Bridging the Gap: Assessing Sanitation Practices and Community Engagement for Sustainable Rural Development in the King Sabatha Dalindyebo Municipality, South Africa

Abstract

Background: Sustainable sanitation underpins Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6.2, which mandates safe, equitable services and the elimination of open defecation by 2030. Rural South African communities continue to face significant Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) challenges driven by economic, environmental and governance constraints. Methods: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was conducted in King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality, Eastern Cape. Quantitative data comprised household surveys (n = 246) and structured observations of VIP latrines (n = 50). Qualitative data were gathered from 20 semi-structured interviews with community representatives and four focus groups (n = 32). Results: While 63% of households owned VIP latrines, only 22% of the inspected facilities were in good working condition and 20% were abandoned; 58% required major maintenance. Major barriers to sustainable sanitation included limited financial capacity, structural damage related to a high-water table, gendered safety risks, and low community engagement in sanitation planning and maintenance. Conclusions: Achieving SDG 6.2 in rural South Africa requires co-productive governance that integrates infrastructure maintenance with community leadership. Recommended actions include delegated WASH committees, targeted subsidies for vulnerable households, routine gender and safety audits, and enforcement of environmental protection measures to secure long-term sanitation sustainability.

1. Introduction

Access to safe, affordable, and equitable sanitation remains a critical global challenge, central to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6.2, which calls for universal access to adequate and equitable Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) services and the elimination of open defecation by 2030 [1]. Despite considerable progress in urban areas, rural communities continue to lag due to financial, technical, and institutional barriers. Inadequate sanitation infrastructure perpetuates serious public health threats, including diarrhoeal diseases, helminth infections, and child morbidity and mortality, as well as environmental hazards such as groundwater contamination and eutrophication of surface waters [2,3]. These risks disproportionately affect women and children, increasing gender-based vulnerabilities related to privacy, safety, and dignity [4].

South Africa exemplifies the complex nature of these challenges. National surveys indicate that 20% of rural households depend on unimproved sanitation facilities, and open defecation continues in remote settlements [5]. Rural sanitation shortfalls contribute to recurrent outbreaks of waterborne diseases, placing financial strain on understaffed local clinics and worsening poverty traps [6]. Geographic and hydrological factors further complicate sanitation provision: high groundwater tables and seasonal flooding undermine the effectiveness of pit-based systems, resulting in frequent pit overflows, structural collapse, and faecal sludge seeping into surrounding soils [7].

King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality (KSD), located in the Eastern Cape Province, exemplifies these intersecting challenges. With a poverty rate of 45%, well above the national rural average—and limited municipal revenue, KSD faces severe constraints in extending and maintaining sanitation services [8]. The region’s undulating topography, clay-rich soils, and fluctuating water table increase the risk of pit latrine failure and environmental pollution [9]. Governance complexity adds another layer of difficulty: fragmented responsibilities among municipal departments, traditional councils, and ward-level committees often result in unclear accountability and reactive maintenance regimes [10].

Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) latrines are the predominant household technology in KSD’s rural wards, accounting for over 60% of on-site sanitation units [11]. A VIP latrine comprises a sealed concrete slab with foot-rest platforms, a lined pit to ensure structural stability, and a vertical vent pipe fitted with insect-proof mesh to reduce odours and inhibit vector access [12]. Under ideal conditions, this design effectively separates humans from excreta and minimises disease transmission. However, in KSD, uneven maintenance, poor construction quality, and financial hardship lead to frequent wall cracks, pit overflow, and inadequate ventilation, compromising both user experience and hygienic performance [13].

Alternative sanitation approaches, such as ecological sanitation (EcoSan) toilets, have shown promise in addressing the shortcomings of pit-based systems. EcoSan designs typically use urine-diverting dry toilets or composting latrines that separate urine and faeces for on-site treatment and safe resource recovery, reducing water contamination and providing nutrient-rich by-products for agriculture [14]. Although EcoSan adoption remains limited in South Africa due to higher initial costs, technical complexity, and cultural acceptance barriers, early pilots in KwaZulu-Natal and Limpopo provinces have demonstrated potential improvements in sludge management and user satisfaction [15].

