AbstractPeri-urban agroforestry can provide affordable, fresh, and nutritious food and a departure from conventional forms of cropping. Indigenous foods are well-adapted to local conditions, and may hold cultural and economic value for peri-urban residents. Social, ecological, and economic variables influence the feasibility of indigenous agroforestry in peri-urban areas. This study uses participatory mapping and geographic information systems (GIS) to assess these variables and to map suitable spaces and species for peri-urban indigenous agroforestry at three peri-urban sites in Durban, South Africa. We find that: land tenure, livelihood opportunities, and indigenous food perceptions factor into socioeconomic preferences; topography and soil quality influence ecological feasibility; access to water and roads influences perceived economic viability. Although GIS techniques can identify land suitability, participatory mapping adds local fine-scale context to enhance decision-making. Based on the social-ecological conditions at the three sites, we suggest specific configurations of locally adapted foods and farm designs for peri-urban agroforestry. Our study demonstrates how agroforestry is more feasible in places where basic living conditions are fulfilled, and how co-design can improve recognition of local needs, accessibility to services, and balancing urban green equity.
Similar content being viewed by others
The impact of multiple agricultural land uses in sustaining earthworm communities in agroecosystems – A global meta-analysis
Article
Open access
04 December 2024
Analysis of food system drivers of deforestation highlights foreign direct investments and urbanization as threats to tropical forests
Article
Open access
16 July 2024
Impacts of commodity prices and governance on the expansion of tropical agricultural frontiers
Article
Open access
22 April 2024
IntroductionUrban and peri-urban food production can improve the resilience of food systems in multiple ways1. From a logistic viewpoint, it can reduce the risk of supply chain failure and subsequent food and nutritional insecurity. Ecologically, it can reduce impacts from large-scale farming and transportation2, and socioeconomically, it can provide urban residents accessible, affordable, and nutritious alternatives to mass-produced and processed foods3. However, availability of land, labour, and materials are the main determinants of urban and peri-urban food production, in the global North and South4. In the face of densification and development, green space is a critical yet contested component of the urban landscape5,6. Cities worldwide have various legislations and allocations for food production in urban and peri-urban areas in communal gardens, private farms, and food forests7. These allocations help city planning to balance local economies, development interests, and urban environments, often in collaboration with local residents8. City-level adaptations are often crucial for successful implementation of national and regional food policies9,10.Urban and peri-urban agriculture is an emerging and potent response to provisioning fresh and nutritious food, closing nutrient loops, creating circular economies, and reducing carbon footprints11. It can take various forms, from intensive indoor vertical farms, to communal agroecological (including agroforestry) spaces, with several intermediate configurations of social, ecological, and technological variables12. In this article, we focus on urban agroforestry as the proposed intervention to improve food and nutritional security among urban and peri-urban dwellers. Urban agroforestry systems, defined as urban landscapes combining crops and trees are increasingly recognised as productive landscapes with greater allied cultural and ecological benefits than conventional agriculture13. The cultural and recreational values associated with urban agroforestry systems can facilitate more equitable and widespread uptake of the food and nutritional produce yielded by these landscapes (ibid).The feasibility of urban and peri-urban agroforestry could vary across different urban contexts. For example, in densely populated or historically established sections of cities, it could involve planting fruit trees and/or food crops along verges of transportation and utility lines that provide substantial nutrient yields14,15,16. In some cases, urban and peri-urban brownfields (previously developed land) may be reclaimed by municipalities or citizen collectives to grow food17,18,19. Urban parks and gardens established primarily for recreation may also be a significant and legitimate source of food and nutrition20,21,22. Structural constraints to urban and peri-urban agroforestry include the availability of contiguous land and arable soil4,11 and also resident and developer preferences for gentrified forms of nature, neighbourhoods, and greenspaces23. While biophysical and infrastructural variables can help determine suitability for urban agroforestry, social structures and perceptions are crucial to its long-term sustainability24.Indigenous crops and trees are important components of agroecological systems. They are often resilient to local ecological stresses and shocks25, as well as human disturbance and extraction26,27. On farms, indigenous crops and trees provide pollination services, alternative income, and nutrition for farmers28. In urban and peri-urban areas, they can also provide habitat connectivity to wildlife29,30, including pollinators important to rural and urban food production31. 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 micronutrients32,33, which are generally deficient in urban diets due to constrained accessibility and affordability. Recent research on indigenous crops has focussed on nutritional yields and land suitability for annual crops such as grains and tubers34,35. Although the potential of indigenous food-bearing tree species has been recognised36,37,38, the research and application of these in agroforestry is still nascent114,115. Therefore, in this study, we also attempt to identify the feasibility of planting indigenous crops and trees, comprising indigenous agroforestry, in urban and peri-urban areas, identifying synergies and constraints as applicable.Participatory mapping was employed to document the cultural, economic, and social values of peri-urban agroforestry, seeking to establish its potential in enhancing livelihoods and promoting environmental sustainability. This involved mapping the variables favouring indigenous food production at three study sites. Thus, a suite of social science methods were used to elicit spatial and temporal data, trends, and preferences in landscapes and land uses39. The participatory mapping was conducted to promote democratic, inclusive, and locally appropriate decision-making when combined with GIS modelling techniques40. This is especially important in urban and peri-urban areas, where land use and land cover are fast-changing, and can often leave under-resourced communities impoverished41. People’s values for landscape features and uses can play an important role in successful landscape governance42, including the implementation and observance of regulations43. Peri-urban areas in the Global South differ from many in the Global North, in that the regulations and infrastructure in the former