& Vlok 2008; sensitivity Skowno et Lowest Least threatened 1 al. 2010) sensitivity Rust (2008) Archaeological All known sites recorded by Rust (2008) and Highest & SOB 5 & cultural sites by reserve staff in SOB database sensitivity database Heritage Results Due to the steep topography, the sensitivity has been scored as “moderate to highest sensitivity” for 77% of the GWHS&NRC. In this instance therefore, the sensitivity analysis has been dominated by the steep topography of this complex, leaving only 23% of area scored as “low or lowest sensitivity” on the basis of slope (Table 5.2). Although the sensitivity of, for example, the vegetation status is generally low across the protected area (92% is scored as “lowest sensitivity”), due to the methodology, the majority of the protected area (75%) has been scored as “highest sensitivity” largely because of highest sensitivity scorings in the proximity to rivers and the slope categories. Table 5.2: Summary of total and percentage area captured by the main features contributing to the sensitivity analysis illustrated in Figure 5.2. Slope Vegetation River buffers Soils Overall score Area Area Area Area Area Sensitivity Area Area Area Area Area (% of (% of (% of (% of (% of score (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) total) total) total) total) total) 1 3536 9 36352 92 15291 38 1728 4 23 < 1 2 5595 14 21452 54 2045 5 3 11427 29 2040 5 13275 34 4742 12 4 10044 25 332 1 3082 8 3166 8 5 8937 23 814 2 25054 62 30370 75 Thus even though the vulnerability status of the vegetation is largely low, the overall sensitivity of the protected area is high. The sensitivity of the GWHS&NRC is shown in Figure 5.2.
& Vlok 2008; Skowno et al. 2010) sensitivity Least threatened Lowest sensitivity 1 Heritage Archaeological & cultural sites Rust (2008) & SOB database All known sites recorded by Rust (2008) and by reserve staff in SOB database Highest sensitivity 5 Results Due to the steep topography, the sensitivity has been scored as “moderate to highest sensitivity” for 77% of the GWHS&NRC. In this instance therefore, the sensitivity analysis has been dominated by the steep topography of this complex, leaving only 23% of area scored as “low or lowest sensitivity” on the basis of slope (Table 5.2). Although the sensitivity of, for example, the vegetation status is generally low across the protected area (92% is scored as “lowest sensitivity”), due to the methodology, the majority of the protected area (75%) has been scored as “highest sensitivity” largely because of highest sensitivity scorings in the proximity to rivers and the slope categories. Table 5.2: Summary of total and percentage area captured by the main features contributing to the sensitivity analysis illustrated in Figure 5.2. Slope Vegetation River buffers Soils Overall score Sensitivity score Area (ha) Area (% of total) Area (ha) Area (% of total) Area (ha) Area (% of total) Area (ha) Area (% of total) Area (ha) Area (% of total) 1 3536 9 36352 92 15291 38 1728 4 23 < 1 2 5595 14 21452 54 2045 5 3 11427 29 2040 5 13275 34 4742 12 4 10044 25 332 1 3082 8 3166 8 5 8937 23 814 2 25054 62 30370 75 Thus even though the vulnerability status of the vegetation is largely low, the overall sensitivity of the protected area is high. The sensitivity of the GWHS&NRC is shown in Figure 5.2.