Transformation of Urban Water Service Provision: Potential of Hybrid Systems

Introduction

Today, half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, and this proportion is projected to grow to two thirds by 2050 (United Nations, 2014). Accelerating urbanization makes sustainable development ever more complex and challenging. Growing urban areas need to be able to renew and extend critical infrastructures, such as water supply, energy, transportation, and information and communication technology (Riffat, Powell, & Aydin, 2016). In addition, this renewal process is expected to contribute to and generate more sustainable urban lives.

It is, therefore, necessary to consider how policies support and encourage new ways of thinking, organizing, and governing various city functions and how to deal efficiently with the resource flows within and through cities. One aspect in this is how infrastructures contribute for the development of more sustainable and vital urban areas and how operations can have long-lasting positive or negative impacts (Moss, Guy, Marvin, & Medd, 2011). An integrative and holistic perspective sets infrastructures as a central part of the development, culture, and investment politics of urban areas. Infrastructures shape the formation of everyday activities and routines, as well as the structuration of consumer habits. Therefore, what is considered legitimate knowledge and who are legitimate actors in relation to infrastructure management is everything, but trivial.

Conceptually, this phenomenon can be approached through the transformation of infrastructures whose social and governmental dimensions are still largely unknown (Bolton & Foxon, 2015). In water services, transformation necessitates innovativeness and preparedness to change the management and operations of water management systems (Khansari, Mostashari, & Mansouri, 2013). A key question is how water services among other sociotechnical infrastructure services are able to produce and support sustainable lifestyles. Furthermore, following Valkama, Bailey, and Anttiroiko (2015), the production of infrastructure services must be in line with societal principles of ethics and justice such as fairness, trust, and transparency.

Energy and waste services sectors have undergone significant changes in their operational roles and power relations over the last few decades. The same cannot be said of water services. Modern water supply has traditionally relied on centralized systems that have been complemented with decentralized ones in areas where centralized systems have not been considered cost-effective. This way of managing and operating water services with all the associated structures of governance and actors has succeeded in grounding itself as a natural state of affairs (see Heino & Takala, 2015).

Centralized systems have followed the top-down design and decision-making approach typical of large technical systems (LTSs) and the growth logic, which has meant in the case of water services that capacity has been increased to meet growing demand. Maintaining this basic premise has required an emphasis on technical expertise in system management (Joerges, 1988), meaning that an engineering-based view has represented the legitimate form of knowledge in designing systems. Alternative ways to produce service and formulate problems have been largely overlooked.

Yet, the scarcity of water resources on one hand and the demands of resource efficiency on the other have given impetus to the solutions offered by the so-called hybrid systems. These refer to the combination of decentralized and centralized systems. Combining the strengths of these systems and compensating for their respective weaknesses provide a better ability to adapt to various challenges. For example, tailoring water sources for different purposes and needs can decrease the need for potable water and decrease the resources needed for transportation and treatment (Bell, 2018; Bieker, Cornel, & Wagner, 2010; Daigger & Crawford, 2007; Sapkota et al., 2013, 2015). Hybrid systems would thus represent a step toward more sustainable consumption and smarter service production.

We suggest that hybridization not only affects resource use and efficiency, but also provides an interesting way to examine the transformation of the service. Our starting point is that the adaptation of hybrids will have profound impacts on the dynamics of water supply and consumption, thus, transforming the operational roles and the way the various actors are used to seeing themselves in relation to water services ¹ . Connecting centralized and decentralized systems causes some tensions and necessitates new institutional and governmental structures and practices. In this article, we examine the transformation of water service provision in relation to hybridization. It is not our purpose to test or evaluate the advantages or disadvantages of the transformation of water services in relation to a specific goal, but to focus on the conceptualization of this phenomenon.

Methods and Structure

This article illuminates the transformation of infrastructure services from different perspectives and discusses the hybridization of water services as a manifestation and application of this transformation. In the next section, we look at the transformation of infrastructure services in general to clarify the background idea of this study. Furthermore, we briefly discuss experiences from energy and waste service sectors. After that, we will look at the general characteristics of water services and analyze them from the point of view of transformation. We argue that one key aspect in transformation is the role of water users.

Thus, in “The Role of Water Users” section, we will look at how Finnish water users perceive water services and their role in it. To grasp the perspective of water users, we conducted 74 interviews on the streets of 11 Finnish municipalities. The municipalities were chosen to include diversity, so their water services represent different scales, the organizational structures of water services are different, and they are located in different parts of the country. The interviews were in Finnish, and the excerpts presented in this article have been translated by the researchers.

There is one particular issue related to the context of this study that needs to be mentioned. Much of the discussion on hybrid water systems has been contextualized by the scarcity of water resources. We examine hybridization in the context of Finland—a country of 1,000 lakes and an abundance of high-quality water resources. The scarcity of water is, thus, not the driving force for hybridization. Therefore, we expect our study to reveal some novel aspects and considerations of the hybridization of water services, aspects that do not reduce to argumentation on the scarcity of water resources.

