Asset management of wastewater networks

Asset Management (AM) is a set of procedures operable at the strategic-tacticaloperational level, for the management of the physical asset’s performance, associated risks and costs within its whole life-cycle. AM combines the engineering, managerial and informatics points of view. In addition to internal drivers, AM is driven by the demands of customers (social pull) and regulators (environmental mandates and economic considerations). AM can follow either a top-down or a bottom-up approach. Considering rehabilitation planning at the bottom-up level, the main issue would be to rehabilitate the right pipe at the right time with the right technique. Finding the right pipe may be possible and practicable, but determining the timeliness of the rehabilitation and the choice of the techniques adopted to rehabilitate is a bit abstruse. It is a truism that rehabilitating an asset too early is unwise, just as doing it late may have entailed extra expenses en route, in addition to the cost of the exercise of rehabilitation per se. One is confronted with a typical ‘Hamlet-isque dilemma’ – ‘to repair or not to repair’; or put in another way, ‘to replace or not to replace’. The decision in this case is governed by three factors, not necessarily interrelated – quality of customer service, costs and budget in the life cycle of the asset in question. The goal of replacement planning is to find the juncture in the asset’s life cycle where the cost of replacement is balanced by the rising maintenance costs and the declining level of service. System maintenance aims at improving performance and maintaining the asset in good working condition for as long as possible. Effective planning is used to target maintenance activities to meet these goals and minimize costly exigencies. The main objective of this dissertation is to develop a process-model for asset replacement planning. The aim of the model is to determine the optimal pipe replacement year by comparing, temporally, the annual operating and maintenance costs of the existing asset and the annuity of the investment in a new equivalent pipe, at the best market price. It is proposed that risk cost provide an appropriate framework to decide the balance between investment for replacing or operational expenditures for maintaining an asset. The model describes a practical approach to estimate when an asset should be replaced. A comprehensive list of criteria to be considered is outlined, the main criteria being a visà- vis between maintenance and replacement expenditures. The costs to maintain the assets should be described by a cost function related to the asset type, the risks to the safety of people and property owing to declining condition of asset, and the predicted frequency of failures. The cost functions reflect the condition of the existing asset at the time the decision to maintain or replace is taken: age, level of deterioration, risk of failure. The process model is applied in the wastewater network of Oslo, the capital city of Norway, and uses available real-world information to forecast life-cycle costs of maintenance and rehabilitation strategies and support infrastructure management decisions. The case study provides an insight into the various definitions of ‘asset lifetime’ – service life, economic life and physical life. The results recommend that one common value for lifetime should not be applied to the all the pipelines in the stock for investment planning in the long-term period; rather it would be wiser to define different values for different cohorts of pipelines to reduce the uncertainties associated with generalisations for simplification. It is envisaged that more criteria the municipality is able to include, to estimate maintenance costs for the existing assets, the more precise will the estimation of the expected service life be. The ability to include social costs enables to compute the asset life, not only based on its physical characterisation, but also on the sensitivity of network areas to social impact of failures. The type of economic analysis is very sensitive to model parameters that are difficult to determine accurately. The main value of this approach is the effort to demonstrate that it is possible to include, in decision-making, factors as the cost of the risk associated with a decline in level of performance, the level of this deterioration and the asset’s depreciation rate, without looking at age as the sole criterion for making decisions regarding replacements.

Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS): An evaluation of success factors in the agricultural sector. The case of Italy's Emilia Romagna region.

