
environmental impact according to the available data. Life-cycle in- stallation site to the deposit land
ventory data provided for all pipe diameters considered in the study is
included in the supporting information file. As an example, Table 3 Based on factory distance to the installation site, a distance of 30 km
shows the registered input data of 200 mm DI pipe during the pro- was considered for transportation of the pipes and materials of the tren-
duction, transportation, and installation phases in Simapro software. ches, and a 15 km distance was considered for transportation of extra soil of
According to Table 3, the production phase consists of materials and the trench excavation to the deposit land. Although these distances would
processes used in the production of DI pipe. This study made a major be equal for all pipes types, transportation would still be important in
effort to collect complete information about the production phase. As comparing the environmental impact of different phases. Transportation of
an illustration, for DI pipes, in addition to the main materials and pipes and piping materials over long distances could result in considerable

541
M. Hajibabaei et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 43 (2018) 538–549

Fig. 3. Dimensions and specifications of the trenches.

environmental impact compared with the other phases. of products are classified into 11 groups of midpoint impact categories
In previous studies, little attention during the installation phase has such as climate change, ozone depletion, etc. (Pre’ Consultants, 2014).
been paid to trench materials (Petit-Boix et al., 2014). In studies that These midpoint impacts are then converted into three endpoint impact
evaluated the environmental impact of the piping process, a specific categories, viz, damage to human health, damage to ecosystem quality,
trench based on the features of the area studied was considered for all and damage to resources (Kirk et al., 2005). Damage to human health is
pipe types (Du et al., 2012; Sanjuan-delmás et al., 2014; Vahidi et al., expressed by years of life with disabilities and is illustrated with the
2016). This means that the specifications of many proposed trenches DALY1 index used by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the
are not under international standards. In the present paper, since the World Bank. Damage to ecosystem quality is defined based on the
specifications and materials of trenches in the study area conform to the species lost in a specified region over a specified time, and damage to
proposed trenches under the standards (TPWWC, 2017), four trenches resources is expressed by the surplus energy needed to extract minerals
related to TPWWC suggestions and based on the pipe types have been and fossil fuels in the future. After weighting the three groups of end-
considered. Therefore, based on the American Water Works Association points, the final result is a dimensionless numerical value called Eco-
(AWWA, 1993, 2003), the ASTM (2008), and data collected from the indicator index indicated with pt (point).
case study (TPWWC, 2017), the environmental impact of the four To make the results comparable with those from previous studies
trench types have been evaluated during the installation phase. Fig. 3 that analyzed the environmental impact of different pipes, five mid-
shows the dimensions and specifications of the trenches considered for point impact categories from the CML 2 baseline 2000 have been used
different pipes. Two types of the trenches have been considered for fi- in this paper. The impacts considered include Global Warming Potential
brocement pipes. In the trenches of pipes using DI, steel, plastic, and (GWP), Ozone Layer Depletion (OLD), photochemical Oxidation (PO),
fibrocement type II, gravel has been chosen as bedding material, while Acidification Potential (AP), and Eutrophication (EU). The Cumulative
in the trench for fibrocement type I, concrete was employed. Sand was Energy Demand (CED) was also considered. Since conversion of the 11
chosen as backfilling material in all cases. groups of midpoint impacts into a dimensionless numerical value in the
EI 99 method makes comparison between different options much ea-
sier, this method has been used to determine the pipe associated with
2.3. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) the least environmental impact in all phases of production, transpor-
tation, and installation.
In this step of LCA, the importance and significance of potential en-
vironmental impact are evaluated using the life cycle inventory results
and associating the inventory data with specific impacts (ISO, 2006). 3. Results and discussion
According to Table 1, most papers that have assessed the environmental
impact of different pipes have considered CML 2 baseline2000 as a LCA 3.1. Comparison of the environmental impacts of production phase
method. This method is defined for impact associated with midpoint
approaches. Acidification potential, global warming potential, ozone The environmental impacts of the production phase have been as-
layer depletion, etc., are the impact categorized in midpoint levels. In sessed using the midpoint impact categories of CML2 method. The
contrast to CML 2, there are some methods like Eco- Indicator 99 (EI 99)
that combine the midpoint levels and define endpoint impact categories.
In EI99, according to inventory analysis, the environmental impacts 1
Disability Adjusted Life Years

