How important is green infrastructure in small and medium-sized towns? Lessons from South Africa
- Shackleton, Charlie M, Blair, Andrew, De Lacy, Peter, Kaoma, Humphrey, Mugwagwa, Noster, Dalu, Mwazvita, Walton, Wesley
- Authors: Shackleton, Charlie M , Blair, Andrew , De Lacy, Peter , Kaoma, Humphrey , Mugwagwa, Noster , Dalu, Mwazvita , Walton, Wesley
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/398321 , vital:69400 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.007"
- Description: The current nature and challenges of urbanisation in sub-Saharan Africa display several unique features only weakly evident on other continents. Key ones include the current high rates of population growth, inadequate planning and governance systems, concentration in small and medium-sized towns, and increasing urban poverty. These shape the extent, nature and use of ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructure. This paper first examines the location of green infrastructure across nine towns, showing that it is unequal between suburbs and that the bulk is located under private tenure (74%) rather than in public spaces. We then consider the extent and patterns of use of selected provisioning and cultural ecosystem services from green infrastructure in different locations within towns, including private gardens, public parks and street trees. The results show significant use of green infrastructure for a range of provisioning and cultural services as well as its contribution to spiritual and mental wellbeing. Provisioning contributions are both in regular support of livelihood needs as well as increased use after a covariate shock (a flood), both of which help reduce household vulnerability. Lastly, our results show the expressed level of support and willingness-to-pay or work amongst urban residents for green infrastructure and the services it provides. Whilst the composite results indicate marked variation between and within towns, they show that there is widespread use of green infrastructure for both basic needs as well as for more aesthetic and psycho-spiritual appreciation and recreation, in small and medium-sized towns in a developing country such as South Africa.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
- Authors: Shackleton, Charlie M , Blair, Andrew , De Lacy, Peter , Kaoma, Humphrey , Mugwagwa, Noster , Dalu, Mwazvita , Walton, Wesley
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/398321 , vital:69400 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.007"
- Description: The current nature and challenges of urbanisation in sub-Saharan Africa display several unique features only weakly evident on other continents. Key ones include the current high rates of population growth, inadequate planning and governance systems, concentration in small and medium-sized towns, and increasing urban poverty. These shape the extent, nature and use of ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructure. This paper first examines the location of green infrastructure across nine towns, showing that it is unequal between suburbs and that the bulk is located under private tenure (74%) rather than in public spaces. We then consider the extent and patterns of use of selected provisioning and cultural ecosystem services from green infrastructure in different locations within towns, including private gardens, public parks and street trees. The results show significant use of green infrastructure for a range of provisioning and cultural services as well as its contribution to spiritual and mental wellbeing. Provisioning contributions are both in regular support of livelihood needs as well as increased use after a covariate shock (a flood), both of which help reduce household vulnerability. Lastly, our results show the expressed level of support and willingness-to-pay or work amongst urban residents for green infrastructure and the services it provides. Whilst the composite results indicate marked variation between and within towns, they show that there is widespread use of green infrastructure for both basic needs as well as for more aesthetic and psycho-spiritual appreciation and recreation, in small and medium-sized towns in a developing country such as South Africa.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
Unpacking Pandora’s box: Understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing
- Shackleton, Charlie M, Ruwanza, Sheunesu, Sinasson Sanni, Gisele, Bennett, S, De Lacy, Peter, Modipa, Rebone D, Mtati, Nosiseko, Sachikonye, Mwazvita T B, Thondhlana, Gladman
- Authors: Shackleton, Charlie M , Ruwanza, Sheunesu , Sinasson Sanni, Gisele , Bennett, S , De Lacy, Peter , Modipa, Rebone D , Mtati, Nosiseko , Sachikonye, Mwazvita T B , Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/182113 , vital:43801 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9952-z"
- Description: Research into the benefits that ecosystems contribute to human wellbeing has multiplied over the last few years following from the seminal contributions of the international Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In comparison, the fact that some ecosystem goods and services undermine or harm human wellbeing has been seriously overlooked. These negative impacts have become known as ecosystem disservices. The neglect of ecosystem disservices is problematic because investments into the management or reduction of ecosystem disservices may yield better outcomes for human wellbeing, or at a lower investment, than management of ecosystem services. Additionally, management to optimise specific ecosystem services may simultaneously exacerbate associated disservices. We posit that one reason for the neglect of ecosystem disservices from the discourse and policy debates around ecosystems and human wellbeing is because there is no widely accepted definition or typology of ecosystem disservices. Here, we briefly examine current understandings of the term ecosystem disservices and offer a definition and a working typology to help generate debate, policy and management options around ecosystem disservices. We differentiate ecosystem disservices from natural hazards and social hazards, consider some of their inherent properties and then classify them into six categories. A variety of examples are used to illustrate the different types of, and management strategies to, ecosystem disservices.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
- Authors: Shackleton, Charlie M , Ruwanza, Sheunesu , Sinasson Sanni, Gisele , Bennett, S , De Lacy, Peter , Modipa, Rebone D , Mtati, Nosiseko , Sachikonye, Mwazvita T B , Thondhlana, Gladman
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/182113 , vital:43801 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9952-z"
- Description: Research into the benefits that ecosystems contribute to human wellbeing has multiplied over the last few years following from the seminal contributions of the international Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In comparison, the fact that some ecosystem goods and services undermine or harm human wellbeing has been seriously overlooked. These negative impacts have become known as ecosystem disservices. The neglect of ecosystem disservices is problematic because investments into the management or reduction of ecosystem disservices may yield better outcomes for human wellbeing, or at a lower investment, than management of ecosystem services. Additionally, management to optimise specific ecosystem services may simultaneously exacerbate associated disservices. We posit that one reason for the neglect of ecosystem disservices from the discourse and policy debates around ecosystems and human wellbeing is because there is no widely accepted definition or typology of ecosystem disservices. Here, we briefly examine current understandings of the term ecosystem disservices and offer a definition and a working typology to help generate debate, policy and management options around ecosystem disservices. We differentiate ecosystem disservices from natural hazards and social hazards, consider some of their inherent properties and then classify them into six categories. A variety of examples are used to illustrate the different types of, and management strategies to, ecosystem disservices.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »