HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES

Hydrol. Process. 17, 24092422 (2003)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hyp.1250
Experimental study of water uxes in a residential area:
1. Rainfall, roof runoff and evaporation: the effect
of slope and aspect
R. Ragab,* J. Bromley, P. Rosier, J. D. Cooper and J. H. C. Gash
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford OX10 8BB, UK
Abstract:
An experimental study of water uxes from roofs in a residential area has quantied water uxes from different types
of roof and identied the major controls on the process. Roofs with pitches of 0

, 22

and 50

and orientations of 15

(from true north) (NNE) and 103

(ESE) were selected. A novel automatic system for monitoring has been developed.
Noticeable differences in rainfall, runoff and evaporation were found for different roof slopes, aspects and heights.
Depending on height, at roofs collected 90 to 99% of rainfall recorded at ground level. Roofs with a 22

slope; facing
south-south-west (i.e. facing the prevailing wind) captured most rain, whereas east-south-east facing roofs with slopes
of 50

received the least. Depending on the roof slope, the average rainfall captured ranged from 62 to 93% of that
at ground level. For the same slope, the results indicated that from roofs orientated normal to the prevailing wind;
(i) captured rainfall was higher, (ii) evaporation was higher and (iii) runoff was less than that from roofs having other
aspects. Monthly variations in the runoffrainfall ratio followed the rainfall distribution, being lowest in summer and
highest in winter. The highest mean ratio (091) was associated with the steeper roof slope; the lowest ratio (061)
was for roofs facing the prevailing wind direction. For the same amount of rainfall, the runoff generated from a
steeper roof was signicantly higher than that generated by a moderate roof slope, but the lowest runoff was from
roofs facing the prevailing wind. The results have also shown that the amount of runoff collected (under UK climatic
condition) was sufcient to supply an average household in the studied area with the major part of its annual water
requirements. The use of this water not only represents a nancial gain for house owners but also will help protect the
environment by reducing demand on water resources through the reduction of groundwater abstraction, construction
of new reservoirs, and a reduction of the ood risk as its in situ use is considered a preventive measure known as a
source control. Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS Roof runoff; urban hydrology; rainfall; evaporation; slope; aspect; height; water recycle; residential areas
INTRODUCTION
Effective management of urban environments requires detailed knowledge and understanding of processes
and phenomena across a range of interlinked disciplines. Compared with rural areas, urban land use and
surface cover tends to be more diverse and hydrological processes more complex. Subsequently, processes
such as evapotranspiration, groundwater ow, soil moisture movement and contaminant transport are less
well understood.
Roof runoff, both as a drainage problem and as a potential resource, is essentially unquantied. Current
urban runoff models are based on very little roof runoff data and none contributed signicantly to the
WASSP/WALLRUS/HydroWorks Models (Packman, 1992). The models assume (i) rainfall at roof level is
the same as at ground level (though roof rain is almost certainly less owing to wind turbulence and direction),
and (ii) roof runoff is the same as paved area runoff (although steeper roofs probably generate more and
faster runoff). Moreover, urban drainage models are usually veried using rain gauges sited on at roofs (for
* Correspondence to: R. Ragab, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford OX10 8BB, UK. E-mail: Rag@ceh.ac.uk
Received 19 February 2001
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 17 October 2002
2410 R. RAGAB ET AL.
security reasons). According to Hamilton (1954) and Panicucci (1986), rainfall measurements on a slope are
more accurate if the rainfall gauge is tilted by the same degree. Comparisons of roof with ground level data
are rarely made. Uncertainties also include the impact of height and exposure on storm rainfall. A study of
these would also provide information on the extent to which roof runoff can act as a domestic water source.
Measured data on the water budget of urban areas are scarce and carry considerable uncertainty in many
of the components of the budget (Owen, 1995; Van den Ven, 1990; Lerner, 1997; Grimmond and Oke, 1991;
Whitlow et al., 1992; Stephenson, 1994; Makin and Kidd, 1997). However, hydrological and hydrodynamic
models need to be calibrated using accurate measurements before they are used for designing urban systems.
Clearly, there is a need to collect real data that can reliably be used for water management purposes as
well as for the calibration of hydrological and hydrodynamic models for the design of urban systems (Owen,
1995). For the above-mentioned reasons the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford set up a pilot
project to identify and quantify water uxes related to roof runoff, road runoff, evaporation and inltration
for different surfaces.
The main objectives of Part 1 of this paper were to study the effect of slope and aspect on roof rainfall,
roof runoff and evaporation, to identify the processes and quantify uxes; Part 2 is focused on the effect of
different road surfaces on inltration and road runoff to the River Thames.
Why roof runoff?
Rainfall runoff from roofs provides a potential alternative source of water for (non-potable) domestic use
(toilets, washing machine, car washing, garden irrigating, etc.). However, the volume of roof runoff available
as a water resource is currently not known. Quantifying this resource will contribute to the management of
urban areas. One of the long-term objectives of this project is to couple the results of physical monitoring and
modelling to a socio-economic component, with a view to exploring the policy implications in relation to the
Sustainable Cities agenda. Stored recycled water has many economic benets, one of the more signicant of
which might be to help prevent building subsidence during extended periods of drought, providing a signicant
value to both house owners and insurers alike. In addition, at a macroscale, it is likely that water savings
made through urban water runoff management, could have implications for overall urban water demand, and
thus reduce the need for new reservoir construction. Moreover it could lead to a reduction in groundwater
abstraction, which in some cases has a negative impact on river ows, wetlands, ecosystem and biodiversity
(the effect of abstraction at Compton, Berkshire is an example of such negative impact on the Pang River
ow). With the present increased rate of house building and potential climate change, water saving and
recycling could be an important policy issue in the future and could demonstrate the benets of a change in
the way we view water in an urban environment. Some of these issues are discussed by Maksimovic (1996).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Site
The study was conducted in a small housing estate in Crowmarsh Gifford near Wallingford, Oxfordshire,
UK. The estate was built in the late 1960s over an area of 005 km
2
. It comprises 121 houses, 61 with roofs
sloping at 50

, and 60 with roofs sloping at 22

; some houses have at-roofed garages or extensions. Five

houses with the same roof material were selected on the estate; a sixth site was set up at the CEH ofces, a
few hundred metres to the north. Details of house orientations, roof slopes, position of rain gauges and roof
areas are given in Table I. Thus, for example, house JB has an orientation of 15

(approximately NS), a
roof slope of 22

; the rain gauge is located on the east-facing roof, which has a surface area of 3427 m
2
and
a horizontally projected area of 3177 m
2
. The horizontally projected area was obtained by multiplying the
actual (sloping area) by the cosine of the angle of the roof slope. The roofs at house HA and the CEH site
were at. In addition, rainfall was recorded from the ground-level gauge (as described by Rodda et al., 1986)
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 17, 24092422 (2003)
WATER FLUXES IN RESIDENTIAL AREA 1 2411
Table I. Slopes, orientations and rain gauge positions, and the surface area of the houses studied in Crowmarsh Gifford,
Wallingford, UK during 20002001
House JB GP AJ IT HA CEH
Slope (

) 22 22 22 50 0 0
House orientation NS EW EW NS Flat Flat
Degrees from true north 15 103 103 15
Rain-gauge position East side North side South side East side
Surface area (m
2
) 3427 3745 5668 4361 2793 7373
Plan area (m
2
) 3177 3472 5255 2803 N/A N/A
North
Raingauge
AJ: Slope = 22
GP: Slope = 22
HA: Flat roof CEH: Flat roof
Prevailing wind direction
IT: Slope = 50 JB: Slope = 22
Figure 1. Layout of the roofs studied with respect to orientation, slope and prevailing wind direction
at the CEH meteorological site. A plan view of the ve estate houses selected and the CEH site together with
the prevailing wind direction and the roof slopes are shown in Figure 1.
Measurements
The rain-gauge funnels were mounted on the roofs such that the mouth of the funnel was at the same
angle as the slope of the roof. The funnel is connected to a tipping bucket rain-gauge system situated
at ground level. A new automatic system for monitoring has been developed. Each house has a separate
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 17, 24092422 (2003)
2412 R. RAGAB ET AL.
system. The system consists of an in line funnel rain gauge (contrary to the usual horizontal roof
rain gauges) positioned 1 m upslope from the gutter, a water butt with a 12 V bilge pump capable of
draining the water within 2 min, and a data logger system to record the rainfall and water level in the
butt every 2 min. The roof runoff system is shown in Figure 2, and a schematic representation given
in Figure 3. Wind direction data presented in Figure 4 have been obtained from the CEH, Wallingford
meteorological site. The runoff volume was calculated using the water depth in the butt and the cross-
sectional area. The volumetric runoff was converted into millimetres of water by dividing the runoff
volume by the horizontally projected area; the latter was also used to convert rainfall in millimetres into
a volume.
Measurements were made at 2-min intervals and later stored in a Microsoft Access database. Analysis was
made on a rainfall-event basis with the rainfall aggregated over the total duration of the event; calculation of
Figure 2. Photograph of the apparatus conguration
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 17, 24092422 (2003)
WATER FLUXES IN RESIDENTIAL AREA 1 2413
I
Upper float switch -
turns pump on
IInput from house roof
via down pipe
2000 l hr
-1
12 volts dc operated
boat bilge pump outputs water
to gravel soak away
Lower float switch -
turns pump off
Mounting pole for
float switches and
bilge pump
Pressure transducer to
monitor water level
Mounting pole for
pressure transducer
House
12 volt
battery
Logger
Figure 3. Schematic diagram to show the system developed for emptying the butt and recording water level, rainfall and runoff
runoff for the same event was extended to 6 h after the cessation of rain to allow for any delayed drainage.
Both rainfall and runoff were also aggregated and analysed on a monthly basis.
Evaporation is calculated as the difference between rainfall and runoff. This difference is assumed to
represent the amount of water soaked up by the roof surfaces and eventually released back to the atmosphere
by evaporation. Measurements were expressed as a volume in litres and as a depth in millimetres by dividing
the volume of water by the horizontally projected roof area.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Total and cumulative rainfall, runoff and evaporation
Table II shows the annual measured rainfall and runoff as well as the calculated evaporation for each
site. The measured rainfall ranges from 851 mm at site AJ to 509 mm at IT. At house AJ the roof faces the
dominant wind direction and helps explain the high gure; the low rainfall at IT is partly due to the position of
the gauge with respect the prevailing wind (Figure 4) and the steep slope of the roof. During the same period,
the runoff ranged from a high of 624 mm at GP to a minimum of 456 mm at CEH; maximum evaporation of
286 mm was at CEH, the minimum of 75 mm at IT. The differences between sites are attributed to differences
in slope and aspect and are discussed further in the following sections. An example of the time-series results
is graphically illustrated in Figure 5 for runoff.
The effect of aspect on rainfall, runoff and evaporation
To investigate the effect of aspect on rainfall interception and runoff, three houses of the same slope (22

)
but with different aspect were selected. Table III shows the cumulative rainfall, runoff and evaporation for
houses AJ (south-facing), JB (east-facing) and GP (north-facing). The results show that the south-facing
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 17, 24092422 (2003)
2414 R. RAGAB ET AL.
20
40
60
0
20
40
60
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
Degrees
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Wind Direction: Wallingford Jun 2000 to Jun 2001
Figure 4. Wind direction rose for Wallingford site
Table II. Measured annual runoff, rainfall and evaporation over houses studied in Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, UK 29
June 2000 to 30 June 2001
JB GP AJ IT HA CEH Meteorological
site
Rainfall (l) 256342 244544 446824 142676 226125 546888 N/A
Runoff (l) 193177 216588 297733 143924 159393 336263 N/A
Evaporation (l) 63320 27956 149091 21023 66732 210940 N/A
Rainfall (mm) 8069 7043 8510 5091 8096 7417 8181
Runoff (mm) 6081 6238 5665 5135 5707 4561 N/A
Evaporation (mm) 1993 957 2845 2861 750 2389 5406
roof (AJ) has the highest cumulative rainfall and evaporation, but the lowest recorded runoff (Figure 6).
In contrast the house with the north-facing roof (GP) has the lowest rainfall and evaporation but has the
highest runoff.
The effect of slope on rainfall, runoff and evaporation
To investigate the effects of slope, two houses with the same aspect but different slopes were compared.
Table IV shows that the shallower sloping roof (22

) collected more rainfall, generated more runoff (Figure 7)

and has higher evaporation than the steeper roof (50

).
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 17, 24092422 (2003)
WATER FLUXES IN RESIDENTIAL AREA 1 2415
01/06/00 01/10/00 01/02/01 01/06/01 01/10/01
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

r
u
n
o
f
f

(
m
m
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
JB
GP
AJ
TY
IT
HA
Figure 5. Cumulative runoff collected from the houses studied
Table III. Effect of aspect for houses with 22

slope
Measurement (mm) South-
facing (AJ)
East-
facing (JB)
North-
facing (GP)
Rainfall 851 807 704
Runoff 567 608 624
Evaporation 285 199 96
Italics minimum
22 slope
01/06/00 01/10/00 01/02/01 01/06/01 01/10/01
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

r
u
n
o
f
f

(
m
m
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
JB, roof orientation: South - East
GP, roof orientation: North - East
AJ, roof orientation: South - West
Figure 6. Effect of aspect on runoff collected from houses with the same roof slope of 22
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 17, 24092422 (2003)
2416 R. RAGAB ET AL.
Table IV. Effects of slope for east-facing and at roofs
Measurement
(mm)
22

Slope (JB)
50

Slope (IT)
Flat
(HA)
Flat
(CEH)
Meteorological
site
Rainfall 807 509 810 742 818
Runoff 608 514 571 456
Evaporation 199 75 239 286
01/06/00 01/10/00 01/02/01 01/06/01 01/10/01
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

r
u
n
o
f
f

(
m
m
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
JB, South - East
IT, South - East 22
50
Figure 7. Effect of slope on the runoff collected from houses with the same aspect but with different roof slopes of 22 and 50
01/06/00 01/10/00 01/02/01 01/06/01 01/10/01
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

r
a
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
m
m
)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
TY
HA
Met site
Figure 8. Comparison between rainfall collected at two different at surfaces with different heights and at ground level at CEH, Wallingford
The two sites with near zero slopes (at roofs) were also compared and included in Table IV, along with
the rainfall recorded from the ground level gauge at the CEH meteorological site. The rainfall measured at
the meteorological site (818 mm) was slightly higher than HA (810 mm) and both were slightly higher than
CEH (742 mm), as shown in Figure 8. The runoff from the at surface HA was greater than the CEH site
because evaporation was higher from the CEH site.
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 17, 24092422 (2003)
WATER FLUXES IN RESIDENTIAL AREA 1 2417
Rainfall measurements at different heights
The results in Table IV show that the 818 mm of rainfall recorded at ground level at the CEH meteorological
site was higher than both the at roof sites. Rainfall at the CEH at roof site, approximately 4 m above ground
level, is 9% lower; but at the HA site, which is 25 m high, the difference reduces to only 1%. The implication
is that recorded rainfall tends to reduce at increasing height.
Seasonal variations in rainfall, runoff and runoff/rainfall ratio
Seasonal variation in runoff with respect to rainfall was investigated on a monthly basis. Figure 9 shows the
monthly runoff from the six sites together with the monthly rainfall (measured at ground level). Generally, the
runoff follows the rainfall distribution, being lowest in the summer then rising towards a peak in the winter
from October to November when it falls back to the summer levels. The ratio of runoff to rainfall measured
at each site on a monthly basis reveals the same pattern, with higher ratios in the winter falling to a minimum
in summer (Figure 10).
The highest runoffrainfall ratios are at site IT followed by GP then JB, with the remaining sites plotting
closely below. The average runoff over the year, as given in Table V, ranges from 58% to 91% of rainfall.
Site IT recorded the highest and CEH the lowest. For houses with the same 22

