Rainwater Harvesting in Oaxaca de Jurez, Mexico: Constraints and Promise

Masters Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Bard Center for Environmental Policy

By Nolan Gardner

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Policy

! !

Bard College Bard Center for Environmental Policy P.O. Box 5000 Annandale on Hudson, NY 12504-5000 May, 2012

Acknowledgements

The research for this thesis was made possible with the help of many advisors, colleagues, family, and friends. I would like to especially thank Gautam Sethi, Mara Ranville, and Alejandra Martinez Sanchez for their wisdom and guidance, and Simon Topp, Jessica Lebovits, Clara Gardner, Darien Gardner, and Kate OKane for their love and support.

i!

Table of Contents
Abstract(.........................................................................................................................(iv! Chapter(1:(Introduction(............................................................................................(1! 1.1(! Global(Context(............................................................................................................(1! 1.2(! Oaxaca(de(Jurez(.......................................................................................................(2! . 1.3(! The(Oaxacan(Water(Supply(....................................................................................(4! 1.3.1! Public!Sector!Water!........................................................................................................!4! 1.3.2! Private!Water!Sector!......................................................................................................!6! 1.4! Current(RWH(in(Oaxaca(..........................................................................................(7! . 1.5! Barriers(to(Implementation(and(Improvement(..............................................(8! Chapter(2:(Literature(Review(..............................................................................(10! 2.1! Materials(&(Components(of(a(RWH(System(....................................................(11! 2.2! The(Quality(of(Harvested(Rainwater(................................................................(13! 2.2.1! Appropriate!Rainwater!Uses!...................................................................................!14! 2.2.2! Public!Perception!of!Rainwater!Quality!..............................................................!15! 2.3! Hydraulic(and(Economic(RWH(Models(.............................................................(17! 2.3.1! Scale!of!Analysis!............................................................................................................!17! 2.3.2! Optimal!Sizing!of!a!RWH!System!............................................................................!19! 2.3.3! Private!Value!of!Harvested!Rainwater!................................................................!22! 2.3.3.1! Water!Prices!..........................................................................................................................!23! 2.3.3.2! Initial!Capital!Costs!.............................................................................................................!23! 2.3.3.3! Maintenance!and!Operational!Costs!...........................................................................!24! 2.3.3.4! NPVs!and!Payback!Periods!..............................................................................................!25! 2.3.4! Social!Value!of!Harvested!Rainwater!...................................................................!26! 2.3.5! Policies!to!Promote!RWH!..........................................................................................!27! 2.3.5.1! Germany!..................................................................................................................................!28! 2.3.5.2! Australia!..................................................................................................................................!29! 2.3.5.3! Spain!..........................................................................................................................................!30! 2.3.5.4! Developing!Countries!........................................................................................................!31! 2.3.6!! Barriers!to!Implementation!....................................................................................!31! Chapter(3:(Model(and(Methods(...........................................................................(33! 3.1! The(Survey(Process(.................................................................................................(33! 3.2! Model(for(RWH(Storage(Dynamics(.....................................................................(34! 3.2.1! Unconstrained!RWH!Potential!................................................................................!34! 3.2.1.1! Splash!Off/Evaporation/Runoff!Coefficient!............................................................!35! . 3.2.1.2! Mean!Monthly!Rainfall!......................................................................................................!35! 3.2.1.3! Catchment!Area!....................................................................................................................!36! 3.2.2! ShortWTerm!Storage!Constraints!............................................................................!36! 3.2.2.1! ShortWTerm!Storage!Capacity!.........................................................................................!36! 3.2.2.2! Additional!Storage!Capacity!...........................................................................................!36! . 3.2.2.3! Days!With!Rain!.................................................................................................................!37! . 3.2.3! LongWTerm!Storage!Constraints!.............................................................................!37! 3.2.3.1! Daily!Household!Consumption!......................................................................................!38! 3.2.3.2! LongWTerm!Storage!Capacity!..........................................................................................!38! 3.2.3.3! LongWTerm!Storage!Loss!(Overflow)!..........................................................................!39! . 3.2.4! Constrained!RWH!Potential!.....................................................................................!39! 3.3! Important(Model(Assumptions(...........................................................................(39! 3.3.1! Unconstrained!RWH!Potential!................................................................................!40! 3.3.2! Constrained!RWH!Potential!.....................................................................................!40! !

!
3.4! Model(for(RWH(Economics(...................................................................................(41! 3.4.1! Inputs!for!Six!Model!Scenarios!...............................................................................!42!
3.4.1.1! 3.4.1.2! 3.4.1.3! 3.4.1.4! Model!Inputs:!Scenarios!1,!2,!&!4!vs.!Scenarios!4,!5,!&!6!....................................!42! Model!Inputs!for!Scenarios!1!&!4:!Current!Practices!...........................................!43! Model!Inputs!for!Scenarios!2!&!5:!Basic!RWH!System!Improvements!........!43! Model!Inputs!for!Scenarios!3!&!6:!Applying!Entirety!of!Storage!to!RWH!...!44!

ii!

3.4.2!Model!Equations!................................................................................................................!45!
3.4.2.1! Water!Savings!Efficiency!(WSE)!...................................................................................!45! 3.4.2.2! Net!Present!Value!(NPV)!..................................................................................................!46! 3.4.2.3! Payback!Period!(PBP)!........................................................................................................!47!

Chapter(4:(Results(....................................................................................................(49! 4.1! Survey(Results(..........................................................................................................(49! 4.1.1! Demographics!and!General!Water!Use!................................................................!49! 4.1.2! Households!Water!Storage!Capacities!and!Pumps!........................................!50! . 4.1.3! RWH!System!Components!........................................................................................!53! 4.1.4! Harvested!Rainwater!Quality!and!Uses!..............................................................!54! . 4.1.5! Harvested!Rainwater!Treatment!Methods!........................................................!56! 4.1.6! Catchment!Area!and!Storage!Capacity!................................................................!57! . 4.1.7! RWH!System!Cleaning!and!Maintenance!Procedures!...................................!58! 4.1.7.1! Storage!Tanks!........................................................................................................................!59! 4.1.7.2! Gutters!&!Downspouts!......................................................................................................!59! 4.1.7.3! Catchment!Surface!..............................................................................................................!60! 4.1.8! Knowledge,!Perceptions,!and!Legality!of!RWH!................................................!60! 4.1.9! Interest!in!and!Intentions!for!Future!RWH!.......................................................!61! 4.1.9.1! Household!WillingWtoWPay!(WTP)!.................................................................................!63! 4.2! RWH(Dynamics(Model(and(Economics(of(RWH(Model(Results(................(64! 4.2.1! Model!Inputs!...................................................................................................................!64! 4.2.2! Model!Inputs!Assigned!to!Applicable!Scenarios!.............................................!67! . 4.2.3! Model!Results!.................................................................................................................!69! Chapter(5:(Policy(Recommendations(................................................................(73! 5.1! Cultural(and(Technical(Barriers(to(RWH(.........................................................(73! 5.2! Overcoming(the(Informational(Barriers(to(RWH(.........................................(74! 5.3! Overcoming(the(Economic(Barriers(to(RWH(..................................................(75! 5.4(! Government(Support:(RWH(as(a(Public(Good(................................................(76! 5.5! Conclusion(.................................................................................................................(77! Works(Cited(...............................................................................................................(80! Appendix(A:(RWH(System(Components(............................................................(86! A.1! Catchment(Surface(..................................................................................................(86! A.2! Gutters(and(Downspouts(......................................................................................(86! A.3! First[Flush(Diverter((FFD)(....................................................................................(87! A.4! Storage(Tank(.............................................................................................................(89! A.5! Pump(and(Plumbing(...............................................................................................(91! A.6! Treatment,(Filtration,(and(Purification(...........................................................(91! Appendix(B:(Harvested(Rainwater(Quality(.....................................................(92! B.1(! Paths(of(Contamination(.........................................................................................(92! B.2! Water(Quality(Study(Parameters(.......................................................................(92! B.3! Post[Storage(Filtration(and(Treatment(...........................................................(96! .

! Appendix(C:(Valuing(the(Rainwater(Harvest(................................................(100! C.1! Current(Rainwater(Values(.................................................................................(100! C.2! Projected(Future(Rainwater(Values(...............................................................(104! Appendix(D:(The(Cost(of(Basic(RWH(System(Improvements(...................(107! Appendix(E:(Survey(Results(................................................................................(109! E.1! ADOSAPACO(...........................................................................................................(109! E.2! Public(Water(Trucks(............................................................................................(111! E.3! Private(Water(Trucks(..........................................................................................(113! E.4! Public(and(Private(Wells(....................................................................................(115! Appendix(F:(Model(Inputs,(Presented(by(Household(.................................(117! Appendix(G:(Basic(Improvement(Costs(&(Changes(in(Practice(...............(119! Appendix(H:(Model(Results,(Presented(by(Household(..............................(122! Appendix(I:(Reasons(for(Household(Exclusion(in(the(Survey(.................(132! . Appendix(J:(Survey(Materials((English)(..........................................................(133! Appendix(K:(Survey(Materials((Spanish)(.......................................................(149! !

iii!

iv!

Abstract
RWH is a decentralized alternative water supply technology that has great potential to meet the needs of households suffering from the water supply crisis taking place in Oaxaca de Jurez, Mexico. This thesis attempts to estimate the current and achievable water savings from RWH in Oaxaca, evaluate its potential to meet the citys demand, and identify potential barriers to its implementation. A survey of 45 households was conducted and six RWH model scenarios were run with the data it provided. The model shows that: (1) RWH has the potential to meet 65-75% of the citys non-potable water demand; (2) significantly more RWH is already occurring in Oaxaca than previously imagined; (3) substantial improvements to RWH can be made; and (4) RWH is an economically viable alternative water supply for the city. The survey results show that cultural and technical barriers are not significant obstacles to RWH, but that informational and economic barriers act as important deterrents. In order to overcome these barriers to RWH implementation and improvement, it is recommended that: (1) a RWH awareness campaign be established; (2) a RWH Association be founded; and (3) an economic incentive for RWH adoption such as a subsidy, tax rebate, or funds made available by a foundation or grant be enacted or acquired.

1!

Chapter 1: Introduction
Rainwater harvesting (RWH) is a decentralized alternative water supply that has great potential to alleviate urban problems of non-potable water quantity, quality, and availability. It is an ancient technique that has been used as a water supply and for stormwater management for thousands of years (Rygaard et al. 2011; Abdulla & AlShareef 2009; Helmreich & Horn 2009; Vargas 2009). This thesis examines the city of Oaxaca de Jurez, Mexico, and attempts to estimate the current and achievable water savings from RWH, assess the feasibility of applying this technology, evaluate its potential to meet the citys demand, and identify potential barriers to its implementation. The analysis is both hydraulic and economic, and is conducted on a household-byhousehold basis with information drawn from 45 households surveys. Six RWH scenarios are explored, and the achievable water savings efficiency (WSE), the net present value (NPV) of the system, and payback period for system improvements are calculated for each household in each scenario. Based on this analysis, the thesis argues that RWH is a viable policy option for Oaxaca, and that it should be used as a policy instrument in the citys water supply strategy. However, the survey and model results show that two significant barriers to RWH exist, and that they must be overcome if RWH is to live up to its potential as a water supply.

1.1

Global Context

As the mass migration to urban environments that has been occurring over the last fifty years continues, cities all around the world are struggling to find adequate water supplies (Angrill et al. 2011; Domnech & Saur 2011; Farreny et al. 2011; Tam et al. 2010;

2!

Thomas 1998). In 2008, the UN estimated that the 3.3 billion people living in urban areas in 2007 would to increase to 6.4 billion by 2050, and that urban water demand was going to rise accordingly (Domnech & Saur 2011). In the face of rising demand, the traditional model of urban water management has depended on large-scale infrastructure projects such as dams and aqueducts, and used eminent domain to lay claim to other communitys water supplies, sometimes hundreds of miles away. However, this model is confronting resistance from environmentalists, human rights activists, and others because of the often-underestimated damages it causes (Martinson & Thomas 2003). In contrast, many cities are considering a range of non-traditional options such as desalinization, rainwater harvesting (RWH), greywater recycling, and general water conservation practices to match the widening gap between supply and demand (Martinson & Thomas 2003). In conjunction with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCCs) 2007 predictions of increased variability of precipitation and more frequent flood events, the need for developing adaptive water management strategies is imminent (Domnech & Saur 2011). Many analysts argue that that RWH will play a central role in these adaptive strategies. (Domnech and Saur 2011; Farreny, Gabarrell, & Rieradevall 2011; Rygaard et al. 2011; Abdulla & Al-Shareef 2009).

1.2

Oaxaca de Jurez

The current water supply in Oaxaca de Jurez is dangerously inadequate. Decades of unsustainable withdrawal from the shallow Zaachila Aquifer have left the landscape around the city barren and the one of the citys primary water supplies all but spent, empty for large portions of the year (Consejo 2011). As a result, marginal households in

3!

Oaxaca often go for long periods without water, sometimes as much as a month or two (Lusher 2007). In order to address this problem, policymakers in Oaxaca have chosen the old industrial paradigm of damming to claim new water supplies, yet they are also open to the new environmental methods of reducing, recycling, and using what you have sustainably (Consejo 2011). According to the government calculations, there is not enough water in the Central Valleys of Oaxaca to meet the demands of its population (CNA 2011). Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), such as the Institute for Nature and Society of Oaxaca (INSO), disagree, and have other ideas about how to meet the Oaxacan water supply gap. They argue that the quantity of water in the Central Valleys is sufficient to meet the populations demands, and that the real problem is the way that water is managed (Consejo 2011). For example, within the same week that a household might not receive water from the citys water utility, the Administradora de Obras y Servicios de Agua Potable y Alacantarillado de la Ciudad de Oaxaca (ADOSAPACO), they also might have a few inches of stormwater flooding in the first floor of their house (Parker 2010). To capture this reality, INSO has developed a water supply paradigm in which alternative technologies such as RWH can be used to convert this unusable and often damaging fast water into controlled and functional slow water (Consejo 2011). In 2011, despite the lobbying and input of INSO, other NGOs, and several communities to dissuade them, the government approved a large dam project Southwest of the city (Consejo 2011). The proposed Paso Ancho dam will allegedly provide Oaxaca with ample water supplies for the next 20 years (including projected growth). However, it will also inundate thousands of acres and divert the water supply of many rural

4!

communities to do so. In addition, the 2.5 billion pesos in infrastructure costs for the dam (CNA 2011) will likely more than double public water prices, a drastic change that will have particularly negative repercussions within the poorer sectors of Oaxaca de Jurez (Consejo 2011). Critics of the dam argue that it will also perpetuate the current mismanagement of the citys water supplies by eliminating the pressure of water scarcity, and therefore the incentive to reform current practices (Consejo 2011).

1.3

The Oaxacan Water Supply

Oaxacas water supply system is a complex web of public and private provision. The public sector is managed by ADOSAPACO, but, when its supply fails, consumers look to the estimated 200 distinct private water truck companies residing in the city to meet their demand. In addition, it is very rare that a Oaxacan family will drink from their tap (Lusher 2007). Everybody knows that the piped municipal water, and even the water from private trucks, is dirtyappropriate for flushing ones toilet, but not for drinking. Most families purchase drinking water in garrafones, 20-liter bottles of purified water that cost about 15 pesos (~US$1.15), and those that do not only do so because they cannot afford the expense (Lusher 2007). Thus, Oaxaca has two distinct streams of water supply and consumption, water for drinking, and water for everything else. This thesis will deal primarily with the latter. 1.3.1 Public Sector Water

ADOSAPACO, the State agency responsible for the acquisition, treatment, distribution, processing, recycling, and disposal of water, has property claims to four reservoir/watershed systems to the North of the city and some 15-20 deep wells to the !

5!

South and West (Lusher 2007). Although this diverse portfolio was sufficient to supply the citys needs some thirty years ago, it has not kept pace with the 30-40% increases in population that have occurred about every decade since the 1950s (Consejo 2011). At one time, perhaps as recently as 30 years ago, there was water pumping through the pipes beneath Oaxaca constantly, despite the fact that some 40% of this water was lost to leaks and cracks in the ancient infrastructure along the way (Consejo 2011). In those days, when a resident of Oaxaca turned on their tap, water rushed straight from the pipes, annunciating its abundance and the easy right to its use. Somewhere along the line, ADOSAPACO was forced, by a growing scarcity no doubt, to alter this practice. Currently, certain sections of the city receive water from ADOSAPACO on average about two times per week, some as much as five times per week, and others as little as once per week (Lusher 2007). ADOSAPACO sends water to different sections of the city on different days of the week. Some houses are lucky enough to be located at the crossroads of this underground network; others are at the extremities. A household receives water from ADOSAPACO usually for a matter of hours (Consejo 2011). In order to have access to water for the rest of the week, households purchase private water storage tanks, and almost every household owns at least one. These private water storage tanks are generally plastic Rotoplas tanks, with a capacity of 1,100 liters, located on the roof of a home; locally referred to as tinacos. Within the few hours that ADOSAPACO puts water in a section of their pipes, the pressure of the system carries the water up to the households tinacos. The water in a given tinaco is then consumed throughout the week as a household needs it, via the gravitational force that its rooftop location affords.

6! The ADOSAPACO water tariff being as cheap as it is, and the small-scale plastic

tinacos being as cheap as they are, this system actually works quite well, at least while ADOSAPACO has water to distribute. Although they may have minimized the amount they are losing to leaks and cracks, ADOSAPACOs staggered distribution system has in no way solved the larger water scarcity problem. Oaxaca receives an average of over 700 millimeters of rain every year, but almost the entirety of this occurs within 8 months. Hence, by the end of the dry season, and even into the beginning of the rainy season before the wells and reservoirs have recovered, ADOSAPACO has almost no water to distribute. Households that do not have an alternative water source to ADOSAPACO can sometimes go for one or even two months without water. 1.3.2 Private Water Sector

The most common alternative water sources are the privately owned water trucks, referred to locally as las pipas. ADOSAPACO itself owns a handful of water trucks that deliver water to households that are not receiving water through the pipe system (Honorable Ayuntamiento of Oaxaca de Jurez 2005). However, as many ADOSAPACO customers survey respondents revealed, it can be weeks after a household has put in a call to the public ADOSAPACO pipas before the water trucks actually arrive, and when they do, their load must be split between several blocks of customers, leaving only a few hundred liters to each household. Many respondents not only expressed that they did not see the point in contacting the public water trucks, but also that, when they did, the water was generally very bad quality.

7! Private water trucks are expensive. Although there is a considerable range in

prices1, the mean survey respondent reported paying 156 pesos per cubic meter (1,000 liters). Compared to the mean of 53 pesos per cubic meter that households reported paying for public ADOSAPACO water, the private price felt outlandish to most households. Nonetheless, many households commit a large portion of their monthly income during the dry season to paying for private water truck services, unable to deny the importance of having water. It is these high private water truck costs that could potentially be offset by RWH and create a cost-savings that might incentivize households to invest in a RWH system.

1.4

Current RWH in Oaxaca

In addition to purchasing from the private water trucks, it is not uncommon for households in Oaxaca to collect rainwater off of their roofs to augment their water supply. They know that every liter of free rainwater they capture is potentially a savings to their household. Thus, although many households in Oaxaca are currently harvesting rainwater, they are doing so out of necessity, and in a very rustic manner. Generally, only a portion of the roof is used to capture rainwater, without gutters or downspouts, and this small percentage of the potential harvesting capacity is stored in large buckets and bins, locally known as tambos (large 100 to 200-liter buckets), tinas (50 to 100-liter wash bins), and cubetas (small 10 to 50-liter buckets) made of plastic or metal, and often without tops. When it is rains hard, these buckets and bins fill quickly, capturing the same quantity of water whether it rained 5 mm or 50 mmunless they are emptied during the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1!Generally, the price per liter decreased as the quantity increased and increased as the quantity decreased.! !

8!

rain. Most households use this harvested rainwater for only the most basic of uses, namely, watering plants, washing floors, and flushing toilets. The motivation of this research, therefore, is to investigate the potential of a more sophisticated form of RWH to provide a larger alternative water supply. That is, to calculate how much of a households water demand could be offset by a RWH system complete with gutters, downspouts, a large storage tank, and a simple low-tech filtration device such as a first-flush diverter. This type of RWH system would allow a household to capture almost all the water that falls on their roof, store the surplus from the rainy season for use during the dry season, and bring the quality of their harvested rainwater up to a standard where they could comfortably and safely use it for bathing, laundry, and washing dishes in addition to cleaning and watering plants.

1.5

Barriers to Implementation and Improvement

Before the survey associated with this thesis was conducted, the work of Parker (2010) and others had led INSO to believe that very little RWH was taking place in Oaxaca. In response, a number of hypotheses had been developed in an attempt to explain the lack RWH in a city that, at least in INSOs eyes, could so clearly benefit from it. Drawn from both local knowledge and experiences from the literature it was theorized that households in Oaxaca were resistant to harvesting rainwater because of: (1) cultural barriers, such as the belief that Oaxaca did not receive enough rainfall to make a RWH system worthwhile or the perception that harvested rainwater was not of high enough quality; (2) informational barriers, such as knowledge gaps at both personal and institutional levels for either installing or maintaining a RWH system; (3) technical barriers, such as space

9!

constraints for large cisterns or the flat cement roofs so popular in Oaxaca rather than the angled tile roofs to which RWH systems are often applied; or (4) economic barriers, such as the large initial capital costs of a RWH system or the highly-subsidized public water prices in Oaxaca. These hypotheses served to shape both this thesis and the survey that it is based on. Even after the survey results showed larger-than-imagined participation in RWH, these hypothesized barriers to RWH implementation and improvement continued to set the stage for RWH work in Oaxaca.

10!

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Governments and water supply professionals in many developed developing nations are becoming concerned because, when they try to expand their supply, they find that all the water has been claimed or polluted (Farreny et al. 2011; Martinson & Thomas 2003). RWH provides an innovative, alternative solution (Imteaz et al. 2011; Kahinda & Taigbenu 2011; Mandak & Tapsuwan 2011; Palla & Gnecco 2011; Sturm et al. 2009; Chatfield & Coombes 2007; Ghisi, Bressan, & Martini 2007; Martinson & Thomas 2003; Gardner et al. 2001), and one that many governments are promoting, supporting, and even subsidizing (Domnech & Saur 2011; Farreny, Gabarrell, & Rieradevall 2011; Rygaard et al. 2011; Tam et al. 2010; Thomas 1998). Two of the world's experts in this field, Martinson and Thomas (2003), believe that the technology on which RWH systems are based has improved drastically since the 1990's. They state that system costs have been reduced dramatically, that concerns over water quality are better understood, and that methods now exist for overcoming many previous technical difficulties (Martinson & Thomas 2003). This belief is echoed by a general shift that can be seen in the literature from the 1990s to the 2000s. While most articles and research prior to 2000 are focused on the technicalities of RWH systems (what materials were appropriate for the catchment area and the cistern, what uses harvested rainwater could safely be put to, or what level of filtration/treatment was necessary), the past decade has marked a shift toward empirical case analysis focusing on water quality data and investigating economic and social aspects of RWH. Case studies and analyses of RWH projects at the single-building scale, the neighborhood scale, the city scale, and even the country scale from nations around the globe showcase this new pattern in the literature and describe the policies that cities are

11!

implementing to promote and regulate RWH (Domnech & Saur 2011; Rygaard et al. 2011; Abdulla & Al-Shareef 2009; Kahinda et al. 2007; Villarreal & Dixon 2004; Thomas 1998). Notably, Mexico is largely absent from this literature. Broadly speaking, there are three strains of RWH research in the literature. The first is a literature regarding the technical aspects of RWH, and usually involves topics such as the appropriate construction, use, and maintenance of a RWH system and the best and/or cheapest materials to build with. The second concerns water quality and focuses on testing harvested rainwater with a variety of water quality parameters at different points within a RWH system. The third investigates the economic viability of RWH as an instrument in public and private strategies for meeting water consumption demands. The following chapter reviews the first and second of these strands in brief, and the third at length, since it is the most relevant to the investigation at hand.

2.1

Materials & Components of a RWH System

The basic components of complete rainwater harvesting system are as follows: (1) catchment surface; (2) gutters and downspouts; (3) first-flush diverter (FFD); (4) storage tank(s)/cistern(s); (5) delivery system; and (6) treatment/purification (Texas Water Development Board 2005). Although this thesis does not focus on the technical aspects of RWH, an extensive literature exists discussing these components. The following section considers the basic purpose of each component very briefly, but more information on each of them can be found in Appendix A. The catchment surface of a RWH system is simply the area onto which the harvested rainwater first falls. It can refer to any surface that harvested rainwater drains

12!

into a cistern from (i.e. roof, patio, parking lot), but usually suggests a roof, and in this thesis will always denote a households roof area. It can be made from a variety of materials, although certain ones are preferable to others. The size of the catchment area is the most powerful factor in determining how much rainwater can be harvested. Gutters and downspouts are a channeling system that carries rainwater from the catchment surface to the storage tank. Like the catchment surface, they can be made from a many materials, each with their own advantages and disadvantages, but they also vary greatly in order to best fit roof characteristics. Many houses in Oaxaca, for example, have flat roofs and would need channeling upon the roof itself rather than perimeter guttering. First-flush diversion is the most basic and acclaimed form of filtration for a RWH system. Many designs for FFDs exist, but, in its simplest form, it is a Y-pipe that sits in every downspout and allows the owner to close the valve leading to the cistern, letting the rainwater pour out upon the ground instead. Empirical evidence indicates that performing this first-flush a few times per year drastically improves the quality of harvested rainwater (Vialle et al. 2011; Lee et al. 2010; Helmreich & Horn 2008). The storage tank is where the harvested rainwater ends up and is stored for future use. It can be made from a variety of materials, but since it usually represents the majority of the initial capital costs, cheaper materials are generally favored, namely cement and plastic. The size of the storage tank is second only to the size of the catchment area as a factor in determining how much rainwater can be harvested, and, because it is also such a significant portion of the initial investment, the economic literature emphasizes optimal cistern sizing heavily.

13! The delivery system is simply the plumbing that takes harvested rainwater from

the storage tank to household faucets, etc. In most cases RWH systems can be patched in to already existing plumbing very easily, but on occasion new pipes must be installed. Some systems use a pump to carry rainwater to a second storage tank on the roof, where it is distributed via gravity; others pump water directly from the cistern to the faucet. Treatment and purification methods are generally applied post-storage and used to bring harvested rainwater to potable quality. Because this thesis is recommending that rainwater be used for non-potable uses like watering plants, flushing toilets, and laundry, the majority of the treatment methods available are not of concern. If households plan to use their harvested rainwater for other non-potable uses like bathing and cooking, than the literature recommends small doses of chlorine in addition to the FFDs (Domnech & Saur 2011; Farreny et al. 2011; Imteaz et al. 2011; Mandak & Tapsuwan 2011; Toronto & Region Conservation 2010; Helmreich & Horn 2008; Kahinda, Taigbenu, & Boroto 2007; Martinson & Thomas 2003; Thomas 1998).

2.2

The Quality of Harvested Rainwater

Fourteen studies written over the last twelve years were compared for this thesis in order to gauge the level of water quality that can be expected from a RWH system. This water quality literature review revealed serious concerns over the gastrointestinal diseases and poisoning that could occur from ingesting harvested rainwater, and several common paths of contamination were identified. Although there were conflicting results and opinions as to whether harvested rainwater is safe and appropriate for drinking, all studies concluded that harvested rainwater is appropriate for greywater uses (Domnech & Saur 2011;

14!

Farreny et al. 2011; Vialle et al. 2011; Morrow et al. 2010; Lee et al. 2010; Abdulla & Al-Shareef 2009; Radaideh et al. 2009; Sazakli et al. 2007; Chang et al. 2004; Kim et al. 2004; Zhu et al. 2004; Coombes, Kuczera, & Kalma 2003; Simmons et al. 2001; Coombes et al. 2000). Since this thesis is recommending the use of harvested rainwater only for such greywater uses, much of the literature regarding rainwater quality is not entirely relevant. Hence, a more detailed review of this literature can be found in Appendix B. 2.2.1 Appropriate Rainwater Uses

Although the harvested rainwater samples in all studies met the requirements for greywater uses, there is some disagreement about what the appropriate end uses for greywater are. All analysts agree that greywater is not for drinking, and that it is acceptable for uses like watering plants, flushing toilets, and conducting general housecleaning. However, other greywater uses such as cooking, brushing teeth, washing dishes, and doing laundry are controversial because of the possibility of procuring a disease or other ailment from ingestion or contact with rainwater. Basic filtration techniques are highly recommended in the literature for RWH systems, especially if one plans to put harvested rainwater to some of the more controversial greywater uses (Domnech & Saur 2011; Mandak & Tapsuwan 2011; Rygaard et al. 2011; Jones & Hunt 2010; Kahinda, Taigbenu, & Boroto 2010; Dolnicar & Shfer 2009; Ward 2009; Helmreich & Horn 2008; Texas Water Development Board 2005; Thomas 1998). The most common and highly recommended basic filtration technique is the first-flush diverter (FFD), (Farreny et al. 2011; Vialle et al. 2011; Lee et al. 2010; Morrow et al. 2010; Abdulla & Al-Shareef 2009; Helmreich & Horn 2008;

15!

Sazakli et al. 2007; Texas Water Development Board 2005; Kim et al. 2004; Zhu et al. 2004; Coombes et al. 2000; Thomas 1998). Ten of the fourteen quality studies reviewed for this thesis conducted their analysis with entirely unfiltered rainwater, i.e. without the use of a FFD. However, some of those analyzing unfiltered rainwater, like Farreny et al (2011), Vialle et al. (2011), Lee et al. (2010), Morrow et al. (2010), and Kim et al. (2004), made note of the fact that employing a FFD would likely increase the quality of harvested water significantly. Abdulla and Al-Shareef (2009), Zhu et al. (2004), and Coombes et al. (2000), the only three studies that compared the qualities of first-flush rainwater and unfiltered rainwater, found significant quality improvements in the rainwater from systems with a FFD. Abdulla and Al-Shareef (2009) and Zhu et al. (2004) both found first-flush harvested rainwater to be acceptable for all WHO Drinking Water Standards. Coombes et al. (2000) found violations of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines for ammonium and lead parameters in all rainwater samples, but with significantly less frequency in first-flush rainwater. Sazakli et al. (2007), on the other hand, used FFDs for all their harvested rainwater samples. They found every sample to be within the guidelines for chemical parameters of the 98/93/EU directive for drinking water, but also encountered a violating presence of total coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci in 80.3%, 40.9%, and 28.8% of their rainwater samples, respectively, although always in low enough concentrations to be used for greywater purposes (Sazakli et al. 2007). 2.2.2 Public Perception of Rainwater Quality

Although RWH is generally thought of as a powerful solution or a brilliant alternative supply to problems with surface waters and groundwater, concerns over the quality of

16!

harvested rainwater have long held the implementation of this technology in check (Domnech & Saur 2011; Mandak & Tapsuwan 2011; Rygaard et al. 2011; Jones & Hunt 2010; Kahinda, Taigbenu, & Boroto 2010; Lee et al. 2010; Dolnicar & Shfer 2009; Helmreich & Horn 2009; Ward 2009). Abdulla & Al-Shareef (2009) wisely observe that "the safety of water is determined not only in the laboratory by absolute measurements, but also at the household level by people's perceptions" (Abdulla & AlShareef 2009, p. 204). As important as scholarly research and water quality standards are in guiding public policy decisions on these matters, households are usually forced to make these decisions on their own. Especially with decentralized, autonomous water supplies like RWH, households have the final say in allocating the qualityappropriateness of their water to end uses. A striking example of this can be seen in many developing countries, where households use the water from wells, rivers, or buckets of rainwater as drinking water (Abdulla & Al-Shareef 2009; Sturm et al. 2009; Kahinda et al. 2007). Sometimes boiling or a few drops of bleach are used to improve water quality, but often even these preliminary measures are unavailable or too expensive to be taken (Abdulla & Al-Shareef 2009; Sturm et al. 2009; Kahinda et al. 2007). Kahinda et al. (2007) estimated that about 67,000 underground and aboveground rainwater storage tanks in South Africa are currently being used for drinking water. In direct contrast, other places in the worldespecially developed countries have a powerful, widespread, and culturally ingrained resistance to using rainwater, recycled water, or desalinated water for even many of the greywater end uses (Domnech & Saur 2011; Mandak & Tapsuwan 2011; Rygaard et al. 2011; Jones & Hunt 2010;

17!

