Challenges of River Pollution in The Dora Community, Mutare (Zimbabwe)

Volume 1, Issue 7, November-2018: 42-56
International Journal of Current Innovations in Advanced Research ISSN: 2636-6282
Challenges of River Pollution in the Dora Community,

Mutare (Zimbabwe)
Alison Basvi, Leonard Shambira and Jemitias Mapira*
*
Professor, Department of Geography and Environmental Science, Great Zimbabwe
University
*
Corresponding Author E-mail: jmapira2000@gmail.com
Abstract: The Dora communal lands which are home to over 2000 peasants is heavily
dependent on water sources for their daily lives. This study was conducted in July, 2018 in
order to examine the challenges and possible solutions to the problem of river pollution in the
Dora community, Mutare. The Sakubva River is heavily polluted through human activities
along its course; the Dora River is downstream of the Sakubva River and is subsequently fed
polluted water by the Sakubva River. Despite the potential health hazards, impacts on
livelihoods that the pollution of water bodies has for the locals who use the water, river
pollution persists. A mixed methods approach specifically the use of questionnaires and water
sampling results were used in the data collection process. Questionnaire data were captured,
coded and entered into SPSS and then analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results were then
presented using tables, graphs, statistical coefficients that were supplemented using narratives
descriptions. Respondents noted odors, health problems, algal blooms, changes in color of
water and accumulation of slurry as the major indicators of river pollution. Respondents also
pointed out the major sources of pollution and what they think should be done to deal with
these problems. The study concluded that the pollution of the Sakubva and Dora rivers has
impacted gravely on the social and economic environments of the Dora communities. The
research also shows that there is awareness on river pollution but there is no community
involvement and assistance in dealing with problems of river pollution.
Keywords: River pollution, Causes, Challenges, Effects, Solutions, Dora Community.
Citation: Alison Basvi, Leonard Shambira and Jemitias Mapira. 2018. Challenges of River
Pollution in the Dora Community, Mutare (Zimbabwe). International Journal of Current
Innovations in Advanced Research, 1(7): 42-56.
Copyright: This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright©2018;
Alison Basvi, Leonard Shambira and Jemitias Mapira.
Introduction
Water is a critical factor to the integrated and cooperative socio-economic development of the
SADC region. Water is an extremely basic piece of our livelihoods as each living and non-
living part of the earth needs it for ordinary fundamental processes to occur. The changing of
its quality in any case, mutilates or totally decimates the regular habitat and the organisms
that thrive within it. Zimbabwe has 7 river catchments, which include: the Runde, Sanyati,
Manyame, Gwai, Mzingwane, Save and Mazowe. Just like most nations in the SADC region,
Zimbabwe is a developing country with rapid urbanization and industrialization. During the
last three decades, it has experienced massive rates of urbanization, in comparison with other
nations in the region (Zinyama, 1994). In order to achieve stable development, people need to
balance the economic development and environment bearing capacity (Yan and Wei, 2000).
www.ijciaropenaccess.com 42
However, due focus has mainly been on development overlooking sustainable development.
The most pressing issue of these developments is water pollution particularly river pollution.
It has become apparent in Zimbabwe that water pollution is a pressing issue because of the
existing known effects, the rather late solutions being adopted in a bid to curb an already
spreading problem. Industrial pollution of rivers was one of the first and most recognizable
instances of environmental pollution. Following the industrialization and urbanization, many
waterways, rivers and reservoirs suffered dramatic impacts of factory discharges, sewer
bursts and beginning in the last two decades, governments made serious attempts to regulate.
The main source of water pollution along the Dora River is the city of Mutare, the fourth
largest city in Zimbabwe. Located within a range of mountains and hills the city now
occupies about 16 700 ha of land (City of Mutare, Department of Housing and Community
Services, 2002). The population of the city is ever increasingly as evidenced by the continued
urban expansion into peripheral areas. It is predicted that by 2025 Malawi and South Africa
will be facing absolute water scarcity, whilst Lesotho, Tanzania and Zimbabwe will be
hugely water stressed (Wilson, 1990).
Forecasts are based on data on water pipe bursts and rates of water pollution. The focus of
this study is the Dora communal area an area on the periphery of Mutare urban. The
relationship that exists between Mutate and Dora communities cannot be overlooked because
the Dora communities are highly dependent on Mutare urban for services. However, the Dora
communities are on the receiving end of a bad relationship since much of the river pollution
that occurs along their major source of water, the Dora River is attributed to the malpractices
in the City. The Highly polluted Sakubva River which navigates through the city and the
industrial areas subject to unprecedented industrial pollution and constant sewer bursts
directly feeds into Dora River. The River supplies water for much of the population in the
communities, livestock accounts for much of the water demand. The water supply in the Dora
communities is also supplemented by boreholes and wells. The major land use activity in the
