Natural Resources, 2011, 2, 130-139
doi:10.4236/nr.2011.22018 Published Online 6 2011 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/nr)
Are Traditionally Used Resources within
Conservation Areas a Function of Their Sizes?
Thokozani Simelane
Centre for African Ecology, Nelson Mandela University and South African National Parks, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
Received April 13th, 2011; revised May 9th, 2011; accepted May 18th, 2011.
ABSTRACT
A perception that there is a proportional relationship between the size of a conservation area and the occurrence or
abundance of resources available was tested in this paper. This was done by evaluating the occurrence (from records of
plant and animal species) of traditionally used biological resources from four national parks of South Africa that have
different sizes. Results o btained show tha t contrary to a general be lief that bigger con s ervation areas migh t have higher
proportions and possibly abundance of traditionally used resources, this is not true. In addition, results reflected that
the occurrence of traditionally used biological resources within the conservation areas is not a function (in terms of the
size) of their sizes. Drawing this relationship has put forth a question of whether there is a direct relationship between
the biodiversity of conservation estates and the resources available. While this study did not attempt to provide an ab-
solute answer to this question, it has laid a fou ndatio n to tackle it fu rth er. Prov iding answers to questions like these will
not only increase the eco logical value of conserva tion areas among traditional societies b ut will also help to a lign con-
servation estates with TRIPS (trade related aspects of intellectual property) and other international instruments like
CBD (Convention on biodiversity). All which call for inclusive approach to the management of natural resources and
biodiversity.
Keywords: Conservation, Traditionally Used Resources, Conservation Areas, National Parks, Biodiversity
1. Introduction
In addition to their primary functions of conserving
biodiversity and fragile ecosystems, conservation areas
are known to promote the protection of different species
of plants and animals that are used as traditional resources
(e.g. traditional medicines). These are referred to as tradi-
tionally use biological resources [1-3]. To date more than
3000 plant species are known to be used as traditional
medicines. These include not less than 350 species that
are freely traded on streets and herbalists’ shops [3,4].
Approximately 20 000 tons of these plants species are
harvested annually for trading as traditional medicines
[5,6]. Trading with these plants provides income for some
communities [5,7] and it is estimated that not less than $
90 million is generated annually [7-11].
Considering the conservation statuses of most of these
plant species [12], their presence in conservation areas
demonstrates a critical role that is played by conservation
areas in conserving and preserving a component of bio-
diversity that is used as traditional resources. Their exis-
tence within conservation areas can further be considered
as representing a portion of biodiversity that is better un-
derstood and recognized by traditional societies [13,14].
As the case with plant species, more than 280 verte-
brates species are known to be used and sold for tradi-
tional and cultural purposes [15]. These include 171
mammals, 58 birds, 31 reptiles and various marine organ-
isms [15]. A larger proportion of these species, some with
critical conservation status (e.g. Panthera pardus and Eri-
naceus frontalis), are also freely available for sale in street
markets and herbalists’ shops [15]. This happens in spite
of heightened efforts by conservation agencies to con-
serve them.
Of all animal groups that are traded in the markets,
mammals constitute the highest proportion (about 61%),
with more than 150 species being found in herbalist shops
[16,17]. Of critical note is that thirty one percent of these
species are listed in Red Data Books [8,18-20]. The gen-
eral tendency is that species with critical conservation
status are in high demand and are thus highly priced
[21,22]. This could be one of the causes of the reduction
(in numbers) of these species outside conservation areas

Are Traditionally Used Resources within Conservation Areas a Function of Their Sizes? 131
[17,23,24,]. In this context, the role of conservation areas
in protecting these species is quite critical. With addi-
tional effects of climate change, habitat destruction,
hunting [25], road kills, illegal poaching, poisoning and
deaths through natural diseases, it is obvious that the fu-
ture existence, outside conservation areas, of most ani-
mals that are used as traditional resources cannot be
guaranteed [23,26,27].
As numbers of traditionally used resources continue to
decline outside conservation areas, there is a growing
perception that these resources are in abundant within the
borders of conservation areas. This perception is some-
how a major cause for conflict between conservation au-
thorities and communities around conservation areas, who
demand access to these resources.
In addition to this, there also exist a perception that
larger conservation areas are rich in traditionally used
resources, both in terms of diversity and abundance. In
the existence of this perception, this analysis was con-
ducted with the aim of determining the availability of
these resources in relation to the size and biodiversity of
the parks. The study analyzed four national parks of
South Africa (i.e. Addo Elephant National Park (AENP),
Golden Gate Highlands National Park (GGHNP), Moun-
tain Zebra National Park (MZNP) and Karoo National
Park (KRNP)). In the face of changing conservation phi-
losophies and the stance of conservation authorities on
biodiversity and its management through community
support [12], the presence of traditionally used biological
resources within conservation areas represent a buffer
between western based conservation approaches and tra-
ditional methods of managing and conserving biodiver-
sity [28,29]. This analysis considered that highlighting the
role of conservation areas in protecting a component of
biodiversity that is used as traditional resources could
increase the awareness of the importance of conserving of
biodiversity by users of these resources and thus enhance
the value of conservation of biodiversity among all com-
munities. The study tested the hypotheses that:
a) conservation areas are rich in plant and animal spe-
cies used as traditional resources,
b) these resources are a function of the number of spe-
cies available in a conservation areas,
c) their presence within the conservation area differ in
the proportion of plant and animal species available,
d) they tend to have critical conservation statuses and
e) their proportions within conservation areas vary
between taxa and the size of the conservation area.
Many years ago, Siegfried [30] made a significant
comment on the lack of reliable comprehensive biodiver-
sity records and analysis for conservation areas. Since this
comment, considerable efforts were made to address this
issue, particularly for national parks. This resulted into a
number of publications and establishment of data bases
on records of plants (especially within the national parks
of South Africa) (KSANP Data Base 1985-1998; van
Wyk [31], Du Preez & Bezuidenhout [32], Pond [33],
Botha [34] available within conservation areas. With a
combined impetus of these efforts and investments made
on determining values of biodiversity to human develop-
ment, additional importance and meaning of biodiversity
to various communities (including traditional societies)
have also been determined and defining biodiversity
through values provided by all societies (inclusive of tra-
ditional societies) has become critical.
2. Research Methods
Existing records such as Liversidge [35], Roberts [36],
Bates [37], Earlė & Lawson [38], Bezuidenhout [39,40],
Johnson [41], Williams [42] and checklists such as van
Wyk [31], Zietsman [43] as well as unpublished data of
plants (KSANP1 Data Base 1985-1998) and animals
Knight & Hall-Martin [44], Castley & Knight [45] that
occur within four national parks of South Africa (AENP,
MZNP, KRNP and GGHNP) were used in this study, to
compile lists of traditionally used plant and animal spe-
cies available. In addition data bases such as PRECIS,
SARARES and MEDBASE were inspected for additional
information (http://www.nbi.ac.za/information/databases.
htm) on traditional uses of various species. Additional
information about traditional and cultural uses of identi-
fied species was obtained from the published literature
[1,34,46-55] traditional healers, street vendors and com-
munities around the studied national parks. In determin-
ing the possible impacts of traditional uses of identified
plants and animals species conservation statuses of iden-
tified species were determined using the Red Data Books:
Smithers [18] for mammals, Branch [56] for reptiles, Hil-
ton-Taylor [57] for plants and Barnes [58] for birds.
2.1. Statistical Analyses
The number of plant and animal species recorded in each
park was correlated to the number of available tradition-
ally used plant and animal species, through a Spearman’s
correlation analysis [59]. This tested the hypothesis that
traditionally used resources available in a park could be
the function of the number of species available and size of
the park; thereby investigating the possibility that more
diverse conservation areas may have higher proportions
of traditionally used resources.
The differences in the availability of traditionally used
resources between the parks were compared statistically
through a Chi-squared (2