Kahinda, Taigbenu, & Boroto 2010; Dolnicar & Shfer 2009; Ward 2009; Helmreich & Horn 2008; Thomas 1998). This negative perception of rainwater quality and the lack of regulations and guidelines on the installation, use, and maintenance of this technology are often considered some of the greatest barriers to RWH implementation (Anand & Apul 2011; Mandak & Tapsuwan 2011; Ward 2009; Kahinda, Taigbenu, & Boroto 2007).

2.3

Hydraulic and Economic RWH Models

Since the turn of the century, a number of peer-reviewed journal articles have been published that (1) assess the success of one (or many) RWH system(s) already in existence, (2) estimate the RWH that could be achieved if such systems were installed in a specific location, or, occasionally, (3) attempt to put a value to the current or potential RWH that a location is practicing or could attain. Some studies, particularly those from Australia, were written with a slightly different motivation. Although they are still presented in terms of harvested rainwater, they have an additional focus on stormwater management, often presenting their results as both demand offset and stormwater abated. The hydraulic efficiency of RWH systems is discussed in terms of water saving efficiency (WSE) or system reliability, and the economic efficiency of RWH is discussed in terms of net present value (NPV), payback period, or life cycle costing. The following section reviews and compares the methods, results, and conclusions of this literature. 2.3.1 Scale of Analysis

Early studies, such as Chilton et al. (2000) or Coombes et al. (2000), generally conducted their analysis on a single building or series of buildings (like a housing development) that already had and were currently using a RWH system. They set out to assess the level to !

18!

which these RWH systems were meeting water demands, and occasionally to investigate the economic viability of such systems. Cistern levels, FFD functioning, and sometimes water quality were monitored over a period of years in order to measure system performance, give critical feedback, and potentially recommend adoption of the technology elsewhere. These early studies set the stage for the next round of more hypothetical studies, spurring interest in the technology and providing a basis for future analysis. A second round of studies, like Ghisi, Montibeller, and Schmidt (2006) or Roebuck and Ashley (2006), started appearing in the literature by the mid-2000s, although it can be seen as early Coombes and Kuczera (2003) and Liaw and Tsai (2004). These studies were distinct from those previous to them because they used rainfall data and sometimes computer simulations to estimate a potential rainwater harvest, given various roof sizes, storage capacities, and consumption levels. Thus, they were able to predict system performance and economic viability before the system had been constructed, providing a powerful policy tool. Such studies extended the scale of their analysis to whole cities or even regions and in many cases a dialogue began between researchers and policy-makers. Most studies focused on single-family homes; others examined multi-unit apartment buildings, commercial enterprises, or universities. Some studies were conducted at the behest of policy-makers; others were used to convince them of the feasibility of RWH. Table 2.1 presents the 28 studies reviewed for this thesis.

! Table 2.1: Hydraulic and Economic RWH Model Literature Summarized

Reference
Chilton et al. (2000) Coombes et al. (2000) Herrmann & Schmida (2000) Gardner et al. (2001) Coombes & Kuczera (2003) Coombes, Kuczera, & Kalma (2003) Liaw & Tsai (2004) Villarreal & Dixon (2005) Ghisi, Montibeller, & Schmidt (2006) Roebuck & Ashley (2006) Chatfield & Coombes (2007) Ghisi, Bressan, & Martini (2007) Abdulla & Al-Shareef (2009) Ghisi et al (2009) Rahman, Dbais, & Imteaz (2009) Sturm et al. (2009) Ward (2009) Basinger et al. (2010) Jones & Hunt (2010) Kahinda, Taigbenu, & Boroto (2010) Tam et al. (2010) Toronto & Region Conservation (2010) Anand & Apul (2011) Angrill et al. (2011) Domnech & Saur (2011) Farreny et al. (2011) Imteaz et al. (2011) Palla & Gnecco (2011)

19!

Time
current current current current future current future current future future future future future future future current current future future future future current future future current current future future

Type
retrofit new new & retrofit new retrofit retrofit retrofit new new & retrofit retrofit retrofit new & retrofit new & retrofit retrofit retrofit new & retrofit new retrofit retrofit new & retrofit retrofit retrofit retrofit retrofit retrofit retrofit retrofit retrofit

Scale
1 large supermarket 1 suburban development 1 single-family home & 1 multi-unit building 1 single-family rural home single-family urban homes in 4 cities 1 single-family urban home single-family urban homes 1 suburban development single-family urban homes in 62 cities 1 public school single-family urban homes in 3 cities single-family urban homes in 195 cities single-family homes in 12 governates commercial urban gas stations multi-unit buildings in 3 cities rural communities suburban housing developments multi-unit buildings single-family urban homes in 3 cities rural communities single-family urban homes in 7 cities 1 printing facility, 1 public school, & 1 high rise apartment building 1 university's engineering complex multi-unit buildings single-family & multi-unit urban homes 4 buildings in the Autonomous University of Barcelona multi-unit buildings single-family urban homes in 3 cities

Location
Greenwich, England Newcastle, Australia Bochum, Germany Gold Coast, Australia Australia Newcastle, Australia Taiwan Norrkping, Sweden Brazil unknown location, England Australia Brazil Jordan Braslia, Brazil Australia Namibia England New York City, United States North Carolina, United States South Africa Australia Toronto, Canada Toledo, Spain Mediterranean Cities Barcelona, Spain Barcelona, Spain Melbourne, Australia Italy

2.3.2

Optimal Sizing of a RWH System

As the literature moved from current analysis to hypothetical future analysis, one of the dominating questions became the ideal size of a RWH, and specifically the ideal tank

20!

size for a given roof size and consumption level. The tank size required to capture the entirety of the rainwater falling on a roofthe unconstrained harvestis generally impractically large (Palla & Gnecco 2011; Jones & Hunt 2010; Toronto & Region Conservation 2010; Chatfield & Coombes 2007; Roebuck & Ashley 2006; Coombes & Kuczera 2003). Hence, because there is a diminishing return to increasing the tank size (Angrill et al. 2011; Domnech & Saur 2011; Imteaz et al. 2011; Palla & Gnecco 2011; Jones & Hunt 2010; Tam et al. 2010; Toronto & Region Conservation 2010; Ghisi et al 2009; Chatfield & Coombes 2007; Roebuck & Ashley 2006; Coombes & Kuczera 2003; Martinson & Thomas 2003), and because the tank is usually the most expensive part of the system (Helmreich & Horn 2008; Texas Water Development Board 2005; Turner 2000; Thomas 1998), the ideal tank is smaller than that which would be necessary to capture the unconstrained harvest. The question, then, is how much smaller? The majority of the literature discusses system sizing and ideal tank size in terms of WSE. For example, Jones and Hunt (2010) conducted an analysis of the RWH potential for irrigation in North Carolina after a series of droughts and found that a 4,000liter cistern would be needed to satisfy the entire irrigation water demand for a 10 square meter plot, but that a 1,800-liter cistern would satisfy 92% of the same irrigation water demand. Although Jones and Hunt (2010), and other such as Sturm et al. (2009) and Chatfield and Coombes (2007), did discuss various tank sizes in terms of WSE, they also chose their ideal tank size arbitrarily. Others have developed specific methodologies. Roebuck and Ashley (2006) developed a Microsoft Excel-based RWH computer simulator called RainCycle, and with it, standardized the method optimizing tank size in terms of WSE. The software sets the hypothetical RWH systems ideal tank size to

21!

the level where, by increasing the tank size by one cubic meter (1,000 liters), the WSE increases by less than 1% (Angrill et al. 2011). Since then, Anand & Apul (2011), Angrill et al. (2011), Domnech & Saur (2011), Ghisi et al. (2009), and Ghisi, Bressan, & Martini (2007) have all utilized the same optimizing methodology2, whether or not they were using RainCycle. Most studies in the literature, however, simply do not set an ideal tank size, and discuss the WSE that would be achieved with a variety of tank sizes (Farreny, Gabarrell, & Rieradevall 2011; Imteaz et al. 2011; Kahinda, Taigbenu, & Boroto 2010; Tam et al. 2010; Villarreal & Dixon 2004; Coombes & Kuczera 2003; Herrmann & Schmida 2000). Another approach to sizing a RWH system and choosing an ideal tank size is to frame the question in terms of system reliability. Liaw and Tsai (2004) pioneered a method by which the number of system failures, defined as the number of times there is demand for rainwater but the storage tank is empty, is turned into a system reliability percentage, where reliability is equal to the number of failures divided by the number of time periods analyzed. Although, Liaw and Tsai (2004) ended up favoring a WSE-type sizing method and discussing a number of tank sizes and roof sizes rather than setting an optimums, Palla and Gnecco (2011), Basinger et al. (2010), and Kahinda, Taigbenu, and Boroto (2007) used the methodology they developed years later. In these studies, the desired system reliability is chosen and, using the Storage and Reliability Estimation Tool (SARET), the tank size that is required to meet that reliability level is produced (Palla & Gnecco 2011; Basinger et al. 2010; Kahinda, Taigbenu, & Boroto 2007). Each of these studies used one day as their time-unit of analysis and discussed the system !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2!Some studies used the tank size that, by increasing it one cubic meter, would result in a 0.5% increase in WSE instead.! !

22!

reliability for a variety of roof sizes, tank sizes, and consumption levels, with no optimums chosen (Palla & Gnecco 2011; Basinger et al. 2010; Kahinda, Taigbenu, & Boroto 2007). The least common way to discuss system sizing is in terms of the value of the rainwater harvest. Liaw and Tsai (2004) incorporated the costs of converting catchment areas and building storage tanks, but it only served to set a lowest-cost optimum ratio between these two RWH system inputs. The incorporation of prices did not extend to attempting to value the rainwater harvest and optimizing accordingly. Similarly, Ghisi et al. (2009) conducted an investment feasibility analysis when sizing their RWH system, but it only served to set constraints on the tank sizes they considered. Many studies do use municipal water prices to put a value to harvested rainwater, but none of them optimize their system size in order to maximize the NPV of the system of minimize the payback period for system improvements, as this thesis does. 2.3.3 Private Value of Harvested Rainwater

Surprisingly few studies that conducted a comprehensive hydraulic analysis also performed an economic one. Almost all of the thirteen studies reviewed for this thesis that do perform an economic analysis simply take the price of municipal water that households are currently paying and value harvested rainwater as the costs avoided by offsetting this supply. Some, such as Sturm et al. (2009), factor in the costs of private water supplies where necessary, and others, such as Domnech and Saur (2011), Farreny, Gabarrell, and Rieradevall (2011), Imteaz et al. (2011), and Rahman, Dbais, and Imteaz (2009), assume an increase in municipal water prices over the time period considered. However, RWH systems also have costs, and to calculate NPVs and payback

23!

periods initial capital costs and maintenance and operational costs need to be included. A variety of approaches exist. 2.3.3.1 Water Prices A common theme running through this literature is that current water prices are too low to make RWH an economically viable alternative water supply. Most of the studies with very negative NPVs and unreasonably long payback periods stated that RWH would be more viable if municipal water prices were higher (Coombes, Kuczera, & Kalma 2003; Gardner et al. 2001; Chilton et al. 2000). Hence, more contemporary studies that took place in regions that have had drastic increases in municipal water prices in the recent past applied price inflations to their economic analyses (Domnech & Saur 2011; Farreny, Gabarrell, & Rieradevall 2011; Imteaz et al. 2011; Rahman, Dbais, & Imteaz 2009). Domnech and Saur (2011) and Farreny, Gabarrell, and Rieradevall (2011) assumed annual increases in municipal water prices of 4% and 5%, respectively. Both studies took place in Barcelona, Spain, and cited average rates of past increase as evidence for their, admittedly, arbitrary choice. Imteaz et al. (2011) and Rahman, Dbais, and Imteaz (2009) assumed annual increases in municipal water prices of 15% and 4.5%, respectively, citing past increases in Melbourne and Sydney to support their choices. 2.3.3.2 Initial Capital Costs The methods for calculating the initial capital costs of gutters, downspouts, FFDs, storage tanks, pumps, etc. vary greatly in the literature. Almost all studies put prices on the storage tank and the pump, but did not include any discussion of costs for the channeling system that must accompany them. The costs of these components have either been absorbed into those that were included, or they were ignored entirely. Ghisi et al. (2009), !

24!

Rahman, Dbais, and Imteaz (2009), Sturm et al. (2009), and Liaw and Tsai (2004) are the exceptions, and presented cost estimations for channeling, roof conversion, or plumbing modifications. This gap in the economic analyses of these studies can perhaps be explained by the overwhelming consensus in the literature that the storage tank makes up the majority of a RWH systems cost. 2.3.3.3 Maintenance and Operational Costs There is a strong feeling in the literature that the economic barrier to RWH is in the initial capital costs, and that maintenance and operational costs are extremely low (Helmreich & Horn 2008; Martinson & Thomas 2003). Hence, several studies neglected to include maintenance and operational costs at all 3 (Imteaz et al. 2011; Toronto & Region Conservation 2010; Sturm et al. 2009; Liaw & Tsai 2004; Chilton et al. 2000). Of the studies that did include estimations for these costs, many arbitrarily set an annual fee for anticipated maintenance costs (Domnech & Saur 2011; Farreny, Gabarrell, & Rieradevall 2011; Gardner et al. 2001); others broke the costs down by component and cited replacement cost estimations and frequency necessary (Ghisi et al. 2009; Rahman, Dbais, & Imteaz 2009; Roebuck & Ashley 2006); and others still gave maintenance cost estimations per quantity of rainwater captured (Tam et al. 2010; Coombes et al. 2003). The only operational costs considered in any studies were the electricity costs from pumping harvested rainwater out of the cistern, and only Domnech and Saur (2011), !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3!This decision is supported by various interviews and survey, such as those conducted by Domnech and
Saur (2011), Tam et al. (2010), and Coombes, Kuczera, and Kalma (2003), as well as the survey conducted for this thesis, which all had the owners of RWH systems reporting zero or negligible monetary costs for RWH system maintenance. Although zero does seem impossibly low, the results of the survey for this thesis and the results of Domnech and Saurs (2011) interviews revealed that households do not perform many of the recommended maintenance procedures, which, while explaining the low perceived maintenance costs, also brings about new questions of water quality and the lifespans of system components.!

25!

Farreny, Gabarrell, and Rieradevall (2011), and Rahman, Dbais, and Imteaz (2009) considered such costs. All studies that assumed municipal water price increases also applied domestic inflation rates to all maintenance and operational costs (Domnech & Saur 2011; Farreny, Gabarrell, & Rieradevall 2011; Imteaz et al. 2011; Rahman, Dbais, & Imteaz 2009). 2.3.3.4 NPVs and Payback Periods Domnech and Saur (2011), Ghisi et al. (2009), Sturm et al. (2009), Roebuck and Ashley (2006), and Coombes, Kuczera, & Kalma (2003) used the NPV of RWH systems as a measure of economic viability in their analyses. Meanwhile, Farreny, Gabarrell, and Rieradevall (2011), Imteaz et al. (2011), Tam et al. (2010), Rahman, Dbais, and Imteaz (2009), and Gardner et al. (2001) used life cycle costing (LCC), which does not differ from NPV in principle, but only in the units it is measured, as a measure of economic viability in their analyses. In addition, Domnech and Saur (2011), Farreny, Gabarrell, and Rieradevall (2011), Imteaz et al. (2011), Toronto & Region Conservation (2010), Sturm et al. (2009), Rahman, Dbais, and Imteaz (2009), Roebuck and Ashley (2006), Liaw & Tsai (2004), Gardner et al. (2001), and Chilton et al. (2000) used the payback period for RWH system installation costs, sometimes accounting for maintenance and operational costs along the way and sometimes not, as a measure of economic viability in their analyses. The discount rates applied to these economic measurements ranged from 0% to 10% with a mean of 3.9% (median of 3.5%), and many studied considered several discount rates for sensitivity analysis. The discount periods for which these economic measurements were studied ranged from 15 to 65 years with a mean of 44.4 years (median of 50 years).

! 2.3.4 Social Value of Harvested Rainwater

26!

At least seven different types of social values have been identified in the literature for urban harvesting rainwater: (1) decreased need for stormwater management systems; (2) decreased intensity and frequency of flooding events; (3) decreased need for future municipal water and sewage distribution networks; (4) decreased energy use for delivering municipal water and treating sewage; (5) decreased need for future public works projects to acquire more water; (6) decreased groundwater withdrawal; (7) decreased dumping and overflow of raw sewage; and (8) increases in quality of life. Although a few of these social values are discussed in almost every study that conducted an economic analysis, very few attempts have been made to quantify them. In regard to the decreased need for stormwater management systems, Coombes et al. (2000) wrote, Andoh and Declerck (1999) found that retention and infiltration measures used as source controls reduced infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation cost by a factor of five and also significantly reduced pollution of receiving waters (Coombes et al. 2000, p. 10). Along the same lines, Vargas (2009) calculated that Penn State could decrease its peak stormwater runoff by 52.7% and its total stormwater runoff volume by 46.1% with RWH, generating 10 to 30 million US dollars in cost savings over the next 30 years. Ouessar et al. (2004) conducted perhaps the most thorough analysis of the social valuation of RWH. They found that a combination of RWH and other watersaving and erosion-preventing technologies in the 336 square kilometer Oued Oum Zessar watershed of central Tunisia could generate as much as US$645,000 from the reduction in flood damages to structures that would result, and that investments of this nature had an internal rate of return (IRR) of 18.4% in this respect (Ouessar et al. 2004).

27!

In addition, they found that these same technologies and practices could generate as much as US$847,000 from the groundwater withdrawals that it would offset and the increases in quality of life that it would cause, and that investments of this nature had an IRR of 26.0% in this respect (Ouessar et al. 2004). Few other attempts exist, but even the studies that did mention specific social values explicitly stated that high social values exist for RWH and that future research should attempt to quantify these values (Angrill et al. 2011; Domnech & Saur 2011; Farreny, Gabarrell, & Rieradevall 2011; Kahinda & Taigbenu 2011; Mankad & Tapsuwan 2011; Jones & Hunt 2010; Toronto & Region Conservation 2010; Abdulla & Al-Shareef 2009; Chatfield & Coombes 2007; Chilton et al. 2000; Coombes et al. 2000). 2.3.5 Policies to Promote RWH

As an alternative water supply technology being used as part of a toolkit to address a citys adaptive water strategies, RWH has a number of advantages and benefits that make it attractive to both city planners and water consumers: (1) the water itself is free, the only costs accrue from collection and use; (2) the distribution systems necessary for rainwater are very small in scale because the point of use is located so close to the source; (3) the fact that rainwater has zero hardness extends the life of appliances and eliminates the need for softening processes; (4) the harvesting itself reduces stormwater drainage and therefore non-point source pollution; (5) the alternative supply decreases the strain on water utilities to increase the size of water grids and treatment plants; and (6) the smaller public water networks that results reduce consumer water utility bills, for those harvesting rainwater, and also for everyone else (Texas Water Development Board 2005; Coombes et al. 2003; Gardner et al. 2001). In addition to these, there are several

28!

developing country-specific advantages and benefits to RWH: (7) the water supply is decentralized and therefore households who are not receiving sufficient water from public sources can take the acquisition of water into their own hands, without having to travel long distances; and (8) the fact that harvested rainwater is released slowly decreases erosion and flooding, and increases groundwater recharge (Kahinda & Taigbenu 2011; Abdulla & Al-Shareef 2009; Sturm et al. 2009; Ouessar et al. 2004; Thomas 1998). In light of these advantages and benefits, national, regional, and local governments have developed a number of policy instruments for promoting the use of RWH over the last twenty years. Several motivations and a variety of outcomes have resulted. The following section reviews the literature on such policies. These case studies are by no means the only countries with rainwater-promoting policies, but selections from a broader literature. 2.3.5.1 Germany The earliest set of government policies that set out to promote RWH were enacted in Germany during the early 1990s. Various city councils, such as the Hansestadt Hamburg, began adopting rainwater-supportive policies by choosing to use decentralized cisterns and rainwater catchments for public schools, and encouraging private enterprise and industry to adopt these water-saving technologies with tax incentives and subsidies (Toronto & Region Conservation 2010; Herrmann & Schmida 2000). Although the original catalyst that popularized RWH in Germany was almost certainly based on the environmental concerns of forward-thinking people, the technology appealed to governments because of the stormwater abatement and associated savings it caused

29!

(Herrmann & Schmida 2000). Environmentalists, scholars, and politicians alike were not sure that RWH was economically feasible at the household level, but they understood very well the social values it would generate (Herrmann & Schmida 2000). Nonetheless, in 1995, the Fachvereinigung Betriebswassernutzung (FBR) was formed in Frankfurt as the principle pressure group for lobbyists, consultants, and RWH manufacturers, and by 1999 pre-fabricated rainwater tank manufacturers had reported over 10,000 cistern sales, many to single-family households (Toronto & Region Conservation 2010; Herrmann & Schmida 2000). RWH not only proved to be an excellent investment from a societal perspective, but also an attractive financial venture for households, at least once a subsidy was offered to them (Toronto & Region Conservation 2010; Herrmann & Schmida 2000). 2.3.5.2 Australia With a similar motivation as Germany of using RWH to aid in storwmwater management (SWM) and decrease flooding, the city of Newcastle, Australia commissioned Peter J. Coombes in 1999 to help design the RWH system of a new suburban development, Figtree Place (Coombes et al. 2000). Working within the newly developed paradigm of water sensitive urban development (WSUD), the Newcastle City Council and Coombes set goals that rainwater would satisfy 50% of hot water and toilet demand, 100% of domestic irrigation needs, and 100% of car-washing needs (Coombes et al. 2000). These same rainwater tanks would act as retention tanks for stormwater, reducing downstream flooding, the strain on stormwater infrastructure, and water pollution resulting from combined sewer system overflow (Coombes et al. 2000). In addition, and most importantly, Figtree Place would serve as a pilot project and RWH experiment (Coombes et al. 2000).

30! In 1999 and 2000, many of Australias largest, low-lying cities in the flood plains

of New South Wales and Queensland began following Newcastles example and adopting rainwater-promoting policies (Tam et al. 2010). In the context of the severe restrictions and conservation policies for water use that had come before, the regional and state policies that became popular, requiring the installation of RWH systems in new homes and offering cash rebates for retrofits, were well-received by Australians (Tam et al. 2010). By 2001, 16% of Australian households used rainwater tanks in their homes (Tam et al. 2010). Australian consultants and proponents of RWH had perceived that this technology could act to alleviate both their droughts and their floods, and they succeeded in negotiating a set of policies that would accomplish it (Tam et al. 2010). 2.3.5.3 Spain For the last 100 years Spain has followed in the traditional western paradigm of dams and large inter-basin transfers to ensure sufficient supply and economic development (Domnech & Saur 2011). However, this paradigm is coming to end, especially in semiarid regions like Spain, as large cities run out of dams and basins to transfer water from. The last of such projects for the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (MAB) was abandoned by the regional government in 2001 in favor of desalination and RWH opportunities (Domnech & Saur 2011). In 2002, Sant Cugat del Valls (SCV) was the first municipality in Spain to approve a building code that required buildings with more than 300 square meters of garden space to install RWH systems (Domnech & Saur 2011). In addition, SCV offered subsidies to households installing RWH systems of up 1,200 Euros but never exceeding 50% of the total system cost (Domnech & Saur 2011). Since then, over 40 other municipalities in Catalonia have passed regulations to promote RWH

31!

(Domnech & Saur 2011). An analysis of these policies conducted by Domnech and Saur in 2011, concluded that such subsidies are an extremely effective way to encourage and support the use of RWH systems. 2.3.5.4 Developing Countries Studies by Ghisi et al. (2009; 2007; 2006) in Brazil, by Kahinda et al. (2011; 2010; 2007) in South Arfica, by Sturm et al. (2009) in Namibia, and by Ouessar et al. (2004) in Tunisia have all analyzed the potential water supplies that RWH could offer these waterstressed countries. However, a combination of financial, technical, and institutional limitations have made it very difficult to introduce policies to promote RWH, and, without government aid, the large capital investments required to install a RWH system are unaffordable to the majority of households (Kahinda, Taigbenu, & Boroto 2010; Ghisi et al. 2009). Nonetheless, several policy programs have flourished. Thomas (1998) reviewed the large-scale programs that China introduced in the Hebei Province and elsewhere during the mid-1990s. Funding targets were set such that each household benefitting from community-wide roof and courtyard RWH systems would only have to invest about US$100 (Thomas 1998). Within a few years, over 100,000 rural and suburban households were involved and benefitting (Thomas 1998). 2.3.6 Barriers to Implementation

Various barriers to RWH have been identified in the literature. Domnech and Saur (2011) and Ward (2009) cited cultural barriers such as the perception of harvested rainwater quality or the lack of as being important in limiting RWH. Basinger et al. (2010) and Martinson and Thomas (2003) cite technical barriers as the most powerful in

32!

limiting RWH implementation. Meanwhile, Domnech and Saur (2011), Farreny et al. (2011), Kahinda and Taigbenu (2011), Kahinda, Taigbenu, and Boroto (2010), Abdulla & Al-Shareef (2009), Ghisi et al. (2009), Gardner et al. (2001), Chilton et al. (2000), Turner (2000), and Thomas (1998) treated economic barriers such as the large initial investments required as the greatest force working against RWH adoption. Anand and Apul (2011), Domnech and Saur (2011), Farreny, Gabarrell, and Rieradevall (2011), Basinger et al. (2010), and Tam et al. (2010) found that institutional and administrative barriers from the lack of regulations and guidelines on installation, use, and maintenance of RWH systems was limiting their adoption, whereas Kahinda and Taigbenu (2011), Toronto & Region Conservation (2010), and Kahinda, Taigbenu, & Boroto (2007) stated that various legal and regulatory barriers such as zoning laws and building codes were holding RWH implementation back. Hence, the barriers to RWH seem to be very dependent on location, illustrating the need for an analysis of Oaxacas barriers to RWH in specific.

33!

Chapter 3: Model and Methods

The water supply system of Oaxaca de Jurez differs in several ways from other urban areas studied in the literature, and these differences support the need for Oaxaca-specific data collection and for a novel approach to RWH modeling. Because the tariff for municipal, piped water varies drastically between households, and because households already have a wide range of water storage capacities at their disposal, household-by-household data is needed to properly estimate RWH potential. The following chapter presents the survey and model that were developed in order to collect and analyze these data, and assess Oaxacas RWH potential.

3.1

The Survey Process

In order to randomly choose a survey sample from Oaxacas population, ArcGIS was used to randomly select 100 survey points within the urban area defined by the Instituto Nacional de Estadstica y Geographa (INEGI). Over a five-week period, 45 of these 100 households were successfully surveyed4. Depending on which sources of water, which type of storage capacity in use, and whether they already harvested rainwater, households were asked between 46 and 99 questions. Some questions targeted household demographics, with the idea of having the necessary control information to run regressions, but most focused on current water use, current storage capacity, current

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4!A discussion of the reasons for excluding the other 55 households can be found in Appendix I.! !

34!

RWH practices, RWH potential, RWH perceptions, and interest in/willingness to use harvested rainwater as a household water supply5.

3.2

Model for RWH Storage Dynamics

The dynamic RWH model used in this study has three steps: calculating the unconstrained RWH potential, estimating short-term constraints on capacity, and estimating long-term constraints on capacity. Each step is presented in the following section. 3.2.1 Unconstrained RWH Potential

The unconstrained RWH potential is defined simply as the amount of rainfall that could be harvested if households had gutters, downspouts, and all other RWH system components, and were also not constrained by rainwater storage capacity. Under such conditions, the potential RWH is a function of the size of each households catchment area, the average monthly rainfall, and a standard runoff coefficient, such that: !!" = ! !! !! where !!" is the unconstrained RWH potential of household j in month i (liters), K is the splash off/evaporation/runoff coefficient, !! is the average monthly rainfall in month i (millimeters), and !! is the catchment area of household j (m2).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5!A full copy of these questions can be found in both English and Spanish in Appendices J and K, respectively.! !

! 3.2.1.1 Splash Off/Evaporation/Runoff Coefficient

35!

The literature uses a range of values from 0.7 to 0.95 (Farreny et al. 2011), with 0.8, 0.85, and 0.9 being the most common by far (Domnech & Saur, 2011; Farreny et al. 2011). Evidence has shown that the quantity of runoff depends on roof material, roof slope, and atmospheric conditions (Farreny et al. 2011; Abdulla & Al-Shareef, 2009). Regardless of roof material and roof slope, 0.85 was chosen as the simplifying runoff coefficient for all households in this study. 3.2.1.2 Mean Monthly Rainfall The rainfall data in this model is based on information combined from two meteorological datasets each compiled by the Comision Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA). The resulting rainfall profile for Oaxaca is shown in Table 3.1 below: Table 3.1: Mean monthly rainfall in Oaxaca de Jurez
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Rainfall (mm) 2.38 7.02 14.54 40.11 87.64 157.24 114.83 107.53 125.26 51.87 9.21 3.36 721.00
6

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6!The two datasets used, from meteorological stations within the urban area of Oaxaca, have rainfall data
from as early as 1952 and 1981 on, respectively. Both datasets show the millimeters of rainfall during each month for every year until 2008; however, but both contain significant data gaps. The dataset from 1952 on is missing 41 of 672 data points (6.1%), in addition to three entire years of data (an additional 5.4%). The dataset from 1981 on is missing 23 of 324 data points (7.1%).!

! 3.2.1.3 Catchment Area

36!

The size of each households catchment area was collected during the survey process. Each respondent was asked to draw a picture of their roof, indicate which part of it they used for RWH, and place approximate dimensions wherever appropriate. Depending on the RWH scenario, either the catchment area they indicated using or the catchment area at their disposal was used. 3.2.2 Short-Term Storage Constraints

In the presence of short-term storage constraints, the RWH potential of household j in month i is given by: !!" = !"# !!" , (!! + !! ) !! where !!" is the RWH potential limited by short-term storage capacity (liters), !! is the short-term storage capacity of household j (liters), !! is the additional storage capacity invested in by household j (liters), and !! is the mean number of days with rain in month i (days). 3.2.2.1 Short-Term Storage Capacity The quantity of short-term storage that each household used for RWH and the quantity of low-gravity storage that each household had at their disposal, i.e. potential short-term storage, were collected in the survey. Depending on the RWH scenario, either the shortterm storage used or the short-term storage potential was used. 3.2.2.2 Additional Storage Capacity Using Microsoft Excels Solver tool, it was found that some households could increase the net present value (NPV) of their RWH system by purchasing additional storage. This !

37!

quantity of additional storage invested that households are assumed to be willing to purchase changes depending on the RWH scenario. 3.2.2.3 Days With Rain The number of days with rain is derived from a single CONAGUA dataset from one of the two meteorological stations in Oaxaca7. Means were taken to get the average number of days with rain for each month. The standard deviations are also reported in order to present the wide variation in this dataset. The results can be seen below in Table 3.2 below: Table 3.2: Days with Rain
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean number of days with rain 0.40 2.29 2.35 5.25 10.50 15.08 15.08 16.63 15.96 6.96 2.05 2.00 Standard deviation of the number of days with rain 0.82 3.24 1.87 3.60 5.46 4.11 4.51 4.48 3.87 3.95 1.94 4.93

3.2.3

Long-Term Storage Constraints

Long-term storage constraints require a daily dynamic analysis. Assuming twelve months of thirty days each, the number of days with rain was rounded down to the nearest !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7!The number of days with rain in each month was recorded from 1981 to 2008, but is missing 50 of its 324 data points (15.4%). Means were taken ignoring the missing data points.! !

