I Faculty of Graduate Studies Institute of Environmental and Water Studies M.Sc. Program in Water and Environmental Engineering M.SC. THESIS RESEARCH Factors affecting harvested rain water quality and quantity in Yatta area, Palestine بمدة يطالمائي فيد الحصاه ا وكمية ميا التي تؤثر عمى جودةعوامل ال، فمسطينSUBMITTED BY: NIBAL JAWAD AL-BATSH Student Number: 1135452 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Issam A. Al-Khatib October, 2016
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
I
Faculty of Graduate Studies
Institute of Environmental and Water Studies
M.Sc. Program in Water and Environmental Engineering
M.SC. THESIS RESEARCH
Factors affecting harvested rain water quality and quantity in Yatta area, Palestine
فمسطين ، العوامل التي تؤثر عمى جودة وكمية مياه الحصاد المائي في بمدة يطا
SUBMITTED BY:
NIBAL JAWAD AL-BATSH
Student Number: 1135452
Supervisor:
Prof. Dr. Issam A. Al-Khatib
October, 2016
II
Factors Affecting Harvested Rain Water Quality and Quantity in
Yatta Area, Palestine
فهسط ب، خ يب انحظبد انبئ ف ثهذح طانعايم انز رؤثش عه خدح ك
Master’s Thesis Submitted By
Nibal J. Albatsh
(5541311)
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Issam A. Al-Khatib
This thesis was successfully defended and approved on 31 / 10 /2016
Examining Committee Signature
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Issam A. Al-Khatib ………...
Member: Dr. Maher Abu-Madi ………...
Member: Dr. Abdel Fattah R. Hasan (Almallah) ………...
This thesis was submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
theMaster’s Degree in Water and Environmental Engineering from the
Faculty of Graduate Studies, at Birzeit University, Palestine.
III
اإلذاء
سبعذا عه ا ارقذو انهز انذا انعضضثحس طحجز إن أحق انبط
.ب ف عشهللاأطبل ثسشر انخ انزعهخ نكب ي خضم انشكش انعشفب
أد ثبندبذ سب ...انك صخ.انك أب انجشاط عه طفحبد كفبح
او، يبس، ف، فشذ، عس، يحذ، س ان احجز اخا اخار )بل، يش
انذ( حفظى هللا.
.ن خبج كب ن عب ظشاي قف إكم إن
.إن خع أطذقبئ انخهظ
انذسة. أ رك ز انذساسخ عب نكم ثبحو أ طبنت عهى سهك زا هللاي أسخ
جبل خاد عس انجطش.
IV
الشكش الزمذيش
Acknowledgement
سعذ ثعذ اربو اطشحز ا اشكش هللا احذ اال اخشا عه فضه كشي انز اعى عه
فق الدبص زا انعم نضبف نبد انجحو انعه.
ثشصذ ف خبيعخ ذسخ انب انجئخارقذو ثبنشكش انزقذش السبرزر انعبيه ف ثشبيح
عظبو انخطت انذسخ طجحخ غبوانذكزس االسزبر سسبنز م نششفاخض ثبنشكش اندض
الدبذ زا انجحو. برخبر بثعه عه انى جخه زهان
ارقذو ثبنشكش نكم ي قف ثدبج دع طال فزشح كزبثخ االطشحخ نى جخم عه ثسبعذح
رخ.
سخسارقى ز انذ خ انششفخ عهأرخ ثبنشكش نهدخزبيب
This work was carried out as part of the ‘Rainwater Harvesting Analysis using Water
Harvesting Evaluation Tool (WHEAT)’ project supported by the USAID- funded
Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research (PEER) program, implemented
by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Sponsor Grant Award Number: AID-
OAA-A-11-00012.
V
الشاس
: أب الولع أدب همذم الشسبلخ الزي رذول العاى
Factors Affecting Harvested Rain Water Quality And Quantity In
Yatta Area, Palestine
ثبسزثبء يب رذ االشبسح ان اب زبج خذ انخبص، ز انشسبنخ اقش ثب يب اشزهذ عه
نى قذو ي قجم نم دسخخ ا نقت عه ا يبا أ خضء ،سد، ا ز انشسبنخ ككم حثب
ثحث نذ أخ يؤسسخ رعهخ ا ثحثخ اخش.
Declaration
The work provided in this thesis, unless otherwise referenced, is
the Researcher's own work, and has not been submitted elsewhere
for any other degree or qualification.
VI
Table of Contents
.III ..……………………………………………………………………………… اإلذاء
الزمذيشالشكش …………………………………………………………………………. IV
V ..…………………………………………………………………………………الشاس
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………. IX
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………… .XI
List of Appendices ……………………………………………………………….. XIII
List of Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………… XIII
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………… VI
VI ………………………………………………………………………………الملخص
CHAPTER ONE ……………………………………………………………… 1
1.Introductory remarks………………. ..................................................................................... 1
1.1.Study aims and objectives………… .................................................................................. 3
1.2.Study area………………………. ....................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER TWO……………………. .................................................................................. 10
2.1.Rain water harvesting ......................................................................................... 10
2.2.Types of rain water harvesting systems are: ..................................................................... 11
2.3.Benefit of rainwater harvesting ......................................................................................... 12
2.4.Literature review on RWH .................................. ………………………… 13
2.5.Rainwater Harvesting in Palestine .................................................................................... 15
6.2. Water Quality Parameters ........................................................................................ 17
2.7.Water sources .............................................................................. 19
2.8.Physical parameters ........................................................................................... 21
Temperature………………………….. . .............................................................................. 21
Color …… .................................................................. 21
Taste and Odors ....................................................................................... 22
2.9.Chemical parameters ..................................................................................... 22
VII
2.10.Microbiological Aspects ……………………………………………………………..25
CHAPTER THREE……………………………. .................................................................. 26
3.1. Activities/Methodologies ..................................................................................... 27
3.2.Scope of research .................................................................................... 28
3.3.Research Strategy .................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER FOUR …………………………………………………………….32
Socio-economic analysis…………………. ............................................................................ 33
4.1 Household survey…………………….. ............................................................................ 33
4.2. Characteristics of the Household Sample ......................................................................... 33
4.2.4 Living conditions of the household sample .................................................................... 36
4.3Water issues……………………………….. ...................................................................... 37
4.3.1 Water supply of the household sample ........................................................................... 37
4.3.1.1 Water network……………………. ............................................................................ 39
4.3.1.2 Tankers : ……………………………… ..................................................................... 40
4.3.1.3-Rain water Harvesting ……………………………………………………………. 41
4.3.1.4 The relationship between categorical variables using Chi-square test ........................ 42
4.4 Cistern characteristics: ……………… .............................................................................. 44
4.5 Cisterns sanitation practices: ............................................................................................ 45
4.6 Expenditure on water of the household sample ................................................................. 49
4.6.1 Fees for water from the network .................................................................................... 49
4.6.2 Fees from tankers source……….. .................................................................................. 49
4.6.3 Fees from construction the cisterns ................................................................................ 50
4.6.4 The result relationship between categorical variables using chi-square ........................ 51
4.7Cisterns water usage : ……………….. .............................................................................. 53
Agricultural usage : ……………………….. .......................................................................... 53
Herding usage………………………………………….. ........................................................ 54
VIII
4.8 Quality of water (from tankers, networks, cisterns) and health related issues ................. 55
4.8.1 Water Net Work and Tanker Quality ............................................................................ 55
4.8.2 Quality of water in cisterns ............................................................................................. 56
4.9 Household Sewage Systems ............................................................................................. 57
4.4 Water Quality Results ........................................................................................... 58
4. 5 Discussion of Water Quality Results ................................................................................ 61
4.5.1Contamination with Total and Fecal Coliforms .............................................................. 61
2.5.6 Physical and Chemical Contamination ........................................................................... 67
4.5.3 The relationship between categorical variables using chi-square ................................... 74
4.6 Case study …………… ............................................................................ .. 82
2.4 water harvesting calculations ............................................................................................ 92
2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 99
4.9 Future work ………………………… ............................................................................ 102
2..4 References ........................................................................................... 103
IX
List of Figures . Millennium Development Goal for access of safe water and
sanitation
1.1
3 The location of Yatta town (Abu Sadaah,2014) 1.2
2 Yatta location 1.3
5 Yatta water tankers and net work distribution 1.4
9 The distribution of water resources in Yata town 1.5
6. Components of the Rainwater Harvesting System (Palestinian
Water Authority)
2.1
31 Overhead view of the base of the filtering apparatus 3.1
31 Filter the sample water. 3.2
32 Filter the sample water 3.3
32 Count the number of colonies found on each filter 3.4
34 Location of household samples 4.1
36 Primary income source of the household sample 4.2
38 Water sources used by the households depending on the season. 4.3
38 Sufficiency of water for the household sample 4.4
39 Connectivity of the household sample to a water network 4.5
39 Sufficiency of water from network of the household sample 4.6
40 Purchasing water from tankers 4.7
41 Source of tankered water 4.8
41 Availability of cisterns 4.9
47 Cistern cleaning methods 4.10
47 Locking of cisterns 4.11
55 Possibility of raising the livestock without the cistern 4.12
56 Satisfaction with quality of water from the network 4.13
52 Satisfaction with water quality of water from tankers 4.14
62 Fecal Coliforms values of rainwater and mixed water sample. 4.15
63 Fecal Coliforms for 50 samples of Rain water 4.16
22 Fecal Coliforms for 50 samples of mixed water 4.17
25 Total Coliforms values of rainwater and mixed water samples 4.18
25 Total Coliforms for Rain water 4.19
25 Total Coliforms for mixed water 4.20
24 pH values of rain and mixed water samples 4.21
24 pH Rain Water Harvesting 4.22
26 pH Mixed Water 4.23
69 Conductivity values of rain and mixed water samples 4.24
4. Salinity values of rain and mixed water samples 4.25
4. Salinity Rain Water harvesting 4.26
4. Salinity Mixed Water 4.27
46 Dissolved Solids values of rain and mixed water samples 4.28
48 Location of sample 4.29
86 House of sample 4.30
87 Economic situation 4.31
44 Location of cistern 4.32
44 Cow near the cistern 4.33
X
46 Manual extraction of water 4.34
46 Manual extraction of water 4.35
91 Catchment area 4.36
91 Pipes for RWH 4.37
91 Cistern
4.38
XI
List of Tables
21 WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality: Physical (WHO,
2004).
2.1
23 Source of chemicals in water, (WHO, 2004) 2.2
64 Sample Design 3.1
88 Distribution of the household samples 4.1
85 Size and age distribution of the household sample 4.2
84 Living conditions of the household sample 4.3
40 Capacity of water tankers 4.4
43 Effect of sufficiency of water from all sources on selected items
in the questionnaire
4.5
45 Description of the cistern 4.6
46 Some of the environmental conditions surrounding the rainwater
harvesting cisterns
4.7
47 Wastewater flooding near the cistern 4.8
48 Treating and testing harvested rainwater prior to use 4.9
48 The effect of having cistern on the household member’s daily
activities
4.10
26 Expenditure on water of the household sample 4.11
26 Fees and water supply frequencies by water network 4.12
26 Number and prices of tankers purchased 4.13
50 The amount of money that is spent for uses of water from tankers 4.14
54 The year and cost of rehabilitation of cisterns 4.15
52 Effect of income on other parameters 4.16
53 The amount of money that has been spent for several uses of the
water that comes from cistern
4.17
58 cistern using in agricultural 4.18
52 The usage of the crops that have been irrigated by cisterns and
revenue from house hold agriculture
4.19
52 Cistern use for herding 4.20
52 The number and kind of animals raised by the household sample,
sufficiency and cost of cistern water for herding
4.21
57 Satisfaction with the taste, color, and smell of the water 4.22
57 Wastewater disposal of the household sample 4.23
59 Physical,chemical and microbiological characteristics of rain
water samples
4.24
24 Result of physical,chemical,microbiological analysis of mixed
water
4.25
66 Water contamination with Fecal Coliforms in Yatta Town 4.26
66 Water contamination with Total Coliforms in Yatta cisterns 4.27
48 Classification of water hardness 4.28
48 comparsion betwwen some physichmical charactrestic of RWH 4.29
75 Relation between satisfaction with color and a number of factors
in the questionnaire
4.30
74 Relation between satisfaction with smell and a number of factors
in the questionnaire
4.31
46 Affected of satisfaction with taste in many items 4.32
XII
4. Affected of satisfaction with doubt on water quality in many
items
4.33
64 Contamination of fecal and total coliform for case study 4.34
93 Range of typical run off factors 4.35
94 Monthly amount of rainfall for 2014-2015 in Yatta 4.36
95 Monthly Rainwater Supply 4.37
96 Rain fall collected in Yatta 4.38
97 Rainwater Needs to be Stored 4.39
98 Rainwater Needs to be Stored 4.40
XIII
List of Appendices :
Appendix A: Factors Affecting Harvested Rain Water Quality And
Quantity In Yatta Area ,Palestine
122
Appendix B: 126 العوامل الت تؤثر على جودة وكمة ماه الحصاد المائ ف بلدة طا ,فلسطن
Appendix C: Water quality results for rain water samples 136
Appendix D: Water quality results for mixed water samples 137
Appendix E : Rain water harvesting calculation sheets 139
Appendix F: Rain water harvesting calculation sheets 140
Appendix G: Yatta water tankers and Munciplity net work 141
Appendix H : Causes of Pollution 146
List of Abbreviations
°C Degrees Celsius
EC Electrical Conductivity
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GIS Geographical Information System
PWA Palestinian Water Authority
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
WHO World Health Organization
mg\l Milligram\Liter PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
RC Runoff Coefficient NTU NephelometricTurbidity Unit OFR On-Farm Reservoirs UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNICEF United Nations Children's Emergency Fund FC Fecal Coliforms TC Total Coliforms PSI Palestinian Standards Institutions TDS Total dissolved solids L/cd Liter/capita day RWCS Rainwater Cistern System RWH Rain Water Harvesting
XIV
ABSTRACT
Rainwater harvesting, henceforth RWH, is defined as the system for the collection
of water from a catchment area on which rain falls, and storage for later use
(Sustainable Earth Technologies, 1999). In arid and semi-arid regions, RWH has been
used for several years for many purposes especially in providing water for agricultural
and domestic use (Boers et al. 1986; Bruins et al. 1986; Reij et al. 1988; Critchley et
al. 1991; Abu-Awwad and Shatanawi 1997; van Wesemael et al. 1998; Oweis et al.
1999; Li et al. 2000; Li and Gong 2002; Ngigi et al. 2005).
In areas such as Palestine, where water resources are scarce, optimal resource
management becomes especially essential (Sazakli et al., 2007) For a more
sustainable approach, water strategies need to integrate non-conventional resources as
part of the national water balance to counter the decrease in reserves while at the same
time protect the environment. Rainwater harvesting should be considered an
important element to augment water supply to both urban and rural areas while also
preventing flooding and alleviating the impact of climate change (Eroksuz and
Rahman, 2010; Kim et al., 2005; RiverSides, 2009; van Room, 2007; Villarreal and
Dixon, 2005; and Zhu et al., 2004).
Yatta is the study area for this reserch, located 9 km south of Hebron City in the
West Bank. The town houses over 100,000 people, 49% of which are females; a
population which doubles every 15 years. Yatta has been connected to a water
network since 1974 serving nearly 85% of the households. The water network is old
and inadequate to meet the needs of the population. The water supply made available
to the area is also very limited, estimated to be around 20 l/c.d. Residents are thus
forced to rely on water vendors which supply water with a lower quality compared to
municipal water while being 400% more expensive. As a cheaper and more reliable
alternative, rainwater harvesting is a common practice in the area, with the majority of
the households owning at least one cistern. Rainwater harvesting is of great socio-
economic importance in areas where water sources are scarce or polluted.
In this research, the quality of harvested rainwater used for drinking and domestic
purposes in the Yatta area was assessed throughout a year long period. A total of 100
water samples; were collected from (50 rainfed cisterns) with an average capacity of
69 m3, adjacent to cement-roof catchment with an average area of 145 m
2.
XV
Samples were analyzed for a number of parameters including: pH, alkalinity,
hardness, turbidity, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), NO3, NH4, chloride and salinity.
Biological and microbiological contents such as Total Coliforms (TC) and Fecal
Coliforms (FC) bacteria were also analysied. Results showed that most of the
rainwater samples were within WHO and EPA guidelines set for chemical parameters
while revealing biological contamination.
The pH values of mixed water ranged from 6.9 to 8.74 with a mean value of 7.6.
collected Rainwater had lower pH values than mixed water ranging from 7.00 to 7.57
with a mean of 7.21.Rainwater also had lower average values of conductivity
(389.11 µScm-1
)compared to that of mixed water (463.74 µScm-1
) thus indicating
lower values of salinity (0.75%). The largest TDS value measured in rainwater was
316 mg/l with a mean of 199.86 mg /l.
As far as microbiological quality is concerned, TC and FC were detected in 99%, 52%
of collected rainwater samples, respectively, although they were found in low
concentrations. Principal component analysis revealed that microbiological
parameters were affected mainly by the cleanness level of catchment areas, while
chemical parameters were influenced by human activities.
The research also addressed the impact of different socio-economic attributes on
rainwater harvesting using information collected through a survey targeting a
statistically representative sample from the area.
Results indicated that the majority of home owners have the primary knowledge
necessary to collect and store water in cisterns. Most of the respondents clean both the
cisterns and the catchment areas. However, the research also arrives at a conclusion
that cleaning is not done in a proper manner. But no matter what the extent to which
these households attend to the cisterns, completely eliminating contamination is a near
to impossible task.
Results show that a cistern with an operating capacity of 69 m3 would provide
sufficient water to get through the dry summer months. However, the catchment area
must exceed 146 m2 to produce sufficient water to fill a cistern of this size in a year
receiving average precipitation.
XVI
الولخص
هي مبط رجويع هخزلفخ رخضيي ز الويب األهطبس ظبم لزجويع هيب أيعشف ظبم الذصبد الوبئي على
لالسزخذام الوسزمجلي يعذ ز الظبم شبئع في الوبطك الجبفخ شج الجبفخ عبدح هب رسزخذم ز الويب
.لالسزخذام الوضلي اغشاض الضساعخ
ش رعبي هي شخ الوصبدس الوبئيخ صيبدح في سجخ السكبى كبى ال ثذ هي اسزخذام اداسح في هبطبق كفلسطيي دي
الوصبدس الوزفشىخ هي اجل رلجيخ ادزيبجبد السكبيخ االسبسيخ ثبلزبلي فبى ظبم الذصبد الوبئي هي اشش
.االظوخ الوزفشح لزذميك رلك
كن جة الخليل لمذ رن رجويع هئخ عيخ هبئخ 9زي رمع في ز الذساسخ رن رميين جدح لويب في هطمخ يطب ال
ديش لوذح سخ (الجلذيخ الزكبدالوخزلطخ ) ويب بلث األهطبسثئش هخزلفيي همبس جدح هيب 15عيخ هي
خ االهالح الزائجخ سجخ عولذ فذصبد فيضيبئيخ )دسجخ الذوضخ دسجخ الذشاسح الزصيل الكشثبئي سج
لفذصبد الكيويبئيخ )سجخ المبعذيخ االهيب الزشاد الصالثخ (جشصهيخ )المليبد الكليخ (االعكسح
.الجشاصيخ
ضوي الذذد الوسوح ثب هي لجل هظوخ الصذخ العبلويخ الواصفبد كبذ زبئج الفذصبد الفيضيبئيخ
ديش اى 8 47.الى 9.6هي الوخزلطخ يبللو اليذسجيي الشلن لين رشادذ ديض .الومبييس الفلسطييخ
.الل هي ليوزب للويب الوخزلطخ األهطبسليوخ الشلن اليذسجيي لويب
.الفذصبد الكيويبئيخ كبذ زبئجب ضوي الذذد الوسوح ثب
.% على الزشريت 11% 99سجخ الزلس ثبلمليبد الكليخ الجشاصيخ كبذ
رضد االبلي ثكويخ كبفيخ هي 4م 69ثبس راد سع االاظشد الذسبثبد اى ألهطبساهي بديخ رمسسن كويخ
.لضوبى كويخ رجويع اكجش 1م 536الويب في فصل الصيف لكي هوي االفضل صيبدح هسبدخ الزجويع عي
1
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
1. Introduction
Safe potable water should be available to every human being, now and in the future
(David et al, 2010). Water is essential for life, the deterioration of its quality or its
shortage affects every living being. As the population of the world increases, demand
on water also significantly increases. Together with poor water quality and inadequate
sanitation, water scarcity threatens the lives of millions around the World(El-Fadel et
al. 2000). According to statistics issued in the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP),
663 million people still lack access to safe water (WHO and UNICEF., 2015).
Spearheaded by the United Nations, Governments have set an ambitious goal within
the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to achieve universal
and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all by 2030. To succeed
this challenging endeavor practitioners will have to tap into resources both
conventional and nonconventional. (United Nations Development Program
(UNDP,2000).
Figure 1.1: Millennium Development Goal for access of safe water and
sanitation(UNDP,2000).
In areas such as Palestine, where water resources are scarce, optimal resource
management becomes especially essential. (Sazakli et al., 2007), With the growing
demand namely as a result of the growing population and the consequent increasing
need for food supply, pressure on conventional resources also amplifies(Fletcher et
al., 2008; EEA, 2009). For a more sustainable approach, water strategies need to
integrate non-conventional resources as part of the national water balance to counter
2
the decrease in reserves while at the same time protect the environment. Rainwater
harvesting should be considered an important element to augment water supply to
both urban and rural areas while also preventing flooding and alleviating the impact
of climate change(Eroksuz and Rahman, 2010;Kim et al., 2005; RiverSides, 2009;
van Room, 2007; Villarreal and Dixon, 2005; and Zhu et al., 2004).
In arid and semi-arid environments, where there are no rivers, or lakes, rainfall is
considered one of the most important natural resources, RWH has become the
technique suitable to support water resources (Al-Salaymeh et al., 2011). Harvested
rainwater is collected in several forms over a certain period of the hydrological cycle,
which begins from the arrival of the rain on the roofs of buildings and land, or runoff
in the form of a stream. Rainwater harvesting aims to store and use this water in times
of drought or when the rain falls during a few months of the year. Its importance
increases in areas that lack or do not have any other sources such as surface water, or
groundwater becoming the most feasible way to ensure human, animal and plant life
(Sivanappan, 2006).
A study conducted by Domènech and Saurí (2011), demonstrated that 37 liter per
capita per day (l/c.d) can be saved for a single house through use RWH for both
garden and toilet (or laundry) purposes. It is difficult to achieve full financial return in
a short period of time from RWH thus homeowners rarely feel encouraged to install
RWH facilities. According to (Pandey et al., 2013), Experience documented by (Otti
and Ezenwaji.,2013), has shown that supplementary irrigation using RWH not only
has the potential to increase crop yield compared to rainfed agriculture but also to
increase groundwater availability downstream. As a result, the total value gains from
agriculture have risen. While noting that domestic roof-top harvesting has proven to
be much more efficient in humid tropics than that in semi arid zones with quantities
varying between seasons.
3
1.1. Study aim and objectives
The study aim is to determine the factors affecting harvested rain water quality and
quantity in Yatta area and the specific objectives are:
1-Investigate the impact of factors such as contact with a catchment surface, storage
in a rainwater cistern, and site environment on the quality of harvested rainwater.
