Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Relationships between the local environment, household resource use and human well-being in the Agincourt Health and Demographic Surveillance site, South Africa
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Relationships between the local environment, household resource use and human well-being in the Agincourt Health and Demographic Surveillance site, South Africa

5,185
views

Published on

Relationships between the local environment, household resource use and human well-being in the Agincourt Health and Demographic Surveillance site, South Africa

Relationships between the local environment, household resource use and human well-being in the Agincourt Health and Demographic Surveillance site, South Africa

Published in: Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
5,185
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Relationships between the localenvironment, household resource use and human well-being in theAgincourt Health and Demographic Surveillance site, South Africa Dr Wayne Twine School of Animal, Plant & Environmental Sciences University of the Witwatersrand South Africa
  • 2. Context• Former Apartheid “homeland”• Resettlement villages• Communal land tenure on state land• 170-300 people/km2• Traditional authorities & local govt• Poor infrastructure• High levels of unemployment & poverty• High levels of migrant labour• High reliance on local natural resources
  • 3. Wits Rural Facility• Multi-disciplinary rural campus of the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits)• Used by a range of university departments and units as a base for research, student training & civic engagement in nearby rural areas• Facilities: staff accommodation, visitor accommodation, offices, lecture rooms, wireless internet etc.• 350 ha savanna estate.
  • 4. Research based at WRF• Agincourt Health and Population Unit (School of Public Health): – Health, population and socio-economic trends and transitions in a rural population – Agincourt Health and Demographic Surveillance System (AHDSS) – Annual census in 24 villages (84 000 people in 14 000 households) since 1992 – Census modules (e.g. assets; food security) – Once-off samples – Intervention studies (e.g. HIV; stroke; nutrition) – Member of INDEPTH network
  • 5. Worldwide INDEPTH network of DSS sites
  • 6. • Sustaining Natural Resources in African Ecosystems - SUNRAE (School of Animal, Plant & Environmental Sciences): – Natural resource use and rural livelihoods – Community based natural resource management – Resource ecology of heavily impacted savannas – Post-graduate students
  • 7. Some insights from collaboration between AHDSS and SUNRAE Use of natural resources specifically to save money 30 a HIV mortality 25 a Non-HIV mortality a No mortality% of households 20 a 15 a a a 10 a 5 b b b b 0 Wild vegetables Wild fruit Insects Fuelwood
  • 8. Bivariate associations household experience of hunger and use of natural resources. Values are odds ratios (p<0.05). Worried about Worried, ran out Mortality impactedResource use Ran out of food food AND went hungry on amount of foodUse insects - 0.35 0.42 -Use fuelwood 2.53 2.58 4.03 -Use resources to 2.47 - - 3.39save moneyRely more on wild - - 5.45 -veg. after mortality
  • 9. SUCSES project Sustainability in Communal Socio- Ecological Systems (SUCSES)• Longitudinal study of household livelihoods & the environment nested in the AHDSS• AIM: to investigate dynamic relationships between household livelihoods, environment and human-wellbeing in a rural socio-ecological system undergoing rapid change
  • 10. • Panel study: 600 households randomly sampled from across 9 villages in the Agincourt Health and Demographic Surveillance System (AHDSS) site• Detailed household livelihoods questionnaire (annual, starting in 2010)• 56 Permanent vegetation monitoring plots (annual, starting 2011) and climatic data (rainfall, temperature) (continuous, starting 2010)
  • 11. Study villages (light blue) with village commons boundaries
  • 12. Some preliminary results
  • 13. Data• 2010 baseline household livelihoods data• Natural resource use: use (including livestock), frequency of use, buying & selling• Household characteristics: size, sex ratio, dependency ratio, income, assets, shocks• Village resource availability: area of commons, mean NDVI in 1 km buffer, overlap with other villages in 1 km buffer• Human well-being: Food security
  • 14. Study villages (light blue) with 1 km buffers
  • 15. ResultsResource Use Patterns
  • 16. Prevalence of resource use
  • 17. Frequency distribution of number of local natural resources used by households (excl. livestock forage)
  • 18. Prevalence of purchasing commonly used resources
  • 19. Prevalence of selling local natural products
  • 20. Multi-variate associations
  • 21. Household drivers of resource useHousehold uses the resource (coefficient = log-odds, (^<0.10, *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001)Independent variable Own cattle Own goats Firewood Wild fruit Wild veges Edible insects Med plantPermanent residents 0.028 0.106*** 0.235** 0.058* 0.278** -0.004** 0.074**Total asstes 0.384*** 0.106 -0.312** -0.093* -0.140 -0.017 0.074Total shocks -0.062 -0.086 -0.164 -0.027 -0.414 0.310^ 0.172Model p value <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
  • 22. How does village context influence resource use?
  • 23. Food security and resource use• Households experiencing crop failure in last 12 months: 31.2%• Households experiencing food shortage in the last 12 months: 48.6%• Number of coping strategies in last 7 days (% of households): 0 - 66.38% 1 - 10.92% 2 - 9.36% 3 - 7.11% 4 - 6.24 %
  • 24. Conclusion• Dependence on local natural resources continues to be pervasive in rural communities despite severe degradation in some areas• Driven by poverty and lack of other resources to cope with shocks and stresses• Food insecurity is widespread• Importance of resources for cost-savings & household resilience• Use of local natural resources = important buffer against hardship BUT not generally a pathway out of poverty and food insecurity
  • 25. The way forward• Linking resource use with health and child nutrition• Temporal trends (household experience of shocks, changing rainfall, environmental degradation, changing food prices etc)• Profiles of vulnerable households
  • 26. Thank you