38!

factor of 30 (i.e. the 16.63 days of rain in August was rounded to 15), such that it rained every (30/!! ) days, and the remainder from rounding was added to the first day with rain. In this way, the quantity of water in short-term storage is calculated on a daily basis:
!"! !!" = !"# !! , (!! + !! ) !"! where, !!" is the quantity of water in short-term storage on day d (liters), !! is the

rainfall on day d (millimeters), !! is the short-term storage capacity of household j (liters), and !! is the additional storage capacity invested in by household j (liters). Assuming that at the end of every day, the household empties the water in the short-term storage tanks into long-term storage tanks, the quantity of water in long-term storage is calculated on a daily basis:
!"# !"# !"! !!" = !"# !"# !! !!! + !!" !!" , 0 , !! + !! !"# where !!" is the quantity of water in long-term storage on day d (liters), !!" is the daily

water consumption of household j (liters), and !! is the long-term storage capacity of household j (liters). 3.2.3.1 Daily Household Consumption Daily household water consumption is information taken directly from the survey, and it assumes constant daily consumption by households throughout the year. 3.2.3.2 Long-Term Storage Capacity Long-term storage capacity is also information taken from the survey. Households were asked to report the quantity of long-term storage used for RWH, and the quantity of high-

39!

gravity storage not currently used for RWH that could potentially be used as long-term storage. Depending on the RWH scenario, either the current long-term storage of the long-term storage potential was used. 3.2.3.3 Long-Term Storage Loss (Overflow) On occasion, a households long-term storage will reach capacity, preventing them from capturing any more rainwater. If this happens, the household will incur a long-term storage loss due to overflow such that:
!"# !"! !!" = !"# !!(!!!) + !!" !!" !! !! , 0

where !!" !is the long-term storage overflow on day d (liters). 3.2.4 Constrained RWH Potential

The RWH potential limited by both short-term storage capacity and long-term storage capacity will therefore be the sum of all quantities of short-term storage minus the sum of all quantities of long-term storage loss, as follows:
!"#

!! =
!!!

!"! !!" !!"

where !! is the annual RWH potential of household j limited by short-term storage capacity and long-term storage capacity.

3.3

Important Model Assumptions

A large degree of environmental variability is absent from this model. Most studies in the literature use computer-programming tools such as RainCycle to make more complicated models that incorporate such environmental variability, but monetary and !

40!

temporal constraints prevented their incorporation in this study. The simplified model employed instead forces a set of assumptions that limit both the quality of the model and of its results8. 3.3.1 Unconstrained RWH Potential

The first step of this model makes two important assumptions. First, due to inadequate data collection and insufficient researcher knowledge, the entirety of the catchment area reported by household respondents is assumed to be appropriate for RWH. This assumption will generally lead to an overestimation of household RWH potential. The second assumption made in the first step of this model is that the splash off/evaporation/runoff coefficient of 0.85 is assumed to be appropriate for all roof materials and slopes. This could result in either an over- or underestimation of household RWH potential, depending on catchment area and locational characteristics. 3.3.2 Constrained RWH Potential

There are four important assumptions made in the second and third steps of the model, most of which stem from the limitations inherent in the data available, and also in the computational abilities of Microsoft Excel. They are listed below: 1. The days with rain are spaced evenly across each month. 2. Each day with rain consists of a single rain event. 3. All rain events are of equal size. 4. All households perform basic RWH system maintenance The first of these assumptions is likely to lead to an overestimation of RWH potential because, if the days with rain were spaced less evenly, there would be more loss in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8!It is the authors intention to conduct a more detailed analysis that would include such environmental variability later, using MathWorks MATLAB to build a multi-iteration rainfall generator into the model.! !

41!

long-term storage due to overflow. The second assumption may, in some cases, cause an underestimation of RWH potential for households vigorously emptying their short-term storage into long-term storage. The third assumption acts to overestimate the RWH potential of all households except those with large quantities of short-term storage because, if rain events varied in size, the short-term storage losses would be greater. The basic RWH system maintenance discussed to in the fourth assumption refers to households emptying their short-term storage into long-term storage, if they do not have a mechanized way of doing so. Failure to do this would cause greater short-term storage losses, making the model likely to overestimate the RWH potential of households collecting rainwater in buckets, particularly in the current RWH practices scenarios.

3.4

Model for RWH Economics

The RWH economics model developed for this thesis takes the output !! (the quantity of rainwater household j could potentially capture annually) from the RWH dynamics model and turns it into three economic measurements commonly found in the literature: (1) the water savings efficiency (WSE) attained by household j when capturing !! ; (2) the payback period for RWH system improvements that would bring household j to !! ; and (3) the net present value (NPV) of household js RWH system. These measurements of the economic viability of RWH use the prices that households are currently paying for water to value the rainwater harvest, calculating the cost-savings from public and private water sources that RWH offsets for a ten-year period. Further discussion of how these prices were calculated and used can be found in Appendix C.

! 3.4.1 Inputs for Six Model Scenarios

42!

The model for RWH storage dynamics and the model for RWH economics were run six times, using a different RWH scenario each time. Three scenarios involving different RWH system components were run in two different price scenarios for a total of six. The following section describes the inputs used for each scenario. 3.4.1.1 Model Inputs: Scenarios 1, 2, & 4 vs. Scenarios 4, 5, & 6 While scenarios 1, 2, and 3 use the water prices households are currently paying, scenarios 4, 5, and 6 assume a price increase over the period. Five or six years from now, the large dam Southwest of the city, Paso Ancho, is scheduled for completion, and a drastic price increase in publicly supplied water is expected to follow (Consejo 2011; Vervaeke 2011). The city currently subsidizes public water heavily. While some estimate that the city is subsidizing about 65% of public water service costs (Honorable Ayuntamiento of Oaxaca de Jurez 2005), other experts estimate that the city foots about 90% of most households water bills (Juan Jos Consejo 2011; Willem Vervaeke 2011). Though there have been indications for a long time that the city plans to raise public water tariffs by at least a factor of three (Honorable Ayuntamiento of Oaxaca de Jurez 2005), the director of INSO, Juan Jos Consejo (2011), suspects that, once Paso Ancho is completed, the city will raise public water tariffs by a factor of eight. The city has done nothing to begin recouping to high capital costs of the dam, and sooner or later it will need to adjust public water tariffs accordingly (Juan Jos Consejo 2011; Willem Vervaeke 2011). Scenarios 4, 5, and 6 are therefore meant to account for the probable result of the dam being completed. Hence, current water prices are used for the first five years of the

43!

ten-year period of RWH considered, but inflated prices are applied to the last five years. In addition, the dam completion is ostensibly going to increase the supply of public water dramatically, providing enough water to meet not only the entire citys current demand, but also the projected increase over the next 20 years (Juan Jos Consejo 2011; Willem Vervaeke 2011). Hence, each households water supply distribution is assumed to shift, acquiring more water from public sources than before. Details on price inflations and supply distribution shifts can be found in Appendix C. 3.4.1.2 Model Inputs for Scenarios 1 & 4: Current Practices Scenarios 1 and 4 estimate the quantity and value of harvested rainwater currently being captured in Oaxaca. Therefore, the rainwater harvest, and, subsequently, the current and projected future values of their harvest, are calculated in Scenarios 1 and 4 using the short-term storage capacity, the long-term storage capacity, and the catchment area that households reported utilizing for their RWH systems in the survey. As stated above, Scenario 1 assumes constant water prices and constant water supply distributions, whereas Scenario 4 uses a two time-period model with inflated, post-dam water prices and adjusted water supply distributions in order to reflect the probable outcome of the dam being completed. Because these scenarios are meant to reflect current practices, there are no improvement costs to households and, thus, no payback period for recouping the investment. However, the WSE and the NPV of each households RWH system are calculated. 3.4.1.3 Model Inputs for Scenarios 2 & 5: Basic RWH System Improvements Scenarios 2 and 5 estimate the RWH potential of households if they were to: (1) adjust their rainwater use practices to put rainwater to every end use other than drinking; (2) !

44!

make the relatively small investment of outfitting their home with gutters, downspouts, first-flush diverters (FFDs), and a pump, if they do not already have them; and (3) apply to RWH only the water storage units they currently use for rainwater, but purchase additional storage units for RWH in order to maximize the NPV of their RWH system. In this hypothetical exercise, it is assumed that households will be willing to adjust their perceptions of and practices with rainwater as indicated above, and the model does not make any allowance for households that would be unwilling to enact these changes. The investments in basic RWH improvements and addition storage units outlined above, however, are fully taken into consideration. Details on how these investment costs were calculated can be found in Appendix D. Many households use only a small portion of their available catchment area for RWH. The simple additions of gutters, downspouts, FFDs, a pump, and, in some cases, additional water storage, would allow household to use the entirety of their catchment areas and bring almost every household in Oaxaca much nearer to its full RWH potential. Thus, the annual rainwater harvest, and, subsequently, the current and projected future values of their harvest, are calculated in Scenarios 2 and 5 using the full catchment area at households disposals, but only the portions of their short-term storage capacities and long-term storage capacities that they reported using for RWH in the survey, plus any additional storage that would increase the NPV of their RWH system. 3.4.1.4 Model Inputs for Scenarios 3 & 6: Applying Entirety of Storage to RWH Most households currently devote only a small portion of their water storage capacity to RWH. As in Scenarios 2 and 5, the object of Scenarios 3 and 6 is to model the potential RWH that could occur if households were to: (1) adjust their rainwater use practices to

45!

put rainwater to every end use other than drinking; and (2) make the relatively small investment of outfitting their home with gutters, downspouts, FFDs, and a pump, if they do not already have them. However, unlike Scenarios 2 and 5, Scenarios 3 and 6 also assume that all households have begun using all the water storage capacities at their disposal for RWH, as some households already do, in addition to any added storage that would increase the NPV of their RWH systems. Thus, the annual rainwater harvest, !! , and, subsequently, the current and projected future values of their harvest, are calculated in Scenarios 3 and 6 using the full catchment areas, short-term storage capacities, and long-term storage capacities at households disposals, plus any additional storage that would increase the NPV of their RWH system. 3.4.2 Model Equations The following section presents the equations for WSE, NPV, and payback period used in the model. 3.4.2.1 Water Savings Efficiency (WSE) WSE is defined in the literature as the percent of current consumption that a household could offset with harvested rainwater (Domnech & Saur 2011; Roebuck & Ashley 2007; Villarreal & Dixon 2004; Coombes et al. 2000). It is calculated as follows in this model:

! !

! !"#! = !! !!

46!

where !"#! is the WSE attained by household j, !! is the annual rainwater harvest of household j (liters), and !! !is the annual water consumption of household j (liters). 3.4.2.2 Net Present Value (NPV) Many components of a RWH system have a lifespan of about 5 to 15 years (Farreny, Gabarrell, & Rieradevalls 2011; Imteaz et al. 2011; Tam et al. 2010; Toronto & Region Conservation 2010; Ghisi et al. 2009; Sturm et al. 2009; Liaw & Tsai 2004; Chilton et al. 2000). In order to reflect this probable depreciation, a ten-year time period was chosen for this analysis. Discount rates of 0% to 10% can be found in the literature (Domnech & Saur 2011; Rahman, Dbais, & Imteaz 2009; Sturm et al. 2009), but, in the face of the current economic downturn, Mexicos Central Bank has been holding the nominal interest rate at 4.5% (Trading Economies 2012). With a consumer price index ranging from 3.1% to 4.1% and with an average of about 3.5% over the last year (Global-Rates 2012), the real interest rate is likely to be somewhere between 0.4% and 1.4%. However, a conservative estimate of 3% was applied to this model. Hence, the NPV of a household js RWH system is the sum of ten years of rainwater harvests values, discounted to their present value at a rate of 3%. For Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, which assume constant water pricing during the ten-year period, the NPV is calculated as is shown below: !"# = ! ! 1 ! 1 ! (1 + !)!"

where !"# is the NPV of household js current RWH system (pesos)holding water ! prices constant, ! is the current value of household js annual rainwater harvest (pesos), !

47!

and ! is the discount rate. For Scenarios 4, 5, and 6, which assume post-dam price inflation for second half of the ten-year period, the NPV is calculated as is shown below: ! !"#$ = ! ! !" !! 1 1 1 ! ! ! 1 + 1 1 ! (1 + !)! ! (1 + !)!" ! (1 + !)!

where !"#$ is the NPV of household js current RWH system (pesos)assuming post! dam price inflation, !" is the projected future value of household js annual rainwater ! harvest (pesos), and ! is the discount rate. 3.4.2.3 Payback Period (PBP) The payback period is defined as the number of years it would take a household to recoup its investment in RWH system improvements. For Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, which assume constant water pricing over the ten-year period, the payback period is calculated as follows, applying the same discount rate of 3%: !"!! = log!!! 1 !!
!

! !

where !"!! is the number of years required to recoup investment !! (years), !! is the cost of basic RWH system improvements for household j (pesos), ! is the current value of ! household js annual rainwater harvest (pesos), and ! is the the discount rate. Details on how the basic improvement costs and added storage costs were calculated can be found in Appendix D. For Scenarios 4, 5, and 6, which assume post-dam price inflation for the second half of the ten-year period, the payback period is calculated as follows:

! if 5 log!!! 1 !!
then !

48!

! !
!

!"!! = log!!! 1 !! but if 5 < log!!! 1 !! then !"!! = 5 log!!! 1 !! ! !

! 1 !

! !

! !
1 1+!
5

!" !

where !" is the projected future value of household js annual rainwater harvest (pesos). !

49!

Chapter 4: Results
4.1 Survey Results

The results from the survey have been used to evaluate the hypothesized barriers to RWH implementation and improvement. They show that the cultural barriers and technical barriers are not significant obstacles to RWH in Oaxaca, that informational barriers pose a substantial obstacle, and that household interest in and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for RWH improvements is high, indicating that economic barriers can be overcome. The following section presents summary survey results for a selection of the questions that inform a hypothesized barrier. Further summary survey results to other questions can be found in Appendix E. 4.1.1 Demographics and General Water Use

Based on the 45 surveys, the average household was found to have 4.42 residents9, an annual non-potable water consumption of 57,698 liters, or 38 liters per person per day (pppd), and an annual income of 104,907 pesos. These figures are comparable to with data from other sources (Lusher 2007; Honorable Ayuntamiento of Oaxaca de Jurez 2005; CNA 1993), indicating that the sample population of this study is a fairly accurate representation of the larger, Oaxacan population. These data imply that the average household consumes about 167 liters of non-potable water per day. Adding Lushers (2007) estimation of 13 liters of potable water per household per day to this gives a total

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 9!The Instituto Nacional de Estadstica y Geografa (INEGI) found in 2005 that the average household had 5 occupants, which is not unreasonably far from the survey finding.! !

50!

per household per day water consumption of 180 liters10. A piece of information for which no corollary was found in the literature is that the total yearly expenses for the average household were estimated to be 134,213 pesos, of which 1.85% (2,487 pesos) was for non-potable water consumption and 2.57% (3,448 pesos) was for potable water consumption11. The results also revealed the percentage of surveyed household that received water from each water source, and the portions of their consumption that each water source provided (Table 4.1). Table 4.1: Water Supply Distribution
Water Source ADOSAPACO Public Water Trucks Private Water Trucks Public Wells Private Wells RWH Systems % of Households Receiving from Source 91.1% 28.9% 75.6% 2.2% 11.1% 84.4% Mean % of Consumption Supplied by Source for HHs receiving from Source 75.3% 14.6% 22.5% 50.0% 7.5% 10.9% Mean % of Consumption Supplied by Source for All HHs 69% 4% 17% 1% 1% 9% SUM=100%

4.1.2

Households Water Storage Capacities and Pumps

Due to the unusual and unreliable water supply system in Oaxaca, it is very important for households to have their own water storage units. Nonetheless, 1 of the 45 surveyed households (2.2%) had no cisterns and no tinacos at their disposal, only a collection of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10!In comparison, the Comisin Nacional del Agua (CNA) estimated the average daily household water consumption at 181 liters in 1993.! 11!Total yearly expenses and annual potable water expenses were based on Lushers (2007) finding that the
average household consumes 1 garrafon per person per week, and the authors own experience of the average garrafon price being 15 pesos, as opposed to Lushers (2007) finding of 13 pesos.!

51!

buckets amounting to about 100 liters. Unsurprisingly, this minuscule quantity of storage limited this households water consumption and their quality of life dramatically. All 44 other households had at least one tinaco and/or a collection of tambos (large buckets of generally 200 liters) amounting to at least 500 liters. Less common was for households to have a cistern, with only 24 of 45 households (53.3%) reporting ownership. The average water storage capacity held by households with tinacos was 2,431 liters. For cisterns it was 7,318 liters. Generally, tinacos were made of plastic, but asbestos was common as well and cement rare. Cisterns were almost always made of cement, but brick and cement composites, as well as plastic, could be found occasionally. With the exception of one households 1,230-liter cistern, all tinacos and cisterns were covered almost all the time, limiting outside contamination and preventing mosquito larvae from infesting the supply. The fact that households already have so much storage at their disposal is very favorable to RWH, and has the potential to decrease any economic barriers that might exist. 32 of 45 of the surveyed households (71.1%) stated that they would benefit from having more water storage capacity than they currently do. 20 of these 32 (62.5%) expressed an intent to purchase more storage in the near future. Most did not know exactly what they planned to purchase, but many had a specific size of tinaco or cistern in mind, and one household even expressed the intent to purchase a second, larger cistern specifically for their RWH system. Although 33 of 45 households (73.3%) reported that they had space to increase their storage capacity by putting a cistern in their yard12, 11 of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 12!It should be noted that a common barrier to installing cisterns is soil geology. It makes the cost of
excavation, which is often a significant portion of the total cost, highly variable (Sanchez 2011). In some cases, it is so expensive that households are forced to build their cisterns aboveground, which requires more space, and sometimes prevents the building entirely (Sanchez 2011). These details were not made clear to

52!

these 33 (33.3%) were households that had stated they would not benefit from additional water storage capacity. This leaves 22 households of the 32 that said they would benefit from additional storage (68.8%), who also said they have the space necessary for a cistern. Similarly, 25 of 45 households (55.6%) reported that they would be able to increase their storage capacity by placing additional tinacos on their roofs. However, 8 of these 25 (32.0%) were households that had stated they would not benefit from additional water storage capacity. As with cisterns, this leaves only 17 of the 32 that said they would benefit from additional storage (53.1%), who also said they have the capacity to place additional tinacos on their roofs13. Synthesizing the two tells us that 29 of the 32 households (90.6%) that said they would benefit from increased storage can indeed increase their storage, one way or another. Because space constraints were one of the principle technical barriers hypothesized, this indicates that only 9.4% of the surveyed households would be likely to face a significant technical barrier to RWH. 31 of 45 of the surveyed households (68.9%) owned an electric pump, which was usually used for bringing water from low-elevation storage units to high-elevation storage units. 10 of the households that did not own a pump of any kind (22.2% of total) received sufficient pressure from their ADOSAPACO connection and/or water trucks to conduct the water to their rooftop storage tanks, making a pump unnecessary. The other 4 households without a pump (8.9%) did not own one because they did not have rooftop !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
respondents, and it is not known whether they had a belowground or aboveground cistern in mind when they said, yes, they have the space for one. Hence, some yeses could be nos and vice versa. The degree of correctness here is expected to be low.! 13!The most common reason cited by respondents for not being able to place additional storage on their roofs was a simple weight limitation. Water is heavy and it seems that many roofs were already at their weight capacity in Oaxaca.!

53!

storage or a water-distributing pipe system to carry water from roof to faucets. In fact, they had no faucets at all, and instead took water from their storage tanks by hand. Like the 9.4% that may not have space to increase their storage capacity, this 8.9% of the surveyed households represent the minority that would possibly face technical barriers to RWH. 4.1.3 RWH System Components

Parker (2010) and INSOs previous research had concluded that, although the people of Oaxaca thought highly of harvested rainwater quality, sophisticated harvesting systems were not on their radar (Consejo 2011). However, survey results revealed that 38 of 45 households (84.4%) were capturing rainwater in at least a very basic capacity, although often out of necessity. The range of levels at which RWH occurs in Oaxaca can be summarized easily by examining the portions of the sample that use each of the following RWH system components: gutters, downspouts, FFDs, long-term storage units, and poststorage filtration (Table 4.6). Table 4.2: Use of RWH System Components
System Component Gutters Downspouts FFDs Long-term Storage Post-Storage Filtration # of Households that Use It 17 16 1 7 5 % of Households that Use It 37.8% 35.6% 2.2% 15.6% 11.1%

Only 5 of 45 households (11.1%) had relatively sophisticated RWH systems with gutters, downspouts, and long-term storage, and only one of these had FFDs as well. The large majority of households capturing rainwater were therefore doing so using what Oaxacans !

54!

called the rustic methodcapturing water in buckets and bins directly from the roof, with no gutters and downspouts to attain a high rate of capture, no FFDs or other filtration and treatment techniques to guarantee a certain water quality level, and no longterm storage to make the supply last into the dry season. Although the rustic method clearly has serious limitations, these results show that there is much more RWH taking place than previously imagined. 4.1.4 Harvested Rainwater Quality and Uses

When respondents were asked to rate the quality of the rainwater from their RWH system, or, for those that did not have one, their perception of the quality of water from a RWH system, on a 1 to 5 Likert scale, where 1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=mediocre, 4=good, and 5=very good, they replied as follows: Table 4.3: Quality of Harvested Rainwater
Quality Rating 1 2 3 4 5 # of HHs giving rating 0 3 6 34 1 % of HHs giving rating 0.0% 6.8% 13.6% 77.3% 2.3%

Despite the fact that respondents rated the quality of harvested rainwater very highly, the end uses to which households felt comfortable putting their rainwater were very limited, indicating a disconnect between the perceptions of quality and use. It is possible that this results from cultural barriers to RHW, but this thesis theorizes that much of this disconnect can be explained by the rustic methods with which people are currently capturing rainwater in Oaxaca. !

55! The work of Lee et al. (2010), Morrow et al. (2010), Chang et al. (2004), and

Simmons et al. (2001) in isolating background contamination in harvested rainwater from catchment or system-based contamination concludes that the likelihood and level of contamination in entirely untreated and unfiltered rainwater is high. Contamination from atmospheric deposition, leaching of roof materials, and animal feces is very possible in rustic RWH systems, and since most households seem well aware of these risks, it is not surprising that the number of end uses they feel comfortable putting harvested rainwater to is so small. Even the households with sophisticated RWH systems generally use their rainwater for nothing more than watering their gardens, flushing their toilets, and general cleaning. Those that use rainwater for bathing, doing laundry, and even cooking do so out of necessity because their other water sources do not sufficiently supply their needs. If more modern and sophisticated RWH methods were employed, it is posited that the number of end uses households felt comfortable with would be very likely to rise, closing this disconnect between perceived quality and actual use. This would indicate that there is a significant informational barrier to RWH, not a cultural barrier. Households were also asked about the type and frequency of mammals such as cats, dogs, raccoons, and rats, as well the quantity of birds living in their immediate neighborhood, so as to gauge the likelihood of fecal contamination on their catchment areas. This acts as a harvested rainwater quality proxy. 29 of 38 households capturing some quantity of rainwater (76.3%) reported cats that lived in, on, or traversed their roof. 20 of these 29 cat sightings (69.0%) were made daily, 1 (3.4%) was made every other day, 2 (6.9%) were made weekly, 1 (3.4%) twice per month, 2 (6.9%) monthly, 1

56!

(3.4%) every other month, and 2 (6.9%) weekly, but only during the dry season14. 6 of 38 households capturing some quantity of rainwater (15.8%) reported seeing dogs, allegedly on their roofs (if one believes every respondent understood the question fully), of which 4 stated daily frequency, 1 weekly, and 1 rarely. 5 of 38 households capturing some quantity of rainwater (13.2%) reported seeing rats on their roof, of which 3 stated daily frequency and 2 monthly frequency. 1 household also reported monthly sightings of a raccoon. When asked about the quantities of bird living in their immediate neighborhood, households were given the three choices: not many, the normal amount, and many. 9 of 38 households (23.7%) reported that not many birds lived in their immediate neighborhood, 17 of 38 (44.7%) reported the normal amount, and 12 of 38 (31.6%) households reported many birds. Such animal quantities and frequency of sightings are not particularly informative to any barriers to improvement, but they could prove useful in explaining the variation in microbial contaminants for a water quality regression. 4.1.5 Harvested Rainwater Treatment Methods

Only 3 of 38 households capturing rainwater (7.9%) employed pre-storage filtration techniques for their harvested rainwater. Two respondents reported using different types of unidentified mesh or membrane that the surveyor did not see and one household used a !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 14!The only during the dry season phenomenon seen in cat sitings is of particular interest to this study.
One could hypothesize that, since the elements are probably kinder in this mile-high, sub-tropical climate during the dry season, mammals are likely to seek refuges other than rooftops during the wet season. If indeed cats are found upon rooftops more often during the dry season, as these respondents claim, then it is possible that some households were likely to overstate the frequency with which they saw cats, since the question failed to delineate between wet and dry seasons. The general implication, if mammals are less present on rooftops during the wet season, would be that fecal contamination should be less of a concern than these results might otherwise indicate.

! !

57!

homemade FFD. For post-storage filtration, 4 of the 38 households capturing rainwater (10.5%) added chlorine to their harvested rainwater and 1 of 38 (2.6%) used a cartridge filter. The largely unfiltered nature of current RWH systems in Oaxaca supports the idea that, by altering practices and increasing filtration, households can overcome the cultural barriers preventing them from putting harvested rainwater to many of the recommended end uses. Hence, it is the informational barriers of disseminating knowledge regarding such filtration techniques that is acting as a principle obstacle to RWH, not perceptions of rainwater quality. 4.1.6 Catchment Area and Storage Capacity

The households of Oaxaca have much potential to augment and improve their RWH systems. The mean roof size of the 45 surveyed households was 132 square meters (median of 86). However, the mean catchment area currently being used for RWH was 70 square meters (median of 48), or 53.0% of the total capacity available (55.8% of the median). Similarly, the mean quantity short-term storage capacity being used by the 45 surveyed households was 1,306 liters (median of 300). The mean long-term storage capacity was 2,008 liters (median of 400). However, the total mean low-elevation storage, i.e. storage that could be used as short-term storage with all the necessary gutters and downspouts, at households disposals was 4,952 liters (median of 3,000). Likewise, the total mean high-elevation storage, i.e. roof storage that households could add to their short-term storage capacity for a total long-term storage capacity, at households disposals was 1,671 liters (median of 1,100). As with catchment area, one can see the substantial room for improvement.

58! Although roof material and roof type were excluded from analysis, data were

collected regarding these parameters: 20 households (44.4%) had cement roofs; 7 (15.6%) had cement and brick roofs; 5 (11.1%) had part cement and part metal; 5 (11.1%) had all metal roofs; 3 (6.7%) had tiled roofs; 1 (2.2%) had part of cement and part wood and metal; 1 (2.2%) had part cement and brick and part metal, (2.2%) 1 had part cement and part stone; (2.2%) 1 had part cement and part tile, and (2.2%) 1 had part metal and part tile. 9 of 45 surveyed households (20.0%) reported having roofs with a slope, known in Oaxaca as a techo, and the other 36 (80.0%) reported having a flat roof, called an azotea. 4.1.7 RWH System Cleaning and Maintenance Procedures

Respondents were asked to describe the type of frequency of cleaning and maintenance procedures they performed on components of their RWH systems. When asked to estimate the total monetary costs and hours spent by their household per year in cleaning and maintaining their RWH systems, 2 of 38 respondents whose households were capturing rainwater (5.3%) were not comfortable giving a monetary estimate and 19 of 38 households (50.0%) reported that their RWH system cost them nothing monetarily to maintain. Even when it was pointed out that the materials like soap, chlorine, etc. they use for this maintenance cost money, respondents replied that no, it cost them nothing because they already had those materials around the house. The remaining 17 households were found to spend a mean of 724 pesos (median of 400 pesos) annually in maintaining their RWH systems. However, no maintenance or operational costs were taken into account in the economics analysis.

59! Only 1 of 38 respondents whose households were capturing rainwater (2.6%) was

unwilling to give an estimation of the number of hours of work that their household invested in maintaining their RHW system, and only 5 of 38 (13.2%) reported 0 hours of work as their estimate. The remaining 32 households were found to invest a mean of 27 hours (median of 8 hours) annually in maintaining their RWH systems. 4.1.7.1 Storage Tanks Households with long-term storage, low-elevation storage like a cistern were found to clean them a mean of 5.75 times per year, with a median of 2 times per year. Households with long-term, high-elevation storage like a roof tinaco were found to clean them a mean of 3.18 times per year, with a median of 2 times per year. Households with tambos, tinas, and other sorts of buckets and short-term storage were found to clean them a mean of 104.77 times per year, with a median of 50 times per year. These tinaco and tambo means exclude one household that reported their private water truck company, Triton, coming once a month to clean their storage tanks as part of the regular monthly service they paid for. Most respondents, 30 of 38 (78.9%), reported cleaning their storage tanks with a sponge and a mixture of water, soap, and chlorine. 2 of 38 households (5.3%) used a sponge, water, and soap but no chlorine. 1 household (2.6%) used a sponge, water, and chlorine but no soap, 1 household (2.6%) used only a sponge and water, 1 household (2.6%) used a power washer with chlorine, and 3 respondents (7.9%) did not know how their households storage tanks were cleaned. 4.1.7.2 Gutters & Downspouts 7 of the 17 households with gutters (41.2%) had never cleaned them. The 10 remaining households were found to clean their gutters a mean of 8.45 times per year, with a median !

60!

of 2 times per year. 8 of the 16 households with downspouts (50%) had never cleaned them. The remaining 8 households were found to clean their downspouts a mean of 8.10 times per year, with a median of 2.5 times per year. For most households, these gutter and downspout cleaning procedures meant sweeping out gutters and/or washing gutters and downspouts down with a sponge or hose and different mixture of water and/or soap and/or chlorine. 4.1.7.3 Catchment Surface Households also reported various levels of roof cleaning. 9 of the 38 households capturing rainwater (23.7%) did not regularly clean their roofs. The 29 remaining households were found to clean their roofs a mean of 38 times per year, with a median of 3 times per year. For most households, 18 of 29 (62.1%), this cleaning procedure simply meant sweeping their roof, but 7 of 29 (24.1%) also washed their roofs with different combinations of water, soap, and chlorine, 1 household (3.4%) also washed with a power washer, 1 (3.4%) household repainted regularly in addition to sweeping, and 2 (6.9%) respondents were unaware of the cleaning procedures undertaken by their household. 4.1.8 Knowledge, Perceptions, and Legality of RWH

Households were also asked a series of questions regarding their general perceptions of the success of their RWH systems. 36 of the 38 households already capturing some rainwater (94.7%) stated that the time and money they had invested in their RWH system had been worthwhile, with one household abstaining because they were unsure and another household saying it had not been worthwhile. 33 of the 38 households (86.8%) stated that their RWH system contributed significantly to their water supply. 37 of the 38

61!

households (97.4%) stated that they would recommend RWH as an alternative water supply to a friend, with the one remaining household (2.6%) saying that such a recommendation would depend on the technical specifics of the building in question. These results support the lack of cultural barriers, showing that RWH is held in high esteem as an alternative water source in Oaxaca. On a slightly different note, 16 of 38 households that currently harvest rainwater (42.1%) were able to confidently say that there are no legal limitations to RWH in Oaxaca. The other 57.9% stated that they could not speak either way to the matter. This affirms the initial hypothesis that legal barriers like those found in South Africa (Kahinda & Taigbenu 2011; Kahinda, Taigbenu, & Boroto 2007) are not relevant in Oaxaca. 4.1.9 Interest in and Intentions for Future RWH

Respondents were asked to rate their level of interest in improving their RWH systems. They were given a 1 to 5 Likert scale, where 1=not interested, 2=indifferent, 3=not a priority, 4=slightly interested, and 5=very interested, and asked to place their level of interest on it. The responses of households currently capturing rainwater and those not doing so are presented together in Table 4.4: Table 4.4: Interest in Improving RWH Systems
Interest Rating 1 2 3 4 5 unknown # of HHs giving rating 0 3 2 14 25 1 % of HHs giving rating 0.0% 6.7% 4.4% 31.1% 55.6% 2.2%

62!

