Water & Sanitation Customer Perception and Satisfaction Survey Report

Transcription

1 Water & Sanitation Customer Perception and Satisfaction Survey Report

2

3 FOREWORD Developmentnomics (Pty) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Devnomics ), has completed the survey of customer perception and satisfaction levels on services provided by the City of Cape Town s Water and Sanitation Department (hereinafter referred to as the Department ). The survey was conducted through a project described as the water and sanitation customer perception and satisfaction survey project (hereinafter referred to as CPSSP ). The survey was conducted between 11 February and 22 March It covered eight districts of the City of Cape Town. This is the report of the results of the survey, which also presents recommendations emanating from the survey s results. Devnomics is thankful for the opportunity to be of service to the City of Cape Town, through its Water and Sanitation Department. The team of Ms Ntomboxolo Faku at the Department was immensely helpful in providing necessary information, guidance and support to the Devnomics team during the survey. To them, we offer our profound thanks. All credits due for the results of this survey, belong to them. DEVELOPMENTNOMICS (PTY) LTD 31 March 2013 Page 1 of 193

4 Multinational companies now run water systems for 7 percent of the world s population, and analysts say that figure could grow to 17 percent by Private water management is estimated to be a $200 billion business, and the World Bank projects it could be worth $1 trillion by The potential for profits is staggering: in May 2000 Fortune magazine predicted that water is about to become one of the world s great business opportunities, and that it promises to be to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th. - John Louma, Water Thieves, The Ecologist, March 2004 The right to water and sanitation is a human right, equal to all other human rights, which implies that it is justiciable and enforceable, - Catarina de Albuquerque, UN Independent Expert on human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation. Page 2 of 193

5 Table of Contents Table of Contents... 3 List of Figures... 9 List of Tables EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Synopsis Objectives of the study Target population Data collection techniques PROJECT BACKGROUND AND BRIEF Background Project scope Objectives of the survey Vision of the Department LITERATURE REVIEW Definition of basic water and sanitation services Water and sanitation services in South Africa Water and sanitation infrastructure in South Africa South Africa s water and sanitation policy National Water Act Municipal Structures Act ISO 9001 quality management standard South African successes and challenges Comparison of major South African cities City of Cape Town Johannesburg Durban/eThekwini Nelson Mandela Bay/Port Elizabeth Conclusion METHODOLOGY Introduction Data-collection techniques Face-to-face survey Telephonic survey Sampling Selection of customers from the database Global sample size Research instruments Questionnaires Data collection Data capturing Risk reduction and quality control Project plan Conclusion CATALOGUE OF FINDINGS - FORMAL Introduction Characteristics of respondents Age categories Gender Home language Monthly household income Level of education attained Occupation status Dwelling type Ownership of premises Page 3 of 193

6 5.2.9 Number of people in household Types of toilet Electronic medium of communication Insights into water supply and sanitation services Receipt of water and sanitation services Other sources of water Type of other sources of water Average use of water Usage of water compared to previous year Effects of tariff increases on water usage Perceptions on water and sanitation services Water conservation Knowledge of water-conservation promotions Change of behaviour Behaviours that facilitate conservation Perceptions on water and sanitation services Ratings on water quality Satisfaction with water availability Experience with water-related problems Occurrence of water-related problems Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Regularity of sewerage-related problems Experience with complaint-lodging process Contact with the City Method used to contact the City Experience with the Call Centre Response time Service quality of workmen Expectations on duration of fixing a problem Knowledge of how to contact the Department Value/billing process Average monthly payment Bill checking Satisfaction with the billing process Rating of price of water and sanitation services Ownership of a water-management device Installation of a prepaid water meter Knowledge and awareness Knowledge of contact details for queries Awareness of the City s single number Interest in receiving information Preferred method of communication Information sharing Awareness and knowledge of environmental impact Awareness of the impact of blocked sewers Awareness of by-laws Awareness of penalty charges CATALOGUE OF FINDINGS - INFORMAL Introduction Characteristics of informal respondents Age group Gender Language most spoken at home Monthly household income Level of education Occupational status Page 4 of 193

7 6.2.7 Number of people living in household Types of toilet Electronic medium of communication Insights into water supply and sanitation services Receipt of water and sanitation services Other sources of water Average use of water Usage of water compared to previous year Effects of tariff increases on water usage Perceptions of water and sanitation services Water conservation Knowledge of water-conservation promotions Change of behaviour Behaviours that facilitate conservation Perceptions of water and sanitation services Ratings of water quality Satisfaction with water availability Regularity of water-related problems Distance of closest tap from home Number of households sharing same tap Number of households sharing same toilet Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Regularity of sewerage-related problems Distance from home to the closest toilet Reporting faulty/broken toilets to the City Experience with complaint-lodging process Contact with the City Method used to contact the City Experience with the Call Centre Waiting time Service quality of workmen Expectations on duration of fixing a problem Knowledge of how to contact the Department Knowledge and awareness Knowledge of the City s customer-service contact details City s single number for all service calls Previous use of the number Interest in receiving information Preferred methods of communication Information sharing Awareness and knowledge of environmental impact Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Awareness of by-laws Awareness of the City s penalty charges CATALOGUE OF FINDINGS BUSINESS Introduction Characteristics of business respondents Nature of business Number of employees Type of toilets Annual water audit Water-conservation policy Water-management device Prepaid meter installation Insights into water supply and sanitation services Receipt of water and sanitation services Page 5 of 193

8 7.3.2 Other sources of water Types of other sources of water Monthly usage of water Usage of water compared to previous year Effects of tariff increases on water usage Perceptions of water and sanitation services Water conservation Knowledge of water conservation promotions Change of behaviour Perceptions of water and sanitation services Ratings on water quality Satisfaction with water availability Experience with water-related problems Overall satisfaction with the sanitation or sewage services Regularity of sewerage-related problems Experience with complaint-lodging process Contact with the City to report a problem Method used to contact the City Experience with the Call Centre Waiting period before fixing the problem Cost of service received Receipt of free water Knowledge and awareness Knowledge of contact details for queries Awareness of City s single number Made use of the number before Interest to receive information Preferred method of communication Information sharing Awareness and knowledge of environmental impact Awareness of impact of blocked sewers on environment Awareness of City by-laws Awareness of penalty charges CATALOGUE OF FINDINGS CUSTOMERS ON DATABASE Introduction Number of calls made Characteristics of respondents Type of respondents Location of respondents Experience with complaint-lodging process Means used to contact the City Service experience rating Waiting duration Service quality of workmen Expectations on duration of fixing a problem Satisfaction with the value/billing process Monthly payments Bill checking Perceptions of the billing process and services provision Satisfaction with the billing process Rating of price of water Rating of price of sanitation services Amount of free water received Ownership of water-management device Installation of prepaid water meter Attitude towards receiving information Page 6 of 193

9 Information sharing DISTRICT ANALYSIS - FORMAL Introduction Insights into water supply and sanitation services Average use of water Usage of water compared to previous year Effects of tariff increases on water usage Water conservation Knowledge of water-conservation promotions Change of behaviour Perceptions on water and sanitation services Satisfaction with water availability Experience with water-related problems Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Regularity of sewerage-related problems Experience with complaint-lodging process Contact with the City Method used to contact the City Response time Knowledge of how to contact the Department Value/billing process Bill checking Satisfaction with the billing process Ownership of a water-management device Installation of a prepaid water meter Knowledge and awareness Knowledge of contact details for queries Awareness of the City s single number Interest in receiving information Awareness and knowledge of environmental impact Awareness of the impact of blocked sewers Awareness of by-laws DISTRICT ANALYSIS - INFORMAL Introduction Insights into water supply and sanitation services Average use of water Usage of water compared to previous year Effects of tariff increases on water usage Water conservation Knowledge of water-conservation promotions Change of behaviour Perceptions of water and sanitation services Occurrence of water-related problems Satisfaction with water availability Occurrence of sanitation-related problem Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Experience with complaint-lodging process Contact with the City Knowledge of how to contact the City Knowledge and awareness Knowledge of the City s customer-service contact details Interest in receiving information Awareness and knowledge of environmental impact Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Awareness of by-laws DISTRICT ANALYSIS BUSINESS Page 7 of 193

10 11.1 Introduction Annual water audit Water-conservation policy Water-management device Prepaid meter installation Insights into water supply and sanitation services Usage of water compared to previous year Effects of tariff increases on water usage Water conservation Knowledge of water conservation promotions Change of behaviour Perceptions of water and sanitation services Satisfaction with water availability Occurrence of water-related problems Overall satisfaction with sanitation or sewage services Regularity of sewerage-related problems Experience with complaint-lodging process Contact with the City to report a problem Knowledge and awareness Knowledge of contact details for queries Awareness of City s single number Interest to receive information Awareness and knowledge of environmental impact Awareness of impact of blocked sewers on the environment Awareness of City by-laws COMPARATIVE ANALYIS 2010/2011 AND 2012/2013 SURVEYS Introduction Background of the surveys Comparison of findings (formal) Comparison of findings (informal) Comparison of findings (business) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Formal Informal Business Customers from the Department s database REFERENCES Page 8 of 193

11 List of Figures Figure 1: Age categories Figure 2: Language spoken at home Figure 3: Monthly household income Figure 4: Educational status Figure 5: Occupational status Figure 6: Dwelling type Figure 7: Number of people in household Figure 8: Electronic medium of communication Figure 9: Water usage compared to previous year Figure 10: Perceptions on water and sanitation services Figure 11: Behavioural changes in household activities to conserve water Figure 12: Ratings on water quality Figure 13: Overall satisfaction with water availability Figure 14: Experience with water-related problems Figure 15: Occurrence of water-related problems Figure 16: Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Figure 17: Occurrence of sewer blockage problems Figure 18: Call Centre rating Figure 19: City's response time Figure 20: Expectations on duration of problem resolution Figure 21: Monthly water and sewerage bill Figure 22: Bill-checking frequency Figure 23: Satisfaction level with billing process Figure 24: Awareness of City's by-laws Figure 25: Age group Figure 26: Language spoken at home Figure 27: Monthly household income Figure 28: Level of education Figure 29: Occupational status Figure 30: Number of people living in a household Figure 31: Type of toilet Figure 32: Electronic medium of communication Figure 33: Usage of water compared to previous year Figure 34: Perception of water and sanitation services Figure 35: Change in household activities to conserve water Figure 36: Rating of water quality Figure 37: Overall satisfaction with water availability Figure 38: Experience with water-associated problems Figure 39: Occurrence of water-related problems Figure 40: Distance to the closest tap from home Figure 41: Households sharing the same tap Figure 42: Households sharing same toilet Figure 43: Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Figure 44: Occurrence of sewerage-related problems Figure 45: Distance to the closest toilet Figure 46: Reporting faulty/broken toilets Figure 47: Call Centre rating Figure 48: Time taken to fix water and sanitation problem Figure 49: Quality of work performed by workmen Figure 50: Professionalism of workmen/team Figure 51: Time taken to fix problem Figure 52: Expected time for the problem to be fixed Figure 53: Knowledge of how to contact the Department Figure 54: Awareness of penalty charges Figure 55: Industry - describing nature of business Page 9 of 193

12 Figure 56: Number of employees Figure 57: Type of toilet in use Figure 58: Conduct of an annual water audit Figure 59: Availability of a water-conservation policy Figure 60: Possession of a water-management device Figure 61: Interest in a prepaid water meter installation Figure 62: Services received Figure 63: Access to other water sources Figure 64: Types of other sources of water Figure 65: Water usage Figure 66: Water usage compared to previous year Figure 67: Effect of tariff increases on water usage Figure 68: Perception of water and sanitation Figure 69: Water conservation promotion Figure 70: Change in business conservation of water Figure 71: Water quality ratings Figure 72: Overall satisfaction with provision of water Figure 73: Frequency of experiencing water problems Figure 74: Satisfaction with provision of sanitation services Figure 75: Occurrence of sewerage blockages Figure 76: Contact with the City Figure 77: Method used to contact the City Figure 78: Ease of finding right options Figure 79: Time taken to get hold of right person Figure 80: Being served in a professional manner Figure 81: Time taken to fix the problem Figure 82: Response time Figure 83: Cost of service received Figure 84: Amount of free water received Figure 85: Awareness of City's by-laws Figure 86: Awareness of penalty charges Figure 87: Residence/location of respondents Figure 88: Means of contact Figure 89: Service experience rating Figure 90: City's response time Figure 91: Workmen/team rating Figure 92: Expectations on problem resolution Figure 93: Estimated price for water and sanitation Figure 94: Bill checking frequency Figure 95: Perceptions of billing process and services provision Figure 96: Satisfaction level with billing process Figure 97: Water price rating Figure 98: Sanitation services price rating Figure 99: Amount of water free received Figure 100: Ownership of water-management device Figure 101: Attitude towards prepaid water Figure 102: Attitude towards receiving information Figure 103: Discussion of media articles or information Figure 104: Effect of tariff increases Figure 105: Knowledge of water conservation promotions Figure 106: Change of behaviour to conserve water Figure 107: Contacted City to report problems Figure 108: Knowledge of how to contact the City Figure 109: Ownership of a water management device Figure 110: Installation of prepaid water meter in households Figure 111: Knowledge of contact details for queries Page 10 of 193

13 Figure 112: Awareness of the City's single number Figure 113: Effects of tariff increase on water usage Figure 114: Knowledge of water conservation promotions Figure 115: Change of behaviour Figure 116: Contacted the City to report problems Figure 117: Knowledge about customer service contact details Figure 118: Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Figure 119: Availability of water conservation policy Figure 120: Ownership of water management device Figure 121: Effects of tariff increases on water consumption Figure 122: Contacted the City in the last 3 months Figure 123: Knowledge about the City's service contact details Figure 124: Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Figure 125: Awareness of City's by-laws Page 11 of 193

14 List of Tables Table 1: Global sample size Table 2: Gender Table 3: Ownership of premises Table 4: Receipt of water and sanitation services Table 5: Other sources of water Table 6: Type of water source Table 7: Water used each month Table 8: Effects of tariff increases on water usage Table 9: Knowledge of promotions Table 10: Change of behaviour Table 11: Contact with the City Table 12: Method used to contact the City Table 13: Service quality of workmen (n=116) Table 14: Knowledge of means of contact Table 15: Extent of agreement or disagreement with statements Table 16: Rating of water and sanitation services Table 17: Water-management device ownership Table 18: Installation of prepaid water meter (n=1026) Table 19: Knowledge of contact details Table 20: Awareness of the existence of the City s single number Table 21: Interest in receiving information Table 22: Rank matrix Table 23: Information sharing Table 24: Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Table 25: Awareness of penalty charges Table 26: Gender Table 27: Receipt of water and sanitation services Table 28: Other sources of water Table 29: Average use of water Table 30: Effects of tariff increases on water usage Table 31: Knowledge of water-conservation promotions Table 32: Change of behaviour Table 33: Contact with the City Table 34 : Method used to contact the City Table 35: Knowledge of contact details for queries Table 36: Knowledge of City's single number for enquiries Table 37: Previous use of contact number Table 38: Interest in receiving information Table 39: Preferred methods of communication Table 40: Information sharing Table 41: Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Table 42: Awareness of by-laws Table 43: Perception of water and sanitation Table 44: Knowledge of customer service contact details Table 45: Awareness of the City s single number for service calls Table 46: Previous usage of the single-number service call Table 47: Interest in receiving information Table 48: Preferred method of communication Table 49: Sharing of media articles and information Table 50: Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Table 51: Number of calls made to customers on database Table 52: Type of respondents Table 53: Average use of water per month Page 12 of 193

15 Table 54: Usage of water compared to previous year Table 55: Satisfaction levels with water availability Table 56: Experience with water-related problems Table 57: Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Table 58: Regularity of sewerage-related problems Table 59: Method used to contact the City Table 60: Response time Table 61: Frequency of checking bills Table 62: Satisfaction levels with the billing process Table 63: Interest in receiving information Table 64: Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Table 65: Awareness of by-laws Table 66: Average use of water Table 67: Usage of water compared to previous year Table 68: Occurrence of water-related problems Table 69: Satisfaction with water availability Table 70: Occurrence of sanitation-related problem Table 71: Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Table 72: Knowledge of how to contact the City Table 73: Interest in receiving information Table 74: Awareness of by-laws Table 75: Conduct of annual water audit Table 76: Prepared meter installation preference Table 77: Usage of water compared to previous year Table 78: Knowledge of water conservation promotions Table 79: Change of behaviour Table 80: Satisfaction with water availability Table 81: Occurrence of water-related problems Table 82: Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Table 83: Regularity of sewerage-related problems Table 84: Knowledge of City's customer service contact details Table 85: Awareness of City's single number Table 86 : Interest to receive information Table 87: Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Table 88: Awareness of City's by-laws Table 89: Background of surveys Table 90: Comparison of findings (formal) Table 91: Comparison of findings (informal) Table 92: Comparison of findings (business) Page 13 of 193

16 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Synopsis The state of water and sanitation remains a powerful indicator of the state of human development in a community. Proper access to water and sanitation offers benefits at many levels. It brings advantages for public health, livelihoods and dignity advantages that extend to entire communities. The combination of safe drinking water and hygienic sanitation facilities is a precondition for success in the fight against poverty and hunger. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), drinking water is used for domestic purposes drinking, cooking and personal hygiene. Access to drinking water means that the source is less than a kilometre away from its place of use and that it is possible to reliably obtain at least twenty (20) litres per member of a household, per day. Access to safe drinking water is considered around the proportion of people using improved drinking water sources: household connections, public standpipes, boreholes, protected dug wells, protected springs, and rainwater. Basic sanitation is improved sanitation consisting of facilities that ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact, such as: flush or pour-flush toilet/latrines to a piped sewer system, a septic tank or a pit latrine; ventilated improved pit latrines; pit latrines with slab; and composting toilets. As Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General, said: Access to sanitation is deeply connected to virtually all the Millennium Development Goals, in particular those involving the environment, education, gender equality and the reduction of child mortality and poverty". Therefore, the availability of sanitation determines every aspect of human development. With that in mind, the City of Cape Town s Department of Water and Sanitation (hereinafter referred to as the Department ) has embarked on a mission to ensure that its customers are well serviced and provided with basic water and sanitation services. As a way to monitor its progress in water and sanitation service provision, the Department has introduced mechanisms to assist in evaluating customers perceptions and satisfaction levels. Consequently, each year the Department commits itself to engage in a study to explore the extent to which it is meeting the needs and demands of its customers. 1.2 Objectives of the study The main objective of the survey was to generate feedback on customer perceptions and satisfaction about water and sanitation products, and the quality of services provided by the Department. The focus was on obtaining customer perceptions on water and sanitation service delivery from residents in informal and formal residential and business areas, and from customers who have contacted the Department and constituted a part of the complaints database. 1.3 Target population A total of 1942 respondents (1026 formal, 601 informal and 315 business), who were randomly selected from the formal and informal residential as well as business areas, participated in the survey. The project s target was 1000 households in the formal residential areas, 600 households in informal residential and 300 in business areas. For both formal and informal residents, the selection of target market was based on random selection, and was influenced by the 2011 census population proportion that comprises the sub-region within each Page 14 of 193

17 district. Respondents from the business areas were randomly selected from a wide variety of business sectors. Furthermore, a database of customers who lodged complaints provided by the Department was used to enhance the measuring of customer satisfaction levels. Respondents who participated in the project were the Department s customers in the following districts of Cape Town: South Peninsula; Tygerberg/Bellville; Khayelitsha; Heildelberg/Kuilsriver; Mitchells Plain; Kraaifontein; Central Cape Town; and Klipfontein. 1.4 Data collection techniques To efficiently conduct the research, we undertook face to-face and telephonic surveys, which are the best means to provide concrete results. Most surveys were conducted through face-to-face interviews, as it was the most convenient way to reach many people in the same manner, and to gather as much data as possible. Such interviews were conducted in the formal residential, informal residential, and business areas, while telephonic interviews were held with the complainants from the Department s database. Page 15 of 193

18 2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND BRIEF 2.1 Background The mandate of the City of Cape Town s Department of Water and Sanitation is to provide water and sanitation facilities to the residents of Cape Town. Since the advent of democracy in 1994, notable changes have taken place in the way the Department ensures that everyone has access to better water and sanitation services. Previously, the City of Cape Town conducted customer perception and satisfaction surveys and this went a long way in terms of assisting the Department to emerge with better initiatives on how to meet the needs of its diverse clientele. Customer perception is a marketing concept that encompasses a customer's impression, awareness or consciousness of a company or its services. Customers form opinions, based not only on their experiences with an organisation and its products, but also on their broader experiences and beliefs. Customer satisfaction provides a leading indicator of consumer purchase intentions and loyalty. It refers to customers reported experience with a firm, its products, and to whether its services have exceeded specified satisfaction goals. 2.2 Project scope The water and sanitation customer perception and satisfaction survey is centred on the view of assessing consumer responsiveness and opinions towards service provision by the Department. This project was launched in the following eight districts of the City of Cape Town: South Peninsula; Tygerberg/Bellville; Khayelitsha; Heidelberg/Kuilsriver; Mitchells Plain; Kraaifontein; Central Cape Town; and Klipfontein. 2.3 Objectives of the survey The main objective of this survey was to determine customers perceptions and attitudes towards water and sanitation service delivery. It is anticipated that the outcome of this survey will contribute to the development of strategies that drive innovative efforts and initiatives for the Department. The study was meant to address: the perception of services received with regard to drinking water, sewer drainage or effluent water; the evaluation of services rendered when reporting problems or enquiring about water services; awareness of environmental initiatives, including water conservation or restrictions; awareness of regulations in the sector; the effectiveness of marketing drives; issues relating to payment and billing procedures for services supplied; and demographics of the market. Page 16 of 193

19 2.4 Vision of the Department The Department s aim is to become a beacon in Africa in terms of the provision of water and sanitation. The Department intends to achieve its goal by creating a centre of excellence in water and sanitation, through: optimising resources; implementing environmentally-sustainable interventions; continuous improvement and knowledge management; good governance; and ensuring customer satisfaction and excellent relationships with stakeholders. The Department aims to provide equitable, sustainable, people-centred, affordable and reliable water services to everyone. In order to do so, the Department has created a consumer charter through which it pledges to: ensure the availability and reliability of water resources at all times; build consumer satisfaction and an enabling environment for the development of meaningful relationships with all stakeholders; develop community awareness, knowledge transfer and other skills; and establish a fair tariff that ensures that all residents have access to basic water and sanitation. For indigent households, the City has pledged to: ensure the implementation of best management practices in the provision of water services; provide litres of free water per month, as determined by the tariff policy; and provide litres of free sanitation per month, as determined by the tariff policy. Page 17 of 193

20 3 LITERATURE REVIEW This part of the report requires an analysis of various literature sources related to the study, which will assist in gaining an understanding of the research context. We will examine the general overview of what is meant by water and sanitation, and why these services play a pivotal role in peoples daily activities. Furthermore, this section provides a glimpse of South Africa s water and sanitation situation, with reference to infrastructure, policies, as well as the progress made so far in the provision of water and sanitation services. 3.1 Definition of basic water and sanitation services Reliable and efficient water and sanitation services are a crucial ingredient for economic growth. Global access to safe water, adequate sanitation, and education on proper hygiene, can reduce illness and death from disease leading to improved health, poverty reduction, and socio-economic development. Water is considered to be the most important resource for ecosystems, which sustains the lives of people, animals and plants. Sanitation refers to the provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of human urine and faeces. Basic sanitation is the proportion of people using improved sanitation facilities: public sewer connections, septic system connections, pour-flush latrines, simple pit latrines, and ventilated improved pit latrines. There is an assumption that water services are closely associated with poverty, since the absence of access to water supplies and sanitation constrains opportunities to escape poverty. 3.2 Water and sanitation services in South Africa The South African government s objective is to ensure that all South Africans have access to basic water and sanitation services. Not only did the government prioritise the roll-out of infrastructure necessary for providing water and sanitation services, but it also instituted the provision of free basic services to poor households. A basic water-supply service refers to the infrastructure necessary to supply 25 litres of potable water per person a day, from a source within 200 metres of a household, and with a minimum flow of 10 litres per minute (in the case of communal water points) or litres of potable water supplied per formal connection a month (in the case of house connections). A basic sanitation service refers to the provision of a basic sanitation facility which is easily accessible to a household, and the appropriate functioning of the facility. The notion includes the safe removal of human waste and wastewater from the premises, when it is appropriate and necessary, as well as the communication of good sanitation, hygiene and related practices. Page 18 of 193

21 3.3 Water and sanitation infrastructure in South Africa According to the 2011 census report, the combination of piped water inside the dwelling and outside the yard, is high in all provinces except the Eastern Cape and Limpopo. The highest proportion with piped water inside their dwellings or yard is found in Gauteng with 89.4%, followed closely by Free State with 89.1%, and the Western Cape with 88.4%. The households that were reported to have no access to piped water are highest in the Eastern Cape which has 22.2%, followed by KwaZulu-Natal with 14.1%, and then Limpopo with 14.0%. In Gauteng only 1.8% of households have no access to piped water, which is followed by the Free State and Northern Cape at 2.2% and 2.6% respectively. Census 2011 showed a marked improvement in household sanitation in the country, with 60.1% of households using flush toilets in 2011, up from 51.9% in The use of chemical toilets increased from 1.9% to 2.5%, and of pit latrines with ventilation from 5.7% to 8.8%. The use of unventilated pit latrines dropped from 22.8% to 19.3%, and of bucket latrines from 4.1% to 2.1%. This shows that the government has made progress in providing sanitation to citizens. 3.4 South Africa s water and sanitation policy Water, sanitation and hygiene are vital components of sustainable development and the alleviation of poverty. Across Africa, political leaders and sector specialists are generating new momentum in these important areas. Ensuring the future sustainability of water and sanitation services is critical, and must be addressed through collective efforts. In an effort to curb and address water and sanitation challenges, the South African government adopted a policy for free basic domestic services in 2001, and thereafter the Water Services Framework in The principal goal of the free basic water services policy is to provide affordable access to poor households, so that they have at least a basic level of water supply and sanitation services. Associated with this requirement, the government established the Water and Sanitation Department under the support and guidance of the municipalities. Its mandate is to ensure that South African citizens have basic water and sanitation provisions National Water Act The National Water Act of 1998 states that the nation s water resources are to be protected, used, developed, conserved, managed and controlled in ways which take into account, among other things, the following factors: meeting basic human needs; promoting equitable access to water; promoting efficient, sustainable and beneficial use of water in the public interest; and meeting the growing demand for water. Page 19 of 193

