Table 7. Results of analysis of freelists of “priorities for future water use?”, showing frequency with which interviewees identified priorities, the percentage of interviewees who identified that priority, the average ranking of that priority, and the salience (Smith's S) of the priority.

ID Priorities for Future Use 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
35
36
37
38
39
40
41..77
BASIC HUMAN NEEDS
EQUITY BALANCE
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE
AGRICULTURE
REALLOCATE FROM AGRICULTURE
SHARING
INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
POLLUTION
WHOLE SYSTEM
CAPACITY
INDUSTRY
SUSTAINABLE USE
WATER ACT
ENVIRONMENT SUFFERING
EMPLOYMENT
MORE CAREFUL UTILISATION
BETTER DESIGN AND PLANNING
MORE DAMS
TOWN MUNICIPAL
WASTEAGE
HUMAN USE
COSTS AND BENEFITS
ASSESS CURRENT POSITION
DON'T KNOW HOW TO ALLOCATE
WATER CONSERVATION
WATER USE EFFICIENCY
MANAGED FOR IRRIGATION
GOOD INTENTIONS
CANNOT PRIORITISE
ECONOMICS
STORE FOR LEAN YEARS
VALUE ADDING
RESERVE
INNEFECTIVE GOVERNANCE
DEMAND POPULATION
DIFFERENT SECTORS
FARMERS STEALING WATER
FORESTRY NEGATIVE
MOZAMBIQUE NOT GETTING
.....
13
11
9
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
....
41
34
28
19
19
19
16
16
16
16
16
13
13
13
13
13
9
9
9
9
9
9
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
....
2.615
4
1.667
4.833
4
4.5
3.6
4.2
6
5.2
4.8
6
2.75
1
5
5.5
2.667
7
2
3.667
5.333
2.667
4.5
4
6.5
4
5
5.5
10
2.5
3.5
4
2
1.5
6.5
5.5
6
8.5
8
7.5
....
0.289
0.208
0.257
0.101
0.089
0.124
0.079
0.066
0.068
0.061
0.080
0.064
0.086
0.125
0.060
0.068
0.065
0.029
0.084
0.067
0.042
0.063
0.049
0.031
0.028
0.044
0.034
0.036
0.007
0.039
0.046
0.040
0.052
0.059
0.026
0.037
0.026
0.017
0.030
0.023
....
  Total/Average (for entire data set of 77 items) 187 5.844