Communal Goat Farmers’ Perception of Water Scarcity and Factors Influencing This Challenge in the Eastern Cape, South Africa

Abstract

Water scarcity is a major constraint to agricultural productivity in arid and semi-arid regions, yet its implications for communal goat production systems remain insufficiently documented. This study assessed communal goat farmers’ perceptions of water scarcity and identified factors influencing this challenge in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. A structured questionnaire was administered to 218 smallholder goat farmers, and data were analysed using SPSS (v29). A ranking index was employed to prioritise production constraints, goat functions, and water sources. Additionally, water samples from dams, streams, and rainwater were analysed for key physicochemical parameters. Results showed that theft (index = 0.233) was the most important production constraint, followed by parasites/diseases (0.219), predators (0.211), and water scarcity (0.187), which consistently ranked fourth across seasons. Despite this ranking, farmers perceived water scarcity to have substantial impacts on production, including increased disease prevalence (46.3% severe), mortality (45.0% severe), reduced weight at maturity (61.9% severe), increased trekking distance to water sources (59.2% severe), and reduced feed quality (54.6% severe). Farmers generally perceived water as clean and non-saline; however, laboratory analysis revealed poor quality, with pH values ranging from 9.14 to 10.72 and turbidity exceeding recommended thresholds (<5 NTU) in most dam and stream samples. Water accessibility was limited, with goats travelling an average of 5.85 km to dams and 7.71 km to streams. Key drivers of water scarcity included reduced rainfall (50.9%), lack of government intervention (49.1%), and drying of dams (40.4%). The study highlights a critical mismatch between perceived and actual water quality and demonstrates the multidimensional impacts of water scarcity on goat health, productivity, and welfare. Future research requires longitudinal studies linking water quality to goat health outcomes, intervention research on farmer education, low-cost water-treatment technologies, governance studies of water infrastructure, and economic analyses quantifying productivity losses.

1. Introduction

Goats hold the distinction of being the second-most populous livestock species globally, behind sheep [1]. With a long history of association with humans since the advent of agriculture and animal domestication, goats hold significant socio-economic importance. Their versatile nature enables them to offer a range of products and services to individuals worldwide, particularly in developing nations. This includes generating income from their sales, the source of meat, especially during traditional ceremonies, sources of milk, skins, and sometimes wool (cashmere or mohair) (Marius [2]). In addition, the egested faeces and urine could also serve as valuable sources of manure for resource-limited farmers.

Water is essential for the vital processes within an animal’s body, comprising approximately 40% to 70% of their body weight, depending on age and fat content [3]. Providing adequate water for livestock often presents significant challenges, mainly due to limited and unpredictable rainfall, especially during dry seasons, worsening water scarcity [4]. Moreover, an animal’s water requirements are highly variable, differing substantially between species; for instance, small ruminants like sheep and goats are more resistant to water scarcity compared to larger ruminants [5]. While specific quantities vary, the literature suggests that beef production generally has a considerably larger water footprint than sheep or goat production, indicating higher water demands for cattle [6]. Water intake can vary significantly even among animals of the same breed, influenced by factors such as body weight, physiological status (e.g., lactation or growth rate), activity level, dietary moisture content, and environmental conditions. For example, the water intake of lactating dairy cows is strongly influenced by milk production, body weight, and environmental temperature. Higher temperatures tend to increase water consumption. Water intake can vary significantly even among animals of the same breed, influenced by factors such as body weight, physiological status (e.g., lactation or growth rate), activity level, dietary moisture content, and environmental conditions. For example, the water intake of lactating dairy cows is strongly influenced by milk production, body weight, and environmental temperature. Higher temperatures tend to increase water consumption [7].

Water scarcity is a pressing global crisis that affects both agriculture and human populations, particularly in developing countries. Prolonged drought conditions, economic growth, aridity, frequent droughts, and an increasing human population are among the factors contributing to this challenge [8,9]. Although not widely acknowledged as a constraint to goat production and productivity, water scarcity is emerging as a significant obstacle, particularly in light of the impacts of climate change [10].

Despite the vital role that goats play in resource-limited farming systems, there is a lack of documentation on farmers’ perceptions of water shortages in goat production [11,12]. When faced with water scarcity, communal goat farmers’ flock management, feeding strategies, and flock health are all significantly impacted.

