Urban water infrastructure asset management - a structured approach in four water utilities.

Water services are a strategic sector of large social and economic relevance. It is therefore essential that they are managed rationally and efficiently. Advanced water supply and wastewater infrastructure asset management (IAM) is key in achieving adequate levels of service in the future, particularly with regard to reliable and high quality drinking water supply, prevention of urban flooding, efficient use of natural resources and prevention of pollution. This paper presents a methodology for supporting the development of urban water IAM, developed during the AWARE-P project as well as an appraisal of its implementation in four water utilities. Both water supply and wastewater systems were considered. Due to the different contexts and features of the utilities, the main concerns vary from case to case; some problems essentially are related to performance, others to risk. Cost is a common deciding factor. The paper describes the procedure applied, focusing on the diversity of drivers, constraints, benefits and outcomes. It also points out the main challenges and the results obtained through the implementation of a structured procedure for supporting urban water IAM.

Prioritization of rehabilitation interventions for urban water assets using multiple criteria decision-aid methods.

The aim of this paper is to compare sorting and ranking methods for prioritization of rehabilitation interventions of sewers, taking into account risk, performance and cost. For that purpose multiple criteria decision-aid (MCDA) methods such as ELECTRE TRI for sorting and ELECTRE III for ranking are applied in a real case-study and the results obtained are compared. The case study is a small sanitary sewer system from a Portuguese utility located in the metropolitan area of Lisbon. The problem to investigate is the prioritization of the sewer candidates for rehabilitation. The decision maker (a panel group of specialists) has chosen five assessment measures: water level and maximum flow velocity (hydraulic performance indices), sewer importance and failure repair cost (collapse-related consequences of failure) and the risk of collapse. The results show that the outcomes from ELECTRE III are easier to understand than those from ELECTRE TRI method. Two different sets of weights were used, and the sorting and ranking results from both methods were found to be sensitive to them. ELECTRE TRI method is not straightforward as it involves technical parameters that are difficult to define, such as reference profiles and cut levels.