4.7 Article

Perceptions and use of public green space is influenced by its relative abundance in two small towns in South Africa

Journal

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
Volume 113, Issue -, Pages 104-112

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.011

Keywords

Dissatisfaction; Eastern Cape; Green space abundance; Wealth; Willingness to pay

Funding

  1. Rhodes University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The challenges in planning and maintaining urban public green spaces in poor towns of the developing world differ markedly from those of the developed world. This paper reports on residents' perceptions, use and willingness to get involved in urban public green space (PGS) issues in two poor towns in South Africa which differed markedly in the amount of PGS. The disparities in PGS between the two towns were also replicated in different suburbs within the two towns. We hypothesised that levels of dissatisfaction would be highest in those suburbs and the town with the least PGS. The results indicated that the distance from residents' homesteads to the nearest PGS was similar across towns and suburbs. Most residents felt that having accessible PGS was important, and the majority agreed that there was insufficient PGS in their respective town and suburb, and that the local municipality did not do enough in providing PGS or maintaining what there was. The level of dissatisfaction with the amount and condition of PGS was generally highest in the suburbs and town with the least PGS. Many felt that the municipality had insufficient commitment and funds to adequately maintain PGS, and consequently the willingness of residents to get involved through either a commitment of time or funds was high. The more affluent town and suburbs were willing to pay more than the poorer ones, and the poorer ones were willing to provide more time than the more affluent ones. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available