Water provisioning in rural municipalities during the COVID-19 pandemic Open Access

COVID-19 originated in Wuhan, China, at the end of 2019 and quickly spread worldwide within a short time (Bera et al. 2022). By the end of December 2021, 275 million COVID-19 cases were confirmed and 5.4 million deaths were reported (World Health Organization 2021; Kim et al. 2022). Among the public guidelines set by the World Health Organization (WHO), to reduce the spread of the disease and deaths, frequent handwashing, physical distancing, and household cleaning were primary and strongly recommended for personal hygiene and to curb disease transmission (Stoler et al. 2021). The WHO recommended access to water, sanitation, and a good diet to prevent COVID-19 (Ekumah et al. 2020). Therefore, accessing clean water for frequent washing of hands and sanitation was vital in preventing the coronavirus's spread (Durodola et al. 2020; Gondo & Kolawole 2022; Ibrahim 2022; Kim et al. 2022). Governments had to promote social and behavioural changes to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Regulating behaviour and social habits for improved hygiene and sanitation, such as frequently washing hands using soap, requires enough water to ensure safety (Bera et al. 2022). This is very demanding given this and depends on environmental and socio-economic factors of some communities, particularly in those areas of water scarcity and in areas where hand washing facilities are inadequate.

Millions of people worldwide suffer from poor water networks with only 25% of households having access to piped water, an estimated 884 million people lacking access to safe water (Heidari & Grigg 2021), and 263 million people reportedly spending over 30 min collecting water from a better source in developing countries (UNICEF 2017). In India, a small proportion of the population has a facility to use clean water and soap to wash their hands (UNICEF & WHO 2020; Bera et al. 2022). Approximately 42% (global average 12%) in Sub-Saharan Africa lack access to water service provision, and roughly 72% (global percentage of 32%) have limited access to safe sanitation services (WHO & UNICEF 2017; Kim et al. 2022). More than 85, 80, and 50% of homes in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America, respectively, are not connected to the sewerage network (Ostadtaghizadeh et al. 2022). Informal settlements lack water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services such as toilets, clean water, and sewers (Ostadtaghizadeh et al. 2022). In most cases, untreated surface and groundwater are used by most households, which poses a health risk.

Due to COVID-19-related behavioural changes such as working from home, home-schooling, and hygiene practices, more water was required for cooking, drinking, and washing hands. There was an increase in the use of water in most countries, including Zimbabwe, India, Ghana, and Uganda, during COVID-19 (Kumpel et al. 2021; Sempewo et al. 2021; Gbedemah et al. 2022; Gondo & Kolawole 2022). In Bangladesh, keeping the tap on when handwashing led to a 13-fold increase in water usage with each member using 12.8 times more water per day during the pandemic (Ostadtaghizadeh et al. 2022). In Uganda, 39% of households indicated that they had piped water with a majority (70%) acknowledging washing their hands an average of 2–6 times a day (Sempewo et al. 2021). Water availability also affected lockdown measures such as physical and social distancing as some people had to move long distances in search of water (Gondo & Kolawole 2022). In Zimbabwe's communal areas, like in many countries, people stood in long queues for long periods at communal taps and bush pumps in search of water, which resulted in the flouting of physical distancing measures put in place (Pedersen & Favero 2020; Gondo & Kolawole 2022). Given the long distances people had to travel to get water, there was a need to conserve such water, adversely affecting water allocations for hand washing. In addition to water shortage, there was another challenge of access to sanitisers and soap needed for hand washing owing to poverty (Wilkinson et al. 2020).

Some countries enacted free water policies to limit the effects of water shortages during the pandemic. Chile suspended tariffs for water-insecure households (Gondo & Kolawole 2022). Other countries even covered water bills for vulnerable communities during COVID-19 (Durodola et al. 2020). In Ghana, water provision was meant to be free in the early days of the pandemic (Gbedemah et al. 2022). This was to enable water-insecure households to practice appropriate hygiene and sanitation during the pandemic. During COVID-19, households in India increased the use of motor pumps, leading to high electricity consumption and high bills, which discouraged water use (Bera et al. 2022). In other areas, intermittent water supply was a challenge due to a lack of access to portable piped water, as delivery was done through the use of tankers and trucks. In Ghana and Kenya, water had to be provided by tanker operators, which were unreliable (Schramm et al. 2023). The challenge of water service availability due to the usage of tankers is not unique to these countries, as South Africa faces similar challenges. Such challenges impacted how communities could access water and affected the water and sanitation protocols that addressed the COVID-19 pandemic challenges.

