Next Article in Journal
Sharing Economy in Russia: Current Status, Barriers, Prospects and Role of Universities
Previous Article in Journal
Heat of Hydration Stresses in Stainless-Steel-Reinforced-Concrete Sections
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/su12124853
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Financial Sustainability of Selected Rain Water Harvesting Systems for Single-Family House under Conditions of Eastern Poland

by
Anna Musz-Pomorska
*,
Marcin K. Widomski
and
Justyna Gołębiowska
Faculty of Environmental Engineering, Lublin University of Technology, Nadbystrzycka St. 40 B, 20-618 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(12), 4853; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124853
Submission received: 13 May 2020 / Revised: 3 June 2020 / Accepted: 11 June 2020 / Published: 14 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Engineering and Science)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Recent climate changes limiting the available water resources require careful sustainable water management in the cities, the locations of highest drinking water consumption and sanitary sewage and stormwater generation. Over 50% of water demand in the residential areas of cities cover activities in which non-potable water could be used, e.g., toilets and laundry facilities, cleaning, garden irrigation and washing vehicles. Thus, rain water harvesting (RWH) systems are the sustainable alternative water supply, lowering drinking water consumption, by the usage of non-potable harvested water, and limiting the anthropopressure on natural water reservoirs. However, in many cases the social acceptance of RWH and willingness to pay may be affected by financial sustainability, including the affordability and profitability of the investment. This paper presents a case study concerning the financial sustainability of thirteen designs of RWH systems for a single-family house under the climatic and economic conditions of Eastern Poland, one of the poorest regions of the European Union. The financial sustainability of the tested RWH designs were based on indictors of cost-efficiency: dynamic generation cost, payback period, net present value and benefit–cost ratio. The performed analyses showed the limited profitability of the studied RWH designs and the insufficient governmental financial support which may significantly affect the social sustainability of the designs under the local conditions.

1. Introduction

The sustainable development of society, in general, is understood as a growth at which the needs of the current and the future generations are satisfied, also by the proper usage of natural resources, including drinking water, the reserves of which are threatened by urbanization, population growth and climate change [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Around one third of the EU territory is exposed to permanent or temporary water shortages [10,11]. The volume of available drinking water is related to the natural factors including climatic conditions, droughts, limited precipitation, infiltration, surface and underground flows, and may be also affected by anthropopressure caused by water usage by populations, services and industry, the improper handling of sanitary sewages and municipal solid wastes, increased urbanization triggering elevated runoff, etc., so the protection of water resources is crucial to the sustainable development of urbanized regions [4,9,12,13,14,15,16]. Thus, the sustainable management of water resources can prevent water shortage [15,17,18].
Water demand in the residential areas of developed countries, including single-family housings, covers not only the actual drinking, food preparation and personal hygiene but also water for toilet flushing, laundry, cleaning the house, vehicle washing and garden irrigation [19,20,21]. Recent residential water demand in Poland covers the mean daily domestic water use per one resident 80–160 L/(d∙resident), including toilet flushing 30–45 L/(d∙resident), laundry 16–20 L/(d∙resident) and cleaning 5–10 L/(d∙resident). Additionally, residents of single-family housing use tap water for washing vehicles 1.9 L/(d∙resident) and garden irrigation 0.16–0.22 L/(d∙m2) [22]. Thus, it is visible, that a significant volume of tap water, up to 75 L per day and resident (27.3 m3 per year and resident), is wasted for domestic activities which could be performed with water of lower quality. Moreover, the price of 1 m3 of cold water from the water supply systems in Poland increased by approx. 73% in the years 2006–2019. In 2019, the mean price for 1 m3 of cold water was approx. 0.88 Euro, and the price of discharged sanitary wastewater to municipal sewerage was at the similar level [23].
Rain water harvesting (RWH) systems, as a method of interception and storage of rain water, providing a non-potable water quality for domestic purposes, including toilets, laundry and gardening [18,21,24], are popular alternative designs allowing the reduction of tap water demand in residential areas and limiting the anthropopressure exerted on surface waters by untreated stormwater discharged by urban drainage systems [21,25,26,27,28,29]. The conducted research showed that RWH systems can decrease domestic water insecurity even in arid regions [30]. However, the exact effects of rain water harvesting system performance under changing climate conditions may vary depending on the geographical location, and should be assessed in the long-term perspective before the final design solution implementation [31]. RWH as units allowing the on-site interception and retention of rain for meeting the demands of water supply are commonly accepted and supported by EU regulations [32,33,34,35]. These systems are currently introduced in numerous countries all around the globe, and in the cites fighting water sources scarcity, they are treated as the alternative manner of water supply [24,36]. Moreover, in some regions, they are crucial to overcome the flood problems related to urban runoffs [21,37]. Nevertheless, it must be underlined, that their implementation degree, the technology selection and complexity of design, are strongly influenced by economic constraints and local regulation [37]—e.g., for Europe alone, the implementation state of RWH systems varies considerably depending on country.
Generally, under the conditions of residential areas, applied RWH systems are able to reduce drinking water demand even by 60–80% [38,39]. The lower consumption of drinking water delivered by the water supply network, measured by domestic water meters, under present conditions in Poland, reduces payment for delivered water and discharged sanitary wastewater. In the case of communes in which connection to municipal stormwater system is obligatory, the installation of RWH systems allows avoiding stormwater fee payment. Moreover, numerous studies e.g., [28,40,41,42,43] show that RWH systems collecting rain water on site and allowing its reuse positively affect the water balance of urbanized basins.
RWH systems as sustainable rain water management measures should be considered on three general platforms of sustainability: environmental, social and economic [44,45]. The actual state of knowledge and modern technologies, combined with the available know-how and good practices transfer allow environmental sustainability and technical durability for RWH systems under Poland’s condition. However, the sustainability of technical investment may be affected by numerous factors, also non-technical, such as social and economic, one group closely related to the other. Thus, the sustainability of individual, single-family house RWH systems may be influenced by several social factors: user acceptability, willingness to pay, ability to operate and maintain as well as short-term thinking [27,45,46,47]. All the aforementioned social indicators of RWH may be directly affected by the economic aspects of such design installation and operation i.e., capital investment costs, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, affordability and profitability, so the economic sustainability of the RWH investment becomes a crucial issue. The low-cost efficiency of the design resulted from the relatively high investment and O&M costs as well as the low level of costs recovery, mainly, in the case of RWH systems, is possibly due to tap water savings and preventing stormwater fees [9,46,47]. In our opinion, the sustainability of RWH designs is strongly related to the financial aspects of their construction, operation and maintenance as well as the volume of collected and reused rain water. Thus, a financially sustainable RWH design should be affordable and cost-effective during the extended time duration of its operation and the choice of technology should be based on the extensive decision-making process.
In our opinion, RWH systems economics analyses, as aimed at local residents and designers, should be based on clear, easy-to-understand and sound cost-effective analysis, based on several simple and dynamic financial indicators, allowing the easy assessment of the RWH system profitability already at the stage of conceptual design and decision making [48,49,50,51,52].
This paper presents a case study concerning the financial sustainability of several designed rain water harvesting systems for a single-family house model occupied by four residents under the climatic and economic conditions of Eastern Poland. The financial sustainability of thirteen RWH designs of various complexity, and the rain water reuse ratio were based on simple and dynamic indicators of cost-efficiency: dynamic generation cost, payback period, net present value and benefit–cost ratio. The required costs and cash inflows or possible savings, necessary to determine the aforementioned financial sustainability indicators, were based on a determined preliminary investment costs estimation, the calculation of the operation and maintenance costs, the actual mean prices of tap water and sanitary sewerage discharge as well as the stormwater fee.

2. Materials and Methods

The performed studies of the financial sustainability of various on-site rain water harvesting systems application were conducted for two cases, without and with the obligatory payment of the stormwater fee by the owners of the house (this obligation is not uniform in Poland, its application nowadays depends on the decision of the local water supply and wastewater removal companies). The presented economic analyses were based on several simple and dynamic indicators of investment cost efficiency.
The assessment of the financial sustainability of several studied rain water harvesting systems was performed for a typical single-family house located in the eastern part of Poland, Lubelskie and Podlaskie Voivodeship, regions of relatively low level of economic development, generally one of the less developed regions of Poland and the European Union [53].
The single-family house of a roof area of 230 m2 occupied by 4 residents owning a car and cultivating a 400 m2 garden, located in the area of a mean annual rainfall height H = 600 mm [54] was used for the presented analyses. The annual rain water yield was calculated according to the following formula:
Q = A · φ · q
where: Q—annual rain water yield, L/year, A—roof area, m2, φ—dimensionless outflow coefficient, assumed φ = 0.8, according to [55], q—mean annual rainfall, L/m2, according to [54].
The assumed household is connected to a municipal water supply system, a sanitary sewerage and a stormwater system. The mean drinking water demand for one resident (125 L/(d⋅resident), including 38 L/(d∙resident) for toilet flushing, 14 L/(d∙resident) for laundry and 5 L/(d∙resident) for cleaning the house), washing vehicles (1.9 L/(d∙resident)) and watering the garden (60 L/(year∙m2) i.e., 0.16 L/(d∙m2)) were assumed after actual Polish standards [22]. The determined mean annual water demand for the building occupied by four residents was 182.5 m3 per year, while the water demand extended by vehicle washing and watering the garden reached the level of 209.3 m3. The domestic water supply system was designed as layered cross-linked polyethylene pipelines PEX-Al-PEX PN10, of the following diameters 32 × 3, 26 × 3, 20 × 2 and 16 × 2 mm, equipped with the standard water meter DN 20 and non-return valve type EA DN 20 [56,57].
To perform the economical assessment of several possible, up-to-date RWH systems for a single-family house, the meeting requirements of actually biding Polish and European law as well as utilizing modern technologies, thirteen variants of storm water collection, storage and utilization were designed. All the developed variants are presented in Figure 1, while the general information regarding the components of each assumed variant and the planned usage of rain water are presented in Table 1. As it is visible in Table 1, the designed variants allow the reuse of rain water in volumes from 26.6 m3 (watering the garden and washing the vehicle) to 110 m3 (as above plus domestic use including toilet flushing, cleaning and laundry), which constitutes from 12.8% to 52.6% of the total household water demand. It is visible, that most of the designed RWH variants were aimed to maximize the reuse of rain water and saving the tap water. Only one variant was designed as allowing to deliver all the stored rain water to the soil through drainage boxes, with zero water reuse (in this case, the only economic advantage may be the savings possible due to avoiding the stormwater charge). In all the designed cases, the overflow 110 mm PVC (polyvinyl chloride) pipe was designed to remove the exceeding volume of water from the RWH system to the municipal stormwater system or road-side drainage ditch. In all the studied cases, the volume of harvested rain water tank was calculated according to the formula [58]:
V = Q + P 2 · n 365
where: V—tank volume, L, Q—annual rain water yield, L/year, P—annual water demand on given purpose, according to [22], L/year, n—duration of dry period, assumed n = 21, according to [58].
Rain water installation was in all the tested variants, designed as 110 mm PVC pipes to collect and direct the stormwater [55]. The designed variants consisted of several technical units allowing to collect, store, treat and reuse harvested rain water, presented in Table 1. The underground stormwater tank, selected as the main unit storing rain water in Variants No. I, II, II, IV and XII was designed as 7 m3 high-density polyethylene (HDPE) reservoir. The volume of HDPE over ground rain water storage tank was different in several variants, starting from 4 m3 for variants IX, X and XII, through 6 m3 for Variant No. XIII to 7 m3 for Variants V–VIII [58]. A multistage automatically operated submersible pump with an output up to 120 dm3/min (7.2 m3/h) and head up to 42 m, was used to allow water flow from the tank to the installation was used in Variants I, II, V, VI, IX, X and XIII. The collected rain water in all tested variants underwent partial basic mechanical treatment underground, integrated with the tank, (Variants I, III, V, VII and XIII) or downpipe (Variants II, IV, VI, VIII–XII) filters [59]. Both types of filters applied in these designs had the same purpose: the removal of solid particles flushed from the roof to the rain water gutter piping. The main difference, besides the size and costs of both filters, was their location, underground inside or outside the water tank, and the second directly on downpipe, respectively. Four designs (III, IV, VII and VIIII) were equipped with a rain water central consisting of drinking water reservoir, a submersible water pump with an electromagnetic valve of maximum performance 4.2 m3/h and a pressure head of 48 m. The designed central allowed the automatic use of drinking water, instead of rain water, in cases of long lasting dry period and limited access to water from precipitation. Variant XI, in which no reuse of rain water was designed, assumed a storage of 110 m3/year of intercepted stormwater and infiltration to soil by a set of polypropylene drainage boxes of a total volume 2.35 m3.
In order to allow the financial analyses, the preliminary investment cost estimation and the assessment of operation and maintenance (O&M) costs under the commercial conditions of Eastern Poland were performed. The preliminary investment cost calculations included materials, assembly and earthworks, while the estimation of the O&M costs covered energy prices (assumed 0.1 Euro for 1 kWh), required fittings and pipeline services or exchange, as well as filters and reservoir cleaning. It was assumed that simple conservation works may be performed by the users of the RWH systems. The determined investment and O&M costs of all the designed variants, together with a sole domestic water supply installation, are presented in Table 2.
The financial cost efficiency as well as the investment profitability, affecting the sustainability of the designed RWH systems for single-family housing, were assessed based on four indicators, one simple payback period (PP) and three dynamic: dynamic generation cost (DGC), net present value (NPV) and benefit–cost ratio (BCR) [50,60,61].
The payback period presents the time required to recoup funds spent on the investment due to the incomes, or savings, possible during its operation. The PP is a simple an easily understandable indicator, showing the ratio of inflows to investments, but it has one important disadvantage: it ignores the time value of money [62,63]. The PP was calculated according to the formula [63]:
P P = I C N C F
where: PP—payback period, years, IC—initial investment costs, Euro, NCF—net cash flow, Euro/year.
Dynamic generation cost (DGC) is a rather popular and easy-to-understand cost-efficiency indicator expressing the cash value required to obtain the discounted revenues equal to the discounted costs, so it shows the price of the ecological effect, in this case 1 m3 of collected, stored and reused rain water during the whole assumed duration of the investment, taking into account investment as well as O&M costs. The application of DGC to decision making is very simple: the lower the value of DGC, the more economically acceptable the investment is. The DGC may be calculated using the formula [64,65,66]:
D G C = ∑ t = 0 t = n I C t + E C t ( 1 + i ) t ∑ t = 0 t = n E E t ( 1 + i ) t
where: DGC—price of the ecological unit effect of the investment, Euro/m3, ICt—annual investment costs, Euro, ECt—annual operation and maintenance costs, Euro, t—year of investment time duration, from 0 to n, where n is the last assessed year of investment activity, years, i—discount rate, %, EEt—ecological effect unit in given year, m3.
The next applied dynamic, introducing the variable value of money, the indicator net present value presents the total sum of discounted cash flows, inflows and outflows, during the assumed time duration, reduced by the investment capital costs [67]. Thus, the profitable investment should obtain a positive, greater than zero, or eventually equal to zero, value of the NPV indicator, in monetary units. The NPV may be calculated as follows [60,61,62,68,69,70,71]:
N P V = ∑ t = 0 t = n N C F t ( 1 + i ) t
where: NCFt—net cash flow for a i year of investment operation, Euro.
The last applied indicator, benefit–cost ratio (BCR), presents the dimensionless relation of discounted investment benefits (cash inflows or savings) to its discounted costs (initial investment plus O&M). The value of the BCR indicator for the profitable investment should be BCR ≥ 1. The BCR may be calculated using the following formula [60,61,62,72,73]:
B C R = P V b P V c = ∑ t = 0 t = n I B t ( 1 + i ) t ∑ t = 0 t = n I C t + E C t ( 1 + i ) t
where: PVb—discounted value of benefits, Euro, PVc—discounted value of costs, Euro, IBt—investment benefits (cash inflows) in given year, Euro.
The assumption, as well as the input data required for the determination of the aforementioned financial sustainability indicators of thirteen designs of RWH systems for single-family housing covered: (i) the time duration of the analysis: 30 years; (ii) the actual discount rate: 6%; (iii) the price of 1 m3 drinking water delivered by a municipal water supply network and 1 m3 of sanitary sewerage collected by sanitary sewage network (determined as the mean price for 12 main cities of discussed regions, the payment for water delivery and sanitary sewage management is in Poland generally based on water meter readings): 2.06 Euro/m3; (iv) the price of 1 m3 stormwater delivered to a municipal stormwater system (determined as the mean price for 11 cities in Poland in which this fee is obligatory): 0.94 Euro/m3.
To allow the direct comparison all the proposed variants of RWH designs from the point of view of economical sustainability, based on all the determined financial indicators, the weighed sum model (WSM) was applied, due to its clarity and simplicity [12,48,49,51,52,74,75]:
P C j = ∑ i = 1 n P I j i w j i
where: PCj—performance value of j criterion; n—number of indicators included in the criterion; PIji—performance value of indicator in the criterion, points values, from 13 for the best design to 1 for the weakest, were assigned, wji—weight factor of the indicator in the criterion, for each criterion weight factor was assumed 25%.
Additionally, the minimal value of co-founding allowing to reduce the investment costs and to raise the public acceptance of RWH systems was determined. For each variant, the BCR calculations were repeated for the variable value of the outside costs refund until the resultant indicator value reached the threshold of profitability BCR ≥ 1.

