Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Seminatural Wetlands and Activated Sludge Wastewater-Treatment Systems

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to evaluate the competitiveness of seminatural Free Water Surface (FWS) wetlands compared to traditional wastewater-treatment plants. Six scenarios of the service costs of three FWS wetlands and three different wastewater-treatment plants based on active sludge processes were compared. The six scenarios were all equally effective in their wastewater-treatment capacity. The service costs were estimated using real accounting data from an experimental wetland and by means of a market survey. Some assumptions had to be made to perform the analysis. A reference wastewater situation was established to solve the problem of the different levels of dilution that characterize the inflow water of the different systems; the land purchase cost was excluded from the analysis, considering the use of public land as shared social services, and an equal life span for both seminatural and traditional wastewater-treatment plants was set. The results suggest that seminatural systems are competitive with traditional biotechnological systems, with an average service cost improvement of 2.1-fold to 8-fold, according to the specific solution and discount rate. The main improvement factor was the lower maintenance cost of the seminatural systems, due to the self-regulating, low artificial energy inputs and the absence of waste to be disposed. In this work, only the waste-treatment capacity of wetlands was considered as a parameter for the economic competitiveness analysis. Other goods/services and environmental benefits provided by FWS wetlands were not considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Equivalent Inhabitant is used as one of the parameters for the organic load of waste water and is equal to an Oxygen Chemical Demand of 130 g day−1 or a discharge volume of 200 l day−1, whichever as higher (Art. 4, c.1, L.R.T. n. 5/86).

References

  • Anderson CJ, Mitsch WJ, Nairn RW. (2005) Temporal and spatial development of surface soil conditions at two created riverine marshes. Journal of Environtal Quality 34:2072–2081

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson W. (1998) Economic analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis of proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for industrial waste combustors. US Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Avsar Y, Tarabeah H, Kimchie S, Ozturk I. (2007) Rehabilitation by constructed wetlands of available wastewater treatment plant in Sakhnin. Ecological Engineering 29:27–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black CA, Wise WR. (2003) Evaluation of past and potential phosphorus uptake at the Orlando Easterly Wetland. Ecological Engineering 21:277–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boustany RG, Crozier CR, Rybczyk JM, Twilley RR. (1997) Denitrification in a South Louisiana wetland forest receiving treated sewage effluent. Wetland Ecology and Management 4:273–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braskerud BC, T. Hartnik O. Lovstad. 2005a. The effect of the redox-potential on the retention of phosphorus in a small constructed wetland. Water Science and Technology 51:127–134

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Braskerud BC, Tonderski KS, Wedding B, Bakke R, Blanenberg AG, Ulen B, Koskiaho J. 2005b. Can constructed wetlands reduce the diffuse phosphorus loads to eutrophic water in cold temperate regions? Journal Of Environmental Quality 34:2145–2155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Breaux A., Day JW. (1994) Policy considerations for wetland wastewater treatment in the coastal zone: A case study for Louisiana. Coastal Management 22:285–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breaux A, Farber S, Day JW. (1995) Using natural coastal wetlands systems for wastewater treatment: an economic benefit analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 44:285–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoch L., Day JW, Jr., Rybczyk JM, Kemp GP. (2000) An economic analysis of using wetlands for treatment of shrimp processing wastewater: a case study in Dulac LA. Ecological Economics 33:93–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craft C, Broome S, Campbell C. (2002) Fifteen years of vegetation and soil development after brackish-water marsh creation. Restoration Ecology 10:248–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dass P, Ryuhei I, Iwami N, Mizuochi M, Inamori Y. (2004) Role of emergent macrophyte (Phragmites and Zizania) in nutrient removal and flux of green house gases from wastewater in constructed wetland. In IWA Astee Conference, 26 September–1 October, Avignon, France

  • Day JW, Arancibia AY, Mitsch WJ Lara-Dominguez AL Day JN, Ko JY, Lane RR, Lindsey J, Lomeli DZ. (2003) Using ecotechnology to address water quality and wetland habitat loss problems in the Mississippi basin: a hierarchical approach. Biotechnology Advances 22:135–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D.L. vo. n. 152 (Decreto Legislativo 11 maggio 1999 n. 152). (1999) Disposizioni sulla tutela della acque dall’inquinamento e recepimento della direttiva 91/271/CEE concernente il trattamento delle acque reflue urbane e della direttiva 91/676/CEE relativa alla protezione delle acque dall’inquinamento provocato dai nitrati provenienti da fonti agricole.”

