IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v21y2019i2d10.1007_s10668-017-0071-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mountains as a critical source of ecosystem services: the case of the Drakensberg, South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • S. J. Ngwenya

    (University of Pretoria)

  • E. Torquebiau

    (University of Pretoria
    CIRAD, UR36)

  • J. W. H. Ferguson

    (University of Pretoria)

Abstract

Mountain natural resource use and consequent ecosystem services for three diverse rural communities around the Mariepskop Mountain in the Mpumalanga Drakensberg, South Africa, were studied using interview and focus group discussions. The mountain provides a diverse range of critical ecosystem services to surrounding rural communities up to distances further than 20 km. Of the low-income village-level households, 90% continuously depended on firewood and water. Commercial farmers valued mountain water and indigenous insect pollinators. For more affluent village inhabitants, the aesthetic and historic values of the mountain are paramount. The ecosystem services identified by these three communities differed strongly with different community-specific ecosystem services. Ecosystem services identified by these communities were primarily influenced by household distance from the mountain and socio-economic status, with resource use decreasing with distance for most mountain resources with the exception of water. The importance of this mountain to livelihoods whilst ensuring resilience requires governance that takes into account socio-economic-based diversity in the use of ecosystem services and spatial diversity of natural resources utilization.

Suggested Citation

  • S. J. Ngwenya & E. Torquebiau & J. W. H. Ferguson, 2019. "Mountains as a critical source of ecosystem services: the case of the Drakensberg, South Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 1035-1052, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:21:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s10668-017-0071-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-017-0071-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-017-0071-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-017-0071-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agrawal, Arun & Gupta, Krishna, 2005. "Decentralization and Participation: The Governance of Common Pool Resources in Nepal's Terai," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 1101-1114, July.
    2. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    3. Wayne Twine & Lori Mae Hunter, 2011. "Adult mortality and household food security in rural South Africa: Does AIDS represent a unique mortality shock?," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 431-444, October.
    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. Ľuboš Slovák & Jan Daněk & Tomáš Daněk, 2023. "The use of focus groups in cultural ecosystem services research: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, 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. Jansson, Åsa, 2013. "Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 285-291.
    2. Kahsay, Goytom Abraha & Medhin, Haileselassie, 2020. "Leader turnover and forest management outcomes: Micro-level evidence from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    4. Hooper, Tara & Cooper, Philip & Hunt, Alistair & Austen, Melanie, 2014. "A methodology for the assessment of local-scale changes in marine environmental benefits and its application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 65-74.
    5. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    6. He, Lulu, 2019. "Identifying local needs for post-disaster recovery in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 52-62.
    7. Gerner, Nadine V. & Nafo, Issa & Winking, Caroline & Wencki, Kristina & Strehl, Clemens & Wortberg, Timo & Niemann, André & Anzaldua, Gerardo & Lago, Manuel & Birk, Sebastian, 2018. "Large-scale river restoration pays off: A case study of ecosystem service valuation for the Emscher restoration generation project," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 327-338.
    8. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    9. Wang, Shifeng & Wang, Sicong & Smith, Pete, 2015. "Quantifying impacts of onshore wind farms on ecosystem services at local and global scales," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1424-1428.
    10. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    11. Kapri, Kul & Ghimire, Shankar, 2020. "Migration, remittance, and agricultural productivity: Evidence from the Nepal Living Standard Survey," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    12. Diane P. Dupont, 2019. "Editorial: Special Issue in Honour of Dr. Steven Renzetti," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(02), pages 1-10, April.
    13. Chun-Chu Yeh & Cheng-Shen Lin & Chin-Huang Huang, 2018. "The Total Economic Value of Sport Tourism in Belt and Road Development—An Environmental Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    14. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    15. Pistorius, Till & Schaich, Harald & Winkel, Georg & Plieninger, Tobias & Bieling, Claudia & Konold, Werner & Volz, Karl-Reinhard, 2012. "Lessons for REDDplus: A comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 4-12.
    16. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    17. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    18. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    19. Cordier, Mateo & Pérez Agúndez, José A. & Hecq, Walter & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2014. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological–economic modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 86-96.
    20. Hahn, Thomas & McDermott, Constance & Ituarte-Lima, Claudia & Schultz, Maria & Green, Tom & Tuvendal, Magnus, 2015. "Purposes and degrees of commodification: Economic instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services need not rely on markets or monetary valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 74-82.

    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:spr:endesu:v:21:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s10668-017-0071-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.