Why rainwater is harvested in different ways and what this means for household water insecurity – findings from a mixed-methods study in rural South Africa

<p>Worldwide, rainwater harvesting (RWH) is gaining importance as alternative water source for water insecure households that face drought and water scarcity. RWH is especially useful in the widely dispersed settlements of rural South Africa, where water infrastructure and services are only partially developed and often dysfunctional and unreliable. Surprisingly, according to previous studies and data from the South African General Household Survey, only 1 to 3 % of South African households practice rainwater harvesting; however, these studies and surveys have only considered conventional RWH systems, i.e. industrially manufactured gutters and large 4 to 6kl-tanks. In our case study in rural Kwazulu-Natal, over 90% of households practiced RWH, yet only 25% harvested rainwater in a conventional way. The majority of households collected rainwater in what we call a &#8220;makeshift mode&#8221;, using short, homemade gutters made from metal sheets, hollow tree trunks or plastic bottles that route the water into 210 l-drums, tubs or bowls. We aimed to investigate the reasons for the differences in the RWH mode (conventional or makeshift) and explore what the different modes of RWH mean for some aspects of household water insecurity. Our analysis is based on ethnographic field work in rural uMvoti, including field observations, interviews, participant observation, and a household survey with 67 households. Field observations suggested that income, water access and type of housing all contribute in interrelated ways to the mode of RWH that rural households could practice. We triangulated these hypothesised relations statistically. Moreover, our statistical analysis yielded new hypotheses for further ethnographic field work and allowed us to quantify the strengths of the effects: the share of round huts has a much greater effect on RWH mode than household income. For upscaling RWH in rural areas, therefore, the specific water needs and housing types of households need to be considered. While some households may benefit from new drums and gutters that are tailored to their round huts, other households may need to transition to conventional RWH with large tanks, which requires at least one building with straight roofs. Certainly, makeshift RWH is less efficient than conventional RWH systems in terms of volume, but can be advantageous in terms of water quality and affordability. Presumably, makeshift RWH is prevalent in other parts of rural South Africa and should be considered in future RWH research. With regards to the methodological stance of our study, we propose the iteration of ethnographic field work and statistical modelling as a useful research process for learning about particular places.</p>