Environmental Development 33 (2020) 100508

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envdev

Livestock income and household welfare for communities adjacent

T
to the Great Fish River Nature Reserve, South Africa
Tamika Du-Ponta, Cebokuhle Mandisa Nonzwakazi Vilakazia,
Gladman Thondhlanaa,∗, Pål Vedeldb
a
Rhodes University, Department of Environmental Science. P.O. Box 94, Grahamstown, South Africa
b
Norwegian University of Life Science, Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric), PO Box 5003, N-1432 Ås,
Norway

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Conflicts in protected areas often result from contestations around benefit-sharing arrangements.
Livestock income Integrating biodiversity conservation and livelihood goals in protected areas can be aided by
Protected areas quantitative assessments of the contribution of surrounding land-use options and trade-offs be-
Land claims tween conservation and use. Using household surveys, this study examines the contribution of
Poverty
livestock income (cash and subsistence) to household welfare among livestock-owning house-
Conflicts
holds living adjacent to the Great Fish River Nature Reserve, South Africa. Across all households,
livestock income contributed about 28% to total household income but the distribution of and
dependence on livestock income varied across groups of people. Livestock income had little effect
on income inequality but poverty incidence and depth were tied to livestock income especially
for the poor and less-poor households. The potential livelihood and conservation benefits for
increased support for livestock production are discussed, including how this could reduce conflict
levels between conservation agencies and local communities and in a broader sense, improve the
relationship between the state and its citizens.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Protected areas (PAs) are important environmental management instruments for achieving biodiversity goals (MEA, 2005).
However, their establishment and management is often riddled with economic marginalisation, land dispossession, resource depri-
vation and various other costs for local communities (Ramutsindela, 2003; Hutton et al., 2005; Vedeld et al., 2012). In response, there
are calls for more reflective integration of biodiversity conservation ambitions and livelihood needs, particularly in contexts where
PAs negatively affect both local people's material welfare and their perceptions of fairness; of what is seen as cognitively reasonable,
just and legitimate (Cundill et al., 2013, 2017). The consideration of livelihood adaptation and their outcomes related to PAs is
predicated on the notion that understanding the benefits people get from the environment can assist in crafting a more concise
estimation of the extent of poverty and welfare levels (Sjaastad et al., 2005). In turn, this may aid in designing morally-just con-
servation interventions that address people's livelihood needs and opportunities, which can, in turn, secure local support for PAs
(Thondhlana and Muchapondwa, 2014; Cundill et al., 2017).

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: G.Thondhlana@ru.ac.za (G. Thondhlana).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100508
Received 11 July 2019; Received in revised form 22 January 2020; Accepted 17 February 2020
2211-4645/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
T. Du-Pont, et al. Environmental Development 33 (2020) 100508

Local livelihood benefits from PAs can vary - from wild resource harvesting (fuelwood, grass, fish, fodder and NTFPs), preferential
employment and the related tourism sector, park visits for educational and cultural reasons to local development opportunities
(Thondhlana et al., 2016; Thondhlana and Cundill, 2017). PA management also involves avoiding possible livelihood costs such as
crop raiding by wildlife, livestock depredation and wildlife diseases. However, despite the potential for integrating biodiversity
conservation and livelihoods in PAs, few examples of successful implementations exist (Cundill et al., 2013; Thondhlana and Cundill,
2017). Others now argue that integrating biodiversity conservation and livelihoods is simply overambitious and underachieving
(Adams et al., 2004). Based on this, some advocate for a return to stricter PAs (Dudley et al., 2014; Shafer, 2015).
The possibilities of integrating biodiversity conservation with sustainable resource use in PAs and their surrounds is, in part,
constrained by limited quantitative assessments and knowledge of the contribution of surrounding land-use options to livelihoods and
trade-offs (Chaminuka et al., 2014; Ferraro and Hanauer, 2015). Although there has been a steady growth in literature on land-based
incomes in areas adjacent to PAs, most of this research focusses on the contribution of wild resource harvesting to livelihoods, and
less on fodder and on livestock production (Thondhlana and Muchapondwa, 2014; Ntuli and Muchapondwa, 2017).
In light of the context above, the main aim of this study was to examine, through a case study, the contribution of both the present
and potential value of livestock income to the livelihoods of livestock owners living adjacent to the Great Fish River Nature Reserve in
South Africa. Key questions included: what are households’ socio-economic assets, what is the level of dependence on livestock
income and how does this vary by income group, what factors influence livestock income; what are the effects of livestock income on
the poverty incidence and depth; and what is the potential livestock income value and impact of increasing access to grazing
resources in the PA?

1.2. Livestock and its contribution to livelihoods

Households keep livestock for cash income generation and subsistence purposes including provision of meat, milk, manure,
draught, and its function as a safety net during family emergencies such as funerals or medical fees (Shackleton et al., 2005; Dovie
et al., 2006; Chaminuka et al., 2014; Hänke and Barkmann, 2017; Do et al., 2019). Chaminuka et al. (2014) show that commer-
cialisation of cattle and cattle products is crucial for communities living close to the Kruger National Park, South Africa, contributing
up approximately 29% of total household cash income. Dovie et al. (2006) estimated the monetary value of direct benefits of
livestock at US$626 per household per annum, in Thorndale, South Africa. The use of non-food items such as dung for manure can
result in a reduced need for inorganic fertiliser, which enable household savings (Dovie et al., 2006). Other values from livestock
relate to cultural functions, including wealth/social status building, celebrations, rituals and its use as bride wealth (Shackleton et al.,
2005). The use of livestock for cultural functions provide opportunities for livestock to work as a mechanism for strengthening social
relations between community members (Shackleton et al., 2005; Cundill et al., 2017).
However, despite a steady increase in the livestock-livelihood literature, most of this literature is (1) often considered together
with other types of wild resource income, and (2) not from contexts of competing land use options like in park adjacent areas
(Chaminuka et al., 2014). There is thus rather limited empirical research documentation for socio-economic impacts and for ana-
lysing attempts to integrate local livelihood needs more coherently into PA conservation strategies.

1.3. Co-management of PAs in South Africa

Land access and land use policies in South Africa have been a key source of conflicts. Prior to precolonial times (1656), traditional
leaders controlled the use of land and natural resources via social institutions. The first National Park was established in Kruger in
1926, but long before this time there were regulations of land use and hunting in the Cape from 1656, and increasing effort to
conserve forest and lands. The General Land Acts in 1913 and 1936 established a division of land, where the European settlement
areas took major portions of the land, leaving some 13% to indigenous people. In the process, traditional authorities were in-
strumentally weakened, and key land management functions of the Chiefs were transferred to the magistrates. South African PAs
were mostly established on land inhabited and used by local communities. Local communities were excluded from PA management
and treated as a threat to PAs through alleged overgrazing, instigating wild fires, cutting grass illegally, hunting illegally, poaching,
etc. (Hutton et al., 2005; Holmes-Watts and Watts, 2008), which resulted in negative economic and social repercussions for the
affected communities (Ramutsindela, 2003).
However, following the first democratic elections in South Africa in 1994 and as part of the new conservation policy approach,
attempts were made to incorporate rural communities more into PA management through the Land Restitution Programme (Kepe
et al., 2005). The restitution programme allowed individuals, families or communitieswith a history of forced removal from their
ancestral land after the enactment of the Native Land Act in 1913, to lodge legal claims to their land. The land claimants have three
options to choose between full restoration of their original land, equitable redress in the form of alternative land or financial
compensation, or a combination of these options (Cundill et al., 2013).
The estate of PAs in South Africa comprises 7.8 million ha of land or some 6.5% of the total land resources. About 139 PAs are
under some kind of formal land claims by local communities (DRDLR, 2010). Central to these land claim settlements is the estab-
lishment of co-management agreements and negotiation of ‘benefit-sharing’ arrangements with local communities (Cundill et al.,
2013; Thondhlana et al., 2016; Thondhlana and Cundill, 2017). In different settings, benefits can take various forms, but many
communities have demanded livestock grazing access in PAs, a request that is seen to be in conflict with biodiversity conservation
goals (Cundill et al., 2017; Thondhlana and Cundill, 2017). However, co-managed PAs are often characterised by heavy restrictions
on extractive use of resources including NTFPs and fodder, which implies ‘conservation in perpetuity’ (Cundill et al., 2013), In fact,

2
T. Du-Pont, et al. Environmental Development 33 (2020) 100508

evidence suggests that co-management agreements in PAs have failed and benefit-sharing arrangements, in particular, have not
materialised partly because they are not informed by quantitative assessments of possible economic benefits from PAs. This, in part,
explains conflictual relationships between conservation agencies and local communities (Kepe et al., 2005; Cundill et al., 2013;
Thondhlana et al., 2016; Thondhlana and Cundill, 2017). Therefore, a better understanding of the value and impact of land-based
activities within the precincts of PAs should be of concern in South Africa, as this can inform benefit-sharing arrangements that can
avoid or reduce conflicts. A focus on livelihoods for people living adjacent to PAs is important because these people are more
vulnerable to livelihood shocks due to their history of displacement and direct dependence on land-based activities.

2. Approaches and methods

2.1. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

This paper examines the contribution of livestock to rural livelihoods, as one of the livelihood strategies pursued by rural
households. With a focus on livelihoods, the paper draws on the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) (Ellis, 2000) for analysis. A
livelihood is defined as “… the assets (natural, physical, human, financial and social capital), the activities and the access to these (mediated
by institutions and social relations) that together determine the living gained by the individual or a household” (Ellis, 2000: 10). Following
this definition, assets that household owns, controls, claims and/or accesses are considered as the basic building blocks which form
households' ability to sustain a living. For example, a household's participation in livestock production can be influenced by its access
to land (physical asset), level of education (human asset) and income (financial asset). A poor asset base can restrict households from
utilizing potential livelihood opportunities like livestock production, which can prevent households from accumulating income they
need to escape poverty. Translation of household assets into livelihood outcomes (like income) is shaped by a suite of social, eco-
nomic, contextual and policy factors (Ellis, 2000). Such factors include the availability and accessibility of markets, bad governance,
droughts, dysfunctional infrastructure, land protection, land loss or contraction through PA establishment or expansion and climate
change to mention some (Vedeld et al., 2012). In short, the SLA enables the understanding of underlying causal factors driving
livelihood processes and outcomes by assessing how mediating factors influence links between assets and livelihood strategies, and
livelihood strategies and income. Beyond income, there are important components of people's broader sense of welfare; including
their identity and culture.

2.2. Study area

The Great Fish River Nature Reserve (GFRNR), 45 000 ha in size, is located in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa (Fig. 1). It
is made up of three small nature reserves, namely Andries Vosloo Kudu, Double Drift and Sam Knott. The reserve is located within the
Albany Thicket Biome, and falls between two climatic regions. Rainfall is highly variable from the all year rainfall in the West zone to
the summer rainfall in the Northeast zone, with an average of 420 mm per annum (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Due to mountain
ranges in the region, the area has diverse environments and vegetation types, including woody trees, spinescent shrubs and succulents
(Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). As such, the area is representative for large (communal) areas in South Africa found adjacent to PAs.
The Great Fish River, which meanders through the reserve, provide an important source of water to a wide variety of fauna and flora.
The reserve is home to a variety of wildlife including wild ungulates such as bushbucks (Tragelaphus sylvaticus), warthogs (Pha-
cochoerus africanus), cape buffalos (Syncerus caffer), hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), red hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus
caama), impalas (Aepyceros melampus), kudus (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), Burchell's Zebras (Equus quagga burchellii) and white rhinos
(Ceratotherium simum). The vegetation in and around the reserve is very sensitive to overgrazing (Fabricius et al., 2003).
The GFRNR was originally established in 1976 from the amalgamation of land previously used for commercial farming and was
later expanded in 1986 (Fabricius et al., 2003). Like elsewhere in South Africa (Kepe et al., 2005), the reserve was established on land
formerly inhabited by the local AmaXhosa communities, resulting in the loss of tenancy/tenure rights which included the confiscation
of residential, agricultural and livestock grazing rights (Cundill et al., 2017). These communities had lived in this region for about
two generations but were forcibly evicted from their land to create commercial farming land for settlers, and where they worked as
farm labourers (Cundill et al., 2017). Many of the displaced households were later resettled in villages further afield.
In 1998, the Likhayalethu community, a group of 264 households now spread in various communities (Gxwederha, Jani, Smith,
Khayamnandi, Lower Sheshegu, Gwabeni and Qamnyana) around the GFRNR (Fig. 1) lodged a land claim on one section (Double
Drift Nature Reserve or 13 546 ha) of the reserve. This land claim case was settled in 2012, with claimants getting a once-off financial
compensation of about ZAR25 373 (US$1 519) per household as a recognition for not physically occupying the claimed land (Cundill
et al., 2017). Despite the ‘land settlement’, there are conflicts with local people's initial claim for full restoration of their land (Cundill
et al., 2017). Livelihood activities including harvesting of fuelwood, cutting of grass and livestock grazing are all prohibited under the
settlement agreement, but the ban is still contested by the local communities (Lagesse and Thondhlana, 2016; Cundill et al., 2017).
Such land claim contestations have been reported elsewhere in South Africa, notably those related to restricted access to PAs for
livestock grazing (Kepe et al., 2005; Thondhlana and Cundill, 2017).
The Eastern Cape Province is the poorest province in South Africa with one of the highest rates of poverty, illiteracy and un-
employment (Statistics SA, 2017). With limited livelihood opportunities in the province, social grants are an important source of
livelihoods for many households. Land-based activities like environmental resource collection and livestock production are also
important sources of livelihoods, but recent findings suggest that dependence on the former is declining (Mtati, 2014; Falayi et al.,
2019). Households in the rural areas are often small and made up of mostly old members (beyond reproductive age), without formal

3
T. Du-Pont, et al. Environmental Development 33 (2020) 100508

Fig. 1. The Great Fish River Nature Reserve and claimant communities, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa.

education as the most able-bodied persons tend to migrate to more urban settings in search of paid jobs, often reflected in that these
households often also depend on remittances.

2.3. Data collection

Data were collected in the seven communities surrounding the GFRNR between June and August 2018 using household surveys.
The study estimated marketed and non-marketed values of livestock through the ‘own reported value’ approach. The income and cost
data were collected for the year 2017–2018, stretching back from the interview period. Data collection was carried out through a
semi-structured questionnaire survey administered to 156 livestock-owning households in seven claimant communities. A snowball
approach was employed to identify households, where the interviewees assisted in locating other livestock owners via referral. This
sampling approach does not allow generalisations about all households but provides insights into the livelihoods of livestock farmers,
the principal stakeholders for co-management of the reserve. The interviews were directed at the head of the household. In the
absence of the household head, the next senior household member was interviewed.
The first part of the questionnaire obtained information on the socio-economic profile of each household, including age and
gender of household head and members, household size, education level and income sources. Incomes from environmental resources
were not collected separately, as the biggest benefit from environmental resources for livestock owners is through fodder and grass.
The value of fodder and grass was assumed in the gross livestock production and income. Relatively recent evidence shows that
environmental resource contribution to total household cash and subsistence income (< 4%) has generally declined in some areas of
the Eastern Cape Province due to both biophysical and economic conditions (Mtati, 2014; Falayi et al., 2019). In our case, only two
households reported selling fuelwood for cash income generation.
The second part of the questionnaire captured the use values of livestock reported by the respondents. To estimate the cash and
subsistence value of livestock income, information on livestock types and herd sizes, frequency, types and quantity of livestock and
products consumed, given away or sold was captured using a recall period of one year. Local units and associated prices of livestock

4
T. Du-Pont, et al. Environmental Development 33 (2020) 100508

and livestock products (milk, meat, skin, etc.) consumed at home or sold were captured using a one-year recall period. Gross livestock
subsistence and cash incomes are reported, using the prevailing exchange rate during the data collection period of roughly US
$1.00 = ZAR14.00. The costs associated with livestock production such as buying of extra fodder, medicines, fencing and hiring
labour were taken into account, but the opportunity costs of own or family labour were not incorporated in our calculations of
livestock income because deducting these in settings characterised by low earning skills and low alternative value of labour can be
misleading (Campbell et al., 2002). Families in this area do not have many or high alternative values of their labour as there are
limited economic options. Further, much of the economically active age group has migrated to towns with more job opportunities and
occasionally send remittances back home. To capture cultural and social values of livestock, the respondents were asked to indicate
the non-extractive benefits of livestock in their daily livelihood activities.

2.4. Data analyses

Income accounts were used to quantify the average total annual household income, grouped into the following categories: wages,
social grants, livestock income, and other income sources. Livestock units were calculated using the conversion factors for sub-Sahara
Africa provided by FAO (2005) as follows: cattle = 0.50, donkeys = 0.30; sheep and goats = 0.10, pigs = 0.20 and chicken = 0.01.
We used the study area's official grazing capacity of 12ha/1 LSU (DAFF, 2016), to estimate the potential economic value of grazing
inside the reserve.
Using a rural poverty line of ZAR11 901 per capita per year (Statistics SA, 2017), the poverty incidence was calculated as the
proportion of households falling below the poverty line across all households, and by income group with and without livestock
income. Poverty gap (Gi), which measures the extent to which individuals on average fall below the poverty line (Leibbrandt et al.,
2010), was calculated as [poverty line (z) less average per capita income (yi)], expressed as a percentage of the poverty line (z)
following Thondhlana and Muchapondwa (2014). A Gini coefficient was calculated to find out the income equalising effect of
livestock income. A key assumption for poverty assessments here is that livestock income is an important livelihood strategy for
farmers given the high unemployment rate (70%) in the area and the generally limited livelihood opportunities.
Using the Excel QUARTILE function based on mean total household income, the sample was split into three equal groups; very
poor (minimum value), poor (middle quartile) and less-poor (maximum value), to assess social-economic assets and dependence on
and distribution of income sources. Descriptive statistics (report counts and frequencies in the form of tables and proportions) were
used where relevant, to quantify responses (e.g. different uses of livestock). Pearson's Chi-squared tests were used to find if there were
significant differences in the socio-demographic composition (categorical and ranked data) of different income groups. One-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc tests were undertaken to determine whether means were significantly different
between income groups. A Generalised Linear Regression (GLZ) model was performed to explore the effects of factors such as age,
gender and education level, income status, household size and herd size on gross livestock income.
Possible limitations of this study are as follows: First, an accurate estimation of livestock income would require repeat surveys and
a panel approach to consider factors like seasonality, fodder, water, changes in stock, NTFPs, age of livestock and other social
variables (Campbell et al., 2002). However, the focus of this study was on the reported use values of livestock rather than precise
flows of income from growth in livestock stock. Second, using livestock income flows as a proxy for welfare may not recognise the
multidimensional aspects of poverty (Alary et al., 2011) that are important in engendering local people's support for conservation.
However, estimating the economic contribution of livestock income can leverage responsiveness in designing government policies
that allocate a high budget to the livestock sector. A third limitation relates to potential underreporting of livestock herd sizes due to
fear of paying taxes to government. To address this, the respondents were assured that data were collected solely for research
purposes. Thus, despite these potential limitations, we believe that the reported livestock values can provide useful insights into the
contribution of livestock income to household welfare of livestock owners.

3. Results

3.1. Socio-economic assets of the households

Out of 156 respondents nearly two-thirds (63%) were males but there was a notably higher male representation in the poor and
less-poor income groups than in the very poor group (Table 1). The average age of respondents for all household was 63.3 years. Very
poor households had significantly younger respondents than the poor and less-poor groups. Mean household size for all households
was 3.9; and dependents (0–18 years) made up less than half of the total population. These trends were also reflected when
households were analysed by income groups, but the differences were not statistically significant (Table 1). Education levels were
generally very low - more than three-quarters of the respondents had only primary level education or no formal education at all.
Nearly one-third of the sample was employed, across all households but more respondents in the less-poor (63%) than the poor
(19%) and very poor (13%) groups were employed (Table 1). Most households (82%) received social grants. Across the sample, very
few households reported other sources of income (remittances, petty trading), and the differences between groups were significant
(Table 1). Further analysis showed that only about 5% of all the sampled households reported receiving remittances, with an average
of ZAR56 per household per year. Crop production was not practiced, and households bought the bulk of food and other household
necessities mainly in supermarkets in nearby towns and in small local shops for small items needed during the course of the month.
Very small home gardens around the houses were reported, but only by 32% of the households. Most of these gardens were semi-
functional and not considered to generate any significant value for the total income. This is quite common in semi-arid areas.