slope the mean ratio for site

GP (86%) was higher than JB (71%) and AJ (61%). These variations reect the effect of the aspect on the
runoffrainfall relationship. For at roofs the CEH mean ratio was 58% and for HA it was 67%.
J
u
n
-
0
0
J
u
l
-
0
0
A
u
g
-
0
0
S
e
p
t
-
0
0
O
c
t
-
0
0
N
o
v
-
0
0
D
e
c
-
0
0
J
a
n
-
0
1
F
e
b
-
0
1
M
a
r
-
0
1
A
p
r
-
0
1
M
a
y
-
0
1
J
u
n
-
0
1
J
u
l
-
0
1
R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
m
m
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
R
u
n
o
f
f

(
m
m
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Rainfall
JB
GP
AJ
TY
IT
HA
Figure 9. Seasonal and monthly variation of rainfall and runoff collected from the houses studied
Table V. Monthly runoff/rainfall ratios 29 June 2000 to 20 July 2001
JB GP AJ IT HA CEH
Maximum 0847 1036 0861 1214 0816 0710
Minimum 0457 0705 0383 0494 0482 0456
Mean 0711 0856 0610 0905 0667 0581
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 17, 24092422 (2003)
2418 R. RAGAB ET AL.
R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
m
m
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
R
a
t
i
o

o
f

R
u
n
o
f
f
/
R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Rainfall
JB
GP
AJ
TY
IT
HA
J
u
n
-
0
0
J
u
l

0
0
A
u
g
-
0
0
S
e
p
t

0
0
O
c
t
-
0
0
N
o
v

0
0
D
e
c
-
0
0
J
a
n

0
1
F
e
b
-
0
1
M
a
r

0
1
A
p
r
-
0
1
M
a
y

0
1
J
u
n
-
0
1
J
u
l

0
1
Figure 10. Seasonal and monthly variation of rainfall and runoff/rainfall ratio of the houses studied
The highest monthly maximum runoffrainfall ratio was recorded at site IT (12). The remaining houses
were either close to 1 such as GP, or lower. The lowest minimum monthly ratio was recorded at site AJ
(038) and the highest minimum at GP (071).
Values above 1, observed at sites IT (50

) and GP (22

), were in most cases associated with rainfall events

greater than 4 mm and on a few occasions with minor events of 05 mm. This apparent anomaly could be
attributed to a combination of a number of factors:
1. the effect of air turbulence giving rise to an underestimate of rainfall;
2. splash out (water splashes out of the rainfall funnel) effects (Maksimovic, 1996);
3. the inclination of the rainfall;
4. insensitivity of the rain gauge for small eventswe have a tip only every 05 mm;
5. at site IT the location of the gauge, the steep slope and the angle of the wind to the roof has a large
impact the rain gauge may be in a mini-rainshadow.
In this paper all calculations assume rain falls vertically and the receiving area is the projected at area with
a zero slope. In the event of rain falling at an angle less than or greater than 90

, the receiving area will be

different from the assumed horizontal area and that could contribute to inaccuracy of rainfall measurements
and hence the runoff/rainfall ratio (Panicucci, 1986).
The results obtained by Hollis and Ovenden (1988) showed that runoff from roofs averaged 569% but
when events above 5 mm only were considered the average went up to 904%. Their results also indicated
that pitched tile roofs had a higher runoff percentage at 54% for all storms and 81% for storms above 5 mm.
Similar values higher than one (12 or 120%) were reported by Davies and Hollis (1981) for events greater
than 41 mm and Hollis and Ovenden (1988) reported monthly ratios of 126% and 155% for events greater
than 5 mm.
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 17, 24092422 (2003)
WATER FLUXES IN RESIDENTIAL AREA 1 2419
The threshold rainfall value for runoff generation
To derive the value of rainfall above which runoff is generated, a correlation between rainfall and runoff
was conducted. Figure 11 indicates the strong linearity between the two variables. However, the relationship
does not start at the origin (0,0); for a given value of runoff on the y axis, one can see that the rainfall amount
required to produce such a runoff is less for a house with 50

