More than just fields: Reframing deagrarianisation in landscapes and livelihoods
- Authors: Hebinck, Paul , Mtati, Nosiseko , Shackleton, Charlie M
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/180322 , vital:43353 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.01.004"
- Description: This paper discusses the emergent properties of deagrarianisation processes in two villages in the central Eastern Cape, South Africa. The claim of is that much of the deagrarianisation literature and debate does not acknowledge the importance of landscapes and the interaction between their constituent elements, notably people, forests, grasslands, fields, grazing lands, open spaces, built environments and homesteads, all of which contribute to shaping and, in turn, are shaped by livelihoods. Conceptualising a landscape as a spatial entity and associated assemblage of practices, discourses and history, this paper dissects the landscape in terms of land uses for residential and cultural purposes, growing, grazing and gathering. These land use categories together represent the rural domain to which the villagers are attached as a place and a home. Their use of the land is not necessarily oriented to fully exploring its productive potential. The article explores the transformation from a productive landscape to one which largely hinges on consumption. The blurring of boundaries between the formally designated land use categories signifies the transformations occurring in many of the rural areas in the former homelands of South Africa.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
Unpacking Pandora’s box: Understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing
- Authors: Shackleton, Charlie M , Ruwanza, Sheunesu , Sinasson Sanni, Gisele , Bennett, S , De Lacy, Peter , Modipa, Rebone D , Mtati, Nosiseko , Sachikonye, Mwazvita T B , Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/182113 , vital:43801 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9952-z"
- Description: Research into the benefits that ecosystems contribute to human wellbeing has multiplied over the last few years following from the seminal contributions of the international Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In comparison, the fact that some ecosystem goods and services undermine or harm human wellbeing has been seriously overlooked. These negative impacts have become known as ecosystem disservices. The neglect of ecosystem disservices is problematic because investments into the management or reduction of ecosystem disservices may yield better outcomes for human wellbeing, or at a lower investment, than management of ecosystem services. Additionally, management to optimise specific ecosystem services may simultaneously exacerbate associated disservices. We posit that one reason for the neglect of ecosystem disservices from the discourse and policy debates around ecosystems and human wellbeing is because there is no widely accepted definition or typology of ecosystem disservices. Here, we briefly examine current understandings of the term ecosystem disservices and offer a definition and a working typology to help generate debate, policy and management options around ecosystem disservices. We differentiate ecosystem disservices from natural hazards and social hazards, consider some of their inherent properties and then classify them into six categories. A variety of examples are used to illustrate the different types of, and management strategies to, ecosystem disservices.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016