Replacing centralised waste and sanitation infrastructure with local treatment and nutrient recycling : Expert opinions in the context of urban planning

1 Replacing centralised waste and 1 sanitation infrastructure with local 2 treatment and nutrient recycling: 3 Expert opinions in the context of urban 4 planning 5 Brief running title: Circular system preconditions 6 Maarit Särkilahti1, Viljami Kinnunen1, Riitta Kettunen1, Ari Jokinen2, Jukka Rintala1 7 1Department of Chemistry and Bioengineering, Tampere University of Technology, PO Box 527, FI-8 33101, Tampere, Finland, maarit.sarkilah[email protected] (corresponding author) 9 2School of Management, FI-33014, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland 10 Abstract 11 Solutions for resource scarcity should be sought from urban waste management and sanitation, 12 which are characterised by central plants and long networks. The socio-technical transition to more 13 sustainable infrastructure is expected to include partial decentralisation based on local conditions. 14 This paper focuses on drivers, barriers and enablers in implementing a decentralised circular system 15 in a new residential area (Tampere, Finland). In the alternative system, biowaste and feces are 16 treated in a local biogas plant, and nutrient and energy output are utilised within the area. This 17 research aims to understand what kind of urban planning enables alternative infrastructure, as well 18 as the characteristics of an innovation capable of making a breakthrough. Seventeen infrastructure 19 planning experts were interviewed, then assembled to re-develop ideas arising from the interviews. 20 Based on these qualitatively analysed data, 12 factors which help the adoption of the alternative 21 system were formulated. The results indicate that sustainability transition can be facilitated through 22 impartial urban planning that allows the early participation of actors and improved communications. 23 Additionally, studying the impact of alternative solutions and city guidance according to 24 environmental policy aims may enhance transition. Innovation success factors include suitable 25 locations, competent partners, mature technology and visible local benefits. 26 Keywords: alternative sanitation; biogas; nutrient recycling; urban land-use planning; socio-technical 27 transition; Tampere 28 29 This is an accepted manuscript.The original article has been publsihed in Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2017, 118, pp.195-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.020. 2 1 Introduction 30 Resource scarcity is a topical issue whose solutions should be sought not only from the energy 31 sector, but also from the waste management/sanitation sector. Currently, urban infrastructures are 32 characterised by centralised treatment plants and long transportation distances, and they have been 33 criticised for high energy and resource usage as well as inadequate resource recycling. The EU has 34 been supporting a circular economy through the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme 35 (Horizon 2020 sections.). Consequently, there are new technical solutions available, but their testing 36 and implementation are still in the initial stage. The adaptation of technical innovations has been 37 resisted by stable infrastructure regimes, which carry out essential societal functions and are 38 therefore characterised by lock-in and path-dependency processes (Smith & Raven, 2012). In past 39 decades, the centralisation of infrastructures has inevitably provided health and environmental 40 benefits. However, a revival of decentralised urban infrastructures should be considered today to 41 counteract new sustainability challenges. 42 To understand the present infrastructures and the motivation to change them, technical solutions 43 and resource flows need to be observed critically. At the beginning of the food chain, current 44 agriculture depends on irrigation (Valipour, 2015) and artificial fertilisers produced in an energy-45 intensive process (nitrogen N) (Brentrup & Palliére, 2008) and mined from scarce reserves 46 (phosphorus P) (Cordell, Drangert, & White, 2009). Agricultural products, and consequently food 47 products, contain high amounts of nutrients that the human body mainly excretes in urine 48 (Spångberg, 2014). In addition, garden and kitchen waste (hereafter referred to as biowaste) 49 contributes to urban nutrient flow (Sokka, Antikainen, & Kauppi, 2004). In a conventional 50 wastewater-treatment plant, energy and chemicals are used to remove nutrients according to ever 51 stricter environmental requirements. In wastewater treatment, N is converted to atmospheric 52 nitrogen and P is often precipitated into an insoluble form, limiting its reuse. Finally, biowaste and 53 treated sewage sludge are landfilled, incinerated, composted, anaerobically digested (Manfredi & 54 Pant, 2011) and/or recycled into agriculture. 55 Anaerobic digestion is an attractive treatment technology because it generates renewable energy in 56 the form of biogas, supports nutrient recycling and potentially creates local jobs. Furthermore, 57 anaerobic digestion is suitable for urban areas because the process occurs in enclosed tanks, and 58 emissions are easier to manage than in other treatment methods (Edwards, Othman, & Burn, 2015). 