Uncorrected Proof

1 © IWA Publishing 2018 Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

Domestic use of rainwater in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam:

exploring the barriers from the citizens’ perspective
Le Thi Thuy Hang and Le Thi Thu Huong

ABSTRACT

Literature review shows that rainwater is a good source of water for domestic use and has been used Le Thi Thuy Hang (corresponding author)
Le Thi Thu Huong
significantly in many countries. However, the case of Ho Chi Minh City shows that using rainwater is Vietnamese-German University,
Ho Chi Minh,
limited although this city has a high volume of rainfall. By conducting a questionnaire survey with the Vietnam
E-mail: thuyhang603@gmail.com
city’s inhabitants and studying related documents, this paper tries to find out the reasons that hinder
the use of rainwater from the inhabitants’ perspective. Based on the paper’s findings, the actions and
solutions towards increasing the use of rainwater for domestic purposes are recommended, mainly
for the city’s inhabitants.
Key words | barriers, citizens’ perspective, rainwater use, Vietnam

INTRODUCTION

In many urban areas of both developed and developing
countries, rainwater has been harvested and used as dom-
estic water, even as drinking water if it is treated properly,
and this use has considerable benefits, such as preventing
floods and conserving water sources (Krishna ). In Viet-
nam, people in the rural areas have used rainwater all their
lives since a long time ago. However, this practice has not
taken place in the cities although the country has a high
annual precipitation of 1,821 mm per year, ranking 38 of
185 countries in the world which have rainfall data available
(WB ). In the case of Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), the
biggest and most developed city of Vietnam, only people
in some districts use rainwater due to limited or no access
to the city’s water supply network (DONRE ).
According to Saigon Water Cooperation (SAWACO),
the main water supply company of HCMC, in 2016 only
89.84% of the city’s residents could get access to drinkable
water from the water supply system (Dinh ) and the
physical leakage of this system was approximately 28.53%
(Dinh a). Moreover, high intensity of rain was one
cause of flooding in HCMC with both a broader scope and
longer duration of inundation (Dahm et al. ). From
2003 to 2009, there were more than 400 flood events in
the central districts, in which the rainfall events with
volume more than 50 mm fluctuated from 6 to 15 events
per year (Bubeck & Ho ). Until 2011, there were 58
flooding spots caused by rain and 27 caused by tide (SCFC
). In terms of pollution, the surface water and ground-
water in HCMC – two main water sources of piped water
– were polluted due to the daily discharge of the industrial
wastewater into the rivers. Many of the city’s canals and
creeks were heavily polluted and increasingly served as
the sinks for untreated domestic sewage and industrial
wastewater (Vo ). According to the measurement results
of groundwater in August 2016, 40% of samples did not
meet the standard, with substances that can cause cancer
for the users if using in the long term (Dong 2016). In Q1
addition, of the physicochemical and microbiological assess-
ment of the water supplied by the city’s pipe system in
March 2017, only about 70% met the standard (Dung
2017), which means the remaining 30% of this piped Q2
water was below the allowed limits. As well, groundwater

