Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Race for Space: Tracking Land-Cover Transformation in a Socio-ecological Landscape, South Africa

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biosphere Reserves attempt to align existing biodiversity conservation with sustainable resource use, specifically for improving socio-economic circumstances of resident communities. Typically, the Biosphere Reserve model is applied to an established landscape mosaic of existing land uses; these are often socio-ecological systems where strict environmental protection and community livelihoods are in conflict, and environmental degradation frequently accompanies “use”. This raises challenges for successful implementation of the model, as the reality of the existing land-use mosaic undermines the theoretical aspirations of the Biosphere concept. This study focuses on the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Reserve (K2C), South Africa; a socio-ecological landscape where formal conservation is juxtaposed against extensive impoverished rural communities. We focus on land-cover changes of the existing land-use mosaic (1993–2006), specifically selected land-cover classes identified as important for biodiversity conservation and local-level resource utilization. We discuss the implications of transformation for conservation, sustainable resource-use, and K2C’s functioning as a “Biosphere Reserve”. Spatially, changes radiated outward from the settlement expanse, with little regard for the theoretical land-use zonation of the Biosphere Reserve. Settlement growth tracked transport routes, transforming cohesive areas of communal-use rangelands. Given the interdependencies between the settlement population and local environmental resources, the Impacted Vegetation class expanded accordingly, fragmenting the Intact Vegetation class, and merging rangelands. This has serious implications for sustainability of communal harvesting areas, and further transformation of intact habitat. The distribution and magnitude of Intact Vegetation losses raise concerns around connectivity and edge effects, with long-term consequences for ecological integrity of remnant habitat, and K2C’s existing network of protected areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Biggs HC, Rogers KH (2003) An Adaptive System to Link Science, Monitoring, and Management in Practice. In: du Toit JT, Rogers KH, Biggs HC (eds) The Kruger experience: ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity. Island Press, Washington, pp 59–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady MJ, McAlpine CA, Miller CJ et al (2009) Habitat attributes of landscape mosaics along a gradient of matrix development intensity: matrix management matters. Landsc Ecol 24:879–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown K (2002) Innovations for conservation and development. Geogr J 168:6–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain DH, Riitters K, Orvis K (1997) A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics. Landsc Ecol 12:199–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cakir G, Un C, Baskent EZ et al (2008) Evaluating urbanization, fragmentation and land use/land cover change pattern in Istanbul City, Turkey from 1971 to 2002. Land Degrad Dev 19:663–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coetzer KL, Witkowski ETF, Erasmus BFN (2013). Reviewing Biosphere Reserves globally: effective conservation action or bureaucratic label? Biol Rev. doi:10.1111/brv.12044

  • Coetzer KL, Erasmus BFN, Witkowski ETF, 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. SAJS 106:26–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina-Villar S, Plascenia-Vargas H, Vaca R et al (2008) Resolving the conflict between ecosystem protection and land use in protected areas of the Sierra Madre de Chiapas, Mexico. Environ Manag 49:649–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC (2008) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality and consistency. Ecol Indic 8:691–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovie DB, Witkowski ETF, Shackleton CM (2005) Monetary valuation of livelihoods for understanding the composition and complexity of rural households. Agr Human Values 22:87–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastman JR (2012) IDRISI Selva [computer program]. Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts

  • Environmental Systems Resource Institute (ESRI) (2010) ArcMap 10.0 [computer program]. ESRI, Redlands, CA

