Socio-Economic Analysis of Water Conservation Techniques at Household-Level in Amman, Jordan

Abstract

In the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan water conservation has become a top priority of the national water strategy, attempting to reduce the demand for this scarce and increasingly expensive resource. This thesis aims to investigate options and opportunities for water conservation at household level in Amman. In fact, the suitability, affordability and acceptability of the different water conservation techniques varies with the socio-economic circumstances of their implementation. The low, middle and high income group of the society have been identified as rather homogenous subgroups in respect to their water consumption patterns, lifestyles and attitudes. The subgroups vary significantly in their perception and burden of the socio-economic cost associated to the distinct conservation techniques, resulting in large differences of their current and potential degree of adaptation. Household surveys and informal interviews were conducted to complement and update existing research on this topic and to draw an inclusive picture of the context for water conservation in Amman. The potential savings of the single techniques at household level, per income group and on city scale were assessed in order to provide suggestions for targeted demand management actions, tailored to the opportunities and constraints within the three subgroups. If the potential coverage of the suggested water conservation techniques was achieved, the domestic water consumption by the city of Amman could be reduced by 29% according to the results of this research.

Full text

The University of Jordan
Authorization Form
I, Mirja Michalscheck, authorize the University of Jordan to supply copies of my
Thesis to libraries or establishments or individuals on request, according to the
University of Jordan regulations.
Date: 23.12.2011 Signature:

I
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER CONSERVATION
TECHNIQUES AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL IN AMMAN, JORDAN
By
Mirja Michalscheck
Supervisor
Dr. Maha Halalshe
Co-Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Johannes Hamhaber
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master in Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)
Faculty of Graduate Studies
University of Jordan
23rd of December, 2011

II
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis supervisors, Prof. Dr.
Hamhaber and Dr. Maha Halalshe, who provided me with valuable conceptual and
practical advices along the development of this thesis. I would like to thank the DAAD
and the Konrad-Adenauer Foundation who supported my studies financially. Further, I
am grateful towards all my interview partners at Miyahuna, the Ministry of Water and
Irrigation, The Department of Statistics (DoS), USAID, plumbing stores, water trucks as
well as the staff at the Jordan University itself (WEEC). Together, they have contributed
to this study with an incredible amount of useful data and information. I would like to
give a special thanks to Husam Samman from USAID (Idara), whose experience has
added significant quality to this research. Moreover, it was an honor and a very special
experience for me to conduct surveys with 41 households in Amman. The women we
visited welcomed us with a lot of interest and trust, permitting a deep insight into their
very individual water management strategies. I thank Nabeel Ayyad from the Sayegh
Group for the cost-free provision of water saving devices that served to retrofit many of
the households during the water audits conducted. I want to thank my family and
friends, at home and in Jordan who have cheered me up even in difficult times.
Finally, but very importantly, a special thanks goes to Yosra Albakkar, who has been
the best research companion and friend I could imagine. She gave me all her support
and we have gone through an incredible experience of learning with and from each
other. Knowing and working with her was one of the greatest gifts I encountered during
this research.

III

IV
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER CONSERVATION
TECHNIQUES AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL IN AMMAN, JORDAN
By
Mirja Michalscheck
Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Maha Halalshe
Co-Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Johannes Hamhaber
Abstract
In the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan water conservation has become a top priority of
the national water strategy, attempting to reduce the demand for this scarce and
increasingly expensive resource. This thesis aims to investigate options and
opportunities for water conservation at household level in Amman. In fact, the
suitability, affordability and acceptability of the different water conservation techniques
varies with the socio-economic circumstances of their implementation. The low, middle
and high income group of the society have been identified as rather homogenous
subgroups in respect to their water consumption patterns, lifestyles and attitudes. The
subgroups vary significantly in their perception and burden of the socio-economic cost
associated to the distinct conservation techniques, resulting in large differences of their
current and potential degree of adaptation. Household surveys and informal interviews
were conducted to complement and update existing research on this topic and to draw

V
an inclusive picture of the context for water conservation in Amman. The potential
savings of the single techniques at household level, per income group and on city scale
were assessed in order to provide suggestions for targeted demand management actions,
tailored to the opportunities and constraints within the three subgroups. If the potential
coverage of the suggested water conservation techniques was achieved, the domestic
water consumption by the city of Amman could be reduced by 29% according to the
results of this research.
Keywords:
Water Conservation – Demand Management - Socio-Economic Analysis – Household
Level - Amman

VI
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... II
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... IV
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. IX
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. XII
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... XIV
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Problem Statement ............................................................................................. 3
1.3. Significance ........................................................................................................ 5
1.3.1. Prior Studies and Own Contributions ......................................................... 5
1.3.2. Future Relevance and Development Trends ............................................... 8
1.3.3. Importance from a National Resource Perspective ..................................... 9
1.4. Objectives ......................................................................................................... 10
1.5. Limitations and Delimitations .......................................................................... 11
1.6. Key Concepts ................................................................................................... 14
2. Research and Data Collection Methodology .......................................................... 17
2.1. Underlying Principles and Theories ................................................................. 17
2.2. Methodology of Literature Review .................................................................. 18
2.3. Methodology and Scope of Field Research ..................................................... 19
2.3.1. Informal Interviews with Officials and Institutions .................................. 19

VII
2.3.2. Surveys with Retailers of Water Saving Devices ..................................... 20
2.3.3. Household Surveys ................................................................................... 21
3. The Water Situation of Households in Amman ...................................................... 27
3.1. Water Supply, Storage, Quality and Prices ...................................................... 27
3.2. Socio-Economic Differences in Water Availability, Use and Conservation ... 34
3.2.1. Storage Capacity, Supply Hours and Network Pressure ........................... 34
3.2.2. Demand and Use ....................................................................................... 37
3.2.3. Pricing and Expenditure on Water ............................................................ 49
3.2.4. Social Cohesion and Trust Towards Institutions ...................................... 54
3.2.5. Awareness Level Concerning Water Conservation .................................. 59
3.2.6. Level of Water Conservation in Homes ................................................... 64
4. Water Conservation Techniques at Household Level in Amman ........................... 71
4.1. Technical Options for Water Conservation ...................................................... 72
4.1.1. Water Saving Devices ............................................................................... 72
4.1.2. Rainwater Harvesting ............................................................................... 83
4.1.3. Greywater Reuse ....................................................................................... 87
4.1.4. Water-Efficient Technologies ................................................................... 90
4.1.5. Xeriscaping and Drip Irrigation ................................................................ 94
4.1.6. Installation of Carpets ............................................................................... 96
4.2. Behavioral Options for Water Conservation .................................................... 97
4.2.1. Economic Water Use from Faucets and Showers ..................................... 98

VIII
4.2.2. Flushing According to Necessity ............................................................ 101
4.2.3. Dry Clean and Restricted Outdoor Use .................................................. 102
4.2.4. Leak Prevention and Detection ............................................................... 105
5. Saving Potentials and Implications for Demand Management at City Scale ....... 107
5.1. Savings and Costs of Conservation Measures ............................................... 107
5.2. Implications for Demand Management .......................................................... 114
6. Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 120
6.1. Further Research Needs ................................................................................. 122
7. Annex .................................................................................................................... 124
7.1. List of Interview Partners for This Thesis ...................................................... 124
7.2. Sample Household Survey [English] ............................................................. 126
7.3. Water Prices in Amman [Miyahuna: January 2011] ...................................... 138
7.4. Knowledge and Level of Implementation of WCTs According to Socio-
Economic Group ....................................................................................................... 139
7.5. Characterization of the Three Income Groups ............................................... 140
7.6. Saving Potentials and Costs of the Different WCTs ...................................... 141
7.7. Background Calculations for Table 19 [7.5] .................................................. 145
7.8. WCTs – Ranking Total Saving Potentials at City Scale ................................ 152
7.9. Calculation of Total Savings .......................................................................... 153
7.10. Sample User Interface of a Conservation Calculator ................................. 154
8. References ............................................................................................................. 155

IX
List of Figures
Figure 1 Illustration of the Basic Research Process 18
Figure 2 Retailers Selling Technology Related to Water Conservation 20
Figure 3 Map Indicating Household Survey Locations in Amman 23
Figure 4 Impressions from the Water Audits and Awareness Sessions 24
Figure 5 Map of the Different Distribution Zones and Weekly Supply Hours Within
Amman 28
Figure 6 Typical Rooftop Tanks of Households in Amman 29
Figure 7 Water Truck at Ain Ghazal Well 30
Figure 8 A Public Well in Amman 31
Figure 9 Water Sources and Storage as well as Typical Uses, Disposal and Reuses of
Water by Households in Amman (Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 494) 32
Figure 10 (Satisfying) The Water Demand of Households in Amman: A Schematic
View According to Source 33
Figure 11 Additional Storage of Low Income Households 34
Figure 12 Shares of Income Groups Conserving 35
Figure 13 Typical Roof with Drainage System 39
Figure 14 Source of Greywater Reuse 40
Figure 15 Average Shares in Water Use According to 41
Figure 16 Indoor End-Use Pie Chart for Amman (Percents of Total Indoor Use) 43
Figure 17 Comparing the End-Use of High and Low Income Areas 43

X
Figure 18 Difference in Urban Greening Between a High and a Low Income Area 44
Figure 19 Hierarchy of Water Requirements inspired by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
46
Figure 20 GIS Map Illustrating the Consumption Level of Households in East and West
Amman 48
Figure 21 Water Meters 49
Figure 22 Per Capita Water Use Versus Number of Residents (Idara 2011f: 19)
50
Figure 23 Water Consumption and Expenses According to Income Group
52
Figure 24 Excessive Outdoor Use: Deserving a Fine? 58
Figure 25 Motivation for Water Conservation Among the Income Groups 61
Figure 26 Faucets without Aerators 66
Figure 27 Faucet Aerators of Low (Left) and High (Right) Efficiency 67
Figure 28 Metal Shower Head 68
Figure 29 Pour and Flush Latrine 69
Figure 30 Faucet Aerator 73
Figure 32 Flow Types 73
Figure 31 Adapter for Faucet Aerators 73
Figure 33 Aerator with Domed Screen 74
Figure 34 Adjustable Aerator 74
Figure 35 Street Vendors of WSDs 76
Figure 36 Different Types of Water Saving Shower Heads 77
Figure 37 Reducing Toilet Tank Volume by Inserting a Bag or Bottle 79
Figure 38 Flow Regulators 81

XI
Figure 39 Rubber Gaskets as Flow Restrictors
82
Figure 40 Rooftop Rainwater Harvesting 83
Figure 41 Map Illustrating the Mean Annual Rainfall Distribution in Jordan 84
Figure 42 Greywater Reuse for Toilet Flushing 88
Figure 43 Comparing Single and Total Water Uses with and without Greywater Reuse
89
Figure 44 Efficiency Label 91
Figure 45 Examples for a Semi Automatic and an Automatic Washing Machine 92
Figure 46 Xeriscape
95
Figure 47 Analytically Derived Distributions of Conservation Action Effectiveness 96
Figure 48 Factors Influencing the Activation of Social Norms 97
Figure 49 Dry Clean Utensils
(Alibaba.com 2011, DIYTrade 2011, PolishedBliss 2011)Figure 50Leaks at Rooftop
Tanks
(Own Pictures) 105
Figure 51 Water Tank Floater Responsible for Shutting off the Water Supply 106
Figure 52 Sample Household Survey [English] 126
Figure 53 Personal Water Conservation Calculator 154

XII
List of Tables
Table 1 List of Empirical Studies on Residential Water Use and Conservation in
Greater Amman Municipality 5
Table 2 Distribution of Subscribers by Water Consumption Group and Wealth Index
Class 49
Table 3 Preferences Concerning Sources of Information on Water Conservation 56
Table 4 Consent to Community Actions for Water Conservation 57
Table 5 Parameters Influencing Conservation Effectiveness 71
Table 6 Annual RWH Potential (m³) and corresponding monthly 85
Table 7 Water Quality Associated to End Uses 87
Table 8 Monthly Water (m³) and Monetary Savings [JD] Resulting from an Economic
Faucet Use 99
Table 9 Monthly Water (m³) and Monetary Savings [JD] Resulting from a Shorter
Duration of Faucet Use 100
Table 10 Monthly Water (m³) and Monetary Savings [JD] Resulting from Individual
Flushing 101
Table 11 Monthly Water (m³) and Monetary Savings [JD] Resulting from a Shift in
Cleaning Methods for the Floor and the Car 103
Table 12 Water Savings (m³/year) on City Scale of Different WCTs According to
Income Group 111

XIII
Table 13 WCTs according to their Relative Socio-Economic Costs 112
Table 14 Targeted Optimization of the Coverage of the different Water Conservation
Techniques 116
Table 15 List of Interview Partners for this Thesis
124
Table 16 Overview of prices for the different slides and the exact consumption 138
Table 17 Knowledge and Level of Implementation of WCTs According to Socio-
Economic Group 139
Table 18 Characterization of the Three Income Groups 140
Table 19 Matrix Demonstrating the Saving Potentials of the Different WCTs 141
Table 20 Background Calculations for the Matrix [7.5] 145
Table 21 WCTs according to their Estimated Saving Potentials on City Scale 152
Table 22 Calculation of Total Savings for WCTs at City Scale 153

XIV
Abbreviations
ACEEE – American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
CSBE – Center for the Study of the Build Environment
CUVCC - California Urban Water Conservation Council
DoS – Department of Statistics
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
ESPP – Economic and Social Council – Policy Paper
GAM – Greater Amman Municipality
GAMS - Generic Algebraic Modeling System
GIZ – German Association for International Cooperation
GWS – Grey Water System
HDI – Human Development Index
Hp – Horse power (unit)
Idara – Instituting Water Demand Management (USAID Program)
IdRC - Interdisciplinary Research Consultants
JD - Jordanian Dinar
JoHuD – Jordanian Hashemite Fund for Human Development
JU – Jordan University
Lpl – Liters per load
Lpm – Liters per minute
Lp(c)d – Liters (per capita) per day
Lpf – Liters per Flush
Ltd. – Limited Liability Company
MCM – Million Cubic Meter

XV
MENA – Middle East North Africa
MoH – Ministry of Health
MoP – Ministry of Planning
MWI – Ministry of Water and Irrigation (Jordan)
NGO – Non Governmental Organization
NRW – Non-Revenue Water
PAP – Public Action Project (USAID Program)
PE – Polyethylene
PVC – Polyvinyl chloride
WCT – Water Conservation Technique
WEPIA - Water Efficiency and Public Information for Action Program (USAID
Program)
WERSC - Water and Environmental Study Center at the University of Jordan
WDM – Water Demand Management
WDMU - Water Demand Management Unit of the MWI
WSD – Water Saving Device
WSSH – Water Saving Shower Head
WHO - World Health Organization
UN DESA - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
UNEP – United Nations Environmental Program
UN – HABITAT – United Nations Human Settlements Program
USAID – United States Agency for International Development
USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency
$ US – American Dollar

1
1. Introduction
One of the greatest current and future challenges for humanity is to secure water of
sufficient quantity and quality for the rapidly growing population of this planet.
Especially cities are centers of water demand and tend to satisfy it by drawing upon
resources from their vicinities (UN 2010b). Water conservation within cities therefore
commonly has national implications and has become a key target of most national water
management plans (UN DESA 2005: 24, UN-HABITAT 2008: 28). In order to
understand the complex nature of water demand in cities, there is ‘an urgent need for a
broad set of socio-economic variables to help quantify the use of water’ (UNESCO
2003: 8).
1.1. Background
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan ranks among the most water scarce countries in the
world (UN 2011: 56): In order to meet national demands its groundwater resources are
currently exploited at about twice their recharge rate (Rosenberg 2007: 20, Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan 2008: 15, Salameh 2008: 55). The annual per capita renewable
water availability is about 145 m³ (Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 2008), but it is
projected to drop down to merely 91 m³ until 2025 (UN DESA 2005: 23). Already
today, the population in Jordan faces ‘absolute water scarcity’ by definition
(Falkenmark 1986). Water conservation is a central element of Jordan’s National Water
Strategy (Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 2008, MWI 2008, Jagannathan, et al. 2009:
177). Respective efforts have been described as ‘the cheapest available ‘source’ of

2
water’ (Arlosoroff 2006: 263) since an extension of the water supply in Jordan is costly
and possibilities are limited (UN DESA 2005: 24, Rosenberg 2007: 102, Salameh 2008:
66, Hayek 2009: 615, Hadadin, et al. 2010: 202, Idara 2011f: 6). The difficult access to
transboundary resources, increasing environmental pollution and the future impacts of
climate change are likely to intensify the scarcity (Abdulla, et al. 2009: 2051). It is
estimated that between 2020 and 2040 the annual shortage level triples whereas the
costs for the exploitation of new resources will quadruple (Rosenberg 2007: 110). At
the same time, the national water demand is steadily rising, mainly due to the high
population growth of about 3,5 % (Ghneim 2010: 77).
In Amman, the population growth is about 6 % and hence almost double as high as the
national average (Amman Insitute 2011a). With 2.4 out of 6.1 million inhabitants the
capital is the greatest urban center of the country (Department of Statistics 2011). Due
to rural-urban migration as well as the massive immigration waves of refugees, Amman
has been growing more rapidly than the rest of the country and with it, its water
demand. According to the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (WDMU 2011), 87% of the
water delivered to Amman is used by the domestic sector. Therefore, it is basically up to
households to manage the water resources of the city wisely.
There are many technologies and behaviors people may adopt to save water in their
homes. These can be grouped under the term Water Conservation Techniques (WCTs).
Technical and economic feasibility, affordability as well as social acceptance are the
basic criteria for the adoption of related new practices (Zeitoun 2009: 9). It is a quite
complex interplay of social and economic incentives and disincentives that motivates or
demotivates people to pursue their individual best practice in water conservation

3
(Olmstead and Stavins 2008, Abdullah 2011, Willis, et al. 2011b). Although from the
perspective of a resources manager the final aim is to conserve national water resources
(Savenije and Zaag 2002), households might be more concerned about their individual
monetary savings associated to water conservation (Ostrom 1994, Iskandarani 2002:
80). It might also just be a strategy for them to deal with the intermittent supply and
their limited individual storage capacity: People may conserve water in some uses only
to make it available for other uses, satisfying their demand to an extent that the water
availability hitherto did not allow (White, et al. 1972, Rosenberg 2007: 32). Water
conservation actions aim towards consumption reductions that do not compromise the
life quality of people but rather improve it (Al-Zu'bi and Al-Kharabsheh 2003). It is
essential to have a detailed understanding of people’s common situation and respective
value system to comprehend the aggregate effects of water user decisions. On this basis
effective measures and policies may be developed end enacted. This thesis will provide
an integrated socio-economic analysis of WCTs at household level in Amman.
1.2. Problem Statement
Although scientists and governmental officials in Jordan agree on the importance of
water conservation (Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 2008), the success to educate and
guide the public in this respect remained indefinite (Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 499).
Strategies to foster water demand management have been rather generic (WEPIA 2005:
6), even though many prior studies provide quite detailed information on water
conservation and use within households in Amman (see chapter 1.3). Some of these
(Darmame and Potter 2009, Hamaideh, et al. 2011, Idara 2011d) have identified a
significant correlation between income and water use: To a certain extent low, middle

4
and high income households constitute rather homogenous subgroups, evincing typical
water consumption patterns, lifestyles and attitudes. It has not been investigated though
how these factors influence the adaptation of the different water conservation
techniques. This information however must constitute the basis for the development of
an effective corresponding incentive structure, of conservation standards and targets as
well as a respective legal framework (Froukh 1997). Hamaideh et al. (Iskandarani 2002:
118, Salman and Al-Karablieh 2006, 2011: 4) state that, ‘the main problem’ water
policy makers are facing today ‘is the lack of adequate information to determine the
performance of price and non – price instruments and their impact’ on the water
consumption of their citizens. The authors suggest to conduct ‘more studies on
households water demand (…) to determine the specific socioeconomic factors that
affect’ it (Hamaideh, et al. 2011: 20). A conservation effort might be mistargeted and
might not appeal to any of the subgroups within society if the value system of people it
aims to reach has not been understood in its complexity (Jorgensen, et al. 2009: 228).
The following subchapter will discuss the significance of this research. It clarifies how
this study relates to and complements existing publications. It shows how and to whom
the outcome of this thesis could be useful.

5
1.3. Significance
1.3.1. Prior Studies and Own Contributions
In the past ten years, there has been quite some empirical research on residential water
use and conservation in Amman. Table 1 lists related studies by the year they have been
carried out, their sample size, study method, focus of study and the institution or
researcher associated to them.
Table 1 List of Empirical Studies on Residential Water Use and Conservation in Greater
Amman Municipality
Year
Sample Size
Study Method
Exact Topic
Reference
2000
344
Household Survey
(incl. Fuhais)
Laundry and Car washing activities;
awareness of WSDs
(WEPIA 2001)
USAID Project
2001
100
Stratified Household Survey in
East Amman
Borrowing and other Water Use Behaviors
(Iskandarani 2002)
2002
30
Household Survey
Shower, faucet and toilet use; Greywater-
use potential
(Snobar 2003)
2004
10 – 30 products
Product Surveys, Import
Records
Plumbing appliances
(IdRC 2004)
2004-
2005
10
Semi-structured Surveys
Water for the Poor
(Gerlach and
Franceys 2009)
2005
16 of
homogenous
quality
Household Surveys; Stochastic
Modeling (GAMS)
Modeling Aggregate User Decisions for
Water Conservation
(Rosenberg 2007)
2005
600
Stratified Household Surveys
Willingness to Participate in Demand
Management Programs
(Hamaideh, et al.
2011)
2007
50
Structured Interviews in Low
and High Income Districts
Water Supply to Households
(Potter and
Darmame 2010)
2010
367
‘Representative’ Household
Survey
Assessment of Public Awareness on Water
PAP
(USAID 2011)
2010
1408
Representative Household
Surveys
(Probability Sampling)
Baseline Survey: Influence of Socio-
Economic Factors on Water Conservation
and Awareness
(Idara 2011e)
USAID Project
[Unpublished ]
2010
95
Data Loggers
End Use Analysis for Households
(Idara 2011f)
USAID Project
[Unpublished ]
2011
41
Semi-Structured Surveys with
Households (Women)
Socio-Economic analysis of WCTs
This Thesis
Source: Own Elaboration Based on Literature Review and Interviews with Officials

6
At this point, prior empirical research should briefly be presented in their approach and
focus. Their actual findings are mentioned, whenever relevant, throughout the thesis.
Rosenberg (2007) for instance used a stochastic optimization program called Generic
Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) to identify conservation actions water users in
Amman are likely to adopt, provided they principally follow cost-effectiveness. Social
aspects like acceptability and attitude towards the suggested measures were not
considered due to the lack of corresponding data (2007: 78). In 2007 Potter and
Darmame (2010) conducted semi-structured interviews to compare the water use,
management strategies and awareness of low and high income households, while
Gerlach and Franceys (2009) set an exclusive focus on the low income group. The
Public Action Project (PAP) by USAID assessed the awareness about water
conservation in the general public (2010c). Officially obtaining their data set allowed
the author of this thesis to repeat the statistical analysis of their results, limiting it to
households in Amman and differentiating between the income groups. This analysis has
not been done before and constitutes unpublished information. Hamaideh et al. (2011)
assess the impact of socioeconomic factors such as gender, age, educational level and
household income on consumers’ willingness to participate in water demand
management. A very recent further study by USAID (Idara 2011e) examines the
correlation between water use and various socio-economic features within their sample
population.
These studies provide a valuable insight into the water situation of households in
Amman. The present empirical research complements their findings to generate an in-
depth analysis of different WCTs according to their suitability, acceptability and

7
affordability among the three income groups. The resulting matrix (table 14) categorizes
the conservation measures according to their socio-economic implications. It further
proposes strategies to optimize their adaptation rate. Targeted actions and incentive
systems may save costs and efforts, inspiring the interest of people due to the strong
relevance to their personal lives. Moreover, among the empirical research mentioned, it
is a distinctive feature of this thesis that surveys have been conducted exclusively with
women. At household level, women are commonly the main responsibles for water
related tasks (Iskandarani 2002: 78, Arafa, et al. 2007: 11, Potter and Darmame 2010:
120, USAID 2010a: 12). Identifying their particular view is a significant step to
recognize their role in any water conservation strategy (UN 1992).
In addition to recommendations for demand management, this thesis further provides
practical advice and concrete descriptions of how people may conserve water in their
homes. The integrated analysis of these two management scales generates a holistic
output, whose conceptual and practical advance will ideally be valuable for scientists,
decision-makers and the population alike. Since this study is associated to the
University of Jordan, the outcomes may be considered as a ‘neutral’ and trusted
reference. As Zeitoun (2009: 7) states, ‘powerful groups opposed to Water Demand
Management (WDM) implementation may be influenced to discuss such issues if called
upon by groups seen to be relatively neutral on the subject.’ Although the validity of the
research results is clearly limited to the context of Amman, the approach and focus of
the study are certainly relevant for different areas in Jordan and countries of the region
(Wolfe and Brooks 2007: 321).

8
1.3.2. Future Relevance and Development Trends
While this thesis draws a quite precise picture of current socio-economic circumstances
in Amman it is important to put these in the context of ongoing developments. Doing so
allows to appreciate the significance of this work over time.
In fact water conservation in Amman is projected to become more and more important
in the coming years, since the population is growing at a fast rate leading to urban
sprawl (Gharabeh 2009: 8, UN 2010a, Amman Insitute 2011b, Markhamreh and
Almanasyeh 2011). Also the social differences between the income groups are
intensifying. The Department of Statistics (DoS 2010: 8, Boutayeb and Helmert 2011:
4) reported a decrease of the Gini coefficient by 1.5 % between 2006 and 2008,
indicating a decline of equity concerning income distribution within the population.
Publications by USAID (2010a: 29) as well as the Economic and Social Council (ESPP
2008: 6) state that the middle class in Jordan is diminishing, resulting in an ‘increased
polarization’ of the society. The findings of this research remain valid throughout this
change, but the ‘weight’ of conservation potential by the different income groups on
city scale will have to be adjusted.
Another change lying ahead is the gradual decrease of subsidies for water. According to
Miyahuna, the lower tariff slices will remain untouched for the time being, but these
will be affected in the future (Miyahuna 2011c). If the water is becoming more
expensive, conservation measures become more feasible and a higher implementation
rate can be expected. The estimates of this paper are based on current prices, for water
and technical equipment, and should hence also be adjusted over time. The price

9
increase, might further reinforce the socio-economic polarity within the city due to
unequal relative expenses of households in terms of time and money associated to their
water use. Water conservation might help to delay this trend while enabling a higher
efficiency in use, saving valuable resources and increasing life quality.
1.3.3. Importance from a National Resource Perspective
Designing and sizing effective demand management programs for Amman finally has to
be considered from a national perspective to grasp its full significance. The impact of a
demand reduction extends beyond the border of the city: According to Darmame and
Potter (2011: 456), Amman monopolizes around 40 % of the total water volume
allocated to the Governorates in Jordan. Pumping costs for water make up around 15%
of the total national energy bill of the country (Girod 2011). The government is highly
subsidizing the water for domestic use. According to Miyahuna (2011e), the full price
of each cubic meter of water delivered to Amman averaged 0.94 JD (US$ 1.33) in 2010.
Hence the average revenue of about 0.67 JD (US$ 0.94) per cubic meter only covers
around 70% of the full expense for it (Miyahuna 2011e). In addition to that, water losses
in the supply network of Amman amount to about 34% (Miyahuna 2011f). Hence
savings on household level imply further savings in terms of circumvented non-revenue
water (NRW) losses. A reduction in demand and losses sustains scarce national water
and energy resources (Hayek 2009: 615) These directly translate into monetary savings
for the Jordanian national budget.

10
1.4. Objectives
In order to deliver a clear and differentiated picture on opportunities for water
conservation at household level in Amman, the following objectives have been set,
grouped into three main categories:
Water Situation and Current Consumption Patterns
 Describe the water situation of households in Amman in order to provide an
understanding of the general context for their water conservation.
 Detect and describe typical water consumption patterns, related lifestyles and
attitudes of the different income groups in Amman.
Suitability of WCTs, Motivations and Constraints to their Adaptation
 Describe the current level of awareness and adaptation of WCTs among the
subgroups, in order to assess opportunities for respective improvement.
 Group the conservation measures into purposeful categories having distinct
implications for their adaptation (technical / behavioral).
 Describe the different WCTs with their technical and economic features in
order have a better understanding of their saving potentials and monetary costs.

11
Saving Potentials and Strategies for their Achievement
 Process the findings into an overview of saving potentials by the different
measures, on household level according to income group and on city scale.
 Categorize the different WCTs according to their affordability and acceptability
(socio-economic cost)
 On this basis, recommend targeted demand management actions, to foster water
conservation at household level.
Although the audience of this thesis avowedly is quite exclusive, any reader with
residence in Amman should be able to obtain a clear idea which conservation options
could make up his or her best practice to save water at home. The results of the own
field research shall complement existing data to provide an in-depth analysis of the
points mentioned above. It is another aim of this study to present the empirical work
with great preciseness and transparency in order to facilitate replication and to account
for design-variations in the interpretation and comparison of results from similar
studies. Its approach and focus should ideally be transferrable and relevant to other
countries in the region.
1.5. Limitations and Delimitations
The integrated nature of this research allows an interesting combination of aspects and
considerations, which however, cannot be described in such detail as if they themselves
were in focus, constituting a clear delimitation. The technical descriptions of WCTs are
sometimes simplified and kept short due to the research focus on social and economic

12
aspects. WCTs certainly have a socio-economic cost, but also socio-economic benefits.
The measures will be exclusively grouped according to their costs though, since these
are more revelatory about the constraints for their implementation.
Although many reports and project outputs were revised, this thesis does not present an
overview and detailed description of the single institutions and programs that have
generated these and are dealing with water conservation in Amman. This decision is
based on the fact that the recommendations and conclusions of this work are specific in
their elaboration on strategies and opportunities, but are not directed towards any
specific programs or institution as well. Their great role and relevance to the outcome of
this work though is certainly recognized.
This study also had to neglect the very important aspect of seasonal variability in water
demand by households, due to the limited time for field research and little respective
information in existing literature. It further does not include an analysis of water
pressure variability depending on a household’s location within a building: Generally,
in a multi story building, lower levels tend to have a much higher water pressure than
those below the roof due to the difference in head between rooftop tanks and water
outlets. These circumstances have strong implications for opportunities regarding flow
regulation within the homes, but no data is currently available to disseminate this aspect
according to income groups. The research further assumes an ongoing intermittent
supply scheme. Conservation motivations and attitudes would probably change if the
city was supplied with water on continuous basis.

13
Moreover, this research does not consider the possible consequences of water savings in
Amman for the sewer system (GIZ 2011) or downstream agriculture relying on the
treated wastewater. According to Jagannathan (2009: 457) reclaimed wastewater makes
up about 10 % of the total national water supply. Such negative externalities though
must be part of the impact assessment for large scale water conservation programs such
those targeting households in Amman.
This thesis further excludes considerations about water theft by households. Certainly
being an interesting socio-economic aspect concerning household water demand, it is
assumed that installing meters on hitherto illegal household connections would only
‘slightly reduce (the) use’ of water by the newly connected households (Rosenberg 2007:
107). Illegal users increase their risk of being detected if their consumption does not
match to common use patterns of their area (Miyahuna 2011c).
A limitation of this study is clearly given by time and monetary constraints of the
research. These strongly restricted the possible extent of the empirical field work and
the representativeness of the sample was compromised for the sake of completeness and
diversity of information about the single cases. Backing up the own data with similar,
larger data-sets though allowed to assume a certain significance of findings for the city
of Amman. The respective methodology is illustrated in chapter 2.3.
Limiting the household assessments to the statements and discernments of women
provided valuable insights, but women in Jordan tend to be less informed about billing
and technical issues, which are commonly the tasks of their husbands (Potter and
Darmame 2010: 121, USAID 2010c: 47). However, bills were mostly easy to obtain and

14
to revise and the ability to identify technical details was the required skill and
responsibility of the researcher. Conducting the field research as a foreigner in Jordan,
the common positive discrimination by locals was likely to introduce a certain bias in
the answers of people to survey questions. To minimize this impact and to enable a
smooth communication, a local translator joined the sessions and allowed a more
personal access and atmosphere with the participants.
Concerning laws, standards and regulations, some central ones are currently under
revision, e.g. the plumbing code (Ministry of Public Works and Housing, 1988). The
latter will set new legal incentives for the implementation of measures such as
greywater reuse and rainwater harvesting. Since the new code will be issued within a
matter of months according to the responsible ministry, legal aspects are not specifically
dealt with in this thesis.
1.6. Key Concepts
Before elaborating on the own methodology and research results, a few key concepts
shall be introduced to delineate the conceptual frame of this study:
Water Demand management is defined as top-down efforts to shift and/or reduce the
water demand of the population (Savenije and Zaag 2002). It assumes that people would
change their demand and consequently their consumption as a response to an effective
system of incentives. These are usually of socio-economic nature (Abdel Khaleq 2008:
2), rewarding the implementation of WCTs with monetary savings, social recognition or
self-contentment.

15
Water conservation at household level, from a national resource perspective, takes
place if people actually reduce their use of water abstracted from conventional sources.
For the case of Jordan, these includes water delivered by the public network or trucks
and bottled water filled from local wells (Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 494). These are the
national resources whose over-abstraction threatens the sustainability of the national
water supply (Salameh 2008: 68). A respective reduction can take place by a higher
efficiency of water use or by tapping non-conventional resources such as rainwater and
greywater (MWI 2008). Optimal use of related potentials might even increase the
amount of water households have at their disposition, while minimizing their demand
for the scarce conventional resources. From the perspective of the households though,
the main incentive is usually not the conservation of the common pool resource (Ostrom
1990, Ostrom 1994). People might rather seek for individual benefits such as monetary
savings, social recognition within their immediate environment as well as religious and
self-satisfaction (Steg and Vlek 2009, Willis, et al. 2011a).
Water conservation techniques are technologies and behaviors people may adopt to
reduce their water consumption from conventional sources. The savings may be based
on a flow reduction, on the reuse of certain quantities, on the collection of additional
quantities from alternative sources or on shorter durations and lower intensities of use
(Iskandarani 2002: 77, Nagarajan 2006, Rosenberg, et al. 2008, Abdullah 2011, AWWA
2011). Rosenberg distinguishes between long- and short-term actions (2007: 67): While
a technical measure, once installed, impacts the subsequent uses over its lifetime (long-
term), a behavior is a ‘temporary operation’ and the decision for or against it is made for
every single use (short term). It is important to recognize the interdependencies between

16
the different measures. Adopting one technique (e.g. retrofitting showerheads) may
reduce potential water savings by another (taking shorter showers). Lund and Wilchford
state that the ‘more conservation actions are permanently placed, the effectiveness of
short-term measures decreases and their relative cost increases’(Lund 1995, Wilchfort
and Lund 1997). This effect is also called ‘demand hardening’ (Rosenberg 2007: 5,
Billings and Jones 2008, Maddaus and Maddaus 2008).
The socio-economic parameters that characterize the different water conservation
techniques concern their affordability, e.g. their price, and their acceptability, e.g. the
cultural acceptance towards them (Rosenberg, et al. 2007, Gerlach and Franceys 2009).
These characteristics make them more or less suitable for the different social subgroups
of the society, which in turn also can be characterized by their social (e.g. lifestyle and
education) and economic (e.g. income) features (Fafo IAS and DoS 2006). The different
techniques are associated to certain socio-economic costs and benefits. The costs
embrace the price of a technical upgrade, time costs for maintenance or for additional
actions in case of a behavior. Examples for benefits are the increased water availability,
an eventual upgrade of plumbing fixtures and a decreased water bill.

17
2. Research and Data Collection Methodology
This chapter describes the methodology applied to achieve the research objectives stated
above. It will explain the modalities of the literature review as well as the field work. It
shall further describe the underlying theories and principles for this research.
2.1. Underlying Principles and Theories
Other than experiments in natural sciences, social science is less positivist and objective
since its assessment of the complex behaviors, attitudes and value-systems of people is
often based on the subjective understanding of the situation by the researcher himself
(Crotty 1998: 27). He or she is responsible for overcoming own biases and beliefs in
order to see the world as it ‘really’ is (Trochim 2006). The best corresponding strategy
is to ‘triangulate across multiple fallible perspectives’ (2006) since objectivity in this
context is an inherently social phenomenon and cannot be generated by individuals.
This approach is also called the natural selection theory of knowledge, evolving through
a process of variation, selection and retention (2006). The bicultural nature of the team
conducting the empirical research for this study required consent on the interpretation of
statements and situations from different backgrounds, introducing an interesting mixture
of aspects and perspectives to shape the outcome of this thesis. Through detailed
enquiry and introspection the meanings of statements and observed behaviors were
explored further. In this work, the constant hermeneutic interplay between observation
and explanation has refined the research focus over time, evolving into theories that are
grounded in the experience of hypothesizing and revision. Social research following

18
such inductive reasoning are applying the so called Grounded Theory (Glaser and
Strauss 1967, Strauss and Corbin 1994, De Vaus 2002: 10). The research at hand
furthermore is mainly descriptive aiming to provide a nomothetic review of the subject
from a structural functionalist perspective, analyzing and emphasizing the
characteristics and interdependencies between the system components under
consideration.
2.2. Methodology of Literature Review
The literature review for this thesis was the first step in a chain of actions to accomplish
the objectives of this thesis (Figure 1). Hypotheses were derived from information gaps
encountered during the literature review and are assessed by the interviews and surveys,
as described in the following subchapter. These basically concern the relation between
income and water use patterns, lifestyles and attitudes.
Figure 1 Illustration of the Basic Research Process
University libraries such as the ones in Cologne, Berlin and Kiel, as well as the library
at the University of Jordan in Amman we systematically searched. Online databases
(Own Elaboration)

19
such as ‘Sciencedirect’ and ‘Scopus’ served to detect and access relevant electronic
papers and publications. Unavailable books and articles could be requested via
interlibrary loans, purchased or obtained directly from the authors themselves, apart
from a few exceptions. Although the research took place in the way illustrated in figure
1, the findings of the literature review and the own results will be presented jointly
throughout the chapters in order to form strong conceptual blocks building on each
other. The purpose is to prevent a patchy presentation of the situation based on the
literature review, followed by a detached list of own findings, aiming to fill the gaps of
prior chapters.
2.3. Methodology and Scope of Field Research
The field research for this thesis has been carried out within two and a half months,
from September until November 2011. The aim was to deliver a clearer picture on
practices and incentives for water conservation at household level in Amman.
2.3.1. Informal Interviews with Officials and Institutions
During this time, 22 informal interviews were conducted with governmental officials,
employees of local water utility (Miyahuna), the Department of Statistics, project
managers of USAID and GIZ, the Jordanian Hashemite Fund for Human Development
(JoHuD), water truck drivers, bottled water sellers as well as a company producing
Water Saving Device (WSDs) in Jordan. A list with the interview partners and
specifications is presented in annex 7.1.

20
2.3.2. Surveys with Retailers of Water Saving Devices
In addition to the informal interviews, 15 semi-structured surveys were conducted with
shops in Amman selling devices and technology related to water conservation. The
purpose was to assess current prices of the corresponding equipment, to determine
where people commonly buy it, how it is advertised and marketed and what is the
opinion and knowledge about it by the sellers themselves. An impression of the
different retailers is provided in figure 2 below.
Figure 2 Retailers Selling Technology Related to Water Conservation
The experience and results of these interviews will not be disseminated in a separate
chapter, but are mentioned throughout this work, filling gaps arising from previous
studies, updating information as well as extending it.
(Own Pictures)

21
2.3.3. Household Surveys
The heart of the research effort for this thesis were the 41 semi-structured surveys with
households in Amman. The surveys were conducted by the author herself, ensuring a
purposeful and homogenous execution of the sessions. In order to be ‘technically
correct, practically efficient and ethically sound’ (De Vaus 2002: 58) standard literature
on quantitative and qualitative research (Straits, et al. 1988, Seidmann 1991, Balnaves
and Caputi 2001) as well as the methodologies of prior studies were revised. Key
concepts of this research were transformed into sets of measurable variables in order to
assess behaviors, attitudes and characteristics of the respondents (De Vaus 2002: 180).
The survey is presented in annex 7.2.
2.3.3.1. Methodology of Questions and Content
A series of 174 closed (fixed answers) and 47 open answer questions was developed,
ensuring the comparability of the responses while capturing the context of the answers
and allowing for new aspects to emerge out of the free talks. Basic hypotheses to be
tested were the correlation between income group and water availability, technical and
behavioral levels of water conservation, the degree of awareness, water-intensity of
lifestyle, social cohesion as well as trust towards institutions and key personalities
within society. The surveys further explored knowledge and attitudes towards the
different WCTs as well as potential incentives for their implementation. The order of
questions progressed from more general to more abstract, from attributes towards
attitudes, but it was also set up to match the typical tour through people’s homes, asking
a series of questions related to each location (e.g. bathroom, kitchen, roof, garden).

22
Technical questions, e.g. about plumbing fixtures, were answered by the joint revision
of these, not relying on the statements of the respondents.
When people were asked if they were willing to participate in the survey, they were not
told much about its contents in order to avoid a preparation of answers beforehand. The
respondents were assured full confidentiality of their information to improve the
honesty and quality of their responses (De Vaus 2002: 62). Moreover, the presence of
third parties during the interviews was discouraged to avoid any bias by external
influence and reactions that could lead to socially desirable responses rather than true
answers. Many closed questions entailed a ‘don’t know’-option, in order to avoid the
problem of acquiescence, forcing answers where there is in fact no knowledge or
opinion. It was made clear to the respondents that choosing this option was just as valid
as any other answer.
Together with a local translator the surveys were pre-tested, meaningful ways of
questioning were developed and the joint revision after each session guaranteed the
correctness and completeness of each case. While the translator was creating a social
and relaxed atmosphere with the respondents and operating the talks on the basis of the
official ‘script’, the author was guiding the conversation, asking for further elaboration
in case of unclarity and writing down the results. Questions were not asked as they
appear on paper, but delivered in a form that respondents would understand the intended
meaning. Any response whose validity seemed questionable was omitted from the data
set.
2.3.3.2. Target Group

23
The households were selected according to their income and location within Amman,
targeting at a certain ratio of respondents from the three income groups (low, middle
and high income) and aiming to obtain an impression of the water situation in different
neighborhoods (see figure 3).
Figure 3 Map Indicating Household Survey Locations in Amman
Preferably, women of age 30 and above were chosen for this research, in order to gain
an insight into established family lives and into development trends over the years
concerning the water situation in general. The contacts for the survey were part of the
extended social network of the translator, allowing an efficient selection according to
the criteria mentioned and a certain relation of trust to each of them. The latter was
Survey Locations
(Own Elaboration)

24
fundamental to obtain access to their homes as well as reliable answers to sensitive
questions e.g. about their income, their social life and their hygiene.
2.3.3.3. Duration and Context of the Surveys
In order to make the session more rewarding for the participants (Dillman 1978), after
each survey the research team provided the households with illustrative information
material from Miyahuna about the water situation and water conservation in Jordan.
Moreover, the research team offered a free retrofit with faucet aerators, the installation
of bottles for the toilet tanks as well as a simple leak detection for flush toilets by a
coloring agent, based on the findings of the water audit (see figure 4). Together with the
women these actions were implemented, so in fact the interviews were an interesting
combination of a water audit, social study and awareness session. Each of them lasted
for about 2 hours, excluded the traveling time to and from the homes and the
postprocessing.
Figure 4 Impressions from the Water Audits and Awareness Sessions
(Own Pictures)

25
2.3.3.4. Statistical Analysis
The results were analyzed statistically by using the SPSS software. A total of 340
variables was generated and served to explore the different research questions. Some
questions were asked, although they appeared in the same way within prior studies. The
purpose was to generate comparability between the different data sets and to assess the
significance of the own results. USAID (2011) e.g. provided the author with raw SPSS
data from about 1000 household surveys that aimed to assess the awareness level of
people in Jordan concerning the national water scarcity and their perceived role to
counteract it. In their sample, 367 households were located in Amman. These cases
were selected and weighted according to the general wealth distribution in Amman in
order to compare their results with the own findings. The respective results are
presented throughout this thesis.
2.3.3.5. Comparison of Sample to Population
With 41 cases, the scope of the household surveys is rather limited and cannot be
considered representative for Amman. It may demonstrate tendencies for the different
subgroups and reveal new aspects for further research. The significance of the results is
maximized tough if the attributes of the sample correspond to those of the population.
For instance, the three income groups have been represented with about the same
number in the sample. In Amman the low income group makes up about 50.7 %, while
41.1 % belong to the middle income and 8.2 % to the high income group (ESPP 2008:
15). The shares derive from a definition of middle class as being more than two times
but less than 6 times the national poverty line (Wheary, et al. 2007), which in Jordan is

26
set at 59 JD (US$1 83) per person per month (DoS 2011). Dividing the family income
by the number of members depending on it allowed to classify the respondents in
respect to their income group and to weight the cases of the sample according to their
actual ratio within society. Any general statement within this research about the whole
sample refers to the weighted data set.
1 On November 26th 2011 1JD =1.41 US$
2 The ‘greywater reuse’ in the own sample refers to a collection by simple means such as buckets and
containers, implying an immediate reuse without major implementation costs. None of the respondents
1 On November 26th 2011 1JD =1.41 US$

27
3. The Water Situation of Households in Amman
3.1. Water Supply, Storage, Quality and Prices
With 99.7 percent of the population in Amman having access to an improved water
supply, the municipal network is commonly the primary source of water for people
(Miyahuna 2011e). Since 2007 the public Ltd. company Miyahuna (‘Our Water’) is
responsible for managing the water and wastewater services for the 492,000 subscribers
in Amman (Miyahuna 2011a). In 2010 Miyahuna supplied about 108 MCM to their
domestic customers, corresponding to about 81 liters per capita per day, excluding the
average non-revenue water (NRW) losses of 34 percent (Miyahuna 2011f). The tariff
system of the utility is billing water monthly according to an increasing block tariff and
a quadratic formula: Miyahuna has set up consumption slices, each of them covering 6
m³. An overview of the slices and corresponding tariffs is given in annex 7.3.
Due to the national water scarcity, the lack of financial resources and the aim to reduce
NRW, the inhabitants of Amman are supplied by the network on an intermittent basis
since 1987 (Ghneim 2010: 86, Potter and Darmame 2010: 115). Water is rationed and it
exists a strict rotating scheme for the days and times it is delivered to the 44 different
distribution zones, as demonstrated in figure 5. The duration of the supply commonly
varies between 24-48 hours per week (2011b). The exact duration and the network
pressure also depend on the location of the household within the network, on the
topography and the withdrawal of water by neighbors (Iskandarani 2002: 44). Miyahuna
(2011e) estimates that the intermittent supply keeps the domestic water consumption
about 30 % lower as it would be if the supply was continuous.

28
Figure 5 Map of the Different Distribution Zones and Weekly Supply Hours Within Amman
(Own Elaboration based on Miyahuna (2011d))
There are many studies describing that households in intermittent supply schemes,
adopt diverse and complex strategies to cope with the rationing (White, et al. 1972,
Altaf 1994, Zérah 2000, Pattanayak, et al. 2005). In Amman, most households rely on
roof tanks to store water for those days of the week when no water is delivered to them.
Some additionally possess ground tanks or cisterns to eventually refill their roof storage.
This however requires a private 1-2 horse power (hp) pump, available at a price of 20 –
40 JD (US$ 28-56). The head between the roof tanks and the in-home outlets generates
a continuous gravity-flow distribution to the water fixtures. Hence the water pressure
within a home depends on the difference in elevation between the tanks and the points
of use. Heads typically range from 3 to 18 meters (Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 491). The
tanks may be of different volumes, typically 1 or 2 m³, and are whether made of welded

29
galvanized steel or of plastic. The cost for one tank ranges between 75 – 140 JD
depending on their size, thickness of the material, quality of the work and negotiations
with the vendor. Examples for rooftop tanks can be seen in figure 6 below.
Figure 6 Typical Rooftop Tanks of Households in Amman
If the storage tanks are empty before the next so called ‘water day’, households may
purchase additional amounts from private vendors who deliver water by trucks from
local wells. These are monitored by the Greater Amman Municipality (GAM), the
Ministry of Health (MoH) and the MWI in order to certify drinking water quality ’
(Gerlach and Franceys 2009: 433, Majdi 2011). The trucks usually charge 2.5 – 3 JD
(US$ 3.5 – 4.2) per cubic meter, depending on the distance from the source to the home.
Assuming a purchase of 6 m³ at price of 3 JD, the water from trucks is 11 times more
expensive than the same quantity from the network, having a fixed charge of 1,71 JD
(US$ 2.4) between 0 to 6 m³. The trucks have a capacity of 4 – 20 m³ and often only sell
their whole water load at once. One reason for this are the problematic mass dynamics
(Own Picture)

30
with partially empty tanks on the road. Further, the trucks also pay a fixed charge to the
well owner for filling up their tanks regardless if it is still full or not. Hence people
often distribute the surplus to their neighbors or make an agreement for a joint purchase.
Around 4.2 percent of the people in Amman are purchasing water from trucks (Idara
2011e: 46). An example for a typical truck delivering water in Amman is shown in
figure 7.
Figure 7 Water Truck at Ain Ghazal Well
In emergency cases some households in Amman borrow water from nearby residents or
relatives. They typically fill buckets or plastic jars to ‘temporarily cover essential indoor
washing or hygiene’ needs (Rosenberg 2007: 27). Usually people in Amman would not
charge anything for such a favor to their neighbors, regarding it rather as a social duty
towards the community (Gerlach and Franceys 2009: 437). Although groundwater is
severely over-drafted in Amman (Rosenberg 2007: 104), there are also some public
springs or wells where people fill up containers for their use at home or wash their cars
(see figure 8).
(Own Picture)

31
Figure 8 A Public Well in Amman
Concerning the quality of water from the network and trucks, the government assures
compliance with the national drinking water standards at the treatment plants and the
wells respectively. However, corrosion and contamination within the supply network as
well as the over or under dosage with chlorine have frequently been reported (Tokajian
and Hashwa 2003, Darmame 2004: 27, Potter and Darmame 2010: 5310). Scientific
studies further revealed that the prolonged storage periods for water in the household
tanks encourage microbiological growth (Evison and Sunna 2001, Potter and Darmame
2010: 5311). The water quality within homes therefore also depends on the cleaning
habits, secondary chlorination or point-of-use water treatment (POU) of the households
themselves. According to the Department of Statistics (DoS 2008), 71.4 % of the people
in Amman drink water from the network (treated or untreated), 26.8% buy bottled
water, 1.4% drink water delivered by trucks and 0.4 % obtain their drinking water by
rainwater harvesting (RWH) or from wells.
(Own Picture)

32
According to a baseline study by USAID (2011) 0.8 % of people in Amman collect and use rainwater. Hence half of them are drinking it as
well. The same study by USAID further revealed that about 16.3 % of the people reuse greywater for uses that do not require freshwater
quality. Alternatively people can also reduce their consumption in order to avoid expensive, time-consuming or socially awkward
alternatives. The illustrations (figure 9) below demonstrate the common water sources and storage as well as uses, disposal and reuses of
households in Amman. Figure 10 offers a more systematic view on household water demand in Amman, taking socio-economic factors into
consideration. An elaborated analysis of these is provided in the following subchapter.
Figure 9 Water Sources and Storage as well as Typical Uses, Disposal and Reuses of Water by Households in Amman (Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 494)

33
Figure 10 (Satisfying) The Water Demand of Households in Amman: A Schematic View According to Source
Conventional National Water Resources
Gravity Supply System Implies Variable Network Pressure for
Individual Homes
Economic Considerations
Household Water Demand in Jordan
Social Considerations
Money to Purchase Pumps
to Increase the Pressure
(=Supply) From the
Network?
Money to Purchase Storage
Media (Tanks, Cisterns)?
Space to Set Up Storage
Media?
Water From the Network (Main Source of Water for
Households)  Regulation of Distribution by Miyahuna
Water Delivery by Trucks
(Source: Local Wells)
Bottled Water
(Source: Local Wells)
Purchase in Case of
Dissatisfaction with
Water Quality
Health Considerations
Social Considerations
Bottled Water as a
Fashion Product
(Attitude)
Compensation of Limited
Supply and Storage
Perception of one’s rightful
share of water
Education About the
National Water Scarcity
Religion: Not to Use More
Than One Needs
Rainwater Harvesting
Greywater Reuse
Reduce Consumption
Non-Conventional Water Resources
Social Considerations
Economic Considerations
Cultural and Familial
Perception of such
measures?
Behavior Change ?
Additional Costs? Space?
Water Conservation Techniques may reduce the total
consumption only once the total demand is met!
Affordable Amount
Socially Desirable Amount
Complementary Amount
(Only if the Demand is
satisfied this is a
Substitutional Amount,
Translating into Savings of
Total Water Use)
*The boxes of white color name those
factors households have to deal with
Prestige and Desire for
Lifestyle: Cleanliness of
House, Car, Sidewalk…
Money to Purchase the
Desired Amount of Water?
(JD/m³)
(Own Elaboration)*

34
3.2. Socio-Economic Differences in Water Availability, Use and
Conservation
3.2.1. Storage Capacity, Supply Hours and Network Pressure
Due to the intermittent supply from the network the water availability for households in
Amman largely depends on their individual storage capacity. This in turn depends on
their ability to purchase tanks or build cisterns and to set them up. Low income
households often lack the financial means or the space to do so, due to the higher
density and smaller area of housing typically associated to them (Fafo IAS and DoS
2006: 29). According to the household surveys conducted for this thesis, the storage
volume per person varies significantly among the income groups: Poor households
evinced an average storage volume of about 0.59 m³ per person (84 liters per day),
while the amount for middle income households averaged at 1.1 m³ (163 liters) and for
high income households at 3.73 m³ per person (533 liters per day). Many low income
households that cannot afford to set up additional storage tanks use plastic barrels and
jerry cans to store more water (see figure 11). Some 1.6 % even fill their bathtubs for
the same purpose (Idara 2011d: 90).
Figure 11 Additional Storage of Low Income Households
(Own Pictures)

35
Figure 12 Shares of Income Groups Conserving
Water to Cope with their Limited Storage
(Own Elaboration)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Low Income
Group
Middle
Income Group
High Income
Group
The own surveys revealed that 85 % of the respondents from low income households
were conserving water to manage with their limited storage. Only 43 % of the middle
income and 33% of the high income households stated the same (see figure 12).
Households with low storage
volumes also tend to shift their
water related activities to the
‘water day’ (Potter and
Darmame 2010: 120) in order to
use it directly from the network,
conserving the limited amounts
in their storage tanks. The
surveys for this research
revealed that in fact 46 % of the
low income households did so
compared to only 17 % of the high income households. As a consequence, their social
and working life on that day is partly or fully restricted. Potter and Darmame (2010:
124) state that this burden furthermore ‘falls disproportionately on female members of
the households’. This statement was repeatedly confirmed by the respondents of the
own surveys.
In addition to the storage capacity, the water pressure from the network is another major
factor determining availability. The Idara program (2011e: 42) noticed that the areas
with the highest water consumption are also those characterized by higher flow rates
through the network. Also Gerlach and Franceys (2009: 433) report that the few areas in
Amman with continuous supply correspond to wealthier parts of the city. According to

36
the own surveys, 77% of the low income households asked for more water supply from
the network, pointing out their disadvantaged situation regarding the network pressure.
In comparison to that only 25% of the high income households indicated this concern.
The same share of the high income group demanded for better supply hours, while 69 %
of the low income households wished for a respective improvement.
The use of intermediate storage tanks on ground level and water pumps is an option to
increase the flow from the network to the storage tanks on the water day. Potter and
Darmame (2010: 119) state that 40 % of the financially well-off households actively use
pumps, compared to only 28 % of the low income households. Although poorer
households seem generally more dependent on additional supplies, the own survey
results revealed that 15% of them purchased water from trucks opposed to 33% of
higher income households. Potter and Darmame (2010: 120) described the same
tendency in their research. Gerlach and Franceys (2009: 437) add that low income
households are further disadvantaged since trucks usually only sell their full loads, by
far exceeding the individual storage volume of these households. The authors
determined that 64.6 % of the poor households hence share the water from trucks with
their neighbors.
Since the demand of high income households is commonly satisfied, their water savings
in single uses are likely to translate into a total reduction in their consumption. Low
income households often seem to have an unfulfilled demand and saved amounts in one
use are probably allocated to other uses. Generally one may state, that control and use of
water traditionally are closely related to social power and wider forms of social
organization (Potter and Lloyd-Evans 1998).

37
3.2.2. Demand and Use
According to prior studies (Hamaideh, et al. 2011: 21, Idara 2011d: 30) the income, the
household size, the housing type and the living area are key determinants for the water
demand and consumption patterns of households. Gender and educational level were
found not to have a significant impact on water consumption (Idara 2011d: 31, USAID
2011). Concerning the educational level though one could hypothesize that low income
households are more willing but less educated concerning water conservation at home,
while higher income households are more educated but less motivated to implement
what they know, leading to a similar outcome of conservation for both. The hypothesis
matches to the field findings of this research but must be investigated by larger-scale
studies. Corresponding to the accessibility and affordability of water the daily
consumption varies significantly among the income groups: The surveys conducted for
this thesis revealed that the respondents from low income households consumed on
average 80 liters per day, while the amount was 130 liters for middle income and 174
liters for high income households. The amounts included water from the network, from
trucks and bottled water. The same trend is reflected by the average consumption in
areas of different income: In Abdoun, with 8.1% poor and 72% rich households, each
person consumes around 159 liters per day from the network (Idara 2011d: 42).
Compared to that, in Ras El Ain, where 75% of the households are classified as poor
and none as rich, the average consumption amounts to about 49 liters (2011d: 42).
There exists a clear positive correlation between wealth and water consumption (Idara
2011d: 28). However, the amount of water households have at their disposition also
depends on their use of alternative resources such as rainwater harvesting and greywater
reuse.

38
Rainwater Harvesting
According to the findings of this research 8% of the low income households harvested
rainwater, compared to 38% of the middle income and 16.7 % of the high income
households. It is important to recognize the differences in their harvesting techniques:
While all of the low income households used simple plastic barrels or buckets to collect
and store rainwater, all high income households possessed cisterns suggesting a quite
professional harvesting from their rooftops. Prior surveys assessing RWH at household
level exclusively reviewed the advanced type of collection from rooftops, since this
measure is associated to greater savings than RWH by buckets. Hence they detected a
much lower share of RWH in all income groups (Potter and Darmame 2010, USAID
2011), but the tendency of the middle income group having the highest proportion was
the same in the own sample. Together and in the context, these results suggest that low
income households do not possess the means to set up a harvesting system, that it is a
suitable and affordable opportunity though for middle income households and a less
desirable option for high income households, who could easily afford it, but may not
need it. The statements of the respective high income households indicated that it is
rather a question of quality than of quantity if they decide to collect and use rainwater.
The amounts harvested also vary among the income groups: With 250 liters per month
poor households harvested by far less than those from the middle and high income
group, who collected 2.2 m³ and 5 m³ per month respectively. For those households
harvesting rainwater, the additional amount of water per person per day was 3.8 liters
for low income, 77 liters for middle income and 119 liters for high income households.
The amount of rainwater rich households collect was 20 times greater than the one of
poor households, while the part of their roofs being useful and accessible for RWH was

39
only 1.5 times larger. Low income households are mainly constrained by their limited
storage facilities, hindering them to use their full potential of RWH. It is a question of
affordability and space, concerning the setup of additional tanks and the diversion of the
drainage pipes from the roofs. Due to the typical flat roof structure the rainwater is
collected on the roofs anyways and a drain has to exist in order not to endanger the
statics of the building during strong rain events (see figure 13). A detailed description of
RWH is provided in chapter 4.1.2.
Figure 13 Typical Roof with Drainage System
(Own Pictures)

40
Figure 14 Source of Greywater Reuse
within Households
(Own Elaboration)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Bathroom
Kitchen
Laundry
Greywater Reuse
Concerning greywater reuse, the results of the own survey indicate a very high
percentage in all income groups: 77% of the low and 75% of the middle and high
income households indicated to reuse greywater2. The share of reusers was considerably
higher than in the USAID data set (2011), but again the trend is similar: Low income
households are more frequently reusing greywater than the two other groups, which
evince about the same share. This can be considered another indicator for the relatively
higher need of low income households for more water. According to the own survey,
the additional amounts of water gained monthly by greywater reuse are 38 liters per
person from the low income group, 16 liters per person from the middle income group
and 6 liters per person from the high
income group. One has to be careful
though with the assumption that a
certain amount of greywater
substitutes the same amount of
freshwater: A toilet flush may require
5 liters to clean the bowl, while a
manual flush with collected greywater
may consume less or more than that,
depending on the practice of the
2 The ‘greywater reuse’ in the own sample refers to a collection by simple means such as buckets and
containers, implying an immediate reuse without major implementation costs. None of the respondents
was found to have a sophisticated greywater systems (including a filter and extra storage. This option is
presented in chapter 5.1.3)

41
Figure 15 Average Shares in Water Use According to
Location (Idara 2011f, WWQ 2011)
person flushing. The advantage of greywater reuse compared to RWH is the higher
regularity and reliability of this source. Greater amounts can be saved even by simple
methods using plastic jars and buckets, just as the ones shown in figure 9. The highest
share of households in the sample reused greywater originating from their kitchen
(66%), followed by water from washing the laundry (41%) and water generated in the
bathroom (12.3%). The share of reuse from the bathroom was strikingly low,
considering that the amount of greywater generated here usually is the greatest: Based
on a water end-use analysis for households in Amman by Idara (2011f: 21) and figures
about the location of water use by the government of Queensland, Australia, (WWQ
2011) the shares for the water use in bathroom and kitchen are expected to be 58 % and
23 % of the total water use respectively (see figure 15). According to the study of Idara,
18 % of the water use are
attributed to the flushing of
toilets. Together with the
share of leaks, this part has to
be subtracted from the total
amount since it does not
generate any water for reuse.
The resulting percentage of
reusable greywater from the
bathroom is 56 % compared
to 32% from the kitchen. In fact, the respondents of this survey have frequently
displayed aversion against the idea to reuse water from the bathroom, describing it as
dirty and inacceptable for reuse. The low implementation seems a result of low
acceptability rather than ignorance towards this opportunity.

42
Living Area and Lifestyle
As mentioned above, household water use patterns also depend on the characteristics of
their neighborhoods and the supply situation within their distribution zones. In fact,
Amman today ‘is markedly divided from a socio-economic point of view’ (Potter and
Darmame 2010: 117). It can be split into a relatively wealthy western part (Potter, et al.
2007, Potter, et al. 2009) and a relatively low income eastern part, including the
downtown area (Potter and Darmame 2010: 118, Idara 2011d). The eastern tracts are
‘characterized by their Islamic worldview and generally more conservative nature’
while the western and northern parts of the city are inhabited of a ‘relatively affluent
socio-economic group (…) with essentially ‘modern’ lifestyles’ (Potter and Darmame
2010: 116). According to Potter and Darmame (Potter and Darmame 2010: 118) there
exists an 8-fold disparity in household income between the two parts of the city,
reflecting the degree of social polarity characterizing contemporary Amman.
In order to give good estimates of saving potentials in the different areas and for the
different income groups it is crucial to know how much water is commonly assigned to
the different purposes. For Amman, household water uses according to the different in-
home outlets have been determined quite precisely (see figure 16) using data-loggers.
According to the measurements, faucets make up the greatest share with an average of
44.8 % of the total consumption. Toilets are the second biggest use with 17.6 %
followed by showers, whose share amounts to averagely 15.6%. With 10.6 % leaks
account for a higher consumption than washing machines, whose share is about 9 %.
‘Other outlets’ have been registered with 2.3 % and the flow to bathtubs equals zero.
(Idara 2011f)

43
Figure 16 Indoor End-Use Pie Chart for Amman (Percents of Total Indoor Use)
(Idara 2011f: 21)
Figure 17 Comparing the End-Use of High and Low Income Areas
(Own Elaboration based on Idara (2011d: 41))
Faucets 45%
Toilets 18%
Showers
15%
Bath 0%
Clothes
Washer 9%
Leaks 11%
Dish Washer 0%
Other 2%
End-Use in Abdoun (High Income Area)
End-Use in Ras El Ain (Low Income Area)

44
While the pie chart in figure 16 illustrates the average results for households in Amman,
there exist considerable differences among areas with different average income levels.
Figure 17 illustrates the differences in end-use between a high income area (Abdoun)
and a low income area (Ras El Ain). In Ras El Ain, the greatest share of consumption is
associated with basic uses, such as toilets and showers, while in Abdoun a higher
proportion is linked to ‘faucets’ (may include swimming pools etc.) and irrigation
(‘outdoor use’).
High income areas typically evince a greater share of gardens than low income areas.
The picture below (figure 18) shows a view over parts of Jabal Amman, a richer area,
and behind that, parts of East Amman, a low income area. One can clearly notice the
difference in urban greening between the two locations.
Figure 18 Difference in Urban Greening Between a High and a Low Income Area
(Own Picture)

45
However, neighborhood characteristics do not solely depend on the income of their
residents: The areas Weibdeh and Northern Hashmi for instance, have a comparable
wealth structure. In Weibdeh though the planted area is about 70 % higher than in
Northern Hashmi, resulting in a greater billed consumption by 44 % (Idara 2011e: 43).
One can generally state though, that richer households more frequently have a garden
than poorer households, due to the size of their properties and their water availability.
Surveys by USAID (2011) as well as the own surveys confirmed a significant respective
difference between the income groups: The latter determined that 75 % of households
from the high income group had gardens compared to 38 % of the middle income group
and 15 % of the low income group.
Higher income households also more frequently owned cars (USAID 2011), which were
usually cleaned once or twice per week, whether by bucket or by hose at home or
‘outside’, at gas stations or friends. In the own sample, all the high income households
possessed cars, compared to 87 % of the middle income households and 46 % of the
low income households. Most of the high income households (83 %) indicated to clean
their cars by bucket, while 8.3 % used a hose. The option ‘bucket’ is considered the
most conserving option. It usually means that the car is cleaned by an ‘external’,
commonly an Egyptian laborer, who comes on demand on certain days of the week to
wash the car, typically by a bucket of about 10 liters capacity. The cleaning service, two
times per week, costs about 5 JD per month. 5 JD in terms of a monthly water bill
correspond to about 13 m³ of water. Even cleaning the car by hose will probably not
consume this amount (rather ~1.6 m³ as elaborated in chapter 4.2.3.), so it is cheaper for

46
people to do it themselves and by hose if they have enough water. This may explain the
significantly higher share of middle income households (15 %) cleaning their car by
hose. Poor households tend to not have enough water even for their basic needs, so 32
% of them actually cleaned their car outside the home, at gas stations or friends, none of
them by hose at home. This seems to be one of the strategies to cope with their in-home
scarcity given their limited budget.
Gardens, swimming pools, jaccuzis, cars and a bigger housing size are typical for the
upper middle and high income class, whereas poor households rather struggle to fulfill
their basic needs (Gerlach and Franceys 2009). The basic requirements associated to
water have been analyzed by the World Health Organization (WHO) according to
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (see figure 19). It shows that an amount of 70 liters per
person per day is indispensable. ‘Growing food’ may not be considered a basic
requirement in a city like Amman, but its share can roughly be substituted by the
average in-home leakage of about 11% (Idara 2011f: 21), which has to be included into
the water consumption.
Figure 19 Hierarchy of Water Requirements inspired by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
(WHO 2004: 2)

47
Assuming the average household size in Amman of 5.4 people as determined by the
DoS (2004) a consumption of 70 liters corresponds to about 34 m³ per household per
three months. This threshold was used in GIS to illustrate the consumption levels of
customers within three different income areas in Amman: Sweileh (West Amman –
High income), Weibdeh (Central Amman - Middle Income) and Abu Alanda (East
Amman - Low Income).
Miyahuna has provided the author with respective GIS data containing the billing
information of about 35,000 customers in the three distribution zones mentioned. The
maps of the high and the low income district are contrasted in figure 20. The green
demarcations indicate consumption levels below the threshold; dark blue color indicates
an average consumption value (corresponding to 90 - 120l / cap /day) and red
demarcations detect households of higher consumption (400 l/cap/day and higher). It is
clearly visible that the low income area is generally more crowded and more households
have a total consumption of less than 34 m³ per year.

48
Figure 20 GIS Map Illustrating the Consumption Level of Households in East and West
Amman
(Own Elaboration)

49
3.2.3. Pricing and Expenditure on Water
Due to the difference in consumption, the three income groups are also more or less
strongly represented in the different tariff slices (see table 2).
Table 2 Distribution of Subscribers by Water Consumption Group and Wealth Index Class
Wealth Class
Billed Water Consumption Quintiles (m³/household/day)
Lowest
Second
Middle
Forth
Highest
Poor
50.3
19.8
14.5
9.2
6.2
Middle
36.8
27.0
18.5
11.9
5.7
Rich
28.1
19.6
20.0
19.0
13.2
Total
38.4
22.2
17.7
13.4
8.4
Source: Idara (2011d: 87)
Poor households evince the greatest share (50.3%) in the lowest consumption quintile.
However, also the high and the middle income group are strongly represented in this
slice, with 28.1 % and 36.8%
respectively (Idara 2011d: 87). The
lowest slices are in fact highly
subsidized by the government
whereas the fourth and fifth slice are
disproportionately expensive in
order to set disincentives for
excessive use and to cross-subsidize
the moderate consumers (Gerlach
(Own Picture)
Figure 21 Water Meters
(Own Elaboration)

50
and Franceys 2009: 435, Miyahuna 2011c). According to Gerlach and Franceys (2009:
435) ‘affordability is a key consideration of Jordanian water pricing policy’. The
outcome however is not necessarily as fair and equitable as it is supposed to be: In
Amman each household usually is connected to its own water meter (see figure 21). The
more people are associated to one meter the higher the consumption and the price per
cubic meter due to the decreasing subsidies in the upper slices. Jordanian low income
households tend to be larger than high income households (ESPP 2008: 2, Gerlach and
Franceys 2009: 436, USAID 2010b: 9). According to the Department of Statistics low
income households in Jordan are averagely made up of 7.6 individuals, while the
average family size in the middle class is 6 and in the high income group 4.2 individuals
(DoS 2010: 68). Therefore a low income household eventually pays an excessive price
per cubic meter although the individual consumption might be quite low. Alternatively
they could reduce the individual water consumption in order to stay in the lower slices.
In fact, figure 22 suggests that many people in Amman are pursuing this strategy.
Figure 22 Per Capita Water Use Versus Number of Residents (Idara 2011f: 19)

51
In fact, the own survey further revealed that 33% of the low income households shared
their meters with adjacent neighbors, which was the case for only 7 % of the middle
income households and none of the high income households. Sharing the meter also
increases the billed amount and the cost per cubic meter. Gerlach and Franceys (2009:
437) as well as Potter and Darmame (2010: 119) report very similar findings in their
studies. Further, the own surveys revealed that among high income households 25 %
even possessed several meters and are able to regulate the flow through each of them,
staying in the lowest consumption slices and reducing their water bill by up to 60%.
Generally one can state though, that higher income households have higher water bills
(Potter and Darmame 2010: 120, Idara 2011d: 36, USAID 2011). Since the billing
system and the tariffs of Miyahuna changed in January 2011, there exists no published
information yet on how much the different income groups currently spend on water. In
the own sample low income households monthly spent on average 6.3 JD (8.9 US$) on
water from the network, middle income households paid averagely 12.4 JD (17.5 US$)
and high income households 24.3 JD (34.3 US$). Including purchases from trucks and
bottled water and considering the expenses per person, this translates into monthly 3.7
JD (US$ 5.2) for low income households, 6.3 JD (US$ 8.9) for middle and 7.7 JD (US$
10.9) for high income households. However, low income households are devoting a
higher share of their income to the purchase of water (Darmame 2004: 55, Potter and
Darmame 2010: 120). According to Salman and Al-Karablieh (2006) people in Amman
spend about 1.34% of their income on water and waste water services. They further
estimate that 2 % of the total household income would still be an acceptable share.
However, the survey for this thesis revealed that low income households averagely
spent 4.4% of their income on water, compared to 1.9% for middle income households

52
and 1% for high income households (see figure 23) The maximum share was paid by a
low income household and amounted to about 11% of its total income. The same
finding was described by Darmame (2004: 55). This indicates the necessity and
opportunity for re-pricing by the utility.
Figure 23 Water Consumption and Expenses According to Income Group
Due to the inelasticity of demand towards re-pricing of water (Rosenberg 2007: 79,
Salman, et al. 2008, Millock and Nauges 2010: 540, Hamaideh, et al. 2011) a major
consequential reduction in consumption cannot be expected, but it constitutes the
chance for more equitable pricing. Respective improvements may lead to higher
satisfaction and trust towards the utility and the government, also increasing people’s
willingness to follow their lead concerning water conservation (Jorgensen, et al. 2009).
According to the survey findings 39 % of the low income households perceived the
network water as expensive, while 44% of the middle income and 50 % of the high
income households were of this opinion. None perceived it as cheap. The findings
(Own Elaboration)

53
suggest that re-pricing would have to be accompanied by measures to raise awareness
about the origin and calculation of prices.
In fact, several prior studies reported that many people do not even know how their
current water bills are calculated (Potter and Darmame 2010: 122, USAID 2011). The
baseline study by USAID revealed that the share of households who did not know about
the billing system was 28% on average (2011). Although Potter and Darmame (2010:
123) state that low income households are naturally more ‘price sensitive than their
high-income counterparts’, the USAID study reports that 21% of high income
households, 26% of middle income and 40% of low income households did not have
any idea how their bills were calculated. Knowledge about the water bills and individual
metering though are preconditions to maximize a household’s incentive for water
conservation (Ostrom 1990, NWS 2006, Millock and Nauges 2010).
Concerning the place of bill payment, Miyahuna (2011e) reports that 48 % of their
customers pay in one of their branches, 24 % at post offices and 4 % at banks.
According to the own survey, most (58%) of the low income households paid directly at
the utility, while this was the case for only 19 % of the middle and none of the high
income households. High income households were more frequently using their bank
accounts (29%) while none of the low income households could do so, since they
commonly do not have access to these banking services (Potter and Darmame 2010:
122). The unequal payment opportunities might imply different time costs associated to
the bill payment. Such hypothesis must be part of further investigations. Information
about the place of bill payment is further interesting for demand management since,
together with the meter reading, it commonly constitutes the only direct contact between
the customer and the utility. It might be a valuable chance for communication between

54
the two parties. Potter and Darmame conclude that the ‘rationing of water has both
financial and time-costs for consumers’ (Potter and Darmame 2010: 120).
3.2.4. Social Cohesion and Trust Towards Institutions
Trust and social cohesion within a society have been identified as key institutional
issues ‘in understanding natural resource dilemmas, public good allocation and
collective action’ (Jorgensen, et al. 2009: 233). The greater the trust, the prevailing
community spirit and the social responsibility, the higher usually the compliance with
water restrictions (Lee 1981, Lee and Warren 1981, Rixon and Burn 2002, Atwood, et
al. 2007).
Iskandarani states that people in Amman ‘tend to believe that water will be consumed
by others if they do not consume it themselves’ (WSSCC and IRC 2001, 2002: 80).
Some respondents of the own survey commented that the water they consumed must be
their rightful share if Miyahuna was providing them with it. They asked for more
information from the government, e.g. about the actual available amount per capita in
order to follow any recommendations to further regulate their consumption.
Many of the respondents (40%) stated to wish for governmental announcements on
water conservation, while 54% would want Miyahuna to inform them, since they should
know best. The majority of the respondents (60%) thought that television was an
adequate medium to spread awareness. Many also would like newspapers (39%) and
radio (41%) to report on water conservation. Religious leaders were indicated as an

55
important source of information (48%), too, followed by local experts e.g. from the
Jordan University (45%) as well as the family (38.4%) and friends (23%).
Despite these wishes concerning information, many (32%) respondents expressed a lack
of trust towards the government, matching prior findings of USAID (2010a: 28f.). Some
reported great water wastage by members of the parliament and people working for the
ministries, questioning the commitment to their own suggestions. According to the
opinion of those respondents, if people were to follow the official suggestions for
conservation, the government should take a lead role and set an example.
Concerning the differences between the income groups (see table 3): Family, friends
and religious leaders were most frequently mentioned by low income households, while
middle income households preferred to be informed by the media (TV, newspaper and
radio) and high income households by experts from the Jordan University, experts from
abroad and via governmental announcements. A study by USAID also described the
above average religious orientation of low income households (2010a: 35). Low and
high income households both indicated to be very much in favor of information by the
utility (Miyahuna), with 67 % and 73% of the respondents respectively. These findings
have implications on the placement and form of information within campaigns directed
at one or the other target group. Suggestions will be given in chapter 5.

56
Table 3 Preferences Concerning Sources of Information on Water Conservation
According to Income Group
Desired Source(s) of Information on Water
Conservation (Multiple Choices Allowed)
Share (%) of respondents agreeing with the different
options
Low Income
Middle
Income
High Income
Average
Family
46
32
25
38.4
Friends
31
13
25
23
Newspaper
31
50
42
39
Radio
31
50
50
41
TV
61
62
41
60
Plumbers
23
13
33
20
Experts From Abroad
39
25
42
33
Experts from the JU
54
31.7
58
45
Local NGOs
31
25
25
28
Governmental Announcements
46
32
50
40
Religious Leaders
58
36
46
48
Miyahuna
67
31
73
54
(Own Elaboration)
Concerning social cohesion within the society, a related qualitative research with focus
groups in Amman was performed by USAID, reporting a decreasing level of social
integration (2010a: 21). Participants stated to be increasingly worried about the lack of
morals and values of their fellow citizens. At the same time, ‘Jordan is a communal,
tribal country where citizens live in closely knit communities’ (USAID 2010a: 12).
People in Jordan also tend to ‘define themselves by how others view them, and are often
motivated by what other people think of them’ (2010a: 12). The findings match with
statements of the respondents within the own research, who indicated that frequently
cleaning the car, the stairwell and the house front was important for a good reputation
within the neighborhood. The respondents further preferred fines to penalize excessive
outdoor use (86%) than ‘joint communal actions’ to foster water conservation (72.6%)

57
(see table 4). A similar observation was made by Hamaideh et al. (2011: 17) who
describe that participants were more responsive towards penalties than to rewards.
Table 4 Consent to Community Actions for Water Conservation
Suggested Measures to Promote
Water Conservation
Share (%) of respondents agreeing with the different options
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
Average
A Water Inspector Should Pass Out
Fines for Excessive Outdoor Use
92
82
75
86
Joint Communal Action to Prevent
a Raise in Prices
77
68
66
72.6
(Own Elaboration)
It seems that people in Amman do not feel a high responsibility and loyalty within their
neighborhoods preferring an ‘external’ inspector to regulate the consumption rather than
actively participating. Overall the low income group advocated the fine system, with a
share of 92% among the respondents. They seemed frustrated about the exaggerated use
of a few while feeling that they saved all they could. Since their position in society is
rather weak (Gerlach and Franceys 2009: 432) the fine system appears as a welcome
‘neutral’ as well as powerful measure to limit outdoor water wastage (as shown in
figure 24). However, some respondents state, that fines would be unjustified, since
everybody is paying for the own consumption anyways and it is the right of people to
use the water in the way they want.

58
Figure 24 Excessive Outdoor Use: Deserving a Fine?
(Own Picture)
Despite the generally low cohesion within the neighborhood, the relation to neighbors in
the same building seems to be a different story: Many respondents (66%) of the own
survey indicated to communicate frequently with their neighbors concerning the water
situation and 33% were talking specifically about conservation. Some respondents
stated that they possess a tap directly from the network, which was usually the only one
within their whole building. In this case they would inform their neighbors as soon as
the water arrived, so these could open the valves at their meters to let the water flow to
their storage tanks3. While this might be true for the low and middle income group,
3 Many people open and close the valve at their meter to avoid air running through it. Most meters in
Jordan cannot distinguish between the media running through them and would also account for air in the
system, caused by the intermittent supply.

59
families with a high income tend to live in detached houses and seem to communicate
less frequently with their neighbors: Merely 8.3 % indicated to do so, and none of them
would talk about water conservation. In the low income group 77 % would talk to their
neighbors about water and 33% stated to discuss specifically about conservation.
Also within families of the different income groups there seems to be a divergence in
communication: According to Potter and Darmame (2010: 121) 28% of the parents
from high income households stated that nobody in their home educated the children
about water conservation, compared to 4% in low income households. Interestingly men
were found to be generally more involved than women in educating the children on this
matter. The own surveys further revealed that 33% of the interviewed women from the
low income group were communicating with other family members about water
conservation, while this was the case for only 20 % of the respondents from the high
income group. The findings reflect their different need for conservation (2010: 122) and
partially explain the difference in awareness among the income groups, discussed in the
following subchapter.
3.2.5. Awareness Level Concerning Water Conservation
Knowledge about the national water scarcity and the perception of one’s respective
individual responsibility and role is an important factor determining people’s
willingness to conserve water. According to the baseline survey by the USAID PAP
(2011) the great majority (91 %) of people in Amman recognizes that Jordan faces a
critical water shortage. With 94% the middle income group seems especially aware and

60
even considered the problem as ‘very critical’. The majority of respondents (64%)
indicated that the little rainfall was a main cause for the scarcity, while 33% blamed it
on the rapid population growth and 25% on broken pipes in the network. Interestingly
41 % of the respondents indicated that the individual mismanagement within the
population was a major reason for the deficit. Only 9% blamed the authorities.
On this basis people themselves suggested to increase awareness campaigns informing
the public about the problem and possible measures (35%). Around 11 % of the
respondents specifically suggested to promote WSDs and a share of 25 % believed that
the solution lies within the hands of the citizens. There were no major differences
among the income groups concerning these statements. Hamaideh et al. (2011: 7)
describe that 49 % of the respondents in their data set (MEDITATE 2005) believe
respective management actions to be ‘urgent’ or ‘very urgent’.
However, the results of the own surveys indicate that people are rather conserving water
to cope with their limited storage (64%), due to religious reasons (54%) or to save
money (24%) than for the sake of the national resource conservation (37.5%). There are
great differences among the income groups though: While 17% of the low income
households were conserving water because of the national scarcity, 86% of the high
income households indicated to do so. Low income households are mainly motivated
not to run out of water at home (85%), while only 33 % of the high income households
uttered this concern (see figure 25). Savings in high income households are hence
driven by ethical considerations rather than financials ones (USAID 2010b: 9) or
limited storage.

61
Figure 25 Motivation for Water Conservation Among the Income Groups
(Own Elaboration Based on Own Surveys)
Since their demand is commonly satisfied (as elaborated in chapter 3.2.1.) their savings
do not compensate for any unfulfilled needs and are likely to translate directly into
savings in terms of national water resources. Many respondents (75%) of the own
survey believed the water from the network was not of high quality, matching with
descriptions of prior studies (WEPIA 2005: 3, Potter and Darmame 2010: 123,
Hamaideh, et al. 2011: 22). This opinion might be the reason for some users to adapt
unprincipled and wasteful consumption patterns. Raising awareness about the quality
and value of water must be part of demand management strategies.
Concerning people’s knowledge about WCTs, considerable differences among the
socio-economic groups were revealed by USAID (2011) and the own surveys:
According to the USAID data, low income households have more knowledge about
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
National Water Scarcity
Prevent Depletion of
Storage Tanks

62
WCTs than middle (7 % less) or high income households (10 % less)4 (see annex 7.4).
The findings match to their self perception: The own survey determined that only 67 %
of the high income households felt well aware of the options they have to conserve
water, while all of the low income households and 87% of the middle income
households agreed with this statement. The relatively higher perceived awareness
among low income households seems to derive from their greater need to conserve
water. This might be an indicator that the knowledge about water conservation rather
originates from everyday life experience and communication with peers and neighbors,
rather than from common public institutions, like schools. In fact, one third of the
respondents indicated to talk with their family, friends and neighbors about water
conservation. The hypothesis matches the finding of USAID and Idara (2011d, 2011)
who state that the educational level is not strongly correlated with people’s knowledge
about water conservation. Another important factor seems to be religion: In the scope of
the own survey 54% of the respondents indicated that religion for them is a major
reason to use water in moderation. Some interviewees referred to prophet Muhammed’s
saying only to use as much water as needed even if one’s house was located at a running
river.
Although the awareness level as perceived by people was quite high, the systematic
inquiry about their actual knowledge and practices did not quite match with their
statements: According to the USAID data only 8.1 % of the respondents knew about
water efficient plumbing products, 4.7 % were informed about water efficient electronic
4 The difference in knowledge was calculated based on the share of respondents from the different income
groups that knew about the single WCTs (not reading the options to them). The individual shares were
added and their total was compared among the income groups. The table that served as a basis for
calculation is provided in annex 11.5.

63
devices such as labeled washing machines or dishwashers. Merely 7.7% knew about the
option to reduce the volume of their toilet tanks by inserting a bottle or a bag and only
11% mentioned the possibility to take shorter showers. As little 5.8 % of the
respondents indicated that one could reduce the times of washing laundry by running
the machine when it is fully filled. These are only a few examples out of the catalogue
of questions that were asked by the USAID and the own survey (see annex 7.4). They
nevertheless demonstrate that the awareness about WCTs in absolute terms within the
population should and could be much higher.
Certainly the different WCTs are also differently appealing to the three income groups.
Both surveys revealed that the knowledge of lower income households about behavioral
measures was greater than the respective knowledge of high income households, which
in turn knew more about technical measures. This can be explained by the fact that
behavioral conservation strategies usually do not have a monetary cost, but rather a cost
in terms of time and inconvenience. Technical measures however usually require some
investment (EPA 2011), but are comfortable and commonly do not require a change in
lifestyle and behavior. The concrete differences in implementation will be discussed in
subchapter 3.2.6. A last important point to mention here, is that many of the high
income households in Amman employ mates for doing their households tasks (67%
according to the own survey). This was the case for 18.3% of respondents from the
middle and none from the low income group. Mates are usually responsible for cleaning
and irrigation, hence measures to increase awareness and implementation must also
specifically target them.

64
3.2.6. Level of Water Conservation in Homes
The systematic water audits performed by USAID and within the scope of this thesis,
revealed the current water conservation level of participating households. Considerable
differences between the three income groups were determined by both studies (see
annex 7.4). The shares of respondents that adopted the respective WCTs were
accumulated to yield a ‘total score’ of implementation. Comparing these, middle
income households evince the highest result5. The high and middle income households
demonstrate a greater implementation of technical measures than low income
households, while these dominate the high income group in respect to behavioral
options. The lower implementation rate of technical measures by poorer households can
be ascribed to their lack of financial means for the purchase, installation and
maintenance of these. But also one has to recognize, that since lower income
households perform comparatively well in behavioral measures, respective technical
upgrades will be less effective in terms of water and hence cost savings.
An interesting finding is the gap between knowledge and implementation of all income
groups. According to the USAID results, low income households implement 25% less
measures than they are aware off, while the share for middle income households is 15%
and high income households 22%. Partly, the measures might be known but not
applicable in the corresponding households. To some extent though, the gap has to be
explained by a lack of means or incentives to put the knowledge into practice. The
former is likely to be true for low income households, while the latter rather applies to
5 The percentages refer to the results of USAID, since their study involved more participants and
supposedly is more representative.

65
the higher income group. These findings are crucial to support and motivate people,
optimizing their level of water conservation.
Concerning the absolute implementation rates, some measures seem so basic to people
that they do not even mention them when asked what they consciously do to conserve
water. Opening the faucets wisely and closing them tightly in order to avoid dripping
are two such measures that many people ‘apply’, apparently not considering it as an
extra effort. The own surveys indicate a very high rate of implementation: All low and
high income households claimed to follow this behavior. According to the data of
USAID though, the detected shares were much lower (17 - 31 %), indicating room for
improvement. Concerning the option of ‘washing the laundry only when the machine is
fully filled’ a current coverage of 10% among USAID respondents was determined.
According to Rosenberg (2007: 40) the implementation rates are far below their
potential. These measures though can be considered among the simplest WCTs, not
causing any inconvenience and having almost no time and monetary cost. Concerning
the option to take short showers (~5 minutes), only 3.8 % of the high income
households stated to do so, although 7.5 % were aware of it. Compared to that 11 % of
the low and 14% of the middle income group indicated to follow this option, while not
many more among them were considering and mentioning it. The low share of people
taking short showers indicates that these might indeed be considered as inconvenient,
eventually compromising hygiene or relaxation (Gilg and Barr 2006: 405). It seems that
people underestimate the water and monetary savings resulting from these simple
measures. In case they are aware, they seem willing to forgo these opportunities, setting
their priorities elsewhere. Creating awareness about the corresponding potential seems
crucial to improve the adaptation rates. Concerning the technical measures, water saving

66
Figure 26 Faucets without Aerators
(Own Picture)
devices, such as faucet aerators and conserving showerheads, are among the simplest,
cheapest and most effective options for in-home water conservation (see chapter
4.1.1.). Both water audits revealed that high income households have the greatest
adaptation rates (44% according to USAID), followed by middle income (39%) and low
income households (30%). The statements and findings during the own water audits
revealed that high income households usually purchase quite expensive and high quality
fixtures, fulfilling water saving standards while guaranteeing a comfortable use. In low
income households many respondents (40%) indicated to have removed one or more of
their aerators, considering them to be useless or even inconvenient: One fourth of the
respondents felt it did not help them to save water and the same share indicated that the
pressure was too low with the device. Again one fourth stated that they removed it,
requiring the full flow in order to fill buckets or the manual washing machine from the
tap concerned. This aspect was also the major reason (50%) for removal in high income
households. In fact, if a fixed amount of water is needed, WSDs do have a time cost and
are rightly perceived as inconvenient since they do not achieve any water saving (Idara
2011f: 35).
Another interesting observation
is related to faucets directly
from the network: In none of
the households these were
equipped with aerators,
suggesting that people are less
willing to conserve water if it

67
did not deplete their storage. In figure 26 such a faucet can be seen on the right side,
next to another tap on the left, whose top piece indicates its use to fill the washing
machine by connecting a pipe. On average 42% of the faucets in low income
households were equipped with aerators, while 50% of the middle income and 83% of
the high income households were.
Concerning the type of aerators in low income households, these were usually low
quality products (see figure 27; left picture) with a maximum potential of 30 % flow
reduction according to own testing. Compared to that, aerators of higher quality,
typically equipped with a mesh, achieved up to 80 % savings while still providing a
good flow (see figure 27; right picture). Only 32 % of the low income households
possessed such (mesh) aerators, while all of the middle and high income households
did.
Figure 27 Faucet Aerators of Low (Left) and High (Right) Efficiency
(Own Pictures)
(Own Picture)

68
Figure 28 Metal Shower Head
(Own Picture)
Concerning shower heads in Amman, these are whether very old ones made of metal
(see figure 28) or have a typical modern design, often with adjustable flow rates
according to preference. According to own measurements the modern type evinces
roughly half the flow rate of the metal
ones. In the water audits performed for
this research, 17% of the low income
households were found to possess metal
shower heads, while this was true for 9 %
of the high income and 47% of the
middle income households. These shares
must be verified by further research,
since if these findings were representative
an enormous saving potential would lay
in the retrofit of the old showerheads,
particularly in middle income households. The baseline study by Idara (2011d: 49)
mentions similar findings for lower income areas and recommends a targeted retrofit.
Some technologies do not apply to all income groups equally due to differences in
lifestyle and plumbing fixtures. Xeriscaping and drip irrigation for instance are only
useful to households that possess a garden requiring irrigation. Respective
recommendations are hence mainly interesting for the high and upper middle income
group. Rosenberg (2007: 75) states that these technologies might have a low market
penetration rate, but are ‘extremely effective for customers who adopt’ them. However
the water audits by USAID (2011) revealed that about 65 % of the participants were
irrigating their garden by hose, the option with the highest water consumption and the

69
Figure 29 Pour and Flush Latrine
(Own Picture)
least efficiency. The individual corresponding shares for the different income groups
were found to be about the same. Interestingly, low income households with gardens
evinced the highest implementation rate concerning drip irrigation. With 16.9 % they
applied this conservation technique more frequently than the middle (5.6%) or the high
income group (7.7%). Moreover, around 18 % of the respondents, regardless of their
income, stated to use buckets for irrigation. Since the technical equipment alone does
not determine the water consumption, the own water audits further determined the
average monthly amounts used for irrigation: Middle and high income households used
0.7 m³ and 2.5 m³ respectively, while the amount in low income households was about
0.14 m³. The upper middle and high income group hence must be in focus if respective
demand management should be effective.
Also the retrofit of toilets with a dual flush
or the introduction of bottles into the toilet
tanks does not apply equally to households
of the different income groups. The two
WCTs can only be implemented if the toilet
does have a typical ‘western’ toilet tank.
This type is also called ‘flush toilet’. In
Jordan, as in many other Arab countries,
households frequently have so called ‘pour flush latrines’ (see figure 29). The users are
flushing this toilet with a bucket according to necessity. The water audits of USAID
(2011) revealed that only 33 % of low income households have western flush toilets,
while 63 % of the middle and 93 % of the high income group do. Also in this case, the
retrofits must mainly target middle and high income households.

70
Another important factor influencing people’s motivation to implement WCTs is their
housing tenure: People in rented apartment mostly have to get the consent of their
landlords for a technical retrofit. If the residence is not permanent they might further be
reluctant to invest into such measures (Millock and Nauges 2010: 543). Around 58 % of
the houses and apartments in Amman are owned and occupied (DoS 2004, Rosenberg
2007: 73), while 42 % are rented. Within the own sample 56,7 % houses or apartments
were owned and 43.3% rented, almost perfectly matching the city-wide average.
According to own findings as well as the poverty status report of the DoS (2010) people
from the low income group owned their house or apartment less frequently than the
high income group (13% less according to the DoS). House ownership has decreased
significantly within this income group over the last years and continues to do so (Fafo
IAS and DoS 2006: 38). The housing status might hence constitute a further obstacle for
the lower income group to implement certain technical conservation measures. These
findings suggest that landlords, too, might be an interesting target group to create
awareness about the importance of such retrofits.

71
4. Water Conservation Techniques at Household Level in Amman
There is a variety of conservation measures households in Amman may implement.
These are associated with different uses and preexisting fixtures, financial costs, water
savings and time-horizons.
Their adaptation further depends on their conformity with cultural norms and personal
preferences (Rosenberg 2007: 30). Their cost and effectiveness are related to the context
of their implementation: Family size, household water pressure and available rainfall
are only few parameters that determine potential savings. Rosenberg (2007: 70) grouped
these into categories illustrated with examples in table 5 below.
Table 5 Parameters Influencing Conservation Effectiveness
Category
Examples
Category
Examples
Geography
Annual Rainfall (mm/yr)
Rainfall Events (#/yr)
Technology
Flow Rate (Shower)
Flow Rate (Faucet)
Flow Rate (Hose)
Toilet Flush (l/flush)
Demography
Household Size (persons)
Occupany
Roof Area (m²)
Behavior
Duration of Shower (min)
Frequency of showers
Toilet Flushes (#/day)
(Based on Rosenberg, 2007a:70)

72
As demonstrated within the previous chapter certain geographic, demographic,
technologic and behavioral factors are commonly shared by particular subgroups within
the society, resulting in rather homogenous use patterns and saving potentials. This
chapter will provide descriptions of the different WCTs, focusing on technical and
economic details.
4.1. Technical Options for Water Conservation
Technical measures for water conservation allow users to achieve the same services
with less water. Usually a financial cost is associated to their implementation and
maintenance. The water price is an important determinant for the feasibility of the
different options, since investments are recovered by the associated water savings.
Moreover, the availability of the technical appliances in common market places and
people’s knowledge about them are decisive for their rate of implementation. In this
subchapter the main technical options for water conservation on household level shall
be presented.
4.1.1. Water Saving Devices
Water saving devices are flow regulators to be installed on water outlets such as faucets,
showerheads and toilet tanks. They decrease the water quantity while preserving the
quality of its use. The WDMU estimated that such devices may save around 30 % of
water use in buildings (Abdel Khaleq 2008: 6).

73
Figure 30 Faucet Aerator
(Ecoperiodicals.com 2010)
Figure 31 Adapter for Faucet Aerators
(Own Picture)
Figure 32 Flow Types
(Sydney Water 2011)
Faucet Aerators
Faucet aerators are circular metal screen disks
that introduce air bubbles into the jet of water,
reducing the flow but giving the sensation of an
ample stream (UN-HABITAT 2003: 149).
Some aerators are also made of plastic and
produce a so called ‘needle-flow’ where the
water forms a circular pattern of small (0.5mm),
single streams with no flow in the center
(WEPIA 2000: 48, USALandlord.com 2011). A
comparison of the two flow types is
demonstrated in figure 31. Aerators are screwed
onto the head of a tap (see figure 30) and must
be male or female threaded according to the
design of the faucet. There are also different
sizes of taps, but the spout threads
manufactured in Jordan are whether 19 mm or
22 mm (WEPIA 2000: 49). In case the faucet
is not threaded, there exist universal adapters
as the one by the Jordanian brand AMAN,
shown in figure 32. Aerators also differ in
regards to their maximum flow rates, usually
ranging between 2 and 9 liters per minute

74
Figure 34 Adjustable Aerator
(Own Picture)
Figure 33 Aerator with Domed Screen
(Own Picture)
(lpm). A flow of 4 lpm is recommended for bathroom faucets while 8 lpm are advisable
for kitchen taps (WEPIA 2000: 49). Usually the maximum flow rate is imprinted on the
side of the aerator, but also the color on its backside may be an indicator, depending on
the manufacturer. Some aerators, such as the ones produced by the Sayegh Group in
Amman, allow an individual adjustment of the flow rates via a small screw, so their
product could fit any water pressure (see figure 33). For households in Amman this
flexibility is important since the water pressure even varies within homes depending on
the head between faucet and storage tank (Grieser 2001: 3, Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 491).
According to the end-use analysis by Idara 72 % of the faucets within homes in Amman
evinced a low flow rate of 5 lpm or less (2011f: 35). This leaves only 28% of high-flow
faucets, were a retrofit with more efficient aerators would be effective. The
corresponding report of Idara recommends to only use the latter as the baseline for
potential water savings through targeted upgrades6. Concerning the end use, high-flow
6 As discussed in the previous chapter, some uses require a full (high) flow since a fixed amount of water
is needed. Hence not all high-flow faucets might be subject to a retrofit. To simplify the analysis though,
this factor shall be neglected at this point.

75
faucets make up about 15.2 % of the total consumption in households (Idara 2011f: 21).
The water savings associated with aerators depend on the flow rates before the retrofit
and after, but also on the frequency and duration of the use (Rosenberg 2007: 72).
Assuming a total consumption of 83 liters per capita per day (lpcd)7, a family size of 5.4
individuals, a use of 12.6 lpcd (=15.2%) from high flow faucets and a reduction of their
flow rate from 6 lpm to 4 lpm (33%), the water savings would amount to 45 liters per
day, translating into 1.35 m³ per month. Their monthly consumption could hence shift
from 13.4 m³ to 12 m³, reducing their monthly water bill by 2 JD (US$ 2.9) according to
current prices8. The monetary savings mentioned do no not include associated energy
savings for lower water heating requirements.
Compared to that, the price of aerators in Amman range between 0.5 and 7 JD (US$ 0.7
– 9.9) with a lifespan between 3 and 7 years, both depending on their quality (Rosenberg
and Lund 2009: 102). Imported aerators from Europe are of high quality and are among
the expensive types, while the cheap ones are usually from China and made of zinc
instead of brass, not fulfilling the Jordanian standards but yet frequently available on the
market (Idara 2010: 4). There are also many low quality forgeries, labeled as ‘Made in
Europe’ but produced in India or China (2010: 4). The only Jordanian aerators currently
on the market (AMAN aerators) are of good quality, certified by the new testing
laboratories of the Royal Scientific Society (RSS) and have a cost of about 2 JD (Idara
2010: 7, Sayegh Group 2011). Even for the sellers of the devices it is difficult to
distinguish the qualities and to advise their customers, since these furthermore usually
7 83 lpcd were the average consumption determined by the end-use analysis of Idara (2011c:20)
8 It is assumed here that the saved amount of water refers to saved purchases from the network. It could
also substitute water obtained from trucks, resulting in even higher monetary savings.

76
do not know their water pressure or the technical details of their faucets (WEPIA 2000:
76). These usually make their purchase decision based on the price (2010: 5). In
addition, the high calcium content of the water and the sediment buildup require
frequent maintenance of the devices by periodical removal and rinsing (WEPIA 2000:
49, Grieser 2001: 4). While this seems inconvenient for some, others appreciate the
aerators for this indirect ‘filter function’ (own field finding). The devices should have a
domed screen (see picture 29) to prevent sediments from clogging the small holes of the
aerator disk. Scaling, due to the hardness of the water, may be removed by soaking the
aerator in vinegar for one hour and subsequently brushing it until unclogged (WEPIA
2000: 49). If the devices do not fit or work as expected customers might remove them
and a second trial becomes more unlikely (WEPIA 2000: 76). In Amman, aerators can
be purchased at plumbing and construction stores, larger supermarkets or from street
vendors as depicted in figure 35.
Figure 35 Street Vendors of WSDs
(Own Picture)

77
Water Saving Shower Heads (WSSHs)
Water use for showers typically makes up a considerable share (15%) of the total water
consumption within a household (Idara 2011f: 21). As illustrated in chapter 3.2.2. the
respective proportion in low income households is even as high as 29 % of total water
use (Idara 2011d: 41). Similar to the aerators, water saving shower heads reduce the
water flow by narrowing and rearranging the stream through the outlet. The water
savings again depend on the water pressures before and after the retrofit, on the
individual adjustment of the device as well as on the frequency and duration of the use.
There are many types available, a selection of whose is presented in figure 36 below.
The price of WSSH in Amman usually varies between 3.5 JD (US$ 5) – 20 JD (US$ 85)
depending on their quality and the preexisting fixtures. Their average life span is
estimated to be 5 to 10 years (Rosenberg and Lund 2009: 102).
Figure 36 Different Types of Water Saving Shower Heads
Just like aerators they are sold in plumbing and construction stores, in larger
supermarkets and by street vendors. As mentioned and illustrated in chapter 3.2.6. many
(Own Picture)

78
households in Amman possess an old type of showerhead made of metal, which is
slightly more expensive to retrofit (Idara 2011d: 45). According to plumbing stores a
respective retrofit might cost between 10 and 15 JD (US$ 14 – 21). The water related
monetary savings though might justify the investment. The end use analysis by Idara
reports that the shower use in Jordan seems fairly efficient with an average flow rate of
about 5.4 lpm and a duration of averagely 8.4 minutes (Idara 2011f: 43). About one
quarter of the showers were detected to flow at the recommended rate of 4 lpm or less
and the average amount used per shower was about 40 liters. The average number of
showers per households was determined to be 1.6 times per day9. Retrofitting a
showerhead with a flow rate of 12 lpm (e.g. the metal type) with another of 8 lpm and
assuming the average shower duration of 8.4 minutes, the resulting savings would
amount to about 34 liters per shower event and hence 54 liters of water savings per day.
Per month, these savings would add up to 1.6 m³ of water conserved, potentially
translating into 2 JD of monetary savings. As mentioned before, saving water in one use
does not necessarily translate into a reduction of total water consumption, if the demand
is not satisfied. However, the more WCTs are adopted, the more likely the achievement
of total savings in terms of water and money.
Water Saving Toilet Flushs
In the case of typical western ‘flush toilets’ the amount of water released when flushing
depends on the volume of their toilet tanks. Water savings can be achieved by
retrofitting a tank with a lower capacity (4-6 liters) or installing a dual flush system
9 The number of residents per household in the respective study was 5.6

79
(UNEP 2008: 108). Alternatively the level of the existing flush mechanism may be
adjusted or the volume of the current tank could be reduced. The latter can be
accomplished by inserting a bottle, a so called ‘toilet tank bank’ or a brick (see figure
37), displacing the volume of water corresponding to their own volume (WEPIA 2000:
36, Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 501). Most toilets in Jordan use between 6 and 15 liters per
flush (lpf) event (WEPIA 2000: 36). According to Idara (2011d: 88) the average
capacity of toilet tanks in Amman is about 8.5 liters. Only 6 % of the households were
found to have ‘efficient’ toilet flushs with an average flush volume of about 4 lpf or less
(Idara 2011f: 26).
Figure 37 Reducing Toilet Tank Volume by Inserting a Bag or Bottle
Moreover, the frequency of the daily toilet use has been determined as 4.5 times per
person per day. The new Jordanian plumbing code determines a target volume of 4.5
liters for toilet tanks, implying average water saving of 4 lpf. Assuming the average
family size of 5.4 people and a volume reduced by 4 lpf, the daily savings amount to
about 97.2 liters per household. Per month, this corresponds to potential consumption
(National Geographic 2011, SmallIdeaBlog 2011)

80
reduction by 2.9 m³ and monetary savings of about 2.23 JD (US$ 3.14). For those
people that are not connected to the public sewer system, a reduction in flush volume
further results in monetary savings for the delayed need to empty their cess pits.
There has to be some caution though with estimating the savings merely based on the
toilet tank volume. According to the UNEP (2008: 108) also the hydraulic design of the
toilet bowl influences the required minimum flush to guarantee an appropriate cleaning.
A retrofit resulting in poor cleaning might require repeated flushing, leading to a higher
water consumption than before. Also the drainage system has to be able to cope with the
reduced amount of water to avoid clogging.
The expenses for the retrofit depend on the measure chosen: Replacing the entire toilet
tank will cost between 50 and 150 JD (US$ 71 -212), while the retrofit of a dual flush
costs between 5 – 14 JD (US$ 8 – 20), excluding additional charges for the installation.
Concerning the adjustment of the existing mechanism and the placement of bottles or
bricks into the current tank, the costs for the implementation and maintenance are
negligible (Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 501). The last measure seems the easiest and most
appropriate, however, due to the low-tech approach it might face problems of
acceptability among the population, preferring high tech solutions (DAI 2011).
Flow Regulators
Flow regulators and pressure reducing valves (PRVs) are devices to be installed on the
supply pipes within homes to regulate the flow to the different outlets (GBS 2011).
They are commonly available for 15 mm or 22 mm pipes and limit the flow to 4 or 6

81
Figure 38 Flow Regulators
(Own Picture)
lpm (2011). In terms of pressure PRVs commonly reduce the flow to about 5 to 10 m of
head corresponding to 0.5 – 1 bar (Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 501). Flow regulators are
hence mostly interesting for families living in the lower levels of multistory buildings,
associated to a head greater than 10 m. Flow regulators usually provide the choice
between different modes, permitting a full but also a strongly restricted flow. They
might be ‘direct acting’ or pilot operated’
(Watts 2011) and have a cost between 20
and 60 JD in Amman. They reduce the in-
home leakage and the consumption for
uses such as indoor washing and hygiene
(Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 501). A central
unit of flow regulators, encountered
during the water audits with households in
Amman, is shown in figure 38. Since
flow regulators are reducing the water stream just like aerators and showerheads,
savings may be assumed equal to their joint effect. Drawing upon the calculations in the
previous sections, these joint savings for a family of 5.4 people would amount to about
2.95 m³ per month. The monthly monetary savings associated to this reduction are about
2.23 JD (US$ 3.14). However, according to the own surveys, most (90%) of those
households equipped with a flow regulator (6.8%) still indicated to have a strong water
pressure in their homes, indicating a use that does not result in a significant flow
reduction. These findings must be examined by further research.
In addition to units that are installed on pipes, there also exist so called flow restrictors,
which are disk inserts that are directly mounted on the existing outlets (UNEP 2008:

82
11). These are typically inexpensive plastic or metal disks with a small hole in the
center, inserted e.g. between the shower arm and hose. During the interviews with
plumbing stores in Amman, one of the vendors indicated to sell rubber gaskets as water
savings devices (see figure 39). He stated that his customers usually have a low income
and would not be interested to buy aerators or expensive flow regulators. The vendor
was selling these caoutchouc gaskets for a few Jordanian fils (10 cents for 3 gaskets) or
would offer them for free. According to own testing, these gaskets may reduce the water
flow by 70 %. It is questionable though if their implementation allows a satisfactory
use. There should be more investigations on this measure before recommending it.
Figure 39 Rubber Gaskets as Flow Restrictors
The advantage of flow regulators as compared to a retrofit with aerators or showerheads
is that they allow to keep the existing fixtures as they are: High income households with
an expensive showerhead might be reluctant to exchange it for a quite cheap WSSH.
Flow regulators are a convincing alternative in this case.
(Own Pictures)

83
Figure 40 Rooftop Rainwater Harvesting
(CitizenMatters.in 2008)
4.1.2. Rainwater Harvesting
Rainwater harvesting refers to the
collection of precipitation by
concentrating the rainfall drainage of
a certain area (WaterAid 2005: 32).
At household level, rooftop rainwater
harvesting systems are usually most
efficient (UNEP 2002, Abdullah and
Al-Shareef 2009). These divert the
rainwater falling on a roof into a
storage tank (see figure 40) or directly
to the area where the water is needed (CSBE 2004). The collection area (the roof)
should be inclined towards a drain, in order to allow a discharge by gravity. Different
roof surfaces are also associated to distinct runoff coefficients determining how much of
the rainwater can actually be collected, given a roof of a certain size and the rainfall
(UNEP 2002). Smooth, clean and impervious roof materials are most suitable to
maximize the quantity and quality of water collected (Abdullah and Idara 2011: 6-7).
These three parameters (runoff coefficient, roof size and rainfall), together with the
available space, the investment capacity of the owner and the water demand of the
households will determine the size of the harvesting system and of the storage facility
(König 1996, Böse 1998). The annual volume (m³) of rainwater that could be harvested
(VR) equals to the product of the local average annual rainfall (m/yr) (R), the roof area
(m²) and the runoff-coefficient (C) (Abdullah and Idara 2011: 18):

84
VR = R × A× C
Concerning the annual rainfall, the city of Amman can be classified into three different
climatic zones (see figure 41), with distinct precipitation patterns and hence different
rainwater harvesting potentials (Amman Insitute 2011a): A Mediterranean warm
temperate zone (western part of the city), a semi-arid steppe zone (East Amman) and a
warm steppe zone (further to the east). The socio-economic division of the city in terms
of water accessibility to some extent matches with the unequal rainfall patterns of
Amman.
Figure 41 Map Illustrating the Mean Annual Rainfall Distribution in Jordan
(Executive Action Team (EXACT) 1998)

85
Abdullah and Al-Shareef (2009: 200) indicate the average annual rainfall for Amman as
480.6 mm. According to the own survey the mean available and accessible roof surface
of households was about 145 m². Assuming a run-off coefficient for roofs of 0.8
(WEPIA and CSBE 2004: 24, Abdullah and Idara 2011: 18) the average amount of
rainwater that could be harvested by households in Amman amounts to 55.75 m³
annually. If all this water could be collected and stored, this would correspond to 4.6 m³
of additional water per month. If these would substitute the same quantity from the
network, the monthly monetary savings would be about 2.6 JD (US$ 3.66). Table 6
demonstrates the annual potential for RWH (m³) given different roof sizes (m²) and
different amounts of rainfall (mm) corresponding to the three climatic zones in Amman.
The respective monthly monetary savings are indicated in the affiliated brackets10.
Table 6 Annual RWH Potential (m³) and corresponding monthly
monetary savings [JD] according to Roof Size and Precipitation
Roof Area (m²)
Annual Rainfall (mm)
[Monthly monetary Savings in JD]
300
400
500
100
24 [1.5]
32 [1.5]
40 [2.8]
125
30 [1.5]
40 [2.8]
50 [3.0]
150
36 [2.8]
48 [3.0]
60 [3.2]
175
42 [2.8]
56 [3.0]
70 [3.2]
200
48 [3.0]
64 [3.2]
80 [3.4]
225
54 [3.0]
72 [3.4]
90 [3.5]
250
60 [3.2]
80 [3.4]
100 [3.7]
275
66 [3.2]
88 [3.5]
110 [4.5]
300
72 [3.4]
96 [3.7]
120 [4.5]
Own Elaboration based on Abdullah and Idara (2011: 19)
10 The monetary savings are based on a bill of 6.16 JD for 15 m³ = 5.4 individuals x 93 liters/day x 30
days

86
Concerning the quality of harvested rainwater Abdullah and Al-Shareef (Abdullah and
Al-Shareef 2009: 36) detected that the inorganic compounds in their samples generally
matched with the WHO standards for drinking water. However the presence of fecal
coliforms, an important bacteriological parameter, exceeded the limits of the standard.
They recommend a regular cleaning of the roof surface to free it from dust, leaves and
bird droppings in order to guarantee a high quality of water (UNEP 2008: 66, 2009: 37).
As discussed in chapter 3.1. also the water from the network is prone to contamination,
so the qualities of the two water sources are probably very similar and the water can be
used in the same way within households.
The cost for such a system may vary between 400 and 2000 JD (US$ 564 – 2820),
depending on the existing structures like pipes, tanks and other materials (Abdullah and
Idara 2011: 18). A rooftop RWH system requires the installation of a pipe from the
downspout to the storage facility as well as a so called ‘first-flush’-valve to bypass
matter built up during the dry season (Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 497). The additional
storage tanks usually represent the greatest share of the investment since almost every
building in Amman already has a suitable roof with a drainage (see figure 13 in chapter
3.2.2.). The cost for underground tanks would be much less if the system was set up
during the construction period of the building (2011: 18). Rosenberg estimates a
maximum coverage for rooftop RWH of 18 % for Amman (2007: 87). The low
adaptation rate is probably a result of the high initial investment cost, the long payback
time, the requirements for its maintenance and the partially prohibitive density of
buildings in low income areas. Furthermore, a system would not pay off it the harvested
amounts would have to be shared by all parties living in a building (usually 4-6).
Rooftop RWH only achieves the savings per household mentioned above if the whole
roof space can be used by one party. This is true for detached houses, typical for the

87
high income group, or a situation where one out of many parties would invest in the set-
up and also be the exclusive beneficiary, with the approval of the other tenants.
4.1.3. Greywater Reuse
The term greywater refers to used water from sources such as showers, baths, hand
basins, floor drains (CSBE 2003: 41), accounting for about 50 – 80% of residential
wastewater (Al-Jayyousi 2003: 181). In Jordan, each person generates about 50 liters of
greywater per day (Faruqui and Al-Jayyousi 2002). Greywater can be reused within the
households for purposes that do not require water of highest quality such as toilet
flushing (see figure 42), floor cleaning and gardening. Table 7 indicates activities that
generate greywater within a home and others that might be satisfied by the use of
greywater. The former are marked by a star, the latter are written in italic.
Table 7 Water Quality Associated to End Uses
Quality
High
(Drinking
Water)
Moderate A
(Hygiene)
Moderate B
(Cleaning)
Low
(Outdoor Uses)
Uses
- Drinking
- Cooking
- Washing
Food*
- Bathing*
- Cleaning*
- Flushing
Toilet
- Washing
Laundry*
- Irrigation
- Livestock
- Washing
Cars
*Indicates that water is available for re-use
Own Elaboration based on Rosenberg (2007: 81)
According to the own survey, many people in Amman are reusing greywater by means
of buckets and plastic jars. Although this way of reuse does not require any investment

88
it merely allows them to use a fraction of the greywater generated within their homes
(Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 497). The set up of additional storage volumes, a filter system
(e.g. sand filter) and the direct feed-in of greywater to end uses such as the toilet or an
irrigation system generate savings that are significantly greater than the partial manual
reuse (Al-Jayyousi 2003: 184). However, their installation requires certain monetary
investments, overall if the house or apartment does not have a dual plumbing system
(CSBE 2011). Such a system enables a separate discharge of grey- and blackwater11 and
costs about 61 JD (US$ 86) per bathroom if installed during construction (Rosenberg, et
al. 2008: 498).
Figure 42 Greywater Reuse for Toilet Flushing
(H2optionsinc.com 2010)
Apart from this device a greywater system of a two- or four-barrel closed anaerobic
digester has an approximate cost of 150 JD (U$ 212), achieving secondary treatment
11 Blackwater = Non-reusable water from toilets and kitchen sinks

89
standards (Bino, et al. 2000). Alternatively a simple basin could be established to settle
particulates as well as strainers to separate them. The cost for this option are about 19
JD (US$ 27) according to the CSBE (2011). The size of the system depends on the
amount of greywater generated, the demand for it, available space for additional storage
and the financial capital available. The quality of the effluent and hence its suitability
for certain reuses depends on the initial quality of the greywater and the treatment
system. The GIZ reports that the reuse of water from certain greywater systems in
Jordan is restricted to outdoor irrigation (2011: 2) and hence would only be useful for
households with a garden. Assuming a water reuse as demonstrated in figure 43 and a
family size of 5.4 people, the monthly water savings would amount to about 10.85 m³.
In Jordan, this amount would reduce the monthly water bill by 10.4 JD (US$ 14.7).
Figure 43 Comparing Single and Total Water Uses with and without Greywater Reuse
(UNEP 2008: 101)
With Greywater Reuse
Without Greywater Reuse

90
The exemplary water use in figure 43 fits quite well to the consumption levels of the
middle and high income group in Amman. These are also the main target groups for the
installation of such ‘advanced’ greywater system, since the costs are probably
prohibitive to low income households if they do not receive any financial support for
the installation. Based on the relatively high initial investment cost for this WCT one
might suggest that several households could share a greywater system. However, the
CSBE recommends to only install individual units in order to avoid abashment and
increase the confidence over the quality of the greyewater (2011). Jamrah et al. (2008)
conducted surveys with Jordanian households revealing a low public acceptance
towards the reuse of greywater. Half of their respondents opposed this option. Morel
and Diener (2006: 72) report though that the monthly domestic water bills of Jordanian
households adopting this technique could be reduced by about 30%. They mention that
it is often a question of awareness, lack of hands-on guidance (2006: 2) and cultural
aspects if feasible greywater systems are not implemented.
4.1.4. Water-Efficient Technologies
Water efficient technologies embrace washing machines and dishwashers with a
relatively low water consumption per cleaning cycle (Rosenberg 2007: 40). They
typically evince diverse options for program setting and a weight or soil sensor
respectively, adjusting the water use to the requirements of each load (ACEEE 2010,
Idara 2010: 7). Efficient washing machines use about 40 to 50 liters per load (lpl) while
efficient dish washers use around 15 liters per cycle (UNEP 2008: 122). Rosenberg
reports that (2008: 500) the actual water savings further depend on washing frequency
and rinsing behavior in case of washing machines. The implementation of this measure

91
Figure 44 Efficiency Label
(Building Futures 2011)
requires the purchase of a whole new
appliance, since retrofitting of an existing
machine is generally not feasible. In case an
appliance is tagged with an energy-efficiency
label, it often also indicates the water
consumption per load (see figure 44).
Otherwise the instruction manual of the
manufacturer or the responsible sales person
should ideally be able to provide information
about the water efficiency. In Amman 98.4
% of the people possess washing machines
(DoS 2008). Idara reports a share of 52 %
automatic and 43 % semi-automatic models
(2011d: 35). According to a USAID study
(IdRC 2004) a retrofit with an efficient
appliance may reduce the consumption by up
to 61 % in case a semi-automatic machine is
replaced and by about 20 % if an old
automatic model is concerned. Examples for a semi-automatic (left picture) and an
automatic (right picture) washing machine are provided in figure 45 below. Washing
machines make up averagely 9 % of the total water use within households in Jordan
(Idara 2011f: 21). According to the end use analysis of Idara (2011f: 29) the average
water consumption of washing machines is 53 lpl, with a washing frequency of 0.9
times per household per day. About 65 % of the washing machines were determined to

92
meet the efficiency criteria of using less than 50 lpl. The remaining 35 % are hence in
focus for a potential retrofit.
Figure 45 Examples for a Semi Automatic and an Automatic Washing Machine
(AffordableCleanEnergy.com 2011, Trademart.in 2011)
Assuming the mentioned average washing frequency, monthly water savings of 1 m³
could only be achieved if a new machine with 40 liters consumption per load would
replace a machine using 74 lpl or more. Saving of 1 m³ monthly correspond to monetary
saving of about 0.75 JD (US$ 1.1). The savings do not include additional costs for
electricity associated to the devices. Each household must review its own respective
water consumption in order to compare it to existing models in the local market. Water-
efficient semi-automatic washing machines in Amman cost between 80 and 290 JD
(US$ 112.8 – 409), while the price for efficient automatic ones ranges between 370 and
620 JD (US$ 522 – 874) (Rosenberg 2007: 40). However, even among manufacturers
and in the market place there is little awareness on the water efficiency of the different
appliances (Idara 2010). The new RSS testing lab will analyze the consumption of

93
available products in order to inform retailers and consumers in the future. Considering
its price this WCTs seems relatively inefficient, heavily depending on the water
consumption of the preexisting model. It must further be considered, that those
households washing by hand might increase the water consumption when switching to
an efficient automatic washing machine (Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 500).
Concerning dish washers, the UNEP reports that replacing an old dishwasher with a
modern one could save around 35 % of related water use (2008: 122). A water-efficient
dishwasher in Amman costs about 700 JD or more. Only 2.4 % of the inhabitants have
dishwashers (DoS 2008) and according to the knowledge of the author there currently
exists no published information about the average water use of these, nor about the
exact water use for manually washing the dishes in Jordan. The calculation to determine
respective savings are hence mainly based on studies from abroad: For instance the
replacement of an old dishwasher using 23 lpl with a new one of 15 lpl would yield
savings of about 8 liters per cycle(2008: 122). If a household runs the dishwasher every
third day, the resulting monthly savings would be 80 liters. Since in Amman very little
households have a dishwasher at all, the consumption of an efficient appliance must be
compared to the water use if washing the dishes by hand. A study by the University of
Bonn, Germany, states that on average 10.5 liters of water are used per person per day
for washing the dishes by hand compared to averagely 2.27 liters per person per day by
an efficient dishwasher12(GIZmag 2009). Assuming a family size of 5.4 people and
daily savings of about 8.3 liters per person, the monthly potential savings by using the
12 The model refered to is: Elextrolux ESF68020W

94
efficient dishwasher are 1.34 m³ in terms of water and 0.75 JD (US$ 1.1) in terms of the
corresponding bill.
4.1.5. Xeriscaping and Drip Irrigation
Xeriscaping refers to gardening with minimized irrigation requirements. The low water
need is achieved through a selection of drought resistant plants, as well as their
purposeful grouping, trenching and mulching (WEPIA and CSBE 2004, UNEP 2008:
130) as demonstrated in figure 46. The result is optimized by adapting the timing for
irrigation as well as the frequency and the duration of watering (2008: 130). Efficiency
in watering is maximized by a drip irrigation scheme (Qaiser, et al. 2011: 2067), which
consists of a pipe system releasing the water through small holes just where the plants
are located (WEPIA and CSBE 2004: 49). The pipes of such system are usually made of
PVC polyvinyl chloride) or PE (polyethylene) lines and require frequent maintenance or
a filter in the main line in order to avoid the clogging of the emitters. These systems use
30 – 50 % less than spray systems (2004: 49) due to the reduction in runoff and
evaporation losses. Drip irrigation systems are available in many garden and irrigation
stores in and around Amman (Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 500). Their cost usually varies
between 15-20 JD (US$ 21.2 – 28) depending on the garden area to be covered
(Rosenberg 2007: 40). The associated savings also depend on the amount of water
needed as compared to a scenario without the system. If the set up is too expensive, a
spay nozzle can be purchased for 1 to 4 JD (US$ 1.4 – 5.6) and installed on the hose
used for irrigation, acting as a flow regulator. Such nozzles are available in gardening
and plumbing stores as well as larger supermarkets (Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 500).

95
Figure 46 Xeriscape
Concerning the landscape itself, xeriscaping might have no additional cost if a garden is
planned anyways, if the owner is taking initiative to gather information and design the
landscape according to the criteria of xeriscaping mentioned above. WEPIA and the
Center of the Study for the Build Environment (CSBE) issued a free, illustrative and
practical handbook for xeriscaping in Jordan (WEPIA and CSBE 2004), listing native
drought resistant plants as well as elaborating on the design of the garden. However, if
an existing garden is to be changed and a landscape architect is hired for the design and
planning, a xeriscape might cost hundreds to several thousand JD (Rosenberg, et al.
2008: 500). The conservation measure of xeriscaping only applies for households with
gardens, making up a share of about 27.3 % according to the baseline study of Idara
(2011d: 41). Rosenberg (2007: 40) estimates a maximum coverage of about 11 % for
this WCT. He states though that despite the low adaptation rate, the associated savings
are commonly disproportionately large (Rosenberg 2007: 88). He further estimates the
maximum coverage for drip irrigation as 10 % and of the spray nozzles as 12%. Since
the savings depend heavily on previous flow rates, the garden area and irrigation
patterns there are no ‘typical savings’ that could be indicated at this point
(Sweetbrick 2009)

96
4.1.6. Installation of Carpets
The installation of carpets on the floor is a simple measure to reduce the amount of
water needed for cleaning (Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 501). Instead of mopping the floor,
dirt may be removed by vacuuming. Rosenberg (2007: 88) estimates that the costs for
this measure are 300 JD (US$ 423) or more, while the average annual savings
associated to this measure amount to about 20 m³ per household per year. Per month the
potential savings for an adopting household are therefore about 1.7 m³, translating into
2.05 JD (US$ 2.9) of monetary savings. Figure 47 below shows the result of a Monte-
Carlo simulation for the different WCTs discussed in this chapter. Installing carpets
ranges among the most efficient options. There is no indication however for the share of
households that would adopt this measure and hence no sound estimate of savings on
city-scale can be provided.
Figure 47 Analytically Derived Distributions of Conservation Action Effectiveness
(Rosenberg 2007: 63)

97
4.2. Behavioral Options for Water Conservation
Compared to technical measures, behavioral conservation techniques do not require
monetary investments or alterations in terms of infrastructure. They depend on the
sustained conviction of the practitioner, eventually involving a change of water use
behaviors (Graymore, et al. 2010: 2, EPA 2011). As reported in chapter 3, people might
have various reasons to pursue water conservation, among them monetary savings, their
limited storage volume, religious reverence or the national water scarcity. Biel and
Thøgersen (2007: 107) report on factors that influence peoples norms in regards to
resource conservation. As illustrated in figure 48 below they distinguish between
personal and situational factors, which embrace individual values but also a weighting
of costs and benefits as well as the perceived role within the community or the society.
Figure 48 Factors Influencing the Activation of Social Norms
(Biel and Thøgersen 2007: 107)

98
It is hard to grasp the effects of the different motivations on the behavioral performance
concerning water conservation. They are interdependent and might vary daily according
to moods and experiences, new knowledge and the place or context of water use (Gilg
and Barr 2006, Carrus, et al. 2007, Beala, et al. 2011). However certain habits may be
identified. According to Steg and Vlek (2009: 312) established practices are usually
only reconsidered if their context changes significantly. Habits often involve
misperceptions and selective attention, focusing on information that confirms the
preferences of the consumer. Identifying patterns and adjusting misconceptions is an
important part of a holistic demand management. The interdependencies of behavioral
measures with technical upgrades will be neglected in this chapter, in order to allow
judgments on the effectiveness of the single behavioral measures. Nevertheless it is
implicit that the efficiency of technical measures themselves is based on an adequate
use, which is a behavioral component. The best technology will not be very efficient if
combined with a wasteful behavior. Unfortunately there exists very little or no
published information on the effectiveness of behavioral WCTs in Jordan. This chapter
will hence provide simple calculations for potential savings, assuming a best and
sustained practice of the single behavioral conservation measures.
4.2.1. Economic Water Use from Faucets and Showers
When opening faucets or showering, considerable water savings can be achieved by
reducing the intensity and the duration of the use (Willis, et al. 2011b: 2007). Compared
to constant full flow events an economical operation of faucets may reduce the related
water consumption by up to 80 % (own testing). The degree of regulation depends on

99
the existing flow and the judgment of the consumer. If the user is determined to
conserve water, one might assume that he or she will regulate the flow down to a
minimum, still guaranteeing a quality of use that is effective for its purpose. Table 8
illustrates potential savings, depending on the existing flow rate and possible ‘adapted’
flow rates by an economic user.
Table 8 Monthly Water (m³) and Monetary Savings [JD]
Resulting from an Economical Faucet Use
Flow Rates at
Economical Use*
(lpm)
Full Flow Rates* (lpm)
4
5
6
2
1.94 [2.05]
2.92 [2.23]
3.89 [2.42]
3
0.97 [0.75]
1.94 [2.05]
2.92 [2.23]
4
-
0.97 [0.75]
1.94 [2.05]
5
-
-
0.97 [0.75]
*The flow rates shall be averages of the daily flow events, respectively before
and after the implementation of an economical use. A total of 6 minutes of such
faucet events per person per day is assumed as well as a household size of 5.4
individuals and a total consumption of 81 liters per person (=14m³/month)
(Own Elaboration)
A second consideration is the reduction in the duration of flow events. Table 9
demonstrates potential savings if the duration of use is reduced from 12 minutes per day
to 10, 6, 4 and 3 minutes respectively. Both tables assume a household size of 5.4
individuals with a daily consumption of 81 liters each. The two measures are likely to
be applied jointly, not resulting in the sum of their individual savings but in a slightly
lower amount due to their interdependency: If the faucet is turned up half way a shorter
use will not result in the same savings per minute as if the faucet was turned up fully.
The same holds true for the intensity and duration of showers.

100
Table 9 Monthly Water (m³) and Monetary Savings [JD]
Resulting from a Shorter Duration of Faucet Use
Duration of Flow
Events (min/day)
Full Flow Rates* (lpm)
4
5
6
3
5.83 [2.60]
7.29 [2.97]
8.75 [3.71]
4
5.18 [2.60]
6.48 [2.79]
7.78 [2.97]
6
3.89 [2.42]
4.86 [3.20]
5.83 [2.60]
10
1.30 [0.75]
1.62 [0.75]
1.94 [2.05]
*The baseline scenario are 12 minutes of use/day
Assumed household size; consumption: 5.4 individuals; 81 l /person/day
(Own Elaboration)
Table 8 and 9 reveal that considerable savings in terms of water and money are
associated to a behavioral regulation of flow events.
For consumers it is often more revelatory to calculate savings associated to the single
uses, e.g. achievable savings if closing the faucet while brushing one’s teeth. Assuming
a flow rate of 4 lpm, a duration of 1 minute for brushing ones teeth and a duration of 10
seconds of faucet use when opening it only when needed, the water consumption per
event could be reduced from 4 to 0.7 liters. Brushing one’s teeth twice per day and
achieving savings of 3.3 liters each use, per month this would result into savings of
about 1.08 m³ for a family of 5.4.
In fact table 8 also applies to potential savings by faucet aerators or WSSH. A regulated
water use might achieve as much savings as a technical device, but from some point on
this will be at the cost of comfort and quality in use. Behaviors are in fact crucial to
optimize the results of water saving fixtures, which merely reduce the maximum flow
rate.

101
4.2.2. Flushing According to Necessity
If a toilet possesses an individual flush mechanism it is up to the user to regulate the
amount of water for flushing. Although certain technical conditions might facilitate
such behavior (see chapter 4.1.1.), flushing can always be done at no implementation
cost by using buckets, justifying an assessment regardless of the technical
preconditions. Table 10 below provides an overview of potential monthly water and
monetary savings achievable by individual flushing instead of full-flush volumes.
Table 10 Monthly Water (m³) and Monetary Savings [JD]
Resulting from Individual Flushing
Reduced
Flush (lpf)
by
Individual
Regulation
Full-Flush Volume (lpf) of Existing Toilet Flush
5
6
7
8
10
13
15
3
1.46
[0.75]
2.2
[2.05]
2.9
[2.05]
3.65
[2.23]
5.1
[2.6]
7.3
[2.97]
8.75
[3.71]
4
0.73
[0]
1.46
[0.75]
2.2
[2.05]
2.9
[2.05]
4.4
[2.42]
6.6
[2.79]
8
[3.71]
5
-
0.73
[0]
1.46
[0.75]
2.2
[2.05]
3.65
[2.23]
5.8
[2.6]
7.3
[2.97]
The savings are based on a household size of 5.4 individuals, each flushing 4.5 times per day
and with a total water consumption of about 81 liters/person/day
Own Elaboration
Despite an average toilet tank volume of about 8.5 liters in Jordan (Idara 2011d: 45), the
average flush amount was determined as 5.8 liters (Idara 2011f: 25), indicating that an
individual flushing behavior is well established among Jordanian citizens. Among the

102
respondents of the own surveys 77 % indicated to flush according to necessity.
Differentiating between the subgroups, these findings applied to 85 % of the low
income group, 75 % of the middle and 41.7 % of the high income group.
4.2.3. Dry Clean and Restricted Outdoor Use
At household level, the option of ‘dry-clean’ refers to cleaning techniques that make do
without any water use. Brooms, brushes, vacuum cleaners, cloths, squeegees, scrapers
or other utensils allow a dry removal of dirt within the home and outside (Idara 2011a:
19). In fact, much of the dirt can be removed more efficiently in dry form than by
mopping or by hose. Water may be used for secondary cleaning or so called ‘spot-
mopping’13, requiring much less water and upgrading the quality of the effluent (2011a:
19). A selection of dry clean utensils is depicted in figure 49 below.
Figure 49 Dry Clean Utensils
(Alibaba.com 2011, DIYTrade 2011, PolishedBliss 2011)
Potential savings of this technique depend largely on the area to be cleaned and the prior
cleaning technique. According to the own surveys 44 % of the respondents used a
13 Defined as the targeted removal of stains and spills on the floor (Idara, 2011a: 19)

103
broom to clean the floors inside, while only 9.2 % (and all of them from the low income
group) used it outside. Here, most respondents (60%) used buckets or a hose (27%) to
flush the courtyard and sidewalks. While 70 % of the high income group used the latter,
only 9 % of the low income group did so, indicating quite distinct saving potentials.
Table 11 provides estimated savings for the shift from one technique to another. It also
includes potential savings for cleaning the car by bucket instead of a hose. To the
knowledge of the author there currently exists no published information for the water
use by the different techniques in Jordan. Hence the indicated amounts are based on
reports from abroad, on testing of these by the author and a discussion with local water
experts (Idara 2011c).
Table 11 Monthly Water (m³) and Monetary Savings [JD] Resulting from a
Shift in the Cleaning Method for the Floor and the Car14
New Cleaning Habit,
once per week…
Cleaning the Floor (90 m²), once per week…
Cleaning the car,
twice per week…
By Bucket
By Hose
By Hose (m³/month)
By Broom
0.36 [-]
0.97 [0.75]
-
By Cloth
-
-
1.6 [1.3]
By Bucket
-
0.6 [-]
1.52 [1.3]
(Own Elaboration)
14 The default floor area is based on the average housing space (170 m²) within the own sample + 10 m²
of outdoor area. It is assumed that only half of these (90m²) are cleaned every week in a rotating manner.
Moreover, it is assumed that there is no secondary cleaning with water for the option ‘cleaning by
broom’. Stains would be removed by spot mopping with negligible water use. For the hose, a flow rate of
9 lpm is assumed (taptips, 2009). To clean an area of 10 m² a required hose flow duration of 3 minutes is
estimated. The alternative use of a bucket according to own testing requires 10 liters per 10 m² (12.5 liter
according to a report by Idara (2011c) on hospitals). Based on field findings, buckets to clean a car are of
10 liters capacity, for the car wash by hose an amount of 200 liters per cleaning event is assumed. In fact
according to ‘Environment Canada’ (2009) cleaning the car by hose consumes as much as 400 liters per
event. It is assumed that people in Amman would only use half of this amount due to their knowledge
about the national water scarcity but they clean the car twice a week due to the dusty environment,
resulting in a consumption of 1.6 m³/month. The monetary savings are based on a bill of about 15 JD.

104
Another measure to restrict outdoor water use is to reduce irrigation and only to irrigate
when the sun is down in order to minimize evaporation losses (UN-HABITAT 2003,
Rosenberg 2007: 30). The households irrigating by hose could shift to a more targeted
irrigation by buckets or watering cans. This would apply for 70 - 75% of the households
with a garden (25%) according to own results and the results of USAID (2011).
Depending on the size of the garden though, this measure might be quite time
consuming. However, the shift of the irrigation time should not make any different in
associated efforts. The amount of water saved depends on prior irrigation habits, on the
size of the garden, on the plants and their water requirements and on the whole setup of
the ‘landscape’. Assuming a high income household with a monthly outdoor irrigation
water use of 1.5 m³ 15, and assuming a reduction by 40 % due to prevented evaporation
and a targeted irrigation, the savings would amount to about 0.6 m³ monthly. The
findings fit quite well with the own survey results, where households irrigating by hose
used on average 1.6 m³, while those irrigating by bucket used 0.57 m³, corresponding to
a reduction by 65%, saving about 1 m³ monthly. However, the size of the gardens is not
known, so the comparison is not valid in absolute terms. Savings on city scale could be
considerable, but the circumstances determining them are variable to an extent that no
sound sample calculation can be provided.
15 Assuming 150 liter of daily consumption per person for a middle to high income household * 5
individuals * 6.7% of their total average (interseasonal) household use is associated to outdoor water use
(just like in Abdoun, as described in chapter 4.2.2.) *30 days = 1.51 m³/month

105
4.2.4. Leak Prevention and Detection
According to the end-use analysis by Idara (2011f: 21) leaks account for averagely 11
% of the total household water consumption. Considering the desperate attempt to
reduce actual water uses by a few percentages, this is a very high share with a great
potential for improvement. Most of the leaks are suspected to be associated with
plumbing at toilets and faucets (2011f: 33). Also the rooftop tanks are locations where
leakage may occur (see figure 50). According to an assessment by Idara (2011d: 35)
about 3 % of the rooftop tanks were found to have leaks, 4 % of these due to problems
with their shutting valve or floaters (figure 51). Although only a small percentage of the
tanks might be concerned, defect floaters may result in excessive leakages. Each week
several cubic meters of water could be wasted if such leaks are ignored. The water
savings related to in-home leaks depend on the water pressure, leak size and duration
before repair (Rosenberg, et al. 2008: 501).
Figure 50Leaks at Rooftop Tanks
(Own Pictures)

106
Figure 51 Water Tank Floater Responsible
for Shutting off the Water Supply
(Own Picture)
According to Idara (2011f: 44) most of the high volume leaks evince a low flow rate,
gaining magnitude due to their long duration. They further state that an automatic valve
could be installed downstream of the rooftop tanks which could detect these types of
flows and alert the owners, possibly eliminating
40 to 50 liters of leakage per households per day.
Leaks may be prevented if the plumbing fixtures
are frequently checked and well maintained. If a
leak is spotted it should be repaired immediately
since the wastage is often underestimated and the
leak flow commonly increases with time (Idara
2011a). The cost for the repair depends on the
type of malfunction and whether or not a plumber
is required to come and fix it. If 11 % of in-home
leakage was representative for the city of Amman, 8.8 MCM16 of the domestic water
supply may be considered an unused in-home loss, just like non-revenue water, but at
the expense of the consumers and the state, that is providing subsidies.
16 443817 (domestic customers) * 5.4 (individuals on average) * 0.093 m³ (93 liter per day per person) *
30 days * 12 months * 0.11 (11% of this amount is leakage) = 8.8 MCM/annually

107
5. Saving Potentials and Implications for Demand Management at
City Scale
Chapter 4 provided technical descriptions and sample calculations at household level for
savings associated the different WCTs. This chapter builds distinct scenarios according
to income groups and aggregates their potential on city scale. It shall enable to detect
priorities and strategies for an efficient demand management, focusing on those WCTs
that come at low cost, achieve the greatest savings and are easiest to implement.
5.1. Savings and Costs of Conservation Measures
The findings described in the previous chapters have been combined into a table
illustrating potential measures and savings per event of water use (e.g. a flush or a
cleaning cycle), per household (according to income group) and on city scale (see table
19 in annex 7.6).
Three subgroups were established, based on the typical features of the three income
groups, summarized in table 18 (annex 7.5.). The data for this table has been compiled
by the author, using findings of prior research complemented by the results of the own
empirical assessment. As afore mentioned, the own findings are not fully representative
for Amman due to the limited number of surveys, but they certainly provide an indicator
for tendencies, potentials and differences among the income groups.

108
The efficiency of each measure was assessed individually and the savings do not
consider eventual effects of prior measures. However, interdependencies are recognized
and indicated in the column ‘dependent on measure (#)’, where the IDs of those WCTs
are listed that could influence the amount of achievable savings. Measures related to
greywater are listed twice, once according to source and once according to purpose, e.g.
‘greywater reuse from the bathroom’ and ‘greywater use for irrigation’. Presenting them
this way allows to reveal the saving potential of the single actions from different
perspectives: The user or decision maker may chose one or the other.
The potential coverage (implementation on city scale) of the different WCTs is
estimated, taking social and economic factors into account (see remarks in the
background calculations: annex 7.7). For instance the measure of rainwater harvesting
by buckets is unlikely to be adopted by a great share of high income households due to
the low-tech approach, conflicting with their self-perception of being modern and
having the latest technologies at their disposal. The estimates in table 19 are based on
empirical evidence and discussions with local water experts (Idara 2011b). Concerning
the potential water savings, only parts of these will translate into total savings, since
people might simply allocate them to other uses. An indicator for the extent of
unfulfilled demand is the estimate of Miyahuna, that under a continuous supply scheme,
the demand would increase by 30% (2011e). Therefore, to be more realistic, the savings
on city scale as listed in table 19 should to be reduced by this share.
Furthermore it must be mentioned, that the average per capita water consumption of the
different income groups (as indicated in table 18) is based on the result of the own
surveys, including water from the network, trucks and water stores. The calculated

109
monetary savings for the households though refer to the tariffs of water from the
network, being the cheapest and the most common among the sources. The calculated
savings in terms of the water bill can hence be considered as conservative indicators, the
real savings being potentially much higher if water from trucks or bottled water is
substituted. The savings on city scale refer to redundantized subsidies: According to
Miyahuna (2011e), the full price of each cubic meter of water delivered to Amman
averaged 0.94 JD (US$ 1.33) in 2010. The government of Jordan is highly subsidizing
the water for domestic use, so that the average revenue of about 0.67 JD (US$ 0.94) per
cubic meter only covers around 70% of the full expense for it (Miyahuna 2011e). Per
cubic meter delivered to the domestic customer in Amman, the state hence ‘spends’
0.27 JD (US$ 0.38) on average. Multiplying this number by the potential water savings
of the different measures reveals monetary savings for the state that could be invested
upfront in demand management, achieving resource conservation and awareness at no
or low cost. Table 19 is certainly not exhaustive in listing possible WCTs, but it
includes most measures discussed in this work. WCTs concerning irrigation have been
omitted, due to a lack of data about the sizes and types of gardens in Amman according
to income groups. The aspect of gardening should be covered by further research, since
considerable saving potentials are expected for the upper middle and high income
group.
Table 19 revealed significant differences between the potential water savings of the
distinct WCTs. While it presents costs and benefits of the different measures for
households, only benefits (water and monetary savings) are indicated at city scale.
However it will have a certain cost for the city or the state to achieve the savings at
household level via campaigns and programs. The exact cost depends on measures and

110
methodologies chosen and is very hard to estimate. Certainly though, the knowledge
about potential savings serves to target and size respective actions. The results of table
19 were processed, ranking the measures according to their annual saving potentials on
city scale (table 21, annex 7.8.). It demonstrates the huge potential of greywater reuse,
overall due to the large amounts that are generated on daily basis. It is interesting to
note that behavioral and technical measures are very heterogeneous in their saving
potentials, suggesting that similar results may be achieved by one or the other means.
The greater the potential savings of a measure the greater supposedly the state’s
incentive to invest and to achieve the respective maximal coverage.
Ranking the measures for the different income groups provides a differentiated picture
on saving potentials (table 12 below): While greywater reuse from the bathroom and
individual flushing promise greatest savings for the low income group, these are just in
the middle ranks for the high income group. Here, rooftop rainwater harvesting and the
purchase of a dishwasher could achieve most savings on city scale. High saving
potentials are marked green while a low potential is marked red in the table. Adding up
the individual saving potentials for each group yields a total relative score, which does
not indicate realistic savings but serves to compare the potential of the three subgroups.
Due to the greater number of low (50.7%) and middle income households (41.4%) their
overall saving potential is naturally greater than that of the high income group (8.2%).
Adjusting these figures though and breaking it down to an average per capita total score,
low income households achieve ‘151’, middle income households ‘161’ and high
income households ‘177’. Hence the high income group has a greater saving potential at
household level, as a bulk though low and middle income households would have the
greatest impact on a city wide demand reduction.

111
Table 12 Water Savings (m³/year) on City Scale of Different WCTs According to Income
Group
Measure
Savings (MCM/year)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
Reuse Greywater (Bathroom)
10.84
4 Barrel GWS
3.87
4 Barrel GWS
1.1
4 Barrel GWS
5.3
Wash Dishes in a Bucket
3.4
Rooftop RWH
0.984
Individual Flushing
3.75
Reuse Greywater (Bathroom)
10.84
Purchase Dishwasher
0.81
Short Showers
2.6
Purchase Dishwasher
2.686
Wash Dishes in a Bucket
0.637
Reuse Water From Laundry
2.27
Reuse Water From Laundry
2.153
Reuse Water From Laundry
0.396
Fix Kitchen Leaks
1.4
Install Bottles/Bag in Toilet Tank
1.675
Wash Car by Bucket
0.388
Economic Shower Use
1.25
Short Showers
1.44
Fix Kitchen Leaks
0.34
Install Bottles/Bag in Toilet Tank
1.21
Fix Kitchen Leaks
1.43
Reuse Greywater (Bathroom)
0.33
Wash Dishes in a Bucket
1.1
Wash Car by Bucket
1.41
Fix Leaks (Bath)
0.314
Purchase Dishwasher
1.01
Economic Faucet Use (Bath)
1.359
Economic Faucet Use (Bath)
0.17
Rooftop RWH
0.8
Flow Regulator
1.2
Short Showers
0.144
Economic Faucet Use (Bath)
0.58
Rooftop RWH
0.986
Aerators (Bath)
0.012
Wash Car by Bucket
0.53
Aerators (Bath)
0.71
Economic Faucet Use (Kitchen)
0.0116
Economic Faucet Use (Kitchen)
0.5
Fix Leaks (Bath)
0.71
Install Bottles/Bag in Toilet Tank
0.0111
WSSH
0.498
Individual Flushing
0.69
Dry Clean
0.0105
Flow Regulator
0.3
Economic Faucet Use (Kitchen)
0.598
Economic Shower Use
0.0085
RWH (Buckets)
0.235
Only run Laundry When Machine is
Fully Filled
0.5
Individual Flushing
0.0082
Aerators (Kitchen)
0.22
Economic Shower Use
0.4
Only run Laundry When Machine is
Fully Filled
0.0081
Dry Clean
0.197
Aerators (Kitchen)
0.312
Aerators (Kitchen)
0.008
Fix Leaks (Bath)
0.178
Dry Clean
0.225
Flow Regulator
0.0059
Install Aerators (Bath)
0.167
WSSH
0.498
WSSH
0.0048
Only run Laundry When Machine is
Fully Filled
0
RWH (Buckets)
0.055
RWH (Buckets)
0.0004
Total Relative Score
33,977,273
29,308,732
6,457,704
Per Capita Total Score (/Number of Households)
151
161
177
(Own Elaboration)

112
However, the different measures also come at different costs for the households. Table
13 illustrates the socio-economic implications of the different WCTs.
Table 13 WCTs according to their Relative Socio-Economic Costs
Features
No Social Constraints
Social Constraints
Cost-Free (Moneywise)
 Economic Faucet Use
 Economic Shower Use
 Only Run Laundry
Machine when Fully
Filled
 Individual Flushing
 Wash Car by Bucket
 Bottles (high income group: low
tech)
 Short showers (strong habit)
 Wash Vegetables in Bucket
(strong habit)
 Greywater Reuse by Bucket
(high income: low tech)
Savings (MCM/year)
12.47
26.84
Inexpensive
 Aerators
 Fix Leaks
 WSSH (reluctance to exchange
an expensive shower head)
Savings (MCM/year)
2.2
0.55
Expensive
 Rooftop RWH
 Flow Regulator
 Dishwasher
 4 Barrel GWS (reservations
concerning water quality)
Savings (MCM/year)
8.9
10.2
(Own Elaboration)
It can be assumed that those conservation techniques are easiest to implement that are
cost-free and not associated to any social constraints. Opposed to that, WCTs that are
expensive and face social constraints (problems with acceptability for reasons indicated
in italic) are presumably most difficult to implement. It is interesting to note that the
measures at low monetary cost overall have the greatest saving potential, especially
those with social constraints. It seems that the respective saving potential has not been
unlocked yet. Developing strategies to do so promises a great advance for domestic
water conservation in Amman.

113
The ‘costs’ mentioned above are only relative indicators though. In how far they really
constitute a constraint to the implementation depends on the actual financial burden and
the importance of savings for the households: While a high price of a measure may not
be a major obstacle for the high income group, it will certainly be the main constraint
for low income households. The high income group is typically more concerned about
social aspects, e.g. if certain techniques fit their lifestyle and comfort. Low income
household usually have a different tolerance here, since low tech practices could make a
big difference in their water availability and monthly expenses.
A calculation of total savings on city scale is presented in table 22 (annex 7.9). Here,
interdependencies have been considered. The calculations determined joint potential
savings of about 32.6 million cubic meter of water per year for the city of Amman if the
WCTs reached their potential coverage. Assuming that 30 % of these (Miyahuna 2011e)
would not translate into final savings but serve to satisfy unfulfilled demands, the
savings still amount to about 22.82 MCM annually. Considering that 34 % of delivered
water would be lost in the network, the amount of savings raises again to 30.6 MCM.
This corresponds to 8.256 million JD of redundantized subsidies per year according to
the current figures and a demand reduction by the domestic sector in Amman of about
28.8 %. The outlook however lacks an indication of a time horizon in which these
savings could be achieved. In order to provide sound estimates for these, further
research has to be conducted.
The following chapter analyses how to reach from the current to the potential coverage
of the different WCTs by suggesting measures to increase the adaptation.

114
5.2. Implications for Demand Management
This chapter shall provide recommendations for targeted action to foster water
conservation at household level. The central questions are ‘what’ to target (which
measure), ‘whom’ to target ‘where’ (which group in which area) and ‘how’ to target
them (marketing and incentives).
A matrix has been developed (table 14), identifying elements for demand management
actions. These are tailored to the opportunities and constraints within the three income
groups as revealed within this research. The WCTs are categorized according to their
socio-economic implications (as illustrated in table 13) and are discussed for each
income group by suggesting measures how to achieve the potential coverage indicated
in table 19. In the bottom of the table (14), specific WCTs are suggested for targeted
demand management action. Those techniques are recommended, that achieve high
total savings per group (see table 12), high individual savings per adopting household
(table 19), that have lowest socio-economic costs (table 13) and that have the greatest
potential increase in coverage (table 19). Concerning the latter, a high potential of
adaptation within one group indicates its homogeneity concerning preconditions and
attitudes towards the implementation. The more homogenous the subgroup, the clearer
and more targeted the demand management actions may be. Hence although the
absolute saving potential of a group might be higher than another, these savings might
be more difficult to achieve. In case of ‘flow regulators’ for instance, the low and the
middle income group achieve the greatest savings according to table 19. Nevertheless,
the middle and high income group are the suggested target groups for this measure,
since the savings per implementing household are double as much as for the low income

115
group and the potential increase in coverage is much higher as well (43 % among high,
compared to 7 % among low income households).
Recommending targeted action according to the three subgroups, it must be mentioned
that the water utility (Miyahuna) has information about the consumption but not about
the income of their customers. Prior campaigns used this information to target large
scale consumers (WEPIA 2005). Alternatively areas with a suitable wealth structure
were chosen for retrofits. Table 14 indicates various strategies to reach the different
groups, but further research should identify everyday life patterns of households with
different income levels in order to allow an optimal targeting.
Generally, the selection of conservation measures must aim to maximize benefits, while
minimizing costs (UNEP 2008: 33). This holds true for the individual households, but
also for targeted demand management on city scale. Social ‘costs’ or constraints may be
minimized by shaping people’s perception about them: If greywater is commonly
considered as unsanitary and inapt for reuse, but if scientific evidence does not
correspond to cultural perceptions, information campaigns and public debates are
probably the best way to influence the common attitude. Concerning financial costs
associated to the different measures: If these are the major constraint while the
implementation promises great savings, financial support by microloans or rebate
programs should be considered. Loans could be repaid over time by the savings
achieved through conservation. There exist several microfinance institutions in Amman,
such as Tamweelcom and FINCA. According to a first contact with these, they seem
interested in the idea to finance water-related household upgrades, but a local
cooperation partner must bring in the technical expertise to complement the offer.