59 However, recycling end products from centralised plants to agriculture is marginal (Meers, 2016), so 60 the nutrient loop is not closed. In addition to process limitations, the risk of recycling harmful 61 substances, lack of acceptability (Aubain et al., 2002), unsupportive or unclear legal frameworks 62 (Hukari, Hermann, & Nättorp, 2016), and governance aspects such as poor source-separation or 63 inefficient plant operation (Zabaleta & Rodic-Wiersma, 2015) are hindering the recycling of waste-64 derived nutrients. 65 Source-separating sanitation and decentralised treatment of domestic wastewater have been 66 suggested as an alternative with the potential to improve nutrient recycling and energy efficiency in 67 the sanitation system (Tervahauta, Hoang, Hernández, Zeeman, & Buisman, 2013). Furthermore, 68 decentralised water systems have the potential to reduce infrastructure costs and support 69 innovations that can be exported to emerging economies (Quezada, Walton, & Sharma, 2016), 70 whereas distributed energy systems may increase renewable energy production capacity and energy 71 3 self-sufficiency (Ruggiero, Varho, & Rikkonen, 2015); moreover, such systems may enhance 72 sustainability in terms of flexibility, locality and networking (Alanne & Saari, 2006). To promote local 73 resource cycles and renewable energy production, the authors have designed a decentralised 74 circular system (Figure 2, in section 2.2) that consists of source-separating low-water toilets, small-75 scale biogas plants, and the local utilisation of nutrients and produced gas within a residential area 76 (the case city: Tampere, Finland). 77 In addition to technological advancements, planning in diverse forms is required to improve urban 78 infrastructures. The most comprehensive is land-use planning, which coordinates sectoral policies 79 and decisions with spatial impacts. Planning systems vary between countries. In Finland, 80 municipalities have a planning monopoly, as well as the power to approve and ratify master plans 81 and detailed plans (Finnish Parliament, 1999). Stakeholder participation and sustainable 82 development are emphasised in planning legislation. As a complementary planning instrument, cities 83 use unofficial land-use planning based on public–private partnerships (Junnila, Niiranen, Majamaa, & 84 Kuronen, 2010). This increases their strategic capacity and flexibility to react to new possibilities. In 85 addition, land policy is an important resource for cities in their planning. At the moment, more 86 instruments and cooperation are needed in Finland for integrated planning between administrative 87 sectors and between municipalities (Hirvonen-Kantola & Mäntysalo, 2014). Related to these 88 challenges, it is worth noting that land-use planning is determined not only by legal and 89 administrative rules, but also by informal institutions. Political, socio-economic and cultural forces 90 affect the planning system. 91 In this paper, the objective is to determine the preconditions for implementing the decentralised 92 circular system. The authors explored the system’s feasibility in semi-structured interviews with 17 93 water-, waste-, gas-, energy-, and urban land-use planning experts, and in a workshop with seven 94 experts. In directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), drivers, barriers and enablers 95 (Quezada et al., 2016) for alternative system implementation were sought. The results were 96 organised based on a multi-level perspective (MLP) (Geels, 2010) that views socio-technical 97 transition as an interaction between three levels: niches (novelty), regime (dominant actors, 98 institutions and technologies) and landscape (political environment). The authors aim was to answer 99 the following research questions: 100 A) How can a decentralised circular system be supported in the context of urban planning? 101 B) What are the characteristics of an alternative system capable of achieving a breakthrough? 102 Previous research has generated knowledge on various aspects of sustainable urban infrastructure 103 (Ferrer, Thomé, & Scavarda, 2016), but a gap remains between infrastructure planning scholarship 104 and the realities of public infrastructure planning (Malekpour, Brown, & de Haan, 2015). The 105 decentralised circular system considered in this paper and placed in the context of urban land-use 106 planning contributes to fulfilling this research gap. Another contribution of the paper is to introduce 107 the innovative methodology of using expert opinions to investigate the preconditions of an 108 alternative infrastructure. 109 110 111 4 2 Material and methods 112 2.1 Multilevel perspective on the research setting 113 The authors organised the preconditions for implementing the decentralised circular system in a 114 new residential area according to a multilevel perspective. In MLP, landscape refers to an exogenous 115 environment that changes slowly and affects niche and regime dynamics (Verbong & Geels, 2010). 116 This study is motivated by global resource scarcity and aims to enhance sustainability, liveability (de 117 Haan et al., 2014) and the circular economy (Figure 1), which questions the performance of current 118 regimes and generates opportunities for the studied system. On the other hand, there are also 119 opposite landscape processes, including strong consumption culture, which fit with current regimes 120 and may hinder transitio121 122 Figure 1. A decentralised circular system (niche); dominant actors, institutions and technologies in 123 infrastructure development (regime); and external factors (landscape), such as lifestyles and political 124 ambitions, which shape cities. Multiple levels were adopted from Geels (2010). 