Opinion of toolsName of the case study Rehabilitation of water supply network in urban fields (CARE-W-ARP)
Name of tool CARE-W-ARP Opinion of tool - argumentation for choosing the tool
Opinion of tool - barriers for the tool implementation
Opinion of tool - assessment by tool users
As the good elements of the tool use are discussed all the case study long, is discussed here essentially some improvements that could be done or that are ongoing.
The tool needs still some improvements:
- Improvement of the tool to take in account all the context dimensions (political choices) and end users preferences (see second level of testing by researchers).
- Improvement of the ease of use for end users.
- Improvement of the mapping (see figure 6) in order to be relevant and effective as a tool of decision making process. Actually, the mapping has an interest if water supply network area considered is not too wide. However mapping for example the 1100 km of the Greater Lyon water network is too wide and so doesn't give an effective overview of the results.
A limit of the tool is the necessity of assessing pipes for rehabilitation according to the same criteria. It means that the tool user should have the same information on all the pipes that he wants to rank. If a data is missing for the calculation of a criterion on a pipe, the criterion can not be used for the ranking.
Opinion of tool - reviewer\'s assessment One important point is the collaboration between researchers and local water managers. The success of this tool comes from the good communication and co-operation between them.
The main barrier of using this tool is the lack of available data (material, localisation and age of pipes, failure history etc). Thus CARE-W-ARP partners advocate, not directly, the implementation of data collections, logbooks and monitoring in order to create a water services record.
What tools were used to assess sustainability? CARE-W-ARP More information
Click here for a full description (pdf) |