IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/cmpart/334769.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Stakeholder perceptions of raw water quality and its management in Fetakgomo and Maruleng municipalities of Limpopo Province

Author

Listed:
  • Namakando, Namakando

Abstract

This study applied the Q methodology to investigate stakeholders’ perceptions about the most important ecosystem services provided by the Olifants River, and the management strategies that could potentially improve the river’s raw water quality. This is because deteriorating water quality is an issue of concern amongst the different stakeholders who, directly or indirectly, derive utility from the Olifants River. The river is an important source of raw water and other ecosystem services used for environmental, domestic and commercial purposes to support wildlife, households and drive production in South Africa. As a public good, the Olifants River is of interest to both private and public stakeholders with different interests in the resource, some of which may be conflicting. Since stakeholder perceptions influence environmental outcomes, the need to account for stakeholder perceptions is an important step to integrate and coordinate efforts to improve the management of raw water. Using 27 statements and 14 stakeholders drawn from Maruleng and Fetakgomo municipalities of Limpopo Province, the results show that stakeholders held three distinct viewpoints about the most important ecosystem services produced by the Olifants River: ecosystem services that are sources of employment-creation; ecosystem services that provide direct goods/services; and a mixed/holistic perspective that placed importance on all categories of ecosystem services. Using 31 statements and 16 stakeholders drawn from Maruleng and Fetakgomo municipalities, the results showed that stakeholders held four distinct perspectives about solutions to improve water quality: polluters must be made accountable through monitoring and enforcement of regulations; more organisation and coordination is needed in water quality iv management; innovation, and creativity in water resources the management through capacity building; and major changes have to be made in how things are currently done. The policy implications for the study findings are that the results can be used to: (a) inform policy about integrated water resource management; and (b) help in designing non-market valuation studies of the Olifants River that include outcomes that are most meaningful to stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Namakando, Namakando, 2020. "Stakeholder perceptions of raw water quality and its management in Fetakgomo and Maruleng municipalities of Limpopo Province," Research Theses 334769, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:cmpart:334769
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.334769
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/334769/files/N_NAMAKANDO.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.334769?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prouty, Christine & Zhang, Qiong, 2016. "How do people's perceptions of water quality influence the life cycle environmental impacts of drinking water in Uganda?," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 24-33.
    2. Johan Rockström & Malin Falkenmark, 2015. "Agriculture: Increase water harvesting in Africa," Nature, Nature, vol. 519(7543), pages 283-285, March.
    3. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    4. Mitsch, William J. & Gosselink, James G., 2000. "The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 25-33, October.
    5. Biggs, H.C. & Clifford-Holmes, J.K. & Freitag, S. & Venter, F.J. & Venter, J., 2017. "Cross-scale governance and ecosystem service delivery: A case narrative from the Olifants River in north-eastern South Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 173-184.
    6. Cumming, Tracey L. & Shackleton, Ross T. & Förster, Johannes & Dini, John & Khan, Ahmed & Gumula, Mpho & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2017. "Achieving the national development agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through investment in ecological infrastructure: A case study of South Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PB), pages 253-260.
    7. Anzaldua, Gerardo & Gerner, Nadine V. & Lago, Manuel & Abhold, Katrina & Hinzmann, Mandy & Beyer, Sarah & Winking, Caroline & Riegels, Niels & Krogsgaard Jensen, Jørgen & Termes, Montserrat & Amorós, , 2018. "Getting into the water with the Ecosystem Services Approach: The DESSIN ESS evaluation framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 318-326.
    8. Dan Durning, 1999. "The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q-methodology," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 389-410.
    9. Zhihua Hu & Lois Wright Morton & Robert L. Mahler, 2011. "Bottled Water: United States Consumers and Their Perceptions of Water Quality," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14, February.
    10. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-15, April.
    11. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    12. Louis Guttman, 1954. "Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 19(2), pages 149-161, June.
    13. Desta Woldetsadik & Pay Drechsel & Bernard Keraita & Fisseha Itanna & Heluf Gebrekidan, 2018. "Farmers’ perceptions on irrigation water contamination, health risks and risk management measures in prominent wastewater-irrigated vegetable farming sites of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 52-64, March.
    14. Armatas, Christopher A. & Venn, Tyron J. & Watson, Alan E., 2014. "Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 447-456.
    15. Pereira, Mariana A. & Fairweather, John R. & Woodford, Keith B. & Nuthall, Peter L., 2016. "Assessing the diversity of values and goals amongst Brazilian commercial-scale progressive beef farmers using Q-methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-8.
    16. Dale J. Menkhaus & Damien P. M. Colin & Glen D. Whipple & Ray A. Field, 1993. "The effects of perceived product attributes on the perception of beef," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 57-63.
    17. McCartney, Matthew Peter, 2004. "Hydrology and water resources development in the Olifants River Catchment," IWMI Working Papers H035861, International Water Management Institute.
    18. Jensen, Anne Kejser, 2019. "A Structured Approach to Attribute Selection in Economic Valuation Studies: Using Q-methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Carr, Gemma & Potter, Robert B. & Nortcliff, Stephen, 2011. "Water reuse for irrigation in Jordan: Perceptions of water quality among farmers," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(5), pages 847-854, March.
    20. Nieuwoudt, W. Lieb & Backeberg, G.R. & du Plessis, H.M., 2004. "The value of water in the South African economy: Some implications," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 43(2), pages 1-22, June.
    21. C.-T Jordan Lin & J. Walter Milon, 1993. "Attribute and Safety Perceptions in a Double-Hurdle Model of Shellfish Consumption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 724-729.
    22. Buadi, Donus K. & Anaman, Kwabena A. & Kwarteng, Joseph A., 2013. "Farmers’ perceptions of the quality of extension services provided by non-governmental organisations in two municipalities in the Central Region of Ghana," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 20-26.
    23. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Kozak, Robert & Markum,, 2016. "Certification of forest watershed services: A Q methodology analysis of opportunities and challenges in Lombok, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 51-59.
    2. Marie Hubatova & James McGinlay & David J. Parsons & Joe Morris & Anil R. Graves, 2023. "Assessing Preferences for Cultural Ecosystem Services in the English Countryside Using Q Methodology," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-25, January.
    3. Ping Zhang & Liang He & Xin Fan & Peishu Huo & Yunhui Liu & Tao Zhang & Ying Pan & Zhenrong Yu, 2015. "Ecosystem Service Value Assessment and Contribution Factor Analysis of Land Use Change in Miyun County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-24, June.
    4. Hao Hong Do & Oliver Frör, 2022. "River Ecosystem Resilience: Applying the Contingent Valuation Method in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-19, September.
    5. Armatas, Christopher A. & Campbell, Robert M. & Watson, Alan E. & Borrie, William T. & Christensen, Neal & Venn, Tyron J., 2018. "An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 1-18.
    6. Cullen, Ross & Takatsuka, Yuki & Wilson, Matthew & Wratten, Steve D., 2004. "Ecosystem Services on New Zealand Arable Farms," 2004 Conference, June 25-26, 2004, Blenheim, New Zealand 97777, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Hearnshaw, Edward J.S. & Cullen, Ross, 2010. "The Sustainability and Cost-Effectiveness of Water Storage Projects on Canterbury Rivers: The Opihi River Case," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 97265, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    9. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    10. Gerner, Nadine V. & Nafo, Issa & Winking, Caroline & Wencki, Kristina & Strehl, Clemens & Wortberg, Timo & Niemann, André & Anzaldua, Gerardo & Lago, Manuel & Birk, Sebastian, 2018. "Large-scale river restoration pays off: A case study of ecosystem service valuation for the Emscher restoration generation project," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 327-338.
    11. Scemama, Pierre & Levrel, Harold, 2019. "Influence of the Organization of Actors in the Ecological Outcomes of Investment in Restoration of Biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 71-79.
    12. Frélichová, Jana & Vačkář, David & Pártl, Adam & Loučková, Blanka & Harmáčková, Zuzana V. & Lorencová, Eliška, 2014. "Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 110-117.
    13. Davies, Ben B. & Hodge, Ian D., 2012. "Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 51-57.
    14. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    15. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    16. Neville D Crossman & Jeffrey D Connor & Brett A Bryan & David A Summers & John Ginnivan, 2009. "Reconfiguring an Irrigation Landscape to Improve Provision of Ecosystem Services," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-07, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    17. Chen, Haojie & Costanza, Robert & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2022. "Legitimacy and limitations of valuing the oxygen production of ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    18. Posthumus, H. & Rouquette, J.R. & Morris, J. & Gowing, D.J.G. & Hess, T.M., 2010. "A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1510-1523, May.
    19. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    20. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:cmpart:334769. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.agriculturaleconomics.net .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.