Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:30:49.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thresholds of change in a multi-use conservation landscape of South Africa: historical land-cover, future transformation and consequences for environmental decision-making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

KAERA L. COETZER-HANACK ,
E.T.F. WITKOWSKI  and
BAREND F.N. ERASMUS
KAERA L. COETZER-HANACK*
Affiliation:
Global Change and Sustainability Research Institute (GCSRI), University of the Witwatersrand, WITS, 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, WITS, 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa
E.T.F. WITKOWSKI
Affiliation:
School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, WITS, 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa
BAREND F.N. ERASMUS
Affiliation:
Global Change and Sustainability Research Institute (GCSRI), University of the Witwatersrand, WITS, 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa
*
*Correspondence: K.L. Coetzer-Hanack klcoetzer@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

As multi-use conservation landscapes, biosphere reserves (BRs) exemplify the landscape mosaic approach to environmental decision-making. In this study, time-series remotely-sensed data (1993–2006–2012) were used to monitor vegetation transformation in the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Reserve (K2C) of South Africa, updating previous land-cover research. We identified changes in spatial extent, rate and intensity of land-cover change and extrapolated observed trends to 2018. The increased rate of change in the recent observation period (2.3 vs. 5.7%) was driven by more intensive gains in impacted vegetation and settlement since 2006 (>210 km2 and >120 km2), with resultant transformation of intact habitat undermining regional connectivity. By 2012, intact vegetation had suffered losses of 6.3% (>350 km2) since 2006 and >14% (>750 km2) since 1993. A further 9.5% loss of intact habitat may represent a critical threshold, establishing K2C above the 50% threshold of landscape transformation, whereafter a rapid decline in landscape resilience is likely. Given the BR's spatial zonation, such a loss across the full extent of K2C is unlikely, at least in the short-term (i.e., by 2018). Yet, based on past trends of transformation in the unprotected transition zone, anticipating such losses in the longer term, is not unfounded (i.e., 2024).

Keywords

Intensity AnalysisKruger to Canyons Biosphere ReserveMan and the Biosphere Programmenatural resource managementprotected areasocio-ecological system
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 253 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldwaik, S.Z. & Pontius, R.G. Jr (2012) Intensity analysis to unify measurements of size and stationarity of land changes by interval, category, and transition. Landscape and Urban Planning 106: 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, B. (2007) The dual nature of parks: attitudes of neighbouring communities towards Kruger National Park, South Africa. Environmental Conservation 34 (3): 236–245.Google Scholar
Brady, M.J., McAlpine, C.A., Miller, C.J., Possingham, H.P. & Baxter, G.S. (2009) Habitat attributes of landscape mosaics along a gradient of matrix development intensity: matrix management matters. Landscape Ecology 24: 879–891.Google Scholar
Bryan, B.A., Crossman, N.D., King, D. & Meyer, W.S. (2011) Landscape futures analysis: assessing the impacts of environmental targets under alternative spatial policy options and future scenarios. Environmental Modelling & Software 26 (1): 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bushbuckridge Local Municipality (BLM) (2010) Local Economic Development Strategy: 397 2010–2014. Bushbuckridge, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. [www document]. URL http://bushbuckridge.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Bushbuckridge-LED-Strategy-2010-20142.pdf Google Scholar
Campbell, B., Frost, P., Goebel, A., Standa-Gunda, W., Mukamuri, B. & Veeman, M. (2000) A conceptual model of woodland use and change in Zimbabwe. International Tree Crops Journal 10 (4): 347–366.Google Scholar
Chazdon, R.L., Harvey, C.A., Komar, O., Griffith, D.M., Ferguson, B.G., Martínez-Ramos, M., Morales, H., Nigh, R., Soto-Pinto, L., van Breugel, M. & Philpott, S.M. (2009) Beyond reserves: a research agenda for conserving biodiversity in human-modified tropical landscapes. Biotropica 41 (2): 142–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzer, K.L., Erasmus, B.F.N., Witkowski, E.T.F. & Bachoo, A. (2010) Land-cover change in the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Reserve (1993–2006): a first step towards creating a conservation plan for the subregion. South African Journal of Science 106: 26–35.Google Scholar
Coetzer, K.L., Erasmus, B.F.N., Witkowski, E.T.F. & Reyers, B. (2013) The race for space: tracking land-cover transformation in a socio-ecological landscape. Environmental Management 52 (3): 595–611.Google Scholar
Coetzer, K.L., Witkowski, E.T.F. & Erasmus, B.F.N. (2014) Reviewing biosphere reserves globally: effective conservation action or bureaucratic label? Biological Reviews 89: 82–104.Google Scholar
Crews, K.A. & Young, K.R. (2013) Forefronting the socio-ecological in Savanna landscapes through their spatial and temporal contingencies. Land 2 (3): 452–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, G.S. (2011) Spatial resilience: integrating landscape ecology, resilience, and sustainability. Landscape Ecology 26 (7): 899–909.Google Scholar
de Fries, R., Hansen, A., Turner, B.L., Reid, R. & Liu, J. (2007) Land use change around protected areas: management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecological Applications 17 (4): 1031–1038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dovie, D.B., Witkowski, E.T.F. & Shackleton, C.M. (2005) Monetary valuation of livelihoods for understanding the composition and complexity of rural households. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 87–103.Google Scholar
Eastman, J.R. (2012) IDRISI Selva [computer program]. Worcester, Massachusetts: Clark University.Google Scholar
Findley, S.J. (2013) Clearing the confusion: the roles of local formal institutions in regulating firewood harvesting in Bushbuckridge, South Africa. Dissertation. South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand.Google Scholar
Fisher, J.T., Erasmus, B.F.N., Witkowski, E.T.F., Van Aardt, J., Asner, G.P., Wessels, K.J. & Mathieu, R. (2014) Management approaches of conservation areas: differences in woody vegetation structure in a private and national reserve. South African Journal of Botany 90: 146–152.Google Scholar
Fisher, J.T., Witkowski, E.T.F., Erasmus, B.F.N., Van Aardt, J., Asner, G.P., Wessels, K.J. & Mathieu, R. (2012) Human-modified landscapes: patterns of fine-scale woody vegetation structure in communal savannah rangelands. Environmental Conservation 39 (1): 72–82.Google Scholar
Flather, C.H. & Bevers, M. (2002) Patchy reaction-diffusion and population abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and arrangement. The American Naturalist 159 (1): 40–56.Google Scholar
Franklin, J.F. (1993) Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems or landscapes? Ecological Applications 3: 202–205.Google Scholar
Giannecchini, M., Twine, W. & Vogel, C. (2007) Land-cover change and human–environment interactions in a rural cultural landscape in South Africa. The Geographic Journal 173: 26–42.Google Scholar
Huang, J., Pontius, R.G. Jr, Li, Q. & Zhang, Y. (2012) Use of intensity analysis to link patterns with processes of land change from 1987 to 2007 in a coastal watershed of southeast China. Applied Geography 34: 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewitt, D., Erasmus, B.F.N., Goodman, P.S., O'Connor, T.G., Hargrove, W.W., Maddalena, D.M. & Witkowski, E.T.F. (2015) Climate-induced change of environmentally defined floristic domains: a conservation based vulnerability framework. Applied Geography 63: 33–42.Google Scholar
Kirkland, T., Hunter, L.M. & Twine, W. (2007) “The bush is no more”: insights on institutional change and natural resource availability in rural South Africa. Society and Natural Resources 20 (4): 337–350.Google Scholar
Madubansi, M. & Shackleton, C.M. (2007) Changes in fuelwood use and selection following electrification in the Bushbuckridge lowveld. Journal of Environmental Management 83: 416–426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsika, R., Erasmus, B.F.N. & Twine, W.C. (2012) A tale of two villages: assessing the dynamics of fuelwood supply in communal landscapes in South Africa. Environmental Conservation 40 (1): 71–83.Google Scholar
