Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
27 June 2023 | Story Department of Communication and Marketing | Photo Charl Devenish
Dr Abraham Matamanda and Prof Lochner Marais
UFS researchers, Dr Abraham R Matamanda, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Geography, and Prof Lochner Marais, Head of the UFS Centre for Development Support, collaborated with researchers in the UK and Brazil on a study on the impact of COVID-19 on children and young people. The study is part of the international PANEX-Youth research project.

Researchers from South Africa, the UK, and Brazil recently conducted a study on the impact of COVID-19 on children and young people, particularly those from disadvantaged households. Their research highlights that the pandemic has deepened existing inequalities, with children and young people’s voices and needs not being considered in policy decisions.

The study conducted by researchers from the University of the Free State (UFS) and the University of Fort Hare in South Africa; the University College London, the University of Birmingham, and Nottingham Trent University in the UK; and the University of São Paulo in Brazil, found that pandemic policy decisions largely ignored young people’s needs, resulting in long-term losses.

Educational inequalities

The report, titled International and National Overviews of the impact of COVID-19 on Education, Food and Play/Leisure and Related Adaptations, outlines how slow government action and policy gaps in efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19 have had a negative impact on children and young people’s health and welfare.

South Africa has been one of the countries hardest hit by COVID-19, and the study shows that due to social isolation and economic disruption caused by lockdowns, children and young people’s education has been stunted, their access to nutritious food has been reduced, and their ability to develop socially through play has been significantly restricted. The impact was worst for those living in disadvantaged poor households.

The study, which is part of the first stage of the PANEX-Youth research project, is divided into two volumes: the ‘Long Report’, highlighting the wider impact of the pandemic on children across the world, while the ‘Short Report’ drills down on the impact on three countries, namely the UK, South Africa, and Brazil.

Further insights from the study show that the digital divide has compounded educational inequalities as education has moved online during the pandemic, with households and regions with insufficient internet access falling behind. Collectively, and combined with the continuing cost-of-living crisis, the researchers believe that these disadvantages are likely to have detrimental consequences for children and young people in the short and long term, with many not yet visible.

Future pandemic planning

The team – which includes UFS researchers, Dr Abraham R Matamanda, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Geography, and Prof Lochner Marais, Head of the UFS Centre for Development Support – expects that policy gaps during the pandemic will negatively impact young people’s professional life trajectories, healthy lifestyles, mental well-being, educational opportunities, and self-confidence.

The team put together five recommendations to ensure that children’s well-being is incorporated into any future pandemic planning. These suggestions include:

  • The need to keep children and young people at the centre of pandemic preparedness efforts.
  • More priority and attention given to the hidden voices and experiences of young people, and particularly those from monetary poor households.
  • Greater recognition that schools play an important, central role as life and care hubs.
  • Greater recognition of play and leisure as rights that are fundamental to children and young people’s development.
  • More structured and systemic responses to multiple dimensions of risk from local and national responses are recommended, based on a rigorous assessment of what worked and failed during the pandemic.

Adapting in the post-pandemic period

Prof Lauren Andres, Professor of Planning and Urban Transformations at the University College London – also the lead author of the report – said: “COVID-19 exposed and exacerbated inequalities that already existed prior to the pandemic. Children and young people’s voices and needs were not heard and accounted for. Our research shows that because of policy gaps and slow government action during the pandemic, disadvantaged children and young people are now facing serious consequences that could be with them for a long time, both here in the UK and around the world.”

According to Dr Matamanda, “The COVID-19 pandemic showed the lack of understanding of what children and young people need in their daily lives. During the pandemic, the rights of children and young people, especially play/leisure, accessing adequate food and education, seemed to be overlooked or least prioritised. This was evident from the slow and inconsistent COVID-19 government policies and strategies that failed to acknowledge the networks and value chains through which children and young people are supported. In this way, our research shows the gaps and inequalities created and widened among children and young people in South Africa, especially those from disadvantaged households who have now been left behind and are grappling to adapt in the post-pandemic period.”

Read the full report here: https://panexyouth.com/

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept