IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/urbpla/v6y2021i4p122-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Closing the Gap Between Urban Planning and Urban Ecology: A South African Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Burné van Zyl

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa)

  • E. Juaneé Cilliers

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa / School of Built Environment, University of Technology Sydney, Australia)

  • Louis G. Lategan

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa)

  • Sarel S. Cilliers

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa)

Abstract

Ecological considerations should be an integral part of the decision-making processes of urban planners. Specifically, ecological aspects used in urban ecology, such as green infrastructure and ecosystem services, are substantiated by literature as strategies for improving quality of life, human health, and well-being. Studies dealing with such concepts in the Global South recently gained interest; however, these lack empirical evidence on the integration thereof in mainstream South African urban planning practice. This article conducts a preliminary investigation into the knowledge of ecological aspects of a sample of South African urban planners and their willingness to implement ecological aspects in urban planning practice. The new environmental paradigm scale is employed to determine the environmental worldview (ecocentric or anthropocentric) among respondent and how this relates to their knowledge of ecological aspects. The initial research sample consisted of a total of 283 questionnaires distributed. Although findings of this article are based on a low response rate (15%) of 42 documented responses, it did not affect the validity of the data collected in this context. The initial findings indicated that the environmental worldview of the sample of planners is only one factor influencing their perspective on incorporating ecological considerations. Low to moderate knowledge and awareness regarding ecological aspects such as ecosystem services, green infrastructure, and multi-functionality are argued to be main factors preventing integration in urban planning practice. Findings emphasize the need for context-based implementation strategies and broad recommendations are made for the planning profession as a point of departure to introduce or ingrain ecological considerations.

Suggested Citation

  • Burné van Zyl & E. Juaneé Cilliers & Louis G. Lategan & Sarel S. Cilliers, 2021. "Closing the Gap Between Urban Planning and Urban Ecology: A South African Perspective," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 122-134.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v6:y:2021:i:4:p:122-134
    DOI: 10.17645/up.v6i4.4456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/4456
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/up.v6i4.4456?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marita Wallhagen & Peter Magnusson, 2017. "Ecological Worldview among Urban Design Professionals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, March.
    2. Vera Toepoel & Matthias Schonlau, 2017. "Dealing with nonresponse: Strategies to increase participation and methods for postsurvey adjustments," Mathematical Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 79-83, April.
    3. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    4. Daniel L. Childers & Mary L. Cadenasso & J. Morgan Grove & Victoria Marshall & Brian McGrath & Steward T. A. Pickett, 2015. "An Ecology for Cities: A Transformational Nexus of Design and Ecology to Advance Climate Change Resilience and Urban Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Di Marino, Mina & Tiitu, Maija & Lapintie, Kimmo & Viinikka, Arto & Kopperoinen, Leena, 2019. "Integrating green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning. Results from two Finnish case studies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 643-656.
    6. Gunilla Lindholm, 2017. "The Implementation of Green Infrastructure: Relating a General Concept to Context and Site," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, April.
    7. Elizelle Juaneé Cilliers, 2019. "Reflecting on Green Infrastructure and Spatial Planning in Africa: The Complexities, Perceptions, and Way Forward," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Burné van Zyl & E. Juaneé Cilliers & Louis G. Lategan & Sarel S. Cilliers, 2021. "Closing the Gap Between Urban Planning and Urban Ecology: A South African Perspective," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 122-134.
    2. Renato Monteiro & José C. Ferreira & Paula Antunes, 2020. "Green Infrastructure Planning Principles: An Integrated Literature Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Clara García-Mayor & Pablo Martí & Manuel Castaño & Álvaro Bernabeu-Bautista, 2020. "The Unexploited Potential of Converting Rail Tracks to Greenways: The Spanish Vías Verdes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-25, January.
    4. Silvia Ronchi, 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Planning: A Generic Recommendation or a Real Framework? Insights from a Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    5. Giulia Capotorti & Eva Del Vico & Ilaria Anzellotti & Laura Celesti-Grapow, 2016. "Combining the Conservation of Biodiversity with the Provision of Ecosystem Services in Urban Green Infrastructure Planning: Critical Features Arising from a Case Study in the Metropolitan Area of Rome," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, December.
    6. Tapio Riepponen & Mikko Moilanen & Jaakko Simonen, 2023. "Themes of resilience in the economics literature: A topic modeling approach," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 326-356, April.
    7. Conway, Tenley M. & Khan, Aliza & Esak, Nasra, 2020. "An analysis of green infrastructure in municipal policy: Divergent meaning and terminology in the Greater Toronto Area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    10. Irina Tumini & Paula Villagra-Islas & Geraldine Herrmann-Lunecke, 2017. "Evaluating reconstruction effects on urban resilience: a comparison between two Chilean tsunami-prone cities," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 85(3), pages 1363-1392, February.
    11. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    12. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    13. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    14. Shunqian Gao & Liu Yang & Hongzan Jiao, 2022. "Changes in and Patterns of the Tradeoffs and Synergies of Production-Living-Ecological Space: A Case Study of Longli County, Guizhou Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.
    15. Antonio Ledda & Marta Kubacka & Giovanna Calia & Sylwia Bródka & Vittorio Serra & Andrea De Montis, 2023. "Italy vs. Poland: A Comparative Analysis of Regional Planning System Attitudes toward Adaptation to Climate Changes and Green Infrastructures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    16. Jiao Zhang & Qian Wang & Yiping Xia & Katsunori Furuya, 2022. "Knowledge Map of Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development: A Visual Analysis Using CiteSpace," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-24, February.
    17. Park, Mi Sun & Shin, Seongmin & Lee, Haeun, 2021. "Media frames on urban greening in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    18. Christoph Schneider & Bianca Achilles & Hendrik Merbitz, 2014. "Urbanity and Urbanization: An Interdisciplinary Review Combining Cultural and Physical Approaches," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-26, January.
    19. Jonas Smit Andersen & Sara Maria Lerer & Antje Backhaus & Marina Bergen Jensen & Hjalte Jomo Danielsen Sørup, 2017. "Characteristic Rain Events: A Methodology for Improving the Amenity Value of Stormwater Control Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    20. Jeroen Degerickx & Martin Hermy & Ben Somers, 2020. "Mapping Functional Urban Green Types Using High Resolution Remote Sensing Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-35, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v6:y:2021:i:4:p:122-134. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.