Water Saving and Cost Analysis of Large-Scale Implementation of Domestic Rain Water Harvesting in Minor Mediterranean Islands

Abstract

This paper describes a novel methodology to evaluate the benefits of large-scale installation of domestic Rain Water Harvesting (RWH) systems in multi-story buildings. The methodology was specifically developed for application to small settlements of the minor Mediterranean islands characterized by sharp fluctuations in precipitation and water demands between winter and summer periods. The methodology is based on the combined use of regressive models for water saving evaluation and of geospatial analysis tools for semi-automatic collection of spatial information at the building/household level. An application to the old town of Lipari (Aeolian islands) showed potential for high yearly water savings (between 30% and 50%), with return on investment in less than 15 years for about 50% of the installed RWH systems.

Full text

water
Article
Water Saving and Cost Analysis of Large-Scale
Implementation of Domestic Rain Water Harvesting
in Minor Mediterranean Islands
Alberto Campisano * ID , Giuseppe D’Amico and Carlo Modica
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, Viale Andrea Doria, 6,
95125 Catania, Italy; info.giuseppedamico@gmail.com (G.D.-A.); cmodica@dica.unict.it (C.M.)
*Correspondence: acampisa@dica.unict.it; Tel.: +39-095-738-2730
Received: 20 October 2017; Accepted: 22 November 2017; Published: 25 November 2017
Abstract:
This paper describes a novel methodology to evaluate the benefits of large-scale installation
of domestic Rain Water Harvesting (RWH) systems in multi-story buildings. The methodology was
specifically developed for application to small settlements of the minor Mediterranean islands
characterized by sharp fluctuations in precipitation and water demands between winter and
summer periods. The methodology is based on the combined use of regressive models for water
saving evaluation and of geospatial analysis tools for semi-automatic collection of spatial information
at the building/household level. An application to the old town of Lipari (Aeolian islands) showed
potential for high yearly water savings (between 30% and 50%), with return on investment in less
than 15 years for about 50% of the installed RWH systems.
Keywords:
rainwater harvesting; minor islands; water saving; cost analysis; surrogate models;
geospatial analysis
1. Introduction
Several countries of the Mediterranean are involved in finding proper solutions to problems
related to the management of scarce water resources under the concurrent increase in water demands.
The growing use of water in urban areas pushes cities and water managers to look for alternative
sources of renewable water.
Problems associated with water scarcity are very sharp in urban contexts of minor islands,
where the water availability is normally limited by the small size of river catchments.
Further difficulties in water supply management of minor Mediterranean islands are associated
with the high fluctuations of the population (and water demand) between spring/summer and
autumn/winter seasons due to the incoming/outgoing touristic fluxes.
During the last decades, non-conventional water supply based on the use of water tankers and/or
desalination has contributed in a major way to meet drinking water demands in several archipelagos of
the Mediterranean Sea (including, among others, the Aeolian islands, the Pelagian islands, and Cyprus).
However, because of the high operational costs, the financial sustainability of such water sources in
the medium to long term remains highly questionable [1].
In the search for alternative water sources, Rain Water Harvesting (RWH) has been acknowledged
as a valid approach to reduce drinking water consumption in urban areas [
2
–
4
]. In particular,
several literature studies developed in various countries point out the high potential of domestic
RWH systems to meet non-potable water demands in private and public buildings [
4
–
7
]. Typical RWH
systems consider rainwater reclamation from building rooftops, storage within a tank, and use of the
harvested rainwater for a number of non-potable indoor uses (e.g., flushing of toilets, laundry, etc.)
and outdoor uses (e.g., garden irrigation, car washing, etc.) [8–10].
Water 2017,9, 916; doi:10.3390/w9120916 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2017,9, 916 2 of 14
The quantification of water saving benefits associated with the implementation of domestic
RWH has been carried out broadly at the scale of the single-family household [
11
–
14
], but also
with reference to multi-story/multi-family buildings (i.e., the collected rainwater is shared within
the building)
[3,14,15]
. Much emphasis has been placed on the financial issues of the system
implementation [
2
,
11
,
15
,
16
]. The financial viability of single RWH systems has been assessed using
various approaches, including comparative analysis with other water supply strategies [
17
,
18
].
Methods based on the use of undersized tanks for low water demand conditions have also been
explored to obtain an affordable payback period of the investments [
19
]. However, although
large efforts have been spent over the decades to evaluate the benefits of RWH at the scale of a
single installation, little attention has been paid to exploring the water saving potential derived from
the implementation of RWH at larger spatial scales (e.g., district or city levels). One of the main
reasons for this knowledge gap is probably the lack of reliable and computationally cheap methods for
obtaining general validity for the systematic evaluation of large-scale implementation scenarios.
In fact, such an evaluation requires detailed information on a range of site-specific parameters
(e.g., building characteristics, type of dwellers, type of water demands, etc.) whose values have
a significant impact on the system performance [
8
,
20
]. Early recent examples of methods used to
estimate domestic RWH benefits from the household level include the coupled use of water saving
evaluators and geospatial analysis tools for semi-automatic characterization of building characteristics
in urban areas [
6
,
10
]. However, the available methods have been developed assuming operational
schemes of RWH that are valid for single-family/single-household installations only. In addition,
the sensitivity of rainfall and demand seasonal variations on the system performance has not been
explored exhaustively.
The objective of this paper is to evaluate the potential benefits of large-scale implementation of
domestic RWH as an alternative water supply approach for non-potable use in buildings of urban
settlements of minor islands of the Mediterranean. A novel methodology was developed to evaluate
the water saving performances of multi-story/multi-family RWH systems for toilet flushing use.
The methodology combines the use of non-dimensional surrogate regressive models for water saving
evaluation at the building level and the use of geospatial databases for archiving building/household
information through classification routines of high quality imagery in urban contexts. The methodology
was applied to the old town of Lipari (the largest municipality of the homonymous Aeolian island),
which shows intra-annual patterns of precipitation and water demand characterized by sharp
variations between wet and dry seasons.
2. Methods
2.1. Model Framework
Among the design parameters of RWH systems, the size of the rainwater tank is probably the
most important [21].
In the past years, much research effort has been made to identify the optimal size of the
rainwater tank. Available methodologies typically combine the results of models for the evaluation
of the water saving and the cost of the system for a set of tank sizes. Models based on the water
balance simulation of the tank have been used with large success due to their ability to appropriately
describe rainfall and water demand dynamics in the long term [
21
]. The evaluation of large-scale
RWH implementation projects introduces uncertainty due to the spatial variability of buildings and
population-related characteristics, as well as of precipitation and water demand [
22
]. As a consequence,
the application of water balance models for each household/building of the area under study is often
an unpractical option, as it would require very high computational efforts.
A possibility to overcome this problem may be provided by the increase in the
computational resources, for instance through the use of grid/cloud-based computing techniques [
23
].
Alternatively, simplified approaches have been proposed in the literature by References [
24
,
25
],

Water 2017,9, 916 3 of 14
who performed the simulation of a reduced number of typical demand scenarios and/or selected
“equivalent” buildings representative of all building types in the study area. However, such approaches
do not eliminate the existing uncertainty, thus requiring the provision of a robust sensitivity analysis
of the results [6].
More recently, Reference [
10
] dealt with this issue, and proposed a methodology to overcome the
computational impact associated with the recurrent use of water balance models. The methodology is
based on the development of surrogate models for the accurate evaluation of RWH system performance
based on the results of dimensionless water balance simulations. A similar approach was used in
this paper, through the adaptation of the model by Reference [
10
] to the analysis of RWH schemes
under scenarios characterized by multi-family/multi-story buildings with high seasonal water demand
fluctuation during the year.
The model tracks the dimensionless water balance of the tank using the Yield-After-Spillage (YAS)
algorithm as a tank release rule [10,21], through the numerical solution of the following equations:
vt=vt−1+qt−yt−ot(1)
yt=min(dt
vt−1
(2)
ot=max(vt−1+Rt
R−s
0(3)
where the following dimensionless variables are considered:
vt=Vt
A·R(dimensionless volume in store at time t)
vt−1=Vt−1
A·R(dimensionless volume in store at time t−1)
qt=Qt
A·R(dimensionless tank inflow at time t)
yt=Yt
A·R(dimensionless yield from the tank at time t)
ot=Ot
A·R(dimensionless tank overflow at time t)
dt=Dt
A·R(dimensionless toilet water demand at time t)
The previous dimensionless variables are obtained by normalization to
A·R
of the volumes in
store
Vt
(m
3
) and
Vt−1
(m
3
), the tank inflow
Qt=A·Rt
(m
3
), the yield
Yt
(m
3
), the overflow
Ot
(m
3
),
as well as of the demand
Dt
(m
2
), with A(m
3
) being the rooftop catchment area for rainwater collection.
Assuming the daily time scale to be adopted for the water balance analysis [
26
], R(m) is the average
daily rainfall during the whole simulation period (e.g., 30 years).
The daily time scale resolution of Equations (1)–(3) requires the availability of long-term series of
daily precipitation
Rt
and water demands
Dt
for toilet flushing as input information representing the
available rainwater and consumption patterns in the building. While values of
Rt
are usually provided
by local meteorological offices, the expected daily demands
Dt
for toilet flushing at the building level
can be estimated as [10]:
Dt=nd·nf t·F(4)
where
nd
is the number of dwellers in the building,
nf t
is the number of toilet flushes per capita per
day t, and F(m
3
) is the volume of the toilet cistern (volume of the flush). Values of
nd
can be estimated
as the ratio between the building total floor surface area and the average per capita living surface
(net surface area in m2attributed to each dweller).
Under the availability of daily patterns of precipitation and water demand for toilet flushing,
the behavior of the rainwater tank can be studied, based on the following two dimensionless
parameters [21]:
s=S
A·R(storage fraction; S[m3]is the rainwater tank capacity)(5)

Water 2017,9, 916 4 of 14
d=D
A·R(demand fraction; D[m3]is the average daily toilet demand in the building)(6)
2.2. Surrogate Regressive Models for Water Saving Evaluation
The described dimensionless approach has the advantage of allowing the analysis of the results
of the tank water balance simulations as a function of the dimensionless parameters of storage (s) and
demand (d) fractions.
The results of the non-dimensional simulations provide the water saving performance of the RWH
system for toilet flushing use in the generic building for each year nof the whole simulation period:
WSn=∑365
t=1yt
∑365
t=1dt
·100 [%](7)
Obtained yearly values of
WSn
can be elaborated to evaluate water saving values corresponding to
prefixed yearly reliability levels f(frequency of exceedance) (e.g., f= 0.9 means that the corresponding
value of water saving has been achieved for at least 90% of the years). For all of the simulations,
water saving values were calculated with reference to both the average value in the year and the dry
(April–September) and wet (October–March) seasons, separately.
Simulations were run for scenarios of storage and demand fractions that include the whole range
of variation of building types and of precipitation and water demand characteristics in the selected area.
Simulation results were statistically elaborated in order to set up compact regression relationships that
relate the water saving to s,d, and f. The developed relationships provide surrogate models of the
water balance model used for the simulations, thus enabling quicker evaluation of the water saving
performance of RWH installations at the desired spatial scale. Surrogate models were determined
for the estimation of the average yearly water saving, as well as for the wet (October–March) and
dry seasons, separately, using the following multiple-regression form:
WS =x1·s
x2+s·dx3·fx4[%](8)
where x1,x2,x3, and x4are the calibration coefficients of the regressive models.
2.3. Geospatial Database Setup
Practical advantages of the described approach can be exploited if Equation (8) is used in
combination with a database containing geospatial information concerning detailed building and
population characteristics in the area of implementation.
Accordingly, a geodatabase was built for the systematic collection and archiving of information
including buildings location, building type, height of the construction, number of stories,
type of rooftop, roof collection catchment surface, etc. Data on the building characteristics were
obtained through the combined use of techniques to process high resolution satellite imagery covering
the study area and other internet available software tools (e.g., Google Street View). Surfaces of
the building rooftops were determined by means of automatic extraction methods applied to the
satellite images. Extraction of polygons associated with the identified rooftops was followed by
post-processing through QGIS software (open source version 3.0), assuming each building polygon
to coincide with the corresponding roof. Using the previous procedure, each identified rooftop
was univocally associated with a single building. Only residential/private buildings were taken
into account in the analysis, whereas rooftops of public buildings and industrial plants were
excluded from calculations. Additionally, rooftops with extensions smaller than a selected threshold
(e.g., car boxes, small shelters, etc.) were also excluded from the database. Acquired information was
integrated with the data collected during a one-week-long survey in the study area with the objective
of collecting data for buildings in those secondary streets which were not inspected through Google
Street View software (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA). Information on population distribution

