1. Introduction
Water contamination is as an alarming form of environmental degradation because of its direct and immediate effects on human health, social and economic circumstances, and lifestyle activities [
1]. How people perceive water quality and the types of risks that people perceive in a water contaminated situation are important factors in water quality governance. People’s concerns about water quality are considered as an essential part of water resource management [
2]. Based on the European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD), people’s active participation in water resource management is one of the governance principles in order to identify issues by monitoring water bodies and applying regulatory measures [
3,
4]. The inclusion of people’s risk perception in the governance approach is a possible means of stakeholder involvement [
5].
In general, there is limited focus on people’s perceptions in environmental management procedures. Environmental managers and policymakers have a greater tendency to ratify the policies and management principles based only on the environmental risk assessment on the grounds of ‘technical rationality’ [
6,
7]. The concerns of the people who are the direct recipients of the impacts caused by environmental degradation need to be recognized and scrutinized systematically [
8,
9,
10]. Risk perception and the perception of environmental quality are interconnected [
11,
12,
13]. Public risk perception assessments are as important as the experts’ technical assessments, in order to obtain complementary policy decisions that organize responses to degradation, alleviate risks, allocate resources, and implement risk management policies [
9,
14,
15]. The way that society perceives risk is crucial to understanding the existing vulnerabilities to an event [
16]. A deliberate consideration of the people’s observations and appraisals of environmental risks and how people covenant those risks is an integral part of environmental sustainability [
17]. The analysis of environmental risk is a vital governance element for a country’s prospective economic and social development, as well as for sustainability [
18]. Moreover, the local people are one of the primary parties affected by environmental issues. Regarding water pollution in particular, the local level is the most vulnerable to risks, where the source of the pollution is born in the region or another area [
19,
20].
The environmental risks are complex, with scientific uncertainties and socio-political controversies contributing to this complexity [
21]. Within the scientific or policy communities, the environmental risk is identified based on the thematic areas, indices, or parameters that are used to measure the risk [
18]. Environmental risk is recognized as a unique type of risk characterized by a high level of uncertainty, delayed consequences, and far-reaching effects [
17]. This risk is multifaceted, inconstant, and challenging to examine [
7]. Environmental risks emerge from anthropogenic activities as well as from natural hazards [
16,
22]. On the other hand, the people who encounter an environmental risk may not be the people who are directly responsible for causing it [
16]. Thus, environmental policy at a global, regional, national, and local level should asses, examine, communicate, and collaborate to mitigate or manage risk [
23,
24,
25].
Discovering farmers’ perceptions regarding the quality of their water sources is critical in order to understand the perceived risk and in integrating this information into the policymaking process and, finally, the application of water management policies [
26]. The farmers’ health perceptions could arise from concern over the health effects of their own food or the possible negative impacts that poor water quality could have on their ability to sell their food and make economic profits at the market [
27]. Moreover, swimming and direct access to the rivers or lakes with other recreational activities demonstrates the level of trust people must have in their water sources, and this is affected by their perception of the quality of water [
23,
28]. People who are reluctant to access the water source perceive swimming as being linked to health risks [
28]. Therefore, an assessment of the farmers’ perceptions of water quality and health-related risks, risks related to the social and economic impacts on their sale of agricultural products, and lifestyle disturbance (e.g., swimming) is important in order to evaluate the farmers’ awareness of the environmental risks and to integrate their opinions into policy decisions.
The research was conducted in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia, which has been identified as a hotspot of water quality deterioration, which is one of the key natural resource management issues and public health issues in Georgia [
29]. People in the river basin have been exposed to prolonged environmental pollution due to opencast mining extraction [
30,
31]. Since 1975, the ‘Madneuli’ mining plants have been operating in Kazreti, Bolnisi Municipality [
32]. In 2014, a new open-pit mining site was started in Sakdrisi, Dmanisi Municipality, by the company RMG Gold [
33], and they are continuing preliminary studies for new mining sites in the Kvemo Bolnisi region [
34]. Farmers can be identified as the most vulnerable group who encounter this environmental pollution. The Kvemo Kartli region in the Mashavera River Basin is a leading provider of vegetables, fruits, and dairy products to the national food system [
35]. Some locals are even fishing in the Mashavera River for their own consumption or supply to neighbors. Any negative effects on agriculture will therefore have an effect on the public health in the region, as well as on the whole country [
29]. Some local organizations and non-governmental organizations are working to ease farmers’ anxieties regarding these issues. However, a systematic study of the farmers’ risk perceptions and their perceptions of water quality has not been conducted yet. Thus, the existing channels for policymakers and other responsible authorities to obtain information about farmers’ opinions regarding environmental pollution is limited. In this research study, we examine the following two research questions: (a) What factors influence farmers’ perception of water quality? (b) In an area affected by water contamination, which factors influence farmers’ perceived risks in the economic, social, lifestyle, and health domains? Georgia is in a phase of transforming their water resource management systems so as to comply with the framework of the WFD. People’s participation and a consideration of the people’s concerns regarding water quality is therefore an essential governance element [
36]. Thus, this study concludes by briefly explaining the policy implications of analyzing risk perceptions in the context of water quality.
1.1. Factors Affecting People’s Perception of Water Quality and Risks
There are several studies that analyse people’s perception of water quality in the context of, for example, drinking water [
11,
13,
37,
38,
39,
40], lifestyle disruption and recreational activities [
28,
41], surface water sources in different water usage situations [
4,
42,
43,
44], and agricultural water usage [
26,
45,
46,
47]. Water-related risk perception and the perception of water quality are integrally connected [
11,
13]. People’s perceptions of risk and water quality are both subjective [
11]. The construction of the perception of a specific environmental quality depends on multiple socioeconomic factors, individual experiences, interests, and sociodemographic characteristics [
42,
48].
1.1.1. Sociocultural Factors
Peoples’ risk perceptions and judgments regarding environmental conditions depend on their beliefs, attitudes, and feelings, which are formed by sociocultural circumstances [
4,
10] and certain values and interests of societal groups [
49,
50]. According to Berry et al. [
51], the awareness and impression of water quality could also be a part of the values and knowledge a community links with water. The rooted sociocultural practices and political dynamics of a society that frame the knowledge about water and the characteristics of water sources that people feel or respond to determine the level of water quality in certain ontologies [
51]. Cultural symbols and certain ecosystem-oriented values indicate the quality of water. As an example, traditional Mongolian society believes that fish are a symbol of the gift of nature, indicating pure water, and ‘Naga’, a snake lord, protects the purity of water in the rivers [
52]. Communities could set the criteria for managing water and water quality perceptions based on their generational experiences and customs. David and Ploeger [
53] observed adaptable indigenous water resource management practices under micro-climate changes in Sumatra, Indonesia, which were rooted in their longstanding knowledge and social trust among communities. This indigenous farming society tries to harmonize demanding food production and limited water resources by protecting the water quality, biodiversity, and other ecosystems. Dare and Mohtar [
47] point out that religious beliefs could constrain access to wastewater for the irrigation. Not only cultural influences but also formal and informal flows of information strongly affect risk perception at the community level, as well as individually [
7].
1.1.2. Sociodemographic and Agri-Hydrological Factors
Sociodemographic factors such as gender, age, family composition, education, employment, income, and locality or living area are identified as vital factors in people’s perception studies [
14,
43,
54,
55]. Nauges and van den Berg [
56] emphasize that demographic factors may strongly affect the perception of water quality. Social control, power relations, the role in the family or society, and trust can alter the understanding and identification of risk situations by gender [
57,
58]. Risk perception studies have identified that women may have more concern about risk or be more vulnerable to risk or perceived risk in the environmental context [
59,
60]. In the literature regarding food risk, some research has found that females are more concerned about food-related risks [
61,
62]. The gendered division of labor in the public and private sphere regarding water usage or activities related to water access, such a fetching water, could lead to dissimilar concerns over water quality and quantity [
63,
64]. Similarly, age, as a reflection of the span of the experiences an individual has acquired, is a critical factor influencing risk perception, which could be correlated with the duration of exposure to an issue [
43,
65]. The people who have experienced a hazardous situation may have less concern about risk [
66]. There is a strong relationship between past experiences, risk perception, and decision-making [
67]. However, differences between individual and group experiences could depend on the time-framework or the proximity to the hazard areas or with the peer-effect [
65].
The family composition can affect certain aspects of perceived risk, either because of the division of labour or because of the shared responsibilities of the family in an agricultural society [
68]. The family, either big or small, may have more concern over risk as their responsibilities increase. The economic activities or the nature of the occupation could be associated with the means of recognizing a risk [
10] and the perception of water quality [
69]. The study of certain occupation-oriented groups or communities could explain risk perception due to their specific circumstances, which society at large is not exposed to [
70]. The scale of the response may depend on the nature of the occupational relationship, which can be positive or negative. The farmers’ water quality perceptions are embedded in their regular exposure to water conditions while carrying out their agricultural duties [
71]. Woldetsadik et al. [
26] examined how farmers react to the contamination of irrigation water in a wastewater-irrigated area in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The perceived health risk and perception of water quality showed a strong relationship with irrigation water quality perception. In research conducted in Morogoro, Tanzania, to investigate the farmers’ perceptions of applying low-quality irrigation water in vegetable production, Mayilla et al. [
46] mentioned that farmers’ experiences, size of the farmland, and concerns are decisive factors in water quality perception. Furthermore, the farmers’ perceived economic benefits stemming from the use of low-quality irrigation water are determined by the degree of intention to the use wastewater, regardless of the level of water quality.
1.1.3. Geospatial Factors
The location, place, or area of living that decides the spatial proximity to the water source or the contamination source may shape the perception of the risk [
14] and the environmental perception [
12,
23]. Thus, the analysis of the geographical distribution of risk perception could bring more depth of understanding regarding the spatial dimension of risk, which is advantageous for operational reasons and is necessary in order to construct comprehensive knowledge about the field [
14,
72,
73]. The residential distance or the proximity to the water source as a geospatial factor has a considerable effect on the perception of water quality [
12,
23]. Also, the hydrological interactions and anthropogenic activities upstream influence the downstream conditions [
74]. The farmers are one the core stakeholders who encounter water pollution as a result of the industrial activities upstream [
75]. The distance from the irrigation channel or river to the farmland may alter the water quality perception as well as the health risks [
23]. Research conducted in Denmark indicates that farmers who have their farm close to water sources form a stronger perception about water quality [
45].
1.1.4. Issue Attribute Factors
Water organoleptic factors (i.e., taste, smell, color, and clarity) are decisive in the water quality perception of humans, as well as the judgment of perceived health risks related to water [
37,
41,
42,
56,
64]. These factors are considered aesthetic attributes [
43] that indicate the instant perception of water quality [
40]. For drinking water, all of the aesthetic attributes are taken into consideration in order to examine how people identify whether water has good quality or not [
40,
56]. Color-related risk judgments are combined with the psychological effects that are constructed through experiences and the cognitive reaction to hazards [
76]. In particular, the clarity of the water is a vital decision-making factor that connects either suitability or satisfaction. When people want to utilize a river, lake, or sea for leisure, bathing, or swimming, clarity and color-based perceptions indicate the level of water quality [
41]. Some technical water quality measurement thresholds also acknowledge the aesthetic attributes of water in order to evaluate water quality. The United States Environmental Protection Agency listed odor as the secondary water quality measurement attribute. The noticeable odor can be described as a ‘rotten-egg’, musty, or chemical smell that measures as three threshold odor number (TON) [
77]. However, for farmers, with their routine passive and active observation of the adjacent environmental status, the color and smell of the irrigation water sources are fundamental issue attributes that influence their view of water quality [
26].
Moreover, perceptions can differ from person to person in relation to the factors mentioned above. An individual perception of risk should be carefully scrutinized in the analysis, or generalization of the community perception [
15,
78,
79]. The risk perceptions could be diverse among individuals, depending on their political orientations and sociocultural, sociodemographic, and socio-geographic factors [
78,
80]. These individual systemic differences are challenging in a risk perception study [
78]. A concrete and comprehensive understanding of the risk perception is a difficult task in research studies, as multiple and dissimilar factors could connect with each other [
81].
6. Conclusions
This research study examined the factors that affect the farmers’ perception of water quality and their perceived risks in the socioeconomic, lifestyle, and health domains. Hypotheses based on existing risk perception studies were tested and some of them were verified, while others were disproved. Based on the binary logistic regression analysis, age, amount of land, years of agricultural experience, and the source of the water supply to agriculture do not show a significant relationship with any of the tested risk perception domains or water quality perception in the model. In addition to the perceived risk of not being able to sell their agricultural products, the aesthetic attributes (i.e., color changes in the river) and the source of water contamination (i.e., a mining site) were the common predictor variables for the perceived risk and water quality perception. In the context that the region is known to have environmental pollution because of the mining industry and other reasons, such as gravel extraction and untreated wastewater discharge from urban areas and farmland, the farmers’ perceptions of these two predictor variables have a relatively high likelihood. As far as the problem of selling agricultural products, the contribution of agricultural income to the total income and the satisfaction level with the quality of the agricultural water sources both affect perceptions. The PLI data from the heavy metal assessments also show the geospatial relationship between the pollution level and the farmers’ risk perceptions. Overall, the theoretical argument of this study is that multiple factors can influence the perceptions of risk, and these perceptions may depend on the severity of the community’s exposure to environmental pollution.
This study can be considered a preliminary assessment of public risk perception in the Mashavera River Basin, and can be expanded to comprehensive research by examining the people’s concerns regarding water quality across Georgia. Thus, one of the recommendations of this study is to conduct a public risk perception assessment that could detect people’s concerns regarding water quality, and to obtain a clear understanding of the possible risks. By enabling the people’s active engagement in risk analysis, local knowledge can play a role in water quality governance. Another recommendation of this study is an integrated model of the risk assessment that combines the results from the public risk perception assessment and the technical risk assessment. The benefits of such an integrated assessment include finding new hazard-sensitive areas for further analysis, the possibility of cross-checking data for verification, communal communication of hazardous conditions by utilizing local knowledge, and the direct participation of the community in monitoring risks.
The stakeholders who use natural resources (e.g., water, soil, forest, and minerals) in the Mashavera River Basin are currently in competition. In this competition, the interests of powerful stakeholders are more profoundly established in the governance process. Their economic support to the local government authorities, as well as high-level political power, may negatively influence the other stakeholders who use river basin, particularly farmers. The mismanagement of natural resource extraction and the malpractices of agriculture contribute to the land use changes that threaten the balance of the social-ecological system in the region. As briefly noted in the research study, the social setting in this region still lacks a community consensus about how to handle water quality issues, which hinders collective actions. However, there should be continued study in order to examine the background and specific hindrances in this particular case. Furthermore, future research could be conducted by integrating different stakeholders in the region to obtain other views regarding water quality and the risks perceptions in Mashavera River Basin.