IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v99y2020ics0264837719311500.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What matters most? Stakeholders’ perceptions of river water quality

Author

Listed:
  • Okumah, Murat
  • Yeboah, Ata Senior
  • Bonyah, Sylvester Kwaku

Abstract

The need to integrate stakeholders’ views into environmental policy is increasingly gaining attention because this offers the opportunity to design sustainable and synergistic environmental strategies. Understanding and integrating the views of resource users into policy design and implementation could help address the most important challenges, gain community support, enhance project ownership, and avoid policies being rejected by local people. As a result, research in environmental management has focussed on stakeholders’ perceptions of river water quality and how to integrate such views into policy. While existing studies offer insights into the different ways in which stakeholders evaluate river water quality and potential factors influencing judgements, they appear to be limited in a number of ways. First, most of these studies focus on developed countries and may have limited contextual relevance to the developing world. Moreover, past studies focus on segments of society such as farmers and mainly on wastewater for agriculture. These shortcomings may limit our understanding of the topic and our ability to design effective policies to address water quality problems. Drawing on survey data from the Wenchi municipality in Ghana, we examine public perceptions of what constitute important measures of river water quality as well as factors influencing such judgements. Results suggest that while variables such as taste, colour, smell and litter are important, the presence of faecal matter in and/or around the river was rated the most important measure of river water quality while depth of river was the least important. Results further suggest that education, age, number of years a person had lived in a community, depth of river and the presence of aquatic vegetation influence water quality judgements. The findings of this research provide insights into what policymakers and regulators need to consider when attempting to influence behaviours in relation to water resources. We note, however, that while public perceptions of river water quality could guide water management policies, scientific measurements of water quality must not be replaced with stakeholder perceptions. This is because aspects such as ecological integrity may not be important to segments of the public but are an important aspect of water management. This is reinforced in the present study as there seems to be a lack of concern among the participants regarding river depth – an important factor for habitat provision and pollution dilution.

Suggested Citation

  • Okumah, Murat & Yeboah, Ata Senior & Bonyah, Sylvester Kwaku, 2020. "What matters most? Stakeholders’ perceptions of river water quality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719311500
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837719311500
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104824?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Nancy Kraus & Torbjörn Malmfors & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 215-232, June.
    3. Julie Barnett & Glynis M. Breakwell, 2001. "Risk Perception and Experience: Hazard Personality Profiles and Individual Differences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 171-178, February.
    4. Samuel D. Brody & B. Mitchell Peck & Wesley E. Highfield, 2004. "Examining Localized Patterns of Air Quality Perception in Texas: A Spatial and Statistical Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1561-1574, December.
    5. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    6. Jeon, Yongsik & Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Downing, John A., 2005. "The Role of Water Quality Perceptions in Modeling Lake Recreation Demand," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12474, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Nauges, Céline & Van Den Berg, Caroline, 2009. "Perception of Health Risk and Averting Behavior: An Analysis of Household Water Consumption in Southwest Sri Lanka," TSE Working Papers 09-139, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    8. 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.
    9. Okumah, Murat & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Novo, Paula, 2018. "Effects of awareness on farmers’ compliance with diffuse pollution mitigation measures: A conditional process modelling," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 36-45.
    10. Murat Okumah & Ata Senior Yeboah & Isaac Asante-Wusu, 2020. "Unpacking the moderating role of age and gender in the belief–behaviour link: a study within the context of water resources pollution," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(14), pages 2607-2626, December.
    11. Branden B. Johnson, 2003. "Do Reports on Drinking Water Quality Affect Customers' Concerns? Experiments in Report Content," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 985-998, October.
    12. Josie Carwardine & Kerrie A Wilson & Matt Watts & Andres Etter & Carissa J Klein & Hugh P Possingham, 2008. "Avoiding Costly Conservation Mistakes: The Importance of Defining Actions and Costs in Spatial Priority Setting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(7), pages 1-6, July.
    13. Bryan L. Williams & Sylvia Brown & Michael Greenberg & Mokbul A. Kahn, 1999. "Risk Perception in Context: The Savannah River Site Stakeholder Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 1019-1035, December.
    14. Schlüter, Maja & Baeza, Andres & Dressler, Gunnar & Frank, Karin & Groeneveld, Jürgen & Jager, Wander & Janssen, Marco A. & McAllister, Ryan R.J. & Müller, Birgit & Orach, Kirill & Schwarz, Nina & Wij, 2017. "A framework for mapping and comparing behavioural theories in models of social-ecological systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 21-35.
    15. Deasy, Clare & Quinton, John N. & Silgram, Martyn & Bailey, Alison P. & Jackson, Bob & Stevens, Carly J., 2010. "Contributing understanding of mitigation options for phosphorus and sediment to a review of the efficacy of contemporary agricultural stewardship measures," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 105-109, February.
    16. Winfrida Mayilla & Bernard Keraita & Helena Ngowi & Flemming Konradsen & Flavianus Magayane, 2017. "Perceptions of using low-quality irrigation water in vegetable production in Morogoro, Tanzania," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 165-183, February.
    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. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Branden B. Johnson, 2008. "Public Views on Drinking Water Standards as Risk Indicators," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1515-1530, December.
    3. Eva Lindbladh & Carl Hampus Lyttkens, 2003. "Polarization in the Reaction to Health‐Risk Information: A Question of Social Position?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 841-855, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    6. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    7. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Tijs Neutens & Wouter Vanneuville & Philippe De Maeyer, 2011. "An Analysis of the Public Perception of Flood Risk on the Belgian Coast," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1055-1068, July.
    8. Xiaofei Xie & Mei Wang & Liancang Xu, 2003. "What Risks Are Chinese People Concerned About?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 685-695, August.
    9. Mary E. Thomson & Dilek Önkal & Ali Avcioğlu & Paul Goodwin, 2004. "Aviation Risk Perception: A Comparison Between Experts and Novices," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1585-1595, December.
    10. Ian J. Mauro & Stéphane M. McLachlan, 2008. "Farmer Knowledge and Risk Analysis: Postrelease Evaluation of Herbicide‐Tolerant Canola in Western Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 463-476, April.
    11. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "Flooding Risks: A Comparison of Lay People's Perceptions and Expert's Assessments in Switzerland," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 971-979, August.
    12. Michael W. Slimak & Thomas Dietz, 2006. "Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1689-1705, December.
    13. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.
    14. Zhihua Xu & Jingzhu Shan, 2018. "The effect of risk perception on willingness to pay for reductions in the health risks posed by particulate matter 2.5: A case study of Beijing, China," Energy & Environment, , vol. 29(8), pages 1319-1337, December.
    15. George Wright & Fergus Bolger & Gene Rowe, 2002. "An Empirical Test of the Relative Validity of Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1107-1122, December.
    16. Terre A. Satterfield & C. K. Mertz & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Discrimination, Vulnerability, and Justice in the Face of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 115-129, February.
    17. Branden B. Johnson, 2018. "Residential Location and Psychological Distance in Americans’ Risk Views and Behavioral Intentions Regarding Zika Virus," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2561-2579, December.
    18. Malcolm P. Cutchin & Kathryn Remmes Martin & Steven V. Owen & James S. Goodwin, 2008. "Concern About Petrochemical Health Risk Before and After a Refinery Explosion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 589-601, June.
    19. Dolores J. Severtson & Jeffrey D. Myers, 2013. "The Influence of Uncertain Map Features on Risk Beliefs and Perceived Ambiguity for Maps of Modeled Cancer Risk from Air Pollution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 818-837, May.
    20. Branden B. Johnson & Caron Chess, 2003. "How Reassuring are Risk Comparisons to Pollution Standards and Emission Limits?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 999-1007, October.

    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:eee:lauspo:v:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719311500. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.