Water is a key element to life on Earth.

Our everyday lives depend on the availability and quality of

water for potable or residential uses, but also for crop production, manufacturing and construction,
and other industrial applications, as well as recreational uses. Even if water is the most common
substance found on the Earth, less than 1% is suitable and practically accessible for human use.
Furthermore, this amount is unevenly distributed and water resources in the world are under
pressure
due to rapid population growth, expansion of human activities as well as the effects of global
warming.

As the “universal solvent” water, more than any other liquid on the Earth, is naturally able to
solubilize, to a certain degree, a large number of different chemicals. Thus, as it gets recycled over
and over again from the earth to the atmosphere and back along its natural cycle, water gets
“naturally” enriched with several substances, which get dissolved or suspended as a result of
water interactions with the atmosphere, as it flows over soil and rock surfaces, infiltrates into the
ground and through the aquifers, or as it mixes with other waters. Climatic patterns, land
morphology, soil types, and environmental conditions cause waters, depending on the area they
flow from, to have various chemical signatures and different overall qualities. Natural water
dissolved species include common constituents such as sodium, magnesium, calcium, chloride,
bicarbonate, and sulfate, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, and other trace elements.
Natural suspended solids typically include soil or sediment particles such as clay or silt and
organic residues for instance vegetal debris and micro organisms such as protozoa, bacteria and
viruses.

In general, except for few exceptions such as arsenic and fluoride, which may naturally be
present at toxic concentrations, or pathogens, natural constituents are not considered harmful
to human health, although can affect the taste, smell, or clarity of the water, requiring,
especially for potable uses, some kind of treatment. Much more relevant and diversified it’s
the impact on water quality of anthropogenic pollution, as most of the substances we use in
everyday life and activities, whether not properly managed can end up in water systems, with
water then acting as the main transport and transmission route.

Water and land-use practices directly change the dynamics of the water cycle and water
quality; anthropic pollution may originate from specific “point sources”, such as sewage or
industrial discharges, effluents from wastewater treatment facilities, contamination from
leaking septic systems, chemical or oil spills, and leachates from landfills or waste dumping
sites. Other distributed sources or “nonpoint sources”, such as agricultural or stormwater
runoff and atmospheric deposition, are responsible for diffuse pollution. Due to the combined
actions of all these natural and anthropic factors, waters often present unnaturally high levels
of nutrients and oxygen-consuming substances, pathogens, or toxic chemicals which are
responsible for relevant impacts to the aquatic ecosystems, such as eutrophication and
oxygen depletion or chemicals accumulation, and human health. According to a study
recently published in The Lancet, water pollution caused 1.4 million deaths in 2019, and every
year about 1 billion people sicken due to unsafe water. Microbiological pollution is the major
cause of acute diseases, such as cholera, giardia, typhoid, and Legionnaires’ disease, from
unsafe water, even in wealthy nations, whereas chemical pollution is responsible for chronic
effects. For point sources, many countries have prescribed specific treatments and
established limits on what can be discharged into a water body; thus, thanks to improved
treatments of urban wastewater and industrial streams, the effects of point sources have
decreased significantly over the past 30 years. Nonpoint sources, despite the relevant
impacts, are more difficult to control and regulate, since there’s no single, identifiable culprit.
However, there is no global governance system for water.

Water is managed at a local level, and often poorly managed. Technologies needed to help
us use water efficiently and equitably often are not implemented. The many different uses
tend to be managed by various sub-sectors in a fragmented way, with varying degrees of
attention to water quality. Our overall understanding of water pollution is limited in some areas
– especially the urban environment. The types and sources of pollution are complex, and their
cumulative effects are not well understood. Our knowledge has gaps about how our activities
affect water quality. Each catchment’s varied landforms and climate, overlaid by the mosaic of
land uses within it, makes this information complex and difficult to obtain. Knowing exactly
how well management methods work to reduce pollution at a particular place is an important
gap to fill, especially if the methods and technologies are new. There are also numerous
complex interactions and indirect effects as, for instance, deteriorated water quality reduces
its availability, leading on one hand to more intensive exploitation of limited resources, but on
the other also to water reuse. Water quality models are critically important tools for managing
these factors. Quantitative models help local communities and environmental managers
better understand how waters change in response to multiple pollution sources and how to
protect them. Models are useful to water specialists in many ways: Assessing water quality
conditions and causes of impairment; Predicting how waters will respond to changes in their
watersheds and the environment (e.g., future growth, climate change,…); Developing
environmental standards and forecasting quantitative benefits of new water protection
policies. The improvement of understanding the extent and behavior of polluting chemicals on
the surface and subsurface, as well as the combined impact of different mixtures of
substances remains an important problem for environmental researchers and
decision-makers. Nowadays many countries defined standards and water management
strategies to protect their water resources, especially drinking water, but any action on
compound control, mitigation, or water system rehabilitation to effectively protect or enhance
water quality should be based on the knowledge of the specific water system, regardless of
its complexity, and updated any time new information gets available.

The term “emerging pollutants” is used to define any synthetic or naturally occurring chemical
or microorganism that is not commonly monitored or regulated in environmental
compartments, meaning groundwater, surface water, drinking water, wastewater, soil, and
food. Some of these chemicals display known “adverse, ecological or human health effects”,
such as pesticides or hormones. Others are suspected to display adverse effects, but
thorough toxicological studies are lacking, as in the case of nanomaterials whose safety
evaluation is an active research area that requires also the development of new methods to
address their special properties. These contaminants include compounds of different origins
and nature that, thanks to continuous improvements in analytical techniques, can be and are
being consistently detected, even in low or very low concentrations, in different environmental
compartments. They raise special concern because their presence in the environment, or the
consequences of their presence, have gone largely unnoticed, as their long-term adverse
effects. Accordingly, these contaminants are collectively defined as “emerging” or “of
emerging concern”, with the term emerging which applies to both the contaminant and the
arisen issues. In fact, these contaminants comprise not only new or recently-introduced
chemicals, but also well-established chemicals, used in large quantities in everyday products,
that may have been long present in the environment but only recently detected. This is the
case for example of perfluorinated compounds, usually abbreviated in PFAS, and bisphenol
A, belonging to the chemical family of alkylphenols. Emerging contaminants can be classified
in several ways based on their origin, use, potential effects, or environmental fate, but
unfortunately, these categories can overlap, leading to some confusion. The major groups
include: pharmaceuticals and veterinary products and their metabolites, biocides and their
by-products, illicit drugs, personal care products and other lifestyle products and their
metabolites, industrial chemicals such as surfactants and flame retardants, pesticides, food
additives, water disinfection by-products, nanomaterials, waterborne pathogens, biological
toxins. Some of them are known, probable or suspected carcinogens, display
endocrine-disrupting effects, or negatively interfere with normal hormonal activity. All these
chemicals may enter the environment in multiple ways, depending on their pattern of use,
production, usage and disposal. Generally, wastewater discharge is the most important
source of emerging contaminants spread at the global scale. Releases during production
processes or incorrect waste disposal are less important at the global scale, even if they are
responsible for relevant local impacts next to industrial plants or illegal landfills Such a wide
number of molecules correspond to quite different chemical-physical properties and behavior,
which differently affect their fate and transport in the environment. Properties influencing
environmental mobility affect also the possibility for these compounds to enter the food chain
through contaminants uptake by crops from soil and irrigation water. Anyway, the transfer and
bioaccumulation of many emerging contaminants in the food chain remain relatively
unresolved. As a matter of fact, many of these compounds can be considered ubiquitous and
mitigation actions are required to reduce their concentrations at acceptable levels in drinking
water, while non specific controls are performed on bottled water or food, which represent the
other exposure routes for humans. Similarly, an understanding of the long-term effects on
ecosystems and human health is still lacking in many cases. Human health-based reference
values or environmental standards are still unavailable or only provisional, and are
continuously updated due to new findings and improved knowledge. Most of these
compounds are not included in actual regulations and are not submitted to routine monitoring
and/or emission control regime. Moreover, to even complicate the framework, both
environmental processes and removal processes within treatment plants may transform
emerging contaminants, generating several metabolites and by-products whose properties
are as yet undetermined as well. Manuela, tell us about two significant examples The first one
is related to PFAS. PFAS comprise per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, a class of thousands
of synthetic molecules used since the 1940s in a staggering array of consumer and industrial
products, such as food packaging, water-and oil-repellent clothes, paper protection, and
firefighting foam. PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their incredible
persistence in the environment and organisms For instance, a recent study by the US Center
for Disease Control and Prevention estimated about 95% of Americans have detectable
PFAS in their bodies. PFAS have been identified as toxic for the reproductive and immune
systems, and probable carcinogens. Due to their unique chemical features, PFAS are widely
applied in the industry as surfactants, and we often encounter PFAS in our everyday life, such
as in apparel and shoes, in pots and other cooking utensils, in food papers, and so on. As
PFAS usage is continuously increasing and due to their bio-accumulative and persistent
properties, they can now be detected in drinking waters all over the world. PFAS can be
removed in drinking water treatment plants only if appropriate treatments are present and the
most relevant one is adsorption on activated carbon. Anyway, treatment costs can increase
also relevantly, since the activated carbon lifetime with respect to PFAS is shorter than the
one for other contaminants, causing a more frequent replacement of the material. Besides,
recent studies have raised doubts about the possibility to re-use activated carbon used for
PFAS removal, determining a higher environmental impact and reducing treatment
sustainability. In addition, since PFAS have common exposure routes, they affect the same
endpoints but with differences in toxicity levels. Then, mixture risk assessment should be
applied, to fix appropriate reference levels and to manage treatment processes for minimizing
the risk. Another relevant example is related to bisphenol A, a plasticizer used in food and
water contact materials. Therefore, humans ingest BPA from: potentially-contaminated
drinking water in the case pipes have released this compound; bottled water due to the
release from the plastic bottle; food that has been packed in plastic films or plastic boxes. The
knowledge about BPA effects has been recently updated both in terms of critical endpoint and
concentration level: in 2015 the critical endpoint was identified in the decreased kidney
weight, while in 2021 it was changed in the immune system, fixing a reference dose of 0.04
ng per kg of body weight per day. When multiple exposure ways are possible, as in case of
BPA, is fundamental to consider all the exposure routes to evaluate the risk for human health,
in order to identify the most critical one, where efforts for concentration reduction should be
applied. In conclusion, we and our planet need responsibility in the use of chemicals at all
levels, not only chemical industries, but also user-industries, treatment plant managers and,
last but not least, consumers who can push towards a more sustainable lifestyle.

In recent years, a new shift of paradigm was promoted in regulations related to environmental
and human health issues: the conventional approach, based on control of compliance with
quality standards, is now enslaved to a more comprehensive risk-based approach. But what is
risk assessment? What are its goals and how should it be performed? Risk assessment is the
procedure in science-based decision-making that identifies and evaluates the stress on different
receptors. In the case of Environmental risk assessment the target of the study is the
environment, its habitats and ecosystems, in the case of Health risk assessment the focus is on
humans A threat to the environment or humans, referred to as hazard, can be any event, specific
 activity, chemical, or microbiological agent that has the potential of causing harm. Risk is a
prediction and a measure of the likelihood and severity of the potential adverse effects of the
hazard.
Play video starting at :1:19 and follow transcript
1:19
Risk assessment's final goal is safety; thus, it should be followed by risk control and
management, by weighing alternatives and selecting appropriate actions, considering also
technical, economical, and political issues, and risk communication as integral parts of the
decision process.
Play video starting at :1:42 and follow transcript
1:42
Risk assessment and management approaches have a wide range of applications, including: the
design of regulation, for instance in determining societally acceptable risk levels which may form
the basis for the environmental standards; prioritization of risks, for instance in the determination
of which chemicals to regulate first, or to decide how to allocate resources to the control of
different types of risk; or providing a basis for site-specific decisions, for instance in land-use
planning or siting of hazardous installations. In the case of water resources, environmental risk
assessment may be performed for instance to evaluate the hazards resulting from treated or
untreated wastewater discharge into surface waters; while human health risk assessment may
evaluate the effects of chemical and microbial quality of consumed drinking water or crop foods
irrigated with reclaimed wastewater, according to agricultural reuse practices.
Play video starting at :2:54 and follow transcript
2:54
Both environmental and human health risk assessment follow several stages starting from the
problem formulation, defining the scope and the boundaries of the analysis, and helping to make
the risk assessment process transparent by explicitly stating the underlying assumptions. Then
hazard and exposure characterizations follow. Hazard characterization examines the potential
hazard, such as the chemical or agent of concern, its toxicity, and the effects potentially
associated with exposure. The dose-response assessment, based on toxicological studies,
characterizes the relationship between exposure to a chemical, toxin, or microbiological agent
and the incidence of undesired effects, such as environmental damages or the probability of
infection or disease. The exposure assessment studies the environmental behavior of the
hazard, the expected levels in the possible exposure media, the likelihood and modalities of
exposure, including the amount, the routes (for example, ingestion, inhalation, and dermal
contact), and the duration of exposure. The final step of the analysis is risk characterization,
putting together all the information from the previous stages, to estimate the actual risk by
comparing the exposure levels to the acceptable ones, given by the hazard characterization and,
in case these levels are exceeded, possible mitigation measures are identified to reduce the risk
at levels of no concern. Most risk assessments rely on mathematical models to estimate risk as a
function of one or more inputs, for example, the fate and transport of a chemical in the
environment, its buildup in the food chain, its toxicity, and the routes of exposure for humans. In
most cases, precise knowledge of the systems to be modeled or even the scenarios to be
evaluated is lacking. Furthermore, several parameters are characterized by inherent natural
variations, diversity, and heterogeneity over time, space, or individuals within a population or life
stage.
Play video starting at :5: and follow transcript
5:00
Variability and uncertainty introduce error into risk assessments and lead risk assessors to
combine science and judgment when performing analyses to support risk management
decisions.
Play video starting at :5:13 and follow transcript
5:13
Traditionally risk assessment follows a deterministic approach, in which risk assessors select a
single value for each model input, and generate point estimates of risk associated with a central
tendency or reasonable worst cases. This procedure unavoidably ignores uncertainties and
variabilities in the risk estimates. The results, in most cases, may overestimate actual risks,
entailing unnecessary risk management actions and higher costs; but even worse
underestimates of risk may also occur, implying inadequate protection of human health and the
environment. Probabilistic risk assessment, in its simplest form, is a group of techniques that
 incorporate variability and uncertainty into risk assessment by characterizing them in some or all
the model inputs. With probabilistic approaches, such as Monte Carlo simulations, risk assessors
propagate input uncertainty and/or variability distributions through the model to produce
distribution estimates of both the hazard and exposure levels, estimating the risk with its
probability distribution, instead of point estimates.
Play video starting at :6:24 and follow transcript
6:24
Making uncertainty and inherent variability visible and estimating their potential contribution to
the risk are the main advantages of the probabilistic approach, which also contributes to
improving the transparency and credibility of the risk assessment procedure, even in the case of
limited data. In comparison to the deterministic approach, the probabilistic assessment appears
more realistic, providing an overall picture of risks in the population and not just of extreme
cases. Furthermore, risk assessors can avoid worst-case assumptions, but, using all the
available information, they have improved possibilities in ranking issues and prioritizing mitigation
solutions.
Italy is the second country in the World for consumption of bottled water, after Mexico. Several
reasons could be leading consumers to consume bottled water rather than tap water. Usually,
this is due to a lower trust in tap water resulting from a lack of knowledge, misinformation and
bias caused by bottled water labels and advertisements. Let’s go through some of the false
myths related to tap water quality and risk: for each myth, let’s see what the real facts are!
Play video starting at ::37 and follow transcript
0:37
We usually use our senses to decide whether or not to consume a specific drinking water: for
most people, freshness, clarity and lack of taste are sufficient aspects to induce such a choice. It
is a common belief that the water sources in the mountains and countryside offer more pristine
water compared to tap water in the cities. However, our sense organs are not able to perceive
most of the substances present in the water, thus transparency and absence of strange flavors
are not a guarantee of potability and absence of risk. Potable means that the water is safe to be
regularly consumed over the lifetime. This is not because it is refreshing or clear, but because it
matches specific physical, chemical and microbiological characteristics regulated at European
and Italian level by a list of about 55 parameters. In general, the danger of sourcing from an
unknown and uncontrolled source is underestimated. Even on mountains, the environment
surrounding the water source, contrary to appearances, could be not pristine and, finding
drinking water in its natural state, is not obvious. There are various types of contaminants, some
can be completely natural, present in rocks and soils and transmitted to the water that flows
through them, others come from human activities located even far away from the water source.
Moreover, microbiological contamination is more widespread than one can imagine in natural
environments, for example it might be caused by cattle and wild animals.
Play video starting at :2:18 and follow transcript
2:18
This water can induce pathological states, even serious ones, in the short term. The water
sources close to cities are more polluted by anthropic activities, but the water is treated and
constantly monitored to verify its compliance. About compliance with legal parameters,
regulations for tap water set a list of parameters which is in continuous evolution according to
progress in scientific knowledge on the effect of chemicals on human health. Not all consumers
know that also bottled water undergoes on a list of parameters and relative concentration limits
almost coincident with the ones set for tap water. Anyway, a great difference relies on the
frequency of the controls on tap water and bottled water. Tap water is monitored daily or at
maximum weekly, depending on the distributed volume and the sourced water quality variability
In many cases, analyzers are installed online to detect possible anomalies and permit a prompt
intervention. In addition, sanitary authorities can ask to integrate the list of parameters and to
increase the frequency of monitoring.
Play video starting at :3:31 and follow transcript
3:31
About bottled water, regulations set only a self-certification once a year on the sourced water,
and no other controls are required and performed after bottling. Another characteristic often
influencing the choice on water consumption is water hardness or the total amount of dissolved
solids. Many times, we hear people complaining about their tap water being very hard, and they
 are discouraged to drink it because, when water is heated or simply allowed to evaporate, salts
remain in the glass or in the pot, forming a typical white patina, which is usually called limescale.
The belief is that limescale can be dangerous for kidneys. Water hardness is linked to the
content of calcium and magnesium, which are bioavailable, meaning that they can be assimilated
by our organism. In fact, our body needs these salts to support biological functions, as well as to
store calcium into bones. A calcium deficiency is a risk factor for osteoporosis. Also dissolved
solids are important for our metabolism, let’s think about when we have an intense physical
activity and we need to replenish mineral salts. The formation of limescale is only the
consequence of the chemistry of these minerals when the temperature greatly changes, which it
does not occur in our body: heating or evaporation takes place in the appliances and in tools we
use to prepare food. We don’t see limescale in bottled water, even if it is hard and it has a high
content of dissolved salts, only because usually we don’t use bottled water in appliances and
tools for cooking. A key factor to bear in mind is that hardness is not a discriminating parameter
for potability, not having effects on human health. International regulations on drinking water
report just a recommended range between 150 and 500 milligrams of calcium carbonate
equivalent per liter of water. The World Health Organization emphasizes that water is a good
source of calcium and magnesium, potentially contributing to meet more than half of the daily
requirement of this mineral for an adult.
Play video starting at :5:51 and follow transcript
5:51
Usually, consumers have concerns about the safety of tap water, but they also should have
concerns about bottled water. Just to make an example: bottled water is in contact with the
plastic containers for longer periods, maybe under sunlight during the various storages along the
supply chain. Possible leaching of potentially harmful substances can occur as some scientific
works have highlighted. Anyway, consumers do not have any information about the history of the
bottled water purchased and the potential risks derived from plastic leaching.
Play video starting at :6:24 and follow transcript
6:24
To sum up, these examples highlight how important is the knowledge and information to be fully
aware in selecting the most suitable drinking water, without letting advertisements and erroneous
concepts addressing our choices. To go further in looking at the facts related to water quality is
fundamental to choose water based on its actual quality and not only on our senses, common
believes and false myths. The commitment of Politecnico di Milano in assuring a sustainable and
safe water supply is constant, and supported by the project ASAP! Sustainable Water at POLIMI.
We want to inform POLIMI community and trigger a behavioral change towards a conscious
consumption of water.
to water quality is fundamental to choose water based on its actual quality and not only on our:
Added to Selection. Press [CTRL + S] to save as a note
(Required)
English
​
Help Us Translate