125 Regimes are the prevailing means for realising key societal functions (Smith, Voß, & Grin, 2010); they 126 consist of material and technical elements, networks of actors, and rules that guide activities 127 (Verbong & Geels, 2010). In the context of this paper, regimes include municipal water, sanitation 128 and waste infrastructure. When an (alternative) infrastructure is realised in new residential areas, 129 the strongest actors come from municipal land-use planning, where the planning power is, and from 130 construction companies, which invest in building houses (Figure 1). Characteristically, infrastructure 131 sectors are highly institutionalised socio-technical regimes that enable certain rationalities and 132 5 actions while hindering others (Fuenfschilling & Truffer, 2014). Innovations might be rejected 133 because they do not fit with existing industry structures or decision-making processes (Smith & 134 Raven, 2012). Socio-technical transitions are about changes in regimes, and they require both strong 135 alternatives in niches and favourable openings in regime-selection environments via dynamics and 136 tensions within and between regimes as well as due to landscape pressure (Smith et al., 2010). 137 Niche is defined as a protective space for path-breaking innovations which fail to successfully 138 compete within the selection environments of incumbent socio-technical regimes. In this paper, the 139 decentralised circular system is a potentially path-breaking innovation which the public sector is 140 expected to protect in the context of urban land-use planning (Figure 1). In niches, innovations can 141 become competitive within unchanged selection environments (fit and conform) or when 142 mainstream selection environments change in a way favourable to them (stretch-and-transform). 143 When an innovation is developed to fit and conform to an existing regime-selection environment, its 144 sustainability is often compromised (Smith & Raven, 2012). 145 2.2 Decentralised circular system 146 The authors have developed a decentralised circular system that consists of an alternative sanitation 147 system (Maurer, Bufardi, Tilley, Zurbrügg, & Truffer, 2012) (source-separating and urine-diverting 148 low-water toilets); a small-scale biogas plant to treat feces or black water, biowaste, energy crops 149 and plant residues; and the local utilisation of nutrients and gas (Figure 2). In source-separating 150 sanitation, black water (from a toilet) is collected separately from other domestic wastewater. 151 Furthermore, low-water (dry or vacuum) toilets enable concentrations of black water and, 152 subsequently, direct treatment in an anaerobic digester. Urine contains most of the nutrients but 153 has low energy potential, and it may be diverted from black water using a urine-diverting toilet. In 154 the decentralised circular system, nutrients recovered from urine and anaerobic digestion feedstock 155 are used in local scenery fields to cultivate energy crops and/or in nearby greenhouse cultivation. 156 After upgrading, biogas can be used locally, e.g., in household gas cookers, as vehicle fuel, or it can 157 be injected into a gas grid. Grey water is treated either on site or directed to centralised treatment; 158 it can also be re-used, e.g., in greenhouse irrigation or as flush-water, if it fulfils quality criteria. In 159 Finland, fields are not typically irrigated; but when global applications are considered, irrigation 160 methods (Valipour, 2012) have greater importance. 161 162 6 163 Figure 2. The transition from a conventional sanitation system to a decentralised circular system, 164 which consists of source-separating toilets; a small-scale AD plant to treat local waste streams; and 165 local utilisation of end products. (Figure: CLIC Innovation) 166 2.3 Case city of Tampere, Finland 167 Finland is a Nordic country with approximately 5 million inhabitants, a low population density and 168 abundant freshwater resources. In this study, the authors focused on the City of Tampere, which is 169 one of the few growing urban areas (226,000 inhabitants) in the country (Figure 3). To position the 170 decentralised circular system, current regimes in the case area need to be understood. Currently, 171 Tampere and its neighbouring communities rely on centralised wastewater treatment and municipal 172 solid waste incineration. Biogas is an emerging technology for biowaste and sludge treatment. 173 However, composting is a prevailing technology, and incineration is a competing alternative in 174 sludge treatment. The central water supply and sewage system covers 85 to 96 percent of 175 households in the Tampere region’s communities (Meriluoto, Vinnari, Huttunen, & Salonsaari, 2010). 176 Mixed solid waste collection covers all of the households, whereas separate biowaste collection 177 covers only urban centres. In sparsely populated areas, decentralised and household-scale solutions 178 for the water supply (water cooperatives and wells), biowaste treatment (composting), and 179 sanitation (small-scale treatment of wastewater or dry toilets) are in use. The studied decentralised 180 circular system challenges ongoing development, which relies on centralisation. 181 7 Figure 3. The case city of this study, Tampere, located in southern Finland. (Map data: Google 2016) 182 2.4 Data acquisition and analysis 183 Seventeen experts were interviewed face-to-face during autumn 2015 (Table 1). We looked for 184 experts who were (or could be) involved in land-use planning in Tampere, and who could 185 complement the views of different actors to the complexity of local applications. First, interviewees 186 were selected based on a research steering group’s expertise. The steering group consisted of 187 representatives of the Sustainable Bioenergy Solutions for Tomorrow (BEST) research programme. 