Given the centrality of water to addressing water and sanitation in fighting several diseases, it is critical to examine the water and sanitation situation in South Africa at the height of the pandemic. Such a study is critical for informing future outbreaks of such diseases. Knowing the challenges and some of the opportunities that WASH presented is critical from a planning perspective. There is a need for the country to build resilience for future outbreaks, and such cannot be done in the absence of studies like this one. To that effect, this study seeks to examine water provision in two selected rural municipalities in Molemole and rural parts of Polokwane in Limpopo. Among others, the study explores water sources for these disadvantaged communities. The studies also look at the affordability of water during the pandemic.

Molemole and Polokwane municipalities in the Capricorn District of Limpopo have a predominantly rural population, though they can be classified as peri-urban communities. A census survey approach was employed to collect data. However, although most respondents (98.6%) were from the Capricorn District of Limpopo, few questionnaires were administered in either Waterberg District or Mopani District. Capricorn District Municipality faces water and sanitation challenges due to aging infrastructure, theft, and unsafe water (Mabotha & Chauke 2023). The area has subsistence, commercial, mining, and nature-based tourism.

Data was collected between the end of 2022 and the first half of 2023 through closed, open-ended, and closed questionnaires. Questionnaires collected data on households' perceptions of water sources, access, adequacy, reliability, cost, and safety during COVID-19. To accomplish the study's objectives, 6,172 participants were invited to participate in the study, of which 5,233 responded. Out of those who responded, only 4,688 questionnaires were completed. This means that the completion rate for the survey was 89.76% in a self-administered survey that took 21 min.

The questionnaire, which was comprised of open and closed questions, was uploaded to the QuestionPro online survey tool for administration by the researchers using iPads. The closed-ended questions are those in which some control or guidance is given for the answer. The short questions require the respondent to provide a ‘yes or no’ response or check an item out of the list or given responses. The respondent's choices are limited to the set of options provided. The open-ended questions call for free responses in the respondent's words. The respondent frames and supplies the answer to the question raised in the questionnaire. It constitutes questions that allow the respondent to express his or her opinions on the spaces provided. The questionnaire was structured in a way that it covered all objectives. Section A comprised categorical questions while sections B and C had Likert scale-based questions where the respondent had options to indicate their level of agreement, e.g., strongly disagree, disagree, not sure, agree, and strongly agree, open-ended questions, and yes/no questions. A pilot test was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the designed questionnaire. The main aim was to identify any issues with question clarity or survey structure. Following the tests, the questionnaire was revised based on feedback from the pilot test to ensure it was easy to understand and complete. The revised questionnaire was distributed to the targeted population for completion.

Having obtained permission from political and traditional leadership, the researchers moved door to door, seeking additional permission to conduct research based on informed consent in line with the best ethical practice approved by the research institution. The reference number 11/5/R was allocated to the study by the Limpopo Provincial Research Ethics Committee (LPREC). Only adults were eligible to participate in this survey. A convenient sampling technique was followed, as only those found available in their homes at the time of the survey participated in the research. Participation in the survey was voluntary. In this research, only descriptive statistics were used to analyse the findings.

This is a critical component as it shows that most of the respondents were in authority and were knowledgeable of their household circumstances during the pandemic. This was confirmed by the Gbedemah et al. (2022) study in Ghana, in which household heads were targeted during COVID-19 because they were felt to be in a better position to give information on the state of water access and how the households responded to water supply challenges. In this study, the presence/availability of household heads during data collection ensured access to reliable data.

In the main, the respondents to the study were females, who constituted a majority (66.17%). Men constitute slightly more than a third (33.74%). Given that water is often seen as an issue that affects women in general, since they are the ones in most traditional setups, such as Limpopo, who ensure the availability of water and often get to decide how the water is used, the strong representation of women is central to the issue under investigation. Women and girls suffer most in the face of water shortages as they travel long distances to fetch water (Geere & Cortobius 2017).

The public/community taps were the most common source of water. They supplied 41.21% of the researched households. This was followed by private piped water. A further 6.91% depended on both private and community tap water. Some households also used sources such as boreholes and Jojo tanks. The findings in this study resonate with results reported by Stoler et al. (2021) survey in 29 sites in 23 low- and middle-income countries. The study revealed that over half of the households depended on communal or public standpipes as their primary water source. Sharing communal standpipes and toilets in informal settlements during COVID-19 was a major concern in South Africa (Hara et al. 2020).

Ekumah's et al. (2020) study on in-house access to water, sanitation, and food storage in 25 countries of sub-Saharan Africa found South Africa to be the only country with more than 50% of the households accessing all three basic needs and 5.8% lacking access. Primary sources of water used in the Yilo Krobo Municipality, Ghana, included boreholes (21.1%), pipe-borne outside dwelling units (18.9%), and public standpipes (18.3%) (Gbedemah et al. 2022). Accessing water in communal/public taps and surface water increases the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Standing in long queues for long periods at communal standpipes and bush pumps defies social distance rules and involves touching shared surfaces, leading to the spreading of infections (Matseke 2020; Pedersen & Favero 2020; Gondo & Kolawole 2022; Hayashi et al. 2022). Exposure may come during collecting or fetching and through person-to-person contact in queues (Stoler et al. 2021).