are not as organised and developed as urban areas44. This situation underscores the need for participatory mapping and GIS modelling to enable better planning and service provisioning in peri-urban areas in the Global South45. Our study follows a mixed methods approach giving equal importance to communities and experts in the mapping process46.In this study, we seek to design locally appropriate indigenous agroforestry systems for urban and peri-urban areas with the aim of improving their food and nutritional security47. We combine data on social perceptions, spatial modelling, and indigenous agroforestry species to generate these designs, which are intended to inform local communities and municipal departments on feasible agroforestry and food security initiatives. Our study demonstrates how government policies and programmes, e.g.55,56,115 can be operationalised at local scale, e.g.9,93,96,116 by combining participatory research and different forms of knowledge. This study is part of the Durban Research Action Partnership between the local metropolitan eThekwini Municipality and University of KwaZulu-Natal, which aims to generate knowledge and learning to address the gap between scientific research, policy development and management within a local government113.The local contextAs in the case of many developing nations, households in South Africa experience the triple burden of malnutrition, which includes undernutrition (stunting and wasting), micronutrient deficiencies (often termed hidden hunger), and overnutrition (overweight and obesity)48. Urbanising and westernising lifestyles influence the preference for cheap, convenient, ultra-processed and packaged food over traditional, nutritious, and fresh, diverse farm-based food49. Post-apartheid market liberalisation has facilitated the penetration of cheap and calorie-dense low-nutrient foods into local markets for consumers and incentivised the export of high-quality foods such as fruit and vegetables to foreign markets for producers50. Smallholder farmers who cannot export or sell to mainstream domestic markets often struggle with a lack of infrastructure and institutional support to improve yields and sales51.In the broader socioeconomic sense, unemployment and economic inequality result in income poverty and food poverty, and limited opportunities for people experiencing poverty to engage in either primary production or secondary activities to secure an income52. Particularly in cities, legacy spatial planning also constrains access to greenfields (previously undeveloped land) and greenspace, which can often be a source of food or materials to support the household economy37,53 As a result of apartheid-era policies, green infrastructure and public access to it is well-developed in affluent neighbourhoods, but is severely lacking in poorer (often racially differentiated) neighbourhoods54. Allocating and enriching urban and peri-urban spaces for food production are a priority on the National Development Plan for South Africa55, and could also contribute to national-level cross-cutting initiatives like the Integrated Food Security and Nutrition Programme and the Natural Resources Management Programme56. 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.MethodsConceptual framingThe study aimed to identify the most compatible configurations of peri-urban food production given the social-ecological conditions at each site. The study used an overarching landscape ecology approach57 to define the landscape configuration, land use, land cover change, and landscape management guidelines. The study combined participatory mapping and GIS suitability analyses to identify suitable areas for peri-urban food production. The research objective was achieved by answering three questions (Fig. 1) in both the participatory mapping and suitability analysis approaches. The methodology characterised local social-ecological factors and 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. Landscape configuration was determined using spatial datasets (Table 1). The land use and cover change were determined from social data, to account for socio-polictical nuance about these changes. The management guidelines emerging from the analysis of these datasets were combined to propose locally appropriate landscape management guidelines that included biophysical suitability maps, social aspirations and needs. The conceptual framing and resulting management guidelines resonate with recent calls for agriculture to incorporate indigenous species as ‘trade-ons’, through appropriate design for ‘land maxing’20,114. The management guidelines resulting from this study are applicable examples of mainstreaming biodiversity and indigenous knowledge into productive and adaptive peri-urban agroforestry115.Fig. 1Conceptual framing of the study, research questions, data collected, and analyses.Full size imageTable 1 Influence percentage for each factor used to produce the final suitability maps.Full size tableStudy areaThe eThekwini municipality is host to a population of 3.9 million people, in its urban centre of Durban, as well as several peri-urban areas58. 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 land37. 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 areas59,60,61. Under this system, land use is restricted in areas of ecological importance, ecological restoration offsets are required where feasible, and urban greening and agroforestry are promoted in collaboration with municipal departments and NGOs62. The municipality routinely undertakes reforestation and restoration across these open spaces, with the dual intention of improving biodiversity and supporting local bio-economy livelihoods63. There is also a strong emphasis on removing and controlling invasive alien species and planting endemic and indigenous species in greenspaces37. Given this background, our research questions consider the diversity of land tenure and indigenous species, especially trees, that are of interest at each study site (Fig. 2). The three study sites were suggested by eThekwini Municipality as areas of interest for rolling out peri-urban agroforestry interventions, as part of their municipal agroecology programme9,116.Fig. 2Location of study sites in the local context and South Africa (inset). Some sites are fragmented because of dual land tenure—traditional and municipal.Full size image
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 degraded by invasive species (e.g. Acacia spp.) and fire are being replanted with useful food and forage species (e.g. Canthium spp., Ficus spp., Searsia spp.) to encourage sustainable land use64. The municipality’s erstwhile Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department (EPCPD), now the Biodiversity Management Department, engages members within these communities to nurture saplings for restoration, increase awareness and stewardship and prevent cyclical degradation and restoration. The area has a population density of 344 persons per km2 as per the 2011 census.
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. The area has a population density of 399 persons per km2 as per the 2011 census.
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 fragments65. 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. The area has a population density of 439 persons per km2 as per the 2011 census.
Participatory mapping workshopsOne 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 in 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 obtained 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 (Protocol Reference Number HSS/1971/017D). All methods were performed in accordance with the Economic and Social Research Council guidelines on ethical scientific research.The outline map (Online Appendix Fig. A1) of the community with key features, namely, rivers, roads, schools, and hospitals, was presented to the participants. 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 food species would the community want growing in their greenspaces, and where? We used the most open and commonly accepted definition of greenspace, implying undeveloped land that harbours some form (cultivated or wild) of vegetation, and is used for one or more of the purposes of: agriculture and food cultivation, cultural and recreational activities, foraging, fishing, and grazing66.A native isiZulu speaker 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. They 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 where food was gathered from plants but not grown as crops were not deemed used for food production). The data collected were analysed qualitatively using reflexive grounded theory, e.g.67 for emergent themes and descriptions in MS Word. Quotes from participants were anonymised using the monikers ‘Respondent n’, and presented to illustrate examples, claims, and arguments.Species selectionSocial-ecological attributes of land use and cover change at each site were derived from the data shared by respondents. Landscape design configurations were suggested in response to these attributes, with functions such as biophysical tolerance and cultural importance. The landscape management guidelines recommended biome-appropriate indigenous food species from36,68, and69. The underlying philosophy of this species allocation was to increase land productivity for local food and nutritional security, regenerating natural capital for human and environmental health, and enabling local communities to generate human, social, physical and financial capital through the planting of useful indigenous species114.Suitability analysesSeveral factors influence land suitability for urban agricultural farming. Biophysical, socio-economic, and technical aspects are some of the primary factors. The principal purpose of land suitability for urban crop farming is to predict the potential and limitation of land for crop production70. Generally, determining suitable areas for crop farming in urban areas revolves around making the most sustainable use of land resources while avoiding depleting other resources71. Crop farming land suitability analysis requires an efficient decision support system to analyse and interpret the related ecological, environmental and spatial information. GIS and participatory GIS are combined with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods to deliver a better spatial decision72.This study determined suitable areas for peri-urban food production 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.The study adopted six factors, as suggested by73, to set up criterion maps. The factors include land cover, agricultural land capability, dominant soils, slope, proximity to water sources and proximity to the main road. The weighted overlay in ArcGIS Pro was used to generate the final suitability maps based on the percentage of influence for each geographic factor. Here, the influence of each factor (weights) was arbitrarily chosen based on the results of the interviews and experts’ knowledge. Thus, each layer contributes to the influence based on the type of agricultural land use (Table 1). In this study, the final suitability maps were reclassified into five classes with suitability scales ranging from highly suitable to not suitable.Results and discussionCharacterising greenspace attributes, perceptions, preferences and potential for peri-urban agroforestry through participatory mappingThe workshops lasted about 90 min 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. The participation in the workshops was variable and limited due to the ongoing Covid-19 restrictions at the time. Nevertheless, we believe the depth and diversity of the discussions are representative of the sites.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 opportunities76,77. 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 deter land-based livelihoods such as food production and agroforestry. For example, lack of accountability and definition in spatial allocation in communal areas can result in violation of land use agreements78, reducing certainty of long-term land use, and subsequent investment of labour and capital in food production79. It may also result in rent appropriation by powerful stakeholders at the expense of the community80 and undemocratic development on land intended for food production, especially in urban and peri-urban areas81. This may partly explain why at Osindisweni, where most greenspaces are under communal tenure, participants expressed low interest in food production and agroforestry.Table 2 Existing land use: types of greenspaces, their tenure, and uses at the three study sites. Species information is listed in Online Appendix Table A1.Full size tableThe 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). Participants at Ntshongweni expressed an interest in diversifying their food production by including indigenous crop and animal species.Table 3 Perceived land use potential and food production feasibility in greenspaces at the three study sites.Full size table“The municipality [representative] tells us that there is a market for indigenous crops and chickens. We would like to learn about how to farm these so that we can sell not just within our communities, but also to the urban market.”—Respondent 1.Natural greenspaces were “far away” for residents of Maphephetheni and Osindisweni.“[That place] is far away, so we visit only on some weekends, maybe once or twice a year. When we go there, it is with family and friends. We can take our time and be one with nature.”—Respondent 2.These observations make a case for the development of more accessible parks and gardens for residents closer to residential areas. Planning for such should consider local perceptions of safety and environmental quality to minimise unintended consequences such as dereliction or gentrification82. 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.“There are times in the summer when we don’t have water [on tap] for some ten, twenty days. This is when the plants also need water, and we also need [drinking] water. That’s why our [community food] gardens are not successful. The crops die.”—Respondent 3.“What we need to know is how to grow crops and trees properly. Both common and indigenous ones. We need to learn how to water them care for them, how to harvest them at the right time.”—Respondent 4.Participants made different site-specific recommendations to improve food productivity. For example, in Maphephetheni, home gardens were considered more effective than public gardens, as protecting them from water shortages, flooding, and livestock and human predation was easier. 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.“We live close to the city. We do not need to grow our own food. What we need is more shops to buy our food from. We need schools and soup kitchens to support our people with meals for food security. This is the support we need from the government.”—Respondent 5.“The soil here is very degraded. There is so much dumping, so many fires. People suffer from respiratory problems because of this environment. Crops and trees will never grow here. If the municipality wants to help us, they should collect our garbage more regularly.”—Respondent 6.Suggesting locally occurring, useful indigenous species suited to respective site attributes for peri-urban agroforestryBased on the pros, cons, and potential identified in the previous stages, we characterise 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 using thorny plants as fencing structures to prevent livestock predation 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 with multiple uses can be planted in various greenspaces. Some of these species already grow in greenspaces across these sites (Table A1) but were not referred to as serving the proposed functions. None of the herbs or crops were specifically mentioned by participants during the elicitation at the workshops.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, indicating species suitability at site).Full size tableWe acknowledge that cultivation of some of the trees and crops suggested in Table 4 may require significant investment in technical training and infrastructure. For example, Carissa, Dovyalis, and Harpephyllum are dioecious species, requiring careful selection and planting of sufficient male and female plants in close proximity to ensure fruiting. Cultivation of crops, especially grains, may require knowledge of seed accessions, and access to postharvest facilities for processing and storage110,111,112. The local-scale matching of trees and crops to sites undertaken in this study is validated by species distribution based on biophysical parameters35,37. Findings from our research present the first step towards operationalising national policy on indigenous knowledge and agriculture115, and further directions for developing the required physical and social infrastructure by the local municipality.A number of these indigenous trees serve as a significant conduit to the intergenerational transfer of ecological knowledge and a connection to nature69, which in turn forms an important part of biocultural diversity and landscape stewardship83. 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. Similarly, choices of crops exist for areas that are more prone to drought or heatwaves, or for marginal soils or shaded or windy areas68. Spatiotemporal intercropping of these with conventional crops can help remediate soil84,85. Surplus production of indigenous crops and trees can feed into short and high value supply chains to urban centres, e.g.38,86.Determining biophysical land suitability for peri-urban agroforestry using geospatial analysesFigure 3 shows the maps produced using expert-derived weights and value functions in each area. According to experts` knowledge, a higher weight was suggested for land cover than for agricultural land capability, dominant soils, slope, proximity to water sources and proximity to the main road. It should be noted that bare land plays a major role in delineating suitable urban areas for food production. Based on the results, a final weight of 0.35 was assigned to land cover. The final suitability maps for each area were divided into five agriculture suitability quality classes defined at discrete levels, allowing for comparisons between the three maps. The classes include suitable, moderately suitable, marginally suitable and not suitable areas for peri-urban agriculture. 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. The Osindisweni area has suitable areas such as land cover, agricultural suitability, and open spaces, which favour the area’s suitability for agriculture. Also, this area has a good road and river network.Fig. 3Peri-urban agriculture suitability maps for (a) Osindisweni, (b) Ntshongweni and (c) Maphephetheni.Full size imageFor further analysis, the highly suitable, suitable and moderately Suitable areas were combined and overlaid with PGIS-identified suitable areas. 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 minimising the number of wrongly identified areas. These maps will significantly value future land use and land cover change analysis for urban crop production.Fig. 4The suitable areas for peri-urban agriculture after overlaying both the PGIS and GIS layers in Osindisweni, Maphephetheni and Ntshongweni districts.Full size imageTable 5 shows that 75% of the study area in Maphephetheni, 4.53% in Ntshongweni and 0.21% in Osindisweni is permanently unsuitable for peri-urban crop production. These areas have unsuitable land cover and steep slopes, far from the road and river network. With a 10.74% suitability rate, the Osindisweni area has the highest potential for peri-urban food production, followed by Maphephetheni (1.2%) and Ntshongweni (0.84%). Generally, a small portion of the total area in all three study areas is suitable for urban crop production. For successful and effective peri-urban food production, growing crops with high production over a small piece of land, such as onions, herbs, garlic and leaf vegetables, is advisable.Table 5 The distribution of land suitability for each site from the PGIS land suitability analysis model.Full size tableStatistics comparing the number of cells assigned to each suitability class for the three maps are presented in Table 5 and Fig. 3. The difference between the areas of the site was up to 50 km2, 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 the largest absolute area of suitable land and 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 suitable land area, accounting for about 25% of its total area. Ntshongweni also had a high ratio of 96% of its land suitable for greening for food.Osindisweni’s proximity to erstwhile sugarcane fields65 corroborates the finding that it has a greater proportion of suitable to marginally suitable agricultural land. However, more recent social-political developments, such as rapid urbanisation and the expansion of landfills have resulted in food production being perceived as untenable in the area. Indeed, expanding industrial and urban activities can accelerate a shift from land-based livelihoods and a decline in soil and water quality87,88. Our findings reiterate the importance of triangulating land use planning across large to fine scales through participatory methods. Alongside soil depth and nutrients, the slope is an important landscape determinant of land suitability for conventional food production89. Notwithstanding, results from our participatory and synthesis process offer options to reinforce local food and nutritional security through innovative design elements12. Despite the proximity to water sources, last-mile connectivity to arable land emerged as a significant limitation for agroforestry at the three sites. Plans to promote food production should consider strategies to manage nutrient flows in soil and water90,91. Excess runoff of agricultural enrichment materials may threaten water quality and safety. This is especially important given the immediate dependence of peri-urban and urban dwellers on surface and groundwater92. Agroecological strategies, including organic and circular inputs, are likely to alleviate environmental and food safety issues93. We acknowledge that our model considers arable land suitability in general, but that this may vary depending upon crop and tree species. Future research on multi-species indigenous agroforestry could be more species-specific, e.g.94.LimitationsOur study has two main limitations, namely the sample frame, and analytical depth. Our strategy to enlist participatory mapping workshop participants relied mainly on the local ward councillors and traditional chiefs, as this is standard practice to demonstrate respect of local authorities and build trust with local communities in the area. Participatory mapping work was carried out during a period when pandemic lockdown restrictions were in effect to varying degrees. Under these conditions, the participation in workshops was variable across the three sites, and it is possible that certain sections of communities that are less socially empowered may have been under-represented in the sample. Secondly, the scope of this study was to combine basic social, spatial, and species data to suggest locally appropriate peri-urban agroforestry design. Therefore, detailed evaluations of equitable access, agroclimatic variability, agronomic feasibility, etc. were not possible at this stage. We suggest that future research can delve into these specificities at site and regional scale. We posit that findings from this study provide a valuable baseline for research and implementation.Policy, practice, and research implicationsThis study highlights the role of participatory co-design in developing urban agriculture configurations. It combines a social-ecological systems lens95 with a landscape ecology approach57 to derive locally appropriate designs using locally adapted species. The communities expressed their aspirations for local food and nutrition security, which took on different forms. The participatory mapping outcomes demonstrate how local social-ecological and political situations influence preferences and feasibility of urban food production. Where food production is ongoing, diversification is welcomed, but where basic living conditions such as water supply and environmental quality are compromised, food production becomes secondary to expectations of urban living standards. This reiterates the need for participatory planning in the development of urban agriculture as a sustainable and citizen-driven enterprise in South Africa96. Our study demonstrates an interdisciplinary and participatory design approach to designing urban green infrastructure for ecosystem services97. Co-design has the benefits of recognising local needs, making services more accessible, balancing environmental regulatory frameworks with land use guidelines, and improving local resilience for urban green equity98,99. Further work in these communities has included the planting of a community agroforestry trial100 and an agroecology demonstration hub101 using indigenous species. These sites will serve as living learning laboratories for indigenous urban and peri-urban agroforestry. Communities will be involved in research related to assessing biodiversity and ecological implications such as species richness and plant biomass102,103, and also with development of market linkages for urban and peri-urban agroforestry, e.g.24,114.ConclusionThis study finds that while GIS tools can generate detailed information on land use suitability, the participatory process allows for the democratic exchange of knowledge, particularly in fast-changing socioeconomic landscapes like peri-urban areas. Specifically, the site where people have secure land tenure, service delivery, and existing involvement in agroforestry was found to be more suited to diversified multifunctional agroforestry configurations. Conversely, the site with uncertain land tenure and service delivery could support fewer configurations despite having the most are of suitable land according to GIS modelling. The site with most area of non-suitable land could also be matched with a high number of agroforestry configurations. This integrated approach can aid the development of site-specific solutions, forming dynamic governance co-produced by communities and institutions8,83. 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 terms104,105,106. Through innovative design considerations, our findings aim to enable synergistic improvements in food and nutritional security, agroecology, and multifunctional urban green infrastructure107,108. 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)109. Policymakers and planners can draw from this partnership template using participatory research to feed into programmatic implementation at local scale8,9,10,113,114,115,116. In turn, participatory action research can be a conduit to intervention scaling, and to generating social-ecological evidence through living laboratories. This form of exchange is especially applicable to developing the field of indigenous local ecological knowledge28,35,38,86,94,115.
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
ReferencesAugstburger, H., Käser, F. & Rist, S. Assessing food systems and their impact on common pool resources and resilience. Land 8(4), 71 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Sarkodie, S. A., Owusu, P. A. & Leirvik, T. Global effect of urban sprawl, industrialization, trade and economic development on carbon dioxide emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 15(3), 034049 (2020).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Bergius, M. & Buseth, J. T. Towards a green modernization development discourse: the new green revolution in Africa. J. Polit. Ecol. 26(1), 57–83 (2019).
Google Scholar
Follmann, A., Willkomm, M. & Dannenberg, P. 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. Landsc. Urban Plan. 215, 104186 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Haaland, C. & van den Bosch, C. K. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 14(4), 760–771 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Kabisch, N., Qureshi, S. & Haase, D. Human–environment interactions in urban green spaces—A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 50, 25–34 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Hajzeri, A. & Kwadwo, V. O. Investigating integration of edible plants in urban open spaces: Evaluation of policy challenges and successes of implementation. Land Use Policy 84, 43–48 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Buijs, A. et al. Mosaic governance for urban green infrastructure: Upscaling active citizenship from a local government perspective. Urban For. Urban Green. 40, 53–62 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Greenberg, S., Drimie, S., Losch, B. & May, J. From local initiatives to coalitions for an effective agroecology strategy: Lessons from South Africa. Sustainability 15(21), 15521 (2023).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Sardeshpande, M., Vanak, A., Ashwini, A., Casiker, C. V., Hariya, H., Mukherjee, R., Chatterjee, S., Lepcha, P. Y., Biswas, D., Devy, M. S., Hiremath, A. J., Jamwal, P., Khaling, S., & Setty, S. (In Press). Harnessing synergies across networks to drive actionable change for sustainable and healthy food systems in India. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research.Opitz, I., Berges, R., Piorr, A. & Krikser, T. Contributing to food security in urban areas: differences between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture in the Global North. Agric. Hum. Values 33(2), 341–358 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
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. 22, 13–24 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. & Lovell, S. T. Designing multifunctional urban agroforestry with people in mind. Urban Agric. Regional Food Syst. 6(1), e20016 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Botzat, A., Fischer, L. K. & Kowarik, I. Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on urban biodiversity perception and valuation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 39, 220–233 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Larondelle, N. & Strohbach, M. W. A murmur in the trees to note: Urban legacy effects on fruit trees in Berlin, Germany. Urban For. Urban Green. 17, 11–15 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Säumel, I., Weber, F. & Kowarik, I. Toward livable and healthy urban streets: Roadside vegetation provides ecosystem services where people live and move. Environ. Sci. Policy 62, 24–33 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Bonthoux, S., Brun, M., Di Pietro, F., Greulich, S. & Bouché-Pillon, S. How can wastelands promote biodiversity in cities? A review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 132, 79–88 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
Rupprecht, C. D., Byrne, J. A., Garden, J. G. & Hero, J. M. Informal urban green space: A trilingual systematic review of its role for biodiversity and trends in the literature. Urban For. Urban Green. 14(4), 883–908 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Sardeshpande, M., Rupprecht, C. & Russo, A. Edible urban commons for resilient neighbourhoods in light of the pandemic. Cities 109, 103031 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Hurley, P. T. & Emery, M. R. Locating provisioning ecosystem services in urban forests: Forageable woody species in New York City, USA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 266–275 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Colinas, J., Bush, P. & Manaugh, K. The socio-environmental impacts of public urban fruit trees: A Montreal case-study. Urban For. Urban Green. 45, 126132 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Bunge, A., Diemont, S. A., Bunge, J. A. & Harris, S. 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. J. Urban Ecol. 5(1), juy028 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Zhu, J., He, B. J., Tang, W. & Thompson, S. Community blemish or new dawn for the public realm? Governance challenges for self-claimed gardens in urban China. Cities 102, 102750 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Wiek, A. & Albrecht, S. Almost there: On the importance of a comprehensive entrepreneurial ecosystem for developing sustainable urban food forest enterprises. Urban Agric. Reg. Food Syst. 7(1), e20025 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Mabhaudhi, T., O’Reilly, P., Walker, S. & Mwale, S. Opportunities for underutilised crops in southern Africa’s post–2015 development agenda. Sustainability 8(4), 302 (2016).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Gaoue, O. G., Jiang, J., Ding, W., Agusto, F. B. & Lenhart, S. Optimal harvesting strategies for timber and non-timber forest products in tropical ecosystems. Thyroid Res. 9(3), 287–297 (2016).
Google Scholar
Lankoandé, B., Ouédraogo, A., Boussim, J. I. & Lykke, A. M. Natural stands diversity and population structure of Lophira lanceolata Tiegh. ex Keay, a local oil tree species in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Agroforestry Syst. 91(1), 85–96 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Leakey, R. R. A re-boot of tropical agriculture benefits food production, rural economies, health, social justice and the environment. Nature Food 1(5), 260–265 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Champness, B. S., Palmer, G. C. & Fitzsimons, J. A. Bringing the city to the country: relationships between streetscape vegetation type and bird assemblages in a major regional centre. J. Urban Ecol. 5(1), juz018 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Zietsman, M. Y., Montaldo, N. H. & Devoto, M. Plant–frugivore interactions in an urban nature reserve and its nearby gardens. J. Urban Ecol. 5(1), juz021 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Bennett, A. B. & Lovell, S. Landscape and local site variables differentially influence pollinators and pollination services in urban agricultural sites. PLoS ONE 14(2), e0212034 (2019).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
CAS
Google Scholar
Broegaard, R. B. et al. Wild food collection and nutrition under commercial agriculture expansion in agriculture-forest landscapes. Forest Policy Econ. 84, 92–101 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Bvenura, C. & Sivakumar, D. The role of wild fruits and vegetables in delivering a balanced and healthy diet. Food Res. Int. 99, 15–30 (2017).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Mugiyo, H. et al. Multi-criteria suitability analysis for neglected and underutilised crop species in South Africa. PLoS ONE 16(1), e0244734 (2021).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
CAS
Google Scholar
Fredenberg, E., Karl, K., Passarelli, S., Porciello, J., Rattehalli, V., Auguston, A., Chimwaza, G., Grande, F., Holmes, B., Kozlowski, N., Laborde, D., MacCarthy, D., Masikati, P., McMullin, S., Mendez Leal, E., Valdivia, R., Van Deynze, A., van Zonneveld, M. Vision for adapted crops and soils (VACS) research in action: Opportunity crops for Africa (2024). https://doi.org/10.7916/3hd1-8t86Sardeshpande, M. & Shackleton, C. Wild edible fruits: A systematic review of an under-researched multifunctional NTFP. Forests 10(6), 467 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Sardeshpande, M. & Shackleton, C. Fruits of the veld: Ecological and socioeconomic patterns of natural resource use across South Africa. Hum. Ecol. 48, 665–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-020-00185-x (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Nkosi, N. N., Mostert, T. H. C., Dzikiti, S. & Ntuli, N. R. Prioritization of indigenous fruit tree species with domestication and commercialization potential in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 67, 1567–1575 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Rich, K. M., Rich, M. & Dizyee, K. Participatory systems approach for urban and peri-urban agriculture planning: The role of system dynamics and spatial group model building. Agric. Syst. 160, 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.022 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Bilgilioglu, S. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15859-2 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Schubert, H., Rauchecker, M., Caballero Calvo, A. & Schütt, B. Land use changes and their perception in the Hinterland of Barranquilla, Colombian Caribbean. Sustainability 11(23), 6729. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236729 (2019).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Kirby, M. G., Scott, A. J. & Walsh, C. L. Translating policy to place: exploring cultural ecosystem services in areas of Green Belt through participatory mapping. Ecosyst. People 19(1), 2276752. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2276752 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Depietri, Y. & Orenstein, D. E. Managing fire risk at the wildland-urban interface requires reconciliation of tradeoffs between regulating and cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 44, 101108 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Carrilho, J. & Trindade, J. Sustainability in Peri-Urban Informal Settlements: A Review. Sustainability 14(13), 7591. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137591 (2022).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Sahana, M., Ravetz, J., Patel, P. P., Dadashpoor, H. & Follmann, A. Where is the peri-urban? A systematic review of peri-urban research and approaches for its identification and demarcation worldwide. Remote Sens 15(5), 1316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15051316 (2023).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Johnson, M. S. et al. The benefits of Q + PPGIS for coupled human-natural systems research: A systematic review. Ambio 51, 1819–1836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01709-z (2022).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Sardeshpande, M., Bangira, T., Matongera, T. N., Azong Cho, M., & Mabhaudhi, T. (2023). Appraising peri-urban food production in Durban, South Africa, with Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PGIS), 15 Nov 2023, PREPRINT (Version 1). Accessed on 08 Dec 2023, at Research Square.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).Van der Hoeven, M. et al. Indigenous and traditional plants: South African parents’ knowledge, perceptions and uses and their children’s sensory acceptance. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 9, 1–12 (2013).
Google Scholar
Porkka, M., Kummu, M., Siebert, S. & Varis, O. From food insufficiency towards trade dependency: a historical analysis of global food availability. PLoS ONE 8, e82714 (2013).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Bizikova, L. et al. A scoping review of the contributions of farmers’ organizations to smallholder agriculture. Nature Food 1(10), 620–630 (2020).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
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.Sardeshpande, M. & Shackleton, C. Urban foraging: Land management policy, perspectives, and potential. PLoS ONE 15(4), e0230693 (2020).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
CAS
Google Scholar
Venter, Z. S., Shackleton, C. M., Van Staden, F., Selomane, O. & Masterson, V. A. Green Apartheid: Urban green infrastructure remains unequally distributed across income and race geographies in South Africa. Landsc. Urban Plan. 203, 103889 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
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 08/04/2020NDA. (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.Hersperger, A. M., Grădinaru, S. R., Pierri Daunt, A. B., Imhof, C. S., & Fan, P. (2021). Landscape ecological concepts in planning: review of recent developments. Landscape Ecology, 1–17.eThekwini website. (2023). About us (eThekwini Municipality). Available online at https://www.durban.gov.za/pages/government/about-ethekwini accessed on July 13 2023Roberts, D. C. The design of an urban open-space network for the city of Durban (South Africa). Environ. Conserv. 21(1), 11–17 (1994).Article
Google Scholar
Davids, R., Rouget, M., Boon, R. & Roberts, D. Identifying ecosystem service hotspots for environmental management in Durban South Africa. Bothalia-African Biodiver. Conserv. 46(2), 1–18 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Davids, R. et al. Civic ecology uplifts low-income communities, improves ecosystem services and well-being, and strengthens social cohesion. Sustainability 13(3), 1300 (2021).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Bisaga, I., Parikh, P. & Loggia, C. Challenges and opportunities for sustainable urban farming in South African low-income settlements: A case study in Durban. Sustainability 11(20), 5660 (2019).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Moyo, H. et al. Adaptive management in restoration initiatives: Lessons learned from some of South Africa’s projects. S. Afr. J. Bot. 139, 352–361 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
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 August 13, 2021).Douwes, E. et al. The buffelsdraai landfill site community reforestation project. Unasylva 67, 12–19 (2016).
Google Scholar
Taylor, L. & Hochuli, D. F. Defining greenspace: Multiple uses across multiple disciplines. Landsc. Urban Plan. 158, 25–38 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Res. Sport Exercise Health 11(4), 589–597 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
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.Sardeshpande, M. & Shackleton, C. Fruits of the city: The nature, nurture and future of urban foraging. People Nat. 5, 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10428 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
El Baroudy, A. A. Mapping and evaluating land suitability using a GIS-based model. CATENA 140, 96–104 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Kapoor, N., Jain, M. & Bansal, V. K. A methodological approach for weighting factors in land suitability assessment: a tool for facilitating spatial planning. J. Mt. Sci. 17(3), 724–739 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Kazemi, H. & Akinci, H. A land use suitability model for rainfed farming by multi-criteria decision-making analysis (MCDA) and geographic information system (GIS). Ecol. Eng. 116, 1–6 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Taherdoost, H. & Madanchian, M. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods and concepts. Encyclopedia 3(1), 77–87 (2023).Article
Google Scholar
Mazahreh, S., Bsoul, M. & Hamoor, D. A. GIS approach for assessment of land suitability for different land use alternatives in semi arid environment in Jordan: Case study (Al Gadeer Alabyad-Mafraq). Inform. Process. Agric. 6(1), 91–108 (2019).
Google Scholar
Rstudio Team (2020). Rstudio: Integrated Development for R. Rstudio, PBC, Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com/.Shackleton, C. M. et al. How important is green infrastructure in small and medium-sized towns? Lessons from South Africa. Landsc. Urban Plan. 180, 273–281 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Shackleton, C. M., Hurley, P. T., Dahlberg, A. C., Emery, M. R. & Nagendra, H. Urban foraging: A ubiquitous human practice overlooked by urban planners, policy, and research. Sustainability 9(10), 1884 (2017).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Bennett, J., Ainslie, A. & Davis, J. Contested institutions? Traditional leaders and land access and control in communal areas of Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Land Use Policy 32, 27–38 (2013).Article
Google Scholar
Shackleton, C. M. et al. Deactivation of field cultivation in communal areas of South Africa: Patterns, drivers and socio-economic and ecological consequences. Land Use Policy 82, 686–699 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Olofsson, M. 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 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Lidzhegu, Z. & Kabanda, T. Declining land for subsistence and small-scale farming in South Africa: A case study of Thulamela local municipality. Land Use Policy 119, 106170 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Combrinck, Z., Cilliers, E. J., Lategan, L. & Cilliers, S. Revisiting the proximity principle with stakeholder input: Investigating property values and distance to urban green space in 26otchefstroom. Land 9(7), 235 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Elands, B. H. M. et al. Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 40, 29–34 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Tiroesele, B., Obopile, M. & Karabo, O. Insect diversity and population dynamics of natural enemies under sorghum–legume intercrops. Trans. Royal Soc. South Africa 74(3), 258–267 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Malviya, M. K. et al. Sugarcane-legume intercropping can enrich the soil microbiome and plant growth. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, 606595 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Pfukwa, T. M. et al. Southern African indigenous fruits and their byproducts: Prospects as food antioxidants. J. Funct. Foods 75, 104220 (2020).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Ahmad, W. et al. Impact of land use/land cover changes on water quality and human health in district Peshawar Pakistan. Sci. Rep. 11(1), 16526 (2021).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
CAS
Google Scholar
Ozsahin, E. & Ozdes, M. Agricultural land suitability assessment for agricultural productivity based on GIS modeling and multi-criteria decision analysis: the case of Tekirdağ province. Environ. Monit. Assess. 194(1), 41 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Seyedmohammadi, J. & Navidi, M. N. Applying fuzzy inference system and analytic network process based on GIS to determine land suitability potential for agricultural. Environ. Monit. Assess. 194(10), 712 (2022).Article
PubMed
CAS
Google Scholar
Chang, N. B., Imen, S. & Vannah, B. Remote sensing for monitoring surface water quality status and ecosystem state in relation to the nutrient cycle: a 40-year perspective. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45(2), 101–166 (2015).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Zhang, Q. R. et al. Spatial distribution and quantitative source identification of nutrients and beneficial elements in the soil of a typical suburban area, Beijing. Environ. Monit. Assess. 195(1), 1–14 (2023).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Calijuri, M. L., Castro, J. D. S., Costa, L. S., Assemany, P. P. & Alves, J. E. M. Impact of land use/land cover changes on water quality and hydrological behavior of an agricultural subwatershed. Environ. Earth Sci. 74, 5373–5382 (2015).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
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 19/06/2023Wotlolan, D. L., Lowry, J. H., Wales, N. A. & Glencross, K. Land suitability evaluation for multiple crop agroforestry planning using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis: A case study in Fiji. Agrofor. Syst. 95(8), 1519–1532 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Andersson, E. et al. What are the traits of a social-ecological system: Towards a framework in support of urban sustainability. NPJ Urban Sustain. 1(1), 14 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Cilliers, E. J., Lategan, L., Cilliers, S. S. & Stander, K. Reflecting on the potential and limitations of urban agriculture as an urban greening tool in South Africa. Front. Sustain. Cities 2, 43 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Kamjou, E., Scott, M. & Lennon, M. A bottom-up perspective on green infrastructure in informal settlements: Understanding nature’s benefits through lived experiences. Urban For. Urban Green. 94, 128231 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Nesbitt, L., Meitner, M. J., Girling, C. & Sheppard, S. R. Urban green equity on the ground: Practice-based models of urban green equity in three multicultural cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 44, 126433 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Vargas-Hernández, J. G. & Zdunek-Wielgołaska, J. Urban green infrastructure as a tool for controlling the resilience of urban sprawl. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 23(2), 1335–1354 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Burgdorf, R., Sardeshpande, M. & Cooper, G. Indigenous tree forestry: Economic potential or potential fantasy?. Timber Indus. Presents Mag. 4(2), 14–20 (2023).
Google Scholar
Green Trust (2024). Woza Nami: Trees combating hunger in South Africa. Available online at: https://www.greentrust.org.za/2024/09/03/woza-nami-phase-ii-trees-combating-hunger-in-south-africa/ Accessed on 27/11/2024Rockwell, C. A., Crow, A., Guimarães, É. R., Recinos, E. & La Belle, D. Species richness, stem density, and canopy in food forests: contributions to ecosystem services in an urban environment. Urban Plan. 7(2), 139–154 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Balima, L. H. et al. Higher diversity, denser stands and greater biomass in peri-urban forests than in adjacent agroforestry systems in Western Burkina Faso: implications for urban sustainability. Environ. Monit. Assess. 195(9), 1077 (2023).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Fischer, J. et al. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective. Curr. Opinion Environ. Sustain. 14, 144–149 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Wyborn, C. Co-productive governance: a relational framework for adaptive governance. Glob. Environ. Chang. 30, 56–67 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Goodwin, G. The problem and promise of coproduction: Politics, history, and autonomy. World Dev. 122, 501–513 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Isaac, M. E., Sinclair, F., Laroche, G., Olivier, A. & Thapa, A. The ties that bind: how trees can enhance agroecological transitions. Agrofor. Syst. 98, 2369–2383 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Shackleton, C. M. et al. Embedding opportunities for poverty alleviation in urban green infrastructure design and management using South Africa as a case example. Cities 155, 105442 (2024).Article
Google Scholar
Hák, T., Janoušková, S. & Moldan, B. Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecol. Ind. 60, 565–573 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Alemneh, S. T., Emire, S. A., Hitzmann, B. & Zettel, V. Comparative study of chemical composition, pasting, thermal and functional properties of teff (Eragrostis tef) flours grown in Ethiopia and South Africa. Int. J. Food Prop. 25(1), 144–158 (2022).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Bultosa, G. Teff: Overview. In 2015 (eds Wrigley, C. W. et al.) 209–220 (Academic Press, 2016).
Google Scholar
Heuzé V., Thiollet H., Tran G., Lebas F., 2017. Tef (Eragrostis tef) hay. Feedipedia, a programme by INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. https://www.feedipedia.org/node/22768 Last updated on March 6, 2017, 14:38 Accessed on 15 October 2025.Cockburn, J., Rouget, M., Slotow, R., Roberts, D., Boon, R., Douwes, E., & Willows-Munro, S. (2016). How to build science-action partnerships for local land-use planning and management: lessons from Durban, South Africa. Ecology and Society, 21(1).Leakey, R. R. & Harding, P. E. ‘Land maxing’: Regenerative, remunerative, productive and transformative agriculture to harness the six capitals of sustainable development. Sustainability 17(13), 5876 (2025).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Republic of South Africa. (2019). Act No. 6 of 2019: Protection, Promotion, Development and Management of Indigenous Knowledge Act, 2019. Government Gazette 650: 42647.Greenberg, S., Drimie, S., Losch, B., & Jila, N. (2022). Agroecological initiatives in eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal. TAFS phase 2. Final site report. Report to CIRAD, available online at https://agritrop.cirad.fr/605098/1/TAFS%20eThekwini%20research%20report_July%202022%20final%20.pdf Accessed on 22 October 2025Download referencesAcknowledgementsMS is grateful to all workshop participants at the three sites and 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 Trust [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. Fieldwork was funded in part by the WoodRIGHTS Project, which the University of KwaZulu-Natal Strategic Flagships funds.FundingThis research was funded in part by the Wellcome Trust [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. Fieldwork was funded in part by the WoodRIGHTS Project, which the University of KwaZulu-Natal Strategic Flagships funds.Author informationAuthors and AffiliationsCentre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville, 3209, South AfricaMallika Sardeshpande, Tsitsi Bangira, Matilda Azong Cho, Trylee Nyasha Matongera & Tafadzwanashe MabhaudhiDepartment of Geography, School of Agriculture and Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville, 3209, South AfricaMatilda Azong Cho & Trylee Nyasha MatongeraCentre on Climate Change and Planetary Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UKTafadzwanashe MabhaudhiAuthorsMallika SardeshpandeView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarTsitsi BangiraView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarMatilda Azong ChoView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarTrylee Nyasha MatongeraView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarTafadzwanashe MabhaudhiView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarContributionsAll 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.Corresponding authorCorrespondence to
Mallika Sardeshpande.Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional informationPublisher’s noteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.Supplementary InformationBelow is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Supplementary Material 1Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Reprints and permissionsAbout this articleCite this articleSardeshpande, M., Bangira, T., Azong Cho, M. et al. Exploring the social-ecological potential for indigenous agroforestry in peri-urban areas: a participatory mapping approach.
Sci Rep 15, 44344 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-27864-3Download citationReceived: 25 June 2025Accepted: 06 November 2025Published: 23 December 2025Version of record: 23 December 2025DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-27864-3Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy shareable link to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
KeywordsAgroecologyFarm designIndigenous foodsPeri-urban agricultureSuitability analysis More
