Table 2. Results of analysis of freelists of “major users of water”, showing frequency with which interviewees identified users, the percentage of interviewees who identified that user, the average ranking of that user and the salience (Smith's S) of the user.
| |
| |
|
ID |
User |
Frequency |
Percentage of respondents |
Avg. rank |
Smith's S |
| |
|
1 |
COMMERCIAL FARMERS |
32 |
97 |
1.656 |
0.827 |
|
2 |
INDUSTRIES |
14 |
42 |
3.429 |
0.221 |
|
3 |
FORESTRY |
12 |
36 |
2.75 |
0.229 |
|
4 |
URBAN AREAS |
11 |
33 |
3.636 |
0.176 |
|
5 |
MINING |
10 |
30 |
2.9 |
0.182 |
|
6 |
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES |
9 |
27 |
3 |
0.181 |
|
7 |
DOMESTIC USERS |
7 |
21 |
3.143 |
0.107 |
|
8 |
EMERGING FARMERS |
7 |
21 |
4.143 |
0.110 |
|
9 |
RURAL POPULATION |
6 |
18 |
4.167 |
0.055 |
|
10 |
KRUGER PARK |
5 |
15 |
4 |
0.066 |
|
11 |
ECOSYSTEM |
4 |
12 |
4.5 |
0.033 |
|
12 |
MOZAMBIQUE |
4 |
12 |
4.75 |
0.039 |
|
13 |
RECREATIONAL USERS |
3 |
9 |
3.667 |
0.050 |
|
14 |
TOURISM |
3 |
9 |
1.667 |
0.080 |
|
15 |
BLACK TOWNSHIPS |
2 |
6 |
3 |
0.035 |
|
16 |
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT |
2 |
6 |
2.5 |
0.038 |
|
17 |
AQUACULTURE |
2 |
6 |
1.5 |
0.057 |
|
18 |
FACTORIES |
2 |
6 |
3 |
0.041 |
|
19 |
SHOPS |
1 |
3 |
5 |
0.018 |
|
20 |
SCHOOLS |
1 |
3 |
6 |
0.015 |
|
21 |
HOSPITALS |
1 |
3 |
7 |
0.012 |
|
22 |
GAME FARMERS |
1 |
3 |
3 |
0.018 |
|
23 |
SELF-EMPLOYED |
1 |
3 |
9 |
0.006 |
|
24 |
PLANTS |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0.030 |
|
25 |
ANIMALS |
1 |
3 |
2 |
0.025 |
|
|
Total/average: |
142 |
4.303 |
|
|
|
| |
|