Calculation model and case study of water saving in typical colleges and universities

Abstract

In this paper, a model of “intake quantity of water in the base period – the number of students using water” is constructed in typical colleges and universities, and a typical case study and analysis are carried out. The model takes into account the type of college students and the time in school, which provides a scientific calculation method for the calculation of water-saving amount in colleges and universities, and plays an important role in promoting the construction of water-saving colleges and universities and the construction of water-saving society.

Keywords

Colleges and universities water-saving amount calculation method

1. Introduction

China is a country with serious water shortage, and the Water Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that “the State shall practice water conservation, vigorously implement water conservation measures, promote new technologies and techniques for water conservation, develop water-conserving industries, agriculture and services, and build a water-conserving society” [1, 2]. China’s institutions of higher education, which integrate teaching, research and living, are large consumers of water resources, and their water consumption links cover teaching office buildings, student dormitories and centralized canteens [3, 4]. According to the data of National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China in 2020, there are 2738 general institutions of higher education in China, with 328529000 students enrolled. According to the relevant statistics, the total annual water consumption of colleges and universities in China is 245 million tons, and the annual water withdrawal per capita is 62.15 tons, which is a larger representative group of water consumption in the society.

In 2019, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Ministry of Water Resources (MWR) jointly issued the National Action Program on Water Conservation (NDRC-EEPR [2019] No. 695), proposing to build a number of water-saving higher education institutions with typical demonstration significance by 2022. In order to implement the National Action Plan for Water Conservation, guide students to establish awareness of water conservation, promote the transformation of water use from rough to economical and intensive, and improve the efficiency of water use in higher education institutions, the State Administration, Ministry of Education and other departments jointly issued the Notice on Further Promoting Water Conservation in Colleges and Universities, which requires higher education institutions to deeply promote water conservation, actively carry out water conservation transformation, and build a number of water-conserving higher education institutions with typical demonstration significance institutions of higher education. Water saving calculation is an important basic work for building water-saving colleges and universities, an important technical means to quantify water saving and an important basis to evaluate the effect of water saving [5, 6], which is of great significance to realize the sustainable use of water resources, promote the construction of water-saving society and promote the construction of ecological civilization.

Water conservation management in higher education institutions urgently needs scientific and feasible water saving calculation methods [7]. In the creation of water efficiency leaders, conservation universities, water-saving universities and other demonstration units, institutions of higher education implement water-saving transformation and evaluate the effect of water-saving transformation, which requires scientific calculation of water savings; in the daily water-saving management of institutions of higher education, after the implementation of water-saving transformation technology, scientific calculation of water savings is an important basis for evaluating the effect of water-saving transformation. However, at present, there is no scientific and unified method for calculating water saving in higher education institutions or even public institutions in China. In practice, front-line staff often take the water intake data of the adjacent two years and calculate the water saving by subtracting them, which ignores the changes of the main influencing factors of water consumption in schools. In 2017, China released the national standard “Guidelines for calculating project water savings” (GB/T 34148-2017), which introduced the concept of project water savings calculation, not for specific higher education institutions, and also no specific calculation model is given.

The more mature method for calculating energy savings in building retrofits internationally is “energy efficiency measurement and verification” [8, 9]. The most widely used of these is the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) [10], the related Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) [11], the American Society of HVAC Engineers’ Measurement and Verification Guide (ASHRAE Guideline 14), the South African Demand Side Management Measurement and Verification Guide, and the Best Practice Guide for Energy Savings Measurement and Verification published in Australia. These energy savings measurement and verification guidelines provide the same methodology as that defined by the IPMVP protocol for determining energy and water savings compared to a defined baseline in new and retrofit buildings. Most of the international energy saving measurement and validation studies focus on the overall energy consumption method, which can be divided into two categories: first, the “baseline energy consumption – impact factor” model of the overall energy consumption method mentioned in the relevant standards; second, the assumption of a linear relationship between correction factors and energy consumption, and the use of energy consumption correction factors to introduce the corresponding. The second is to assume a linear relationship between correction factors and energy consumption and use the correction factors to introduce corresponding correction factors to correct the building energy consumption [12].

As mentioned above, there is no research on water saving calculation methods specifically for typical institutions of higher education at home and abroad. Therefore, it is important for us to study and build a water saving calculation model and method for typical higher education institutions, which can scientifically evaluate the actual water saving effect of higher education institutions and effectively guide them to use water rationally and conserve water.

2. The meaning and calculation model of water saving

Water saving refers to the amount of water used less to provide the same quantity and quality of products or services due to the improvement of water use efficiency [13]. Higher education institutions are organizations that integrate teaching, research and living, and the water use links are mainly domestic water use in teaching buildings, cafeterias and dormitory areas, which possess strong regularity [14]. The function of higher education institutions is to teach and educate people, and to provide professional education services for students. The main water users in higher education institutions are students, and the teachers and workers are mainly equipped with students, and the teachers and workers are providing professional education and related living services for students. Therefore, students can be the main water consumption influencing factor. Moreover, the average water withdrawal per student, i.e., the average water withdrawal per student, can be a measure of the water use efficiency of a higher education institution [15, 16]. The prerequisite for generating water savings is an increase in water use efficiency, which is dependent on the effective implementation of water conservation management and retrofitting measures [17, 18, 19]. A simple reduction in water withdrawal without an improvement in water use efficiency cannot be called a water saving. A reduction in the average per capita water withdrawal of an HEI implies an increase in the efficiency of the HEI’s water use, and this reduction in water withdrawal due to increased water efficiency is called water savings, provided that the same quality of service is provided to students. There are two “misconceptions” in the understanding of water saving, one is that “reduction in water intake” is equivalent to water saving, which is obviously not scientific, because without the improvement of water efficiency, simply reducing the number of students served can also reduce water intake, and such reduction is not equivalent to water saving. This is obviously unscientific, because without the improvement of water efficiency, simply reducing the number of students served can also reduce water withdrawal, and such a reduction is not equivalent to water saving, and therefore cannot be called water saving.

Based on the above description of the meaning of water saving, we can construct a model of “base period water withdrawal – number of students using water” to calculate the water saving of a typical higher education institution. The key variable in this model is the average student water withdrawal, which is a key indicator of water use efficiency in higher education institutions, and can be used to scientifically calculate water savings, solving the problem that water withdrawal reduction is not equivalent to water savings [20]. The specific parameters in the model include: water withdrawal in the base period, water withdrawal in the statistical reporting period, calibrated water withdrawal and water savings, and the relationship between them is shown in Fig. 1. The base period water withdrawal (Wb) and statistical reporting period water withdrawal ( $W_{r}$ ) are derived by measuring water withdrawals from universities, and the calibration water withdrawal ( $W_{a}$ ) is derived by establishing a quantitative relationship between water withdrawals and the number of students using water and calibrating the number of students using water in the statistical reporting period, reflecting the water withdrawals of a typical higher education institution without improving water conservation management and adopting water conservation measures.

Figure 1.

Schematic diagram of relevant parameters.

Equation (1) is the basic equation for calculating water savings after improving water conservation management and implementing water-saving renovation measures in a typical higher education institution.

$\displaystyle\Delta W_{s}=W_{a}-W_{r}$ (1)

In the equation, $\Delta W_{s}$ – Water savings from improved water conservation management and implementation of water-saving renovation, units in tons (m ${}^{3}$ ); $W_{a}$ – Calibrated water withdrawal, units in tons (m ${}^{3}$ ); $W_{r}$ – Statistical reporting period water withdrawal, units in tons (m ${}^{3}$ ).

Equation (2) is for calculating the calibrated water intake for schools based on the number of students.

$\displaystyle W_{a}=\frac{W_{b}}{\sum{(N_{bi}\times K_{i})}}\times\sum{(N_{ai}% \times K_{i})}$ (2)

In the equation, $W_{b}$ – Base period school water intake, units in tons (m ${}^{3}$ ); $N_{bi}$ – Number of students in category i in the base period, unit is person; $K_{i}$ – The number of students in category i converted to water use factor; $N_{ai}$ – Number of students in category i for the statistical reporting period, unit is person.

Among them, the number of students includes specialist, undergraduate, master, doctoral and training students, etc. When calculating water savings, the number of students in each category should be adjusted according to the actual situation by discounting.

3. Colleges and university water-savings case studies

We use the following two specific examples to further analyze and illustrate the use of the water savings calculation model.

3.1 Case 1

A university in 2020 is equipped with water treatment system, which is reused for toilet flushing in each bathroom, irrigation of campus greening and experimental fields after treatment, and the rest goes into the artificial lake of the campus, realizing zero discharge of sewage; some secondary water meters and tertiary water meters are added and replaced, and all end-users of family buildings are installed with metered water meters, which are equipped with more perfect water meters; aging taps are replaced with secondary water-efficient water-saving appliances. The university calibrates the water meters every year to minimize the measurement errors due to water meter problems. The university has more detailed data on the amount of water withdrawn and the number of people. The university’s average student water withdrawal fluctuates $<\pm$ 2% from 2017–2019. Combining the university’s water consumption, 2019 was chosen as the base period, 2020 as the implementation period of water-saving renovation measures, and 2021 as the annual statistical reporting period. The university’s water withdrawal data for the base and statistical reporting periods were obtained through the measuring apparatus, and the number of students and water consumption were summarized through statistics. The process of calculating water savings for this university is as follows.

(1) Data collection

Obtain accurate and complete water withdrawal measurement and statistics for the university for the base period and statistical reporting period, including water withdrawal for the base period ( $W_{b}$ ), water withdrawal for the statistical reporting period ( $W_{r}$ ), and the composition of undergraduate, master’s, doctoral and training students for the base period and statistical reporting period (no specialist students).

(2) Base period and statistical reporting period data processing

Water withdrawal and student data for the university’s base and statistical reporting periods are derived from measurements and statistics.

The statistical parameters of colleges and universities for 2019 (base period) and 2021 (statistical reporting period) are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Case 1: Parameters of colleges and universities

State	Number of students (person)					Annual wate withdrawal $W_{b}$ (m ${}^{3}$ )	Annual water withdrawa $W_{r}$ (m ${}^{3}$ )
	Undergraduate	Master’s	Doctoral	Training student 1	Training student 2
Base period	3000	500	296	3000	5000	167779	–
Statistical reporting period	2850	460	300	5000	10000	–	145000

For the base period, the student profile of the college was as follows.

Undergraduate: 3000 people, 2500 of them were away from the university during the winter and summer, and the remaining 500 were away during both winter and summer, while on off-campus internships for five months.

Master’s: 500 people, 400 of them are not in colleges and universities during winter and summer, and the remaining 100 are not in colleges and universities during winter vacation only.

Doctoral: 296 people, 200 people of them are not in colleges during winter and summer, and the remaining 96 people are not in colleges during winter vacation only.

Training student 1: The school held six 2-day training sessions with a single size of 500 people.

Training student 2: The school holds 10 time 3-day training sessions with a single size of 500 people.

The university has a 46-day summer break and a 42-day winter break.

The breakdown of the number of students using water during the base period at the university is shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Breakdown of the calculation of the number of students using water in the base period

Name	Number of people (person)	Day counting factor		Number of students using water (person) $\sum{(N_{bi}\times K_{i})}$
		Algorithm	Result	Algorithm	Result
Undergraduate	2500	(365-46-42)/365	277/365	2500 $\times$ 277/365	1897.26
	500	(365-150-46-42)/365	127/365	500 $\times$ 127/365	173.97
Master’s	400	(365-46-42)/365	277/365	400 $\times$ 277/365	303.56
	100	(365-42)/365	323/365	100 $\times$ 323/365	88.49
Doctoral	200	(365-46-42)/365	277/365	200 $\times$ 277/365	151.78
	96	(365-42)/365	323/365	96 $\times$ 323/365	84.95
Training student	3000	2/365	2/365	3000 $\times$ 2/365	16.44
	5000	3/365	3/365	5000 $\times$ 3/365	41.10
Total					2757.56

The details of the university’s water users for the statistical reporting period are as follows.

Undergraduate: 2850 people, 2400 of them are not in college during winter and summer, and the remaining 450 people are not in the same time off-campus internship for 5 months during winter and summer.

Master’s: 460 people, 420 of them are not in colleges and universities during winter and summer vacations, and the remaining 40 people are not in colleges and universities during winter vacations only.

Doctoral: 300 people, 250 of them are not in colleges during winter and summer, and the remaining 50 are not in colleges during winter vacation only.

Training student 1: The school held 10 time 2-day training sessions, with a single size of 500 people.

Training student 2: The school holds 20 time 3-day training sessions with a single size of 500 people.

The university has a 46-day summer break and a 42-day winter break.

The breakdown of the number of students who used water during the reporting period is shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Breakdown of the calculation of the number of students using water in the statistical reporting period

Name	Number of people (person)	Day counting factor		Number of students using water (person) $\sum{(N_{ai}\times K_{i})}$
		Algorithm	Result	Algorithm	Result
Undergraduate	2400	(365-46-42)/365	277/365	2400 $\times$ 277/365	1821.37
	450	(365-150-46-42)/365	127/365	450 $\times$ 127/365	156.58
Master’s	420	(365-46-42)/365	277/365	420 $\times$ 277/365	318.74
	40	(365-42)/365	323/365	40 $\times$ 323/365	35.40
Doctoral	250	(365-46-42)/365	277/365	250 $\times$ 277/365	189.73
	50	(365-42)/365	323/365	50 $\times$ 323/365	44.25
Expatriates	5000	2/365	2/365	5000 $\times$ 2/365	27.40
	10000	3/365	3/365	10000 $\times$ 3/365	82.19
Total					2675.64

(3) Calculation of calibrated water intake for universities

$\displaystyle W_{a}=\frac{W_{b}}{\sum{(N_{bi}\times K_{i})}}\times\sum(N_{ai}% \times K_{i})=\frac{167779}{2757.56}\times 2675.64=162795(m^{3})$ (3)

(4) Calculating water savings in universities

$\displaystyle\Delta W_{s}=W_{a}-W_{r}=162795-145000=17795(m^{3})$ (4)

The comparison of water use efficiency (per pupil water withdrawal), water savings, water withdrawal reduction and increase in the number of students using water in 2019 and 2021 is shown in Table 4. It can be seen that the water use efficiency in 2021 is increased by 11% compared to 2019 and water savings are achieved, with water savings of 17795 m ${}^{3}$ , water withdrawal reduction of 22779 m ${}^{3}$ and a reduction in the number of students using water by 81.92.

Table 4

Comparison of water withdrawal reduction and water savings

Water use efficiency in 2019 (t/people)	Water use efficiency in 2021 (t/people)	Water savings (m ${}^{3}$ )	Water withdrawal reduction (m ${}^{3}$ )	Increase in the number of students using water
60.84	54.19	17795	22779	$-$ 81.92

3.2 Case 2

A university replaces all aging faucets with Class I water-efficient water-saving appliances in 2020, while merging students from a specialized institution. The university’s average student water withdrawal fluctuates up and down by $<\pm$ 1% from 2017 to 2019. Combining the university’s water consumption, 2019 was selected as the base period, 2020 as the water-saving retrofit implementation period, and 2021 as the annual statistical reporting period to measure and count the number of water users and water withdrawals at the university. The water withdrawal data for the base period and statistical reporting period were obtained through metering. The data collection process for this school was the same as in Case 1, so to avoid duplication, the water saving calculation process for Case 2 was carried out from the base period and the statistical reporting period data processing. The details are as follows.

(1) Base period and statistical reporting period data processing

Water withdrawal and student data for the university’s base and statistical reporting periods are derived from measurements and statistics.

The statistical parameters of colleges and universities for 2019 (base period) and 2021 (statistical reporting period) are shown in Table 5.

Table 5
Case 2: Parameters of colleges and universities

State		Number of students (person)					Annual water withdrawal $W_{b}$ (m ${}^{3}$ )	Annual water withdrawal $W_{r}$ (m ${}^{3}$ )
	Collegian	Undergraduate	Master’s	Doctoral	Training student 1	Training student 2
Base period	–	5000	800	500	3000	5000	319600	–
Statistical reporting	2500	4800	750	520	3000	3000	–	351060
period

For the base period, the student profile of the college was as follows.

Undergraduate: 5000 people, 4500 of them are away from the university during the winter and summer, and the remaining 500 were away during both winter and summer, while on off-campus internships for five months.

Master’s: 800 people, 750 of them are not in college during winter and summer, and the remaining 50 were not in college during winter break only.

Doctoral: 500 people, 400 of them are not in colleges during winter and summer, and the remaining 100 are not in colleges during winter vacation only.

Training student 1: The school holds 6 time 2-day training sessions, with a single size of 500 people.

Training student 2: The school holds 10 time 3-day training sessions with a single size of 500 people.

The school has a 46-day summer break and a 42-day winter break.

The breakdown of the number of students using water during the base period at the university is shown in Table 6.

