Doctoral Degrees (Centre for Environmental Management)
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Doctoral Degrees (Centre for Environmental Management) by Author "Seaman, M. T."
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access A bioindicator protocol for sustainable agribusiness in South Africa, using new crops as case studies(University of the Free State, 2014-11) Swart, Vaughn Richmond; Louw, S. VdM.; Seaman, M. T.; Louw, S.English: This study is innovative in that it proposes an Index determined by the functional qualities of arthropods and relates a monetary value to these qualities, based on new crop case studies conducted at two contrasting agroecosystem sites in South Africa. The sustainability of an agribusiness depends on the conservation of its biodiversity. The development of a robust methodology that can be used in an Environmental Management System (EMS) is thus necessary by (i) implementing measures of arthropod and general vegetation biodiversity and (ii) incorporating a monetary value to functional diversity, as mechanisms to indicate the degree of disturbance within the agro-ecosystem. The main objectives were to determine the relationship between arthropod diversity indices (species richness, abundance and evenness) and arthropod assemblages; to determine the relationship between the edge effect reaction of arthropods and the resistance and resilience of an agroecosystem; to determine the relationship between agricultural practices (such as pesticides and fertilizers), surrounding vegetation and arthropod richness and abundance; and to determine the relationship between arthropod species richness and abundance, and the proposed AFI (Agroecosystem Function Index), which is based upon the economic value of ecosystem services. Case studies were conducted to pinpoint potential indices of an ecological nature, with specific reference to the diversity indices of arthropods, as part of the methodology. Arthropods were used as an indicator community since they are prevalent, have high species diversity, are easy to sample, are important in ecosystem function, provide early detection of ecological changes and respond to environmental changes faster than vertebrates. The influence of agricultural management practices on this diversity is also taken into consideration. Quantitative and qualitative analysis revealed distinct patterns within the biodiversity at all the locations, relative to the frequency and diversity of vegetation sampled. Thus aspects of ecology (edge-effect, guild structure and functional diversity) should indicate a relationship between communities, which in turn would indicate the level of ecosystem integrity. The level of ecological integrity could be taken into consideration when adopting a quality Environmental Management System (EMS). Possibilities of incorporating a monetary value model, such as the Agroecosystem Function Index (AFI), to biodiversity analysis, that in turn has a bearing on ecosystem services and agribusiness, is also addressed. An EMS bio-indicator protocol is important as an aid to reduce the impact of agricultural management practices on the agro-ecosystem and to increase its functional efficiency.Item Open Access Development of sustainability indicators for catchment management information systems(University of the Free State, 2002-11) Walmsley, J. J.; Seaman, M. T.; Walmsley, R. D.Abstract not availableItem Open Access A participatory sustainability assessment framework for biodiversity conservation in rural areas(University of the Free State, 2008) Letšela, Limpho Malerato Senior; Pelser, A. J.; Seaman, M. T.English: Biodiversity conservation is critical for the continued supply of ecosystem services to secure the sustainability of livelihoods, especially for poor rural people. Therefore, current rates of biodiversity loss, which threaten human survival, need to be curbed using effective interventions. Implementation and decision-making on interventions require timely information. Undertaking a Sustainability Assessment (SA) and structuring this information within a SA framework of components and objectives is one effective way to aid decision-makers. An effective SA framework addresses key sustainability issues and priorities that are aligned with the regulatory policy and legal framework, as well as stakeholder aspirations. Sustainability Assessment development and application is evolving and is more widespread in developed countries than developing countries. Hence, this study sought to investigate how to apply SA in a participatory manner within rural areas in a developing country. Key objectives of the study focused on: i) identification of key aspects that make a SA framework effective; ii) mechanisms of effectively incorporating participation into SA processes; iii) investigations of the perceptions of stakeholders regarding the ecosystem and human conditions required for the sustainability of biodiversity conservation; and iv) determination of stakeholder perceptions on progress towards sustainability. The study was conducted in Lesotho within a trans-boundary project area. The project is known as the MDTP and is a collaborative initiative between Lesotho and South Africa to conserve globally significant biodiversity. A qualitative case study approach was employed through a combination of techniques including a literature review, field observations, key informant interviews, group discussions and workshops to collect data. Study participants