The demand for water has led to an increase in scarcity events in several urban regions. In an urban context, water consumption in buildings plays an important role and rainwater harvesting is one of the ways that consumption can be reduced. One of the input variables for the dimensioning of rainwater tanks is the pluviometric regime's characteristics in the region where the rainwater harvesting system (RWHS) is to be installed. In this study, a bibliometric and systematic literature review was carried out on the types of rainfall data used in the dimensioning of the elements of RWHS. Worldwide, the most-used data comes from meteorological stations, with a historical series size of 30 years, however, other types of data and different sizes of historical series are also used. From this study, it was possible to synthesise the regions where differentiation data can be collected, as well as their characteristics, enabling the researchers to quickly access the definition of separation data collection parameters.

  • General understanding of the rainfall data used in research of reservoir sizing rainwater harvesting systems.

  • Providing sources in different parts of the world to obtain rainfall data.

  • The most used sizes of historical series of rainfall data are reported.

  • The types of rainfall data found and their usage locations are presented.

  • Knowledge gaps and scientific research trends are presented.

The demand for water has led to an increase in scarcity events in several urban regions. Population growth, changing habits and climate change contribute to the availability of water for residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial activities. In an urban context, water consumption in buildings plays an important role. According to the National Brazilian Standards NBR 15527/2019, the adoption of water conservation plans in buildings must initially start with actions that allow the reduction of the demand for potable water through demand management and, only after contemplating these actions, the use of alternative sources (ABNT 2019).

The use of rainwater harvesting has been highlighted as a potential alternative water source. Rainwater harvesting systems (RWHSs) are not recent phenomena, however, they have been studied with greater intensity in recent times, especially in regions that are far from supply networks or in situations with chronic supply shortages (Liaw & Chiang 2014). Their functioning can be summarised as: the collection of rainwater from the catchment area, conducting it through the transport system, storing it and then distributing it (Mitchell 2007; Kim & Yoo 2009; Jones & Hunt 2010). For the proper sizing of an RWHS, the main data set needed is that of precipitation, as it characterises the region's rainfall patterns and results in the volume of usable rain collected by the RWHS for later use.

The adequate input of factors to determine the supply of rainwater is essential for the most careful dimensioning of the system (Mun & Han 2012). In order to obtain accurate precipitation data, it is necessary to have rainfall data from close to the place where the RWHS is supposed to be installed. Extensive monitoring history is not a reality for all regions of the world (Lúcio et al. 2020). There are places that only have recent precipitation measurements, as well there are places that do not have a monitoring network. In places where monitoring exists, access to historical series information can be performed through the databases of institutions present in the region.

In Brazil, obtaining rainfall data can be carried out at the Brazilian National Water and Sanitation Agency (ANA 2021) and at the Brazilian National Institute of Meteorology (INMET 2021). There are also public education institutions that carry out the monitoring. When the studies take part in different countries, it is necessary to search for the entities responsible for providing information, so that the data obtained can characterise the studied location well. Lack of knowledge of the sources used in different countries may result in the use of data that may not adequately characterise the region of implementation. By considering the lack of data from certain regions, those regions that have recent monitoring data, and global climate change, such considerations sharpen the search for understanding which rainfall data can be used for these purposes and where they can be collected for use in the sizing of storage tanks.

In this paper, a bibliometric and systematic literature review (BSLR) on the types of rainfall data used in the design of the elements of the building systems that use rainwater was carried out.

Based on the results obtained, it is expected that this article can help designers to obtain rainfall data in regions with greater or lesser monitoring input. In addition, it is also expected that the designer will increase the understanding of how these data are used worldwide in the design of RWHS elements.

The procedure for performing the BSLR adopted in this study was proposed by Tranfield et al. (2003) and Higgins et al. (2022). According to these authors, the review is divided into:

  • planning which questions are defined,

  • developing the protocol,

  • conducting the selection of publications, through the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria,

  • extracting and analysing the data,

  • documenting and disseminating a summary of the information obtained, and

  • presenting the findings.

The research questions were defined as:

  1. What types of rainfall data are used for the RWHS tank sizing?

  2. What are the sizes and temporal resolution of the historical series of rainfall data used for the sizing of the tanks?

  3. From which sources are the data obtained?

  4. Is it possible to verify the impact of the types of rainfall data on the results of the sizing of the tanks?

  5. Is there any relationship between the type of sizing and the type of rainfall data?

  6. Is there a relationship between the location of the study and the type of data considered?

The second action was the definition of the databases in which the searches were carried out. The selection was made by peer-reviewed journal papers indexed in the Engineering Village (Compendex), Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science. It is understood that these papers already have proven quality attributed to the renowned journals in which they were published. For this reason, it was decided not to establish specific criteria for the analysis of the quality of the papers.

To perform the search in the scientific databases, it was necessary to define keywords that were related to the topic. This step was carried out through initial exploratory research and previous readings of the material considered to be relevant. It is noteworthy that, even though the papers were considered relevant, they did not sufficiently answer the proposed questions or guarantee that they would cover the entire subject. Through the readings performed, the keywords which would be synonymous were raised and analysed (see Table 1).

Table 1

Keywords raised and their corresponding synonyms

KeywordsSynonyms
Rainfall Rainfall data
Rainfall time series 
Rainwater harvest* Rainwater harvesting
RWH 
KeywordsSynonyms
Rainfall Rainfall data
Rainfall time series 
Rainwater harvest* Rainwater harvesting
RWH 

The definition of the string encompassed the raised words, but in a way that did not restrict or limit the search too much. This happened when using Boolean operators (AND, OR), the full and short form of RWHS, as well as the asterisk that works as a wildcard means that it will search for words that have the first letters ‘harvest’, as harvested, harvesting and others. Then, to support the search, some initial criteria were considered. The search was only performed for journal papers, to gather information only from publications that underwent peer review. Only papers from journals that were written in Portuguese or English were considered. There was no restriction on the period of publication, for the generation of the chronology of the development of the research on the subject.

The specific area of knowledge of the subject was not defined, considering the possibility of studies in other areas due to its multidisciplinary nature. Finally, the search terms (string) were in the title, abstract and keywords of the publications. Based on these definitions, the characteristic search instructions of each database and the filters considered, the strings used were as follows:

  1. Engineering Village (Compendex): The searched string was [rainfall AND (data or time) AND (rainwater harvest* or rwh)]; the search was performed on (title, abstract, keywords).

  2. Science Direct: The searched string was [rainfall AND (data or time) AND (rainwater harvest or rwh)]. The harvest asterisk was removed, as the database did not recognise the symbol and the search was performed in the main field; then the search filters were used, regarding the location of the string in the title, abstract and keywords.

  3. Scopus: The searched string was [rainfall AND (data OR time) AND (rainwater AND harvest* OR rwh)]. The search was performed in the main field and then search filters were used regarding the location of the string in the title, abstract and keywords.

  4. Web of Science: The searched string was [rainfall AND (data or time) AND (rainwater harvest* or rwh)]; the search was carried out in the Main Collection of the Web of Science and in the Topic that corresponds to ‘Searches title, abstract, author keywords, and Keywords Plus’.

In the implementation stage, the papers were selected and downloaded according to the inclusion and/or exclusion criteria defined in the protocol. This process took place in three stages: in the reading of the titles, in the reading of the abstracts and in the complete reading of the texts. Thus, the criteria for inclusion or exclusion were established and these are listed in Table 2.

Table 2

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

ABBREVIATION Inclusion criteria 
CI-01 Effect of climate change and/or historical series size on the RWHS tank sizing 
CI-02 RWHS tank sizing 
ABBREVIATION Exclusion criteria 
CE-01 It is not a journal paper 
CE-02 It is not an RWHS system urban and building 
CE-03 Quality of rainwater in urban and building cases 
CE-04 It is not in English/Portuguese 
ABBREVIATION Inclusion criteria 
CI-01 Effect of climate change and/or historical series size on the RWHS tank sizing 
CI-02 RWHS tank sizing 
ABBREVIATION Exclusion criteria 
CE-01 It is not a journal paper 
CE-02 It is not an RWHS system urban and building 
CE-03 Quality of rainwater in urban and building cases 
CE-04 It is not in English/Portuguese 

The selection of papers was performed using the tools available in Parsif.al (2021) and an electronic spreadsheet created in Microsoft Excel. Through them, it was possible to read the titles and abstracts, apply the inclusion and exclusion criteria and carry out data collection for each paper.

With the selected papers in hand, the analysis of the set of adherent papers was carried out. At first, the analyses covered the bibliometric criteria within the information collected, with respect to the following data: author(s); institution of each author; country of institution of each author; country where the research was carried out; year of publication; keywords; journal and journal's Journal Citation Reports (JCR).

In the second step, the papers were classified into six categories based on the objectives of the papers. The following information was used: the type of rainfall data used to determine the supply of rainwater (e.g. meteorological station, grid); the temporal resolution of the rainfall data considered for the RWHS tank sizing (minute, hourly, daily, monthly, annual); the size of the historical series of rainfall data; and the database or location where the data was collected. The elaborated protocol is presented in Supplementary Material A.

The data search was carried out on January 18, 2021 and resulted in 1,024 papers. Even with the initial criteria adopted, the search yielded some works that were not of the journal paper type and others that were written in a language other than the established ones (English and Portuguese). This made it necessary to insert filters among the exclusion criteria.

The selection was initially performed by reading all of the titles and applying the criteria. The abstracts of papers selected by reading the titles were read and those selected went to the full-text reading step. Table 3 lists the number excluded at each stage and the total number of papers that conformed to the required criteria. The list of studies is presented in Supplementary Material B.

Table 3

Results after applying the criteria

StepQuantity
Search results +1,024 
Duplicate papers −455 
Reading titles −266 
Reading abstracts −114 
Reading full papers −74 
Full papers not available −9 
Total adherent papers +106 
StepQuantity
Search results +1,024 
Duplicate papers −455 
Reading titles −266 
Reading abstracts −114 
Reading full papers −74 
Full papers not available −9 
Total adherent papers +106 

In Figure 1, through Venn diagrams, the quantities obtained in each of the databases used, as well as the quantity of adherent papers, are shown. It can be seen that Science Direct had the largest number of papers that were not made available in any of the other three databases; the same occurs in relation to the adherent papers. In contrast, Engineering Village only offered three papers that were not in the other three databases and they were not adherent, so the database did not have any unique adherent paper. Of the 32 papers in the four databases, more than half adhered to the inclusion criteria There was a high occurrence of papers in the Web of Science, Scopus and Engineering Village and a weak relation of occurrence between Science Direct and the other three databases, when analysing by pairs or trios.

Figure 1

Venn diagram on the left shows the list of papers per database along with the duplication ratio; Venn diagram on the right shows the list of papers adhered to by the database and their occurrences in the databases. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2022.034.

Figure 1

Venn diagram on the left shows the list of papers per database along with the duplication ratio; Venn diagram on the right shows the list of papers adhered to by the database and their occurrences in the databases. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2022.034.

Close modal

The first result of the survey analysed was in relation to the year of publication of the papers. The first publication took place in 2007 (Mitchell 2007) and until the year 2011 there was no significant increase in research. Since 2012, the publications related to the topic have increased considerably, suggesting the increasing interest from researchers related to the topic addressed. This increase in interest coincides with the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) held in 2012. Preparatory meetings started in 2010 and nation states, international organisations and civil society sent their contributions to the United Nations. The two themes addressed at the conference were ‘Green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication’ and ‘Institutional framework for sustainable development’. In both themes, the use of RWHS improved the situations at the time, which justified increased academic interest in researching the subject (RIO20 2012).

In order to analyse all of the co-authorship relationships, in Figure 2, all authors who were linked in at least one paper were considered, thus obtaining a group of 271 authors working in co-authorship, with the main co-authors being identified in the graph.

Figure 2

Graph showing the co-authorship relationship with at least one occurrence. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2022.034.

Figure 2

Graph showing the co-authorship relationship with at least one occurrence. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2022.034.

Close modal

The network of co-authors in this study comprised 61 clusters, the six largest having a variation in their composition from 10 to 16 members who have been carrying out research since 2012. The authors Monzur Alam Imteaz (from Swinburne University of Technology in Australia), Enedir Ghisi (from the Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil) and Ataur Rahman (from Western Sydney University in Australia) were the authors who presented the most publications: 10, 8 and 7 papers, respectively. This is also evidenced in the size of the nodes of their clusters, which are the common points corresponding to each of the co-authors involved.

Another point to note is that several smaller clusters were formed by authors who carried out research between 2016 and 2020. This shows that the topic is still being studied and that larger clusters of co-authors can probably be formed in the coming years with the advance of the surveys.

The number of publications per journal and the JCR type qualifier were related. Of the 43 journals, 31 included JCR, while the rest of the journals did not have this indicator. The highest JCR was 8.424, for the journal ‘Water Research,’ and the lowest was 0.725, for the ‘American Water Works Association’. The average of the journals that had JCR was found to be 4.784, with a standard deviation of 2.064. There was a high dispersion among the surveyed JCRs, as the calculated amplitude was 7.699. It should also be noted that 90.4% of the papers were in journals where JCR greater than 4.1

Another analysis was performed on the keywords used by the authors in their research. Those that appeared in at least three papers were considered and this criterion was established so that the most recurrent correlations could be analysed. After applying the parameter, seven clusters were formed (Figure 3). Through each cluster, it is possible to perceive the approach contained in a large part of that group's research. For example, the cluster symbolised in red suggests the approaches related to reliability through financial analysis in the implementation of the RWHS and, in most of the papers that used these keywords, the authors chose to use the daily water balance for the RWHS tank sizing (Youn et al. 2012; Lo & Koralegedara 2015; Kisakye et al. 2018; Li et al. 2018; Musayev et al. 2018; Toosi et al. 2020). The cluster depicted in light blue, on the other hand, conveys an approach related to the RWHS’ life cycle (Lash et al. 2014; Wurthmann 2019; Dijk et al. 2020).

Figure 3

Graph with the correlation of keywords used by authors in their studies. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2022.034.

Figure 3

Graph with the correlation of keywords used by authors in their studies. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2022.034.

Close modal

Another factor that was considered was the relationship of the content to the publications, as well as the description of the data and the information contained in each paper. The works were classified, considering six categories, and the one that grouped most of the research was ‘technical feasibility’, corresponding to 47.2% of the studies. The second largest number of studies was the RWHS element sizing category, corresponding to 21.7% of the studies. The third category was environmental analysis, comprising 16% of the participating surveys. As a fourth category, economic feasibility was considered, accounting for 10.4% of the papers. The fifth category was the influence of the size of the historical series of rainfall data, representing 2.8% of surveys. Finally, the sixth category was the use of decision support systems, comprising 1.9% of the works. The classification of each adhering paper, in terms of category and/or subcategory, can be seen in Table 4.

Table 4

Classification of papers according to the subject covered

Category/SubcategoryQuantity
1.0 – Technical feasibility 50 
 1.1 – Case studies with various residential typologies
Ghisi (2010), Farreny et al. (2011), Imteaz et al. (2011a), Imteaz et al. (2012a), Rahman et al. (2012), Souza & Ghisi (2012), Steffen et al. (2013), Hajani & Rahman (2014), Chiu et al. (2015), Karim et al. (2015), Lopes et al. (2016), Peterson (2016), Rostad et al. (2016), Gómez & Teixeira (2017), Palla et al. (2017), Santos & Farias (2017), Xu et al. (2018), Abu-Zreig et al. (2019), Hargreaves et al. (2019)  
19 
 1.2 – Case studies with single-family residential typology
Alam et al. (2012), Imteaz et al. (2012b), Palla et al. (2012), Fulton et al. (2013), Lade & Oloke (2013), Rahmat et al. (2020), Ali et al. (2021), Quinn et al. (2021)  
 1.3 – Case studies in condominiums with different residential types
Teston et al. (2018), Freni & Liuzzo (2019)  
 1.4 – Case study in a residential complex with the same typology
Rozos & Makropoulos (2012)  
 1.5 – Case studies in residential apartment buildings
Jing et al. (2017), Bashar et al. (2018)  
 1.6 – Case studies in university buildings
Imteaz et al. (2011b), Cardoso et al. (2020)  
 1.7 – Case studies in commercial buildings
Matos et al. (2013), Lani et al. (2018)  
 1.8 – Case study in a transport logistics company
Zavala et al. (2018)  
 1.9 – Case study in various types of hospitals
Fulton (2018)  
 1.10 – Airport case study
Neto et al. (2012)  
 1.11 – Case study with several residential and one commercial typology
Lopes et al. (2017)  
 1.12 – Case studies with varied typologies (such as residential, commercial and educational)
Kim & Yoo (2009), Jones & Hunt (2010), Sample & Liu (2014), Petit-Boix et al. (2018), Pérez-Uresti et al. (2019), Dijk et al. (2020)  
 1.13 – It was not possible to identify the typology
Zhang et al. (2012), Campisano et al. (2013), Vuong et al. (2016), Khan et al. (2021)  
2.0 – RWHS element sizing 23 
 2.1 – RWHS sizing
Basinger et al. (2010), Mun & Han (2012), Hashim et al. (2013), Gurung & Sharma (2014), Liaw & Chiang (2014), Okoye et al. (2015), Wallace et al. (2015), Campisano & Modica (2016), Pelak & Porporato (2016), Galarza-Molina & Torres (2017), Nguyen & Han (2017), Cipolla et al. (2018), Guo & Guo (2018), Park & Um (2018), Lúcio et al. (2020)  
15 
 2.2 – Comparisons between sizing methods
Mitchell (2007), Cowden et al. (2008), Santos & Taveira-Pinto (2013), Imteaz et al. (2015), Londra et al. (2015), Rezende & Tecedor (2017)  
 2.3 – Development of methodology for sizing, economic and environmental assessment of RWHS
Morales-Pinzón et al. (2015)  
 2.4 – Development of methodology to synthetically generate daily precipitation, water supply and irrigation demand for RWHS sizing
Wurthmann (2019)  
3.0 – Environmental analysis 17 
 3.1 – Effect of climate change on RWHS
Youn et al. (2012), Seo et al. (2013), Giacomoni & Berglund (2015), Lo & Koralegedara (2015), Haque et al. (2016), Tavakol-Davani et al. (2016), Alamdari et al. (2018), Kisakye et al. (2018), Musayev et al. (2018), Zhang et al. (2018, 2019), Toosi et al. (2020)  
12 
 3.2 – RWH system life cycle assessments
Li et al. (2018), Ghimire et al. (2019), Vargas-Parra et al. (2019)  
 3.3 – Development of methodologies for sizing the RWHS considering climate change
Warrick et al. (2012); Lash et al. (2014)  
4.0 – Economic feasibility 11 
 4.1 – Development of methodology for economic analysis of RWHS
Morales-Pinzón et al. (2012), Ghisi & Schondermark (2013), Silva et al. (2015), Imteaz et al. (2017), Amos et al. (2018), Oviedo-Ocaña et al. (2018)  
 4.2 – RWHS deployment risk assessments
Wang & Blackmore (2012), Severis et al. (2019)  
 4.3 – Development of methodology to assist in decision making for the implementation of RWHS
Liuzzo et al. (2016)  
 4.4 – Financial feasibility comparisons for water and energy conservation
Stec et al. (2017)  
 4.5 – Financial feasibility comparisons for water conservation
Stec & Kordana (2015)  
5.0 – Influence of the size of the historical series of rainfall data
Geraldi & Ghisi (2017, 2018, 2019
6.0 – Decision support systems
Fonseca et al. (2017), Li et al. (2017)  
Category/SubcategoryQuantity
1.0 – Technical feasibility 50 
 1.1 – Case studies with various residential typologies
Ghisi (2010), Farreny et al. (2011), Imteaz et al. (2011a), Imteaz et al. (2012a), Rahman et al. (2012), Souza & Ghisi (2012), Steffen et al. (2013), Hajani & Rahman (2014), Chiu et al. (2015), Karim et al. (2015), Lopes et al. (2016), Peterson (2016), Rostad et al. (2016), Gómez & Teixeira (2017), Palla et al. (2017), Santos & Farias (2017), Xu et al. (2018), Abu-Zreig et al. (2019), Hargreaves et al. (2019)  
19 
 1.2 – Case studies with single-family residential typology
Alam et al. (2012), Imteaz et al. (2012b), Palla et al. (2012), Fulton et al. (2013), Lade & Oloke (2013), Rahmat et al. (2020), Ali et al. (2021), Quinn et al. (2021)  
 1.3 – Case studies in condominiums with different residential types
Teston et al. (2018), Freni & Liuzzo (2019)  
 1.4 – Case study in a residential complex with the same typology
Rozos & Makropoulos (2012)  
 1.5 – Case studies in residential apartment buildings
Jing et al. (2017), Bashar et al. (2018)  
 1.6 – Case studies in university buildings
Imteaz et al. (2011b), Cardoso et al. (2020)  
 1.7 – Case studies in commercial buildings
Matos et al. (2013), Lani et al. (2018)  
 1.8 – Case study in a transport logistics company
Zavala et al. (2018)  
 1.9 – Case study in various types of hospitals
Fulton (2018)  
 1.10 – Airport case study
Neto et al. (2012)  
 1.11 – Case study with several residential and one commercial typology
Lopes et al. (2017)  
 1.12 – Case studies with varied typologies (such as residential, commercial and educational)
Kim & Yoo (2009), Jones & Hunt (2010), Sample & Liu (2014), Petit-Boix et al. (2018), Pérez-Uresti et al. (2019), Dijk et al. (2020)  
 1.13 – It was not possible to identify the typology
Zhang et al. (2012), Campisano et al. (2013), Vuong et al. (2016), Khan et al. (2021)  
2.0 – RWHS element sizing 23 
 2.1 – RWHS sizing
Basinger et al. (2010), Mun & Han (2012), Hashim et al. (2013), Gurung & Sharma (2014), Liaw & Chiang (2014), Okoye et al. (2015), Wallace et al. (2015), Campisano & Modica (2016), Pelak & Porporato (2016), Galarza-Molina & Torres (2017), Nguyen & Han (2017), Cipolla et al. (2018), Guo & Guo (2018), Park & Um (2018), Lúcio et al. (2020)  
15 
 2.2 – Comparisons between sizing methods
Mitchell (2007), Cowden et al. (2008), Santos & Taveira-Pinto (2013), Imteaz et al. (2015), Londra et al. (2015), Rezende & Tecedor (2017)  
 2.3 – Development of methodology for sizing, economic and environmental assessment of RWHS
Morales-Pinzón et al. (2015)  
 2.4 – Development of methodology to synthetically generate daily precipitation, water supply and irrigation demand for RWHS sizing
Wurthmann (2019)  
3.0 – Environmental analysis 17 
 3.1 – Effect of climate change on RWHS
Youn et al. (2012), Seo et al. (2013), Giacomoni & Berglund (2015), Lo & Koralegedara (2015), Haque et al. (2016), Tavakol-Davani et al. (2016), Alamdari et al. (2018), Kisakye et al. (2018), Musayev et al. (2018), Zhang et al. (2018, 2019), Toosi et al. (2020)  
12 
 3.2 – RWH system life cycle assessments
Li et al. (2018), Ghimire et al. (2019), Vargas-Parra et al. (2019)  
 3.3 – Development of methodologies for sizing the RWHS considering climate change
Warrick et al. (2012); Lash et al. (2014)  
4.0 – Economic feasibility 11 
 4.1 – Development of methodology for economic analysis of RWHS
Morales-Pinzón et al. (2012), Ghisi & Schondermark (2013), Silva et al. (2015), Imteaz et al. (2017), Amos et al. (2018), Oviedo-Ocaña et al. (2018)  
 4.2 – RWHS deployment risk assessments
Wang & Blackmore (2012), Severis et al. (2019)  
 4.3 – Development of methodology to assist in decision making for the implementation of RWHS
Liuzzo et al. (2016)  
 4.4 – Financial feasibility comparisons for water and energy conservation
Stec et al. (2017)  
 4.5 – Financial feasibility comparisons for water conservation
Stec & Kordana (2015)  
5.0 – Influence of the size of the historical series of rainfall data
Geraldi & Ghisi (2017, 2018, 2019
6.0 – Decision support systems
Fonseca et al. (2017), Li et al. (2017)  

Other analyses performed were the temporal resolution of precipitation data, considering its use in RWHS tank sizing. Figure 4 shows that most papers used daily data. Mitchell (2007) emphasised that the large-scale use of precipitation with daily resolution is related to the large number of places that are monitored by rain gauges. The difficulty in using data with a minute or hourly resolution may be related to the scarcity of records, since the amount of rain gauges which provide hourly data are considerably fewer than pluviometers, which offer daily data.

Figure 4

Types of sizing and temporal resolution used in sizing. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2022.034.

Figure 4

Types of sizing and temporal resolution used in sizing. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2022.034.

Close modal

A likely reason for the greater use of sizing through daily water balance, as can be seen in Figure 4, is related to what Mitchell (2007) also concluded in his study, i.e. the possibility of using a more simplified model (e.g. an electronic spreadsheet) that can perform calculations by considering more than 100 years of daily data. This does not reduce the search for greater precision in sizing, whether through software or new techniques (Imteaz et al. 2015; Morales-Pinzón et al. 2015; Lopes et al. 2016; Peterson 2016; Tavakol-Davani et al. 2016; Amos et al. 2018), different types of rainfall data other than those from meteorological stations (Warrick et al. 2012; Seo et al. 2013; Lash et al. 2014; Alamdari et al. 2018; Lúcio et al. 2020; Quinn et al. 2021) or other temporal resolutions (Jones & Hunt 2010; Steffen et al. 2013; Sample & Liu 2014; Guo & Guo 2018; Park & Um 2018; Dijk et al. 2020).

Imteaz et al. (2011b) were able to conclude that the use of daily resolution can generate more realistic scenarios than the use of data with more widely spaced temporal resolutions. They also concluded that calculations using mean annual precipitation produce unrealistic results regarding storm water quantity, overflow and potable water savings. Imteaz et al. (2012b) found that the use of average monthly rainfall data overestimates the size of the RWHS tanks. The authors consider that the use of daily data in the water balance can produce more realistic results. It is also noteworthy that, among the papers that specified the type of water balance used, 19 papers used the yield after spillage (YAS) method and 5 papers used the yield before spillage (YBS) method.

The sizes of the historical series of rainfall data used in the research were surveyed. In Figure 5, it can be seen that the use of series with 26–30 years is more common in studies. However, smaller series have also been used, and such use may be related to data gaps in the series, a lack of monitoring in certain regions or even the recent monitoring in certain places (Campisano & Modica 2016; Fulton 2018).

Figure 5

Sizes of the rainfall data series in the studies. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2022.034.

Figure 5

Sizes of the rainfall data series in the studies. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2022.034.

Close modal

Three adherent papers addressed the influence of the size of the historical series and all by two authors (Geraldi & Ghisi 2017, 2018, 2019). The sizes analysed in the surveys were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 20 and 30 years and the papers differ from each other in terms of study sites and analysed parameters. The study published in 2017 was carried out in the city of Berlin, Germany and analysed the ideal capacity of the RWHS tank and the ideal potential for saving potable water. In 2018, the authors conducted the study in 13 cities: Alexandria, Egypt; Barcelona, Spain; Berlin, Germany; Dar-El-Beida, Algeria; Darwin, Australia; Encarnación, Paraguay; Moscow, Russia; New York, United States of America; Paris, France; Quebec, Canada; Santarém and Santo Amaro, Brazil; and Shanwei in China. The potable water saving potential was entered as an analysis parameter, along with the ideal rainwater tank capacity and the ideal potable water saving potential. In 2019, the authors continued their research from the previous year and used the average annual precipitation, the average number of dry days per year and the seasonality index as precipitation indicators to characterise the historical series and analyse the relationship between the sizing parameters obtained for each series size.

In general, the authors concluded that, in places that have recently implemented rainfall monitoring, the use of short historical series would provide an opportunity for the adequate sizing of the RWHS tank. However, research is restricted to the places studied, requiring more research to obtain greater results.

It is noteworthy that many studies have justified the use of historical series sizes as a function of data availability (Ghisi 2010; Rahman et al. 2012; Ghisi & Schondermark 2013; Steffen et al. 2013; Hajani & Rahman 2014; Liaw & Chiang 2014; Londra et al. 2015; Jing et al. 2017; Amos et al. 2018; Guo & Guo 2018; Zhang et al. 2018; Abu-Zreig et al. 2019). There was also the consideration of climate variability over time, considering the use of a short series (5 years) to be more appropriate for characterising the current climate context of the studied region (Rezende & Tecedor 2017). Still, the size of the historical series was considered as being proportional to the life cycle period of a building's hydraulic system which, in this case, was 20 years (Cardoso et al. 2020).

Another analysis was performed in relation to the type of rainfall data used. It was found that most studies (75.47%) used only meteorological stations. Less than 20% of the surveys used data from meteorological stations together with another type of data and less than 10% exclusively used another type of rainfall data, other than that from meteorological stations.

The use of rainfall data from meteorological stations for the dimensioning of RWHS tanks is prevalent throughout the world, as can be seen in Figure 6. It can also be seen that all continents use rainfall data that do not come from meteorological stations, with the greatest occurrence being on the European continent. The search for other types of data may be related to the scarcity of precipitation records from meteorological stations, gaps in the historical series of rainfall data, and future precipitation projections (Campisano & Modica 2016; Fulton 2018; Zhang et al. 2019; Lúcio et al. 2020).

Figure 6

Geographical distribution of the use of data from meteorological stations or otherwise. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2022.034.

Figure 6

Geographical distribution of the use of data from meteorological stations or otherwise. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2022.034.

Close modal

Still regarding the type of rainfall data used, data from the following sources were found: meteorological stations; climate generators; probabilistic modelling; grid and the Köppen–Geiger classification. As for the research that exclusively considered the meteorological stations as a type of rainfall data, the origins of these (in relation to the country studied) were raised and are summarised in Table 5.

Table 5

Origin of data used in studies that had meteorological stations as their only source

CountryOrigin
Algeria GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
Australia Australian Bureau of Meteorology; GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network); Patched Point Dataset (PPD); Raintank Analyzer software database 
Bangladesh Bangladesh Meteorological Department (BMD) 
Brazil Brazilian National Water and Sanitation Agency (ANA); Department of Water and Electricity of São Paulo; Jahu University of Technology – Fatec Jahu; Brazilian Air Force; GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network); Brazilian National Institute of Meteorology (INMET); Paraná Meteorological System (SIMEPAR) 
Canada GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
China National Climatic Center (NCC); GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
Colombia Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales from Colombia (IDEAM) 
Egypt GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
Ethiopia National Meteorology Agency of Ethiopia (NMA) 
France GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
Germany GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
Greece Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Climate Change 
Italy ARPAE – Regional Agency for Prevention, Environment and Energy; Osservatorio delle Acque-Agenzia Regionale per Rifiuti and le Acque (OA-ARRA) of Sicily; Servizio Informativo Agrometeorologico Siciliano (SIAS) 
Jordan Jordanian Meteorological Department; Water Authority of Jordan 
Kenya Kenyan Bureau of Meteorology 
Malaysia Department of Irrigation and Drainage in Malaysia (DID); Senai International Airport 
Mexico Development Management System (SiGeDes- Sistema Gestor de Desarrollo); Servicio Meteorológico Nacional México (SMN) 
Nepal Nepal Department of Hydrology and Meteorology 
Nigeria Department of Meteorological Services 
Pakistan Climate Data Processing Centre, Pakistan Meteorological Department 
Paraguay GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
Portugal IPMA – Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera; Portuguese Water Institute e The Azores University; Portuguese National Information System of Water Resources (SNIRH) 
Russia GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
South Africa GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
South Korea Korea Meteorological Administration 
Spain Catalonia Meteorological Service (SMC); State Meteorological Agency of Spain; GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
Taiwan Water Resources Agency of the Ministry of Economic Affairs 
USA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC); GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network); National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Northeast Regional Climate Centre; State Climate Office of North Carolina; US Climate Data 
CountryOrigin
Algeria GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
Australia Australian Bureau of Meteorology; GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network); Patched Point Dataset (PPD); Raintank Analyzer software database 
Bangladesh Bangladesh Meteorological Department (BMD) 
Brazil Brazilian National Water and Sanitation Agency (ANA); Department of Water and Electricity of São Paulo; Jahu University of Technology – Fatec Jahu; Brazilian Air Force; GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network); Brazilian National Institute of Meteorology (INMET); Paraná Meteorological System (SIMEPAR) 
Canada GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
China National Climatic Center (NCC); GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
Colombia Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales from Colombia (IDEAM) 
Egypt GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
Ethiopia National Meteorology Agency of Ethiopia (NMA) 
France GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
Germany GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
Greece Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Climate Change 
Italy ARPAE – Regional Agency for Prevention, Environment and Energy; Osservatorio delle Acque-Agenzia Regionale per Rifiuti and le Acque (OA-ARRA) of Sicily; Servizio Informativo Agrometeorologico Siciliano (SIAS) 
Jordan Jordanian Meteorological Department; Water Authority of Jordan 
Kenya Kenyan Bureau of Meteorology 
Malaysia Department of Irrigation and Drainage in Malaysia (DID); Senai International Airport 
Mexico Development Management System (SiGeDes- Sistema Gestor de Desarrollo); Servicio Meteorológico Nacional México (SMN) 
Nepal Nepal Department of Hydrology and Meteorology 
Nigeria Department of Meteorological Services 
Pakistan Climate Data Processing Centre, Pakistan Meteorological Department 
Paraguay GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
Portugal IPMA – Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera; Portuguese Water Institute e The Azores University; Portuguese National Information System of Water Resources (SNIRH) 
Russia GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
South Africa GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
South Korea Korea Meteorological Administration 
Spain Catalonia Meteorological Service (SMC); State Meteorological Agency of Spain; GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) 
Taiwan Water Resources Agency of the Ministry of Economic Affairs 
USA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC); GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network); National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Northeast Regional Climate Centre; State Climate Office of North Carolina; US Climate Data 

With an emphasis on data from meteorological stations, some studies used these together with another type of data. Information regarding the location of the study, the type of data used in conjunction with the meteorological station and the origin of the first were collected for each of the 18 papers and are summarised in Table 6. In most cases, the joint use of data occurred due to the scope of the study being related to the influence of climate change on the design of the RWHS. For this, the researchers used data from the past period and, for future scenarios, they used data from sources that carried out climate projections (Cowden et al. 2008; Youn et al. 2012; Giacomoni & Berglund 2015; Lo & Koralegedara 2015; Wallace et al. 2015; Haque et al. 2016; Tavakol-Davani et al. 2016; Fulton 2018; Kisakye et al. 2018; Musayev et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2019; Toosi et al. 2020).

Table 6

Summary of studies that used data from a meteorological station together with another type of data.

ReferenceStudy locationData typeData origin
Cowden et al. (2008)  Western Africa Meteorological station/Markov and LARS-WG stochastic climate generator National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 
Haque et al. (2016)  Australia (Sydney) Meteorological station/Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO Mk.3) Australian Bureau of Meteorology & NARCliM project 
Wang & Blackmore (2012)  Australia (Melbourne) Meteorological station/Probabilistic modelling Bureau of Meteorology (Australia) 
Santos & Farias (2017)  Brazil (71 cities in Pernambuco) Meteorological station/Climate generator with Thiessen method – 
Lopes et al. (2017)  Brazil (Montes Claros) Meteorological station/Markov and Gamma stochastic climate generator Brazilian National Water and Sanitation Agency – ANA 
Zhang et al. (2019)  China (Yinchuan, Urumqi, Beijing, Fuzhou) Meteorological station/Climate generator (CLIGEN) National Climatic Centre (NCC) of China 
Youn et al. (2012)  South Korea (Seoul) Meteorological station/CGCM 3 (Canadian Global Coupled Model 3) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
Rozos & Makropoulos (2012)  Greece (Athens) Meteorological station/Climate generator (model ZYGOS) National Technical University of Athens 
Toosi et al. (2020)  Iran (Mashhad) Meteorological station/Downscaled Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase5 (CMIP5) Iran Metrological Organisation 
Wallace et al. (2015)  Micronesia Meteorological station/Markov stochastic climate generator – 
Lo & Koralegedara (2015)  Sri Lanka (Columbus) Meteorological station/LARS-WG stochastic weather generator with CMIP3 Sri Lanka Department of Meteorology 
Kisakye et al. (2018)  Uganda (Kabarole) Meteorological station/Global circulation models (GCMs) Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute (The University of Tokyo), National Institute for Environmental Studies, and Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology; Beijing Climate Center, China Meteorological Administration; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation/Bureau of Meteorology (CSIRO-BOM); Centre National de Recherches Meteorologiques/Centre Europeen de Recherche et Formation Avancees en Calcul Scientifique (CNRM/CERFACS); Met Office Hadley Centre 
Fulton (2018)  USA (San Antonio) Meteorological station/Climate generator with Poisson method National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
Tavakol-Davani et al. (2016)  USA (Toledo) Meteorological station/Downscaled Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase5 (CMIP5) World Climate Research Program 
Basinger et al. (2010)  USA (New York) Meteorological station/Stochastic climate generator of SARET – 
Giacomoni & Berglund (2015)  USA (Arlington) Meteorological station/Grid – model WCRP-CMIP3 World Climate Research Program 
Musayev et al. (2018)  41 countries Meteorological station/Stochastic climate generator LARS-WG National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
Morales-Pinzón et al. (2015)  – Meteorological station/Markov and Gamma stochastic climate generator Agencia Estatal de Meteorología 
ReferenceStudy locationData typeData origin
Cowden et al. (2008)  Western Africa Meteorological station/Markov and LARS-WG stochastic climate generator National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 
Haque et al. (2016)  Australia (Sydney) Meteorological station/Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO Mk.3) Australian Bureau of Meteorology & NARCliM project 
Wang & Blackmore (2012)  Australia (Melbourne) Meteorological station/Probabilistic modelling Bureau of Meteorology (Australia) 
Santos & Farias (2017)  Brazil (71 cities in Pernambuco) Meteorological station/Climate generator with Thiessen method – 
Lopes et al. (2017)  Brazil (Montes Claros) Meteorological station/Markov and Gamma stochastic climate generator Brazilian National Water and Sanitation Agency – ANA 
Zhang et al. (2019)  China (Yinchuan, Urumqi, Beijing, Fuzhou) Meteorological station/Climate generator (CLIGEN) National Climatic Centre (NCC) of China 
Youn et al. (2012)  South Korea (Seoul) Meteorological station/CGCM 3 (Canadian Global Coupled Model 3) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
Rozos & Makropoulos (2012)  Greece (Athens) Meteorological station/Climate generator (model ZYGOS) National Technical University of Athens 
Toosi et al. (2020)  Iran (Mashhad) Meteorological station/Downscaled Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase5 (CMIP5) Iran Metrological Organisation 
Wallace et al. (2015)  Micronesia Meteorological station/Markov stochastic climate generator – 
Lo & Koralegedara (2015)  Sri Lanka (Columbus) Meteorological station/LARS-WG stochastic weather generator with CMIP3 Sri Lanka Department of Meteorology 
Kisakye et al. (2018)  Uganda (Kabarole) Meteorological station/Global circulation models (GCMs) Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute (The University of Tokyo), National Institute for Environmental Studies, and Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology; Beijing Climate Center, China Meteorological Administration; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation/Bureau of Meteorology (CSIRO-BOM); Centre National de Recherches Meteorologiques/Centre Europeen de Recherche et Formation Avancees en Calcul Scientifique (CNRM/CERFACS); Met Office Hadley Centre 
Fulton (2018)  USA (San Antonio) Meteorological station/Climate generator with Poisson method National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
Tavakol-Davani et al. (2016)  USA (Toledo) Meteorological station/Downscaled Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase5 (CMIP5) World Climate Research Program 
Basinger et al. (2010)  USA (New York) Meteorological station/Stochastic climate generator of SARET – 
Giacomoni & Berglund (2015)  USA (Arlington) Meteorological station/Grid – model WCRP-CMIP3 World Climate Research Program 
Musayev et al. (2018)  41 countries Meteorological station/Stochastic climate generator LARS-WG National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
Morales-Pinzón et al. (2015)  – Meteorological station/Markov and Gamma stochastic climate generator Agencia Estatal de Meteorología 

There were cases in which, due to the size of the historical series of the meteorological station not being considered sufficient for the study, climate generators were used from these data to obtain synthetic series (Rozos & Makropoulos 2012; Wang & Blackmore 2012; Morales-Pinzón et al. 2015; Santos & Farias 2017). There were also papers where, with the objective of proposing models for RWHS sizing that did not require long historical series from meteorological stations, a stochastic climate generator was also used to produce synthetic series (Basinger et al. 2010; Lopes et al. 2017).

There were also research cases that did not use rainfall data from a meteorological station. Information regarding the location of the study, the type of data used and its origin were collected for each of the eight studies and are summarised in Table 7. The approach of most research, when using data other than from the meteorological stations, was to carry out spatial analysis of precipitation and future projections, in relation to climate change (Warrick et al. 2012; Seo et al. 2013; Lash et al. 2014; Alamdari et al. 2018; Quinn et al. 2021). Due to the lack of availability of the same monitoring period from meteorological stations for the spatial analysis of precipitation, it was decided to use another data source (Lúcio et al. 2020). The Köppen–Geiger classification was also used to consider the precipitation of the studied climate zones (Palla et al. 2012; Campisano et al. 2013).

Table 7

Summary of studies that did not use rainfall data from a meteorological station.

ReferenceStudy locationData typeData origin
Warrick et al. (2012)  Australia (Queensland) Grade – modelo WCRP-CMIP3/SimCLIM Bureau of Meteorology (Australia) 
Seo et al. (2013)  South Korea (Gangneung, Seoul, Busan, Gwangju) Global circulation models (GCM): CNRM1, CSIRO, and ECHO-G IPCC Data Distribution Centre (DDC) 
Campisano et al. (2013)  Italy (44 cities) Köppen–Geiger classification – 
Lúcio et al. (2020)  Portugal (Lisboa) Grid (model IB02) – 
Quinn et al. (2021)  United Kingdom (Sheffield) UKCP09 UK Climate Projections 2009 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
Lash et al. (2014)  United Kingdom (Penryn, Cambridge, Aberdeen, Ammanford) UKCP09 UK Climate Projections 2009/UKCP09 Weather Generator Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
Alamdari et al. (2018)  USA (17 cities) NARCCAP MM5I-CCSM Weather Generator North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP) 
Palla et al. (2012)  Sweden; Austria; Finland; Germany; Russia; Denmark; Norway; Switzerland (46 cities in these countries) Köppen–Geiger classification – 
ReferenceStudy locationData typeData origin
Warrick et al. (2012)  Australia (Queensland) Grade – modelo WCRP-CMIP3/SimCLIM Bureau of Meteorology (Australia) 
Seo et al. (2013)  South Korea (Gangneung, Seoul, Busan, Gwangju) Global circulation models (GCM): CNRM1, CSIRO, and ECHO-G IPCC Data Distribution Centre (DDC) 
Campisano et al. (2013)  Italy (44 cities) Köppen–Geiger classification – 
Lúcio et al. (2020)  Portugal (Lisboa) Grid (model IB02) – 
Quinn et al. (2021)  United Kingdom (Sheffield) UKCP09 UK Climate Projections 2009 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
Lash et al. (2014)  United Kingdom (Penryn, Cambridge, Aberdeen, Ammanford) UKCP09 UK Climate Projections 2009/UKCP09 Weather Generator Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
Alamdari et al. (2018)  USA (17 cities) NARCCAP MM5I-CCSM Weather Generator North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP) 
Palla et al. (2012)  Sweden; Austria; Finland; Germany; Russia; Denmark; Norway; Switzerland (46 cities in these countries) Köppen–Geiger classification – 

Initially, in this work, six questions were asked that supported this research. They were answered in detail throughout the paper and are listed briefly below:

  1. What types of rainfall data are used on the RWHS tank sizing?

    The use of precipitation from a meteorological station was observed; climate generators; probabilistic modelling; grid and the Köppen–Geiger classification.

  2. What are the sizes and temporal resolution of the historical series of rainfall data used in the sizing of the tanks?

    The historical precipitation series for carrying out the sizing were found to be up to 195 years. In addition, the most used sizes were up to 30 years. As for the temporal resolution of the data, minute, hourly, daily, monthly and annual data were used, with daily data being widely used.

  3. From which sources were the data obtained?

    Data were obtained from different sources, depending on the country studied. In addition, the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) was consulted to obtain data from several countries around the world.

  4. Is it possible to verify the impact of the types of rainfall data on the results of the sizing of the tanks?

    It was not possible to answer the question. There is a knowledge gap in relation to research with themes that focus on the influence of the use of different types of rainfall data in RWHS tank sizing.

  5. Is there any relationship between the type of sizing and the type of rainfall data?

    It was not possible to completely answer the question. However, there is a greater use of the water balance model using data with daily resolution.

  6. Is there a relationship between the location of the study and the type of data considered?

    It was not possible to completely answer the question. However, there was greater use of data from sources other than those from meteorological stations on the European continent.

Finally, it should be noted that it was not the object of this work to discuss the impact that different types of data can bring to the final design of the system. It is known that there are important impacts on the type of data used, however, in most cases, the data are used depending on the availability of the region and the designers’ familiarity with obtaining them.

Through the bibliometric and systematic review of the literature carried out in this paper, a general understanding of the types of precipitation data that are used in research into RWHS tank sizing was obtained. After the selection step, considering the pre-established criteria, there were found to be 106 adherent studies on the subject.

It was found that rainfall data from meteorological stations were used for RWHS tank sizing in most surveys and in all parts of the world. The volumetric capture of rain can be considered to be the closest condition to reality, in terms of monitoring. However, the lack of monitoring in several regions of the world has motivated scientists to research alternatives that can minimise the lack of data and enable analyses in regions with an absence of, or only recent, monitoring. There is a clear knowledge gap in topics that focus on the influence of the use of different types of rainfall data in the RWHS tank sizing, including answering the question: ‘Is it possible to verify the impact of the types of rainfall data on the results of the sizing of the tanks?’

