1. Prevalence of use (mean + SE) of wild resources from South African savannas (n = 14 villages; 30 – 60 hh per village)
Resource %
Wild spinaches
Bushmeat (*)
Fuelwood
Wild honey
Wooden utensils
Medicinal plants (*)
Grass brushes
Wood for housing poles
Wild fruits
Thatch grass
Twig brushes
Wild mushrooms
Wood for fencing
Reeds for construction
Weaving materials
Wood for furniture
Edible insects
Seeds for decorations
(*) known to be under-reported
(Shackleton & Shackleton 2004)

2. Use of wild protein by children over a two week period in households of high and low vulnerability to HIV/AIDS
Group
Measure
Vulnerability class
Stats
Low
High
Mammals
Frequency in diet 39
133
Sig
% hh using 33 60
Birds 89
195 25 64
Reptiles 8 13
n.s 4 12
Insects 3 24
(McGarry & Shackleton 2009)

3. Relative % contribution of wild natural resources to total household incomes (cash and non-cash)
Country
Site
Rel. contribution to hh income (%)
Source
South Africa
Makua
28.2
Crookes (2003)
Manganeng
22.0
Thorndale
19.3
Dovie (2001)
Makhushane/Mashishimale
48.0
Ward (2012)
Macubini
7.2
Kalahari – Mier
9.0
Thondhlana et al. (2012)
Kalahari - San
32.0
Ethiopia
Tigray
27.1
Babulo et al. (2009)
Oromiya
38.2
Tesfaye et al. (2011)
Dendi
39.0
Mamo et al. (2007)
Ghana
38.0
Appiah et al. (2009)
Malawi
Chiradzulu
15.0
Kamanga et al. (2009)
Uganda
Rwenzori
18.7
Tumusiime et al. (2011)
Zimbabwe
17.2
Cavendish (2002)
Mutangi & Romwe
15.2
Campbell et al. (2002)
Shindi
22 – 23 #
Cavendish (2000)
Cameroon
Mount Cameroon
4 – 20 %
Ambrose-Oji (2003)

4. Relative contribution to total hh income (%)
Wild resources contribution is often as high as arable agriculture or livestock husbandry (or both combined)
Country
Site
Relative contribution to total hh income (%)
Source
Natural resources
Arable cropping
Animal husbandry
South Africa
Thorndale 19 16 23
Dovie (2001)
Makhushane/
Mashishimale 48 14 1
Ward (2012)
Machubini 7 2 18
Kalahari - Mier 9
Thondhlana et al. (2012)
Kalahari - San 32
Uganda
Bigodi (*) 57 30 13
Gosling (2011)
Ethiopia
Tigray 27 43
Babulo et al. (2009)
Oromiya 38 17
Tesfaye et al. (2011)
Zambia
Maeve 20
Mutamba (unpubl.)
Nkhulwashi 49
14 Miles 44
Sosal

5. If exclude wild resources from urban residents incomes the proportion of households falling below the poverty lines increases by:

6. 100 % of households had experienced some shock in the last two years
No selling
70 % had turned to natural resource as a coping mechanism
WEALTHY
5th most common coping mechanism
POOR
Approx 20 % sold natural resources
Several then adopted trading as a permanent strategy
2nd most common coping mechanism
(Paumgarten & Shackleton 2011)

7. Returns per hour worked for small-scale trade in natural resources
Product
Income per hour worked
Local wage rate at same period
Ratio
Source
Reed mats
R2.50
R1.50
1.7
Shackleton & Shackleton (‘97)
Thatch grass
R7.50
5.0
Marula beer
R4.00
2.7
Mander et al. (2002)
Palm brooms
R3 – R26
R3.50
0.9 – 7.4
Gyan & Shackleton (2005)
Imifino (in town)
R17.50
R7.00
2.5
Mavimbela (2004)
Reed craft
R6.00
Pereira et al. (2006)
Grass brooms
R3.00
R2.00
1.5
Shackleton (2006)
2.0