116
Table 14 Targeted Optimization of the Coverage of the different Water Conservation Techniques
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
Examples for Typical
Living Areas
Ras El Ain
Abu Alanda
Wehdat
(Generally East Amman)
Qwesmeh
Jabal Weibdeh
Jabal Hussein
Abdoun
Smeishani
Dabouk
(Generally West Amman)
Preferred Source of
Information
Miyahuna, Religious Leaders,
Family, Friends, TV
Media!
TV, Radio, Newspapers
Miyahuna, Governmental
Announcements, Experts from JU,
Experts from Abroad
Main Constraint To
Conservation
Affordability
Affordability/Acceptability
Acceptability
WCTs
Examples
The saving potentials of these measures
are often underestimated and may be
communicated via TV and by Miyahuna.
Also religious leaders could influence the
adaptation by exhortation: If people were
urged to use water wisely at the mosques,
according to religious principles, they
might take this practice home. Since the
communication between friends and
neighbors on water conservation is quite
high in this income group, their talks
could be supported by information
material delivered through the meter
readers in certain districts.
Saving potential of these measures should
be communicated via the media: TV, radio
and newspapers. Also recommendations
and messages of religious leaders may
reach this group relatively well. A special
campaign for washing the cars may be set
up for this group, since many of them were
found to clean it by hose and savings are
considerable if shifting to cleaning by
buckets.
Conservation is taking place here due
to ethical considerations rather than
limited storage or expenses for water.
Behavioral measures can be fostered
by providing this group with more
information about the scarcity and
their role and responsibility in society
(public debates with experts and
governmental officials). The saving
potentials by the different measures
must be clearly communicated. For
this group it might make sense to
establish a digital ‘conservation
calculator’ accessible via the internet
(a sample user interface is provided in
annex 7.10).
Measures (Cost-Free)
(Mainly behavioral
measures)
Economic Faucet Use
Economic Shower
Use
Individual Flushing
Wash Car by Bucket
Wash Vegetables in a
Bucket
Measures (Inexpensive)
Aerators
WSSH
Fix Leaks
Clear and simple cost benefit calculations
should be presented! It must be
communicated where to buy the device
and how to use it, what technical details
are important in order not to purchase an
unsuitable product. People should not
only be informed about existing
technologies but also receive guidance on
how to identify their saving opportunities.
The best source for such information
seems Miyahuna. Since most (58%) of
Clear and simple cost benefit calculation
should be presented! It must be
communicated where to buy the device and
how to use it, what technical details are
important in order not to purchase an
unsuitable product. People should not only
be informed about existing technologies but
also receive guidance on how to identify
their saving opportunities. Respondents of
this income group reported most frequently
to pay their bills at the post office (53%).
The costs are no constraint, but rather
the quality of service achievable by
aerators and WSSH. The compatibility
with existing fixtures and the design
are major points in their willingness to
accept the installations of WSDs. Most
respondents (40%) of the own survey
indicated that ‘easy to use at home’
was the most important feature that
would motivate them to buy a WSD.
Leak detection systems might be an

117
the low income customers pay their bills
at the utility itself, information material or
a demonstration of the technique might
take place here during waiting time or
payment procedure (material could be
handed over). According to the own
survey, 54% of the low income
households indicated that ‘testing in front
of their eyes’ would be the greatest
motivation for them to buy a WSD.
Respective information material should
hence be made available at these locations.
Educational sessions on TV and articles in
newspapers might further be efficient to
raise awareness in this income group.
Testing the devices (e.g. showing the flow
reduction in TV advertisements) was
indicated to be their greatest motivation to
buy a WSD, according to the own survey
results.
attractive technological option for this
income group. They could also hire a
plumber for regular checks of their
fixtures. A list of ‘top plumbers’ could
be made available at Miyahuna or the
MWI. A well maintained bathroom
suggests cleanliness and perfection to
visitors. Products should be marketed
as desirable and fashionable. Their
independent decision for such a
measure is the best guarantee for an
appropriate maintenance and use.
Measures (Expensive)
Rooftop RWH
Flow Regulators
Dishwashers
4 Barrel GWS
In case a measure is suitable, but
prohibitively expensive, financial support
should be provided. Such support may be
in the form of microloans (small credits
targeting the poor) and rebates,
potentially tied to a participation in
workshops on the technique (e.g. a
GWS). The combination of capacitation
and implementation promises an
appropriate use and maximizes
motivation. If successfully implemented
by one household, certainly more
households will be interested to
participate, since communication on this
topic is high in this income group.
Institutions like Johud could cooperate
with micro finance institutions (like
Tamweelcom or FINCA) to set up related
programs.
Since microloans and workshops might not
be targeted or appeal to this income group,
the media could serve to raise awareness
and desirability of these options. Suitable
financial mechanisms to support an
implementation must be revised. A clearer
labeling of water efficient technological
devices is crucial for the purchase of these
(the new RSS laboratory is currently
working on that). Laws and standards must
enforce dual plumbing and RWHs when
new houses are built (The new plumbing
code is said to provide for that).
A clear cost benefit calculation is
required for these options. Combined
with an appeal to their social
responsibility and ethical values, an
implementation may be fostered by
extensive information material
delivered by the meter reader. These
options should be part of public
debates to increase awareness and
desirability of the adaptation. A clearer
labeling of water efficient
technological devices is crucial for the
purchase of these (the new RSS
laboratory is currently working on
that). Laws and standards must enforce
dual plumbing and RWHs when new
houses are built (The new plumbing
code is said to provide for that).
Measures (No Social
Constraint)
Economic Faucet Use
Aerators
Rooftop RWH
If no social constraints exist for a suitable
measure and implementation is
nevertheless low, the problem is likely to
be one of awareness or of financial nature
(see respective measures). In case
awareness is low, information campaigns
are needed to increase the knowledge.
Miyahuna and the TV seem suitable
If no social constraints exist for a suitable
measure and implementation is nevertheless
low, the problem is likely to be one of
awareness or of financial nature (see
respective measures). In case awareness is
low, information campaigns are needed to
increase the knowledge. The media in
general seem the most appropriate means of
If no social constraints exist for a
suitable measure and implementation
is nevertheless low, the problem is
likely to be one of awareness (see
respective measures). Information
campaigns and public debates with
experts are needed to increase the
knowledge. Governmental
announcements (e.g. on restricted

118
institutions to do so.
communication to this group.
outdoor use might be efficient for this
group)
Measures (Social
Constraint)
Short showers
(Concerns about
hygiene; relaxation)
Greywater System
(Safe reuse?)
Wash Dishes in
Bucket (Against the
Habit)
In case a WCTS faces problems with
acceptability, the exact reservations must
be analyzed. If scientific facts are cannot
confirm the concerns, these have to be
communicated in order to adjust the
public perception. TV programs have a
great outreach: Public debates on single
measures are useful to draw a more
differentiated picture of the opportunities
and constraints.
In case a WCTS faces problems with
acceptability, the exact reservations must be
analyzed. If scientific facts are cannot
confirm the concerns, these have to be
communicated in order to adjust the public
perception. TV programs, radio shows and
newspaper articles have a great outreach to
this subgroup: Public debates on single
measures are useful to draw a more
differentiated picture of the opportunities
and constraints.
Low tech measures face problems of
acceptability in the high income group
due to their perceived incompatibility
with modern, technically advanced
lifestyles. Measures like the
implementation of bottles in toilet
tanks could be achieved via the
children of these households. For them
conservation actions can be fun and it
might be fascinating to them how such
simple measures can have a great
impact in their home. Concerning the
practice of washing the dishes: This is
usually the task of the mates. Hence
information material should be issued
to them, eventually through the meter
reader. Miyahuna already has
information material in the language of
the foreign mates.
Suggested Focus for WDM
(Suggestions are based on total achievable
savings (table 12) and the potential increase in
coverage within one group (table 19) as well as
the associated costs for the measure (this table
and table 19), so the adaptation would result in
greatest savings at lowest social and economic
costs)
 Reuse greywater from the bathroom
and laundry,
 Individual flushing,
 Economic shower use,
 Economic Faucet Use + Aerators
 Install bottles in toilet tank,
 Wash dishes in a bucket
 Fix Leaks
 Wash car by bucket
 Wash dishes in bucket,
 4 Barrel GWS,
 Install bottles/bags in toilet tank
 Purchase dishwasher
 Fix leaks
 Economic faucet use + Aerators
 Run laundry machine only when full
 4 Barrel GWS
 Rooftop RWH
 Purchase dishwasher
 Wash car by bucket
 Fix Leaks
 Install bottles/bags in toilet tanks
 Economic Faucet Use + Flow
Regulator
 Probably: Great potential in
xeriscaping
(Own Elaboration)

119
In addition to the measures suggested in the matrix, the research revealed some general
focal points for demand management actions in Amman: For instance the prevalence of
mistrust in the water quality and lack of knowledge about billing must be tackled to
raise awareness about the value of water and monetary saving potentials associated to
its conservation. Prior campaigns have distributed WSDs for free (WEPIA 2005). Such
practices should be reconsidered, since it might decrease the product desirability as well
as the motivation for its maintenance and appropriate use (Heierli 2008: 22, Miyahuna
2011c). Devices should be made affordable through various means but marketed as
prestigious. Despite the socio-economic differences among the income groups, similar
attitudes and value systems might prevail among them. Especially in Jordan, where a
general thrive for material status is a key concern within the population (USAID
2010a), the high income group, with their lifestyle, serves as a role model for middle
and low income households. Openly marketing certain techniques as ‘pro-poor’ is
probably counterproductive, since people struggle against such ‘public labeling’
(Heierli 2008: 22). The option of involving the meter readers in the distribution of
information material seems to be an interesting new approach. Many respondents of the
own survey reported on a relation of trust to them, some explicitly asked for his
involvement in demand management actions.

120
6. Conclusions
The revision of WCTs according to their suitability, affordability and acceptability
among the different income groups revealed new opportunities and constraints
regarding their implementation at household level in Amman.
The study detected great differences in lifestyles and water accessibility among the
subgroups: While high and middle income households more frequently posses gardens,
cars, flush toilets and other water intensive elements, low income households are often
struggling to meet their respective basic needs. Due to restricted storage volumes and
above-average family sizes, low income households are more frequently in need for
additional water quantities. Hence if they conserve water in one use, the saved amounts
may simply be reallocated to other uses, not or only partially reducing their total water
consumption. Water savings in this case may achieve an improvement in water use
efficiency and life quality, but do not or only partially contribute to water conservation
from a national resource perspective. Opposed to that, water availability is usually no
constraint for high income households and conservation in certain uses is likely to
translate into a reduction of their total water consumption.
Moreover, the perception and burden of the socio-economic cost associated to the
measures varies significantly between the subgroups, resulting in large differences
concerning their current and potential degree of adaptation. While high income
households evince a stronger performance in the implementation of technical measures,
low income households tend to achieve water savings by behavioral strategies. The

121
former are often unaffordable for households of low income, while the latter face
problems with their acceptability among high income households. Social constraints
such as reservations or perceived inconvenience are serious obstacles to the adaptation
of certain WCTs.
The distinct lifestyles, consumption patterns, attitudes and water availability imply great
differences in the conservation potential by different measures among the three income
groups. The socio-economic division of Amman constitutes a chance for targeted
campaigns according to areas of different income. The information about lifestyles and
preferences among the subgroups provides valuable clues to increase the efficiency and
decrease the costs of demand management actions (Idara 2011b).
While high income households have the greatest individual conservation potential, the
middle and low income group constitute the bulk of consumers (91.8 %) and are
projected to generate the greatest savings on city scale. Aggregating the potential
savings of households in Amman, the domestic water consumption of the city may be
reduced by as much as 29 %. A demand reduction of this dimension implies national
savings in terms of resources and subsidies that could be invested upfront in demand
management achieving conservation and awareness at no or low cost. However, the
most interesting part lies ahead, namely to test the suggested strategies in order to
confirm their efficiency.
The severe water scarcity in Jordan generated a great amount of local research on water
conservation, including the work at hand. Together, they provide a uniquely deep
insight into opportunities and developments for water conservation, positioning Jordan

122
as a regional leader in respective investigations. Other countries in the region facing the
same challenge may benefit from the approach and focus to replicate or modify the
studies. It constitutes an ongoing challenge to extent efforts and investigations in order
to improve the water demand management in the region.
6.1. Further Research Needs
During the research for this thesis, many starting points for further investigations were
identified. These shall serve to revise, extend and advance the findings of this work.
They include but are not limited to the following aspects:
 Constraints and opportunities for RWH and greywater reuse in low income
households: Effectiveness of microfinance and rebate programs to increase their
adaptation rate.
 Prevalence of old metal shower heads and low quality faucet aerators, possibly
constituting a new challenge for targeted retrofits
 Actual effectiveness of flow regulators and rubber gaskets as a cheap alternative.
 Opportunities among the different income groups for water conversation by drip
irrigation, xeriscaping and a shift of irrigation times.
 Implications of the current tariff and billing system to optimize incentives for
water conservation and to identify possible channels of communication between
the customers and the utility.

123
 Interdependencies of WCTs and impacts on their joint effectiveness as well as
the extent to which the adaptation of one technique might reduce the willingness
to adapt further measures.
 Determination of the water demand satisfaction by the different subgroups in
order to investigate the share of savings effectuating a reduction of their total
water consumption.
 Assessment of the time horizon and costs to achieve the potential coverage of
WCTs on city scale as suggested in this paper.
 Identify key drivers for behavior change among the different income groups
Community based social marketing may detect respective barriers and help to
overcome these (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999, Graymore, et al. 2010,
USAID 2010a).
 The impact of large scale water conservation in Amman on downstream
agriculture should be investigated due to the dependency of farmers on treated
wastewater from the city.

124
7. Annex
7.1. List of Interview Partners for This Thesis
Table 15 List of Interview Partners for this Thesis
Name
Position
Date of Interview
Joumana Al-Ayyed
Miyahuna: Communications
and Water Awareness
Manager
12.09.2011 (repeatedly!)
Muhammed Malkwai
Miyahuna: Customer Service
Department (Director)
12.09.2011
Nadia Sammour Haddadin
Miyahuna: Water Network
Operation Department
19.09.2011
Ghazi Khalil
Miyahuna: Water Network
Operation (Department
Director)
19.09.2011
Abeer Al-Momeni
Miyahuna: Technical Support
Head of Unit/Customers
19.09.2011
11.10.2011
Abeer Khairden
Miyahuna: Customer Services
Department Sub Section
Head of Quality Control
28.09.2011
Omar Malkwai
Miyahuna: GIS Manager
29.09.2011
Naser Bataineh
Miyahuna: IT Director
29.09.2011
Salah Al-Birawi
Miyahuna: Head of
Cartography Section
29.09.2011
Mustafa Zayed
Miyahuna: GIS Department
02.10.2011
Wissam Alkhatib
Miyahuna: Manager of the
X7 Customer Data Base
01.12.2011
Jamil Hamdan
DoS: International Relations
Advisor
19.09.2011
Amer Jabarin
USAID: PAP Project
Manager
12.09.2011
Husam Samman
USAID: Idara – Water
Specialist
28.09.2011
Shadi Bushnaq
Mercy Corps
31.08.2011
Nisrin Haddadin
MWI – WDMU
29.11.2011
Faten A. Shabaan
MWI – WDMU
29.11.2011
Nabeel Ayyad
Sayegh Group (Factory
Direction for WSDs)
03.10.2011
Mutasim Al Hayari
Johud: Natural Resource
Management Program
Director
31.10.2011
Amjad Khreisat
Johud: Manager of the Queen
Alia Social Work
Competition
31.10.2011
Jörn Heise
GIZ
08.09.2011
Majdi A.
Water Truck Driver
29.10.2011
Abdallah K.
Bottled Water Store
14.11.2011

125

126
7.2. Sample Household Survey [English]
Figure 52 Sample Household Survey [English]

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138
7.3. Water Prices in Amman [Miyahuna: January 2011]
Table 16 Overview of prices for the different slides and the exact consumption
Slide
Amount (m³)
Price (JD)
Slide
Amount (m³)
Price (JD)
0-6
0,2,3,4,5,6
1.7
25-30
25
17,81
7-12
7
2,44
26
19,41
8
2,62
27
21,01
9
2,81
28
22,61
10
2,99
29
24,21
11
3,18
30
25,81
12
3,36
31-36
31
27,91
13-18
13
4,66
32
30,01
14
5,41
33
32,11
15
6,16
34
34,21
16
6,91
35
36,31
17
7,66
36
38,41
18
8,41
37-42
37
40,51
19-24
19
9,71
38
42,61
20
11,01
39
44,71
21
12,31
40
46,81
22
13,61
41
48,91
23
14,91
42
51,01
24
16,21
…
…
…
Source: Own Elaboration based on Miyahuna (2011c)

139
7.4. Knowledge and Level of Implementation of WCTs According to Socio-Economic Group
Table 17 Knowledge and Level of Implementation of WCTs According to Socio-Economic Group
WCT
Share of Respondents (%) Aware of the Different WCTs
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
USAID
Own
USAID
Own
USAID
Own
Aware
Applied
Aware
Applied
Aware
Applied
Aware
Applied
Aware
Applied
Aware
Applied
Technical Measures
Efficient Plumbing Products
6.5
2.5
-
-
9.5
2.7
-
-
9.6
3.8
-
-
Efficient Electrical Appliances
4
1.2
-
-
4.6
3.1
-
-
9.6
7.5
-
-
RWH
9
0
-
8
12
1.9
-
37
13.5
0
-
16.7
Greywater Reuse
14.6
22.4
11.5
50
12.2
10.7
16.3
91
17.3
7.5
16.7
83
Xeriscaping*
1.2
0
0
15
0.8
0.8
0
24
4
4
0
50
Drip Irrigation*
-
16.9
0
0
-
5.6
0
0
-
7.7
12.5
12.5
WSDs (Aerators)
61
30
0
-
63
39
13
67
65
44
42
80
Bottles in Toilet Tanks*
6.5
2.5
-
11.5
10
5.3
-
0
4
0
-
25
Power Spray on Hose*
4
1.2
-
-
4.6
1.9
-
-
3.8
7.5
-
-
Behavioral Measures
Close Faucets to Avoid Dripping
-
-
0
85
-
-
13
93
-
-
8
100
Open Faucet Wisely
15.8
17
31
100
10.7
18
43
87
21.2
31
67
100
Use Bucket Instead of Hose*
66
72
11.5
50
47
51
16.3
91
58.5
41.5
16.7
83
Flush Toilet According to Necessity
-
-
15
85
-
-
7
75
-
-
0
41
Fix Leaks Immediately
22
24
8
92
23
27
7
93
4
4
0
83
Fill Washing Machine Fully
6.5
9.3
31
85
4.6
6
18
68
7.5
10
8
67
Short Showers
12
11
0
15
11
14
0
25
7.5
3.8
16.7
33.3
Wash Vegetables/
Dishes in Bucket
20
12
31
46
10
14
25
25
0
10
0
0
Reuse Water From Washing Vegetables / Dishes
-
-
31
39
-
-
31
62
-
-
8
41
Reuse water from Washing Hands and Face
-
-
23
23
-
-
0
18
-
-
8.3
16.7
Reuse water from the Laundry
-
-
39
54
-
-
13
38
-
-
25
37
Use to Broom to Clean instead of Water
-
-
0
46
-
-
17
43
-
-
17
33
Not do anything
2.5
4
-
-
1.9
10.3
-
-
0
7.3
-
-
Scores
Total ‘Score’
171.4
129.4
220.5
728
160.6
136.4
203.3
822
155.2
121.6
216.7
731.7
Technical Only
95.1
56.1
11.5
58
101.3
57.4
29.3
195
115
62.8
58.7
179.7
Behavioral Only
76.3
73.3
209
670
59.3
79
174
627
40.2
58.8
158
552
*= these WCTs are not equally applicable in the three income groups and are hence neglected in the comparison of the total scores
Own Elaboration

140
7.5. Characterization of the Three Income Groups
Table 18 Characterization of the Three Income Groups
Features
Subgroup 1:
Low Income
Households
Subgroup 2:
Middle Income
Households
Subgroup 3:
High Income
Households
Income Rangeb
(JD/month)
0-829
711-2480
1654 or more
Share of Populationb
(%)
50.7
41.1
8.2
Number of Customers
in Miyahunad (#)
225,016
1182,409
36,393
Average Household
sizeb (people)
7.6
6
4.2
Water Consumptiona
(liters/person/day)
80
130
175
Monthly Water
Consumption (m³)
18.24
23.4
22
Monthly Bill (JD)
9.71
16.2
13.61
Average Housing
Spacea (m²)
135
170 (+10 Outdoor)
330 (+25 Outdoor)
Average Roof Area
available and accessible
for RWHa (m²)
151 (Shared by
averagely 6 parties)
126 (Shared by
averagely 5 parties)
203
Average Annual
Rainfallf (mm)
300
400
500
End Use Analysisc
Ras El Ain
(75% Low Inc.)
Qwesmeh
(44.6% Middle Inc.)
Abdoun
(72.1 % High Inc.)
Faucets (% [lpcd])
16.15 [13]
55.9 [73]
51.5 [89]
Shower (% [lpcd])
29.21[15]*
5.59 [7.3]
8.77 [15]
Toilet (%[lpcd])
35.5 [28.5]
19.4 [25]
15.8 [28]
Leaks (% [lpcd])
7.81[6.25]
7.78 [10]
7.32 [12.8]
Laundry (% [lpcd])
10.2 [8]
10 [13]
9.53 [16.7]
Outdoor (% [lpcd])
0.3 [0.25]
0.66 [0.86]
6.7 [12]
Other (% [lpcd])
1.3 [1]
0.54 [0.7]
0.51 [9]
Amount of Water
Needed for Toilet and
Outdoor Use (=could be
substituted by
greywater)
(l/household/day)
218.5
155.2
168.4
a=based on own survey b= based on the DoS/ESPP(2011) c= based on Idara (2011d)
d = based on Miyahuna (2011) e= estimate f= EXCT (1998) / Amman Institute (2011a)
*This figure has been adjusted. The share of 30 % was related to 49 lpcd in Ras El Ain (an area with a lot of
workers, usually not home during the day = little faucet use). In case of the 80 lpcd assumed here, this would result
in 24 lpcd just for showering, which would be double of what the middle income group consumes. The same amount
than in Ras El Ain was hence assumed.
(Own Elaboration)

141
7.6. Saving Potentials and Costs of the Different WCTs
Table 19 Matrix Demonstrating the Saving Potentials of the Different WCTs
ID
#
Place in
Home
Water
Savings
(liters)
Cost (JD)
Life-
span
(yrs)
Particular
ities
Depends
on
Measure
Subgroup 1
Subgroup 2
Subgroup 3
City Scale Total
Potential
Individual
City Scale
Individual
City Scale
Individual
City Scale
B
E
H
A
V
I
O
R
T
E
C
H
N
O
L
O
G
Y
Measure
Amou
nt
Unit
Set-
up
O
&
M
Water
Savings
(m³)
Month
[Year]
Bill
Savings
(JD)
Month
[Year]
Current
Cover-
age
(%)
Potenti
al
Cover
-age
(%)
Water
Savings
(m³)
Month
[Year]
Bill
Savings
(JD)
Month
[Year]
Current
Cover-
age
(%)
Potenti
al
Cover
-age
(%)
Water
Saving
s (m³)
Month
[Year]
Bill
Savings
(JD)
Month
[Year]
Curren
t
Cover-
age
(%)
Pote
ntial
Cove
r
-age
(%)
Saving
(MCM/
yr)
Saving
(thous
and
JD/yr)
=
Subsid
ies
(=0.27
/m³)
Resultant Savings
[m³/year]
Resultant Savings
[m³/year]
Resultant
Savings
[m³/year]
1
Roof
Prevent
Tank
Overflow
1000e
/
Wee
k
-
-
-
Presence
on water
day
required
-
4
[48]
3.1
[37.2]
n.i.
n.i.
4
[48]
5.21
[62.5]
n.i.
n.i.
4
[48]
5.2
[62.28]
n.i.
n.i.
0.852
230
2
RWH
(buckets)
300a
/mon
th
-
-
-
Low
Tech,
Only 4
rainy
monthsh
-
0.3b
[1.2]
1.3
[5.2]
8a
95e
0.3b
[1.2]
0
25a
50e
0.3b
[1.2]
0
0a
10e
0.294
79.4
234,915.9
54,722.6
4,368
3
Rooftop
RWH
240-
400h
/m²
/year
400-
2000
h
-
15
Cleaning!
-
3.02a;f;h
[36.24]
2.8
[33.6]
0a
10e
3.36a;f;h
[40.32]
5.2
[62.4]
6.6a
20e
6.77a;f;h
[81.2]
6.7
[80.4]
16.7a
50e
2.8
752
815,455.2
985,532.8
984,052
4
Flow
Regulator
2
lpm
200-
300
-
10-
15
If Head >
10 m
(Flow
Rate
>4lpm)
-
1.57a;c
[18.8]
2.05
[25]
8a
15e
2.78a;c
[33.4]
3.9
[46.8]
20a
40e
3.36a;c
[40.4]
3.9
[46.8]
16a
20e
1.57
425
296,120
1,218,490.7
58,767.4
5
Bathroom
Install
Aerators
2
lpm
2
-
3-7
Cleaning!
Flow
Rate
> 4lpm
4
0.21a;c
[2.46]
0
30g
60e
0.9a;c
[10.8]
1.3
[15.6]
39g
75e
0.76a;c
[9]
0
44g
80e
0.993
268
166,061
709,205
117,913.3
Legend:
= High Potential Savings. Easy
= High Pot. Savings. Constraints!

142
6
Install
WSSH
2
lpm
3.5 –
60
.
5-10
Cleaning!
Flow
Rate
> 7.6c
lpm
4
0.684a;c
[8.2]
1.3
[15.6]
18a
45e
0.26a;c
[3.12]
0
31a
51e
0.38a;c
[4.5]
0
46a
70e
0.546
147
498,184
115,063
47,872.8
7
Install
Low Flush
Toilet
Tank
4.5
lpf
30-
150
-
15
Concern
only
‘Flush
Toilets’ >
4.5c lpf
-
2.39c
[28.7]
2.8
[33.6]
n.i.
n.i.
1.26c
[15.12]
2.6
[31.6]
n.i.
n.i.
1.25c
[15]
1.3
[15.6]
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
n.i.
Probably one, due
to the high
implementation
cost! (rather
bottles!)
n.i.
8
Install
Bottles or
Toilet Bags
1.5
lpf
0
1
0
Low
Tech
7
1.54c
[18.47]
2.05
[24.6]
3.9a
33e;g
1,215c
[14.58]
1.3
[15.6]
0a
63e;g
0.85c
[10.21]
0
17.5a
47.5e
3
809
1,209,405
1,675,498
111,428.069
9
Individual
Flushing
4.5
lpf
0
-
-
-
7;8
2.39c
[28.7]
2.8
[33.6]
42a
100e
1.26c
[15.12]
2.6
[31.6]
75a
100e
1.26c
[15.1]
1.3
[15.6]
85a
100e
4.52
1,220
3,745,603
689,505
82,430
10
Economic
Faucet Use
2
lpm
0
-
-
Likely if
Flow
Rate >
4lpm
4;5
0.32a;c
[3.8]
1.3
[15.6]
17g
85a;e
0.9a;c
[10.8]
1.3
[15.6]
18g
87a;e
0.76a;c
[9]
0
31g
83a;e
2.11
570
581,439.3
1,359,310
170,319
11
Economic
Shower
Use
2
lpm
0
-
-
Likely if
Flow
Rate >
4lpm
4;6
0.684a;c
[8.2]
1.3
[15.6]
17g
85a;e
0.26a;c
[3.154]
0
18g
87a;e
0.38a;c
[4.5]
0
31g
83a;e
1.7
469
1,254,684.861
396,969
85,159.6
12
Short
Showers
(<5 min.)
18.4
/sho
wer
0
-
-
Flow
Rate > 4
4;6;11
1.2c
[14.4]
2.05
[24.6]
20g;a
100e
0.94c
[11.3]
1.3
[15.6]
20g;a
90e
0.66c
[7.93]
0
20g;a
70e
4.2
1,128
2,592,175.3
1,442,854
144,298.22
13
Reuse
Greywater
from
Personal
Hygiene
(By
Buckets)
22-49
lpcd
0
-
-
‘Low
Tech’
+Amount
s have to
be used
within 1
day (e.g.
to flush
toilet)
4;5;6;10;
11;12
5.02a;c
[60.2]
4.3
[51.6]
15a
95e
4.65a;c
[55.857]
6.5
[78]
7a
40e
5.1a;c
[60.48]
6.7
[80.4]
25
40
14.5
3,922
10,835,293
3,362,307
330,157
14
Fix Leaks
3.2-
lpcd
0-30
-
-
Might
-
0.73c
1.3
24g
33
0.9c
1.3
27
63
0.81c
0
4
93
1.2
324.3

143
at Toilet
and
Faucets
6.4
Require a
Plumber
[8.8]
[15.6]
178,212
[10.8]
[15.6]
709,205
[9.68]
313,533
15
Kitchen
Install
Aerators
2
lpm
2
-
3-7
Cleaning!
Flow
Rate
> 8.3c
lpm
4
0.27a;c
[3.28]
1.3
[15.6]
30g
60e
0.34a;c
[4.75]
0
39g
75e
0.5a;c
[6.048]
0
44g
80e
0.613
165.4
221,415
311,919
79,238
16
Wash
Dishes/Ve
getables in
a Bucket
70-
120
lpd
0
-
-
-
-
0.47a;c
[5.616]
1.3
[15.6]
12g
100e
1.8a;c
[21.6]
2.6
[31.2]
14g
100e
1.62a;c
[19.4]
1.3
[15.6]
10g
100e
5.14
1,387
1,112,043
3,388,426
636,731.8
17
Economic
Faucet Use
2
lpm
0
-
-
-
4;15
0.27a;c
[3.28]
1.3
[15.6]
17g
85e
0.34a;c
[4.75]
0
18g
87e
0.5a;c
[6.048]
0
31g
83e
1.22
328.4
501,874
597,844.8
116,656
18
Reuse
Water from
the
Laundry
(By Plastic
Barrels)
60-78
mont
h
0
-
-
Low
Tech;
Easier for
Manual
Machines
; Amount
depends
on Model
-
1.824c
[21.89]
2.05
[24.6]
54a
100e
2.34c
[28.1]
3.9
[46.8]
38a
80e
2.1c
[25.3]
2.6
[31.2]
37a
80e
4.8
1,300
2,265,561
2,152,788.5
395,919.4
19
Only Run
Laundry
Machine
when fully
filled
12.2-
15.6e
/hous
ehol
d/da
y
0
-
-
-
-
0.365
[4.4]
1.3
[15.6]
0g
0e
0.468
[5.616]
1.3
[15.6]
1.15g
50e
0.42
[5.05]
0
7.7g
52e
0.582
157
0
500,423
81,424
20
Fix
Kitchen
Leaks
(Faucet)
3.15-
6.4e;c
lpcd
0-30
-
-
Might
Require a
Plumber
-
0.69
[8.3]
1.3
[15.6]
24g
100e
0.9
[10.8]
1.3
[15.6]
27g
100e
0.81
[9.68]
0
4g
100e
3.2
863
1,419,396
1,438,110
338,192
21
Purchase
Dishwashe
r
46-90
lpd
700
or
more
-
8-10
-
1.248c;e
[15]
2.05
[24.6]
0b
30e
2.58
[31]
3.9
[46.8]
2.5b
50e
2.4
[28.8]
2.6
[31.2]
18b
95e
4.51
1,217
1,012,556.9
2,685,969.4
807,051
22
Cleaning

144
(Own Elaboration)
Dry Clean
(Inside +
Outside)
0.125
/m²
0
-
-
-
-
0.136a;c
[1.62]
2.05
[24.6]
46a
100e
0.18a;c
[2.16]
0
43a
100e
0.36a;c
[4.3]
0
33a
100e
0.526
142
196,843.3
224,582
104,848.2
23
Greywater System
4 Barrel
GWS
218-
168.4
/hous
ehol
d/da
y
200
n.i
5-10
Requires
Maintena
nce
4;5;6;10;
11;12;15;
16;17;19;
21
6.55c
[78.67]
6.35
[76.2]
0e
30e
4.66c
[55.87]
6.5
[78]
2e
40e
5.05c
[60.62]
5.85
[70.2]
2e
50e
10.2
2,765
5,310,584.184
3,872,648
1,059,019
Car
24
Wash by
Bucket
instead of
Hose
190
/was
h
-
-
-
-
-
1.52a
[18.24]
2.05
[24.6]
33a
46a:e
1.52a
[18.24]
2.6
[31.2]
44.4a
87a;e
1.52a
[18.24]
1.3
[15.6]
41.5a
100a;
e
2.34
631
529,452
1,417,360
388,328
n.i. = no information available a= own survey b = DoS/ESPP c= Idara (2011) d = Miyahuna (2011) e= estimate f = EXACT (1998) g = USAID (KAP) h= Abdullah and Idara (2011)

145
7.7. Background Calculations for Table 19 [7.5]
Table 20 Background Calculations for the Matrix [7.5]
Measure
#
Subgroup 1
Subgroup 2
Subgroup 3
1
Tank
Overflow
This figure was only available on city scale, not for the different income groups:
4%c (of the households have leaking roof tanks) * 443817d (domestic customers in Amman) * 1e
m³/week * 4 weeks * 12 (months)= 852,128.6 liters/year
2
RWH
(Buckets)
Generally: The amount of 300 liter is based on findings of the own survey: Respondents that indicated
to harvest rainwater collected on average 300 liters during the rainy months = 4 months  1.2 m³/year
Currently 8a % were found to
harvest rainwater by buckets.
Assumed potential coverage =
95 % (=+87%)
0.87*443817*0.507 (share of
low income domestic
customers)*1.2 m³/year
=234,915.9m³/year on city
scale
Currently 65a % were found to
harvest rainwater by buckets
among those 38 % harvesting
rainwater = 25 % of total.
Assumed potential coverage = 50
% (=+25%)
0.25*443817*0.411 (share of
middle income domestic
customers)*1.2 m³/year
=54,722.6 m³ /year on city scale
Currently 0a % were found to
harvest rainwater by buckets
among. Assumed potential
coverage = 10 %, due to the low-
tech approach (=+10%)
0.10*443817*0.082 (share of
high income domestic
customers)*1.2 m³/year =4,367
m³ /year on city scale
234,915 m³/year
54,723 m³ /year
4,370 m³ /year
3
Rooftop
RWH
Generally: The set up of a rooftop RWH system usually only pays off if one or maximum two parties
are sharing the roof and the ‘harvest’. Relatively many high income households own a whole building (a
house; 67% according to the own survey). Among the low and middle income group a higher share lives
in apartments (85% and 75% respectively) with usually 5- 6 parties. If one party per house would adopt
RWH (1 out of 5 households among this income group) it would correspond to a maximum coverage of
20 % in these income groups. For the middle income group it is assumed that in each house (20% of
households) a system could be installed and for the low income group a potential coverage of 10 % is
assumed due to the high implementation cost.
At an average roof size of 151a
m² , an annual rainfall of 300f;h
mm and runoff coefficient of
0.8h, 36.24 m³/yr could be
harvested = 3.02 m³/month
Currently nonea;g of the low
income households are
harvesting rainwater
professionally (due to the high
implementation costs). With
the help of microfinance such
systems could become
accessible and may be set up
by 10 % of the people.
0.1*443817*0.507*36.24
m³/year =
815,455.2 m³/year on city
scale
At an average roof size of 126
m²a, an annual rainfall of 400f;h
mm and runoff coefficient of
0.8h, 40.32 m³/yr could be
harvested = 3.36 m³/month
Currently 6.6%a of the middle
income households are
harvesting rainwater
professionally. With the help of
microfinance such systems could
become more accessible and may
be set up by 20 % of the people
(= +13.4%)
0.134*443817*0.411*40,32
m³/year =
985,532.8 m³/year on city scale
At an average roof size of 203
m²a, an annual rainfall of 500f;h
mm and runoff coefficient of
0.8h, 81.2 m³/yr could be
harvested = 6.77 m³/month
Currently 16.7%a of the high
income households are
harvesting rainwater
professionally. Better marketing
should be able to increase this
share to 50 %(= + 33.3%)
0.333*443817*0.082*81.2
m³/year =
984,052 m³/year on city scale
815,455 m³/year
985,533 m³/year
984,052 m³/year
4
Flow
Regulator
General: Flow regulators would be efficient if the pressure is strong at the faucets/showers (e.g. 10 lpm
instead of 8 at kitchen; or 6 lpm instead of 4 in the bathroom. A flow regulator could adjust this, which
roughly corresponds to a regulation by 30 %).
On average low income
households use 28 lpcd
through faucets and showers.
On average middle income
households use 61.49 lpcd
through faucets and showers.
On average high income
households use 104 lpcd through
faucets and showers. Assuming

146
Assuming that 5e liters are
needed as full flow events, 23
lpcd remain where savings
could be achieved (30 % =6.9
lpcd savings)*7.6*30 days =
1.57m³/month  18.8 m³/year
Currently 8a % of the people
installed a flow regulator. 23a
% report to have a strong
pressure, so these would be in
focus for the installation of a
flow regulator. However, the
unit is quite expensive, other
measures are cheaper, so it is
assumed that 7 % more would
install one (=15% total) 
0.07*443817*0.507*18.8m³/yr
=
296,120 m³/year on city scale
Assuming that 10e lpcd are
‘needed’ as full flow (a fixed
amount),
51.49 lpcd are concerned of
savings (30 % =15.45 lpcd
savings)*6*30 days = 2.78
m³/month  33.4 m³/year
Currently 20a % of the people
installed a flow regulator. 20a %
report to have a strong pressure,
so these would be in focus for
the installation of a flow
regulator and these are assumed
to install one (=40% total) 
0.2*443817*0.411*33.4m³/yr =
1,218,490.7 m³/year on city scale
that 15e lpcd are ‘needed’ as full
flow,
89 lpcd are concerned of savings
(30 % =26.7 lpcd
savings)*4.2*30 days = 3.36
m³/month  40.37 m³/year
Currently 16a % of the people
installed a flow regulator. Nonea
reported to have a strong
pressure (maybe because they
tend to live in one story houses),
so the potential is assumed to be
little (= +4 %) 
0.04*443817*0.082*40.37 m³/yr
=
58,767.4 m³/year on city scale
296,120 m³/year
1,218,491 m³/year
58,767 m³/year
5
Bathroom
Aerators
Low income households use
13c lpcd at faucets. It is
assumed that half of these
(7lpcd) are used in the
bathroom and the other half
(6lpcd) in the kitchen.
2.5e liters are needed as full
flow, so 4.5 lpcd are concerned
of a flow reduction (bathroom:
assumption 6 lpm  4 lpm = -
20 % * 4.5lpcd=) 0.9 lpcd
(savings) *7.6 (individuals) *
30 (days) =0.21m³/month 
2.46 m³/year. 23a % report
high pressure; 62.2a fair
pressure in-home. Estimate: +
30e % adaptation likely =
0.3*443817*0.507*2.46m³/yea
r
166,061 m³/year on city scale
Middle income households use
73c lpcd at faucets. It is assumed
that 58 lpcd are used in the
bathroom and 15 lpcd in the
kitchen. 33 liters are assumed to
be needed as full flow, so 25 lpcd
are concerned of a flow
reduction (bathroom: assumption
6 lpm  4 lpm = - 20 % *
25lpcd=) 5 lpcd (savings) *6
(individuals) * 30 (days) =0.9
m³/month  10.8 m³/year. 20a %
report high pressure; 68a fair
pressure in-home. Currently 39g
% have aerators, it is assumed
that the share could easily rise up
to 75% (=+ 36 %)
0.36*443817*0.411*10.8m³/year
709,205 m³/year on city scale
High income households use 89c
lpcd at faucets. It is assumed that
69 lpcd are used in the bathroom
and 20 lpcd in the kitchen. 39
liters are assumed to be needed
as full flow, so 30 lpcd are
concerned of a flow reduction
(bathroom: assumption 6 lpm 
4 lpm = - 20 % * 30lpcd=) 6 lpcd
(savings) *4.2 (individuals) * 30
(days) =0.756 m³/month  9.1
m³/year. 0a % report high
pressure (often single story
buildings); 80a% fair pressure in-
home. Currently 44g % have
aerators, it is assumed that the
share could easily rise up to 80%
(=+ 36 %)
0.36*443817*0.082*9m³/year
117,913.3 m³/year on city scale
166,061 m³/year
709,205 m³/year
117,913 m³/year
6
WSSH
Low income households use
around 15c;e lpcd for
showering. Like the aerator, it
is assumed that the WSSH
may reduce the amount by 20
% (=3lpcd)*7.6*30
(days)=0.684 m³/month =
8.2m³/year
Currently 18a % are equipped
with WSSH. Based on
information about the pressure
(mentioned above), a possible
increase of about 27 % (
total 45%) is assumed.
0.27*443817*0.507*8.2m³/yr
=498,184 m³/year on city scale
Middle income households use
around 7.3c;e lpcd for showering.
Like the aerator, it is assumed
that the WSSH may reduce the
amount by 20 %
(=1.46lpcd)*6*30 (days)=0.623
m³/month = 3.154m³/year
Currently 31a % are equipped
with WSSH. Based on
information about the pressure
(mentioned above), a possible
increase of about 20 % ( total
51%) is assumed. The payback
period are a few months, the
major constraint is the pressure.
0.2*443817*0.411*3.154m³/yr =
115,063.5 m³/year on city scale
High income households use
around 15c;e lpcd for showering.
Like the aerator, it is assumed
that the WSSH may reduce the
amount by 20 %
(=3lpcd)*4.2*30 (days)=0.387
m³/month = 4.536 m³/year
Currently 46a % are equipped
with WSSH. 80 % have a fair
pressure, but some households
might not like to exchange their
expensive existing shower heads
for a quite inexpensive WSSH.
The alternative is a flow
regulator. Hence the max.
potential coverage is assumed as
70 % (=+29%)
0.29*443817*0.082*4.536m³/yr
= 47,873 m³/year on city scale
498,184 m³/year
115,064 m³/year
47,873 m³/year
7
General: Missing information on how many % of the households in the different income groups and in
general currently have low or high flush toilets…

147
Low Flush
Toilet
Tank
However, they use 28.5 lpcd
for the toilet (averagely 4.5
times per day = 6.33 lpf!) A
low flush toilet uses ~ 4lpf =
2.33 lpf savings *4.5 =10.5
lpcd savings * 7.6 * 30 = 2.39
m³/month = 28.7 m³/year
However, they use 25 lpcd for
the toilet (averagely 4.5 times per
day = 5.56 lpf!) A low flush
toilet uses ~ 4lpf = 1.56 lpf
savings *4.5 =7.02 lpcd savings
* 6 * 30 = 1.26 m³/month =
15.16 m³/year
However, they use 28 lpcd for
the toilet (averagely 4.5 times per
day = 6.2 lpf!) A low flush toilet
uses ~ 4lpf = 2.2 lpf savings *4.5
=9.9 lpcd savings * 4.2 * 30 =
1.247 m³/month = 14.968
m³/year
28.7 m³/year
15.16 m³/year
14.968 m³/year
8
Bottles/Tan
k Bank
Assuming a volume of 1.5
liters displaced by a bottle/tank
bank = 1.5 lpf saved * 4.5/day
*7.6 (individuals)*30=
1.54m³/month = 18.47 m³/year
According to own surveys:
33% have a flush toilet and
12% have currently installed
bottles (0.33*0.12 = 3.9%
currently of total). I assume all
of those with a flush toilet
could install bottles
(=0.291*0.88 = 47.52 % of
total) 
0.291*443817*0.507*18.47m³
/yr =1,209,405 m³/year on city
scale
Assuming a volume of 1.5 liters
displaced by a bottle/tank bank =
1.5 lpf saved * 4.5/day *6
(individuals)*30=
1.215m³/month = 14.58 m³/year
According to own surveys: 63%
have a flush toilet and 0% have
currently installed bottles. I
assume all of those with a flush
toilet could install bottles
0.63*443817*0.411*14.58 m³/yr
=1,675,497.7 m³/year on city
scale
Assuming a volume of 1.5 liters
displaced by a bottle/tank bank =
1.5 lpf saved * 4.5/day *4.2
(individuals)*30=
0.851m³/month = 10,206 m³/year
According to own surveys: all
have a flush toilet (USAID
sample 93%), but 30 % flush by
bucket and 25% installed bottles
in their tanks. So currently 17.5
% of the total have bottles
installed and 52.5 % is the
maximum, since the rest flushes
by bucket. Due to the low tech
approach we can assume that
additional 30 instead of the
possible 35 % install bottles.
0.3*443817*0.082*10.21 m³/yr
=111,428.069 m³/year on city
scale
1,209,405 m³/year
1,675,498 m³/year
111,428 m³/year
9
Individual
Flushing
General: Same savings assumed as in the case of the low volume toilet flushs.
According to own surveys,
currently 42 % do so. 100%
should/could. + 58 %
0.58*443817*0.507*28.7m³/ye
ar = 3,745,603.3 m³/year on
city scale
According to own surveys,
currently 75 % do so. 100%
should/could. + 25 %
0.25*443817*0.411*15.12m³/ye
ar = 689,505.2 m³/year on city
scale
According to own surveys,
currently 85 % do so. 100%
should/could. + 15 %
0.15*443817*0.082*15.1m³/year
= 82,430.13 m³/year on city scale
3,745,603 m³/year
689,505 m³/year
82,430 m³/year
10
Economic
Faucet Use
General: Same savings assumed as in the case of aerators
According to the USAID
(KAP) data, currently 17 % do
so. According to own surveys
85.2 % of the respondents
have a strong or a fair pressure
and can be expected to do so.
= +68 % increase possible
0.68*443817*0.507*3.8m³/yea
r = 581,439.3 m³/year on city
scale
According to the USAID (KAP)
data, currently 18 % do so.
According to own surveys 86.6
% of the respondents have a
strong or a fair pressure and can
be expected to do so. = +69 %
increase possible
0.69*443817*0.411*10.8m³/year
= 1,359,310 m³/year on city scale
According to the USAID (KAP)
data, currently 31 % do so.
According to own surveys 83 %
of the respondents have a strong
or a fair pressure and can be
expected to do so. = +52 %
increase possible
0.52*443817*0.082*9m³/year =
170,319 m³/year on city scale
=581,439 m³/year
1,359,310 m³/year
170,319 m³/year
11
Economic
Shower
Use
General: Same savings as WSSH assumed.
Same current coverage and
potential assumed as the
economic faucet use. = + 68 %
0.68*443817*0.507*8.2m³/yr
=
1,254,684.861 m³/year on city
scale
Same current coverage and
potential assumed as the
economic faucet use. = + 69 %
0.69*443817*0.411*3.154m³/yr
=
396,969 m³/year on city scale
Same current coverage and
potential assumed as the
economic faucet use. = + 52 %
0.52*443817*0.082*4.5m³/yr =
85,159.6 m³/year on city scale

148
1,254,685 m³/year
396,969 m³/year
85,160 m³/year
12
Short
Showers
General: According to Idara the average number of showers per household with an average number of
5.6 individuals is 1.6 (=0.286 showers per individual). The average shower duration is 8.4 minutes,
short showers were defined as 5 min. or less in the own survey = 3.4 min. less *5.4lpm (=average flow
rate) = average savings of 18.36 lp shower
Low income. 7.6
people*0.286*18.36l*30 days
= 1.2 m³/month = 14.4 m³/year
Currently 11g % are doing so.
15% indicated to have very
bad water pressure and it shall
be assumed that 9% will not be
able to shower in less than 5
min. Remainder: 80 % more!
0.8*443817*0.507 * 14.4
m³/year = 2,592,175 m³/year
on city scale
Middle income. 6
people*0.286*18.36l*30 days =
0.94 m³/month = 11.3 m³/year
Currently 14g % are doing so.
14% indicated to have very bad
water pressure and it shall be
assumed that 6% will not be able
to shower in less than 5 min. and
that another 10 % are reluctant to
change their long showers:
Remainder: 70 % more!
0.7*443817*0.411 * 11.3
m³/year = 1,442,854 m³/year on
city scale
High income. 4.2
people*0.286*18.36l*30 days =
0.66 m³/month = 7.93 m³/year
Currently 3.8g % are doing so.
17% indicated to have very bad
water pressure and it shall be
assumed that all of them + 10%
are reluctant to shower in 5
minutes or less: Remainder: 50
% more!
0.5*443817*0.082 * 7.93
m³/year = 144,298.22 m³/year on
city scale
2,592,175 m³/year
1,442,854 m³/year
144,298 m³/year
13
Greywater
from
Bathroom
Greywater from the bathroom
corresponds to the water from
showering (15lpcd) and the
faucet (7lpcd) = 22c liters.
Since the toilet alone requires
28.5 lpcd, it is assumed the full
amount can be resused by
simple means:
22*7.6*30=5.02m³/month =
60.192m³/year
Currently 15a% of the people
reuse greywater in this way.
Assumed: 95% coverage =
+80 % 
0.8*443817*0.507*60.192m³/
yr = 10,835,292.85 m³/year on
city scale
Greywater from the bathroom
corresponds to the water from
showering (7.3lpcd) and the
faucet (58lpcd) = 65.3c liters.
Since the toilet and outdoor use
only require 25.86 together, the
reuse is limited by the limited
need for it.
25.86*6*30=4.65m³/month =
55.857m³/year
Currently 7a% of the people
reuse greywater in this way. Due
to Low Tech, assumed: 40%
coverage = +33 % 
0.33*443817*0.411*55.857m³/yr
= 3,362,307 m³/year on city scale
Greywater from the bathroom
corresponds to the water from
showering (15lpcd) and the
faucet (69lpcd) = 65.3c liters.
Since the toilet and outdoor use
only require 40 together, the
reuse is limited by the limited
need for it.
40*4.2*30=5.04m³/month =
60.48m³/year
Currently 25a% of the people
reuse greywater in this way. Due
to Low Tech, assumed: 40%
coverage = +15 % 
0.15*443817*0.082*60.48m³/yr
= 330,157 m³/year on city scale
10,835,293 m³/year
3,362,307 m³/year
330,157 m³/year
14
Fix Leaks
in
Bathroom
Low income households were
determined to have on average
6.25c lpcd leakage. It is
assumed here that half of these
occur in the bathroom
(3.2lpcd), the other half in the
kitchen. 3.2lpcd*7.6*30 =
0.73m³/month  8,8 m³/year
Currently 24g% are indicating
to fix their leaks immediately.
Since only 33 % have a flush
toilet = +9 % should also do
so,
0.09*443817*0.507*8.8m³/yr
= 178,212 m³/year on city
scale
Middle income households were
determined to have on average
10c lpcd leakage. It is assumed
here that half of these occur in
the bathroom (5lpcd), the other
half in the kitchen. 5lpcd*6*30 =
0.9 m³/month  10.8 m³/year
Currently 27g% are indicating to
fix their leaks immediately. 63 %
have a flush toilet = +36 %
should also do so,
0.36*443817*0.411*10.8m³/yr =
709,205 m³/year on city scale
High income households were
determined to have on average
12.8c lpcd leakage. It is assumed
here that half of these occur in
the bathroom (6.4lpcd), the other
half in the kitchen.
6.4lpcd*4.2*30 = 0.81m³/month
 9.68 m³/year
Currently 4g% are indicating to
fix their leaks immediately.
Since 93 % have a flush toilet =
+89 % should also do so,
0.89*443817*0.082*9.68m³/yr =
313,532.9219 m³/year on city
scale
178,212 m³/year
709,205 m³/year
313,533 m³/year
15
Kitchen
Aerators
As determined before (in
measure #5), faucet use in the
kitchen is assumed to be about
6lpcd. Assuming a reduction
by 20 % and a household size
of 7.6, the monthly savings
As determined before (in
measure #5), faucet use in the
kitchen is assumed to be about
39 lpcd. Assuming a reduction
by 20 % and a household size of
6, the monthly savings amount to
As determined before (in
measure #5), faucet use in the
kitchen is assumed to be about
44 lpcd. Assuming a reduction
by 20 % and a household size of
4.2 , the monthly savings amount

149
amount to about 0.273 m³ =
3.28m³/year. Currently 30 %
have aerators. 85.2% have
strong or fair pressure +  +
30 % potential assumed = 60
% in total.
0.30*443817*0.507*3.28m³/ye
ar = 212,145 m³/year on city
scale
about 0.34 m³ = 4.75 m³/year.
Currently 39 % have aerators.
86.6 % have strong or fair
pressure  + 36 % potential
assumed = 75 % in total.
0.36*443817*0.411*4.75m³/year
= 311,919 m³/year on city scale
to about 0.5 m³ = 6.048 m³/year.
Currently 44 % have aerators.
83% have strong or fair pressure
 + 36 % potential assumed =
80 % in total.
0.36*443817*0.082*6.048
m³/year = 79,238 m³/year on city
scale
212,145 m³/year
311,919 m³/year
79,238 m³/year
16
Wash
Vegetables
/
Dishes in a
Bucket
Generally: Washing them by a bucket of 10 liters capacity and assuming that max. 3 of these loads are
needed per day = 30 l/household/day.
Low Income: Faucet use in the
kitchen: 6c,e lpcd*7.6 = 45.6 
15.6 l/household/day saved
when using buckets. 15.6 *30
(days) =0.47 m³/month = 5.616
m³/year.
Currently 12g% are doing so,
Assuming that all
could/should, the increase
would be 88 %.
0.88*443817*0.507*5.616
m³/yr = 1,112,043 m³/year on
city scale
Middle Income: Faucet use in the
kitchen: 15c;e lpcd* 6 = 90  60
l/household/day saved when
using buckets. 60 *30 (days)
=1.8 m³/month = 21.6 m³/year.
Currently 14g% are doing so,
Assuming that all could/should,
the increase would be 86 %.
0.86*443817*0.411*21.6 m³/yr
= 3,388,425 m³/year on city scale
High Income: Faucet use in the
kitchen: 20c;e lpcd* 4.2 = 84 
54 l/household/day saved when
using buckets. 54 *30 (days)
=1.62 m³/month = 19.44 m³/year.
Currently 10g% are doing so,
Assuming that all could/should,
the increase would be 90 %.
0.90*443817*0.082*19.44 m³/yr
= 636,731.823 m³/year on city
scale
1,112,043 m³/year
3,388,425 m³/year
636,731.823 m³/year
17
Economic
Faucet Use
Generally: Same savings as in the case of aerators assumed. And same idea with the pressure as in prior
examples (e.g. #15).
Low income: Currently 17g %
open the faucet wisely. 85.2 %
could do so based on the
pressure = + 68 %. 0.68
*443817*0.507*3.28m³/yr =
501,874 m³/year on city scale
Middle income: Currently 18g %
open the faucet wisely. 86.6 %
could do so based on the pressure
= + 69 %. 0.69
*443817*0.411*4.75m³/yr =
597,844.8 m³/year on city scale
High income: Currently 31g %
open the faucet wisely. 83 %
could do so based on the pressure
= + 53 %. 0.53
*443817*0.082*6.048m³/yr =
116,656 m³/year on city scale
501,874 m³/year
597,845 m³/year
116,656 m³/year
18
Greywater
From
Laundry
Low Income: 8lpcd (for
washing, while 28.5 lpcd is
needed for toilet flushing, so
the full amount can be used)
*7.6 = 60.8 liters*30 (days) =
1.824 m³/month = 21.89
m³/year. Currently 54% are
doing so. Potentially 100 %
(regardless of the washing
machine type/handwash) + 46
%  0.46 *
443817*0.507*21.89 m³/year
=2,265,561.232 m³/year on
city scale
Middle Income: 13lpcd (for
washing, while 25 lpcd is needed
for toilet flushing, so the full
amount can be used) *6 = 78
liters*30 (days) = 2.34 m³/month
=28.1 m³/year. Currently 38%
are doing so. Potentially 100 %
(regardless of the washing
machine type/handwash) + 42 %
 0.42 * 443817*0.411*28.1
m³/year =2,152,788.5 m³/year on
city scale
High Income: 16.7lpcd (for
washing) *4.2 = 70.14 liters*30
(days) = 2.1 m³/month =25.3
m³/year. Currently 37% are
doing so. Potentially 100 %
(regardless of the washing
machine type/handwash) + 43 %
 0.43 * 443817*0.082*25.3
m³/year =395,919.4 m³/year on
city scale
2,265,561 m³/year
2,152,789 m³/year
395,919 m³/year
19
Run
Laundry
Machine
Generally: Assumption that filling the machine fully reduces the long term average water use for
washing the laundry by 20%. This measures only applied to automatic washing machines, since with
manual ones the user may adjust the level of water according to the load
In the KAP-survey by USAIDg
none of the low income
households had automatic
washing machines… so
according to this data, there are
no savings achievable here
78 l/household/day for laundry
20% =15.6 l /household /day
savings * 30 = 0.468m³/month
=5.616m³/year.
In the KAP-survey by USAIDg
50 % of the middle income
70.14 l/household/day for
laundry. 20% =14 l /household
/day savings * 30 =
0.421m³/month =5.05m³/year.
In the KAP-survey by USAIDg
52 % of the high income

150
Only when
Fully
Filled
households had automatic
washing machines. Currently 2.3
% of these run them when fully
filled (=0.5*0.023 = 0.0115 of
total). It is assumed that all of
them could do so = max. 50 % of
total = + 48.85 %
0.4885*443817*0.411*5.616m³/
year = 500,423 m³ /year on city
scale
households had automatic
washing machines. Currently
14.8 % of these run them when
fully filled (=0.52*0.148 =
0.07696 of total). It is assumed
that all of them could do so =
max. 52 % of total = + 44.304 %
0.44304*443817*0.082*5.05m³/
year = 81,423.9 m³ /year on city
scale
0
500,423 m³ /year
81,424 m³ /year
20
Fix Leaks
in Kitchen
Amount of leakage in kitchen:
3.15 lpcd *7.6 * 30 =
0.69m³/month = 8.3 m³/year
Currently 24g % of the people
indicated to fix their leaks
immediately, although all
could/should (=+76%).
0.76*443817*0.507*8.3
m³/year = 1,419,396 m³/year
on city scale
Amount of leakage in kitchen: 5
lpcd *6 * 30 = 0.9 m³/month =
10.8 m³/year
Currently 27g % of the people
indicated to fix their leaks
immediately, although all
could/should (=+73%).
0.73*443817*0.411*10.8
m³/year = 1,438,110 m³/year on
city scale
Amount of leakage in kitchen:
6.4 lpcd *4.2 * 30 = 081
m³/month = 9.68 m³/year
Currently 4g % of the people
indicated to fix their leaks
immediately, although all
could/should (=+96%).
0.96*443817*0.082*9.68
m³/year = 338,192.8 m³/year on
city scale
1,419,396 m³/year
= 1,438,110 m³/year
338,193 m³/year
21
Purchase
Dishwashe
r
Same scenario assumed as in
#16 (45.6 l/household/day
=1.368 m³/month to wash the
dishes). As mentioned in
chapter 4.1.4. an efficient
dishwasher uses 12 liters per
cycle. Assuming that a family
would run the dishwasher
every 3rd day = 12 * 10 = 120
liters /month = 1.248
m³/month savings  14.976
m³ /year.
Currently none of the low
income households have a
dishwasher according to the
own surveys. It might increase
by 30 % if financial support
was provided.
0.3*443817*0.507*15m³/year
= 1,012,568.5 m³/year on city
scale
Same scenario assumed as in #16
(90 l/household/day = 2.7
m³/month to wash the dishes). As
mentioned in chapter 4.1.4. an
efficient dishwasher uses 12
liters per cycle. Assuming that a
family would run the dishwasher
every 3rd day = 12 * 10 = 120
liters /month = 2.58 m³/month
savings  31 m³ /year.
According to the DoS, 2.4% of
the residents in Amman have
dishwashers. Assuming that 2.5
% of the middle income group
does and assuming that this
amount could increase to 50 %
(=+47.5).
0.475*443817*0.411*31m³/year
= 2,685,969.4 m³/year on city
scale
Same scenario assumed as in #16
(84 l/household/day = 2.52
m³/month to wash the dishes). As
mentioned in chapter 4.1.4. an
efficient dishwasher uses 12
liters per cycle. Assuming that a
family would run the dishwasher
every 3rd day = 12 * 10 = 120
liters /month = 2.4 m³/month
savings  28.8 m³ /year.
According to the DoS, 2.4% of
the residents in Amman have
dishwashers. Assuming that 18
% of the high income group does
and assuming that this amount
could increase to 95 % (=+77%).
0.77*443817*0.082*28.8m³/year
= 807,051 m³/year on city scale
1,012,569 m³/year
2,685,969 m³/year
807,051 m³/year
22
Dry Clean
General: According to the Idara Hospital audit report, 0.125 l /m² are needed to ‘wet clean’ the floors. I
shall be assumed than the house (inside and outside) is cleaned twice per week.
Low Income: 135 m² average
space = 16.88 liters*8
(times/month) = 0.135
m³/month = 1.62 m³/year
Currently: 46a% are dry
cleaning. Assuming that 100 %
could do so (=+54%). 0.54 *
443817*0.507*1.62m³/year =
196,843.3 m³/year on city
scale
Middle Income: 80 m² average
space = 22.5 liters*8
(times/month) = 0.18 m³/month =
2.16 m³/year
Currently: 43a% are dry cleaning.
Assuming that 100 % could do
so (=+57%). 0.57 *
443817*0.411*2.16m³/year =
224,582 m³/year on city scale
Low Income: 355 m² average
space = 44.4 liters*8
(times/month) = 0.36 m³/month =
4.3 m³/year
Currently: 33a% are dry cleaning.
Assuming that 100 % could do
so (=+67%). 0.67 *
443817*0.082*4.3m³/year =
104,848.2 m³/year on city scale
196,843 m³/year
224,582 m³/year
104,848 m³/year
23
4 Barrel
Greywater produced per day
(shower, faucets, laundry) =
273.6c/ low income household.
Greywater needed by the low
Greywater produced per day
(shower, faucets, laundry) =
559.8c /middle income
household. Greywater needed by
Greywater produced per day
(shower, faucets, laundry) =
506.94c. Greywater needed by
the low income group (toilet and

151
GWS
income group (toilet and
outdoor) = 218.5c
l/household/day *30
=6.55m³/month =78.67
m³/year.
Currently 0 % have such a
system  potential assumed:
30% (if financial aid is
provided). 0.3*443817 *
0.507*78.67 m³/year=
5,310,584.2 m³ /year on city
scale
the middle income group (toilet
and outdoor) = 155.2c
l/household/day *30 =4.66
m³/month =55.87 m³/year.
Currently 2e % have such a
system  potential assumed:
40% (for not all it may be
suitable in their homes).
0.4*443817 * 0.411*55.87
m³/year= 3,872,648 m³ /year on
city scale
outdoor) =168.4c l/household/day
*30 =5.052 m³/month =60.624
m³/year.
Currently 2e % have such a
system  potential assumed:
50%. (if people perceive it as
acceptable and not dirty)
0.48*443817 * 0.082*60.624
m³/year= 1,059,019 m³ /year on
city scale
5,310,584 m³ /year
3,872,648 m³ /year
1,059,019 m³ /year
24
Wash Cars
by Bucket
instead of
Hose
General: As elaborated in chapter 4.2.3. washing the car by hose requires each time ~ 200 liters.
Washing it by bucket requires 10 liters. Cars are cleaned twice per week a  1.52m³/month = 18.24
m³/year
Low income: 46a % have a car
and of these 72a % wash it by
bucket (=currently 33% of
total). 28e % of the 46 % with
a car could also do so =
0.28*0.46 = + 12.9%.
0.12*443817*0.507*18.24m³/
year = 529,452 m³/year on city
scale
Middle income: 87a % have a car
and of these 51a % wash it by
bucket (=currently 44.4% of
total). 49e % of the 87 % with a
car could also do so = 0.49*0.87
= + 42.6%.
0.426*443817*0.411*18.24m³/y
ear = 1,417,360 m³/year on city
scale
High income: 100a % have a car
and of these 41.5a % wash it by
bucket. 58.5e % could also do so
=
0.58*443817*0.082*18.24m³/ye
ar = 388,328 m³/year on city
scale
529,452 m³/year
1,417,360
= 388,328 m³/year
a= own survey b = DoS/ESPP c= Idara (2011) d = Miyahuna (2011) e= estimate
f = EXACT (1998) g = USAID (KAP) h= Abdullah and Idara (2011)
(Own Elaboration)

152
7.8. WCTs – Ranking Total Saving Potentials at City Scale
Table 21 WCTs according to their Estimated Saving Potentials on City Scale
Relative Savings
WCTs
Water
MCM/year
Money
(Redundantized Subsidies)
JD / year
High
Reuse Greywater from
Bathroom
14.5
3,922,000
4 Barrel GWS
10.2
2,765,000
Wash Vegetables/Dishes
in a Bucket
5.14
1,387,000
Reuse Water From the
Laundry
4.8
1,300,000
Individual Flushing
4.52
1,220,000
Purchase Dishwasher
4.51
1,217,000
Shorter Showers
4.2
1,128,000
Fix Leaks (Kitchen)
3.2
863,000
Install Bottles or Bags in
Toilet Tank
3
809,000
Rooftop RWH
2.8
752,000
Wash Car by Bucket
2.34
631,000
Economic Faucet Use
(Bathr.)
2.11
570,000
Economic Shower Use
1.7
469,000
Medium
Flow Regulator
1.57
425,000
Economic Faucet Use
(Kitchen)
1.22
328,400
Fix Leaks (Bathr.)
1.2
324,300
Aerators (Bathr.)
1
268,000
WSSH
0.55
147,00
Aerators (Kitchen)
0.6
165,000
Low
Run Laundry Machine
When Fully Filled
0.582
157,000
Dry Clean
0.526
142,000
RWH by buckets
0.294
79,400
(Own Elaboration based on Table 19)

153
7.9. Calculation of Total Savings
Table 22 Calculation of Total Savings for WCTs at City Scale
Measure
#
‘Independent’ Measures
Savings [MCM/year]
Measure
#
‘Interdependent’ Measures
Savings [MCM/year]
1
Preventing Tank overflow does not
depend on any other measure and also
will not influence any other measure
0.852
3;6;15
Installing Aerators and WSSH
instead of a flow regulator:
0.993 (bathroom)
0.613 (kitchen)
0.694 (WSSH)
3
Rooftop RWH was chosen instead of the
RWH by bucket, since savings are
greater.
1.51
10;17
Flow and Savings are reduced by 20
% due to the aerators
1.688 (Faucet Use Bath)
0.976 (Faucet Use Kitchen)
14
Fixing leaks in the bathroom does not
depend on any measure and also does not
impact any other WCTs.
1.2
11; 12
Due to the WSSH the savings by an
economic shower use, are reduced
by 20 %. However, limiting the
short duration to 5 min. or less,
again increases the savings by 20 %
1.7
20
Fixing leaks in the kitchen does not
depend on any measure and also does not
impact any other WCT.
3.2
16
Washing dishes in a bucket was
chosen instead of purchasing a
dishwasher, since the potential
savings are greater. It depends on
the flow from faucets and the faucet
use, a join reduction of flow and
savings is assumed to be as much as
30 %.
5.14 * 0.3 = 3.6
22
Dry Cleaning the floors inside and
outside does not depend on any measure
and also does not impact any other WCT.
0.526
19
Only run the laundry machine when
fully filled. Does not dependent on
any other measure. Will impact
GWS.
0.582
24
Cleaning the car by bucket instead of by
hose does not depend on any measure and
also does not impact any other WCT.
2.34
23
4 barrel GWS
Usually 10.2. A general flow
reduction by 25 % is assumed.
7.65
9
Instead of a low flush volume tank and
bottles in the tanks, individual flushing is
assumed
4.52
Total
14.148
Total
18.496
32.644 MCM / year - 30 % (Savings that would not translate into a decrease in
total consumption) =22.82 +34 % NRW prevented = 30.6 MCM
8.856 million JD (subsidies)
28.8 % of domestic demand in Amman
(Own Elaboration based on table 19)

154
7.10. Sample User Interface of a Conservation Calculator
Figure 53 Personal Water Conservation Calculator
(Own Elaboration)

155
8. References
Abdel Khaleq, R.A. (2008), Water Demand Management in Jordan. Water Demand
Management Unit. Ministry of Water and Irrigation: Amman. Jordan
Abdulla, F., Eshtawi, T. and Assaf, H. (2009), Assessment of the Impact of Potential
Climate Change on the Water Balance of a Semi-Arid Watershed. Water Resource
Management, 23 (2009), 2051-2068.
Abdullah, F. (2011), Lecture at the CUAS Cologne - ITT about Water
Conservation. Prof. Abdullah is a professor at the Jordan University of Science
and Technology (JUST) and has been a guest lecturer in the Master program
IWRM at the Cologne University of applied Sciences. Cologne. Germany
Abdullah, F. and Idara (2011), Rainwater Harvesting in the Water and Sanitation
Plumbing Code. Personal Communication. 11.12.2011. Amman. Jordan
Abdullah, F.A. and Al-Shareef, A.W. (2009), Roof rainwater harvesting systems for
household water supply in Jordan. Desalination, 243 (2009), 195-207.
ACEEE (2010), Description of Water Efficient Dish Washers, 11.12.2011. Available
online at: http://www.aceee.org/consumer/dishwashing
AffordableCleanEnergy.com (2011), Picture: Autmatic Washing Machine.
11.12.2011. Available online at: http://www.affordablecleanenergy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/02/aeg-electrolux-super-eco-l64580le-washing-machine.jpg
Al-Jayyousi, O. (2003), Greywater reuse: Towards sustainable water management.
Desalination, 156 181-192.
Al-Zu'bi, Y.A. and Al-Kharabsheh, A. (2003), Multicriteria Analysis For Water
Productivity in the Jordan Valley. Water International, 28 (4), 501-511.
Alibaba.com (2011), Picture: Dry Clean Option Broom. 13.12.2011. Available online
at: http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/104225269/Push_Broom.jpg
Altaf, M.A. (1994), The Economics of Household Response to Inadequate Water-
Supplies - Evidence from Pakistan. Third World Planning Review, 16 (1), 41-53.

