Exploring the social-ecological potential for indigenous agroforestry in peri-urban areas: a participatory mapping approach

Exploring the social-ecological potential for indigenous agroforestry in peri-urban areas: a participatory mapping approach | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Exploring the social-ecological potential for indigenous agroforestry in peri-urban areas: a participatory mapping approach Mallika SARDESHPANDE, Tsitsi BANGIRA, Matilda AZONG CHO, Trylee Nyasha MATONGERA, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6970205/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 23 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Peri-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 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. Biological sciences/Ecology/Agri ecology Biological sciences/Ecology/Urban ecology Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences agroecology farm design indigenous foods peri-urban agriculture suitability analysis Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1. Introduction Urban and peri-urban food production can improve the resilience of food systems in multiple ways [1]. 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 transportation [2], and socioeconomically, it can provide urban residents accessible, affordable, and nutritious alternatives to mass-produced and processed foods [3]. However, availability of land, labour, and materials are the main determinants of urban and peri-urban food production, in the global North and South [4]. In the face of densification and development, green space is a critical yet contested component of the urban landscape [5,6]. Cities worldwide have various legislations and allocations for food production in urban and peri-urban areas in communal gardens, private farms, and food forests [7]. These allocations help city planning to balance local economies, development interests, and urban environments, often in collaboration with local residents [8]. City-level adaptations are often crucial for successful implementation of national and regional food policies [9,10]. 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 footprints [11]. 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 variables [12]. 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 agriculture [13]. 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 along sidewalks that provide substantial nutrient yields [14-16]. In some cases, urban and peri-urban brownfields may be reclaimed by municipalities or citizen collectives to grow food [17-19]. Urban parks and gardens established primarily for recreation may also be a significant and legitimate source of food and nutrition [20-22]. Structural constraints to urban and peri-urban agroforestry include the availability of contiguous land and arable soil [4,11] and also resident and developer preferences for gentrified forms of nature, neighbourhoods, and greenspaces [23]. While biophysical and infrastructural variables can help determine suitability for urban agroforestry, social structures and perceptions are crucial to its long-term sustainability [24]. Indigenous crops and trees are important components of agroecological systems. They are often resilient to local ecological stresses and shocks [25], as well as human disturbance and extraction [26,27]. On farms, indigenous crops and trees provide pollination services, alternative income, and nutrition for farmers [28]. In urban and peri-urban areas, they can also provide habitat connectivity to wildlife [29,30], including pollinators important to rural and urban food production [31]. 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 micronutrients [32,33], 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 tubers [34,35]. Although the potential of indigenous food-bearing tree species has been recognised [36-38], the research and application of these in agroforestry is still nascent. 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 uses [39]. The participatory mapping was conducted to promote democratic, inclusive, and locally appropriate decision-making when combined with GIS modelling techniques [40]. 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 impoverished [41]. People’s values for landscape features and uses can play an important role in successful landscape governance [42], including the implementation and observance of regulations [43]. 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 areas [44]. 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 South [45]. Our study follows a mixed methods approach giving equal importance to communities and experts in the mapping process [46]. 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 security [47]. 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 can be operationalised at local scale combining participatory research and different forms of knowledge. 1.1. The local context As 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 food [49]. 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 producers [50]. 