4.1. Water and Sanitation Qualitative Survey
Decision making is frequently the result of a long process in which numerous steps are essential [
35]. Barnard et al. [
36] and Tadesse-Yimam et al. [
37], in a rural study in northern Ethiopia, suggested that there was no guarantee in the use of methods due to behavioral changes that are required which also rely on cultural norms. A study in rural Niger revealed that mostly male heads of a household make latrine operation and maintenance decisions [
17]. In this study, however, in most houses (64%) women were usually responsible for household duties and latrine decisions. Maintenance of such latrines relied solely on the contribution of women. Sometimes the role of women or wives may be more informal even though they largely contribute to latrine decision making [
17]. The nature of those involved directly or indirectly in the decision are related to access, use, and willingness to pay in latrine operation and maintenance [
35]. Ownership of improved latrines has been strongly related to the socio-economic conditions, spatial distribution, and education status of the household head [
38]. A higher education status (97.5%) of the community was shown in the health awareness to use either a VIP/UN-IP latrine. Even though other participants (2.5%) were not educated, the absence of open defecation indicated that a society can be influenced with the community norms. The Swiss TPH [
38] report also confirmed that accessibility to improved latrines depends on household income and government subsidies. The survey results they obtained showed that worse-off and intermediate groups only rely on either UN-IP/VIP latrines. Similar observations were noted in this survey study. Qualitative surveys from Bangladesh, Senegal, and India showed that a higher water quality supply is directly linked to improved latrines and improved socio-economic conditions [
38,
39]. Similar observations were also made from this study survey data as the majority of respondents both had a considerable access to improved water and improved latrines. Swiss TPH [
38] noted that in the absence of government subsidies, low income households tend to use unimproved latrines.
Qualitative survey data in Senegal and India indicated that latrine emptying and disposal is not common in rural areas [
38]. Similar findings were also seen in the qualitative survey, as some of the participants opted to reconstruct new latrines. Studies in South Africa showed that draining and disposal of each pit latrine costs between ZAR 300 (16 USD) to ZAR 1250 (67 USD) [
9,
10]. Most of the participants in the survey had a low monthly income which makes it unrealistic in some cases to afford the cost of draining and disposal. Nonetheless, in the context of South Africa, the qualitative survey data also showed that government support through municipality can promote pit emptying. However, Mjoli [
40] and Tissington [
15], also working in South Africa, argued that most municipalities lack budgets and funds for latrine emptying. In most cases, rural villages in developing countries have a low capacity to pay for latrines [
41]. This might have been another reason why most of the respondents (77.5%) in the study were not eager to spend much on pit sludge treatment (
Table 4). Swiss TPH [
38] reported similar findings as they confirmed 18.6% as compared to a total of 19.6% relying on simple VIP latrines in their study were not able to pay anything towards latrines. In another study, Barnard et al. [
36] aligned the constraints to cost of latrines (59.3%) and inadequate savings (34.1%). Moreover, they confirmed in a focus group that a weak capacity to pay exists, as 24.3% of the respondents did not consider latrine disposal and renovation a priority. Jenkins and Scott [
37] studied the barriers to latrines access in Ghana and found that high costs and competing priorities were among the main constraints. In this study, commercial detergents or any other pit latrine sludge treatment material were also viewed as a competing priority with 78% of the respondents.
An average of five people in each household filled a latrine in five years as indicated by the qualitative survey. Similar findings in SA were reported by Still and Foxon [
9], Brouckaert et al [
10], Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) [
42], and Seal et al [
43]. In large households, members tend to be less satisfied with latrine uses [
38,
44]. In Tanzania, Sara and Graham [
41] observed that 40% as contrasted to 50% of households with access to improved latrines barely used them. However, in this study all the respondents relied and used the available latrines. Tadesse-Yimam et al. [
37] in northern Ethiopia found out that households with clean latrines were 4.3 times likely to use them. A study in East Java showed that 82.4% of households with private and clean latrines were more satisfied as contrasted to 68.3% with shared latrines [
45]. This might also have been another reason people used their household latrines. Moreover, all the latrines were private to each specific household despite sharing with family members. Some of the major factors for use included dangers of feces for health (9%) and maintaining a clean environment (27.5%) [
45,
46]. In this survey, sanitation diseases (i.e., diarrhoea and cholera) occurred in the community according to the participants. Barnard et al. [
36] also confirmed in a survey that 66% of respondents argued that there was a relationship between the utilization of latrines and better health. Findings from Ngondi [
46] emphasized that there are advantages in proper latrine uses and sludge treatment practices like fly reduction (41.1%) and disease prevention (35%). Another study in the Ngohe municipality, Kenya observed that the population was keen to adapt a new behavior following awareness of the links between diarrhoea and latrines [
1,
47]. A cholera epidemic in the area led to an increased demand in improved latrines and better sludge disposal. Other researches in rural Tanzania [
48] and in Ethiopia [
49] showed that awareness in hygiene and sanitation had a nine- and two-times more likelihood, respectively, in water improvements, improved latrines, and sludge management practices.
Sustainable methods such as biochar have been proved to be successful in sanitation and soil amendment purposes. Williams [
50] had positive outcomes with an increased ammonia-nitrogen, P retention and reduction in leaching of faecal coliforms, and
E. coli from municipal sludge treated with biochar. Studies have suggested that population growth is directly correlated to waste management [
51]. In our survey, most of the participants understood the crop nutritional benefits with the combination of sludge and biochar. Awareness is important for the implementation of sustainable techniques. Studies in SA, eThekwini, Durban have seen projects involving latrine sludge treatment and by-products beneficial in cropping uses, including root crops [
13]. A faecal sludge burial study in Umlazi, Durban also showed increased tree growth because of improved nutrient retention and also reduced pathogenic migrations [
9]. A social survey study in Ntuzuma and Inada village Kwa-Zulu Natal (KZN) in SA to explore the perception and knowledge of farmers in the use of urine and faecal sludge showed that barriers still exist in usage. Moreover, the capacity of sludge and knowledge of the nutritional benefits is still limited. Negative perceptions due to ethical norms remain, even though farmers have the willingness to adapt [
52].
4.2. Water Analysis
Detection of pathogenic bacteria within drinking water sources causes a huge threat to human well-being [
53,
54,
55,
56,
57]. The consequent movement of pathogens with subsurface drainage water to surface water systems has been recognized as a main pathogen transport pathway [
53,
56]. However, the DWAF [
4] groundwater strategy report in SA highlights that groundwater is mostly safe for drinking processes without treatment. The report argues that pathogenic bacteria usually has a short survival rate in aquifers. Such findings can also explain the lower detections of bacteria in most boreholes sampled in the study. Nonetheless, results from column and field research showed that the movement of bacteria through undisturbed soils is mostly governed by macropore flow occurrences [
53]. In a case where there is a shared use of VIP/UN-IP latrines as in this study, bacteria leaching can be a problem [
3,
55]. Physical water filtration is recognized as the principal process which restricts bacteria transport in soil [
53,
57]. The argument was based on the findings that bacteria range in size from 0.2–5 μm which causes soil straining and adsorption [
53,
58]. Looking at the results in an
E. coli outbreak study in Canada, O`Connor [
59] attributed the survival and movement of faecal bacteria to moisture and soil type, among other several factors. Such findings were similar to this study, as it shows that some of the boreholes and rivers counts increased in response to the rainfall season. Groundwater fluctuations had an effect in the population of both
E. coli and faecal coliforms. Prevalent detections of faecal bacteria, especially in surface sources such as rivers, have been studied numerously. Niemi and Niemi [
60] in Southern Finland observed counts exceeding 100 CFU/per 100 mL in surface water from non-agricultural areas and watersheds. A study in the United States in two catchments detected counts more than 200 CFU/100 mL from streams, wells, and springs [
61]. Similar to this study, their results emphasized that streams exceeded the recommended threshold standards with a range between 87% and 100%. Wildi et al. [
62] and Pote et al. [
63] attributed the contamination of most Swiss rivers and reservoirs to mainly faecal sludge and rainwater drainage.
4.3. Implications
Water quality, especially drinking sources, depends on several indicators among faecal bacteria. Water use guidelines and monitoring analysis with the varying seasonal changes is critical. Characterizing a water source based on its appearance and taste only and using these as a quality indicator can be a challenge. In this study, some of the water sources had bacteria indicators above the recommended threshold (˃1 CFU/100 mL) (
Table 6). According to the sensorial appearance, the respondents classified the source as a good quality due to their available resources and capacity. Verification of water quality is important and should be aligned to the socio-economic factors to improve the application of the results. In cases where an essential source which people rely on such as rivers are highly contaminated, health awareness to the users is important. This can ensure implementation of treatment improvements prior to use of that particular water source.
Sentiments around the use of faecal sludge as manure are characterized by the lack of education around benefits. The human condition can be defined by negative perceptions of faecal waste as “useless, unnecessary and therefore undesirable” [
64]. For this reason, an individual needs training to raise their awareness and thus change this perception. The obvious question mostly arises around the undesirable faecal malodor. As mentioned before, within a community one would need to be able to address the diverse demographics appropriately, the old and uneducated, the young and uneducated, as well as the educated few in a bid to alter their perceptions and encourage the use of faecal sludge. On the other hand, it would be way easier to convince any member of any community about the need to use biochar than faecal waste alone. Use of biochar and sludge together can improve water quality and sanitation, and hence can be a vital focus to motivate communities.
In terms of creating awareness about biochar, the community members can also be made aware that the benefits of using biochar outweigh the potential risks. This is because biochar remains stable with a high adsorption potential of contaminates [
27,
65,
66]. Reduction in sanitation diseases can become preventive rather than having to pay medical bills when there is a diarrhoea or cholera outbreak, which in most cases is recurring if the underlying causes are not resolved or addressed.