156
Amman Insitute (2011a), The Amman Plan. Metropolitan Growth Summary
Report. Amman. Jordan
Amman Insitute (2011b), Amman Real Estate Market Report, 08.12.2011. Available
online at: http://sadda.jo/UserImages/3_.pdf
Arafa, D., El-Fattal, L. and Laamrani, H. (2007), Gender & WDM in the Middle East
& North Africa. WADIMENA. Water Demand Management Research Series by the
Regional Water Demand Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. 24.11.2011.
Available online at: http://web.idrc.ca/uploads/user-
S/12186453111RS_3,_WDM_and_Gender_in_MENA,_ENG.pdf
Arlosoroff, S. (2006), MINIMIZING THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH WATER
SCARCITY. In: Morel, B. and Linkov, I. Environmental Security and Environmental
Management: The Role of Risk Assessment. Springer. Eilat. Israel
Atwood, C., Kreutzwiser, R. and de Loe, R. (2007), Residents’ assessment of an urban
outdoor water conservation program in Guelph, Ontario. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association, 42 (427-439),
AWWA (2011), Water Conservation Symposium and Water Resources Symposium
2011 : 2011 AWWA showcase ; Orlando, Florida, USA, 14 - 16 March 2011. American
Water Works Association, Red Hood, NY. Curran. 973 S.
Balnaves, M. and Caputi, P. (2001), Introduction to Quantitative Research Methods.
An investigative approach., London. United Kingdom.: Sage Publications
Beala, C.D., Stewartb, R.A. and Fielding, K. (2011), A novel mixed method smart
metering approach to reconciling differences between perceived and actual residential
end use water consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, xxx (2011), 1-13.
Biel, A. and Thøgersen, J. (2007), Activation of social norms in social dilemmas: A
review of the evidence and reflections on the implications for environmental behaviour.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 28 (2007), 93-112.
Billings, B.R. and Jones, C.V. (2008), Forecasting Urban Water Demand, Denver.
United States of America: American Water Works Association
Bino, M., Al-Jayyousi, O., Sawan, J., Al-Beiruti, S. and Al-Makhamereh., S. (2000),
Evaluation of Permaculture and Greywater Reuse Project in Tafila, Jordan: Final
Report. Ottawa. Ontario. Canada. 10.12.2011. Available online at:
http://www.inwrdam.org/page/158.

157
Böse, K.H. (1998), Regenwasser für Haus und Garten, Staufen. Germany:
Boutayeb, A. and Helmert, U. (2011), Social inequalities, regional disparities and health
inequity in North African countries. International Journal for Equity in Health, 10
(23), 1-9.
Building Futures (2011), Picture: Energy Efficiency Label for Washing Machines.
11.12.2011. Available online at:
http://www.hertslink.org/buildingfutures/water/solutions/16765958/16765962/
Carrus, G., Passafaro, P. and Bonnes, M. (2007), Emotions, habits and rational choices
in ecological behaviours: The case of recycling and use of public transportation.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28 (2008), 51-62.
CitizenMatters.in (2008), Picture: Rooftop Rainwater Harvesting. 12.12.2011.
Available online at: http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/articles/view/562-rainwater-
harvesting-layout
Crotty, M. (1998), The Foundations of Social Research. Meaning and Perspective in
the Research Process, London. United Kingdom: Sage Publications
CSBE (2003), Greywater Reuse in Other Countries and its Applicability to Jordan.
Amman. Jordan: 03.07.2011 Available online at:
http://www.csbe.org/graywater/report/report_final.pdf
CSBE (2004), Harvesting Rainwater for Landscape Use. Jordan. Amman. Jordan:
20.05.2011 Available online at:
http://www.csbe.org/water_conserving_landscapes/publications/manual/chapter3.pdf
CSBE (2011), Greywater Reuse Project. Amman. Jordan: 20.05.2011 Available
online at: http://csbe.org/graywater/contents.htm
DAI (2011), Interview with Samman H. (Idara): Socio-Economic Variations in
Household Water Use in Amman. Personal Communication. 10.12.2011. Amman.
Jordan
Darmame, K. (2004), Gestion de la rareté : Le service d’eau potable d’Amman entre la
gestion publique et privée. International Water Management Institute,
Darmame, K. and Potter, R.B. (2009), Socio-Economic Variations in Water
Consumption, Household Management Strategies and Satisfactions in Greater

158
Amman, Jordan: the Results of a Quantitative Household Survey. Reading. United
Kingdom. Available online at: http://www.reading.ac.uk/web/FILES/geog/GP186.pdf
Darmame, K. and Potter, R.B. (2011), Political discourses and public narratives on
water supply issues in Amman, Jordan. In: Mithen, S. and Black, E. Water, Life and
Civilisation. Climate, Environment and Society in the Jordan Valley. Cambridge
University Press and UNESCO. Cambridge. United Kingdom
De Vaus, D. (2002), Surveys in Social Research, Fifth Edition, London. United
Kingdom: Routledge
Department of Statistics (2011), Estimated Population of the Kingdom by
Governorate and Sex, at End-year 2010. Amman. Jordan
Dillman, D.A. (1978), Mail and Telephine Surveys: The Total Design Method, New
York. United States of America: Wiley
DIYTrade (2011), Picture: Dry Clean Option Cloths. 12.12.2011. Available online at:
http://img.diytrade.com/cdimg/718942/5759651/0/1209253231/microfiber_microfibre_
cleaning_cloth.jpg
DoS (2004), Population and Housing Census 2004. Amman. Jordan
DoS (2008), Household Expenditure & Income Survey 2008. Amman. Jordan
DoS (2010), Report of Poverty Status in Jordan. Based on the Household
Expenditures & Income Survey Data 2008. Amman. Jordan
DoS (2011), The Poverty Line of Jordan. Personal Communication with Jamil
Hamdan. International Relations Advisor of the DoS. 12.09.2011. Amman. Jordan
Ecoperiodicals.com (2010), Image of a Faucet Aerator. 13.07.2011. Available online
at: http://ecoperiodicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/281.jpg
EPA (2011), How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively, 07.12.2011. Available
online at: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/chap3.cfm
ESPP (2008), Assessing the Middle Class in Jordan (2008) – Policy Paper. Amman.
Jordan

159
Evison, L. and Sunna, N. (2001), Microbial regrowth in household storage tanks.
Journal
of the American Water Works Association, 93 (2001), 85-94.
Executive Action Team (EXACT) (1998), Overview of Middle East Water
Resources, Amman. Jordan: U.S. Geological Survey
Fafo IAS and DoS (2006), Multi-Purpose Household Survey on Housing, Education
and Household Economy. Norwegian Institute for Applied International Studies.
Amman. Jordan. 24.11.2011. Available online at:
http://www.fafo.no/ais/middeast/jordan/sss/index.htm
Falkenmark, M. (1986), Fresh water – time for a modified approach. Ambio, 15 (4),
192-200.
Faruqui, N. and Al-Jayyousi, O. (2002), Greywater reuse in urban agriculture for
poverty alleviation - A case study in Jordan. Water International, 27 (3), 387-394.
Froukh, M.L. (1997), Decision-Support System for Domestic Water Demand
Forecasting and Management. New Castle University. New Castle. United Kingdom
GBS (2011), Description of In-Line Flow Regulators, 11.12.2011. Available online
at: http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/page--contact-us.html
Gerlach, E. and Franceys, R. (2009), Regulating water services for the poor: The case of
Amman. Geoforum, 40 (3), 431-441.
Gharabeh, A. (2009), Innovative Climate Change Initiatives in Amman, Jordan.
Amman. Jordan. 08.12.2011. Available online at:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCARFINASS/Resources/GharaybehInnovativeCl
imateChangeInitiativesinAmman.pdf
Ghneim, A. (2010), Wastewater Reuse and Management in the Middle East and
North Africa Region. A Case Study of Jordan, Germany: Technical University Berlin
Gilg, A. and Barr, S. (2006), Behavioural attitudes towards water saving? Evidence
from a study of environmental actions. Ecological Economics, 57 (2006), 400-414.
Girod, S. (2011), Pump Efficiency Gains Help Preserve Energy in Jordan. Germand
Water Parntership.29.11.2011 Available online at:
http://www.waterworld.com/index/display/article-display.articles.waterworld.world-

160
regions.middle-east.2011.09.Pump-Efficiency-Gains-
Help.QP129867.dcmp=rss.page=1.html
GIZ (2011), Discussion Paper. Effects of Greywater Reuse on Urban Sanitation
Infrastructure. Draft Version January 2011. Unpublished. Personal Communication.
Amman. Jordan.
GIZmag (2009), Around the Home: Dishwashers save more water than washing by
hand?, 11.12.2011. Available online at: http://www.gizmag.com/dishwashers-save-
water-hand-washing/11410/
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Chicago.
United States of America: Aldine
Graymore, M., Wallis, A. and O’Toole, K. (2010), Rural and regional urban water use
behaviour change: a matter of personal contact and diaries? 11th Biennial Conference of
the International Society for Ecological Economics. ISEE 2010: Advancing
Sustainability in a Time of Crisis, 22-25 August, Oldenburg and Bremen. Germany.
ISEE 2010.
Grieser, M.Y. (2001), Social marketing as a strategic tool of water demand
management: WEPIA’s experience in Jordan. Amman. Jordan. 06.07.2011 Available
online at: http://www.emro.who.int/ceha/pdf/proceedings15-social%20marketing.pdf
H2optionsinc.com (2010), Picture: Greywater Reuse. 12.12.2011. Available online at:
http://www.h2optionsinc.com/greywaterreuse.html
Hadadin, N., Qaqish, M., Akawwi, E. and Bdour, A. (2010), Water shortage in Jordan
— Sustainable solutions. Desalination, 250 (1), 197-202.
Hamaideh, A., Salman, A., Al-Karablieh, E. and Al-Najjar, F.O. (2011), Approaches in
Demand Management. Consumers Participatory Approach in Municipal Water
Demand Management for Greater Amman. WERSC. Jordan University.
Amman.Jordan. 20.11.2011. Available online at:
http://www.ju.edu.jo/sites/Academic/karablie/Lists/Academic%20Conferences/Attachm
ents/16/164-
%20Consumer%27s%20Participatory%20Approach%20in%20Municipal%20WDM,%
20Jordan.pdf
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (2008), Water for Life. Jordan’s Water Strategy
2008-2022. Government of Jordan: Amman. Jordan

161
Hayek, B.O. (2009), Water Resources in the Arab World: A Case Study on Jordan.
In: Brauch, H.G.e.a. Facing Global Environmental Change: Environmental, Human,
Energy, Food, Health and Water Security Concepts. Springer. Berlin. Germany
Heierli, U. (2008), Marketing Safe Water Systems. Why it is so hard to get safe
water to the poor and so profitable to sell it to the rich. Berne. Switzerland.
18.12.2011. Available online at: http://s189535770.onlinehome.us/pottersforpeace/wp-
content/uploads/marketing-safe-water-urs-heierli.pdf
Idara (2010), Analysis of the Plumbing Product Marketplace in Jordan. Personal
Communication. 29.11.2011. Amman. Jordan
Idara (2011a), Best Management Practices for Residential Water Use in Jordan.
Unpublished. Personal Communication. Amman. Jordan.
Idara (2011b), Discussion of Thesis Figures and Findings with Experts from Idara
(Samman H.). Personal Communication. 15.12.2011. Amman. Jordan
Idara (2011c), End Use Analysis for Large Consumers – Hotels Water Audit
Report. Report. Personal Communication. Amman. Jordan
Idara (2011d), Preliminary Version of the Baseline Study: Water User Patterns in
Amman. November 2011. Personal Communication. Amman. Jordan
Idara (2011e), Preliminary Version of the Baseline Study: Water User Patterns in
Amman. October 2011. Personal Communication Amman. Jordan
Idara (2011f), Report on In-Home Water Use Patterns in Single Family Homes
from Jordan. Personal Communication. 25.10.2011. Amman. Jordan
IdRC (2004), A survey of home appliances and toilets in the Jordanian markets.
Academy for Educational Development: Water Efficiency for Public Information and
Action (WEPIA) Program. Amman. Jordan. 16.11.2011. Available online at:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/48577273/A-Survey-of-Home-Appliances-and-Toilets-
in-the
Iskandarani, M. (2002), Economics of Household Water Security in Jordan. In:
Heidhues, F. and Von Braun, J. Development Economics and Policy. Frankfurt (Main).
Germany

162
Jagannathan, N.V., Mohamed, A.S. and Kremer, A. (2009), Water in the Arab World:
MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES AND INNOVATIONS, Washington D.C.
United States of America: World Bank
Jamrah, A. and Ayyash, S. (2008), Greywater Generation and Characterization in Major
Cities in Jordan. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, 2 (4),
Jorgensen, B., Graymore, M. and O'Toole, K. (2009), Household water use behavior:
An integrated model. Journal of Environmental Management, 91 (2009), 227-236.
König, K.W. (1996), Regenwasser in der Architektur, Staufen. Germany: Ökobuch
Verlag
Lee, M.Y. (1981), Mandatory or voluntary water conservation: a case study of Iowa
communities during drought. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36 (1981),
231-234.
Lee, M.Y. and Warren, R.D. (1981), Use of a predictive model in evaluating water
consumption conservation. Water Resources Bulletin, 17 (1981), 948-955.
Lund, J.R. (1995), Derived estimation of willingness to pay to avoid probabilistic
shortage. Water Resources Research, 31 (5), 1367-1372.
Maddaus, M.L. and Maddaus, W.O. (2008), Using an End-Use Model to Quantify
Demand Hardening from Long-Term Conservation Programs. AWWA Water Sources
Conference, Reno. Nevada. United States of America.
Majdi, A. (2011), Water Truck Driver in Amman. Interview. 29.10.2011. Amman.
Jordan
Markhamreh, Z. and Almanasyeh, N. (2011), Analyzing the State and Pattern of Urban
Growth and City Planning in Amman Using Satellite Images and GIS. European
Journal of Social Sciences, 24 (2), 252-264.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. and Smith, W. (1999), Fostering sustainable behaviour: An
introduction to community-based social marketing, Gabriola Island. Canada: New
Society Publishers
Millock, K. and Nauges, C. (2010), Household Adoption of Water-Efficient Equipment:
The Role of Socio-Economic Factors, Environmental Attitudes and Policy.
Environmental Resource Economics, 46 (2010), 539-565.

163
Miyahuna (2011a), General Company Information., 11.11.2011. Available online at:
http://www.miyahuna.com.jo/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101&I
temid=106&lang=en
Miyahuna (2011b), Information about the Water Supply in Amman – specifically
the hours of supply for the different districts. Amman. Jordan. 18.09.2011. Available
online at:
http://www.miyahuna.com.jo/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30&It
emid=22&lang=en
Miyahuna (2011c), Malkawi, M. Customer Service Department Director. Personal
Communication. 12.09.2011. Amman. Jordan
Miyahuna (2011d), Malkawi, O. and Birawi, S. GIS Data obtained from the GIS
Department. Personal Communication. 29.09.2011. Amman. Jordan
Miyahuna (2011e), Momani, A. Head of Technical Support Unit. Customer Service.
Place of Bill Payment by Customers. Personal Communication. 06.12.2011. Amman.
Jordan
Miyahuna (2011f), Sammour Haddadin, N. Head of Technical Support Unit.
Interview and Personal Communication via E-Mail. 19.08.2011. Amman. Jordan
Morel, A. and Diener, S. (2006), Greywater Management in Low and Middle-
Income Countries. Review of different treatment systems for households or
neighborhoods. Sandec Report. 07.07.2011. Available online at:
http://www2.gtz.de/Dokumente/oe44/ecosan/en-greywater-management-2006.pdf
MWI (2008), A National Water Demand Management Policy. Ministry of Water and
Irrigation: Amman. Jordan
Nagarajan, R. (2006), Water : conservation, use and management for semi-arid
region, New Delhi [u.a.]
X, 352 S: Capital Publ. Co.
National Geographic (2011), Picture: Bottle in Toilet Tank to Reduce the Flush
Volume. 10.12.2011. Available online at:
http://360energydiet.com/files/2011/06/garrafa-%C3%A1gua-no-autoclismo.jpg
NWS (2006), Water For Life. Reducing Demand. 2010 Metropolitan Water Plan.
Sydney. Australia. 04.12.2011. Available online at:

164
http://www.waterforlife.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/1458/06mwp_chapter_
6.pdf
Olmstead, S.M. and Stavins, R.N. (2008), Comparing price and non-price
approaches to urban water conservation. Milano: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
Available online at:
http://www.feem.it/getpage.aspx?id=1824&sez=Publications&padre=73
http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/Publication/NDL2008/NDL2008-066.pdf
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
Collective Action, New York. United States of America: Cambridge University Press
Ostrom, E. (1994), Constituting social capital and collective action. Journal of
Theoretical Politics, 6 (4), 527-562.
Pattanayak, S.K., Yang, J.-C. and Whittington, D. (2005), Coping with unreliable public
water supplies: Averting expenditures by households in Kathmandu, Nepal. Water
Resources Research, 41 (2012), 1-11.
PolishedBliss (2011), Picture: Dry Clean Option Brush. 13.12.2011. Available online
at: http://www.polishedbliss.co.uk/acatalog/raceglaze-leather-cleaning-brush-lg.jpg
Potter, R.B., Barham, N. and Darmame, K. (2007), The polarised social and
residential structure of the city of Amman: A contemporary view using GIS.
Bulletin of the Council for British Research in the Levant. Reading. United Kingdom. 2.
48-52.
Potter, R.B. and Darmame, K. (2010), Contemporary social variations in household
water use, management strategies and awareness under conditions of 'water stress': The
case of Greater Amman, Jordan. Habitat International, 34 (1), 115-124.
Potter, R.B., Darmame, K., Barham, N. and Nortcliff, S. (2009), Ever-growing Amman,
Jordan: urban expansion, social polarisation and contemporary urban planning issues.
Habitat International, 33. 81-92.
Potter, R.B. and Lloyd-Evans, S. (1998), The city in the developing world, London.
United Kingdom: Pearson-Prentice Hall
Qaiser, K., Ahmad, S., Johnson, W. and Batista, J. (2011), Evaluating the impact of
water conservation on fate of outdoor water use: A study in an arid region. Journal of
Environmental Management, 92 (2011), 2061-2068.

165
Rixon, A. and Burn, S. (2002), EXPLORING WATER CONSERVATION
BEHAVIOUR THROUGH PARTICIPATORY AGENT-BASED MODELLING.
Highett. Victoria. Australia. 12.12.2011. Available online at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.77.7982
Rosenberg, D.E. (2007), Integrated Water Management and Modeling at Multiple
Spatial Scales. PhD Thesis. University of California. Davis. United States of America
Rosenberg, D.E. and Lund, J.R. (2009), Modeling Integrated Decisions for a Municipal
Water System with Recourse and Uncertainties: Amman, Jordan. Water Resource
Management, 23 (2009), 85-115.
Rosenberg, D.E., Talozi, S. and Lund, J.R. (2008), Intermittent water supplies:
challenges and opportunities for residential water users in Jordan. Water International,
33 (4), 488-504.
Rosenberg, D.E., Tarawneh, T., Abdel-Khaleq, R. and Lund, J.R. (2007), Modeling
integrated water user decisions in intermittent supply systems. Water Resources
Research, 43 (2007), 1-15.
Salameh, E. (2008), Over-exploitation of groundwater resources and their
environmental and socio-economic implications: The case of Jordan. Water
International, 33 (1), 55-68.
Salman, A. and Al-Karablieh, E. (2006), Socioeconomic Factors Influencing the
Household Water Demand Function in Jordan. International Conference: Integrated
Water Resource Management and Challenges of the Sustainable Development,
Marrakesh, 23 - 25 May 2006.
Salman, A., Al-Karablieh, E. and Haddadin, M.J. (2008), Limits of pricing policy in
curtailing household water consumption under scarcity conditions. Water Policy, 10
(3), 295-307.
Savenije, H. and Zaag, P. (2002), Water as an Economic Good and Paradigms with
Pitfalls. Water International, 27 (1), 98-104.
Sayegh Group (2011), Ayyad N. Factory Director of the AMAN faucet aerators.
Interview about his product, the market and marketing. Personal Communication
(Interview). 03.10.2011. Amman. Jordan

166
Seidmann, I.E. (1991), Interviwing as Qualitative Research. A Guide for
Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences, New York. United States of
America: Teachers College Press
SmallIdeaBlog (2011), Picture: Toilet Tank Bank. 11.12.2011. Available online at:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3345/3424395117_c6f8dfc63f.jpg
Snobar, A.H. (2003), Feasibility of Domestic Graywater Recycling. Senior Thesis.
Unpublished. Jordan University of Science and Technology. Irbid. Jordan.
Steg, L. and Vlek, C. (2009), Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative
review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29 (3), 309-317.
Straits, C., Singleton, R.J.R., Straits, M.M. and McAllister, R.J. (1988), Approach to
Social Research, New York. United States: Oxford University Press
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1994), Grounded Theory Methodology. In: Denzin, N.
and Lincoln, Y. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications. London. United
Kingdom
Sweetbrick (2009), Picture: Xeriscape 11.12.2011. Available online at:
http://www.sweetbrick.com/images/article_uploads/xeriscape.jpg
Sydney Water (2011), Tap Aerators. Flow Types, 09.12.2011. Available online at:
http://www.sydneywater.com.au/water4life/inyourhome/TapAerators.cfm
Tokajian, S. and Hashwa, F. (2003), Water quality problems associated with
intermittent water supply. Water Science and Technology, 47 (3), 229-234.
Trademart.in (2011), Picture: Semi-Automatic Washing Machine. 11.12.2011.
Available online at: http://www.trademart.in/is-bin/intershop.static/WFS/SellSmart-
DirectoryServices-Site/SellSmart-DirectoryServices-
Site/en_US/susu8591/Product/Image/HB546_susu8591.jpg
Trochim, W.M.K. (2006), Research Methods Knowledge Base: Positivism & Post-
Positivism, 14.11.2011. Available online at:
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php
UN-HABITAT (2003), Water Demand Management Cookbook. Kenya. Nairobi.
09.12.2011. Available online at:
http://www.pseau.org/outils/biblio/resume.php?docu_document_id=2025

167
UN-HABITAT (2008), The UN-HABITAT Water and Sanitation Trust Fund
Strategic Plan (2008-2012). United Nations Human Settlements Programme: Nairobi.
Kenya
UN (1992), Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development. International
Conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE), Dublin. Ireland. United Nations
Publication.
UN (2010a), Arab Human Development Report. Population Levels, Trends and
Policies in the Arab Region: Challenges and Opportunities. 08.12.2011. Available
online at: http://www.arab-hdr.org/publications/other/ahdrps/paper01-en.pdf
UN (2010b), Facts and Figures: Water and Urbanization. 25.11.2011. Available
online at:
http://wwhttp://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/swm_cities_zaragoza_2010/pdf/facts_a
nd_figures_long_final_eng.pdf
UN (2011), Jordan Human Development Report. Jordan Small Businesses and
Human Development. Amman. Jordan. 08.12.2011. Available online at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/70898541/Jordan-Small-Businesses-and-Human-
Development-Amman-2011
UN DESA (2005), CHANGING UNSUSTAINABLE PATTERNS OF
CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION: HUMAN SETTLEMENTS AND
WATER. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Division for
Sustainable Development. New York. United States of America. 23.11.2011. Available
online at: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd13/documents/bground_4.pdf
UNEP (2002), Rainwater Harvesting and Utilization: General Description of the
Technology. 12.12.2011. Available online at:
http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/Urban/UrbanEnv-2/index.asp
UNEP (2008), Every Drop Counts Environmentally Sound Technologies for Urban
and Domestic Water Use Efficiency. Osaka. Japan: 23.11.2011 Available online at:
http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/Water_Sanitation/EveryDropCounts/Contents/E
veryDropCounts_Sourcebook_final_web.pdf
UNESCO (2003), Water for People. Water for Life. Paris. France. 25.11.2011.
Available online at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001295/129556e.pdf
USAID (2010a), Final Report on Survey Findings of Behavior Change. Amman.
Jordan. 25.11.2011. Available online at:

168
http://www.jordanpap.com/images/Report_12_Behavior_Change_PAP_Jordan2010_20
03.pdf
USAID (2010b), Final Report on the Survey Findings of Young Peoples
Knowledge, Attitude and Behavior on Environment Issues, Informal and Non
formal Sectors. Amman. Jordan. 25.11.2011. Available online at:
http://www.jordanpap.com/images/Report_7_Informal_and_Non-
formal_Sectors_JordanPAP_May_2010__2003.pdf
USAID (2010c), KAP Household Baseline Survey. Amman. Jordan. 11.11.2011.
Available online at:
http://www.jordanpap.com/images/Report_2_KAP_Household_JordanPAP_April_2010
_2003.pdf
USAID (2011), KAP Household Survey - Raw SPSS Data Sets. Obtained through
Personal Communication. 19.09.2011. Amman. Jordan
USALandlord.com (2011), Landord and Tenant Conservation Products. Faucet
Aerators, 09.12.2011. Available online at: http://www.usalandlord.com/fa.html
WaterAid (2005), Technology Notes: Rainwater Harvesting. London. United
Kingdom. 12.12.2011. Available online at:
http://www.wateraid.org/documents/technology_notes_low_res.pdf
Watts (2011), Water Safety and Flow Control: Pressure Reducing Valves (PRVs),
11.12.2011. Available online at:
http://www.watts.com/pages/learnAbout/reducingValves.asp?catId=64
WDMU (2011), Water Demand by Customer Class Caterogies. Personal
Communication. 29.11.2011. Amman. Jordan
WEPIA (2000), Assessment of Water Saving Devices (WSDs) Sector in Jordan.
Amman. Jordan. 10.11.2011. Available online at:
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACR022.pdf
WEPIA (2001), Capacity building project in Amman, Irbid, and Aqaba." United
States Agency for International Development. Amman. Jordan. Available online at:
http://pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNADB469.pdf.
WEPIA (2005), Water Efficiency and Public Information for Action (WEPIA)
Programme 2000 - 2005. Final Report. Amman. Jordan. 11.11.2011. Available online
at: http://jordan.usaid.gov/upload/keydocs/WEPIA%20Final%20Report.pdf

169
WEPIA and CSBE (2004), Water-Conserving Gardens: A User’s Manual. Amman.
Jordan. 11.12.2011. Available online at:
http://www.csbe.org/water_conserving_landscapes/publications/manual/contents.htm
Wheary, J., Shapiro, T. and Draut, T. (2007), By a Thread: The New Experience of
the America's Middle Class. Demos and IASP joint paper. New York. United States of
America.
White, G.F., Bradley, D.J. and White, A.U. (1972), Drawers of Water, Chicago.
United States of America: The University of Chicago Press
WHO (2004), Minimum Water Quantity Needed for Domestic Use. New Dehli.
India. 23.11.2011. Available online at:
http://www.who.or.id/eng/contents/aceh/wsh/water-quantity.pdf
Wilchfort, O. and Lund, J.R. (1997), Shortage management modeling for urban water
supply systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 123 250-
258.
Willis, R.M., Stewart, R.A., Giurco, D.P., Talebpour, M.R. and Mousavinejad, A.
(2011a), End use water consumption in households: impact of socio-demographic
factors and efficient devices. Journal of Cleaner Production, xxx (2011), 1-9.
Willis, R.M., Stewart, R.A., Panuwatwanich, K., Williams, P.R. and Hollingsworth,
A.L. (2011b), Quantifying the influence of environmental and water conservation
attitudes on household end use water consumption. Journal of Environmental
Management, 92 (8), 1996-2009.
Wolfe, S. and Brooks, D.B. (2007), Water Demand Management as Governance:
Lessons from the Middle East and South Africa. In: Shuval, H. and Dweik, H. Water
Resources in the Middle East: Israel-Palestinian Water Issues. From Conflict to
Cooperation. Springer. Heidelberg. Germany
WSSCC and IRC (2001), Source Water and Sanitation Weekly. Water Supply and
Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) and International Water and Sanitation
Centre (IRC). No. 10 - 14. 09.04.2001.
WWQ (2011), Being waterwise in the bathroom, laundry and kitchen. Waterwise
Queensland. Department of Environment and Resource Management. Queensland.
Australia 03.12.2011. Available online at:
http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/waterwise/councils_program/pdf/bath_laund_kitch_info.pd
f

170
Zeitoun, M. (2009), The Political Economy of Water. Demand Management in
Yemen and Jordan: A Synthesis of Findings. Wadimena (IDCR/IFAD). 24.11.2011.
Available online at:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.147019!Zeitoun_PE_WDM_Yemen_and_Jordan.p
df
Zérah, M.-H. (2000), Household strategies for coping with unreliable water supplies:
The case of Delhi. Habitat International, 24 (3), 295-307.