188 Further interviewees were chosen based on gaps observed during earlier interviews and 189 recommendations from interviewees (snowballing method). The current regime was covered by six 190 city employees involved in land-use planning, representatives of municipal undertakings that run 191 waste and sanitation services, a property developer from a construction company, and consultants 192 who deal with land-use planning-related tasks outsourced by the city. When selecting new 193 service/technology providers needed in niche implementation, focus was placed on alternative 194 sanitation systems and biogas production. Most of the experts worked in R&D-oriented positions in 195 their organisations. 196 Table 1. The interviewees, their organisations, and their expertise 197 Interviewee Organisation Expertise 1 City of Tampere Water management 2 City of Tampere Impact assessment and stakeholder participation 3 City of Tampere New residential area management (Vuores project) 4 City of Tampere New residential area management (Vuores project) 5 City of Tampere Energy and climate 6 City of Akaa Politician 7 Municipal undertaking Central wastewater treatment plant under planning 8 198 Semi-structured interviews included the following themes: experience with new residential area 199 development, the actor’s role in land-use planning, the actor’s potential role if the decentralised 200 circular system is implemented, and narratives of successful/unsuccessful innovations. During each 201 interview, the decentralised circular system (Figure 2) was presented with ppt-slides, and experts 202 were asked to comment on interview themes and other issues freely during the presentation. 203 Presentations often led to lively discussions in which interviewees asked more questions, offered 204 improvement ideas, and commented/criticised the decentralised circular system. The interviews 205 lasted 30–120 minutes and were voice-recorded and transcribed. In addition, all interviewees and 206 steering-group members were invited to a workshop in which drivers, barriers and enablers of 207 decentralised circular system implementation (interview results) were discussed and developed. 208 Workshop participants selected the key issues that should be emphasised in this study and 209 recommended further research. Considering the two-stage research method and the diverse 210 professional and institutional backgrounds of the interviewees, the authors concluded that the 17 211 selected experts were sufficient to provide the answers to the research questions. 212 In directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), drivers, barriers and enablers for alternative 213 system implementation were sought. Drivers and barriers are multi-dimensional, causing (Geels, 214 2012) or hindering (Zhao, Chang, & Chen, 2016) socio-technical transition, respectively. In this paper, 215 drivers refer to landscape-level signals (Tenggren, Wangel, Nilsson, & Nykvist, 2016) and trends 216 which enhance the decentralised circular system’s potential. Barriers represent obstacles to the 217 deployment of the alternative system (Quezada et al., 2016) and exist at each of the multiple levels 218 (Zhao et al., 2016). Among various terms, the authors adopted enabler, defined as a requisite 219 condition for supporting the adoption of an alternative system (Quezada et al., 2016). It was found 220 useful to describe conditions that are not (yet) stabilised but which can develop to support or hinder 221 the alternative system. 222 8 Municipal undertaking Waste R&D 9 Municipal undertaking Automatic vacuum waste collection system 10 Construction company Construction contracting 11 Consultant Energy and environmental design: calculation, simulation, ideas, competitions and planning 12 Consultant Planning of water, sewage and stormwater networks 13 Technology/service provider Waste/wastewater collection and treatment systems and marine sector product development 14 Technology/service provider Biogas business 15 Technology/service provider Participating in city planning/development and offering gas solutions 16 Technology/service provider Gas R&D 17 Technology/service provider Biogas business development 9 3 Interview results 223 In this section, drivers, barriers and enablers which the decentralised circular system face in the 224 context of urban land-use planning are presented. Themes raised in the interviews were divided into 225 seven categories: interactive land-use planning and the role of actors, information production and 226 sharing, environmental values, technical development and cost-efficiency, operations model, 227 suitable area, and local benefits. The results were further organised under two headlines derived 228 from the research questions: urban land-use planning that enables transition (regime level) and 229 characteristics of potential alternative concepts (niche level). 230 3.1 Urban land-use planning that enables transition 231 3.1.1 Interactive land-use planning and the role of actors 232 Interviewees described the City of Tampere to be in a state of change from conventional planning 233 practices towards more open and interactive methods, whereby different experts have become 234 involved in the early stages via methods such as competition, alliances and collaborative urban 235 planning: 236 ‘Our project aims to enhance new practices. When the city puts effort into something, other 237 actors also give their input’ (City of Tampere). 