542
M. Hajibabaei et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 43 (2018) 538–549

Table 4
Environmental impact of each material in the production phase for 200 mm pipes, based on the FU.
Impact category Unit Steel HDPE Fibrocement DI PVC

GWP kg CO2 eq 1/05E+02 2/55E+01 2/84E+01 1/28E+02 2/11E+01

OLD kg CFC-11 eq 6/25E-06 4/36E-07 2/41E-06 1/20E-05 4/69E-07
PO kg C2H4 eq 4/22E-02 7/82E-03 1/60E-02 6/50E-02 3/77E-03
AP kg SO2 eq 5/29E-01 9/78E-02 3/79E-01 9/05E-01 7/07E-02
EU kg PO4— eq 2/73E-01 1/59E-02 1/40E-01 4/18E-01 1/62E-02
CED MJ 1/40E+03 8/98E+02 7/15E+03 1/68E+03 5/77E+02

Fig. 4. Comparison of the environmental impact of 200 mm diameter pipe in the production phase using CML 2.

values of midpoint impact in the production phase are indicated in that the energy demand for DI pipes is approximately 2 to 3 times
Table 4. Moreover, Fig. 4 shows a comparison of the environmental greater than for HDPE and PVC pipes. However, Piratla, et al., (2012),
impact of 200 mm diameter pipes during the production phase. As in- who evaluated carbon dioxide emissions from a water pipeline, con-
dicated in Table 4, PVC pipes produce the least midpoint impact in most cluded that the embedded energy of DI pipes was slightly higher than
categories. HDPE and PVC pipes produce similar impact, but the mid- for HDPE and PVC because they considered only embedded energy of
point impacts of HDPE are slightly more than those of PVC. For ex- materials, while the current study also takes into account pipe-manu-
ample, in the GWP category, the environmental impact of HDPE is facturing energy (including both that of the equipment and activities
25.5 kg CO2 eq, about 17% more than for PVC. In five out of six impact like coating pipes, metal working, and extrusion process). Fig. 5 shows
categories, DI produce more environmental impact. For example, Fig. 4 the contribution of each process for production of DI pipe to the CED
shows that in the production phase, the GWP impact of DI is 6 times impact category, with the red thermometers indicating the environ-
greater than for PVC pipes. Because DI requires more materials for pipe mental load generated by each process. As shown in the figure, ap-
manufacturing, the environmental impact of DI is considerably dif- proximately 59% of the total impact of CED impact category in the
ferent in comparison to that of other pipes. For example, to manu- production phase of DI pipe is associated with the manufacturing pro-
facture one meter of DI pipe with 200 mm diameter, 36 kg of materials cess. However, according to Fig. 6, 11.5% of the total impact is related
are required, while the required materials for manufacturing PVC pipe to manufacture of PVC pipes. Therefore, since the manufacturing pro-
with the same length and diameter are only 8.5 kg. cess reveals a great percentage in the CED of DI pipes, it could have a
The impact of fibrocement pipes is more than for other pipes in the major effect on the environmental impact assessment.
CED category. The reason is that, in this category, characterization
factors for energy resources are divided into nonrenewable (fossil and
nuclear) and renewable (water, wind and etc.) categories. Since non- 3.2. Comparison of the environmental impact of the transportation phase
renewable resources make greater contribution in terms of the mate-
rials used in the production phase of fibrocement pipes, the fibrocement The midpoint impact values of the transportation phase for 200 mm
score the worst in the CED impact category. The result of the CED that pipes are indicated in Table 5. Moreover, Fig. 7 shows a comparison
conformed to the study of Sanjuan-delmás, et al., (2014) demonstrates between different categories of impact in this phase. As shown in this
figure, fibrocement pipes are the most impactful materials in the

Fig. 5. Process contributions in the CED impact category for production of DI.

543
M. Hajibabaei et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 43 (2018) 538–549

Fig. 6. Process contributions in the CED impact category for production of PVC.