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 2 presents the obtained values of the DCG financial indicator for all the tested variants of the RWH systems for single-family housing, supported by DGC, determined for the drinking water supplied from the municipal drinking water distribution system. The calculated costs of ecological effect for all the tested variants varied between 1.43 Euro/m3 and 8 Euro/m3, of collected, stored and reused or infiltrated rain water. Obviously, the value of the determined DGC indicator was affected by investment and O&M costs but also by the amount of retained and reused stormwater (see formula (4)). It is also visible, that in most cases, i.e., excluding Variants V and XI, the DGCs determined for 1 m3 of harvested and reused rain water are on a similar level (e.g., Variants I, II, VI, VIII and XIII), or clearly higher (Variants III, IV, VII, IX, X and XII) than the total cost of 1 m3 of tap water delivered by the municipal water supply system, even taking into account the rather high costs of water supply and wastewater removal.
The dependence between the complexity of the studied RWH system, understood as a number and degree of the technical sophistication of the applied components, affecting the cost of the ecological effect, is presented in Figure 3 for the Variants I–VIII, allowing to harvest and reuse the maximal required volume of rain water, i.e., 110 m3/year, for the assumed single-family housing.
Comparison presented in Figure 3 shows that the increase in complexity and technical sophistication of tested RWH causes an increase in the DGC value caused by the increase in total investment as well as the operation and maintenance costs.
The determined payback period values, the simple indicator of investment profitability for all the tested RWH variants, calculated in two scenarios, without and with the obligatory payment of rain water discharge to the municipal stormwater system, is presented in Figure 4. It is visible that in some cases, i.e., IX, X and XII, the determined PP without possible savings resulting from avoiding the stormwater charge (in these variants, incomes represent the savings possible with the use of rain water instead of tap water) is longer than the assumed time duration of the investment: 42.95, 61.07 and 37.99 years, respectively. In the case of Variant XI, in which all the collected rain water is stored and infiltrated into the soil, the calculated PP reaches infinity, as the variant generates no possible savings. The application of obligatory stormwater payment, allowing to obtain the significant savings, clearly changes the determined values of PP. In most tested cases, the duration of payback period decreased below the assumed time duration of the investment. The only exception is Variant X, which was rather costly, but allowed the limited saving due to the reuse of only 26.8 m3 of rain water per year. Generally, the shortest time of payback period was obtained for variants in which the reuse of rainwater was maximized, in these cases up to over 50% of the total water demand.
Figure 5 presents the determined values of the discounted costs–benefits indicator net present value for all the tested RWH variants, with and without the obligatory payment of the stormwater fee. It is visible that in most tested cases, without and with possible savings due to avoiding stormwater fee payment, the profitability of the proposed designs is rather questionable because they generate costs higher than financial incomes (savings). In the first scenario, only one variant, No. V, reached the level of NPV > 0, however, rather unsignificantly, with the determined NPV = 39.08 Euro for the 30 years of investment duration. Under the conditions of the second scenario, with the savings consequent from the avoided stormwater fee, the situation was better. Six design variants, i.e., Variants I, II, V, VI, VIII and XIII, showed NPV values greater than zero, some of them even allowed NPV from approx. 559 to 1569 Euro for the 30 years of operation. Thus, it is visible that in order to increase the profitability of investment, the possible savings should be maximized and the investment and O&M costs should be minimized. Otherwise, the social acceptance of the proposed variants of RWH by owners of households may be limited.
The determined values of the last applied indicator of financial sustainability of the proposed RWH designs, the discounted benefit–cost ratio, were calculated for both tested scenarios and are presented in Figure 6.
Similarly, like in the case of the calculated NPV, the determined BCR values show a low profitability of the studied RWH designs, under the conditions of both applied scenarios. Without obligatory stormwater charge, and possible savings, the value of BCR ≥ 1.0 was achieved by only one variant, again Variant No. V. Increased possible savings, due to stormwater management and reuse instead of direct discharge to the municipal stormwater system, allowed the increase in the profitability of the proposed designs. Variants I, II, V, VI, VIII and XIII showed a BCR greater than 1.0. The highest determined values of BCR 1.20, 1.31, 1.49 were obtained for the Variants I, VI and V, respectively. Thus, in the cases of systems generating cash incomes, due to money savings, greater than the total investment costs, the level of social acceptance related to the affordability and economic profitability of the RWH designs may be clearly higher.
Figure 7 presents the determined performance points (PC), by weighted sum model, for all the tested variants of the RWH systems under the conditions of two analyzed scenarios. In both cases, the relative, in comparison to the remaining designs, the best financial performance was observed for Variant V, which showed a very low DGC, the shortest payback period, the highest positive NPV and the highest BCR, at both scenarios greater than 1.0. It was also observed that there were some variants, i.e., VI, I and II, which showed insufficient profitability under the conditions of the first scenario, but after increasing the possible savings due to the obligatory payment of stormwater fee, under conditions of the second scenario they became profitable.
Taking into account the presented above results of financial sustainability analyses of thirteen on-site rain water harvesting designs for single-family houses, showing limited or even no profitability of the studied systems, limiting the social acceptance and discouraging the possible investors of such investments, the outside, governmental or European Community, the co-founding of part of the investment costs seems to be required. The reduction of investments, in relation to the same operation and maintenance costs, as well as the savings possible due to the volume of retained and reused water, allows the increase in the benefit–cost ratio indicators (NPV and BCR) and the decrease in DGC and the duration of payback period. Table 3 shows the determined values of the percentage of the refund rate and the required amount of cash to obtain the minimal profitability of the proposed design, under the scenario of lowered savings due to the lacking stormwater fee. Currently, there are two available programs of RWH refunding in the assumed region of investment: (A) “Catch rain water” in Lublin, Lubelskie Voivodeship, allowing to obtain a 70% refund for the purchase and installation or renovation of RWH units, but not more than 1110 Euro; (B) “Stormwater management” in Białystok, Podlaskie Voivodeship, allowing even a 100% refund (but no more than approx. 1330 Euro) for RWH for households connected to the municipal stormwater system, and a 50% refund (no more than approx. 666 Euro) for buildings not connected to the municipal stormwater system [76,77].
The information presented in Table 3 shows that in many cases, the local refund programs for RWH systems, especially based on sophisticated technical devices, are unavailable or are unsatisfactory. Even obtaining the maximal possible refund in the cases of Variants II, IV, VII, VIII is insufficient to ensure even the minimal profitability of the investment allowing to gain the interest and acceptance of the potential investors.

4. Conclusions

The performed analyses of the financial sustainability of thirteen designs of on-site rain water harvesting installations allowed the following conclusions:
  • The performed financial assessment of the proposed RWH designs showed that their economical sustainability under the local conditions is in most of the cases questionable; local investors would not obtain the cash incomes or savings expected as result of their investment.
  • The determined cost of ecological effect, i.e., the total discounted cost of 1 m3 of harvested and stored or reused water for domestic demands rain, was only in two cases lower than the similar cost of tap water supplied by municipal water distribution system.
  • The profitability of the proposed RWH designs under the economic conditions of Eastern Poland is very low, as in most cases both the applied benefits–costs indicators, NPV and BCR, were below the profitability threshold, and only the application of additional savings resulting from avoiding the stormwater fee in 50% of the studied designs allowed to exceed the threshold.
  • The application of variable, modern, up-to-date technologies and equipment of RWH frequently may cause a decrease in the design profitability, due to the high investment as well as O&M costs, thus, such designs may not be selected by local investors.
  • The increase in profitability of RWH design is highly affected by cash savings, so the replacement of the highest volume possible of tap water by rain water in a wide variety of domestic applications is strongly advised.
  • The outside partial refund of investment costs, without the assigned monetary value limit, should be available to increase the profitability of the RWH designs, thus, to increase their financial attractiveness, required for the local population’s acceptance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M.-P. and M.K.W.; methodology, A.M.-P. and M.K.W.; validation, A.M.-P. and M.K.W.; formal analysis, A.M.-P. and M.K.W.; investigation, A.M.-P., M.K.W. and J.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.-P. and M.K.W.; writing—review and editing, A.M.-P., M.K.W. and J.G.; visualization, A.M.-P. and M.K.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, within the statutory research number FN-70/IŚ/2019.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Arfanuzzaman, M.; Rahman, A.A. Sustainable water demand management in the face of rapid urbanization and ground water depletion for social—Ecological resilience building. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2017, 10, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Roser, M.; Ritchie, H.; Ortiz-Ospina, E. World Population Growth. 2019. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth (accessed on 5 May 2020).
  3. Nagypál, V.; Mikó, E.; Hodúr, C. Sustainable Water Use Considering Three Hungarian Dairy Farms. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Özerol, G.; Dolman, N.; Bormann, H.; Bressers, H.; Lulofs, K.; Böge, M. Urban water management and climate change adaptation: A self-assessment study by seven midsize cities in the North Sea Region. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 55, 102066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. 1987. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2020).
  6. Kärrman, E. Strategies towards sustainable wastewater management. Urban Water 2001, 3, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mihelcic, J.; Crittenden, J.; Small, M.; Shonnard, D.; Hokanson, D.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, H.; Sorby, S.A.; James, V.U.; Sutherland, J.W.; et al. Sustainability science and engineering: The emergence of a new metadiscipline. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 5314–5324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Caparrós-Martínez, J.L.; Rueda-Lópe, N.; Milán-García, J.; De Pablo, J. Public policies for sustainability and water security: The case of Almeria (Spain). Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 23, e01037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Garrick, D.; Iseman, T.; Gilson, G.; Brozovic, N.; O’Donnel, E.; Matthews, N.; Miralles-Wilhelm, F.; Wight, C.; Young, W. Scalable solutions to freshwater scarcity: Advancing theories of change to incentivize sustainable water use. Water Res. 2020, 9, 100055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yang, T.H.; Liu, W.C. A General Overview of the Risk-Reduction Strategies for Floods and Droughts. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. European Environmental Agency. 2019. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/pl/sygna142y/sygnaly-2018/artykuly/zuzycie-wody-w-europie-2014 (accessed on 5 May 2020).
  12. Palme, U.; Lundin, M.; Tillman, A.M.; Molander, S. Sustainable development indicators for wastewater systems—Researchers and indicator users in a co-operative case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2005, 43, 293–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Mariolakos, I. Water resources management in the framework of sustainable development. Desalination 2007, 213, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Othman, S.N.; Noor, Z.Z.; Abba, A.H.; Yusuf, R.O. Review of life cycle assessment of integrated solid waste management in some Asian countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 43, 251–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Garcia, M.; Koebele, E.; Deslatte, A.; Ernst, K.; Manago, K.F.; Treuer, G. Towards urban water sustainability: Analyzing management transitions in Miami, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 58, 101967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Maurya, S.P.; Singh, P.K.; Ohri, A.; Singh, R. Identification of indicators for sustainable urban water development planning. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 108, 105691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Witkowski. 2018. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325896310_Paradoksy_swiatowej_gospodarki_wodnej_Paradoxes_of_the_world_water_management (accessed on 5 May 2020).
  18. Suleiman, L.; Olofsson, B.; Saurí, D.; Palau-Rof, L. A breakthrough in urban rain-harvesting schemes through planning for urban greening: Case studies from Stockholm and Barcelona. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2020, 126678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mourad, K.A.; Berndtsson, J.C.; Berndtsson, R. Potential fresh water saving using greywater in toilet flushing in Syria. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 2447–2453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Silva, C.M.; Sousa, V.; Carvalho, N.V. Evaluation of rainwater harvesting in Portugal: Application to single-family residences. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 94, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sepehri, M.; Malekinezehad, H.; Ilderomi, A.R.; Talebi, A.; Hosseini, S.Z. Studying the effect of rain water harvesting from roof surfaces on runoff and household consumption reduction. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 43, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dz, U. Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure of 14 January 2002 Regarding the Determination of Average Standards for Water Consumption. 2002 No. 8, Item 70; ISAP, 2002. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20020080070 (accessed on 5 May 2020).
  23. GUS. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/ (accessed on 5 May 2020).
  24. Meville-Shreeve, P.; Ward, S.; Butler, D. Rainwater harvesting Typologies for UK houses: A multi criteria analysis of system configurations. Water 2016, 8, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Soonthornnonda, P.; Christensen, E.R. Source apportionment of pollutants and flows of combined sewer wastewater. Water Res. 2008, 42, 1889–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Park, M.-H.; Swamikannu, X.; Stenstrom, M.K. Accurancy and precision of the volume-concentration method for urban stormwater modeling. Water Res. 2009, 43, 2773–2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Oviedo-Ocaña, A.R.; Dominguez, I.; Ward, S.; Rivera-Sanchez, M.L.; Zaraza-Peña, J.M. Financial feasibility of end-user designed rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse systems for high water use households. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 19200–19216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Burns, M.J.; Fletcher, T.D.; Duncan, H.P.; Hatt, B.E.; Ladson, A.R.; Walsh, C.J. The performance of rainwater tanks for stormwater retention and water supply at the household scale: An empirical study. Hydrol. Process. 2015, 29, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Xu, W.D.; Fletcher, T.D.; Duncan, H.P.; Bergmann, D.J.; Breman, J.; Burns, M.J. Improving the Multi-Objective Performance of Rainwater Harvesting Systems Using Real-Time Control Technology. Water 2018, 10, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Musayev, S.; Burgess, E.; Mellor, J. A global performance assessment of rainwater harvesting under climate change. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 132, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Alamdari, N.; Sample, D.J.; Liu, J.; Ross, A. Assessing climate change impacts on the reliability of rainwater harvesting systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 132, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. European Commission. Study on Water Performance of Buildings. Reference Report 070307/2008/520703/ETU/D2; European Commision (DG ENV): Paris, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  33. Campisano, A.; Gnecco, I.; Modica, C.; Palla, A. Designing domestic rainwater harvesting systems under different climatic regimes in Italy. Water Sci. Technol. 2013, 67, 2511–2518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Amos, C.C.; Rahman, A.; Gathenya, J.M. Economic Analysis and Feasibility of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Urban and Peri-Urban Environments: A Review of the Global Situation with a Special Focus on Australia and Kenya. Water 2016, 8, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gnecco, I.; Palla, A.; La Barbera, P. The role of domestic rainwater harvesting systems in storm water runoff mitigation. Eur. Water 2017, 58, 497–503. Available online: https://www.ewra.net/ew/pdf/EW_2017_58_72.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2020).
  36. Cook, S.; Sharma, A.; Chong, M. Performance analysis of a communal residential rainwater system for potable supply: A case study in Brisbane, Australia. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 4865–4876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Campisano, A.; Butler, D.; Ward, S.; Burns, M.J.; Friedler, E.; DeBusk, K.; Fisher-Jeffes, L.N.; Ghisi, E.; Rahman, A.; Furumai, H. Urban rainwater harvesting systems: Research, implementation and future perspectives. Water Res. 2017, 115, 192–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lazarova, V.; Hills, S.; Birks, R. Using recycled water for non-potable, urban uses: A review with particular reference to toilet flushing. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2003, 3, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. GhaffarianHoseini, A.; Tookey, J.; GhaffarianHoseini, A.; Yusoff, S.M.; Hassan, N.B. State of the art of rainwater harvesting systems towards promoting green built environments: A review. Desalin. Water Treat. 2016, 57, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gardner, T.; Vieritz, A. The role of rainwater tanks in Australia in the twenty first century. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2010, 53, 107–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Petrucci, G.; Deroubaix, J.F.; de Gouvello, B.; Deitsch, J.C.; Bompard, P.; Tassin, B. Rainwater harvesting to control stormwater runoff in suburban areas. An experimental case-study. Urban Water J. 2012, 9, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Zhang, X.; Hu, M.; Chen, G.; Xu, Y. Urban rainwater utilization and its role in mitigating urban water logging problems: A case study in Nanjing, China. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 3757–3766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Campisano, A.; Modica, C. Appropriate resolution timescale to evaluate water saving and retention potential of rainwater harvesting for toilet flushing in single houses. J. Hydroinform. 2015, 17, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Harris, J.M.; Wise, T.A.; Gallagher, K.P.; Goodwin, N.R. Book Review: A Survey of Sustainable Development: Social and Economic Dimensions. Environ. Pract. 2001, 3, 263–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Harding, R. Ecologically sustainable development: Origins, implementation and challenge. Desalination 2006, 187, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kwangware, J.; Mayo, A.; Hoko, Z. Sustainability of donor-founded rural water supply and sanitation projects in Mbire district, Zimbabwe. Phys. Chem. Earth 2014, 76–78, 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Frone, S.; Frone, D.F. Emerging markets Queries in Finance and Business. Economic risk to a regional water supply and sanitation project in Romania. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 32, 550–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Ellis, J.B.; Deutch, J.C.; Mouchel, J.M.; Scholes, L.; Revitt, M.D. Multicriteria decision approaches to support sustainable drainage options for the treatment of highway and urban runoff. Sci. Total Environ. 2004, 334–335, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ugwu, O.O.; Kumaraswamy, M.M.; Wong, A.; Ng, S.T. Sustainability appraisal in infrastructure projects (SUSAIP): Part 1. Development of indicators and computational methods. Autom. Constr. 2006, 15, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. United Nations Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, 3rd ed.; United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
  51. Mateo, J.R.S.C. Weighted Sum Method and Weighted Product Method. Multi Criteria Analysis in the Renewable Energy Industry; Springer: London, UK, 2012; pp. 19–22. [Google Scholar]
  52. Chourabi, Z.; Khedher, F.; Babay, A.; Cheikhrouhou, M. Multi-criteria decision making in workforce choice using AHP, WSM and WPM. J. Text. Inst. 2019, 110, 1092–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Widomski, M.; Gleń, P.; Łagód, G.; Jaromin-Gleń, K. Sustainable development of one of the poorest province of the European Union: Lublin Voivodeship, Poland—Attempt of assessment. Probl. Ekorozw. 2015, 10, 137–149. Available online: https://ekorozwoj.pollub.pl/index.php/number-1022015/sustainable-development-of-one-of-the-poorest-province-of-the-european-union-lublin-voivodeship-poland-attempt-of-assessment/ (accessed on 5 May 2020).
  54. Lorenc, H. Atlas Klimatu Polski (Atlas of Polish Climate); Instytut Meteorologii i Gospodarki Wodnej: Warszawa, Poland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  55. PN-EN 12056-3. Gravity Sewage Systems inside Buildings, Part 3: Rain Pipes, Layout Design and Calculations; PKN: Poland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  56. PN-EN 1717. Protection against Secondary Pollution in Plumbing and General Requirements for Devices to Prevent Backflow Pollution; PKN: Poland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  57. PN-EN 806-3. Specifications for Installations inside Buildings Conveying Water for Human Consumption, Part 3: Pipe Sizing—Simplified Method; PKN: Poland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  58. DIN 1989-1:2001-10. Rainwater Harvesting Systems—Part 1: Planning, Installation, Operation and Maintenance; German Institute for Standardisation: Berlin, Germany, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  59. DIN 1989-2:2004-08. Rainwater Harvesting Systems—Part 2: Filters; German Institute for Standardisation: Berlin, Germany, 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mishan, E.J.; Quah, E. Cost-Benefit Analysis; Praeger: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  61. Griffin, R.C. The fundamental principles of cost-benefit analysis. Water Resour. Res. 1998, 34, 2063–2071. Available online: http://ron-griffin.tamu.edu/agec636/readings/files/GriffinCBA1998.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2020). [CrossRef]
  62. Weingartner, H.M. Some New Views on the Payback Period and Capital Budgeting Decisions. Manag. Sci. 1969, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Boardman, C.M.; Reinhart, W.J.; Celec, S.E. The role of the payback period in the theory and application of duration to capital budgeting. JBFA 1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rączka, J. The cost-effectiveness analysis—A superior alternative to the cost-benefit analysis of environmental infrastructure investments. In Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Evaluation of the Structural Funds “Challenges for Evaluation in an Enlarged Europe”, Budapest, Hungary, 26–27 June 2003. [Google Scholar]
  65. Widomski, M.K.; Ładziak, E.; Łagód, G. Economic aspects of sustainable sanitation in rural settlements. ACCE 2017, 10, 153–162. Available online: http://acee-journal.pl (accessed on 5 May 2020). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Tuominen, P.; Reda, F.; Dawoud, W.; Elboshy, B.; Elshafei, G.; Negm, A. Economic Appraisal of Energy Efficiency in Buildings Using Cost-effectiveness Assessment. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 21, 422–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Berry, K.; Charnley, G.; Eberstadt, N.; Glantz, M.; Loewen, E.; Moore, T.; Opie, J.; Rutherford, F.; Seitz, F.; Sedjo, R.; et al. Environmental Economics Volume 1: The Essentials; Environmental Literacy Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  68. Elmaghraby, S.E.; Herroelen, W.S. The scheduling of activities to maximize the net present value of projects. EJOR 1990, 49, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Remer, D.S.; Nieto, A.P. A compendium and comparison of 25 project evaluation techniques. Part 1: Net present value and rate of return methods. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 1995, 42, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. McEwan, P.J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of education and health interventions in developing countries. J. Dev. Eff. 2012, 4, 189–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Locatelli, L.; Guerrero, M.; Russo, B.; Martínez-Gomariz, E.; Sunyer, D.; Martínez, M. Socio-Economic Assessment of Green Infrastructure for Climate Change Adaptation in the Context of Urban Drainage Planning. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Gardner, S.L.; Vargas, K.E.; Xiao, Q. Northeast Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting; Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-202; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: Albany, CA, USA, 2010; p. 106. [CrossRef]
  73. Coleman, A.; Grimes, A. Betterment taxes, capital gains and benefit cost ratios. Econ. Lett. 2010, 109, 54–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Benzerra, A.; Cherrared, M.; Chocat, B.; Cherqui, F.; Zekiok, T. Decision support for sustainable urban drainage system management: A case study of Jijel, Algieria. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 101, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Lewicka, A.; Widmski, M.K.; Łagód, G. Economic analyses in sewage system designing for rural settlements—Case study. ACCE 2016, 2, 145–152. Available online: https://www.exeley.com/architecture_civil_engineering_environment/doi/10.21307/acee-2016-030 (accessed on 5 May 2020). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. City of Białystok. Available online: https://www.bialystok.pl/pl/dla_mieszkancow/fundusze_unijne/realizowane/okresprogramowania20142020/zagospodarowanie-wod-deszczowych-poprzez-budowe-kanalizacji-deszczowej-i-zbiornikow-retencyjnych-w-bialymstoku.html (accessed on 5 May 2020).
  77. City of Lublin. Available online: https://lublin.eu/mieszkancy/srodowisko/aktualnosci/juz-jest-projekt-programu-zlap-deszczowke,276,1945,1.html (accessed on 5 May 2020).
Sustainability 12 04853 g001 550
Figure 1. Developed variants of rain water harvesting designs for single-family housing, variants I–IV, XIII—underground tank; variants V–X, XII—over ground tank and variant XI—drainage boxes.
Figure 1. Developed variants of rain water harvesting designs for single-family housing, variants I–IV, XIII—underground tank; variants V–X, XII—over ground tank and variant XI—drainage boxes.
Sustainability 12 04853 g001
Sustainability 12 04853 g002 550
Figure 2. Determined values for the dynamic generation cost indicator for tested variants of RWH systems and for domestic water installation, without RWH; the lower value of Dynamic generation cost (DGC) obtained the higher cost efficiency of the investment—in many cases, the cost of the ecological effect obtained by the RWH systems was higher than for tap water use.
