REPORT ON IN-HOME WATER USE PATTERNS IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FROM JORDAN

REPORT ON IN-HOME WATER USE PATTERNS IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FROM JORDAN Project Number 278-00-06-00329 June 20 th, 2011 Prepared for: Development Alternatives, Inc. 7600 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814 and Instituting Water Demand Management in Jordan (IDARA) By: William B. DeOreo, P.E. Aquacraft, Inc 2709 Pine Street Boulder, Colorado 80302

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 5 BACKGROUND... 12 METHODOLOGY... 13 Data Loggers and Water Meters... 13 Sample Home Selection... 14 Data Analysis... 15 Discussion of Flow Trace Analysis... 15 END USE ANALYSIS... 18 Indoor Household Use... 18 Comparison of Sample to Population... 21 Per Capita Use Relationship... 22 Household Water Use by Housing Type... 25 Disaggregated Household Use... 26 Toilet Use... 31 Clothes Washer Use... 35 Shower Use... 36 Leakage... 38 Faucet Use... 40 Other Factors Affecting Water Use... 45 Household Efficiency Rates... 46 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS... 47 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS... 50 APPENDICES... 52 Appendix A: Combined household consumption data for Miyahuna and NGWA... 52 Appendix B: Impact of Number of Residents on Indoor Use... 54 Appendix C: Household use data... 55 Appendix D: Household end-use data as percent... 67

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Comparison of water use for Jordan Study homes... 19 Table 2: Logging time-frames... 19 Table 3: Household Use Comparison... 21 Table 4: Comparison of Normalized Demands... 24 Table 5: Household water use by house types in Jordan sample... 25 Table 6: Average household indoor end use by city... 29 Table 7: Toilet flush volume statistics in Jordan... 31 Table 8: Flushes per person per day comparison... 34 Table 9: Clothes Washer Statistics in Jordan... 35 Table 10: Shower statistics in Jordan... 36 Table 11: Statistics on leakage in Jordan... 38 Table 12: Faucet statistics in Jordan... 41 Table 13: Faucet Use by Duration... 43 Table 14: Efficiency criteria for penetration rate determination... 46 Table 15: Household consumption distribution for Miyahuna (Amman)... 52 Table 16: consumption distribution for Northern (YWC) system... 52 Table 17: combined consumption distribution for Miyahuna and YWC... 53 Table 18: Household and per capita use versus number of residents... 54 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Water meter installed below roof tank with data logger attached... 14 Figure 2: Two calibration events and miscellaneous faucets... 16 Figure 3: Example of toilets and faucet events... 17 Figure 4: Shower event followed by several faucets... 17 Figure 5: Two toilet flushes (shown in green) and faucet use (shown in yellow)... 18 Figure 6: Indoor use histogram for Jordan study homes... 20 Figure 7: Household Indoor Use Comparisons... 21 Aquacraft, Inc. ii

Figure 8: Distribution of household use for Amman and NGWA... 22 Figure 9: Household use versus number of residents in Jordan Sample... 23 Figure 10: Household use versus number of residents in Jordan and in U.S. reference populations.... 24 Figure 11: Per capita use versus number of residents in Jordan sample... 25 Figure 12: Indoor end-use pie chart for Jordan (percent of total indoor use).... 27 Figure 13: Indoor end-use pie chart for Amman (percent of total indoor use).... 27 Figure 14: Indoor end-use pie chart for rural Amman (percent of total indoor use).... 28 Figure 15: Indoor end-use pie chart for Aqaba (percent of indoor use).... 28 Figure 16: Indoor end-use pie chart for Irbid (percent of indoor use)... 29 Figure 17: Comparison of household end-uses in Jordan to U.S. households... 31 Figure 18: Average household toilet flush volume histogram (liters per flush)... 32 Figure 19: Histogram of individual toilet flushes... 33 Figure 20: Flushes per day as a function of number of residents reported in a household... 33 Figure 21: Distribution of clothes washer volumes... 36 Figure 22: Distribution of shower flow rates... 37 Figure 23 Distribution of shower volumes... 38 Figure 24: Distribution of daily leakage (lpd)... 39 Figure 25: Distribution of total leakage volume with leakage rate... 40 Figure 26: Distribution of household faucet use (lpd)... 41 Figure 27: Distribution of faucet flow rates as percent of faucet events... 42 Figure 28 Distribution of flow rates as percent of total faucet use... 42 Figure 29: Distribution of faucet volumes as percent of faucet events... 43 Figure 30: Faucet durations as % of faucet events... 44 Figure 31: Faucet durations as percent of total faucet volume... 44 Figure 32: Household compliance rates for toilets, showers and clothes washers... 47 Aquacraft, Inc. iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AVG Average CI Confidence Interval CM Cubic Meter = 1000 L CW Clothes Washer DW Dish Washer fpcd Flushes per capita day GPM Gallon per Minute HH Household l Liter ( = 0.264 Gal) lpcd Liters per capita per day lpd Liters per day lpf Liters per flush lphd Liters per household per day lpl Liters per load lpm Liters per minute MCM Million cubic meters (= 0.264 Million Gallons) REUWS The Residential End Uses of Water Study, a study of water use in the United States. Used in this report as a baseline. SD Standard Deviation USAID United States Agency for International Development WDM Water demand management Aquacraft, Inc. iv

REPORT ON IN-HOME WATER USE PATTERNS IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FROM JORDAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides detailed information on single family water use patterns within a study group approximately 95 homes located throughout Jordan. The study used data obtained from water meters and data loggers attached to the outlets of the roof tanks that supplied the domestic water to the homes. The data from the water meters was collected at 10 second intervals with a resolution of.05 liters per pulse. At this resolution it was possible to disaggregate the water use in the homes into individual water use events, and to categorize the events by end-use. The houses in the study group were also surveyed to provide demographic information. This allowed the research team to determine household and percapita water use directly from the customer meter in a non-intrusive manner, and in a way that eliminated uncertainties caused by leakage in the distribution system or the storage tanks. Figure ES1 shows an example of what the flow trace data look like on the screen during analysis. The key to the process is that events fall into repeating patterns, which the program recognizes and labels. A complete description of the methodology and analysis used for the study are provided in the following sections. Figure ES 1: Sample of flow trace events Figure ES 2 shows the average daily household water use for the entire sample and for each of the geographical sub-groups in the study: Amman, Rural-Amman, Aqaba and Irbid. The average for the entire group was 453 lphd and the median was 389 lphd. The sample sizes for the sub-groups was small, so that it is hard to distinguish among Page 5 of 70

Daily Use (LPHD) Jordan Single Family Water Use Study June 20, 2011 Amman, Aqaba and the rural homes, but it does appear as though the Irbid homes had significantly lower water use than any of the others. Indoor Use Comparison 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 All Amman Rural Aqaba Irbid Mean 453 493 437 459 321 Median 389 401 367 440 296 Figure ES 2: Household Use Comparisons A somewhat complicating fact, but one worth noting, is that the relationship between household use and the number of residents in the homes is non-linear, and follows a power curve relationship, where the exponent of the curve is around 0.7. The non-linear nature of household demand can lead to significant errors in predicting use, especially for home with a large number of occupants. This non-linear patterns is not exclusive to Jordan, and has been seen in all other study groups we have investigated. The average indoor household water use in Jordan is 453 lpd which is about 30% less than the average home in the U.S., which uses around 670 lpd. However this does not take into account the larger household sizes in Jordan which average 5.6 persons per home (versus the U.S. average 2.7). The household use as a function of number of residents is much lower in Jordan than in the U.S. as compared in Figure ES 3. In this figure the top line, labeled standard in the graph represents the water use from the single family homes in the REUWS, which was a baseline sample of 1200 U.S. homes from 1999; the middle line labeled high efficiency represents the water use from a group of U.S. single family homes that had been retrofit with best available water conserving fixtures and appliances and the bottom line represents the water use from the 95 Jordanian homes in this study. Notice that all three groups exhibit the same power curve relationship between residents and household water use. Page 6 of 70

Total Indoor Water Use (lpd) Jordan Single Family Water Use Study June 20, 2011 1400 1200 y = 330.85x 0.69 1000 800 600 400 y = 190.04x 0.77 y = 128.39x 0.6727 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 Number of Residents High Eff. Standard Jordan Figure ES 3: Household use versus number of residents in Jordan and in U.S. reference populations. When indoor demands from the Jordan sample are normalized on the basis of the number or residents in the home the comparison to homes from the United States becomes more pronounced. A family of 5 in a high efficiency home in the U.S. would be expected to use 656 lphd for indoor uses while the same size family in Jordan has been found to use only 58% of this, or 379 lphd. Table ES 1: Comparison of Normalized Demands Number of U.S. High Efficiency Homes Jordanian Homes from Sample Residents LPCD LPHD LPCD LPHD 3 148 443 90 269 5 131 656 76 379 7 121 850 68 475 The data from the end-use analysis showed how much of the indoor use was devoted to various categories. Figure ES 2 shows a pie chart of end uses in the average home from the entire study group. The data showed that miscellaneous faucet use was the predominant end use category. This category includes a wide variety of water uses that do not fall into any of other well defined events. Uses that are clearly not toilets, showers, clothes washer, baths or leaks, all have to be categorized as faucet use. They are random in duration, have flow rates that match faucet rates and lack the reproducible patterns that mark the other categories. Faucets were broken down further into high flow rate events, which lend themselves to conservation with better aerators, and low flow Page 7 of 70

faucets which while below the flow rates for high efficiency aerators could be reduced with devices that shorten their durations. Leaks 10.8% Other 3.1% Bath 0.0% Dish Washer 0.1% Toilet 17.7% High-Flow Faucet 12.8% Clotheswasher 8.8% Low-Flow Faucet 33.1% Figure ES 4: End use breakdown for Jordanian sample Shower 13.7% The average household use by end-use is shown in Figure ES 5. This figure compares the end uses from the Jordanian homes with the same end uses from a sample from the U.S.. The only category of use which was larger in the Jordanian homes was the faucet category. The research team believes that faucet use in Jordan included many events that would be shown as toilets, dishwashers or clothes washers in the U.S. homes because of the different mix of fixtures and appliances in the Jordanian homes, and the fact that the low pressure water systems result in flow rates being very similar for all uses. Page 8 of 70

Liters Per Day (lpd) Jordan Single Family Water Use Study June 20, 2011 250 200 150 100 50 0-50 Toilet Clothes Washer Shower Faucet Leaks Other Bath Dish Washer Jordan 80.10 39.81 62.21 207.45 48.84 13.93 0.14 0.24 U.S. 171.04 148.77 116.70 101.25 82.95 27.89 12.05 9.26 Figure ES 5: Comparison of household end-uses in Jordan to U.S. households Key results for the individual end uses discussed in the report include the following: Toilets o A total of 10,150 toilet flush events were identified in the data logging o On average there were approximately 13 flushes per household per day recorded o The average flush volume was 5.8 L o 21% of the flushes were at or below 4 L. o The average number of flushes per person per day was 2.6, which is low compared to U.S. samples. Clothes Washers o A total of 600 loads of clothes wash were identified during the logging o Clothes washers were present in 79 out of 95 of the study homes o Clothes washers were used at the rate of 0.9 times per day o The average water use of the washers was 53 lpl Shower Use o A total of 1235 showers were identified from the logging data o Showers were taken at the rate of 1.6 showers per household per day o The average shower used 40 L of water o The average shower flow rate was 5.4 lpm o The average shower duration was 8.4 minutes Leakage o Most leaks observed from the traces were small volume and short duration o The average leakage rate was 49 lpd, but the median rate was just 13 lpd Page 9 of 70

o The maximum leakage rate observed was 855 lpd o The bulk of the total volume of leakage is attributable to a small number of homes with large or continuous leaks Faucet Use o There were over 103,000 events categorized as faucets in the database o This category contains events that do not fit into the other more consistent events o The average daily usage attributed to faucets was 207 lpd o The majority of faucet events were at a low flow rate and used a small volume of water: 90% of the events were less than 5 lpm, and these accounted for 72% of the total volume of faucet use Other Factors o Most of the flow traces were collected during non-summer months, and this probably reduced the instances of evaporative cooler use. o Water treatment systems, especially reverse osmosis systems can account for significant amounts of water use if they are used continuously. These were present in 6 of the study homes, but were not associated with higher indoor use rates in these homes. o The amount of storage water would be expected to have an impact on water use, but this information was not available for the study homes. It is interesting to note that homes in Aqaba, which had a continuous water supply did not have a significantly higher average daily indoor use, but did have a higher median use. The household performance was gauged for the group by comparing average use to efficiency criteria for clothes washer, showers and toilets. For a home to meet the criteria it had to have average clothes washer use of less than 50 lpl, average toilet flush volume of 4 lpf or less and average shower flow rates of 7.6 lpm or less. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure ES 6 Page 10 of 70

% of Homes Meeting Criteria Jordan Single Family Water Use Study June 20, 2011 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% CW Shower Toilet Penetration Rates 54% 90% 6% Figure ES 6: Household compliance rates for toilets, showers and clothes washers The conclusions of the study were: Even though the water use in the Jordanian homes is low, there are still promising conservation options available for evaluation. There is still potential for water savings through use of high efficiency toilets Continued use of high efficiency clothes washers is recommended. As more homes are equipped with washers this may reduce faucet use to the extent faucet use includes hand washing of clothes Use of high efficiency shower heads with quick shut-off devices is supported by the data Faucets account for such a large percentage of use that deserve attention. Use of high efficiency aerators with quick shut-off devices is encouraged. Devices that limit the duration of faucets may help reduce the durations of use. Systems for recapturing shower and bathroom sink water for toilet flushing should be studies since these would eliminate a significant portion of domestic demands. There is also evidence that much of the faucet use is for dish washing, and that properly operated dish washers could accomplish this task with less water. Leakage accounted for over 10% of indoor use. Systems for alerting users of continuous flows should be investigated. The study homes in this group should be used for future research in the form of retrofit studies of water conserving devices. Page 11 of 70

BACKGROUND Jordan is the fourth water poorest country on earth. Demand for water already exceeds Jordan s available water resources. Annual per capita water availability has declined from 3600 cubic meters per year in 1946 to around 145 cubic meters per year in 2008. Water demand is currently estimated at around 1530 million cubic meters (MCM) versus 870 MCM of water resources. The demand is projected to increase to around 1670 MCM by 2022 1. The high water shortage has caused a drastic over-extraction of the groundwater aquifers that are pumped at twice their safe yields. On the other hand, Jordan s stability, tourism attraction, quality of business and health services make it a prime regional hub for investment, which would be threatened by unmanageable water shortages. This challenging situation provides a great opportunity and incentive for the introduction of the most effective water demand management tools. Non-Agricultural water use represents approximately 35% of total fresh water consumption in Jordan. The residential water use accounts for around 87%, 84% and 31% of the non-agricultural billed water respectively in Amman, the Northern Governorates, and Aqaba respectively 2. Urban Water Demand Management in Jordan started from the bottom of the pyramid concentrating on educating and convincing the public about the need and benefits of water efficiency, then moved up to work with the institutions to develop water demand management (WDM) policies, institutionalize WDM; develop standards, codes and regulations; and introduce technologies and communicate best management Practices. Residential end use metering is a tool and best management practice that provides a high degree of detail on the individual end uses of water in Jordanian homes, which can be used to identify water saving opportunities and to evaluate the effectiveness of conservation efforts over time. Within the scope of Activity 1, "Institutional Capacity for Water Demand Management", IDARA conducted a residential end use metering program led by Aquacraft Inc. This report presents the program approach, results and recommendations. The residential end use metering program included two end use metering studies. First, a pilot study was performed in 2008 to test the feasibility of data logging water end use from roof tanks. A total of 14 flow traces were obtained in this study that confirmed the data logging approach resulting in the commission of a second study that consisted of a series of traces obtained from 81 additional homes visited between the end of 2010 and the first week of April of 2011. The two studies provided a total of 95 homes from which flow trace data were obtained for analysis. 1 Water for Life, Jordan s Water Strategy 2008-2022, Sajdi and Partners, September 2008 2 Water Use Efficiency Plans for Miyahuna, Yarmouk Co, and Aqaba Water, USAID-IDARA, 2010 Page 12 of 70