In “Hybridization of Water Services” section, the findings from the interviews and transformation literature are discussed in relation to hybridization of water services. We cover both the potential and challenges associated with hybridization. Finally, we will provide concise conclusions and main points of the study.

Transformation of Infrastructure Services

Humanity is living through a historical transition period as people are conglomerating in ever-expanding and densening urban areas that lure people with promises of economic, social, and cultural well-being. This development, however, brings forth the question how housing, mobility, waste, energy, and water issues can be managed strategically and sustainably in urban areas. Management of these infrastructures not only affects the crucial material and nonmaterial flows, but also has a profound influence on social relations. As Coward (2012, p. 479) maintains,

between us in the city is neither an empty space nor simply of human bond. Rather between us is a surface of contact, a point of articulation, at which heterogeneous elements are assembled into complex ecologies of subjectivity. Between us is the urban fabric—from houses to large technical infrastructures.

In this sense, urban infrastructures are not only material and technical constructions, but also thoroughly social systems that determine and contextualize how humans collaborate to achieve desired goals.

When the sustainability challenges associated with urbanization are viewed through the framework of transformation, urban areas should be perceived as places where structures enable and support change, learning, and innovation. Tranos and Gertner (2012), for example, maintain that the urbanites’ creative potential and ability to combine various competencies and knowledge to produce solutions should be better utilized. Transformation of infrastructure services is contextualized by the goals of urban development—to form new, active communities and initiate local activity. Innovative initiatives transform the distribution of work, shuffle actor roles, and modify conceptualizations and conditions of consumption that are related to service production. From the perspective of infrastructure transformation, this means that connection of infrastructure to the challenges of urban sustainability will prompt novel and increasingly diverse interpretations of problems and their solutions (Guy & Marvin, 2001).

Next, we will look at the example of energy and waste service provision and briefly discuss how these systems have been transformed. After this, we will turn our attention to water services and identify the key challenges in their transformation.

The Role of Water Users

To understand the relationship between ordinary water users and water services, we interviewed 74 people in 11 municipalities in Finland. We paid attention to the diversity of interviewees in regard to demographic factors. The purpose, however, is not to conduct statistical analysis or to discuss the situation in particular municipalities, thus the results are presented on a very general level.

The willingness to be interviewed provides the first observation of this study. Many people were very hesitant about their knowledge of water services. When we asked people if they would be willing to participate in an interview about water services, the most common initial response was “I don’t know enough about it.” We tried to convince the interviewees that they did not need any particular knowledge, but that we are interested in their views on water services.

People’s perceptions about the development of water services were closely linked to the questions of fairness and responsibility. Water was not seen as a mere techno-economic commodity, but as the enabler and provider of basic necessities. Despite the abundant water resources, people felt that water should be used responsibly and not be wasted: “Think about it: What kind of world do we live in? Others suffer with a lack of water, and we use it without further thought.” In addition to the amount of water used, the purpose water is used for is laden with moral rules: “It sucks how we flush toilets with pure water. And shower all too often. Young people [shower] both in the mornings and in the evenings.” It is somewhat surprising that people’s perspectives on water use are not overly utilitarian; people do not think about how they could get maximum material benefit from an abundant resource, but link their consumption to values and moral considerations.

Because water use is dependent on the water supply system, many of the interviewees felt that water management should reflect the interlinkage of supply and demand. They wished that public utilities operating in water services would be committed to environmentally sustainable and morally responsible activities. In other words, supply and demand should work together to promote what is valued. People, for example, were of the opinion that water utilities should “radically inform . . . water use” and “guide . . . water conservation.” Values should also be reflected in the tariff structure and all communication efforts by the utilities. Unfortunately, people felt that utilities are doing the exact opposite: “Just at the turn of the year, there was a feature saying that people have saved water, and now there is not enough income, and [the water utility] has to raise prices.” The following excerpts demonstrate the problematics of the “one size fits all” type of product portfolio in relation to water users’ conceptions about sustainable water systems.

It would make sense that incentives would work the other way around and there would be other ways. I’ve been thinking, would it be possible that when one washes hands then that water would go to the toilet’s tank? As you could very well reuse the water at some other point. You could also use it to water that meadow.

We have to consider that water is also used for washing. In Finland, we use good water for everything. Maybe we should have some public wells with not so finely purified water that you could use for watering. [. . . ] This shows our true wealth. We can flush the toilet [with clean water]. I wonder if anyone has considered having separate systems.

[I’d be willing to pay] if you could separate pure water from water that is used for cleaning. I mean, the water you drink needs to be purer than the one that is used for cleaning. But it wouldn’t be profitable as you’d need separate pipes.