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecol Biogeogr 16(3):265–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher JT, Witkowski ETF, Erasmus BFN et al (2012) Human-modified landscapes: patterns of fine-scale woody vegetation structure in communal rangeland savanna. Environ Conserv 39:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ (2005) Multiple edge effects and their implications in fragmented landscapes. J Anim Ecol 74:342–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foody GM (2002) Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sens Environ 80:185–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JF (1993) Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems or landscapes? Ecol Appl 3:202–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannecchini M, Twine W, Vogel C (2007) Land-cover change and human-environment interactions in a rural cultural landscape in South Africa. Geogr J 173:26–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison S, Bruna E (1999) Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: what do we know for sure? Ecography 22:225–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He HS, DeZonia BE, Mladenoff DJ (2000) An aggregation index (AI) to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landsc Ecol 15:591–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins SI, Shackleton CM, Robinson ER (1999) Changes in woody community structure and composition under contrasting landuse systems in a semi-arid savanna, South Africa. J Biogreogr 16:619–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra JM, Boucher TM, Ricketts TH, Roberts C (2005) Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecol Lett 8:23–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt FL (2005) The catch-22 of conservation: indigenous peoples, biologists, and cultural change. Hum Ecol 33:199–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ismail MH, Jusoff K (2008) Satellite data classification accuracy assessment based from reference dataset. Int J Comput Inf Sci 2(6):386–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjelland ME, Kreuter UP, Gonzalez Afanador E, Grant WE (2007) Factors relation to spatial patterns of rural land fragmentation in Texas. Environ Manag 40:231–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li B, Archer S (1997) Weighted mean patch size: a robust index for quantifying landscape structure. Ecol Model 102:353–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, He HS, Bu R et al (2005) The adequacy of different landscape metrics for various landscape patterns. Pattern Recogn 38:2626–2638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma Z, Li B, Li W et al (2009) Conflicts between biodiversity conservation and development in a biosphere reserve. J Appl Ecol 46:527–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhavan S, Schatz EJ (2007) Coping with change: household structure and composition in rural South Africa, 1992–2003. Scand J Public Health 35:85–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madubansi M, Shackleton CM (2007) Changes in fuelwood use and selection following electrification in the Bushbuckridge lowveld. J Environ Manag 83:416–426

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Matsika R, Twine WC, Erasmus BFN (2013a) Double Jeopardy: the dichotomy of fuelwood use in rural South Africa. Energy Policy 52:716–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsika R, Erasmus BFN, Twine WC (2013b) A tale of two villages: assessing the dynamics of fuelwood supply in communal landscapes in South Africa. Environ Conserv 40(1):71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine CA, Eyre TJ (2002) Testing landscape metrics as indicators of habitat loss and fragmentation in continuous eucalypt forests (Queensland, Australia). Landsc Ecol 17:711–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K (2012) Landscape pattern metrics. In: El-Shaarawi AH, Piegorsch W (eds) Encyclopedia of environmetrics, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1441–1451

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2002) Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol Appl 12:335–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. [Computer program]. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html. Accessed 3 June 2013

  • Mortelliti A, Amori G, Boitani L (2010) The role of habitat quality in fragmented landscapes: a conceptual overview and prospectus for future research. Oecologia 163:535–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mucina L, Rutherford M (2006) The vegetation of South Africa. Lesotho and Swaziland, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Murcia C (1995) Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 10:58–62

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mwavu EN, Witkowski ETF (2008) Land-use and cover changes (1988–2002) around Budongo Forest Reserve, NW Uganda: implications for Forest and Woodland Sustainability. Land Degrad Dev 19:606–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naughton-Treves L, Holland MB, Brandon K (2005) The role of protected areas in conservation biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Ann Rev Environ Resour 30:219–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolte B (2008) Sustainable tourism development in cross-border biosphere reserves of Central and Eastern Europe. In: Leibenath M, Korcelli-olejniczak E, Knippschild R (eds) Cross-border governance and sustainable spatial development : mind the gaps!. Springer, Western Europe, pp 140–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard S, Shackleton C, Carruthers J (2003) Beyond the fence: people and the Lowveld landscape. In: du Toit JT, Rogers KH, Biggs HC (eds) The Kruger experience: ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity. Island Press, Washington, pp 422–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. PNAS 105:20770–20775

