Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 1448–1460

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Modelling & Software

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

Decision support for sustainable option selection in integrated

urban water management
C.K. Makropoulos a, *, K. Natsis b, S. Liu a, K. Mittas c, D. Butler a
a
Centre for Water Systems, School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon EX4 4QF, UK
b
Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies, France
c
Environment Agency, UK

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

Article history: Conventional urban water management practices aim to meet water supply-demands while conveying
Received 14 February 2007 wastewater and stormwater away from urban settings. Alternative approaches which consider water
Received in revised form 11 April 2008 demands to be manageable and wastewater and stormwater as valuable resources, although being
Accepted 13 April 2008
increasingly sought, lack reliable site specific implementation methodologies. This paper describes the
Available online 3 June 2008
development of a decision support tool (termed the Urban Water Optioneering Tool (UWOT)) to
facilitate the selection of combinations of water saving strategies and technologies and to support the
Keywords:
delivery of integrated, sustainable water management for new developments. The tool is based on
Decision support
Option selection
a water balance model which allows the investigation of interactions between the major urban water
Sustainability assessment cycle streams. The model is informed by a knowledge library which is populated with technological
Urban water management options and information on their major characteristics and performance. The technology selection is
Water cycle modelling driven by a GA algorithm allowing efficient exploration of the decision space. Quantitative and quali-
tative sustainability criteria and indicators are used to compare between alternative composite water
management strategies while preserving the multiobjective nature of the problem. The tool has been
successfully tested on a case study site in the UK, and the results are presented and discussed. It is
suggested that ‘‘optioneering’’ tools will increasingly become part of urban water management planning
toolkits as practice moves towards more decentralised, integrated, context-specific solutions to address
issues of sustainability.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Software information
Name of software: UWOT
Software platform: Simulink/Matlab/GA and Fuzzy Logic
Toolboxes
Type: Research tool
For information on availability contact: Centre for Water
Systems, University of Exeter, EX4 4QF: www.ex.ac.uk/
cws
1. Introduction
Demographic change (including internal and international mi-
gration) and economic growth considerations are influencing much
of the urbanisation processes, both in Europe and elsewhere
(Cheshire and Carbonaro, 1996; Skeldon, 2006). This has significant
implications for current UK policy, with the Office of Deputy Prime
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ441392 264049.
E-mail address: c.makropoulos@exeter.ac.uk (C.K. Makropoulos).
Minister (2002), predicting the need for over 4 million new
households by 2016. This concentration of human activities in-
tensifies local competition for all types of resource, with water
amongst the most vital (Zoppou, 2001), rendering it increasingly
difficult to find and utilize new sources of water necessary to satisfy
growing water demand (Niemczynowicz, 1999). It is argued that
water management solutions for new residential developments
should be based on sustainability considerations due to their far
reaching social, economic and environmental implications (Fenner
et al., 2006; Makropoulos et al., 2006a,b). The application of sus-
tainable practices within the urban environment is dependent on
a number of development-specific characteristics requiring both
quantitative and qualitative information to be fully taken into ac-
count (Makropoulos et al., 1999). This necessitates the development
of appropriate decision support tools to help decision-makers to
confront the ill-structured nature of the sustainability assessment
process, examine its components and their interactions, allow for
explicit statement of assumptions and enhance the communication
between stakeholders, including researchers (Jakeman et al., 2006).
Within this work the classic view of Sprague and Carlson (1982)
was adopted, according to which the role of a DST is to support

1364-8152/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.04.010
 C.K. Makropoulos et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 1448–1460 1449

rather than replace managerial judgment, while assisting decision-
makers to explore possible solutions and outcomes beyond the
obvious ones (Jakeman et al., 2006).
The work presented here has been developed within the Water
Cycle Management for New Developments (WaND) Project in the
UK whose aim is ‘to provide guidelines and decision support tools
for the implementation and assessment of efficient and sustainable
water management interventions in new urban developments with
due consideration to social, environmental and health associated
factors’. The paper presents the background, development and
application of a decision support tool, termed the Urban Water
Optioneering Tool (UWOT) designed to facilitate the strategic
planning of sustainable water management systems, and is struc-
tured as follows: the first section deals with sustainability objec-
tives and the use of sustainability indicators as a means of
supporting sustainable option selection. The following section
deals with the urban water cycle, its distinct components and
provides examples of urban water management (UWM) technolo-
gies, included in the tool. The third section describes in detail the
generic structure of the water mass balance model, developed in
Simulink, which forms the core of the DST as well as the Technology
Library which contains the different technological options for
UWM and their key characteristics. The implementation of a ge-
netic algorithm driving the optimisation process embedded in the
tool is then described and the results of the application of UWOT in
a new residential development are presented and discussed. The
paper concludes by discussing the main strengths of the tool and its
potential role in the urban water management domain.
2. Sustainability of the urban water environment
Water management in new residential developments is tasked
with the requirement to achieve acceptable levels of service, not
overburden existing infrastructure, have minimal impacts on the
natural environment and to be, at the same time, socially and
economically acceptable. In turn, the whole of the urban water
management cycle forms part of the broader water resources
management cycle, currently influenced by (in essence) sustain-
ability requirements embedded in environmental legislation in the
EU (for example, Directive 2000/60/EC). The emerging EU envi-
ronmental legislation paradigm internalises principles of in-
tegrated water management, pollution prevention and a more
complete concept of sustainability which, as stated by Brunner and
Starkl (2004), not only features ecological or economic aspects, but
also social and institutional ones, such as the participation of
stakeholders.
2.1. Sustainability criteria and indicators
A criterion can be defined as a measure against which option
performance is assessed along with the degree to which stated
objectives are achieved. Indicators constitute a means of measuring
the level to which criteria are satisfied (Makropoulos et al.,
2006a,b). The criteria-indicators approach adopted in this work,
relates to the framework developed within the SWARD project
which focuses on sustainability for the water industry. Following
the classification introduced in SWARD, four Sustainability Capitals
are being used, namely, environmental, economic, social and
technical. Each capital contains a set of (quantitative or qualitative)
indicators enabling assessment. A subset of the SWARD indicators
was chosen and implemented in this study, based on their rele-
vance to the scope of UWOT and the extent to which they could be
satisfactorily quantified. This does not imply that other (non-
quantifiable) indicators should be ignored, but only that such in-
dicators cannot, by definition, be used in a quantitative tool such as
UWOT and need to be assessed, within the decision-making pro-
cess, in addition to UWOT’s results. The criteria and indicators
adopted in this study are discussed in brief in the following section
and are summarised in Table 1. For detailed definitions of these
criteria and indicators the reader is referred to output from the
SWARD Project (Ashley et al., 2004).
2.2. Option selection
The methodology developed in this study, supported by the
prototype UWOT software, deals with a specific type of urban water
management problem: the (technological) option selection prob-
lem. It relates to the decision problem of choosing the most suitable
technology given case-specific conditions and constraints with re-
spect to technical, environmental, social and economic objectives
(Balkema et al., 2002).
3. Modelling the urban water cycle
The three main components of the urban water cycle are water
supply, wastewater disposal and stormwater drainage, making up
the urban water system. The traditional approach is to consider the
Table 1
Capital, criteria and indicators used in UWOT for the assessment of sustainability
Capital Criteria Indicator
Environmental Resource utilisation Water usage (litres/use)
Water loss (litres/use)
Energy use (KWh/use)
Chemical use (litres/use)
Land use (m2)
Service provision Service provisiona
Environmental impact Environmental impacta

