IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i4p1158-d319836.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of the Challenges and Opportunities of Utilising Organic Waste through Urban Agriculture in the Durban South Basin

Author

Listed:
  • Nqubeko Neville Menyuka

    (Department of Agriculture, Faculty of Science & Agriculture, University of Zululand, KwaDlangezwa 3886, South Africa)

  • Melusi Sibanda

    (Department of Agriculture, Faculty of Science & Agriculture, University of Zululand, KwaDlangezwa 3886, South Africa)

  • Urmilla Bob

    (Department of Geography, School of Agriculture, Earth & Environmental Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville 54001, South Africa)

Abstract

Waste management has become pertinent in urban regions, along with rapid population growth. The current ways of managing waste, such as refuse collection and recycling, are failing to minimise waste in cities. With urban populations growing worldwide, there is the challenge of increased pressure to import food from rural areas. Urban agriculture not only presents an opportunity to explore other means of sustainable food production, but for managing organic waste in cities. However, this opportunity is not taken advantage of. Besides, there is a challenge of mixed reactions from urban planners and policymakers concerning the challenges and benefits presented by using organic waste in urban agriculture. The current paper explores the perceived challenges and opportunities for organic waste utilisation and management through urban agriculture in the Durban South Basin in eThekwini Municipality in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Province of South Africa. It is anticipated that this information will be of use to the eThekwini Municipality, policymakers, researchers, urban agriculture initiatives, households and relevant stakeholders in the study areas and similar contexts globally. Two hundred (200) households involved in any urban farming activity and ten (10) key informants (six (6) staff from the Cleaning and Solid Waste Unit of the eThekwini Municipality and four (4) from the urban agricultural initiative) were selected using convenient sampling. Descriptive statistics and inductive thematic analysis were used to analyse data. The significant perceived challenges and risks associated with the utilisation of organic waste through urban agriculture included lack of a supporting policy, climatic variation, lack of land tenure rights, soil contamination and food safety concerns. Qualitative data further showed that the difficulty in segregating waste, water scarcity, difficulty in accessing inputs, limited transportation of organic waste, inadequate handling and treatment of organic waste, and being a health hazard were some important challenges. On the other hand, the significant perceived benefits associated with the utilisation of organic waste through urban agriculture were enhanced food and nutrition security, and opportunities for business incubation. Other important benefits established through qualitative data were an improved market expansion for farmers and improved productivity. Overall, despite the perceived challenges and risks, there is an opportunity to manage organic waste through urban agriculture. It is imperative for an integrated policy encompassing the food, climate and waste management to be developed to support this strategy. All stakeholders—the government, municipal authorities and urban agricultural initiatives should also, guided by the policy, support urban farmers, for example, through pieces of training on how to properly manage and recycle organic waste, land distribution, inputs availability and water usage rights among other things.

Suggested Citation

  • Nqubeko Neville Menyuka & Melusi Sibanda & Urmilla Bob, 2020. "Perceptions of the Challenges and Opportunities of Utilising Organic Waste through Urban Agriculture in the Durban South Basin," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-23, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:4:p:1158-:d:319836
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/4/1158/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/4/1158/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pedro Cerrada-Serra & Luca Colombo & Dionisio Ortiz-Miranda & Stefano Grando, 2018. "Access to agricultural land in peri-urban spaces: social mobilisation and institutional frameworks in Rome and Valencia," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(6), pages 1325-1336, December.
    2. Galen D. Newman & Ann O’M. Bowman & Ryun Jung Lee & Boah Kim, 2016. "A current inventory of vacant urban land in America," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 302-319, June.
    3. Iwona Bisaga & Priti Parikh & Claudia Loggia, 2019. "Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Urban Farming in South African Low-Income Settlements: A Case Study in Durban," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-26, October.
    4. Alana Siegner & Jennifer Sowerwine & Charisma Acey, 2018. "Does Urban Agriculture Improve Food Security? Examining the Nexus of Food Access and Distribution of Urban Produced Foods in the United States: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-27, August.
    5. Timothy D. Searchinger & Stefan Wirsenius & Tim Beringer & Patrice Dumas, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 564(7735), pages 249-253, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. José Luis Villalpando-Aguilar & Daniel Francisco Chi-Maas & Itzel López-Rosas & Victor Ángel Aquino-Luna & Jesús Arreola-Enríquez & Julia Cristel Alcudia-Pérez & Gilberto Matos-Pech & Roberto Carlos G, 2022. "Urban Agriculture as an Alternative for the Sustainable Production of Maize and Peanut," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Yan Zhou & Chunjui Wei & Yong Zhou, 2022. "How Does Urban Farming Benefit Participants? Two Case Studies of the Garden City Initiative in Taipei," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    3. M. A. Vázquez & R. Plana & C. Pérez & M. Soto, 2020. "Development of Technologies for Local Composting of Food Waste from Universities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Nolwazi Z. Khumalo & Melusi Sibanda & Lelethu Mdoda, 2024. "Implications of a Climate-Smart Approach to Food and Income Security for Urban Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-23, February.

    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. Doctor S. Nkosi & Thembani Moyo & Innocent Musonda, 2022. "Unlocking Land for Urban Agriculture: Lessons from Marginalised Areas in Johannesburg, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Henrik B. Møller & Peter Sørensen & Jørgen E. Olesen & Søren O. Petersen & Tavs Nyord & Sven G. Sommer, 2022. "Agricultural Biogas Production—Climate and Environmental Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, February.
    3. Jiali He & Xiangfei Liu & Xuetong Wang & Xueyang Li & Linger Yu & Beibei Niu, 2024. "Spatiotemporal Evolution of Territorial Spaces and Its Effect on Carbon Emissions in Qingdao City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, October.
    4. Joshua Sbicca & India Luxton & James Hale & Kassandra Roeser, 2019. "Collaborative Concession in Food Movement Networks: The Uneven Relations of Resource Mobilization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, May.
    5. Jin-Wook Lee & Jong-Sang Sung, 2017. "Conflicts of Interest and Change in Original Intent: A Case Study of Vacant and Abandoned Homes Repurposed as Community Gardens in a Shrinking City, Daegu, South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, November.
    6. Sophie Saget & Marcela Costa & David Styles & Mike Williams, 2021. "Does Circular Reuse of Chickpea Cooking Water to Produce Vegan Mayonnaise Reduce Environmental Impact Compared with Egg Mayonnaise?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Is Bioenergy Truly Sustainable When Land-Use-Change (LUC) Emissions Are Accounted for? The Case-Study of Biogas from Agricultural Biomass in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Donald Coon & Lauren Lindow & Ziynet Boz & Ana Martin-Ryals & Ying Zhang & Melanie Correll, 2024. "Reporting and practices of sustainability in controlled environment agriculture: a scoping review," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 301-326, June.
    9. Maurer, Rainer, 2023. "Comparing the effect of different agricultural land-use systems on biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    10. Liudmila Tripolskaja & Asta Kazlauskaite-Jadzevice & Eugenija Baksiene & Almantas Razukas, 2022. "Changes in Organic Carbon in Mineral Topsoil of a Formerly Cultivated Arenosol under Different Land Uses in Lithuania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, March.
    11. Debuschewitz, Emil & Sanders, Jürn, 2021. "Bewertung der Umweltwirkungen des ökologischen Landbaus im Kontext der kontroversen wissenschaftlichen Diskurse," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317076, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    12. Khan, Syed Abdul Rehman & Razzaq, Asif & Yu, Zhang & Shah, Adeel & Sharif, Arshian & Janjua, Laeeq, 2022. "Disruption in food supply chain and undernourishment challenges: An empirical study in the context of Asian countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    13. Bellassen Valentin & Drut Marion & Antonioli Federico & Brečić Ružica & Donati Michele & Ferrer-Pérez Hugo & Gauvrit Lisa & Hoang Viet & Knutsen Steinnes Kamilla & Lilavanichakul Apichaya & Majewski E, 2021. "The Carbon and Land Footprint of Certified Food Products," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 113-126, December.
    14. Rolf, Werner & Diehl, Katharina & Zasada, Ingo & Wiggering, Hubert, 2020. "Integrating farmland in urban green infrastructure planning. An evidence synthesis for informed policymaking," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    15. Marian Gil & Mariusz Rudy & Paulina Duma-Kocan & Renata Stanisławczyk & Anna Krajewska & Dariusz Dziki & Waleed H. Hassoon, 2024. "Sustainability of Alternatives to Animal Protein Sources, a Comprehensive Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-27, September.
    16. Dupoux, Marion, 2019. "The land use change time-accounting failure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Marini, Michele & Caro, Dario & Thomsen, Marianne, 2023. "Investigating local policy instruments for different types of urban agriculture in four European cities: A case study analysis on the use and effectiveness of the applied policy instruments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    18. Mário Santos & Helena Moreira & João Alexandre Cabral & Ronaldo Gabriel & Andreia Teixeira & Rita Bastos & Alfredo Aires, 2022. "Contribution of Home Gardens to Sustainable Development: Perspectives from A Supported Opinion Essay," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-26, October.
    19. Enrico Balugani & Beike Sumfleth & Stefan Majer & Diego Marazza & Daniela Thrän, 2022. "Bridging Modeling and Certification to Evaluate Low-ILUC-Risk Practices for Biobased Materials with a User-Friendly Tool," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, February.
    20. Qureshi, Salman & Tarashkar, Mahsa & Matloobi, Mansour & Wang, Zhifang & Rahimi, Akbar, 2022. "Understanding the dynamics of urban horticulture by socially-oriented practices and populace perception: Seeking future outlook through a comprehensive review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).

    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:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:4:p:1158-:d:319836. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.