This difference in South Africa is likely because of a focus on livelihoods, rather
than a species-centred framing. We suggest therefore that more people-centred
frameworks could be useful to promote more integrated understanding of invasions
and their effects on human wellbeing. For improving further understanding, incorporating larger spatial and temporal frames would be useful. Most studies cover a
restricted time period and do not adequately show how longer-term changes in
benefits and costs affect people (Shackleton et al. 2007), and what drives the change.
Similarly, many studies only focus on one group of actors.
24.4.3 Proposition 3c: The Negative Social Impacts
of Invasive Species on Local Livelihoods are of More
Concern to People than Impacts on Biodiversity
Most of the work on invasion science in South Africa has focused on biological
aspects, with relatively little work on the social aspects (Abrahams et al. 2019), and
this bias is common globally (Kull and Tassin 2012; Vaz et al. 2017a). Despite this,
some South African research has examined the interaction between invasive species
and people’s livelihoods—commonly in rural areas (Shackleton et al. 2019c).
Local communities in the Eastern Cape were mainly concerned about the social
impacts of A. dealbata (Ngorima and Shackleton 2019) and mentioned the impacts
of its roots on buildings, effects on cropping activities, issues with crime, and
impacts on cultural sites. A handful of villagers mentioned the impacts of
A. dealbata on water resources but none mentioned its impacts on biodiversity. In
the Drakensberg region of the Eastern Cape, over 50% of villagers mentioned the
impacts of Acacia invasions on crime rates, while 41% mentioned their impacts on
water supply and security (although the authors note that “one may question whether
this is a real perception or one borrowed from the WfW programme” (de Neergaard
et al. 2005). Other concerns, voiced by a minority, included their impacts on grazing
land and detrimental effects on native species (de Neergaard et al. 2005). In the
Kalahari, local communities mentioned eight disservices as a result of Prosopis tree
invasions (Shackleton and Shackleton 2018). The highest-ranked disservices were
social (water resources, human health, infrastructure); the second lowest-ranked
(7th) was its effects on species richness. In the same study, the impacts of invasive
O. ficus-indica on human health were ranked highly (30% of respondents), while
only 1% mentioned biodiversity impacts.
Other studies showed that people place importance on the negative impacts of
biological invasions on biodiversity, although these impacts are also cited amongst
social issues too. For example, communal villages and commercial farmers most
commonly mentioned the negative effects of Prosopis on water, followed by loss of
grazing on commercial farms, and detrimental effects on native plant biodiversity
and to a lesser extent a variety of socioeconomic effects, such as reducing property
value, revenue loss and effects on human health and infrastructure (Shackleton et al.
24 The Social Dimensions of Biological Invasions in South Africa
715
than a species-centred framing. We suggest therefore that more people-centred
frameworks could be useful to promote more integrated understanding of invasions
and their effects on human wellbeing. For improving further understanding, incorporating larger spatial and temporal frames would be useful. Most studies cover a
restricted time period and do not adequately show how longer-term changes in
benefits and costs affect people (Shackleton et al. 2007), and what drives the change.
Similarly, many studies only focus on one group of actors.
24.4.3 Proposition 3c: The Negative Social Impacts
of Invasive Species on Local Livelihoods are of More
Concern to People than Impacts on Biodiversity
Most of the work on invasion science in South Africa has focused on biological
aspects, with relatively little work on the social aspects (Abrahams et al. 2019), and
this bias is common globally (Kull and Tassin 2012; Vaz et al. 2017a). Despite this,
some South African research has examined the interaction between invasive species
and people’s livelihoods—commonly in rural areas (Shackleton et al. 2019c).
Local communities in the Eastern Cape were mainly concerned about the social
impacts of A. dealbata (Ngorima and Shackleton 2019) and mentioned the impacts
of its roots on buildings, effects on cropping activities, issues with crime, and
impacts on cultural sites. A handful of villagers mentioned the impacts of
A. dealbata on water resources but none mentioned its impacts on biodiversity. In
the Drakensberg region of the Eastern Cape, over 50% of villagers mentioned the
impacts of Acacia invasions on crime rates, while 41% mentioned their impacts on
water supply and security (although the authors note that “one may question whether
this is a real perception or one borrowed from the WfW programme” (de Neergaard
et al. 2005). Other concerns, voiced by a minority, included their impacts on grazing
land and detrimental effects on native species (de Neergaard et al. 2005). In the
Kalahari, local communities mentioned eight disservices as a result of Prosopis tree
invasions (Shackleton and Shackleton 2018). The highest-ranked disservices were
social (water resources, human health, infrastructure); the second lowest-ranked
(7th) was its effects on species richness. In the same study, the impacts of invasive
O. ficus-indica on human health were ranked highly (30% of respondents), while
only 1% mentioned biodiversity impacts.
Other studies showed that people place importance on the negative impacts of
biological invasions on biodiversity, although these impacts are also cited amongst
social issues too. For example, communal villages and commercial farmers most
commonly mentioned the negative effects of Prosopis on water, followed by loss of
grazing on commercial farms, and detrimental effects on native plant biodiversity
and to a lesser extent a variety of socioeconomic effects, such as reducing property
value, revenue loss and effects on human health and infrastructure (Shackleton et al.
24 The Social Dimensions of Biological Invasions in South Africa
715