Another subject with a growing research trend relates to global climate change. There is a need to analyse the dimensioning of future conditions and, consequently, using rainfall data obtained through projection may be required. Such projections have been developed in order to obtain the best representation of the future rainfall regime. Furthermore, it has been suggested that there is a need for more studies that analyse the influence of different types of projection data for RWHS tank sizing.

It was not possible to identify a clear relationship between the type of dimensioning and the type of rainfall data used. However, it can be stated that there was a greater use of data with daily temporal resolution for most of the dimensions adopted in the published works and that the water balance model with this resolution was also predominant. For the designs, the most used sizes of rainfall historical series were up to 30 years. There is a perceived need for more studies that focus on the use of short series of meteorological stations in the RWHS tank sizing. Such studies may provide better results on the rainfall regime and the influence on the dimensioning for regions with scarce data.

This study also suggests that different types of rainfall data will raise important issues that will receive increasing scientific attention. This has mainly been observed in research that has been looking for alternatives to meteorological station data for their studies.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

1

Year of reference 2021.

ABNT
2019
NBR 15527: Aproveitamento de água de coberturas para fins não potáveis – Requisitos
.
Abu-Zreig
M.
,
Ababneh
F.
&
Abdulla
F.
2019
Assessment of rooftop rainwater harvesting in northern Jordan
.
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth
114
.
doi:10.1016/j.pce.2019.08.002
.
Alam
R.
,
Munna
G.
,
Chowdhury
M. A. I.
,
Sarkar
M. S. K. A.
,
Ahmed
M.
,
Rahman
M. T.
,
Jesmin
F.
&
Toimoor
M. A.
2012
Feasibility study of rainwater harvesting system in Sylhet City
.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
184
(
1
),
573
580
.
doi:10.1007/s10661-011-1989-7
.
Alamdari
N.
,
Sample
D. J.
,
Liu
J.
&
Ross
A.
2018
Assessing climate change impacts on the reliability of rainwater harvesting systems
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
132
,
178
189
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.013
.
Ali
S.
,
Zhang
S.
&
Chandio
F. A.
2021
Impacts of rainfall change on stormwater control and water saving performance of rainwater harvesting systems
.
Journal of Environmental Management
280
.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111850
.
Amos
C. C.
,
Rahman
A.
&
Gathenya
J. M.
2018
Economic analysis of rainwater harvesting systems comparing developing and developed countries: a case study of Australia and Kenya
.
Journal of Cleaner Production
172
,
196
207
.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.114
.
ANA
2021
Portal HidroWeb – Agência Nacional de Águas e Saneamento Básico do Brasil
.
Bashar
M. Z. I.
,
Karim
M. R.
&
Imteaz
M. A.
2018
Reliability and economic analysis of urban rainwater harvesting: a comparative study within six major cities of Bangladesh
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
133
,
146
154
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.025
.
Basinger
M.
,
Montalto
F.
&
Lall
U.
2010
A rainwater harvesting system reliability model based on nonparametric stochastic rainfall generator
.
Journal of Hydrology
392
(
3–4
),
105
118
.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.07.039
.
Campisano
A.
&
Modica
C.
2016
Rainwater harvesting as source control option to reduce roof runoff peaks to downstream drainage systems
.
Journal of Hydroinformatics
18
(
1
),
23
32
.
doi:10.2166/hydro.2015.133
.
Campisano
A.
,
Gnecco
I.
,
Modica
C.
&
Palla
A.
2013
Designing domestic rainwater harvesting systems under different climatic regimes in Italy
.
Water Science and Technology
67
(
11
),
2511
2518
.
doi:10.2166/wst.2013.143
.
Cardoso
R. N. C.
,
Blanco
C. J. C.
&
Duarte
J. M.
2020
Technical and financial feasibility of rainwater harvesting systems in public buildings in Amazon, Brazil
.
Journal of Cleaner Production
260
.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121054
.
Chiu
Y.-R.
,
Tsai
Y.-L.
&
Chiang
Y.-C.
2015
Designing rainwater harvesting systems cost-effectively in a urban water-energy saving scheme by using a GIS-simulation based design system
.
Water (Switzerland)
7
(
11
),
6285
6300
.
doi:10.3390/w7116285
.
Cipolla
S. S.
,
Altobelli
M.
&
Maglionico
M.
2018
Systems for rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse at the building scale: a modelling approach
.
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal
17
(
10
),
2349
2360
.
Cowden
J. R.
,
Watkins
W. D.
Jr.
&
Mihelcic
J. R.
2008
Stochastic rainfall modeling in West Africa: parsimonious approaches for domestic rainwater harvesting assessment
.
Journal of Hydrology
361
(
1–2
),
64
77
.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.07.025
.
Dijk
S.
,
Lounsbury
A. W.
,
Hoekstra
A. Y.
&
Wang
R.
2020
Strategic design and finance of rainwater harvesting to cost-effectively meet large-scale urban water infrastructure needs
.
Water Research
184
.
doi:10.1016/j.watres.2020.116063
.
Farreny
R.
,
Gabarrell
X.
&
Rieradevall
J.
2011
Cost-efficiency of rainwater harvesting strategies in dense Mediterranean neighbourhoods
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
55
(
7
),
686
694
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.01.008
.
Fonseca
C. R.
,
Hidalgo
V.
,
Díaz-Delgado
C.
,
Vilchis-Francés
A. Y.
&
Gallego
I.
2017
Design of optimal tank size for rainwater harvesting systems through use of a web application and geo-referenced rainfall patterns
.
Journal of Cleaner Production
145
,
323
335
.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.057
.
Freni
G.
&
Liuzzo
L.
2019
Effectiveness of rainwater harvesting systems for flood reduction in residential urban areas
.
Water (Switzerland)
11
(
7
).
doi:10.3390/w11071389
.
Fulton
L.
2018
A simulation of rainwater harvesting design and demand-side controls for large hospitals
.
Sustainability (Switzerland)
10
(
5
).
doi:10.3390/su10051659
.
Fulton
L. V.
,
Bastian
N. D.
,
Mendez
F. A.
&
Musal
R. M.
2013
Rainwater harvesting system using a non-parametric stochastic rainfall generator
.
Simulation
89
(
6
),
693
702
.
doi:10.1177/0037549713479037
.
Galarza-Molina
S.
&
Torres
A.
2017
Sizing method for stormwater harvesting tanks using daily resolution rainfall and water demand data sets
.
Luna Azul
45
,
107
122
.
doi:10.17151/luaz.2017.45.7
.
Geraldi
M. S.
&
Ghisi
E.
2017
Influence of the length of rainfall time series on rainwater harvesting systems: a case study in Berlin
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
125
,
169
180
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.011
.
Geraldi
M. S.
&
Ghisi
E.
2018
Assessment of the length of rainfall time series for rainwater harvesting in buildings
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
133
,
231
241
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.007
.
Geraldi
M. S.
&
Ghisi
E.
2019
Short-term instead of long-term rainfall time series in rainwater harvesting simulation in houses: an assessment using Bayesian network
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.017
.
Ghimire
S. R.
,
Johnston
J. M.
,
Garland
J.
,
Edelen
A.
,
Ma
X.
&
Jahne
M.
2019
Life cycle assessment of a rainwater harvesting system compared with an AC condensate harvesting system
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
146
,
536
548
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.043
.
Ghisi
E.
2010
Parameters influencing the sizing of rainwater tanks for use in houses
.
Water Resources Management
24
(
10
),
2381
2403
.
doi:10.1007/s11269-009-9557-4
.
Ghisi
E.
&
Schondermark
P. N.
2013
Investment feasibility analysis of rainwater use in residences
.
Water Resources Management
27
(
7
),
2555
2576
.
doi:10.1007/s11269-013-0303-6
.
Giacomoni
M. H.
&
Berglund
E. Z.
2015
Complex adaptive modeling framework for evaluating adaptive demand management for urban water resources sustainability
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000543
.
Gómez
Y. D.
&
Teixeira
L. G.
2017
Residential rainwater harvesting: effects of incentive policies and water consumption over economic feasibility
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
127
,
56
67
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.015
.
Guo
R.
&
Guo
Y.
2018
Stochastic modelling of the hydrologic operation of rainwater harvesting systems
.
Journal of Hydrology
562
,
30
39
.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.04.062
.
Gurung
T. R.
&
Sharma
A.
2014
Communal rainwater tank systems design and economies of scale
.
Journal of Cleaner Production
67
,
26
36
.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.020
.
Hajani
E.
&
Rahman
A.
2014
Reliability and cost analysis of a rainwater harvesting system in peri-urban regions of greater Sydney, Australia
.
Water (Switzerland)
6
(
4
),
945
960
.
doi:10.3390/w6040945
.
Haque
M. M.
,
Rahman
A.
&
Samali
B.
2016
Evaluation of climate change impacts on rainwater harvesting
.
Journal of Cleaner Production
137
,
60
69
.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.038
.
Hargreaves
A. J.
,
Farmani
R.
,
Ward
S.
&
Butler
D.
2019
Modelling the future impacts of urban spatial planning on the viability of alternative water supply
.
Water Research
162
,
200
213
.
doi:10.1016/j.watres.2019.06.029
.
Hashim
H.
,
Hudzori
A.
,
Yusop
Z.
&
Ho
W. S.
2013
Simulation based programming for optimization of large-scale rainwater harvesting system: Malaysia case study
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
80
(
1
),
1
9
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.05.001
.
Higgins
J. P. T.
,
Thomas
J.
,
Chandler
J.
,
Cumpston
M.
,
Li
T.
,
Page
M. J.
&
Welch
V. A.
, (eds). 2022
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Imteaz
M. A.
,
Ahsan
A.
,
Naser
J.
&
Rahman
A.
2011a
Reliability analysis of rainwater tanks in Melbourne using daily water balance model
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
56
(
1
),
80
86
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.05.009
.
Imteaz
M. A.
,
Shanableh
A.
,
Rahman
A.
&
Ahsan
A.
2011b
Optimisation of rainwater tank design from large roofs: a case study in Melbourne, Australia
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
55
(
11
),
1022
1029
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.05.013
.
Imteaz
M. A.
,
Adeboye
O. B.
,
Rayburg
S.
&
Shanableh
A.
2012a
Rainwater harvesting potential for southwest Nigeria using daily water balance model
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
62
,
51
55
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.02.007
.
Imteaz
M. A.
,
Rahman
A.
&
Ahsan
A.
2012b
Reliability analysis of rainwater tanks: a comparison between South-East and Central Melbourne
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
66
,
1
7
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.05.009
.
Imteaz
M. A.
,
Paudel
U.
,
Ahsan
A.
&
Santos
C.
2015
Climatic and spatial variability of potential rainwater savings for a large coastal city
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
105
,
143
147
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.023
.
Imteaz
M. A.
,
Karki
R.
,
Hossain
I.
&
Karim
M. R.
2017
Climatic and spatial variabilities of potential rainwater savings and economic benefits for Kathmandu Valley
.
International Journal of Hydrology Science and Technology
7
(
3
),
213
227
.
doi:10.1504/IJHST.2017.086942
.
INMET
2021
BDMEP – Banco de Dados Meteorológicos para Ensino e Pesquisa
.
Disponível em: http://www.inmet.gov.br/ (acesso em: 2 abr. 2020)
.
Jing
X.
,
Zhang
S.
,
Zhang
J.
,
Wang
Y.
&
Wang
Y.
2017
Assessing efficiency and economic viability of rainwater harvesting systems for meeting non-potable water demands in four climatic zones of China
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.027
.
Jones
M. P.
&
Hunt
W. F.
2010
Performance of rainwater harvesting systems in the southeastern United States
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
54
(
10
),
623
629
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.11.002
.
Karim
M. R.
,
Bashar
M. Z. I.
&
Imteaz
M. A.
2015
Reliability and economic analysis of urban rainwater harvesting in a megacity in Bangladesh
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
104
,
61
67
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.09.010
.
Khan
Z.
,
Alim
M. A.
,
Rahman
M. M.
&
Rahman
A.
2021
A continental scale evaluation of rainwater harvesting in Australia
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
167
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105378
.
Kim
K.
&
Yoo
C.
2009
Hydrological modeling and evaluation of rainwater harvesting facilities: case study on several rainwater harvesting facilities in Korea
.
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000030
.
Kisakye
V.
,
Akurut
M.
&
Bruggen
B.
2018
Effect of climate change on reliability of rainwater harvesting systems for Kabarole District, Uganda
.
Water (Switzerland)
10
(
1
).
doi:10.3390/w10010071
.
Lade
O.
&
Oloke
D.
2013
Assessment of rainwater harvesting potential in Ibadan, Nigeria
.
Environmental Engineering Research
18
(
2
),
91
94
.
doi:10.4491/eer.2013.18.2.091
.
Lani
N. H.
,
Syafiuddin
A.
,
Yusop
Z.
,
Adam
U.
&
Amin
M. Z.
2018
Performance of small and large scales rainwater harvesting systems in commercial buildings under different reliability and future water tariff scenarios
.
Science of the Total Environment
.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.418
.
Lash
D.
,
Ward
S.
,
Kershaw
T.
,
Butler
D.
&
Eames
M.
2014
Robust rainwater harvesting: probabilistic tank sizing for climate change adaptation
.
Journal of Water and Climate Change
5
(
4
),
526
539
.
doi:10.2166/wcc.2014.080
.
Li
Y.
,
Ye
Q.
,
Liu
A.
,
Meng
F.
,
Zhang
W.
,
Xiong
W.
,
Wang
P.
&
Wang
C.
2017
Seeking urbanization security and sustainability: multi-objective optimization of rainwater harvesting systems in China
.
Journal of Hydrology
.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.04.042
.
Li
Y.
,
Huang
Y.
,
Ye
Q.
,
Zhang
W.
,
Meng
F.
&
Zhang
S.
2018
Multi-objective optimization integrated with life cycle assessment for rainwater harvesting systems
.
Journal of Hydrology
558
,
659
666
.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.007
.
Liaw
C.-H.
&
Chiang
Y.-C.
2014
Dimensionless analysis for designing domestic rainwater harvesting systems at the regional level in Northern Taiwan
.
Water (Switzerland)
6
(
12
),
3913
3933
.
doi:10.3390/w6123913
.
Liuzzo
L.
,
Notaro
V.
&
Freni
G.
2016
A reliability analysis of a rainfall harvesting system in Southern Italy
.
Water (Switzerland)
8
(
1
),
1
20
.
doi:10.3390/w8010018
.
Lo
K. F. A.
&
Koralegedara
S. B.
2015
Effects of climate change on urban rainwater harvesting in Colombo city, Sri Lanka
.
Environments – MDPI
2
(
1
),
105
124
.
doi:10.3390/environments2010105
.
Londra
P. A.
,
Theocharis
A. T.
,
Baltas
E.
&
Tsihrintzis
V. Α
, .
2015
Optimal sizing of rainwater harvesting tanks for domestic use in Greece
.
Water Resources Management
29
(
12
),
4357
4377
.
doi:10.1007/s11269-015-1064-1
.
Lopes
A. C.
,
Rupp
R. F.
&
Ghisi
E.
2016
Assessment of the potential for potable water savings by using rainwater in houses in southern Brazil
.
Water Science and Technology: Water Supply
16
(
2
),
533
541
.
doi:10.2166/ws.2015.166
.
Lopes
V. A. R.
,
Marques
G. F.
,
Dornelles
F.
&
Medellin-Azuara
J.
2017
Performance of rainwater harvesting systems under scenarios of non-potable water demand and roof area typologies using a stochastic approach
.
Journal of Cleaner Production
.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.132
.
Lúcio
C.
,
Silva
C. M.
&
Sousa
V.
2020
A scale-adaptive method for urban rainwater harvesting simulation
.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
27
(
5
),
4557
4570
.
doi:10.1007/s11356-019-04889-6
.
Matos
C.
,
Santos
C.
,
Pereira
S.
,
Bentes
I.
&
Imteaz
M.
2013
Rainwater storage tank sizing: case study of a commercial building
.
International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment
2
(
2
),
109
118
.
doi:10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.04.004
.
Morales-Pinzón
T.
,
Lurueña
R.
,
Rieradevall
J.
,
Gasol
C. M.
&
Gabarrell
X.
2012
Financial feasibility and environmental analysis of potential rainwater harvesting systems: a case study in Spain
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
69
,
130
140
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.09.014
.
Morales-Pinzón
T.
,
Rieradevall
J.
,
Gasol
C. M.
&
Gabarrell
X.
2015
Modelling for economic cost and environmental analysis of rainwater harvesting systems
.
Journal of Cleaner Production
87
(
C
),
613
626
.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.021
.
Mun
J. S.
&
Han
M. Y.
2012
Design and operational parameters of a rooftop rainwater harvesting system: definition, sensitivity and verification
.
Journal of Environmental Management
93
(
1
),
147
153
.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.08.024
.
Musayev
S.
,
Burgess
E.
&
Mellor
J.
2018
A global performance assessment of rainwater harvesting under climate change
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
132
,
62
70
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.023
.
Neto
R. F. M.
,
Carvalho
I. D. C.
,
Calijuri
M. L.
&
Santiago
A. D. F.
2012
Rainwater use in airports: a case study in Brazil
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
68
,
36
43
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.08.005
.
Nguyen
D. C.
&
Han
M. Y.
2017
Proposal of simple and reasonable method for design of rainwater harvesting system from limited rainfall data
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
126
,
219
227
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.033
.
Okoye
C. O.
,
Solyali
O.
&
Akintuğ
B.
2015
Optimal sizing of storage tanks in domestic rainwater harvesting systems: a linear programming approach
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
104
,
131
140
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.08.015
.
Oviedo-Ocaña
E. R.
,
Dominguez
I.
,
Ward
S.
,
Rivera-Sanchez
M. L.
&
Zaraza-Peña
J. M.
2018
Financial feasibility of end-user designed rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse systems for high water use households
.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
.
doi:10.1007/s11356-017-8710-5
.
Palla
A.
,
Gnecco
I.
,
Lanza
L. G.
&
La Barbera
P.
2012
Performance analysis of domestic rainwater harvesting systems under various European climate zones
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
62
,
71
80
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.02.006
.
Palla
A.
,
Gnecco
I.
&
La Barbera
P.
2017
The impact of domestic rainwater harvesting systems in storm water runoff mitigation at the urban block scale
.
Journal of Environmental Management
191
,
297
305
.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.01.025
.
Park
D.
&
Um
M. J.
2018
Sustainability index evaluation of the rainwater harvesting system in six US urban cities
.
Sustainability (Switzerland)
10
(
1
).
doi:10.3390/su10010280
.
PARSIF.AL
2021
Perform Systematic Literature Reviews
.
Disponível em: https://parsif.al/ (acesso em: 18 jan. 2021)
.
Pelak
N.
&
Porporato
A.
2016
Sizing a rainwater harvesting cistern by minimizing costs
.
Journal of Hydrology
541
,
1340
1347
.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.036
.
Pérez-Uresti
S. I.
,
Ponce-Ortega
J. M.
&
Jiménez-Gutiérrez
A.
2019
A multi-objective optimization approach for sustainable water management for places with over-exploited water resources
.
Computers and Chemical Engineering
121
,
158
173
.
doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2018.10.003
.
Peterson
E. L.
2016
Transcontinental assessment of secure rainwater harvesting systems across Australia
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
106
,
33
47
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.002
.
Petit-Boix
A.
,
Devkota
J.
,
Phillips
R.
,
Vargas-Parra
M. V.
,
Josa
A.
,
Gabarrell
X.
,
Rieradevall
J.
&
Apul
D.
2018
Life cycle and hydrologic modeling of rainwater harvesting in urban neighborhoods: implications of urban form and water demand patterns in the US and Spain
.
Science of the Total Environment
621
,
434
443
.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.206
.
Quinn
R.
,
Rougé
C.
&
Stovin
V.
2021
Quantifying the performance of dual-use rainwater harvesting systems
.
Water Research X
10
.
doi:10.1016/j.wroa.2020.100081
.
Rahman
A.
,
Keane
J.
&
Imteaz
M. A.
2012
Rainwater harvesting in Greater Sydney: water savings, reliability and economic benefits
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
61
,
16
21
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.12.002
.
Rahmat
S. N.
,
Al-Gheethi
A. A. S.
,
Ayob
S.
&
Shahli
F. M.
2020
Development of dual water supply using rooftop rainwater harvesting and groundwater systems
.
SN Applied Sciences
2
(
1
).
doi:10.1007/s42452-019-1862-9
.
Rezende
J. H.
&
Tecedor
N.
2017
Use of rooftop rainwater of buildings: reservoir volume estimation by methods described in the NBR 15527
.
Revista Ambiente e Água
12
(
6
),
1040
1053
.
doi:10.4136/ambi-agua.1940
.
RIO20
2012
Rio+20: como chegamos até aqui
.
Disponível em: www.rio20.gov.br/ (acesso em: 20 mar. 2021)
.
Rostad
N.
,
Foti
R.
&
Montalto
F. A.
2016
Harvesting rooftop runoff to flush toilets: drawing conclusions from four major U.S. cities
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
108
,
97
106
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.01.009
.
Rozos
E.
&
Makropoulos
C.
2012
Assessing the combined benefits of water recycling technologies by modelling the total urban water cycle
.
Urban Water Journal
9
(
1
),
1
10
.
doi:10.1080/1573062X.2011.630096
.
Sample
D. J.
&
Liu
J.
2014
Optimizing rainwater harvesting systems for the dual purposes of water supply and runoff capture
.
Journal of Cleaner Production
75
,
174
194
.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.075
.
Santos
S. M.
&
Farias
M. M. M. W. E. C.
2017
Potential for rainwater harvesting in a dry climate: assessments in a semiarid region in northeast Brazil
.
Journal of Cleaner Production
164
,
1007
1015
.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.251
.
Santos
C.
&
Taveira-Pinto
F.
2013
Analysis of different criteria to size rainwater storage tanks using detailed methods
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
71
,
1
6
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.11.004
.
Seo
Y.
,
Ahn
J.
&
Kim
Y. O.
2013
The impact of climate change on the benefit of a rain barrel sharing network
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
74
,
66
74
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.02.019
.
Severis
R. M.
,
Silva
F. A.
,
Wahrlich
J.
,
Skoronski
E.
&
Simioni
F. J.
2019
Economic analysis and risk-based assessment of the financial losses of domestic rainwater harvesting systems
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.040
.
Silva
C. M.
,
Sousa
V.
&
Carvalho
N. V.
2015
Evaluation of rainwater harvesting in Portugal: application to single-family residences
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
94
,
21
34
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.11.004
.
Souza
E. L.
&
Ghisi
E.
2012
Potable water savings by using rainwater for non-potable uses in houses
.
Water (Switzerland)
4
(
3
),
607
628
.
doi:10.3390/w4030607
.
Stec
A.
&
Kordana
S.
2015
Analysis of profitability of rainwater harvesting, gray water recycling and drain water heat recovery systems
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.006
.
Stec
A.
,
Kordana
S.
&
Słyś
D.
2017
Analysing the financial efficiency of use of water and energy saving systems in single-family homes
.
Journal of Cleaner Production
151
,
193
205
.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.071
.
Steffen
J.
,
Jensen
M.
,
Pomeroy
C. A.
&
Burian
S. J.
2013
Water supply and stormwater management benefits of residential rainwater harvesting in U.S. cities
.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association
49
(
4
),
810
824
.
doi:10.1111/jawr.12038
.
Tavakol-Davani
H.
,
Goharian
E.
,
Hansen
C. H.
,
Tavakol-Davani
H.
,
Apul
D.
&
Burian
S. J.
2016
How does climate change affect combined sewer overflow in a system benefiting from rainwater harvesting systems?
Sustainable Cities and Society
27
,
430
438
.
doi:10.1016/j.scs.2016.07.003
.
Teston
A.
,
Teixeira
C. A.
,
Ghisi
E.
&
Cardoso
E. B.
2018
Impact of rainwater harvesting on the drainage system: case study of a condominium of houses in Curitiba, Southern Brazil
.
Water (Switzerland)
.
doi:10.3390/w10081100
.
Toosi
A. S.
,
Danesh
S.
,
Tousi
E. G.
&
Doulabian
S.
2020
Annual and seasonal reliability of urban rainwater harvesting system under climate change
.
Sustainable Cities and Society
63
.
doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102427
.
Tranfield
D.
,
Denyer
D.
&
Smart
P.
2003
Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review
.
British Journal of Management
14
(
3
),
207
222
.
Vargas-Parra
M. V.
,
Rovira-Val
M. R.
,
Gabarrell
X.
&
Villalba
G.
2019
Rainwater harvesting systems reduce detergent use
.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
24
(
5
),
809
823
.
doi:10.1007/s11367-018-1535-8
.
Vuong
N. M.
,
Ichikawa
Y.
&
Ishidaira
H.
2016
Performance assessment of rainwater harvesting considering rainfall variations in Asian tropical monsoon climates
.
Hydrological Research Letters
10
(
1
),
27
33
.
doi:10.3178/hrl.10.27
.
Wallace
C. D.
,
Bailey
R. T.
&
Arabi
M.
2015
Rainwater catchment system design using simulated future climate data
.
Journal of Hydrology
529
,
1798
1809
.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.08.006
.
Wang
C.-H.
&
Blackmore
J. M.
2012
Supply-demand risk and resilience assessment for household rainwater harvesting in Melbourne, Australia
.
Water Resources Management
26
(
15
),
4381
4396
.
doi:10.1007/s11269-012-0150-x
.
Warrick
R.
,
Ashford
G.
,
Kouwenhoven
P.
,
Li
Y.
,
Urich
P.
&
Ye
W.
2012
Spatial risk-based assessments for climate adaptation using the SimCLIM modelling system: a case study of domestic rainwater harvesting as the sole source of water
.
Journal of Water and Climate Change
3
(
4
),
257
265
.
doi:10.2166/wcc.2012.003
.
Wurthmann
K.
2019
A nonparametric bootstrapping method for synthetically generating daily precipitation, water supply, and irrigation demand for rainwater harvesting system storage sizing
.
MethodsX
.
doi:10.1016/j.mex.2019.10.025
.
Xu
W. D.
,
Fletcher
T. D.
,
Duncan
H. P.
,
Bergmann
D. J.
,
Breman
J.
&
Burns
M. J.
2018
Improving the multi-objective performance of rainwater harvesting systems using real-time control technology
.
Water (Switzerland)
10
(
2
).
doi:10.3390/w10020147
.
Youn
S.-G.
,
Chung
E.-S.
,
Kang
W. G.
&
Sung
J. H.
2012
Probabilistic estimation of the storage capacity of a rainwater harvesting system considering climate change
.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
65
,
136
144
.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.05.005
.
Zavala
M. Á. L.
,
Prieto
M. J. C.
&
Rojas
C. A. R.
2018
Rainwater harvesting as an alternative for water supply in regions with high water stress
.
Water Science and Technology: Water Supply
18
(
6
),
1946
1955
.
doi:10.2166/ws.2018.018
.
Zhang
X.
,
Hu
M.
,
Chen
G.
&
Xu
Y.
2012
Urban rainwater utilization and its role in mitigating urban waterlogging problems – a case study in Nanjing, China
.
Water Resources Management
.
doi:10.1007/s11269-012-0101-6
.
Zhang
S.
,
Zhang
J.
,
Jing
X.
,
Wang
Y.
,
Wang
Y.
&
Yue
T.
2018
Water saving efficiency and reliability of rainwater harvesting systems in the context of climate change
.
Journal of Cleaner Production
196
,
1341
1355
.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.133
.
Zhang
S.
,
Zhang
J.
,
Yue
T.
&
Jing
X.
2019
Impacts of climate change on urban rainwater harvesting systems
.
Science of the Total Environment
665
,
262
274
.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.135
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Supplementary data