Interactions between social capital, natural capital, and resource use in the central lowveld of Mpumalanga province, South Africa

• Main Author: Mbiba, Monicah
• Format: Others
• Language: en
• Published: 2018
• Online Access: https://hdl.handle.net/10539/25744

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand, in fulfillment of the academic requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 1 June 2018 === Rural livelihoods have been described through livelihood strategies and capitals that contribute, singly or jointly to derive outcomes for human well-being and environmental change. However, the ways in which these capitals, particularly social capital, translate to better household welfare or improved natural resource management, although a subject of widespread discussion, remain poorly understood. This study addresses the above research gap by exploring the relationships between the availability of natural resources in communal woodlands (natural capital), natural resource use patterns at the household level pre- and post-experience of shocks, and how these relate to the level of social capital, at both the community and household levels, in a rural region of South Africa. Natural resource use and household characterization data were obtained from an existing longitudinal dataset collected for 590 households in nine villages of Bushbuckridge Local Municipality in South Africa, from 2010 to 2014. Natural resource availability was estimated from remote-sensed data using the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI) as a proxy. Social capital data were collected from the household survey, nine focus group discussions, and seven key informant interviews in the study villages. First, empirical models were constructed for the effect of social capital on other household capitals and natural resource use at household level. Second, the study examined the role of natural resources and social capital as safety nets against vulnerability emanating from negative shocks in rural households. Third, in order to improve understanding of social capital as an outcome of natural resource availability, variation of social capital dimensions of reciprocity and membership in societal groups was investigated across a natural resource availability gradient. Lastly, community social capital indices were developed to test the hypothesis that villages with more communal social capital have lower levels of environmental degradation, and thus better natural resource availability. Social capital had differential impacts on the three dimensions of natural resource use. Social capital had a positive association with number of natural resources used, and the intensity of natural resource use per household, but had no relationship with the quantity of natural resources used. As such, social capital does not substitute for natural capital, but rather complements its role in household livelihoods. Household experience of negative shocks was consistently associated with a significant increase in all dimensions of natural resource use. However, social capital did not significantly reduce natural resource use when households experienced shocks. It is evident that negative shocks are associated with an increase in natural resource use, and that the role of social capital is not sufficient to cushion households when they experience negative shocks. Both reciprocity-receive and reciprocity-give were higher in villages with medium EVI compared to those in high EVI. Group memberships decreased from high to low EVI clusters. The study discovered the importance of disaggregating the components of what is collectively referred to social capital in empirical studies because as described, the performance of different variables of what constitute social capital can vary in response to natural resource availability. Generally, villages with lower aggregate social capital index had low resource availability, whereas trust and satisfaction with local governance did not vary across villages or EVI zones. There was no significant relationship between all dimensions of social capital and natural resource availability, after controlling for natural resource use. There was widespread non-compliance and rule breaking in rural communities due to lack of alternatives, regardless of the level of social capital. Fundamentally, this study fails to substantiate the claim, through empirical evidence, that social capital improves natural resource availability, through improvement of natural resource governance. The findings of this study necessitate critical inquiry into the place of social capital in both natural resource management and household well-being, particularly when they experience shocks. In addition, there is need to investigate further why social capital fails to match its posited role as a safety net when households face negative shocks. === MT 2018