Water 2017,9, 916 5 of 14
during the year in the study area was provided by the municipality. Such information was used to
verify the global consistency of calculated values of
nd
for each “building” record in the area during
the whole year.
2.4. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cost-benefit analysis was carried out for the evaluation of the optimal tank size for each building.
The considered cost items included capital, operational, and maintenance costs.
Capital costs Cc(€) were evaluated as:
Cc=Cs+Ci(9)
where
Cs=α+β·S
(
€
) is the cost of the system equipment (e.g., tank, pump, dual network pipes, etc.),
with
α
(
€
) and
β
(
€
/m
3
) being coefficients usually provided by the tank manufactures, and
Ci
is the
installation cost (€).
Operational costs include the annual cost of drinking water from mains (
€
) used for toilet flushing
when the rainwater tank is empty:
CYWM =CW·1−WS
100 ·D·365 (10)
where
CW
(
€
/m
3
) is the unit cost of drinking water. Operational costs also include the cost of energy
(€) for pumping rainwater from the tank to the toilets in the building:
CYE =CE·WS
100 ·D·365 (11)
where CE(€/m3) is the cost of energy per cubic meter of pumped rainwater.
Maintenance costs (
€
) include pump replacement in case of failure, replacement of filters,
and eventual costs for chlorination, and are calculated as a percent γof the capital costs:
CM=γ·Cc(12)
The present value of the total costs (capital and recurring costs) was calculated according to the
following relationship [27]:
PV =Cc+(1+r)N−1
r·(1+r)N·[CYWM +CYE +CM](13)
where ris the discount rate and Nis the number of years of the considered period of analysis (normally
coinciding with the average life of the system).
Based on Equation (13), the minimization of PV provides the optimal tank size:
Sopt =A·R·v
u
u
t
[(1+r)N−1]·x1·x2·365·(Cw−CE)
100·β·[(1+r)N·(r+γ)−γ]
·d0.5(1+x3)·f0.5·x4−x2(14)
In addition, for each building, the payback period Tof the investment was calculated as the ratio
between capital costs and savings (from replaced drinking water):
T=Cc
Cw·D·365·CYW M·CYE ·CM
(15)

Water 2017,9, 916 6 of 14
3. Case Study
The described methodology was applied to the old town of Lipari, the largest municipality of the
Aeolian archipelago in southern Italy.
The selected urban area has a total surface of about 0.45 Km
2
, and hosts an average residential
population in the wet season of about 6500 (with a minimum value of about 4000 in January) rising
during spring/summer (average value 9900) up to a peak of about 12,000 in the month of August.
The average population during the whole year is close to 8200. Figure 1shows the monthly pattern of
the population in the area (normalized to the mean yearly value) as extrapolated by the data provided
by the municipality (for residents) and by the census of year 2013. Additional data concerning
the touristic fluxes in the island were provided by the Regional Department for Tourism, Sport,
and Events [28].
Water 2017, 9, 916 6 of 14
Figure 1. Monthly population normalized to mean yearly population for the island of Lipari.
Drinking water distributed in the selected area is supplied through mixing of water from
tankers and desalination at an average cost of  = 4.17 (€/m3) throughout the year.
The area is characterized by a dense urban fabric with relatively small streets and buildings
typically made of 1 to 3 stories that usually include commercial/craft activities/shops at the ground
level and 1–6 single-family apartments on the upper floors. A few larger buildings (of more recent
construction) are present in the northern part of the selected area. In many cases, each whole building
belongs to the same owner, thus representing a single household (one single water meter installed) for
the water distribution company. Similar to several urban areas in southern Italy, most (over 95%) of
the existing building covers are terraces with very small longitudinal slope (1–2%), thus highlighting
high potential for the exploitation of catchment surfaces for rainwater collection. Based on the
characteristics of the building and on the described population patterns, the selected urban area of
Lipari evidently represents a good test case for the application of the methodology proposed in this
paper.
Results of the census of year 2013 in combination with data obtained from the direct survey in
the area allowed to estimate the average values of the per capita living surface, thus enabling the
evaluation of the number of dwellers for each building during the year. In absence of direct
measurements of water demand for toilet flushing in the area of Lipari, six flushes per day were
assumed as the per-capita daily pattern of , as suggested by the results of field experiments by
Reference [29] concerning six households in Sicily. Additionally, low consumption toilet cisterns (F =
6 L) were considered in the analysis for a prudent evaluation of the water saving from RWH
implementation in the study area.
Precipitation data was provided by the Regional Agency for Water and Waste [30] and
consisted of a 53-year-long series of daily precipitation recorded at Lipari meteorological station
during the period of 1920–1994. Data showed a distribution of monthly precipitation typical of the
Mediterranean islands (see Figure 2) with a wet semester in the period of October–March and a long
dry summer period (with minimum precipitation values in July–August). The average total annual
precipitation value over the 53 years is about 605 mm.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Monthly popul./ mean yearly popul.
Month
Figure 1. Monthly population normalized to mean yearly population for the island of Lipari.
Drinking water distributed in the selected area is supplied through mixing of water from tankers
and desalination at an average cost of CW= 4.17 (€/m3) throughout the year.
The area is characterized by a dense urban fabric with relatively small streets and buildings
typically made of 1 to 3 stories that usually include commercial/craft activities/shops at the ground
level and 1–6 single-family apartments on the upper floors. A few larger buildings (of more recent
construction) are present in the northern part of the selected area. In many cases, each whole building
belongs to the same owner, thus representing a single household (one single water meter installed) for
the water distribution company. Similar to several urban areas in southern Italy, most (over 95%) of the
existing building covers are terraces with very small longitudinal slope (1–2%), thus highlighting high
potential for the exploitation of catchment surfaces for rainwater collection. Based on the characteristics
of the building and on the described population patterns, the selected urban area of Lipari evidently
represents a good test case for the application of the methodology proposed in this paper.
Results of the census of year 2013 in combination with data obtained from the direct survey
in the area allowed to estimate the average values of the per capita living surface, thus enabling
the evaluation of the number of dwellers for each building during the year. In absence of direct
measurements of water demand for toilet flushing in the area of Lipari, six flushes per day were
assumed as the per-capita daily pattern of
nf t
, as suggested by the results of field experiments by
Reference [
29
] concerning six households in Sicily. Additionally, low consumption toilet cisterns
(F= 6 L) were considered in the analysis for a prudent evaluation of the water saving from RWH
implementation in the study area.
Precipitation data was provided by the Regional Agency for Water and Waste [
30
] and consisted
of a 53-year-long series of daily precipitation recorded at Lipari meteorological station during the
period of 1920–1994. Data showed a distribution of monthly precipitation typical of the Mediterranean

