Environ. Sci. Technol.
2006, 40, 436-442
Future Scenarios for a Sustainable
Water Sector: A Case Study from
Switzerland
JUDIT LIENERT,*
JOCHEN MONSTADT, AND
BERNHARD TRUFFER
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology
(Eawag), CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland
Uncertainties about the long-term prospects of urban
water management systems have increased substantially
over the past decade due to an increasing variety of
regulations, technologies, and demand structures. In
Switzerland, this uncertainty is mirrored by growing difficulties
of utility managers and (waste)water scientists to agree
on shared strategies: Water professionals demand support
for pressing management problems, while researchers
fundamentally question the longer-term sustainability of the
established water management system. To reestablish
shared orientation, we conducted a foresight study for the
Swiss (waste)water sector in 2004. Based on interviews
with 29 experts from Swiss water management and research
to collect 56 drivers of change, a team of 17 experts
developed three scenarios: (A) regional mergers of water
utilities leading to enhanced professionalism in the
sector, (B) consequent material flows management leading
to a radically restructured urban water management
system, and (C) generalized financial crisis leading to a
breakdown of centralized utility services. These scenarios
helped identifying shared research priorities. We conclude
that scenario analysis is a powerful tool for framing long-
term strategies, defining priorities, and integrating
different interests in the multidisciplinary contexts of
sustainability science, which are marked by high uncertainties
and concern a wide range of stakeholder groups.
Introduction
Uncertainties about the long-term prospects of water in-
frastructure systems are growing considerably. Major drivers
that increase complexity are new regulatory frameworks (e.g.,
privatized ownership of utilities), reduced financial stability,
risks from new pollutants or hygienic parameters, new
technologies (e.g., household centered water treatment),
regional population dynamics, and skepticism regarding the
sustainability of the conventional centralized system. Con-
sequently, professionals are reconsidering their longer-term
strategies (1), leading to some tension in a long relationship
of unanimous cooperation: Water professionals demand that
research should focus on pressing management problems
and less on technology development. Researchers argue that
the real challenges still lie ahead and question the sustain-
ability of the established system. Considering these positions,
there remains a small area for fruitful exchange.
The sustainability issue may help understanding this
debate. A main challenge of the 21st century is to justly
* Corresponding author phone: +41-44-823 5574; fax: +41-44-
823 5389; e-mail: judit.lienert@eawag.ch.
436 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 40, NO. 2, 2006
distribute fresh water among humans and nature, and among
different regions and users (2). While the construction of
massive water infrastructure in the 20th century brought
tremendous benefits to billions, these centralized technolo-
gies also have substantial social, economic, and environ-
mental costs (3). Main criticisms concern the difficulties to
close nutrient cycles, the large amounts of water to transport
waste, the loss of (waste)water in leaky pipes, the emission
of pollutants, and the difficulties of developing countries to
bear the costs (e.g., refs 1, 4). The world water council
estimated that adapting and renewing the infrastructure in
industrialized countries amounts to $10 trillion in 25 years,
while developing countries need $1.8 trillion for water and
sanitation infrastructures (2). Increasingly, researchers realize
that these immense problems call for new approaches. Gleick
(3) postulates that community-scale, decentralized facilities
must complement conventional centralized infrastructure.
Water professionals even wish to inspire a blue revolution
to develop alternatives for water-scarce developing countries
(5). Some solutions could find their way back to northern
countries because they might be environmentally superior
(5). Concurrently, we should start considering alternatives
for our industrialized countries.
Despite this need for transformation, the water sectors
as other utilitiessis characterized by strong inertia. It is a
large technical system, where changes require much time
because of the material longevity and the strongly established
institutional and professional expertise structures (6, 7).
Material and social infrastructure networks constitute a fine-
tuned socio-technical system (8), which is extremely suc-
cessful if its conditions remain stable. Uncertainties impede
the systems development, and rapid adjustments to new
demands are difficult. Thus, incremental innovations are
preferred, and socio-technical systems rather undergo con-
tinuous improvement than radical restructuring.
Provided that we need fundamentally new concepts, we
face a dilemma, and neither demanding an immediate system
transformation nor muddling through as usual will yield a
solution. Rather, we should integrate natural, engineering,
economic, and social science skills (9). A key issue of
sustainability science is to guide the journey to a more
sustainable future (10, 11). Various methodologies can
support this multidisciplinary process. Scenario planning is
relatively well established in business and policy contexts
with high uncertainty, insufficient generation of new op-
portunities, and low-quality strategic thinking (12). Hence,
scenario analysis might help integrating the scientific and
practical knowledge of key actors in the water sector to find
a way out of this dilemma.
Scenario building is an evolving concept which has not
yet been codified into a common set of procedures (11; but
see ref 13 for typical features). Scenarios do not predict the
future but are a tool to support systematic thinking about
the future. They help identifying options to be prepared for
possible futures (14, 15). Scenarios allow for creative explora-
tion of uncertain and highly complex issues and may
challenge conventional thinking about a socio-technical
system. Scenario analyses date back to post-World War II
strategic issues, such as the consequences of nuclear
proliferation. Scenario analyses have strongly influenced
business strategy formation, Royal Dutch/Shell leading the
way (16), and were used in highly uncertain political
situations, such as in South Africa after the fall of apartheid.
