Appraising peri-urban food production in Durban, South Africa, with Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PGIS)

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3582882/v1

Download PDF

Article

Appraising peri-urban food production in Durban, South Africa, with Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PGIS)

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3582882/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Rapid urbanisation, particularly in the Global South, calls for more efficient and equitable food supply in urban and peri-urban areas. Peri-urban food production can be a source of affordable, fresh, and nutritious food, and can provide a departure from conventional forms of cropping. A number of social, ecological, and economic variables influence the feasibility of peri-urban food production. This study uses participatory mapping and geographic information systems (GIS) to assess these variables, and to map suitable spaces and crop configurations for peri-urban food production at three sites on the periphery of eThekwini metropolitan municipality (Durban) in South Africa. We find that land tenure and livelihood opportunities factor into socioeconomic preferences for peri-urban food production. Topography and soil quality are ecological factors that significantly influence feasibility of peri-urban food production, and access to water and roads also influence economic viability. Our study finds that while GIS techniques can identify land suitability, participatory mapping adds local fine-scale context to better inform decision-making and investment in peri-urban farming. Based on the social-ecological conditions at the three sites, we suggest specific configurations of locally adapted foods and farm design for peri-urban food production.

Biological sciences/Ecology/Agri ecology

Biological sciences/Ecology/Biodiversity

Biological sciences/Ecology/Ecosystem services

Biological sciences/Ecology/Urban ecology

Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Socioeconomic scenarios

agroecology

farm design

participatory mapping

peri-urban agriculture

suitability analysis

1.1. The need to plan for food production in urban and peri-urban areas

With over half of the world’s population residing in cities, and an annual urbanisation rate of 1% in developing and middle-income nations (UNDESA 2018), urban provisioning is a priority. Urban residents tend to be greatly reliant on food imports from rural and regional agriculture (Haggblade et al. 2017). The nature of urban living often necessitates dependence on purchased, processed, and prepared foods, due to lack of arable land, and labour to produce it (Haysom and Tawodzera 2018). This renders urban residents, particularly the poor, especially vulnerable to food and nutritional insecurity. Their dependence on food imported from agrarian, industrial, or overseas locations is liable to production shocks such as droughts or floods (Heslin et al. 2020) and to distribution shocks such as global or local trade disruptions (Kummu et al. 2020). Access and affordability of fresh and nutritious food may also be constrained in cities, and coupled with aspirational and lifestyle changes, can induce malnourishment (Chakona and Shackleton 2018). There is a need for decentralised, locally adapted food systems, to improve access to sustainable, nutritious, and just food (Fanzo et al. 2020, Leakey 2020). Urban and peri-urban agriculture is an emerging and potent response to provision fresh and nutritious food, close nutrient loops, create circular economies, and reduce carbon footprints (Opitz et al. 2016). Urban agriculture can take various forms, from intensive indoor vertical farms, to communal agroecological spaces, with a number of intermediate configurations of social, ecological, and technological variables (Armanda et al. 2019). In this article, we use the term urban and peri-urban food production to include all these types of urban and peri-urban agriculture.

Urban and peri-urban food production can incorporate diversity, redundancy, and robustness into food systems at multiple levels. From a logistic perspective, it can reduce risk of supply chain failure and subsequent food and nutritional insecurity. Ecologically, it can reduce impacts from large-scale farming and transportation (Sarkodie et al. 2020), and enhance the structural and functional diversity of urban ecosystems (Kremen and Merenlender 2018, Leclère et al. 2020). Socioeconomically, it can provide urban residents alternatives to monocultured crops and corporate monopolies, while improving access and affordability of fresh and nutritious foods (Augstburger et al. 2019, Bergius and Buseth 2019). However, availability of land, labour, and materials are the main determinants of urban and peri-urban food production, in both the global North and South (Follmann et al. 2021). In the face of densification and development, green space is a critical yet contested component of the urban landscape (Haaland and van den Bosch 2015, Kabisch et al. 2015). Cities across the world have various legislations and allocations for food production in urban and peri-urban areas in communal gardens, private farms, and food forests (Hajzeri and Kwadwo 2019). These allocations help city planning to balance local economies, development interests, and urban environments, often in collaboration with local residents (Buijs et al. 2019).

1.2. Feasibility of food production in urban and peri-urban areas

The feasibility of urban and peri-urban food production could vary across different urban contexts. For example, in densely populated or historically established sections of cities, it could involve planting fruit trees along sidewalks that provide substantial nutrient yields (Botzat et al. 2016, Larondelle and Strohbach 2016, Säumel et al. 2016). In some cases, urban and peri-urban brownfields may be reclaimed by municipalities or citizen collectives to grow food (Bonthoux et al. 2014, Rupprecht et al. 2015, Sardeshpande et al. 2021). Urban parks and gardens established primarily for recreation may also be a significant and legitimate source of food and nutrition (Hurley and Emery 2018, Colinas et al. 2019, Bunge et al. 2019). Structural constraints to urban and peri-urban food production include availability of contiguous land and arable soil (Opitz et al. 2016, Follmann et al. 2021), and also resident and developer preferences for gentrified forms of nature, neighbourhoods, and greenspaces (Zhu et al. 2020). Functionally, the growth, accumulation, and dispersal of biomass (such as leaves, fruits, and roots) associated with urban and peri-urban food production may interfere with urban infrastructure such as roads and waterways (Davoren and Shackleton 2021), and chemical contamination from urban air, soil, and water may pose health risks for consumers of its yields (Amato-Lourenco et al. 2020, Kokkoris et al. 2019). These challenges can be overcome by selection of appropriate species, spatial designs, and location to improve food and nutrition outcomes while also enhancing other ecosystem services such as flood attenuation and heat absorption (Clinton et al. 2018, Langemeyer et al. 2021).

1.3. Applying PGIS techniques to map suitability of urban and peri-urban food production

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Participatory GIS (PGIS) are decision support tools for enhancing spatial planning application in local and urban planning (Luan et al. 2021). GIS techniques use software to model the environment based on outlined multiple social, ecological, and biophysical criteria (Smith et al. 2018). While GIS modelling facilitates the modification and prediction of future outcomes, it can also be riddled with issues of expert domination in the decision-making process, lack of governance and capacity, and absence of local involvement (Bilgilioglu et al. 2022). The social limitations of the GIS approach can be addressed through the PGIS planning approach, which enables local resource users to get involved with the GIS modelling process by contributing local knowledge and defining desired goals and pathways to achieving the goals. PGIS constitutes an interface for local resource users and experts’ engagements thus allowing the integration of local and scientific knowledge systems. PGIS approaches have been applied in multi-criteria analysis and scenario planning to ensure that development addresses the needs of humanity without compromising the sustainability of the environment (Johnson et al. 2022; Yuan et al. 2022). It is therefore assumed that the use of PGIS in this research will empower local resources users to adopt criteria that align with their local realities, to determine areas suitable for peri-urban food production.