Figure 2. Determined values for the dynamic generation cost indicator for tested variants of RWH systems and for domestic water installation, without RWH; the lower value of Dynamic generation cost (DGC) obtained the higher cost efficiency of the investment—in many cases, the cost of the ecological effect obtained by the RWH systems was higher than for tap water use.
Sustainability 12 04853 g002
Sustainability 12 04853 g003 550
Figure 3. Relation between the determined value of DGC and complexity of RWH systems for variants allowing to reuse 110 m3 of rain water per year—generally increased the complexity of the tested RWH systems and triggered a decrease in their cost-efficiency.
Figure 3. Relation between the determined value of DGC and complexity of RWH systems for variants allowing to reuse 110 m3 of rain water per year—generally increased the complexity of the tested RWH systems and triggered a decrease in their cost-efficiency.
Sustainability 12 04853 g003
Sustainability 12 04853 g004 550
Figure 4. Determined values for payback period for the tested variants, with and without obligatory stormwater charge included; possible savings due to avoiding stormwater fee reduced the duration of the payback period, however in several cases, the PP is longer than the assumed duration of the analyses.
Figure 4. Determined values for payback period for the tested variants, with and without obligatory stormwater charge included; possible savings due to avoiding stormwater fee reduced the duration of the payback period, however in several cases, the PP is longer than the assumed duration of the analyses.
Sustainability 12 04853 g004
Sustainability 12 04853 g005 550
Figure 5. Determined values of the net present values for the tested variants, with and without the obligatory stormwater charge included; the limited number of tested RWH systems exceeded the profitability threshold, NPV > 0, even after assuming the obligatory stormwater fee payment.
Figure 5. Determined values of the net present values for the tested variants, with and without the obligatory stormwater charge included; the limited number of tested RWH systems exceeded the profitability threshold, NPV > 0, even after assuming the obligatory stormwater fee payment.
Sustainability 12 04853 g005
Sustainability 12 04853 g006 550
Figure 6. Calculated values of the dimensionless benefit–cost ratio for the tested variants, with and without the obligatory stormwater charge included; again, the profitability threshold benefit–cost ratio (BCR) ≥ 1.0 was achieved by certain RWH variants, mostly in cases with savings possible due to avoided obligatory stormwater fee payment.
Figure 6. Calculated values of the dimensionless benefit–cost ratio for the tested variants, with and without the obligatory stormwater charge included; again, the profitability threshold benefit–cost ratio (BCR) ≥ 1.0 was achieved by certain RWH variants, mostly in cases with savings possible due to avoided obligatory stormwater fee payment.
Sustainability 12 04853 g006
Sustainability 12 04853 g007 550
Figure 7. Performance points for the tested variants, determined by the weight sum model (WSM), with and without obligatory the stormwater charge included; under local environmental and economic conditions of two tested scenarios, the highest financial sustainability was determined for three variants, No. V, VI and I.
Figure 7. Performance points for the tested variants, determined by the weight sum model (WSM), with and without obligatory the stormwater charge included; under local environmental and economic conditions of two tested scenarios, the highest financial sustainability was determined for three variants, No. V, VI and I.
Sustainability 12 04853 g007
Table
Table 1. General characteristics of the designed rain water harvesting systems.
Table 1. General characteristics of the designed rain water harvesting systems.
Variant No.Stormwater TankPumpFilterCentralUse of Rain WaterReuse of Rain Water
(m3/year)
Under-GroundOver-GroundInternalDownpipeHouseGardenCarDrainage
I+−++−−+++−110
II+−+−+−+++−110
III+−−+−++++−110
IV+−−−+++++−110
V−+++−−+++−110
VI−++−+−+++−110
VII−+−+−++++−110
VIII−+−−+++++−110
IX−++−+−−++−26.8
X−++−+−−+++26.8
XI−−−−+−−−−+0
XII−+−−+−−++−26.8
XIII+−++−−+−−−83.22
Table
Table 2. Investment and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of the designed variants of the rain water harvesting (RWH) systems.
Table 2. Investment and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of the designed variants of the rain water harvesting (RWH) systems.
VariantInvestment Costs (Euro)Total O&M Costs (Euro)
I3938126.6
II4182126.6
III5493232.1
IV5160232.1
V 3172126.6
VI3616126.6
VII4928232.1
VIII4594232.1
IX2174103.8
X3113103.8
XI227893.3
XII193093.3
XIII3571116.1
Tap water installation66793.3
Table
Table 3. Determined refund ratio and value required to obtain the minimal profitability of the RWH investment, i.e., BCR ≥ 1.0; A—“Catch rain water” project, Lublin, B—“Stormwater management”, project Białystok.
Table 3. Determined refund ratio and value required to obtain the minimal profitability of the RWH investment, i.e., BCR ≥ 1.0; A—“Catch rain water” project, Lublin, B—“Stormwater management”, project Białystok.
VariantIIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXIXIIXIII
Refund ratio [%]2024424001036366374- **6031
Refund sum [Euro]7871003230720640 *3611773165313692303- **11571107
Available refundation
programs		A, BA, B ***---A, B--B ***--A, BA, B
*—design profitable without refund; **—no reuse of rainwater assumed, infiltration only, no savings possible; ***—only for households already connected to the municipal stormwater system.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Musz-Pomorska, A.; Widomski, M.K.; Gołębiowska, J. Financial Sustainability of Selected Rain Water Harvesting Systems for Single-Family House under Conditions of Eastern Poland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124853

AMA Style

Musz-Pomorska A, Widomski MK, Gołębiowska J. Financial Sustainability of Selected Rain Water Harvesting Systems for Single-Family House under Conditions of Eastern Poland. Sustainability. 2020; 12(12):4853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124853

Chicago/Turabian Style

Musz-Pomorska, Anna, Marcin K. Widomski, and Justyna Gołębiowska. 2020. "Financial Sustainability of Selected Rain Water Harvesting Systems for Single-Family House under Conditions of Eastern Poland" Sustainability 12, no. 12: 4853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124853

APA Style

Musz-Pomorska, A., Widomski, M. K., & Gołębiowska, J. (2020). Financial Sustainability of Selected Rain Water Harvesting Systems for Single-Family House under Conditions of Eastern Poland. Sustainability, 12(12), 4853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124853

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop