Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 35 (2010) 742–751

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physics and Chemistry of the Earth

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pce

Domestic rainwater harvesting as an adaptation measure to climate

change in South Africa
J. Mwenge Kahinda a,*, A.E. Taigbenu a, R.J. Boroto b
a
Water Research Group, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, South Africa
b
Source Strategic Focus (Pty) Ltd., P.O. Box 2857, Pretoria 0001, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Climate change is an additional threat that puts increased pressure on already stressed hydrological sys-
Received 2 February 2010 tems and water resources. The impacts of climate change are already visible given that temperature and
Received in revised form 29 June 2010 rainfall variabilities have increased and intensified over the last two decades. Recent studies indicate the
Accepted 7 July 2010
extreme vulnerability of Southern Africa to the impacts of climate change and recommend that appropri-
Available online 11 July 2010
ate adaptation measures be put in place. Rainwater harvesting (RWH) is listed among the specific adap-
tation measures that the water sector in Africa needs to undertake to cope with future climate change. At
Keywords:
present, there is limited application of RWH, despite its high potential for alleviating the impacts of
Climate change
Domestic rainwater harvesting
climate change on water security in many areas of Africa.
Quaternary catchment The paper presents a methodology that enables water managers to incorporate the climate change
South Africa component during the design phase of domestic RWH (DRWH) systems. The Roof model was used to cal-
Water security culate the optimum size of the RWH tank and appraise its water security (percentage of demand satis-
fied) under different scenarios (with and without climate change). Results indicate that the optimum
RWH tank volume is 0.5 m3 in the four quaternary catchments (QCs) studied with the humid QC, as
expected, providing the highest water security of about 30%. On the basis of forecasted rainfall down-
scaled from six global circulation models, the ranges of water security attained by a 0.5 m3 RWH tank
are 10–15% in the arid QC, 15–20% in both the semi-arid and dry sub humid QCs and 30–40% in the humid
QC. Furthermore, the high value of the water security climate induced index (c > 0.6) confirms the high
susceptibility of South Africa to climate change and, therefore, the need for appropriate adaptation
measures.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Climate change has been one of the most studied environmental
concerns over the past two decades. In South Africa, climate
change is a supplementary hazard imposed on long-term water
stressed conditions, socioeconomic pressure and management
challenges. These water stressed conditions are characterised by
low, erratic and poorly distributed rainfall, high evaporation and
excessive runoff and soil losses. The current socioeconomic condi-
tions emanate from historical legacy of apartheid that excluded
majority of persons from access to resources including water.
Climate change has the potential to impact very significantly on
both the availability of and requirements for water in South Africa.
Regional Climate Model indicate:
 increases in summer rainfall over the convective region of the
central plateau, the eastern plateau and the Drakensberg Moun-
tains (Hewitson and Crane, 2006);
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 117177155; fax: +27 117177045.
E-mail address: jeanmarcmk@yahoo.co.uk (J.M. Kahinda).
 little change in the Western Cape, with some slight drying in
summer and a slight decrease in winter time frontal rainfall
(Hewitson and Crane, 2006);
 decreases in early summer (October to December) rainfall and
increases in late summer (January to March) rainfall over the
eastern parts of Southern Africa (Tadross et al., 2005);
 possible stream flow decreases of as much as 10% by 2015 in the
most affected parts of the Western Cape (DWAF, 2004), and;
 increased runoff reduction from the west to the east coast by
about 2060 (DWAF, 2004).
Whilst there are still many uncertainties with regard to the
magnitude of climate change, since models simulation outputs dif-
fer, the direction of change appears to be consistent (Arnell et al.,
2001; Mukheibir, 2008). Climate change impacts on freshwater
resources affect sustainable development and endanger economic
development, poverty reduction strategies, child mortality reduc-
tion programs, production and availability of food and the health
of people and ecosystems (Rutashobya, 2008). Hence the question
is: which adaptation strategies will build resilience in water, food,
health and energy?

1474-7065/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pce.2010.07.004
 J. Mwenge Kahinda et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 35 (2010) 742–751 743

Rainwater harvesting (RWH) is listed as one of the specific
adaptation strategies that the water sector needs to undertake to
cope with future climate change (Pandey et al., 2003; Rutashobya,
2008; Mukheibir, 2008; Salas et al., 2009) as it has the potential to
enhance ecosystem and livelihood resilience (Muller, 2007). Until
recently the importance of RWH as a buffer against climate-linked
extreme weather events has been almost invisible in water plan-
ning since countries rely almost exclusively on conventional
sources of rivers and groundwater supplies (Mati et al., 2006).
In addition most semi-arid and arid watersheds have important
transmission losses that reduce downstream runoff volume (Lane,
1982). Unlike big dams, which collect and store water over large
areas, small-scale RWH projects lose less water to evaporation be-
cause runoff is collected locally and can be stored in a variety of
ways (Mati et al., 2006). Widely deployed RWH acts as a buffer
against drought events in rural scattered settlements located in
unfavourable geographical and topographical conditions that cen-
tralised infrastructures often bypass (Mati et al., 2006).
The aim of this paper is to develop a methodology that main-
streams climate change in DRWH projects. Therefore, the paper be-
gins with a brief overview of the domestic rainwater harvesting
situation in South Africa and then a methodology that integrates
climate change in DRWH projects is put forward and applied in
four quaternary catchments (QCs). Finally, obstacles hindering
the successful implementation of DRWH as an adaptation strategy
are discussed.
2. Domestic rainwater harvesting in South Africa water supply

Table 1
There are eleven different types of water sources for households
Existing type of water sources in South Africa (Statistics SA, 2006).
(Table 1) that are grouped in two main categories: piped and non-
No. Category Type of water source piped. While there are these suites of water sources available to
1 Piped Piped water (tap) inside dwelling communities, supplies traditionally rely on a single source, thereby
2 Piped water (tap) inside yard impacting negatively on its reliability and health of users. Diversi-
3 Piped water on community stand: distance 6200 m from
fication of water sources, with one being domestic RWH (DRWH),
dwelling
4 Piped water on community stand: distance >200 m from offers greater prospects of reliability and good hygiene.
dwelling DRWH, which is primarily used in rural areas, is a major source
5 Non- Borehole of drinking water especially in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Na-
6 piped Spring tal (Fig. 1). As demonstrated in another study, the adoption of
7 Rainwater tank DRWH in these two provinces is not only subject to biophysical
8 Dam/pool/stagnant water factors but also to socioeconomic factors (Mwenge Kahinda et al.,
9 River/stream
10 Water vendor
2009). It is therefore the existence of appropriate mix of factors,
11 Other coupled with enabling legislative and institutional structure, that
will continue to drive the DRWH agenda in South Africa.

Fig. 1. Distribution of RWH tanks in the nine provinces of South Africa.

744 J. Mwenge Kahinda et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 35 (2010) 742–751

Fig. 2. Rooftop RWH and ground RWH (Mwenge Kahinda et al., 2007).

brewing, brick making, etc. Advantages and disadvantages of

Table 2
Advantages and disadvantages of domestic rainwater harvesting in rural areas (after
Mwenge Kahinda et al. (2005a)).
Advantages
Water for small-scale productive
activities
Less time spent in fetching water
(women, elderly, children)
Less water related diseases
Improved sanitation
More time for education
Increased income
Improved food security
Reduction in malnutrition in under
fives
Disadvantages
Cost of implementation
Need of training for construction,
operation and maintenance
Loss of revenue for the water service
provider
DRWH are summarised in Table 2.
In spite of the overwhelming potential that DRWH offers, less
than 1% of rural households use a RWH tank as their main water
source. In actual fact, DRWH is the least used water source in South
Africa. According to the 2006 water services coverage, DRWH is the
main source of supply for only 0.3% of the total rural households
(Fig. 3).
Existing DRWH tanks in SA have been built/installed by non-
governmental organisations. It is only recently that the govern-
ment provided a grant for the construction of DRWH systems (De
Lange, 2006). South Africa has about 34,000 RWH tanks of which
over 96% of the tanks are located in rural areas, indicating that
DRWH remains rural in character. Although the official database
(Fig. 3) indicates that more than 70% of the population has piped
supply either inside their dwelling or in their yard, it must be
stressed that this does not guarantee reliable water supply as taps
can be dry for days or even weeks (Fig. 4).

DRWH systems have the following components: a storage facil-

ity (aboveground or underground tank), a catchment area (rooftop
or courtyards and similar compacted or treated surfaces), and a
target area (domestic use, garden watering and small-scale pro-
ductive activities). The catchment area divides DRWH into two
groups (Fig. 2), rooftop RWH (water is stored in either above-
ground or underground tanks) and ground RWH (water is stored
in underground tanks).
DRWH enables many different small-scale home based produc-
tive activities that contribute to increased household incomes. Pro-
ductive activities are, among others, garden watering, beer
3. Research methodology
3.1. The study area
In an attempt to ensure that different hydrological zones, from
1949 QCs that exist in South Africa, are addressed in this study,
four QCs, which represent the four different aridity zones – semi-
arid, arid, humid and dry sub humid – are chosen (Fig. 5).
A zoom in of the selected QCs is presented in Fig. 6 with some of
their characteristics outlined in Table 3.

Fig. 3. Percentages of rural household use of existing water sources (Source: DWAF, 2007).
 J. Mwenge Kahinda et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 35 (2010) 742–751
Fig. 4. Line of water vessels at a community tap in the Olifants basin
(Ó Magombeyi).
3.2. The Roof model
The water security of DRWH was estimated using a modified
version of Roof. Roof is a model developed by van der Zaag
(2000) which calculates storage capacity when daily water use
and roof area are known. It is essentially a water balance model
which requires a complete series of daily rainfall data for at least
three consecutive years. Using monthly rainfall data to calculate
the storage requirements results in a severe underestimation of
the required storage capacity (Fewkes, 1999; Fewkes and Butler,
Fig. 5. Location of the study areas in South Africa.
745
2000; van der Zaag, 2000; Roebuck, 2007) since it overlooks the
temporal distribution of rainfall (Chiu and Liaw, 2008). The model’s
water balance equation is computed as follows:
dV
¼ Q r þ Q T  Q abs  Q o ð1Þ
dt
where V = volume of water stored in the tank (m3), Qr = roof runoff
into the tank (m3 d1), QT = additional inflow into the tank (m3 d1),
Qabs = water abstracted from the tank (m3 d1), Qo = Overflow from
the tank (m3 d1) and t = time (day).
With roof runoff equal to:
Q r ¼ P  Ar  c r ð2Þ
where Qr = roof runoff into the tank (m3 d1), P = precipitation
(m d1), Ar = roof area (m2) and cr = roof runoff coefficient.
Water security, which is defined as the percentage of long term
demand household water requirement met from the rainwater
tank, under a given daily rainfall time series is calculated as
follows:
P
Q
WS ¼ 100 P abs ð3Þ
Q req
where WS = Water security (%), Qabs = water abstracted from the
tank (m3 d1) and Qreq = household water requirement (m3 d1).
3.3. Data used
3.3.1. Community dataset
The following settlements classes were extracted from the 2006
water services community dataset (DWAF, 2007): ex-homeland,
dense village (>5000 inhabitants), small village (65000 inhabit-
ants), scattered villages, farms and service centres. The dataset
746 J. Mwenge Kahinda et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 35 (2010) 742–751

Fig. 6. Map of the four quaternary catchments studied (C24C, D41E, U20E and V12G).

station approach is carried out according to the following steps

Table 3
Biophysical data and population densities of the QCs studied. (Schulze, 2006):

QC QC area Area of rural No. people/ Aridity

 A representative station selected to ‘‘drive” the hydrological
(km2) settlements (km2) household zone
response of a QC is chosen according to the following criteria:
C24C 1352.4 6.8 4 Semi-arid
– it is in close proximity to, or within, the quaternary;
D41E 4543.9 3.9 4 Arid
U20E 390.3 9.7 4 Humid – its altitude is representative of the quaternary’s mean
V12G 506.6 37.8 5 Dry sub altitude;
humid – it has a long continuous record with a minimum of missing
or suspect data, and;
– where data are missing, the next best driver station (accord-
ing to the above criteria) is used to estimate the missing
was used to estimate the average number of inhabitants in rural
rainfall.
household in each QC studied.
 The median monthly precipitation of the driver station is com-
parable to the median monthly precipitation of the catchment.
3.3.2. Driver rainfall stations
South Africa has over 23,000 rural communities distributed in Although the driver station approach helps preserve the statis-
1949 QCs. Thus, it is preferable to optimise the tank size at QC le- tical properties of point rainfall, it oversimplifies daily areal rainfall
vel. However, this implies that the daily time series of rainfall se- in large QCs. Twenty years (01 January 1988 to 31 December 2007)
lected must be able to represent the hydrological response of the of daily rainfall data of the selected driver rainfall stations were
QCs. A driver rainfall station is such a representative station that sourced from Lynch (2003) and used as input data to optimise
drives the hydrological response of a QC (Schulze, 2006). The driver the tank sizes.
 J. Mwenge Kahinda et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 35 (2010) 742–751 747

Table 4
Location and characteristics of the driver rainfall stations used.