These results indicate that the economic barriers to RWH could potentially be overcome. Even if households were made to understand that the improvements to a RWH system would pay themselves off, the high initial costs would still act as a significant obstacle, but since many households showed such a keen interest in improving, initial costs are less restricting to adoption. For households that classified themselves as either interested or slightly interested in improving their RWH, or for those not already capturing rainwater, interested or slightly interested in acquiring a RWH system, a specific set of improvements was discussed. This generally included purchasing and installing gutters, downspouts, FFDs, a pump, and a cistern, excluding any of the above if a household was already using them. Next, households were asked why they had not yet completed or attempted the specific improvement we had discussed previously, or why they were not interested in making such improvements. There were a multitude of responses: 30 of 45 households (66.7%) cited economic barriers such as the expense of the systems or the current state of the economy; 11 of 45 households (24.4%) cited technical barriers such as not being the owner of the house, siting or space limitations for various system components, or concerns over the permits they would need; 10 of 45 households (22.2%) cited informational barriers, stating that they would endeavor to make improvements if they had the necessary knowledge; 4 of 45 households (8.9%) cited a lack of desire, feeling content with their current supply; and 2 of 45 households (4.4%) thought that the quantity of rainfall in Oaxaca was too low to make such an investment worthwhile. These results speak for themselves; strong economic barriers, relatively significant technical barriers and informational barriers, and weak and insignificant cultural barriers.

! 4.1.9.1 Household Willing-to-Pay (WTP)

63!

Respondents were also asked how they would respond to the following hypothetical situation, taken directly from the survey: Let us imagine a hypothetical situation where the government is offering households who wish to install a RWH system a subsidy of up to 20,000 pesos, but no more than half the initial capital cost. When respondents were asked if they would apply for this subsidy, 1 (2.2%) did not feel comfortable speaking for their households and 38 of 45 households (84.5%) responded, yes, they would apply. The remaining 6 households (13.3%) were very hesitant to tell the surveyor why they would not apply for the subsidy. Those that did give a substantive response expressed distrust in the government. They stated either that they would not apply because they did not believe the government would come through on the payment, or that they could not imagine the government making this kind of offer at all, and had responded they way they did in order to best reflect this doubt in the government15. As a follow-up, respondents were given a willingness-to-pay (WTP) question meant to further gauge their interest in investing in RWH systems: If a contractor quoted you a price of 40,000 pesos to install/improve your RWH system, and if the government offered to cover half the cost, how much of the remaining 20,000 pesos do you feel you could afford to pay for with your current economic capacities? 3 of 45 respondents (6.7%) felt unable to answer the question and 6 of 45 (13.3%) felt that their households current economic condition would not permit them to spend anything on a RWH system. The remaining 36 households (80.0%) answered the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 15!This distrust of the government was echoed in the way that many respondents answered their doors.
Respondents were often very skeptical of the surveyor, but were usually reassured when it was made clear that the survey was not for government purposes or government sponsored. The fact that the survey was for a Masters thesis and not a government study generally made respondents feel more comfortable and more willing to participate.!

! question in one of two different ways, either offering a one-time payment they felt they could afford to invest, or giving a monthly payment they would be willing to invest in a RWH system over the next 1 to 3 years. The mean one-time payment for households that answered the question was 8,519 pesos, with a median of 5,000 pesos. The mean monthly payment for households that answered the question was 554 pesos with a median of 500 pesos. These WTP results indicate that many households are extremely interested in improving their RWH systems, and willing to make the initial investments to do so. If households were to stand by these numbers, it is likely that the economic barriers to RWH can be overcome.

64!

4.2 4.2.1

RWH Dynamics Model and Economics of RWH Model Results Model Inputs

The results of the RWH dynamics and economics models are presented in this section. Three primary results can be drawn from these model results: (1) that there is substantially more RWH occurring in Oaxaca than previously imagined; (2) that there is still significant room for improvement; and (3) that RWH is an economically viable alternative water source for households in Oaxaca. The models were performed on a household-by-household basis; with the goal of leaving open the possibility of within household variations. The RWH dynamics model uses dynamic daily analysis and household-specific information collected in the survey to estimate the quantity of rainwater each household could potentially capture in a variety of circumstances. Because many households were already collecting rainwater, respondents were asked the size of the catchment area, the quantity of short-term storage, and the

65!

quantity of long-term storage currently being used. However, since most households were not harvesting rainwater to their full potential, the totalused and unusedcatchment area, quantity of short- term storage, and quantity of long-term storage at each households disposal was also collected in the survey. These inputs are presented for each household in Table F.1 of Appendix F. The RWH economics model was constructed in order to take the potential quantity of harvested rainwater output from the RWH dynamics model and attempt to put a value on it. Every liter of captured rainwater is assumed to offset one liter of water that would otherwise be purchased by households from public or private sources, resulting in a household cost-savings. Thus, the prices of public and private water were used to put a value on harvested rainwater. Although per-household water prices were collected in the survey, the variance was higher than expected and the decision was made to restrict the variation in household-reported prices with ADOSAPACO-promulgated prices. The result of this restriction is presented for each household in Table F.2 of Appendix F. For further details on the mathematics of this restriction, refer to Appendix C. Households were also asked what portion of their consumption was supplied by each water source. The percentages for public water sources, private water sources, and all sources other than RWH are presented just as they were reported in the survey in Table F.2 of Appendix F. For model scenarios 4, 5, and 6, which assume water price inflation after the dam construction is finished, projections of future water prices and future water supply distributions are also presented in Table F.2. For further discussion of how these projections were calculated, see Appendix C.

66! Households cannot make proper use of the entirety of the catchment area, the

short-term storage capacity, and long-term storage capacity at their disposal unless they have the proper RWH system components to do so. Thus, data collected in the survey regarding RWH systems and practices were used to evaluate the component needs of each households RWH system. To make full use of a catchment area and storage units in RWH, a network of gutters, downspouts, FFDs, and a pump is necessary. Hence, households without any one of these components would need to purchase and install them before making full use of their catchment and storage potential. Each households needs and the costs associated with them are presented in Table G.1 of Appendix G. Channelinggutters and downspoutsand filtration costs are priced proportionately to the households catchment area, since more of these components are needed the larger the roof. Further discussion of the specific relationship between catchment area and these specific costs can be found in Appendix D. In addition, to fully appreciate the benefits of improving their RWH systems, most households would need to adjust the end uses to which they put harvested rainwater. Respondents were asked which of the following uses they feelor would feel comfortable using harvested rainwater for, if it were treated only through the simple first flush diversion technique and minimal chlorine: drinking, cooking, bathing, laundering, general cleaning, flushing toilets, and watering plants. Households capable of capturing quantities of rainwater that approach their total non-potable consumption would only be able to make full use of this harvest if they were willing to use harvested rainwater for each of these end uses. Because the literature seems to support the use of rainwater for non-potable uses in most cases, it is assumed that households would adjust their use of

67!

harvested rainwater accordingly and with no increase in health risks (see Appendix B for a detailed discussion of the harvested rainwater quality literature). Table G.1 in Appednix G presents which of the six non-potable end-uses each household currently does not use harvested rainwater for, i.e. the uses it would need to add to fully appreciate an increased rainwater harvest. The other change in practice that households would need to undertake to reach their full RWH potential is employing the storage units they currently use for ADOSAPACO water and private water truck to store harvested rainwater as well, mixing their water sources when they needed to. Table G.1 also presents the storage units that each household has but does not currently use for harvested rainwater, i.e. the storage units that scenarios 3 and 6 assume they using for RWH. 4.2.2 Model Inputs Assigned to Applicable Scenarios

Six combinations of these inputs were used for running the RWH dynamics and economics models. Scenarios 1 and 4 represent the RWH practices currently being employed by the households in the sample. They use the catchment area, short-term storage capacity, and long-term storage capacity currently used by households, as well as zero basic improvement costs and no changes in practice. Scenarios 2 and 5 represent the RWH potential that each household could attain if it were to: (1) adjust its rainwater use practices such that rainwater was being put to every end use other than drinking; (2) make the relatively small investment of outfitting their home with gutters, downspouts, first-flush diverters (FFDs), and a pump, if they do not already have them; but (3) utilize only the storage capacities they already employ for RWH, plus the additional storage optimized by Microsoft Excels Solver function.

68!

These scenarios keep the storage units that each household currently uses for private and public water sources reserved solely for those supplies. Thus, Scenarios 2 and 5 use the total catchment area at households disposals and the short-term storage capacity and long-term storage capacity currently used by households (plus the optimized additional storage), as well as all changes in practice. Lastly, Scenarios 3 and 6 represent the RWH potential that each household could attain if it were to (1) adjust its rainwater use practices such that rainwater was being put to every end use other than drinking; and (2) make the relatively small investment of outfitting their home with gutters, downspouts, first-flush diverters (FFDs), and a pump, if they do not already have them. In addition, Scenarios 3 and 6 assume that every household is willing to utilize the entirety of the storage capacities at its disposal, plus the additional storage optimized by Microsoft Excels Solver function. Thus, these scenarios use the total catchment area, short-term storage capacity, and long-term storage capacity at households disposals (plus the optimized additional storage), as well as all changes in practice. Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 also differ from scenarios 4, 5, and 6 because they assume constant water pricing and constant water supply distributions over the ten-year period considered. They therefore use only the current water prices and current water supply distributions. Scenarios 4, 5, and 6, on the other hand, assume that the prices of both public and private water will rise after the dam is completed, and that each households water supply distribution will shift so that each receives more water from public sources than they currently do. They therefore use the current water prices and current water

69!

supply distributions for the first five-year period and the projected future water prices and projected future water supply distributions for second five-year period. This information is summarized in Table 4.5 below. In the Catchment Area, short-term storage capacity (STSC), and long-term storage capacity (LTSC) columns, Current indicates that the capacities currently used by households were applied to the scenario in question. Total indicates that the total capacities at households disposals were used instead. No denotes that no RWH system improvements and/or changes in practice were applied to the scenario in question; whereas Yes indicates that they were applied. In the Water Prices column, Current indicates that the current water prices and water supply distributions were applied to the scenario in question. Future indicates that the projected post-dam prices were applied in the second five-year period. Table 4.5: Model Inputs
Model Input Catchment Area STSC LTSC Improvements Changes in Practice Water Prices Scenario 1 Current Current Current No No Current Scenario 2 Total Current Current Yes Yes Current Scenario 3 Total Total Total Yes Yes Current Scenario 4 Current Current Current No No Future Scenario 5 Total Current Current Yes Yes Future Scenario 6 Total Total Total Yes Yes Future

Shows whether currently used or total catchment area, short-term storage capacity, and long-term storage capacity data are used in each scenario, whether each scenario assumes that households have invested in basic RWH improvements and changed their RWH practices or not, and whether each scenario assumes constant water pricing at current rate or post-dam price inflation in the future.

4.2.3

Model Results

Table 4.6 and Table 4.7 present the model outputs for the hydraulic and economic parameters considered as averages within each scenario. Results for each household can

70!

be found in Appendix H. Both the mean and the median are reported for each parameter because significant outliers were found to skew the mean results considerably. Household IDs 20 and 30 had catchment areas significantly larger than any others considered, causing the rainwater harvest, the value of the harvest, the net present value, and the optimized added storage to be much higher than those of other households. Hence, more emphasis is put on the median values than the means. Table 4.6: Summary Results for Scenario 1, 2, & 3
RWH Parameter Annual Rainwater Harvest (liters) Water Savings Efficiency (%) Value of Annual Harvest (pesos) Basic Improvement Costs (pesos) Additional Storage Costs (pesos) NPV of RWH System (pesos) Payback Period (years) Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Current Basic System Applying Entirety of Practices Improvements Storage to RWH 16,825 13,352 41.3% 40.0% 490 264 0 0 0 0 4,180 2,255 0 0 39,129 29,596 235.3% 67.3% 5,498 564 5,690 5,172 9,063 0 33,075 1,088 17.8 6.7 42,519 33,094 246.3% 73.8% 5,588 659 5,690 5,172 8,704 0 34,209 1,960 10.3 6.2

! Table 4.7: Summary Results for Scenarios 4, 5, & 6

RWH Parameter Annual Rainwater Harvest (liters) Water Savings Efficiency (%) Value of Annual Harvest (pesos) Projected Future Value of Annual Harvest (pesos) Basic Improvement Costs (pesos) Additional Storage Costs (pesos) NPV of RWH System (pesos) Payback Period (years) Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Scenario 4: Scenario 5: Scenario 6: Current Basic System Applying Entirety of Practices Improvements Storage to RWH 16,825 13,352 41.3% 40.0% 490 264 633 392 0 0 0 0 4,744 3,173 0 0 38,502 25,802 231.4% 67.3% 5,374 564 4,382 911 5,690 5,172 8,311 7 28,927 3,166 7.1 5.5 42,519 33,094 246.3% 73.8% 5,588 659 4,541 1,206 5,690 5,172 8,706 0 30,074 3,870 6.4 5.5

71!

There are three primary results that can be drawn from this model. The first is that there is significant RWH already taking place in Oaxaca. The median household has a RWH system with a NPV of 2,255 to 3,173 pesos (depending on whether constant pricing or post-dam price inflation is considered) that captures 13,352 liters annually at a current value of 264 pesos (and a projected future value of 392 pesos), offsetting their water consumption by 40.0%. Although it is very likely that these figures are overestimations of what is actually taking place16, this is significantly more RWH than was previously imagined. The second primary result is that there is still substantial room for improvement in RWH in Oaxaca. By investing 5,172 pesos in basic improvements to their RWH system, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 16!See the model assumptions in section 3.3.! !

72!

the median household could increase their rainwater harvest to at least 25,802 liters annually, offsetting their water consumption by a minimum of 67.3%. Under the best of circumstances, the same investment could increase their annual rainwater harvest to 33,094 liters and their WSE to 73.8%. Depending on whether post-dam water prices increase as predicted, and whether or not the household decides to apply the water storage units they already have to RWH, this investment could decrease the NPV of their RWH system to as low as 1,088 pesos, or increase it to as much as 3,870 pesos. These results indicate that, at a relatively low cost, many households could significantly increase their RWH. In addition, they show that many households would be likely to benefit economically from doing so. The third primary result is that RWH is an economically feasible alternative water supply for Oaxaca. The median payback periods in all scenarios are under seven years, indicating that, even under the worst of circumstances considered, the majority of the households in the sample population would be able to fully repay the investments they made in system improvements within seven years. Harvesting beyond then would only benefit them further. These results show that investing in RWH is an economically viable way for households in Oaxaca to augment their water supply.

73!

Chapter 5: Policy Recommendations

The survey and model results have been used to evaluate the hypothesized barriers to RWH identified in section 1.5. While the presence of cultural barriers and technical barriers was found, their influence on household decisions was deemed to be marginal. Policies to overcome the remaining informational barriers and economic barriers are presented in the following chapter.

5.1

Cultural and Technical Barriers to RWH

It is posited that the negative perceptions of rainwater quality that have acted as a significant cultural barriers in Europe, Australia, and the United States (Domnech & Saur 2011; Mankad & Tapsuwan 2011; Rygaard et al. 2011; Jones & Hunt 2010; Dolnicar & Shfer 2009) are not present in Mexico, where the quality of municipal water is much lower. Depending on the location of the household, there is a very good chance that harvested rainwater would actually be of better quality than piped ADOSAPACO water (Consejo 2011). Hence, with the support of survey results that show that households in Oaxaca hold both RWH systems and the quality of harvested rainwater in high esteem, cultural barriers to RWH were deemed negligible. Although several technical barriers to RWH were identified, such as the lack of space in which to put additional water storage units or the fact that many families are renting, their effects are limited to a relatively small number of households. Survey results show that 15.5% and 9.4% of households would run up against the technical barriers of being a renter and having space constraints for addition storage, respectively. Hence, over 75% of households do not face technical barriers, and those that do are

74!

simply unsuitable for RWH in their present state. Public policies cannot change that. Hence, technical barriers too were deemed to be negligible.

5.2

Overcoming the Informational Barriers to RWH

Survey results show the informational barriers to RWH pose a significant obstacle to implementation and improvement. Like Anand and Apul (2011), Domnech and Saur (2011), Farreny, Gabarrell, and Rieradevall (2011), Basinger et al. (2010), and Tam et al. (2010), who cite the lack of regulation and guidelines at the institutional and governmental level for appropriate RWH system installation, use, and maintenance as a principle obstacle, respondents often stated that they felt uninformed regarding RWH. When asked to rate their level of knowledge regarding RWH systems on a 1 to 5 Likert scale, where 1=very badly informed, 2=badly informed, 3=average, 4=well informed, and 5=very well informed, respondents replied as follows in Table 5.1: Table 5.1: Knowledge of RWH Systems
Knowledge Rating 1 2 3 4 5 unknown # of HHs giving rating 3 13 17 9 2 1 % of HHs giving rating 6.7% 28.9% 37.8% 20.0% 4.4% 2.2%

Respondents also conveyed that their lack of knowledge acted as a deterrent to implementing and improving their RWH systems.

75! In order to overcome these informational barriers to RWH, this thesis would like

to recommend that government bodies and NGOs such as INSO work to establish a RWH awareness campaign such as those launched in Australia (Tam et al. 2010; Coombes et al. 2000) and a RWH Association such as those created in England (Ward 2009) and Germany (Hermann & Schmida 2000). The awareness campaign would serve to increase household knowledge of the potential benefits of RWH and alert contractors to the potential business that RWH system installation and improvements could offer them. The RWH Association would serve to establish a set of regulations and guidelines for RWH system installation, use, and maintenance in Oaxaca that would make households more informed about and comfortable with adopting RWH technologies. The Association would also create a venue for RWH lobbyists, supporters, and contractors to organize, establishing networks and pressuring the government for support.

5.3

Overcoming the Economic Barriers to RWH

The model results show that RWH is an economically feasible alternative water supply for Oaxaca. They indicate that the majority of households would be able to pay off their initial investment in RWH system improvements in less than seven years. However, despite these model calculations, the high initial capital costs that a RWH system requires make up almost 60% of the mean households monthly income. Although the median household would need to invest 5,172 pesos and also reported a median WTP of 5,000 pesos, indicating that almost half of the surveyed households would be willing to make the necessary investment, it is posited that much fewer households would follow through. Long-term, slow-payoff investments like RWH systems are historically unfavorably

76!

among households, and there is much evidence that WTP figures of this type overestimate actual will. On the other hand, households in Oaxaca would not only be motivated by the economic viability of RWH, but also by the water demands they have that are not currently being met. In any case, this thesis would like to recommend that a further economic incentive for RWH be established in Oaxaca. The most successful case studies of RWH promotion involve regulatory or economic mechanisms that require or incentivize RWH, respectively. It is hypothesized that the government of Oaxaca would not have the political will to require RWH in any capacity, but the subsidies used by Germany and Spain to encourage RWH could be very successful in promoting RWH if applied. 86.4% of the surveyed households reported that they would apply for such a subsidy if it existed, however, it is very unlikely that the government would act to support RWH in the current policy environment. Hence, NGOs such as INSO might have to look to international sources of funding to finance RWH adoption.

5.4

Government Support: RWH as a Public Good

Despite that fact that RWH would generate many social values and public goods, which, from a utilitarian perspective, should make a government willing to support it, this thesis conjectures that the government of Oaxaca would not consider promoting RWH, at least not financially. Perhaps if RWH had been on the agenda five years ago, before plans for the Paso Ancho dam had begun working their way through the bureaucratic hurdles, but not anymore. Since the national government agreed to fund the 2.5 billion-peso dam, the water supply crisis has probably been knocked to the bottom of the city and state

77!

governments agendas. In addition, the decentralized nature of RWH makes government prospects for profitmaking and power-grabbing very unlikely. Nonetheless, the dam will not solve the citys water problems. Dam or not, the ability of the government to meet water demands and to increase water quality is still tempered by the decrepit pipe infrastructure that leaks as much as 40% of the citys water (Lusher 2007). Thus, RWH is part of a toolkit that will continue to help meet the citys water needs. And if, as predicted, the government will not support RWH, it is recommended that NGOs search for international funding sources to incentivize RWH at the household level in Oaxaca.

5.5

Conclusion

Oaxaca de Jurez is in the midst of a water crisis. The quantity of water that the city provides is not enough to meet the peoples demand, and the quality of water they do deliver is unfit for many of the peoples needs. The citys government plans to address these issues with the construction of the Paso Ancho dam. However, such a dam will not attend to the quality problems, and will only serve as a short-term band-aid for a portion of the population in regards to the quantity problems. The Oaxacan government has made its people promises before, and it has failed them time and again. As a result, many Oaxacans do not trust their government. The people of Oaxaca de Jurez are therefore faced with a choice: they can put their faith in the government and its dam, or they can take their water supply problems into their own hands with RWH. Despite its low average income and its arid climate, Oaxaca is very well suited for RWH for a number of reasons. First, there is the fact that the water supply is already split

! between potable and non-potable sources and uses. This makes the cultural barrier of perceived rainwater quality, which might result from telling a European or American household that the water pouring from their faucet is no longer potable, a non-issue.

78!

Second, most households already have many water storage units at their disposal and, in this way, are primed for RWH, which makes the initial economic barriers less daunting. And third, many households are suffering from water supply issues and in desperate need of an alternative water supply, making their interest in and willingness to pay for RWH systems higher than their incomes might otherwise dictate. However, there are many forces working against RWH in Oaxaca as well. First, is the informational barrier resulting from the fact that most households are not aware of the potential in RWH. Most households would not know how to begin harvesting in a more sophisticated fashion, and those that do often have doubts as to whether a RWH system would supply enough water and of good enough quality to make the large initial investments worthwhile. Second, is the economic barrier that results from municipal water prices in Oaxaca being highly subsidized and the per quantity water tariffs being the lowest in Mexico (Lusher 2007). This makes the cost-savings offset by RWH very low and the payback of initial investments long. And third, is the fact that the government of Oaxaca is corrupt and, like its people, poor. It would therefore be very unlikely to provide the financial assistance that many households would need in order to make the initial investment in RWH system improvements. Such obstacles can be overcome. If households do not know about RWH, then teach them. If the initial investments in system improvements seem unaffordable, find financial aid for households in need. If the government is unwilling to provide proper

79!

RWH guidelines or sufficient economic incentives, find other regulators and financiers. These are the roles to be filled by NGOs. This thesis has identified informational and economic barriers as the principle obstacles to RWH in Oaxaca. For the city to meet its full RWH potential, an awareness campaign must be started, a RWH Association must be founded, and funding for households in need must be financed. Though the governments dam may serve to prolong the Oaxacan water crisis and cause more problems than its solves, the actions of NGOs may alleviate the strain on households and help them to find a clean and reliable water source in the decentralized supply that RWH offers.

80!

Works Cited
Abdulla, F., & Al-Shareef, A. (2009). Roof rainwater harvesting systems for household water supply in Jordan. Desalination, 243 (1-3), 195207. Anand, C., & Apul, D. (2011). Economic and environmental analysis of standard, high efficiency, rainwater flushed, and composting toilets. Journal of Environmental Management, 92 (3), 419428. Angrill, S., Farreny, R., Gasol, C., Gabarrell, X., Violas, B., Josa, A., & Rieradevall, J. (2011). Environmental analysis of rainwater harvesting infrastructures in diffuse and compact urban models of Mediterranean climate. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 118. Bez, A., Belmont, R., Garca, R., Padilla, H., & Torres, M. (2007). Chemical composition of rainwater collected at a southwest site of Mexico City, Mexico. Atmospheric Research, 86 (1), 6175. Bez, A., Belmont, R., Garca, R., Torres, M., & Padilla, H. (2006). Rainwater chemical composition at two sites in Central Mexico. Atmospheric Research, 80 (1), 6785. Basinger, M., Montalto, F., & Lall, U. (2010). A rainwater harvesting system reliability model based on nonparametric stochastic rainfall generator. Journal of Hydrology, 392 (3-4), 105118. Brown, R. (2005). Impediments to integrated urban stormwater management: The need for institutional reform. Environmental Management, 36 (3), 455468. Burkhard, R., Deletic, A., & Craig, A. (2000). Techniques for water and wastewater management: a review of techniques and their integration in planning. Urban Water, 2 (3), 197221. Chang, M., McBroom, M., & Scott Beasley, R. (2004). Roofing as a source of nonpoint water pollution. Journal of Environmental Management, 73 (4), 307315. Chatfield, R. C., & Coombes, P. J. (2007). Urban Rainwater Harvesting: Analysis of a Decentralized Approach for Meeting Water Demand in Urban Cities. Retrieved October 8, 2011, from http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu. Chilton, J., Maidment, G., Marriott, D., Francis, A., & Tobias, G. (2000). Case study of a rainwater recovery system in a commercial building with a large roof. Urban Water, 1 (4), 345354. Comisin Nacional del Agua (CNA) (2011). Consejo, J.J. (2011, November 22). Personal Interview Coombes, P., Kuczera, G., Kalma, J.D. (2003). Economic water quantity and quality impacts from the use of a rainwater tank in the inner city, Australian Journal of Water Resources, 7 (2), 101-110. Coombes, P., & Kuczera, G. (2003). Analysis of the performance of rainwater tanks in Australian capital cities. Retrieved October 7, 2011, from http://www.waterplex.com.au. !

! Coombes, P., Argue, J., & Kuczera, G. (2000). Figtree Place: a case study in water sensitive urban development (WSUD). Urban Water, 1 (4), 335343.

81!

Dbais, J., Rahman, A., Ronaldson, P., & Shrestha, S. (2007). Life cycle costing of rainwater tank as a component of water sensitive urban design. Retrieved October 8, 2011, from http://www.handle.uws.edu.au. University of Warwick, Development Technology Unit. (2001). Recommendations for Designing Rainwater Harvesting System Tanks. Retrieved October 17, 2011, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk. Dillon, P., Pavelic, P., Toze, S., Rinck-Pfeiffer, S., Martin, R., Knapton, A., & Pidsley, D. (2006). Role of aquifer storage in water reuse. Desalination, 188 (1-3), 123134. Dolnicar, S., & Schafer, A. (2009). Desalinated versus recycled water: public perceptions and profiles of the accepters. Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (2), 888 900. Domenech, L., & Sauri, 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 (6-7), 598608. Environmental Protection Agency (2001). Parameters of Water Quality: Interpretation and Standards. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from http://www.epa.ie. Eroksuz, E., & Rahman, A. (2010). Rainwater tanks in multi-unit buildings: A case study for three Australian cities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54 (12), 1449 1452. Farreny, R., Gabarrell, X., & Rieradevall, J. (2011a). Cost-efficiency of rainwater harvesting strategies in dense Mediterranean neighbourhoods. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. Retrieved October 7, 2011, from http://www.sciencedirect.com. Farreny, R., Morales-Pinzn, T., Guisasola, A., Tay, C., Rieradevall, J., & Gabarrell, X. (2011b). Roof Selection For Rainwater Harvesting: Quantity And Quality Assessment In Spain. Water Research. Retrieved October 7, 2011, from http://www.sciencedirect.com. Fletcher, T., Deletic, A., Mitchell, V., & Hatt, B. (2008). Reuse of Urban Runoff in Australia: A Review of Recent Advances and Remaining Challenges. Retrieved October 6, 2011, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Gardner, T., Coombes, P., & Marks, R. (2001). Use of rainwater at a range of scales in Australian urban environments. Retrieved October 19, 2011, from http://www.healthyhomeproject.com. Ghisi, E., Bressan, D., & Martini, M. (2007a). Rainwater tank capacity and potential for potable water savings by using rainwater in the residential sector of southeastern Brazil. Building and Environment, 42 (4), 16541666.

82!

Ghisi, E., Bressan, D., & Martini, M. (2007b). Rainwater tank capacity and potential for potable water savings by using rainwater in the residential sector of southeastern Brazil. Building and Environment, 42 (4), 16541666. Ghisi, E., Montibeller, A., & Schmidt, R. (2006). Potential for potable water savings by using rainwater: An analysis over 62 cities in southern Brazil. Building and Environment, 41 (2), 204210. Ghisi, E., Tavares, D., & Rocha, V. (2009). Rainwater harvesting in petrol stations in Braslia: Potential for potable water savings and investment feasibility analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54 (2), 7985. Glendenning, C., & Vervoort, R. (2010b). Hydrological impacts of rainwater harvesting (RWH) in a case study catchment: The Arvari River, Rajasthan, India:: Part 2. Catchment-scale impacts. Agricultural Water Management. Retrieved October 6, 2011, from http://www.sciencedirect.com. Glendenning, C., & Vervoort, R. (2010a). Hydrological impacts of rainwater harvesting (RWH) in a case study catchment: The Arvari River, Rajasthan, India. Part 1: Fieldscale impacts. Agricultural Water Management, 98 (2), 331342. Global-Rates (2012). Inflation Mexico: consumer price index (CPI). Retrieved April 9, 2012 from www.global-rates.com. Gould, J. (1999). Contributions relating to rainwater harvesting. Retrieved October 21, 2011, from http://oldwww.wii.gov.in. Hatt, B., Deletic, A., & Fletcher, T. (2006). Integrated treatment and recycling of stormwater: a review of Australian practice. Journal of Environmental Management, 79 (1), 102113. Helmreich, B., & Horn, H. (2009). Opportunities in rainwater harvesting. Desalination, 248 (1-3), 118124. Herrmann, T., & Schmida, U. (2000). Rainwater utilisation in Germany: efficiency, dimensioning, hydraulic and environmental aspects, 110. Honorable Ayuntamiento of Oaxaca de Jurez (2005). Plan Municipal de Desarrollo, 2005-2007. Technical report, Municipio de Oaxaca de Jurez. Imteaz, M., Shanableh, A., Rahman, A., & Ahsan, A. (2011). Optimisation of rainwater tank design from large roofs: A case study in Melbourne, Australia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55, 1022-1029. INEGI (2005). Indicadores seleccionados de viviendas particulares habitadas por municipio, 2005. Jones, M., & Hunt, W. (2010). Performance of rainwater harvesting systems in the southeastern United States. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54 (10), 623 629. Kahinda, J. M., & Taigbenu, A. E. (2011). Rainwater harvesting in South Africa: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. Retrieved October 8, 2012, from http://www.sciencedirect.com. !

83!

Kahinda, J. M., Taigbenu, A., & Boroto, J. (2007). Domestic rainwater harvesting to improve water supply in rural South Africa. Journal of Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 32 (15-18), 10501057. Kahinda, J. M., Taigbenu, A., & Boroto, R. (2010). Domestic rainwater harvesting as an adaptation measure to climate change in South Africa. Journal of Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 35 (13-14), 742751. Kim, R., Lee, S., Kim, Y., & Lee, J. (2004). Pollutants in Rainwater Runoff and Their Control by Surface Modification Using TiO2. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 10 (1), 152160. Lee, JY, Yang, J., Han, M., & Choi, J. (2010). Comparison of the microbiological and chemical characterization of harvested rainwater and reservoir water as alternative water resources. Science of the Total Environment, 408 (4), 896905. Liaw, C., & Tsai, Y. (2004). Optimum Storage Volume of Rooftop Rainwater Harvesting Systems for Domestic Use. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 40 (4), 901912. Lusher, L. (2007). Water Policy on Demand: Valuation of Improved Water Services in Oaxaca, Mexico (Masters Thesis). Retrieved from the Bard College database. Mankad, A., & Tapsuwan, S. (2011). Review of socio-economic drivers of community acceptance and adoption of decentralised water systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 92 (3), 380391. Martinson, B., & Thomas, T. (2009). Quantifying the first-flush phenomenon: effects of first-flush on water yield and quality. Retrieved October 10, 2011 from www.raintankdepot.com. Martinson, D., & Thomas, T. (2003). Better, faster, cheaper: research into roofwater harvesting for water supply in low-income countries. Retrieved October 10, 2011 from www2.warwick.ac.uk. Mbilinyi, B., Tumbo, S., Mahoo, H., Senkondo, E., & Hatibu, N. (2005). Indigenous knowledge as decision support tool in rainwater harvesting. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 30 (11-16), 792798. Moore, D., & Mclean, S. (2008). Appraisal of the requirements for establishing domestic roof rainwater harvesting schemes in Bangladesh. Journal of Building Appraisal, 4 (1), 2331. Morrow, A., Dunstan, R., & Coombes, P. (2010). Elemental composition at different points of the rainwater harvesting system. Science of the Total Environment, 408 (20), 45424548. Ouessar, M., Sghaier, M., Mahdhi, N., Abdelli, F., De Graaff, J., Chaieb, H., Yahyaoui, H., et al. (2004). An integrated approach for impact assessment of water harvesting techniques in dry areas: the case of Oued Oum Zessar watershed (Tunisia). Environmental monitoring and assessment, 99 (1), 127140. Palla, A., & Gnecco, I. (2011). Non-dimensional design parameters and performance assessment of rainwater harvesting systems. Journal of Hydrology. !