area is agriculture including livestock farming and use of water from the river for stock
watering.
The semi-arid climate in the Dora communities coupled with the high demand and significant
population growth meant that dependency on primary water sources increased. City councils
are typically a major drawback with regards to water and effluent management. In high
density areas sewage bursts are noticeable and the overflow of sewage at times affects water
sources. This prompts various sicknesses like cholera which are lethal to individuals and
animals. Eutrophication can likewise happen if the sewage water finds its way into substantial
water bodies and this will choke out animals. Vegetation will likewise be affected as
overgrowth causes competition for nutrients. This brings about the necessity for an
assessment of the extent of challenges of river pollution in the Dora communities and the
solutions that can be adopted.
Research Methods
This research was conducted in July, 2018 and it involved the use of mixed methods
including both quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques. Triangulation of
methods was useful because the researchers needed to get both statistical and on the ground
perspectives of the impacts of river pollution on people’s lives. Two main methods were
employed in the collection of data, namely quantitative and qualitative. If the different
research methods come to the same conclusion, the researcher could be more confident that
the results are truly a reflection of what is actually happening and not a reflection of the
method of testing used to gather the data. Quantitative research methods use a standard
format, with a few minor inter-disciplinary differences, of generating a hypothesis to be
proved or disproved. Quantitative methods emphasize objective measurements and the
statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls,
questionnaires, and surveys, or by manipulating pre-existing statistical data using
computational techniques (Sieber, 2003). Quantitative research focuses on gathering
numerical data and generalizing it across groups of people or to explain a particular
phenomenon. An entire quantitative study usually ends with confirmation or disconfirmation
of the hypothesis tested. Water analysis data was obtained from the environmental
management Agency which has broad monitoring systems of water resources. The
monitoring system is known as ambient water monitoring which involves water collection for
testing on a monthly premise. The process is constant which allows for trend analysis to
observe changes over time.
Qualitative methods involved the use of interviews and questionnaires. It sought to explore a
wide array of dimensions of the social world, including the texture and weave of everyday
life, the understandings, experiences and imaginings of the research participants, the ways
that social processes, institutions, discourses or relationships work, and the significance of the
meanings that they generate (Mason, 2002). Qualitative data collection methods vary using
unstructured or semi-structured techniques. Some common methods include focus groups,
individual interviews, and participation and observations. The sample size is typically small,
and respondents are selected to fulfill a given quota (Schulman, 2005). The data collected
was then analyzed in order to yield the views which are expressed in this study.
Study Area
The Dora community is a peri-urban communal land that lies between 15 to 40 kilometres
from the City of Mutare. It is on the downstream of Sakubva River which feeds into the Dora
River with over 2000 peasant farmers who depend on the water for domestic and non-
domestic uses. The farmers are exposed to numerous health risks from polluted water. For
survival, the community depends on market gardening, livestock keeping, farming and river
sand extraction in Sakubva and Dora River for sale, the community is at high risk of
contracting diseases and other related problems as they are in constant contact with polluted
Sakubva River and Dora river water.Sakubva River. Sakubva River which is the main source
of pollutants drains through Mutare City passing through industrial, residential and
agricultural areas. It is polluted mainly by sewage, industrial waste and leaching from
agricultural activities. Dora community constitutes Ward 5 of the Mutare Rural District
Council in Manicaland Province.
Mutare is one of Zimbabwe’s eight cities. It occupies the fourth position in the country’s
settlement hierarchy (Mapira, 2001) and has a population of 187 621 according to the last
national census, which was conducted in 2012 (CSO, 2012). However, more recent municipal
estimates peg the figure at 200 000 (City of Mutare Housing and Community Services
department, 2018). Located within a range of mountains and hills the city now occupies about
16 700 ha of land (City of Mutare Department of Housing and Community Services, 2002).
Most of the built-up area lies within the Sakubva River basin and its tributaries including the
Nyapfumbi, which drains the main industrial areas. Sakubva River is a tributary of the Odzi,
which in turn drains into the Save, one of Zimbabwe’s major rivers. Consequently, the
pollution of the Sakubva is a cause for concern at both local and national levels. The city of
Mutare pollutes river water in at least three ways, namely by sewage, industrial and
institutional waste (Mukokeri, 1999). Household detergents, which are fed into sewages, are a
major threat to human health and aquatic life. Downstream is the Dora River a water source
for the Dora community. Sakubva River feeds polluted water into Dora River which is a
primary source of water for this community.
Figure 1. An extract Map of Dora communal lands
Discussion and Analysis of Results