5
T. Du-Pont, et al. Environmental Development 33 (2020) 100508

Table 1
Socio-economic assets of all households and by income groups, GFRNR, South Alary et al., 2011.
Household socio-economic factors Very poor Poor (n = 52) Less-poor Total sample Max (min) ANOVA (F)/χ2 test
(n = 52) (n = 52) (n = 156) values

Gender (%) of household head

Female 50 38 23 37 – χ2 = 8.124*
Male 50 62 77 63 –
Age of household head 59.2a 68.8b 61.8b 63.3 100 (30) F = 5.80*
Mean household size 3.6 3.7 4.3 3.9 13 (1) F = 1.74
Adults (+18 years) 2.4 2.7 3 2.7 6 (1)
Children (0–18 years) 1.2 1 1.3 1.2 8 (0)
Education of household head (%)
No education 21 25 27 24 – χ2 = 3.353
Primary 52 60 48 54 –
Secondary 23 13 19 18 –
Tertiary 4 2 6 4 –
% of household head employed 13 19 63 32 – χ2 = 35.733**
% of households receiving social grants 71 92 83 82 – χ2 = 7.922*
% of households receiving other 19 6 4 10 – χ2 = 8.409*
income sources

**, * indicate1% and 5% level of significance respectively; Letters.

a,b
indicate significant differences in means between wealth groups (p < 0.05).

3.2. Livestock ownership, herd sizes and uses

Across the sample, a majority of households reported owning goats (75%), followed by cattle (62%), chicken (59%), pigs (35%),
sheep (14%) and donkeys (8%) (Table 2). Differences in proportion of households reporting ownership of livestock were generally
marginal. The less-poor group showed the highest mean herd size for all stock types except for sheep and pigs but the differences were
not significant (Table 2).
Cash income generation, meat, rituals, savings and milk were reported as the main uses of livestock resources cited by 77%, 72%,
62% and 53% of households respectively. Trading of livestock and livestock products was predominantly local due to reportedly high
transportation costs to better markets. Nearly 40% of those who slaughtered livestock said they gave part of the meat away to
relatives, neighbours or other community members. Concerning rituals, cattle and goats were important for Imbeleko (ceremony for
introducing family members to their ancestors) and Imigidi (traditional initiation ceremony), and other ceremonies (funerals,
birthdays, weddings and brewing of traditional beer). Some households also mentioned production of bracelets from cattle and goat
skin, which play important symbolic and cultural roles. Concerning savings, livestock constitutes an important safety net function
during times of social emergencies and economic hardships such as death, ill-health or losses of employment in the family. In such
cases, affected households would sell or slaughter livestock to cover funeral costs and bridge the income gap resulting from economic
stresses. They said that livestock was a ‘walking and informal bank’, allowing easier access to money when needed, in the absence of
formal banking institutions in the area. Nearly all households who milked their livestock (99%), did so for subsistence purposes
including giving away to neighbours and friends. Only five households reported to sell milk for cash income. Dung (32%) used as
organic fertilisers and for smearing walls or floors, skin (28%) for mats, lobolo (bride price) (13%) and draught (3%) for transport
(mainly from donkeys) were cited by some, but comparatively few households.

Table 2
Ownership of different livestock type and mean herd size ( ± SD) by total sample and income groups GFRNR, South Alary et al., 2011.
Livestock Proportion (%) of households Mean herd size( ± SD)/household ANOVA test
type for herd size
Very poor Poor Less-poor Total sample Very poor Poor (n = 52) Less-poor Total sample (F)
(n = 52) (n = 52) (n = 52) (n = 156) (n = 52) (n = 52) (n = 156)

Goats 71 65 75 75 9.5 ± 12.8 9.3 ± 11.9 14.3 ± 17.5 11 ± 14.4 2.01

Cattle 50 69 71 62 6.1 ± 13.7 6.7 ± 8.1 10.8 ± 15.3 7.9 ± 12.8 2.07
Pigs 38 33 38 35 1.3 ± 2.7 1.6 ± 3.3 1.2 ± 2.3 1.4 ± 2.8 0.24
Sheep 12 14 13 14 1.1 ± 4.3 11.7 ± 72.2 3.8 ± 15.2 5.5 ± 42.6 0.86
Donkeys 4 8 12 8 0.1 ± 0.7 0.4 ± 1.4 1.8 ± 6.8 0.8 ± 4.1 2.75
Chicken 58 60 63 59 7.8 ± 11 9.5 ± 10.2 12.1 ± 23.4 9.8 ± 16 0.94
Livestock – – – – 4.5 ± 7.5 5.9 ± 10.1 8.1 ± 9.8 6.2 ± 9.3 1.98
Units
(LSU)

6
T. Du-Pont, et al. Environmental Development 33 (2020) 100508

Table 3
Mean incomes and relative contribution (%) to total income by source and income group, GFRNR, South Alary et al., 2011.
Income source Very poor (n = 52) Poor (n = 52) Less-poor (n = 52) Total sample (n = 156) ANOVA Test (F)

Social grants 13 770a (68%) 29 668b (64%) 26 557b (26%) 23 332 (41%) 14.03**
Employment 1 671a (8%) 3 105a (7%) 45 704b (45%) 16 827 (30%) 27.54**
Livestock 4 205a (21%) 12 358a (27%) 30 261b (29%) 15 608 (28%) 14.96**
Other sources 651 (3%) 925 (2%) 147 (−) 569 (1%) 0.74
Total income per household 20 298a (12%) 46 056b (27%) 102 669c (61%) 56 341 97.77**
Total income per capita 7 554a 15 975b 32 143c 18 557 26.96**
Income group share (%) of total income 12 27 61 100 –

** indicates 1% level of significance; Letters.

a,b,c
indicate significant differences in means between income groups (p < 0.05); USD 1 = ZAR14.

3.3. Dependence, distribution and diversification of income sources

Across all households in the sample, social grants (41%) made the highest contribution to mean total household income, followed
by employment (30%), livestock (28%) and other sources (Table 3).
Social grants consisted mainly of old age and child grants. Jobs were reported to be mainly temporary, typically contract and
semi-skilled positions including driving, security and catering, and from self-employment such as plumbing, tree planting and
construction work. Very few respondents were employed in government positions (police, teaching and nursing). Other income
sources (remittances, small businesses like grocery shops and petty trading) were considered important, but not substantial, eco-
nomically speaking.
Analysis of differences between the three income groups shows that very poor households had the lowest absolute income from
but the highest dependence (68%) on social grants compared to the poor and less-poor households. In general, poor households
showed both high absolute income from and dependence on social grants (64%). The main source of income for the less-poor
households was employment, which contributed nearly half (45%) of their total income. Livestock income was the second important
income source across all income groups but the less-poor derived significantly more income (in absolute and relative terms) than the
very poor and poor households. Concerning income distribution for the total sample, the less-poor households showed the highest
total incomes from all income streams (except for 'other sources') and accounted for about 61% of total household income. The very
poor household group contributed the lowest income to total income for the sample.