2-Assess the quality of rainwater from RWH systems located in Yatta town and the
effect of RWH on water quality.
3-Determine degree of association between income of household and water quality
parameters.
4-Determine degree of association between doubts on quality of harvested rain water
on cisterns sanitation practices of household samples.
5- To specify the reason of RWH pollution if they, specify how to limit spread of
pollution any, and suggest measures to limit the pollution for rainwater harvested in
cisterns.
6- To verify if the available cisterns are sufficient for the quantity of rainwater
received(quantity assessment.
1.2. Study area
Geography
Yatta is a town in the Governorate of Hebron, located 9 km south of Hebron City, in
the southern part of the West Bank. It is bordered byArRiehiya, Al Fawwar Camp and
Wadi as Sada to the north, Zief and Khalet al Maiya to the east, As Sammu' to the
south, and Beit 'Amra to the West, as shown in (Figure 1.2).
4
Figure 1.2: The location of Yatta town (Abu Sadaah,2014)
Figure 1.3: Yatta location (Yatta Muncipility, 2015)
The town lies on a mountainous area at an elevation of 793 m above sea level, with a
mean rainfall of 370 mm, an average annual temperature of 18 °C, and average annual
humidity of 61% (The Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem, ARIJ.,2009).
The 270,000 dunumes are the total estimated area of Yatta town, of which 14,000
dunums are classified as 'built up' area; whilst 115,000 dunums are agricultural, and
141,000 dunums are forests, uncultivated, or public land. Yatta Municipality has a
master plan for 24,500 dunums of the town's land (The Applied Research Institute –
Jerusalem, ARIJ.,2009).
5
Population
The population of Yatta area in 2014 was estimated to be about 100,000 people, 51%
males and 49% females.(Yatta Municipality.,2014).
Using the population estimation equation and a growth rate of 4.5%, population of
Yatta doubles every 15 years, It is expected that 175,000 people will live in the town
in 2027(Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics., 2007).
Economic Activities
Data collected from Yatta Municipality indicated that Yatta's population is mainly
dependent on the Israeli labor market for its livelihood; nearly 75%. The second
sector is the employment in governmental and private sectors absorbing 8% of the
labor force(Yatta Municipality, 2014).
About 7% of the labor force work in the agriculture sector, while 8% are in the trade
and commercial sectors and a smaller percentage depends on the industrial sector
within the town.(Yatta Municipality, 2014).
Agricultural Sector
Yatta town lies on a total area of 270,000 dunums. 115,000 dunums are considered
arable land; however, only 37,578 dunums are cultivated leaving 77,422 dunums
uncultivated (Yatta Municipality., 2014).
Water services and Sewage Disposal Facilities in Yatta town
Yatta has been connected to a water network since 1974. serving nearly 85% of the
households. The water net work is old and inadequate to meet current population
needs.
To increaseing need for the storage capacity restoring and enhance water distribution
through the water net work there are four main water reservoirs with a total capacity
of 6,750 m3 and anotherin addition to two tanks in Yatta villages of 1,000 m3 of
capacity. Despite the annual maintenance of the water net –work,the major problems
are referred to water losses due to deficiencies in the network,reduction of pumped
water from the (source), un-even distribution within the network which does not
satisfy the population's needs.
6
About Sewage Disposal Facilities: There is no sewage network in Yatta town. All
households must therefore dispose of their wastewater in cesspits. This is considered
one of the main sources of pollution to the groundwater rather the waste water is
collected in cesspits.
Figure 1.4: Yatta water tankers and net work distribution (Yatta Munciplity, 2014)
Water Reservoirs in Yatta
Five water reservoirs have been constructed in Yata as follows : (Yatta Munciplity,
2014).
Alkaraj reservoir: Constructed in the sixties in the center of the town. It is an
elevated square tank with a 250 m3 size and an elevation of 12 m above the
ground and 846 m above sea level. According to Yatta municiplity the reservoir
needs to be demolished hence the opportunity to replace it with a 500 m3
reservoir. As it maintains a strategic location at the center of the town, the current
reservoir is used only during emergencies especially to fill water distribution tanks
in the summer.
Al_Aros reservoir: An elevated square reservoir built in 1992 with a 500_m3
capacity a height of 20 m from the ground at an elevation of 856 m above sea
level.
Mutref reservoir: On ground circular concrete reservoir, with 2,000 m3 rises
845m above sea level, built in 2005.
Ihreez reservoir: On ground circular concrete reservoir,with a 4,000 m3 capacity,
standing at an elevation of 840 m above sea level, built in 2011.
Yatta Stadium reservoir: Built under the stadium seats with a 1,300 m3 capacity,
built in 2002 to provide the water needed for the irrigation of the stadium (play
yard) and later on when it is furnished with grass but it is not connected to
municipal water network. It is currently used for the storage of rain water to be
7
used for the implementation of the Municipality's projects. Sometimes it is filled
with water (municipal water) to be distributed later on to schools and institutions
by distribution tanks.
Water Resources
Yatta Municipality receives 29,220 m3 per week during the winter while the amount is
halved during the summer. The main water sources for Yatta town include:
1. Mekerot main line: 8 inch water pipe originating from (Tuqqou) groundwater well,
with a discharge of 50 m3/hr which decreases to the half in the summer(Yatta
Munciplity (Yatta Municipality, 2014).
2. Bani Naim groundwater wells: three wells located in Massafer Bani Naim with a
total production of 5,000 m3/day. The wells supply water to Yatta, Hebron and Bani
Naim. The quantity of water supplied to Yatta is around 1,000 m3/day(Yatta
Municipality, 2014).
3. Dura Reservoir: (Abo Alashoshy): Supplies Yatta (through a 20 inch pipeline)
with 3,500 m3/day (Yatta Municipality, 2014).
4. Rehya groundwater well : with a production capacity of 48 m3/hr, supplied to Al
Rehya and Beit Emra (part of Yatta town) (Yatta Municipality, 2014).
The Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) and the West Bank Water Department
(WBWD) are the Palestinian institutions that are responsible for managing the
resources.
8
Figure 1.5: The distribution of water resources in Yata town (Yatta Municipality,
2014)
Municipal Water NetWork (MWN)
About 25-30% of the town's neighborhoods are not connected to the municipal water
network which creates a large demand on (water distribution tanks). The tanks provide
water with a lower quality than that of municipal water while costs reach up to 400% of
the price of municipal water. As a result people tend to depend on RWH cisterns,
usually polluted by wastewater seeping from cesspits(Yatta Municipality, 2014).The
municipal water network in Yatta town was constructed in the seventies, later expanded
in 1995 to a total length of 160 km. It was designed in a circular configuration making it
difficult to manage water distribution by the employees.
The problems of the municipal water n supply in Yatta are summarized as follow :
A. Insufficient water quantities from the sources estimated to be around 20l/c/d.
B. Lack of water during the summer, to cope the town is divided into 30 distribution
areas. Municipal water is often cutoff for a period of six months, so people are
forced to buy water from water distribution tanks.
C. Water pollution: the residents depend on underground rainwater harvesting wells
(around 85% of the town has a RWH system). Due to the presence of
cesspits/septic tanks for each house the majority of these wells are polluted.
D. The municipal water network is incapable of supplying the whole population with
water,the municipal water net work does not serve 40% of the town area.
9
E. Deterioration of the water network due to the prolonged operational life and
exposure to rust because of being empty for an extended period.
F. High losses in the internal pipes.
G. High losses in the main pipes.
H. The Municipality's water distribution tanks are insufficient to meet the demand of
the populations and the institutions, especially in the summer. Residents thus
resort to purchasing drinking water from private water tanks at high prices.
Water Quantities and Losses
In addition to the fact that the water quantities received from the resources are limited
there is a high percentage of loss estimated to reach 32% of the supply(Yatta
Municipality, 2014). This is caused by:
1- Broken or malfunctioning mains outside the town's borders managed by the
West Bank Water Department of(WDWB).
2- Water theft from the main pipes by people whom those pipes pass through
their lands..
3- Loss from the main pipelines coming in from Bani Naim
4- Technical problems in the main pipelines
5- Lack of leak detection tools.
6- Lack of knowledge and public awareness on the importance of water and
public property.
7- Deterioration of the municipal water network and lack of regular maintenance
to decrease losses
The Main Obstacles Facing Yatta Area are :
Reduction in water supply due to limited resource of water
Insufficiency of the water network in meeting demand, because it is old and
not function.
The water is polluted,
water losses through the phenomenon of stealing
11
CHAPTER TWO
2. Litreture Review
2.1. Basic concept of rain water harvesting
Rainwater harvesting, henceforth RWH, is defined as the system for the collection of
water from a catchment area on which rain falls, and storage for later use (Sustainable
Earth Technologies, 1999). In arid and semi-arid regions, RWH has been used for
several years for many purposes especially in providing water for agricultural and
domestic use (Boers et al. 1986; Bruins et al. 1986; Reij et al. 1988; Critchley et al.
1991; Abu-Awwad and Shatanawi 1997; van Wesemael et al. 1998; Oweis et al.
1999; Li et al. 2000; Li and Gong 2002; Ngigi et al. 2005).
As known to us today, Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) is the act of collecting and
storing rainwater to be used for a wide range of purposes mainly domestic and
agriculture. Most probably developed around 4500 BC (Li et al,2000), mankind has
resorted to RWH namely for domestic use with evidence found in the Middle East
dating back to 3000 BC (Barron et al. 2009). Throughout history, the substantial
developments have been witnessed in the techniques applied in RWH.
In Western Europe, America, and Australia, rainwater is the primary water source for
drinking water. In all three continents, it is considered an important water source for
countryside and villages and farms. Recently, high scarcity and competition between
different sectors for water in arid and semi-arid regions, along with groundwater
depletion and problems facing major surface water control systems, have raised the
need for restoring water harvesting systems.
RWH is a practice very well known in large rural areas around the World including
Honduras, Brazil and Paraguay (United Nations Environment Programme, 1997) and
on a much smaller scale such as in Thailand where rainwater is collected off of roofs
and gutters (Prempridi and Chatuthasry, 1982).
Large RWH facilities existed 4,000 years ago in Greece and Palestine (Evenari et al.
1971; Critchley et al. 1991). In Palestine RWH is the capture, diversion and storage of
rainwater for a number of different purposes including landscape irrigation, drinking
and domestic use, aquifer recharge. RWH is a Palestinian-honored tradition,
especially in the Palestinian countryside, where collection cisterns can be found in
most homes, regardless of being served or not by a water network. Either as the only
11
source of water for unserved communities (MWI, 2009) or supplementing supply
through the network (Radaideh, et. al., 2009), RWH has proven to be an important
source of water for both domestic and agricultural purposes.
RWH commonly uses systems that are constructed of three principal components;
namely, the catchment area, the collection unit, and the conveyance system.
The scope of RWH, methods, technologies, system design complexity, aim and end
users vary from small scale using barrels for garden irrigation in rural areas to large
scale in urban and semi urban regions for domestic and other purposes. The roof of a
building or house is the obvious first choice catchment area (Daoud et al. 2011).
2.2. Types of rain water harvesting systems:
Roof Catchment System: the quality of the harvested water depends on the type
of roof material, the surrounding environment, climatic conditions and the storage
time of harvested water (Vasudevan 2002; WHO 2004). Concrete surfaces are
considered to be the best because it can easily collect water and keep it clean,
cement doesn't react with water so the characteristics of water don’t change
(Radaideh, et al, 2009).
The use of a gutter is one of the most the efficient ways to transfer water from the
catchment area to the storage site location. Many types of gutters are available,
according to the size and quality of materials. Tin gutters are usually used in
Palestine due to the high cost of other metal gutters and the potential to interact
with water. The amount of rain and the surface area are the most important factors
in determining the diameter of the gutter which allows the easy flow of surface
water (Nzewi et al., 2010).
Ground Catchment Systems: RWH using ground or land surface catchment areas
compared to rooftop catchment techniques provides more opportunity for
collecting water from a larger surface area. This method can meet water demand
during dry periods as it retains the flows of creeks and streams in small reservoirs.
Water losses may be relatively high due to the infiltration of water into the
ground, especially due to quality concerns this method is most preferably proper
for agricultural purposes (Nzewi et al., 2010).
12
Ground Water Recharge: Runoff on the ground is collected and allowed to
beabsorbed into the ground water (Nzewi et al., 2010).
2.3. Benefits of rainwater harvesting
RWH is a well-known practice as it does not require sophisticated skills to construct
and maintain neither is it costly to operate. If managed well, RWH can be a reliable
source of safe water for a wide range of purposes(Orgill, 2010). For example, rainfed
agriculture is applied on 80% of the world’s agricultural land area and generates about
65 – 70% o The analysis was done for four categories f the world’s staple food
(UNEP, 2009).
Another study in India about the benefits of RWH shows that it provides an
innovative solution to meeting water needs within a context of water scarcity because
it can be implemented quickly and modularly. Water is supplied directly to the
household and relieves women and children from the burden of carrying water for
kilometers from the nearest clean water source. RWH has a number of advantages
serving as a reliable source for households to manage on their own and supplementing
limited water resources that are under the risk of irreversible depletion. However,
capital costs required for RWH are usually high and unaffordable especially by the
less privileged. Water quality is also more difficult to control and monitor(Goyal and
Bhushan, 2015).
Other studies about rain-water harvesting in developing countries summarized
benefits to RWH including:
Reduces demand on underground and surface water Avoids many surface-water
pollutants (Texas Water Development Board,
1997)
Cost effective: reduces running costs and decreases water invoices.
Locals can easily use RWH systems when trained to build, implement, control and
monitor.
It is a decentralized system and independent of topography and geology. Does not
depend on terrain, geology, or infrastructure management schemes (United
Nations Environmental Program, 1997).
13
Water can be transmitted directly or nearer to the household, relieving women and
children from the load of carrying it, saving energy and time (International
Rainwater Catchment Systems Association, 2004).
It can be used for agricultural and domestic purposes.
It can be used for recharging groundwater (Charles, 2010).
2.4. Literature review on RWH
Extensive research has been done to assess the socio-economic impact of RWH.
Results of some of these studies are summarized below.
In the research made in India about RWH and the impact on economy and ecology,
the researcher also tried to evaluate the socio-economic impact. RWH was found to be
the best option to solve the water scarcity problem. Unfortunately, it was often
ignored by planners, engineers and builders due to shortage of information. Nearly 25
- 35% of total rainwater is lost in the form of surface run-off and causes flooding in
downstream areas and soil erosion. Using RWH is not only an important source for
agricultural and domestic purposes but it can also be vital for the environment by
reducing soil corrosion. Cisterns, surface tanks, underground tanks are boreholes are
some of the commonly used traditional methods in dry areas (Goyal and Buhsan,
2015).
RWH also resolves many social issues and enhances people's capacities to assess the
situation and examine possibilities for addressing drought more constructively and
organize themselves into groups to tackle the problem collectively. It also removes
people a from dependency frame of mind, often created by government systems. It
reduces the risk of disaster by building the capacity and also enhances the livelihood
security (Goyal and Bhushan, 2015).
RWH also has several economic impacts including: willingness to pay, extent of
informal RWH, seasonal changes in water costs, cost of design of RWH system,
health effects of water borne diseases etc. Environmentally it also improves forest
covers, agriculture, ecology and animal husbandry (Goyal and Bhushan, 2015).
I In other studies on socio-economic acceptance of rooftop RWH – A case study in
India on the awareness of people about rooftop RWH systems, attitudes towards them
and their acceptance. The results indicate that rooftop RWH is acceptable to the
14
people but the government needs to provide support and improve implementation
plans (Barthwal et al, 2013). The questionnaire found that a large proportion of the
sample knew the importance of RWH and wanted to have RWH systems for their
households. When closely checked the results show that other factors play a decisive
role in deciding whether to implement a RWH system at the household level or not
like: income, awareness, perceived, convenience in installing RWH systems in
households, and the gap between operational implementation and policies and
government incentives/subsidies. It was concluded that there's a need for an action
plan to make sure that the RWH systems are installed according to the households
characteristics (He et al. 2007).
An incentivemechanismneeds to be framed according to thecharacteristics of the
locality. Incentives can be in the form of subsidizing the cost of RWH system to
households. Awareness of such benefits arising from RWH implementation will
spread and will lead to more people opting for RWH (Barthwal et al, 2013).
In a study conducted in Sydney about the Reliability and Cost Analysis of a
Rainwater Harvesting System in Peri-Urban Regions of Greater Sydney, Australia the
researcher recorded rain fall in ten different locations using different tank volumes (1
kL, 5 kL, 20 kL), with diverse catchment areas (roof top with surface area 200 m2,
lawn 150 m2
and impervious area 100 m2). The study results showed that using 5 kL
can meet 99% of the demand for laundry and toilet with cost benefit ratio ranging
from 0.86 to 0.97 among the eight possible tank sizes examined in this study. The
differences in reliability across different locations reduce as the tank size increases
and a rainwater tank of 5 kL size can meet the demand for toilet and laundry use with
a reliability greater than 96% at all the ten locations (Hajani and Rahman, 2014).
15
2.5. Rainwater Harvesting in Palestine
A rainwater cistern system (RWCS) collects direct runoff of rainwater from roofs or
other surfaces and conveys it to some form of storage from which it can be drawn for
use when needed.
Traditional and modern rainwater systems are found all over the world, in locations
where available groundwater sources are inadequate to meet need and demand. In
most instances, rainwater systems serve individual dwellings.
In Palestine RWCS have been in use for hundreds of years, especially in communities
suffering from inadequate water sources and/or lack of water distribution networks. In
many rural communities in the West Bank, collecting rainwater is the only reliable
method for obtaining drinking water (Palestinian Water Authority, 2003)
System Components: (Palestinian Water Authority, 2003)
The RWCS consists of the following components (see Figure 2.1):
(i) Catchment: Material of catchment areas off of which rainwater is harvested for
domestic purposes should not introduce particles potentially hazardous to human
health such as asphalt or asbestos into the water. Similar restrictions for catchment
areas of agricultural cisterns do not exist while implications on crops irrigated with
the water and ultimately on human health are not very well known.
(ii) Conveyance: Gutters, downspouts and pipes convey roof runoff to the storage
Cistern (cistern).
Gutters should be sloped at least 0.5%. They should be suspended from hangers no
more than 90cm apart. Aluminum or galvanized metal is recommended because of
their sturdiness, although inexpensive plastic gutters may serve beneath small roof
areas.
The downspout should be sized to provide at least 0.7 square centimeter per one
square meter of the catchment area. One downspout should be provided each 15 m of
gutter run. If there are tall trees near the roof, the gutter should be covered with 13
mm hardware cloth. Simple wire baskets should be placed in each downspout;
opening to keep leaves and twigs out of the runoff. The pipe leading to the cistern
should be at least 100 mm in diameter. It should have a minimum slope of 2%. Sharp
16
pipe ends should be avoided, and clean outs should be incorporated where horizontal
runs exceed 30 m.
Figure 2.1: Components of the Rainwater Harvesting System (Palestinian Water
Authority,2003)
(iii) Purification:
No matter how often catchment surfaces are cleaned dust, leaves and bird droppings
usually accumulate during harvesting. Measures need to be taken to prevent dirt
accumulated on catchment areas from being introduced into the cistern. In addition,
water diverts which discard the first flush, settlement chambers or sand filters can also
be introduced at the inlet to strain the water before drained into the cistern. Other
options should also be installed to treat the water from any biological/chemical
contamination.
(iv) Storage: The cistern can be nearly any size and of material. Estimation of the
optimum size is detailed in the proceeding section. Concrete cisterns are the most
common types of cisterns
(v) Distribution: Except on steeply sloping sites, a pressurized system is needed to
distribute the water from the cistern. A small 1/3 to 1/2 horsepower pump, coupled
with a pressure cistern, usually suffices.
17
2.6. Water Quality Parameters
To assess the quality of RWH a number of studies have been conducted in this field,
(Al-Salaymeh et al., 2011).assessed the quality of rainwater harvesting in the West
Bank-Hebron area by taking 100 samples, test and compare to WHO standards. Tests
measured physicochemical and biological characteristics of the water. Results show
biological contamination in about 95% of the samples with Total Coliforms Bacteria
and 57% of the samples have Fecal Coliforms. Nearly all the samples are within range
recommended by WHO in terms of physicochemical parameters (Al-Salaymeh et al.,
2011).
In other studies, researchers assess the quality of roof harvested rainwater in the West
Bank and found physicochemical and biological contamination in most of the
samples. Most of the samples were contaminated with Total Coliforms, while 67%
were contaminated with Fecal Coliforms and heterotrophic bacteria (Daoudet al.,
2011).
In a paper titled: "Roof selection for rainwater harvesting: Quantity and quality
assessments in Spain" the researcher tried to assess the criteria used for the selection
of roofs to improve the quality and availability of RWH. Four different roof types
have been used for this study. Throughout two years, three sloping roofs (metal sheet,
clay tiles and polycarbonate plastic) have been selected in addition to one flat gravel
roofing in order to assess physical and chemical roof runoff quality. Wide variations
in the RC were discovered, depending mostly on the roughness and the slope of the
roof. Sloping smooth roofs (RC > 0.90) may harvest up to about 50% more rainwater
than flat rough roofs (RC ¼ 0.62). Physical and chemical quality of the runoff was
generally better than the average quality found in the literature review (total
suspended solids (TSS): 5.98 0.95 mg/L, conductivity: 85.0 ± 10.0 mS/cm.
Statistically significant differences were found between sloping and flat rough roofs
for some parameters (total organic carbon, conductivity, ammonium and total
carbonates). The results played an important role for urban planners and government
to redesign buildings to integrate sustainable rainwater management (Farreny et al,
2011).
Other studies have assessed the quality of RWH compared to different types of roof
material including clay tiles, concrete tiles, wooden shingle tiles, galvanized steel.
18
Results showed that galvanized steel was found to be the most suitable for RWH
applications. Results of the galvanized steel case met Korean guidelines for drinking
water quality physical and chemical parameters (TSS<500 mg/L,pH (5.8-8.5), NO3 <
10 mg/L, Al < 0.2 mg/L,SO4-2
< 200 mg/L, Cu < 1 mg/L, Fe < 0.3 mg/L, Zn < 1 mg/L,
Pb< 0.05 mg/L, and there is no E. coli found probably due to ultraviolet light and
high. However, the physical, chemical and microbiological quality of rainwater may
be adversely affected due to the presence of lichens and mosses (Lee et al, 2011),
In other studies on the effect of roofing material on the quality of RWH many types of
chemical contaminants have been found including heavy metals (Forster, 1999; Lee et
al., 2010), pesticides (Zobrist et al., 2000), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
(Forster, 1998, 1999), and herbicides (Bucheli et al., 1998). Pathogenic bacteria and
fecal indicator bacteria was also present in runoff as well as protozoa (Ahmed et al.,
2008). The type of roofing material used for the catchment can affect the quality of
harvested rainwater. Nicholson et. al (2009) compared harvested rainwater quality
between six roof types: galvanized metal, cedar shake, shingle, two kinds of treated
wood, green and asphalt). The galvanized metal, asphalt shingle, and green roofs
neutralized the acidic rainwater more than other roofing materials. Low
concentrations of bacterial indicator were found in the cases of galvanized and metal
rooftops. Cool roofs and concrete tiled roofs collected rainwater similar in quality to
that from the metal roofs implying that these roofing materials are good for rainwater
harvesting applications. Although green roofs produced water quality similar to other
roofing materials results show very high carbon concentrations compared to drinking
water in the United States. This may generate a high concentration of disinfection
byproducts after chlorination. Traces of arsenic were also found in water collected off
of green roofs. Therefore, water quality should be carefully examined if the RWH is
being considered for domestic use. When designing the catchment area for RWH the
roof type material should be considered (Mendez et al, 2010).