22 3.4.2 Municipal Structures Act The Act gives district municipalities the powers and functions to ensure integrated-development planning for the districts in terms of potable water supply, electricity, domestic water and sewerage disposal, as well as road networks ISO 9001 quality management standard ISO 9001 is the internationally-recognised standard for the quality management of businesses. It applies to the processes that create and control the products and services that an organisation supplies. ISO 9001 prescribes systematic control of activities to ensure that the needs and expectations of customers are met. The City has subscribed to the prescripts of this standard and as such is continually measuring its standards in accordance with the practices enshrined in the standard. This survey, commissioned by the Department, is in large part related to the aim to comply with the prescripts. 3.5 South African successes and challenges The 2011census report illustrates remarkable improvement in the delivery of water and sanitation services in South Africa. According to census 2011, 46.3% of households have tap water inside their homes (up from 32.3% in 2001), 27.1% have tap water inside their yards (down from 29.0% in 2001), 11.7% have tap water on their community stand less than 200 metres from their homes (10.7% in 2001), and only 6.2% have to walk more than 200 metres to reach tap water on their community stand (12.4% in 2001). With regard to household sanitation, there was an increase to 60.1% of households using flush toilets in 2011 (51.9% in 2001). The use of chemical toilets increased from 1.9% to 2.5%, and pit latrines with ventilation from 5.7% to 8.8%. There was a decrease in the use of unventilated pit latrines from 22.8% to 19.3%, and of bucket latrines from 4.1% to 2.1%. The report on the status of sanitation services in South Africa, 2012, Department of Water Affairs, also indicated significant improvement in the post-apartheid era. One of the major highlights is that the sanitation backlog was reduced from 52% in 1994 to 21% at the end of South Africa is heading towards achieving the Millennium Goal 7c which relates to provision of access to water and sanitation to all its citizens. Nevertheless, the quality of the infrastructure, maintenance of infrastructure, revenue collection to fund the on-going provision of the service, community liaison and participation to ensure acceptability and responsibility for the services, and effective management of the sanitation programme at all levels of government seem to be challenging factors hindering the achievement of the ultimate goal. The ongoing growth of informal settlements, particularly in urban areas, which is a result of rural-urban migration and growth of the population of foreign nationals, is also constraining service delivery. 3.6 Comparison of major South African cities A comparative analysis of the City of Cape Town, with Johannesburg, Durban and Port Elizabeth, was conducted to determine how effective the City is in accomplishing its goal of providing water and sanitation services to the residents of Cape Town. Page 20 of 193

23 3.6.1 City of Cape Town Cape Town is an urban agglomeration with a population of about 3.7 million people (Brinkhoff 2010). It is a coastal city with steep slopes in some districts. Its climate is Mediterranean, and flooding occurs in many informal settlements. Pollutant industrial activities include food processing, oil refining, chemicals, plastics and cement manufacture. There is substantial agricultural activity within the metropolitan area (RUAF 2007). A minority of the City s population lives in low-income townships, including informal settlements. Water and sanitation provisions The City s main sources of water are dammed rivers, particularly the Kleinplaas Dam on the Eerste River, and less than 10% of supply comes from groundwater (AOC 2008). According to the 2007 National Household Survey, about 91% of households had in-plot piped water, 8% had piped water from a public standpipe, and 1% no access to piped water at all. Around 91% of households had flush toilets connected to sewerage, about 2% had flush toilets connected to a septic tank, while the remaining 7% were without a toilet and made use of the bucket toilet system, or had some kind of latrine. About 6% of households had inadequate sanitation services. Sewered public toilets were provided by the Department of Water Affairs in informal settlements. The 2011 census report presented a recent synopsis of the water and sanitation status in the Western Cape province. It was reported that 84% of households have piped water connections Johannesburg Johannesburg with a population of about 3.9 million is one of very few big cities in the world which does not have its own significant natural water source nearby. According to the Water Dialogues Synthesis Report (2009), water is pumped about 80 km and 300 m uphill from the Vaal River, which itself is augmented by two major inter-basic transfer schemes from the uthukela River in northern KwaZulu- Natal and the Senqu River in the Lesotho Highlands. Rand Water, a parastatal bulk-water supply utility, treats this raw water and sells high-quality treated potable water to municipalities and other distributors, who in turn serve users. Nearly 12 million users have been served since Water in Johannesburg has been provided by Johannesburg Water (JW), a municipal-owned water company. JW provides potable water and sanitation services to areas ranging from Midrand in the north to Orange Farm in the south, Alexandra and other areas in the east to Roodepoort in the west. It supplies over three million users (around account holders) with Ml daily, using an infrastructure of 87 water reservoirs, 33 water towers, six operational regions, 11 depots, four laboratories, and km of pipelines. JW also collects wastewater through a network of km sewerage pipes, and treats 980 Ml of sewage per day in six wastewater treatment plants from which treated water is discharged into the Jukskei and Klipspruit Rivers. Water and sanitation access The 2011 census report does not have designated data for Johannesburg in terms of its progress with water and sanitation service delivery. However, the National Household Survey (2007) reported that Johannesburg had 92% of households with in-plot piped water, 7% with community piped water, and only 2% with no access to a piped-water supply. Regarding sanitation accessibility, the percentage of households with flush toilet to sewerage was 87%, flush toilet to septic tank 3%, ventilated pit latrine 2%, unimproved pit latrine 3%, dry toilet 2%, and 3% of the households had either bucket latrine, plastic bag or no access to sanitation at all. Page 21 of 193

24 3.6.3 Durban/eThekwini Durban also referred to as ethekwini is an urban agglomeration with a population of about 3.6 million people (Brinkhoff 2010). It is a coastal city with hilly topography. The widespread peri-urban districts of the municipality are semi-rural. Its climate is humid and subtropical. The city is subjected to flooding, which sometimes affects human settlements. Industrial activity is extensive and diverse. There is a significant agricultural activity within the metropolitan area, which includes low-density semi-rural districts (Smith et al. 2005). A significant proportion of the population lives in low-income townships, including informal settlements. The 2011 Census report states that Kwazulu-Natal has 63.6 % of households with piped water inside the yard, 22.4% with piped water outside the yard, and 14.1% of households with no access to piped water at all. As a stand-alone city, Durban had about 78% of households with in-plot piped water, 19% with piped water from a public standpipe, and 3% with no access to piped water at all as reported in the 2007 National Household Survey. Sanitation access According to the 2007 national census report, about 65% of city households had flush toilets connected to sewerage, around 4% flush toilets connected a septic tank, nearly 10% had urine-diverting dry toilets, 6% improved (ventilated) pit latrines, and the remaining 15% had inadequate sanitation. Durban is the only city in sub-saharan Africa with a large number of urine-diverting dry toilets mostly constructed with government subsidy in low-density semi-rural districts of the municipality. Sewerage system The densely-populated central part of the Durban cluster has an extensive sewerage system. In 2006, Durban Metro Water Services received a Best Practices Award from UN-Habitat, for a programme to educate people about the use of the sewerage system, with the aim of reducing blockages. ethekwini has implemented innovative and very interesting faecal-sludge management systems. Pit-emptying teams are contracted by the municipality. They are supplied with appropriate equipment, e.g. gloves, long-handled shovels, and with sludge-collection, infrastructure-network, locally-sited containers, which are collected regularly by the municipality. The municipality is committed to discharging each pit latrine every five years, free of charge. ethekwini Water and Sanitation unit has been able to use GIS-based tools, and has specifically developed the Call Centre and electronic workflow and document-management software to further improve service delivery Nelson Mandela Bay/Port Elizabeth Port Elizabeth is an urban cluster with a population of about 1.1 million people (Brinkhoff 2010). It is a coastal city and its climate approximates Mediterranean. Flooding is a minor issue. Industrial activity is diverse. There is no significant urban agricultural activity. The minority of the population, mostly black Africans, live in low-income townships, including informal settlements. The Water and Sanitation Department s main goal is to ensure access to basic water and sanitation services for all residents in Nelson Mandela Bay. Water supply Page 22 of 193

25 Water supply for Port Elizabeth comes from a multi-faceted system of surface water sources, including reservoirs in the catchments of the Krum, Koura and Gamtoos rivers, and via long-distance transfer from the Orange River system (Mallory et al. 2008). According to government statistics (2007), about 87% of households had indoor access to the piped water supply, about 11% had communal standpipe access, and about 2% had no access at all. Sanitation services According to the National Household Survey (2007), about 85% of households had flush toilets connected to sewerage, 3% had flush toilets connected to a septic tank, while the remaining 11% had inadequate sanitation (unventilated pit latrine, bucket latrine, or none). Generally, the Eastern Cape s water and sanitation service provision has a very low percentage of households with access to piped water. From the analysis of the four cities, it can be observed that the city of Cape Town is doing extremely well in terms of providing water and sanitation services compared to Johannesburg, Durban and Port Elizabeth. Cape Town ranks high with the second-highest percentage (91%) of households with plot-piped water systems. Durban and Port Elizabeth rank at 78% and 87% respectively. 3.7 Conclusion In terms of sanitation service delivery, the City of Cape Town was a leader, with a total of 91% of households with flush toilets and only 1% of households with inadequate sanitation services (National Household Survey 2007). Durban had 65% of households with flush toilets connected to sewerage and 15% with inadequate sanitation. Port Elizabeth had 85% of households with flush toilets and 11% with inadequate sanitation access. Johannesburg had 87% of households with flush toilets connected to sewerage, 3% with septic tanks, and 1% of households used the bucket system. Page 23 of 193

26 4 METHODOLOGY 4.1 Introduction Our approach focused on telephonic and face-to-face surveys. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with customers within the formal and informal residential areas, as well as business enterprises, to measure perceptions with regard to the City s water and sanitation services. Telephonic surveys were conducted with the customers whose details were obtained from the complaints database. We intended to evaluate their satisfaction with services after the water and/or sanitation complaint was lodged with the Department Data-collection techniques As already highlighted, we deployed face-to-face and telephonic interview techniques during the survey. Field surveyors were appointed, and training was done prior to the commencement of the data collection process. The survey was conducted in eight selected districts of Cape Town Face-to-face survey The survey team had one on-one engagement with the selected population of consumers, as requested by the Department. The City provided the project team with two sets of questionnaires; one for residential areas and the other for business entities. They were both used during research in the previous year and so for ease of comparability the questionnaires were largely used for the survey, as is notwithstanding the significant change in the modalities of administration. These questionnaires assisted in capturing clients perceptions about the City s service delivery, and measured customer satisfaction relating to the manner in which the Department dealt with the complaints it receives. The one-on-one approach to the study was appropriate, as the interviewer was physically present and could assist the respondent to fully understand the intention of the survey which helped with obtaining effective feedback. The method also ensured a good quality and quantity of collected data Telephonic survey Telephonic interviews were conducted with the complainants. The respondents were randomly selected using the telephone numbers of complainants in the database. The Department provided Devnomics with a database of complaints lodged with regards to water and/or sanitation. We considered it important to use the Department s database to reach individual complainants. 4.2 Sampling In sampling the units for participation in the survey, each of the eight districts within the City was disaggregated in line with the following criteria in order to ensure that the sample represents the population of interest: (i) Random selection (each sampling unit has the same probability of being selected as the next unit; equivalent to stratified sampling). (ii) Population size as at 2001 national census. The research was basically categorised in three segments, namely: Page 24 of 193

27 formal residential areas; informal residential areas; and business areas. Sample respondents were randomly selected in the areas in the following number: 1000 in the formal residential segment, 600 in the informal segment, and 300 in the business segment Selection of customers from the database The customers were randomly selected from the database we received from the Department. The rationale behind interviewing this group of customers was to enable us to measure customer satisfaction relating to the entire experience that customers had after lodging a complaint with the Department. The required sample size of respondents who submitted complaints to report a sanitation and/or waterrelated problem to the Department, was 600. This sample was selected randomly from a possible unique entries, forming part of the customer complaints database supplied by the City. A short questionnaire was used for this sample of respondents. It consisted of questions specifically designed to measure the level of satisfaction with the entire experience of the complaint and servicedelivery process Global sample size Table 1 (below) clearly demonstrates how the sampling process of each segment was conducted in eight districts of the City of Cape Town: Table 1: Global sample size Nos District Sample % Selected (based on town the 2001 Formal Informal Business Census) 1 South Peninsula Muizenburg 27% Fish Hoek 36% Ocean View 37% Total 100% Tygerberg/Bellville Bellville 35% Elsie's River 34% Parow 31% Total 100% Khayelitsha Khayelitsha 100% Total 100% Heidelberg/Kuilsrivier Kuilsrivier 100% The percentages are based on the 2001 South African Census count, conducted by Statistics South Africa. 2 These values were obtained after applying the sample percentages to the total district sample for formal, informal and business interviews. 3 Values in red were derived from Table 1 on pg 12 of the Terms of Reference document (Ref no 39C/2012/13). Page 25 of 193

28 Nos District Sample % Selected (based on town the 2001 Formal Informal Business Census) Total 100% Mitchell's Plein Rocklands 25% Lentergeur 25% Woodlands 25% Tafelsig 25% Total 100% Kraaifontein/Blouberg Scottsdene 27% Wallacedene 46% Bloekombos 27% Total 100% Central Cape Town Rondebosch 30% Claremont 30% Grassy Park 40% Total 100% Klipfontein Klipfontein 25% Gugulethu 25% Manenberg 25% Heideveld 25% Total 100% GRAND TOTAL Research instruments Two sets of questionnaires were received from the Department; one for residential areas and one for business entities. Some changes were effected by Devnomics to the questionnaires. For ease of administration and analysis we decided to separate the questions relating to formal residential areas from the informal residential areas thereby creating two questionnaires. We felt that the informal and formal areas might have different water and sanitation issues that the Department could want to address separately. We enhanced the questionnaires we received from the Department and developed a fourth questionnaire that was meant for customers from the Department s complaints database. During the process of the questionnaire s enhancement, we adopted some of the standard guidelines from the joint document by the World Health Organisation and the United Nations Children s Fund, about Core questions on drinking water and sanitation household surveys. We felt that by adapting some of the questions from the standardised questionnaire, we would improve the quality of information received and harmonise the survey with international monitoring programmes such as the Joint Monitoring for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP). Amended questionnaires were tested before they were used, to ensure that they were well-suited to the study. As a result of this, certain adjustments were made to the questionnaires. Page 26 of 193

29 We thereafter conducted interviews with customers from the database, as we felt we needed to gain further insights into customers satisfaction with the service delivery provided by the Department Questionnaires Four (4) sets of questionnaires were categorised as follows: Formal residence questionnaire This questionnaire was designed for the customers residing in formal residential areas. The term formal residential area refers to an officially designated area of residence. The questionnaire comprised eight sections, divided into the following different sections: quality and availability and satisfaction services; experience with the customer complaint-lodging process and service delivery; value or billing process; knowledge and awareness of the City s customer-service contact details for queries, complaints and/or suggestions; awareness and knowledge of sanitation s environmental impact; and advice to the Department of Water and Sanitation Informal residential areas questionnaire This questionnaire targeted customers who reside in informal residential areas, and comprises the following: demographic and socio-economic indicators; water supply and sanitation services; water conservation; perception and water quality, availability and satisfaction with sanitation services; experience with the customer complaint-lodging and service-delivery processes; knowledge and awareness of the City s customer-service contact details; and awareness and knowledge of sanitation s environmental impact Business questionnaire This questionnaire was designed for business entities, and covered the following themes: general information on water and sanitation services; perceptions of water quality and availability, and satisfaction with sanitation services; experience with the customer complaint-lodging and service-delivery processes; knowledge and awareness of the City s customer-service contact details; economic indicators; awareness and knowledge of sanitation s environmental impact; and advice to the Department of Water and Sanitation Complaints database questionnaire The questionnaire was designed for the customers who contacted the Department and thus were included in the complaints database. The questionnaire covered the following: experience with the customer complaint-lodging and service-delivery processes; satisfaction with the value or billing process; and advice to the Department. Page 27 of 193

30 4.4 Data collection Some 15 surveyors were enrolled to gather data for the survey. The data collection initially started on 11 th February Due to some changes, it was suspended and only resumed on 15 th February Surveyors were selected according to their experience in research work. The surveyors went through training prior to the actual fieldwork, to ensure that they were accustomed to the questionnaires, and were fore-warned of potential pitfalls. The surveyors were non-directive during the interviews and refrained from expressing opinions. They were encouraged to conduct the survey in the language the respondent felt comfortable with, whenever this was possible. 4.5 Data capturing QuestionPro, an electronic-survey platform, was used for the data-capturing process. This platform ensured consistency in the process and safeguarded the integrity of the data. Field validations were added to the programme to ensure that errors made by the data collectors were corrected before they were used for statistical analysis. The ultimate purpose of the software programme was to ensure that the data collected adhered to the following characteristics: reliability; consistency; accuracy; and timeous availability. Most questions were coded and analysed according to codes assigned to relevant options selected (e.g. yes or no, 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). This facilitated a simpler and more efficient way of analysing data and transformed further into datasets, prior to analysis. 4.6 Risk reduction and quality control To ensure a high level of quality and risk reduction, the appointed Devnomics project leader was always present in the field during the data collection, to ensure that the gathered data was relevant and reliable. Moreover, the Quality Assurance Manager guaranteed the overall high quality in data collection, data capturing, and report writing. 4.7 Project plan In order to manage the project efficiently and effectively, we developed a project plan for the survey. The plan served as the management mechanism with which the project was implemented. 4.8 Conclusion This section of the report facilitates an improved understanding of what informed the decision to conduct the survey in the manner used for this project, with regards to sampling frame, data collection and data capturing tools used in order to provide an effective and efficient result of the survey. Page 28 of 193

31 5 CATALOGUE OF FINDINGS - FORMAL 5.1 Introduction This section is a presentation and analysis of the survey s research findings with regard to the formal residential areas. In total, formal residential households were interviewed. The analysis below pertains to the findings obtained from these formal residential areas, with respect to the following: demographic and socio-economic indicators; general information on water and sanitation services provided by the Department; water-conservation methods used by consumers; perceptions on water quality and availability and satisfaction with sanitation services; experience with the customer-complaint lodging and service-delivery processes; knowledge and awareness of the City s customer-service contact details; and awareness and knowledge of the impact of sanitation on the environment. 5.2 Characteristics of respondents Respondents were asked a series of questions to profile them in terms of their demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. This profile is important as it enables the Department to gain insight into the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of its consumers Age categories Respondents were asked to indicate their age category. The findings are presented in Figure 1. Figure 1: Age categories Figure 1 shows that the age category had the highest number of respondents, at 377 (36.7%), followed by the year old category, at 247 (24.1%). The third highest number of respondents was for people aged 50-64, at 216 (21.1%). The age category had 114 respondents (11.1%), and the lowest number of respondents (72) was from the age category Gender Respondents were asked to indicate their gender. The findings are shown in Table 2 below. Page 29 of 193

32 Table 2: Gender Group Count Count (%) Male Female Total The table shows that 39.86% of the respondents were males and 60.14% were females. The distribution of respondents by gender is noteworthy, as traditionally it is believed that within the household, females have a better understanding of water and sanitation issues than males and are therefore more likely to provide greater insights on the said issues, than men. While this is only a perception, it is nonetheless noteworthy Home language Respondents were asked to indicate which language they mostly speak at home. The findings are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Language spoken at home Figure 2 shows that the language most spoken at home is IsiXhosa (38%), followed by English (32%), and Afrikaans (28%). The remaining 2% indicated that they speak mostly IsiZulu at home. These findings could be used by the Department in its communication strategy, with respect to which languages should be used in particular messages Monthly household income The findings on the monthly household incomes, are shown in Figure 3. Page 30 of 193

33 Figure 3: Monthly household income Monthly household income( n=1026) Count None R1 R500 R501 R1000 R1001 R2000 R2001 R4000 R4001 R6000 R6001 R10000 R10001 R12000 R12001 R15000 R Refused Formal Figure 3 shows that the highest percentage of respondents (19.79%) refused to divulge their monthly household incomes, followed by 17.93% who indicated that they do not receive any monthly household income, and 10.14% who indicated their monthly income to be between R4 000 R More than 3% of the respondents indicated that their monthly household income was between R1 R500, 2.92% indicated that their monthly household income was above R15 000, and the lowest percentage (2.73%) indicated that their monthly household income was R R These findings are consistent with most survey results, which suggest that respondents with high to higher household monthly income, are least likely to divulge information about their incomes Level of education attained Figure 4 shows the levels of education attained by the respondents. Page 31 of 193

34 Figure 4: Educational status Figure 4 shows that most respondents (50.10%) indicated that they had completed secondary school, followed by 23.78% who indicated that they had attained post secondary qualifications such as certificates (excluding degrees), followed by 12.67% who had completed primary school. Some 6.82% of respondents indicated that they attained a university degree, 1.85% had a post graduate degree, 1.56% a post graduate diploma and 3.22% indicated they had no formal schooling. Most respondents had attained some level of schooling. Thus, departmental communications would be most easily understood if information needs are correctly matched with the form of communication deployed to satisfy those needs Occupation status Figure 5 shows the occupational status of the respondents. Figure 5: Occupational status Page 32 of 193

35 Figure 5 shows that most (48.15%) of the respondents were employed, followed by 32.07% who were unemployed. The proportion of respondents who were studying was 10.72% and 6.04% indicated that they owned businesses. The lowest percentage (3.02%) of respondents said that they were retired. In terms of the occupation status, the above results show that most respondents interviewed were economically active, and therefore had vested interests in water and sanitation Dwelling type The findings on dwelling type are shown in the Figure 6. Figure 6: Dwelling type Figure 6 shows that most (84.31%) of the respondents indicated that their dwelling type was a house and 11.50% indicated a flat as their type of dwelling. Some 2.92% indicated semi-detached as their dwelling, 0.88% indicated cluster house, and 0.39% indicated town house/duplex flats as their dwelling. These findings could act as good indicators for the Department. Such information could be useful for monitoring and subsequently assisting with the delivery of services Ownership of premises Respondents were asked to indicate whether they rented or owned their dwelling. The findings are shown in Table 3. Table 3: Ownership of premises Group Count Count % Rent Own Total Page 33 of 193

36 Most (68.62%) respondents indicated they owned their dwelling premises and 31.38% said they rented such Number of people in household Respondents were asked to indicate the number of people living in the household. The findings are shown in Figure 7. Figure 7: Number of people in household 600 Number of people living in household (n = 1026) Formal More than 12 Almost half of the respondents (49.12%) indicated there were 4-6 people living in the household, 37.43% said there were 1-3 people, and 10.14% said there were 7-9 people. Some 2.73% said there were10-12 people living in the household, and 0.58% said there were more than 12 people living in the household. These findings could be useful to the Department during planning phases for service delivery, and/or service-delivery improvement Types of toilet Respondents were asked to indicate the type of toilets they use in their household. All the respondents (100%) indicated they had flush toilets Electronic medium of communication Respondents were asked to indicate the type of electronic medium of communication they had in their household. It is noteworthy that multiple answers are possible with this kind of question. The results are offered in Figure 8. Page 34 of 193

37 Figure 8: Electronic medium of communication Electronic medium of communication Count Radio TV with local channels only (SABC 1, 2 3, etv and community TV) Satellite TV Cellular phone Landline telephone Formal None Figure 8 shows that most 27.3% of therespondents owned a radio, followed by 27.1% who said they owned a cellular phone and 26.5% who owned a TV with local channels only (SABC 1, 2, 3, etv and community TV). 14.1% said they owned Satellite TV, and 5% owned a landline telephone. These findings show that residents use a variety of electronic forms of communication, and this presents the Department with insights into how to target residents. 5.3 Insights into water supply and sanitation services Respondents were asked a series of questions in order to gain insights into the water supply and sanitation services provided by the Department. The results are presented below Receipt of water and sanitation services Formal residents were asked whether or not they receive water and sanitation services from the Department. The findings are presented in Table 4. Table 4: Receipt of water and sanitation services Answers Count Count (%) Yes No Total Page 35 of 193

38 Table 4 shows that nearly all (99.71%) respondents received water and sanitation services from the Department, and a mere 0.29% indicated that they receive these services from a different source Other sources of water Respondents were asked to answer either yes or no to determine whether they had access to water sources, other than piped water. Table 5: Other sources of water Answers Count Count (%) Yes No Total These findings demonstrate that with regards to water sources, the vast majority of residents rely on the Department, which suggests that there is significant potential for the Department to expand its functional scope Type of other sources of water Respondents were asked to specify the sources of water they have access to, other than piped water. The findings are shown in Table 6. Table 6: Type of water source Type of water source Count Count (%) Borehole River water Rain water Total The findings show that only 1 household indicated that their other source of water was a borehole, and 2 households indicated that their other source of water was rain water. It emphasises how extensive the provision of piped water to formal residential areas already is. Page 36 of 193

39 5.3.4 Average use of water Formal residential area respondents were asked to estimate how much water (i.e. tap water) they use each month. The findings are shown in Table 7. Table 7: Water used each month Water used each month Count Count (%) No idea/don t know Less than 500 litres Between 500 and litres Between and litres Between and litres Between and litres More than litres Total Table 7 shows that most (63.45%) respondents had no idea of the amount of water they use each month. This should be a matter of concern to the Department, as this lack of knowledge on the part of the residents could impact adversely on the Department s desire to encourage residents to conserve water Usage of water compared to previous year Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were using more or less water compared to the previous year. The findings are shown in Figure 9. Figure 9: Water usage compared to previous year Figure 9 shows that the highest proportion (44%) of respondents said they used the same amount as last year, 36% said they did not know whether they were using more or less water compared to last year, 14% said they were using less water compared to the previous year, and 6% said they were using more water compared to last year. Page 37 of 193