1.4. The local context

As in the case of many developing nations, households in South Africa experience the triple burden of malnutrition, which includes undernourishment (not enough food), malnourishment (imbalanced and inadequate diets), and diet-related non-communicable diseases such as stunting, obesity, etc (DoH 2013). Urbanising and westernising lifestyles influence preference for cheap, convenient, and packaged food over traditional, nutritious, and fresh, diverse farm-based food (Van der Hoven et al. 2013). Post-apartheid market liberalisation has facilitated penetration of cheap and calorie-dense low-nutrient foods into local markets for consumers, and incentivised export of high-quality foods such as fruit and vegetables to foreign markets for producers (Porkka et al. 2013). Smallholder farmers who cannot export or sell to mainstream domestic markets often struggle with lack of infrastructure and institutional support to improve yields and sales (Bizikova et al. 2020). In the broader socioeconomic sense, unemployment and inequality manifest in income and food poverty, and limited opportunities for the poor to engage in either primary production or secondary activities to secure an income (StatsSA 2017). Particularly in cities, legacy spatial planning also constrains access to greenfields and greenspace, which can often be a source of food or materials to support the household economy (Sardeshpande and Shackleton 2020a,b, Venter et al. 2020). Allocating and enriching urban and peri-urban spaces for food production are a priority on the National Development Plan for South Africa (NDP 2013), and could also contribute to national-level cross-cutting initiatives like the Integrated Food Security and Nutrition Programme and the Natural Resources Management Programme (NDA 2021). In this study three communities in the peri-urban areas of the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality (that houses Durban, hereafter eThekwini) were consulted to identify spaces where food production can be undertaken, to enhance food and nutritional security.

1.5. Research questions

The aim of the study was to identify the most compatible configurations of peri-urban food production given the social-ecological conditions at each site. The study combined a two-pronged PGIS approach to identify suitable areas for peri-urban food production, through participatory mapping, and GIS suitability analyses. The research objective was achieved by answering three questions in both the participatory mapping and suitability analyses approaches. The methodology characterised local social-ecological factors, existing and potential land use for food production at each site (Fig. 1). These were analysed to produce socioeconomic and land use guidelines suggesting configurations of peri-urban food production suitable to each site.

1.6. The role of indigenous crops and trees in urban food production

Indigenous crops and trees are important components of agroecological systems, and are often resilient to local ecological stresses and shocks (Mabhaudhi et al. 2016), as well as human disturbance and extraction (Gaoue et al. 2016, Lankoande et al. 2017). On farms, indigenous crops and trees provide pollination services, alternative income, and nutrition for farmers (Leakey 2018). In urban and peri-urban areas, they can also provide habitat connectivity to wildlife (Champness et al. 2019, Zietsmann et al. 2019), including pollinators that are important to rural and urban food production (Bennett and Lovell 2019). This makes them ideal candidates for fragmented landscapes of high-intensity human use, such as urban and peri-urban areas, where large-scale farming is impractical. Foods from indigenous crops and trees are rich in high quality micronutrients (Broegaard et al. 2017, Bvenura and Sivakumar 2017) which are generally deficient in urban diets due to constrained accessibility and affordability. Therefore, in this study, we also attempt to identify the feasibility of planting indigenous crops and trees for food production in urban and peri-urban areas, identifying synergies and constraints as applicable.

2.1. Study area

The eThekwini municipality is host to a population of 3.9 million people, in its urban centre of Durban, as well as a number of peri-urban areas (eThekwini website 2023). Due to legacy planning and diverse tenure systems, the city centre and suburbs have designated greenspace, whereas the peri-urban areas are more informal and sporadic in structure. About 44% of the land in eThekwini falls under the Ingonyama Trust, governed by traditional chiefs, and is not subject to the same planning requirements as municipal land (Sardeshpande and Shackleton 2019). The Durban Metropolitan Open Space System (DMOSS) was instituted in the 1990s to plan and govern land use across formal, informal, protected, and indigenous greenspace in urban and peri-urban areas (Roberts 1994, Davids et al. 2016, 2021). Under this system, land use is restricted in areas of ecological importance, ecological restoration offsets are required where feasible, and urban greening and agroforestry is promoted in collaboration with municipal departments and NGOs (Bisaga et al. 2019). As part of its UNFCC commitments, the municipality has undertaken reforestation and restoration across its open spaces, following on a tradition of restoration aimed not only at improving biodiversity, but also at provisioning indigenous food and medicinal resources, and livelihoods (Moyo et al. 2021). There is also a strong emphasis on removal and control of invasive alien species, and planting of endemic and indigenous species in greenspaces (Sardeshpande and Shackleton 2020a). Given this background, our research questions take into consideration the diversity of land tenure and indigenous species, especially trees, that are of interest at each study site (Fig. 2).

1. Maphephetheni: situated on the mountainous area surrounding the Inanda reservoir on the Umgeni River, built in the 1980s, contiguous with the suburb of Inanda. The peri-urban settlement consists of savanna and grassland vegetation. Areas that have been degraded by invasive species and fire are being replanted with useful food and forage species to encourage sustainable land use (eThekwini Municipality 2021). The Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department (EPCPD) of the municipality engages members from within these communities to nurture saplings for restoration, with the aim of increasing awareness and stewardship and preventing cyclical degradation and restoration.

2. Ntshongweni: situated along the ridge of the Shongweni dam on the Mlazi River, built in the 1920s, with vegetation consisting of riparian forest, grassland, and some wetland. Rail and road connections to the urban centres of Durban and Pietermaritzburg have attracted investment in transport and logistics centres in the vicinity, and more recently, in commercial retail and residential development. The EPCPD also runs invasive alien control and reforestation programmes at Ntshongweni.

3. Osindisweni: situated along the ridge of the Hazelmere dam on the Mdloti River, built in the 1970s, with vegetation consisting of riparian forest and grassland. It is adjacent to Buffelsdraai, a site historically degraded by intensive sugarcane farming, and currently serving (since 2008) as a suburban landfill ring-fenced by indigenous forest fragments (Douwes et al. 2016). These fragments are gradually expanded and connected by ongoing planting, and although most of the forest is protected, the periphery and a small section of the site have been earmarked to grow indigenous food-bearing tree species for surrounding communities. The EPCPD does not yet run restoration programmes at Osindisweni.

2.2. Participatory Mapping Workshops

One participatory mapping workshop was conducted in each community between September 2021 and March 2022. Local chiefs and councillors were approached for their consent to engage with the community, and for assistance with recruiting community members to participate in the workshops. We acknowledge that this recruitment strategy may have resulted in a representational bias, but assert that we communicated to each chief and councillor the need to engage with all sections of the community including youth, elders, employed, unemployed, and women. The aim of the research was introduced at the beginning, and informed consent was taken from all participants to record their responses and take photographs for research purposes only. The study was ethically reviewed and approved by the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee of the University of KwaZulu-Natal in June 2021. All methods were performed in accordance with the Economic and Social Research Council guidelines on ethical scientific research.

