IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i3p1300-d487548.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Civic Ecology Uplifts Low-Income Communities, Improves Ecosystem Services and Well-Being, and Strengthens Social Cohesion

Author

Listed:
  • Rashieda Davids

    (School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal 3201, South Africa
    EnviroHeart Consulting, Environmental and Sustainability Division, Johannesburg, Gauteng 2198, South Africa)

  • Mathieu Rouget

    (School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal 3201, South Africa
    Centre for International Cooperation in Development-Oriented Agronomical Research (CIRAD), Plant Populations and Bioaggressors in Tropical Ecosystems Joint Research Unit (UMR PVBMT), 97410 Saint-Pierre, France)

  • Margaret Burger

    (EcoImvelo, Durban 4001, South Africa)

  • Kirsten Mahood

    (Triple-P NPC (Previously i4WATER), Durban 4001, South Africa)

  • Ntswaki Ditlhale

    (Triple-P NPC (Previously i4WATER), Durban 4001, South Africa)

  • Rob Slotow

    (School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville 3209, South Africa
    Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK)

Abstract

Ecosystem services enhance well-being and the livelihoods of disadvantaged communities. Civic ecology can enhance social–ecological systems; however, their contributions to ecosystem services are rarely measured. We analysed the outcomes of civic ecology interventions undertaken in Durban, South Africa, as part of the Wise Wayz Water Care programme (the case study). Using mixed methods (household and beneficiary (community members implementing interventions) surveys, interviews, field observations, and workshops), we identified ecosystem service use and values, as well as the benefits of six interventions (solid waste management and removal from aquatic and terrestrial areas, recycling, invasive alien plant control, river water quality monitoring, vegetable production, and community engagement). Ecosystem services were widely used for agriculture, subsistence, and cultural uses. River water was used for crop irrigation, livestock, and recreation. Respondents noted numerous improvements to natural habitats: decrease in invasive alien plants, less pollution, improved condition of wetlands, and increased production of diverse vegetables. Improved habitats were linked to enhanced ecosystem services: clean water, agricultural production, harvesting of wood, and increased cultural and spiritual activities. Key social benefits were increased social cohesion, education, and new business opportunities. We highlight that local communities can leverage natural capital for well-being and encourage policy support of civic ecology initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Rashieda Davids & Mathieu Rouget & Margaret Burger & Kirsten Mahood & Ntswaki Ditlhale & Rob Slotow, 2021. "Civic Ecology Uplifts Low-Income Communities, Improves Ecosystem Services and Well-Being, and Strengthens Social Cohesion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1300-:d:487548
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1300/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1300/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stoian, Dietmar, 2005. "Making the Best of Two Worlds: Rural and Peri-Urban Livelihood Options Sustained by Nontimber Forest Products from the Bolivian Amazon," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1473-1490, September.
    2. Cox, Michael & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Hartberg, Yasha, 2014. "The Role of Religion in Community-based Natural Resource Management," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 46-55.
    3. Angelsen, Arild & Jagger, Pamela & Babigumira, Ronnie & Belcher, Brian & Hogarth, Nicholas J. & Bauch, Simone & Börner, Jan & Smith-Hall, Carsten & Wunder, Sven, 2014. "Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 12-28.
    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. Wei Shi & Fuwei Qiao & Liang Zhou, 2021. "Identification of Ecological Risk Zoning on Qinghai-Tibet Plateau from the Perspective of Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Nafiisa Sobratee & Rashieda Davids & Chuma B. Chinzila & Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi & Pauline Scheelbeek & Albert T. Modi & Alan D. Dangour & Rob Slotow, 2022. "Visioning a Food System for an Equitable Transition towards Sustainable Diets—A South African Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, March.

    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. Joos-Vandewalle, S. & Wynberg, R. & Alexander, K.A., 2018. "Dependencies on natural resources in transitioning urban centers of northern Botswana," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PC), pages 342-349.
    2. Wunder, Sven & Angelsen, Arild & Belcher, Brian, 2014. "Forests, Livelihoods, and Conservation: Broadening the Empirical Base," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 1-11.
    3. Babatunde Owolodun & Sonja Merten, 2023. "Food Security from the Forest: The Case of the Commodification of Baobab Fruit ( Adansonia digitata L.) in Boundou Region, Senegal," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, July.
    4. De Oñate-Calvín, Ruth & Oviedo, José L. & Salo, Matti, 2018. "Forest Resource-based Household Economy in the Communities of the Nanay River Basin, Peruvian Amazonia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 218-227.
    5. Ward, Catherine D. & Shackleton, Charlie M., 2016. "Natural Resource Use, Incomes, and Poverty Along the Rural–Urban Continuum of Two Medium-Sized, South African Towns," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 80-93.
    6. Evelyn Asante-Yeboah & George Ashiagbor & Kwabena Asubonteng & Stefan Sieber & Justice C. Mensah & Christine Fürst, 2022. "Analyzing Variations in Size and Intensities in Land Use Dynamics for Sustainable Land Use Management: A Case of the Coastal Landscapes of South-Western Ghana," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-28, May.
    7. Mugido, Worship & Shackleton, Charlie M., 2019. "The contribution of NTFPS to rural livelihoods in different agro-ecological zones of South Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Porro, Roberto & Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro & Vela-Alvarado, Jorge W., 2015. "Forest use and agriculture in Ucayali, Peru: Livelihood strategies, poverty and wealth in an Amazon frontier," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 47-56.
    9. Hunsberger, Carol & Work, Courtney & Herre, Roman, 2018. "Linking climate change strategies and land conflicts in Cambodia: Evidence from the Greater Aural region," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 309-320.
    10. Dai, Xuhuan & Li, Bo & Zheng, Hua & Yang, Yanzheng & Yang, Zihan & Peng, Chenchen, 2023. "Can sedentarization decrease the dependence of pastoral livelihoods on ecosystem services?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    11. Bierkamp, Sina & Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Grote, Ulrike, 2021. "Environmental income and remittances: Evidence from rural central highlands of Vietnam," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    12. Ximena Rueda & Andrea Paz & Theodora Gibbs‐Plessl & Ronald Leon & Byron Moyano & Eric F Lambin, 2018. "Smallholders at a Crossroad: Intensify or Fall behind? Exploring Alternative Livelihood Strategies in a Globalized World," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 215-229, February.
    13. Ahammad, Ronju & Stacey, Natasha & Sunderland, Terry C.H., 2019. "Use and perceived importance of forest ecosystem services in rural livelihoods of Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 87-98.
    14. Mumbunan, Sonny & Maitri, Ni Made Rahayu, 2022. "A Review of Basic Income for Nature and Climate," OSF Preprints bre43, Center for Open Science.
    15. Tilahun, Mesfin & Damnyag, Lawrence & Anglaaere, Luke C.N., 2016. "The Ankasa Forest Conservation Area of Ghana: Ecosystem service values and on-site REDD+ opportunity cost," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 168-176.
    16. Begazo Curie, Karin & Mertens, Kewan & Vranken, Liesbet, 2021. "Tenure regimes and remoteness: When does forest income reduce poverty and inequality? A case study from the Peruvian Amazon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    17. Jensen, Anders, 2009. "Valuation of non-timber forest products value chains," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 34-41, January.
    18. Olli-Pekka Kuusela & Maria S. Bowman & Gregory S. Amacher & Richard B. Howarth & Nadine T. Laporte, 2020. "Does infrastructure and resource access matter for technical efficiency? An empirical analysis of fishing and fuelwood collection in Mozambique," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1811-1837, March.
    19. Pritchard, Rose & Ryan, Casey M. & Grundy, Isla & van der Horst, Dan, 2018. "Human Appropriation of Net Primary Productivity and Rural Livelihoods: Findings From Six Villages in Zimbabwe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 115-124.
    20. Solomon Zena Walelign & Martin Reinhardt Nielsen & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2019. "Roads and livelihood activity choices in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem, Tanzania," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, 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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1300-:d:487548. 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.