doi: 10.2166/wcc.2018.077

2 L. T. T. Hang & L. T. T. Huong | The barriers for rainwater use from the citizens’ perspective
depletion and its further environmental consequences such
as salt water intrusion, aquifer pollution, and land subsi-
dence have been threatening the city (Van Leeuwen et al.
Q3 ).
In general, in the context of groundwater and surface
water pollution, groundwater depletion, limited accessibility
to piped water, and flooding caused by intensive rains, other
alternative sources of water that can be considered for use
are wastewater reuse and rainwater harvesting (RWH).
The wastewater can be reused if the challenges in govern-
ance gaps in water policy can be solved, including:
administrative, information, policy, capacity, funding, objec-
tive, and accountability gaps (Van Leeuwen et al. ).
Meanwhile, since 2012 rainwater has been encouraged for
use in organizations and individual households by the gov-
ernment as stated in the Law on Water Resources (No.
08/1998/QH10, chapter 3, article 24). From 2014 until
2017, rainwater has been mentioned in many policies
which encourage academics, companies, and individuals
to do research, reuse, and store rainwater as an alternative
water source besides groundwater and surface water
(Decision No. 1942/QD-TTg; Decision No. 768/QD-
UBND; Decree No. 80/2014/ND-CP 2014; Decree No.
54/2015/ND-CP 2015; Decision
Decision No. 589/QD-TTg; Decision No. 01/QD-UBND
2016; Law No. 06/VBHN-VPQH 2017). Comparing the
advantages and disadvantages of rainwater and wastewater
reuse, the advantage of using rainwater is due to the maxi-
mum exploitation capacity of 4.7 million m3 per day, while
reclaimed wastewater is only about 2 million m3 per day.
In terms of treatment, rainwater is treated more easily
(only with pH, SS, and pathogens) than the reclaimed waste-
water (with non-biodegradable components, COD, trace
organics, heavy metals, pathogens, and color). Regarding
distribution, rainwater is distributed to the users more
easily by the available water distribution network. More-
over, the cost of operation, maintenance, and distribution
for the RWH system is lower than the wastewater treatment
plant. Nevertheless, rainwater use also faces many disadvan-
tages, like the instability due to collection only in rainy
seasons, requirements of high investment cost and large
area for the RWH system, and the risk of acid rain (IGES
). In the case of HCMC, it is also an obstacle when
the drainage system uses the same sewers or channels for
Uncorrected Proof
Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018
both runoff (rainwater) and wastewater. Normally, domestic
wastewater from households is pre-treated in septic tanks,
and after that it is discharged to the common sewer and
then flows without further treatment into water bodies
(rivers, springs, lakes, and seas) (WHO VIHEMA &
UNICEF ).
In addition, although the benefits and challenges of
using rainwater as an alternative water source have been dis-
cussed in different countries, only a few studies about RWH
have been conducted for the urban areas of Vietnam. These
studies mainly focused on the assessment, potential, and
management aspects of RWH, such as the assessment of
local users’ performance of RWH in Vietnam (Minh-
Vuong et al. 2016), the potential of rainwater collection in Q4
HCMC (Chi & Hoa 2012), the water sources management Q5
in HCMC (Ohgaki et al. ), and using rainwater in
Hanoi’s office buildings (Dao et al. ). Some other studies
discussed the users’ attitude regarding the use of rainwater
in the Mekong Delta (Tran et al. ; Özdemir et al. ).
In short, the use of rainwater has not been seriously con-
sidered in Vietnam’s cities in spite of the availability of a
large annual rainwater volume while the natural water
sources are polluted and depleted as well as some areas
No. 2502/QÐ-TTg; having limited accessibility to piped water. Although some
studies on rainwater were done in Vietnam as mentioned
above, the reasons for no use of rainwater in the cities has
not been found. Therefore, through the case study of
HCMC, this paper attempts to find the reasons that hinder
the use of rainwater in the city. Within its scope, the paper
mainly explores the reasons from the citizens’ perspectives,
while other contextual factors or reasons are discussed
briefly. Based on that, the paper aims to propose solutions
for enhancing the use of rainwater in the city for domestic
purposes.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Rainwater use in urban areas thoughout the world
RWH is not a new technique to collect rainwater from
impervious surfaces and store it for later use, in fact it has
been used for a millennia, especially in rural areas. Its poten-
tial benefits and advantages are as a source of free water (the
 Uncorrected Proof
3 L. T. T. Hang & L. T. T. Huong | The barriers for rainwater use from the citizens’ perspective
only costs would be for storage, treatment, and use); an
alternative water source for limited quantities of ground-
water with pH neutral or slightly acidic, sodium-free
composition that suits a low-sodium diet. In the case of
minor flooding due to normal or regular rainfall, RWH
helps to reduce storm water runoff and erosion in urban
environments. It, with separate treatment plants, will also
help to reduce the expansion of wastewater treatment
plants (Krishna ) as well as the exploitation of surface
water (as the main source for water supply) that may
cause negative impacts on the ecosystem, such as the
effects on flora and fauna, the recreational landscape, etc.
(Barron ).
However, the implementation of using rainwater is hin-
dered by many factors, such as the instability of rainfall, high
initial investment cost, usage and maintenance, vulnerable
quantity and quality, and the limitation of storage (Worm
Q6 & van Hattum ). Parsons et al. () surveyed the
potential barriers to the inclusion of RWH in the UK’s
homes and separated them into five sections: (1) insti-
tutional and regulatory gaps; (2) economic and financial
constraints; (3) absence of incentives; (4) lack of infor-
mation and technical knowledge; and (5) house-builder
attitudes. They concluded that the implementation of
RWH would continue to be limited while these barriers
remain. Another survey in the UK about householders’
receptivity of RWH identified that the overall receptivity is
high, but that factors pertaining particularly to cost and
maintenance pose threats to the receptivity (Ward et al.
Q7 ). Indeed, the high investment cost and long-term pay-
backs reduce the perception of users on using a RWH
system. For example, in Brasilia, Brazil where the annual
precipitation is 1,502 mm, the payback period takes almost
11 years while the proposed treated RWH system total
cost is about US$ 9,465.46 with catchment areas of
468.63 m2 and the assumption of constant daily consump-
3
tion being 0.61 m , which annually saves US$ 882.7
(Sant’Ana ).
In addition, many countries have encouraged their citi-
zens to use rainwater as an alternative water source for
daily activities. For instance, in Malaysia, since 1975,
RWH has been encouraged but the citizens’ acceptance
was not high enough due to their lack of awareness about
the rainwater benefits. The serious drought in 1998 led to
Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018
a serious water shortage that changed the citizens’ aware-
ness about using an alternative water source, but it was
still not significant. Until 2001, the rainwater policy was
compulsory for all housing development in Sandakan and
many projects were developed by the local authorities and
private agencies (Shaari et al. ). In Bangalore, India,
when a RWH system was compulsory for houses with
typical site dimensions of 60 ft × 40 ft, 79% of the
house owners have complied mainly due to the regulation
enforcement rather than their own interest (Umamani &
Manasi ).
Despite several obstacles, many studies, programs, and
policies regarding the potentiality of RWH have been car-
ried out in order to help increase the use of rainwater in
urban areas in both developed and developing countries.
One of them is the concept of Water Sensitive Urban
Design (WSUD) that emerged in Australia in the late
1980s and early 1990s. It outlined a vision for new
approaches to urban water management which addressed
the worst impacts of urban communities, such as increased
storm water runoff, imported water use, wastewater, and
pollutant discharges in order to improve the public percep-
tion and acceptability of WSUD (Hoyer et al. ). In
Paris, Belmeziti et al. () proposed a new method to
quantify the potential of potable water savings in a given
large area based on one of the prioritizing (ranking the
stakes of RWH) principles. This method can save up
to 11% of the total current potable water through the
use of RWH.
In summary, using rainwater has both benefits and
obstacles. This has been applied in urban areas of not only
the countries which have water shortages but also those
countries where the water source is sufficient but the users
are still encouraged to use rainwater. In some cases, the
use of rainwater in urban areas mostly happens when
there are incentives or even compulsory policies by the auth-
orities to request citizens to use rainwater for domestic
purposes.
METHODOLOGY
This paper is a descriptive research that describes the cur-
rent situation of rainwater and its use in HCMC. Within
 Uncorrected Proof
4 L. T. T. Hang & L. T. T. Huong | The barriers for rainwater use from the citizens’ perspective
its scope, the paper employs the quantitative method
through a questionnaire survey with the city’s citizens to col-
lect primary data, which aims to identify the reasons that
affect citizens’ choices in using rainwater. Secondary data
were also gathered from different sources to support the
description, discussion, and argument throughout the
paper. Regarding the study site, HCMC was selected as a
case study due to its huge precipitation of 1,949 mm per
year (Dao ) and its high population of 8,224,400 resi-
dents (GSO ) which causes high demands of water.
This demand creates a high feasibility of using rainwater
in the city to mitigate the future risk of water shortages
due to the population increase.
The questionnaire survey was carried out online for a
one and a half month period from May 20 to June 30,
2016, and focused on the reasons why people use or do
not use rainwater for their domestic purposes. It was con-
ducted with 270 respondents who are residents living in
24 districts of HCMC. These respondents were considered
as the sample of 1,900,722 households (information about
households in Saigon Giai Phong retrieved on 20 July
2016. (Dinh Saigon Giai Phong Online a)) in HCMC,
according to the formula for sample size in statistics devel-
oped by Cochran () as follows:
2 1 p
Sample size N ¼ Z ð pÞ
c2
where Z is Z value (e.g., 1.96 for 95% confidence level),
p is percentage picking a choice ¼ 0.5, c is confidence
interval ¼ 6%.
The result of this equation was: N ¼ 1.962*0.5*(1–0.5)/
(0.06)2 ¼ 267. This sample size was then rounded to 270
respondents.
An online questionnaire survey was chosen because the
majority of the population of the city can access the internet
through their own smart phone(s) (72%), according to the
statistics of Google and the Boston Consulting Group
Q8 (Ca 2016). In order to get sufficient numbers of respondents,
as mentioned above, a total of 380 emails were sent to 380
people randomly in the whole city, with an age range from
20 to 60 years old and who represent their households, to
ask for their responses to the questionnaire. The number
of emails was identified relatively based on the number of
emails sent to each district, which was
Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018
correspondingly to the district’s population, and not based
on the citizens’ income because of the minority of the
poor and very poor households in HCMC (3.3% of very
poor households have an income lower than 1.75 million
per month and 2.4% poor households have an income
from 1.75 to 2.3 million per month (PSO Statistical Office
in Ho Chi Minh City )). More specifically, 20, 15, and
10 emails with the attached questionnaire were sent to 24
districts that have a population of over 200,000 inhabitants,
from 100,000 to 200,000 inhabitants, and less than 100,000
inhabitants, respectively, making a total of 380 emails (see
Table 1).
The content of the questionnaire concerned the citizens’
perception on rainwater quality, the purposes of using rain-
water or the reasons for not using rainwater, the rainwater
collection method, the frequency of use, the possibility for
future use, and so on. The questionnaire included single
choice questions, multiple choice questions, as well as
open-ended questions. It was divided into three parts: (i)
general information, (ii) households who use rainwater
(users), and (iii) households who do not use rainwater
(non-users). The first part asked about the household
income, the monthly consumption of water, the main
water source that they use and their evaluation in terms of
quality, quantity, and stability of water source, as well as
their evaluation about rainwater quality (their living districts
were also noted). The second part was applied for the users
of rainwater only and the respondents were asked about the
reasons why they use rainwater, the purposes and frequency
of using rainwater, and the way they collect and store rain-
water. In the third part, non-users of rainwater were asked
about the main obstacles that prevent them from using rain-
water, their future intention of using rainwater, and kind of
tank they prefer to use for rainwater storage. For both
groups, the open-ended question was employed to ask
about their suggestions for improving the use of rainwater
in the city.
Three weeks after sending out the questionnaire, the
authors received 252 responses (about 66%), of which 218
(86%) were valid and mostly from urban districts while
only a few responses were sent back from people in the sub-
urban districts (see Table 1). Therefore, 60 hard or printed
copies of the questionnaire were additionally distributed
estimated directly to the households in five suburban districts,
 Uncorrected Proof
5 L. T. T. Hang & L. T. T. Huong | The barriers for rainwater use from the citizens’ perspective Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

