Environmental synergies in decentralized wastewater treatment at a hotel resort

Climate change and water scarcity are clearly related environmental problems, making them global environmental issues. Accordingly, the water cycle management deserves a revision in its approach, integrating the concept of circular economy within an efficient and sustainable management of water resources and the design of wastewater facilities. In this sense, newly engineered decentralized facilities have emerged as a viable option for the treatment of segregated wastewater flows. The design has not only integrated the wastewater treatment function, but also resource recovery, such as water reclamation for agricultural and irrigation activities, fertigation, fertilization and energy sustainability. Based on these premises, the concept of decentralized wastewater management deserves the same degree of attention and development that has so far been reserved for conventional centralized management systems. Therefore, this paper proposes a progressive substitution of the business-as-usual scenario or centralized system by applying a small-scale wastewater management scheme performing a more efficient resource and water recovery in a medium-sized 4-5-star resort hotel. The spotlight was a membrane technology for the anaerobic digestion of the blackwater instead of the greywater treatment. A favorable environmental profile was found for the decentralized scenario under two circumstances: a large system boundary including the beneficial environmental impacts of the products and, based on the results obtained from a sensitivity analysis, an energy demand for the operation of the AnMBR lower than 2 kWh·m^-3. The global warming potential results (around 9%) were even for such high demand and much larger benefits were obtained for other impact categories (94% for SOD and 98% for LU). Nevertheless, the operation (gate-to-gate approach) of these on-site recovery facilities is far from being optimized and further research should follow to decrease the 39.8% difference in the global warming potential between decentralized and centralized systems.