  • D.L. vo. n. 152 (Decreto Legislativo 3 aprile 2006 n. 152). (2006) Norme in materia ambientale

  • Ewel KC, Odum HT. (1984) Cypress swamps, University Press of Florida, Gainesville

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudger WM, Barker DC. (1993) Banking for the environment. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 103. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley ND, Spash C. (1993) Cost–benefit analysis and the environment. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy M, Cawley AM. (2002) Nutrient processing capacity of a constructed wetland in western Ireland. Journal of Environmental Quality 31:1739–1747

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hefting M, Beltman B, Karssenberg D, Rebel K, Van Riessen M, Spijeker M. (2006) Water quality dynamics and hydrology in nitrate loaded riparian zones in the Netherlands. Environmental Pollution 139:143–156

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heinzerling L, Ackerman F. (2002) Cost–benefit analysis of environmental protection. Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC). (2003) Technical and regulatory guidance document for constructed treatments wetlands. The Environmental Council of the States, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan TE, Whigham DF, Hofmockel KH, Pittek MA. (2003) Nutrient and sediment removal by a restored wetland receiving agricultural runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality 32:1534–1547

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kadlec RH, Knight RL. (1996) Treatment wetlands: theory and implementation, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowlton MF, Cuvellier C, Jones JR. (2002) Initial performance of high capacity surface flow treatment wetland. Wetlands 22:522–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ko JY, Day JW, Lane RR, Day JN. (2004) A comparative evaluation of money-based and energy-based cost-benefit analyses of tertiary municipal wastewater treatment using forested wetlands vs. Sand filtration in Louisiana. Ecological Economics 49:331–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovacic DA, David MB, Lowell EG, Starks KM, Cooke RA. (2000) Effectiveness of constructed wetlands in reducing nitrogen and phosphorus export from agricultural tile drainage. Journal of Environmental Quality 29:1262–1270

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lorion R. (2001) Constructed wetlands: Passive system for wastewater treatment. Technology status report prepared for the USEPA technology innovation office under a national network of environmental management studies followship

  • Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG. (2000) Wetlands, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch WJ, Zhang L, Anderson CJ, Altor AE, Hernandez ME. (2005) Creating riverine wetlands: Ecological succession, nutrient retention, and pulsing effects. Ecological Engineering 25:510–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols DS. (1983) Capacity of natural wetlands to remove nutrients from wastewater. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation 55:495–505

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nokes RL, Greba CP, Karpiscak MM. (1999) Reduction of enteric organisms in small scale, subsurface flow constructed wetlands. In: Means JL, Hinchee RE (eds.), Wetlands and remediation: Wastewater remediation and treatment. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. Pages 195–203

  • Nyakang’o JB, Van Bruggen JJA. (1999) Combination of a well functioning constructed wetland with a pleasing landscape in Nairobi, Kenia. Water Science and Technologies 40:249–256

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW, Atkinson G, Mourato S. (2006) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris

  • Rousseau DPL, Vanrolleghem PA, DePauw N. (2004) Model based design of horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands: a review. Water Research 38:1484–1493

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steer D, Aseltyne T, Fraser L. (2003) Life-cycle economic model of small treatment wetlands for domestic wastewater disposal. Ecological Economics 44:359–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL. (1991) Wastewater Eengineering, McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasinsig E, Vecchiet M, Marangon F, Ceccon L. (2000) Valutazione economica delle tecniche di depurazione delle acque reflue per piccole utenze civili. Genio Rurale 6:15–25

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (1993) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and wildlife habitat, 17 case studies. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2001) Constructed wetlands and wastewater management for CAFOs. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Viessman W, Hammer MJ. (1998) Water supply and pollution control. Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler W. (1998) Cost-effectiveness analysis of effluent limitation guidelines and standards for the centralized waste treatment industry. US Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Willan A, Briggs A. (2006) Statistical analysis of cost-effectiveness data. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood A. (1995) Constructed wetlands in water pollution control: fundamentals to their understanding. Water Science and Technology 32:21–29

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang B, Lan CS, Yang CS, Liao WB, Chang H, Shu WS. (2006) Long term efficiency and stability of wetlands for treating wastewater of a lead/zinc mine and the concurrent ecosystem development. Environmental Pollution 143:449–512

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X, Feagley SE, Day JW, Conner WH, Hesse ID, Rybczyk JM, Hudnall WH. (2000) A water chemistry assessment of wastewater remediation in a natural swamp. Journal of Environmental Quality 29:1960–1968

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the Ministry of Infrastructures–Venice Water Authority through its concessionary Consorzio Venezia Nuova. We gratefully acknowledge hydraulic data and raw analyses provided by Protecno SRL (Italy) and chemical analyses provided by LabControl SNC (Italy).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Venice International University, Isola di San Servolo, Venice, 30100, Italy

    Ilda Mannino

  2. Planland—Studio Tecnico Daniel Franco, Cannaregio 3841, Venice, 30131, Italy

    Daniel Franco, Enrico Piccioni, Laura Favero & Erika Mattiuzzo

  3. Università Cà Foscari, Dorsoduro 3246, Venice, 30123, Italy

    Gabriele Zanetto

Authors
  1. Ilda Mannino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Franco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Enrico Piccioni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura Favero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Erika Mattiuzzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gabriele Zanetto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Franco.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mannino, I., Franco, D., Piccioni, E. et al. A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Seminatural Wetlands and Activated Sludge Wastewater-Treatment Systems. Environmental Management 41, 118–129 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9001-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9001-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation