5.5. Utilisation of ecosystem goods and services
5.5.1. Uses of ecosystem goods
The study examined the various ecosystem goods which are utilised by respondents, with 85%
respondents stating water as the most utilised good. Other goods included fuelwood (84%), sand (68%), fruits (67%), edible plants (57%), and stones (53%). Relatively equal proportions of respondents utilised medicinal plants (26%), clay (28%), thatch (21%), animals (11%) and logs (29%). These goods satisfied various livelihood benefits with goods such as water, fruits and edible plants utilised for personal consumption and other goods such as sand, logs, clay
98
51
21 17
9 7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
gather resources religious/cultural practices
recreation and leisure
agricultural use educational use sale
%
Uses
118 and thatch being utilised for household structures. The extensive utilisation of fuelwood and water can be linked to earlier findings which indicated the lack of basic services such as water, and reliance on fuelwood as a source of energy. Overall, the various ecosystem goods utilised appear to be extracted and used to substitute for the lack of available resources.
Figure 5.22: Respondents utilisation of ecosystem goods (n=266, in %). Multiple responses permitted
Within the southern African context, the dependence and utilisation of fruits is increasingly crucial for communities during periods of famine (Kalaba et al., 2009). Fruits may be consumed as part of a nutritional dietary profile, or be sold in markets as an income generating source (Kalaba et al., 2009). The consumption of edible plants has been noted to be influenced by its relative ease of accessibility and its inexpensive cost, especially for low income households (Lewu and Mavengahama, 2010). These plants further contribute to nutritional dietary intake, food security and may be utilised as part of treatments for illnesses (Lewu and Mavengahama, 2010). Similarly, in the South African context, fuelwood constitutes a source of energy, with studies in the Eastern Cape indicating that fuelwood was commonly the primary source for energy (Kaoma and Shackleton, 2014). In South Africa, despite efforts to increase
84
57
26 28
68
53
85
67
11
21
29
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
fuelwood edible plants
medicinal plants
clay sand stones water fruits animals thatch logs
%
Ecosystem goods
119 access to electricity, communities are still dependent on biomass as an energy source (Wessels et al., 2013). The continued dependence on fuelwood has been driven by the costs associated with purchasing electricity and modern appliances (Wessels et al., 2013).
These results support findings from research within South African villages which have indicated that a high proportion of households utilise at least one ecosystem good provided by their ecological base (Paumgarten and Shackelton, 2011). The evidence of the variety and dependence on ecosystem goods is particularly relevant for environmental policy as these findings enable the identification of those resources which are most likely to affect livelihoods as a result of reduced availability (Paumgarten and Shackleton, 2011).
Table 5.25: Respondents frequency of utilisation of ecosystem goods (in %). Multiple responses permitted.
Ecosystem goods Population Frequency of use
Daily Weekly Monthly Seasonally
Fuelwood 84 23 33 28 16
Edible plants 57 14 30 11 45
Medicinal plants 26 7 7 35 51
Clay 28 0 3 14 83
Sand 68 2 3 21 74
Stones 53 1 3 23 73
Water 85 75 18 4 3
Fruits 67 16 28 6 50
Animals 11 20 27 20 33
Thatch 21 4 0 30 66
Logs 29 6 22 25 47
In relation to frequency of use, results show that fuelwood was used daily (23%), weekly (33%), monthly (28%), and seasonally (16%). The increased reliance on wood as a source of energy suggests that respondents may be categorised as energy poor. The use of the ecosystem as a supply of water, (75% of respondents on a daily basis), raises concern over the availability of adequate water to meet basic human needs. Additionally, respondents indicated that ecosystem goods that can be consumed, such as fruits, edible and medicinal plants were mainly extracted seasonally. This suggested that respondents did not rely heavily on these goods as part of their dietary intake. It is also unsurprising that these goods were not frequently extracted as their availability is determined by seasonality. Moreover, ecosystem goods such as logs, thatch, clay, sand and stones were not frequently extracted as these goods were mainly used for construction of dwellings.
120 With regards to fuelwood, respondents mainly utilised the good weekly, and water was mainly utilised daily. The data indicates that most of these goods, except for fuelwood and water, were mainly utilised seasonally. The variation in utilisation has been noted to depend on aspects such as accessibility to resources bases, as well as household contexts (Daw et al., 2011). The results purport findings from literature which have highlighted the dependence of low income communities on their natural resource base for subsistence purposes (Boafa et al., 2014).
In terms of sale purpose, fuelwood, clay, stones, water, animals and logs were not used for sale purposes, indicating that very few respondents derived products of monetary value from their surrounding resource base. The goods which were for sale purpose included medicinal plants (13%), thatch (5%), edible plants (3%), sand (1%), and fruits (1%). Estimating the contribution of natural resources to household sustainability forms part of an assessment of livelihood portfolios, as well as the effects of natural resource degradation on household welfare (Angelsen et al., 2014). The gathering of resources from surrounding ecological bases has proven to satisfy subsistence needs within households as well as act as sale products, in local markets, to supplement income (Shackleton et al., 2008).
Table 5.26: Ecosystem goods utilised for sale purposes (n=18, in %)
Ecosystem good % Average monthly price (in Rands)
Edible plants 22 R325
Medicinal plants 50 R544
Sand 6 R800
Fruits 11 R475
Thatch 17 R527
The results indicate that for 22% of these respondents, edible plants are a sold for an average monthly price of R325. A comparable proportion (50%) stated the sale medicinal plants, harvested from their surroundings, generates an average monthly income of R544. Other sale products included thatch of which 17% of respondents receive an average monthly income of R527, and 11% of respondents who sell fruits for an average monthly income of R475.
Although a small proportion (6%) of respondents derive a sale value from sand, this resulted in respondents receiving an average monthly income of R800. The sale of goods is considered to be important, especially for vulnerable and marginalised community members (Shackleton et al., 2008). Similar research on the incomes derived from natural products in South Africa
121 has indicated that although the financial returns on the sale of natural products are considered modest, these products remain a safety-net for households (Shackleton et al., 2008).