The outline map of the community with key features such as rivers, roads, schools, and hospitals was presented before the participants, and they were asked: (i) What are the various greenspaces in the community, and what are their tenure and access terms? (ii) What are the resources and uses associated with each of these greenspaces? (iii) What are the positive and negative characteristics of these greenspaces? (iv) What changes have these greenspaces undergone in the past 10 years? (v) What changes, if any, would the community like to see in these greenspaces? (vi) What species of food, especially indigenous trees, grow or are grown in the community, and where? (vii) What species of food would the community want growing in their greenspaces, and where?

A native speaker of isiZulu interpreted the questions and responses, and all responses were recorded on the map during the discussion. Names of places and indigenous plants were recorded in isiZulu. “Tree” spaces were recorded as a separate category overlapping with other types of spaces, and included home gardens, sports fields, and open spaces, as they may be fragmented yet productive in their food and non-food yields (e.g. fibre, fuel, medicine, wood). Food production was recorded as a use only when explicitly mentioned by participants (e.g. home gardens or open spaces were not deemed used for food production if food was only gathered but not actively grown there). The data collected were analysed qualitatively for emergent themes and descriptions in MS Word. Social-ecological attributes of each site were synthesized, and design configurations were suggested with response functions and biome-appropriate indigenous food species from Mabhaudhi et al. (2017) and Sardeshpande and Shackleton (2023).

2.3. Suitability analyses

Detecting suitable areas for peri-urban food production purposes was done in three stages. First, the factors affecting the agricultural uses were set up as criterion maps. Secondly, all the factors were scored in the suitability range based on expert opinion and the results from the participatory mapping workshops. Finally, GIS spatial analysis modelling techniques were used to generate suitability maps for the three sites. Six factors were considered in the process of setting up criterion maps, and the weighted overlay in ArcGIS Pro was used to generate the final suitability maps based on the percentage of influence for each geographic factor. Thus, each layer contributes to the influence based on the type of agricultural land use (Table 1). The final suitability maps were reclassified into five classes with suitability scales ranging from highly suitable to not suitable.

Table 1

Influence percentage for each factor used to produce the final suitability maps
Geographic factor	Description	% of influence
Land cover	The 2020 South African Land Cover data was acquired from the South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment online portal publicly available at https://egis.environment.gov.za/data_egis/data_download/current. Seven broad land cover classes were identified in the three areas. These were built up areas, forests (commercial and natural), grasslands, water bodies, fallow lands, agricultural lands and bare areas.	35
Agricultural land capability	The South African land capability data was acquired from the National Department of Agriculture. The land capability is defined as the total suitability for usage without causing harm to grazing, woods, wildlife, and crops that require frequent tillage. The eight-class land capability classification constitutes the basis of most subsequent attempts at bringing land capability concepts under measurable parameters (Table A3).	20
Dominant soils	The soils data was obtained from Soil and Terrain database (SOTER) for South Africa which is freely accessible at https://www.isric.org/explore. The SOTER data was compiled in the framework programme of the Global Assessment of Land Degradation (GLADA) for 6 pilot countries (Argentina, Cuba, China, Senegal, South Africa and Tunisia). Four major soil categories were identified at the three study sites (Table A2).	15
Slope	The slope percentage map was derived from Copernicus Digital Elevation Model (COP-DEM) with a 30m spatial resolution using the slope function in ArcGIS Pro software. The slope map was divided into 10 equal interval classes according to Mazahreh et al. (2019) for representing levels of slope suitability for expansion of peri-urban agriculture.	15
Proximity to water sources	For the purposes of irrigation of peri-urban food production, the distance to existing water sources was incorporated in the analysis. Rivers were the only available water sources that were considered in this analysis. The river networks were extracted from a 30m COP- DEM using the watershed module in R Studio (RStudio Team 2020). The Euclidian distance function in ArcGIS Pro software was used to generate distance maps from the existing rivers.	10
Proximity to the main road	For accessibility to the farmlands and easy transportation of harvest to the nearby markets, the distance from the roads was incorporated in the analysis. The road networks data was acquired from the Department of Transport online portal, accessible at https://gis1.kzntransport.gov.za/arcgisportal/home/. The Euclidian distance function in ArcGIS Pro software was used to generate distance maps from the existing roads.	5

3.1. Characterising greenspaces and food production potential through participatory mapping

The workshops lasted about 90 minutes at each site, and involved between 11 and 29 participants. Participants included, but were not limited to, representatives of the ward, workers with different departments of the municipality such as community services, education, environment, and health and sanitation, local smallholder farmers, part-time employed and unemployed youth and elders, private sector employees, and representatives of local NGOs, churches, and cooperatives.

Current land use of greenspaces included provisioning and recreation, although the former was reported as significant only at Maphephetheni and Ntshongweni (Table 2). Greenspaces are an important avenue for urban and peri-urban foraging at all three sites, providing residents with resources and recreational opportunities (Shackleton et al. 2017a,b). Food production was intentionally undertaken in communal and public greenspaces at the aforementioned sites, but not at Osindisweni. Tenure over greenspaces also varied across the sites, and areas under the traditional authority, i.e. the local chief were used for recreation and grazing, but not to grow food. Land tenure is an important driver of land use and stewardship, and traditional authority tenure can be a deterrent to land-based livelihoods such as food production. Lack of accountability and definition in spatial allocation in communal areas can result in violation of land use agreements (Bennett et al. 2013), reducing certainty of long-term land use, and subsequent investment of labour and capital in food production (Shackleton et al. 2019). It may also result in rent appropriation by powerful stakeholders at the expense of the community (Olofsson 2021) and undemocratic development on land intended for food production, especially in urban and peri-urban areas (Lidzhegu and Kabanda 2022). This may partly explain why at Osindisweni, where most greenspaces are under communal tenure, participants expressed low interest in food production.

The productivity of greenspaces varied across sites, with Ntshongweni residents earning and saving money from the sale of food produced in home and public greenspaces (Table 3). Natural greenspaces were “far away” for residents of Maphephetheni and Osindisweni, making a case for the development of more accessible parks and gardens for residents closer to residential areas. Planning for such should take into account local perceptions on safety and environmental quality in order to minimise unintended consequences such as dereliction or gentrification (Combrinck et al. 2020). Across all three sites, lack of plant material, stable water supply, livestock predation, and know-how were reported as hindrances to food production in community food and school gardens. Participants made different site-specific recommendations to improve food productivity. For example, in Maphephetheni, home gardens were considered more effective than public gardens, as it was easier to protect them from water shortages and flooding, and livestock and human predation. On the other hand, Osindisweni respondents prioritised shops and soup kitchens as means to improve food security, as they believed their land to be no longer viable for food production due to pollution associated with the landfill. This reiterates the need for participatory planning in the development of urban agriculture as a sustainable and citizen-driven enterprise in South Africa (Cilliers et al. 2020).

Table 2

Existing land use: Types of greenspaces, their tenure, and uses at the three study sites. Species information is listed in Appendix Table A1.
Types of space	Number	Tenure	Uses	Resources	Remarks
Maphephetheni
Communal areas	2	Chief	Grazing, recreation	Fodder, fruits (banana, guava)	Beautiful views, but far away, and harbour monkeys
Open spaces	3	Public	Grazing, recreation	Fish, fruits (mango + 10 spp.), herbs (watercress, wild spinaches)	Includes reservoir fishing, plantation, “nature” areas
Food gardens	4	Neighbourhood	Food production	Vegetables (carrot, spinach)	Low yielding
“Tree” spaces	3	Private and public	Food production and recreation	Fruits (13 spp.)	Includes sports field, household, and riverine trees, and plantation gumtrees
Ntshongweni
Open spaces	3	Public	Food production, fuelwood collection, grazing, recreation	Fish, fodder, fuelwood, vegetables (beetroot, cabbage, carrot, chilli, onion, peppers, spinach)	Includes reservoir fishing and erstwhile sports field that turned into wetland and now stands protected
Food gardens	5	Cooperatives	Food production	Maize, vegetables (see above)	Need to know what to grow, when, where, and how
“Tree” spaces	3	Private and public	Food production and recreation	Fruits (11 spp.), fuelwood	Includes household and riverine trees, and an erstwhile game reserve that “no one uses now”
Osindisweni
Communal areas	4	Chief	Recreation	Fruits (8 spp.), scavenged food and goods from landfill	Includes bush, open space, landfill buffer, and riverine, fruits only collected in riverine, which is far away
Food gardens	1	School	Unused	None	Poor upkeep
“Tree” spaces	5	Private and public	Food production and recreation	Fruits (8 spp. + litchi to purchase), vegetables to purchase	Includes household and riverine trees, an agricultural hub, and a litchi farm

Table 3

Perceived land use potential and food production feasibility in greenspaces at the three study sites.
Greenspace characteristics	Maphephetheni	Ntshongweni	Osindisweni
Positive aspects	Experience of “nature”, “views”; recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, picnicking, and swimming with family.
	Use of communal areas for grazing and foraging for food and wood; food gardens contributing to community nutrition.
		Savings and earnings from local food sales from cooperative gardening.
Negative aspects	Recreational greenspaces are located far away from residential areas.	Privatisation of Resource Reserve and lack of community access.	Conversion of some area to landfill and conservation buffer; poor waste management and invasive control; ecological, health, and safety impacts.
Negative aspects	Lack of access to seeds, water, fencing, and training for food gardens, hindering food production.
Changes over past decade	Gradual: trees are now outnumbered by households within the community.	Gradual: dwindling of game animals; Drastic: appearance of a wetland at a sports field (and subsequent municipal protection); Recent: formation of numerous food garden cooperatives during the coronavirus pandemic (2020-21).	Gradual: conversion and expansion of the landfill (2010) resulting in indiscriminate waste dumping and scavenging in the buffer area around the community; Drastic: fumes and frequent fires from the landfill pose significant respiratory problems for the community.
Future prospects	Prioritise the ‘One home one garden’ concept, wherein each household is enabled to grow food in their yards through material and technical input.	Open the Reserve to public for food production (orchards), forestry (fuelwood), or community facilities (school, youth centre, or disaster high ground); plant indigenous trees as replacement for invasive aliens, and crop shade.	Demand better greenspace management through invasive alien control and waste collection; prioritise public infrastructure like schools, soup kitchens, shops, and health centres over food gardens and other greenspaces.
Food production potential	Low-yielding food gardens; fishing, foraging, livestock supplement food economy; high-yielding home gardens.	High-yielding cropping and food gardens; high-yielding home gardens; need knowledge and training on locally suited species of food plants and animal breeds for agroecology.	Perceived unviability of air and soil due to waste dumping, landfill fires; poor upkeep of existing food garden.
Tree planting feasibility	Accessible to most people, valued for food, fodder, air and temperature regulation, and wood for poles; preference for mainstream foods such as avocado, oranges, and peaches over indigenous species.	Accessible and valued for food, fodder, shade, and sequestration; placement of trees to prevent damage to property during floods and mudslides.	Limited access to household trees which are “ancient, our own”, and valued by the community; planting more trees may not be feasible until the landfill pollution problem is alleviated.

Based on the pros, cons, and potential identified in the previous stages, we characterize seven site attributes and six response functions that can be served by greening for urban food production, in addition to improving food and nutritional security (Table 4). We suggest the use of thorny plants as fencing structures to prevent predation by livestock, while simultaneously maintaining biomass for humans and non-humans in the form of fruits and fodder. Given the use of greenspaces for non-food and non-timber products, and the need for invasive alien replacement, indigenous trees that have multiple uses can be planted in various greenspaces. Some of these already grow in greenspaces across these sites (Table A1), but were not referred to as serving the proposed functions. A number of these indigenous trees serve as a significant conduit to intergenerational transfer of ecological knowledge, and a connection to nature (Sardeshpande and Shackleton 2023), which in turn forms an important part of biocultural diversity and landscape stewardship (Elands et al. 2019). Fast-growing herbs that require little input can be grown in marginal areas where the terrain poses difficulties, or where land tenure induces uncertainty. Crops that can resist waterlogging, enrich soil, and improve local productivity are also suggested where appropriate. None of the herbs or crops were specifically mentioned during the elicitation at the workshops. Similarly, choices of crops exist for areas that are more prone to drought or heatwaves, or for marginal soils or shaded or windy areas (Modi and Mabhaudhi and Modi 2018). Spatiotemporal intercropping of these with conventional crops can help remediate soil (Tiroesele et al. 2019, Malviya et al. 2021). Surplus production of indigenous crops and trees can feed into short and high value supply chains to urban centres (e.g. Pfukwa et al. 2020, Nkosi et al. 2020).

Table 4

Design configurations based on synthesised site attributes, desired response functions, reviewed literature on indigenous food species, and participatory mapping locations, for Maphephetheni (M), Ntshongweni (N), and Osindisweni (O). (Y = Yes, N = No)
Site attributes	Response functions	Indigenous species	Latin name	Location	M	N	0
Livestock grazing	Live fence fruits	Kei apple	Dovyalis caffra	Food gardens Home gardens School gardens	Y	Y	Y
		Numnum	Carissa sp.		Y	Y	Y
		Monkey orange	Strychnos sp.		Y	Y	Y
Use of biomass for fencing, fodder, food, and medicine, and replacement of invasive aliens	Multipurpose fruit trees	Dune currant	Searsia natalensis	Any open spaces	Y	Y	Y
		Marula	Sclerocarya birrea		Y	N	N
		Milkwood	Sideroxylon inerme		Y	Y	N
		Brown ivory	Berchemia discolor		Y	N	N
		Red ivory	Berchemia zeyheri		Y	Y	Y
		Sour plum	Ximenia caffra		Y	Y	Y
		Turkey berry	Canthium inerme		Y	Y	N
		Wild medlar	Vangueria infausta		Y	Y	N
		Wild plum	Harpephyllum caffrum		N	Y	Y
Slope (M,N) Communal land tenure, low labour availability (O)	Fast-growing annual herbs	Amaranth	Amaranth sp.	Food gardens School gardens Any open spaces	Y	N	Y
		Jute mallow	Corchorus olitorius		Y	Y	N
		Nightshade	Solanum nigrum		Y	Y	N
		Spider flower	Cleome gynandra		Y	N	Y
		Wild mustard	Rapistrum rugosum		N	N	Y
Flood risk	Waterlogging-tolerant crops	Sweet potato	Ipomea batatas	Food gardens Along slopes	Y	Y	N
Flood risk	Waterlogging-tolerant crops	Taro	Colocasia esculenta	Food gardens Along slopes	Y	Y	N
Indigenous crop inclination (N)	Indigenous grains	Sorghum	Sorghum bicolor	Flat open spaces	N	Y	N
Indigenous crop inclination (N)	Indigenous grains	Teff	Eragrostis teff	Flat open spaces	N	Y	N
Poor soil quality (O)	Annual nitrogen-fixing crops	Bambara groundnut	Vigna subterranea	School gardens Flat open spaces	N	Y	Y
		Cowpea	Vigna unguiculata		N	Y	Y
		Pigeon pea	Cajanus cajan		N	Y	Y

3.2. Biophysical land suitability for greenspaces

Figure 3 shows the maps produced by using expert-derived weights and value functions. Each map was divided into five agriculture suitability quality classes defined at discrete levels, allowing for comparisons between the three maps. The maps show the highly suitable, suitable, moderately suitable, marginally suitable and not suitable areas for peri-urban agriculture in Osindisweni, Maphephetheni and Ntshongweni districts. A simple visual comparison of the suitability patterns revealed by the three maps shows that Osindisweni has the greatest proportion of highly suitable and suitable areas for peri-urban agriculture.

Areas identified in the participatory mapping workshops tended to overlap with the high- to moderately-suitable classes of land identified in the GIS (biophysical) model (Fig. 4). This shows an agreement between the two methods used in this study to identify areas suitable for peri-urban food production at the three sites. Using both approaches strengthens the estimates of suitable areas, by identifying the areas for which both approaches identify, while minimizing the number of wrongly identified areas.

Statistics comparing the number of cells assigned to each suitability class, for the three maps, are presented in Table 5 and Fig. 3. The areas of the sites were within 50 km sq. of each other, with Ntshongweni being the smallest (167.61 km sq.), followed by Maphephetheni (183.83 km sq.) and Osindisweni (217.95 km sq.). The GIS suitability analysis indicated that Osindisweni has both the largest absolute area of suitable land, as well as the largest ratio of suitable to unsuitable land, with over 99% of its area being suitable for greening for food (Table 5). Conversely, Maphephetheni had the smallest area of suitable land, accounting for about 25% of its total area. Ntshongweni also had a high ratio of 96% of its land being suitable for greening for food.

Table 5

Area and pixel count distribution for each site from the land suitability analysis model
Site	Maphephetheni		Ntshongweni		Osindisweni
	Area (km²)	Percentage	Area (km²)	Percentage	Area (km²)	Percentage
Highly suitable	0.23	0.13	0.28	0.17	1.7	0.78
Suitable	2.2	1.2	1.4	0.84	23.4	10.74
Moderately Suitable	11.3	6.15	23.63	14.1	12.8	5.87
Marginally Suitable	32.2	15.52	134.7	80.37	179.6	82.4
Not Suitable	137.9	75.01	7.6	4.53	0.45	0.21

The pixel size is 30m by 30m (900m²)

Osindisweni’s proximity to erstwhile sugarcane fields (Douwes et al. 2016) corroborates the finding that it has a greater proportion of suitable to marginally suitable land for agriculture. However, more recent social-political developments such as rapid urbanisation and the expansion of the landfill have resulted in food production being perceived as untenable in the area. Indeed, the expansion of industrial and urban activities can accelerate not only a shift from land-based livelihoods, but also a decline in soil and water quality (Ahmed et al. 2021, Ozsahin and Ozdes 2022). Our findings reiterate the importance of triangulating land use planning across large to fine scales through participatory methods. Alongside soil depth and nutrients, slope is an important landscape determinant of land suitability for conventional food production (Seyedmohammedi and Navidi 2022). Notwithstanding, results from our participatory and synthesis process offer options to reinforce local food and nutritional security through innovative design elements (Armanda et al. 2019). Despite proximity to water sources, last-mile connectivity to arable land emerged as a significant limitation for food production at the three sites. Plans to promote food production should take into account strategies to manage nutrient flows in soil and water (Chang et al. 2014, Zhang et al. 2023). Excess runoff of agricultural enrichment materials may pose risks to water quality and safety. This is especially important given the immediate dependence of peri-urban and urban dwellers on surface and groundwater (Calijuri et al. 2015). Agroecological strategies including use of organic and circular inputs is likely to alleviate issues of safety (Greenberg and Drimie 2022).

This study finds that while GIS tools can generate detailed information on land use suitability, the participatory process allows for democratic exchange of knowledge, particularly in fast-changing socioeconomic landscapes like peri-urban areas. This integrated approach can aid development of site-specific solutions, forming dynamic governance co-produced by communities and institutions (Buijs et al. 2019, Elands et al. 2019). The participatory research component also helps to build an adaptive, responsive, community of practice around each site, by engaging with relevant stakeholders in non-political terms (Fischer et al. 2015, Wyborn 2015, Goodwin 2019). Through innovative design considerations, our findings aim to enable synergistic improvements in food and nutritional security, agroecology, and multifunctional urban green infrastructure. The outputs contribute to achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs) 2 (reducing hunger), 3 (promoting health and wellbeing), 9 (infrastructure innovation), 11 (sustainable cities and communities), 12 (responsible consumption and production), 13 (climate action), 15 (life on land), and 17 (partnerships) (SDG 2015).

5. Acknowledgements and Funding

MS is grateful to all workshop participants at the three sites, and to the local chiefs and ward councillors for their time and efforts. MS thanks Kuhlekonke Mathenjwa for isiZulu and English interpretation at the workshops, and Nathi Ngcobo, Linda Mhlotshwa, and their associates for organising permissions and logistics. Thanks also to Errol Douwes, Mbali Goge, and Nomzamo Mncube for their support through the Durban Research Action Partnership. This research was funded in part by the Wellcome [Grant number: 205200/Z/16/Z]. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. Field work was funded in part by the WoodRIGHTS Project, which the University of KwaZulu-Natal Strategic Flagships funds.

1. Acknowledgements and Funding

2. Author Contributions

All authors have read and consented to publication of this manuscript. Conceptualisation, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing – original: Mallika Sardeshpande; Methodology, Formal Analyses, Visualisation, Writing – review and editing: Mallika Sardeshpande, Tsitsi Bangira, Trylee Matongera, Matilda Azong Cho; Funding Acquisition, Supervision: Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi.

3. Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

4. Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Ahmad, W., Iqbal, J., Nasir, M. J., Ahmad, B., Khan, M. T., Khan, S. N., & Adnan, S. (2021). Impact of land use/land cover changes on water quality and human health in district Peshawar Pakistan. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 16526.
Amato-Lourenco, L. F., Ranieri, G. R., de Oliveira Souza, V. C., Junior, F. B., Saldiva, P. H. N., & Mauad, T. (2020). Edible weeds: Are urban environments fit for foraging?. Science of the Total Environment, 698, 133967.
Armanda, D.T.; Guinée, J.B.; Tukker, A. The second green revolution: Innovative urban agriculture’s contribution to food security and sustainability – A review. Glob. Food Sec. 2019, 22, 13–24.
Augstburger, H., Käser, F., & Rist, S. (2019). Assessing Food Systems and Their Impact on Common Pool Resources and Resilience. Land, 8(4), 71.
Bennett, J., Ainslie, A., & Davis, J. (2013). Contested institutions? Traditional leaders and land access and control in communal areas of Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Land Use Policy, 32, 27-38.
Bennett, A. B., & Lovell, S. (2019). Landscape and local site variables differentially influence pollinators and pollination services in urban agricultural sites. PLoS One, 14(2), e0212034.
Bergius, M., & Buseth, J. T. (2019). Towards a green modernization development discourse: the new green revolution in Africa. Journal of Political Ecology, 26(1), 57-83.
Bilgilioglu, .S., Gezgin, C., Orhan, O. et al. A GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making method for the selection of potential municipal solid waste disposal sites in Mersin, Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 5313–5329 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15859-2
Bisaga, I., Parikh, P., & Loggia, C. (2019). Challenges and opportunities for sustainable urban farming in South African low-income settlements: A case study in Durban. Sustainability, 11(20), 5660.
Bizikova, L., Nkonya, E., Minah, M., Hanisch, M., Turaga, R. M. R., Speranza, C. I., ... & Timmers, B. (2020). A scoping review of the contributions of farmers’ organizations to smallholder agriculture. Nature Food, 1(10), 620-630.
Bonthoux, S., Brun, M., Di Pietro, F., Greulich, S., & Bouché-Pillon, S. (2014). How can wastelands promote biodiversity in cities? A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 132, 79-88.
Botzat, A., Fischer, L. K., & Kowarik, I. (2016). Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on urban biodiversity perception and valuation. Global Environmental Change, 39, 220-233.
Broegaard, R. B., Rasmussen, L. V., Dawson, N., Mertz, O., Vongvisouk, T., & Grogan, K. (2017). Wild food collection and nutrition under commercial agriculture expansion in agriculture-forest landscapes. Forest Policy and Economics, 84, 92-101.
Buijs, A., Hansen, R., Van der Jagt, S., Ambrose-Oji, B., Elands, B., Rall, E. L., Mattijssen, T., Pauliet, S., Runhaar, S., Olafsson, A. S., & Møller, M. S. (2019). Mosaic governance for urban green infrastructure: Upscaling active citizenship from a local government perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 40, 53-62.
Bunge, A., Diemont, S. A., Bunge, J. A., & Harris, S. (2019). Urban foraging for food security and sovereignty: quantifying edible forest yield in Syracuse, New York using four common fruit-and nut-producing street tree species. Journal of Urban Ecology, 5(1), juy028.
Bvenura, C., & Sivakumar, D. (2017). The role of wild fruits and vegetables in delivering a balanced and healthy diet. Food Research International, 99, 15-30.
Calijuri, M. L., Castro, J. D. S., Costa, L. S., Assemany, P. P., & Alves, J. E. M. (2015). Impact of land use/land cover changes on water quality and hydrological behavior of an agricultural subwatershed. Environmental Earth Sciences, 74, 5373-5382.
Chakona, G., & Shackleton, C. M. (2019). Food insecurity in South Africa: To what extent can social grants and consumption of wild foods eradicate hunger? World Development Perspectives, 13, 87-94.
Champness, B. S., Palmer, G. C., & Fitzsimons, J. A. (2019). Bringing the city to the country: relationships between streetscape vegetation type and bird assemblages in a major regional centre. Journal of Urban Ecology, 5(1), juz018.
Chang, N. B., Imen, S., & Vannah, B. (2015). Remote sensing for monitoring surface water quality status and ecosystem state in relation to the nutrient cycle: a 40-year perspective. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 45(2), 101-166.
Cilliers, E. J., Lategan, L., Cilliers, S. S., & Stander, K. (2020). Reflecting on the potential and limitations of urban agriculture as an urban greening tool in South Africa. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 2, 43.
Clinton, N., Stuhlmacher, M., Miles, A., Uludere Aragon, N., Wagner, M., Georgescu, M., ... & Gong, P. (2018). A global geospatial ecosystem services estimate of urban agriculture. Earth's Future, 6(1), 40-60.
Colinas, J., Bush, P., & Manaugh, K. (2019). The socio-environmental impacts of public urban fruit trees: A Montreal case-study. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 45, 126132.
Combrinck, Z., Cilliers, E. J., Lategan, L., & Cilliers, S. (2020). Revisiting the proximity principle with stakeholder input: Investigating property values and distance to urban green space in otchefstroom. Land, 9(7), 235.
Davids, R., Rouget, M., Boon, R., & Roberts, D. (2016). Identifying ecosystem service hotspots for environmental management in Durban, South Africa. Bothalia-African Biodiversity and Conservation, 46(2), 1-18.
Davids, R., Rouget, M., Burger, M., Mahood, K., Ditlhale, N., & Slotow, R. (2021). Civic ecology uplifts low-income communities, improves ecosystem services and well-being, and strengthens social cohesion. Sustainability, 13(3), 1300.
Davoren, E., & Shackleton, C. M. (2021). Urban ecosystem disservices in the Global South. Urban ecology in the Global South. Springer, Cham, 265-292.
Department of Health (DoH). (2013). Roadmap for nutrition in South Africa 2013-2017. http://www.adsa.org.za/Portals/14/Documents/DOH/Nutrition%20Road%20Map%20 2013-2017.pdf (Accessed on 30/07/2017).
Douwes, E.; Rouget, M.; Diederichs, N.; O’Donoghue, S.; Roy, K.; Roberts, D. The buffelsdraai landfill site community reforestation project. Unasylva 2016, 67, 12–19.
Elands, B.H.M., Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Fischer, L.K., Gonçalves, P., Haase, D., Kowarik, I, Luz, A.C., Niemelä, J., Santos-Reis, M., Wiersum, K.F. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 40, 29-34.
eThekwini Municipality. (2021). iNanda Mountain Community Reforestation Project Available online: http://www.durban.gov.za/City_Services/development_planning_management/environmental_planning_climate_protection/Projects/Pages/Inanda-Mountain-Community-Reforestation.aspx (accessed on Aug 13, 2021).
eThekwini website. (2023). About us (eThekwini Municipality). Available online at https://www.durban.gov.za/pages/government/about-ethekwini accessed on Jul 13 2023
Fanzo, J., Covic, N., Dobermann, A., Henson, S., Herrero, M., Pingali, P., & Staal, S. (2020). A research vision for food systems in the 2020s: defying the status quo. Global food security, 26, 100397.
Fischer, J., Gardner, T. A., Bennett, E. M., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., Daw, T., Folke, C., Hill, R., Hughes, T. P., Luthe, T., et al. (2015). Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 144-149.
Follmann, A., Willkomm, M., & Dannenberg, P. (2021). As the city grows, what do farmers do? A systematic review of urban and peri-urban agriculture under rapid urban growth across the Global South. Landscape and Urban Planning, 215, 104186.
Gaoue, O. G., Jiang, J., Ding, W., Agusto, F. B., & Lenhart, S. (2016). Optimal harvesting strategies for timber and non-timber forest products in tropical ecosystems. Theoretical Ecology, 9(3), 287-297.
Greenberg, S., & Drimie, S. (2021). The state of the debate on agroecology in South Africa A scan of actors, discourses and policies. Report to CIRAD, available online at https://foodsecurity.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/TAFS-project_The-state-of-the-debate-on-agroecology-in-South-Africa-A-scan-of-actors-discourses-and-policies.pdf Accessed on 19/06/2023
Goodwin, G. (2019). The problem and promise of coproduction: Politics, history, and autonomy. World Development, 122, 501-513.
Haaland, C., & van den Bosch, C. K. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 760-771.
Haggblade, S., Me-Nsope, N. M., & Staatz, J. M. (2017). Food security implications of staple food substitution in Sahelian West Africa. Food Policy, 71, 27-38.
Hajzeri, A., & Kwadwo, V. O. (2019). Investigating integration of edible plants in urban open spaces: Evaluation of policy challenges and successes of implementation. Land Use Policy, 84, 43-48.
Haysom, G.; Tawodzera, G. “Measurement drives diagnosis and response”: Gaps in transferring food security assessment to the urban scale. Food Policy 2018, 74, 117–125.
Heslin, A., Puma, M. J., Marchand, P., Carr, J. A., Dell'Angelo, J., D'Odorico, P., ... & Tavoni, A. (2020). Simulating the cascading effects of an extreme agricultural production shock: global implications of a contemporary US Dust Bowl event. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 26.
Hurley, P. T., & Emery, M. R. (2018). Locating provisioning ecosystem services in urban forests: Forageable woody species in New York City, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 266-275.
Johnson, M.S., Adams, V.M., Byrne, J. et al. The benefits of Q + PPGIS for coupled human-natural systems research: A systematic review. Ambio 51, 1819–1836 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01709-z
Kabisch, N., Qureshi, S., & Haase, D. (2015). Human–environment interactions in urban green spaces—A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 25-34.
Kokkoris, V., Massas, I., Polemis, E., Koutrotsios, G., & Zervakis, G. I. (2019). Accumulation of heavy metals by wild edible mushrooms with respect to soil substrates in the Athens metropolitan area (Greece). Science of the Total Environment, 685, 280-296.
Kremen, C., & Merenlender, A. M. (2018). Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science, 362(6412).
Kummu, M., Kinnunen, P., Lehikoinen, E., Porkka, M., Queiroz, C., Röös, E., ... & Weil, C. (2020). Interplay of trade and food system resilience: Gains on supply diversity over time at the cost of trade independency. Global Food Security, 24, 100360.
Langemeyer, J., Madrid-Lopez, C., Beltran, A. M., & Mendez, G. V. (2021). Urban agriculture—A necessary pathway towards urban resilience and global sustainability?. Landscape and Urban Planning, 210, 104055.
Lankoandé, B., Ouédraogo, A., Boussim, J. I., & Lykke, A. M. (2017). Natural stands diversity and population structure of Lophira lanceolata Tiegh. ex Keay, a local oil tree species in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Agroforestry Systems, 91(1), 85-96.
Larondelle, N., & Strohbach, M. W. (2016). A murmur in the trees to note: Urban legacy effects on fruit trees in Berlin, Germany. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 17, 11-15.
Leakey, R. R. (2020). A re-boot of tropical agriculture benefits food production, rural economies, health, social justice and the environment. Nature Food, 1(5), 260-265.
Leclère, D., Obersteiner, M., Barrett, M., Butchart, S. H., Chaudhary, A., De Palma, A., ... & Freeman, R. (2020). Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature, 585(7826), 551-556.
Lidzhegu, Z., & Kabanda, T. (2022). Declining land for subsistence and small-scale farming in South Africa: A case study of Thulamela local municipality. Land Use Policy, 119, 106170.
Luan, C., Liu, R., & Peng, S. (2021). Land-use suitability assessment for urban development using a GIS-based soft computing approach: A case study of Ili Valley, China. Ecological Indicators, 123, 107333.
Mabhaudhi, T., O’Reilly, P., Walker, S., & Mwale, S. (2016). Opportunities for underutilised crops in southern Africa’s post–2015 development agenda. Sustainability, 8(4), 302.
Mabhaudhi, T., Chimonyo, V. G., & Modi, A. T. (2017). Status of underutilised crops in South Africa: opportunities for developing research capacity. Sustainability, 9(9), 1569.
Malviya, M. K., Solanki, M. K., Li, C. N., Wang, Z., Zeng, Y., Verma, K. K., ... & Li, Y. R. (2021). Sugarcane-legume intercropping can enrich the soil microbiome and plant growth. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 606595.
Mazahreh, S., Bsoul, M., & Hamoor, D. A. (2019). GIS approach for assessment of land suitability for different land use alternatives in semi arid environment in Jordan: Case study (Al Gadeer Alabyad-Mafraq). Information processing in agriculture, 6(1), 91-108.
Modi, A. T., & Mabhaudhi, T. M. (2018). Underutilised crop species in South Africa. Report to the Water Research Commission of South Africa as part of WRC Project K5/2603//4 on Developing a research agenda for promoting underutilised, indigenous and traditional crops.
Moyo, H.; Slotow, R.; Rouget, M.; Mugwedi, L.; Douwes, E.; Tsvuura, Z.; Tshabalala, T. Adaptive management in restoration initiatives: Lessons learned from some of South Africa’s projects. South African J. Bot. 2021, 139, 352–361.
NDA. (2021). National Department of Agriculture, Republic of South Africa. Programmes webpage. National Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development, Republic of South Africa. Available online at https://www.nda.agric.za/Programmes accessed on 17/08/2021.
NDP. (2013). National Development Plan 2030. Our Future – make it work. Republic of South Africa. ISBN: 978-0-621-41180-5. 498pp. https://www.gov.za/documents/national-development-plan-2030-our-future-make-it-work accessed 08/04/2020
Nkosi, N. N., Mostert, T. H. C., Dzikiti, S., & Ntuli, N. R. (2020). Prioritization of indigenous fruit tree species with domestication and commercialization potential in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 67, 1567-1575.
