Adeyeye_PPC_9781118456576_outlined.indd 1
14/11/13 08:45
Water Efficiency in Buildings
Water Efficiency in Buildings
Theory and Practice
Edited by
Kemi Adeyeye
School of Environment and Technology
University of Brighton, UK
This edition first published 2014
© 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Registered Office
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ,
United Kingdom.
Editorial Offices
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, United Kingdom.
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom.
For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about
how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our
website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.
The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in
accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as
trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service
marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher
is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have used
their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with
respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically
disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.
It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional
services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom.
If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent
professional should be sought.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Water efficiency in buildings : theory and practice / edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-118-45657-6 (cloth)
1. Water efficiency. 2. Sustainable buildings. 3. Water-supply–Cost control.
I. Adeyeye, Kemi, 1979– editor of compilation.
TH6127.W38 2014
696ʹ.1–dc23
2013033902
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in
print may not be available in electronic books.
Cover image: Davood Nattaghi and Erwin Nolde.
Background Image – Floorplan: Vectorstock / Alchena;
Image 1 – Tap and Glass: iStockPhoto / Courtney Keating;
Image 5 – Terraced Houses: iStockPhoto / kelvinjay
Cover design by Garth Stewart
Set in 10/13pt Trump Mediaeval by SPi Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India
1
2014
Contents
About the Editorx
About the Contributors
xi
Foreword by Jacob Tompkins, Managing Director of Waterwise
xxi
Preface
xxiii
Acknowledgements
xxvii
Abbreviations
xxviii
Section 1
Policy
1
1 Water Policy and Regulations: A UK Perspective
5
Kemi Adeyeye
Introduction5
Water policy and context
6
Policy for water users
9
Methodology11
Interview findings
11
Discussion19
Further recommendations
21
Conclusion21
Acknowledgements22
References22
2 Water Policy in Water-Stressed Regions: The Case Study of Iran
24
Eric R.P. Farr and Poorang Piroozfar
Introduction24
Iran: water resources and use
25
Water resource planning and implementation
27
Policy opportunities and constraints
31
Recommendations33
Conclusion39
Acknowledgements40
Further reading
40
References40
3 Water Policy for Buildings: A Portuguese Perspective
42
Armando Silva Afonso and Carla Pimentel Rodrigues
Introduction42
Policy context and evolution
43
Water efficiency in buildings
46
Opportunities and constraints
50
Conclusions and recommendations
54
Further reading
55
References55
vi
Contents
Section 2
People
57
4 Understanding Consumer Response to Water
Efficiency Strategies
61
James Jenkins and Alexis Pericli
Introduction61
Explorations in socio-demographic and contextual factors
62
Broadening the understanding of consumer responses
64
Recognising the attitude–behaviour gap
67
Conclusion and recommendations
68
Further reading
70
References70
5 Distributed Demand and the Sociology of Water Efficiency
74
Alison Browne, Will Medd, Martin Pullinger and Ben Anderson
Introduction74
Developing an idea of ‘distributed demand’ and
a practice perspective on water efficiency
75
Beyond behaviour and technology: a practice
perspective on ‘efficiency’
77
Conclusion83
Acknowledgements84
Further reading
84
References84
6 Co-creating Water Efficiency with Water Customers
88
Kemi Adeyeye
Introduction88
Information technology for co-creation
92
A co-creation toolkit for personalised value and
knowledge for water efficiency
95
Discussion104
Conclusion105
Further reading
106
References106
Section 3
Building Design and Planning
109
7 Assessment Methodologies for Water Efficiency in Buildings
113
Dexter Robinson and Kemi Adeyeye
Introduction113
Building environmental assessment and rating methods
114
Discussion124
Conclusion126
Further reading
127
References127
Contents vii
8Intelligent Metering for Urban Water Planning and Management 129
Cara Beal, Rodney Stewart, Damien Giurco and
Kriengsak Panuwatwanich
Introduction129
Role of intelligent water metering and big data
131
Intelligent metering applications and benefits
135
Conclusion and recommendations
143
Further reading
145
References145
9Integrated Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
147
Stephen J. Coupe, Amal S. Faraj, Ernest O. Nnadi
and Susanne M. Charlesworth
Introduction147
Sustainable drainage systems
148
Types of SuDs
151
Case studies: integrated SuDs
156
Conclusion160
Further reading
161
References161
Section 4
Alternative Water Technologies
165
10Greywater Recycling in Buildings
169
Erwin Nolde, Nolde and Partner
Introduction169
Greywater quantity and quality
170
Greywater policy and guidelines
172
Greywater technology
173
Project examples
179
Benefits and constraints of greywater recycling
183
Conclusion and recommendations
187
Further reading
188
References188
11 Rainwater Recycling in Buildings
190
Siraj Tahir, Ilan Adler and Luiza Campos
Introduction190
Rainwater harvesting systems
191
Rainwater quality
192
Treatment technologies
194
Storage system sizing
199
Environmental benefits
203
User perception and acceptability
203
Conclusions205
Further reading
206
References206
viii
Contents
12 A Strategic Framework for Rainwater Harvesting
209
Sarah Ward, Stewart Barr, Fayyaz Ali Memon and David Butler
Introduction209
Developing a socio-technical evidence base
211
Selected socio-technical evidence base results
213
The strategic framework for RWH in the UK – a synthesis
219
The framework
223
Conclusion225
Acknowledgements225
Further reading
225
References226
Section 5
Practical Examples and Case Studies
229
13Lifecycle Benefits of Domestic Water-Efficient
Fittings and Products
233
Vivian Tam and Andrew Brohier
Introduction233
Methodology234
Findings235
Conclusion239
Further reading
239
References240
14 Water Efficiency in Office Buildings
241
Lee Bint, Robert Vale and Nigel Isaacs
Introduction241
Methodology242
Influences on water efficiency
243
Conclusions and recommendations
249
Acknowledgements250
Further reading
250
References251
15Lessons from a New Water Treatment Plant in
a Water-Stressed Region
252
Davood Nattaghi and Poorang Piroozfar
Introduction252
Case study: Mashhad water treatment plant
253
Practical problems associated with the new WTP
255
Conclusion261
Acknowledgements262
Further reading
262
Reference262
Contents
ix
16 Water-Efficient Products and the Water Label
263
Yvonne Orgill, Terence Woolliscroft and David Brindley
Introduction263
Water and energy are inextricably linked
264
The Water Label
268
The Water Calculator
271
Conclusion272
Further reading
272
References272
17 ‘Greening the Green’ – Community Water in the
Age of Localism
273
Nick Gant, Jean Balnave and Kemi Adeyeye
Introduction273
The case study community
275
The water workshop
276
Workshop findings
277
Action from the workshop
279
Discussion281
Conclusion283
Acknowledgements284
Further reading
284
References284
Index
287
About the Editor
Kemi Adeyeye is a senior lecturer at the University of Brighton where she
teaches and conducts research on various aspects of building design and
technology, sustainability, resource efficiency and use. Her academic and
professional background is in architecture, building development, adaptation and optimised delivery as well as post-occupancy processes. She holds
a Master’s degree in Architecture (Design) (University of Nottingham, UK)
and a PhD awarded by Loughborough University, UK. She is a chartered
member of the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists (CIAT)
and the Royal Institute of Surveyors (RICS). Her work experience includes
various forms of architectural consultancy, planning, building development
and management, especially during the post-occupancy stages. Her waterefficiency research focuses on finding integrated solutions – people, process,
product – and how these systems-led solutions can be implemented in buildings for long-term results. Her research also focuses on finding collaborative
solutions to water resource issues. Therefore, the majority of her work is
carried out with industry partners.
She was a DEFRA/EPSRC research fellow. She is Co-Director of the
Advanced Technologies in Built Environment, Architecture & Construction
(@BEACON) research group at the University of Brighton. At the university,
she also manages the collaborative Water Efficiency Lab and initiated and
manages the DEFRA-funded Water Efficiency in Buildings Network. With
industry and academic members, the network aim is to propose and promote knowledge-based yet practical water-efficiency solutions for policy,
industry and building users.
About the Contributors
Ilan Adler is founder and chairman of the International Renewable Resources
Institute (IRRI-Mexico), a non-governmental association specialising in the
promotion of renewable energies and sustainable water practices throughout rural and urban areas in Mexico. He has lectured to a wide variety of
audiences, teaching at universities as well as workshops in Puerto Rico,
Ecuador, the USA and different areas of Mexico, also as a Solar Energy
International (SEI) instructor. In 2004, he worked for the UNEP as a consultant in waste-water management for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Through a number of start-up companies he has also been involved in consulting, design and implementation of appropriate technologies such as
rainwater harvesting, biogas and solar systems. His publications include
articles, stories and children’s books related to water conservation and environmentalism. He has a Master’s degree in Environmental Science from
Wageningen University, the Netherlands and is currently pursuing his PhD
in rainwater quality and purification technologies at University College
London, where he also works as a teaching assistant.
Ben Anderson is originally from a natural sciences background. He has a BSc
in Biology and Computer Science (Southampton University, UK) and a PhD
in Computer Studies (Loughborough University, UK). He has used techniques from computer science, cognitive psychology, anthropology, economics, sociology and social geography during his time as an academic and
commercial research scientist engaged in conducting and managing basic
and applied social research programmes. His main research interest is the
relationship between social practices and infrastructural change with a particular focus on social communication, resource (energy, water) consumption, micro-social resilience and sustainable living with cross-cutting
interests in temporal and spatial variation. He is currently a Visiting Research
Fellow at the Lancaster Environment Centre and a Senior Research Fellow in
the Sustainable Energy Research Group at the University of Southampton.
Jean Balnave is the administrator for the Water Efficiency in Buildings
Network, a multidisciplinary network of academics, industry practitioners
and NGOs funded by DEFRA. She is the interface between the network,
members and the general public. She is involved in promoting the network’s
activities to various audiences and at relevant international events. Her
study and research interests include earth and environmental sciences,
water-efficient technologies and water user behaviours and practices. Recent
projects included a water efficiency and community resilience study, and
she is currently responsible for the network’s recently launched water
­messaging programme.
xii
About the Contributors
Stewart Barr obtained his PhD from the University of Exeter in 2001 and is
now Associate Professor in the Geography Department at the university.
His research interests focus on how environmental social science can lead
academic discussions on social transformation in an age of accelerated environmental change. He teaches both undergraduate and postgraduate courses
in Geography and runs a final-year undergraduate specialist module on
Geographies of Transport and Mobility.
Cara Beal obtained her PhD from the University of Queensland in Soil
Science. She is a research fellow at the Smart Water Research Centre,
Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. A recognised expert in smart
metering and residential water end-use studies, she also has over 20 years’
experience in integrated water resource management. She has managed a
number of large research projects in the private, government and academic
sectors and has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed publications across
a range of topics including urban water planning, social analysis of water
consumption, decentralised waste-water treatment systems, demand forecasting and the water–energy nexus.
Lee Bint earned her PhD from Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.
She graduated from her doctoral studies on water performance in commercial
office buildings in 2012, supervised by Professor Robert Vale and Mr Nigel
Isaacs. She has since been working at BRANZ Ltd, investigating energy and
water use across New Zealand non-residential buildings. Her research interests
centre on improving water and energy performance of commercial buildings.
David Brindley is Business Support Manager at the Bathroom Manufacturers
Association and has worked in the bathroom industry for over 40 years. His
previous roles of Technical Manager and Engineering CAD Draughtsman at
one of the UK’s major bathroom manufacturing companies have provided a
wealth of experience in all aspects of the industry including product design,
manufacturing and marketing. He brings this vast product knowledge to his
current position of administering the Water Label Scheme and other areas of
the BMA business.
Andrew Brohier studied at the University of Western Sydney where he completed a Bachelor of Construction Management (Honours). His honours thesis focused on sustainable innovations which optimise water efficiency in
dwellings. After completing his studies he is now working within the construction industry as an Accredited Building Surveyor, where he endeavours
to promote awareness regarding innovations which can improve water
­efficiency in all forms of construction.
Alison Browne is a Research Fellow at the Sustainable Consumption
Institute, University of Manchester with interests in water, climate change
adaptation, everyday practice and sustainable consumption, and the
About the Contributors xiii
c­ommunity and social impacts of large-scale resource development
­(agriculture, mining, rural and urban development). Prior to joining the SCI
in September 2012 she was a Senior Research Associate at the Lancaster
Environment Centre, Lancaster University (2010–2012). Here she managed
two large interdisciplinary projects on climate change, water resource
­management and everyday practice (the EPSRC-funded ARCC-Water and
the ESRC/DEFRA/Scottish Government SPRG Patterns of Water projects).
She has also been involved in a range of consultancy projects for the UK
water industry (Thames Water, UKWIR) focused on climate change, demand
management and water efficiency. Prior to moving to the UK she obtained
her PhD from Curtin University, was a Research Fellow at the Research
Centre for Stronger Communities, Curtin University (2009–2010) and a
Research Scientist at CSIRO Australia (2007–2009) working on urban water
management, sustainable agriculture and resource development.
David Butler is Director of the Centre for Water Systems, University of
Exeter. He is Professor of Water Engineering at the University of Exeter and
an Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Established
Career Fellow. He is a chartered civil engineer, a chartered environmentalist
and a Fellow of the IWA, Institution of Civil Engineers and CIWEM. He specialises in sustainable urban water management, has published over 250
technical papers and is co-editor-in-chief of the Urban Water Journal. His
research has been funded continuously by EPSRC since 1995.
Luiza Cintra Campos is a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Engineering,
University College London. She has a PhD in Environmental Engineering
from Imperial College. She is a civil engineer specialising in environmental
engineering and has over 8 years of practical experience working for a state
water and waste-water company and over 10 years of experience working as
a lecturer at various universities in Brazil. She joined University College
London (UCL) in 2007 as a lecturer in the Department of Civil, Environmental
and Geomatic Engineering where she is currently the Programme Director
for Environmental Engineering UG. Her research interests lies in water and
sanitation, varying from modelling purification mechanisms of slow sand
filtration to sustainable and resilient sanitation services. Some of her
research projects include the impact of rainwater harvesting on urban flood
attenuation and water supply, the reduction of risks in sanitation infrastructure, health built environments, the treatment and disinfection of water/
rainwater and the modelling the next generation of sanitation systems.
Susanne M. Charlesworth is a Reader in Urban Physical Geography and
Director of SuDs Applied Research Group; Geography, Environment and
Disaster Management, Coventry University. She gained her PhD in ‘The retention of pollutant history in the sediments of two urban lakes, Coventry, UK’
from Coventry University in 1994 and has been Director of the SuDs Applied
xiv
About the Contributors
Research Group at Coventry University for the past 6 years. Whilst she has
undertaken research and development in SuDs and has publications in that
subject area, she has also published in urban geochemistry, risk assessments
for children associated with urban contaminants and urban hydrology.
Stephen J. Coupe is an environmental scientist with an interest in stormwater management, sustainability and environmental microbiology. He has
a PhD in sustainable drainage water quality and worked as research manager
for Hanson Formpave between 2006 and 2011. Working as a research fellow
at Coventry University, he teaches on undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and is fully engaged in multidisciplinary research activities.
Amal S. Faraj has a background in civil engineering, having worked for
Repsol/Akakus Oil Operations, a Spanish–Libyan joint enterprise in Tripoli.
In 2007, she achieved an MSc in Environmental Management from Coventry
University. She was recently awarded a PhD from Coventry University, for
research entitled ‘Assessing the performance of combined sustainable drainage and a renewable energy device in heating a domestic building’.
Eric R.P. Farr is a researcher and critic with an MArch/MUD and a PhD in
Architecture and Urban Studies. He specialises in theorising fuzzy logic for
planning decision/policy making, as well as sustainable built environment
and architectural theory. His experience is backed by his work as an international design consultant. He has been invited to give talks and lectures in
universities and professional organisations worldwide. He advocates the significance and impact of what is understood to be rather discrete contextbased features of sustainability through co-creation of knowledge and value
between different levels of stakeholders from policy makers to end users.
Nick Gant is Assistant Head of the School for Research, Economic and
Social Engagement at the School of Art, Design and Media, University of
Brighton and co-founder of Community21. He leads applied research in
areas of design communication and sustainability enabled via material and
digital media. His recent work explores enabling young people to envision
the future of their sustainable communities by using and co-designing accessible envisioning technologies (apps). He also uses waste materials with
embedded histories and narratives to mediate meanings and values that
engage users in sustainable issues and behaviour change. As a designer and
researcher he collaborates with NGOs, charities and industry and has led
projects funded by Nominet Trust, Gulbenkain Foundation, the National
Lottery and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. As co-founder
of Community21 his work facilitates mass participation in networks of
neighbourhood and community-led planning.
Damien Giurco is Associate Professor and Research Director at the Institute
for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney. Established in
About the Contributors xv
1996, the Institute’s mission is to ‘create change towards sustainable
futures’. Working with government and industry, he leads urban water
research focused on smart metering, water efficiency, industrial ecology,
end-use modelling, integrated resource planning and policy. He holds
Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Engineering degrees from the University
of Melbourne and a PhD from the University of Sydney.
Nigel Isaacs M.Bldg.Sc. is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Architecture,
Victoria University of Wellington and formerly a Principal Scientist at BRANZ
Ltd. His work on the Household Energy End-Use Project led to new knowledge
about the how, why, where and when of residential energy use and services. His
work centres on understanding energy and water demand in buildings.
James Jenkins is currently a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Management
at the University of Hertfordshire, UK. His research is shaped by his interest
in water resource problems connected with drinking water quality, water
usage and consumer engagement. He has previously been a regional committee member of the Consumer Council for Water and its predecessor,
WaterVoice. He obtained his PhD in 2007 from the Department of Geography
at King’s College London.
Will Medd is a Lecturer in Human Geography, Lancaster Environment
Centre, Lancaster University, where he has been teaching and researching
issues around everyday life, socio-technical infrastructures and sustainability. He earned his PhD in Sociology from Lancaster University. He is also a
certified work/life coach and runs a private coaching practice specialising in
coaching for academics. His co-authored book YourPhDCoach will be
­published by the Open University Press in September 2013.
Fayyaz Ali Memon is Associate Professor at the Centre for Water Systems,
University of Exeter. He was based at Imperial College London before j­ oining
the University of Exeter. He has research interests in water reuse technologies, water consumption trends, rainwater harvesting, greywater recycling,
water-saving micro-components, lifecycle analysis, sustainable drainage
systems, carbon footprinting and decision support systems for water management. He is a chartered engineer, fellow of the UK Higher Education
Academy and member of the Chartered Institution of Water and
Environmental Management and the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Davood Nattaghi received his BSc in Mechanical Engineering followed by an
MSc in Project Management for Construction. He has over 7 years’ experience in leading and delivering some of the most challenging, demanding and
complex water infrastructure projects, including pipelines, water/wastewater treatment plants, pump stations and desalination plants.
Ernest O. Nnadi is a sustainable drainage and water quality expert. He conducted the first study on the application of the SuDs system known as the
xvi
About the Contributors
Pervious Pavement system in storm-water recycling for irrigation purposes.
He received a PhD in the field of Civil Engineering from Coventry University,
UK and has since been working as an academic and applied researcher. He
has industrial experience in his field, having worked on and collaborated
with industrial partners on several innovative, applied research and development projects. He is the author of several journal articles and peer-reviewed
conference papers. He is also a fellow of the Higher Education Academy and
a member of several international and national professional associations in
his field.
Erwin Nolde is an electrical and environmental engineer with over 20 years’
expertise in the sustainable water management field. He specialises in the
planning, design and implementation of decentralised water recycling systems in combination with heat recovery from greywater. He is founder and
managing director of Nolde & Partner – Innovative Water Concepts and acts
as a consultant for public authorities, industry, NGOs, housing associations
and private house owners. He is co-founder and member of the board of the
German Association for Rainwater Harvesting and Water Reuse (fbr) and a
member of several DIN and DWA working groups.
Yvonne Orgill is the Chief Executive of the UK’s Bathroom Manufacturers
Association, which has grown significantly under her leadership and is now
recognised and respected as ‘The Voice of the UK Bathroom Industry’. Today
she leads a trade body representing over 80% of the UK bathroom brands –
both manufacturers and media involved in the UK bathroom industry. Its
membership employs more than 10,000 people across almost 70 sites and is
responsible for a combined membership turnover fast approaching £1 ­billion.
She represents the UK bathroom industry on a number of forums in the UK
and Europe. She regularly meets with government and the European
Commission. She is a high-profile spearhead of the European Water Label
committee, which promotes the successful Water Label scheme. The
scheme was introduced and developed by the BMA, and adopted across the
27 countries of Europe in 2012. She has been instrumental in promoting the
Water Label, which has been embraced by major builders and plumbers’
merchants and retailers.
Kriengsak Panuwatwanich completed his Bachelor in Engineering (Civil)
from Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thailand followed by
a Master of Engineering Science from the University of New South Wales
and a PhD from Griffith University, Australia. He also holds a Graduate
Certificate in Higher Education, also from Griffith University. His research
interests cover the areas of engineering, construction, environmental and
project management. He has published in many top-tier journals, including
the Journal of Environmental Management, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Journal of Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Automation in
About the Contributors xvii
Construction, as well as the International Journal of Project Management.
He is currently a lecturer at Griffith School of Engineering, Griffith University,
Queensland, Australia.
Alexis Pericli has a BSc (Hons) in Geography and an MSc in Environmental
Management from the University of Hertfordshire. He is a PhD research
student in the Geography and Environmental Sciences subject group,
Department of Human and Environmental Sciences, University of
Hertfordshire, UK – supervised by Dr James Jenkins. His PhD focuses on
understanding government responses to the environmental problems of
water scarcity and quality.
Carla Pimentel Rodrigues graduated from the University of Aveiro (Portugal)
in Civil Engineering and has headed the technical secretariat of the NGO
ANQIP since 2007. She is currently studying for her PhD in the area of
water efficiency, again at the University of Aveiro.
Poorang Piroozfar holds a BArch and an MArch, followed by a PhD,
in Architecture from the School of Architecture, University of Sheffield.
He is a Senior Lecturer in Architectural Technology and Director of @
BEACON (Advanced Technologies in Built Environment, Architecture
and Construction) Research Centre, School of Environment and
Technology, University of Brighton. His research spans rule-based expert
systems, ICT, building facades as well as process, production and information management in the AEC industry. His interest in customer-centric
approaches to design, fabrication and implementation in the construction
industry has converged with other new concepts, resulting in the introduction of new interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research projects
during recent years.
Martin Pullinger works at the University of Edinburgh, School of
GeoSciences, on the EPSRC-funded IDEAL home energy advice project,
which explores the interaction between energy technologies and householder practices related to energy use. His research focuses on multidisciplinary understanding of the interactions between ecological sustainability
and human wellbeing. He seeks to produce new insights into how different everyday practices and working patterns influence household carbon
footprints, water and energy use, as well as wellbeing, and the implications for the design of policies and household-level feedback systems
­relating to sustainable lifestyles, practices and behaviours. He previously
worked on the ARCC-Water Project at Lancaster Environment Centre,
Lancaster University, contributing to the development of new theoretical
and methodological approaches to the study of everyday water-use practices. Prior to that, during his PhD at the University of Edinburgh, he
investigated the impacts of working patterns on wellbeing and on energy
use from household consumption.
xviii About the Contributors
Dexter Robinson is a recent graduate in Architectural Technology at the
University of Brighton. His research interests include water efficiency in
buildings, with primary focus on investigating the efficacy of technological
and innovative solutions for resolving water-efficiency challenges in buildings and the built environment as a whole. He is now embarking on a PhD
study exploring how to provide integrated water-efficiency solutions within
domestic properties. His doctoral study is funded by the School of
Environment and Technology, University of Brighton Doctoral Fund,
­supported by SmartSource Water, Reading.
Armando Silva Afonso holds a PhD in Hydraulics and has been a Professor
in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Aveiro (Portugal)
since 2001. Previously he was a Professor at the University of Coimbra. He
is also Chairman of the Board of the Portuguese Association for Quality and
Water Efficiency in Building Services (ANQIP) and Regional President of the
Portuguese Association of Water Resources (APRH). His current research
interests include efficiency and sustainability related to water supply and
drainage in buildings and he is an invited expert of the European Commission
(DG Environment) for water efficiency in buildings.
Rodney Stewart is an Associate Professor and Director of the Centre for
Infrastructure Engineering & Management (CIEM) based at Griffith
University, Queensland, Australia. He is a specialist in engineering and
environmental management research, particularly related to smart water
metering and end-use analysis. He currently leads water end-use studies
covering potable-only water supply schemes, dual supply schemes and internally plumbed rain tank schemes. He was appointed as a National Water
Commission Fellow in 2011 to verify the end-use potable water savings
achievable from a range of contemporary water supply schemes. More
recently, his work has explored the residential end-use water–energy nexus
as well as the development of intelligent algorithms for autonomous water
end-use analysis. He has published over 100 refereed publications.
Siraj Tahir is an environmental engineer with a BSc from the University of
Missouri, Columbia and an MSc in Environmental and Water Resources
Engineering from City University London. He is an EngD Research Engineer
in Urban Sustainability and Resilience, Department of Civil Environmental
and Geomatics Engineering at University College London, sponsored by
EPSRC and Arup – supervised by Luiza Campos. His EngD focuses on the
role of rainwater harvesting for water resource and surface water management in London. His other research interests include integrated water management, water efficiency, alternate water supply systems and water-sensitive
urban design.
Vivian Tam is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Computing, Engineering
and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, Australia. She
About the Contributors xix
completed her PhD at the City University of Hong Kong on recycled concrete in 2005. She has been developing her research interests in the areas of
environmental management, sustainable construction and concrete recycling. She has continually published peer-reviewed articles in leading journals. She is also an invited member of the Editorial Advisory Board for
Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier; The Open Construction and
Building Technology Journal, plus The Open Waste Management Journal,
Bentham; and was an invited Editorial Review Panel Member for the
International Journal of Construction Project Management, Nova Science
Publishers, Inc. She was also invited as a Keynote Speaker for the First
International Research Symposium on Recycled Concrete and Its
Applications, Shanghai, China in July 2008. She has been a regular reviewer
for a number of leading international journals and conferences. Before joining UWS, she worked as a lecturer with the Griffith School of Engineering,
Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Robert Vale MA, DipArch, PhD is a Professorial Research Fellow in the
School of Architecture at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand. He
has written several books on environmental design, including The
Autonomous House (1975), Green Architecture (1990) and Time to Eat the
Dog? (2009). He is currently running a three-year FRST-funded research
­project to determine the form of ecologically sustainable communities in
New Zealand.
Sarah Ward is Business Engagement Manager, Centre for Business and
Climate Solutions and Research Fellow, Centre for Water Systems at the
University of Exeter, where she develops and manages relationships
with businesses, as well as undertaking research into social and technical
aspects of water reuse and alternate water systems. Her main area of interest is sustainable water management, in its many forms. She gained her PhD
from the University of Exeter, where she investigated socio-technical
aspects of rainwater harvesting systems. She has worked in the water sector
for over 10 years, recently working on projects investigating modelling
frameworks for integrated sustainable development, the socio-technical
integration of water and energy within new housing developments and how
practitioner and researcher engagement leads to impact generation. She has
a growing publication record, which includes over a dozen journal articles,
various conference papers and industry articles, three book chapters and a
book, currently in progress, on alternate water supply systems. She is an
Associate of the Higher Education Academy in the UK, a Chartered Member
(M.CIWEM) of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental
Management (CIWEM) and a Chartered Environmentalist (CEnv).
Terry Woolliscroft BSc (Hons) Grad. I Ceram is a ceramic technology graduate. He has worked in the bathroom industry for 35 years and has experienced
xx
About the Contributors
all aspects of the industry including product design and management, manufacturing, logistics, sales and marketing. With this breadth of knowledge
behind him he now concentrates on passing on his experience through specialist writing, lecturing and presenting training courses for those wishing to
enter the industry. He is a skilful producer of short specialist training and
marketing videos. He is also expert in creating entertaining, informative and
instructive PowerPoint presentations covering both the technical and
­marketing sides of the industry.
Foreword
Water is the cornerstone of civilisation. From the great cisterns of the Indus
Valley civilisation to the London ringmain, the supply of water is an essential part of human existence. Likewise, the wise use of water is at the centre
of the world’s religions and has cultural significance worldwide. But for the
past couple of centuries, humans have started to take water management for
granted. We have considered ourselves to be masters of the environment,
able to turn the direction of rivers and to build cities in the desert. This arrogance has led to failures that have demonstrated that we must live within
our natural means – the disaster of the Aral Sea, or the mining of aquifers in
California or the impending folly of the Chinese South–North transfer are all
examples of the hubris and arrogance of big civil engineering.
This massive engineering is a response to a gradual yet relentless global
water crisis which is being played out in slow motion in front of us. Water
is required for power generation, for transport, for manufacturing, for our
homes and most importantly to feed us, with global water use to produce
food currently at 200,000,000 litres per second. A growing population will
require more water for all of these things, and a changing climate will mean
accessing this water will become increasingly difficult. We will see more
floods and droughts, and this will strain the centralised water networks of
the developed world and worsen the dire water and sanitation situation in
the developing world. This uncertainty does not require large-scale
Victorian solutions, but small-scale flexible solutions that are appropriate
to the local situation. Because, unlike many of the global challenges we
face, this is one where the solutions are simple and accessible to us all.
Water is effectively a global commodity traded vicariously through the
movement of food, but at the same time all water is local. Simple actions
like turning the tap off when we brush our teeth or buying a water-efficient
washing machine will have a direct impact on the local aquatic environment, and engaging people through these actions will in turn engage them
in the wider global water issues.
Therefore, the real answer to our future water needs lies not in grandiose
schemes but in sustainable consumption in our homes and offices. We need
to look at the clever use of technology and social science to maximise and
optimise the use of existing supplies of water.
This is why water conservation in buildings is essential. Ultimately, we
should be aiming for buildings that are self-sufficient in water, and use natural processes to treat the water they use in a closed loop for reuse, energy and
food production. This may sound far-fetched but the technology is available
now, all we need is a confluence of policy, human behaviour, finance and
manufacture to provide the right conditions to enact these technologies.
xxii
Foreword
There is a lot of work taking place around the efficient use of water within
buildings, but often this is done in isolation, there is no point in developing
amazing water-saving devices that no one wants to use, and there is no point
in exhorting people to save water if they have no control over appliances
that use a predetermined amount. The way we should develop water-­
efficient buildings is to consider all aspects of the built environment, which
requires us to consider sociology as well as hydraulics, finance as well as
aesthetics, and local management as well as national policy.
This book provides a comprehensive assessment of the state of the art of
water efficiency in buildings, in both theory and practice. It covers all
aspects that influence water use in the home, from innovative water-saving
products to addressing the habitual manner in which we use water. This
provides academics, practitioners, NGOs, policy makers and others with all
the information and tools they require to develop water-efficient approaches
for the built environment. It contains contributions based on the knowledge
and experience of global experts in the field and draws conclusions on what
is required in terms of policy, regulation, stakeholder engagement and the
evidence base that will all enable the implementation of water-efficient
technologies.
In short, the world is facing a slow, relentless water crisis and the way we
interact with water in the built environment is central to dealing with the
crisis; this book holds the key to how we do that.
Jacob Tompkins
Managing Director, Waterwise
Preface
Water resources in many parts of the world are under stress due to ­increasing
global population, climate change, geographically variable and unpredictable rainfall patterns, inaccessible, unusable or difficult to abstract water,
high water use for industrial as well as agricultural processes and crucially
high water use for direct human activity, e.g. cleaning and washing.
According to UNESCO, 1.1 billion people around the globe already lack
­sufficient access to safe drinking water and it is predicted that water scarcity
will increase further in the coming decades, by around 20%, due to climate
change. Contrary to popular perception, water availability is not just
a ­challenge for countries in dry, arid regions. It is increasingly a global
­challenge irrespective of geo-climatic locations. To provide some perspective, recent figures show that some 120 million people in the European
region do not have access to safe drinking water.1 Areas with historic high
water availability increasingly suffer water stress as well, in addition to
­contending with excessive rainfall, floods, contaminated surface water, etc.
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) attributes about 20%
of global water use to the built environment.2 In the United Kingdom, the
water and sewerage sectors’ operational activities are directly responsible
for about 1% of the UK’s GHG emissions, together with embedded carbon
associated with constructing water industry assets. In addition, various
sources estimate that construction activity is responsible for about a third
of the carbon emissions and dwellings alone generate 27% of UK emissions,
of which 73% is attributable to space and water heating. The sector is also
responsible for just under a third of the waste in landfill sites, and about half
of all the water abstracted is supplied for domestic use.
The increasing pressures on water resources make it imperative, now
more than later, to optimise the use of water and minimise its waste in
buildings. Water efficiency is a process of optimisation which promotes
solutions that go far beyond the conservation of water, either in its natural
or refined state. Water efficiency is also the optimised use of water commensurate with need. However, it is not water saving to the extent that it is
detrimental to consumer health or welfare.
Appropriate content and levels of policy are essential for a systemic
approach to water efficiency. Legislative instruments, motivated by global
agreements such as Kyoto and Rio+, are now in place in many countries to
See United Nations World Water Development Reports online at: http://unesdoc.­
unesco.org.
2
See the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Global Environmental
Outlook 4 (GEO4) online at: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4.asp
1
xxiv
Preface
encourage sustainability practices: energy and water efficiency, sustainable
use of materials, reduction of carbon emissions, etc. Beyond legislation,
innovative science and technological solutions are also being explored
to make industrial, agricultural, infrastructural and construction or building processes more resource efficient. Examples include the use of nanotechnology in treatment processes, phase change materials in buildings and,
more relevantly, alternative water supply solutions such as rainwater and
greywater recycling.
Policy, products, process and people are the 4 P’s of water efficiency. The
need for a multifaceted approach suggests that system thinking is required.
This approach, in its ideal form, promotes open innovation, flexibility and
adaptability in the use of available water resources. Here, the concept of
availability links in with fundamental sustainability principles, in essence
‘living within one’s means’. As water is still a local resource in most parts of
the world, meaning it is less of a global commodity than, for example, crude
oil – which is transported thousands of miles from where it is abstracted – it
can be suggested that using water within one’s means is a better message for
promoting water efficiency.
This does not mean that use less water is not a good basis for the promotion of water-efficient practices. However, many factors bring to the fore
issues that go beyond the basic water conservation message. These include:
the ecological impact of abstraction practices, the environmental impact
and carbon footprint of water treatment and distribution, the associated
energy cost for hot water use, the use of potable water for non-potable uses,
the socio-cultural/psychological dimensions of water use, the locality and
to some extent the inelasticity of water demand.
To use water within one’s means, the user is forced to consider other
dimensions of water, particularly within the non-monetised context of
affordability. It also encourages the water user to make the all-important
connection needed to re-establish the link between water in the natural
environment and the water that comes out of the tap. It is, however, too
simplistic to predicate essential water use on the right catchphrase.
Therefore, public awareness messages are just one of the many tools
for promoting water efficiency. Besides, compared with publicity campaigns, public engagement and education are more effective for longerlasting results.
Water efficiency in buildings equally requires a holistic and integrated
approach, coupled with the right policies that promote the better design and
delivery of buildings, through the effective use of technologies and the
engagement of individuals, households and communities to make the necessary change to reduce and ultimately eliminate the waste of water. In
essence, a holistic solution is required that integrates policy, process, people
and product; design, planning and engineering; as well as the science and
technology of buildings and its constituent parts.
Preface xxv
This book, believed to be the first of its kind, is about the theory and
practice of water efficiency in buildings. It was proposed by the Water
­
Efficiency in Buildings Network to collate multidisciplinary research
­outputs and demonstrate that integrated knowledge from these areas can
contribute to a holistic water-efficiency solution, applicable to all areas
of the supply and demand spectrum. The aim is also to signpost current
knowledge, innovation, expertise and evidence on the subject. In doing this,
it presents different viewpoints, and readers are encouraged to look out for
synergy and agreement where they occur. The book also presents studies
from various regions of the world to provide different contexts and opportunities to learn best practice from other countries.
The book is presented in five sections: Policy, People, Building Design
and Planning, Alternative Water Technologies and Practical Examples
and Case Studies. The final section of the book presents new and current
practice and some useful lessons using case examples. The research and
case studies fall within the water supply and demand spectrum, especially
those that focus on process efficiency, resource management, building
performance, customer experience and user participation, sustainable
practices, scientific and technological innovation. The content of the
book can be applied at the local and national level, as well as in the global
context.
The sections of the book do not serve to create theoretical boundaries or
delineations. They are for pragmatic reasons only and there is significant
overlap within chapters and across sections. After all, this is expected if
system thinking is involved. An overview and summary is provided at the
beginning of each section to signpost the content. The book can be read in
the order in which it is presented, or the component chapters may be read or
consulted in a manner that suits the reader.
The key points from the book, in no particular order, are as follows:
•• More evidence is still needed for water efficiency in buildings, but this
does not simply imply more disparate data. Evidence gathering needs to be
more methodical, multidimensional, dynamic, longitudinal, repeatable
and transferable.
•• Stakeholder involvement is crucial, particularly for water-efficiency policy.
•• More policy to promote user engagement, empowerment, choice and
responsibility will be beneficial.
•• Unambiguous regulations and guidelines for water-efficient technologies
are required. These should particularly address areas – e.g., alternative
water technologies – where regulation is often ‘silent’.
•• Methodologies are needed to define the value of water and to calculate
the lifecycle cost/benefit of water-efficiency designs and interventions,
particularly in buildings.
xxvi
Preface
•• Water-efficiency campaigns should be carefully devised to be less
­interventionist – e.g., only when there is a water crisis such as a drought.
Instead, they should be proactive, continuous, consistent and targeted at
improving public knowledge of water processes.
Kemi Adeyeye
Water Efficiency in Buildings Network
University of Brighton
Acknowledgements
This book was proposed by the Water Efficiency in Buildings Network
funded by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
Thank you to the Water Efficiency in Buildings Network members and
strategic partners for their participation and contribution to the vision and
relevance of the network.
Thank you to the contributing authors – for their contributions, tolerating
the tight deadlines and their many hours dedicated to research on water
efficiency.
Thank you to Jean Balnave for her hard work in managing the editor, completing paperwork, coordinating the authors and generally helping to make
sure that the manuscript was finished and sent by the deadline.
And thank you to family, and friends, for their support and understanding,
and for putting up with the long working hours.
Abbreviations
ABSacrylonitrile butadiene styrene
ADaverage day
AIRSAction in Rural Sussex
AMRautomatic meter reading
ANQIPAssociação Nacional para a Qualidade nas Instalações
Prediais (National Association for Quality and Efficiency in
Building Services, Portugal)
AOPadvanced oxidation process
ARCCadaptation and resilience in a changing climate
ASTMAmerican Society for Testing and Materials
BEESBuilding Energy End-use Study
BMABathroom Manufacturers’ Association
BMPbest management practice
BODbiochemical oxygen demand
BREBuilding Research Establishment
BREEAM
BRE Environmental Assessment Method
CASBEEComprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment
Efficiency
CGPconcrete grid pavers
CHPcombined heat and power plant
CLGcommunities and local government
CODchemical oxygen demand
CSACanadian Standards Association
CSHCode for Sustainable Homes
DALYDisability Affected Life Year
DARTDialogue, Access, Risk and Transparency
DBPdisinfection by-products
DEFRADepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DESADepartment of Economic and Social Affairs
DGNBDeutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (German
Sustainable Building Council)
DIYdo it yourself
DNAdeoxyribonucleic acid
DWIDrinking Water Inspectorate
EAEnvironment Agency
EDPElectricidade de Portugal (Electricity of Portugal/Energy
Operator, Portugal)
EPBDEnergy Performance of Buildings
EPSRCEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
ESRCEconomic and Social Research Council
Abbreviations
xxix
ESTEnergy Savings Trust
ETAEspecificação Técnica ANQIP (Technical Specification
ANQIP)
EUEuropean Union
ggram
GACgranular activated carbon
GDPgross domestic product
GHGgreenhouse gas
GRPglass reinforced plastic/polymers
GSHPground source heat pump
GWPGlobal Water Partnership
HCAHomes and Communities Agency
HIAHealth Impact Assessment
HK-BEAM
Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method
HVACheating, ventilation and air conditioning
IPCCIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRRI-MexicoInternational Renewable Resources Institute, Mexico
ITinformation technology
KDFkinetic degradation fluxion
kWkilowatt
kWhkilowatt hour
llitre
l/hrlitres per hour
l/p/dlitres per person per day
LEEDLeadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LIDlow impact development
LIUDDlow-impact urban design and development
mmetre
MBBRmoving bed biofilm reactor
MBRmembrane bioreactor
mg/lmilligrams per litre
minminute
mlmillilitre
mmmillimetre
mm/hmillimetres per hour
MoEMinistry of Energy
MPamegapascal
NGOnon-governmental organisation
NIEANorthern Ireland Environment Agency
NLAnet lettable floor area
NPPFNational Planning Policy Framework
NTUnephelometric turbidity unit
NVivoa qualitative data analysis computer software package
OfwatOffice of Water Services
xxx
Abbreviations
PDpeak demand
PEpolyelectrolyte
PEAASARPlano Estratégico de Abastecimento de Água e
Saneamento de Águas Residuais (Strategic Plan for Water
Supply and Sewerage, Portugal)
PICPpermeable interlocking concrete pavement
PNUEAPrograma Nacional para o Uso Eficiente da Água
(National Programme for the Efficient Use of Water,
Portugal)
PPSpermeable paving system
PVCpoly vinyl chloride
QMRAQuantitative Microbial Risk Assessment
R&Dresearch and development
RBCrotating biological contactors
RNAribonucleic acid
ROreverse osmosis
RVrateable value
RWHrainwater harvesting
secsecond
SELLsustainable economic level of leakage
SEMARNATSecretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
(Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources),
Mexico
SEPAScottish Environment Protection Agency
SHWsanitary hot water
SMEssmall and medium enterprises
SPRGSustainable Practices Research Group
SPSSa software package used for statistical analysis
SRAstrategic risk assessment
SUDsustainable urban drainage
SuDssustainable urban drainage systems
SWSSave Water Swindon
THMtrihalomethanes
µmmicrometre
UNUnited Nations
UNDESAUnited Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs
UNEPUnited Nations Environment Programme
UNESCOUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation
USEPAUnited States Environmental Protection Agency
USGBCUS Green Building Council
UVultraviolet
WaNDwater cycle management for new developments
Abbreviations
WCwater closet (flush toilet)
WDMwater demand management
WELSwater efficiency labelling scheme
WERTwater efficiency rating tool
WHOWorld Health Organisation
WSUDwater-sensitive urban design
WTPwater treatment plant
WUIwater use index
WuPwater-using products
WWCWorld Water Council
WWFWorld Wildlife Fund
YASyield after spill
YBSyield before spill
xxxi
Section 1
Policy
Water as a limited or scare resource is increasingly valued particularly in
areas where water resources used to be abundant. This is due to the fact that
water availability is increasing unpredictable, and climate and rainfall
­patterns change. The rising demand due to population growth and indiscriminate use for human activities is also a key factor. For instance, water
use in buildings; direct water use for washing, cleaning or indirect use e.g.
hot water and space heating, is substantial. In Europe, water use in buildings
account for about 21% of total water use and this figure does not represent
the environmental impact associated with the abstraction, supply of water
to buildings as well as the environmental and ecological cost; e.g. chemical
pollutants in water courses, and treating waste water. To this end, legislative instruments and directives such as the European Union Water
Framework Directive have become necessary tools to provoke immediate
solutions to address water resource management as a whole.
The United Nations Millennium Development goals, as a global objective, highlighted the importance of assured water availability through better
water resource efficiency. First and foremost because access to safe and
secure water is essential for basic quality of life. It is however the responsibility of national and local governments to take the action to implement
these global objectives within their local circumstances. This section highlights the importance of national water policies but emphasises localised or
context-led implementation.
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2
Policy
This policy section of the book presents an overview of policy and
­regulatory processes in three different climatic contexts. It discusses the
role of government to ensure water supply, the nature and regulation of
the water industry, as well as policy influences such as interest groups and
the general public. Starting with the United Kingdom, the first chapter
reviews the different policy and regulatory context in the various regions of
the country. It focusses on the regulatory context of England and Wales to
highlight how the nature of the water industry influences the approach and
role of policy makers. It then reviews policy for water use efficiency, highlighting the importance of public engagement and buy-in in the implementation of water-efficiency policy. A stakeholder study of policy for water
efficiency is then presented to highlight the inherent constraints to delivering holistic water-efficiency solutions. The findings from this study are
then presented under key policy areas identified by the government. From
the findings, the policy constraints are identified but opportunities to innovate and do things differently are also discussed. This chapter concludes
with recommendations to promote innovation and positive change for
water efficiency through improved evidence processes, communication and
multi-stakeholder involvement.
Water availability in the UK varies across the country. As a result, the
water industry operates in and adapt to a range of factors; environmental
issues, changes in users’ behavioural patterns, lifestyle, population growth,
dated water infrastructure, etc. However, these challenges are not unique to
the UK and many countries around the world are facing infrastructural,
social, climatic and environmental challenges in the bid to secure future
water supply. Therefore, there are many opportunities to learn from countries where water challenges are an emerging, or established problem. Hence,
the next chapter which reviews water policy and regulation in a water
stressed region. The chapter presents the water resource issues for the country and discusses the policy approach; both traditional and modern, as well
as the role of the various levels of government in implementing water
­policies. Similarly to the previous chapter, it discusses water policy priorities and enumerates the short, medium and long term opportunities and
constraints in this policy context. The chapter then highlights what works
well and areas of improvement. The chapter concludes with context-driven
and context-independent recommendations.
The third chapter explores water policy in the Mediterranean context. The
Mediterranean countries have some degree of specificity when it comes to
water resource efficiency and use. For example, the predictions of water
stress are much more critical. There are also specific climatic challenges
such as the coincidental hot and dry season, which makes it difficult to
implement certain water-efficiency measures, such as rainwater harvesting.
The chapter discusses these issues within the political context of Portugal. It
discusses recent policy collaboration between government and stakeholders,
Policy
3
working in partnership to propose and promote context-led water-efficiency
policy, regulations and technical guidance for the country. Several policies
for efficient use of water are presented, including a system of voluntary labeling of products.
This section commenced and concludes by highlighting the role and
importance of the water user and stakeholder involvement and engagement
in water-efficiency policy, particularly in buildings. The section as a whole
also affirms the localised nature of water. Even though water resource issues
have global consequence, there appears to be a consensus that in certain
circumstances regional, localised policy strategies are often required to target regional differences, including; geo-climatic variations, cultural requirements and rural-urban differences.
The key points of this section can be summarised as follows:
•• Water efficiency in buildings requires both legislative and voluntary
instruments. Legislative drivers can be used to create a positive environment and collective will in order to achieve national or global ­sustainability
objectives.
•• Global and national resource efficiency goals are important, however,
water resources still remain, to a large extent, a local commodity.
•• Therefore, water-efficiency policy should be adaptable for different regions
and contexts and consider local factors such as environment, climate,
physical and building characteristics, technological availability, cost and
socio-cultural factors that may influence the extent to which they are
effective. This is because universal measures may not always be applicable or implementable in certain areas.
•• Public engagement and buy-in is crucial for effective policy making.
Understanding water user needs, preferences and perceptions could help
to improve uptake of initiatives as well as the public response to waterefficiency policy.
•• Water-efficiency policy, led and promoted by non-governmental stakeholders and the general public, should be encouraged. An example of
stakeholder contribution to water-efficiency policy and implementation
was presented in this section.
•• Water efficiency policy should be informed by robust evidence, and effective means should be used to communicate this evidence to the public.
Water efficiency messaging should have more depth in order to raise the
knowledge capacity of the populace. Knowledgeable water users are more
likely to make informed, and sustained, positive change to save water.
•• It is also for this reason that policy makers need to move beyond the rhetoric and provide clear guidance and standards for implementing water
efficiency, particularly in buildings. These guidelines should not only
­
cover ‘quick fix’ solutions such as water saving fittings and products but
should promote holistic solutions including water reuse and recycling.
4
Policy
•• Certification, accreditation, tariffs, metering or labelling schemes are
­useful ways to inform and promote knowledgeable decision making in
building providers and their clients. However, these schemes should be
based on robust methodologies and singular in approach and message.
•• Water efficiency policy for buildings should cover all types or buildings;
new and existing.
•• Lastly, it is imperative to close the gap between energy and water-­efficiency
policy.
1
Water Policy and Regulations:
A UK Perspective
Kemi Adeyeye
School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, UK
Introduction
Water resource management is at the forefront of policy objectives in both
developed and developing countries. This originates from current water availability and stress in certain regions, as well as evidence of future resource
uncertainty. UNESCO (2006) predicted that some 20% of the increase in water
scarcity in the coming decades will be caused by climate change and stated
that about 1.1 billion people around the globe already lack sufficient access to
safe drinking water. Recent figures on Europe show that some 120 million
people in the region do not have access to safe drinking water (UNESCO,
2012). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) also
­predict that water stress will increase in Central and Southern Europe, and by
the 2070s, the number of people affected will rise by 16 to 44 million. Similar
to global action for the reduction in greenhouse gas e­ missions, the businessas-usual scenario is becoming less of an option. The call for action is, however,
supported by pledges made by political leaders in global forums such as the Rio
Earth Summit. In the UN Millennium Declaration (2000), the international
community pledged to stop the ­unsustainable exploitation of water resources
by developing water management strategies at the regional, national and local
levels, which promote both equitable access and ­adequate supplies. Signatories
also promised to halve, by 2015, the proportion of people who are unable to
reach or afford safe drinking water.
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
6
Policy
At the core of any demand management strategy is water efficiency; the
optimised use of water commensurate with need, which is not based on
objective indicators only but considers equally subjective need. This implies
that water efficiency does not stop at water conservation. Water efficiency
also acknowledges essential water use; this means that it does not simply
advocate the reduction of water consumption to an extent detrimental to
consumer health or welfare. Instead, an understanding of customer behaviour and need is realised such that water is used optimally. Water efficiency
is also about systems-led integrated solutions such that water waste is eliminated through behaviour, technology and infrastructure efficiency.
This chapter presents the policy and regulatory framework for water and
water efficiency in the UK. Using data from interviews, it explores the
opportunities and constraints for proposing and implementing policy for
human water use efficiency and concludes with some practical policy
recommendations.
Water policy and context
Water policy encompasses the management of resources, regulation of
abstraction activities, maintaining the balance between supply and demand
through the efficient use of water, as well as consulting, informing and educating the public to make the choice to minimise water waste. The GWP
Technical Committee (2004) report advocated an integrated approach to
water resource management and water efficiency strategies, proposing that:
•• Policies and priorities take water resource implications into account,
including the two-way relationship between macro-economic policies and
water development, management and use.
•• There is cross-sectoral integration in policy development.
•• Stakeholders are given a voice in water planning and management, with
particular attention on securing the participation of women and the poor.
•• Water-related decisions made at local and river basin levels are in line
with, or at least do not conflict with, the achievement of broader national
objectives.
•• Water planning and strategies are integrated into broader social, economic
and environmental goals.
UK policy, regulations and the industry context
Governance, policy and regulations for the water sector vary in the UK
home nations and are informed in most parts by the nature of the water
industry. For instance, Scotland and Northern Ireland operate a publicowned water industry whilst England and Wales operate a privatised
Water Policy and Regulations: A UK Perspective
7
monopoly market system. In Scotland, Scottish Water – a public sector
corporation, provides the public drinking water and sewerage services and
the Water Industry Commission serves as the economic regulator to protect consumer interests and regulate the company’s finances. This role is
fulfilled by the Utility Regulator in Northern Ireland, who also regulates
the electricity and gas ­sector. Non-domestic water customers in Scotland
are billed according to metered consumption. For domestic customers,
household water and sewerage charges are billed and collected by individual local authorities, together with Council Tax. The Council Tax is a
local taxation used to part fund ­public services provided by local authorities. In 2013–14, the average household charge for water and sewerage
­services is £334, £54 less than the average charge in England and Wales
(Scottish Government, 2013).
Northern Ireland Water (NI Water) is the only provider of public water
and sewerage services in Northern Ireland. NI Water has dual status as a
government-owned company and a non-departmental public body. Nondomestic customers are charged for these services and trade effluents, if
applicable. Domestic customers do not pay direct water charges and, in
March 2013, the decision to introduce charges was deferred to 2016.
In England and Wales, water and sewerage services are delivered by 21
private companies in a privatised monopoly market system. These water
companies provide water only or water and sewerage services to customers
in their area of operation. Domestic customers are served by the company
that operates in their geographical location and have no choice over who
supplies water and sewerage services. Almost all non-domestic customers
are metered. However, a little over 40% of domestic customers are currently
metered. The rest are billed at a rateable value (RV) calculated as a function
of the value of their property.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is
responsible for water resources and associated matters in England. The
Office of Water Services (Ofwat) has a duty to ensure that the water companies finance and carry out their functions properly, and protect customers’
interests by promoting good quality service and value for money. Ofwat also
regulates water prices in England and Wales. The Environment Agency (EA)
is responsible for managing water resources in England and Wales. This role
is fulfilled in Scotland by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency
(SEPA) and in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Environment
Agency (NIEA). Together, they ensure that water is abstracted and used efficiently, water environments are conserved and relevant aspects of the Water
Framework Directive are implemented. The Communities and Local
Government (CLG) department is responsible for the Building Regulations
and Planning laws, while the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) for
Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales regulates water quality and
associated factors.
8
Policy
The policy and regulatory framework in England and Wales compared
with Scotland and Northern Ireland reflects the nature of the water
industry. In England and Wales, public water and sewerage services are
predominantly provided by private companies who do not compete for
water resources or customers within their geographical jurisdiction. The
Draft Water Bill (HM Government, 2012), if passed into law, includes
provisions to:
•• allow all business and other non-household customers in England to
switch their water and sewerage suppliers;
•• remove some of the existing regulatory requirements that act as a barrier
to new entrants who wish to enter the market.
Current standards and regulations for water efficiency in buildings
In the UK, the Scottish, Northern Ireland, England and Welsh Governments
require that all building work complies with standards specified in the
­relevant Building Regulations in accordance with the stipulations in the
Building Act 1984. A landmark provision in Part 7 of the Building Regulations
for England and Wales in April 2010 included explicit provisions for water
efficiency. It imposed a maximum water consumption limit of 125 litres per
person per day for new dwellings calculated in accordance with the methodology set out in the document ‘The Water Efficiency Calculator for New
Dwellings’ (Building Regulations, 2010). There is no such provision in the
building regulations for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
There are other voluntary methods used to measure and implement sustainability, including water efficiency standards in buildings. Examples
include the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) Standard. CSH Level 3 compliance is required for all new housing funded by the Homes and Communities
Agency (HCA), all new social housing in Northern Ireland and all that are
promoted or supported by the Welsh Assembly Government or associated
bodies, the EU water label by the Bathroom Manufacturers Association and
the BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) for domestic
­refurbishment projects.
The water industry and the regulatory processes in the UK offer unique
policy challenges and opportunities. This affects the extent to which the
efficient management and use of water resources can be promoted to meet
requirements such as those stipulated in the EU Water Framework Directive:
to minimise water stress and contribute towards achieving the 80% carbon
emission reduction target by 2050. The next section reviews policy for water
users and the rest of the chapter proceeds to investigate opportunities for
and constraints on the effective delivery of water efficiency policy in England
and Wales. This region of the UK was selected due to the unique nature of
the water industry as previously described.
Water Policy and Regulations: A UK Perspective
9
Policy for water users
In any political entity, supply and demand-side efficiency is needed to
achieve water resource objectives. The GWP Technical Committee (2004)
classifies efficiency as allocative and technical. Technical water efficiency
comprises user efficiency, water recycling and reuse, as well as supply efficiency. User efficiency, managing human consumption, is a significant part
of any demand management strategy and therefore should be an integral
part of any water efficiency policy.
More than half of the water supplied in the UK is distributed for human
consumption (EA, 2008). Furthermore, water – as a ‘public’ service – is often
perceived according to the amount of wellbeing people derive from it (Larson,
2010). But to devise policy to incorporate the socio-psychological dimensions
of water and the subjectivity that this brings can be a major challenge for
policy makers. To this end, a combination of different factors – including
changes in the social role of science, complexity and uncertainty – has contributed to the emergence of the general public as an important ‘actor’ in
water management and efficiency (de Franca Doria, 2010). After all, the active
involvement of stakeholders brings new insights, information and knowledge
into evaluation and decision-making processes (Edelenbos et al., 2011).
It is therefore essential to debate how and when to engage with the public
on water issues. For example, Hartley (2006) identified a number of themes
that are crucial in maintaining public confidence – for example, in water
reuse. This includes promoting communication and public dialogue and
managing information for all stakeholders. Dessai and Sims (2010) proposed
that public behaviour can be influenced by effective communication through
recognised government bodies such as the Environment Agency. However,
Russell and Hampton (2006), in an Australian case study, discuss the challenges in understanding public responses and providing effective public consultation on water reuse. They argue that current understanding of public
reactions to these issues is insufficient, and there needs to be a broad
appraisal of the information needs of the public so that this strategy can be
effectively deployed.
Other studies suggest that water issues often come to the fore in public life
after risk events such as floods or prolonged droughts, also citing the prolonged drought in Australia as an example. Some evidence agrees with this
claim. A study of public perception in South East England, an area of water
stress, found that members of the public had a good awareness of the water
shortages in 2006 (after a period of drought), concluding that consumers are
willing to change their behaviour if a threat is obvious or to protect the environment (Dessai and Sims, 2010). However, there is little evidence to suggest
that this level of awareness was sustained beyond this period. Therefore, public campaigns at times of crisis should be carefully devised. This is to avoid
10
Policy
the ‘rebound effect’, particularly when campaign claims appear to contradict
natural trends. The UK context provides a good example of this. In 2012, the
UK annual rainfall total was 1331 mm (115% of average) – the second highest
since 1910, narrowly beaten by 2000 (1337 mm) and the third wettest year in
England and Wales since 1766 (UK Met Office, 2012). This deluge of rainfall
was preceded by a period of drought, hosepipe bans and several media campaigns about water shortages. The unpredictable weather patterns resulting in
increasing variability in seasonal rainfall are now referred to as the ‘new normal’. However, public perception of water as a natural resource, public service
or commodity does not always correlate with the science of climate change
and water availability. This fact cannot simply be dismissed, as high public
participation is required to achieve water efficiency goals (McKenzie-Mohr,
2000) and ignoring public perceptions or sentiment can prevent water policy
goals from being achieved (Dolnicar and Hurlimann, 2010).
Public engagement is crucial for water efficiency, which is also about eliminating waste in water processes. Reducing water waste is about the essential
and appropriate supply and use of the right amount and type of water for the
necessary functions for which it is intended. This forms the argument for
water recycling and reuse in buildings, where approximately a third of potable
water demand is – to coin a phrase – flushed down the toilet. Leakage is also
a source of waste. Dripping taps in buildings is an example. For this reason,
most water companies have or are installing Automatic Meter Reading (AMR)
in properties, which help to detect leakage inside property boundaries.
However, 2559 megalitres of water per day (22%) were lost through leakage in
England and Wales during 2010–11, primarily in the water distribution infrastructure (17%). This is a rise of 2.6% over the previous year but a fall of 34%
since the peak in 1994–5 (Ofwat, 2012). It is worth adding that these figures
compare favourably with other countries in Europe and Northern America.
Water companies are set a leakage target by Ofwat based on the Sustainable
Economic Level of Leakage (SELL). This is the level at which the cost of further reducing leakage exceeds the cost of producing water from another source.
However, acceptable levels of leakage are still a highly sensitive public perception issue that needs to be demystified to the water customer. The media and
customer interest groups can work with policy makers, regulators and water
companies to better engage with the public on this issue. Public involvement,
particularly through pressure from interest groups and the media, has led to
many positive developments in recent years. Franceys and Gerlach (2011) surmise that changes such as the ban on disconnections, the introduction of the
vulnerable charging scheme for those on low incomes with large families or
specific illnesses, the growing emphasis on domestic metering (at considerable
but unknown cost to customers) and leak detection sometimes beyond
the ‘economic level of leakage’ can be traced back to specific television
­programmes more easily than to any outcomes of stakeholder discussions.
The Water White Paper (HM Government, 2011) identified steps to
improve the government’s understanding of the motivation of individuals to
Water Policy and Regulations: A UK Perspective
11
adopt water-efficient behaviours, as well as the barriers. Proposed strategies
include developing and testing messages around why saving water is important and considering how these can be applied to encourage more waterefficient behaviour, then using this to inform a campaign to save water and
protect the environment. Also, it was identified that there is a need for
­better coordination between water companies, regulators and customers to
disseminate consistent messages and raise awareness of the connection
between water use and the quality of rivers and ecosystems.
Methodology
This study utilised the critical research approach using semi-structured
interviews. The semi-structured approach was applied with the specific use
of open-ended questions. In an open-ended interview, the interviewer poses
a question and then allows the subject to answer as they wish. The interviewer may probe for more details but does not set the terms of the interview. This allows a less constrained interaction between the interviewer
and the interviewee. However, this method is limited by the need for the
participants to share basic concepts and methods, without which they will
be unable to negotiate shared meaning for the questions asked (Coughlan
and Macredie, 2002).
Interview participants comprised nine strategic stakeholders and four
strategic policy makers within DEFRA responsible for water resource
­management, water efficiency, charging, etc. Other participants were one
academic expert on water and waste treatment, two water company representatives, one representative from the building regulatory bodies and one
participant from a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO).
The interviews provided further insights and understanding of the
problem setting by examining narrative, text-based data. It is a very good
way of accessing stakeholders’ perceptions, meanings and definitions of
situations, as well as the constructions of reality in the subject of study
(Punch, 2005).
Interview findings
The interviews were recorded, transcribed and subjected to text mining:
content and context analysis (Delen and Crossland, 2008) to identify recurring key words and the context in which they occur. Findings from the analysis were then clustered under seven main themes: Water Demand, Water
Supply, Water Efficiency, Water Quality, Water Initiatives, Economics and
Market Factors, Climate and Environment. Sub-themes were also identified, as shown in the interview summary in Table 1.1. The summary shows
interviewee comments in italics.
Water
supply
Water
demand
Policy
objective
Table 1.1
“Abstraction licences are not based on what
people abstract, they are based on licensed
capacity which is equivalent to rateable value
for customers.”
Dual supply is easier in new build but
potentially difficult in existing buildings.
With leakage, the focus is on the cost/benefit
argument with more emphasis on cost than
benefit.
More research/evidence is needed to ensure
that the theoretical water demand figures
compare with what exists in reality.
“The best approach is always the integrated
strategic solution; non-coordinated measures
can sometimes work against each other.”
“Supply issues: few or no new abstraction
sources, need special agreements for new
reservoirs, climate/environmental factors,
e.g. droughts) and the impact on the
replenishment of sources, wholesomeness
of water and environment, expensive and
not easily deployable alternatives,
e.g. desalination.”
Supply and demand is a balancing act to find
the optimum point and it is difficult to ensure
that one does not outweigh the other.
Constraints
“Mitigation is using innovation – technology,
processes, etc. to reduce pressure on water
resources and the environment. It can be
climate change mitigation, reducing carbon
emissions, etc.”
Points raised
Interview summary, excluding water supply and quality objectives
Charging for actual abstraction will encourage
abstraction transfers and encourage better
balancing without the need for regulation.
Revise abstraction licences to reflect amount
abstracted and perhaps add a catchment coefficient
(environmental factor, improvements needed,
administration costs, etc.). This should then be
reinvested to support catchment management
schemes.
National grid – consider water sharing by linking
up regional infrastructure ‘at the edges’, thereby
facilitating licence trading and relieving pressure
on stressed sources.1
Avoid penalising people for their need to use water
but explore the opportunity to penalise waste.
Apply maximum flow rates to taps/showers, etc.
based on real performance studies.
Opportunities
People and
behaviour
Water
efficiency
Alternative
water supply
Cost/benefit argument supersedes the
transformational change argument. Customer
perception is either water as a commodity or
as a right. Not charging for its worth reinforces
the social paradigm.
“Savings on water bills should not be the
singular argument. Water is relatively
cheap. However, save water and save on
sewerage bills is good, then commoditise
sewerage. Or similarly use the energy
argument.”
The key burden for water efficiency is on water
companies – especially the sustainability of
abstraction, supply, leakages, etc. Water
efficiency in existing buildings is also the
responsibility of water companies.
“Lots of pilot schemes, but do we know
whether water efficiency schemes, devices,
etc. are effective? The evidence available so
far is highly subjective.”
Do technological interventions change
behaviour in the long term?
The problem with water efficiency discussions
is that the short-term cost/benefit argument
always outweighs everything else.
“There is a rationale for water efficiency:
over-abstraction in some areas due to
increased pressure from demand, increasing
population (growth points).”
“Advise, incentivise then regulate.”
The challenge is the dispersed ownership and
responsibility. Water use in domestic buildings
is difficult to target or control.
There are issues of ownership with communal
solutions – maintenance, etc.
“Even if not effective, perhaps it is good for
the message?”
“Water efficiency hierarchy is first to reduce,
then reuse (the first two deal with demand
and supply issues), then recycle (similar to
the waste management principles).”
Is rain/grey water more sustainable than mains
water?
Short-term carbon argument – alternative
supply technologies can be carbon intensive.
They can also be expensive and there is little
evidence about their effectiveness.
(continued )
Promote customer choice as a means to behaviour
transformation.
Reduce ambiguity and assumptions in occupancy
and user behaviour data. Study actual building use
and consumption.
Include consumer awareness and allocate
ownership and responsibility for water consumption
and waste accordingly.
The water efficiency programme should include a
package of measures. Single measures will have
less impact.
Opportunity for localised water efficiency measures,
which are more likely to increase impact.
Provide policy guidance on water reuse/recycle
systems.
Opportunity to introduce a long-term (lifecycle)
analysis approach to discussions on technological
interventions.
Buildings
Technology
Policy
objective
Table 1.1
Lack of lifecycle, post-occupancy
considerations in provisions for domestic
buildings is an issue.
New houses provide an opportunity to deploy
innovations in building services. The new
regulations may promote this.
Explore the integrated approach and personalised
solutions.
Water-saving devices and technologies may
be functional but may not be effective for
transforming demand or changing behaviour.
“It is expected that measures for new
buildings (Code for Sustainable Homes, Part
G Building Regulations, etc.) will influence
the standard replacement market.”
Allowing market forces to prevail sometimes means
that if a technology fails, the customer is
empowered to take action against the manufacturer
either through statutory or legal means, which in
turn will make manufacturers guard against poor
quality products.
Opportunities to implement policy frameworks for
technologies based on quality/performance,
appropriate installation/use, etc.
To transform demand, make the link between
energy and water and present it rationally, not as
sentiments to the customer.
Investment cost and payback for new
technologies is still an issue.
“Push the message too far and risk losing the
message altogether.”
“It is about managing expectations and
putting responsibility in the right place.”
Promote strategies that target fitting/equipment
replacement cycles and building retrofitting/
renovation cycles. Improve the perception of quality/
performance of water-efficient products.
“Technology in itself is not usually the
problem – it is often when it breaks down due
to improper use or lack of maintenance,
etc.”
Visibility and transparency is important from all
parties in order to change perception.
“The sociology of water should include creating
a more clever way for how people act and
interact with water. Better message in the
broadest sense: waste water, waste energy.”
Instead, engage with social paradigms – compare
household bills with street/neighbourhood average
for example.
Government involvement in promoting
water-saving technologies may imply liabilities:
functional, maintenance and operational.
Public perception of taxing for essential water
use. Introducing an additional green or
environment tax generally leads to negative
public perceptions.
“There may be a regional or localised
perception of water that may need to be
taken into account.”
Opportunities
“Avoid quick fix technological solutions, seek
long-term sustainable solutions.”
Constraints
Points raised
(Cont’d )
Water
initiatives/
measures/
schemes
Treatment
Water
quality
Public take-up of technologies and initiatives is
generally low. A large-scale study is required;
small-sample studies here and there do not
present a holistic view of what is going on and
what is needed.
Diffused pollution and other factors such as
turbidity in rivers due to excessive rainfall and
excess surface water tepidity or movement in
chalk are issues affecting water treatment.
“Water treatment is not water sterilisation.
Ultimately, it reduces the hazard but it does
not take away the risk.”
“Encourage labelling schemes, but they
should be standardised across the industry
and not just voluntary, and this can be done
within the water fittings regulation.”
Centralised treatment is cheap, which
constrains the uptake of new technologies
such as grey-water recycling that decentralises
water treatment.
It is considered part of the role of government
to provide public health initiatives. Depending
on the political outlook of the government,
water can alternate between being a
commodity (sufficiently regulated) and a social
resource (heavily regulated).
“A socio-psychological paradigm: good
drinking water is considered a right by some.”
“People need to be rational about the risks.
There is too much focus on the hazard rather
than the risks; this has led to a broad brush
approach.”
Contamination can still occur when technology
breaks down or with too much trust by people
(e.g.. farm camp sites, city centre fountains
and the expectation that all water sources are
of drinking water quality).
“Water quality is about managing
expectations and controlling risks. The
misconception is that it is about controlling
hazards.”
The risk that new regulations may increase the
price of building or providing houses.
(continued )
Target professional certification schemes, e.g.
plumbers. This is not only good for planners and
developers but can be used to inform and educate
the public too.
Also for water customers, give incentives for
savings and penalise excesses. Link with the WFD
‘polluter pays’ principle.
As with abstraction, waste licences/permits should
account for the amount of discharge.
Alternatives can be a broader catchment
management approach or natural bio-film filtration
processes.
Opportunity for treatment to be cheaper through
decentralisation, then apply the difference to
innovation and improved services to customers.
Educate and improve public awareness.
Good measures should include catchment
treatment and then educating the public on the
benefits and how to respond.
In the building industry, developers generally give
clients what they want. So influence the client, you
influence the developer/market.
Metering
Policy
objective
Table 1.1
100% metering might be expensive, especially
in some types of building (e.g., flats).
Some metering arguments: fairness (pay for
what you use), paying makes people conserve
water in the short term (an untested premise
for the long term). Metering could also lead to
increased bills/tariffs, especially for RV
properties.
Metering is seen as one of the ways to deliver
demand management without the cost.
Metering requires providing information and
choice to translate into increased water
efficiency.
“The Walker report (2009) recommended
‘metering in certain cases’, however, it should
be compulsory metering with certain
exceptions. Eliminate the cost/benefit
argument, eliminate the high discretionary
use argument.”
“The problem with metering is that water is
still cheap and it is not on people’s big list of
things to save.”
“The challenge with metering boils down to
the new build/existing build dichotomy. There
is the need to ‘bite the bullet’ on this and try
the public engagement route, measure
impact, then regulate if necessary.”
Consolidate measures/initiatives, e.g. labelling
schemes, WRAS schemes, etc.
The dynamics of paying/bills does not
necessary impact on the willingness to change
or increase uptake of initiatives.
There is the current difficulty of knowing the
impact of existing measures or campaigns.
Opportunity for compulsory metering should be
combined with measures that help certain
households mitigate their bills. This will in turn
reduce the cost for debt collection and debts being
shared across the customer base.
An opportunity for market transformation. Metering
will make people think about what products they
use and the type of fittings.
There is the option to deploy minimum water
allowance to a property and charge for the rest.
Potential benefits: demand information for future
forecasting/decisions, better interactions with
customers (unproven), opportunities to promote
water efficiency, scope for smart metering and
innovative tariffs.
Avoiding new measures without a strategy for
monitoring and measuring the impact of
existing ones.
Opportunities
Constraints
“Metering is a useful solution for maintaining
the water balance.”
Points raised
(Cont’d )
Positive relationship between water companies
and their customers can increase water
efficiency, and this is sometimes lacking.
Water companies in the UK are not ‘real’
private enterprises.
“Water companies generally do things if
instructed and based on funding systems.
This stifles improvement, innovation.”
Easier to focus on cost benefit, but efficiency
is less easy to implement. Supply/demand
balance excellent but cost always takes over
the argument, e.g. universal metering.
“The regulations are 90% there but the extra
10% is still needed to make real impact.”
“Water company planning strategies and
priorities are predominantly based on peak
demand. This influences storage and
infrastructure planning, etc.”
“It is the gaps … drinking regulations are strict
but you could still get problems from poorly
manufactured taps.”
“If you can’t enforce it, don’t regulate for it.”
Water
companies
Legislation/regulations/policies impact on how
the sector evolves and the uptake of
technology.
“Regulations regime should aim to reduce
obstacles to change. Be more willing to take
risks/explore new ideas and solutions.”
Regulation
Tariffs should be flexible and promote choice.
For tariffs and metering policy to be effective,
an understanding of people’s perception and
usage pattern is needed.
Lack of continuity in government can be a
limiting factor to long-term policy.
“Some water companies are trialling or using
different tariffs, such as seasonal or rising
block…”
Government
Tariffs
(continued )
Better customer service is needed from water
companies. For example, giving a discount on direct
debit payments, more transparent bills, etc.
Better balance between cost and benefits or
accruable water savings and efficiency.
A more holistic approach to regulation, is required,
otherwise strategies may work against each other.
A joint/integrated approach within government
departments is beneficial. Water policy makers may
need to get involved with regulators and interact
with other government departments to better
implement the ‘spirit’ of a policy/policies without
trying to solve all the problems; physical, social,
economic, etc.
Provide better, more visible and useful information
on bills. Smart billing provides opportunities to
feedback to households on overall water use, etc.
“Disproportionately, water companies are
penalised as the main polluters. This
unfairness should balance out with a better
understanding of who the polluters are and
what the solutions are.”
Natural crises, e.g. droughts, sometimes help
change perceptions but this may become
exaggerated and evoke a negative response.
Water is cheap and generally costs about a
third of the price of gas and electricity.
“Commoditising water through metering
will help as the human culture is generally not
set around restraint. We only value what we
pay for.”
1
Some of the recommendations under “water supply” are reflected in the Water Bill (HM Government, 2012).
Climate/
environment
The value of water is defined by its social,
physical and environmental cost. Not how
much it costs or how much people pay for it.
“The question is not whether or not there is a
value to water. The problem is the perception
of that value.”
Increase awareness to promote the choice for more
efficient fittings and products. Less efficient products
will be phased out and prices may normalise.
Currently, there are premiums on
water-efficient products.
Price of
water versus
value of
water
Make consumers aware, it drives the market.
Many people understand the nature of the
market, very few people understand policy
making.
“If you have to regulate, it is because there is
a market failure.”
A regional/catchment approach is better than a
national approach on a wide range of localised
issues and decisions should be made at this level.
If paid for as a commodity, better service will be
expected and water companies will be perceived to
be more accountable.
The cost of water should reflect the environment or
social impact and not simply the cost of supplying it.
Empowering the customer leads to market change
similar to changes seen in white goods for energy.
At present, the market works but it is not
transformatory.
“To transform the market, make everything
beyond the water meter a customer issue.”
Opportunities
Economics/
market
Constraints
Points raised
(Cont’d )
Policy
objective
Table 1.1
Water Policy and Regulations: A UK Perspective
19
Discussion
The clusters revealed that important policy considerations for water efficiency include people, awareness and engagement, evidence-based information, managing the use of water in buildings, promoting technological
innovation and regulating for innovative change in the water industry/­market.
This multifaceted yet integrated policy approach is shown in Figure 1.1.
On the people factor, the main constraint was the lack of capacity in water
users to make the choices to ‘adopt and adapt’ in order to achieve better
levels of water efficiency in buildings. Phrases such as the perception of fairness, increased responsibility, the willingness and the potential to change,
resource resilience versus individual and community resilience in the current economic climate were used. At the household level, the opportunity
to inform and educate was considered high priority. Recommendations
include understanding the psychology of households, launching media campaigns that target building refurbishment and replacement cycles (the DIY
culture) and offering incentives and rewards as appropriate.
The unavailability of credible and usable evidence, the disparate methodologies used for evidence gathering and the lack of clarity in defining the
user factors and the performance criteria of water-efficient technologies
were also identified as constraints to effective policy making.
With technology, the opportunity lies in readily available technologies
that can be deployed to improve water efficiency in buildings. However,
levels of adoption and implementation are low. The need for grants and
incentives to encourage more innovative products and remove bureaucracy
to shorten time-to-market was mentioned. There are several government
incentive schemes for promoting energy efficiency, but these are lacking for
water. Engaging with and training building professionals, builders and
installers were also considered essential for achieving water efficiency policy goals. Lastly, building users and the water dynamics between users and
buildings need to be understood further.
The debate on the hierarchy of relationships between stakeholders was
mentioned previously. Owing to the poor levels of awareness, and poor
capacity in water users, the findings allude to a bottom-up demand management strategy which is inclusive of existing buildings as well as new ones.
This strategy should, however, not ignore the user’s perception of comfort
and control, health and welfare, confirming that the socio-psychological
dynamics of people (e.g., in their homes) is often different from what is demonstrated in other building types. However, these findings require further
exploration.
In addition to market and resource management issues, all of the above
has a direct bearing on water policy. It was found that policy should be
developed and implemented for the various tiers of society and should not
Figure 1.1
Policy framework for water efficiency
Water Policy and Regulations: A UK Perspective
21
ignore regional differences; climatically, economically, environmentally,
socially. Some strategies or measures will be beneficial at the national scale,
for example the building regulations. Others will be more effective at the
local or community scale because, for most people, water is a local issue.
Further recommendations
The general recommendation was to better engage with the other end of
the policy spectrum – the water user – and to establish and maintain an
­evidence-led feedback culture, which is an integral part of the policy-­making
process and not a separate entity. Other recommendations include:
•• To develop a sustainable data/evidence collection system, especially on
household consumption. This can be used to create knowledge, which can
then be utilised to co-create value with consumers.
{{ An integrated and credible consumer database will be beneficial to water
companies for setting innovative tariffs to reward fair use.
•• Policy makers should provide clear guidance and standards for water-­
saving fittings and products as well as water reuse and recycling products.
This may be through certification, accreditation or labelling schemes. To
this end, performance metrics are required and these can be deployed by
revising existing regulations or standards.
•• Monitor and control growth in water demand by deploying appropriate
strategies and technologies for improving the capacity of consumers to
adapt and change behaviour.
•• Water efficiency policy should be extended to existing domestic buildings.
•• Promote retrofitting to improve water efficiency and give appropriate
incentives.
•• Introduce overall performance ratings for combined measures to promote
flexibility and personalisation of solutions for the water user.
•• Invoke some market factors – choice, competition, etc.
•• Encourage speedy development to commercialisation processes of new
technologies for water efficiency (starting with clearly defined guidelines
on health, safety and performance by the government).
Conclusion
There are economic, social, technological and environmental challenges to
the development and deployment of effective policies to mitigate current
and future water challenges. Improving efficiency throughout the water
­supply and demand spectrum and through existing policies and new regulations is therefore an important policy priority. The consumption of water in
22
Policy
buildings has undergone a steady increase in the past decades. Owing to
­current resource challenges from climate change and associated factors, this
increasing trend needs to be controlled and policy has a vital role in this.
This chapter presented findings from qualitative interview data which
explored the opportunities and constraints for water efficiency policy –
­primarily in England and Wales, but which may be relevant in other countries
and contexts. The interview findings were summarised and integrated into a
multifaceted clustered framework for water efficiency policy. From these
findings, it can be concluded that effective policy should not rely heavily on
water companies. It should aim for greater buy-in from the public and this
can be achieved by working with interest groups, water companies and the
media to devise and deliver a coherent message and engagement practices on
water efficiency. It was also found that the water efficiency requirement is a
good start. However, clear guidance is still required on other aspects of the
water efficiency solution, for example water recycling and reuse and building
retrofits. Regulatory consideration should be given to the promotion of
appropriate water-saving technologies in the right context for the right use,
and to support personalisation to suit lifestyles and needs, to permit even
more flexibility in how water efficiency solutions are combined and deployed.
Lastly, water efficiency policy is only as good as the evidence on which it
is based and there is a need to streamline and optimise efforts in this area.
Acknowledgements
This research project was funded by the UK’s Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) policy fellowship. The author would also
like to thank all the interviewees and other contributors to this study.
References
Building Regulations (2010) Building Regulations for Buildings and Building, England and
Wales, Statutory Instruments 2010, No. 2214 [Online]. Available at: www.legislation.co.uk.
Coughlan, J. and Macredie, R.D. (2002) Effective communication in requirements elicitation: A
comparison of methodologies. Journal of Requirements Engineering, 7, 47–60.
De Franca Doria, M. (2010) Factors influencing public perception of drinking water quality.
Water Policy, 12, 1–19.
Delen, D. and Crossland, M.D. (2008) Seeding the survey and analysis of research literature
with text mining. Expert Systems Applications, 34, 1707–1720.
Dessai, S. and Sims, C. (2010) Public perception of drought and climate change in southeast
England. Environmental Hazards, 9, 340–357.
Dolnicar, S. and Hurlimann, A. (2010) Water alternatives – who and what influences public
acceptance? Journal of Public Affairs, 11, 49–59.
EA (2008) Water Resources in England and Wales – Current State and Future Pressures.
Environment Agency, Bristol, December.
Water Policy and Regulations: A UK Perspective
23
Edelenbos, J., van Buuren, A. and van Schie, N. (2011) Co-producing knowledge: joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management
projects. Environmental Science and Policy, 14, 675–684.
Franceys, R.W.A. and Gerlach, E. (2011) Consumer involvement in water services regulation.
Utilities Policy, 19(2), 61–70.
GWP Technical Committee (2004) Catalyzing change: A handbook for developing integrated
water resources management (IWRM) and water efficiency strategies [Online]. Available at:
http://www.unwater.org/downloads/Catalyzing_change-final.pdf [14/01/2011].
Hartley, T.W. (2006) Public perception and participation in water reuse. Desalination, 187(1–3),
215–227.
HM Government (2011) Water for Life. The Water White Paper, presented to Parliament by the
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Command of Her Majesty,
November 2011. The Stationery Office, London.
HM Government (2012) Draft Water Bill. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, July 2012. The Stationary
Office, London.
IPCC (2007) Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. Contribution of Working Group
II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L.
Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds). Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Larson, S. (2010) Understanding barriers to social adaptation: are we targeting the right concerns? Architectural Science Review, 53(1), 51–58.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000) Promoting sustainable behaviour: An introduction to communitybased social marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 543–554.
Ofwat (2012) Distribution input and supply pipe leakage for England and Wales: 1992/93
to 2010/11. Released: May 2012 [Online]. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/
environment/inland-water/iwfg14-drq/ [23/01/2013].
Punch, K.F. (2005) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches.
Sage, London.
Russell, S. and Hampton, G. (2006) Challenges in understanding public responses and providing
effective public consultation on water reuse. Desalination, 187(1–3), 215–227.
Scottish Government (2013) The Water Industry in Scotland [Online]. Available at: http://
www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/waterindustryscot [4/3/2013].
UN Millennium Declaration (2000) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [without
reference to a Main Committee (A/55/L.2)] 55/2. United Nations Millennium Declaration at
the 8th Plenary Meeting, Millennium Summit, 8 September 2000, New York [Online].
Available at: http://www.un.org/millennium/ [23/01/2013].
UK Met Office (2012) Met Office UK: Climate Annual 2012 [Online]. Available at: http://www.
metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2012/annual.html [Jan 2013].
UNESCO (2006) The United Nations World Water Development Report 2: Water – a shared
responsibility [Online]. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001454/145405E.
pdf [4/3/2013].
UNESCO (2012) The United Nations World Water Development Report 4: Managing water
under uncertainty and risk, Vol. 1 [Online]. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/
0021/002156/215644e.pdf [4/3/2013].
Walker, A. (2009) The Independent Review of Charging for Household Water and Sewerage
Services: Final report [Online]. Available at: www.DEFRA.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/
industry/walkerreview/index [7/12/09].
2
Water Policy in Water-Stressed Regions:
The Case Study of Iran
Eric R.P. Farr1 and Poorang Piroozfar2
1
2
Independent Researcher and Critic, USA
School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, UK
Introduction
Water use is projected to have increased at twice the rate of population
growth in the 20th century. Water scarcity is a relative concept and can happen at any level of supply or demand, and may have natural and man-made
causes. It is the point at which the cumulative impact of use impinges on
the supply or quality of water to the extent that the demand cannot fully be
met. Scarcity may be a social construct (as a consequence of affluence,
expectations and customary behaviour), or the construct of altered supply/
demand patterns (e.g., as a result of climate change). According to the UN
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, water scarcity is typically
assessed based on the population/water ratio. An area is ‘water stressed’
when water supplies are under 1700 m3/person/year. An area receiving
1000 m3/person/year is considered to be experiencing ‘water scarcity’, while
below 500 m3/person/year means ‘absolute scarcity’ for a region (UNDESA,
Unknown).
Every continent is already facing a degree of water scarcity. Around onefifth of the world’s population (1.2 billion people) live in areas with ‘physical
water scarcity’ and another 500 million are approaching this situation.
Another 1.6 billion, or almost a quarter of the world’s population, are experiencing ‘economic water shortage’, where access to water is affected by lack
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Water Policy in Water-Stressed Regions: The Case Study of Iran 25
of necessary infrastructure to transfer water from the source (river, aquifer,
etc.) and deliver it to the point of use (UNDESA, Unknown).
This chapter presents an evaluation of water policy in a water-stressed
region in the Iranian context. It reviews water availability issues, water use
patterns as well as the structure of water management and policy-making
bodies in the country. It also discusses water management mechanisms and
processes, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the existing policy
structures. It then deliberates on the opportunities and limitations for ­policy
making and management of the water resources and finally concludes with
some recommendations for improvements.
Iran: water resources and use
Iran is located between latitudes 24° and 40° N, and longitudes 44° and
64° E. Owing to its geographical location, geomorphology, landform and its
­prevailing air masses and air pressure, Iran has an arid and semi-arid climate
and receives less than a third of the world’s mean rainfall; less than 100 mm
per annum in many parts.
Different references give different estimates of the average annual rainfall
in Iran. It has been estimated to range from 224.5 to 300 mm per annum,
which results in an overall rainfall volume in the range of 365 to 440 ­billion m3.
However, a 31-year study of rainfall statistics by the Water Resources
Research Centre indicates an average of 416 billion m3 volume of rainfall
per year for the entire country (Kardavani, 2008a,b).
With the exception of the northern and western parts of the country, most
of the rivers are ephemeral streams; hence, heavily dependent on rainfall.
Major rivers in the northern and western parts of the country are cross-­border
rivers with their sources in neighbouring countries. Small to large dams
(arch, gravity and arch/gravity to embankment dams) have been built on the
country’s rivers to facilitate water abstraction. For a variety of reasons, crossborder rivers are not administered effectively. It is estimated that 4 to 7.5
billion m3 is sourced from rivers to meet the water needs of the country. A
significant amount of water from the rivers, be it ephemeral or permanent, is
wasted due to flooding during the rainy seasons or contaminated, mostly
from salination. The lack of water containment policies and water recovery
measures only adds to this problem and makes the already complicated
mixed agricultural/drinking water deployment even more convoluted.
There is also an estimate of 1 billion m3 of water entry and around
300 ­million m3 water discharges annually via underground water streams
(Kardavani, 2008a).
According to the Ministry of Energy’s expert journal, Payam Niroo
(February 1998), average daily water use in Iran was 150 litres/person/day in
1998. The breakdown of use can be seen in Table 2.1.
26
Policy
Table 2.1 Breakdown of water use for different daily activities
(litres/person/day)
Usage
Drinking
Cooking
Bathing
Washing (clothes)
Washing (dishes)
Washing (other)
Toilet
Cooler
Other
Total
Litres/person/day
%
5
10
50
20
15
10
35
5
5
3.3
6.7
33
13.4
10
6.7
23
3.3
3.3
150
100
Although there is no consensus about the average daily water use in Iran,
it is generally agreed that it is not more than 185 litres per person per day.
This is because the water dissipation in urban areas is offset by the traditional yet practically effective water-saving measures in rural areas.
According to the Statistical Centre of Iran, it is understood (and to some
extent supported by informal evidence) that there is a clear pattern between
the distribution of wealth and the use of water throughout the country.
Hence, one of the indirect and informal methods of estimation of water use
is based on the wealth distribution.
It is anticipated that by 2025, along with 15 other countries, Iran will join
the 2008 list of the 21 dry countries in the world’s arid zones (NIC, 2008,
p. viii) and consequently become a major importer of water. This has been
attributed to:
•• population growth;
•• increasing water footprint;
•• desertification (both natural and man-made);
•• climate change;
•• chemical, physical or biological contamination (including salination) of
freshwater tables/rivers/resources;
•• rising sea levels and incursion into freshwater tables in coastal areas.
These factors have different and variable impacts in different years, seasons
and in the various sub-climatic regions in the country. Hence, a very complex method of planning is required to effectively manage the limited water
resources in the country.
This chapter uses historical evidence, expert interviews, comparative
cross-disciplinary literature reviews and statistical data searches as the
main methodology. Most of the evidence and literature used are in Farsi and
were translated into English in general compliance with their respective
providers’ code of conduct. For ease of use and to help the readership grasp
Water Policy in Water-Stressed Regions: The Case Study of Iran 27
a better understanding of the concepts of the structures and the processes,
some degrees of simplification have been applied. However, all measures
were taken to make sure that no key point is lost, no subject misrepresented
and no fact distorted.
Water resource planning and implementation
The Office of Water Resources and Waste-water Comprehensive Planning
forms one of the five offices of the Undersecretary of Water and Waste-water,
which is in turn positioned within the Ministry of Energy (MoE). The Office
of Water Resources and Waste-water Comprehensive Planning is in charge
of making policies, drafting plans and providing guidelines for managing the
nation’s water resources (see Figure 2.1).
The Office of Water and Waste-water Comprehensive Planning presents the
strategies, policies and planning in the annual Review of Water Resources
Allocation Methodology. It also oversees the guidelines and legislations which
are used by its provincial offices in regional hydrologic units to authorise water
abstraction and deployment in compliance with the annual review (MoE, 2008).
The Undersecretary of Water and Waste-water is responsible for these policies and sets the framework for guidelines and legislations which are then
prepared by its affiliated offices. Within each office, there are expert committees and specialised sub-committees that are responsible for providing the
various drafts and levels of legislations, regulations and acts for approval and
enactment by the Undersecretary, the Ministry or the Parliament.
Policies, planning, guidelines, legislations and regulations are prepared
and presented on three different levels (Rostam Afshar, 2007):
•• Comprehensive – this is conducted at the national level and addresses all
problems, issues and concerns on a national scale.
•• Regional – this takes place at province to county levels and is concerned
with special issues facing individual regions within the framework of the
national policies.
•• Sectoral – this is proposed at city, district or hydrologic unit (aquifer,
drainage basin, water basin, etc.) levels and normally down to project
level. It complies with upper-level planning and policies, yet provides
more detailed guidelines on individual bases.
Policies, planning and guidelines are prepared on three different timescales
(Rostam Afshar, 2007):
•• Short-term or current planning, for up to 1 year.
•• Mid-term planning, from 1 (in most cases 4) to 7 years.
•• Long-term planning, to cover from 7 (more likely 10) to 30 years.
Figure 2.1 The Organisation Chart of Ministry of Energy (MoE), Undersecretary of Water and Wastewater and its five subsidiary offices
Source: Based on the MoE’s organisational chart available in Farsi [Online]. See Iran Ministry of Energy website, via
http:/bit.ly/1bHBtai.
Water Policy in Water-Stressed Regions: The Case Study of Iran 29
Within this office, specialised committees make expert decisions pertaining
to water and waste water throughout the country. These decisions are
informed by the data and information provided by the local and provincial
water and waste-water offices. The decisions cover issues pertaining to:
•• Updated monitoring of water resources in 6 main and 33 secondary water
basins in the country.
•• Zoning, locating and feasibility studies of water resource development
projects.
•• Supply/demand analysis and the study of water reservoirs and water
resources.
•• Comparing the success and mutual cause–effect studies of water resource
development projects with the water resource regimes in the region and in
the country.
•• Purveyance of ecological and environmental, agricultural, industrial and
potable water rights.
•• Quality benchmarks for, and quality control of, overground and underground water resources.
•• Study of the effects of water abstraction and deployment on underground
water resources.
•• Allocation of the ‘right of use’ of water resources.
Although the organisational structure of the Undersecretary of Water and
Waste-water is very sophisticated to cater for the fact that water and waste
water are not managed at Ministry level, this sophistication, not surprisingly, does not work in favour of efficient planning of water resources.
More often than not, the verticality of the organisational structure of the
Undersecretary, with very limited horizontal links between the subsidiary
offices and their corresponding committees, results in working on parallel,
repetitive or identical activities. Failure to devolve responsibility and power
in collaboration results in excess demand on budgets, waste in terms of
time, money and human resources, and a reduction in efficiency. As a result,
the horizontality at the lowest executive levels – where personnel should
take personal initiatives and rely on their own judgement, experience
and understanding of the problem to find the best solution – is hardly
­measurable objectively.
For instance, the allocation of water resources is monitored, planned and
regulated by the Water Appropriation Committee, which utilises certain
workflows to curtail the negative effects of the upper-level plans and decisions on lower-level schemes for projects pertaining to water or waste water.
Another committee is the National Committee of Large Dams, responsible
for planning, regulating and overseeing all the issues, problems and aspects
concerning big dams in the country. This will vary from what contextual
causal effects those dams might have on their location, to their role in the
30
Policy
region and within the country. The remit includes all aspects of water use
(for domestic, agriculture and industrial use). Some of the tasks, responsibilities and activities of the two committees overlap, contradict or even
­conflict with each other.
Approaches to planning and management of water resources
The Office of Water and Waste-water Comprehensive Planning and its
­sub-committees use expert services (either in-house expertise or outsourced
services mainly to the academic and research centres) to manage water resources
using an amalgamation of three different approaches (Rostam Afshar, 2007):
•• Traditional methods
They use conventional approaches to defining p
­ roblems, setting aims and
objectives, analysing elements and their relationships to find the most
suitable solution for the set aims and objectives and to achieve the best
results. This method is heavily dependent on ­previous experience and
water supply/demand patterns and the precedents for the problem.
•• Systemic approach
This has a nomothetic nature and utilises analytical methods to explore
­current supply/demand patterns or to formulate new ones in order to
explain, describe or predict the behaviour of a system pertaining to the
given problem, and use systems theory to select and/or optimise the most
suitable solution to best solve the problem.
•• Computer simulation and numerical modelling
Here computer software applications or mathematical methods are used,
with the intention – on an idiographic basis – to model, recreate or simulate real cases using the available data. Depending on the case, the modelling may or may not use optimisation techniques to modify the solution,
contextualise it and suit the solution to the problem specifics.
This, in principle, demonstrates the open-mindedness at high managerial
levels, both in the Undersecretary and in the Ministry, strengthened by their
theoretical standing. In practice, however, it just adds to both the complexity and the complication of planning exponentially. This often results in
many plans terminating at their gestation stages. This can highlight two
main problems. First, the high managerial levels have very little, if any,
executive experience. They are hardly specialists in the subject of their
respective offices. Second, and even more fundamental, there is an expertise/experience gap between the decision makers and those who should
implement those decisions. This ends up undermining the practicality and
workability of the plans, and the fact that there should be a sensible flow
between the decision made and its implementation. Moreover, the lack of a
feedback loop makes the learning process a one-off incident as opposed to a
Water Policy in Water-Stressed Regions: The Case Study of Iran 31
systemic trial-and-error process where evaluation results and feedback can
easily be accessed and used in future projects.
Policy opportunities and constraints
It is widely believed – even within the Ministry of Energy and the
Undersecretary of Water and Waste-water and its subsidiary offices – that
more can be done to improve the management of water resources in the
country. This section summarises the opportunities and actions which can
be explored to improve the management of water resources, based on the
existing structure of the country’s water management system and derived
from existing problems, needs, requirements and priorities. It also highlights the constraints to achieving this. The opportunities and constraints
are presented as short, medium or long-term change in the structure, policy,
procedures and practices of water resource management. The chapter
concludes with some recommendations and further actions to improve
­
water resource management in the country.
Short-term opportunities and constraints
Iran is an ancient country with a long history enriched with established
measures and methods to alleviate harsh environmental conditions. This
ranges from low-tech passive techniques for improving indoor comfort
to highly sophisticated methods in water abstraction and distribution for
supplying agriculture and potable water. There are also a number of
established higher education institutions with internationally renowned
academics in the mitigation of water shortage.
Short-term opportunities can be initiated by a national campaign on the
mitigation of water scarcity, formed of and organised by leading academics
to nurture a national water network. This can be an immediate opportunity,
to lay the ground for NGOs and lobbyists to work at national, regional and
international levels to raise awareness of policies for the management of
water resources. This can also be supported by general public campaigns in
the regions, giving feedback opportunities to areas with significant water
shortage problems to voice their concerns and problems and also to raise
local and national awareness in order to achieve bottom-up change in users’
behavioural patterns.
The main constraint would be who, how and from where the campaign
should and can start. In this regard, it is very important to raise the issue
with no political agenda. This, in a country like Iran, where everything is
highly politicised, is a very serious challenge. Conspiracy against the state,
national security, ‘spreading lies’ and ‘disturbing the public opinion’ are just
a few of the major political constraints along the way.
32
Policy
Mid-term opportunities and constraints
Mid-term opportunities are mostly associated with local governments, who
can reflect on the potentialities within their constituencies and flag major
threats. The public may also influence their parliamentary representation to
influence the central government’s mid and long-term policies. Mid-term
plans are in fact the most crucial of the three, as they bridge between shortterm opportunities and long-term policies and guarantee that practical
actions can and will be supported by long-term decisions beyond any political manifesto.
The constraints on the method of identifying mid-term opportunities and
pursuing them into action are mostly with regard to prioritisation of watershortage problems. Politics, economy, education, public health and wellbeing – and many other high priority issues – leave little room on the agenda,
if any, for water scarcity and water shortage. However, if cleverly linked
with social and national security, public health and wellbeing, food and
­agriculture, water can still stay very high on any political agenda. This will
call for more specialised MPs and parliamentary committees on water,
­environment and climate change.
Long-term opportunities and constraints
Long-term opportunities are those initiated, supported and/or applied by the
central government. Any major change in long-term decisions and policies,
the structure of the decision-making bodies and national projects needs the
backing of the government to be successful. These can include semi-­
privatisation or privatisation of water and waste-water industries, a new
­ministry for water and waste water, national water and waste-water projects
such as hydroelectric dams, surface or underground water reservoirs, open
water transfer or covered water distribution networks, waste-water and sewage
networks, etc. Cross-linking water with public and personal health, food and
agriculture, energy, environment, etc. at ministerial levels can also get different
ministries involved. This will give water a higher priority than it has at the
moment. For instance, the Ministry of Health and Medical Education can get
involved and integrate the education, training and raising awareness programmes in their free services for low-income, deprived or remote rural areas.
If the long-term opportunities are intended to become reality, they should
be integrated into long-term national development programmes. It is also
important that water-related policies are kept well above and beyond any
political agenda to make sure that they will be considered a constant national
priority regardless of which party is in political power, and for how long.
Based on the opportunities and constraints discussed in this section, the
following section presents actions and recommendations to improve water
management and policies.
Water Policy in Water-Stressed Regions: The Case Study of Iran 33
Recommendations
In addition to general measures and initiatives which overarch inter-­
governmental and inter-ministerial activities, the recommendations and
suggestions for further action also cover the key issues identified in the
­previous sections, i.e. water procurement/abstraction, water quality and
preventing contamination, and issues surrounding the efficient use of water.
General measures and initiatives
General measures and initiatives, ranging from political to organisational
and from educational to research, play a major role in water policy making.
Therefore, this section covers a wide range of actions which require involvement at the various levels of local and state governments. General measures
and initiatives include:
•• Establishment of a new Ministry of Water and Waste-water. An independent new ministry can raise awareness and importance of water and wastewater problems and enhance independence in the process of policy
making, decision making, planning and management of water resources
and waste-water networks.
•• Comprehensive review of the organisational chart in order to eliminate
parallel structures and to readdress or strengthen those which might have
been overlooked. The organisational chart of the Undersecretary of Water
and Waste-water in the Ministry of Energy creates conflicts and overlaps
between different offices in the same undersecretary and with those of
other undersecretaries. As a result, some substantial tasks are overlooked
as one office might assume that other offices are taking the same level of
responsibility, thereby showing no interest in conducting the same tasks.
A comprehensive review of the existing organisational chart in light of the
previous recommendation regarding a new ministry of water and waste
water can effectively address many such problems.
•• Comprehensive feasibility study for the privatisation of the water and wastewater industries. This might not be possible due to national security and public health issues. However, a comprehensive feasibility study will highlight
the less sensitive areas which can be privatised with controllable or no risks.
•• Comprehensive study of national and local water resources. This is done
to some extent. However, there is no code of practice, national database or
uniform protocol to support and encourage systemic study and research of
water resources.
•• Devolving responsibilities, delegating power and granting independence
(corresponding and proportionate to the devolved responsibilities), eradicating parallel work in order to avoid confusion and interference between
central, provincial and local governments.
34
Policy
•• Disincentivising migration from rural communities to urban areas, particularly in water-stressed areas.
•• Raising public water awareness by means of media, commercials and
TV programmes.
•• Systemic public education to encourage water use optimisation, water
contamination prevention and water-saving behaviours.
In addition, a national consensus is necessary to make the problem of water
scarcity an absolute national priority.
As mentioned before, it is important for the measures in this category to
be kept as apolitical as possible.
Water sourcing and procurement
Sourcing or procuring water in this context means all activities involved
in finding new water resources, building water reservoirs and abstraction
of water ready to be transferred, treated and delivered to the end user. In
this sense the entire water supply chain – including water sourcing and
­procurement – is all administered, controlled and run by the state government. The private sector has no share in water supply and resource management. Until recently, this was also the case with waste water. However, the
Ministry is devolving this task to city municipalities and councils who are
partially outsourcing secondary waste-water services to private contractors. This issue has an impact at national, local and individual household
­levels in Iran. Traditionally, very basic and simple measures were used to
c­ollect water in parts of the country. In the last 30 years, there have been
various studies, including pilot studies in Iranian universities, to investigate emerging methods for rainwater harvesting. However, research to
inform this chapter found no persistent record of a systemic study which
explores new and modern water procurement methods. Moreover, some
traditionally established methods of procurement (e.g., digging Kariz and
building Qanat,1 see Figure 2.2) are now either undermined, neglected or
totally abandoned.
Kariz or Qanat is an old Persian water management and procurement system to supply
drinking or irrigation water in hot and arid areas in central Iran. It is formed of a series of
deep man-made wells (often on a hillside) which are horizontally linked, at the bottom,
with a canal slightly sloping towards the foot of the hillside where the water will be
­collected. The main and deepest well is called the “mother well” while the rest of the
wells mostly serve as inspection and maintenance chambers. The near-horizontal canal
collects water from the wells and surfaces it when it reaches overground at the bottom of
the hill. What is important in digging a functional Kariz or Qanat is that the mother well
should be deeper than the water table and the water collection canal should cross the
water table to be able to collect enough water. In most recent texts, Qanat and Kariz are
used identically. However, according to some older texts, the use differs depending on the
length of the canal and the number of wells; Qanat is associated with bigger and more
comprehensive systems while Kariz is for smaller-scale water provision.
1
Water Policy in Water-Stressed Regions: The Case Study of Iran 35
(a)
(b)
Figure 2.2 (a) A Kariz: The Underground Structure, Kavir-e Lut, Kerman Province,
Iran, 2009, ©Ninara/Flickr; (b) A Shallow Qanat (Kariz): Kish, Kish Island, Persian Gulf,
Iran, 2008, ©Howard Lee1/Flickr.
More recently, scholars, researchers, NGOs and civil servants alike – with
different motivations and incentives – are campaigning to encourage the
public sector to invest in more research and the implementation of example
projects on water procurement methods, whether traditional or emerging. It
36
Policy
is recommended that these studies for government reports, technical
reviews and/or research projects include the following:
•• Rainwater harvesting. The average rainfall varies in different parts of the
country. In areas with low average rainfall, rainwater harvesting is a practical solution to contribute to sanitation or irrigation water and reduce the
network load. In areas with high average rainfall, where there are problems with flooding and water contamination, rainwater harvesting can
contribute as a prevention measure. Optimum use of rainwater and
humidity (wherever applicable) for agriculture can also reduce public
water demand. These techniques can first be made mandatory for new and
refurbishment projects in the public sector before being rolled out to the
private and domestic sectors.
•• Surface water containment, water reclamation and water recovery.
Similar to rainwater harvesting, containment, reclamation and recovery
measures can be considered with different targets in different parts of the
country.
•• Underground water resource management for sustainable deployment
and replenishment. It is particularly essential to have clear and reliable
data about underground water resources if they are to be sustainably
managed and included in the country’s comprehensive water resources
planning.
•• Underground dams and reservoirs. Until recently, the advanced
technology for building underground dams and reservoirs was not
­
widely and affordably available. There are ongoing plans by several
authorities. Merger of the efforts, resources and budgets with both
­public and private investments in this area will make such schemes
more justifiable.
•• Feasibility study for building new or restoring existing Kariz and Qanat.
Other options include conducting a feasibility study on the use of water
canals to carry water from water-enriched areas to water-stressed areas and
using mechanical means to transfer water from freshwater resources to the
point of use in the regions facing water scarcity, water constraint or water
stress.
It is important that water procurement is explored holistically as a multifaceted issue. This means that solutions specific to the geographical locations in which those methods are employed may be necessary. Measures
which are suitable in urban areas may not work in rural areas, and vice
versa. Furthermore, a combination of modern and traditional approaches
should be considered. This is to cater for the fact that the level of available/
affordable technology is not similar in different parts of the country and in
different types of settlement.
Water Policy in Water-Stressed Regions: The Case Study of Iran 37
Water quality and preventing water contamination
Water contamination occurs both within and outside cities. Although incity contamination affects fewer water tables, it can have more significant
impact not only on water procurement and quality but also on public
health. Water contamination can be prevented both on the surface and
underground. Although measures and actions for on-surface prevention
are more convenient and affordable, this type of prevention is difficult
due to the spread of the sources of contamination. Underground water
­contamination by contrast has limited and in most cases known sources,
but the measures and actions required for prevention are much more
sophisticated and costly.
In recent years, drastic and quick actions have been taken by the government to tackle in-city water contamination; chiefly in the form of infrastructural improvements of the urban sewer networks.
With regard to water contamination sources outside cities, reasonable
action has also been taken against man-made causes during recent years.
The situation with natural causes, however, is far from ideal. There are still
actions to be taken to improve this area, including:
•• Preventing saltwater incursion into freshwater tables in water-stressed
areas (mostly in central Iran).
•• Construction of underground water barriers to prevent seawater incursion
into freshwater tables near the Caspian Sea, Persian Gulf and Gulf of
Oman coastal areas.
•• Preventing industrial and domestic waste water from permeating into
freshwater tables, rivers, reservoirs and lakes.
•• Further improvements to the urban sewage network to prevent household
waste-water incursion into water tables in urban areas (particularly where
such networks have not yet been implemented).
Water distribution network
Policy and decision making with regard to efficient water use is fragmented
and prone to failure in some areas. This is because water-saving measures
require involvement and buy-in from both ends of the water supply chain.
At the top of this chain, where water is procured and distributed to the
point of delivery, responsibility lies with the public sector; the water and
waste-water provincial offices are in charge of the supply of water, as well
as the maintenance of the infrastructure network. However, there is disparity in policy responses to water waste within the distribution network
­versus water waste by end users. Unofficial estimates suggest that about a
third of water is wasted within the distribution network and before the
point of delivery. This, however, is very difficult to address and improve
38
Policy
because both the regulatory and executive bodies belong to the same public
sector. By contrast, when the issue of water saving after the point of delivery is concerned, there are very firm measures in the form of fines for excess
use and waste by end users. This offers scope for change action to improve
regulatory practice for water efficiency throughout the supply chain,
including:
•• Water recycling and reuse with relevant financial incentives for those
who apply them. However, these technologies require raising public
awareness, education and training.
{{ Some new building developments have started implementing ­
dual-­
supply systems. With the availability and affordability of recycling and
reuse technology, this can become a mandate for all new projects, with
phased implementation for renovation and refurbishment projects.
•• Improvement and replacement of the water distribution networks. This is
mainly at national level and needs an extensive budget. However, devolving the tasks and responsibilities to the provincial and local governments
can be considered as an option. Privatisation or cooperative investments
can be alternatives to help finance such projects.
•• Developing modern and scientific methods for dryland farming (dry
farming). Successful dryland farming is possible with as little as 200–
220 mm/year of precipitation (mostly in the form of rainfall). Traditionally,
central Iran (and more specifically the city of Yazd) has been renowned
for its long-established tradition of dryland farming. In some parts,
­special species of wheat and barley have been in use for centuries which
have adapted to very low annual water intake. This can be further
­studied and implemented in the national comprehensive development
programmes.
•• Using seawater for agriculture in specific conditions (where extreme
rainfall can wash away salt in sand and light porous soils). There are
proven techniques, some of which are in use in parts of the country as
experimental projects. A consolidated national strategy can help to fund
such projects with immediate benefits for agriculture and water resource
management.
•• Smart tariffs. Varying tariffs are already in place but they mostly work
using exponential algorithms. A better (smart) tariff system can be introduced so that different customers in different regions and cities can be
charged differently during different seasons throughout the year.
•• Fines and penalties (as mentioned, there are very serious and tough
­measures in place in this regard, but these need to be combined more
interactively with smart tariffs). Furthermore, devolving responsibilities
will help create an internal monitoring system whereby different governmental bodies can be charged if the level of their services does not meet
the minimum requirements and standards.
Water Policy in Water-Stressed Regions: The Case Study of Iran 39
•• Water-saving devices should be subsidised, introduced and disseminated
for public use.
Privatisation can be explored as a means to achieve better control and
­regulatory enforcement of measures for eliminating water waste throughout
the distribution network. However, this may not be straightforward to
implement due to issues of national security and public health.
Conclusion
As a country, Iran is an amalgamation of old and new, tradition and modernism. Any measure or action against water scarcity will need to take
this into account to be successful. The existing situation with water
usage, water scarcity and the structure of the policy-making bodies in Iran
has been discussed in this chapter. The current policy-making approach
was then discussed, highlighting the pros and cons. The last section of the
chapter discussed opportunities, constraints and recommendations for
improvement pertaining to the available water resources, distribution,
management and the water industry as a whole.
Opportunities for improvement were identified. However, it was highlighted that implementation should consider regional differences and contextual issues. The need for better awareness was also identified. This is to
unify public opinion and draw central and local governments’ attention to
the significance of the problem of water scarcity. The possibility of a new
Ministry of Water and Waste-water was also proposed. The importance of
striking a balance between the conventional/traditional techniques and
emerging technologies was also identified, with the recommendation that
equal attention should be paid to revitalising old methods as to deploying
the latest (technological) solutions for procurement. The next area for
improvement has a preventative nature and involves contamination. On the
one hand, there is surface water contamination to resolve – but this can be
resolved with relatively low-tech widespread solutions and by raising public
awareness, whereas underground contamination necessitates the deployment of high-tech solutions with limited applicability and spread, and possibly the least engagement from the general public. Lastly, the need for a
more water-efficient distribution network was identified. It was proposed
that the difficulty with regulatory enforcement may be resolved with some
degree of privatisation. Private sector investment can also help to improve
the distribution infrastructure before the point of delivery, whilst the regulatory monitoring and control process is revised and improved. However,
some caution is recommended as this approach may not be viable in all
regions. In addition, privatisation may potentially create national security
and public health issues due to a lack of stringent rules and regulations.
40
Policy
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Farbod Consultants Co., Central Library and
Documentation Centre and the Ministry of Energy for their kind help and
support in providing invaluable information for this chapter, also three interviews with the Ministry of Energy, the Undersecretary of Water and Wastewater and the Office of Water and Waste-water Comprehensive Planning.
Further reading
Bozorgzadeh, M. (1994) Policy, planning and management of water resources (Part 1). Payam
Niroo, No. 36 (October), p. 52 (in Farsi).
Bozorgzadeh, M. (1994) Policy, planning and management of water resources (Part 3). Payam
Niroo, No. 38 (December), p. 43 (in Farsi).
Bozorgzadeh, M. (1995) Policy, planning and management of water resources (Part 4). Payam
Niroo, No. 39 (January), p. 32 (in Farsi).
Bozorgzadeh, M. (1995) Policy, planning and management of water resources (Part 7). Payam
Niroo, No. 42 (March), p. 46 (in Farsi).
Ghaffuri, S.M.M. (2010) Qum water pipeline retrofit project: A study of buried pipelines. Qum
Province Water and Waste-water Co., Qum.
Goodman, A.S. (1984) Principles of water resources planning. Pearson US Imports and PHIPEs.
Translated from English to Farsi by M. Honari. Ministry of Energy, Tehran.
MoE (1992) Guidance on water management policy: summary and conclusion of main papers
presented at the UN Conference on Water. Water Industry Standards Draft. Ministry of
Energy, Tehran.
Payam Niroo (1998) Water use in Iran: an overview. Payam Niroo, No. 113 (February), p. 38 (in
Farsi).
Sabbaghzadeh Shoushtari, H. (2010) Collective management of water resources in water
basins: potentials and challenges in the development process. Ministry of Energy, Tehran.
UNCCD (2009) Water scarcity and desertification. UNCCD thematic fact sheet series, No. 2.
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification [Online]. Available at: http://www.
unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/Publications/Desertificationandwater.pdf [19/10/12].
UNDP (2006) Human Development Report 2006. Beyond scarcity: power, poverty and the
global water crisis. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke [Online]. Available at: http://hdr.undp.
org/en/media/HDR06-complete.pdf [19/10/12].
UNEMG (2011) Global Drylands: A UN system-wide response. Prepared by the United Nations
Environment Management Group [Online]. Available at: http://www.unemg.org/Portals/27/
Documents/IMG/LAND/report/Global_Drylands_Full_Report.pdf [19/10/12].
UNISDR (2007) Drought, Desertification and Water Scarcity. Prepared by the United Nations
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction [Online]. Available at: http://www.un.org/
waterforlifedecade/pdf/2007_isdr_drought_desertification_and_water_scarcity_eng [19/10/12].
UN-Water and FAO (2007). Coping with water scarcity: challenge of the twenty-first century
[Online]. Available at: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/escarcity.pdf [19/10/12].
References
Kardavani, P. (2008a) Resources and Problems of Waters in Iran. Vol. 1: Surface and underground waters and problems associated with their deployment, 9th edn. University of Tehran
Press, Tehran.
Water Policy in Water-Stressed Regions: The Case Study of Iran 41
Kardavani, P. (2008b) Resources and Problems of Waters in Iran. Vol. 2: Saline waters and their
deployment methods, 2nd edn. University of Tehran Press, Tehran.
MoE (2008) Methodology of water appropriation analysis and water resources development
plans. Water Appropriation Policy Group, Undersecretary of Water and Waste-water. Ministry
of Energy, Tehran.
NIC (2008) Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. National Intelligence Council Report.
US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, November.
Rostam Afshar, N. (2007) Principles of water resources planning. Power and Water University
of Technology, Tehran.
UNDESA (Unknown) International Decade for Action ‘Water for Life’ 2005–2015. United
Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs [Online]. Available at: http://www.
un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml [19/10/12].
3
Water Policy for Buildings:
A Portuguese Perspective
Armando Silva Afonso and Carla Pimentel Rodrigues
University of Aveiro and Associação Nacional para a Qualidade nas Instalações
Prediais (ANQIP), Portugal
Introduction
The Mediterranean basin has unique climatic conditions with important
manifestations in terms of the management of water resources. Consequently,
Southern European countries, throughout all or part of their territory, share
more affinities with the remaining countries in the Mediterranean basin
than with the other parts of the European Union (EU).
In contrast, forecasts predict that in the near future the Mediterranean
basin will be one of the regions on the planet with the most problems regarding water stress or water scarcity. Therefore, policies for efficient water use
in all sectors, including the building sector, are of growing importance in
this region.
This situation naturally requires a specific approach to matters related to
water efficiency of buildings in Mediterranean countries, not ignoring the
fact that there is a vast area where common policies in this context may be
adopted at a European or even worldwide level. This chapter uses water policies for water efficiency in buildings in Portugal and the Portuguese experience as a contextual basis for a reflection on the current situation and future
perspectives in this region. It focuses on the measures which arise from the
specificities of the Mediterranean countries.
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Water Policy for Buildings: A Portuguese Perspective
43
Policy context and evolution
As a country within the EU, Portugal generally follows community policies
related to water, with special reference to Directive 2000/60/EC of the
European Parliament and Council (European Union, 2000), which establishes the framework for community actions in the area of water policy and
was transposed to Portugal in 2005, through the so-called ‘Water Law’.
However, the Mediterranean climate, which influences a large part of the
Portuguese territory, creates specific problems in the management of water
resources. These problems are common to ‘Southern’ countries, and are
forecast to further affect the water balance in the short/medium term. In
fact various entities, such as the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP, 2012) or the World Water Council (WWC, 2012), warn that within a
few decades the Mediterranean basin will be one of the regions on the planet
with the greatest water stress or water scarcity problems.
The annual use of water in Portugal is on average 10 km3, still less than
the amount available in an average year (16 km3). However, the typical
seasonality of the Mediterranean climate and the irregularity of the spatial distribution of this resource (in addition to the effects of climate
change) mean that there are growing situations of shortage in some regions
of the country. Affected by some serious droughts in recent decades,
Portugal has paid growing attention to water availability even though
government policies on this subject of efficient water use are inconsistent
and relatively weak.
High losses and inefficiencies in water management, a situation which is
not uncommon in other Mediterranean countries, also impacts on water
availability. This is particularly evident in Portugal, which has the sixth
largest water footprint in the world with an indicator of 2.26 million litres
per inhabitant per year. In a study commissioned by the Portuguese
Government, designated by PNUEA – National Programme for the Efficient
Use of Water (INAG, 2001), the losses and inefficiencies in the various water
use sectors were estimated at about 3100 m3/year; almost 40% of total
demand for water in the country.
In terms of economic value, these losses and inefficiencies represent
728 × 106 €/year, equivalent to 0.64% of the Portuguese gross domestic product (GDP). Approximately half of this value can be attributed to the urban
water cycle, as a result of high losses in transport (public networks) and
­inefficiencies in final use (buildings).
With the objective of increasing the efficiency of water use, the PNUEA
established various areas of intervention for the urban sector including 50
specific measures to be implemented with the involvement of government
entities, sector entities, water authorities, consumers and non-governmental
organisations (NGOs).
44
Policy
Policy and regulatory framework
In the 1990s, the Portuguese Government sought to speed up the coverage of
the country with water and sanitation infrastructures, creating the ‘higherlevel’ and ‘lower-level’ systems concept synonymous with ‘wholesale’ and
‘retail’ activities in the supply of water and sanitation. Simultaneously, various state-owned organisations were established to be mainly responsible for
the ‘higher-level’ systems whilst the municipalities are responsible for the
‘lower-level’ municipal systems.
Portuguese legislation for managing these systems is profuse, including
mandatory water metering and water management allocation through direct
management, delegation to a third party or a concession model. The strategic guidelines for the water sector were published in a document called
PEAASAR 2000/2006 – Strategic Plan for the Supply of Water and Sanitation,
published by the Portuguese Government in 2000, followed by PEAASAR II
2007/2013 (Portugal, 2006). This document focused on the strategic objectives, management models, financing models and tariff policies for the water
sector, and refers to the aforementioned PNUEA which addresses the
­efficient use of water.
In terms of regulation, Portugal has a technical regulation which covers
the design, establishment and operation of the public infrastructure systems
as well as the distribution to and drainage of water from buildings (Portugal,
1995). This regulation does not include any provision for the efficient use of
water. However, a revision is expected soon which is billed to include some
provisions related to water efficiency in buildings.
It should be noted that the progressive privatisation of the sector has
not favoured the implementation of water-efficiency measures, especially
pertaining to buildings, as the economic sustainability of some water
authorities, especially state-owned ones, relies on maintaining high water
consumption. The double and contradictory role of the state – the need to
maintain high consumption for economic reasons versus reducing consumption for environmental sustainability reasons – has led to hesitation and
delay in the implementation of water-efficiency measures, particularly in
buildings. Therefore, civil society recently took the initiative to implement
water-efficiency interventions in Portugal.
Policy stakeholders and strategies
The PNUEA had problems implementing the water-efficiency measures
proposed by the Portuguese Government. Nonetheless, it raised wider society awareness of the extent of the water availability problem in Portugal and
the need to study and apply water-efficiency measures at all levels, including the building sector. As a consequence, in 2007 some universities, companies and municipal water authorities decided to create a non-profit NGO
Water Policy for Buildings: A Portuguese Perspective
45
called the National Association for Quality in Building Installations
(ANQIP). Among other objectives, ANQIP is tasked with promoting water
efficiency in buildings. This commenced with the aim of implementing the
‘2012 Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources’ recommendations
(European Union, 2011) in Portugal, especially as it relates to the promotion
of water efficiency in buildings.
Taking into consideration the measures proposed in the PNUEA for the
building sector, ANQIP sought to systematise the interventions leading to
an efficient use of water in the building cycle, establishing a guiding principle called ‘the 5R principle’ (Silva-Afonso and Pimentel-Rodrigues, 2010a).
These principles are summarised in Figure 3.1.
The first R – reduce consumption – includes the adoption of efficient
products and devices, without prejudice to other measures of an economic,
fiscal or sociological nature. For this, labelling of the water efficiency of
products (similar to strategies for energy efficiency) was considered as an
essential measure to provide information to consumers.
The second R – reduce losses and waste, may involve interventions such as
the monitoring of losses in building networks (flushing cisterns, sprinklers,
etc.) or the installation of circulation and return circuits of sanitary hot water
(SHW). These measures have already been adopted in some Mediterranean
countries, such as Spain. For example, the recent Spanish Código Técnico de
la Edificación (Gobierno de España, 2006) already requires the installation of
SHW return circuit installations when the distance between the point of
consumption and the SHW production device is greater than or equal to
15 m. ANQIP has already proposed the introduction of a similar measure in
the revision of the current Portuguese technical regulations.
The reuse and recycling of waste water, different from a ‘series’ use or the
reintroduction of water at the start of the circuit (after treatment), can be
interesting – particularly in relation to the use of greywater, not excluding
(naturally) the possibility of using treated waste water for some purposes
such as watering gardens.
The last resort is alternative sources – the fifth R. This may involve the
use of rainwater, groundwater and even saltwater. These measures can easily be considered for new buildings or refurbishment projects. For existing
buildings, water-efficiency audits are a more appropriate procedure, as is the
case with energy efficiency.
• Reduce consumption
• Reduce losses and waste
• Reuse water
• Recycle water
• Resort to alternative sources
Figure 3.1
– Water efficiency in
buildings
The 5R principle for water efficiency in buildings
46
Policy
The certification and labelling of the water efficiency of products and the
use of greywater and rain are priority policies considered in Portugal and
subject to development by ANQIP. Similarly, in relation to existing buildings, ANQIP has been developing methodologies for water-efficiency audits.
As ANQIP is a non-governmental entity, its proposals are naturally of
voluntary compliance. However, the fact that most interested parties in the
sector – including various municipal water authorities – are represented in
ANQIP (on the technical, scientific and industrial side) has greatly contributed to the high credibility of the organisation. ANQIP is also accepted by
the Portuguese Government as the main partner in the launch and development of water-efficiency measures in buildings in Portugal.
ANQIP has also worked with other Mediterranean countries, such as
Greece, to analyse the feasibility of developing common measures regarding
water efficiency in buildings, while paying special attention to the specificities of the Mediterranean basin.
Water efficiency in buildings
Certification and labelling of water-efficient products
Generally speaking, the labelling of the water efficiency of water using products (WuP) has been implemented in various countries on a voluntary basis.
In some countries, there is no grading for this efficiency. Instead, an efficiency label is attributed when consumption is below a given value or
threshold. This is the case, for example, in the labelling systems adopted in
the USA and in Nordic countries.
In other cases, such as Australia, the label sets a variable classification
with the efficiency of the product. In Portugal, ANQIP also decided on the
variable voluntary labelling scheme as shown in Figure 3.2.
The ‘A’ rating refers to the ideal efficiency, taking into account comfort of
use and performance of the system. The A+ and A++ classifications are
reserved for some special or restricted applications.
ANQIP has drawn up technical specifications (ETA) for different products
so as to create and establish the necessary benchmark values to be assigned
to each classification. These technical specifications also establish the certification testing conditions. Companies signing up to the system will sign
a protocol with ANQIP defining the conditions under which they can issue
and use the labels. ANQIP controls the process by randomly testing labelled
products on the market, from time to time, and these tests are performed by
accredited laboratories or by laboratories which are recognised by the
Association.
The labelling of cisterns was regarded as a priority, since toilet flushing
cisterns are one of the biggest consumers of water in buildings in Portugal
Figure 3.2
Portuguese water-efficiency labels (ANQIP, 2008a)
48
Policy
(INAG, 2001). The ANQIP labelling system covers the more usual flushing
systems in Portugal, namely regular toilet flushers and double-action or dualcontrol mechanisms; the categories are defined in Technical Specification
0804 (ANQIP, 2008b).
The water-efficiency categories for shower systems and showers were
established by ANQIP through Technical Specification 0806 (ANQIP,
2008c). In Portugal, they represent more than 30% of average daily domestic
water consumption (INAG, 2001). Efficiency at this level, as well as reducing water consumption, also reduces energy consumption in the heating of
sanitary hot water.
Taps are the most common device, both in residential and communal
installations. On average, it is estimated that taps represent approximately
16% of consumption in buildings in Portugal (INAG, 2001). For the classification of taps, ANQIP prepared Technical Specification 0808 (ANQIP,
2008d), which also covers urinal flushing valves.
Reuse and recycling of greywater
With regard to the reuse and recycling of greywater in buildings, the lack of
standards and regulations in Portugal has led to some instances where the
risks to public health due to deficiencies in design, operation or maintenance became apparent.
For these systems, ANQIP recommended that special attention be given to
water safety aspects. In fact, the Bonn Charter recommendations – published
by the International Water Association for the supply of water – argue that
the management and control of systems should be based on a safety plan. In
accordance with WHO guidelines, it should also consider the resources and
technology available and the reality or context of each country.
Therefore, Technical Specification 0905 (ANQIP, 2011a), which establishes technical recommendations for the reuse and recycling of greywater,
states that a safety plan must also be prepared. The initial version should be
the responsibility of the installer, but this should then be periodically
updated by the user.
For public health and technical reasons, the systems must be certified
under the terms of Technical Specification 0906 (ANQIP, 2011b), which
requires prior analysis of the project by ANQIP, inspections during construction, the certification of installers, a maintenance plan and the safety plan,
also approved by ANQIP. This certification is already compulsory in various
municipalities in the country, namely the ten municipalities which make
up the region of Aveiro.
Compared with other Mediterranean countries, we can see that ETA 0905
is less demanding than the Spanish Royal Decree 1620/2007 (Gobierno de
España, 2007). The Spanish document is very demanding in terms of parameters to be analysed and requires an excessive frequency of tests, which
Water Policy for Buildings: A Portuguese Perspective
49
makes the generalisation of these systems in Spain more difficult. However,
it is known that the Decree will be revised soon to precisely facilitate
­analytical monitoring and reduce costs.
Use of rainwater
Rainwater harvesting systems in buildings have experienced considerable
development in several countries, not only for reasons of rational water use
but also as a contribution to the reduction in peak flood during periods of
precipitation. Countries like Germany, Brazil and to some extent the UK
already have standards in this area; the UK standards mostly for managing
surface water runoff.
In Mediterranean countries, the harvesting of rainwater has always been a
traditional practice, with simple technological solutions. However, the growing development of public water systems in the last century has resulted in
a progressive abandoning of these solutions, losing a large part of the traditional knowledge which supported them. The scenarios of water scarcity and
water stress are, however, raising growing interest in the reinvention of these
systems, based on recent, more economic and safer technologies.
The use of rainwater in buildings was the objective in the development of
Technical Specification 0701 (ANQIP, 2009a). This specification recommends
the certification of installations, for technical quality and public health reasons, as there are still no standards or regulations applicable in Portugal. This
certification implies intervention from ANQIP in the prior analysis of the
project, the execution of inspection of the works, the requirement for a maintenance plan and also the certification of installers. The certification system
was established in Technical Specification 0702 (ANQIP, 2009b).
Technical Specification 0701 (ANQIP, 2009a) used, to a large extent, the
experience of other countries. However, compared with other geographical
regions, the Mediterranean basin climate is characterised by relatively long
dry periods, of approximately three months and coinciding with the hot
period, which leads to the need to adapt solutions to suit.
One aspect to which special attention was given was the need to divert
the first flush, since the prolonged dry periods can aggravate the problem
of pollution of these first waters. Hence the recommended installations
of automatic divert systems. ANQIP is starting a water-quality testing
programme in various regions in the country, to perfect the recommendations on these issues as stated in the current technical specification
whilst paying attention to future editions of ETA 0701 or any future
Portuguese standard.
On the sizing of the tank, and due to the long dry periods which characterise the Mediterranean climate, it is generally important to prolong the
storage period, in particular when rainwater is used for watering gardens.
To establish the maximum storage period allowed, ANQIP developed a
50
Policy
water-quality control monitoring system at a pilot facility (Lança and SilvaAfonso, 2011), analysing over several weeks the essential chemical, physical
and microbiological parameters (including Legionella) in the tank and in use
(watering gardens). As a result of this study, ANQIP established in ETA 0701
a maximum storage period of three months, significantly higher than that
set in other foreign standards, but which was found to be feasible in the
context of the Mediterranean climate and may contribute to an increase in
rainwater harvesting facilities.
Opportunities and constraints
Water-efficiency measures
The policies for water efficiency in buildings can have aspects which are
common in all countries, but there are local or regional specificities that
must be followed.
In the case of labelling product water efficiency, there is a strong dependence in relation to the technical regulations or standards adopted by countries. For example, the reduction in flows may influence the performance of
drainage networks, depending on the system of calculation adopted. Note:
there are currently European countries where the cisterns must have a volume of less than 6 litres, whilst some have adopted System I of European
Standard 12056-2 where the cistern must be greater than or equal to 6 litres.
Therefore, the labelling systems cannot be freely generalised under penalty of raising issues of comfort, performance of drainage networks or even
public health. The labelling system developed for Portugal, which was studied and adapted to the technical conditions and habits of its citizens, has
been shown to be very suitable to the Portuguese context, but may not be
suitable for some parts of Northern Europe.
The European Commission is currently trying to establish a common
European EcoLabel for efficient WuPs.1 While this measure may be important from an environmental point of view for countries which still do not
have labelling systems, it may prejudice those countries that studied and
adopted systems to suit their context and create some confusion among consumers. In the end, this may result only in a commercial interest for some
manufacturers.
It should be noted that, even though it is a voluntary system, the WuP labelling system has been rather successful in Portugal, particularly pertaining to
flushing cisterns, where approximately 75% of the Portuguese market has
already been labelled. Regarding other products, the percentages are lower. In
any case, as it is a voluntary system, its success can only be attained by carrying
Editorial note: A voluntary EU Water Label now exists. Further details at: http://www.
europeanwaterlabel.eu.
1
Water Policy for Buildings: A Portuguese Perspective
51
out extensive consumer awareness and information campaigns, a policy that
ANQIP has not actively developed in the past but which is now being explored.
The decision of the Portuguese Government to include showers of categories A, A+ and A++ as one of the factors to consider for the energy certification of buildings will certainly accelerate the certification and labelling
process of these products. Measures like this, or the obligation to consider
efficient devices in new (or refurbished) public buildings, may improve
uptake even though the system is voluntary.
One aspect which requires further study is the comfort derived from lowflow products. In fact, aspects of comfort are very relevant as they can lead
to the rejection of efficiency measures or alterations in user habits (e.g.,
longer showers), partially or totally nullifying the advantages of increasing
the efficiency of products. As there are not many known studies on an international level regarding this matter, ANQIP is commissioning some studies –
seeking to establish reference values in spite of the inevitable subjectivity of
this parameter.
In terms of opportunities, the estimate of savings with the use of efficient
products in buildings is greater than one billion euros per year (water and
energy) in Portugal, and may lead to water consumption savings of 83 m3/year,
per home; this would mean a total value for the country of 390 × 106 m3/year.
The harvesting of rainwater is one of the measures which clearly has some
regional specificities. In Mediterranean countries, due to the long dry periods in
the summer which characterise the climate in the Mediterranean basin, aspects
related to the first-flush volumes to be diverted – as well as the maximum
period for storage in a tank, for example – require a regional approach. ANQIP
found that the results from the few existing studies do not provide conclusive
evidence and are now commissioning new analysis and tests on water quality.
In any case, the harvesting of rain and greywater is an area where the experience of some more advanced countries may largely be generalised.
However, the absence of regulations or legislation on this level in almost all
countries suggests the need for a certification mechanism by independent
entities, as public health issues may occur.
Even though ANQIP has already developed a model and prepared technical
specifications for these certifications, ANQIP finds that the European
Commission could develop a proposal to be adopted by countries in the Union.
Pertaining to water-efficiency audits, ANQIP has developed methodologies for various types of building and has carried out more than a hundred
audits on large public and private buildings (hospitals, shopping centres,
schools, etc.). The results show a high potential in environmental and
­economic terms for this type of intervention. A recent project by ANQIP
in the central region of Portugal audited 20 public buildings of different
characteristics and a saving of approximately 30% in water consumption
was possible, corresponding to 20,000 m3/year and a return on investment
period not exceeding, on average, two years.
52
Policy
It is therefore also recommended that the European Commission develop
standard methodologies for these audits, so as to perfect and increase their
execution.
Water efficiency and energy efficiency
Globally, buildings are responsible for approximately 40% of the annual
consumption of total energy in the world. In the EU, considering their lifecycle (construction, operation or use and demolition), buildings are responsible for approximately 50% of total energy demand and contribute almost
50% of CO2 emissions – the main greenhouse effect gas (GHG).
To obtain a reduction in the emission of CO2, efficient measures are needed
during the building operation phase since it represents 80–90% of total
energy consumed during the complete life of the building (Silva-Afonso
et al., 2011). In this context and in response to the Kyoto Protocol, Directive
2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (European Union,
2002) on the Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD) was published.
EPBD has a key role in realising an estimated 28% savings in the construction sector, which in turn can reduce the total final energy use in the
EU by about 11%. In Portugal, it has been observed that the construction
sector has the second highest rate of growth in energy consumption, followed by the transport sector. Residential and service buildings are responsible for about 30% of total energy and more than 60% of total electricity
consumed in Portugal. This study also found that about 50% of energy consumption in residential buildings is due to SHW heating (Silva-Afonso et al.,
2011). It should be noted that a more efficient use of water in buildings leads
to a reduction in water consumption and rejected effluents, increasing
energy savings in building and public networks and contributing to the
reduction in emission of greenhouse gases.
The Portuguese regulations require that new buildings comply with minimum requirements for energy performance and have an energy performance
certificate, translated into a label for energy efficiency.
ANQIP has developed studies to analyse and estimate reductions in
water consumption and corresponding energy savings in a typical residence,
using efficient WuP (labelled ‘A’), and make comparisons with residences
equipped with inefficient traditional products of the type commonly used
in Portugal. These studies were developed in a representative municipality
in central Portugal (municipality of Aveiro) (Silva-Afonso and PimentelRodrigues, 2010b).
For a typical household (with an average of 2.7 inhabitants) it was concluded that a total estimated saving was extremely significant, reaching
approximately 45% (227.5 litres/day = 83 m3/year), considering only the
reduction in water consumption – or even 50%, considering total water and
energy costs (309 €/year per family).
Water Policy for Buildings: A Portuguese Perspective
53
In Portugal, as showers represent over 30% of total water consumption in
residential buildings and constitute a major portion in relation to the consumption of SHW, ANQIP also conducted a simple study comparing the
savings achieved using efficient showers as an alternative to conventional
showers in Portugal (Silva-Afonso and Pimentel-Rodrigues, 2010b). The
results of the study show a possible water saving of 33% per person (15
litres/day = 5.5 m3/year), which corresponds to a reduction of approximately
445 kWh/year per family (or 165 kWh/year per person) in SHW heating.
The municipality of Aveiro has 73,000 inhabitants (27,000 homes). If
the measures were applied to the entire population, the result would
lead to energy savings of approximately 12 × 106 kWh/year. Furthermore,
the reduction in water consumption in buildings will lead to a reduction
in the volume of water collected, treated and pumped and also a reduction
in the volume of treated and pumped waste water. If the energy consumption per cubic metre in the municipality of Aveiro is considered, savings of
2.6 × 106 kWh/year are estimated in the water supply system and 1.8 × 106
kWh/year in the drainage and treatment of waste water. This represents a
total saving of 4.4 × 106 kWh/year. In addition to this, taking into account
the previously determined saving in the heating of SHW in buildings
(only considering showers) of 12 × 106 kWh/year, a very significant value of
16.4 × 106 kWh/year is possible for the total saving of energy in the municipality being studied.
To determine the equivalent reduction in GHG emissions, note that the
type of energy used in public systems is only electrical energy. In Portugal,
electrical energy is produced from a combination of technologies – including
hydroelectric, coal, wind, natural gas and others – and is also imported.
According to the Portuguese Operator (EDP), CO2 emissions are weighted in
369.23 g/kWh of electricity.
Based on these numbers, it is easy to conclude that the energy savings in
public systems, from the implementation of water-efficiency measures in
buildings, allows for a reduction in CO2 emissions of approximately 1625
tonnes/year in the municipality studied. In the residential sector, the source
of energy most used in the region of Aveiro for heating of SHW is LPG
(­propane or butane gas). Considering CO2 emissions of 248 g/kWh and taking into account the savings estimated in the heating of SHW, the CO2
reduction will be approximately 3000 tonnes per year.
In short, in Portugal, we can conclude that the general implementation of
water-efficiency measures in buildings can, for a population of approximately 70,000 inhabitants in a ‘standard’ municipality, result in a GHG
emissions reduction of 4625 tonnes/year, or approximately 66 kg CO2 per
inhabitant, per year.
Similarly to countries like Japan, the creation of carbon credits corresponding to the use of efficient WuPs can be imposed. A measure like this
may be led by the European Commission, due to its coverage.
54
Policy
Conclusions and recommendations
The policies directed towards the increase in water efficiency in buildings have
significantly increased throughout the world. This is motivated by growing
situations of water stress or shortages, for reasons of excessive water use or
even as a result of other policies (such as the reduction in peak floods in urban
areas or energy efficiency policies). However, it was found that different countries have different priorities, strategies and participants. The increase in
research in this area, greater attention from legislative entities (including the
Parliament and European Commission) in increasing the sharing of experiences
between countries and, if possible, a harmonisation of measures will certainly
make important contributions to achieving quicker and more efficient results.
Mediterranean countries like Portugal, located in the EU and as such following the general guidelines of water management policies established in
Europe, nevertheless present specificities which arise mainly from their
­climatic conditions, with the high risk of water stress and water scarcity.
Therefore, efficient water management policies have become pressing in all
sectors, including buildings. In contrast, these climatic conditions also
require that the approach to water efficiency issues considers, in some cases,
contextual measures.
The policies for water efficiency in buildings in Portugal have been stimulated and promoted by the non-governmental representatives of the sector,
designated ANQIP, who have remedied the hesitations and delays by the
government on this matter. In spite of the success of the measures developed by ANQIP, it is necessary to develop actions at various levels, whether
general or through national or EU policies.
With regard to scientific research in this area, there is a broad field of
subjects which are yet to be fully studied, such as the performance of drainage systems for low flow rates, comfort in use of low-flow products, water
quality issues in various uses within buildings, etc. In the specific case of
Mediterranean countries, the use of rainwater lacks more advanced studies
related to the volume of first-flush to be diverted or the sizing of tanks.
At the EU level, water-efficiency policies similar to those already promoted for energy efficiency are required, but possibly with a more voluntary
character because the nature of mandatory energy-efficiency policies has
proven to be excessive in some aspects or even inappropriate, especially in
countries of the South.
From a more concrete perspective, the European Commission should promote policies regarding the awareness of citizens to the importance of water
efficiency in Europe, the creation of a system of carbon credits for water
efficiency in buildings, the creation of models for audits of water efficiency
and certification of rainwater harvesting or greywater systems, etc. The
EcoLabel for WuP, launched in 2012, should be aligned with labelling
Water Policy for Buildings: A Portuguese Perspective
55
systems already developed in member countries and take local or regional
specificities into account. Otherwise, it may raise consumer confusion and
lead only to possible commercial benefits.
In Portugal, ANQIP argues for the following water efficiency in buildings
initiatives by the government: incorporation of requirements for water efficiency in the technical regulations of housing; awareness and information of
citizens regarding the importance of water efficiency; the implementation of
effective measures for water efficiency in buildings (e.g., the obligation to perform water audits in existing public buildings or the mandatory use of efficient devices in new public buildings under construction or refurbishment).
Mediterranean countries on a wider scale may consider the adoption of
common measures which take into account the specificity of their climate –
in particular regarding the harvesting of rainwater or even the creation of
their own WuP labelling system.
Further reading
The Portuguese Ministry for the Environment is revising the PNUEA (National Programme for
the Efficient Use of Water) so as to have it implemented during the period 2012–20. A temporary version of the document (in Portuguese) is available for public consultation [Online].
Available at: http://www.apambiente.pt/ajaxpages/consultapublica.php?id=18.
The W062 – Water Supply and Drainage in Buildings Commission of the International Council
for Research and Innovation in Buildings and Construction (CIB) organises an annual symposium to discuss the various systems related to its activity. The papers from the 37th edition,
covering (among other topics) ‘use of rainwater and reuse of wastewater’, ‘sustainable construction and climate change’ and ‘water efficiency, energy and GHG emissions’, can be
found [Online]. Available at: http://www.irb.fraunhofer.de/CIBlibrary/search-advanced.jsp.
The ANQIP Technical Specifications and some papers published by the Association can be found,
in Portuguese and in English (in some cases) [Online]. Available at: http://www.anqip.com.
European Council (1975) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the
quality of bathing water as amended by Council Directive 91/692/EEC (further amended by
Council Regulation 1882/2003/EC) and Council Regulation 807/2003/EC [Online]. Available
at: http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/instruments/204 [31/07/12].
IPQ (2006) Portuguese Standard on the Reuse of Urban Treated Wastewater in Irrigation, NP
4434, Instituto Português da Qualidade, Caparica, Portugal.
References
ANQIP (2008a) ANQIP Technical Specification ETA 0803 [Online]. Available at:
com/images/stories/comissoes/0802/ETA0802-4.pdf [31/07/12].
ANQIP (2008b) ANQIP Technical Specification ETA 0804 [Online]. Available at:
com/images/stories/comissoes/0802/ETA0804-2.pdf [31/07/12].
ANQIP (2008c) ANQIP Technical Specification ETA 0806 [Online]. Available at:
com/images/stories/comissoes/0802/ETA0806-2.pdf [31/07/12].
ANQIP (2008d) ANQIP Technical Specification ETA 0808 [Online]. Available at:
com/images/stories/comissoes/0802/ETA0808-1.pdf [31/07/12].
http://anqip.
http://anqip.
http://anqip.
http://anqip.
56
Policy
ANQIP (2009a) ANQIP Technical Specification ETA 0701 [Online]. Available at: http://anqip.
com/images/stories/ETA_0701_7.pdf [31/07/12].
ANQIP (2009b) ANQIP Technical Specification ETA 0702 [Online]. Available at: http://anqip.
com/images/stories/ETA_0702.pdf [31/07/12].
ANQIP (2011a) ANQIP Technical Specification ETA 0905 [Online]. Available at: http://anqip.
com/images/stories/ETA_0905.pdf [31/07/12].
ANQIP (2011b) ANQIP Technical Specification ETA 0906 [Online]. Available at: http://anqip.
com/images/stories/ETA_0906.pdf [31/07/12].
European Union (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,
of 23 October 2000, establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water
policy [Online]. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:
2000:327:0001:0072:EN:PDF [31/07/12].
European Union (2002) Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the energy performance of buildings [Online]. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:001:0065:0065:EN:PDF [31/07/12].
European Union (2011) 2012 Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources [Online]. Available
at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/pdf/blueprint_leaflet.pdf [31/07/12].
Gobierno de España (2006) Código Técnico de la Edificación (Real Decreto 314/2006), Ministerio
de Vivienda, Madrid, Spain.
Gobierno de España (2007) Real Decreto 1620/2007, de 7 de diciembre, por el que se establece
el régimen jurídico de la reutilización de las aguas depuradas, Ministerio de la Presidencia,
Madrid, Spain.
INAG (2001) National Programme for the Efficient Use of Water (PNUEA), Instituto da Água/
Ministério do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território, Lisbon, Portugal.
Lança, I. and Silva-Afonso, A. (2011) Rainwater storage and reuse. A safety case study in a
groundwater storage installation. In: Silva-Afonso, A. and ANQIP (eds), Water Supply and
Drainage for Buildings – CIB W062 International Symposium. ANQIP, Aveiro, Portugal,
pp. 293–300.
Portugal (1995) Regulatory Decree 23/95 – General Regulation of Public and Building Systems
for Water Distribution and Wastewater Drainage, Ministério das Obras Públicas, Transportes
e Comunicações, Lisbon, Portugal.
Portugal (2006) PEAASAR II – Strategic Plan for the Supply of Water and Sanitation of Waste
Water 2007–2013, Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Território e do
Desenvolvimento Regional, Lisbon, Portugal.
Silva-Afonso, A. and Pimentel-Rodrigues, C. (2010a) Water efficiency of products. The
Portuguese system of certification and labelling. Journal AWWA – American Water Works
Association, 102(2), 52–56.
Silva-Afonso, A. and Pimentel-Rodrigues, C. (2010b) The importance of water efficiency in
buildings in Mediterranean countries; The Portuguese experience. In: N. Deo et al. (eds),
Recent Advances in Urban Planning, Cultural Sustainability and Green Development.
WSEAS Press, Malta, pp. 217–132.
Silva-Afonso, A., Rodrigues, F. and Pimentel-Rodrigues, C. (2011) Water efficiency in buildings:
Assessment of its impact on energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions. In: Z. Bojkovic
et al. (eds), Recent Researches in Energy and Environment. WSEAS Press, Cambridge, UK,
pp. 191–195.
UNEP (2012) Freshwater Stress 1995 and 2025 [Online]. Available at: http://www.grida.no/
graphicslib/detail/freshwater-stress-1995-and-2025_6250 [31/07/12].
WWC (2012) Water Crisis [Online]. Available at: http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/index.
php?id=25 [31/07/12].
Section 2
People
Water use in homes is an important consideration in any effort to achieve
water efficiency in buildings. The understanding of how consumers engage
with and view their water usage is crucial to the effective design and implementation of water demand management policies and programmes. To this
end, this section of the book focuses on people as a key water use factor in
achieving water efficiency objectives. This builds on discussions from the
previous section which highlight the importance of engaging with water
users to understand how their behaviours, needs and preferences inform
their water use – including how these factors can be utilised to better target
water efficiency messages, initiatives and strategies.
Water efficiency initiatives in homes, for households, are now part of
most water efficiency programmes around the world. Some countries
include water efficiency targets in regulatory requirements for water companies and in building regulations. In other countries water companies use
water tariffs and bills, or give free water savings packs or kits to houses to
promote water conservation. Although the nature and form of each strategy
varies globally and with each water company, what remains common is the
effort to change customers’ attitudes and behaviour to water and the environment – either through information, technology or legislative ‘nudges’,
the latter punitive or incentivising.
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
58
People
The first chapter in this section argues that while consumers of water
may be aware of the need for water conservation, with many expressing
good intentions, consumers can often appear to be disengaged or discouraged from positively responding to measures designed to prompt the adoption of water-efficient technologies or solutions. This disengagement, or
inability of the consumer to engage with water-efficient strategies, is
highlighted as due to a range of socio-economic variables, such as age,
gender, income, education, as well as wider issues of emotional involvement, personal responsibility and institutional trust. The chapter also
highlights the gap between expressed attitude and actual behaviour. It
then argues that the adoption of single-track water efficiency strategies
(such as water metering or education campaigns) is unlikely to be sufficient, particularly in the medium to long-term. Instead, the authors suggest that the complexity of human behaviour needs to be openly recognised
and that more diverse and innovative approaches to water efficiency
should be developed.
With this backdrop, the second chapter equally acknowledges the wide
range of initiatives that are currently deployed to promote water efficiency.
It then problematises the notion that water efficiency through technology is
the only, and most effective, way to promote water-efficient behaviours or
practices by water customers. It argues for a complete departure from strategies aimed at changing individual water use behaviour to a more sociological approach, which the authors refer to as ‘distributed demand’. Distributed
demand in this context requires understanding the diverse patterns of water
use and implementing a technological, infrastructural and cultural change
for water efficiency. Further to this, the chapter highlights the value of intermediaries – to promote trust, transition and playful experimentation; the
subtle or not so subtle instructing of the performance of everyday life in a
playful way.
The previous two chapters agree that there are complex issues surrounding
the supply, demand and use of water in buildings. Furthermore, the lack of
collective and comprehensive evidence makes it difficult to design and implement optimal solutions. Therefore, the next chapter proposes co-creation as a
means to address evidence gaps as well as engage with water users.
Co-creation is defined as a process of collective creativity; the creation
of value by customers for customers. It then focuses on one aspect of
co-creation – co-creation for personalised value and knowledge creation. The
objective is to introduce inherent benefits within the water company–
customer relationship for resolving the water-in-use evidence problem.
The remainder of the chapter enumerates the role and advantages of
­information systems and t­echnology for instigating and implementing
co-creation and introduces an example toolkit developed for such purpose.
People  59
The policy section highlighted the role of water users and customers in
achieving regional and global water resource management and development
goals. This section goes further, by discussing the theoretical and practical
issues associated with soliciting and encouraging water users to embrace
water efficiency initiatives, strategies and measures. The main points and
recommendations from this section can be summarised as follows:
•• It is important that water efficiency strategies consider the complex set of
historical and sociological processes that inform water use and water use
behaviours.
•• Address factors that discourage or disengage consumers from responding to water efficiency strategies, for example personal responsibility,
institutional trust, as well as the gap in expressed attitude and actual
behaviour.
•• Acknowledge that there are infrastructural, political and socio-cultural factors
that inform water use practices in the internal space of homes (i.e., routines
and habits around personal and family care – bathing, showering, toilets, cooking) and ideas about the use of home and garden space (e.g., gardening, food
production, etc.). Approaches that ignore these influences whilst attempting
to alter demand are likely to be consistently limited in their efficacy.
•• Water efficiency encompasses much more than end-user water use.
Demand for water is not just located within individuals and cannot therefore simply be altered or changed by the provision of technology, or suggested modifications to behaviour through traditional approaches to
engagement and communication.
•• The use of trusted intermediaries can be beneficial in water efficiency
campaigns and initiatives. This encourages a significant shift and reconfiguration of the role of the water consumer, and the broadening out of the
locale of responsibility for water demand reductions from the household
to a range of other actors.
•• The economic value of water is important, particularly in water scarce
regions so as to ensure consumer behaviour is influenced by an environmentally appropriate price signal.
•• Single-track water efficiency strategies should be avoided (such as water
metering or education campaigns) as they do not accurately reflect the
diversity of factors that influence responses to water efficiency strategies. Therefore, water users should be targeted with a diverse range of
policies and programmes that better reflect the complexity of human
behaviour.
•• More effective knowledge transfer partnerships should be developed to
encourage greater levels of institutional trust and thus consumer buy-in to
water efficiency strategies.
60
People
•• Co-creation techniques can be used to deliver marketable value by and for
customers, improve trust and obtain further evidence on most of the
points enumerated above.
•• Co-creation can also support individuals or households to create value
through engagement in technological innovation and interaction in the
process of personalisation, or to design tailored water efficiency information or services.
4
Understanding Consumer Response
to Water Efficiency Strategies
James Jenkins and Alexis Pericli
University of Hertfordshire, UK
Introduction
Understanding how consumers engage with, and view, their water usage is
crucial to the design of more effective water demand management policies
and programmes. Research on consumer attitudes to water efficiency strategies and lowering domestic water usage highlights a number of issues. The
primary issue is that socio-demographic variables – such as age, gender,
income, education, infrastructure/services and political affiliation – are
­central to explaining why water consumers choose to change their behaviour,
or not, as may be the case (see, e.g., Hamilton, 1983; De Oliver, 1999; Stern,
1999; Gilg and Barr, 2006). According to Steg and Vlek (2009), ‘contextual
factors’ such as physical infrastructure, appropriate services and the
­availability of technology (water-saving devices and appliances) also shape
consumer behaviour. Contextual factors can directly affect an individual’s
behaviour and cause an immediate change in attitude or action. Therefore,
the relationship between contextual factors and behaviour can be moderated by motivational factors such as attitudes or personal norms, and these
influences can also mediate the link between motivational variables and
actual behaviour. Furthermore, goal-theory frameworks can often emerge,
causing a particular attitude or behaviour to develop as a result of a specific
contextual driver (Steg and Vlek, 2009). Hence, contextual factors may be
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
62
People
used to determine which types of motivational strategy will most strongly
affect an individual’s behaviour.
Attitudinal and behavioural factors relating to water efficiency have also
been widely analysed due to their influence on water-saving/conservation
actions and subsequent adjustments in consumption behaviour (see
Hamilton, 1983; Baldassare and Katz, 1992; Sadalla and Krull, 1995; De
Young, 1996; Lam, 1999; Barr, 2007; Randolph and Troy, 2008). In particular,
the concept of ‘pro-environmental’ behaviour has emerged as part of a consumer attitude paradox, and may be translated in terms of internal and external barriers towards specific behaviour (Fransson and Gärling, 1999; Kollmuss
and Agyeman, 2002; Barr, 2004; Steg and Vlek, 2009). For example, an environmental attitude/behaviour paradox can develop as individuals may often
be aware of the negative or damaging effect of their behaviour (i.e., the excessive consumption of water) on the environment, but may simply choose not
to alter their behaviour irrespective of the impact or risk of their behaviour
(Ungar, 1994; Sofoulis, 2005). As a result, this contradictory state can often
prevent the water-saving attitudes of a given individual (or consumer group)
from being expressed through tangible actions or behaviour, despite the good
intentions of water efficiency strategies (Ungar, 1994; Jamieson, 2006).
Serving to further underscore the complex nature of consumer behaviour, it
is also worth noting that wider dimensions of attitudinal/behavioural variability – including the notions of emotional involvement, participation, institutional trust and an attitude–behaviour gap – have also been shown to affect
consumer engagement with water efficiency strategies (see De Young, 1996;
Gregory and Di Leo, 2003; Fujii, 2006; Steg and Vlek, 2009).
This chapter discusses the main factors that influence consumer responses
to water efficiency strategies. It has four main sections, facilitating an in-depth
overview and discussion of the complex range of variables and issues that
shape consumer responses to water efficiency strategies. The first section presents an overview of the key socio-economic variables that affect consumer
responses to water efficiency strategies. The next section focuses on additional
issues that can affect consumer behaviour; in particular issues of emotional
involvement, personal responsibility and institutional trust are explored. A
further section seeks to encourage greater recognition of what is known as ‘the
attitude–behaviour gap’ and how this impacts on strategies designed to change
human behaviour with regard to water usage. The chapter is then brought to a
close with a brief conclusion and recommendations section.
Explorations in socio-demographic and contextual factors
The most commonly researched aspects with regard to consumer responses
to water conservation initiatives involve explorations of socio-demographic
characteristics and contextual factors. These are often then related to other
Understanding Consumer Response to Water Efficiency Strategies
63
influencing parameters such as economic and physical variables in order to
rationalise observed patterns of water consumption (Randolph and Troy,
2008). Hence, the exploration of socio-demographic variables – in terms of
represented attitude and behaviour – highlights the importance of background conditions such as age, gender and level of education in the formation, development and adjustment of attitudes to water conservation
(Schahn and Holzer, 1990; Vining and Ebreo, 2002; Gilg and Barr, 2006).
These variables may often interact with more complex underlying parameters, including knowledge networks/constructs, awareness and concerns
regarding water issues, as well as associated constructs of emotional involvement and perceived control that relate to conservational activities (see Berk
et al., 1993; De Oliver, 1999; Jorgensen et al., 2009). Meanwhile these variables, which reside within an individual’s attitudinal and epistemological
network, may be further influenced by contextual factors that govern an
individual’s ability to implement a change in attitude through subsequent
behaviour (see Blake, 2001; Vining and Ebreo, 2002; Gilbertson et al., 2011).
With the complexity of these issues, a convoluted positionality may be
formed in which interactions between different socio-demographic, contextual and attitudinal variables can occur, ultimately dictating an individual’s
represented behaviour in reality (Gilg and Barr, 2006; Randolph and Troy,
2008). In fact, socio-demographic factors and knowledge constructs often
appear to influence certain types of behaviour in terms of water consumption, by causing positive or negative attitudes to develop in relation to a
given activity (Kaiser et al., 1999a; Corral-Verdugo et al., 2003). For example, an individual that is more aware and concerned about water issues –
including overconsumption, waste and scarcity – can in turn represent
underlying attitudes in the form of tangible behaviour (such as turning off
the tap when brushing teeth, using water economy settings on appliances or
limiting water consumption for garden maintenance); thus demonstrating a
positive attitudinal and behavioural inclination towards water conservation
(see Moore et al., 1994; Syme et al., 2004; Hurlimann et al., 2009). In contrast, an individual that has limited knowledge, awareness or concern with
regard to water consumption issues may often represent a negative attitudinal inclination towards water conservation (see Arcury, 1990; Bamberg,
2003). Furthermore, it should be noted that socio-demographic factors may
also interact with other attitudinal constructs such as personal affect, social
constructs and subjective perceptions of risk, which often involve a convergence of knowledge, awareness and concern (Lam, 1999; Slovic, 2000; Renn,
2004). The result is that these attitudes may compel certain patterns of
behaviour that represent a positive or negative standing towards water conservation and a reduction in overall consumption (Vining and Ebreo, 2002;
Gilg and Barr, 2006). For instance, a personal experience of drought or water
shortage conditions may prompt an individual to form a positive attitude
towards conservation, which also encourages the long-term adoption of
64
People
pro-conservation behaviours in order to intrinsically avoid personal risks
associated with scarcity conditions (Appelgren and Klohn, 1999; AguileraKlink et al., 2000; Renn, 2004).
In investigating attitudes to water conservation and consumption,
Randolph and Troy (2008) are notable for utilising socio-demographic variables to form a profile of water users. Their study identified the various
attitudes towards water conservation of a specific population sample, and
suggests that observed attitudes to certain factors such as water usage, pricing structures and water savings in the home are linked to levels of awareness, perceived responsibility and behavioural parameters.
The results of the study highlighted a range of issues that are related to
various other findings within the wider literature. For instance, it was found
that while consumers were aware of the need for water conservation – and
consider it an important issue worthy of action – these attitudes fail to be
translated into changes in behaviour because individual consumers do not
see themselves as the cause of the problem (see Corral-Verdugo et al., 2003;
Hurlimann et al., 2009). Also, individuals often espouse positive intentions
with regard to reducing water use, despite evidence that many households
are limited by contextual or situational constraints such as a lack of waterefficient appliances and/or water efficiency saving devices (Randolph and
Troy, 2008; Dolnicar and Hurlimann, 2010).
Finally, perhaps one of the most salient findings of the research focused on
exploring the key factors that affect consumer behaviour and how it can be
altered is via studies focused on exploring the cost of water and how this is
linked to changes in behaviour. However, from a developed country context,
research has served to highlight the variable nature of the link between
increased costs of water. For example, recent analysis by Ward (2012), centred
on OECD countries, found that a 10% increase in the average water price
across households lowered urban water use anywhere from 5.9 to 2.7%.
Whilst it is notable that central to the effective functioning of water
­metering is the ability of providers to increase charges to control demand
(Chambouleyron, 2004), it is also apparent that few consumers in a developed
country context – such as in the context of the UK or Australia – understand
the true cost of water in monetary terms or how much they actually use individually or as a collective household; the economic rationale underpinning
metering appears a little flawed (Randolph and Troy, 2008; Jenkins, 2011).
Broadening the understanding of consumer responses
Socio-demographic variables are just one part of a multidimensional
­attitude–behaviour complex, although it is widely recognised that socio-­
demographic variables play an important role in shaping behavioural
responses towards water conservation initiatives and strategies. Therefore,
Understanding Consumer Response to Water Efficiency Strategies
65
issues such as emotional involvement, personal responsibility and perceived
control, institutional trust, as well as a gap in attitude–behaviour, can all
play a central role in shaping consumer responses to water-efficient strategies, as the subsequent discussion illustrates (see Kollmuss and Agyeman,
2002; Gilg and Barr, 2006; Randolph and Troy, 2008; Steg and Vlek, 2009).
Firstly, it is important to recognise the highly complex and poorly understood variable of ‘emotional involvement’ in an issue, which can often shape
represented knowledge, awareness and attitude (Owens, 2000; Böhm, 2003;
Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). The issue of emotional involvement may be
defined as the extent to which an individual has an affective relationship
with a given environmental issue. A high level of emotional involvement
can thus prompt personal effort through which an individual contributes to
a solution that seeks to address the relevant dilemma, such as the overuse
of water resources (Owens, 2000; Stern, 2000; Kollmuss and Agyeman,
2002). Emotional links to certain topics or issues are widely shown to be
very important in forming and developing core values, beliefs, attitudes and
cognitive judgements with regard to the environment and more specifically,
water use (Vining, 1992; Stern, 2000; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). In fact,
as Böhm (2003) and Jensen (2002) suggest, an individual that represents
a strong emotional reaction to a given environmental issue is more likely
to represent pro-environmental attitudes and fully engage with pro-­
environmental or conservational behaviour in response to the given issue.
Secondly, the factor of ‘personal responsibility’, which is closely related to
emotional involvement, considers the extent to which people feel they have
a role to play in improving a situation, while the associated variable of perceived control may be defined as the extent to which an individual feels it is
possible to influence a given situation and facilitate change through their
locus of control (Kaiser and Shimoda, 1999; Kaiser et al., 1999b; Kollmuss
and Agyeman, 2002). These two concepts gain importance when investigating attitudes to water conservation strategies, because the construct of
responsibility is often representative of underlying values and attitudes
towards a problem, with the level of perceived control also influencing the
likelihood of an individual adopting pro-conservation attitudes and changing behaviour accordingly (Blake, 1999; Gilg and Barr, 2006). In fact, barriers
to responsibility and control can arise through numerous pathways, including an individual or group feeling that a situation cannot be influenced
(a feeling of powerlessness), a viewpoint that suggests it is not the responsibility of a given individual or group to address a specific issue that has been
highlighted (a feeling of disassociation and the notion of attributing the
problem to another group), a distinct lack of trust in institutions that are
expected to guide action when addressing environmental issues, as well as
the failure of required (or encouraged) changes in behaviour to align with
personal priorities, thereby causing motivation for change to decline significantly (Kaiser and Shimoda, 1999; Kaiser et al., 1999a,b; Kollmuss and
66
People
Agyeman, 2002). For example, Blake (1999) and Kaiser et al. (1999b) claim
that responsibility can decline through a lack of efficacy, limited situational
control and, perhaps most damaging to potential behaviour change, a lack of
trust in governing agents or institutions. In particular, through work focused
on the implementation of sustainability objectives, Blake (1999) highlights
that a lack of institutional trust fundamentally stopped individuals from
acting in a pro-environmental manner, as the population had become suspicious of local and national government. In turn, this condition caused the
population group to be less willing to follow recommended actions proposed
by the governing agents and institutions, and ultimately encouraged a sense
of disassociation or disengagement.
It is possible to expand on the notion of institutional trust discussed
above, by considering its importance with regard to attitudes to water efficiency strategies. As Jorgensen et al. (2009) highlight, the concept of trust
has been widely acknowledged as a key institutional factor that can serve to
limit or facilitate pro-conservation attitudes and behaviour in relation to
resource issues, public good allocation and collective action. For example,
proposed water-saving measures (such as service restrictions) seem to be
most effective when customers fully trust the guidance of water providers
on the need to conserve water, understand the potential consequences of
inaction and share a sense of social responsibility and trust in the expectation that members of their community will also take action to conserve
water (Mosler, 1993; Atwood et al., 2007). It is therefore argued that perceptions of institutional trust should be accorded increased significance when
seeking to understand consumer attitudes to water efficiency strategies, particularly when the large majority of consumers are ignorant of how the
water industry is financed and what changes in the seasonal cost of water
achieve or what future well-intentioned initiatives relating to the pricing
regime for water services might mean for their consumption of water. In
essence, if consumers regard their water provider to be untrustworthy, they
are more likely to be unreceptive to proposed water conservation or efficiency initiatives, and thus these individuals (or households) are unlikely to
be responsive to potential behavioural changes (Jorgensen et al., 2006, 2009).
Consequently, as Tyler and Degoey (1996) proclaim, it is important that
water providers form and develop a sense of trust with their customers in
order to improve the acceptance of decisions that seek to encourage and
facilitate water conservation. In this setting, communication between the
water providers and consumers is vital, particularly if a shift towards an
alternative framework is viewed as being necessary by both government and
the water providers themselves (Syme et al., 2000; Poortinga and Pidgeon,
2003; Jorgensen et al., 2006, 2009). For instance, although effective public
communication with regard to water conservation is acknowledged as a key
component of demand management, the process has often been implemented within an educational framework which operates through the direct
Understanding Consumer Response to Water Efficiency Strategies
67
dissemination of information, rather than a more relational framework that
is capable of prompting and encouraging cooperation while at the same time
building and consolidating trust (Tyler and Lind, 1992; Tyler and Degoey,
1996; Jorgensen et al., 2009).
Recognising the attitude–behaviour gap
Finally, it is worth mentioning the existence of attitude–behaviour gaps,
which are frequently highlighted as being a key issue when seeking to address
resource management issues such as water consumption (Blake, 1999; De
Oliver, 1999; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Gilg and Barr, 2006; Randolph
and Troy, 2008; Hurlimann et al., 2009). It is recognised that a distinct gap
exists between attitudes expressed in favour of water conservation measures,
which are often believed to be associated with positive intentions to conserve water. Compared with the actual behaviours that result in inaction, it
is fundamental to better recognise the reality of everyday life and develop
more effective water efficiency strategies that are capable of causing change
in consumer behaviour (Blake, 1999; De Oliver, 1999; Kollmuss and Agyeman,
2002; Hurlimann et al., 2009). This has resulted in research that considers
the complexity of pro-conservation behaviour and the notion of multidimensional barriers to behavioural change. These concepts, discussed below, serve
to provide a theoretical link between the attitudinal parameters discussed
previously and resultant behavioural constructs.
The concept of pro-conservation behaviour and environmental responsibility emerges as an important factor to consider when the understanding of
the impact of water efficiency strategies is sought. This is because barriers,
or opportunities to influence change, can serve to form or shape attitudes
(and resultant behaviours) that either encourage or limit water-saving actions,
and thus whether or not a particular water-efficient strategy will ultimately
work (Steg and Vlek, 2009). In terms of pro-conservation behavioural barriers, the research by Steg and Vlek suggests that attitudes, behaviour and
action can be fundamentally categorised in the context of internal and external factors (much like the categorisation of conservation attitudes identified
previously), whilst also being further influenced within this setting by the
three broad variables of motivation, context and habit (see Courteney-Hall
and Rogers, 2002; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Jensen, 2002; Clark et al.,
2003; Steg and Vlek, 2009). Initially, motivational factors are centred on individual motives, and consider moral and normative concerns. That is, the
perceived costs and benefits of an activity/action and the role of affective,
symbolic or goal-related pathways (see Kaiser et al., 1999a,b; Steg, 2005;
De Groot and Steg, 2008). For example, in the case of water conservation, an
overriding attitudinal factor such as keeping a car clean or garden/lawn well
maintained can cause an individual to disregard water conservation in order
68
People
to maintain the symbolic integrity or personal value of a given activity, while
also satisfying goal-related pathways which include perceived affluence and
success (Seligman and Finegan, 1990; Aitken et al., 1994; Steg and Vlek,
2009). Thus, by maintaining symbolic and goal constructs, attitudes towards
water conservation gain a secondary importance and may be suppressed or
completely disregarded (Vining and Ebreo, 2002; Staats, 2003). Contextual
factors also consider the wider influences that have an effect on an individual, thereby facilitating or limiting water-efficient behaviour and individual
motivation (Steg and Vlek, 2009). This may include the quality and availability of information regarding conservation, the effectiveness of water company services, the media portrayal of specific water issues and the financial
cost of water-saving household options such as efficient appliances and
­retrofitted technology (see Vining and Ebreo, 1992; Ölander and Thøgersen,
1995). These parameters can strongly affect an individual’s level of responsibility. In many cases, restrictions such as financial cost can also be so
significant that positive motivations are overwhelmed (Corraliza and
­
Berenguer, 2000). Finally, habitual factors focus on behaviour choices that,
instead of more detailed deliberation and reasoning, cause direct effects
which occur through automatic cognitive processes (Aarts et al., 1998). In
fact, habits seem to be poorly understood within the literature, as they often
rely on a range of subjective attitudes that converge and prompt a sustained
behavioural construct to both withstand weaker influencing factors and
­persist over a long time period (Vining and Ebreo, 2002).
Conclusion and recommendations
As the preceding discussion has demonstrated, consumer behaviour with
regard to water use and its conservation is far from straightforward. Whilst
consumers of water may be aware of the need for water conservation, with
many expressing good intentions, consumers can often appear to be disengaged or discouraged from positively responding to measures designed to
prompt the adoption of water-efficient strategies and behaviours. This
­disengagement, or inability of the consumer to engage with water-efficient
strategies, was highlighted as being due to a range of socio-economic variables such as age, gender, income, education, as well as wider issues of
­emotional involvement, personal responsibility and institutional trust, and
the existence of a gap in expressed attitude and actual behaviour.
Therefore, this chapter clearly highlights the need for consumers to be
targeted with a diverse range of policies and programmes at any one time,
particularly if the complexity of human behaviour is to accurately reflect in
and be responded to by strategies designed to facilitate a change in consumer
behaviour with regard to water usage. Consumer behaviour is simply too
complex to be affected, in the medium to long term, by the application of
Understanding Consumer Response to Water Efficiency Strategies
69
single-track strategies such as the installation of meters (be they smart or
otherwise) that are not reflective of the reality of consumer behaviour,
which is complex and diverse. This often warrants long-term strategies targeted at bringing about a deep-rooted and fundamental shift in behaviour
towards resource consumption.
Whilst it is clearly evident that consumers need to be targeted with a
diverse range of policies and programmes to facilitate a change in water
usage behaviour, the authors fully recognise that central to any coherent
strategy targeted at addressing the growing problem of water scarcity is the
need to revaluate the economic value of water, and by association the pricing approaches used to finance the provision of water services (see Zetland,
2011). For example, it is notable that those living in the south-east of
England, which is one of the most water stressed regions of the UK, have
some of the lowest water bills in the UK. This situation is somewhat paradoxical as the price signal being given to consumers indicates the complete
opposite, i.e. that water is in plentiful supply and the environment is not
being subject to water stress due to the need to meet consumer demand.
Therefore, as water is scarce in the south-east of England, it is surely legitimate to argue for the regulatory framework determining the cost of water
services to be revisited, particularly in the context of a multifaceted strategy
designed to enable society to more effectively manage the growing problem
of water scarcity.
A framework that better accounts for the opportunity costs and economic
externalities associated with water use is argued by the authors as being the
key to ensuring that consumers are encouraged to reduce their usage of
water (see OECD, 2010). The current ‘market’ failure, particularly in the
context of the south-east of England, is not sustainable or acceptable in the
medium to long term as it fundamentally undermines what are currently
‘voluntary’ efforts, from the perspective of the consumer, to change their
behaviour with regard to conserving water. However, as has been clearly
indicated above, the application of new and alternative economic models for
water costing should not be viewed as a cure-all solution to the problem of
water scarcity and overconsumption. Many studies have found that consumer response to price signals varies. Some consumers are unwilling to pay
more for their water to improve its conservation whilst others think that
they are already water efficient – thus they should not have to pay for a solution. It is notable that any increase in cost, even with the best intention,
would be met with a great deal of hostility from consumers as many are
deeply suspicious of the motive of privatised utilities (Randolph and Troy,
2008; Jenkins, 2011; Zetland, 2011).
Therefore, if water strategies in contexts such as (or similar to) England
and Wales are to be more effective, particularly if accompanied by a different
economic model to costing, it is essential that effective knowledge transfer
partnerships are developed between not just the company and the consumer,
70
People
but also the economic regulator. It is crucial that the economic regulator for
the water industry plays a much greater role in ensuring the regulatory
framework for the industry is easily understood by the consumer. This will
then help the consumer to better appreciate the intentions of water companies and government with regard to water efficiency and help to allay fears
of profiteering. Water conservation projects focused on changing consumer
behaviour need to focus on developing more effective consumer–supplier
relationships that are underpinned by high levels of trust and mutual understanding. Without such relationships, little will be achieved in effecting a
change in water use behaviour.
Further reading
Gilg, A. and Barr, S. (2006) Behavioural attitudes toward water saving? Evidence from a study
of environmental actions. Ecological Economics, 57(3), 400–414.
Hurlimann, A., Dolnicar, S. and Meyer, P. (2009) Understanding behaviour to inform water supply management in developed nations – a review of literature, conceptual model and research
agenda. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 47–56.
Ölander, F. and Thøgersen, J. (1995) Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prerequisite for
environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18(4), 345–385.
Schahn, J. and Holzer, E. (1990) Studies of individual environmental concern: the role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22(6), 767–786.
Staats, H. (2003) Understanding pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour: an analysis and
review of research based on the theory of planned behaviour. In Bonnes, M., Lee, T. and
Bonaiuto, M. (eds), Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues. Ashgate Publishing,
Aldershot, UK.
Tyler, T.R. and Degoey, P. (1996) Trust in organizational authorities. In Kramer, R.M. and Tyler,
T.R. (eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Sage, New York.
References
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B. and Van Knippenberg, A. (1998) Predicting behaviour from actions in
the past: repeated decision making or a matter of habit? Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
28(15), 1355–1374.
Aguilera-Klink, F., Pérez-Moriana, E. and Sánchez-García, J. (2000) The social construction of
scarcity: the case of water in Tenerife. Ecological Economics, 34(2), 233–245.
Aitken, C.K., McMahon, T.A., Wearing, A.J. and Finlayson, B.L. (1994) Residential water use:
predicting and reducing consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(2), 136–158.
Appelgren, B. and Klohn, W. (1999) Management of water scarcity: a focus on social capacities
and options. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth: Part B, 24(4), 361–373.
Arcury, T.A. (1990) Environmental attitudes and environmental knowledge. Human
Organization, 49(4), 300–304.
Atwood, C., Kreutzwiser, R. and De Loë, R. (2007) Residents’ assessment of an urban outdoor water
conservation program. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 43(2), 427–439.
Baldassare, M. and Katz, C. (1992) The personal threat of environmental problems as predictor
of environmental practices. Environment and Behavior, 24(5), 602–616.
Understanding Consumer Response to Water Efficiency Strategies
71
Bamberg, S. (2003) How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally
related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
23(1), 21–32.
Barr, S. (2004) Are we all environmentalists now? Rhetoric and reality in environmental action.
Geoforum, 35(2), 231–249.
Barr, S. (2007) Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviours. Environment and
Behavior, 39(4), 435–473.
Berk, R.A., Schulman, D., McKeever, M. and Freeman, H.E. (1993) Measuring the impact of
water conservation campaigns in California. Climatic Change, 24, 233–248.
Blake, D.E. (2001) Contextual effects on environmental attitudes and behavior. Environment
and Behavior, 33(5), 708–725.
Blake, J. (1999) Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: tensions between
national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4(3), 257–278.
Böhm, G. (2003) Emotional reactions to environmental risks: consequentialist versus ethical
evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 199–212.
Chambouleyron, A. (2004) Optimal water metering and pricing. Water Resources Management
18, 305–319.
Clark, C.F., Kotchen, M.J. and Moore, M.R. (2003) Internal and external influences on pro-­
environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 23, 237–246.
Corraliza, J.A. and Berenguer, J. (2000) Environmental values, beliefs, and actions a situational
approach. Environment and Behavior, 32(6), 832–848.
Corral-Verdugo, V., Bechtel, R.B. and Fraijo-Sing, B. (2003) Environmental beliefs and water
conservation: an empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 247–257.
Courteney-Hall, P. and Rogers, L. (2002) Gaps in mind: problems in environmental knowledgebehaviour modelling research. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 283–297.
De Groot, J. and Steg, L. (2008) Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmentally
significant behaviour: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations.
Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330–354.
De Oliver, M. (1999) Attitudes and inaction: a case study of the manifest demographics of urban
water conservation. Environment and Behavior, 31(3), 372–394.
De Young, R. (1996) Some psychological aspects of reduced consumption behavior: the role
of intrinsic satisfaction and competence motivation. Environment and Behavior, 28(3),
358–409.
Dolnicar, S. and Hurlimann, A. (2010) Australians’ water conservation behaviour and attitudes.
Australian Journal of Water Resources, 14(1), 43–53.
Fransson, N. and Gärling, T. (1999) Environmental concern: conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(4), 369–382.
Fujii, S. (2006) Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and ease of behavior as determinants of pro-environmental behavior intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
26(4), 262–268.
Gilbertson, M., Hurlimann, A. and Dolnicar, S. (2011) Does water context influence behaviour
and attitudes to water conservation. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management,
18(1), 47–60.
Gilg, A. and Barr, S. (2006) Behavioural attitudes toward water saving? Evidence from a study
of environmental actions. Ecological Economics, 57(3), 400–414.
Gregory, G.D. and Di Leo, M. (2003) Repeated behaviour and environmental psychology: the
role of personal involvement and habit formation in explaining water consumption. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), 1261–1296.
Hamilton, L.C. (1983) Saving water: a causal model of household conservation. Sociological
Perspectives, 26(4), 355–374.
72
People
Hurlimann, A., Dolnicar, S. and Meyer, P. (2009) Understanding behaviour to inform water supply management in developed nations – a review of literature, conceptual model and research
agenda. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 47–56.
Jamieson, D. (2006) An American paradox. Climatic Change, 77(1&2), 97–102.
Jenkins, J.O. (2011) Bishops Stortford Seasonal Tariff Trial: Exploring Consumer Attitudes.
Unpublished report commissioned by Veolia Water Central Limited, UK.
Jensen, B.B. (2002) Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental
Education Research, 8(3), 325–334.
Jorgensen, B., Syme, G.J. and Nancarrow, B.E. (2006) The role of uncertainty in the relationship
between fairness evaluations and willingness to pay. Ecological Economics, 56, 104–124.
Jorgensen, B., Graymore, M. and O’Toole, K. (2009) Household water use behaviour: an integrated model. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 227–236.
Kaiser, F.G. and Shimoda, T.A. (1999) Responsibility as a predictor of ecological behaviour.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(3), 243–253.
Kaiser, F.G., Wölfing, S. and Fuhrer, U. (1999a) Environmental attitude and environmental
behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 1–19.
Kaiser, F.G., Ranney, M., Hartig, T. and Bowler, P.A. (1999b) Ecological behavior, environmental
attitude, and feelings of responsibility for the environment. European Psychologist, 4(2), 59–74.
Kollmuss, A. and Agyeman, J. (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are
the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.
Lam, S.P. (1999) Predicting intentions to conserve water from the theory of planned behaviour,
perceived moral obligation, and perceived water right. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29(5),
1058–1071.
Moore, S., Murphy, M. and Watson, R. (1994) A longitudinal study of domestic water conservation behavior. Population and Environment, 16(2), 175–189.
Mosler, J. (1993) Self-dissemination of environmentally-responsible behavior: the influence of
trust in a commons dilemma game. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 111–123.
OECD (2010) Pricing Water Resources and Water and Sanitation Services. OECD, Paris.
Ölander, F. and Thøgersen, J. (1995) Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prerequisite for
environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18(4), 345–385.
Owens, S. (2000) Engaging the public: information and deliberation in environmental policy.
Environmental and Planning A, 32, 1141–1148.
Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2003) Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation.
Risk Analysis, 23, 961–972.
Randolph, B. and Troy, P. (2008) Attitudes to conservation and water consumption.
Environmental Science and Policy, 11(5), 441–455.
Renn, O. (2004) Perceptions of risks. Toxicology Letters, 149, 405–413.
Sadalla, E.K. and Krull, J.L. (1995) Self-presentational barriers to resource conservation.
Environment and Behavior, 27(3), 328–353.
Schahn, J. and Holzer, E. (1990) Studies of individual environmental concern: the role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22(6), 767–786.
Seligman, C. and Finegan, J.E. (1990) A two-factor model of energy and water conservation. In
Edwards, J., Tindale, R.S., Heath, L. and Posavac, E.J. (eds), Social Influence Processes and
Prevention. Plenum Press, New York.
Slovic, P. (2000) The Perceptions of Risk. Earthscan, London.
Sofoulis, Z. (2005) Big water, everyday water: a socio-technical perspective. Continuum: Journal
of Media and Cultural Studies, 19(4), 445–463.
Staats, H. (2003) Understanding pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour: an analysis and
review of research based on the theory of planned behaviour. In Bonnes, M., Lee, T. and
Bonaiuto, M. (eds), Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues. Ashgate Publishing,
Aldershot, UK.
Understanding Consumer Response to Water Efficiency Strategies
73
Steg, L. (2005) Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic, and affective motives for car
use. Transportation Research A, 39(2&3), 147–162.
Steg, L. and Vlek, C. (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review
and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.
Stern, P.C. (1999) Information, incentives, and pro-environmental consumer behaviour. Journal
of Consumer Policy, 22(4), 461–478.
Stern, P.C. (2000) Towards a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal
of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
Syme, G.J., Nancarrow, B.E. and Seligman, C. (2000) The evaluation of information campaigns
to promote voluntary household water conservation. Evaluation Review, 24(6), 539–578.
Syme, G.J., Shao, Q., Po, M. and Campbell, E. (2004) Predicting and understanding home garden
water use. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 121–128.
Tyler, T.R. and Degoey, P. (1996) Trust in organizational authorities. In Kramer, R.M. and Tyler,
T.R. (eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Sage, New York.
Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E.A. (1992) A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in
Experimental Psychology, 25, 115–191.
Ungar, S. (1994) Apples and oranges: probing the attitude–behaviour relationship for the environment. Canadian Review of Sociology, 31(3), 288–304.
Vining, J. (1992) Environmental emotions and decisions. Environment and Behavior, 24(1), 3–34.
Vining, J. and Ebreo, A. (1992) Predicting recycling behaviour from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 22(20), 1580–1607.
Vining, J. and Ebreo, A. (2002) Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives on conservation behaviour. In Bechtel, R.B. and Churchman, A. (eds), Handbook of Environmental
Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Ward, M. (2012) Managing residential water demand in the OECD. GWF Discussion Paper
1201, Global Water Forum, Canberra, Australia. Available at: http://www.globalwaterforum.
org/2012/01/16/managing-residential-water-demand-in-theoecd/.
Zetland, D. (2011) The End of Abundance: Economic Solutions to Water Scarcity. Aguanomics
Press, Amsterdam.
5
Distributed Demand and the Sociology
of Water Efficiency
Alison Browne,1 Will Medd,2 Martin Pullinger3
and Ben Anderson4
The University of Manchester, UK
Lancaster University, UK
3
University of Edinburgh, UK
4
Southampton University, UK
1
2
Introduction
There are a number of emerging alternative conceptualisations of
demand management that reveal the assumptions embedded in current
­systems of water provision, supply and demand management, and water
efficiency (Medd and Shove, 2006; Chappells and Medd, 2008a; Sofoulis,
2011; Strengers, 2011). These new approaches move away from the focus on
­attitudes and individual behaviour. Two factors which, despite prominence
in research on water resource planning and demand intervention, often
fail to account for people’s actual actions related to water use and water-­
efficient savings (Geller et al., 1983; Aitken et al., 1994; Syme et al., 2000;
Harlan et al., 2009; Russell and Fielding, 2010).
This chapter introduces the utility of other social science approaches,
such as sociology, to the study of water efficiency and highlights the ways
that current (diverse) patterns of water use are related to technological,
infrastructural and cultural development. Therefore, a deeper understanding of the diversity of demand is proposed, including how it is embedded
in inconspicuous everyday routines and how habits will enhance the discussion of water efficiency interventions and campaigns. This approach
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Distributed Demand and the Sociology of Water Efficiency
75
considers how a more sociological/cultural-focused approach to the
creation and maintenance of demand, using a concept of distributed
­
demand, will enhance the broader social and political agenda for increasing
water ­efficiency in homes and other built environments. The impact of this
approach is then explored to get beyond the average water consumer and
understand the diversity of everyday practice associated with water use,
and the impact of this approach on methodologies used in water efficiency
programmes as well as the data collection associated with these pro­
grammes. The practicalities of this approach open up the type, and ­location,
of interventions and experiments for social change associated with water
efficiency in the home.
Developing an idea of ‘distributed demand’ and a practice
perspective on water efficiency
Water efficiency programmes implemented in the UK, focused as they are
on the simple provision of technologies and communication about ways
to change behaviour, tinker at the corners of what is actually a diffuse and
complicated system of demand. Within England, OFWAT sets targets for
water efficiency programmes – for information provision, drought communication, provision of technology and strategies for metering households
which the companies then alter to their identified needs. However, the
demand for water is not just located within individuals. Therefore,
demand cannot simply be altered or changed by the provision of technology,
or ­suggested modifications to behaviour through traditional approaches to
engagement and communication. Social/cultural and historical approaches
have shown the ways in which demand has formed, emerged and come
into being through a complex set of historical processes encompassing,
for example, changing ideas about consumer rights, emerging water and
waste infrastructures and evolving public health agendas. The development
of these public infrastructures and political and social images is linked to
the development of practices associated with water use in the internal
space of homes, routines and habits around personal and family care
(e.g., bathing, showering, toilets, cooking) and the use of home and garden
spaces (e.g., gardening, food production, etc.) (Shove, 2003; Hand et al.,
2005; Trentmann and Taylor, 2006, 2007). Household demand should be
seen as emergent from multiple human–natural–technological relations. In
this sense, understanding demand as a socio-technical–natural assemblage
means ­understanding its creation, maintenance and transition as distributed
across space and time (Shove et al., 2009; Schatzki, 2010).
Previous research on showering is an effective example of the complexity
of the emergence and maintenance of routines and habits, and how approaches
to water efficiency that simply replace inefficient showering technology
76
People
with water-efficient technology fail to recognise the fairly recent emergence
of showering as an established cleanliness practice in Britain. The significance of a distributed approach to demand can be seen by following the
relations that constitute the practice of showering. Indeed, showering
­
­presents an interesting paradox: often cited as a way to save water instead of
taking a bath. New showering technologies such as power showers and the
recruitment of people to once-daily showering as a practice has pushed the
consumption of water beyond that originally consumed through the ­practice
of (less than daily) baths (Critchley and Phipps, 2007). Accounting for this
surge in showering demand as situated in the decision-making behaviour of
the individual consumer and measured through micro-component flows
would be limited. A more distributed approach to demand suggests the need
to look further afield to account for the development of showering (for
more detail see Shove, 2003; Hand et al., 2005; Quitzau and Ropke, 2009).
We need to look beyond individual components or elements to see the
distribution of demand across the emergent arrangement of showering
as whole, including the institutions and regulatory relationships that
ensure water (and energy) is supplied consistently and of the right quality
and ­pressure to households. An example of showering illustrates how water
­efficiency programmes which focus on providing technology do little to
­recognise (a) what self-cleaning practices have been lost by the emergence
of showering as a dominant practice (e.g., the flannel wash, the sink wash,
the small bath every other day, the weekly bath); (b) what the water use
implications of these losses of certain practices and recruitment to oncedaily s­ howering actually are; and (c) how providing water-efficient substitutes of showering technologies maintains the dominance of showering
over other forms of washing.
The establishment and maintenance of demand, for showering and
other water-consuming practices, is therefore distributed across a number of
social, technical, infrastructural and other systems. Browne et al. (2012)
began to explore the idea of demand as created and distributed across
bodies, households, public spaces, water infrastructures, designers and
­
­manufacturers, beauty care industries, garden and lifestyle designers and
manufacturers, and regulatory systems; and what we do with these things,
social and cultural images, and how it shapes the services water provides
(family care, lifestyle, cleanliness and hygiene, health, comfort, etc.). Water
demand is like an urban metabolism (e.g., Addams, 2000; Alexander et al.,
2008) encompassing a range of reactions and counter-reactions, meaning that
a change at one site in this distributed demand system could be related
to change or maintenance of the status quo at another point in this system.
Since demand is constituted through multiple relations, by adopting a
distributed approach it also becomes possible to see how demand shifts
­
as different relations come into play and new combinations form. Changing
the focus from attitudes and behaviours to elements making up practice also
Distributed Demand and the Sociology of Water Efficiency
77
highlights the diversity of water demand and that there cannot be a ‘one size
fits all’ approach to demand management and water efficiency intervention.
Beyond behaviour and technology: a practice
perspective on ‘efficiency’
Distributed demand/distributed intervention:
the role of intermediaries
While most water efficiency programmes continue to focus on strategies
to shape individual behaviour (for example through education campaigns,
metering and promoting uptake of water-efficient technologies), the
emerging evidence base for water efficiency highlights the need to bring
on board different actors and intermediaries such as schools, local businesses, local councils and other regional and national stakeholders
(Waterwise, 2011). Box 5.1 shows an example of the way that Thames
Water is starting to use intermediaries in water efficiency programmes in
the Thames region. There are other examples where business intermediaries are being used, but there is no room to fully explore these in this
chapter. There are a number of significant issues that can be identified in
Box 5.1 Save Water Swindon – the Thames Water efficiency
partnership
Thames Water have developed innovative place-based campaigns that
appeal to a collective sense of responsibility, highlighting the importance of
the role of intermediaries; this is an approach to water efficiency that engages
with a range of distributed actors.
Save Water Swindon (SWS) is getting closer to a model of distributed demand
by acknowledging locations beyond the household engaged in water use
(schools, businesses and industry workplaces) and Thames Water are currently
developing a programme to engage diverse actors in other town initiatives,
moving the ‘responsibility’ for water efficiency beyond the household. They are
doing this through what they call a ‘partnership approach’, bringing in a range of
local, regional and national stakeholders from local communities, NGOs, government agencies and academia to help them shape the success of these
programmes. For example, SWS involves Waterwise, WWF-UK, Environment
Agency, Climate Energy, OFWAT, Energy Savings Trust – EST, and a range of
academic and consultative partners as well as enrolling intermediaries in the
process of implementation (for example schools, retailers, etc.).
Thames Water are currently scaling up this approach to a number of other
place-based initiatives across the Thames Water region, and in areas that
vary significantly in size, socio-demographic characteristics and landscape.
78
People
these different approaches, including a reframing of the consumer and the
configuration of actors and intermediaries who are involved in promoting
sustainable transitions.
First are a set of issues about how these campaigns position the
­consumer. In relation to place, much has been written about the connections between local and sustainable consumption (for example around
local food produce) and there is a growing body of work seeking to understand the emergence of place-based strategies for transition away from
existing consumption dependencies (notably the transition town movement as well as the ­
infrastructure transitions literature) (e.g., Marvin
and Guy, 1997; Wells, 2011; Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012). The place-based
focus of these water efficiency programmes raises a different set of
­questions about the positioning of the consumer when a privatised utility
company seeks to connect everyday consumer practices to a sense of placebased responsibility. Of ­
particular ­
relevance is the literature which
explores the potential for bringing together the logics of consumption with
those of environmental citizenship (e.g., Blake, 1999; Spaargaren and Mol,
2008). Indeed, there is also more ­specific literature looking at the ways
in which water consumers are framed in demand management campaigns
(Bakker, 2003; Sharp, 2006).
Second, such campaigns raise questions about the configuration of
actors involved in achieving sustainable consumption. Traditional analysis
of infrastructure management tends to be dominated by a focus on the relationship between the utility companies, the regulators and the (domestic)
consumer. In recent years, however, a growing body of work has highlighted
the importance of hidden intermediary work through which strategies for
sustainability are translated into practice and indeed the transformative
role that intermediaries can play (Guy et al., 2011). Such translation can
involve working across different institutional agendas (e.g., private water
companies and environment regulation) as well as translating agendas
towards different social groups (e.g., low-income households, school children)
and different types of practice (e.g., gardening, showering). The work of
intermediation involves processes of translation across different and
­sometimes competing agendas and offers an opportunity to further refine
our ­understanding of the different and multiple logics and pathways through
which sustainable consumption can be promoted.
Third, there are questions about what impact such campaigns have. As
mentioned, there is a growing body of literature on sustainable consumption that argues the need to move away from a simplistic focus on strategies
that rely on changing people’s behaviour through information or changing
attitudes (Shove, 2010). This growing body of work documenting the
­complexities and intricacies of everyday practices that place a demand on
water are beginning to show the varied ways in which water companies’
strategies (from smart metering to hosepipe bans) are negotiated and
Distributed Demand and the Sociology of Water Efficiency
79
c­ o-produced in everyday practices (Chappells et al., 2011; Sofoulis, 2011;
Strengers, 2011). The research has also pointed towards the need to think
differently about consumer–producer relations (Southerton et al., 2004;
Chappells and Medd, 2008; Horne et al., 2011). Place-based campaigns imply
a reconfiguring and distribution of shared responsibility of water efficiency, however, the extent to which they impact on water demand, and if
so, how, is yet to be strongly evidenced.
Distributed demand/distributed intervention: the role
of playful experimentation
Practices, for example showering, bathing, doing the laundry or gardening,
are each made up of a range of diverse elements – with interdependencies
and recognisable conjunctions between the different elements that make
up this practice. While we can talk about showering as an entity of familiar practice, we can also talk about the performance of these practices.
That is, it is the repeats and repetitions of a particular pattern of practice
that means the practice is maintained and sustained over time (Shove
et al., 2012). It is only because people carry and continue on with the practice
of showering that showering exists at all! Effective strategies to promote
deep change to water use therefore do not involve simply trying to alter
individuals’ p
­ erformances of practices, but trying to change the different
elements that make up those practices to potentially achieve more sustained change. For ­example, altering the images that shape showering –
such as countering images of ideal standards of cleanliness with the
emerging hygiene ­hypothesis (e.g., Clough, 2011). Altering the technologies of showering and bathroom design, and the skills that people have
to engage in different types of bathing practices, are all examples of locations where change can occur.
Practice-based theories offer a potential to scale out the types of inter­
ventions that are usually considered within water efficiency campaigns
for households in more playful and experimental ways. Green-living experiments have become increasingly popular over the past few decades
(Hargreaves et al., 2008; Marres, 2009), and can be achieved both through
‘top-down’ mechanisms (such as a smart meter trial run by a government
or water company; Stewart et al., 2010) or the Japanese ‘Cool Biz’ campaign
(encouraging office workers to wear cooler clothes rather than using airconditioning) and more ‘bottom-up’ mechanisms (such as the lifestyle
experiments as part of the transition town movement). Marres (2009) highlights how these green-living experiments appeal to people’s playfulness,
particularly with traditionally disengaged audiences who are thought to be
drawn in through the experiments’ novelty. Similarly, such an approach
highlights that everyday life in home environments can be a site of activism
through the subtle (or not so subtle) restructuring of the performance of
80
People
everyday life (Pink, 2012). This vein of experimentation related to various
household services opens up ideas of innovative ways of influencing water
consumption within the home in a playful way.
One example of this is the way that a practices approach is increasingly
being applied to the area of household and product design. The idea of
­user-led design is one that has been gaining significant popularity in the
field of design over a number of years from everything to elements of the
users’ experiences on the Web and information systems to designing the
emotive elements of outdoor spaces (Burns, 2002; Sanders and Stappers,
2008; Garrett, 2011). However, there has recently been a surge of writing
exploring the implications of designing for practices, rather than designing
for design’s sake, which includes focusing on the performance of users
related to design and participatory co-design (e.g., Sanders, 2002; Suchman,
2002; Scott et al., 2012). For example, Lenneke, Kuijer and colleagues are
reworking the layout and features in bathrooms; engaging participants to
innovate their own alternative bathing practices in the same vein as the
experimental and participatory approach identified above, as well as using
this knowledge of participants’ actual innovative practices to shape future
bathroom design (e.g., Kuijer and De Jong, 2009, 2011; Kuijer et al., 2010).
An example of this is ‘Splash’, which allows people to sit while washing
and splashing water over themselves in a reconfigured washing space. Such
an approach reconfigures what are the acceptable and potential boundaries
of washing and bathing, with the playful and experimental approach
­potentially allowing users more flexibility in how they use their bathroom
spaces. Similarly, it engages a range of d
­istributed intermediaries and
actors – such as designers, product manufacturers and lifestyle product
retailers – in the creation and maintenance of alternative and potentially
less water-intensive practices.
Reinvigorating/reinventing methodology: tracking and
capturing changes to practice
One of the significant problems identified with water efficiency interventions is the lack of evidence of the impact of the programmes (Syme et al.,
2000). This is recognised within the UK as a significant problem – with it
now being an OFWAT requirement that each company takes an active role
in improving the evidence base for water efficiency (OFWAT, 2009), as well
as the development of more formal industry-wide schemes (Waterwise,
2011). While we are not encouraging a ‘cause and effect’ approach to evaluation, the distributed demand approach does highlight a number of potential
mixed-methodological approaches for tracking and capturing changes to
water consumption both in relation to broader social and cultural changes
and intentional water efficiency programmes. This applies to methodologies
that could be used within applied research settings, and could shape the best
Distributed Demand and the Sociology of Water Efficiency
81
practice of data collection in water companies initiating water efficiency
and demand management programmes.
A consideration of the idea of demand as distributed throughout a
­system leads to a question about how, if we start to change different
­elements of those relations, demand may start to shift in different ways
and at different scales. How can we develop approaches to research and
business practice that capture the complexity of demand presented in this
chapter, and also capture changes to water consumption as they are occurring (both with and without water efficiency intervention)? Although
approaches that are potentially complementary with a practice-based
approach are slowly being adopted within broader research settings in
order to bridge the paradigmatic divide between positivist and post-­
positivist research (Sharp et al., 2011; Browne et al., 2012), much of the
social science approaches that prioritise distributed demand and practice
still prioritise qualitative and small ‘n’ studies (Halkier et al., 2011; Pink,
2012). Although these studies provide important qualitative reflections
on patterns of consumption and the impact of demand management programmes, there is a desire in the water industry to have ‘harder’ evidence
of the impact of different programmes.
The authors’ research programme over the past three years has highlighted the way that a truly mixed-methodological approach can contribute
to a more resilient set of indicators to be used to understand and develop
changes in water consumption over time. In Browne et al. (2012), a free
open-access academic paper, how researchers and the water industry might
better utilise freely available data sets was explored to inform the understanding of changes to the geographical and temporal aspects of water use
in the UK that will give an understanding of the changes to patterns of
consumption. Similarly, Pullinger et al. (2013) present an overview of a
programme of research where a practice-based approach was used, and
through quantitative research methods moved away from an approach to
customer segmentation based on attitudinal, behavioural and demographic
information (DEFRA, 2008) by focusing on clustering practice. Although
there is no room to explore this approach to segmentation here, it is considered useful to present the ‘if only it was possible’ list of all the data that
should be collected by water companies, governments and consultants/
researchers working on water demand management and water efficiency
programmes (including metering programmes) and that could be used to
capture and track changes to water use and practices over time. This collection of data would allow the most ­complete understanding of the diversity
of domestic water demand and provide ample data for academic research
programmes. It will also provide effective methodologies for shaping policy
and business strategies, and d
­ eveloping more effective social indicators of
change to consumption practices. Please refer to Table 5.1 for more details
of this methodological wish list.
82
People
Table 5.1 Data sources ideally collected to inform water efficiency and demand
programmes
Type of information
Data to be collected
Purpose of data
Household
information
Property type, property size (number of
rooms as a proxy), garden size and soil
type (secondary data), tenancy type,
who lives there, ages of householders,
culture/ethnicity, employment status,
affluence measure/income, ownership
of technologies (household audits of
technology, presence of meter, water
supply source).
Basic demographic
information – on its own
not as useful but combined
with the data below
increases in utility.
Performance of
practices
Detailed mixed-methodological
data-capturing practices that consume
water in the home – survey, interview
and ethnographic information (e.g.,
observation including video) of
frequency/timing/criteria of
performance of practice (e.g., showers
a week, etc.), technology used, level of
outsourcing (e.g., washing services),
meanings behind practice (e.g.,
cleanliness, etc.).
Trying to understand how
people use water, what
they do when they are
using it, why they use it
and when they use it. Will
also allow the monitoring
of changes to consumption
across time and space.
Metering data
Micro-component data, individual
household metered data (whether on
metered tariff or not), domestic
monitoring area data.
Translating diversity of
practices to litres
consumed both within
household and broader
community, particularly
when developed in
conjunction with data
on the ‘performance of
practices’.
Consumption data
UK’s ongoing Living Costs and Food
Survey (formerly Expenditure and Food
Survey).
Relating practices
consuming water in the
home to broader trends of
consumption of household
products and goods.
Interrogating the role of
stuff in practices.
Time use data
As an example, national time use
surveys (e.g., UK ONS 2005,
Multinational Time Use Survey –
MTUS).
Such data sets capture
changing daily rhythms
and routines, and could be
used to reflect how larger
historical changes (such
as changes to employment
policy or social norms)
also work to influence
water-using practices.
Weather data
Regional patterns of weather,
preferably link to local data and ideally
as close as possible to respondents’
postcode. Also, historical data showing
anomalies, etc.
Relate weather patterns to
appropriate consumption
data (of expenditure on
products) and water
consumption.
Distributed Demand and the Sociology of Water Efficiency
83
Conclusion
This chapter highlighted that current water efficiency strategies risk simply
tinkering around the edges of change by focusing almost solely on information provision (environmental and economic cost of behaviours) and providing technologies that sustain rather than interrogate current elements of
water use practices like bathing, showering, kitchen sink use, laundry and
gardening. It presented an approach that considers the way that demand has
been constructed, and is maintained, in a distributed way through a complex,
diffuse system of cultural and social conventions, technologies and other elements which shape inconspicuous everyday consumption. It highlighted
that demand for water is not just located within individuals and cannot
therefore simply be altered or changed by the provision of technology, or suggested modifications to behaviour through traditional approaches to engagement and communication. Water demand has formed, emerged and come
into being through a complex set of historical processes. The development of
public infrastructures, and political and social images, is linked to the development of practices associated with water use in the internal space of homes,
routines and habits around personal and family care (e.g., bathing, showering,
toilets, cooking) and ideas about the use of home and garden space (e.g.,
­gardening, food production, etc.). Therefore, approaches that attempt to alter
that demand by only focusing on water use reductions in individuals or
­individual homes will be consistently limited in their efficacy.
The impact of water efficiency programmes was considered – programmes
that adopt a place-based perspective and shift the location of responsibility
for change beyond the individual and the household by engaging with a
range of governmental, business and other stakeholders with water efficiency programmes in a particular town. This consideration of the role of
intermediaries in promoting water efficiency campaigns highlights a potentially significant shift and reconfiguration of the role of the water consumer,
and a broadening out of the locale of responsibility for water demand reductions from the household to a range of other actors. The discussion then
returned to household water efficiency and explored the role of playful and
innovative research and policy experimentation as a potential method for
shifting various elements of practice. Finally, the chapter concluded by
highlighting a range of potential methodological implications that emerge
by reframing demand as distributed, from a more rigorous collection of
social and other data – particularly when water companies and governments
are initiating water efficiency campaigns in order to properly evaluate programmes. This included a broader range of social data that could be collected regularly in order to understand broad shifts in the different elements
of practice, which could be used to help target future water efficiency interventions and programmes.
84
People
Based on research and conceptual developments by the authors and other
social scientists, this chapter problematises the notion that water efficiency
through technology and information provision is the only, and most effective, way to create change with customers and highlights opportunities for
more innovative approaches to create change. Exploring different facets of
an idea of ‘distributed demand’, it identified creatively moving beyond the
status quo for water efficiency programmes and highlighted the opportunities for an innovative and linked-up demand management and water
­efficiency programme in the UK.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council), ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council), DEFRA
and the Scottish Government through the ARCC-Water (Adaptation and
Resilience in a Changing Climate) and SPRG (Sustainable Practices Research
Group) Patterns of Water projects; also the Thames Water ‘Save Water
Swindon’ partnership programme.
Further reading
Browne, A.L., Medd, W. and Anderson, B. (2012) Developing novel approaches to tracking
domestic water demand under uncertainty – A reflection on the ‘up scaling’ of social science
approaches in the United Kingdom. Water Resources Management, online first/in press DOI:
10.1007/s11269-012-0117-y.
Medd, W. and Shove, E. (2006) The sociology of water use. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
References
Addams, H. (2000) Q methodology. In: Addams, H. and Proops, J. (eds), Social Discourse and
Environmental Policy: An application of Q methodology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Aitken, C.K., McMahon, T.A., Wearing, A.J. and Finlayso, N.B.L. (1994) Residential water
use: predicting and reducing consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24,
136–158.
Alexander, K.S., Price, J.C., Browne, A.L., Leviston, Z., Bishop, B.J. and Nancarrow, B.E. (2008)
Community perceptions of risk, trust and fairness in relation to the indirect potable use of
purified recycled water in South East Queensland: A scoping report [Technical Report No. 2].
Urban Water Security Research Alliance, Brisbane, Australia.
Bakker, K. (2003) An Uncooperative Commodity: Privatising water in England and Wales.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Blake, J. (1999) Overcoming the ‘value–action gap’ in environmental policy: tensions between
national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4, 257–278.
Browne, A.L., Medd, W. and Anderson, B. (2012) Developing novel approaches to tracking
domestic water demand under uncertainty – A reflection on the ’up scaling’ of social science
Distributed Demand and the Sociology of Water Efficiency
85
approaches in the United Kingdom. Water Resources Management, online first/in press DOI:
10.1007/s11269-012-0117-y.
Burns, A. (2002) Emotion and the urban experience: implications for design. In: Frascara, J. (ed.),
Design and the Social Sciences: Making connections. Taylor and Francis, New York.
Chappells, H. and Medd, W. (2008a) From big solutions to small practices. Social Alternatives,
27, 44–49.
Chappells, H. and Medd, W. (2008b). What is fair? Tensions between sustainable and equitable
domestic water consumption in England and Wales. Local Environment, 13, 725.
Chappells, H., Medd, W. and Shove, E. (2011) Disruption and change: drought and the inconspicuous dynamics of garden lives. Social and Cultural Geography, 12, 701–715.
Clough, S. (2011) Gender and the hygiene hypothesis. Social Science and Medicine, 72,
486–492.
Critchley, R. and Phipps, D. (2007) Water and energy efficient showers. Project report, UK.
DEFRA (2008) A framework for pro-environmental behaviours [report]. DEFRA (Department
for Environment Food and Rural Affairs), London.
Garrett, J.J. (2011) The Elements of User Experience: User-centered design for the web and
beyond, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, New York.
Geller, E.S., Erickson, J.B. and Buttram, B.A. (1983) Attempts to promote residential water conservation with educational, behavioural and engineering strategies. Journal of Population,
Behavioural Social and Environmental Issues, 6, 96–112.
Guy, S., Marvin, S., Medd, W. and Moss, T. (eds) (2011) Shaping Urban Infrastructures:
Intermediaries and the governance of socio-technical networks. Earthscan, Oxford.
Halkier, B., Katz-Gerro, T. and Marteens, L. (2011) Applying practice theory to the study of
consumption: theoretical and methodological considerations. Journal of Consumer Culture,
11, 3–13.
Hand, M., Shove, E. and Southerton, D. (2005) Explaining showering: a discussion of the material, conventional, and temporal dimensions of practice. Sociological Research Online, 10.
Hargreaves, T., Nye, M. and Burgess, J. (2008) Social experiments in sustainable consumption:
an evidence-based approach with potential for engaging low-income communities. Local
Environment, 13, 743–758.
Harlan, S.L., Yabiku, S.T., Larsen, L. and Brazel, A.J. (2009) Household water consumption in an
arid city: affluence, affordance, and attitudes. Society and Natural Resources, 22, 691–709.
Horne, R., Maller, C. and Lane, R. (2011) Remaking home: the reuse of goods and materials in
Australian households. In: Lane, R. and Gorman-Murray, A. (eds), Material Geographies of
Household Sustainability. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, UK.
Kuijer, L. and De Jong, A. (2009) A practice oriented approach to user centered sustainable
design. In: Sixth International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and
Inverse Manufacturing. The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Sapporo, Japan,
pp. 541–546.
Kuijer, L. and De Jong, A. (2011) Practice theory and human-centered design: a sustainable bathing example. In: Härkäsalmi, T., Koskinen, I., Mazé, R., Matthews, B. and Lee, J.-J. (eds),
Nordes 2011, 2011 School of Art and Design, Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland,
pp. 221–227.
Kuijer, L., McHardy, J. and Scott, K. (2010) The challenge of the bucket wash: creating desirable
sustainable practices. In: 7th International Conference on Design and Emotion, IIT Institute
of Design, Chicago.
Marres, N. (2009) Testing powers of engagement: green living experiments, the ontological turn
and the undoability of involvement. European Journal of Social Theory, 12, 117–133.
Marvin, S. and Guy, S. (1997) Creating myths rather than sustainability: the transition fallacies
of the new localism. Local Environment, 2, 311–318.
Medd, W. and Shove, E. (2006) The sociology of water use. Lancaster University,
Lancaster, UK.
86
People
OFWAT (2009) Water efficiency targets 2010–11 to 2014–15 [Appendix 1] [Online]. Available at:
http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/pricereview/pap_pos_pr09supdempolapp1.pdf] [17/8/2012].
Pink, S. (2012) Situating Everyday Life: Practices and places. Sage, London.
Pullinger, M., Browne, A.L., Anderson, B. and Medd, W. (2013) Patterns of water: the waterrelated practices of households in southern England, and their influence on water consumption
and demand management [Final Report]. Lancaster University, Lancaster. Retrievable from:
http://www.sprg.ac.uk/projects-fellowships/patterns-of-water/patterns-of-water-final-report.
Quitzau, M.B. and Ropke, I. (2009) Bathroom transformation: from hygeine to well-being?
Home Cultures, 6, 219–242.
Russell, S. and Fielding, K. (2010) Water demand management research: a psychological perspective. Water Resources Research, 46.
Sanders, E.B.N. (2002) From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In: Frascara, J.
(ed.), Design and the Social Sciences: Making connections. Taylor and Francis, London.
Sanders, E.B.N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.
CoDesign, 4, 5–18.
Schatzki, T.R. (2010) The Timespace of Human Activity: On performance, society, and history
as indeterminate teleological events. Lexington Books, New York.
Scott, K., Bakker, C. and Quist, J. (2012) Designing change by living change. Design Studies, 33,
279–297.
Seyfang, G. and Haxeltine, A. (2012) Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of
community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environment and
Planning C, 30, 381–400.
Sharp, L. (2006) Water demand management in the UK: constructions of the domestic water
user. Journal of Environmental Management and Planning, 49, 869–889.
Sharp, L., McDonald, A.T., Sim, P., Knamiller, C., Sefton, C. and Wong, S. (2011) Positivism,
post-positivism and domestic water demand: interrelating science across the paradigmatic
divide. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36, 501–515.
Shove, E. (2003) Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience. Berg, Oxford.
Shove, E. (2010) Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change.
Environment and Planning A, 42, 1273–1285.
Shove, E., Trentmann, F. and Wilk, R. (eds) (2009) Time, Consumption and Everyday Life:
Practice, materiality and culture. Berg, Oxford.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M. and Watson, M. (2012) The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday life
and how it changes. Sage, London.
Sofoulis, Z. (2011) Skirting complexity: the retarding quest for the average water user.
Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 25, 795–810.
Southerton, D., Chappells, H. and Vliet, B.V. (eds) (2004) Sustainable Consumption: The implications of changing infrastructures of provision. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Spaargaren, G. and Mol, A.P.J. (2008) Greening global consumption: redefining politics and
authority. Global Environmental Change, 18, 350–359.
Stewart, R.A., Willis, R., Giurco, D., Panuwatwanich, K. and Capati, G. (2010) Web-based
knowledge management system: linking smart metering to the future of urban water planning. Australian Planner, 47, 66–74.
Strengers, Y. (2011) Beyond demand management: co-managing energy and water practices
with Australian households. Policy Studies, 32, 35–58.
Suchman, L.A. (2002) Practice-based design of information systems: notes from a hyperdeveloped world. The Information Society, 18, 139–144.
Syme, G.J., Nancarrow, B.E. and Seligman, C. (2000) The evaluation of information campaigns
to promote voluntary household water conservation. Evaluation Review, 24, 539–578.
Trentmann, F. and Taylor, V. (2006) From users to consumers: water politics in nineteenthcentury London. In: Trentmann, F. (ed.), The Making of the Consumer: Knowledge, power
and identity in the modern world. Berg, Oxford.
Distributed Demand and the Sociology of Water Efficiency
87
Trentmann, F. and Taylor, V. (2007) Liquid politics: the historic formation of the water consumer [Findings Report]. Cultures of Consumption Research Programme, Birbeck College,
University of London, London.
Waterwise (2011) Evidence base for large-scale water efficiency. Phase II final report. Waterwise,
London.
Wells, P. (2011) The transition initiative as a grass-roots environmental movement: history,
present realities and future predictions. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review, 12,
372–386.
6
Co-creating Water Efficiency with
Water Customers
Kemi Adeyeye
School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, UK
Introduction
Resource efficiency discourse as a profound social goal is pervaded by
­complexity and uncertainty (Connor and Dovers, 2004). It is therefore not
surprising that many water efficiency studies conducted in academia
and industry often conclude with the need for more evidence.
There are complex issues surrounding the supply, demand and use of
water in buildings, and the lack of collective and comprehensive evidence
makes it difficult to design and implement optimal solutions. Take, for
example, the need to understand the water-in-use in buildings. For this to
occur, it is necessary to understand water (as a physical and social commodity) and the water user – actions, perceptions, habits and even values.
Here, each of the influential factors needs to be deconstructed, measured
and understood. Metrics and indicators need to be identified, methodologies defined, analytical tools explored. Research methodologies can be rigorous and valid but in this scenario, the co-creation approach can equally
be enacted to collaboratively explore solutions with the water user which
are sufficient. This is the ‘generative dance between knowledge and knowing’ which distinguishes an epistemology of possession (knowledge that
can be built, owned, circulated, used for innovation) and an epistemology of
action (knowledge that is produced during the process of acting) (Cook and
Brown, 1999).
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Co-creating Water Efficiency with Water Customers
89
The nature and regulation of the water industry, in England and Wales for
example, often places particular duties on the water suppliers to manage water
consumption and demand. The effectiveness of this approach for promoting
water efficiency during the demand phase has been criticised, particularly in
view of the conflicts it creates between the messenger and the message. In
addition, as Lawer (2006) argues, the perspective of the firm as an autonomous
knowledge creator that learns about customers and creates value for them is
increasingly redundant. Nonetheless, the nature of the market precludes the
market-imposed solution. But even in an environment of constraints, there are
opportunities to explore demand-side solutions by, for and with customers, if
companies are willing to redefine a more dynamic relationship with their
customers. In creating new water efficiency knowledge and promoting best
practice, it is imperative for companies to engage with customers, not just as
consumers but as producers of ideas and solutions as well (Bauman, 2007). To
this end, co-creation becomes applicable in that it redefines the notion of the
customer in a much more active and creative vein, where consumers are empowered to adopt new solutions and exert influence on organisations or processes.
Sanders and Stappers (2008) refer to co-creation as a process of collective
creativity. It is the creation of value by customers for customers. Of the various types of co-creation, this chapter focuses on co-creation for personalised
value and knowledge competence. Personalised experience value and knowledge co-creation is where the firm/organisation and the customer interact
within an experience environment to realise unique co-created value. The unit
of this value is not the product or the service, but the individual experience
and its interaction and influence on that of others (Lawer, 2006). Pragmatically,
this creates a cycle where the water companies engage with customers to gain
better knowledge and understanding of water-in-use/the customers contribute
to personalising better products and services to achieve water efficiency/industry stakeholders1 gain the evidence they need to meet water efficiency targets.
This co-creation model is about promoting an active or improved relationship
between the ‘supplier’ (policy makers, water suppliers, building professionals,
product manufacturers, etc.) and the ‘water user’ in order to derive value from
the understanding and competence gained from their collective knowledge.
Co-creation aims to satisfy, in a cost-effective manner, the needs and wants of
a specific individual or entity such as a household. The goal is not to enforce
collective reasoning or preconceived agenda. The objective is to work with
the user to find personal solutions which may in turn help to achieve global
objectives. The main foreseeable barrier though is that co-creation relies on
effective customer or user participation to be effective.
The primary evidence gap in water efficiency knowledge centres on water-inuse, but co-creation techniques can be used to involve individuals or households
A knowledge-sharing framework among stakeholders is essential. Knowledge autonomy
in one sector of the industry is counterproductive.
1
90
People
to create value through adopting and customising technological innovation to
suit their needs. Similarly, it can be used to promote knowledge exchange
whereby water customers start to personalise and redefine their interaction with
water. Water customers thereby start to fulfil additional roles – transcending the
boundaries of the knowledge provider, knowledge creator, change maker, etc. –
which in turn can change their self-perceptions (Zwass, 2010). However, change
of perception requires customer-knowledge competence. This is a process where
knowledge about specific customers is generated (Campbell, 2003). This requires
a knowledge management process that takes customers from being passive
recipients of products and services to empowerment as knowledge partners; to
gain, share and expand the knowledge residing in customers, for both customer
and corporate/public benefit (Gibbert et al., 2002).
There are various techniques and tools to help companies improve the
knowledge competence of their customers in a simple, non-intrusive, nonpatronising manner. This chapter focuses on one such method, the use of
information systems and technologies. The aim is to introduce co-creation
within the water company–customer relationship and, using the co-creation
principles, highlight the important components of co-creation for personalised value and knowledge creation. The benefits of co-creation for resolving
the water-in-use evidence problem are then discussed. The remainder of the
chapter enumerates the role and advantages of information systems and
technology for instigating and implementing co-creation and introduces an
example toolkit developed for such purpose.
Principles of co-creation
Four essential components must be in place for co-creation to occur:
Dialogue, Access, Risk and Transparency (DART). DART leads to a clear
assessment by the consumer of the risk–benefits of a course of action and
decision (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004).
The DART components are crucial for effective co-creation. Dialogue
involves all parties and leads to the sharing of experiences, acquiring a
deeper understanding of what is happening on the other side of an interaction, and enabling new and better experiences for both sides (Ramaswamy
and Gouillart, 2010). Dialogue ensures that the experiences of all the stakeholders, including the least obvious ones, are considered. It is a strategic
shift from the typical consultation process, the key difference being continuity. That is, a departure from the one-off questionnaire or focus group
consisting of carefully selected participants to a continuous dialogue with
stakeholders; not just water customers and water companies but product
manufacturers, building providers and regulators as well.
Co-creation of value requires open processes and systems which are truly
inclusive, transparent and responsive in order to engender the active participation of customers and the perception of value in return. Co-creation only
Co-creating Water Efficiency with Water Customers
91
thrives with transparency – in how the process is managed and how decisions
are made. It will not work without the willingness of all parties to be transparent and open (Steyaert and Jiggins, 2007). This however is dependent on societal,
corporate and policy arrangements and the extent to which, as a result of the
shared learning process, they are open to the necessity or potential for change.
When planning personalised experience value and knowledge co-creation,
it is important to note that (Zwass, 2010):
•• Stakeholders will not wholeheartedly participate in customer co-creation
unless it produces value for them too. With water efficiency schemes, it is
important that value is not defined strictly in monetary terms and by
incentives alone. Some studies have shown that the potential for better
customer service or better service output after periods of detachment and
disillusionment with service providers can be considered a worthwhile
reason to engage.
•• The best way to co-create value is to focus on the experiences of all stakeholders. Successful co-creators focus explicitly on providing rewarding
experiences for customers, employees, suppliers and other stakeholders.
The key to improving experiences is letting stakeholders play a central
role in designing how they work with the company to achieve water
­efficiency objectives or how they interact and engage with water-saving
products or technologies. Passive experiences of technologies – posting
free gadgets through the letterbox – often do not yield sustained results.
Therefore, when promoting water efficiency, the process of engaging with
customer experiences (of products and services) is equally important.
•• Dialogue is essential. Most processes are by default hierarchical and sequential. Promoting dialogue as a multidirectional process is often not a priority.
However, it has been found that stakeholders will not wholeheartedly participate in customer co-creation unless they’re allowed to generate value for
themselves, and how they define value can be explored through dialogue.
•• Co-designing is beneficial. People are inherently creative and will generally not want to have products and processes imposed on them. With the
prevalence of interactive technologies and tools, customers now expect to
be able to communicate directly with one another and share and shape
their own experiences, giving them the opportunity to design and manage
their own experiences and help identify and solve problems (Ramaswamy
and Gouillart, 2010).
The motivation for customers to engage should be understood to better target the co-creation process. However, customer motivation often varies and
can include any of the following (Zwass, 2010):
•• Altruistic desire to contribute – based on the expression of personal
­values, ideological beliefs or deeply felt needs.
92
People
•• Passion for a task.
•• Inner need to reciprocate in view of the contributions by others.
•• Enjoyment, state of flow, playfulness – the essential motivators of participants in virtual worlds.
•• Self-expression, speaking the truth as one sees it.
•• Identity construction – co-creators can derive their sense of identity from
the co-creating communities and projects.
•• Forming personal relationships.
•• Community norms.
•• Competitive spirit – expressed prominently in idea competitions, but also
in OSS development and other co-creative pursuits.
•• The interest to learn through co-creation from and with others.
•• Satisfying one’s affiliation needs.
•• Self-esteem and self-efficacy.
•• Thymotic strivings – desire for social standing, recognition and renown.
•• Acquiring social capital and peer recognition.
•• Career advancement – acquiring skills and experience and becoming
known, akin to the outcomes of traditional volunteering.
•• Own use of the object of co-creation may be the object. Some OSS developers aim to respond to their own software needs. The co-creators of
Delicious organise their own Web bookmarks; the aggregated bookmarks
of all users serve the world.
•• Non-monetary rewards – home-page recognition, high review rankings.
•• Signalling to potential employers and investors.
•• Financial rewards – indirect and direct monetary payoff from co-creation
activity.
In considering customer motivation, instigators of co-creation should ensure
that it is designed to:
•• Encourage respondent participation.
•• Explore perceptions and attitudes.
•• Address influences on and barriers to customers saving water or adopting
new water-saving technologies.
It is equally important for instigators to note that the customer is not always, or
continuously, a co-creator of value. For the water industry, engaging with customers to co-create value may not necessarily translate into increased competitiveness or increased perception of the quality of the service, or the product.
Information technology for co-creation
Since the information age, the decreasing costs of information technology (IT)
continue to change the economics of decision making, shifting power down
the hierarchy to customers (Malone, 1999). The propensity of individuals to
Co-creating Water Efficiency with Water Customers
93
contribute is the bedrock of co-creation (Chesbrough, 2003) and offers ­benefits
for product development or promotions, improving services and proposing
policies to meet consumers’ knowledge and value needs. Co-creation is
equally beneficial for reducing the high failure rates of new technological,
information or behavioural interventions.
Effective co-creation requires a significant investment in time, effort
and costs. However, IT tools and systems have been utilised successfully
to facilitate this process, making it less intrusive (especially for customers)
and less resource-intensive for instigators. It is a far-reaching means of
implementing co-creation to a large customer base. It is in most cases easy
to deploy and also allows for ongoing benchmarking. Studies show that
information systems offer benefits to a co-creation process by providing
valuable support for customer interaction and engagement. They also
encourage users to participate ‘directly’ in the co-creation process (von
Hippel and Katz, 2002; Leimeister et al., 2009; Zwass, 2010, etc.). This is
because IT tools are very effective in conditions of irreducible uncertainty
and complexity (Steyaert and Jiggins, 2007). Compared with conventional
customer integration, consumers not only contribute their opinions,
desires and needs, but can contribute their creativity and problem-solving
skills to find usable solutions (Füller, 2010), and from the comfort of their
own homes. Information systems or toolkits also allow the transfer of tacit
knowledge and enable consumers to innovate (von Hippel, 2001; Piller and
Walcher, 2006).
For customers, they derive cognitive, social integrative and personal integrative benefits from the use of IT to co-create personalised experience value
and knowledge of water-saving solutions as follows:
•• Cognitive benefits which reflect product-related learning, that is, better
understanding and knowledge about the products, their underlying technologies and usage.
•• Social integrative benefits to the customer include enhancement of a
sense of belonging or social identity.
•• Personal integrative benefits which relate to gains in reputation or status
and the achievement of a sense of self-efficacy and affective benefits, such
as those that strengthen aesthetic or pleasurable experiences. (Nambisan
and Baron, 2009; after Katz et al., 1974)
The operational word in this approach is information – for promoting knowledge and learning, and for facilitating dialogue. In line with DART, the ease
of availability, transparency and flow of information in both directions is
essential for water customers to engage and benefit from the process and for
the water company to derive marketable value from instigating the process.
The two-way improved communication also contributes to the likelihood of
personalised or self-initiated behaviour change as a result of participating.
Studies (e.g., Larson, 2010) have shown that changes in behaviour are more
94
People
likely to occur when participants are able to translate the potential impact
to their own situation, and understand how their own wellbeing would be
negatively impacted if no change occurs (thus actively acquiescing towards
behaviour change). Furthermore, the engagement of customers in organisational learning, innovation and knowledge processes heralds the dawn of a
new paradigm in which data and information are not simply gathered into
databases and distilled to inform management decision making, but is
instead embedded in dynamic co-creation processes that involve customers
as partners rather than subjects (Rowley et al., 2007).
Another significant benefit is participation and empowerment of the customer. IT systems can help to facilitate customer empowerment, which is
often lacking in the supply and delivery of public goods and services. The
concept of empowerment has been applied in various contexts, such as
political studies (e.g., empowerment through citizen participation)
(Sorensen, 1997) and consumer research (e.g., empowerment through
increased access to information and greater choice) (Davies and Elliott,
2006; Henry and Caldwell, 2006; Wright et al., 2006). Empowerment through
participation is an interesting concept. For example, Bucy and Gregson
(2001) – from studying media participation and mass democracy – found that
interestingly, actual power and influence on decision making may be irrelevant for individuals in order for them to perceive empowerment. They
noted that even when individuals’ influence in policy making is minimal,
they still feel empowered when participating in political discussions. Thus,
consumer empowerment during co-creation often results from the experience of participation, a derived sense of self-efficacy and enjoyment and not
from the actual strength of influence on policy (Bucy and Gregson, 2001).
Füller et al. (2010) further support the important role of virtual interaction tools and technologies in consumer empowerment, and empowerment
in general. Perceived empowerment positively influences consumers’ trust
in the provider of the co-creation task and enhances their willingness to
participate. Evidence suggests that IT systems support the delivery of cocreated value to customers who participate with the expectation of rewards,
satisfaction of need, curiosity or interest (Füller, 2010). It can also be used to
achieve customer buy-in. To support consumers’ co-creation activities,
instigators can provide toolkits over the Web to assist consumers/users in
designing, prototyping and testing the ideas, products and services (von
Hippel, 2005). This ability to engage customers in the exploration and
exploitation of innovation opportunities can benefit ‘corporate’ agility in
the marketplace (Sambamurthy et al., 2003).
As previously mentioned, there are several benefits to using IT systems to
co-create water efficiency strategies with water users. However, information systems cannot simply be deployed because it is simpler or easier to
do so. Hence, the technological environment supporting the co-creation
­process is still the subject of ongoing research.
Co-creating Water Efficiency with Water Customers
95
A co-creation toolkit for personalised value and
knowledge for water efficiency
The use of information systems technology for co-creation was explored as part
of a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and EPSRCfunded policy fellowship (DEFRA/EPSRC 2010–11, No. EP/I012982/1). The
aim was to explore a systemic approach for engaging water customers on sociotechnological issues and for fostering interactions and dialogue with each other,
service providers, policy makers and other stakeholders. The study explored the
IT systems as the means to deliver this co-creation process. The main question
was if and how IT systems can be used to implement personalised experience
value and knowledge co-creation with water customers. Although it can be
considered a derivable outcome, the object of the exercise was not to measure
the degree of adaptability or personalisation of the value created or the point
where the value creation was achieved. These are the subject of further research.
The goals set for the toolkit were:
•• To enable customer engagement and awareness useful for co-creating personal experiences and the adaptation of technologies for improved water
efficiency benefits (a variation of personalisation).
•• To facilitate customer knowledge and customer knowledge management as
a process of learning – to know what the customers know, and their condition and experience, for both customer and corporate (public) benefit.
{{ In the long term, to produce virtual communities for water customers
for open innovation; the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge (Chesbrough, 2006).
In relation to consumers, open innovation is the aim to attain a rich
­understanding of their objectives and the way they use products and services, and to garner the creative ideas they have about their needs, rather
than singularly focusing on currently used products (Zwass, 2010).
The toolkit
The development of the toolkit is underpinned by what Holland (1995)
defined as the fundamentals of the complex adaptive systems in which independent agents (water customers in this instance) compete and cooperate,
with complex collective behaviour emerging in the process. Based on research
results that can be traced to the theory of complex adaptive systems, the
essential characteristics of ‘value-driven’ information were determined to be:
•• The presence of motivators necessary to elicit participation and knowledge revelation.
•• Participants with relevant knowledge.
96
People
•• Diversity of the participants in aspects relevant to the decision.
•• Independent decision making by participants (thus avoiding mutual i­ nfluence
and groupthink) and the presence of an aggregating mechanism (in this instance
the value of water and the perception and willingness to conserve it).
Empirical data was required to inform the definition of adaptable agents
within the toolkit. Therefore, a market survey company was commissioned
to conduct a UK-wide water user study. This approach was advantageous to
guarantee sufficient breadth of respondents in a time and cost-effective manner. The questionnaire survey consisted of questions that obtained profile
data – age, location, building type, etc. – and water user perceptions, preferences and attitudes either on a standard Likert scale or in a response matrix.
A total of 546 people participated in the survey but 393 responses were
used after eliminating incomplete or null responses. Statistical analysis was
conducted using the SPSS statistical package and the resultant data was normalised and used to create test agents. The profile of each agent was informed
by general attributes such as age, location, gender, household composition,
building profile, attitude to saving water, perception of water-saving technologies, etc. An example of such permutations is shown in Figure 6.1.
Toolkit design
The toolkit was designed using the stages enumerated in Füller (2010). Tasks –
which tasks should be offered? Intensity and extent – how often do customers want to be engaged? Tools and multimedia-rich environment – what role
does the content play? Interaction among participants – how to create a
lively dialogue. Incentives – are rewards important? Partner – who do
­customers want to interact with?
In practical terms, this means:
•• Give water customers/users something to do but not too much.
•• Give water customers/users some choice of how much they engage and
the results accruing from this. Therefore the toolkit has two parts, simple
and detailed. This also varies the levels of engagement, intensity and content to suit.
•• Create some level of personalisation giving water customers/users some
level of ownership.
•• Link water customers/users with custodians of information and policy.
•• Foster relationships among water customers, e.g. through a moderated
message board.
•• Give incentives in the form of customised advice on water-saving methods and technologies tailored for the specific customer.
•• Use an open and accessible platform, accessible via the Web or mobile devices.
Broadly, a co-creation toolkit should integrate knowledge and value
solutions across the water supply and demand spectrum (Figure 6.2).
Figure 6.1
Sample agent for the toolkit
Figure 6.2
Proposed toolkit content
Co-creating Water Efficiency with Water Customers
99
This toolkit focused on the water customer only, with further scope to
expand its capabilities at a later stage.
The 292 initial ‘agents’ or water customer types, each governed by unique
rules and attributes, were proposed in the toolkit – these were derived from
the survey data. As can be expected, these agents do not represent all the
possible permutations and combinations that exist in a given population.
Therefore, the system was designed to adopt new agents and learn as more
people use the tool. If a new agent or customer type is detected, the decision
matrix is resolved based on this new information. The agents are customer
types. This means that more than one customer can be ascribed to an agent.
The advantage of this approach is primarily to avoid big data, and also to
increase reliability of results and ensure anonymity and privacy to participants – thereby increasing confidence and the willingness to participate.
Figure 6.3 shows the metrics utilised in the decision matrix.
How it works
There are two levels of customer access in the toolkit, simple and detailed.
Simple customer toolkit
The simple toolkit is for water customers who want quick interaction and
outputs on knowledge and actions to improve water efficiency in their home.
At the start of the process, a user logs a unique identifier (an email address);
he or she is issued with a unique password and given access to the main
attribute page. The user enters some key attributes, which the system checks
against what exists in the databases. If a similar agent is found, it automatically populates the remaining input pages. As the user progresses through the
input pages, he/she can make changes or alter data entries attributed to their
profile – individual, household and building factors, preferences, etc. As
changes are made, the system either creates a new agent or creates a variation of an existing agent. This variation is tagged to the unique identifier and
the user may return to make changes if their circumstances change or input
new data (e.g., using the activity logs) in order to further customise their
results. The user is able to alter the populated attributes at any time and if
there are decision criteria that are still unresolved, a prompt is displayed.
At the end of the input pages a summary is displayed with some water-­
saving recommendations, providing a customisation option. The user can
review and customise before proceeding to the results page. The results page
shows options and recommendations co-created with the user and customised
for their needs. Recommendations about behaviour changes, technologies to
adopt and where to obtain further information, support or advice are displayed.
There is also a message board for dialogue with other water customers, a share
button to communicate this to policy makers and water companies, and a
know-more button for further information or sources of support.
Figure 6.3
Decision criteria
Co-creating Water Efficiency with Water Customers 101
For the knowledge part of the co-creation process, the water company has
access to customer typologies and their water-in-use data, including point
source demand which is provided by the customer at no expense. They do
not have access to specific customer data with which they can be identified.
This protects the privacy of the toolkit users whilst providing longitudinal
customer use data for both parties which can be used to track trends over
time and assess what initiatives are working or how attitudes and customers change over time (Füller, 2010). In addition to ranking and analysing
water user feedback, personalised water efficiency solutions by customers
are communicated to designated service providers who become knowledge
competent to support the customers to achieve their water-saving goals.
This offers better chances of success compared with distributing generic
leaflets or products to customers.
Detailed toolkit
In addition to the functions provided in the simple toolkit, the detailed toolkit
has the added functionality of direct input of water consumption data.
In line with the co-creation principle, the detailed toolkit requires the
active participation and engagement of water users (to do something) rather
than being the passive recipient of information. The user starts by inputting
basic details about their fittings, which are then compared against benchmark data (DEFRA, 2008) (Table 6.1). This can be done in two ways: an
activity log or inputting monthly meter readings (to provide generic results).
Table 6.1
Benchmark data
Benchmark data
Water outlet
Benchmark A
(typical level)
Benchmark A
(best level)
Kitchen tap
Washing machine
Dishwasher
Cloakroom tap
Cloakroom toilet
Bathroom toilet
Bathroom basin tap
Bathroom shower
Bathroom bath
Bathroom bath tap
Shower room tap
Shower room shower
Shower room toilet
En-suite tap
En-suite toilet
En-suite shower
12 l/min
49 l
13 l
12 l
12 l
6/4 l per flush
12 l
14 l
225 l
–
12 l
14 l
6/4 l per flush
12 l
6/4 l per flush
14 l
8 l/min
35 l
10 l
6l
6l
4/2.6 l per flush
6l
6l
165 l
–
6l
6l
4/2.6 l per flush
6l
4/2.6 l per flush
6l
Sources: CSH Calculator, DEFRA’s Future Water.
102
People
The activity log is the preferred approach and a simple Web-based applet, or
‘app’, is provided with the toolkit.
To start, the user accesses the applet via a mobile device (Figure 6.4) and
inputs basic water-use product data and flow/consumption rates. Then,
activity logging can begin.
Buttons are provided to represent the fittings, fixtures and products in the
home. The user simply clicks on the button representing the product, fitting
or fixture at the start of an activity (e.g., using the kitchen tap) and clicks it
again at the end of the activity. This needs to be done even if use is intermittent. For example, to conserve water, it is expected that the tap will be turned
on and off several times while brushing one’s teeth. The readings are immediately displayed in the toolkit if the applet is connected to the Internet. If not,
it will be uploaded the next time connection is made. It is recommended to
users that activities should be logged consistently for a minimum of one
Figure 6.4
Water customer toolkit (detailed) – activity log: Web and mobile interface
Co-creating Water Efficiency with Water Customers 103
Figure 6.4
Continued
month. Some users might find this tedious to sustain, although the smallscale trial of the toolkit showed that households engaged with the playfulness
of the tool and appeared not to mind the effort involved. Alternatively, there
is the option to input monthly or periodic meter readings. Results produced
using this option will not be as detailed as those of the activity logs, but users
are still able to monitor and print reports based on the data supplied.
Similar to the simple toolkit, the user is provided with a customisable
summary page as well as a results page. The difference here is that the infor­
mation on the results page is more comprehensive, showing consumption
levels, daily, weekly or monthly patterns of consumption (Figure 6.5).
104
People
Figure 6.5
Results page on detailed toolkit
It also presents the user with comparative data to national and regional
figures and benchmarks. Using the activity logs, it is possible to review
consumption by fittings or products and identify the activity which generates the most waste. Therefore, the customer need only change the fixture
or fitting that is inefficient.
Discussion
The toolkit is at the early stage of development and there are opportunities
to enhance its functionality by improving the user interface (particularly
the ‘app’), making it fully automated and more flexible to use. However, as
Co-creating Water Efficiency with Water Customers 105
it is, it offers unlimited opportunity for direct engagement with customers,
to obtain longitudinal data and ensure an integrated process to deliver
personalised value to water customers through knowledge-competent
­
­strategies. This will reduce the need for conducting disparate user studies
and may provide a one-stop source for water customer data. In addition, data
from the toolkit can be used by water companies to define metering, tariff
and other water efficiency strategies and to obtain feedback from customers
to assess the effectiveness of such strategies.
More importantly, it provides a means of engagement and participation
for the water customer, identifying them and their household as a unique
entity in an otherwise passive, impersonal process. By presenting information in a simple and personal manner, customers are given choices for
behaviour change and technological solutions based on their attributes, attitudes, perception and preferences. Customers are therefore more likely to
become change-active participants, make positive choice and embrace the
change needed to improve water efficiency in their buildings.
Conclusion
This chapter started with an evidence problem, highlighting the need for
water-in-use knowledge to inform water efficiency strategies. It presented
personalised value and knowledge co-creation as a means to tackle this challenge in a non-interventionist manner. It then discussed the advantages of
using IT tools to instigate and deliver co-creation, using an example of a
recently developed toolkit for water users.
Data derived of the toolkit trial confirmed the following co-creation
principles:
•• Stakeholders will not wholeheartedly participate in customer co-creation
unless it produces value for them too. However, they appear to happily
engage in the playfulness that co-creation offers to help them achieve
­personalised water-saving goals.
•• The best way to co-create value is to focus on the experiences of all stakeholders, particularly customers.
•• Dialogue is essential.
•• Co-designing is beneficial.
The discussed toolkit demonstrates how information systems can be used
to achieve a holistic yet targeted systems approach for water efficiency by
engaging water customers in a co-creating process. This is more advantageous to the fragmented process of providing selective solutions, e.g. implementing smart metering alone or giving customers free fittings or gadgets
without a preliminary audit.
106
People
Further reading
Bhalla, G. (2011) Collaboration and Co-creation: New Platforms for Marketing and Innovation.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Ramaswamy, V. and Gouillart, F. (2010) The Power of Co-creation: To boost growth, ­productivity
and profits. Free Press, New York.
References
Bauman, Z. (2007) Consuming Life. Polity, Cambridge.
Bucy, E.P. and Gregson, K.S. (2001) Media participation: a legitimizing mechanism of mass
democracy. New Media and Society, 3(3), 357–380.
Campbell, A.J. (2003) Creating customer knowledge competence: managing customer relationship management programs strategically. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(5),
375–383.
Chesbrough, H. (2003) The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3),
pp. 35–41.
Chesbrough, H. (2006) Open innovation: a new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (eds), Open Innovation: Researching
a New Paradigm. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1–14.
Connor, R. and Dovers, S. (2004) Institutional Change for Sustainable Development. Edward
Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Cook, S.D.N. and Brown, J.S. (1999) Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organisational knowledge and organisational knowing. Organisational Science, 10(4), 381–400.
Davies, A. and Elliott, R. (2006) The evolution of the empowered consumer. European Journal
of Marketing, 40(9&10), 1106–1121.
DEFRA (2008) Future Water: The Government’s Water Strategy for England. HMSO, Norwich.
Füller, J. (2010) Refining virtual co-creation from a consumer perspective. California
Management Review, 52(2), 98–123.
Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., Matzler, K. and Jawecki, G. (2010) Consumer empowerment through
Internet-based co-creation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3), 71–102.
Gibbert, M., Leibold, M. and Probst, G. (2002) Five styles of customer knowledge management,
and how smart companies use them to create value. European Management Journal, 20(5),
459–469.
Henry, P. and Caldwell, M. (2006) Self-empowerment and consumption. European Journal of
Marketing, 40(9&10), 1031–1048.
Holland, J.H. (1995) Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Katz, E., Blumler, J.G. and Gurevitch, M. (1974) Utilization of mass communication by the
individual. In: Blumler, J.G. and Katz, E. (eds), The Uses of Mass Communications: Current
Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 19–32.
Larson, S. (2010) Understanding the barriers to social adaptation: are we targeting the right
concerns? Architectural Science Review, 53, 51–58.
Lawer, C. (2006) Eight styles of firm–customer knowledge co-creation. No. 4 in a series of short
papers on new perspectives in customer strategy and innovation. The OMC Group.
Leimeister, J.M., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U. and Krcmar, H. (2009) Leveraging crowdsourcing: activation-supporting components for IT-based idea competition. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 26(1), 197–224.
Malone, T.W. (1999) Is ‘empowerment’ just a fad? Control, decision-making, and information
technology. BT Technology Journal, 17(4), 141–144.
Co-creating Water Efficiency with Water Customers 107
Nambisan, S. and Baron, R.A. (2009) Virtual customer environments: testing a model of voluntary participation in value co-creation activities. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
26, 388–406.
Piller, F. and Walcher, D. (2006) Toolkits for idea competitions: a novel method to integrate
users in new product development. R&D Management, 36(3), 307–318.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004) The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique
Value with Customers. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Ramaswamy, V. and Gouillart, F. (2010) Building the co-creative enterprise. Harvard Business
Review, October, p. 2.
Rowley, J., Kupiec-Teahan, B. and Leeming, E. (2007) Customer community and co-creation: a
case study. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 25(2), 136–146.
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A. and Grover, V. (2003) Shaping agility through digital options:
reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary forms. MIS Quarterly,
27(2), 237–263.
Sanders, E.B.-N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.
Co-Design, 4(1), 5–18.
Sorensen, E. (1997) Democracy and empowerment. Public Administration, 75(3), 553–567.
Steyaert, P. and Jiggins, J. (2007) Governance of complex environmental situations through
social learning: a synthesis of SLIM’s lessons for research, policy and practice. Environmental
Science Policy, 10(6), 575–586.
von Hippel, E. (2001) PERSPECTIVE: user toolkits for innovation. The Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 18(4), 247–257.
von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (also available to
download at: http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm).
von Hippel, E. and Katz, R. (2002) Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management
Science, 48(7), 821–833.
Wright, L.T., Newman, A. and Dennis, C. (2006) Enhancing consumer empowerment. European
Journal of Marketing, 40(9&10), 925–935.
Zwass, V. (2010) Co-creation: toward a taxonomy and an integrated research perspective.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(1), 11–48.
Section 3
Building Design and Planning
Water efficiency in buildings and building developments originates from
design, planning and specification. It is more difficult, and less cost effective, to retrofit water efficiency into buildings. There are many reasons why
water efficiency in buildings makes environmental, economic, physical and
social sense. However, most building development solutions give higher
­priority to energy efficiency compared with water. There are a number of
reasons for this: the higher costs of energy compared with water, as well as
the abundance of incentives and legislative drivers that promote energy
­efficiency in buildings. Recently, there has been some legislative focus on
water efficiency in buildings and more countries now have specific components in legislative and regulatory instruments that demand, promote or
incentivise water efficiency both in new builds and/or retrofit projects.
In addition to legislative instruments such as the Building Regulations,
Codes and Standards, as constituted in different countries, disparate voluntary
tools, guides, reports and checklists are promoted by interest groups, nongovernmental organisations, product manufacturers, water companies,
environmental councils, building councils, etc. to support or encourage
building professionals, clients and building users to comply with legislation
or embrace sustainable building solutions.
These tools often address resource efficiency as a whole – energy ­efficiency,
use of renewable materials, reducing construction waste, promoting social
welfare and environmental awareness and accountability. Some include
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
110
Building Design and Planning
guidelines or recommendations for implementing water efficiency in
­buildings and the operational impact of water-saving measures. However, a
significant majority still gives more weighting to energy efficiency and
greenhouse gas emission reductions.
Globally, building assessment and rating methods such as BREEAM,
LEED and Green Star are increasingly used as means to assess the environmental impact or sustainable performance of various building types. These
methods have evolved over time and are still heavily weighted towards
energy conservation. However, the first chapter in this section shows
that water efficiency, however weighted, is an established component in
most building environmental assessment methods and rating schemes. It
discusses the development and evolution of these methods from various
regions and countries of the world. It then presents the water efficiency
provisions in each, highlighting their approach and content, as well as
­
the extent to which they promote water efficiency through the design of
buildings and the planning of the built environment. This global review
concludes by highlighting that the rating methods are influenced by
­contextual factors – political, social, economic, environmental and tech­
nological. It also found that rating methods allocated varying degrees of
importance to key sustainability indicators depending on these contextual
factors. Each of the assessment methods reviewed had specific provisions
for water efficiency, but less so compared with energy efficiency. The
type, range and value ascribed to water-efficient design, s­pecification or
interventions also varied depending on the scheme.
The next two chapters explore two different examples of implementing
and monitoring the effect of water efficiency measures in buildings and
urban developments. The first one reviews a ‘soft’ approach, metering, while
the next chapter investigates integrated sustainable urban drainage systems
(SuDs) as a means to deliver integrated water and energy efficiency solutions
in single developments or at the urban scale.
The optimised design and management of water supply systems is a
­cornerstone of sustainable and integrated urban development. Driven by
the information age, a paradigm shift is starting to occur in the urban water
planning and management field, mainly due to the introduction of advanced
metering and communications technologies. Intelligent metering technologies for energy applications are now rapidly being implemented in advanced
economies. Whilst intelligent meters for urban water customers are not
yet being implemented at such a scale, they have the capacity to deliver
increasing levels of water supply and demand data to planners, engineers as
well as commercial, industrial and residential customers.
The intelligent metering chapter investigates its multiple benefits
for ­
promoting and monitoring water efficiency in buildings but also for
implementing evidence-led urban water management. In the context of
this chapter, the intelligent water meters perform three functions: they automatically and electronically capture, collect and communicate ­up-to-date
Building Design and Planning
111
water usage readings on a real-time (or nearly real-time) basis. The chapter
explores the potential role of intelligent water metering s­ ystems, and the
smart ­application of resultant data sets, for the future of water planning and
management in the built environment. It then seeks to promote the uptake
and application of intelligent water metering systems through examining
the benefits, drivers and barriers of intelligent metering. Specifically, it
­presents examples of where intelligent metering systems can significantly
enhance ­current activities in terms of citywide urban planning, infrastructure ­planning, water demand management and customer satisfaction.
The final chapter in the section, on SuDs, argues that installing ‘hard’
permeable paving is a reliable way to provide a building development with
more than a sustainable drainage solution. It starts by introducing SuDs
and enumerating the design and specification of a typical system. It then
­discusses the main benefits of SuDs, for example the infiltration of rain­
water at the pavement surface prevents flooding and comfortably deals
with rainfall runoff at up to ten times efficiency compared with traditional
pipe and gully drainage systems. In addition, permeable pavements are
also known to be very efficient in filtering hydrocarbons and urban metal
­contaminants. Beyond the basic function of SuDs as a storm attenuation
solution, it explores the potential to utilise the void storage beneath the
permeable surface for rainwater harvesting. If this is combined with ground
source heating coils located within the pavement sub-base, it is possible
to extract renewable ground heat for space heating in buildings. The chapter
then proceeds to present two case examples, where the integrated SuDs
were installed. It concludes that the combined systems approach, incorporating multiple infrastructural solutions within one technology, may reduce
costs, meet environmental targets and simplify the planning process.
Innovation for building design, specification and planning is valuable for
delivering water efficiency policy and ensuring that the positive experience
of water and buildings is not compromised when water-efficient solutions
are installed. Building performance assessment and rating tools provide
­useful guidelines for developers, designers and regulators on how to achieve
holistic water efficiency solutions without compromising building performance. Intelligent software and integrated hard-technological solutions
also provide a useful means to achieve multiple benefits – such as meta-data
evidence on water use, as well as combined water and energy savings. To
summarise the section:
•• Building environmental assessment and rating methods provide a useful
framework for implementing water efficiency in buildings.
•• They also permit some degree of flexibility and adaptability to local and
regional influences.
•• Most building assessment and rating methods allocate significantly less
credits to water efficiency compared with other sustainability factors such
as energy efficiency.
112
Building Design and Planning
•• The building environmental assessment methods continue to evolve
and adapt to reflect latest technological innovation, political, social,
environmental and to some extent economic factors.
•• Intelligent metering systems – facilitating the capture, storage and
­communication of (nearly) real-time water usage – are a useful strategy for
government and public utilities to sustainably manage water supply and
demand in the future.
•• Adoption of intelligent metering systems will not only require a paradigm
shift in urban water planning, infrastructure management and customer
relations, but also necessitate a new staff skill set to ensure successful roll
out and application of such systems.
•• Applications of intelligent metering in optimising integrated urban water
management in the built environment are wide-ranging, from individual enduses (e.g., usage of specific appliances and fixtures), sectors (e.g., residential,
commercial, industry) to spatial scales (e.g., household, subdivision, city).
•• Benefits of intelligent metering include: improving demand management
approaches (e.g., tracking the impact of water restrictions, media campaigns, water-efficient technologies), optimising infrastructure planning
(e.g., longitudinal peak demand data/peaking factors, more accurate modelling of water and waste-water systems and improved identification of
upgrade requirements for stressed infrastructure) and enhanced customer–
business relations (e.g., extensive knowledge transfer of individual water
bills, leak alerts and improved billing systems).
•• Current barriers to acceptance and adoption of intelligent and integrated
systems – such as cost, poor knowledge of benefits and reluctance of
­utilities to adopt – can be overcome by government incentives, leading to
increased research and, importantly, widespread dissemination of successful outcomes of trial implementation studies.
•• SuDs can be used to deliver different types of surface water management
solutions by using a number of SuDs drainage techniques as a series of
soak-aways, grassed areas and swales, ponds or wetlands and permeable
pavements.
•• There are two main types of SuDs: hard SuDs such as permeable hardstanding and soft SuDs such as ponds and wetlands, and vegetation-based
systems.
•• Some SuDs solutions such as permeable paving can contribute to water
efficiency in buildings through water reuse, with minimal additional
infrastructure.
•• There are ongoing studies on the efficiency of integrated systems for both
water and energy efficiency. However, preliminary findings show that the
permeable paving used in the case studies drained adequately and provided sufficiently good quality water.
•• The integrated SuDs systems can contribute to positive and high credit
outcomes in building performance assessment ratings.
7
Assessment Methodologies for Water
Efficiency in Buildings
Dexter Robinson and Kemi Adeyeye
School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, UK
Introduction
Water forms the basis of most ecosystems and is required in buildings for
hygiene, cooking and cleaning. Therefore, water can be considered an important resource both for the environment and for the operation of buildings.
However, climate change and population growth strain global water supply
systems. The Environment Agency and other pressure groups in the UK
continue to highlight the importance of careful planning and efficient use of
water resources to ensure sustainable water supplies (Environment Agency,
2011). One of the highlighted areas for change is to better manage the levels
of water consumption in buildings.
Building environmental assessment and rating methods, henceforth
referred to as rating methods, are a systematic technique used to assess the
extent of resource efficiency of a building. This is achieved by employing a
set of standardised criteria with which buildings can be benchmarked and
compared one against another. The first building environmental assessment
scheme was launched in 1990 by the BRE (BRE, 2012a). Further agreements
and pressures since the 1997 Kyoto protocol have driven the majority of
countries within the United Nations (UN) to develop country-specific building environmental assessment methods that promote sustainable construction (NHBC, 2011).
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
114
Building Design and Planning
Many of the tools and methods used to rate the environmental p
­ erformance
of buildings work on a tariff or credit system, where points are awarded for
achieving particular sustainability indicators with different values for the
­different assessed areas. These methods are often designed to achieve global as
well as national targets for managing greenhouse gas emissions, which originate from the construction or use of buildings. They are also designed to
achieve social and economic benefits, e.g. user comfort and operational energy
cost savings. A review of existing rating methods shows that ­assessment
­criteria fall under six main themes: site constraints, resource management,
transportation, social, economic and innovation. Site constraints criteria
include site use and size. Resource management includes energy, materials,
biodiversity and water. Transportation often consists of strategies to promote
sustainable transportation. Social criteria include themes of affordable housing, safety and community outreach. Economic assessment includes production of jobs and, in some assessment methods, finance and investment.
Innovation covers innovative sustainable design and planning as well as
­varied levels of involvement of accredited professionals.
Water efficiency is an important indicator that features in most environmental rating methods. However, the assessment criteria vary in each scheme
depending on the value ascribed to water, which in turn is influenced by
­geo-climatic, social, political as well as environmental factors. This chapter
presents a whistle-stop global review of the major assessment methodologies
that are designed to promote and, to a large extent, improve the physical and
environmental performance of buildings. It highlights the water efficiency
requirements or provisions in these assessment tools and concludes with
some recommendations to improve current practice.
Building environmental assessment and rating methods
Most assessment methodologies and supporting tools are developed and
­distributed by the green building council in the respective countries. There
are a few exceptions, for example the UK-BREEAM, which is developed and
distributed by the BRE (BRE, 2012b). Table 7.1 presents an overview of the
main assessment methodologies reviewed in this chapter.
BREEAM
The Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method­
ology (BREEAM) was initially developed in 1990 for offices (Bonham-Carter,
2010) and is now available for various building classifications, including a
specifically adapted system for domestic buildings: the Code for Sustainable
Homes (CSH) (BRE, 2010). BREEAM was developed by BRE Global to help
planners and developers understand and address important building
Assessment Methodologies for Water Efficiency in Buildings
Table 7.1
115
Overview of building energy assessment and rating methods
BREEAM
LEED
Green Star HK-BEAM
CASBEE
History
First version
Latest version
1990
2011
1995
2009
2003
2012
1996
2010
2004
2011
Country of origin
UK
USA
Australia
Hong Kong
Japan
Coverage
Courts
Education
Industrial
Healthcare
Offices
Retail
Multiresidential
Bespoke
New
construction
Existing
buildings
Commercial
interiors
Core and shell
Retail
Schools
Homes
Neighbourhood
Healthcare
Education
Healthcare
Industrial
Multi-unit
residential
Offices
Retail
Homes
Existing
Homes
buildings
Urban
New buildings New construction
Cities
Rating levels
Topics
Management
Energy
Indoor environment
Transport
Water
Materials
Waste
Land use
Ecology
Pollution
Innovation
Regional credits
Number of base
credits
1
2
3
4
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
107–112
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
100
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
109–132
N/A
performance factors during the earliest stages of the development process
(Sharifi and Murayama, 2013), and to measure and independently benchmark
and certify the sustainability of projects from project inception to completion (BRE Global, 2011). Whilst BREEAM was initially developed for use in
the UK, versions of it have been adopted for use internationally (BRE, 2012c).
BREEAM uses a credit-based system where credits are awarded in ten
categories or sustainability themes. These are: Management, Health and
­
Wellbeing, Energy, Transport, Water, Materials, Waste, Land Use and Ecology,
Pollution and Innovation (BRE Global, 2008a). The sum of these credits
­provides the overall score of the building. The building score is checked
116
Building Design and Planning
against the rating scale: Pass, Good, Very Good, Excellent and Outstanding
to define the performance of the building. However, these can only be awarded
if minimum standards are met in specific categories (BRE Global, 2008b).
BREEAM has a number of versions for different building types, including:
Courts, Education, Industrial, Healthcare, Offices, Retail, Prisons, Multiresidential and Bespoke. Recent additions include the CSH in 2010 and a version for domestic refurbishment, in 2011 and 2012, respectively (BRE, 2012d).
Water efficiency in BREEAM
Water efficiency criteria in BREEAM are shown in Table 7.2. Six of the 112
credits available in BREEAM Bespoke – used for all projects which do not come
under any of the main types (BRE Global, 2008a) and six of the 107 available
credits in the CSH (BRE, 2010) – are for sustainable water performance.
Still in BREEAM Bespoke, three credits are available for demonstrating a
reduction in water consumption. Recommended solutions include waterefficient WCs, taps, showers, urinals or bath fittings. For example, the first
credit is awarded where all WCs have an effective flush volume of 4.5 litres
or less, a second credit if all WCs have an effective flush of 3 litres of less or
fitted with a delayed action inlet valve. Both should be dual-flush toilets and
have clear instructions displayed by the cistern. A third credit is awarded if
specified fittings and fixtures consume significantly less water and achieve
the highest level of possible reduction in annual water consumption, without significant reduction in performance.
A credit is also available for the installation of a water meter, and for a
major leak detection system. The final credit is available for the installation
of a sanitary supply shut off such that the risk of minor leaks in toilet facilities is reduced (BRE Global, 2008a). To obtain a rating level of ‘Good’ or
higher, the building must at least be awarded one point for both water-­
efficient fittings and fixtures and metering. For an ‘Outstanding’ rating, the
building must achieve a minimum of two credits in the water-consumption
criteria (BRE Global, 2008a).
Table 7.2 Water efficiency credits in BREEAM
Water
consumption
Courts
Education
Industrial
Healthcare
Offices
Retail
Multi-residential
Bespoke
Sanitary
Water Major leak supply
Water
Irrigation
meter detection shut off recycling systems
Vehicle
wash
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
Assessment Methodologies for Water Efficiency in Buildings
117
In the CSH, primarily for domestic properties, five credits are awarded
for reducing the indoor potable water consumption. Credits are based on
per capita values for water consumption, i.e. water consumption in litres
per person per day (l/p/d). The CSH is supported with a national water
­calculator. The award is made based on a scale which starts from less than
or equal to a defined benchmark value. The CSH has six levels and a
­minimum consumption level of 120 l/p/d is required for Levels 3 and 4,
whilst Levels 5 and 6 can only be achieved with design consumption levels
of 80 l/p/d or less.
Minimum standards in BREEAM and the CSH both encourage the use of
water-efficient fittings to achieve the minimum benchmark levels for water
consumption in buildings. In addition, the BREEAM promotes the installation
of meters as well as water consumption monitoring and management. It also
encourages major leak detection and targeted minor leak detection. Similarly,
the CSH also promotes rainwater recycling, primarily for external uses.
One criticism of the BREEAM is that it places a substantial emphasis on
technological solutions – the water efficiency of fittings and products –
unlike the CSH, which allows the targeted reduction of potable water consumption through any available means, not limited to fitting technologies
(BRE, 2010). Nonetheless, the UK BREEAM continues to be influential in
promoting water efficiency in buildings and addressing water availability
concerns (Environment Agency, 2004).
LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a suite of tools
used to assess the environmental performance of buildings and other aspects
of the built environment. It was developed to define and measure ‘green
buildings’ using design, construction and operation standards. LEED was
first developed in 1995 by the US Green Building Council. The latest version is LEED 2009 launched in April 2009 (USGBC, 2012b). The LEED green
building programme is the most commonly adopted system in the United
States. The system is also used in 135 other countries (USGBC, 2012a).
The LEED suite of tools consists of versions for new construction and
major renovations, existing building operations and maintenance, commercial interiors, core and shell development, retail, schools, homes, neighbourhood development and healthcare (USGBC, 2012c). In the LEED, there are a
maximum of 100 base points (USGBC, 2012d) that can be awarded against a
number of criteria depending on which system is applied to the building
project (LEED, 2009d).
Compared with BREEAM, there are 12 assessment themes in the LEED
rating systems. The five main themes are: sustainable site, water efficiency,
energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental
quality. Two bonus credits can be awarded for innovation and regional
118
Building Design and Planning
priority. The remaining credits are awarded within the home credit rating
system for awareness and education, neighbourhood developments, location, pattern and green infrastructure (USGBC, 2012c).
Water efficiency in LEED
An overview of water efficiency requirements in LEED is shown in Table 7.3.
Credits are awarded for demonstrated reduction in water use compared
against benchmark figures and recommended guidelines. In commercial
properties, the requirement is for fittings to consume 20% less than the
baseline. For example, commercial WC baseline consumption is 6 litres.
Therefore, credits will be awarded if 4.8 litres or less WCs are specified
(USGBC, 2012e).
2
2–4
2–4
High-efficiency irrigation
2
Rainwater harvesting
2–4
Process water use reduction
2
Water use reduction (additional)
2–4
Minimise potable water use for medical use
2–4
Cooling tower (non-potable)
2
Cooling tower (chemical)
2–4
Water performance measurement
2–4
Indoor plumbing efficiency
Innovative waste-water
Neighbourhood
(USGBC, 2012d)
Commercial
(USGBC, 2012e)
Core and shell
(USGBC, 2012f)
Retail
(USGBC, 2012g)
New construction
(USGBC, 2012h)
Schools
(USGBC, 2011)
Home
(USGBC, 2010)
Existing buildings
(USGBC, 2012k)
Healthcare
(USGBC, 2012m)
Water use reduction
Scheme
Water use landscaping
Table 7.3 Water efficiency credits in LEED
1
1–2
6–11
1
2–4
1–5
1–3
1
1–5
1–2
1–2
1
1
REQ
1–3
Assessment Methodologies for Water Efficiency in Buildings
119
Similarly, water-efficient landscaping is considered an important criterion
and credits are awarded based on a scale of the reduction in potable water
consumption for irrigation. For example, for existing buildings and operation, one credit is awarded for a 50% reduction in potable water consumption and five credits awarded if a 100% reduction is achieved (USGBC,
2012k). Innovation in the management of waste water is also considered.
For instance, two credits are awarded where either the potable water use for
building sewage conveyance is reduced by 50%, through water-efficient fittings, or where 50% of building sewage is recycled to tertiary standards on
site and reused (USGBC, 2012g).
Other criteria in LEED include the monitoring and verification of watersaving retrofits (e.g., LEED for Healthcare; USGBC, 2012m). Similarly, there
are credits for buildings with cooling towers that require retrofits, as well as
non-potable or chemical-free systems in LEED for existing buildings
(USGBC, 2012k).
The mandatory requirements in LEED promote water-efficient fixtures
and fittings indoors and discourage the use of potable water for external
­irrigation uses. It also aims to reduce sewage conveyance by targeting the
sewage conveyance system and source – water-using fixtures and fittings.
There is little or no direct provision for water recycling and reuse.
The LEED methodology is used in many countries around the world. As a
credit-based building environmental scheme, the methods do well to encourage the use of water-efficient fixtures and fittings, and to some extent promote alternative water supplies.
Green Star
The Green Star, used in Australia and to some extent in New Zealand, was
developed in 2003 by Sinclair Knight Merz in partnership with the BRE. The
BREEAM was used as the basis for the Green Star, with modifications to
reflect the climatic, political and economic differences between Australia
and the UK (Saunders, 2008). Now available in nine main schemes, the
Green Star was initially developed for the property industry to set a standard
for built environment sustainability, promote integrated holistic design,
identify and improve lifecycle impacts and raise awareness of the benefits of
sustainable design, construction and urban planning (GBCA, 2012a).
The nine building versions of the Green Star include: Education,
Healthcare, Industrial, Multi-unit Residential, Office, Office interiors,
Retail centre, Office design and as built, Homes (GBCA, 2012b). Nine main
assessment criteria are used in each version: Management, Indoor environment quality, Energy, Transport, Water, Materials, Land use and ecology,
Emissions, Innovation (GBCA, 2008).
The Green Star also uses a credit-based system. However, there is no
requirement for an accredited professional, which is a notable difference
120
Building Design and Planning
from the other assessment schemes. The Green Star assessment can be
­carried out by any member of a design team and certified by any third-party
assessment panel (Saunders, 2008).
Water efficiency in Green Star
An overview of water efficiency in Green Star is shown in Table 7.4. Water
efficiency credits in the Green Star aim to improve potable water efficiency
and reduce potable water consumption, and there are 5 to 12 credits available across the scheme. Credits are awarded on a sliding water consumption
scale. The highest credit score is awarded for the lowest potable water
­consumption (GBCA, 2008).
Further reductions of potable water use are encouraged through the use of
systems designed to reduce potable water use for irrigation (GBCA, 2012c).
Water use monitoring is also promoted in the majority of the methods. One
to three credits are available where water meters are installed and if an effective monitoring mechanism is in place (GBCA, 2008).
Overlooked by many rating methods is water use in fire systems. The Green
Star accounts for the fire systems used within buildings and aims to reduce
potable water consumption for such use. A credit is awarded in all but office
interiors, where 80% of the minimum routine fire protection system water is
reused on site or the system does not expel water during test. However, the
credit is not applicable where a sprinkler system is in place (GBCA, 2005).
1
1
8
1
1
2
Potable water efficiency
3
2
1
Cooling tower water consumption
1
1
2
1
1
Swimming pool/spa water efficiency
4
4
2
2
4
Water-efficient appliances
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
Potable water use for equipment
Fire system water
10
5
Heat rejection water
5
5
5
5
5
Landscape irrigation
Education (GBCA, 2008)
Healthcare (GBCA, 2009a)
Industrial (GBCA, 2010)
Multi-residential (GBCA, 2009b)
Office (GBCA, 2012c)
Office interiors (GBCA, 2011)
Retail (GBCA, 2012d)
Office as built (GBCA, 2005)
Water meters
Scheme
Occupant amenity water
Table 7.4 Water efficiency credits in Green Star
2
1
12
4
Assessment Methodologies for Water Efficiency in Buildings
121
Heat rejection and cooling towers are also considered in the Green Star.
Credits are awarded on a sliding scale from 50% to 90% for the specification
of heat-rejection systems (GBCA, 2008). Credits are likewise awarded where
potable water savings can be demonstrated and different levels of treatment
for the water is in place (GBCA, 2005).
Furthermore, water-efficient fixtures and fittings can gain additional credits where it can be demonstrated that fixtures and fittings are specified to
suit the individual building type. For instance, credit is awarded where potable water use in medical equipment is reduced where possible in healthcare
buildings (GBCA, 2009a).
The consistent promotion of water-saving retrofits in the Green Star
methods is commendable and indicates that the Green Building Council of
Australia is committed to reducing water consumption, particularly in the
dry, arid regions of Australia. The credit-based system of the scheme is also
easy to follow and use by design professionals.
The Green Star system also considers non-mainstream water-using activities such as fire systems, and the water efficiency of swimming pools and
spa facilities, although this is to a large extent informed by contextual factors and leisure preferences in the country. Yet, water efficiency requirements still receive less emphasis than other sustainability factors, e.g.
energy efficiency. It gives little consideration to reducing potable sewage
conveyance or the direct promotion of alternative water sources.
HK-BEAM
The Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Scheme (HK-BEAM)
was launched in 1996 as a voluntary building environmental assessment
scheme, used in Hong Kong where the water supply meets world health
organisation standards and rainwater is plentiful (HKTB, 2012). It comprises
two versions, one for new buildings and another for existing buildings (Lee
and Burnett, 2007). The HK-BEAM scheme was developed to enhance the
quality of buildings in Hong Kong whilst stimulating demand for more sustainable buildings. This is achieved with a comprehensive set of performance standards that can be quantified and benchmarked, thereby reducing
the environmental impacts of buildings throughout their lifecycle and
ensuring integrated sustainability solutions to avoid retrospective alterations (HKGBC, 2010a).
The HK-BEAM scheme is available in two main categories, new and existing buildings (HKGBC, 2012). The scheme operates on a credit-based system; the existing building scheme has 109 base credits with 11 bonus credits
(HKGBC, 2010a) whilst the new building scheme has 132 base credits with
11 bonus credits (HKGBC, 2010b).
The HK-BEAM methods consist of six main themes: site aspects, materials, energy use, water use, innovation and indoor environmental quality
122
Building Design and Planning
(HKGBC, 2010a). The indoor environmental quality awards credits over a
wide range of sub-themes, including security, acoustics and ventilation,
which is often considered under energy use.
Water efficiency in HK-BEAM
Table 7.5 highlights credits available for water use in the two HK-BEAM
methods. A principal requirement common to both is, firstly, a water quality survey. This is to ensure that the potable water provisions demonstrate
the minimum water-saving requirements of an annual saving of 10% over
benchmark data. For example, the benchmark for WCs in new buildings is a
7.5-litre flush (HKGBC, 2010b). Secondly, existing buildings also require a
water conservation plan which, through the requirement, must be endorsed
by a directorate level of management. Both methods also offer up to three
credits for a demonstrated reduction in water consumption, with one credit
being awarded for a 20% saving, two credits for a 25% saving and three credits for a 30% saving. A further credit can be claimed for regular monitoring
and management of leakage (HKGBC, 2010a).
A credit is also awarded for demonstrating a reduction in water use for irrigation or the use of an alternative water supply for irrigation. However, this can
be excluded when soft landscaping is less than 50% of the building footprint
(HKGBC, 2010a). Water recycling systems are promoted in both methods, one
credit being available where the use of a rainwater harvesting system reduces
the consumption of freshwater by 5% and an additional bonus credit where a
10% reduction can be demonstrated. A further credit is available for new
buildings where a reduction of 5% in freshwater ­consumption can be demonstrated through the use of a greywater recycling system (HKGBC, 2010b).
Water audit
Effluent discharge to foul services
REQ
3
1
1
1 + 1B
1B
1
3
1
1
2 + 1B
1
Water-efficient appliances
Water recycling
REQ
Water use for irrigation
REQ
Monitoring and control
REQ
Annual water use
REQ
Water conservation plan
Minimum water-saving performance
New
construction
Existing
construction
Water quality survey
Table 7.5 Water efficiency in HK-BEAM
1
Assessment Methodologies for Water Efficiency in Buildings
123
The remaining credit in both methods is awarded where annual discharge
to foul services is reduced by 20% or sewage concentration is reduced by
30% (HKGBC, 2010a). In existing buildings, an additional credit is awarded
when a water audit is undertaken and a water use inventory maintained
(HKGBC, 2010a). Likewise, an additional credit is available where waterefficient appliances are installed such that the water consumption is reduced
by 20% (HKGBC, 2010b).
In summary, HK-BEAM promotes the use of water-efficient fixtures and
fittings and ensures a safe water supply. Credits are awarded for varying
degrees of water-saving measures implemented in a new or existing building. It considers alternative water sources, however, only allowing credits
for a consumption reduction of up to 10% from rainwater with no reward for
additional savings. More credits are also available for water use monitoring
and management. However, improvements could be made if the standard
benchmark data was adjusted to create more stringent targets.
CASBEE
Launched in 2004, the Comprehensive Assessment System for Built
Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) is the primary scheme used in Japan for
building environmental assessment (JSBC, 2009). Now comprised of five
(soon to be six) categories, CASBEE was developed as a tool for rating the
environmental performance of buildings and the built environment in Japan
(IBEC, 2012a) using two main criteria, the environmental quality and environmental loads (JSBC, 2009). The CASBEE scheme was developed to be
easy to follow, applicable to a wide range of buildings and consider issues
and problems regionally in Japan and Asia (IBEC, 2012b).
The CASBEE methods are available for: Homes, New construction, Cities,
Urban development and Urban areas, with another for market promotion
expected by early 2013 (IBEC, 2012a). The CASBEE uses a minimum standard of credits, and instead a building must achieve defined building performance criteria in order to gain a particular level (JSBC, 2008).
As mentioned, the two main criteria assessed in the CASBEE are environmental quality and environmental load. Environmental quality criteria
are: a comfortable, healthy and safe indoor environment; length of building
­service life and wider impact on townscape and ecosystem. Criteria for
environmental load include: energy and water conservation, resource
­
­management and waste reduction. Further provisions then resolve for the
global and local environment (JSBC, 2008).
Water efficiency in CASBEE
Table 7.6 shows the expected water efficiency standards for homes and
new construction. The numbers indicate the levels at which an ­intervention
is required.
124
Building Design and Planning
Table 7.6 Water efficiency in CASBEE
Homes
New construction
Water conservation
Rainwater use
Grey-water use
3–5
3–5
4–5
4–5
3–5
Both methods require water efficiency interventions to achieve levels
three to five. In new construction, only buildings that achieve levels three
and four require any intervention. Level three is achieved when water-­saving
taps are fitted, and level four is achieved when other water-saving equipment such as water-saving WCs are fitted (JSBC, 2010). For homes, levels
three to five are achieved by implementing one to three ‘efforts’ on a sliding
scale. The ‘efforts’ include water-saving showerheads and installing a dishwasher, among others (JSBC, 2008).
Rainwater installations are required for both homes and new construction
to achieve level four or five. Level four is achieved in new construction
through the use of rainwater and level five where the use of rainwater
reduces the mains water consumption by 20% (JSBC, 2010). Likewise, level
four in homes is where a rainwater tank is used for irrigation and level five
where the rainwater is utilised in toilet flushing (JSBC, 2008).
Greywater installations are only appraised in new construction and level
four is obtained where greywater is used and level five where more than two
types of waste water are used (JSBC, 2010).
CASBEE is a system based on minimum requirements and assessed using
two main criteria, environmental quality and environmental load. These
criteria are subdivided into six themes, one of which is water efficiency
measures. The required criterion for water consumption promotes the use of
water-efficient fixtures and fittings without the use of specific benchmark
figures. This suggests that it is possible for developers to aim to achieve the
minimum standards, as doing more does not yield further incentives within
the scheme.
Discussion
Since the BRE launched BREEAM in 1990, building environmental rating
methods have gained increasing prominence as tools for assessing and
benchmarking the sustainability of construction projects. After BREEAM,
the US green building council developed LEED in 1995, and the Hong Kong
green building council proposed HK-BEAM in 1996. Driven by the Kyoto
treaty in 1997, many building councils across the world started to develop
individual building environmental rating methods, including the Green
Building Council of Australia with Green Star in 2003 and the Japanese
­sustainable building consortium, CASBEE in 2004.
Assessment Methodologies for Water Efficiency in Buildings
X
X
X
X
X
Cooling towers
Foul services
X
Water-efficient fittings
Potable water reduction
Heat rejection system
Waste management
X
X
X
X
X
Water quality
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vehicle wash
X
Irrigation
X
X
X
X
X
Fire water reduction
X
Grey-water systems
X
X
X
X
X
Rainwater systems
X
X
X
X
X
Leak detection
Water meter
BREEAM
LEED
Green Star
HK-BEAM
CASBEE
Comparison of building environmental assessment and rating methods
Water consumption
Table 7.7
125
X
X
X
X
All the building environmental methods in this chapter reward water conservation and efficiency interventions, however, the value attributed to
water conservation and efficiency within each building environmental
assessment method varies (Table 7.7).
All five building environmental rating methods reward a reduction in
water consumption, the installation of rainwater harvesting, a reduction in
potable water consumption for irrigation and the installation of water
meters. The values attributed to the reduction in water consumption differ
from scheme to scheme based on the scarcity of water in the primary location of use. These values or credits are to a large extent informed by contextual factors – e.g., water availability and socio-cultural practices. The
CASBEE scheme and HK-BEAM methods reward the least amount of credits
for a reduction in water consumption, whilst Green Star, LEED and BREEAM
offer a larger reward across a broader spectrum of criteria.
Most of the methods define targets for the reduction of water consumption in buildings. For instance, CSH targets for potable water use
are as low as 80 l/p/d in order to achieve the maximum credits. BREEAM
also goes further, setting minimum requirements for overall classifications ensuring a reduction in water consumption is achieved in higherrated buildings (BRE, 2010). In contrast, CASBEE makes recommendations
for interventions and rewards the number of interventions undertaken
rather than a targeted reduction in water consumption (JSBC, 2008).
This allows developers to consider cheaper but less water-reducing
interventions, thus reducing the impact the credits have on the sustainability of the building.
There are many areas within each assessment method that demonstrate
innovation. For example, the LEED scheme rewards waste reduction and
waste reduction management. The focus on operation and management
goes beyond the promotion of water conservation and introduces elements
126
Building Design and Planning
of behavioural change. The Green Star scheme addresses specific uses of
potable water and rewards the use of alternative water sources where potable water is not required (GBCA, 2009a). HK-BEAM also rewards the quality
of water and concentration of foul services, which could in turn reduce the
strain on the water supply systems (HKGBC, 2010b).
Whilst comparative analysis of the systems can be made, it is important
to consider the context of the methods within the intended area of use. All
the methods are highly influenced by the context – political, social, economic, environmental and technological – within which they were developed and implemented.
Many of the rating methods were developed in response to the 1997
Kyoto protocol (NHBC, 2011), and are aimed at proposing a sustainable
building framework for the country or region within which it applies. For
example, resource resilience is a political, economic, social and environmental objective for most countries. Therefore, most rating methods reward
the use of locally sourced, yet renewable, materials. In areas where water
stress is a reality, there is significant social, cultural and political pressure
to reduce water waste and maintain water quality – as reflected in the ­rating
­methods – and scarce resources command higher credits. Economic factors
also feature highly in most methods. Energy efficiency has higher emphasis
in most rating methods, compared with water, because it is significantly
more expensive.
Conclusion
An overview of five building environmental assessment and rating methods
was presented with particular emphasis on water efficiency provisions. It
was found that the rating methods are influenced by contextual factors, such
as political, social, economic, environmental and technological advancements. It was also found that the rating methods allocated varying degrees of
importance to key sustainability indicators depending on the aforementioned
contextual factors. Each of the assessment methods reviewed had specific
provisions for water efficiency, but less so compared with energy efficiency.
The type, range and value ascribed to water-efficient design, specification or
interventions also varied depending on the scheme.
Building environmental assessment and rating methods evolve over time.
They are constantly modified and adapted to reflect technological innovation, political will, environmental constraints and socio-cultural change. As
water availability issues become more prevalent due to the unpredictability
of rainfall patterns, and the unmanaged consumption of water for human
and other activities, it will become apparent that more needs to be done to
control the use of water in buildings and assessments methods will need to
adapt to suit.
Assessment Methodologies for Water Efficiency in Buildings
127
Further reading
BRE (2013) BREEAM [Online]. Available at: http://www.breeam.org/index.jsp [23/04/2013].
GBCA (2013) Greenstar [Online]. Available at: http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/ [23/04/2013].
HKGBC (2013) HK-BEAM [Online]. Available at: http://www.hkgbc.org.hk/eng/ [23/04/2013].
IBEC (2013) CASBEE – English [Online]. Available at: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/
[23/04/2013].
USGBC (2013) LEED [Online]. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/leed [23/04/2013].
References
Bonham-Carter, C. (2010) Sustainable communities in UK. In: Clark, W.W. (ed.), Sustainable
Communities. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 135–153.
BRE (2010) Code for Sustainable Homes. Technical guide. Department for Communities and
Local Government, London.
BRE (2012a) BRE Environmental Method [Online]. Available at: http://www.breeam.org/
[26/10/2012].
BRE (2012b) BRE Sustainability and BREEAM [Online]. Available at: http://www.bre.co.uk/
page.jsp?id=1766 [25/10/2012].
BRE (2012c) BREEAM Schemes [Online]. Available at: http://www.breeam.org/podpage.
jsp?id=54 [26/10/2012].
BRE (2012d) BREEAM UK [Online]. Available at: http://www.breeam.org/podpage.jsp?id=362
[31/10/2012].
BRE Global (2008a) SD5067 Scheme document: BREEAM Bespoke. BRE Global, Watford.
BRE Global (2008b) SD5051 Scheme document: BREEAM Education. BRE Global, Watford.
BRE Global (2011) SD5065 Technical Guidance Manual: Version 1. BREEAM for communities’
assessor manual: development planning application stage. BRE Global, Watford.
Environment Agency (2004) Maintaining water supply. Environmental Agency, Bristol.
Environment Agency (2011) Case for change – current and future water availability.
Environmental Agency, Bristol.
GBCA (2005) Green Star – Office as built Technical Manual. Green Building Council Australia,
Sydney.
GBCA (2008) Green Star – Education v1 Technical Manual. Green Building Council Australia,
Sydney.
GBCA (2009a) Green Star – Healthcare Technical Manual. Green Building Council Australia,
Sydney.
GBCA (2009b) Green Star – Multi-residential Manual. Green Building Council Australia,
Sydney.
GBCA (2010) Green Star – Industrial Technical Manual. Green Building Council Australia,
Sydney.
GBCA (2011) Green Star – Office interiors Technical Manual. Green Building Council Australia,
Sydney.
GBCA (2012a) Green Star overview [Online]. Available at: http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/
green-star-overview/ [31/10/2012].
GBCA (2012b) Green Star rating tools [Online]. Available at: http://www.gbca.org.au/greenstar/rating-tools/ [31/10/2012].
GBCA (2012c) Green Star – Office Technical Manual. Green Building Council Australia,
Sydney.
GBCA (2012d) Green Star – Retail Technical Manual. Green Building Council Australia,
Sydney.
128
Building Design and Planning
HKGBC (2010a) BEAM Plus Existing Buildings: Version 1.1 (updated 2010). Hong Kong Green
Building Council, Hong Kong.
HKGBC (2010b) BEAM Plus New Buildings: Version 1.1 (updated 2010). Hong Kong Green
Building Council, Hong Kong.
HKGBC (2012) BEAM Plus [Online]. Available at: http://www.hkgbc.org.hk/eng/beamplusmain.aspx [25/10/2012].
HKTB (2012) Visiting Hong Kong – Health and safety [Online]. Available at: http://www.discover
hongkong.com/eng/plan-your-trip/practicalities/other-information/health-and-safety.jsp
[01/11/2012].
IBEC (2012a) CASBEE information [Online]. Available at: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/
english/overviewE.htm [08/11/2012].
IBEC (2012b) An overview of CASBEE – measures to promote sustainability [Online]. Available
at: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/overviewE.htm [08/11/2012].
JSBC (2008) CASBEE for home (Detached house). Institute for Building Environment and
Energy Conservation (IBEC), Tokyo.
JSBC (2009) CASBEE for property appraisal brochure. Japan Sustainable Building Consortium,
Tokyo.
JSBC (2010) CASBEE for new construction. Institute for Building Environment and Energy
Conservation (IBEC), Tokyo.
Lee, W. and Burnett, J. (2007) Benchmarking energy use assessment of HK-BEAM, BREEAM,
and LEED. Building and Environment, 43, 1882–1891.
NHBC (2011) Zero Carbon Compendium, Who’s doing what in housing worldwide. NHBC,
Milton Keynes.
Saunders, T. (2008) A discussion document comparing international environmental assessment
methods for buildings. BRE Global, Watford.
Sharifi, A. and Murayama, A. (2013) A critical review of seven selected neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, 73–87.
USGBC (2010) LEED 2009, for homes (updated 2010). US Green Building Council, Washington.
USGBC (2011) LEED 2009, for schools, new construction and major renovations (updated
2011). US Green Building Council, Washington.
USGBC (2012a) LEED [Online]. Available at: https://new.usgbc.org/leed [23/10/2012].
USGBC (2012b) LEED 2009 – Current version [Online]. Available at: https://new.usgbc.org/
leed/developing-leed/current-version [23/10/2012].
USGBC (2012c) LEED rating systems [Online]. Available at: https://new.usgbc.org/leed/ratingsystems [23/10/2010].
USGBC (2012d) LEED 2009, Neighbourhood development (updated 2012). US Green Building
Council, Washington.
USGBC (2012e) LEED 2009, Commercial interiors (updated 2012). US Green Building Council,
Washington.
USGBC (2012f) LEED 2009, Core and shell development (updated 2012). US Green Building
Council, Washington.
USGBC (2012g) LEED 2009, Retail: new construction and major renovations (updated 2012).
US Green Building Council, Washington.
USGBC (2012h) LEED 2009, New construction and major renovation (updated 2012). US
Green Building Council, Washington.
USGBC (2012k) LEED 2009, Existing buildings operations and maintenance (updated 2012).
US Green Building Council, Washington.
USGBC (2012j) LEED 2009, Healthcare (updated 2012). US Green Building Council, Washington.
8
Intelligent Metering for Urban Water
Planning and Management
Cara Beal,1 Rodney Stewart,1 Damien Giurco2
and Kriengsak Panuwatwanich1
1
2
Griffith University, Australia
University of Technology, Australia
Introduction
Prosperous cities must be able to respond to future pressures from
­increasing populations, climate variability and climate change while maintaining adequate water services for residents and businesses. Based on
­dwindling water supplies (due to droughts and changing rainfall patterns)
and projected increasing demands, the management of water resources has
become a major concern for residential consumers, industry and all levels
of government. Many water-constrained cities have recently embraced a
combination of initiatives to reduce demand (e.g., installing efficient
appliances and undertaking water recycling) and have begun increasing
­
sources of supply through the installation of rainwater tanks and the construction of desalination plants. Such changes to water supply sources and
patterns of demand mean smarter approaches to urban water management
are required to achieve a sustainable water future; the era of urban water
planning that is highly focused on how to build and supply water has passed.
The ever-changing water supply system demands adaptive and innovative
management fed by robust information.
Currently, governments and public utilities are investing significant funds
in the development and implementation of water strategies in order to ensure
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
130
Building Design and Planning
Existing
dwelling
Pricing
Restrictions
SCALE
New
Development
dwelling
City
Volumetric
charges,
seasonal,
time
Volumetric
charges,
seasonal,
timeofofuse
use pricing
Optimiserules
rulesfor
forfrequency
frequency and
pricing
Optimise
and duration,
duration,drought
drought
pricing
Role for smart
metering
Leaks
Efficiency
Rain tanks
$
Stormwater
Recycling
Desalination
$
Figure 8.1 Potential for demand reduction and alternative supply options across
scales (Stewart, R., Willis, R., Giurco. D., Panuwatwanich, K., and Capati, G. (2010)
Web based knowledge management system: linking smart metering to the future of
urban water planning. Australian Planner 2010; 47: 66–74)
future water demands are met. Demand management strategies include
water restrictions, rebate programmes for water-efficient devices, water efficiency labelling, water conservation or education programmes and pressure
and leakage management (Inman and Jeffrey, 2006). Source ­substitution or
‘fit-for-use’ water involves replacing specified potable ­end-uses, such as toilet flushing and irrigation, with recycled, grey or storm water. Water savings
achievable from such programmes are calculated through a variety of assumptions but, once in place, limited consideration is given to determining the
actual water savings associated with these strategies.
The potential of the aforementioned diversified demand management
strategies depends on their scale of implementation (Figure 8.1). The size of
the ‘bubble’ in Figure 8.1 represents a measure of relative savings potential
at the relevant scale (either smaller or larger), with more than half of these
measures depending on intelligent metering technology to achieve or effectively monitor their potential. For example, to implement time-of-use or
drought pricing, a real-time signal on water use is needed for consumers and
utilities. Intelligent meters, which can discern e­ nd-uses, can also play an
important role in detecting leaks in existing d
­ wellings (Britton et al., 2008).
The advent of advanced water metering, logging and wireless communication technologies has enabled the dynamic accurate measurement and data
transfer of useful end-use (i.e., shower end-use) water consumption
­information (e.g., Willis et al., 2009; Beal and Stewart, 2011). Furthermore,
real-time data of this nature would help planners and developers to understand everyday water use and consumer behaviour, and their spatio-temporal
Intelligent Metering for Urban Water Planning and Management 131
Component
Enabling pathway
Real
time
Smarter
metering
Quarterly
bills
End-use
detail
Planning
scale
Appliance
Household
Development
Management
Water
Energy
Privacy
Figure 8.2
Goal
Web
interactive
City
Web based
knowledge
management
system
for
sustainable
urban
water
Integration
Role of intelligent metering in management and planning across scales
­ariability. In order to improve long-term forecasting, more data and
v
­information is needed on the effectiveness and sustainability of demand
management techniques (Chambers et al., 2005). Although intelligent metering technologies are increasingly prevalent and are being implemented in an
improvised manner, no water organisation on the international stage has
developed a robust system which can assist and empower both water users
(i.e., households) and managers (i.e., water businesses, architects, planners
and state authorities) with comprehensive and instantly available reports or
comparisons (e.g., comparable household shower use) on water consumption
patterns. Moreover, researchers have, to date, failed to proactively provide a
roadmap for the coherent adaptation of this wide range of available technologies. Nor have they provided the architecture of a ­suitable Web-based information transfer platform – both of which could be used to rapidly advance
current, outdated urban water resource management practices.
The primary purpose of this chapter is to explore a paradigm shift to
­sustainable urban water planning and management by outlining the role
and implications of intelligent water metering. This is based on the argument that intelligent metering can facilitate a wide range of planning functions including citywide urban planning, infrastructure planning and
management, water demand management and customer satisfaction.
Figure 8.2 illustrates the role of intelligent metering in management and
planning across scales.
Role of intelligent water metering and big data
This section describes how intelligent metering can be applied across a
range of urban settings (e.g., residential, commercial and public sectors) to
facilitate sustainable urban planning.
132
Building Design and Planning
Defining intelligent water metering
Intelligent metering, when used in the context of urban water, has a range
of definitions (Boyle et al., in preparation). Intelligent meters differ from
standard meters by improving one or more of the following aspects:
•• The information which is recorded (and stored) with respect to water use,
for example
{{ more frequent recording of water use (daily, hourly, seconds)
{{ higher-resolution recording of water use (5–10) intervals to 1–2 ml
intervals)
{{ recording of use via multiple sub-meters (indoor, outdoor, per end-use).
•• Recording additional information in addition to water flows (this is
­currently less common in households, but is present for industrial and
commercial uses)
{{ temperature of shower water
{{ energy use in rain-tank pumps
{{ quality or turbidity of water.
•• Automated reading/transmission of collected data, for example
{{ drive-by or automated meter reading
{{ via radio, wireless or mobile telephone network.
•• Ability to access and interact with collected data
{{ from a customer perspective, via a Web-based customer portal
{{ from a utility perspective
{{ from a developer perspective in a block of apartments or units.
Whilst some may call an automated metering system (AMR) enabling a driveby reading of a standard meter an ‘intelligent meter’, in fact this is just intelligent communication. Intelligent water meters essentially perform three
functions; they automatically and electronically capture, collect and communicate up-to-date water usage readings on a real-time (or nearly real-time)
basis (Idris, 2006). The information is available as an electronic signal, which
can be captured, logged and processed like any other signal (Britton et al.,
2008). Figure 8.3 provides a schematic of an intelligent metering system.
Drivers of intelligent water metering
The diffusion of intelligent water metering into the urban setting has been
slower than that of electricity. However, costs for intelligent water meters
(i.e., meter and data logging and transfer) have reduced from several hundred
USD to below USD 100, thereby opening up opportunities for much wider
deployment. Internationally, large-scale deployments are rare. There are a
few major rollouts in the USA; New York has 875,000 intelligent water
meters, Global Water in Arizona has many thousands. In total, more than
Intelligent Metering for Urban Water Planning and Management 133
WBKMS
Maintenance & control
GSM/GPRS Network
Residential households
Modem
Figure 8.3
Internet
Commercial end-users
Data logger
Water authority
Smart water meter
Schematic of intelligent water meter data flow
10 million are installed in the USA. In Australia, there is a citywide
­implementation of 20,000 AMR meters in the small city of Hervey Bay,
Queensland. Consequently, the multiple dimensions and drivers for intelligent water metering are not yet fully articulated, and nor is the cost–­
benefit ratio for intelligent water metering understood. To date, drivers
for deployment include:
•• better understanding of time-of-day residential and commercial
consumption;
•• increasing water end-use (micro-component) insights in residential homes;
•• identifying leaks;
•• exploring the potential for time-of-use or scarcity pricing;
•• seeking behaviour change (more efficient consumption practices) in consumers through in-home displays; and
•• raising awareness about own water use in customers.
134
Building Design and Planning
Barriers to intelligent water metering
To ensure that intelligent metering makes a positive contribution towards
sustainable urban water management, a number of factors must be considered. Handling big volumes of data generated by intelligent metering is a
critical challenge, and could potentially revolutionise the way utilities
­operate. Further work to understand the implications of this change are
needed. Additionally, more focus ought to be directed to customer needs.
While many utilities in developed countries have privatised their tele­
communications and energy sectors for several years, urban water still
largely remains in a government or quasi-government domain and enjoys
monopoly status. Therefore, the focus on customer satisfaction by water
businesses has been poor when compared with other privatised utility
­sectors such as telecommunications.
Over the last ten years, one of the biggest changes in the utility–customer
relationship has been the introduction of a website. However, customer
access to their own data online – via smart phone or computer – could
­further change (improve) this relationship (Darby, 2010). Poor understanding of customer needs has the potential for customer backlash, which
occurred in the electricity industry in Australia (Robins, 2012) and overseas
(Costello, 2012). This was prompted by several factors, including poorly
explained changes to pricing structures, concerns over health impacts of
transmissions, service interruptions, physical explosion of metering infrastructure, and concerns over privacy and security.
Security and privacy concerns are also barriers to the uptake of intelligent
systems by water businesses, especially securing personalised customer
access to their records. Giurco et al. (2010) discussed in detail the impact
of collecting and communicating detailed water-use information on householder privacy. Ultimately, more research is required to ensure that utilities
can strike a balance between the benefits of data access and potential
­privacy risks (Giurco et al., 2010).
Issues with the management of data will arise if knowledge from intelligent
systems is not properly and effectively managed by the utility. Thus, new skill
sets for utility employees – including meta-data handling, information management and customer engagement – are required when implementing intelligent systems. Utilities that choose not to acquire such skill sets, and outsource
associated IT tasks, can incur the risk of technology vendors that propose offthe-shelf solutions which are ill-suited. The outsourcing option could also
result in telecommunication companies or Internet providers, already proficient in managing data and customer needs, taking on the management of
water utility data, or even the utilities themselves. Therefore, there is a very
real need for utilities to adapt to the intelligent meter and ‘big data’ age, and
lead the implementation task based on theirs and their customers’ needs. The
future of the water utility will be data rich, hence water utilities need to adapt.
Intelligent Metering for Urban Water Planning and Management 135
End use / micro-component data sets
Per capita and per household consumption data
Socio-demographic water use trends
Water-efficient appliance volumes
Applications of data sets
Cost-benefit analysis
Demand forecasting
Leak and non-registered flow
Flow rate clustering and non-registered flow data
Water-related end use energy predictions
Peak hourly and peak daily demand data
Diurnal pattern end use data
Descriptive statistics on end use flow events,
duration, frequency and volumes
Perceived and actual water consumption data
Strategic outcomes
Targeted demand efficiency
Water distribution planning
Customer feedback
ENVIRONMENTAL
OUTCOMES
Water demand &
water conservation
management
ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL OUTCOMES
Infrastructure &
Planning optimisation
Water-related energy demand
Understanding peak demand
Figure 8.4 Applications of intelligent water metering and end-use (micro-component) data
Intelligent metering applications and benefits
Intelligent metering, especially if it enables end-use data disaggregation, can
generate a wide spectrum of data sets, which can form the buildings blocks
for a range of citywide urban water planning applications (Figure 8.4). The
benefits related to the key water business functions of citywide urban water
planning, infrastructure planning and management, water demand management and customer satisfaction are discussed in the following sections.
Citywide urban water planning
The use of intelligent metering to better understand the water consumption
patterns of a city’s various residential, commercial and industrial customers
will undoubtedly help city and urban water planners to better understand
consumption trends and exploit opportunities to extract greater efficiencies
from the present system. Best practice planning for a city’s urban water
needs is usefully undertaken using integrated resources planning (White
et al., 2008; Turner et al., 2010; Stewart, 2011). This concept considers both
the changes to future demand and the available supply. It then identifies
options to ensure a supply–demand balance based on a least-cost approach
(dollars per kilolitre, $/kl). Key determinants of future demand include:
changes in population, changes in housing stock (larger or smaller gardens
to irrigate, increasing number of water-using appliances), changes to the
type of water-using appliances (more efficient showers, clothes washers)
and, finally, changes to water-use practices (shorter or longer showers,
shorter or longer periods of garden irrigation).
As outlined in Figure 8.1, intelligent metering plays a unique role in
informing planning across scales, from better understanding the potential
136
Building Design and Planning
for efficiency (and leaks) in existing dwellings to understanding the ­real-time
water-use practices likely to apply in new dwellings. Uniquely, this system
will support the build-up of utility-wide databases over time, which is based
not only on the installed water-using devices but also the variability of
expected behaviours and number of residents in households. At the development scale, increased information about peak demands of tens or hundreds
of co-located households can inform detailed planning for a plethora of
applications from small-bore vacuum sewers (saving piping costs) to p
­ atterns
of appliance usage (typically toilets, irrigation and washing machines) which
could be supplied via recycled water or rainwater.
There are many small-sample, short-period studies that provide data on
appliance stocks and usage patterns in cities (e.g., Beal and Stewart, 2011).
The advantage of intelligent metering is that large volumes of accurate data
could be collected on variables such as the average shower flow rate and,
importantly, average shower duration. This data can also be collected
instantaneously, thereby enabling immediate understanding of a range of
government or water business strategies to shift water consumption levels,
particularly in water scarcity periods. The ability to better understand the
potential for water savings in times of scarcity – either from restrictions or
approaches such as scarcity pricing – could save billions of dollars by avoiding the premature deployment of capital infrastructure, such as desalination
plants, which have been built around Australia to pre-emptively secure supply. A study for Sydney (White et al., 2006) shows that changes to the form
of restrictions and the reliability criteria could considerably increase system
yield – without upgrading capital infrastructure. However, in the absence of
intelligent metering data, the areas in which customers might save water
under modified restriction regimes, and their willingness to tolerate a
change in system reliability (e.g., from 97% to 96%), is poorly characterised.
System reliability relates to the number of months (on average) a customer
is in restrictions. A 97% reliability criterion means customers will not be
in restrictions 97/100 months (or restrictions will not last longer than
3% of the time). In summary, any city planning and management function
requires reliable and up-to-date information to inform good decision making. Intelligent metering will enable citywide urban water planning to be far
more efficient and effective.
Infrastructure planning and management
Not only does intelligent water metering benefit the planning of urban
water supply, it also has far-reaching benefits on the planning and management of an entire water and waste-water infrastructure system. This approach
will enable the development of intelligent information systems that can be
used to improve urban water practices and achieve a seamlessly integrated
infrastructure planning and management system.
Intelligent Metering for Urban Water Planning and Management 137
Essentially, water and waste-water infrastructure planning and management are focused on long-term strategic planning, which includes holistic
strategies catchment water management, assessment and conditioning,
­priority infrastructure planning, infrastructure charges, policy and schedules,
growth management, process assessment, research and development, regional
planning and, most importantly, system-wide modelling. By capitalising on
a developed intelligent metering system, the provision of readily available
demand and supply data from water and waste-water systems as well as
household consumption data can serve as a powerful tool that will assist
enhanced system-wide modelling to:
•• identify leakage within households, as well as in the distribution system
and network;
•• provide real-time diurnal pattern data of water demand at a household
level that will enable a better understanding of required supply quantities,
storage needs, excess supply available for resale or distribution, and discharge volumes; and
•• provide more accurate and reliable predictive models on waste-water
system requirements (e.g., treatment processes, estuarine, marine and
­
river impacts, etc.) through real-time end-use data related to prior knowledge on the typical waste constitute materials associated with such uses.
Successful implementation of the above capabilities can improve infrastructure planning and policy making for:
•• a more effective priority infrastructure planning and regional planning;
•• a comprehensive understanding of the expandability of a particular region
(with existing infrastructure) and management of growth based on water
demands; and
•• better modelling of water and waste-water systems and improved identification of upgrade requirements for stressed infrastructure (e.g., by linking
service capacity to predicted demands).
A couple of demonstration projects on the potential benefits of intelligent
metering for infrastructure planning and management have been completed
by the authors and are detailed in the following sections.
Influence of stock efficiency on diurnal demand patterns
A recent study conducted by Carragher et al. (2012) demonstrates how
­real-time data collected using an intelligent metering approach can provide
an insight into a better understanding of water supply infrastructure management. Based on the clustered sets of 191 households participating in an
Australian intelligent metering study, the authors identified statistically
significant reduction in average day (AD) peak hour water consumption in
138
Building Design and Planning
homes with higher composite fixture/appliance star ratings. They highlighted
that the use of efficient water appliances and fixtures contributes to reduced
use of potable water supplies and lowers the AD peak hour demand from
which water supply infrastructure is designed. The lower peak demand
flow rates result in a reduction in pressure on the existing network infrastructure, which in turn provides the following add-on benefits:
•• lowered demand placed on current pump and pipe infrastructure, thus
­offsetting the need for imminent upgrades and hence large capital cost
savings;
•• energy and further running cost savings due to the smaller-sized pumps
remaining in use for a longer period of time; and
•• longer drawdown periods of storage reservoirs through decreased demand
offsetting the need for necessary upgrades.
The data from any intelligent water metering system also provides
significant insight into the development and effectiveness of water
­
demand management strategies at the development scale, as discussed in
the following section.
Water distribution planning and peak demand analysis
A reduction in the degree and frequency of peak demand days is likely due to
the high penetration of residential water stock-efficient measures, water consumer behavioural changes, higher dwelling density and anticipated changes
to future climate patterns. Accurate and up-to-date peak demand data is
essential to ensure that future mains water supply networks reflect current
usage patterns and are designed efficiently from an engineering, environmental and economic perspective. An example of how intelligent metering
data can be used to identify peak demand, peaking factors (PD/AD) for infrastructure modelling and end-use driving high demand is shown in Figure 8.5.
Tracking the changes (reductions) in peak hourly and daily flows can offer
vital insight into the future peak flows from homes. The implications of
knowing the reduction in peak demand potential includes deferral of infrastructure costs and greater ‘optioneering’ for distribution network design
(Beal and Stewart, 2013).
Water demand management
A shift in public perception towards water requires renewed understanding
of the relationships between the end-use and the end-users of residential
water. Hence, water demand management (WDM) is a term used to define
the practical development and implementation of strategies aimed at reducing demand (Savenije and van der Zaag, 2002). WDM may be categorised
into five key areas: (1) engineering, i.e. installing efficient showerheads
Intelligent Metering for Urban Water Planning and Management 139
(c)
700
16
12
8
4
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hour of day
EX
BATH
TAP
SHOW
CW
TOIL
02/07/11
TOIL
31
EX
62
CW
80
TAP
30
SHOW
52
40
30
20
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hour of day
Hour of day
PD/AD
1.7
600
PD/AD
1.3
500
PD/AD
1.5
400
300
200
20
11
/2
01
1
1/
03
/2
01
1
1/
04
/2
01
1
1/
05
/2
01
1/
1
06
/2
01
1
1/
07
/2
01
1
02
1/
1/
1/
20
10
01
/
20
10
12
/
20
10
11
/
1/
1/
10
/
01
0
01
0
09
1/
(f)
EX
7
(i)
LEAK
9
(e)
TAP 28
SHOW
24
14–28 June
winter, 2010
TOIL
24
(g)
EX L
5 4
(i)
TAP
27
CW
31
SHOW
36
1 Dec–22 Feb
summer 2010–11
TOIL
23
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hour of day
Hour of day
BATH
CW
TAP
TOIL
DW
LEAK
1–14 June
winter 2011
TOIL
24
CW
32
(ii)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
EX
SHOW
TAP
25
EX
7
SHOW
50
Average daily diurnal
consumption (L/p/h/d)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
(i)
CW
27
(ii)
Average daily diurnal
consumption (L/p/h/d)
(ii)
Average daily diurnal
consumption (L/p/h/d)
/2
01
0
/2
/2
08
1/
01
0
/2
07
06
1/
1/
01
0
/2
/2
05
04
01
0
1/
/2
/2
1/
02
1/
03
01
0
100
01
0
Average daily total consumption in SEQ
Average consumption across the measured period
1/
Average daily household water
consumption (L/hh/d)
800
(d)
10/04/11
EX
B EX
4 12 TOIL 34
BATH
TAP 23
TAP
SHOW
SHOW
CW
CW
41
TOIL
57
Average daily diurnal
consumption (L/p/h/d)
(a)
Average daily diurnal
consumption (L/p/h/d)
07/01/11
EX
EX
13
BATH
TOIL 34
TAP
TAP 27
SHOW
CW
CW
SHOW
42
TOIL
58
Average daily diurnal
consumption (L/p/h/d)
(b)
EX
SHOW
BATH
CW
TAP
TOIL
DW
LEAK
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hour of day
EX
SHOW
BATH
CW
TAP
TOIL
DW
LEAK
Figure 8.5 Example of how intelligent metering data can aid better understanding of
daily diurnal demand patterns and peak demand (Beal and Stewart, 2011)
or washing machines; (2) economics, i.e. water pricing; (3) enforcement, i.e.
water restrictions; (4) encouragement, i.e. rebate programmes for water-­
efficient clothes washers; and (5) education, i.e. promoting water-saving
practices such as shorter showers (Gold Coast City Council, 2005).
Despite successful demand management outcomes, approaches by many
regulating authorities to reduce water consumption are often reactionary
rather than proactive (Renwick and Archibald, 1998; Kennedy, 2010; Farrelly
and Brown, 2011). Although there are many examples of proactive water
demand management approaches emerging (e.g., Inman and Jeffrey, 2006;
Domènech and Saurí, 2011; Farrelly and Brown, 2011), the often reactionary
140
Building Design and Planning
policies to reduce water demand in times of potential supply crisis highlight the need for more detailed information at the ‘coalface’. The use of
intelligent metering and subsequent data sets could significantly improve
decision making in relation to WDM strategies (Figure 8.4). In addition,
empirical verification on achieved water savings from already implemented
programmes can be achieved. The application of real-time end-use data, by
both water authorities and consumers, will undoubtedly revolutionise the
often ad-hoc approach to WDM.
Current demand management functions can be enhanced by intelligent
metering-enabled end-use data sets in a number of ways. Some key applications are shown in the middle column of Figure 8.4. Examples of each of
these applications are provided below.
Demand forecasting
Descriptive statistics such as end-use event frequencies, flow rates, mean
volumes and durations can provide the fundamental input parameters for
demand forecasting models. Total and disaggregated water consumption
data will also allow water businesses to monitor the effect of enforcement
or restriction levels on water consumption, and monitor rebound trends
­following the removal of enforcement strategies. An example of how intelligent metering water-use data can be tracked against restrictions and
­advertised water-saving targets is shown in Figure 8.6.
Leak and non-registered flow
Leak and non-registered flow can be identified and managed through
high-resolution intelligent meters, resulting in the minimisation of
­
­undetected leaks and non-registered flow. A real-time monitoring system
would also enable water utilities to intervene as soon as an exception
alarm is raised for end-uses such as major water leaks (e.g., service breaks).
Intelligent meter data can be categorised into flow rate categories (l/hr),
which has implications for water meter management and replacement
programmes.
Targeted demand efficiency
Regular monitoring of end-use consumption data provides the ability to
immediately quantify the effect of targeted education programmes (e.g., for
particular demographics, shower time, rebate programme, etc.) on their
intended water end-use(s). Therefore, there is a capacity to establish the
water savings resulting from implemented engineering applications such as
efficient water appliances (e.g., washing machines, shower roses, etc.) as
shown in Figure 8.7, and pressure and leakage management. The analytical
report generated by intelligent meters will also be able to help utilities
­identify the water consumption patterns of different types of consumers to
support education campaigns relating to conservation and water use.
Intelligent Metering for Urban Water Planning and Management 141
SEQREUS
Winter 2011
144.9 L/p/d
300
SEQREUS
Winter 2010
145.3 L/p/d
250
SEQREUS
Summer 2010–11
125.3 L/p/d
Target 200
L/p/d
Target 170
L/p/d
200
Target
T
Tar
get 140 L/p/d
150
No restrictions
ons
Average monthly per capita water use (L/p/d)
350
100
50
Level Level
1
2
Level Level Level
3
4
5
Level
6
High
Level
Medium
Level
PWCM
Jan-05
Apr-05
Jul-05
Oct-05
Jan-06
Apr-06
Jul-06
Oct-06
Jan-07
Apr-07
Jul-07
Oct-07
Jan-08
Apr-08
Jul-08
Oct-08
Jan-09
Apr-09
Jul-09
Oct-09
Jan-10
Apr-10
Jul-10
Oct-10
Jan-11
Apr-11
Jul-11
Oct-11
0
Time (months)
Queensland water commission
reported water use
Figure 8.6 Example of how intelligent metering data can be used to track rebound
and compare with regional-wide consumption (Beal and Stewart, 2011)
(a) Daily household shower fixture
(b) Average day diurnal patterns
15.0
100
80
60
40
20
0
≥3
Stars
2
Stars
1
Star
Old
model
Water-efficiency cluster
Figure 8.7
50 least efficient homes
50 most efficient homes
12.5
Average daily diurnal
consumption (L/p/h/d)
Average shower water
consumption (L/hh/d)
comparisons
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0.0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Time (hours)
Application of stock appliance efficiency cluster data
Water-related energy demand
The conflict between water use and associated energy consumption is often
referred to as the water/energy nexus. The management of water demand
through water-efficient technology and behavioural changes has strong
142
Building Design and Planning
implications for reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as conserving
potable water supplies. Water-related energy demand can be predicted by
analysing the energy requirements and resultant greenhouse gas emissions
from measured residential water usage. Beal et al. (2012) recently completed
a study demonstrating that intelligent water metering and resultant enduse data, combined with data sets on household appliance water and energy
specifications, enabled greater understanding of this water–energy nexus.
Cost–benefit analysis of water efficiency strategies
Intelligent metering and water end-use data provide opportunities for
informed and detailed cost–benefit analyses, where financial analysis of the
cost and water-saving benefits of implemented WDM programmes can ultimately drive a least-cost planning agenda. Evaluating the performance
of state or citywide rebate programmes (e.g., showerhead replacement
­programme) will make it possible to provide firm performance evidence
for comparison against other proposed water supply and demand schemes by
the government or water business.
Enabler for urban water tariff reform
The analytical report generated by intelligent meters will also inform the
development of different tariff systems to influence consumption behaviour. Time-of-use or other alternative tariff structures can be applied if intelligent water metering is implemented citywide. While there are many fears
related to tariff reform, it potentially has strong advantages for reducing
consumption in water scarcity periods, peak network periods, etc. Cole
et al. (2012) explored an hourly block tariff structure and demonstrated that
it has the potential to target only those residential customers consuming
significant volumes of water for irrigation purposes. The major tariff
reforms instigated by intelligent metering in the electricity sector will likely
­motivate a similar policy trajectory for water in the coming years.
Customer satisfaction
The current metering and billing system only provides a single water
­consumption data figure to customers on their water bill or rates notice. An
intelligent metering system can provide a platform for extensive ­knowledge
transfer of water consumption data, directly to consumers. Such a system
offers an easily accessible platform, which allows users to log on and see
where and when they are consuming water; how much they are consuming
on a per capita basis; how their consumption compares with ­others of a
similar demographic or sector (e.g., type of commercial customer); information on current water restriction levels and allocations (i.e., regulated water
target split to end-uses); and tips on how to reduce water consumption in
areas and periods of high use. Users can be directed to pay their water bill
Intelligent Metering for Urban Water Planning and Management 143
through the system, thus providing the need for people to use the system.
This can instigate an understanding of how consumption behaviour translates into charges on their water bill. The functionality requirements for
customers of the proposed intelligent metering system include, but are not
limited to, the following:
•• User log-in to the water company’s website with their specific login and
password for their property (water account). The screen will then take
them to a welcome page that provides a water use summary for their water
connection.
•• The summary of water use to include water used over the last seven days,
month, year to date and associated costs is shown. A summary of developed water end-use reports for these periods could also be available.
•• Users can compare their use with the ‘average’ or ‘usual’ consumption in
their region, suburb, demographic cluster or industry sector. Potentially,
this can be achieved at the end-use level for residential customers.
•• In events where the customer is exceeding normal consumption levels
for their category, they may be informed through an alert system. Once an
alert is triggered, they could be provided with downloadable fact sheets on
ways to reduce consumption in that area (i.e., ‘leak – how to check’ or
‘high in shower – use efficient shower rose’, etc.).
•• The current water restriction levels set by local water business or state
authority, and any other relevant information that can be conveyed to
them (e.g., water supply level).
•• The reports and recommendations could also provide cost implications
over a particular timeframe for reducing water use in their home.
The provision of such an intelligent system will help consumers take
a higher degree of ownership of their water use instead of the water business
or government. Ultimately, the proposed system will be a valuable tool for
knowledge and awareness transfer to users, allowing for heightened levels
of government scrutiny of water use and the associated regulation and
enforcement to be considerably reduced over time. Figure 8.8 provides an
illustrative example of a Web-based platform that could be viewed on computers, tablets or mobiles, and can be used by customers to better engage
with their water consumption, thereby making them more empowered to
undertake targeted actions towards water conservation in scarcity periods.
Conclusion and recommendations
This chapter has shown how the widespread deployment of intelligent water
metering has a range of benefits for the urban water industry and society at
large. Introducing intelligent water metering on a wide scale necessitates
144
Building Design and Planning
WATER BUSINESS X: INTELLIGENT METERING SYSTEM
Log out
Welcome: 5 Smith street, Brisbane, Queensland
Please make a selection from
the following:
Day-19 October 2012, Water consumption end use report
Fixture
category
News
My usage and budget
Toilet 15.87%
Water end use reports
Leak 2.92%
Irrigation 15.87%
Comparative usage
Rebate schemes
Reduce your consumption
Tap
14.81%
Clothes
washer
13.5%
View / pay bills
Leak alerts
Shower 35.58%
Contacts
Dishwasher 2.33%
Quick summary: My usage
Target usage per day: 480 L/hh/d
Yesterdays usage: 496 L/hh/d
Yesterdays average daily household consumption: 510 L/hh/d
Last weeks average daily household consumption: 472 L/hh/d
Figure 8.8
Water usage
(L/hh/d)
Percent (%)
Leak
15.28
2.92
Toilet
83.08
15.87
Clothes
washer
70.59
13.49
Shower
186.21
35.58
Dishwasher
12.20
2.33
Tap
77.52
14.81
Irrigation
78.54
15.01
Total
523.42
100
Intelligent water system customer interface illustrative example
the development of extensive databases and a range of autonomous and
intelligent data-processing modules which can interface with both the customer and water business. If this can be achieved, the valuable information
reported from this intelligent system will significantly enhance current
urban water planning and management functions.
Current research in the intelligent metering and end-use fields demonstrates the need for the development of such a system, since its creation
poses significant benefits for city planners, infrastructure planners, water
demand analysts, as well as architects and developers who seek to better
understand water consumption patterns in order to design highly waterefficient new developments. The system also provides comprehensive information to users which will vastly improve their current level of knowledge
and understanding of their water consumption, thus enabling them to proactively address and control their consumption levels. Customers empowered by instant water-use information will also likely have a much higher
degree of satisfaction with their water supplier. The development of an
intelligent system could ultimately lead towards more informed infrastructure planning, strategically developed and monitored demand management
strategies, and a significant improvement in awareness of where, when and
how water is being used, both by water utilities and consumers.
In order to achieve a more rapid diffusion of intelligent water metering
systems, a number of barriers need to be addressed, including: (1) current
high cost of intelligent meters; (2) poor understanding of the benefits of
intelligent metering data; (3) reliability, security and affordability of data
communication systems; and (4) monopoly. Water supply businesses are
Intelligent Metering for Urban Water Planning and Management 145
often slow to engage innovation and are less inclined to view high customer
satisfaction as a key performance indicator of business. To overcome these
barriers, it is recommended that further research and trial implementation
studies (such as those presented herein) demonstrating the benefits of intelligent metering be conducted, government incentives for transforming
water businesses are introduced, technology investment and large-scale
production of intelligent meters is completed, and that water industry
­
­professionals receive training on intelligent metering technologies, functionality and outputs. If such strategies are effectively implemented, the
current rate of successful intelligent metering diffusion could accelerate.
Further reading
Beal, C. and Stewart, R. (2011) South East Queensland Residential End-use Study: Final Report.
Urban Water Security Research Alliance Technical Report No. 47, Brisbane, Australia. http://
www.urbanwateralliance.org.au/publications/UWSRA-tr47.pdf.
Cole, G. (2011) Time of Use Tariffs: Reforming the economics of urban water supply.
Waterlines Report, National Water Commission, Canberra. http://archive.nwc.gov.au/
library/waterlines/63.
Giurco, D., Carrad, N., McFallan, S., Nalbantoglu, M., Inman, M., Thornton, N. and White, S.
(2008) Residential End-use Measurement Guidebook: A guide to study design, sampling and
technology. Prepared by the Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS and CSIRO for the Smart
Water Fund, Victoria, Australia. www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/giurcoetal2008resenduse.pdf.
References
Beal, C. and Stewart, R. (2011) South East Queensland Residential End-use Study: Final Report.
Urban Water Security Research Alliance Technical Report No. 47, Brisbane, Australia.
Beal, C. and Stewart, R. (2013) Identifying residential water end uses underpinning peak day
and hour demand. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, in press. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.000035.
Beal, C., Stewart, R. and Bertone, E. (2012) Evaluating the energy and carbon reductions resulting from resource-efficient household stock. Energy and Buildings, in press. DOI: 10.1016/j.
enbuild.2012.08.004.
Boyle, T., Giurco, D., Liu, A., Moy, C., Mukheibir, P. and Stewart, R. (in preparation) Intelligent
metering for urban water: a review of practices and prospects. Water – Open Access Journal.
Britton, T., Cole, G., Stewart, R. and Wisker, D. (2008) Remote diagnosis of leakage in residential households. Water: Journal of the Australian Water Association, 35(6), 89–93.
Carragher, B., Stewart, R. and Beal, C. (2012) Quantifying the influence of residential water
appliance efficiency on average day diurnal demand patterns at an end-use level: a precursor
to optimised water service infrastructure planning. Resources Conservation and Recycling,
62, 81–90.
Chambers, V., Creasey, J., Glennie, E., Kowalski, M. and Marshallsay, D. (2005) Increasing the
Value of Domestic Water Use Data for Demand Management – Summary Report. WRc plc,
Wiltshire.
Cole, G., Stewart, R. and O’Halloran, K. (2012) Time of use tariffs: implications for water efficiency. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 12(1), 90–100.
146
Building Design and Planning
Costello, K. (2012) Should utilities compensate customers for service interruptions? The
Electricity Journal. DOI: 10.1016/j.tej.2012.08.001.
Darby, S. (2010) Smart metering: what potential for householder engagement? Building
Research and Information, 38(5), 442–457.
Domènech, L. and Saurí, D. (2011) A comparative appraisal of the use of rainwater harvesting
in single and multi-family buildings of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (Spain): social
experience, drinking water savings and economic costs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19,
598–608.
Farrelly, M. and Brown, R. (2011) Rethinking urban water management: experimentation
as a way forward? Global Environmental Change, 847. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.
2011.1001.1007.
Gold Coast City Council (2005) Gold Coast Waterfuture Project Overview. Gold Coast,
Queensland.
Giurco, D., White, S. and Stewart, R. (2010) Smart metering and water end-use data: conservation benefits and privacy risks. Water, 2(3), 461–467.
Idris, E. (2006) Smart metering: a significant component of integrated water conservation system. Proceedings of the 1st Australian Young Water Professionals Conference. International
Water Association, Sydney.
Inman, D. and Jeffrey, P. (2006) A review of residential water conservation tool performance
and influences on implementation effectiveness. Urban Water Journal, 3(3), 127–143.
Kennedy, A. (2010) Using community-based social marketing techniques to enhance environmental regulation. Sustainability, 2(4), 1138–1160.
Renwick, M. and Archibald, S. (1998) Demand side management policies for residential water
use: who bears the conservation burden? Land Economics, 74(3), 343–359.
Robins, B. (2012) Intelligent meters too toxic to touch. Sydney Morning Herald, September 6.
Savenije, G. and van der Zaag, P. (2002) Water as an economic good and demand management:
paradigms and pitfalls. Water International, 27(1), 98–104.
Stewart, R. (2011) Verifying the end-use water savings from contemporary residential water
supply scheme. Waterline Report No. 61, National Water Commission, Canberra, Australia.
Stewart, R., Willis, R., Giurco, D., Panuwatwanich, K. and Capati, G. (2010) Web based knowledge management system: linking smart metering to the future of urban water planning.
Australian Planner, 47, 66–74.
Turner, A., Willetts, J., Fane, S., Giurco, D., Chong, J., Kazaglis, A. and White, S. (2010) Guide
to Demand Management and Integrated Resource Planning (update on original 2008 guide).
Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA), Sydney, Australia, pp. 1–174.
White, S., Campbell, D., Giurco, D., Snelling, C., Kazaglis, A. and Fane, S. (2006) Review of the
Metropolitan Water Plan: Final Report. Prepared for NSW Cabinet Office by Institute for
Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney and ACIL Tasman, April. http://
www.waterforlife.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/1483/isf_acil_review_april06_
final_1.pdf
White, S., Fane, S., Giurco, D. and Turner, A. (2008) Putting the economics in its place:
decision-making in an uncertain environment. In: Zografos, C. and Howarth, R. (eds),
­
Deliberative Ecological Economics. Oxford University Press, New Dehli, pp. 80–106.
Willis, R., Stewart, R., Panuwatwanich, K., Capati, B. and Giurco, D. (2009) Gold Coast domestic water end-use study. Water: Journal of Australian Water Association, 36(6), 79–85.
9
Integrated Sustainable Urban
Drainage Systems
Stephen J. Coupe, Amal S. Faraj, Ernest O. Nnadi
and Susanne M. Charlesworth
Coventry University, UK
Introduction
Rainfall is unevenly and seasonally distributed across the earth’s surface.
Today, many places in the world, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, are experiencing water scarcity and drought (NASA, 2008). However, it is undisputable
that water is still wasted in other parts of the world that enjoy high rainfall
and regular potable water supply. There is an increasing demand for
water across the globe due to increasing world population and industrial
activities at a time when rainfall patterns are reportedly changing in response
to ­climate change (Bakkenes et al., 2002). In addition, the use of potable
and high-quality water for agricultural and horticultural irrigation, watering
of both domestic and public gardens, flushing of toilets, car washing and
other uses which do not require such quality water affect the availability of
water for other important uses (Vaes and Berlamount, 1999).
Whilst a lack of water in certain places and at certain times is cause for
­concern, excessive storm water can constitute a problem, often in the same
places where at other times of the year there is a shortage of water. Therefore,
there is an increased realisation of the importance of sustainable urban
­drainage (SUD), which in addition to managing storm water can ­provide added
­benefits; the supply of water and renewable energy. The UN Department of
Economic and Social Affairs (DESA, 2006) reported that ­globally, the proportion of the population living in urban areas rose from 13% (220 million) in
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
148
Building Design and Planning
1900, to 29% (732 million) in 1950, to 49% (3.2 billion) in 2005. The same
report projected that the figure is likely to rise up to 60% (4.9 billion) by
2030. This urban population growth increases the a­ cuteness of a number of
environmental problems. Some of these problems may be mitigated by SuDs.
Combined drainage, water and energy systems have the potential to provide reliable, cost-effective improvements for implementing sustainability
within the built environment. The benefits can include:
•• mains water replacement systems such as rainwater harvesting, which
deliver mains water savings without compromising water quality;
•• a potential source of energy transfer using water stored on-site, providing
opportunities to extract the maximum sustainability benefit from stored
water;
•• integrated whole-site, urban development solutions which emphasise
infrastructure links rather than implementing disparate infrastructure
solutions.
In 2007, the European Union introduced Flood Directive 2007/60/EC for
the assessment and management of flood risks (European Union, 2007).
Beyond the implementation of the European Union (EU) Flood Directive,
the s­ trategic risk assessment (SRA) of urban pluvial flooding has become
a legislative requirement in many countries. In the UK, the Flood and Water
Management Act 2010 (HMSO, 2010) places responsibility for managing
the risk of flooding in a sustainable fashion on the Environment Agency
(EA, 2002; SEPA, 2005). However, legislation regarding flooding and water in
the UK is different from legislation in other parts of the world, mainly
because the UK has been relatively slow to adopt SuDs.
This chapter describes the recent developments, current status and
future potential for combined drainage, water and energy infrastructure.
It focuses on permeable pavements, a hard-engineered SuDs solution. Two
case studies are presented to describe the multiple benefits of adopting SuDs
as a combined water management solution in building developments.
Sustainable drainage systems
In recent years, emphasis has shifted towards local on-site treatment and
management of storm water at source. SuDs is a term used for different systems which perform one or a combination of detention, retention, infiltration of runoff at source for gradual attenuation into the ground or in the case
of storm water harvesting or tanked system, into a water collection system.
It creates space for water by legitimising its transgression into urban spaces
and providing pollution source control for less hazardous forms of waste
water (Jones and Macdonald, 2007). Charlesworth et al. (2003) defined SuDs
Integrated Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
149
as a catch-all term for a number of different systems, which slow and sometimes retain runoff to attenuate surface drainage. They are solutions that
can reduce the peak flow (Pratt et al., 1995), discipline surface water runoff
and control it in a way which is amenable to humans (Jones and Macdonald,
2007), insomuch that they deal with the quantity and quality of the water
to be managed. The philosophy of SuDs is to replicate, as closely as possible,
the natural drainage from a site before urban development.
SuDs can also mitigate many of the adverse effects of storm water runoff
on the environment. This is achieved by:
•• Controlling the runoff flow – volume and intensity.
•• Reducing the additional runoff volumes and runoff frequencies.
•• Maintaining natural groundwater recharge.
•• Reducing diffuse pollutant concentrations from surface water runoff.
•• Reducing the volume of surface-water runoff discharging to combined
sewer systems.
•• Contributing to the enhanced amenity, including improvement to wildlife
habitats and aesthetic value of developed area.
(EPA, 1999; EA, 2002)
Åstebøl et al. (2004) stated that the central element of sustainable stormwater management is the utilisation of storm water as a resource.
SuDs often combine different types of surface water management ­solutions
(CIRIA, 2007) using a number of SuDs drainage techniques as a series
of soak-aways, grassed areas and swales, pond or wetlands and permeable
­pavements. This is done by creating smaller sub-catchment areas so that
the water runoff passes the discharge though different drainage systems
depending on land use and characteristics. This process is known as a
SuDs treatment train and is shown in Figure 9.1 (CIRIA, 2000a,b). The SuDs
system can be implemented to achieve:
Discharge to water course or groundwater
Conveyance
Discharge to water course or groundwater
Conveyance
Source
control
Site
control
Figure 9.1
SuDs runoff treatment train
Discharge to water
course or groundwater
Regional
control
150
Building Design and Planning
(1) Water quantity control.
(2) Improved water quality.
(3) Water quantity control and improved water quality.
Water quantity control
The following SuDs processes can be used to manage and control surface
water runoff as well as provide storm-water control, flood risk management,
water conservation and/or groundwater recharge:
•• Infiltration – i.e., soaking water into the ground.
•• Detention/attenuation – slowing down the surface flows before their
transfer downstream.
•• Conveyance – this is the transfer of surface runoff from one place to another.
•• Water harvesting – this is the direct capture and use of runoff on site.
Water quality control
In SuDs, different processes can be used for pollutant removal. These include:
•• Sedimentation – where pollution in runoff is attached to sediment
­particles which are removed by reducing flow velocities, resulting in a
significant reduction in pollutant loads.
•• Infiltration and filtration – where pollutants are trapped within the soil
or aggregate matrix, on plants or geo-textile layers.
•• Adsorption – this complex process occurs when pollutants attach or bind
to the surface of soil or aggregate particles such that a combination of
­surface reactions occurs.
•• Biodegradation – this type of treatment happens when microbial communities may be established within the ground, using the oxygen within the
free-draining materials and the nutrients supplied with the inflows to
degrade organic pollutants such as oils and grease.
•• Volatilisation – volatilisation comprises the transfer of a compound
from solution in water to the soil atmosphere and then to the general
atmosphere, e.g. organic and pesticides.
•• Precipitation – precipitation involves chemical reactions between
­pollutants and the soil or aggregate that transform dissolved constituents
to form a suspension of particles of insoluble precipitates.
•• Uptake by plants – is an important removal mechanism for nutrients and
metals.
•• Nitrification – ammonia and ammonium ions can be oxidised by bacteria
in the ground to form nitrate, which is a highly soluble form of nitrogen.
•• Photolysis – the breakdown of organic pollutants by exposure to ultra­
violet light.
Integrated Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
151
Types of SuDs
The Environment Agency for England and Wales (EA, 2000) distinguishes
SuDs techniques as follows:
•• Source control and prevention techniques, such as green roofs, pervious
hard-standing, rainwater harvesting, infiltration trenches and infiltration
basins.
•• Permeable conveyance systems, such as filter (French) basins and swales.
•• Passive treatment systems, such as filter strips, detention basins, ­retention
ponds, sedimentation ponds and wetlands.
There are two main types of SuDs: hard SuDs such as permeable hard-­
standing and soft SuDs such as ponds and wetlands, and vegetation-based
­systems. Figure 9.2 describes the characteristics of the two main types of
hard SuDs.
This chapter focuses on SuDs solutions that can contribute to water
­efficiency in buildings with minimal additional infrastructure.
Permeable hard-standing/pavement
Permeable pavement system (PPS) is also commonly referred to as permeable interlocking concrete pavement (PICP). Small paved areas around
­properties provide for easy maintenance and off-road parking for homeowners. However, impermeable surfaces create ‘urban creep’ and flood risks as
Permeable
hardstanding
Surfacing blocks: Consisting of
either large pre-cast blocks or
small elemental surfacing blocks
with small gaps which allow
infiltration
Continuous laid permeable
material: Consisting of concrete
systems that provide a surface
with large voids for infiltration
Porous
hardstanding
Open textured soil or granular
material: Consisting of gravel or
similar material which is often reinforced
using geo-synthetic cellular systems
Geosynthetic gravel/grass protection
systems: Consisting of modular
interlocking plastic paving systems
infilled with gravel, grass or aggregate
Small porous elemental surfacing
blocks: Consisting of porous block
paving
Continuous-laid porous material:
Consisting of porous asphalt, concrete
or resin bound aggregate
Figure 9.2
A classification of pervious hard-standing
Source: Adapted from Pratt et al. (2002).
152
Building Design and Planning
Box 9.1 Hard-standing areas and urban creep
Between 1971 and 2004 the development of impermeable surfaces in a
­suburban area of Leeds increased by 13%; residential paved front gardens
contributed to the development by almost 10% (Perry and Nawaz, 2008).
Newcastle City Council carried out a survey focusing on urban creep in the
Ouseburn area and concluded that it was highly dependent on the overall
characteristics of the area, with the percentage of properties with a paved front
garden ranging from 0 to 66% (Newcastle City Council, 2008). It has also been
reported by the Greater London Authority that it is estimated that around
­two-thirds of London’s front gardens are already, at least partially, paved over
(London Assembly, 2005).
shown in the report extract in Box 9.1. Permeable hard-standing, with its
ability to allow infiltration and storage of water, offers a solution to this
problem. It can be used to reduce flood risk, and can play a significant role
in groundwater recharge and reduction of hydraulic stress in sewer systems
(Dierkes et al., 2005).
PPS, not porous paving, is preferred for integrated water efficiency
­solutions because it offers advantages such as flexibility to be customised
into a ‘tanked system’ for retaining harvested rainwater. It provides a
higher rate of infiltration and higher efficiency in improving water
­quality for water reuse. At the household level, Abdulla and Al Shareef
(2009) asserted that the low cost, accessibility and easy maintenance of a
rainwater h
­ arvesting system makes the PPS an attractive option.
PPS design
PPS is available in many different shapes and sizes; and is suitable for walkways, patios, public pavements, town squares and common areas (Figure 9.3).
The system generally consists of a surface layer, bedding layer course,
­geo-textile membrane, sub-base and a possible extra geo-textile bottom layer
for buffering of water as shown in Figure 9.4.
The surface layer is made up of concrete blocks with vertical channels
which provide gaps of from 8–20% of the surface area, in between each
paver. The gaps are filled with 2–4 mm angular gravel, which allows water to
seep down through an ‘open-graded’ base at a rate of at least 4500 mm/hr at
installation (Formpave, 2009). The gravel in the joints provides 100% surface
­permeability. The base filters storm-water, enabling recharge of the water
table as well as to filter and reduce pollutants. The function of the pavement
surface is to support vehicular loads without undue deformation and to allow
storm-water infiltration to the pavement’s sub-base. The ASTM C936 specifications (2001) state that the pavers should be at least 60 mm thick with a
compressive strength of 55 MPa or greater, depending on the purpose of use.
Integrated Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
(a)
(b)
Figure 9.3
Different shapes and sizes of permeable pavement system
Block pavers
Gravel bedding layer
Polypropylene
geo-textile
Coarse aggregate
sub-base
Optional polypropylene
geo-textile
Sub-grade
Figure 9.4
Generalised cross-section of the permeable pavement structure
153
154
Building Design and Planning
The blocks are laid on a 38–76 mm depth of 2–6 mm clean bedding
crushed stone (ICPI, 2004). The next layer is the geo-textile membrane,
which is a sheet of pervious polymeric compressed fibres with pore size
0.5–0.05 mm. The membrane is laid on top of the sub-base, overlapping the
joints by 300 mm. The geo-textile membrane prevents the migration of fine
particles from the sub-grade into the sub-base layer (Ferguson, 2005). It is
responsible for the majority of pollutant retention, and physically intercepts
organic matter present in urban runoff. It also functions as an appropriate
substrate for oil-degrading micro-organisms and decontaminates retained
pollutants (Coupe et al., 2003; Coupe, 2004).
PPS can be used to harvest stormwater when it is constructed with
an impermeable membrane placed under the sub-base layer (Åstebøl et al.,
2004; Scholz and Grabowiecki, 2007). More common is the use of PPS to control and manage runoff, either as a soak-away (otherwise called an i­ nfiltration
system) or as a storage tank (otherwise called a tanked or ­attenuation system).
The infiltration system is underlain with a pervious geo-textile membrane
to allow the water to infiltrate directly into a sub-grade (Figure 9.5). In a
tanked system, the underlying pervious geo-textile m
­ embrane is replaced
with an impervious membrane in order to attenuate storm water.
Runoff infiltration through PPS
PPS promotes a high rate of surface infiltration, even in areas where the
underlying soil is not ideal for complete infiltration. The installation of
underlying drains in the PPS sub-surface can yield reductions in outflow
volume and peak flow rate, and delay the time to peak flow (Pratt et al.,
1989). Brattebo and Booth (2003) examined the long-term effectiveness of a
permeable pavement parking area at Renton, Washington constructed with
five different types of pavement: standard asphalt, PICP filled with gravel,
Roof water
Downpipe
Transfer to swale
PPS/RWH storage
Surface water drainage
Foul water system
Figure 9.5 The drainage arrangements at the Hanson EcoHouse and BRE Innovation
Park, Watford, UK
Integrated Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
155
CGP filled with soil and planted with grass, plastic grid pavers with grass
and plastic grid pavers filled with gravel. Six years after installation, all
­permeable sections had endured structurally. During 18 months of monitoring, 15 observable storms were recorded, during which virtually all rainfall
infiltrated through each permeable section. On five occasions, small quantities of surface runoff were observed from the grass plastic grid pavers,
the largest volume of which amounted to 3% of the total precipitation.
Hunt et al. (2002) compared the hydrologic responses of various pavement
sections including impervious asphalt, pervious concrete and two types of
permeable interlocking concrete pavement to asphalt. All pervious pavement sections showed dramatically reduced surface runoff volumes, and
the pervious ­concrete and interlocking concrete pavement blocks provided
­significant infiltration compared with impermeable areas of the same size.
PPS and water quality
PPS is an established SuDs solution, but it can also be used to control
­pollution collected in runoff from the surrounding impermeable surfaces
where contaminated water may infiltrate into the underlying soil (Scholz
and Grabowiecki, 2007). It is highly desirable for harvested rainwater to
be used for secondary uses such as watering gardens, indoor and outdoor
cleaning, flushing of toilets or even for drinking and cooking purposes
(Sazaklia et al., 2007). Therefore, the removal of hazardous compounds from
the ­harvested water, whether the pollution is related to microbiological or
chemical contaminants, should be taken into account.
The infiltration through PPS has been shown to decrease the concentrations
of heavy metals and suspended solids (Pratt et al., 1995; Brattebo and Booth,
2003). According to studies carried out in Australia (Brattebo and Booth, 2003;
Fletcher et al., 2003; Melbourne Water, 2005), if PPS is installed correctly and
well maintained, it can remove up to 80% of copper, 60% of phosphorus, 80%
of nitrogen, 70% of heavy metals and 98% of oils and grease in storm water.
In another related study, Fassman (2012) concluded that permeable pavement
could reduce up to two-thirds of runoff contaminant concentrations.
PPS and water harvesting for irrigation
The impact of demands for watering landscaped areas can be particularly
problematic where the supply from rainfall is highly variable. In certain
countries, there are conflicting demands for water, especially during dry seasons and particularly for irrigation purposes, which would make irrigation
for aesthetic reasons at best socially unattractive and at worst could initiate
regulatory action by the authorities if precious potable waters are used for
such purposes (Nnadi, 2009). Rainwater harvesting, storage and reuse have
been recognised as important for tackling water scarcity (Pratt et al., 1999).
There is an increasing awareness that storm water is a valuable resource
which can be harnessed.
156
Building Design and Planning
Pratt et al. (1999) proposed that porous pavements possess the capability
to store water for reuse and since then, a number of practical examples
have been built (Ferguson, 2005). In most countries in the world, car parks
in hotels and shopping plazas, pavements and residential compounds are
accompanied by landscaped areas. In the area of SuDs, the landscaped part
of a paved car park or city square is capable of being used as part of the
storm-water disposal route.
In a pioneering study on the application of waters from a wide range of permeable pavement systems for irrigation, Nnadi et al. (2008) examined these
waters using international irrigation water quality standards and ­indicated
the possibility of recycling water in PPS for agricultural irrigation. In order to
further demonstrate the capability of PPS to retain pollutants and treat storm
water for irrigation, Nnadi (2009) designed an experiment whereby a weekly
loading of 12 ml/0.5 m2 of oil and 10.5 g/0.5 m2 of sediment pollution at 13 mm/
hr rainfall intensity (twice monthly) was simulated in a laboratory-based PPS
study for nine months. Analysis of the effluents c­ ollected from the previous
pavement systems showed that the concentration of metals was below WHO
guidelines for drinking water standards and recommended metal limits for
irrigation. Pot trial experiments using direct application of the stored water as
irrigation water on rye grass and tomato plants confirmed that the water
produced was highly suitable for agricultural irrigation and was able to grow
tomato plants that produced fruits which met international standards (Nnadi,
2009). This study has huge implications, as it shows that PPS can offer an
added advantage which could reduce the pressure of using mains water for
irrigation of landscape plants and gardens, especially in dry seasons.
Case studies: integrated SuDs
The environmental benefits that may arise from using PPS technology are
far more powerful, and cost effective, if they are combined in a single s­ ystem.
It is now possible to meet multiple environmental targets using a PPS
for drainage, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy with a proprietary
­system known as Thermapave. This section presents two case studies to
support this argument.
The Hanson EcoHouse
Built in 2007, the Hanson EcoHouse at the Building Research Establishment
(BRE), Watford was a first in utilising the landscaped area around a house for
both rainwater harvesting and ground source heat pump (GSHP) technology.
The decision was taken to use GSHP technology as the means to heat a
three-bedroom family home, using under-floor heating, super-insulated
walls and deploying the highest performance triple glazing at that time.
Integrated Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
157
The idea was to reduce the requirement for space heating and hot water
using traditional energy systems and to integrate a solar thermal hot
water system with the GSHP for pre-heating and top-up of the water.
PPS for rainwater harvesting
The PPS rainwater harvesting (RWH) system was around 45 m2 in area and
accepted both roof and pavement water for collection; it had a collecting area
of around 100 m2 and a capacity of 4 m3. The RWH was separated from the
GSHP for two reasons. Firstly, the demand for water from the RWH tank that
was envisaged from visitors to the EcoHouse or for research s­imulation of
water use may deplete the water available for heat exchange by the GSHP.
Secondly, the screening of the RWH for water quality variables required separate considerations for the heating and cooling cycle. A PPS sub-base may
affect the water quality variables in the RWH, particularly the biological variables. It was subsequently found during a parallel study conducted with the
University of Edinburgh that the impact of such temperature changes on water
quality was negligible and that Legionnaires’ disease-causing bacteria and
other pathogens were no more likely to survive in a GSHP pavement than a
standard PPS (Tota-Maharaj et al., 2010).
The RWH was connected to two variable-flush WCs and an outdoor tap
for gardening or car washing. The volume of water available for collection
when the tank was full, 4 m3, was more than most houses would need for
internal use, but may be quickly depleted in periods of drought if a hosepipe
ban was in place. This is one of the difficulties in correctly sizing a RWH
system. Where space is limited, an undersized tank may be unable to meet
periodic heavy demand for landscaping, but may be full most of the time and
not capable of flow or volume attenuation if the input generally exceeds use.
This was often the case at BRE Watford, where RWH water was used for
landscaping only between April and September and overflowed when rainfall attenuation was needed most. The site design was able to account for
this eventuality and excess RWH/PPS water was terminated in a swale at
the centre of the Innovation Park at BRE (Figure 9.5). This followed SuDs
design principles and allowed maximum attenuation and even biodiversity
(or amenity) benefits within the swale.
The system at BRE is an example of best practice in SuDs where there are
several attenuation steps for the water – a disconnection of roofs and hardstanding from the surface water drainage system, some local biodiversity
benefit from the swale and crucially, input to resource protection by plumbing the PPS into the WCs and outdoor tap.
Ground source heating at the EcoHouse
For combined benefits, the system depicted above could also serve as a site
for the GSHP collector, provided that the sizing of the collector was accurate and integrated with the RWH needs.
158
Building Design and Planning
Heat sourcing at the EcoHouse was implemented by installing 50 m2 of
PPS with heat collector loops. The pipes ran through the sub-base with a
bespoke liquid mixture, usually brine or ethylene glycol, as the heat transfer
medium. These were connected to an 8-kW heat pump which, although
oversized due to limits on availability of correctly sized pumps, was deemed
to be acceptable for the task. The rainwater harvesting system accepted
both roof and pavement water for collection and had a collecting area of
around 100 m2 and a capacity of 4 m3. The heat was transferred from the
ground using the collector pipes and heat pump to the house, and was
­capable of heating the 95-m2 dwelling during the winters of 2008 and 2009
(both considerably cold).
Another major finding from the EcoHouse experiment was the stability
of the level of water in the GSHP heat collection area. The water level was
largely unchanged at a minimum of 140 mm depth over the three years. This
was more than enough to cover the GSHP pipes and was clearly replenished
effectively by the acceptance of water from the roof of the adjacent house.
The stability of the water level in the tank was maintained even with a
drought of 30 days and temperatures of over 27 °C in July 2009. Fluctuation
in temperatures below ground did not appear to affect the surface of the
PPS. A ‘freeze thaw’ of the sub-base was proposed, but heaving may cause
disruption of the surface finish. Although temperatures did occasionally
drop below freezing in the GSHP, as recorded by thermocouples buried at
four locations in the paving, this did not correlate with any surface heave or
any noticeable reduction of GSHP performance.
However, a significant number of challenges occurred during the commissioning and operational phase of the GSHP. A leak in the under-floor
heating system led to a loss in pressure to the GSHP and a consequent shutdown of the pump. Electrical power outages led to the GSHP going into
standby mode and this made it difficult for the researchers to monitor
changes in power consumption or determine the amount of time the house
was without heating. These challenges were not exclusive to a PPS-based
GSHP and could have occurred in any comparable heating system. The
space heating and hot water provision by GSHP then was a qualified success. Any shortfall in efficiency was due to the large amount of collector
loop deployed in a 50-m2 area of paving. This compromise had been forced
on the construction team by the limited available space at BRE Watford and
the requirement to finish the scheme by the start of the Offsite exhibition
in July 2007. Nonetheless, the study shows that it was possible to heat the
EcoHouse under all weather conditions over the three-year research period.
EcoHouse summary
The efficiency of the combined system is still under review, but indications
are that the area of PPS for heat collection was undersized, at half the square
metreage of the house, for delivering a solution to space heating that would
Integrated Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
Table 9.1
159
Code for sustainable homes environmental impact criteria at the EcoHouse
Points available using
Thermapave system
and RWH
Environmental impact categories
Credits available
Category 1 – Energy and CO2
Category 7 – Health and wellbeing
Category 9 – Ecology
Category 8 – Management
Category 2 – Water
Category 3 – Materials
Category 5 – Waste
Category 6 – Pollution
Category 7 – Surface water runoff
29
12
9
9
6
24
7
4
4
10
Total
104
19
5
4
be cheaper than mains gas supply. Taking the present view, the infra­
structural arrangements for heat energy at BRE Watford were undersized
and the extra space required for a separate RWH would reduce the attractiveness of the system in comparison with a combined GSHP/RWH.
Work continues on the identification of the optimal conditions for PPS
heat collection and the most beneficial, cost-effective ratio between the
building and the associated heat collector sizing. Nevertheless, the work at
BRE conclusively proved that it is possible to combine such elements at one
site without any disruption to the operation of the individual elements.
From observation and monitoring, the PPS was observed to drain adequately
without blockage at the surface and provided a good quality of water.
In practical terms, it was important to assess the benefits of the combined
system against the Environmental Impact Assessment standard; in this case
the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH). Table 9.1 summarises the findings
when the combined solution was assessed against the CSH and it achieved
a Code level 4.
The Hanson Stewartby offices, Bedford
Following the success of the EcoHouse, the refurbishment of the Stewartby
brickworks in Bedford was seen as an ideal opportunity for deploying the
combined SuDs and drainage infrastructure. In 2008, the GSHP/PPS system
was specified for a new three-floor office development with total area of about
7000 m2. At Stewartby, the offices were supplied with water from a RWH but
from a separate system and not incorporated with the SuDs and GSHP.
The proposed design featured 6500 m2 of car parking and this was used as the
sole solution for heating and cooling of the offices and for draining the site.
In 2009, the Stewartby offices were assessed for BREEAM rating
(Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method).
160
Building Design and Planning
(a)
Ground loop collectors
at the base of the GSHP paving
(c) 5×130 kW ground source heat pumps
at the Stewartby offices, with 520 kW
of heating and 200 kW of cooling
Figure 9.6
(b)
The completed GSHP car park with
parking bays and landscaping shown
(d)
The upper level of the Stewartby
offices heated with under-floor
heating and supplementary radiators
Images of GSHP paving at Hanson Stewartby
The building was rated ‘Excellent’, which is the second highest rating
after ‘Outstanding’. The SuDs and energy infrastructure contributed a
large ­proportion of this rating, and the RWH was also a major factor in the
­environmental impact success.
Conclusion
As demonstrated throughout this chapter, combined energy, water and
drainage systems based on permeable paving are technologically feasible,
environmentally beneficial and on the verge of becoming economically
­viable. The savings inherent in combining water, energy and surface water
management infrastructure in one excavation could potentially improve the
economic case for renewable energy and RWH.
The main considerations with SuDs are (Heal et al., 2004):
I. SuDs need maintenance, regular inspections and interventions.
II. Whilst much is known about the capabilities of SuDs and PPS to improve
water quality, little is known of the fate of those contaminants.
Integrated Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
161
III. In spite of biodiversity being part of the SuDs triangle, ecological
improvement is not associated with PPS unless general enhancement
of the downstream environment could be considered.
IV. There is some field evidence of SuDs failures due to incorrect management or design.
In addition to the issues above, social acceptance should also be considered. If the surface water management approach is unacceptable to those
who live in close proximity, it will be unsustainable by default since the
land owners or managers will take every opportunity to replace it.
One of the challenges in forthcoming years will be to work in a multi­
disciplinary manner to develop the scientific and engineering evidence that
decision makers require in order to positively endorse sustainable urban
drainage technology. Once the data is provided, it may be possible to tap
into the energy inherent in water within SuDs to take advantage of the
opportunities that these resources represent. A degree of positive action will
be required in order to change the default options of ‘business as usual’ in
the energy and water sectors.
Further reading
CIRIA (2007) The SuDs Manual. CIRIA C697. Edited by CIRIA, London.
References
Abdulla, F.A. and Al-Shareef, A.W. (2009) Roof rainwater harvesting systems for household
water supply in Jordan. Desalination, 243, 195–207.
Åstebøl, S.O., Hvitved-Jacobsen, T. and Simonsen, Ø. (2004) Sustainable stormwater management at Fornebu—from an airport to an industrial and residential area of the city of Oslo,
Norway. Science of the Total Environment, 334/335, 239–249.
Bakkenes, M., Alkemade, J.R.M., Ihle, F., Leemans, R. and Latour, J.B. (2002) Assessing effects
of forecasted climate change on the diversity and distribution of European higher plants for
2050. Global Change Biology, 8(4), 390–407.
Brattebo, B.O. and Booth, D.B. (2003) Long-term storm-water quantity and quality performance
of permeable pavement systems. Water Research, 37, 4369–4376.
Charlesworth, S.M., Harker, E. and Rickard, S. (2003) Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS): A
soft option for hard drainage questions? Geography, 88(2), 99–107.
CIRIA (2000a) Sustainable urban drainage systems – design manual for England and Wales
(C522). CIRIA, London.
CIRIA (2000b) Sustainable urban drainage systems – design manual for Scotland and Northern
Ireland (C521). CIRIA, London.
CIRIA (2007) The SuDs Manual. CIRIA C697. Edited by CIRIA, London.
Coupe, S.J. (2004) Oil biodegradation and microbial ecology within permeable pavements.
Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Science and the Environment, Coventry University, UK.
Coupe, S.J., Smith, H., Newman, P. and Puehmeier, T. (2003) Biodegradation and microbial
diversity within permeable pavements. European Journal of Protistology, 39, 495–498.
162
Building Design and Planning
DESA (2006) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2005 Revision. Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, United Nations, New York. Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/population/
publications/WUP2005/2005WUPHighlights_Final_Report.pdf [05/9/2013].
Dierkes, C., Lohmann, M., Becker, M. and Raasch, U. (2005) Pollution retention of different
permeable pavements with reservoir structure at high hydraulic loads. 10th International
Conference on Urban Drainage, Copenhagen, Denmark, 21–26 August 2005.
EA (2002) Sustainable drainage systems (SUDS). Policy document EAS/0102/1/3.
EPA (1999) Preliminary data summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management Practices. In
O.O.W. (4303). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
European Union (2007) Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Union Parliament. Official
Journal of the European Union, 6 November 2007, L 288/p. 27. Available at: http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:288:0027:0034:en:pdf [05/9/2013].
Fassman, E. (2012) Storm-water BMP treatment performance variability for sediment and
heavy metals. Separation and Purification Technology, 84, 95–103.
Ferguson, B.K. (2005) Porous Pavements. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Fletcher, T.D., Dunce, H.P., Poelsma, P. and Lloyd, S.D. (2003) Storm-water flow, quality and
treatment literature review, gap analysis and recommendations report. NSW.
Formpave (2009) Aquaflow permeable paving. Sustainable urban drainage systems. Edition 6.
Heal, J., McLean, N. and D’Arcy, B. (2004) SuDs and sustainability. Presented at the 26th Meeting
of the Standing Conference on Storm-water Source Control, Dunfermline, September 2004.
HMSO (2010) Flood and Water Management Act, Chapter 29 [Online]. Available at: http://
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/29/contents [06/3/2012].
Hunt, B., Stevens, S. and Mayes, D. (2002) Permeable pavement use and research at two sites in
Eastern North Carolina. Global Solutions for Urban Drainage, Proceedings of the Ninth
International Conference on Urban Drainage, Portland, OR.
ICPI (2004) Tech Spec 8, Concrete Grid Pavements. Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute,
Washington, DC.
Jones, P. and Macdonald, N. (2007) Making space for unruly water: sustainable drainage
­systems and the disciplining of surface runoff. Geoforum, 38, 534–544.
London Assembly (2005) Crazy paving, the environmental importance of London’s front
­gardens. Greater London Authority, London.
Melbourne Water (2005) [Online]. Available at: http://wsud.melbournewater.com.au/default.
asp?target = tools/paving [01/2011].
NASA (2008) Natural Hazards: Drought in Southern Africa. Earth Observatory.
Newcastle City Council (2008) Urban Flood Risk and Integrated Drainage. Ouseburn and North
Gosforth Pilot Project.
Nnadi, E.O. (2009) An evaluation of modified pervious pavements for water harvesting for irrigation. Unpublished PhD thesis submitted to School of Engineering and Computing,
Coventry University, UK.
Perry, T. and Nawaz, R. (2008) An investigation into the extent and impacts of hard surfacing
of domestic gardens in an area of Leeds, United Kingdom. Landscape and Urban Planning,
6, 1–13.
Pratt, C.J., Mantle, J.D.G. and Schofield, P.A. (1989) Urban storm-water reduction and quality
improvement through the use of permeable pavements. Water Science and Technology, 21,
769–778.
Pratt, C.J., Mantle, J.D.G. and Schofield, P.A. (1995) UK research into the performance of
­permeable pavement, reservoir structures in controlling storm-water discharge quantity and
quality. Water Science and Technology, 32, 63–69.
Pratt, C.J., Newman, A.P. and Bond, P.C. (1999) Mineral oil bio-degradation within a permeable
pavement: long term observations. Water Science and Technology, 39(2), 103–109.
Pratt, C., Wilson, S. and Cooper, P. (2002) Source control using constructed permeable
­surfaces – hydraulic, structural and water quality issues. Report C582. CIRIA, London.
Integrated Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
163
Sazaklia, E., Alexopoulosb, A. and Leotsinidis, M. (2007) Rainwater harvesting, quality
­assessment and utilization in Kefalonia Island, Greece. Water Research, 41, 2039–2047.
Scholz, M. and Grabowiecki, P. (2007) Review of permeable pavement systems. Building and
Environment, 42, 3830–3836.
SEPA (2005) Drainage Assessment: A Guide for Scotland. Scottish Environmental Protection
Agency, Stirling.
Tota-Maharaj, K., Scholz, M., Ahmed, T., French, C. and Pagaling, E. (2010) The synergy of
permeable pavements and geothermal heat pumps for storm-water treatment and reuse.
Environmental Technology, 31(14), 1517–1531.
Vaes, G. and Berlamount, J. (1999) The impact of rainwater reuse on CSO emissions. Water
Science and Technology, 32(1), 63–69.
Section 4
Alternative Water Technologies
Decentralised water recycling and reuse is increasingly considered as a
means to offset potable water use for non-potable functions such as g­ ardening
or toilet flushing. There are arguments for or against the use of these
­technologies to achieve water efficiency in buildings. The sources of contention include the carbon footprint, the energy consumed in operating, the
maintenance burden for building owners, the potential problems of less
water flowing through aging drainage infrastructure as well as the potential
health hazards from neglected or poorly installed systems.
This section focuses primarily on two types of alternative water solutions
– rainwater recycling and greywater recycling and reuse. The first two
­chapters discuss the technical aspects of each of these technologies and
review the benefits of its adoption. Both chapters also review the use and cost
benefit in buildings and how to overcome the challenges of engaging and
encouraging their adoption by building providers, regulators and users. The
third chapter in this section then proposes a socio-technical framework for
alternative water technologies using rainwater harvesting as an example.
Greywater recycling and reuse can contribute to increased water savings
in households, particularly if combined with water-efficient fittings, products and devices. In the past decade, technological innovations in greywater
recycling and system implementation, especially in new buildings, have
been shown to help mitigate the unsustainable demands for potable water
supplies to increase the efficiency of water use in buildings. There are now
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
166
Alternative Water Technologies
greywater systems that can produce high-quality non-potable water
(­service water) for indoor (toilet flushing, laundry) and outdoor use (gardening, c­ leaning, infiltration). In the first chapter of this section, existing greywater policy, system technology and recent developments in greywater
recycling and its contribution to water efficiency in buildings are elaborated.
Two building developments in Germany are then presented to highlight
the additional benefits of the greywater systems when combined with
­innovative management procedures. The chapter concludes by stating that
well-designed, planned and implemented greywater recycling systems can
contribute considerably to water and energy savings and can be used in the
urban context to achieve sustainable, environmentally friendly and safe
water management solutions.
Rainwater harvesting (RWH) is not a new idea and has been used in
­various forms around the world for thousands of years. More recently,
interest in RWH has grown not just due to increased environmental awareness, but due to water scarcity and/or excessive rainfall and flood water,
difficulties in supplying water to hard-to-reach areas, and for improving
sanitation and safe access to water particularly in developing countries.
RWH systems facilitate the collection, filtration and storage of runoff,
­usually from roof or other spatial catchments. The stored rainwater is then
either gravity-fed or pumped to supply non-potable points of use within
a building to save highly treated potable water. Therefore, rainwater harvesting could become ­increasingly important under scenarios of rising
population and climate change, as potable water resources are put under
pressure and as the cost of water may increase. In most developed nations,
rainwater is primarily used for reducing consumption of potable water.
This difference in use is dependent on how users perceive the quality of
rainwater and the costs of rainwater in comparison with other sources.
Though it usually has fewer pollutants than most other sources of freshwater, the quality of water from these systems can vary depending on the
choice of catchments and other local factors. The second chapter in this
section discusses the main components of an effective rainwater harvesting system and factors that affect its adoption and use, e.g. water quality and
maintenance. It concludes with a review of user perception and acceptability
of rainwater systems.
Following on from this, the final chapter in this section explores the
­socio-technical knowledge gaps in relation to RWH system implementation and utilisation. The research utilised a range of methods to collect,
analyse and interpret new and existing evidence from a number of local,
national and international case studies, culminating in a socio-technical
framework for alternative water technologies; rainwater systems in particular. It concludes by highlighting the need for a central, independent body
to provide guidance to stakeholders on the implementation of alternative
water ­systems as well as the direct benefits accruable from its adoption.
Alternative Water Technologies
167
The fourth section of the book can be summarised as follows:
•• Water recycling and reuse can meet the water needs of consumers, while
helping to better manage water resources and surface water runoff.
•• The end use for recycled water is related to the availability of other sources
of clean and uninterrupted water supply, with greater acceptably for potable consumption in areas poorly served with clean water supplies.
•• Alternative water systems do not necessarily pose a significant health risk
if correctly designed, installed and maintained, and can help to achieve
water efficiency in buildings.
•• Water users are receptive to using non-potable water for non-potable uses,
provided sufficient guidelines and regulations are in place to manage risks.
•• Policy guidelines and regulations of alternative systems are still lacking in
some countries, which increases the risks of poorly specified, installed
and maintained systems.
•• In addition to policy guidelines, direct or indirect incentives – such as
subsidies for feasibility assessments, tax relief or financial grant schemes –
at a similar scale to that of energy are needed to promote wider uptake of
all water-saving technologies.
•• Recognition must be made of alternative water solutions as a socio-­
technical system for which social receptivity and technical relevance need
to be addressed in parallel. This will require much more collaboration
among stakeholders than exists at present.
•• Alternative water technologies and systems can still be cumbersome to
retrofit into existing buildings; further technological innovation is required
to overcome this and other technical barriers.
10
Greywater Recycling in Buildings
Erwin Nolde, Nolde and Partner
Innovative Water Concepts, Germany
Introduction
Since the beginning of the 1960s, water consumption had increased
continuously worldwide as showers and bath tubs became standard in
­
homes. For example, in Germany the per capita daily consumption increased
from 60 to 180 litres. This trend changed in the 1970s with the onset of the
energy crisis; water consumption stagnated as people’s awareness of water
saving began to rise and more water-efficient home appliances were introduced into the market. Today, the average household drinking water consumption in Germany has dropped to 122 litres per person per day (l/p/d).
To date, there are no minimum standards at EU level for water consumption
or water efficiency in buildings (Benito et al., 2009). Depending on the
amount of indoor water consumption per household, reducing freshwater
consumption could potentially save 40–60% of mains water use by households; in addition to saving energy.
Until recently, water efficiency was not a major consideration in the
design of homes. The minimum amount of water required for human
­activity is dependent on several factors, such as region, climate, standard of
living, type of activities. However, 5 l/p/d of drinking water, i.e. water of the
highest quality, is often specified as sufficient for drinking needs (fbr, 2005).
This suggests that for other applications, water need not be of drinking
­quality and therefore good-quality non-potable water can be used as a
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
170
Alternative Water Technologies
substitute. Traditionally, water efficiency at the household level meant
decreasing the flush volume of WCs and encouraging people to take showers
instead of baths. Today, strategies focus on using water-efficient fittings and
appliances, as well as water recycling – thereby conserving water and at
the same time reducing the amount of waste water sent down the drains.
Waste water is a resource, and segregating waste water into its different
streams, e.g. blackwater and greywater, can contribute towards a holistic
water management strategy. Today, greywater recycling is feasible with a
range of available technologies that yield good-quality non-potable water
for reuse. For water recycling in buildings, water reuse can be achieved by
single or multiple-loop recycling (waste water recycled more than once). Once
appropriately treated, greywater is considered suitable for non-potable uses
such as toilet flushing, irrigation, laundry and cooling. Since fresh greywater
exhibits relatively high temperatures, the possibility for energy generation
from greywater should also be considered in recycling schemes. This integrated approach could considerably increase the efficiency of the system.
Water and energy are very much closely linked. As a start, water is often
needed to generate energy, and vice versa. In Europe, 45% of the total freshwater abstraction is for cooling in energy production, followed by agriculture (22%), public water supply (21%) and industry (12%) (European
Environment Agency, 2010). In spite of the high demand for this resource,
energy-intensive technologies such as desalination are increasingly advocated for the production of potable water, instead of promoting more waterefficient measures and water recycling.
In an urban context, the potential for greywater recycling is mainly newbuild residential developments, where dual piping can be included during
the construction phase. However, greywater recycling is also feasible for
existing buildings within the scope of rehabilitation measures.
Greywater quantity and quality
Greywater is the waste water sourced from bath tubs, showers, washbasins,
kitchen and laundry. Greywater is different from blackwater, and constitutes the largest proportion of waste water by volume produced in an average household. Typical volumes of greywater vary from 60 to 120 l/p/d
depending on living standards, user behaviour, population structure, customs and habits, water installations and water availability. These values can
drop to 20–30 l/p/d in low-income countries with water shortages and elementary water supplies (Morel and Diener, 2006). With greywater recycling,
drinking water demand can easily be reduced to 45 l/p/d (fbr, 2005). In the
UK, the greywater yield of an average household (92 l/p/d) is considered to be
more than sufficient to meet the non-potable water demand of 52 l/p/d
(Bio Intelligence Service, 2011).
Greywater Recycling in Buildings
171
Greywater varies greatly in its composition, depending on the type of
building and user habits as well as the use of chemicals in households for
washing, cleaning, laundry, etc. Greywater may also contain pathogenic
organisms originating from different activities such as hand washing and
washing of nappies, which are usually found at lower concentrations than
in blackwater. Furthermore, greywater often contains high concentrations
of easily biodegradable organic matter such as fats, oils and other organic
substances, residues from soaps, detergents and cleaning products
(Ridderstolpe, 2004). Greywater from laundries usually contains more salt,
while that from kitchens contains more oil and grease. Therefore, treatment
and disinfection of greywater is mandatory to provide water that is both
safe and aesthetically appropriate for reuse.
Greywater is generally classified as low load and high load. Low-load
­greywater usually originates from showers, bath tubs and hand washbasins,
while high-load greywater also includes greywater from kitchens and
­washing machines.
Table 10.1 shows the average concentrations and ranges of different
parameters in greywater from German households compared with black­
water. Greywater contains less faecal contamination than blackwater,
­usually in the range of 101–102/ml (fbr, 2005). In contrast, the organic load
of greywater as a measure of the degree of pollution (usually measured as
Table 10.1 Quality of raw greywater from different sources in German households
compared with domestic blackwater
BOD5
(mg/l)
COD
(mg/l)
TSS
(mg/l)
Ptotal
(mg/l)
Ntotal
(mg/l)
Total
coliforms (1/ml)
E. coli
(1/ml)
Greywater from
bath tubs,
showers
and hand
washbasins
Greywater
from bath tubs,
showers, hand
washbasins
and washing
machines
Greywater from
bath tubs, showers,
hand washbasins,
washing machines
and kitchen
(Low load)
(High load)
(High load)
85–200
Ø 111
150–400
Ø 225
30–70
Ø 40
0.5–4
Ø 1.5
4–16
Ø 10
101–105
Ø 105
101–105
Ø 104
125–250
250–430
n/a
n/a
250–550
Ø 360
400–700
Ø 535
n/a
Domestic
waste water
(blackwater)
Ø 267
Ø 533
Ø 200
102–106
3–8
Ø 5.4
10–17
Ø 13
102–106
104–107
101–105
102–106
104–107
n/a
Source: Adapted from Nolde (1995) and Bullermann et al. (2001).
Ø 15
Ø 67
172
Alternative Water Technologies
biochemical oxygen demand, BOD or chemical oxygen demand, COD) could
be even higher than that of blackwater, when water-saving measures and
devices are applied in the household. From this consideration, it should also
be mandatory to separate greywater (for water and energy recycling) from
the blackwater stream (for nutrient recycling) when recycling, in order to
achieve the highest levels of water and energy efficiency in buildings.
Service water
Service water is non-potable water resulting from recycled (treated) greywater
or rainwater. The potential uses of service water include a wide range of applications where potable water is not required, such as urinal and toilet flushing,
washing machines, irrigation of lawns and domestic gardens, cleaning purposes, washing vehicles, cooling towers and irrigation of a­ gricultural areas.
Greywater policy and guidelines
The objective of establishing guidelines for domestic recycled water is to
ensure that the operation of water recycling systems is protective of public
health and the environment. These guidelines usually include quality and
technical requirements and can act as a target-setting tool for manufacturers
of greywater recycling systems.
Most countries around the world do not have greywater regulations. Some
countries like Germany, Canada and the UK have guidelines or recommendations set up by local authorities and professional bodies offering guidance
to the implementation of greywater systems and greywater quality requirements, dependent on the intended use (fbr, 2005; British Standards, 2010;
Health Canada, 2010).
The recent UK code of practice for greywater covers systems for domestic water users (residential, commercial, industrial or public premises) that
do not require potable water quality (British Standards, 2010). Furthermore,
the national Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) provides an environmental
assessment method for rating and certifying the performance of new homes
in the UK (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2010a). To
achieve the highest levels of the code, daily water use per person has to be
less than 80 litres. To meet this target, either greywater or rainwater harvesting is often applied (Environment Agency, 2011). In the UK, new homes
are currently built to comply with water use targets set out in Part G of the
Building Regulations, which limits indoor water use to 125 l/p/d and delivers significant water savings well in excess of the UK average ­consumption
of 150 l/p/d (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2010b).
In the USA, there are no national guidelines governing greywater reuse.
The regulatory burden rests with the individual states, resulting in different
Greywater Recycling in Buildings
173
standards among states that have developed criteria for greywater reuse.
Only about 30 out of 50 states have regulations allowing, prohibiting or
regulating greywater reuse in one form or another (Sheikh, 2010).
Although Australia is considered a leader with respect to greywater
­policies, so far there is no Australian national standard for greywater reuse.
Instead, states and territories each have their own legislation for greywater
collection, treatment and reuse. For example, in Queensland greywater
recycling is covered by the Plumbing Act, in New South Wales (NSW) by
the Local Government Act, in Western Australia by the Health Act and in
Victoria by the Environment Protection Act (NSW Government, 2007;
EPA Victoria, 2008; Queensland Government, 2008a,b; Government of
Western Australia, 2010). This would pose a hindrance to greywater system
­manufacturers and planners.
The Canadian Guidelines for Domestic Reclaimed Water for Use
in Toilet and Urinal Flushing have been developed as a national approach
for the safe and sustainable use of domestic reclaimed water (Health
Canada, 2010). Plumbing requirements for non-potable water systems are
addressed by CSA Standard B128.1-06/B128.2-06, Design and installation
of non-­
potable water systems/Maintenance and field testing of non-­
potable water systems (Canadian Standard Association, 2006). Currently,
British Columbia is the only Canadian province to have enacted a reclaimed
water standard (Municipal Wastewater Regulation) for a variety of applications, including for toilet flushing and irrigation (Government of British
Columbia, 2012).
In Germany, there are no mandatory regulations for greywater recycling.
The EU Directive for Bathing Water (2006) has been taken as a basis to
­regulate the hygienic quality requirements for service water used for nonpotable applications in buildings. Table 10.2 shows the quality requirements
for service water in buildings in Germany (Berlin Senate for Urban
Development, 2007). UV disinfection is recommended as a final treatment
stage to ensure hygienic safety and high service water quality. Likewise,
the UK standards for greywater established in BS 8525 have been based
on the EU Directive for Bathing Water (Environment Agency, 2011).
The fbr Information Sheet H201 ‘Greywater Recycling: Planning
Fundamentals and Operation Information’ published by the Association for
Rainwater Harvesting and Water Utilisation (fbr) in Darmstadt, Germany
gives comprehensive technical information on the planning, operation and
maintenance of greywater recycling systems in buildings (fbr, 2005).
Greywater technology
The following sections discuss the technical aspects for the design and
implementation of greywater recycling in buildings.
174
Alternative Water Technologies
Table 10.2 Quality requirements for service water in buildings (Berlin Senate for
Urban Development, 2007)
Quality target
Guideline value
Nearly free from suspended material,
nearly odourless, colourless and clear
In later research work, a turbidity of <2 NTU had
been proposed to ensure high service water quality
and minimum maintenance
>50% saturation for a longer storage capacity of the
service water
>60% (1 cm cuvettes)
BOD7 < 5 mg/l
Total coliforms <100/ml
Escherichia coli <10/ml
Pseudomonas aeroginosa <1/ml
Oxygen-rich
Transmission (254 nm)
Low BOD
Hygienically/microbiologically safe
*NTU: nephlometric turbidity unit.
Science and application
In general, greywater recycling systems should fulfil four criteria: hygienic
safety, environmental tolerance, economic feasibility and no loss of comfort to users (Nolde, 1999). The choice of a greywater management strategy
is highly dependent on the end-use of the effluent produced and should
therefore be adapted to a specific application such as outdoor agricultural
reuse (garden watering, irrigation), indoor reuse (toilet flushing, laundry) or
for safe discharge into surface waters. This chapter focuses on the indoor
reuse of recycled greywater in buildings and therefore greywater diversion
systems for irrigation purposes will not be considered here.
Greywater recycling systems vary in their complexity and size; from very
small systems with simple treatment to large ones with advanced treatment
processes, both for indoor and outdoor installation. The level of treatment
needed depends on the quality of the raw greywater as well as the intended
reuse applications. The choice of technology is dependent on several factors
such as planned site, available space, user needs as well as investment and
maintenance costs. The most efficient systems for greywater treatment are
biological in nature in combination with physical/mechanical processes. A
well-functioning biological system would reduce the BOD for greywater
well below 5 mg/l, yielding a high-quality effluent for reuse. Therefore, only
biological systems will be presented in this chapter.
The scales of use for greywater recycling systems in user-defined terms
are single dwellings, multi-dwellings and community-based dwellings.
Separate greywater plumbing is a prerequisite for all systems.
Greywater data
Before including a greywater recycling system in a new building’s design, it
is important to estimate approximately how much service water will be
175
Toilets
Kitchen
Hand washbasin
Washing machine
Shower
Bath tub
Greywater Recycling in Buildings
WWTP
Fertiliser production
Bank filtration
Drinking water
supply
Agriculture
Screen/Filter
Storage and
pre-treatment
Biological treatment:
• Planted soil filters
• Multi-stage RBCs
+ sedimentation/sandfilter
• Multi-stage moving bed
biofilm reactor (MBBR)
+ sedimentation/sandfilter
• Membrane bioreactor (MBR)
Emergency supply
Disinfection
UV-light
Sludge to sewer/biogas
Figure 10.1
recycling
Storage
+ distribution
Toilet flushing
Laundry
Room cleaning
Irrigation
Cooling tower
A diagram of the different biological treatment options for greywater
needed and how much greywater will be available. For the choice of the
technology it would also be important to determine:
•• quality requirements for service water as demanded by the legislator/local
authority;
•• waste-water streams available for recycling;
•• the expected expenditure for each technology.
Biological greywater systems
Since greywater contains few nutrients compared with blackwater, treatment will be mainly to decompose the organic fraction (BOD, COD) of the
greywater. The different options for the biological treatment of greywater
that have already been very well proven in practice are presented in
Figure 10.1. Whereas planted soil filters/constructed wetlands achieve a
good cleaning capacity, they will not be considered further here due to their
large space requirement in the intra-urban sector.
Common to all the above-mentioned systems is that the inflowing greywater should be initially freed from hair, lint, impurities, etc. by means of a
filter or sieve. Since greywater is not continuously generated, it has to be
collected and buffered in a tank to secure a regular flow. All systems have a
176
Alternative Water Technologies
Figure 10.2 The Sheraton Hotel in Offenbach with multi-stage RBC for greywater
recycling after 16 years of operation
Source: Photos, E. Nolde.
backup unit (mains water) to ensure a continuous water supply at all times.
In general, the differences in the various technologies lie less in the
­capital investment than in the operational reliability and safety, operation
and maintenance expenditure as well as in the specific energy requirement
needed to treat and distribute greywater.
Rotating biological contactors
Multi-stage, rotating biological contactors (RBC) have been successfully
applied for greywater treatment. These consist of basins containing large
plastic discs mounted on rotating shafts. Waste water passes through the
basins as the discs slowly rotate, exposing the biological film which develops on the surface. Following biological treatment, a clarification stage is
required for final biomass removal. UV disinfection of the treated greywater
yields a high-quality effluent for non-potable applications. RBC usually has
a low space requirement and is preferably placed in the basement or garage.
An example of a RBC greywater recycling system can be found in
the Sheraton Hotel, Offenbach, Germany; in operation since 1996 (Werner
et al., 2006) (Figure 10.2). The system is designed for a treatment capacity of
20 m3/d (400 beds) and has a space requirement of 35 m2. The quality requirements for service water are met at all times and the total energy input
including booster pump does not exceed 1.4 kWh/m3. The system maintenance is carried out by the hotel personnel.
Fixed-bed reactors
A fixed-bed reactor is a submerged bed which is fixed to the system, with
the biofilm growing on this bed. One available system outside the European
market working under this principle is the Aqua2use GWTS 1200 system in
Australia (see http://aqua2use.com/products/gwts1200.html, accessed 29
November 2012).
Greywater Recycling in Buildings
Figure 10.3
177
View of the aerated MBBR with foam cubes as carrier media
Source: Photo, E. Nolde.
Moving-bed biofilm reactors
In moving-bed biofilm reactors (MBBR), which use the immobilised
­activated sludge process, waste water passes through a moving bed of carrier
media (formed plastic or foam, etc.) at sufficient velocity to suspend or fl
­ uidise
the media (Figure 10.3). The process takes advantage of the very high ratio
of surface area to volume provided by the small media, allowing the
­maintenance of a higher biological activity than can be achieved with other
processes.
MBBR operate as a continuous or discontinuous, multi-stage aerobic
­process. They are capable of treating a variety of flow rates and concentrations with minimal maintenance and little excess sludge compared with
other biological treatment systems, in addition to maintaining a low space
requirement. This technology is easy to operate and has proved highly
­effective in practice. Hence, it forms the adopted technology for the two
projects presented in this chapter.
Membrane bioreactors
Membrane bioreactors (MBR) are suspended-growth activated sludge systems that utilise micro-porous membranes (0.02–0.4 µm) for solid/liquid
separation (Figure 10.4). The system consists of a pre-treatment settling
tank or an aerated tank which also stores the intermittently produced greywater and an aerated activated sludge tank. The generated sludge is held
back by the submerged membrane filter installed in the aeration tank while
the treated waste water passes through the membrane under a pressure of
0.1–0.3 bar. Although MBR require little space and yield a good effluent
quality, they exhibit higher operating (energy) costs in addition to intensive
178
Alternative Water Technologies
Figure 10.4 Membrane bioreactor for greywater recycling from showers and
hand washbasins for a 100-bed hotel in London with a cleaning capacity of
5 m3/d, also showing a plate module (right) (Spinflow GmbH, Germany)
membrane fouling and maintenance work. Some MBR suppliers also add a
UV-disinfection unit to their MBR to guarantee high hygienic standards.
Operational requirements
The following should be taken into consideration when planning greywater
recycling systems in a building:
•• The system should be robust, insusceptible to fluctuations (load, use of
household chemicals) and system components long-lasting.
•• Low operation and low maintenance expenditure should be pursued.
•• The use of chemicals for treatment, operation and maintenance should be
prohibited.
•• The energy input for the greywater recycling system should not exceed that
for the conventional waste-water treatment system. This should be less than
2 kWh for the treatment and distribution of one cubic metre of service water.
Skilled knowledge is needed for the planning process as well as for installation and maintenance of greywater recycling systems in order to achieve
an efficient long-lasting operation. Involving experienced professionals
at the early planning phase would contribute significantly to cost savings.
End-users should also ask for references and guarantees.
Water quality requirements
In addition to the physical/chemical and microbiological quality requirements, service water should not be a source of odour and nuisance to the
user and should be nearly free from colouration and suspended solids.
Furthermore, it should fulfil the local quality requirements and regulatory
guidelines in order to guarantee hygienic safety and promote user acceptance.
Greywater Recycling in Buildings
179
Technical requirements
To protect against unauthorised or improper use, a clear marking and ­labelling
of the distribution pipework and all tapping points is recommended. In order
to ensure proper pipework installation and exclude any cross-­connections
with the drinking water network, the system should be checked (e.g., dye
testing) prior to commissioning (Berlin Senate for Urban Development, 2007).
A pre-treatment stage using self-cleaning sieves should be incorporated in
all systems to remove coarse material (hair, lint, sand, metal and plastic
parts). If kitchen greywater is included in the waste-water stream, it is recommended to install a combined grease and sediment trap in front of the
filter to keep fat and grease out of the system.
The needed space requirement of about 0.1 m2 per person is representative
of the above biological systems for greywater treatment. This is primarily
dependent on the pollution load of the generated greywater, the needed
buffer for greywater and service water peak flows as well as the required
service water quality. Systems should be installed such that access to all
system parts is possible at all times for maintenance and monitoring
­activities. If heat recovery is considered in combination with greywater
recycling, it would be preferable to install the system in the building’s heating room as the ambient room temperature there is usually higher.
Maintenance requirements
When high-load greywater (i.e., from kitchen and washing machines) is also
treated, the maintenance expenditure is expected to be slightly higher than
when only low-load greywater (from showers, bath tubs and hand washbasins) is utilised. In general, automatic and periodic cleaning of sieves/filters
would provide for low-maintenance and trouble-free operation. As a rule, a
maintenance requirement of (on average) one hour per month is usually
needed for the above systems.
Project examples
This section presents two projects where greywater recycling has been
­successfully implemented.
Project 1: Block 6 (constructed in 2006)
Block 6 is a community-based dwelling in the centre of Berlin consisting
of three residential buildings accommodating about 200 tenants. The existing infrastructure is from a past demonstration project which included
water-saving fittings and measures, cold water meters and dual piping. In
addition to greywater recycling, rainwater evaporation is also practiced on
180
Alternative Water Technologies
Figure 10.5 A view of the building in Block 6 accommodating the greywater treatment
plant and a view of the plant from inside
Source: Photos, E. Nolde.
site instead of harvesting due to the low roof surface area for collection
(Figure 10.5).
Greywater from showers, bath tubs and hand washbasins in addition to
kitchen sinks and washing machines collected from 71 flats undergoes an
advanced mechanical/biological treatment in an MBBR, following a pretreatment stage using a grease and grit trap and a sieve. The system is
designed to treat 10 m3 of greywater daily and consists of 11 tanks connected
in series, each with a capacity of 1.4 m3 at inflow COD concentrations of
500–1000 mg/l. The effluent is eventually fed into a sand filter for final
­polishing followed by UV disinfection to yield high-quality, non-potable
water. No chemicals are used at any stage of the treatment process.
Service water is supplied to the flats via a booster pump to flush the
­toilets and to a lesser extent to irrigate the tenants’ gardens. A mains backup
system automatically switches to drinking water in case of system failure or
lack of service water. The system exhibits a low-energy input with a maintenance requirement of less than one hour per month (Berlin Senate for
Urban Development, 2008).
One outcome of the project was the realisation of an operator model. The
operation and maintenance of the plant are undertaken by the system manufacturer within the scope of an operator (service) contract agreed with the property
owner. Service water is sold to the tenants at a lower tariff than drinking water
from the local water supplier. In case of system breakdown, backup water (mains
water) is then sold to the tenants at service water tariff. The revenues from selling service water are in turn used for maintenance and repair works. The potential risks of this operator model are carried by the system manufacturer.
Although no heat recovery is integrated into this project, the heat
generated during the biological treatment process indirectly heats the
­
Greywater Recycling in Buildings
181
Figure 10.6 Greywater recycling combined with heat recovery in a multi-storey
passive house in Berlin, Germany
Source: Photos, E. Nolde.
operation building during the winter months, where no further external
heating is required.
The project also demonstrates for the first time that high-load greywater,
such as from kitchens and laundries, can be successfully treated to highquality service water (BOD7 < 5 mg/l; turbidity < 1 NTU) for use as non-­potable
water in applications such as toilet flushing, laundry and gardening.
Project 2: Arnimplatz (constructed in 2012)
Greywater recycling and heat recovery from greywater can be viewed as an
ideal system combination to increase the total efficiency of the system.
Fresh greywater has relatively high temperatures (up to 35°C) and therefore
a potential for heat recovery already exists in the system.
A greywater recycling plant combined with heat recovery was launched in
March 2012 in a multi-storey passive house in Berlin, Germany. For a standard
passive house, which has a heat demand for space heating of <15 kWh/m2/a,
about 1.5-fold more energy is needed for hot water generation than for space
heating. 41 flats with 123 tenants and four commercial units are ­connected to
the greywater/heat recovery system. About 3000 litres of low-load greywater
from showers and bath tubs are treated daily to produce high-quality service
water which is reused for toilet flushing. The whole greywater system including heat recovery is placed in the cellar where the building’s heating system is
also found, occupying an area of 9 m2 (ca. 0.1 m2 per tenant) (Figure 10.6).
The filtered greywater from showers and bath tubs enters the heat
exchanger, where heat is withdrawn by means of a 20-W circulating pump
(Figure 10.7). A self-cleaning sieve provides for a low-maintenance operation
of the heat exchanger and the greywater recycling system.
The cooled greywater exiting the heat exchanger enters two aerated buffer
tanks acting as a biological pre-treatment stage. Subsequently, greywater
enters a secondary treatment stage (MBBR) with an integrated particulate
Figure 10.7 Schematic diagram of the greywater recycling system coupled to heat recovery in a passive
residential house in Berlin, Germany (in this case kitchen sinks and washing machines are not connected to the
system)
Greywater Recycling in Buildings
183
removal setup, before it finally passes a UV-disinfection unit to enter the
service water tank. The biologically treated greywater (BOD7 < 3 mg/l; turbidity < 1–2 NTU) is then fed into the service water network by means of a
booster pump to serve as non-potable water for toilet flushing. The total
electrical demand for heat recovery, greywater treatment and service water
distribution is about 1.6 kWh/m3.
During winter, when drinking water temperatures are relatively low
(ca. 8.5°C), it is possible to withdraw up to 15 KWh of thermal energy per
cubic metre of greywater with the combined system without the use of a heat
pump. This energy is then used to pre-heat the cold drinking water before it
enters the decentralised combined heat and power plant (CHP) to be heated
to 60°C end temperature. During summer, when higher drinking water temperatures are measured, the recovery potential drops to 10 kWh/m3. An
advanced monitoring setup showed optimisation potential for the system
that would increase future heat recovery performance.
Besides high greywater treatment efficiency, it has also been shown in
this project that fresh greywater, which normally exhibits temperatures
above 30°C, has a high heat recovery potential. Comparing the primary
energy gains, this decentralised approach achieves a relatively higher degree
of efficiency than centralised systems, where ca. 1.5°C can be withdrawn
from municipal waste water using heat pumps, which in turn require more
energy than decentralised systems.
Benefits and constraints of greywater recycling
Benefits
Greywater recycling in buildings is a sustainable water management approach
offering several benefits including economic, environmental and social. In
addition to reducing the pressure and demand on potable water resources and
amount of waste water generated by a household, it exerts less impact on
the environment than conventional waste-water treatment ­systems and contributes largely to water conservation. Greywater recycling also offers indirect
benefits to public infrastructure in the form of reduced sewerage flows, reduced
treatment plant size and shorter distribution ­systems (Radcliffe, 2003).
Figure 10.8 shows the measurable benefits of greywater recycling coupled
to heat recovery, taking the previous project ‘Arnimplatz’ as an example.
Environmental benefits
Greywater recycling brings significant savings in potable freshwater in
­addition to reducing the amounts of generated waste water, thus easing the
pressure on the environment. The recycling of greywater for non-potable
applications would also reduce the overall energy and chemical demand
184
Alternative Water Technologies
Individual benefits
10–15 kWh
1,000 litres
greywater
+
1.6 kWh elec. energy
=
thermal energy
for pre-heating of
cold water
Heat recovery
Greywater
treatment
Service water
distribution
+
1,000 litres of high quality
service water for toilet flushing,
laundry, etc.
Environmental benefits
– 10–15 kWh less urban warming
– 1,000 litres of groundwater saved
– 1–3 kWh saved from drinking water and wastewater treatment
including pumping
– Saving on chemicals for drinking water and wastewater treatment
– Less concrete corrosion in the sewer
Figure 10.8 Individual and environmental benefits of greywater recycling combined
with heat recovery based on an inflow of 1000 litres of raw greywater (project Arnimplatz)
from treatment. It would also reduce the impacts associated with the
­development of new water resources, such as desalination plants. Wastewater recycling in general, combined with heat recovery, can help mitigate
the impacts of global warming and climate change.
Urban areas suffer increasingly from urban heat islands. This is mainly
brought about by the increased sealing of surfaces, intensive traffic and
urban development, and the diffusion of heat from various activities.
Therefore, energy recovery from waste water would contribute to less heat
dissipation into the environment.
Also the increased use of service water for cooling purposes, such as in
adiabatic cooling, would result in significant energy savings; about 630 kWh
of cooling capacity can be generated from one cubic metre of water (Berlin
Senate for Urban Development, 2010).
Economic benefits
The economic benefits of greywater recycling in relation to potable water
savings are usually obscured by non-transparent and subsidised pricing
mechanisms for drinking water. However, greywater recycling has the
potential to save more than half of the domestic freshwater usage, resulting
in a reduction of the water bill. The resulting financial savings will mainly
Greywater Recycling in Buildings
185
Table 10.3 Project data for the passive house ‘Arnimplatz’ including data for greywater
recycling and heat recovery
Passive house data
Living space
Number of flats
Underground car park
Land area
Heat insulation
Space heating
Gas heating operated via
CHP plant
4600 m2
41
23
2083 m2
26 cm
73,400 kWh/a
16 kWelec.
35 kWtherm.
Number of tenants
Commercial area
Number of
commercial units
Gross floor space
Garden area
Warm water heating
Photovoltaic:
92 modules with 20
kWp
123
650 m2
4
6620 m2
1100 m2
103,636 kWh/a
284 kWh/d
18,000 kWh/a
Greywater recycling and heat recovery
Water savings
Water quality: BOD7
Water quality: hygiene
Space requirement
3 m3/d
Energy gains
12.5 kWhtherm./m3
1000 m3/a
ca. 13,000 kWh/a
<3 mg/l
Water quality: turbidity
<1–2 NTU
Better than the EU Guidelines for Bathing Water
9 m2
Plant costs (incl.
11.31€
installation and
taxes)/m2 living space
depend on the price of water in the area and the amount of water reused, as
well as the system’s running costs. When planned into new urban constructions, the municipal wastewater treatment plant can be smaller dimensioned,
also resulting in cost and space savings.
In Germany, the total water costs increased significantly during the past
20 years compared with fuel costs, in spite of the higher taxes for fuel. In
many cities and municipalities, the water and waste-water tariff already
exceeds 5 €/m3. Therefore, reducing the water costs to almost half using greywater recycling is a strong incentive for many consumers and stakeholders.
Table 10.3 shows the project data for the passive house ‘Arnimplatz’ and
the greywater recycling system in combination with heat recovery.
The total costs for a greywater recycling system are attributable to the
following:
•• dual piping system
•• system technology
•• installation costs
•• running costs (energy, personnel costs, monitoring)
•• maintenance and repair costs.
Currently, there are only a few greywater recycling systems which have
been tested and monitored under various conditions so as to obtain full data
on their efficiency and suitability for a specific setting.
186
Alternative Water Technologies
Acceptance and user needs
People seeking ‘green’ or environmentally friendly housing are willing to
implement water-conservation measures and greywater recycling. They
anticipate a cost-effective service water supply for non-potable uses in addition to significant savings in drinking water. Water recycling is also widely
accepted in areas with limited water resources, especially in those sectors
with very high water demand such as tourism and sports facilities. Knowledge
on decentralised water recycling is relatively low. Greywater is sometimes
looked at negatively and is usually linked to bad experiences when using
greywater untreated, for example in irrigation or toilet flushing. However, it
is indispensable that greywater, especially for indoor use, undergoes an
advanced treatment which can only be achieved with technical expertise and
know-how in order to obtain user acceptance and promote water recycling.
The user needs for a greywater recycling system would dictate that it produces a sufficient supply of treated greywater with acceptable quality, in
addition to being cost-effective, easy to maintain, with low energy input and
long service life.
Lifecycle impact
There are very few studies which evaluate the impacts of water recycling on
the environment during its lifecycle. A recent study has shown that buildings
using treated greywater typically increase the greenhouse emissions compared with using mains water (Environment Agency, 2010). However, the
study suggests that the results should be considered alongside reductions in
mains water demand and strongly encourages greywater systems in areas
where water savings and other benefits would be of most value. Figure 10.8
and Table 10.3 clearly show that the benefits of greywater recycling coupled
with heat recovery are multiplied and will eventually exert a significant positive effect on greenhouse emissions. The materials used for the demonstrated
recycling plant (for 123 persons) amount to about 370 kg of polypropylene and
polyethylene, which is ca. 3 kg per person in addition to a few pumps and
valves. Assuming a lifetime of (only) 30 years, this would be less than 10 g per
person per year, which is insignificant compared with the packaging material
we use daily. Project ‘Arnimplatz’ demonstrates that more energy is gained on
an annual basis than is needed for the m
­ anufacturing of the plant parts.
Building and other constraints
Greywater recycling with or without heat recovery needs a secondary pipe system, which can only be installed in new buildings or in those undergoing reconstruction works. Investors who generally seek low capital costs for their
investment are usually not the users or operators of these new constructions,
whereas potential users seek low rent and running costs. Therefore, it would be
Greywater Recycling in Buildings
187
essential to have governmental regulations and standards for water and energyefficient systems, especially for new buildings. Certification and ­rating schemes
for buildings (LEED, BREEAM, DGNB, etc.) are one step in the right direction.
Adopting a new technology requires know-how and training at different
levels – including planners, architects and stakeholders, in addition to
plumbers and other technicians. Financial incentives (subsidies, tax exemptions) for greywater recycling systems are very rare, however these can act
as a driving force to develop and promote decentralised water recycling
­solutions, at least at an early stage of system implementation.
Conclusion and recommendations
The implementation of greywater recycling schemes for new housing developments would achieve significant savings in water consumption, with corresponding monetary savings made in the water supply and waste-water
treatment sectors.
In spite of the increased need for implementation of greywater recycling
technologies in many countries of the world, there is still a lack of comprehensive water recycling policies and guidelines that address the safe and
practical reuse of greywater. Therefore, greywater regulations and guidelines
should become mandatory in every country’s building and plumbing codes
in order to promote greywater recycling, protect public health and environment and ensure a self-sufficient water supply.
The non-sustainable use of energy and water resources should not be subsidised by the government. Water should always have a real price. In contrast,
waste water should be regarded as a resource. As is the case with domestic
solid wastes, waste water should likewise be decentrally segregated into its
different streams and processed to achieve the highest recovery efficiency.
The separation of blackwater and greywater in buildings should become
standard. For example, waterless composting toilets can be an alternative to
conventional toilets to deal with blackwater, especially in private houses.
Where this is not possible, blackwater should be brought to a central station
where it can be transformed into a useful fertiliser.
Greywater of varying pollution levels can be treated very effectively in
comparatively small systems inside or outside the building. Short transport
distances will support the energy balance, especially when recycling is combined with heat recovery from greywater.
The additional costs for greywater recycling schemes, compared with
property costs, are very low (<0.3%) and these costs will further decrease if
individual plant design and engineering moves on to industrial and modular
production. The inclusion of high-load greywater, which can also be successfully recycled, should be practiced on a larger scale in order to increase
the efficiency of the system.
188
Alternative Water Technologies
Some communal and private water suppliers, as well as waste-water
management companies who are against more decentralised approaches
­
should reconsider their position ahead of a new and promising future
market.
Greywater recycling should be viewed not only in terms of economic
performance, but also for its more significant social and environmental
benefits in contributing towards sustainable development and resource use.
Further reading
European Environment Agency (2012) Towards efficient use of water resources in Europe. EEA
Report No 1/12. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
NHBC Foundation (2009) Water efficiency in new homes. An introductory guide for housebuilders. HIS BRE Press, October.
References
Benito, P., Mudgal, S., Dias, D., Jean-Baptiste, V., Kong, M.A., Inman, D. and Muro, M. (2009)
Water Efficiency Standards. Bio Intelligence Service and Cranfield University, Report for
European Commission (DG Environment), July.
Berlin Senate for Urban Development (2007) Innovative Water Concepts: Service water
­utilisation in buildings. Department VI, Ministerial Building Affairs, Berlin Senate for Urban
Development, Berlin, Germany [Online]. Available at: http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.
de/internationales_eu/stadtplanung/download/betriebswasser_englisch_2007.pdf.
Berlin Senate for Urban Development (2008) Block 6, Integrated Water Concepts: Ecological
integrated concept. Department VI, Ministerial Building Affairs, Berlin Senate for Urban
Development, Berlin, Germany [Online]. Available at: http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.
de/bauen/oekologisches_bauen/download/modellvorhaben/flyer_block6_engl.pdf.
Berlin Senate for Urban Development (2010) Rainwater Management Concepts: Greening
buildings cooling buildings. Planning, construction, operation and maintenance guidelines.
Department VI, Ministerial Building Affairs, Berlin Senate for Urban Development, Berlin,
Germany [Online]. Available at: http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/bauen/oekologisches_bauen/download/SenStadt_Regenwasser_engl_bfrei_final.pdf.
Bio Intelligence Service (2011) Water performance of buildings. Background Paper – Stakeholder
Consultation. For the European Commission, DG Environment.
British Standards (2010) BS 8525-1:2010 Greywater Systems – Part 1: Code of Practice. British
Standards (BSI), June.
Bullermann, M., Lücke, F.-K., Mehlhart, G. and Klaus, U. (2001) Grau- und Regenwassernutzung
Kassel-Hasenhecke: Hygienische und Betriebstechnische Begleitunteruschungen, Schriften
der fbr, Band 7.
Canadian Standard Association (2006) CSA Standard B128.1-06/B128.2-06: Design and installation of non-potable water systems/Maintenance and field testing of non-potable water
­systems. Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Ontario, May, 28 pp.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2010a) Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH):
Technical Guide. Department for Communities and Local Government, London, November.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2010b) The Building Regulations Part
G: Sanitation, hot water safety and water efficiency. Department for Communities and
Greywater Recycling in Buildings
189
Local Government, London [Online]. Available at: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/
uploads/br/BR_PDF_AD_G_2010.pdf.
Environment Agency (2010) Energy and carbon implications of rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling. Report SC 090018. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.
Environment Agency (2011) Greywater for domestic users: an information guide. Environmental
Agency, Bristol, UK.
EPA Victoria (2008) Guidelines for Environmental Management: Code of Practice – onsite
wastewater management. EPA Victoria, Victoria, Australia.
European Environment Agency (2010) The European Environment – State and Outlook 2010.
Water Resources: Quantity and Flows. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
EU Directive for Bathing Water (2006) Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and
repealing Directive 76/160/EEC. Jo L 64, 4.3.2006 [Online]. Available at: http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:064:0037:0051:EN:PDF.
fbr (2005) Regulatory Guide H201 Greywater Recycling: Planning Fundamentals and Operation
Information. German Association for Rainwater Harvesting and Water Recycling (fbr),
Darmstadt, Germany [Online]. Available at: http://www.fbr.de/fileadmin/user_upload/files/
Englische_Seite/H201_fbr-Information_Sheet_Greywater-Recycling_neu.pdf.
Government of British Columbia (2012) B.C. Regulation 87/2012, deposited 20 April 2012.
O.C. 230/2012. Environmental Management Act – Municipal Wastewater Regulation.
Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Government of Western Australia (2010) Code of Practice for the Reuse of Greywater in
Western Australia 2010. Government of Western Australia, Environmental Health
Directorate, Department of Health, Perth, Western Australia.
Health Canada (2010) Canadian Guidelines for Domestic Reclaimed Water for Use in Toilet
and Urinal Flushing. Ottawa, Ontario, January.
Morel, A. and Diener, S. (2006) Greywater management in low and middle-income countries.
Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries (Sandec). Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of
Aquatic Science and Technology.
NSW Government (2007) NSW Guidelines for Greywater Reuse in Sewered, Single Household
Residential Premises. NSW Government, Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability,
Sydney, NSW.
Nolde, E. (1995) Betriebswassernutzung im Haushalt durch Aufbereitung von Grauwasser. wwt
1/95: 17–25.
Nolde, E. (1999) Greywater reuse systems for toilet flushing in multi-storey buildings: over ten
years experience in Berlin. Urban Water 1999, pp. 275–284.
Queensland Government (2008a) Greywater Guidelines for Plumbers. A guide to the use of greywater in Queensland. Department of Infrastructure and Planning, Queensland Government.
Queensland Government (2008b) Greywater Guidelines for Councils. A guide to the use of greywater in Queensland. Department of Infrastructure and Planning, Queensland Government.
Radcliffe, J. (2003) Water Recycling in Australia. The Australian Academy of Technological
Sciences and Engineering, Victoria.
Ridderstolpe, P. (2004) Introduction to greywater management. EcoSanRes Publication Series.
Report 2004 – 4. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sheikh, B. (2010) White Paper on Graywater. Report sponsored by the American Water Works
Association, Water Environment Federation and the Water Reuse Association.
Werner, C., Yang, L., Klingel, F., Huelgas, A., Räth, N. and Nolde, E. (2006) Greywater recycling
in Hotel Arabella-Sheraton am Büsing Palais, Offenbach, Germany. Data Sheets for ecosan
projects, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn, Germany
[Online]. Available at: http://www.sanimap.net/xoops2/uploads/gnavi/25_2.pdf.
11
Rainwater Recycling in Buildings
Siraj Tahir, Ilan Adler and Luiza Campos
Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatics Engineering,
University College London, UK
Introduction
Rainwater harvesting (RWH) involves the capture of rainwater from a
­catchment surface to a storage system, where it is kept until required
for consumption. It is not a new idea and evidence of its use from about
3000 years ago has been found in Levant Valley, where the water is
harvested from the wadi surface and stored in below-ground cisterns.
­
More recently, the accelerated growth in population has led to an everincreasing demand for fresh­water and, with many areas under extreme
water stress, communities are looking towards in-situ RWH to meet their
need for water.
The use of the harvested rainwater varies across the world and is
partly dependent on the presence of existing water supply and sanitation
services. In areas that are not well served by treated mains water supply,
such as many developing countries or remote isolated locations in developed ­countries, rainwater is harvested to meet all consumptive needs of
the users, which include drinking and cooking. In areas that are well served
by mains water supply, rainwater is primarily used for non-potable purposes
like flushing toilets and irrigating gardens.
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Rainwater Recycling in Buildings
191
Catchment
Conveyance
Filter
Storage
Figure 11.1
An example of a rooftop RWH system
Rainwater harvesting systems
RWH systems are composed of three main components (Figure 11.1):
(i) a suitable ­catchment; (ii) a conveyance system (such as guttering); and
(iii) a storage system. Additional components for removing any pollutants
from ­harvested water are likely to be present in many of the systems, these
are discussed later in this chapter.
Suitable catchment
Although rainwater can be harvested from any surface (such as roofs,
­pavements and car parking areas), the suitability of the catchment is dependent upon the proposed use as this affects the quality of the harvested rain­
water. The rainwater will absorb some of the contaminants that are likely
to be present on the catchment surface, and the harvested rainwater may
not be suitable for some uses without additional treatment to remove the
contaminants.
For water consumption in buildings, the roof is the preferred catchment if the
water will be used for domestic purposes, as roofs are relatively cleaner than
pavements and car parking areas. As the principal use of rainwater in the UK is
for domestic purposes, this chapter focuses primarily on roof catchments.
Conveyance and filtering
The method of conveyance of rainwater from the catchment to the storage
system is dependent on the type of catchment and the storage system. In
the case of roof drainage, guttering and pipes are normally used to convey
192
Alternative Water Technologies
the rainwater from the roof to a suitable discharge point. In most buildings
the guttering is likely to be already present, and these pipes can be diverted
to the storage system with minimal effort.
Storage
The quantity of rainfall that can be harvested is largely dependent upon the
amount of annual rainfall, the catchment area and the size of the storage
system. The storage system is usually the most expensive component of the
RWH system, and it is important to ensure that the tank is sized appropriately to achieve demand satisfaction and the overall cost-effectiveness of
the system.
Various prefabricated PVC or glass-reinforced polymer (GRP) tanks
­explicitly designed for RWH use are already available in the market. Where
prefabricated tanks are not available in the desired size or not suitable,
­custom-sized tanks can be constructed on site using reinforced concrete.
Rainwater quality
Rainfall has certain qualities that make it desirable, particularly its low hardness (i.e., low mineral content), which is also beneficial for pipes where corrosion and clogging can be a problem. For this same reason, purification and
treatment can be simpler than well or superficial waters with high hardness.
Rainwater collected from clean roofs can be of better microbiological
quality than water collected from untreated household wells (WHO, 1997).
However, minimum compliance with local or international standards may
not be achieved without filtration and disinfection. The British Standard
only covers RWH for domestic, non-potable use e.g. for WC flushing, washing machines and garden watering (British Standards Institute, 2009) and not
its use as a drinking water source. Historically, in many parts of the world,
there seems to be a basic mistrust about rainwater, possibly because of its
association with sewage and drainage in the modern, hydraulic convention
of urban planning, or due to the fact that quality control is harder to implement, compared with centralised systems.
Potential sources of pollutants
The main pathways for contamination in a typical rainwater catching
­system can be categorised as follows.
Airborne
Contaminants that may be present in the air – such as airborne pathogens,
exhaust emissions from transport and industry, aerosols, agrochemicals
Rainwater Recycling in Buildings
193
and other sprays – can be absorbed by the water droplets before reaching the
ground. Compared with most surface or ground waters, rainfall has low
­dissolved mineral content, and thus low conductivity. However, the rain
tends to be acidic in urban areas or where industrial emissions are present.
Catchment surface
Various chemical, microbiological and inert pollutants can be found in harvested rainwater. Their characteristics and concentrations can sometimes
be linked to the type of catchment surface, as this is where contamination
by incoming rain is likely to occur. Pollutants can be deposited from local
sources (trees, bird droppings, etc.) or transported a significant distance due
to strong winds. Pollutants often accumulate if the rainfall frequency and
intensities are low. Rainfall after longer and drier spells would also lead to a
more polluted first flush (Evans et al., 2006).
Roof composition can also play a key role in RWH, as acidic rainwater
has an ‘aggressive’ tendency to dissolve and leach out heavy metals from
roofing materials. This sediment collects in the storage tank and can potentially have a negative impact on health if consumed without adequate
purification. For example, the comparison of rainwater quality of tiled
­
and galvanised iron roofs showed that while the former presented a
greater amount of pathogens, the latter released higher iron, lead and zinc
­concentrations into the water (Yaziz et al., 1989). Water piping and gutter
materials, such as copper or PVC pipes extruded in lead, can also contribute
significantly to the total chemical element load (Morrow et al., 2010).
Where the use of rainwater is widespread, local regulations or practices
may encourage the use of specific roofing materials, combined with extra
maintenance and cleaning procedures. In Bermuda, where rain is used as a
key water source, domestic roofs are covered with limestone and sealed
with a special latex paint (Fewkes, 2006).
Storage
An array of potentially pathogenic micro-organisms can be present in
­rainwater cisterns, depending on atmospheric and roof conditions. Where
there is high seasonal difference in rainfall and a considerable volume
of rainwater needs to be stored for prolonged periods, microbiological
­decomposition of organic matter will cause oxygen levels to drop, resulting in the growth of anaerobic organisms, with accompanying odours and
­contamination. Algae and mould may also grow if minimum light levels
and temperatures are present, and highly resistant biofilms can also form
as sediment or on piping surfaces where bacteria accumulate. In an extensive study, Evans et al. (2009) found an important diversity of bacteria in
rainwater cisterns throughout Australia. Not all of these are pathogenic,
however, and in fact a beneficial ‘micro-ecology’ can be expected to grow
in some cases.
194
Alternative Water Technologies
The impact of maintenance
The maintenance of RWH systems can also be correlated with water
quality. A five-year survey of domestic rainwater cisterns in New Zealand
found samples with heavier bacterial counts in tanks with lack of maintenance, poor design and/or inadequate disinfection regimes (Abbott
et al., 2007). Another study in Bangladesh showed that although RWH
reduced the health risks from arsenic, which is prevalent in groundwater
in several areas, the risk burden for microbial disease was increased
(Karim, 2010).
Among all water-borne ailments in the world, diarrhoeal diseases take the
leading toll, with over 2 million deaths annually – mostly among children in
the lower-income sectors of developing countries (WHO, 2009). Interventions
to provide safe drinking water and sanitation have been demonstrated to be
one of the most powerful tools for prevention. In order for RWH to be truly
effective in mitigating water-borne diseases worldwide, the system needs
to be properly maintained, and the collected rainwater adequately treated or
purified, rather than consumed directly.
Box 11.1 provides an example of a RWH system in Mexico City.
Treatment technologies
The method of treatment depends, among other factors, on the intended
use, availability of the technology, cost, rainwater quality and storage
conditions. The environmental impact and health implications of any
­
­disinfection by-products must also be considered. Thus, it is difficult to
­suggest a unique design or technology that will suit all situations.
Conventional sources are treated before delivery to households. Similarly,
depending on water quality requirements, adequate and affordable treatment methods can make rainwater fit for human consumption or other nonpotable uses. The following sections summarise some of the techniques
currently in use.
Pre-treatment
First flush
The runoff resulting from the first few millimetres of rainfall is usually
the most heavily contaminated, and diverting it is one of the most effective and easy methods for reducing pollutant loads in harvested rainwater.
This has been proven for micro-organisms as well as for many chemical
contaminants. The actual volume to be diverted depends on a variety of
factors, such as roof type, rainfall intensity and the number of dry days
preceding an event.
Rainwater Recycling in Buildings
Box 11.1
195
Urban rainwater harvesting
Once built on top of ancient lakes, the sprawling metropolis of Mexico City
­suffers from severe water shortages today. In consequence, there has been
an increasing interest in RWH from both the public and private sector (Adler,
2011). This project was designed by the International Renewable Resources
Institute (IRRI-Mexico) in the Environment Ministry’s main building (SEMARNAT).
It has been successfully collecting an average of 500,000 l/yr of runoff from its
­elevated glass structures since 2004, purifying it to drinking water standards and
combining it with the mains water supply. The total storage capacity is roughly
800 m3. Treatment systems include settling tanks, GAC/KDF filtration and UV
­disinfection. When rainfall is low, electronic controls indicate when to turn on the
mains water supply. The building also uses waterless urinals and other efficient
water-saving facilities, providing a model of sustainability for the rest of the city.
Source: Photos, Ilan Adler.
To calculate the volume of first flush to divert, some common ‘rules of
thumb’ (which are not necessarily equivalent) are:
•• 20–25 litres of a rainfall event
•• 2 mm of rain over the roof area
•• 5–10 min of a rainfall event.
Sedimentation
Sedimentation is an old technique that has been utilised in many ancient
cities. A complex infrastructure for capturing and storing rainwater was
found in Petra, Jordan. In one archaeological site, more than seven settling
tanks connected in series were found. These were built by the Nabateans to
remove lime deposits in water before storage in a drinking-water basin
(Bellwald and Ruben, 2003).
Sedimentation works by slowing down incoming rainwater to allow
­heavier particles to settle. A number of products such as alum, lime and iron
196
Alternative Water Technologies
salts exist in the market to increase formation of loosely clumped masses of
fine particles called ‘flocs’, and thus accelerate precipitation. There are also
potable water treatment plants used in domestic, small-scale applications
that use portable ‘flocculation/chlorination’ packets, which include powdered ferrous sulphate, as a flocculant along with calcium hypochlorite for
disinfection (National Academy of Sciences, 2008).
Pre-filtering
The main purpose behind these ‘pre-tank’ systems is to keep as much
organic matter and debris as possible out of the cistern, thus extending the
life and efficiency of any post-filtering or treatment process. Given the
­rising popularity of RWH worldwide as an alternate supply source, a ­number
of products for this purpose alone are becoming prevalent in the m
­ arket.
Examples include roof washers, leaf guards, screens and strainer baskets,
among others.
Filtration
Media commonly used for filtering water at a household level are also
­applicable to RWH systems. In addition to those that already exist in the
­market, many more are being developed as the demand for quality drinking
water increases. A selection of the most common methods is described below.
Activated carbon/KDF
Activated carbon particles have a large surface area (500 m2/g) and are used
in many commercially available water purification systems due to their
high adsorption potential for a host of contaminants, including chlorine
and dissolved organic matter. The activated carbon medium needs to
be replaced when saturated with contaminants, although its life-span can
be increased by adding KDF (kinetic degradation fluxion media), a zinc–­
copper alloy with ionic and adsorbent capacities. Carbon filters tend to form
a biofilm when microbiologically contaminated waters flow through them.
Although these bacteria can be beneficial for degrading assimilable organic
carbon, opportunistic pathogens can also use the biofilm as a protection
against disinfection. The addition of silver nitrate and KDF to the carbon
media is commonly used to help retard this growth.
Sand filters
Both rapid and slow sand filtrations are commonly used for drinking water
purification. In the latter, a biofilm termed schmutzdecke forms on the top of
the sand layer, consisting slime material, which has been found to be effective
in the removal of pathogens including viruses, bacteria and cysts of enteroparasites. Rapid sand filters contain components such as gravel or anthracite,
which will effectively filter at faster flow rates. They are less efficient but
Rainwater Recycling in Buildings
197
useful for higher volumes. Frequent backwashing is also required, since they
rely precisely on the opposite mechanism (i.e., no biofilm formation).
Reverse osmosis
In reverse osmosis (RO), a semi-permeable membrane allows water to pass,
leaving behind most salts and macro-molecules (solutes). It effectively
removes several compounds that conventional filters cannot eliminate,
including calcium, magnesium, bacteria and even viruses to a certain extent,
though they are usually combined with some form of disinfection method
such as UV.
In the case of rainwater, RO is convenient given the low level of minerals
contained in the source water (compared with most conventional sources).
Membranes act smoothly and rarely require servicing as long as adequate
pre-filtering is taken care of, to remove particles and chemicals that could
potentially harm the membrane.
However, RO has several well-documented drawbacks, such as high
energy consumption, cost and complexity, as well as the large amount of water
consumed as only a portion of the incoming fluid is actually filtered, and the
rest is rejected by the membrane.
Disinfection
Chlorine
Chlorine can be applied to water in a number of forms, including liquid,
gaseous or solid compounds. Depending on the method used and the type of
micro-organism involved, the main biocide actions include: damaging the
cell membrane, disrupting nucleic acids (RNA, DNA) and enzyme production. Protozoan cysts are the most resistant micro-organisms to disinfection
by chlorine, i.e. Giardia, Cryptosporidium, followed by several strains
of virus and some dormant bacteria. The latter can also form biofilms in
activated carbon filters, displaying increased resistance to chlorination.
Disinfection by-products (DBPs) are a major issue when chlorination is
applied to water containing organic matter and nitrogen compounds (which
can easily be the case in rainwater collected from unclean roofs). Trihalo­
methanes (chloroform or THMs) and haloacetic acids will readily form when
free chlorine is combined with natural organic matter, such as humic acids
produced from decaying plant matter. THMs have been linked to cancer, as
well as other ailments, and are currently regulated by the USEPA (Xie, 2004).
Ultraviolet light
UV has gained popularity in small-scale RWH systems. UV radiation, at
around 260 nm wavelength, attacks the DNA of micro-organisms and viruses.
At higher doses, it can also eliminate hard-to-remove protozoan parasites
such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Jordan et al. (2008) tested a typical
198
Alternative Water Technologies
household RWH filtration system combined with a conventional low-dose
UV lamp, finding effective removal of indicator bacteria and viruses.
The drawbacks of UV treatment for small-scale RWH systems are:
•• The relatively high cost of equipment and lamps, which need to be replaced
periodically.
•• Disposal of lamps may pose an environmental hazard issue, since the UV
is generated by a mercury vapour lamp.
•• No disinfection residual, thus possibility of recontamination in stored water.
•• Turbidity or suspended particles greatly reduce removal efficiency, as
­bacteria are more easily concealed from the UV radiation.
Ozone
Ozone or trioxygen (O3) is a powerful oxidant and disinfectant. It acts by
producing free radicals which affect the permeability of bacterial cell walls,
as well as disrupting enzymatic activity and DNA formation. Although it
is not entirely free from by-products (DBPs), it is more effective than
­chlorine in removing bacteria and viruses from water. Even highly resistant
­protozoan cysts are inactivated in relatively short contact times.
Small units for water purification are widely available, but they ­usually
require complex recirculation pumps and dosing mechanisms to be evenly
spread in the water. Furthermore, ozone will evaporate out of the treated
water in a few minutes, leaving no residual. It therefore requires constant
reapplication, with the added expenditure of energy and maintenance costs.
As with most disinfectants, ozone is more efficient in clear water with
low turbidity. However, it can also be used as a form of pre-treatment,
­precisely to oxidise organic matter or remove certain contaminants before
filtration or final disinfection.
Silver
Silver ions and colloidal silver have been proposed as effective methods
for achieving good water quality in rainwater collection systems (Adler
et al., 2011). The use of silver is widespread and dates back at least 2000
years. It has been proven to be an effective biocide, attacking a wide range
of micro-organisms with no observed toxic side-effects on humans, as long
as concentrations are kept within an adequate range.
There is abundant literature and patents related to the use of silver ions
for a number of applications, many of them involving nanotechnology.
­Silver–­copper ions have also been tested in combination with free chlorine
to inactivate Legionella. There is also a synergy between the three elements,
with better disinfection efficiency compared with either of them acting alone
(Landeen et al., 1989). However, an excess of chloride anions will diminish
the available amount of silver, which will precipitate as insoluble silver
­chloride compounds.
Percentage of demand met
Rainwater Recycling in Buildings
Small increase in storage =
Large increase in harvested
volume
199
Large increase in storage =
Small increase in harvested
volume
Size of storage
Figure 11.2 Relationship between storage size and demand satisfaction
Source: Based on Fewkes and Warm (2000).
Storage system sizing
The amount of storage that will be required for the rainwater tank is
­dependent on the seasonality of rainfall, harvestable volume of rainfall
and its demand by users. Higher seasonal differences in rainfall volumes
may require larger storage to meet the demand during drier periods. In
comparison, smaller storage may be adequate in areas with lower seasonal
difference in rainfall volumes, as the storage would be replenished more
frequently.
Performance analysis of rainwater systems shows a strong relationship
between user demand and optimum size of tank, with decreasing additional
benefit as tank volume increases (see Figure 11.2).
It also worth noting the fact that not all the rainfall that falls onto the
catchment can be captured for use, as some of it will be lost through evaporation or through spills and overflow.
The storage for the rainwater system can be sized using one of the
­following methods:
•• annual rainfall method
•• monthly rainfall method
•• daily rainfall method.
Of the three, the ‘daily rainfall method’ is more detailed and provides the highest confidence in the appropriateness of the storage size. However, it may be
necessary to use the other methods when there is insufficient information.
200
Alternative Water Technologies
Annual rainfall method
The simplest option would be to size the system exactly to the amount
of effective harvestable annual rainfall. However, the tank size will not be
optimised based on user demand.
In areas where the monthly rainfall is reasonably uniform throughout
the year, the current recommendation is to size the system based on 5%
of the annual rainfall yield (taking into consideration any systemic losses),
or 5% of the annual demand (British Standards Institute, 2009).
The equations can be written as:
QA = A × C × h × e × 0.05 (11.1)
For annual yield
For annual demand
D = P × n × 365 × 0.05
(11.2)
N
D
with
QA
A
C
h
e
DN
PD
n
annual rainwater harvested (l)
catchment area (m2)
yield coefficient (%)
depth of annual rainfall (mm)
filter efficiency coefficient (%)
annual demand (l)
daily demand per person (l)
number of persons
The annual method may not be suitable for regions where rainfall is
more seasonal. In which case, other methods should be considered for
­sizing the storage.
Monthly rainfall method
The monthly method bases the size of the storage system on the monthly
rainwater supply and demand, and is suited for areas with greater seasonality in rainfall. To address annual variability in rainfall volumes, it is preferable to use at least 10 years of monthly rainfall; a shorter period of rainfall
data can be used where longer data is unavailable.
In this method, the monthly harvestable rainfall is calculated using the
following equation:
12
∑Q
M =1
A
=
12
∑A × C × e × R
M =1
with
QM
A
C
e
RM
rainfall volume in month M (l)
catchment area (m2)
yield coefficient (%)
filter efficiency coefficient (%)
monthly rainfall in month M (mm)
M
(11.3)
Rainwater Recycling in Buildings
Table 11.1
201
Monthly water balance method
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Month
Volume
captured
Cumulative
volume
captured
Volume
demand
Cumulative
volume
demand
Total amount
stored
(C minus E)
Monthly deficit/
surplus
(B minus D)
(m3)
(m3)
(m3)
(m3)
(m3)
(m3)
1.7
4.2
…
1.7
5.9
…
2.7
2.7
…
2.7
5.4
…
−1.0
0.5
...
−1.0
1.5
…
MAX(F)
SUM(G)
Jan
Feb
…
and the monthly demand can be calculated using:
12
∑D
M =1
M
=
12
∑P
M =1
D
× n × N M (11.4)
with
DM
PD
n
NM
demand in month M (l)
daily demand per person (l)
number of users
number of days in month M
The ‘yield’ and ‘demand’ volumes are then aggregated into monthly cumulative values, and the greatest running difference between the two cumulative
values is the recommended storage requirements (CEHI, 2009). The method
is detailed in Table 11.1, where the storage required is the ­difference between
the largest value in column F and the sum of all the ­values in column G.
Daily rainfall method
The balance of ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ is undertaken on a daily basis. For this,
the following factors are considered: existing volume of water stored in
the system, inflow of rainwater, volume of overflow when storage is at full
capacity, amount of water abstracted for use. The balance equation can be
set up in two ways:
•• Water abstracted prior to inflow (also referred to as yield before spill, YBS).
•• Water abstracted after inflow (also referred to as yield after spill, YAS).
In the YBS equation, a larger storage volume is made available as water is
abstracted prior to inflow. This leads to a lower volume of overflows when
compared with the YAS method. It is recommended to use the YAS equation, as it is more conservative.
202
Alternative Water Technologies
The YAS equation can be represented as:
D
YD = min  D (11.5)
VD −1
and
V + QD − YD
VD = min  D −1
(11.6)
S − YD

with
YD
DD
VD
VD–1
QD
S
yield (or rainwater abstracted) on day D (l)
total demand on day D (l)
volume of rainwater in storage on day D (l)
volume of rainwater in storage on day D–1 (l)
volume of rainwater runoff on day D (l)
maximum storage capacity (l)
The daily rainfall inflow QD can be calculated using:
12
∑Q
M =1
D
=
12
∑ A×C×e× R
D
M =1
(11.7)
with
A
C
e
RD
catchment area (m2)
yield coefficient (%)
filter efficiency coefficient (%)
rainfall on day D (mm)
The daily demand DD can be calculated using:
12
∑ DD =
M =1
12
∑P
M =1
D
× n + ED (11.8)
with
DD
PD
n
ED
total demand on day D (l)
demand per person on day D (l)
number of persons
demand for external use on day D (l)
The daily method is the most effective at sizing the system and is
the ­recommended method where the demand is variable or irregular. It is
suggested that at least three years, preferably five years, of continuous daily
rainfall data be used to undertake the balance of the ‘supply’ and ‘demand’.
Rainwater Recycling in Buildings
203
Environmental benefits
A significant amount of water is abstracted from the environment every
year for consumption in cities and towns. Abstraction of freshwater for
agricultural, energy, industry and public consumption has left limited
­
­supplies for ecosystem services and the natural environment has suffered
as a result. Although freshwater is a renewable resource, in many parts of
the world the demand for water far exceeds the rate at which freshwater
resources and groundwater replenishes.
In Western Europe, about 29% of the water abstracted is for public
­consumption. Alternative water sources, such as RWH, have the potential
to meet up to 40% of this, significantly reducing the environmental impact
by reducing abstraction from the groundwater aquifers and the freshwater
lakes and watercourses (European Environment Agency, 2009).
In addition, in areas where the demand is greater than the supply of
­rainwater, there is the benefit that the storage system can provide a level
of attenuation during storm events to the benefit of local drainage systems
(Kellagher and Gerolin, 2011). A recent study that simulated the performance
of a rainwater system found that for a typical house in London (50 m2
roof area, 1500 l rainwater tank), there was a 55% probability that the tank
will be empty, and a 90% probability that the tank will have at least 1200 l of
attenuation capacity on any given day (Tahir et al., 2011).
User perception and acceptability
Although RWH is usually accepted as a freshwater augmentation t­ echnology
in many parts of the world, its acceptability varies for several r­easons.
RWH use depends on the presence of existing water supply and sanitation
services as well as social, economic, cultural and political ­factors. One of
the primary reasons for the non-acceptability of rainwater for drinking purposes is the perception about its quality, colour, taste and other pollutants
(such as leaves, mosquito larvae and other insects, rodent d
­ etritus). In France,
it has been found that people accept RWH uses such as gardening, toilet
flushing, floor washing and laundry in order to ‘save water’ and for ‘duty as
an ecologist’ (Bulteau et al., 2011). However, people are not sure about using
rainwater in washing machines due to doubts on water quality.
In countries with either equatorial or monsoon climates, user perception of rainwater potability can vary significantly. DFID (2002) reports that
in Uganda 90% of households accept rainwater as potable water (drinking
and cooking), followed by Sri Lanka and Ethiopia with 47% and 38%,
respectively. During a RWH project in Sri Lanka, people showed willingness to drink rainwater not only due to its easy accessibility but also due
to the assurance by the project team that rainwater was of good quality
204
Alternative Water Technologies
(Bandara et al., 2010). However, overall rainwater was more acceptable for
cooking (70%) than for drinking (52%). Although specific reasons were not
identified, rainwater is broadly accepted by users for non-potable use, such
as dish and clothes washing, bathing, gardening, toilet/latrine use and livestock watering. The perceived risk associated with use type increases as
the use type becomes increasingly personal (Ward et al., 2008).
Where surface water and/or groundwater are of poor quality, RWH is
­easily accepted as drinking water. In coastal and areas affected by arsenic in
Bangladesh, RWH is the most preferable source of water for drinking and
cooking (Karim, 2010). In Australia, where the climate is generally hot and
dry, and freshwater is limited, many households collect rainwater in
­domestic tanks to augment supplies or provide an alternative and renewable
source of water – even in areas serviced with mains water. Although the
general public perception is that rainwater is safe to drink, where drinking
water supply is available, rainwater is used for hot water services, ­bathing,
laundry, toilet flushing or gardening as these represent lower risks to public
health (enHealth, 2004).
In addition to the technical and operational efficiency of RWH systems, user acceptability is also affected by socio-economic factors. Social
­receptivity is needed for RWH to transition from niche to mainstream in
western countries such as the UK (Ward et al., 2012). Box 11.2 illustrates
the acceptability of RWH and use in two collective buildings in Paris,
France and Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Cost is another factor that affects user acceptability of RWH systems.
In Australia, the main reason for households not installing a rainwater
Box 11.2 RWH perception and socio-economic context
A study comparing the acceptability of RWH and use in two collective
­buildings is presented. The first study is a higher education building in a region
in Paris and the other, a sports education facility in the Brazilian city of Belo
Horizonte. The studies show differences of perception depending on socioeconomic context, sex and professional occupation. Findings show that
Brazilian users have a more pessimistic perception of rainwater compared
with French users. However, Brazilian users would accept rainwater for
domestic use compared with French users. The male Brazilian user showed
an increased acceptance of rainwater for domestic use such as drinking water,
suggesting an increased propensity to accept the risk compared with the
female user group. In Paris, administrative personnel presented more positive
rainwater perception than R&D personnel, and no difference between male
and female users was identified. The overall results indicated a positive
­correlation between the use and acceptable requirements for water quality.
Source: Seidl et al. (2010).
Rainwater Recycling in Buildings
205
tank was cost (47.5%), followed by lack of time (28%), lack of room (15%)
and health concerns (only 1.4%) (ABS, 2007). Rainwater can be a lowercost option of potable supply, particularly in water-scarce areas such as
Dhaka city, where people accept RWH as the only alternative source of
safe drinking water due to its low cost (Islam et al., 2010). In the UK, Ward
et al. (2008) showed that user perception of maintenance activity costs was
more closely aligned to actual costs than perception of the frequency of
maintenance.
The high adoption of RWH in Germany – where grants and subsidies
are available – suggests that grants encourage the adoption of RWH systems.
Similarly in the UK, tax relief and Enhanced Capital Allowances allowed
businesses to offset the costs of water efficiency improvements, resulting in
many buildings being retrofitted with RWH systems.
Promotional and educational programmes are also essential to increase
rainwater perception and acceptability. In Waterloo (Canada), lack of information seemed to act as a significant barrier towards the adoption of RWH
systems at household level (Fortier, 2010). In Nepal, Dahal et al. (2010)
found that some communities were reluctant to accept the installation
of RWH systems mainly due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty about its
usefulness. Research suggests great acceptance of risks if they are perceived
as familiar, voluntary and of negligible catastrophic potential (Renn et al.,
1992 cited in Ryan et al., 2009). Therefore, promotion and education seem
to be vital for the success of RWH implementation.
Conclusions
Rainwater harvesting has been used across the world for over 3000 years for
irrigation, landscape use, toilet flushing as well as for drinking and cooking.
In developed cities with good uninterrupted clean water supply, harvested
rainwater is primarily used for non-potable purposes – with its use linked to
‘duty to protect the environment’. In locations where infrastructure is inadequate or where other sources of water may be p
­ olluted, rainwater is considered as a purer source of water and is often used for drinking and cooking. In
Uganda almost 90% of the population would accept rainwater for consumption, followed by Sri Lanka (47%) and Ethiopia (38%).
The rainwater harvesting system is comprised of three parts: (i) catchment surface, (ii) conveyance and (iii) storage systems, with further
­treatment present in some systems. The rainwater can be collected from
any clean surface, with preference given to roofs due to their lower level of
pollution. The collected water is usually conveyed through pipes to a
­
storage system. The storage volume can be sized using a simplified
­
method, however a monthly or daily water balance method provides a better
­estimation of appropriate storage.
206
Alternative Water Technologies
The rainwater can absorb impurities from the catchment surface and
employing first-flush diversion can reduce the level of impurities; following
which it can be used for non-potable use. It must be further filtered and
­disinfected prior to human consumption; ultraviolet is commonly used for
disinfection, however ozone, chlorine and silver can also be used.
The harvesting of rainwater not only provides direct benefit to the
users of the rainwater, it also helps reduce the abstraction of water from
rivers, lakes and groundwater, as well as reducing the amount of runoff
from urban catchments that have the potential to cause surface water
flooding.
Further reading
Rainwater harvesting: a lifeline for human well-being. UNEP Report.
UN-Habitat Blue Drop Series on Rainwater Harvesting and Utilisation (2009).
Alternative Ways of Providing Water: Emerging Options and their Policy Implications (OECD,
2009).
Guidance Manual for the Design and Installation of Urban Roofwater Harvesting Systems in
Australia (Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment, 2008).
The Texas Manual on Rainwater Harvesting (Texas Water Development Board, 2005).
References
Abbott, S., Caughley, B. and Douwes, J. (2007) The microbiological quality of roof-­
collected rainwater of private dwellings in New Zealand. 13th IRCSA Conference,
Sydney, Australia.
Adler, I. (2011) Domestic water demand management: implications for Mexico City.
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 3(1), 93–105.
Adler, I., Hudson-Edwards, K.A. and Campos, L.C. (2011) Converting rain into drinking water:
quality issues and technological advances. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply,
11(6), 659.
ABS (2007) Water account for Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Catalogue No. 4610.0,
Canberra.
Bandara, M.A.C.S., De Silva, R.P. and Dayawansa, N.D.K. (2010) Household water security
through stored rainwater and consumer acceptability: a case study of the Anuradhapura
District. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/iwt/conppr/h042862.html [21 August 2012].
Bellwald, U. and Ruben, I. (2003) The Petra Siq: Nabataean Hydrology Uncovered. Petra
National Trust.
British Standards Institute (2009) BS 8515:2009 Rainwater harvesting systems – Code of
­practice. BSI, London.
Bulteau, G., Laffitte, J.D. and Marchand, D. (2011) Psychosocial analysis of public
acceptance towards water reuse: case study of rainwater harvesting and greywater
­
­recycling. 8th IWA Conference on Water Reclamation and Reuse, Barcelona, Spain, 26–29
September 2011.
CEHI (2009) Rainwater harvesting in the Caribbean – estimating storage requirements
[Online]. Available at: http://www.cehi.org.lc/Rain/print/Tech%20sheet%203A_B.pdf [22
August 2012].
Rainwater Recycling in Buildings
207
Dahal, R., Ban, J., Makaju, S., Shrestha, R.S. and Dwa, N. (2010) Rainwater harvesting (RWH)
in Nepal. A case study on social acceptability and performance evaluation of RWH
schemes implemented in Syangja and Tanahun districts. RWSSP-WN and Tribhuwan
University.
DFID (2002) Very-low-cost domestic roofwater harvesting in the humid tropics: constrains and
problems. DFID KaR Contract R7833, Report R2, January.
enHealth (2004) Guidance on use of rainwater tanks. enHealth Council, Australian
Government.
European Environment Agency (2009) Water Resources Across Europe: Confronting Water
Scarcity and Drought. EEA Report, Copenhagen.
Evans, C.A., Coombes, P.J. and Dunstan, R.H. (2006) Wind, rain and bacteria: the effect of
weather on the microbial composition of roof-harvested rainwater. Water Research, 40(1),
37–44.
Evans, C.A., Coombes, P.J., Dunstan, R.H. and Harrison, T. (2009) Extensive bacterial diversity
indicates the potential operation of a dynamic micro-ecology within domestic rainwater
storage systems. Science of the Total Environment, 407(19), 5206–5215.
Fewkes, A. (2006) The technology, design and utility of rainwater catchment systems. In
Butler, D. and Memon, F.A. (eds), Water Demand Management. IWA Publishing, London,
pp. 27–61.
Fewkes, A. and Warm, P. (2000) Method of modelling the performance of rainwater collection
systems in the United Kingdom. Building Services Engineering Research and Technology,
21(4), 257–265.
Fortier, J.M. (2010) Examining the social acceptability of cisterns in rainwater harvesting for
residential use in the region of Waterloo, Ontario. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10012/
5242 [21 August 2012].
Islam, M.M., Chou, F.N. and Kabir, M.R. (2010) Acceptability of the rainwater harvesting
­system to the slum dwellers of Dhaka City. Water Science Technology, 61(6), 1515–1523.
Jordan, F.L., Seaman, R., Riley, J.J. and Yoklic, M.R. (2008) Effective removal of microbial contamination from harvested rainwater using a simple point of use filtration and UV-disinfection
device. Urban Water Journal, 5(3), 209–218.
Karim, M.R. (2010) Microbial contamination and associated health burden of rainwater
­harvesting in Bangladesh. Water Science Technology, 61(8), 2129–2135.
Kellagher, R. and Gerolin, A. (2011) SR736 Developing Stormwater Management using
Rainwater Harvesting, 1st edn. HR Wallingford, Oxfordshire.
Landeen, L.K., Yahya, M.T. and Gerba, C.P. (1989) Efficacy of copper and silver ions and reduced
levels of free chlorine in inactivation of Legionella pneumophila. Applied Environmental
Microbiology, 55(12), 3045–3050.
Morrow, A.C., Dunstan, R.H. and Coombes, P.J. (2010) Elemental composition at different
points of the rainwater harvesting system. Science of the Total Environment, 408(20),
4542–4548.
National Academy of Sciences (2008) Safe drinking water is essential. Global Health and
Education Foundation. Available at: http://www.drinking-water.org/html/en/Treatment/
Coagulation-Flocculation-technologies.html#tech2 [1 February 2011].
Ryan, A., Spash, C.L. and Measham, T.G. (2009) Household collection in Canberra. CSIRO
Sustainable Ecosystem.
Seidl, M., De Gouvello, B. and Nascimento, N. (2010) Perception of rainwater harvesting in
public buildings: comparison between two case studies in France and in Brazil. NOVATECH
2010.
Tahir, S., Shouler, M., Woods, A. and Campos, L. (2011) Universal adoption of rooftop rainwater
harvesting for better management of water resources and urban flash flooding in London.
EWRI World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2011.
208
Alternative Water Technologies
Ward, S., Butler, D. and Memon, F.A. (2008) A pilot study into attitude towards and perceptions
of rainwater harvesting in the UK. BHS National Hydrology Symposium, Exeter.
Ward, S., Barr, S., Butler, D. and Memon, F.A. (2012) Rainwater harvesting in the UK: sociotechnical theory and practice. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79,
1354–1361.
WHO (1997) Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Vol. 3: Surveillance and control of
­community supplies, 2nd edn. World Health Organization, Geneva.
WHO (2009) Global Health Risks: Mortality and Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected
Major Risks. World Health Organization, Geneva.
Xie, Y. (2004) Disinfection Byproducts in Drinking Water: Formation, Analysis, and Control.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Yaziz, M.I. et al. (1989) Variations in rainwater quality from roof catchments. Water Research,
23(6), 761–765.
12
A Strategic Framework for
Rainwater Harvesting
Sarah Ward,1 Stewart Barr,2 Fayyaz Ali Memon1
and David Butler1
1
2
Centre for Water Systems, University of Exeter, UK
School of Geography, University of Exeter, UK
Introduction
Rainwater harvesting (RWH) systems facilitate the collection, filtration
and storage of runoff, usually from roof catchments. The stored rainwater
is then either gravity-fed or pumped to supply non-potable points of use
within a building to save highly treated potable water (Ward et al., 2010a).
Some studies suggest RWH may also provide storm-water attenuation, as
rainwater is released over a period of time rather than entering the sewer
system as peak load (Kellagher, 2011).
RWH systems are increasingly implemented to supply end-use demands
that do not require potable quality water, for example toilet flushing and
irrigation. For such non-potable end-uses, RWH can supplement mains
water supplies and reduce potable water consumption within the built
environment (Ming-Daw et al., 2009; Butler et al., 2010). This may in
turn help to reduce water stress in areas suffering from water availability
issues. The utilisation of RWH systems could become increasingly important with rising population and climate change, as potable water resources
are put under pressure and with possible increase in the cost of water
(DEFRA, 2011).
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
210
Alternative Water Technologies
The importance of alternative water systems, such as RWH, for sustainable
water management is reflected in new and recent changes in UK ­legislation
(particularly England and Wales), such as the:
•• Flood and Water Management Act (DEFRA, 2010) – focuses on surface
water management, particularly sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).
•• Water for Life (DEFRA, 2011) – recognises the importance of water reuse.
•• Water Bill (DEFRA, 2012) – focuses on water supply, particularly abstraction reform and separating non-domestic supply into wholesale and retail
markets.
Other regulation, guidance and codes in relation to sustainable water
­management and alternative water systems produced over the last 10 years
include:
•• The Code for Sustainable Homes (DCLG, 2006).
•• Building Regulations Parts G and H (sanitation and water efficiency;
­drainage and waste disposal) (DCLG, 2009).
•• British Standards on Rainwater Harvesting (BSI, 2009), Greywater Reuse
(BSI, 2010) and Code of Practice for the Selection of Water Reuse Systems
(BS 8585 – forthcoming).
A range of international approaches to incorporate RWH systems (and
other alternative water systems) into the built environment exist and
include the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method (BREEAM) in the UK (BREEAM, 2011), Best Management Practices
(BMPs) or Low Impact Development (LID) in the USA (DER, 1999), Low
Impact Urban Design and Development (LIUDD) in New Zealand (Van
Roon et al., 2006) and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) in Australia
(Howe and Mitchell, 2012).
Approaches such as WSUD are considered unconventional compared
with traditional approaches where water management and spatial planning are very separate. Alternative water systems such as RWH are also
considered unconventional when compared with current practice such
as surface/groundwater abstractions or large-scale reservoirs. Yet, their
­relevance is being considered for the UK context (CIRIA, 2012) but fundamental to the successful adoption of any unconventional approach is
­sufficient evidence base.
This chapter gives an overview of empirically derived socio-technical
evidence for alternative water supply to promote water efficiency in buildings; using RWH as a case example. The chapter is not intended to give full
details about all aspects of the methodologies used. It is designed to give
summaries of the most pertinent findings, as well as provide signposts to
other resources (journal articles, book chapters) for further information.
A Strategic Framework for Rainwater Harvesting
211
Developing a socio-technical evidence base
A number of social theories were identified, considered and used to
inform both the collection and analysis of socio-technical data on RWH
systems. Social and technical evidence bases (summarised in Table 12.1)
were then generated using a range of quantitative and qualitative methods
(a mixed methods approach) to investigate RWH system implementation.
The data gathered from these studies was individually analysed (using techniques such as inferential statistics and thematic analysis) and the results
re-contextualised and triangulated using a meta-analysis approach to develop
the strategic framework described later in this chapter (Figure 12.6).
Methodology
Table 12.1 shows the range of quantitative and qualitative methods used
at different scales and with different stakeholders during the study. House­
holders, office building occupants and SMEs were selected as target sample groups for the social evidence base, as their understanding of water use
within buildings and their willingness to use RWH is crucial for both saving
potable water (via toilet flushing with RWH) and ensuring the correct and
efficient use of alternative water systems. Standard ethical procedures were
followed for both the quantitative and qualitative studies described below.
Surveys
RWH system users and non-users were surveyed about their experiences
with RWH (for the former) or their willingness to use RWH (for the latter).
A pilot study was administered to a range of water professionals and their
feedback used to refine the questions that would form the basis for the
full survey. The full survey was administered to RWH system users and
non-users at three separate locations:
•• Bude, Cornwall – RWH system users, householders (experimental group).
•• Exmouth, Devon – non-users, householders (control group).
•• Exeter, Devon – RWH system users and non-users, office building occupants (experimental and control groups on the same site but in different
buildings).
Consequently, the sampling regime was purposive and to a degree opportunistic, as half the sample needed to be a current RWH system user. The sites
were chosen as they were known to the researchers.
For participating householders, questionnaires were hand delivered but
contained a link to an online facility, if they wished to complete it electronically. For office locations, a link to the questionnaire was sent to building
contact databases via the reception desk.
212
Alternative Water Technologies
Table 12.1 Components of the research evidence base, associated social theories,
methodologies utilised and complementary references
Social theory
(Ward et al., 2012a)
(Regime level)
Transition theory
Multi-level
perspective
Social
evidence
base
Technology
diffusion/diffusion of
innovation
Ecological
modernisation
Framework for
pro-environmental
behaviours
Receptivity
Self-efficacy
Social identification
Social
representations
Technical
evidence
base
Component
Data collection method
Reference/s
Policy and
innovation
evaluation
International literature review
and discussions with
international RWH system
designers/experts
Ward (2012)
Ward et al.
(2012a)
Acceptability
evaluation
Surveys with householders,
office tenants, architects
Ward et al.
(2012a,c)
Implementation
evaluation
Interviews with small to
medium enterprises
Ward et al.
(2010c; 2012a)
System design
evaluation
Use of RainCycle© to
analyse supply/demand
balance/tank sizing of two
case study sites
Ward et al.
(2010b)
System
performance
evaluation
Water meters connected to
building management system
in one case study site
Ward et al.
(2012b)
Rainwater
quality
evaluation
International literature review
and standard sampling and
analysis techniques at one
case study site
Ward (2012)
Ward et al.
(2010a)
Energy
consumption
evaluation
New method development
and application to case
study site
Ward et al.
(2011a)
(Agent level)
Cooperation rates were calculated for each site and ranged from 19% to
94%, with an average of 27%, which was deemed suitable for the nature of
the research being undertaken (a PhD). Results were then analysed using
appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics within SPSS.
In addition to this survey, a shorter questionnaire, primarily about
­standards and technical guides, was administered to a purposive sample
of architectural practices. However, the response rate was low and the cooperation rate calculated for this survey was very low. Therefore, the results
are only mentioned in the meta-analysis when they support or complement
the findings of another socio-technical evidence base.
Interviews
As well as domestic water users (such as those mentioned above), small to
medium enterprises (SMEs) may also benefit from water savings associated
with alternative water systems such as RWH; by supplementing potable
water (thus also making financial savings). Focus on RWH helped to further
target the study to understand the reason for the limited uptake of alternative water systems by SMEs. The focused interview technique was used as
it permitted the expression of interviewees’ thoughts and feelings, whilst
A Strategic Framework for Rainwater Harvesting
213
still affording the interviewer a certain amount of control over the interview.
In order to explore a range of experiences with RWH implementation, two
interviewee groups were determined:
•• SMEs that had heard of RWH and tried to implement it, but unsuccessfully (‘non-implementers’);
•• SMEs that had heard of RWH and implemented it successfully
(‘implementers’).
As with the survey sample, the interview sampling regime was purposive and
to a degree opportunistic, as around half the members of the sample needed to
have implemented RWH. The SMEs were invited to participate from a nonprotected database, which was shared with the researchers by a local sustainability charity. SMEs from the database in the county of Devon were contacted
(limited geographical range due to resource constraints) and 7 agreed to participate in an interview. An interview schedule covering 11 topics for implementers and 10 for non-implementers was devised and interviews took place between
March and June 2009 at the SMEs’ premises. Transcripts were then analysed
iteratively using open, axial and selective thematic coding within NVivo.
Selected results are presented in the next section; the reader should refer
to the corresponding references given in Table 12.1 for full details.
Selected socio-technical evidence base results
A thorough description of all the findings of each of the evidence bases
­generated by this study is beyond the scope of this chapter. Consequently, a
brief but detailed summary of the results for each part of each evidence base
is given in the following sections.
Social evidence base
The aim of the social evidence base was to explore the challenges to RWH
implementation from a social perspective. The main findings are discussed
under three broad headings – innovation, adoption and implementation.
Innovation
Innovations in RWH have increased in recent years, especially in pump
­efficiency and interfacing RWH systems with renewable energy technologies
such as photovoltaic cells. However, it was identified that technical innovation of domestic RWH systems in the UK is needed. At present, system
designs from Germany and Australia are being implemented. However, these
may not be most suitable for the UK context; UK houses are not the easiest to
retrofit and they generally do not have basements, as in Germany or large plot
214
Alternative Water Technologies
Proportion of participants
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
r
oo
l
era
n
Ge
td
ou
e
rd
Ga
g
rin
ate
nw
Ca
als
im
n
ga
in
th
Ba
Yes
Figure 12.1
g
hin
as
rw
he
ot
Cl
Maybe
g
hin
as
sw
na
rso
Pe
Unsure
No
g
hin
as
lw
t
es
Ing
e
ibl
es
us
g
kin
in
Dr
N/A
Uses for which participants would consider RWH (all locations)
sizes, as in Australia. Therefore, the RWH system with the best potential for
the UK is gravity-based systems, as these eliminate the need for pumping and
concerns over operational energy consumption. A number of gravity systems
are being developed around the world, including those forming the basis
of emerging research being undertaken at the University of Exeter.
Acceptability
The limited efficacy of RWH systems currently available on the UK market
was also highlighted by the results of the surveys. The majority of the
­participants surveyed were receptive to the use of RWH for a range of nonpersonal end-uses (Figure 12.1). WC flushing does not appear in this chart, as
it was assumed that all participants would accept this use as it is the most
common end-use for RWH. They were, however, less receptive to paying
for maintenance; the willingness threshold was for costs below £100
(Figure 12.2). From the study, 55% and 63% of users and non-users estimated maintenance costs to be £200 or less per year, while only 45% and
37% of users and non-users estimated over £200 per year. The actual cost
for an average domestic property would typically be between £140 and £240
per year, or £250 for an annual contract with a maintenance provider
(Roebuck, 2008). Consequently, gravity systems with less mechanical parts,
such as pumps, may be more efficacious, as they could potentially have
lower associated maintenance costs.
Implementation
Issues identified by SME interviewees related to specific parts of the
­implementation process (design, installation or maintenance) and to the
interaction of different stakeholder groups involved. The stakeholder network
A Strategic Framework for Rainwater Harvesting
215
100%
Proportion of participants
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
User_estimated
User_willing
<£100 / Yr
£300–£400 / Yr
Non-user_estimated
Non-user_willing
£100–£200 / Yr
£200–£300 / Yr
£400–£500 / Yr
>£500 / Yr
Figure 12.2 Perceptions of maintenance activity costs between RWH users and
non-users (all locations)
Key
= Proposed interaction
= Observed interaction
= Deficit category
= Interested party
Confidence
Access
Promoters
Communication
Expertise/Advice
Government
Guidance/Support
Research
Visibility
Visibility
Access
Guidance/Support
Information
providers
Expertise/Advice
Planners
Architects
Suppliers
Developers
Consultation
Finance
Communication
Access
Confidence
WSPs
Users
Figure 12.3 Implementation deficit categories and their interaction with RWH
implementation stakeholder groups
involved in the implementation of a RWH system was identified as
­complex, as summarised in Figure 12.3.
However, most of the issues observed could be attributed to common
causes. For example, inadequate considerations of system design variables,
216
Alternative Water Technologies
a lack of technical ability during installation and poor knowledge of
­maintenance activities. This suggested that stakeholders involved in these
parts of the process perhaps did not have appropriate resources or capacity.
The limitations on the implementation of RWH, especially by SMEs, can be
categorised as: lack of external expertise and advice, lack of guidance and
support, poor visibility and access to support services, limited confidence
in and communication from existing services, financial constraints and
poor consultation.
Technical evidence base
This aspect of the study aimed to explore the challenges to RWH implementation from a technical perspective. It was found that stakeholders
(developers, householders) are reluctant to consider and adopt RWH s­ ystems
due to technical issues, such as tank design, siting difficulties, uncertainties over cost benefits and payback periods, as well as water quality issues.
The main findings are discussed under four broad headings: system design,
system ­performance, rainwater quality and energy consumption.
System design
The design evaluation for the RWH system of a commercial building
(Ward et al., 2010b) identified that simple RWH tank sizing methods used
by housing developers and RWH system suppliers may result in over-­
sizing of RWH tanks, when considered with the supply–demand balance at
a particular site (Figure 12.4).
This can result in high capital and installation costs, which would affect
payback periods and therefore the likelihood that a system would be
installed. More rigorous techniques for calculating tank sizes are available,
including the Detailed Approach (BS 8515: 2009). The scenarios used in
Figure 12.4 were: 1, Detailed Approach; 1(Max)*, Detailed Approach using
% Estimated demand met
70
2 & Installed
60
1 (Max)*
50
1
40
3
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
Estimated tank size (m
30
40
3)
Figure 12.4 Variability in RWH tank sizing and water-saving performance for a range
of tank sizing methods for a large office building RWH system
A Strategic Framework for Rainwater Harvesting
217
monthly rainfall (all other scenarios used annual data); 2, Intermediate
Approach (BS 8515: 2009); 3, Simplified Approach (BS 8515: 2009) and
Installed – the system size designed and installed by the housing development company. The former produce more conservative tank sizes, which
could provide more realistic estimates of performance.
System performance
The performance of a RWH system in a large commercial office building at
the University of Exeter was studied for a period of eight months in order to
explore system performance issues for RWH systems. Figure 12.5 shows
that for the monitored duration and the actual (rather than the design) occupancy (111), the RWH system yielded a measured water-saving efficiency of
around 100%. This was in line with the hypothetical results estimated by
the British Standard’s Detailed Approach (BSI, 2009).
The results highlight that the Detailed Approach simulated the performance closest to the actual water-saving efficiency of the RWH system.
These findings corroborate one of the conclusions of the results described
in the previous section; a transition to the use of more detailed design
methods for large buildings is required by those undertaking RWH system
designs to reduce the likelihood of over-sizing storage tanks.
100
Drop due to
system
malfunction
90
80
ET (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
23/12/2008
23/01/2009
23/02/2009 23/03/2009 23/04/2009 23/05/2009 23/06/2009 23/07/2009
Date
Detailed approach (300 occupancy)
Detailed approach (111 occupancy)
Intermediate approach (Manufacturer estimated (300 occupancy))
Measured (111 occupancy)
Measured (extrapolated to 300 occupancy)
Figure 12.5 Actual water-saving efficiency (ET) of the Innovation Centre RWH system
compared with modelled values
218
Alternative Water Technologies
Table 12.2 Results of a health impact assessment for a large building RWH system,
with comparators
Impact/DALY
Hazard
Exposure
Mental health
Illness
Anxiety
E. faecalis from WC flushing Min
Mean
Max
(−)
2.25 × 10–7
1.80 × 10–5
2.15 × 10–4
Illness
Campylobacter spp. from WC flushing with an innovative
RWH system (Fewtrell et al., 2009)
2.96 × 10–6
Illness
Campylobacter spp. from WC flushing with a standard
RWH system (Fewtrell et al., 2008)
4.6 × 10–5
Illness
Campylobacter spp. from WC flushing with a standard
RWH system (Fewtrell and Kay, 2007)
6.8 × 10–5
Illness
WHO (2009) for drinking water
4.5 × 10–3
Illness
Suggested screening level (Fewtrell and Kay, 2008)
Lightning strike
(Fewtrell et al., 2009)
5 × 10–5
2.1 × 10–6
Rainwater quality
A harvested rainwater quality monitoring programme was conducted on the
same building’s RWH system. Using the data from this programme, a health
impact assessment (HIA) was undertaken, which included a quantitative
microbial risk assessment (QMRA) to determine a microbiological disability
affected life year (DALY) score for the system. This utilised the results of the
monitoring programme to quantify the health risk associated with flushing
WCs using harvested rainwater. The result is shown in Table 12.2, use comparators to place the risk-based results in context. The HIA identified that the
health risk associated with using rainwater to flush a toilet was minimal.
Energy consumption
A new method was developed for estimating the operational energy
consumption associated with pumping and UV disinfection in RWH
­
­systems. The method provides a detailed procedure to allow comparison of
operational energy consumption across different pumped RWH systems,
highlighting where energy and carbon contributions may exceed water-­
saving benefits. Analysis of previous methods and pump specification documents led to the derivation of an equation that estimates total pump and UV
operational energy consumption. The equation uses a range of parameters –
including pump capacity, rating and efficiency, header tank switch-on/off
levels and volume of rainwater pumped – to calculate the pump start-up and
operating durations of the pump, eventually leading to the calculation of
total pump operational energy consumption. The UV element is calculated
from the UV unit rating and operational duration. The equation can then be
used with carbon dioxide conversion factors to estimate carbon emissions.
Applying this method to empirical data from the RWH system described in
A Strategic Framework for Rainwater Harvesting
219
the previous sections showed that energy consumption associated with
pumping 1 m3 of rainwater was 0.54 kWh. The overall contribution from
pumping was minimal and for a period of six months represented just 0.07%
of the building’s total energy consumption.
The strategic framework for RWH in the UK – a synthesis
The previously described socio-technical evidence was used to fully explore
the RWH implementation process and to produce an integrated framework.
This was achieved by using iterative open thematic coding. Three main
areas of attention, described in this section, were elucidated within the
­synthesis in the order of their perceived prominence.
Technical relevance and product development
It was found that the physical characteristics – e.g., size of the RWH system
and issues of ownership – affect its successful adoption and implementation. The need for a greater range of RWH products with increased flexibility
was also established. With regard to the physical characteristics, owners
or tenants in buildings located within conservation or heritage status areas
for example were restricted in what they were permitted to do to the outside
of a property. Space and excavation restrictions also meant that conventional permanent above or below-ground RWH systems were inappropriate.
Also highlighted was the need to eliminate the pumping of harvested
­rainwater, particularly in domestic properties.
On the ownership of a RWH system, some case study evidence identified
that conflicts of interest in maintenance provision impacted on the system’s
effective operation and performance. It was also found that the willingness
of householders to undertake and pay for maintenance was low. This
implies that product development would benefit from greater interaction
with prospective system purchasers, even in cases where conventional systems would be logistically suitable. After all, it is important to consider how
the functionality of a product fits with the needs of potential customers.
The social aspects of RWH system product development can be side-tracked
by an emphasis on technical factors such as tank sizing.
Additionally, current RWH price signals do not encourage behaviour
change. Product and market innovation would result in cost-effective
­systems and more acceptable prices. Relevant policy, regulatory and certification organisations need to take the lead in recognising, driving and incentivising RWH system product development, to make it technically relevant
and applicable to a wider range of site conditions and stakeholder needs.
This will increase adoption by a wider range of stakeholders and customers
and ease the burden of RWH not being a ‘fit and forget’ technology.
220
Alternative Water Technologies
Social receptivity and capacity building
In terms of receptivity, SMEs were determined to have a good level of
awareness and association (they all knew about RWH and its potential
­
­relevance to them), but their acquisition and application of it was stalled
due to a number of implementation barriers. Comparatively, householders’
situations were similar, although the level of awareness and association was
lower than found with SMEs. Some participants were even unaware of RWH
systems in their workplace. Again, acquisition cost and accessibility
were found to be key limiting factors for the adoption of RWH. The selfefficacy of SMEs also proved to be an important factor in their perception
of the implementation process. For example, one SME had been through a
difficult building renovation process and decided against undertaking RWH
simultaneously to prevent further stress.
Based on these findings, the primary focus for UK institutions (such as
those identified in Table 12.3) could be capacity building at intra- and interorganisational levels without compromising the different needs of stakeholders. Policy-level recognition is needed to enhance the receptivity of
different stakeholder groups. Links are being made at a high level, but recognition of the ‘on the ground’ issues restricting widespread RWH – such as
conflicting messages and low user confidence due to a lack of expertise in
implementation – is low. The system is arguably too top-down, rather than
bottom-up still. Further studies into the receptivity of UK construction
practitioners, water managers and policy makers to RWH is therefore
required in order to build capacity for these actors. However, this requires
a consensus on RWH by regulators as there is still ongoing debate on the
­sustainability status of RWH at the socio-political level.
Additionally, capacity building is required within the potential RWH
system user community. One SME called for the creation of a ‘buddy
­
database’; a list of businesses with RWH that a similar-sized business
­
­wanting to install RWH could contact/visit to see how the system operates
or discuss and learn from their implementation process. This would
build capacity and confidence within the SME community who have been
identified as displaying ‘green fatigue’ and being cynical about adapting to
address environmental issues. Consequently, appropriate organisations need
to develop stakeholder-specific interventions that address their needs to
enhance their receptivity to RWH.
Institutional commitment and support services
Over the last five years, certain facets of sustainable construction and
development have received institutional commitment and support. For
­
example, water efficiency and micro-energy generation programmes have
both received structured commitment and support in the form of publicly
A Strategic Framework for Rainwater Harvesting
Table 12.3
Policy
informer
Example actors and actions for implementing the strategic framework
Example actor
Context
Action/aim
Research councils
(e.g., EPSRC)
Undertaking
cutting-edge
research through
universities and
institutions
Research for UK
water operators
Undertake/fund research into
product development to increase
technical relevance of RWH systems
to end-users and increase institutional
confidence
Investigate the impact of RWH on
water/sewerage infrastructure to
enhance technical relevance/
institutional commitment
Water resources
management/
environmental
protection
The voice of UK
water consumers
Provide/signpost a central source of
guidance/support to build capacity
and social receptivity with
implementers and end-users
Inform consumers (end-users) of
alternative water systems to build
capacity and increase social receptivity
Undertake and disseminate information
regarding RWH health risks to all
actors to address social receptivity
Incentivise water service providers to
consider alternative water systems to
increase institutional commitment
UK Water Industry
Research (UKWIR)
Policy
informer,
maker
EA
Consumer Council
for Water (CCW)
Drinking Water
Inspectorate
OFWAT
Policy
maker
Policy
implementer
221
Independent
research on water
supply safety
Water pricing
policy
DEFRA
Environment/
water-related
policy
DCLG/RTPI
Planning policy
DECC
Climate change
adaption policy
Local authorities
Building control
and the planning
system
Water service
providers
Planning and
investing in
infrastructure
Consultancies
undertaking
SWMPs, FRMPs,
etc.
Designing new
buildings and
developments
Constructing new
buildings and
developments
Water managers
Architects
Developers
RWH system
suppliers
Product
designers/
manufacturers
Use the evidence bases to identify a
greater range of support services for
implementers and end-users to support
all actions
Better signpost support services in
planning frameworks
Extend remit to cover the water–energy
nexus to increase institutional
commitment
Signpost the EA/Greenplumb support
services through the existing www.
direct.gov.uk ‘find a plumber’ facility to
enable implementers
Extend water efficiency information to
cover RWH to increase end-user social
receptivity
Increase consideration of alternative
water system options to enhance social
receptivity/capacity building
Increase awareness of tools/data for
designing RWH systems to enhance
technical relevance
Campaign for greater product
development and support services to
decrease cost implications and
increase technical relevance and build
capacity for implementers
Undertake product development
activities to increase technical
relevance to end-users
222
Alternative Water Technologies
funded pilot schemes, grant programmes and initiatives on scaling up the
results. The development and implementation of such schemes and initiatives demonstrates institutional commitment as they signal to stakeholder
communities that the measures are considered robust and warrant assistance. Such support system signals exist in countries where RWH is more
widespread. In the UK, developments in other areas are perhaps required
before RWH is considered robust enough to warrant full institutional support (i.e., beyond the level of simply promoting its use). However, it is likely
to be a no-win or a double-bind situation. Therefore, commitment to
­provide an extended range of support services is needed to improve public
confidence in RWH.
It is common for water policy or technology promotion campaigns
to advocate the gathering and dissemination of large amounts of information to stakeholders. For RWH, such information already exists. There is
currently a vast range of documents relating to RWH in the UK. However,
visibility of and access to these documents is limited, as is their synopsis.
This poses a direct threat to their successful implementation by undermining the level of expertise of the implementer, which consequently
undermines user confidence. A freely available ‘signposting’ document
could be produced, which would allow stakeholders interested in RWH
easy access to an overview of information and other relevant documents.
Such a document could be signposted in revisions to relevant policy and
guidance documents (such as the Code for Sustainable Homes or British
Standards).
In addition to issues of visibility and access, document costs were also
suggested as a potential deterrent to use. Indirect financial support could be
granted to enhance their visibility and accessibility. Further to this, if the
UK Government would prefer not to give direct financial incentives, such as
the grants and subsidies seen in other countries, indirect financial support
would be a suitable compromise. For example, providing grants or loans for
feasibility assessments would provide non-product, non-structural support
to stakeholders interested in implementing RWH at a range of scales.
However, such assessments would need to be conducted by qualified individuals with a full knowledge of RWH systems; otherwise, the suitability of
RWH may be misjudged.
Support for RWH also needs to be engendered in the overall water management process itself. Metered customers benefit most from having RWH
as they receive the direct benefits of paying for the lower volume of mains
water used and subsequently a reduced sewerage charge. Unmetered customers can also benefit in areas where water companies have revised surface
water drainage charging arrangements. However, few stakeholders are aware
of this and the process of calculating the discount varies. Standardisation of
this process and increasing its visibility would potentially broaden the
appeal of RWH to certain stakeholders.
A Strategic Framework for Rainwater Harvesting
223
Similarly, universal domestic metering would increase the attractiveness of RWH in areas where water charges are relatively high. However,
this would need to be complemented with access to suitable, cost-effective
and appropriately designed RWH systems (re-emphasising the argument
presented in the ‘Technical relevance and product development’ section).
Consequently, appropriate organisations need to develop services to
support technical development and capacity-building activities. This
­
will demonstrate commitment and increase stakeholder confidence in
implementing RWH.
The framework
The strategic framework for RWH in the UK is represented diagrammatically in Figure 12.6. The framework summarises the, often distanced,
­relationship between the social and technical aspects of the RWH implementation process. The diagram also summarises the strategic relationship
between the components, which are:
•• The RWH vision, ‘V’ – as an increase in successful implementation of UK
RWH projects.
•• The ‘aims’ – being the areas of the UK RWH market that require
improvement.
Actor
Institution
Implementer
Support
services
Capacity
building
Product
development
Action
Figure 12.6
End-User
V
Social
receptivity
Technical
relevance
Institutional
commitment
Aim
The strategic framework for enabling the transition of RWH in the UK
224
Alternative Water Technologies
•• The actors – being those individuals or groups with direct or indirect
power or influence over the UK RWH market (whether through buying
products or setting policy).
•• The ‘actions’ – being the fundamental activities that need to occur
within the UK RWH market.
For example, the framework identified that proprietary RWH systems are
perhaps functionally inappropriate for certain aspects of the UK RWH
market and require further product development (the action) by RWH
­
­system producers (the actor) to improve their technical relevance (the aim).
Furthermore, it illustrates that there is a need to develop services to enhance
capacity-building activities (such as the ability to implement and maintain
a RWH) – both actions. Such actions would demonstrate commitment to
and increase stakeholder confidence in implementing RWH – both aims.
Implementing the strategic framework – example actors
To derive maximum benefit from the framework, it is important to outline
how it may be applied and who can apply it. This section provides a brief
overview of how the framework can be of benefit to certain actors, or
­stakeholders, and the actions they could take to help facilitate (where appropriate) the successful implementation of RWH. In the context of this study,
actors fall into four main categories, which are summarised in the first column of Table 12.3. The next column describes the UK organisations that
could be classified under each category and the last column ‘Action/aim’
describes the specific actions that could be taken, as derived from the strategic framework recommendations. Additionally, the actors outlined in the
framework are included across the examples in a range of ways, to demonstrate how they interact with the actions and aims.
The organisations and actions outlined in the table are not intended to be
comprehensive or absolute, but to act as an indicator of how the strategic
framework recommendations can be interpreted in relation to its actors,
actions, aims and the overall ‘vision’ for RWH. Primarily, the recommendations are directed at policy makers, as it is at this level that the majority of
decisions are made. These decisions in turn affect the focus and dissemination of product development, capacity building and support service ­activities,
which heavily influence the pathways of other actors.
At the policy-making level, for example, it may be necessary for the
­institution of DEFRA (actor) to undertake a review of RWH research (action)
to identify which product development, capacity building and support
­service activities (actions) it could develop or advocate in order to demonstrate commitment (aim) to building capacity and increasing technical
­relevance (aim) for implementers (actor) to enhance the receptivity (aim) of
end-users (actor) to RWH.
A Strategic Framework for Rainwater Harvesting
225
Conclusion
This chapter described factors that influence the adoption of RWH in the UK.
It then explored the socio-technical evidence and from findings, a ­strategic
framework to transition RWH to the mainstream is proposed. Indications
are that the alternative water system transition in the UK is currently limited due to a top-down policy approach and greater support is required at the
bottom-up (agent) level. In particular, it was identified that in order to transition, emphasis must be placed on the benefits of alternative technologies
such as RWH to individual agents and greater interaction between different
levels must take place. Strategic areas for action include (i) Technical
­
Relevance (product development); (ii) Social Receptivity (capacity building);
(ii) Institutional Commitment (support services).
Acknowledgements
This research was carried out as part of the ‘Water Cycle Management for New
Developments’ (WaND) project funded under the Engineering and Physical
Science Research Council’s ‘Sustainable Urban Environment’ Programme by
EPSRC, the UK Government and industrial collaborators (Butler et al., 2010).
Further reading
Ward, S. (2010) Rainwater harvesting in the UK: a strategic framework to enable transition
from novel to mainstream. PhD thesis, University of Exeter. https://eric.exeter.ac.uk/
repository/handle/10036/106575.
Ward, S., Butler, D., Barr, S. and Memon, F.A. (2009) A framework for supporting rainwater
harvesting in the UK. Water Science and Technology, 60(10), 2629–2636.
Ward, S., Memon, F.A. and Butler, D. (2010a) Harvested rainwater quality – the importance
of appropriate design. Water Science and Technology, 61(7), 1707–1714. DOI: 10.2166/
wst.2010.102.
Ward, S., Memon, F.A. and Butler, D. (2010b) Rainwater harvesting: model-based design evaluation. Water Science and Technology, 61(1), 85–96. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2010.783.
Ward, S., Barr, S., Memon, F.A. and Butler, D. (2010c) Transitioning SMEs to sustainable water
management practices: challenges and opportunities. Proceedings of the UNESCO-DelPHE
International Conference on Sustainable Water Management: Sustainable Water Management
in Developing Countries – Challenges and Opportunities (SWM2010), Jamshoro, Pakistan,
September 2010, pp. 115–126.
Ward, S., Butler, D. and Memon, F.A. (2011a) Benchmarking energy consumption and CO2
emissions from rainwater harvesting systems: an improved method by proxy. Water and
Environment Journal. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-6593.2011.00279.x.
Ward, S., Memon, F.A., Butler, D. and Barr, S. (2011b) Rainwater harvesting in the UK: thinking
outside the tank – a report on recent research. University of Exeter, October 2011 [Online].
Available at: http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cws/component/docman/cat_view/68-rainwaterharvesting-events?orderby=dmdate_published [20/3/2012].
226
Alternative Water Technologies
Ward, S., Barr, S., Butler, D. and Memon, F.A. (2012a) Rainwater harvesting in the UK: sociotechnical theory and practice. Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 79(7),
1354–1361.
Ward, S., Memon, F.A. and Butler, D. (2012b) Performance of a large building rainwater harvesting system. Water Research, 46(16), 5127–5134.
Ward, S., Barr, S., Butler, D. and Memon, F.A. (2012c) Rainwater harvesting in the UK: wateruser perception. Urban Water Journal, iFirst article, 1–15.
References
BREEAM (2011) BREEAM Bespoke [Online]. Available at: http://www.breeam.org/page.
jsp?id=181 [02/12/2011].
BSI (2009) BS 8515: 2009 – Rainwater harvesting systems: Code of practice. BSI, London.
BSI (2010) BS 8525–1: 2012 – Greywater systems, Part 1: Code of practice. BSI, London.
Butler, D., Memon, F.A., Makropoulos, C., Southall, A. and Clarke, L. (2010) WaND. Guidance
on Water Cycle Management for New Developments. CIRIA Report C690, ISBN 978-086017690-9, 143 pp.
CIRIA (2012) WSUD for the UK Scoping Study.
DCLG (2006) Code for Sustainable Homes: a step-change in sustainable home building practice
[Online]. Available at: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/code_for_sust_homes.pdf
[26/5/2007].
DCLG (2009) Circular 10/2009: Postponement of the coming into force of the amendments
made to Part G and other provisions of the Building Regulations.
DEFRA (2010) Flood and Water Management Act: Hansard Reports. Crown Copyright, London.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/flooding/policy/fwmb/next.htm [accessed 12 April
2010].
DEFRA (2011) Water for Life. CM 8230. Crown Copyright, The Stationery Office, London.
ISBN: 978-010182-302-9.
DEFRA (2012) Draft Water Bill. CM 8375. Crown Copyright, The Stationery Office, London.
ISBN: 978-010183-752-1.
DER (1999) Low-Impact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated Design Approach.
DER, Largo, MD.
Fewtrell, L. and Kay, D. (2007) Quantitative microbial risk assessment with respect to
Campylobacter spp. in toilets flushed with harvested rainwater. Water and Environment
Journal, 21, 275–280.
Fewtrell, L. and Kay, D. (2008) Health Impact Assessment for Sustainable Water Management.
IWA Publishing, London.
Fewtrell, L., Kay, D. and McDonald, A. (2008) Rainwater harvesting – an HIA of rainwater harvesting in the UK. In: Fewtrell, L. and Kay, D. (eds) Health Impact Assessment for Sustainable
Water Management. IWA Publishing, London.
Fewtrell, L., Davies, C., Kay, D., Watkins, J. and Wyer, M. (2009) Acquisition of microbial data
on quality of harvested rainwater in the United Kingdom to drive a quantitative microbial
risk assessment. Experiences with Rainwater Harvesting and Greywater Recycling and their
Future Prospects. Aqua enviro, Birmingham, UK.
Howe, C. and Mitchell, C. (eds) (2012) Water Sensitive Cities. IWA Publishing, London.
Kellagher, R. (2011) Storm-water management using rainwater harvesting: testing the
Kellagher/Gerolin methodology on a pilot study. Report SR 736, Release 1.0, July.
Ming-Daw, S., Lin, C.-H., Chang, L.-F., Kang, J.-L. and Lin, M.-C. (2009) A probabilistic approach
to rainwater harvesting systems design and evaluation. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 53(7), 393–399.
A Strategic Framework for Rainwater Harvesting
227
Roebuck, R.M. (2008) A whole life costing approach for rainwater harvesting systems.
Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Engineering, Design and Technology, University of
Bradford, UK.
Van Roon, M., Greenaway, A., Dixon, J. and Eason, C. (2006) Low impact urban design and
development: scope, founding, principles and collaborative learning. Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Urban Drainage Modelling and the 4th International Conference
on Water Sensitive Urban Design, Melbourne, Australia.
Ward, S., Memon, F.A. and Butler, D. (2010a) Harvested rainwater quality – the importance
of appropriate design. Water Science and Technology, 61(7), 1707–1714. DOI: 10.2166/
wst.2010.102.
Ward, S., Memon, F.A. and Butler, D. (2010b) Rainwater harvesting: model-based design
­evaluation. Water Science and Technology, 61(1), 85–96. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2010.783.
WHO (2009) Health Impact Assessment – Tools and Methods [Online]. Available at: http://
www.who.int/hia/tools/en/ [18/12/2009].
Section 5
Practical Examples and Case Studies
The final section of the book presents a series of studies on the practical
issues associated with implementing water ­
efficiency in buildings. It
addresses water efficiency solutions in domestic and non-domestic b
­ uildings,
the voluntary water label and calculator for specifying water ­efficiency products, challenges of innovation in water treatment plants and the benefits
and strategies for engaging communities, not just individuals, in collective
water efficiency practice.
Innovative water efficiency solutions such as water-efficient showerheads, waterless composing toilets, aerated faucets/taps, water-efficient
dishwashers and steam washing machines are increasingly promoted as a
quick and easy way to conserve water in buildings. Compared with their
standard counterparts, water-efficient fittings and products can help to
optimise water efficiency and reduce living expenses, whilst helping to
­
conserve water. The first chapter in this practical applications section
­
­investigates the cost benefit of these solutions in residential buildings in
Australia. The justification was that water efficiency in households is
becoming imperative, as demand and population continue to stress water
supply across towns and cities. This chapter demonstrates that the watersaving fittings and products can be optimised to deliver cost effectiveness in
residential dwellings, thereby reducing water consumption and wastage.
Water consumption values, lifecycle cost and payback periods are compared
for standard and water-efficient fittings and products over a 15-year period.
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
230
Practical Examples and Case Studies
This was achieved by investigating the lifecycle cost benefits of the
following water-saving products and fittings: low-flow showerheads,
­
­waterless composting toilets, flow-restricted/aerated taps, water-efficient
dishwashers and steam washing machines in the cities of Sydney, Canberra,
Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and Darwin.
The varying water prices and product costs in the case study cities were
considered in the calculations. It was found that on average $7295–$28,785
per occupant can be saved over 15 years if all fittings in the home are
water efficient, but the specific amount of savings could vary depending on
water prices and locations. It was also found that up to 78.5% savings can be
achieved and the least payback period was only 0.10 years. The findings
confirm that the water efficiency performance of a dwelling can be significantly improved with innovative water-efficient fittings and products.
Practically, it presents a useful methodology for evaluating the cost benefit
of readily available market products. This approach can be used to evaluate
and rationalise the specification of water-efficient products in domestic
buildings.
The current real-time use of a resource must be understood in order to
accurately rate the efficient use of the resource. This is the focus of the
next chapter in this section, which reports on a practical case study undertaken on New Zealand commercial office buildings, to investigate both
building and regional water performance. The study was undertaken in two
stages, the first through survey-level water audits comprising analysis of
historic billing data, working with the building manager, visiting the building and inspecting its end-uses. The second stage was through full water
audits, which used monitoring equipment to determine time-of-use patterns and information from a smaller subset of buildings. From findings, the
study developed water-use indices based on net lettable floor area, and found
that regional benchmarks, as opposed to a single national benchmark, were
needed. Further explorations with industry stakeholders also confirmed
that the biggest drivers for water conservation in the commercial building
sector are those of customer and consumer education, and financial incentives (i.e., tariffs) from water service providers and local authorities. To
­conclude, the study confirms that benchmarking enables better understanding of building water performance and well-designed tariff structures can
influence water-conservative thinking. It also found opportunities to
­conserve water through improvements to HVAC and bathrooms in office
buildings. Lastly, supplier–customer–consumer relationships need to be
strengthened for water-sensitive thinking to be achieved at both the
­regulatory level as well as the customer and consumer level.
Water labelling is currently topical, particularly in Europe, and this
­section includes a chapter submitted by the UK Bathroom Manufacturers’
Association (BMA). The efficiency of plumbing fittings and fixtures contributes to water conservation or waste in buildings. According to the BMA,
Practical Examples and Case Studies
231
manufacturers now recognise their role in ensuring that products are
water as well as energy efficient. As a result, the product portfolios of
many water product manufacturers have been completely overhauled in less
than a decade and bathroom products in particular are now more sustainable
than ever. The BMA chapter discusses the most recent breakthroughs in
the main bathroom products – WCs, taps, baths and showers. It then introduces the voluntary Water Label and its supporting calculator. The Water
Label shows the volume of water that the product will consume if installed
according to the manufacturer’s instructions. It is a useful tool to educate
the ­public, in a manner similar to the energy label found on white goods,
as well as a tool to aid designers and specifiers during planning and regulatory compliance.
Water stress is already a reality for millions of people in certain geographical regions of the world, particularly in the Middle East. Governments
in many countries in these regions invest significant resources in cuttingedge infrastructure to ensure a reliable supply of good-quality water. Owing
to the variability in water availability that may occur within a particular
country, additional investment in comprehensive distribution networks is
also required to safely deliver water from where it is abstracted and treated
to the point of demand, which can be thousands of miles away.
Technological innovation in the design and delivery of water treatment
plants can help not only ensure efficiencies in water processing, but also
safeguard investments and achieve longevity and integrity of the water
­supply infrastructure. However, technological innovation can be constrained
by economic, technical, physical and environmental constraints. The
next chapter in this section explores these issues, using the case e­ xample of
a water treatment plant. It highlights the various limitations which
may make the process of innovation difficult, such as the design, technological, material, cost, extent of knowledge or planning, and operational
­processes. It then discusses the benefits of flexibility, adaptability, effective use of available technical knowledge and skills, as well as compromise
to overcome barriers to innovation.
The final chapter makes a departure from water efficiency in individual
buildings to explore the motivation and incentives for communities to
engage in and promote water-efficient practices. It presents findings from a
‘water’ workshop conducted in a case study community in England. The
findings from the water workshop highlighted that water efficiency at the
community scale goes beyond generic solutions. For communities, water
efficiency drivers are interlinked with social, economic and environmental
resilience; the exploitation and preservation of physical, social and environmental ‘assets’. It was also found that for communities to engage, they need
to be involved in finding solutions that work in their context and locale.
Trust in communities to find the right, efficient and beneficial solutions
is however required. The participants in the workshop demonstrated this
232
Practical Examples and Case Studies
knowledge competence, in that they recognised their knowledge and
information gaps, identified the need for cooperation and collaboration
­
between groups in the community as well as the importance of feedback and
buy-in by the all residents in the community. More importantly, communities such as this identified their lack of empowerment and ownership in
finding water efficiency solutions for their own communities.
The study concludes that in order to promote community-scale water
­efficiency solutions, it is necessary to identify and engage with popular and
meaningful points of community interest. It is also worthwhile promoting
and integrating water efficiency into resilience planning and neighbourhood
development instruments. Local authorities need to adopt and encourage
proactive strategies by communities to mitigate and adapt all aspects and
effects of climate change, including water efficiency. Communities that
wish to implement community-wide water efficiency schemes should be
empowered; particularly through information, implementation guidelines,
key contact persons in local authorities for advice, incentives and grants
and, lastly, the proposal of effective water efficiency policies and the removal
of regulatory hurdles.
With this last point, the book comes full circle.
13
Lifecycle Benefits of Domestic WaterEfficient Fittings and Products
Vivian Tam and Andrew Brohier
University of Western Sydney, Australia
Introduction
Unstable water availability in the natural environment will affect water
supply to residential dwellings around the world. It is predicted that by
2025, about 63% of the planet’s population will be experiencing water stress
(Arnell, 1999; Alcamo et al., 2007). As a result, the price of water is increasing, in some areas at an alarming rate, and further increases of 50–100%
over the next 5 years are expected (Wahlquist, 2009). In spite of government
aid, water-saving policies such as water-use restrictions and incentives to
implement more efficient water usage, water is predicted to become increasing scarce in forthcoming years (Australian Bureau of Meteorology, 2010). It
is for this reason that further research on water efficiency innovation and
water-efficient products is needed to mitigate the impact of the decline in
water supply, to benefit future generations.
This chapter investigates the contribution and lifecycle cost benefits of
water-saving fittings and products in residential dwellings. Five innovative
water-saving fittings and products – water-efficient showerheads, waterless
composing toilets, aerated taps, water-efficient dishwashers and steam
washing machines – were investigated, compared to the standard water
facilities. Dwellings with six sustainable innovation fittings with up to six
occupants in major cities in Australia – including Sydney, Canberra,
­
Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and Darwin – were selected for this study.
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
234
Practical Examples and Case Studies
To achieve the aim of this study, water-efficient and standard fittings and
products were compared to establish the water and lifecycle cost savings as
well as the payback period on investment. A 15-year lifecycle period of
water fittings was used because this is the standard replacement cycle of
water fittings.
Methodology
Using the guidelines provided in the Water Efficiency Labelling and
Standards Scheme 2009 and Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010, the following assumptions were used to calculate the water savings for a typical residential dwelling: shower use of twice per person per day for 8 minutes per
cycle; two toilet uses five times per person per day for one full flush per cycle;
two basins use five times per person per day for 0.25 minutes per cycle; two
kitchen sink use three times per person per day for 12 minutes per cycle; one
dishwasher use once per day per person for one full cycle; one washing
machine use once per person per day for one full cycle. For this research, a
typical residential dwelling is defined to have standard fittings, such as a
normal water-flow showerhead, single-flush toilet, normal water-flow basin
outlet, normal water-flow sink outlet, normal water-flow dishwasher and
normal water-flow washing machine.
For the cost calculations, a maximum of one hour’s work from a plumber
(about AUD 80/GBP 53.5) for the installation of fixtures and appliances is also
assumed. Annual ongoing costs of about AUD 50/GBP 33.5 for hygiene and
cleaning products associated with the functioning of the devices, as well as
any maintenance expenses that may arise for the calculation of the lifecycle
cost of the water facilities is also included. Inflation incurred for the ongoing
cost is assumed as 3% and future water rate rises are based on the average
price increase in the past 10 years (2001–2010) from the relevant water authorities (ActewAGL Corporation, 2010; Brisbane City Council, 2010; Power and
Water Corporation, 2010; Queensland Urban Utilities, 2010; Sydney Water,
2010; Water Corporation, 2010; City West Water Limited, 2011).
Lifecycle cost is calculated together with initial fitting cost at the first
year, water usage price and maintenance cost from the second year onwards,
with consideration of the inflation rate every year. After calculating the lifecycle cost for the individual water facilities, the following equation is used
to calculate the percentage saving from using each of the aforementioned
water-saving fittings or products:
Percentage of saving =
LCCsustainable − LCCstandard
× 100%
LCCstandard
Lifecycle Benefits of Domestic Water-Efficient Fittings and Products
235
where:
•• LCCstandard is the lifecycle cost for using the standard water facilities over
15 years.
•• LCCsustainable is the lifecycle cost for using the alternative sustainable innovations over 15 years.
The payback period for use of innovative water-saving fittings and products
is then calculated by comparing the lifecycle cost for implementing standard and water-efficient solutions. The year at which the same lifecycle cost
is achieved is the payback period.
Findings
Using a range of occupancy levels per dwelling, Table 13.1 summarises the
water consumption from both standard and water-efficient products and fittings. From this data, it is evident that dwellings with standard water products and fittings utilise significantly more water compared with dwellings
installed with water-saving alternatives. On average, the difference in water
consumption is about 233.6 kl/yr for one resident only and about 1297.7 kl/yr
for six occupants in a dwelling if all the alternative water-saving solutions
are employed.
If all standard water facilities are replaced with water-saving alternatives,
lifecycle savings of AUD 7294.6/GBP 4881.9 (in Perth) to AUD 28,785.4/
GBP 19,264.6 (in Adelaide) per person, in a 15-year period could be achieved
(see Table 13.2).
It was also found that all other water-saving products and fittings resulted
in significant cost savings, except the waterless composting toilets which
had negative cost savings. This is due to the potential for continuous longterm benefits, e.g. through water bills. Using this finding, further analysis
on percentage savings was carried out using occupancy numbers. Again, it
was found that it is possible to achieve up to 78.5% lifecycle cost savings
depending on how many people occupy the dwelling (see Table 13.3). Again,
the exception was the waterless composting toilets which offer little ­savings
for low-occupancy households.
Where water-saving products and fittings are installed, occupants can
save between 26% (in Perth) and 51% (in Adelaide) over a 15-year period.
This is a prime indicator that cost effectiveness can be optimised by using
the water-efficient alternatives.
Not only is it possible to achieve significant lifecycle savings with new
water-saving products and fittings, it also offers reasonable payback periods
Table 13.1 Differences in water consumption for standard water uses and alternative
sustainable innovations
Number of
occupants
Standard water
facilities (kl)
(A)
Alternative sustainable
innovations (kl)
(B)
Difference in water
consumption (kL)
(A–B)
1
2
3
4
5
6
A standard showerhead versus a water-efficient showerhead
146.0
35.0
292.0
70.1
438.0
105.1
584.0
140.2
730.0
175.2
876.0
210.2
111.0
221.9
332.9
443.8
554.8
665.8
1
2
3
4
5
6
A single-flush toilet versus a waterless composting toilet
21.9
0.0
43.8
0.0
65.7
0.0
87.6
0.0
109.5
0.0
131.4
0.0
21.9
43.8
65.7
87.6
109.5
131.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
A standard basin outlet versus a basin aerated tap
3.4
0.9
6.8
1.8
10.3
2.7
13.7
3.7
17.1
4.6
20.5
5.5
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
A standard sink outlet versus a sink aerated tap
98.6
26.3
197.1
52.6
295.7
78.8
394.2
105.1
492.8
131.4
591.3
157.7
72.3
144.5
216.8
289.1
361.4
433.6
1–4
5–6
A standard dishwasher versus a water-efficient dishwasher
7.3
3.7
36.5
18.3
3.7
18.3
1–4
5–6
A standard washing machine versus a steam washing machine
50.4
28.1
251.9
140.5
22.3
111.3
Table 13.2 Comparative lifecycle cost savings from standard and water-efficient
products and fittings in a typical residential dwelling for one occupant (in AUD$)
Device
Sydney Canberra Brisbane Melbourne
Shower
7,242.5
Toilet
−315.0
Basin
28.5
Sink
4,391.7
Dishwasher
1,390.5
Washing machine 3,967.3
Total
17,907.3
Perth
Adelaide
Darwin
7,698.9
−224.9
186.7
4,836.9
1,405.5
4,058.8
11,408.2
507.2
270.6
7,252.8
1,527.5
4,803.1
8,003.9
−164.7
193.6
5,035.5
1,415.6
4,120.1
2,472.6
−1,256.4
68.6
1,432.9
1,233.6
3,010.1
12,131.7
650.0
287.0
7,724.1
1,551.3
4,948.3
3,295.4
−1,094.0
87.2
1,968.8
1,260.7
3,175.3
18,922.7
27,175.5
19,601.3
7,294.6
28,785.4
9,125.4
Table 13.3 Percentage saving for using the alternative sustainable innovations for the
major cities in Australia
Number of occupants (% saving)
Device
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sydney
Shower
Toilet
Basin
Sink
Dishwasher
Washing machine
73.7%
−10.3%
27.2%
68.9%
15.6%
31.4%
74.8%
23.8%
39.2%
71.1%
17.3%
33.9%
75.2%
41.8%
46.0%
71.8%
18.8%
35.6%
75.4%
52.9%
50.6%
72.2%
20.2%
36.9%
75.5%
60.5%
53.9%
72.4%
21.4%
37.8%
75.6%
66.0%
56.3%
72.6%
22.6%
38.5%
Canberra
Shower
Toilet
Basin
Sink
Dishwasher
Washing machine
73.9%
−7.1%
28.7%
69.2%
15.7%
31.6%
74.9%
26.8%
40.3%
71.2%
17.5%
34.2%
75.3%
44.4%
47.1%
71.9%
19.1%
35.9%
75.4%
55.2%
51.6%
72.2%
20.5%
37.1%
75.6%
62.5%
54.7%
72.5%
21.8%
38.0%
75.6%
67.7%
57.1%
72.6%
23.0%
38.7%
Brisbane
Shower
Toilet
Basin
Sink
Dishwasher
Washing machine
74.5%
13.1%
35.3%
70.5%
16.6%
33.0%
75.3%
44.5%
47.1%
71.9%
19.1%
35.9%
75.5%
59.2%
53.3%
72.4%
21.2%
37.6%
75.6%
67.7%
57.1%
72.6%
23.0%
38.7%
75.7%
73.3%
59.7%
72.7%
24.7%
39.5%
75.7%
77.3%
61.6%
72.8%
26.1%
40.1%
Melbourne
Shower
Toilet
Basin
Sink
Dishwasher
Washing machine
73.9%
−5.1%
29.3%
69.3%
15.8%
31.7%
74.9%
28.7%
41.0%
71.3%
17.6%
34.4%
75.3%
46.0%
47.7%
71.9%
19.3%
36.1%
75.5%
56.6%
52.1%
72.3%
20.7%
37.3%
75.6%
63.7%
55.3%
72.5%
22.1%
38.2%
75.6%
68.8%
57.6%
72.6%
23.3%
38.9%
Perth
Shower
Toilet
Basin
Sink
Dishwasher
Washing machine
69.7%
−59.4%
14.0%
61.0%
14.3%
28.7%
72.5%
−32.5%
21.1%
66.5%
14.9%
30.0%
73.6%
−13.4%
26.7%
68.6%
15.5%
31.2%
74.2%
0.8%
31.2%
69.8%
16.0%
32.1%
74.5%
11.9%
35.0%
70.4%
16.6%
32.9%
74.8%
20.8%
38.1%
70.9%
17.1%
33.7%
Adelaide
Shower
Toilet
Basin
Sink
Dishwasher
Washing machine
74.6%
16.2%
36.4%
70.7%
16.8%
33.3%
75.3%
46.9%
48.1%
72.0%
19.4%
36.2%
75.5%
61.2%
54.2%
72.4%
21.6%
37.9%
75.6%
69.4%
57.9%
72.6%
23.5%
39.0%
75.7%
74.8%
60.4%
72.8%
25.2%
39.7%
75.8%
78.5%
62.2%
72.9%
26.6%
40.3%
Darwin
Shower
Toilet
Basin
Sink
Dishwasher
Washing machine
71.2%
−4.8%
16.9%
63.9%
14.6%
29.2%
73.4%
−17.5%
25.5%
68.3%
15.3%
30.9%
74.2%
2.5%
31.8%
69.9%
16.1%
32.2%
74.6%
16.7%
36.6%
70.7%
16.8%
33.3%
74.9%
27.3%
40.5%
71.2%
17.5%
34.2%
75.1%
35.5%
43.6%
71.6%
18.2%
35.0%
Table 13.4 Payback periods for alternative sustainable innovations compared with
standard water facilities
Cities and
water-saving
products
Sydney
Shower
Toilet
Basin
Sink
Dishwasher
Washing machine
Canberra
Shower
Toilet
Basin
Sink
Dishwasher
Washing machine
Brisbane
Shower
Toilet
Basin
Sink
Dishwasher
Washing machine
Melbourne
Shower
Toilet
Basin
Sink
Dishwasher
Washing machine
Perth
Shower
Toilet
Basin
Sink
Dishwasher
Washing machine
Adelaide
Shower
Toilet
Basin
Sink
Dishwasher
Washing machine
Darwin
Shower
Toilet
Basin
Sink
Dishwasher
Washing machine
Number of occupants
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.77
21.27
17.64
1.64
0.39
10.64
8.82
0.82
0.26
7.09
5.88
0.55
0.19
5.32
4.41
0.41
0.15
4.26
3.53
0.33
0.13
3.55
2.94
0.27
10.19
5.16
0.78
20.54
16.35
1.64
0.38
10.27
8.17
0.82
5.10
2.58
0.26
6.85
5.45
0.55
0.19
5.14
4.09
0.41
0.15
4.11
3.27
0.33
10.24
5.19
0.67
15.38
13.54
2.68
0.34
7.69
6.77
1.34
5.12
2.59
0.22
5.13
4.51
0.89
0.17
3.84
3.39
0.67
0.14
3.08
2.71
0.54
10.61
5.45
0.84
19.63
16.82
1.51
0.42
9.81
8.41
0.76
0.28
6.54
5.61
0.50
0.69
19.10
28.90
0.66
0.21
4.91
4.21
0.38
0.17
3.93
3.36
0.30
0.46
12.73
19.26
0.44
0.30
7.95
6.01
0.44
0.34
9.55
14.45
0.33
0.27
7.64
11.56
0.26
0.20
5.30
4.01
0.30
0.60
18.83
13.26
1.06
0.15
3.97
3.00
0.22
0.12
3.18
2.40
0.18
0.10
2.65
2.00
0.15
5.36
2.79
0.40
12.55
8.84
0.71
9.53
6.38
0.23
6.37
9.63
0.22
5.72
3.17
10.72
5.59
1.20
37.65
26.53
2.12
0.14
3.27
2.80
0.25
5.12
2.56
11.45
6.33
0.60
15.90
12.02
0.89
0.11
2.56
2.26
0.45
5.30
2.73
10.24
5.12
1.37
38.19
57.79
1.32
0.13
3.42
2.72
0.27
0.30
9.41
6.63
0.53
0.24
7.53
5.31
0.42
0.20
6.28
4.42
0.35
4.77
3.19
Lifecycle Benefits of Domestic Water-Efficient Fittings and Products
239
of between 0.10 year (for the water-efficient shower in Adelaide) and 57.79
year (for the basin aerated tap in Perth) (see Table 13.4). The payback periods
vary in different cities and are dependent on local water prices.
Conclusion
Today, water efficiency in households is becoming imperative, as demand and
population continue to put stress on water supply across towns and cities in
Australia. This chapter demonstrated that water-saving fittings and products
can be optimised to deliver cost effectiveness in residential dwellings, thereby
reducing water consumption and wastage. This was achieved by investigating
the lifecycle cost benefits of the following water-saving products and fittings:
low-flow showerheads, waterless composting toilets, flow-restricted/aerated
taps, water-efficient dishwashers and steam washing machines. It also compared the lifecycle benefits if water-efficient alternatives were implemented
in the cities of Sydney, Canberra, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and
Darwin. The performance variables used were water consumption, lifecycle
costing, payback period and percentage saving.
It was found that savings over the 15-year period for a single-occupant
dwelling ranged from $7294.565 to $28,785.369 between cities, a considerable amount. Therefore, it is clear that there are significant cost benefits to
retrofitting water-efficient products and fittings in new dwellings, particularly in Australia. The only exception was the use of waterless composting
toilets, which had little or no return over the 15-year period. The findings
show that the water efficiency performance of a dwelling can be significantly improved with innovative water-efficient fittings and products.
Further reading
ActewAGL Corporation (2010) Water price in Canberra [Online]. Available at: http://www.
actew.com.au/ [18/12/2010].
Alcamo, J., Florke, M. and Marker, M. (2007) Future long-term changes in global water resources
driven by socio-economic and climatic change. Hydrological Sciences, 52(2), 247–275.
Arnell, N.W. (1999) Climate change and global water resources. Global Environmental Change,
9(1), 31–49.
Asiedu, Y. and Gu, P. (1998) Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art review. International
Journal of Production Research, 36(4), 883–908.
Australian Bureau of Meteorology (2010) Australian rainfall trends. Australian Bureau of
Meteorology, Australian Government.
BCIS (2008) Standardized Method of Life Cycle Costing for Construction Procurement. Royal
Institute of Chartered Surveyors, London.
Brisbane City Council (2010) Water price in Queensland [Online]. Available at: http://www.
brisbane.qld.gov.au/ [25/12/2010].
City West Water Limited (2011) Water rates and charges [Online]. Available at: http://www.
citywestwater.com.au [4/1/2011].
240
Practical Examples and Case Studies
Dhillon, B.S. (1989) Life Cycle Costing: Techniques, Models, and Applications. Gordon and
Breach Science Publishers, New York.
Dhillon, B.S. (2009) Life Cycle Costing for Engineers. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Fabrycky, W.J. and Blanchard, B.S. (1991) Life-cycle Cost and Economic Analysis. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Frangopol, D., Lin, K. and Estes, A. (1997) Life-cycle cost design of deteriorating structures.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(10), 1390–1401.
Norris, G.A. (2001) Integrating life cycle cost analysis and LCA. The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 6(2), 118–120.
Power and Water Corporation (2010) Water price in Darwin [Online]. Available at: http://www.
powerwater.com.au/ [15/12/2010].
Queensland Urban Utilities (2010) Water price in Queensland [Online]. Available at: http://
www.urbanutilities.com.au/ [17/12/2010].
Sydney Water (2010) Water price rates. Water Conservation and Information Department,
Sydney Water, Australia.
Wahlquist, A. (2009) Cost of water tipped to rise by 100pc. The Australian.
Water Corporation (2010) Water price in Perth [Online]. Available at: http://www.watercorporation.
com.au/ [23/12/2010].
References
Arnell, N.W. (2004) Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and socioeconomic scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 14(1), 31–52.
Chang, N.B., Rivera, B.J. and Wanielista, M.P. (2011) Optimal design for water conservation and
energy savings using green roofs in a green building under mixed uncertainties. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 19(11), 1180–1188.
Cheng, C.L. (2003) Evaluating water conservation measures for green building in Taiwan.
Building and Environment, 38(2), 369–379.
Coombes, P.J. and Kuczera, G. (2001) Strategic use of stormwater, BDP environmental design
guide, sustainable water use. The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Adelaide.
Coombes, P.J., Kuczera, G. and Kalma, J.D. (2000a) Economic benefits arising from use of water
sensitive urban development source control measures. The Third International Conference
Hydrology and Water Resource Symposium, Institution of Engineers Australia, Perth, Australia.
Coombes, P.J., Kuczera, G., Kalma, J.D. and Dunstan, H.R. (2000b) Rainwater quality from
roofs, tanks and hot water systems at Figtree Place. The Third International Conference
Hydrology and Water Resource Symposium, Institution of Engineers Australia, Perth,
Australia.
Crennan, L. (2010) Advantages and disadvantages of low impact toilets. Water Use, Technical
Manual, Australian Government.
Environmental Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs (1999) Rainwater tanks: their selection, use
and maintenance. Department of Environmental Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs,
Government of South Australia, Australia.
Farrelly, M. and Brown, R. (2011) Rethinking urban water management: experimentation as a
way forward? Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 721–732.
Jorgensen, B., Graymore, M. and O’Toole, K. (2009) Household water use behaviour: an integrated model. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 227–236.
Kubba, S. (2010) Water Efficiency and Sanitary Waste. LEED Practices, Certification and
Accreditation Handbook. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, pp. 271–291.
Lambooy, T. (2011) Corporate social responsibility: sustainable water use. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 19(8), 852–866.
14
Water Efficiency in Office Buildings
Lee Bint, Robert Vale and Nigel Isaacs
School of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Introduction
Water efficiency, as a function of water demand management, cannot be
approached without first understanding how buildings consume purchased and
supplied water. There is significant dependence on the availability of water in
buildings, yet there is little understanding of its end-uses, and what constitutes
good or bad performance in terms of consumption. This knowledge is required
to make educated decisions for the implementation of water-efficient design.
With the aim of understanding the water performance of New Zealand’s
commercial office buildings, 93 office buildings in Auckland (New
Zealand’s largest city, in the upper North Island) and Wellington (the
­capital, in the lower North Island) were investigated between 2009 and
2012. The study involved two stages of water auditing. The first was
through survey-level water audits, which comprised the assessment of
­historic water billing records, correspondence with building managers, and
inspection of each building and its water end-uses. The second stage was a
detailed full water audit of three buildings, using monitoring equipment to
understand time-of-use patterns.
The research was undertaken to develop not only water performance
guidelines, but also an implementable model of water demand which
would sit well in the targeted industry. A detailed statistical analysis was
undertaken to determine the most appropriate benchmarking model, and
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
242
Practical Examples and Case Studies
a water ­efficiency rating tool (WERT) was developed for implementation
(see Bint, 2012 for further information).
Methodology
In order to achieve these aims, three phases of field work were undertaken.
Firstly, survey-level water audits were undertaken on 37 office buildings in
Auckland and 56 in Wellington. This involved gaining consent from the
building managers, visiting the site and assessing historic water billing
information from the local billing utility. The primary purpose of the
­survey-level water audits was to determine if water-use benchmarks could
be developed using performance-based data from the existing buildings,
while also assessing the installed water end-uses.
Secondly, full water audits were undertaken on three Wellington ­buildings.
This involved attaching temporary logging equipment onto the main water
meter(s) to determine if any time-of-use patterns or trends could be identified. This detailed monitoring aids in understanding how water is used, and
where water-use efficiency efforts could be focused.
Finally, two industry-based workshops were held in 2011 to understand
current industry challenges, gauge the effectiveness of the previous results
from an industry perspective, propose future industry movements in water
efficiency in New Zealand and provide benchmarking feedback.
Building performance
Benchmarking of water consumption is a useful way to measure building
performance, help assess improvement potential and ascertain whether or
not water use can be minimised in a cost-effective manner. A benchmark
is a calculated model representative of a group of buildings which share
­similarities (for example, similarities of occupancy and/or location).
The New Zealand benchmark development study found that an office
building’s net lettable floor area (NLA) is the most statistically (r2 = 0.71) and
pragmatically appropriate normalisation measure for benchmarking water
use. The unit of measurement is cubic metres of water per square metre of
NLA, per year (m3/m2/yr). Further analysis of the variance in the samples
identified that Auckland and Wellington required individual benchmarks;
the Auckland buildings used less than the Wellington buildings on average.
The benchmarks for each region are shown in Table 14.1.
In theory, there should not be wide variance in benchmark water use in
office buildings between regions for any reasons other than cultural ways
of using water and any climatically influenced evaporative losses. This is
because water in office buildings is generally used for the same purposes –
i.e., sanitation, domestic activities and environmental conditioning.
Water Efficiency in Office Buildings
243
Table 14.1 Water performance benchmarks
Auckland
(m3/m2/yr)
Benchmark
(% of sample at this
level or better)
Wellington
(m3/m2/yr)
0.57
0.76
0.97
Best case (25%)
Typical (50%)
Excessive use (75%)
0.73
1.03
1.33
International ‘Typical’ Benchmarks
1.80
Water use index (m3/m2/year)
1.60
1.59
1.40
1.20
1.21
1.00
1.03
0.80
0.60
0.52
0.40
0.20
0.00
Figure 14.1
0.60
0.66
0.76
0.30
0.16
ISA
ISA
Watermark
(Belgium) (pan-Europe) (UK)
CIRIA
(UK)
ISA
(Germany)
Auckland
(NZ)
Wellington NABERS
(NZ)
(Australia)
CIEUWS
(USA)
International comparison of water use benchmarks
Climate normalisation adjustments generally assume that warmer
c­ limates use more water, based on the increased need for irrigation and heat
rejection for mechanical ventilation. Figure 14.1 shows the warmer, more
humid climates (such as Australia) have a higher water use index (WUI).
However, this is not found in New Zealand, where Auckland office buildings (ca. 15 °C average temperature) use less water than Wellington office
buildings (ca. 12 °C average temperature).
Influences on water efficiency
Additional investigation was undertaken to explore the apparent difference
between the two cities. An insight was provided by a property owner with
portfolios in both cities, who stated that the water bills in Auckland were
four times what they paid in Wellington. It therefore made economic sense
to apply water-efficient measures in the place where they could yield the
most financial benefit.
244
Practical Examples and Case Studies
A tariff analysis of all water-related costs was undertaken to confirm
this premise. The water end-uses were also assessed to determine if this
­difference was being driven by water-efficient appliances. Finally, at the two
industry workshops, participants were asked about this issue to gauge the
level of industry awareness.
Tariff structures
Both Auckland and Wellington commercial building owners pay for their
incoming potable water on a volumetric tariff. However, the Auckland tariff
structure for waste water is based on a percentage of incoming potable water
(with the reduced percentage attributed to evaporative losses). In Wellington,
as the ‘three waters’ (waste water, storm water and potable water) are not
managed under one control, neither are their charging mechanisms. The
waste water (and storm water) portion is calculated based on the capital
value of the building and charged for through the annual council rates, while
the potable water is charged on a bi-monthly meter reading. Table 14.2 gives
an outline of the difference in both price and charging mechanisms for
Auckland and Wellington during 2011.
At first examination, Auckland’s tariff structure offers more visible incentives (or opportunities) for the reduction of water. To explore this, these
tariffs were applied to an office building of hypothetical NZD$59 million
capital value with an average water use of 28,000 m3/yr (Table 14.3).
Table 14.2 Auckland and Wellington 2011 water tariffs
Auckland tariff
Charge
Wellington tariff
Monthly invoice
NZD$43/water meter
NZD$1.300/m3
NZD$4.056/m3
based on 75% of incoming water
Annual service fee
Incoming potable water
Outgoing waste water
Bi-monthly invoice
NZD$100/water meter
NZD$1.715/m3
0.00130171%
capital value
Table 14.3
Hypothetical scenario of costs in 2011
Auckland
Wellington
On water invoice
Total charge
Charge
Total charge
On water invoice
NZD$43
NZD$36,400
NZD$43
NZD$36,400
NZD$100
NZD$48,020
NZD$100
NZD$48,020
NZD$85,176
NZD$85,176
NZD$76,801
Not on invoice
NZD$121,260
NZD$121,260
Annual service fee
Incoming potable
water
Outgoing waste
water
TOTAL
NZD$124,921
NZD$48,120
Water Efficiency in Office Buildings
245
Table 14.4 Water efficiency implementation cost–benefit comparison
Location
Cost of installation
Auckland
Wellington
NZD$4407
Savings
(m3/yr)
2195
Savings (NZD$/yr)
Payback period
(years)
9532
3765
0.46
1.17
Table 14.3 shows that the building in Auckland pays approximately 3% less
for water than Wellington overall, but based on the water invoice they have
a far greater visible incentive to reduce their water use.
To explore this further, Table 14.4 shows the results of considering water
efficiency improvements in an identical building in Auckland and
Wellington. It is assumed that 60% of the 327 occupants are male, and use
the urinals twice per day, 249 days a year. The building currently has 13
multi-user trough urinals flushing (9 litres) every 20 minutes on a cyclic
automation. Table 14.4 shows the results of upgrading the flushing mechanism to a microwave sensor-activated flushing system, at a cost of NZD$4407
(including unit and installation costs). This changes the flushing rate to
user-activated as opposed to time-activated – nothing else changes.
The payback period is less than six months in Auckland, but over one
year in Wellington; confirming that the observation made by the property
manager is partially misinformed (both have a very good payback) and
­partially true (the more visible financial benefit of installing water-efficient
devices is in Auckland).
It is hypothesised that one of the most effective approaches to encourage
demand-side water management (in all sectors) is through universal
­volumetric charging. For instance, residential water users in Auckland
have been charged volumetrically for some time, and it is believed that the
resulting shift in behaviour of water consumption is brought through to
other sectors. There has been a visible decline both in the gross per capita
water consumption and in the total water demand since demand management was first implemented in Auckland in the late 1980s (Figure 14.2).
Figure 14.2 shows a smaller decline in gross per capita consumption at the
time of volumetric waste-water charging from the late 1990s. Prior to this,
the charging mechanism for waste water was similar to the current
Wellington regime.
Further discussions in the Auckland water industry suggest that the
1994 drought caused the regional per capita water demand to reduce due to
unavoidable education about water shortages and promotion of the value
of water.
It would therefore appear that water use is higher in Wellington due to the
lack of visible pricing incentives. While behavioural influences and awareness are probably higher in Auckland, so is the visible cost of water.
Practical Examples and Case Studies
Historical water use 1980–2010
475
Universal metering begins
in Auckland
450
425
400
Volumetric wastewater
charging from late 1990s
Metrowater reduce
non-revenue losses
Watercare led demand
management programme
starts
Drought
of 1994
Figure 14.2
350
325
300
Recession
of 2008–09
Actual total demand
375
Litres per person per day
380,000
370,000
360,000
350,000
340,000
330,000
320,000
310,000
300,000
290,000
280,000
270,000
260,000
250,000
240,000
230,000
220,000
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Demand m3/d
246
275
250
Gross per capita consumption (PCC)
Historical water demand for Auckland
Source: Watercare Services Limited (2010).
Water end-uses
The initial benchmarking study analysed historic billing data in the form
of monthly (Auckland) or bi-monthly (Wellington) meter readings. To assess
the hourly, daily and weekly water use patterns it was necessary to conduct
a monitoring study. Three Wellington office buildings were therefore fitted
with water-monitoring equipment (pulse sensors and data loggers).
The study found that 10-minute monitoring intervals provided the
­optimum balance for the level of detail and data management. However,
10-second readings could be used if leak detection and individual monitoring were required. None of the monitored buildings used water-cooled heat
rejection (HVAC) systems.
The daily and weekly water use patterns proved to be representative of the
building’s occupied hours. The building in Figure 14.3 had a Monday-toSaturday café on the ground floor, with Monday-to-Friday office use. In
­addition to the normal daytime use, a second spike can be seen in the early
evening due to cleaning.
The base-flow periods are clearly visible over the duration of the week.
However, water is still being consumed when there are no occupants. This
indicates that base-flows are not driven by the presence of occupants, but
rather by the building, its systems and/or appliances. The hours of occupation drive the demand above base-flow due to the occupants using the
appliances.
During the monitoring period, a toilet valve malfunctioned, wasting
174 m3 of potable water and causing the storage tanks to stay empty for a
period of three days. A similar occurrence happened one month later (see
247
Water Efficiency in Office Buildings
Daily water use in a Wellington
building
140
180
160
Litres per 10-minutes
100
80
60
40
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
20
0
0
Week-day
Figure 14.3
n
Su
y
da
on
M
ay ay
ay
ay
sd rsd Frid turd
u
Sa
Th
ay
sd
e
Tu
e
dn
e
W
Week-end
A monitored building’s daily and weekly water use patterns
Annual water use by building
140
y
da
2 AM
4 AM
6 AM
8 AM
10 AM
12 PM
2 PM
4 PM
6 PM
8 PM
10 PM
12 AM
Litres per 10-minutes
120
Leak occurrences
500
450
120
400
Litres per 10-minutes
Studied building weekly consumption
in kilo litres per week (kL/week)
Weekly water use in a Wellington
building
100
80
60
40
350
300
250
200
150
100
20
50
–
0
A
pr
ay un Jul Aug Sep Oct ov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
N
M J
y
da
rs
u
Th
ay
id
Fr
ay
rd
tu
Sa
24–30 March 2011
Figure 14.4
ay
nd
Su
y
da
on
M
y
da
es
Tu
y
da
es
n
ed
W
28 April–4 May 2011
A monitored building’s annual water use pattern and leak occurrences
Figure 14.4). Effective monitoring, with leak detection alarms, would have
allowed the leak to be identified quickly.
The water use appears to be relatively consistent during the year, with the
exception of the leak-induced spikes. However, over the December/January
summer holiday period, water consumption reduced almost completely to
zero. This is similar in the water demand profiles for the region.
248
Practical Examples and Case Studies
Estimated commercial building water
end-uses in Sydney
WERT calculated end-uses
averaged all scenarios
Shops 3%
r 2%
Othe
Irrigation 1%
Cooling
31%
Amenities
37%
Misc
12%
HVAC
25%
Leakage/
baseflow
26%
Domestic
amenities
63%
Restroom
49%
Kitchen
14%
Figure 14.5 Water end-uses (wet cooling tower) for Sydney (Australia) (Quinn et al.,
2006) and New Zealand (Bint, 2012)
Data from all 93 buildings were entered into the water efficiency rating tool
(WERT) (Bint, 2012) in order to calculate an average end-use breakdown
(Figure 14.5, right). For those buildings using water-cooled HVAC systems,
the HVAC used between 21% and 29% of the annual water bill. Of the
­domestic amenity water usage, 25% was attributed to toilets, 20% to urinals,
29% to wash hand basins, 12% to showers and under 1% for cleaners’ sinks.
These results were compared to Quinn’s (2006) Australian study
(Figure 14.5, left), which demonstrated similar proportions for HVAC/Cooling.
Although the introduction of the New Zealand standard for the water
efficiency labelling scheme (WELS) (Standards New Zealand, 2005) has led
to an increase in the use of water-efficient appliances, this has not been fully
translated into the buildings studied. In the Wellington and Auckland buildings studied, the majority (89%) of all installed toilets were single-flush, not
dual-flush systems. Similarly, 52% of the urinals installed within the buildings were operating on a cyclic flushing system, meaning that approximately
4 litres (wall-pod urinals) or 9 litres (trough urinals) of water is flushed
through each urinal every 15–20 minutes, all hours of the day and night.
The average retrofit cycle in New Zealand commercial office buildings is
ca. 15 years, so it is expected that more water-efficient appliances will be used
in the future. WERT suggests that approximately 28% of office building water
use could be saved through the use of more efficient domestic appliances.
Supplier–customer–consumer relationships
At present, the only form of end-user education is through the water bill sent
to the building owners. Auckland’s water service providers already have an
educational strategy in place in the form of a simple graphic on their residential water bill; but there is no similar feedback for non-residential users.
Water Efficiency in Office Buildings
249
Discussions with office building managers suggest the biggest transitional
barrier to water-sensitive thinking is educating customers and consumers
through action-related information and communication. Without volumetric
charging – both for residential customers and commercial tenancies – the
end-users cannot fully appreciate the cost of water. One method is for the
building manager to install sub-meters for each tenancy, or divide the water
bill by the proportion of tenanted floor space, providing some feedback.
However, only three of the 93 buildings studied had such cost-recovery
mechanisms in place.
Industry involvement
Two industry workshops were used to understand current challenges, gauge
the effectiveness of the benchmarking study results and explore future industry interest. The core of each workshop involved providing the participants
with the results of the benchmarking study in order to gauge its usefulness.
The next stage of the workshops was interactive. Participants were split
into groups of three to discuss the challenges and struggles they face in
achieving water efficiency in their buildings. This brought together, often
for the first time, a range of industry personnel (water services staff, consultants, engineers and building managers) to discuss these issues.
The common issue that arose from the workshops was the lack of education for customers (those paying for the water) and consumers (those using
the water). In Wellington, the lack of incentives to reduce consumption
through tariff structures was queried. The Wellington group were in favour
of a tariff restructure to match Auckland as they could see benefits to both
building managers and water service providers.
These results are similar to those from the British study by Doron et al.
(2011), which also identified a lack of educational information for both
­customers and consumers.
Conclusions and recommendations
The research shows that benchmarking water demand is one method of
measuring building performance. The work has provided a tool to compare
the performance of buildings within and between regions. The tool helps
assess potential for improvement, as well as the cost effectiveness of water
conservation and efficiency strategies.
Based on this New Zealand case study of 93 commercial office buildings, it was concluded that regional benchmarks, as opposed to national
benchmarks, were necessary. In this case, it was hypothesised to be due
to the tariff differences between the two regions, as Wellington buildings
do not pay for wastewater on a volumetric basis. Other key Auckland
250
Practical Examples and Case Studies
influences may include universal metering for both residential and
commercial users, and the recent educational experience of drought-­
­
influenced shortages.
The monitoring study concluded that the base-flow loads were not necessarily determined by the presence or absence of people, but were driven by
the building and/or its appliances. However, the daytime load – i.e., that
above the base water loads – is mostly determined by occupants using
­appliances, and demonstrates the most opportunity for improvement.
The data allowed the development of the WERT tool, which in turn
made it possible to determine the percentage of water going to specific
end-uses. For example, water-cooled HVAC systems used about a quarter
of the total water. A large proportion of the water bill was attributed to
domestic amenities, with toilets, urinals and wash hand basins demonstrating the most room for improvement. Upgrading to water-efficient
domestic appliances could result in an average savings potential of 28%
per building.
Based on the information presented, active educational strategies
(i.e., ­tariff structures, cost-recovery methods, etc.) have the potential to
increase user awareness to conserve water or use water efficiently.
In summary, the biggest barrier to improved water efficiency is educating the customers and consumers. Both building owners and consultants
could see benefits through the use of tariffs which made visible the costs
not only of incoming potable water but also outgoing waste water. This
offers a win/win situation; charging users for their actual consumption
(and associated waste) has the potential to reduce the costs for customers
(through self-implementation of water efficiency measures) and also
reduce demand on the supply network, thereby postponing infrastructure
investment.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are expressed for funding support to the Building Research Levy and
the Building Energy End-use Study (BEES), both through BRANZ. Participants
of the auditing study and the industry-based workshops – and the many
­others who contributed to this research – are also thanked.
Further reading
Bint, L. (2012) Water performance benchmarks for New Zealand: understanding water
­consumption in commercial office buildings. Thesis submitted to the Victoria University of
Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Building Science, New Zealand.
Water Efficiency in Office Buildings
251
References
Bint, L. (2012) Water performance benchmarks for New Zealand: understanding water
­consumption in commercial office buildings. Thesis submitted to the Victoria University of
Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Building Science, New Zealand.
Doron, U., Teh, T., Haklay, M. and Bell, S. (2011) Public engagement with water conservation
in London. Water and Environment Journal, 25(4), 555–562.
Quinn, R. (2006)Water Efficiency Guide: Office and Public Buildings. Department of the
Environment and Heritage, Australian Government.
Standards New Zealand (2005) NZS 6400:2005 Water Efficiency Products – Rating and
Labelling. Standards New Zealand.
Watercare Services Limited (2010) Auckland Regional Water Demand Management Plan.
Watercare Services Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand.
15
Lessons from a New Water Treatment
Plant in a Water-Stressed Region
Davood Nattaghi and Poorang Piroozfar
School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, UK
Introduction
The Province of Khorassan-e-Razavi spans over 8% of Iran’s total area
and accommodates approximately 8% of the country’s population. The Holy
Shrine of Imam Reza, the 8th Shia’s Imam, is located in Mashhad, the
­capital city of this province. Millions of pilgrims from Iran and neighbouring
countries visit annually. More relevant is that the rapid growth in the city’s
population and its booming economy has significantly increased water
­consumption in the province. As a consequence, the city is struggling to
keep up with its potential for sustainable development.
Some comprehensive measures have been implemented by the state
­government to overcome this environmental challenge and to provide vital
water resources for the agricultural, domestic and industrial sectors. These
include: new irrigation technologies to optimise water use for agricultural
purposes; expanding the reuse of treated waste water; the construction of
artificial recharge structures; and the management of water in watersheds
using non-structural technologies. Nonetheless, these measures have proved
insufficient to overcome the water shortage problem and the option of
sourcing and transporting water from other regions to the province is being
proposed. One such project, costing over £200 million, is to build a new dam
on the border with one of the neighbouring countries. The dam infrastructure will include a 180-km pipeline, five pumping stations and a water
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Lessons from a New Water Treatment Plant in a Water-Stressed Region 253
treatment plant (WTP), all to link up with Mashhad’s water distribution
network. Mashhad already has two other WTPs, each with a capacity
of 1 m3/s, which are under-utilised due to the shortage of water supply.
Therefore, this new project is significant for providing potable water to
the city.
Case study: Mashhad water treatment plant
The case study WTP is located in Mashhad. It was designed with a
­capacity of 6 m3/s (max. 7 m3/s), which makes it the third biggest WTP in the
­country. The main water supply for this WTP is through a 180-km, 80-inch
pipeline from a dam constructed on the Iranian/Turkmenistan border, which
has a capacity of up to 1 billion m3. This WTP is designed in four independent
modules, each of which is capable of treating up to 1.5 m3/s raw (inlet) water.
Any of these four modules can be operated ­independently based on the
amount of inlet water. The construction of this WTP started in 2005, and
was due for completion by 2007. This did not happen because of financial
constraints, as well as problems during the design and ­construction phases.
The initial design patent belonged to a French company, however, the
operator decided to proceed with the project relying on Iranian consultants
and contractors. This was mainly due to the fact that the project was initially
started by the French company but put on hold because of international sanctions. In addition, high political pressure, the high costs of keeping a project
on hold in the hope of restarting it again at some unknown point in the
future, as well as the commissioning costs of a European consultant – and the
understanding that savings could have been made by utilising locally available knowledge and expertise – were other contributing factors. Therefore,
an Iranian consultant with notable previous experience in the field was called
in to design the project. The consultant was also encouraged to use the construction and operation experiences of existing WTPs in the region and
throughout the country; some of which were designed by the French company decades ago, and hence considered outdated at the time. Further to
newer technologies envisaged to be employed in this WTP, the treatment
capacity was remarkably high and the treatment process was unique.
The water treatment process
The WTP consists of different facilities including flow meter, inlet chamber,
flash mixer, vacuum chamber, clarifier, sand filter, backwash system and
recovery tank, pre- and post-disinfection units, chemical solution preparing
building, mechanical dewatering unit and control room.
The raw water is delivered into the inlet chamber, where it is aerated
(Figure 15.1). This removes some of the odour and colour. Then it is
254
Practical Examples and Case Studies
Figure 15.1
Inlet chamber of the WTP
disinfected using two alternative methods. The first and main method is the
advanced oxidation process (AOP). The second method is chlorination,
which would be used as an alternative in case of AOP system failure.
After the disinfection process is complete, the water is directed to the flash
mixer units where the chemical solutions are injected into the water in order
to commence the coagulation and flocculation process. After the chemical
solution is mixed with water, the suspended floccule particles are removed.
This happens through the clarifier units. A Superpulsator® is used as the clarifier in this project. These clarifiers will eliminate 80–90% of the suspended
particles. As a result, the water turbidity is significantly reduced. In the clarifiers, the suspended and flocculated particles are discharged and sent to the
sludge thickener unit and then to a mechanical dewatering unit. However,
some particles or impurities may escape the clarifier. Therefore, another stage
is required to remove all the impurities and particles. This is done by rapid
sand filter. And finally, chlorine is injected into the treated water for postdisinfection. At this point, the treated water is expected to meet international
standards for potable water quality with turbidity less than 0.5 NTU.1
Figure 15.2 shows a simplified block flow diagram for the WTP.
1
The NTU (nephelometric turbidity unit) is the measure of fine suspended matter in water.
Lessons from a New Water Treatment Plant in a Water-Stressed Region 255
Disinfection
unit
Raw water
from Doosti dam
Inlet
chamber
Superpulsator clarifier
unit
Legend
Water
Sludge
Figure 15.2
Recovered water
Filtration
unit
Sludge
thickener
unit
Treated water To distribution
reservoir
network
Mechanical
dewatering
unit
Sludge cake
Simplified block flow diagram of a WTP
Practical problems associated with the new WTP
There are some distinct specifications and features in Mashhad WTP
which distinguish it from other WTPs across the country. The first is using
a patented Superpulsator® for the clarification system. This was the first
time that this technology was utilised in the country. The design could
maximise the flexibility of the treatment process and also reduce the
­capital costs of the concrete structures. The second important feature of
this WTP is the use of the dewatering unit to gain water from the sludge
produced in the clarifier units. This maximises the efficiency of the WTP
and reduces the amount of waste water. Another distinct design feature is
the AOP system, which uses ozone and other compounds for disinfection
purposes to improve the water quality. The most serious challenge to the
project was the manufacture and installation of the lamella plates used
in the Superpulsator® unit. The other significant problem was associated
with the mechanical sludge dewatering unit. Therefore, the advantages
and disadvantages of these technologies will be discussed in more detail.
The Superpulsator®
The Superpulsator® is a compact and economical sludge blanket unit
derived from the Pulsator®. The Superpulsator® clarifier combines
basic chemical principles and improves clarification technology in a
­high-rate ‘solids contact clarifier’ that offers maximum efficiency. Vacuumgenerated flow pulsations create a homogeneous sludge blanket that
results in e­xcellent effluent quality at minimal operating costs. The
Superpulsator® clarifier combines the principles of a sludge blanket and
solids contact s­ ystem into a single high-rate clarification unit, capable of
removing turbidity, colour, TOC and other constituents in water applications. The use of lamella plates, combined with the respective advantages
of sludge contact settling and sludge blanket pulsing in a Pulsator®
­clarifier, could improve the performance of this type of clarifier by up to
256
Practical Examples and Case Studies
Detail A
mm
Lamella plate
20
00
Lamella plate
4950 * 2000 mm
m
60°
0m
40
Su
pe
Detail A
50
00
Figure 15.3
rpu
lsa
tor
ba
sin
mm
Lamella plate details in Superpulsator® basin
60% compared with older systems, e.g. Pulsator® clarifiers (Degrémont,
2007). Nonetheless, constructing such a new technology for the first time
brought up some challenges for the project.
Problems associated with production process of lamella plates
For the lamella plates, the main constraints were their dimension, the
material and more importantly, the installation. The size of lamella
plate for this project was set to be 5 m by 2 m with a thickness of just
5 mm (see Figure 15.3).
Another challenge was the material. According to the project’s production
documents, the initial material specified by the designers was glass reinforced plastic (GRP). Manufacturing lamella plates of the given size out of
GRP was not an easy task in practice for domestic manufacturers due to the
lack of necessary manufacturing technologies. Also, exposure of the GRP
to UV radiation and sunlight could result in chipping. Lastly, the cost of
producing the plates was considerable. Therefore, other design alternatives
were considered within the limits of manufacturing technologies available
locally and nationally. Viable material options to replace the GRP in the
lamellas included a galvanised frame with asbestos plate, stainless steel and
aluminium. From a technical point of view, asbestos plates were discounted
due to weight, brittleness and the health and safety problems of asbestos in
drinking water facilities. Stainless steel was also rejected due to high costs.
Finally, aluminium was approved as a viable option after initial cost
­analysis, compliance checks with codes and legislations, and the successful
testing of an installed sample. However, the aluminium lamella plates
Lessons from a New Water Treatment Plant in a Water-Stressed Region 257
Figure 15.4
White spots on some of the lamella plates
showed problems in the operation stage after two months. Some white
spots, possibly corrosion, appeared on the plates (see Figure 15.4).
It was found that the spots appeared only on some of the lamellas.
Nonetheless, this contradicted both the aluminium’s chemical specification, which is resistant against weathering, and the plates’ specifications
(nickel-anodised), which should prevent corrosion even under water.
Problems associated with installation process of lamella plates
Regardless of the material, the lamella plates were difficult to install due
to their large dimensions as well as the difficulty of working in concrete
basins. There were two options for installation. The first option was to prefabricate the plates, then transport and assemble them in the Superpulsator®
basins. The second option was to build them in smaller units on-site, moved
and mounted into the basins (see Figure 15.5).
The first option proved impracticable due to the dimensional limitations
of the basins. Therefore, the second option had to be selected. Another
change, which was applied during lamella installation, was in the distance
between them. Owing to installation barriers and to reduce capital costs,
the technical team decided to increase the distance between the lamella
plates from 350 mm to 400 mm. This resulted in a 20% reduction in the
amount of material. To maintain the performance of the lamella plates, the
total surface of the plate increased by changing the plain plates into sinuousshaped (corrugated) plates (see Figures 15.3–15.5). The other advantage of
this modification was strengthening the structure of the lamella plates.
However, during the operational phase, these modifications caused two distinct problems. First, the Superpulsator® clarifier performance was less than
258
Practical Examples and Case Studies
Figure 15.5
Lamella installation in Superpulsator® basin
expected. Second, and more important, was the previously mentioned
­corrosion problem which started within two months of use and grew rapidly.
Two hypotheses were proposed by the technical team to explain the
­corrosion; first was that it was caused by impurities in the material and
water-corrosive specification. Water and material analyses in the laboratory
did not prove this to be right. The second hypothesis, which was more
likely to be true, asserted that these white spots were the result of galvanic
corrosion. The aluminium frame of lamella plates became connected to
the reinforcement steel in concrete during the installation process and
water, acting as an electrolyte, caused the corrosion. In consequence, the
Superpulsator® basin and lamella plates turned into an electrochemical
cell where the aluminium plates acted as an anode and oxidised.
As mentioned before, the WTP was designed and constructed in four modules. Corrosion happened in the first two modules, allowing sufficient time
to identify and resolve the problem for the last two modules. The proposed
solution was simply to use acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) washers to
isolate the anchor bolts that connected the lamella frames to concrete
walls. Then, liquid polyelectrolyte (PE) was injected into the bolt holes on
the wall, to minimise the chance of connection between the aluminium
lamellas and the steel reinforcement. Once operational, the last two ­modules
of the Mashhad WTP had a significantly lower number of lamella plates
with white spots. This proved that the modifications were successful.
Lessons from a New Water Treatment Plant in a Water-Stressed Region 259
Mechanical sludge dewatering unit
The sludge drained from the Superpulsator® clarifier still contains a notable
amount of water. To save water, the excessive water from Superpulsator®
can be fed back into the process using two distinct sections which were
designed and implemented in the WTP for this purpose. The first was the
sludge thickener, followed by the mechanical dewatering unit. These two
units were crucial to save water, due to water shortages in the region and
high costs of transmitting it to the city.
Compared with the sludge thickener unit which is basically a simple
concrete basin that acts under gravity force to thicken the sludge, the
­
mechanical dewatering unit is a rather complex and more expensive facility.
It consists of three belt-filter2 press machines with associated accessories
and a concrete building to accommodate the facilities (Figure 15.6). The
total designed capacity of the mechanical dewatering was 50 m3/h of sludge
at 5% concentration. In 2005, the total capital cost invested in the dewatering facilities was more than £700,000.
Figure 15.6
WTP mechanical sludge dewatering unit
2
A belt-filter press is a sludge dewatering machine that applies mechanical pressure to a
conditioned sludge between its two belts.
260
Practical Examples and Case Studies
In the WTP, the drained sludge water from the clarifier is directed to the
sludge thickener units through concrete canals. From there, the sludge
is transferred to mechanical dewatering units for final processing.
Typically, a belt-filter press should receive sludge ranging from 2% to 5%
concentration. If the concentration of the sludge is reduced, the amount of
chemical conditioner will need to increase. Hence, by increasing consumption of chemical conditioner, the running costs would rise dramatically.
The environmental impact of the chemical conditioner was also considered. The concentrated sludge is then transferred to an open area by a
­conveyer belt, and the recovered water is directed to a reservoir tank. The
system was designed to pump the recovered water to the inlet chamber of
the WTP, at the start of the treatment process. This has two advantages – it
reduces the amount of waste water and it enhances the treatment process
since the recovered water still contains a small amount of sludge mixed
with some polyelectrolyte solution. This increases the coagulation and
flocculation process in the clarifiers.
Problems associated with the mechanical sludge dewatering unit
The mechanical dewatering unit never became fully operational in the WTP
because of some technical problems. The technical team agreed that the
main problem was the low concentration of sludge generated by the process.
This is due to the low turbidity of the inlet water to the WTP. This WTP was
designed for turbidity up to 500 NTU, while in reality the inlet turbidity
varied from 2 to 20 NTU (as a result of seasonal differences). This low
­turbidity affected the clarifier’s performance and the concentration of the
drained sludge.
Another possible reason was the sub-optimal performance of the sludge
thickener due to design deficiencies. Laboratory analysis results showed
that the inlet sludge concentration delivered to the mechanical dewatering
unit was just 1%, significantly less than the norm. To overcome this ­problem
the mechanical dewatering system requires more polyelectrolyte solution
than normal, which was not economical.
It was also proposed that the change in design of the Superpulsator® clarifier could affect the dewatering unit performance. This, however, remained
as a hypothesis which could not be proved or rejected due to lack of time,
resources and ability to reconstruct Superpulsators® in their original design or
build a test sample; a normal process in the design and build of WTPs.
Some expert engineers in the consulting company proposed that the poor
performance of the belt-filter press was due to poor design. Therefore, the
sludge concentrated in the belt-filter units was tested against standard
­levels. The sludge concentration was found to be 1%. The sludge concentration was then artificially raised to 2.5% by transferring it to a secondary
basin and allowing more retention time and adding more polyelectrolyte
solution. The belt-filter press units were tested again with 2.5%
Lessons from a New Water Treatment Plant in a Water-Stressed Region 261
concentration and the result was acceptable. Design and manufacture error
as the cause of the problem was therefore discounted.
The final solution was found by changing the sludge thickener system
to a bridge-support thickener. This helped increase the concentration of
the output sludge. However, a new concrete structure would have been
required with financial, spatial and disruptive consequences. It was
­therefore ­proposed that the mechanical dewatering system be changed
from a belt-filter press to a centrifuge system which could dewater lowconcentration sludge. This option was also rejected due to financial
­constraints. Therefore, these problems remain and need more investigation to find a proper solution.
Conclusion
The WTP was proposed and built to address important water availability
issues in the province of Khorassan-e-Razavi for wider social, political and
economic gain. It was also designed and built utilising available expertise,
knowledge and experience of local consultants, contractors and manufacturers. However, due to a number of constraints, some unmanaged modifications
affected its performance – resulting in a cost and time over-run. In spite of the
challenges faced during the construction and operation phases, the project
was delivered and linked up with the existing water distribution network to
ease the water shortage problems in the city of Mashhad. Although the plant
meets its water supply targets, it generates 50 m3/h waste water, which could
have been avoided had the design, manufacture and construction stages
been planned, managed and implemented cautiously. The waste water lost
could potentially contribute to the water supply in a water-stressed area like
Khorasan. With hindsight, it can be concluded that there were measures
which could have been taken to avoid such waste, including:
•• A more robust feasibility study stage – some of the problems described in
this chapter could have been avoided if a proper, more precise feasibility
study had been conducted.
•• Design, manufacture and construction specification – following the original patent could have helped avoid all the problems associated with the
project.
•• Prototyping and testing when new modifications are introduced – this is a
routine in WTP projects but was omitted in this project due to financial
constraints.
This case example offers further opportunities to learn lessons for future
WTP projects. For example, future studies could investigate performance
optimisation of Superpulsators®, for example by varying pulse rates and
262
Practical Examples and Case Studies
duration. This may increase the concentration of the sludge output. Other
studies into the sludge thickener units in order to increase the concentration of sludge produced will also be beneficial. These studies should produce simple, cost-effective solutions for dewatering units to save thousands
of cubic metres of water. Lastly, studies on the chemical solutions used
for the coagulation and flocculation process in clarifiers could help
improve the performance of Superpulsators®.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Sazehaye Abi Co. – with which one of the authors
has continuous professional affiliations – for their kind support in developing the ideas and content of this chapter throughout and all anonymous
contributors to the project whose efforts have had indirect implications for
this case study review.
Further reading
AWWA and ASCE (2012) Water Treatment Plant Design, 5th edn. American Water Works
Association and American Society of Civil Engineers, New York/McGraw-Hill, London.
Cheremisinoff, N.P. (2002) Handbook of Water and Wastewater Treatment Technologies,
1st edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston.
Degrémont (2007) Water Treatment Handbook, 7th edn. Lavoisier, Paris.
Hosokawa, T., Iwasaki, M. and Komatsubara, H. (1999), 2nd edn. Kurita Water Industries,
Tokyo.
Spellman, F.R. (2009) Handbook of Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations,
2nd edn. Taylor and Francis Group, London.
Reference
Degrémont (2007) Water Treatment Handbook, 7th edn. Lavoisier, Paris.
16
Water-Efficient Products and
the Water Label
Yvonne Orgill, Terence Woolliscroft
and David Brindley
Bathroom Manufacturers Association (BMA), UK
Introduction
There is one topic above all others which has relevance in any country of
the world. In some areas it is a key priority and in others it is less so. It is
sustainability.
This topic – the delicate balance between people and their environment –
is more critical than ever to our human survival. In history, where sustainability failed, the consequences were devastating.
The UK bathroom industry has recognised for a long time that it has a
responsibility to ensure that its products are the most water and energyefficient and in less than a decade, the product portfolios of members of
the Bathroom Manufacturers Association (BMA)1 have been completely
­overhauled. Bathroom products are now more sustainable than ever.
The BMA is the trade association for bathroom manufacturers operating in the UK. It is
the principal ‘voice of the bathroom industry’ and acts as an information highway between
industry, government and the consumer on issues that affect the bathroom business. The
BMA represents, through its technical, marketing and management committees, the
interests of over 48 major bathroom manufacturing groups and 10 affiliate members, with
over 90 well-known brands in the marketplace. The manufacturing base directly employs
10,000+ people at over 60 sites in the UK.
1
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
264
Practical Examples and Case Studies
We have seen some interesting and quite major sustainability innovations recently. As a result, many of the products installed in today’s
­bathroom have come under scrutiny.
WCs with super-efficient flush mechanisms are now commonplace.
Taps with built-in eco-click and thermo-regulating valves are freely
available. Eco-friendly shower controls and showerheads have enjoyed
­
­massive growth and these, like click-taps, can be used to achieve savings in
both water and energy consumption. Similarly, comfortable baths with a
capacity of just 130 litres (compared with the former standard of 200 litres)
are readily available.
But how would a prospective bathroom buyer, whether a consumer or
a construction industry professional, choose the very best bathroom to
suit their requirements? With this question in mind, members of the BMA
set about designing and launching its breakthrough Water Labelling Scheme
in 2006.
The Water Label progressed rapidly from a germ of an idea into today’s
benchmark scheme which has been copied across the world. It has been the
catalyst for innovation and competition and has spawned the development
of the Water Calculator.
At present, the Water Label’s Web-enabled database holds the details
of over 2000 water-efficient bathroom products which, by default, have the
lowest carbon footprint. Around 1000 stockists, and growing, have registered
their details with the scheme. The scheme is recognised by the government
but still remains entirely voluntary.
Water and energy are inextricably linked
The UK’s population of 61 million continues to place increasing demands
for more water. Water consumption continues to rise and the government is concerned that this level of growth cannot be sustained. Domestic
water use is around 150 litres per person per day and the government
has set a target to reduce this to 130 litres per day by 2030 (DCLG, 2006).
Reducing the water consumption of every UK household is thus a priority and water efficiency is at the very top of the bathroom designers’
agenda. This is ­coupled with the knowledge that the design of groundbreaking water-­
efficient products creates bathrooms which also save
energy.
Water efficiency does not only save water but also the energy and carbon
emissions associated with its delivery and use. Large quantities of energy
are utilised in the purification, transportation and delivery of water. After
use, large quantities of energy are then needed to remove the waste and
recommence the purification cycle. Water efficiency and energy efficiency
are therefore inextricably linked.
Water-Efficient Products and the Water Label
265
Water and energy-efficient bathroom products
The message seems to be hitting home. More and more people are becoming aware of the need to conserve precious natural resources. The average
water user is gradually realising that water is not as cheap as it once was;
nor is gas or electricity. Energy costs have rocketed and continue to rise.
Since a significant part of the household energy spend links with the
­production of hot water and space heating, there are monetary incentives
for the consumer to actively search for ways to reduce utility bills. Similarly,
the cost benefits of saving water are increasingly being recognised by
the end-user.
Bathroom manufacturers are responding vigorously to the drive for
sustainability and they are playing an increasingly important role in
­
­designing and developing eco-friendly products. There is a determined and
relentless drive for water and energy efficiency by their designers. Drawing
boards are full of ideas and virtually every new product brought to market
today has water efficiency embedded into its ‘DNA’.
WCs
For years, the WC has been regarded as the bathroom’s ‘bad boy’ because
of its water-guzzling characteristics. According to Waterwise, around 30% of
the water consumption in an average UK home was, until very recently,
attributed to flushing the toilet (Waterwise, 2012).
Water supply companies in the UK are doing a lot to highlight the need
to reduce water consumption and have rightly targeted the domestic WC.
Some companies give away cistern displacement devices to reduce the
flush volume in WC suites.
These ‘freebies’ are an excellent method for highlighting the need for
water conservation. But members of the BMA are constantly frustrated by
the complaints they receive from consumers who have used these devices
but then found that their bathroom products don’t perform as they should.
Of course, it is not the original product which is at fault but the incorrect
use of the water-saving device which has caused the problem.
Bricks, bags and bottles are called cistern displacement devices and the
idea is to place one of these in the cistern and immediately save water by
reducing the flush volume. But these devices can cause problems if used in a
cistern which has been installed within the last decade. Modern low-­volume
WCs – some already down to 2.6 litres short flush – are carefully designed to
clear and cleanse the bowl. Using a displacement device will stop the WC
working correctly and more water, not less, is inevitably used. Additionally,
some plastic devices will deteriorate over a period of time and when they
crumble, they can block the drains.
The only real way to save flush water is to install a modern WC which has
water efficiency built in.
266
Practical Examples and Case Studies
Carefully designed, developed and manufactured WCs, with super-­
efficient flush, are now common. They are no longer exclusive products that
can only be found in the portfolios of a select few top-end manufacturers.
They are widespread and reliable branded products. The majority conform
to recent regulations, are guaranteed to actually work and are here to stay.
Effective average flush volumes of 3 litres (2.6 litre short flush and 4 litre
full flush) are available at realistic prices and are no longer ‘special’. At least
one innovative product is now available which combines the function of the
washbasin with the WC. In this product, waste from the basin is diverted,
disinfected and stored in the cistern prior to being used to flush the toilet.
This type of breakthrough thinking is simple and effective for saving water.
The move to low-volume flushing has also given manufacturers the
chance to revisit the fundamental design of the WC suite, creating new
opportunities, for example rimless or rim-free pans. Rim-free designs have
been the stars of the current crop of trade exhibitions. Clever design of the
rim without the usual invert or box section is now possible since lowervolume flushing is more easily controlled and has a lesser tendency to splash
or overflow. The resulting improvement in hygiene and ‘cleanability’ has
been embraced by busy and careful householders. Commercial versions
have also started appearing in hospitals and care establishments.
Taps
Taps (faucets) with built-in click-stop technology and hot-water temperature regulation have become freely available within the last d
­ ecade. These
not only save water but also save energy since less hot water is wasted.
They are also ultra-safe in the family bathroom. These hi-tech taps have
seen steady growth in the UK as a result of changes to household plumbing s­ ystems and water pressure. The internal valve mechanisms, made
from technical ceramics, usually have very small water ­
passages but
­high-­pressure water allows designers to create sufficient water flow for
satisfactory use.
The styling and functionality of these new taps is blossoming and the
choice is greater than ever before. Specialist manufacturers have invested
heavily in designing products which are both eco-friendly and easy to install.
Low-flow units with click-stop functionality give both a tactile and an
audible click so that the user can easily tell when the tap is on full flow or
half flow. The more advanced units control the temperature – safety and
energy saving being in the minds of the designers. For gadget lovers, taps
with built-in temperature-sensitive LEDs glow red or blue depending on
the temperature of the flow. Additionally, elegant curvaceous models have
arrived and so too have simple joystick controls.
Aerated-spray taps are particularly useful in the cloakroom or en-suite
rooms for simple hand washing. These achieve a minimal flow rate, way
below the taps from decades ago, but still maintain satisfying use and an
effective wash.
Water-Efficient Products and the Water Label
267
Showers
High-tech shower products are increasingly prevalent and are available
in the form of eco shower controls and showerheads. These, like click-stop
taps, provide significant savings in both water and energy consumption.
Digital shower technology has advanced to such a degree that its precise
temperature control can be accurately set to a safe maximum and play
an important part in reducing utility bills by ensuring hot and cold water is
not wasted. Thereby, energy and water supply costs are kept to a minimum.
Reducing water consumption with retro-fitted flow restrictors seems to
be an easy solution to improve water efficiency, but manufacturers know
that users don’t want a dribble of a shower. The preference remains a
shower which gives a refreshing drench, and a tap to fill the washbasin
or bath quickly. Contemporary products meet that demand but also contribute greatly to the push for sustainability.
Some members of the BMA now produce shower units with special
­showerheads which cleverly blend air with water. The result is a satisfying
and refreshing shower which uses less water than ever before. These
eco-friendly showerheads can save as much as 75% of the water used
­
­compared with a traditional handset, even at the same water pressure.
Thermostatic mixer showers ensure that hot water is not wasted since
the temperature of the water flow can be set to suit the individual. Some
digital showers can even be set to switch off after a set period.
Instantaneous electric showers have eco credentials too. They are great
water and energy savers. They heat water as it is required and a typical
­9.8-kW shower uses around 10 litres per minute maximum.
Baths
It was not so long ago when the average new bath needed to be filled with
more than 200 litres. Today, without much effort, a consumer can find a
really comfortable bath with a capacity of just 120 litres. It’s all in the design.
Manufacturers of steel or acrylic baths responded quickly to the need for
low-capacity baths. There have been two solutions to the design requirements;
the first and easiest has been the lowering of the overflow hole. But how far
can the overflow be lowered without affecting user satisfaction? A good
long soak in a bath cannot be achieved in a couple of inches of water! BMA
members realise that baths will be considered more favourably if they use less
water but at the same time meet customer expectations of a good deep soak.
The other solution has come from clever internal shaping which reduces
capacity. Shapely designs are now appearing which have a total volume as low
as 120 litres – way below the current allowed legal maximum of 230 litres.
Greywater recycling
The requirements of both the Code for Sustainable Homes and Approved
Document G of the Building Regulations are encouraging housing developers to install greywater recycling.
268
Practical Examples and Case Studies
One definition of greywater is that it is the waste water from showers,
baths, wash basins, washing machines and kitchen sinks which can be
­collected and, after basic and minimal treatment, used for other purposes
around the home such as flushing the toilet or watering the garden. These
are uses which don’t require perfectly good drinking water.
Typically, a simple basic domestic system will collect greywater and store
it before it is then reused to flush the toilet or water the garden. A more
complex system treats the greywater to a standard that can be used in
­washing machines. Note that care must be taken not to use dirty water to
irrigate crops.
The cost-effectiveness of greywater recycling is as variable as the systems themselves. The amount saved will depend on the volume of water
saved, the price of the mains water it replaced and the cost of installing,
running and maintaining the system.
Overcoming the reluctance to change
There remains reluctance by the public to embrace the new water-efficient
technologies. They are wary and fear that a product labelled ‘eco’ won’t do
the job. This is, of course, an urban myth.
The bathroom industry has a part to play in promoting the message
that eco bathrooms do perform well and do provide the bathing experience
­people have become used to. The challenge is to bring all parts of the bathroom industry together in the drive for sustainability.
The Water Label
How does a prospective bathroom buyer – whether a trade professional
or the man in the street – choose the very best bathroom to suit their
­requirements? A simple answer can be found in the Water Label.
The Water Label has grown rapidly into a benchmark scheme which
shows users the water consumption details of bathroom and kitchen products. Behind the label is a Web-enabled database of over 2000 water-efficient
bathroom products which, by default, have the lowest carbon footprint.
The key to the Water Label is the design of the product label itself, which
is similar to the familiar energy label found on white goods. It clearly
shows the volume of water that the product will consume if installed
according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For taps and showers, for
­
instance (Figure 16.1), those products which use more than 13 litres per
minute will be shown in the bottom (red) band. This band ties in with the
current harmonised British/European standards, which ask for a maximum
of 12 litres per minute with a 10% tolerance to accommodate most flow
regulators. At the other end of the scale, products using no more than 6 litres
Water-Efficient Products and the Water Label
L/Min
269
Water
label
Max. 6
Max. 8
Max. 10
Max. 13
> 13
www.europeanwaterlabel.eu
Figure 16.1
Flow rate water label
Source: http://www.europeanwaterlabel.eu/. The Water Label design is a Registered Community
design of the Water Label Company Limited: Registration Number 002229757.
per minute will be shown in the top (green) band. Consumers can see, at a
glance, the performance of each product.
A similar label for baths shows the volume they contain. Large baths with
a volume greater than 200 litres to the overflow are highlighted in the bottom
(red) band (Figure 16.2). Lower-volume baths are shown in the relevant bands.
For WC suites, the current water regulations demand that new installations must flush no more than 6 litres maximum (Figure 16.3). The water
label shows banding where the suite uses less water.
The scheme is increasingly recognised by consumers and professionals
alike. Over 1000 stockists have registered their details with the scheme. It
has also received support from the UK Government as an important tool in
the drive to meet the Green Agenda. In a recent statement Richard Benyon,
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for the
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), praised and supported the
scheme, stating that:
“Water is an invaluable resource which needs to be managed responsibly.
Whilst Government and industry can help make it easier to save water,
taking personal responsibility is at the heart of water conservation. People
need access to clear advice on how they can save water so I am pleased to
support the Bathroom Manufacturers Association in their work to develop
a labelling scheme which provides people with an easy means to identify
water efficient products.”
270
Practical Examples and Case Studies
Capacity to
overflow (litres)
Water
label
Max. 155
Max. 170
Max. 185
Max. 200
> 200
www.europeanwaterlabel.eu
Figure 16.2
Volume for baths water label
Source: http://www.europeanwaterlabel.eu/. The Water Label design is a Registered Community
design of the Water Label Company Limited: Registration Number 002229757.
Average flushing
volume (litres)
Water
label
Max. 3.5
Max. 4.5
Max. 5.5
Max. 6
>6
www.europeanwaterlabel.eu
Figure 16.3
WC suite flushing volume water label
Source: http://www.europeanwaterlabel.eu/. The Water Label design is a Registered Community
design of the Water Label Company Limited: Registration Number 002229758.
Water-Efficient Products and the Water Label
Figure 16.4
271
Screenshot of the Water Calculator by the BMA and Waterwise
Source: Available online at: http://www.thewatercalculator.org.uk/.
The Water Calculator
The product data stored in the Water Label database has been put to good
use in the accompanying Water Calculator, which is designed to make it
easier to meet the new water efficiency requirements.
This Web-based tool (Figure 16.4) is designed for and targeted at building
industry professionals. It is now used by architects, planners, specifiers, contractors, installers and others affected by the rules laid down in the Building
Regulations Approved Document G (Building Regulations, 2010) and the
Code for Sustainable Homes (DCLG, 2006); both give strict rules about
water usage in new homes. The calculator makes it easier for the professional, at the planning stage, to calculate how much water will theoretically
be consumed in a new property, based on the products chosen.
When users start a calculation they have a choice. They may register to
save all their work or they may remain anonymous and print off their results
as they go along. At this stage, the user should have a good idea of the products they want to use in the calculation as well as their preferred bathroom
brands, products and product numbers. The calculator updates itself in real
time and produces water usage figures as the user progresses.
272
Practical Examples and Case Studies
The Water Calculator is the first of its kind and users simply select from
a drop-down menu of products to calculate the water consumption of a
­property. The tool auto-completes the calculations, enabling quick and easy
specification without the hassle of gathering data from product manufacturers. When printed off they can be submitted to the planning authorities and
Building Control inspectors as proof of a building’s water consumption.
More importantly, it is entirely free.
Conclusion
The BMA launched the Water Labelling Scheme in 2006, a benchmark
scheme recognised by the government and subscribed to by many stockists
and water-efficient bathroom product manufacturers.
To embrace the new water-efficient technologies, the public need to be
confident that a product labelled ‘eco’ will work to their expectations. The
Water Label shows this by indicating the volume of water that the product
will consume if installed correctly. It is accompanied by a Water Calculator,
which can be used during budding design and specification to meet new
water efficiency regulations.
Further reading
Bathroom Manufacturers Association (BMA) website [Online]. Available at: http://www.­
bathroom-association.org.
References
Building Regulations (2010) Building Regulations for Buildings and Building, England and
Wales, Statutory Instruments 2010, No. 2214 [Online]. Available at: www.legislation.co.uk.
DCLG (2006) Code for Sustainable Homes: a step-change in sustainable home building practice
[Online]. Available at: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/code_for_sust_homes.pdf.
Waterwise (2012) Water and energy network [Online]. Available at: http://www.waterwise.org.
uk/pages/water-energy-network.html.
17
‘Greening the Green’ – Community
Water in the Age of Localism
Nick Gant,1 Jean Balnave2 and Kemi Adeyeye2
1
2
Faculty of Arts and Design, University of Brighton, UK
School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, UK
Introduction
The environmental effect of the supply and use of water should be
­everyone’s responsibility. To this end, increasing community resilience –
which impacts on behaviour and social nuances – provides a logical basis for
introducing water efficiency to the fore of social and community life (Watef,
2011a). In exploring community resilience, one needs to identify whether
the natural resources exist to overcome the identified barriers (McKenzieMohr, 2000); be it barriers to taking positive action for water or adopting
water efficiency technologies. It has been found that people are prepared to
take some DIY measures to save water, but remain ‘stuck’ within current
socio-technical systems (Allon and Sofoulis, 2006). To a large extent, the
water supply ‘­market’ in certain areas also limits the extent to which people
engage, are motivated to change or are rewarded for action taken to conserve
water. Nonetheless, evidence suggests that people are prepared to do more if
they are provided with better leadership, gain knowledge capacity, have
fewer obstacles to overcome and are incentivised accordingly.
It is not sufficient to rely on the ‘sustainably inclined’ only, high public
participation is equally required to meet water efficiency goals (MckenzieMohr). Water policy, strategies and measures are important to ­promote participation, however, the mode of delivery – the right message, given by the
right person or authority – needs to be carefully construed to avoid segmented
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
274
Practical Examples and Case Studies
response from the populace (Watef, 2011b). A variety of messages have been
used to target water consumption by individuals and in the home: ‘water is
life’, ‘save water, save energy’, etc. In view of the high price of energy compared with water, there is some focus on hot water use in buildings and homes.
Again disproportionate to other water-consuming functions, including cooling, heating, treating and distributing water to households (Waterwise, 2012).
Beyond campaigns, metering is also ­promoted as a useful water consumption
feedback tool, particularly in the UK where metering is not the norm.
A study by Graymore and Wallis (2010) found the factors that influence
water-use behaviour and response in the form of water-saving practices
include: trust in the water company, authority and government (i.e., consumer trust in the originator of the policy or measures encourages willingness to cooperate; Selnes, 1998); the perception of the abundance of water;
and the attitude to the government’s past performance on water management. These factors invoke certain individual responses, which in certain
contexts and through collective practice also influence the response of a
community to collective water efficiency measures. It is therefore imperative that national water policy considers the localised impact as well as the
type of response such policy could invoke, since any public resistance or
negative response may lead to policy failure (Dolnicar and Hurlimann, 2010).
‘Bottom-up’ agendas for community empowerment require participatory
reflection on local issues by local people, but it remains unclear if the question of water efficiency is even asked of neighbourhoods and communities.
This chapter explores water efficiency issues at the community scale,
primarily along resource resilience themes. The study falls within the
­
backdrop of recent political emphasis in the UK that encourages bottom-up
solutions (Big Society, Localism, Neighbourhood Planning). By highlighting
water as a fundamental issue and concern for the community and its governance, it subsequently discusses where the important considerations for
water are situated within ‘localism’ objectives and the new National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (e.g., page 5, paragraph 17; page 22, paragraph 94 in CLG 2012); as a ‘bottom-up’, community action process. It
concludes that water needs to be considered as an embedded and central
part of any community’s neighbourhood plan and as part of any statutory
process geared towards promoting sustainable community development.
The national planning framework as a community water
efficiency tool
Recent changes to national planning policies emphasise decentralisation, localism and participatory agendas in a bid to prioritise the voice of local communities in their own governance and development. Core principles of the new NPPF
(CLG, 2012) take into account and support local strategies to improve health,
social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and
‘Greening the Green’ – Community Water in the Age of Localism
275
c­ ultural facilities and services to meet local needs. The framework specifically
states that the planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions (see NPPF page 3, paragraph 8; CLG, 2012). There
are also sustainability and resilience provisions in the NPPF. It recognises that
planning plays a key role in helping to shape places, securing radical reductions
in greenhouse emissions, minimising vulnerability, providing resilience to the
impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and lowcarbon energy and associated infrastructure. Therefore, local planning authorities are encouraged to adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate
change (in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act,
2008), take full account of resource efficiency, promote sustainable practices,
manage flood risk, etc. In relation to energy, it stipulates that local planning
authorities should consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and
­low-carbon energy sources and support infrastructure, where this would help
secure the development of such sources. Support should also be given to community-led initiatives for renewable and low-carbon energy. However, there are
no reciprocal and explicit provisions for the management of water resources.
It appears, therefore, that both the identified interests of the community
and the demands of new legislation can potentially be complimentary.
However, the neighbourhood plan as an entity is a statutory opportunity in
iterative planning to insert water efficiency as a fundamental and systematic part of the planning of sustainable neighbourhoods; particularly in an
era of rising triple social, economic and environmental pressures. The insertion of water consideration into the processes of neighbourhood planning at
community, district and regional level will help ensure that water efficiency
is ‘owned’ and championed by communities.
It is important to highlight, though, that these methods should not utilise
public information and engagement as the rhetoric language of climate
change, desertification and ‘sustainability’. It should represent a genuine
interest to promote positive behaviour and awareness by helping to improve
the quality of life of individuals and the community as a whole. This can be
achieved by helping to sustain popular communal, social, even recreational
and leisure interests. By identifying with these popular and meaningful
points of community interest, it may be possible to recalibrate perceptions
of water efficiency and instil water supply awareness and action as an
embedded facet of normal community life and sustainable development.
The case study community
The case study community is a village situated in East Sussex, England. In its
locality, the village is considered a forward-thinking community that
embraces sustainable practices. A river flows near the village and other waterrelated assets include unused wells, the old pump house and local reservoirs.
276
Practical Examples and Case Studies
Historically, water was abstracted from a series of wells (still existing) to
serve many activities in the village. The supporting infrastructure included
the pump house and water tower (also still existing). At present, these local
sources are in disuse or disrepair but due to high and rising water costs for
keeping community facilities in service, community leaders are now considering ways to exploit existing local resources to mitigate cost and – in
line with local resilience objectives – achieve and secure local supply as
opposed to water abstracted and supplied from many miles away.
Water for recreation is essential in this community. This is either the
­supply of water for sporting activities or recreational activities (e.g., fishing,
canoeing and hiking). Community concerns about water levels in the local
river were attributed to abstraction upstream rather than climate change.
The topic of water consumption and responsibility for the water bill has
also been a serious point of contention between the Parish Council and the
local Sports Council. The problem is partially due to extended dry seasons
and increasingly unpredictable rainfall, and the reluctance of those who use
communal facilities to be metered or charged for water over and above the
normal rent. The function in and near the village green is a practical analogy
that brings to the fore issues of water resilience in the face of environ­mental,
physical, social and economic pressures.
Owing to the importance of leisure activities to the quality of community
life, decentralised supply scenarios are being considered by the community
to meet communal water and energy demands as centralised supply detaches
individuals from water processes and the water cycle. However, there are
issues of rights and privileges which constrain the exploitation of local
resources for local benefit. The market and regulatory nature of the water
industry also makes it difficult to do this, and there are no significant incentives which promote decentralised alternative water supply.
The water workshop
The methods used in the study commenced with a residence survey in 2009,
commissioned to update the Community Action Plan (2009). The survey
was a participatory process of self-reflection and planning which was
intended to give local residents a say in the development of the community.
It was supported and guided by the local community council, in collaboration with Action in Rural Sussex (AIRS), using the latter’s tried and tested
processes for community planning. Another household water (and energy)
survey was conducted in 2012. This is beyond the remit of this chapter, but
detailed findings can be seen in Balnave and Adeyeye (2012).
This chapter focuses on findings from a water workshop organised
to explore water efficiency and resilience in the community. The main
stakeholders within the village were invited to the workshop, including
‘Greening the Green’ – Community Water in the Age of Localism
277
representatives from the Parish Council, recreation ground (village green)
committee, sports clubs, the school, fishing, wildlife and river conservation,
and the Environment Agency. The workshop identified the role of water for
social activity, sport and recreation (e.g., the village green, angling). To provide some perspective, water and sewerage bills in 2009/2010 and 2010/2011
were £2319.07 and £2057.56, respectively. These costs are significant for a
parish with a small budget. Since the surveys and workshop, a water meter
was controversially imposed on the village green for the main water users
(bowls, cricket and allotments) and readings taken in 2012 showed a fall in
total water consumption. The two main clubs that use the green are the
Bowling Club and the Cricket Club. To give an indication of the cost of
water on each club’s finances, the Bowling Club’s water charge from 1 April
to 8 October 2012 was £452.77 compared with their rent of £450 p.a. whilst
that of the Cricket Club was £265.90 (they have made a significant effort to
reduce usage since metering) compared with their rent of £450 p.a.
Workshop findings
The main findings from the workshop are discussed under the following
topics.
Water perception in the local community
It was generally agreed that water is necessary to maintain quality of life.
But the perception of the value of water varies and was evident in discussions with community representatives. There was some consensus that
­people and communities do not place a high enough value on water. It is not
valued as a product but seen as a right to utilise as much as one wants, while
others value it for the social (recreational), environmental and economic
implications. It was generally agreed that water should not be seen as an
infinite source and the public’s perception needs to change, starting both at
the national and local level. Participants also mentioned that the level of
awareness campaigns on climate change and energy was disproportionate
compared with that of water efficiency. However, it was mentioned that
this late start is an opportunity to get water efficiency messages right the
first time by disseminating the correct message to influence people to make
long-term change.
Most of the participants identified the need for more awareness of the
water cycle as there appears to be a disconnect between water in nature and
what comes out of the tap. This detachment between people and water leads
to displaced responsibility, where water users do not feel responsible to conserve it. There is also a poor link between energy and water, especially where
­environmental problems due to water shortages are not visible or apparent.
278
Practical Examples and Case Studies
The visibility of water is therefore vital for raising awareness, as is the case
in this rural community, where loss and low levels of water in the nearby
river are immediately visible.
The unfairness of the rateable value to set water tariffs was also raised, as
big rural houses do not necessarily translate to more occupants or higher
consumption. Water is ultimately consumed by people and it was felt that
this should inform water tariffs. Another disproportionality which affects
public perception of water efficiency measures was the lack of government
support for the promotion of innovative, holistic solutions for water efficiency as well as the lack of incentives for those that invest in alternative
water technologies.
Motivational drivers
For this community, it was found that water efficiency was not motivated
by financial gain but it was acknowledged that water efficiency can result
in personal gain and community good, e.g. improving the affordability of
recreational activities. For some community members, a key driver is the
preservation and conservation of the natural environment and wildlife, and
water efficiency measures and solutions should consider environmental
impact if community acceptance is expected. It was identified that this
community’s motivations are to:
•• Find alternative means to supply water and energy.
•• Save money on water bills.
•• Improve the local environment and wildlife by reducing the carbon count,
reintroducing floodplains/wetlands.
•• Maintain communal facilities and activities (e.g., sport, leisure and
recreation).
•• Increase the affordability of things that add value to the community and
influence quality of life, such as leisure activities.
Opportunities and constraints to a water-efficient community
The main opportunities for implementing community-wide water efficiency schemes in this community were found by exploring existing
assets, such as existing wells, capturing and reusing rainwater from the
village hall, the local school’s sports hall and hard-standing areas such as
car parks and using this to irrigate the school garden or sports fields.
Integrated sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDs) were also being
considered.
To achieve these objectives, leadership and responsibility is important
and the community recognised that they will need to be motivated and
equipped to lead negotiations and implement large-scale water efficiency
‘Greening the Green’ – Community Water in the Age of Localism
279
programmes. Pragmatic, social and political considerations could affect
the implementation of a community-scale water efficiency scheme. For example, some participants anticipate regulatory problems with abstracting from
local wells for use in allotments, ponds, pitches, bowling-greens, etc. due to
the effect on the quality of ground water and the local ecology. They identified
that further studies are required.
With regard to rights and ownership, the community would need to
investigate what is permissible in terms of abstraction rights, safety
requirements, liability issues and technical infrastructure, who to report
to, etc. They mentioned that the conflicting messages received from
experts and authorities (e.g., on water quality from local sources) can
make decision-making difficult. Collaboration between all the stakeholders is essential to make the most of the opportunities available and the
community identified the need to foster better relationships and communications between stakeholders, not only within the community but also
with outside organisations.
Participants also mentioned that it is important to quantify and measure
the impact of current initiatives before embarking on new ones. Costs need
to be calculated and they will need to enquire about grants and incentives
that may be available for community water schemes. Lastly, it was emphasised that benefits and gains from water schemes must be kept within
the community.
Action from the workshop
The community recognises the need to create a working group which
links the water supplier, local interest groups, relevant experts and the
Environment Agency in order to promote, initiate and implement water
resilience solutions for the community. Activities that have the most impact
on water resources and the environment need to be identified and mapped,
technological and behavioural interventions prioritised, and objective decisions made about implementation and delivery.
Technological solutions are one way to improve the water footprint of
a community, but they do not necessarily impact on behaviour.
Therefore, it was identified that strategies to involve the entire community in water-efficient practices during domestic and non-domestic
activities was also required. Suggestions include water efficiencythemed family events to be held at the school or the newly built
­sustainable community centre, where various water issues are discussed
in a user-centred manner. This will also ensure that community-wide
solutions are implemented through direct involvement of the community where possible (e.g., community volunteers assembling systems or
­carrying out preparatory work).
280
Practical Examples and Case Studies
Figure 17.1 Community asset map on Community21 software
Source: Available at Community21 website, www.community21.org.
A number of resources were identified as potential sources of alternative
water supply for communal use and a community-wide water audit was commissioned to identify and quantify, in the broadest sense, water (and energy) use
in the community. Integrated whole systems for water (and energy) efficiency
are preferred going forward.
It was highlighted that the opportunities and constraints for communal
water-efficient solutions should be presented to the entire community,
since transparency and feedback is important to engender engagement and
buy-in. This was achieved using an existing interactive information tool
embedded in the Community21 website (Figure 17.1). The Community21
platform (www.community21.org) is a comprehensive, cost-effective online
tool to improve awareness of household energy and water efficiency solutions, and engage the community. It was designed to enable communities to
undertake sustainable neighbourhood and community-led planning more
easily, transparently and efficiently, whilst facilitating peer-to-peer learning
between communities in terms of activism and ‘how-to’ processes and as
part of a community-to-community social network (Gant and Gittins, 2010).
A number of water-related assets – ranging from wildlife habitats and species, ­supported by photographs and videos of sea trout spawning – and potential resource assets were visually presented on-site for the community.
‘Greening the Green’ – Community Water in the Age of Localism
Figure 17.2
281
Example of identified water asset
Source: Available at Community21 website, www.community21.org.
From the mapping exercise, disused wells – adjacent to the village green,
pond, allotments and sports pitches – were also rediscovered (Figure 17.2).
The sports hall roof, located near the village was identified as an asset
providing an opportunity for water harvesting to supply and irrigate the
green (Figure 17.3). The school is also exploring greywater harvesting as part
of its refurbishment plan.
Discussion
The findings from the water workshop highlighted the fact that for many
communities, the ‘local’ drivers for water efficiency consideration and
action are primarily for social and economic benefit. It also demonstrates
the capacity for considerable engagement and action when considered
against local drivers and concerns, by engaging with individuals, clubs and
282
Practical Examples and Case Studies
Figure 17.3 Example of water in resilience planning
Source: Available at Community21 website, www.community21.org.
societies, civic buildings and local governance to resolve local issues of
water resilience.
It is important that willing communities are encouraged and empowered
to take responsibility and ownership for water efficiency; even if the motive
is social, economic and environmental resilience. With increasing pressure
to build more houses, and the cost of replacing water-efficient fixtures and
fittings being a notable concern to residents, it may be useful to ensure that
all new building developments achieve broader sustainability criteria,
including securing access to and availability of local resources, or exploiting
assets within the situated community before sourcing from further afield.
The resilience impact should also be expressed in physical, environmental,
social and economic terms. This is in addition to ensuring that new buildings meet energy, water and CO2 targets.
‘Greening the Green’ – Community Water in the Age of Localism
283
Beyond environmental concerns, securing reliable sources and methods
to localise supply for communal activities, recreation, social engagement
and wellbeing are evidently a priority and fundamental concern for community life. Meeting these community needs is essential for ‘bottom-up’ policy
response and to ensure motivation and meaningful engagement to find relevant solutions to local priorities. Lastly, local resource resilience issues –
including a safe, secure and affordable water supply – should be explicit
content in community resilience planning and development actions.
Conclusion
The water workshop findings confirmed that there are opportunities to
improve community-wide water efficiency by improving or encourag­
ing knowledge capacity, finding water-efficient solutions relevant to the
­community and empowering the community to design and implement a
‘bottom-up solution’ for water efficiency. It also demonstrates that water
efficiency solutions derived from local knowledge and context will be better
received at the community level. Similarly, it was found that better engagement ensues if water efficiency challenges affect local resilience and quality
of community life.
This case study demonstrates how small communities – which are reliant
on increasingly scarce or expensive resources such as water and energy for
communal, recreational activities and spaces – are actively seeking alternative and reliable supplies to underpin the social sustainability of the community and the maintenance of the things they enjoy and participate in as
part of daily life. When considered collectively, interests such as cricket,
green bowls, fishing, wildlife watching and conservation, tending the allotment, using the village hall and attending primary school can provide a
much-needed link between everyday, popular activities and pastimes and
water/water efficiency; a link that can motivate collective and often innovative water efficiency solutions.
The following points, derived from the workshop findings, can be used to
promote community-led water efficiency practices:
•• Identify popular and meaningful points of community interest to understand context and provide relevant solutions to local priorities, thereby
empowering communities to take ownership and action.
•• Integrate local issues into the resilience planning and development of the
community. Local planning authorities should adopt and encourage proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change in accordance with
statutory guidance.
•• Include water in the neighbourhood plan at community, district and policy
level, where possible using available planning tools (e.g., Community21).
284
Practical Examples and Case Studies
•• Take a holistic approach and consider how water fits into the entire
spectrum.
•• Identify clear strategies for water-efficient practices and promote the use
and benefits of efficient technology with the right message given by a
trustworthy source.
•• Education and knowledge is essential to create awareness and promote
efficiency.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by DEFRA through the Water Efficiency in Buildings
Network with support from Community21 and Joanne Zygmunt, Waterwise.
The authors also wish to acknowledge support from key representatives of the
Barcombe Energy Club, So Sussex, OVESCo and Action in Rural Sussex (AIRS).
Further reading
Community 21 website: www.community21.org.
Department of Energy and Climate Change (2012) £30 million announced for community green
schemes and public sector energy efficiency [Online]. Available at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/
en/content/cms/news/pn11_107/pn11_107.aspx [29/9/2012].
Water Efficiency in Buildings Network website, publications page: http://www.waterefficient
buildings.co.uk/publications.html.
References
Allon, F. and Sofoulis, Z. (2006) Everyday water: cultures in transition. Australian Geographer,
37, 45–55.
Balnave, J. and Adeyeye, K. (2012) Water efficiency: a community study. In: Proceedings of CIB
W062 38th International Symposium on Water Supply and Drainage for Buildings,
Edinburgh, August 2012, pp. 91–103.
Community Action Plan (2009) Barcombe Parish Council, self-published document, accessed
June 2012.
Climate Change Act (2008) [Online]. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/
contents [29/9/2012].
CLG (2012) National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012 [Online]. Available at: http://
www.communities.gov.uCk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf [29/9/2012].
Dolnicar, S. and Hurlimann, A. (2010) Water alternatives – who and what influences public
acceptance? Journal of Public Affairs, 11, 49–59.
Gant, N. and Gittins, T. (2010) Toolbox for the 21st century village designing an engagement
tool for sustainable communities. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research
and Engagement, 3, 155–170.
Graymore, M. and Wallis, A. (2010) Water savings or water efficiency? Water-use attitudes and
behaviour in rural and regional areas. International Journal of Sustainable Development and
World Ecology, 17, 84–93.
‘Greening the Green’ – Community Water in the Age of Localism
285
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000) Promoting sustainable behaviour: an introduction to communitybased social marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 543–554.
Selnes, F. (1998) Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer–seller
­relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 32, 305–322.
Watef (2011a) Water Efficiency in Buildings Network, members meeting 2 report [Online].
Available at: http://waterefficientbuildings.co.uk/publications.html [1/7/2012].
Watef (2011b) Water Efficiency in Buildings Network, members meeting 1 report [Online].
Available at: http://waterefficientbuildings.co.uk/publications.html [1/7/2012].
Waterwise (2012) Water and energy network [Online]. Available at: http://www.waterwise.org.
uk/pages/water-energy-network.html [7/7/2012].
Index
Note: Page numbers in italics refer to Figures; those in bold to Tables.
AMR see automated metering system
(AMR)
ANQIP see National Association for
Quality in Building Installations
(ANQIP)
Aqua2use GWTS 1200 system 176
assessment methodologies, water
efficiency in buildings
BREEAM 114–17
CASBEE 123–4
Green Star 119–21
HK-BEAM 121–3
LEED 117–19
Association for Rainwater Harvesting
and Water Utilisation (fbr) in
Darmstadt, Germany 173
attitude-behaviour gaps 67–8
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010 234
automated metering system (AMR) 132
baths
shapely designs 267
steel or acrylic 267
Best Management Practices (BMPs),
USA 210
biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) 172, 174, 175, 181, 183
biological treatment 175
BRE see Building Research
Establishment (BRE)
BREEAM see Building Research
Establishment Environmental
Assessment Methodology
(BREEAM)
BRE Environmental Assessment
Method (BREEAM) 8, 110, 114–17,
119, 124–5, 157, 187, 210
British Standards on Rainwater
Harvesting 210
British Standards on Rainwater
Harvesting (BSI) 210
‘buddy database’ 220
Building Regulations Parts G and H 210
Building Research Establishment
(BRE) 156–9
Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment
Methodology (BREEAM)
building score 115–16
credit-based system 115
description 114
versions 116
water efficiency 116, 116–17
Canadian Guidelines for Domestic
Reclaimed Water for Use in Toilet
and Urinal Flushing 173
CASBEE see Comprehensive
Assessment System for Built
Environment Efficiency (CASBEE)
certification and labelling, waterefficient products 46, 47, 48
chemical oxygen demand (COD) 172,
175, 180
citywide urban water planning 135–6
Climate Change Act 275
co-creation, water efficiency
co-designing 91
customer motivation 91–2
description 89
dialogue 91
information technology 92–4
knowledge management process 90
stakeholders 91
toolkit, personalised value and
knowledge see toolkit, co-creation
Code for Sustainable Homes (DCLG) 210
Code of Practice for the Selection of
Water Reuse Systems 210
community resilience
case study community (East Sussex,
England) 276
Water Efficiency in Buildings: Theory and Practice, First Edition. Edited by Kemi Adeyeye.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
288
Index
community resilience (cont’d)
community-led water efficiency
practices 283–4
national planning framework 274–5
NPPF 274–5
public participation 273
renewable and low-carbon
energy 275
water-use behaviour and saving
practices 274
Comprehensive Assessment System
for Built Environment Efficiency
(CASBEE)
credits 123
description 123
environmental quality and load 123
water efficiency 123–4, 124
consumer response, water efficiency
strategies
attitude-behaviour gap 67–8
attitudinal and behavioural
factors 62
emotional involvement 65
institutional trust 65, 66
motivational factors 61
perceived control 65
personal responsibility 65
pro-environmental behaviour 62
socio-demographic and contextual
factors 62–4
water-saving measures 66
contamination, rainwater catching 192–3
cost-benefit analysis, water
efficiency 142
Council Tax 7
DART see Dialogue, Access, Risk and
Transparency (DART)
DEFRA see The Department for
Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA)
demand forecasting 140, 141
The Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 7,
11, 22, 95, 101, 269
detailed toolkit, co-creation
activity log 102, 102–3
benchmark data 101, 101
consumption levels 103, 104
Dialogue, Access, Risk and
Transparency (DART) 90
disinfection, RWH systems
chlorine 197
ozone/trioxygen 198
silver 198
ultraviolet light 197–8
distributed demand, water efficiency
data sources 81, 82
household demand 75
intermediaries, Thames region 77
place-based focus, programmes 78
playful experimentation 79–80
public infrastructures 75
reinvigorating/reinventing
methodology 80–2
showering technology 75–6
social/cultural and historical
approaches 75
sustainable consumption 78
SWS 77
translation process, intermediation 78
domestic water-efficient fittings and
products, benefits
Australian Bureau of
Statistics 2010 234
calculation of lifecycle cost 234
comparative lifecycle cost
savings 236
cost savings 235
differences in water
consumption 236
f indings 235–9
methodology 234–5
payback period 235
payback periods for alternative
sustainable innovations 238
saving using alternative sustainable
innovations 237
Water Efficiency Labelling and
Standards Scheme 2009,
Australia 234
The Draft Water Bill 8
dryland farming 38
environmental assessment and rating
methods
BREEAM 114–17
CASBEE 123–4
comparison 125, 125
description 113
Green Star 119–21
HK-BEAM 121–3
Index
LEED 117–19
methodologies 114, 115
environmental benefits
greywater recycling 183–4, 184
RWH 203
EU Directive for Bathing Water 173
filtration, RWH systems
activated carbon/KDF 196
RO 197
sand filters 196–7
Flood and Water Management Act 210
‘green fatigue’ 220
green-living experiments 79
Green Star
credit-based system 119–20
description 119
versions 119
water efficiency 120, 120–1
greywater quantity and quality
biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) 172
blackwater 171
compared with domestic
blackwater 171
composition 171
low and high load. 171
service water 172
greywater recycling
benefits and constraints 183–7
cost-effectiveness 268
coupled to heat recovery 182
definition 268
national Code for Sustainable Homes
(CSH) 172
policy and guidelines 172–3
project 1: Block 6 179–81, 180
project 2: Arnimplatz 181–3
technology 173–9
water and energy 170
greywater recycling, benefits and
constraints
acceptance and user needs 186
building and constraints 186–7
certification and rating schemes 187
combined with heat recovery 184
costs 185, 187
economic benefits 185–6
environmental benefits 183–4
lifecycle impact 186
289
passive house ‘Arnimplatz’ with heat
recovery 185
Greywater Reuse 210
greywater technology
benefits and constraints see
greywater recycling, benefits and
constraints
biological greywater systems 175–6
biological treatment options 175
fixed-bed reactor 176
greywater data 174–5
maintenance requirements 179
membrane bioreactors (MBR) 177,
178
moving-bed biofilm reactors
(MBBR) 176, 177
multi-stage, rotating biological
contactors (RBC) 176
operational requirements 178
scales of recycling systems 174
scales, single/multi-/communitybased dwellings 174
science and application 174
service water in buildings,
requirements 174
Sheraton Hotel in Offenbach with
multi-stage RBC 176
technical requirements 179
water quality requirements 178
ground source heat pump (GSHP)
technology
Hanson EcoHouse 156–7
paving, Hanson Stewartby 159–60, 160
RWH 157
GSHP technology see ground source
heat pump (GSHP) technology
GWP Technical Committee (2004)
report 6, 9
Hanson EcoHouse
CSH 159, 159
ground source heating 157–8
GSHP technology 156
Hanson Stewartby offices,
Bedford 159–60
Hong Kong Building Environmental
Assessment Scheme (HK-BEAM)
categories 121
description 121
themes 121–2
water efficiency 122, 122–3
290
Index
information technology (IT), co-creation
cognitive, social and personal
integrative benefits 93
‘corporate’ agility, 94
customer interaction and
engagement 93
participation and empowerment,
customer 94
integrated SuDs
Hanson EcoHouse 156–9
Hanson Stewartby offices,
Bedford 159–60
RWH system 157
intelligent metering
barriers 134, 144–5
citywide urban water planning 135–6
cost-benefit analysis 142
customer satisfaction 142–3, 144
data flow 133
definition 132
demand forecasting 140
demand reduction and supply
options 130, 130
distribution planning 138
drivers 132–3
end-use data 135
infrastructure planning and
management 136–7
leak and non-registered flow 140
leaks detection 130
management and planning 131
peak demand analysis 138
stock efficiency, diurnal demand
patterns 137–8
targeted demand efficiency 140–1
urban water tariff reform 142
water-constrained cities 129
water-related energy demand 141–2
WDM 138–40
Khorassan-e-Razavi
dam infrastructure 252–3
new irrigation technologies 252
see also Mashhad water treatment
plant (case study)
lamella plates, installation process
acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)
washers 258
corrosion 258
dimensional limitations 257
liquid polyelectrolyte (PE) 258
lamella plates, production process
aluminium lamella plates 256
glass reinforced plastic (GRP) 256
white spots on some of the lamella
plates 257, 257
Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED)
assessment themes 117
certification and rating schemes 187
credits 117–18
description 117
versions 117
waste reduction 125
water efficiency 118, 118–19
leak and non-registered flow 140
LEED see Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED)
Low Impact Development (LID),
USA 210
Low Impact Urban Design and
Development (LIUDD),
New Zealand 210
Mashhad water treatment plant
(case study)
advanced oxidation process
(AOP) 254
chlorination 254
clarification system 254
design patent 253
disinfection process 254
inlet chamber of the WTP 254
measures to avoid wastage 261
modules 253
simplified block flow diagram
of WTP 255
water treatment process 253–4
mechanical sludge dewatering unit
advantages 260
belt-filter2 press machines 259
bridge-support thickener 261
design deficiencies 260
impact of chemical conditioner 260
problems associated with 260–1
sludge concentration 260
membrane bioreactors (MBR) 177, 178
moving-bed biofilm reactors
(MBBR) 176, 177
multi-stage, rotating biological
contactors (RBC) 176
Index
National Association for Quality in
Building Installations (ANQIP)
Greece 46
5R principle 45, 45
National Association for Quality
in Building Installations
(ANQIP) (cont’d)
Technical Specification 0701 49
Technical Specification 0905 48
Technical Specification 0906 48
variable voluntary labelling
scheme 46, 47, 48
water efficiency, buildings 45
water-quality control monitoring
system 49–50
water-quality testing programme 49
national Code for Sustainable Homes
(CSH) 172
National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF) 274
net lettable floor area (NLA) 242
NI water see Northern Ireland
water (NI water)
Northern Ireland water (NI water) 7
NPPF see National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF)
office buildings, water efficiency
building performance 242–3
climate normalisation
adjustments 243
detailed full water audit 241
full water audits 242
industry-based workshops 242
influences on water efficiency 243–9
methodology 242–3
water performance benchmarks and
comparison 243
water-use benchmarks 242
water use index (WUI) 243
Office of Water Services (Ofwat) 7, 10
Ofwat see Office of Water Services (Ofwat)
PEAASAR 2000/2006 44
PEAASAR II 2007/2013 44
permeable interlocking concrete
pavement (PICP) see permeable
pavement system (PPS)
permeable pavement system (PPS)
advantages 152
291
cross-section 152, 153
geo-textile membrane 154
impermeable surfaces 151–2
runoff infiltration 154–5
RWH 157
shapes and sizes 152, 153
surface layer 152
and water harvesting, irrigation 155–6
and water quality 155
Plumbing Act, in New South Wales
(NSW) 173
policy opportunities and constraints, Iran
long-term 32
mid-term 32
short-term 31
Portugal, water policy
annual use, water 43
certification and labelling, waterefficient products 46, 47, 48
energy efficiency and waterefficiency 52–3
losses and inefficiencies,
management 43
Mediterranean basin 42
rainwater 49–50
regulatory framework 44
reuse and recycling, greywater 48–9
stakeholders and strategies 44–6
UNEP, 2012 43
water-efficiency measures 50–2
water footprint 43
PPS see permeable pavement system (PPS)
pre-treatment, RWH systems
first flush 194–5
sedimentation 195–6
quantitative microbial risk assessment
(QMRA) 218
rainwater harvesting (RWH)
components 191, 205
conveyance and filtering 191–2
disinfection 197–8
environmental benefits 203
filtration 196–7
framework see RWH in UK
impurities 206
Iran 36
maintenance 194, 195
permeable pavement system
(PPS) 157–8
292
Index
rainwater harvesting (RWH) (cont’d)
pollutants 192–3
Portugal 49–50, 51, 54, 55
pre-treatment 194–6
rooftop system 191
selected socio-technical evidence
base results 213–19
socio-technical evidence base 211–13
storage 192
storage system sizing 199–202
strategic framework for RWH in the
UK–a synthesis
suitable catchment 191
sustainable water management 210
user perception and
acceptability 203–5
rainwater recycling see rainwater
harvesting (RWH)
recycling and reuse 38
resource planning and
implementation, Iran
computer simulation and numerical
modelling 30
decisions, water and waste water 29
Organisation Chart, MoE 27, 28
systemic approach 30
traditional methods 30
Water Appropriation Committee 29
reverse osmosis (RO) 197
5R principle 45, 45
RWH see rainwater harvesting (RWH)
RWH in UK
actors and actions 221, 224
‘buddy database’ 220
‘green fatigue’ 220
institutional commitment and
support services 221–3
issues 222
micro-energy generation
programmes 220
SMEs, self-efficacy 220
social receptivity and capacity
building 220
strategic framework 221, 223
technical relevance and product
development 219
vision and aim 223
RWH, socio-technical evidence base
acceptability 214
actual water-saving efficiency
(ET) 218
components, theories and
methodologies 212
cooperation 212
cost benefits and payback periods 216
deficit categories and RWH
implementation stakeholder
groups 215, 215–16
disability affected life year (DALY)
score 218
energy consumption 218–19
health impact assessment
(HIA) 218, 218
implementation 214–16
innovation 213–14
interviews 212–13
limitations 216
methodology 211
microbiological disability affected life
year (DALY) score 218
perceptions of maintenance activity
costs 215
quantitative microbial risk
assessment (QMRA) 218
questionnaire 212
rainwater quality 218
surveys, users and non-users 211
system design see system design
evaluation for RWH
system performance 217–18
tank sizing 216
technical evidence base 216
uses 214
UV element, calculation 218
sanitary hot water (SHW) 45, 52, 53
Save Water Swindon (SWS) 77
seawater for agriculture 38
sedimentation 195–6
SELL see sustainable economic level of
leakage (SELL)
showers
digital shower technology 267
high-tech shower 267
instantaneous electric showers 267
SHW see sanitary hot water (SHW)
small to medium enterprises
(SMEs) 212
SMEs see small to medium enterprises
(SMEs)
sourcing/procuring water
description 34
Index
feasibility study 36
rainwater harvesting 36
surface water containment 36
underground dams and reservoirs 36
underground structure, Kavir-e
Lut 34, 35
underground water resource
management 36
stock efficiency, diurnal demand
patterns 137–8
storage system sizing, RWH
annual rainfall method 200
daily rainfall method 201–2
demand satisfaction 199, 199
monthly rainfall method 200–1, 201
SuD systems see sustainable urban
drainage (SuD) systems
Superpulsator® clarifier
lamella installation in
Superpulsator® basin 258
lamella plate details 256
‘solids contact clarifier’ 255
sustainable economic level of leakage
(SELL) 10
sustainable urban drainage (SuD)
systems
adverse effects, storm water
runoff 149
benefits 148
considerations 160–1
definition 148–9
improved water quality 150
integrated see integrated SuDs
pollutant removal processes 150
PPS 151–6
runoff treatment train 149, 149
social acceptance 161
strategic risk assessment (SRA) 148
types 151
water quantity control 150
SWS see Save Water Swindon (SWS)
system design evaluation for RWH
Detailed Approach 216
Intermediate Approach 216, 217
performance of RWH system 217
Simplified Approach 217
tank sizing methods 216
taps (faucets)
aerated-spray taps 266
internal valve mechanisms 266
293
low-flow units with click-stop
functionality 266
toolkit, co-creation
characteristics, ‘value-driven’
information 95–6
content 96, 98
decision criteria 99, 100
design 96, 99
detailed 101–4
empirical data 96
goals set 95
questionnaire survey 96
sample agent 96, 97
simple 99, 101
UN Millennium Declaration
(2000) 5
urban rainwater harvesting 195
urban water tariff reform 142
user-led design 80
waste-water infrastructure
planning 137
Water and energy
baths 267
greywater recycling 267–8
showers 267
taps 266
water and energy-efficient bathroom
product 265
WCs 265
Water Bill 210
water calculator
Building Regulations Approved
Document G 271
Code for Sustainable Homes 271
web-based tool 271
water closets (WCs)
cistern displacement devices 265
‘freebies’ 265
hygiene and cleanability 266
low-volume flushing 266
rim-free designs 266
water-guzzling characteristics 265
water conservation
attitudes 63
awareness 64
OECD countries 64
personal experience, drought/water
shortage conditions 63–4
water contamination prevention 37
294
Index
water-cooled heat rejection (HVAC)
systems 246
water demand management (WDM)
categories 138–9
decision making 140
description 138
water efficiency
co-creation see co-creation, water
efficiency
demand and sociology see distributed
demand, water efficiency
office buildings see office buildings,
water efficiency
policy framework 19, 20
public engagement 10
standards and regulations,
buildings 8
see also consumer response, water
efficiency strategies
The Water Efficiency Calculator for
New Dwellings 8
water efficiency, influences
active educational strategies 250
annual water use pattern and leak
occurrences 247
Auckland and Wellington 2011 water
tariffs 244
base-flow loads 250
costs in 2011 244
daily and weekly water use
patterns 247
industry involvement 249
industry workshops 249
payback period 245
supplier–customer–consumer
relationships 248–9
water demand for Auckland 246, 246
water efficiency labelling scheme
(WELS) 248
water end-uses 246–8, 247
water-sensitive thinking, barriers 249
WERT 248
Water Efficiency Labelling and
Standards Scheme 2009,
Australia 234
water efficiency labelling scheme
(WELS) 248
water efficiency rating tool (WERT) 242
Water for Life 210
water label
DEFRA 269
design of the product label 268
flow rate water label 269
lower-volume baths 269
volume for baths water label 270
water calculator by the BMA and
waterwise 271
WC suite flushing volume 270
Water Labelling Scheme 272
water policy and regulations, UK
Council Tax 7
DEFRA 7
Draft Water Bill 8
EA 7
grants and incentives 19
integrated policy approach 19, 20
interview findings 11–18
methodology 11
NI water 7
Ofwat 7
public owned water industry 6
public water and sewerage services,
England and Wales 8
resource management and efficiency
strategies 6
scarcity 5
standards and regulations, efficiency
in buildings 8
users 9–11
water-related energy demand 141–2
water resource management 5, 6, 11
Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD),
Australia 210
water-stressed region, Iran
average daily water use 25
breakdown of use 25, 26
distribution network 37–9
measures and initiatives 33–4
policy see policy opportunities and
constraints, Iran
quality and contamination
prevention 37
rainfall statistics 25
resource planning and
implementation 27–31
rivers 25
scarcity 24–5
sourcing and procurement 34–6
water using products (WuP)
European EcoLabel 50
Mediterranean countries 55
Portugal 50
Water White Paper 10–11
water workshop
Index
Action in Rural Sussex (AIRS) 276
collaboration between
stakeholders 279
Community Action Plan 276
community asset map on
community21 software 280
community-wide water audit 280
cost of water 277
costs, calculation 279
greywater harvesting 281
identified water asset (example) 281
water workshop (cont’d)
leadership and responsibility 278
motivational drivers 278
opportunities/constraints 278–9
peer-to-peer learning 280
perception in the local
community 277–88
technological solutions 279
water cycle awareness 277
295
water-efficient practices 279
water for social activity, sport and
recreation 277
water in resilience planning
(example) 282
water tariffs 278
WDM see water demand management
(WDM)
WELS see water efficiency labelling
scheme (WELS)
WTP, practical problems
AOP system 255
environmental impact of the
chemical conditioner 260
glass reinforced plastic (GRP) 256
lamella plates 255–8
mechanical sludge dewatering
unit 255, 258, 259–61
Superpulsator® 254, 255–6
WuP see water using products (WuP)
Also available from Wiley Blackwell
Low Impact Building
Woolley
9781444336603
Solutions for Climate Change
Challenges in the Built
Environment
Booth et al.
9781405195072
Water Resources in the Built
Environment
Booth and Charlesworth
9780470670910
Residential Landscape
Sustainability
Smith et al.
9781405158732
Ecosystem Services Come
To Town
Grant
9781405195065
Flood Damaged Property
Proverbs and Soetanto
9781405116169
Other Books of Interest
Sustainable Building Adaptation
Wilkinson et al.
9781118477106
Sustainable Refurbishment
Shah
9781405195089
www.wiley.com/go/construction