5.3 Demographic information
5.3.2 GGEP property owners
Nevertheless, it was revealed that there are traditional healers who have formal jobs, but such traditional healers rarely or never attend the meetings as highlighted by one of the participants:
….some are working and you find that those who are working come to register and never really attend the meetings because when we are meeting they are at work.
(Traditional healer leader 1)
Since the findings highlight that there are traditional healers who are employed, the fact that the participants of this study were not employed and had no stable income is not reflective of the employment and income status of the traditional healers in Tshelimnyama. Considering that the traditional healers’
income was erratic, the researcher probed how they survived without reliable income. To this end, all the traditional healers (32) indicated that at least one member of their household was a recipient of a social grant or was employed.
I depend on my late son’s two children’s social grants and my other son also gives me a small amount of money on some month-ends. Apart from that I do not work; my ancestors have kept me away from working. The only way that I make financial gain for myself is through being isangoma.
I tried to get an elderly grant but they chased me away.
(Traditional healer 2)
Traditional healing activities are important for income generation for the participants. The income generated is used to meet the household needs and in times when income generated is inadequate to meet the needs, family members’ income sustain the households. This finding is supported by Statistics South Africa (2014) which asserts that social grants have become a major source of livelihood in South Africa.
Figure 5.3: Gender composition of the GGEP respondents (n = 75)
Figure 5.3 shows that slightly more than half of respondents were males (51.4%) while slightly less than half were females (48.6%). However, these findings do not reflect the ownership of the property since in a family, a property could be co-owned; consequently any adult living in a property could have responded.
However, findings from the focus group discussion revealed that nine out of ten property owners serving on the GGEP management committee were male. The observed high number of males in the GGEP management team can be related to the general trend globally of more males taking up decision-making positions (Helfat et al., 2006; Burke, 2009; Davidson and Burke, 2011).
5.3.2.2 Age
The age distribution of the GGEP respondents is indicated in Figure 5.4. The figure shows that the respondents’ ages varied between 21 and 83 years with an average age of 52 years.
Figure 5.4: Age of respondents (n = 75)
The majority of the respondents (65.3%) were aged between 42 and 62 years. Furthermore, 18% of the respondents were aged between 21 and 41 years, and 16.7% between 63 and 83 years. Findings from an interview with a key informant working as an estate agent in the GGEP revealed that people looking to buy property in the GGEP are families with adults between the ages of 30 to 60 years. This trend can be associated with the lifestyles of people within the age group of 30 and 60 years since they are mostly working, starting up families or have families and thus would want to raise their children in a neighbourhood with ‘good’ amenities such as open spaces. According to the estate agent, the age group 30 to 60 years is also concerned about environmental issues and thus appreciate a ‘country-look’ within urban spaces. This result is consistent with Mendoza’s (2006) study which revealed that younger people below 63 years tend to participate more in environmental programmes. Nordlund et al. (2010) also assert that people who grew up during times when environmental issues were prominent are more likely to participate in environmental programmes or act environmentally responsible. On the other hand, the current study through GGEP focus group discussions and key informant interviews found that the age group 63 to 83 years may not actively show environmental concern due to old age and lack of disposable income as most of them would be retired. This is evident from the finding that 75% of respondents who stated that they were retired were in the age group 63 to 83 years. Contrary to this study’s findings, De Pelsmacker et al. (2006), Sudbury and Simcock (2010) and Riley et al. (2012) demonstrate that people older than 50 years had more disposable income, were more environmentally conscious and acted environmentally responsible. This result has implications in the development and tailoring of conservation strategies such as conservation projects, education, awareness and managing stakeholder groups of various ages.
5.3.2.3 Race
The GGEP respondents comprised 98.6% White and 1.4% Black. The racial composition of the GGEP respondents is supported by Boersema (2011) who asserts that post-apartheid, there has been an increasing trend for White South Africans to live in security estates and enclosed communities. Thus, the high percentage of White respondents could be attributed to the high number of white residents in selected peri-urban areas. Researchers have cited various reasons for the high number of White residents living in peri-urban, secure and enclosed communities. For instance, Boersema (2011) cites fear of crime, white racism and privilege as probable reasons. On the other hand, Landman (2004) and Besteman (2008) cite good financial investment, proximity to nature, sense of community, social control and identity, and integration of living and well-being through sports facilities and nature conservancies as other reasons. In terms of natural resource use, the development of security estates or enclosed communities excludes non-
residents from benefiting from use of natural resources such as open spaces. This is supported by Lemanski (2004) who asserts that security or enclosed estates can lead to social exclusion and in the case of natural resource access and use, estates exclude the public from accessing and using open spaces. This has implications in fostering human well-being of the people without access to such open spaces.
5.3.2.4 Level of education attained
All the GGEP respondents indicated having attained some form of education. However, the levels of education attained varied as depicted in Figure 5.5.
Figure 5.5: Level of education attained (n = 75)
The highest percentage of respondents (37.5%) had attained a bachelor’s degree while the lowest percentage (2.8%) had attained a national diploma. Further, 31.9% of the respondents attained a postgraduate degree while 27.8% completed high school. These results reveal that all the respondents had attained a high school qualification with the majority having attained tertiary education. This finding can be viewed as a positive factor for conservation efforts in the GGEP project since research shows that the level of education attained, among other social factors, is important to environmental conservation as highlighted in studies such as Knight et al. (2010), Moon et al. (2012) and Raymond and Brown (2010).
Education exposes people to environmental knowledge and therefore more educated people are more likely to participate in environmental programmes as they develop a sense of responsibility towards the environment (Marquart-Pyatt, 2008; Chen et al., 2011). This finding therefore has implications on conservation efforts involving groups with different levels of education attained.
5.3.2.5 Occupation and Income group
This part of biographical information presents and analyses findings on the GGEP respondents’
occupation and income group. Table 5.3 presents the occupation and income groups of the respondents.
Table 5.3: Occupation and Income Group of the GGEP respondents (n = 75) mean income = R 416 666.7
Occupation Percentage Income Group Percentage
Doctor 1.4 Below 100 000 1.3
Student 1.4 100 000 to 200 000 5.3
Book Keeper 2.8 200 000 to 300 000 2.7
Self-employed 5.6 300 000 to 400 000 13.3
IT Specialist 1.4 400 000 to 500 000 12.0
Supply Chain Director 1.4 500 000 and above 21.3
Black Economic
Empowerment Consultant
1.4 No response 44.1
Financial Manager 1.4 Total 100.0
Architect 1.4
Retired/Pensioner 5.6
Accountant 1.4
Financial Advisor 1.4
Engineer 4.2
Consultant Agronomist 1.4
Investment Manager 1.4
Estate Agent 2.8
Not employed 1.4
No response 62.2
Total 100
There was a low response rate especially for occupation with 62.2% of the respondents choosing not to respond. In addition, 44.1% of respondents chose not to provide their level of income. In keeping with research ethics, the researcher did not insist for a response since the respondents indicated that they felt that their occupation and income were confidential information. Thus, the following discussion is based on the GGEP respondents who provided their occupation (37.8%) and income group (55.9%).
The highest percentage (5.6%) represents self-employed respondents while retirees and/ or pensioners also made up 5.6% of the respondents. In addition, 4.2% accounted for engineers while estate agents and book-keepers made up 2.8% each. A number of occupations made up the least composition of the respondents of 1.4% each and include doctor, student, information technology specialist, supply chain director, Black Economic Empowerment consultant, financial manager, architect, accountant, financial advisor, consultant agronomist and investment manager. Another 1.4% respondent was unemployed. It is evident from Table 5.3 that among those who provided their occupation most were professionals which is also evident from the educational level attained in Figure 5.5.
With respect to income, the highest percentage of respondents (21.3%) was found in the income group earning R500 000 and above per annum while 13.3% accounts for the income group earning between R300 000 to R400 000. In addition, the income group earning between R400 000 to R500 000 made up 12% of the respondents while 5.3% was made up of the income group earning R100 000 to R200 000.
The lowest percentage (1.3%) was that of the income group earning R100 000 and below per annum. The range of the income group is R500 000 while the mean is R243 056.
Despite the low response on occupation and income, these aspects are important in fostering conservation as demonstrated by a study conducted by Chen et al. (2011) who found that people get more exposed to environmental values through their employment. Level of income is also seen as an important factor in pro-environmental behaviour in the sense that environmental concerns may be seen as luxuries which people with high levels of income are able to engage in (Marquart-Pyatt, 2008; Franzen and Meyer, 2010;
Chen et al., 2011; Pampel and Hunter, 2012). The occupation or levels of income together with education levels attained are important in conservation programmes and in particular, the GGEP project. Thus, the implication of this extends to management of stakeholders with varying levels of income.
5.3.2.6 Place of residence and length of stay in the GGEP
Findings from the focus group discussion with the property owners and key informant interview with eThekwini Municipality personnel revealed that the GGEP open space is surrounded by various suburbs, however, only properties sharing a boundary with the GGEP open space make up the GGEP project. The place of residence of the respondents is presented in Figure 5.6.
49.4
32
1.3
9.3
2.7 4
1.3 0
10 20 30 40 50 60
St. Helier Winston Alexander Gillits Eagle Rock Hillcrest Kloof
Percentage
Suburb
Figure 5.6: Respondents’ place of residence
Figure 5.6 shows that the highest percentage (49.4%) of respondents resided in St. Helier followed by 32% of respondents who resided in Winston and 9.3% in Gillits. Four percent of the respondents resided in Hillcrest, 2.7% in Eagle Rock while 1.3% resided in Alexander and another 1.3% in Kloof.
In addition to place of residence, the respondents were asked to state the length of stay in the GGEP.
Figure 5.7 shows the length of stay in the GGEP of the respondents.
Figure 5.7: Length of stay in the GGEP of the respondents
The highest number of respondents (39.7%) has lived in the GGEP for 6 to 10 years followed by 30.7%
of the respondents who have lived in the GGEP for 16 to 20 years. In addition, 19.7% of the respondents have lived in the GGEP for 5 years and below while 9.9% has lived in the GGEP for 11 to 15 years.
The place of residence and length of residence are important aspects for understanding perceptions of the GGEP property owners. Thus, analyses are made in section 5.4.1 under changes in natural resources in the period 2010 to 2012 and also in section 5.4.4.2 under natural resource management contestations in the GGEP project.
5.3.2.7 Stakeholders’ understanding of the GGEP project
All the GGEP respondents stated that they were aware of the GGEP project. In addition, key informant interviews with the GGEP management revealed that consultations with property owners were held prior to formation of the GGEP project. This is more so in light of the additional SRA tax that is levied on property owners for management of the GGEP. This indicates that at least the respondents had knowledge about the GGEP project, a finding consistent with provisions of the Municipal Property Rates Act 2004 for establishing a SRA (Republic of South Africa, 2005). Thus, it can be deduced that initial preparations for establishing the GGEP SRA included consultations with the property owners to gain majority support
for the project. As evident from the GGEP focus group discussion findings, not all property owners were in favour of the GGEP project. This aspect of supporting the GGEP project is further discussed in terms of future sustainability of the project in section 5.4.4 under perceptions of stakeholders.
The findings from focus group discussions with the Tshelimnyama community revealed that all the participants had no knowledge of the GGEP project but were aware of the prohibitions on natural resource access and extraction. One of the traditional healers had the following to say about the GGEP:
Well they hinder access to the place, and this sometimes makes us cross as traditional healers because we are unable to collect the muthi that we need even if it is close by in the Gorge.
(Traditional healer 6)
Despite the Tshelimnyama community’s interest in the GGEP open space resources, they were not aware of the biodiversity conservation project in the GGEP. There was no formal communication established between the Tshelimnyama community and the GGEP property owners since the project started.
Communication and contact between the Tshelimnyama community and the GGEP property owners only occurred when the Tshelimnyama community members were caught harvesting natural resources in the GGEP open space (the aspect of communication is discussed further in section 5.4.4 under stakeholder perceptions). Lemanski (2004) supports this finding and asserts that exclusive residential areas have the potential to limit non-residents access and use of open spaces. This has implications for communities that are dependent on the restricted open space resources and in turn, management of the GGEP open space.