) analysis [59]. This tested the
hypothesis that parks differ in the proportions of plant and
1 Kimberley South African National Parks Herbarium
C opyright © 2011 SciRes. NR

Are Traditionally Used Resources within Conservation Areas a Function of Their Sizes? 132
animal species used as traditional resources. Differences
in the proportions of plant and animal species used as
traditional resources in each park and the proportions of
plant and animal species not used were again compared
statistically, using a Chi-squared analysis. Differences
between the used and threatened proportions of plant and
animal species (as indicated by being listed in Red Data
Books) and those listed but not used were also compared
statistically using a Chi-Squared analysis [59]. This tested
the hypothesis that plants and animals used as traditional
resources tend to have threatened conservation statuses.
In addition, differences between the taxa of vertebrate
species recorded as used for different traditional purposes
were compared using a Chi-squared analysis. This tested
the hypothesis that proportions of species used as tradi-
tional resources in conservation areas vary between the
taxa.
3. Results
3.1. Plant Species Used as Traditional Resources
A total of 1463 plant species were recorded as occurring
within the four studied national parks. Six hundred and
twenty five of these species (42.7%) occurred in AENP,
479 (32.7%) in MZNP, 124 (8.5%) in GGHNP and 235
(16.1%) in KRNP (Table 1). One hundred and seventy
three of these species (9.5%) were found to be used for
different traditional purposes, with MZNP (30%) having
higher proportions of traditionally used plant species than
the three other parks (AENP, GGHNP and KRNP) (Ta-
ble 1). The occurrence of traditionally-used plant species
(in the parks) was positively correlated (r = 0.43, df = 4, p
< 0.05) to the total number of species available within
each park.
Eighty five percent (124) of the identified traditional
resource plant species were mainly used as traditional
medicines and 17% for non-medicinal uses. The non-
medicinal uses included food (17 species), tools (10 spe-
cies) and building material (7 species). Fruits and berries
of some species were identified as being eaten, with some
being particularly important as a dietary supplement dur-
ing times of famine. Roots, bulbs and tubers served as
starch supplements and leaves of certain species (mostly
herbs) as vegetables. Parts targeted for medicinal uses
varied and ranged from the whole plant (for herbs and
geophytes) to roots, leaves and fruits.
While the chemical content of the plant species is con-
sidered to be the main determinant of most species used
in traditional medicine [60], the use of other species e-
merged to be largely due to their association with tradi-
tional beliefs. Of note Celtis africana, whose wood is
believed to provide protection against the bad intentions
of sorcerers, Kigelia africana, whose fruit if hung in the
hut is believed to provide protection against whirlwinds
and Halleria lucida, which is believed to provide protec-
tion against evil spirits.
Although the recorded traditionally used plant species
are largely harvested for sale or used by individual tradi-
tional healers, five of these (Table 2) were found to be
already commercially exploited with Pelargonium si-
doides and Harpagophytum procumbens considered to
have potential for international commercialization [3]. In
this regard, Harpagophytum procumbens is regarded as a
medicinal plant of international importance that is being
successfully propagated on a limited commercial scale
[3].
Only four (2.2%) of the recorded traditionally used
plant species were listed in Red Data Book [57]; as rare
(Crassula arborescens), vulnerable (Kniphofia rooperi)
and not threatened (Cotyledon orbiculata, Nemesia fruti-
cans). Three of these species are also listed as endemic
(i.e. Kniphofia rooperi, Cotyledon orbiculata and Cras-
sula arborescens) to South Africa. Listed species oc-
Table 1. Number of plant species identified as used for traditional purposes (AENP = Addo Ele phant National Park, MZNP =
Mountain Zebra National Park, GGHNP = Golden Gate Highlands National Park, KRNP = Karroo National Park).
Plant species recorded in the park Plant species identified as used for traditional purposes
Species used Species not used
Park Families Species
% representation of plant
species recorded in SA Families
n % n %
AENP 73 625 2.7% 27 43 6.8 582 93.2
MZNP 82 479 2.1% 30 53 11.0 426 89.0
GGHNP 46 124 0.5% 26 37 29.8 87 70.2
KRNP 56 235 1.0% 27 23 9.8 212 90.2
Total 322 1785 7.8% 143 211 14.9 1574 85.1

Are Traditionally Used Resources within Conservation Areas a Function of Their Sizes? 133
Table 2. Commercially Exploited Traditionally Used Plants
(AENP = Addo Elephant National Park, MZNP = Moun-
tain Zebra National Park).
Family Common and
species names
Park
where it
occurs Use
Asteraceae
Chicory
(Cichorium
intybus).
AENP
Roots are processed into a com-
mercial product known as chic-
ory, which is sold as a coffee
additive or coffee substitute.
The root has tonic, sedative an
d
mild laxative activities (van
Wyk, Oudtshoorn & Gericke
1997).
Sapindaceae
Jacket plum
(Pappea cap-
ensis)
AENP
Fruit used for jelly and edible
seed oil used to make soap (van
Wyk, Oudtshoorn & Gericke
1997).
Aspho-
delaceae
Bitter aloe
Aloe ferox
AENP
and
MZNP
Leaf exudates used as laxative
medicine. Also used in self-care
remedies such as “lewenses-
sens”, and “Schweden bitters”
(van Wyk, Oudtshoorn & Ge-
ricke 1996
)
.
Geraniaceae
Rabas (Pelar-
gonium si-
doides AENP
Used as an ingredient fo
r
“Umckaloabo”, a German me-
dicinal remedy used to trea
t
bronchitis in children (van Wyk,
Oudtshoorn & Gericke 1997).
curred in AENP (Crassula arborescens), KRNP (Coty-
ledon orbiculata) and MZNP (Kniphofia rooperi). One
of the endemic, rare species (Crassula arborescens) is
listed as internationally threatened. There were signifi-
cantly fewer (2

= 0.83, df = 4, p < 0.05) used listed
species than the listed, not-used species. There was no
statistically significant (2

= 5, df = 4, p > 0.05) differ-
ence between the parks with regard to the occurrence of
the threatened, used species. However, GGHNP recorded
a comparatively high proportion (2.3%) of listed,
not-used species (Table 3).
3.2. Animal Species Used as Traditional Re-
sources
One hundred and twelve species of vertebrates that oc-
curred within the studied national parks were identified as
being used for different traditional and cultural purposes
(Table 4). The traditional uses of the identified vertebrate
species included meat for consumption, traditional attire,
decoration of traditional healer’s consulting rooms and
traditional medicines. Species used in traditional medi-
cines either served as ingredients additional to medicinal
plants or were used without being mixed. Mammals (60
species) had the highest proportion (53.6%) of species
used, followed by birds (27 species (24%)) and reptiles
(23 species (20.5%)). While birds and mammals were
used for various traditional purposes that include meat,
attire and treating different illnesses, the highest propor-
tion (67%) of reptiles was specifically used for traditional
medicinal purposes.
As in the case of the plant species, some animal species
were associated with traditional beliefs. Notable among
these were bird species such as ground hornbill (Bucorvus
leadbeateri), which is believed to possess powers of
causing a thunderstorm and the hamerkop (Scopus um-
bretta), which was widely associated with witchcraft, and
all species of owls, which were regarded as the birds of ill
omen and witchcraft.
Unlike plant species, which were used for diseases that
Table 3. Total numbers of traditionally used plant spe c i es from four studied national parks.
Plant species not used Plant species used
Parks Total number of species occurring
in the park
Number of species
not used but listed
in SA red data
book
Number of species
not used and not
listed in red data
book
Number of species
used
Number of species
used and listed in
SA red data book
Number of species
used but not listed
in SA red data
book
AENP 625 5 (0.85%) 577 (92.3%) 43 1 (0.2%) 42 (24.3%)
MZNP 479 8 (1.9%) 471 (98.3%) 53 1 (0.2%) 52 (30.0%)
GGHNP 124 2 (2.32%) 122 (98.4%) 37 0 (0.0%) 37 (22%)
KRNP 235 3 (1.4%) 232 (98.0%) 23 1 (0.5%) 22 (12.3%)
Total 1785 22 1720 211 4 211
The table also shows total numbers of species listed in South Africa’s red data books (following Hilton-Taylor 1996). Numbers in brackets reflect the percent-
ages of listed species in each park.
C opyright © 2011 SciRes. NR

Are Traditionally Used Resources within Conservation Areas a Function of Their Sizes? 134
Table 4. Vertebrate species from the four analyzed National Parks, which were identified as used in traditional cultural prac-
tices and medicinal purposes.
Park Taxon
Total No of species
recorded in the
park
% Representation of the
total number of species
known to occur in South
Africa
No of species used
for traditional and
cultural purposes
(with % of total
species in the
park)
No of species not
used (with % of
total species in
the park)
2

value for test-
ing the difference
between used and
not used species
P < 0.001
Mammals 92 37.2 31 (33.7%) 61 (66.3%)
Birds 318 41.0 18 (5.7%) 300 (94.3%)
Reptiles 49 16.4 8 (16.3%) 41 (83.7%)
26.4**
AENP
Total 459 57 402
Mammals 79 32.0 36 (45.6%) 43 (55.4%)
Birds 265 34.2 19 (7.2%) 246 (92.8%)
Reptiles 53 17.7 20 (37.7%) 33 (62.3%)
38.6**
MZNP
Total 397 75 322
Mammals 79 32.0 36 (45.6%) 43 (55.4%)
Birds 255 33.0 15 (5.9%) 240 (94.1%)
Reptiles 35 11.7 3 (8.6%) 32 (91.4%)
60.5**
GGHNP
Total 369 54 315
Mammals 77 31.2 36 (46.8%) 41 (53.2%)
Birds 226 29.2 15 (6.6%) 211 (93.4%)
Reptiles 67 22.4 19 (28.4%) 48 (71.6%)
40.8**
KRNP
Total 370 70 300
are well defined in scientific terms, animal species were
also used in traditional medicines for disease and illnesses
that are difficult to define. Some of these illnesses include
izitshopi, imeqo, ukwethuka and inyoni, which are exten-
sively described by Ngubane [54] as being caused by
stepping over the tracks of certain animal species (snakes)
or through spells cast by witchdoctors using some animal
species (owls) as their agents. The use of animals to cure
these illnesses reflects the general interpretation of the
causes of illnesses by traditional healers. This perception
normally determines the inclusion of animal species in
potions used to cure the perceived illness and does not
rely on a pharmacological action.
Twenty (18%) traditionally-used vertebrate species are
considered threatened [18,56,58]. These include 14 (70%)
mammals (listed as rare (6), indeterminate (2), endan-
gered (2), not designated (1) and vulnerable (4, 28.5%))
and six birds (listed as rare (1), vulnerable (2) and re-
quire monitoring (3)) (Table 5). In all parks, mammals
comprised of a significantly (2

= 3.7, df = 3, p < 0.001)
higher proportion of the listed used species (Table 5).
3.3. Relationship between Identified Resources
and the Size of the Park
While it was expected that the occurrence of traditionally
used resources within the parks would be directly corre-
lated to the size of the park (Table 6), the occurrence of
these resources within the parks was found not to differ
between the parks (2

= 168.0, df = 156, p > 0.05), in-
dicating that all five studied parks had similar proportions
of traditionally used resources.
4. Discussion
What has emerged from this analysis is that while most
earlier studies on traditional resources [1,34,42,49,60-62]
Table 5. Conservation status of animal species recorded as
used for different traditional purposes.
Animal species used Animal species not
Parks Taxon
ThreatenedNot threat-
ened Threatened Not threatened
Mammals4 (15.4%)22 (84.6%) 10 (15.2%)56 (84.8%)
Birds 3 (9.1%)19 (90.9%) 21 (7.1%)275
(
92.9%
)
Reptiles0 (0.0%)18 (100%) 1 (3.2%)30 (96.8%)
AENP
Total 7 59 32 361
Mammals3 (8.3%)33 (91.7%) 7 (16.3%)36 (83.7%)
Birds 3 (15.8%)16 (84.2%) 17 (6.9%)229
(
93.1%
)
Reptiles0 (0.0%)21 (100%) 1 (3.2%)31 (96.8%)
MZNP
Total 6 70 25 296
Mammals5 (13.9%)31 (86.1%) 6 (14.0%)37 (86.0%)
Birds 3 (15.0%)17 (85. 5%) 20 (8.5%)215
(
91.5%
)
Reptiles0 (0.0%)13 (100%) 0 (0.0%)22 (100%)
GGHNP
Total 8 61 26 274
Mammals4 (11.4%)31 (88.6%) 6 (14.2%)36 (85.8%)
Birds 2 (11.8%)15 (88.2%) 15 (7.2%)194
(
92.8%
)
Reptiles0 (0.0%)15 (100%) 0 (0.0%)52 (100%)
KRNP
Total 6 61 21 282
Threatened conservation status indicated by being listed in the Red Data
Books, Smithers [18] for mammals, Branch [19] for reptiles and Barnes [58]
for birds.
C opyright © 2011 SciRes. NR

