Sustainability assessment of strategic asset management decisions on municipal water infrastructure systems: Framework and application
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Developing socially acceptable, environmentally friendly, and financially viable asset management plans (AMPs) is a major challenge for water and wastewater utilities and calls for a comprehensive Sustainability Assessment (SA). This paper proposes a novel framework that applies System Dynamics and Life Cycle Assessment tools to evaluate the long‐term sustainability of strategic asset management decisions for water and wastewater infrastructure systems. The merit of the proposed framework in dealing with the non‐linearity and dynamic behavior of the socio‐economic systems and its utility for SA of strategic asset management decisions are demonstrated in a case study of a Wastewater Collection (WWC) network system. Furthermore, the significant importance of population growth and urban densification policies in sustainability of AMP are highlighted by comparing four alternative scenarios of (1) 100% urban densification, (2) 0% urban densification, (3) 50% densification, and (4) no population growth in the case study. The results of the case study show that the greenhouse gas emission, operational and capital expenses, and bill burden of WWC and treatment services significantly reduce with urban densification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it