Municipal water was also a common water source during the COVID-19 pandemic among other countries. In Ghana, most households (68.5%) had access to municipal water, while only 8% were reported to have been reported using unsafe water sources (Gbedemah et al. 2022). In Kenya, 43.9% had access to piped water, 24% got their water from public water kiosks, 19.9% from boreholes, and 11.4% got their water from streams (Mwai et al. 2022). Overall, 91% of the total population in South Africa has access to safe water sources. Among the urban population, 92% depend on piped water, and 8% use other improved drinking water sources (WHO/UNICEF 2015; Oskam et al. 2021). In Uganda, most households (39%) had piped water (Sempewo et al. 2021).

Most households (96%) did not change their primary source of water during COVID-19. Only 4% changed sources. While 4% might be a very small proportion, where N = 4,543, this is equivalent to 177 households, which is a relatively big number. Of the 177 who started using a new water source, 156 attribute this change to the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-29 resulted in changes in water sources or how people access water in other communities. In India, households improved the existing piped water sources and continued using them (Bauza et al. 2021). In Zimbabwe, water tank installation was increased as a backup water source (Gondo & Kolawole 2022). In Ghana, the Ghana Water Company Limited (GWCL) engaged the services of tanker operators to serve vulnerable communities during COVID-19 (Gbedemah et al. 2022). This was part of the country's free water order for the initial few months of the pandemic.

Lack of access to potable water since the beginning of the lockdown in Chitungwiza, Zimbabwe, intensified the frequency of visits to central water points/boreholes to collect water, with many households lacking storage facilities, which matched with the increased demand (Zvobgo & Do 2020). This was also reported in some communities struggling with water access in South Africa (Mabeba 2022). This confirms Ekumah's et al. (2020) argument that many people in sub-Saharan Africa lived under difficult conditions without in-house access to sources of water during the pandemic. They were not capable of storing water for long periods. They resorted to using sources outside their houses, violating lockdown regulations like social distancing, which were vital in curbing the spread of COVID-19 (Colbourn 2020). According to Smiley et al. (2020), the Nairobi Water and Sanitation Company and the Mombasa Water Company joined a non-governmental organisation to install water tanks in informal settlements in Kenya (Olando 2020). In Ethiopia, the Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority partnered with the World Bank to rehabilitate boreholes and substitute 20 water pumps around the city (World Bank 2020a). Increasing water usage in various countries requires interventions to satisfy the needs (Sempewo et al. 2021).

The research also investigated the main reasons for using specific sources of water. The results are presented in Table 1.

As shown in Table 1 the main reasons for reliance on specific water sources were accessibility of the source and lack of alternatives. Reliability and safety were given as reasons by 14.28% of the respondents. Only 1.14% attributed their choice to the fact that it was a cheap source.

According to Aina et al. (2023), South Africa's residential water sources are mostly limited to regulated piped (municipal) water and less to unregulated groundwater sources. Findings of a similar study by Mashabela et al. (2022) in the Limpopo province revealed that most of the households in Lebowakgomo Zone F had indoor taps and reported that water was accessible and available.

In terms of the safety and adequacy of water sources, most responses were positive. Table 2 captures the responses.

Water was generally considered safe by the surveyed households, with an aggregate of 94.98% of the respondents either strongly agreeing or agreeing that the water was safe for drinking (Table 2). Very few respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed. In some countries, effort was made to supply piped water, which is considered safe. In Ghana, the majority (65.8%) of households had safe in-house pipe-borne water in urban areas during COVID-19, while only 8% used unsafe water sources (Gbedemah et al. 2022). In Harare, access to piped municipal water improved during COVID-19. However, households still reported that the piped water was unsafe to drink (Gandidzanwa & Togo 2023). In parts of Kenya, many people (57.4%) had to walk as far as two km to get clean water, while 39,9% relied on unsafe water from rivers (Kithuki et al. 2021). In rural communities in some African countries with no piped water, for example, Zimbabwe, water gets contaminated due to the poor quality of the storage containers; they promote microbial recontamination (Zvobgo & Do 2020; Stoler et al. 2021; Gbedemah et al. 2022), leading to illnesses related to viral or bacterial infections (Ostadtaghizadeh et al. 2022). Lack of safe water sources made the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 (World Bank 2020b).

Where the water supply was in short supply, there was a chance of high COVID-19 infection rates. This research also explored the adequacy of water supply during the pandemic. The results are captured in Table 2.

