Table 6. Results of analysis of freelists of “consequences of the Crocodile River not flowing?”, showing frequency with which interviewees identified consequences, the percentage of interviewees who identified that consequence, the average ranking of that consequence, and the salience (Smith's S) of the consequence.
| |
| |
|
ID |
Consequences of Crocodile not Flowing |
Frequency |
Resp. Pct. |
Avg. Rank |
Smith’s S |
| |
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
|
BIODIVERSITY
WHOLE
ECONOMY
ANIMALS
MOZAMBICANS
TOURISM
DOMESTIC
USERS
EVERYONE
ECOSYSTEM
FISH
DOWNSTREAM
COMMERCIAL
FARMERS
RURAL
POPULATION
PLANTS
LESS
WATER
UNEMPLOYMENT
KRUGER
PARK
LESS
AGRICULTURE
INDUSTRIES
RIVER
SEDIMENTS
INTERNATIONAL
DEATH
SOCIAL
INSTABILITY
WATER
RESTRICTIONS
MIGRATION
GROUNDWATER
DAMS
MORALE
EROSION
COMMERCIAL
FARMING
LOCAL
GOV
PROVINCIAL
GOV
INDUSTRY
SANPARKS
Total/Average: |
10
8
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
105 |
30
24
18
18
15
15
15
15
12
12
12
12
12
9
9
9
9
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.182 |
1.4
2.625
2.333
2.167
3.8
3
4.4
1.8
1.75
1.25
4.25
3.25
2.5
1
1.667
4.333
2
1
2
3.5
2.5
1
2.5
2
3
6
1
4
3
4
5
6
7
1 |
0.261
0.138
0.128
0.101
0.075
0.093
0.050
0.120
0.091
0.106
0.060
0.061
0.068
0.091
0.077
0.047
0.073
0.061
0.040
0.032
0.038
0.061
0.038
0.027
0.015
0.009
0.030
0.012
0.015
0.017
0.013
0.009
0.004
0.030 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|