Empirical environment related applications were energy
provision, climate change, water scarcity, or ecosystem
management (e.g., refs 11, 14, 17). Regarding large technical
10.1021/es0514139 CCC: $33.50 2006 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 12/13/2005
systems, sustainable urban transportation has been studied
(e.g., ref 18). Recently, a methodology of sustainability
foresight was developed for utility sectors in general and
was applied to the German electricity, gas, water, and
telecommunications sector (19). However, accounts of
scenario building in the water sector are rare (but see refs
20-22).
We combined a literature survey with expert interviews
and scenario workshops to answer our main question: How
can the Swiss water sector evolve over the next 25-30 years
and guarantee its long-term sustainability for the next 50-
70 years? Although it is questionable whether this is really
long-term, 50-70 years is long in view of the daily decision
making contexts of practitioners (5-10 years) and the most
pressing problems of the water sector such as reorganization,
Millennium Goals, or infrastructure renewal (10-25 years).
Our aim was to identify research priorities that could both
prepare for more sustainable solutions and also respond to
the mid-term priorities of water professionals. As compro-
mise, 25 years was accepted by researchers and practitioners.
Within this time frame, we identified the most relevant drivers
of change in the water sector, formulated a range of
comprehensive future scenarios based on these factors, and
cross-checked this analysis with key actors in the Swiss water
sector to provide a good working basis for future collabora-
tion.
Materials and Methods
To increase the efficiency of the scenario process, we
combined several methodologies. Our approach is similar to
the scenario methodology of the Warwick Business School
(23). More directly, it is inspired by the sustainability foresight
approach recently developed for utility services (19).
Factor Identification with Literature Survey and Expert
Interviews. A first, crucial step in a scenario process is to
identify the key drivers and uncertainties in the area (15) by
means of a literature survey. Several studies on the future of
the water sector were carried out recently in Germany and
Switzerland (e.g., refs 21, 24-26). We complemented this
initial factor list with expert knowledge by interviewing 12
renowned scientists from water supply and wastewater
management at the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science
and Technology (Eawag) and 17 key professionals from the
Swiss urban water sector.
We selected the interviewees according to Theoretical
Sampling (27), which is a standard sampling technique in
social sciences that was developed in the context of
Grounded Theory (28). The idea is that samples (in our
case experts) are not selected according to statistical rep-
resentativity, but rather according to a priori known categories
(strata) of reasonable perspectives on an issue. In our case,
sampling strata were defined by different actor categories
such as researchers and practitioners, both in the field of
water supply and wastewater management. We further
stratified the experts from practice by including federal and
cantonal authorities, the two Swiss (waste)water associations,
various utilities and private firms, and an environmental NGO
(Table S1, Supporting Information). Most of the experts have
a medium to top managerial position. Each of the sampled
actor groups has a specific view of the problem, and the
different perspectives overlap only partially. Sampling points
within the strata are then chosen to be typical for a specific
perspective, i.e., it might be perfectly legitimate to chose an
extreme position within a category of actors to cover the
range of different viewpoints. This usually implies a cumula-
tive or iterative research process. We selected the external
representatives based on suggestions by Eawag experts
(snowball sampling technique). We emphasized that we
wished to include experts with new or opposing views to
cover the whole range of ideas (i.e., including outliers).
This is crucial to scenario building, since the aim is not
consensus or a representative mean, but rather the explora-
tion of new horizons, without constraints regarding the
desirability or probability of occurrence. Similar approaches
have been chosen in other environmental areas, e.g., in an
expert assessment on climate change (29).
Second, we conducted focused expert interviews, i.e., the
interview guidelines set cornerstones, while the interviewees
were allowed to speak as freely as possible. We covered (A)
technologies and concepts in the water sector, (B) organiza-
tion, regulation, and financing issues, and (C) the wider
context of water management (society, politics, economics,
science). We asked the interviewees to describe the current
situation, but then to focus on the most important challenges
for the next 25-30 years. We covered each main topic, but
did not insist if the interviewee had little to say, and
encouraged new topics. An interview lasted 1.5-2 h. All
interviews were tape-recorded and the external ones tran-
scribed. The literature review and interviews resulted in an
initial factor list of about 120 drivers. Because many were
variants and some were irrelevant, we reduced it to 56 relevant
factors that were used as input in the following steps (Table
S2, Supporting Information).
Uncertainty Impact Analysis. We further reduced this
list in a one-day workshop with uncertainty impact analysis.
Participation was limited to eight Eawag experts (including
ourselves) and guided by experienced external moderators
for scenario workshops. Workshop participants discussed
the factor list and added three factors. Then, four groups
evaluated each factor with regard to (1) the uncertainty of
its future state and (2) its relevance for the water sector. We
used a scale of 0 to 4 for uncertainty (0 ) future state of factor
in 25-30 years is rather certain to 4 ) rather uncertain) and
impact (0 ) impact of factor is rather unimportant to 4 )
very important). We aggregated the group ratings and
discussed factors with large standard deviations in the plenum
to clarify inconsistencies. We identified 37 factors with high
importance for the future and large uncertainty (Table S2,
Supporting Information). Additionally, we defined premises
and wild cards. Premises are important factors with a
relatively certain outcome (i.e., they are the same in all
scenarios). Wild cards are unlikely incidences that would
induce radical change if they did occur (e.g., acts of terrorism).
For each chosen factor, the experts described relevant future
states (e.g., for factor 1 market penetration of decentralized
technologies: stagnation/success in niches/strong expan-
sion; Table S3, Supporting Information). Between workshops,
we elaborated an essay for each factor, which was mirrored
for plausibility to the Eawag experts.
Scenario Development and Implications. The second
workshop involved nine scientists and eight practitioners
(Table S1, Supporting Information), lasted 2 days, and was
guided by the same moderators. The aim was to create three
to four future scenarios that represent the possibility space
defined by the chosen factors. Participants received the factor
essays beforehand, together with a description of the aim
and structure of the workshop. Since all participants had
been interviewed, they were familiar with the topic and had
already expressed their individual views about the future of
the Swiss water sector.
First, the factors were discussed in the plenum, and two
new factors were added (economic welfare, water consump-
tion). Again, we used uncertainty impact analysis to select
15 factors as framework for the scenarios (Table S3, Sup-
porting Information). From this list, participants had to decide
upon starting projections for which they liked to see a full
scenario. These should either be highly important for the
future or describe a potential (but perhaps less likely) future
state of high interest. Each participant voted for three
projections. The results were discussed in the plenum, and
VOL. 40, NO. 2, 2006 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 437
three starting projections were chosen: A future in which
(A) mergers lead to a strong reduction in the number of water
utilities in Switzerland, (B) increased emphasis is placed on
resources management by Swiss environmental politics, and
(C) the financial stability of Swiss (waste)water utilities is
fundamentally threatened.
Subsequently, three groups were formed to elaborate a
scenario for each starting projection. Most participants chose
their preferred starting projection, but two or three had to
join another group to guarantee a balanced representation
of perspectives. They aimed at answering the following
question: What could Switzerland look like in 20, 30, or 50
years, and which kinds of water management systems could
then be relevant, given that the starting projection was true?
Hence, the groups worked themselves through the factor
list, discussing the future state of each factor under the chosen
scenario. The experts were encouraged to create a plausible
story line that showed how various elements might interact
(15). They were asked to be as precise as possible and to use
their imagination to fill in uncertainties. They were reminded
that they were not predicting the future, or depicting a
preferred future, but drawing a coherent picture of a potential
future. Each group wrote down the main characteristics of
its scenario, visualized it, and presented it to all participants
also with role-play. The scenarios were discussed in the
plenum and were thus validated by discourse. Additionally,
participants voted about the subjective probability of each
scenarios occurrence.
Finally, implications for research and utility management
were discussed. The participants were asked, If you knew
that scenario A (B, C) was to occur until 2030, which strategic
projects should be initiated today to be prepared for the
expected changes? These projects were listed and discussed
in the plenum. The workshop was terminated by a short
evaluation round. Most participants stated that they had
learned a lot from other participants inputs and that the
methodology was useful for generating an integrated picture
of potential futures.
After the workshop, we formulated the scenarios in detail
and checked them for internal inconsistencies (15). We wrote
an internal report and sent it to all participants for feedback.
We also analyzed the list of potential strategic projects to
elaborate research priorities for Eawag.
Results and Discussion
The Swiss Water Sector Today. We can only present the
most important results from the interviews here. The Swiss
water sector is highly fragmented, and most experts stated
that this fragmentation causes strong organizational defi-
ciencies: There are ca. 1000 wastewater and 3000 water
supply companies serving 7 million people, with a clear
separation between the two. As comparison, England and
Wales has 28 water companies (20), and Germany, counting
about 12 times the Swiss population and known for its highly
fragmented water sector, only counts 6000 water utilities.
Generally, only the larger Swiss cities are organized as
professional companies. Many of the smaller ones do not
employ professionals, but rather municipal members on a
part-time basis, and often the management is entangled with
local politics. Many are municipally owned, but limited
private sector participation in the form of delegated public
management does exist (26). The infrastructure of the water
sector is financed via municipalities and rates. Prices are a
combination of volume related components (m3 water
consumption) and standing charges (flat rates; 30). Most
utilities are organized in two waste and drinking water
associations, which play an important role as opinion makers
and in the education of professionals. Regarding deregulation,
privatization of water utilities was controversially discussed
in the 1990s. This pressure decreased considerably after
438 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 40, NO. 2, 2006
FIGURE 1. Result of the uncertainty impact analysis in the second
expert workshop. The numbers indicate factors (Table 1); we exclude
premises and wild cards. We show the sums of four expert group
decisions on the uncertainty of each factor in 25-30 years and its
importance for the water sector on a scale of 0-4. Factors in
parentheses were merged; factors with shading were chosen for
scenario building (Table S3, Supporting Information). Two new
factors were generated: (a) ) water quantity profile, (b) ) economic
prosperity.
liberalization of the electricity sector was dismissed in a
national referendum. However, on a European level, different
models of liberalizing the water industry are still being
debated, particularly by the European competition policy
(26). Furthermore, financial problems to maintain the
infrastructures were considered of great importance by the
interviewees, not so much for the big, urban utilities, but for
the plethora of small companies and communities which
suffer a lack of expertise in many respects.
Drivers of Change. We identified 56 drivers of change
from our literature review and interviews (Table S2, Sup-
porting Information). These were reduced to 29 factors, 6
premises, and 2 wild cards in the first workshop. Uncertainty
impact analysis in the second workshop further reduced the
list to 15 factors (Figure 1). These constituted the scenario
backbone (Table S3, Supporting Information).
Scenarios for the Swiss Water Sector in 20-30 Years.
The chosen scenarios were as follows: (A) regional mergers
of water utilities lead to enhanced professionalism in the
sector, (B) consequent material flows management leads to
a radically restructured urban water management system,
and (C) generalized financial crisis leads to a breakdown of
centralized utility services. The main future states of the 15
factors are shown in the Supporting Information (Table S3).
Factor profiles of the scenarios may be read from this table.
A short story line of each scenario follows.
Scenario A: Regionalization. Starting projection is the
realization of many experts that fundamental problems of
the Swiss water sector can only be solved with a professional
approach. Financial pressure, increasing demands on op-
eration and maintenance, and public awareness regarding
micropollutants (e.g., pharmaceuticals) call for increased
efficiency (see main drivers; Table S3, Supporting Informa-
tion). Because Switzerland remains skeptical toward priva-
tization of the utilities, improved performance is obtained
with regional mergers of the 4000 water companies, which
are reduced to 250. This enables returns of scale, technical
expertise, research, and specialization. Financial efficiency
measures (benchmarking, flexible pricing) are broadly in-
troduced. The regional water companies are controlled by
cantonal authorities. They exchange know-how via the
syndicates and outsource some activities to private com-
panies. This simplifies strategy building for the whole sector.
 be a very strong one if it did occur. Success in niches of new
TABLE 1. Factors That Were Regarded as Important Drivers of concepts is possible until 2030, but a widespread replacement
Change in the Water Sector (Legend to Figure 1)a of our current system needs >50 years.
no. factor no. factor Scenario C: Financial Crisis. Starting projection is a
financial crisis of the water companies. The main drivers are
1 decentralized 33 responsibilities organizational deficiencies (as scenario A), combined with
technologies
2 key 34 rivershed
a strong political demand to tighten water pollution control
technologies management (as scenario B). The crisis is caused by insufficient capital
3 information 35 regional mergers of provisions, deficiencies in pricing (neglecting infrastructure
technologies companies costs), decreasing revenues, and limited competition. How-
4 sewer 36 privatization ever, instead of increasing efficiency and focusing on strategic
technologies planning for whole Switzerland, singular solutions are
5 water treatment 37 multi utilities implemented. This leads to an unfavorable distribution of
technologies risks and inefficient economic structures. In this situation,
6 WWTP 38 international the private sector boosts innovations and decentralized
technologies providers
7 source 39 innovation and
solutions constitute 30% of the water sector. While envi-
separation flexibility ronmental impacts are reduced, water consumption and the
16 water 41 services revenues also continue to decrease. Because the infrastruc-
costs ture is no longer used to full capacity, expensive re-
17 wastewater 42 professionalism dimensioning is necessary and it can hardly be kept to best-
costs technology standards. The pressure to include private capital
19 tariffs 44 societal increases. To avoid privatization or the systems breakdown,
wastewater demands it seems inevitable that the water sector will be reorganized
21 investments 45 acceptance new
in the longer-term (>50 years), e.g., as in scenario A.
wastewater sector technologies
22 investments 47 nutrient Scenarios Support Agreement on Shared Priorities.
water supply cycles Scenario building makes expectations about future develop-
24 external 49 micropollutants ments more explicitsbe it with respect to a desirable and
costs highly probable future or a strongly feared one. Even a bleak
26 municipality 50 research scenario can open unrecognized opportunities (15), and
finances expert discussions about scenarios help determining strategic
28 company 56 climate responses. Scenario building as we conducted it does not
finances change necessarily stimulate creativity but is a structured procedure
29 financing 57 water
models availability
to elicit the expectations of different actors and identify
30 competition 58 material flows converging and diverging preferences. Hence, scenarios
management reflect the current state of mind of the participants and
31 regulations 59 house installation should not be interpreted as predictions.
wastewater technologies Consequently, the practitioners, who are confronted with
a For details, see Tables S2 and S3, Supporting Information. daily problems caused by the inefficiency of the highly
fragmented Swiss water sector, focused on increased profes-
sionalism. This was mirrored by the preference of many water
The centralized system is continuously optimized, risk and professionals for increased role of mergers as starting
innovation management is improved, and the concerted projection for the first scenario, A. In contrast, the researchers
development of strategic niches allows for experimentation emphasized the importance of technological, systems, and
with decentralized technologies. In the longer term (>50 social innovations to increase the environmental sustain-
years), Switzerland will integrate European laws, and inter- ability of the water sector. This was reflected in choosing
national private water companies might seriously compete material flows management (scenario B) as the second
with Swiss firms. starting projection. Selecting the third financial crisis
Scenario B: Material Flows Management. Scenario B is scenario (C) may be interpreted as a relevant threat to both
based on environmental sustainability considerations. Start- parties if business-as-usual remains the predominant strategy
ing projection is the political demand for consequent material of the sector and if additionally financial pressure increases
flows management (e.g., resources recycling) and reduced in Swiss communities. Therefore, two scenarios may rep-
emissions. Main drivers are financial pressure, the demand resent (and perhaps caricature) the hopeful expectations of
for efficiency, and massive tightened regulations for dis- professionals and researchers, while the third one represents
charging wastewater, which is driven by new evidence on a joint bleak scenario.
environmental effects of micropollutants. Because zero When asked to vote on the subjective probability of
discharge can only partially be obtained by upgrading the occurrence, the experts judged the regional mergers
centralized system, decentralized technologies and new scenario A as the most plausible future (56% probability of
concepts (e.g., source control; 31) are sought for. Innovations occurrence). However, both material flows management
such as on-site treatment in households, of point sources (B, 25% probability) and financial crisis (C, 19% probability)
(hospitals), and eco-design of chemicals are implemented. were not seen as irrelevant. These probabilities should not
The Swiss water policy is redirected toward innovation, be interpreted as precise predictions (14) but rather as
adaptation, and flexibility. Regional mergers of companies individual judgments about the actual relevance participants
and new financial measures increase efficiency. Some duties attributed to each of the scenarios.
are assigned to private companies, such as operating A comparison of the two hopeful scenarios A and B shows
decentralized units. This generates a growing market for new, a number of commonalities (Table S3, Supporting Informa-
intelligent household appliances, which need, however, tion): Both scenarios agree on the necessity of increased
consequent maintenance, intelligent steering technology, and efficiency due to communities tightened budgets (factor 28).
new disposal logistics (note: most of these technologies do Therefore, more incentive-based pricing models must be
not yet exist, but need to be innovated first). Climate change introduced (factor 29), and competition will increase, mainly
was not regarded as a necessary driver, even though it would by introducing mandatory benchmarking systems and

VOL. 40, NO. 2, 2006 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 439

increased transparency of operational performance (factor
30). Privatization (factor 36) was not considered a major driver
in this context. These pressures are complemented by
increasing public awareness (factor 44). Hence, both per-
spectives agree that the times are gone where costs only
ranked second in the decision about infrastructure develop-
ment and competition was largely inexistent. On the positive
side, both scenarios agree on the increased role of innovation
management to enhance the flexibility of the system (factor
39).
Differences between the two scenarios reveal a divergence
between practitioners and researchers in valuing the im-
portance of the respective factors: Most notably, scenario
A emphasizes the control of internal processes from within
the sector. Mergers of regionally (mostly publicly owned)
contiguous communities lead to a strong increase of profes-
sionalism in management structures (factors 35, 42), which
can support the optimization of strategies at the level of entire
catchments (factor 34). In contrast, scenario B focuses more
strongly on external factors such as new technologies for
transport and treatment systems (factors 1, 7), and regulatory
pressures (factors 49, 58). Here, research (factor 50) plays a
key role in tackling these external pressures.
A comparison with scenario C indicates that the tech-
nological and regulatory drivers cherished by researchers
represent a potential threat to the managers of the system.
Furthermore, scenario C sketches a future where public
valuation of water services is low (factor 44) and research in
the domain of water technology is substantially reduced
(factor 50). Therefore, we may deduce a common basis for
practitioners and researchers for tackling the mid- to longer-
term challenges of the sector.
Priorities of Practitioners: Organizational Compe-
tences. At the end of the scenario workshops we derived
about 50 strategic projects. Not surprisingly, scenario A and
C strongly focused on organizational competences that need
to be built up soon, whereas scenario B listed more technology
and innovation oriented ideas. However, there was also a
broad area of overlap. In the following, we mainly present
the conclusions relevant for determining research priorities
in the field of social sciences and economics.
Researchers and practitioners agreed on the need of
enlarging their competences from technology toward man-
agement, social, political, and economic methods. Research-
ers emphasized their need to better understand conditions
and processes of regime change, while practitioners focused
on management competences. The following domains were
jointly identified: (1) Analyzing organizational structures that
lead to better performance of water companies and sup-
porting merger processes of publicly owned companies. (2)
Enhancing competence in engineering economics and asset
management. (3) Understanding the social and institutional
preconditions for regime changes induced by radical in-
novation processes such as the material flows management
scenario. (4) Analyzing incentive structures and behavior of
water users. (5) Analyzing regulatory processes under condi-
tions of increasing complexity. These competence domains
were then used to elaborate the terms of reference for a new
social science research team at Eawag. Furthermore, they
helped to specify the interface between research and con-
sultancy and the educational needs of the water profession.
Hence, we were able to clarify the expectations of researchers
and practitioners, and an important conclusion was that
organizational issues are the main priority of the utilities.
Scenario building as we conducted it clearly helped
identifying national strategies; to our knowledge this is a
novelty in the water sector. However, a meta-study of the
water industry in England and Wales suggested that scenario
planning could also be a useful tool in individual firms. Here,
87% of the responding companies actually applied scenario
440 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 40, NO. 2, 2006
processes (20). In the case of Switzerland, the advantages of
regional mergers of (waste)water companies would need to
be analyzed, as well as possible benefits from synergies in
multi-utility companies and the optimal degree of private
sector participation. Business consultancy firms already work
in this area, and much can be learned from other European
countries, where different management models and degrees
of privatization were established over the past few years. For
instance, relatively large operators are present in England
and Wales and France (private ownership), or in Italy, Greece,
and Spain (public ownership; 26).
Finally, our scenario exercise showed that regulations and
governance need clarification with respect to longer-term
sustainability issues. The water management system is part
of the built environment that has a direct impact on the
natural environment and contributes substantially to envi-
ronmental degradation, resource depletion, and waste
generation (32). Additionally to the classical regulations set
by public authorities, the demands from associations, NGOs,
and the general public need to be discussed. Emission limits
(e.g., for pharmaceuticals) and regulations (e.g., for the limited
resource phosphorus) might need re-thinking. As stated
earlier, sustainability issues could even lead to radical system
changes.
Priorities of Research: Sustainable System Transfor-
mations. Hence, besides organizational aspects of trans-
formations, the need for radical system transformation could
be clarified between researchers and professionals to a certain
degree. The importance of considering pros and cons of new
system concepts was agreed upon in all scenarios. Therefore,
also practitioners accepted the need to improve their
innovation management.
Implementing the concept of sustainability in the built
environment is a major challenge, calling for new approaches.
The debate has just begun; Vanegas (32) offers a set of
principles as starting point. He postulates that a sustainable
system must operate as a closed cyclical system rather than
as a linear process (as envisioned in scenario B). Several
principles have been formulated; for the water sector, the
Precautionary Principle and the Bellagio Principles on
environmental sanitation (33) are especially important (see
ref 32 for an overview). The Precautionary Principle is directly
related to uncertainty due to lack of scientific knowledge
and appropriate risk management actions (e.g., refs 34, 35).
In a recent interpretation, the focus is shifted from problems-
to solutions-based: The Precautionary Principle is combined
with an assessment of alternatives that enhances decision
makers to design the conditions for a more sustainable future
and stimulates innovation (36). Scenario B mirrors an attempt
to do just this; the group participants tried to detach
themselves from the day-to-day problems and envision a
fundamentally alternative future based on consequent
material flows management. Decentralized technology may
play an important role in this respect. These ideas are not
new - such a world was depicted in a German scenario
process (21), and a LCA for such a scenario in Sydney
demonstrated significant environmental improvements com-
pared to a conventional system (37). Thinking about solutions
for the immense water problems in the third world might
lead to similar conclusions, and different authors have
postulated the need for a paradigm change in the water sector
both in industrialized and developing countries (3-5, 31).
Considering the tremendous investments required for ad-
aptation and renewal of the urban water management system
in industrialized countriessestimations amount to $388
capita-1 year-1sthe question of alternatives must certainly
also be raised for our regions (2). A first target could be water-
scarce areas such as Australia or the Mediterranean countries.
However, managing such transitions processes will have to
consider the inertia of the prevailing system together with
the transformative power of new system concepts (for first
suggestions see e.g., ref 38).
Future sustainable water concepts should include po-
tential impacts of climate change. Although this factor (factor
56, Table 1) was regarded as an important driver of change,
group A (regionalization) did not specify its future state
because this scenario makes sense independently of possible
climate impacts on the Swiss water system over the chosen
time span. Similarly, groups B and C decided that there would
be no well-noticeable climate changes in 25-30 years because
their scenario could occur under any climatic conditions.
Group B (material flows) specified that if well-noticeable
anthropogenic impacts were indeed to occur, this would
strongly raise public awareness and even further increase
the pressure to implement new concepts such as source
control and water recycling.
Scenario Building: A Methodology To Support Sus-
tainability Science? Recently, the utilities around the world
underwent a strong surge of reorganization. European
countries established different forms of liberalization in the
water sector, ranging from direct private management in
England and Wales (20) to dominant public ownership in
Switzerland (26). Most likely, the organizational and tech-
nological diversity in the water sector will continue to
increasesand with it uncertainty and the need for strategic
planning. Complexity and uncertainty increase even more
if sustainability is included as central goal (11).
In our scenario planning process, three large concerns of
the participating Swiss water professionals became evident:
First, they were worried whether the highly fragmented Swiss
water sector is efficient enough to face future challenges.
Second, the experts were certain that efficiency concerns
would play a much more important role for future invest-
ments. Third, they questioned the general sustainability of
the current centralized, end-of-pipe (waste)water manage-
ment system. Whereas the first two topics were undisputed,
the third gave rise to discussions which mirrored the difficulty
of practitioners and researchers to agree on shared priorities
for their longer-term strategies. However, if we are to have
any chance of solving the immense water-related problems
on our planet, sustainability principles should be included
rather sooner than later. Although the transition to more
sustainable solutions is already under way (3), urgent action
to address global water problems is required (5). The ability
to envision a blue revolution and to plan and manage
innovations leading to more sustainable concepts will
become a crucial competence for private or public compa-
nies, water utility managers, and (waste)water scientists.
We hope to have shown that the scenario process is a very
efficient tool to support communication among different
stakeholder groups and to define longer-term strategic
research priorities. We used the water sector as an example,
but similar processes could strongly support complex deci-
sion making at the interface between research and real-world
strategic planning in general. Examples may be found for
conservation management (17), energy related technologies,
or climate change (11). We believe that scenario building is
a tool that deserves more attention in the multidisciplinary
contexts of sustainability science (11). In our case, scenario
building enabled practitioners and researchers in the Swiss
water sector to clarify their respective positions. Researchers
realized the need to shift their focus from the (technological)
optimization of the current system to supporting strategic
decision making processes. Most prominently, pressing
organizational problems of the Swiss water sector must be
integrated into the research agenda. Water professionals, on
the other hand, might now better understand the necessity
of also taking radical system transformations and innovation
management into account. Hence, the scenario process
helped gathering stakeholders around a table, enabling them
to focus on their common interest: an economically,
environmentally, and socially sustainable water sector.
Acknowledgments
We thank the experts for their valuable input in the interviews
and workshops, Axel Becker and Andre Metzner for excellently
moderating the scenario workshops, and two anonymous
reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this
manuscript.
Supporting Information Available
We provide more-detailed information on the selected experts
(Table S1), the 56 drivers of change that were identified with
the literature survey and expert interviews, including results
of uncertainty impact analyses (Table S2), and the possible
future states of 15 key factors in 25-30 years in the Swiss
water sector under the scenarios A (regionalization), B
(material flows management), and C (financial crisis; Table
S3). This material is available free of charge via the Internet
at http://pubs.acs.org.
Literature Cited
(1) Larsen, T. A.; Gujer, W. The concept of sustainable urban water
management. Wat. Sci. Technol. 1997, 35 (9), 3-10.
(2) Zehnder, A. J. B.; Yang, H.; Schertenleib, R. Water issues: the
need for action at different levels. Aquat. Sci. 2003, 65 (1), 1-20.
(3) Gleick, P. H. Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions
for the 21st century. Science 2003, 302 (5650), 1524-1528.
(4) Wilderer, P. A. Some thoughts about future perspectives of water
and wastewater management. Wat. Sci. Technol. 2004, 49 (5-
6), 35-37.
(5) International Water Association (IWA); International Association
of Hydrologic Research (IAHR); International Commission on
Irrigation and Drainage (ICID). Solutions through innovation,
2003; available online at http://www.iahr.net/site/e_library/
links/, office@iahr.org, last visit to website: 05.04.2005.
(6) Hughes, T. P. The evolution of large technical systems. In The
social construction of large technological systems; Bijker, W. E.,
Hughes, T. P., Pinch, T., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1987;
pp 51-82.
(7) Summerton, J. Introductory essay: The systems approach to
technological change. In Changing large technical systems;
Summerton, J., Ed.; Westview Press: Colorado, 1994; pp 1-21.
(8) Geels, F. W. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-
technical systems - Insights about dynamics and change from
sociology and institutional theory. Res. Policy 2004, 33 (6-7),
897-920.
(9) Mihelcic, J. R.; Crittenden, J. C.; Small, M. J.; Shonnard, D. R.;
Hokanson, D. R.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, H.; Sorby, S. A.; James, V. U.;
Sutherland, J. W.; Schnoor, J. L. Sustainability science and
engineering: The emergence of a new metadiscipline. Environ.
Sci., & Technol. 2003, 37 (23), 5314-5324.
(10) Rotmans, J.; Kemp, R.; Van Asselt, M. More evolution than
revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight
2001, 3 (1), 15-31.
(11) Swart, R. J.; Raskin, P.; Robinson, J. The problem of the future:
Sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environ.
Change - Human Policy Dimens. 2004, 14 (2), 137-146.
(12) Schoemaker, P. J. H. When and how to use scenario planning:
A heuristic approach with illustration. J. Forecasting 1991, 10
(6), 549-564.
(13) van Notten, P. W. F.; Rotmans, J.; van Asselt, M. B. A.; Rothman,
D. S. An updated scenario typology. Futures 2003, 35 (5), 423-
443.
(14) Schnaars, S. P. How to develop and use scenarios. Long Range
Plann. 1987, 20 (1), 105-114.
(15) Schoemaker, P. J. H. Scenario planning: a tool for strategic
thinking. Sloan Manage. Rev. 1995, 36 (2), 25-40.
(16) Wack, P. Scenarios: Uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Bus. Rev.
1985, 63 (5), 72-89.
(17) Peterson, G. D.; Cumming, G. S.; Carpenter, S. R. Scenario
planning: A tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Cons.
Biol. 2003, 17 (2), 358-366.
(18) Zegras, C.; Sussman J.; Conklin, C. Scenario planning for strategic
regional transportation planning. J. Urban Planning & Devel-
opm. 2004, 130 (1) 2-13.
(19) Voss, J.-P.; Truffer, B.; Konrad, K. Sustainability Foresight fu r
Versorgungssysteme. In Jahrbuch O kologische O konomik 4 -
VOL. 40, NO. 2, 2006 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 441
 Innovationen und Nachhaltigkeit; Meyerhoff, J., Nill, J., Eds.;
Metropolis: Marburg, Germany, 2005; pp 175-200.
(20) Phelps, R.; Chan, C.; Kapsalis, S. C. Does scenario planning
affect performance? Two exploratory studies. J. Business. Res.
2001, 51 (3), 223-232.
(21) Hiessl, H.; Toussaint, D.; Becker, M.; Dyrbusch, A.; Geisler, S.;
Herbst, H.; Prager, J. U. Alternativen der kommunalen Wasser-
versorgung und Abwasserentsorgung AKWA 2100; Schriftenreihe
des Fraunhofer-Instituts fu r Systemtechnik und Innovations-
forschung ISI, 53; Physica Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2003;
p 203.
(22) Westcott, R. A scenario approach to demand forecasting. Wat.
Sci. Technol.: Wat. Supply 2004, 4 (3), 45-55.
(23) OBrien, F. A. Scenario planning - lessons for practice from
teaching and learning. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 152 (3), 709-722.
(24) Kluge, T.; Koziol, M.; Lux, A.; Schramm, E.; Veit, A. Netzgebundene
Infrastrukturen unter Veranderungsdruck - Sektoranalyse Wass-
er; networks-Papers, Nr. 2, 2003; available online at http://
www.networks-group.de, networks@networks-group.de, last
visit to website: 05.04.2005.
(25) Rothenberger, D. Report zur Entwicklung des Versorgungssektors
Wasser (AP 100, Sektorreport: Wasser); Integrierte Mikrosysteme
der Versorgung, Verbundprojekt im Forderschwerpunkt Sozial-
okologische Forschung des Bundesministeriums fu r Bildung
und Forschung (BMBF), 2003; available online at http://
www.mikrosysteme.org/, info@mikrosysteme.org, last visit to
website: 05.04.2005.
(26) Euromarket. Research project on Water liberalization scenarios.
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Water Institutions
and Management Competence Centre (MIR), International
Institute for Infrastructural, Hydraulic and Environmental
Engineering (IHE Delft); e.g., Final report for work package 2/3,
2004; available online at: http:// www2.epfl.ch/mir/page18246.
html, mir@epfl.ch, last visit to website: 05.04.2005.
(27) Mayring, P. Einfu hrung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. 5th
ed.; Beltz: Weinheim, Germany, 2002; p 180.
(28) Glaser, B. G.; Strauss, A. L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research; Aldine: Chicago, IL, 1967.
442 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 40, NO. 2, 2006
(29) Morgan, M. G.; Keith, D. W. Climate change - Subjective
judgments by climate experts. Environ. Sci., & Technol. 1995,
29 (10), 468A-476A.
(30) Rothenberger, D.; Truffer, B. Water Pricing. An instrument for
sustainability? GAIA 2002, 11 (4), 281-284.
(31) Larsen, T. A.; Gujer, W. Waste design and source control lead
to flexibility in wastewater management. Wat. Sci. Technol. 2001,
43 (5), 309-318.
(32) Vanegas, J. A. Road map and principles for built environment
sustainability. Environ. Sci., & Technol. 2003, 37 (23) 5363-
5372.
(33) WSSCC (Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council),
Eawag/Sandec Household Centered Environmental Sanitation,
Implementing the Bellagio Principles in Urban Environmental
Sanitation Services: Provisional Guideline for Decision-Makers.
WASH, Water Sanitation and Hygiene; WSSCC and Eawag/
Sandec, Duebendorf, Switzerland, 2005; available online at:
http://www.wsscc.org/dataweb.cfm?code)593, Roland.Schert-
enleib@eawag.ch, last visit to website: 07.11.2005.
(34) deFur, P. L.; Kaszuba, M. Implementing the precautionary
principle. Sci. Total Environ. 2002, 288 (1-2), 155-165.
(35) Harremoes, P. Ethical aspects of scientific incertitude in
environmental analysis and decision making. J. Clean. Prod.
2003, 11 (7), 705-712.
(36) Tickner, J. A.; Geiser, K. The precautionary principle stimulus
for solutions- and alternatives-based environmental policy.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2004, 24 (7-8), 801-824.
(37) Lundie, S.; Peters, G. M.; Beavis, P. C. Life cycle assessment for
sustainable metropolitan water systems planning. Environ. Sci.,
& Technol. 2004, 38 (13), 3465-3473.
(38) Larsen, T. A.; Lienert, J. Societal implications of re-engineering
the toilet. Water Intelligence Online, March 2003; available online
at: http://www.iwaponline.com/wio/2003/03/default001.htm,
larsen@eawag.ch, last visit to website: 05.04.2005.
Received for review July 20, 2005. Revised manuscript re-
ceived November 7, 2005. Accepted November 14, 2005.
ES0514139