CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS
4.3 PRIMARY DATA ANALYSIS
4.3.1 QUESTIONNAIRE EVALUATION: WATER AND SANITATION ISSUES
4.3.1.7 SANITATION AND WASTE DISPOSAL
4.3.1.7.1 Types of sanitation systems
Table 4.28 Types of existing sanitation system (expressed as a percentage)
Sanitation / Toilet Systems PLATT ESTATE ENTITIES % Bholeni Ezitendeni Tapashiya
(n =4) (n =4) (n =4)
1. Pit Latrine (PL) 100 100 75 91.7
2. Other (use neighbours PL) - - 25 8.3
Plate 18: Examples of pit latrines at Eboleni
The existing sanitation systems available to the community is the self constructed pit latrines (refer to Plate 18) which constitutes 91.7% of the communities use. Only 8.3% of the respondents indicated that they do not have a pit latrine but are in the process of building them. However, in the interim they use their neighbour'S pit latrines. The suitability of pit latrines are questionable as it is plagued with problems which is listed in Table 4.29. The National Sanitation Programme in South Africa which is backed by the DWAF, has therefore encouraged that Ventilated Pit Latrines (VIPs) be used as a minimum requirement for sanitation systems.
4.3.1.7.2 Distance of sanitation system from the drinking water supply.
All of the respondents indicated that their sanitation system is greater than 100 metres from the source of drinking water. This is acceptable practice as according to the Mvula Trust (1997), a sanitation system should be a minimum distance of30 metres from any water source to prevent faecal contamination of groundwater sources. However, it must be noted that pathogenic movement has been noted by the Microbiology Department ofthe University of Durban-Westville (Water Research Commission, 1997b) in ground water sources. What has been observed is that the only borehole that is situated in Ezitendeni, is situated less that 30 meters from the sanitation system. This is of concern as the water could be contaminated. This, therefore, needs to be tested for faecal contamination.
4.3.1. 7.3 Problems experienced
Table 4.29 Problems experienced with the sanitation system (expressed as a percentage)
Problems PLATT ESTATE ENTITIES %
Bholeni Ezitendeni Tapashiya (n =4) (n =4) (n =4)
1. Smell 100 100 100 100
2. Clogs up 100 50 25 58.3
3. Flies 100 100 100 100
4. Collapses 100 100 50 83.3
Plate 19: Surface water runoff penetrating pit latrine
The respondents were asked to state all the problems experienced with their sanitation system. All of the respondents believed that smell and flies were a major problem, whilst 58% believed that the pit latrine clogs up and 83% confirmed that the pit latrine collapses. One respondent who did have a pit latrine, but utilizes the neighbours expressed the same concerns raised by all the other respondents. During the transect walk, it was noticed that some systems were being penetrated by surface water flow especially during heavy rains and that some were collapsing (refer Plate 19).
This could be one of the main reasons as to why the pit latrines are collapsing together with poor construction and sandy soils.
4.3.1.7.4 Household waste disposal methods
Table 4.30 Main disposal method of household refuse/ rubbish! waste (expressed as a percentage)
Waste Disposal Method PLATT ESTATE ENTITIES %
Bholeni Ezitendeni Tapashiya (n =4) (n =4) (n =4)
1. Dig a Hole
-
100 100 66.72. Burn 100
- -
33.3Plate 20: Waste being buried as a means of waste disposal
All the respondents stated that there was no formal waste disposal system and that they were primarily responsible for their waste disposal. Two thirds of the respondents stated that they primarily dig a hole and bury their waste (refer Plate 20) whilst one third primarily burns their waste. However, all responded that they bury and or burn their household waste. One reported that the waste is stockpiled in a hole/ pit. Once it is full it is burnt. Another respondent stated that the waste is separated and the plastics, glass, paper, metals (tins/cans) are recycled and the rest is buried or burnt. It is pleasing to note that the waste is not being disposed off at the sources of drinking water as waste disposed offnear or in the sources of water could lead to contamination of the water resources.
4.3.1.8 EXPECTATIONS VERSUS REALISATION
4.3.1.8.1 Expectations and realisations with respect to water services
All the respondents indicated that they expected or expect to be given clean water and a good quality sanitation system. The expectations were that by now government should have provided water and sanitation. These expectations have as yet not been realised according to all the respondents. However, according the Department of Land Affairs officials, the properties have as yet not been transferred to the beneficiaries. Once the land is transferred, the Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant (SLAG) available could be used for these services, which will then be the
responsibility of the local district council. When compared to the Quality of Life Report of2000 as illustrated in Table 4.10, it is evident that the expectations for Kwazulu-Natal was high at 73.5% for water and 72.2% for sanitation, but only 8% and 4.9% respectively were realised. The trend shows that the actual realisations of the communities expectations are extremely low and therefore government needs to address these shortcomings urgently.
4.3.1.9 PREFERRED NEEDS
4.3.1.9.1 Preferred primary water supply
Table 4.31 Preferred primary/ main water supply requirement (expressed as a percentage)
Water Supply System PLATT ESTATE ENTITIES %
Bh olen i Ezitendeni Tapashiya (n =4) (n =4) (n =4)
1. Piped (tap) inside dwelling 100 75 100 91.7
2. Piped (tap) outside dwelling
-
25-
8.3Plate 21: Water tank that can be used for water storage
According to the respondents, 91.7% preferred to have piped water inside their houses whilst
when one considers that the settlements are scattered, there is no electricity, the primary sources of water are situated in deep valleys, the main water sources are not reliable, the cost of supplying water is high and that there is no water committee to take up their concerns and needs. However, in Ezitendeni piped water could become a reality as there is an existing pipeline from the river to a tank that was built prior to 1994 (refer to Plate 21). This was subsequently discontinued in 1994 according to the respondents. Water to their yards or even inside their houses can become a reality as the primary underground piping installation is available, there is a pump available to pump water from the river, the settlements are clustered and are on lower ground to the tank for gravitational distribution.
4.3.1.9.2 Preferred secondary water supply
Table 4.32 Preferred secondary/ alternate water supply requirement (expressed as a percentage)
Water Supply System PLATT ESTATE ENTITIES %
Bholeni Ezitendeni Tapashiya (n =4) (n =4) (n =4)
1. Piped (tap) outside dwelling 100 75 75 83.3
2. Public tap - 25 25 16.7
Failing to get piped water inside their houses, the respondents indicated that their alternate preferences would be piped water outside their houses but on their premises (83.3%) or a public tap (16.7%). As discussed above, piped water is problematic to achieve in the short term apart from in the case of Ezitendeni. Public taps are also difficult in the short term as it also means a piped system. Boreholes and protected springs could be feasible after further investigation of the geo-hydrology of the area is undertaken.
4.3.1.9.3 Preferred primary sanitation system
Table 4.33 Preferred primary/ main sanitation! toilet requirement (expressed as a percentage)
Sanitation / Toilet System PLATT ESTATE ENTITIES % Bholeni Ezitendeni Tapashiya
(n =4) (n =4) (n =4)
1. Flush toilet (inside house) 100 50 75 75
2. Flush Toilet (outside house) - 50 25 25
It was indicated by the respondents that three quarter of them were optimistic to receiving flush toilets inside the house whilst one quarter indicated the need of having flush toilets outside the house but on their properties. The VIP as required by the National Sanitation Programme as a minimum requirement was not regarded as the communities first choice. What was not indicated was whether or not this was a long or immediate term need. This request was optimistic considering that they do not have piped tap water on their properties, the cost of installing flush systems with sewer lines being expensive and that VIPs are a minimum requirement for non- densified rural areas.
4.3.1.9.4 Preferred secondary sanitation system
Table 4.34 Preferred secondary/ alternate sanitation! toilet requirement (expressed as a percentage)
Sanitation / Toilet System PLATT ESTATE ENTITIES % Bholeni Ezitendeni Tapashiya
(n =4) (n=4) (n =4)
1. Flush Toilet (outside house) 100 50 75 75
2. Ventilated Pit latrine (VIP)
-
50 25 25Three quarter of the respondents indicated that their alternate choice to flush toilets inside the house would be flush toilets outside the house but on their properties with a quarter of them opting for VIPs (refer to Plate 22). The VIPs are more in keeping with the rural development strategy for sanitation systems, especially in the short to medium term.
Plate 22: Example ofa Ventilated Pit Latrine situated at the Agricultural offices at the Platt Estate