238 Heterogeneous groups were said to produce more fruitful plans. On the other hand, discontinuity 239 and lack of resources for R&D in city organisation, lack of cooperation between competing 240 companies, subjective interests versus overall benefits, dominant individuals or organisations, and 241 engagement by actors in a prolonged process were listed as challenges facing interactive land-use 242 planning. The implementation of innovative plans is also challenging: 243 ‘In new area planning, there are so many things that it is easy to choose an old system here. A 244 new system invites people to complain and slow down the process. Sometimes we study new 245 ideas, but they are not implemented because residents or other city officers are against them’ 246 (Consultant). 247 According to the experts, a project owner who has the will and capability to finish the project is 248 needed to implement innovations and manage context. The project owner should also be easy to 249 contact when new ideas are brought in. When this study was carried out, a new residential area, 250 Vuores, was under construction in Tampere. The Vuores project, which is an interdisciplinary 251 management unit responsible for planning and construction in the area, was mentioned as an 252 example of successful project ownership. In addition, collaborative urban planning and automatic 253 vacuum waste collection were introduced in Vuores. In the case of vacuum waste collection, 254 representatives of municipal undertakings acted as pragmatic system builders and have been 255 recognised as essential in translating niche practices into forms agreeable to regime actors (Smith, 256 2007). These representatives benchmarked international implementations, sought suitable 257 technology providers, created new financing models, and communicated actively with the City of 258 Tampere. 259 Current operators were said to have established roles in land-use planning, so new areas were 260 planned based very much on old systems. This finding supports the claim that infrastructure 261 16 plays an enabling role in urban planning, but for municipal officials and politicians, it is unclear which technologies/solutions should be enabled. - Economics and acceptability override environmental values. - Current operators dominate and must remain in their old roles in planning. - Actors get into land-use planning too late, and the roles of new actors are unclear. - The cost-efficiency of new and small-scale solutions is a challenge. - Pilot upscaling is not systematic. - Existing infra (e.g., long pipelines) may reduce system benefits. Enablers - The project owner is needed to communicate between niche and regime levels. - Strengthening city guidance in infrastructure development regarding (environmental) policy aims and the contributions of residents and stakeholders to urban planning may enhance creativity, shared value creation and acceptability. - Communication professionals can help with translations within the network of actors. - Decision makers’ involvement in R&D projects and pilots increases political willpower and information and promotes implementation. - Suitable locations: City outskirts, far away from central plants or a dense urban area with an environmental profile, or a challenging profile for gravitation sewage. - Existing infra (e.g., gas grids) may support the system in certain locations. - A visible loop (e.g., nutrients/energy) and local benefits increase attractiveness. - Increased knowledge on impacts and a comparison to the dominant system in each case are needed to support decision making. - Technology for the decentralised circular system is available. - Technology needs to be mature enough. - Competent partners for each part of the industrial ecosystem are needed. - Operations and financing solutions require open thinking. - Making the city a learning organisation by utilising pilots, failed projects etc. 4 Discussion 496 4.1 How to get from here to there 497 When looked at from a multi-level perspective, urban land-use planning belongs to regimes, which 498 have to change in order to enable socio-technical transitions (Smith et al., 2010). However, the 499 decentralised circular system belongs to niches, which should develop so they can compete in 500 regime selection environments or, preferably, change those environments (Smith & Raven, 2012). 501 The authors assume that strengthening the enablers identified in this study and overcoming barriers, 502 may facilitate a socio-technical transition towards more sustainable urban infrastructures in 503 Tampere. In Figure 4, improvement suggestions are arranged according to MLP. 504 17 505 Figure 4. Suggestions for improving conditions that support a circular system neighbourhood on 506 multiple levels. 507 Starting at the landscape level, a sustainability transition could be facilitated by bringing values into 508 practice more effectively. Environmental values and alternative solutions tend to get lost in multi-509 stage urban land-use planning, procurement and outsourced operations. Despite its enabling role in 510 land-use planning, the City of Tampere should remain in control and guide infrastructure sectors 511 according to (environmental) political aims. At the regime level, the crucial challenge of urban land-512 use planning is to accept new actors (operators, potential technology/service providers, 513 residents/civil society) and alternative solutions more systematically and honestly without losing the 514 benefits of currently functioning infrastructures, which should instead be improved. In terms of 515 participation, the formation of issues is more important than conducting the procedure ‘by the book’ 516 (Leino & Laine, 2012). As technological development is accelerating, the public sector needs to 517 improve its ability to react, learn and adapt (Ribeiro & Zamparutti, 2015). At the niche level, the 518 success of the decentralised circular system and the actions supporting it depend on local 519 conditions. Improving the feasibility of such an industrial ecosystem requires open thinking, 520 competent partners, mature technology and suitable locations. Visible local benefits can make the 521 system more attractive and acceptable. 522 4.2 Feasibility of the decentralised circular system 523 Facilitating socio-technical transition is discussed above, but could the decentralised circular system 524 become a part of infrastructure in Tampere? The authors assume that it could balance resource 525 cycles, enhance renewable energy production, reduce infrastructure costs, and support the socio-526 economic development of local businesses and societies in certain locations. In addition, ongoing 527 R&D of energy technologies and nutrient recycling may improve the cost-efficiency of the system. 528 However, this paper did not focus on these effects. 529 18 Critically speaking, some of the results call into question the ability of the decentralised circular 530 system to improve sustainability and liveability. First, a high-profile neighbourhood in a pristine area 531 seems to be a suitable location for the system because residents there are ready to pay and there is 532 a lack of infrastructure (e.g., pipelines). However, construction on greenfield land is not the desired 533 direction of urban development, and a liveable area should be accessible to a wider socio-economic 534 group. Therefore, cost-efficiency, cost avoidance and local benefits should be sought from locations 535 where other aspects of sustainability are not compromised. Second, the technical maturity of the 536 decentralised circular system is doubtful. When components of several novel solutions (including 537 alternative sanitation systems, small-scale anaerobic digestion and urban farming) are combined, 538 technical and operational challenges cannot be avoided. In addition, the acceptability of the studied 539 system is uncertain. Current urban waste/water management is based on the ‘flush and forget’ 540 principle, and local treatment possibly requiring resident maintenance needs to be thought out 541 carefully in a participatory planning process. Finally, negative environmental effects need to be 542 considered if the decentralised circular system were to be implemented. e.g., a lifecycle assessment 543 from Sweden (Spångberg, Tidåker, & Jönsson, 2014) showed that source-separating sanitation and 544 nutrient recycling improved energy efficiency and decreased global-warming potential, but 545 increased the potential for eutrophication and acidification when compared to advanced 546 wastewater treatment plants and artificial fertilisers. 547 By comparison, in Australia, where extreme weather conditions have pushed reforms forward, the 548 urban water sector is in the early stages of a multi-decade shift from centralisation to partial 549 decentralisation based on local conditions (Quezada et al., 2016). Transition in the Australian water 550 sector is described as a competition between ‘water-sensitive logic’ and ‘water-market logic’, which 551 are challenging the current ‘hydraulic logic’. Hydraulic logic is characterised by public authorities and 552 technical expertise, water-market logic by private firms and economic expertise, and water-sensitive 553 logic by social movements and decentralised water-recycling technologies (Fuenfschilling & Truffer, 554 2014). Urban infrastructures may develop similar routes in Finland. However, any transition in 555 Finland will likely be shaped by local characteristics, such as abundant water and forest resources, a 556 northern climate, the welfare state, autonomous municipalities, long distances and a sparse 557 population. Forecasting forms of socio-technical transition is difficult, or as (Bell, 2015) put it: 558 ‘Alternative technologies and discourses are emerging in urban water infrastructure, but are far 559 from unified in the ideologies they stabilise.’ 560 4.3 Conclusions and further research 561 This study focused on one niche-level innovation and how it could unbalance incumbent regimes in 562 Tampere, Finland. However, the results elicit still wider questions about socio-technical transition in 563 infrastructure sectors. Any niche-level innovation would face a similar struggle getting into urban 564 land-use planning and actually being implemented. The main improvement suggestions, such as 565 early involvement of actors, improved communications, and more systematic pilot upscaling, may be 566 applied to any city; whereas some drivers, barriers and enablers, e.g., dominant current operators 567 and acceptability, depend more on local conditions such as urban planning practices and suitable 568 technologies. Further research should include the role of residents in the sustainability transition 569 within infrastructure sectors, houses as an interface for infrastructure systems, information flow in 570 land-use planning, impact assessment and pilot upscaling. 571 19 Acknowledgements 572 The authors would like to thank all of the interview and workshop participants for their time and 573 thoughtful comments; Mari Tuomaala (Gasum) and Marja Englund (Fortum) for their inspiration 574 initiating and guidance of the research project; Principal Scientist Maria Åkerman (VTT); and 575 anonymous reviewers for their many constructive insights and suggestions. 