Olofsson, M. (2021). Expanding commodity frontiers and the emergence of customary land markets: A case study of tree-crop farming in Venda, South Africa. Land Use Policy, 101, 105203.
Opitz, I., Berges, R., Piorr, A., & Krikser, T. (2016). Contributing to food security in urban areas: differences between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture in the Global North. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(2), 341-358.
Ozsahin, E., & Ozdes, M. (2022). Agricultural land suitability assessment for agricultural productivity based on GIS modeling and multi-criteria decision analysis: the case of Tekirdağ province. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(1), 41.
Pfukwa, T. M., Chikwanha, O. C., Katiyatiya, C. L., Fawole, O. A., Manley, M., & Mapiye, C. (2020). Southern African indigenous fruits and their byproducts: Prospects as food antioxidants. Journal of Functional Foods, 75, 104220.
Porkka, M., Kummu, M., & Siebert, S. & Varis, O. (2013). From food insufficiency towards trade dependency: a historical analysis of global food availability. PLoS One, 8, e82714.
Roberts, D. C. (1994). The design of an urban open-space network for the city of Durban (South Africa). Environmental Conservation, 21(1), 11-17.
Rstudio Team (2020). Rstudio: Integrated Development for R. Rstudio, PBC, Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com/.
Rupprecht, C. D., Byrne, J. A., Garden, J. G., & Hero, J. M. (2015). Informal urban green space: A trilingual systematic review of its role for biodiversity and trends in the literature. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 883-908.
Sardeshpande, M., & Shackleton, C. (2019). Wild Edible Fruits: A Systematic Review of an Under-Researched Multifunctional NTFP. Forests 10(6), 467.
Sardeshpande, M., & Shackleton, C. (2020a). Fruits of the Veld: Ecological and Socioeconomic Patterns of Natural Resource Use across South Africa. Human Ecology https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-020-00185-x
Sardeshpande, M., & Shackleton, C. (2020b). Urban foraging: Land management policy, perspectives, and potential. PLoS ONE, 15(4), e0230693.
Sardeshpande, M., Rupprecht, C., & Russo, A. (2021). Edible urban commons for resilient neighbourhoods in light of the pandemic. Cities, 103031.
Sardeshpande, M., & Shackleton, C. (2023). Fruits of the city: The nature, nurture and future of urban foraging. People and Nature, 5, 213– 227. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10428
Sarkodie, S. A., Owusu, P. A., & Leirvik, T. (2020). Global effect of urban sprawl, industrialization, trade and economic development on carbon dioxide emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 15(3), 034049.
Säumel, I., Weber, F., & Kowarik, I. (2016). Toward livable and healthy urban streets: Roadside vegetation provides ecosystem services where people live and move. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 24-33.
Seyedmohammadi, J., & Navidi, M. N. (2022). Applying fuzzy inference system and analytic network process based on GIS to determine land suitability potential for agricultural. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(10), 712.
Shackleton, C. M., Blair, A., De Lacy, P., Kaoma, H., Mugwagwa, N., Dalu, M. T., & Walton, W. (2017a). How important is green infrastructure in small and medium-sized towns? Lessons from South Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, 273-281.
Shackleton, C. M., Hurley, P. T., Dahlberg, A. C., Emery, M. R., & Nagendra, H. (2017b). Urban Foraging: A Ubiquitous Human Practice Overlooked by Urban Planners, Policy, and Research. Sustainability 9(10), 1884.
Shackleton, C. M., Mograbi, P. J., Drimie, S., Fay, D., Hebinck, P., Hoffman, M. T., ... & Twine, W. (2019). Deactivation of field cultivation in communal areas of South Africa: Patterns, drivers and socio-economic and ecological consequences. Land Use Policy, 82, 686-699.
Smith, M. J., Longley, P. A., Goodchild, M. F. (2018). Geospatial Analysis: A Comprehensive Guide. United Kingdom: Winchelsea Press.
StatsSA. (2017). Poverty trends in South Africa: An examination of absolute poverty between 2006 and 2015. Report 031006, Statistics South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa, 138pp.
Tiroesele, B., Obopile, M., & Karabo, O. (2019). Insect diversity and population dynamics of natural enemies under sorghum–legume intercrops. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 74(3), 258-267.
UNDESA. (2018). United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision, Online Edition. Accessed on 03/06/2019
Van der Hoeven, M.; Osei, J.; Greeff, M.; Kruger, A.; Faber, M.; Smuts, C.M. (2013). Indigenous and traditional plants: South african parents’ knowledge, perceptions and uses and their children’s sensory acceptance. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 9, 78.
Venter, Z. S., Shackleton, C. M., Van Staden, F., Selomane, O., & Masterson, V. A. (2020). Green Apartheid: Urban green infrastructure remains unequally distributed across income and race geographies in South Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 203, 103889.
Wyborn, C. (2015). Co-productive governance: a relational framework for adaptive governance. Global Environmental Change, 30, 56-67.
Yuan, Z.; Wen, B.; He, C.; Zhou, J.; Zhou, Z.; Xu, F. Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6572. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph19116572
Zhang, Q. R., Zhang, S. Q., Huang, Y., Li, H., Jia, Y. H., Li, J., & Yuan, G. L. (2023). Spatial distribution and quantitative source identification of nutrients and beneficial elements in the soil of a typical suburban area, Beijing. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195(1), 1-14.
Zhu, J., He, B. J., Tang, W., & Thompson, S. (2020). Community blemish or new dawn for the public realm? Governance challenges for self-claimed gardens in urban China. Cities, 102, 102750.
Zietsman, M. Y., Montaldo, N. H., & Devoto, M. (2019). Plant–frugivore interactions in an urban nature reserve and its nearby gardens. Journal of Urban Ecology, 5(1), juz021.

No competing interests reported.

Appendix.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Appraising peri-urban food production in Durban, South Africa, with Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PGIS)

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

1.1. The need to plan for food production in urban and peri-urban areas

1.2. Feasibility of food production in urban and peri-urban areas

1.3. Applying PGIS techniques to map suitability of urban and peri-urban food production

1.4. The local context

1.5. Research questions

1.6. The role of indigenous crops and trees in urban food production

2. Methods

2.1. Study area

2.2. Participatory Mapping Workshops

2.3. Suitability analyses

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characterising greenspaces and food production potential through participatory mapping

3.2. Biophysical land suitability for greenspaces

4. Conclusion

Declarations

1. Acknowledgements and Funding

2. Author Contributions

3. Conflict of Interest

4. Data Availability Statement

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1