Q17 Table 1 | Distribution of survey questionnaire in 24 districts of HCMC, Vietnam

Pop. in 2015 No. of ques. Online Valid online Hard copy Total valid
District (thousand) sent responses responses responses responses Per cent

Binh Tan 332.6 20 17 16 0 16 5.9%

Go Vap 306.7 20 18 17 0 17 6.3%
Binh Chanh (suburb. dist.) 286.3 20 4 1 16 17 6.3%
Thu Duc 265.2 20 18 15 0 15 5.6%
District 12 238.5 20 16 16 0 16 5.9%
Binh Thanh 231.2 20 19 17 0 17 6.3%
Tan Phu 225 20 17 15 0 15 5.6%
Tan Binh 219.1 20 16 14 0 14 5.2%
District 8 206.5 20 14 12 0 12 4.4%
Hoc Mon (suburb. dist.) 200.4 20 2 0 15 15 5.6%
Cu Chi (suburb. dist.) 194.4 15 7 4 6 10 3.7%
District 7 145.9 15 14 12 0 12 4.4%
District 9 143.9 15 10 9 0 9 3.3%
District 6 123.1 15 12 10 0 10 3.7%
District 10 111 15 11 10 0 10 3.7%
District 11 107.9 15 15 11 0 11 4.1%
District 3 90.6 10 7 6 0 6 2.2%
District 1 88.7 10 8 7 0 7 2.6%
District 4 86.4 10 6 6 0 6 2.2%
District 5 84.5 10 6 6 0 6 2.2%
Phu Nhuan 84.4 10 8 8 0 8 3.0%
District 2 71 10 7 6 0 6 2.2%
Nha Be (suburb. dist.) 67.2 10 0 0 6 6 2.2%
Can Gio (suburb. dist.) 37 10 0 0 9 9 3.3%
Total 380 252 218 52 270 100.0%

