Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37168677›Full record

ArticleWater research X2023

Why are decentralised urban water solutions still rare given all the claimed benefits, and how could that be changed?

Jurg Keller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Water research X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jurg KellerAustralian Centre for Water and Environmental Biotechnology (ACWEB), The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous innovative decentralised urban water solutions have been described over many years, yet their application in practice is still not common at all. While many proposed solutions may have some techno-economic advantages over current systems, the real reasons for the slow uptake have more to do with system-wide inertia and technology 'lock-in' where existing solutions are preferred for simplicity and familiarity. A key factor is also the inadequate assessments in project decision making processes that should consider all relevant social, environmental and economic benefits and values. This paper highlights some key barriers and how to address them in a more holistic way. It also identifies opportunities where more integrated, hybrid solutions could offer significant benefits over current technologies. It calls on all key partners in this sector to foster broad and strong collaborations, and on water service providers to be empowered to take an inclusive leadership role in creating such innovative solutions that help address our growing challenges driven by rapid urbanisation and climate change.

Indexed as

DecentralisationIntegrated solutionsMulti-sector collaborationUrban water

Identifiers

PMID37168677
PMCPMC10165158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.