Table 5
Environmental impact of 200 mm pipe in the transportation phase, based on the FU.
Impact category Unit Steel PVC DI HDPE Fibrocement II Fibrocement I

GWP kg CO2 eq 3/23E+00 3/76E+00 3/25E+00 3/76E+00 4/39E+00 4/34E+00

OLD kg CFC-11 eq 5/99E-07 6/96E-07 6/03E-07 6/96E-07 8/14E-07 8/04E-07
PO kg C2H4 eq 5/44E-04 6/33E-04 5/48E-04 6/33E-04 7/40E-04 7/31E-04
AP kg SO2 eq 1/29E-02 1/50E-02 1/30E-02 1/50E-02 1/76E-02 1/73E-02
EU kg PO4— eq 2/92E-03 3/39E-03 2/94E-03 3/39E-03 3/97E-03 3/92E-03
CED MJ 5/32E+01 6/18E+01 5/35E+01 6/18E+01 7/23E+01 7/15E+01

transportation phase, and the environmental impact of fibrocement impact category are also indicated in Table 6. In all the midpoint impact
type II are slightly more than for fibrocement type I in all categories. categories, compared with other trenches, fibrocement type I trench has
That is mostly due to the materials required in the fibrocement type II the greatest impact. Furthermore, the installation of plastic pipe has a
trench that are heavier than for type I. For example, the transportation nearly similar environmental impact that of DI & Steel pipes.
impacts of fibrocement type I and II in the GWP category are 4.34 and Table 6 shows that emissions from installation of fibrocement type I
4.39 kg CO2 eq respectively. and plastic pipes in the GWP category are 28 and 8.83 kg CO2 eq, re-
On the other hand, since the materials used in DI and steel trenches spectively, so, according to Fig. 8, the GWP impact of fibrocement type I
reflect the least weight compared to those used in the other trenches, trench is approximately 3 times higher than for other trenches. Fig. 9
they have the least environmental impact in the transportation phase. illustrates the contribution of each process in the GWP impact category
Although PVC and HDPE pipes require less materials compared to DI for fibrocement type I trench. Concrete as a bedding material makes a
and steel pipes in the production phase, they have more environmental 73% contribution in the GWP impact category (Fig. 9). Petit-Boix, et al.,
impact in the transportation phase because of the materials (crushed (2014), who evaluated the environmental impact of a sewer construc-
gravel and sand) used for the trench construction. tion, concluded that concrete as a bedding material has a remarkable
environmental impact during the installation phase. Thus, these results
3.3. Comparison of the environmental impact of the installation phase indicate that selection of materials could have significant effects on the
environmental consequences of the installation phase.
In the installation phase, the materials used in the trenches (gravel,
sand, and concrete) and the diesel consumed in compacting and ex- 3.4. Contribution of the environmental impact of different phases
cavating processes are considered. To compare the environmental im-
pacts of trench type in the installation phase, the four types of trenches Fig. 10 provides information about the contribution related to en-
have been assessed (Fig. 3), and Fig. 8 demonstrates the environmental vironmental impact of different phases for 200 mm diameter pipes. The
impact based on the FU of different trench types for 200 mm pipes figure indicates that the production phase of DI pipes contributes more
during the installation phase. The environmental consequences of each than 80% in all impact categories, while the transportation phase

Fig. 7. Comparison of the environmental impact of 200 mm diameter pipe in the transportation phase using CML 2.

544
M. Hajibabaei et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 43 (2018) 538–549

Fig. 8. Comparison of the environmental impacts of trenches for 200 mm diameter pipes using CML 2 method.

Table 6
Environmental impact of 200 mm pipe in the installation phase, based on the FU.
Impact category Unit PVC & HDPE Fibrocement II Fibrocement I DI & Steel

GWP kg CO2 eq 8/83E+00 1/07E+01 2/80E+01 8/73E+00

OLD kg CFC-11 eq 1/34E-06 1/56E-06 2/46E-06 1/27E-06
PO kg C2H4 eq 2/75E-03 3/35E-03 4/93E-03 2/73E-03
AP kg SO2 eq 5/28E-02 6/41E-02 1/02E-01 5/17E-02
EU kg PO4— eq 1/29E-02 1/60E-02 2/74E-02 1/30E-02
CED MJ 1/37E+02 1/65E+02 2/76E+02 1/35E+02

Fig. 9. Process contributions in the GWP impact category for Fibrocement type I trench.