Communal goat farmers in regions such as the Eastern Cape perceive water scarcity as a critical challenge, directly impacting their livelihoods and the well-being of their livestock [13]. They report significant difficulties in securing adequate water for their animals, often observing direct consequences such as decreased animal health and, in many cases, animal deaths due to insufficient water or feed [14]. Farmers also perceive that a lack of water and/or food negatively affects the productivity and overall welfare of their goats [14]. Beyond the immediate animal welfare concerns, they experience broader economic repercussions, including increased costs for animal feed [15]. Many smallholder farmers attribute the increasing water shortages to climate change, noting warmer, drier conditions and reduced rainfall [14,15]. This lived experience of water scarcity profoundly shapes their flock management and feeding strategies, making water access and quality a paramount concern for their farming operations [16].

This study addresses critical knowledge gaps in understanding perceptions of water scarcity among communal farms. First, while water scarcity is widely recognized as a constraint to agricultural production [17], its impacts on communal goat farming systems remain poorly documented, particularly in the Eastern Cape province, where goats hold significant cultural and economic value [18]. Second, understanding farmers’ perceptions is essential because these perceptions shape management decisions and adaptation [19]; any disconnect between perceived and actual water quality could lead to poor animal health outcomes and reduced productivity. Third, the findings will provide evidence-based guidance for policymakers, extension services, and development agencies seeking to design targeted interventions that address both biological and economic dimensions of water scarcity in semi-arid environments.

To provide a robust analytical lens for this investigation, this study is guided by three complementary theoretical frameworks from economics and behavioral science that help explain how farmers’ perceptions of water scarcity influence their management decisions and economic outcomes. Bounded Rationality Theory [20] recognizes that human decision-making is constrained by limited access to information, cognitive limitations, and time constraints. In our context, this explains why farmers may rely on perceived rather than objective water quality: they make satisficing (good-enough) rather than optimizing decisions. When a farmer uses water that tests high in pH (9.14–10.72) but looks and tastes normal, they are not being “irrational”; they are making the best decision possible given their information constraints. Risk Perception Theory [21] explains how people assess and respond to hazards based on psychological factors rather than objective probabilities. Farmers’ perceptions of water scarcity risks are shaped by personal experience, cultural beliefs (traditional knowledge about water sources), trust in institutions, and the nature of the risk itself. Invisible threats, such as pH, are less feared than visible ones, such as predators or theft. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework [22] positions farmers’ perceptions as a mediating variable between external shocks and livelihood outcomes. Farmers possess five types of capital, human (education), social (networks), natural (water), physical (infrastructure), and financial (income), that shape how they perceive and respond to water scarcity. A farmer with various income sources may view water scarcity as less severe because they can afford alternatives. Conversely, those with limited education (42.8% in this study) may lack awareness of the risks associated with water quality. These frameworks inform our analysis of how socioeconomic factors moderate the relationship between water stress and farmer decision-making, providing insights into the economic rationality underlying apparent perception discrepancies. Based on these theories, we position farmers’ perceptions as the critical intermediate variable linking objective water conditions to behavioral responses and ultimately to production outcomes.

Based on these gaps, therefore, the study aims to assess communal goat farmers’ perceptions of the impact of water scarcity and to identify the factors influencing this challenge in Alice town and surrounding villages within Raymond Mhlaba Municipality, Eastern Cape, South Africa.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethical Approval

Ethical clearance was submitted and approved by the University of Fort Hare Inter-Faculty Human Research Ethics Committee [Approval number: MPE031SMNY01].

2.2. Study Site Description

The study was conducted in the Nkonkobe region, specifically in Alice town and its surrounding communal villages within Raymond Mhlaba Municipality. The Nkonkobe region is a predominantly rural municipality comprising 21 administrative wards, covering an estimated area of 3725 km². with an average population density of 43 persons per kilometre [22]. The major towns within the Nkonkobe region are Alice, Middle Drift, Fort Beaufort, and Seymour. Approximately 72% of the population resides in rural areas and farming areas, while the remaining 28% reside in the urban settlements [22]. The municipality is characterized by a dispersed settlement pattern, with small, developed urban centres, surrounded by widely scattered, underdeveloped rural villages. This spatial configuration presents significant challenges and escalates the costs associated with providing basic infrastructure and essential services. The region experiences a semi-arid climate with mean monthly temperatures ranging from 6.2 °C to 20.8 °C in July and 17.2 °C to 36.0 °C in February. Rainfall is concentrated in a wet summer season extending from October to April, followed by a dry winter season during the remaining months. The average annual precipitation typically does not exceed 600 mm. The study location is illustrated in Figure 1.