Given this context, a comprehensive assessment of sanitation coverage, facility condition, and community engagement is essential to inform sustainable interventions. Mixed-methods research provides a robust framework for capturing both the quantitative scope of service provision and the qualitative dimensions of user experience and governance dynamics [16]. An explanatory sequential design—beginning with household surveys and structured facility observations, followed by focus group discussions and key informant interviews—enables statistical generalisation and in-depth exploration of underlying drivers [17]. Method triangulation further enhances validity by comparing quantitative metrics, qualitative narratives, and observational findings [18].

This study employs a hybrid approach in the rural wards of KSD to address three core questions: (1) What are the current coverage and technical condition of household sanitation facilities? (2) Which social, economic, and institutional factors influence maintenance, usage, and community involvement? (3) How can a co-productive governance framework integrate infrastructure, socio-economic support, cultural norms, and environmental protection to improve long-term sanitation sustainability? These questions address gaps in the existing literature, which often treats technical performance and socio-institutional factors separately [19,20].

By situating our analysis within post-democratic land reform and rural development policies, we highlight the novel interaction between agrarian livelihoods and sanitation outcomes. Previous studies in South Africa have overlooked the role of smallholder agricultural cycles and the complexity of local governance in shaping sanitation service delivery [21]. Our contribution is to link these dimensions through a socio-technical lens and to provide actionable recommendations for policymakers, practitioners, and community leaders.

Accordingly, this study aims to assess the current status and sustainability of rural sanitation systems in the King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality. Specifically, it seeks to: (1) evaluate the coverage and physical condition of household sanitation facilities; (2) analyse the socio-economic and institutional determinants of sanitation maintenance and use; and (3) propose a co-productive governance framework that integrates technical, social, and environmental considerations to enhance long-term service delivery.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design and Triangulation

An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design guided this study. The initial quantitative phase, comprising household surveys and structured facility observations, informed a subsequent qualitative phase that included focus group discussions and key informant interviews to explain and enrich the survey findings [16,17]. Methodological triangulation was achieved by integrating surveys, observations, focus group discussions, and interviews; theoretical triangulation combined socio-technical and collective-action frameworks; and result triangulation compared statistical models with thematic narratives to enhance validity and interpretive depth [18]. Figure 1 presents the procedural sequence and overall analytical framework.

2.2. Study Area and Timing

Data were collected in six predominantly rural wards of the King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality (KSDLM) in the OR Tambo District Municipality, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa (see Figure 2). Covering approximately 3000 km², KSDLM includes the urban centre of Mthatha—a regional hub for commerce, education, and health services—as well as outlying village settlements, smallholdings, and farms [8]. Persistent socio-spatial inequalities resulting from apartheid-era planning have left many rural communities with uneven infrastructure, limited access to water and sanitation, and reliance on VIP or unimproved pit latrines.

Fieldwork was conducted from May to July 2024, coinciding with the onset of the dry season and the post-harvest period. These conditions facilitated unobstructed latrine inspections by minimising weather-related access challenges and increasing household availability as agricultural demands decreased, thereby ensuring a representative sample of sanitation practices across diverse land-use and settlement patterns.

2.3. Data Collection and Instruments

2.3.1. Sampling Strategy

Households (n = 246) were stratified by ward and randomly selected from municipal census lists to capture variation in sanitation practices and livelihoods. Fifty VIP latrines were purposively selected to represent a range of structural conditions and usage frequencies and inspected using a standardised checklist. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 community representatives from ward committees to explore governance and maintenance issues. Four focus group discussions (n = 32) were held with distinct stakeholder groups—women, youth, traditional leaders, and sanitation workers—to deepen insights into communal norms and challenges.

2.3.2. Instrument Development and Reliability

The household survey was adapted from validated WASH tools v2.0 and piloted with 20 households in a neighbouring municipality to ensure cultural and contextual relevance. Internal consistency for multi-item scales was assessed using Cronbach’s α (sanitation-practice scale α = 0.78; community-engagement scale α = 0.81). Observational checklists and interview guides (Appendix A) were refined iteratively based on pilot feedback to improve question clarity and reduce respondent burden.

2.4. Measurement of Variables

Sanitation practices were measured by self-reported latrine use frequency, cleaning routines, and incidence of open defecation (using binary and Likert items). Sustainable rural development was operationalised as a composite index comprising infrastructure access, self-reported health outcomes, and livelihood indicators. The primary dependent variable in the regression models was functional latrine condition (1 = operational; 0 = non-operational). Predictor variables included household income, education level, participation in WASH committees, and proximity to high water tables.

2.5. Data Analysis

Quantitative data were coded in SPSS v27. Descriptive statistics summarised coverage and practice metrics. Binary logistic regression tested the assumption that higher income (H1), committee participation (H2), and education (H3) increase the odds of functional latrine maintenance. Model assumptions—independence of errors, absence of multicollinearity (VIF < 5), and linearity of continuous predictors in the logit—were verified [6]. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported in a summary table. Qualitative transcripts were coded thematically in NVivo and compared with quantitative findings to triangulate results [18].

2.6. Ethics Approval

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Walter Sisulu University Research Ethics Committee (Approval code: WSU/FNS-GREC/2023/02/11/G3; Approval date: 14 March 2023). Written and verbal informed consent was secured from all participants (thumbprints used for illiterate respondents). Gatekeeper permission involved consultation with traditional leaders and focus group discussions were segregated by gender to uphold cultural norms. Anonymity was maintained via coded identifiers, and all data were stored on encrypted devices and university servers in line with institutional data-protection guidelines.

2.7. Data Management and Quality Control

All quantitative entries were double-keyed into SPSS v27 by two independent data clerks. Discrepancies were flagged and reconciled against source forms before analysis. For facility observations, 10% of VIP latrine inspections were re-assessed by a second observer; inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.82) confirmed checklist consistency. Qualitative transcripts were independently coded by two researchers in NVivo 14; coding conflicts were discussed and resolved to achieve a final codebook. Electronic files were password-protected with daily backups to the university server, and access was restricted to the core research team.

3. Results

Table 1. Overview of Sanitation Systems.

Overview of Sanitation Systems
Indicator	Value/Description	Statistic/Note
VIP latrine ownership	63.4% (95% CI 57.4–69.4)	χ2(2) = 46.8; p < 0.001
Unimproved pit usage	19.6% (95% CI 13.9–25.3)	—
Open defecation	7.3% (95% CI 4.0–10.6)	OR = 4.1 (1.7–9.9); p < 0.01
Flush/septic system use	8.1% (95% CI 4.1–12.1)	OR = 3.2 (1.8–5.6); p < 0.001
Communal facility uses	1.6% (95% CI 0.0–3.2)	—
Settlement-type variation (water-based vs. pit-based)	Formal 28% vs. Traditional < 5%	χ2(2) = 46.8; p < 0.001

,

Table 2. Facility Conditions and Maintenance.

Facility Conditions and Maintenance
Indicator	Value/Description	Statistic/Note
VIPs in good condition	22% (95% CI 10.9–33.1)	—
VIPs needing major repair	58% (95% CI 44.7–71.3)	—
Abandoned VIPs	20% (95% CI 8.3–31.7)	—
Mean VIP age	5.6 years (SD 2.3)	—
Household-paid maintenance	86.2%	—
Cannot afford pit-emptying (ZAR 1500–2500 per visit)	78% (95% CI 73.7–84.3)	χ2(1) = 39.2; p < 0.001
Dug a new pit when full (environmental/public health risk)	64.8%	—

,

Table 3. Hygiene and water Infrastructure.

Hygiene and Water Infrastructure
Indicator	Value/Description	Statistic/Note
Any communal or yard tap	68% (95% CI 62.2–73.8)	—
Reliable water supply (≥95% days)	28% (95% CI 22.4–33.6)	OR = 2.5 (1.6–3.9); p < 0.01
Functional handwashing facility (water + soap)	35% (95% CI 29.2–40.6)	—
Handwashing facility present but no consumables	41.9% (95% CI 35.7–48.1)	—
No handwashing facility	23.1% (95% CI 18.0–28.4)	—

,

Table 4. Community Engagement in Sanitation Projects.