40 The 36% who did not know whether they were using more or less water compared to the last year should be of great concern to the Department. Water-conservation initiatives could accordingly make more concerted efforts to target such consumers with more finely-focused messages Effects of tariff increases on water usage Respondents were asked whether the introduction of tariff increases had resulted in a decrease in water consumption. The findings are shown in Table 8. Table 8: Effects of tariff increases on water usage Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Table 8 shows that 50.88% said that tariff increases based on the amount of water used resulted in a decrease of water consumed, while 49.12% said the tariff increases did not lead to a decrease in the amount of water they consumed Perceptions on water and sanitation services Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements regarding water and sanitation services. Figure 10 illustrates that 46.88% (sum of 22.71% - strongly disagree and 24.17% - disagree) can be said to disagree with the statement Cape Town has enough water, so we don t have to worry about how much we use. On the other hand, 30.70% (sum of 20.27% agree and 10.43% - strongly agree) agree with the statement and 22.42% were neutral to the statement. Most (61.80%) (sum of 33.63% - agree and 28.17% strongly agree) of respondents can be said to agree with the statement the tap water in Cape Town is safe to drink. On the other hand, 17.45% (sum of 6.34% - strongly disagree and 11.11% - disagree) can be said to disagree with the statement, and 20.75% were neutral to the statement. Some % (sum of 29.14% agree and 18.62% - strongly agree) can be said to agree with the statement there are current water restrictions in Cape Town. It can be observed that 19.40% (sum of 5.56% strongly disagree and 13.84% - disagree) disagree with the statement, while a sizeable percentage of 32.85% are indifferent to the statement. Some 54.48% (sum of 33.82% - agree and 20.66% - strongly agree) can be said to agree with the statement the supply of tap water in Cape Town is reliable. It can be further observed that 30.80% of the respondents were indifferent to the statement and 14.72% (sum of 6.05% - strongly disagree and 8.67% - disagree) can be said to disagree with the statement. Some 42.40% (sum of 25.73% - agree and 16.67% - strongly agree) can be said to agree with the statement the way in which the City of Cape Town manages water and sanitation saves the environment, and 42.10% are indifferent to the statement. On the other hand, 15.50% (sum of 6.34% - strongly disagree and 9.16% - disagree) disagree with the statement. Some 44.35% (sum of 19.20% - strongly disagree and 25.15% - disagree) can be said to disagree with the statement all residents in Cape Town pay the same rates for their water and sanitation services, while 33.14% of the respondents were indifferent to the statement and 22.51% (sum of 16.47% - agree and 6.04% - strongly agree) agree with the statement. Page 38 of 193

41 The figure below also shows that 59.26% (sum of 33.14% - strongly agree and 26.12% - agree) agreed with the statement businesses that consume more water should pay higher water rates and 22.51% of respondents were neutral to the statement. Some 18.23% (sum of 5.75% - strongly disagree and 12.48% - disagree) disagree with the statement. The findings also show that 55.65% (sum of 24.07% - agree and 31.58% - strongly agree) agreed with the statement disadvantaged people should get free water and sanitation and 25.63% are indifferent to the statement. Some 18.72% (sum of 6.93% - strongly disagree and 11.79% - disagree) disagreed with the statement. Some 39.38% of the respondents were indifferent to the statement the price of water and sanitation in Cape Town is fair to everyone, while 35.68% (sum of 22.03% - agree and 13.65% - strongly agree) agreed with the statement, and 24.95% (sum of 11.50% - strongly disagree and 13.44% - disagree) disagreed with the statement. Figure 10 also shows that 47.95% (sum of 29.24% - agree and 18.71% - strongly agree) agreed with the statement the City of Cape Town manages its water supply in a responsible way, while 38.50% were indifferent and 13.54% (sum of 5.66% - strongly disagree and 7.89% - disagree) disagreed. Page 39 of 193

42 Figure 10: Perceptions on water and sanitation services Page 40 of 193

43 5.4 Water conservation Respondents were asked questions designed to gain knowledge of the consumers awareness of the City s conservation initiatives and/or programmes. The questions were also designed to disclose the impact of the initiatives Knowledge of water-conservation promotions Respondents were asked whether they have heard radio advertisements or seen advertisements or pamphlets from the City that promote water conservation. The findings are shown in Table 9. Table 9: Knowledge of promotions Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Table 9 shows that 79.43% of the respondents have heard radio advertisements or seen advertisements or pamphlets that promote water conservation. The City should do more in terms of promoting water conservation. It could adopt an integrated communication strategy by deploying a number of communication tactics such as advertising, exhibitions and workshops, word of mouth advertising, website advertising, pamphlets, billboard advertising and transit advertising (advertising in trains, buses and taxis) Change of behaviour Respondents were asked to answer either yes or no on whether their household has changed behaviour regarding water conservation in the last year. Table 10: Change of behaviour Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Most (63.65%) respondents indicated they changed their behaviour regarding water conservation in the last year and 36.65% did not. The City could intensify its water conservation awareness programmes in order to increase the level of awareness. This is particularly important on the backdrop of every drop of water counts Behaviours that facilitate conservation Respondents were asked to indicate if their behaviours concerning water conservation have changed. The findings are shown in Figure 11. Page 41 of 193

44 Figure 11: Behavioural changes in household activities to conserve water Page 42 of 193

45 Figure 11 shows that 551 of the respondents indicated that their change in behaviour with respect to water conservation entailed turning off the tap while brushing teeth/washing hands, followed by 252 respondents who indicated thawing frozen foods in the fridge or microwave instead of running water as their change in behaviour. Only 2 respondents indicated use water conserving tap fittings as their behavioural change. 5.5 Perceptions on water and sanitation services The survey s other objective was to measure customers perceptions and satisfaction with the water quality, availability, and also the quality of the sanitation services they receive. Respondents were asked a number of questions Ratings on water quality Customers were asked to rate the water quality in terms of a number of dimensions. The findings are shown in Figure 12. Figure 12: Ratings on water quality Expressed as percentages, the counts in Figure 12 show that with regard to the water-quality dimensions, 46.98% rated the taste of the water as good, while 50.98% also rated its smell as good. In terms of the colour of the water, 47.08% rated it as good and 42.30% rated the water pressure as excellent. With regards to the overall quality, 42.69% rated it as good. Page 43 of 193

46 5.5.2 Satisfaction with water availability Pertaining to water availability, customers were also asked to indicate their overall satisfaction with the City s provision of tap water. The findings are indicated in Figure 13. Figure 13: Overall satisfaction with water availability Figure 13 shows that 44.7% of respondents were satisfied, 40.5% were very satisfied, and 13.3% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The remainder of the respondents were dissatisfied (1%) and very dissatisfied (0.5%) with the City s overall availability to provide tap water Experience with water-related problems Respondents were asked to indicate the nature of the water-related problems they had experienced. The findings are illustrated in Figure 14. Figure 14: Experience with water-related problems Page 44 of 193

47 Figure 14 shows that 53% of respondents did not experience any water-related problems, 16% encountered low-pressure problems, and 10% said they encountered no water problems. The figure also shows that 10% encountered other problems such as being supplied with slightly tasteless water as one of the respondents described without elaborating further. The figure furthermore shows that 8% said they encountered burst pipes and 3% had encountered underground leaks Occurrence of water-related problems Respondents were asked about the occurrence of water-related problems. Their responses are indicated in Figure 15. Figure 15: Occurrence of water-related problems Most respondents (59.75%) said they never experienced a water-related problem and 16.47% said they had problems once or twice a year. Some 7.99 % said they experienced a water-related problem daily, 6.92% said they experienced such monthly, 4.58% said that this happened twice a month, and 4.29% said they experienced such a problem weekly Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Respondents were asked about their satisfaction with sanitation services. The findings are shown in Figure 16. Page 45 of 193

48 Figure 16: Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Figure 16 shows that 42% of respondents are satisfied and 35% are very satisfied with the Department s sanitation services. Those who are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the service constitute 17% of the respondents, while 4% are dissatisfied and 2% are very dissatisfied Regularity of sewerage-related problems Respondents were asked how often they experienced a sewerage blockage or problem. The findings are shown in Figure 17. Figure 17: Occurrence of sewer blockage problems Most (67%) said they never experienced a sewerage blockage problem and 15% said they experienced such a problem only once or twice a year. The figure also shows that 8% of respondents experienced a problem monthly and 5% experienced such twice a month. It also shows that 3% experienced a problem Page 46 of 193

49 weekly, and 2% daily. Although the percentage of respondents who experienced sewerage-related problems daily may seem small (2%), it should be a major concern to the City that sewerage blockages are an everyday occurrence for some residents. Page 47 of 193

50 5.6 Experience with complaint-lodging process Respondents were asked a set of questions designed to measure customers satisfaction with the customer complaints-lodging process, and the quality of services by the Department Contact with the City Respondents were asked whether they contacted the City to report a water or sanitation problem in the last three months. The responses are shown in Table 11. Table 11: Contact with the City Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Table 11 shows that the vast majority (88.69%) of respondents did not contact the City in the last three months Method used to contact the City Respondents were asked a question about how they had contacted the City (Table 12). Table 12: Method used to contact the City Means of communication Count Count (%) Call Centre Community worker Councillor Water and Sanitation Department Total Table 12 shows that most respondents (54.31%) utilised the Call Centre, followed by 22.41% who contacted the Department. It also shows that 17.24% of the respondents contacted a community worker, while 6.04% contacted a councillor. The Call Centre can therefore be viewed as the main means of communication for the City s customers, followed by the Department itself Experience with the Call Centre Respondents were asked to rate their experience with the Call Centre. Their responses are shown in Figure 18. Page 48 of 193

51 Figure 18: Call Centre rating Call centre rating ( n=63) Count 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% The ease of finding the right options when you call The time taken to get hold of the right person in the call centre Being served in a professional manner and insisting on a reference number The time taken to fix the problem Poor Average Good Excellent Most respondents (53.97%) rated as average the ease of finding the right options when you call. The time taken to get hold of the right person in the call centre elicited an average response by 46.03% of respondents. Additionally, 36.51% rated as average the time taken to fix the problem. Figure 18 also shows that 49.21% rated their experience of being served in a professional manner and insisting on a reference number as good. There is significant room for the City to improve its Call Centre, as respondents rated most of the dimensions of the service experience in this regard as only average Response time Respondents were asked to rate the City's response time in relation to complaints lodged. The responses are shown in Figure 19. Page 49 of 193

52 Figure 19: City's response time Nearly half of respondents (47.41%) could not remember how long they had to wait before the reported problem was fixed. The results show that 18.97% indicated they had to wait less than a day, a further 18.97% said they had to wait for more than a day but less than 3 days, and 3.45% said they waited between 4 days and a week to have the problem fixed. The results also show that 3.45% had to wait for more than a week but less than 2 weeks to have the problem fixed, 3.45% had to wait for more than a month, while 1.72% said they waited more than 2 weeks but less than a month. Although it may seem to be an insignificant percentage of respondents, it is important to note that 2.58% said nobody contacted them, which could mean that their problems still need to be resolved. Resolution of a problem is one of the contributors to consumer satisfaction. The Department could reexamine its workflows relating to the resolution of reported problems Service quality of workmen Consumers were asked to rate their experiences with the service provided by the workmen/team who arrived to fix the reported problem. The findings are shown in Table 13. Table 13: Service quality of workmen (n=116) Service dimension Excellent Good Average Poor Total The quality of work performed by the workmen/team Professionalism of the workmen/team The time taken to fix the problem by the workmen/team 15.52% 28.45% 44.82% 11.21% % 12.93% 25.00% 48.28% 13.79% % 12.93% 23.28% 49.14% 14.65% % Table 13 shows that for each dimension, most respondents rated as average the quality of work performed by the workmen/team (48.82%), the professionalism of the workmen/team (48.28%) and the time taken to fix the problem by the workmen/team (49.14%). Page 50 of 193

53 In other words, the performance of workmen was rated as average on all the service-quality dimensions under consideration. There is thus significant room for improvement in the quality of service provided by the Department s workmen or teams. The training of the workmen or teams in terms of a quality approach to service delivery could assist in this regard Expectations on duration of fixing a problem Respondents were asked to indicate how long (time frame) they think a water and/or sanitation problem should take to be fixed after it was reported. The findings are shown in Figure 20. Figure 20: Expectations on duration of problem resolution Most respondents (67.7%) expected a problem to be fixed within 6 hours of reporting it. A sizeable number (14.4%) expected resolution within an hour, and 12.7% expected resolution within 12 hours. The results also indicated that 2.7% of respondents expected resolution within 2 days, 1.0% within 24 hours, and 1.5% said they did not know which time frame they consider appropriate for a problem to be solved. The Department could anticipate the needs and expectations of its customers and use that information to manage customer expectations and help customers set realistic expectations. The management of customer expectations involves customer education programmes where consumers are also educated about their responsibilities. In this way, the Department could reduce the service-delivery gap which exists between the Department and its consumers Knowledge of how to contact the Department Respondents were asked whether they knew how to contact the Department if they encounter problems with water and sanitation services. The results are shown in Table 14. Table 14: Knowledge of means of contact Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Page 51 of 193

54 The results in Table 14 show that 62.18% said they knew how to contact the Department, while 37.82% did not know. Concerted efforts, in addition to existing initiatives, could be used to increase awareness of how to contact the Department. Knowledge of the different methods of contacting the Department are important with respect to the Department s water-conservation initiatives, especially considering that consumers are encouraged to report any burst pipes, leaking pipes, or other malfunctions, as soon as possible. 5.7 Value/billing process Respondents were asked a number of questions designed to obtain information regarding customers satisfaction with the value derived from the Department in relation to the billing processes Average monthly payment Respondents were asked how much they paid on average for their water and sewerage. The findings are shown in Figure 21. Figure 21: Monthly water and sewerage bill Monthly water and sewerage bill (n=1026) Count Don t R1 R251 R501 R751 R1 001 R1 501 R2 001 R Nothing know R250 R500 R750 R1 000 R1 500 R2 000 R2 500 Count Nearly 30% of respondents said they did not know how much their monthly water and sewerage bill was, followed by 28.2% who said their monthly water and sewerage bill was R1 R Bill checking Respondents were asked how often they check their water/sewerage bill. The findings are shown in Figure 22. Page 52 of 193

55 Figure 22: Bill-checking frequency Most respondents (40%) said they always check their water/sewerage account, followed by 34% who said they never check their bills. The results also show that 13% said they mostly check their bills, and similarly 13% said they sometimes check their bills. Respondents were also asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements presented to them. The findings are shown in Table 15. Table 15: Extent of agreement or disagreement with statements Perception statements Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Total The water bills are sent on time % 45.81% 35.87% 4.09% 4.09% % The meter reading is accurate. 3.12% 36.06% 44.74% 8.58% 7.50% % The water-utility provides sufficient information on its services. The water network is in good condition. 3.12% 34.02% 52.73% 5.65% 4.48% % 3.90% 33.53% 54.67% 4.39% 3.51% % Table 15 shows that 55.95% of respondents (sum of 10.14% - strongly agree and 45.81% - agree) can be said to agree with the statement the water bills are sent on time. On the other hand, 8.18% (sum of 4.09% disagree and 4.09% - strongly disagree) disagree with the statement, and 35.87% were neutral. Most of the respondents (44.74%) were neutral to the statement the meter reading is accurate. On the other hand, 39.18% (sum of 3.12% - strongly agree and 36.06% - agree) agree with the statement, and 16.08% (sum of 8.58% - disagree and 7.50% - strongly disagree) disagree with the statement. Most (52.73%) respondents were neutral to the statement the water utility provides sufficient information on its services. Furthermore, 37.14% (sum of 3.12% - strongly agree and 34.02% - agree) agree with the Page 53 of 193

56 statement and 10.13% (sum of 5.65% - disagree and 4.48% - strongly disagree) disagree with the statement. Most (54.67%) of respondents were neutral to the statement the water network is in good condition. The second-largest percentage of 37.43% (sum of 3.90% - strongly agree and 33.53% - agree) agree with the statement, and the minority, 7.90% (sum of 4.39% - disagree and 3.51% - strongly disagree) disagree with the statement. Customers responded indifferently (neutral) to three of the four perception statements under consideration. The Department should continuously innovate and improve its service-delivery processes to begin shifting customers perceptions from the neutral position towards the positive position. In the case of the four statements reviewed above, the ideal should be movement towards the strongly agree position of the perception domain Satisfaction with the billing process Respondents were asked to indicate the level of satisfaction with the Department, with respect to the billing process. The findings are shown in Figure 23. Figure 23: Satisfaction level with billing process A third of respondents (33%) indicated they were somewhat satisfied, 31% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and 28% were very satisfied with the billing process. The results also show that 6% were very dissatisfied and 2% somewhat dissatisfied with the billing process. The Department could attempt to continuously monitor the changes within its customer base, to help it engage more with its customers, and move them positively along the satisfaction scale. Stakeholder engagement and subsequent management could be possible mechanisms for the Department to use Rating of price of water and sanitation services Respondents were asked to rate the price of water in view of the supply of water they receive and how much they pay for it. Respondents were also asked to rate the price of sanitation service in view of the services (sewers or removal of sewerage) supplied and how much they pay for them. The findings are shown in Table 16. Page 54 of 193

57 Table 16: Rating of water and sanitation services Question Very expensive Expensive Fairly priced Cheap Household does not pay for sewerage Household does not pay for water Don t know Total How would you rate the price of the water supplied by the City of Cape Town? 10.62% 26.61% 37.91% 1.46% 0.00% 1.85% 21.54% % How would you rate the price of the sanitation services supplied by the City of Cape Town? 10.72% 24.56% 37.33% 1.75% 3.12% 0.00% 22.51% % Over a third of respondents (37.91%) believe that water is fairly priced, and similarly, 37.33% believe sanitation services are fairly priced Ownership of a water-management device Respondents were asked if they owned a water-management device (an electronic device designed to manage the use of water in the household). The findings are shown in Table 17. Table 17: Water-management device ownership Response Do you have a water-management device? Yes 39.28% No 60.72% Total % Table 17 shows that most respondents indicated they did not have a water-management device. There is thus a great opportunity for the Department to increase awareness of the benefits of the device through information and education initiatives Installation of a prepaid water meter Respondents were asked whether they would rather have a prepaid water meter installed so that they could purchase their own water on a monthly basis, instead of being billed. The findings are shown in Table 18. Page 55 of 193

58 Table 18: Installation of prepaid water meter (n=1026) Response Would you rather have a prepaid water meter installed so you can purchase your own water monthly and not be billed? Yes 15.79% No 83.72% Other 0.49% Total % The majority (83.72%) of respondents indicated that they would rather not have a prepaid water meter installed in their households. 5.8 Knowledge and awareness Respondents were asked a series of questions to determine if they knew the Department s contact details, whether they would be willing to receive information from the Department, and also the preferred means of communication Knowledge of contact details for queries. Respondents were asked if they were aware of the City's customer-service contact details for queries. The responses are shown in Table 19. Table 19: Knowledge of contact details Response Do you know about the City s customer-service contact details for queries? Yes 498 No 528 Total 1026 Response Do you know about the City s customer-service contact details for queries? Yes 48.54% No 51.46% Total % Slightly more than half the respondents did not know the customer-service contact details for queries. There is a need for the Department to increase and expand its existing information and educational initiatives, so that more residents become aware of the contact details Awareness of the City s single number Respondents were asked if they were aware of the existence of the City's single number for all service calls. The findings are shown in Table 20. Page 56 of 193

59 Table 20: Awareness of the existence of the City s single number Response Are you aware that the City has a single number for all service calls? Yes 292 No 734 Total 1026 Response Are you aware that the City has a single number for all service calls? Yes 28.46% No 71.54% Total % Most respondents (71.54%) indicated that they were unaware the City has a single number for all service calls Interest in receiving information Respondents were asked if they would like to receive information in forms such as pamphlets, stickers and posters that are frequently distributed by the Department. The findings are shown in Table 21. Table 21: Interest in receiving information Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total The majority of respondents (81.79%) indicated they would like to receive literature (material such as pamphlets, stickers, and posters) explaining various initiatives on water and sanitation from the Department Preferred method of communication Respondents were asked to rank, in order of preference, the method of communication they would prefer for receiving information on water and sanitation issues and various initiatives. The findings are shown in Table 22. Page 57 of 193

60 Table 22: Rank matrix RANK MATRIX Media Final rank score A - Flyers B - Newspaper advertisement C - Radio advertisement D - Website E - /sms F - Billboards Order of preference after assigning weighting and multiplying with the number of responses for each medium /sms Rank 1 (most-preferred mode) Billboards 2 Website 3 Newspaper advertisement 4 Radio advertisement 5 Flyers 6 (least-preferred mode) Table 22 shows the rank matrix for respondents preferred communication media for the reception of information on water and sanitation issues. The ranks were obtained by initially assigning a weighting towards each of the preferred methods scores. In essence, we assigned a weighting of 6 to 1 which is the most-preferred method of communication, and 5 to 2 and so on so 6, which was the least preferred method, was assigned a weighting of 1. The number of respondents for each preferred ranking was then multiplied by the weighting assigned to each rank preference. The sum (rank score) then determines the preferred method of communication. The medium with the highest rank score is therefore the most preferred method of communication. It can be observed that the most-preferred method through which the formal respondents would want to receive information from the Department is /sms, followed by billboards, the website, newspaper advertisements, and radio advertisements. The least-preferred method is flyers. The Department could consider these findings in its communication strategy. Page 58 of 193

61 5.8.5 Information sharing Respondents were asked whether they discuss water and sanitation media articles or information with family, friends and work mates. The findings are shown in Table 23. Table 23: Information sharing Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Most respondents (68.42%) indicated that they discuss information with family, friends and workmates. The Department could somehow use this word of mouth mechanism to increase and/or facilitate the dissemination of information. 5.9 Awareness and knowledge of environmental impact Awareness of the impact of blocked sewers Respondents were asked if they were aware of the impact of blocked sewers in the city. The findings are shown in Table 24. Table 24: Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Most respondents (79.53%) indicated that they are aware of the impact of blocked sewers on the environment in the City Awareness of by-laws Respondents were asked if they were aware of the City s by-laws that regulate water usage and water abuse. The findings are shown in Figure 24. Page 59 of 193

62 Figure 24: Awareness of City's by-laws Figure 24 shows that 50.88% are aware of the City s by-laws that regulate water usage and water abuse. The results indicate that the Department could increase its current efforts to educate and inform communities about the by-laws that regulate water usage and water abuse Awareness of penalty charges Respondents were asked if they were aware of penalty charges relating to unauthorised connections to water and sanitation services. The responses are illustrated in Table 25. Table 25: Awareness of penalty charges Response Count Count (%) Making illegal water connections Throwing old oil in the drain/sewer Throwing foreign bodies/objects in the drain Not reporting leaking pipes in your property Discharging rain water into the sewer system Most respondents (643) said that they were aware of the penalty charges associated with making illegal water connections, followed by 204 respondents who claimed to be aware of the penalty charges associated with throwing old oil in the drain/sewer, and 118 respondents who claimed to know about the penalty charges associated with throwing foreign bodies/objects in the drain. Only 51 respondents claimed to be aware of the penalty charges associated with not reporting leaking pipes in your property, and very few (10) respondents claimed to be aware of the penalty charges associated with discharging rain water into the sewer system. It seems the Department needs to make more efforts to educate and inform residents of the penalty charges associated with various aspects of water and sanitation service. Page 60 of 193

63 6 CATALOGUE OF FINDINGS - INFORMAL 6.1 Introduction A total of 601 interviews were conducted with households in informal residential areas. The analysis below pertains to the findings obtained from these areas, with respect to the following: demographic and socio-economic indicators; general information on water and sanitation services provided by the Department; water conservation methods used or adopted by consumers; perceptions on water quality and availability, and satisfaction with sanitation services; experience with the customer complaint-lodging and service-delivery processes; knowledge and awareness of the City s customer-service contact details; and awareness and knowledge of the environmental impact of sanitation. 6.2 Characteristics of informal respondents Respondents in the informal residential areas were asked a series of questions in order to obtain the profile of the respondents in terms of their demographic and socio-economic characteristics. This profile is important, to enable the Department to gain insight into the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the consumers of its products Age group Respondents were asked to indicate their age groups. The findings are in Figure 25. Figure 25: Age group Figure 25 shows that the age category years had the highest number of respondents (37.60%), followed by the year category (35.44%). The third highest number of respondents was aged (14.48%). The age group had 62 (10.32%) respondents, and the 65+ age group had 13 respondents (2.16%). Page 61 of 193

64 6.2.2 Gender Respondents were asked to indicate their gender. The findings are shown in Table 26. Table 26: Gender Group Count Count (%) Male Female Total Table 26 shows that 61.06% of the respondents were females and 39.94% were males Language most spoken at home Respondents were asked to indicate the language they speak at home. The findings are shown in Figure 26. Figure 26: Language spoken at home Respondents indicated that the language most spoken at home is Xhosa (85.36%), followed by Afrikaans (10.98%) and English (1.8%). The other languages spoken at home included IsiZulu (0.5%) and others (1.33%). The other languages included Swahili, Somali and Shona Monthly household income Respondents were asked to indicate their monthly income. The findings are shown in Figure 27. Page 62 of 193

65 Figure 27: Monthly household income Figure 27 shows that the highest percentage of respondents (37.77%) indicated that they do not have a monthly income, followed by 14.98% who indicated that their monthly income was R1000-R2000, while 11.98% refused to disclose their monthly income, and 10.82% indicated an income of R2000-R4000 a month. Nearly 10% of the respondents indicated their monthly household income was R1-R500. It is interesting to note that the lowest percentage (0.17%) indicated that their monthly household income was above R These findings are consistent with most survey results, which seem to suggest that respondents with high to higher monthly household income are least likely to reveal information about their incomes Level of education Respondents were asked to indicate the level of education attained. The findings are shown in Figure 28. Page 63 of 193

66 Figure 28: Level of education Figure 28 shows that most respondents (44.43%) indicated that they had completed secondary school, 20.63% indicated that they attained a post-secondary school qualification (excluding degree), while 17.47% said they had only completed primary school. Approximately 13.98% of respondents indicated that they have no formal schooling, while 1.66% attained a university degree, 1.16% post-graduate diplomas, and 0.67% a post graduate degree. Most respondents had some level of schooling, so departmental communications convey should be understood. The principle should be to match information needs with the medium of communication for intended messages. Page 64 of 193

67 6.2.6 Occupational status Respondents were asked to indicate their occupational status. The findings are shown in Figure 29. Figure 29: Occupational status Figure 29 shows that the most (51.58%) of the respondents were unemployed, followed by 36.11% who were employed. The percentage of respondents who owned businesses was 3.49%, and 3.33% indicated that they were studying. The smallest percentage (2.00%) of respondents said they were retired. In terms of occupation status, the results show that the most of respondents interviewed were not economically active, but were, however, interested in water and sanitation matters Number of people living in household Respondents were asked to indicate the number of people living in the household. The findings are shown in Figure 30. Figure 30: Number of people living in a household Page 65 of 193