Fig. 10. Contribution of the environmental impact of different phases for 200 mm diameter pipes, based on the FU.

545
M. Hajibabaei et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 43 (2018) 538–549

Fig. 11. Contribution of environmental impact of different phases for 500 mm diameter pipes, based on the FU.

Fig. 12. Comparison of the endpoint impact in the whole life cycle phases, using EI 99 method.

makes a very minor contribution, highlighting the importance of the (production, transportation, and installation). Furthermore, DI and
production phase in DI pipes. The installation phase of PVC and HDPE steel pipes show higher environmental impact than other pipes. The
pipes contributes 15–50% of all the impact categories. differences between the impact of fibrocement type I and fibrocement
Fig. 11 shows the environmental impact contribution of different type II is due to differences in the implementation of their trenches.
phases for 500 mm diameter pipes. In contrast with Fig. 10, the pro- According to Fig. 12, increasing the pipe diameter from 200 mm to
duction phase of 500 mm diameter pipes is the highest-impact phase 500 mm results in a significant change in the human health category for
among all categories. Accordingly, the installation phase of PVC and DI and steel pipes. As indicated in Fig. 11, the production phase of
HDPE pipes contributes between 5% and 35% of all the impact cate- 500 mm diameter pipes contributes most to all the impact categories
gories, less than for 200 mm pipes. The amounts of the required ma- compared to pipes with 200 mm diameter. On the other hand, since DI
terials in the installation phase of 500 mm pipes are 2 times greater and steel have the most environmental impact during the production
than for pipes of 200 mm diameter, while material requirements for phase (Fig. 4), the human health impact category has a remarkable
500 mm pipes production are approximately 6 times greater than for value for DI and steel pipes.
200 mm pipes. In fact, in 500 mm diameter pipes, increasing the con-
tribution of the production phase reduces the contribution of the in- 3.6. Analyzing DWDN of the study area
stallation phase. As mentioned, this increase is due to the amount of
materials used for 500 mm pipes production. A part of the Tehran DWDN with pipes made of common materials
in Iran was selected as the study area. It is in one of the southern regions
3.5. Comparison of the endpoint impact in the whole life cycle phases of Tehran, with an area of 413 ha and populated by 114,849 in-
habitants. In 2015, per capita water consumption of this region was
Fig. 12 indicates the endpoint impact of each pipe in all phases. about 240.7 LPCD (liters per person per day). The length of each type of
Using the EI 99 method, three groups of final impacts (impacts on pipe and their percentages in that part of the Tehran DWDN are given in
human health, ecosystem quality, and resources) are aggregated and Table 7. This data was collected from Tehran Province Water and
the final result is a numerical value called the Eco-indicator. Fig. 12 Wastewater Company (TPWWC, 2017). The table shows that the ma-
shows that PVC scores better than the other types of pipe and has the jority of pipe materials of the network is DI, forming 72% of the DWDN.
least environmental impact in the whole range of life cycle phases In addition, most of the pipes (approximately 70%) installed in the