consisted of MDTP partners at the national, district and local levels, and some members of the general community. Two SA tools were applied in a complementary manner during the study, namely the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) SA approach and the Community Sustainability Assessment (CSA) approach, developed by the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN). Experiences of applying sustainability assessment in both developed and developing countries revealed that an overall generic SA tool is not practical. There is a need for a context-specific framework consisting of principles, criteria, generic steps, objectives, indicators, a toolkit and other context-specific components. The SA framework employed in this study had to fit biodiversity conservation conditions in rural areas. The SA process revealed that the MDTP partners were knowledgeable about the conditions of sustainability and threats to biodiversity, while members of the general community were unaware of these threats. Regarding progress towards the sustainability of biodiversity in the study area, the results indicated that current practices are unsustainable, more from the point of view of the socio-ecological components than the socio-cultural and spiritual or the socio-economic components. Consequently, there is a need to raise awareness at the community level and implement action plans to realize changes that support the sustainability of biodiversity in the long-term. Key components for a participatory SA framework depend on whether a SA is a partial assessment or a full one. The components of a partial SA framework also depend on whether the focus is on reflection and learning or data handling. Hence, the main components of a participatory sustainability assessment framework comprise: a comprehensive vision of sustainable development; goals towards attaining the vision; a participatory process engaging various stakeholders; a toolkit of appropriate SA tools used for various tasks; relevant principles of sustainability assessment; and sustainability-led decision criteria. There is no blueprint on how to undertake a SA process and no rigid way of integrating participation within the SA processes. The application of a SA requires adaptability and flexibility in specific circumstances. Therefore, the study presents guidelines, key components of a participatory SA process, and highlights the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for applying a SA for biodiversity conservation in rural areas. Key words: sustainability assessment, stakeholder participation, environmental assessment, biodiversity conservation, rural areas, sustainability assessment framework.Item Open Access A participatory sustainability assessment framework for biodiversity conservation in rural areas(University of the Free State, 2008) Letšela, Limpho Malerato Senior; Pelser, A. J.; Seaman, M. T.English: Biodiversity conservation is critical for the continued supply of ecosystem services to secure the sustainability of livelihoods, especially for poor rural people. Therefore, current rates of biodiversity loss, which threaten human survival, need to be curbed using effective interventions. Implementation and decision-making on interventions require timely information. Undertaking a Sustainability Assessment (SA) and structuring this information within a SA framework of components and objectives is one effective way to aid decision-makers. An effective SA framework addresses key sustainability issues and priorities that are aligned with the regulatory policy and legal framework, as well as stakeholder aspirations. Sustainability Assessment development and application is evolving and is more widespread in developed countries than developing countries. Hence, this study sought to investigate how to apply SA in a participatory manner within rural areas in a developing country. Key objectives of the study focused on: i) identification of key aspects that make a SA framework effective; ii) mechanisms of effectively incorporating participation into SA processes; iii) investigations of the perceptions of stakeholders regarding the ecosystem and human conditions required for the sustainability of biodiversity conservation; and iv) determination of stakeholder perceptions on progress towards sustainability. The study was conducted in Lesotho within a trans-boundary project area. The project is known as the MDTP and is a collaborative initiative between Lesotho and South Africa to conserve globally significant biodiversity. A qualitative case study approach was employed through a combination of techniques including a literature review, field observations, key informant interviews, group discussions and workshops to collect data. Study participants consisted of MDTP partners at the national, district and local levels, and some members of the general community. Two SA tools were applied in a complementary manner during the study, namely the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) SA approach and the Community Sustainability Assessment (CSA) approach, developed by the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN). Experiences of applying sustainability assessment in both developed and developing countries revealed that an overall generic SA tool is not practical. There is a need for a context-specific framework consisting of principles, criteria, generic steps, objectives, indicators, a toolkit and other context-specific components. The SA framework employed in this study had to fit biodiversity conservation conditions in rural areas. The SA process revealed that the MDTP partners were knowledgeable about the conditions of sustainability and threats to biodiversity, while members of the general community were unaware of these threats. Regarding progress towards the sustain ability of biodiversity in the study area, the results indicated that current practices are unsustainable, more from the point of view of the socio-ecological components than the socio-cultural and spiritual or the socio-economic components. Consequently, there is a need to raise awareness at the community level and implement action plans to realize changes that support the sustainability of biodiversity in the long-term. Key components for a participatory SA framework depend on whether a SA is a partial assessment or a full one. The components of a partial SA framework also depend on whether the focus is on reflection and learning or data handling. Hence, the main components of a participatory sustainability assessment framework comprise: a comprehensive vision of sustainable development; goals towards attaining the vision; a participatory process engaging various stakeholders; a toolkit of appropriate SA tools used for various tasks; relevant principles of sustainability assessment; and sustainability-led decision criteria. There is no blueprint on how to undertake a SA process and no rigid way of integrating participation within the SA processes. The application of a SA requires adaptability and flexibility in specific circumstances. Therefore, the study presents guidelines, key components of a participatory SA process, and highlights the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for applying a SA for biodiversity conservation in rural areas.Item Open Access A study on periphyton as indicator of water-quality in regulated rivers(University of the Free State, 2015-01) Vos, Adriana Tascha; Seaman, M. T.; Van Ginkel, C. E.; Scott, W. E.In the central part of South Africa, where the average rainfall is 400–600 mm/yr and evaporation far exceeds precipitation, it is important to monitor the limited freshwater resources that are available and to keep the aquatic environment in an acceptable state. Excessive nutrients (N and P) lead to algal blooms and deterioration of other aquatic biota as the water quality declines. Biological monitoring methods and programmes have been instrumental in the management and monitoring of the health of aquatic ecosystems. Various biomonitoring indices have been developed, using fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton and periphyton (including Bacillariophyta), as site- or non-site-specific indicators of water quality. Periphyton forms the foundation of many food webs. It is adaptable to the availability of a habitat and is directly affected by changes in water quality. In unregulated rivers, “normal” flow patterns and disturbance regimes shape the benthic community composition, while in regulated rivers the “unpredictability” of flow (as an example) adds extra stress to the ecosystem. The overall objective of this study was to determine the position of periphyton (as a group) as a biomonitoring tool and which of its components would be best suited as indicators of water quality. This study was carried out over two periods of 24 months each at two sites on the Modder River and one on the Renoster Spruit. The sites were selected because SASS5 (standard benthic macroinvertebrate index of water quality) could be carried out on “stones in current”, as this is the preferred habitat for sampling periphyton. The physical and chemical factors sampled were temperature (°C), turbidity (NTU), flow (m/s), dissolved oxygen (mg/ℓ and % saturation), electrical conductivity (μS/cm) and total dissolved salts (mg/ℓ), pH, redox potential (mV), nutrients (including dissolved inorganic phosphorus and nitrogen) and chlorophyll-a. The biotas sampled were periphyton, phytoplankton and benthic macroinvertebrates. Statistical analyses were carried out on all sampled data. Correlations and patterns between the periphyton values and the physical, chemical and biological conditions were investigated. The effect of seasonality on the periphyton and the influence of hydrological phases (dry and wet periods) on the periphyton were examined. Results indicate that the composition of the periphyton is shaped by seasons. An increase of Bacillariophyta was found during winter, and Chlorophyta and Cyanophyta during summer. The increase of flow during wet periods had a negative effect on the biovolume of periphyton, as fewer filamentous and colonial algae were present during the wet period. The cell and chlorophyll-a concentration also decreased because of dislodgement during high flow. Even though the nutrients had an influence on all the periphytic algal components, the best correlations were found with the periphytic chlorophyll-a concentration. The periphyton composition and concentration were compared to the biomonitoring indices used on the sampled rivers and sites, namely FRAI (fish) and SASS5 (benthic macroinvertebrates), as well as phytoplankton. To conclude, it was found that periphyton could be used as a biomonitoring indicator in the monitoring and management of water quality. However, as the standard biomonitoring indices operate on different spatial scales and measures, the best results would be obtained if all, or a combination of indices, were used.