Land claims and the pursuit of co-management on four protected areas in South Africa
- Cundill, Georgina, Thondhlana, Gladman, Sisitka, Lawrence, Shackleton, Sheona, Blorea, M
- Authors: Cundill, Georgina , Thondhlana, Gladman , Sisitka, Lawrence , Shackleton, Sheona , Blorea, M
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/391223 , vital:68632 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.05.016"
- Description: Successful land claims on protected areas by previously disenfranchised communities often result in co-management agreements between claimant communities and state conservation agencies. South Africa, in particular, has pursued co-management as the desired outcome of land claims on its protected areas. We review four cases of co-management on protected areas in South Africa, and reflect on the appropriateness of the pursuit of co-management as the preferred outcome of land claims. Despite promises of pro-poor, democratically informed management, the practical experience of co-management has seen the continuation of the status quo in terms of conservation, with very few material benefits for claimant communities and limited sharing of responsibilities and decision-making functions. The findings underscore two deep challenges facing co-management in cases of land claims worldwide. First, during land claims negotiations in cases involving protected areas, the state cannot be expected to represent the best interests of its citizens (the land claimants), while simultaneously seeking to meet national and international obligations for protected area coverage. Second, the concept of democratic co-management may sit uncomfortably beside the realities of managing loss-making protected areas with ever-shrinking conservation budgets. Where co-management agreements have already been signed, ensuring that new landowners do indeed have a say in management should form the driving focus for co-management practice going forward.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
- Authors: Cundill, Georgina , Thondhlana, Gladman , Sisitka, Lawrence , Shackleton, Sheona , Blorea, M
- Date: 2013
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/391223 , vital:68632 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.05.016"
- Description: Successful land claims on protected areas by previously disenfranchised communities often result in co-management agreements between claimant communities and state conservation agencies. South Africa, in particular, has pursued co-management as the desired outcome of land claims on its protected areas. We review four cases of co-management on protected areas in South Africa, and reflect on the appropriateness of the pursuit of co-management as the preferred outcome of land claims. Despite promises of pro-poor, democratically informed management, the practical experience of co-management has seen the continuation of the status quo in terms of conservation, with very few material benefits for claimant communities and limited sharing of responsibilities and decision-making functions. The findings underscore two deep challenges facing co-management in cases of land claims worldwide. First, during land claims negotiations in cases involving protected areas, the state cannot be expected to represent the best interests of its citizens (the land claimants), while simultaneously seeking to meet national and international obligations for protected area coverage. Second, the concept of democratic co-management may sit uncomfortably beside the realities of managing loss-making protected areas with ever-shrinking conservation budgets. Where co-management agreements have already been signed, ensuring that new landowners do indeed have a say in management should form the driving focus for co-management practice going forward.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2013
Livestock ecosystem services and disservices in a medium-sized South African town
- Thondhlana, Gladman, Papama Yose, Papama, Cockburn, Jessica, Shackleton, Charlie M
- Authors: Thondhlana, Gladman , Papama Yose, Papama , Cockburn, Jessica , Shackleton, Charlie M
- Date: 2022
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/403241 , vital:69937 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.2019833"
- Description: Production of livestock in urban spaces is a common phenomenon globally, particularly in the Global South. Livestock provides multiple benefits to society yet its production in urban spaces can result in adverse impacts to residents that can trigger conflicts. Understanding of the ecosystem services and disservices of livestock from the perspectives of residents can inform inclusive local management plans. Using household surveys and key informant interviews, this study sought to examine the contribution of livestock to owners, and perceptions of livestock services and disservices among non-livestock owners and key informants in Makhanda, a medium-sized South African town. Livestock owners derived multiple benefits from their livestock, including provisioning services such as meat, milk, skins and draught, and use livestock and livestock products in cultural activities such as rituals, bride price payments and funerals that are key elements of local identity. Among residents, there were marked differences in perceptions on the services and disservices of livestock which points to potential conflicts over urban land use and the need for addressing trade-offs. A key trade-off for local municipal authorities is addressing hunger and poverty by supporting well-regulated urban livestock production versus managing potential livestock disservices such as injuries to humans, livestock-vehicle collisions, health hazards and damage to urban green infrastructure. The trade-offs should be understood and considered by local authorities and residents as a basis for collectively developing strategies that can integrate livelihoods and cultural realities to balance competing demands for urban spaces including livestock production and other uses.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2022
