IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i11p3143-d237033.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revealing the Predominance of Culture over the Ecological Abundance of Resources in Shaping Local People’s Forest and Tree Species Use Behavior: The Case of the Vhavenda People, South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Mulugheta G. Araia

    (Forest Science Postgraduate Programme, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Hatfield 0028, South Africa)

  • Paxie W. Chirwa

    (Forest Science Postgraduate Programme, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Hatfield 0028, South Africa)

Abstract

The resurrection of the traditional socio-ecological knowledge system as a complimentary biodiversity conservation tool for poorly performing protected areas has fueled a new debate on what drives resource use behavior in forest landscapes. Using ecological assessment and ethno-botanical techniques, we tested whether culture or the ecological abundance of resources can sufficiently explain the use behavior of traditional society for various livelihood-related utilities. Data were analyzed using parametric and non-parametric tests. The two communities of the Vhavenda people had homogenous cultural values, despite the fact that they reside in different forest conditions. The use value of habitats increases along the land use intensity gradient, as defined by cultural norms and taboos. However, despite the presumed strictness of rules related to state-protected indigenous forest, it had the same use value as with open access resource use zones. Almost no resource harvesting from culturally protected (sacred) forests was reported. Species abundance did not sufficiently explain their use value. Generally, the findings show that culture plays a predominant role in explaining use behavior. Neither is resource use decision random nor is the concept of protected areas a new concept to traditional society. Hence, capitalizing on the benefits of cultural assets in conservation action, through genuine partnership and the empowerment of local people, will ensure the sustainability of global biodiversity initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Mulugheta G. Araia & Paxie W. Chirwa, 2019. "Revealing the Predominance of Culture over the Ecological Abundance of Resources in Shaping Local People’s Forest and Tree Species Use Behavior: The Case of the Vhavenda People, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:11:p:3143-:d:237033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3143/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3143/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kobe De Pourcq & Evert Thomas & Bas Arts & An Vranckx & Tomas Léon-Sicard & Patrick Van Damme, 2015. "Conflict in Protected Areas: Who Says Co-Management Does Not Work?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rosyi Damayanti T. Manningtyas & Katsunori Furuya, 2022. "Traditional Ecological Knowledge versus Ecological Wisdom: Are They Dissimilar in Cultural Landscape Research?," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Mulugheta Ghebreslassie Araia & Paxie Wanangwa Chirwa & Eméline Sêssi Pélagie Assédé, 2019. "Contrasting the Effect of Forest Landscape Condition to the Resilience of Species Diversity in a Human Modified Landscape: Implications for the Conservation of Tree Species," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rumin Zheng & Shuo Zhen & Lin Mei & Hongqiang Jiang, 2021. "Ecotourism Practices in Potatso National Park from the Perspective of Tourists: Assessment and Developing Contradictions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Eduardo García-Frapolli & Bárbara Ayala-Orozco & Malena Oliva & Robert J. Smith, 2018. "Different Approaches Towards the Understanding of Socio-Environmental Conflicts in Protected Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Dorothy Ruth Queiros, 2023. "Planning for Socio-Ecological Conservation in South African Nature Reserves: Model of Influences on the Attitudes of Proximate Communities," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-22, September.
    4. Soliku, Ophelia & Schraml, Ulrich, 2020. "Protected areas management: A comparison of perceived outcomes associated with different co-management types," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    5. Yi Xie & Yali Wen & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2019. "Application of Ostrom’s Social-Ecological Systems Framework in Nature Reserves: Hybrid Psycho-Economic Model of Collective Forest Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-19, December.
    6. Wang, Ju-Han Zoe, 2019. "National parks in China: Parks for people or for the nation?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 825-833.
    7. Marian Kachniarz, 2024. "Global Gain, but Local Loss—National Park and Municipal Revenues in Poland," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, October.
    8. Muhammad Zafar Khan & Sayeed Murad Shah & Athar Ali Khan, 2023. "Assessing conservation attitudes of mountain communities under different resource management regimes in northern Pakistan," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 2550-2570, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:11:p:3143-:d:237033. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.