**1. Introduction**

Urban development often occurs at the expense of urban green spaces (UGSs), separating urbanites from nature [1] and depriving them of the various social and environmental benefits, also known as ecosystem services, that UGSs provide [2–4]. Importantly, UGSs also deliver certain economic benefits. These benefits are often much more di fficult to measure, generally leading to a preference for land uses with an explicit monetary value, including commercial and residential development, above UGSs in property development decisions [5]. Various studies have been conducted using di fferent techniques and methods to quantify the potential economic benefits of UGSs with the majority of these studies focusing on the contexts of the global North [6–10]. Among these, the proximity principle has been widely applied [8,10]. The proximity principle suggests that residential property value increases as the distance to UGSs decreases [11], thus providing potential reciprocal increases in property tax for authorities [6]. The majority of studies in the global North confirmed the proximity principle [8,10], whereas in the global South results have been less conclusive. In 2015, Cilliers and Cilliers disproved the proximity principle in a South African case study, testing the principle in the local context of Potchefstroom. [12]. The current paper returned to the 2015 case study to verify, update and refine the work conducted by Cilliers and Cilliers [12] as a preliminary study to direct future

research. The paper followed a quantitative approach investigating municipal property valuations for three zones differentiated based on distance from a green space in five residential areas bordering a UGS in Potchefstroom. Additional data were also gathered by means of a survey on the social, environmental and economic values attributed to green spaces by a sample of Potchefstroom residents; and a second survey of South African urban planners concerning perceptions on planning for green spaces. The paper is initiated with a review of core concepts in a South African context to provide orientation and reference existing studies in the field. This is followed by the quantitative investigation and a discussion of the results, finally arriving at our conclusions and ultimate recommendations.

#### *1.1. Green Spaces in the South African Context*

Urban green spaces (UGSs) include various types and land uses that are located within the urban boundary, primarily covered by permeable surfaces, soil or plant species including grass, shrubs or trees [13]. Zoning classifications may include recreational, institutional, residential, commercial or agricultural categories to accommodate land uses such as sports fields, private gardens, street trees, playgrounds, greenways, urban farms and urban forests [13,14]. UGSs may also include more informal, residual and seemingly abandoned areas, similar to vacant lots, spaces along and under freeways, railways and side streets, sidewalks and derelict properties. Green land uses in urban areas have been studied extensively for their contributions to urban quality of life [1,2,5,15], as part of urban green infrastructure [15].

The majority of studies have been conducted in the contexts of the global North, with scholarship in the global South still being relatively underrepresented [15], with the exception of South Africa. Like most countries, South Africa is experiencing rapid urbanisation as the most urbanised sub-region in Africa [16]. Sub-Saharan Africa along with Asia, is expected to accommodate 90% of the total increase in population over the next four decades [15]. Urban expansion is driven by development in both formal and informal areas, placing green spaces on the expanding urban periphery and within the existing urban envelope in danger of land use conversion [13,17–19]. According to Lubbe et al. [19], the socio-economic status of an urban area determines what resources are available to change the environment, having a tremendous impact on the vegetation types, plant diversity and green space availability [20]. Moreover, South African standards call for a minimum 10% of development area to be allocated to green space, but as in other global areas, UGSs continuously compete with other land uses that may present more explicit monetary values and returns [21,22]. Green spaces also face additional threats from illegal dumping, pollution, invasive species and other social ails that may damage natural ecosystems and diminish biological diversity [23]. To defend existing and promote the development of UGSs, a compelling argumen<sup>t</sup> for the social, environmental and, importantly, the economic benefits UGSs can provide, must be made. However, such arguments must also make balanced reference to the potential disadvantages often related to these green spaces, especially in the contexts of the global South. The following section provides a succinct discussion of these benefits, as ecosystem services, as well as potential disadvantages, as ecosystem disservices.

#### *1.2. Ecosystem Services and Disservices*

Ecosystem services refer to the benefits people derive from any form of ecosystem functions delivered by UGSs (urban green spaces) that have a positive impact on human wellbeing [2]. Ecosystem services may be classified according to two broad categories, distinguishing between direct and indirect benefits [1,5]. Direct benefits include environmental and social benefits or services, whereas indirect benefits refer to economic benefits (Table 1).



Sources. [3,5,6,12,15,24–27].

It is imperative that the different categories of UGS and types of ecosystem services and benefits green spaces provide, are well understood and communicated in aid of UGS protection and advancement [1]. A case study in Johannesburg, one of the fastest growing cities in Africa, determined that cities and towns are in desperate need of green planning strategies which are only possible when ecosystem services are recognised in city budgeting and accounting systems and when the "ecological economy" is integrated in urban planning processes [16]. Many of the indirect environmental and social benefits potentially delivered by UGSs may be more readily accepted and anticipated by the public and authorities [28]. The direct economic benefits delivered by UGSs are often less thoroughly understood and accepted, ascribed to the complexities of determining and expressing such values [5]. De Wit et al. [29] determined the monetary value of specific ecosystem services in Cape Town, South Africa, and concluded that these services generated economically valuable services in the context of the metro's economy and should, thus, be considered in its budgeting processes. Cognisance of such economic contributions may incentivise investment in and spending on maintenance and protection of UGSs [6] and may justify expenditure to address possible associated disadvantages (ecosystem disservices). Ecosystem disservices EDS) refer to the same ecosystem functions that provide benefits in social, environmental and economic terms, but recognise related actual or perceived negative impacts on human wellbeing [3,30]. Ecosystem disservices are an especially important consideration in the South African context as [30,31]. This paper highlights the ecosystem disservices that are present in towns and cities in South Africa, similar to Potchefstroom, that pose a threat to human wellbeing and require financial resources and private investment to address these disservices in spatial planning, as seen in the third column of Table 2.

The valuation of the economic benefits delivered by UGSs can, thus, be influenced by both ecosystem services and the ecosystem disservices derived from the same spaces. Various approaches and methods have been developed to quantify the economic benefits of UGSs in this regard [6–9,27,32]. A comprehensive review of all existing methods falls beyond the scope of this paper. As this research is based on the work completed by Cilliers and Cilliers [12], only the approach used in that study is recapitulated in Section 1.3 of this paper.


#### **Table 2.** Summary of ecosystem disservices.

#### *1.3. The Proximity Principle as A Hedonic Price Analysis Method*

The proximity principle, also called the proximate principle, suggests that the value of an amenity, like a green space, is determined by the property values of adjacent residential properties [11,12,33]. The proximity principle reflects on the concept of "willingness to pay", as residents are willing to pay more for properties adjacent to or enjoying a view of such an amenity, or green space [33]. As a result, residents pay more property tax leading to higher tax returns available to local municipalities to direct towards planning, developing and maintaining quality UGSs [6]. Hedonic Price Analysis is generally the most commonly employed method to quantify the value of green spaces [8]. Hedonic Price Analysis is used to identify and quantify the different factors and characteristics that influence the value of property by using several regression models and considering property value as a function of measures of proximity to green space [8,33–35]. Thus, the Hedonic Price Analysis method considers that residential properties are not homogeneous, but reflect various factors that influence property value including property size, the physical condition of the property and accessibility [8]. Several studies [6,22] have determined the positive impact of green spaces on property value, thus, testing the proximity principle using Hedonic Price Analysis. Cilliers and Cilliers [12] invoked the proximity principle as a hedonic pricing method in the local context of Potchefstroom, South Africa, to compare local case study findings with case study results proving the proximity principle in international literature. In the Potchefstroom case study, Cilliers and Cilliers [12] rejected the proximity principle, as proximity to nearest UGS exerted a negative impact on residential property value, as elaborated on in Section 2. These contrasting findings underscore the potential impact of ecosystem services and disservices within the parameters of socio-cultural and physical context in South Africa in realising certain economic values derived from UGSs.

#### *1.4. The Importance of Context and Planning at Community Level*

As referenced in Section 1.2 (ecosystem disservices in SA context) and the contrasting findings in the previous section, context is key in eliciting ecosystem services and downplaying potential disservices in the realisation of economic benefits. Context specificities must be acknowledged in planning for UGSs, local level research, data collection and spatial planning [36]. As part of this process, public participation and stakeholder engagemen<sup>t</sup> can render valuable inputs regarding perceptions, experiences and acknowledged benefits and disadvantages related to UGSs at local level. Not all inputs from community members can be incorporated in planning and decision making [36], but such processes at least provide nuanced information related to citizen experience and may highlight previously unknown cultural, biodiversity, recreational values, community needs

and preferences [36] that may not be captured in spreadsheets dealing with economic data. A study was conducted in South Africa investigating the inequality of public green space, finding that poorer suburbs are endowed with less public green space area than provided in more a ffluent areas, resulting in poor access to such spaces for the poor [15]. The South African context's severe socio-economic disparities, which are also expressed spatially and in access to amenities, provides fertile ground for community-based participatory planning. Stakeholder engagemen<sup>t</sup> may thus consider the interests and opinions of urban residents in the planning and managemen<sup>t</sup> of public green spaces [15] and provide nuanced understanding of the impacts of such spaces in varied contexts in recognition of generally acknowledged challenges. As mentioned in Section 1.2, UGSs in South Africa are often under-maintained, unattractive and perceived as crime hotspots [37], leading to underutilisation and further dereliction. Such conditions demand continuous e fforts to maintain and improve UGSs, akin to Dempsey and Burton's [38] conceptualisation of 'place-keeping' as a collaborative process that surpasses a focus on mere physical upkeep to include ongoing inputs from public and private stakeholders, as well as communities. Thus, calling for community stewardship and the use of local knowledge and community networks to increase the quality of UGSs and by extension, their potential economic benefits.
