As a result of heightened financial and food insecurity, populations adversely affected by HIV and/or AIDS may
be more likely to utilise wild natural resources to supplement their diet and livelihoods. Should this effect be pronounced,
HIV and AIDS may pose a serious environmental threat. We explored the hypothesis that the presence of factors in the household,
such as chronic illness in and recent mortality of individuals in a high HIV-risk age group, as well as the fostering of orphans,
are associated with increased utilisation of wild animal products (WAPs) at the household level. We randomly surveyed
519 households from four sites in rural South Africa, recording household socio-economic status, the utilisation of
wild animal products and health and demographic factors attributed to HIV or AIDS. Binary logistic regressions were
used to test if households with markers of HIV and/or AIDS affliction were more likely to have a higher incidence and
frequency of WAP utilisation relative to non-afflicted households, after adjusting for socio-economic and demographic variables.
We found that, although households with markers of HIV and/or AIDS were generally poorer and had higher dependency ratios,
there was no evidence to support the hypothesis that WAP harvesting was associated with either poverty, or markers of
HIV and/or AIDS affliction. Our findings suggest that generalisations about a possible interaction between HIV and/or
AIDS and the environment may not uniformly apply to all categories of natural resources or to all user groups.
With the AIDS pandemic now in its third decade of impact, studies which explore the impact of HIV and/or
AIDS (HIV/AIDS from here onwards) on so-called ‘development’ issues such as food security,
poverty and the environment are a priority.1,2,3 Accordingly, a growing body of literature
has sought to explore how HIV/AIDS is impacting on issues such as national, community and household-level
food security4; livelihood strategies5; and, increasingly, the environmental dimensions
of HIV/AIDS.1,6 The relationship between HIV/AIDS, changing livelihood strategies and the utilisation
of environmental resources has been highlighted as a major challenge facing the long-term management of HIV/AIDS,
particularly amongst populations characterised by high levels of dependence on natural resources for fuel,
sustenance and income generation.3,7,8 Despite these concerns, broad-based policy responses that
seek to address the environmental dimensions of HIV/AIDS are on the whole poorly articulated and lack empirical
content.1,6 Although national level HIV/AIDS policy responses,
such as South Africa’s National
Strategic HIV/AIDS plan for 2007–2011,9 advocate for a broadly integrated approach, activities,
outputs and outcomes are more overtly biomedical in focus.
In this article we highlight these dynamics by means of a quantitative study of the association between HIV/AIDS and the use
of natural resources in four sites in rural South Africa. Given that natural resource use may vary considerably depending
on the type of resource harvested,1 we limited our empirical study to the hypothesis that HIV/AIDS is associated
with heightened use of wild animal products (WAPs) at the household level. To explore this hypothesis, we analysed cross-sectional
household survey data to test for associations between the presence of HIV/AIDS-attributable proxies (such as chronic illness
and mortality of someone in a high HIV-risk age group, as well as the fostering of orphans) and the utilisation of WAP
at the household level. Whilst this narrow focus on a single natural resource category necessarily limits the scope of
our findings, the selection of this particular natural resource was motivated by a lively theoretical literature around
HIV/AIDS and WAPs, as well as a growing empirical evidence base to which we sought to contribute. These debates are
reviewed in the section which follows.