2.3. Sampling and Sample Size Determination

Smallholder goat farmers were chosen for the study through a purposive sampling strategy. This technique selects participants based on their knowledge and involvement in goat farming. Purposive sampling is commonly used in agricultural and rural development studies, in which respondents are selected based on specific characteristics that align with the research objectives [24]. The study was conducted in Alice town and its surrounding communal villages within Raymond Mhlaba Municipality in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Villages with a high concentration of communal goat farmers were identified with the assistance of local agricultural officers and traditional leaders. Within the selected villages, goat-owning households were randomly selected to participate in the survey. Only households owning a minimum of ten goats (including kids, bucks, and does) were considered eligible for the study. Ultimately, a total of 218 household heads who consented to participate were obtained as the sample size using Cochran’s Equation (1) for categorical data.

$$n={\displaystyle \frac{Z^2 p(1-p)}{e^2}}$$

(1)

where Z is the Z-score at 95% confidence (1.96), p is the assumed proportion of households engaged in goat farming (0.8, based on provincial livestock statistics an), and e is the margin of error (0.05), q = 1 − p, and e is the margin of error (0.05). This formula is well established for determining sample sizes in agricultural surveys [25].

Heads of households, goat keepers, and elderly community members were targeted for interviews, using approaches recommended to capture diverse perspectives in smallholder farming systems [26]. Data were collected using a well-structured interview and an administered questionnaire, which captured information on household demographics, the roles and functions of goats, production practices and constraints, water accessibility and quality, as well as factors influencing water scarcity. Face-to-face interviews were conducted in Xhosa to ensure farmers fully understood the questions. Additionally, transect walks were undertaken in each village’s grazing areas and around water sources to identify, explore, and observe the various water sources utilised by the community, following participatory rural appraisal techniques [27].

2.4. Questionnaire Development and Validation

The questionnaire was developed based on the literature on farmers’ perception of climate change and water scarcity, and its impact on livestock production [28]. It covered household demographics, the roles and functions of goats, constraints on goat production, perceptions of water scarcity, factors influencing water scarcity, water quality assessment, and the distance from water sources. To ensure validity and reliability, the instrument was pilot tested with 20 farmers outside the study zones, and modifications were made for clarity and contextual relevance. Internal consistency of trait preference items was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, which yielded a value of 0.82, indicating high reliability.

2.5. Data Collection and Analysis

The collected data were coded and cleaned in Microsoft Excel, after which descriptive statistics were expressed as frequency and percentages and were generated using SPSS (version 29).

The relative importance of each preference or attribute was estimated by computing the index of ranking, as explained by [29], i.e., ranking index = sum (3 × rank 1 + 2 × rank 2 + 1 × rank 3) for individual preference/sum (3 × rank 1 + 2 × rank 2 + 1 × rank 1) for overall preferences.

Farmers were asked to rank the roles and functions of keeping goats, major goat production constraints, and water sources for goats. The ranking index method of [30] was adopted. Farmers assigned ranks to traits (1 = most important, n = least important), which were then weighted using Equation (2):

$$Index= {\displaystyle \frac{\sum \left(n_r \times \left(n+1-r\right)\right)}{\sum \sum \left(n_r\times \left(n+1-r\right)\right)}}$$

(2)

where n_r is the number of responses for rank r and n is the maximum rank. The index values were used to generate relative importance scores, with higher values indicating stronger rankings among farmers.

Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages) were generated using SPSS v29 to analyze perceptions of water quality according to seasons, the impact of water scarcity on goat production, and factors influencing water scarcity.

Information on water accessibility was also obtained through the structured questionnaire administered to goat farmers. Respondents were asked to estimate the average distance (in kilometers) and time (in minutes) required to reach major water sources, including dams, boreholes, and streams, used for watering their goats. These self-reported measures were intended to capture farmers’ perceptions of physical water accessibility and its implications for livestock production.

The responses were coded and entered into a spreadsheet for analysis. Descriptive statistics, including the mean and standard deviation, were computed to summarize the average distance and time to each water source. These indicators were further interpreted alongside farmers’ perceptions of water scarcity.

Triplicate water samples were collected from selected water sources in clean sampling bottles, and the sources were identified with assistance from local community members. A total of 10 water samples were collected from 3 different water sources (sampling sites), namely: streams, rainwater, and dams. The samples were immediately transported to the laboratory for physiochemical analysis, placed in a cooler (fridge), and analysed within 2 h of collection to minimize changes in physiochemical properties and ensure the reliability of the results. A multiparameter water quality meter (HI98194, Hanna Instruments, Woonsocket, RI, USA) was used to determine physicochemical parameters of water, including:

• Electrical conductivity EC (Salinity indicator µS/cm).
• Total dissolved solids (TDS) (derived from EC measurements).
• Turbidity NTU (Suspended sediments indicator, desirable <5 NTU for livestock water) NTU.
• Temperature (measured in °C),
• pH (Acidity/alkalinity expected to range from for livestock: 6.5–8.5) of each water sample analysed.