Water 2017,9, 916 7 of 14
islands (see Figure 2) with a wet semester in the period of October–March and a long dry summer
period (with minimum precipitation values in July–August). The average total annual precipitation
value over the 53 years is about 605 mm.
Water 2017, 9, 916 7 of 14
Figure 2. Monthly precipitation pattern. Lipari meteo-station (averages in the period 1920–1994).
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Water Balance Simulation Scenarios and Surrogate Models for Water Saving Evaluation
The daily scale water balance of the rainwater tank was carried out for a number of scenarios
that include different combinations of values of the storage fraction s and of the demand fraction d.
Combinations were identified based on the ranges of values for practical applications. In total, 25
dimensionless simulations were run that included values of s between 0 and 40, and values of d
between 0.2 and 4.0. The use of such ranges allowed to take into account multi-story/multi-family
buildings with rooftop catchment surfaces between 25 and 500 m2, runoff coefficients between 0.8
and 0.9, and 1–6 apartments per building. Moreover, as for the RWH system characteristics, such
ranges included scenarios with 0.1–15 m3 rainwater tanks, 1–6 dwellers per apartment, 1–2 toilets
with 6–9 liters toilet cisterns per apartment, and 5–8 flushes per capita per day. Simulations
characterized by d > 1 were considered to represent scenarios of high demand conditions (in summer
periods), when the daily demand for toilet flushing in the building usually exceeds the collected
rainfall volume.
The results of the water balance simulations were elaborated in order to evaluate the water
saving performance of the RWH scheme for the whole year, and for the wet and dry seasons
separately. In particular, yearly frequency distributions of water savings were calculated based on
values of WS for each year of the simulation period, with subsequent estimation of WS values
corresponding to yearly reliabilities f of 0.5, 0.75, and 0.9.
The graphs of Figure 3 show, as an example, the results of the simulations for the average yearly
and seasonal water savings for f = 0.9. The graphs point out the typical (non-linear) increasing trend
of the water saving curves as the value of the storage fraction increases (i.e., as the tank capacity
increases and the rainfall volume decreases).
In agreement with previous results from the literature [7,9], the slope of the curves quickly
reduces as s increases, thus showing minor marginal benefits for values of s larger than 20 for the
whole year (Figure 3a) and 10 for the wet season (Figure 3b). Also, the decrease in demand fraction d
provides increasingly larger water saving benefits (minor demand for toilet flushing means
improved possibility to fully satisfy it through rainwater). As expected, the water saving
performance is maximized in the wet period (with values up to 70% for d = 1 and s = 40), while
reduced performances (WS in the order of 30%) are expected with the same value of s in the dry
season, due to reduced rainwater availability in the tank (Figure 3c). Relevantly, this result shows
the impact of the local precipitation pattern (long dry summers with variable rainy winter periods)
on the system performance in the studied area with relatively small values of WS for cases
characterized by d > 1.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Monthly precipitation [mm]
Month
Figure 2. Monthly precipitation pattern. Lipari meteo-station (averages in the period 1920–1994).
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Water Balance Simulation Scenarios and Surrogate Models for Water Saving Evaluation
The daily scale water balance of the rainwater tank was carried out for a number of scenarios
that include different combinations of values of the storage fraction sand of the demand fraction d.
Combinations were identified based on the ranges of values for practical applications. In total,
25 dimensionless simulations were run that included values of sbetween 0 and 40, and values of d
between 0.2 and 4.0. The use of such ranges allowed to take into account multi-story/multi-family
buildings with rooftop catchment surfaces between 25 and 500 m
2
, runoff coefficients between 0.8
and 0.9, and 1–6 apartments per building. Moreover, as for the RWH system characteristics, such ranges
included scenarios with 0.1–15 m
3
rainwater tanks, 1–6 dwellers per apartment, 1–2 toilets with
6–9 liters toilet cisterns per apartment, and 5–8 flushes per capita per day. Simulations characterized by
d> 1 were considered to represent scenarios of high demand conditions (in summer periods), when the
daily demand for toilet flushing in the building usually exceeds the collected rainfall volume.
The results of the water balance simulations were elaborated in order to evaluate the water saving
performance of the RWH scheme for the whole year, and for the wet and dry seasons separately.
In particular, yearly frequency distributions of water savings were calculated based on values of WS
for each year of the simulation period, with subsequent estimation of WS values corresponding to
yearly reliabilities fof 0.5, 0.75, and 0.9.
The graphs of Figure 3show, as an example, the results of the simulations for the average yearly
and seasonal water savings for f= 0.9. The graphs point out the typical (non-linear) increasing trend of
the water saving curves as the value of the storage fraction increases (i.e., as the tank capacity increases
and the rainfall volume decreases).
In agreement with previous results from the literature [
7
,
9
], the slope of the curves quickly reduces
as sincreases, thus showing minor marginal benefits for values of slarger than 20 for the whole year
(Figure 3a) and 10 for the wet season (Figure 3b). Also, the decrease in demand fraction dprovides
increasingly larger water saving benefits (minor demand for toilet flushing means improved possibility
to fully satisfy it through rainwater). As expected, the water saving performance is maximized in the
wet period (with values up to 70% for d= 1 and s= 40), while reduced performances (WS in the order
of 30%) are expected with the same value of sin the dry season, due to reduced rainwater availability
in the tank (Figure 3c). Relevantly, this result shows the impact of the local precipitation pattern

Water 2017,9, 916 8 of 14
(long dry summers with variable rainy winter periods) on the system performance in the studied area
with relatively small values of WS for cases characterized by d> 1.
Water 2017, 9, 916 8 of 14
(a) (b)(c)
Figure 3. Water saving performance of the RWH system scheme for frequency of exceedance f = 0.9:
(a) average yearly values; (b) average values for the wet season; (c) average values for the dry season.
The calibration of surrogate models (Equation (8)) provided the results summarized in Table 1.
The table shows the high sensitivity of WS to the storage fraction s (high variability of x1 and x2).
Conversely, the highest sensitivity of WS to the demand fraction d is obtained during the dry season
(the highest value of exponent x3). Importantly, the coefficient of determination (R2) and the mean
absolute error (MAE) show a high degree of fitness, thus assuring reliable and accurate use of the
obtained surrogate models for large-scale evaluation of the RWH system performance.
Table 1. Results of the calibration of the surrogate models.
Validity x1 x2 x3 x4 R2 MAE
Whole year 45.547 3.052 −0.492 −0.264 97.04 3.60
Wet season 61.485 1.729 −0.357 −0.306 92.16 7.34
Dry season 32.461 6.997 −0.715 −0.383 97.44 2.53
4.2. Geodatabase Construction
The geodatabase of the buildings in the area of study was populated with spatial information
concerning the position of the buildings in the catchment, their typology (residential, public,
commercial, etc.), the number of floors, as well as the surface area of the building rooftop.
The spatial resolution of the satellite imagery employed (2 m × 2 m) led to a very accurate
identification of the buildings. Preliminarily, 1301 buildings were identified within the boundaries
of the selected area. A refinement step was carried out to eliminate the buildings with rooftop
polygon surfaces larger than 500 m2. This step allowed to exclude industrial/commercial warehouses
from the dataset, as they are not target buildings for the installation of domestic RWH systems.
Moreover, information obtained through the use of Google Street View and the results of the local
surveys were used to associate isolated rooftops smaller than 25 m2 (shed covers, car box roofs, etc.)
with the closest/adjacent building (about 15% of the rooftops). Finally, a consistency check was
carried out to verify each rooftop catchment to be associated with one building only, and vice versa.
Globally, 984 buildings were archived in the structural geodatabase for the successive calculation of
RWH potential in the selected area. Figure 4 shows a picture of the area under study with all of the
building rooftops that were identified for the analysis.
Information stored in the geodatabase for each “building” record was completed with data
concerning the expected number of dwellers and the estimated water demand for toilet flushing use
in the building.
d=0.2 d=0.5 d=1.0 d=2.0 d=4.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10203040
WS
[%}
s[-]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10203040
WS
[%}
s[-]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10203040
WS
[%}
s[-]
Figure 3.
Water saving performance of the RWH system scheme for frequency of exceedance f= 0.9:
(
a
) average yearly values; (
b
) average values for the wet season; (
c
) average values for the dry season.
The calibration of surrogate models (Equation (8)) provided the results summarized in Table 1.
The table shows the high sensitivity of WS to the storage fraction s(high variability of x
1
and x
2
).
Conversely, the highest sensitivity of WS to the demand fraction dis obtained during the dry season
(the highest value of exponent x
3
). Importantly, the coefficient of determination (R
2
) and the mean
absolute error (MAE) show a high degree of fitness, thus assuring reliable and accurate use of the
obtained surrogate models for large-scale evaluation of the RWH system performance.
Table 1. Results of the calibration of the surrogate models.
Validity x1x2x3x4R2MAE
Whole year 45.547 3.052 −0.492 −0.264 97.04 3.60
Wet season 61.485 1.729 −0.357 −0.306 92.16 7.34
Dry season 32.461 6.997 −0.715 −0.383 97.44 2.53
4.2. Geodatabase Construction
The geodatabase of the buildings in the area of study was populated with spatial information
concerning the position of the buildings in the catchment, their typology (residential, public,
commercial, etc.), the number of floors, as well as the surface area of the building rooftop.
The spatial resolution of the satellite imagery employed (2 m
×
2 m) led to a very accurate
identification of the buildings. Preliminarily, 1301 buildings were identified within the boundaries
of the selected area. A refinement step was carried out to eliminate the buildings with rooftop
polygon surfaces larger than 500 m
2
. This step allowed to exclude industrial/commercial warehouses
from the dataset, as they are not target buildings for the installation of domestic RWH systems.
Moreover, information obtained through the use of Google Street View and the results of the local
surveys were used to associate isolated rooftops smaller than 25 m
2
(shed covers, car box roofs, etc.)
with the closest/adjacent building (about 15% of the rooftops). Finally, a consistency check was
carried out to verify each rooftop catchment to be associated with one building only, and vice versa.
Globally, 984 buildings were archived in the structural geodatabase for the successive calculation of
RWH potential in the selected area. Figure 4shows a picture of the area under study with all of the
building rooftops that were identified for the analysis.
Information stored in the geodatabase for each “building” record was completed with data
concerning the expected number of dwellers and the estimated water demand for toilet flushing use in
the building.