This study quantified major water, nitrogen and phosphorus flows into Sakubva and Dora
rivers, through a water quality monitoring study. The results showed that wastewater effluent
is the major source of nutrients in the rivers. The rivers are hypertrophic and it has to be
concluded that the current situation is not sustainable. The Dora River is a major source of
water supply for the Dora communities and neighboring communities and eutrophication
would affect water treatment, aquatic life, and irrigation systems. Questionnaires were also
used to dwell more on people’s perceptions and feelings and what they think should be done.
Information on how their livelihoods have been affected by the ongoing pollution was
established through physical and chemical parameters which were measured to establish the
extent of water pollution in the Sakubva and Dora Rivers to determine how it affects the
water quality suitability for various uses. The parameters examined during the study were pH,
dissolved Oxygen, dissolved oxygen, temperature, manganese, iron, E. conductivity, Nitrates,
Phosphates (Table 1). Water samples were collected for points ER8, ER10, ER12, ER13,
ER87, ER88 along the Sakubva and Dora River respectively. ER8, ER10, ER12, ER13, are
all points along Sakubva River; ER86 and ER88 are all points within the Dora River in the
Dora Communal lands.
Table 1. Classification of risk SI 6 of 2007 (EMA standards)

Classification Risk Reason for classification
Blue Safe Complies with blue standards
Green Low hazard Waste meets green or blue permit
conditions not being met
Yellow Medium hazard Waste meets yellow standards
Red High hazard Waste meets red standard
In line with EMA Organizations which seek to discharge their waste on land or in natural
water courses, are obliged to apply for /permission from the Environmental quality
department of EMA (Masocha and Tevera, 2003). Failure to do so constitutes a crime.
Permits ‘attract penalties, which are based on the degree of risk that the waste poses to the
environment’ (Mapira, 2007:90). In its classification, EMA uses four categories TABLE
which includes: Blue (Safe), Green (Low Hazard), Yellow (Moderate Hazard) and Red (High
Hazard).
Table 2. ER8 Sakubva River at Grants service station (Environmental protection Unit,
EMA Mutare)
Parameter Recording
dissolved oxygen saturation% 77.5
E. Conductivity uS/cm 254
Iron mg/I Fe 0.39
Biological oxygen demand mg/l 17.53
manganese mg/I Mn 0.58
pH 7.55
phosphates mg/I P 0.13
Nitratesmg/I N 10.9
Band class Red
Phosphates and nitrates are the causes of eutrophication in many rivers, results for phosphates
and nitrate tests results were obtained from the environmental management agency for ER8
which is upstream of Sakubva River before the water reaches Dora River. The phosphate
levels are in the green band in reference to EMA standards, a reading of 0.13mg/IP was
recorded. The green class is considered to be telling of low environmental hazard and if left
unmonitored the situation could be acerbated. However, these phosphate levels in huge
concentrations downstream can still pose a great deal of problems for the Dora communities
downstream as evidenced by the blue-green algae, principally Microcystis aeruginosa and
Anabaena sp, upstream of Dora River. Nitrate levels of 0.77mg/N which is in the blue band
of less or equal to 10 were recorded. According to SI 6 OF 2007 this is the sensitivity range.
SI 6 OF 2007 notes that sensitive areas are areas which may in the near future if not protected
contain a nitrate level of more than 10mg/N which may in turn cause eutrophication of a
river. In all rivers, TP was higher than the limit of 0.03 mg/l required for avoiding excess
plant growth in rivers and streams according to OME Guidelines (OME Guidelines, 1991).
The overall band class for ER8 is a strong Red class pointing towards strong pollution levels.
Table 3. ER 10 Sakubva River Bridge to NOIC refinery (Environmental protection

Unit, EMA Mutare)
Parameter Recording
dissolved oxygen saturation% 26.9
E. Conductivity uS/cm 379
iron mg/i Fe 1.01
Biological oxygen demand mg/l 55
Manganese mg/I Mn 0.52
ph 7.64
phosphates mg/I P 1.01
Nitrates 0.98
Band class Red
The pH of the Sakubva river ER10 sampling station was found to be acceptable within the
limits of WHO guidelines (≥ 6.5 and ≤ 9.5). The BOD for ER10 is comparatively high,
exceeding the maximum threshold for BOD (50mg/l) and set by the EPA and being in the
yellow class according to EMA standards which is not ideal for bolstering aquatic life such as
Fish.
The high values of BOD at the sampling site indicate that the water has a low potential to
support aquatic life. ER10 is the last sampling station before the Sakubva River flows into the
Dora communal lands. The colour of the water at this sampling point is blackish,
subsequently the Dora River is fed this polluted effluent affecting the nutrient balance and
affecting aquatic life.
Although bacteriological tests on faecal coliform count of the water were not carried out due
to financial constraints mere observation showed a high feacal content count. Faecal coliform
count gives an indication of pollution being caused by human waste (Rangwala et al., 2007).
The Dissolved oxygen levels are also comparatively low in relation to EMA and EPA
standards standing at 26%. Oxygen usage in water systems takes place through
microbiological processes which are particularly important in relation to Biodegrading of
organic matter, DO mass balance and Dissolved oxygen depletion (Hvitved-Jacobsen et al.,
2010). In reference to the tests conducted by EMA on 20/06/2018 ref 183264-287 ER10 was
given an overall red class which suggests that pollution is of high hazard to the environment,
human beings and animals downstream in the Dora communities.
Table 4. ER12 Sakubva River after Gimboki sewage plant (Environmental protection
Unit, EMA Mutare)
Parameter Units Recording
Biological Oxygen Demand Mg/l 7.76
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation % 27.1
E. Conductivity Us/cm 326
Iron Mg/I Fe 0.39
Manganese Mg/I Mn 0.35
Nitrates Mg/I N 11.43
Ph 7.84
Phosphates Mg/I P 0.40
Band Class - Red
ER12 is a sampling point soon after the Gimboki sewage treatment plant, the plant processes
raw sewage and assimilates it back into the environment through direct discharge into the
Sakubva river. The output water of the plant has a bearing on the quality of the water in the
Dora river. The saturated dissolved oxygen levels are also alarming at this point being as low
as 27.1 which according to EMA standards is in the yellow band ≥30, the phosphaste levels
of 0.40 mg/l P are also enough to promote overgrowth of plants downstream in the Dora
communities.
Recently there have been problems with Gimboki sewage power plant, issues related to
capacity, performance and efficiency. Gimboki treatment plant has an operating capacity of
41 Megaliters per day but it receives a projected 90 megalitres per day which is way beyond
its capacity. The plant is not operating at full capacity because of the obsolete infrastructure,
out of the sixteen aerators only one is operating. Constant power cuts also play a role because
the motors pumps are electrically powered, the sludge cannot be pumped so it is spread on
the leeward side of the treatment plant where it is washed into Sakubva River. The sludge
contains organic material and nutrients that have an agricultural value but also some
pollutants in the form of heavy metals, organic contaminants and pathogens. The raw sludge,
generated from different steps in the wastewater treatment process, is unstable and contains
high amounts of water. Jordan, 1984 noted that treatment plants are expensive to maintain,
this is particularly with the case of developing countries, where due to poverty, municipal
budgets are often under strain. The poor outlet water from the treatment plant affects the
people downstream in the Dora communities to a larger extent.
Table 5. ER 86 Dora River at Four roads

Biological Oxygen Demand Mg/l 15.51
Iron Mg/I Fe 0.86
Ph 7.34
Band Class - Red
ER 86 is a sampling point within the Dora Community, the river is primarily used for
domestic and agricultural purposes. The community is highly dependent on agriculture and
livestock keeping however the progressive pollution of the Dora River by upstream activities
along the Sakubva River has since seen the water quality being compromised.
The Dora River receives the bulk of wastewater treatment plant effluent from Mutare via
upstream rivers such as Sakubva River. Non-point source export of nitrogen and phosphorous
ffom the local agricultural activities and urban agriculture contributes to the nutrient content
on the Dora River. The Dissolved oxygen levels are minimal at 52.9 percent hence fisheries
are constantly being affected, most fish are sensitive to DO levels of below3 mg/l (Weich and
Lindell, 1980; Mara, 1996).
DO is not one of the critical parameter in determining water suitability for agricultural use, as
said by Hopkins et al., (2007), however DO levels influence the rate at which aquatic plants
grow, which have implications on agricultural operations, such as clogging of pipes and
eutrophication of irrigation water. The high organic content in the Dora River often taints the
water with a distinctive taste hence the people in the community have resorted to the use of
boreholes and wells as primary sources for drinking water.
The overall band class for ER 86 is red class which is a high environmental hazard and telling
of possible eutrophication in the near future. Eutrophication of water bodies is undesirable
because of deterioration of water quality, interference with most of the beneficial uses of
water, and corresponding economy losses. Observations at sampling point ER 86 showed
evidence of the presence of alga blooms, odors and a blackish color in the water. Ideally mere
observation showed that the water is highly polluted further cemented by the overall band
class of red as observed in the laboratory results (ER 8617/10/17 REF 175948-958).
Table 6. ER87
Biological Oxygen Demand Mg/l 55
Iron Mg/I Fe 0.32
Ph 7.51
Band Class - Red
ER 86 is a sampling point at the confluent of Sakubva and the Dora River; it is the point
where the Sakubva River Drains into the Dora River with all the pollutants accumulated
through its flow from the City of Mutare.
The overall band class for this point is Red with extremely low Dissolved oxygen content;
further more BOD levels are in the yellow band which implies low potential to support
aquatic life.
Biological oxygen demand (BOD) indicates that there is organic overload of the effluent and
shows how much oxygen the effluent or water requires to be stable. Using this indicator, and
comparative analysis of all the sampled points (they all lie in red band class) it can be
concluded that both the Sakubva and the Dora River are eutrophic or have the potential to
become eutrophic. Ideally the rivers can therefore not support aquatic life.
The relationship between Sakubva and Dora rivers