Economic Life cycle costs Life cycle costsa

The incorporation of sustainability assessment into decision-
Willingness to pay Willingness to paya
making processes is thus becoming a key task for water service Affordability Affordabilitya
providers – in the UK and elsewhere (Foxon et al., 2002). Quanti- Financial risk exposure Financial risk exposurea
fying or ‘‘operationalising’’ sustainability is, more often than not, Capital cost (£) Capital cost (£)
a debatable concept and an ambiguous process to be handled with Operational cost (£/l) Operational cost (£/litre)
considerable attention to the particular characteristics of the Social Risks to human health Risks to human healtha
problem at hand (Natsis et al., 2006). The approach adopted here is Acceptability Acceptabilitya
the selection of appropriate criteria linked to specific indicators. Participation/responsibility Participation/responsibilitya
Public awareness Public awareness
The assessment of sustainability through the use of sustainability Social inclusion Social inclusiona
indicators is a well established and documented approach,
Technical Performance Performancea
including, but not restricted to work within the Sustainable Water
Reliability Reliabilitya
industry Asset Resource Decisions (SWARD) project (Ashley et al., Durability Durabilitya
2004), the study by the International Hydrological Programme Flexibility/adaptability Flexibility/adaptabilitya
together with the American Society of Civil Engineers (Loucks and a
These indicators do not have units as they quantify qualitative sustainability
Gladwell, 1999), or the work of Balkema et al. (2002) in the stock. Instead they are rated between 0 and 5 with 0 being the worst score and 5 the
Netherlands. best score.
1450 C.K. Makropoulos et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 1448–1460
infrastructure that delivers potable water, separately from the in-
frastructure that disposes of wastewater and separately to the
provision of drainage for stormwater. There is growing need to re-
evaluate this approach in order to seek ways to, inter alia, minimise
the environmental impact of urban areas on supply sources and
receiving waters. This necessitates the investigation and sub-
sequent exploitation of possible interactions between the three
main components of urban water. Until recently wastewater and
rainwater were considered waste streams that needed to be con-
veyed away from the urban environment and disposed of. However,
they are increasingly being seen as resources that need to be
exploited rather than unavoidable by-products of urbanisation.
Planning and operating the systems separately, foregoes the
potential for utilisation of urban stormwater and wastewater for
beneficial purposes, and disregards the fact that these systems are
inter-connected and inter-related. Changing one flow can induce
a reaction in the other systems. Potable water demand, for example,
is directly related to wastewater production. Technologies that
reduce water demand would influence wastewater conveyance
systems. Another obvious example would be that water recycling
techniques, apart from reducing water demand also reduce
demand for sewage and sewage treatment. There emerges there-
fore, a need to take a more holistic view, allowing water supply,
wastewater disposal, and stormwater drainage to be considered as
interacting components within a single system (Mitchell et al.,
2001). An integrated modelling framework is required, in order to
investigate and quantify the interactions and transformations of
the three water flows and to identify the future possibilities and the
limitations of different systems within the context of sustainable
water management for new developments. Prior to describing the
structure of the UWOT prototype developed to address this need
and analysing the functionality of its various components, a brief
overview of five streams of urban water, that are distinguished by
UWOT, is provided. These are: potable (or whitewater), greywater,
treated greywater (or greenwater), wastewater (or blackwater) and
runoff. Note that these do not correspond necessarily to the three
urban water components (water supply, wastewater disposal and
stormwater drainage) discussed above as they are introduced ex-
plicitly to allow for the conceptualisation of interactions between
these components.
3.1. Potable water
Potable water is by definition water whose quality meets drink-
ing water standards. Treating water to potable standards is an
expensive and energy consuming process. However, as can be seen
from Fig. 1, only a small proportion (appr. 15–20%) of in-house water
demand is actually used for purposes requiring drinking water
quality (incl. water used for drinking, cooking and cleaning dishes).
Water consumption patterns can vary significantly from house to
house, depending on the household occupancy, the social and cul-
tural conditions as well as on the type of the water consuming
appliances installed in the houses (Butler and Davies, 2004).
3.2. Greywater
Greywater is the dilute wastewater stream originating from
domestic activities such as showering, bathing, washing hands,
tooth brushing, dishwashing, washing clothes, cleaning and food
preparation. The water contains some organic material, for exam-
ple, food remains, with pathogens, and inorganic material, such as
detergents, sand and salt (Balkema, 2003). The advantage of reus-
ing greywater is that the supply is regular and not dependent on
external phenomena (such as rain). As a result, the storage space
required could be substantially smaller than in the case of rain-
water systems. Moreover, the substitution of potable water with
Outside supply
4%
Shower
Kitchen sink
5%
15% Basin
9%
Bath
15%
WC
Dishwasher
31%
1%
Washing
machine
20%
Fig. 1. Water consumption share of different micro-components of the household in
the industrialised world (Source: Memon and Butler, 2006).
greywater used for purposes other than drinking, e.g., toilet
flushing and garden irrigation, reduces demand and thus assists the
preservation of valuable water resources (Nolde, 2000).
The main issues, relevant to the applicability of greywater sys-
tems include social acceptability and water quality. A freshly pro-
duced greywater usually does not have any objectionable odour.
However, it requires early treatment after collection. If stored un-
treated for long periods, oxygen deficient conditions will develop
and scum will be formed that can float or sink in the collection tank
(Memon and Butler, 2005). Moreover, the bacterial population
tends to increase with increased storage duration (Dixon et al.,
1999). In general, treating greywater prior to recycling is more
socially acceptable, and renders it suitable for more uses. It should
be noted, however, that water quality standards for in-house
greywater use (or indeed greenwater – see below) have yet to be
defined in the UK.
3.3. Greenwater
Greenwater is a term used in this work to denote treated rain-
water and treated greywater.
 Rainwater usually carries small pollutant loads (depended inter
alia on location, roof building materials and collection system
construction) and its harvesting system consists of three basic
elements: the collection system, the conveyance system and
the storage system. The main disadvantage is the unpredictable
and often irregular supply which results in large storage space
requirements (Dixon et al., 1999). Light treatment and disin-
fection is generally adequate for rainwater treatment to non-
potable standards.
 Greywater requires more treatment than rainwater to reach an
acceptable standard. The level of treatment required depends
on the scale and purpose of use. At small scale, a two-stage
treatment consisting of filtration of coarse pollutants (hair and
suspended impurities) followed by disinfection with chlorine,
bromine or UV may be sufficient (Memon and Butler, 2005).
Greywater recycling at medium to large scales may be more
viable but requires more complex treatment. Options include
biological aerated filters, membranes, bioreactors, UV treat-
ment, Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) dosing, membrane aeration
bioreactors and coagulation/flocculation with alum or ferric
(Memon and Butler, 2005).
 C.K. Makropoulos et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 1448–1460
Greenwater, regardless of the scale of the recycling scheme or
origin, could be a viable alternative water supply, and can poten-
tially substitute potable water in some water uses within the house,
with the obvious exception of drinking water or food preparation.
Studies have shown (Nolde, 2000) that service (green) water made
available from rainwater or greywater systems can be cost effective
and with proper operation presents no hygienic risk or comfort loss
for the consumer. The unavailability of water quality standards for
greenwater in-house use, however, is an obvious barrier to its
adoption as an alternative form of supply, at least in the UK.
3.4. Wastewater
In conventional water supply and drainage systems, the whole
volume of delivered drinking water becomes wastewater requiring
treatment before being released to the environment. Increasing
water demand also means that additional wastewater will have to
be disposed of, often in areas where existing sewage treatment
works may be at capacity or in areas where discharge potential to
local watercourse is limited by environmental concerns. If recycling
schemes are implemented the volume of wastewater produced can
be significantly reduced. Within UWOT, greywater is considered
separate from wastewater, the latter only used to describe water
from the toilet that leaves the household water cycle to be treated
at a central scale. However, if a no recycling setup is modelled
within UWOT, then the greywater is added to the wastewater
(blackwater) stream.
3.5. Runoff
New developments have a direct impact on existing drainage
infrastructure and the surrounding environment (Butler and Mak-
simovic, 2001). They increase the area of paved surfaces, thus
reducing infiltration, while causing surface runoff to exhibit higher
peak flows, larger volumes, shorter times to peak and accelerated
transport of pollutants and sediment from urban areas. (Niemczy-
nowicz, 1999; Makropoulos et al., 1999). This results in pollution of
the receiving watercourses and increased flood risk within the
development. Controlling surface runoff thus becomes a key ele-
ment in working towards urban sustainability. Surface runoff can
be reduced either by collecting rainwater for recycling (through
harvesting1) – with the additional advantage of the reduced pota-
ble water demand – or by the installation of non-piped solutions to
urban drainage (known as ‘‘sustainable drainage systems’’ (SUDS)
in the UK (Butler and Parkinson, 1997; Butler and Davies, 2004;
Makropoulos et al., 2006a,b)).
4. Building a decision support tool
UWOT follows from extensive research carried out by the
authors in sustainable urban water management, decision-making
and computer modelling (e.g. Makropoulos et al., 2006a,b; Natsis
et al., 2006; Mounce et al., 2006). A previous attempt towards the
development of a tool with similar functionality – but of different
structure and rationale – was carried out by Sakellari et al. (2005),
within the framework of the WaND initiative. At that stage issues
of modularity and upgradeability were identified as areas of
improvement and UWOT was developed with an aim to maximise
the potential of the system to be upgraded and improved upon in
the future, without significant re-programming effort requirements.
Although this modularity imposes a greater work load at the
1
Although this is not the primary function of rainwater harvesting systems and
their operational objectives can be in conflict with those of rainfall-runoff
management.
1451
beginning of the programming process, UWOT followed the Argent
and Grayson (2001) paradigm in assuming that the availability of
an initial system to react to future needs and be improved upon,
may actually overcome the users’ initial difficulties to interact with
the system and thus increase its usefulness.
4.1. The tool platform
The initial idea during the planning stage of UWOT was to de-
velop it based on simple and commonly used software platforms,
such as Microsoft Excel, which is widely available and familiar to
most professionals in the field. However, spreadsheets have limi-
tations, the most serious of which being their inability to handle
complex decision-making algorithms, their computational impre-
cision and their limited database management capability (Liu et al.,
2005). Liu and colleagues, suggest that computational capacity and
sophistication can be readily added to a spreadsheet by linking it to
one of the less widely available, but well known, high-level tech-
nical computing environments such as MATLAB by Mathworks.2
The development environment selected for the water mass
balance model, which constitutes the core of UWOT, is Simulink,
which forms part of the MATLAB suite of tools developed by
Mathworks. Simulink enables the modelling, simulation, and
analysis of dynamic systems, whose outputs change over time.
Simulink was chosen as it facilitates the representation of processes
and flows in a visually intuitive manner.
UWOT integrates Simulink/MATLAB and Microsoft Excel (via
Excel’s Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) programming environ-
ment) into a computationally strong and user-friendly decision
support tool (Fig. 2). Excel is used for data input, storage of tech-
nology options characteristics and results visualisation. MATLAB/
Simulink computes the water mass balance model, for the partic-
ular combination of technological options selected for evaluation
by the user and processes its outputs in a form suitable for sus-
tainability assessment, optimisation and visualisation, finally pre-
sented in Excel. The details of the mass balance model and its
interaction with the technology options at different spatial and
temporal scales are presented below.
4.2. The issue of scale
One of the main research and policy questions in the field of
UWM today, at least in the UK (Butler and Makropoulos, 2006) is
whether it is possible to attain more sustainable urban water
management through improving the existing centralised systems
or whether it is necessary to switch to new decentralised systems
or is there an optimal mix of decentralised and centralised man-
agement that can combine the advantages of both systems,
depending on the situation at hand?
UWOT was designed to enable the comparison of a wide variety
of water management technologies and schemes (including recy-
cling, treatment and drainage) at different scales.
Within the urban water cycle, water quantities are continuously
exchanged between spatial scales (e.g. household, development) in
the form of potable water supply and generated wastewater, while,
within the household, water is used to satisfy various types of de-
mand (Sakellari et al., 2005). The appropriate spatial resolution for
modelling the urban water cycle, is therefore an integration of
distinct spatial layers that simulate the different scales, which,
when combined, form the totality of the urban water development.
In UWOT the most detailed level of modelling is the in-house
micro-component, followed by the household and finally, the
development level.
2
See also: www.mathworks.com.
1452 C.K. Makropoulos et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 1448–1460

