Urbanisation has been increasing rapidly over the past 50 years and is expected to continue increasing (Goddard et al., 2010; United Nations Environmental Programme-UNEP, 2012; Burkle and Martone, 2014). Burkle et al. (2014: 25) state that there will be a 70% increase in urban population by 2050 while Fisk (2012: 1396) estimates that so far, the urban population has increased from 2 billion in 1992 to 3.5 billion in 2012. More specific, the number of cities increased from 5,161 to 7,935 in 2011 (Nagendra et al., 2014: 305). Most of the urban growth is said to have happened in developing countries where it is estimated that by 2030, 80% of the population will be urban (Goddard et al., 2010: 90). Future predictions of urban change indicate a 5 million increase in urban populations with urban area coverage increasing faster than population growth (Seto et al., 2012: 16083). According to the DEAT (2006), more than half of the South African population is urban with migration contributing significantly to urbanisation. The major concern with urbanisation is the role it plays in driving environmental change both locally and globally (Goddard et al., 2010; Seto et al., 2012). For instance, in South Africa, urbanisation puts pressure on water and energy resources, land for sewage disposal and treatment and above all, biodiversity (DEAT, 2006). Empirical evidence suggests that urbanisation endangers “8% of terrestrial vertebrate species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List” and it is expected that about 5% of ecosystems containing some of the endangered species will be lost (McDonald et al., 2008: 1695).
Urbanisation poses a threat to habitats, biodiversity and ecosystem services provided by urban ecosystems (Aronson et al., 2014; Nagendra et al., 2014). In addition, Andersson (2006) and Goddard
et al. (2010) assert that urbanisation alters the environment by introducing impervious surfaces which change ecological, hydrological and atmospheric processes. Through energy and food consumption the urban populations have a higher ecological footprint when compared to their rural counterparts (UNEP, 2012). Andersson (2006) reiterates that emission of gaseous waste into the atmosphere alters chemical composition exacerbating the phenomenon of global warming. The impact of urbanisation, however, is mainly felt by poor populations living in peri-urban and rural areas due to their vulnerability (UNEP, 2012). All these aspects of urbanisation affect the sustainability and productivity of ecosystems.
As urban ecosystems are transformed into persistent infrastructure, a patchwork of green spaces is created which affects observed and expected extinction of species (Goddard et al., 2010). Thus, with urbanisation and increased human activities, habitats are disturbed, fragmented, and are lost resulting in reduced species diversity. Williams and Winfree (2013: 10) assert that “habitat loss from urban development threatens native plant populations in many regions of the world, [and can result in] direct plant mortality.” When compared to other forms of ecosystem transformation such as forest to agricultural land, urban transformation is less likely to be reverted to vegetated land because they are persistent and only more likely to grow (Mckinney, 2006).
Besides species extinction, Goddard et al. (2010) assert that urbanisation has caused a disconnection between urban inhabitants and the natural environment due to sparse natural environments. This is despite the growing attention natural environments such as open spaces are receiving, especially with respect to human health benefits (Irvine et al., 2013). This disconnection has implications on the quality of life of people living in urban environments since the natural environment impacts on human well-being (Mitchell and Popham, 2008). Consequently, Mitchell and Popham (2008) assert that it is essential to maintain green natural open spaces within the urban environment to provide recreational facilities as well as ecosystem services. To this effect, cities have developed initiatives such as botanical gardens, parks and natural open spaces throughout the world to provide the urban environment with green spaces for human-nature interaction (Gross and Lane, 2007).
Rapid urbanisation causes an increase in exotic species diversity while indigenous species diversity decreases significantly (Mckinney, 2006). As such Mckinney (2008) states that the urban environment is characterised by fragmented indigenous species (which adapt to the urban environment) and a variety of exotic species. Aronson et al. (2014) assert that urbanisation instigates biodiversity loss and biotic homogenization. The authors demonstrate the impact of urbanisation by showing that bird and plant species have significantly declined in urban areas compared to populations outside urban areas.
Similarly, a study by Ye et al. (2012) reveals that rapid urbanisation causes biotic homoginisation and reduces the abundance of indigenous species relative to exotic ones. More empirical evidence
suggests that urban environments lose species over a period of time. For instance, Mckinney (2006) highlights a study conducted in cities on various continents which reveals a maximum of about 44%
of species loss over a period of between 50 and 150 years. Despite this evidence, the collage of exotic and indigenous species generally increases species diversity but due to decreased diversity of indigenous species it results in biotic homogenisation (Goddard et al., 2010). Biotic homogenisation has implications for conservation of indigenous species because lack of knowledge of indigenous species on the part of the urban inhabitants would deter conservation efforts (Mckinney, 2006).
Therefore, developing natural open spaces is critical to the conservation of species both within and outside the urban environment, a focus of this study.
3.3.1 Contextualising the South African urban environment and dependence on ecosystems Ecosystems play an important role in the development of economies around the world through the provision of ecosystem goods and services (Jones and Solomon, 2013). South Africa’s economy depends largely on natural resources and despite this, there is a lack of clear reporting on the actual value of services derived from ecosystems (DEAT, 2006). The DEAT (2006) also states that there is lack of reporting on the actual contribution of ecosystems to the economy, for instance, some nature- based sectors such as tourism provide estimates of their worth, while other sectors’ contributions remain unknown.
Like many other global economies, South Africa has been a victim of ecosystem degradation. Being an emerging economy with high aspirations to own a large share of the global economy through its recently acquired membership to BRICS (Brazil, India, China, and South Africa), ecosystem transformation is expected (BRICS, 2012). As it is, South Africa’s environment is under pressure from cultivation, mining, urban expansion, climate change, medicinal plant harvesting, invasive alien species, population growth, overexploitation of natural resources, governance and technological innovation (SANBI, 2013). Besides the pressure on ecosystems, South Africa faces a challenge of policy implementation and enforcement due to lack of institutional capacity (DEAT, 2006; Turpie and De Wet, 2008).
Coupled with the pressures on the environment, South Africa has a unique urban socio-economic and environmental landscape developed during the colonial and apartheid era through legislation such as the Native Land Act of 1913, the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act No 52 of 1951, the Group Areas Act No 41 of 1950, and the Bantu Authorities Act No 68 of 1951 (Miraftab, 2007). These pieces of legislation ensured segregation of racial groups with the non-White racial groups receiving poor services and amenities, access to resources and the economic benefits from the use of such resources (Gordon et al., 2007; Miraftab, 2007; Roberts and O’Donoghue, 2013).
Despite the efforts made by the post-apartheid government to address the inequalities, poverty persists with about 45.5% of the population living in poverty in 2011 (Statistics South Africa, 2014: 12).
Statistics South Africa (2014: 32) further indicates that the highest percentage of poor people (26.3%) lived in KwaZulu-Natal in 2011. In addition, Durban is said to be the poorest metropolitan area with poverty levels estimated to be at 41.8% in 2009 (Roberts and O’Donoghue, 2013). Leibbrandt et al.
(2010) states that during the period between 1993 and 2008, urban poverty increased despite that there was a small decrease in national poverty levels. Urban poverty level as at 2011 was estimated to be at 30.9% (Statistics South Africa, 2014: 33). The underlying cause of poverty in urban areas is unemployment exacerbated by rapid urbanisation and the backlog on government’s part to provide services (Leon, 2007). Statistics South Africa (2014) shows a strong link between high intense levels of poverty and low or no education attained. Poor populations experience high unemployment due to lack of access to services such as education, consequently lacking skills demanded by the job market (DEAT, 2006).
Roberts and O'Donoghue (2013) assert that some of the peri-urban communities were previously rural communities that have now been integrated into the urban setting. Despite the integration into urban areas, inhabitants of peri-urban areas still lead traditional lifestyles and mainly depend on the natural environment for their livelihoods (Roberts and O'Donoghue, 2013). Thus, the urban peripherals provide livelihoods to many where they participate in the informal sector of the economy (DEAT, 2006). The poor in the periphery of urban areas turn to the natural environment through harvesting forest and non-forest products for sale or use in business ventures to earn a living:
The poor are able to survive in the urban areas, by learning to navigate these hidden and marginalised spaces, where undefined property rights and the lack of proper regulation leads to an increasing number of urban slums and a growing informal business sector. While this informality helps the poor survive, it also contributes to locking them into a cycle of poverty and to excluding them from the mainstream.
(Leon, 2007: 8)
The informality of the poor people’s livelihoods makes the poor susceptible and vulnerable to diseases and or disasters associated with climate since they cannot pay for better services and environments (Roberts and O'Donoghue, 2013). In addition, Leon (2007: 8) asserts that the
“informality and illegality” of their actions instigate land-use conflicts with either the state or private landowners. As part of this study, an analysis of contestations arising from access and use of the GGEP open space by various stakeholders (one of which is the proximate peri-urban Tshelimnyama community) is undertaken.