METHODOLOGY Data Loggers and Water Meters The key to the collection of precise end-use data for this study lies in the fact that small magnetically driven water meters have pairs of magnets used to couple the register of the meter to the meter body. This allows the register to be sealed against water which greatly adds to the accuracy and life of the meter. Specialized data loggers, such as the one shown in Figure 1, are capable of sensing the passage of the internal meters and recording the number of pulses per unit of time (normally 10 seconds for our purposes). This produces a very accurate record of water flow through the meter over the time period that the logger is in place on the meter (normally around 14 days). Such a record can be used to generate a disaggregated database of water use events. This disaggregated database can then be summarized by household to show daily water use by end-use. The end-use data shows the current water use patterns in the home, the potential for conservation and when coupled with survey information can be used for creating models of water use. Figure 1 shows a typical installation of a water meter below the roof tank, which is at the top left of the photo. The small magnetically driven meter picks up the flow from the roof tank to the dwelling unit. The location of the meter, immediately below the tank, ensured that all water use from the tank would be recorded. The data logger, just to the right of the meter, has been installed and is recording the flow through the meter at ten second intervals. The logger picks up each magnetic pulse generated as the disk inside the meter turns. This provides a resolution of approximately 20 pulses per liter of water. Page 13 of 70

Figure 1: Water meter installed below roof tank with data logger attached Data from the loggers are imported into a program called Trace Wizard that is used by an analyst to match up events in the database with fixtures and appliances in the home. This is not a black box procedure but one in which the analyst works closely with the program to ensure that the right events are assigned to the appropriate fixtures. Normally, each flow trace is analyzed by one person and checked by another to minimize the random errors. Using the combination of new meters installed on the roof tanks, data loggers, the Trace Wizard program and information collected by the technicians; end use data were collected from a series of homes in Jordan. The data collection portion of this project consisted of three steps: selection of study homes and installation of meters, installation of data loggers and collection of flow trace data and home data, analysis of flow trace data and assembly of water use database. The interpretation of the results was accomplished through statistical analyses of the results based on summary queries obtained from the database using standard spreadsheet and database analysis tools. Sample Home Selection Flow trace data were successfully obtained from a total of 95 homes during both phases of the study. Each home was identified with a keycode in order to protect the privacy of the residents and to provide unique identification of the resultant trace. Water meters were installed on the roof tank outlets during the logging period. Information was obtained for each home on its type, the number of residents, and the numbers and types of fixtures and appliances present. The sample of homes selected for both phases of the study was from volunteers and was not scientifically chosen. It should not be considered representative of the population of Page 14 of 70

residential customers in the service areas from which it was drawn. While the second phase sample is larger than the initial phase it is still too small to allow countrywide projections to be made. The main value of this study is that it provides better information on residential water use and possible water saving interventions in addition to the confirmation that the flow trace technique can be used in Jordanian homes to analyze water use. The results while not statistically rigorous are suggestive of the water use patterns in the residential sector. Data Analysis The output from the data loggers consists of a Microsoft Access database files in which each record consists of a time interval and the number of pulses counted by the logger during the interval. In our case the time interval was 10 seconds and the pulses were whatever value corresponded to the volume of water used by the residents during that period. During processing the pulse data were converted to flow volumes based on the relationship between pulses and volumes for the particular meter being used. Each flow trace file was checked against the volume recorded by the water meter to insure that the logger had captured the correct volume of water during the logging interval. The finalized flow trace data files were then analyzed using the Trace Wizard program in order to disaggregate the water use into events and end-use categories. The process of assigning events to particular fixtures or categories is a semi-automatic one in which an analyst works with the program to set up fixture parameters consisting of the peak flow, duration, volume and mode flow associated with the fixtures. The program then finds other events that match these parameters and assigns them to that fixture. Recognition of patterns, time of day and groupings of events is essential for proper categorization. Discussion of Flow Trace Analysis The goal of Phase 1 of this study was to determine whether or not the meters and data loggers are compatible with a tank storage and rooftop delivery system. The analysis done for the pilot study report showed that the data loggers are able to record flow data from the water meters on the roof tanks provided sufficient accuracy to allow the end use analysis to occur. Figure 2 shows two calibration events (large yellow rectangles) performed on Monday, August 18 th, at 12:51:00 PM and again at 1:12:36 PM for the Task 1 pilot study. The events represent filling of an 18.9 liter container used for calibration from the shower cold water tap in the main bathroom. The volume of the two events on the flow trace was 20.00 liters and 19.96 liters respectively. Although this amount is slightly higher than the volume of the container (18.9 L), without knowing the accuracy of the container volume and the actual fill level it is difficult to ascertain whether or not the data logger is recording volumes that are too high or not. Agreement between the data logger and cold water meter provides confidence in the accuracy of the recorded volumes of each event however. Page 15 of 70

Figure 2: Two calibration events and miscellaneous faucets The value of the Trace Wizard software is that once the parameters of an event such as showers, toilets, faucets and other fixtures and appliances have been defined these parameters can be adopted and used to find events with similar parameters located throughout the trace. The parameters used for establishing fixture definitions are: peak flow of the event volume of the event duration of the event mode flow (most frequent observed flow) of the event time of day Whether the event is associated with other similar (or related) events, such as one cycle of a multi-cycle clothes washer or dish washer operation. Figure 3 provides an example of events identified by Trace Wizard; the first two events shown in green are toilet flushing in the guest bathroom and the second set of events in green are half flushes from the dual flush toilet in the main bathroom. Each paired event has similar volumes, flow rates, and durations. The events shown in yellow are attributable to faucet use and therefore have considerable variation in volume, duration, and flow rate. All flows are in liters per minute even if labeled gpm. Page 16 of 70

Figure 3: Example of toilets and faucet events In one of the pilot study homes separate meters were installed on both hot and cold water lines into the residence. None of the final study homes had dual meters but this pilot home did. Having dual meters did not change the fundamental analysis technique but each trace showed either the hot or cold water component of total indoor use. Figure 4 is an example of showering from a hot water trace (shown in red.) The eleven minute duration at a steady flow rate accompanied by a cold water event (not shown) of the same duration is very typical of shower use. This use is confirmed by the logging sheet (filled in by the occupants) and corresponds with the start time and duration noted. Figure 4: Shower event followed by several faucets Page 17 of 70

Figure 5 provides another example of toilet flushing; the first event in green represents a full flush of the toilet in the main bathroom while the second event in green is the toilet in the guest bathroom. Both have similar flush volumes however the flow rate of the toilet in the main bathroom is higher than that in the guest bathroom. Each of the traces obtained from the study homes logged in November and December was subjected to the same type of analysis described above. The traces were examined by an analyst who assigned the events to the most probable fixtures. The traces were all checked again to look for errors during the initial analysis. The final traces were then assembled into a combined water use database from which summaries were extracted for statistical analyses presented below. Figure 5: Two toilet flushes (shown in green) and faucet use (shown in yellow) END USE ANALYSIS Indoor Household Use Using the event database created from the flow traces it is possible to examine each type of indoor use separately. Since very few of the homes had any irrigation use served by the meters it made the isolation of indoor uses even simpler. Table 1 shows the indoor water use for the 95 Jordan study homes both for total use and by end-use. The first set of results show the use for all 95 homes combined. The succeeding sets of results are for the 47 homes in Amman, the 12 in the rural areas around Amman, the 22 homes in Aqaba and 14 homes in Irbid. As shown in Table 2, all of the logging took place prior to April, so there is very little if any cooling use evident in homes that according to the survey were equipped with evaporative coolers. Table 2 shows the number of sites logged, but not all loggings succeeded, so these numbers will not necessarily match sample sizes. Page 18 of 70

Table 1: Comparison of water use for Jordan Study homes All cities Amman Amman-rural homes Aqaba Irbid Parameter Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Indoor LPDH 95 453 389 47 493 401 12 437 367 22 459 440 14 321 296 Clothes Washer LPDH 95 39.8 27.3 47 44.3 33.6 12 18.9 6.9 22 52.1 28.7 14 23.3 13.5 Dishwasher LPDH 95 0.24 0.00 47 0.45 0.00 12 0.00 0.00 22 0.00 0.00 14 0.09 0.00 Faucet LPDH 95 207 181 47 221 174 12 204 190 22 218 201 14 149 160 Leak LPDH 95 48.8 12.9 47 52.5 10.7 12 89.8 19.7 22 31.7 6.3 14 28.3 17.9 Other LPDH 95 13.9 0.0 47 11.2 0.0 12 0.803 0.000 22 21.5 8.3 14 22.4 0.0 Shower LPDH 95 62.2 45.8 47 77.1 48.4 12 45.0 36.6 22 54.2 45.2 14 39.7 40.6 Toilet LPDH 95 80.1 75.0 47 86.8 73.8 12 78.1 73.3 22 80.7 78.1 14 58.5 54.5 CW load volume (Liters) 79 52.8 47.9 40 54.7 51.5 9 53.9 41.7 19 50.7 43.9 11 48.6 47.9 Toilet flush volume (Liters) 95 5.83 5.62 47 6.02 5.75 12 4.84 4.90 22 6.36 6.24 14 5.25 5.40 Table 2: Logging time-frames City Number of Homes Logging Time Frame Logged Amman 12 Late October and early December, 2008 Amman 37 March and April, 2011 Amman Rural 13 April, 2011 Irbid 17 Late January to early February, 2011 Aqaba 2 December, 2008 Aqaba 17 March and April, 2010 Aqaba 9 January, 2011 Page 19 of 70

Relative Frequency Cumulative Frequency Jordan Single Family Water Use Study June 20, 2011 Figure 6 shows a histogram of the total indoor water use for the 95 study homes. Note that the indoor use does not fit a normal distribution; high water users skew the shape. The distribution is log-normal This distribution is typical of indoor use distributions seen in other studies done in the U.S. While outside the normal distribution it should not be assumed that these high-water using sites are erroneous data. This is a log-normal distribution, so the mean and median values will be different. Logging Sample 18% 16% 14% 100% 90% 80% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 525 600 675 750 825 900 975 1050 1125 1200 1275 1350 1425 1500 Rel % 0% 2% 2% 12% 15% 16% 13% 9% 13% 5% 2% 3% 2% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% Cum % 0% 2% 4% 16% 31% 46% 59% 68% 81% 86% 88% 92% 94% 94% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 100% 100% Indoor Water Use (LPHD) 0% Figure 6: Indoor use histogram for Jordan study homes The average and median indoor use for the study group and each of the sub-groups is shown in Figure 7. This figure illustrates that Amman has the highest average daily residential use, around 490 lphd, and also has the biggest spread between the average and median use, which indicates a larger amount of skew in the data. This skew represents accurate data -- a typical log-normal distribution of demand. The rural homes and homes in Aqaba had average use around 440 to 460 lphd. Irbid had the lowest mean household water use, around 320 lphd, and a median use of less than 300 lphd. For comparison purposes a recent study of 780 homes in California taken around 2007 had an average indoor water use of 660 lphd, approximately 146% of the use found in the Jordanian sample. Page 20 of 70