Over the past decade, a large body of theoretical literature has emerged which suggests that HIV/AIDS-aggravated displacement,
poverty, vulnerability and food insecurity leads to a greater resource use by local communities of natural resources for energy,
trade and subsistence.10,11,
12,13,14 Heightened demand for traditional medicines has been an area of particular
concern,7,15,16,17 as has the utilisation of natural resources for handicraft production18,19
and fuelwood.10,20 HIV/AIDS-attributable loss of skillsand indigenous knowledge within the conservation
sector is believed to be aggravating the problem,7,11,
12,13 which has led to the hypothesis that HIV/AIDS
will be the new ’wildcard of change’ affecting the demand for natural resources in decades to come.20
In contrast to the theoretical literature, empirical studies examining the relationship between HIV/AIDS and the environment have
portrayed a more complex picture. Overall, the empirical literature does not validate the hypothesis that HIV/AIDS is associated
with accelerated harvesting of natural resources. Rather, the research to date has highlighted a number of caveats. For example,
a study from Zambia has suggested that HIV/AIDS shocks can open up new opportunities for some groups, and may even provide a catalyst
through which community-based natural resource management initiatives are strengthened rather than weakened.21 Moreover,
studies which adjust for household income level when exploring HIV/AIDS effects on natural resource use have suggested that
HIV/AIDS-attributable events, such as mortality in adults of prime age, may result in an increased use of natural resources
by households affected by HIV/AIDS – but only if those households have sufficiently high income to cover the costs of
collecting, processing and delivering these goods to local markets.8,13In addition to financial capital,
household human and physical capital may also play a role in moderating the use of natural resources following an
HIV/AIDS-related event. For example, there is evidence that chronic illness may be associated with a decrease rather
than an increase in natural resource consumption,22,23 as the costs
of allocating scarce household labour
reserves to collecting wild natural products may outweigh the benefits of using natural resource products.22
Other hypotheses, such as the suggestion that households fostering additional HIV/AIDS dependants may draw more heavily
on natural resources to manufacture craft products, are as yet only loosely supported by anecdotal
The hypothesis that HIV/AIDS leads to heightened utilisation of WAPs amongst affected individuals, households and communities has
been widely cited.10,11,12,
28 However, empirical evidence to support this claim is far from conclusive.1
Some work appears to substantiate this claim,10,11,12 but other studies yield contradictory results. For example,
a qualitative study exploring the relationship between HIV/AIDS and fishing activities in Tanzania found numerous anecdotes
to support the hypothesis that HIV/AIDS accelerates wild protein collection activities for subsistence and trade because
of heightened food and income insecurity, but the qualitative nature of the methods used made it difficult to isolate
so-called HIV/AIDS effects from other drivers of environmental change.28,29 In contrast, a study from the
Okavango delta region found little evidence to suggest that HIV/AIDS increased harvesting activities in the area.23
On the contrary, HIV/AIDS-attributable stressors such as chronic illness seriously constrained WAP harvesting amongst afflicted
households. In a survey of 248 households, approximately 29% of the respondents with chronic illness indicated their harvesting
activities were being curtailed. The authors hypothesised that this effect was as a result of the loss of skills and the household
fragmentation that the disease caused.23
In South Africa, where HIV/AIDS prevalence is amongst the highest in the world,30 the relationship between
HIV/AIDS and the use of natural resources is an area of concern. Poor rural populations derive considerable benefits
from natural resources,31 and understanding the dynamics of WAP harvesting in South Africa’s rural
areas is a particular research focus. In one review, 52% of households, from 14 sites in the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal
and Limpopo Provinces, were found to be using wild meat.32 A recent study from a former homeland region in the
Eastern Cape Province estimated that, when harvesting of small-bodied mammals is taken into account, the offtake of wild meat
over a year may be as high as 269 kg/km2/year.33 These estimations would have been even higher if
the offtake of small birds and insects was accounted for.27,33In coastal areas where harvesting of fish and shellfish
is taken into account, offtakes are likely to be even larger still.27,34 In addition to being a useful source of food
and protein, WAPs may also be used to generate income through trade in meat, skins, fur and traditional medicine.35
The relationship between poverty and heightened reliance on wild natural resources for food and income generation has been
documented in a number of studies.25,31 Wild animal proteins such as coastal shellfish have been shown to serve as
a kind of social security mechanism for the poorest households within a community.36 Yet our understanding as to
whether drivers such as HIV/AIDS are affecting natural resource utilisation is still very poor – particularly in the
South African context. For example, one study on households in the Limpopo Province suggested that households affected by
recent adult mortality might rely more heavily on proximal natural resources to supplement diet and income following adult
mortality,37 but subsequent quantitative research found that households impacted by the mortality of adults in
their prime actually decreased their consumption of wild edible fruits and vegetables, which negatively impacted on household
dietary diversity.8 Similarly, although households directly affected by HIV/AIDS may claim to have a higher experience
of household food insecurity and cite a higher usage of wild edible vegetables than households that are not directly affected,
these trends have been difficult to verify empirically at the household level.22 Household-level studies may also fail
to capture heterogeneity of use at the individual level, particularly for vulnerable user groups such as children.26,
In a recent study from the Eastern Cape, McGarry and Shackleton27 examined the diets of rural children and found that,
although the majority (62%) of children supplemented their diets and traded in wild foods, children within households with high
HIV/AIDS proxies tended to harvest higher quantities of wild marine and terrestrial protein over the short period of measurement.
Overall, the literature to date suggests that, whilst a relationship between HIV/AIDS and the use of natural resources
may well exist, the relationship may vary greatly depending on the type of natural resource utilised and the unit of analysis
(household versus individual user categories). In building on this foregoing work, we aimed to explore the hypothesis that
HIV/AIDS is associated with heightened harvesting of WAP through means of a cross-sectional survey of 519 households sampled
in four rural sites in South Africa. Although the cross-sectional nature of the study makes it difficult to discern whether
HIV/AIDS effects, should they be present, are as a result of changes over time, such an analysis does at the very least enable
us to dispel some of the confusion that exists over whether the presence of HIV/AIDS-attributable factors in the household is
associated with the use of a single, important natural resource at the household level.
The research was conducted within four sites in South Africa, all of which were rural or semi-rural previously
designated ’homeland’ regions. Because the study involved sensitive issues relating to HIV/AIDS,
actual names of the villages have been withheld in accordance with the ethical clauses in the research protocol.
The sites were: (1) a cluster of settlements within 15 km of the town of Mt Frere in the Eastern Cape Province,
(2) a settlement 20 km from the town of Nkandla in the Nkandla District, KwaZulu–Natal, (3) a cluster
of settlements in the KwaDlangezwa region of Zululand, KwaZulu-Natal, about 20 km from the city of Empangeni
and (4) a village in the Msunduzi District near Pietermaritzburg, within 20 km of the town of Mpophomeni.
Selection criteria for sites included: (1) land held under communal tenure with natural resources subject to communal access,
(2) having both high district level HIV and AIDS prevalence and (3) having high levels of poverty. Table 1 shows a breakdown of
the mean household socio-economic and HIV/AIDS characteristics of the households sampled.
It should be noted that none of the sites were bordering on or in close proximity to conservation or protected wildlife areas.
TABLE 1: Reported average income and demographic characteristics (± standard deviation) of the 519 rural or semi-rural South African households that were surveyed in regions with high HIV/AIDS prevalence.
Aerial photographs were used to delineate a study area of approximately 500 households. Within this demarcated study area,
a random starting point was selected and thereafter every fourth household was approached until a minimum of 125 households was sampled.
In Nkandla, 175 households were sampled after expanding the sampling frame appropriately. After data cleaning, a total of 519 households
was available for analysis: 126 from Mt Frere, 176 from Nkandla,
110 from KwaDlangezwa and 107 from Msunduzi. All participants gave informed consent prior to answering the survey questions.
Measuring wild animal product collection
Earlier piloting by means of focus group discussions indicated that the use of WAPs was widespread amongst young boys
(usually aged 10–18 years) and older men for recreation and domestic consumption, and to a lesser extent for
trade and traditional medicine. In keeping with indications from the literature,33,
34,35 focus group discussions
confirmed that, in all the sites, rodents, small antelope species and small carnivorous mammals were the most common quarry.
Collection activities by older men were primarily accomplished through pursuit of prey by hunting with dogs, although the use
of snares and traps was not uncommon. For young men and boys, collection activities were less discerning, and tended to focus
more on smaller-bodied animals, such as small rodents and wild birds. Even very small quarry were consumed, and marketable parts
were traded locally wherever possible.
For each household, the respondent was asked whether any household members ever harvested WAPs. The frequency with which
these activities occurred was estimated given six potential frequency response categories. Aquatic species and shellfish
were excluded because not all sites were within range of rivers, dams or the coast. The household survey questionnaire
also probed in considerable detail the types of WAP resources most frequently harvested, their utility and the demographics
of specific harvesters.
Measuring HIV/AIDS affliction in the household
As HIV and AIDS incidence or prevalence can only truly be determined clinically and at the individual level, studies that
deal with the household-level impacts of HIV and AIDS need to address the problem of how to gauge by proxy the presence
of HIV and AIDS in the household. Usually, the primary variables that indicate a demographic composition known to be associated
with the presence of HIV or AIDS in the household are used. This approach has been widely applied to household-level studies
that address the association between HIV/AIDS and socio-economic,38 livelihood,
food security21,39 and
37,39 After Madlala et al.40, the following household-level HIV/AIDS proxies
were used in this study: (A) a recent (< 24 months) death in the household of someone between the ages of 0 and
59 years preceded by a chronic (> 3 months) illness, (B) children in the household aged 0–18 years with a
deceased mother, (C) children in the household aged 0–18 years with both parents deceased, (D) children in the household
aged 0–18 years with a deceased father, (E) a person in the household aged 0–59 years with a chronic illness and (F)
a person in the household with a chronic illness receiving free treatment.
Although the household survey probed in some detail animal types harvested, the demographics of the harvester and the intended
utility of the harvested product, very few households (< 5%) reported harvesting WAPs for trade or medicinal purposes,
even though exploratory qualitative work had suggested that the use of WAPs for trade and medicinal purposes was locally quite high.
This discrepancy may be as a result of the sensitivity of the subject, or because of a fear of stigmatisation. As a result,
it was not possible to further disaggregate the analysis by resource utilisation category (i.e. trade, medicine, consumption or recreation).