3.4. Livestock cash and subsistence income by all households and income groups

Cash incomes contributed more than 75% to the total livestock income (R15 608) for the total sample (Table 4).
The less-poor group tapped roughly four and eight times more cash income from livestock trade than the very poor and poor
groups respectively. Cattle was by far the key cash earner for livestock income with about six times more income than the second
important contributor (goats), and contributed more than three-quarters of total livestock cash income for the total sample. Cash
income from goats was particularly important for the very poor and poor households though the income from goats was significantly
lower than that of the less-poor group. Absolute and relative cash income from other sources was very low, economically negligible
and not significantly different between income groups. Regarding subsistence livestock income, very poor and poor households
extracted less income from household consumption of livestock and livestock products, but the contribution to total livestock income
was higher than that of less-poor households (Table 4).

Table 4
Mean cash and subsistence income (ZAR) and contribution (%) of different livestock types to total livestock income by income group, GFRNR, South
Alary et al., 2011.
Livestock type Very poor (n = 52) Poor (n = 52) Less-poor (n = 52) Total sample (n = 156) ANOVA test (F)

a a b
Cattle 1 865 (59%) 6 131 (78%) 19 681 (79%) 9266(77%) 10.03**
Goats 981a (31%) 1 198a (15%) 3 021b (12%) 1733(15%) 7.73**
Sheep 81 (3%) 214 (3%) 879 (4%) 391 (3%) 2.11
Pigs 203 (6%) 269 (3%) 144 (1%) 205 (2%) 0.45
Chicken 13 (−) 22 (−) 1043 (4%) 359 (3%) 1.13
Skins 0.3 (−) 7 (−) 21 (−) 10 (−) 1.64
Milk 0.4 (−) 31 (−) 20 (−) 17 (−) 0.54
Total cash income and % of total income 3 144a (75%) 7 871a (64%) 24 809b (72%) 11 941 (77%) 12.23**
Subsistence income and share (%) of total income 1061 (25%) 4487 (36%) 5652 (18%) 3667 (23%) 7.78**
Total livestock income 4 205a 12 358a 30 261b 15 608 14.96**

** indicates 1% level of significance; Letters.

a,b
indicate significant differences between income groups (p < 0.05).

7
T. Du-Pont, et al. Environmental Development 33 (2020) 100508

Table 5
Socioeconomic determinants of livestock income, GFRNR, South Africa.
Variable Coef. Estimate Std. Error Wald stat. P

(Constant) 8.14 0.921 78.041 0.000**

Age of household head 0.02 0.012 2.363 0.124
Gender of household head −0.15 0.155 0.958 0.328
Education of household head 0.62 0.352 3.063 0.080
Household size 0.19 0.074 6.360 0.012*
Employment status 1 = Employed; 0 = Not employed −0.03 0.211 0.020 0.888
Employment value −0.00 0.000 0.004 0.953
Social grant status 1 = Recipient; 0 = Non recipient 0.68 0.251 7.387 0.007*
Social grant value −0.00 0.000 0.005 0.946
Livestock herd size −0.01 0.007 0.709 0.400
Total number of challenges reported −0.22 0.091 6.100 0.014*

**; * indicate 1% and 5% level of significance respectively.

3.5. Determinants of livestock income

Table 5 displays results of the Generalised Linear Regression (GLZ) model analysis performed to investigate the effects of various
explanatory factors on gross livestock income. Control for multicollinearity among the selected independent variables was achieved
using the variance inflation factors (VIF). The highest VIF recorded was 1.90 hence all variables in the regression model were used, as
multicollinearity was not a problem. From the regression analysis three factors; household size, social grant status, and total number
of challenges reported were statistically significant. Households with more members and those with access to social grants had
statistically significant high total livestock incomes. Households who reported more livestock production challenges were likely to
have lower income than those who reported fewer challenges.

3.6. The effect of livestock income on poverty incidence and poverty depth

There was a marginal difference in the calculated Gini coefficient with (0.46) and without (0.47) livestock income, suggesting that
livestock income had a low effect on income distribution among livestock owners. The general official poverty line in the area is
ZAR11 904 per capita per year (US$ 2.2 per cap and day). If we look at the overall income (with livestock income) from the sample,
we find an average of ZAR18 558 (US$3.6 per capita per day), with nearly half (45%) of all households below the poverty line
(Table 6). If livestock income were excluded, nearly two-thirds (62%) would fall below the poverty line. When decomposed by
income group, the poor (22%) and less-poor (25%) groups show higher shares of households falling below the poverty line (without
livestock income) than the very poor households (4%).
A poverty depth analysis indicates that the average per capita income is 56% above the poverty line with livestock income but
drops to the poverty line without livestock income. Decomposition by income groups shows that when livestock income is excluded,
poverty gap increases from 37% to 50% below the poverty line for the very poor households. Further, the drop in the poverty gap for
the poor and less-poor households without livestock income is substantial. Notably, total income per capita for the less-poor group
drops by about 41%, from ZAR32 143 to ZAR19 086 (Table 6), indicative of a high dependence on livestock income.

3.7. Potential livestock income values with increased access to grazing in the reserve

Based on the present livestock economic adaptation, it is possible to infer potential use-values of the reserve if it would be opened
to local people's grazing and livestock keeping. Such a process could come through the policies of the Land Restitution Programme
where land claimants could assume either partial or full restoration of their original land or redress in the form of alternative land or a
combination of these options as highlighted earlier. What is the potential land value if used for the same type of livestock man-
agement and intensity?
Assuming a grazing capacity of 12ha/1 LSU, the 45 000 ha of land in total could support about 3750 LSU. With the existing

Table 6
Poverty indices with and without livestock income, GFRNR, South Alary et al., 2011. Figures in parenthesis show total income without livestock
income.
Income group Mean annual income Poverty incidence (%) Poverty incidence (%) Poverty gap (%) with Poverty gap (%) without
(ZAR) per capita with livestock income without livestock income livestock income livestock income

Sample (n = 156) 18 558 (11 917) 45% 62% 56% 0

Very poor (n = 52) 7554 (5913) 83% 87% −37% −50%
Poor (n = 52) 15 975 (10 752) 40% 62% 34% 10%
Less-poor (n = 52) 32 143 (19 086) 12% 37% 170% 60%

Positive and negative values denote incomes are above and below the poverty line respectively. US$1 = ZAR14.

8
T. Du-Pont, et al. Environmental Development 33 (2020) 100508

reported cash value of ZAR1 493/1 LSU, the estimated potential annual value for livestock grazing in the entire reserve is ZAR5
598 750 or R1 685 597 for the claimed part of the reserve (13 546 ha). Alternatively, benefit-sharing arrangements that allow grazing
access of 10% of the reserve (4500 ha) would support about 375 LSU and potentially generate livestock income of approximately
ZAR559 875 or ZAR3 589 per household. This potential livestock income could, in principle, ensure that mean total income for all
households is above the rural annual household income of ZAR56 333 (Statistics SA, 2017). The total Net Present Value would be
around 20 times the annual value (for the claimed part of the reserve), or roughly ZAR34 million, depending on the interest rate. This
seems more profitable for the involved households than the once-off financial compensation payment of ZAR25 373 (US$1519) per
household paid to households for not physically occupying the reserve, given potential livestock accumulation over time.

4. Discussions and policy implications

Our results concur with findings in rural South Africa where communities and households are featured by small household sizes,
high female representations and an aging population. Many of the men and indeed also women in their best work ages (20–40)
migrate to urban settings, often leaving family and even children behind with grandparents (Statistics SA, 2017). This is accentuated
by limited livelihood opportunities like employment and poor service delivery resulting in the migration of younger people to nearby
towns. The relatively high participation of women in livestock production found in this study is consistent with findings in India by
Patel et al. (2016), which also questions the conventional notion that women tend to participate in low-value activities like wild
resource collection. Their adaptive capacities and patterns are broader. We do see that households are often adaptive to major
perturbations or changes in their lives as in this case of widespread migration to towns of able-bodied persons to secure better
livelihoods. This, to some extent, leaves the remaining family members in the rural areas somewhat more vulnerable especially given
that remittances tended to be economically insignificant.
The majority of the people in this sample are poor. We found that roughly 65% of the sampled households’ had an annual income
below ZAR56 333 (US$4 024) – the average annual household income of traditional rural settlements in South Africa (Statistics SA,
2017). A high proportion of social grants recipients further underscores high poverty incidence, mostly due to limited employment
opportunities (Leibbrandt et al., 2010). This also mirrors other findings in the region (Mtati, 2014; Shackleton and Luckert, 2015;
Falayi et al., 2019).
Concerning livestock ownership, cattle and small stock, mainly goats, dominated total livestock numbers. Less-poor households
reported more livestock and also much higher livestock incomes than the poor and very poor households. The multipurpose uses of
livestock found in this study reflects other findings in South Africa (Shackleton et al., 2005; Dovie et al., 2006; Pica-Ciamarra et al.,
2011; Chaminuka et al., 2014) and elsewhere (Hänk and Barkmann, 2017), though cash income generation, savings and meat
provision seemed to be the most important uses of livestock, economically speaking. The money saved from consuming own livestock
products and the income earned from livestock trade freed money for other household expenses. Similarly, Shackleton et al. (2005)
found that households valued livestock for cash sales (66%) and savings (93%) in the Sand River Catchment in the Limpopo province,
South Africa. In Niger, Alary et al. (2011) show that 60% of the households relied on livestock sales to cope with food shortages or
unexpected medical expenditures. Hänke and Barkmann (2017) similarly found that livestock production was regarded as a vital
insurance option for households in semi-arid Madagascar. Considering the harsh local environmental conditions that make crop
production more or less impossible, and the prevalence of limited livelihood opportunities in the study area, cash income and
insurance options provided by livestock for household needs is particularly important.
The importance of livestock for rituals indicate the close links between livestock production and culture. Cattle and goats in
particular are an important part of the Xhosa cultural identity, used in many cultural ceremonies like communication with ancestors
and other rituals (Cundill et al., 2017). Livestock use for lobolo, birthdays and weddings were not very widespread which could be
attributed to the migration of young individuals to towns or few people getting married traditionally due to disintegrating local
traditions. Given the observed the aging households, this explanation seems plausible.
The contribution of livestock income to total household income found in this study is quite substantial. The reported average
value of ZAR15 608 (US$1115) per household per year is comparable to findings by Shackleton et al. (2005) (ZAR6 489 or US
$1303 at 1998 US$1: ZAR4.98) but nearly two times higher than the ZAR4 027 (US$626) found by Dovie et al. (2006) in rural areas
of South Africa. The level of dependence on livestock income (28%) is also relatively high but comparable to findings (23%) by Dovie
et al. (2006). The higher levels of dependence on livestock income found in our study could be explained by the fact that unlike in
other areas, there are no crop farming activities or options in the area. Further, dependence on wild resource collection is declining in
the region (Falayi et al., 2019), making livestock an even more important land-based activity. A key point to note is heterogeneity
regarding dependence on livestock income, which mirrors trends in the environmental income literature (Thondhlana and
Muchapondwa, 2014). Very poor households showed comparatively lower absolute income and income shares from livestock income
than that of less-poor households. The effects of livestock income on income distribution was found to be very low, perhaps due to a
higher dependence on social grants for the sample households. Another possible explanation is that the difference in employment
income between the less-poor, and the poor and very poor groups was greater than the difference in livestock income, meaning that
wealth differentiation between households was potentially driven more by employment than livestock income.
Our findings also show that poverty status seemed partly tied to livestock income, given that poverty incidence and poverty depth
increased without livestock income. Further, estimations of potential livestock income values from increased access to grazing in the
PA suggests that livestock production could be very profitable. This argument is important given that most PAs in South Africa are
loss-making and have failed to materially benefit local communities (Cundill et al., 2013; Thondhlana et al., 2015; Thondhlana and
Cundill, 2017). Overall, our analysis generally supports the argument that livestock production can provide a pathway out of poverty