Quaternary Station name Station no. MAP CV Longitude Latitude Altitude

C24C Ventersdorp 0473559W 586 24 26.82 26.32 1500
D41E Pomfret 0504050W 326 39 23.53 25.83 1167
U20E Cedara 0239482A 827 18 30.28 29.53 1077
V12G Ladysmith 0300454AW 649 28 29.77 28.57 1015

MAP = mean annual precipitation (1950–1999); CV = annual coefficient of variation of rainfall.

The characteristics of the stations selected to drive the hydro-
logical response of the QCs are presented in Table 4.
The annual rainfall of the driver stations from 1950 to 1999
indicates an increase in rainfall in the humid QCs U20E and
V12G (Fig. 7) and a decrease in rainfall in the arid QCs C24C and
D41E. The observed trends in annual rainfall suggest wetter humid
QCs and drier arid QCs.
3.3.3. Forecasted daily rainfall data
Twenty years of daily rainfall data (2046–2065) were made
available by the Climate System Analysis Group (CSAG) of the Uni-
versity of Cape Town. The forecasted data was produced by Hewit-
son and Crane (2006) statistical downscaling model that relied on
at least 10 years of observed data which were then simulated by
Global Climate Models (GCMs) provided by different climate mod-
elling groups (Table 5) (CSAG, 2010). Data downscaled from the
first six GCMs listed in Table 5 was used to appraise the impact
of climate change on DRWH.
Downscaled data from csiro.5 and ipsl were discarded due to
the fact that they did not provide a complete time series for the
20 years period selected.
Extracting the statistics of the average number of rain days with
precipitation greater than 2 mm and with precipitation greater
than 20 mm (heavy rain days) from the forecasted rainfall time
series (Fig. 8), it is observed that most models predict higher than
above current rainfall trend in three QCs (C24C, U20E and V12G),
except the arid (D41E) where the contrary is the case.
The consensus from all these models suggests some perturba-
tions about the current rainfall trend of the catchments, widely
perceived as caused by climate change.
4. Results and discussion
The Roof model was used to simulate the variation of water
security and tank volume using existing daily rainfall time series
from 1988 to 2007 (observed rainfall trends) and those predicted
by six climate models from 2046 to 2065 (forecasted rainfall
trends). Using the current rainfall trends in all four QCs, the solid
black line (Figs. 9–12) shows the variation of water security with
tank size. The optimum size of the RWH tank should be taken
where the curves begin to flatten. A further increase in tank capac-
ity serves no useful purpose since it does not significantly increase
the water security (Table 6).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 7. Annual rainfall (mm) recorded from 1950 to 1999 by the driver rainfall stations of the four QCs studied (C24C, D41E, U20E and V12G).
748 J. Mwenge Kahinda et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 35 (2010) 742–751