Are Traditionally Used Resources within Conservation Areas a Function of Their Sizes? 135
concentrated on listing the presence of traditionally used
plants or animals within conservation areas, investigating
the occurrence of these resources in relation to their con-
servation statuses and sizes of conservation areas should
be considered and used as a new approach of defining the
biological wealth of conservation areas.
Contrary to a perception that conservation areas are
rich in traditionally used biological resources [63], this
analysis has demonstrated that the occurrence of these
resources within the conservation areas is of limited ex-
tent, with traditionally used plants being less well repre-
sented than the traditionally used animals (Table 3 and
4).
The analysis further demonstrated that the traditionally
used species within conservation areas is a function of the
number of species available within the conservation es-
tates but not the size of the estate. Thus, conserved areas
with large number of plants or animal species can be re-
garded as having higher proportions of traditionally used
biological resources but this may not be linked to the
sizes of a conservation area. Through this study it also
emerged that the numbers of traditionally used resources
differ among the conservation areas. This heterogeneous
occurrence of these resources within the conservation
areas reflects that not all conservation areas can be re-
garded as being rich in traditionally-used biological re-
sources. This thus calls for the identification of conserva-
tion areas that can be regarded as rich in traditionally-
used resources. Similar studies on species abundance and
endemism as well as biodiversity richness has helped to
draw to the attention of conservation agencies, areas that
require conservation priority and this has led to the map-
ping and increased conservation efforts of biodiversity
hotspots of the world [64-68].
The emergence of these facts draws to our attention a
need to investigate if traditionally used resources are a
function of the biodiversity of conservation areas. This
requires the development of an index that will link the
biodiversity of conservation areas with traditional re-
sources present within the conservation estates. Such an
index will be an important tool that can be used in as-
sessing conservation areas according to traditional values,
resources and perceptions provided by local communities.
This is also of great significance as most conservation
areas were solely established with the purpose of protect-
ing plant or animal species identified to have critical con-
servation statuses (Table 6). With the new view of as-
sessing conservation areas according to attached tradi-
tional values [13,67] and their contribution to biodiversity
management can help bridge the gap that exists between
current conservation objectives and expectations of the
societies residing around the conservation areas [68].
Table 6. Park sizes, objectives and their resources
(biodiversity).
Park
Name Size Park objectives Biodiversity
AENP139 000ha
The park was pro-
claimed so as to con-
serve a viable popula-
tion of Addo Elephants
(Loxodonta Africana),
African buffalo (Synce-
rus caffer) and black
rhinoceros (Diceros
bicornis).
The park hosts repre-
sentatives of four of
South Africa’s seven
terrestrial biomes i.e.
Nama karoo, Fynbos,
forest and thicket.
MZNP18 994ha
The park was pro-
claimed with the aim of
saving the Cape Moun-
tain Zebra (Equus zebra
zebra) from extinction.
Its additional aim is to
preserve the karoo
vegetation that is suit-
able for the conserva-
tion of Cape Mountain
Zebras.
The vegetation of the
park is dominated by
an abundance of
grasses and dwarf
shrubs-classified as
the Eastern Mixed
Karoo.
GGHNP11 630ha
The park was pro-
claimed so as to con-
serve a representative
part of the spectacular
Clarens Sandstone for-
mation. It also aims to
conserve the highland
sourveld at the upper
reaches of the catchment
area of Klein Caledon
River.
The vegetation in the
park can be divided
into grassland and
woodland/forest. Vir-
tually, the entire park
carries grassland vege-
tation.
KRNP69 624ha
The park was pro-
claimed so as to con-
serve the Karoo flora
and to protect a repre-
sentative example of
this vegetation against
further degradation and
exploitation.
Variations in altitude
have resulted to a park
to have a distinct con-
trast between the
vegetation of upper
and the lower plateau.
The upper.
Overall, the presence of traditional resources within the
conservation areas provides various advantages for con-
servation [13,68-70]. They provide opportunities for the
extension of conservation awareness among communities
[71]. They offer opportunities of implementing philoso-
phies of community-based natural resource management
[72]. Contrary to previous law enforcement management
methods of managing these resources, participation of
communities in managing traditionally used biological
resources will improve the relationships between conser-
vation authorities and communities [73] as cooperative
management broadens the understanding of conservation
objectives by communities and increases their under-
standing of the role played by conservation areas in con-
serving natural resources and biodiversity [74].
Although traditional used biological resources appear
to occur in limited proportions within the conservation
areas (Table 3 and 4), their abundance within conserva-
C opyright © 2011 SciRes. NR

Are Traditionally Used Resources within Conservation Areas a Function of Their Sizes? 136
tion areas is generally comparatively higher than neigh-
bouring unprotected land [75]. This effect is particularly
strongly developed for larger animals, which do not per-
sist outside of conservation areas, such as elephant, leop-
ard and lions [76]. Thus their presence within conserva-
tion areas offers them protection. For instance, the occur-
rence of some traditionally used plants that have critical
conservation statuses within some parks reflected the
significant role played by these parks in protecting threat-
ened resources [69]. In spite of this, what can be said is
that each conserved area supports the conservation of a
distinctive proportion of traditionally-used plant and ani-
mal species (Table 3 and 4), which may be threatened
outside conservation areas not only by overexploitation
but also by different forms of land use like development,
agriculture or persecution due to beliefs or stigmas asso-
ciated with them [22].
Of critical note is that while this analysis provides a
broad picture about the occurrence of traditional re-
sources within conservation areas and relates them to
their conservation statuses, it does not estimate the abun-
dance or dynamics of these resources within the conser-
vation areas-important indicators of sustainability. This
thus implies the necessity of supplementing this study
with the investigation of the abundance and dynamics of
the identified traditional resources within the national
parks. Such studies should provide guidelines of harvest-
ing traditionally used resources within the conservation
areas. It must also provide strategies of forging collabora-
tive management.
Organizations like TRAFFIC have already started with
collaborative management of traditionally used natural
resources, working directly with the people whose liveli-
hoods depend on these resources [27]. This has set the
stage for partnerships between the conservation agencies
and communities, where both parties strive to ensure the
sustainable supplies of valued resources for the future
generations [27]. Benefits of co-operative management of
natural resources are manifold [77,78]. As conservation
areas struggle to incorporate local communities into their
management, participation of communities in designing
control measures and policies of resources they associate
with will increase self-sufficiency among communities
and this will increase chances of developing the social
support of conservation of biodiversity.
Although most traditionally-used biological resources
do not feature prominently in Red Data Books (Table 3
and 5), most of these resources are already threatened
outside conservation areas [3,72] due to various threats
that include over-harvesting and unsustainable forms of
land use. This is obvious with traditionally used animals
[8,24]. Animal species like the leopard, spotted genet and
many other species used for traditional attire and medi-
cine are now largely confined within the boundaries of
the conservation areas [72]. Those that still occur outside
conservation areas are limited in distribution and their
future persistence is uncertain [18,79]. Therefore, this
study reflects a need to re-assess the Red Data Book
statuses of traditionally used species to increase their
conservation efforts. In the meantime, conservation areas
need to prioritize the conservation of all traditional re-
sources, and improve their protection by developing ef-
fective management programmes that will ensure their
protection while developing relationships between con-
servation areas and local communities. However, to sus-
tain the collaborative management of these resources in
conservation areas, there is a need to: 1) develop invento-
ries of the available traditionally used biological re-
sources within conservation areas and those that are
available outside conservation areas that are used by
communities; 2) educate communities about the contribu-
tion of conservation areas towards the conservation of
traditionally used biological resources and development
opportunities associated with conservation of natural re-
sources; 3) improve the participation of local communi-
ties in the management of these resources through pro-
jects that may enhance the communities’ conservation
awareness and 4) devise strategies that would promote the
sustainable harvesting of the required resources [80,81].
REFERENCES
[1] J. M. Watt and M. G. Breyer-Brandwijk, “The Me-
dicinal and Poisonous Plants of Southern and East-
ern Africa,” Livingstone, London, 1962.
[2] F. W. Fox and N. Young, “Food from the Veld,”
Delta, Johannesburg, 1982.
[3] B. Van Wyk, B. Oudsthoorn and N. Gericke, “Me-
dicinal Plants of South Africa,” Briza publications,
Pretoria, 1997.
[4] A. B. Cunnigham, “Imithi Isizulu: The Traditional
Medicine Trade in Kwazulu-Natal,” Master of So-
cial Science dissertation, University of Natal,
Pietermaritzburg, 1992.
[5] R. Scott-Shaw, “A Directory of Medicinal Plants
Trade in Natal with Zulu Names and Conservation
Status,” Natal Parks Board internal Report, Natal
Parks Board, 1990.
[6] M. Mander, “Marketing of indigenous medicinal
plants in South Africa: A case study in Kwa-
zulu-Natal,” Rome-Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion of the United Nations, 1998.
[7] L. V. Williams, “The Witwatersrand Muti Trade,”
Veld & Flora, March 1996, pp. 12-14.
[8] A. B. Cunningham, “An Investigation of the Herbal
Medicine Trade in KwaZulu,” Investigational Re-
C opyright © 2011 SciRes. NR

