Environmental Determinism in the midst of Poverty

Environmental Determinism in the midst of Poverty

Statistics South AfricaFree State Isibalo Symposium

(Symposium on evidence based decision-making)10-11 October 2013

Tuscan Rose, Bloemfontein

9300

Theme: The environmentPresenter: Yandisa Mashalaba (PhD)

[email protected]

Acknowledgements

Presentation compiled from data collected in Galeshewe Township, Northern CapePart of a PhD Research from the University of the Free State, Department of urban and regional planning

I would like to thank the following people, Prof Verna Nel (UFS); Mr Tshepo Mekgwe; Mr Agreement Malanka; Ms Boitumelo Moheta; Ms Yolande Meas; Ms Rosemary Riet; Mrs Pabalelo Mokgosi and Mr Jerry Mholo for

without their contribution this study would not have been finished.

1. Introduction

Various theories of urban open space provision in human settlementsEcological Determinism: Main purpose is to achieve an ecologically rich urban environment based on the following 5 principles• Ecological content; • Ecological context; • Ecological dynamics; • Ecological heterogeneity and• Ecological hierarchyTwo variants of this approach 1. Smart conservation and 2. Green modernism

In practical terms: encourage the provision of urban open spaces, as one of the few ways of improving environmental sustainability within a developed

human settlement setup

1.1 Question 1

Is this possible under any socio-economic condition?

1.2. Urban open space: a perpetual challenge?

1. Current realities include1. Increase in housing densities2. Public open space is non-revenue generating and its provision is costly

(Tang & Wong, 2008, p. 259). 3. Urban Open Spaces do not enjoy the same importance in city plans

and development programs as that of other infrastructure plans and they do not have similar budgets and is it seems as if it is unimportant. (Beer, Delshammar, & Schildwacht, 2003, p. 133).

4. Poor quality open spaces affect the moral and self esteem of local residents and poor quality also promotes the takeover of neglected spaces and it enhance anti-social behavior.

1.3 Galeshewe Township, Sol Plaatje, Northern Cape

Demographics Size %

Municipal Population 243 018 100

Municipal Area 1883.77 km2 100

Galeshewe Population 119 151 49%

Galeshewe Area 1775 Ha 0.9%

Average Household Galeshewe 3.4 --

Population Density Galeshewe 67pp/Ha -

Number of Surveyed Parks 78 -

Area of surveyed Parks 48.02Ha 2.7%

Number of Functional Open Spaces 196 -

Total area of functional open spaces 440.825 Ha 24.8%

Areas occupied by shanties/infill development 99.79Ha 5.45%

Total area of all open spaces 488.85Ha 27.5%

Open space density (surveyed parks) 2 481 pp/Ha

Open space density (All open spaces) 244pp/Ha

Household Density Galeshewe 2515 hh/km2 -

Table 1: Demographic profile of Galeshewe

Source: (Author; 2013); (Sol Plaatje Municipality, 2009a, p. 7); (Statistics South Africa, 2007, p. 16).

1.3 Environmental Determinism

Figure 1: Map of Galeshewe Township showing sub -areas that do not have any urban open spaces, see

table below for names. Source (Author, 2013)

1. 4 Socio-economic conditions in Galeshewe

Household Income per month Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Less than or equal to R1200 249 41.8 44.1 44.1 Between R1201 and R3000 159 26.7 28.2 72.3 Between R3001 and R5000 97 16.3 17.2 89.5 Between R5001 and R10000 46 7.7 8.2 97.7 Between R10001 and R15000 10 1.7 1.8 99.5 Over R15000 3 .5 .5 100.0 Total 564 94.8 100.0

Missing 0 31 5.2 Total 595 100.0

Table 1: Household income per month (N=595, Mode: “Less than R1200 and the variation ratio

is equal to 0.56)

1.4.1 . Socio-economic conditions (cont)

According to StatsSA 2001, 86% of the people of Galeshewe earn less than R3200 per month whereas only 4.7% earn more than

R6400 per month with the Galeshewe Household Survey of 2009 estimating this high end amount to be R9126 per month for the

top 4.7%.

1.5 The practical challenge of achieving an improved open space provision

1. Limited research in Townships and how open spaces have been planned; used and supplied

2. Limited research in open space planning, South Africa3. Complexity of attributes

1. Township user profiling2. The most favorite open spaces3. Frequency of open space use4. Open space user satisfaction5. Factors that affect the functionality of urban open space

1. Ecological; social s and economic factors2. Planning and design issues, i.e., distribution and accessibility

1.6 Question 2

How does the socio-economic condition of township dwellers affect the frequency of

township open space use, and the preference to stay in close proximity to

public open spaces?

