This study is grounded in three interrelated theoretical perspectives: environmental justice theory, political ecology, and resilience thinking. Together, these frameworks provide an integrated and mutually reinforcing analytical lens for examining how ecosystem services, livelihood pathways, climate variability, and governance intersect to shape environmental outcomes and rural well-being in the Amathole Mountains, Eastern Cape. Rather than operating as separate perspectives, these theories are used in a deliberately integrated manner to capture the distributive, structural, and adaptive dimensions of socio-ecological change. Importantly, the three frameworks informed both data analysis and interpretation. During coding and thematic analysis, specific analytical categories were derived from each framework and used to organize participants’ experiences, governance challenges, and adaptation responses. Environmental justice informed the analysis of distributional, procedural, and recognitional dimensions of resource access and governance; political ecology guided the examination of power relations, historical inequalities, and institutional arrangements; and resilience thinking informed the analysis of adaptation strategies, adaptive capacity, and socio-ecological responses to climate variability.

Environmental justice theory extends beyond the equitable distribution of environmental risks and benefits to include questions of access, participation, and recognition. It emphasizes not only distributional justice—fair access to resources such as water, grazing land, forests, and tourism-related opportunities—but also procedural justice, which concerns meaningful participation in environmental decision-making processes (Schlosberg 2007; Walker 2012). Recognitional justice further underscores the importance of acknowledging diverse social identities, knowledge systems, and cultural practices, ensuring that marginalized groups’ perspectives are valued and incorporated into environmental governance (Fraser 1998; Schlosberg 2013).

In the South African context, environmental justice is particularly salient because historical inequalities shaped by apartheid continue to influence land tenure systems, access to ecosystem services, and representation within governance structures (McDonald 2002; Bond 2014). Within mountain socio-ecological systems, these injustices manifest through uneven access to ecosystem services that underpin rural livelihoods, thereby shaping differentiated livelihood pathways and adaptive capacities. This framework therefore helps to illuminate whose voices are amplified and whose concerns remain marginalized in climate adaptation and resource governance.

Operationally, environmental justice informed three analytical categories used throughout the analysis: (i) distributional justice, focusing on the allocation of ecosystem services and environmental benefits and burdens; (ii) procedural justice, examining participation, representation, and decision-making processes; and (iii) recognitional justice, assessing the extent to which local knowledge, cultural values, and community identities were acknowledged within governance systems. These categories subsequently informed the interpretation of findings relating to resource access, governance participation, and environmental inequalities.

However, while environmental justice clarifies inequalities in access and recognition, it does not fully explain the historical and political-economic processes that produce and sustain these injustices. This analytical gap is addressed through political ecology, which deepens the analysis by interrogating power relations and structural drivers of environmental inequality.

Political ecology provides a complementary perspective by examining how power relations, historical processes, and political-economic structures shape environmental governance and access to natural resources. It situates environmental change within broader dynamics of state policy, conservation interventions, land reform, and development agendas (Bryant 1998; Robbins 2012). This perspective is especially relevant in rural, postcolonial contexts such as the Eastern Cape, where governance arrangements often reproduce exclusion, marginalization, and uneven development (Benjaminsen and Svarstad 2021).

At the same time, political ecology foregrounds the agency of local actors, demonstrating how informal institutions, everyday practices, and subtle forms of resistance challenge dominant conservation and development narratives (Scott 2020). In the Amathole Mountains, these dynamics shape how communities negotiate access to ecosystem services and reconfigure livelihood strategies under conditions of climate variability and weak institutional support.

To operationalize this framework, the analysis focused on three interrelated dimensions: (i) power relations and resource control; (ii) historical legacies of land dispossession and exclusion; and (iii) governance arrangements influencing access to ecosystem services. These dimensions provided analytical guidance for examining how structural inequalities and institutional processes shape livelihood opportunities, environmental governance, and community vulnerability.

However, while political ecology effectively explains structural inequalities and power asymmetries, it is less explicit in theorizing how communities absorb disturbances, adapt, and reorganize livelihoods in response to environmental change. This adaptive dimension is captured through resilience thinking, which complements political ecology by focusing on socio-ecological persistence and transformation.