Every year about 14 million tons of plastic are released into the oceans. In particular, in the
Mediterranean, we estimate the amount of 53 thousand tons of plastic, and because of the
particular coastal and wind conditions, 80% of them return to the coast, hence back to earth.
Plastic bottles play an important role in terms of volume. Specifically, Italy is the first consumer in
Europe and the third in the world for per capita consumption of bottled water. It is estimated that
in Italy every year 11 billions litres of bottled beverages are consumed, resulting in 460.000 tons.
Also, the production of plastic water bottles is estimated to emit between 900.000 and 1,4
millions tons of CO2 equivalent (not considering transportation for delivery). Recycling is only a
partial solution. In Italy, more than 60% of PET water bottles – about 7 billion of bottles – are not
recycled, and just 5% of recycled PET is used for new bottles. The reduction of single-use
plastics is by far a more effective solution but it requires radical policies and measures. Various
policies and regulations at European and national level introduce restrictions on single-use
plastics starting from 2021 with increasingly stringent requirements. In Italy, the complete ban on
 disposable bottles is still a long way off: from 2025, PET bottles will have to contain at least 25%
recycled plastic, a percentage that will rise to 30% starting from 2030.
Play video starting at :1:54 and follow transcript
1:54
In any case, these policies must be supported by an accompaniment of society to promote
different habits and new supply infrastructures. For reducing single-use plastic, we should
change behaviors and practices – both individual and collective practices - towards more
sustainable ways of life. One example in this direction is changing habits of water consumption
towards tap water preference.
Play video starting at :2:21 and follow transcript
2:21
Let’s start imaging a higher education campus as a possible test-bed for changing behaviors. For
instance, the Politecnico di Milano is a community of about 50.000 people, more than 47.000
students and 2.600 staff members. A small city, indeed. Politecnico di Milano is at the forefront in
Italy for promoting sustainability, with an experience of more than 10 years of policies and
projects for campus sustainability.
Play video starting at :2:51 and follow transcript
2:51
Water is one of the strategic pillars in the Environmental sustainability plan.
Play video starting at :2:57 and follow transcript
2:57
more than 80 free drinking water dispensers are already operating in Milan Campuses since
more than 5 years. Nevertheless, according to our surveys and interviews:

First: the majority of staff and students declared to drink tap water from dispensers at PoliMi
Campuses, but some of them still prefer bottled water at home as they don’t trust all the public
water infrastructure, and vending machines on the main Campus still sold about 150.000 water
bottles per year in 2021.

Second: almost all staff and students believe “limescale” and “calcium” in Milan tap water is risky
for health or is unpleasant to taste, but the majority of people cannot distinguish tap water from
mineral water if they taste it blind.
Play video starting at :3:46 and follow transcript
3:46
Third: Students and staff practices are influenced by the habits of their "social circles" of
colleagues and friends. So, it is important working on perceptions and beliefs, and with people, to
achieve a change in social norms.

Our research question is: how can a higher education institution promote a change in behavior
and practices? We start with a series of important premises: Firstly, raising awareness on the
devastating effect of plastic on the environment is not enough! People are now over-informed by
media and social networks about the urgent environmental and climate challenges society is
facing and often think that recycling is enough.
Play video starting at :4:30 and follow transcript
4:30
Secondly, informing and communicating to our community on the very good tap water quality on
campuses is not enough! Few people look at bottled water labels and check water quality data
reported; this is because choices are not always driven by scientific information.
Play video starting at :4:47 and follow transcript
4:47
Thirdly, banning plastic on campuses is not always the solution! Scientists demonstrated that this
measure sometimes triggers an increase in sugar beverages consumption when replacing plastic
bottles with other types of beverages in cans. Providing branded flasks to people… it was ok at
first, maybe some years ago, but now most young people already own more than one, with the
side effect of increasing waste production even more.

Providing water filling stations or fountains… that’s not enough! Politecnico did it already, but still
about 150.000 plastic water bottles are sold every year at our vending machines.
 Why are all these measures not enough? This is because at University - as it happens in other
types of communities as well - behaviors and practices are influenced also by beliefs, habits,
perceptions, value attribution, which have to be explored and investigated in-depth in order to
identify change levers.

So, how can we change the way a University promotes change? We argue that we can achieve
results shifting the focus from prohibiting plastic or alarming people about devastating effects of
plastic, to identifying and promoting a new and alternative valuable experience around drinking
water, in particular tap water.

Working on “experience” means focusing on the material and immaterial factors that influence
people's interaction with products or services, then working with users on changing them, for
proposing an understandable and valuable alternative experience. Hence, we decided to bring
this approach at Politecnico and initiate a research project and a real case-study setting that
integrates scientific knowledge on water quality, service and urban design, towards the
conception of a new experience of collection and consumption of tap water. We aim to:
Co-design a better experience, for making sustainable practices easier to all, and outlining new
policies, that might help in delivering a real impact in behavioral change!

So we gave birth to the ASAP! Project, an acronym that stands for “Acqua Sostenibile al
Politecnico” (Sustainable Water at Philippines) but also gives clearly back the idea of the urgency
of acting for facing the challenge of reducing plastic bottle consumption.

The project is led by Eliante, an NGO committed to promote sustainability, the Department of
Environmental and Civil Engineering, the department of Architecture and Urban Studies, and the
University Sustainability Unit. The project is supported as part of the wider Sustainable Campus
framework. ASAP! project is founded on three pillars: Going beyond information towards
co-creating a new experience; Bridging research and action for increasing the impact; Valorizing
Polimi’si multi-disciplinarity and multi-partnerships around the topic of water.
Play video starting at :7:51 and follow transcript
7:51

With ASAP! we analysed the practices and perceptions in our community, through interviews with
students and staff and through observation; we analysed and monitored water quality on
campus, both in water dispenser and taps; we organized co-design activities both with students
and the university management staff; we engaged the community with communication activities
on social networks.
What we found is that: perceptions, experience, and social norms strongly influence practices
about water collection and consumption; analyses prove that tap water quality is better than
filtered water from dispensers; co-design activities better grasp needs and the desires of final
communities to come up with original ideas while pro-actively engaging participants; integrated
strategies and diversified solutions are needed for building a structured sustainable offer of tap
water provision.
The ASAP! Project has generated awareness and a new sensitivity within our community. It also
produced new recommendations for future strategies and plans on water, and provided technical
solutions to support the design and installation of new devices for improving the access and the
experience to tap water in indoor and outdoor spaces.

So we are recommending that

So to conclude raising awareness on the devastating effect of plastic on the environment is not
enough! People are now over-informed by media and social networks about the urgent
environmental and climate challenges society is facing and often think that recycling is enough.
Secondly, informing and communicating to our community on the very good tap water quality on
community is not enough! Few people look at bottled water labels and check water quality data
reported; this is because choices are not always driven by scientific information.

Thirdly, banning plastic on campuses is not always the solution! Scientists demonstrated that this
measure sometimes triggers an increase in sugar beverages consumption when replacing plastic
bottles with other types of beverages in cans. Providing branded flasks to people… it was ok at
first, maybe some years ago, but now most young people already own more than one, with the
side effect of increasing waste production even more. So to conclude that instead of just done
this things here in our country is to create our own ASAP projects.