The Evolution of Open Space Planning within a Developing, Biodiverse City (Durban, South Africa)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- The analysis of the approaches taken in response to shifting urbanisation, governance and policy/legislative contexts;
- (2)
- Identification of the role of science and scientific information informing planning, as well as the champions required, and key institutional changes undertaken, to improve biodiversity outcomes by embedding an explicit biodiversity mandate within local government;
- (3)
- Analysis of how biodiversity concerns have been integral in land-use planning decision-making via the city’s environmental planning function (referred to as the “Department”).
2. Methods
2.1. Location and Context
2.2. Approach
3. Results
3.1. Durban Metropolitan Open Space System
3.1.1. Contextual Changes and Enablers
3.1.2. Approach Taken
3.1.3. Mainstreaming Milestones
3.1.4. Champions and Capacity Building
3.2. D’MOSS and Development Assessment
3.2.1. Local Government Role in the National Environmental Management Act: EIA Regulations
3.2.2. Municipal Planning and D’MOSS
3.2.3. Applications Received by the Department
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gerten, C.; Fina, S.; Rusche, K. The Sprawling Planet: Simplifying the Measurement of Global Urbanization Trends. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019, 7, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khor, N.; Arimah, B.; Otieno, R.O.; van Oostrum, M.; Mutinda, M.; Martins, J.O. World Cities Report 2022: Envisaging the Future of Cities; UN-Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- UNGA. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015, p. 35. Available online: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n15/291/89/pdf/n1529189.pdf?token=kfO1RZ4wyJcbeRUD9G&fe=true (accessed on 2 April 2023).
- Lwasa, S.; Buyana, K.; Kasaija, P.; Mutyaba, J. Scenarios for Adaptation and Mitigation in Urban Africa under 1.5 °C Global Warming. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 30, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaz, S.; Settele, J.; Brondizio, E.; Ngo, H.T.; Gueze, M.; Agard, J.; Arneth, A.; Balvanera, P.; Brauman, K.; Butchart, S.; et al. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019; ISBN 9783947851133. [Google Scholar]
- WWF. Living Planet Report 2020. Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- McDonald, R.I.; Hamann, M.; Simkin, R.; Walsh, B. Nature in the Urban Century: A Global Assessment of Where and How to Conserve Nature for Biodiversity and Human Wellbeing; The Nature Conservancy, Future Earth, Stockholm Resilience Centre: Arlington, VA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Nhamo, L.; Rwizi, L.; Mpandeli, S.; Botai, J.; Magidi, J.; Tazvinga, H.; Sobratee, N.; Liphadzi, S.; Naidoo, D.; Modi, A.T.; et al. Urban Nexus and Transformative Pathways towards a Resilient Gauteng City-Region, South Africa. Cities 2021, 116, 103266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Richardson, K.; Steffen, W.; Lucht, W.; Bendtsen, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Donges, J.F.; Drüke, M.; Fetzer, I.; Bala, G.; von Bloh, W. Earth beyond Six of Nine Planetary Boundaries. Sci. Adv. 2023, 9, eadh2458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cunningham, W.; Newhouse, D.; Ricaldi, F.; Seuyong, F.T.; Viollaz, M.; Edochie, I. Urban Informality in Sub-Saharan Africa. 2024. Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099417402142413528/pdf/IDU1e9d2d68a110ad14aaa1af9a110e90bd603f1.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2024).
- O’Farrell, P.; Anderson, P.; Culwick, C.; Currie, P.; Kavonic, J.; McClure, A.; Ngenda, G.; Sinnott, E.; Sitas, N.; Washbourne, C.-L. Towards Resilient African Cities: Shared Challenges and Opportunities towards the Retention and Maintenance of Ecological Infrastructure. Glob. Sustain. 2019, 2, e19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNEA. Nature-Based Solutions for Supporting Sustainable Development. 2022. Available online: https://www.unep.org/environmentassembly/unea5/unea-5.2/outcomes-resumed-session-unea-5-unea-5.2?%2Funea-5_2%2Fproceedings-report-ministerial-declaration-resolutions-and-decisions-unea-5_2= (accessed on 3 April 2023).
- Raymond, C.M.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Kabisch, N.; Berry, P.; Breil, M.; Nita, M.R.; Geneletti, D.; Calfapietra, C. A Framework for Assessing and Implementing the Co-Benefits of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 77, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elmqvist, T.; Fragkias, M.; Goodness, J.; Güneralp, B.; Marcotullio, P.J.; McDonald, R.I.; Parnell, S.; Schewenius, M.; Sendstad, M.; Seto, K.C. Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities: A Global Assessment; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; ISBN 940077088X. [Google Scholar]
- UN. Decision Adopted by The Conference of The Parties to The Convention on Biological Diversity 15/5; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Visseren-Hamakers, I.J.; Kok, M.T.J. Transforming Biodiversity Governance; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; ISBN 1108847757. [Google Scholar]
- Habel, J.C.; Rasche, L.; Schneider, U.A.; Engler, J.O.; Schmid, E.; Rödder, D.; Meyer, S.T.; Trapp, N.; Sos del Diego, R.; Eggermont, H. Final Countdown for Biodiversity Hotspots. Conserv. Lett. 2019, 12, e12668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weller, R.J.; Hoch, C.; Huang, C. Atlas for the End of the World. 2017. Available online: https://atlas-for-the-end-of-the-world.com/ (accessed on 18 December 2023).
- DFFE. White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity; Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment: Pretoria, South Africa, 2023.
- Boon, R.; Cockburn, J.; Douwes, E.; Govender, N.; Ground, L.; McLean, C.; Roberts, D.; Rouget, M.; Slotow, R. Managing a Threatened Savanna Ecosystem (KwaZuluNatal Sandstone Sourveld) in an Urban Biodiversity Hotspot: Durban, South Africa. Bothalia 2016, 46, a2112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flyvbjerg, B. Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research. Sosiol. Tidsskr. 2004, 12, 117–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLean, C.T.; Ground, L.E.; Boon, R.G.C.; Roberts, D.C.; Govender, N.; McInnes, A. Durban’s Systematic Conservation Assessment; EThekwini Municipality: Durban, South Africa, 2016.
- Mittermeier, R.A.; Gil, P.R.; Hoffmann, M.; Pilgrim, J.; Brooks, T.; Mittermeier, C.G.; Lamoreux, J.; Da Fonseca, G.A.B. Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions: Conservation International. Sierra Madre Cemex 2004, 315. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/1438756/Hotspots_revisited_Earths_biologically_richest_and_most_endangered_terrestrial_ecoregions (accessed on 3 April 2023).
- EThekwini Municipality. Durban Strategic Environmental Assessment: Environmental Analysis Phase; EThekwini Municipality: Durban, South Africa, 2020.
- EThekwini Municipality. Final SDF 2022–2023; EThekwini Municipality: Durban, South Africa, 2022.
- Jewitt, D.; Goodman, P.S.; Erasmus, B.F.N.; O’Connor, T.G.; Witkowski, E.T.F. Systematic Land-Cover Change in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Implications for Biodiversity. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2015, 111, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mthembu, S.E.; Chasomeris, M.G. An Assessment of the Capacity and the Performance of Marine Services in South Africa’s Ports. J. Transp. Supply Chain Manag. 2023, 17, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nel, A. Biodiversity Economy and Conservation Territorialization: A Pyrrhic Strategy in Kwazulu-Natal. J. Polit. Ecol. 2021, 28, 741–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsang, E.W.K. Generalizing from Research Findings: The Merits of Case Studies. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2014, 16, 369–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinberg, P.F. Can We Generalize from Case Studies? Glob. Environ. Polit. 2015, 15, 152–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shih, W.Y.; Mabon, L. Land-Use Planning as a Tool for Balancing the Scientific and the Social in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Mainstreaming? The Case of Durban, South Africa. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2018, 61, 2338–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mugwedi, L.F.; Ray-Mukherjee, J.; Roy, K.E.; Egoh, B.N.; Pouzols, F.M.; Douwes, E.; Boon, R.; O’Donoghue, S.; Slotow, R.; Di Minin, E. Restoration Planning for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in the City of Durban, South Africa. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2018, 14, 132–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, D.; Boon, R.; Diederichs, N.; Douwes, E.; Govender, N.; Mcinnes, A.; Mclean, C.; O’Donoghue, S.; Spires, M. Exploring Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in Durban, South Africa: “Learning-by-Doing” at the Local Government Coal Face. Environ. Urban. 2012, 24, 167–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Director Parks Beaches and Recreation Department. Durban Metropolitan Open Space System; Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department: Durban, South Africa, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, D.; Boon, R.; Croucamp, P.; Mander, M. Resource Economics as a Tool for Open Space Planning in Durban, South Africa; The Urban Imperative, Urban Outreach Strategies for Protected Area Agencies; IUCN-California Institute of Public Affairs: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 44–48. [Google Scholar]
- Bayat, M.S. Administrative Aspects of Parks and Recreational Facilities at the Local Government Level with Particular Reference to the Durban Municipality: A Theoretical and Practical Perspective. Ph.D. Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- EMB. Durban Metropolitan Open Space Management Framework Plan; EMB: Durban, South Africa, 1999.
- EMB. EThekwini Municipality Environmental Services Management Plan; Environmental Management Branch: Durban, South Africa, 2001.
- RSA. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. South Africa. 1996; ISBN 9780621390636. Available online: https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/images/a108-96.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2023).
- EMB. EThekwini Municipality Environmental Services Management Plan; Environmental Management Branch: Durban, South Africa, 2003.
- Margules, C.R.; Pressey, R.L. Systematic Conservation Planning. Nature 2000, 405, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- EThekwini Municipality. Local Action for Biodiversity Report: Durban; EThekwini Municipality: Durban, South Africa, 2007.
- Roberts, D.C. The Design of an Urban Open-Space Network for the City of Durban (South Africa). Environ. Conserv. 1994, 21, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, D.C. The Vegetation Ecology of Municipal Durban, Natal. Floristic Classification. Bothalia 1993, 23, 271–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacArthur, R.H.; Wilson, E.O. The Theory of Island Biogeography; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Diamond, J.M. The Island Dilemma: Lessons of Modern Biogeographic Studies for the Design of Natural Reserves. Biol. Conserv. 1975, 7, 129–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLean, C.T.; Ground, L.E.; Boon, R.G.C.; Roberts, D.C.; Govender, N.; McInnes, A. Durban’s Systematic Conservation Assessment; EThekwini Municipality: Durban, South Africa, 2021.
- Douwes, E.; Rouget, M.; Diederichs, N.; O’Donoghue, S.; Roy, K.; Roberts, D. Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project; XIV World Forestry Congress: Durban, South Africa, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Douwes, J.; Mullins, G.; Nkosi, S.; Roberts, D. Innovative Responses to Biodiversity Offsets in Durban; IAIA: Durban, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Gyanda, S. Le Sueur and Another v Ethekwini Municipality and Others (9714/11) [2013] ZAKZPHC 6 (30 January 2013); Kwazulu-Natal High Court: Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Cockburn, J.; Rouget, M.; Slotow, R.; Roberts, D.; Boon, R.; Douwes, E.; O’Donoghue, S.; Downs, C.; Mukherjee, S.; Musakwa, W. How to Build Science-Action Partnerships for Local Land-Use Planning and Management: Lessons from Durban, South Africa. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drury, C.C. A Biogeographic Study of the KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld Patches within the EThekwini Municipal Area. 2016. Available online: https://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/6910cb1c-fd0f-43ab-88a7-71ebdaa63148/content (accessed on 6 October 2023).
