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