Opportunities for Improving Livelihoods, Water, and Sanitation in Runde Rural District, Zimbabwe
Authors
TMMRI, Midlands State University, Zvishavane, Midlands (Zimbabwe)
TMMRI, Midlands State University, Zvishavane, Midlands (Zimbabwe)
TMMRI, Midlands State University, Zvishavane, Midlands (Zimbabwe)
TMMRI, Midlands State University, Zvishavane, Midlands (Zimbabwe)
Article Information
DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91200226
Subject Category: Environment
Volume/Issue: 9/12 | Page No: 2978-2983
Publication Timeline
Submitted: 2025-12-10
Accepted: 2025-12-19
Published: 2026-01-12
Abstract
Zimbabwe is experiencing livelihoods, water, and sanitation challenges especially in the rural areas. The study investigated opportunities for improving the same in Runde rural district. The study collected qualitative data through interviews, observation and documenta reviews. The findings were that disused mining pits could be utilised to supply water for market gardening, tourism and fisheries to support rural industrialisation as well as water for domestic use. Availability of university and their focus on community engagement offers a huge opportunity for the locals to engage them in knowledge generation and dissemination on livelihoods, water, and sanitation. The emphasis of heritage education by the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education exerts pressure on academics to lead in finding solutions to community problems.
Keywords
Livelihoods, Water, Sanitation
Downloads
References
1. Carroll, A. B., and Spence, L. 2016. Small business social responsibility: expanding core CSR theory. Business and Society, 55(1), 23–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2. Castaneda, A., Doan, D., Newhouse, D., Nguyen, M., Uematsu, H., and Azevedo, J. 2016. Who Are the Poor in the Developing World? Policy Research Working Paper, No. 7844. World Bank, Washington, DC. 6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
3. Cresswell, J. W., and Poth, C. N. 2017. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 4th Ed. London: Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4. DFID, 2016. Youth Agenda: Putting Young People at the Heart of Development. DFID Business Case, London. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5. Donaldson, L. and Davis, J. H. 1991, Stewardship Theory and Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns, Australian Journal of Management, 16 (2) 49-64. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6. Easterby-Smith, M, Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. 2012. Management Research. London: Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7. Economic Commission of Africa, 2013. Infrastructure Development and Rural Transformation Issue Paper. Cotonou. Republic of Benin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8. Flick, U. 2005. An introduction to Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
9. Gabriel, T. 1991. Pest Control, Pest Management and the Human Factor. Tropical Pest Management, 35(3):254-6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10. Government of Zimbabwe. Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act 2013. Harare: Fidelity Printers, Harare. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
11. Mafunisa, M. J. 2019. The Harmonising Relationships between Ward Councillors and Traditional Leaders toward Infrastructural Development in Rural Jurisdiction. MJ Mafunisa Consulting. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
12. Meer, T., and Campbell, C. 2007. Traditional Leadership in Democratic South Africa. Pretoria: Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13. Mitchell, R.K., Bradley, R. A., and Donna J. W. 1997. Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14. Murray, C. 2004. South Africa’s Troubled Royalty Traditional Leaders after Democracy. Annandale: The Federation Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
15. Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd Ed. Newbury Park, CA: Paul Chapman Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
16. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. 2012 Research Methods for Business Students. 6th edition. Harlow Essex: Pearson Education Ltd. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
17. Saunders, M. N. 2012. Choosing research participants. Qualitative organizational research. Core Methods and Current Challenges, 4(3)35-52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
18. Schusler, T., Davis-Manigaulte, J., and Cutter-Mackenzie, A. 2017. Positive Youth Development. In: Russ A. and Krasny M. Eds. Urban Environmental Education Review (pp. 165-174). Ithaga; London: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
19. UNICEF, 2013. Community-Led Total Sanitation in East Asia and Pacific: Progress, Lessons and Directions. New York: UNICEF. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
20. William, N. and Appleton, J, V. 2009. Your Undergraduate Dissertation in Health and Social Care, Williman Paperback, Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
21. Yin, R. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
22. Zimstat National Report, 2012. Zimbabwe Population Census. Fidelity Printers, Harare. www.wedcknowledge.lboro.ac.uk/resources/pubs/ODIAdaptationtoclimatechangecasestudies8859 [Retrieved 18 November 2019]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Metrics
Views & Downloads
Similar Articles
- Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste - Case Study in Cai Rang District, Can Tho City, Vietnam
- Youth Activism, Intentional Integration of Policies to Raise Awareness on Climate Change Action among the Youth
- Breathing Spaces: Environmental & User Experience in Dhanmondi and Zigatola Multistoried Apartments, Dhaka, Bangladesh
- Effects of Solid Waste Disposal on Soil Quality in Makurdi Metropolis, Benue State, Nigeria
- Environmental Impact of Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining in Borgu Local Government Area