Daily Use (LPHD) Jordan Single Family Water Use Study June 20, 2011 Indoor Use Comparison 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 All Amman Rural Aqaba Irbid Mean 453 493 437 459 321 Median 389 401 367 440 296 Figure 7: Household Indoor Use Comparisons Comparison of Sample to Population In order to examine whether the logging sample homes were similar to larger populations data were obtained from the populations of Amman water system, Miyahuna, Irbid and north provinces, and the Al Yarmouk Water Company. These two systems contained a total of just under 600,000 residential subscribers. The average daily use for the population was 444 lphd and the median use was 327 lphd. The logging sample had an average of 452 lphd and a median use of 389 lphd, so the sample was very similar to the population in terms of mean use, but had a somewhat larger median use. The distributions for the logging sample and the populations are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 8 respectively. Examining these histograms shows that the big difference between the two is that logging sample did not have as many customers in the low consumption bins. Only 4% of the logging homes had consumption of less than 150 lphd, but approximately 20% of the population fell into this range. The percentages of customers in the middle of the distribution were much more similar. Table 3: Household Use Comparison Parameter Population Sample Mean 444 453 Median 327 389 Page 21 of 70

Percent of Households Jordan Single Family Water Use Study June 20, 2011 Population of Miyahuna + NGWA 18% 120% 16% 100% 14% 12% 80% 10% 8% 60% 6% 40% 4% 2% 20% 0% 70 162 299 373 522 597 655 847 924 982 1057 1109 1135 1144 1150 1549 More Rel % 14% 14% 16% 15% 11% 9% 7% 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% Cum % 14% 28% 44% 60% 71% 80% 87% 91% 93% 96% 97% 97% 98% 98% 99% 99% 100% Indoor Use (LPHD) 0% Figure 8: Distribution of household use for Amman and NGWA Per Capita Use Relationship The total indoor use is plotted in Figure 9 as a function of the number of residents in the home. The results show that household use is not linear with the number of residents. It is in the form of a power curve with an exponent of approximately 0.7. This means that as additional persons are added to the homes a smaller increment of water use is observed. In the sample homes the average number of residents was 5.6, which is equivalent to a household use of 423 lphd (slightly less than the unadjusted average shown in Table 1), and the per capita use for the average size household of 75.7 lpcd. The non-linearity of this relationship in combination with the diversity in house size in the sample can lead to significant errors in use projections based on a linear assumption. Page 22 of 70

Daily indoor use (lphd) Jordan Single Family Water Use Study June 20, 2011 1400 1200 1000 y = 128.39x 0.6727 800 600 400 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Residents Figure 9: Household use versus number of residents in Jordan Sample The average indoor household water use in Jordan is 453 lpd which is about 30% less than the same use in the U.S. (670 lpd). However this does not take into account the larger household sizes in Jordan which average 5.6 persons per home (the U.S. average 2.7). The household use as a function of number of residents is much lower in Jordan than in the U.S. as compared in Figure 10. In this figure the top line, labeled standard in the graph represents the water use from the single family homes in the REUWS study from 1999; the middle line labeled high efficiency represents the water use from a group of single family homes that had been retrofit with best available water conserving fixtures and appliances and the bottom line represents the water use from the 95 homes in this study. Page 23 of 70

Per Capita Use (LPCD) Jordan Single Family Water Use Study June 20, 2011 The fact that household demands do not rise linearly with the number of residents in the home has several important consequences for water planning. Figure 11 shows the way the per capita use declines as the number of persons in the home increases. Per capita Use vs. Residents 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Norm. Per Capita Use 128.4 102.3 89.6 81.6 75.8 71.4 67.9 65.0 62.5 60.4 Number of Residents Figure 11: Per capita use versus number of residents in Jordan sample Household Water Use by Housing Type When the pooled data are analyzed according to the type of house we see that both apartments and houses tend to have similar water use patterns in terms of the average and median daily use. Villas tend to have much larger household and per capita demands. Some villas were found to have larger storage tanks and elaborate in-home water treatment systems. Table 5 shows the summary statistics for household and per capita water use by house type. The average indoor use for the group as a whole was 453 lphd. The complete end-use statics, by household are given in Appendix C: Household use data. Likewise the end-use by household as a percentage is given in Appendix D: Household end-use data as percent. Table 5: Household water use by house types in Jordan sample No. of Residents Indoor LPD Indoor LPCD All Average 5.6 453 85.6 Count 95.0 95.0 95.0 SD 2.0 253 45.8 95% CI 0.4 50.8 9.20 Median 5.0 389 77.3 Apartment Average 5.3 420 82.9 Page 25 of 70