Moreover, although some basic aggregation into resource type at the level of taxa was possible, sensitivity analyses performed using
multiple WAP harvesting outcomes rendered very similar findings to aggregate analyses where all taxa were collapsed into a single category.
Consequently, for the purposes of analysis, this study aggregated all WAP collection activities into two binary outcomes for incidence
(yes or no) and frequency (above or below the median) of WAP harvesting in the household. In like fashion, HIV/AIDS proxies were
categorised into binary variables (the presence or absence of the proxy within the household). HIV/AIDS outcomes were (A)
recent mortality of a person with chronic illness aged 0–59 years, (B) fostering of maternal orphans, (C) fostering
of double orphans, (D) fostering of paternal orphans, (E) chronic illness in a person aged 0–59 years and (F) a
chronic illness in a person aged 0–59 years receiving free treatment. WAP harvesting outcomes were (G) the incidence
of wild meat collection activities within the household and (H) the frequency of hunting activities.
The binary, categorical nature of both the WAP and HIV/AIDS outcomes in this study meant that generalised linear regression
models were inappropriate for analysis. As an alternative, logistic regressions were useful because they do not require that
the continuous independent variables are normally distributed, and predictor variables can be categorical or continuous.
Using multivariate logistic regression models, six potential HIV/AIDS proxy outcomes and two potential WAP harvesting
outcomes were tested for statistical association with dependent variables.
Two multivariate logistic regression models were used in the analysis of all outcomes. Firstly, a main-effects model
examined the association between the likelihood of a household having a particular outcome (A–H) and the dependent
variables relating to household socio-economic status and demographic status, whilst adjusting for site alone (Model 1).
A second model then made adjustments for site and potential socio-economic status confounders (Model 2).
Main-effects models adjusting only for site indicated that a number of dependent variables were associated with the
likelihood of a household having HIV/AIDS proxies (Model 1, Outcomes A–F, Table 2). Notably, having more dependent
variables was positively associated with a higher chance of having had a recent mortality and chronic illness in a person
aged 0–59 years. The presence of single and double orphans in the house was also associated with lower household income.
As the odds of detecting orphan fostering and chronic illness were also higher in larger households, a subsequent model
(Model 2, Outcomes A–F, Table 2) controlled for both site and household size. The results of these analyses show that,
even when adjusting for potential demographic confounders, households with a lower socio-economic status and a higher number
of dependants were more likely to have experienced the
recent mortality of someone aged 0–59 years. Similarly, households fostering single and double parent orphans were more
likely to have higher dependency ratios (i.e. a higher ratio of the number of children to adults) and lower incomes. Households
with paternal and double orphans were more likely to be female-headed. In addition, households with a person aged 0–59 years
with a chronic illness were significantly more likely to report lower household incomes, but only if the chronically ill person was
receiving free treatment. Overall, the results of these analyses suggest that household HIV/AIDS proxies are more prevalent in households
with lower socio-economic status and higher dependency ratios.
WAP collection outcomes
Incidence of WAP collection
Of the 519 households surveyed, 40.6% (210 households) had collected WAPs within the last year. Of these collecting households,
about half (49.2%) did so on at least a monthly basis (Table 3). Binary logistic regressions were used to assess whether
WAP collection outcomes were more likely in households with particular socio-economic and HIV/AIDS characteristics.
Although main-effects models, which adjusted for site alone, initially showed that households with a higher income
from social welfare grants were more likely to be engaging in WAP collection activities (Model 1, Outcome G, Table 4),
this effect failed to maintain significance in subsequent models which adjusted for the number of male individuals in
the household (Model 2, Outcome G, Table 4). Grant income was thus excluded as a confounder in subsequent adjusted models.
Household demographics, specifically the number of male children (10–18 years old) and adult males (> 18 years old)
in the household, were the only variables that maintained significance with WAP collection in the adjusted model
(Model 2, Outcome G, Table 4).
The association between HIV/AIDS proxies and the likelihood of a household reporting
WAP collection was also explored using main-effects and adjusted models. Although the
number of people between the ages of 0 and 59 years with a chronic illness was associated
with higher odds of reporting WAP use in main-effects models (Model 1, Outcome G, Table 4), subsequent adjustments
for household size rendered this HIV/AIDS proxy non-significant (Model 2, Outcome G, Table 4). In contrast, number
of paternal orphans in the household, which was a significant main effect in simple models that controlled for site only,
still maintained significance when potential confounders such as number of boys (10–18 years old) in the household,
number of adult males in the household, and overall household size were adjusted for. This significance was maintained
during further sensitivity analyses which also adjusted for household economic status and incidence of female headedness
(analyses not shown). This may be because paternal orphans, who are more likely to have grown up in a household without a
male parental figure, are less able or inclined to collect WAPs. Holding the number of adult and adolescent males in the
household constant, for every additional paternal orphan in the household the odds of a household reporting WAP collection
activities decreased by 39% (p = 0.021, adjusted odds ratio = 0.61 [0.4–0.93]).
TABLE 2: Abbreviated results of logistic regressions testing for associations of dependent variables with HIV/AIDS outcomes (A–F).
TABLE 3: Incidence and frequency of wild animal product harvesting in 519 rural or semi-rural households in South Africa.
Frequency of WAP collection
Of the households that engaged in WAP collection activities, households with a higher number of adolescent and
teenage boys (10–18 years old) had a higher likelihood of having a high collection frequency in
both main-effects and adjusted models (Models 1 and 2, Outcome H, Table 5). In
main-effects models, total household income and welfare grant derived income showed a significant negative
association with hunting frequency, but failed to maintain significance when adjusting for household demographics.
TABLE 4: Results of logistic regressions testing for associations of dependent variables with Outcome G: Incidence of wild animal product harvesting in the household
(n = 519).
TABLE 5: Results of logistic regressions testing for associations of dependent variables with Outcome H: Frequency of wild animal product collection above or below the median (n = 189).
With respect to the association between HIV/AIDS proxies and WAP collection frequency, the number of maternal
orphans in the household was significantly associated with WAP collection frequency in main-effects models
(Model 1, Outcome H, Table 5), but failed to maintain significance after adjusting for significant demographic
covariates (Model 2, Outcome H, Table 5). However, the number of double orphans in the household did become
significant with WAP collection frequency at the 10% level in adjusted models (p = 0.086, AOR = 2.05 [0.9–4.65]).
The tendency of HIV/AIDS to heighten household dependency ratios and worsen household socio-economic status over time
has been well documented in both South African38,41,
42,43,44 and global contexts.
45,46 The relationship
between household HIV/AIDS proxies and socio-economic status observed in this study was, therefore, in keeping with the theory
that HIV/AIDS and poverty are mutually reinforcing. As it were, however, this study failed to find an association between household
socio-economic status and collection of WAPs, and in turn found no support for the hypothesis that HIV/AIDS is associated with
heightened use of this particular natural resource at the household level. If anything, the opposite was implied. For example,
households with paternal orphans were less likely to participate in WAP harvesting activities than households without paternal
orphans, even when adjusting for potential confounders such as the number of adult males in the household.
When these findings are considered in the context of the literature, it is becoming increasingly apparent that household
HIV/AIDS responses are not necessarily consistent across HIV/AIDS affliction categories (mortality, morbidity and orphan fostering)
and natural resource types. For example, whereas households with prime-aged adults with chronic illness have been observed to
harvest relatively lower amounts of natural resources (including WAPs,23 wild leafy vegetables22
and fuelwood10), households with prime-aged adult mortality and orphan fostering may be more likely to exert
increased harvesting pressure on natural resources such as fuelwood,7,8 and grass and reed products,18
for which local markets often exist.
Variations in the type (positive or negative) of association across HIV/AIDS affliction categories may be attributable
to temporal patterns in HIV/AIDS responses that are otherwise obscured by the cross-sectional nature of the research.
Households in the early stages of HIV/AIDS affliction, for example, may be more likely to include an adult of prime
age with a chronic illness. The presence of such a chronically ill person may in turn result in the diversion of the
remaining household labour to care for this person, with both factors contributing to a shortage of household labour.
Household labour deficits, coupled with the loss of income and the household fragmentation that may accompany illness,
could in the short term curtail natural resource collection activities. In the long term, however, prime-age adult
mortality and an increased number of orphan dependants in the household might result in households investing more
heavily in the collection and trade of marketable natural resources.
In our study, WAP harvesting was not constrained in the presence of an adult of prime age with a chronic illness,
nor was it augmented after a mortality of an adult of prime age. Although further work is certainly needed in order
to clarify the reasons for these trends, a number of possible explanations should be considered.
Firstly, the reason why chronic illness was not associated with a curtailment of WAP harvesting may be because
women are the household members who often shoulder the burden of care in HIV/AIDS contexts.47 In our
study sites, women were not significantly involved in the collection of WAPs. Chronic illness in adults of prime
age is thus unlikely to curtail WAP harvesting in the same way it would the harvesting of natural resources that
are predominantly collected by women, such as fuelwood10 or wild vegetables.22 In addition,
WAPs were not widely traded in the study areas and had little income-generating potential. As a result, they are
unlikely to be used to ameliorate the effects of income loss and additional dependant fostering, as has been suggested
for more lucrative natural resources such as fuelwood8,10 and weaving
reeds and grasses.18 Rather,
in this study, it was paternal orphanhood that was associated with diminished harvesting pressure. Initially,
we hypothesised that this association may be as a result of the likelihood that paternal orphan households have
fewer adult males, and are therefore likely to harvest fewer WAPs. However, as this association was still
significant when adjusting for the number of male individuals in the household, alternative hypotheses should
be considered. It is possible that loss of intergenerational knowledge on WAP harvesting, which is presumably passed between
father and son, is the reason why the surviving male members of households with deceased adult males are less likely to harvest WAPs.
More research is certainly needed to explore this hypothesis more fully.
Secondly, in the current study, the aggregation of response categories for WAP utility (trade, consumption, recreation and medicinal)
was an unfortunate (albeit necessary) limitation to more nuanced observations about the role played by HIV/AIDS in driving
demand for different WAP user categories. Trade in natural resources for medicinal purposes is a particularly interesting
phenomenon for which HIV/AIDS is believed to be markedly increasing the demand.7,
the sensitive nature of traditional medicine trade and harvesting, coupled with a rarity of this activity at the population level,
limited the ability of this study to probe these dynamics in more detail. More targeted studies that address this specific phenomenon
should be the subject of future research.
Thirdly, this study raises the important question of site specificity. Exploratory analyses on village-level data failed to detect
significant site-level effects, and data were pooled to enhance statistical power. The study is thus limited in its ability to
comment on site-specific effects. A larger sample might be needed to comment on site-level effects in future studies. Site-level
analyses are important, because afflicted individual households may indeed not be utilising significantly higher levels of natural
resources relative to non-afflicted households, whereas whole regions, villages, biomes or communities may be experiencing
localised changes in natural resource use that could, in cluster level analyses, be attributable to regional HIV/AIDS prevalence
or local environmental conditions.
Finally, just as it is important to consider cluster-level HIV/AIDS effects from household level associations,
the study highlights the importance of ascertaining how household-level associations are distinguishable from individual
resource-use patterns. Our study, for example, found that households fostering paternal orphans might be more likely
to refrain from WAP harvesting activities overall. However, this does not mean that the paternal orphans themselves
are harvesting with a lower relative frequency, as many harvested WAPs consumed by children themselves are eaten
outside of the home.26,27
In the drive to describe the long-term impacts of HIV/AIDS on development issues, the environmental dimensions of HIV/AIDS
have been justly flagged for urgent attention. However, whilst this study reveals some inadequacies in the theoretical arguments
on WAP and natural resource use in HIV/AIDS contexts, it also indicates that we still have limited knowledge of the dynamics and
interrelationships driving this relationship. Whilst the hypothesis that HIV/AIDS leads to heightened use of natural resources
may well hold for certain natural resources, or certain HIV/AIDS proxies (mortality, morbidity and orphan fostering), and at
certain scales (individual, household or community), the growing body of evidence has emphasised the need for research to be
sufficiently explicit about the unit at which analysis is directed, the type of natural resource that is being utilised, and
the extent to which feedbacks between specific markers of HIV/AIDS affliction and natural resource utilisation are moderating need.
On the whole, this study highlights the poor articulation of environmental issues in HIV/AIDS policy. Failure on the part
of this study, as well as others, to confirm received wisdom to date with regard to HIV/AIDS and natural resource management,
provides a strong basis for more substantive incorporation of the matter in environmental management policies as well as the
next national HIV/AIDS plan. A more substantive review of the relationship between HIV/AIDS and the environment should consider
potential feedbacks between an increased need for natural resources as a result of AIDS-aggravated poverty and food insecurity
on the one hand, and curtailment of resources, such as household labour, income, and social and human capital, on the other hand.
Policymakers should also be aware that interpretation of HIV/AIDS relationships may be complicated by the presence of underlying
temporal patterns that fail to be captured because of the use of cross-sectional data sets, and that effects may vary significantly
from site to site as well as between natural resources. Uniform calls for conservation authorities and policymakers to heighten
wildlife protection activities in the wake of HIV/AIDS should be interpreted with caution, and with a full understanding of the
limits of our current knowledge of these dynamics. Such generalisations may not uniformly apply to all categories of natural
resources or to all user groups.
This research was funded by a grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. We gratefully acknowledge their support.
We declare that we have no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced us in writing this article.
S.A. Kaschula was responsible for the specific study design, original data collection, data cleaning and analysis and for writing the article. C.M. Shackleton was responsible for the formulation of the original research hypothesis,
fundraising, supervision of the study, data analysis and co-authorship of the final article.