1.7 Research Methods

1. Survey research1. Population: 212572. Probability Sampling3. Sample size (645 Households)4. Sample Size Formula: Square root of (N-20) x 20. Where n is the sample size

and N represents the population (Stoker, 1981)5. Pilot of 5%= 326. Respondents: 595, i.e. 92% Response Rate7. Stats Analysis: Frequency tables; Percentages and Cross-tabulations; measure

of statistical significance; strength of the relationship between two or more variables

1.8. Analysis

Cross-tabulations: used to measure the degree of association between variables. Once a relationship has been established and explained, the question would be the test of statistical significance and the strength thereafter.

1. A Chi-square is a test of the significance of association and it is used to examine the relationship or association between 2 nominal variables.

1. Uncertainty co-efficient -a directional measure of the degree of association (strength) between 2 nominal variables.

2. The Cramer’s V statistic- a symmetric measure of the degree of association (strength) a between two nominal variables.

3. The Contingency Co-efficient-another symmetric measure of the degree of association (strength) between two nominal variables.

2. Spearman’s rank-order correlation was used for ordinal variables

1.9 Summary of factors that affect the frequency of open space use and open space user satisfaction

Variable Frequency of open space

Significance of

relationship Satisfaction with current open

spaces

Significance of

relationship

1.0 Gender Females use open spaces more than males

Statistically Insignificant

There are more females (63.5%) who are not satisfied than males (36.5%). Insignificant

2.0 Age

The older people get, the more they tend not to use open spaces


The group that is most satisfied (41.9%) about the current open spaces in Galeshewe is the one that of those who are less than 20. The least satisfied group falls between the ages of 31-40 at 16.4%.

Very weak but Significant at 95% CI

3.0 Household Size Smaller families use open space less than bigger families


the majority (44.1%) falls within the category of families that have between 3-5 members, whereas small families (less than 3 members) account for only 19.1%. Invalid

4.0 Level of Education

The highest percentage of people that use open spaces on a daily basis, is 68.2% for people with Matric


a. Of those who are satisfied, the majority (60.9%) is made of the group of respondents that have secondary education (matric) and the minority (7.2%) comes from people with no education at all Insignificant

5.0 Crime on urban open spaces

Even though people believe there is more crime committed on open spaces, they continuing to use open spaces in any case.


Only 22.1% of respondents, who believe there is more crime committed on public open spaces, are satisfied about the current state of public open spaces in Galeshewe.

Weak but Significant at 99% CI

6.0 Environmental Pollution

There is a small difference (39% and 37.2%) between respondents who have seen littering and 'never used open spaces and respondents that have not seen littering on open spaces.

Weak but Highly Significant at 99% CI

There is a small percentage point difference (0.9%) between the satisfaction of the respondents that have experienced or noticed littering in the township (24.5%) and those that have not (23.6%). Insignificant

1.9.1 Summary of factors that affect the frequency of open space use and open space user satisfaction

6.0 Environmental Pollution

There is a small difference (39% and 37.2%) between respondents who have seen littering and 'never used open spaces and respondents that have not seen littering on open spaces.

Weak but Highly Significant at 99% CI

There is a small percentage point difference (0.9%) between the satisfaction of the respondents that have experienced or noticed littering in the township (24.5%) and those that have not (23.6%). Insignificant

7.0 Township Atmosphere

The majority (43.1%) of those who find the township atmosphere vibrant never use open spaces.

Very weak but Highly Significant at 99% CI

Only 18% of respondents who found the township atmosphere to be active are satisfied with the current state of open spaces in Galeshewe and 32.8% of those who find the township atmosphere not to be active are satisfied.


8.0 Quality of vegetation

The majority of respondents (48.6%) who think that the quality of vegetation in the township is normal never use open spaces. This is 20.6 percentage points higher than those who think township vegetation is very bad (24%)


45.1% of those who think the quality of vegetation is good, are satisfied with the current open spaces.


9.0 Household income

The majority of respondents (61.9%) who use open spaces on a daily basis fall within the category of people earning less than R1200.


the more they tend to be less satisfied with the current state of open spaces in the township. invalid

10.0

Business uses on Urban open spaces

The majority (35.1%) of respondents who have seen street vendors on open spaces never use open spaces whereas this percentage is 46.8% for those who have not seen street vendors on open spaces.


There is only a 7.8 percentage point difference in satisfaction between respondents that have observed street vendors on open spaces (26.8%) and those that have not seen them (19%).

Very weak but Significant

Table 1: Summary of factors that affect the satisfaction and the frequency of open space use in Galeshewe. Source: (Author, 2013)

1.10 Conclusion

The results proved that there is enough reason to believe that the current approach to urban open space planning in Galeshewe is out of context, i.e., it

does not respond to the community’s values and needs. The results also showed something that is contrary to existing literature about the benefits of urban open spaces in urban areas, i.e., the value of urban open spaces. The community of Galeshewe Township does not regard urban open spaces as

valuable, both in ecological; social and economic sense

1.11 Conclusion

In such a case, how does achieve the principles of environmental determinism if this is not linked to the values and needs of

the urban poor?

[email protected]

Documents

Environmental Determinism in the midst of Poverty