*3.4. GIS-Based Assessment and Ground-Truthing*

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) were used to show all the potential sites selected to implement the study. This provided visual confirmation and display of the spatial distribution of the selected study sites in a way that could show their advantages over the other competing sites. Google Earth and available land use maps (e.g., the 2018 land use map of SA and its recent update from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment) were used to determine the land uses and land cover distributions, including the location of hydraulic structures, as well as vulnerability to possible degradation around the study site(s), among others. Site visits were then carried out as the last activity to familiarize with the area and confirm assumptions and GIS findings.

## **4. Results**

#### *4.1. Systematic Review Results*

The literature review sought to determine what others considered important factors when selecting a study site for their environmental research. Information on where similar studies have been carried out and the gaps in research from such studies were identified. Table 2 shows the main factors informing study site selection, with those with an Asterix (\*) being most common. A total of 12 factors were drawn from the literature search.


**Table 2.** Factors influencing the choice of a study site and their level of importance in the intended study. X marks the importance of the factor.

\* Most typical reasons why researchers select a study site.

#### *4.2. Factor Scoring Analysis Results*

The factors derived from the desktop analysis of literature were listed and given a score based on how important they were in meeting the aim and objectives of the study. Table 2 shows the 12 factors used for this study and the factor score results. The factors considered very important for the study had the most influence on the site selection process. Of the 12 factors, 8 of them were regarded as significant. Table 3 shows the results of the selection criteria which indicate that the catchments A91A (Luvuvhu), A92C (Mbodi), and A91B (Sterkstroom) satisfy the criterion created.

**Table 3.** The factors that are important to site selection and the possible catchments of study. The tick (√) shows the quaternary catchments that meet the desired factor and could be chosen for study.


#### *4.3. Expert Opinion Findings*

From the desktop review, three experts were identified, an aquatic ecologist who has worked within the VBR and two hydrologists who have done extensive work in environmental modeling and climate change impact on streamflow availability. These experts gave guidance on the best site for the intended environmental study. Literature review and factor analysis resulted in selecting the headwaters of the Nzhelele and Luvuvhu River catchments as possible study sites as they met most of the criteria developed. These choices were then validated by experts whose opinions favored sites in the Luvuvhu River Catchment (LRC) as the most suitable.

#### *4.4. Findings of GIS Assessment and Ground-Truthing*

The selected quaternary catchments are shown in Figure 2. They are located at the uppermost part of the LRC, making them the headwater catchments for the basin. Several more headwater catchments join the LRC downstream of A91A and A91B. Most of the streamflow drained by the selected headwater catchments collects in the Albasini Dam, creating a different hydrological regime downstream of the dam. It was also confirmed that some parts are densely vegetated and deprived of human interference while others have human activities. The water collected in the dam supports domestic use, agricultural and fishing activities. This phase of the research managed to show the location of the selected study site within the VBR. It confirmed that the objectives of the comprehensive study to be implemented could be achieved.

**Figure 2.** The selected headwater catchments of the Luvuvhu River Catchment in the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve.

#### **5. Discussion**

The assessment of the literature shed light on the reasons that drive researchers to select study sites. The need to address or understand an environmental problem appeared as the primary reason for site selection. The absence of similar work in an area can prompt a researcher to implement an environmental assessment within a region. This is particularly important where global challenges need to be addressed through sound scientific research [36]. Some regions will be worst affected by climatic changes, such as southern Africa, Asia, and Latin America, mainly due to low mitigation and adaptation capacity [37]. The knowledge of this future possibility requires more scientific inquiry in these regions. The need to contribute locally developed solutions to global challenges encourages researchers to implement case studies, especially in vulnerable regions. The availability of funds through donors, government, or private institutions significantly affects site selection [38]. Funders can influence a study and site selection based on institutional interests and agendas. However, this does not always give the best results in sustainable development due to the often top-down approach. The proximity of the researcher to the study area, and therefore accessibility, also plays a vital role in site selection. This is especially true in academic research as it is often limited in time, funding, and adequate supporting technical expertise. Several environmental assessments are based on the lack of adequate information on a specific environmental phenomenon that influences the direction of research in an area.

Environmental management and climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies have acknowledged the need for more research to be carried out to aid decision making and policy formulation [39,40]. The study site selection is not well documented, as shown by a lack of publications focused exclusively on this topic in environmental studies. This is not a popular undertaking or conscious decision in environmental studies. However, other disciplines such as health sciences have clear protocols to follow when selecting a study site [41]. They thoroughly analyze the research aim, objectives, and expected deliverables and select the best study area to achieve these. Adopting this approach in environmental assessments will be of great value and could account for common deterrents such as data unavailability. Prior knowledge of what the study requires and targets to achieve against what potential study sites can provide enables the researcher to design the best methodology. It becomes time-consuming and costly when a research design cannot be implemented because the chosen study site lacks the components that enable the methodology to be successfully implemented. This is important in data-scarce regions [42]. Alternative data sources, in such cases, may need to be used, which may require downscaling, interpolations, and extrapolations that the project might not have accounted for in the design phase. This inevitably leads to delays in project implementation and the invasion of additional uncertainties in the generated results, which may reduce the degree of confidence in these results.

The factor scoring results showed the likely catchments to implement the study. Data scarcity was regarded as a unique factor that, in its availability, would simplify the research and in its absence, presents an opportunity to generate it. Data of sufficient quality and quantity are always required in environmental studies, but often, they are the missing component. Data scarcity is a pandemic in environmental studies and limits research in some areas. However, data-scarce regions are usually the most vulnerable to climate change, and sustainable development of such areas can benefit from local scientific investigations. The selection protocol regarded the lack of observed hydro-climatological data (rainfall, streamflow, evaporation) as the desired factor. These areas are usually understudied because they lack observed historical data [43]. Therefore, it is imperative to carry out scientific investigations in these areas to generate reliable baseline information to support development initiatives. An opportunity arises to carry out a study in a data-scarce area to generate more data for various purposes, including decision and policymaking and creating a methodology that is transferrable to other sites. Designing a methodology that utilizes the bare minimum of data will give a more substantial basis for adoption on other sites. The current study needs to be carried out in headwater regions due to their unique provision of ecological goods and services essential to riverine integrity [44].

Due to their hard-to-reach and underdeveloped nature, headwater catchments are subject to limited studies [45]. In the African context, headwaters are data-scarce in terms of observed hydrometeorological data of sufficient quality and literature of previous studies carried on them [29]. Though insufficiently represented in research, these areas are home to a larger rural population that depends on natural resources for its livelihood. Water availability is one natural resource that is important in these communities and its availability is crucial to livelihoods. Southern Africa experiences a long dry period during the year. Low flows are crucial during this period to cater to the socio-economic activities that sustain the riparian rural communities. Understanding the minimum water requirements for the

survival of riverine ecosystems is essential to river management, especially in a changing climate. Therefore, the headwater catchments must support rural communities benefiting from them. The study intends to improve rural resilience as the local climate changes. Building resilience through scientific approaches will also rest on the co-production of work to formulate frameworks that can be adopted at the local level using the resources available. The scoring criteria, thus, realized any potential benefits that would accrue to the rural communities in the study area to be of great importance in selecting a suitable study site.

Ref. [46] discuss the challenges expected in e-flow determination in the river catchment, though no specific e-flows quantities were recommended for the area. They acknowledge that this river is crucial to rural livelihoods as it provides a source of animal protein and ecosystems goods and services to the Kruger National Park downstream of the Luvuvhu River. The importance of the LRC was emphasized as well through the consultations carried out with experts who have worked in the biosphere and e-flow determination. The research utilized the information and recommendations of at least three experts. Literature review and factor scoring managed to further narrow down the site selection. Expert opinion was important to determine which catchments, from the assessments, would best address the overall objectives of the study and provide a good case study. The vast knowledge and understanding of the area, areas that still need researching, knowledge of research that was carried out, and the agreement of the experts led to the selection of the catchments A91A and A91B. According to the experts, the LRC offers an excellent opportunity to study most of the issues that arise in catchment management. The area is rich in biodiversity and carrying out this study will be of great importance to understanding the central role of water in this region. The area currently provides room for collaborative efforts in catchment studies as several projects are currently underway that deal with water and environmental management. Through networking and collaboration, the determination of e-flows in the LRC can be aided by the work being carried such as water quality and distribution of freshwater fish species. The headwaters of LRC have also been demarcated as part of the Strategic Water Source Areas of South Africa that have a unique ability to provide a substantial amount of water resources to the river basin than the other sections of the river [30]. The South African government has embarked on protecting these areas, and studies that demarcate and quantify the water resources potential of these areas are crucial [30]. One expert corroborated this and emphasized the need to carry out the e-flow determination in the LRC and its importance to the national agenda on WSAs. What the research drew from the consultations with experts was that though the criteria are important for determining study sites, input from people familiar with the characteristics of the area is invaluable.

#### **6. Conclusions**

Understanding the impacts of climate change on water resources and how these influence rural livelihoods is of great value to sustainable development. With the projections that rural populations are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, there is a need for science to aid adaptation in these communities. Biospheres provide the opportunity to test the man and environment relationship well. As such, this research sought to determine the best-case study to implement an e-flow determination on headwater catchments within the biosphere. The research, through limitations in funding, time, and human resources formulated a protocol to select the best-case study. Though simple, this case study can be modified accordingly and can be implemented in environmental studies in other areas. The study used a detailed review of relevant literature, a simple factor scoring approach, reliance on expert opinions, and ground-truthing to select the best study site to determine e-flows for the LRC. Several benefits are derived when using a systematic approach to site selection. Environmental research relies on data of sufficient quantity and quality. The availability or lack of this data enables researchers to formulate the most appropriate methodology to implement in their studies. A properly formulated methodology saves time

in its implementation. Frequently, environmental research goes beyond the anticipated time as unprecedented hindrances are met during the study. This is particularly true for scholars who usually have limited time, a tight budget, and are on a learning curve. Implementing this systematic site selection approach before they begin their studies will inform them on what is and what is not achievable. At the project level, a proper site selection protocol saves on resources. Southern Africa is limited in its adaptation capacity because of limited resources. Each research carried out in this area should be within a small range on the uncertainty spectrum. Most countries in the region cannot afford to implement research work that drags on for longer than anticipated because of limited resources. The site selection protocol in this study selected headwater catchments that are populated by rural communities and have hydrometeorological data scarcity issues. This was undertaken mainly because most catchments in southern Africa face these challenges as alluded to by [47]. With the technical guidance and the knowledge to generate data, this study is expected to generate new information for the area and the methods used can be transferred to other similar areas in the region. As protocols to study marginalized areas become available, adaptation strategies that cater to all can be achieved. This article emphasizes the importance of carrying out a careful and systematic study site selection as the initial undertaking in any environmental assessment. Such would provide intelligence on the study's shared challenges and outcomes and, thus, provide a plausible methodology to overcome the challenges and achieve the expected outcomes.

**Author Contributions:** A.D.G.–Conceptualization A.D.G. and E.K.; Writing—original draft, A.D.G. and E.K.; Writing—review & editing, A.D.G., E.K. and F.I.M.; Supervision, E.K. and F.I.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by South Africa-Flanders Climate Change Adaptation Research and Training Partnership: building the adaptation knowledge and capacity base.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