! Parker, H. (2010). Rainwater Harvesting in Oaxaca: Present and Future (Masters Thesis). Retrieved from the Institute of Nature and Society of Oaxaca.

84!

Radaideh, J., Al-Zboon, K., Al-Harahsheh, A., & Al-Adamat, R. (2009). Quality Assessment of Harvested Rainwater for Domestic Uses. Jordan Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 2 (1), 26-31. Rahman, A., Dbais, J., & Imteaz, M. (2009). Sustainability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Multistorey Residential Buildings. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 3 (1), 73-82. Rauch, W., Seggelke, K., Brown, R., & Krebs, P. (2005). Integrated approaches in urban storm drainage: Where do we stand? Environmental Management, 35 (4), 396409. Roebuck, R., & Ashley, R. (2006). Predicting the hydraulic and life-cycle cost performance of rainwater harvesting systems using a computer-based modeling tool. Retrieved March 29, 2012 from www.sudsolutions.co.uk. Roebuck, R., Oltean Dumbrava, C., & Tait, S. (2011). Whole life cost performance of domestic rainwater harvesting systems in the United Kingdom. Water and Environment Journal, 25 (3), 355365. Roy, A., Wenger, S., Fletcher, T., Walsh, C., Ladson, A., Shuster, W., Thurston, H., et al. (2008). Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale urban stormwater management: lessons from Australia and the United States. Environmental Management, 42 (2), 344359. Ryan, A., Spash, C., & Measham, T. (2009). Socio-economic and psychological predictors of domestic greywater and rainwater collection: Evidence from Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 379 (1-2), 164171. Rygaard, M., Binning, P., & Albrechtsen, H. (2011). Increasing urban water selfsufficiency: New era, new challenges. Journal of Environmental Management, 92 (1), 185194. Sanchez, A. M. (2011, December 5). Personal Interview Sazakli, E., Alexopoulos, A., & Leotsinidis, M. (2007). Rainwater harvesting, quality assessment and utilization in Kefalonia Island, Greece. Water Research, 41 (9), 20392047. Simmons, G., Hope, V., Lewis, G., Whitmore, J., & Gao, W. (2001). Contamination of potable roof-collected rainwater in Auckland, New Zealand. Water Research, 35 (6), 15181524. Simmons, G., Jury, S., Thornley, C., Harte, D., Mohiuddin, J., & Taylor, M. (2008). A Legionnaires' disease outbreak: A water blaster and roof-collected rainwater systems. Water Research, 42 (6-7), 14491458. Still, G., & Thomas, T. (2003). Sizing and optimally locating guttering for rainwater harvesting. Retrieved October 10, 2011 from www2.warwick.ac.uk.

85!

Sturm, M., Zimmermann, M., Schtz, K., Urban, W., & Hartung, H. (2009). Rainwater harvesting as an alternative water resource in rural sites in central northern Namibia. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 34 (13), 776785. Tam, V., Tam, L., & Zeng, S. (2010). Cost effectiveness and tradeoff on the use of rainwater tank: An empirical study in Australian residential decision-making. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54 (3), 178186. Thomas, T. (1998). Domestic water supply using rainwater harvesting. Building Research & Information, 26 (2), 94101. Toronto and Region Conservation (2011). Performance Evaluation of Rainwater Harvesting Systems. Retrieved October 10, 2011, from http://www.sustainabletechnologies.ca. Trading Economics (2012). Mexico Interest Rate. Retrieved April 9, 2012 from www.tradingeconomies.com. Turner, S., & Four, E. (2000). Design of rainwater storage tanks for use in developing countries. Retrieved October 12, 2011 from www2.warwick.ac.uk. Vargas, D. (2009). Rainwater Harvesting: A Sustainable Solution to Stormwater Management (Masters Thesis). Retrieved from the Institute of Nature and Society of Oaxaca. Verdin, D. (2005). Tinacos Rotoplas. In La Gran Va: Lista de Precios. Retrieved February 25, 2012, from http://ferreterialagranvia.tripod.com/id18.html. Vervaeke, W. (2011, December 9). Personal Interview. Vialle, C., Sablayrolles, C., Lovera, M., & Jacob, S. (2011). Monitoring of water quality from roof runoff: Interpretation using multivariate analysis. Water Research, 45 (1), 3765-3775. Villarreal, E., & Dixon, A. (2005). Analysis of a rainwater collection system for domestic water supply in Ringdansen, Norrkping, Sweden. Building and Environment, 40 (9), 11741184. Ward, S. (2009). Rainwater Harvesting in the UKCurrent Practice and Future Trends. Retrieved November 3, 2011 from www.mendeley.com. Zhu, K., Zhang, L., Hart, W., Liu, M., & Chen, H. (2004). Quality issues in harvested rainwater in arid and semi-arid Loess Plateau of northern China. Journal of Arid Environments, 57 (4), 487505.

86!

Appendix A: RWH System Components

A.1 Catchment Surface

The materials from which a catchment surface is made play a critical role the functioning of a RWH system. It recommended that roofs be made from metal, clay, concrete, or slate if they are to be used for RWH (Helmreich & Horn 2008; Texas Water Development Board 2005; Thomas 1998). Composite or asphalt shingles as well as roofs made from tar, gravel, wood, or other organic matter are not recommended because they leech toxins into the water supply (Helmreich & Horn 2008; Texas Water Development Board 2005; Thomas 1998). Although expensive, slate is the most highly recommended material. Its smoothness and chemical stability limit evaporation and leeching, respectively (Texas Water Development Board 2005). After slate, metal roofs, particularly ones made from aluminum, zinc, and steel are comparable, but one must be careful of what they are painted with (Texas Water Development Board 2005). Clay and concrete are the cheapest options but because they are so porous they have been known to "contribute as much as a 10% loss due to texture, inefficient flow, or evaporation" (Texas Water Development Board 2005, p. 6). In addition, porous roofing materials encourage the growth of bacteria and potential water contaminants (Texas Water Development Board 2005). However, this loss and the chance of bacterial growths can be reduced with painting or coating, but, as noted above, one must be careful of the type of paint/coating used (Texas Water Development Board 2005; Thomas 1998). A.2 Gutters and Downspouts

Gutters and downspouts are generally made of PVC, vinyl, seamless aluminum, and

87!

galvanized steel (Helmreich & Horn 2008; Texas Water Development Board 2005; Thomas 1998). Seamless aluminum tends to be the most expensive, as it must be installed by a professional, but the others are relatively comparable in price (Texas Water Development Board 2005). In addition, at least two 45-degree elbows, many brackets and straps, and general hardware are necessary to complete the system (Texas Water Development Board 2005). Factors such as the presence of "roof valleys," roof slope, intensity of rainfall, and number and frequency of downspouts make a "gutter-sizing rule of thumb" difficult to create, but some water will be lost to spillage or overrunning, especially if gutters are not well maintained and "roof valleys" are not properly accounted for (Texas Water Development Board 2005). In order to prevent clogging and contamination, mesh screens are necessary along gutters or in downspouts (Helmreich & Horn 2008; Texas Water Development Board 2005; Thomas 1998). There are many types and models of such mesh screen available, and various designs of where to put them and how to best use them (Texas Water Development Board 2005). Further information on optimized water conveyance as a function of roof slope, gutter slope, aperture, and width can be found in Still and Thomass (2003) analysis of gutter performance. A.3 First-Flush Diverter (FFD)

By far the most important and prevalent form of pre-cistern filtration or treatment in the literature is the first-flush diverter (FFD) (Lee et al. 2010; Martinson & Thomas 2009; Helmreich & Horn 2008; Texas Water Development Board 2005). The device is a simple box with an inlet, baffle, and removable filter covering the outlet that usually sits just before the storage tank/cistern (Texas Water Development Board 2005). Essentially, a FFD is a fork or v in the piping of a RWH system that lies between the downspouts and

88!

the cistern, allowing the operator of a RWH to choose whether the rainwaters final destination is the cistern or not (see figure 2.1). The guiding concept here is that the first rain event of the season (and perhaps others afterward) should be used to clean the catchment surface, gutters, and downspouts, rather than being captured in the cistern (Texas Water Development Board 2005). After the eight months of almost no rain that occurs in Oaxaca, a RWH catchment surface will be highly contaminated with atmospheric deposition, animal feces, and other pollutants (Texas Water Development Board 2005). The first rain event of the season will wash the majority of these contaminants away, and a FFD prevents this first-flush cleaning from making it to the cistern. FFDs are the best RWH filtration technique because they are not sensitive to particle size, and since roof dust is so small, this is quite important (Martinson & Thomas 2009). FFDs also remove dissolved contaminants in addition to suspended ones, eliminating the possibility of contamination from trace minerals like lead and zinc (Martinson & Thomas 2009). Empirical evidence indicates that the improvements to water quality resulting from this practice are drastic (Vialle et al. 2011; Lee et al. 2010; Helmreich & Horn 2008). Several methods exist for choosing the number of FFDs, the size of each flush, and timing between. Factors such as the catchment surface area, the number of dry days in between rains, the quantity and type of debris and dust, the slope and smoothness of the collection surface, and the number of downspouts will affect the optimal diversion quantity (Texas Water Development Board 2005). Generally, one first-flush diverter is necessary for each downspout and it is recommended that each one be cleaned after each

89!

rain event (Texas Water Development Board 2005). The rule of thumb for sizing one's FFD is that one to two gallons of first-flush diversion will be needed for each 100 square feet of collection area [approximately 4 to 8 liters of FFD for every 10 square meters] (Texas Water Development Board 2005). Martinson and Thomas (2009) developed a more complex and sophisticated method for sizing first flush diversion attributes and there work should be referred to if more detail is desired. They optimized the FFD reset time and the quantity of water diverted for a variety of locations and rain profiles around the world. They weighed the removal efficiency and volumetric efficiency of first flush diversion against each other in order to establish a design procedure for setting a reset times and sizing a FFD (Martinson & Thomas 2009).!! A.4 Storage Tank

The storage tank/cistern is the most expensive, and arguably the most important, part of a RWH system (Texas Water Development Board 2005). Ideally, its size should be a function of the local rainwater supply, the demand, the projected length of time between rain events, and the catchment surface area, as well as less scientific variables such as aesthetics, personal preference, and budget (Texas Water Development Board 2005). Storage tanks/cisterns can be made from earthenware mud or clay, from recycled vinyl swimming pools, and from concrete, brick, galvanized steel, or stone and mortar (Texas Water Development Board 2005). All designs must have covers in order to prevent evaporation, mosquitoes, and contamination (Thomas 1998), be opaque or painted in order to prevent algae growth, and be easily accessible for cleaning (Texas Water Development Board 2005; Thomas 1998). Much of the literature agrees that cement is not only an appropriate material for a rainwater cistern, but also the cheapest (Texas

! Water Development Board 2005; Turner 2000; Thomas 1998).

90!

In 2000, Turner (2000) published a set of construction recommendations for cement tanks in an attempt to minimize the material inputs and cost, while maintaining cistern quality. Because approximately 80% of the cost of a cement tank is the construction material (Turner 2000), the easiest way to reduce its cost is to decrease the quantity of necessary materials. However, reducing material inputs by, for example, thinning walls can increase the chance of cracking caused by shrinking (Turner 2000). Hence, Turner (2000) writes of several strategies for avoiding this result: "reducing the effects of potentially damaging differential shrinkage, incorporating good curing regimes, and studying the role reinforcing plays in reducing shrinkage and cracking (Turner 2000, p. 15). Siting a storage tank/cistern can sometimes be very difficult. In order to minimize plumbing, the tank should be placed close to points of supply and demand, but higher altitudes are also preferable so as to minimize the pumping that will be necessary (Texas Water Development Board 2005). In addition, the weight of the storage tank is important. A gallon of water weighs about 8 pounds (one liter of water weighs about one kilogram), which makes even small tanks extremely heavy. This is of particular concern in Oaxaca, where roofs are already lined with water storage tanks and often weighed down to the capacity they can withstand. Because of these weight concerns, and because space is a scarce commodity in city centers like Oaxaca, underground tanks are generally more practical than surface ones, but, according to Thomas (1998), they possess significant disadvantages" (Thomas 1998, p. 97).

! A.5 Pump and Plumbing

91!

Rainwater is captured and conveyed via gutters, downspouts, and FFDs like those discussed above to low-gravity storage like a cistern. Households without a pump will need one, either to carry water directly to the faucets etc. above, or to pump the water to higher-gravity storage, where it can be conveyed via gravity (Texas Water Development Board 2005). Such pumps are usually electric. The piping and delivery system appropriate for a RWH system is no different than the plumbing used for any other source of water. In most cases, a RWH system can be attached to existing plumbing (Helmreich & Horn 2008; Texas Water Development Board 2005; Thomas 1998). A.6 Treatment, Filtration, and Purification

There is a very in-depth literature on appropriate methods of treatment and filtration for harvested rainwater. Most of these works, however, attempt to bring harvested rainwater to a quality level appropriate for drinking. Because this thesis is proposing the use of harvested rainwater for all end uses other than drinking, the more sophisticated techniques discussed in Vialle et al. (2011), Lee et al. (2010), Helmreich & Horn (2008), Texas Water Development Board (2005), Thomas (1998), and elsewhere would be inappropriate. Instead, the recommended post-storage treatment is nothing more than chlorine, relying heavily on first-flush diversion and gutter mesh to filter out potential contaminants (Domnech & Saur 2011; Farreny et al. 2011; Imteaz et al. 2011; Mandak & Tapsuwan 2011; Toronto & Region Conservation 2010; Helmreich & Horn 2008; Kahinda, Taigbenu, & Boroto 2007; Martinson & Thomas 2003; Thomas 1998).

92!

Appendix B: Harvested Rainwater Quality

B.1 Paths of Contamination

Generally, there is agreement that the factors affecting the quality of harvested rainwater are: "(1) the cleanliness and age of catchments, storage tanks, pipes, and gutters; and (2) [the] atmospheric conditions present at each site (Lee et al. 2010, p. 896). In addition, all authors seem to concur that it is reasonable to assume that catchment areas will become contaminated with "dust, organic matter, bird and animal droppings, and pollutants from human activities" (Lee et al. 2010, p. 897). These potential paths of contamination show types of water pollution that one might expect to find in harvested rainwater and inform the kinds of treatment and filtration that one might use to prevent contamination. They also illustrate the importance of regular RWH system maintenance. B.2 Water Quality Study Parameters

In addition to regional factors such as atmospheric deposition and local factors such as catchment area material and the presence of mammals, rodents, and birds on the catchment area, the quality of harvested rainwaterand the conclusions that study authors drawalso depends on the water quality parameters being tested and the water quality standards they are compared to. Hence, the wide variety of water quality test results in the literature can be largely explained by differences in location, quality parameters, and water quality standards. For example, Kahinda et al. (2007) reviewed the literature on the quality of harvested rainwater and found a wide range of conclusions in the literature. On the one hand, Sazakli et al. (2007), Zhu et al. (2004), Handia et al. (2003), and Dillaha and Zolan (1984) conducted studies that showed levels of chemical

93!

and/or microbial contaminants that met the World Health Organizations (WHOs) international standards for drinking water (Kahinda et al. 2007). On the other hand, the research conducted by Abbott et al. (2006), Vasudevan and Pathak (2000), Nevondo and Cloete (1999), and Yaziz et al. (1989) concluded that levels of chemical and/microbial contaminants are often found in harvested rainwater at concentrations exceeding international standards for drinking water (Kahinda et al. 2007). Authors such as Sazakli et al. (2007), Zhu et al. (2004), Vsquez et al. (2003), and Gould (1999) took a more nuanced view; they claim that the quality of harvested rainwater depends on the geography, topography, and weather conditions of the area, the type and proximity of pollution sources, the type of catchment area, the type of water tank, and the handling of the water itself (Kahinda et al. 2007). The discrepancy in the literature makes it clear that the quality of harvested rainwater depends on various factors discussed, but it is encouraging that there are some scientists who believe rainwater is potable without treatment (Kahinda et al. 2007). Other papers, such as Imteaz et al. (2011), Mandak & Tapsuwan (2011), Toronto & Region Conservation (2010), Helmreich & Horn (2009), Martinson & Thomas (2003), and Thomas (1998), have similarly inconclusive rainwater quality literature reviews. A variety of testing approaches were taken in the fourteen papers reviewed for this thesis. Farreny et al. (2011), Chang et al. (2004), Kim et al. (2004), and Zhu et al. (2004) focused their analysis on comparing the qualities of rainwater attained from RWH systems with catchment areas made of different materials. All four studies took their rainwater samples from roof runoff, so as to eliminate the confounding factors added by storage and piping, and compared their results to national or international water quality

94!

standards. Meanwhile, Domnech & Saur (2011), Vialle et al. (2011), Abdulla & AlShareef (2009); Radaideh et al. (2009), Sazakli et al. (2007), Coombes, Kuczera, & Kalma (2003), and Coombes et al. (2000) took their rainwater samples from the rainwater storage tanks of active RWH systems in an effort to incorporate the effects that longstanding, stagnant water might have on quality17. Morrow et al. (2010) and Lee et al. (2010), on the other hand, decided to focus on the differences in water quality found at various point in a RWH system. Morrow et al. (2010) took samples from roof runoff, rainwater tanks, and indoor faucets of homes with active RWH systems. Lee et al. (2010) took samples directly from the sky and from roof runoff, and compared these results to the public groundwater sources that RWH would theoretically be replacing or offsetting. Farreny et al. (2011) conducted a similar quality comparison with public groundwater sources in their analysis. The results of these various studies were not analyzed for this thesis, but their general conclusions are compared and contrasted below. With the exception of Kim et al. (2004), which did not compare its results to any water quality standards, every study reviewed showed at least one drinking water violation in their rainwater quality tests. The most common violations were microbial parameters like E. coli, fecal coliforms, and total coliforms (Domnech & Saur 2011; Vialle et al. 2011; Morrow et al. 2010; Lee et al. 2010; Abdulla & Al-Shareef 2009; Radaideh et al. 2009; Sazakli et al. 2007; Chang et al. 2004; Zhu et al. 2004; Coombes, Kuczera, & Kalma 2003; Simmons et al. 2001; Coombes et al. 2000). The next most common violations were mineral and heavy metal parameters like lead, arsenic, zinc, aluminium, and copper (Farreny et al. 2011; Morrow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17!Depending on the study, these rainwater samples were taken from storage tanks that contained rainwater that was either entirely unfiltered and untreated or filtered by nothing more than a wide mesh and a FFD.! !

95!

et al. 2010; Lee et al. 2010; Radaideh et al. 2009; Chang et al. 2004). Other than these microbial and mineral violations, it seems that harvested rainwater is safe and appropriate for human consumption. In fact, for other water quality parameters, rainwater tends to be cleaner than ground and surface water alternatives in almost all cases. Unlike groundwater, rainwater is usually free of chemical contaminants like pesticides and fertilizers, and is almost always more colorless, less hard, less turbid, of more appropriate pH, and with a smaller concentration of suspended solids and salts (Farreny et al. 2011; Lee et al. 2010; Abdulla & Al-Shareef 2009; Kahinda et al. 2007; Sazakli et al. 2007; Zhu et al. 2004). The two studies that actually compared rainwater quality to groundwater quality, Farreny et al. (2011) and Lee et al. (2010), even found a series of drinking water violations present in the groundwater samples that were absent from rainwater. Farreny et al. (2011) found that the concentrations of all minerals and heavy metals in their roof runoff harvested rainwater samples were within EU drinking water standards except for ammonium and nitrites. However, they found concentrations of phosphates and chlorine that were well above European drinking water standards in a significant portion of their groundwater samples for the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (Farreny et al. 2011). They also found concentrations of nitrates, nitrites, and sulfates that, in addition to being much higher than those in rainwater, violated European drinking water standards in an insignificant portion of their samples (Farreny et al. 2011). Lee et al. (2010) found that the concentrations of all minerals and heavy metals in harvested rainwater were within WHO Drinking Water Standards except aluminum. In addition, they found higher than permissible concentrations of total coliforms and E. coli in 91.6% and 72.0% of their roof runoff harvested rainwater samples, respectively (Lee et al.

96!

2010). However, they found higher than permissible concentrations of total coliforms and E. coli in 94.4% and 85.2% of their groundwater samples, respectively, indicating that the groundwater in South Korea is actually more contaminated than harvested rainwater for microbial water quality parameters (Lee et al. 2010). These comparative results in Farreny et al. (2011) and Lee et al. (2010) were attained without the use of FFDs or other basic filtration devices for harvested rainwater samples. B.3 Post-Storage Filtration and Treatment

Owners of RWH that wish to use their harvested rainwater for drinking, or that feel a FFD would be insufficient to bring their harvested rainwater to the desired quality level, have a variety of additional filtration and treatment options. Chlorine is recommended as the cheapest and most easily applicable disinfectant (Helmreich & Horn 2008; Sazakli et al. 2007; Texas Water Development Board 2005). It can be applied either in tablet form or as gas and the desired concentration is between 0.4 and 0.5 mg/L (Helmreich & Horn 2008). However, it is noted that the chlorine should be applied after harvested water has been removed from the storage tank, otherwise the chlorine may react with organic matter settled at the bottom of the tank, resulting in undesirable by-products (Helmreich & Horn 2008). In addition, some parasitic species have shown resistance to chlorine, especially in low doses (Helmreich & Horn 2008). An alternative to chlorination for improving the bacteriological quality of rainwater is using a graded slow sand filter (Helmreich & Horn 2008; Texas Water Development Board 2005). Although this method is comparable in price to chlorination, it is generally slower and requires a constant flow of water through the filter (Helmreich & Horn 2008; Texas Water Development Board 2005). It also requires some form of

97!

nutrient-reducing pre-treatment (Helmreich & Horn 2008). Although the sand/gravel filter materials may be more readily available than chlorine gas or tablets for many households, the knowledge necessary for this method of treatment is harder to come by (Helmreich & Horn 2008). A third, cheap method of disinfection mentioned in the literature is pasteurization by solar technology, combining UV-A radiation with heat (Helmreich & Horn 2008; Texas Water Development Board 2005). This method happens to be the most common in Texas, and is a combination of cartridge filters and ultraviolet (UV) light treatment (Texas Water Development Board 2005). Water passes through a 5-micron cartridge filter [with a screen of 5 micrometer mesh], a 3-micron activated charcoal filter, and a UV lamp (Texas Water Development Board 2005). In theory, the 5-micron filter removes dust and other suspended particles, the 3-micron filter traps microscopic particles and absorbs organic molecules into the activated surface, and the UV lamp acts as final guarantee of purity (Texas Water Development Board 2005). Both filters and the UV lamp must be replaced regularly, and the UV lamp requires additional maintenance if it is to live up to its 10,000 hour lifespan (Texas Water Development Board 2005). In addition, the filters and UV have a maximum recommended volume per time of 12 gallons [45 liters] per minute and if more is required doubling up on filters and using stronger UV lights will be necessary (Texas Water Development Board 2005). This hightech process may work for those rich enough to afford it, but Helmreich and Horn (2008) suggest that it can be achieved in poorer parts of the work too by creating "batches" of rainwater in bottles or bags and placing them in direct sunlight, or continuous flow (SODIS) reactors. A minimum of fifty degrees Celsius is recommended and has been

98!

shown to successfully inactivate E. coli and other undesirable bacteria if given enough time to do so (Helmreich & Horn 2008). The "batch" methods are relatively labor intensive but can treat sufficient water for a households drinking consumption (Helmreich & Horn 2008). The continuous flow methods like SODIS reactors can produce about 100 L of disinfected water per square meter of solar collector per day (Helmreich & Horn 2008). However, neither method functions properly if the water has more 10 mg/L of suspended solids, and thus other filtration processes may be necessary (Helmreich & Horn 2008). These first three filtration methods give a variety of options for eliminating bacteriological contaminants in cheap but labor-intensive ways. However, the removal of hazardous substances and inorganic pollutants from rainwater can be more difficult. Fast sand filters are sometimes used but are only appropriate for certain, large pollutants (Helmreich & Horn 2008). The addition of a filtration layer made of activated carbon, anthracite coal, or a metal membrane (1-5 micrometers) has been shown to remove most microorganisms, however these methods are generally rather expensive (Helmreich & Horn 2008). Ozone provides another option of treatment. Some RWH system owners pump ozone into their storage tanks overnight and the highly reactive compound acts as an oxidizing agent, reducing color, eliminating foul odors, and reducing the total organic carbon in the water, eventually dissipating within 15 minutes of injection (Texas Water Development Board 2005). Membrane filtration methods like reverse osmosis and nanofiltration are another option. They force water through a semi-permeable membrane at a high pressure, filtering dissolved solids and salts (Texas Water Development Board 2005). The process is generally thought to be overkill for rainwater because a percentage

99!

of water that does not make it through the membrane is lost as "brine," and thus other methods of treatment are usually preferred, at least for rainwater (Texas Water Development Board 2005). !

100!

Appendix C: Valuing the Rainwater Harvest

C.1 Current Rainwater Values

In order to put a value to harvested rainwater, it is necessary to incorporate the prices that households are currently paying for non-potable water. Households in Oaxaca obtain water from six distinct sources: (1) piped municipal water; (2) trucked municipal water; (3) municipal well water; (4) trucked water purchased from private enterprises; (5) private well water; and (6) private RWH systems. Sources 5 and 6, harvested rainwater and private well water, are free, with no associated costs other than private upkeep and maintenance. Source 4, private water trucks, is generally the most expensive of the six, with a wide range of prices that vary widely across households. Sources 1, 2, and 3 are all supplied by the state water agency, ADOSAPACO. All tariffs and fees associated with sources 1, 2, and 3 are therefore connected and these sources will be treated as a single entity this point forward. Hence, only the first four sources have substantial costs to the household18, and, since the first three can be treated as one, economic analysis of RWH will include the distinct costs of only two present water sources that harvested rainwater could potentially replace: public ADOSAPACO services and private water truck services.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 18!In the survey, households were asked to estimate the monetary costs and the hours of labor they invested
annually to maintain their RWH systems. Although these costs and time play an important role in the perceptions and incentives/disincentives to adopting RWH systems, the responses were too variable and too dependent on maintenance practices that change between households and that would also be expected to change if system improvements were adopted to be included in the model. They are, however, reported briefly in Chapter 4.!

! C.1.1 The Two-Price System

101!

Using this simplified two-source, two-price system the relationship developed for his model between current household water costs and the value of harvested rainwater can be seen below: ! = ! !! ! !!
!"#

!!!"!

!!"# !

!!

!"#

!!!"!

!!"# !

where ! is the value of household js annual rainwater harvest (pesos), !! is the annual ! rainwater harvest of household j (liters), !!!"# is the percentage of household js consumption supplied by ADOSAPACO, !!!"# is the percentage of household js consumption supplied by private water trucks, !!!"! is the percentage of household js consumption supplied by all non-RWH sources, !!"# is the price per liter paid by ! household j for ADOSAPCO service (pesos), and !!"# is the price per liter paid by ! household j for private water truck service (pesos). C.1.2 Public Water Prices Although !!!"! , !!!"# , !!!"! , and !!"# are household-specific information taken directly ! from the survey, official ADOSAPACO documents present different public water prices, !!"# , than those reported by respondents. ! In trying to negotiate between these two, sometimes drastically, different prices, a decision was made to combine the two. Households generally do not have keen sense of exactly how much water they receive from ADOSAPCAO sources. Although they generally know how much they pay, the nature of ADOSAPACO water delivery, filling

102!

cisterns and tinacos once a day, 1-7 times per week, makes it very difficult for households to know exactly how much water they have received. Hence, the conclusion was reached that the water prices reported by households in the survey were likely to be exaggerated19. On the other hand, both survey respondents and coworkers at INSO suggested that the prices published in official ADOSAPACO documents were likely to understate the tariffs actually being charged to households. This is almost entirely due to the Oaxacan water shortage and to the fact that most households receive less water than ADOSAPACO reports, while still paying the same bi-monthly fee. Therefore, !!"# has ! been defined in this model as a combination of household estimations and official ADOSAPACO price characterizations. There are various types of ADOSAPACO tariffs. Households are charged fixed payments of 40 pesos annually for the right to connect to the system and 80 pesos annually for a water meter, the corresponding data collection, and the maintenance and replacement costs such meters require (Honorable Ayuntamiento of Oaxaca de Jurez 2005). In addition, households are charged either a variable rate per cubic meter (1,000 liters) consumed or a flat consumption fee of 38 pesos every two months for colonias and 103 pesos every two months for non-colonias (Honorable Ayuntamiento of Oaxaca de Jurez 2005). The variable rates are listed below in Table C.1:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 19!Survey results reveal that, according to their own estimations, households pay anywhere from 3.5 pesos
per cubic meter to 750 pesos per cubic meter, with a median of 18.18 pesos per cubic meter. In addition, a correlation coefficient of negative 0.378 was found between quantity received and price per cubic meter paid, indicating that households that receive more water from ADOSAPCO actually pay less per quantity, which is the opposite of the agencys stated intention, as can be seen in Table C.1 below.!

! Table C.1: Piped ADOSAPACO Water Tariff!!

Range of Consumption 0 to 20 ! ! 21 to 30 ! ! 42 to 240 ! ! 241 to 480 ! ! > 480 ! !
1

103!

Tariff (2002) (pesos/!! ) 0.637 0.950! 1.264! 1.508 1.900

Adapted from Plan Municipal de Desarrollo Sus- tentable (2005-2007) There is a break between 30 and 42 m3, however this is exactly as printed in (Honorable Ayuntamiento of Oaxaca de Jurez 2005). It is assumed here that 42 is misprinted and 31 is the real value
2

The Honorable Ayuntamiento of Oaxaca de Jurez (2005) states that these variable rates are intended for metered households, but also reports that only 18% of households in Oaxaca are charged the variable rates, despite that fact that 95% of households are metered (Honorable Ayuntamiento of Oaxaca de Jurez 2005). The remaining 82% are charged the flat consumption fees instead. This model assumes that all households are metered, and therefore paying 120 pesos in fixed payments annually. Because respondents were not asked in the survey if their household was metered, there is no way to know which households pay the smaller, 40 peso, fixed payment. Hence, this difference, for the unmetered 5%, is assumed to be negligible 20 . In addition, it assumes that all households are charged the variable consumption fees, paying per liter according to their total consumption, rather than the flat consumption fees. This choice was made because obtaining a per liter water price for a household paying 120 pesos in fixed payments and 456 pesos (38 pesos 12 months) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 20!Also in support of this assumption is the fact that the Honorable Ayuntamiento of Oaxaca de Jurez
(2005) makes it clear that it would like all households to be metered, but that the high iron and magnesium concentrations increase the frequency of meter failure and thus the percentage of unmetered households.!

104!

in flat consumption fees annually would necessitate dividing their total annual payments, 576 pesos, by their total annual consumption, which place a large emphasis on the accuracy of this consumption figure. Since the only household consumption data available were the guesses provided by respondents themselves, the variable rate was selected as the more accurate and viable option. Fixed and variable ADOSAPACO water prices were combined with the prices households themselves reported in the following way: !!"# ! = !"#!!"# +
!"# !"#!

!!

!"#

!!

+ 3 !"#!

!"#!!!

!"#!!"#

!"# !"#!

!!

!"#

!!

where !"#!!"# is the price per liter according to ADOSAPACO documents (pesos), !"#!!"# is the annual tariff for being connected to the ADOSAPACO system (pesos), !"#!!! is the price per liter for public water reported by household j in the survey (pesos), and !! !is the annual water consumption of household j (liters).

C.2

Projected Future Rainwater Values

Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 use the current water prices described above to value harvested rainwater over the ten-year period analyzed. However, scenarios 4, 5, and 6 assume that the dam construction will be completed after 5 years, and that water prices and water supply distributions will shift accordingly. To account for this, it is assumed that households will transfer much of their current private water purchases to public sources, such that:

! !!!!"# = !!!"# + 0.8!!!"# and !!!!"# = 0.2!!!"#

105!

where !!!!"# is the projected future percentage of household js consumption supplied by ADOSAPACO and !!!!"# is the projected future percentage of household js consumption supplied by private water trucks. The projected future price of water is modeled in a more complicated fashion. It is simulated by applying a factor of price inflation (assumed to be 5.5) to the per liter, variable rates in both the ADOSAPACO documents and those reported in the survey:
!"#

!" !

