Investigations into natural resource use and access are often limited to rural areas; such use is not considered an integral part of urban livelihood strategies, especially amongst the poor. With growing urban food insecurity, poverty, and unequal access to services, natural resource use may provide a viable alternative to cash-based resources, thus, allowing households to navigate the rural–urban continuum as they address livelihood needs. This may be especially pertinent for growing, but small, urban landscapes that are in transition. We investigated the use of and access to natural resources in households in rural (Lesoma), peri-urban (Kazungula), and urban (Kasane) settlements in northern Botswana. Semi-structured questionnaires for 85 households were used to investigate household demographics, variety of natural resources used, the availability, use, and importance of natural resources, threats to resources, harvesting locations, and extent of resource commercialization. Significant differences were identified in the mean number of resources used by households across the three settlements (Kruskal–Wallis Chi-squared = 9.29, df = 2, p = 0.01). Using the post hoc test Conover with Bonferroni adjustment, mean natural resource use between the urban and peri-urban villages did not differ significantly (p = 1). However, both types of villages differed from the rural village in mean resource use (urban p = 0.007 and peri-urban p = 0.012). Nevertheless, urban and peri-urban households reported use of a broad range of natural resources, highlighting the importance of these products in transitioning landscapes. Across the study villages, natural resource harvesting occurred predominantly on communal land. Primary barriers to resource access were perceived to be strict government regulations and decreasing resource availability. Natural resource commercialization was identified as a potential opportunity but was often carried out only on a small scale. The use of natural resources is intuitively thought to be associated with rural areas, but our results suggest that such resources form an important part of livelihoods across urban and peri-urban landscapes as well. This continued reliance on natural resources raises important planning questions about how to ensure both the ongoing conservation of forested and other natural areas, and the availability of associated resources for urban livelihoods. In this regard, small urban towns that are rapidly transitioning from rural landscapes provide a targeted opportunity for early intervention. Our findings underpin the vital role that natural areas play in supporting the livelihoods of the urban poor and highlight the need to encourage land designation and management of such areas not only for conservation but also as a safety net for vulnerable urban households.

关于自然资源使用和获取的调查往往仅限于农村地区；这种使用不被认为是城市生计策略不可或缺的一部分，尤其是在穷人当中。随着城市粮食不安全，贫困以及获得服务的机会不平等，自然资源的使用可能提供替代现金为基础的资源的可行方法，因此，使家庭能够在满足生计需求的情况下在农村—城市的连续性中导航。这对于正在成长但正在过渡的小城市景观尤其重要。我们调查了博茨瓦纳北部农村（莱索马），郊区（卡祖古拉）和城市（卡萨内）定居点家庭的自然资源使用和获取情况。使用针对85户家庭的半结构式问卷调查了家庭人口统计资料，所使用的各种自然资源，自然资源的可用性，使用和重要性，对资源的威胁，收割地点以及资源商业化的程度。在三个定居点中，家庭使用的平均资源数量存在显着差异（Kruskal–Wallis卡方= 9.29，df = 2，p  = 0.01）。使用事后检验Conover进行Bonferroni调整后，城市村庄和郊区村庄之间自然资源的平均使用没有显着差异（p  = 1）。但是，这两种类型的村庄在资源平均使用上都不同于农村村庄（城市p  = 0.007和城市周围p = 0.012）。尽管如此，城市和城郊家庭报告使用了广泛的自然资源，突显了这些产品在转变景观中的重要性。在研究村庄中，自然资源的采伐主要发生在公共土地上。人们认为，获取资源的主要障碍是严格的政府法规和资源可用性的下降。自然资源商业化被确定为潜在机会，但通常仅在小规模范围内进行。从直觉上讲，自然资源的使用与农村地区有关，但我们的结果表明，这种资源也构成了城市和城市周边景观生计的重要组成部分。对自然资源的持续依赖提出了重要的规划问题，即如何确保对森林和其他自然区域的持续保护以及城市生计的相关资源的可用性。在这方面，迅速从乡村景观过渡的小城镇为早期干预提供了有针对性的机会。我们的研究结果证明了自然区在支持城市贫困人口的生计中所起的关键作用，并强调了需要鼓励对这些地区进行土地划定和管理，不仅是为了保护自然环境，而且还应作为脆弱城市家庭的安全网。从乡村景观迅速过渡的小城镇为早期干预提供了有针对性的机会。我们的研究结果证明了自然区在支持城市贫困人口的生计中所起的关键作用，并强调了需要鼓励对这些地区进行土地划定和管理，不仅是为了保护自然环境，而且还应作为脆弱城市家庭的安全网。从乡村景观迅速过渡的小城镇为早期干预提供了有针对性的机会。我们的研究结果证明了自然区在支持城市贫困人口的生计中所起的关键作用，并强调了需要鼓励对这些地区进行土地划定和管理，不仅是为了保护自然环境，而且还应作为脆弱城市家庭的安全网。