Community Engagement in Sanitation Projects
Indicator	Value/Description	Statistic/Note
Attendance at IDP meetings	36.7% (95% CI 30.9–42.5)	—
Never participated in sanitation planning	32.1% (95% CI 26.7–37.5)	—
Invitation to men vs. women	49% vs. 24%	χ2(1) = 21.5; p < 0.001
Effect of education on participation	OR = 1.4 (95% CI 1.1–1.8); p < 0.01	—
Level of community power (Arnstein’s ladder)	Consultation	—

and

Table 5. Socio-Cultural and Economic Influences.

Socio-Cultural and Economic Influences
Indicator	Value/Description	Statistic/Note
Cited cost as barrier to maintenance	79% (95% CI 73.7–84.3)	χ2(1) = 33.7; p < 0.001
Abandoned-pit households earning less than ZAR 3000 per year	88%	—
New pits ≤ 30 m from streams/wells	52% (95% CI 38.3–65.7)	—
Qualitative themes	Financial barriers; Water-table risks; Gender/safety; Institutional disconnect; Cultural acceptance	Thematic analysis of interviews/FGDs
Cited cost as barrier to maintenance	79% (95% CI 73.7–84.3)	χ2(1) = 33.7; p < 0.001

present key quantitative indicators across all themes: sanitation system coverage, facility condition and maintenance, hygiene and water infrastructure, community engagement, and socio-cultural and economic influences. These data are derived from household surveys (n = 246), 20 key informant interviews, four focus groups (n = 32), and structured observations of 50 sanitation facilities. The following subsections summarise these findings and incorporate illustrative qualitative insights.

3.1. Overview of Sanitation Systems

Table 1 shows the distribution of sanitation facilities across various settlement types, highlighting the prevalence of different systems and associated statistical measures.

The data indicates a significant disparity in sanitation infrastructure between settlement types. Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) latrines are predominantly found in rural wards, while formal townships have a higher adoption of flush or septic systems. Statistical analyses confirm these differences, with a significant variation by settlement type (χ²₍₂₎ = 46.8; p < 0.001). Logistic regression further shows that households with monthly incomes exceeding ZAR 4000 are over three times more likely to use water-based systems (OR = 3.2; 95% CI: 1.8–5.6; p < 0.001). Conversely, living in flood-prone areas increases the likelihood of open defecation (OR = 4.1; 95% CI: 1.7–9.9; p < 0.01).

3.2. Facility Conditions and Maintenance

Table 2 summarises the current state of VIP latrines, detailing their condition, age, and maintenance responsibilities.

The findings show that fewer than a quarter of VIP latrines are in good condition, with over half needing major repairs and about 20% abandoned. The average age of these facilities is 5.6 years, indicating rapid deterioration. Maintenance is mainly the responsibility of households, with 86.2% reporting self-management. However, 78% cannot afford private pit-emptying services, which cost between ZAR 1500 and 2500 per visit (χ²₍₁₎ = 39.2; p < 0.001). Consequently, 64.8% resort to digging new pits when the old ones fill up, posing environmental and public health risks.

3.3. Hygiene and Water Infrastructure

Table 3 provides an overview of access to communal or yard taps, the reliability of the water supply, and the presence of functional handwashing facilities.

While 68% of households have access to a communal or yard tap, only 28% report a reliable water supply on 95% or more days. Households with consistent water availability are 2.5 times more likely to maintain functional handwashing stations (OR = 2.5; 95% CI: 1.6–3.9; p < 0.01). Observational data indicate that approximately one-third of facilities include both soap and water, while nearly a quarter lack any handwashing provision. Focus group discussions highlight that intermittent water supply leads to neglect of handwashing practices, with one rural resident noting, “In the time it takes me to fetch cooking water, I don’t travel extra just to wash my hands.”

3.4. Community Engagement in Sanitation Projects

Table 4 outlines community participation in Integrated Development Plan (IDP) meetings, gender disparities in invitations, and the influence of education on participation.

The data show that only 36.7% of households attend IDP meetings, and nearly one-third have never participated in sanitation planning. Gender disparities are evident, with 49% of men and 24% of women receiving invitations (χ²₍₁₎ = 21.5; p < 0.001). Education level is positively correlated with participation; each additional level of schooling increases the odds of involvement by 40% (OR = 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1–1.8; p < 0.01). Qualitative feedback indicates that community engagement is often superficial, with one committee member stating, “They come from Bhisho with a plan, dig where they want, and then say, ‘We’ve done it.’ This is tokenism, not real partnership.” According to Arnstein’s ladder, community involvement remains at the “consultation” level, lacking delegated decision-making authority.

3.5. Socio-Cultural and Economic Influences

Table 5 presents data on economic barriers to maintenance, proximity of new pits to water sources, and qualitative themes influencing sanitation outcomes.

Economic constraints significantly affect sanitation decisions, with 79% of households citing cost as the main barrier to pit emptying or repairs. Among those abandoning pits, 88% report annual income below ZAR 3000. Additionally, over half of newly dug pits are within 30 metres of streams or wells, increasing contamination risks. Focus group discussions highlight gendered safety concerns, with women expressing fears of assault and snake encounters near unlit VIPs, leading to nocturnal open defecation. Traditional leaders acknowledge a lack of environmental oversight, stating, “We never ask where the water goes when it rains. There is no environmental checklist at community level.” Thematic analysis identifies five cross-cutting influences—financial barriers, water-table risks, gendered safety concerns, institutional disconnect, and cultural acceptance—that interact to shape sanitation outcomes.

4. Discussion

This study examined the sustainability of on-site sanitation in rural King Sabata Dalindyebo (KSD) using complementary quantitative and qualitative methods. By tracing the policy environment, demographic patterns, and tenure arrangements underlying household decisions, we identify causal mechanisms driving service failure and extract lessons applicable across sub-Saharan Africa.

4.1. Policy, Demographics, and Tenure as Causal Drivers

The “build-and-abandon” cycle observed in KSD results from a policy focus on hardware subsidies without corresponding operation and maintenance (O&M) funding. South Africa’s National Sanitation Policy mandates VIP latrine construction but omits sustained aftercare budgets. As a result, nominal coverage (63% VIP ownership; Table 1) coexists with 78% of facilities requiring major repairs or abandonment [13]. This delivery paradox reflects findings on rural sanitation economics in South Africa [6].

Demographic disparities worsen these policy gaps. Households earning below ZAR 3000 per month have four times higher odds of open defecation (OR = 4.1; 95% CI: 1.7–9.9; p < 0.01), and over 88% of pit abandoners fall under this income threshold (Table 1). Poverty rates in KSD (45%) therefore limit access to private emptying services (ZAR 1500–2500 per service), which 78% of respondents report as unaffordable [13]. Lower educational attainment further reduces participation in ward WASH committees (OR = 1.4 per education level; 95% CI: 1.1–1.8; p < 0.01), undermining community-led O&M regimes.

Tenure insecurity on communal land also discourages investment in durable superstructures. Without clear property rights, households choose to dig replacement pits rather than repair existing latrines, replicating patterns documented in Zimbabwe’s rural water projects under insecure tenure regimes [21].

4.2. Situating KSD in Sub-Saharan Africa

KSD’s socio-technical challenges reflect regional norms. In Uganda and Zimbabwe, researchers have linked high emptying fees and weak aftercare to latrine abandonment and a resurgence of open defecation [20,21]. EcoSan pilots across East and Southern Africa—including Kenya, KwaZulu-Natal, and Limpopo—show that technical innovations alone fail when community financing and cultural alignment are lacking [15,22].

Gendered safety concerns in KSD—where women avoid dark, unlit VIPs and use indoor potties—mirror findings that report increased gender-based violence risk associated with poor facility design in East Africa [22]. Dobie’s work in the Eastern Cape also found that women’s fear of snakes and assault near secluded latrines deters nighttime use [23].

Institutional disconnects are also widespread across the continent. Arnstein’s “consultation” rung limits meaningful WASH participation in many sub-Saharan municipalities, as committees lack delegated authority and budgets [24]. In contrast, community-led total sanitation (CLTS) initiatives in Malawi and Zambia have fostered genuine local ownership by embedding rulemaking and social monitoring at the grassroots [17,19].

4.3. Generalizable Lessons

Four interdependent lessons from the KSD case are directly transferable to similar rural contexts.

First, integrate O&M into policy frameworks. Sanitation strategies must allocate a defined portion of capital grants for recurrent operation and maintenance and adopt performance-based municipal budgeting to ensure infrastructure is sustained beyond construction [1].

Second, tailor financing to household capacity. Implement means-tested grants, targeted subsidies, and affordable microfinance for repairs and emptying, noting that in KSD, 40% of VIP owners found a ZAR 450 repair cost prohibitive [19].

Third, embed gender and safety in design. Make sitting criteria, path lighting, lockable doors, and inclusive consultation funding conditions so that women and other vulnerable groups can use facilities without fear and with dignity [1].

Fourth, promote polycentric governance. Assign clear, complementary responsibilities to municipalities, traditional authorities, and democratically elected ward WASH committees, with delegated budgets and monitoring authority, to enable local adaptive management consistent with Ostrom’s principles [25].

4.4. Policy and Practice Implications

To address the identified gaps, we recommend mandating aftercare funding by earmarking a share of capital grants for O&M; securing land and facility tenure to encourage household investment; empowering ward-level WASH committees with budgetary authority to move beyond “consultation” to “partnership” [20]; incentivising affordable emptying technologies and microfinance to mitigate cost barriers [21]; and strengthening environmental safeguards through sitting standards and local compliance monitoring in accordance with national guidelines [7].

4.5. Theoretical Contributions

By operationalising a four-dimensional framework, our study demonstrates how deficiencies in economic, cultural, political, or technical domains can cascade to undermine entire sanitation systems, thereby extending sustainability reviews in the sector [19]. Applying Ostrom’s collective-action principles clarifies the role of boundary definition, monitoring, and sanctioning in rural sanitation governance [25]. Finally, from a Multi-Level Perspective, we show that regime-level hardware subsidies must co-evolve with niche innovations in financing, gender-sensitive design, and polycentric institutions to enable sustainable transitions [26].

4.6. Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the research was limited to six rural wards within King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality, which, although representative of many rural contexts in South Africa, may not fully reflect the diversity of sanitation practices in other provinces or countries. Second, household sanitation practices were partly based on self-reported data, which may be subject to recall bias or social desirability effects, particularly regarding open defecation and maintenance behaviours. Third, fieldwork was conducted during the dry season, which likely facilitated latrine inspections but may have underestimated challenges related to flooding, high water tables, and seasonal mobility. Fourth, while the mixed-methods design improved validity through triangulation, the cross-sectional nature of the data limits causal inference about long-term sustainability trajectories. Finally, the study focused primarily on household and community-level governance; broader political-economic dynamics at the provincial and national levels, though highly relevant, were beyond its scope. Despite these limitations, the study provides robust, contextually grounded insights that can inform both local interventions and broader discussions on sustainable rural sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The study highlights a service-delivery paradox in rural King Sabata Dalindyebo (KSD): although 63% of households report VIP latrine ownership, only 22% of facilities are in good condition, 58% require major repairs, and 20% are abandoned. Financial constraints, high water tables, and gendered safety risks significantly undermine functionality, while community engagement remains tokenistic.

Recommendations:

• Funding for maintenance: Allocate a portion of capital grants for recurrent operation and maintenance to ensure repairs and pit-emptying services are accessible.
• Ward-level governance: Establish elected, gender-balanced WASH committees with delegated budgets and authority for site approvals, safety audits, and local contract management.
• Targeted subsidies: Implement a Smallholder Sanitation Fund to provide means-tested support for pit emptying and repairs for households earning below ZAR 3000 per month.
• Gender-sensitive design: Incorporate lockable doors, path lighting, and inclusive siting criteria into sanitation infrastructure standards.
• Environmental safeguards: Enforce a 30 m setback between new pits and water sources, supported by municipal GIS mapping and compliance monitoring.

A co-productive governance model—integrating municipal authorities, traditional leadership, and communities—is essential to align infrastructure provision with socio-economic realities, cultural norms, and environmental protection. This integrated approach is critical for achieving sustainable progress towards SDG 6.2 in rural South Africa.

Final Reflection

Sustainable sanitation requires more than infrastructure; it demands inclusive, resilient, and context-sensitive systems. In KSD, progress depends on co-productive governance, with communities, municipalities, and traditional authorities sharing responsibility for planning, financing, and maintaining services. Aligning technical provision with socio-economic realities, cultural norms, and environmental safeguards is essential to advance long-term sanitation sustainability and achieve SDG 6.2 in rural South Africa.