Water 2017,9, 916 9 of 14
Water 2017, 9, 916 9 of 14
Figure 4. Area under study with identification of the buildings for RWH system installation.
Figure 5 shows the spatial variation of the water demand for toilet flushing use in the area for
the wet (Figure 5a) and the dry (Figure 5b) seasons, respectively. The comparison between the
figures shows the increase in water demand during spring/summer due to the growing population
in the area. As expected, the larger water demand was obtained for the larger buildings in the
northern outskirt.
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Spatial distribution of water demand for toilet flushing for: (a) wet season; (b) dry season.
Systematic evaluation of the optimal tank size for each building was carried out using Equation
(14). Calculations were carried out, considering the values of x1, x2, x3, and x4 obtained for the whole
year and considering f = 0.5. Local values of cost parameters  = 4.17 (€/m3]), and =0.02 (€/m3)
were also assumed. Moreover, the official regional price list for public and private works was used
to determine the values of =0.02, and β
= 82.0 (€/m3) for all of the installations. The sensitivity of
the results to parameters r and N was analyzed by applying Equation (14) for r = 3% and r = 6% and
for values of N between 15 and 25 years.
As an example of the results, Figure 6 shows the comparison between the distributions of the
optimal tank sizes (r = 3%) for N = 15 and N = 25 years, respectively. Interestingly, a limited
sensitivity of the results to N is highlighted, with a prevalence of tank sizes in the range of 2–5 m3
irrespective of the value of N used for the calculations.
Figure 4. Area under study with identification of the buildings for RWH system installation.
Figure 5shows the spatial variation of the water demand for toilet flushing use in the area for
the wet (Figure 5a) and the dry (Figure 5b) seasons, respectively. The comparison between the figures
shows the increase in water demand during spring/summer due to the growing population in the area.
As expected, the larger water demand was obtained for the larger buildings in the northern outskirt.
Water 2017, 9, 916 9 of 14
Figure 4. Area under study with identification of the buildings for RWH system installation.
Figure 5 shows the spatial variation of the water demand for toilet flushing use in the area for
the wet (Figure 5a) and the dry (Figure 5b) seasons, respectively. The comparison between the
figures shows the increase in water demand during spring/summer due to the growing population
in the area. As expected, the larger water demand was obtained for the larger buildings in the
northern outskirt.
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Spatial distribution of water demand for toilet flushing for: (a) wet season; (b) dry season.
Systematic evaluation of the optimal tank size for each building was carried out using Equation
(14). Calculations were carried out, considering the values of x1, x2, x3, and x4 obtained for the whole
year and considering f = 0.5. Local values of cost parameters  = 4.17 (€/m3]), and =0.02 (€/m3)
were also assumed. Moreover, the official regional price list for public and private works was used
to determine the values of =0.02, and β
= 82.0 (€/m3) for all of the installations. The sensitivity of
the results to parameters r and N was analyzed by applying Equation (14) for r = 3% and r = 6% and
for values of N between 15 and 25 years.
As an example of the results, Figure 6 shows the comparison between the distributions of the
optimal tank sizes (r = 3%) for N = 15 and N = 25 years, respectively. Interestingly, a limited
sensitivity of the results to N is highlighted, with a prevalence of tank sizes in the range of 2–5 m3
irrespective of the value of N used for the calculations.
Figure 5. Spatial distribution of water demand for toilet flushing for: (a) wet season; (b) dry season.
Systematic evaluation of the optimal tank size for each building was carried out using
Equation (14). Calculations were carried out, considering the values of x
1
,x
2
,x
3
, and x
4
obtained
for the whole year and considering f= 0.5. Local values of cost parameters
CW
= 4.17 (
€
/m
3
]),
and
CE=
0.02 (
€
/m
3
) were also assumed. Moreover, the official regional price list for public and private
works was used to determine the values of
γ=
0.02, and
β
= 82.0 (
€
/m
3
) for all of the installations.
The sensitivity of the results to parameters rand Nwas analyzed by applying Equation (14) for r= 3%
and r= 6% and for values of Nbetween 15 and 25 years.
As an example of the results, Figure 6shows the comparison between the distributions of the
optimal tank sizes (r= 3%) for N= 15 and N= 25 years, respectively. Interestingly, a limited sensitivity
of the results to Nis highlighted, with a prevalence of tank sizes in the range of 2–5 m
3
irrespective of
the value of Nused for the calculations.

