Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31312470›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2019

Ecosystem services and ecological degradation of communal wetlands in a South African biodiversity hotspot.

A Owethu Pantshwa, Falko T Buschke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

A Owethu PantshwaCentre for Environmental Management (67), University of the Free State, P.O. Box 339 Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa.
Falko T BuschkeCentre for Environmental Management (67), University of the Free State, P.O. Box 339 Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-1167-7810

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wetlands provide important ecosystem services to rural communities. However, wetlands are often on communal land, so they may become degraded when individual users act to maximize their personal benefit from ecosystem services without bearing the full environmental costs of their actions. Although it is possible to manage communal resources sustainably, this depends on the dynamics of the socio-ecological system. In this study, we used a structured questionnaire to examine whether demographic characteristics of a rural community and the propensity for partaking in damage-causing activities affected the benefits obtained from the wetlands. Responses from 50 households in the rural Hlabathi administrative area within the Maputo-Albany-Pondoland Biodiversity Hotspot, South Africa, indicated that the entire community obtains some benefits from wetlands; most notably regulating ecosystem services. However, males were more likely to benefit from wetlands, which highlights a potential power imbalance. Respondents were more likely to blame others for wetland degradation, although there was no link between the damage-causing activities and benefits from wetlands. The high dependence on ecosystem services by community members, when combined with gender-based power imbalances and the propensity to blame others, could jeopardize the sustainable use of communal wetlands. Therefore, we describe how strong leadership could nurture a sustainable social-ecological system by integrating ecological information and social empowerment into a multi-level governance system.

Indexed as

common-pool resourcesecosystem servicesnatural resourcessustainable usewetlands

Identifiers

PMID31312470
PMCPMC6599807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.