-1-

Presented at the WISA 2000 Biennial Conference, Sun City, South Africa, 28 May - 1 June 2000

WATER POLLUTION AND COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS IN MAMELODI,

PRETORIA

Darkey, D & Donaldson, SE, Department of Geographical Sciences, Vista University,

Mamelodi Campus, P/Bag x1311, Silverton, Pretoria, 0127, Tel: 012-8010210, Fax: 012-
8010239
&
C van der Linde & Meyer, V, Department of Chemistry, Technikon Northern Gauteng,
Soshanguve, Tel: 0829280515

Abstract
Rapid urbanisation is placing enormous stress on urban and rural environments in numerous
ways. More so in the underdeveloped areas of South African cities. A case in point here is the
former black township Mamelodi, north east of Pretoria. Water analysis has shown that two local
streams are highly polluted. Residents living in areas adjacent to the two local rivers were
randomly interviewed to determine their usage and perceptions of water pollution and other
environmental issues. The one area being an established formal area, the other an informal under-
serviced area. The preliminary findings are part of a broader multi-disciplinary and multi-
institutional project to determine the effect of urbanisation on the environment. The paper will
therefore have the following aims:(1) provide an understanding of communal usage and
awareness of water pollution; (2) link community awareness to local governance and policy
response; (3) provide some solutions to address the problem.

1. INTRODUCTION
According to the 1996 Census, South African cities are 53.7% urbanised. Gauteng Province
ranked first in terms of urbanisation with 97%. It also has the largest concentration of people in
South Africa - over 7million people. Underdeveloped areas such as the black townships are the
areas affected most by this increase in population. Pressure on housing, where 38% of Gauteng’s
residents live in informal conditions, combined with a general lack of services, aggrevate
conditions for sustainable living. The lack of water supply in the form of a tap inside a dwelling,
correlates with informal housing percentages: 32.3% do not have a tap inside the dwelling. When
this variable is measured against the race groups at national level, a huge discrepancy is observed
whereby a mere 27.3% of black households have water inside a dwelling. With these statistics
in mind one can hypothesise that residents living under unsustainable conditions will have a
 -2-

different viewpoint to others in developed areas pertaining to environmental aspects such as

perceptions to, among others, water pollution. Moreover, according to the White Paper on
Environmental Management Policy for South Africa (1998: 77) “poorer communities bear the
greatest impact from wastes because many are near to industrial areas and waste disposal sites”
a condition that is caused by “ineffective waste management and poor regulatory controls [that]
allow waste producers to externalise waste management costs on to the environment and
society”.

This paper is part of the Water Research Commissions’s research project K717/0/1. In short, the
broad objectives of the project is to identify and demarcate polluted areas in certain urban areas,
to identify specific pollutants, their qualitative and quantitative determination, and the impact
these have on urbanized communities. The aim in this paper is fourfold: First, to provide an
understanding of communal usage and awareness of water pollution in the black township of
Mamelodi. Two, to determine the link between community awareness to local governance and
policy response. Three to provide some solutions to address the problem. Four, to provide an
analysis of the extraction of standard and spiked PAH solutions using solid phase extraction.

2. DATA COLLECTION
From an educational perspective, the project is mainly aimed at research capacity building of
students and staff at historically disadvantaged tertiary institutions. A structured questionnaire
was designed by students of the Department of Geographical Sciences, Vista University in
Mamelodi and Chemistry students from the Northern Gauteng Technikon. Interviews were
conducted by the trained students in two distinct areas in Mamelodi. Both areas are located
adjacent to two streams running through the township. The informal area known as Lusaka and
an established formal area in Mamelodi West were identified as study areas. The questionnaire
survey’s main aim was to determine local residents’ perceptions and usage of water from the
streams given the fact that these are highly polluted.

The questionnaire had three main sections. The first covered demographic background of the
respondents. This information is needed to determine if a specific communal profile can be
drawn to see which persons are most likely to make use of polluted water. The second section
covered questions on the living standard and household facilities of the respondents. The lack
 -3-

of infrastructure and services in townships are a known fact. The creation of a general picture
of living conditions may assist in understanding the reasons why people may be ignorant of the
consequence of the usage of polluted water. The last section covered questions relating to
environmental issues. Questions were specifically asked in reference to the respondents’ usage
of the river water. In total 45 households were interviewed at random of which 25 were located
in the informal settlement and 20 in the formal area in Mamelodi.

3. DATA ANALYSIS
3.1Water analyses
Stream site 1 - flowing through an informal settlement. Water is odourous and contaminated
with surface runoff, water use for sanitary purposes and household chores.
Stream site 2 (downstream of site 1) - flowing through a form of built up area. More formal
settlements and shops. Poor sanitation and waste dumped in streets. Surface runoff source of
stream contamination.

PARAMETER STREAM SITE 1 STREAM SITE 2

Colour (445 nm) 4.4 8.9
Turbidity (NTU) 13 31

TDS (g/l) 1.55 2.70

Electrical conductivity 3.15 5.5
(mS/m)
DO (mg/l) 4.2 4.15
pH 6.2 5.9
Temperature (oC) 27 24
Faecal coliform 31 000 55 000
(CFU/100 ml)
Chlorine (mg/l) 0.4 0.4
Phosphate (mg/l) 5 18
Nitrate (mg/l) 20 2.25

Contamination/pollution of the stream via the informal settlements and the so called built up
areas with poor sanitation and solid waste facilities, contribute towards an increase in TDS and
phosphate concentrations and a decrease in nitrification capacity. This results in an increase in
algal growth, with subsequent increase in colour and turbidity of the stream water. The
continuous increase in the algal concentration will eventually, in a relatively short space of time,
 -4-

lead to eutrophication of the stream water. This will result in stream water with low concentration
of biota and primary productivity. The water already has a distinct odour and taste, but this
situation will worsen as the stream is being contaminated daily.

There is a serious high concentration of faecal coliform (FC) in the stream. It is totally out of the
target concentration as suggested by DWAF (0 CFU/100 ml) and pose an enormous health risk
to users of the water.

Both the informal and developing built up areas next to the stream, contribute towards the
pollution of the water. This places a risk on the health of the people using this water and will
decrease the usability of the water in the future.

3.2 Questionnaire survey findings

3.2.1 Biographical background of respondents
In order to understand the reasoning and cultural values of the community involved in the
research, a demographic profile has been determined. Such a profile will reflect between
respondents living in the formal and those living in the informal residential areas of Mamelodi.
Majority of the respondents’ home language (Figure 1) is Northern Sotho (42.2%) and Zulu
(24.4%). Apart from these two groups, a remarkably high percentage of the respondents in the
informal area are Shangaan/Tsonga speaking.

This geolinguistic pattern may indicate the high number of people moving from the Northern
Province and Mpumalanga areas to Gauteng. The level of influx to Mamelodi is clearly illustrated
in Figure 2 where it is vivid that most of the households (88%) living in the informal area moved
there after 1994. This is in contrast to the formal area where 65% of the respondents have been
residing since the period 1960-1970. It is thus evident that the demise of apartheid since 1990
contributed to a dramatic movement of blacks to establish informal residential areas in Mamelodi
in that 96% of the household in the informal area have been living there since 1990.

The average number of household members in the informal area is 3.6, whereas in the formal area
it is 6.9 people per household. In the informal area the majority (33%) of the household members
fall in the category 21-30 years old (Figure 3). This relatively short period that the households
 -5-

have been living in the informal area, as well as the low number of household members, is typical
of new in-migrant movement trends. The new in-migrant arrives in the city to find employment,
hence he or she usually arrives with only one or two family members. Once the in-migrant has
gained a foothold in the city economy, then other family members will join and income will be
spent on improving levels of infrastructure and living conditions.

Income levels for the household are on par to monthly income levels for South Africa according
to the 1996 Census (Statistics South Africa, 1996: 57). In the survey it was determined that 40.0%
of the employed persons in the households earn between R1001 and R3000 collectively per
month (Figure 4).