= ! !"#!!"# +

!"#!!"# !"!
!"#

+ 3 !"#! ! !"#!!! ! !"#!!"#

!"#!!"# !"!
!"#

where !"!"# is the projected future price per liter paid by household j for ADOSAPCO ! service and ! is the probable factor of price inflation. The future price of private water is simulated by applying the same probable factor of price inflation (assumed to be 5.5) to current private water prices. However, as a control, the average ratio of private per liter water prices to public per liter water prices (found to be 10.5) was applied to the projected future price of public water. When this yielded prices greater than the price of potable garrafon water, 3 was chosen as factor of increase instead. This choice is justified by the fact that private water is unlikely to increase in price as much as public water. The average of these two methods of projecting the future price of private water was used as the final estimate, as can be seen below:

! ! !" !
!"#

106! +!! !
!"#

!"!"# !

where !"!"# is the projected future price per liter paid by household j for private water ! truck service and ! is the average factor of price difference between public and private water. Substituting these percentages and prices into the equation to estimate the annual value of household js rainwater harvest yields: !" = ! !! ! !"!
!"#

!!!"!

!"!"# !

!"!

!"#

!!!"!

!!"# !

where !" is the projected future value of household js annual rainwater harvest. !

107!

Appendix D: The Cost of Basic RWH System Improvements

Basic improvement costs are divided into three categories: channeling costs, filtration costs, and pump costs. Channeling improvement costs refer to the material and labor costs associated with gutter and downspout installation. Likewise, filtration improvements costs refer to material and labor costs associated with FFD installation and pump improvement costs to the cost of purchasing an electric pump. Taken together with the costs of purchasing additional water storage, the sum yields initial capital costs a household would need to invest in their RWH system to bring themselves to the RWH potential expressed by Scenarios 2, 3, 5, and 6. The details of this investment calculation are shown below:
! ! ! !! = !! !"#!! + !! !"#$! + !! !"#! + !! !"#$! !

where !! is the cost of basic system improvements and additional storage for household j
! (pesos), !! is the need of channeling variable; =1 if household j needs channeling

improvements, =0 if they dont, !! is the need of filtration variable; =1 if household j

! needs filtration improvements, =0 if they dont, !! is the need of pumping variable; =1 if ! household j needs a pump, =0 if they dont, !! is the need of storage variable; =1 if

household j would benefit from increased storage, =0 if they wouldnt, !"#!! is the channeling improvement costs for household j (pesos), !"#!! is the filtration improvement costs for household j (pesos), !"#! is the cost of an electric pump (pesos), and !"#$! is optimized additional storage costs for household j (pesos). Both channeling costs and filtration costs are higher for households with larger catchment areas. Hence,

108!

they have been allowed to vary with the size of a households catchment area. Similarly, the costs of additional water storage are dependent on the quantity of additional water storage that Microsoft Excels Solver function recommends for a household. Pump costs, on the other hand, are independent of household characteristics and held constant at 1,500 pesos. The details of how each of these variable varies can be found below: !"#!! = !! 180 40!"#! !!
! 1 + 3!!

! !"#$! = 1 0.25!! 1,000!"#! !! 500

!"#! = 1,500 !"#$! = !! 2.25 !"#!" !! 4

! where !! is the catchment area of household j (m2), !! is the need of downspout variable;

=1 if household j already has gutters but needs downspouts, =0 if household j has neither gutters nor downspouts, and !! is the additional storage capacity invested in by household j (liters). The equations for channeling costs, filtration costs, and additional storage costs were developed specifically for use in this thesis. The channeling costs and filtration costs equations are meant to replicate the relationship between the costs that INSO quoted to households interested in improving their RWH systems for these components and the size of each of the quoted households catchment areas. The additional storage costs equation is meant to replicate the relationship between tinaco storage capacity and tinaco cost found on Verdins (2005) website and an INSO document that estimates the costs of a 30,000-liter belowground cement cistern.

109!

Appendix E: Survey Results

E.1 ADOSAPACO

Lusher (2007) found that Oaxaca de Jurez has one of the lowest piped municipal water prices in Mexico, with most residents paying 0.637 pesos per cubic meter (Honorable Ayuntamiento of Oaxaca de Jurez 2005). This claim, however, is based on the price that ADOSAPACO asserts it is charging, and since many households are paying a fixed rate and then receiving less water than they need in the drier months, the price per quantity received is actually much higher. Although households were not able to say exactly what price they were paying, the amount they pay in annual tariffs was divided by the water quantity they said they received annually from ADOSAPACO (whether it was through the pipes, carried by truck, or out of a municipal well). The result was a wide range of prices, from 3.50 pesos per cubic meter (1,000 liters) to 750 pesos per cubic meter, with a mean of 56.5 and a median of 19.5. A reasonable level of doubt should be applied to the quantities of water that households estimated they receive annually from ADOSAPACO, but, regardless of the inaccuracies inherent in these types of estimations, it is clear that ADOSAPACO is delivering less water than it once did, and less water than the people need. Households with a connection to ADOSAPACO were asked how many times per month they received water via this connection, during both the wet and the dry season. The 41 (91.1%) households with an ADOSAPACO connection received water an average of 8.35 times during the wet season and 4.67 times during the dry season. While some respondents reported that they receive water as many as 30 times per month, during both wet and dry seasons, others reported as little as one time per month during the wet season

110!

and zero during the dry season. 17 of the 41 (41.5%) households with an ADOSAPACO connection received water via the pipes less than once per week during the wet season, and 31 of these same 41 (75.6%) received water less than once per week during the dry season. It is no wonder then, that the high end of the per-liter price range of public water is over 200 times greater than the low end. The same piping system failures that are responsible for this wide range of distribution success, and thus prices, are also a likely cause of the high variation in water quality. When asked to rate the quality of piped ADOSAPACO water on a 1 to 5 Likert scale, where 1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=mediocre, 4=good, and 5=very good, survey respondents gave a wide variety of answers. The distribuition is presented below in Table E.1: Table E.1: Quality of Piped ADOSAPACO Water
Quality Rating 1 2 3 4 5 # of HHs giving rating 4 18 8 14 1 % of HHs giving rating 8.9% 40.0% 17.8% 31.1% 2.2%

While some households felt that the water coming out of their taps was practically potable, others reported that it often came out very smelly, and sometimes even brown. It is more than likely that such water quality variability is a product of systemic problems and not differences of opinion. Another way to measure water quality is to look at the number of households that chose to treat water from this source. Although this brings in potentially confounding

111!

economic factors since treatment is costly, the result aligns with the quality ratings above. Only 12 of 41 households (29.3%) receiving piped water from ADOSAPACO chose (or had the money) to treat it. 8 of these 12 (66.7%) use an ADOSAPACO-sponsored cartridge filter21, 3 of 12 (25.0%) use additional chlorine (beyond what ADOSAPACO already uses), 1 of 12 (8.3%) uses a Japanese-designed water treatment device called the Leveluk SD501 from the US company Enagic, and 4 of 12 (33.3%) boil their water before either drinking or cooking with it. E.2 Public Water Trucks

Public water trucks are supposed to have two purposes in Oaxaca. First, they deliver water to neighborhoods that pay into the system but have no pipes to conduct the water to them. Second, in times of drought, they supposed to carry state-purchased water from sources that are not publicly owned to neighborhoods that have not received their share of water through the pipes. However, only 13 of 45 (28.9%) households reported that they receive service from ADOSAPACOs public water trucks. The most common reason reported for this was a simple lack of service. 17 of the 32 (53.1%) respondents that did not receive water from public water trucks stated that the public water trucks did not serve their neighborhood. Another common reason was the irregularity and unreliability of service, even for the neighborhoods that were supposed to receive public trucks. 6 of 32 (18.8%) respondents alluded to this unreliability, and many told stories about calling ADOSAPACO, being promised a delivery, and then never receiving one, or, when and if the public water truck finally arrived, only receiving a few hundred liters, sometimes less, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 21!One survey respondent reported that the ADOSAPACO cartridge filters cost approximately 100 pesos to
purchase and 100 pesos to replace, and that they are supposed to last about 2-3 months.

112!

because there was simply not enough water to go around. The last reason of interest for not receiving water from public water trucks was the quality of the water. 6 of 32 (18.8%) respondents stated that water from the public water trucks was by far the dirtiest around, and one even had a story about a skin disease she had procured from bathing in trucked ADOSAPACO water. Despite their seemingly poor reputation for quality, the public water trucks received a fairly favorable distribution of quality ratings, leaning more heavily toward good than bad. However, this may be as much a representation of the lower standards in Mexico as it is a positive report for public water truck quality. When asked to rate the quality of water from public water trucks on the same 1 to 5 Likert scale, 5 respondents said they could not give an educated response, 2 replied that it depends, and the remaining 38 responded as follows in Table E.2: Table E.2: Quality of Water from Public Water Trucks
Quality Rating 1 2 3 4 5 # of HHs giving rating 4 8 8 16 2 % of HHs giving rating 10.5% 21.1% 21.1% 42.1% 5.3%

As with ADOSAPACO water, households were also asked if and how they treated water from the public water trucks. Of the 13 that actually receive water from this source, only 4 households (30.8%) that receive water from public water trucks treat their water. 2 households use the ADOSAPACO-sponsored cartridge filter previously mentioned, 1

113!

treats with additional chlorine, 1 with both a cartridge filter and chlorine, and 1 by boiling before using the water for cooking or drinking. E.3 Private Water Trucks

The Honorable Ayuntamiento of Oaxaca de Jurez (2005) states that households pay 60 pesos per cubic meter for water from private water trucks. Lusher (2007) reports that over half the respondents in her survey were paying more than 80 pesos per cubic meter, with a mean of 173 pesos. My own survey results present a range prices from 33.3 pesos per cubic meter to 1,000 pesos per cubic meter, with a mean of 156 pesos per cubic meter and a median of 100 pesos per cubic meter. This large range is surprising when one considers the competition in the market for this service. One would think that the 200 or so private water truck companies that Jun Jos Consejo (2011) and others estimate are in existence would keep private water prices low and relatively consistent. The absence of this effect illustrates the lack of perfect information in this market. Rather than contacting a regular company whose reputation for quality and a fair price has been established by previous interactions, households will usually solicit private water trucks by flagging them down off the street, after being brought to their doorstep by the sound of chains dragging behind and the call from the trucks loudspeaker of, Agua, agua! Of the 34 households that receive water from private water trucks, only 8 (23.5%) have specific companies they regularly purchase from, and not a single company name is shared between these eight. Hence, the market for private water trucks in Oaxaca is not competitive, and the range of prices for private water truck services is very wide.

114! A large portion of the sample population11 of 45 households (24.4%)has

chosen not to purchase from private water trucks. Five of these eleven (45.5%) respondents stated that they do not purchase from private water trucks because they are too expensive. One (9.1%) respondent stated that their household is not a patron because the water they deliver is too dirty. Another (9.1%) respondent explained that their household has no need for private water trucks because their connection to ADOSAPACO and their RWH system provide a sufficient supply. The remaining 4 respondents (36.3%) were unable or unwilling to provide a reason for why they did not purchase from private water trucks. Unsurprisingly, concerns over water quality were not a reason for declining the services of private water trucks given by households. Just as public water trucks are known for carrying bad quality water, the private water trucks are generally perceived to carry highly processed, clean water. When asked to rate the quality of water from private water trucks on the same 1 to 5 Likert scale, 4 households replied that they could not speak to the question, 2 households said, it depends, and the remaining 39 responded as seen below in Table E.3: Table E.3: Quality of Water from Private Water Trucks
Quality Rating 1 2 3 4 5 # of HHs giving rating 2 5 4 22 6 % of HHs giving rating 5.1% 12.8% 10.3% 56.4% 15.4%

115!

However, even private water trucks, which are considered the cleanest of all non-potable water sources, received almost 20% bad or very bad quality ratings. This illustrates the futility of asking survey questions regarding general perceptions, like these regarding water quality. Some respondents were probably comparing the quality of water from private water trucks to that of ADOSAPACO, giving a comparatively high rating as a result. Other might have been comparing it the quality of water in a U.S. city and giving low ratings to all water sources in Oaxaca. Thus, the results of such questions are best used comparatively, and a comparative discussion of these quality-rating tables and other water use data can be found in Chapter 5. Moreover, 11 of the 34 households (32.3%) that receive water from private water trucks treat the water from this source, a percentage equivalent to the households that treat their public water truck water. 5 of these 11 (45.5%) do so using a cartridge filter, 4 of 11 (36.4%) employ additional chlorine, 1 of 11 (9.1%) has a the Leveluk SD501 water filter by Enagic mentioned previously, another 1 of 11 (9.1%) uses a carbon filter, and 4 of these 11 (36.4%) boil their water in addition to other treatments if they are using it cooking or drinking. E.4 Public and Private Wells

Although much of ADOSAPACOs piped municipal water is drawn from public wells, the number of households that receive water directly public wells, rather than via the pipes, is relatively small, 1 in 45 households (2.2%). Similarly, many households have private wells, but, because the aquifer is so depleted, few are able to draw water from them anymore. Thus public and private wells amount to only 1% and 1% of the sample households water supplies, respectively. For public wells, the one household that

116!

receives water rated its quality at 1 on the Likert scale, very bad. For private wells, one household (20%) gave a rating of 2, one household (20%) gave a rating of 3, and three households (60%) gave a rating of 4. The one household that receives water from a public well does not treat it beyond the municipalitys treatment before using it. 3 of 5 households (60%) treat the water they draw from their private wells; one with cartridge filter if they are using it for bathing and flushing their toilets and with colloidal silver if they are cooking or washing dishes, one with additional chlorine, and one by boiling if they are using it for cooking or drinking.

117!

Appendix F: Model Inputs, Presented by Household

! Table F.1: Consumption, Catchment Area, STSC, and LTSC, by Household
Household ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 MEAN MEDIAN Monthly Household Consumption (L) 10,000 1,200 8,000 2,000 4,000 4,000 20,000 5,000 2,400 3,000 3,000 7,667 1,500 2,000 5,000 1,500 8,800 6,000 3,000 6,000 5,000 6,000 500 20,000 4,000 3,000 2,500 3,000 8,000 400 1,500 3,500 6,000 1,000 10,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 800 2,000 1,600 8,500 10,000 2,000 6,000 4,808 3,500 Currently Used by Households Catchment Area (!! ) 6 24 26 48 70 76 42 39 318 180 495 18 54 144 88 16 12 4 25 36 120 150 16 8 10 132 96 32 120 214 80 99 88 60 60 62 100 300 77 48 STSC (L) 400 200 100 300 550 200 180 960 6,000 400 32,000 100 188 600 700 800 2,000 200 260 60 700 150 800 200 800 800 600 1,000 20 200 500 120 760 4,000 200 400 1,000 320 1,306 300 LTSC (L) 1,500 5,000 6,000 32,000 3,300 2,500 3,300 10,000 4,000 2,000 1,547 Total Capacities Already at Households' Disposals Catchment STSC LTSC (L) (L) Area (!! ) 86 15,500 1,100 24 3,500 26 100 2,200 48 2,300 120 3,800 1,200 78 5,550 2,200 76 1,300 1,100 67 1,410 88 5,560 367 12,000 1,100 180 7,400 2,200 495 32,000 2,700 78 100 100 54 9,188 1,000 144 1,700 2,200 88 12,900 16 800 2,200 38 2,000 36 950 750 850 1,800 169 260 3,300 54 3,000 2,200 36 60 1,400 480 3,200 3,500 150 2,350 1,100 32 2,800 2,400 8 1,700 1,000 42 800 10,000 132 800 4,600 600 10,000 700 96 2,100 2,200 32 4,000 2,500 120 6,020 1,100 214 3,200 1,100 120 10,000 2,500 100 500 80 1,500 1,200 99 5,120 750 88 760 1,000 60 14,000 4,000 60 4,200 1,000 64 10,000 1,100 62 10,400 500 100 3,000 1,500 300 5,520 2,200 139 4,952 1,671 86 3,000 1,100

! Table F.2: Water Prices and Water Supply Distributions, by Household

Current Water Prices Household ID Public (pesos/ !! ) 3.62 no purch 8.05 18.79 12.76 14.06 7.36 6.83 7.36 6.70 27.32 5.68 163.44 30.47 20.10 33.03 12.34 2.71 12.08 9.89 18.81 4.52 50.43 5.42 42.48 13.43 5.26 21.01 13.71 100.33 4.97 no purch 8.37 15.71 10.15 43.31 9.73 26.45 23.94 4.18 31.63 3.21 0.92 10.29 8.37 20.45 12.08 Private (pesos/ !! ) 50.00 87.96 150.00 100.00 100.00 104.17 81.82 90.91 no purch 133.33 50.00 no purch no purch 114.29 190.00 61.67 181.82 no purch 100.00 375.00 125.00 155.56 250.00 68.57 114.29 458.33 no purch no purch 150.00 1,000.00 200.00 100.00 no purch no purch 71.43 no purch 150.00 no purch no purch 100.00 97.50 33.33 60.00 111.11 83.33 155.87 102.08 Projected Future Water Prices Public (pesos/ !! ) 18.19 11.84 26.35 39.36 34.07 34.64 25.62 18.32 25.09 25.05 49.37 14.91 67.38 53.39 40.78 55.29 31.76 15.29 31.90 29.52 39.10 20.66 74.32 22.79 66.11 34.58 19.21 45.30 33.82 108.63 22.26 9.81 27.31 36.70 30.05 61.78 29.54 49.53 45.51 21.03 42.81 17.71 7.95 28.84 26.79 34.89 30.05 Private (pesos/ !! ) 164.78 259.65 452.03 334.04 326.11 338.42 263.43 277.47 no purch 404.25 211.56 no purch no purch 394.37 583.67 252.52 547.64 no purch 322.85 1,075.53 402.39 458.77 798.98 222.76 413.45 1,312.29 no purch no purch 463.23 2,912.95 583.39 289.71 no purch no purch 241.50 no purch 456.81 no purch no purch 306.54 332.33 118.23 176.93 348.81 269.35 479.91 336.23 Current Distribution of Water Supply Public (% of use) 50.0% 0.0% 98.7% 60.0% 98.0% 65.0% 88.6% 66.7% 95.0% 80.0% 40.0% 63.0% 80.0% 60.0% 74.0% 70.0% 87.4% 90.0% 80.0% 80.0% 70.0% 95.0% 85.0% 75.1% 25.0% 85.0% 95.0% 90.0% 50.0% 50.0% 90.0% 0.0% 99.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 92.7% 99.0% 91.0% 80.0% 51.5% 50.0% 93.2% 65.0% 85.0% 74.0% 80.0% Private (% of use) 40.0% 75.0% 0.3% 20.0% 2.0% 25.0% 8.9% 13.3% 0.0% 5.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% 2.0% 29.0% 7.6% 0.0% 17.0% 20.0% 25.0% 5.0% 10.0% 14.9% 50.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 5.0% 99.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 43.5% 30.0% 1.8% 5.0% 5.0% 16.1% 7.6% All but RWH (%) 90.0% 75.0% 99.0% 80.0% 100.0% 90.0% 97.5% 80.0% 95.0% 85.0% 70.0% 65.0% 80.0% 90.0% 76.0% 99.0% 95.0% 90.0% 97.0% 100.0% 95.0% 100.0% 95.0% 90.0% 75.0% 95.0% 95.0% 100.0% 75.0% 100.0% 95.0% 99.0% 99.0% 95.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.0% 99.0% 95.0% 90.0% 95.0% 100.0% 96.0% 70.0% 90.0% 91.0% 95.0% Projected Future Distribution of Water Supply Public Private (% of (% of use) use) 82.0% 8.0% 60.0% 15.0% 98.9% 0.1% 76.0% 4.0% 99.6% 0.4% 85.0% 5.0% 95.7% 1.8% 77.3% 2.7% 95.0% 0.0% 84.0% 1.0% 64.0% 6.0% 63.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 84.0% 6.0% 75.6% 0.4% 93.2% 5.8% 93.5% 1.5% 90.0% 0.0% 93.6% 3.4% 96.0% 4.0% 90.0% 5.0% 99.0% 1.0% 93.0% 2.0% 87.0% 3.0% 65.0% 10.0% 93.0% 2.0% 95.0% 0.0% 90.0% 0.0% 70.0% 5.0% 90.0% 10.0% 94.0% 1.0% 79.2% 19.8% 99.0% 0.0% 95.0% 0.0% 99.0% 1.0% 95.0% 0.0% 97.7% 1.3% 99.0% 0.0% 91.0% 0.0% 88.0% 2.0% 86.3% 8.7% 74.0% 6.0% 94.6% 0.4% 69.0% 1.0% 89.0% 1.0% 86.9% 3.2% 90.0% 1.5%

118!

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 MEAN MEDIAN

119!

Appendix G: Basic Improvement Costs & Changes in Practice

Table G.1: Basic Improvement Costs & Changes in Perception & Practice
HH ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Basic Improvement Costs (pesos) Channeling 5,959 2,537 4,022 7,322 6,048 3,049 2,292 5,594 1,092 851 3,274 10,504 8,873 4,366 8,320 1,027 7,741 12,609 3,004 7,322 2,495 7,322 6,555 6,514 6,048 4,694 4,905 4,800 6,555 Filtration 1,701 1,475 1,134 1,429 1,856 2,207 2,191 2,113 1,711 2,377 2,045 1,655 1,484 2,588 2,282 1,223 1,320 1,295 2,768 2,016 1,484 1,727 3,336 1,960 1,653 594 1,822 1,900 2,606 2,336 1,240 1,856 2,126 1,856 1,771 2,223 1,766 1,711 2,044 1,533 1,563 1,548 1,771 3,044 Pump no dist sys 1,500 no dist sys 1,500 no dist sys 1,500 no dist sys 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 TOTAL 7,660.04 1,474.64 5,171.68 5,450.78 9,177.72 2,206.98 3,690.84 2,112.52 7,759.07 5,425.91 4,337.11 8,749.47 2,575.48 2,587.92 2,281.93 1,222.71 2,171.26 4,568.67 14,772.55 10,888.81 5,850.32 3,226.57 3,335.99 10,280.27 3,153.38 3,120.57 1,822.34 11,141.63 15,214.72 2,335.99 5,743.71 9,177.72 4,620.64 9,177.72 9,825.60 3,722.71 8,280.10 9,259.07 2,043.96 6,227.47 6,467.85 6,348.70 8,325.60 3,043.96 Change in Practices Additional Harvested Rainwater End-Uses cook, bath cook cook, bath cook cook bath cook cook, bath, laundry cook cook, bath, laundry, clean, flush cook, bath, laundry cook, bath, laundry, clean, flush cook cook cook cook cook, bath cook, bath cook, bath, laundry cook cook, bath cook, bath cook, bath, laundry, flush cook cook NONE cook, bath cook, bath, laundry NONE cook cook, bath, laundry NONE cook, bath, laundry, clean, flush cook NONE cook cook, bath, laundry cook, bath, laundry cook cook NONE cook, bath, laundry cook, bath cook, bath cook, bath Additional Storage Applied to RWH 1 cis, 2 tin r 1 tin p 2 tin r 2 tin p 1 cis, 1 tin r 1 cis, 2 tin r 1 tin r, 1 tin p 1 cis 1 cis 1 cis 1 cis, 2 tin r 3 tin r NONE 1 cis, 1 tin r NONE 1 cis, 2 tin r 2 tin r NONE 1 tin r, 1 tin p 2 tin r 3 tin r 1 cis, 2 tin r 2 tin r 1 cis 2 tin p, 1 tin r 2 tin r, 1 tam p 2 tin r, 1 tin p 1 tin r 4 tin r 1 cis, 1 tin r 1 cis + 2 tin r 2 tin p, 1 tin r 1 cis, 1 tin r 1 cis, 1 tin r 1 cis, 1 tin r 1 tin r 1 tin r, 5 tam p 1 cis, 1 tin r 1 tin r 1 cis, 4 tin r 1 cis, 1 tin r 1 cis, 1 tin r 1 cis, 1 tin r 1 cis, 2 tin r 1 cis, 3 tin p, 2 tin r

120!

Where cis refers to a cistern, tin to a tinaco, and tam to tambos. Similarly, r means that the unit in question is located on the roof, and p that it is at ground level on the patio.

121!

122!

Appendix H: Model Results, Presented by Household

Table H.1: Scenario 1 Results
Current Practices with Constant Water Pricing
Household ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Size of Annual Harvest (L) 3,677 10,063 8,774 14,816 32,440 17,769 15,715 16,815 34,762 22,778 99,298 8,616 13,352 38,956 13,627 9,806 7,354 2,451 15,096 3,700 59,705 13,500 9,806 4,903 6,128 53,026 WSE (% consumption offset by RWH) 3.1% 69.9% 9.1% 61.7% 0.0% 67.6% 7.4% 26.2% 58.4% 96.6% 63.3% 107.9% 47.9% 55.6% 64.9% 75.7% 9.3% 10.2% 6.8% 0.0% 25.2% 0.0% 61.7% 24.9% 28.1% 27.2% 16.3% 17.0% 55.2% 0.0% Value of Annual Harvest (pesos) 89 885 75 579 1,268 251 328 124 492 844 547 1,408 780 957 564 254 20 67 706 264 947 1,220 591 26 116 3,136 Cost of Basic Improvements (pesos) Optimized Additional Storage (L) Cost of Additional Storage (pesos) NPV of RWH System (pesos) 760 7,551 638 4,941 10,817 2,144 2,794 1,056 4,195 7,197 4,662 12,012 6,653 8,164 4,815 2,164 170 575 6,021 2,255 8,077 10,405 5,041 220 988 26,751 Payback Period (years) -

!
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 MEAN MEDIAN 13,662 19,611 1,800 8,833 33,081 7,433 8,478 29,596 15,702 33,418 19,769 28,800 16,825 13,352 75.9% 46.7% 2.5% 73.6% 0.0% 0.0% 55.1% 61.9% 88.3% 123.3% 81.8% 0.0% 27.8% 82.4% 40.0% 41.3% 40.0% 208 1,961 15 139 619 197 194 439 970 67 346 361 490 264 1,776 16,729 129 1,184 5,279 1,677 1,658 3,743 8,274 574 2,949 3,079 4,180 2,255 -

123!

Table H.2: Scenario 2 Results

Basic Improvements, No Changes in Current Storage Uses, Additional Storage (if needed), & Constant Water Pricing
Household ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Size of Annual Harvest (L) 49,971 10,063 14,341 14,918 31,004 33,233 45,372 31,813 20,170 35,480 25,470 99,298 47,802 15,481 WSE (% consumption offset by RWH) 41.6% 69.9% 14.9% 62.2% 64.6% 69.2% 18.9% 53.0% 70.0% 98.6% 70.7% 107.9% 265.6% 64.5% Value of Annual Harvest (pesos) 1,211 885 122 583 450 1,299 642 663 148 502 943 547 7,813 904 Cost of Basic Improvements (pesos) 7,660 1,475 5,172 5,451 9,178 2,207 3,691 2,113 7,759 5,426 4,337 8,749 2,575 Optimized Additional Storage (L) 290 81 12 667 474 295 205 35,045 163 Cost of Additional Storage (pesos) 475 143 23 1,029 749 482 342 39,034 276 NPV of RWH System (pesos) 2,194 6,076 (4,272) (499) (6,371) 8,874 1,036 3,061 (6,493) (1,144) 3,368 4,662 18,859 4,862 Payback Period (years) 7.6 1.7 infinite 11.2 38.6 1.8 7.9 4.2 infinite 13.3 5.5 6.9 3.4

!
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 MEAN MEDIAN 42,612 13,627 9,806 23,288 18,357 63,414 40,378 30,992 4,613 149,425 35,570 18,381 4,903 19,965 53,608 367,708 13,662 19,611 40,240 8,833 61,191 9,460 33,081 8,715 8,478 29,596 17,048 38,208 33,418 19,769 48,444 39,129 29,596 71.0% 75.7% 9.3% 32.3% 51.0% 88.1% 67.3% 43.0% 76.9% 62.3% 74.1% 51.1% 16.3% 55.5% 55.8% 7660.6% 75.9% 46.7% 55.9% 73.6% 51.0% 78.8% 55.1% 72.6% 88.3% 123.3% 88.8% 37.5% 27.8% 82.4% 67.3% 235.3% 67.3% 1,047 564 254 63 505 5,258 1,888 374 330 2,370 3,214 1,108 26 377 3,170 202,300 208 1,961 337 139 809 389 619 231 194 439 1,053 443 67 346 607 5,498 564 2,588 2,282 1,223 2,171 4,569 14,773 10,889 5,850 3,227 3,336 10,280 3,153 3,121 1,822 11,142 15,215 2,336 5,744 9,178 4,621 9,178 9,826 3,723 8,280 9,259 2,044 6,227 6,468 6,349 8,326 3,044 5,690 5,172 55 3,000 740 414 129 57 363,096 580 851 336 80 567 680 9,063 101 4,142 1,134 661 223 104 312,260 904 1,292 544 142 886 1,048 8,133 6,342 2,533 941 (1,633) (365) 25,934 4,082 (3,320) (638) 16,879 17,134 6,296 (2,900) 1,398 15,799 1,398,181 (560) 10,985 (7,208) (3,437) (3,572) (7,049) 1,556 (6,456) (7,601) 1,699 2,756 (3,570) (5,774) (5,376) 1,088 33,075 1,088 2.6 4.4 5.3 infinite 11.0 3.9 7.2 25.0 12.7 1.5 3.4 3.0 infinite 5.3 3.8 1.7 13.9 3.1 77.2 226.8 16.6 54.3 6.7 infinite infinite 5.1 6.6 23.3 infinite 43.4 7.6 17.8 6.7

124!

! Table H.3: Scenario 3 Results

Basic Improvements, Applying Entirety of Current Storage to RWH, Additional Storage (if needed), & Constant Water Pricing
Household ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Size of Annual Harvest (L) 52,705 11,863 15,224 17,013 36,189 35,433 46,576 33,054 24,770 42,580 35,563 101,998 47,802 25,439 42,612 25,827 9,806 23,288 19,967 65,214 43,678 33,094 6,013 152,925 35,570 19,611 4,903 25,740 58,208 367,708 17,443 19,611 48,936 14,876 WSE (% consumption offset by RWH) 43.9% 82.4% 15.9% 70.9% 75.4% 73.8% 19.4% 55.1% 86.0% 118.3% 98.8% 110.9% 265.6% 106.0% 71.0% 143.5% 9.3% 32.3% 55.5% 90.6% 72.8% 46.0% 100.2% 63.7% 74.1% 54.5% 16.3% 71.5% 60.6% 7660.6% 96.9% 46.7% 68.0% 124.0% Value of Annual Harvest (pesos) 1,277 1,044 130 665 525 1,385 659 689 182 602 1,317 561 7,813 1,486 1,047 1,070 254 63 549 5,407 2,042 399 430 2,425 3,214 1,182 26 487 3,443 202,300 266 1,961 410 234 Cost of Basic Improvements (pesos) 7,660 1,475 5,246 5,451 9,178 2,207 3,691 2,113 7,759 5,426 4,337 8,749 2,575 2,588 2,282 1,223 2,171 4,569 14,773 10,889 5,850 3,227 3,336 10,280 3,153 3,121 1,822 11,142 15,215 2,336 5,744 9,178 4,621 Optimized Additional Storage (L) 81 34,945 3,000 740 129 57 352,396 Cost of Additional Storage (pesos) 143 38,934 4,142 1,134 223 104 304,203 NPV of RWH System (pesos) 3,234 7,427 (4,282) 223 (4,700) 9,608 1,930 3,764 (6,204) (288) 6,899 4,789 18,959 10,100 6,342 6,843 941 (1,633) 113 27,207 5,398 (2,443) 215 17,353 17,134 6,928 (2,900) 2,329 18,120 1,406,239 (69) 10,985 (5,683) (2,627) Payback Period (years) 6.7 1.5 infinite 9.5 25.1 1.7 6.2 3.3 infinite 10.7 3.5 6.8 1.8 2.6 2.2 5.3 infinite 9.7 3.8 6.6 19.6 9.3 1.4 3.4 2.8 infinite 4.0 3.5 1.6 10.4 3.1 37.7 30.4

125!

!
35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 MEAN MEDIAN 73,388 10,145 35,611 15,354 9,478 33,596 18,048 39,222 37,996 21,269 58,025 42,519 33,094 61.2% 84.5% 59.4% 127.9% 98.7% 140.0% 94.0% 38.5% 31.7% 88.6% 80.6% 246.3% 73.8% 970 417 666 406 217 498 1,115 455 77 372 727 5,588 659 9,178 9,895 3,723 8,280 9,259 2,044 6,227 6,468 6,349 8,326 3,044 5,693 5,246 336 8,704 544 7,765 (906) (6,878) 1,960 (4,816) (7,405) 2,205 3,283 (2,584) (5,696) (5,153) 3,160 34,209 1,960 11.3 46.9 6.2 32.0 infinite 4.4 6.2 18.8 infinite 37.7 4.5 10.3 6.2

126!

Table H.4: Scenario 4 Results

Current Practices with Post-Dam Price Inflation
Household ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Size of Annual Harvest (L) 3,677 10,063 8,774 14,816 32,440 17,769 15,715 16,815 34,762 22,778 99,298 8,616 13,352 38,956 13,627 9,806 7,354 WSE (% consumption offset by RWH) 3.1% 69.9% 9.1% 61.7% 0.0% 67.6% 7.4% 26.2% 58.4% 96.6% 63.3% 107.9% 47.9% 55.6% 64.9% 75.7% 9.3% 10.2% Value of Annual Harvest (pesos) 89 885 75 579 1,268 251 328 124 492 844 547 1,408 780 957 564 254 20 Annual Projected Post-Dam Value (pesos) 115 169 234 801 1,671 532 424 422 1,026 1,441 1,435 580 1,016 1,700 911 392 112 Cost of Basic Improvements (pesos) Optimized Additional Storage (L) Cost of Additional Storage (pesos) NPV of RWH System (pesos) 862 4,721 1,266 5,819 12,410 3,254 3,173 2,233 6,305 9,558 8,173 8,742 7,587 11,098 6,183 2,711 536 Payback Period (years) -

!
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 MEAN MEDIAN 2,451 15,096 3,700 59,705 13,500 9,806 4,903 6,128 53,026 13,662 19,611 1,800 8,833 33,081 7,433 8,478 29,596 15,702 33,418 19,769 28,800 16,825 13,352 6.8% 0.0% 25.2% 0.0% 61.7% 24.9% 28.1% 27.2% 16.3% 17.0% 55.2% 0.0% 75.9% 46.7% 2.5% 73.6% 0.0% 0.0% 55.1% 61.9% 88.3% 123.3% 81.8% 0.0% 27.8% 82.4% 40.0% 41.3% 40.0% 67 706 264 947 1,220 591 26 116 3,136 208 1,961 15 139 619 197 194 439 970 67 346 361 490 264 103 879 331 1,755 1,518 603 94 250 3,311 385 302 49 324 1,158 368 370 810 1,088 284 660 849 633 392 716 6,705 2,520 11,271 11,582 5,088 490 1,518 27,443 2,474 10,175 263 1,916 7,409 2,355 2,350 5,210 8,741 1,430 4,193 5,008 4,744 3,173 -

127!

Table A.5: Scenario 5 Results

Basic Improvements, No Changes in Current Storage Uses, Additional Storage (if needed), & Post-Dam Price Inflation
Household ID 1 2 Size of Annual Harvest (L) 49,971 10,063 WSE (consumption offset by RWH) 41.6% 69.9% Value of Annual Harvest (pesos) 1,211 885 Annual Projected Post-Dam Value (pesos) 1,560 618 Cost of Basic Improvements (pesos) 7,660 1,475 Optimized Additional Storage (L) 290 Cost of Additional Storage (pesos) 475 NPV of RWH System (pesos) 3,573 5,020 Payback Period (years) 6.7 1.7

!
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 15,224 14,918 31,793 33,233 45,372 31,813 20,170 35,480 25,802 99,298 13,211 15,579 42,612 13,627 9,806 23,288 18,357 63,414 40,378 30,992 4,613 149,425 35,570 18,381 4,903 19,965 53,608 367,708 13,662 19,611 42,193 8,833 61,191 9,645 33,162 9,436 8,478 29,596 17,048 38,208 33,418 15.9% 62.2% 66.2% 69.2% 18.9% 53.0% 70.0% 98.6% 71.7% 107.9% 73.4% 64.9% 71.0% 75.7% 9.3% 32.3% 51.0% 88.1% 67.3% 43.0% 76.9% 62.3% 74.1% 51.1% 16.3% 55.5% 55.8% 7660.6% 75.9% 46.7% 58.6% 73.6% 51.0% 80.4% 55.3% 78.6% 88.3% 123.3% 88.8% 37.5% 27.8% 130 583 461 1,299 642 663 148 502 956 547 2,159 910 1,047 564 254 63 505 5,258 1,888 374 330 2,370 3,214 1,108 26 377 3,170 202,300 208 1,961 353 139 809 397 620 250 194 439 1,053 443 67 406 807 1,120 1,712 1,359 857 506 1,047 1,633 1,435 890 1,186 1,859 911 392 356 773 4,525 2,351 776 413 4,393 3,999 1,130 94 814 3,347 143,063 385 1,290 1,152 324 1,968 566 1,161 467 370 810 1,182 772 284 5,172 5,451 9,178 2,207 3,691 2,113 7,759 5,426 4,337 8,749 2,575 2,588 2,282 1,223 2,171 4,569 14,773 10,889 5,850 3,227 3,336 10,280 3,153 3,121 1,822 11,142 15,215 2,336 5,744 9,178 4,621 9,178 9,826 3,723 8,280 9,259 2,044 6,227 6,468 6,349 126 12 779 474 295 288 454 195 55 3,000 740 414 129 57 363,096 740 851 382 7 213 567 217 23 1,190 749 482 470 719 328 101 4,142 1,134 661 223 104 312,260 1,134 1,292 613 14 355 886 (3,193) 385 (3,830) 10,506 3,869 3,829 (5,080) 1,010 6,019 8,173 3,936 5,949 9,552 3,901 1,488 (475) 695 23,040 5,910 (1,732) (308) 24,874 20,236 6,385 (2,630) 3,122 16,499 1,164,166 138 8,335 (4,142) (2,704) 1,009 (6,385) 3,691 (5,646) (6,909) 3,166 3,263 (2,273) (4,918) infinite 8.7 13.5 1.8 6.1 4.2 infinite 8.2 5.3 4.8 3.4 2.6 4.4 5.2 infinite 8.2 3.9 6.5 11.9 10.1 1.5 3.4 3.0 infinite 5.1 3.8 1.7 8.9 3.1 13.7 20.6 8.7 25.7 5.8 infinite infinite 5.0 6.2 12.8 infinite

128!

!
44 45 MEAN MEDIAN 19,769 49,766 38,502 25,802 82.4% 69.1% 231.4% 67.3% 346 624 5,374 564 660 1,467 4,382 911 8,326 3,044 5,690 5,172 826 8,311 7 1,256 7,307 14 (4,133) 4,353 28,927 3,166 17.4 6.0 7.1 5.5

129!

Table A.6: Scenario 6 Results

Basic Improvements, Applying Entirety of Current Storage to RWH, Additional Storage (if needed), & Post-Dam Price Inflation
Household ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Size of Annual Harvest (L 52,705 11,863 15,224 17,013 36,189 35,433 46,576 33,054 24,770 42,580 35,563 101,998 47,802 25,439 42,612 25,827 9,806 23,288 19,967 65,214 43,678 33,094 6,013 152,925 35,570 19,611 4,903 WSE (consumption offset by RWH) 43.9% 82.4% 15.9% 70.9% 75.4% 73.8% 19.4% 55.1% 86.0% 118.3% 98.8% 110.9% 265.6% 106.0% 71.0% 143.5% 9.3% 32.3% 55.5% 90.6% 72.8% 46.0% 100.2% 63.7% 74.1% 54.5% 16.3% Value of Annual Harvest (pesos) 1,277 1,044 130 665 525 1,385 659 689 182 602 1,317 561 7,813 1,486 1,047 1,070 254 63 549 5,407 2,042 399 430 2,425 3,214 1,182 26 Annual Projected Post-Dam Value (pesos) 1,645 199 406 920 1,275 1,826 1,395 891 621 1,257 2,250 1,474 3,221 1,936 1,859 1,726 392 356 841 4,653 2,543 829 539 4,496 3,999 1,206 94 Cost of Basic Improvements (pesos) 7,660 1,475 5,172 5,451 9,178 2,207 3,691 2,113 7,759 5,426 4,337 8,749 2,575 2,588 2,282 1,223 2,171 4,569 14,773 10,889 5,850 3,227 3,336 10,280 3,153 3,121 Optimized Additional Storage (L) 126 34,945 3,000 740 129 Cost of Additional Storage (pesos) 217 38,934 4,142 1,134 223 NPV of RWH System (pesos) 4,689 4,091 (3,193) 1,231 (1,735) 11,348 4,839 4,562 (4,469) 2,297 10,585 8,395 819 11,880 9,552 9,437 1,488 (475) 1,265 24,231 7,375 (746) 646 25,534 20,236 7,023 (2,630) Payback Period (years) 6.1 1.5 infinite 7.8 10.9 1.7 5.5 3.3 infinite 7.2 3.5 9.0 1.8 2.6 2.2 5.2 infinite 7.6 3.8 6.1 10.3 7.9 1.4 3.4 2.8 infinite

!
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 MEAN MEDIAN 25,740 58,208 367,708 17,443 19,611 48,936 14,876 73,388 10,145 35,611 15,354 9,478 33,596 18,048 39,222 37,996 21,269 58,025 42,519 33,094 71.5% 60.6% 7660.6% 96.9% 46.7% 68.0% 124.0% 61.2% 84.5% 59.4% 127.9% 98.7% 140.0% 94.0% 38.5% 31.7% 88.6% 80.6% 246.3% 73.8% 487 3,443 202,300 266 1,961 410 234 970 417 666 406 217 498 1,115 455 77 372 727 5,588 659 1,049 3,635 143,063 491 302 1,336 546 2,360 595 1,247 760 413 920 1,251 792 323 711 1,711 4,541 1,206 1,822 11,142 15,215 2,336 5,744 9,178 4,621 9,178 9,826 3,723 8,280 9,259 2,044 6,227 6,468 6,349 8,326 3,044 5,690 5,172 57 352,396 382 8,706 104 304,203 613 7,768 4,552 18,879 1,172,223 822 4,431 (2,022) (1,393) 4,588 (6,175) 4,253 (3,416) (6,631) 3,870 3,820 (1,253) (4,722) (3,815) 7,045 30,074 3,870 4.0 3.5 1.6 7.4 3.1 11.1 12.3 7.1 24.0 5.6 14.9 infinite 4.4 5.9 11.1 infinite 16.1 4.5 6.4 5.5

130!

131

132!

Appendix I: Reasons for Household Exclusion in the Survey

For a variety of reasons, many households were excluded from the survey. The most common reason for exclusion was that a resident stated that they were not interested in participating in the survey (occurred at 18 of the randomly selected points). The second most common reason for exclusion was that, on three separate occasions, the households door was knocked on, but, each time, nobody was home (occurred at 16 of the randomly selected points). The third most common reason for exclusion was that the resident told the surveyor that they were busy and unable to participate at the moment. An appointment to conduct the survey later was made, but when the surveyor returned at the specified time, the resident was not home (occurred at 15 of the randomly selected points). Such sites were also visited a minimum of three times. The fourth and least common reason for exclusion was that the site was deemed unsuitable for the purposes of the survey (occurred at 6 of the randomly selected points). This usually happened because the building was not a residency but a commercial enterprise or a market. !

133!

Appendix J: Survey Materials (English)

Rainwater Harvesting in Oaxaca, Mexico Consent Form Hello, my name is Nolan Gardner and I am a Masters student at the Bard Center for Environmental Policy in New York State and a volunteer with the Instituto de la Naturaleza y la Sociedad de Oaxaca. Presently, I am conducting a household survey of water usage and perceptions of rainwater catchment systems in the city of Oaxaca for my Masters research and your house was randomly selected to participate. The survey generally takes about 30-40 minutes to complete. If you participate in this study you will asked to answer questions about how you use water, both municipal and private, your household demographics, your perceptions of rainwater harvesting as an alternative to current practices, and the capacity and potential of your household to accommodate both the roof catchment system and the storage tanks that would be necessary for a household hoping to install a rainwater catchment system. This survey is completely voluntary and if there is any question that you do not want to answer it is possible to omit it and continue with the survey. My faculty advisor and I will have sole access to the information you provide. At any time, you may withdraw from participation in the survey without difficulty. It is very unlikely that this survey will pose any risk to you. This information will only be used in my thesis and possibly in future publications and research. This study is not related to the local, state, or federal government. The primary benefit of participating is that you would be helping to contribute new knowledge to society, specifically regarding water use and the potential for rainwater harvesting systems in the city. Because I want to be sure to understand your responses to my questions and because my Spanish is somewhat limited, I would like to ask your permission to record the open-ended portions of the interview. If you do not want to be recorded that is perfectly understandable and the survey/interview will be conducted without my recording device. All recordings, transcriptions, and other raw data from this process will be kept in a locked office desk or on a password-protected computer, and they will be destroyed before January 1st 2013. If you have concerns regarding your rights as a participant in this study, please contact Dr. Sarah DunphyLelii of the Bard College Institutional Review Board. Her contact information is listed on the bottom of this form. Additionally, you may contact me or my faculty advisor, Dr. Gautam Sethi if you have any questions. By signing this page, you are indicating that you understand the above information and are willing to participate in the survey. You will also be given a copy of this consent form for your records. Please check all forms of consent that apply: I give permission for the information I provide in this study to be published anonymously with no specific mention of my or my familys names. I give permission that the information I provide in this study can be quoted specifically, mentioning my name. I agree to have my voice recorded for the purposes of this study. ______________________ Date

! ! !

_________________________________ Signature ______________________________________ Printed Name

134!

If you have any questions, please contact: Nolan Gardner: ng237@bard.edu, Instituto de la Naturaleza y la Sociedad de Oaxaca, 210 M. Bravo Altos, Centro, Oaxaca, Mexico C.P. 68000 Tel: 951-516-7926 Sarah Dunphy-Lelii: irb@bard.edu, Psychology Program, Bard Center for Environmental Policy, PO Box 5000, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York 12504-5000, USA, Tel: 001-845-758-7621 Gautam Sethi: sethi@bard.edu, Bard Center for Environmental Policy, PO Box 5000, Annandale-onHudson, New York 12504-5000, USA, Tel: 001-845-758-7073

Household Water-Use and RWH survey

! !

A.) Household Demographics

1) What is your name, address, telephone number, email address, gender, and age? _______________________ name _______________________ telephone number _____________________________________ address _________________________________ email address _____ age

_________ gender

2) Do you live in an apartment or a house? ____apartment ____house If you live in an APARTMENT: A) How many apartments are there in your complex? ____apartments in complex ____people living in apartment complex 3) How many people live in your apartment/house? ____people living in apartment/house 4) Do you own or rent? ____own ____yes has the level of ________________in school. If last level NOT COMPLETED: A) What is the highest level (grade) you completed? ________________level (grade) ! ____rent ____no Completed: ____yes ____no 5) Do you consider yourself to be the primary decision maker of your household? 6) What level of schooling do you have? Did you complete this level? ____dont know ____dont know ____dont know B) How many people total live in your apartment complex?

! 7) Were the majority of the people living in you household born in the city of Oaxaca? ____yes ____yes ____$0-$2,000 ____$10,000-$20,000 ____no ____no ____$2,000-$5,000 ____>$20,000 8) Are you and your family from Mexico originally?

135!

9) What is your monthly household income, in pesos? Pick from the ranges below: ____$5,000-$10,000 ____dont know

10) Does your family have any of the following items? Please indicate if you have more than one: ____blender ____television ____cell phone ____dishwasher ____car ____shower ____water heater ____flush toilet ____refrigerator ____house telephone ____washing machine ____sinks ____computer ____internet access ____plants (that you water)

11) How much, in pesos, would you estimate your household spends towards each of the following categories on a weekly basis? __________food __________transportation __________eating out __________recreational activities __________other (specify):_______

12) How much, in pesos, would you estimate your household spends towards each of the following categories on a monthly basis? __________rent/mortgage __________electricity __________oil (for cooking/heating) __________school __________medical services __________television __________other (specify):_____________

__________shopping (for clothing etc.)

B1.) Potable Water SupplyGeneral

1) In which of the following ways does your household receive water that is used for non-drinking purposes like flushing toilets, cooking, cleaning, bathing, laundry, and landscape irrigation? ____ADOSAPACO connection ____rainwater harvesting ____water trucks ____public or private well ____other (specify):_________________________

2) Approximately how many liters of water would you estimate that your household consumes for non-drinking purposes per month? ____________liters of non-drinking water consumed per month ____dont know 3) What percentage of total consumption would you allocate to each of the ways your household acquires water? !

! ______ADOSAPACO connection ______rainwater harvesting ______water trucks

136! ______public or private well

______other (specify):_______________________

4) How would you rate the quality of the water from the piped municipal ADOSAPACO supply? ____very bad ____good ____very bad ____good ____very bad ____good ____bad ____very good ____bad ____very good ____bad ____very good ____mediocre ____dont know ____mediocre ____dont know ____mediocre ____dont know

5) How would you rate the quality of the water from the public water trucks?

6) How would you rate the quality of the water from the private water trucks?

Proceed with each section of B from which the household receives non-potable water.

B2.) Potable Water SupplyADOSAPACO

1) How much piped water do you receive monthly during the rainy season from ADOSAPACO? ____________liters per month ____dont know 2) How much piped water do you receive monthly during the dry season from ADOSAPACO? ____________liters per month ____dont know 3) To the best of knowledge, what is the tariff you pay on a monthly basis for your ADOSAPACO connection? ____________pesos per month ____yes ____no ____dont know ____dont know 4) Do you treat piped ADOSAPACO water before using it? If water from ADOSAPACO connection is TREATED: A) In what way do you treat ADOSAPACO water? ____reverse osmosis ____boiling ____carbon filter ____UV light ____chlorine ____iodine ____rock/sand filter ____other (specify):________________

B) In which of the following ways do you use this treated ADOSAPACO water? ____drinking ____flushing toilets ____cooking ____cleaning ____bathing ____other (specify):__________________ ____laundry ____landscape irrigation

137! C) Approximately what percentage of the water from your ADOSAPACO connection do you treat? ____________percent ____dont know ____cooking ____cleaning ____bathing ____other (specify):__________________

5) In which of the following ways do you use (untreated) ADOSAPACO water? ____drinking ____flushing toilets ____laundry ____landscape irrigation

6) Which months of the year do you generally suffer water shortages from your ADOSAPACO connection. To the best of your knowledge, please tell me for each of the following months if you received: 1 (<5 days of service); 2 (5-11 days of service); 3 (12-18 days of service); 4 (19-25 days of service); or 5 (>25 days of service). ____January ____February ____March ____April ____May ____June ____July ____August ____September ____October ____November ____December

B3.) Potable Water SupplyPublic Water Trucks

1) Do you receive water from public or private water trucks? ____public ____private ____both ____dont know If they receive water from Private water trucks only, skip to section B4: 2) Who offers/provides the service of public water trucks in your neighborhood ________________________________offers it ____dont know 3) Is there a cost associated with this service? How much do you pay each refilling? ____yes, pay ______________each refilling ____no ____dont know ____dont know 4) With what frequency do you purchase water from these public water trucks? ____times per________ OR ____times per________ ____________liters 6) For that quantity, what price do you pay? ________________pesos ____yes, pay ________________pesos instead ____dont know ____no ____dont know 7) Do you pay more at the end of the dry season? How much more? 8) How much would you estimate that you pay the public water trucks for refilling your water tank/cistern over a 12-month period? ________________pesos per year ____dont know 5) In general, what quantity of water do you buy from the public water trucks? ____dont know

! 9) Do you treat the water from the public water trucks before using it? ____yes ____no ____dont know If water from the public water trucks is TREATED: A) In what way do you treat the water from the public water trucks? ____reverse osmosis ____boiling ____carbon filter ____UV light ____chlorine ____iodine

138!

____rock/sand filter

____other (specify):________________ ____cooking ____cleaning ____bathing ____other (specify):___________________

B) In which of the following ways do you use this treated water? ____drinking ____flushing toilets ____laundry ____landscape irrigation

C) Approximately what percentage of the water you receive from the public water trucks do you treat? ____________percent ____dont know 10) In which of the following ways do you use the (untreated) water from the public water trucks? ____drinking ____flushing toilets ____cooking ____cleaning ____bathing ____other (specify):__________________ ____laundry ____landscape irrigation

11) I am going to present you with five options for each month of the year, reflecting how many days your household goes without water because public water trucks have failed to deliver it to you. The numbers from one to five signify: 1 (<5 days without water); 2 (5-11 days without water); 3 (12-18 days without water); 4 (1925 days without water); or 5 (>25 days without water). ____January ____February ____March ____April ____May ____June ____July ____August ____September ____October ____November ____December OR ____there is no water shortage from public water trucks If they do NOT receive water from Private Water Trucks: 12) Why dont you buy water from private water trucks? ____too expensive ____water too dirty ____dont serve my area ____other:_________

B4.) Potable Water SupplyPrivate Water Trucks

1) What is name of the company from which you purchase water? ________________water trucks ____dont know ____dont know 2) With what frequency do you purchase water from the private water trucks? ____times per________ OR ____times per________ 3) In general, what quantity of water do you buy from the private water trucks?

! ____________liters 4) For that quantity, what price do you pay? ________________pesos ____yes, pay ________________pesos instead ____dont know ____no ____dont know 5) Do you pay more at the end of the dry season? How much more? ____dont know

139!

6) How much would you estimate that you pay the private water trucks for refilling your water tank/cistern over a 12-month period? ________________pesos per year ____yes ____no ____dont know ____dont know 7) Do you treat the water from the private water trucks before using it? If water from the private water trucks is TREATED: A) In what way do you treat the water from the private water trucks? ____reverse osmosis ____boiling ____carbon filter ____UV light ____chlorine ____iodine ____rock/sand filter ____other (specify):________________ ____cooking ____cleaning ____bathing ____other (specify):___________________

B) In which of the following ways do you use this treated water? ____drinking ____flushing toilets ____laundry ____landscape irrigation

C) Approximately what percentage of the water you receive from the private water trucks do you treat? ____________percent ____dont know 8) In which of the following ways do you use the (untreated) water from the private water trucks? ____drinking ____flushing toilets ____cooking ____cleaning ____bathing ____other (specify):__________________ ____laundry ____landscape irrigation

9) I am going to present you with five options for each month of the year, reflecting how many days your household goes without water because private water trucks have failed to deliver it to you. The numbers from one to five signify: 1 (<5 days without water); 2 (5-11 days without water); 3 (12-18 days without water); 4 (1925 days without water); or 5 (>25 days without water). ____January ____February ____March ____April ____May ____June ____July ____August ____September ____October ____November ____December OR ____there is no water shortage from private water trucks If they do NOT receive water from Public Water Trucks: 10) Why dont you buy water from public water trucks? ____too expensive ____water too dirty ____dont serve my area ____other:_________ !

140!

B5.) Potable Water SupplyWells

1) Do you receive water from a public or private well? ____public ____private ____dont know If you receive water from a PUBLIC well: A) Do you pay a users fee of some sort for the right to use this water? How much do you pay per year? ____yes, they pay _____________pesos/year ____no ____dont know 2) How does the water travel from the well to your house? __pumped through pipes __extracted by bucket __dont know __other (specify):______ If the water from the well is PUMPED: A) What kind of pump is used? ____electric ____gas ____bicibomba/man-powered ____other (specify):__________ 3) What rating would you give to the quality of the water from this well? ____very bad ____good ____yes ____bad ____very good ____no ____mediocre ____dont know

4) Do you treat the water from this well before using it? ____dont know If you TREAT the water from this well: A) In what way do you treat the water from this well? ____reverse osmosis ____boiling ____carbon filter ____UV light ____chlorine ____iodine ____rock/sand filter ____other (specify):________________ ____cooking ____cleaning ____bathing ____other (specify):__________________

B) In which of the following ways do you use this treated well water? ____drinking ____flushing toilets ____laundry ____landscape irrigation

C) Approximately what percentage of the water you receive from the private water trucks do you treat? ____________percent ____drinking ____flushing toilets ____dont know ____cooking ____cleaning ____bathing ____other (specify):__________________ 5) In which of the following ways do you use the (untreated) water from this well? ____laundry ____landscape irrigation

6) I would like to know which months of the year you generally suffer water shortages from your well connection. For each month, please tell me, to the best of your knowledge if you received: 1 (<5 days of service); 2 (5-11 days of !

141! service); 3 (12-18 days of service); 4 (19-25 days of service); or 5 (>25 days of service).

____January

____February

____March

____April

____May

____June

____July ____August ____September ____October ____November ____December

C1.) Water Tank/Cistern Characteristics

1) Do you use any BELOWGROUND water storage tanks at your house? How many? ____yes, we use_______ ____no ____dont know If BELOWGROUND tank(s) present: A) What is its (their total) storage capacity? __________liters ____plastic ____metal (and ____________liters) ____pottery/clay ____brick ____dont know ____asbestos B) What material is it (are they) made from? ____ferrocement ____mud ____other(specify):___________ ____other (specify):_______

C) From what source does it (do they) get refilled? ____ADOSAPACO ____las Pipas ____RWH system D) Are they covered most of the time? ____yes ____no ____dont know 2) Do you use any ABOVEGROUND water storage tanks at your house? How many? ____yes, we use_______ ____no ____dont know If ABOVEGROUND tank(s) present: A) Where is it (are they) located? ____roof ____courtyard ____backyard ____other (specify):_______ ____dont know ____asbestos B) What is its (their total) storage capacity? __________liters ____plastic ____metal (and ____________liters) ____pottery/clay ____brick C) What material is it (are they) made from? ____ferrocement ____mud ____other(specify):___________

D) From what source does it (do they) get refilled? ____belowground tank ____las Pipas ____RWH system ____other (specify):_______ E) Are they covered most of the time?

! ____yes ____no ____dont know

142!

If they have any storage tanks, proceed through section C1; if not, skip to section C2. 3) So, you have ___aboveground tanks and ___belowground tanks, and the water from _______________(and sometimes_______________) fills ____________. (Meanwhile, the water from _______________is used to fill____________). Right? 4) Does the location of (any of) your storage tank(s) require that you use a pump? Or is gravity used to give pressure? ____pump used If you use a PUMP: A) For what purpose it is used? to bring water from ________________to________________ B) What type of pump is it? ____electric ____gas ____bicibomba/man-powered ____other (specify):__________ 5) Do you feel that a larger tank or more tanks than what you have now would serve your needs better? ____yes ____no ____dont know 6) Do you think there would be space in your house to put a larger tank or more tanks? ____yes ____yes ____no ____no ____dont know ____dont know 7) Do you have any plans to purchase larger or more storage tanks? 8) How long have you had your storage tank(s) _____years / months , _____years / months, and _____years / months ____dont know 9) Have your tanks ever had problems with leaking? Which ones? ____yes ____yes ____no ____no ____dont know ____dont know 10) Do you anticipate problems with leaking in the future? ____gravity used ____dont know

C2.) Alternatives to Water Tanks/Cisterns

1) Do you employ any storage techniques, or do you simply rely on your ADOSAPACO connection? ____storage techniques ____no storage ____dont know If you employ STORAGE TECHNIQUES: !

! A) What storage techniques do you employ?

143!

____buckets/open containers ____dont know ____other (specify):________________ 2) How would you rate your interest in acquiring a water tank/cistern? ____disinterested ____mildly interested ____mildly disinterested ____very interested ____indifferent ____dont know

3) Why have you not acquired one already? ___too expensive ___unnecessary ___dont know ___other (specify):______________ 4) If you were to buy a storage tank/cistern for your house, what material would you choose? ____plastic ____metal ____ferrocement ____mud ____pottery/clay ____brick ____asbestos ____other(specify):___________

5) Why do you prefer that material? ____cheaper ____more durable ____lighter (weight) ____other (specify):_________ 6) If you were to buy a storage tank/cistern, where would you put it in your house? ____aboveground ____belowground ____dont know ____other (specify):_________ ____roof ____courtyard ____backyard ____dont know ____other (specify):________ 7) What size storage tank/cistern would be ideal for your household? ____________liters 8) Is the size of the storage tank/cistern you would consider purchasing limited by the space you have to put it in? ____yes ____no ____dont know

D1.) Rainwater Harvesting System Characteristics

1) What kind RWH system do you have? ____buckets catching water off the roof ____roof catchment with gutters and downspouts to storage tank ____roof and patio catchment with piping system to storage tank ____dont know Proceed with section D1 if household has a real RWHS, otherwise skip to section D2 2) How long have you had your RWH system? ______years / months 3) How knowledgeable do you consider yourself about RWH systems? ____very badly informed ! ____badly informed ____average

! ____well informed ____very well informed ____dont know

144!

4) What are the approximate dimensions of your roof/catchment area? ____________square meters 5) What material is your roof made from? ____cement ____clay shingles ____adobe ____grasses ____metal ____wood ____other (specify):___________________ ____none

6) Do you employ any initial filtration technologies? Which ones? ____first-flush diverter ____dont know ____leaf screens ____other (specify):________________________

7) Where do you store your harvested rainwater? in the ________liter ________from earlier ____open containers ____other:_________ 8) Is this storage tank/device used for other water sources as well? Which ones? ____yes, its used for _______________ ____yes ____very bad ____good ____no ____bad ____very good ____no ____dont know 9) Is this storage tank/device covered most of the time? ____dont know ____mediocre ____dont know 10) What rating would you give to the quality of the water from your RWH system?

11) Do you treat your harvested rainwater beyond first-flush diversion, leaf screens, or other initial filtration techniques before using it? ____yes ____no ____dont know If the harvested rainwater is TREATED: A) In what way do you treat your harvested rainwater? ____reverse osmosis ____boiling ____carbon filter ____UV light ____chlorine ____iodine ____rock/sand filter ____other (specify):________________ ____cooking ____cleaning ____bathing ____other (specify):__________________

B) In which of the following ways do you use this treated rainwater? ____drinking ____flushing toilets ____laundry ____landscape irrigation ____drinking ____flushing toilets

12) In which of the following ways do you use (untreated) rainwater? ____cooking ____cleaning ____bathing ____other (specify):__________________ ____laundry ____landscape irrigation

13) How many times per year do you complete each of the following maintenance procedures?

! ____purging of the first-flush diverter ____cleaning of the roof washers ____replacing filters ____cleaning of the storage tank(s) ____maintaining pumps ____dont know

145!

____cleaning gutters/downspouts

14) How much money would you estimate that you spend on the maintenance of your RWH system on a yearly basis? ____________pesos per year 15) How much time would you estimate that you spend on the maintenance of your RWH system on a yearly basis? ____________hours per year 16) Do you feel that the rainwater you collect contributes significantly to your household water supply? ____yes ____no ____dont know 17) How many liters would you estimate you collect every year with your system? ____________liters per year 18) Do you feel that the work you have done to construct and maintain your system has been worthwhile? ____yes ____yes ____no ____no ____dont know ____dont know 19) Would you recommend such a system to a close friend? 20) Are you aware of any rodents, cats, or other mammals living in, on, above, or occasionally transecting you roof? If yes, what type and how frequently? ____yes, there are ____________every____________ ____not populace ____no ____dont know ____dont know 21) How would you rate the bird population in your neighborhood? ____average ____very populace 22) Are you aware of any legal barriers to RWH in Oaxaca, Mexico? If so, could you please give me the references? ____yes, the reference is______________________ ______ ____no

D2.) Rainwater Harvesting Potential & Perceptions

1) Before this survey began were you aware that people have designed systems for rainwater collection and that they are widely used throughout the world? ____yes ____very badly informed ____well informed ! ____badly informed ____very well informed ____no ____average ____dont know 2) How knowledgeable do you consider yourself about RWH systems?