- McPherson, S.C.; Brown, M.; Downs, C.T. Crowned Eagle Nest Sites in an Urban Landscape: Requirements of a Large Eagle in the Durban Metropolitan Open Space System. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 146, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, D.C.; Diederichs, N. Durban’s Local Agenda 21 Programme, 1994–2001: Tackling Sustainable Development; Natal Printers: Durban, South Africa, 2002; ISBN 062028725X. [Google Scholar]
- Feris, L. Sustainable Development in Practice: Fuel Retailers Association of Southern Africa v Director-General Environmental Management, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, Mpumalanga Province: Case Comments. Const. Court Rev. 2008, 1, 235–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botts, E.A.; Skowno, A.; Driver, A.; Holness, S.; Maze, K.; Smith, T.; Daniels, F.; Desmet, P.; Sink, K.; Botha, M.; et al. More than Just a (Red) List: Over a Decade of Using South Africa’s Threatened Ecosystems in Policy and Practice. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 246, 108559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EThekwini Municipality. Cato Ridge Local Area Plan Review, Functional Area Plans and Draft Scheme; EThekwini Municipality: Durban, South Africa, 2018.
- McLean, C.T.; Roberts, D.C.; Slotow, R. A Local Government Response to Urban Biodiversity Conservation within a Global Biodiversity Hotspot (Durban, South Africa); School of Life Sciences, University of Kwazulu-Natal: Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, In Preparation.
- Havenga, G. Evaluating Screening within Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. Ph.D. Thesis, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Wilkinson, C.; Sendstad, M.; Parnell, S.; Schewenius, M. Urban Governance of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 539–587. [Google Scholar]
- Pauleit, S.; Vasquéz, A.; Maruthaveeran, S.; Liu, L.; Cilliers, S.S. Urban Green Infrastructure in the Global South. Urban Ecol. Glob. South 2021, 107–143. [Google Scholar]
- Shih, W.Y.; Mabon, L.; Puppim de Oliveira, J.A. Assessing Governance Challenges of Local Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Barriers Identified by the Expert Community. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allred, S.; Stedman, R.; Heady, L.; Strong, K. Incorporating Biodiversity in Municipal Land-Use Planning: An Assessment of Technical Assistance, Policy Capacity, and Conservation Outcomes in New York’s Hudson Valley. Land Use Policy 2021, 104, 105344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manuel, J.; Maze, K.; Driver, M.; Stephens, A.; Botts, E.; Parker, A.; Tau, M.; Dini, J.; Holness, S.; Nel, J. Key Ingredients, Challenges and Lessons from Biodiversity Mainstreaming in South Africa. OECD Environ. Work. Pap. 2016, 107, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wellstead, A.M.; Stedman, R.C.; Howlett, M. Policy Analytical Capacity in Changing Governance Contexts: A Structural Equation Model (SEM) Study of Contemporary Canadian Policy Work. Public Policy Adm. 2011, 26, 353–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilon, C.H.; Aronson, M.F.J.; Cilliers, S.S.; Dobbs, C.; Frazee, L.J.; Goddard, M.A.; O’Neill, K.M.; Roberts, D.; Stander, E.K.; Werner, P.; et al. Planning for the Future of Urban Biodiversity: A Global Review of City-Scale Initiatives. Bioscience 2017, 67, 332–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bush, J.; Oke, C.; Dickey, A.; Humphrey, J.; Harrison, L.; Amati, M.; Fornari, G.; Soanes, K.; Callow, D.; Van der Ree, R. A Decade of Nature: Evolving Approaches to Melbourne’s ‘Nature in the City’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023, 235, 104754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gavin, M.C.; McCarter, J.; Berkes, F.; Mead, A.T.P.; Sterling, E.J.; Tang, R.; Turner, N.J. Effective Biodiversity Conservation Requires Dynamic, Pluralistic, Partnership-Based Approaches. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cilliers, S.; Cilliers, J.; Lubbe, R.; Siebert, S. Ecosystem Services of Urban Green Spaces in African Countries—Perspectives and Challenges. Urban Ecosyst. 2013, 16, 681–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stokes, D.L.; Hanson, M.F.; Oaks, D.D.; Straub, J.E.; Ponio, A.V. Local Land-Use Planning to Conserve Biodiversity: Planners’ Perspectives on What Works. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 450–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Di Minin, E.; Moilanen, A. Improving the Surrogacy Effectiveness of Charismatic Megafauna with Well-Surveyed Taxonomic Groups and Habitat Types. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drechsler, M. Trade-Offs in the Design of Cost-Effective Habitat Networks When Conservation Costs Are Variable in Space and Time. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 479–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McVittie, A.; Cole, L.; Wreford, A.; Sgobbi, A.; Yordi, B. Ecosystem-Based Solutions for Disaster Risk Reduction: Lessons from European Applications of Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Measures. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 32, 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, A.; Patiño Gómez, J.; Vojinovic, Z.; Sánchez, A.; Weesakul, S. Combining Co-Benefits and Stakeholders Perceptions into Green Infrastructure Selection for Flood Risk Reduction. Environments 2018, 5, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ives, C.D.; Taylor, M.P.; Nipperess, D.A.; Davies, P. New Directions in Urban Biodiversity Conservation: The Role of Science and Its Interaction with Local Environmental Policy. Environ. Plan. Law J. 2010, 27, 249–271. [Google Scholar]
- Holmes, P.M.; Rebelo, A.G.; Dorse, C.; Wood, J. Can Cape Town’s Unique Biodiversity Be Saved? Balancing Conservation Imperatives and Development Needs. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aronson, M.F.J.; Lepczyk, C.A.; Evans, K.L.; Goddard, M.A.; Lerman, S.B.; MacIvor, J.S.; Nilon, C.H.; Vargo, T. Biodiversity in the City: Key Challenges for Urban Green Space Management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Underwood, E.; Taylor, K.; Tucker, G. The Use of Biodiversity Data in Spatial Planning and Impact Assessment in Europe. Res. Ideas Outcomes 2018, 4, e28045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bux, Q.; Anderson, P.; O’farrell, P.J. Understanding the Local Biodiversity and Open Space Strategies in Two South African Cities. Ecol. Soc. 2021, 26, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kendal, D.; Zeeman, B.J.; Ikin, K.; Lunt, I.D.; McDonnell, M.J.; Farrar, A.; Pearce, L.M.; Morgan, J.W. The Importance of Small Urban Reserves for Plant Conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 213, 146–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boykin, K.G.; Kepner, W.G.; McKerrow, A.J. Applying Biodiversity Metrics as Surrogates to a Habitat Conservation Plan. Environments 2021, 8, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grantham, H.S.; Moilanen, A.; Wilson, K.A.; Pressey, R.L.; Rebelo, T.G.; Possingham, H.P. Diminishing Return on Investment for Biodiversity Data in Conservation Planning. Conserv. Lett. 2008, 1, 190–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bräuniger, C.; Knapp, S.; Kühn, I.; Klotz, S. Testing Taxonomic and Landscape Surrogates for Biodiversity in an Urban Setting. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botts, E.A.; Pence, G.; Holness, S.; Sink, K.; Skowno, A.; Driver, A.; Harris, L.R.; Desmet, P.; Escott, B.; Lötter, M.; et al. Practical Actions for Applied Systematic Conservation Planning. Conserv. Biol. 2019, 33, 1235–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Knight, A.T.; Cowling, R.M.; Rouget, M.; Balmford, A.; Lombard, A.T.; Campbell, B.M. Knowing but Not Doing: Selecting Priority Conservation Areas and the Research-Implementation Gap. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 610–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dayaram, A.; Harris, L.R.; Grobler, B.A.; Van Der Merwe, S.; Rebelo, A.G.; Powrie, L.W.; Vlok, J.H.J.; Desmet, P.G.; Qabaqaba, M.; Hlahane, K.M.; et al. Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland 2018: A Description of Changes since 2006. Bothalia 2019, 49, a2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, V.M.; Mills, M.; Weeks, R.; Segan, D.B.; Pressey, R.L.; Gurney, G.G.; Groves, C.; Davis, F.W.; Álvarez-Romero, J.G. Implementation Strategies for Systematic Conservation Planning. Ambio 2019, 48, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pressey, R.L.; Mills, M.; Weeks, R.; Day, J.C. The Plan of the Day: Managing the Dynamic Transition from Regional Conservation Designs to Local Conservation Actions. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 166, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gellie, N.J.H.; Hunter, J.T.; Benson, J.S.; Kirkpatrick, J.B.; Cheal, D.C.; McCreery, K.; Brocklehurst, P. Overview of Plot-Based Vegetation Classification Approaches within Australia. Phytocoenologia 2018, 48, 251–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, C.-W.; McDonald, R.I.; Seto, K.C. The Importance of Land Governance for Biodiversity Conservation in an Era of Global Urban Expansion. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 173, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roux, D.J.; Nel, J.L. Freshwater Conservation Planning in South Africa: Milestones to Date and Catalysts for Implementation. Water SA 2013, 39, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilhelm-Rechmann, A.; Cowling, R.M. Local Land-Use Planning and the Role of Conservation: An Example Analysing Opportunities. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2013, 109, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baylis, K.; Honey-Rosés, J.; Börner, J.; Corbera, E.; Ezzine-de-Blas, D.; Ferraro, P.J.; Lapeyre, R.; Persson, U.M.; Pfaff, A.; Wunder, S. Mainstreaming Impact Evaluation in Nature Conservation. Conserv. Lett. 2016, 9, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nkosi, S.B. Learning from Biodiversity Offsets Implementation within EThekwini Municipality (Durban), South Africa. 2021. Available online: https://repository.nwu.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10394/40153/Nkosi%20SB.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 6 October 2023).