Different tools have been used to set up and adopt the model for the fulfillment of the objective of this research. 1. The Model The base model that has been used is the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) adapted with the aim to perform a Benefit Cost Analysis. The AHP developed by Thomas Saaty is a multicriteria decision - making technique which decomposes a complex problem into a hierarchy. It is used to derive ratio scales from both discreet and continuous paired comparisons in multilevel hierarchic structures. These comparisons may be taken from actual measurements or from a fundamental scale that reflects the relative strength of preferences and feelings. 2. Tools and methods 2.1. The Expert Choice Software The software Expert Choice is a tool that allows each operator to easily implement the AHP model in every stage of the problem. 2.2. Personal Interviews to the farms For this research, the farms of the region Emilia Romagna certified EMAS have been detected. Information has been given by EMAS center in Wien. Personal interviews have been carried out to each farm in order to have a complete and realistic judgment of each criteria of the hierarchy. 2.3. Questionnaire A supporting questionnaire has also been delivered and used for the interviews . 3. Elaboration of the data After data collection, the data elaboration has taken place. The software support Expert Choice has been used . 4. Results of the Analysis The result of the figures above (vedere altro documento) gives a series of numbers which are fractions of the unit. This has to be interpreted as the relative contribution of each element to the fulfillment of the relative objective. So calculating the Benefits/costs ratio for each alternative the following will be obtained: Alternative One: Implement EMAS Benefits ratio: 0, 877 Costs ratio: 0, 815 Benfit/Cost ratio: 0,877/0,815=1,08 Alternative Two: Not Implement EMAS Benefits ratio: 0,123 Costs ration: 0,185 Benefit/Cost ratio: 0,123/0,185=0,66 As stated above, the alternative with the highest ratio will be the best solution for the organization. This means that the research carried out and the model implemented suggests that EMAS adoption in the agricultural sector is the best alternative. It has to be noted that the ratio is 1,08 which is a relatively low positive value. This shows the fragility of this conclusion and suggests a careful exam of the benefits and costs for each farm before adopting the scheme. On the other part, the result needs to be taken in consideration by the policy makers in order to enhance their intervention regarding the scheme adoption on the agricultural sector. According to the AHP elaboration of judgments we have the following main considerations on Benefits: - Legal compliance seems to be the most important benefit for the agricultural sector since its rank is 0,471 - The next two most important benefits are Improved internal organization (ranking 0,230) followed by Competitive advantage (ranking 0, 221) mostly due to the sub-element Improved image (ranking 0,743) Finally, even though Incentives are not ranked among the most important elements, the financial ones seem to have been decisive on the decision making process. According to the AHP elaboration of judgments we have the following main considerations on Costs: - External costs seem to be largely more important than the internal ones (ranking 0, 857 over 0,143) suggesting that Emas costs over consultancy and verification remain the biggest obstacle. - The implementation of the EMS is the most challenging element regarding the internal costs (ranking 0,750).

Sustainability indicators for environmental management and decision making

The general objective of this research is to explore theories and methodologies of sustainability indicators, environmental management and decision making disciplines with the operational purpose of producing scientific, robust and relevant information for supporting system understanding and decision making in real case studies. Several tools have been applied in order to increase the understanding of socio-ecological systems as well as providing relevant information on the choice between alternatives. These tools have always been applied having in mind the complexity of the issues and the uncertainty tied to the partial knowledge of the systems under study. Two case studies with specific application to performances measurement (environmental performances in the case of the K8 approach and sustainable development performances in the case of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy) and a case study about the selection of sustainable development indicators amongst Municipalities in Scotland, are discussed in the first part of the work. In the second part of the work, the common denominator among subjects consists in the application of spatial indices and indicators to address operational problems in land use management within the territory of the Ravenna province (Italy). The main conclusion of the thesis is that a ‘perfect’ methodological approach which always produces the best results in assessing sustainability performances does not exist. Rather, there is a pool of correct approaches answering different evaluation questions, to be used when methodologies fit the purpose of the analysis. For this reason, methodological limits and conceptual assumptions as well as consistency and transparency of the assessment, become the key factors for assessing the quality of the analysis.

Modeling systems and vis/NIR device to improve peach and nectarine pre and post-harvest fruit maturity management

During the last decade peach and nectarine fruit have lost considerable market share, due to increased consumer dissatisfaction with quality at retail markets. This is mainly due to harvesting of too immature fruit and high ripening heterogeneity. The main problem is that the traditional used maturity indexes are not able to objectively detect fruit maturity stage, neither the variability present in the field, leading to a difficult post-harvest management of the product and to high fruit losses. To assess more precisely the fruit ripening other techniques and devices can be used. Recently, a new non-destructive maturity index, based on the vis-NIR technology, the Index of Absorbance Difference (IAD), that correlates with fruit degreening and ethylene production, was introduced and the IAD was used to study peach and nectarine fruit ripening from the “field to the fork”. In order to choose the best techniques to improve fruit quality, a detailed description of the tree structure, of fruit distribution and ripening evolution on the tree was faced. More in details, an architectural model (PlantToon®) was used to design the tree structure and the IAD was applied to characterize the maturity stage of each fruit. Their combined use provided an objective and precise evaluation of the fruit ripening variability, related to different training systems, crop load, fruit exposure and internal temperature. Based on simple field assessment of fruit maturity (as IAD) and growth, a model for an early prediction of harvest date and yield, was developed and validated. The relationship between the non-destructive maturity IAD, and the fruit shelf-life, was also confirmed. Finally the obtained results were validated by consumer test: the fruit sorted in different maturity classes obtained a different consumer acceptance. The improved knowledge, leaded to an innovative management of peach and nectarine fruit, from “field to market”.