546
M. Hajibabaei et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 43 (2018) 538–549

Table 7 rehabilitation due to their high failure rate. TPWWC intends to replace
Length of each pipe and percentage of the total length (TPWWC, 2017). about 80% of the 100 mm DI pipes in the future (TPWWC, 2017). Two
Pipe Diameter (mm) Length(m) % scenarios have been considered regarding the future plans of TPWWC
for estimating the potential for reducing environmental impact if re-
PVC 63 717.41 1.25 construction of the network is deemed possible. In the first scenario,
PE 90 3375.74 5.89
because HDPE has been used in this network in the recent years, it is
Fibrocement 100 8649.82 15.09
200 470.51 0.82
assumed that 90 mm HDPE pipes with less environmental Impact could
DI 100 20790.98 36.27 be used to substitute for 100 mm DI pipes. The second scenario is the
150 10759.64 18.77 same as the first except that a trenchless method instead of open cut
200 4834.62 8.43 trench digging would be used in the installation phase. In both sce-
250 1926.60 3.36
narios, the production, transportation, and installation phases are
400 2254.06 3.93
500 845.19 1.47 considered for HDPE.
Steel 600 2699.68 4.71 Trenchless technology uses different methods such as sliplining,
pipe bursting and cured-in-place, and each can be selected for different
cases varying in criteria such as soil condition, depth of piping, and
project aim (Najafi, 2013). In Iran, all these methods have been recently
used, and pipe bursting based on TPWWC suggestion is commonly
network are in the range of 100 and 200 mm in diameter. utilized in the area of this case study. Therefore, in this study ‘pipe
The environmental impacts of one meter of each pipe have been bursting’, one of the trenchless methods, was selected for replacing old
calculated. Taking into account the total length of pipes in the DWDN DI pipes. Compared to open cut replacement, the pipe bursting method
(Table 7) and the calculated environmental impact, the environmental is quicker and has lower cost and greater efficiency, resulting in less
impact of the network has been obtained. Table 8 shows the amount of traffic disturbances (Sterling & Simicevic, 2001). According to the
each impact in the study area. This table indicates that more than 50% characteristics of the case study, required data were obtained from
of the environmental effects in all of the impact categories are related to TERRA (TERRA, 2017). For this purpose, cable burster TERRA-EXTR-
the DI pipes. The reason is that the network is mainly built from DI ACTOR X 400 with a maximum pulling force of 40 tons was selected for
pipes and, according to Fig.12, this type of pipe produces the most replacing DI with HDPE pipes. The stated power of X400 is 1086 kJ/
environmental impact. Furthermore, as illustrated in Table 8, although min and its working speed is 1.2 m/min. Based on the characteristics of
steel pipes length account for only 4.71% of the network, they have the DWDN and the collected data, the energy consumption is assumed
remarkable impact in the DWDN of the case study due to their sig- to be 904.638 kJ for a 1 m replacement of DI with HDPE. Also, for
nificant environmental effects. placing X400, pits with the dimensions of 2*1.8*1 m3 with 100 m apart
Various methods have been proposed and investigated for evalu- are considered (TERRA, 2017).
ating the potential for environmental impact reduction. Some studies Table 9 shows the actual environmental effects and percentage of
have calculated the potential of reduction in environmental impact of a environmental impact reduction in the considered scenarios. The re-
network by replacing the pipes with the highest impact with those of sults indicate that the second scenario is more effective in reduction of
less impact (Petit-Boix et al., 2014; Sanjuan-delmás et al., 2014). On the the DWDN environmental impact. By replacing DI with HDPE, a re-
other hand, pipe replacement depends on many parameters such as duction of between 12 and 26% in environmental impact is achievable.
cost, pipe type, soil type, pipe life, etc. Moreover, pipe materials com- Choosing environmentally-friendly pipe materials could significantly
monly used in different countries may be dissimilar. For instance, using reduce the environmental consequences, and some installation methods
DI pipes is very common in Iran. like pipe bursting are more effective in reducing environmental impact
According to the collected data, the age of the pipes in the DWDN of than traditional methods.
the case study is 30 years and they are given high priority for

Table 8
Contribution of each pipe in environmental impact of case study.
Impact category Unit Total Fibrocement DI Steel HDPE PVC

Global warming kg CO2 eq 6539459.9 230928.1 4883186 1352078 59943.81 13324.09

kg CFC-11
Ozone layer depletion 0.61540358 0.029544 0.490866 0.085829 0.007163 0.002002
eq

Photochemical oxidation kg C2H4 eq 3005.6283 89.4464 2358.301 537.9173 16.79456 3.168621

Acidification kg SO2 eq 42821.955 1980.79 33674.14 6806.151 296.0615 64.80978

Eutrophication kg PO4--- eq 19114.253 637.8531 14950.76 3444.425 65.87873 15.33776

Cumulative Energy
MJ 110363148.5 25391934 65361493 18090574 1288234 230914.1
Demand

> 50% of impacts 20-50% of impacts 10-20% of impacts <10% of impacts

547
M. Hajibabaei et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 43 (2018) 538–549

4. Conclusion
% of environmental impact
reduction in scenario 2
This paper employs the LCA method to evaluate the environmental
impact of five commonly-used pipe materials in DWDNs, including
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), ductile
iron (DI), fibrocement, and steel. The system boundaries encompass the
processes and activities carried out in the three phases of production,
transportation, and installation. In this study, a part of the Tehran
DWDN has been considered as the case study. The results show that
22
26

23

24
24

16
128 kg CO2 eq is released in the GWP categories during the production
phase of 200 mm DI. DI pipes are also the most impactful material in
improvement of scenario 2

five out of six categories during the production phase. In the trans-
potential environmental

portation phase, because of the weight of materials required for fi-

brocement type II trench construction, this type of pipe has the most
environmental impact, so that the value of transportation impact in the
GWP of this pipe is 4.39 kg CO2 eq. Analyses of the effects of different
17130829.22
1440515.90

trenches in the installation phase indicate that a trench for fibrocement

10130.67
4521.01
696.61

pipes has the greatest impact. For example, in the CED category, the
0.16

impact for DI, plastic, and fibrocement type I are 135, 137, and 276 MJ
respectively. During the installation phase, the bedding materials have
a significant role with respect to environmental consequences, so that
Estimated impact
(scenario 2)

around 73% of the impact is attributed to the concrete used in the fi-
brocement trench. For 200 mm diameter pipes, the production phase of
93232319.23
5098944.00

DI contributes more than 80% in all the midpoint impact categories.

32691.28
14593.25
2309.02

For pipe diameters of 200 and 500 mm, comparison of the endpoint
0.46

impact demonstrates that DI pipes produce the maximum environ-

mental effects while PVC pipes produce the least environmental impact
% of environmental impact

over the whole set of life cycle phases (production, transportation, and
reduction in scenario 1

installation). Since the pipes in the DWDN are mainly of DI, this type of
pipe has a great effect on the environmental impact in the study area.
According to the conditions of the study area, two scenarios have been
considered for assessing the possibility of environmental impact re-
duction in different categories. The results indicate that replacing a part
of DI pipes of the network significantly reduces the environmental
impact of the DWDN. Furthermore, in the pipe-bursting method, the
18
19

21

20
22

12

percentage of environmental impact reduction is more than for other

traditional methods. Consequently, in addition to choice of pipe ma-
improvement of scenario 1
potential environmental

terials, choosing environmental friendly methods (like pipe bursting in

the installation phase) can have important effects in reducing en-
vironmental impact. The results of this paper could be of use in DWDNs
for selecting the best materials with the lowest environmental impact.
Actual impact of the DWDN and estimation of the environmental impact reduction.

13037660.07
1181499.80

References
8738.35
4186.54
626.75
0.12

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2008). D2321 standard practice for
the underground installation of thermoplastic pipe for sewers and other gravity-flow ap-
Estimated impact

plications, Vol. 290. West Conshohocken, PA: United States: ASTM International.
(scenario 1)

97325488.38

Amores, M. J., Meneses, M., Pasqualino, J., Antón, A., & Castells, F. (2013).
5357960.10

Environmental assessment of urban water cycle on Mediterranean conditions by LCA

34083.60
14927.71
2378.88

approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 43, 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

0.50

jclepro.2012.12.033.
Arpke, A., & Hutzler, N. (2006). Domestic water use in the United States: A life‐cycle
approach. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10(1–2), 169–184.
110363148.45
Actual impact

American Water Works Association (AWWA) (1993). Standard for the selection of asbestos
6539459.90

cement pressure pipe, 4 in. Through 16 in. (100 mm through 400 mm), for water dis-
42821.96
19114.25
3005.63

tribution systems. Denver, Colo. American Water Works Association, [1993] ©1993.
0.62

Retrieved fromhttps://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999911627602121.
American Water Works Association (AWWA) (2003). Ductile-iron pipe and fittings (vol. 41),
standards committee A21 on ductile-iron pipe and fittings, Vol. 41. American Water
kg CO2 eq
kg CFC-11

kg SO2 eq

Works Association.
kg PO4—
kg C2H4
Unit

Barjoveanu, G., Comandaru, I. M., Rodriguez-Garcia, G., Hospido, A., & Teodosiu, C.
(2014). Evaluation of water services system through LCA. A case study for Iasi City,
MJ
eq

eq

eq

Romania. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(2), 449–462.

Daghighi, A. (2017). Harmful algae bloom prediction model for Western Lake Erie using
Ozone layer depletion

stepwise multiple regression and genetic programming.

Impact category

Daghighi, A., Nahvi, A., & Kim, U. (2017). Optimal cultivation pattern to increase revenue
and reduce water use: Application of linear programming to Arjan Plain in Fars
Global warming

Eutrophication
Photochemical
oxidation

Province. Agriculture, 7(9), 73.

Acidification

Du, F., Woods, G. J., Kang, D., Lansey, K. E., & Arnold, R. G. (2012). Life cycle analysis for
water and wastewater pipe materials. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 139(5),
Table 9

703–711.
CED

ecoinvent (2009). Swiss centre for life cycle inventories. Ecoinvent database v3.0. Retrieved

548
M. Hajibabaei et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 43 (2018) 538–549

March 20, 2001. from . (accessed January 2017) http://www.ecoinvent.ch/. Management, (January), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.
Fagan, J. E., Reuter, M. A., & Langford, K. J. (2010). Dynamic performance metrics to 0000069.
assess sustainability and cost effectiveness of integrated urban water systems. Pre’ Consultants (2014). SimaPro Database Manual. PRe’. Amersfoort (Nederlands),
Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, 54(10), 719–736. 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., ... Suh, S. Qi, C., & Chang, N. B. (2011). System dynamics modeling for municipal water demand
(2009). Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental estimation in an urban region under uncertain economic impacts. Journal of
Management, 91(1), 1–21. Environmental Management, 92(6), 1628–1641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
Godskesen, B., Hauschild, M., Rygaard, M., Zambrano, K., & Albrechtsen, H.-J. (2013). 2011.01.020.
Life-cycle and freshwater withdrawal impact assessment of water supply technolo- Remy, C., & Jekel, M. (2011). Energy analysis of conventional and source-separation
gies. Water Research, 47(7), 2363–2374. systems for urban wastewater management using Life Cycle Assessment. Water
Hajibabaei, M., Nazif, S., & Vahedizade, S. (2017). Comparing the environmental impacts Science & Technology, 65(1), 22–29.
caused by construction and implementation of water distribution network pipes using Renou, S., Thomas, J. S., Aoustin, E., & Pons, M. N. (2008). Influence of impact assess-
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. Journal of Water and Wastewater Science and ment methods in wastewater treatment LCA. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(10),
Engineering, 1(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.22112/jwwse.2017.51057. 1098–1105.
Hamoun Nyzeh Co (HANY CO) (2016). Manufacturer of ductile Iron pipes. Retrieved from . Sanjuan-delmás, D., Petit-boix, A., Gasol, C. M., Villalba, G., Suárez-ojeda, M. E.,
(accessed September 2016) http://hanyco.ir/. Gabarrell, X., ... Rieradevall, J. (2014). Environmental assessment of different pipe-
Hanjra, M. A., & Qureshi, M. E. (2010). Global water crisis and future food security in an lines for drinking water transport and distribution network in small to medium cities :
era of climate change. Food Policy, 35(5), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. A case from Betanzos, Spain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 588–598. https://doi.
foodpol.2010.05.006. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.055.
Hardoy, J. E., Mitlin, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (1992). Environmental problems in Third World Schulz, M., Short, M. D., & Peters, G. M. (2012). A streamlined sustainability assessment
cities.. tool for improved decision making in the urban water industry. Integrated
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006). ISO 14044 - environmental Environmental Assessment and Management, 8(1), 183–193.
management - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidance. Slagstad, H., & Brattebø, H. (2014). Life cycle assessment of the water and wastewater
Johnson, L. E. (2009). Geographic information systems in water resources engineering. system in Trondheim, Norway–A case study: Case Study. Urban Water Journal, 11(4),
Retrieved fromhttp://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=c7xyS3x0fP0C& 323–334.
oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Geographic+information+systems+in+water+resources Sterling, R. L., & Simicevic, J. (2001). Guidelines for pipe bursting. U.S. Army Corps of
+engineering&ots=QQLvTMLhSk&sig=kgkARlrhiw_b7YpTHqPU6WWrCoc. Engineers, (March), 1–55.
Kirk, B., Etnier, C., Kärrman, E., & Johnstone, S. (2005). Methods for comparing wastewater Stokes, J., & Horvath, A. (2006). Life cycle energy assessment of alternative water supply
treatment options. St. Louis, Missouri: National Decentralized Water Resources systems. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(5), 335–343. https://
Capacity Development Project (NDWRCDP). doi.org/10.1065/lca2005.06.214.
Lassaux, S., Renzoni, R., & Germain, A. (2007). LCA case studies life cycle assessment of Suh, Y.-J., & Rousseaux, P. (2002). An LCA of alternative wastewater sludge treatment
water from the pumping station to the wastewater treatment plant. International scenarios. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, 35(3), 191–200.
Journal, 12(2), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2005.12.243. TERRA-Trenchless technology (2017). Manufacturer high-end technology systems for tren-
Loubet, P., Roux, P., Guérin-Schneider, L., & Bellon-Maurel, V. (2016). Life cycle as- chless underground pipe and cable laying. Received information via email (Accessed
sessment of forecasting scenarios for urban water management: A first implementa- January 2017).
tion of the WaLA model on Paris suburban area. Water Research, 90, 128–140. Tidaker, P., Kärrman, E., Baky, A., & Jönsson, H. (2006). Wastewater management in-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.12.008. tegrated with farming–an environmental systems analysis of a Swedish country town.
Loubet, P., Roux, P., Loiseau, E., & Bellon-Maurel, V. (2014). Life cycle assessments of Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, 47(4), 295–315.
urban water systems: A comparative analysis of selected peer-reviewed literature. Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural
Water Research, 67(0), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.08.048. sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898), 671.
Muñoz, I., Milà-I-Canals, L., & Fernández-Alba, A. R. (2010). Life cycle assessment of Tehran Province Water and Wastewater Company (TPWWC) (2017). Statistics obtained
water supply plans in mediterranean spain: The Ebro River Transfer Versus the AGUA from the director of operation (Accessed January 2017). Tehran (Iran).
Programme. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(6), 902–918. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2012).
1530-9290.2010.00271.x. Managing Water under uncertainty and risk. The United nations world Water development
Najafi, M. (2013). Trenchless technology: Planning, equipment, and methods. McGraw-Hill report 4vol. 1. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/
New York. environment/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr4-2012/ (accessed September 2017) .
Pasqualino, J. C., Meneses, M., Abella, M., & Castells, F. (2009). LCA as a decision support United Nations, & Department of Economic and Social Affairs, P. D (2015). World po-
tool for the environmental improvement of the operation of a municipal wastewater pulation prospects. United Nations, 1(6042), 587–592. https://doi.org/10.1017/
treatment plant. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(9), 3300–3307. CBO9781107415324.004.
Petit-Boix, A., Sanjuan-Delmás, D., Gasol, C. M., Villalba, G., Suárez-Ojeda, M. E., Vahidi, E., Jin, E., Das, M., Singh, M., & Zhao, F. (2016). Environmental life cycle analysis
Gabarrell, X., ... Rieradevall, J. (2014). Environmental assessment of sewer con- of pipe materials for sewer systems. Sustainable Cities and Society, 27, 167–174.
struction in small to medium sized cities using life cycle assessment. Water Resources Venkatesh, G., & Brattebø, H. (2011). Energy consumption, costs and environmental
Management, 28(4), 979–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0528-z. impacts for urban water cycle services: Case study of Oslo (Norway). Energy, 36(2),
Piratla, K. R., Asce, S. M., Ariaratnam, S. T., Asce, M., & Cohen, A. (2012). Estimation of 792–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.12.040.
CO 2 emissions from the life cycle of a potable water pipeline project. Journal of

549

View publication stats