The article entitled Assessing the outcomes of implementing natural open space plans in a Global South city was published in Landscape and Urban Planning and allows local government to understand, and respond to, the opportunities and challenges affecting the outcomes of implementing natural open space plans. This can improve decision-making at the local government level and advance the benefits – ecosystem services – provided by nature, which are essential for human well-being.
Lead author Nadia Wessels, a PhD student at the Centre for Sustainability Transitions (CST) at Stellenbosch University explains, “Traditionally, urban planners have incorporated open space in urban parks or gardens to fulfil the demand for active recreation and beautification. More recently, the role natural open space plays in maintaining biodiversity and providing essential ecosystem services is increasingly recognised in urban planning. To this affect several cities have used a systematic conservation planning process to designate their (predominantly) natural open space systems, in the form of a conservation plan. These natural open space plans are then integrated into municipal planning and intended to retain and protect biodiversity and essential ecosystem services provided by nature. Despite the significant time and resources invested in preparing such conservation plans, the outcomes (both positive and negative) of implementing these conservation plans are rarely critically evaluated. As the success of conservation endeavours is shaped by the complex and dynamic inter-dependent ecological, social, and institutional contexts, the outcomes of implementing conservation plans need to be considered in terms of these inter-dependent dimensions”.
“We present a practical approach to assess the outcomes of implementing natural open space plans in urban areas, especially for the local (municipal) level where resource challenges exist. The approach, drawn from comparisons of existing conservation assessment frameworks, considers the following outcome categories: ecological/natural; social/human; financial (institutional); and management (institutional). The approach is tested on a South African case study ¾ the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality ¾ and factors (challenges and opportunities) affecting the outcomes of implementing natural open space plans are identified. The results show how ecological outcomes are negatively affected by habitat transformation attributed to urbanisation and inappropriate land use management; and illegal, exploitive land uses. In respect of the social/humanoutcomes, collaborative partnerships with civil society, and the involvement of champions, are pivotal to implementation success. We found that financial and management institutional constraints contribute to inadequate investment in natural open space planning, exacerbated by a focus on socio-economic and political priorities. The inter-dependence of the different outcomes emphasises the complexity of social-ecological systems (human-nature interactions), and the need for a holistic assessment”.
View more information about the article here.