Table 6

Breakdown of the calculation of the number of students using water in the base period

Name	Number of people (person)	Day counting factor		Number of students using water (person) $\sum{(N_{bi}\times K_{i})}$
		Algorithm	Result	Algorithm	Result
Undergraduate	4500	(365-46-42)/365	277/365	4500 $\times$ 277/365	3415.07
	500	(365-150-46-42)/365	127/365	500 $\times$ 127/365	173.97
Master’s	750	(365-46-42)/365	277/365	750 $\times$ 277/365	569.18
	50	(365-42)/365	323/365	50 $\times$ 323/365	44.25
Doctoral	400	(365-46-42)/365	277/365	400 $\times$ 277/365	303.56
	100	(365-42)/365	323/365	100 $\times$ 323/365	88.49
Expatriates	3000	2/365	2/365	3000 $\times$ 2/365	16.44
	5000	3/365	3/365	5000 $\times$ 3/365	41.10
Total					4652.05

The details of the university’s water users for the statistical reporting period are as follows.

Collegian: 2500 people, 2000 of them are not in college during the winter and summer, and the remaining 500 were not at the same time off-campus internships for 5 months during the winter and summer.

Undergraduate: 4800 people, 4500 of them are not in colleges and universities during winter and summer, and the remaining 300 are not at the same time off-campus internship for 5 months during winter and summer.

Master’s: 750 people, 700 of them are not in colleges and universities during winter and summer, and the remaining 50 are not in colleges and universities during winter vacation only.

Doctoral: 520 people, 450 of them are not in colleges and universities during winter and summer vacations, and the remaining 70 people are not in colleges and universities during winter vacations only.

Training student 1: The school holds 6 time 2-day training sessions, with a single size of 500 people.

Training student 2: The school holds 6 time 3-day training sessions with a single size of 500 people.

The school has a 46-day summer break and a 42-day winter break.

The calculated breakdown of the number of students using water during the reporting period is shown in Table 7.

Table 7

Breakdown of the calculation of the number of students using water in the statistical reporting period

Name	Number of people (person)	Day counting factor		Number of students using water (person) $\sum{(N_{ai}\times K_{i})}$
		Algorithm	Result	Algorithm	Result
Collegian	2000	(365-46-42)/365	277/365	2000 $\times$ 277/365	1517.81
	500	(365-150-46-42)/365	127/365	500 $\times$ 127/365	173.97
Undergraduate	4500	(365-46-42)/365	277/365	4500 $\times$ 277/365	3415.07
	300	(365-150-46-42)/365	127/365	300 $\times$ 127/365	104.38
Master’s	700	(365-46-42)/365	277/365	700 $\times$ 277/365	531.23
	50	(365-42)/365	323/365	50 $\times$ 323/365	44.25
Doctoral	450	(365-46-42)/365	277/365	450 $\times$ 277/365	341.51
	70	(365-42)/365	323/365	70 $\times$ 323/365	61.95
Expatriates	3000	2/365	2/365	3000 $\times$ 2/365	16.44
	3000	3/365	3/365	3000 $\times$ 3/365	24.66
Total					6231.26

(2) Calculation of calibrated water intake for universities

$\displaystyle W_{a}=\frac{W_{b}}{\sum({N_{bi}\times K_{i}})}\times\sum({N_{ai}% \times K_{i}})=\frac{319600}{4652.05}\times 6231.26=428093(m^{3})$ (5)

(3) Calculating water savings in universities

$\displaystyle\Delta W_{s}=W_{a}-W_{r}=428093-351060=77033(m^{3})$ (6)

The comparison of water use efficiency (average student water withdrawal), water savings, water withdrawal reduction and increase in the number of students using water in 2019 and 2021 is shown in Table 8. It can be seen that the water use efficiency in 2021 is increased by 18% compared to 2019, and the water savings obtained is 77032 m ${}^{3}$ . The water withdrawal reduction is $-$ 31460 m ${}^{3}$ , i.e. the increase in water withdrawal is 31460 m ${}^{3}$ .

Table 8

Comparison of water withdrawal reduction and water savings

Water use efficiency in 2019 (t/people)	Water use efficiency in 2021 (t/people)	Water savings (m ${}^{3}$ )	Water withdrawal reduction (m ${}^{3}$ )	Increase in the number of students using water
68.70	56.34	77033	$-$ 31460	1579.21

4. Conclusion

Through the calculation and analysis of the above two cases, it can be seen that: after the effective implementation of water saving renovation, the efficiency of water use is improved, and the water saving is generated regardless of the increase or decrease in the number of students using water; for water withdrawal, when the number of students using water decreases, on the one hand, the decrease in the number of water users will lead to a decrease in water withdrawal, and at the same time, the improvement in efficiency will also lead to a decrease in water withdrawal, and the water saving is less than the decrease in water withdrawal. When the number of students uses the same amount of water, the amount of water withdrawal reduction is the same as the amount of water saving. When the number of students increases, the amount of water saved will be greater than the actual amount of water withdrawn.

The water saving calculation model constructed in this paper for a typical higher education institution reflects the essential factors affecting water saving with per capita water withdrawal as the key variable, and can scientifically elaborate and explain the connotation of water saving. It is of great importance to support the calculation of water saving in higher education institutions.

References

Jiang

. China’s water scarcity. J Environ Manage. 2009; 90(11): 3185-3196.

The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. Water law of the people’s republic of China [Internet]. Beijing: The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China; 2011 [updated 2011 Octorber 11]. Available from: http://www.scio.gov.cn/xwfbh/xwbfbh/wqfbh/2015/20150331/xgbd32636/Document/1397610/1397610.htm.

Antunes

Ghisi

. Water and energy consumption in schools: Case studies in Brazil. Environ Dev Sustain. 2020; 22(5): 4225-4249.

Flores

Ghisi

. Benchmarking water efficiency in public school buildings. Sustainability. 2022; 14(7): 3794.

Nunes

LGCF

Soares

AEP

Soares

WDA

Silva Da

. Water consumption in public schools: A case study. J Water Sanit Hyg De. 2019; 9(1): 119-128.

Soares

AEP

Silva

JKD

Nunes

LGCF

Ribeiro Rios

Silva Da

. Water conservation potential within higher education institutions: Lessons from a Brazilian university. Urban Water J. 2021; 1-9.

Marinho

Gonçalves

MDS

Kiperstok

. Water conservation as a tool to support sustainable practices in a Brazilian public university. J Cleaner Prod. 2014; 62: 98-106.

Xia

Zhang

. Mathematical description for the measurement and verification of energy efficiency improvement. Appl Energy. 2013; 111: 247-256.

Yeh

. Cloud computing platform for real-time measurement and verification of energy performance. Appl Energy. 2017; 188: 497-507.

10.

Cowan

. International performance measurement and verification protocol: Concepts and options for determining energy and water savings, volume I (revised). 2002.

11.

de Monsabert

Liner

. Integrated energy and water conservation modeling. J Energy Eng. 1998; 124(1): 1-19.

12.

Touzani

Granderson

Fernandes

. Gradient boosting machine for modeling the energy consumption of commercial buildings. Energy Build. 2018; 158: 1533-1543.

13.

Hamdy

Ragab

Scarascia-Mugnozza

. Coping with water scarcity: Water saving and increasing water productivity. Irrig Drain. 2003; 52(1): 3-20.

14.

Geng

Liu

Xue

Fujita

. Creating a “green university” in China: A case of Shenyang University. J Clean Prod. 2013; 61: 13-19.

15.

Morote

ÁF

Hernández

Olcina

Rico

. Water consumption and management in schools in the city of Alicante (Southern Spain) (2000-2017): Free water helps promote saving water? Water. 2020; 12(4): 1052.

16.

Nunes

LGCF

Soares

AEP

Silva Da

. Rational water use indicators for public schools in Recife, Brazil. Water Supply. 2019; 19(1): 207-215.

17.

Farina

Maglionico

Pollastri

Stojkov

. Water consumption in public schools for the city of Bologna, Italy. Water Supply. 2013; 13(2): 257-264.

18.

Oduro-Kwarteng

Nyarko

Odai

Aboagye-Sarfo

. Water conservation potential in educational institutions in developing countries: Case study of a university campus in Ghana. Urban Water J. 2009; 6(6): 449-455.

19.

Silva Da

LCC

Filho Oliveira

Silva

Pinto

ACVE

Vaz

. Water sustainability potential in a university building – case study. Sustain Cities Soc. 2019; 47: 101489.

20.

Schultt

Kalbusch

Henning

. Factors influencing water consumption in public schools in Southern Brazil. Environ Dev Sustain. 2022; 24(1): 1411-1427.

Calculation model and case study of water saving in typical colleges and universities

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. The meaning and calculation model of water saving

3.1 Case 1

(1) Data collection

(2) Base period and statistical reporting period data processing

Table 1 Case 1: Parameters of colleges and universities

(3) Calculation of calibrated water intake for universities

(4) Calculating water savings in universities

(1) Base period and statistical reporting period data processing

Table 5 Case 2: Parameters of colleges and universities

(2) Calculation of calibrated water intake for universities

(3) Calculating water savings in universities

References

Table 1
Case 1: Parameters of colleges and universities

Table 5
Case 2: Parameters of colleges and universities