It’s totally crazy, but I’d want to have a dry toilet. If we ever live in a place where it would be possible, I’d absolutely want it. I so remember the first time I started to talk with my father about how much it irritates me that so much water is used for flushing. He told me that already in the year ʼ82, when they were building their house in [the municipality of] Eurajoki, he would have wanted to build the kind of toilet that would reuse water that’s been used for rinsing hands. But they [the authorities] just laughed at him. That never ever. That you can’t do something like that. He thought already back then that it is just unthinkable that we flush with pure water when the water you’ve washed your hands with would be clean enough.

As these excerpts illustrate, consumer behavior that represents different lifestyles and values is blocked. Water supply systems that rely on LTS were criticized because people feel that they focus only on techno-economic factors at the expense of other values that are more difficult to define. LTS-based logic provides very limited room for those who would be willing to adopt new ways of using water that can be considered as more sustainable. It can be said that the prevailing technologies, and the ways they are governed and managed are effectively defining what is considered meaningful and what absurd.

Iʼve understood that it is also a problem that people have started saving water, [it’s a problem] as the pipes need water. In Western countries, water is wasted. It doesnʼt make any sense to splurge purified water.

The preceding excerpt illustrates how the interviewee feels that water is being used in an unsustainable way, but that it has been implied that “the pipes need water.” As a summarizing observation based on the interviews, we suggest that water users are positioned as captive consumers who assimilate to the logic of the dominant system. This obstacle appears to be the main one in sustainability transformation in water services. Structures of the current water services system that can be characterized as LTS seem invariably powerful. This perception is explained by the high quality of water services when assessed against traditional criteria. Water services have succeeded in providing safe water to people and protecting the environment against the pollution of wastewaters. As a result, development focuses only on aspects that reproduce and enforce the current structures, whereas initiatives and innovations that would disrupt these structures are blocked.

Another summarizing observation is that people feel that water services are an essential part of the welfare system. Water services are perceived as a part of a superstructure that generates social well-being, which explains why the elements of reasonableness, fairness, and justice manifested so strongly in the interviews. Based on the interviews, it is noteworthy that water services are highly appreciated despite their invisibility and “being taken for granted.” The loosely structured interviews allowed interviewees to contemplate their relationship to water services and helped to raise aspects that are not evident among the mundane routines. It can be concluded that, in reality, people have quite strong views regarding water services. However, due to the role of water users in the current system, these views are not actively taken into consideration when developing water services.

Hybridization of Water Services

Now, attention will be turned to hybrid systems particularly from the point of view of service transformation. Hybrid water supply systems typically refer to small- or medium-size systems that utilize resources located near the point of consumption—for example, the utilization of storm-water runoff, gray water, or wastewater (Biggs, Ryan, Wiseman, & Larsen, 2009; Rathnayaka, Malano, & Arora, 2016; Sapkota et al., 2015). Decentralized systems can be operated in a variety of spatial scales: (a) on-site scale; service provided at the scale of an individual property, (b) cluster or development scale; serve two or more dwellings or a whole development, system is typically co-owned, (c) distribute systems; typically serve large communities with hundreds of properties, and have their own utility (Sharma, Tjandraatmadja, Cook, & Gardner, 2013). These systems are modular and initial investment costs are typically moderate, which enhances the adaptability and flexibility of the water supply system. Decentralized systems can utilize resources that are already in the urban water cycle, and this way these diminish the need to extract water outside the city (Wong & Brown, 2009).

Conclusion

In light of this research, it seems that hybrid systems have the potential to introduce such characteristics and changes to water services that would better integrate it into the processes of sustainable development. In energy and waste services, this kind of transformation is well underway. Water services seem, however, to be associated with basic characteristics that cause inertia and restrain transformation.

Water services play a central role in fulfilling daily needs, and it is an elementary part of our mundane practices. The views of Finnish water users on the sustainability of the water supply imply at a minimum, that Finns would be willing to assume a more active role in building more sustainable urban lives in which water services play an important role if only this would be made possible and encouraged by the system. The centralized water services system, however, hides and blurs practices associated with water consumption. We argue that hybrid systems have the potential to reveal these characters and open dialogue, but this is challenging and necessitates new thinking from decision makers, experts, operators, and all professionals involved in the production of water services.

When it comes to the transformation of water services, it should be noted that most people may not necessarily want to change their role as a customer. Thus, their water consumption behavior may still be similar to the captive consumers, but the dynamics of provision and consumption will change. That is, people are able to define what kind of a customer role they want to assume in a particular case. In our view, the ultimate value of water supply transformation lies hidden behind its visible and direct applicability. It gives an opportunity for a more in-depth discussion on the service, where things that are currently considered as nonnegotiable, intact, and impossible to change are given an opportunity to be discussed. In this sense, we underline the transformation of the water service as a conceptualization over a predetermined goal, trusting that a service capable of transformation will find its own goals, for example, and most importantly, in relation to sustainable development.