Resilience thinking emphasizes the capacity of socio-ecological systems to absorb disturbances, adapt to changing conditions, and, where necessary, transform in response to shocks and stresses such as climate variability and environmental change (Walker et al. 2004; Folke et al. 2010). This perspective highlights the interconnectedness of people and ecosystems, the centrality of local and indigenous knowledge systems, and the importance of flexible, adaptive governance in sustaining ecosystem services and livelihoods over time (Berkes and Ross 2013).

In this study, resilience is not conceptualized as a purely technical or ecological attribute but as a socially negotiated process shaped by power relations, justice concerns, and institutional dynamics (Cote and Nightingale 2012). Assessing community resilience therefore involves examining how governance arrangements enable or constrain people’s ability to adapt, diversify livelihood pathways, and maintain access to critical ecosystem services under changing climatic conditions. The interpretation explicitly positions resilience within a justice-informed and politically embedded socio-ecological framework, aligning resilience thinking with the normative concerns of environmental justice and the structural insights of political ecology.

This study integrates environmental justice theory, political ecology, and resilience thinking to examine how governance, power relations, and climate variability influence access to ecosystem services, environmental justice outcomes, and community resilience. Together, these frameworks provide a comprehensive understanding of the links between ecological change, governance processes, and livelihood adaptation within mountain socio-ecological systems. These themes guided the interpretation of community responses and adaptation pathways identified in the empirical findings.

By integrating environmental justice theory, political ecology, and resilience thinking, this study develops a holistic framework for understanding how climate variability, governance structures, and community responses operate through interlinked causal pathways and feedback loops to shape environmental outcomes, livelihood pathways, and justice claims in the Amathole Mountains.

Environmental justice highlights fairness and recognition; political ecology reveals structural drivers and historical constraints that produce and sustain inequality; and resilience thinking illuminates adaptive capacities and community responses within dynamic socio-ecological systems. Together, these perspectives are treated as complementary and mutually reinforcing rather than additive, forming a single analytical system in which justice, power, and adaptation continuously interact.

Their intersection is not only conceptual but also analytical, allowing the study to trace how governance processes influence access to ecosystem services, which in turn shapes livelihood strategies and adaptive outcomes under climate variability. Fig. 1 summarizes the relationships among the three frameworks and illustrates how the analytical categories derived from each perspective informed data coding, thematic development, and interpretation of findings.

This figure illustrates the causal and feedback interconnections among environmental justice, political ecology, and resilience thinking as analytical lenses. Their convergence provides a holistic understanding of how climate variability, governance structures, and community responses interact through multiple reinforcing and constraining pathways to shape environmental outcomes, livelihood pathways, and justice claims within the Amathole Mountains socio-ecological system.

The overlap between environmental justice and political ecology highlights how governance arrangements and resource inequalities are produced and maintained through power relations and historical processes (Walker 2012; Benjaminsen and Svarstad 2021). The intersection of political ecology and resilience thinking emphasizes community innovations, local knowledge, and adaptive strategies that emerge within structural constraints (Turner 2014). The overlap between resilience thinking and environmental justice underscores the need for equitable, inclusive, and empowering adaptation processes that strengthen both social and ecological resilience (Cote and Nightingale 2012; Berkes and Ross 2013).

At the center, where all three frameworks converge, lies an integrated understanding of (i) ecosystem service availability and access, (ii) governance processes, (iii) livelihood pathways, and (iv) adaptive capacity under climate variability, all of which are mutually shaping and continuously interacting rather than operating in isolation. These dimensions also provide the organizing structure for the presentation of findings, ensuring that the empirical analysis explicitly reflects the theoretical foundation of the study.

Fig. 1 therefore provides an integrated analytical framework that guided data coding, thematic development, and interpretation of findings. By linking ecosystem services, governance processes, environmental justice, and adaptive responses to climate variability, the framework informed the analysis of livelihood pathways and resilience outcomes in the Amathole Mountains.

The study was conducted in South Africa’s Eastern Cape Province, located between 30"00'S and 34"15'S latitude, and 22°45'E and 30"15'E longitude (Afolayan et al. 2014). Within this region, the Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality (RMLM) lies approximately at 32.6086°S, 26.3854°E and falls within the subtropical high-pressure belt, a global atmospheric system occurring approximately 30° latitude in both hemispheres (CSIR 2011). The regional climate is influenced by interactions between the Agulhas Bank and subtropical atmospheric circulation systems, producing variable rainfall patterns, shifting wind regimes, sea surface temperature anomalies, and periodic extreme weather events linked to the convergence of the warm Agulhas and cold Benguela currents (Schumann et al. 1995; Shannon et al. 2003).

The Eastern Cape remains one of South Africa’s most socio-economically disadvantaged provinces. Many rural households rely on small-scale agriculture and rural resource use, while peri-urban populations depend largely on low-wage labor (Statistics South Africa 2017). These structural conditions increase vulnerability to climate variability and environmental change, particularly within mountain ecosystems. In the Amathole District Municipality, approximately 59% of residents earn less than R1,600 per month, and unemployment reaches 42.8%, with social grants serving as a key poverty-relief mechanism (Statistics South Africa 2017; Ngumbela and Mle 2019). Combined with increasing climate variability, these conditions place considerable pressure on rural livelihoods and natural resource systems.

The study focused on three communities within the RMLM: Hopefield, Bold Point, and Hogsback. These settlements are located within the Amathole Mountains landscape, an area of high ecological, hydrological, and socio-economic significance. Two main stakeholder groups were engaged: (i) rural households residing in Hopefield and Bold Point and (ii) tourism stakeholders operating in Hogsback “village” involved in local development planning.

RMLM forms part of the Amathole District Municipality (ADM), established following South Africa’s municipal restructuring reforms in 2000 (ECSECC 2017). ADM stretches from the Indian Ocean coast to the Amathole Mountains and covers approximately 21,114 km², with an estimated population of 762,037 inhabitants in 2023 (Health Systems Trust 2024). RMLM itself was created in 2016 through the merger of the former Nkonkobe and Nxuba municipalities and spans roughly 6,358 km², with approximately 156,000 residents (Statistics South Africa 2017). The municipality is predominantly rural and characterized by dispersed settlements, commercial farms, and small service towns, including Alice, Fort Beaufort, and Cathcart.

The Hogsback Mountain range rises to approximately 1,963 m a.s.l. and constitutes a significant ecological asset providing water regulation, soil fertility, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity support (Shackleton and Luckert 2015). RMLM typically experiences average summer temperatures of approximately 26 °C and winter temperatures of approximately 13 °C. Rainfall averages approximately 1,000 mm per year in summer and 400 mm per year during winter (Bontsa et al. 2024). Ecologically, the area falls within the Albany Thicket Biome, characterized by dense shrubs, succulents, and forest patches distributed across elevations between 300 and 700 m a.s.l. (Carvalho et al. 2022). Although annual rainfall ranges from 800 to 1,200 mm, recent decades have seen increasing climate variability, including recurrent droughts, soil erosion, overgrazing, and deforestation pressures that threaten agricultural productivity, water security, and biodiversity (Apraku et al. 2019).

As shown in Table 1, a total of 83 participants (74 community members and nine key informants) took part in the study. Community participants included 62 household representatives from Hopefield and 12 from Bold Point. No household participants were recruited from Hogsback. The nine key informants comprised six Hopefield community leaders, one Bold Point community leader, and two tourism stakeholders from Hogsback (one from Hogsback Inn Hotel and one tourism guide from Jikane). Tourism stakeholders participated primarily through key informant interviews due to the small size of the tourism sector and the study’s focus on obtaining institutional rather than household-level perspectives. Consequently, participant numbers varied across sites, reflecting differences in population size, livelihood structures, accessibility, and stakeholder availability rather than proportional representation. The larger sample from Hopefield reflects its greater population size and stronger dependence on ecosystem service-based livelihoods compared with Bold Point and Hogsback.

This table summarizes the distribution of study participants across the study area, indicating the number of individual interviews and key informant interviews conducted within each community.