The multi-perimeter device used to measure physicochemical parameters was calibrated before measurements were taken using a standard buffer solution, according to the manufacturer’s instructions, to ensure measurement accuracy.

3. Results

3.1. Socio-Demographic Variables of Respondents

The socio-demographic profile of the participants is summarized in

Table 1. Sociodemographic variables of the respondents.

Variables	Group	Frequencies	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	131	60.1
	Female	87	39.9
Age groups	20–30	22	10.1
	31–40	47	21.6
	41–50	61	28.0
	>50	88	40.4
Household size	<3	26	11.9
	3–5	109	50.0
	>5	83	38.1
Educational level	Postgraduate	11	5.0
	Graduate	49	22.5
	High school	64	29.4
	Elementary school	64	29.4
	No School at all	30	13.8
Household income source	Government social grant	71	32.6
	Livestock and crop sales	32	14.7
	Salaries/pensions	89	40.8
	Friends and family support	26	11.9
Goat farming experience	<5	53	24.3
	5–10	90	41.3
	>10	75	34.4
Flock size	<10	35	16.1
	11–20	65	29.8
	21–30	74	33.9
	>30	44	20.2

. Notably, 60.1% of the farmers identified as male, and 28% of households were composed of individuals aged 41–50. The data also revealed low literacy levels: 42.8% of respondents had either no formal education or completed only elementary school. On average, households consisted of more than 5 members. The source of household income was highest for salaries/pensions (40.8%), followed closely by social grants (32.6%). Furthermore, a significant proportion of respondents (41.3%) had 5 to 10 years of experience in goat farming, indicating a substantial level of proficiency in this range.

3.2. Roles and Functions of Goats

Table 2. Role and function of goats according to the ranking by communal farmers.

Functions	R1	R2	R3	Index	Order
ceremonies/ritual purpose	10	28	182	0.176	1
income generation	7	52	161	0.174	2
manure source	117	95	8	0.095	5
milk purpose	207	13	0	0.067	6
gift items	211	9	0	0.066	7
raised for skins	213	7	0	0.065	8
raised for wools	215	5	0	0.064	9
investment source	29	86	105	0.149	3
meat purpose	38	79	103	0.145	4

presents the roles and functions of goats, as ranked by communal farmers. Traditional ceremonies/ritual purposes were ranked as the primary husbandry purposes by the respondents. Other purposes include income generation, investment purposes, and meat production, among others, in descending order of interest.

3.3. Goat Production Constraints

Table 3. Major goat production constraints according to the ranking system in the dry communal areas as influenced by season.

	Summer				Autumn				Winter				Spring				Overall
Variables	R1	R2	R3	Index	R1	R2	R3	Index	R1	R2	R3	Index	R1	R2	R3	Index	Index *	R *
water scarcity	97	51	72	0.181	44	126	50	0.183	45	38	137	0.203	62	116	42	0.179	0.187	4
feed shortages	118	72	30	0.153	64	123	33	0.168	61	47	112	0.187	95	92	33	0.161	0.167	5
thefts	23	44	152	0.247	18	53	149	0.234	18	52	150	0.218	32	47	141	0.233	0.233	1
predators	30	84	106	0.225	52	65	103	0.201	39	60	121	0.199	42	86	92	0.217	0.211	3
Parasites/diseases	12	63	145	0.249	24	91	105	0.214	43	65	112	0.194	19	107	94	0.219	0.219	2

The lower the rank (index), the greater its use. Values in parentheses indicate the rank index. *: overall index/rank.

summarises the predominant hindrances to goat production across the major seasons in the surveyed areas. Chief among the obstacles is theft. Parasites and predators come second and third, while water scarcity is ranked fourth.

3.4. Water Sources for Goats

Table 4. Ranking of water sources for communal goats as influenced by seasons.

	Summer				Autumn				Winter				Spring				Overall
Variables	R1	R2	R3	Index	R1	R2	R3	Index	R1	R2	R3	Index	R1	R2	R3	Index	Index *	R *
Taps	54	56	110	0.251	43	45	132	0.275	25	76	119	0.264	119	112	54	0.266	0.264	2
Dams	49	74	97	0.247	58	61	101	0.251	27	52	141	0.274	141	83	92	0.307	0.26975	1
Rivers/Streams	52	77	91	0.242	43	107	70	0.243	52	85	83	0.233	83	105	62	0.252	0.2425	4
rainwater	45	59	116	0.259	45	127	48	0.23	80	35	105	0.23	105	113	53	0.258	0.24425	3

The lower the rank (index), the greater its use. Values in parentheses indicate the index for ranks. *: overall index/rank.

clearly outlines the primary water sources utilized for goats in the surveyed areas. Dams emerged as the predominant water source for goats, followed by taps, rainwater, and rivers/streams. This consistent pattern persisted across all seasons, except for spring.

3.5. Perception of Water Quality

The perception of water quality by communal farmers in all seasons (summer, winter, spring, and autumn) is presented in

Table 5. Perception of water quality according to season.

	Cleanliness				Saltiness				Muddiness
Variables	Summer	Winter	Spring	Autumn	Summer	Winter	Spring	Autumn	Summer	Winter	Spring	Autumn
Very clean (%)	35.8	10.1	6.9	3.7	0.5	0.9	2.8	1.8	11.5	16.5	13.3	15.6
Clean (%)	46.3	50	59.6	63.3	10.6	13.3	12.4	15.1	0	0	0	0
Slightly clean (%)	14.2	30.7	28.4	23.4	9.2	22	18.8	16.5	22	33.9	32.6	30.7
Not clean (%)	3.7	9.2	5	9.6	79.8	63.8	66.1	66.5	66.1	49.5	54.1	53.7

. Most respondents perceived water quality as clean in Autumn (63.3%) and spring (59.6%). The majority of respondents perceived water as ’not salty’ in summer (79.8%), autumn (66.5%), spring (66.1%), and winter (63.8%). None of the respondents perceived the water as muddy in any season.

3.6. Perception of the Impact of Water Scarcity on Goat Production

Table 6. Perceived impact of water scarcity on goat production by communal farmers.

Variables	Severe (%)	Moderate (%)	Low (%)	No Change (%)
Disease prevalence	46.3	40.8	12.8	0
Increased mortality	45.0	29.4	25.2	0.5
Reduced meat quality	28.9	42.7	26.1	0
Reduced water quality	38.5	56.0	4.6	0.9
Increased cost of production	55.5	40.4	4.1	0
Reduced weight at the age of maturity	61.9	35.3	2.8	0
Increased distance to a water source	59.2	29.4	9.2	2.3
Delayed age of kidding	35.8	26.1	16.5	21.6
Increased kid mortality	45.4	50.9	3.2	0.5
Reduced weight at weaning	48.2	49.5	2.3	0
Reduced litter size and number	39.4	55.5	4.6	0.5
Reduced feed quality or unavailability of feed	54.6	28.0	17.4	0

shows the impact of water scarcity on goat production. The respondents perceived disease prevalence (46.3%), increased mortality (45.0%), reduced cost of production (55.5%), reduced weight at the age of maturity (61.9%), increased distance to the water source (59.2%), delayed age of kidding (35.8%), and reduced feed quality (54.6%) as some of the major impact of water scarcity on goat production. Other impacts as perceived by the respondents include reduced meat quality (42.7%), reduced water quality (56.0%), increased kid mortality (50.9%), and reduced litter size and number (55.5%).

3.7. Factors Influencing Water Scarcity

Table 7. Factors influencing the challenge of water scarcity.

Variables	High (%)	Moderate (%)	Low (%)
Reduced rainfall pattern over the years	50.9	27.1	22.0
Lack of government interventions	49.1	26.1	24.8
Lack of adapted goat breeds to water stress	7.3	36.7	56.0
Drying of dams	40.4	28.0	31.7
Increased distance of the water source	49.1	38.1	12.8
Lack of income	21.1	35.8	43.1

shows factors that influence water scarcity. The respondents cited reduced rainfall patterns (50.9%), lack of government intervention (49.1%), dam drying (40.4%), and increased distance from water sources (49.1%) as some of the factors influencing water scarcity.

3.8. Water Quality Assessment of Major Water Sources in the Sampled Area

Table 8. Water quality assessment.

Factors	Dam 1	Dam 2	Dam 3	Dam 4	Dam 5	Dam 6	Dam 7	SW	RW 1	RW 2
pH	9.14 ± 0.05	10.39 ± 0.01	10.51 ± 0.02	10.36 ± 0.17	10.72 ± 0.04	10.65 ± 0.01	10.56 ± 0.01	9.76 ± 0.03	10.36 ± 0.02	10.56 ± 0.00
Temp °C	21.35 ± 0.02	18.89 ± 0.03	18.51 ± 0.03	18.42 ± 0.01	19.22 ± 0.01	18.58 ± 0.06	18.54 ± 0.02	19.20 ± 0.02	19.21 ± 0.01	15.86 ± 2.66
EC µS/cm	240.0 ± 0.58	702.0 ± 0.58	137.0 ± 0.01	374.0 ± 0.00	277.0 ± 0.58	256.0 ± 0.00	781.33 ± 0.33	354.67 ± 0.33	36.0 ± 0.00	22.0 ± 0.00
NTU	10.4 ± 0.06	40.1.3 ± 0.67	33.8 ± 0.06	49.6 ± 0.2	18.43 ± 0.49	6.6 ± 0.15	33.3 ± 0.06	60.1 ± 0.06	3.6 ± 0.08	3.7 ± 0.06

Guidelines: EC (not applicable); pH (6–8.5); SW = Stream water; RW = Rainwater.

shows the mean values of physicochemical parameters for ten water samples taken in three different areas. The pH for all the water samples ranged from 9.14 to 10.72 indicating alkaline conditions. The temperature (15.86–21.35 °C) for all samples falls within a normal range. All the samples have relatively low levels of electrical conductivity (22.0–702.0 µS/cm). The turbidity (NTu) was low for RW1 (3.3) and RW2 (3.7). However, the turbidity for dam1(10.4), dam 2 (40.1), Dam3(33.8), Dam4(49.6), Dam5(18.43), Dam6(6.6), Dam7(33.1) and SW (60.10) were relatively high.

3.9. Distance from the Water Sources

The estimated average distances and time between places of residence and the nearest water sources are presented in

Table 9. One-way mean trip and travel time needed to access the water sources.

Water Sources	Distance (km)	Time Needed (min)
Boreholes	1.37 ± 0.07	2.24 ± 0.10
Dams	5.85 ± 0.30	12.55 ± 0.58
Rivers/streams	7.71 ± 0.33	16.31 ± 0.64

. The one-way mean distance and the corresponding time to boreholes were 1.37 km and 2.24 min. The average distance travelled by goats from their households to dams and rivers/streams was 5.85 km and 7.71 km, respectively. The average time to dams and rivers/streams was 12.55 min and 16.31 min, respectively.

4. Discussion

The socio-demographic profile of the participants reveals a farming community predominantly composed of males. This aligns with observations in other smallholder livestock farming contexts in Southern Africa, where men often play a prominent role in livestock management due to cultural norms and labor demands [31,32]. However, the notable presence of 33.9% female farmers suggests an evolving dynamic within rural livelihoods, indicating increased female engagement in goat production, which can contribute to household income and food security [33]. Studies across sub-Saharan Africa have documented a similar trend, with women’s participation in small ruminant production increasing as men migrate to urban areas for employment [34,35]. This gender dynamic has implications for extension services, as women may have different information needs and access constraints as compared to their male counterparts [36].

Most respondents were aged 41–50 years (28.0%), with those over 50 years comprising 40.25 of the sample, indicating that middle-aged adults are key actors who likely leverage their accumulated experience and stable social standing in this agricultural sector [37]. This age distribution is consistent with patterns observed in other rural African communities, where younger individuals increasingly pursue non-farm livelihoods, leaving older individuals to manage livestock production [38,39]. The aging farmer population poses challenges for the adoption of technology and the long-term sustainability of communal farming systems [40]. The prevalence of households with more than five members underscores the potential for readily available family labour to support livestock activities [41], although it reflects the high dependency ratios characteristic of rural households in developing regions [42].

The educational profile, with 42.8% of respondents having no formal education or only elementary schooling, is a significant finding. Such limited educational attainment can impede the adoption of modern livestock management practices and access to technical knowledge, potentially constraining productivity gains [31,43]. Studies show that the years spent in school and participation in agricultural extension services influence both information acquisition and the adoption of sustainable land management practices [44]. Literacy can also be positively associated with practices like fencing [45]. Older farmers, despite potentially lower levels of formal education, may possess more traditional knowledge of animal diseases and management practices [46].

Economically, household income largely derived from salaries/pensions (40.8%) and social grants indicates a semi-subsistence economy. This pattern is typically found in rural areas of South Africa, where social grants provide a stable income base that supports agricultural production [47]. In these contexts, livestock, particularly goats, often serve as supplementary sources of livelihood rather than primary income generators, highlighting their importance as multifunctional assets that enhance household resilience [48]. The substantial proportion of households relying on social grants (32.60) suggests that government support plays a critical role in enabling continued participation in goat farming despite resource constraints [47,49].

A significant proportion of respondents had between 5 and 10 years of experience in goat farming, suggesting an established base of practical knowledge within the community. This level of experience is comparable to that reported in other communal farming areas in South Africa [50,51]. Experienced farmers often develop sophisticated local knowledge about water sources, grazing patterns, and animal health management that can inform research and extension priorities [46].

Goats were identified to serve multiple socio-economic and cultural roles within the surveyed communal farming communities. Traditional ceremonies/ritual purposes were ranked as the primary husbandry objective. This underscores the deep cultural and spiritual significance of goats, a finding consistent with the literature emphasizing their symbolic role in ancestral rituals, the payment of bride price, and community events across various African cultures [12,52,53,54,55]. This cultural integration complements their significant economic functions, including income generation through sales, meat provision for home consumption, and the use of manure in crop systems [54,56]. The multifunctionality of goats thus demonstrates their integral role in sustaining rural livelihoods and food security, justifying efforts to enhance their production efficiency [53,54].

Analysis of production constraints revealed that stock theft is the most severe impediment to goat farming in the surveyed area. This finding reflects broader regional challenges where socio-economic factors often contribute to livestock theft, posing significant threats to farmers’ livelihoods and economic stability [57]. The lack of proper demarcations of communal grazing lands can make livestock theft a severe problem [32]. Parasites and predators ranked closely behind, emphasizing the persistent need for robust veterinary support services and improved animal management practices to mitigate these biological threats [58,59,60]. Diseases and parasites are commonly reported as major causes of mortality in small ruminant production in Africa [59,61]. Water scarcity, though ranked fourth overall, remains a critically important constraint, especially given its direct influence on animal welfare, health, and productivity, particularly during dry seasons or drought periods [62]. While indigenous goats may exhibit some adaptation to water stress, their impact is undeniable and warrants serious attention.

Dams emerged as the primary water source for goats, consistent with regional patterns where dams often provide accessible, albeit seasonally variable, water for livestock. Taps and natural rivers/streams constitute secondary sources, with seasonal fluctuations impacting their reliability and quality. These findings underscore the crucial importance of reliable water infrastructure and its regular maintenance to support sustainable goat production.

A striking discrepancy was observed between farmers’ perceptions of water quality and objective physicochemical assessments. Farmers largely perceived water quality as clean, particularly in autumn and spring, attributing this to calmer weather, reduced algal growth, and improved water clarity. However, laboratory analysis contradicted this perception, revealing elevated pH levels (9.14–10.72) and high turbidity, both of which fall outside recommended standards for livestock water consumption. For instance, water for domestic use should ideally have a pH range of 6.5 to 8.5. A pH this high can influence blood pH and acid-base balance in goats [63,64,65]. with high dietary cation-anion differences affecting metabolism and potentially impacting overall health and well-being [66,67]. While some studies show goats having a higher rumen pH than cattle on similar diets, highlighting species-specific differences [68]. Persistent high alkalinity in drinking water can contribute to metabolic issues [69]. Similar discrepancies between stakeholder perceptions and scientific water quality assessments have been reported in other studies, highlighting the importance of scientific indicators for accurate assessment [70]. This divergence highlights the urgent need for targeted educational interventions that enhance farmers’ understanding of physicochemical water quality indicators and their long-term effects on animal well-being and production efficiency [71,72]. Bridging this gap is essential for promoting the adoption of sustainable water management practices and ensuring optimal animal health.

Factors contributing to water scarcity, as cited by farmers, include reduced rainfall patterns and drying dams, reflecting documented climatic trends of erratic precipitation in Southern Africa [73]. The identified lack of effective governmental intervention further underscores the governance and infrastructure challenges identified in regional assessments [74]. Water insecurity is a growing challenge for livestock in developing countries.

The substantial average travel distances to water sources, particularly for dams (5.85 km, 12.55 min) and rivers/streams (7.71 km, 16.31 min), impose considerable physical and energetic demands on goats. While boreholes are closer (1.37 km, 2.24 min), their inaccessibility to resource-limited farmers means goats frequently endure much longer journeys to alternative water points. These long travel distances contribute to increased stress and higher energy expenditure and can significantly impair overall production efficiency, potentially affecting final meat quality [75]. Studies have shown that water deprivation impacts animal welfare and productivity, with goats showing physiological and behavioural responses to water restrictions [4,14,15,76,77,78]. For instance, prolonged thirst can represent a serious welfare problem for grazing animals [76]. Local goat breeds are recognized for their ability to withstand significant water restrictions; however, even these limitations can still impact their productivity and welfare [4,15,77,78]. These findings underscore the critical need for more accessible and reliable water sources to alleviate stress on both livestock and farmers, thereby enhancing the sustainability of communal farming systems.

5. Conclusions

This study assessed perceptions of water scarcity among communal goat farmers in Raymond Mhlaba, Eastern Cape Province, and compared them with objective physicochemical measurements.

The research reveals a captivating blend of socioeconomic, environmental, and management factors that impact goat farming in this semi-arid region. Notably, water scarcity is a substantial challenge, consistently ranking fourth among production constraints. This underscores a persistent issue farmers face year-round and highlights the resilience needed to succeed in such conditions. Farmers viewed the water as mostly “clean” and “not muddy.” However, objective measurements showed that 6 out of 7 dam samples and stream water did not meet acceptable turbidity standards (below 5 NTU), with some values reaching 60.1 NTU. Additionally, all samples displayed systematically elevated pH levels, ranging from 9.14 to 10.72, which is above the livestock water guidelines of 6.5 to 8.5. Reduced rainfall is a significant concern for farmers, accounting for 50.9% of their emphasis. However, institutional factors, especially the lack of government intervention, are also crucial, representing 49.1% of their concerns. This indicates that water scarcity is influenced not only by biophysical constraints but also by governance and infrastructure issues.

The distance to water sources significantly impacts the welfare and productivity of grazing animals. On average, animals are located 5.85 km from dams and 7.71 km from streams. These distances tend to increase seasonally as water sources in peripheral areas become depleted. Additionally, sociodemographic challenges affect farmers’ ability to manage these issues. For instance, 29.4% of farmers have only completed elementary school, and 13.8% have no formal education. 32.6% of the population depends on government social grants for income, and 40.4% are 50 years old or older. These factors limit their understanding of the risks associated with water quality and hinder their ability to invest in necessary adaptation infrastructure.

Based on these findings, specific policy interventions are recommended. First, considering the average walking distances of 5.85 km to dams and 7.71 km to streams, new boreholes should be prioritized in villages where distances exceed 5 km. Additionally, rainwater harvesting tanks should be installed at households with elderly farmers, who represent 40.4% of the sample and face the greatest physical burden.

Second, to address the perception gap where 63.3% of farmers believe the water is “clean” despite pH levels ranging from 9.14 to 10.72, extension services should conduct demonstrations on pH testing using simple test strips. Furthermore, training materials should be developed in isiXhosa to explain the link between water quality and the goat health problems that farmers are already observing, such as increased mortality (45.0%) and reduced weight (61.9%). Given that 49.1% of farmers reported a lack of government intervention, municipalities should establish formal water user committees with defined maintenance responsibilities. Additionally, they should provide small matching grants in which communities contribute labor for dam repairs. Fourth, since 42.8% of farmers have low levels of education, image-based guides and peer-led extension services should be used instead of text-heavy materials. Finally, water quality monitoring should be implemented at all major water points, with pH and turbidity testing conducted quarterly. The results should be linked to veterinary records to track health impacts over time. These targeted actions address the specific constraints identified in this study and provide clear guidance for those responsible for implementation.

6. Future Research Directions

Based on these findings, several priority areas for future research emerge:

➢

Longitudinal studies are essential for monitoring seasonal variations in water quality and for establishing causal relationships with goat health and productivity.

➢

Research on interventions should assess farmer education programs designed to improve perceptions of water quality and management practices.

➢

Research into affordable, community-oriented water treatment technologies may offer effective solutions for managing high turbidity and elevated pH levels in livestock water.

➢

Research on governance and institutions should focus on policy mechanisms, infrastructure maintenance, and the roles of traditional leadership and municipal governments in managing water resources.

➢

Comparative studies in various agro-ecological zones of Southern Africa can help assess the applicability of these findings and determine specific adaptation strategies for each context.

➢

Economic analyses are essential for quantifying productivity losses from water scarcity and providing evidence to support investment decisions in water infrastructure.

➢

Collaborative action research that involves farmers in designing and testing solutions can merge scientific and indigenous knowledge to promote more sustainable interventions.

These findings have implications beyond South Africa, particularly for arid and semi-arid regions globally, where smallholder livestock production faces similar water challenges.