slope than for one with a 22

slope (given the

same aspect) and is less for a northern and eastern facing roofs than for a south-facing roof for the same roof
slope. The zero slope roofs are similar to those facing east. For the same amount of rainfall, AJ generates
75% of the runoff from GP, and JB produces 97% of GP. Having the same aspect, but different slope, JB
generates 70% of the runoff from IT. The minimum rainfall required to generate runoff is 07 mm for JB and
HA, 06 mm for IT and AJ, 05 mm for CEH and 04 mm for GP. These are taken as mean values over the
whole period.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The results obtained so far show the average annual rainfall captured by houses with roof slopes of 22

is
925% of the CEH meteorological site (ground level), whereas that intercepted by houses with a 50

slope is
only 622%. The total runoff generated from houses with a 50

roof slope is only 86% of those with a roof

slope of 22

.
The results also illustrate that the rainfall amount received over the different roofs having the same 22

slope is higher for roofs that face south into the prevailing wind, than roofs that face east and north. Rainfall
received by south-facing roofs is between 5 and 17% higher. Amounts are also higher for 22

than 50

slopes.
Runoff, on the other hand, shows the opposite relationship; it is the south-facing roof that generates the
least amount of runoff given the same 22

slope. The south-facing roof generates between 6 and 9% less. For

Rainfall (mm)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
R
u
n
o
f
f

(
m
m
)
0
10
20
30
40
JB, y = 0.8863x - 0.5930, r
2
= 0.9795, South - East
GP, y = 0.9808x - 0.3535, r
2
= 0.9811, North - East
AJ, y = 0.7560x - 0.4725, r
2
= 0.9816, South - West
TY, y = 0.6781x - 0.3064, r
2
= 0.9589
IT, y = 1.2468x - 0.7057, r
2
= 0.9389, South - East
HA, y = 0.8186x - 0.5359, r
2
= 0.9748
50
22
22
22
0
0
Figure 11. The rainfall/runoff regression slopes for the houses studied
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 17, 24092422 (2003)
2420 R. RAGAB ET AL.
Table VI. Evaporation/rainfall ratio
Site Roof aspect Roof
slope
Evaporation/
rainfall ratio
CEH Flat: 4 m high 0 038
AJ South-facing 22

033
HA Flat: 25 m high 0 029
JB East-facing 22

025
IT East-facing 50

014
GP North-facing 22

014
the same aspect, rainfall, runoff and evaporation were higher for houses with a lower slope. For example, IT
(east-facing; 50

) received 46% less rainfall than site JB (east-facing; 22

), 16% less run-off and lost 62%

less in evaporation. Evaporation here is calculated as a difference between rainfall and runoff. Evaporation
losses as a ratio of rainfall are given in Table VI. For the same slope 22

, the house with the south-facing roof

(the same direction as the prevailing wind) had more losses (334%) by evaporation when compared with the
north-east or south-east facing roofs.
The high ratio recorded at the CEH at roof site is attributed rstly to the ponding of water, which is then
able to evaporate, and secondly to the nature of its black rubber surface that absorbs and stores heat and
subsequently enhances evaporation. The nature of this surface could explain why the ratio is much higher
than the 029 gure recorded for the HA at roof site, which is covered in bitumen with felt and chippings.
For the same aspect, but different slopes, the ratio at IT was 10% lower than site JB.
The ratio between runoff and rainfall follows the runoff amount; north and east-facing roofs and the roof
with a steeper slope have higher runoff ratios than that facing south. The lowest ratio was 058 for the CEH
site. For the same slope, the ratio was lowest for the south-facing site (AJ, 061), but higher for the north-
facing roof (GP, 086). For the same amount of rainfall, the runoff generated from the 50