Water demand was expected to increase by 9–12 L per person daily due to increased hand washing during the pandemic and other associated precautionary measures meant to curb the spread of the coronavirus (Ostadtaghizadeh et al. 2022). These measures required access to clean water for the frequent washing of hands and sanitation (Durodola et al. 2020; WHO 2020; Gondo & Kolawole 2022; Ibrahim 2022; Kim et al. 2022; Ostadtaghizadeh et al. 2022). Meanwhile, according to Table 2, most respondents (73.92%) agreed that the water was adequate for household use, which increased during COVID-19. Therefore, 24.07% disagreed with the statement that the water supply was adequate during the pandemic. Generally, water usage increased in the Limpopo province (Mashabela et al. 2022). An increase in water usage due to the increased frequency of hand washing was reported in Uganda (Sempewo et al. 2021). In India, an increase in domestic water usage of up to 25% was reported. In contrast, a study in Bangladesh reported that hand washing while keeping the tap on led to a 13-fold overuse of water (Ostadtaghizadeh et al. 2022). Water shortages were reported in some contexts. For example, most households in Somanya in Ghana reported that they accessed water either with difficulty (32%) or with great difficulty (28%) (Gbedemah et al. 2022) and that water had to be rationed.

While in the researched communities, water supply was adequate for most respondents, about a quarter of the respondents still disagreed; for a country committed to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include SDG6 (ensure access to water and sanitation for all), this proportion is concerning. Water supply interventions are necessary to ensure adequacy during pandemics. Table 3 shows the water challenges faced by households.

According to Table 3, the most significant proportion of respondents (27.66%) said they did not face any challenges with their water supply. Other respondents mentioned challenges like the unreliability of their sources of water, limited water supply, the fact that access was timetabled for some sources, as well as water quality/safety issues. Those who stated otherwise also indicated that the water supply was disrupted by pumping challenges due to the pumping system breakdown. This means that even though such communities would have wanted to adhere to the protocols, at some point strictly, they could not do so due to the unavailability of water, further heightening their chances of getting infected by the pandemic. Ensuring a reliable supply of clean water to people's homes is a must to ensure the health and safety of the affected communities.

A similar study in two areas in Limpopo showed that water access varied significantly between the Mashite village and Lebowakgomo Zone F. Mashite village had serious water accessibility and availability problems, while in the Lebowakgomo Zone F community, supplied by indoor taps, water was regularly accessible and available (Mashabela et al. 2022).

Due to increased usage during the pandemic, water costs were expected to increase. The respondents were asked to indicate whether their water bills were high or not during the pandemic. Figure 6 captures their response.

Altogether, around 50% of the respondents considered the cost of water to have been high or very high during the pandemic, meanwhile, and 28.26% said there was no change in their bills. Only a few respondents said their bills were very low or low. In Hubballi–Dharwad, India, households reported higher water bills during COVID-19 (Kumpel et al. 2021). A high water cost can lead to limited access to water due to limited affordability. This was experienced in Ghana, where households faced water accessibility challenges during the early periods of COVID-19 due to an increase in the cost of water (Gbedemah et al. 2022). This resulted in various challenges, including disconnections, changing wastewater sources, buying water from unsafe sources, etc. (Smiley et al. 2020; Wilkinson et al. 2020). In Thailand, bottled water prices increased, limiting access for the poor, who then had to switch from bottled water to boiled water for drinking (Lebel et al. 2022). Other indirect water costs were experienced. An example is an increase in electricity bills in India resulting from pumping more water than usual due to increased water usage (Bera et al. 2022). Water shortages due to rising costs were exacerbated because many people had lost their jobs or could not run their businesses due to the lockdown. Disposable income was meagre, and people's buying power was hugely compromised.

Water was primarily for hygiene purposes and to stop the spread of the virus during the COVID-19 pandemic. Communal taps were the study's most-used water sources during COVID-19. Most respondents did not change their water source during the pandemic as they considered it reliable, adequate, and safe. However, some respondents reported challenges like the unreliability of their sources of water, a limited water supply, the fact that access was timetabled for some sources, and quality/safety issues. In terms of affordability, many respondents considered the cost of water to have been high during the pandemic.

This research reveals some of the communities' studied vulnerabilities, which municipalities must consider in improving water provisioning and sanitation facilities. In a water-scarce province where water supply has always been a challenge, outside of additional demands due to the coronavirus, the state of water provisioning and accessibility was not too bad. However, it is important to review the price of water during pandemics, considering communities' varying socio-economic backgrounds. It is also necessary to improve provisioning, especially if the country is to advance in meeting SDG6. The study recommends the development of new and innovative sources for smarter allocations, reuse, and recycling to enhance access and deal with affordability challenges. Water access and quality during pandemics can also be improved by fostering good hygiene habits through education, implementing rainwater harvesting systems, and encouraging home water treatments.

The views, opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this paper are strictly those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of UNISA.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.