Some results and experiences
Although analyses are still ongoing, a varied
range of results is already available from the different surveys, including databases,
reports, a model, and 'lessons learned' in general.
Goods that contributed most to the community values of landscape
units in Gorongosa National Park were water, land for agriculture and houses, construction
materials (these included poles, fiber, thatching grass and reeds), firewood, general
household and craft materials and various wild foods.
Villagers collected or used resources from areas of about 300 km2
for a village of 40 to 100 households.
Important lessons that emerged from the analysis as to the factors
governing local valuation of landscape functions included the following:
Spatial model of landscape value for one of the two
Three-dimensional view of
the Mauredzi village area taken from the south-west. The z-axis is magnified 10 times to
highlight the spatial variation in predicted landscape value. The landscape colouring
represents the predicted B/C (i.e. value) of the landscape to local community members.
Highest value units in the landscape those in white and gold (the peak in the center of
the image). Thereafter areas in light to darker blue and then red to dark red reflect
decreasing landscape value. The major routes and tracks are marked in thin red lines with
the house holds of the village marked in light blue. The blue swath of Urema River is
evident in the bottom left corner and the Muredzi River crosses from right (east) to left
(west) just to the foreground side of the village area. The two light blue patches to the
east of the village area (along the main road to Muanza) are patches of dry forest that
are of very high value to the community.
Refer to Assessment of the value of woodland
landscape function to local communities in Gorongosa and Muanza districts, Sofala
province, Mozambique for more detail.
A more concise description may be found here.
Vegetation map of Muaredzi
The process of overlaying community and biodiversity evaluations
produced better results for Muaredzi than for Nhanchururu, because vegetation units of the
former corresponded much better with the units mapped by the CRUAT.
The overlay made an analysis of threat to valued landscape units
possible: e.g. the forest types were allocated the highest conservation value and were
also ranked by the CRUAT as being of high value during both the initial scoring exercises
and subsequent field evaluations. This is where the greatest conflict can be anticipated
between competing uses for conservation purposes and for multiple use by the Muaredzi
community, and thus should be a logical focus for any local conservation efforts.
back to top