- Brownlie, S.; von Hase, A.; Botha, M.; Manuel, J.; Balmforth, Z.; Jenner, N. Biodiversity Offsets in South Africa–Challenges and Potential Solutions. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2017, 35, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, J.E.M.; Grantham, H.S.; Wilson, K.A.; Possingham, H.P. Systematic Conservation Planning: Past, Present and Future. In Conservation Biogeography; Blackwell Publishing: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 136–160. [Google Scholar]
- Dick, M.; Rous, A.M.; Nguyen, V.M.; Cooke, S.J. Necessary but Challenging: Multiple Disciplinary Approaches to Solving Conservation Problems. Facets 2016, 1, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cormier, R.; Elliott, M.; Rice, J. Putting on a Bow-Tie to Sort out Who Does What and Why in the Complex Arena of Marine Policy and Management. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 648, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahmed, A.; Puppim de Oliveira, J.A. Integration of Biodiversity in Urban Planning Instruments in Developing Countries: The Case of Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly, Ghana. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 1741–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makhuvha, K. The Integration of Biodiversity in Local Land-Use Planning: Gert Sibande District Municipality, South Africa; University of KwaZulu-Natal: Durban, South Africa, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Knapp, S.; Aronson, M.F.J.; Carpenter, E.; Herrera-Montes, A.; Jung, K.; Kotze, D.J.; La Sorte, F.A.; Lepczyk, C.A.; MacGregor-Fors, I.; MacIvor, J.S. A Research Agenda for Urban Biodiversity in the Global Extinction Crisis. Bioscience 2021, 71, 268–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beierkuhnlein, C. Nature-Based Solutions Must Be Realized-Not Just Proclaimed-in Face of Climatic Extremes. Erdkunde 2021, 75, 225–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Iteration | Urbanisation Context | Governance Context That Prompted a Suitable Response | Approach Taken in Addressing the Issue | Innovation | Footprint (ha) | Science/Action Nexus | Champions and Key Institutional Structural Changes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1982 Metropolitan Open Space System | The Durban Functional Region comprised several local councils with limited integration of open space planning across administrative boundaries. | Concern over loss of key environmental assets, identification of imbalance in open spaces within the greater Durban area, and lack of trail systems. | Mapping of existing conservation areas, areas of conservation potential and potential trail system. | First attempt at mapping ecological assets within the greater Durban areas. | 8295 | Although there is little evidence that the map was informed by ecological theory, it represented a critical spatial product that land-use planning authorities could engage with, while also highlighting important natural spaces. | Wildlife Society (now the Wildlife and Environmental Society of Southern Africa) and the Natal Town and regional Planning Commission. |
1989 Durban Metropolitan Open Space System | The municipal area at this point was restricted largely to the current CBD and suburbs immediately adjacent to the urban core. | Change in town planning legislation prompted a relook at the roles of open spaces in urban planning, with a greater focus on the role of natural areas. | Mapped network of open spaces, including nine nature reserves. | Inclusion of managed and disturbed landscapes. Economic analysis of proposed open space in terms of required capital and operational budget. | 2193 | Partnership with the university led to the development of a PhD researcher applying ecological theory in the development of an ecologically viable open space system. | Town Planning Branch, Durban; Head: Parks Department; Durban; and PhD researcher from UKZN. |
1999 Durban Metropolitan Open Space System Framework Plan | New democracy and the amalgamation of 40 local municipalities substantially increased the municipal footprint. | The significant change in context placed a responsibility on government to roll out services to citizens, and a particular requirement to balance this rollout within the framework of sustainable development. | Expert-based mapping approach in the identification of sensitive areas. Recognition of open spaces as an asset that is part of the city’s service delivery response. | Valuation of services delivered by open spaces and digitised using GIS software. Analysis of land included in the footprint that was considered undevelopable for reasons other than purely biodiversity. Inclusion of land under all tenure types. | 45,090 | Costanza (1997) [34] provided the theoretical framing to map and value open spaces at scale across the municipality. | PhD researcher appointed as Manager of the newly created Environmental Branch in 1994. Consultants appointed to spatially represent, and value ecosystem services provided by D’MOSS. |
2003 eThekwini Environmental Services Management Plan | Further expansion of the municipal boundary, particularly the inclusion of traditional authority areas. | Increasing perception that D’MOSS represented a hindrance to the rollout of public service infrastructure. | As per phase 2, but with the removal of degraded rural and agricultural areas, and the rebranding of D’MOSS to EESMP. | Prioritisation of important areas to gain political support and move from D’MOSS to EESMP. Detailed consultation with line functions in non-environmental sectors of the municipality. | 63,115 | As per 1999; however, the inclusion of a botanist within the environmental function allowed for prioritisation of areas for inclusion in the open space network. | Development of an Environmental Management Department under the Manager of the Environmental Branch. Appointment of new staff with additional skills in the biodiversity planning and development assessment branches. |
2010 D’MOSS Scheme amendment | While the area of the municipality remained unchanged since the 2003 plan, urban nodes outside of the city centre developed rapidly over this period. | Introduction of NEMBA elevated the importance of biodiversity and the need to integrate biodiversity more effectively into land-use planning. | The most comprehensive stakeholder engagement process of all the D’MOSS iterations. Approximately 18,000 letters sent to landowners as part of a land-use scheme amendment. | Inclusion into schemes as a development control layer and condition included in mapping. | 74,497 | Improved institutional capacity through the recruitment of scientists into the function allowed for the development of in-house, fine-scale land-cover data. | Incorporation of a climate adaptation function leading to a renaming of the Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department. Appointment of a Town Planner to support the land-use scheme amendments. Substantial increase in staff under the Biodiversity Planning and Development Assessment Branches. |
2016 D’MOSS | While the area of the municipality remained unchanged since the 2003 plan, urban nodes outside of the city centre developed rapidly over this period. | The development of national and provincial vegetation maps and biodiversity plans revealed scale-related issues when applying these products at a local government scale. | Areas added to D’MOSS were because of the inclusion of critical biodiversity areas as identified, as part of a systematic conservation assessment. | Development of a fine-scale vegetation map and systematic conservation assessment for Durban. | 78,782 | The increased scientific capacity allowed for in-house development of feature data that informed the systematic conservation assessment, and additional areas, primarily based on detailed vegetation mapping, were added. Aided by a partnership with UKZN that provided additional feature data and training in conservation planning. | Manager: Biodiversity Planning and Scientists within the branch. Durban Research Action Partnership. |
2018 D’MOSS | The municipal area increased in 2016 to include another traditional authority area, viz. Vulamehlo (ward 105). | Change in municipal area required an appropriate mapping response. The options-poor environment of meeting conservation targets in urban environments and promoting the protection of ecological infrastructure promoted the development of nature-based solutions under the banner of restoration ecology. | The Vulamehlo area included some of the municipality’s largest and most connected natural areas, leading to a relatively large increase in D’MOSS. In addition, projects that were instated by the Department relating to the restoration of system had progressed to the point that warranted additional protection. | Inclusion of a large-scale reforestation project and future offset receiving areas. | 94,835 | Feedback loops from projects designed and implemented by scientists outside of the traditional biodiversity planning function (e.g., ecosystem-based adaptation through the Buffelsdraai Reforestation Project). | Restoration Ecology Branch responsible for undertaking the implementation of ecosystem-based adaptation projects. The Policy Branch and Environmentalists from the Biodiversity Impact Assessment Branch working in the biodiversity offset space. |
Applications | Legal Context | Legal Context (Obligation) | Legal Context (D’MOSS) | Process Context (Constraints) | Process Context (Mechanisms) | Process Context (Science/Action) | Process Context (Facilitation) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental Impact Assessments | The National Environmental Management Act, 107 of 1998 (NEMA) gives effect to Section (B) of the constitution of South Africa. EIA regulations (RSA 2006, RSA 2010, RSA 2014, RSA 2017) and associated listing notices. | The eThekwini Municipality is a commenting authority in terms of NEMA processes within Durban. | Flagging layer in which applicants are advised of possible triggers for EIAs | Threatened habitat types and critical biodiversity areas as identified in Durban’s Systematic Conservation Assessment and Durban Metropolitan Open Space System. | Comments from staff (registered environmental professionals) relating to the protection of the natural assets that may include:
| Scientists employed to:
|
|
Category 1 land development determinations (e.g., introduction and amendment to land-use schemes) | The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA) and the eThekwini Municipality’s Planning and Land-Use Management By-Laws, 2016 (Chapter 8, Section 26). | The eThekwini Municipality is the competent authority in terms of land development applications. The decision-maker for applications falling within this category is City Council. | As D’MOSS is part of the SDF, it represents a key informant in the development and introduction of land-use schemes. The Department is a key contributor function in the development of the package of plans. |
|
| Scientists employed to:
|
|
Municipal Planning: Category 2: Departures from the SDF, zoning and rezoning of land. | The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA) and the eThekwini Municipality’s Planning and Land-Use Management By-Laws, 2016 (Chapter 8, Section 27). | The Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) is responsible for making decisions on this category of applications. The MPT is comprised of designated municipal officials and persons appoint by the City Council with extensive experience with, inter alia, spatial planning. | The MPT Is governed by SPLUMA and the bylaws and must consider the environment within decision-making. |
|
| Scientists employed to:
|
|
Municipal Planning: Category 3: Special consent applications, applications for subdivision, and development of land outside of a land-use scheme. | The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA) and the eThekwini Municipality’s Planning and Land-Use Management By-Laws, 2016 (Chapter 8, Section 28). | These applications are considered and decided by the Head: Development Planning, Environment and Management. | By virtue of inclusion in land-use schemes, all applications received by the land-use management office will be allocated to the Department for review and consideration. Applications that fall outside of the scheme will also be referred to the Department as D’MOSS is a foundational element of the SDF. |
|
| Scientists employed to:
|
|
Municipal Planning: Category 4: relaxation and exemptions from the provisions of the land-use scheme. | The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA) and the eThekwini Municipality’s Planning and Land-Use Management By-Laws, 2016 (Chapter 8, Section 29). | These applications are considered and decided by the Deputy Head: Development Planning. | By virtue of inclusion in land-use schemes, all applications received by the land-use management office will be allocated to the Department for review and consideration. |
|
| Scientists employed to:
|
|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
McLean, C.T.; Roberts, D.C.; Slotow, R. The Evolution of Open Space Planning within a Developing, Biodiverse City (Durban, South Africa). Sustainability 2024, 16, 3073. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16073073
McLean CT, Roberts DC, Slotow R. The Evolution of Open Space Planning within a Developing, Biodiverse City (Durban, South Africa). Sustainability. 2024; 16(7):3073. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16073073
Chicago/Turabian StyleMcLean, Cameron T., Debra C. Roberts, and Rob Slotow. 2024. "The Evolution of Open Space Planning within a Developing, Biodiverse City (Durban, South Africa)" Sustainability 16, no. 7: 3073. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16073073