especially targeting the households who have no or
limited access to piped water. Finally, a total of 270 valid
responses were collected (218 electronic copies and 52
hard copies). Table 1 shows the distribution of the survey
questionnaire in 24 districts of HCMC corresponding to
their population.
In addition to the primary data collected through ques-
tionnaire survey, secondary data were gathered from
different trusted sources, such as the General Statistics
Office (GSO), Government departments, papers or news
of peer-reviewed journals or government newspapers. For
instance, the data of low income strata and district popu-
lation helped identify the proportion of distributed
questionnaires for each district. The climate data with
annual precipitation in HCMC were collected to know the
volume and potential of rainwater source. Articles by differ-
ent researcher about the challenges, benefits, and limitation
of RWH were also reviewed.
Data collected by both primary and secondary methods
were then analyzed and synthesized in order to find out the
reasons that hinder the use of rainwater in the city. All valid
questionnaire responses were analyzed by using Microsoft
Excel, while the invalid ones with wrong or lacking infor-
mation were eliminated. The secondary data were
reviewed and relevant information was extracted to support
the discussion and argument in this paper. In the next part,
the results of data collection and analysis are presented and
discussed.
 Uncorrected Proof
6 L. T. T. Hang & L. T. T. Huong | The barriers for rainwater use from the citizens’ perspective Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Rainwater use in HCMC, Vietnam
According to the latest statistics of the Department of Natu-
ral Resources and Environment (DONRE) and the GSO
from 2010 to 2013, not many of the city’s households used
rainwater for their domestic purposes. Due to the rapid
growth of population in HCMC (growth rate of 4.02%
(GSO )), the demand for clean water increases and
that leads to the risk of illegal exploitation of groundwater,
pollution of surface water, and lack of clean water for the
residents. In the city, only people in a few districts use rain-
water in their daily life, e.g., district 7, Nha Be and Can Gio
(see Table 2), because they cannot access the city’s water
supply system and the groundwater quality in their area is
saline.
The same results were reflected in the authors’ question-
naire survey in June 2016 with 270 households in the whole
city, covering 24 urban and suburban districts, which
showed a limited or low use of rainwater in the city. Accord-
ing to these results, only 7.3% of the households use
rainwater as one alternative source of water for their life.
Most rainwater users live in the suburban districts (63%)
in comparison to the urban districts (37%), in which the sub-
urban district with the highest per cent of rainwater users is
Cu Chi (37% over 63%) and the urban district with the high-
est per cent of rainwater users is Tan Binh (16% over 37%)
(see Figure 1).
People’s attitude about rainwater use in HCMC
According to the survey, the people in suburban districts use
rainwater due to two main reasons: saving on water bills
(67%) and not having enough piped water (33%). Mean-
while, the urban district users have three main reasons:
saving on water bills (43%), benefits for the environment
(43%), and their old habits (14%), which are somewhat
different from the reasons of the suburban district users.
Although the ‘saving water bill’ reason shares the highest
percentage in the responses of both urban and suburban
user groups, when comparing to the actual water bill
(based on their answers about the volume of water con-
sumption per month) and their income, the water bill
takes up a very small part of the income, only about 0.67%
to 3.13% depending on their income level (see Table 3)

Table 2 | Percentage of water sources in 24 districts

Water sources (%) Water sources (%)

Population (a) Piped Well Treated Population (a) Piped Well Treated
(thousand system water surface Rainwater (thousand system water surface Rainwater
Dist. people) (b) (b) water (b) (b) Dist. people) (b) (b) water (b) (b)

Urban dist. 6.060 Go Vap 548 100 – – –

Dist. 1 187 100 – – – Tan Binh 430 100 – – –
Dist. 2 140 30 50 20 – Tan Phu 408 100 – – –
Dist. 3 188 100 – – – Binh Thanh 470 100 – – –
Dist. 4 183 100 – – – Phu Nhuan 175 100 – – –
Dist. 5 174 100 – – – Thu Duc 456 40 60 – –
Dist. 6 253 100 – – – Binh Tan 595 100 – – –
Dist. 7 275 50 – – 50 Suburban Dist. 1.336
Dist. 8 419 100 – – – Cu Chi 356 – 100 – –
Dist. 9 263 45 55 – – Hoc Mon 358 1.0 99 – –
Dist. 10 232 100 – – – Binh Chanh 447 10 90 – –
Dist. 11 232 100 – – – Nha Be 104 2.5 44.5 15 38
Dist. 12 427 10 90 Can Gio 71 – – – 100

Source: (a): (PSO 2010); (b): (GSO 2012) and (DONRE 2013).
 Uncorrected Proof
7 L. T. T. Hang & L. T. T. Huong | The barriers for rainwater use from the citizens’ perspective Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

Q17 Figure 1 | Distribution of households using rainwater by districts and city zoning.

(HCMC’s living standard divides the income strata into four
groups: (1) very poor group: lower 1.75 million VND per
month per capita; (2) poor group: from 1.75 to 2.3 million;
(3) average group: 2.3 to 9 million; and (4) high income
group: over 9 million).
Also, looking more closely at the income of all rain-
water-user groups, only 16% have a monthly income lower
than 1.75 million and 26% from 1.75 to 2.3 million, while
the rest have a monthly income higher than 2.3 million
(see Figure 2). Since the water bill shares a very small por-
tion of the income of all groups, people have no
motivation to use rainwater for reducing their monthly
water expense.
Regarding the main water source for their daily use,
85.1% of the respondents use piped water, 16% use well
water, 8.4% buy bottled water, but none uses rainwater as
their main water source (see Figure 3). In terms of use pur-
poses, in HCMC rainwater is mostly accepted for watering
trees, washing cars/motorbikes/yards, and cleaning/laundry
and shower (in the order of 70%, 65%, and 50%, respect-
ively). Other uses include flushing toilets, preparing food/
washing dishes, drinking/cooking (40%, 30%, and 20%,
respectively) (see Table 4). This is quite similar to the results
identified by Ward et al. () in their research conducted
in the UK.
Although rainwater is accepted for use in some domestic
purposes as presented above, the respondents have quite a
negative evaluation about its quality. In the survey, 15.6%
of them believe that rainwater is ‘very polluted’ and
34.55% think it is ‘polluted’, while only 0.4% and 6.91% of

Table 3 | The respondents’ income and their monthly water consumption

Per cent of water bill per monthly income

Group income Per cent Average water use per month (m3) Lowest per cent Highest per cent

Lower 1.75 million VND 3.3% 3.44 1.18%

From 1.75 to 2.3 million VND 10.2% 4.68 2.38% 3.13%
From 2.3 to 9 million VND 52.7% 5.17 0.67% 2.63%
Over 9 million VND 33.8% 6.07 0.79%
Total 100%
 Uncorrected Proof
8 L. T. T. Hang & L. T. T. Huong | The barriers for rainwater use from the citizens’ perspective Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

Figure 2 | Distribution of rainwater-users by city zoning (urban and suburban) and income.

Figure 3 | Surveyed current situation of using water in HCMC.

Table 4 | Reasons and activities of city citizens in using rainwater

Reasons for using rainwater No. of responses Per cent Activities Per cent

Saving water bill 12 60% Watering trees 70%

Old habits 7 35% Car/motorbike/yard washing 65%
Not enough supply water from city system/well/water surface 5 25% Laundry/cleaning 50%
Environmental benefits 5 25% Shower 50%
Rainwater’s quality is better than other sources 2 10% Toilet flushing 40%
(well water, surface water, etc.)
No piped water 2 10% Food preparation/washing dishes 30%
Plant watering 1 5% Drinking/ cooking 20%
 Uncorrected Proof
9 L. T. T. Hang & L. T. T. Huong | The barriers for rainwater use from the citizens’ perspective Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

without filters (90% of respondents’ answers). In terms of

Figure 4 | Evaluation about rainwater quality.
respondents consider that rainwater quality is ‘very good’
and ‘good’, respectively. The remaining 42.5% have no
idea or a neutral evaluation about rainwater quality (see
Figure 4).
Regarding the method of collecting rainwater, the catch-
ment areas of rainfall are often roof surfaces, or in some
cases, rainwater is directly collected from the rainfall and
most of the rainwater containers are placed on the ground
frequency of use, rainwater is not used frequently; in the
rainwater-user group, only 10% of people use rainwater
daily while the remaining people only use it occasionally
in the rainy season. This can be explained by the instability
of rainfall in HCMC (see Figure 5) during a year in spite of
its high volume in total. It rains heavily from April to Octo-
ber with monthly rainfall of over 150 mm. In the dry season
from November to May, monthly precipitation is under
100 mm and the minimum rainfall is in January or February.
While rainwater is quite negatively evaluated by the
respondents, as mentioned above, the main sources of
water including piped water, well water, and bottled
water received a more positive evaluation in terms of
accessibility, quality, quantity, and stability (see Figure 6).
Most respondents think that their current water supply
sources have already met their demands, both in quantity
and quality, and therefore, since they are satisfied with

Figure 5 | Total of monthly rainfall of HCMC from Mac Dinh Chi station. Source: Southern Regional Hydro-meteorological Center.

Figure 6 | Assessment of water supply sources.


10 L. T. T. Hang & L. T. T. Huong | The barriers for rainwater use from the citizens’ perspective
this, people rarely or do not use rainwater for some dom-
estic purposes.
Nevertheless, there is a gap in the knowledge of citizens
about water quality and the scientific data. As reported by
SAWACO, the quality of piped water in HCMC does not
meet the national standard (the standard of the Ministry of
Health regarding potable water: QCVN 01:2009/BYT –
National technical regulation on drinking water quality)
because of the old pipe system (Dinh ). In addition,
the city is currently suffering pollution of surface water
from two main rivers: Saigon River and Dong Nai River
Q9 (Muoi & Nhan 2016). Meanwhile, the quality of rainwater
in HCMC meets the standard for potable water of the Min-
istry of Health (with the concentration of the ion Na þ ,
stiffness, NO3-, NH4 þ , SO42, Cl- in the rainwater samples
at 12 stations in 2013) (Nguyen et al. ). However, as pre-
sented above, the surveyed respondents think that rainwater
is not safe enough for use while the piped water, well water,
and bottled water are safe. This contradiction between the
scientific information and the citizens’ knowledge about
the quality of different water sources is one of the reasons
why people do not trust using rainwater.
Regarding the non-users of rainwater, which is 92.7% of
all questionnaire respondents, a multiple choice question
was applied to ask for the main reasons that hinder them
from using rainwater (see Table 5). The result shows several
reasons why people do not use rainwater, as listed below
(from high to low percentage of their responses, respect-
ively): (i) having enough water from other sources,
especially piped water (70% of respondents); (ii) limited
Table 5 | Reasons why urban citizens do not use rainwater
Reasons
Enough water from other sources
Limited areas for rainwater tank or cistern
Rainwater quality is not good
Low or unstable quantity of rainfall
Not think about rainwater use yet
High investment cost
Water expense is still low in comparison
with the income
Others
Uncorrected Proof
Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018
area of their house that does not allow them to store rain-
water (42.7%); (iii) rainwater quality is unreliable (38.8%);
(iv) and unstable quantity of rainwater (28.2%). In addition,
due to limited information about the rainwater, 27.5% of
respondents have not even thought about using it yet. Simi-
lar to the responses of the rainwater-user group, the
economic aspect is not the major reason for the low use of
rainwater. In this non-user group, only 15.3% consider
high investment cost for a RWH system as an obstacle and
12.5% do not use rainwater because they can afford the
regular water bill.
In general, most surveyed respondents have not yet used
rainwater for domestic purposes. Some even have no inter-
est in it, due to several reasons, such as low and affordable
water bill, sufficient water source, limited area of houses
for storing rainwater, lack of information about quality of
rainwater, and the unstable volume of rainfall in different
seasons.
Potential of rainwater use in the future
In the last part of the questionnaire, when being asked about
the benefits of using rainwater, most respondents from both
groups showed a positive understanding about this matter
through answers like ‘it is a free source of water’, ‘it reduces
exploiting groundwater’, and ‘using rainwater can save water
bill’, etc.; a number of people are even willing to increase
their use of rainwater if there is a proper plan for it. How-
ever, for the non-user group, when being asked if they
would use rainwater in the future, 54.9% cannot decide
yet, 24.0% say ‘no’, and only 21.1% agree to use rainwater.
For those who agree to use rainwater in the future
(21.1%), their reasons are: (i) to save water bill; (ii) to save
No. of Percentage
water resources; and (iii) to reduce flooding in the city.
responses (%)
This shows that the perception of people about the future
179 70.2
use of rainwater is not very positive (Figure 7).
109 42.7
99 38.8
72 28.2
70 27.5
39 15.3
32 12.5
11 4.3
Figure 7 | Potential of using rainwater in the future.
 Uncorrected Proof
11 L. T. T. Hang & L. T. T. Huong | The barriers for rainwater use from the citizens’ perspective
Especially for the non-user group, if using rainwater is
compulsory, 50% of them prefer rainwater from a network
system (i.e., collective system or shared system) as they
think the installation cost would be cheaper or the treatment
would be easier; 41% prefer the individual system for inde-
pendent control quality of rainwater; and the remaining
9% want to use both systems. They also suggested that the
city authorities should carry out some actions and policies
about the rainwater use, such as solving the air pollution
problems (as they think air pollution makes rainwater
become dirty) or having the harvesting system on a large
scale to control and treat the rainwater for ensuring the
quality.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the secondary sources and results of the question-
naire survey, this paper finds that although HCMC has a
high volume of annual rainfall, the rainwater has not been
widely used in the city, even as an alternative source of
water, except in some suburban areas where people have
limited access to the piped water system. With the focus
on exploring the barriers from the citizens’ perspective in
using rainwater for domestic purposes, the data results and
discussion section point out the main reasons that hinder
the use of rainwater in the city. First, in their understanding
or knowledge (not based on scientific information), the
existing piped water supply meets the citizens’ needs, both
in quantity and quality, and most of them can afford to
pay for their water expense which is only a small portion
of their monthly income. For both groups, users and non-
users of rainwater, the water bill is not a factor that affects
their choice of using rainwater or not. Second, the limited
area of some houses does not allow people to store rain-
water tanks. Third, the lack of scientific information leads
people to misjudge the quality of rainwater, thus many
people think that the rainwater is not qualified for use. In
other words, due to the gap between the scientific infor-
mation and the citizens’ knowledge on rainwater, people
do not really know that the rainwater is qualified or safe
to be used for some domestic purposes. Fourth, from their
point of view, people think that the unstable quantity of rain-
water due to the infrequent rainfall in different seasons may
Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018
cause an inconvenience for them. Last, the information
about using rainwater is also limited, especially since there
has been no significant encouragement or trigger that
encourages people to use rainwater. Thus, they do not
think about using it in the future.
Nevertheless, the context of HCMC shows that there is
an opportunity for using rainwater in the future due to two
main reasons: first, even though the groundwater and sur-
face water are sufficient, they are polluted; second, the
city’s pipe system is old and there is leakage, as discussed
above, but there are financial challenges to renew the
system. In short, although RWH is not a necessary or
urgent need for the city’s citizens at the present time, it
should be considered for domestic uses as one alternative
water source, especially in the long term. Especially, the
information on the quality and availability of rainwater for
use should be disseminated to the city’s citizens so that
they know and can make their choice of using or not
using rainwater depending on their preference or invest-
ment affordability for the RWH system. The lessons learnt
from other countries like Australia, the UK, Malaysia,
India, and Brazil show that the use of rainwater should be
enhanced by different actors: the government and the city
citizens. In the case of HCMC, since the citizens do not
have a positive perspective about the use of rainwater yet,
it is necessary to improve their understanding about the
quality of rainwater and the benefits of using it for some
domestic purposes. Their awareness about saving water
resources, protecting the environment, preventing floods,
etc. in relation with the use of rainwater should also be
improved. All of these things can be done through different
actions with the cooperation and support of other actors
involved in the water sector. For instance, the gap between
the scientific information and citizen’s understanding and
awareness about rainwater use should be eliminated by pro-
viding sufficient information by the authorities and scientists
through media, school education, or water-related events
organized by the private or public sectors. At the community
level, it is necessary to have a plan or guidance to guide
people to harvest rainwater properly, both in design and
implementation. Raising the use of rainwater can also be
done by encouragement or incentivizing policies of the
city government and even by compulsory solution in some
cases as the last option.
 Uncorrected Proof
12 L. T. T. Hang & L. T. T. Huong | The barriers for rainwater use from the citizens’ perspective
Although this paper only identifies the barriers for using
rainwater from the citizens’ perspective and not the other
actors involved like the water authorities from both public
and private sectors, to a certain extent its findings cover a
wider range of reasons or factors related to the use of rain-
water and these help to understand the context and status
of rainwater use in the city. Based on that, future studies
may want to identify the barriers for rainwater use from
other stakeholders’ perspectives as well as other factors.
They may also look for possible solutions for increasing
the use of rainwater in the city to move towards the efficient
use of natural resources and sustainable development.
REFERENCES
Barron, J.  Rainwater Harvesting: A Lifeline for Human Well-
Being. United Nations Environment Programme and
Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Belmeziti, A., Coutard, O. & de Gouvello, B.  How much
drinking water can be saved by using rainwater harvesting on
a large urban area? Application to Paris agglomeration.
Water Science & Technology 70 (11), 1782–1788.
Bubeck, P. & Ho, L. P.  Ho Chi Minh City. In: (P. Dircke, J.
Aerts & A. Molenaar eds.). Connecting Delta Cities. City of
Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
Cochran, W. G.  Sampling Techniques, 3rd edn. John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Dahm, R., Diermanse, F. & Phi, H. L.  On the flood and
inundation management of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. In:
International Conference on Flood Resilience: Experiences in
Asia and Europe. Centre for Water Systems, University of
Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Dao, V. Q.  Ho Chi Minh City Government Portal. November
4, 2011. http://tphcm.chinhphu.vn/khi-hau-thoi-tiet.
Dao, A.-D., Nguyen, V.-A. & Han, M.  Benefit of the drinking
water supply system in office building by rainwater
harvesting: a demo project in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Environmental Engineering Research 18 (2), 103–108.
Dinh, G. A.  Saigon Giai Phong Online. June 15, 2016. http://
www.sggp.org.vn/kinhte/tugioithieu/2016/6/424260/
(accessed 15 August 2016).
Dinh, G. A. Saigon Giai Phong Online. July 13, 2016a. http://
www.sggp.org.vn/kinhte/tugioithieu/2016/7/427066/
(accessed 11 September 2016).
Dinh, M. & Tri, N.  Thanh Nien Online. 2016. http://
thanhnien.vn/kinh-doanh/man-tan-cong-nguon-nuoc-sinh-
Q10 hoat-sai-gon-683988.html (accessed 10 June 2016).
DONRE  Water use, Water Treatment and Potential of Water
Reuse in HCMC. Department of Natural Resources and
Environment, Ho Chi Minh City.
Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018
GSO  General Statistic Office. http://www.gso.gov.vn/default.
aspx?tabid ¼ 426&idmid ¼ 3 (accessed 15 July 2014).
GSO  Statistical Handbook of Vietnam. Statistical Publishing
House, Hanoi.
Hoyer, J., Dickhaut, W., Kronawitter, L. & Weber, B.  Water
Sensitive Urban Design Principles and Inspiration for
Sustainable Stormwater Management in the City of the
Future. jovis Verlag GmbH, Hamburg, Germany.
IGES  Sustainable Groundwater Management in Asian Cities.
Project Report, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies,
Kanagawa, Japan.
Krishna, H.  The Texas Manual On Rainwater Harvesting, 3rd
edn. Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas.
Mai, C.  Newspaper of Industry and Trade. September 16,
2016. http://baocongthuong.com.vn/72-dan-so-viet-nam-su-
dung-dien-thoai-thong-minh-co-ket-noi-internet.html
(accessed 10 March 2017). Q11
Ngo, D.  Ho Chi Minh City Police (Công an thành phố Hồ Chí
Minh). October 8, 2016. http://congan.com.vn/doi-song/
nuoc-ngam-co-chat-gay-ung-thu-de-doa-nguoi-dan-sai-
gon_27298.html (accessed 7 November 2017). Q12
Nguyen, T.  Vietnam Television VTV. July 01, 2016. http://vtv.
vn/trong-nuoc/chi-13-nuoc-thai-tai-tphcm-duoc-xu-ly-truoc-
khi-thai-ra-moi-truong-20160701184745433.htm (accessed
11 November 2017). Q13
Nguyen, T. D.  Preventive Medicine Center of Ho Chi Minh
City. May 3, 2017. http://yteduphongtphcm.gov.vn/bai-viet/
ket-qua-kiem-tra-ngoai-kiem-chat-luong-nuoc-tai-tphcm-
thang-3-nam-2017.html (accessed 7 November 2017). Q14
Nguyen, T. L. C. & Hoang, K. H.  Rainfall assessment and
proposed solutions of rainwater utilization for water supply
and urban drainage strategy of HCM city. In: Exchanged
Experiences Between Vietnam-Korea in Strategic
Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact
Assessment – the 3rd Time. Ho Chi Minh City. Q15
Nguyen, T. L. C., Dao, P. & Hoang, K. H.  The prospects of
rainwater harvesting in Ho Chi Minh City. GeoScience
Engineering LXI (4), 17–22.
Nguyen, M.-V., Ichikawa, Y. & Ishidaira, H.  Performance
assessment of rainwater harvesting considering rainfall
variations in Asian tropical monsoon climates. Hydrological
Research Letters 10 (1), 27–33. Q16
Ohgaki, S., Takizawa, S., Kataoka, Y., Kuyama, T., Herath, G.,
Hara, K., Kathiwada, N. R. & Moon, H. J. 
Sustainable Groundwater Management in Asian Cities.
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES),
Kanagawa, Japan.
Özdemir, S., Elliott, M., Brown, J., Nam Hien, V. T. & Sobsey, M. D.,
 Rainwater harvesting practices and attitudes in the
Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Journal of Water, Sanitation and
Hygiene for Development 1 (3), 171–177.
Parsons, D., Goodhew, S., Fewkes, A. & De Wilde, P.  The
perceived barriers to the inclusion of rainwater harvesting
systems by UK house building companies. Urban Water
Journal 7, 257–265.
 Uncorrected Proof
13 L. T. T. Hang & L. T. T. Huong | The barriers for rainwater use from the citizens’ perspective
PSO  Statistic Office in Ho Chi Minh City.  http://www.
pso.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/c/document_library/get_file?
uuid ¼ bb171c42-6326-4523-9336-01677b457b13&
groupId ¼ 18 (accessed 10 2, 2014).
PSO  Statistical Office in Ho Chi Minh City. December 29,
2016. http://www.pso.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/c/
document_library/get_file?uuid ¼ fcdce0c6-c8bb-4687-81e0-
a1567671a494&groupId ¼ 18 (accessed 15 February 2017).
Sant’Ana, D.  Rainwater harvesting in Brazil: investigating the
viability of rainwater harvesting for a household in Brasília.
The Built Environment 86, 381–390.
SCFC  The Steering Center of the Urban Flood Control
Program Ho Chi Minh City. April 02, 2014. http://www.ttcn.
hochiminhcity.gov.vn/chuong-trinh-du-an-chong-ngap/-/ext/
articleview/article/160054/10182;jsessionid ¼
1011256C1E4EBD951F63CFF48BA61CB5 (accessed 10
March 2017).
Shaari, N., Che-Ani, A. I., Tawil, N. M., Nasir, N. & Jamil, M. 
Implementation of rainwater harvesting in Sandakan: evolution
of sustainable architecture in Malaysia. In: The Regional
Engineering Postgraduated Conference 2009. Kuala Lumpur.
Tran, H. P., Adams, J., Jeffery, J. A., Nguyen, Y. T., Vu, N. S.,
Kutcher, S. C., Kay, B. H. & Ryan, P. A.  Householder
perspectives and preferences on water storage and use, with
First received 22 May 2017; accepted in revised form 19 December 2017. Available online 6 February 2018
Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018
reference to dengue, in the Mekong Delta, southern Vietnam.
International Health 2, 136–142.
Umamani, K. S. & Manasi, S.  Rainwater Harvesting Initiative
in Bangalore City: Problems and Prospects. Working paper
302_Serials and series reports (Publicly Accessible), Institute
for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, India.
Van Leeuwen, C. J., Nguyen, P. D. & Dieperink, C.  The
challenges of water governance in Ho Chi Minh City.
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
12 (2), 345–352.
Vo, P. L.  Urbanization and water management in Ho Chi
Minh City, Vietnam-issues, challenges and perspectives.
GeoJournal 70, 75–89.
Ward, S., Barr, S., Memon, F. & Butler, D.  Rainwater
harvesting in the UK: exploring water-user perceptions.
Urban Water Journal 10 (2), 112–126.
WB  The World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
AG.LND.PRCP.MM (accessed 21 November 2014).
WHO, VIHEMA & UNICEF  Water and Sanitation Sector
Assessment Report Vietnam 2011. Project report, HEMA, Ho
Chi Minh City.
Worm, J. & van Hattum, T.  Rainwater Harvesting for
Domestic Use, 1st edn. Digigrafi, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Author Queries
Journal: Journal of Water and Climate Change
Manuscript: JWC-D-17-00077

Q1 Dong (2016) is not listed in the reference list. Please add it to the list or delete the citation.
Q2 Dung (2017) is not listed in the reference list. Please add it to the list or delete the citation.
Q3 Leeuwen et al. (2015) has been changed to Van Leeuwen et al. (2015) as per the reference list.
Q4 Minh-Vuong et al. (2016) is not listed in the reference list. Please add it to the list or delete the citation.
Q5 Chi and Hoa (2012) is not listed in the reference list. Please add it to the list or delete the citation.
Q6 Worm and Hattum (2006) has been changed to Worm and van Hattum (2006) as per the reference list.
Q7 Warda et al. (2013) has been changed to Ward et al. (2013) as per the reference list.
Q8 Ca (2016) is not listed in the reference list. Please add it to the list or delete the citation.
Q9 Muoi and Nhan (2016) is not listed in the reference list. Please add it to the list or delete the citation.
Q10 Dinh and Tri (2016) is not cited in the main text. Please confirm where it should be cited, or delete the reference.
Q11 Mai (2016) is not cited in the main text. Please confirm where it should be cited, or delete the reference.
Q12 Ngo (2016) is not cited in the main text. Please confirm where it should be cited, or delete the reference.
Q13 Nguyen (2016) is not cited in the main text. Please confirm where it should be cited, or delete the reference.
Q14 Nguyen (2017) is not cited in the main text. Please confirm where it should be cited, or delete the reference.
Q15 Nguyen and Hoang (2012) is not cited in the main text. Please confirm where it should be cited, or delete the
reference.
Q16 Nguyen et al. (2016) is not cited in the main text. Please confirm where it should be cited, or delete the reference.
Q17 We have used Figures and Tables from the main article doc file. Please check and confirm tables and figures what we
have used are correct.