MATLAB/SIMULINK EXCEL
Boundary
Conditions
and User
preferences
at a given
time and
place

Tech
Library to
select and
evaluate
tech.
options

OR

POTABLE WATER DEMAND Scenario

RELIABILITY WASTE WATER Evaluation
PRODUCED
OPTIONEERING ASSESSMENT
Through an of user-defined RISKS TO RUNOFF
HUMAN HEALTH
EVOLUTION options.
STRATEGY
SOCIAL ENERGY
ACCEPTABILITY

CAPITAL COST LAND USE

OPERATIONAL COST

Fig. 2. Schematic overview of the UWOT system.

1. The micro-component represents a single water using appli-
ance, for example, a washing machine, a shower, or a household
scale greywater treatment system. Modelling separately all ap-
pliances that use water, is fundamental to the modelling concept
of UWOT, since each appliance is considered a technological
option (either selected by the user or proposed by the optimi-
sation algorithm) with specific characteristics affecting both the
water cycle and the subsequent sustainability assessment. All
micro-component options are contained, as suggested before in
a library which includes multiple technological options for each
water use within the household (e.g. multiple types of washing
machines, each with specific characteristics).
2. The next modelling scale is the household which represents
a single building, which can have private, commercial or public
function. The household represents an aggregation of the mi-
cro-components it contains. The UWOT prototype developed
can model six types of households depending on the specific
configuration of appliances and user practices (e.g. frequency of
use) within them. Inputs to the household are (a) rainfall falling
on the impervious and pervious areas of the plot, (b) potable
water from the water service provider (WSP) and treated
greenwater water if a centralised recycling scheme is installed.
The basic outputs of this scale are wastewater and runoff. In the
case of centralised recycling schemes, greywater and/or har-
vested rainwater are also exchanged between the household
and the development scales.
3. The development represents a group of households, possibly of
different types, as well as the associated roads and public open
space. It is the spatial scale at which centralised treatment and
recycling schemes, as well as centralised SUDS. The water
balance model inputs at this level are rainfall and potable water
from the WSP while the only outputs are runoff and waste-
water produced. Water evaporated or infiltrated at the de-
velopment scale, constituting a sink in the water balance at this
scale, is calculated and subtracted from the water balance but
not modelled in detail.
In terms of spatial variability, the UWOT prototype assumes
uniformity within the development and does not attempt to model
physical processes. Spatial variability is represented by exploiting
the multiple household type functionality and the associated dif-
ferences in characteristics that can be assigned to these types by the
user (including percent of impervious cover etc). The most spatially
dependant inputs to the model are the rainfall data (in the form of
time-step-average rainfall) and the evapotranspiration potential.
Since the model is run at large time-steps (see discussion below),
no account is taken of the hydraulics of flows within and between
households.
4.3. Temporal resolution
The scope of UWOT is to facilitate the strategic planning and
preliminary design of sustainable water management systems,
rather than to provide support for detailed design and imple-
mentation of the technologies. A daily time-step was therefore
selected as appropriate for the water balance model. This level of
 C.K. Makropoulos et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 1448–1460 1453

aggregation results in the loss of diurnal variations in flows, but was
considered adequate to provide sufficient information for the com-
parison of different water management strategies and technologies
especially for long-term simulations, necessary for sustainability
assessment.
4.4. The technology library: a collection of urban water
management technologies
UWOT aims to facilitate the comparison of different water
management technologies and their combination at different
application scales. In order to achieve this aim, a knowledge base
of existing water management technologies was developed and
populated. This knowledge base, termed ‘‘Technology Library’’ was
implemented in multiple Excel spreadsheets, one for each category
of technological option (e.g. baths, showers, greywater treatment
systems etc) and contains data and information on their major
characteristics and performance. The information included in the
library is based on the environmental, economic, social and tech-
nical indicators introduced in earlier sections. Some of these in-
dicators are quantitative (e.g. installation costs for a particular tap)
while others are qualitative and require input in the form of
judgement for the particular situation for which the tool is used
(e.g. social acceptability of a particular greywater recycling scheme
in a particular development). This judgement can be generated by
domain experts, or (more appropriately) by stakeholder engage-
ment and consultation. The process of generating context-specific
indicators for specific technologies at a case-by-case basis does not
fall within the subject matter of this paper. It is acknowledged that
this is not a straightforward process, but it is important to stress
that the tool is flexible enough to ignore any indicators for which
such information is unavailable, unreliable or irrelevant. Apart
from the sustainability indicators, the technology library also con-
tains operational parameters, including technical and operational
characteristics for each technology that are necessary for the calcu-
lation of the water balance for the total modelled urban water cycle
whenever a specific technology is selected for use (e.g. water use per
flush for a specific type of toilet). The technology library currently
comprises 14 separate spreadsheets. Table 2 presents the different
technology categories and classifies them into different application
scales. Each technology spreadsheet includes information on a series
of technologies of the same technology type.
4.5. The Simulink model
The Simulink water balance model is at the core of UWOT and
was created to investigate the effect of selecting different combi-
nations of technologies (at various scales) on the water cycle of the
development. The Simulink model consists of distinct, (drag-n-
drop) components. This is facilitated by the Simulink modelling
units called ‘‘blocks’’. By developing and linking together various
independent blocks, a powerful yet modular application has been
built minimising the effort required for future model extension.
4.5.1. Individual blocks and model components
In Simulink, a ‘‘block’’ is an independent unit (an object) which
can simulate a process by calculating a set of internal and/or ex-
ternal functions, including MATLAB M-files or Simulink S-files (Liu

Table 2
Technology types and scales of use in the Technology Library

Technology type Comment Technology use at:

In-house scale Household scale Dev. scale

Washing machine A number of washing machines from different manufacturers X
with diverse specifications.
Toilet Different types of toilet cisterns and toilet technologies. Distinction X
between different types is mainly based on flushing water consumption.
Shower Different types of shower heads, which can deliver various flow rates. X
Distinction between different technologies is mainly based on water
consumption and user satisfaction.
Bath Different types of bath tabs. Distinction is mainly based on bath tab X
holding capacity.
Hand basin Different types of hand basin tabs. Distinction is based on water flow X
delivery (laminated or aerated flow) and technique diversion to achieve
certain water flow.
Dishwasher A number of dishwashers from different manufacturers with X
diverse specifications.
Kitchen sink Different types of kitchen sink tabs. Distinction is based on water flow X
delivery (laminated or aerated flow) and technique diversion to achieve
certain water flow.
Garden Techniques and devices used for garden watering. X
Outside use Devices and features for domestic outside use, other than garden X
watering devices. For example, water tanks, pumps, swimming
pools and water fountains.
SUDS local Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) which can be used at a local scale X
to serve a property or a small number of properties. Differentiation
between SUDS is mainly based on functionality.
SUDS centralised SUDS which can be used at large scales to serve a region or a catchment X
area. Differentiation between SUDS is mainly based on functionality.
Greywater
Treatment local Decentralised rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse systems at the X X
household level or serve a small number of properties. Differentiation
between the systems is based on design specifications.
Greywater treatment centralised Greywater treatment and potential recycling at regional or X
catchment level. Technologies mainly include different types of
wastewater treatment plants.
Rainwater Treatment Centralised Rainwater treatment and potential recycling at regional or catchment X
level. Technologies mainly include different types of rainwater
treatment plants.
1454 C.K. Makropoulos et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 1448–1460

Influent quantity
Effluent quantity
Water Cycle
Component
Influent quality Effluent quality
Fig. 3. A component of the household water cycle represented by a Simulink block
(adapted from Liu et al., 2005).
et al., 2005). For the water cycle at the household scale, the ele-
ments of the system, such as a water source (e.g. water supplied
from external WSPs), water use appliances (e.g. washing machine,
toilet and shower) and treatment units (e.g. local greywater recy-
cling system) are all viewed as objects that encapsulate specific
attributes and behaviours and can interact with other objects by
exchanging water quantity and quality information (see Fig. 3).
These objects are used to model the components of the water cycle.
A schematic representation of an example configuration for
a household block can be seen in Fig. 4 to assist in the visualisation
of the model description. The figure illustrates the basic idea of the
modelling components presented in the discussion below, but does
not represent the detailed configuration of the Simulink blocks
developed for UWOT.
For the purposes of model construction, components are dis-
tinguished into sources, appliances and sinks. Sources are the ele-
ments that ‘‘bring’’ water into the system, such as an (external)
potable water supply component or a rainwater collection tank.
Appliances are all elements that ‘‘use’’ water (e.g. a washing ma-
chine). Finally, sinks are the elements that convey water out of the
system, such as a wastewater conveyance system.
4.5.2. Composite blocks
Several blocks can be grouped according to their functionality to
form a new composite block. UWOT uses this functionality to
manage the different scales within the urban water cycle. Below,
the composite blocks employed in UWOT are presented from
a model development perspective to facilitate understanding of
how the model is constructed.
4.5.3. The household composite block
The household block, which can represent any type of building,
is created by aggregating several components and modelling their
dynamic interactions. The block is divided into four subsystems:
source, allocation, water use and switches/multipliers. The source
subsystem handles the integration of the water source compo-
nents. The output from the source subsystem represents the total
water available in the house separated into water quality volumes
(white, green, grey and black) and is (re)calculated at each time-
step. The water use subsystem contains appliance components and
it is here that the demand for water is generated. The allocation
subsystem matches supply and demand for different water quali-
ties based on user-defined preferences and water quality priorities.
This is probably the most complex subsystem and will be presented
in greater detail in the following paragraphs. The switches/multi-
pliers subsystem defines the existence (or not) of recycling schemes
for greywater and rainwater harvesting, and is operated on the
basis of either user input or optimisation.
The source subsystem is composed of three water sources
(white, green and greywater) that are modelled as water tanks,
with a fixed storage capacity and a variable water level. The green
and the greywater tanks represent the actual storage tanks that are
installed in the house to balance supply and demand. The potable
water tank on the other hand is conceptual and is included for
reasons of symmetry of representation and used to model (exter-
nal) potable water supply from the WSP. In principle this could also
be set to some fixed capacity to model water scarcity or rationing,
but in the current development stage it has been assigned an
infinite storage capacity.
A crucial issue in modelling the water cycle within the house-
hold is the balance between demand for water and its provision.

HOUSEHOLD BLOCK
SOURCE

Potable Water
Tank

WATER USE (Appliances)

Green
Rainfall
Water OUT
IN Green Water
Rainwater Harvesting Tank ALLOCATION

Potable
Water Grey Water
IN OUT Grey Water
Shower Tank

Green
Water
Grey Water SWITCH
IN
Washing Mashine OUT
Grey Water
(Developme
nt Scale)
Grey
Water Black
IN Water OUT Waste
Toilet water

SINK

Fig. 4. Schematic of example components within a household block.