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 sales [51]. In the broader socioeconomic sense, unemployment and inequality manifest in income and food poverty, and limited opportunities for people experiencing poverty to engage in either primary production or secondary activities to secure an income [52]. Particularly in cities, legacy spatial planning also constrains access to greenfields and greenspace, which can often be a source of food or materials to support the household economy [37,53,54]. Allocating and enriching urban and peri-urban spaces for food production are a priority on the National Development Plan for South Africa [55], and could also contribute to national-level cross-cutting initiatives like the Integrated Food Security and Nutrition Programme and the Natural Resources Management Programme [56]. 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. 2. Methods 2.1. Conceptual framing The 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 approach [57] 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 (Figure 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 (Figure 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, as the spatiotemporal scales across the study sites were very small (mean area 190 km 2 and time frame 10 years). 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. 2.2. Study area The eThekwini municipality is host to a population of 3.9 million people, in its urban centre of Durban, as well as several peri-urban areas [58]. 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 land [37]. 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 areas [59-61]. 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 NGOs [62]. The municipality routinely undertakes reforestation and restoration across these open spaces, with the dual intention of improving biodiversity and supporting local bio-economy livelihoods [63]. There is also a strong emphasis on removing and controlling invasive alien species and planting endemic and indigenous species in greenspaces [37]. 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 (Figure 2). 2.3. Participatory Mapping Workshops One 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 Refernece 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 (Appendix) 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 grazing [66]. 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 were not deemed used for food production if food was only gathered but not actively grown there). The data collected were analysed qualitatively [e.g. 67] for emergent themes and descriptions in MS Word. Quotes from participants were anonymised using the monikers ‘Respondent n’, and presented where appropriate. 2.4. Species selection Social-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 from [68], [36], and [69]. 2.5. Suitability analyses Several 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 production [70]. Generally, determining suitable areas for crop farming in urban areas revolves around making the most sustainable use of land resources while avoiding depleting other resources [71]. 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 decision [72]. 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 by [73], 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. Table 1: Influence percentage for each factor used to produce the final suitability maps Geographic factor Description % of influence Land cover The 2020 South African Land Cover data was acquired from the South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment online portal, publicly available at https://egis.environment.gov.za/data_egis/data_download/current . Seven broad land cover classes, namely built-up areas, forests (commercial and natural), grasslands, water bodies, fallow lands, agricultural lands and bare areas, were identified in the three areas. 35 Agricultural land capability The land capability data, defined as the total suitability for usage without causing harm to grazing, woods, wildlife, and crops that require frequent tillage, was acquired from the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development. The eight-class land capability classification constitutes the basis of most subsequent attempts at bringing land capability concepts under measurable parameters (Table A3). 20 Dominant soils The soil data was obtained from the Soil and Terrain Database (SOTER), freely accessible at https://www.isric.org/explore . Four major soil categories were identified at the three study sites (Table A2). 15 Slope The slope percentage map was derived from the Copernicus Digital Elevation Model (COP-DEM) with a 30m spatial resolution using the slope function in ArcGIS Pro software. The slope map was divided into ten equal interval classes, according to [74], to represent levels of slope suitability for the expansion of peri-urban agriculture. 15 Proximity to water sources To help irrigate peri-urban food production, the study considered the distance to the available water sources. Rivers were the only available water sources that were considered in this analysis. The river networks were extracted from a 30m COPERNICUS- DEM using the watershed module in R Studio [75]. ArcGIS Pro software used The Euclidian distance function to generate distance maps from the existing rivers. 10 Proximity to the main road For accessibility to the farmlands and easy transportation of harvest to the nearby markets, the distance from the roads was incorporated in the analysis. The road network data was acquired from the Department of Transport online portal, accessible at https://gis1.kzntransport.gov.za/arcgisportal/home/ . ArcGIS Pro software used The Euclidian distance function to generate distance maps from the existing roads. 5 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Characterising greenspaces and food production potential through participatory mapping The workshops lasted about 90 minutes 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. 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 opportunities [76,77]. 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 agreements [78], reducing certainty of long-term land use, and subsequent investment of labour and capital in food production [79]. It may also result in rent appropriation by powerful stakeholders at the expense of the community [80] and undemocratic development on land intended for food production, especially in urban and peri-urban areas [81]. 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 Appendix Table A1. Types of space Number Tenure Uses Resources Remarks Maphephetheni Communal areas 2 Chief Grazing, recreation Fodder, fruits (banana, guava) Beautiful views, but far away, and harbour monkeys Open spaces 3 Public Grazing, recreation Fish, fruits (mango + 10 spp.), herbs (watercress, wild spinaches) Includes reservoir fishing, plantation, “nature” areas Food gardens 4 Neighbourhood Food production Vegetables (carrot, spinach) Low yielding “Tree” spaces 3 Private and public Food production and recreation Fruits (13 spp.) Includes sports field, household, riverine trees, and plantation gumtrees Ntshongweni Open spaces 3 Public Food production, fuelwood collection, grazing, recreation Fish, fodder, fuelwood, vegetables (beetroot, cabbage, carrot, chilli, onion, peppers, spinach) Includes reservoir fishing and erstwhile sports field that turned into a wetland and now stands protected Food gardens 5 Cooperatives Food production Maize, vegetables (see above) Need to know what to grow, when, where, and how “Tree” spaces 3 Private and public Food production and recreation Fruits (11 spp.), fuelwood Includes household and riverine trees, and an erstwhile game reserve that “no one uses now” Osindisweni Communal areas 4 Chief Recreation Fruits (8 spp.), scavenged food and goods from landfill Includes bush, open space, landfill buffer, and riverine; fruits only collected in riverine, which is far away Food gardens 1 School Unused None Poor upkeep “Tree” spaces 5 Private and public Food production and recreation Fruits (8 spp. + litchi to purchase), vegetables to purchase Includes household and riverine trees, an agricultural hub, and a litchi farm The 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. “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 gentrification [82]. 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 Based 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. Table 3: Perceived land use potential and food production feasibility in greenspaces at the three study sites. Greenspace characteristics Maphephetheni Ntshongweni Osindisweni Positive aspects Experience of “nature” and “views”; recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, picnicking, and swimming with family. Use of communal areas for grazing and foraging for food and wood; food gardens contributing to community nutrition Savings and earnings from local food sales from cooperative gardening. Negative aspects Recreational greenspaces are located far away from residential areas. Privatisation of Resource Reserve and lack of community access. Conversion of area to landfill and conservation buffer; poor waste management and invasive control; ecological, health, and safety impacts. Lack of access to seeds, water, fencing, and food garden training hinders food production. Changes over the past decade Gradual: trees are now outnumbered by households within the community. Gradual: dwindling of game animals; Drastic: appearance of a wetland at a sports field (and subsequent municipal protection); Recently, numerous food garden cooperatives were formed during the coronavirus pandemic. Gradual: conversion and expansion of the landfill resulting in indiscriminate waste dumping and scavenging in the buffer area around the community; Drastic: fumes and frequent fires from the landfill pose significant respiratory problems Future prospects Prioritise the ‘One home one garden’ concept, wherein each household can grow food in their yards through material and technical input. Open the Reserve to the public for food production (orchards), forestry (fuelwood), or community facilities (school, youth centre, or disaster high ground); plant indigenous trees as a replacement for invasive aliens and crop shade. Demand better greenspace management through invasive alien control and waste collection; prioritise public infrastructure like schools, soup kitchens, shops, and health centres over food gardens and other greenspaces. Food production potential Low-yielding food gardens, fishing, foraging, and livestock supplement the food economy; high-yielding home gardens. High-yielding crop and food gardens; high-yielding home gardens; need knowledge and training on locally suited species of food plants and animal breeds for agroecology. Perceived unviability of air and soil due to waste dumping, landfill fires; poor upkeep of existing food garden. Tree planting feasibility Accessible to most people, valued for food, fodder, air and temperature regulation, and wood for poles; preference for mainstream foods such as avocado, oranges, and peaches over indigenous species. Accessible and valued for food, fodder, shade, and sequestration; placement of trees to prevent damage to property during floods and mudslides. Limited access to household trees, which are “ancient, our own” and valued by the community; planting more trees may not be feasible until the landfill pollution problem is alleviated. A number of these indigenous trees serve as a significant conduit to the intergenerational transfer of ecological knowledge and a connection to nature [69], which in turn forms an important part of biocultural diversity and landscape stewardship [83]. 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. None of the herbs or crops were specifically mentioned by participants during the elicitation at the workshops. Similarly, choices of crops exist for areas that are more prone to drought or heatwaves, or for marginal soils or shaded or windy areas [68]. Spatiotemporal intercropping of these with conventional crops can help remediate soil [84,85]. Surplus production of indigenous crops and trees can feed into short and high value supply chains to urban centres [e.g. 38,86]. 3.2. Biophysical land suitability for greenspaces Figure 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. For 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 (Figure 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. 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) Site attributes Response functions Indigenous species Latin name Location M N 0 Livestock grazing Live fence fruits Kei apple Dovyalis caffra Food gardens Home gardens School gardens Y Y Y Numnum Carissa sp. Y Y Y Monkey orange Strychnos sp. Y Y Y Use of biomass for fencing, fodder, food, and medicine, and replacement of invasive aliens Multipurpose fruit trees Dune currant Searsia natalensis Any open spaces Y Y Y Marula Sclerocarya birrea Y N N Milkwood Sideroxylon inerme Y Y N Brown ivory Berchemia discolor Y N N Red ivory Berchemia zeyheri Y Y Y Sour plum Ximenia caffra Y Y Y Turkey berry Canthium inerme Y Y N Wild medlar Vangueria infausta Y Y N Wild plum Harpephyllum caffrum N Y Y Slope (M, N) Communal land tenure, low labour availability (O) Fast-growing annual herbs Amaranth Amaranth sp. Food gardens School gardens Any open spaces Y N Y Jute mallow Corchorus olitorius Y Y N Nightshade Solanum nigrum Y Y N Spider flower Cleome gynandra Y N Y Wild mustard Rapistrum rugosum N N Y Flood risk Waterlogging-tolerant crops Sweet potato Ipomoea batatas Food gardens Along slopes Y Y N Taro Colocasia esculenta Y Y N Indigenous crop inclination (N) Indigenous grains Sorghum Sorghum bicolor Flat open spaces N Y N Teff Eragrostis teff N Y N Poor soil quality (O) Annual nitrogen-fixing crops Bambara groundnut Vigna subterranea School gardens Flat open spaces N Y Y Cowpea Vigna unguiculata N Y Y Pigeon pea Cajanus cajan N Y Y Table 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 Site Maphephetheni Ntshongweni Osindisweni Area (km 2 ) Percentage Area (km 2 ) Percentage Area (km 2 ) Percentage Highly suitable 0.23 0.13 0.28 0.17 1.7 0.78 Suitable 2.2 1.2 1.4 0.84 23.4 10.74 Moderately Suitable 11.3 6.15 23.63 14.1 12.8 5.87 Marginally Suitable 32.2 15.52 134.7 80.37 179.6 82.4 Not Suitable 137.9 75.01 7.6 4.53 0.45 0.21 Statistics comparing the number of cells assigned to each suitability class for the three maps are presented in Table 5 and Figure 3. The areas of the sites were within 50 km sq. of each other, 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 fields [65] 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 quality [87,88]. 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 production [89]. Notwithstanding, results from our participatory and synthesis process offer options to reinforce local food and nutritional security through innovative design elements [12]. 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 water [90,91]. 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 groundwater [92]. Agroecological strategies, including organic and circular inputs, are likely to alleviate environmental and food safety issues [93]. 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]. 4. Community Impact This study highlights the role of participatory co-design in developing urban agriculture configurations. It combines a social-ecological systems lens [95] with a landscape ecology approach [57] 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 Africa [96]. Our study demonstrates an interdisciplinary and participatory design approach to designing urban green infrastructure for ecosystem services [97]. 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 equity [98,99]. Further work in these communities has included the planting of a community agroforestry trial [100] and an agroecology demonstration hub [101] using indigenous species. These sites will serve as living learning laboratories for indigenous urban agroforestry. Communities will be involved in research related to assessing biodiversity and ecological implications such as species richness and plant biomass (e.g. Rockwell et al. 2022, Balima et al. 2023)[102,103], and also with development of market linkages for urban agroforestry [e.g. 24]. 5. Conclusion This 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. This integrated approach can aid the development of site-specific solutions, forming dynamic governance co-produced by communities and institutions [ 8 , 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 terms (Fischer et al. 2015, Wyborn 2015, Goodwin 2019) [ 104 – 106 ]. Through innovative design considerations, our findings aim to enable synergistic improvements in food and nutritional security, agroecology, and multifunctional urban green infrastructure [ 107 , 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 ]. Declarations 6. Acknowledgements MS 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. 7. Funding 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. 7. Author Contributions All 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. 8. Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. 9. Data Availability Statement All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files]. References Augstburger, H., Käser, F., & Rist, S. (2019). Assessing Food Systems and Their Impact on Common Pool Resources and Resilience. Land , 8 (4), 71. Sarkodie, S. A., Owusu, P. A., & Leirvik, T. (2020). Global effect of urban sprawl, industrialization, trade and economic development on carbon dioxide emissions. Environmental Research Letters , 15 (3), 034049. Bergius, M., & Buseth, J. T. (2019). Towards a green modernization development discourse: the new green revolution in Africa. Journal of Political Ecology , 26 (1), 57-83. Follmann, A., Willkomm, M., & Dannenberg, P. (2021). 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. Landscape and Urban Planning , 215 , 104186. Haaland, C., & van den Bosch, C. K. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening , 14 (4), 760-771. Kabisch, N., Qureshi, S., & Haase, D. (2015). Human–environment interactions in urban green spaces—A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 50 , 25-34. Hajzeri, A., & Kwadwo, V. O. (2019). Investigating integration of edible plants in urban open spaces: Evaluation of policy challenges and successes of implementation. Land Use Policy , 84 , 43-48. Buijs, A., Hansen, R., Van der Jagt, S., Ambrose-Oji, B., Elands, B., Rall, E. L., Mattijssen, T., Pauliet, S., Runhaar, S., Olafsson, A. S., & Møller, M. S. (2019). Mosaic governance for urban green infrastructure: Upscaling active citizenship from a local government perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening , 40 , 53-62. Greenberg, S., Drimie, S., Losch, B., & May, J. (2023). From local initiatives to coalitions for an effective agroecology strategy: Lessons from South Africa. Sustainability, 15 (21), 15521. 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. (2016). Contributing to food security in urban areas: differences between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture in the Global North. Agriculture and Human Values , 33 (2), 341-358. Armanda, D.T.; Guinée, J.B.; Tukker, A. The second green revolution: Innovative urban agriculture’s contribution to food security and sustainability – A review. Global Food Security 2019, 22 , 13–24. Taylor, J. R., & Lovell, S. T. (2021). Designing multifunctional urban agroforestry with people in mind. Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems, 6 (1), e20016. Botzat, A., Fischer, L. K., & Kowarik, I. (2016). Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on urban biodiversity perception and valuation. Global Environmental Change , 39 , 220-233. Larondelle, N., & Strohbach, M. W. (2016). A murmur in the trees to note: Urban legacy effects on fruit trees in Berlin, Germany. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening , 17 , 11-15. Säumel, I., Weber, F., & Kowarik, I. (2016). Toward livable and healthy urban streets: Roadside vegetation provides ecosystem services where people live and move. Environmental Science & Policy , 62 , 24-33. Bonthoux, S., Brun, M., Di Pietro, F., Greulich, S., & Bouché-Pillon, S. (2014). How can wastelands promote biodiversity in cities? A review. Landscape and Urban Planning , 132 , 79-88. Rupprecht, C. D., Byrne, J. A., Garden, J. G., & Hero, J. M. (2015). Informal urban green space: A trilingual systematic review of its role for biodiversity and trends in the literature. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening , 14 (4), 883-908. Sardeshpande, M., Rupprecht, C., & Russo, A. (2021). Edible urban commons for resilient neighbourhoods in light of the pandemic. Cities , 103031. Hurley, P. T., & Emery, M. R. (2018). Locating provisioning ecosystem services in urban forests: Forageable woody species in New York City, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70 , 266-275. Colinas, J., Bush, P., & Manaugh, K. (2019). The socio-environmental impacts of public urban fruit trees: A Montreal case-study. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening , 45 , 126132. Bunge, A., Diemont, S. A., Bunge, J. A., & Harris, S. (2019). 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. Journal of Urban Ecology , 5 (1), juy028. Zhu, J., He, B. J., Tang, W., & Thompson, S. (2020). Community blemish or new dawn for the public realm? Governance challenges for self-claimed gardens in urban China. Cities , 102 , 102750. Wiek, A., & Albrecht, S. (2022). Almost there: On the importance of a comprehensive entrepreneurial ecosystem for developing sustainable urban food forest enterprises. Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems, 7 (1), e20025. Mabhaudhi, T., O’Reilly, P., Walker, S., & Mwale, S. (2016). Opportunities for underutilised crops in southern Africa’s post–2015 development agenda. Sustainability , 8 (4), 302. Gaoue, O. G., Jiang, J., Ding, W., Agusto, F. B., & Lenhart, S. (2016). Optimal harvesting strategies for timber and non-timber forest products in tropical ecosystems. Theoretical Ecology, 9 (3), 287-297. Lankoandé, B., Ouédraogo, A., Boussim, J. I., & Lykke, A. M. (2017). Natural stands diversity and population structure of Lophira lanceolata Tiegh. ex Keay, a local oil tree species in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Agroforestry Systems, 91 (1), 85-96. Leakey, R. R. (2020). A re-boot of tropical agriculture benefits food production, rural economies, health, social justice and the environment. Nature Food , 1 (5), 260-265. Champness, B. S., Palmer, G. C., & Fitzsimons, J. A. (2019). Bringing the city to the country: relationships between streetscape vegetation type and bird assemblages in a major regional centre. Journal of Urban Ecology , 5 (1), juz018. Zietsman, M. Y., Montaldo, N. H., & Devoto, M. (2019). Plant–frugivore interactions in an urban nature reserve and its nearby gardens. Journal of Urban Ecology, 5 (1), juz021. Bennett, A. B., & Lovell, S. (2019). Landscape and local site variables differentially influence pollinators and pollination services in urban agricultural sites. PLoS One , 14 (2), e0212034. Broegaard, R. B., Rasmussen, L. V., Dawson, N., Mertz, O., Vongvisouk, T., & Grogan, K. (2017). Wild food collection and nutrition under commercial agriculture expansion in agriculture-forest landscapes. Forest Policy and Economics , 84 , 92-101. Bvenura, C., & Sivakumar, D. (2017). The role of wild fruits and vegetables in delivering a balanced and healthy diet. Food Research International , 99 , 15-30. Mugiyo, H., Chimonyo, V. G., Sibanda, M., Kunz, R., Nhamo, L., Masemola, C. R., ... & Mabhaudhi, T. (2021). Multi-criteria suitability analysis for neglected and underutilised crop species in South Africa. PLoS One, 16 (1), e0244734. 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/10.7916/3hd1-8t86 Sardeshpande, M., & Shackleton, C. (2019). Wild Edible Fruits: A Systematic Review of an Under-Researched Multifunctional NTFP. Forests 10 (6), 467. Sardeshpande, M., & Shackleton, C. (2020). Fruits of the veld: Ecological and socioeconomic patterns of natural resource use across South Africa. Human Ecology, 48 , 665-677.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-020-00185-x Nkosi, N. N., Mostert, T. H. C., Dzikiti, S., & Ntuli, N. R. (2020). Prioritization of indigenous fruit tree species with domestication and commercialization potential in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution , 67 , 1567-1575. Rich, K.M., Magda Rich, Kanar Dizyee, (2018). Participatory systems approach for urban and peri-urban agriculture planning: The role of system dynamics and spatial group model building. Agricultural Systems, 160 , 110-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.022. Bilgilioglu, .S., Gezgin, C., Orhan, O. et al. (2022). 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 Schubert, H., Rauchecker, M., Caballero Calvo, A. & Schütt. B., (2019). Land Use Changes and Their Perception in the Hinterland of Barranquilla, Colombian Caribbean. Sustainability, 11 (23): 6729. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236729 Kirby, M. G., Scott, A. J., & Walsh, C. L. (2023). Translating policy to place: exploring cultural ecosystem services in areas of Green Belt through participatory mapping. Ecosystems and People, 19 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2276752 Depietri, Y., & Orenstein, D. E. (2020). Managing fire risk at the wildland-urban interface requires reconciliation of tradeoffs between regulating and cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 44 , 101108. Carrilho, J., & Trindade, J. (2022). Sustainability in Peri-Urban Informal Settlements: A Review. Sustainability, 14 (13) 7591. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137591 Sahana, M., Ravetz, J., Patel, P. P., Dadashpoor, H., & Follmann, A. (2023). Where Is the Peri-Urban? A Systematic Review of Peri-Urban Research and Approaches for Its Identification and Demarcation Worldwide. Remote Sensing, 15 (5) 1316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15051316 Johnson, M.S., Adams, V.M., Byrne, J. et al. (2022). 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 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., Osei, J., Greeff, M., Kruger, A., Faber, M., & Smuts, C. M. (2013). Indigenous and traditional plants: South African parents’ knowledge, perceptions and uses and their children’s sensory acceptance. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 9 , 1-12. Porkka, M., Kummu, M., & Siebert, S. & Varis, O. (2013). From food insufficiency towards trade dependency: a historical analysis of global food availability. PLoS One , 8 , e82714. Bizikova, L., Nkonya, E., Minah, M., Hanisch, M., Turaga, R. M. R., Speranza, C. I., ... & Timmers, B. (2020). A scoping review of the contributions of farmers’ organizations to smallholder agriculture. Nature Food , 1 (10), 620-630. 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. (2020b). Urban foraging: Land management policy, perspectives, and potential. PLoS ONE , 15 (4), e0230693. Venter, Z. S., Shackleton, C. M., Van Staden, F., Selomane, O., & Masterson, V. A. (2020). Green Apartheid: Urban green infrastructure remains unequally distributed across income and race geographies in South Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning , 203 , 103889. 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 08/04/2020 NDA. (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 2023 Roberts, D. C. (1994). The design of an urban open-space network for the city of Durban (South Africa). Environmental Conservation , 21 (1), 11-17. Davids, R., Rouget, M., Boon, R., & Roberts, D. (2016). Identifying ecosystem service hotspots for environmental management in Durban, South Africa. Bothalia-African Biodiversity and Conservation , 46 (2), 1-18. Davids, R., Rouget, M., Burger, M., Mahood, K., Ditlhale, N., & Slotow, R. (2021). Civic ecology uplifts low-income communities, improves ecosystem services and well-being, and strengthens social cohesion. Sustainability , 13 (3), 1300. Bisaga, I., Parikh, P., & Loggia, C. (2019). Challenges and opportunities for sustainable urban farming in South African low-income settlements: A case study in Durban. Sustainability , 11 (20), 5660. Moyo, H., Slotow, R., Rouget, M., Mugwedi, L., Douwes, E., Tsvuura, Z., & Tshabalala, T. (2021). Adaptive management in restoration initiatives: Lessons learned from some of South Africa’s projects. South African Journal of Botany 139 , 352–361. 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., Rouget, M., Diederichs, N., O’Donoghue, S., Roy, K., & Roberts, D. (2016). The buffelsdraai landfill site community reforestation project. Unasylva , 67 , 12–19. Taylor, L., & Hochuli, D. F. (2017). Defining greenspace: Multiple uses across multiple disciplines. Landscape and Urban Planning , 158 , 25-38. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health , 11 (4), 589–597. 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. (2023). Fruits of the city: The nature, nurture and future of urban foraging. People and Nature , 5 , 213– 227. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10428 El Baroudy, A. A. (2016). Mapping and evaluating land suitability using a GIS-based model. Catena , 140 , 96-104. Kapoor, N., Jain, M., & Bansal, V. K. (2020). A methodological approach for weighting factors in land suitability assessment: a tool for facilitating spatial planning. Journal of Mountain Science , 17 (3), 724-739. Kazemi, H., & Akinci, H. (2018). A land use suitability model for rainfed farming by Multi-criteria Decision-making Analysis (MCDA) and Geographic Information System (GIS). Ecological Engineering , 116 , 1-6. Taherdoost, H., & Madanchian, M. (2023). Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods and concepts. Encyclopedia , 3 (1), 77-87. Mazahreh, S., Bsoul, M., & Hamoor, D. A. (2019). GIS approach for assessment of land suitability for different land use alternatives in semi arid environment in Jordan: Case study (Al Gadeer Alabyad-Mafraq). Information Processing in Agriculture , 6 (1), 91-108. Rstudio Team (2020). Rstudio: Integrated Development for R. Rstudio, PBC, Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com/. Shackleton, C. M., Blair, A., De Lacy, P., Kaoma, H., Mugwagwa, N., Dalu, M. T., & Walton, W. (2017a). How important is green infrastructure in small and medium-sized towns? Lessons from South Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning , 180 , 273-281. Shackleton, C. M., Hurley, P. T., Dahlberg, A. C., Emery, M. R., & Nagendra, H. (2017b). Urban Foraging: A Ubiquitous Human Practice Overlooked by Urban Planners, Policy, and Research. Sustainability 9 (10), 1884. Bennett, J., Ainslie, A., & Davis, J. (2013). Contested institutions? Traditional leaders and land access and control in communal areas of Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Land Use Policy , 32 , 27-38. Shackleton, C. M., Mograbi, P. J., Drimie, S., Fay, D., Hebinck, P., Hoffman, M. T., ... & Twine, W. (2019). Deactivation of field cultivation in communal areas of South Africa: Patterns, drivers and socio-economic and ecological consequences. Land Use Policy , 82 , 686-699. Olofsson, M. (2021). 