Bold Point is a small formal rural settlement approximately 5 km from Hogsback Inn, while Hopefield is a semi-rural community located more than 10 km away. Hopefield features some modern housing, whereas Bold Point is marked by informal dwellings and limited educational facilities. Both communities face significant socio-economic challenges: 65% of residents live below the upper-bound poverty line, and unemployment is approximately 45% (ECSECC 2024). Social grants remain the main source of income for many households (Mthethwa and Wale 2023), while limited employment opportunities increase reliance on natural resources for water, grazing, small-scale agriculture, and livelihoods.

The Amathole Mountains system reflects the intersection of ecological significance, socio-economic vulnerability, and climate sensitivity. Although Hogsback’s tourism sector provides some seasonal employment, benefits remain unevenly distributed, and persistent poverty and population pressures continue to drive reliance on natural resources, including subsistence farming and firewood collection (Wondirad and Ewnetu 2019). A lack of diversified livelihoods pushes many young people to seek temporary work in nearby tourist establishments.

Given this dependence on mountain ecosystem resources, these communities form a key interface between environmental sustainability and rural development. The study therefore examined differences in access to and valuation of ecosystem services between upstream tourism stakeholders and downstream rural households, using the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) framework (Reid 2005) to classify and analyze ecosystem services and their perceived importance across stakeholder groups.

This study adopted a qualitative research design grounded in an interpretivist paradigm. The qualitative approach was selected because the study sought to explore participants’ lived experiences, perceptions, and interpretations of climate variability, ecosystem services, governance processes, and livelihood pathways within the Amathole Mountain socio-ecological systems. The study relies exclusively on qualitative methods, including in-depth interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), and key informant interviews (KIIs). Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling to ensure the inclusion of individuals with relevant knowledge and experience regarding local environmental conditions and livelihood practices.

To strengthen methodological rigor and address coding reliability concerns, the study adopted a systematic thematic analysis process supported by repeated coding cycles, peer consultation, reflexive memo writing, and audit trail documentation. Coding decisions and emerging interpretations were reviewed collaboratively among the authors to enhance analytical consistency and minimize subjective bias.

Community participants represented diverse demographic backgrounds and livelihood experiences. Of the 74 community members interviewed, 50 were women and 24 were men. Participants ranged in age from 21 to 76 years and were predominantly Black South Africans, with two white South African participants. Many participants engaged in multiple livelihood strategies, including subsistence farming, informal trade, natural resource use, and tourism-related activities. Approximately 60% had not completed secondary education, reflecting broader structural educational challenges within the municipality.

Key informants were selected based on their roles in tourism development, natural resource management, and community leadership within the mountain landscape. Their perspectives provided institutional insights that complemented the lived experiences of community members and enabled triangulation across governance and livelihood contexts.

Fieldwork was conducted between September and November 2025 through semi-structured interviews, FGDs, and KIIs. These methods enabled the collection of detailed qualitative data on participants’ perceptions of climate variability, ecosystem services, governance, livelihood strategies, vulnerability, and environmental justice within the Amathole Mountains region.

Participants were divided into two targeted groups: (1) rural community members from Hopefield and Bold Point and (2) tourism stakeholders operating in Hogsback. Participants were selected through purposive sampling based on their knowledge of mountain ecosystems and involvement in resource-based livelihoods. Snowball sampling was subsequently used to identify additional participants until data saturation was reached.

Two FGDs were conducted in Hopefield because it had a larger population and was more accessible than the other study sites, allowing the collection of in-depth insights from local community members who depend on mountain ecosystem services. Each group consisted of six to 10 participants aged 18 years and older and provided opportunities for collective reflection on ecosystem services, climate variability, and governance challenges. The FGDs were organized into homogeneous sub-groups based on gender and age to promote free expression, as recommended by De Vos (2011). Each FGD lasted between 45 and 60 min and was audio-recorded.

Ethics clearance was obtained from the University of Fort Hare Inter-Faculty Human Research Ethics Committee (IFRED). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants after explaining the study’s objectives, potential risks, and their rights to withdraw at any stage without consequence. Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained throughout the research process.

KIIs were conducted with community leaders and tourism stakeholders and lasted between 30 and 45 min. Tourism participants provided insights into natural resource use in Hogsback, climate-related risks, and environmental governance processes related to tourism activities. Some interviews and FGDs were conducted in isiXhosa and later translated into English. To preserve meaning and tone while ensuring clarity, translations were lightly edited for grammar without altering participants’ intended meaning. Transcription was conducted verbatim, with minor editing for readability while preserving participants’ intended meaning.

To examine spatial differences in ecosystem services, data were collected along a distance gradient extending approximately 20 km upstream from Hogsback Mountain. This approach enabled comparison between upstream tourism stakeholders and downstream rural households.

To enhance methodological trustworthiness, the study applied multiple validation strategies, including member checking during and after interviews, where participants were invited to confirm or clarify emerging interpretations. An audit trail was maintained through systematic documentation of coding decisions, theme development, and data reduction steps. Reflexive memo writing was also used throughout the fieldwork and analysis phases to document research assumptions, positionality, and evolving interpretations.

Thematic analysis was conducted following the procedures proposed by Saldaña (2009). All interviews, FGDs, and KIIs were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and reviewed for accuracy before analysis. The researchers repeatedly read the transcripts to become more familiar with the data and identify recurring issues related to climate variability, ecosystem services, governance, environmental justice, and livelihood adaptation.

The analysis proceeded through four stages. First, transcripts were read repeatedly to achieve familiarization and identify preliminary patterns. Second, initial codes were generated both inductively from participants’ narratives and deductively from the study objectives, research questions, and conceptual framework. Third, related codes were grouped into broader categories and examined for recurring patterns across stakeholder groups and study locations. Finally, these categories were refined into overarching themes that captured key dimensions of ecosystem services, climate variability, governance, environmental justice, livelihood pathways, and community resilience.

Both inductive and deductive coding were employed. Inductive coding enabled themes to emerge directly from participants’ narratives, while deductive coding was guided by the research questions and conceptual framework. Manual coding facilitated close engagement with the data and supported the identification of nuanced meanings and contextual insights.

A codebook was developed and continuously refined throughout the analysis process. Coding reliability was enhanced through iterative coding cycles, collaborative review of coded segments among the authors, peer debriefing, and comparison of interpretations across interviews, FGDs, and KIIs (Bailey 2008). Coding discrepancies were discussed and resolved through consensus, thereby strengthening analytical consistency and trustworthiness.

A thematic matrix was subsequently developed to compare patterns across stakeholder groups and study locations. All identifying information was removed from transcripts before analysis. Analytical consistency was further strengthened through repeated cross-checking of coded extracts and continuous comparison across datasets (interviews and FGDs), ensuring alignment between raw data and emerging themes.

The analysis generated five interrelated themes: (1) water provisioning, agriculture, and livelihood vulnerability; (2) biodiversity, cultural ecosystem services, and environmental change; (3) livestock, firewood, wildlife, and ecosystem service decline; (4) governance, access, and environmental justice in mountain ecosystems; and (5) community resilience, livelihood adaptation, and grassroots responses. Each theme comprised several sub-themes reflecting variations in experiences across Hopefield, Bold Point, and Hogsback.

Several measures were employed to enhance the trustworthiness of the findings. First, methodological triangulation was achieved using interviews, FGDs, and KIIs. Second, emerging interpretations were continuously reviewed against the raw data to ensure consistency. Third, an audit trail documenting coding decisions, theme refinement, and analytical reflections was maintained throughout the study. Finally, reflexive memo writing was used to minimize researcher bias and improve analytical transparency.

Findings from the interviews and FGDs are presented through descriptive narratives, supported by direct participant quotations. Quotations are attributed using general identifiers (e.g., “female FGD, Hopefield”) to maintain anonymity while preserving the contextual richness of participants’ perspectives.

This section presents findings aligned with the three study objectives: (1) examining how climate variability affects access to key ecosystem services and associated livelihood pathways in the Amathole Mountains; (2) analyzing how governance structures and power relations influence access to these resources and shape environmental justice outcomes; and (3) identifying community and sector-specific adaptation strategies that support resilience.

Participants consistently reported that climate variability is altering mountain ecosystems and the services they provide. Across all three study sites, participants highlighted changing rainfall patterns, declining water availability, vegetation stress, and shifts in biodiversity. These changes directly affect livelihoods, particularly for households dependent on subsistence agriculture, livestock grazing, wild plant harvesting, and mountain-fed water sources.

Through FGDs and interviews, participants described rainfall as increasingly unpredictable. Seasonal rains that previously arrived in early spring now occur irregularly or are delayed, resulting in shorter growing seasons and declining water availability. Streams and rivers that once flowed throughout the year now dry up earlier during the dry season, reducing water availability for households and agriculture. Water provisioning emerged as the most frequently discussed ecosystem service across interviews and FGDs, with participants in Hopefield, Bold Point, and Hogsback consistently reporting declining water reliability.

In Hopefield, drying rivers reduce soil moisture and limit irrigation for household gardens and small-scale farming. This has contributed to declining crop yields for staple crops such as maize, beans, spinach, cabbage, and potatoes. As one participant explained:

“The river often dries up now because the rain doesn’t come as before” (female participant, Hopefield FGD, September 2025).

Another participant highlighted the uncertainty that climate variability introduces into agricultural decision-making:

“Sometimes it rains too much, other times there is no rain at all …farming becomes difficult because we don’t know when to plant” (young male participant, Hopefield interview, September 2025).

These accounts demonstrate that climate variability affects not only the availability of ecosystem services but also the predictability upon which livelihood planning depends. From a resilience perspective, uncertainty itself emerged as a significant livelihood stressor because it undermines households’ ability to anticipate and respond effectively to environmental change.

Participants in Bold Point reported similar challenges. Reduced rainfall has weakened streamflow and increased sedimentation, limiting the reliability of mountain-fed water systems. Many households previously relied on piped water drawn directly from mountain sources, but broken infrastructure and declining streamflow have forced residents to rely on distant streams or purchase water during dry periods. One participant stated:

“Before, pipes came directly from the mountain, but they broke… now we mostly rely on mountain streams” (male participant, Bold Point interview, September 2025).

The interaction between climate stress and deteriorating infrastructure emerged as a critical mechanism shaping water insecurity. While climatic factors reduce water availability, inadequate maintenance of local water systems amplifies exposure to risk. This finding supports political ecology perspectives that vulnerability is co-produced through interactions between environmental change and institutional conditions rather than resulting solely from biophysical processes.

Beyond agricultural and domestic water use, climate variability also affects cultural and spiritual practices tied to mountain ecosystem services. Participants described the declining availability of traditional herbs used for healing, rituals, and household protection. Participants from both Hopefield and Bold Point consistently reported that medicinal plants are becoming more difficult to locate due to changing rainfall patterns, vegetation shifts, and recurring drought conditions. As one participant explained:

“Some of the herbs don’t grow like before because the rain is not the same… we now look for them higher up the mountain” (older female participant, Hopefield interview, September 2025).

This perception was echoed by multiple participants across both communities, suggesting a widespread concern regarding the declining availability of medicinal plants and other culturally significant ecosystem resources.

The findings indicate that climate variability affects both material and non-material ecosystem services. The loss of medicinal plants represents more than a decline in biodiversity; it also threatens cultural identity, traditional ecological knowledge, and intergenerational practices that are central to community well-being. From a recognitional justice perspective, these findings demonstrate how environmental change can undermine cultural relationships with nature that remain insufficiently acknowledged within formal governance systems.

Climate-related changes were also evident in Hogsback, where tourism and hospitality businesses depend heavily on mountain landscapes. Participants linked declining precipitation and reduced snowfall to falling groundwater levels and reduced spring recharge. Older residents recalled that snow historically contributed to groundwater replenishment and sustained local streams and wetlands. One tourism stakeholder explained:

“We get far less snow than when I was a child…. a stream that flowed for 140 years dried for the first time” (KII 1, Hogsback tourism stakeholder, November 2025).