Water 2017,9, 916 10 of 14
Water 2017, 9, 916 10 of 14
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Frequency distribution of optimal tank sizes for r = 3% and for (a) N = 15 years; (b) N = 25
years.
4.3. Water Saving Evaluation for the Area of Interest
The application of the calibrated surrogate models to each record of the geodatabase provided
the systematic (worksheet-based) evaluation of WS for all of the buildings.
Figure 7 reports the results of the application (N = 25, f = 0.5, and r = 3%), including the average
yearly water saving, as well as the values of WS for the wet and dry seasons, respectively.
Interestingly, the analysis of Figure 7a reveals that a very large part of the buildings (94%) in the area
may lead to average WS performance in the year between 30% and 50%. The figure also shows water
saving potential to decrease down to 10–30% for the dry period.
(a) (b)(c)
Figure 7. Obtained values of WS for the large-scale installation of RWH systems in the area under
study (N = 25, f = 0.5, and r = 3%): (a) average in the year; (b) wet season; (c) dry season.
The spatial variation of the obtained water saving for all of the considered buildings in the area
is reported in Figure 8 for the wet and dry seasons, respectively.
(a) (b)
Figure 8. Spatial distribution of water saving for the different buildings (N = 25, f = 0.5, and r = 3%)
for: (a) wet season; (b) dry season.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
123456789101112131415
Number of tanks [%]
Tank storage S[m
3
]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
123456789101112131415
Number of tanks [%]
Tank storage S[m
3
]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
Number of buildings[%]
WS [%]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
Number of buildings [%]
WS [%]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
Number of buildings[%]
WS [%]
Figure 6.
Frequency distribution of optimal tank sizes for r= 3% and for (
a
)N= 15 years;
(b)N= 25 years.
4.3. Water Saving Evaluation for the Area of Interest
The application of the calibrated surrogate models to each record of the geodatabase provided the
systematic (worksheet-based) evaluation of WS for all of the buildings.
Figure 7reports the results of the application (N= 25, f= 0.5, and r= 3%), including the
average yearly water saving, as well as the values of WS for the wet and dry seasons, respectively.
Interestingly, the analysis of Figure 7a reveals that a very large part of the buildings (94%) in the area
may lead to average WS performance in the year between 30% and 50%. The figure also shows water
saving potential to decrease down to 10–30% for the dry period.
Water 2017, 9, 916 10 of 14
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Frequency distribution of optimal tank sizes for r = 3% and for (a) N = 15 years; (b) N = 25
years.
4.3. Water Saving Evaluation for the Area of Interest
The application of the calibrated surrogate models to each record of the geodatabase provided
the systematic (worksheet-based) evaluation of WS for all of the buildings.
Figure 7 reports the results of the application (N = 25, f = 0.5, and r = 3%), including the average
yearly water saving, as well as the values of WS for the wet and dry seasons, respectively.
Interestingly, the analysis of Figure 7a reveals that a very large part of the buildings (94%) in the area
may lead to average WS performance in the year between 30% and 50%. The figure also shows water
saving potential to decrease down to 10–30% for the dry period.
(a) (b)(c)
Figure 7. Obtained values of WS for the large-scale installation of RWH systems in the area under
study (N = 25, f = 0.5, and r = 3%): (a) average in the year; (b) wet season; (c) dry season.
The spatial variation of the obtained water saving for all of the considered buildings in the area
is reported in Figure 8 for the wet and dry seasons, respectively.
(a) (b)
Figure 8. Spatial distribution of water saving for the different buildings (N = 25, f = 0.5, and r = 3%)
for: (a) wet season; (b) dry season.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
123456789101112131415
Number of tanks [%]
Tank storage S[m
3
]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
123456789101112131415
Number of tanks [%]
Tank storage S[m
3
]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
Number of buildings[%]
WS [%]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
Number of buildings [%]
WS [%]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
Number of buildings[%]
WS [%]
Figure 7.
Obtained values of WS for the large-scale installation of RWH systems in the area under
study (N= 25, f= 0.5, and r= 3%): (a) average in the year; (b) wet season; (c) dry season.
The spatial variation of the obtained water saving for all of the considered buildings in the area is
reported in Figure 8for the wet and dry seasons, respectively.
Water 2017, 9, 916 10 of 14
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Frequency distribution of optimal tank sizes for r = 3% and for (a) N = 15 years; (b) N = 25
years.
4.3. Water Saving Evaluation for the Area of Interest
The application of the calibrated surrogate models to each record of the geodatabase provided
the systematic (worksheet-based) evaluation of WS for all of the buildings.
Figure 7 reports the results of the application (N = 25, f = 0.5, and r = 3%), including the average
yearly water saving, as well as the values of WS for the wet and dry seasons, respectively.
Interestingly, the analysis of Figure 7a reveals that a very large part of the buildings (94%) in the area
may lead to average WS performance in the year between 30% and 50%. The figure also shows water
saving potential to decrease down to 10–30% for the dry period.
(a) (b)(c)
Figure 7. Obtained values of WS for the large-scale installation of RWH systems in the area under
study (N = 25, f = 0.5, and r = 3%): (a) average in the year; (b) wet season; (c) dry season.
The spatial variation of the obtained water saving for all of the considered buildings in the area
is reported in Figure 8 for the wet and dry seasons, respectively.
(a) (b)
Figure 8. Spatial distribution of water saving for the different buildings (N = 25, f = 0.5, and r = 3%)
for: (a) wet season; (b) dry season.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
123456789101112131415
Number of tanks [%]
Tank storage S[m
3
]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
123456789101112131415
Number of tanks [%]
Tank storage S[m
3
]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
Number of buildings[%]
WS [%]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
Number of buildings [%]
WS[%]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
Number of buildings[%]
WS[%]
Figure 8.
Spatial distribution of water saving for the different buildings (N= 25, f= 0.5, and r= 3%) for:
(a) wet season; (b) dry season.