No. of Residents Indoor LPD Indoor LPCD Count 64.0 64.0 64.0 SD 1.9 216 42.2 95% CI 0.5 52.9 10.3 Median 5.0 389 76.1 House Average 6.1 464 82.8 Count 28.0 28.0 28.0 SD 2.3 257.8 46.3 95% CI 0.8 95.5 17.1 Median 6.0 371 72.9 Villa Average 6.3 1056 170 Count 3.0 3.0 3.0 SD 0.6 242 50.7 95% CI 0.7 274 57.4 Median 6.0 1095 183 Disaggregated Household Use When we look at how the indoor water use breaks down in the study homes we see that faucet use predominates followed by toilets, showers, leaks and clothes washers. These breakdowns for the entire study group are shown in Figure 12. The following figures: Figure 13, Figure 14, Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the use breakdowns for the sub-areas. The results for the individual areas should be used with caution due to their small size. The major categories make up over 96% of total indoor water use in the sample homes. Additionally only three of the 95 homes in the study group were equipped with dishwashers. Indoor end-uses are further broken down by city in Table 6. As can be seen in the pie charts, the faucet use has been split into high-flow and low-flow events with the dividing line between the two set at 5 lpm. This allows planners to estimate what percentage of faucet use is amenable to efficiency improvements with low flow aerators. Obviously, those faucets that are being used at flows less than the design flow of the aerators would not be impacted by their use. So, only the volume of water in the high-flow faucets should be used as the baseline for water savings through faucet upgrades. It should also be noted that all of the water use data presented in this section is based on flow trace analyses rather than survey results because the surveys did not include any information on uses or volumes, and also survey information was not available for all of the homes in the study. Page 26 of 70

Leaks 10.8% Other 3.1% Bath 0.0% Dish Washer 0.1% Toilet 17.7% High-Flow Faucet 12.8% Clotheswasher 8.8% Low-Flow Faucet 33.1% Shower 13.7% Figure 12: Indoor end-use pie chart for Jordan (percent of total indoor use). Leaks 10.6% Other 2.3% Bath 0.0% Dish Washer 0.1% Toilet 17.6% High-Flow Faucet 15.2% Clothes Washer 9.0% Low-Flow Faucet 29.6% Shower 15.6% Figure 13: Indoor end-use pie chart for Amman (percent of total indoor use). Page 27 of 70

Leaks 20.6% Other 0.2% Dish Washer Bath 0.0% 0.0% Toilet 17.9% High-Flow Faucet 8.9% Clothes Washer 4.3% Low-Flow Faucet 37.8% Shower 10.3% Figure 14: Indoor end-use pie chart for rural Amman (percent of total indoor use). Leaks 6.9% Other 4.7% Dish Washer Bath 0.0% 0.0% Toilet 17.6% High-Flow Faucet 11.9% Clothes Washer 11.4% Low-Flow Faucet 35.7% Shower 11.8% Figure 15: Indoor end-use pie chart for Aqaba (percent of indoor use). Page 28 of 70

Rur al Amman All Jordan Single Family Water Use Study June 20, 2011 Leaks 8.8% Other 7.0% Bath 0.0% Dish Washer 0.0% Toilet 18.2% High-Flow Faucet 8.3% Clothes Washer 7.3% Low-Flow Faucet 38.1% Shower 12.4% Figure 16: Indoor end-use pie chart for Irbid (percent of indoor use) Table 6: Average household indoor end use by city Toilet LPD Clotheswasher LPD Shower LPD Faucet LPD Leak LPD Other LPD Bathtub LPD Dishwasher LPD Indoor LPD N 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Average 80.1 39.8 62.2 207.5 48.8 13.9 0.1 0.2 452.7 Median 75.0 27.3 45.8 181.1 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 389.4 SD 48.4 40.5 56.8 132.2 118. 33.7 1.0 1.3 252.9 1 95th CI 9.7 8.1 11.4 26.6 23.8 6.8 0.2 0.3 50.8 N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 Average 86.8 44.3 77.1 220.7 52.5 11.2 0.2 0.5 493.3 Median 73.8 33.6 48.4 173.6 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 401.0 SD 54.5 38.9 68.3 154.0 129. 31.8 1.2 1.9 282.3 2 95th CI 15.6 11.1 19.5 44.0 36.9 9.1 0.3 0.5 80.7 N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Average 78.1 18.9 45.0 203.9 89.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 436.6 Page 29 of 70

Irbid Aqaba Jordan Single Family Water Use Study June 20, 2011 Toilet LPD Clotheswasher LPD Shower LPD Faucet LPD Leak LPD Other LPD Bathtub LPD Dishwasher LPD Indoor LPD Median 73.3 6.9 36.6 189.9 19.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 366.7 SD 36.1 27.2 48.5 77.4 196. 2.8 0.0 0.0 220.7 5 95th CI 20.4 15.4 27.4 43.8 111. 1.6 na na 124.9 2 N 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 Average 80.7 52.1 54.2 218.3 31.7 21.5 0.2 0.0 458.5 Median 78.1 28.7 45.2 201.0 6.3 8.3 0.0 0.0 440.0 SD 47.2 49.7 38.7 124.5 54.5 31.6 0.9 0.0 232.0 95th CI 19.7 20.8 16.2 52.0 22.8 13.2 0.4 na 96.9 N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Average 58.5 23.3 39.7 148.9 28.3 22.4 0.1 0.1 321.3 Median 54.5 13.5 40.6 160.3 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 296.5 SD 33.0 29.4 25.8 88.5 43.1 51.7 0.3 0.3 165.4 95th CI 17.3 15.4 13.5 46.4 22.6 27.1 0.2 0.2 86.6 Figure 17 shows the breakdown of indoor water use into its components in comparison to a sample of approximately 1200 single family homes from the United States from 1997 by the Residential End Uses of Water Study (REUWS). This figure shows both the average daily use and the 95% confidence intervals for each category. The total household use in the U.S. samples was 670 lphd. Compared to this the Jordanian homes use of 453 lphd this was 30% lower than the U.S. homes. The disaggregated water use in Jordan was significantly lower than that from the REUWS for all end use categories except the faucet group. One reason for this is that given the low pressures in the Jordanian homes faucet use is hard to distinguish from showers and bath tubs. Also any Turkish-type toilets and bidets will be categorized as faucet use. Finally since none of the homes had dish washing machines more water may have been used for dish washing from the faucet as opposed to the machine. Page 30 of 70

Liters Per Day (lpd) Jordan Single Family Water Use Study June 20, 2011 250 200 150 100 50 0-50 Toilet Clothes Washer Shower Faucet Leaks Other Bath Dish Washer Jordan 80.10 39.81 62.21 207.45 48.84 13.93 0.14 0.24 U.S. 171.04 148.77 116.70 101.25 82.95 27.89 12.05 9.26 Figure 17: Comparison of household end-uses in Jordan to U.S. households Toilet Use There were a total of 10,150 separate toilet flushes recorded by the data loggers during the logging period. This is equivalent to12.7 flushes per house per day over an average logging period of 8.4 days per home. The distribution of toilet flushes is fairly normal as can be seen from the fact that the median and mean values are so close to each other. The statistics for individual toilet flushes is shown in Table 7. For benchmarking purposes it should be noted that a house with a high efficiency, dual flush toilet would be expected to have an average flush volume of four liters or less. Table 7: Toilet flush volume statistics in Jordan Parameter Value Total number of flushes in Jordan logging sample 10,150 Average flushes per household per day 12.7 Average household toilet flush volume (L) 5.83 Median household flush volume (L) 5.62 % of individual flushes < 4 (L) 21% Page 31 of 70

Relative Frequency Cumulative Frequency Jordan Single Family Water Use Study June 20, 2011 In discussing toilets we will look at both the distribution of average household flush volumes, which is the average of all flushes in each home, and distribution of all individual toilet flushes pooled together. In this study there were 95 values for the household flush volumes and over 10,000 for the individual flushes. Figure 18 shows a histogram of the average household flush volumes determined for each of the 95 logging homes. These volumes were calculated by dividing the total toilet volume used by each of the 95 homes by the number of flush events recorded in the home by the loggers. The values represent the average of all toilets in the home. Homes in which the average liters per flush is equal to or less than 4.0 liters were deemed to be efficient with respect to toilets. As can be seen in Figure 18 only 6% of the homes fell into this category. 20% 18% 16% 120% 100% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 Mor e R Freq 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 5% 12% 11% 19% 14% 9% 11% 8% 4% 1% 0% 3% 0% 2% Cum % 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 6% 18% 28% 47% 61% 71% 81% 89% 94% 95% 95% 98% 98% 100 Average Flush Volume by Household (lpf) 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Figure 18: Average household toilet flush volume histogram (liters per flush) Figure 19 shows the distribution of flush volumes for all 10,150 flushes recorded in the sample. This is a fairly normal distribution centered on 5.5 lpf. In this figure we see that a total of 21% of all flushes were measured at less than 4 lpf. The reason that there are more toilets flushing in the efficient range than households is that most homes contain a mixture of high and low volume toilets. A house with one high efficiency toilet and one high volume toilet will end up with an average flush volume greater than 4 liters. Page 32 of 70

Flush Events per Day % of Flushes Jordan Single Family Water Use Study June 20, 2011 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 more R 0% 1% 5% 14% 18% 18% 15% 10% 7% 5% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% C 0% 1% 7% 21% 39% 57% 72% 82% 89% 94% 97% 98% 99% 99% 100% 100% Flush Volume (L) 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Figure 19: Histogram of individual toilet flushes 40 35 30 y = 2.2861x R 2 = 0.0483 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Number of Residents Figure 20: Flushes per day as a function of number of residents reported in a household Page 33 of 70

Table 8: Flushes per person per day comparison Group Average Flushes per person per day All homes 2.57 Homes with mixed types 2.52 Homes with only tanks types 3.21 As shown in Figure 20 the slope of the best fit line of average flushes per person per day in the group was 2.3 fpcd, and the average for the group, shown in Table 8, was 2.6. In the U.S. REUWS sample this value was closer to 5 fpcd. While household flush counts were similar to those found in the U.S. sample overall per capita flush counts in the Jordan sample were lower than the U.S. sample. There are several possible explanations why. Turkish-type toilets and bidets would almost certainly show up as faucet use rather than toilet use and low-flow tank toilets might also appear as faucet use in the logging data. It is also possible that some flushing was obscured in compound events where multiple water use activities occur simultaneously. However, as Figure 20 shows, there is significant scatter in flushes per day as a function the number of residents. It is also possible that the numbers of persons per household may be mis-reported and the actual numbers may be smaller. The problem with resolution of toilet flushes was one of the main reasons that in-home calibration data was requested. The goal was to have clear samples of the flush patterns of all of the toilets in each of the logged homes. Unfortunately it proved impossible to obtain these data for most of the homes so we had to rely on recognizing toilet flush patterns in each home that matched our experience of what flushes should look like. In Jordan it is possible that some toilets flush with flow rates and durations that appear to be faucets but without the unambiguous signature provided by the calibration it may not have been possible to identify these. In an effort to determine whether the presence of wash-down toilets may have been masking toilet flushes as faucet events the homes with just flush type toilets were examined. However there were only 11 sites that reported exclusively tank toilets according to survey data. This analysis, summarized in Table 8, showed that homes with only tank typed toilets did have a slightly higher per capita flush rate. While not statistically significant the data do support the notion that wash-down toilets appear as faucet use in the flow trace analysis. This is a very small sample size for drawing conclusions. This flushes-per-person-per-day value is still lower than expected. It is possible that flushes were not differentiable when numerous events occur simultaneously and such overlap may occur when more people reside in a house. Page 34 of 70