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Riitters KH, O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT et al (1995) A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landsc Ecol 10:23–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues ASL, Akcakaya HR, Andelman SJ et al (2004) Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. Bioscience 54(12):1092–1100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheepers K, Swemmer L, Vermeulen WJ (2011) Applying adaptive management in resource use in South African National Parks: a case study approach. Koedoe 53(2):1–14. doi:10.4102/koedoe.v53i2.999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholes RJ, Biggs R (2005) A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434:45–49

    Article  CAS  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. S Afr J Sci 100:658–664

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton CM, Griffin NJ, Banks DI et al (1994) Community structure and species composition along a disturbance gradient in a communally managed South African savanna. Vegetatio 115:157–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith JH (2003) Land-Cover assessment of Conservation and Buffer Zones in the BOSAWAS Natural Resource Reserve of Nicaragua. Environ Manag 31(2):252–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivrikaya F, Cakir G, Kadiogullari AI et al (2007) Evaluating land use/land cover changes and fragmentation in the Camil Forest planning unit of Northeastern Turkey from 1972 to 2005. Land Degrad Dev 18:383–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swemmer, L, Annecke, W, Freitag-Ronaldson, S and Grant, R (2011) Towards effective benefit sharing in SANParks: ensuring consistency in meeting SANParks’ and local objectives in project implementation and monitoring. Presented at the SANParks Resource Use Workshop 2 at the Cape Research Centre, Tokai, 7-8 September 2011

  • Townsend PA, Lookingbill TR, Kingdom CC, Gardner RH (2009) Spatial pattern analysis for monitoring protected areas. Remote Sens Environ 113:1410–1420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trisurat Y, Alkemade R, Verburg PH (2010) Projecting land-use change and its consequences for biodiversity in Northern Thailand. Environ Manag 45:626–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twine W (2005) Socio-economic transitions influence vegetation change in the communal rangelands of the South African Lowveld. Afr J Range For Sci 22:93–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (1996) Biosphere Reserves: the Seville strategy and the statutory framework of the world network. UNESCO, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, van Asselen A, van der Zanden EH, Stehfest E (2012) The representation of landscapes in global scale assessments of environmental change. Landsc Ecol. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9745-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels KJ, Colgan MS, Erasmus BFN et al (2013) Unsustainable fuelwood extraction from South African Savannas. Environ Res Lett 8:014007. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilshusen PR, Brechin SR, Fortwangler CL, West PC (2002) Reinventing a square wheel: Critique of a resurgent “protection paradigm” in international biodiversity conservation. Soc Nat Resour 15(1):17–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerer KS, Galt RE, Buck MV (2004) Globalization and multi-spatial trends in the coverage of protected-area conservation (1980–2000). Ambio 33(8):520–529

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Shirley Hanrahan is thanked for her comments on previous drafts of this article. This research was funded in part by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the South African National Research Foundation (NRF2069152) and The University of the Witwatersrand. Additional funding was provided by the Carnegie Foundation of New York through the Global Change and Sustainability Research Institute at the University of the Witwatersrand and Palabora Mining Company (PMC), the National Research Foundation (NRF) and Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) “THRIP” for funding awarded to I.M. Weiersbye and E.T.F. Witkowski for the project: “Palabora Mine - Remote sensing and environmental risk assessment of mining impacts, and mitigation using phytotechnologies” (TP2009072900060).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Wits, Johannesburg, Gauteng, 2050, South Africa

    Kaera L. Coetzer, Barend F. N. Erasmus & Edward T. F. Witkowski

  2. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Stellenbosch, South Africa

    Belinda Reyers

Authors
  1. Kaera L. Coetzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barend F. N. Erasmus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edward T. F. Witkowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Belinda Reyers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaera L. Coetzer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coetzer, K.L., Erasmus, B.F.N., Witkowski, E.T.F. et al. The Race for Space: Tracking Land-Cover Transformation in a Socio-ecological Landscape, South Africa. Environmental Management 52, 595–611 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0094-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0094-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation