IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i11p1904-d953968.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder Perceptions of the Ecosystem Services of Health Clinic Gardens in Settlements and Small- to Medium-Sized Cities in the North-West Province, South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Nanamhla Gwedla

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa)

  • Susanna Francina A. Cornelius

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa)

  • Marié J. Du Toit

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa)

  • Sarel S. Cilliers

    (Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa)

Abstract

Gardens provide spaces for connectedness to nature, which contributes to human well-being and promotes pro-environmental behavior. However, the provision of ecosystem services (ES) in gardens of sub-Saharan Africa is challenged by a lack of knowledge, resulting in inefficient gardening practices. Stakeholders also influence the manifestation of ES provisioning through their perceptions, learning, and decisions. Health clinic gardens may be able to address some of these challenges where other types of gardens fail because of a lack of awareness of other garden benefits and a lack of gardening skills and knowledge, among other factors. Thus, this study aimed to assess stakeholder perceptions of ES provided by health clinic gardens in the North-West province, South Africa. Survey questionnaires were administered to 218 stakeholders across 105 health clinic gardens to ascertain their involvement and prioritization of the ES provided by the gardens and their perspectives on gardens in general. The diversity and abundance of stakeholders per clinic garden were enumerated based on the respondents’ reports. Stakeholder prioritization of ES was scored out of 5, where 1 is the least prioritization. Health clinic gardens have a diversity of one to five types of stakeholders per garden, and more than 80% of the gardens were reported to have a groundsman. Stakeholders spent 1.5 ± 0.5 to 4.7 ± 0.12 days/week engaged in garden activities. Groundsmen spent the most time (4.7 ± 0.12 days/week) in the gardens, while facility managers spent the least (0.90 ± 0.12). Regulating and cultural ES, each scoring an average of 3.7 out of 5, were perceived as the most valuable ES of health clinic gardens. A “garden” was mainly associated with vegetable cultivation and rarely linked with recreation or aesthetical appreciation. A case for establishing these gardens across the country and other developing countries of the Global South can be made through the assessment of their potential ES from the perspectives of stakeholders. This study addresses this topic and contributes to an understanding of the importance of a variety of stakeholders for maintaining functional health clinic gardens.

Suggested Citation

  • Nanamhla Gwedla & Susanna Francina A. Cornelius & Marié J. Du Toit & Sarel S. Cilliers, 2022. "Stakeholder Perceptions of the Ecosystem Services of Health Clinic Gardens in Settlements and Small- to Medium-Sized Cities in the North-West Province, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:11:p:1904-:d:953968
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/11/1904/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/11/1904/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dennis, M. & James, P., 2016. "Site-specific factors in the production of local urban ecosystem services: A case study of community-managed green space," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 208-216.
    2. Sue Reuther & Neil Dewar, 2006. "Competition for the use of public open space in low-income urban areas: the economic potential of urban gardening in Khayelitsha, Cape Town," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 97-122.
    3. Zuzana Drillet & Tze Kwan Fung & Rachel Ai Ting Leong & Uma Sachidhanandam & Peter Edwards & Daniel Richards, 2020. "Urban Vegetation Types are Not Perceived Equally in Providing Ecosystem Services and Disservices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    4. Guenat, Solène & Dougill, Andrew J. & Kunin, William E. & Dallimer, Martin, 2019. "Untangling the motivations of different stakeholders for urban greenspace conservation in sub-Saharan Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Esther Sanyé-Mengual & Kathrin Specht & Jan Vávra & Martina Artmann & Francesco Orsini & Giorgio Gianquinto, 2020. "Ecosystem Services of Urban Agriculture: Perceptions of Project Leaders, Stakeholders and the General Public," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-23, December.
    6. Fatemeh Hosseini & Hassan Sajadzadeh & Farshid Aram & Amir Mosavi, 2021. "The Impact of Local Green Spaces of Historically and Culturally Valuable Residential Areas on Place Attachment," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Bélisle, Annie Claude & Wapachee, Alice & Asselin, Hugo, 2021. "From landscape practices to ecosystem services: Landscape valuation in Indigenous contexts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    8. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    9. Camps-Calvet, Marta & Langemeyer, Johannes & Calvet-Mir, Laura & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2016. "Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: Insights for policy and planning," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 14-23.
    10. Teixeira, Heitor Mancini & Vermue, Ardjan J. & Cardoso, Irene Maria & Peña Claros, Marielos & Bianchi, Felix J.J.A., 2018. "Farmers show complex and contrasting perceptions on ecosystem services and their management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 44-58.
    11. Peter De Lacy & Charlie Shackleton, 2017. "Aesthetic and Spiritual Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Sacred Sites," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-14, September.
    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. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    2. Dennis, M. & James, P., 2018. "Urban Social-ecological Innovation: Implications for Adaptive Natural Resource Management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 153-164.
    3. Yanzi Wang & Chunming Wu & Yongfeng Gong & Zhen Zhu, 2021. "Can Adaptive Governance Promote Coupling Social-Ecological Systems? Evidence from the Vulnerable Ecological Region of Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    4. Wang, Han & Tian, Fuan & Wu, Jianxian & Nie, Xin, 2023. "Is China forest landscape restoration (FLR) worth it? A cost-benefit analysis and non-equilibrium ecological view," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    5. Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago & Conceição, Pedro & Belbute, José, 2005. "Constraints on dematerialisation and allocation of natural capital along a sustainable growth path," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 382-396, September.
    6. Balzan, Mario V & Caruana, Julio & Zammit, Annrica, 2018. "Assessing the capacity and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small island state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 711-725.
    7. Yajing Shao & Xuefeng Yuan & Chaoqun Ma & Ruifang Ma & Zhaoxia Ren, 2020. "Quantifying the Spatial Association between Land Use Change and Ecosystem Services Value: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, May.
    8. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Nunes, P.A.L.D. & Nijkamp, P., 2011. "Biodiversity: Economic perspectives," Serie Research Memoranda 0002, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    10. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    11. repec:dgr:rugcds:200218 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Toman, Michael & Pezzey, John C., 2002. "The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal Articles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-03, Resources for the Future.
    13. Matthew Dennis & David Barlow & Gina Cavan & Penny A. Cook & Anna Gilchrist & John Handley & Philip James & Jessica Thompson & Konstantinos Tzoulas & C. Philip Wheater & Sarah Lindley, 2018. "Mapping Urban Green Infrastructure: A Novel Landscape-Based Approach to Incorporating Land Use and Land Cover in the Mapping of Human-Dominated Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-25, January.
    14. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    15. Alexandros Gkatsikos & Konstadinos Mattas, 2021. "The Paradox of the Virtual Water Trade Balance in the Mediterranean Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, March.
    16. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    17. Jiayu Xia & Duyuzheng Ren & Xuhui Wang & Bo Xu & Xingyao Zhong & Yajiang Fan, 2023. "Ecosystem Quality Assessment and Ecological Restoration in Fragile Zone of Loess Plateau: A Case Study of Suide County, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-32, May.
    18. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    19. Montoya, Daniel & Gaba, Sabrina & de Mazancourt, Claire & Bretagnolle, Vincent & Loreau, Michel, 2020. "Reconciling biodiversity conservation, food production and farmers’ demand in agricultural landscapes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 416(C).
    20. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    21. Shrestha, Ram K. & Seidl, Andrew F. & Moraes, Andre S., 2002. "Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 289-299, August.

    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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:11:p:1904-:d:953968. 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.