1. Bolton S, Talman A. Interactions between HIV/AIDS and the environment: A review of the evidence and
recommendations for next steps. Nairobi: IUCN-ESARO and IPPF-ARO; 2010.
2. Jooma MB. Southern Africa assessment: Food security and HIV/AIDS. Afr Secur Rev. 2005;14(1):59–66.
3. Hammarskjold M. The environment, natural resources and HIV/AIDS. Geneva: SIDA Environment Policy Division; 2003.
4. Gillespie S, Kadiyala S. HIV/AIDS and food and nutrition security: From evidence to action.
Washington DC: IFPRI; 2005.
5. Aliber M, Tlabela K, Drimie S, Walker C, Masika P. HIV/AIDS, land-based livelihoods and
land reform in South Africa: Report to the International Food Policy Research Institute and the Department of
Land Affairs, South Africa [document on the Internet]. c2006 [cited 2008 Dec 02]. Available
6. Hunter LM, De Souza RM, Twine W. The environmental dimensions of the AIDS pandemic:
A call for scholarship and evidence-based intervention. Popul Environ. 2008;29:103–107.
7. Barany M, Hammett AL, Leakey RRB, Moore KM. Potential income generating opportunities
for smallholders affected by HIV/AIDS: Linking agro-ecological change and non-timber forest product markets.
J Manage Stud. 2005;39:26–39.
8. Hunter L, Twine W, Johnson A. Adult mortality and natural resource use in rural South Africa:
Evidence from the Agincourt Health and Demographic Surveillance Site. Soc Nat Resour. 2011;24(3):256–275.
9. Department of Health. HIV & AIDS and STI strategic plan for South Africa 2007–2011.
Pretoria: Department of Health; 2007.
10. Barany M, Holding Anyonge C, Kayambazinthu D, Sitoe A. Firewood, food and medicine:
Interactions between forests, vulnerability and rural responses to HIV/AIDS. In: Gillespie S, editor.
Proceedings from the IFPRI Conference: HIV/AIDS and Food and Nutrition Security; 2005 Apr 14–16;
Durban, South Africa. Washington DC: IFPRI. p. 120–135.
11. Dwasi J. HIV/AIDS and natural resource management in Africa: Findings from Kenya,
Namibia, South Africa, and Uganda. Washington DC: Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group (ABCG); 2002.
12. Quinlan T. The link between conservation and HIV/AIDS – what can be done? Durban:
HEARD (Heath Economics and HIV/AIDS Division), University of Natal; 2004.
13. Torell E, Kalangahe B, Thaxton M, Issa A, Pieroth V, Tobey J. Guidelines for mitigating
the impacts of HIV/AIDS on coastal biodiversity and natural resource management. Washington DC: Population Reference Bureau; 2007.
14. Challe J, Struik P. The impact on orchid species abundance of gathering edible tubers by
HIV/AIDS orphans: A case of three villages in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Wageningen Life Sci. 2008;56(3):261–279.
15. Bodeker G, Kabatesi D, King R, Homsy J. A regional task force on traditional medicine and
AIDS. Lancet. 2000;325(9211):1284.
16. King R. Collaboration with traditional healers in HIV/AIDS prevention and care in sub-Saharan Africa.
Geneva: UNAIDS; 2000.
17. Mander M. Marketing of indigenous medicinal plants in South Africa [document on the Internet].
c2010 [cited 2010 Nov 01]. Available from:http://www.fao.org/docrep/w9195e/w9195e00.HTM
18. Marcus T. Crafting in the context of AIDS and rural poverty: A livelihood strategy with prospects.
19. Barnett T, Haslwimmer M. The effects of HIV/AIDS on farming systems in Africa. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization; 1995.
20. Campbell BM, Jeffrey S, Kozanayi W, Luckert M, Mutamba M, Zindi C. Household livelihoods in semi-arid regions.
Jakarta: SMK Grafika Desa Putera, Centre for International Forestry Research; 2002.
21. Frank E, Unruh J. Demarcating forest containing disease: Land and AIDS in southern Zambia. Popul Environ.
22. Kaschula SA. Wild food use in household food security responses to HIV/AIDS. Popul Environ.
23. Ngwenya BN, Mosepele K. HIV/AIDS, artisanal fishing and food security in the Okavango Delta, Botswana.
Phys Chem Earth. 2007;32(15–18):1339–1349.
24. Murray C. Families divided: The impact of migrant labour in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1981.
25. Shackleton SE, Campbell B, Lotz S, Shackleton CM. Links between the local trade in natural products,
livelihoods and poverty alleviation in a semi-arid region of South Africa. World Devel. 2008;36:505–526.
26. McGarry D, Shackleton CM. Is AIDS jeopardising biodiversity? Environ Conserv.
27. McGarry D, Shackleton CM. Children navigating rural poverty: Rural children’s
use of wild resources to counteract food insecurity in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. J Child Poverty. 2009;15:19–37.
28. Torell E, Tobey J, Thaxton M, et al. Examining the linkages between AIDS and biodiversity
conservation in coastal Tanzania. Ocean Coast Manage. 2007;49:792–811.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.08.007
29. Barany M, Hammett AL, Stadler KM, Kengni E. Non-timber forest products in the food
security and nutrition of smallholders afflicted by HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. For Trees Livelihoods.
30. UNAIDS. Adult (15–49) HIV prevalence percent by country, 1990–2007
[homepage on the Internet]. c2008 [cited 2008 Nov 01]. Available
31. Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE. Household wealth status and natural
resource use in the Kat River valley, South Africa. Ecol Econ. 2006;57(2):306–317.
32. Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE. The importance of non-timber forest products in rural
livelihood security and as safety-nets: Evidence from South Africa. S Afr J Sci. 2004;100:658–664.
33. Kaschula SA, Shackleton CM. Quantity and significance of wild meat off-take by a
rural community in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Environ Conserv. 2009;36(03):192–200.
34. Timmermans HG. Rural livelihoods at Dwesa/Cwebe: Poverty, development and natural
resource use on the Wild Coast, South Africa. MSc thesis, Grahamstown, Rhodes University, 2004.
35. White RM, Nyengane BN. Interactions between indigenous mammals and the human population in the
Transkei. In: Proceedings of the Symposium of the Zoological Society of Southern Africa; 2004 Oct 12–14; Durban,
South Africa. Zoological Society of Southern Africa; 2004.
36. Kiepel J, Quinlan T. Bridging the gap between research and planning in ‘sustainable
development’ projects: Lessons from the Wild Coast. Transformation. 2009;41:33–54.
37. Hunter LM, Twine W, Patterson L. ‘Locusts are now our beef’: Adult mortality
and household dietary use of local environmental resources in rural South Africa. Scand J Public Health.
38. Bachmann MO, Booysen FR. Relationships between HIV/AIDS, income and expenditure over time in
deprived South African households. AIDS Care. 2004;16(7):817–826.
39.Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Food and Natural Resources Directorate –
Vulnerability Assessment Committee. Regional emergency food security assessment report. Harare: SADC; 2004.
40. Madlala P, Marsland N, Van Zyl J, Drimie S. Towards identifying the vulnerability of
AIDS afflicted households to food security: The RVAC-UNAIDS experiences: Challenges and opportunities. In:
Proceedings of the United Nations Regional Inter-Agency Coordination and Support Office: Measuring the impact
of HIV/AIDS on food insecurity; 2003 Sept 9–11; Johannesburg, South Africa. Johannesburg: RIACSO; 2003.
41. Bachmann MO, Booysen LR. Health and economic impact of HIV/AIDS on South African households:
A cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2003;3:14–36.
42. Bollinger L, Stover J. The economic impact of AIDS [document on the Internet]. c1999 [cited 2011 Sept 13].
43. Booysen FR. Social grants as safety nets for HIV/AIDS-affected households in
South Africa. J Soc Aspects HIV/AIDS Res Alliance. 2004;1(1):45–56. PMid:17600999
44. Collins D, Leibbrandt M. The financial impact of HIV/AIDS on poor households in
South Africa. AIDS. 2007;21(suppl. 7):S75-S81.http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.aids.0000300538.28096.1c, PMid:18040168
45. Barnett T, Whiteside A. Poverty and HIV/AIDS: Impact, coping and mitigation strategy.
AIDS, public policy and child well-being. Florence: UNICEF; 2002.
46. Gregson S, Mushati P, Nyamukapa C. Adult mortality and erosion of household viability in AIDS-afflicted towns,
estates, and villages in Eastern Zimbabwe. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;44(2):188–195.
47. Akintola O. Gendered home-based care in South Africa: More trouble for the troubled. Afr J AIDS Res.
48. Dold AP, Cocks ML. The trade in medicinal plants in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. S Afr J Sci.
49. Dorrington R, Johnson LF, Bradshaw D, Daniel T. The demographic impact of HIV/AIDS in South Africa.
National and provincial indicators for 2006. Cape Town: Centre for Actuarial Research, South African Medical
Research Council and Actuarial Society of South Africa; 2006.