Robin Harder

Mapping evidence on a particular research topic among others aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic along with a searchable database of relevant literature. When attempting to map large bodies of research, mappers may soon find themselves in a situation where the resources available for the mapping are incommensurate to the number of studies to be handled. This typically requires either a narrower scope of the map or a streamlined mapping process. Grounded in a comparison of five evidence maps on the topic of recovery and reuse of nutrients found in human excreta and domestic wastewater—some of them systematic, some not—the present paper sets out to quantify the potential effect of procedural differences on mapping outcomes. Ultimately, the goal is to discern the factors that matter most for comprehensive and balanced mapping outcomes. This exploration suggests that a good search strategy is key when mapping large bodies of research, especially so when terminology is barely standardized. The paper also sheds light to an issue that could be described as differential search term sensitivity and specificity (compound search terms that are not equally sensitive and specific across all subdomains of the map) and that may deserve more attention in evidence mapping. Drawing from my experiences from compiling the online evidence platform Egestabase, the paper sketches how this issue might be mitigated. In addition, the paper outlines several measures that can help achieve substantial efficiency gains, and offers reflections on how to set priorities and navigate tradeoffs when a standard systematic mapping process appears not to be viable and not strictly necessary.

Background: Achieving a more circular and efficient use of nutrients found in human excreta and domestic (municipal) wastewater is an integral part of mitigating aquatic nutrient pollution and nutrient insecurity. A synthesis of research trends readily available to various stakeholders is much needed. This systematic map collates and summarizes scientific research on technologies that facilitate the recovery and reuse of plant nutrients and organic matter found in human excreta and domestic wastewater. We present evidence in a way that can be navigated easily. We hope this work will help with the uptake and upscaling of new and innovative circular solutions for the recovery and reuse of nutrients. Methods: The systematic map consists of an extension of two previous related syntheses. Searches were performed in Scopus and Web of Science in English. Records were screened on title and abstract, including consistency checking. Coding and meta-data extraction included bibliographic information, as well as recovery pathways. The evidence from the systematic map is embedded in an online evidence platform that, in an interactive manner, allows stakeholders to visualize and explore the systematic map findings, including knowledge gaps and clusters. Results: The evidence base includes a total of 10 950 articles describing 11 489 recovery pathways. Most of the evidence base is about recovery technologies (41.9%) and the reuse of recovered products in agriculture (53.4%). A small proportion of the evidence base focuses on the characteristics of recovered products (4.0%) and user acceptance and perceptions of nutrient recovery and reuse (0.7%). Conclusions: Most studies we mapped focused on nutrient recovery from ‘conventional’ systems, that is, from centralized sewer and wastewater treatment systems that produce biosolids and a treated effluent. While we also found substantial research on nutrient recovery from source-separated urine, and to some extent also on nutrient recovery from source-separated excreta (notably blackwater), the body of research on nutrient recovery from source-separated feces was relatively small. Another knowledge gap is the relative lack of research on the recovery of potassium. More research is also needed on user acceptance of different recovery technologies and recovered products.

In light of continued nutrient pollution in water bodies and anticipated insecurities related to future nutrient supplies, there is an increasing awareness of the need to use nutrients in a more circular way. As part of a food system design study in the Okanagan bioregion, BC Canada we set out to evaluate different food system scenarios for the year 2050 in terms of nutrient circularity. In doing so, the objective was to evaluate the circularity of nutrient flows not only in the Okanagan, but also in relation to exogenous regions, insofar as nutrient flows relate to feed and food consumption and production in the Okanagan. This is important because feed and food trade means that nutrient inputs to crop production in the Okanagan may make their way into organic residuals outside the Okanagan, and vice versa. If not accounted for, this may lead to a distorted picture when analyzing nutrient circularity. To this effect, we applied an analytical framework and calculation model that explicitly tracks nutrients from crop production to organic residual generation. The results of the study suggest that assessing nutrient circularity across nested scales was critical for two reasons. First, changes in overall nutrient flows in response to population increase and dietary change were found to be more pronounced outside the Okanagan. Second, our analysis clearly revealed the extent to which feed and food trade boost nutrient self-reliance in the Okanagan at the expense of nutrient self-reliance outside the Okanagan. This kind of analysis should therefore be useful to explore, ideally together with food system and organic residual management actors, how different food system and organic residual management scenarios perform in terms of nutrient circularity, in the geographical area being considered, but also how it impacts nutrient flows and circularity in the places with which feed and food are traded.