One of the aims of this study was to pin point the sources of pollution in the Dora communal
lands. Sakubva River is the main source of pollutants for the downstream communal lands in
the Dora area.
The Graph below shows a comparison in the nitrate and phosphates levels between the Dora
and Sakubva River, the sharp decline in the nutrient levels towards the Dora River proves that
the Sakubva River is responsible for polluting the Dora communal lands.
The Dora River can still be protected from further nutrient pollution with proper pollution
control measures. Urban agriculture should be stopped, industries should be penalised for
polluting the Sakubva River, industries should treat their waste before discharging it and the
Gimboki sewage treatment plant has to operate at full capacity to avoid disposal of pre-
treated waste water into the Sakubva River.
Other parameters like Dissolved oxygen concentration showed variations at the different
points along the rivers this can be attributed to turbulence, temperatures, and atmospheric
pressure and/or biological activities at the various points along the Canal, as suggested by
Chapman (1996).
Figure 1. Graph showing the difference in Nitrate and phosphates levels between
Sakubva and Dora River
A total of 16 respondents which accounts for 53.3% of the sampled population were of the
opinion that the water from the Dora River affects their livestock and agricultural produce.
Toxicity elements in water affect agricultural produce, accumulation of nutrients in plant
roots affects the growth thereby reducing yield. Due to climatic variations between seasons
water from the Dora River is used for irrigation purpose to supplement during poor rainfall
seasons. Livestock is also affected, mysterious deaths of livestock especially cattle, goats,
donkeys and sheep in the area were some of the major concerns. Livestock mortality is
disastrous to the community, cattle and donkeys are the main sources of draft power in Dora
communal lands, hence their death affects agricultural produce. Some of the respondents
purported that they noticed parasitic worms in cattle excreta which they attributed to be
caused by water from the Dora River. Thirteen of the respondents which accounts for 43.3%
of the sampled population were not sure if the water from the Dora River affects their
livestock and agricultural produce.
Slurry harvesting
The escalating prices of fertilizer, has turned dried slurry to become an alternative among the
villagers particularly those who live along the river (about 33.3% of the sampled population).
The conversion of thick viscous wastewater into solid is greater than would be the case with
thinner wastewater. Such an activity is usually done on sandy or rocky surfaces where the
liquid byproduct is allowed to seep and allow a solid residue to be harnessed and left for
drying. Water cress is also thriving in the dirty water and is a locally available source of
relish with some possible health hazards like the catfish which are increasing in the
population which is adapting to the river conditions including hibernating in the mud. There
is bio-accumulation of chemicals in their body which have not been assessed, the nutritional
value of such food is questionable though no nutritional assessment has been done.
Recommendations
Several recommendations can be made concerning river pollution in Mutare.
 This study has identified the importance of public engagement in changing the future
of the Dora community, responsible authorities such as EMA and the City Councils
will act if sufficient public concern is generated. There is a need for projects on the
Dora Community to be translated and communicated to the public, the community
engagement presents a platform to make this a possibility.
 The faecal contamination reported in this investigation exhibits the high levels of
pollution. Previous contamination had been linked to industrial activities, but the
study demonstrated significant levels of pollution from Gimboki sewage plant. It is
attributed to identified damaged infrastructure becoming worsened by the current
economic situation. The pollution faced by the Dora community is believed to be
under threat by further urbanization in combination with an unreliable sewer system.
There is a risk that identified under-performing infrastructure will become
overwhelmed and deteriorate further. There is need to channel the few available
resources towards the expansion of the Gimboki sewage treatment plant.
 The polluter pays principle is not effective since pollution is still on the rise since its
formulation in 2002. It has proved to be ineffective in curbing pollution in the
country, many organisations and industries find it cheap to pollute than to pre-treat
effluent before discharging it into the Sakubva River. There is need to introduce
economic instruments in pollution control. Incentives and subsidies are some of the
instruments that can be used.
 It is common knowledge that the leading causes of eutrophication are phosphorous
and nitrates. A number of specific measures can be adopted to deal with nutrient
problems from sewage effluents. Legal instruments relating primarily to the control of
point sources of nitrate and phosphate from sewage works. The nutrient control
measures there in should comprise a requirement to add tertiary treatment (nitrate and
phosphate removal) to plants which discharge into "sensitive areas"(EMA notes them
as areas with the potential to become eutrophic). It has to be decided to concentrate
on phosphate removal for treatment plants discharging to inland waters and nitrate
removal for treatment plants where the effluent enters marine waters (representing the
critical elements for eutrophication in the respective situations).
 Sakubva River has proven time and again to be polluting the Dora River waters
through the unsanctioned activities that occur along the river as it drains through the
city of Mutare. This study has demonstrated that the situation has persisted for the last
decade. Continued support is needed, the people of the Dora community have to be
educated and provided with alternate water sources especially during the dry seasons.
With regards to the formation of solutions to combat this damaged community there is
a need to conduct an ecological impact assessment to understand the implications of
the localised pollution on biodiversity and wildlife productivity.
Conclusions
This study argues that river pollution has impacted on the livelihoods of the Dora community
and has brought more problems than benefits to the community. Through the many analysis
and questionnaire data, we can prove that there are high levels of pollution. Mutare city is the
main source of pollutants. This relationship between Mutare urban and the Dora communal
lands cannot be overlooked. Urbanization and industrialization have exacerbated the level of
water pollution. Conversely, Water pollution causes more losses in economics and health,
and it affects the livelihoods of the Dora people.
Urbanization and industrialization have been consequential, there has been an increasing
pressure on the environment with pollution from human activities increasing and threatening
the welfare and livelihoods of the Dora community. A number of natural resources have been
affected and water is one of them. The levels of pollution have reached unprecedented levels
measures have to be taken.
The industries and local authorities overlook that the protection of the environment is a
precondition of all development. So the second focus of this dissertation is to suggest the
government to pay more attention to the environmental protection, and strengthen the related
policies on discharging polluted water without treatment, involve communities in resources
management and help those affected. The government also needs to improve the technology
of pollution treatment and shift industry structure. Development which compromises health
and livelihoods is baseless.
About the Authors

Alison BASVI is a former BSc Honors degree student in the department of Geography &
Environmental Science at Great Zimbabwe University. Leonard SHAMBIRA is a computer
science lecturer while Jemitias MAPIRA is a professor in Geography & Environmental
Science at the same university.
References
1. Abawi, K. 2013. Data collection instruments, Training in sexual and reproductive health
research, Geneva.
2. Boyd, C. 2000. Water Quality: An Introduction, Boston/Dordrecht/London, Kluwer

Academic Publisher CSO 2002. Census of Agriculture Main Results. Dublin.
3. Bryman, A. 1988. Quantity and Quality m Social Research Routledge, London.
4. Central Statistical Office, (CSO). 2002. The 2002 Population Census: A Preliminary
Report Harare, Government Printers.
5. Chambers, P.A., Guy, M. Roberts, E.S., Charlton, M.N., Kent, R., Gagnon, C., Grove, G.,
Foster N. 2001. Nutrients and their impact on the Canadian environment. Agriculture and
the Agri Food Cnada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Camda, Health Canada
and Natural Resources Canada Ottawa.
6. Chapman, D. (Ed.), 1996. Water Quality Assessments. A Guide to Use of Biota,

Sediments and Water in Environmental Monitoring. 2nd Edition, London, F & FN Spon.
7. Chenje Munyaradzi and Johnson Phylis, 1994. (Ed): State of the Environment in Southern
Africa, IUCN, Harare.
8. Chenje, M., Sola, L. and Paleney, D. 1996. The State of Environment Government of
Zimbabwe Ministry of Mines, Enviroment and Tourism MET Report, Harare.
9. City of Mutare, 2002. Housing and Community Services Department Annual Report.
10. Creswell, J.W. 2012: Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research, 4th edition, Pearson (Eds), IUNCN, Boston.
11. Cunningham, P. and Saigo, B.W. 1999. Environmental Science: A Global Concern, 5th
Edition, McGraw Hill, New York.
12. Duffy, M.E. 1986. Quantitative and qualitative research antagonistic or complementary.
Nursing and Health Care, 8(6): 356-357.
13. Environmental Management Agency (EMA), 2002. Annual Report, Harare.
14. EPA, 2009. EPA Guidelines on Effluent Quality for Discharge into Natural Waters,
Kumasi, Environmental Protection Agency.
15. EPA, 2010. Water quality criteria for Nitrogen and phosphorous pollution states
EnvironementalProtectionAgency,http;//water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/s
tandards/criteria/Ou.
16. Fakayode, S.O. 2005. Impact Assessment of Industrial Effluent on Water Quality of the
receiving Alaro River in Ibadan, Nigeria, African Journal of Environmental Assessment.
Vol.10.
17. FAO. 2007. Manual on African magur (Clarias gariepinus) culture in Bangladesh.
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, at www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction
(21/3/2008).
18. George, P.R. 2004. Agricultural Water Quality Criteria Irrigation Aspects, Resource
Management Technical Report No.30. Department of Agriculture Western Australia. At
www.agric.wa.gov.au/content/_archive/tr030.pdf. (13/9/2018).
19. Gordon, J. 2007. Classifications of Irrigation Water Quality. Oklahoma Cooperative