 C.K. Makropoulos et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 1448–1460
This includes the allocation of water by the tanks to competing
water requests and the prioritisation of water uptake by the
appliances between alternative water sources. In UWOT, each
micro-component is associated with a list of different water qualities
that the micro-component can receive in order of (user-defined)
preference. A toilet, for example, may be specified to ‘‘prefer’’ to use
greenwater and only if this is not available to accept potable water
for flushing. The tanks on the other hand, supply water using a first
come, first serve basis. Since in the Simulink mass balance model all
requests would happen simultaneously within one time-step, the
randomness of the actual phenomenon3 is simulated by creating
a random water request sequence. Clearly dependencies between
appliances could also be built into this random sequence but this has
not been implemented in this version of the UWOT prototype.
The appliances subsystem contains all the water components
and generates the demand. This is where water quality is altered
based on its use. For example, in the toilet components, water input
is transformed to blackwater irrespective of the quality of the input.
The shower components transform all input to greywater, and in
the treatment components, greywater is transformed to
greenwater.
The switches subsystem manages rainwater harvesting (to be
used as a source for greenwater) and greywater recycling. It is
responsible for diverting the appropriate water streams according
to user preferences. The switches can be set (by the user) to 0, 1 or 2
for no recycling, local recycling and centralised recycling, re-
spectively. If the rainwater harvesting switch is set to 0, for exam-
ple, then the rainwater stream will be connected directly to the
runoff stream and flow out of the development. If it is set to 1 the
rainwater stream will be harvested within the household, and if it
set to 2, the rainwater stream will be diverted to a centralised
rainwater treatment facility. The same applies to the greywater
streams.
4.5.4. The development composite block
The development scale is created by an aggregation of house-
holds. Six different types of household (composite) blocks are
supported in the current version of the model and can be used to
represent different types of premises with different occupancy and
water use. Additional components at this scale are roads and public
open space associated with the development, centralised rainwater
and greywater treatment facilities and service reservoirs for the
greenwater water resulting from these facilities. A schematic rep-
resentation of the concept can be seen in Fig. 5. Sources of water at
this scale are the potable water supplied by the WSP and rainfall,
while the sinks represented are wastewater and runoff leaving the
development, as well as water that is infiltrated or evaporated.
4.6. Running UWOT
Efforts were devoted to designing a user-friendly interface,
motivated by the fact that user-friendly interfaces have been
reported to help overcome, at least partly, some stakeholder’s re-
luctance towards use of formal decision support systems (Lu et al.,
2001). The design of the user interface for UWOT considered issues
of accessibility, flexibility, and interactiveness, as discussed in
Malczewski (1999). In particular, the interaction between the user
and the model is handled by the Excel-based Graphical User
Interface (GUI), which facilitates the use of UWOT by users
unfamiliar with MATLAB and Simulink. Excel also contains the
Technology Library spreadsheets, allowing the user to browse
through the available water management technological options,
3
The phenomenon in this case being the sequence with which appliances re-
quest water within the household.
1455
obtain information on their performance and tailor their assess-
ment to the particular problem at hand. UWOT can be run in two
modes: (a) assessment and (b) optimisation.
4.7. Assessment mode
In this mode, UWOT evaluates a user-defined configuration of an
urban water management system (for a specific urban de-
velopment). To initiate model simulation, the user needs to specify
through the GUI the micro-components involved in the different
types of houses and the different scales by configuring an on/off
flag, which is associated with each technological option. Moreover,
the user is asked to indicate whether water recycling schemes are
to be included, specify the type of water to be treated and recycled
(rainwater or greywater) and the spatial scale of the recycling’s
implementation (household or development scale). Recycling
schemes can be applied independently to each household type, by
configuring each household’s recycling switches. This approach
enables the comparison of different combinations of technologies
and urban water management strategies.4 Finally, the user is asked
to specify the priority by which each type of micro-component
demands a particular water quality. Additional user inputs include
information on the number of houses per household type and their
corresponding occupancies, as well as data on their pervious, im-
pervious and rain harvesting areas at the various scales. Finally, the
user is asked to specify the desired duration of the simulation, after
which UWOT populates the urban water cycle model with the
specific micro-components suggested by the user, runs the full
simulation processes the results within the MATLAB environment
and exports them to Excel for visualisation.
Two types of results are produced by the tool: (a) numerical
values for all water streams, including potable water demand,
wastewater and runoff generated, presented in total, daily and daily
per capita values and plotted in bar diagrams to allow for a quick
impression of the water balance of the simulated configuration;
(b) a wider assessment created by obtaining values for the sus-
tainability indicators in Table 1 for all the technologies present in
the simulated configuration, for which the user has provided
(context-specific) values for the particular situation by entering
them into the technology library. In both cases, the indicator values
of the proposed solution are standardised through fuzzy inference
systems (FIS) against those of a user-defined benchmark scenario
(Natsis et al., 2006). The benchmark could be a system configura-
tion that the user considers as ‘‘business-as-usual’’. Such a config-
uration may include, for example, standard appliances, no recycling
or harvesting and classic end-of-pipe drainage and wastewater
collection technologies (which are also present in the technology
library). This approach allows the inclusion in the same assessment
process of both quantitative and qualitative criteria with different
units and values and physical meanings. Consequently, the per-
formance of different system configuration scenarios are assessed
with respect to a (user-defined) point of reference, making the
assessment context aware. This context-awareness is based on two
elements: (a) the inclusion in the technology library of case-specific
information (through, for example, consultation with local stake-
holders) and (b) the fact that the assessment is a ‘‘comparison’’
rather than a ‘‘score’’ between a standard solution, given the cir-
cumstance, and a potential alternative one. This context dependency
is an issue of paramount importance in the sustainability assessment
debate (Ashley et al., 2008).
4
UWOT can therefore compare rainwater harvesting to greywater recycling (as
strategies) as well as one greywater recycling system with another (as technological
options).
1456 C.K. Makropoulos et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 1448–1460
DEVELOPMENT
Household (1)
Rain Water
Potable
Water
Household (4)
Fig. 5. A schematic of the development scale model formed by an aggregation of household blocks.
4.8. Optimisation mode
Genetic algorithms (GA) were used to provide optimisation ca-
pabilities to UWOT. GAs and evolutionary programming (EP) have
recently seen a rise in their application in the water field (e.g.
Farmani et al. (2005), Keedwell and Khu (2005), Makropoulos and
Butler (2005)). This is primarily because GAs can be used to effec-
tively solve large, complex, non-linear, discrete optimisation
problems, such as found in urban water management. A discussion
on GAs and their principles falls outside the scope of the present
paper.5 The GA implementation in UWOT was developed using the
MATLAB’s GA Toolbox (Mathworks, 2000) and all parameters (ini-
tial population, mutation and crossover rates as well conversion
criteria are set by the user through UWOT’s optimisation part of the
GUI). For a detailed discussion of the algorithm and its setup the
reader is referred to Natsis (2005). The user specifies the boundary
conditions of the problem, as in the assessment case (incl. size of
development, occupancy etc), and is also presented with the option
of pre-specifying a number of technological options that should be
included in the final composite solution, without being subject to
selection through optimisation. A solution includes: (a) a set of
specific technological options for all micro-components (that are
not pre-specified by the user) and (b) a set of configurations for the
switches, specifying the inclusion (or not) within the solution of
greywater recycling and/or rainwater harvesting. The algorithm is
restricted to provide feasible solutions: some configurations are
linked together (e.g. the choice of the installation of a greywater
recycling scheme necessitates the existence of a greywater treat-
ment micro-component), while others are not allowed (e.g. in-
appropriate treatment trains) through the use of a look-up table.
5
For a comprehensive discussion on GA and Evolutionary Programming the
reader is referred to Michalewicz (1996).
Household (2) Household (3)
Black Water
Green Water Grey Water
Runoff
Household (5) Household (6)
