Comparative analysis of greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting as supplementary water sources for conventional urban and tourist resort water supplies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freshwater scarcity combined with high water demand from rapid urbanization, population growth, and changing consumption has resulted in increasing stress on urban water supply systems. Seasonal fluctuations in the population of tourist destinations are especially evident in tourist resorts. Greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting have been proposed as the most widely used valuable strategies to address water scarcity. By taking the conventional water supply system and the water supply of tourist resorts as examples, this study systematically compares and analyzes the advantages and limitations of greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting by enumerating the stress of water supply in different systems, discussing the benefits of both strategies and comparing the differences when using them for tourist destinations. The results showed that pumping systems or elevated tanks used to meet the water supply needs of high-rise buildings pose energy challenges. The water use characteristics of tourist resorts cause it to be closely related to the seasonal influx of tourists. Greywater recycling is more effective than rainwater harvesting in mitigating tourist resorts' water shortage problem. Suggestions for ways to implement these strategies for different regions are also given to make informed decisions about water distribution efforts. This study provides a reference for sustainable urban water resource management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".