Innovations are required in urban infrastructures due to the pressing needs for mitigating climate change and prevent resource depletion. In order to address the slow pace of innovation in urban systems, this paper analyses factors involved in attempts to introduce novel sanitary systems. Today new requirements are important: sanitary systems should have an optimal energy/climate performance, with recovery of resources, and with fewer emissions. Anaerobic digestion has been suggested as an alternative to current aerobic waste water treatment processes. This paper presents an overview of attempts to introduce novel anaerobic sanitation systems for domestic sanitation. The paper identifies main factors that contributed to a premature termination of such attempts. Especially smaller scale anaerobic sanitation systems will probably not be able to compete economically with traditional sewage treatment. However, anaerobic treatment has various advantages for mitigating climate change, removing persistent chemicals, and for the transition to a circular economy. The paper concludes that loss avoidance, both in the sewage system and in the waste water treatment plants, should play a key role in determining experiments that could lead to a transition in sanitation. http://dx.doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.d6.0214 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/karel-mulder-163aa96/
MULTIFILE
In recent years, it has become a commonplace to argue that cities should be the focus point of sustainable development. Various authors have presented a variety of arguments why cities should be the preferred target to foster sustainable development-focused innovation; - The average consumption of resources of urban dwellers is higher. - The population of cities is growing continuously, while rural populations stabilize. - Deteriorating living conditions and segregation in cities caused by processes of gentrification of traditional neighbourhoods that drive out lower income groups to the suburbs. - Cities are ‘concentrated’ emitters of pollutants and therefore solutions and re-use might be easier to implement. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185013 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/karel-mulder-163aa96/
MULTIFILE
In many cities, pilot projects are set up to test or develop new technologies that improve sustainability, urban quality of life or urban services (often labelled as “smart city” projects). Typically, these projects are supported by the municipality, funded by subsidies, and run in partnerships. Many projects however die after the pilot stage, and never scale up. Policymakers on all levels consider this as a challenge and search for solutions. In this paper, we analyse the process of upscaling, focusing on smart city projects in which several partners –with different missions, agenda’s and incentives- join up. First, we review the extant literature on upscaling from development studies, business studies, and the transition management literature. Based on insights from these literatures, we identify three types of upscaling: roll-out, expansion and replication, each with their own dynamics, context sensitivity and scaling barriers. We illustrate the typology with recent smart city projects in Amsterdam. Based on desk research and in-depth interviews with a number of project stakeholders and partners of the Amsterdam Smart City platform, we analyse three projects in depth, in order to illustrate the challenges of different upscaling types. i) Energy Atlas, an EU-funded open data project in which the grid company, utilities and local government set up a detailed online platform showing real-time energy use on the level of the building block; ii) Climate Street, a project that intended to make an entire urban high street sustainable, involving a large number of stakeholders, and iii) Ikringloop, an application that helps to recycle or to re-use waste. Each of the projects faced great complexities in the upscaling process, albeit to a varying degree. The paper ends with conclusions and recommendations on pilot projects and partnership governance, and adds new reflections to the debates on upscaling.