IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i11p4128-d369435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community Faecal Management Strategies and Perceptions on Sludge Use in Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Mamera

    (Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Soil, Crop and Climate Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa)

  • Johan J. van Tol

    (Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Soil, Crop and Climate Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa)

  • Makhosazana P. Aghoghovwia

    (Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Soil, Crop and Climate Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa)

  • Gabriel T. Mapetere

    (Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Department of Sociology, University of Fort Hare, Eastern Cape 5700, South Africa)

Abstract

Most people in rural areas in South Africa (SA) rely on untreated drinking groundwater sources and pit latrine sanitations. A minimum basic sanitation facility should enable safe and appropriate removal of human waste, and although pit latrines provide this, they are still contamination concerns. Pit latrine sludge in SA is mostly emptied and disposed off-site as waste or buried in-situ. Despite having knowledge of potential sludge benefits, most communities in SA are reluctant to use it. This research captured social perceptions regarding latrine sludge management in Monontsha village in the Free State Province of SA through key informant interviews and questionnaires. A key informant interview and questionnaire was done in Monontsha, SA. Eighty participants, representing 5% of all households, were selected. Water samples from four boreholes and four rivers were analyzed for faecal coliforms and E.coli bacteria. On average, five people in a household were sharing a pit latrine. Eighty-three percent disposed filled pit latrines while 17% resorted to closing the filled latrines. Outbreaks of diarrhoea (69%) and cholera (14%) were common. Sixty percent were willing to use treated faecal sludge in agriculture. The binary logistic regression model indicated that predictor variables significantly ( p ˂ 0.05) described water quality, faecal sludge management, sludge application in agriculture and biochar adaption. Most drinking water sources in the study had detections ˂ 1 CFU/100 mL. It is therefore imperative to use both qualitative surveys and analytical data. Awareness can go a long way to motivate individuals to adopt to a new change.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Mamera & Johan J. van Tol & Makhosazana P. Aghoghovwia & Gabriel T. Mapetere, 2020. "Community Faecal Management Strategies and Perceptions on Sludge Use in Agriculture," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-21, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:11:p:4128-:d:369435
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/4128/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/4128/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jenkins, Marion W. & Scott, Beth, 2007. "Behavioral indicators of household decision-making and demand for sanitation and potential gains from social marketing in Ghana," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 2427-2442, June.
    2. Sifat Rabbi & Nepal C Dey, 2013. "Exploring the gap between hand washing knowledge and practices in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional comparative study," Working Papers id:5257, eSocialSciences.
    3. Lisa Maria Pfadenhauer & Eva Rehfuess, 2015. "Towards Effective and Socio-Culturally Appropriate Sanitation and Hygiene Interventions in the Philippines: A Mixed Method Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-26, February.
    4. Stephen Sara & Jay Graham, 2014. "Ending Open Defecation in Rural Tanzania: Which Factors Facilitate Latrine Adoption?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hannah Larissa Nicholas & Keith H. Halfacree & Ian Mabbett, 2022. "Public Perceptions of Faecal Sludge Biochar and Biosolids Use in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-21, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pakhtigian, Emily L. & Dickinson, Katherine L. & Orgill-Meyer, Jennifer & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K., 2022. "Sustaining latrine use: Peers, policies, and sanitation behaviors," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 223-242.
    2. Langford, Rebecca & Panter-Brick, Catherine, 2013. "A health equity critique of social marketing: Where interventions have impact but insufficient reach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 133-141.
    3. Victor Kasulo & Rochelle Holm & Mavuto Tembo & Wales Singini & Joshua Mchenga, 2020. "Enhancing sustainable sanitation through capacity building and rural sanitation marketing in Malawi," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 201-215, January.
    4. Abid Anwar & Mussawar Shah & Yasrab Abid & Zia Ul Qamar & Hina Qamar, 2018. "Consumer Importance on Sustainable Water Sanitation & Hygiene Facilities Provided in Rural District Peshawar, Pakistan," Journal of Social Science Studies, Macrothink Institute, vol. 5(1), pages 316-328, January.
    5. Casabonne, Ursula & Kenny, Charles, 2012. "The Best Things in Life are (Nearly) Free: Technology, Knowledge, and Global Health," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-35.
    6. Santos, Andreia C. & Roberts, Jennifer A. & Barreto, Mauricio L. & Cairncross, Sandy, 2011. "Demand for sanitation in Salvador, Brazil: A hybrid choice approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1325-1332, April.
    7. Emmy De Buck & Hans Van Remoortel & Karin Hannes & Thashlin Govender & Selvan Naidoo & Bert Avau & Axel Vande Veegaete & Alfred Musekiwa & Vittoria Lutje & Margaret Cargo & Hans‐Joachim Mosler & Phili, 2017. "Approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation behaviour change in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a mixed method systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 1-447.
    8. Jewitt, Sarah & Smallman-Raynor, Matthew & K C, Binaya & Robinson, Benjamin & Adhikari, Puspanjali & Evans, Catrin & Karmacharya, Biraj Man & Bolton, Charlotte E. & Hall, Ian P., 2022. "Domesticating cleaner cookstoves for improved respiratory health: Using approaches from the sanitation sector to explore the adoption and sustained use of improved cooking technologies in Nepal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 308(C).
    9. YuJung Julia Lee & Tiffany Radcliff, 2021. "Community interactions and sanitation use by the urban poor: Survey evidence from India’s slums," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(4), pages 715-732, March.
    10. Mitsuaki Hirai & Jay P. Graham & Kay D. Mattson & Andrea Kelsey & Supriya Mukherji & Aidan A. Cronin, 2016. "Exploring Determinants of Handwashing with Soap in Indonesia: A Quantitative Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, September.
    11. Sheillah Simiyu & Mark Swilling & Richard Rheingans & Sandy Cairncross, 2017. "Estimating the Cost and Payment for Sanitation in the Informal Settlements of Kisumu, Kenya: A Cross Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, January.
    12. Lorna K.P. Suen & Tika Rana, 2020. "Knowledge Level and Hand Hygiene Practice of Nepalese Immigrants and Their Host Country Population: A Comparative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, June.
    13. Ismaila Rimi Abubakar, 2017. "Access to Sanitation Facilities among Nigerian Households: Determinants and Sustainability Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-17, April.
    14. Jimenez, A. & Marin, Giovanni & Perez-Foguet, A., 2011. "Abastecimiento y saneamiento en zoras rurales de paises en desarrollo. Situacion actual y desafios para el futuro," Revista Espanola de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Rural y Marino (formerly Ministry of Agriculture), issue 230, pages 1-22.
    15. Mohammad Rashid & Debapratim Pandit, 2019. "Analysis of service quality of household toilets expected by households practicing open defecation: a study in rural settlements of Bihar, India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 2487-2506, October.
    16. Santosh Jatrana & Md. Mehedi Hasan & Abdullah A. Mamun & Yaqoot Fatima, 2021. "Global Variation in Hand Hygiene Practices Among Adolescents: The Role of Family and School-Level Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-14, May.
    17. Ross, Ian & Cumming, Oliver & Dreibelbis, Robert & Adriano, Zaida & Nala, Rassul & Greco, Giulia, 2021. "How does sanitation influence people's quality of life? Qualitative research in low-income areas of Maputo, Mozambique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    18. Parimita Routray & Belen Torondel & Thomas Clasen & Wolf-Peter Schmidt, 2017. "Women's role in sanitation decision making in rural coastal Odisha, India," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, May.
    19. Paulo R. A. Loureiro & Mario J. C. Mendonça & Michel Constantino & Tito B. S. Moreira & Joaquim Ramalho de Albuquerque & George H. M. Cunha, 2024. "Does Education Influence Housing Choices in Areas with Basic Sanitation?," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 16(10), pages 1-15, October.
    20. Jay P Graham & Maneet Kaur & Marc A Jeuland, 2018. "Access to environmental health assets across wealth strata: Evidence from 41 low- and middle-income countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:11:p:4128-:d:369435. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.