In a study conducted in Kefalonia island titled "Rainwater harvesting, quality
assessment and utilization in Kefalonia Island, Greece" the researcher referred the
problem of water scarcity to be strongly connected to the problem of water quality.
Industrialization, human activities, and urban development decrease the quality of
water and, in some cases make it non-potable (Sazakli et al, 2007).
19
Throughout three years of monitoring, twelve seasonal samplings, 144 mixed water
samples and 156 rainwater samples were collected from cisterns and cement
catchment areas in order to assess the quality of RWH in the northern area of
Kefalonia Island in SW Greece (Sazakli et al, 2007).
The physical, chemical and pathogenic parameters were tested in order to determine
water quality including anions and cations as well as the metals (Fe,,Cd, Mn, Pb, Cr,
Cu, Zn and Ni), (Sazakli et al, 2007).
The study showed that the microbiological and chemical parameters fluctuate on a
seasonal basis. Microbiological parameters are affected by cleaning practices of the
catchment area, contamination by feces of bird and other animals while chemical
parameters are affected by human activities, agricultural usage of fertilizers, traffic
emission and industrial pollution (Sazakli et al, 2007).
As in the conclusions of these studies earlier studies have reported that rainwater
stored in tanks was of acceptable quality (Dillaha and Zolan, 1985). However, in more
recent studies, either chemical or microbiological contaminants have been found in
the collected rainwater, often in levels above international or national guidelines set
for safe drinking water (Simmons et al., 2001; Chang et al., 2004; Zhu et al., 2004).
What is clear is that the quality of the RWH depends on the characteristics of the
individual areas such as weather conditions, topography, closeness to pollution
sources (Va´squez et al., 2003),the kind of the catchment area (Chang et al., 2004;
Zhu et al., 2004), the type of storage facility (Dillaha and Zolan, 1985; Evison and
Sunna, 2001) and the management and handling of the water (Pinfold et al., 1993;
Evison and Sunna, 2001).
2.7. Water sources
Sources of drinking water in the world differ from one place to another. In Palestine
three sources are used to collect drinking water including:
1. Groundwater – groundwater forms due to filling the space between soil and rocks
with water making an aquifer. Most of the drinking water in the world originates from
groundwater resources (Abu Sadah, 2014).
21
2. Surface water –surface water comes from lakes, ponds, springs, rivers and others.
This water cannot be used before treatment especially for drinking purposes (Abu
Sadah, 2014).
3. Rainwater – defined as the system for collection of water from catchment area on
which rain falls, then storage of this water for later use (Sustainable Earth
Technologies, 1999).
Rainwater is clean from impurities other than those picked up by rain from the
atmosphere. The quality of rainwater may deteriorate during harvesting, collection,
storage and domestic use. Dirty wind, fecal droppings from birds and animals, leaves
and insects on the catchment areas can be sources of contamination of RWH, causing
health risks from consuming contaminated water from storage tanks. However, these
problems can be minimized with a good design of RWH systems and practices. Clean
catchment areas followed by good hygiene practices for storing water in clean tanks
and cisterns can offer drinking water with low health risk (WHO, 2004).
Three parameters are used to assess water quality according to the World Health
Organization (WHO):
1) Physical – temperature, color, smell, taste and turbidity
2) Chemical – minerals, metals and chemicals
3) Microbiological – bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and worms
Safe drinking water should have the following microbiological, chemical and physical
qualities: (WHO, 2004).
no pathogens
concentrations of toxic chemicals according to guidelines set by WHO or
EPA
clear free from impurities
colorless and tasteless (for aesthetic purposes)
The main parameter that must be considered when examining the quality of water is
pathogenic contamination as it is responsible for health risks (WHO, 2004).
21
2.8. Physical parameters
The physical parameters of water can be determined by senses of sight, touch, taste
and smell such as turbidity and suspended solids by detecting color caused by floating
impurity (Cretu, et al., 2015).
WHO Guidelines for Physical Parameters
Table 2.1 shows the WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality for physical
parameters (WHO, 2004).
Table 2.1: WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality: Physical (WHO, 2004).
WHO Guideline Parameter
Aesthetic value of < 15 True Color Units
(TCU)
Color
Aesthetic only, no health based value is
proposed
Odor
Aesthetic only, no health based value is
proposed
Temperature
>5 NTU Turbidity
1. Temperature
The e temperature of water can considerably contribute to changing some of the
important properties and characteristics of water: thermal capacity, density, specific
weight, viscosity, surface tension, specific conductivity, etc. Chemical and biological
reaction rates increase with high temperature. Reaction rates are usually assumed to
double for an increase in temperature of 10 °C. The temperature of water in streams
and rivers throughout the world varies from 0 to 35 °C (WHO, 2004).
2. Color
Color in water is primarily a concern of water quality for aesthetic reason. Colored
water seems unsuitable for dinking or even washing purposes, although it may be safe
to use it. Color presence in water is an indication for organic substances being there as
algae or humic compounds. More recently, color has been used as a quantitative
assessment of the presence of potentially hazardous or toxic organic materials in
water
22
3. Taste and Odors
Taste and odor are good indicators of water quality. Human perception of taste
includes sour (hydrochloric acid), salty (sodium chloride), sweet (sucrose) and bitter
(caffeine). Organic compounds usually produce sweet or bitter tastes, while simple
compounds have sour or salty tastes (WHO,2004).
4. Turbidity
Turbidity in drinking water comes from particulate matter that may be present in
source water because of bad filtration or from suspension of sediment in the
distribution system or reservoirs. It may also be due to the presence of inorganic
particulate matter in some ground waters or sloughing of biofilm within the
distribution system. A turbidity of less than 5 NTU in water is usually acceptable to
consumers, although this may vary with local circumstances. Particulates can protect
microorganisms from the effects of disinfection and can stimulate bacterial growth. In
all cases where water is disinfected, the turbidity must be low (less than 5 NTU) so
that disinfection can be effective. Turbidity is also an important operational indicator
in process control and can indicate problems with treatment processes, particularly
coagulation/sedimentation and filtration. As the rainwater meets the ground surface
and moves from catchment area into storage facility, a significant variation in the
water turbidity is expected to take place (Awadallah et al, 2011).
2.9. Chemical parameters
The chemical composition of water highly affects its quality, because some chemical
constituents of water could cause serious health issues specially with repeated
exposure. Table 1.1 illustrates water quality standards (Palestinian, EPA and WHO)
for human consumption (Al-Salaymeh et al., 2011).
There are few chemical constituents of water that can lead to health problems
resulting from a single time exposure, except through massive accidental
contamination of drinking water supply. Moreover, experience shows that in many,
but not all, incidents, the water becomes undrinkable owing to unacceptable taste,
odor and appearance (WHO, 2004).
23
Table 2.2: Source of chemicals in water, (WHO, 2004)
Source of chemical constituents Examples of sources
Naturally occurring Rocks, soils and the effects of the
geological setting and climate
Industrial sources and human
dwellings
Mining (extractive industries)
and manufacturing and
processing industries, sewage,
solid wastes, urban runoff,
fuel leakages
Agricultural activities Manures, fertilizers, intensive animal
practices and pesticides
Water treatment or materials in
contact with drinking-water
Coagulants, DBPs, piping materials
Pesticides used in water for public
health
Larvicides used in the control of
insect vectors of disease
Cyanobacteria Eutrophic lakes
1) pH
Although pH does not have any direct impact on human health, it is an important
operational water quality parameter. It is necessary to control pH at all stages of water
treatment to ensue complete clarification and disinfection. It is important to know the
pH since more alkaline water demands a longer contact time or a higher chlorine dose
at the end of contact time to have suitable disinfection(0.4-0.5 mg/liter at pH 6-8,
raising to 0.6mg/liter at pH 8-9: chlorination may be ineffective at pH above 9). The
optimum pH will vary in different supplies according to the water composition and
the construction materials used in the supply/storage systems, but it is usually 6.5-8.
pH is normally affected by the catchment area and type of storage facility. (Awadallah
et al, 2011).
2) Hardness
Hardness is a parameter used to measure the amount of calcium and magnesium
dissolved in a water sample otherwise documented as the equivalent of calcium
carbonate. According to WHO, water with a hardness above 120 mg/l is classified
as Hard which can generally lead to scale deposition and an increase in soap
consumption. Soft water (i.e. hardness less than 60 mg/l), such as rainwater may
be more corrosive to pipes depending of course on other factors such as alkalinity
and pH.
24
3) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is a parameter which measures the amount of
total substances dissolved in a water sample. A high TDS value is usually used as
an indicator which signals the presence of potentially alarming factors such as
high hardness, chemical deposits, etc. thus necessitating the measurement of other
parameters. WHO has defined a TDS threshold of 600 mg/l for good drinking
water. TDS values exceeding 1000 mg/l can only be used for the irrigation of
selected crop types. TDS can also be measured using another indicator known as
Electrical Conductivity (EC) which is twice as much in value. TDS values of
harvested rainwater are affected by the surrounding conditions of the catchment
area and storage facility (Awadallah et al, 2011).
4) Alkalinity
Alkalinity measures the capacity of water to neutralize acids and is reciprocal
factor of pH. Total alkalinity is determined by the amount of acid needed to bring
the sample to a pH value of 4.2 and is measured in milligrams per liter of calcium
carbonate (mg/l CaCO3) (EPA, 2006).
5) Chloride
Chloride in water resources originate from a number of sources both natural and
manmade including sewage and industrial effluents. WHO recommends that
chloride concentrations do not exceed 250 mg/l above which undesirable tastes
are imparted. Depending on the alkalinity of water, high chloride concentrations
can have a corrosive impact on water pipes and tanks (WHO, 2004).
6) Ammonia
Ammonia is found in water resources as a result of metabolic, agricultural and
industrial processes as is usually an indicator of possible bacterial, sewage and animal
waste pollution. Ammonia has been found to have no immediate health relevance,
thus WHO has not defined a health-based guideline value (WHO, 2004).
25
2.10. Microbiological Aspects
Not all microorganisms found in water samples have a potential health impact on
consumers(WHO, 2004). Impact of some may be limited to aesthetic implications
causing increased turbidity and foul odor while others may have fatal consequences.
1) Bactria
Total Coliforms Bacteria:
The presence and concentration of Total Coliforms Bacteria can be used as an
indicator to test treatment effectiveness and assess distribution systems conveying
water to consumers. This group includes both fecal and environmental species, high
values are used as a signal to inform the reader of potentially hazardous bacteria
(WHO, 2004).
Fecal Coliforms Bacteria:
Fecal Coliforms are generally found in the feces of warm blooded animals and are
thus a more accurate indicator than Total Coliforms. Escherichia coli (E. coli), the
major species in Fecal Coliforms, is present in very high numbers in human and
animal (both mammals and birds). In general, E. coli does not grow and reproduce in
the environment and is thus considered the best indicator of fecal pollution and the
possible presence of pathogens. (Rivera et al. 1988, Hunter, 2003).
2) Viruses
Viruses are organisms, smaller than bacteria in size, that can have severe health
implications on humans and plants. Viruses need a host to be able to grow and
multiply. Little is known about viruses due to the difficulty in isolating the organisms
for testing (WHO, 2004).
3) Protozoa Protozoa are eukaryotic organisms (with a membrane-bound nucleus) which exist as
structurally and functionally independent individual cells.protozoa have developed
relatively complex subcellular features (membranes & organelles) which enable them
to survive the rigours of their environments. Most protozoa are microscopic
organisms, only a few grow to a size large enough to be visible to the naked eye. As
unicellular eukaryotes, protozoa display all the same essential life activities as higher
26
metazoan eukaryotes: they move about to survive, feed and breed. Four main groups
of protozoa are recognized on the basis of their locomotion using specialized
subcellular and cytoskeletal features Amoebae Flagellates use elongate flagella
Ciliates use numerous small cilia Sporozoa (‘spore-formers’) were originally
recognized not on the basis of their locomotion, but because they all formed non-
motile spores as transmission stages become active once the environmental conditions
become more favorable. When they invade a human they are able to multiply easily,
which causes them to be at a great advantage and puts humans at a disadvantage. This
helps them survive in the human body and causes a serious infection even with the
arrival of a single protozoon
1. Amoebiasis This disease is caused by the sarcodina group of protozoa. They secrete
enzymes that are then absorbed by the tissue of the host. Amoebiasis is transmitted
through contact with infected feces. 2. Malaria Malaria is a very common disease in
some countries and is spread through mosquito bites of mosquitoes that have been
infected by one of the many different malaria-causing parasites. In the United States,
there are more than 1300 cases of malaria reported. This is mainly reported by
individuals travelling to or coming from the South Asian subcontinent or the sub-
Saharan Africa who may be carrying the parasite. Malaria symptoms include
headache, chills, tremors, aches and shaking (WHO, 2004).
4) Helminthes
Helminthes, more commonly known as worms or flukes, require a host body to
survive and are generally passed in human and animal feces. Both helminthes and
protozoa are considered to be parasites. They spend part of their life in hosts that live
in water before being transmitted to humans. Many types of worms can live for
several years and weaken their host by using up their food. (WHO, 2004).
Common types of helminthes that cause illness in developing countries include round
worms, pin worms, hook worms and guinea worms. WHO estimates that 133 million
people suffer from intestinal worms each year. These infections can lead to severe
consequences such as cognitive impairment, severe dysentery or anemia, and cause
approximately 9,400deaths every year (WHO, 2004)
27
CHAPTER THREE
3. Methodology
This chapter deals with the methodology followed to determine the data collection
procedures especially in terms of sources from the field. The aim of this study is to
assess the socio-economic impact and quality of harvested rainwater in Yatta town.
This chapter discusses the scope of research, location of the study area, study sample,
research strategy, and statistical tools used.
3.1. Methodologies
1. Detailed literature review
A general and detailed literature review was conducted to look into existing practices
and potential rainwater harvesting in the West Bank and in other regions in the world.
2. Household survey
A set of indicators was designed to define the main socio-economic characteristics of
the community and look into different water aspects.
The survey included six communities within a predetermined sub-watershed selected
based on topographical factors, with a sample size designed using PCBS population
projections of 2014. The survey methodology was based on a quantitative approach
involving structured interviews. A total of 502 questionnaires were completed.
Sample Design
The equation I used to estimated the sample size was as follows:
………………………………… (1)
Where:
Z = Z value (e.g. 1.96 for 95% confidence level)
p = percentage picking a choice/standard deviation, expressed as decimal
(.5 used for sample size needed)
c = confidence interval/margin of error, expressed as decimal
(e.g.,.05 = ±5)
28
Correction for Finite Population
ss=Ss/(1+((ss-1))/pop) ………. (2)
Where: pop = population
According to the equation we needed about 270 questionnaires with a 2.4%
representation. This could be considered as the minimum. We then decided to
consider increasing the percentage to 3 - 5% for higher representation. Finally we
selected the 5% representation and achieved an 89% response rate. Table 3.1
Table 3.1: Sample Design
Community PCBS
code
Population
2014
Sample size
(Population)
Sample size
(Household
Questionnaire)
3% 4% 5%
Al Heila 502935 1582 309 55 69 92 115
Om Ashoqhan 503111 367 188 34 42 56 70
Kheroshewesh
Wal
Hadedeyah
503116 470 212 38 47 63 79
Om Al Amad
(Sahel Wadi
Elma)
503117 188 126 23 28 38 47
Khallet Salih 503225 1354 299 53 67 89 111
Yatta 503120 60315 382 68 82 114 142
Total
271 335 452 564
3. Field visits
Field visits to the water sources in order to collect photos and assess the overall status
of the source and land use.
4: Water quality sampling
About 100 water samples from rainwater harvesting cisterns were collected to test the
chemical (major ions) and microbiological (Fecal Coliforms) characteristics of the
water.
3.2. Scope of research
The study addresses social and economical aspects for using RWH. The research area
was chosen to be Yatta town for many reasons especially due to the severe scarcity of
29
water supply. The data for this study was gathered through a detailed literature
review, a survey and the collection of water samples from cisterns in the study area.
3.3. Research Strategy
The researcher used the descriptive, analytical approach to analyze the data and obtain
the results of the study. The study area is located 9 km south of Hebron City, in the
southern part of the West Bank. Five localities (Kallet Saleh, Alhila, Yatta, Wad
Alma, Al Hadidia and Um Saqhan) were chosen as the study area based on
topography, elevation, sources of water supply and population density.
Households were chosen randomly in each of these five localities. The questionnaire
was pre-tested before the actual sample was collected, about 600 questionnaires were
filled out by 502 households. The data was subjected to descriptive analysis in
addition to chi-square and bivariate correlation tests to investigate the influence of the
independent variables as shown later in the Chapter of Results.
The questionnaire consisted of two parts, each of which aimed to assess:
Demographic and population characteristics including age, gender, income,
place of residence, type of houses, education levels, etc.
Impact of personal attributes on awareness, attitude to RWH as a major source
of potable water, in addition to information on type of water sources for each
family, water quality, location of storage tanks, type of catchment surfaces and
wastewater disposal.
Collection and analysis of one hundred water samples from cisterns in the study area
(Yattacenter: 28, Kallet Saleh: 12, Alhila: 20,Wad Alma: 12, Alhadidia: 16,Um
saqhan: 12 The samples were analyzed for different quality parameters (pH,
alkalinity, Hardness, turbidity, TDS, NO3, NH4, chloride, salinity). The samples were
also tested for contamination of biological and microbiological contents. Total
Coliforms (TC) and Fecal Coliforms (FC) bacteria tests were carried out at the Water
Engineering Laboratory-Birzeit University within 24 hours after collection. Samples
were refrigerated at 40°C at night and in an ice box during transportation from Yatta
to Birzeit University.
The water samples were taken from various depths in order to eliminate the effect of
settled solids. The water samples included RWH during the winter and mixed water
during the autumn (Radaideh, et al 2009). The one hundred samples were taken
during the period between November 2014 and May 2015.
31
Testing of water samples :
Measurement of pH using a pH meter
A sample of the water was collected in a clean bottle (a). The water sample must be
deep enough to cover the tip of the probe (b). The probe was cleaned with water from
the sample before it was placed in the sample container. The measurement was taken
when the meter came to equilibrium (c).
Measurement of Total Dissolved Solids, Salinity and Electrical
Conductivity using an Electrical Conductivity Meter (ECM)
The Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) test is the measurement of all organic and
inorganic substances dissolved in a given liquid, revealing the proportion of
different solids. In this test a clean, properly sterilized beaker that is free of dust or
other particles was used to hold the sample. An ECM was used to measure a
solution's ability to conduct electricity by measuring the resistance to a current
released into the liquid (Mahmoud and Zimmo,2010).
Measure the Conductivity of the sample.
The beaker with the water sample was placed on a flat, stable surface. The measuring
lead was placed into the sample, the result was noted after the reading on the screen
stabilized. The measurement displayed on the electrical conductivity meter is the
purity of the water, measured in µS (micro-Siemens). The lower the µS value, the
purer the water, with 0 µS being pure, unpolluted water (Mahmoud and Zimmo,
2010).
The most probable number method, otherwise known as the method of Poisson zeroes,
is a method of getting quantitative data on concentrations of discrete items from
positive/negative (incidence) data according who stander but here we used Membrane
filtration.
Coliforms are useful pollution indicators since they imply that the water has
been in contact with plants or soils or has been polluted by sewage and this
bacteria have not died out naturally or been removed by natural filtration or
artificial treatment.
Coliforms are important not only because they indicate pollution but also because
their absence or presence, and their number, can be determined by routine laboratory
tests. Tests for pathogens are not adapted to such routine work and are made only in
31
special investigations. The difficulties with routine testing of pathogens in water are
due to the following reasons:
o Presence in low numbers
o Limited survival time
o Numerous pathogens to analyze
o Required time and cost (Mahmoud and Zimmo,2010).
Total Coliforms Bacteria:
o Sources: fecal material (inhabit the intestinal tract of animals), soil, water and grain
o Some capable of reproduction in the environment
Fecal Coliforms bacteria:
o Subset of the Total Coliforms group
o Separated from non-fecal Coliforms by growth at 44.5 ºC
o Sources: fecal material (from warm blooded animals)
o Capable of limited survival and growth in the environment
o Primary example is Escherichia coli (E. coli).
Test:
1. The membrane filter (0.45 μm) through which the sample (100 mL) has been
filtered was placed onto the top of the saturated absorbent pad.
pad.
Figure 3..: Overhead view of the base of the filtering apparatus
32
Figure 3.2: Filter the sample water.
Figure 3.3: Filter the sample water.
2. The Petri dish was tightly covered and incubated at 44.5 ºC for 22 – 24 hours.
3. The number of colonies on the filter were counted.
Figure3.4: Count the number of colonies found on each filter.
33
CHAPTER FOUR
Results and Discussion
Socio-economic analysis
4.1 Household survey
In order to achieve the main objective of the study of assessing the main socio-
economic characteristics of the community and the different water aspects, a
descriptive study was utilized and a total of 502 questionnaires were filled during
2014.
4.2. Characteristics of the Household Sample
4.2.1. Location of the household sample
According to Table (4.1) we can say that 28.7% (no. = 144) of the households in the
sample were from Yatta, 18.1% (no. = 91) were from Al Heila, 17.5% (no. = 88) were
from Khallet Salih, 13.7% (no. =69) were from Kheroshewesh Wal Hadedeyah,
11.6% (n=58) were from Om Ash oqhan, and only 10.4% (no. = 52) from Om Al
Amad (Sahel Wadi Elma), Figure (4.1).
Table 4.1: Distribution of the household samples
Count Percent
Community Al Heila 91 18.1%
Om Ashoqhan 58 11.6%
Kheroshewesh Wal Hadedeyah 69 13.7%
Om Al Amad (Sahel Wadi
Elma)
52 10.4%
Khallet Salih 88 17.5%
Yatta 144 28.7%
34
Figure 4.1: location of household samples
4.2.2 Size and components of the household sample.
Regarding gender, Table (4.2) shows that the vast majority of the heads of the
household samples, (99.8%, n=431) were males, and only 0.2% (n=1) females. The
average of the total number of males per household was four males. Besides, the
average number of males with ages ranging between 0 and 18 years old per household
was three; while, the average number of males between 18 and 65 years old per
household was two males. Moreover, the average number of males over 65 years old
was one male. The average of the total number of females per household was four,
while the average number of females with ages ranging from 0 to 18 years old per
household was three. The average number of females with ages ranging from 18 to 65
years old per household was two. Moreover, the average number of females with ages
over 65 years old per household was one.
In terms of the males’ academic achievement, most of the respondents reached only
primary education. The average number of males per household who are illiterate
education were two, while the average number of males per household who reached
35
primary education was three and those who got secondary education were two.
Moreover, the average number of males per household who got undergraduate
education was two. And, the average number of males per household with an
undergraduate degree was only one.
For the academic achievement of the female respondents, most of them reached only
primary education. The average number of females per household who were illiterate
education was one, while the average number of females per household who reached
primary education was three. The average number of females per household who
reached only secondary education was one female. Moreover, the average number of
females per household who got undergraduate education was one. And, the average
number of females per household who had graduated was only one,Al-Salaymeh et al.
(2011) show that 56%,27% respectively of the study population in hebron have
elementary and secondry education.
Table 4.2 : Size and age distribution of the household sample.
Count (%) Mean (SD)
Head of household Male 431 (99.8%)
Female 1 (0.2%)
Total Males 4.3 (2.5)
Males, 0 -18 2.6 (1.5)
Males, 18 – 65 2.1 (1.6)
Males, Older than 65 1.3 (0.8)
Total Females 4.0 (2.5)
Females, 0 -18 2.6 (1.7)
Females, 18 – 65 1.8 (1.3)
Females, Older than 65 1.4 (0.8)
Male Academic achievement
Illiterate
1.5 (1.1)
Primary
3.4 (2.1)
Secondary
1.5 (0.9)
Undergraduate
1.6 (0.8)
Graduate
1.0 (0.0)
Female Academic achievement
Illiterate
1.4 (1.2)
Primary
3.1 (2.0)
Secondary
1.4 (0.8)
Undergraduate
1.4 (1.0)
Graduate
1.0 (0.0)
36
4.2.3 Income of the household sample.
As shown in Figure (4.2), the primary source of income varied among the household
sample as 55.4% (no. = 277) was found to be working in Israel, 12.6% (no. = 63)
were employed by the Government, 2.6% (no. = 13) in agriculture, 2.4% (no. = 12) in
NGOs, 2% (no. = 10) in herding, 7.2% (no. = 36) were unemployed, and the
remaining 13.4% (no. = 67) their primary income came from sources other than that
mentioned above.
Regarding the average monthly household income New Israeli Shekels (NIS), more
than half of the household sample (58.8%, no. 288) were earning 1000-3000 NIS,
27.6% (no. = 135) were earning 3000-5000 NIS, 8.6% (no. = 42) were earning less
than 1000 NIS, and 5.1% (no. =25) were earning more than 5000 NIS.
Figure 4.2: Primary income source of the household sample
4.2.4 Living conditions of the household sample.
According to Table (4.3), the vast majority of the household sample (98.4%, no. =
487) were living in separate housing, 1.4% (n=7) in apartments, and 0.2% (n=1) in
Asbestos/Zingo shacks. As for the internal house area, the average was 203.8 ,
while the average roof area was 145.8 . Regarding home ownership, most of the
household sample (99%, no. = 491) owned their homes only 1% (no. = 5) rented their
homes.
37
Table 4.3 : Living conditions of the household sample.
Items Count (%) Mean
(SD)
Type of housing Apartment 7 (1.4%)
Separate housing 487
(98.4%)
Asbestos/Zingo 1 (0.2%)
Tent 0 (0.0%)
Home ownership Owned 491 (99%)
Rented 5 (1.0%)
Other 0 (0.0%)
Internal house area (m2) -
Mean (SD) 203.8 (131.8)
Roof area (m2)
145.8 (58.4)
4.3Water issues
4.3.1 Water supply of the household sample
The percentage for using several sources of water by the household sample
From the results, it was noticed that a higher percentage of the households sampled
depend on the water network in the winter (35.5%) more than in the summer (30%),.
The same applied for RWH, 46.6% of the respondents during the summer while
85.8% in the winter. As for springs, 20% in the summer and 49.2% in the winter.
About 85% use the filling points within 5 km in the summer and 81.3% in the winter.
Filling points beyond 5 km are used by 80.7% in the summer and 55.4% in the winter.
Agricultural cisterns are used only during the winter with a percentage of 20%. Al-
Salaymeh et al. (2011) case study in hebron area show that 20% fromwater source is
from muncipility,22% rain water and 53% mixed water.
38
Figure 4.3: Water sources used by the households depending on the season.
Sufficiency of water for the household samples
Regarding the sufficiency of water from all sources, nearly half of the household
sample (54.7%, no. = 267) agreed that the available supply covers 50 to 70% of their
actual needs, 33.6% (no. = 164) stated that it covers more than 75% of their actual
needs, 6.1% (no. = 30) agreed that it covers less that 25% of their actual needs, and
5.5% (n=27) agreed that it covers 25 - 50% of their actual needs.
Figure 4.4: Sufficiency of water for the household sample
39
4.3.1.1 Water network
Connectivity to water network
Most of the households responding to the survey (71%, no. = 331) were not
connected to the water network while only 29% (no. = 135) were.
Figure 4.5: Connectivity of the household sample to a water network
Regarding the sufficiency of water from water network, half of the household sample
(50.3%, no. =79) stated that it covers less than 25% of their actual needs, 27.4% (no.
= 43) agreed that it covers 20 - 50% of their actual needs, 15.9% (no. =25) stated that
it covers 50 - 75% of their actual needs, and 6.4% (no. = 10) noted that it covers more
than 75% of their actual needs.
Figure 4.6: Sufficiency of water from network of the household sample
41
Although reports indicate high connetcivity rates to water networks, supply received
through these systems remains intermittent and unreliable (UNICEF, 2013). Water
losses are also high reaching as high as 40% in some areas.
4.3.1.2 Tankers :
Purchasing water from tankers by household sample
According to Figure (4.7), the majority of the household sample (95.6%, no. = 457)
purchase water from tankers while only 4.4% (no. = 21) do not.
Figure 4.7: Purchasing water from tankers
Table 4.4: Capacity of water tankers
Mean Standard
Deviation
Capacity of water tanker
(m3)
12.90 14
Residents purchase water from tankers that come in a variety of sizes ranging between
10 and 30 m3. The average capacity of water tankers was almost 13 .
As for the source of tankered water, most of the household sample (97.3%, no. = 462)
stated that their tankered water is from filling points, 1.1% (no. = 5) from the water
network, and 1.7% (no. = 8) from other sources.
41
Figure 4.8: Source of tankered water
4.3.1.3-Rain water Harvesting
One of the main resources of water is RWH accounting for 85% of the water in the
winter and 45% in the summer using cisterns as a main facility for the collection and
storage of water. Regarding the availability of cisterns, results show that most of the
household sample (83.3%, no. = 375) do in fact have cisterns, Figure 4.9. In
Salaymeh et al. (2011) show that 88% of population study in hebron have cisterns.
Figure 4.9: Availability of cisterns
42
4.3.1.4 The relationship between categorical variables using Chi-
square test
The relationship between categorical variables was tested using Chi-square –test for
independence where is used to determine if there is a significant association between
two variables. The chi-square test is used in two similar but distinct circumstances:
a. for estimating the match between expected and collected data
b. for determining if the two random variables are independent.
Affected of water sufficiency on many items in the questioner as shown in table
below
There is no statistically significant difference at the level of significance (0.05)
between sufficiency of water and the purchase of water from tankers.
Table (4.5) shows that there were statistical significant differences (sig <0.05)
between income and the following items:
o Availability of cisterns
o Summer - Water supply frequency Satisfaction with color
o Cleaning of cisterns
o Irrigation method
o Cistern use for herding
o For example, this means that having a cistern a family in Yatta would probably
get by with sufficient quantities of water as these cisterns are also used as
storage for the summer. The availability of cisterns can help mitigate water
scarcity in Yatta and decrease the demand on water supplied through the
Municipality which is insufficient to cover domestic and agricultural needs The
amount of municipal water delivered through the network depends on the
season whether it being winter or summer.
o In case of availability of water is also affected by the frequency and method of
cleaning of cisterns as well as the quality. The quality of water and thus the
availability of safe water would improve if people use soap, water and chloride
to clean the cistern, noting that people in Yatta only use water to clean their
cisterns once a year.
o The availability of water also affects the method of irrigation used in home
gardens. Instead of using manual irrigation when water is limited, drip or canal
irrigation is used. It is also noticed that animal herding is influenced by the
43
availability of water. It is important to mention that increased quantities of
water from RWH improve the economical situation by saving the costs spent
on purchasing tankers at an average cost of 152 NIS each during the summer
and 135 NIS in the winter.
Table 4.5: Effect of sufficiency of water from all sources on selected items in the
questionnaire
Su
fficiency
of w
ater fro
m a
ll sou
rces
Elements Chi
square
Significance Significant
difference or
not
Purchase water
from tankers
5.688 .128 Not significant
Availability of
cistern
59.383 .000 Significant
Summer - Water
supply frequency
(hour)
Kruskal test
28.836
.000 Significant
Summer - Water
supply frequency
Kruskal test
13.196
.004 Significant
Winter - Water
supply frequency
(hour)
Kruskal test
6.66
.084 Not significant
Winter - Water
supply frequency
Kruskal test
51.407
.000 Significant
Use of rainwater from the cistern during the winter
38.618 .000 Significant
Cleaning of cistern 7.850 .049 Significant
Method of cleaning
the cistern
99.915 .000 Significant
Cleaning of
catchment area
prior to rainwater
harvesting
24.191 .000 Significant
Irrigation method
used
19.099 .024 Significant
Cistern use for
herding
12.727 .048 Significant
44
4.4 Cistern characteristics:
We can see from Table (4.6) that 60.9% (no. = 251) have tank/square shaped cisterns
while the rest (36.1%, no. = 131) have pear shaped cisterns. Also 16 households have
two cisterns, half tank shaped and the other half pear shaped. Besides, three
households have three cisterns, two of them tanks and the last one have pear shape.
Moreover, one of the households had a forth cistern, tank shaped. Regarding the
capacity of the cisterns, the average capacity volume of the first cistern was 90.4 ,
the second one was 118.4 , the third one was 230 m3, and the fourth one was 160
. Salaymeh et al. (2011) said 34% of cisterns in Hebron area has capacity more
than 100 61% has capacity between 61-80
Regarding the type of the catchment area for the first cistern, the vast majority
(97.8%, 392) use the roof top to collect the rain, 1.2% (no. = 5) the road, 0.7% (no. =
3) an open area and 0.2% (no. = 1) a concrete floor. As for the catchment type for the
second cistern, most of the household sample (86.7%, 13) use the roof area, 6.7% (no.
=1) the open area, and 6.7% (no. = 1) concrete floor. Regarding the catchment area,
for the first cistern, the average was 231.3 and for the second cistern 360.8 .
Salaymeh et al. (2011) the vast majority of samples use roof top to collect the rain
(68%),house yard or garden 1%,street 2%.
Moreover, for the year of construction, for the first cistern the average was around
2007, the second cistern 1882, the third cistern 2003, and the fourth cistern 2002.
Salaymeh et al. (2011) 46% of Hebron cisterns has age more tthan 20 years old In
terms of construction costs, the average for the first cistern was 15729 shekels, the
second cistern 24923 shekels, the third cistern 72666 shekels, and the fourth cistern
160000 shekels.
45
Table 4.6: Description of the cisterns
Cistern
1
Count
(%)
Cistern
2
Count
(%)
Cistern
3
Count
(%)
Cistern
4
Count
(%)
Cistern
1
Mean
(SD)
Cistern
2
Mean
(SD)
Cistern 3
Mean
(SD)
Cistern
4
Mean
(SD)
Type Tank 251
(60.9%)
8 (50%) 2
(66.7%)
1
(100%)
Pear
shape
161
(39.1%)
8 (50%) 1
(33.3%)
0
(0.0%)
Capacity (m3) 90.4
(56.4) 118.4
(73.1)
230.0
(148)
160.0
(0.0)
Catchment
type -
Roof
area
392
(97.8%)
13
(86.7%)
2
(66.7%)
1
(100%)
Road 5
(1.2%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Open
area
3
(0.7%)
1
(6.7%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Concrete
floor
1
(0.2%)
1
(6.7%)
1
(33.3%)
0
(0.0%)
Catchment area (m3)
capacity
231.3
(377.2) 360.8
(368.3)
. .
Year of construction 2007.3
(205.5) 1882.5
(465.5)
2002.7
(21)
2002
(0.0)
Construction cost
15728.5
(24066.3)
24923.1
(36429.1) 72666.7
(78494.2)
160000
(0.0)
4.5 Cisterns sanitation practices:
Regarding water use from the cisterns during the winter, 99% (no. = 416) of the
respondents use the cistern water while only 1% (no. = 4) don't. The vast majority of the
household sample (95.5%, no. = 401) also use cistern to store water from other sources.
The majority (96%, no. = 404) also use the water for domestic purposes including in
bathrooms.
The vast majority (98.3%, no. = 410) of the respondents do clean their cisterns while only
1.7% (no. = 7) do not. Salaymeh et al. (2011) the vast majority in hebron city cleaning the
cisterns.On average the cisterns are cleaned once every two years. While most of the
household sample (93.5%, no. = 377) uses water alone, 3.5% (no. = 14) use disinfectants
such as chlorine, and 3% (no. = 12) use soap. Moreover, 99.5% (no. = 410) clean the
catchment areas prior to harvesting rainwater.
46
Almost all of the household sample 99.5% (no. = 410) discard the first rainfall shower
prior to harvesting. The majority of the household sample (98.3%, no. = 399) was
satisfied with the quality of the harvested rainwater.
Table 4.7: Some of the environmental conditions surrounding the rainwater
harvesting cisterns
Count Percentage Mean Standard
Deviation
Use of rainwater
from the cistern
during the
winter
Yes 416 99.0%
No 4 1.0%
Storing water
from other
sources in the
cisterns
Yes 401 95.5%
No 19 4.5%
Use of harvested
rainwater in
bathrooms
Yes 404 96.0%
No 17 4.0%
Cleaning of
cistern
Yes 410 98.3%
No 7 1.7%
Frequency of cleaning the cistern
1.8 3.6
Method of
cleaning the
cistern
Water alone 377 93.5%
Soap 12 3.0%
Disinfectants such
as chlorine
14 3.5%
Kerosene 0 0.0%
Other 0 0.0%
Cleaning of
catchment area
prior to
rainwater
harvesting
Yes 410 99.5%
No 2 0.5%
Discard first
rainfall prior to
harvesting
Yes 408 98.8%
No 5 1.2%
Satisfaction with
rainwater
quality
Yes 399 98.3%
No 7 1.7%
47
Figure 4.10: Cistern cleaning methods
Most of the household sample (98.8%, no. = 412) lock the doors of the cisterns while
0.7% (no. = 3) leave it open, and 0.5% (no. = 2) are other. Figure (4.11) shows that the
average elevation of the door over the ground was 0.9 meters. Salaymeh et al. (2011)
the vast majority 96% the cisterns have closed cover. We can see from Table (4.32)
that the vast majority of the household sample (99.5%, no. = 418) don’t have
wastewater flooding near the cistern, while only 0.5% (no. = 2) have frequent
wastewater flooding near the cistern.
Figure 4.11: Locking of cisterns
Table 4.8: Wastewater flooding near the cistern
Count Layer N %
Frequent wastewater
flooding near the cistern
Yes 2 0.5%
No 418 99.5%
Treating harvested rainwater prior to use is not a common practice in Yatta, as the
majority (96.9%, no. = 405) don’t treat it. Al-Salaymeh et al. (2011) 25% of people
treat their cistern and 75% don’t. For those who do treat the harvested rainwater, more
than half (58.3%, no. = 7) use chlorination, 25% (no. = 3) filter, 8.3% (no. = 1) boil,
and 8.3% (no. = 1) use other methods, (Table 4.9).
48
Almost half of the household sample (53.6%, no. = 222) don’t test the harvested water
prior to use, while the other half (46.4%, n=192) test the harvested water sometimes.
The vast majority of the household sample (97.6%, n=404) stated that their children
under the age of five didn’t have any diarrheal infection. Moreover, most of the
household sample (97.6%, n=407) with children over the age of five do not suffer
from diarrheal infection.
Table 4.9: Treating and testing harvested rainwater prior to use
Count Percentage
Treat harvested rainwater prior
to use
Yes 13 3.1%
No 405 96.9%
Treatment method used Boil 1 8.3%
Filter 3 25.0%
Chlorination 7 58.3%
Other 1 8.3%
Test harvested rainwater prior
to use
Yes 0 0.0%
No 222 53.6%
Sometimes 192 46.4%
Diarrheal infections of less than
five years of age
Yes 10 2.4%
No 404 97.6%
Diarrheal infections of more
than five years of age
Yes 10 2.4%
No 407 97.6%
According to Table (4.10), we can see that having a cistern has had a positive impact
on the household members daily activities. Most of the household samples (96.8%,
no. = 394) showed that their cleaning activities have improved. The vast majority of
the household samples (97.5%, no. = 395) stated that the frequency of bathing has
increased. And most of the household samples (82.9%, n=311) stated that their
consumption of water has not been increased after having cistern.
Table 4.10: The effect of having cistern on the household member’s daily activities
Count Percentage
Improved cleanliness Yes 394 96.8%
No 13 3.2%
Increase in bathing Yes 395 97.5%
No 10 2.5%
Increase in consumption Yes 64 17.1%
No 311 82.9%
49
4.6 Expenditure on water of the household sample
Regarding the expenditure on water as shown in Table 4.11, the average was 235
shekels per month in the summer, and 168 shekels per month in the winter. The vast
majority of the households sample (95.7%, no. = 468) haven't received any external
aid.
Table 4.11: Expenditure on water of the household sample
Count (%) Mean (SD)
Average expenditure on water
Summer (NIS/month)
235.2
(270.9)
Winter (NIS/month)
168.2
(153.9)
External financial aid Yes 21 (4.3%)
No 468
(95.7%)
4.6.1 Fees for water from the network
According to Table (4.12), we can see that the average monthly fees paid by the
household sample for the water network during the summer was 125 shekels, and
during the winter was 101 shekels. For the water supply frequency, in summer the
average was 28.5 hours and almost for the 12 months and in winter the 33.7 hours
and for 12 months.
Table 4.12: Fees and water supply frequencies by water network
Summer
Mean (SD)
Winter
Mean (SD)
Monthly fees paid (NIS) 125.0 (182.8) 100.9 (131.6)
Water supply frequency
(hour)
28.5 (18.7) 33.7 (20.9)
Water supply frequency
(per months)
11.8 (45.2) 12.4 (55.0)
4.6.2 Fees from tankers source
Table 4.13: Number and prices of tankers purchased
Summer
Mean (SD)
Winter
Mean (SD)
Number of tankers
purchased
8.4 (50.3) 6.9 (9.5)
Price paid per tank
(NIS)
151.7 (72.5) 135.2 (68.3)
51
Table 4.14: The amount of money that is spent for uses of water from tankers
Summer
Mean (SD)
Winter
Mean (SD)
Domestic use of water from
tankers
91.58 (17) 95.77 (13)
Irrigation use of water from
tankers
16.09 (12) 12.31 (11)
Herding use of water from
tankers
17.60 (16) 18.83 (17)
Other use of water from
tankers
22.95 (24) 25.56 (24)
According to Table (4.14), we can see that during the summer the household sample
spends an average of almost 92 shekels for domestic use of water, and in the winter
96 shekels. While for the irrigation 16 shekels in the summer and 12 shekels in the
winter. For the herding uses, almost 18 shekels during the summer, and almost 19
shekels in the winter. For the other uses of water, during summer 23 shekels and
during winter 26 shekels.
4.6.3 Fees from construction the cisterns
The average cost of constructing a cistern, the average for cistern was 15729 shekels,.
For the rehabilitation cost, the average for the first cistern was 3235 shekels.
Table 4.15: The year and cost of rehabilitation of cisterns
As mentioned above the total cost for water consumption in the summer 235/month
NIS and 168 NIS in the winter from both the network and tankers. A lot of water cost
can be saved after construction because RWH is a free source of water. This source
should be used in the best way possible for domestic and other purposes especially in
Yatta where economic conditions are difficult with an average household monthly
income between 1000 - 3000 NIS, and an average family size 8 persons.
Cistern 1
Mean (SD)
Construction cost 15728.5 (24066.3)
Cost of rehabilitation
(NIS)
3225.0 (5048.5)
51
4.6.4 The result relationship between categorical variables using chi-
square
The chi-square –test was used to test the relationship between categorical variables. It
is applied in two similar but distinct circumstances:
a. to estimate the match between expected and collected data
b. to determine if the two random variables are independent.
The effect of income on many items in the questionnaire as shown in the table
below:
There is no statistically significant difference at the level of significance (0.05)
between income and the following variables: Test harvested rainwater prior to use,
Purchase water from tankers, Monthly fees paid – Summer, Capacity of water tanker
(m3), Monthly fees paid - Summer (NIS), Monthly fees paid,– Winter, Reason for no
domestic water cistern.
However, Table (4.16) shows that there were statistical significant differences (sig <
0.05) between income and the following items:
o Treat harvested rainwater prior to use
o Satisfaction with taste
o Satisfaction with color
o Satisfaction with smell
o Frequency of emptying cesspit/septic tank (times/month)
o Frequent wastewater flooding near the cistern
o Diarrhea infections of children less than five years of age
o For example, it means that the quality of RWH has been affected (i.e. the
physical parameters of RWH change (smell, color and taste) in a bad or good
way) by the average income of the households. Moreover, the public health
may also be affected in a positive or negative manner as the results indicate
that some water borne diseases like diarrhea in children emeerge when the
water quality deteriorates.
52
Table 4.16: Effect of income on other parameters in the questionnaire
below
Prim
ary
inco
me
Elements Chi
square
Sig Significant
difference
or not
Treat harvested
rainwater prior to
use
40.603 .00 Significant
Test harvested
rainwater prior to
use
4.938 .764 Not
significant
Purchase water
from tankers
2.916 .939 Not
significant
Capacity of water
tanker (m3)
3.351 .910 Not
significant
Satisfaction with
taste
72.18 .000 Significant
Satisfaction with
color
47.014 .003 Significant
Satisfaction with
smell
48.700 .002 Significant
Monthly fees paid -
Summer (NIS)
Kruskal test
2.638
.955 Not
significant
Monthly fees paid –
Winter
Kruskal test
7.170
.518 Not
significant
Frequency of
empting
cesspit/septic tank
(times/month)
Kruskal test
15.937
.043 Significant
Frequent
wastewater
flooding near the
cistern
17.043 .030 Significant
Dirraheal infections
of less than five
years of age
48.642 .000 Significant
Dirraheal infections
of more than five
years of age
63.967 .000 Significant
Reason for no
domestic water
cistern
21.385
.436
Not
significant
53
4.7Cisterns water usage :
The cisterns usage for different purposes are illustrated in Table 4.17 Ninety average
of those household usage water for domestic usage (drinking,cleaning, cooking….)
While for the agriculture uses,17, For the herding uses, the cistern 17, from the first
cistern 14.
Table 4.17: The amount of money that has been spent for several uses of the water
that comes from cistern
Use Cistern 1
Mean (SD)
Domestic use 90
(15.1)
Agriculture use 16.8 (15.7)
Herding 17.3 (16.7)
Other 14.4 (20.1)
Agricultural usage :
For the area of land irrigated from the cistern, the average number of dunums was
557.9. Most of the household sample (76%, no. = 139) that they irrigate trees, 21.9%
(no. =40) seedlings, and 2.2% (no. = 4) other than that.
Furthermore, the vast majority (87.4%, no. = 152) manually irrigate their gardens,
6.9% (no. = 12) use drip irrigation, 3.4% (no. = 6) open channels, and 2.3% (no. = 4)
use other methods. Most of the household sample (91.5%, no. = 183) noted that if
they didn’t have a cistern they wouldn't have cultivated their land, while only 8.5%
(no. = 17) said that they would have cultivated even if they didn’t have a cistern.
Table 4.18: cistern using in agricultural
Count Percentage
Area of land irrigated from the
cistern (dunum)
557.9 1252.4
Type of crops
irrigated from
cistern in
home garden
Trees 139 76.0%
Seedlings 40 21.9%
Other 4 2.2%
Irrigation
method used
Drip 12 6.9%
Open channels 6 3.4%
Manual 152 87.4%
Other 4 2.3%
Cultivation
should there be
no cistern
Yes 17 8.5
No 183 81.5
54
According to Table (4.19), we can see that 94.9% of the crops that have been irrigated
by cisterns were consumed by the households, 46.6% were sent to the market, and
25.9% for other purposes. Regarding the revenue from the household agriculture, we
can see that the average was 2,314 shekels per year.
Table 4.19: The usage of the crops that have been irrigated by cisterns and revenue
from house hold agriculture.
Percentage Standard
Deviation
Household use of produce 94.9 16.2
Marketing of produce 46.4 33.3
Other 25.9 18.5
Revenue from household
agriculture (NIS/year)
2314.8 4207.7
Herding usage
Table 4.20: Cistern use for herding
Count Layer N %
Cistern use for herding Yes 66 24.1%
No 100 36.5%
3 108 39.4%
Table 4.21: The number and kind of animals raised by the household sample,
sufficiency and cost of cistern water for herding
Mean Standard
Deviation
Number of poultry 1104.1 1916.1
Number of cattle 146.1 376.5
Number of sheep 21.8 28.6
Number of goat 17.1 24.4
Other 39.0 26.1
The period that you use the cistern
water per months for herding
6.1 3.3
Costs saved as a result of using
cistern water for herd (NIS/year)
1199.9 2551.5
Regarding the number and kind of animals raised by the household sample, the
average number of poultry was 1,104, cattle was 146, sheep was 22, goat was 17, and
55
other kinds of animals was 39. The average number of months that the household
sample uses cistern for serving the herd was 6 months, and the income from using
cistern water for herding was 1200 shekels per year. From Figure (30), it is clear that
the vast majority of the household sample (92.2%, no. = 71) would not raise livestock
if they didn’t have a cistern, while 7.8%, (no. = 6) would even if they don’t have any
cisterns.
Figure 4.12: Possibility of raising the livestock without the cistern
4.8 Quality of water (from tankers, networks, cisterns) and health
related issues
4.8.1 Water Net Work and Tanker Quality
The vast majority of the household sample reported being satisfied while only 13.7%
were notwith the quality of water from the network, Figure 4.13. Most of the
respondents (97.5%, no. = 460) were also satisfied with water from tankers. Most of
the household sample (97.3%, no. = 462) also stated that the tanker water they receive
is from filling points, 1.1% (no. = 5) from the water network, and 1.7% (no. = 8) from
other sources.
56
Figure 4.13: Satisfaction with quality of water from the network
Figure 4.14: Satisfaction with water quality of water from tankers
4.8.2 Quality of water in cisterns
From Table (4.22), it can be seen that most of the household sample (80.3%, no. =
363) found the taste of the water good, 15.7% (no. = 71) found it acceptable, and
3.8% (no. = 17) found it excellent. As for the satisfaction with color, most of the
household sample (76.1%, no. = 344) found it good, 19.9% (no. = 90) found it
acceptable and 3.8% (n=17) found it excellent. Also, for the satisfaction with smell,
most of the household sample (78.1%, no. = 353) found it good, 17.7% (no. = 80)
found it acceptable, and 3.8% (no. = 17) found it excellent. The vast majority (95.3%,
no. = 365) don’t have any doubts regarding the quality of harvested rainwater while
only and 4.7% (no. = 18) do not trust the quality of the water.
57
Table 4.22: Satisfaction with the taste, color, and smell of the water
Count Percentage
Satisfaction with taste Excellent 17 3.8%
Good 363 80.3%
Acceptable 71 15.7%
Not acceptable 1 0.2%
Satisfaction with color Excellent 17 3.8%
Good 344 76.1%
Acceptable 90 19.9%
Not acceptable 1 0.2%
Satisfaction with smell Excellent 17 3.8%
Good 353 78.1%
Acceptable 80 17.7%
Not acceptable 2 0.4%
Doubts on quality of
harvested rainwater
Yes 18 4.7%
No 365 95.3%
4.9 Household Sewage Systems
Wastewater generated in households is mostly disposed in cesspits by the majority of
the sample (98.8%, no. = 489), 0.8% (no. = 4) use septic tanks, and 0.4% (no. =2)
using other methods for wastewater disposal. On average households empty their
cesspits/septic tanks 11 times per month.
Table 4.23: Wastewater disposal of the household sample
Count
(%)
Mean
(SD)
Wastewater disposal Wastewater
network
0 (0.0%)
Cesspit 489
(98.8%)
Septic tank 4 (0.8%)
Other 2 (0.4%)
Frequency of empting cesspit/septic tank
(times/month)
10.5
(8.6)
58
4.4 Water Quality Results: The objective of this part of the study was to test the physical, chemical and,
microbiological parameters of rainwater stored in cisterns.
Water samples were collected twice during the period between autumn 2014 and
summer 2015. The sample was drawn using the Sterilized Sampling Method, from a
depth approximately at the middle of the water column. The samples were placed in
sterilized glass bottles and transported to the laboratory in an ice, cooler and
processed within twenty-four hours. A total of 100 samples were collected, 50
samples were drawn from cisterns in November 2014 when cisterns contained water
mixed from a number of sources including rainwater, piped municipal water and
tanks, while the remaining 50 were collected from the same cisterns but in March
2015 to include only rain water.
Tables (24) and (25) show the difference between the results of physical, chemical
and microbiological characteristics of the two types of water samples. The pH values
of mixed water ranged from 6.90 to 8.74 with a mean value of 7.60. Rainwater had
lower pH values than those of mixed water ranging from 7.00 to 7.57 with a mean of
7.21. Rainwater also had a lower average value of conductivity (389.11µScm-1
)
compared to that of mixed water (463.74 µScm-1
), in addition to a lower average
value of salinity (0.75%). The highest value of total dissolved solids measured in
rainwater was 316mg /l with a mean of 199.86 mg /l.
All samples were examined for two commonly used bacterial indicators, Fecal
Coliforms and Total Coliforms. Results varied widely between rainwater and mixed
water samples, for example the highest value of Fecal Coliforms was detected in
rainwater samples at 316 CFU/100ml with a mean of 35.11 CFU/100ml while the
highest value in mixed water was 650 CFU/100ml with a mean 41.83 CFU/100ml,
Figure. Both alarming results that are anticipated to a number of reasons to be
addressed in the remainder of this Chapter.
59
Table 4.24: Physical,chemical and microbiological characteristics of rain water
samples
WHO
(2004)
Guidelines
PSI (2004)
Guidelines
Samples
above
MAC
a)%(
Standard
Deviation
Mean Range Parameters
6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5 0 0.13 7.21 7.57-7.00 pH
NA NA b 0.97 22.62 20.7-22.6 Temp (C0)
Up to 2000 Up to 2000 0 130.89 389.11 188.7-632 Conductivity
)µScm-1(
6 3 1.5 0.00-13.0 Ammonium
)mg/l)
Up to 250 Up to 250 0 25.8 55.29 26-140 Chloride (mg/l)
NA 400 0 95.3 181.5 74-350 (Alkalinity (mg/l
CaCO3)
Up to 1.0 Up to 1.0 16 0.24 0.75 0.4- 1.2 Salinity )%(
Up to 500 Up to 500 0 67.15 199.86 94.3-316 Total dissolved
solids (mg/l)
Up to 5.0 Up to 5.0 2 1.5 0.88 0.18-7.83 Turbidity (NTU)
0 0-3 98 631.19 696.42 19-2300 Total Coliforms
(CFU/100 ml)
0 0 42 72.8 35.11 0-316 Fecal Coliforms
(CFU/100ml)
61
Table 4.25: Result of physical,chemical,microbiological analysis of mixed water
WHO
(2004)
Guidelines
PSI (2004)
Guidelines
Samples
above
MAC a)%(
Standard
Deviatio
n
Mean Range
Parameters
6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5 2 0.45 7.6 6.9-8.74 pH
NA NA b 4.25 16.25 8.5-19.7 Temp (C
0)
Up to 2000 Up to 2000 0 200.43 463.74 178-1066 Conductivity()µScm-1
)
12 4 2.5 3.0-17.0 Ammonium
)mg/l)
Up to 250 Up to 250 0 26.00
56.92 26-140
Chloride (mg/l)
NA 400 0 71.49
186.78
74-350 (Alkalinity (mg/l
CaCO3)
Up to 1.0 Up to 1.0 34 0.35 0.84 0.3- 1.9 Salinity )%(
Up to 500 Up to 500 0 92.15
228.81 89-484 Total dissolved
solids (mg/l)
Up to 5.0 Up to 5.0 10 12.93 4.86 0.39-65.2 Turbidity (NTU)
0 0-3 100 529.91 391.9 2-2200 Total Coliforms
(CFU/100 ml)
0 0 62 128.84 41.83 0-650 Fecal Coliforms
)CFU/100ml)
61
The Figures below shows the differences between rainwater and mixed water sample
values, the box illustrates the upper and lower limits according to WHO standards and
the highest and lowest levels of sample values
4. 5 Discussion of Water Quality Results Rainwater is an important source of water that can help improve the health and
hygiene of it users. However, harvested rainwater may be subject to contamination in
three ways physical,microbial and chemical.
4.5.1Contamination with Total and Fecal Coliforms
In spite of the acceptable chemical constitute of rainwater samples, the water is not
safe for drinking, at least without any treatment, due to the pathogenic contamination.
According to the results most of the samples were contaminated with both Fecal and
Total Coliforms.
The percentage of contamination of cisterns in Yatta town with Fecal and Total
Coliforms was (52)% and (99)% respectively. These results are higher than those
obtained through similar research conducted in Hebron City by Al-Salayma, 2008
(57% contaminated with Fecal Coliforms and 95% Total Coliforms), and another in
Tulkarem (AlKatib and Orabi,2004) about (9.2% Fecal Coliform and 34% with Total
Coliforms). In addition to those found in other study about the assessment of rain
water quality in the West Bank by Daoud et. al., (2011), were 93% of the sampled
cisterns were found to be contaminated with Total Coliforms and 90% contaminated
with Fecal Coliforms.
Contamination happens in different ways and locations from collection and storage of
water to the tap. Rainwater is often contaminated from the moment it falls onto the
rooftop or any other catchment surface and facilities (roof tops, tunnels, small
channels etc.). An important reason for contamination is due to the deposition on
catchment areas.
This happens between rain events and when rain comes in contact with catchment
areas with animal and bird feces. Bacteria can also be found in soil, feces of humans
and other natural sources.
It is important to make sure that the inlet and catchment area are cleaned before water
is taken into the cistern. Dust and debris are washed away during the first flush in
62
initial period of rain fall events, research shows that diverting the initial runoff can
increase quality of RWH by reducing Fecal and Total Coliforms and turbidity
(Mendez et al. 2011, Doyle and Shanahan 2012, Martinson and Thomas 2005, Forster
1999). First-flush Test results show that roof-top runoff will initially discharge water
containing large number of particles, most likely contaminants from the roof. After a
period of stabilization, however, the water becomes significantly cleaner. In Yatta,
almost all of the household sample (99.5%, no. = 410) discard the first rainfall prior to
harvesting. Despite this, contamination rates of water in cisterns remain high
anticipated to be a result of behavior and the way cisterns are cleaned.
In the storage facility, animals may fall and die in addition to leaves, dust and bird
droppings also posing as a source of contamination. Contamination levels
dramatically increase when storage tanks are exposed to sunlight which may
encourage the growth of algae and bacteria. It also important to make sure that
cisterns have screens to prevent the entry of animals and external contamination the
third location is water out let tap or the bucket.
Fecal Coliforms values range between 0 to 316 CFU/100ml with a mean value of
35.11 CFU/100ml; exceeding the WHO standard. As, samples should be completely
free from Fecal Coliforms (null), most of the cisterns are contaminated and the water
needs to be treated in order to be used safely.
.
Rain Water Mixed Water
High Value Fecal Coliforms 316 650
WHO stander 0 0
PSI Stander 0 0
Low Value Fecal Coliforms 0 0
0100200300400500600700
Feca
l Co
lifo
rms
valu
es(
CFU
/10
0m
l)
Water Resources
Figure 4.51 : Fecal Coliforms values of rainwater and mixed water sample.
63
The majority of samples were also found to be contaminated with Total Coliforms as
shown in the figure. The Total Coliforms values for rain water samples ranged from
19 to 2300 CFU/100ml with a mean value of 696.42 CFU/100ml.
Figure4.16: Fecal Coliforms for 50 samples of Rain water
64
Figure4.17: Fecal Coliforms for 50 samples of mixed water
65
Figure4.18: Total Coliforms values of rainwater and mixed water samples
Figure4.20: Total Coliforms for 50 samples of mixed water
Figure4.19: Total Coliforms for 50 samples of Rain water
66
According to the values of rain water and mixed water, there is a difference in
microbial presence which suggests that microbial contamination is a result of water
contacting catchment areas as explained above. In the case of mixed water, it suggests
that contamination which is from source of water supply does not indicate safety at
the point of use.
Table 4.26: Water contamination with Fecal Coliforms in Yatta Town
Degree of Risk % of samples Degree
of contamination Rain
water
% of samples Degree of
contamination mixed
water
Range of Fecal
Coliforms
No Risk 58% 38% 0
Simple Risk 12% 14% 1-10
Moderate Risk 20% 42% 11-100
High Risk 8% 6% 101-1000
Very High Risk 0% 0% >1000
Table 4.27: Water contamination with Total Coliforms in Yatta cisterns
Degree of
contamination
% of samples Degree
of contamination Rain
water
% of samples Degree of
contamination mixed
water
Range of Total
Coliforms
0 2% 0% 0-3
1 24% 6% 4-50
2 74% 94% 51-5000
3 0% 0% >5000
Both types of water are contaminated suggesting that the catchment areas and cisterns
should be cleaned regularly to remove leaves, dust and feces. In order to maintain a
high quality of water, cisterns must be cleaned prior to the first rainfall events to
prevent any type of contaminate entry; noting that 93.5% use water only which on its
own is insufficient to eliminate pathogenic contamination. The cisterns must be
67
provided with a fine wire mesh on the inlet, as shown in Figure 4.19, sunlight should
not enter the cistern because it encourages the growth of algae.
However, wastewater may also seep into the cisterns through its sides, especially
should it be pear-shaped because the walls are rocky and highly porous. About 39.1%
of the household sample have pear shape cisterns. This would not be the case in
reinforced cisterns which resists the intrusion of waste water. Also about 98.8% of the
household sample have septic tanks have high contamination rates. According to the
Palestinian Water Authority, the distance between the cesspit and cisterns should be
at least 15 meters away.
Sustainable, efficient water quality disinfection methods should be applied to the
water stored in cisterns. Chlorination is the most common, easily applied method. To
ensure proper use, instructions should be given to the consumer for cleaning and
disinfection of storage tanks and cisterns. The gate of a cistern must be raised over the
cesspit or septic tank to avoid flooding wastewater from entering the cistern. Cistern
users must test the water frequently to ensure cleanness and safety for drinking
purposes.
4.5.2 Physical and Chemical Contamination
The examined rainwater samples met the requirements of drinking water
standards in terms of physical and chemical composition. The physical
characteristics of rainwater samples including color, smell, temperature and
taste were acceptable but the turbidity was found to be high in 14 samples with
values ranging between 0.39-65.2 NTU. This contamination is a result of
deposition on the catchment area between rainfall events from traffic emissions
and agricultural waste, Figures 28, 29 and 30 are examples of how dust
accumulates on rooftops and soil organic waste on ground level catchment
areas. Turbidity ranged between 0.6 and 67NTU) in mixed water samples,
higher than that in rainwater. This contamination is a result of the water
purchased from tankers due to the scarcity of water. Tankers distribute water
from unknown resources which usually is poor in quality in addition to the
improper handling of water during the distribution cycle (Yatta Municipality,
2014).
68
In addition, the chemical composition is accepted in terms of pH values, ranging from
(7.00-7.57) indicating that the rainfall is not acidic in the study area thus eliminating
the possibility of any undesirable chemical reaction. As well the conductivity of
rainwater samples falls within the acceptable range of 188.7-632 mg\l .EC value for
tap water in the West Bank, reported as 760 μS/cm (Abdul-Hamid 2008). While the
pH values of mixed water range between 6.9 and 8.74, while 4% of tested samples
exceeded 8.5, not complying with both Palestinian and WHO standards. The pH of
rainwater ranges from 4.5 to 6.5 but increases slightly after falling on roofs and during
storage in tanks (Meera & Ahammed,2006), the increase in pH of stored rainwater
could be due to the alkaline nature of the roof material (mainly concrete) and the
storage tank material, which is either concrete or limestone rock (excavated storage
tanks) Daoud et al,2011.
Figure 4.21: pH values of rain and mixed water samples
Figure4.22: pH for 50 samples of Rain Water Harvesting
Figure 2
69
Figure 4.24: Conductivity values of rain and mixed water samples
Figure 4.23: pH for 50 samples of Mixed Water
Rain Water Mix water
High values of conductivity 632 1066
WHO stander 2000 2000
WHO stander2 0 0
Low values of conductivity 188.7 178
0200400600800
100012001400160018002000
Co
nd
uct
ivit
y V
alu
es
(µSc
m-1
)
Water Resources
71
The chloride values were also acceptable, ranging from (28-140 mg\l) with a mean
value of 26.0mg\l, in none of the samples did the value exceed the WHO standard.
The source of chloride is the sedimentary rock as most of the cisterns are constructed
using reinforced concrete. Chloride levels exceeding 250 mg/l causes a salty taste and
may also cause physiological damage (Shalash et al, 2006). Chloride concentrations
in mixed water ranges from 26 to 140 mg/l with a mean value of 55.2 mg/l, none of
the samples exceeded the WHO standard
Also most of the household sample (80.3%, no. = 363) found the taste of the water to
be good, while 15.7% (no. = 71) found it acceptable, and 3.8% (n=17) found it
excellent. Also implying low chloride concentrations in the water.
The alkalinity values ranged from 74 to 350 mg\l CaCO3 with mean value of 186.78
mg\l CaCO3, which is also acceptable. Alkalinity is a very important parameter for
safe drinking water as it buffers against rapid pH change. It also measures how much
acid can be added to the water without causing big change in pH and without
producing acidic water. The value of mixed water ranged from 50-366 mg/l also
within the acceptable range of PSI which is 400 mg\l 40
Salinity values of rainwater ranged between 0.4 and 1.2% with a mean value of
0.75%) and some of the values falling beyond WHO guidelines. The values in mixed
water ranged from 0.3 and 1.9%) with mean value of 0.84%), meaning that the
concentration of salts in other water resources such as tanks and the municipal
network is higher than rainwater. Salinity is an indicator to measure the concentration
of dissolved salt in a given volume of water. High levels of salts may affect the taste
of drinking water. Harvested rainwater salinity is clearly lower than tap water salinity
found in the West Bank, typically 0.4‰ (Abdul-Hamid 2008)
salinity is an indicator to measure the concentration of dissolved salt in a given
volume of water. High levels of salts may affect the taste of drinking water.
71
Figure 4.25: Salinity values of rain and mixed water samples
Figure 4.26: Salinity values for 50 samples of Rain Water
Figure 4.27: Salinity values for 50 samples of mixed Water
72
Value of Total Dissolved Solids in rain water samples ranged between 94.3 to 316
mg\l with a mean value of 199.86 mg/l within the level of the WHO standard.
Dissolved Solids is considered as an indicator of the mineral constituent dissolved in
water. A value exceeding 500mg/l is undesirable for drinking water causing a bitter
and salty taste.
Figure 4.28: Dissolved Solids values of rain and mixed water samples.
Total Hardness, Calcium and Magnesium:
As show in Table 4.28 water can be divided into four categories based on hardness:
soft, moderately hard, hard and very hard. The CaCO3 values of mixed water ranged
between 74 and 350 mg/l with a mean value of 181.5 mg/l. Five percent of the cistern
samples in Yatta were classified as being soft, 35% moderately hard, 55% hard and
5% very hard. Hardness for rainwater ranged between 84 and 215 mg/l with a mean
value of 138.5 mg/l. About 70% of the samples were found to be moderately hard,
and 30% is hard. Hardness causes problem in water pipes, causes soap curd on
fixture, tiles, dishes and laundry. High concentrations of magnesium also have a
laxative effect especially for new users of the supply (Shalash, 2006).
73
Table 4.28: Classification of water hardness
Class of water Hardness as CaCO3
mg/l
Number of
samples
Water type
I. 0-75 0% Soft
II. 75-150 70% Moderately
Hard
III. 150-300 30% Hard
IV. >300 0% Very Hard
The result of this study comparable with result of others studies in different
regions as show in Table (4.29).
Table 4.29: Comparsion betwwen some physichmical charactrestic of RWH
TDS (mg/L) Turbidity
(NTU)
pH
57.6–394 0.1–5.3 4.8–9.9 Daoud et al,2011
-------- 0.0–2.3 6.1–7.2 Schets et
al.(2010), The
Netherlands
------- ------ 7.6–8.8 Sazakli et
al.(2007), Greece
185–750 2.0–3.5 --------- Zhu et al.(2004),
China
74
4.5.3 The relationship between categorical variables using chi-square
Affecte of satisfaction with color on a number of factors in the questionnaires as
shown in the table.
There is no statistically significant difference at the level of significance (0.05)
between color of water and satisfaction with water quality in the network, locking of
the cistern, and frequent wastewater flooding near the cistern. Table (4.30) shows that
there was a statistical significant relation (sig <0.05) with the color of water and the
following items:
Connectivity to water network
Purchase water from tankers
Source of tanker water
Treat harvested rainwater prior to use
Test harvested rainwater prior to use
Color is one of the physical properties of water used as an indicator for water quality.
The table below shows the significance between water color and the source of water
whether that being municipal or tankered water, the RWH details and the treatment
of RWH which was also found to affect the color of water.
75
Table 4.30: Relation between satisfaction with color and a number of factors in the
questionnaire
Sa
tisfactio
n w
ith co
lor
Elements Chi
square
Sig Significant
difference
or not
Connectivity to
water network
17.705 .001 Significant
Sufficiency of
water from
network
10.987 .089 Not
significant
Satisfaction with
water quality in
network
5.164 .076 Not
significant
Purchase water
from tankers
24.767 .000 Significant
Satisfaction with
water quality from
tankers
39.758 .000 Significant
Source of tanker
water
36.824 .000 Significant
Locking of cistern 2.077 .913 Not
significant
Elevation of door
over the ground
(m(
Kruskal test
7.535
.057 Not
significant
Frequent
wastewater
flooding near the
cistern
.644 .886 Not significant
treat harvested
rainwater prior to
use
7.943 .047 Significant
76
Affect of satisfaction with smell on a number of items in the questionnaire
There is no statistically significant difference at the level of significance (0.05)
between smell of water and the satisfaction with quality of municipal water, locking
of the cistern and frequent wastewater flooding near the cistern. Table (4.31) shows
that there were statistical significant differences (sig <0.05) between the smell of
water and the following items:
Connectivity to water network
Purchase water from tankers
Source of tanker water
Elevation of door over the ground (m)
Smell is a physical property of water also used as an indicator for water quality.
Table shows the significant between water color and the source of water whether that
being municipal or tankered water, details of RWH and the treatment of RWH.
77
Table 4.31: Relation between satisfaction with smell and a number of factors in the
questionnaire
Sa
tisfactio
n w
ith
smell
Elements Chi
square
Sig Significant
difference or
not
Connectivity to
water network
23.855 .000 Significant
Satisfaction with
water quality in
network
3.877 .144 Not
significant
Purchase water
from tankers
24.407 .000 Significant
Satisfaction with
water quality from
tankers
40.682 .000 Significant
Source of tankered
water
36.984 .000 Significant
Locking of cistern 2.303 .890 Not
significant
Elevation of door over the ground (m
Kruskal test
13.652
.003 Significant
Frequent
wastewater
flooding near the
cistern
.563 .905 Not
significant
Treat harvested
rainwater prior to
use
8.682 .034 Significant
Treatment method
used
6.395 .380 Not
significant
78
Affected of Satisfaction with taste on many items in the questioner as
shown in table below
There is no statistically significant difference at the level of significance (0.05)
between taste of water and the satisfaction with quality of municipal water, locking of
the cistern and frequent wastewater flooding near the cistern. Table (4.32) shows that
there were statistical significant differences (sig <0.05) between the taste of water
and the following items:
Connectivity to water network
Purchase water from tankers
Source of tanker water
Elevation of door over the ground (m)
Taste is a physical property of water also used as an indicator for water quality. Table
shows the significant between water taste and the source of water whether that being
municipal or tankered water, details of RWH and the treatment of RWH.
79
Table 4.32: Affected of satisfaction with taste in many items
Sa
tisfactio
n w
ith ta
ste
Elements Chi
square
Sig Significant
difference or
not
Connectivity to
water network
23.468 .000 Significant
Sufficiency of
water from
network
14.117 .028 Significant
Satisfaction with
water quality in
network
5.156 .076 Not significan
Purchase water
from tankers
37.736 .000 Significant
Satisfaction with
water quality
from tankers
44.789 .000 Significant
Source of tanker
water
40.435 .000 Significant
Locking of cistern 2.529 .865 Not
significant
Elevation of door
over the ground
(m)
Kruskal
test
13.302
.004 Significant
Frequent
wastewater
flooding near the
cistern
.501 .919 Not
significant
Treat harvested
rainwater prior to
use
8.677 .034 Significant
Treatment method
used
6.395 .380 Not
significant
81
Affected of doubts on quality of harvested rainwater on many items
in the questioner as shown in table below.
There is no statistically significant difference at the level of significance (0.05)
between water quality and Dirraheal infections of less than five years of age Table (4.33)
shows that there were statistical significant differences (sig <0.05) between the taste
of water and the following items:
Storing water from other sources in the cisterns
Method of cleaning the cistern
Cleaning of catchment area prior to rainwater harvesting
Discard first rainfall prior to harvesting
Satisfaction with rainwater quality
Frequent wastewater flooding near the cistern
Quality RWH affected mainly by cleaning catchment area may it contain
contamination this contamination from rooftop and catchment area due to
deposition on catchment surface between rain events through traffic emission and
agricultural waste such as accumulation of dust on rooftop as well as the way for
cleaning cisterns are basic element influenced on quality of water,when you clean
the cistern using water only differ when use disinfected method such as use
chlorine, the chloride kill the pathogenic bacteria
81
Table 4.33: Affected of satisfaction with doubt on water quality in many items
Do
ub
ts on
qu
ality
of h
arv
ested ra
inw
ater
Elements Chi
square
Sig Significant
difference or not
Use of rainwater
from the cistern
during the winter
8.657 .003 Significant
Storing water from
other sources in the
cisterns
13.051 .000 Significant
Frequency of
cleaning the cistern
Mann whiteny
2023.5
.265 Not significant
Method of cleaning
the cistern
6.847 .033 Significant
Cleaning of
catchment area
prior to rainwater
harvesting
Discard first rainfall
prior to harvesting
Satisfaction with rainwater quality
4.232 .040 Significant
Frequent
wastewater flooding
near the cistern
Test harvested
rainwater prior to
use
7.043 .008 Significant
Dirraheal infections
of less than five
years of age
1.766 .184 Not significant
82
4.6 Case study
A detailed case study was prepared as an example of the samples that have been taken
for the socio-economic and water quality analysis. Their situation is cited below in
detail.
There are several reasons why this specific case was selected as an example,
including:
1. The economic situation of the family is difficult and represents a portion of the
residents in Yatta town.
2. A large number of family members which is the case of many in Yatta.
3. The water situation is difficult and represent a large proportion of the community of
Yatta, which suffers from a lack of water.
4. Inefficient water supply through the municipal network.
5. Inability to pay their water bills, which also represents a large proportion of the
community Yatta town.
6. Realistic example of poor handling of water harvesting, which also represented a
large proportion of society Yatta town.
7. Insufficient awareness among family members on the appropriate management of
cisterns, which led to the emergence of medical conditions among children.
8. The lack of attention to cleanliness.
Location of sample:
The case study is located in the Al Daua area west of Yatta as shown in the Figures .
83
Figure4.29: Location of sample
Social situation:
The family consists of head of the family and four wives and twenty-eight children,
including fourteen females and fourteen male, mostly in primary and secondary
education levels, and mothers with no education (illiterate). Three wives live in the
same house, which covers an area of 100 m2 consisting of two rooms, a kitchen, a
bathroom which completely equipped and an external area of 200 m2 as shown in
Figure 4.49.
84
85
86
Figure 4.30: House of sample
Economic situation
The father and the eldest son both work as laborers in the construction sector, which is
the main source of income for the family, with an income ranging between 1000 and
3000 NIS a month. However, depending on the availability of work opportunities
there are months were the family does not have any income at all. The family falls
well below the poverty line according to the Palestinian rating. Additional sources are
very limited but are mainly agricultural activities; income from does not exceed 50 -
200 NIS in the growing seasons of olives, almonds and plums.
87
Figure 4.31: Economic situation
88
The water situation of the family:
The family mainly relies on rainwater harvesting for the water stored in a cistern with
a capacity of 60 m3. Water is collected from the surface every year in the winter.
Although the family is connected to network they are not supplied with water in the
summer due to the limited resources and in the winter as they have accumulated a
large amount of debt. In the summer the family relies on tankers as an alternative
source for water, which they buy a total of ten tanks at a price of 200 NIS each. This
in itself is a big burden on the family and are sometimes forced to manage with an
insufficient quantity of water to meet all their needs.
Figure4.32: Location of cistern
Figure 4.33: Cow near the cistern
89
Water scarcity is a significant problem facing the family. A serious issue is that the
cistern is located in the animal shed, which includes oxen and a sheep barn. Animals
also drink from the well as shown pictures. The cistern is contaminated, with physical
and biological exceeding standards. Fallon The catchment area used to collect the
water contains dust, pesticide remainings and animal feces which all find their way
into the water stream.
Figure 4.34: Manual extraction of water
Figure 4.35: Manual extraction of water
91
Two types of bacteria (Fecal Coliform and Total Coliform) were tested to detect
biological contamination indicating the presence of animal waste and feces as shown
in the following results.
Table 4.34: Contamination of fecal and total coliform for case study
Stage Fecal coliforms CFU/100 ml Total coliforms CFU/100 ml
Mixed water 1 316 650
Rain water 2 240 470
The results show that biological contamination is high due to several reasons:
1. The well site is located within the barn where animals are kept.
2. The system put in place for collecting the rainwater is inadequate starting from the
roof to the cistern. The practices applied by the family are also problematic as water is
sometimes collected from outside the area, they do not bother to clean before the
assembly or the cistern and do not use disinfectants.
3. Lack of awareness of the family on optimal use of the cistern. The family is poor
and us unconscious about the different consequences that may result from water
pollution.
4. Poverty is a main reason for the lack of attaining the cistern and disinfection of the
water.
5. The large number of children, making the first priority of the head securing
quantity rather than quantity.
6. Lack of water refineries at the entrance to the cistern to collect dirt and dust which
constitute a key reason for the transfer of biological contamination.
Rain water harvesting system :
1- Catchment Area : this family uses the rooftop as a catchment area. The roof
area is about 160 m2
.
2- Conveyance: Gutters, downspouts and pipes conveying runoff to the storage
cistern Figure (4.56).
91
Figure 4.36: Pipes for RWH
3-Storage: In a concrete cistern with a capacity of 60m 3 Figure (4.57)
Figure 4.37: Cistern
4- Distribution: a pressurized system is used to distribute the water from the cistern
Figure (4.57).
92
4.7 Water harvesting calculations
Three things essential to control the amount of water accumulated from rain:
1. The amount of rainfall in the region.
2. The size of the catchment area.
3. The proportion of the rainfall you can collect.
Determine the Potential Annual Rainwater Collection:
In order to estimate the potential rainwater that can be harvested, the following
equation can be used:
PRWH = P ×C A……………………………………………………………1
Potential Annual Rain Water Collection = Rainfall x Catchment Area (Worm and
Hattum,2006)
PRWH: Potential Rainwater Harvested (liters)
CA: Catchment Area (m2)
P: Annual Precipitation (mm)
Determine Actual Annual Rainwater Collection
As not all the rainfall will be captured and stored, PRWH is multiplied by a Collection
Efficiency coefficient (C) to estimate actual quantities. C is a factor of a number of
conditions related to the catchment area (type, porosity, permeability, etc.), collection
system components and seasonal factors (rainfall intensity, frequency, type of
precipitation, etc.).
S = R × A × C ………………………………………………………………….2
Actual Annual Rain Water Collection = Rainfall × Area × Run-off coefficient
(RC)....( Worm and Hattum,2006).
93
The table below shows values of C depending on the ground cover.
Table 4.35: Range of typical run off factors
Ground Cover Runoff Coefficient, C
Lawns 0.05 - 0.35
Forest 0.05 - 0.25
Cultivated land 0.08-0.41
Meadow 0.1 - 0.5
Parks, cemeteries 0.1 - 0.25
Unimproved areas 0.1 - 0.3
Pasture 0.12 - 0.62
Residential areas 0.3 - 0.75
Business areas 0.5 - 0.95
Industrial areas 0.5 - 0.9
Asphalt streets 0.7 - 0.95
Brick streets 0.7 - 0.85
Roofs 0.75 - 0.95
Concrete streets 0.7 - 0.95
The total amount of available water, which is a product of the total annual rainfall and
the roof or collection surface area. This determines the potential value for RWH.
Usually there is a loss caused mostly by evaporation (sunshine), leakage (roof
surface), overflow (rainwater that splashes over the gutters and transportation
(guttering and pipes). The local climatic conditions are the starting point for any
design.
According to Yatta Municipality the monthly amount of rainfall for 2014-2015 is
shown below:
94
Table 4.36 : Monthly amount of rainfall for 2014-2015 in Yatta
Month
Actual
precipitation
(mm)
Assumed collection
efficiency
January 155 0.8
February 185 0.8
March 131 0.8
April 15 0.75
May 0 0.7
June 0 0.7
July 0 0.7
August 0 0.7
September 0 0.7
October 0 0.7
November 31 0.75
December 29 0.75
Total
Calculating Monthly Rainwater Collection (2014-2015)
For larger Non-Potable (Indoor Use) and all Potable RWH systems with no other
water source, tracking monthly precipitation will help in estimating the required
amount of storage. Monthly data can also help to estimate the proportion of total
water demand that can be supplied by rainwater.
Monthly Rainwater Supply Table:
SCENARIO (2014-2015):
Roof Catchment Area: 145.8 m2.
Assumed Precipitation Level: 370 mm average
95
Table 4.37: Monthly Rainwater Supply
Month
Actual
precipitation
(mm)
Assumed
collection
efficiency
Rainfall collected
(liter)
January 155 0.8 18079.2
February 185 0.8 21578.4
March 131 0.8 15279.84
April 15 0.75 1640.25
May 0 0.7 0
June 0 0.7 0
July 0 0.7 0
August 0 0.7 0
September 0 0.7 0
October 0 0.7 0
November 31 0.75 3389.85
December 29 0.75 3171.15
Total
63138.69
Table (4.37) summarizes monthly rainwater supply for a house in Yatta town with a
145.8 m2 catchment area receiving average precipitation. Collection efficiency figures
(second column from the right) are typical for homes in the Yatta hat have concrete
roofs, and are located in relatively open sites. The low collection percentages in April
to September assume that the system is shut down and cleaned after pollen season.
The figures in the far right column represent the actual amount of rainwater that could
be collected each month.
Demand - How Much Water, and for Which Purposes? Decisions about water usage will affect how much water needs to be collected and
stored, and how the RWH system will be designed from roof to tap. These choices are
best made at the outset of planning. Committing to lower water demand will help
preserve local groundwater levels and reduce the amount of rainwater storage needed.
Estimating Domestic Water Consumption :
The first step in designing a RWH is to consider the annual household water demand.
To calculate water demand using the following equation:
Consumption = Water Use × Household Members × 365 daysAnnual……….3
96
For Yatta town water consumption is 20 l/day and the an average household has 10
family members (survey results).
Water use in Yatta = quantity of water received / population.
= 2000 m3 / 100,000
= 20 m3
So annual consumption equal = 20 *10*30 = 6000 liters per month.
But this value is low so we use the average consumption for the West Bank which
equals 64 l/c/d (water authority ).
Annual consumption = 64*20*10 = 19,200 liters per month.
Table 4.38: Rain fall collected in Yatta
Month
Average
water
usage\liter
Assumed
precipitation\mm
Assumed
collection
efficiency
Rainfall
collected\liter
January 19200 155 0.8 18079.2
February 19200 185 0.8 21578.4
March 19200 131 0.8 15279.84
April 19200 15 0.75 1640.25
May 19200 0 0.7 0
June 19200 0 0.7 0
July 19200 0 0.7 0
August 19200 0 0.7 0
September 19200 0 0.7 0
October 19200 0 0.7 0
November 19200 31 0.75 3389.85
December 19200 29 0.75 3171.15
Total 230400 63138.69
Demand Supply
Storage - How Much Rainwater Needs to be Stored?
Rainwater harvesting can be a reliable source to fill water needs especially during
the fall and winter. However, storage facilities need to be constructed in order to help
fill water deficits as a result of limited supply during the summer. Determining the
size of a storage facility needs to be a balance between the demand which the cistern
is expected fill and the available/potential size of the catchment area.
97
SCENARIO (1): Yatta town with a 20 l/c/d water consumption:
Roof Catchment Area: 145.8 m2.
Assumed Precipitation Level: Average 370 mm
Roof Type: Concrete Roof.
Operational Storage Capacity: 69,000 liters or 69 m3.
Table 4.39: Rainwater Needs to be Stored
Month
Average
water
usage\liter
Assumed
precipitation\mm
Assumed
collection
efficiency
Rainfall
collected\liter
Month end
storage
volume\ liter
January 6000 155 0.8 18079.2 12079.2
February 6000 185 0.8 21578.4 27657.6
March 6000 131 0.8 15279.84 36937.44
April 6000 15 0.75 1640.25 32577.69
May 6000 0 0.7 0 26577.69
June 6000 0 0.7 0 20577.69
July 6000 0 0.7 0 14577.69
August 6000 0 0.7 0 8577.69
September 6000 0 0.7 0 2577.69
October 6000 0 0.7 0 -3422.31
November 6000 31 0.75 3389.85 -6032.46
December 6000 29 0.75 3171.15 -8861.31
Total 72000 63138.69 163824.3
Demand Supply
SCENARIO (2): Yatta town with a 64 l/c/d water consumption:
Roof Catchment Area: 145.8 m2.
Assumed Precipitation Level: Average 370 mm
Roof Type: Concrete Roof.
Operational Storage Capacity: 69,000 liters or 69 m3
98
Table 4.40: Rainwater Needs to be Stored
Month
Average
Water
Usage\liter
Assumed
Precipitation\mm
Assumed
Collection
Efficiency
Rainfall
Collected\liter
Month End
Storage
Volume\liter
January 19200 155 0.8 18079.2 -1120.8
February 19200 185 0.8 21578.4 1257.6
March 19200 131 0.8 15279.84 -2662.56
April 19200 15 0.75 1640.25 -20222.31
May 19200 0 0.7 0 -39422.31
June 19200 0 0.7 0 -58622.31
July 19200 0 0.7 0 -77822.31
August 19200 0 0.7 0 -97022.31
September 19200 0 0.7 0 -116222.31
October 19200 0 0.7 0 -135422.31
November 19200 31 0.75 3389.85 -151232.46
December 19200 29 0.75 3171.15 -167261.31
Total 230400
63138.69 -865775.7
Demand Supply
Calculation results :
The amount of water collection depends on the size of the catchment area
An average 63 m3 cistern volume is sufficient to collect rainfall under the current
circumstances..
We need other water sources for domestic use.
The amount of rain is not even sufficient to meet the requirement of 20 l/c/d
given the existing infrastructure.
99
4.7 Conclusions and Recommendations
RWH is the most common method used to help mitigate water scarcity problems
in Yatta town by supplying freshwater for potable and nonpotable use while
reducing storm water runoff volume. RWH can reduce demand on the public
water system also it subsidize irrigation at critical stage when the deficit between
water required and rainfalls occurs. RWH is important for irrigation to ensure
household security and income. The main advantage of RWH is low operation
and management costs required.
Families in Yatta are characterized by large size with an average 4 males and 5 girls
per family, low academic achievement and an income highly dependent on work in
Israel. Most of the families have cisterns to store water for the dry season. However,
according to the analysis of the collected data and interviews house owners were
found to have insufficient awareness on best practices for the collection and storage
water of water. It is therefore recommended that workshops and projects that deal
with proper RWH methods to decrease pollution in cistern and maintain water quality
that complies with drinking water standards are organized. RWH appears to be one of
the most promising alternatives for supplying freshwater to counter increasing water
scarcity and escalating demand, especially in unpolluted areas. The chemical quality
of harvested and stored rainwater in Yatta is quite satisfactory with no parameterS
being detected above the corresponding maximum allowable concentration for
drinking purposes.Despite the relatively good physicochemical quality of the samples
taken from the cisterns, alarmingly high values of biological contamination indices,
both TC and FC, were detected in the majority of the samples. These results overrule
the suitability of using the harvested rainwater for domestic purposes without prior
treatment.
The physicochemical quality of harvested rainwater in the Yatta town is generally
good enough for it to be used as drinking water. However, the microbial analysis
of stored rainwater samples indicated significant microbial contamination with TC
and FC bacteria. The presence of these pathogens indicates clearly that this water
is not suitable for direct consumption without prior treatment.
The results show that biological contamination is high due to several reasons:
111
1. The well site is located within the barn where animals are kept.
2. The system put in place for collecting the rainwater is inadequate starting from the
roof to the cistern. The practices applied by the family are also problematic as water is
sometimes collected from outside the area, they do not bother to clean before the
assembly or the cistern and do not use disinfectants.
3. Lack of awareness of the family on optimal use of the cistern. The family is poor
and us unconscious about the different consequences that may result from water
pollution.
4. Poverty is a main reason for the lack of attaining the cistern and disinfection of the
water.
5. The large number of children, making the first priority of the head securing
quantity rather than quantity.
6. Lack of water refineries at the entrance to the cistern to collect dirt and dust which
constitute a key reason for the transfer of biological contamination.
Reducing health risks posed by microbes in stored water requires some actions to be
taken before filling the cisterns and during the storage period. These measures
include:
Keep animals away from the roof and cleaning up bird droppings
Divert the first flush and regularly cleaning and disinfecting the cistern and stored
water.
Keep the door of the cistern at a high level
Clean the catchment before collecting water
Clean the house roof before collecting water in cistern
Keep animals away from the cistern
Place fine screen on the inlet and outlet to prevent animal access
Use filtration on the tap
Use a disinfection method such as chlorination.
Annual cleaning should take place
Cisterns should be exposed to sufficient sunlight to prevent the formation/growth
of bio-films.
111
Openings in the collection and storage system need to be adequately protected in
order to prevent contamination introduced to the stored water. This includes the
door, overflow pipes and settling chambers.
Yatta town also needs special attention from Non-government Organizations (NGOs)
to support households suffering from water scarcity but would probably be unable or
unwilling to develop their own solution especially in the area around Yatta like Om
Saqhan and Khallet Salih. RWH can also be applied for agricultural purposes by
constructing ponds that could be used for irrigation. This would improve the standard
of living and economic status for the families of Yatta.
Integrated management must consist of regular cleaning of the catchment areas and
the storage tanks, the employment of automated mechanical systems for discarding
the first portion of each rainfall and the application of disinfectants in the tanker
trucks after the removal of the water from the cistern in order to avoid the formation
of by-products. Also the Yatta Municipality should play a role in assuring compliance
the construction specifications placed by the Palestinian Water Authority taking into
account the public and private conditions surrounding the cistern.
112
4.7 Future work
Further study should be conducted in Yatta on first-flush systems and provide proper
recommendations to users of RWH systems.
The geological nature of Yatta contributes to the increase of construction costs
attributed to RWH cisterns. Alternative storage mechanisms that are cheaper in cost
need to be investigated. Should capital costs be decreased, RWH can be an affordable
source accessible by all especially marginalized groups in rural areas.
Do-it-yourself rainwater harvesting in Yatta town is fairly widespread. Finding ways
to improve the quantity and quality of informal harvesting is a potential means for
improving water supply for many low income households in the Yatta town.
The author recommends the use of a filter, such as sand filter. If distributed in
conjunction with RWH tanks, it only represents a small fraction of the total cost of the
system, and it could be used to treat supplementary contaminated supplies as well.
113
4.8 References
Abdul-Hamid, M. 2008. Rain Harvesting for Domestic Uses in Two Palestinian
Rural Areas with Emphasis on Quality and Quantity. MSc Thesis, Birzeit
University, Palestine.
Abu Sadah.M, 2014. Rainwater Harvesting Analysis using Water
Harvesting Evaluation Tool, Hydro Engineering Consultancy – HEC,1-5.
Abu-Awwad, A. M., and Shatanawi, M. R. 1997. Water harvesting and infiltration
in arid areas affected by surface crust: Examples from Jordan. Journal of Arid
Environments, 37(3), 443-452. [doi: 10.10 06/jare.1997.0301].
Ahmed, W., Huygens, F., Goonetilleke, A., Gardner, T., 2008. Real-time PCR
detection of pathogenic microorganisms in roof-harvested rainwater in southeast
Queensland, Australia. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 74 (17), 5490-
5496.
Al-Khatib, I. and Orabi, M. (2004): Causes of drinking-water contamination in
rainfed cisterns in three villages in Ramallah and Al-Bireh District, Palestine.
Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal,429-436.
Al-Salaymeh, A., Al-Khatib, I.A., Arafat, H.A. 2011. Towards sustainable water
quality: management of rainwater harvesting cisterns in Southern Palestine.
Water Resources Management, 25 (6), 1721-1736.
Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem, 2009, Yatta Town Profile IS,http:
//vprofile.arij.org/hebron/pdfs/Yatta%20Town%20profile.pdf, 1-17.
Awadallah, w, Cancelliere, G, Fulgoni, F. 2011. study on: monitoring of the
water quality stored in the rainwater harvesting cisterns final report,178-186.
Barron, J., 2009c. Summary of chapters and case studies. p. 63 – 65. In: Barron,
J., 2009. Rainwater harvesting: a lifeline for human well-being. United Nations
Environmental Programme and Stockholm Environment Institute.
Barthwal, S. Barthwal, S, Goyal, H, Nirmani, B, Awasthi, B. 2013. Socio-
economic acceptance of rooftop rainwater harvesting – A case study, Urban Water
Journal,231-239.
114
Boers, T. M., Zondervan, K., and Ben-Asher, J. 1986. Micro-catchment-water-
harvesting (MCWH) for arid zone development. Agricultural Water Management,
12(1-2), 21-39. [doi: 10.1016/0378-3774(86).
Bruins, H. J., Evenari, M., and Nessler, U. 1986. Rainwater-harvesting agriculture
for food production in arid zones: The challenge of the African famine. Applied
Geography, 6(1), 13-32. [doi: 10.1016/01 43-6228(86)90026-3].
Bucheli, T.D., Mu¨ ller, S.R., Voegelin, A., Schwarzenbach, R.P., 1998.
Bituminous roof sealing membranes as majorsources of the herbicide (R, S)-
mecoprop in roof runoffwaters: potential contamination of groundwater and
surfacewaters. Environmental Science and Technology 32 (22), 3465-3471.
Chang, M., McBroom, M.W., Beasley, R.S., 2004. Roofing as a sourceof
nonpoint water pollution. J. Environ. Manage. 73, 307–315.
Cretu,G.Nagy,C.Boncia,F.2015.QualitativeHydrology,chaptertow12,http:
//echo2.epfl.ch/VICAIRE/mod_2/chapt_2/main.htm.
Critchley, W., Siegert, K., Chapman, C., and Finkel, M. 1991. Water harvesting:
A Manual for the Design and Construction of Water Harvesting Schemes for Plant
Production. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
MISC/17/91.
Daoud, A. Swaileh, K. Hussein R. Matani M.2011. Quality assessment of roof-
harvested rainwater in the West Bank, Palestinian Authority,journal of Water
Health.33,525 http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21976199.
David, B., Willibald L., Ika D., Helmut J. and Michael H. 2010. Knowledge of
measures to safeguard harvested rainwater quality in rural domestic households.
Journal of Water & Health, 30, 334-345.
Dillaha, T.A., Zolan, W.J. 1985. Rainwater catchment water qualityin Micronesia.
Water Res. 19 (6), 741–746.
Domènech, L., Saurí, D. 2011. A comparative appraisal of the use of rainwater
harvesting in single and multifamily buildings of the Metropolitan Area of
Barcelona (Spain): social experience, drinking water savings and economic costs.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 598-608.
115
Doyle, K. C. and Shanahan, P. 2012. Effect of first flush on storage-reliability-
yield of rainwater harvesting. Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for
Development, 2(1), 1-9.
EEA, European Environment Agency. 2009. Water resources across Europe –
confronting water scarcity and drought;, Copenhagen. Retrieved in January 2011
from http: //www.eea.europa.eu/publications/water-resourcesacross-europe/at
download/file.
El-Fadel, M., Zeinati, M. & Jamali, D. 2000. Water resources in Lebanon:
characterization, water balance and constraints. International Journal of Water
Resources Development, 16(4), 615–638.
EPA 2006: Monitoring and assessing water quality,5.10 Total Alkalinity,internet
document,www.epg.gov/owow/monitoring.
Eroksuz E, Rahman A. 2010.Rainwater tanks in multi-unit buildings: a case study
for threeAustralian cities. Resour Conserv Recycl;54: 1449–52.
Eroksuz E, Rahman A. Rainwater tanks in multi-unit buildings: a case study for
three Australian cities. Resour Conserv Recycl 2010;54: 1449–52.
Evenari, M., Shanan, L., and Tadmor, N. 1971. The Negev: The Challenge of a
Desert. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1982 - 284.
Evison, L., Sunna, N., 2001. Microbial regrowth in household water storage tanks.
J Am. Water Works Assos. 93 (9), 85–94
Farreny.F, Morales-Pinzo´n.T, Guisasola.A, Taya.A, Rieradevall.J, Gabarrell.X,
2011: Roof selection for rainwater harvesting: Quantity and quality assessments
in Spain, Elsevier,777-780.
Fletcher TD, Deletic A, Mitchell VG, Hatt BE. 2008. Reuse of urban runoff in
Australia: a review of recent advances and remaining challenges. J Environ
Qual;37: S116–27.
Forster, J., 1998. The influence of location and season on the concentrations of
macroions and organic trace pollutants in roof runoff. Water Science and
Technology 38 (10), 83-90.
116
Forster, J., 1999. Variability of roof runoff quality. Water Science and Technology
39 (5), 137-144.
Goyal, R., Bhushan, B. 2015. Rainwater harvesting: impact on society, economy
& ecology, Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, IIT Delhi, Hauz Khas,
N. Delhi,601-622.
Hajani, E., Rahman, A.2014.Reliability and Cost Analysis of a Rainwater
Harvesting System in Peri-Urban Regions of Greater Sydney, Australia,
www.mdpi.com/journal/water, 945-960.
He, X.F., Cao, H., and Li, F.M., 2007. Econometric analysis of the determinants
of adoption of rainwater harvesting and supplementary irrigation technology
(RHSIT) in the semiarid Loess Plateau of China.
Hunter, P. (2003): Drinking water and diarrhoeal disease due to Escherichia coli.
Journal of Water and Health 01.2, 65- 72.
Kerr, J., and Pangare, G. 2001. Water Harvesting and Watershed Management,
Overcoming water scarcity and quality constraints, focus 9 18-19.
Khastagir, A., and Jayasuriya, N. 2010. Optimal sizing of rain water tanks for
domestic water conservation. Journal of Hydrology, 381(3-4), 181-188.
Kim R-H, Lee S, Kim YM, Lee JH, Kim SK, Kim JG. 2005. Pollutants in
rainwater runoff in Korea: their impacts on rainwater utilization. Environ
Technol;26: 411–20
Kurzm, J. (2015). Water harvesting: techniques and applications, Afaq
Environmental Magazine. http: //www.maan-ctr.org/magazine/Archive/Issue55/.
Lee, J.Bak, G.Han, M.2011. quality of roof-harvested rainwater e comparison of
different roofing materials, Elsevier, 162.
Li, F. R., Cook, S., Geballe, G. T., and Burch, W. R. 2000. Rainwater harvesting
agriculture: An integrated system for water management on rainfed land in
China’s semiarid areas. AMBIO, 29(8), 477-483.
Li, F., Cook, S., Geballe, G., Burch, W. 2000. Rainwater Harvesting in
Agriculture: An Integrated System for Water Management on Rainfed Land in
117
China’s Semiarid Areas. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Ambio Vol. 29
No. 8, p. 477 – 483.
Li, X. Y., and Gong, J. D. 2002. Compacted microcatchments with local earth
materials for rainwater harvesting in the semiarid region of China. Journal of
Hydrology, 257(1-4), 134-144. [doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00550-9].
Mahmoud,N. Zimmo,o.2010, Sanitary EngineeringLaboratory, bierzet
university,department of civil engineer,1-15.
Martinson, D. B. and Thomas, T., 2005. Quantifying the first-flush phenomenon.
12th International Rainwater Catchment Systems Conference. New Delhi, India.
McArdle, P., Gleeson, J., Hammond, T., Heslop, E., Holden, R. and Kuczera, G.
2010. Centralized urbanstorm water harvesting for potable reuse. Water Science &
Technology, 3, 16-24.
Meera, V., Ahammed, M.M., 2006. Water quality of rooftoprainwater harvesting
systems: a review. Journal of WaterSupply Research and Technology-Aqua 55
(4), 257e268.
Mendez, C.Klenzendorf, J.Afshar, B.Simmons, M.Barrett, M.Kinney, K. Kirisits,
M.2010, the effect of roofing material on the quality of harvested rainwater,
Elsevier, 45, 2049-2095.
MWI, (Jordan Ministry of Water and Irrigation). 2009. Water strategy in Jordan,
Agricultural Water Management, 89(3), 243–250.http: //www.mwi.gov.jo/m
wi/Water Strategy.
Ngigi, S. N., Savenije, H. H. G., Rockström, J., and Gachene, C. K. 2005. Hydro-
economic evaluation of rainwater harvesting and management technologies:
Farmers’ investment options and risks in semi-arid Laikipia district of Kenya.
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 30(11-16), 772-782. [doi:
10.1016/j.pce.2005.08.020].
Nicholson, N., Clark, S.E., Long, B.V., Spicher, J., Steele, K.A., 2009. Rainwater
harvesting for non-potable use in gardens: a comparison of runoff water quality
from green vs. traditional roofs. In: Proceedings of World Environmental and
Water Resources Congress 2009 e Great Rivers Kansas City, Missouri
118
Nzewi, E., Sarikonda, S., and Lee, E. (2010) Analysis and Treatment of Harvested
Rainwater. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2010: pp. 495-
503.
Orgill J, Shaheed A, Brown JM, Jeuland MA. 2010,Water quality and willingness
to pay for clean water in peri-urban Cambodia. J Water Health 2013; 11: 489-
506.
Otti, V.I., Ezenwaji, E.E. 2013. Enhancing community-driven initiative in
rainwater harvesting in Nigeria. International Journal of Engineering and
Technology, 3(1), 2049-3444.
Oweis, T., Hachum, A., and Kijne, J. 1999. Water Harvesting and Supplemental
Irrigation for Improved Water Use Efficiency in Dry Areas. Colombo, Sri Lanka:
International Water Management Institute Vol. 7. IWMI.
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Population, Housing and Establishment
CensusFinal Results. Ramallah, Palestine. 1997 -2007.
Palestinian Water Authority. 2003. General Technical Specifications for the
Construction of Harvesting Cisterns (Pear-Shaped and Rectangular), Technical
Directorate Standards and Specifications Department,1-17.
Pandey, P.K., van der Zaag, P., Soupir, M.L., Singh, V.P.,.2013. A new model for
simulating supplemental irrigation and the hydro-economic potential of a
rainwater harvesting system in humid subtropical climates, Water Resources
Management, 27, 3145–3164.
Pandey, P.K., van der Zaag, P., Soupir, M.L., Singh, V.P.2013. A new model for
simulating supplemental irrigation and the hydro-economic potential of a
rainwater harvesting system in humid subtropical climates, Water Resources
Management, 27, 3145–3164.
Pathak, N.Heijnen.H, 2015, Rainwater Harvesting and Health Aspects- Working
on WHO guidance,1-13.
Pinfold, J.V., Horan, N.J., Wirojanagud, W., Mara, D., 1993. The bacteriological
quality of rainjar water in rural Northeast Thailand. Water Res. 27 (2), 297–302.
119
Prempridi, T., and Chatuthasry, C. 1982. Past and Present Use of Ponds as
Rainwater Storage in Thailand. Proc. of 2nd International Conference on
Rainwater Cistern Systems, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands, C2, p1-21.
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, 26 -31.
Reij, C., Mulder, P., and Begemann, L. 1988. Water Harvesting for Plant
Production. Washington, D. C.: World Bank, No. 04; S494. 5. W3.
Rivera, S. C., Hazen, T. C., and Toranzos, G. A. 1988.: Isolation of fecal
Coliforms from pristine sites in a tropical rain forest. Appl. Environm. Microbiol.
54, 513–517.
RiverSides. 2009.Rainwater harvesting, energy conservation and greenhouse gas
emission reductions in the City of Toronto;Retrieved in January 2010 from http:
//www.toronto.ca/taf/pdf/riversides-080709.pdf.
Sazakli E, Alexopoulos A, Leotsinidis M. 2007. Rainwater harvesting, quality
assessment and utilization in Kefalonia Island, Greece. Water Res;41: 2039–47.
Schets, F. M., Italiaander, R., Van den Berg, H. H. J. L. & de RodaHusman, A. M.
Rain harvesting: quality assessment and utilization in the Netherlands. J. Water
Health 8, 224–235.
Shalash, I., 2006. Hydrochemistry of The Natuf Drainage Basin Ramallah/ West
Bank.
Simmons, G., Hope, V., Lewis, G., Whitmore, J., Wanzhen, G., 2001.
Contamination of potable roof-collected rainwater in Auckland, New Zealand.
Water Res. 35 (6), 1518–1524.
Sivanappan, R. K. (2006). Rain Water Harvesting, Conservation and Management
Strategies for Urban and Rural Sectors. National Seminar on Rainwater
Harvesting and Water Management 11-12 Nov. 2006, Nagpur. Retrieved on
February 3rd, 2015 from http:
//portal.unesco.org/geography/es/files/6192/11690988831Accepted_Papers.
Sustainable Earth Technologies, Inc. (1999). Rainwater Harvesting Retrieved
December 2004 from www.sustainable.com.au/rainwater.html.
111
UNDP 2000. The Millennum Development Goals. United Nations Development
Programme.Retrieved on February 10th, 2015 from: http:
//www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml.
UNEP. United Nations Environment Programme. (2009). Towards Sustainable
Production and Use of Resources Assessing Biofuels. Paris: United Nations
Environment Programme.
UNICEF. 2013. State of Palestine- News Update: Protecting children from unsafe
water and inadequate sanitation.. Geneva; December. http: //www.
unicef.org/oPt/UNICEF_State_of_Palestine_-_WASH_News_update_-_
December_2013.pdf.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1997. Rainwater Harvesting:
A Lifeline for Human Well-Being. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment
Institute.
Va´squez, A., Costoya, M., Pen˜ a, R.M., Garcı´a, S., Herrero, C., 2003. A
rainwater quality monitoring network: a preliminary study of the composition of
rainwater in Galicia (NW Spain). Chemosphere 51, 375–386.
van Roon M. 2007. Water localisation and reclamation: steps towards low impact
urban design and development. J Environ Manage;83: 437–47.
van Wesemael, B., Bunte, K., and Solé Benet, A. 1998. Variation of rock
fragment cover and size along semiarid hillslopes: A case study from southeast
Spain. Geomorphology, 23(2-4), 323-335. [doi: 10.1016/S0169-555X(98)00013-
0].
Vasudevan L. 2002. A study of biological contaminants in rainwater collected
from rooftops in Bryan and College Station, Texas [master's thesis]. College
Station (TX): Texas A&M University. 180 p.
Villarreal EL, Dixon A. 2005. Analysis of a rainwater collection system for
domestic water supply in Ringdansen, Norrkoping, Sweden. Build Environ;40:
1174–84.
111
WHO & UNICEF. 2015. Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: Special
Focus on Sanitation. World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s
Fund, Joint Monitoring Programme for water supply and sanitation (JMP).
Retrieved 18.02.2009. Available online.
World Health Organization (2000). Water Quality: Guidelines, Standards and
Health
World Health Organization (WHO), 2004. Guideline for Drinking Water Quality,
third ed. World Health Organization, Geneva, Swistzerland.
World Health Organization and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water
Supply and Sanitation (JMP), (2008). Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation,
Special Focus on Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland.
Worm,J. Hattum,T.2006, Rainwater harvesting for domestic use, First edition:
2006,1-84.
Yatta Municipality (2014): Population and Demography, Yataa Municipality,
Unit of Development and Relations.
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. J Arid
Environ;57: 487–505.
Zobrist, J., Mu¨ ller, S.R., Ammann, A., Bucheli, T.D., Mottier, V., Ochs, M.,
Schoenenberger, R., Eugster, J., Boller, M., 2000. Quality of roof runoff for
groundwater infiltration. Water Research 34 (5), 1455-1462.
112
Appendix (A)
Factors Affecting Harvested Rain Water Quality And Quantity In Yatta Area
,Palestine
A General Information
Date(s) of field assessment
____/____/____
Location: Neighborhood
________________
Community
__________________________
Governorate
__________________________
B Household Information
Total number of people in the family: Sex Age category
0 - 18
years old
18 -
65
years
old
> 65
years
old
Male
Female
Main Income Sources
Average montly income
Shelter/House Information (conditions )
Type Apartment in a
113
Tower
Separate house
Asbestos/Zing
o
Tent
Other
Area Total area of
the shelter
m2
C Water Supply
What is the primary source of water for your household?
Networked water
Rainwater harvesting-
domestic/communal
collection cisterns
Spring(s)
Filling point within 5 km
Filling point beyond 5 km
Agricultural well(s)
Other, specify (e.g. tanker):
_____________________
How is the taste of your drinking water?
a) Excellent (a)
b) Good (b)
114
c) Acceptable (c)
d) Not acceptable (d)
How much do you spend on water per month?
NIS/month
How often does your household have running water from
the network?
During the
summer
During
the winter
a) Not Connected
b) Less than 4 hours per day
c) 5 to 12 Hours
d) More than 12 hours per day
Do you have a rainwater cistern around your home? a) Yes b) No
If so, please fill in the information below for each of the cisterns:
Type Capacity
(m3)
Type of
catchment
area
Size of
catchme
nt area
Purpose
of use
Cost of
constructi
on (NIS)
Water Quality and Health Concerns
Contamination risks for each of the cisterns
No. Animals
in the
vicinty
Cesspit
(specify
distance)
Other (specify)
115
Do you treat the harvested rainwater prior to consumption? a)
Yes
b) No
If so, what methods do you use?
Boiling
Filtration
Chlorination
Other
Has anyone in your household <5 year of age had unusual diarrheal
symptoms (WATERY/BLOODY DIARRHEA FOR A FEW DAYS
) in the past four weeks?
Has anyone in your household >5 years of age had unusual diarrhea
symptoms (WATERY/BLOODY DIARRHEA FOR A FEW DAYS
) in the past four weeks?
Financial income generated by using rainwater harvesting
Do you use the harvested rainwater for any income generating
actvities?
a)
Yes
b) No
If so, please specify when applicable:
How many heads of livestock
drink from the resources?
For
how
long?
What is the land area
irrigated using the harvested
rainwater?
For
how
long?
116
Appendix (B)
انعايم انز رؤثش عه خدح كخ يب انحظبد انبئ ف ثهذح طب ،فهسط
: أخ المواطن, أخت المواطنة
قوم معهد الدراسات البئة والمائة بدراسة حول واقع الماه والحصاد المائ لماه األمطار ف منطقة طا, ونأمل منكم التعاون ابة على األسئلة التالة, علما بأن هذه المعلومات ه ألغراض البحث العلم ولن طلع علها أحد مع فرق العمل المدان ف اإلج
غر فرق البحث, وبالتال فإن مشاركتكم قد تسهم ف إلقاء الضوء على واقع الماه ف المنطقة وبالتال المساعدة ف حل المشاكل .ذات العالقة
A معلومات عامة
عبئة االستمارة تارخ ت____/____/________
الموقع ____________________________التجمع ___________________________
المحافظة ___________________________
: اسم المجب__________________________
__________________________ : رقم التلفون/الجوال
B ومات عن االسرة. معل
B1 حجم
االسرة وتكوينها
B1.1 الفئة العمرة الجنس عدد أفراد االسرة سنة 1- 18 سنة 65- 18 سنة 65أكثر من
ذكور اناث
B1.2 رب االسرة هو: aذكر ) aانثى )
B1.3 ماجستر فاعلى بكالوروس ثانوي اساس أم التحصل العلم
ذكر
انثى
B2 دخل األسرة
B2.1 مصدر الدخل الرئس لرب االسرة
aالزراعة ) f قطاع خاص -( موظف
bرعاة االغنام ) gعمل ف اسرائل )
cالصناعة ) h أكثر من مصدر دخل )_________________________
d قطاع أهل -( موظف i ( ال عمل
_________________________
e قطاع حكوم -( موظف j مجاالت عمل اخرى )_________________________
117
B2.2 معدل دخل االسرة شهرا a) < 1000 NIS
b) 1000 - 3000 NIS
c) 3000- 5000 NIS
d) >5000 NIS
B2.3 لصف ا بالمتوسط, ما هو إنفاق األسرة على الماه بالصف والشتاء؟ )شكل/شهر(
الشتاء )شكل/شهر(
B2.4 هل تتلقى أي دعم أو مساعدة خارجة؟ aنعم ) bال )
B2 معلومات عن وضع المسكن
B3.1 نوع السكن aشقة ) bبت منفصل )
cبت زنكو/اسبست ) dخمة )
B3.2 مساحة المنزل الداخلة بالمتر المربع _________________ المساحة
مساحة سطح المنزل بالمتر المربع _________________
B3.3 ملكة المنزل aملك ) bاجار ) c اخرى / حدد )___________________
B3.4 كف تتخلص من الماع العادمة ف المنزل
a شبكة )صرف صح
b حفرة ) امتصاصة
cحفرة صماء ) d اخرى / حدد )______________
B3.5 ضح الماه العادمة من الحفرة الصماء/اإلمتصاصةعدد مرات ن كل__________شهر
C التزود بالمياه
C1 مصدر المياه
C1.1 C1.1.1 ما هو مصدر الماه
الرئس للمنزلخالل فصل المصدر
الصف )%( خالل فصل الشتاء )%(
aشبكة ماه )
b حصاد ماه منزل/أبار )ةجماع
cنابع )
d تنكات تعبأ من نقطة تعبئة )كم عن المنزل. 5تبعد أقل من
e تنكات تعبأ من نقطة تعبئة )كم عن المنزل. 5تبعد أكثر من
f تنكات مجرورة تعبأ من أبار ) زراعة
g اخرى / حدد )______________
C1.1.2 متوفرة من جمع المصادر كافة لتلبة هل كمة الماه ال
احتاجات االسرة؟a % من أحتاج االسرة25( أقل من
b % من أحتاج االسرة51 -% 25( من
c % من أحتاج االسرة75 -% 51( من
d % من أحتاج االسرة75( أكثر من
C1.2 شبكة الماه C1.2.1 هل أنت موصول مع
شبكة ماه؟aنعم ) bال )
118
C1.2.2 كم تدفع بالمعدل شهرا
ثمنا للماه؟الصف )شكل/شهر(
الشتاء )شكل/شهر(
C1.2.3 ما ه المدة الزمنة
الت تكون فها الماه متوفرة بالشبكة؟
الشتاء الصف
______ساعة كل _________
______ساعة كل _________
C1.2.4 ما
مجاالت هاستخدام الماه؟
خالل فصل الصف )%(
خالل فصل الشتاء )%(
منزل
ري
أغنام
أخرى
C1.2.5 هل كمة الماه
المتوفرة من جمع المصادر كافة لتلبة احتاجات االسرة؟
a % من أحتاج االسرة25( أقل من
b اج االسرة% من أحت51 -% 25( من
c % من أحتاج االسرة75 -% 51( من
d % من أحتاج االسرة75( أكثر من
C1.2.5 هل أنت راض عن
جودة ونوعة الماه؟ aنعم ) bال )
C1.3 التنكات C1.3.1 هل تشتري الماه
بواسطة تنكات ؟aنعم ) bال )
C1.3.2 ما هو عدد التنكات
المشتراة؟شتاءال الصف
C1.3.3 سعة التنك بالمتر
المكعب
C1.3.4 السعر لكل تنك الشتاء )شكل( الصف )شكل(
C1.3.5 ما
ه مجاالت استخدام الماه؟
الصف )شكل/شهر(
الشتاء )شكل/شهر(
منزل
ري
119
أغنام
أخرى
C1.3.6 عن هل أنت راض
جودة ونوعة الماه؟ aنعم ) bال )
مصدر الماه C1.3.7
( الb ( نعمa نقطة تعبئة
نابع aنعم ) bال )
( الb ( نعمa شبكة ماه
( الb ( نعمa أخرى
C1.4 أبار جمع الماه C1.4.1 هل وجد بئر لجمع
وتخزن الماه ف المنزل؟aنعم ) bال )
C1.4.2 كانت اإلجابة نعم, أجب ما ل لكل من االبارإذا :
No. النوع )خزان/أجاصة(
(m3) السعة
نوع مساحة التجمع )سطح منزل, طرق, أرض مجاورة, مدة
الخ(.ارضة,
مساحة التجمع ( m 2 )
تكلفة االنشاء بالشكل سنة االنشاءف حال التمول الخارج ال تعبئ هذه الخانة
1
2
3
4
C1.4.3 لكل بئر ارجو تعبئة انماط االستخدام
No. نسبة االستخداملالغراض المنزلة %
نسبة االستخدام لالغراض الزراعة %
نسبة االستخدام لالغراض سقاة الحوانات %
نسبة االستخدام لالغراض اخرى %
ة الترمم )تكلف سنة الترمم NIS)
1
2
3
4
C1.4 )االبار )تابع C1.4.4 كم مرة تم تعبئة البئر
خالل فصل الشتاء؟ __________ مرة
C1.4.5 بن اي أشهر تم عادة
الحصاد المائ؟من___________الى ____________
C1.4.6 تخدام الماه هل تم اس
من البئر خالل فصل الشتاء؟aنعم ) bال )
C1.4.7 هل تم تخزن الماه
من مصادر اخرى داخل البئر )الشبكة مثال (
aنعم ) bال )
121
C1.4.8 هل تم استخدام الماه
المحصودة ف الحمام ؟
aنعم ) bال )
C1.4.9 هل تم تنظف البئر؟ aنعم ) bال )
C1.4.10 لفترة الزمنة ا
الضرورة لتنظف البئر كل ________سنوات
C1.4.11 كف تقوم بتنظف البئر؟
( الb ( نعمa ماه فقط
( الb ( نعمa صابون
معقمات مثل الكلور
aنعم ) bال )
( الb ( نعمa الكاز
اخرى, حدد ______
aنعم ) bال )
C1.4.12 هل تقوم بتنظف
مع الماه فبل عملة ساحة ج الحصاد المائ؟
aنعم ) bال )
C1.4.13 هل تقوم باهمال جمع
الماه خالل بداة الشتاء لتنظف ساحة الجمع؟
aنعم ) bال )
C1.4.14 هل أنت راض عن
جودة ونوعة الماه؟ aنعم ) bال )
C1.4.15 هل تقوم باستخدام
الماه المحصودة الغراض الري؟
a نعم( bال )
C1.4.16 هل تقوم باستخدام
مصادر ماه اخرى الغراض الري؟
aنعم ) bال )
C1.4.17 ما ه مساحة
االرض الت تقوم برها من البئر؟
________ متر مربع
C1.4.18 ماه أنواع المحاصل الت تقوم برها بإستخدام البئر؟
( الb ( نعمa اشجار
( الb ( نعمa اشتال
اخرى, حدد ______
aنعم ) bال )
C1.4.19 ما
ه طرقة الري المستخدمة؟
( الb ( نعمa التنقط
( الb ( نعمa الري المفتوح
( الb ( نعمa طرقة دوة
121
اخرى, حدد ______
aنعم ) bال )
C1.4.20 ما هو تقدرك لكمة
المحصول الناتجة عن استخدام بئر ف الري؟ماه ال
__________طن / سنة
C1.4.21 كف تم استخدام المحصول الناتج عن استخدام ماه البئر ف الري؟
نسبة االستخدام الهدف
a استخدام ) منزل
bتسوق )
cاخرى, حدد )
C1.4.22 ما هو تقدرك للعائد
المادي الناتج عن الزراعة ئر ؟باستخدام ماه الب
________ شكل / سنة
C1.4.23 اذا لم كن عندك بئر,
هل سكون عندك أرض مزروعة؟
aنعم ) bال )
C1.4.24 هل تم استخدام الماه
الغراض سقاة الحوانات؟aنعم ) bال )
C1.4.25 إذا كانت االجابة نعم,
ما ه أعداد وانواع الحوانات الموجودة؟
دجاج
أبقار
أغنام
ماعز
اخرى / حدد ______
C1.4.26 ما ه المدة الزمنة
الت تقوم خاللها باستخدام الماه المحصودة ف سقاة الحوانات؟
_________ شهر
C1.4.27 ما هو تقدرك للعائد
المادي الناتج عن استخدام الماه المحصودة ف سقاة الحوانات؟
شكل / سنة________
122
C1.4.28 اذا لم كن عندك بئر,
هل كنت ستتمكن من تربة المواش؟
aنعم ) bال )
C1.4.29 ما هو معدل
المصروف على الماه قبل وبعد انشاء البئر ؟
قبل شكل/سنة
بعد شكل/سنة
C1.4.30 كف ساعدك البئر ف
حل المشاكل المائة؟
C2 المياه واالمور المتعلقة بالصحة جودة
C2.1 الرائحة اللون الطعم ما ه مواصفات الماه المستخدمة؟
aممتاز ) aممتاز ) aممتاز )
bجد ) bجد ) bجد )
cمقبول ) cمقبول ) cمقبول )
dغر مقبول ) dغر مقبول ) dغر مقبول )
C2.2 ة الماه المحصودة؟هل وجد عندك أي شكوك بالنسبة لنوع aنعم ) bال )
C2.3 كف تم اغالق البئر؟ a قفل ) aنعم ) bال )
bباب مفتوح ) aنعم ) bال )
cاخرى, حدد ) aنعم ) bال )
C2.4 متر ما ه المسافة بن األرض والباب )إرتفاع باب البئر عن األرض(؟ ______
C2.5 مكن أن تؤثر على جودة الماه ؟ ما ه مصادر التلوث المحتملة والت
No. وجودحوانات قربة
أشجار/أنشطة زراعة
حفرة للماه العادمة/حدد المسافة بالمتر باالضافة الى وصف مكان البئر بالنسبة للحفرة )اخفض, على نفس المستوى, أعلى(
اخرى, حدد _____
1
2
3
4
C2.6 هل وجد فضان او تسرب للماه العادمة حول البئر بشكل دوري؟ aنعم ) bال )
C2.7 C2.7.1 هل تقوم بمعالجة الماه المحصودة قبل استخدامها؟ aنعم ) bال )
C2.7.2 ( الb ( نعمa ( غلaاذا كان الجواب نعم, ما ه الطرقة
123
( ترشح b الت تستخدمها؟ وفلترة
aنعم ) b ال (
cكلورة ) aنعم ) bال )
dاخرى, حدد ) aنعم ) bال )
C2.8 هل تم فحص الماه المحصودة قبل استخدامها؟ aنعم ) bال )
C2.9 سنوات أو أقل من 5هل أصب أحد من أفراد العائلة الذن هم
بأعراض اإلسهال ف خالل الشهر الماض؟aنعم ) bال )
سنوات 5العائلة الذن هم أكثر من هل أصب أحد من أفراد
بأعراض اإلسهال ف خالل الشهر الماض؟aنعم ) bال )
C2.10 التنظف1 كف أثر البئر على ممارسات العائلة؟ . aنعم ) bال )
. االستحمام2 aنعم ) bال )
. زادة 3
استهالكaنعم ) bال )
. اخرى / 4
حدد ____aنعم ) bال )
Dاالنشطة الزراعية وإمكانية الحصاد المائي .
D1.1 ف حال عدم وجود بئر جمع ف المنزل, فإن السبب هو؟
. ال وجد 1
كمة -حاجة الماه كافة
aنعم ) bال )
. عدم وجود 2
مساحة كافةaنعم ) bال )
. غاب القدرة 3
المالةaنعم ) bال )
. اخرى / 4
حدد ____aنعم ) bال )
D1.2 هل تملك أرض زراعة؟ aنعم ) bال )
D1.3 اذا كانت االجابة نعم
D1.3.1 دونم مساحة االرض الزراعة غر المستغلة ___________
D1.3.2 دونم مساحة االرض الزراعة المستغلة ___________
D1.3.3 طبعة الزراعة aمروة ) bبعلة )
D1.3.4 ار . أشج1 نوع المزروعات
زتونالمساحة بالدونم =
. أشجار عنب2 المساحة بالدونم =
124
. أشجار 3
لوزاتالمساحة بالدونم =
. خضروات4 المساحة بالدونم =
. خضراوات 5
بعلةالمساحة بالدونم =
6 . أخرى/_____
المساحة بالدونم =
D1.4 نبع1 مصدر الماه . . بئر جمع2 ه معالجة. ما3 . تنكات ماه4
D1.5 بئر زراع؟ -هل تملك بئر لتجمع الماه بعد عن المنزل aنعم ) bال )
D1.6 إذا كانت االجابة نعم, أرجو االجابة عن االسئلة أدناه لكل بئر
No. النوع )خزان/أجاصة(
(m3) السعة
نوع مساحة التجمع ) طرق, أرض مجاورة, مدة
الخ(.ارضة,
احة التجمع مس ( m 2 )
تكلفة االنشاء بالشكل سنة االنشاءف حال التمول الخارج ال تعبئ هذه الخانة
1
2
3
4
لكل بئر ارجو تعبئة انماط االستخدام
No. نسبة االستخداملالغراض المنزلة %
نسبة االستخدام
ض لالغراالزراعة %
نسبة االستخدام لالغراض سقاة الحوانات %
نسبة االستخدام لالغراض اخرى %
(NISتكلفة الترمم ) سنة الترمم
1
2
3
4
D1.7 شكل معدل الدخل السنوي من الزراعة؟ ________________
D1.8 اعة ف دخل االسر؟ مساهمة الزر ____%
D1.9 هل تملك مساحة أرض كافة ومناسبة النشاء بئر جمع زراع؟ aنعم ) bال )
D1.10 اذا كانت االجابة نعم, لماذا ال وجد بئر ف االرض؟
. ال وجد 1
كمة -حاجة الماه كافة
aنعم ) bال )
. عدم وجود 2
مساحة كافةaنعم ) bال )
لقدرة . غاب ا3
المالةaنعم ) bال )
. اخرى / 4
حدد ____aنعم ) bال )
125
D1.11 ما ه مساحة االرض الت مكن االستفادة منها ف حال توفر مصدر ماه
___________ دونم
Eمالحظات .
126
Apendex C
Water quality results for mixed water samples
Sample
number
Turbidity(N
TU)
Salinity
)%(
Total
dissolved
solid(mg l-1)
Conductivity(µ
Scm-1)
Temperature
(C0)
PH CaCo3
mg l-1
Fecal
Coliforms
CFU/100
ml
Total
Coliforms
CFU/100
ml
Chloride
(mg l-1)
1 1.23 1.1 295 591 10.8 6.93 350 0 87 70
2 1.15 1 269 538 9.2 8.05 170 0 17 42
3 0.93 1.1 279 558 8.7 8.22 154 0 67 50.4
4 0.55 1 259 518 9.3 7.07 192 0 2 56
5 0.74 1.2 319 638 8.7 7.35 191 0 230 95.2
6 1.42 0.9 245 491 9.1 7.35 122 10 410 56
7 0.7 0.7 184 369 10.1 6.9 136 0 23 68
8 1.21 0.7 185 370 9.1 7.27 130 44 310 67
9 1.2 1.1 278 556 9.6 7.44 222 22 60 56
10 1.51 1.1 286 570 8.5 7.27 201 36 760 84
11 1.58 1.1 292 583 9.9 7.83 220 0 6 70
12 5.27 0.4 257 514 18.8 6.97 210 15 76 42
13 4.75 1.9 484 968 9.3 7.12 258 0 810 98
14 1.4 1.2 298 595 18.7 8.19 200 0 10 42
15 2.68 0.5 139.4 278.8 18.7 7.63 134 0 120 42
16 13.4 1 243 487 18.6 7.83 122 0 220 81.2
17 1.92 0.8 210 419 18.9 8.19 300 0 66 28
18 1.06 0.4 221.2 1106 18.8 8.05 160 240 470 28
19 0.66 1 266 532 10.7 7.63 166 0 170 70
20 0.5 0.6 465 293 18.7 7.83 192 0 8 84
21 0.54 1.3 327 654 19 7.35 200 0 510 63
22 0.49 0.9 221 442 19.1 7.01 205 6 180 42
23 1.97 1.1 283 565 18.7 8.06 133 0 110 78.4
24 0.39 0.4 112.2 224.5 19 7.05 135 0 41 28
25 0.51 0.3 89 178 19.2 7.5 220 0 71 45
26 0.78 0.5 132.3 264.5 18.5 8.04 122 17 410 44.8
27 0.59 0.8 214 428 18.5 8.2 124 15 66 75
28 1.23 0.4 109.2 318.3 18.5 8.04 185 0 210 56
29 4.61 0.5 118.2 236.4 18.5 8 201 6 1400 28
30 1.21 1.1 293 585 18.4 8.05 220 9 98 70
31 1.23 0.4 113.6 272.2 19.1 8.04 122 17 510 28
32 0.68 0.5 135.4 270.8 18.6 8.03 134 0 97 28
33 3.25 0.7 174 347 19.2 7.44 133 42 720 28
34 0.89 1.1 273 546 19.7 7.31 230 0 15 70
35 65.2 0.4 113.7 227.5 19.7 8.74 100 0 60 28
36 1.67 0.6 143.2 286.6 19.7 7.46 100 140 1400 52
37 1.6 0.9 232 465 19.3 7.36 105 0 15 28
38 1.34 0.9 241 482 19.2 7.38 136 0 350 28
39 0.74 0.9 226 451 19.6 7.2 230 0 44 41
40 2.81 0.5 125.6 251.2 18.5 7.61 74 8 2200 42
127
41 32.6 0.4 89.9 179.7 18.5 8.05 183 0 970 140
42 1.24 0.8 201 402 18.6 7.4 220 0 1200 56
43 2.66 0.5 125.6 251.2 18.5 7.61 240 650 650 28
44 1.54 1.1 286 572 18.2 7.35 180 36 84 42
45 1.8 1.1 282 564 18.2 7.47 174 65 220 56
46 1.79 1.1 288 577 18.8 7.37 186 140 1400 84
47 5.12 1.1 269 539 18.8 7.37 250 2 850 56
48 2.81 0.7 188 376 18.7 7.46 220 5 320 28
49 1.34 0.9 245 480 18.6 7.3 220 0 40 55
50 1 0.7 200 420 18.6 7.42 207 0 15 70
max 65.2 1.9 484 1106 19.7 8.74 350 650 2200 140
min 0.39 0.3 89 178 8.5 6.9 74 0 2 28
average
4.866923 0.838462
228.8173077
463.74423 16.305769
7.604423
181.5962
41.8269231
391.923077
56.07692
stand 12.93906 0.353637
92.15505896
200.4305 4.227493 0.445876
59.38378
128.841095
529.918021
25.88285
Apendex D
Water quality results for rain water samples
Sample
number
Turbidity(
NTU)
Salinity
)%(
Total
dissolved
solid(mg l-
1)
Conductivity(
µScm-1)
Temperatur
e(C0)
PH CaCo3(
mg l-1)
Fecal
Coliforms
CFU/100
ml)
Total
Coliforms
CFU/100
ml)
Chloride
(mg l-1)
1 2.64 0.5 113.2 226.3 24 7.11 127 0 300 78
2 0.69 0.5 115.2 228.3 23.7 7.17 123 76 1400 40
3 0.46 0.5 124 247.2 23.7 7.57 106 0 1140 53
4 3.17 0.5 125.9 251.8 22.9 7.17 100 3 1090 53
5 0.44 0.6 198.3 296.7 23.3 7.14 109 51 1500 90
6 0.37 0.6 155 308 23.4 7.01 145 19 840 55
7 0.29 1.1 280 560 10 7.47 143 14 1150 67
8 0.63 0.6 153 305 9 7.25 142 8 1610 60
9 0.2 0.7 244 312 9.4 7.2 150 0 300 51
10 0.27 0.9 238 477 10.2 7.18 152 0 55 79
11 0.53 0.6 110.5 255.6 22.1 7.12 96 32 680 70
12 0.51 0.5 196.6 391 9.3 7.13 90 2 1480 42
13 7.83 0.4 105.2 210.4 24.2 7.24 100 48 1500 94
14 0.74 0.5 132 263.3 24.2 7.42 95 9 59 43
15 0.36 0.4 94.3 188.7 24 7.17 103 0 91 41
16 0.2 1.2 316 632 23.9 7.14 106 0 66 80
17 0.4 0.4 101.4 202.8 23.2 7.5 107 22 612 30
18 0.31 0.9 232 464 22.2 7.05 132 316 650 28
19 0.4 0.4 113.7 227.4 24.6 7.31 201 0 19 68
20 0.76 0.9 236 473 24.4 7 215 14 441 82
21 0.7 0.5 131.2 262.4 22.5 7.23 202 5 280 62
22 0.27 0.6 160.7 290 22.3 7.2 204 0 75 40
128
23 0.21 0.7 144.8 288.8 21.8 7.1 175 0 40 77
24 0.26 1 256 512 21.8 7.14 177 0 60 26
25 0.24 1.1 271 543 22.1 7.09 165 0 166 40
26 0.24 0.8 215 429 22.2 7.34 135 90 890 44
27 0.39 1 263 525 20.7 7.15 120 2 360 76.3
28 0.43 0.9 237 475 23.5 7.23 162 3 770 56
29 1 0.7 178 355 21.9 7.32 153 15 542 28
30 1.49 0.7 173 345 22.1 7.13 120 0 440 70
31 0.34 0.7 240 400 22.1 7.15 122 24 1120 28
32 0.47 0.5 140 280 23.4 7.4 112 0 320 26
33 0.36 0.8 240 470 22.1 7.12 106 20 950 28
34 0.26 1.1 279 552 21.9 7.17 135 12 880 70
35 0.51 0.6 147.3 294.5 22.8 7.15 105 23 612 28
36 0.49 0.6 157 315 21.2 7.22 135 290 2300 52
37 0.54 0.7 128 260 21.8 7.02 105 0 159 28
38 0.45 0.5 124.9 249.9 21.9 7.26 103 0 810 28
39 0.73 1 266 505 22.7 7.13 189 14 410 41
40 0.49 1 250 420 22 7.31 84 33 950 42
41 0.27 1.1 290 580 21.4 7.14 175 98 1310 140
42 0.24 0.9 260 532 21.6 7.18 200 0 68 56
43 0.25 1 254 507 22.2 7.29 132 60 1800 28
44 0.26 1.1 277 554 21.6 7.28 200 0 189 42
45 0.18 0.9 219 437 22.1 7.31 152 11 740 56
46 4.52 1 253 506 21.8 7.09 180 0 86 84
47 0.26 0.8 195 390 22.6 7.3 89 14 210 56
48 0.34 1.1 273 547 22.3 7.29 125 116 2250 28
49 0.25 1 280 535 22 7.2 201 0 77 55
50 0.26 0.8 295 533 22.2 7.13 98 66 48 70
Max 7.83 1.2 316 632 24.6 7.57 215 316 2300 140
Min 0.18 0.4 94.3 188.7 9 7 84 0 19 26
Average
0.882885
0.759615
199.8557692
389.11154 21.113462
7.211346
138.5 35.1153846
696.423077
55.29423
Standard
value
1.585293
0.242788
67.15462185
130.81919 4.3016557
0.131793
38.49001
72.7774938
631.193447
25.68342
139
Apendex E
catchment area m2 145.8m2
collection efficiency % 0.85
Rinwater Harvesting
Calculation Sheet tank size m3 69
water consumption L\capita.day 64
number of people \family 10
month average water usage \Litre
Assumed preceptation\mm
assumed collection effiency rain fall collected\litre month end storge volume \litre
January 19200 155 0.8 18079.2 -1120.8
February 19200 185 0.8 21578.4 1257.6
March 19200 131 0.8 15279.84 -2662.56
April 19200 15 0.75 1640.25 -20222.31
May 19200 0 0.7 0 -39422.31
June 19200 0 0.7 0 -58622.31
July 19200 0 0.7 0 -77822.31
August 19200 0 0.7 0 -97022.31
September 19200 0 0.7 0 -116222.31
October 19200 0 0.7 0 -135422.31
November 19200 31 0.75 3389.85 -151232.46
December 19200 29 0.75 3171.15 -167261.31
Total 230400
63138.69 -865775.7
Demand supply
141
Apendex F
Rinwater Harvesting Calculation Sheet
catchment area m2 145.8 collection efficiency % 0.85 tank size m3 69 water consumption
l\capita.day 20 number of people
\family 10
month average water usage \Liter
Assumed preceptation\mm
assumed collection effiency
rain fall collected \Liter
month end storge volume \Liter
January 6000 155 0.8 18079.2 12079.2
February 6000 185 0.8 21578.4 27657.6
March 6000 131 0.8 15279.84 36937.44
April 6000 15 0.75 1640.25 32577.69
May 6000 0 0.7 0 26577.69
June 6000 0 0.7 0 20577.69
July 6000 0 0.7 0 14577.69
August 6000 0 0.7 0 8577.69
September 6000 0 0.7 0 2577.69
October 6000 0 0.7 0 -3422.31
November 6000 31 0.75 3389.85 -6032.46
December 6000 29 0.75 3171.15 -8861.31
Total 72000
63138.69 163824.3
Demand supply
141
Appendix G: Plot of Yatta water tankers and Munciplity net work
Figure G.1: Alkaraj tank
Figure G.2: Alaros tank
142
Figure G.3: Mutref mountain tank
Figure G.4: Ihreez tank
143
Figure G.5: Munciplity net work (Yatta Munciplity)
Figure G.6: Munciplity net work (Yatta Munciplity)
144
Figure G.7: No munciple water net work (Yatta Munciplity)
Figure G.8: Detoreoration of water net work(Yatta Munciplity)
Figure G.9: losses in the internal pipes (Yatta Munciplity)
145
Figure G.10: Loses in main pipe (Yatta Munciplity)
146
Appendix H : Causes of Pollution
Figure H.1: Contamination due to deposition on catchment area
Figure H.2 : Contamination due to deposition on catchment area
147
Figure H.3 : contamination due to deposition on catchment area
Figure H.4: Contamination due to deposition on catchment area
148
Figure H.5: Unscreened Overflow Pipe
Figure H.6: Location of cesspit in relation to the cistern
Figure H.7: Cesspit close to the cistern
149
Figure H.8: Deposition on catchment surface
Figure H.9: Deposition on catchment area
151
Figure H.10: Deposition on catchment area
FigureH.11: Catchment area
Related Documents