9
T. Du-Pont, et al. Environmental Development 33 (2020) 100508

or at least reduce the poverty gap (Kristjanson et al., 2004; Do et al., 2019) for livestock owners. However, due to the ecological
fragility of the region (Fabricius et al., 2003), and potential competition for grazing between livestock and wildlife, livestock grazing
in the PA might result in land degradation over time. Further, disease outbreaks from wildlife-cattle interactions and high monitoring
costs might make PA access for livestock grazing a less favourable option. A possible alternative, which can reduce the need to open
PAs for livestock grazing would be to invest in sustainable livestock feeding programmes or restoration of land outside PAs to increase
its carrying capacity. Livestock production support for livelihoods in areas adjacent to PAs is an area of mutual concern for the
conservation agencies and the local municipalities – that should form the basis for partnerships between state agencies consistent
with the International Development Plan (IDP). The IDP is a tool for guiding local development objectives within environmental
limits to use (Ruwanza and Shackleton, 2016). Partnerships can ensure sustainable grazing practices are extended beyond park
boundaries to communal areas on which critical biodiversity is found, which can in turn, contribute to national conservation targets
and reduce pressure on PA resources. While livestock might contribute to local livelihoods, investment in small stock such as goats
and sheep should be avoided because they are more indiscrimate grazers than cattle and can degrade grazing lands quickly if their
numbers are not kept under check. In our context, this is an important consideration given the sensitivity of the region to overgrazing
(Fabricius et al., 2003; Lagesse and Thondhlana, 2016).
The general contribution of livestock income to the welfare of livestock owner's highlights the importance of a thorough as-
sessment of possible economic benefits from PAs, as a basis for designing settlement agreements in claimed PAs. First, the findings
help us understand the economic implications of restricted access to grazing in PAs owned, but not physically accessible by local
communities, which can in turn undermine local people's support for conservation. In South Africa in particular, these insights are
invaluable given that a third of statutory PAs are presently under land claims by local communities, and benefit-sharing arrangements
are supposed to form the basis for land restitution plans and settlement agreements (Cundill et al., 2013). Second, in light of the
reported cultural uses of livestock, benefit-sharing arrangements should consider the links between livestock production and cultural
identity as suggested by Cundill et al. (2017). Understanding the cultural identities and practices of local communities may ensure
policies for supporting the livestock sector are within culture-specific norms concerning appropriate and desirable livelihood ac-
tivities and responses (de Sherbinin et al., 2008). Third, the heterogeneity in ownership of and dependence on livestock implies that
efforts aimed at improving livelihood opportunities from livestock requires a pro-poor approach, consistent with the livelihoods
literature (Kristjanson et al., 2004). For example, increased support for livestock production through fodder provision could po-
tentially lift poor households out of poverty but the poorest may be perpetually locked in poverty since they do not have the capital to
increase their income opportunities from livestock. Supporting very poor households with financial capital to invest in livestock
production might take them out of poverty in the end – given households with access to financial incomes through government social
grants tended to have more livestock income than households without.
Concerning factors influencing the level of livestock income, the negative relationship between number of challenges reported by
livestock owners and livestock income suggests that livestock management challenges are more likely to constrain livestock pro-
duction and income than other socio-demographic variables. The findings also suggest that having access to social grant income
enables livestock owners to build capital; perhaps by buying more livestock stock, and paying for their care and transport to markets.
Further, larger household sizes were also more likely to tap more from livestock incomes. On the one hand, more people in the
household means a high demand for more livestock products for subsistence consumption, and on the hand, the supply of labour may
enhance labour availability for livestock management. Though not statistically significant, the negative relationships between li-
vestock income and employment status, employment incomes and, social grant incomes suggest that households with ‘good’ financial
income may depend less on livestock income and products because they can afford to buy substitutes for subsistence consumption or
that they have enough cash income for other household expenditures. The findings further suggest that male-headed households are
likely to generate more cash incomes from livestock than female-headed households. One possible reason for this is that the entry
costs to livestock production (accessing resources, extension services, marketing opportunities and taking decisions) may be a
constraint for women (Patel et al., 2016). Women may typically take over livestock production when the husband is working further
afield in nearby towns (like in our case) or when or if the husband dies or is disabled. Second, in the study area, women often have
more domestic household roles including child care, regular housework and daily food provision than men which may limit their time
and resources to invest in livestock production.

5. Conclusions

PAs have a mandate to balance biodiversity goals and livelihood needs, especially in contexts with a history of physical and
economic displacement of local communities to establish PAs. This study examines the contribution of livestock to household welfare
of livestock owners (and variation between groups of livestock owners) living adjacent to the GFRNR, South Africa, as a basis for
probing deeper into how the PA may constrain or enable poverty reduction among different groups of people. Livestock income
contributed about 28% to total sample income. A substantial share of livestock income was derived from cattle. Overall, livestock
provided substantially more cash income than subsistence income, an expected trend, given limited cash generation opportunities in
the study area. Analysis by income groups shows that very poor households extracted the least absolute income and income shares
from livestock compared to the poor and less-poor households. The increases in poverty incidence and poverty gap, when livestock
income were excluded, suggest livestock cushion households from poverty.
In general, the findings illustrate the importance of livestock production as a livelihood strategy for improving the welfare of
livestock owners living adjacent PAs. Supporting households in optimising economic opportunities from livestock may take poor
households out of or cushion them from getting deeper into poverty. However, while supporting households in livestock production

10
T. Du-Pont, et al. Environmental Development 33 (2020) 100508

for poverty reduction is theoretically sound, this would only be achievable with some kind of economic and institutional inter-
ventions especially for poor households. Beyond household's access to assets, there is need for a careful assessment of external
factorsthat might constrain livestock production as these became apparent in our study. This should be a priority, given these
constraints will disproportionately affect very poor households by pushing them deeper into poverty. Within the context of co-
management of PAs, the findings can inform benefit-sharing arrangements that can balance biodiversity goals and livelihood needs. It
is important to emphasise livelihood needs and production possibilities that benefit directly local communities such as livestock
grazing in PAs. Further, poverty alleviation strategies should consider the cultural values of local communities concerned, as they
form the lenses through which livelihood activities such as livestock production are constituted (de Sherbinin et al., 2008; Alary et al.,
2011). Especially in contexts characterised by contestations over access to and use of PAs, as is the case at many South African PAs,
recognition of the contribution of livestock to various aspects of livelihoods could cultivate cordial relationships between con-
servation authorities and local communities.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Tamika Du-Pont: Data curation, Writing - review & editing. Cebokuhle Mandisa Nonzwakazi Vilakazi: Data curation, Writing
- review & editing. Gladman Thondhlana: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. Pål Vedeld: Formal analysis, Writing -
review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors of this manuscript certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any
financial interest (such as honoraria; edukcational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, con-
sultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest
(such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this
manuscript.

Acknowledgment

We thank the local communities for their willingness to participate in the study. We are grateful to the Rhodes University
Research Committee Grants for funding the study and the Newton Fund Researcher Links Travel Grant, ID 2018-RLTG10-10389 and
the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust for a sabbatical grant, which allowed time for writing the paper. We are also grateful to the
anonymous reviewers for critical and constructive feedback.

