Rainwater harvesting (RWH) refers to the collection of rainwater for subsequent on-site use. Rainwater is most often used for non-potable purposes including toilet flushing, laundering, landscape and commercial crop irrigation, industry, fire fighting, air-conditioning, and vehicle-washing. This study evaluates the potential impacts of RWH on residential housing on Virginia Tech campus in southwestern Virginia in regards to potable water offset, energy conservation, stormwater mitigation, carbon emission reduction, and financial savings. Potential rainwater collection was estimated from three simulations used to approximate the maximum, average, and minimum range of annual precipitation. Collected rainwater estimates were used to calculate the impacts on the areas of interest. Cumulatively, the sample buildings can collect 3.4 to 5.3 millions of gallons of rainwater — offsetting potable water use and reducing stormwater by an equivalent amount, save 320 to 1842 kWh of energy, and reduce carbon emissions by 650 to 3650 pounds annually. Cumulative savings for the nine buildings from combined water and energy offsets range between $5751 and $9005 USD, not substantial enough to serve as the sole basis of RWH implementation on campus. A significant advantage of RWH relates to the management and improvement of the Stroubles Creek watershed in which the majority of the campus sits. Additionally, RWH implementation would benefit sustainable initiatives and provide Virginia Tech additional opportunities for conservation incentives and environmental stewardship funding. / Master of Science

The Health Facilities Infrastructure Management Programme in South Africa aims to ensure an appropriate and sustainable platform for the delivery of health services. Since 1994, the average number of hospital beds has decreased from 4.4 beds per 1 000 people to 2.4 beds per 1 000 people. During the same period, there was no significant reduction in the 1 372 clinic backlog. The evaluation of the performance of the Health Facilities Infrastructure Management Programme was based on a systems approach. This performance evaluation was conducted across four dimensions, with 12 assessment instruments and within 134 assessment parameters. Several of these instruments were developed as part of this study. Actual performance, per assessment parameter, was expressed in terms of a four level project management maturity scale. About one third of the parameters indicated a low level of project management maturity, one third indicating a medium-low level of maturity, with less than 10% judged to have reached maturity. It was found that the Infrastructure Unit in the National Department of Health is solely responsible for addressing more than half of the performance areas described by the assessment parameters. The proposed prioritisation model indicated that 50% of the performance areas needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency. The study concludes with 10 system transformation recommendations aimed at maturity growth in the Infrastructure Unit in the National Department of Health, as well as maturity growth in the Health Facilities Infrastructure Management Programme as a whole. The following key terms are relevant: • Health Facilities Infrastructure Management Programme • Performance evaluation • Infrastructure Unit • National Department of Health of South Africa • Project management maturity • Assessment instruments • Assessment parameters • Prioritisation model / Thesis (MArt et Scien (Urban and Regional Planning))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

The Health Facilities Infrastructure Management Programme in South Africa aims to ensure an appropriate and sustainable platform for the delivery of health services. Since 1994, the average number of hospital beds has decreased from 4.4 beds per 1 000 people to 2.4 beds per 1 000 people. During the same period, there was no significant reduction in the 1 372 clinic backlog. The evaluation of the performance of the Health Facilities Infrastructure Management Programme was based on a systems approach. This performance evaluation was conducted across four dimensions, with 12 assessment instruments and within 134 assessment parameters. Several of these instruments were developed as part of this study. Actual performance, per assessment parameter, was expressed in terms of a four level project management maturity scale. About one third of the parameters indicated a low level of project management maturity, one third indicating a medium-low level of maturity, with less than 10% judged to have reached maturity. It was found that the Infrastructure Unit in the National Department of Health is solely responsible for addressing more than half of the performance areas described by the assessment parameters. The proposed prioritisation model indicated that 50% of the performance areas needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency. The study concludes with 10 system transformation recommendations aimed at maturity growth in the Infrastructure Unit in the National Department of Health, as well as maturity growth in the Health Facilities Infrastructure Management Programme as a whole. The following key terms are relevant: • Health Facilities Infrastructure Management Programme • Performance evaluation • Infrastructure Unit • National Department of Health of South Africa • Project management maturity • Assessment instruments • Assessment parameters • Prioritisation model / Thesis (MArt et Scien (Urban and Regional Planning))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.