- Authors: Thondhlana, Gladman , Papama Yose, Papama , Cockburn, Jessica , Shackleton, Charlie M
- Date: 2022
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/403241 , vital:69937 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.2019833"
- Description: Production of livestock in urban spaces is a common phenomenon globally, particularly in the Global South. Livestock provides multiple benefits to society yet its production in urban spaces can result in adverse impacts to residents that can trigger conflicts. Understanding of the ecosystem services and disservices of livestock from the perspectives of residents can inform inclusive local management plans. Using household surveys and key informant interviews, this study sought to examine the contribution of livestock to owners, and perceptions of livestock services and disservices among non-livestock owners and key informants in Makhanda, a medium-sized South African town. Livestock owners derived multiple benefits from their livestock, including provisioning services such as meat, milk, skins and draught, and use livestock and livestock products in cultural activities such as rituals, bride price payments and funerals that are key elements of local identity. Among residents, there were marked differences in perceptions on the services and disservices of livestock which points to potential conflicts over urban land use and the need for addressing trade-offs. A key trade-off for local municipal authorities is addressing hunger and poverty by supporting well-regulated urban livestock production versus managing potential livestock disservices such as injuries to humans, livestock-vehicle collisions, health hazards and damage to urban green infrastructure. The trade-offs should be understood and considered by local authorities and residents as a basis for collectively developing strategies that can integrate livelihoods and cultural realities to balance competing demands for urban spaces including livestock production and other uses.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2022
The cultural significance of plant-fiber crafts in Southern Africa: a comparative study of Eswatini, Malawi, and Zimbabwe
- Pullanikkatil, Deepa, Thondhlana, Gladman, Shackleton, Charlie M
- Authors: Pullanikkatil, Deepa , Thondhlana, Gladman , Shackleton, Charlie M
- Date: 2021
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/399860 , vital:69564 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2021.1998797"
- Description: Traditional handicrafts made from various plant materials are produced by most cultures around the world. Many originated through symbolic and utilitarian needs that became ritualized through time, thereby gradually attaining greater value as cultural items or symbols rather than solely functional ones. Here we report on a survey of 343 crafters across Eswatini, Malawi, and Zimbabwe in southern Africa regarding the cultural uses and significance of the items they make from wild plant fibers and sell to local communities or tourists. The plant materials used were largely dictated by tradition and local availability and were crafted into a diverse range of products including baskets, mats, brooms, storage containers, hats, fish traps, ornaments, and furniture. Many products had uses and cultural significance at major ceremonies or rituals, such as weddings, funerals, initiation, and divination. The preparation and design of the different crafts were influenced by tradition as well as market demand as indicated by tourist fashions and advice provided by government or non-government agencies to boost income generation from crafts. Although the crafting of cultural objects is increasingly commercialized and subject to the tastes and fashions of tourist markets in the region, the traditional and cultural significance of such artifacts remains widely recognized and valued.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2021
- Authors: Pullanikkatil, Deepa , Thondhlana, Gladman , Shackleton, Charlie M
- Date: 2021
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/399860 , vital:69564 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2021.1998797"
