Introduction

Globally, over 2 billion people live in countries battling high levels of water stress, and 22 countries are already experiencing severe water stress (Uhlenbrook and Connor 2019). It is estimated that 4 billion people currently suffer from severe water stress for at least one month a year. As water demand continues to increase, it is predicted that by 2030, nearly half of the world’s population will live in regions with significant water stress, leading to displacement (Uhlenbrook and Connor 2019).

Consequently, ensuring an adequate water supply is one of the most pressing global concerns since water scarcity has become an international issue that is getting more important, particularly in regions with limited water resources. Furthermore, given the long-term trends of declining water availability and rising water demand, the situation will likely worsen (Boretti and Rosa 2019). To manage the rising water demand, it is vital to look at specific measures to conserve water resources (Fielding et al. 2012; Aprile and Fiorillo 2017). One strategy for addressing water shortage is household water conservation methods, which commonly involve behaviours to reduce water use (Addo et al. 2018). Water conservation has become crucial and essential since fresh, clean water is now considered a limited resource. Even though there have been various studies investigating household water conservation and consumption (Shaw and Maidment 1988; Fielding et al. 2012; Shan et al. 2015; Murwirapachena 2021; Meyer et al. 2021), there is currently no consensus in the literature regarding the most effective ways to manage household water demand (Matikinca et al. 2020). Accordingly, this study aims to investigate how rural households in the Mbhashe and Mnquma local municipalities conserve their water, assess the effectiveness of their approaches, and identify potential strategies to support community water security efforts.

Exploring household water conservation methods in rural South Africa is essential to sustainable water management in the region. Many rural communities in South Africa face significant challenges related to access to clean water and water scarcity. Additionally, most rural people in South Africa (more than 50% of the population) have unequal access to water and sanitation (Meyer 2021). Moreover, infrastructure deterioration, maintenance, repair and upgrade have posed significant obstacles to assuring the availability of safe water in South Africa (Bazaanah and Mothapo 2023). At the local level, ageing infrastructure and excessive demand, intensified by poor operations, pollution, and a lacklustre maintenance culture, make a strong case for improvement in the nation’s water situation (Asoba et al. 2020). Thus, municipal-level expansion of water sources, improved water distribution, and adoption of water conservation practices are essential for rural settlements (Rosegrant 2020).

Climate change and variability have led to the emergence of prolonged drought events, which are a recurring phenomenon in various parts of South Africa, notably the Eastern Cape province. This persistent drought has significantly depleted dam levels and reduced the yield from several boreholes in affected areas (Mahlalela et al. 2020; Amathole District Municipality 2020). Consequently, the Eastern Cape Province was declared a drought disaster region in October 2019 (Mahlalela et al. 2020), with the Amathole District being identified as particularly high-risk due to the 2016–2017 drought (Hove and Osunkunle 2020). Despite efforts by the Amathole District Municipality (ADM) to mitigate water shortages through initiatives like installing plastic water tankers, drilling boreholes, and transporting water closer to communities (Amathole District Municipality 2020), rural areas continue to face water scarcity, leaving residents vulnerable and desperate. There is an urgent need to implement effective water conservation methods to alleviate challenges and promote sustainable water use practices in drought-affected rural regions. Employing a mixed-methods approach, this study examines household water conservation strategies through surveys, highlighting the importance of understanding the intricate factors influencing water use and conservation behaviour. Furthermore, the study investigates the diverse water-related challenges rural communities encounter, identifies innovative solutions to address these challenges, and emphasises the role of government and stakeholders in supporting these endeavours. The research hypothesises that household-level water conservation strategies in the rural areas of Mbhashe and Mnquma local municipalities are significantly influenced by socioeconomic factors, infrastructure availability and the perceived effectiveness of conservation measures.

Materials and methods

Here, the study explores rural household water conservation methods and their effectiveness in providing a comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced by rural communities in managing their water resources. A mixed-methods approach was utilised using quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods. Questionnaire interviews were applied as the primary research method, and the study’s statistical population 404 consisted of villagers from two local municipalities (Mbhashe and Mnquma) located in the Amathole district of the Eastern Cape province. The research questionnaire comprised both open-ended and close-ended questions, and responses from both types of questions were coded and grouped into themes for thematic analysis and descriptive statistics using IBM SPSS software. The research questionnaire comprised several questions addressing changes in climate, drought occurrence, water availability, and perception of existing water supply sustainability strategies. Interviewees were also asked about the measures they have taken to save and conserve water in their households, which is the focus of this paper. The questions on measures adopted to save water resulted in various responses, which were then categorised into different themes. Frequency tables and bar charts display a graph’s relative frequencies and themes. Furthermore, narrative analysis was also used to interpret and present information obtained from dialogues and field observations through text.

Sampling

Two-stage sampling techniques were employed to select the sample respondents. The first stage used purposive sampling to select sample villages. In the second stage, sample respondents were chosen using a systematic random sampling technique from each selected village based on probability proportional to size through using Yamane’s (1967) formula of sample determination:

$$\mathbf{n}=\frac{\varvec{N}}{1+\varvec{N}{\left(\varvec{e}\right)}^{2}}$$

Where n is the sample size for the study, N is the total households of the study area, e is the maximum variability or margin of error, which is 0.05 in this study, and one is the probability of the event occurring. Therefore, the sample size for the study was determined based on the number of people living in the 80 drought-affected villages in both Mnquma and Mbhashe areas according to the Amathole District Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2020/21). That is:

Total number of people affected → 13,670 + 7271 + 5246 + 1612 + 500 = 28,299 people

$$\mathbf{n}=\frac{28,299}{1+28,299{(0.05)}^{2}}$$
$$=\hspace{0.17em}399.985\hspace{0.17em}\sim\hspace{0.17em}400 \text{p}\text{e}\text{o}\text{p}\text{l}\text{e}$$

Thus, to obtain a 95% confidence level with a 5% margin of error, the minimum acceptable number of people surveyed from the drought-affected villages was 400. The survey respondents (n = 404) were obtained from 28 different villages located in the wards that were pinpointed in the Amathole district municipality’s Integrated Development Plan as experiencing water shortages related to drought within the two local municipalities (Fig. 1). The survey was carried out by ten field assistants who asked questions based on the research questionnaire and recorded the responses in August 2022. This allowed for discussion with the respondents and obtaining as much information as possible. The study obtained informed consent from all participants before data collection and maintained the confidentiality and anonymity of participants throughout. The research adhered to the ethical principles of research involving human participants, and ethical clearance was granted by the University of Fort Hare’s Research Ethics Committee (UREC).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Map of Mnquma and Mbhashe areas showing the selected wards and villages; Source: Author’s construct

Full size image

The Amathole district municipality serves as both the Water Service Authority and Water Service Provider for the local municipalities of Mbhashe and Mnquma. Our study focused on the local municipalities within the Amathole district due to its designation as a high-risk area following recurring droughts since 2016 (Hove and Osunkunle 2020), leading to significant water shortages. Positioned in the southeastern part of the Eastern Cape Province, both Mnquma and Mbhashe are category B municipalities. Mnquma, covering around 3270km2, comprises 31 wards, while Mbhashe spans about 3200km2 and includes 32 wards (Amathole District Municipality 2020). Rainfall in Mnquma varies from 600 to 800 mm annually in the northwest and west, increasing to 800–1000 mm annually in the central, southern, southeastern, and coastal regions. Most rainfall in Mnquma (70%) occurs between October and March. Mbhashe generally experiences higher average rainfall, exceeding 1000 mm annually in its coastal and mountainous zones (Mbhashe Local Municipality 2017). Mnquma and Mbhashe local municipalities are situated in the Eastern Cape province and are among the areas with the highest poverty, illiteracy, and unemployment (Amathole District Municipality 2020).

Results and discussion

Descriptive analysis of respondents

The study focused on water conservation measures adopted by residents of the Mnquma and Mbhashe local municipalities. Respondents’ demographics are presented in Table 1. Among the respondents, the majority (59.4%) were female; of these, 88.4% received some education, whilst 11.4% had never been to school. Additionally, the majority (68.8%) of the respondents had household size (i.e……., number of people staying in the same household) ranging between 1 and 5 people. Even though age is said to be a persistent determinant of household water conservation (Murwirapachena 2021), there was no significant correlation between age and water conservation practice among participants in this study. Participants were asked to state the activities that used water the most in their households (Table 2), and the results show that most of the water consumption in households is for domestic purposes, i.e., 401 out of 404 participants listed “Household use” as the activity that uses water the most followed by laundry. Although there were variations in water usage, a clear trend showed that water use increases with household size. This was further supported by the strong statistically significant (P < 0.001) association between the two variables based on the Pearson Chi-Square test, suggesting that household size influences water consumption.

Table 1 Descriptive analysis of respondents
Full size table

Participants were asked to list the activities that used the most water per day in their households compared to the other day-to-day activities. Most participants identified domestic activities such as cooking, cleaning, laundry, bathing and drinking as the ones that consumed the most water in their households. Household chores were consistently mentioned as the primary water-consuming activities, with variations noted depending on household water use habits. Additionally, some participants listed other activities like gardening, construction, livestock care, and ceremonial events as significant water consumers in their households. For example, 191 participants cited laundry as consuming the most water, attributing this to large family sizes and young children’s frequent soiling of clothes. Overall, participants’ responses reflected a range of daily activities with varying water usage patterns across households.

Table 2 Activities that use water the most in households
Full size table

The study found that rural households face significant challenges in accessing safe and reliable water sources (Fig. 2). As a result, they employ various water conservation methods and behaviours to manage their limited water resources. Despite having the Free Basic Water policy that guarantees all citizens a certain amount of water regardless of their ability to pay for it, a majority of the rural communities in South Africa lack access to piped water and improved water sources (Bazaanah and Mothapo 2023), case in point; most of the villages in Mbhashe and Mnquma areas. Consequently, to obtain water in most rural communities, people still trek three to four kilometres (or roughly 50 min or more) to rivers and streams (Hemson 2016); this is also the case in most of the villages in Mbhashe and Mnquma local municipalities. According to Bazaanah and Mothapo (2023), the disparity in access to clean drinking water between urban and rural areas, often called “urban bias,” contributes to the lack of piped water infrastructure in rural regions. This phenomenon exacerbates the challenges faced by rural communities in accessing safe and reliable water sources. Although the Free Basic Water Access policy states that each household is entitled to 6000 L of water per month, the majority of families in the villages of Mbhashe and Mnquma must rely on rivers, streams, and springs for their water supply (Fig. 2). Community members rely on the same water sources that domestic animals like cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and dogs also use for their drinking water thereby increasing the risk of water-borne diseases such as cholera. This is because there is a lack of and poor maintenance of the water infrastructure in rural areas and the use of alternatives. The municipality must support unimproved water sources such as streams, rivers or springs, which are frequently highly contaminated. Additionally, the absence of safe and reliable water in rural areas is not uncommon in much of the developing world, and this can be attributed to the unavailability of household water connections, especially in lower-income households (Rosegrant 2020).

Figure 2 illustrates the primary water sources utilised by communities in the Mbhashe and Mnquma local municipalities. The categories of water sources are defined as follows: “river/stream water” denotes surface water in motion; “spring” refers to naturally occurring water from underground aquifers; “dam” encompasses walled dams, lakes, and ponds; “community tank” includes large plastic tanks serving communities and steel or concrete reservoirs; “community tap” and “household tap” represent standalone taps installed at communal points and within household yards, respectively. “Household tank” denotes plastic “Jojo” tanks of various sizes used for water storage and rainwater collection at homes. The category “buy water” encompasses purchasing water from retail supermarkets or fellow residents who sell water or offer water-fetching services using trucks in the villages.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Participants’ primary source of water; Source: Field survey data,2022

Full size image

Participants who rely on streams and rivers for water reported that it had to be boiled before consumption as it was contaminated by animals and people who dump waste, such as used baby diapers, in rivers/streams. Those who rely on dams and natural springs for water also complained about water contamination from soap and detergents, as some people do laundry at the dams and springs. Community taps and tanks were said to be far from households, so many villagers had to travel long distances to fetch water. Moreover, some respondents reported that the plastic household tanks were prone to pollution, contaminating the water with moulds and dust. Additionally, villagers reported that the community taps were subject to vandalism and theft, leaving them with broken and unequipped taps. Those with household taps (in the yard) reported that they sometimes had to boil the water as it came out dirty and had to find alternative water sources when they experienced water cuts. Other respondents reported having to buy water from retailers as they needed an alternative clean and safe water source. These respondents mentioned that having to buy water was putting a strain on their already constrained finances, affecting their daily lives.

When asked to rate the water quality they received from their different primary water sources, most respondents, 55.2%, rated the water as either poor or very poor. In comparison, 38.4% rated the water either good or very good, with 6.4% rating the water neither good nor bad (Fig. 3). The Pearson Chi-Square test at 95% confidence level was performed to establish the relationship between participants’ primary water sources and water quality rating. The test returned a value of 0.000, indicating that the type of water source was directly related to the rating of water quality given by the respondents. As shown in Fig. 3 below, most of the participants who rated their water quality as either very poor or poor relied on surface water such as rivers, streams, springs and dams for their water. Conversely, most participants who relied on piped and tank water, such as community taps/tanks and household taps/tanks, rated their water as good or very good. Participants who rated the water quality as poor or very poor also reported experiencing health problems due to using unclean water. Residents mentioned that adults and children were suffering from waterborne diseases such as typhoid and diarrhoea as they could not afford to purify the river and stream water before use. Other residents reported having skin rashes, especially the children, because of bathing with unclean and untreated water. Even though boiling the water was reported as a way of purifying it, other participants pointed out that it was impossible to cook it regularly as it required more time and resources.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Relationship between participants’ primary water source and water quality; Source: Field survey data, 2022

Full size image

Narrative analysis of water conservation measures based on participants’ responses

Water conservation is essential to guarantee a sustainable water supply at the household level, as households are considered among the most significant consumers of water resources. Generally, rural households’ most common water conservation methods include rainwater harvesting, water storage, reuse, and using water-efficient appliances. Water storage was the most common method, followed by rainwater harvesting in this study. Participants were asked to state the water-saving measures they adopted in their households, which were categorised into themes (Table 3). Among the participants, 18.6% indicated that they did not have any water-saving measures, whilst 81.6% practised at least one water conservation measure. Of those with water conservation measures, only 9.7% practised more than one water conservation measure. When asked why they do not have water conservation measures, participants responded that it was tough to save as the water is scarce or that it was not possible to save as they use water according to need. Moreover, others mentioned that they do not save because they rely on water from streams and springs, so they see no reason for conservation measures since the water is “freely available”.

Water storage

18.3% of villagers in the sampled villages have resorted to water storage to cope with water shortages. Water collected from rivers, taps, dams and springs is stored in plastic tanks, buckets and drums for daily use as there is no consistent water supply. The amount of water stored differs from one household to the other depending on the availability of storage containers and the number of people residing there. Other households had a few 20-litre buckets as storage containers; others had giant plastic (Jojo) tanks of varying sizes. Residents reported keeping the buckets and tanks closed to avoid contamination and breeding of mosquitoes. Usage of the stored water was strictly monitored in most households, with others going as far as locking their tanks to ensure that water was not being wasted. However, no special preservation measures were mentioned for the stored water except keeping the containers clean and well closed. Nevertheless, it is essential to note that some respondents did not consider storing water as a conservation measure; storing water in their households was just a way to ensure they had water to meet their needs. According to research by Njoku et al. (2022), rural dwellers had to ensure that their water tanks were always filled with water from the community tap as they had an unreliable water supply. This made the families extremely conscientious about storing enough water if the community taps stopped running (Njoku et al. 2022).

Rooftop rainwater harvesting

Rooftop rainwater harvesting involves collecting and storing rainwater and has become a standard measure to supplement water supply worldwide (Yannopoulos et al. 2019; Lebek and Krueger 2023). However, only 13.9% of the survey participants practised rainwater harvesting as a water conservation measure (Table 3). Those who practised rainwater harvesting connected their plastic water tanks to the rooftop gutters using pipes so that the rainwater would be collected in the tanks rather than flowing down drains. Others without rooftop gutters and plastic tanks use metal drums, buckets and dishes to collect water falling from the rooftops. The cleanliness of the water is measured by how clear it is in some households, whilst others add lime to the water to purify it. Other respondents mentioned disposing of the first water when collecting, while others collected it and used it for laundry and bathing. Even though rainwater was said to be a better alternative water source, participants reported that it needed to be more reliable and adequate to meet household demand due to the lack of rainfall caused by the persistent droughts in the district. Participants also mentioned the need for more equipment, such as containers/tanks to collect the rainwater, the absence of gutters on rooftops, and persistent droughts as limiting factors to the practice of rainwater harvesting within the Mbhashe and Mnquma. Similar findings were reported by Njoku et al. (2022) in a study which demonstrated that rainwater harvesting is the most effective conservation strategy and the most expensive to implement and maintain for rural households. Therefore, it is essential to regard rainwater harvesting as a vital alternative to water supply in rural areas.

Greywater reuse

Greywater was said to be purified using lime for reuse in some households. Participants mentioned reusing bath water for laundry, laundry water for cleaning, livestock drinking and gardening (watering garden crops). This is consistent with research done by Njoku et al. (2022), which discovered that most rural households either store or reuse the water used for washing clothes. This is because rural communities need easy access to water for domestic use, so they must reuse water for different purposes. According to Rosegrant (2020), household-level treatment becomes extremely important when municipal and community water treatment is inadequate. However, due to a need for more awareness and trust regarding human health risks, the utilisation of wastewater can encounter strong public resistance (Rosegrant 2020).

Limiting water usage and avoiding wastage

Respondents save the little water they have by limiting the amount of water used when doing household chores such as cooking, cleaning and laundry. A study by Graymore and Wallis (2010) in rural Southwest Victoria, Australia, indicated that limiting water use and other water-saving behaviours decreased water wastage. Additionally, a study by Njoku et al. (2022) on attitudes toward domestic water use in rural and urban households in South Africa discovered that activities like bathing, washing, and cooking, among other activities, are carried out with full awareness due to low access to water in rural areas. Some households have gone as far as assigning each person a given amount of water to use per day, and if one runs out, they will have to look for an alternative source to collect water. Adults have also resorted to monitoring water use in the house to avoid waste and locking the household water tanks to prevent children from wasting water.

Lifestyle changes

Adjusting and changing their daily activities is also one of the ways that villagers use to conserve water. Such behaviours have significantly contributed to limiting water consumption in drought-affected areas like the Mbhashe and Mnquma municipalities. Some participants mentioned that they separate clothes for special occasions from daily garments to limit the number of times they do laundry. In contrast, others cook once every two days and avoid cooking food that requires much water. Others mentioned that they skip bathing, use less water when bathing or bathe only when there is water to save water. Some of the gardening participants stated that they only plant during the rainy season, while others mentioned that they have entirely stopped gardening as it requires a consistent water supply. Reporting and fixing water leaks are also mentioned to conserve water. Only 4.7% of the participants adjusted their lifestyles to conserve water, and this contradicts the argument by Murwirapachena (2021) that South African households generally engage in water-efficient behaviour in their daily activities.

Using water from different sources

Using water from different sources is also how villagers save water. For example, in some households, river/stream water is used to water garden crops, bath and wash clothes, whilst tap water is used only for cooking and drinking. This way, households ensure that they have safe water for drinking and cooking.

Table 3 below presents the water conservation measures adopted by respondents per household. Except for the 32 households represented by the frequency of “Multiple measures” that practised more than one conservation measure in their houses, all the other households practised only one conservation measure that was convenient to them. Thus, a frequency of 48 for “Reuse” indicates that 48 (11.9%) households practised reuse only as a conservation measure without practising any other measure.

Table 3 Water conservation measures adopted by respondents
Full size table

The relationship between the gender of the respondents and the adoption of conservation measures was examined using the Pearson Chi-Square Test at 95% confidence level (Fig. 4), and a value of 0.317 indicated no significant correlation between the two. Adopting conservation measures among the survey participants was not significantly related to their gender. On the contrary, Murwirapachena (2021) claims that because women in South Africa spend more time using water resources as they typically manage the household, one would expect to see apparent differences between male and female water conservation practices in households. However, although there was no significant association between gender and the adoption of conservation measures in this study, there are apparent differences in frequency between males and females in Fig. 4, with females having higher numbers than males on most household conservation measures.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Adoption of water conservation methods by gender; Source: Field survey data, 2022

Full size image

Additionally, a Pearson Chi-Square (at 95% confidence level) test value of 0.41 showed that there was no significant correlation between participants’ level of education and the adoption of water conservation measures (Fig. 5). This means that the choice to practice water conservation was not directly related to a person’s level of education. Similar results were reported by Murwirapachena (2021), who found that education was a less critical determinant for water consumption and conservation in Johannesburg, South Africa. However, the absence of a significant association between the two variables does not nullify the need for water conservation education in communities, as the current study found that even those with formal education opted not to conserve water. Although one might assume that education level would be a good proxy for knowledge of water resource issues given that it has been demonstrated that awareness of water issues is influenced by education (Udayakumara et al. 2010), we discovered that education level was not a statistically significant factor in the practice of water conservation for this study. However, according to Adams et al. (2013), awareness is a requirement for action. Hence, there is a need to raise awareness in communities, which will, in turn, prompt people to take action for water conservation.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Correlation between participants’ level of education and the adoption of water conservation measures; Source: Field survey data, 2022

Full size image

Conclusion

Local municipalities like Mbhashe and Mnquma in South Africa have faced severe water scarcity. Households in these areas struggle with unreliable and contaminated water sources, leading them to adopt water conservation measures. Through a mixed methods approach, this study examines the effectiveness of these measures among rural households in drought-affected regions. It explores associated challenges and potential interventions to ensure clean and reliable water access. Several key findings of the research are:

  • Poor infrastructure, poverty and unpredictable rainfall force residents to utilise the most practical and affordable water conservation techniques such as water storage, greywater reuse and lifestyle changes. The study found that water storage is rural households’ most prevalent water conservation method. Storing water for daily use is widespread in areas with unreliable water supply. While most participants practised at least one water conservation measure, only a tiny percentage adopted more than one method. This suggests that households may not be fully maximising available conservation strategies. Despite its potential benefits, rooftop rainwater harvesting had a relatively low adoption rate. Challenges such as lack of required equipment, persistent droughts, and high implementation costs were cited as limiting factors. Additionally, some households practised greywater reuse, demonstrating resourcefulness in maximising available water resources. However, there were concerns regarding health risks associated with untreated wastewater reuse as villagers did not have the means to purify the water. Participants employed various strategies to limit water usage and avoid wastage, such as monitoring individual water consumption, assigning daily water quotas and fixing leaks promptly, indicating a conscious effort to optimise household water usage. Furthermore, villagers demonstrated adaptability by adjusting daily activities to conserve water, such as reducing laundry frequency, changing cooking habits and skipping baths when necessary. However, the percentage of participants making lifestyle adjustments was relatively low, contrary to expectations based on previous research. Many households practised using water from different sources to ensure safe drinking and cooking water while utilising alternative sources for non-potable uses. This highlights a pragmatic approach to water management.

  • Participants rely on natural water sources. However, these sources have significant contamination levels. This contamination stems from various sources, including animal and human waste and detergent runoff from laundry activities. Such contamination poses health risks to households that depend on these water sources for drinking and other domestic purposes.

  • Accessibility to clean water was a significant challenge for many rural households. Community taps and tanks are often located far from households, requiring villagers to travel long distances to fetch water. Additionally, vandalism and infrastructure theft further exacerbate the accessibility issues. Furthermore, most respondents rated the quality of their water from natural sources as poor or very poor. In contrast, those relying on piped or tank water rated their water as good or very good. This perception of water quality directly correlates with the type of water source households utilise. Using contaminated water from natural sources led to various health problems among residents, including waterborne diseases such as typhoid and diarrhoea. Children were said to be particularly vulnerable, experiencing skin rashes due to bathing with untreated water. Despite boiling being recognised as a water purification method, its practicality was limited due to the time and resources required, indicating further challenges in ensuring water safety. Some households resorted to purchasing water from retailers due to the lack of access to clean and safe water sources. This additional expense placed strain on already constrained finances.

The availability of water sources had a notable influence on the adoption of water conservation measures, as those who relied on surface water mentioned that they did not conserve water since they did not pay to access it. Overall, the study finds that while rural households exhibit a range of water conservation behaviours, there are notable challenges and limitations in adopting specific measures such as rainwater harvesting. Efforts to promote water conservation should address these challenges and encourage multifaceted approaches to maximise water-saving potential. Additionally, raising awareness about the importance of water conservation and addressing health concerns associated with specific practices, like greywater reuse, may help increase adoption rates. The findings also highlight critical issues related to water quality, accessibility and the associated health and economic impacts on rural households. Addressing these challenges requires comprehensive interventions to improve water infrastructure, enhance water quality monitoring and treatment measures, and provide education on water hygiene and sanitation practices to mitigate health risks. Moreover, ensuring equitable access to clean water sources is essential to alleviate the burden on vulnerable households and promote sustainable development in rural communities.