576 Funding: This work was supported by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation, 577 Tekes [grant number 48/31/2013]; and author XX was supported by the Academy of Finland [grant 578 number 289691]. 579 20 References 580 Alanne, K., & Saari, A. (2006). Distributed energy generation and sustainable development. 581 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 10(6), 539-558. 582 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2004.11.004 583 Aubain, P., Gazzo, A., Le Moux, J., Mugnier, E., Brunet, H., & Landrea, B. (2002). Disposal and 584 recycling routes for sewage sludge - Synthesis report. European Commission. URL: 585 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/waste/sludge/pdf/synthesisreport020222.pdf last 586 accessed 20.12.2016 587 Bell, S. (2015). Renegotiating urban water. Progress in Planning, 96, 1-28. 588 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2013.09.001 589 Brentrup, F., & Palliére, C. (2008). GHG emissions and energy efficiency in European nitrogen fertiliser 590 production and use. (No. 639). International Fertiliser Society. 591 Cordell, D., Drangert, J., & White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food 592 for thought. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 292-305. 593 doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.009 594 de Haan, F. J., Ferguson, B. C., Adamowicz, R. C., Johnstone, P., Brown, R. R., & Wong, T. H. F. (2014). 595 The needs of society: A new understanding of transitions, sustainability and liveability. 596 Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 85, 121-132. 597 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.005 598 Edwards, J., Othman, M., & Burn, S. (2015). A review of policy drivers and barriers for the use of 599 anaerobic digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia. Renewable and Sustainable 600 Energy Reviews, 52, 815-828. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.112 601 21 Ferrer, A. L. C., Thomé, A. M. T., & Scavarda, A. J. (2016). Sustainable urban infrastructure: A review. 602 Resources, Conservation and Recycling, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.07.017 603 Finnish Parliament. (1999). Land Use and Building Act 132/1999. 604 http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990132.pdf last accessed 20.12.2016 605 Fuenfschilling, L., & Truffer, B. (2014). The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual 606 foundations from institutional theory. Research Policy, 43(4), 772-791. 607 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.010 608 Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level 609 perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495-510. 610 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022 611 Geels, F. W. (2012). A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level 612 perspective into transport studies. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471-482. 613 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.021 614 Hirvonen-Kantola, S., & Mäntysalo, R. (2014). The recent development of the Finnish planning 615 system: The city of Vantaa as an executor, fighter and independent actor. In M. Reimer, P. 616 Getimis & H. H. Blotevogel (Eds.), Spatial planning systems and practices in europe: A 617 comparative perspective on continuity and changes (pp. 42-60). London: Routledge. 618 doi:10.4324/9781315852577 619 Horizon 2020 sections. European Commission. URL: 620 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-sections last accessed 20.12.2016 621 Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative 622 Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 623 22 Hukari, S., Hermann, L., & Nättorp, A. (2016). From wastewater to fertilisers--technical overview and 624 critical review of European legislation governing phosphorus recycling. The Science of the Total 625 Environment, 542(Pt B), 1127-1135. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.064 626 Junnila, S., Niiranen, I., Majamaa, W., & Kuronen, M. (2010). Public-private-people partnership as a 627 way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from residential development. International Journal of 628 Strategic Property Management, 14(3), 200-216. doi:10.3846/ijspm.2010.15 629 Leino, H., & Laine, M. (2012). Do matters of concern matter? bringing issues back to participation. 630 Planning Theory, 11(1), 89-103. doi:10.1177/1473095211417595 631 Malekpour, S., Brown, R. R., & de Haan, F. J. (2015). Strategic planning of urban infrastructure for 632 environmental sustainability: Understanding the past to intervene for the future. Cities, 46, 67-633 75. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.05.003 634 Manfredi, S., & Pant, R. (2011). Supporting environmentally sound decisions for bio-waste 635 management A practical guide to life cycle thinking (LCT) and life cycle assessment (LCA). (No. 636 EUR 24917 EN). European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and 637 Sustainability. doi:10.2788/53942 638 Matthews, T., Lo, A. Y., & Byrne, J. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate 639 change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landscape 640 and Urban Planning, 138, 155-163. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.010 641 Maurer, M., Bufardi, A., Tilley, E., Zurbrügg, C., & Truffer, B. (2012). A compatibility-based procedure 642 designed to generate potential sanitation system alternatives. Journal of Environmental 643 Management, 104, 51-61. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.023 644 23 Meers, E. (2016). How to improve the agronomic use of recycled nutrients (N and P) from livestock 645 manure and other organic sources? starting paper. (No. 16). EIP-AGRI Focus Group. URL: 646 https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/eip-647 agri_focus_group_nutrient_recycling_starting_paper_2016_en.pdf last accessed 20.12.2016 648 Meriluoto, J., Vinnari, E., Huttunen, M., & Salonsaari, H. (2010). Selvitys vesihuoltoyhteistyön 649 kehittämisestä Tampereen seudulla. FCG Planeko Ltd. Tampereen kaupunkiseudun 650 kuntayhtymä. URL: 651 http://www.tampereenseutu.fi/site/assets/files/4358/vesihuolto_kehittminen_loppuraportti_2652 _2010.pdf last accessed 20.12.2016 653 Peltonen, L., & Sairinen, R. (2010). Integrating impact assessment and conflict management in urban 654 planning: Experiences from Finland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 328-337. 655 doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.006 656 Quezada, G., Walton, A., & Sharma, A. (2016). Risks and tensions in water industry innovation: 657 Understanding adoption of decentralised water systems from a socio-technical transitions 658 perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 263-273. 659 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.018 660 Ribeiro, T., & Zamparutti, T. (2015). Assessment of global megatrends — an update global 661 megatrend 4: Accelerating technological change. European Environment Agency. URL: 662 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/global-megatrends-update-4-accelerating last 663 accessed 20.12.2016 664 Ruggiero, S., Varho, V., & Rikkonen, P. (2015). Transition to distributed energy generation in Finland: 665 Prospects and barriers. Energy Policy, 86, 433-443. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.07.024 666 24 Smith, A., & Raven, R. R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to 667 sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012 668 Smith, A. (2007). Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical regimes. 669 Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 19(4), 427-450. 670 doi:10.1080/09537320701403334 671 Smith, A., Voß, J., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the 672 multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39(4), 435-448. 673 doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023 674 Sokka, L., Antikainen, R., & Kauppi, P. (2004). Flows of nitrogen and phosphorus in municipal waste: 675 A substance flow analysis in Finland. Progress in Industrial Ecology--an International Journal, 676 1(1-3), 165-186. 677 Spångberg, J. (2014). Recycling plant nutrients from waste and by-products - a life cycle perspective 678 (Doctoral thesis). doi:http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:slu:epsilon-e-1787 679 Spångberg, J., Tidåker, P., & Jönsson, H. (2014). Environmental impact of recycling nutrients in 680 human excreta to agriculture compared with enhanced wastewater treatment. Science of the 681 Total Environment, 493, 209-219. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.123 682 Störmer, E., Truffer, B., Dominguez, D., Gujer, W., Herlyn, A., Hiessl, H., . . . Ruef, A. (2009). The 683 exploratory analysis of trade-offs in strategic planning: Lessons from regional infrastructure 684 foresight. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 76(9), 1150-1162. 685 doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.008 686 25 Tenggren, S., Wangel, J., Nilsson, M., & Nykvist, B. (2016). Transmission transitions: Barriers, drivers, 687 and institutional governance implications of Nordic transmission grid development. Energy 688 Research & Social Science, 19, 148-157. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.06.004 689 Tervahauta, T. H., Hoang, T., Hernández, L., Zeeman, G., & Buisman, C. J. N. (2013). Prospects of 690 source-separation-based sanitation concepts: A model-based study. Water, 5(3), 1006-1035. 691 doi:10.3390/w5031006 692 Valipour, M. (2015). Future of agricultural water management in Africa. Archives of Agronomy and 693 Soil Science, 61(7), 907-927. doi:10.1080/03650340.2014.961433 694 Valipour, M. (2012). Comparison of surface irrigation simulation models: Full hydrodynamic, zero 695 inertia, kinematic wave. Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(12), 68-74. doi:10.5539/jas.v4n12p68 696 Verbong, G. P. J., & Geels, F. W. (2010). Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector 697 with socio-technical pathways. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77(8), 1214-1221. 698 doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.04.008 699 Vierikko, K., & Niemelä, J. (2016). Bottom-up thinking identifying socio-cultural values of ecosystem 700 services in local blue-green infrastructure planning in Helsinki, Finland. Land use Policy, 50, 537-701 547. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.031 702 Zabaleta, I., & Rodic-Wiersma, L. (2015). Recovery of essential nutrients from municipal solid waste - 703 impact of waste management infrastructure and governance aspects. Waste Management, 44, 704 178-187. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2015.07.033 705 Zhao, Z., Chang, R., & Chen, Y. (2016). What hinder the further development of wind power in China? 706 A socio-technical barrier study. Energy Policy, 88, 465-476. 707 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.11.004 708