Are Traditionally Used Resources within Conservation Areas a Function of Their Sizes? 137
port No.29, Institute of Natural Resources, Univer-
sity of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 1988.
[9] A. B. Cunningham, “Income, Sap Yield and Effects
of Sap Tapping on Palms in the South-Eastern Af-
rica,” South African Journal of Botany, Vol. 56,No.
2, 1990, pp. 137-144.
[10] A. B. Cunningham and A. S. Zondi, “Striped Wea-
sel: Traditional Medicine and Conservation,” En-
dangered Wildlife, Vol. 11, 1992, pp. 10-15.
[11] S. A. McCartan and J. van Staden, “Micropropa-
Gation of Members of the Hyacinthaceae with Me-
dicinal and Ornamental Potential,” South African
Journal of Botany, Vol. 65, No.5-6, 1999, pp.
361-369.
[12] T. S. Simelane, “Role of Conservation Areas in
Conserving Traditionally Used Natural Resources
and Biodiversity,” Ph.D. thesis. Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, 2005.
[13] J. Botha, “Perceptions of Availability and Values of
Medicinal Plants Traded in Areas Adjacent to the
Kruger National Park,” MSc thesis dissertation,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg,
2001.
[14] A. B. Cunningham, “Indigenous Plant Use: Bal-
ancing Human Needs and Resources,” B. J. Huntley
(ed.) “Biotic Diversity in Southern Africa: Concepts
and Conservation,” Oxford University Press, Cape
Town, 1989.
[15] T. S. Simelane, “The Traditional Use of Indigenous
Vertebrates,” MSc Dissertation, University of Port
Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth, 1996.
[16] A. B. Cunningham and A. S. Zondi, “Use of Ani-
mal Plants for Commercial Trade in Traditional
Medicine,” Institute of Natural Resources, Report
76, 1991, pp. 1-40.
[17] T. S. Simelane and G. I. H. Kerley, “The Conserva-
tion Implications of the Use of Indigenous Verte-
brates by Traditional Healers: With Reference to
Xhosa Traditional Healers,” South African Journal
of Wildlife Research, Vol. 28, 1998, pp. 121-126.
[18] R. H. N. Smithers, “South African Red Data
Book-Terrestrial Mammals,” South African Na-
tional Scientific Programme Report No.125, FRD
& CSIR, Pretoria, 1986.
[19] W. R. Branch, “South African Red Data Book:
Reptiles and amphibians,” South African Scientific
programme, Report 151, 1988, pp. 1-24.
[20] J. Hilton-Taylor, E. T. F. Witkowski and C. M.
Shackleton, “An inventory of medical plants traded
on the western boundary of the Kruger National
Park, South Africa,” Koedoe, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2001,
pp. 7-46.
[21] A. B. Cunningham and A. S. Zondi, “Striped Wea-
sel: Traditional Medicine and Conservation,’ En-
dangered Wildlife, Vol. 11, 1992, pp. 10-15.
[22] T. S. Simelane and G. I. H. Kerley, “Recognition of
Reptiles by Xhosa and Zulu Communities in South
Africa, With Notes on Traditional Beliefs and
Uses,”African Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 41,
1997, pp. 49-53.
doi:10.1080 /21564574 .1997.96499 75
[23] J. G. Castley and G. I. H. Kerley, “The Paradox of
Forest Conservation in South Africa,” Forest Ecol-
ogy and Management, Vol. 85, 1996, pp. 35-46.
doi:10.1016 /S0378-112 7(96)03748 -6
[24] C. Fabricius and M. Burger, “Comparison between
a nature reserve and adjacent communal land in
Xeric Succulent Thicket – an Indigenous Plant
User’s Perspective,” South African Journal of Sci-
ence, Vol. 93, 1997, pp. 259-262.
[25] C. A. Peres, “Effects of Hunting on Western Ama-
zonian Primate Communities,” Biological Conser-
vation, Vol. 5, 1990, pp. 47-59.
doi:10.1016 /0006-3207 (90)90041- M
[26] E. Bowen-Jones and S. Pendry, “The Treat of Pri-
mates and Other Mammals from the Bushmeat
Trade in Africa, and How this Threat could be Di-
minished,” Oryx, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1999, pp. 233-246.
[27] A. Rosser, N. Ash and M. Sorola, “Approaches to
the conservation of species used in traditional
medicines,” South African Journal of Medicine, Vol.
48, 2000, pp. 1688-1690.
[28] F. Berkes, J. Colding and C. Folke, “Rediscovery of
Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive
Management,” Ecological Applications, Vol. 10,
No. 5, 2000, pp. 1251-1262.
doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2
[29] M. Richards, “Protected Areas, People and Incen-
tives in Search for Sustainable Forest Conservation
in Honduras,” Economic Conservation Vol. 23, No.
3, 1996, pp. 207-217.
[30] W. R. Siegfried, “Preservation of Species in South-
ern African Nature Reserves,” B. J. Huntley, “Bi-
otic Diversity in Southern Africa-concepts and
Conservation,” Oxford University Press, New York.
1989.
[31] B. E. Van Wyk, C. M. Van Wyk and P. Novellie,
“Flora of the Zuurberg National Park. An anno-
tated Checklist of Ferns and Seed Plants,” Bothalia,
Vol. 18, 1988, pp. 221-232.
[32] D. Tilman, “Biodiversity: Population versus eco-
system stability,” Ecology, Vol. 77, No. 2, 1996, pp.
350-363. doi:10.2 307/2265614
C opyright © 2011 SciRes. NR

