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 |
|
|
|
| |
|