146!

3) Before this survey began were you aware that there are households in the city of Oaxaca that utilize such systems? ____yes ________households 5) What is your perception of the quality rating that water from a RWH system should receive? ____very bad ____good ____bad ____very good ____mediocre ____dont know ____no 4) How many households would you guess there are that use RWH in the city itself?

6) How would you rate your interest in acquiring a RHW system (if you were the owner)? ____disinterested ____mildly interested ____mildly disinterested ____very interested ____indifferent ____dont know

If disinterested, mildly disinterested or indifferent: A) Why do you have no interest in RWH? ____too risky ____water too dirty ____too expensive ____other (specify):_________ If mildly interested or very interested: A) Why have you not acquired one already? ____too expensive ____current water supply is good enough ____other (specify):____ 7) What would you say is the approximate size of your roof, in square meters? ____________square meters 8) What material is your roof made from? ____cement ____clay shingles ____adobe ____grasses ____metal ____wood ____other (specify):___________________

9) Which of the following uses do you imagine being appropriate for harvested rainwater? ____drinking ____flushing toilets ____cooking ____cleaning ____bathing ____laundry ____landscape irrigation ____dont know ____other (specify):________ 10) Do you think people using harvested rainwater should filter or treat it first? ____yes ____they shouldnt use it at all ____no ____dont know ____rock/sand filter 11) In what way do you think people should filter or treat harvested rainwater? ____reverse osmosis ____boiling ____chlorine ____iodine ____carbon filter ____UV light ___dont know ____other (specify):_____________

! 12) Which of the following uses do you imagine being appropriate for harvested rainwater if it has been filtered or treated as you directed above? ____drinking ____flushing toilets ____cooking ____cleaning ____bathing

147!

____laundry ____landscape irrigation ____dont know ____other (specify):________ 13) Are you aware of any rodents, cats, or other mammals living in, on, above, or occasionally transecting you roof? If yes, what type and how frequently? ____yes, there are ____________every____________ ____not populace ____no ____dont know ____dont know 14) How would you rate the bird population in your neighborhood? ____average ____very populace 15) How much would you guess the initial capital costs of a RWH system are? ____________pesos Let us imagine a hypothetical situation where the government is offering households who wish to install a RWH system a subsidy of up to 20,000 pesos, but no more than half the initial capital cost. 16) Would you be interested in applying for it? ____yes ____no ____dont know 17) If a contractor quoted you a price of 40,000 pesos to install the system, and if the government offered to cover half the cost, how much of the remaining 20,000 pesos do you hypothetically feel you could afford to pay for? ____________pesos

148!

149!

Appendix K: Survey Materials (Spanish)

La Captacin de Agua de Lluvia en Oaxaca, Mxico Formulario de Consentimiento Si usted participa en este estudio, le pedir contestar algunas preguntas sobre usan ustedes el agua: tanto la del servicio pblico como la que compran; la demografa de la casa; las percepciones de las sistemas de captacin de lluvia como un alternativo a la manera corriente; y la capacidad y el potencial de su hogar para albergar una sistema de captacin sobre su tejado y los tanques de almacenaje que una familia necesitara si quisiera instalar una sistema de captacin de lluvia. Le leer las preguntas y transcribir sus respuestas. Si usted lo desea, puede ver la encuesta o leer las preguntas por usted mismo(a). Esta encuesta es totalmente voluntaria y si hay alguna pregunta que usted no quiere contestar, es posible omitirla y continuar con la encuesta. Mi asesor de la facultad y yo tendremos el acceso nico a la informacin que usted proporcionar. En cualquier momento, usted puede retirarse de la participacin en la encuesta sin dificultad. Es muy improbable que esta encuesta representar cualquier amenaza a usted. Esta informacin es solamente para el uso de mi tesis y posiblemente en las publicaciones e investigaciones futuras. Este estudio no se relaciona con el gobierno local, estatal, o federal. La ventaja de participar en esta encuesta es la contribucin del nuevo conocimiento a la sociedad, especficamente con respecto al uso de agua y el potencial de sistemas de captacin de lluvia en la ciudad. Porque yo quiero tener confianza que entender todas sus repuestas y porque mi espaol es un poco limitado, me gustara se preguntar si puedo registrar las preguntas abiertas durante la entrevista. Si no quiere que le registro su voz, esta bien, y conducir la encuesta/entrevista sin mi aparato de registro. Todos los registros, transcripciones, y otros datos crudos estarn guardados en un cajn cerrado y en una contrasea protegida computadora, y estarn destruidos antes del primero de enero, 2013. Si usted tiene dudas acerca de su participacin en este estudio, puede contactar a Dra. Sarah Dunphy-Lelii de la tabla Institucional de Revisin del Colegio de Bard. Sus datos estn al pie de pagina de este formulario. Adems, usted puede contactar a mi asesor de la facultad, Dr. Gautam Sethi o a su servidor si usted tiene alguna pregunta. En este momento, tiene usted alguna duda o pregunta? Le gustara tomar unos minutos para revisar la versin escrita de lo que he dicho? Al firmar esta pgina, usted est indicando que entiende la informacin antedicho escrito y est dispuesto(a) a participar en la encuesta. Tambin le dar una copia de esta forma del consentimiento para sus expedientes. Por favor, chequear todas formas de consentimiento que se aplican: Doy permiso por la informacin que proveo en este estudio puede ser publicado de manera annima, sin ! mencin de los nombres de mi o mi familia.

! !

Doy permiso por la informacin que proveo en este estudio puede ser citado especficamente, con mencin de mi nombre. Estoy de acuerdo en tener mi voz registrado por los propsitos de este estudio. ______________________ Fecha

______________________________________ Firma ______________________________________ Nombre y Apellido

150!

Si tiene, alguna pregunta, por favor pngase en contacto con: Nolan Gardner: ng237@bard.edu, Instituto de la Naturaleza y la Sociedad de Oaxaca, 210 M. Bravo Altos, Centro, Oaxaca, Mxico C.P. 68000 Tel: 951-223-6506 Sarah Dunphy-Lelii: irb@bard.edu, Psychology Program, Bard Center for Environmental Policy, PO Box 5000, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York 12504-5000, USA, Tel: 001-845-758-7621 Gautam Sethi: sethi@bard.edu, Bard Center for Environmental Policy, PO Box 5000, Annandale-on- Hudson, New York 12504-5000, USA, Tel: 001-845-758-7073

Uso del agua y percepciones de la captacin del agua de lluvia

A.) Demogrficos de Hogares
13) Cul es su nombre, direccin, nmero de telfono, correo electrnico, gnero, y edad? _______________________ Nombre _______________________ Nmero de telfono _____________________________________ direccin _________________________________ correo electrnico _____ edad

_________ gnero

14) Vive usted en un departamento o una casa? ____departamento ____casa Si vive en un DEPARTAMENTO: A) Cuntos departamentos hay en su edificio? ____departamentos en el edificio B) Cuntas personas viven en este edificio? ____personas ____no lo sabe 15) Cuntas personas viven en su departamento/casa? ____personas que viven en el departamento/la casa ____no lo sabe 16) La casa es suya o la renta? ____propia ____si ____renta ____no Completo:____yes ____no 17) Usted es la persona que toma las principales decisiones en su hogar? 18) Que nivel de estudio tiene? Complet ese nivel? tiene el nivel de ____________________ en escuela. Si NO COMPLETO: ____no lo sabe

! A) Hasta qu nivel lleg? ____________________nivel 19) La mayora de personas en su hogar nacieron en la ciudad de Oaxaca? ____si ____si ____no ____no 20) Hay en su familia alguna persona que sea del extranjero? 21) Cul es el promedio de ingreso mensual en su hogar? Elige de los siguientes limites: ____$0-$2,000 ____$10,000-$20,000 ____licuadora ____televisin ____regadera ____lavavajillas ____coche ____celular ____$2,000-$5,000 ____>$20,000 ____calentador de agua ____sanitario que usa agua ____lavarropas

151!

____$5,000-$10,000 ____no lo sabe ____refrigerador ____telfono de casa ____acceso al Internet ____fregadero

22) Cules y cuntos de los siguientes artculos tiene en su hogar?

____computadora

____plantas (que regan ustedes)

23) Cunto dinero (en pesos) calcula que su hogar gasta cada semana en las siguientes categoras? _________comida en la casa ________transporte _________comer en restaurantes _________actividades recreativas _________otro:______________________ 24) Cunto dinero (en pesos) calcula que su hogar gasta cada mes en las siguientes categoras? __________escuela __________gas (para cocinar/calentar) __________electricidad __________alquiler o hipoteca __________servicios mdicos __________televisin __________hace las compras (por ropa etc.) __________otro:_____________________

B1.) Abasto de agua potableGeneral

7) Cules de las siguientes fuentes de agua utiliza su hogar para usos potables (excepto para beber) tales como descargas de sanitario, cocina, limpieza, regadera, lavar ropa, y riego de jardn? ____ Conexin de ADOSAPACO ____ Captacin de agua de lluvia ____Pipas ____pozo, comunitario o privado ____otro:____________________________

8) Cuntos litros cree usted que consume su hogar mensualmente para todos los usos potables (excepto para beber)? ____________litros cada mes ____no lo sabe

! 9) Qu porcentaje de este consumo de agua potable proviene de las siguientes fuentes?

152!

______conexin de ADOSAPACO ______Pipas ______pozo, comunitario o privado ______captacin de agua de lluvia ____muy mala ____buena ____muy mala ____buena ____muy mala ____buena ______otro:____________________________ ____mala ____muy buena ____mala ____muy buena ____mala ____muy buena ____mediocre ____no lo sabe ____mediocre ____no lo sabe ____mediocre ____no lo sabe 10) En su opinin, cmo es la calidad de agua de la red pblica de ADOSAPACO??

11) En su opinin, cmo es la calidad del agua de las Pipas Publicas?

12) En su opinin, cmo es la calidad del agua de las Pipas Privadas?

13) Durante un ao, normalmente desde cul mes hasta cul mes considera usted que la temporada de lluvia dura? de________________ a________________ 14) Durante un ao, normalmente desde cul mes hasta cul mes considera usted que la estacin seca dura? de________________ a________________ Avanza con cada seccin de B que el hogar recibe agua no-potable como una fuente.

B2.) Abasto de agua potableADOSAPACO

7) Cuntos litros recibe usted mensualmente durante la estacin lluviosa por su conexin de ADOSAPACO? ____________litros por mes ____no lo sabe 8) Cuntos litros recibe usted mensualmente durante la estacin seca por su conexin de ADOSAPACO? ____________litros por mes ____no lo sabe 9) De acuerdo a su conocimiento, cal es el precio que paga cada dos meses por su consumo de agua de la conexin de ADOSAPACO? ____________pesos cada dos meses ____si ____no ____no lo sabe ____no lo sabe 10) Ustedes tratan esta agua antes de que la utilicen? Si el agua recibe TRATAMIENTO:

! A) Qu mtodo de tratamiento usan ustedes? ____osmosis inversa ___hirviendo ___por cloracin

153!

____filtro de carbn activado ____otro:_________________

____filtro de sales ____luz ultravioleta ____por yodo

B) Para cuales de los siguientes usos utiliza su hogar el agua que trata de la conexin de ADOSAPCAO? ____para beber ____descarga de inodoro ____para cocinar ____para baarse ____limpieza ____para lavar ropa ____riego de jardn ____otro:__________

C) Aproximadamente, qu porcentaje del agua de su conexin de ADOSAPACO tratan usted? ____________porcentaje ____no lo sabe 11) Para cuales de los siguientes usos utiliza su hogar el agua que NO trata de la conexin de ADOSAPACO? ____para beber ____descarga de inodoro ____para cocinar ____para baarse ____limpieza ____para lavar ropa ____riego de jardn ____otro:__________

12) Durante la estacin lluviosa, cuntos das por mes reciben ustedes el servicio de la red pblica de ADOSAPACO? ________das por mes 13) Durante la estacin seca, cuntos das por mes reciben ustedes el servicio de la red pblica de ADOSAPACO? ________das por mes

B3.) Abasto de agua potablePipas Publicas

13) Recibe usted agua de las Pipas pblicas o privadas? ____pblicas ____privadas ____los dos ____no lo sabe Si reciben el agua solamente de Pipas Privadas, salta a seccin B4: 14) Quien le brinda el servicio de pipas publica? _______________________le brinda ____si, paga___________cada repuesto Si dise si, hay un COSTO ASOCIADO: A) Paga usted ms por el servicio de pipa publica al final de la estacin seca? Cunto ms paga? ____si, paga ________________ ____no ____no lo sabe ____no ____no lo sabe ____no lo sabe 15) El sevicio tiene un costo asociado? Cunto paga cada repuesto?

154! B) Cuntos pesos calcular que pagan usted por los servicios de las Pipas Publicas cada ao? ________________pesos por ao ____no lo sabe ____no lo sabe

16) Con qu frecuencia reciben ustedes agua de estas Pipas Publicas? ______veces por__________ O _____veces por__________ ____________litros ____no lo sabe 18) Ustedes tratan el agua de las pipas publicas antes de que la utilicen? ____si ____no ____no lo sabe Si este agua recibe TRATAMIENTO: A) Cules mtodos de tratamiento usan ustedes? ____osmosis inversa ____hirviendo ____por cloracin ____filtro carbn activado ____filtro de sales ____luz ultravioleta ____por yodo ____para beber ____descarga de inodoro ____otro:_________________ ____para baarse 17) Generalmente, qu cantidad de agua reciben ustedes de las Pipas Publicas?

B) Cules de las maneras siguientes usan ustedes este agua? ____para cocinar ____limpieza ____para lavar ropa ____riego de jardn ____otro:__________

C) Aproximadamente, qu porcentaje del agua de las Pipas Publicas tratan ustedes? ____________porcentaje ____no lo sabe 19) Cules de las maneras siguientes usan ustedes el agua sin tratamiento de las Pipas? ____para beber ____descarga de inodoro ____para cocinar ____para baarse ____limpieza ____para lavar ropa ____riego de jardn Si NO RECIBEN el agua de las Pipas Privadas: 20) Por qu no compran ustedes el agua de las Pipas Privadas? ____demasiado caro ____agua sucia ____no sirven mi barrio ____otro:_________ ____otro:__________

B4.) Abasto de agua potablePipas Privadas

1) Cmo se llama la compaa a la que ustedes le compran agua de las Pipas Privadas, generalmente? ______________________________Pipas ____no lo sabe 2) Con qu frecuencia compran ustedes agua de las Pipas Privadas? ______veces por__________ O _____veces por__________ ____no lo sabe 3) Generalmente, qu cantidad de agua compran ustedes de las Pipas? !

! ____________litros ____no lo sabe 4) Para esta cantidad, qu precio paga usted? ________________pesos ____no lo sabe 5) Paga usted ms por el servicio de pipa privada al final de la estacin seca? Cunto ms paga? ____si, paga ________________pesos en lugar ____no ____no lo sabe 6) Cuntos pesos calcula que pagan usted por los servicios de las Pipas Privadas cada ao? ________________pesos por ao ____si ____no ____no lo sabe ____no lo sabe 7) Ustedes tratan el agua de las Pipas Privadas antes de que la utilicen? Si este agua recibe TRATAMIENTO: A) Cules mtodos de tratamiento usan ustedes? ____osmosis inversa ____hirviendo ____por cloracin

155!

____filtro carbn activado

____filtro de sales ____luz ultravioleta ____por yodo ____para beber ____descarga de inodoro

____otro:_________________ ____para baarse

B) Cules de las maneras siguientes usan ustedes este agua? ____para cocinar ____limpieza ____para lavar ropa ____riego de jardn ____otro:__________

C) Aproximadamente, qu porcentaje del agua de las Pipas Privadas tratan ustedes? ____________porcentaje ____no lo sabe 8) Cules de las maneras siguientes usan ustedes el agua sin tratamiento de las Pipas Privadas? ____para beber ____descarga de inodoro ____para cocinar ____para baarse ____limpieza ____para lavar ropa ____riego de jardn Si NO RECIBEN el agua de las Pipas Publicas: 9) Por qu no compran ustedes el agua de las Pipas Publicas? ____demasiado caro ____agua sucia ____no sirven mi barrio ____otro:_________ ____otro:__________

B5.) Abasto de agua potablePozos

7) Reciben ustedes agua de un pozo comunitario o privado? ____comunitario ____privado ____no lo sabe Si reciben agua de un pozo COMUNITARIO:

! A) Pagan ustedes un cargo de usuario por el derecho usar este pozo Cunto paga usted cada ao? ____si, paga________________pesos/ao ____no

156!

____no lo sabe

8) Cmo conduce el agua de este pozo a su departamento/casa? ___bombeada en la tubera ___extrada por cubeta ___no lo sabe ___otro:________ Si el agua del pozo es BOMBEADA: A) Qu tipo de bomba emplean ustedes? ____elctrica ____de combustible ____por fuerza humana ____otro:____________ 9) En su opinin, cmo es la calidad de agua de este pozo? ____muy malo ____bueno ____si ____malo ____muy bueno ____no ____mediocre ____no lo sabe

10) Ustedes tratan este agua antes de que la utilicen? ____no lo sabe Si este agua recibe TRATAMIENTO: A) Cules mtodos de tratamiento usan ustedes? ____osmosis inversa ____hirviendo ____por cloracin ____filtro carbn activado ____filtro de sales ____luz ultravioleta ____por yodo ____para beber ____descarga de inodoro ____otro:_________________ ____para baarse

B) Cules de las maneras siguientes usan ustedes este agua? ____para cocinar ____limpieza ____para lavar ropa ____riego de jardn ____otro:__________

C) Aproximadamente, qu porcentaje del agua de este pozo tratan ustedes? ____________porcentaje ____no lo sabe 11) Cules de las maneras siguientes usan ustedes el agua sin tratamiento de este pozo? ____para beber ____descarga de inodoro ____para cocinar ____para baarse ____limpieza ____para lavar ropa ____riego de jardn ____otro:__________

12) Durante la estacin lluviosa, cuntos das por mes reciben ustedes el agua de este pozo? ________das por mes 13) Durante la estacin seca, cuntos das por mes reciben ustedes el agua de este pozo? ________das por mes

157!

C1.) Caractersticas de cisternas y tinacos

11) Usan ustedes alguna CISTERNA (tanques de almacenamiento subterrneo) en su departamento/casa? Cuntas cisternas usan? ____si, usan_______ ____no ____no lo sabe Si usan una(s) CISTERNA(S): A) Cal es la capacidad total de almacenaje de su(s) cisterna(s)? ______________litros ____plstico ____asbesto (y ____________litros) ____no lo sabe ____lodo ____metal B) De qu material es (son) su(s) cisterna(s)? ____ferrocemento ____tabique ____otro:____________________ ____otro:____________

C) Generalmente, de qu fuente llena usted su(s) cisterna (s)? ____ADOSAPACO ____las Pipas ____sistema de CALL ____si ____no D) Su(s) cisterna(s) est(n) cerrada la mayora de las veces? ____no lo sabe 12) Usan ustedes algn TINACO (tanques de almacenamiento sobre el suelos) en su departamento/casa? Cuntos tinacos usan? ____si, usan_______ ____no ____no lo sabe Si usan uno(s) TINACO(S): A) Dnde est(n) ubicado(s)? ____techo/azotea ____patio ____patio trasero ____otro:_________________ ____no lo sabe ____lodo ____metal B) Cul es la capacidad total de almacenaje de su(s) tinaco(s)? ______________litros ____plstico ____asbesto ____ de la cisterna (y ____________litros) C) De qu material es (son) su(s) tinaco(s)? ____ferrocemento ____tabique ____de Pipas ____otro:____________________ ____del sistema de CALL ____otro:______________ ____no lo sabe

D) Generalmente, de qu fuente llena usted su(s) tinaco(s)? ____ de la conexin de ADOSAPACO ____si ____no

E) Su(s) tinaco(s) est(n) cerrada la mayora de las veces? Si tiene algn tanque de almacenaje, avanza a seccin C1; si no, salta a seccin C2. 13) Usan ustedes alguna bomba con su(s) cisterna(s) o tinaco(s)? O, utiliza la gravedad para dar presion?

! ____bomba Si usan una BOMBA: A) Para qu utiliza la bomba? para llevar agua de________________a________________ B) Qu tipo de bomba emplea usted? ____elctrica ____de gasolina ____por fuerza humana ____otro:____________ ____gravedad ____no lo sabe

158!

14) Cree usted que tener un mayor almacenamiento al que tiene ahora, le servira para satisfacer mejor sus necesidades? ____si ____no ____no lo sabe 15) Tiene usted el espacio en su departamento/casa para poner un mayor almacn, si usted lo quisiera? ____si ____no ____no lo sabe 16) Tiene usted alguna intencin en el futuro de comprar un almacn ms grande o ms almacenes? ____si ______aos, ______aos , ____si ____si ____no y______ aos ____no ____no ____no lo sabe ____no lo sabe ____no lo sabe ____no lo sabe 17) Por cunto tiempo ha tenido usted su(s) almacn(es)? 18) Su(s) almacn(es) ha(n) tenido alguna fractura o alguna fuga? Cules? 19) Prev usted alguna fractura o alguna fuga en el futuro?

C2.) Alternativas a cisternas y tinacos

9) Emplean ustedes alguna tcnica de almacenaje? O confan ustedes en su conexin de ADOSAPACO? ____tcnicas de almacenaje ____no tienen ____no lo sabe Si emplean TCNICAS DE ALMACENAJE: A) Qu tcnicas de almacenaje emplean ustedes? ____cubetas o otros recipientes ____no lo sabe ____no interesado(a) ____ligeramente interesad(a) ___demasiado caro ____otro:______________________ ____no me importa ____no lo sabe 10) Qu tanto es su inters en adquirir una cisterna o un tinaco? ____indiferente ____muy interesado(a) ___no lo sabe

11) Por qu no tienen un almacn? ___innecesario ___otro:__________________

! 12) Si comprar usted una cisterna o un tinaco para tu departamento/casa, qu material elegira? ____plstico ____asbesto ____ms barato ____ferrocemento ____tabique ____lodo ____metal

159!

____otro:____________________ ____otro:__________________

13) Por qu prefiere usted este material? ____ms durable ____ms ligero 14) Si comprara usted una cisterna o un tinaco para su departamento/casa, dnde lo ubicara? ____sobre el suelo ____subterrneo ____no lo sabe ____otro:_______________ ____techo/azotea ____patio ____patio trasero ____no lo sabe ____otro:____________ 15) Qu tamao o capacidad sera ideal para su hogar? ____________litros 16) Es el tamao o la capacidad de este tanque limitado por el espacio que tienen disponible para ponerlo? ____si ____no ____no lo sabe

D1.) Caractersticas del sistema de Captacin de agua de lluvia (CALL)

23) Qu tipo de sistema de CALL tiene usted? ____cubetas o otros recipientes (como tambos) que captan agua del techo/azotea ____unos techo/azotea rodeado con canaletas y bajantes que llevan agua a un almacn ____captacin directa del patio y los techos/azoteas (sin canaletas o bajantes) ____no lo sabe Avanza con seccin D1, EXCEPTO si usan CUBETAS; si no, salta a seccin D2 24) Por cunto tiempo ha tenido usted su sistema de CALL? __________aos 25) Qu tanto considera usted que tiene conocimiento sobre los sistemas de CALL? ____muy mal informado(a) ____mal informado(a) ____bien informado(a) ____la media/el promedio ____muy bien informado(a) ____no lo sabe _________metros cuadrados 27) De qu material es su techo/azotea? ____cemento ____madera ____adobe ____pastos o zacates ____metal ____tejas de cermica ____otro:______________________

26) Aproximadamente, cuntos metros cuadrados calcula que tiene su techo/azotea?

! 28) Puede dibujar la configuracin o forma de su techo y indicar las dimensiones aproximadas aqu?

160!

29) Emplea usted alguna tcnica de filtracin previo al almacn? Cules? ____interceptor ____no lo sabe ____malla ____ninguno ____otro:________________________ ____en tambos ____no ____otro:__________ ____no lo sabe ____no lo sabe

30) Dnde guarda usted su agua de lluvia captada? ____en tinaco / cisterna ____en cubetas ____si es usado por_______________ ____si ____no ____________litros 34) Cul es su opinin acerca de la calidad del agua de su sistema de CALL? ____muy mala ____buena ____mala ____muy buena ____mediocre ____no lo sabe 31) Usa usted este almacn para guardar otras fuentes del agua ambien? Cules? 32) Este(s) almacn(es) est(n) cerrado(s) la mayora de las veces? 33) Qu capicidad de almacenamiento tienen ustedes por su agua de lluvia captada?

35) Tratan ustedes su agua de lluvia aparte del interceptor, malla, u otras tcnicas inicial de filtracin? ____si ____no ____no lo sabe Si TRATAN su agua de lluvia: A) Cules mtodos de filtracin o tratamiento usan ustedes? ____osmosis inversa ____hirviendo ____por cloracin ____filtro carbn activado ____filtro de sales ____luz ultravioleta ____por yodo ____otro:_________________

B) Cules de las maneras siguientes usan ustedes esta agua de lluvia tratada? ____para beber ____descarga de inodoro ____limpieza ____para lavar ropa ____para cocinar ____para baarse ____riego de jardn ____otro:__________ ____para baarse

36) Cules de las maneras siguientes usan ustedes el agua de lluvia sin tratamiento?? ____para beber ____descarga de inodoro ____para cocinar

! ____limpieza ____para lavar ropa ____riego de jardn ____otro:__________

161!

37) Cuntas veces al ao cumplen ustedes cada uno de los siguientes procedimientos de mantenimientos? ____ purgar el interceptor ____limpiar el almacn ____limpieza de techo/azotea ____ mantenimiento de bomba(s) ____ Limpieza de canaletas o bajantes ____reemplazo de filtros ____no lo sabe

38) Como limpia o mantiene usted los lugares mencionados en la pregunta anterior? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 39) Cunto cree usted que es el gasto de su hogar anualmente para mantener su sistema de CALL? ____________pesos cada ao 40) Cuntas horas calcula usted que su hogar gasta anualmente para mantener su sistema de CALL? ____________horas cada ao 41) Cree usted que el trabajo que ha invertido para construir y mantener su sistema de CALL ha valido la pena? ____si ____no ____no lo sabe 42) Cree usted que el agua de lluvia que ustedes captan contribuye considerablemente a su abasto de agua para su hogar? ____si ____no ____no lo sabe 43) Cuntos litros calcula usted que su hogar capta cada ao con su sistema de CALL? ____________litros cada ao 44) Le recomendara a un amigo un sistema de CALL? ____si ____no ____no lo sabe 45) Sabe usted si hay algn roedor, gato, u otro mamfero que viva en, sobre, o atraviese su azotea? De qu tipo y con qu frecuencia? ____si, hay________________ cada________________ 46) Cuntos pjaros y aves viven en su barrio? ____no muchos ____lo normal ____tantos ____no lo sabe 47) Sabe usted si hay alguna limitacin legal que exista para la CALL en la ciudad de Oaxaca? Por favor, podra darme las referencias? ____si, la referencia es________________________________ ____no 48) Qu tanto es su inters en adquirir un sistema de CALL mejor o ms completo? ____no ____no lo sabe

! ____no interesado(a) ____ligeramente interesad(a) ____indiferente ____muy interesado(a) ____no le importa ____no lo sabe

162!

Si no interesado(a), indiferente, or no le importa: A) Por qu no tiene inters en un sistema de CALL? ____demasiado arriesgado ____agua demasiada sucia ____demasiado caro ____otro:__ Si ligeramente interesado(a) o muy interesado(a): A) Por qu no ha adquirido tal sistema ya? ____demasiado caro _______contento(a) con su actual abasto ____otro:_____________ B) Quire usted que le ponga en contacto con INSO para mejorar su sistema? ____si ____no 49) Cuanto considera que necesitara invertir por un sistema de CALL mejor o ms completo? ____________pesos ____no lo sabe Ahora, imaginemos una situacin hipottica. El gobierno ofrece a hogares que desean instalar un sistema de CALL un subsidio de hasta 20,000 pesos, pero no ms de la mitad del costo inicial. 50) Solicitara este subsidio? ____si ____no ____no lo sabe 51) Si un contratista le cotiz un precio de 40,000 para instalar la sistema, y si el gobierno le ofreci a pagar la mitad del costo, cunto de los 20,000 pesos restantes podra pagar con sus capacidades econmicas actuales? ____________pesos

D2.) Posibilidades para y percepciones de la captacin de agua de lluvia

1) Antes de esta encuesta, saba usted que hay personas que han diseado sistemas de CALL y que muchos de estos sistemas se estn utilizando alrededor del mundo? ____si ____no 2) Antes de esta encuesta, saba usted que hay hogares en la ciudad de Oaxaca que usan tales sistemas? ____si ________hogares ____no ____no lo sabe 3) Cuntos hogares cree usted que utilicen sistemas de la CALL en la ciudad? 4) Qu tanto considera usted que tiene conocimiento sobre los sistemas de CALL?

! ____muy mal informado(a) ____mal informado(a) ____bien informado(a) ____muy mala ____buena ____no interesado(a) ____ligeramente interesad(a)

163! ____la media/el promedio

____muy bien informado(a) ____no lo sabe ____mala ____muy buena ____indiferente ____muy interesado(a) ____mediocre ____no lo sabe ____no le importa ____no lo sabe

5) En su opinin, cmo es la calidad de agua de sistemas de CALL??

6) Qu tanto es su inters en adquirir un sistema de CALL

Si no interesado(a), indiferente, or no le importa: A) Por qu no tiene inters en un sistema de CALL? ____demasiado arriesgado ____agua demasiada sucia ____demasiado caro ____otro:__ Si ligeramente interesado(a) o muy interesado(a): A) Por qu no ha adquirido tal sistema ya? ____demasiado caro _______contento(a) con su actual abasto ____otro:_____________ 7) Aproximadamente, cuntos metros cuadrados calcula que tiene su techo/azotea? _________metros cuadrados 8) De qu material es su techo/azotea? ____cemento ____madera ____adobe ____pastos o zacates ____metal ____tejas de cermica ____otro:______________________

9) Puede dibujar la configuracin o forma de su techo y indicar las dimensiones aproximadas aqu?

10) Cules de los siguientes usos se imagina son apropiados para el agua de lluvia captada sin tratamiento? ____para beber ____descarga de inodoro ____para cocinar ____para baarse ____limpieza ____para lavar ropa ____riego de jardn ____si ____no debe usarla en absoluto ____no ____otro:__________ ____no lo sabe

11) Piensa usted que la gente que capta agua de lluvia debe tratarla antes de usarla? 12) Cul considera usted que debera ser el mtodo para filtrar dicha agua?

! ____osmosis inversa ____hirviendo ____por cloracin

164! ____filtro carbn activado

____filtro de sales ____luz ultravioleta ____por yodo

____otro:_________________

13) Cules de los siguientes usos cree usted que son los ms apropiadas para el agua de lluvia captada, si esta ha sido filtrada o tratada de la manera que sugiri? ____para beber ____descarga de inodoro ____para cocinar ____para baarse ____limpieza ____para lavar ropa ____riego de jardn ____otro:__________

14) Sabe usted si hay algn roedor, gato, u otro mamfero que viva en, sobre, o atraviese su azotea?De qu tipo y con qu frecuencia? ____si, hay________________ cada________________ 15) Cuntos pjaros y aves viven en su barrio? ____no muchos ____lo normal ____tantos ____no lo sabe ____no lo sabe 16) Cuanto considera que necesitara invertir por un sistema de CALL ____________pesos Ahora, imaginemos una situacin hipottica. El gobierno ofrece a hogares que desean instalar un sistema de CALL un subsidio de hasta 20,000 pesos, pero no ms de la mitad del costo inicial. 17) Solicitara este subsidio? ____si ____no ____no lo sabe 18) Si un contratista le cotiz un precio de 40,000 para instalar la sistema, y si el gobierno le ofreci a pagar la mitad del costo, cunto de los 20,000 pesos restantes podra pagar con sus capacidades econmicas actuales? ____________pesos ! ! ____no ____no lo sabe