Infiltration
The fitness of each solution is calculated on the basis of its sus-
tainability against the indicators identified in Table 1. Since the GA
used in this work is based on minimising a single objective, while
the indicators (and consequently the objectives they represent) are
multiple, the computed values for all indicators, standardised
against the benchmark scenario using FIS (as in the assessment
mode), are aggregated using two separate weighting schemes.
 A simple weighted averaging allows the incorporation of direct
user preferences enabling the user to tailor the search to par-
ticular objectives. For example, allow the optimisation algo-
rithm to minimise water demand and wastewater production
only.
 Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) (Yager, 1988). This enables
the aggregated fitness value to be influenced by the degree of
optimism or pessimism of the decision-maker. A comprehen-
sive discussion on this aggregation process in the context of
UWOT is included in Natsis et al. (2006).
Both aggregation procedures can be employed at the same time
if the nature of the problem requires it. The algorithm finishes
when one of a set of end criteria are satisfied, which include
incremental fitness improvement and maximum number of itera-
tions. Once an optimal solution is reached, the corresponding set of
technological options is identified and its sustainability ratings are
communicated to the decision-maker through the graphical user
interface, in their original disaggregated and non-weighted form.
In both the case of assessment and optimisation, no further
formal support is provided to rank the compared solutions, under
the assumption that trade-offs between criteria need to be visible
to the decision-maker rather than hidden behind aggregate values.
It is assumed that the results of UWOT will be used as input to
a further decision process, including possibly negotiation between
stakeholders with diverging priorities and agendas, which will be
 C.K. Makropoulos et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 1448–1460
aided by a clear display of the assessment of all solutions across
a range of sustainability indicators.
5. Results and discussion
UWOT was applied to the problem of selecting water-related
technologies for a new UK urban development, Elvetham Heath
(EH), to test the water balance model, technology library and
functionality of the decision support interface. UWOT was first
applied to simulate the present situation in EH and afterwards to
assess the sustainability of various alternative water management
practices that could be applied in the new households during the
development’s planned expansion.
Elvetham Heath is a 126 ha development situated in Hamp-
shire in the south east of England. It contains a natural reserve,
car parks and 62 ha of a residential area, which houses, approx-
imately, 4300 residents. The public space contains 42 ha of paved
surfaces and 20 ha of unpaved surfaces. 1340 households had
been constructed and occupied by April 2005 and 528 new
households are planned to be completed by 2008, increasing, the
total number of residents to 6000. The 1340 households consist
of 29 1-bedroom apartments, 378 2-bedroom flats, 395 3-bedroom
flats, 376 4-bedroom flats, 118 5-bedroom flats and 44 6-bedroom
flats. Some alternative UWM practices have been successfully
implemented in Elvetham Heath in the form of SUDS. The village
runoff drainage system includes 21 swales/retention ponds that
are successfully operating and also contribute to the aesthetic
value of the village.
A series of scenarios was developed to provide a basis for
thinking about alternative development possibilities in the case
study area. A discussion of scenarios of possible futures and their
impact on urban water management is included in Makropoulos
et al. (2008). In this paper we present only two of the scenarios
developed as a proof of concept of the tool’s operation. A bench-
mark scenario is also presented, to allow for a common basis for
comparisons.
The benchmark scenario, or ‘business as usual’, resembles resi-
dential developments using conventional, water intensive tech-
nologies. The scenario uses population and household data specific
to Elvetham Heath and makes use of conventional technologies at
the household level assuming no rainwater harvesting, greywater
recycling or SUDS. It also assumes that all water services, i.e. water
supply, stormwater and wastewater conveyance and treatment, are
delivered using centralised systems. Since rainwater harvesting and
greywater recycling is not allowed in this scenario, the only source
of water supply is potable water from the WSP (through external
water mains).
The mean per capita consumption corresponding to the EH
development under the Benchmark scenario, calculated over
a simulated period of 10 days, is approximately 168 l per capita per
day (lcd). This is approximately 10% higher than the 150 lcd which
is identified as a typical value for the UK (see also Butler and
Makropoulos, 2006). This can be attributed to the fact that the case
study has a significant amount of gardens and associated outdoors
water demand. Wastewater generation is approximately 85% of the
water demand, which is in agreement with generally accepted
losses of 5% within the house (Butler and Davies, 2004) augmented
by the 10% of demand due to gardening (water used in garden
irrigation is not contributing to the measured wastewater flow).
The results provide confidence that the model is well con-
structed and able to correctly simulate the water cycle within
a development.
The Water Save scenario is based on the same base data
(number of houses, occupancy, pervious and impervious areas of
the Elvetham Heath case study), but uses water saving technologies
at the household level; for example, dual WC cisterns and low flow
1457
showerheads, which are selected (manually) by the user.6 This
scenario is realistic as the technologies employed are already
developed and both the market and society are progressively
adopting them. Similar to the benchmark scenario, the Water Save
scenario assumes no centralised greywater recycling and rainwater
harvesting and the only source of water is the WSP external supply.
The Water Save scenario shows a decrease in demand for
potable water, indicating a per capita consumption of 109 lcd,
which is in agreement with what literature suggests as possible
following the installation of water saving devices (Styles, 2005;
Butler and Makropoulos, 2006).
A series of quantitative outputs, used for the subsequent as-
sessment of the scenarios discussed above, can be seen in Fig. 6.
The Benchmark scenario values are used to define the setup of
the FIS that is then used to evaluate the Water Save scenario and are
always placed at equal distances from the centre of the spider di-
agram (Fig. 7). A scenario value lower than the benchmark indicates
poorer performance. Similarly, high scenario values are placed
outside the benchmark values. In this example, we observe that, for
example, indicators ‘‘potable water demand’’ and ‘‘wastewater
produced’’ have improved at the expense of ‘‘energy’’.
Although the actual values of these indicators would depend on
the specific technologies used, what can be generally suggested is
that changes in the water cycle, through the introduction of water
managing technologies have implications on the entire system and
impact on a series of (sustainability) metrics. This complex, mul-
ticriteria (and ultimately multiobjective) nature of the problem is in
fact the raison d’être of UWOT. In Fig. 7, we use the term objectives
to refer both to the criteria of the assessment mode and the use of
the same criteria as ‘‘objectives’’ for the optimisation mode.
An Optimisation scenario, was developed to assess the potential
of UWOT to identify solutions beyond what was immediately ob-
vious to the end-user (represented here by the Water Save sce-
nario). As discussed, the optimisation algorithm can handle
multiobjective problems through weighting. To allow for a direct
comparison between the Water Save and the Optimisation sce-
narios we have chosen to optimise exclusively for potable water
demand, by setting its simple weighted averaging weight to 1 and
allowing all other weights to assume the value of 0. An initial
population of 100 individuals (each representing a potential solu-
tion to option selection process) was allowed to evolve for 30
generations. It can be seen (Fig. 6) that the algorithm, has identified
a set of technological options that can achieve an even more pro-
nounced reduction in water demand, lowering the per capita con-
sumption to 93 lcd.
An assessment of the optimisation scenario can be seen in Fig. 7.
Similar to the Water Save scenario, some of the indicators (in this
case, for example, ‘‘potable water demand’’, ‘‘wastewater pro-
duced’’ and ‘‘runoff’’) have improved, while others (such as ‘‘en-
ergy’’ or ‘‘operation costs’’) have deteriorated. The effect is more
pronounced as the optimisation scenario, to achieve a significant
reduction in potable water demand has employed, in this case,
greywater recycling at the local level. This can be observed through
the indicators ‘‘greenwater used’’ and ‘‘greywater used’’ in Fig. 6. It
is not suggested, that these results are necessarily optimal, as
evolutionary algorithms can only guarantee near optimal solutions,
and in any case the extent of the search was not sufficient to ade-
quately cover such a complex solution space. It can be seen, how-
ever, that even with a few optimisation runs the tool can suggest
solutions that outperform reasonable ‘‘best guesses’’ by end-users.
It is expected that as the technology library is updated with new
entries of available technologies thus making the solution space
6
For example, after an inspection of the technologies available in the technology
library.
1458 C.K. Makropoulos et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 1448–1460

700000
Optimisation
600000 Water Save
Benchmark
500000
Water (lcd)
400000

300000

200000

100000

0
POTABLE WATER GREEN WATER GREY WATER WASTEWATER RUNOFF WATER
DEMAND USED USED PRODUCED INFILTRATED

Fig. 6. UWOT results for selected indicators for the different scenarios.

more complicated, the gap between optimisation and best guess
assessment would increase. The results of this example scenario
may not even be desirable from a sustainability perspective, as the
algorithm was asked to minimise potable water demand to the
expense of all other criteria. It is suggested that a more balanced
weight selection, would result in less pronounced water demand
reductions, but would achieve this without significant decrease in
the performance of other indicators. Such a multiobjective han-
dling of the problem could also prove to be less intuitive to the user
and it is in such situations that the tool’s capabilities would become
more advantageous.
In any case, a main advantage of the proposed tool and meth-
odology is making trade-offs visible and allow decision-makers to
understand the interaction between and implications of specific
technology selection.
Table 3, presents an example of the technologies selected for
one of the 6 possible types of households represented in UWOT,
under the 3 scenarios. Household type 1, in this case, represents
single occupancy households, of which there are 11 at the EH case
study. Each number is associated with a specific technology. For
example, technology no. 2 of the Toilet component is a toilet
equipped with a dual valve 4/2 litre flush, whose average water
demand is 2.4 l/use.
The presence of greywater recycling in the optimisation sce-
nario can be seen from Table 3, in the selection of a treatment
technology (in this case technology number no. 1 as opposed to no
treatment (indicated by zero) in the other two scenarios). This se-
lection has implications in the selection of other technologies as the
(significant) reductions in potable water achieved by greywater
recycling allows the algorithm to select suboptimal technologies in
other components of the cycle. In the example above, the optimi-
sation algorithm suggests washing machine no.3 although it is
(slightly) inferior in terms of water consumption to washing ma-
chine no.2.
What is optimised here is the overall performance of the water
cycle in the development and not necessarily of each household
type individually. For the special case of one water source (potable
water) and one criterion (for example, water demand reduction)

Water Save
Benchmark
POTABLE WATER DEMAND
Optimisation 1

RELIABILITY WASTEWATER PRODUCED

KSTO HUMAN HEALTH RUNOFF

OCIAL ACCEPTABILITY ENERGY

CAPITAL COST LAND USE

OPERATIONAL COST

Fig. 7. A comparison of the Water Save and Optimisation scenarios with the Benchmark scenario against multiple sustainability objectives.
 C.K. Makropoulos et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 1448–1460
Table 3
Example of technological options selected for one type of household
Water cycle components Household Type 1
Optimisation Benchmark
Washing machine 3 3
Toilet 2 1
Treatment 1 0
Shower 2 1
Bath 5 0
Handbasin 5 3
Kitchen sink 4 3
Dish washer 4 5
Garden 3 5
Outside use 3 0
SUDS local 2 0
then it can be argued that the optimal solution will always be the
one that minimises all component solutions (in this case all
household types). When multiple water sources are possible and
the availability of some sources (such as grey or greenwater) is
linked to water demand for certain water uses (for example, the use
of washing machines) then the solutions become non-linear. For
example, better reductions in energy may be achieved by allowing
a washing machine type that requires more water provided that it
then produces enough greenwater for other uses (for example,
toilet flushing) that would otherwise request potable water, while
not increasing overall potable water demand.7 UWOT is able to
investigate such interactions and come up with insights on these
and other trade-offs – notably between water, energy and land
(Butler and Makropoulos, 2006).
6. Conclusions
This paper presents a decision support tool (UWOT) supporting
the planning of water cycle management for new urban de-
velopments. The core of the tool consists of a component-based,
flexible water mass balance model, an extensible technology library
and a set of user-defined sustainability metrics. The underlying
concepts, methodology and software development of the tool are
discussed and its application to a case study in the UK presented.
UWOT provides a holistic view of the urban water system within
a new development, allowing water supply, wastewater collection
and disposal as well as stormwater drainage to be considered as
components of a single modelling framework.
The tool was developed based on the following principles,
which are embedded in its conceptual and methodological
development.
o The sustainability discourse requires wide boundaries and
consequently a wide range of metrics to allow for a mapping of
those boundaries.
o Sustainability and its assessment must be relevant to the con-
text at hand and cannot result in the same solution in every
case.
o Sustainability is essentially an archetypal multiobjective
problem.
These principles were operationalised in UWOT in the following
way.
1. The use of user-specified sustainability metrics: the user can
update the values of the metrics in the technology library
7
This is limited by the supply-demand balance for recycled water at a given
development, which makes UWOT’s assessment case and context-specific.
1459
(using processes and tools appropriate to each individual
indicator – not discussed here) to be consistent with the situ-
ation in a particular case study and/or include new metrics.
Water save
2. Metrics can be either quantitative or qualitative indicators
standardised through fuzzy inference systems.
2
2 3. The technology library can be updated with new technologies
0 without any need of updating the tool.
1 4. Sustainability assessment is handled as a context-specific issue,
2 since the tool always assesses the sustainability of specific sce-
1
1
narios in comparison to user-specified (case study dependent)
1 benchmark scenarios.
6 5. The decision-maker’s perception of risk can be taken into
0 account in the process through OWA.
0
6. Advanced optimisation in the form of GAs is used to explore
the complex solution space and suggest alternatives based on
the full range of sustainability metrics and decision-maker
preferences.
UWOT was tested using data from the Elvetham Heath resi-
dential development. The results of the tool’s application reveal
that the modelling approach adopted is valid and that the funda-
mental algorithms for water allocation and the underlying flow
logic between model components are reasonable.
Results indicate that the tool is useful in identifying and pre-
senting to the user, trade-offs across a series of sustainability
indicators resulting from the interaction between urban water
flows. Specifically, the tool allows the investigation of trade-offs
between quantitative indicators (incl. water wastewater, energy,
land use etc) and qualitative indicators (incl. health risk and social
acceptability) in a visually comprehensible manner that facili-
tates group decision-making and negotiation (as also advocated in
Jakeman et al., 2006), without oversimplifying matters by pre-
senting only aggregated values.
Following the application presented in this paper as well as in
Natsis et al. (2006) and Makropoulos et al. (2006a,b) it is suggested
that UWOT can:
o assist the investigation and quantification of interactions and
transformations of the three urban water flows within the
same modelling framework,
o facilitate the selection of combinations of water managing
technologies and
o ultimately support the delivery of integrated, sustainable water
management for new developments.
As technology changes in response to social, economic and
environmental drivers and urban water management solutions
become more customised to address context-specific issues within
both centralised and distributed water management systems, the
solution space for informed option selection to manage the water
cycle will become more complex. The emergence of multiple actors
(Marquez and Maheepala, 1996) with potentially conflicting views
and priorities suggest the need for thinking (software and model-
ling) platforms that can facilitate discussion and negotiations by the
provision of information and the quick assessment of alternative
what-if scenarios (de Kok and Wind, 2003). UWOT, developed
within the WaND initiative, is such a prototype tool able to assist
the integrated provision of water management solutions taking
into account both the interactions between water flows and the
trade-off between multiple qualitative and quantitative sustain-
ability criteria.
Acknowledgement
This work is developed by the ‘Water Cycle Management for
New Developments’ (WaND) project [www.wand.uk.net] funded
1460 C.K. Makropoulos et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 1448–1460
under the Engineering & Physical Science Research Council’s
‘‘Sustainable Urban Environment’’ Programme by EPSRC, UK gov-
ernment and industrial collaborators.
References
Argent, R.M., Grayson, R.B., 2001. Design of information systems for environmental
managers: an example using interface prototyping. Environmental Modelling
and Software 16 (5), 433–438.
Ashley, R., Blackwood, D., Butler, D., Jowitt, P., 2004. Sustainable Water Services:
a Procedural Guide (SWARD). IWA Publishing, London.
Ashley, R., Butler, D., Hurley, L., Memon, F., 2008. Criteria and indicators in
delivering sustainable water systems: from Sustainable Water Asset Resource
Decisions (SWARD) to Water cycle management for New Developments
(WaND). In: Thevenot, D.R. (Ed.), DayWater: an Adaptive Decision Support
System for Urban Stormwater Management. IWA Publishing, London.
Balkema, A.J., 2003. Sustainable Wastewater Treatment: Developing a Methodology
and Selecting Promising Systems, PhD thesis, University of Eindhoven, 122.
Balkema, A.J., Preisig, H.A., Otterpohl, R., Lambert, F.J.D., 2002. Indicators for the
sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems. Urban Water 4 (2),
153–161.
Brunner, N., Starkl, M., 2004. Decision aid systems for evaluating sustainability:
a critical survey. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24 (4), 441–469.
Butler, D., Davies, J.W., 2004. Urban Drainage, second edn. Spon Press, London.
Butler, D., Makropoulos, C., 2006. Sustainable Water Infrastructure: Technological
Options and Future Scenarios. UK Environment Agency. 250.
Butler, D., Maksimovic, C., 2001. Interactions with the environment. In:
Maksimovic, C., Tejada-Guibert, J.A. (Eds.), Frontiers in Urban Water Manage-
ment. Deadlock or Hope. IWA Publishing, London.
Butler, D., Parkinson, J., 1997. Towards sustainable urban drainage. Water Science
and Technology 35 (9), 53–63.
Cheshire, P., Carbonaro, G., 1996. Urban economic growth in Europe: testing theory
and policy prescriptions. Urban Studies 33 (7), 1111–1128.
Dixon, A., Butler, D., Fewkes, A., 1999. Water saving potential of domestic water
reuse systems using greywater and rainwater in combination. Water Science
and Technology 39, 25–32.
Farmani, R., Savic, D.A., Walters, G.A., 2005. Evolutionary multi-objective optimi-
zation in water distribution network design. Engineering Optimization 37 (2),
167–183.
Fenner, R.A., Ainger, C.M., Cruickshank, H.J., Guthrie, P.M., 2006. Widening engi-
neering horizons: addressing the complexity of sustainable development.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability 159
(ES4), 145–154.
Foxon, T.J., McIlkenny, G., Gilmour, D., Oltean-Dumbrava, C., Souter, N., Ashley, R.,
Bulter, D., Pearson, P., Jowitt, P., Moir, J., 2002. Sustainability criteria for decision
support in the UK water industry. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 45 (2), 285–301.
Jakeman, A.J., Letcher, R.A., Norton, J.P., 2006. Ten iterative steps in development
and evaluation of environmental models. Environmental Modelling and Soft-
ware 21 (5), 602–614.
de Kok, J., Wind, H.G., 2003. Design and application of decision-support systems for
integrated water management: lessons to be learnt. Physics and Chemistry of
the Earth, Parts A/B/C 28 (14–15), 571–578.
Keedwell, E., Khu, S.T., 2005. A hybrid genetic algorithm for the design of water
distribution networks. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 18 (4),
461–472.
Liu, S., Butler, D., Makropoulos, C. and Memon, F., 2005. An excel-matlab based
decision making framework and its application in urban water management,
Proceeding CCWI2005 Conference, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Loucks, D.P., Gladwell, J.S., 1999. Sustainability Criteria for Water Resource Systems.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lu, H., Yu, H., Lu, S.S.K., 2001. The effects of cognitive style and model type on DSS
acceptance: an empirical study. European Journal of Operational Research 131
(3), 649–663.
Makropoulos, C., Butler, D., 2005. A multi-objective evolutionary programming
approach to the object location spatial analysis and optimisation problem
within the urban water management domain. Civil Engineering and Environ-
mental Systems 22 (2), 85–108.
Makropoulos, C., Butler, D., Maksimovic, C., 1999. GIS supported evaluation of
source control applicability in urban areas. Water Science and Technology 39
(9), 243–252.
Makropoulos, C., Liu, S., Natsis, K., Memon, F., Butler, D., 2006a. Supporting the
Choice, Siting and Evaluation of Sustainable Drainage Systems in New Urban
Developments. Urban Drainage Modelling and Water Sensitive Urban Design
Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Makropoulos, C., Memon, F.A., Shirley-Smith, C., Butler, D., 2008. Futures: an
exploration of scenarios for sustainable urban water management. Water Policy
10 (4), 345–373.
Makropoulos, C., Morley, M., Memon, F.A., Butler, D., Savic, D., Ashley, R., 2006b.
A decision support framework for sustainable urban water planning and
management in new urban areas. Water Science and Technology 54 (6–7),
451–458.
Malczewski, J., 1999. GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. Wiley and Sons, New
York.
Marquez, L.O., Maheepala, S., 1996. An object-oriented approach to the integrated
planning of urban development and utility services. Computers, Environment
and Urban Systems 20 (4–5), 303–312.
Mathworks, 2000. Genetic Algorithm and Direct Search Toolbox Manual, MatLab,
the Language of Technical Computing.
Memon, F.A., Butler, D., 2005. Greywater reuse in households. In: Encyclopaedia of
Water. John Wiley and Sons.
Memon, F.A., Butler, D., 2006. Water consumption trends and demand forecasting
techniques. In: Water Demand Management. IWA Publishing, London.
Michalewicz, Z., 1996. Genetic Algorithms þ Data Structures ¼ Evolution Programs.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Mitchell, V.G., Mein, R.G., McMahon, T.A., 2001. Modelling the urban water cycle.
Environmental Modelling and Software 16 (7), 615–629.
Mounce, S.L., Hurley, R., Ashley, L., Sharp, C., Makropoulos, Morley, M., 2006. The
Development of a Flexible, Knowledge Based Framework, for Evaluation of the
Relative Sustainability of Water Cycle Management. Urban Drainage Modelling
and Water Sensitive Urban Design Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Natsis, K., 2005. Decision Support for Sustainable Option Selection in
Integrated Urban Water Management, MSc dissertation, Imperial College
London, UK.
Natsis, K., Makropoulos, C., Liu, S., Butler, D., Memon, F., 2006. A fuzzy logic multi
criteria assessment in urban water management decision support. In: Pro-
ceedings of the Seventh International Conference On Hydroinformatics, Nice,
vol. 4 2725–2732.
Niemczynowicz, J., 1999. Urban hydrology and water management – present and
future challenges. Urban Water 1 (1), 1–14.
Nolde, E., 2000. Greywater reuse systems for toilet flushing in multi-storey
buildings – over ten years experience in Berlin. Urban Water 1 (4),
275–284.
Office of Deputy Prime Minister, 29 July 2002. Projections of Households in England
2021 Available from: http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/research/project/01.
htm.
Sakellari, I., Makropoulos, C., Butler, D., Memon, F., 2005. Modelling sustainable
urban water management optionsProceedings of ICE. Engineering Sustainability
158 (3), 143–153.
Skeldon, R., 2006. Interlinkages between internal and international migration
and development in the Asian region. Population Space and Place 12 (1),
15–30.
Sprague, R.H., Carlson, E.D., 1982. Building Effective Decision Support Systems.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Styles, M., 2005. Sustainable Communities: Potential Water Savings through
Available Technologies. UK Environment Agency. Internal discussion paper.
Yager, R.R., 1988. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-
criteria decision-making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
18 (1), 183–190.
Zoppou, C., 2001. Review of urban storm water models. Environmental Modelling
and Software 16 (3), 195–231.