Second to that, a large group of households (35.6%) earn between R1 and R1000 per month. A
shocking finding revealed that 6.7% of households have no means of monthly income. The higher
income levels of households are however on par with the Gauteng Provincial average where
15.6% of economically active people earn more than R4500 per month (Statistics South Africa,
1996: 59). Most (50%) of the household members who are not currently attending school have
only a secondary school qualification (no differentiation was determined). An astonishingly 38%
have only a primary school qualification (Figure 5). There is no significant difference in the
distribution between informal and formal area responses.

3.2.2 Living environments

Housing conditions typify the living spaces in residential areas (Table 1). In the formal area the
survey found that 78.3% of the households live in a formal house or brick structure on a stand.
Not surprisingly, in the informal area, 96% live in informal conditions which include mud
dwellings, informal shacks and backyard shacks and informal houses. Densification, albeit
informal or formal, regulated or unregulated, was observed in the formal area only. There 85%
of the household have another housing structure of some kind on the stand. Most of these
dwellings are however in the form of a backyard shack (47.1%) and a house/flat/room (35.3%).
No second dwelling type was observed in the informal area. The main house is, however, not
widely shared with another family in that in the whole sample, only 11.1% of the households
share their dwellings. Land tenure security is evident in the informal area where a 100% of the
household have a title deed as opposed to 75% in the formal area who own their property.
 -6-

Services, such as water supply and refuse removal was also determined. It was found that
surprisingly few households (26%) have piped water in the dwelling. This is more surprising so
in the formal area with only 50% of the households having access to water inside the dwelling.
The trend in the informal area is expected to be a combination of a piped tap on the stand (24%)
because of site and service development of the area and also public communal taps in the area
(32%). Despite the existing infrastructure a relatively high percentage of informal households has
a pit latrine (48.9%) whereas 48.9% have a flush toilet. In the formal area 95% have a flush toilet.

In the informal area, only 3.2% of the respondents indicated that refuse is removed by the local
authority at least once a week or less often than that. The lack of local authority services rendered
in informal areas, are directly contributing to environmental destruction. This is so because 67.7%
of the informal households interviewed dump their refuse in or near the stream. Not surprisingly,
the majority of the respondents (51.1%) indicated from a list of seven possible environmental
concerns (littering, air pollution through coal stoves, air pollution through open fires, water
pollution of the river, noise pollution, damage caused by heavy rains, problems caused by
domestic animals), that littering is the main problem in their area. Refuse removal is more evident
(71.4%), on the contrary, in the formal area.

3.2.3 Human-environmental interaction

The main section of the survey tried to enquire from the respondents as to what degree they
interact with the natural environmental feature adjacent to their residential areas: the river and
stream. Questions were posed to determine how the households make use of the water in the local
river and stream in the following ways: drinking, cooking, washing clothes, bathing, dumping
refuse, kids playing and watering vegetables. The general assumption would have been that lowly
educated persons, and persons living in under-serviced areas, will not be well informed in terms
of environmental conditions that may be hazardous to their health. Despite this hypothesis it was
found that the local water resources are utilised only for certain purposes (Figure 6), mainly those
not hazardous to their health. Data obtained shows that water not used for any specific purpose
at all for the whole sample was as follow: drink (100%) cooking (100%), washing clothes
(71.1%), bathing (91.1%), dumping refuse (44.4%), kids playing (53.3%), watering vegetables
(43.2%)
 -7-

3.2.3.1 Drinking
It is clear from the findings that that the respondents are vividly aware of the negative
consequences of drinking the river water, even if it is boiled. It is also important to note that their
perceptions (69%) as to why they are not drinking the water is because of the fact that it is dirty,
polluted and unhealthy. The other respondents argued non-usage within their home-economic
framework in that they have enough clean water (11.9%), hence they do not have to use river
water, while the remaining 19% did/could not comment on the question.
Key variable:
1. Proper awareness

3.2.3.2 Cooking
The same response has been observed for using the water for cooking purposes as was the case
for drinking (Table 3).
Key variable:
1. Proper awareness

3.2.3.3 Washing clothes

None of the respondents from the formal area use the river water for washing of clothes. In the
informal area, however, 28.8% do use it for that purpose at times. Specific reasons for usage
show that the respondents feel that the water used is of no danger to their clothes (4.4%), while
the other 15.5% argued that because of the lack of access to clean water they are compelled to use
the river water.
Key variables:
1. Lack of knowledge that washing is causing health hazard
2. Lack of infrastructure

3.2.3.4 Bathing
Again no respondents from the formal area use the water to bath in. A small percentage of
respondents in the other area indicated bathing (8.9%). Also, here, the reason for usage was the
lack of water at home. Reasons given for not using the water, also relate to the previous variables:
dirty, polluted and unhealthy (35.6%).
Key variables:
 -8-

1. Lack of water at home

2. Proper awareness

3.2.3.5 Dumping refuse

A remarkably high percentage (55.6%) of households use the river/stream area as a dumping
ground for household waste. A differentiation between the two sub-areas indicates that 55% in
the formal and 36% in the informal area never use the areas as dumping grounds. It is
understandable that a high percentage in the informal area do that because earlier it was shown
that only 3.2% indicated that there is some form of refuse removal in their area.
Key variables:
1. Lack of refuse removal
2. Lack of communal refuse dump as interim measure
3. Lack of environmental awareness

3.2.3.6 Children playing in the river

The variable children playing in the water, was used here because of the general ignorance of
children with regard to health conditions. Despite the fact that the majority of the children in both
areas never play in the water (53.3%), a large percentage do that occasionally (46.6%).
Key variables:
1. Lack of knowledge pertaining to health aspects
2. Need for alternative swimming facilities

3.2.3.7 Watering vegetables

Households are more often than not unaware of the negative implications of using polluted water
to water their vegetables. Majority of the respondents do use the water for the above purpose
(56.9%). Surprisingly many of them could not comment on the reasons why they use it for that
purpose. It may be as if it is common usage so why question it. The same goes for the reasons as
to why they do not use it.
Key variables:
1. Lack of awareness
2. Lack of urban agricultural projects
 -9-

3.2.4 Perceptions on water pollution

In conclusion, questions were asked to test the respondents’ general perceptions and views on
water pollution and usage (Table 9). Majority of respondents indicated that the water is unhealthy
(82.2% - respectively 80% in formal area and 84% in informal area). Despite this, and questioned
if they will still use it if they are told that it is dangerous, 35.6% indicated that they will continue
to use it. So too, are they aware of the implications on their health with 66.7% indicating that the
water makes them ill. Therefore, many of them had no answer to the questions why it will not
affect their health and also why they will continue to use it.

A general issue as to how pollution and littering can be controlled was also investigated. Majority
(66.7%) said that people who pollute must be punished by law. It is therefore surprising that the
local authority does not employ unemployed persons to act as environmental pollution control
officers.

3.2.5 River usage and future planning usage

At present the Pienaars River and flood plain including the smaller tributary which joins the
system, performs an important physical and ecological function. Among others, it provides an
environment of food resource for birds, frogs and insects, thus making the area an ideal future
urban open space conservation area. Taking into consideration the rapid urbanisation rate, it is
feared that the river flood plain may become an area for informal dwellers. Indeed, this is
currently the case at the stream running through Lusaka area. Taking this into consideration, the
Greater Pretoria Metropolitan Council proposes in their Strategic Development Area 6
Development Framework Plan that the flood plain “should be included as a conservation area and
[that it] must form part of a future regional open space system for the Greater Pretoria”.

The White Paper on Environmental Management Policy (1998:80) propagates that “government
must give higher priority to environmental concerns at all levels of decision making [and that they
must] provide adequate opportunity for participation in environmental governance. Promoting
environmental understanding will increase the capacity of people to participate effectively in
environmental decision-making”. The Greater Pretoria Metropolitan Council (GPMC) was
consulted on the above and tested against a check list that was prepared from the White Paper.
After repeated calls and faxes they still have not responded.
 -10-

4. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This paper attempted to establish what the degree of awareness of water pollution and
consequently, the communal usage of river water is, in parts of Mamelodi. A secondary theme
is the link between community awareness and expectations on the one hand and policy response
by local government on the other.