Water 2017,9, 916 11 of 14
The figure confirms the different value of water saving that can be obtained in the two periods
due to the temporal rainfall pattern and to the different level of water demand associated with
the wet and dry seasons, respectively (see Figure 5). In particular, in agreement with the results
presented in Figure 3, the buildings characterized by lower demands usually provide the larger water
saving performances.
The cost comparison between the RWH implementation scenario and the actual water supply
scenario (tankers and desalination) deserves further discussion. An illustrative example of the
comparison is shown in Figure 9. This figure points out the curve of PV (
€
) as function of time
for a typical 4-apartment building in Lipari (A= 160 m
2
; average demand for toilet flushing
D= 0.575 m
3
/day; tank size S=3m
3
;f= 0.5; N= 25) and for the two scenarios of discount rate r= 3%
(Figure 9a) and r= 6% (Figure 9b).
Water 2017, 9, 916 11 of 14
The figure confirms the different value of water saving that can be obtained in the two periods
due to the temporal rainfall pattern and to the different level of water demand associated with the
wet and dry seasons, respectively (see Figure 5). In particular, in agreement with the results
presented in Figure 3, the buildings characterized by lower demands usually provide the larger
water saving performances.
The cost comparison between the RWH implementation scenario and the actual water supply
scenario (tankers and desalination) deserves further discussion. An illustrative example of the
comparison is shown in Figure 9. This figure points out the curve of PV (€) as function of time for a
typical 4-apartment building in Lipari (A = 160 m2; average demand for toilet flushing D = 0.575
m3/day; tank size S = 3 m3; f = 0.5; N = 25) and for the two scenarios of discount rate r = 3% (Figure 9a)
and r = 6% (Figure 9b).
(a) (b)
Figure 9. Curve of present value PV for A = 160 m2; 4-apartment building with average total daily
demand for toilet flushing D = 0.575 m3/day; S = 3 m3; f = 0.5; N = 25, and for (a) r = 3%; (b) r = 6%.
As expected, the curve relative to the RWH implementation option (dashed line) shows an
initial step due to the cost of installation. However, yearly cumulative water savings due to the
replacement of drinking water with rainwater for toilet flushing use results in the curve having a
smaller slope in comparison to the curve representing the current scenario of water supply in the
island (solid line). Interestingly, the system return on investment is achieved after about 10 years
and 13 years for r = 3% and r = 6%, respectively, after which the RWH option starts generating
increasing profit up to the end of life of the installation.
Globally, the results of the evaluation of the payback period of the investment through the use
of Equation (15) for each building of the area are summarized in Figure 10 for f = 0.5, N = 25, and r =
3%. The figure points out that more than 85% of the installed systems would show payback periods
smaller than 25 years and that about 50% of the installed systems falls in the range of 0–15 years.
More relevantly, the investment for about one fourth of the installed systems could be repaid in less
than 10 years, thus representing the priority option for the community in the case of batch
installation by successive steps.
Finally, it is underlined that the obtained results do not take into account of all aspects that may
affect the economic impact of a large-scale implementation of RWH systems (e.g., water quality
aspects). Therefore, further research efforts will be devoted in the future to include such aspects
within the developed methodology.
Years
PV
[€*10
3
]
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
RWH option
Actual scenario
Years
PV
[€*10
3
]
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
RWH option
Actual scenario
Figure 9.
Curve of present value PV for A= 160 m
2
; 4-apartment building with average total daily
demand for toilet flushing D= 0.575 m3/day; S=3m3;f= 0.5; N= 25, and for (a)r= 3%; (b)r= 6%.
As expected, the curve relative to the RWH implementation option (dashed line) shows an initial
step due to the cost of installation. However, yearly cumulative water savings due to the replacement
of drinking water with rainwater for toilet flushing use results in the curve having a smaller slope in
comparison to the curve representing the current scenario of water supply in the island (solid line).
Interestingly, the system return on investment is achieved after about 10 years and 13 years for r= 3%
and r= 6%, respectively, after which the RWH option starts generating increasing profit up to the end
of life of the installation.
Globally, the results of the evaluation of the payback period of the investment through the use of
Equation (15) for each building of the area are summarized in Figure 10 for f= 0.5, N= 25, and r= 3%.
The figure points out that more than 85% of the installed systems would show payback periods
smaller than 25 years and that about 50% of the installed systems falls in the range of 0–15 years.
More relevantly, the investment for about one fourth of the installed systems could be repaid in less
than 10 years, thus representing the priority option for the community in the case of batch installation
by successive steps.
Finally, it is underlined that the obtained results do not take into account of all aspects that may
affect the economic impact of a large-scale implementation of RWH systems (e.g., water quality aspects).
Therefore, further research efforts will be devoted in the future to include such aspects within the
developed methodology.

Water 2017,9, 916 12 of 14
Water 2017, 9, 916 12 of 14
Figure 10. Distribution of payback periods of RWH installations in the area of interest (results are
relative to f = 0.5, N = 25, and r = 3%).
5. Conclusions
A novel methodology to evaluate the benefits of a large-scale installation of domestic RWH
systems in multi-story urban buildings of minor islands was proposed in this paper.
The methodology was developed for specific application to minor Mediterranean islands that
are characterized by large fluctuations in precipitation and water demands (due to touristic fluxes)
between winter and summer periods. The methodology is based on the development of easy-to-use
regressive models for water saving evaluation and their coupling with geospatial analysis tools for
the collection of detailed building/household information on the urban area of study.
The methodology was applied to the old town of Lipari, the largest municipality of the
homonymous Aeolian island, and showed large potential water saving benefits of RWH
implementation in the area. Globally, the characteristics of 984 buildings were collected and
archived in the geodatabase using information from high resolution satellite imagery which was
integrated by information obtained through the use of Google Street View and the results of local
surveys.
The systematic application of the developed regressive models to all of the buildings in the area
showed average yearly water saving performances between 30% and 50%. The comparison with the
current water supply scenario in the island (tankers and desalination) pointed out the beneficial
impact of RWH installation for toilet flushing use of harvested rainwater in the selected urban area.
The cost-benefit evaluation of the large-scale installation scenario showed that about 50% of the
RWH systems would provide payback periods in the range of 0–15 years, and that about one fourth
of the installed systems could be potentially repaid in less than 10 years.
Author Contributions: All the authors have contributed extensively to the work presented in this paper; A.
Campisano and C. Modica conceived and designed the methodology and the used model; G. D’Amico
collected data and performed the model simulations; all the authors have analyzed the data; A. Campisano
and C. Modica wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Badiuzzaman, P.; McLaughlin, E.; McCauley, D. Substituting freshwater: Can ocean desalination and
water recycling capacities substitute for groundwater depletion in California? J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 203,
123–135, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.051.
2. Roebuck, R.M.; Oltean-Dumbrava, C.; Tait, S. Whole life cost performance of domestic rainwater
harvesting systems in the United Kingdom. Water Environ. J. 2011, 25, 355–365,
doi:10.1111/j.1747-6593.2010.00230.x.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-2525-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 >55
Number of RWH systems [%]
T[years]
Figure 10.
Distribution of payback periods of RWH installations in the area of interest (results are
relative to f= 0.5, N= 25, and r= 3%).
5. Conclusions
A novel methodology to evaluate the benefits of a large-scale installation of domestic RWH
systems in multi-story urban buildings of minor islands was proposed in this paper.
The methodology was developed for specific application to minor Mediterranean islands that
are characterized by large fluctuations in precipitation and water demands (due to touristic fluxes)
between winter and summer periods. The methodology is based on the development of easy-to-use
regressive models for water saving evaluation and their coupling with geospatial analysis tools for the
collection of detailed building/household information on the urban area of study.
The methodology was applied to the old town of Lipari, the largest municipality of
the homonymous Aeolian island, and showed large potential water saving benefits of RWH
implementation in the area. Globally, the characteristics of 984 buildings were collected and archived
in the geodatabase using information from high resolution satellite imagery which was integrated by
information obtained through the use of Google Street View and the results of local surveys.
The systematic application of the developed regressive models to all of the buildings in the area
showed average yearly water saving performances between 30% and 50%. The comparison with
the current water supply scenario in the island (tankers and desalination) pointed out the beneficial
impact of RWH installation for toilet flushing use of harvested rainwater in the selected urban area.
The cost-benefit evaluation of the large-scale installation scenario showed that about 50% of the RWH
systems would provide payback periods in the range of 0–15 years, and that about one fourth of the
installed systems could be potentially repaid in less than 10 years.
Author Contributions:
All the authors have contributed extensively to the work presented in this paper;
A. Campisano and C. Modica conceived and designed the methodology and the used model; G. D’Amico
collected data and performed the model simulations; all the authors have analyzed the data; A. Campisano and
C. Modica wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Badiuzzaman, P.; McLaughlin, E.; McCauley, D. Substituting freshwater: Can ocean desalination and water
recycling capacities substitute for groundwater depletion in California? J. Environ. Manag.
2017
,203, 123–135.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Roebuck, R.M.; Oltean-Dumbrava, C.; Tait, S. Whole life cost performance of domestic rainwater harvesting
systems in the United Kingdom. Water Environ. J. 2011,25, 355–365. [CrossRef]
3.
Rahman, A.; Dbais, J.; Imteaz, M. Sustainability of rainwater harvesting systems in multistory
residential buildings. Am. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2010,3, 889–898. [CrossRef]