Extension Fact Sheets. Available at
http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2223/F-2401web.pdf
(25/10/2018).
20. Hammer, M.J. and McKichan, K.A. 1981. Hydrology and Quality of Water Resources.
London: John Wilkey and Sons Incorporated.
21. Hayakawa, A., Shimizu, M., Woli, P., Kuramochi, K., and Hatano, R. 2006. Evaluating
Stream Water Quality Through Land-use Analysis in Two Grassland Catchments: Impact
of Wetlands on Stream Nitrogen Concentration. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35:
617-627.
22. Hvitved-Jacobsen, T., Vollertsen, J. and Nilesen, A.H. 2010. Urban and highway
stormwater pollution; concepts and engineerin. CRC Press, Florida.
23. Johnson, B. and Gray, R. 2010. A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for
mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori, A. and Teddle, C.B. (Eds)., Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioural research. Thousand oaks, CA, USA: SAGE
Publications.
24. Jonnalagadda, S.B. and Mhere, G. 2001. Water Quality of the Odzi River in the Eastern
Highlands of Zimbabwe. Water Research, 35(10): 2371-6.
25. Jordan, J.D. 1984. Local government in Zimbabwe. Gweru, Mambo Press.
26. Kaufman, D.G. and Franz, C.M. 1996. Biosphere 2000: Protecting our Global
Environment. 2nd Edition, Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt.
27. Lantzke, N. 2004. Water Quality for Farm, Garden and Household Use. Department of
Agriculture Farm note No. 41/2004. Available at:
http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/pls/portal30/docs/folder/ikmp/lwe/water/watq/fn041_
2004.pdf . (26/10/2018).
28. Leedy, P.D. 1993. Practical research: planning and design. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
29. Mangore, E. and Taigbenu, A. 2004. Land-use impacts on the quality of groundwater in
Bulawayo. Water SA, 30: 453-464.
30. Mapira Jemitias and Mungwini Pascah. 2005. River Pollution in the City of Masvingo: A
Complex Issue, Zambezia, 32(i/ii): 95-106.
31. Mapira Jemitias. 2007. Pollution of the Sakubva River in the City of Mutare (Zimbabwe):
Culprits, Penalties and Consequences, Zimbabwe Journal of Geographical Research, 1(2):
87-97.
32. Mapira, J. 2011. River Polution in the city of Mutare (Zimbabwe) and its Implications for
Sustainable Development’ Journal of Sustainable development in Africa. 13: 181-194
Clarion University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.
33. Mapira, Jemitias. 2001. Urban Geography Module 204. Harare, Zimbabwe Open
University.
34. Marongwe, N. 2003. The Fast Track Resettlement and Urban Development Nexus: The
Case for Harare, Paper Presented at the Symposium on Delivering Land and securing
Rural Livelihoods: Post Chapter 2: Inventory of Existing Water Management Practices in
Harare, Zimbabwe 38 Intdependence Land Reform and Resetllement in Zimbabwe, Mont
Clair, Nyanga, 26 - 28 March 2003.
35. Mason, J. 2002. Qualitative researching sec edition, Sage Publications, London.
36. Mbiba, B. 1995. Urban Agriculture in Zimbabwe - Implications for Urban Management
and Poverty. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Avebury.
37. McMillan, J.H. and Schumacher, S. 2001. Research in Education: A conceptual

introduction, 5th edition. New York: Addition-Wesley Longman.
38. Mehtab, H., Muhammad, F.M., Asma, J., Sidra, A., Nayab, A., Sharon, Z. and Jaweria, H.
2017. Water Pollution and Human Health. Environmental Risk Assessment and
Remediation, 1(3): 16-19.
39. Mouton, J. 2001. How to succeed in your Master’s and Doctoral studies. A South African
guide and resource book. Published by Van Schaik Publishers, Pretoria.
40. Mukokeri Ellen, 1999. The Sakubva River and its Effects on the Dora Secondary School
Community. A Research Project Submitted to the Geography Department of Mutare
Teacher’s College for a Diploma in Secondary Education. Mutare.
41. Nieuwenhuis, J. 2013. Introducing qualitative research. First steps in research. Van
Shaiks Publishers. Pretoria.
42. Peters, N.E. and Meybeck, M. 2000. Water Quality Degradation Effects on Freshwater
Availability: Impacts of Human Activities’, Water International, 25(2): 185-193.
43. Rangwala, S.C., Rangwala, K.S. and Rangwala, P.S. 2007. Water Supply and Sanitary
Engineering: Environmental Engineering. 22nd Edition, Anand, Charotar Publishing.
44. Tagwira Fanuel. 1998. A Community Based Assessment of Sakubva, Mutare. Africa
University Printing Press.
45. UN WWAP. 2009. United Nations World Water Assessment Programme. The World
Water Development Report 3: Water in a Changing World. UNESCO: Paris, France.
46. UNDP. 2006. Human Development Report 2006. Beyond Scarcity: Power Poverty and
the Global Water Crisis, United Nations Development Programme, New York.
47. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2000. Where Nutnents Come from and
how they Cause Eutrophication, Internet: http://wfww.uneD.or.iD/ietc/publications/short
series/lakereservoirs-3/index.asp.
48. UNEP. 2006. Challenges to International Waters – Regional Assements in a Global

Perspective, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
49. Wai-Ching Leung. How to design a questionnaire. Student BMJ. 2001 June; 9:187-9.
http://www.cochrane.es/files/Recursos/How_to_design_a_questionnaire.pdf.
50. Wanielista, M. and Yousef, Y.A. 1992. Stormwater mangement. New York, Wiley.
51. WHO, 2006. Guidelines for Drinking –Water Quality. seconded, Health Criteria and
Other Supporting Information,vol.2 WHO, Geneva.
52. WHO, 2009. Cholera country profile Zimbabwe OCT 2009 pdf
www.who/nt/cholera/countries/Zimbabweprofile Acessed 15 September 2018.
53. WHO., 2006. Guidelines for Drinking –Water Quality. seconded, Health Criteria and
Other Supporting Information,vol.2 WHO, Geneva.
54. Wison, E.M. 1990. Engineering Hydrology, Macmillan press ltd, UK.
55. World Lake Vision Committee, 2003. World Lake Vison a call for action. International
Lake Environment commitee IEC United Nations Environment Programme
Environmental Technology Centre (UNEP-IETC).
56. Yan, Z.P., Wei, Q. and Guo, H. 2000. Study of Main Environmental Problems in 35
Process of Urbanization” Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai.
57. Yang, Z.Y. and Wang, R.S. 2000. Water Environmental Problems and Ecological Options
in China, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Science, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Beijing.
58. Zhao, H., Li, X., Wang, X. and Tian, D. 2010. Grain size distribution of road-deposited
sediment and its contribution to heavy metal pollution in urban runoff in Beijing, China.
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 183(1-3): 203-210.
59. Zinyama, L. 1994. Urban growth in Zimbabwe—the 1992 census. Geography, 79(2),
176-180.

Challenges of River Pollution in The Dora Community, Mutare (Zimbabwe)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Challenges of River Pollution in The Dora Community, Mutare (Zimbabwe)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Challenges of River Pollution in The Dora Community, Mutare (Zimbabwe)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 1, Issue 7, November-2018: 42-56

International Journal of Current Innovations in Advanced Research ISSN: 2636-6282

Challenges of River Pollution in the Dora Community,

Figure 1. An extract Map of Dora communal lands

Discussion and Analysis of Results

Table 1. Classification of risk SI 6 of 2007 (EMA standards)

Red High hazard Waste meets red standard

Table 3. ER 10 Sakubva River Bridge to NOIC refinery (Environmental protection

Table 5. ER 86 Dora River at Four roads

The relationship between Sakubva and Dora rivers

About the Authors

2. Boyd, C. 2000. Water Quality: An Introduction, Boston/Dordrecht/London, Kluwer

3. Bryman, A. 1988. Quantity and Quality m Social Research Routledge, London.

6. Chapman, D. (Ed.), 1996. Water Quality Assessments. A Guide to Use of Biota,

19. Gordon, J. 2007. Classifications of Irrigation Water Quality. Oklahoma Cooperative

37. McMillan, J.H. and Schumacher, S. 2001. Research in Education: A conceptual

48. UNEP. 2006. Challenges to International Waters – Regional Assements in a Global

You might also like