- Description: Traditional handicrafts made from various plant materials are produced by most cultures around the world. Many originated through symbolic and utilitarian needs that became ritualized through time, thereby gradually attaining greater value as cultural items or symbols rather than solely functional ones. Here we report on a survey of 343 crafters across Eswatini, Malawi, and Zimbabwe in southern Africa regarding the cultural uses and significance of the items they make from wild plant fibers and sell to local communities or tourists. The plant materials used were largely dictated by tradition and local availability and were crafted into a diverse range of products including baskets, mats, brooms, storage containers, hats, fish traps, ornaments, and furniture. Many products had uses and cultural significance at major ceremonies or rituals, such as weddings, funerals, initiation, and divination. The preparation and design of the different crafts were influenced by tradition as well as market demand as indicated by tourist fashions and advice provided by government or non-government agencies to boost income generation from crafts. Although the crafting of cultural objects is increasingly commercialized and subject to the tastes and fashions of tourist markets in the region, the traditional and cultural significance of such artifacts remains widely recognized and valued.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2021
Understanding the context of multifaceted collaborations for social-ecological sustainability: A methodology for cross-case analysis
- Cockburn, Jessica J, Schoon, Michael, Cundill, Georgina, Robinson, Cathy, Aburto, Jamie A, Alexander, Steve M, Baggio, Jacopo A, Barnaud, Cecile, Chapman, Mollie, Llorente, Marina G, Garcia-Lopez, Gustavo A, Hill, Rosemary, Speranza, Chinwe I, Lee, Jean, Meek, Chanda L, Rosenberg, Eureta, Schultz, Lisen, Thondhlana, Gladman
- Authors: Cockburn, Jessica J , Schoon, Michael , Cundill, Georgina , Robinson, Cathy , Aburto, Jamie A , Alexander, Steve M , Baggio, Jacopo A , Barnaud, Cecile , Chapman, Mollie , Llorente, Marina G , Garcia-Lopez, Gustavo A , Hill, Rosemary , Speranza, Chinwe I , Lee, Jean , Meek, Chanda L , Rosenberg, Eureta , Schultz, Lisen , Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/370725 , vital:66371 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11527-250307"
- Description: There are limited approaches available that enable researchers and practitioners to conduct multiple case study comparisons of complex cases of collaboration in natural resource management and conservation. The absence of such tools is felt despite the fact that over the past several years a great deal of literature has reviewed the state of the science regarding collaboration. Much of this work is based on case studies of collaboration and highlights the importance of contextual variables, further complicating efforts to compare outcomes across case-study areas and the likely failure of approaches based on one size fits all generalizations. We expand on the standard overview of the field by identifying some of the challenges associated with managing complex systems with multiple resources, multiple stakeholder groups with diverse knowledges/understandings, and multiple objectives across multiple scales, i.e., multifaceted collaborative initiatives. We then elucidate how a realist methodology, within a critical realist framing, can support efforts to compare multiple case studies of such multifaceted initiatives. The methodology we propose considers the importance and impact of context for the origins, purpose, and success of multifaceted collaborative natural resource management and conservation initiatives in social-ecological systems.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
- Authors: Cockburn, Jessica J , Schoon, Michael , Cundill, Georgina , Robinson, Cathy , Aburto, Jamie A , Alexander, Steve M , Baggio, Jacopo A , Barnaud, Cecile , Chapman, Mollie , Llorente, Marina G , Garcia-Lopez, Gustavo A , Hill, Rosemary , Speranza, Chinwe I , Lee, Jean , Meek, Chanda L , Rosenberg, Eureta , Schultz, Lisen , Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/370725 , vital:66371 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11527-250307"
- Description: There are limited approaches available that enable researchers and practitioners to conduct multiple case study comparisons of complex cases of collaboration in natural resource management and conservation. The absence of such tools is felt despite the fact that over the past several years a great deal of literature has reviewed the state of the science regarding collaboration. Much of this work is based on case studies of collaboration and highlights the importance of contextual variables, further complicating efforts to compare outcomes across case-study areas and the likely failure of approaches based on one size fits all generalizations. We expand on the standard overview of the field by identifying some of the challenges associated with managing complex systems with multiple resources, multiple stakeholder groups with diverse knowledges/understandings, and multiple objectives across multiple scales, i.e., multifaceted collaborative initiatives. We then elucidate how a realist methodology, within a critical realist framing, can support efforts to compare multiple case studies of such multifaceted initiatives. The methodology we propose considers the importance and impact of context for the origins, purpose, and success of multifaceted collaborative natural resource management and conservation initiatives in social-ecological systems.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
Unpacking Pandora’s box: Understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing
- Shackleton, Charlie M, Ruwanza, Sheunesu, Sinasson Sanni, Gisele, Bennett, S, De Lacy, Peter, Modipa, Rebone D, Mtati, Nosiseko, Sachikonye, Mwazvita T B, Thondhlana, Gladman
- 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
- 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
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »