3.6 Urban conservation
3.6.1 Open spaces
The designing of landscapes can be traced from the medieval Greece and Roman empires and is linked to the English grand designs (Thompson, 2011). Crompton (2007) asserts that open spaces in urban areas have been in existence as early as the 1700s in the United Kingdom (UK) emanating from a long-standing English tradition to maintain parks for wild animals. Besides tradition, the royal family and wealthy people who occasionally permitted the public to use of open spaces developed some open spaces (Crompton, 2007). Some parks were developed in response to the unconducive living conditions during the industrial revolution (Ignatieva et al., 2011; Thompson, 2011). Further, wealthy people in London also developed projects where esteemed properties were constructed around open spaces with a hope that the value of such properties would increase (Crompton, 2007).
This became a novel model for development in industrial cities and led to the development of larger open spaces such as the Regent and Prince’s park.
In the USA, the idea of parks can be traced as far back as the 1600s but it was only in the 1800s that an open space was developed inspired by European open spaces (Thompson, 2011). Table 3.5 provides more details on the progressive development of open spaces.
Table 3.5: Development of open spaces (Source: Crompton, 2007: 2-4)
Period Development
1850s The proximate principle was spread to the USA where government officials took a step to engage in developing public open spaces believing that the developments were able to cover their own costs.
1873 The belief that open space development could cover their own cost of development was reinforced by a publication that provided evidence that open spaces had positive impact on adjacent properties (called the proximate principle).
The evidence emanated from the experience from New York’s Central Park. After the completion of Central Park in New York, USA, it was observed that the value of properties proximate to Central Park increased while the City of New York made profits from running the park.
1900s There was conclusive evidence that well maintained parks and open spaces benefit adjacent properties. Despite such evidence, people remained cynical about the development of open spaces as they viewed the development to benefit the wealthy class only while the poorer working class had to meet the costs of maintenance. Such cynicisms characterised the open spaces in the UK especially that initially the open spaces were meant to service the wealthy class only.
1930s The legitimacy of the proximate principle was questioned on the basis that the computational methods were simplistic at the time the principle was developed.
1970s The proximate principle’s validity was redeemed by using computational methods, which met the acceptable standards of social science research. In addition, new evidence of the proximate principle emerged which qualified the application of the principle to properties. According to the new evidence, the principle could only be applied to properties lying within 152.4 to 182.9 metres from the edge of the open space. Further, the type of open space determines how the impact varies with distance from the open space, that is, natural open spaces have more impact on property value than would a park that has a lot of recreational activities. In addition, a property positioned relative to the best view into the park will have more benefits than would another without the same view. It must be noted, however, that the proximate principle does not account for all the benefits of maintaining an open space.
One of the significant developments of the 20th century is the Garden City Movement in the UK and Russia, City Beautiful or Parkway movement in the USA and New Zealand (Ignatieva et al., 2011).
The Garden City movement was a “town-planning idea that sought to marry the best of town and country in new urban development” (Grant, 2014: 2394). As a result of the Garden City movement, urban areas became connected to rural areas and natural landscapes through the development of greenbelts (Ignatieva et al., 2011).
Distribution of natural resources and their uses along socio-economic gradients in South Africa have mainly been influenced by the segregative apartheid laws in South Africa (Lube et al., 2010). Studies have shown that distribution of open spaces and biodiversity still vary along cultural and socio- economic gradients (McConnachie et al., 2008; Cilliers, 2010; Lube et al., 2010; Nemudzudzanyi et al., 2010). Nevertheless, literature highlights the growing awareness and need for incorporating open spaces in urban planning. One such study was conducted in Durban by Pillay and Pahlad (2014) which highlights gender differences in the use of open space in residential areas. Another study is that
of Roberts et al. (2005) which highlights the link between ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation as espoused by the D’MOSS. In addition, a study was conducted in 10 small towns of the sub-topical thicket biome to compare availability of open spaces in high density and low-density suburbs. The study revealed that high-density poor suburbs have fewer public open spaces when compared to low density suburbs (McConnachie et al., 2008; McConnachie and Shackleton, 2010).
The study also compared the availability of open spaces in old suburbs (constructed more than 50 years ago) and the more recent Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) suburbs (constructed less than 15 years ago). The results revealed that the more recent RDP suburbs have even fewer open spaces than the older suburbs. This is despite the fact that it is becoming common knowledge that open spaces provide many beneficial services (McConnachie and Shackleton, 2010).
Further, O’Farrell et al. (2012) explored the relationship between ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation in the Cape Town Municipal area. The study found that both regulatory and provisioning ecosystem services were severely affected by ecosystem transformation.
Several studies have been conducted mainly in the developed countries, which highlight a number of issues such as impacts of open spaces on adjacent property value, funding for open space developments and externalities of open space development. Empirical evidence suggests that well managed ecosystems can have a positive effect on the value of adjacent properties or developments (Kaufman and Cloutier, 2006; Sander and Polasky, 2009; Conway et al., 2010). Such studies have been designed and conducted as an attempt at quantifying the benefits of conserving open spaces most of which had positive results. One such study is that conducted in England by Gibbons et al. (2014) which demonstrates a positive impact of open spaces such as green spaces, gardens and water bodies on adjacent property value. The study also shows that the impact reduces with increasing distance from the open space. Another study conducted in China shows a positive impact of open spaces on adjacent property value (Kong et al., 2007). A similar study conducted by Sander and Polasky (2009) revealed that the value of residential properties increased with reduced proximity to the open space.
Using empirical evidence which demonstrates positive impact of open spaces on adjacent properties, decision-makers undertake open space developments with the view that in the long run the cost of development will be offset (De Brun, 2007).
Many more studies have been conducted in and outside the USA to determine the impact of open spaces on property values most of which registered a positive impact on property values (Kelly et al., 2005; Kong et al., 2007; Gibbons et al., 2014). However, some studies suggest that open spaces are associated with negative externalities (such as noise, vandalism, thefts and burglary, ambiguous landscapes and heavy traffic) all which cause a negative net impact on the value of proximate properties (Kelly et al., 2005; Jorgensen et al., 2007; Sander and Polasky, 2009; Jim and Chen, 2010).
Besides negative externalities, the state of the open space can impact negatively on the proximate
property value. For instance, after the completion of the Regent’s Park of London, it was noted that the cost of developing the park far exceeded the projected revenue (Crompton, 2007). However, over time, the value of the surrounding development increased significantly (Crompton, 2007). An explanation offered by the developers was that initially, the open space would have a negative or no impact on surrounding property value but eventually as the park became more beautiful it would impact positively (Crompton, 2007).
A review of literature has highlighted a lack of focus on ecological and socio-economic aspects of open spaces which are important especially in the African context (Lube et al., 2010). This is because most of the poor people in African communities rely on the natural environment for their livelihood and thus, their dependence may be, in some instances, in conflict with conservation efforts (Bob et al., 2014). Reliance on the natural environment and contestations that result from access and use of resources is an important aspect which this study aims to investigate among the GGEP stakeholders.