These findings reveal that climate variability affects multiple sectors simultaneously, but the consequences differ according to livelihood dependence and resource access. Whereas rural households experience direct impacts on food production, water access, and energy security, tourism stakeholders are primarily affected through changes in landscape quality, water availability, and visitor experiences.

Changes in vegetation and water availability also affect livestock grazing. Households in Hopefield and Bold Point reported increasing grass shortages during prolonged dry spells. Lower-altitude grazing areas dry earlier in the season, forcing farmers to move animals to higher slopes where moisture remains available for longer periods.

Participants also reported broader ecological changes affecting wildlife and forest resources. Some hunters in Hopefield reported that animals increasingly migrate in search of water and vegetation, reducing access to bushmeat and weakening an important supplementary food source for rural households.

Evidence of ecosystem service decline emerged consistently across interviews and FGDs. Participants reported declining streamflow, reduced medicinal plant availability, increased grazing shortages, lower crop productivity, reduced wildlife presence, and growing pressure on firewood resources. Collectively, these observations suggest that climate variability is affecting multiple ecosystem services simultaneously rather than individual resources in isolation.

Firewood collection patterns are also shifting. Participants explained that increasing travel distances, vegetation stress, and periodic wildlife movement have reduced the availability of easily accessible fuelwood. As a result, households reported collecting firewood less frequently, spending more time harvesting resources, or traveling further into mountain areas to meet household energy needs.

Taken together, these findings reveal an interconnected cascade of impacts whereby climate variability reduces ecosystem service availability, which subsequently constrains livelihood options, food security, cultural practice, and local economic activities. The findings therefore demonstrate that ecosystem services function as critical livelihood assets whose decline has far-reaching social and economic consequences. Despite these pressures, participants consistently emphasized the central role of mountain ecosystems in sustaining local livelihoods and cultural practices.

Table 2 summarizes the key ecosystem services utilized across Hopefield, Bold Point, and Hogsback and highlights the observed impacts of climate variability on water provisioning, firewood availability, medicinal plants, cultural practices, grazing resources, and tourism-related services.

The findings further indicate that climate-related pressures are inseparable from governance dynamics because access to ecosystem services is mediated by institutions, power relations, and historical land-use arrangements.

While communities across the Amathole Mountains rely heavily on ecosystem services, many participants reported limited involvement in governance processes that regulate access to these resources. Across Hopefield and Bold Point, participants described a lack of formal representation in decision-making structures related to land use, water management, and forest resources. Forest areas remain controlled by private tourism operators and forestry companies, restricting access to grazing areas, trails, and other natural resources. A tourism guide explained:

“The forestry company managing roughly 55,000 hectares restricts access and we are currently in arbitration to improve access to some of the mountain resources” (KII 2, Hogsback tourism guide, September 2025).

This finding illustrates the distributive dimension of environmental justice because access to ecosystem services and their associated benefits remains unevenly distributed among stakeholder groups. Although rural communities rely heavily on mountain resources for household livelihoods, access to these resources is often controlled by actors with greater economic and political power.

Participants frequently linked these governance challenges to historical land dispossession and long-standing struggles for recognition and restitution. Several participants emphasized that communities continue to rely on landscapes that were historically part of their ancestral territories but are now managed by commercial forestry or tourism enterprises.

These accounts reflect recognitional injustice because participants perceived that their historical relationships with the landscape, indigenous knowledge systems, and cultural claims to natural resources receive limited acknowledgment within contemporary governance arrangements.

Water governance emerged as another major concern. Participants reported inconsistent municipal water supply, poor communication during water shortages, and limited coordination between upstream and downstream users.

The unequal distribution of water resources between upstream and downstream users further illustrates distributive injustice. Communities located downstream frequently experience shortages while possessing limited influence over decisions affecting water allocation and management.

Land restitution processes were also described as incomplete or delayed. One participant reported:

“Some families were paid, but others are still waiting …we are not part of the decision even though this land was ours.” (female participant, Hopefield interview, September 2025).

This statement reflects procedural injustice because affected communities reported limited participation in decisions concerning land ownership, compensation, and resource management.

Although Hogsback maintains a tourism-led forum, participants acknowledged that commercial and forestry interests dominate discussions, limiting genuine community representation. One tourism stakeholder explained:

“Currently, our forum does not have direct community representatives, but we are working toward appointing one soon. We maintain regular communication with strong leaders in each community.” (KII 1, Hogsback tourism stakeholder, November 2025).

Table 3 summarizes governance mechanisms, key actors, levels of community inclusion, and major challenges affecting resource access in Hogsback, Hopefield, and Bold Point. It highlights governance gaps, particularly weak community participation and poor institutional coordination.

The findings therefore reveal that environmental justice concerns extend beyond resource scarcity to encompass questions of power, representation, and recognition. Communities most dependent on ecosystem services frequently possess the least influence over governance processes that determine access to those resources. From a political ecology perspective, these governance arrangements reproduce historical inequalities and shape contemporary patterns of resource access and exclusion.

Despite growing climate pressures and governance constraints, communities across the Amathole Mountains have developed a range of adaptation strategies. These responses combine local ecological knowledge, household coping mechanisms, and sector-specific innovations.

Rural households in Hopefield and Bold Point rely heavily on ecosystem-based strategies to manage climate risks. In Hopefield, communities frequently draw water from rivers, mountain springs, or storage tanks when the municipal water system fails.

“When the taps don’t work, we get water from the river or directly from the mountain.” (male participant, Hopefield interview, September 2025).

Another participant explained:

“We use tanks to store water… but when there is no rain, it becomes difficult.” (female participant, Hopefield interview, September 2025).

These adaptation strategies demonstrate the continued importance of ecosystem services as a form of informal social protection. However, they also reveal the limits of community resilience because households remain highly dependent on increasingly stressed natural systems.

Farmers also adapt by adjusting planting schedules and diversifying livelihood activities. Some households supplement agricultural income through wild honey harvesting and small-scale trading.

Seasonal livestock mobility remains a key adaptation strategy. This practice was described as follows by a participant:

“During the drought we move our livestock up to the mountain because the grass stays soft and green even in winter season and we bring them back in December.” (young male shepherd, Hopefield interview, September 2025).

This practice illustrates the importance of local ecological knowledge in sustaining livelihoods under changing climatic conditions. In contrast, tourism enterprises in Hogsback demonstrate higher adaptive capacity due to greater financial resources and infrastructure. One tourism operator explained:

“We increased water storage… we have an artesian well, several good springs on the farm, and a large dam to store water.” (KII 1, Hogsback tourism stakeholder, November 2025).

Some hotel establishments have also adopted ecological technologies to manage wastewater more efficiently.

“We installed a biological digester system so we can recycle wastewater safely and use it for irrigation.” (tourism employee, Hogsback interview, September 2025).

A central finding emerging from the data is that resilience is unevenly distributed across stakeholder groups. Tourism enterprises possess greater financial, technical, and infrastructure resources, enabling them to implement capital-intensive adaptation measures. Rural households, by contrast, depend primarily on ecosystem-based and labor-intensive coping strategies.

During recent droughts, tourism operations were able to maintain water supply through private infrastructure, while nearby households faced severe shortages.

Viewed through environmental justice and resilience frameworks, these differences reveal unequal adaptive capacity. The groups most exposed to climate-related risks frequently possess the fewest resources to respond effectively, creating differentiated resilience outcomes across the mountain landscape.

Taken together, these findings reveal significant differences in adaptive capacity across sectors. Tourism enterprises rely on technological and capital-intensive adaptation measures, whereas rural households depend on ecosystem resources, mobility, and community-based coping strategies. Despite these differences, participants across all three communities emphasized the critical importance of mountain ecosystem services as a natural buffer against climate variability and environmental stress.

Overall, the findings demonstrate that climate variability, governance arrangements, and environmental justice are closely interconnected. Access to ecosystem services is shaped not only by ecological change but also by governance structures, historical power relations, and unequal access to adaptive resources. Consequently, distributive, procedural, and recognitional forms of injustice collectively influence livelihood vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and resilience within the Amathole Mountains landscape.