Table 5 Table 6
Climate models from which 20 years of forecasted daily rainfall was downscaled Water security provided by a 0.5 m3, 1 m3 and a 10 m3 RWH tank considering a daily
(CSAG, 2010). water demand of 100 l day1, a 20 m2 roof area and using the 20 years of daily rainfall
(1988–2007).
Model Agency Symbol
Quaternary Station no. Aridity Water Water Water
CCMA CGCM3.1 Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling cccma
zone security security security
and Analysis
0.5 m3 (%) 1 m3 (%) 10 m3 (%)
CNRM-CM3 Centre National de Recherches cnrm
Météorologiques C24C 0473559W Semi-arid 15.25 15.5 20
CM2.0 – AOGCM Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, gfdl D41E 0504050W Arid 15 15 15
NOAA U20E 0239482A Humid 30 30 31
GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies giss V12G 0300454AW Dry sub humid 15 15 16
ECHAM5/MPI-OM Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, mpi
Germany
MRI-CGCM2.3.2 Meteorological Research Institute, Japan mri
higher water security while one model (gfdl) indicates otherwise
Meteorological Agency, Japan
CSIRO_MK3.5 CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Australia, csiro.5
(Fig. 9).
MK3.5 Model In the arid D41E QC, four models (mpi, giss, cccma and gfdl)
IPSL_CM4 IPSL/LMD/LSCE, France, CM4V1 Model ipsl indicate a decrease in water security, one model (cnrm) indicates
higher water security, while the remaining model (mri) indicates
about the same water security variation as the observed rainfall
time series (Fig. 10).
The results in Table 6 indicate that it is only in the semi-arid QC Five models (cnrm, giss, cccma, mpi and mri) indicate higher
(C24C) that marginal increase in water security is achieved with a water security than the driver station 0239482A in the humid
tank size of over 1 m3. In all other QCs tank sizes much larger than U20E QC, while the gfdl model consistently indicate lower water
0.5 m3 give a false sense of water security but in reality translate to security (Fig. 11).
substantial underutilisation of capacity. It should be noted that In humid V12G QC, five of the six models (cccma, cnrm, giss,
other decisive factors such as the cost, the available space and mpi and mri) indicate higher water security than the driver station
the tank sizes available on the market should be considered 0300454AW for the same tank size while the gfdl model indicates
(Mwenge Kahinda et al., 2007, 2009). lower water security (Fig. 12).
Using the current rainfall trends of the driver stations as bench- The cnrm model consistently indicates the highest water secu-
mark, comparison is made with the predicted rainfall trends rity values while the gfdl consistently indicates the lowest water
from the six climatic models. In the semi-arid C24C QC, five security in all four QCs investigated. Thus, the cnrm and the gfdl
models (crnm, mpi, mri, gis and cccma) indicate attainment of models provide the water security envelop for different tank sizes.

(a) C24C (b) D41E

60 45
Average annual number

40
Average annual number

50
35
of rain days

of rain days

40 30
25
30
20
20 15
10
10
5
0 0
cccma cnrm gfdl giss mpi mri cccma cnrm gfdl giss mpi mri
NRD>2mm NRD>20mm Observed Data serie DR>2mm DR>20mm Observed Data serie

(c) U20E (d) V12G

120 80
110
Average annual number
Average annual number

70
100
90 60
of rain days
of rain days

80
50
70
60 40
50 30
40
30 20
20 10
10
0
0
cccma cnrm gfdl giss mpi mri
cccma cnrm gfdl giss mpi mri
DR>2mm DR>20mm Observed Data serie NRD>2mm NRD>20mm Observed Data serie

Fig. 8. Comparison between observed and forecasted average number of rain days with precipitation greater than 2 mm and with precipitation greater than 20 mm for (a)
C24C, (b) D41E, (c) U20E and (d) V12G.
 J. Mwenge Kahinda et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 35 (2010) 742–751 749

Fig. 9. Water security for varying tank sizes under different projected daily rainfall data in C24C.

Fig. 10. Water security for varying tank sizes under different projected daily rainfall data in D41E.

Fig. 11. Water security for varying tank sizes under different projected daily rainfall data in U20E.