roof represented
143% of that generated by 22

roofs. For the same slope the runoff generated from north and east-facing
roofs for the same amount of rainfall represented 133% of that generated by south-facing roofs.
Usefulness of roof runoff water
According to the Environment Agency, UK (2001), the average UK outdoor water use, which includes
garden watering and car washing accounts for only 6% of annual domestic water consumption. However, on
hot dry summer evenings when supplies are most stressed, 50% or more of the water supply may be used
for garden watering. Using rainwater for garden watering, toilet ushing and washing machines can save
up to 50% of household water use. Commercial rainwater recycling systems are currently being installed in
Germany at a rate of 50 000 year
1
. There are two main systems; one pumps water direct to the appliance and
the other pumps rainwater to a header tank in the loft that feeds into the appliances via pipes. Currently, there
are no UK regulations relating to the required quality for WC and washing machine use. However, studies
in Germany concluded that correctly collected rainwater is suitable for such use without disinfection. Some
countries or regions within countries do require that new buildings must include a rainwater system. An added
value of rainwater is that it is soft and thus ideal for clothes washing (after passing through a lter) and
toilet ushing. Washing machines fed with rainwater have an extended life compared with those fed with hard
water. Typically urinals account of about 20% of ofce water use, although this gure can vary a good deal.
The water supply (water ttings) regulations of 1999 require urinals to use no more than 75 l per bowl per
hour. Monitoring at a high school showed urinals to be responsible for over 40% of total water consumption.
It is also known that typical household WC ushing uses 50 l day
1
(18 250 l year
1
), accounting for 30% to
40% of household water use. The use of roof rainwater for WC ushing using a collection system has been
discussed by Fewkes (1999).
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 17, 24092422 (2003)
WATER FLUXES IN RESIDENTIAL AREA 1 2421
Table II shows the volume of runoff in litres collected over almost 1 year from half the roof surface of
all houses apart from the at roof garage of HA and the CEH site. The annual total volume collected was
more than 18 250 l, with HA and IT being a little less. However the HA roof is for a small garage. If the
total area is considered, all the houses studied should be easily able to meet the 18 250 l value required for
WC ushing, as well as washing machines, outdoor garden watering and car washing. More efcient systems
such as water saving WCs, water use efcient washing machines, growing more drought tolerant plants in the
garden and the use of a trickle system will all help make a good and efcient use of the rainwater. However,
a simple butt is unlikely to be sufcient and a proper commercial system with a large tank will be needed to
make full use of rainfall throughout the year.
CONCLUSIONS
The present study has quantied the impact of aspect, slope and height of roofs on rainfall capture, runoff
and evaporation in an urban environment. The following general conclusions can be made.
1. Rainfall received by sloping roofs is less than that measured at ground level; the steeper the slope the less
rainfall is received.
2. Lower slopes experience higher rainfall, runoff and evaporation given the same aspect.
3. Roofs facing into the prevailing wind (south-facing) receive higher rainfall but generate less runoff.
4. South-facing roofs experience more evaporation than those facing east and north.
5. Monthly rainfall runoff ratios follow the same distribution as rainfall, being highest in winter and lowest
in summer. North and east-facing roofs have higher ratios (061) than south-facing slopes (086).
6. Runoff from a 50