Water 2017,9, 916 13 of 14
4.
Campisano, A.; Butler, D.; Ward, S.; Burns, M.J.; Friedler, E.; DeBusk, K.; Fisher-Jeffes, L.N.; Ghisi, E.;
Rahman, A.; Furumai, H.; et al. Urban rainwater harvesting systems: Research, implementation and
future perspectives. Water Res. 2017,115, 195–209. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5.
Ward, S.; Memon, F.A.; Butler, D. Performance of large building rainwater harvesting systems. Water Res.
2012,46, 5127–5134. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
Rostad, N.; Foti, R.; Montalto, F.A. Harvesting rooftop runoff to flush toilets: Drawing conclusions from four
major U.S. cities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016,108, 97–106. [CrossRef]
7.
Palla, A.; Gnecco, I.; Lanza, L.G. Non-dimensional design parameters and performance assessment of
rainwater harvesting systems. J. Hydrol. 2011,401, 65–76. [CrossRef]
8.
Ghisi, E. Parameters influencing the sizing of rainwater tanks for use in houses. Water Resour. Manag.
2010
,
24, 2381–2403. [CrossRef]
9.
Melville-Shreeve, P.; Ward, S.; Butler, D. Rainwater harvesting typologies for UK houses; a multi criteria
analysis of system configurations. Water 2016,8, 129. [CrossRef]
10.
Campisano, A.; Lupia, F. A dimensionless approach for the urban scale evaluation of domestic rainwater
harvesting systems for toilet flushing and garden irrigation. Urban Water J. 2017,14, 883–891. [CrossRef]
11.
Sample, D.J.; Liu, J. Optimizing rainwater harvesting systems for the dual purposes of water supply and
runoff capture. J. Clean. Prod. 2014,75, 174–194. [CrossRef]
12.
Campisano, A.; Gnecco, I.; Modica, C.; Palla, A. Designing domestic rainwater harvesting systems under
different climatic regimes in Italy. Water Sci. Technol. 2013,67, 2511–2518. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Burns, M.J.; Fletcher, T.D.; Duncan, H.P.; Hatt, B.E.; Ladson, A.R.; Walsh, C.J. The performance of
rainwater tanks for stormwater retention and water supply at the household scale: An empirical case study.
Hydrol. Process. 2015,29, 152–160. [CrossRef]
14.
Domenèch, L.; Saurí, D. 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. J. Clean. Prod. 2011,19, 598–608. [CrossRef]
15.
Liaw, C.H.; Tsai, Y.L. Optimum storage volume of rooftop rainwater harvesting systems for domestic use.
J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2004,40, 901–912. [CrossRef]
16.
Khastagir, A.; Jayasuriya, N. Investment evaluation of rainwater tanks. Water Resour. Manag.
2011
,25,
3769–3784. [CrossRef]
17.
Morales-Pinzón, T.; Rieradevall, J.; Gasol, C.M.; Gabarrell, X. Modelling for economic cost and environmental
analysis of rainwater harvesting systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,87, 613–626. [CrossRef]
18.
Loubet, P.; Roux, P.; Loiseau, E.; Bellon-Maurel, V. Life cycle assessments of urban water systems:
A comparative analysis of selected peer-reviewed literature. Water Res.
2014
,67, 187–202. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
19.
Sanches Fernandes, L.F.; Terêncio, D.P.S.; Pacheco, F.A.L. Rainwater harvesting systems for low
demanding applications. Sci. Total Environ. 2015,529, 91–100. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20.
Mitchell, V. How important is the selection of computational analysis method to the accuracy of rainwater
tank behavior modelling? Hydrol. Process. 2007,21, 2850–2861. [CrossRef]
21.
Fewkes, A.; Butler, D. Simulating the performance of rainwater collection systems using behavioural models.
Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 2000,21, 99–106. [CrossRef]
22.
Lash, D.; Ward, S.; Kershw, T.; Butler, D.; Eaames, M. Robust rainwater harvesting: Probabilistic tank sizing
for climate change adaptation. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2014,5, 526–539. [CrossRef]
23.
Burns, M.J.; Fletcher, T.D.; Walsh, C.J.; Ladson, A.R.; Hatt, B.E. Flow-regime management at the urban
land-parcel scale: Test of feasibility. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2015,20. [CrossRef]
24.
Farreny, R.; Morales-Pinzón, T.; Guisasola, A.; Tayà, C.; Rieradevall, J.; Gabarrell, X. Roof selection for
rainwater harvesting: Quantity and quality assessments in Spain. Water Res.
2011
,45, 3245–3254. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
25.
Belmeziti, A.; Coutard, O.; de Gouvello, B. A new methodology for evaluating potential for potable water
savings (PPWS) by using rainwater harvesting at the urban level: The case of the municipality of Colombes
(Paris region). Water 2013,5, 312–326. [CrossRef]
26.
Campisano, A.; Modica, C. Appropriate resolution timescale to evaluate water saving and retention potential
of rainwater harvesting for toilet flushing in single houses. J. Hydroinform. 2015,17, 331–346. [CrossRef]

Water 2017,9, 916 14 of 14
27.
Mearig, T.; Coffe, N.; Morgan, M. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Handbook, 1st ed.; State of Alaska-Department of
Education & Early Development, Alaska School Facilities: Juneau, AK, USA, 1999.
28.
Regional Department for Tourism, Sport, and Events. Available online: http://www.regione.sicilia.it/
turismo/web_turismo/ (accessed on 15 September 2017).
29.
Campisano, A.; Modica, C. Experimental investigation on water saving by the reuse of washbasin grey water
for toilet flushing. Urban Water J. 2010,7, 17–24. [CrossRef]
30.
Regional Agency for Water and Waste. Available online: http://www.osservatorioacque.it/ (accessed on
15 September 2017).
©
2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).