Resources recovery can improve the economic efficiency and reduce the negative environmental impacts of municipal wastewater treatment plants (MWWTP). The recovered resources can also actively benefit the natural environment enabling a reciprocal relationship between human society and nature. Focusing on these benefits can reveal new resources recovery opportunities. Moreover, for certain environmental impact categories such as emissions of reactive nitrogen, mere damage reduction is insufficient because these emissions are already beyond planetary limits. However, quantitative methods to assess nature benefits are lacking. A new method is developed to calculate the potential nature benefits in three categories: Freshwater restoration, biomass assimilation of nutrients, and soil organic matter sequestration and it is demonstrated on a real-life MWWTP. Focusing on resources recovery helps to purify the wastewater sufficiently for discharge and to benefit the natural environment. Treated wastewater discharge into a river can support freshwater restoration depending on the effluent quality. High quality is achieved by the sufficient removal of the nutrients and organic matter and discharging into a high-flow stream. The recovery of nutrients helps to close the nutrient cycle through biomass assimilation. To maximize this benefit, the nutrient recovery efficiency from the MWWTP must be maximized. But, increasing the nutrient uptake efficiency in agriculture is also crucial, especially for nitrogen. The wastewater sludge products can be applied to soil to sequester organic matter and the products with low volatile solids should be preferred. The development of the new method is a start to recognizing and assessing the potentially positive role of humans in nature.@en

Resources recovery can improve the economic efficiency and reduce the negative environmental impacts of municipal wastewater treatment plants (MWWTP). The recovered resources can also actively benefit the natural environment enabling a reciprocal relationship between human society and nature. Focusing on these benefits can reveal new resources recovery opportunities. Moreover, for certain environmental impact categories such as emissions of reactive nitrogen, mere damage reduction is insufficient because these emissions are already beyond planetary limits. However, quantitative methods to assess nature benefits are lacking. A new method is developed to calculate the potential nature benefits in three categories: Freshwater restoration, biomass assimilation of nutrients, and soil organic matter sequestration and it is demonstrated on a real-life MWWTP. Focusing on resources recovery helps to purify the wastewater sufficiently for discharge and to benefit the natural environment. Treated wastewater discharge into a river can support freshwater restoration depending on the effluent quality. High quality is achieved by the sufficient removal of the nutrients and organic matter and discharging into a high-flow stream. The recovery of nutrients helps to close the nutrient cycle through biomass assimilation. To maximize this benefit, the nutrient recovery efficiency from the MWWTP must be maximized. But, increasing the nutrient uptake efficiency in agriculture is also crucial, especially for nitrogen. The wastewater sludge products can be applied to soil to sequester organic matter and the products with low volatile solids should be preferred. The development of the new method is a start to recognizing and assessing the potentially positive role of humans in nature.@en

Resource recovery solutions can reduce the water sector's resource use intensity. With many such solutions being proposed, an assessment method for effective decision-making is needed. The water sector predominantly deals with biogeochemical resources (e.g., nitrogen) that are different from technical resources (e.g., industrial coagulants) in three ways: (1) they move through the environment in natural cycles; (2) they fulfil different human and environmental functions; and (3) they are subject to substantial environmental losses. Whilst several circularity assessment methods exist for technical resources, biogeochemical resources have received less attention. To address this, a well-established material circularity indicator (MCI) method is modified. This is done by redefining the terms: restoration, regeneration, and linear flows to create a new circularity assessment approach. The new approach is demonstrated in a real-life case study involving treated wastewater (TW) fertigation. The new approach reveals that using the original MCI method underestimates the circularity of resource recovery solutions involving biogeochemical resources. This is because, in the original MCI method, only the flows that are reused/recycled for human functions can be considered circular, whereas, in the new approach, one also considers flows such as N₂ emission and groundwater infiltration as circular flows. Even though these may not be reuse/recycle type flows, they still contribute towards future resource availability and, thus, towards sustainability. The modified assessment method shows that TW fertigation can significantly improve nitrogen and water circularity. However, careful planning of the fertigation schedule is essential since increasing fertigation frequency leads to lower water but higher nitrogen circularity. Additionally, collecting drainage water for reuse can improve nitrogen circularity. In conclusion, using the modified MCI approach, circularity can be assessed in a manner that is better aligned with sustainability.

@en

Resource recovery solutions are an essential part of a sustainable water sector. Sustainability of these solutions needs to be analysed to assess, compare and optimize them. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) is the most commonly used framework for sustainability assessment. This review paper discusses three critical characteristics of water sector resource recovery solutions: (i) their potential to actively benefit natural processes through reciprocal services, (ii) their dependence upon natural resources and processes, and (iii) their goal to avoid transgression of environmental thresholds. We analyse these three characteristics in the context of the following features of LCSA: (i) it being a damage assessment-based framework, (ii) its treatment of economic and natural capital as substitutable and (iii) the absence of environmental thresholds and past emissions in its environmental assessment methodology. We use a real-life resource recovery case study from the Netherlands to evaluate and demonstrate the mentioned features of the existing LCSA framework. Our review indicates that, LCSA can be modified for application to resource recovery solutions if it includes reciprocity towards nature as an essential component, limits compensations between economic welfare and environmental damage, and incorporates environmental thresholds and past emissions.@en