Using a 0.5 m3 tank (standard commercially-available size) as the context of DRWH as an adaptation for climate change, is given
reference size tank for rural households in the QCs, the likely per- as:
turbation caused by climate change are assessed using the climate
model prediction envelopes for cnrm and gfdl. A dimensionless in- jDWSj
c¼ ð4Þ
dex, referred to as the water security perturbation index c, within WS
750 J. Mwenge Kahinda et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 35 (2010) 742–751
Fig. 12. Water security for varying tank sizes under different projected daily rainfall data in V12G.
where DWS = largest predicted perturbation of water security (%) at
reference tank size of 0.5 m3, WS = water security of current rainfall
trend of driver station (%) at reference tank size of 0.5 m3.
The highest water security perturbation index is observed for
the dry sub humid QC (V12G) c = 0.67, followed closely by the arid
QC (D41E) and the semi-arid QC (C24C) c = 0.65 and 0.64, respec-
tively (Fig. 13). The humid QC (U20E) registers the lowest water
security perturbation index, c = 0.5. Low c values (c < 0.2) are
indicative of QCs with low climate change perturbation, whereas
high values (c > 0.4) are indicative of QCs more susceptible to cli-
mate change variability and consequently requiring more adapta-
tion measures.
While this study has primarily focused on DRWH as a climate
change adaptation measure, it should be pointed out that there
are limitations associated with it. Hence, the need to consider a
suite of adaptation measures to address the overall livelihood secu-
rity of a community. These limitations include (after Schulze
(2008)):
 Physical limits set by nature such as the rainfall randomness
and the existing infrastructures. RWH is an intermittent water
source that relies on the rainfall and is further constrained by
the roof areas of most rural dwelling. Furthermore, in most
peri-urban areas (informal settlements) of South Africa, there
is no space for a storage tank (Mwenge Kahinda et al., 2007).
 Financial constraints. Initial investment in DRWH is usually
unaffordable for rural populace, hence the support of govern-
ment and donor agencies is required.
Fig. 13. Water security perturbation index of the four QCs.
 Feasibility limits. The current legislative environment provides
no clear policy direction for sustainable use and upscaling of
DRWH, hence limiting wide scale adoption of the practice
(Mwenge Kahinda et al., 2005b).
 Capacity limits. The country is in need of skills for proper imple-
mentation of DRWH, especially the required maintenance and
health-related risk management measures, for instance, in the
malaria prone areas (Mwenge Kahinda et al., 2007).
We also add the social limitation which relate to the perception
that DRWH is a ‘‘second class” water supply system when compared
to piped supply. It is this perception that sometimes plagues DRWH
schemes, thereby making them not to be maintained after initial
investment has been provided by government or donor agencies.
5. Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to develop a methodology that main-
streams climate change in DRWH projects. DRWH is an adaptation
measure still invisible in South Africa’s water planning. Due primar-
ily to the small size of the roof (20 m2) in the QCs considered, the
optimum RWH tank for the four QCs studied was found to be
0.5 m3. This modest tank size barely reached a water security of
30% in the humid QC. Despite major modelling advances different
global climate models still only predict general directions and
sometimes give mixed signals as reflected in the modelling results.
Nevertheless, since the ‘‘do nothing” scenario is no longer an alter-
native, the general trend provided by the climate models in relation
to current rainfall trend is a 5–20% increase in water security for the
same tank size in the dry sub humid, humid and semi-arid QCs and
a similar decrease in water security in the arid QC considered for
this study. The high values (c > 0.6) of the water security perturba-
tion parameter further buttresses our understanding of the high
susceptibility of South Africa to climate change variability, hence
the need of adaptation measures such as DRWH.
To reach the full potential of DRWH it is necessary to combine
roof systems with ground systems, so that analysis can be broad-
ened beyond water security to water productivity issues. DRWH
is an intermittent water sources that has the potential to increase
access to water, reduce poverty and improve livelihood when con-
sidered within a multiple sources and uses framework.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank: (1) Professor Pieter Van der
Zaag for making the Roof model available and (2) Mark Tadross
 J. Mwenge Kahinda et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 35 (2010) 742–751
and Lisa Coop, from the Climate Systems Analysis Group of the
Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, Univer-
sity of Cape Town for providing daily predicted rainfall data for
the period of 2046–2065.
References
Arnell, N.W., Liu, C., Compagnucci, R., da Cunha, L., Hanaki, K., Howe, C., Mailu, G.
Shiklomanov, I., Stakhiv, E., 2001. Hydrology and water resources. In: McCarthy,
J.J., Canziani, O.F., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J., White, K.S. (Eds.), IPCC Climate
Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability, The Third Assessment
Report of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) 1000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2001), pp. 133–191.
Chiu, Y.R., Liaw, C.H., 2008. Designing rainwater harvesting systems for large-scale
potable water saving using spatial information system. In: Computer Supported
Cooperative Work in Design IV: 11th International Conference, CSCWD 2007,
Melbourne, Australia, April 26–28, 2007, pp. 653–663.
CSAG, 2010. Climate Systems Analysis Group, Data Dissemination System.
Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, University of Cape
Town. Cape Town, South Africa. <http://data.csag.uct.ac.za/docs/>.
De Lange, M., 2006. War on hunger: some impacts of the DWAF rainwater
harvesting pilot programme. In: Report to the Water Resources Finance and
Pricing DWAF Directorate. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria,
South Africa.
DWAF, 2004. National Water Resource Strategy, first ed. Department of Water
Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.
DWAF, 2007. Water Services’ Community Dataset. Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry, Pretoria, RSA.
Fewkes, A., 1999. The use of rainwater for WC flushing: the field testing of a
collection system. Building and Environment 34 (6), 765–772.
Fewkes, A., Butler, D., 2000. Simulating the performance of rainwater collection and
reuse systems using behavioural models. Building Services Engineering
Research and Technology 21 (2), 99–106.
Hewitson, B.C., Crane, R.G., 2006. Consensus between GCM climate change
projections with empirical downscaling: precipitation downscaling over South
Africa. International Journal of Climatology 26 (10), 1315–1337.
Lane, L.J., 1982. Distributed model for small semi-arid watersheds. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering ASCE 108 (HY10), 1114–1131.
Lynch, S.D. 2003. Development of a Raster Database of Annual, Monthly and Daily
Rainfall for Southern Africa. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, RSA, WRC
Report 1156/1/04, pp. 78.
Mati, B., De Bock, T., Malesu, M., Khaka, E., Oduor, A., Meshack, M., Oduor, V., 2006.
Mapping the potential of rainwater harvesting technologies in Africa. In: A GIS
Overview on Development Domains for the Continent and Ten Selected
Countries. Technical Manual No. 6. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF),
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 126.
Mukheibir, P., 2008. Water resources management strategies for adaptation to
climate-induced impacts in South Africa. Water Resources Management 22,
1259–1276.
751
Muller, M., 2007. Adapting to climate change: water management for urban
resilience. Environment and Urbanization 19 (1), 99–113.
Mwenge Kahinda, J., Boroto, R.J., Taigbenu, A.E., 2005a. Integrating rainwater
harvesting in South Africa. In: Proceedings of the 1st Water Research Showcase,
August 26, 2005, Johannesburg, RSA.
Mwenge Kahinda, J., Boroto, R.J., Taigbenu, A.E., 2005b. Developing an Integrated
water resources management and rainwater harvesting systems in South Africa.
In: Paper presented at the 12th SANCIAHS Symposium. September 5–7, 2005.
Johannesburg, RSA.
Mwenge Kahinda, J., Taigbenu, A.E., Boroto, R.J., 2007. Domestic rainwater
harvesting to improve water supply in rural South Africa. Journal Physics and
Chemistry of the Earth 32, 1050–1057.
Mwenge Kahinda, J., Sejamoholo B.B.P., Taigbenu, A.E., Boroto, R.J., Lillie, E.S.B.,
Taute, M., Cousins, T., 2009. Water Resources in Rainwater Harvesting: An
Integrated Systems Approach. Report No. KV 1563-1-08. Water Research
Commission, South Africa Pretoria.
Pandey, D.N., Gupta, A.K., Anderson, D.M., 2003. Rainwater harvesting as an
adaptation to climate change. Current Science 85 (1), 46–59.
Roebuck, R.M., 2007. A Whole Life Costing Approach for Rainwater Harvesting
Systems. School of Engineering, Design and Technology. University of Bradford.
Unpublished PhD Thesis.
Rutashobya, D.G., 2008. Climate change scenarios. Impacts and adaptation
strategies in Africa. In: Petermann, T. (Ed.), Towards Climate Change
Adaptation – Building Adaptive Capacity in Managing African Transboundary
River Basins. Case Studies From African Practitioners and Researchers. InWEnt –
Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH Capacity Building
International, Germany. ISBN: 978-3-939394-28-0.
Salas, J.C., König, K.W., Lo, A., 2009. Rainwater harvesting providing adaptation
opportunities to climate change. In: Barron, J. (Ed.), Rainwater Harvesting: A
Lifeline for Human Well-being. A Report Prepared for UNEP by Stockholm
Environment Institute York, UK/Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm,
Sweden. ISBN: 978-92-807-3019-7.
Schulze, R.E. (Ed.), 2006. South African Atlas of Climatology and Agrohydrology.
Water Research Commission, Pretoria, RSA, WRC Report 1489/1/06.
Schulze, R.E., 2008. Integrated water resources management as a medium for
adapting to climate change. In: Petermann, T. (Ed.), Towards Climate Change
Adaptation – Building Adaptive Capacity in Managing African Transboundary
River Basins. Case studies from African practitioners and researchers. InWEnt –
Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH Capacity Building
International, Germany. ISBN: 978-3-939394-28-0.
Statistics SA, 2006. Census 2001, Metadata information on households and
housing. <http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/html/households.pdf> (accessed
06.10.06).
Tadross, M., Jack, C., Hewitson, B., 2005. On RCM-based projections of change in
southern 26 African summer climate. Geophysical Research Letters 32 (23),
L22713.
van der Zaag, P., 2000. Estimating storage requirement for rainwater harvested from
roofs. In: 4th Biennial Congress of the African Division of the International
Association of Hydraulic Research, Windhoek, Namibia.