References

Adams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., Roe, D., Vira, B., Wolmer, W., 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of
poverty. Science 306, 1146–1149. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097920.
Alary, V., Christian, C., Gautier, D., 2011. Livestock's contribution to poverty alleviation: how to measure it? World Dev. 39 (9), 1638–1648.
Campbell, B.M., Luckert, M.K. (Eds.), 2002. Uncovering the Hidden Harvest; Valuation Methods for Woodland and Forest Resources. Earthscan, London (UK).
Chaminuka, P., Udo, H., Eilers, K., Van der Zijpp, A., 2014. Livelihood roles of cattle and prospects for alternative land uses at the wildlife/livestock interface in South
Africa. Land Use Pol. 38, 80–90.
Cundill, G., Bezerra, J.C., De Vos, A., Ntingana, N., 2017. Beyond benefit sharing: place attachment and the importance of access to protected areas for surrounding
communities. Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 140–148.
Cundill, G., Thondhlana, G., Sisitka, L., Shackleton, S., Blore, M., 2013. Land claims and the pursuit of co-management on four protected areas in South Africa. Land
Use Pol. 35, 171–178.
DAFF (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries), 2016. 2016 grazing capacity map for South Africa. www.daff.gov.za.
de Sherbinin, VanWey, L.K., McSweeney, K., Aggarwal, R., Barbieri, A., Henry, S., Hunter, L.M., Twine, W., Walker, R., 2008. Rural household demographics,
livelihood and the environment. Global Environ. Change 18, 38–53.
Do, T.L., Nguyen, T.T., Grote, U., 2019. Livestock production, rural welfare, and perceived shocks: evidence from panel data for Vietnam. J. Dev. Stud. 55 (1), 99–119.
Dovie, D., Shackleton, C., Witkowski, E., 2006. Valuation of communal area livestock benefits rural livelihoods and related policy issues. Land Use Pol. 23 (3),
260–271.
DRDLR – Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, 2010. Claims on Protected Areas. Update 2 July 2010. Office of the Chief Land Claims Commissioner,
Pretoria, Republic of South Africa.
Dudley, N., Groves, C., Redford, K.H., Stolton, S., 2014. Where now for protected areas? Setting the stage for the 2014 World Parks Congress. Oryx 48 (4), 496–503.
Ellis, F., 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, New York.
Fabricius, C., Burger, M., Hockey, P.A.R., 2003. Comparing biodiversity between protected areas and adjacent rangelands in xeric succulent thicket, South Africa:
arthropods and reptiles. J. Appl. Ecol. 40 (2), 392–403.
Falayi, M., Shackleton, S.E., Cundill Kemp, G., Shackleton, C.M., 2019. Changes in household use and sale of locally collected environmental resources over a 15-year
period in a rural village, South Africa. For. Trees Livelihoods 28 (2), 90–107.
Ferraro, P.J., Hanauer, M.M., 2015. Through what mechanisms do protected areas affect environmental and social outcomes? Philosophical Trans. Royal Soc.B 370
(1681), 20140267.
FAO, 2005. Livestock sector briefs. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/pubs_sap.html.
Hänke, H., Barkmann, J., 2017. Insurance function of livestock: farmers coping with crop failure in South Western Madagascar. World Dev. 96, 264–275.
Holmes-Watts, T., Watts, S., 2008. Legal frameworks for and the practice of participatory natural resources management in South Africa. For. Pol. Econ. 10 (7–8),
435–443.
Hutton, J., Adams, W.M., Murombedzi, J.C., 2005. Back to the barriers? Changing narratives in biodiversity conservation. Forum Dev. Stud. 32 (2), 342–370.
Kepe, T., Wynberg, R., Ellis, W., 2005. Land reform and biodiversity conservation in South Africa: complementary or in conflict? Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Manag. 1 (1),
3–16.

11
T. Du-Pont, et al. Environmental Development 33 (2020) 100508

Kristjanson, P., Krishna, A., Radeny, M., Nindo, W., 2004. Pathways Out of Poverty in Western Kenya and the Role of Livestock. Pro-poor Livestock Policy Initiative
Working Paper, No.14. FAO, Rome (Italy).
Lagesse, J., Thondhlana, G., 2016. The effect of land-use on small mammal diversity inside and outside the Great Fish River nature reserve, eastern cape, South Africa.
J. Arid Environ. 130, 76–83.
Leibbrandt, M., Woolard, I., Finn, A., Agent, J., 2010. Trends in South African Income Distribution and Poverty since the Fall of Apartheid. OECD Social, Employment
and Migration Working Papers 101 OECD Publishing.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well‐being: Policy Responses. Island Press, Washington DC.
Mtati, N., 2014. The Relative Contribution of Non-timber Forest Products, Agriculture and Off-Farm Sources of Income to Rural Households in Koloni and Guquka.
Unpublished Masters Thesis, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa Eastern Cape.
Mucina, L., Rutherford, M.C., 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.
Ntuli, H., Muchapondwa, E., 2017. Effects of wildlife resources on community welfare—income, poverty and inequality. Ecol. Econ. 131, 572–583.
Patel, S.J., Patel, M.D., Patel, J.H., Patel, A.S., Gelani, R.N., 2016. Role of women gender in livestock sector: a review. J. Livestock Sci. 7, 92–96.
Pica-Ciamarra, U., Tasciotti, L., Otte, J., Zezza, A., 2011. Livestock Assets, Livestock Income and Rural Households: Cross-Country Evidence from Household Surveys.
World Bank, FAO, ILRI.
Ramutsindela, M., 2003. Land reform in South Africa's national parks: a catalyst for the human–nature nexus. Land Use Pol. 20 (1), 41–49.
Ruwanza, S., Shackleton, C.M., 2016. Incorporation of environmental issues in South Africa's municipal integrated development plans. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol.
23 (1), 28–39.
Shafer, C.L., 2015. Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V-VI. Global Ecol. Conservation 3, 331–348.
Sjaastad, E., Angelsen, A., Vedeld, P., Bojo, J., 2005. What is environmental income? Ecol. Econ. 55 (1), 37–46.
Shackleton, S., Luckert, M., 2015. Changing livelihoods and landscapes in the rural Eastern Cape, South Africa: past influences and future trajectories. Land 4 (4),
1060–1089.
Shackleton, C.M., Shackleton, S.E., Netshiluvhi, T.R., Mathabela, F.R., 2005. The contribution and direct-use value of livestock to rural livelihoods in the Sand River
catchment, South Africa. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 22 (2), 127–140.
Statistics South Africa, 2017. https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/Report-03-10-06/Report-03-10-062015.pdf.
Thondhlana, G., Cundill, G., 2017. Local people and conservation officials' perceptions on relationships and conflicts in South African protected areas. Int. J. Biodiv.
Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 13 (1), 204–215.
Thondhlana, G., Cundill, G., Kepe, T., 2016. Co-management, land rights, and conflicts around South Africa's Silaka Nature Reserve. Soc. Nat. Resour. 29 (4), 403–417.
Thondhlana, G., Muchapondwa, E., 2014. Dependence on environmental resources and implication for household welfare: evidence from the Kalahari drylands, South
Africa. Ecol. Econ. 108, 59–67.
Thondhlana, G., Shackleton, S., Blignaut, J., 2015. Local institutions, actors, and natural resource governance in Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and surrounds, South
Africa. Land Use Pol. 47, 121–129.
Vedeld, P., Jumane, A., Wapalila, G., Songorwa, A., 2012. Protected areas, poverty and conflicts: a livelihood case study of Mikumi National Park, Tanzania. For. Pol.
Econ. 21, 20–31.

12