It was felt that user opinion of different systems of water ownership and control would provide feedback about the acceptability of these options and whether they are considered practical. Questioning water users would also reveal their satisfaction with the current system and possibly point to the need for a different approach to water ownership and management.
The research assertion considered in this dissertation is that, if given
the choice, bulk users of water would prefer a system of private ownership
and management. Testing the response to this assertion and
canvassing ideas for water allocation requires a means for selecting interviewees
and a procedure to obtain information from the interviewees.
Random selection of interviewees from the study area would eliminate
bias, but might not achieve the required body of information required for
this project. This study involved the investigator asking detailed
questions about water management for irrigation, so people who do not have
an interest in that topic would be unlikely to reveal anything useful or
carefully considered. Because this study only involves people
who irrigate, only farmers and people who have played a part in the water
allocation process were interviewed.
At the onset, a grid based survey of the Kakanui Catchment was of particular interest, but the Privacy Act prevents public disclosure of residents’ names and addresses, making such a sampling design difficult to effect.
The technique adopted was a modified form of snowball sampling whereby interviewees were asked to identify individuals whom they thought would be interested in or useful to this study. The snowball technique tends to identify experts and people with strong and well articulated opinions (Swaffield 1991). Manifestly there is bias in letting one interviewee pick another, especially for a controversial topic like this one, because individuals with strong views do not necessarily represent the population. The snowball sampling technique does, however, indicate to the investigator that peer recognition is important.
A wide spatial spread of interviewees was also desired and made possible
by focussing on a relatively small catchment like the Kakanui.
Interviewees were, however, asked to recommend neighbours as well as people
outside their immediate area. In particular interviewees were
asked to identify people in areas of the catchment where no interviewees
had been identified to date. The snowball effect favours people
in certain areas, especially those with access to water irrigation, but
by seeking a geographical spread, the investigator is able to minimise
geographical bias.
“Most social research involves subjects being aware of, and responding
to the researcher. The question thus becomes not one of whether
bias can be eliminated, but what sort and how much bias is present.”
Silverman (1985)
Care was taken to ensure that the field survey method used had the least possible researcher bias. Two options were available: questionnaire surveys and interviews. A questionnaire has the advantage of being easy to administer to a large number of people. It would have been feasible to contact two hundred people in the study area, and such a large sample would have permitted a fair order of generalisation, but it was decided not to use this tool as the purpose of this research was to explore ideas about water ownership and control. A questionnaire survey does not allow the flexibility to follow up interesting topics. This research was interested in obtaining the views of interviewees and obtaining new ideas on the topic.
The research method chosen was a semi-formal interview with set questions to ensure consistency leaving room for unprompted comments on water management, efficiency of water use, and ways to value water.
It was important for the interviewee not to know the position held by the interviewer. For interviewees to feel at ease with the proceedings, it was also important to inform them about the direction the interview was heading (Jones 1985). Because the focus of this research is water as an economic good, there is the risk that people will remain silent because they don’t agree with the concept or to praise the virtues of water as an economic good because they think that is what the interviewer wants to hear. Swaffield (1991) found that by introducing the main theme of the research early in the interview he tended to elicit a certain response (“conservationist” in his case) because interviewees thought that was what he wanted to hear. The current study attempted to discover the opinions of interviewees about the intrinsic value of water before any mention of water as an economic good. The interviewer was known to many interviewees, but few would have known the interviewer’s position on issues raised during the interview. A measure of neutrality was therefore possible.
Analysis of comments made during the interviews require a satisfactory way to classify the interviewees, and general background questions were asked. All interviewees were asked about their involvement with the Kakanui Catchment and how they value the local water resource. Farmers were asked about drought and their response to drought, and whether or not they use irrigation. Early questions in the interview revealed the strategy farmers employ to deal with adversity and how open they are to new techniques. They also aimed to determine how interviewees value other resources, such as information useful for farming.
People who are expanding their operations tend to be strategic thinkers who have optimistic visions for their district. Such people would be in a position to be able to buy water rights so it is hypothesised, those who hold an optimistic vision for the district are more likely to prefer the Tradeable Water Permits, or the Fully Privatised Catchment. This hypothesis is backed up by Singer (1994) who argues that a strategic thinking person will try to propagate a free-market in order to preserve their position into the future.
By asking questions about interviewees’ experience with and knowledge of its allocation of water rights it proved possible to get them thinking about the processes that they have undertaken or had thought about regarding water rights. Having thought about the issue, interviewees can then answer whether they think the current system is fair and what alternatives might be more appropriate.
It was during this midway stage of an interview that the topic of the value of water was raised. By then most interviewees felt at ease with the interview, and could see that a particular viewpoint was not being forced on them by the interviewer.
The final segment of the interview involved presenting interviewees
with details of three models for allocating irrigation water.
They were chosen to represent the “current system”, an economic system
(“Tradeable Water Permits”) and a “Fully Privatised Catchment.”
The three models had to be simplified for ease of presentation and understanding
yet remain true to their key features.
Interviewees were initially selected from people personally known
to the interviewer. The interview was tested in a pilot study
with one interviewee. No major defects were found, and the
procedure remained the same for the remainder of the interviews.
Interviewees were first contacted by telephone and told who I am and that I am undertaking a study on water allocation in the Kakanui River Catchment. If they agreed to take part, the interview was arranged, then held at the interviewee’s home or work.
The interview opened with introductory greetings to put the interviewee at ease. The interviewee was then given an information sheet (Appendix A), and the interviewer explained the procedures outlined on that sheet. Emphasis was placed on the confidentiality of the procedure.
The interview schedule is outlined in Appendix B. There were separate schedules for farmers and non-farmers. Because the emphasis is on water allocation for irrigation, farmers were asked additional questions about (a) their response to drought and (b) water for pasture and crops. The two schedules were similar in all other aspects.
Questioning began by reference to the background of the interviewees and their connection with the Kakanui Catchment water. Interviewees’ experiences and attitudes to the way water rights are allocated were sought, notably whether the current system of water allocation is fair. Some assessment of the value of water was sought from each interviewee, and ways to deal with the lack of it were canvassed. This line of questioning sought to get a interviewee thinking about the conflict between water users and a fair way to take different values systems into account.
Interviewees were asked about their vision for the district, this was done to determine whether the interviewee had an optimistic view for the area. Interviewees were also asked about where they got their information sources and how they were applied. This was done to determine the level of strategic thinking that the interviewee was doing. The purpose of asking about strategic thinking and optimism is to test Kelly (1995) and Singer’s (1994) ideas that innovators should support free-market policies.
Finally the three different water allocation scenarios were put before each interviewee (Appendix C). The current system was put forward first, and the interviewer described its facets. An interviewee was then told about the Tradeable Water Permits system for comparison. Interviewees were asked whether they thought one of the systems were better: and if, which one and why? These two systems are somewhat similar, the main difference being the notion of tradeable water permits and this got interviewees thinking about water as a commodity with monetary value.
The Fully Privatised Catchment system was outlined and explained. The interviewees were asked if they had a preference for their own benefit, and for the district.
Finally the interviewees were then asked to name other people in the
area whom they thought could be of assistance to the study.
This was repeated with each contact.
By interviewing people directly involved in water conflict it was
possible to assess user reaction to the national and international push
for water resources to be viewed in essentially macro-economic terms.
The Kakanui is a catchment with water conflicts but its homogeneity permitted
exploration of the views held by water users. Interviewee selection
encouraged clear and well articulated arguments by favouring interviewees
with a strong interest in the topic.