slope is 40% higher than from a 22

slope; runoff from north and east-facing roofs are

30% higher than south-facing roofs, given the same slope.
7. The amount of runoff that can be collected could vary under different climatic conditions. However, under
the UK condition especially where the study was carried out, the amount collected was sufcient to supply
an average household with its annual indoor and outdoor water requirements (i.e. WC ushing, urinals (for
schools, organizations, etc.), washing machines, car washing and watering gardens). The use of this water
not only represents a nancial gain for house owners but also will help protect our environment through
reduced demand on water resources (i.e. over abstraction of groundwater) and the need for new or large
supply reservoirs as well as reducing the ood risk as its in situ use is considered a preventive measure
known as a source control.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to the director of Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), Wallingford, Professor Jim
Wallace for supporting this project. The help of Martin Lees, Terry Marsh, John Packman and Graham Leeks
of CEH, Wallingford is sincerely appreciated. Thanks are also due to the Workshop staff for their help in
developing the system and to Ivor Standbridge for system installation. The authors are very grateful to the
homeowners who are taking part in this project. Their support and co-operation was essential to carry out
this study. Special thanks to Mr Geoff Pearce, Mr Illtyd Thomas, Mr Nigel Aplin, Ms Helen Aplin and Dr
Andrew Johnson for offering their homes to be part of this project.
REFERENCES
Davies H, Hollis T. 1981. Measurements of rainfall runoff volume relationships and water balance from roofs and roads. In Proceedings
of the Second International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage, Ben Chie Yen (ed.). Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Illinois: Urbana, IL; 434443.
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 17, 24092422 (2003)
2422 R. RAGAB ET AL.
Environment Agency UK. 2001. Conserving Water in Buildings. Document (ISBN: 1-85-705641-8) produced under research and development
project W6-067. Environment Agency: West Sussex; 22.
Fewkes A. 1999. The use of rainwater for WC ushing: the eld testing of a collection system. Building and Environment 34: 765772.
Grimmond CSB, Oke TR. 1991. An evaporationinterception model for urban areas. Water Resources Research 27: 17391755.
Hamilton EL. 1954. Rainfall Sampling on rugged Terrain. Technical Bulletin No. 1096, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC;
41 pp.
Hollis GE, Ovenden JC. 1988. The quantity of stormwater runoff from ten stretches of road, a car park and eight roofs in Hertforshire,
England during 1983. Hydrological Processes. 2: 227243.
Lerner DN. 1997. Too much or too little: recharge in urban areas. In Groundwater in the Urban Environment, Vol. 1, Processes and
management , Chilton J et al. (eds). Balkema: Rotterdam; 4147.
Makin IW, Kidd CHR. 1979. Urban Hydrology Project: Collection and Archive of UK Hydrological Data. Institute of Hydrology report
number 59, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: Wallingford; 52.
Maksimovic C (ed.). 1996. Rain and Floods in our Cities, Gauging the Problem. Technical Report in Hydrology and Water Resources No.
53, World Meteorological Organization: Geneva; 168.
Owen CR. 1995. Water budget and ow patterns in an urban wetland. Journal of Hydrology 169: 171187.
Packman JC. 1992. A New Hydrology Model for WALLRUS. Institute of Hydrology Customer Report and Software Package, Centre for
Ecology and Hydrology: Wallingford.
Panicucci M. 1986. A raingauge for accurate measurements of rainfall in areas, which are not level. In Correction of Precipitation
Measurements, Sevruk B (ed.). Geographisches Institut, Eidgen ossische Technische Hochschule. ETH/IAHS/WMO Workshop on the
Correction of Precipitation Measurements, 13 April, ETH, Zurich; 4348.
Rodda. JC, Smith SW, Strangeway IC. 1986. On more realistic measurements of rainfall and their impact on assessing acid deposition.
ETH/IAHS/WMO Workshop on the Correction of Precipitation Measurements, 13 April, ETH, Zurich; 245249.
Stephenson D. 1994. Comparison of the water balance for an undeveloped and a suburban catchment. Hydrological Sciences. 39: 295307.
Van den Ven FHM. 1990. Water balance of urban areas. In Hydrological Processes and Water Management in Urban Areas, Massing H,
Packman J, Zuidema F (eds). Publication No. 198, International Association Hydrological Sciences: Wallingford; 2132.
Whitlow TH, Bassuk NL, Reichert DL. 1992. A 3-year study of water relations of urban street trees. Journal of Applied Ecology 29:
436450.
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 17, 24092422 (2003)