Matsika, R., Twine, W.C. & Erasmus, B.F.N. (2013) Double jeopardy: the dichotomy of fuelwood use in rural South Africa. Energy Policy 52: 716–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mograbi, P.J., Erasmus, B.F.N., Witkowski, E.T.F., Asner, G.P., Wessels, K.J., Mathieu, R., Knapp, D.E., Martin, R. & Main, R. (2015) Biomass increases go under cover: woody vegetation dynamics in South African rangelands. PLoS One 10 (5): e0127093.Google Scholar
Nguyen, N.C. & Bosch, O.J. (2012) A systems thinking approach to identify leverage points for sustainability: a case study in the Cat Ba Biosphere Reserve, Vietnam. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 30 (2): 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T. & Schultz, L. (2007) Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden. Ecology & Society 12 (1): 28.Google Scholar
Polasky, S. (2008) Why conservation planning needs socioeconomic data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (18): 6505–6506.Google Scholar
Pollard, S., Shackleton, C. & Carruthers, J. (2003) Beyond the fence: people and the Lowveld landscape. In: The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity, eds. du Toit, J.T., Rogers, K.H. & Biggs, H.C., pp. 422–446. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Pontius, R.G. Jr, Shusas, E. & McEachern, M. (2004) Detecting important categorical land changes while accounting for persistence. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 100: 251–268.Google Scholar
Pool-Stanvliet, R. (2013) A history of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 109 (9/10): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prugh, L.R., Hodges, K.E., Sinclair, A.R. & Brashares, J.S. (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (52): 20770–20775.Google Scholar
Reed, M.G., Godmaire, H., Abernethy, P. & Guertin, M.A. (2014) Building a community of practice for sustainability: strengthening learning and collective action of Canadian biosphere reserves through a national partnership. Journal of Environmental Management 145: 230–239.Google Scholar
Rosa, I.M., Purves, D., Souza, C. Jr & Ewers, R.M. (2013) Predictive modelling of contagious deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS One 8 (10): e77231.Google Scholar
Rosa, I., Ahmed, S.E. & Ewers, R.M. (2014) The transparency, reliability and utility of tropical rainforest land-use and land-cover change models. Global Change Biology 20 (6): 1707–1722.Google Scholar
Rosa, I.M., Purves, D., Carreiras, J.M. & Ewers, R.M. (2015) Modelling land cover change in the Brazilian Amazon: temporal changes in drivers and calibration issues. Regional Environmental Change 15 (1): 123–137.Google Scholar
Shackleton, C. & Shackleton, S. (2002) The importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihood security and as safety nets: a review of evidence from South Africa. South African Journal of Science 100: 658–664.Google Scholar
Svancara, L.K., Scott, J.M., Loveland, T.R. & Pidgorna, A.B. (2009) Assessing the landscape context and conversion risk of protected areas using satellite data products. Remote Sensing of the Environment 113 (7): 1357–1369.Google Scholar
Twine, W. (2005) Socio-economic transitions influence vegetation change in the communal rangelands of the South African Lowveld. African Journal of Range and Forage Science 22: 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twine, W., Moshe, D., Netshiluvhi, T. & Siphugu, V. (2003) Consumption and direct-use values of savanna bio-resources used by rural households in Mametja, a semi-arid area of Limpopo province, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 99 (9/10): 467–473.Google Scholar
UNESCO (1996) Biosphere Reserves: The Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the World Network. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Venter, F.J., Naiman, R.J., Biggs, H.C. & Pienaar, D.J. (2008) The evolution of conservation management philosophy: science, environmental change and social adjustments in Kruger National Park. Ecosystems 11 (2): 173–192.Google Scholar
Wessels, K., Colgan, M.S., Erasmus, B.F.N., Asner, G.P., Twine, W.C., Mathieu, R., van Aardt, J.A.C., Fisher, J.T. & Smit, I.P.J. (2013) Unsustainable fuelwood extraction from South African savannas. Environmental Research Letters 8 (1): 014007.Google Scholar
Western, D. (2001) Human-modified ecosystems and future evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98 (10): 5458–5465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiens, J., Sutter, R., Anderson, M., Blanchard, J., Barnett, A., Aguilar-Amuchastegui, N., Avery, C. & Laine, S. (2009) Selecting and conserving lands for biodiversity: the role of remote sensing. Remote Sensing of the Environment 113 (7): 1370–1381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J.A., Anderson, M.G. & Boucher, T. (2008) Land cover and conservation: from protected areas to landscapes. In: North American Land Cover Summit, eds. Campbell, J.C., Jones, K.B., Smith, J.H.. & Koeppe, M.T., pp. 153–168. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.Google Scholar
Xu, J., Chen, L., Lu, Y. & Fu, B. (2006) Local people's perceptions as decision support for protected area management in Wolong Biosphere Reserve, China. Journal of Environmental Management 78 (4): 362–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: Image

Coetzer-Hanack supplementary material S1

Supplementary Figure

Download Coetzer-Hanack supplementary material S1(Image)
Image 1.3 MB
Supplementary material: Image

Coetzer-Hanack supplementary material S2

Supplementary Figure

Download Coetzer-Hanack supplementary material S2(Image)
Image 100.2 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Coetzer-Hanack supplementary material S3

Supplementary Figure

Download Coetzer-Hanack supplementary material S3(Image)
Image 78.3 MB
Supplementary material: File

Coetzer-Hanack supplementary material S4

Supplementary descriptions

Download Coetzer-Hanack supplementary material S4(File)
File 15.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Coetzer-Hanack supplementary material S5

Supplementary Table

Download Coetzer-Hanack supplementary material S5(File)
File 18.3 KB