Are Traditionally Used Resources within Conservation Areas a Function of Their Sizes? 138
[33] U. Pond, B. B. Beesley, L R. Brown and H. Be-
zuidenhout, “Floristic Analysis of the Zebra Na-
tional Park, Eastern Cape,” Koedoe, Vol. 45, No. 1,
2002, pp. 335-357.
[34] J. Botha, E. T. F Witkowski and C. M. Shackleton,
“An inventory of medical plants traded on the west-
ern boundary of the Kruger National Park, South
Africa,” Koedoe, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2001, pp. 7-46.
[35] R. Liversidge, “The Birds of the Addo Elephant
National Park,” Koedoe, Vol. 8, 1965, pp. 41-67.
[36] B. R. Roberts, “The Vegetation of the Golden Gate
Highlands National Park,” Koe d oe, Vol. 12, 1969,
pp. 15-28.
[37] M. F. Bates, “A Provisional Checklist of Reptiles
and Amphibians of the Golden Gate Highlands Na-
tional Park,” Koedoe, Vol. 34, No. 2, 1991, pp.
153-155.
[38] K. A. Earlè and A. B. Lawson, “An Annotated
Checklist of the Birds of The Golden Gate High-
lands National Park,” Koedoe, Vol. 31, 1988, pp.
227-244.
[39] H. Bezuidenhout, “An Ecological Study of the Ma-
jor Vegetation of the Vaalbos National Park, North-
ern Cape – The Than Droogeveld section,” Koedoe,
Vol. 37, No. 2, 1994. pp. 19-41.
[40] H. Bezuidenhout, “An Ecological Study of the Ma-
jor Vegetation of the Vaalbos National Park North-
ern Cape – The Than Graspan-Holpan section,”
Koedoe, Vol. 338, No. 2, 1995, pp. 65-83.
[41] C. F. Johnson, R. M. Cowling and P. B. Phillipson,
“The Flora of the Addo National Park, South Africa:
Are Threatened Species Vulnerable to Elephant
Management,” Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol.
8, 1999, pp. 1447-1456.
doi:10.1023 /A:1008980120 379
[42] V. L. Williams, K. Balkwill and E. T. F. Witkowski,
“A Lexicon of Plants Traded on the Witwatersrand
Umuthi Shops, South Africa,” Bothalia, Vol. 31,
2001, pp. 71-98.
[43] P. C. Zietsman, P. J. du Preez and H. Bezuidenhout,
“A Preliminary Checklist of Flowering Plants of the
Vaalbos National Park,” Koedoe, Vol. 42, No. 2,
1992, pp. 95-112.
[44] M. H. Knight and A. J. Hall-Martin, “Helicopter
Surveys of the Addo Elephant Park,” Internal Re-
port, South African National Parks, Kimberley,
March-May 1994.
[45] J. G. Castley and M. H. Knight, “Helicopter Based
Survey of Addo Elephant National Park,” Unpub-
lished Internal Report, South African National
Parks, Kimberley, February 1998.
[46] F. W. Fox and N. Young, “Food from the Veld,”
Delta, Johannesburg, 1982.
[47] E. Palmer and N. Pitman, “Trees of Southern Af-
rica,” Vol. 1, Balkema, Cape Town, 1972.
[48] A. Hutchings, A. H. Scott, G. Lewis and A. Cun-
ningham, “Zulu Medicine Plants – An Inventory,”
University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg, 1996.
[49] F. Venter and J. Venter, “Making the Most of In-
digenous Trees,” Briza publication, Pretoria, 1996.
[50] B. Van Wyk and N. Gericke, “People’s Plants– A
Guide to Useful Plants of Southern Africa,” Briza
publications, Pretoria, 1999.
[51] A. B. Cunningham and A. S.Zondi, “Use of Animal
Plants for Commercial Trade in Traditional Medi-
cine,” Institute of Natural Resources, Rep. 76, pp.
1991, 1-40.
[52] A. B. Cunningham and A. S. Zondi, “Striped Wea-
sel: Traditional Medicine and Conservation,” En-
dangered Wildlife, Vol.11, 1992, pp. 10-15.
[53] J. Bryom, “Field guide to the Game of the Natal
and Zululand,” Sealandair, Durban, 1977.
[54] H. Ngubane, “Body and Mind in Zulu medicine: An
Ethnology of Health and Diseases in Nyuswa-Zulu
Thought and Practice,” Academic Press, London,
1977.
[55] T. S. Simelane, “The Traditional Use of Indigenous
Vertebrates,” MSc dissertation, University of Port
Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth, 1996.
[56] W. R. Branch, “South African Red Data Book: Rep-
tiles and amphibians,” South African Scientific pro-
gramme, Report 151, 1988, pp. 1-24.
[57] C. Hilton-Taylor; O. A. Leistner and B. A. Mom-
berg, “Red Data List of Southern African Plants
(Strelitzia),” National Botanical Institute, 1996.
[58] K. N. Barnes, “The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds
in South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland,” Birdlife
South Africa, Johannesburg, 2000.
[59] J. H. Zar, “Biostatistical Analysis,” 2nd edition,
Pentice Hall, New Jersey, 1984.
[60] J. O. Kokwaro, “Medical Plants of East Africa,”
East African Literature Bureau, Nairobi, 1983.
[61] A. T. Bryant, “Zulu Medicine and Medicine-Men,”
C. Struik, Cape Town, 1966.
[62] B. Akendengue, “Medical Plants Used by Fang Tra-
ditional Healers in Equatorial Guinea,” Journal of
Ethnopharmacolog , Vol. 37, 1992, pp. 165-173.
doi:10.1016/0378-8741(92)90075-3
[63] O. L. B. Phillips and A. H. Gentry, “The Useful
Plants of Tambota, Peru I: Statistical Hypothesis
C opyright © 2011 SciRes. NR

Are Traditionally Used Resources within Conservation Areas a Function of Their Sizes? 139
Tests with a New Quantitative Technique,” Eco-
nomic Botany , Vol. 47, 1993, pp. 15-32.
doi:10.1007/BF02862203
[64] H. N. Balyamujura and H. G. van Schalkwyk, “Na-
ture Conservation Versus Human Needs: The Case
of Manyeleti Game Reserve,” Agrekon, Vol. 38,
1999, pp. 861-873.
doi:10.1080/03031853.1999.9524895
[65] C. M. Shackleton, “Demography and Dynamics of
Dominant Woody Species in a Communal and Pro-
tected Area of the Transvaal Lowveld,” South Afri-
can Journal of Bot any , Vol. 59, 1993, pp. 569-574.
[66] D. W. Schemske, B. C. Husband, M. H. Ruckel-
shans, C. Goodwill, I. N. Parker and J. G. Bishop,
“Evaluating Approaches to the Conservation of Rare
and Endangered Plants,” Ecology, Vol. 75, 1994, pp.
584-606. doi:10.2307/19417 18
[67] V. H. Heywood, “Global Biodiversity Assessment,”
Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995.
[68] C. M. Shackleton, “Comparison of the Plant Diver-
sity in Protected and Communal Lands in the
Bushbuckridge Lowveld Savanna, South Africa,”
Biological Conservation, Vol. 94, 2000, pp.
273-280. do i:10.1016/S000 6-3207(00)0 0001-X
[69] T. M. Caro, “Species Richness and Abundance of
Small Mammal inside and Outside African National
Park,” Biological Conservation, Vol. 98, 2001, pp.
251-257. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00105-1
[70] H. Else and J. du P. Bothma, “Developing Partner-
ships in a Paradigm to Achieve Conservation Real-
ity in South Africa,” Koedoe, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2000,
pp. 19-26.
[71] B. M. Sibanda and A. K. Omwega, “Some reflec-
tions on conservation, sustainable development and
equitable sharing of benefits from wildlife in Africa:
the case of Kenya and Zimbabwe,” South African
Wildlife Research, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1996, pp.
175-181.
[72] C. Quiroz, “Indigenous Knowledge and Develop-
ment,” Mon ito r , Vol. 6, No. 2, 1998, pp. 1-3.
[73] G. D. La Cock and J. H. Briers, “Bark Collecting at
Tootabie Nature Reserve, Eastern Cape, South Af-
rica,” South African Journal of Botany, Vol. 58,
1992, pp. 505-509.
[74] A. B. Cunningham, “People, park and plant use.
Recommendations for Multiple Use Zones and De-
velopment, Alternatives around Bwindi Impenetra-
ble National Park of Uganda,” People & Plants
working paper 4, UNESCO, Paris, 1996.
[75] J. A. Richardson, “Wildlife Utilization and Biodi-
versity Conservation in Namibia: Conflicting Objec-
tives?” Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 7, 1998,
pp. 549-559. doi:10.1023/A:1008883813644
[76] J. H. Haynes, “Involving Communities in Managing
Protected Areas: Contrasting Initiatives in Nepal and
Britain,” Parks, Vol. 8, 1998, pp. 54-61.
[77] C. Fabricius and M. Burger, “Comparison between a
Nature Reserve and Adjacent Communal Land in
Xeric Succulent Thicket – An Indigenous Plant
User’s Perspective,” South African Journal of Sci-
ence, Vol. 93, 1997, pp. 259-262.
[78] G. I. H. Kerley, R. L. P. Pressey, R. M. Cowling, A.
F. Boshoff and R. Simms-Castley, “Options for the
Conservation of the Large and Medium-Sized
Mammals in the Cape Floristic Hotspot, South Af-
rica,” Biological Conservation, Vol. 112, 2002, pp.
196-190.
[79] B. M. Sibanda and A. K. Omwega, “Some Reflec-
tions on Conservation, Sustainable Development
And Equitable Sharing of Benefits from Wildlife in
Africa: The Case of Kenya And Zimbabwe,” South
African Wildlife Research, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1996, pp.
175-181.
[80] D. Hanekom and L. Liebenberg, “Utilization of Na-
tional Parks With Special Reference to the Costs and
Benefits to Communities,” Bulletin of Grassland
Society of Sout h Afri ca, Vol. 5, 1994, pp. 25-36.
[81] M. Richards, “Protected Areas, People and Incen-
tives in Search for Sustainable Forest Conservation
in Honduras,” Economic Conservation , Vol. 23, No.
3, 1996, pp. 207-217.