68 Figure 30 shows that most households (296) have 1-3 people living in a household, followed by 264 with 4-6 people staying together in their households. According to these findings, 38 respondents said that 7-9 people are living together in one household, and only 3 respondents reported that 14 people stay in a household Types of toilet Respondents were asked to indicate the type of toilet they use. Figure 31 show the findings. Figure 31: Type of toilet Figure 31 shows that 60.40% of households use flush toilets, followed by 38.27% which are still using the bucket system. Of a total of 601 households, only 0.67% use chemical toilets. Long-drop and septic-tank toilets are almost non-existent: 0.17% and 0.33% of households use these types of toilets respectively. It is of concern that so many households use bucket toilets in the city Electronic medium of communication Respondents were asked to indicate the type of electronic medium of communication in their household. The findings are shown in Figure 32. Page 66 of 193

69 Figure 32: Electronic medium of communication Figure 32 shows that most (479) respondents owned cellular phones, followed by 446 who said they owned televisions (with local channels), and a lesser number (394) own radios. Only 64 respondents own TVs with satellite, and only 7 reported owning landlines. About 28 respondents stated that they used none of the electronic communication methods mentioned. These findings suggest the Department could use alternative means of communication to reach target residents. 6.3 Insights into water supply and sanitation services Respondents were asked a series of questions in order to gain insight into the water supply and sanitation services the Department provides. The results are presented below Receipt of water and sanitation services Respondents were asked whether or not they receive water and sanitation services from the Department. The findings are shown in Table 27. Table 27: Receipt of water and sanitation services Answers Count Count (%) Yes No Total Table 27 shows that the majority (91.01%) of respondents received water and sanitation services from the Department. Only a small percentage (8.99%) indicated that they did not receive water and sanitation services. Page 67 of 193

70 6.3.2 Other sources of water Respondents were asked to answer yes or no to determine whether they had access to water sources other than piped water. The findings are shown in Table 28. Table 28: Other sources of water Answers Count Count (%) Yes No Total The findings show that with respect to water sources, the vast majority of residents rely on the Department. This indicates that if the Department expanded its provision of water and sanitation services, there would be a great demand for such Average use of water Respondents were asked to indicate how much water (i.e. tap water) they think they use monthly. The findings are shown in Table 29. Table 29: Average use of water Water used each month Count Count (%) Don t know/unsure Number of buckets Total Table 29 shows that the most (61.06%) of respondents are unsure or did not know the amount of water they use each month. This should be of concern to the Department as the lack of knowledge on the part of the residents may impact adversely on the Department s desire to encourage residents to conserve water Usage of water compared to previous year Respondents were asked to indicate whether their household was using more or less water compared to the previous year. The findings are shown in Figure 33. Page 68 of 193

71 Figure 33: Usage of water compared to previous year Figure 33 shows that most respondents (45.59%) said they did not know whether they were using less or more water, whereas (41.93%) said the usage of water was the same as the previous year. The figure also shows that 11.15% said they used less water compared to a year ago, while 1.33% said they were using more water compared to the previous year. It should be a concern to the Department that the majority did not know whether they were using more or less water compared the previous year. The Department, in its water conservation initiatives, could also increase efforts to target such consumers with segmented communication approaches Effects of tariff increases on water usage Respondents were asked whether the introduction of tariff increases has resulted in decreased water consumption. The findings are shown in Table 30. Table 30: Effects of tariff increases on water usage Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Table 30 shows that 37.77% of respondents said that tariff increases, which were based on the amount of water used, resulted in decreased water consumption. On the other hand, 62.23% of respondents said that the tariff increases did not lead to a decrease in the amount of water they consumed Perceptions of water and sanitation services Respondents were asked to rate their perception of water and sanitation services. The findings are shown in Figure 34. Page 69 of 193

72 Figure 34: Perception of water and sanitation services Page 70 of 193

73 Figure 34 shows that 265 residents strongly agree that disadvantaged people should get free water and sanitation, followed by 228 who strongly feel that businesses consuming more water should pay higher water rates. About 212 residents also strongly agree that the tap water in Cape Town is safe to drink. The city is doing a good job in terms of water quality: only 2 residents strongly disagreed about the tap water in Cape Town being safe to drink. About 128 residents reported that they strongly disagree with the statement Cape Town has enough water so we don t have to worry about how much we use, followed by 121 stating that all residents in Cape Town pay the same rates for their water and sanitation services. Generally, most of the residents neither agree nor disagree with the statements mentioned about water and sanitation. 6.4 Water conservation Respondents were asked questions designed to reveal their awareness of the City s water conservation initiatives and/or programmes. The questions were also designed to discover what the impact of these initiatives is Knowledge of water-conservation promotions Respondents were asked whether they have heard radio advertisements, or seen advertisements or pamphlets from the City that promote water conservation. The findings are shown in Table 31. Table 31: Knowledge of water-conservation promotions Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Table 31 shows that 56.74% of respondents had heard radio advertisements or seen advertisements or pamphlets that promote water conservation Change of behaviour Respondents were asked to answer yes or no to a question on whether their household s behaviour toward water conservation has changed in the last year. Table 32: Change of behaviour Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Table 32 shows that 57.57% of the households seem to have changed their behaviour to conserving water in the past year, whereas 42.43% said they had not changed their behaviour. Page 71 of 193

74 6.4.3 Behaviours that facilitate conservation Respondents were asked to indicate the nature of the behaviours that had changed with a view to conserving water. The findings are shown in Figure 35. Figure 35: Change in household activities to conserve water Figure 35 shows that in terms of changes in household activities to conserve water, 498 respondents turn off the tap when they see running water, 366 reported water leaks, followed by 87 who said they re-used water after bathing. Some 85 respondents mentioned that they turn off the tap while brushing teeth/washing hands, while only 46 said they wash the car with a bucket and not a hose pipe. 6.5 Perceptions of water and sanitation services The survey s other objective was to measure customers perceptions of and satisfaction with the water quality, availability, and sanitation services. Respondents were asked a number of questions. The findings are presented below Ratings of water quality The respondents were asked to rate the water quality in terms of a number of dimensions. The findings are shown in Figure 36. Page 72 of 193

75 Figure 36: Rating of water quality Water pressure and overall quality had the highest number of respondents (275) rating them as being excellent, followed by the smell of the water (274), taste (267) and colour (265). Generally, people from informal areas seem to be satisfied with the quality of the water they receive Satisfaction with water availability Figure 37: Overall satisfaction with water availability Some 51.41% of respondents were satisfied with the availability of water in their areas, 17.30% of households were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, followed by 13.14% of who were dissatisfied with the Page 73 of 193

76 availability of water. Only 3% said they were very dissatisfied, while 12.98% were very satisfied. The City needs to make sure that the number of satisfied households increases further as water is required to satisfy the basic needs of all citizens. Figure 38: Experience with water-associated problems Figure 38 above shows that 33.81% of households experience a problem of having no water most of the time, followed by 32.24% who struggle with low water pressure. Burst water pipes seem to be another concern that people have in informal areas (25.43%). Underground leaks appear to be a lesser problem that only 8.52% experienced. Low pressure and a lack of water supply seem to be the main problems that people encounter in informal areas Regularity of water-related problems Figure 39: Occurrence of water-related problems Page 74 of 193

77 In terms of the frequency of water-related problems, 134 respondents experienced them once or twice a year, while 150 respondents never experience such problems. Surprisingly, 97 respondents said they experienced water-related problems daily, and 94 experienced these problems monthly Distance of closest tap from home Figure 40: Distance to the closest tap from home Figure 40 shows that 417 respondents are situated 1-20 m from the closest tap, while 106 are located m from the closest tap. Some 40 respondents said they live m from the nearest tap, while others mentioned no access to a tap or water. Most respondents seem to be some distance from the closest tap. As water is a basic need, every resident needs to be as close to a tap as possible Number of households sharing same tap Figure 41: Households sharing the same tap Figure 41 above shows that 330 respondents reported that 1-50 households share a tap, followed by 73 which said more than 2000 households share one tap. Some 68 respondents said that Page 75 of 193

78 households share a tap. The number of respondents who reported that their households had no taps was 2, while 7 were unsure about how many households share a tap Number of households sharing same toilet Figure 42: Households sharing same toilet Figure 42 shows that 412 respondents reported 1-20 households to be sharing their toilet, whereas 51 said households are sharing a toilet. Some 46 respondents reported that households are likely to be sharing one toilet. These numbers are high, but it may be the truth about living conditions in informal areas. Some residents (3) said they had no toilets Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Figure 43: Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Figure 43 shows that overall dissatisfaction with sanitation services is a significant issue, with 45.26% of respondents reporting they are very dissatisfied, followed by 20.30% of respondents who said they are Page 76 of 193

79 satisfied. Only 15.14% respondents had a neutral stance on the matter (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied), 15.81% were dissatisfied, and only 3.49% said they are very satisfied Regularity of sewerage-related problems Figure 44: Occurrence of sewerage-related problems Figure 44 shows that 22.13% of respondents experienced sewerage-related problems daily, with 29.62% never experiencing them. Nearly 16% of respondents experienced sewerage-related problems monthly, while 13% experienced such once or twice a year. It is worrisome that such a high percentage of people experienced sewerage-blockage problems daily Distance from home to the closest toilet Respondents were asked to estimate the distance in metres of the closest toilet to their home. The findings are shown in Figure 45. Figure 45: Distance to the closest toilet Distance to the closest toilet (n=601) Count m 21-50m 51-70m No toilet 100m 200m Informal Do not know Page 77 of 193

80 Figure 45 shows that 403 respondents live 1-20 m away from the closest toilet, while 92 live m from the closest toilet. About 48 respondents said they live m from the nearest toilet, followed by 18 who reported that their households are m from the closest toilet. Few (9) mentioned that they do not know how far they live from the nearest toilet. It is very important for residents to have toilets in their yards, for hygienic reasons Reporting faulty/broken toilets to the City Respondents were asked a yes and no question, to discover whether they report faulty/broken toilets to the City. The findings are shown in Figure 46. Figure 46: Reporting faulty/broken toilets Figure 46 shows that approximately 54% of respondents reported their faulty or broken toilets to the City and 46% said that they do not report this. 6.6 Experience with complaint-lodging process Respondents were asked a set of questions designed to measure customers satisfaction with the customer complaint-lodging process and the quality of services rendered by the Department Contact with the City Table 33: Contact with the City Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Table 33 shows that 53.74% of respondents had contact with the City, while 46.26% said they did not contact the City to complain about the quality of service. Page 78 of 193

81 6.6.2 Method used to contact the City Table 34 : Method used to contact the City Means of communication Count Count (%) Call Centre Community worker Councillor Water and Sanitation Department Total Table 35 shows that some respondents (35.56%) contacted the City through a community worker, and approximately 28% contacted the City via the local councillor. Roughly 25% used the Call Centre to contact the City, and about 11% did so through the Water and Sanitation Department Experience with the Call Centre Page 79 of 193

82 Figure 47: Call Centre rating Page 80 of 193

83 Figure 47 shows that the overall services offered by the City through the Call Centre were rated mainly as average. Very few respondents reported the service to be excellent, with 7 people saying the ease of finding options when you call is excellent. Only 5 respondents rated the time taken to reach the right person in the Call Centre as excellent. The time taken to fix the problem from the Call Centre was also rated as mostly average, with only 3 respondents evaluating the service they received as excellent Waiting time Respondents were asked how long they had to wait before the water and/or sanitation problem was fixed by workmen from the City. The responses are illustrated in Figure 48. Figure 48: Time taken to fix water and sanitation problem Figure 48 shows how long it took the Department to fix the problem after receiving complaints from residents. Some 20.48% reported that it took the Department less than a day to fix the problem, 18.90% reported that it took more than a day but less than 3 days, and the same percentage mentioned they have not yet contacted the Department for any complaint. Some 14.17% said that it takes more than 2 weeks but less than a month to fix a problem, while 9.45% said it takes more than a month. It is worrisome that it can take more than a month to solve problems. Water and sanitation problems should be taken very seriously, when reported Service quality of workmen Respondents were asked to rate the experience of the services they received from the workmen/team that came to fix the reported water and/or sanitation problem Quality of work performed by workmen/team Page 81 of 193

84 Figure 49: Quality of work performed by workmen Figure 49 shows the rating of the quality of work performed by the workmen/team. Most residents (42.86%) reported the quality of work to be average, while 25.89% thought it was good. The least percentage (14.29%) rated the quality to be poor, and 16.96% said it was excellent. On average the results indicate that respondents in the informal areas were not entirely satisfied with the quality of work performed by the workmen/team Professionalism of the workmen/team Figure 50: Professionalism of workmen/team Figure 50 shows the rating of the professionalism by the workmen/team. Most respondents (41.07%) reported the professionalism to be average, while 30.36% thought it was good. The least percentage (12.50%) rated the professionalism to be poor, and 16.07% said it was excellent. On average the results indicate that respondents in the informal areas were not entirely satisfied with the professionalism received from the workmen/team. Page 82 of 193

85 Figure 51: Time taken to fix problem Time taken to fix the problem Figure 51 shows the rating of the time taken by the workmen/team to fix the problem. The findings show that most residents (43.75%) reported the amount of time to be average, 25 % thought it was good, and the least percentage (15.18%) rated it as poor, while just 16.07% rated it was excellent. On average it looks like residents in the informal areas are not entirely satisfied with the time taken by the workmen/team to fix their problems. Residents are concerned and are expecting to receive more prompt service for water and sanitation problems Expectations on duration of fixing a problem Respondents were asked to indicate how long (time frame) they think a water and/or sanitation problem should take to be resolved (fixed) after it is reported. The findings are shown in Figure 52. Figure 52: Expected time for the problem to be fixed Page 83 of 193

86 Some 54% of respondents would like to see their problems fixed within an hour, while 18% expected their problems to be fixed within 6 hours. About 9% of the respondents expected their problems to be fixed within 12 hours. It is surprising that some of the respondents (7%) were still satisfied to have their problems fixed within 24 hours, and 3% within more than 2 days Knowledge of how to contact the Department Respondents were asked whether they knew how to contact the Department if they encounter problems with water and sanitation services. The results are shown in Figure 53. Figure 53: Knowledge of how to contact the Department Approximately 68% of respondents said they do not know how to contact the Department, while 32% reported that they do. 6.7 Knowledge and awareness Knowledge of the City s customer-service contact details Respondents were asked whether or not they knew about the City s customer-service contact details for queries. The findings are illustrated in Table 35. Table 35: Knowledge of contact details for queries Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Table 35 shows that only 26.46% of respondents had knowledge of the City s customer-service contact details, whereas 73.54% of respondents did not have this knowledge City s single number for all service calls Respondents were asked if they knew about the City s single number for enquiries. The findings are shown in Table 36. Page 84 of 193

87 Table 36: Knowledge of City's single number for enquiries Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Table 36 shows that only 16.31% of respondents were aware of the City s single number for all servicerelated calls, whereas the majority (83.69%) were not aware of it Previous use of the number Respondents were asked whether they used the number before. Table 37 shows the findings. Table 37: Previous use of contact number Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Table 37 shows that 86.19% of the respondents had not previously used the City s single number for service calls, and only 13.81% confirmed having used the number before Interest in receiving information Respondents were asked if they were interested or not to receive information from the Department. Table 38 shows the findings. Table 38: Interest in receiving information Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Table 38 shows that 87.19% of respondents would like to receive information about the Department s initiatives through medium such as pamphlets, stickers and posters. Only 12.81% were not interested in receiving such information Preferred methods of communication Respondents were asked to rank, in order of preference, the method of communication they prefer for receiving information about water and sanitation issues and initiatives. The results are illustrated in Table 39. Page 85 of 193

88 Table 39: Preferred methods of communication Information Channel Flyers Total rank score Order of preference Newspaper advertisement Radio advertisement Website Any other (specify) Table 39 shows that respondents prefer to receive information on water and sanitation through flyers, followed by radio advertisements, newspaper advertisements, , the Department s website, and lastly through other media such as workshops and Facebook. The Department could use this information to match its communication strategy with the preferred method Information sharing Respondents were asked whether they discuss water and sanitation media articles or information with family, friends or workmates. The findings are shown in Table 40. Table 40: Information sharing Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Table 40 shows that 63.23% of respondents discuss water and sanitation information with friends and family, whereas 36.77% do not do so. 6.8 Awareness and knowledge of environmental impact Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Respondents were asked if they were aware of the impact of blocked sewers on the environment. Table 41 shows the findings. Page 86 of 193

89 Table 41: Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total Table 41 shows that 74.38% were aware of the impact of blocked sewers on the environment, while 25.62% claimed not to be aware of the impact Awareness of by-laws Respondents were asked if they were aware of the City s by-laws that regulate water usage and abuse. Table 42 shows the findings. Table 42: Awareness of by-laws Response Count Count (%) Yes No Total According to Table 42, nearly half of the respondents (49.92%) were aware of the City s by-laws regulating water usage and abuse, and the other half said they were not aware of these by-laws Awareness of the City s penalty charges Respondents were asked if they were aware of the City s penalty charges. Figure 54 shows the findings. Page 87 of 193

90 Figure 54: Awareness of penalty charges Figure 54 shows that 280 of respondents were aware of the penalty charges resulting from the throwing of old oil to the drain/sewer, followed by 273 who said they were aware of penalty charges relating to illegal water connections. About 222 respondents reported that they know about penalty charges for throwing foreign bodies/objects in the drain, only 72 knew that there are penalties when one fails to report leaking pipes on a property, and 25 respondents reported that they are aware of penalties attached to the discharging of rain water into the sewer system. Page 88 of 193

91 7 CATALOGUE OF FINDINGS BUSINESS 7.1 Introduction A total of 315 interviews were conducted with respondents in the business areas. The analysis below pertains to the findings obtained from the business areas, with respect to the following: economic indicators; general information on water and sanitation services provided by the Department; water conservation methods used or adopted by consumers; perceptions on water quality and availability and satisfaction with sanitation services; experience with the customer complaint-lodging and service-delivery processes; knowledge and awareness of the City s customer-service contact details; and awareness and knowledge of the environmental impact of sanitation. 7.2 Characteristics of business respondents Respondents in the business areas were asked a series of questions in order to obtain the profile of the respondents, in terms of their economic characteristics. This profile is important to enable the Department to gain insight into the economic characteristics of the consumers of its products Nature of business Of the 315 respondents who participated in the survey, 202 (64.13%) are in retail trade, followed by hotels and restaurants at 10.16%, and post and telecommunication at 9.84%. Figure 55: Industry - describing nature of business Most of the respondents were retail trade businesses Number of employees Respondents were asked to indicate the number of employees in the company concerned. The findings are illustrated in Figure 56 Page 89 of 193

92 Figure 56: Number of employees The majority of respondents (197) said that there were 1-10 employees in their business, followed by 79 who said they were not sure how many employees there were, and 23 who said there were employees. Four respondents indicated that there were employees, and four other respondents indicated that there were employees. Only two respondents indicated that their business had employees. The findings indicate that small, medium and large firms participated in the survey Type of toilets Respondents were asked to indicate the type of toilets they use. Figure 57 shows the findings. Figure 57: Type of toilet in use The type of toilets used by the respondents (99.05% flush toilets) is consistent with the type of industry and economic activity the respondents are engaged in. The use of the bucket system is confined to the informal settlements. Page 90 of 193

93 7.2.4 Annual water audit Respondents were asked if they undertake an annual water audit. The findings are shown in Figure 58. Figure 58: Conduct of an annual water audit The vast majority of respondents (90.48%) indicated they do not undertake an annual water audit. This is consistent with the survey findings that water-management practices have a low priority for the businesses concerned Water-conservation policy Respondents were asked if they had a water conservation policy. The findings are shown in Figure 59. Figure 59: Availability of a water-conservation policy Respondents were asked if they had a water-conservation policy in place and the majority (78.73%) responded in the negative. The City should encourage businesses, through its communication processes, to draft and widely distribute a water-conservation policy within the business. This is important as, in general, businesses tend to use more water than households. Page 91 of 193

94 7.2.6 Water-management device Respondents were asked if they had a water-management device. The responses are shown in Figure 60. Figure 60: Possession of a water-management device Figure 60 shows that 63.81% of the respondents do not have a water management device, and 36.19% do have one Prepaid meter installation Respondents were asked if they would rather have a prepaid meter installed, so that they could purchase their own water monthly and not be billed. The findings are shown in Figure 61. Figure 61: Interest in a prepaid water meter installation Page 92 of 193

95 Figure 61 shows that 17.14% of respondents would like to have a prepaid meter installed. The majority (82.86%) indicated they were not interested in a prepaid water meter. The Department needs to increase the awareness of the benefits of installing a prepaid water meter. 7.3 Insights into water supply and sanitation services Respondents were asked a number of questions aimed at gaining insights into the water supply and sanitation services the Department provides to business areas Receipt of water and sanitation services Respondents were asked whether they received water and sanitation services from the Department. The findings are shown in Figure 62. Figure 62: Services received The results show that 98.4% of the respondents receive their water supply from the Department and only 1.59% receive their water from other sources. This indicates that the vast majority of businesses rely on the Department for their water and sanitation needs, and a predictable, reliable service is therefore an absolute prerequisite to meet customers requirements Other sources of water Respondents were then asked to indicate if they used other sources of water, other than piped water supplied by the Department. The findings are shown in Figure 63. Page 93 of 193

96 Figure 63: Access to other water sources Only 5.4% indicated that they had other water sources, and the large majority (94.6%) obtain their water supply and sanitation services from the City, through the Department Types of other sources of water The findings regarding the types of water sources other than piped water which businesses receive from the Department are shown in Figure 64. Figure 64: Types of other sources of water Most of the 17 businesses who indicated that they have access to other sources of water, identified such as boreholes (9) or rainwater (6). There is a growing list of businesses and schools who are installing big, green tanks (jojo) to collect rainwater, in addition to the supply they receive from the Department. We can only surmise that they made this investment to secure alternate sustainable sources of supply, and to supplement the water from the Department. Currently there are no known public programmes supporting the sourcing of alternate supplies of water, and customers with boreholes have to register them with the Department. Page 94 of 193

97 The other water sources referred to above would typically apply to agricultural activities where the source is a dam. As indicated above, businesses and schools are increasingly erecting jojo tanks to collect and store rain water. These behaviours are indicative of positive water-conservation initiatives Monthly usage of water Respondents were asked how much water they think their business used monthly. The findings are shown in Figure 65. Figure 65: Water usage It should be noted with great concern, that most (80.63%) of business customers did not know how much water they consume each month. These findings are significant, as businesses are an important stakeholder of the City of Cape Town, and are relied upon as a vital partner in campaigns that promote awareness and behavioural change on important issues such as water conservation. The business area is viewed as the enlightened segment of society, which should be conscientious enough to support waterconservation campaigns Usage of water compared to previous year A follow-up question was asked to establish whether the business was using more, the same or less water than the previous year. The findings are shown in Figure 66. Page 95 of 193

98 Figure 66: Water usage compared to previous year Figure 66 shows that approximately 62% of the respondents used the same amount of water as the previous year, and 18% did not know whether they used the same amount or more. The latter response suggests that the businesses in question either maintained the same level of operations and/or did not expand in the past year Effects of tariff increases on water usage Respondents were asked if tariff increases based on the amount of water used, resulted in them decreasing their water consumption. The findings are shown in Figure 67. Figure 67: Effect of tariff increases on water usage Figure 67 shows that 64% of business respondents indicated that the tariff increases did not result in a decrease in their water consumption, and that 36% said the tariff increase indeed resulted in their business decreasing the amount of water they consumed. This suggests that tariff increases cannot be the sole means of deterring businesses from consuming excessive water Perceptions of water and sanitation services A set of 10 statements was presented to respondents. They were asked to rate them using five options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The findings are shown in Figure 68 and Table 43. Page 96 of 193

99 Figure 68: Perception of water and sanitation Page 97 of 193

100 Table 43: Perception of water and sanitation Perception statement Agree Strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Cape Town has enough water, so we don t have to 37.46% 2.86% 19.37% 16.51% 23.81% worry about how much we use The tap water in Cape Town is safe to drink 59.37% 15.87% 18.73% 3.17% 2.86% There are current water restrictions in Cape Town 58.41% 8.89% 26.03% 3.17% 3.49% The supply of tap water in Cape Town is reliable % 14.60% 21.90% 1.59% 2.22% The City of Cape Town looks after the environment 43.81% 9.21% 34.29% 6.98% 5.71% in the way it deals with waste water All residents in Cape Town pay the same rates for 38.10% 4.13% 25.08% 15.24% 17.46% their water and sanitation services Businesses that consume more water should pay 53.65% 13.65% 22.54% 5.40% 4.76% higher rates for water Poor people should get free water and sanitation 53.02% 10.79% 23.49% 4.44% 8.25% The price of water and sanitation in Cape Town is 48.57% 7.30% 26.03% 8.25% 9.84% fair to everyone. The City responsibly manages its water supply 54.60% 9.21% 25.40% 5.71% 5.08% It is interesting to note that an equal percentage (40%) of the respondents agreed and disagreed that the City has enough water and that they therefore need not worry about how much they use. To elevate awareness and education levels among those who believe the City has an infinite water supply, is a big challenge for the Department. It is encouraging to note that 237 (i.e. 187 agree and 50 strongly agree) respondents believe that tap water is safe to drink. Only 6.66% believe that the water is not safe to drink. A total of 67.30% (the sum of 58.41% agree and 8.89% strongly agree) are aware of water restrictions in Cape Town. A significant number (26.03%) were unsure if there were water restrictions or not. Most respondents (59.68% agree and 14.60% strongly agree) believe that the supply of water is reliable and only 3.8% (the sum of 1.59% disagree and 2.22% strongly disagree) indicated that the supply of tap water is not reliable. These responses reflect well on the Department, but one should not underestimate the significance of the negative ratings which may come from key customers whose business could be seriously impaired by unreliable service. More than half of the respondents (53.02 %) believe that the City protects the environment in the way it deals with waste water. A further % do not know how the City deals with waste water, and therefore there is a need for more educational and awareness campaigns. Most respondents (42.23%) believe that all residents in the City pay the same rate for water and sanitation services. A significant number of respondents (25.08%) did not know if this was true or not, and only 32.7% did not think that all residents pay the same rates. A strong case is made from the response above, that businesses who consume more water should pay higher rates for water. A staggering 53.65% of respondents agreed with this, and 13.65% strongly agreed with this statement. It is a basic economic principle that the more you use the more you should pay, unless special concessions are made on a case-by-case basis. We also indicated above the need to reinvigorate awareness campaigns. More education is needed to make customers aware of the existence of other sources of water and to encourage them to use it. Page 98 of 193

101 Most respondents (63.81%) agreed with the statement Poor people should get free water and sanitation. This indicates a strong belief among businesses that water is a basic right of human beings. More than 50% of the respondents believe that the price of water and sanitation services is fair to everyone. Finally, 63.81% (the sum of 54.60% agree and 9.21% strongly agree) think that the Department manages its water supply in a responsible way. This is consistent with some of issues already noted above particularly the response regarding the reliability of the water supply. 7.4 Water conservation Knowledge of water conservation promotions A question was asked to establish if respondents had heard or seen any advertisements or pamphlets from the City that promote water conservation. The findings are shown in Figure 69. Figure 69: Water conservation promotion The vast majority of people have heard advertisements on radio and seen adverts or pamphlets from the City promoting water conservation. Whether the messages translate into a change in behaviour, however, is another issue Change of behaviour Figure 70 suggests that despite being exposed to advertising related to water conservation, there is still a lot to be done to change behaviour people s behaviour, as most (66.67%) of respondents had not done so. Page 99 of 193

102 Figure 70: Change in business conservation of water 7.5 Perceptions of water and sanitation services A number of questions were posed to the respondents in order to gain further insight into their perceptions of the availability of water, its quality, and their satisfaction with the sanitation services they received Ratings on water quality Respondents were asked to rate the quality of water as supplied by the City, using a scale of 4 (ranging between excellent, good, average and poor), and based on five measures (taste, smell, colour, overall quality and water pressure). The findings are shown in Figure 71. Figure 71: Water quality ratings Page 100 of 193

103 Expressed as percentages, the figure above shows that with regard to the water-quality dimensions, most respondents (53.7%) rated the taste as good; most respondents (55.6%) rated the smell as good; and 51.4% rated the water pressure as good. Regarding the overall quality of the water they receive, most respondents (56.5%) rated this dimension as good. These findings suggest that business consumers have a positive view of the water the Department supplies to them Satisfaction with water availability Respondents were asked to indicate their overall satisfaction with the Department s provision of tap water. The findings are shown in Figure 72. Figure 72: Overall satisfaction with provision of water Expressed as percentages, the findings indicate that most respondents (56.19%) were satisfied, 29.84% were very satisfied, and 12.06% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the City s overall provision of tap water. It therefore seems that businesses are generally satisfied with the Department in terms of the provision of tap water Experience with water-related problems Respondents were asked how often they experience problems with water leaks, burst pipes, or have no running water. The findings are shown in Figure 73 Page 101 of 193

104 Figure 73: Frequency of experiencing water problems Figure 73 shows that most (49.84%) respondents never experienced water-related problems, and 36.83% had experienced problems with water leaks, burst pipes or no running water once or twice. It is still worrisome that some businesses experienced problems daily although this was only 2.22% of businesses Overall satisfaction with the sanitation or sewage services Respondents were asked to indicate their overall satisfaction with the Department regarding the provision of sanitation or sewerage services. The findings are shown in Figure 74. Figure 74: Satisfaction with provision of sanitation services Figure 74 shows that most (59.68%) respondents were satisfied, 24.44% very satisfied, and 12.38% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the provision of sanitation services. The figure also shows that 1.90% of the respondents are very dissatisfied, and 1.59% dissatisfied. Page 102 of 193

105 In general it can be said that there is a high level of satisfaction of businesses with the Department in the provision of sanitation services Regularity of sewerage-related problems Respondents were asked how often they experience a sewerage blockage or problem. The findings are shown in Figure 75. Problems with blocked sewerage were comparable to what was observed with the occurrence of waterrelated problems. A large percentage of respondents (55.87%) indicated that they never had sewerage problems, followed by 36.83% who said they experience a blockage once or twice a year. Figure 75: Occurrence of sewerage blockages Furthermore, Figure 75 also shows that 3.17% indicated they experience a problem once or twice a month, 2.22% experienced these problems monthly, 0.95% daily, and the remaining 0.95% experienced the problems weekly. These findings seem to point to a well-functioning sewerage system serving businesses in the City. 7.6 Experience with complaint-lodging process Respondents were asked a number of questions designed to measure customers satisfaction with the customer complaints-lodging process, and the quality of services provided by the Department Contact with the City to report a problem Respondents were asked whether they had contacted the City to report a water or sanitation problem in the last 3 months. The findings are shown in Figure 76. Page 103 of 193

106 Figure 76: Contact with the City The figure above shows that 30.48% of the respondents had contacted the City to report a water and sanitation-related problem, and 69.52% had never done so implying that they never had a water or sanitation-related problem. These findings are consistent with the high number of positive responses regarding satisfaction levels with water quality Method used to contact the City Respondents were asked how they contacted the City. The findings are shown in Figure 77. Figure 77: Method used to contact the City Of the respondents who experienced a water and sanitation problem and reported it, 75.68% contacted the City s Call Centre. Only 12.61% contacted the Department directly, while 10.81% reported the problem to the local community worker, and 0.9% to their local councillor. These findings suggest that the business firms utilise the Call Centre when they encounter water and sanitation problems. Page 104 of 193

107 7.6.3 Experience with the Call Centre Those who contacted the Call Centre were asked what their experience was with regards to the service they received. The findings are shown in the next four figures. Figure 78: Ease of finding right options Most respondents (79.76%) rated as good the ease of finding the right options when you call. Figure 79: Time taken to get hold of right person Most respondents (77.11%) rated as good the time taken to get hold of the right person in the call centre. On the other hand, the least number of respondents (3.61%) rated this dimension as excellent. Page 105 of 193

108 Figure 80: Being served in a professional manner Being served in a professional manner (n =83) 4.82% % Average Excellent 78.31% Good poor The figure above shows that most respondents (78.13%) rated as good being served in a professional manner and insisting on a reference number, while 3.61% rated this dimension as excellent. Figure 81: Time taken to fix the problem The figure shows that most respondents (81.93%) rated the time taken to fix the problem as good. The figure also shows that 9.64% rated this aspect as average and 8.43% as poor. It is interesting to note that the majority of business respondents rated all four aspects as good Waiting period before fixing the problem The respondents were further asked to rate the Department s response time to fix the problems reported through the Call Centre, or other means. The findings are shown in figure 82. Page 106 of 193

109 Figure 82: Response time Most respondents (65.54%) said they waited less than a day for their problem to be fixed. This seems to be an impressive response time. Nevertheless, 4.17% said they still have not been contacted regarding the reported problem Cost of service received Respondents who received a service from the Department were asked to rate the service cost. The findings are shown in Figure 83. Figure 83: Cost of service received Page 107 of 193

110 Some 61.46% believed that the service was fairly priced, 2.08% said it was very cheap, 15.63% said it was expensive, and 2.08% said it was very expensive. Of note was that 15.63% of respondents stated that they do not know whether the service was fairly priced or not. This could indicate that they felt that there was nothing one could do but accept the bill presented to them after the service, or that they were indifferent to the cost Receipt of free water Respondents were asked if they knew how much free water they received from the City monthly. The findings are shown in Figure 84. Figure 84: Amount of free water received Expressed as percentages, the findings are as follows: 0.63% said they receive 350 litres free water; 0.95% said they receive 6000 litres/6kl free water; 0.95% said they receive 600 litres free water; and 0.63% said they receive 8000 litres/8kl of free water. The 68.75% who indicated they do not know how much free water they receive and the 28.25% who said they do not receive free water, is consistent with the findings that most customers do not know their water-consumption levels. This is corroborated by the fact that only 36.19% of the respondents have water-management devices and only 17.14% have water meters installed to monitor their water usage. 7.7 Knowledge and awareness Respondents were asked a number of questions to discover if they were aware of the Department s contact details, whether they would be willing to receive information from the Department, and also their preferred means of communication Knowledge of contact details for queries The following questions sought to establish the respondents knowledge and awareness of the City s customer-service contact details. The findings are shown in Table 44. Page 108 of 193

111 Table 44: Knowledge of customer service contact details Knowledge of City customer-service contact Count Count (%) details for queries Yes No Total Some 77.46% of the respondents stated that they knew the contact details for queries Awareness of City s single number Respondents were asked if they were aware of the City s single number for service calls. The findings are illustrated in Table 45. Table 45: Awareness of the City s single number for service calls Are you aware of the City s single number? Count Count (%) Yes No Total Some 58.10% responded that they knew about the City s single number Made use of the number before Respondents were asked if they had made use of the City s single number before. The findings are shown in Table 46. Table 46: Previous usage of the single-number service call Single Number User Count Count (%) Yes No Total Some 55.74% of respondents have used the single number to contact the City before Interest to receive information Respondents were asked if they would like to receive information from the Department, and literature such as pamphlets, stickers and posters explaining various initiatives on water and sanitation. The findings are shown in Table 47. Table 47: Interest in receiving information Would you like to receive information? Count Count (%) Yes No Total Page 109 of 193

112 Some 73.97% of respondents indicated that they would like to receive information on water and sanitation issues and related initiatives Preferred method of communication Respondents were further asked how they would prefer to receive information on water and sanitation initiatives. The findings are presented in an importance rank matrix (Table 48). The weightings were done according to the ranking order that 1 is the least preferred, and 6 is the most preferred method of communication. Table 48: Preferred method of communication Information Channel Weighted Total Rank Score A. Flyers B. Newspaper advertisement C. Radio advertisement D. Website E F. Other Information Channel Total A - Flyers 67.99% 11.04% 11.18% 6.40% 2.21% 1.18% % B - Newspaper advertisement 11.91% 47.45% 27.26% 9.06% 3.97% 0.35% % C - Radio advertisement 23.12% 30.57% 34.51% 6.78% 4.36% 0.67% % D - Website 10.92% 12.74% 11.65% 48.79% 12.86% 3.03% % E % 15.49% 7.93% 14.13% 35.94% 2.73% % F - Any other specify 51.64% 18.44% 3.28% 8.61% 3.28% 14.75% % Table 48 shows that business would prefer to receive information from the Department through other means (e.g. Facebook and Twitter), followed by , the website, newspaper advertisements, and radio advertisements. The least preferred method is flyers. These results are consistent with widely-held observations that because of the growth of ICT in most economies businesses prefer to receive information through electronic means Information sharing Finally, respondents were asked a yes or no question about whether they discussed water and sanitation media articles or information with family, friends, or at work. The findings are shown in Table 49. Table 49: Sharing of media articles and information Discussion of media articles or information Count Count (%) Yes No Total Page 110 of 193

113 There is not a significant difference in the proportion of respondents who discuss these matters and those who do not. 7.8 Awareness and knowledge of environmental impact Awareness of impact of blocked sewers on environment Respondents were asked if they were aware of the impact of blocked sewers on the environment. The findings are shown in Table 50. Table 50: Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Count Count (%) Yes No Total An overwhelming majority of respondents are aware of the impact which blocked drains have on the environment Awareness of City by-laws Respondents were asked if they were aware of the City s by-laws that regulate potable, sewage and treated effluent water. The findings are shown in Figure 85. Figure 85: Awareness of City's by-laws Figure 85 shows that 65% of respondents are aware of the City s by-laws that regulate potable, sewerage and treated effluent water Awareness of penalty charges Respondents were asked if they were aware of penalty charges attached to illegally connecting surface water to sewers. The findings are shown in Figure 86. Page 111 of 193

114 Figure 86: Awareness of penalty charges Figure 86 shows that 47.6% of respondents were aware of the penalty charges attached to illegally connecting surface water to sewers. Communication specifically targeted at business could be used to improve these awareness levels. Page 112 of 193

115 8 CATALOGUE OF FINDINGS CUSTOMERS ON DATABASE 8.1 Introduction As a means of enhancing the survey, we also conducted telephonic interviews with customers who are part of the database we received from the Department. These customers contacted the Department to make queries and/or report water and sanitation problems. It is of note that this exercise was not part of the original scope of work, but derived from our desire to add more value to the project. 8.2 Number of calls made A total of 437 telephonic calls were made. Table 51 shows the nature of responses obtained. Table 51: Number of calls made to customers on database ID Nature of response Count 1 Interview successfully completed 77 2 Too busy 35 3 Call just got cut off 4 4 Call dropped in between interview 1 5 The person on the database is now deceased 6 6 Do not remember calling the City 65 7 Currently in hospital 3 8 No answer Not interested Phone off Voice mail Wrong number 33 Total attempted calls 437 Page 113 of 193

116 8.3 Characteristics of respondents Type of respondents Table 52: Type of respondents Sample group Count Count (%) Formal residential (household) Informal settlements (household) Business Total The vast majority (97.40%) of respondents lived in formal residential households, and 2.60% owned businesses. None of the respondents lived in informal households Location of respondents Figure 87 shows that most of the respondents were from affluent residential areas such as Durbanville (approximately 12.99%), Cape Town Central (11.69%) and Milnerton (11.69%). Less-affluent places such as Harare contributed 1.30% of respondents. In general, these findings seem to suggest that most respondents who lodge complaints are from more affluent areas. There is a need to increase the level of awareness amongst residents in less-affluent areas of their duty to lodge complaints with the Department. Service delivery can only be improved if the Department has a better understanding of the nature of problems that customers encounter. Page 114 of 193

117 Figure 87: Residence/location of respondents 8.4 Experience with complaint-lodging process Respondents were asked a set of questions designed to measure customers satisfaction with the customer complaint-lodging process and the quality of services by the Department Means used to contact the City Page 115 of 193

118 Figure 88: Means of contact Means of contact (n=90) Count Call Centre Community worker Councillor Water and sanitation department Count The majority of respondents (77) contacted the City to lodge a complaint using the Call Centre, while a few others went to the Department, community workers and their local councillor. These findings indicate that the Call Centre is the main means through which customers contact the Department when they encounter water and sanitation problems. It is therefore imperative that the Call Centre is always well equipped to deal with the volume of complainants Service experience rating Respondents were asked to rate the quality of services they received when they contacted the City. The findings are illustrated in Figure 89. Figure 89: Service experience rating Most respondents (53.25%) rated as good the ease of finding the right options when you call. The time taken to get hold of the right person in the call centre was viewed as good by 53.25% of the respondents. Additionally, 51.95% rated as good being served in a professional manner and insisting on a reference number. The time taken to fix the problem was rated as good by 53.25% of the respondents. In general, the services provided by the City were rated as good. There is room for improvement to ensure that the services are rated as excellent. Page 116 of 193

119 8.4.3 Waiting duration Customers were asked to indicate how long they waited before the water and sanitation problem was fixed by workmen from the Department. The findings are shown in Figure 90. Figure 90: City's response time Most respondents (46.75%) were assisted less than a day after lodging a complaint with the City, and 16.88% said it was resolved within more than a day, but less than 3 days. The results also show that 23.38% of people cannot remember how long it took the City to fix their problem, and only 3.90% have not been contacted yet by the City. Some 7.79% said it took more than a month for the problem to be fixed and 1.30% said they had to wait for more than a week, but less than 2 weeks. In general, it seems the Department is responding quickly to customer complaints. However, there is room for improvement in terms of feedback to the customers and providing reasons for the Department s failure to respond to some complaints. The number of customers who complained, and are still waiting for help, should be reduced Service quality of workmen Customers were asked to rate their experiences with the service provided by the workmen/team who responded to fix the reported problem. The findings are shown in Figure 91. Page 117 of 193

120 Figure 91: Workmen/team rating Figure 91 shows that most customers rated as good the quality of services provided by the workmen or teams who fixed their problem. There is always room for improvement, however, so that the services can be rated as excellent Expectations on duration of fixing a problem Respondents were asked to indicate how long (time frame) they think a water and/or sanitation problem should take to be resolved (fixed), after it was reported. The findings are shown in Figure 92. Figure 92: Expectations on problem resolution Of all respondents, some 33.77% expect a problem to be fixed within 6 hours, 23.38% do not know, and 20.78% expect the problem to be fixed within an hour. On the other hand, some 7.79% expect a problem Page 118 of 193

121 to be fixed within 12 hours, 6.49% expect it to be fixed within 24 hours, 5.19% expect it to be fixed within 2 days, and 2.60% expect a problem to be fixed after more than 2 days. The Department should be able to rationalise these expectations by engaging and informing the customers what can reasonably be achieved within the constraints of the Department s resources. This engagement will help reduce the information gap between the customers and the Department. 8.5 Satisfaction with the value/billing process Monthly payments Customers were asked how much they pay on a monthly basis for water and sewerage. The findings are shown in Figure 93. Figure 93: Estimated price for water and sanitation Nearly half of respondents (48.05%) said they do not know how much they pay for water and sanitation services monthly, 11.67% said they pay R501-R750, and 10.39% said they are paying R251-R500. The results also show that 9.09% pay more than R2 500 and 7.79% pay in the range R1-R250. A noticeable proportion (6.49%) said they paid nothing. In general, most consumers do not know how much they pay every month for water and sanitation. The reason could be that customers do not keep track of their monthly expenses. The Department could educate customers on the importance of keeping track of bills, as there is a possible connection between how much a consumer pays and how much water is conserved Bill checking Page 119 of 193

122 Figure 94: Bill checking frequency Most respondents (56%) always check their bills. A small group (2%) said they never check their bills. The latter group should not be reason for concern for the Department, as customers who do not check their bills may still settle them. It is more important to find out why some consumers do not settle their bills on time Perceptions of the billing process and services provision Customers were asked to indicate to which extent they agreed or disagreed with statements relating to the billing process and services provision. The findings are shown in Figure 95. Figure 95: Perceptions of billing process and services provision With regard to the statement the water bills are sent on time, 38.96% of respondents strongly agreed. The same number of respondents was neutral to the statement the meter reading is accurate. A Page 120 of 193

123 combined percentage of 45.46% (sum of 14.29% - strongly agree and 31.17% - agree) agreed with the statement the meter reading is accurate. A combined percentage of 51.95% (sum of 11.69% - strongly agree and 40.26% - agree) agreed with the statement that the water utility provides sufficient information on its services. A combined percentage of 61.03% (sum of 15.58% - strongly agree and 45.45% - agree) agreed with the statement that the water network is in good condition. The Department should build on these positive perceptions to cement long-term relationships with its customers Satisfaction with the billing process Customers were asked whether they were satisfied with the service level of the Department with respect to the billing process. The findings are shown in Figure 96. Figure 96: Satisfaction level with billing process Most respondents (50.65%) were somewhat satisfied, followed by 16.88% who were indifferent, and 14.29% who were very satisfied with the Department s billing process. The findings also show that 11.69% were somewhat dissatisfied and 6.49% were very dissatisfied. Generally, customers are satisfied with the billing process. The Department should capitalise on these good satisfaction levels and maintain and build mutually-beneficial relationships with its customers. Customers who indicated they were dissatisfied were asked to provide reasons for their dissatisfaction. The following reasons (all quotes) were provided: My water account is very high even though I am not using a lot of water; My bill is too high; My money that I was made to pay to the Department has not been returned to me though the Department caused the problem; Water is too expensive; Water is extremely expensive; and The Department never took any action to my complaints until I had to go to the Municipal offices. Page 121 of 193

124 8.5.5 Rating of price of water Respondents were asked to rate the price of water in view of the supply of water and how much they pay for it. The findings are shown in Figure 97. Figure 97: Water price rating Nearly half of the respondents (45.45%) said they think water is fairly priced, followed by 32.47% who think that water is expensive, 14.29% who said it is very expensive, 1.30% who felt the water is very cheap, and 6.49% who do not know whether water is expensive, fairly priced or cheap. The Department needs to match these findings regarding the pricing level, with quality of services delivered to the respective customers. Some studies have shown that price is not the only catalyst to customer satisfaction. Other characteristics of the Department s service delivery chain also have to be taken into account, such as the quality of the water, availability of the water, professionalism of people working in the Department, and response to problems customers encounter Rating of price of sanitation services Respondents were asked to rate the price of sanitation services. The findings are shown in Figure 98. Page 122 of 193

125 Figure 98: Sanitation services price rating Most respondents (58.44%) thought that the price of sanitation is fairly priced, followed by 19.48% who thought it is expensive, and 10.39% who thought it is very expensive. The findings show that 9.09% do not know if the pricing is fair or not, 1.30% thought it is cheap, and a further 1.30% thought it is very cheap. The Department should provide value for money considering the diverse feelings on the pricing of sanitation services Amount of free water received Customers were asked to indicate the amount of free water they receive, per month, from the Department. The findings are shown in Figure 99. Figure 99: Amount of water free received Most respondents (59.74%) did not know about free water and 28.57% said they did not get any free water. The respondents also said that they received: Page 123 of 193

126 around 350 litres of free water (7.79%); 2 kl of free water (2.6%); and 600 litres of free water (1.3%) Ownership of water-management device Figure 100: Ownership of water-management device Figure 100 shows that 51.95% said they own a water-management device and 48.05% do not. These findings should be encouraging to the Department, as it is a positive reflection on the conservation initiatives embodied in the Water Conservation and Water Demand Strategy. The Department should vigorously promote the benefits of installing a water-management device Installation of prepaid water meter Respondents were asked whether they would like a prepaid water meter installed in their home. The findings are shown in Figure 101. Figure 101: Attitude towards prepaid water Figure 101 shows that 90% of respondents did not show an interest in having their own prepaid water meters. Only 10% would like to install them. If relevant, the Department should promote the benefits of prepaid water meters to its customers. Page 124 of 193

127 Attitude towards receiving information Consumers were asked if they would like to receive information on water and sanitation-related issues from the Department, in the form of pamphlets, stickers and posters. The findings are shown in Figure 102. Figure 102: Attitude towards receiving information Figure 102 shows that the most (68%) of people would like to receive more information about water and sanitation Information sharing Respondents were asked whether they discuss water and sanitation media articles or information with family, friends or workmates. The findings are shown in Figure 103. Figure 103: Discussion of media articles or information Figure 103 shows that the most of respondents (67.53%) said they do not discuss water and sanitation media articles or information with friends or family. The Department can consider engaging with community-based groups who will spread information via word-of-mouth on their behalf. Page 125 of 193

128 9 DISTRICT ANALYSIS - FORMAL 9.1 Introduction The analysis below pertains to the findings obtained from respondents interviewed in formal residential areas within the following districts: Central Cape Town Area; Kraaifontein/Blouberg; Klipfontein; Tygerberg/Bellville; Mitchells Plain; Khayelitsha; South Peninsula; and Heidelberg/Kuilsriver 9.2 Insights into water supply and sanitation services Respondents were asked a series of questions in order to gain insights into the water supply and sanitation services provided by the Department. The results are presented below Average use of water Formal residential area respondents were asked to estimate how much water (i.e. tap water) they use each month. The findings are shown in Table 53. Table 53: Average use of water per month Amount of Central Kraaifontein Klipfontein Tygerberg/ Mitchells Khayelitsha South Heidelberg/ water used Cape Town /Blouberg Bellville Plain Peninsula Kuilsriver No idea/don t know Less than 500 litres litres litres litres litres More than litres Total No idea/don t 49.75% 77.92% 84.42% 70.97% 71.53% 63.64% 42.37% 50.48% know Less than 500 litres 9.45% 10.39% 9.09% 7.10% 13.14% 19.48% 29.66% 10.48% litres 19.40% 7.79% 3.90% 7.74% 7.30% 11.69% 18.64% 30.48% Page 126 of 193

129 Amount of Central Kraaifontein Klipfontein Tygerberg/ Mitchells Khayelitsha South Heidelberg/ water used Cape Town /Blouberg Bellville Plain Peninsula Kuilsriver litres 16.42% 2.60% 1.95% 6.45% 8.03% 3.90% 8.47% 8.57% litres 2.99% 0.00% 0.00% 4.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% litres 1.49% 0.00% 0.00% 1.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% More than litres 0.50% 1.30% 0.65% 1.94% 0.00% 1.30% 0.85% 0.00% Total % % % % % % % % The Klipfontein region seems to have the highest percentage (84.42%) of those that do not know how much water they used monthly followed by Kraaifontein/Blouberg with 77.92%, Mitchells Plain 71.53% and Tygerberg/Bellville 70.97%. In other districts, the percentages of respondents who do not know how much water they use per month ranges between 42% - 63%. Targeted strategies must be effected to assist households to be well informed of how much water they are using every month and this will in turn serve as a guide to conserve water Usage of water compared to previous year Respondents were asked if they are using more, the same or less water compared to a year ago. Table 54 shows their responses. Table 54: Usage of water compared to previous year Water Usage Central Cape Kraaifontein/ Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/ Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/ Kuilsriver Town More 8.46% 5.19% 1.30% 12.90% 2.92% 5.19% 5.08% 4.76% Same 53.73% 25.97% 56.49% 37.42% 40.15% 29.87% 53.39% 34.29% Less 23.88% 16.88% 8.44% 21.29% 6.57% 20.78% 4.24% 2.86% Don t know 13.93% 51.95% 33.77% 28.39% 50.36% 44.16% 37.29% 58.10% The findings show that 12.90% of the respondents in Tygerberg/Bellville claimed to be using more water compared to the previous year as well as Cape Town area with 8.46%. A percentage of 53.73% of respondents in Cape Town, South Peninsula (53.39%) and Klipfontein (56.49%) also claimed to be using the same amount compared to a year ago. More attention should be drawn to the areas where respondents did not know how much water they used compared to the previous year: Heidelberg/Kuilsriver with 58.10%, Kraaifontein/Blouberg 51.95%, Mitchells Plain 50.36%, and Khayelitsha 44.16% Effects of tariff increases on water usage Respondents were asked if tariff increases had an effect on their water consumption. The findings are shown in Figure 104. Page 127 of 193

130 Figure 104: Effect of tariff increases Over 70% of respondents in Kraaifontein/Blouberg and Klipfontein said that tariff increases led to a decrease in the amount of water used, while some areas like Central Cape Town with 69.65%, South Peninsula with 63.56% and Khayelitsha with 84.42% claimed otherwise (i.e. tariff increases had no effect on the amount of water consumed). This analysis seems to suggest that five of the eight targeted districts could generally have been affected by the tariff increases resulting in less water being consumed. Page 128 of 193

131 9.3 Water conservation Respondents were asked questions designed to gain knowledge of consumers awareness of the City s conservation initiatives and/or programmes. The questions were also designed to disclose the impact of the initiatives Knowledge of water-conservation promotions Respondents were asked if they have heard or seen any form of adverts from the City of Cape Town promoting water conservation. Figure 105 shows the findings. Figure 105: Knowledge of water conservation promotions The majority of respondents have heard or seen adverts by the City of Cape Town. The district with the lowest percentage of respondents that have seen adverts is Kraaifontein/Blouberg with 57.14%. Other districts such as Klipfontein, Tygerberg/Bellville, Mitchells Plain and Heidelberg/Kuilsriver all had over 80% of respondents that have seen the advertisements. More awareness efforts should be directed at the Kraaifontein/Blouberg district Change of behaviour Respondents were asked if their household has changed behaviour to conserve water. The findings are shown in Figure 106. Page 129 of 193

132 Figure 106: Change of behaviour to conserve water When asked how much water formal residents use on average in a month, most of the respondents did not know, but claimed that their behaviour to conserve water had changed within the last year % from Klipfontein, 77.42% from Tygerberg, 70% from Mitchells Plain and 64.94% from Kraaifontein claimed to have changed their behaviour within the last year to save water. Nonetheless, 47.26% from Central Cape Town 54.55% from Khayelitsha and 57.63% South Peninsula also claimed they had not changed their behaviour within the last year to save water. 9.4 Perceptions on water and sanitation services The survey s other objective was to measure customers perceptions and satisfaction with the water quality, availability, and the quality of the sanitation services they receive. Respondents were asked a number of questions Satisfaction with water availability Table 55 exhibits the findings on how satisfied the formal residents are with the City s provision of tap water. Table 55: Satisfaction levels with water availability District Very satisfied (%) Satisfied (%) Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (%) Dissatisfied (%) Very dissatisfied (%) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver Page 130 of 193

133 Generally, formal residents seem to be satisfied with the water provided by the City. With 90.72% (i.e. sum of 62.69% - very satisfied and 27.86% -satisfaction) who are satisfied in Central Cape Town, 87.01% in Kraaifontein/Blouberg, 94.15% in Klipfontein, 90.32%% in Tygerberg/Bellville, 90.51% in Mitchells Plain, 93.33% in Heidelberg/Kuilsriver and 71.43% in Khayelitsha. The findings show that 43.22% in South Peninsula claimed to be neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Experience with water-related problems Respondents were asked how often they experience water related problems. The findings are illustrated in Table 56. Table 56: Experience with water-related problems District Daily (%) Weekly Twice a Monthly Once or Never (%) month (%) twice a (%) (%) year (%) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver The findings in Table 56 seem to suggest that customers in formal residential areas hardly experience water-related problems. Over 67% of residents in Central Cape Town and Mitchells Plain, 75% in Kraaifontein, 71% in Klipfontein, 60% in Tygerberg and 82% in Heidelberg/Kuilsriver claimed said they never experience any water-related problems. Nearly half of the residents in the South Peninsula said they experience water related problems daily and weekly. These experiences are bound to cause customer dissatisfaction Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Respondents were asked how satisfied they were with the sanitation or sewerage services the City of Cape Town is providing to them. The findings are shown in Table 57. Table 57: Overall satisfaction with sanitation services District Very satisfied (%) Satisfied (%) Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (%) Dissatisfied (%) Very dissatisfied (%) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver Page 131 of 193

134 Table 57 shows that majority of the formal residents are satisfied with the sanitation or sewerage services that the City of Cape Town provides them. Generally, formal residents seem to be satisfied with the sanitation services provided by the City. In descending order, the percentages of respondents in the different districts who were satisfied are as follows: Heidelberg/Kuilsriver 88.57% (i.e. sum of very satisfied and 61.90% -satisfied); Central Cape Town 87.07%; Klipfontein 79.87%; Tygerberg / Bellville %; Mitchells Plain 77.38% Kraaifontein / Blouberg 74.02% Khayelitsha 61.04%; and South Peninsula % Regularity of sewerage-related problems The formal residents were asked how often they experience a sewerage blockage or problem, their response are shown in Table 58. Table 58: Regularity of sewerage-related problems Regions Daily (%) Weekly (%) Twice a month (%) Monthly (%) Once or twice a year (%) Never (%) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver Similar to the analysis of water related problem responses, these results seem to suggest that customers in formal residential areas are satisfied with the services provided by the City with regard to sewage as they scarcely experience sewerage blockages or problems. 9.5 Experience with complaint-lodging process Respondents were asked a set of questions designed to measure customers satisfaction with the customer complaints-lodging process, and the quality of services by the Department Contact with the City Formal residence respondents were asked if they had contacted the City of Cape Town to report water or sanitation related problems in the last three months. Figure 107 shows the findings. Page 132 of 193

135 Figure 107: Contacted City to report problems These results indicate that most respondents in formal residential areas did not contact the City in the last three months. Only a few of them claimed to have done so with the most being 18.98% of respondents from Mitchells Plain. The observation that most respondents indicated that they were satisfied with City regarding its provision of water and sanitation services corroborates these results. However, continuous improvement of complaint handling processes is necessary to respond to customer s complaints effectively Method used to contact the City The formal residents were asked how they contacted the City of Cape Town. Table 59 shows the findings. Table 59: Method used to contact the City Means of communication Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/ Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/ Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula The call centre seems to be the preferred means of communication for respondents in formal residential areas. The other means of communication, such as through a community worker, were most preferred by respondents in Kraaifontein/Blouberg (44.44%) and Khayelitsha (33.33%) respectively. A sizeable percentage (36.36%) of respondents from the South Peninsula and 39.29% of respondents from Klipfontein said they contacted the City through the Department. Heidelberg/ Kuilsriver Call centre 62.50% 33.33% 28.57% 72.22% 69.23% 66.67% 45.45% 80.00% Community 6.25% 44.44% 17.86% 16.67% 11.54% 33.33% 18.18% 20.00% worker Councillor 6.25% 0.00% 14.29% 5.56% 3.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Water and 25.00% 22.22% 39.29% 5.56% 15.38% 0.00% 36.36% 0.00% Sanitation Department Page 133 of 193

136 9.5.3 Response time Respondents were asked to indicate the time in which they expect a water or sanitation problem to be fixed after being reported. The findings are shown in Table 60. Table 60: Response time Expected response time Central Cape Town Kraaifontein /Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/ Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/ Kuilsriver Within 1 hour 18.41% 11.69% 13.64% 10.97% 25.55% 12.99% 12.71% 2.86% Within 6 hours 63.18% 72.73% 68.18% 78.71% 56.20% 64.94% 61.86% 80.00% Within 12 hours 14.93% 12.99% 15.58% 3.23% 13.14% 14.29% 15.25% 13.33% Within 24 hours 0.50% 1.30% 0.00% 1.29% 2.92% 0.00% 0.00% 1.90% Within 2 days 1.99% 0.00% 0.00% 2.58% 0.73% 7.79% 10.17% 0.95% More than 2 days 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Don t know 1.00% 1.30% 2.60% 3.23% 1.46% 0.00% 0.00% 0.95% Total % % % % % % % % Table 60 shows that most respondents from formal residential areas expected that any water and sanitation related problem be fixed within 6 hours. It is noteworthy mentioning that no one expects the reported problem to be fixed in more than two days Knowledge of how to contact the Department The formal residents were also asked if they knew how to contact the Department if they encounter a problem. Figure 108 displays the findings. Figure 108: Knowledge of how to contact the City Knowledge of how to contact the City to report problems (n=1024) Count Central (Cape Town Area) Kraaifontein /Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/ Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/ Kuilsriver Yes counts No counts Page 134 of 193

137 The percentage distribution of respondents who said they knew how to contact the Department upon encountering problems is as follows: Heidelberg/ Kuilsriver %; Kraaifontein/ Blouberg 76.62%; South Peninsula 72.88%; Mitchells Plain %; Central Cape Town Area %; and Khayelitsha %. In the regions, where there were more respondents who did not know than those who knew, the percentage distribution of those who knew is as follows: Klipfontein 46.10%; and Tygerberg/Bellville % This calls for more attention regarding increasing awareness in Klipfontein and Tygerberg/Bellville. 9.6 Value/billing process Respondents were asked a number of questions designed to obtain information regarding customers satisfaction with the value derived from the Department in relation to the billing processes Bill checking Respondents were asked how often they check their waste/sewerage account. Their responses are shown in Table 61. Water Usage Table 61: Frequency of checking bills Central Cape Town Area Kraaifontein/ Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/ Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/ Kuilsriver Always 52.74% 25.97% 22.08% 32.90% 38.69% 33.77% 57.63% 47.62% Mostly 7.96% 10.39% 17.53% 6.45% 18.25% 35.06% 10.17% 5.71% Sometimes 3.98% 31.17% 5.84% 10.97% 16.79% 19.48% 11.02% 23.81% Never 35.32% 32.47% 54.55% 49.68% 26.28% 11.69% 21.19% 22.86% Most respondents who said they always check their bills are from the South Peninsula (57.63%) and Central Cape Town (52.74%). In Klipfontein, 54.55% of the respondents said they never check their bills and almost 50% of respondents in Tygerberg/Bellville also said they never check their bills Satisfaction with the billing process Respondents were asked if they were satisfied with the billing process. The responses are shown in Table 62. Page 135 of 193

138 Table 62: Satisfaction levels with the billing process Satisfaction levels Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/ Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/ Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/ Kuilsriver Very dissatisfied 4.98% 5.19% 9.09% 5.16% 11.68% 1.30% 4.24% 1.90% Somewhat dissatisfied 2.99% 3.90% 3.25% 1.94% 1.46% 3.90% 2.54% 0.95% Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 11.94% 58.44% 29.22% 29.03% 28.47% 38.96% 55.08% 26.67% Somewhat satisfied 21.39% 22.08% 31.17% 40.00% 37.23% 29.87% 33.90% 47.62% Very satisfied 58.71% 10.39% 27.27% 23.87% 21.17% 25.97% 4.24% 22.86% Central Cape Town had the most respondents (80.10%) who said they were satisfied with the billing process, followed by Heidelberg/Kuilsriver (70.48%) and Tygerberg/Bellville (63.87%). Kraaifontein/Blouberg had the least proportion (32.47%) of respondents who were satisfied with the billing process Ownership of a water-management device Respondents were asked if they had a water management device. The findings are shown in Figure 109. Figure 109: Ownership of a water management device Most (79.22%) respondents in Khayelitsha said they had a water management device, followed by respondents in the South Peninsula (70.34%) and Heidelberg/Kuilsriver (63.81%). In Central Cape Town, most respondents (85.07%) said they did not have a device, followed by Klipfontein (79.87%) and Tygerberg/Bellville (77.42%) Installation of a prepaid water meter The respondents in the formal residential areas were asked if they would rather have a prepaid water meter. The findings are exhibited in Figure 110. Page 136 of 193

139 Figure 110: Installation of prepaid water meter in households The findings indicate that majority of the respondents would rather be billed for the water used on a monthly basis than have a prepaid water meter installed in their homes. Over 90% of the respondents from Kraaifontein, Klipfontein, Mitchells Plain and Heidelberg/Kuilsriver answered no to a prepaid water meter while in Khayelitsha and South Peninsula 40.26% and 34.75% respectively said they want to have a prepaid water meter installed. 9.7 Knowledge and awareness Respondents were asked a series of questions to determine if they knew the Department s contact details and whether they would be willing to receive information from the Department Knowledge of contact details for queries. Respondents were asked if they do know about City s customer service contact details for queries. Figure 111 shows the findings. Page 137 of 193

140 Figure 111: Knowledge of contact details for queries The districts where more than 50% of the respondents said they knew of the customer service number for queries are the following: Central Cape Town Area (62.69%); Heidelberg/Kuilsriver (54.29%); and Mitchells Plain (51.82%). The districts where most respondents said they were not aware of the number for queries are: Tygerberg/Bellville (63.23%); Klipfontein (60.39%); South Peninsula (55.93%); Kraaifontein/Blouberg (53.25%); and Khayelitsha (51.95%). Advertising efforts could be concentrated in the districts where there is low awareness so as to increase the knowledge on how to contact the Department Awareness of the City s single number The respondents were asked to indicate if they were aware that the City has a single number for all services. Figure 112 below shows the findings. Page 138 of 193

141 Figure 112: Awareness of the City's single number Most respondents said they were not aware of the City s single number. This is evident in areas like South Peninsula, Klipfontein, Tygerberg, Mitchells Plain, and Khayelitsha with over 70% of the respondents that were unaware of the City s single number Interest in receiving information Respondents were asked if they would like to receive information related to water matters from the Department. Table 63 shows the findings. Table 63: Interest in receiving information District Yes (count) Yes (%) No (count) No (%) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver The majority of respondents in all districts said they would be interested to receive information from the Department. 9.8 Awareness and knowledge of environmental impact Page 139 of 193

142 9.8.1 Awareness of the impact of blocked sewers Respondents were asked if they were aware of the impact of blocked sewers on the environment. The results are exhibited in Table 64. Table 64: Awareness of impact of blocked sewers District Yes (counts) Yes (%) No (counts) No (%) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver Table 64 shows that over two-thirds of the respondents in all the districts claim to be aware of the impact of blocked sewers on the environment Awareness of by-laws The respondents were asked if they were aware of the City's by-laws that regulate water usage and water abuse. Table 65 shows the findings. Table 65: Awareness of by-laws District Yes Yes (%) No No (%) (count) (counts) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heildelberg/Kuilsriver Respondents who said they were aware of the City s by-laws were mainly from the following districts: Central Cape Town (70.15%); Tygerberg/Bellville (63.87%); Kraaifontein/Blouberg (59.74%); and Mitchells Plain (51.09%). Page 140 of 193

143 10 DISTRICT ANALYSIS - INFORMAL 10.1 Introduction A total of 601 interviews were conducted with households in informal residential areas. The analysis below pertains to the findings obtained from the eight districts under study with respect to the following: 10.2 Insights into water supply and sanitation services Respondents were asked a number of questions in order to gain insight into the water supply and sanitation services the Department provides. The results are presented below Average use of water Respondents were asked to indicate how much water (i.e. tap water) they think they use monthly. The findings are shown in Table 66. Table 66: Average use of water Amount of water used p/m Central (Cape Town Area) Kraaifontein/ Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/ Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg / Kuilsriver Claim to know Don t know/unsure Total Claim to know 46.56% 22.41% 2.78% 18.18% 98.46% 48.05% 52.38% 27.27% Don t know/unsure 53.44% 77.59% 97.22% 81.82% 1.54% 51.95% 47.62% 72.73% Table 66 shows that the water usage differs depending on the area of residence. A majority (98.46%) of the respondents who reside in Mitchells Plain know how much water they use each month. On the other hand, most (97.22%) respondents who reside in Klipfontein were unsure of how much water they use per month. On a general note, there is need for the Department to encourage residents in Heidelberg/ Kuilsriver, Tygerberg/Bellville, Kraaifontein/Blouberg, Central Cape Town and Khayelitsha to monitor their water consumption Usage of water compared to previous year Respondents were asked to indicate whether their household was using more or less water compared to the previous year. The findings are shown in Table 67. Page 141 of 193

144 Table 67: Usage of water compared to previous year Household water usage Central (Cape Town Area) Kraaifontein /Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg /Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/ Kuilsriver More Same Less Don t know Total More (%) 1.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.54% 1.30% 0.00% 7.27% Same (%) 41.98% 17.86% 42.59% 56.82% 95.38% 27.27% 36.51% 18.19% Less (%) 25.95% 19.64% 6.48% 2.27% 1.54% 11.69% 1.59% 5.45% Don t know (%) 30.54% 62.50% 50.93% 40.91% 1.54% 59.74% 61.90% 69.09% Total % % % % % % % % Table 67 shows Heidelberg/Kuilsriver had most (69%) respondents who were not sure whether they were using more or less water compared to the previous year. Mitchells Plain had the least (1.54%) respondents who were not sure whether they were using more or less water compared to the previous year Effects of tariff increases on water usage Respondents were asked whether the introduction of tariff increases has resulted in decreased water consumption. The findings are shown in Figure 113. Figure 113: Effects of tariff increase on water usage Figure 113 shows that the majority (90.91%%) of people that decreased their water usage are residing in Tygerberg/Bellville followed 65.45% of respondents residing in Heidelberg/Kuilsriver. Page 142 of 193

145 10.3 Water conservation Respondents were asked questions designed to reveal their awareness of the City s water conservation initiatives and/or programmes. The questions were also designed to ascertain what the impact of these initiatives is Knowledge of water-conservation promotions Respondents were asked whether they have heard radio advertisements, or seen advertisements or pamphlets from the City that promote water conservation. The findings are shown in Figure 114. Figure 114: Knowledge of water conservation promotions Figure 114 shows that Tygerberg / Bellville had most (95.45%) respondents followed by South Peninsula (84.13%) who had heard radio advertisements or seen pamphlets that promote water conservation. The districts which had the least percentage of respondents who had heard or seen the advertisements were Mitchells Plain (18.46%) and the Central Cape Town Area (29.77%) Change of behaviour Respondents were asked to answer yes or no to a question on whether their household s behaviour toward water conservation has changed in the last year. The findings are shown in Figure 115. Page 143 of 193

146 Figure 115: Change of behaviour Figure 115 shows that most respondents who claimed to have changed their behaviour to conserve water were from Tygerberg/Bellville (93.18%). This result is corroborated by the observation that Tygerberg/Bellville had more respondents who had seen advertisements that promote water conservation. In Mitchells Plain (87.69%) and Central Cape Town (54.96%) most respondents said they did not change their behaviour to conserve water. There is need to intensify awareness of conservation practices in areas such as these Perceptions of water and sanitation services The survey s other objective was to measure customers perceptions of and satisfaction with the water quality, availability, and sanitation services. Respondents were asked a number of questions. The findings are presented below Occurrence of water-related problems Respondents were asked how often they experience water-related problems. The findings are shown in Table 68. Table 68: Occurrence of water-related problems Occurrence of problems Central Cape Town Area Kraaifontein /Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg /Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg /Kuilsriver Daily Weekly Twice a month Page 144 of 193

147 Occurrence of problems Central Cape Town Area Kraaifontein /Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg /Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg /Kuilsriver Monthly Once or twice a year Never Total Daily 22.14% 1.72% 5.56% 9.09% 3.08% 11.69% 65.08% 9.09% Weekly 9.16% 1.72% 4.63% 9.09% 15.38% 23.38% 11.11% 9.09% Twice a 4.58% 1.72% 9.26% 15.91% 1.54% 45.45% 1.59% 5.45% month Monthly 17.56% 10.34% 25.00% 2.27% 32.31% 11.69% 6.35% 5.45% Once or 28.24% 13.79% 38.89% 38.64% 16.92% 7.79% 0.00% 23.64% twice a year Never 18.32% 70.69% 16.67% 25.00% 30.77% 0.00% 15.87% 47.27% Total % % % % % % % % Table 66 shaows that most (70.69%) respondents from the Kraaifontein/Blouberg area said they never experienced water-related problems followed by Heidelberg/Kuilsriver (42.27%). Respondents in Khayelitsha and Klipfontein encountered water-related problems across the different frequency spectrum Satisfaction with water availability Respondents were asked how satisfied they are with the City in terms of the provision of tap water. The results are shown in Table 69. Table 69: Satisfaction with water availability Satisfaction level Central (Cape Town Area) Kraaifontein /Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg /Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg /Kuilsriver Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Total Very 10.69% 15.52% 25.93% 15.91% 0.00% 5.19% 3.17% 25.45% satisfied Satisfied 67.18% 67.24% 30.56% 77.27% 83.08% 20.78% 22.22% 56.36% Neither 3.82% 6.90% 22.22% 4.55% 10.77% 50.65% 42.86% 16.36% satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied 6.87% 10.34% 20.37% 0.00% 6.15% 22.08% 31.75% 1.83% Very 11.45% 0.00% 0.93% 2.27% 0.00% 1.30% 0.00% 0.00% Page 145 of 193

148 Satisfaction level dissatisfied Central (Cape Town Area) Kraaifontein /Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg /Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg /Kuilsriver Total % % % % % % % % Table 69 shows that Tygerberg/Bellville had most (93.18% i.e. sum of 15.91% very satisfied and 77.27% satisfied) respondents who were satisfied with the City s provision of tap water. The Southern Peninsula and Khayelitsha had the most number of respondents who were dissatisfied with the City s provision of tap water Occurrence of sanitation-related problem Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of sanitation-related problems. The findings are shown in Table 70. Table 70: Occurrence of sanitation-related problem Occurrence of problem Central Cape Town Area Kraaifontein /Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg /Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg /Kuilsriver Daily Weekly Twice a month Monthly Once or twice a year Never Total Daily 46.56% 8.62% 8.33% 0.00% 30.77% 19.48% 31.75% 5.45% Weekly 8.40% 13.79% 7.41% 6.82% 26.15% 12.99% 4.76% 10.91% Twice a 3.05% 0.00% 8.33% 15.91% 1.54% 24.68% 6.35% 10.91% month Monthly 6.87% 8.62% 18.52% 11.36% 24.62% 35.06% 17.46% 1.82% Once or 8.40% 5.17% 18.52% 29.55% 9.23% 5.19% 20.63% 18.18% twice a year Never 26.72% 63.79% 38.89% 36.36% 7.69% 2.60% 19.05% 52.73% Total % % % % % % % % Respondents in Khayelitsha experienced more problems than respondents in other areas as only 2.60% of respondents in Khayelitsha said they had never experienced any sanitation-related problems Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Respondents were asked to indicate satisfaction levels with City s provision of sanitation services. The results are shown Table 71. Page 146 of 193

149 Table 71: Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Satisfaction level Central (Cape Town Area) Kraaifontein /Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg /Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg /Kuilsriver Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied Total Very dissatisfied 68.70% 36.21% 39.81% 9.09% 89.23% 36.36% 28.57% 20.00% Dissatisfied 12.98% 18.97% 17.59% 11.36% 4.62% 16.88% 25.40% 20.00% Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 6.87% 8.62% 13.89% 22.73% 3.08% 25.97% 31.75% 16.36% Satisfied 10.69% 29.31% 21.30% 50.50% 3.08% 16.88% 11.11% 43.64% Very satisfied 0.76% 6.90% 7.41% 6.82% 0.00% 3.90% 3.17% 0.00% Total % % % % % % % % Table 71 shows that Tygerberg/Bellville followed by Heidelberg/Kuilsriver had the most respondents who were satisfied with the provision of sanitation services. The Central Cape Town Area had the most respondents (81.68% i.e. sum of 68.70% very dissatisfied and 12.98% dissatisfied) who were dissatisfied with the City s provision of sanitation services Experience with complaint-lodging process Respondents were asked a set of questions designed to measure customers satisfaction with the customer complaint-lodging process and the quality of services rendered by the Department Contact with the City Respondents were asked whether they had contacted the City in the last three months to report water or sanitation related problems. Figure 116 shows the findings. Page 147 of 193

150 Figure 116: Contacted the City to report problems The percentage of respondents who had contacted the City is as follows: Central Cape Town Area: %; Kraaifontein/Blouberg: %; Klipfontein: %; Tygerberg/Bellville: %; Mitchells Plain 47.69%; Khayelitsha 28.57%; South Peninsula 14.29%; and Heidelberg/Kuilsriver 16.36% It was observed earlier that about 89.25% of respondents were very dissatisfied with sanitation services; this probably explains why 47.69% of respondents in Mitchells Plain said they contacted the City to report problems Knowledge of how to contact the City Respondents were asked whether they knew how to contact the Department if they encounter water and sanitation related problems. The findings are shown in Table 72. Table 72: Knowledge of how to contact the City District Yes (%) No (%) Central Cape Town Area Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Page 148 of 193

151 District Yes (%) No (%) Heidelberg/Kuilsriver Table 72 shows that most (84.09%) respondents in Tygerberg/Bellville followed by respondents in the Central Cape Town Area (80.15%) said they don t know how to contact the Department. Overall, the Department could target all districts in order to increase knowledge on how customers can reach them when they encounter water and sanitation related problems Knowledge and awareness Knowledge of the City s customer-service contact details Respondents were asked whether or not they knew about the City s customer-service contact details for queries. The findings are illustrated in Figure 117. Figure 117: Knowledge about customer service contact details The percentage of respondents who were not aware of the City s customer service contact details for queries are: Central Cape Town Area: %; Kraaifontein/Blouberg: % Klipfontein: %; Tygerberg/Bellville: %; Mitchells Plain 78.46% Khayelitsha 66.23% South Peninsula 65.08%; and Heidelberg/Kuilsriver 42.27% Except in the South Peninsula (65.08%) and Heidelberg/Kuilsriver (42.27%), more than two-thirds of respondents in all the other districts did not know the relevant contact details with the City for customer service queries. Page 149 of 193

152 Interest in receiving information Respondents were asked if they would like to receive information frequently distributed by the Department in the form of pamphlets, stickers and posters. The findings are shown in Table 73. Table 73: Interest in receiving information District Yes (%) No (%) Central Cape Town Area Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver Table 73 shows that most respondents in all the districts indicated they are interested in receiving information from the Department. The Department could take steps to ensure that information is widely disseminated in all the districts Awareness and knowledge of environmental impact Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Respondents were asked to answer either yes or no to find out whether they were aware of the impact that blocked sewers have on the environment. The findings are shown in Figure 118. Page 150 of 193

153 Figure 118: Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Figure 118 shows that awareness of the impact of blocked sewers on the environment is very high among respondents in all the districts except in Klipfontein and Khayelitsha. The percentage of respondents who claimed they are aware is as follows: Central Cape Town Area %; Kraaifontein/Blouberg % Klipfontein %; Tygerberg/Bellville %; Mitchells Plain 95.38%; Khayelitsha 61.04%; South Peninsula 93.65%; and Heidelberg/Kuilsriver 74.55% Awareness of by-laws Respondents were asked to indicate if they were aware of the City s by-laws that regulate water usage and water abuse. Table 74 shows the findings. Table 74: Awareness of by-laws District Yes (%) No (%) Central Cape Town Area Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver Page 151 of 193

154 Table 74 shows that most (87.69%) respondents in Mitchells Plain said they were aware of the by-laws that regulate water usage and water abuse. Most (71.43%) respondents in South Peninsula said they were not aware of the by-laws. Page 152 of 193

155 11 DISTRICT ANALYSIS BUSINESS 11.1 Introduction A total of 315 interviews were conducted with respondents in the business areas. The analysis below pertains to the findings obtained from the business areas Annual water audit Respondents were asked if they undertake an annual water audit. The findings are shown in Table 75. Table 75: Conduct of annual water audit District Yes (count) Yes (%) No (count) No (%) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver Table 75 shows that most businesses across the districts do not conduct an annual water audit. In Khayelitsha and Klipfontein, for example all the respondents said they did not conduct an annual water audit Water-conservation policy Respondents were asked if they had a water-conservation policy. The findings are shown in Figure 119. Page 153 of 193

156 Figure 119: Availability of water conservation policy All the districts except Khayelitsha had respondents who said they have a water conservation policy. In Mitchells Plain, slightly more than half (54.55%) said they had a water conservation policy. Most respondents in Klipfontein (90.00%) said they did not have such a policy in place. There is need for the Department to engage with the business sector to encourage them to draft water conservation policies that should be widely distributed within the organisation concerned Water-management device Respondents were asked if they had a water-management device. The responses are shown in Figure 120. Figure 120: Ownership of water management device Page 154 of 193

157 Except in Khayelitsha, where all respondents own a water management device and in Tygerberg/Bellville where 59.09% of respondents own the device, most respondents in the other districts said they did not own a water management device. The percentage distribution of respondents who do not own a water management device is as follows: Central Cape Town Area %; Kraaifontein/Blouberg % Klipfontein % Tygerberg/Bellville % Mitchells Plain 63.64% Khayelitsha 0% South Peninsula 63.64%; and Heidelberg/Kuilsriver 64.71% Prepaid meter installation Respondents were asked if they would rather have a prepaid meter installed, which would enable them to purchase their own water monthly and not be billed. The findings are shown in Table 76. Table 76: Prepared meter installation preference District Yes (count) Yes (%) No (count) No (%) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver Table 76 shows that more than 80% of respondents do not want a prepaid water meter to be installed within their premises. The situation is a little bit different in Khayelitsha where 50% of respondents said they would want a prepaid meter installed Insights into water supply and sanitation services Respondents were asked a number of questions aimed at gaining insights into the water supply and sanitation services the Department provides to business areas Usage of water compared to previous year Respondents were asked whether the business was using more, the same or less water than the previous year. The findings are shown in Table 77. Page 155 of 193

158 Table 77: Usage of water compared to previous year Central Cape Town Kraaifontein /Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg /Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg /Kuilsriver More Same Less Don t know Total More 6.13% 3.57% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 5.88% Same 60.85% 60.71% 80.00% 59.09% 72.73% 50.00% 45.45% 76.47% Less 16.51% 3.57% 0.00% 13.64% 0.00% 25.00% 45.45% 5.88% Don t 16.51% 32.14% 20.00% 22.73% 27.27% 25.00% 0.00% 11.76% know Total % % % % % % % % Table 77 shows that most respondents across the districts were using the same amount of water as the previous year Effects of tariff increases on water usage Respondents were asked if tariff increases based on the amount of water used, resulted in them decreasing their water consumption. The findings are shown in Figure 121. Figure 121: Effects of tariff increases on water consumption Except in Mitchells Plain, more than half of the respondents in all the other districts said the introduction of tariff increase did not result in the decrease of water consumed as shown below: Central Cape Town %; Kraaifontein/Blouberg %; Klipfontein %; Page 156 of 193

159 Tygerberg/Bellville % Mitchells Plain 36.36%; Khayelitsha 75.00%; South Peninsula 90.91%; and Heidelberg/Kuilsriver 58.82% Water conservation Knowledge of water conservation promotions A question was asked to establish if respondents had heard or seen any advertisements or pamphlets from the City that promotes water conservation. The findings are shown in Table 78. Table 78: Knowledge of water conservation promotions District Yes Yes (%) No No (%) (count) (count) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver Table 78 shows that most respondents said they had seen advertisements on water conservation. Except in Kraaifointein (89,29%) and Central Cape Town (81.13%), over 90% of respondents said they had seen advertisements on water conservation Change of behaviour Respondents were asked a yes and no question to find out whether they had changed their behaviour in order to conserve water within the last year. The results are presented in Table 79. Table 79: Change of behaviour District Yes Yes (%) No No (%) (count) (count) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver Page 157 of 193

160 The results show that across all districts, over 50% of respondents said they did not change their behaviour in order to conserve water. The Department should vigorously campaign for water conservation across all districts Perceptions of water and sanitation services A number of questions were posed to the respondents in order to gain further insight into their perceptions of the availability of water, its quality, and their satisfaction with the sanitation services they received Satisfaction with water availability Respondents were asked to indicate their overall satisfaction with the Department s provision of tap water. The findings are shown in Table 80. Table 80: Satisfaction with water availability Satisfaction level Central Cape Town Kraaifontein /Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg /Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg /Kuilsriver Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Total Very satisfied 30.66% 14.29% 20.00% 54.55% 18.18% 25.00% 27.27% 29.41% Satisfied 56.60% 64.29% 60.00% 22.73% 72.73% 25.00% 63.64% 70.59% Neither satisfied nor 10.38% 21.43% 20.00% 22.73% 0.00% 50.00% 9.09% 0.00% dissatisfied Dissatisfied 1.42% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Very dissatisfied 0.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total % % % % % % % % Generally, respondents indicated they were satisfied with the City s provision of tap water. The results show that Heidelberg had the most respondents (100% i.e. sum of 29.41% - very satisfied and 70.59% - satisfied) who were satisfied followed by South Peninsula (90.01% i.e. sum of 27.27% - very satisfied and 63.74% -satisfied) and Mitchells Plain (90.01% i.e. sum of 18.18% very satisfied and 72.73% - satisfied). In Khayelitsha, although 50% of the respondents said they were satisfied, an equal proportion of respondents indicated that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the service. Page 158 of 193

161 Occurrence of water-related problems Respondents were asked to indicate how often they experience water-related problems such as water leaks and burst pipes. The findings are shown in Table 81. Table 81: Occurrence of water-related problems Occurrence of waterrelated problems Central Cape Town Kraaifontein /Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg /Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg /Kuilsriver Daily Weekly Once or twice a month Monthly Once or twice a year Never Total Daily 2.36% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.88% Weekly 2.83% 7.14% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 50.00% 9.09% 0.00% Twice a month 7.08% 3.57% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% Monthly 0.94% 0.00% 10.00% 4.55% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Once or twice a year 38.21% 67.86% 50.00% 22.73% 27.27% 0.00% 27.27% 0.00% Never 48.58% 21.43% 30.00% 63.64% 63.64% 25.00% 63.64% 94.12% Total % % % % % % % % The results show that most respondents who indicated that they had never experienced water-related problems are in Heidelberg (94.12%), followed by South Peninsula (63.64%), Tygerberg/Bellville (63.64%) and Mitchells Plain (63.64%). In Kraaifontein/Blouberg, 67.86% of the respondents said they experienced water-related problems once or twice a year. Page 159 of 193

162 Overall satisfaction with sanitation or sewage services Respondents were asked to indicate their overall satisfaction with the Department s provision of sanitation services. The findings are shown in Table 82. Table 82: Overall satisfaction with sanitation services Satisfaction level Central Cape Town Area Kraaifontein /Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg /Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Very satisfied Heidelberg /Kuilsriver Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Total Very satisfied 24.06% 21.43% 20.00% 40.91% 18.18% 25.00% 18.18% 23.53% Satisfied 60.85% 57.14% 60.00% 45.45% 72.73% 0.00% 63.64% 70.59% Neither 10.85% 17.86% 20.00% 13.64% 0.00% 75.00% 18.18% 5.88% satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied 1.89% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Very 2.36% 3.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% dissatisfied Total % % % % % % % % Generally, across all the districts except Khayelitsha, respondents indicated they were satisfied with the City s provision of sanitation services. The results show that Heidelberg/Kuilsriver had the most respondents (94.12% i.e. sum of 23.53% -very satisfied and 70.59% - satisfied) who were satisfied followed by Mitchells Plain (90.91% i.e. sum of 18.18%% - very satisfied and 63.64%-satisfied) and Central Cape Town (84.91% i.e. sum of 24.06% very satisfied and 60.85% - satisfied). In Khayelitsha, 25% of the respondents said they were satisfied while the remainder indicated that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Regularity of sewerage-related problems Respondents were asked to indicate how often they experience sanitation-related problems (e.g. water leaks, burst pipes, etc.). The findings are shown in Table 83. Page 160 of 193

163 Table 83: Regularity of sewerage-related problems Occurrence of problems Central Cape Town Kraaifontein /Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg /Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg /Kuilsriver Daily Weekly Once or twice a month Monthly Once or twice a year Never Total Daily 1.42% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Weekly 1.42% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Twice a 3.30% 3.57% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% month Monthly 1.89% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Once or 36.32% 64.29% 50.00% 22.73% 36.36% 25.00% 36.36% 11.76% twice a year Never 55.66% 25.00% 50.00% 72.73% 54.55% 75.00% 54.55% 88.24% Total % % % % % % % % The results show that most respondents who indicated that they never experienced sanitation-related problems are in Heidelberg/Kuilsriver (88.24%), followed by Khayelitsha (75.00%), Tygerberg/Bellville (72.73%) and Central Cape Town (55.66%). In Kraaifontein/Blouberg, 64.29% of the respondents said they experienced sanitation-related problems once or twice a year Experience with complaint-lodging process Respondents were asked a number of questions designed to measure customers satisfaction with the customer complaints-lodging process, and the quality of services provided by the Department Contact with the City to report a problem Respondents were asked whether they had contacted the City to report a water or sanitation problem in the last three months. The findings are shown in Figure 122. Page 161 of 193

164 Figure 122: Contacted the City in the last 3 months Figure 122 shows that most respondents in all the districts did not contact the City to report sanitation problems in the last three months. The percentage of respondents who had contacted the City is as follows: Central Cape Town %; Kraaifontein/Blouberg %; Klipfontein %; Tygerberg/Bellville %; Mitchells Plain 45.45%; Khayelitsha 0%; South Peninsula 18.18; and Heidelberg/Kuilsriver 5.88% 11.6 Knowledge and awareness Respondents were asked a number of questions to discover if they were aware of the Department s contact details, whether they would be willing to receive information from the Department, and also their preferred means of communication Knowledge of contact details for queries The following questions sought to establish the respondents knowledge and awareness of the City s customer-service contact details. The findings are shown in Figure 123 and Table 84. Page 162 of 193

165 Figure 123: Knowledge about the City's service contact details Table 84: Knowledge of City's customer service contact details District Yes (%) No (%) Central Cape Town Area Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver Except in Khayelitsha, over 70% of the respondents in all the districts said they know about the City s customer service contact details Awareness of City s single number Respondents were asked a yes and no question to find out whether they were aware that the City has a single number for all service calls. The results are shown in Table 85. Table 85: Awareness of City's single number District Yes Yes (%) No No (%) (count) (count) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Page 163 of 193

166 District Yes Yes (%) No No (%) (count) (count) Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver Kraaifontein/Blouberg had the most (respondents 67.86%) who knew that the City has a single for all service calls. There is need for the City to increase the awareness especially in Khayelitsha, Mitchells Plain and Central Cape Town Interest to receive information Respondents were asked if they would like to receive information from the Department, and literature such as pamphlets, stickers and posters explaining various initiatives on water and sanitation. The findings are shown in Table 86. Table 86 : Interest to receive information District Yes Yes (%) No No (%) (count) (count) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver Except in Klipfontein and Khayelitsha, over 70% of the respondents in all the other districts said they are interested to receive information from the Department Awareness and knowledge of environmental impact Awareness of impact of blocked sewers on the environment Respondents were asked if they were aware of the impact of blocked sewers on the environment. The findings are shown in Figure 124 and Table 87. Page 164 of 193

167 Figure 124: Awareness of impact of blocked sewers Table 87: Awareness of impact of blocked sewers District Yes (%) No (%) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein/Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg/Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg/Kuilsriver In all districts except Khayelitsha and Klipfontein, over 90% of respondents said they are aware of the impact of blocked sewers on the environment. In Khayelitsha, half of the respondents said they are aware of the impact and 80% of respondents in Klipfontein Awareness of City by-laws Respondents were asked if they were aware of the City s by-laws that regulate potable, sewage and treated effluent water. The findings are shown in Figure 125 and Table 88. Page 165 of 193

168 Figure 125: Awareness of City's by-laws Table 88: Awareness of City's by-laws District Yes (%) No (%) Central Cape Town Kraaifontein / Blouberg Klipfontein Tygerberg / Bellville Mitchells Plain Khayelitsha South Peninsula Heidelberg / Kuilsriver Except in Khayelitsha, over 60% of the respondents said they are aware of the City s by-laws that regulate portable, sewerage and treated effluent water. Page 166 of 193

169 12 COMPARATIVE ANALYIS 2010/2011 AND 2012/2013 SURVEYS 12.1 Introduction This section provides a comparison of the main findings of the survey conducted by Devnomics and the survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere Consultants and Dashboard. It is envisaged that the comparative analysis of the two surveys will assist the Department s management in its decision making Background of the surveys Table 89: Background of surveys I.D Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere Consultants and Dashboard Survey conducted by Devnomics When survey was conducted February 2011 January 2013 to March 2013 Usage survey findings of The research findings are being used: To measure the key performance indicator level of customer satisfaction with the services of the Department; To ensure that the Water Services Customer Charter remains relevant; To uncover the needs not currently addressed, especially in the informal sector and commercial arena; As an input to ISO 9001:2000 certification auditing; To ensure that an acceptable level of service satisfaction is achieved and maintained; and To identify areas needing improvement. The Department envisages to use the survey findings: as an input to ISO 9001 : 2000 certification; to ascertain an acceptable level of service satisfaction which needs to be achieved and maintained; to identify areas needing improvement; to uncover needs not currently being addressed, especially in informal and or in commercial areas; to compare the actual service against the documented Customer Service Charter; and to measure the level of satisfaction with the service. Geographical scope Suburbs across the City of Cape Town Formal and informal residential areas and business areas in the following eight districts: South Peninsula Tygerberg/ Bellville Khayelitsha Heidelberg/ Kuilsriver Page 167 of 193

170 I.D Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere Consultants and Dashboard Survey conducted by Devnomics Mitchells Plain Kraaifontein Central (Cape Town area) Klipfontein Sample achieved 804 formal sector; 200 informal sector; and 100 business formal residential areas; 601 informal residential areas; 315 business areas; and 77 customers who complained (customers on database provided the Department). Questionnaires used two types of questionnaires: residential questionnaire business sector questionnaire four types of questionnaires formal residential area questionnaire informal residential questionnaire business area questionnaire customers on database questionnaire Page 168 of 193

171 12.3 Comparison of findings (formal) Table 90: Comparison of findings (formal) ID Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere Consultants and Dashboard (February 2011) Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) Remarks 1 Access to water and sanitation services Amount of water used monthly Amount of water used compared to last year Effects of introduction of tariff increases Most respondents (56%) said they did not know how much water the household used per month. Most (59%) respondents said they think the household is using the same amount of water as the previous year. 42% of the formal sector said the introduction of tariff increases resulted in them decreasing water consumption. The survey showed that 63.5% of respondents said they did not know the amount of water the household was using per month. The findings show that 44% of respondents said they think they are using the same amount of water as the previous year. 51% of formal residents said the introduction of tariff increases resulted in them decreasing water consumption. Knowledge of water used per month could be a very important indicator with respect to water conservation. The Department could take steps such as graphically illustrating to its customers the amount of water they use annually for example. Perceptions on water and sanitation services Most (66%) - of formal sector respondents disagreed with the statement that Cape Town has enough water, so we don t have to worry about how much we use. Most (55%) of formal sector agreed there are current water restrictions in Cape Town. Most (41%) agreed that the the price of water and sanitation is fair to everyone). Most (47%) respondents disagreed with the statement that Cape Town has enough water, so we don t have to worry about how much we use. 48% of formal residents agreed that there are current water restrictions in Cape Town. 36% of respondents agreed that the price of water and sanitation is fair to everyone. On the basis of these findings, if we can generalise, the decrease of customers who think that they should not worry about the amount of water they use should be a concern to the Department. Page 169 of 193

172 ID Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere Consultants and Dashboard (February 2011) Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) Remarks 2 Water conservation Knowledge of water conservation promotions Change of behaviour to conserve water 47% of the formal sector said they have heard a radio advertisement or seen advertisements or pamphlets from the City that promote water conservation. 67% claimed to have changed their behaviour in the last year. 3 Perceptions on water and sanitation services (service delivery quality) 79% of the formal residents said they have heard a radio advertisement or seen advertisements or pamphlets from the City that promote water conservation. 63% indicated they had changed their behaviour regarding the conservation of water in the last year. Compared to the previous year, the seemingly increase of awareness of water conservation advertisements should be a positive outcome regarding water conservation initiatives. Perception on quality taste of water Perception on smell of water 27% and 50% rated the taste of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 77% positive perception). 18% rated the taste of water as average and 5% as poor. 30% and 49% rated smell as excellent and good respectively (total of 79% positive perception). 18% rated smell of water as average and 3% rated smell of water as poor 47% and 42% rated the taste of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 89% positive perception) 9.5% rated the taste of water as average and 1.5% rated it as poor. 41.5% and 51.0% rated the smell as excellent and good respectively (total of 92.5% positive perception). 6.5% rated the smell of water as average and 1.0% rated the smell of water as poor. There seems to be a positive shift regarding how the Department s water provision services are perceived. The Department could utilise the positive perception of water quality to make further in-roads with regard to customer engagements. Perception on colour of water 31% and 48% rated the colour of water as excellent and good respectively ( total of 79% 41.5% and 47.1% rated the colour of water as excellent and good Page 170 of 193

173 ID Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere Consultants and Dashboard (February 2011) Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) Remarks positive perception). 15% rated the colour of water as average and 6% rated it as poor. respectively (total of 88.6% positive perception). 10.5% rated the colour of water as average and 0.9% as poor. Perception on water pressure 39% and 47% rated the water pressure as excellent and good respectively (total of 86% positive perception). 10% rated the water pressure as average and 5% rated water pressure as poor. 42.3% and 41.6% rated the water pressure as excellent and good respectively (total of 83.9% positive perception). 13.3% rated the water pressure as average and 2.8% rated water pressure as poor. Overall quality 35% and 46% rated the overall quality of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 81% positive perception). 16% rated the overall quality as average and 3% as poor. 42.3% and 42.7% rated the overall quality of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 85% positive perception). 13.2% rated the overall quality as average and 1.8% as poor. Satisfaction with water availability 33% and 59% said they were very satisfied and satisfied respectively (total of 92% - satisfied) with the availability of water. 41% and 45% said they were very satisfied and satisfied (total of 86% - satisfied). These findings for both surveys have shown that customers are satisfied with the water availability which implies that the City s water provision services are good. Occurrence of water related problems 61% said they never experienced a waterrelated problem and 1% said they experienced water-related problems daily. 60% said they never experienced a water-related problem and 8% said they experienced water-related problems daily. The findings from both years seem to suggest that most customers do not encounter water Page 171 of 193

174 ID Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere Consultants and Dashboard (February 2011) Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) Remarks related problems. However, for both years there are customers who indicated that they encounter water related problems every day. Steps therefore need to be taken to monitor and respond quickly to these problems. Satisfaction with the City with respect to the provision of sanitation and sewerage services 29% and 57% said they were very satisfied and satisfied respectively (total of 86% - satisfied). 35% and 42% said they were very satisfied and satisfied respectively (total of 77% - satisfied). Both surveys have shown that most of the respondents were satisfied with the City s provision of sanitation and sewerage services. Occurrence of sewerage blockage or problems 73% said they never experienced a waterrelated problem and 2% said they experienced water-related problems daily. 67% said they never experienced a water-related problem and 2% said they experienced water-related problems daily The results showed that a great number of formal residents do not experience waterrelated problems. This seems to suggest that the City s sanitation services are sound, although there is room for improvement to achieve the optimal quality levels. 4 Rating of services received when contacting the call centre Page 172 of 193

175 ID Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere Consultants and Dashboard (February 2011) Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) Remarks Ease of finding the right options when you call The time taken to get hold of the right person in the call centre 35% and 42% rated this service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. 9% rated the measure as average and 14% as poor. 24% and 46% rated this service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. 15% rated the measure as average and 14% as poor. 6.4% and 31.7% rated this service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. The findings also show that 54% of respondents rated the measure as average and 7.9% as poor. 4.8% and 30.2% rated the service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. The findings also show that 46.0% rated the measure as average and 19% as poor. Compared to the previous year s survey, most respondents rated most of the service delivery measures as average. If this shift can be viewed as an indicator of falling standards at the call centre, then necessary steps like the training of personnel can restore the expected service delivery level. Being served in a professional manner and insisting on reference number 29% and 49% rated this service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. 13% rated the measure as average and 11% as poor. 4.7% and 49.2% rated the service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. 39.7% rated the measure as average and 6.4% as poor. The time taken to fix the problem 32% and 34% rated the service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. 8% rated the measure as average and 26% as poor. 6.3% and 30.2% rated the service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. 36.5% rated the measure as average and 27.0% as poor. Expectations of the City s response time Most (43%) respondents said they expect a problem to be fixed within 1 hour followed by 28% of respondents who said they expect a problem to be fixed within 6 hours. Most (67.7%) respondents expect a problem to be fixed within 6 hours followed by a 14.4% of respondents who expect a resolution within an hour and 12.7% who expect a The findings from both surveys showed that, generally, more than 50% of customers expect problems to be Page 173 of 193

176 ID Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere Consultants and Dashboard (February 2011) Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) Remarks resolution within 12 hours. The results also indicate that 2.7% of respondents expect a resolution within 2 days, 1.0% within 24 hours and 1.5% said they don t know which time frame they consider appropriate for a problem to be solved. fixed within 6 hours. These expectations are in line with what the Department has as its standards in the Customer Service Charter. 5 Value/billing process Frequency of checking water bills 47% said always 19% said mostly 17% said sometimes 18 said never 40% said always 13% said mostly 13% said sometimes 34% said never The Department could increase awareness regarding the benefits of checking one s bills frequently. Rating of price of water Rating of the price of sanitation services 13% said its very expensive 36%% said its expensive 47% said its fairly priced 4% said its cheap 20% said its very expensive 35% said its expensive 41% said its fairly priced 3% said its cheap 1% said its very cheap 10.26% said its very expensive 26.61% said its expensive 37.91% said its fairly priced 1.46% said its cheap 1.85% said the household does not pay for water 21.54% said they don t know said its very expensive 24.56% said its expensive 37.33% said its fairly priced 1.75% said its cheap 3.12% said its very cheap 22.51% said they don t know The results show that most customers indicated water and sanitation services are fairly priced. These results suggest that most customers are receiving value for their money regarding the provision of water and sanitation services. Ownership of 6% of respondents said they had a water 39% of respondents said they had a These results suggest Page 174 of 193

177 ID Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere Consultants and Dashboard (February 2011) Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) Remarks water management device management device and a majority (94%) did not have one. water management device and most (61%) did not have one. that there is a gradual increase of customers who have water management devices. Installation of a prepaid water meter 18% said they would like a prepaid water meter installed. 15% said they would like a prepaid water meter installed It seems most customers are not interested in the installation of prepaid water meters. The Department could take initiative by widely creating awareness on the benefits of prepaid water meters Comparison of findings (informal) Table 91: Comparison of findings (informal) ID Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere and Dashboard survey (February 2011) Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) Remark 1. Access to water and sanitation services Amount of water used per month Most (57%) of the respondents said they did not know how much water the household was using per month. The survey showed that 61% of the respondents said they did not know the amount of water the household was using per month. In general terms, there is a slight increase of customers who are aware of the amount of water they use per month. 46% respondents said they do not know if 45.6% of respondents said they do Page 175 of 193

178 ID Amount of water used compared to last year Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere and Dashboard survey (February 2011) their household uses more, the same or less amount of water compared to a year ago. Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) not know if their household is using more, the same or less amount of water compared to a year ago. Remark Effects of the introduction of tariff increases 42% of respondents said the introduction of tariff increases resulted in them decreasing their water consumption. 37% of respondents said the introduction of tariff increases resulted in them decreasing their water consumption Decreasing water consumption through the introduction of tariff increases based on the amount of water used appears to have been ineffective among informal residents. Perceptions on water and sanitation services 39% of respondents disagreed with the statement: Cape Town has enough water, so we don t have to worry about how much we use. 26% of the informal sector agreed that there are current water restrictions in Cape Town 26% agreed that the the price of water and sanitation is fair to everyone. 50% of respondents disagreed with the statement that Cape Town has enough water, so we don t have to worry about how much we use. 49% of informal residents agreed that there are current water restrictions in Cape Town. 32% of informal residents agreed the price of water and sanitation is fair to everyone. It seems there is increase awareness among informal residents regarding the importance of using water wisely. 2 Water conservation Knowledge of water conservation promotions 40% of respondents said they have heard a radio advertisement, or seen advertisements or pamphlets from the City that promote water conservation % of respondents said they have heard a radio advertisement, or seen advertisements or pamphlets from the City that promote water conservation. There appears to be an increase in awareness of advertisements or pamphlets that promote water Page 176 of 193

179 ID Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere and Dashboard survey (February 2011) Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) conservation. Remark Change behaviour conserve water of to 35% claimed to have changed their behaviour in the last year % indicated they had changed their behaviour regarding the conservation of water in the last year. It seems informal residents are changing their behaviour regarding the conservation of water. 3 Perceptions on water and sanitation services (service delivery quality) Perception on quality of the taste of water Perception on smell of water 76% and 21% rated the taste of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 97% positive perception). 3% rated the taste of water as average and 1% rated taste of water as poor. 75% and 20% rated the smell as excellent and good respectively (total of 95% positive perception). 6% rated the smell as average and 1% rated smell of water as poor 44.4% and 44.1% rated the taste of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 88.5% positive perception). 8.3% rated the taste of water as average and 3.2 as poor. 45.5% and 43.0% rated the smell as excellent and good respectively (total of 88.5% positive perception). 8.5% rated the smell of water as average and 3.0% as poor. Although there is decrease in the total positive percentage, the informal residents seem to perceive service delivery in a very positive manner, as measured by the different dimensions. Perception on colour of water 73% and 22% rated the colour of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 95% positive perception). 5% rated the colour of water as average and 1% as poor. 44.1% and 44.1% rated the colour of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 88.2% positive perception). 9.1% rated the colour of water as average and 2.7% rated colour of water as poor. Page 177 of 193

180 ID Perception on water pressure Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere and Dashboard survey (February 2011) 62% and 19% rated the water pressure as excellent and good respectively (total of 81% positive perception). 17% rated the water pressure as average and 3% rated water pressure as poor. Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) 45.7% and 36.8% rated the water pressure as excellent and good respectively (total of 82.5% positive perception). 15% rated the water pressure as average and 2.5% rated water pressure as poor. Remark Overall quality 76% and 20% rated the overall quality of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 96% positive perception). 4% rated the overall quality as average and 1% as poor. 45.7% and 36.8% rated the overall quality of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 82.5% positive perception). 15% rated the overall quality as average and 2.5% as poor. Informal residents perceive the overall quality of water service delivery as excellent and good. Although, it seems the findings of the previous survey showed slightly higher percentages than the current survey, the perception is still positive. Satisfaction with water availability 15% and 21% said they were very satisfied and satisfied respectively (total of 36% - satisfied). 13% and 51.41% said they were very satisfied and satisfied (total of 64.41% - satisfied). It seems there is an increase in residents who are satisfied with water availability in informal areas. Occurrence of water related problems 2% said they never experienced a waterrelated problem and 39% said they experienced water-related problems twice a month. 25% said they never experienced a water-related problem and 10.6% said they experienced water-related problems twice a month. Satisfaction with the City s provision of sanitation and 13% and 14% said they were very satisfied and satisfied respectively (total of 27% - satisfied). 3.49% and 20.3% said they were very satisfied and satisfied respectively (total of 23.8% - satisfied). It seems there is an increase in residents who are satisfied with the provision of sanitation services in Page 178 of 193

181 ID sewerage services Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere and Dashboard survey (February 2011) Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) Remark informal areas. Occurrence of sewerage blockage or problems 2% said they never experienced a waterrelated problem and 14% said they experienced water-related problems daily. 30% said they never experienced a water-related problem and 22% said they experienced water-related problems daily. 4 Rating of services received after contacting the call centre Ease of finding the right options when you call 45% and 18% rated this service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. 18% rated the measure as average and 18% as poor. 6.4% and 31.7% rated this service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. Most (54%) respondents rated the measure as average and 7.9% as poor. There seems to be a decrease in the number of customers who rated the ease of finding the right options when you call as excellent or good. If this can be taken to mean standards at the call centre are dropping, then remedial processes like training should be done regularly. The time taken to get hold of the right person in the call centre 13% and 20% rated this service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. 41% rated the measure as average and 26% as poor. 4.8% and 30.2% rated this service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. Most respondents (46.0%) rated the measure as average and 19% as poor. Of concern should be that the measure the time taken to get hold of the right person in the call centre was rated as average by 41.0% in the previous year s survey and 46.0% in the current survey. There is need to improve service delivery at the call Page 179 of 193

182 ID Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere and Dashboard survey (February 2011) Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) centre. Remark Being served in a professional manner and insisting on reference number 12% and 43% rated the service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. 24% rated the measure as average and 50% as poor. 4.7% and 49.2% rated the service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. 39.7% rated the measure as average and 6.4% as poor. There appears to be an increase in the number of customers who rate the measure being served in a professional manner and insisting on reference number as good. The time taken to fix the problem 14% rated the service quality measure as excellent, 24% rated the measure as average and 50% as poor. 6.3% and 30.2% rated the service quality measure as excellent and good respectively. 36.5% rated the measure as average and 27.0% as poor. These results seem to suggest that there is a decrease in the number of customers who are not happy with the the time taken to fix the problem. Time expected to fix water or sanitation related problem 22% of the informal residents expected water and sanitation related problems to be fixed within 1 hour while 18% expected it to be fixed within 24 hours % of the informal residents expected water and sanitation related problem to be fixed within 1 hour while only 7.46% expected it to be fixed within 24 hours. It seems there is an increase of customers who expect the problems they encounter to be fixed within 1 hour. Page 180 of 193

183 12.5 Comparison of findings (business) Table 92: Comparison of findings (business) ID Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere and Dashboard survey (February 2011) 1. Access to water and sanitation services Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) Remark Amount of water used per month Amount of water used compared to last year In the business sector, most respondents (62%) said they did not know how much water they used monthly. Most respondents (68%) said they think they are using the same amount of water as the previous year. 8% of respondents said they did not know whether they used the same amount or more. The survey showed that 80.63% of respondents said they did not know the amount of water they used per month. Most respondents (62%) said they think they are using the same amount of water as the previous year. 18% of respondents that they did not know whether they used the same amount or more. There is need for the Department to raise awareness among the business areas regarding amount of water used. This will help with the Department s water conservation initiatives. Effects of introduction of tariff increases A majority (96%) of respondents said the introduction of tariff increases did not result in them decreasing their water consumption, while 4% said it had resulted in them decreasing their water consumption. 64% of respondents said the introduction of tariff increases did not result in them decreasing their water consumption, while 36% said it resulted in them decreasing their water consumption. Perceptions on water and sanitation Most respondents (67%) disagreed with the statement: Cape Town has enough water, so we don t have to worry about how much There is an almost equal percentage of respondents who agreed and disagreed that Cape These results indicate that there is need for the Department to further expand Page 181 of 193

184 ID services Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere and Dashboard survey (February 2011) we use. Most respondents (52%) neither agreed nor disagreed that there are current water restrictions in Cape Town, while 33% agreed that there are current water restrictions in Cape Town. Most respondents (71%) neither agreed nor disagreed that the the price of water and sanitation is fair to everyone, while 25% agreed that the price of water and sanitation in Cape Town is fair to everyone. Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) Town has enough water, so we don t have to worry about how much we use % of respondents agreed that there are current water restrictions in Cape Town % of respondents were unsure if there were water restrictions or not. More than 50% of respondents believed that the price of water and sanitation is fair to everyone. Remark its water conservation efforts in terms of creating awareness across the business areas. 2 Water conservation Water conservation policy Respondents were asked if they had a water conservation policy in place and most respondents (93%) said no, while those that responded positively were only 7%. Most respondents (78.73%) said they did not have water conservation policy, while 21.27% responded positively. These results seem to suggest a steady increase in the number of businesses who have a water conservation policy, although a large percentage do not have. Annual water audit Most respondents do no conduct annual water audits (93%), while 7% do. Most respondents (90.48%) indicated that they do not undertake an annual water audit. Therefore, only 9.52% of respondents said yes, they have an annual water audit. It is a major concern that most businesses do not conduct annual water audits. Water management The findings show that only 1% of respondents that have a water management The findings show that 36% said they had a water management The results seem to suggest a steady increase of businesses Page 182 of 193

185 ID device Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere and Dashboard survey (February 2011) device and 99% did not have a water management device. Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) device and 64% of respondents said they did not have a water management device. Remark that use water management devices. Prepaid meter installation The findings show that no one wanted a prepaid water meter. The findings show that only 17.14% of respondents who would like to install a prepaid water meter. The results seem to suggest a steady increase of businesses that prefer prepaid meter installations. Knowledge of water conservation promotions 30% of the business sector said they have heard a radio advertisement, or seen advertisements or pamphlets from the City that promotes water conservation % of respondents said they have heard a radio advertisement, or seen advertisements or pamphlets from the City that promotes water conservation. It appears that there is a significant increase in the number of businesses that are aware of advertisements that promote water conservation. Change behaviour conserve water of to 74% claimed not to have changed their behaviour in the last year % indicated they had not changed their behaviour regarding the conservation of water in the last year. These results seem to suggest there is an alarming decrease in businesses that are changing their behaviour regarding water conservation. 3 Perceptions on water and sanitation services (service delivery quality) Perception on quality taste of water 36% and 54% rated the taste of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 90% positive perception) % and 53.65% rated the taste of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 85.71% positive perception). Generally, the perception of service delivery is highly positive. Both surveys show that more than 80% of respondents rated the service Page 183 of 193

186 ID Perception on smell of water Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere and Dashboard survey (February 2011) 36% and 52% rated the smell as excellent and good respectively (total of 88% positive perception). Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) 31.43% and 55.6% rated the smell of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 87.03% positive perception). Remark delivery measures as excellent and good. Perception on colour of water 39% and 50% rated the colour of water as excellent and good respectively ( total of 89% positive perception) 30.16% and 54.92% rated the colour of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 85.08% positive perception). Perception on water pressure 45% and 47% rated the water pressure as excellent and good respectively (total of 92% positive perception) 29.84% and 51.43% rated the water pressure as excellent and good respectively (total of 81.27% positive perception) Overall quality 40% and 48% rated the overall quality of water as excellent and good respectively (total of 88% positive perception) % and 56.51% the rated overall quality as excellent and good respectively (total of 83.49% positive perception) Satisfaction with water availability 64% and 28% said they were very satisfied and satisfied respectively (total 92% - satisfied) % and 56.19% said they were very satisfied and satisfied (total 86.03% - satisfied). Both surveys showed that more than 85% are satisfied with the water availability. Occurrence of water related problems 80% said they never experienced a waterrelated problem % said they never experienced a water-related problem). These results seem to indicate that there is an increase in the number of businesses that encounter water-related problems. Page 184 of 193

187 ID Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere and Dashboard survey (February 2011) Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) Remark Satisfaction with the City with respect to the provision of sanitation and sewerage services 67% and 26% said they were very satisfied and satisfied respectively (total of 93% - satisfied) % and 59.68% said they were very satisfied and satisfied respectively (total of 84.12% - satisfied). Both survey results show that more than 80% of businesses said they were satisfied with the provision of sanitation and sewerage services. Occurrence of sewerage blockage or problems 95% said they never experienced a sanitation-related problem % said they never experienced a sanitation related problem. These results seem to suggest that there is a steady increase of business firms who encounter sanitation related problems. 4 Rating of services received after contacting the call centre Ease of finding the right options when you cal 35% and 42% rated the service quality measure as excellent and good respectively (total - 77%). 9% rated the measure as average and 14% as poor. 6.4% and 31.7% rated the service quality measure as excellent and good respectively (total %). Most (54%) rated the measure as average and 7.9% as poor. The results seem to suggest that there is a need to improve the quality of services offered by the call centre. The time taken to get hold of the right person in the call centre 24% and 46% rated the service quality measure as excellent and good respectively (total - 70%). 15% rated the measure as average and 14% as poor. 4.8% and 30.2% rated the service quality measure as excellent and good respectively (total 35%). Most (46.0%) rated the measure as average and 19% as poor. Being served 29% and 49% rated the service quality 4.7% and 49.2% rated the service Page 185 of 193

188 ID in a professional manner and insisting on reference number Survey conducted by Southern Hemisphere and Dashboard survey (February 2011) measure as excellent and good respectively (total 78%). 13% rated the measure as average and 11% as poor. Survey conducted by Devnomics (January 2013 to March 2013) quality measure as excellent and good respectively (total 53.9%). 39.7% rated the measure as average and 6.4% as poor. Remark The time taken to fix the problem 32% and 34% rated the service quality measure as excellent and good respectively (total 66%) 8% rated the measure as average and 26% as poor. 6.3% and 30.2% rated the service quality measure as excellent and good respectively (total -36.5%) 36.5% rated the measure as average and 27.0% as poor. These results seem to suggest that there is need to align the response processes in order to reduce waiting time in terms of the time taken to fix the problem Page 186 of 193

189 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13.1 Formal The majority (96.8%) of the formal respondents had attained some level of schooling, which suggests that the messages the Department might use should be easily understood if information needs are correctly matched with the communication means deployed to satisfy those needs. In terms of the occupation status, the results indicate that the majority of respondents who were interviewed were economically active and therefore had vested interests in water and sanitation issues. Formal residents own a variety of electronic means of communication. This presents the Department with an excellent opportunity to reach its target residents. Almost all respondents (99.7%) indicated that they receive water and sanitation services from the Department. As a monopolist, the Department might be tempted to show little interest in customer service. The Department should bear in mind, however, that its goal is to remain quality focused. Most (63.5%) of the respondents did not know how much water they used each month. The general lack of knowledge of residents should be a matter of concern for the Department, and should not impact negatively on the Department s desire to encourage residents to conserve water, as nearly half the respondents disagreed with the statement Cape Town has enough water, so we don t have to worry about how much we use. It is still worrisome, however, that many respondents agree with the statement that Cape Town has enough water so don t have to worry about what we use. This fact questions the effectiveness of the City s conservation efforts pillared by the Water Conservation and Water Demand Strategy. Most people (61.8%) agree that the tap water in Cape Town is safe to drink and 54% of the respondents agree that the supply of tap water in Cape Town is reliable. These are positive sentiments, and the Department should focus on developing better relationships with customers and in such a way improve its image. The majority of formal residents (79.4%) have heard radio advertisements or seen advertisements or pamphlets that promote water conservation. The water-quality dimensions were rated as good by most residents. Most (53%) of consumers interviewed indicated they had not encountered any water-related problem. What is more, 40.7% of respondents were satisfied with the Department when it comes to its water and sanitation services. The Call Centre is the main point of contact, followed by the Department itself. Most consumers who contacted the Call Centre rated the service as average. There is thus room for improvement for Call Centre teams. The betterment could require additional training of the workers or teams with regard to a quality approach to service delivery. Most consumers (67.7%) expect a problem to be fixed within six hours after reporting it, and such an expectation can be challenging to the Department. The Department could, however, use its knowledge to anticipate the needs and expectations of its customers and therefore help the customers to set realistic expectations. Management of customer expectations involves customer-education programmes, in which the consumers are also educated about their obligations and responsibilities. In this manner the Page 187 of 193

190 Department could reduce service-delivery gaps which may exist between the Department and its consumers. Most residents (62.0%) know how to contact the Department. However, more concerted efforts in addition to already existing initiatives could be used by the Department to increase the pool of residents who know how to contact the Department. Customer knowledge of the different ways of contacting the Department is important, because of water conservation initiatives; customers are encouraged to report a fault as soon as possible and therefore should know how to contact the Department. Customers responded indifferently (neutral) to three out of four perception statements. The main goal of the Department should be to continuously innovate and improve its service-delivery processes so that there is movement on the perception domain from the neutral towards the positive position. In the case of the four statements given here, the ideal should be movement towards the strongly agree position of the perception domain. The majority (83.7%) indicated they would rather not have a prepaid water meter installed in their households. Slightly more than half of the respondents did not know the customer-service contact details for queries. There is need for the Department to increase and expand its existing information and educational initiatives, so that an increased number of residents is aware of the service-contact details for queries. Most respondents (81.78%) indicated they would like to receive literature (material such as pamphlets, stickers, and posters) explaining various initiatives on water and sanitation, from the Department. The most-preferred method for receipt of information from the Department is /sms, followed by billboards, website, newspaper advertisement, and radio advertisement. The least-preferred method is flyers. The Department could, in its communication strategy, take into account these interesting findings. The Department could increase its current efforts to educate and inform the communities on the by-laws that regulate water usage and water abuse Informal The findings show that most of the people who participated in this survey fall within and age groups, numbered 226 and 213 respectively. Within these groups, most of the respondents were females. It is generally believed that within the households women have a better understanding of water and sanitation issues than males, and hence this outcome. In terms of race, more black than coloured households participated in the survey. Generally, more black people reside in informal areas and therefore it is not surprising that the most spoken language was Xhosa. The City of Cape Town will have to find a way of uplifting the lives of black people, so that they can move out of informal areas to betterdeveloped areas. Most of the people in the informal areas have inadequate salaries, and only 1 household had a R monthly income. The people also did not continue their education - a number of them only completed secondary school, which results in poor employment prospects for those professionally active. The findings show that slightly more than half of people living in informal areas are unemployed (310 out of 601). It is the responsibility of the City to assist these people in order to decrease the high rate of crime in the City of Cape Town. A higher percentage of households seem to be using flush toilets; however, there are still many households making use of the bucket system. It is outrageous that 230 households out of 601 still use the bucket system. The City could make use of television and cellular phones for communicating with households in informal areas. Page 188 of 193

191 The City of Cape Town seems to be providing water and sanitation services to almost all of these households. The residents need to obtain more education about water usage; most of the people do not know or are unsure of the average use of water per month, or in comparison with the previous year. Generally, the residents feel that the quality of water is good and are quite satisfied with its availability. Even though the people are satisfied with the availability of water, they still occasionally experience problems associated with water like burst pipes, no water or low pressure. The occurrence of waterrelated problems seems not to be a big issue; most people reported that it never happened and some said it occurred only once or twice a year. The City needs to have highly-skilled technicians who will act promptly to fix problems immediately after they are reported. Overall, satisfaction with the sanitation services is lower in comparison with the water services. Residents are very dissatisfied with the sanitation service, which is a negative message about the service provided by the Department. Residents of informal areas need not be neglected; services within their areas should be as good as in formal areas. Most households in informal areas live in poverty, and residents do not know how to contact relevant departments about their concerns or do not have the means to do so. They should be taught what to do when they have problems in relation to water and sanitation. Since most respondents are unhappy with the Call Centre services, the Department needs to provide a better alternative for the residents to use to contact them Business The majority of the business respondents operate in the retail trade. Such business have a high churn-out rate that is, the numbers of costumers who come and go. The Department should establish strategic alliances with these traders and their associations, in order to promote awareness and knowledge of water management and conservation. As the study highlighted, 63.81% of the respondents did not have water-management devices, and only 17.14% had installed water meters. Some 94.60% of the business respondents indicated that they receive water and sanitation services from the Department. The Department might want to use its monopolist status to change behaviour, and also to introduce incentives in conjunction with business to support the message of conservation, whilst promoting its own brand as the beacon of Africa. A higher percentage of business respondents (80.63%), as opposed the formal residents (63.5%), had no idea of the amount of water they used each month. This should be a grave matter of concern to the Department, as this group of stakeholders is thought to be more enlightened and more skilful. Their lack of knowledge may impact adversely on the Department s desire to encourage business and employees to conserve water. Some 40.32% of business respondents, in comparison to 50% of residents, disagreed with the statement Cape Town has enough water, so we don t have to worry about how much we use. Businesses must be encouraged to attempt to change the behaviour of their employees. They cannot hide behind the fact that they pay for the service and their use is irrelevant. This poses a question about the effectiveness of conservation efforts pillared by the Water Conservation and Water Demand Strategy. A large majority (75.24%) of business respondents agree that the tap water in Cape Town is safe to drink. As in the case with formal residents, these are positive signals which the Department should build on in its attempt to develop better relationships with customers and strengthen its brand. Some 49.84% of the business respondents had not encountered any water-related problem, and about 36.83% indicated that they had once or twice in a year experienced a water-related problem. Some 59.68% of the business respondents were satisfied with the water and sanitation services provided by the Department. Page 189 of 193

192 Most respondents from business areas rated their experience with the Call Centre as good (79.76%). They positively evaluated the time it took to contact the right person (78.81% of respondents), being served in a professional manner (81.83% of respondents), and the time it took to fix the problem, which was less than a day (63.54% of respondents). More than 60% of business respondents felt that cost of water and sanitation services was fairly priced. It is an interesting that 68.57% of business respondents do not know that they received the first 350 litres from the Department, free of charge. Only 36.19% of the respondents had water-management devices and only 17.14% had water meters installed. A large percentage of business respondents (73.97%) indicated that they would like to receive information and literature such as pamphlets, stickers and posters explaining the various initiatives on water and sanitation. The respondents from business areas prefer to receive information from the Department through other means (e.g. Facebook, Twitter), followed by , website, newspaper advertisement and radio advertisement. The least preferred method is flyers Customers from the Department s database The majority (97.40%) of respondents lived in formal residential households, and 2.60% owned businesses. None of these respondents lived in informal settlements. In general, the findings seem to suggest that most respondents who lodge complaints are from more affluent areas, and that people from less-affluent areas are less likely to complain to the Department when they encounter water and sanitation problems. There is a need to increase the level of awareness amongst residents of less affluent areas are to lodge complaints with the Department. Service delivery can only be improved if the Department has a better understanding of the nature of problems that customers encounter. The majority of respondents (77) contacted the City to lodge a complaint using the Call Centre, while a few others went to the Department, community workers, and their local councillor. These findings indicate that the Call Centre is the main means that customers use to contact the Department when they encounter water and sanitation problems. It is therefore imperative that the Call Centre is always well equipped to deal with the volume of complainants. Most respondents (53.25%) rated as good the ease of finding the right options when you call. The time taken to get hold of the right person in the call centre was viewed as good by 53.25% of the respondents. Additionally, 51.95% rated as good being served in a professional manner and insisting on a reference number. The time taken to fix the problem was rated as good by 53.25% of respondents. In general, the services provided by the City were rated as good. improvement so that the services can be rated as excellent. However, there is room for In most cases (46.75%) the water and sanitation problems were fixed within a day. On the other hand, 3.90% said they have not been contacted yet. In general, it seems that the Department is responding quickly to customers complaints. However, there is room for improvement in terms of feedback to the customers and providing reasons why the Department cannot respond to some complaints. The long-term aim should be to minimise the number of customers who complain that the Department is yet to contact them and fix their problem. Page 190 of 193

193 Most customers rated as good the quality of services provided by the workmen or teams who fixed the problem. There is room for improvement so that the services could be rated as excellent. Most respondents (33.77%) expected a problem to be fixed within 6 hours, 23.38% do not know how long it should take, 20.78% expect the problem to be fixed within an hour, and 7.79% expect it to be fixed within 12 hours, 6.49% within 24 hours, 5.19% within 2 days, and 2.60% even after 2 days. The Department should be able to rationalise these expectations by engaging and informing the customers about what can reasonably be achieved within the confines of the Department s resources. This engagement will help reduce the information gap between the customers and the Department. In general, most consumers do not know how much they pay every month for water and sanitation. It may be because customers do not keep track of their monthly expenses. The Department could also educate customers on the importance of keeping track of one s bills, as there is a possible connection between how much a consumer pays and how much water is conserved. Most people (56%) always check their bills. A small group (2%) said they never check their bills. The latter group should not be reason for concern for the Department, as customers who do not check their bills may still settle them. It is more important to find out why some consumers do not settle their bills on time. With respect to the statement the water bills are sent on time, 38.96% strongly agree. At the same time, 38.96% are neutral to the statement the meter reading is accurate. A combined percentage of 45.46% (sum of 14.29% - strongly agree and 31.17% - agree) agree with the statement the meter reading is accurate. A combined percentage of 51.95% (sum of 11.69% - strongly agree and 40.26% - agree) agreed with the statement that the water utility provides sufficient information on its services. A combined percentage of 61.03% (sum of 15.58% - strongly agree and 45.45% - agree) agreed with the statement that the water network is in good condition. The Department should build on these positive perceptions to cement long-term relationships with its customers. Most respondents (50.65%) were somewhat satisfied, followed by 16.88% who were indifferent, and 14.29% who were very satisfied with the Department s billing process. The findings also show that 11.69% were somewhat dissatisfied and 6.49% were very dissatisfied with it. Generally, customers are satisfied with the billing process. The Department should capitalise on these good satisfaction levels, and maintain and build mutually-beneficial relationships with its customers. Customers who indicated they were dissatisfied, provided diverse reasons for their dissatisfaction. The following reasons (quotes) were provided: My water account is very high even though I am not using a lot of water; My bill is too high; My money that I was made to pay to the Department, has not been returned to me though the Department caused the problem itself; Water is too expensive; Water is extremely expensive; and The Department never took any action to my complaints until I had to go to the Municipal offices. Nearly half of respondents (45.45%) said they think water is fairly priced, followed by 32.47% who think it is expensive, 14.29% who said it is very expensive, 1.30% who felt that it is very cheap, and 6.49% who do not know whether water is expensive, fairly priced or cheap. Page 191 of 193

194 The Department needs to match these findings regarding the pricing level, with quality of services delivered to the respective customers. Some studies have shown that price is not the only catalyst to customer satisfaction. Other characteristics of the Department s service-delivery chain also have to be taken into account, such as the quality of the water, availability of the water, professionalism of people working in the Department, and response to problems that customers encounter. Most (58.44%) people thought that the price of sanitation is fairly priced, followed by 19.48% who thought it is expensive, and 10.39% who thought it is very expensive. The findings show that 9.09% do not know whether the price is appropriate or not, 1.30% thought it was cheap, and a further 1.30% thought it was very cheap. The Department should ensure value-for-money considering the diverse feelings on the pricing of sanitation services. Most (59.74%) people did not know about the free water supplied by the Department % said they own a water-management device and 48.05% do not. These findings should be encouraging to the Department in terms of their conservation initiatives embodied in the Water Conservation and Water Demand Strategy. The Department should vigorously promote the benefits of installing a water-management device. Most respondents (90%) did not show an interest in having their own prepaid water meters. Only 10% would like to install them. It seems that the Department should promote the benefits of prepaid water meters. Most (68%) people would like to receive more information about water and sanitation. Most (68%) respondents said they do not discuss water and sanitation media articles or information with friends or family. The Department can consider engaging with community-based groups who will spread information via word-of-mouth on their behalf. Page 192 of 193

195 14 REFERENCES 1. AOC, 2008, Cape Town: Sanitation Status 2. Brinkhoff ( 2010), Changes for document DURBAN ethekwini: Sanitation Status, 3. Statistics South Africa, General household survey, Liu, L., Johnson, H.L., Cousens, S., Perin, J., Scott, S., Lawn, J.E., Rudan, I., Campbell, H., Cibulskis, R., Li, M., Mathers, C. & Black, R.E. (2012). Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality: an updated systematic analysis for 2010 with time trends since The Lancet 379 (9832): Mallory et. al. (2008), PORT ELIZABETH: Sanitation Status 6. Mintz, E.D. & Guerrant, R.L. (2009). New England Journal of Medicine 360: The South African Water Dialogues (2209) - A multi-stakeholder dialogue and research project on water supply and sanitation services 8. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). (2009). Nairobi, Kenya. ISBN: United Nations (2009), World Water Assessment Programme report 10. World Health Organization and UNICEF. (2012). Update. United States: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. 11. Smit et. al. (2005), Hygiene, Sanitation, and Water: Forgotten Foundations of Health 12. Statistics South Africa (2011), Statistical release, Census RUAF (2009), Cape Town sanitation status 14. Water and Sanitation, City of Cape Town Customer Survey 2009/2010, Final Report, 7 April 2011 Page 193 of 193

196 DEVnOMICS D e vel o p m entnomi cs ( P t y ) Ltd. advisory services project management monitoring & evaluation Research-based governance-wide solutions from thought to sustainable delivery. Developmentnomics Suite, 6th Floor, SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK BUILDING, 60 St Georges Mall, Cnr Hout Street and St Georges Mall, Cape Town, 8001, P O Box 1274, Cape Town, 8000, SOUTH AFRICA Telephone: , Fax: address : [email protected], Website :