The following are some of the important findings of the research:

• there is a clearly defined time difference between the commencement of residency by
formal and informal residents. The latter came in mainly after 1994. This is not surprising
as it coincides with the democratisation process and the demise of the homeland system.
Since the majority (67.7%) of residents who use the river as dumping ground are informal
residents, the level of pollution, due to dumping, has probably increased since 1994.
• in spite of the relatively low level of formal education - for both formal and informal
residents - the degree of environmental awareness (in terms of health hazard perception)
is high among the residents. The river is not used at all for cooking or drinking by any
one. Of those who use it for dumping only 4.4% do so out of ignorance. This awareness
may however be superficial, for 56.9% of residents use the river to water their vegetables.
• with regard to policy issues, it is the opinion of the majority of the residents that people
who pollute should be punished.
• furthermore, the majority of residents gave the reason why they use the water for dumping
as that they do not have an alternative.

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Without doubt, the community awareness of the dangers of using polluted water is evident - from
the limited use made of the river water. One would, however still argue for further environmental
education and capacity building programmes, taking into account the generally low levels of
education of residents, coupled with the fact that over 50% use the river to water their vegetation
while close to 50% of children occasionally play in the river.

A high percentage of the informal community uses the river for dumping. This however is done
not out of ignorance of the possible negative environmental consequences of such action but out
of necessity. Unfortunately the local government is failing to capitalise on this awareness to put
 -11-

in place measures that protect the environment in general and the river in particular.

A dynamic local government should aim at involving the community in stopping the illegal
dumping. It has been demonstrated that government programmes can fail to meet the aspirations
and enthusiasm of the people, if the perceptions of the people directly concerned are ignored
( Burton and Kates, 1964; Gould1969; Saarinen and Cook, 1970). With a community which is
not only aware of the dangers of dumping but also willing to see culprits of dumping punished,
it should not be too difficult for the local government to implement appropriate policies.

In the short run, a first step towards this should be a positive gesture from local government
through the collection of waste. With this, there will be no excuse for dumping along the river.
Through proper planning, the large unemployed population in the Mamelodi township could be
used in waste collection, recycling and in policing the environment. This may require more than
just financial resources as people may have to be trained in simple processes such as waste
handling and environmental laws.

In the long run, the Greater Pretoria Metropolitan Council should aim at changing the nature of,
and increasing the interaction between the community and their environment. In a water scares
country like South Africa, developing the stream system as part of a larger conservation area will
not only benefit the local community of Mamelodi, but the country at large.

REFERENCES
Burton I and Kates R. 1964: The perception of natural hazards in resource management. National
Resources Journal, 3: 412 -441.

Gould P. R 1969: The structure of space preference in Tanzania. Area, 4: 29-34

Saarinen T. F and Cook R. U 1970: Public perception of environmental quality in Tusson,

Arizona. Occasional paper 9.

Statistics South Africa. 1998. Census in brief. SSA: Pretoria.

White Paper on Environmental Management Policy for South Africa. 1998. Government Printers:
Pretoria.
 HOME LANGUAGE
Formal
60

40

20

0
Northern Sotho Ndebele Tsonga/Shangaan Swazi

Informal
60

40

20

0
Northern Sotho Ndebele Tsonga/Shangaan Swazi

Figure 1: Home language

WHEN DID HOUSEHOLD MOVE TO MAMELODI

After 1994
1991 to 1994
1981 to 1990
Year

1970 to 1980
1960 to 1970
Before 1960

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage

formal informal

Figure 2: Since when are respondents residing

in Mamelodi?
 AGE OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
FORMAL
40

30

Percentage
20

10

0
0 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 > 60
Age category

INFORMAL
40

30
Percentage

20

10

0
0 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 > 60
Age category

Figure 3: Age of household members

INCOME
refuse to answer
Income categories

> R10 000

R8001 to R10 000
R5001 to R8000
R3001 to R5000
R1001 to R3000
R501 to R1000
R1 to R500
none

0 10 20 30 40 50
Percentage

FORMAL INFORMAL

Figure 4: Combined household income per month

 EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
Non-school going members of housholds

tertiary: completed

tertiary: busy

secondary

primary

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

formal informal

Figure 5: Educational qualifications

Formal

Refuse personally dump in river/near river (21.40%)

No refuse removal at all (0.00%)

Own refuse dump (3.60%)

Communal refuse (3.60%)

Removed by municipality at least once a we

Removed by municipality less often (14.30%)

Informal

Removed by municipality at least once a week (0.00%)

Removed by municipality less often (3.20%)
Communal refuse (6.50%)

Own refuse dump (16.10%)

No refuse removal at all (6.50%)

use personally dump in river/near river (67.70%)

Figure 6: Type of refuse removal

TABLE 1:
DWELLING TYPE HOUSEHOLD Total OTHER DWELLING Total
OCCUPY ON STAND

Formal Informal Formal Informal

House or brick structure on a stand 18 (78.3%) 1 (4%) 19 2 (11.8%) 0 2
(39.6%) (11.8%)
Traditional dwelling (mud house) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 1 0 (0%) 0 0
(2.1%) (0%)
House/flat/room in backyard 1 (4.4%) 0 (0%) 1 6 (35.3%) 0 6
(2.1%) (35.3%)
Informal dwelling/shack in 2 (8.7%) 5 (20%) 7 8 (47.1%) 0 8
backyard
(14.6%) (47.1%)

Informal house/shack NOT 1 (4.4%) 17 (68%) 18 0 (0%) 0 0

in backyard (37.5%) (0%)

Other (specify) 1(4.4%) 1 (4%) 2 1 (5.9%) 0 1

(4.2%) (5.9%)

Total 23 25 48 17 0 17
TABLE 2:
PURPOSE Answer Formal Informal Total
HOW OFTEN IS IT USED Never used/not used 20 (100%) 25 (100%) 45 (100%)
FOR THE PURPOSE
INDICATED?

WHY IS IT USED FOR

THAT PURPOSE? Not used 20 (100%) 25 (100%) 45 (100%)

IF IT IS NOT USED FOR no answer 0 (0%) 8 (32%) 8 (19.0%)

THE PURPOSE, WHY IS dirty/not clean 6 (35.3%) 8 (32%) 14 (33.3%)
IT NOT USED? polluted 4 (23.5%) 3 (12%) 7 (16,7%)
unhealthy 3 (17.7%) 5 (20%) 8 (19.0%)
we have enough clean 4 (23.5%) 1 (4%) 5 (11.9%)
water

TABLE 3:
PURPOSE Answer Formal Informal Total
COOKING:

HOW OFTEN IS IT USED not used 20 (100%) 25 (100%) 45 (100%))

FOR THE PURPOSE
INDICATED?

WHY IS IT USED FOR no answer 20 (100%) 25 (100%) 45 (100%)

THAT PURPOSE?

IF IT IS NOT USED FOR no answer 10 (50%) 10 (40%) 20 (44.4%)

THE PURPOSE, WHY IS dirty 6 (30%) 4 (16%) 10 (22.2%)
IT NOT USED? polluted 1 (5%) 3 (12%) 4 (8.9%)
unhealthy 0 (0%) 6 (24%) 6 (13.3%)
not safe to use it 2 (10%) 2 (8%) 4 (8.9%)
have enough clean water 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 1 (2.2%)

IS THE WATER BOILED no 0 (100%) 25 (100%) 45 (100%)

BEFORE USAGE (state
only YES or NO)
TABLE 4:

PURPOSE Answer Formal Informal Total

WASHING
CLOTHING:

HOW OFTEN IS IT never 20 (100%) 12 (48%) 32 (71.1%)

USED FOR THE always 0 2 (8%) 2 (4.4%)
PURPOSE sometimes 0 8 (32%) 8 (17.8%)
INDICATED? daily 0 1 (4%) 1 (2.2%)
weekends 0 2 (8%) 2 (4.4%)

WHY IS IT USED no answer 17 (85%) 14 (56%) 31 (68.9%)

FOR THAT not used 3 (15%) 2 (8%) 5 (11.1%)
PURPOSE? shortage of water (only 1public 0 5 (20%) 5 (11.1%)
tap)
useable for washing 0 1 (4%) 1 (2.2%)
fresh water is far away 0 2 (8%) 2 (4.4%)
no harm to clothing 0 1 (4%) 1 (2.2%)

IF IT IS NOT USED no answer 8 (40%) 20 (80%) 28 (62.2%)

FOR THE dirty 8 (40%) 2 (8%) 10 (22.2%)
PURPOSE, WHY IS polluted 1 (5%) 2 (8%) 3 (6.7%)
IT NOT USED? unhealthy 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 2 (4.4%)
use own water 1(5%) 1 (4%) 2 (4.4%)

IS THE WATER no answer 20 (100%) 20 (80%) 40 (88.9%)

BOILED BEFORE yes 0 5 (20%) 5 (11.1%)
USAGE (state only
YES or NO)
TABLE 5:
PURPOSE Answer Formal Informal Total
BATHING:

HOW OFTEN IS IT never used 20 (100%) 21 (84%) 41 (91.1%)

USED FOR THE every day/daily 0 4 (16%) 4 (8.9%)
PURPOSE
INDICATED?

WHY IS IT USED not used 20 (100%) 21(84%) 41 (91.1%)

FOR THAT shortage/tap 0 4 (16%) 4 (8.9%)
PURPOSE?

IF IT IS NOT USED no answer 10 (50%) 17 (68%) 27 (60.0%)

FOR THE dirty 5 (25%) 2 (8%) 7 (15.6%)
PURPOSE, WHY IS polluted 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 1 (2.2%)
IT NOT USED? unhealthy 3 (15%) 5 (20%) 8 (17.8%)
have my own water 1 (5%) 1 (4%) 2 (4.4%)

TABLE 6:
PURPOSE Answer Formal Informal Total
DUMPING
REFUSE:

HOW OFTEN IS IT never/often 11(55%) 9 (36%) 20 (44.0%)

USED FOR THE sometimes 4 (20%) 7 (28%) 11 (24.4%)
PURPOSE daily 1(5%) 7 (28%) 8 (17.8%)
INDICATED? forth nightly 2 (10%) 1 (4%) 3 (6.7%)
if municipality does not collect 2 (10%) 1 (4%) 3 (6.7%)

WHY IS IT USED no answer 12 (60%) 11(44%) 23 (51.1%)

FOR THAT no other rubbish disposal 2 (10%) 6 (24%) 8 (17.8%)
PURPOSE? no proper rubbish area 3 (15%) 7 (28%) 10 (22.2%)
no removal 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 2 (4.4%)
ignorance 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 1 (2.2%)
to keep my own yard clean 1(5%) 0 (0%) 1 (2.2%)

IF IT IS NOT USED no answer 16 (80%) 18 (72%) 34 (75.6%)

FOR THE against pollution 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 2 (4.4%)
PURPOSE, WHY IS because of pollution 2 (10%) 5 (20%) 7 (15.6%)
IT NOT USED? rely on municipality 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 2 (4.4%)
TABLE 7:
PURPOSE Answer Formal Informal Total
KIDS PLAYING IN
RIVER:

HOW OFTEN IS IT sometimes 3 (15%) 7 (28%) 10 (22.2%)

USED FOR THE never 9 (45%) 15 (60%) 24 (53.3%)
PURPOSE everyday 6 (30%) 3 (12%) 9 (20.0%)
INDICATED? weekends 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 2 (4.4%)

WHY IS IT USED no answer 13 (65%) 14 (56%) 27 (60%)

FOR THAT no other entertainment/ 2 (10%) 10 (40%) 12 (26.7%)
PURPOSE? recreation
kids like it 5 (25%) 1 (4%) 6 (13.3%)

IF IT IS NOT USED no 15 (75%) 25 (100%) 40 (88.8%)

FOR THE enjoy playing there 1(5%) 0 1 (2.2%)
PURPOSE, WHY IS dangerous/infectious 2 (10%) 0 2 (4.4%)
IT NOT USED? dirty water 2 (10%) 0 2 (4.4%)

TABLE 8:
PURPOSE Answer Formal Informal Total
WATERING
VEGETABLES:

HOW OFTEN IS IT always 3 (15%) 1 (4.2%) 4 (9.1%)

USED FOR THE never 14 (70%) 5 (20.8%) 19 (43.2%)
PURPOSE daily 1 (5%) 11 (45.8%) 12 (27.3%)
INDICATED? 2-3 times a week 2 (10%) 7 (29.2%) 9 (20.5%)

WHY IS IT USED no answer 19 (95%) 14 (56%) 33 (73.3%)

FOR THAT shortage of water 1 (5%) 2 (8%) 3 (6.7%)
PURPOSE? too far from tap 0 2 (8%) 2 (4.4%)
near river 0 4 (16%) 4 (8.8%)
dangerous for usage 0 2 (8%) 2 (4.4%)
saving clean home water 0 1 (4%) 1 (2.2%)

F IT IS NOT USED no answer 16 (80%) 21(84%) 37 (82.2%)

FOR THE polluted 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 1 (2.2%)
PURPOSE, WHY IS unhealthy 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 1 (2.2%)
IT NOT USED? no garden 2 (10%) 3 (12%) 5 (11.1%)
no fresh water 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 1 (2.2%)
TABLE 9: Perceptions and attitude towards water usage
Would you still use the water if you are Formal Informal Total
told it is dangerous
Yes 10 (50%) 6 (24%) 16 (35.6%)
No 10 (50%) 19 (76%) 29 (64.4%)
Total 20 (100%) 25 (100%) 45 (100%)
Should people who pollute the
environment be punished by law?
Yes 14 (70%) 16 (64%) 30 (66.7%)
No 6 (30%) 9 (36%) 15 (33.3%)
Total 20 (100%) 25 (100%) 45 (100%)
How does the water affect your health?
Become ill/injured 11 (68.8%) 13 (65.0%) 24 (66.7%)
It smells/polluted 2 (12.5%) 4 (20.0%) 6 (16.7%)
Attracts insects 3 (18.8%) 3 (15.0%) 6 (16.7%)
Total 16 20 36 (100%)
Why will it not affect your health?
No answer 19 (95%) 23 (92%) 42 (93.3%)
I only use it to water vegetables 1 (5%) 0 1 (2.2%)
Only use it for washing 0 1 (4%) 1 (2.2%)
Water is blessed by church 0 1 (4%) 1 (2.2%)
Total 20 (100%) 25 (100%) 45 (100%)
Why will you then continue to use it?
No answer 20 (100%) 23 (92%) 43 (95.6%)
Only one tap in area 0 1 (4%) 1 (2.2%)
No other water source 0 1 (4%) 1 (2.2%)
Total 20 (100%) 25 (100%) 45 (100%)
TABLE 10: Policy on pollution
INTEGRATED POLLUTION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY- NATIONAL
*To prevent, reduce and manage pollution of any part of the environment due to all forms of
human activity
* To set targets to minimise waste generation and pollution at source and promote a
hierarchy of waste management practices, namely reduction of waste at source, reuse and
recycling with safe disposal as the last resort.
* To regulate and monitor waste production, enforce waste control measures, and coordinate
administration of integrated pollution and waste control measures, and coordinate
administration of integrated pollution and waste management through a single government
department
* Capacity building and educational programmes to increase environmental awareness and
public involvement taking into consideration the low educational levels of disadvantaged
communities.
GPMC POLICY ACTION AND RESPONSE TO WHITE PAPER
* No response was given to questionnaire and follow-up