Mkomazi Catchment Rural Water use Survey: Final Report · 2004. 2. 26. · Water use, consumption and extraction are measurable factors. Intheory they have a real value. Need and

IWRMS Mkomazi Primary water use GeoData Institute

1

Mkomazi Catchment Rural Water use Survey: Final Report

Prepared by:

Prof. M.Clark Dr. Craig Hutton & Prof. Graeme Slade Dr. Julia Branson Maurice Mommen GeoData Institute University of Southampton Geography: School of Southampton Applied Environmental Science Hants University of Natal (Pietermaritzburg) United Kingdom South Africa


2

Executive Summary

This document presents summary statistics relating to primary water use in the

Mkomazi River catchment, South Africa. The data were collected during a

questionnaire survey of representatives from 232 households in the catchment, carried

out in April - May 2000 by the Department of Geography at UNP South Africa. The

data, as presented in this draft, are initially interpreted in a summary form and are

intended for use in conjunction with the GIS rural water resource survey GIS layers

provided on the IWRMS database.

The survey discussed in this document is part of a European Union funded project

"The development of an Innovative computer based Integrated Water Resources

Management System (IWRMS)" in semiarid catchments for water resources analysis

and prognostic scenario planning.

The project aims to integrate technical and socio-economic data in order to enable

managers and decision makers to improve the regional strategic planning of

catchment water resources with respect to optimising the use of water to satisfy the

demands of competing stakeholders while protecting water and land resources.


3

Index

Rural Water Survey in the Mkomazi River Catchment

1. Project Overview: A context for the Mkomazi Survey ….. 5

1.1. Generic Water Demand in IWRMS ………………………... 5

1.2 Definitions of Water Utilisation …………………………… 6

1.3 Project Aims and Constraints ……………………………… 8

1.4 Door to Door Survey Approach: An Outline Methodology .. 8

1.5 Questionnaire Structure …………………………………….. 9

1.6 Door to Door Survey Approach: A record of Perceptions …. 11

1.7 Interpretation of Door to Door Surveys ……………………. 11

2. Rural Water surveys in the Mkomazi River catchment

2.1 Introduction ………………………………………………… 13

2.2 Location and Physical Environment ………………………… 13

2.3 Grazing Capacity ………………………………………….. 14

2.4 Community Demographic profiles………………………….. 15

2.5 Survey Method Outline …………………………………….. 16

3 Water Supply ………………………………………………. 16

3.1 Water Quality and Community Health ……………………. 18

3.2 Livestock …………………………………………………... 18

3.3 Community Vegetable Gardens …………………………… 19

3.4 Socio-economic Conditions, Services and Facilities ……… 19

4 Data Presentation …………………………………………… 20

4.1 Homestead survey ………………………………………….. 20

4.2 Water Collection …………………………………………… 23

4.3 Journey Time to Source……………………………………… 25

4.4 Reasons for Source Preference ……………………………… 27

4.5 Water Collection: Methods, Volumes and Uses ……………. 27

4.6 Livestock ……………………………………………………. 31

4.7 Communal Water Use ………………………………………. 33


4

4.8 Water Quality……………………………………………… 34

4.9 Water Storage ……………………………………………... 35

5. Interpretation Summary ..................................................... 36

6. Discussion …………………………………………………. 37


5

1. Project Overview: A context for the Mkomazi Survey

1.1. Generic Water Demand in IWRMS

In order to provide early direction for the development of IWRMS and its potential

applications, it was necessary to consider the generic form of water demand in the

three countries. This generic distillation was also seen as providing a baseline against

which country-specific demand surveys could be assessed, and a valuable design

input (raising priority questions) into the later surveys of demand in the test

catchments. It was apparent from the outset that since each of these catchments

already had a functioning Catchment authority, Council or Association with a remit to

assess demand, the IWRMS priority should be to provide generic evaluation of

Primary water demand and access. This decision was reinforced by the fact that

Primary demand (water to maintain life and livelihood) was ranked the highest

allocation priority by all three countries as their allocation strategies clarified through

the duration of the project.

The initial design prototype for Primary demand assessment took the form of an

analysis of data for the Madlala Tribal Authority in 1997. This community is sited

south of the Mkomazi catchment, but was selected on the basis of its social and

environmental characteristics (typical of this part of KwaZulu), and because it offered

immediate stakeholder participation. During the Madlala mapping exercise, 831 kraals

were sampled, and the number of occupants, and the nature and location of their water

sources were determined. The total number of people counted in the sampled area of

Madlala was 5,935, making the average number of people per Kraal/household

approximate 7. This important pilot survey was used as the basis for designing the

questionnaires and survey techniques for the three main primary water use surveys

subsequently carried out in the three countries.

Although the Madlala survey was carried out by UK personnel (using rudimentary

Zulu language), the subsequent main surveys were all co-ordinated with local partners

and undertaken by local language speakers, thus greatly increasing reliance on the

results. The questionnaire was developed by Partner 5, and subsequently customised

in discussion with the local co-ordinators. The survey of the Mhondoro community in

the Mupfure catchment (Zimbabwe) was co-ordinated by Professor Daniel Tevera,

University of Zimbabwe (Partner 8). A virtually complete surevy of the 1465

homesteads in the community was achieved. The survey of the Mbuluzi catchment


6

was co-ordinated by Dr Grace Peter, University of Swaziland (Partner 9). A total of

942 homesteads were surveyed, divided between the Highveld (272), Middleveld

(303) and Lowveld (367). The Zimbabwe questionnaire was adopted, but a number of

additional questions and categories were introduced to reflect local conditions. The

survey of the Mkomazi catchment was co-ordinated by Professor Graeme Slade,

University of Natal Pietermaritzburg (Partner 6). A total of 232 homesteads were

surveyed in three communities (Machabazani 37, Nkumane 132 and Stoffleton 63)

using the same core questionnaire but a much extended interview.

Data entry and initial data quality control were undertaken in-country for the

Zimbabwe and South Africa surveys, and by Partner 5 (under the co-ordination of

Partner 9) for Swaziland. Initial data analysis was undertaken in-country for

Zimbabwe, and by Partner 5 for Swaziland and South Africa. Data standardisation,

standard analysis and GIS compilation were undertaken by Partner 5 for all three

countries.

1.2 Definitions of Water Utilisation

The assessment made in the IWRMS surveys is, in fact, one of consumption not

demand. Demand will vary according to access, quality and education of a population.

Consumption is the actual volume of water gathered. The value gained in this survey

is not that of demand. We have not accessed how much more water people might use

had they the opportunity. Demand can outstrip supply. Consumption can not outstrip

supply. These surveys assess consumption within the confines of available water

supply. A generic consumption map is a better description of what is to be produced

by IWRMS.

Definitions

• Water Consumption: Volume of water actually gathered from water points.

• Water extracted: A measure of the water actually gathered at a water point and

associated wastage. A measure of what is removed from a water point in total.

• Water use: The sum of water extracted and water that is utilised but not gathered.

Washing in a river, recreational water etc.

• Water need: The required water volumes based upon a series of pre-set often


7

• qualitative assumptions and values regarding water use. There are established or

accepted values such as the water volume needed to wash a child adequately or

provide a reasonable volume of drinking water. This is often an imposed value

• Water Demand: This is an assessment of the perceived need of water by the

recipient. It will vary according to the activity, expectations, economic

development and education of the individual.

Water use, consumption and extraction are measurable factors. In theory they have a

real value. Need and demand are subjective values. They will require qualitative

assessment in their derivation.

Within the IWRMS project, a door to door survey questionnaire approach assesses

rural community primary water consumption (Appendix A). The survey was carried

out over a number of days. This is sufficient to gain a broad outline of the more

general water resource issues in the surveyed communities, whilst providing a

working value of consumption per capita for the hydrological model (ACRU).

The door to door survey data are processed in two ways. Firstly, key water resource

parameters are assessed directly from the questionnaire. These are the fundamental

features of water choice and use that are to be examined for a generic significance

over the southern African region. Such parameters as distance to source, time to

source, water consumption and water quality are addressed in this study. These data

are fundamental to any attempt to develop generic rural community water

consumption values. The survey sets out to identify characteristic issues that

conceivably might be of common, and thus comparable, significance across a wide

range of catchments. They need to be solid, clearly defined characteristics of the

survey data. An example might be community tap water supplies are generally

perceived as being cleaner than water supplies gathered from a stream, or that women

dominate water gathering activities.

The second approach to the data is the further cross-referencing from the 3 survey

sites (see separate country reports), generating a series of possible inter-relationships

between selected parameters. The relationship between time to a water point from a

homestead and the l/c/d consumption within that homestead is an example of such a

cross-reference. A number of these cross-referencing approaches can be carried out

within a GIS environment. An example of this would be the map-based demonstration

of the number of homesteads that select the closest water supply for gathering water.


8

The information from both these approaches will be compared between the 3 survey

approaches, in order to determine potentially generic characteristics.

1.3 Project Aims and Constraints

The IWRMS survey work is based upon the development of generic characteristics

for all water consumption in southern Africa. The rural surveys contribute to this aim

regarding the water requirements of rural communities. Thus the practical focus of the

rural community surveys is to derive a working value for primary water consumption

within the survey communities, which is then to be used as an input value to the

IWRMS hydrological model. In addition to providing this value, it is envisaged that

the study will provide the future potential for a series of water resource management

prioritisation criteria for water allocation within the rural community context (see

figure 1). As such a broad based door to door survey is sufficient. Indeed, the

relatively quantitative values derived allow for a comparison of parameters from

catchment to catchment. Common or generic characteristics can then be derived as

well as establishing broad variations between catchments. Whilst this has potential

value, it must not be interpreted as sufficient data by which to plan community level

water resource projects. At such a level the simple, generally derived values will need

to be supported by more specific research from within the community. It should also

be reiterated that this value represents only that of consumed primary water and not

total water use. Water use is a considerably more significant value, but one that would

require more extensive investigation.

1.4 Door to Door Survey Approach: An Outline Methodology

It is important that the aims and focuses of the IWRMS project are kept in mind when

interpreting the survey data. The project focus is to ascertain a generic value, or range

of values, for primary water use in rural communities in southern Africa. This data is

to be supported by initial investigations into water resource environment within the

community. Specific quantitative data outputs are required from the data for inclusion

into a hydrological model.

Given these requirement and considering the necessary breadth of the survey

approach, to be achieved in a realistic time frame, a reasonably rapid first order


9

survey approach is required. Thus a Door to Door questionnaire based survey

approach was selected. This approach is necessarily “quick and dirty” as opposed to a

more focused and detailed survey which inevitable would cover a smaller population.

Hence the survey approach utilised within IWRMS does not set out to fully

understand the water resource issues of the communities concerned. More realistically

the survey approach aims to provide first order working values for primary water

consumption with supporting information gathered regarding the broader context of

the water resource environment

The broad water resource parameters to be addressed within the questionnaire

structure are outlined below. The values underlined are the requirements of

hydrological modelling. Those parameters that are not underlined are the supporting

information, which provides a context for the study.

• Primary water consumption. Domestic consumption including small scale

projects and irrigation

• Livestock water use

• Outline of water quality issues

• Environmental motivations behind water source choice

• Mode of transport of water

• Rainwater harvesting and storage

1.5 Questionnaire Structure

Appendix A provides the structure to the questionnaire as well as highlighting the

specific purpose behind the question structures. Questions presented in the survey are

designed to be clear, unambiguous and eliciting a response that can be categorised for

later processing and interpretation. This is essential to the project as no opportunity

for clarification or confirmation of responses is available within the context of the

project.

The Questionnaire is structured to provide the basic information from which initial

water resource issues can be characterised.


10

Who are you/your homestead : the survey is initiated with a section which establishes

the geographical and family structure context of the respondent. The characteristic

features of the kraal building, its location and the family age and sex profile are

recorded here. These are highly significant responses as they are the basis by which

demographic associations with water resource issues can be established.

In this section of the survey it is important to ensure that a clear understanding of

what constitutes the family is established. Migratory workers, the extended family,

long term visitors can all be interpreted as household members by the respondent.

Within a survey there needs to be a standardised approach to these values to avoid

ambiguity in the processing

The physical structure of the household is recorded as this might contain information

regarding the economic status of the households. This is also true of the number of

migrant workers who are members of a household. These people providing substantial

contributions to the household income.

Water Collection: this section of the survey aims to gather information upon the

choices made by water gatherers in regards to primary water supply. In addition

information regarding the type of source, it distance away and the uses of the water

gathered are surveyed in order to determine potential associations with other water

resource characteristics outlined in the survey.

Water Preference/quality: the reasons underpinning individuals choices of water point

is a fundamental parameter in the understanding of social behaviour in regards to

water resources. Perceptions of water quality, quantity, access, ownership and social

status can all influence the water supply attended by a gatherer. (This is highly

significant when considering the development of rural water supplies )

Water Collection: The significance of gender issues in the gathering, transport and

utilisation of primary water supplies in rural southern African communities is now at

the forefront of development thinking. The invariable conclusion that women and

children dominate water resource management has resulted in a paradigm shift in

external agencies approach to issues surrounding water resource development. The

survey sets out to make a first order estimate of the gender distributions of the water

gatherers.


11

Water use: the survey establishes the primary domestic and domestic agricultural uses

of the water. The division of water utilisation allows some determination of the

relative use that is made in relation to associated environmental conditions (e.g.

distance and time to source, household profile). This provides and proxy for the

perceived prioritisation of water use and its dynamic.

Livestock: The number of cattle that are supported within a community will

substantially influence the total water consumption of the community. It will also

provide an indicator of economic status. Unprotected water sources and rivers will

potentially be contaminated by contact with livestock.

1.6 Door to Door Survey Approach: A record of Perceptions

Where a door to door survey can give a working insight to key water resource

management issues within a rural community, it is also to some degree an assessment

of the perception of the individual being questioned. The person who is being asked

the questions is giving their perception of water resource management within their

household. For example, the time suggested by a survey respondent to walk to a water

source might simply be an overestimate. However the value provided gives an

assessment of the individual's perception of the time taken. People will base their

decisions on their own perceptions of reality not a measured reality

This information can be utilised in combination with actual observational work. For

example the difference between a person’s estimate of time to a source and the actual

time to a source, provides the surveyor with a better understanding of that community

members perception of the journey.

1.7 Interpretation of Door to Door Surveys

As a method for gaining a baseline insight into water resource management a door to

door approach is appropriate. Indeed it should also be noted that the coverage and

depth of questioning covered by the survey make it a substantial improvement on

what already exists in the survey areas. However, such data is strongly based upon the

instant perceptions of the surveyed population and, as such, open to certain biases.

Thus the data should be interpreted with an awareness constraints of the survey

approach. This is discussed in greater detail in section of this report dealing with the


12

generic interpretations of the survey data (section 3) Additionally, It is important to

recognise that the values provided in the survey are only estimates of consumption

and not total use of water. These values should not necessarily be considered

sufficient for healthy living. They simply represent the present consumption levels

with no suggestion as to whether these values are sufficient. Future education and

improvements in access to water supply could substantially raise these consumption

figures. Thus assessment of future water needs of rural communities should anticipate

a rise in consumption.


13

2. Rural Water Survey in the Mkomazi River Catchment

2. 1 Introduction A household questionnaire survey was undertaken in three rural settlements in the

tribal, communal land tenure areas of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, namely

Nkumane, Macabazini and Stoffelton. The survey communities were selected on the

basis of:

• Being Representative of water supply approaches within rural communities in the

region

• Having varying degrees of access to protected sources. This was intended to

highlight the impact on water consumption of variable access to protected

sources.

• Security issues

Five postgraduate Geography students at the University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg,

were trained to administer the questionnaires on a door to door basis over a two to

five day period in each settlement, during April and May 2000.

The intention was to interview all the households in each of the settlements.

However, several households were absent in each settlement over the survey period.

The most likely explanation is that the household members are migrant workers in

towns or on mines or farms elsewhere in KZN and that they occasionally return home

at weekends and holidays. Besides absenteeism, several homesteads in each

settlement were obviously deserted. This is most likely as a result of political

violence and civil unrest, mostly prior to the 1994 South African democratic

elections, but also since, relating to political/community unrest, particularly seen in

the settlement of Stoffelton, where more recent violence has been linked to the

appointment of a new Tribal Chief.

2.2 Location and Physical Environment

The settlements are all located in Mkomazi River Catchment in the KwaZulu-Natal

Midlands. Stoffelton is closer to the foothills of the Drakensberg Escarpment in the

upper catchment environment at an altitude of some 1260 metres, while Macabazini

has an altitude of 1000 metres and Nkumane is lower down the catchment at 820

metres above sea level.


14

Stoffelton : 29 37' 30" south : 29 40' 20" east

Macabazini : 29 46' 00" south : 29 54' 30" east

Nkumane : 30 03' 00" south : 30 24' 00 east

Climatic conditions may be summarised as follows:

Minimum Monthly Temperature (oC) J F M A M J J A S O N D

Stoffelton 14 14 13 10 6 3 3 5 8 10 12 13 Macabazini 16 16 14 11 8 5 5 7 9 11 13 15 Nkumane 16 17 16 13 11 8 8 10 11 12 14 15 Maximum Monthly Temperature (oC)

J F M A M J J A S O N D Stoffelton 26 26 25 23 21 19 19 21 23 23 24 26 Macabazini 26 27 26 24 22 20 20 21 23 23 24 26 Nkumane 26 26 25 24 22 20 20 21 22 23 24 25 Median Monthly Precipitation (mm)

J F M A M J J A S O N D Stoffelton 170.5 140.3 127.8 50.3 16.3 2.6 4.1 12.7 32.6 67.6 105.5 143.9 Macabazini 134 112.6 109.5 47.5 14.1 2.9 7 14.3 32.4 62.7 98.8 111.5 Nkumane 107.4 99.4 97.4 46 19.1 7.6 8.3 21.6 45.1 71.7 95.4 104 Mean Annual Rainfall (mm) Macabazini Nkumane Stoffelton

823 836 972 Nkumane has a milder climate, experiencing higher minimum temperatures than the

other two study areas. Rainfall is concentrated in the summer months as is the case

throughout the eastern portion of South Africa.

2.3 Grazing Capacity

Current grazing capacity of the various ecotopes within the bioresource unit covering

Nkumane, range from 2.6 animal units per hectare to 5.1, and for Macabazini 2.0 to

3.2 Au/ha and 2.9 to 5.2 for Stoffelton. Macabazini thus has the lowest current

grazing capacity. It should be realised however that the current situation may reflect a

degree of overstocking and that the sustainable potential grazing capacity may in fact

be lower than the current figures.


15

2.4 Community Demographic Profiles

The number of people per household is similar in the three settlements, with

Macabazini having marginally fewer members per household. The following table

shows the mean number of permanent residents per household as well as the mean

number of household members who are not home during the week and have been

classified as absentee residents, in most probability being migrant workers who return

over weekends or intermittently. A correlation between the level of household

poverty and the number of absentee household members, presuming the absentees are

employed migrant workers, could be made. For example, the general, subjective

observation that Macabazini is the poorest of the three communities corresponds with

it having the smallest households (7.4 members) with least absentee members (2.2

members). Stoffelton on the other hand appears to be the more affluent of the three

settlements and has the highest mean absentee household members (2.6 members) and

total household size (8.4 members).

Stoffelton Macabazini Nkumane

Mean permanent residents per h/hold 5.8 5.2 5.8

Mean absentee household members 2.6 2.2 2.3

Mean household members 8.4 7.4 8.1

The structure of the settlements are a mixture of traditional dispersed households on

larger plots and more formally planned areas that are the product of ‘betterment’

planning by the South African Department of Agriculture from the 1960's. The

imposition of ‘betterment’ planning in black rural areas resulted in a more defined

allocation of land to residential, arable and grazing uses and is more evident in

Macabazini than in Nkumane and Stoffelton. Macabazini has, therefore, to some

extent a more uniform residential layout with household plots of approximately 0.25

ha. Arable production is undertaken around the homesteads as well as on larger

arable blocks of land, peripheral to the residential areas, that have been allocated to

households for their use.

Nkumane developed on and around a Reformed Church Mission as a dispersed

settlement. The households have developed on relatively large plots of approximately


16

0,5 ha and arable production tends to be on the ‘residential’ plot immediately around

the homesteads.

Stoffelton appears to have a greater diversity of household plot sizes, ranging from

0,125 ha to 0,4 ha. with a mixed arable land use pattern.

2.5 Survey Method Outline

In order to establish a working value for rural domestic water demand in the Mkomazi

catchment, a field survey of water demand was carried out on 232 homesteads in 3

communities representing 1311 people. This survey would only attempt to understand

the primary water demand of the rural population surveyed as opposed to the total

domestic water consumption (including cattle, washing in rivers etc).

The survey was conducted by the Department of Geography, University of Natal –

Pietermaritzburg in consultation with Partner 5 (GeoData Institute). The survey area

were selected on the basis that they incorporates a diversity of socio-economic

conditions and water source points considered typical of the catchment.

Such a field approach not only allows the survey to assess, to a primary level, the

direct domestic water demands of the population with greater resolution, but allows an

insight into the break down of rural domestic water resource management according

to pre-determined criteria. These criteria include, among others, the type of water

source available, access to water source, perceived quality of supply, seasonal

variations in water access and use and the mode of water transport to and from Kraals.

It is suggested that from such a survey approach a baseline model of primary domestic

water demand could be achieved. This could be then be combined with broader based

water use (cattle, washing etc) survey to establish a more realistic figure for total rural

water demand within the catchment. This figure in turn providing scope for the

estimation of potential error within a catchment wide extrapolation of the established

40l/c/d standard.

3 Water supply

The three rural communities derive their water supplies from streams, unprotected and

protected springs, boreholes and rainwater runoff from roofs. In general terms, the

surveyed portion of Stoffelton has the least adequate water supply, being dependent

on two borehole handpumps ( one of which is not operating!) and several unprotected


17

springs and small streams, all of which are accessible to and hence contaminated by

livestock. Extended areas of settlement at Stoffelton that were outside the selected

research questionnaire survey area, have had some attempts at having a water

reticulation system installed, but political disruption has resulted in the failure of any

effective installation. A spring was protected and a piped supply was provided to a

communal tap at the Stoffelton School. However, extra connections were apparently

made to the supply by members of the community which has resulted in over

utilisation of the limited resource. In 1996 a bulk water supply reticulation system

was attempted to service a portion of the Stoffelton community by pumping water

from the river. However, as the scheme was not going to supply the entire area,

political tension flared up, including the murder of people on the local development

and water committee and the project was shelved.

The Nkumane community has the best accessibility to water and the greatest variety

of water sources from a variety of unprotected and protected springs, community

standpipe taps and a borehole handpump located near the school. There are also

individual ‘privatisation’ water standpipe development attempts. The Mission has

developed a strong protected spring with a reservoir tank and water pump that

supplies the Mission buildings and community clinic, but not the wider general

community, which is a bone of contention. Another borehole with a windmill are

currently not functioning due to storm damage and replacement with a waterpump is

being investigated.

Macabazini is theoretically the most adequately supplied community with communal

standpipes installed in 1996/97 as a government Reconstruction and Development

Project. However, the gravity fed system from a spring does not provide a consistent

perennial supply and tends to run dry during the winter dry season, while the water

runs muddy during periods of heavy rains. In addition, several taps have been stolen

and closed off. Two boreholes with hand pumps that predate the communal taps are

therefore heavily used.

In general, the water supply situation in the three communities is still very

unsatisfactory, not because of inadequate sources of supply, but because of inadequate

development of sustainable distribution, management and maintenance systems of


18

water resource utilization. Attention should be given to an integrated approach that

addresses the sustainable water requirements in the settlements for domestic, small

business, agricultural and livestock development.

3.1 Water Quality and Community Health

None of the settlements has a regulated, reticulated, purified water supply system and

the majority of the households are still dependent on primary, inadequately protected

water sources that are vulnerable to contamination from livestock, e-coli and other

pollutants, at least seasonally. Sanitation in the settlements is by pit latrine and the

proximity of the soak-pits to the water resources in many cases is a matter of concern.

Nurses at the Nkumane clinic confirmed that diarrhoea is an ongoing problem in the

rural communities and is largely attributed to drinking contaminated water,

particularly in the case of children.

Increasing density of settlement in the catchments not only places a higher demand on

the water supply, but also significantly increases the risk of water pollution from

increased surface runoff and contamination of groundwater. In addition, increasing

livestock and agricultural practices that are not environmentally sound, place further

pressure on the water supply quality and quantity. An integrated sustainable

development approach to catchment management is required that clearly balances

socio-economic development and quality of life with sustainable bio-physical

resource utilisation issues.

3.2 Livestock

As in the majority of rural Zulu settlements, cattle and goats are important household

assets and the hill slopes surrounding the settlements are utilised as communal grazing

lands. Grassland management is however, poorly controlled and Veld degradation is

evident, particularly in Stoffelton and Macabazini. Veld rehabilitation together with

restructuring of livestock management on the communal tenure grazing lands is

required. Stoffelton is unique in the number of horses kept by the community. This

possibly stems from the Sotho ethnic origins of many households in the area.


19

All the settlements have access to cattle dips and some measure of livestock disease

control is applied.

3.3 Community Vegetable Gardens

Community gardens for vegetable production are established in each of the

settlements, but have varying levels of utilization and production due to constraints

including lack of close accessibility from homesteads, erratic water supplies and

disruptive community Organisational dynamics.

3.4 Socio-economic Conditions, Services and Facilities

A subjective observational assessment by the survey enumerators of the general socio-

economic status of the three communities, ranks Macabazini as having the highest

percentage of poorer households, with Nkumane second and Stoffelton as being

relatively affluent. This is probably a result of higher household employment levels

as indicated by the comparative household absenteeism in Stoffelton (see Table).

Commercial forestry expansion has taken place in the surrounding areas and also

provides employment opportunities.

The Nkumane community similarly has reasonable access to surrounding commercial

forestry and sugar cane farms. In contrast, Macabazini is comparatively more

isolated from a diversity of employment opportunities than the other settlements are,

being less accessible to surrounding commercial agricultural areas.

A community clinic is operated from the Mission in Nkumane and both Stoffelton and

Macabazini communities have clinics in their areas. Small, locally owned general

dealer stores and both primary and secondary schools are located in the three

settlement areas.


20

4 Data Presentation

4.1 Homesteads Survey

The sample represents 1311 residents, in 232 family household units within the survey

area. The survey was carried out in 3 survey regions. These are Macabazini (188

individuals covered by the survey), Nkumane (764) and Stoffelton (359).

Number of household homesteads surveyed

Area Total Questionnaires

Macabazini 37

Nkumane 132

Stoffelton 63

Total 232

Number of buildings within homesteads

Area Avg Number Buildings Min Number Buildings Max Number Buildings

Macabazini 3.5 1 7

Nkumane 3.6 1 9

Stoffelton 3.5 1 8

Proportion (%) of homesteads with roofs of a particular type

A substantial number of houses in all 3 study areas have tin roofing, particularly

Macabizini. In a number of cases this is in order to harvest rainfall. Such additional

water supplies are significant in the rainy season as indicated in water collection

statistics presented later in this report. Additionally such roofing materials may

indicate a relative degree of affluence and are preferred for both status and security

against fire (from lightning as well as arson). Nkumane has a significant value for

mixed roofing material which is not seen in the other 2 sites.

Area % with Straw Roof % with Tin Roof % with Cement Tiles % Straw and Tin Macabazini 37 49 0 14 Nkumane 30 37 1 31 Stoffelton 35 57 0 7


21

Number of people in homesteads

Area Avg Number People Min Number People Max Number People

Macabazini 5.1 1 14

Nkumane 5.8 1 26

Stoffelton 5.7 1 15

Area Average number people per building

Macabazini 1.5

Nkumane 1.8

Stoffelton 1.8

Gender distribution (per household)

The population gender distributions are probably associated with the migratory

working practices present in all the settlements. Males leave the villages to provide

labour, usually returning on weekends or over a period of a few months.

Area Avg Number Males Avg Number Females

Macabazini 2.3 2.8

Nkumane 2.4 3.4

Stoffelton 2.6 3.1

Area Min Number Males Max Number Males Min Number Females Max Number of Females

Macabazini 0 7 0 9

Nkumane 0 15 0 16

Stoffelton 0 7 1 9

Total

Area % Proportion (%) Male

% Proportion (%) Female

Macabazini 45 55

Nkumane 42 58

Stoffelton 45 55


22

Proportion (%) of individuals in each age range

Area % < 2 % 2 - 18 % 19 - 59 % > 60

Macabazini 9.0 42.6 39.4 9.0

Nkumane 7.2 47.3 38.4 7.2

Stoffelton 5.0 44.8 37.9 12.3

Migratory working practices might explain the relatively low % of 19 - 59 yr. old

category apparent in each area when compared that of the 2-18 yr. old category. The

AIDS epidemic will also need to be accounted for in these figures and impacts of

civil/political violence during the 1980’s and 90’s when family members were either

killed or driven out of the area by rival factions.

Proportion (%) of homesteads with Migratory workers

The degree to which a community provides a migratory work force will influence the

water supply demand as well as potentially providing a financial input to the

community. The provision of pensions, a substantial financial input to these

communities is largely from central government sources (i.e. old age ‘state’ pensions)

but to a lesser extent is also based upon the maintenance of work outside of the

settlements.

Area No. households with people living away

% households in area

Macabazini 23 62.2

Nkumane 91 68.9

Stoffelton 52 82.5

Proportion (%) migrant workers returning to Homestead

Area Weekends Every 4 to 12 months

Every 1 to 3 months

Not specified

Macabazini 9 61.5 16.7 12.8

Nkumane 5.2 61.0 30.1 3.7

Stoffelton 6.4 59.0 32.7 1.9


23

4.2 Water Collection

Water collection statistics pertain to the regular sources of water used by households

within the survey area. Statistics cover the choices of water source available in each of

the communities whilst attempts to outline the specific reasons for the preferences of

the water gatherers for a particular water point are also made. A number of factors

influence the choice of water source by a household gatherer. These include distance

to source, difficulty of terrain (issues of access), perceived quality, reliability of

supply, ownership and social/community factors.

A clear influencing factor on the security, quality and access of water resources is the

Seasonality of the regional rain water supply. These are broadly divided into the dry

season (May - September) and the rainy season (October - April )

Description of sources

• Community tap: A tap water facility with communal access, usually gravity fed

by a filtered stream or groundwater supply

• Community borehole: Borehole with hand wound pump for community access

• Main river: Water is accessed by direct collection from a river supply. Rivers are

also used for washing people, clothes and for watering cattle

• Stream: Collection from a tributary of the main river

• Permanent dam: Water is collected from a permanent dam supply

• Rain water harvesting: A method of collecting rainwater, usually from a

corrugated tin roof. The roof may be privately owned or on a community building.

Water is gathered into a tank or drum on the property.

• Unprotected spring: A supply of water that, due to favourable hydrogeological

conditions, wells up from the surrounding rock. A water supply is considered


24

unprotected where animals/impurity inputs have easy access to the same supply

used by the community members.

• Protected spring: A protected spring has had some degree of construction

surrounding it in order to minimise the possibility of pollution from wind blow

material and livestock in particular, as well as possibly providing a temporary

storage facility

Proportion (%) of homesteads using an individual type of source during the dry season.

During the dry season, the settlements of Macabazini and Stoffelton have

substantially greater access to direct borehole provision (although this may be at a

distance) than the settlement of Nkumane. As a result, the community of Nkumane

has a broader spread of water point utilization across those supplies available.

Conversely, Macabazini and Nkumane utilize the provision of community taps

(gravity fed) with Stoffelton having virtually no access to this supply type. All three

communities utilize unprotected water sources in the form of streams, rivers and

unprotected springs. This is significant as these constitute the greatest threat to health

from a water supply, having open access for animal and impurity inputs. In all cases

little access to the main river is made. This is due to the incised terrain making river

access steep and difficult.

Area Communal borehole

Community tap Roof water harvesting

Stream Main River

Macabazini 78.4 56.8 - 2.7 2.7

Nkumane 3.8 37.9 - 27.3 -

Stoffelton 66.7 3.2 - 28.6 4.8

Protected spring

Unprotected spring

Permanent dam

- - -

22.7 9.1 0.8

- 41.3 -


25

Proportion (%) of homesteads using an individual type of source during the wet season.

During the wet season the main shifts in water gathering behaviour seems to relate to

the greater utilisation of protected tap/borehole sources. This indicates their greater

reliability at this time of the year. The shift from borehole supply to tap supply may be

related to proximity of these sources to the homesteads. Clearly rain water harvesting

is most effective during the wet season.


Community tap Roof water harvesting

Stream Main River

Machabazini 48.6 100 62.2 - 2.7

Nkumane 3.8 50 48.5 28.8 -

Stoffleton 50.8 3.2 65.1 28.6 4.8

Protected spring

Unprotected spring

Permanent dam

- - -

22.7 9.1 0.8

- 55.6 -

4.3 Journey time to source

Time (minutes, one way) to first choice water supply

The time it takes for water gathers to reach water sources can be a key factor in source

choice. There is a clear order of accessibility to first source throughout the three

communities with Macabazini households investing substantially less time accessing

water resources than Nkumane and Stoffelton. It is thought that time to source will be

a substantial influence on choice of water source, acting as a surrogate data set for

effort required to access water. Whilst this a perception of time taken as opposed to

actual time taken, it is the perceived time taken that will influence behaviour.

Area Avg Time to First Source Mini Time to First Source Max Time to First Source

Macabazini 10.5 2.0 30

Nkumane 22.2 0 90

Stoffelton 16.1 1.0 60


26

Time (minutes) to second choice water supply

Area Avg Time to Second Source Min Time to Second Source

Max Time to Second Source


Nkumane 21.1 5.0 60


Average time (minutes) to first source in the dry season by source type

The broadly lower water access times for both first and second source presented for

Macabazini, appear to be as a result of shorter travel times to a greater provision of

protected supplies (borehole/tap, see introduction).


Community tap Main river Permanent dam

Macabazini 11.7 8.9 5.0 -

Nkumane 11.6 18.5 - 3

Stoffelton 17.8 18.5 31.7 -

Protected spring Stream Unprotected spring

- 5.0 -

37.8 20.2 11.3

- 13.8 16.2

Average time (minutes) to first source in the rainy season by source type



Macabazini 11.7 10.4 - -

Nkumane 15.6 19.8 - 3

Stoffelton 17.8 18.4 - -


- - -

37.8 20.2 11.3

- 13.8 16.2


27

Average time (minutes) to second source in the dry season by source



Macabazini 10.4 6.7 5 -

Nkumane - 16.7 - -

Stoffelton 14.0 - 31.7 -


- 5

- 20.2 16.3

- 22.5 25.5

Average time to second source in the rainy season by source .



Macabazini 8 6.7 5 -

Nkumane - 16.7 - -

Stoffelton 12.9 - 31.7 -


- -

- 20.5 16.25

- 22.5 29.0

4.4 Reasons for Source Preference

This establishes the main criteria for water source selection

The clearest conclusion from the source preference data is that, in all three

settlements, the proximity and ease of access of a water supply is a dominant factor in

the gatherers choice (see also GIS based outputs). In the case of Nkumane and

Stoffelton, this needs to be tempered by the lack of water source types presented in

the communities. The additional strong association in the Macabazini community to

the “water is cleaner” response may be associated with the relatively easier access to

community tap and borehole supplies in this community.


28

Area Closest water source

Easiest trip Easy to fill container

Family has always used the water source

Lots of water (container fills quickly)

Macabazini 91.9 59.5 - - 24.3

Nkumane 73.5 19.7 6.8 1.5 13.6

Stoffelton 85.7 28.6 1.6 1.6 6.3

People they meet at the water source

People they meet on the way to the water source

Water there is better (cleaner)

No other source Other

- - 70.3 8.1 -

- - 27.3 65.9 0.8

- - 28.6 52.4 -

The two dominant parameters influencing water source choice in this study area are

distance to source and the perceived quality of the water.

4.5 Water Collection: Methods, Volumes and Uses

How people collect water supplies can be significant to the volumes that are returned

home. Individuals who have no method of transport other than head carrying have an

obvious limit to the amount of water that can be carried, as well as suffering the

potential of cranial, neck and spinal damage (although this is not widely recognised as

a problem in black rural areas). The use of labour saving devices for the transport of

water can substantially increase the volume of water accessible to a rural community

but relies on the suitability of the terrain for such carriers as wheelbarrows or the

resources available for automated or livestock transport.

Average litres/capita/day for overall survey area – 30.8 l/c/d

A possible source of error is respondents reporting an afternoon collection, but in

reality only collecting water in the afternoon if the water they had collected in the

morning had run out. Thus the resondents could in some cases be reporting their

maximum daily consumption as opposed to their average daily consumption


29

Method of water transport

The mode of transport of water can have an impact on the amount of water it is

possible to carry as well as the potential for physical damage from long term carrying

of heavy water filled containers on the head. Carrying by manual transport (head and

hand) dominates the responses in all three communities. Only Stoffelton shows a clear

preference for the utilization of wheelbarrows. This may relate to a more conducive

terrain in Stoffelton for the use of wheeled carriers.

Area % Car / bus / tractor

% Donkey/Ox

% Head % hand % Wheelbarrow

Macabazini - - 91.9 8.1 13.5

Nkumane - 1.5 94.7 15.9 6.1

Stoffelton 1.6 - 76.2 14.3 42.9

Household uses of water

The standard domestic uses of water are represented here, however the amount of

water used on irrigating gardens and for animal husbandry can substantially alter

water demand.. Most water gathered for animals is for dogs and chickens (surveyors

note). It is also worth noting that water may be re-used for watering gardens etc after

its primary function is fulfilled.

Area % using water for drinking

% using water for cooking

% using water for washing people

% using water for washing clothes

% using water for animals

% using water for gardening

Macabazini 100 100 100 78.4 24.3 56.8

Nkumane 100 100 97.0 84.1 12.9 33.3

Stoffelton 100 100 95.2 68.3 19.0 33.3

Building

97.3

91.2

81.0

Water is utilised in each area in much the same way. As expected, drinking, washing

and cooking are the standard uses of the water supply. The majority of respondents

are also involved in building activity. This is accounted for by normal maintenance of


30

properties on a regular seasonal basis, as well as possibly indicating an increase in

demand for properties due to population growth. The majority of houses are sun-dried

mudblock (adobe) or wattle and daub construction, both of which require considerable

quantities of water to prepare the ‘mud’ for blocks and plaster.

The utilization of water in household gardens occurs in all three settlements, but

particularly in Macabazini, where communal standpipes were being used for

irrigation, by means of hosepipes. Additionally the rain water harvest may be used for

gardening.

Household water collectors

Who collects the water is important for establishing the right people to consult

regarding the impact of changes in water resource management within the

community. Women and children are the dominant gatherers of water.

Area Children only Men and children Men only Men, women and children

Men and Women

Macabazini 8.1 - 8.1 8.1 -

Nkumane 7.6 1.3 3.0 8.3 1.5

Stoffelton 12.7 - 7.9 7.9 -

Area Women and children Women only

Macabazini 48.6 27.0

Nkumane 52.3 27.3

Stoffelton 36.5 34.9

Number of water gathering trips by household per day

Area Avg Number Trips Min Number Trips Max Number Trips

Macabazini 3.4 2 6

Nkumane 3.8 1 8

Stoffelton 3.7 1 6

Number of people on each water collection trip

Area Avg Number People collect Min Number People collect Max Number People collect


Nkumane 2.2 1.0 6



31

Number of water journeys

Determined by multiplying the number of trips undertaken by members of a

household, by the number of people on each trip.

Similar figures are presented for the 3 communities. However, Nkumane gathers the

largest volume per capita per day, which reflects the higher number of individuals that

participate in water gathering journeys in this community (above table) and the

highest average number of journeys.

Area Avg daily water collection journeys

Min daily water collection journeys

Max daily water collection journeys

Macabazini 6.7 2 42

Nkumane 8.6 1 24

Stoffelton 7.2 1 30

Number of daily trips per household %

Area 0 0.2 to 5 trips 6 to 10 11 to 20 > 21

Macabazini - 51.4 32.4 13.5 2.7

Nkumane - 30.3 37.1 23.5 3.8

Stoffelton - 39.7 36.5 17.5 3.2

Average volumes (litres) of water collected per day per household

Area Avg Volume Min Volume Max Volume

Macabazini 156.1 30 1050

Nkumane 189.4 25 600

Stoffelton 171.3 21 612

Average volumes (litres) of water collected per day per person

Area Avg Volume Min Volume Max Volume


Nkumane 38.4 5 100

Stoffelton 34.6 5.6 122.4

Days when more water is collected (%)

Area When washing When building Weekdays Weekends Watering plants

Macabazini 62.2 32.4 2.7 13.5 5.4

Nkumane 13.6 22.0 3.8 10.6 0.8

Stoffelton 41.3 25.4 1.6 6.3 1.6


32

Ceremonies When required To avoid queue Visitors staying

When water is running out

24.3 - - - 5.4

34.8 3.8 - 9.1 0.8

36.5 11.1 1.6 1.6 4.8

% of households with seasonal increases in water collected (%)

During the dry season rainwater harvesting is not available as a source of water

Area % During dry season % During rainy season

Macabazini 5.4 -

Nkumane - -

Stoffelton 9.5 -

% of households with seasonal reductions in water collected (%)

Availability of rainwater harvesting reduces demand on other sources.

Area % During rainy season

% During dry season

Macabazini 62.2 -

Nkumane 50.0 -

Stoffelton 66.7 -

4.6 Livestock

Homesteads with Livestock

Cattle typically use 30-40 l/d and are therefore a significant factor in assessing

potential water demand in rural communities. The presence of cattle is also a

significant factor in assessing river pollution potential.

Area % with cattle % with goats % with sheep

Macabazini 45.9 37.8 5.4

Nkumane 30.3 7.6 -

Stoffelton 63.5 36.5 3.2


33

Proportion (%) of households that spray cattle

Area % spraying cattle

Macabazini 10.4

Nkumane 4.5

Stoffelton 6.3

The Macabazini community has a larger percentage of households with cattle. This

may reflect greater access to river water supplies for the cattle. The substantial daily

consumption of water by cattle (35 - 40 l/c/d) can be a limiting factor in their

ownership in areas where direct access to surface water supplies is not readily

available.

Homesteads dipping cattle

Cattle are dipped in order to remove disease-carrying ticks. The dipping occurs in

community dipping tanks.

Area Av. times cattle

Dipped /month

Min.times cattle

Dipped /month

Max.times

Cattle Dipped /month


Nkumane 3.1 0 4


4.7 Communal Water Use

Proportion (%) of homesteads using water for communal purposes

A substantially larger number of the Macabazini community utilises water for

community gardening, which potentially reflects their greater involvement in the

community garden project. This may be as a result of their greater need for

vegetables, given the communities poor socio-economic status in relation to Nkumane

and Stoffelton (Note: this is a subjective assessment by the survey team).


34

Area % using water for building blocks

% using water for communal garden

% using water for poultry

% with other projects

Macabazini 27.0 83.8 - -

Nkumane 29.5 44.7 0.8 -

Stoffelton 27.0 54.0 1.6 -

4.8 Water Quality

Proportion (%) of households with water quality problem.

The perceived quality of water supplies is a significant factor influencing the choice

of water source.

The Nkumane community shows less problems relating to water quality when

compared with Macabazini and Stoffelton . This result is highly significant as it

indicates that despite Macabazini’s greater access to protected supplies, there is

significant concern regarding water quality. The problem classifications indicate a

substantial proportion of the Macabazini community are concerned by the colour,

taste or smell of the water they use. This is particularly interesting, as it would

initially appear to contradict the findings of the Reasons for Preference section of the

report, where a substantial portion of the Macabazini community suggest that they

select water on the basis that it is the cleanest source. This apparent dilemma will be

addressed in the cross referencing section of the Partner 5 report. It became evident

during the survey that the choice of whether to use the communal standpipes or the

pre-existing boreholes was governed by the availability of water, with the source of

water for the communal standpipes being seasonal and the quality of water varying

with rainfall. In periods of high rainfall the water from the communal standpipes

became very muddy and the boreholes are preferred. When the water was not muddy

the water quality of the communal standpipes was preferred to using the boreholes. In

addition during winter the communal standpipes would run dry and then the boreholes

would be used, failing this the main rivers would be used. The borehole water, in

particular the one within the settlement, was not without quality problems (surveyor

comment)


35

Area % with water quality problem

Macabazini 70.3

Nkumane 46.2

Stoffelton 84.1

Proportion (%) of households employing water treatment techniques

Area % boiling water

% disinfecting water

% settling water

% with other treatments

Macabazini 13.5 35.1 24.3 2.7

Nkumane 3.0 18.9 39.4 3.0

Stoffelton 23.8 20.6 69.8 7.9

% of problem types causing low quality water

Area Animals using water source

Bad colour Bad smell Bad taste Children playing in water source

People using water source as toilet

Macabazini 0 59.5 18.9 16.2 - -

Nkumane 17.4 22.0 11.4 9.1 11.4 1.5

Stoffelton 28.6 36.5 28.6 22.2 1.6 2.7

People washing in Water Source

Rubbish in water Washing clothes in water source

- 5.4 -

6.1 19.7 5.3

- 25.4 -

4.9 Water Storage

Household water storage method

Area %Contained used to collect water and separate containers

% Container used to collect

% Separate container

% Tank outside

Macabazini 37.8 56.8 5.4 -

Nkumane 56.1 41.7 1.5 0.8

Stoffelton 33.3 36.5 28.6 1.6


36

Storage of water within the household is dominantly in the container that the water

was collected in. This is understandable as it is the most convenient method of doing

so.

5 Interpretation Summary

• Water is gathered by women and children and is dominantly used for primary

purposes, including drinking, washing, washing clothes and cooking. Although

animal provision from gathered water is substantial- it tends to be for poultry and

pets and not for livestock as such.

• The number of cattle within a community has a substantial impact on total volume

of water required

• Rain water harvesting is a significant augmentation to seasonal supply.

• Time to source and quality of supply are the dominant influences on choice of

water source for all gatherers in all the communities. Community taps provide

greater access but not necessarily improved water quality.

• River, stream and spring sources do not dominate in any community.

• The volume collected is potentially influenced by the number of journeys

undertaken by a household as well as the number of individuals on those journeys.

• Water Delivery. Although a litre /day value can be placed on the catchment

assessment presented in this report, it is imperative that this value is not input to

IWRMS as the total requirement for the rural community. The water gathered by a

community is only the final demand. In order to deliver that water to a stream or

spring substantially more water is needed for delivery. An individual may only

have a total demand of 70l/d but it takes potentially 1000's of l/d to actually make

that water available to the user. As such we see the survey as assessing water use

as opposed to overall supply need.

• Improvements to water resources provided by access to community taps can

increase quantities of water available to a community. However, such provision


37

needs to be considered in the light of water quality issues, and how they vary

seasonally, as well as the accessible volume. The community of Macabazini,

whilst having substantial access to community taps and boreholes, presented a

high incident of water quality complaints (specifically bad colour). This is an

issue of perception. Water may be certified as geochemically acceptable but poor

colour or turbidity will impact on peoples perception of that source.

• The use of Wheelbarrows for gathering water has a potentially high impact upon

the l/c/d water consumption values.

6. Discussion

Within the overall structure of the survey there was an intention to study the impact

that the relative access to protected water sources would have on gathering and

consumption behaviour. Each survey area could be ranked according to the access to

community borehole/tap supplies, with Machabazini having the greatest access,

Nkomane the next and Stoffleton being selected on the basis of its poor access to

protected water supplies. The l/c/d/ values obtained for the communities indicate no

significant difference in the volumes of water gathered between the three

communities. This, perhaps unsurprisingly, indicates that the differences in water

quality (Stoffleton has highly polluted springs) does not impact on the volumes

gathered. However, where protected supplies are provided a clear choice is made to

utilise them. This emphasises the need to account for water quality as well as

quantities that are made available to the communities.

Future work by partner 5 on the spatial distribution of Kraals and well points, in a GIS

environment, will highlight the extent to which people are willing to gather from a

source that is further than the nearest unprotected source if it is protected.

Understanding the impact of queuing on water selection choice is also a potential line

of research to come from this study.

IWRMS Mbuluzi primary water use GeoData Institute Draft results 25/02/00

1

Appendix A

SURVEY ON THE SOCIAL USE OF WATER

PROJECT DOCUMENTATION

LOCATION OF SURVEY: This is only significant if several surveys are being undertaken, or if several sub-communities are involved in one survey. The survey leader will specify what is to be put here. WHO YOU ARE

We need to know this so that we can plot your home on the map

Your surname (family name) Name of Head of Household

Homestead code

number

Name of surveyor Date of Survey

This refers to the respondent, not the surveyor.

This is required because many households may share the same family name in one area Each homestead MUST have a unique reference number for the database, coinciding with the same number on the map. This number may be pre-allocated by the survey team and marked on the map, or may be allocated by the surveyor in the field. If there is an existing “official” numbering system, this can be used.

YOUR HOMESTEAD

This lets us understand your water use

How many buildings in the homestead? Type(s) of roof: Straw roof Tin roof Cement tiles Other Roof (specify) How many people normally live in this homestead? Are they male or female? (include children) What are their ages?

(include children) How many members of the household live/work away?

Number to include store houses as well as dwelling units. 3several boxes if appropriate, since different buildings may have different roof types. Roof type is significant for identification on air photos and satellite images, and possibly (but not certainly) as an indicator of economic status. “Normally” means most days of most weeks. Migrant household members are dealt with separate questions below. The male/female balance helps us to assess family structure and likely changes in this structure in the future. Age is also an indicator of population structure as well as water consumption. The age bands have been selected to represent babies, children, economically-active adults (employed or active in the homestead), and dependent adults. This question is designed to identify “migrants” who may live away from the homestead either just during the working week or for long periods.


2

How often do they return to this homestead?

Distinguish between people who return most weekends (and consume water), and those who only return at long intervals. Do they return in a particular season?

In the following sections, differentiate where appropriate between rainy season and dry season activities. This is only necessary if the two seasons have markedly different patterns of water use. Rainy season Dry season The boxes below may be divided by an oblique line, with the appropriate 3or letter for the rainy season water use being placed above and to the left, and the 3or letter for the dry season being placed below and to the right.

WHERE YOU COLLECT

YOUR WATER MOST OF THE

TIME

What is the MAIN source that you use to collect water for each purpose 3several boxes if necessary. If the homestead uses the same source for almost all purposes, then it is not necessary to differentiate between purposes. If there are several different sources in use, then put letters in the questionnaire boxes to represent the appropriate source for each of the uses listed under the next question. Protected Spring; Unprotected Spring; Main River (the flow, and thus water availability in this river will be affected by hydrology, land use and abstractions upstream); Small Stream (this will not be affected by hydrology, land use or abstractions elsewhere in the catchment); Permanent Dam; Seasonal Pond; Communal Borehole; Private Borehole; Roof water harvesting. Water supply by tap: differentiating between Community Tap; Homestead (Yard) Tap; and Tap Inside House

If different water sources are used for different purposes, please specify by putting the appropriate letter(s) in the boxes above: these are the letter codes to use in the lists above only if different water sources are used for different water use purposes. D = drinking C = cooking PW = people washing CW = clothes washing G = garden watering B = building Specify any others here: by selecting your own reference letters.

How long does it take to walk TO the two main sources used (identify which sources these are from the above list). This question does not apply if water is obtained from a house or homestead tap. It is accepted that Community members may have no easy way of estimating time, but try to get some indication even if it is only relative (e.g. “twice as long”). You will need to identify on the list of sources above which has been selected for a time indication. The recorded time is that taken for the journey TO the water source. Add notes to the questionnaire separately if it is clear that the return journey takes markedly longer (perhaps because it is uphill), or if you are told that there are long delays at the source (perhaps because of queues).

At what times does your household normally collect water? This question is also not applicable if a homestead or house tap is used. The questionnaire boxes allow for two main morning (am) collection times and two main afternoon or evening (pm) collection times. Add more if necessary. Or do you just collect water when it is needed?


3

YOUR PREFERENCES

Why do you prefer to use your main water source? 3several boxes because people may have several reasons for selecting their water source. We are particularly interested in identifying cases where social rather than physical factors are responsible. Give respondents ample opportunity to identify reasons that we have not put on the list, and continue to write in the margin of the questionnaire if necessary in order to record these “Other” reasons fully. Because it is the closest water source Because it is the easiest trip (good path / not steep etc) Because the water there is better (cleaner) Because there is lots of water (container fills quickly) Because it is easy to fill container (no pump / good pump) Because of the people you meet at the water source Because of the people you meet on the way to the water source Because your family has always used this water source Other reason

Now explain to the surveyor where the water sources are so that they can be plotted on the map. Also plot on the map the route normally taken to the water sources. These are vitally important parts of the survey, and should be undertaken with the greatest possible care. Use the map to help respondents to locate sources, but be entirely open to the fact that they may well not be able to read a map. Get them to point out the source to you precisely, and to take you part way if it is not visible from the homestead. Care at this stage of the project will be extremely valuable, and the Survey Supervisor should check regularly to ensure that the system of recording is working well.

COLLECTING WATER

Who collects the water for your homestead? (3one box)

Women only Women and children Men, women and children Add notes to this box if there are explanations associated with the answers.

How many trips are made each day to collect water? This refers to trips in the season at which the survey is undertaken: a later question allows you to note differences in other seasons. How many people go on each trip to collect water? This also refers to trips in the season at which the survey is undertaken: a later question allows you to note differences in other seasons.

How many containers are filled on EACH trip to collect water? This can obviously only be an average.

Large containers (25 litres) Small containers (10 litres) Do not expect the respondent to know the capacity of the containers. Try to see them and make your own estimate.

How do you carry the water?

On head; Wheelbarrow; Donkey / Ox Add notes if there are other methods not listed here.

Are there some days of

the week when more or less water is collected?

More? Less? The most obvious difference would be between week days and weekends if migrant workers


4

return home then.

Are there some times of year when more or less water is collected?

More? Less? Again an obvious pattern would be times of the year when migrant workers return, but overwhelmingly the most important factor is likely to be the difference between rainy season and dry season. Continue notes in the margin of the questionnaire if you need more space.

STORING THE

WATER

How is the water

stored?

(3one box)

In the container used to collect it? In a separate large container? In a tank outside? This question helps us to understand the number and timing of water collection journeys, and also has health implications.

WATER QUALITY

Do you have a problem with water quality? (3one box)

Yes? No? Sometimes? It may be that respondents only understand what water quality is once you have talked about some of the indicators listed below, so be prepared to work through these and then come back to fill in this question yourself.

What is the problem?

(3several boxes) Bad smell Bad colour Bad taste (this includes salty water) Rubbish in water People using water source as toilet Animals using water source Children playing in water source People washing in water source Washing clothes in water source

Is water boiled before use? (3one box)

Yes? No? Sometimes? This is essentially a health question. Ask if not – why not? Add notes if appropriate.

Is water disinfected

before use? (3one box)

Yes? No? Sometimes? This is essentially a health question. Ask if not – why not? Add notes if appropriate. State what disinfectant is used if this is known.

Is water allowed to settle before use?

Yes? No? Sometimes? This is essentially a health question. Ask if not – why not? Add notes if appropriate. This question refers mainly to “muddy” water.

Is water treated by any other method ?

Yes? No? Sometimes? This is essentially a health question. Ask if not – why not? Add notes if appropriate.


5

HOMESTEAD WATER USE

What is the water used for (3several boxes)

Drinking Cooking Washing people Washing clothes Animals Gardening Building Add notes on any other categories of use that are mentioned.

LIVESTOCK USE OF WATER

How many livestock does your household have? This question may not be relevant in some areas, but check before discarding it.

Cattle? (i.e. cows) Goats? Sheep? Rough estimates are acceptable if necessary, but make a note if the figure is not very reliable.

How many times are the cattle dipped each month

Times each month? This provides some indication of the rate of water use for dipping: an approximation is adequate.

Does your household have a dipping tank?

Yes? No? Some households may have a private dip, but this is expected to be unusual.

Are animals sprayed by your homestead ?

Yes? No? Sometimes? This question does not relate to water use, but is relevant as a possible source of subsequent water pollution.

COMMUNAL WATER USE

Is water used for any communal projects ?

Vegetable garden? Making building blocks? Community poultry unit? Other ? If the answer to any of these questions is YES, please try to get some form of assessment of the amount of water involved and the source that is used – and write notes at the bottom of the questionnaire.

PLEASE THANK THE RESPONDENTS FOR THEIR HELP: This is particularly important as respondents will have spent considerable time answering your questions. REMEMBER TO START EACH SURVEY by identifying yourself and by giving an explanation of the purpose of the project. Also provide an indication of who will use the information (the results will be provided back to the Community concerned for their own use), and an assurance that the survey has been agreed with Community leaders. BE SURE TO AVOID RAISING COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS UNDULY. The survey results will certainly be known to the Catchment Association/Catchment Council, but this does not indicate that any change to water management or allocation is imminent. IF PEOPLE DECLINE TO BE INTERVIEWED accept this as their right, but if possible ask if anyone else in the household would be prepared to help or if another time would be more convenient. They may feel more comfortable if they know that their neighbours have already taken part. Remain cheerful and polite. IF PEOPLE REFUSE TO ANSWER CERTAIN QUESTIONS this again should be accepted as their right. Make a note on the questionnaire at the appropriate point that they have refused – and give an explanation of the reason if possible. Be alert to alternative and less sensitive ways of gathering the


6

same information, perhaps by personal observation. But overall it is better to have a partial questionnaire rather than no questionnaire at all. IF PEOPLE DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER help them to make an estimate – but be sure to note that this has happened on the questionnaire. Make sure that they don’t get the impression that their uncertainty is a nuisance or a failure. IF PEOPLE WANT TO TALK ABOUT WATER-RELATED ISSUES NOT INCLUDED IN THE SURVEY encourage them to do so and make notes on the questionnaire. If necessary, draw the Survey Supervisor’s attention to the fact that there are issues of importance to the Community that require some response or follow-up. ABOVE ALL, RESPECT LOCAL TRADITIONS AND DIGNITY – WE ARE GUESTS IN THE COMMUNITY. Appendix B


7

SURVEY ON THE SOCIAL USE OF WATER A joint survey by the Universities of Southampton & Swaziland

LOCATION OF SURVEY:

WHO YOU ARE

We need to know this so that we can plot your home on the map

Your surname (family name) Name of Head of Household

Homestead code number Name of surveyor Date of Survey

YOUR HOMESTEAD

This lets us understand your water use

How many buildings in the homestead? Type(s) of roof: Straw roof Tin roof Cement tiles Other Roof (specify) How many people normally live in this homestead? Are they male or female? (include children) What are their ages? (include children) How many members of the household live/work away? How often do they return

Number

3several boxes if appropriate Number Male Female Number Number Number 2 years or less Number 2-18 years Number 19-59 years Number 60 years or older


8

In the following section, differentiate where appropriate between rainy season and dry season activities

Rainy season Dry season

WHERE YOU

COLLECT YOUR WATER MOST OF THE

TIME

What is the MAIN source that you use to collect water for each purpose (3several boxes if necessary) Protected Unprotected Main Spring Spring River Stream Permanent Dam Seasonal pond Communal Private Roof water Borehole Borehole harvesting Water supply by tap: Community Homestead (Yard) Inside House Tap

If different water sources are used for different purposes, please specify by putting the appropriate letter(s) in the boxes above: D = drinking C = cooking PW = people washing CW = clothes washing G = garden watering B = building Specify any others here:

How long does it take to walk TO the two main sources use (identify which sources these are from the above list): First source Minutes Second source Minutes

At what times does your household normally collect water? Not applicable if a homestead or house tap is used am pm Or do you just collect water when it is needed? (3)

YOUR

PREFERENCES

Why do you prefer to use your main water source? (3several boxes) Because it is the closest water source Because it is the easiest trip (good path / not steep etc) Because the water there is better (cleaner) Because there is lots of water (container fills quickly) Because it is easy to fill container (no pump / good pump) Because of the people you meet at the water source Because of the people you meet on the way to the water source Because your family has always used this water source


9

Other reason

Now explain to the surveyor where the water sources are so that they can be plotted on the map. Also plot on the map the route normally taken to the water sources.

COLLECTING

WATER

Who collects the water for your homestead? (3one box)

Women only Women and children Men, women and children

How many trips are made each day to collect water? Number How many people go on each trip to collect water? Number

How many containers are filled on EACH trip to collect water?

Large containers (25 litres) Number Small containers (10 litres) Number

How do you carry the water? On head Wheelbarrow Donkey / Ox

Are there some days of

the week when more or less water is collected?

More Less

Are there some times of year when more or less water is collected?

More Less

STORING THE

WATER

How is the water stored? (3one box)

In the container used to collect it In a separate large container In a tank outside

WATER

QUALITY

Do you have a problem with water quality? (3one box)

Yes No Sometimes

What is the problem? (3several boxes)

Bad smell Bad colour Bad taste Rubbish in water


10

People using water source as toilet Animals using water source Children playing in water source People washing in water source Washing clothes in water source

Is water boiled before use? (3one box)

Yes No Sometimes

Is water disinfected


Yes No Sometimes

Is water allowed to settle


Yes No Sometimes

Is water treated by any other method? (3one box)

Yes No Sometimes

HOMESTEAD WATER USE

What is the water used for (3several boxes)

Drinking Cooking Washing people Washing clothes Animals Gardening Building

LIVESTOCK USE OF WATER

How many livestock does your household have?

Cattle Goats Sheep

How many times are the cattle dipped each month

Times each month

Does your household have a dipping tank?

Yes No

Are animals sprayed by your homestead ?

Yes No Sometimes

COMMUNAL WATER USE

Is water used for any communal projects ?

Vegetable garden Making building blocks Community poultry unit

Please Thank Participant

Documents

Mkomazi Catchment Rural Water use Survey: Final Report · 2004. 2. 26. · Water use, consumption and extraction are measurable factors. Intheory they have a real value. Need and