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. Lidzhegu, Z., & Kabanda, T. (2022). Declining land for subsistence and small-scale farming in South Africa: A case study of Thulamela local municipality. Land Use Policy , 119 , 106170. Combrinck, Z., Cilliers, E. J., Lategan, L., & Cilliers, S. (2020). Revisiting the proximity principle with stakeholder input: Investigating property values and distance to urban green space in 26otchefstroom. Land , 9 (7), 235. Elands, B.H.M., Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Fischer, L.K., Gonçalves, P., Haase, D., Kowarik, I, Luz, A.C., Niemelä, J., Santos-Reis, M., Wiersum, K.F. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening , 40, 29-34. Tiroesele, B., Obopile, M., & Karabo, O. (2019). Insect diversity and population dynamics of natural enemies under sorghum–legume intercrops. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa , 74 (3), 258-267. Malviya, M. K., Solanki, M. K., Li, C. N., Wang, Z., Zeng, Y., Verma, K. K., ... & Li, Y. R. (2021). Sugarcane-legume intercropping can enrich the soil microbiome and plant growth. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems , 5 , 606595. Pfukwa, T. M., Chikwanha, O. C., Katiyatiya, C. L., Fawole, O. A., Manley, M., & Mapiye, C. (2020). Southern African indigenous fruits and their byproducts: Prospects as food antioxidants. Journal of Functional Foods , 75 , 104220. Ahmad, W., Iqbal, J., Nasir, M. J., Ahmad, B., Khan, M. T., Khan, S. N., & Adnan, S. (2021). Impact of land use/land cover changes on water quality and human health in district Peshawar Pakistan. Scientific Reports , 11 (1), 16526. Ozsahin, E., & Ozdes, M. (2022). Agricultural land suitability assessment for agricultural productivity based on GIS modeling and multi-criteria decision analysis: the case of Tekirdağ province. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 194 (1), 41. Seyedmohammadi, J., & Navidi, M. N. (2022). Applying fuzzy inference system and analytic network process based on GIS to determine land suitability potential for agricultural. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 194 (10), 712. Chang, N. B., Imen, S., & Vannah, B. (2015). Remote sensing for monitoring surface water quality status and ecosystem state in relation to the nutrient cycle: a 40-year perspective. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology , 45 (2), 101-166. Zhang, Q. R., Zhang, S. Q., Huang, Y., Li, H., Jia, Y. H., Li, J., & Yuan, G. L. (2023). Spatial distribution and quantitative source identification of nutrients and beneficial elements in the soil of a typical suburban area, Beijing. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 195 (1), 1-14. Calijuri, M. L., Castro, J. D. S., Costa, L. S., Assemany, P. P., & Alves, J. E. M. (2015). Impact of land use/land cover changes on water quality and hydrological behavior of an agricultural subwatershed. Environmental Earth Sciences , 74 , 5373-5382. 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 19/06/2023 Wotlolan, D. L., Lowry, J. H., Wales, N. A., & Glencross, K. (2021). Land suitability evaluation for multiple crop agroforestry planning using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis: A case study in Fiji. Agroforestry Systems, 95 (8), 1519-1532. Andersson, E., Haase, D., Anderson, P., Cortinovis, C., Goodness, J., Kendal, D., ... & Wellmann, T. (2021). What are the traits of a social-ecological system: Towards a framework in support of urban sustainability. npj Urban Sustainability, 1 (1), 14. Cilliers, E. J., Lategan, L., Cilliers, S. S., & Stander, K. (2020). Reflecting on the potential and limitations of urban agriculture as an urban greening tool in South Africa. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities , 2 , 43. Kamjou, E., Scott, M., & Lennon, M. (2024). A bottom-up perspective on green infrastructure in informal settlements: Understanding nature's benefits through lived experiences. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 94, 128231. Nesbitt, L., Meitner, M. J., Girling, C., & Sheppard, S. R. (2019). Urban green equity on the ground: Practice-based models of urban green equity in three multicultural cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 44 , 126433. Vargas-Hernández, J. G., & Zdunek-Wielgołaska, J. (2021). Urban green infrastructure as a tool for controlling the resilience of urban sprawl. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23 (2), 1335-1354. Burgdorf, R., Sardeshpande, M. & Cooper, G. (2023). Indigenous tree forestry: Economic potential or potential fantasy? Timber Industry Presents Magazine 4 (2):14-20. 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 27/11/2024 Rockwell, C. A., Crow, A., Guimarães, É. R., Recinos, E., & La Belle, D. (2022). Species richness, stem density, and canopy in food forests: contributions to ecosystem services in an urban environment. Urban Planning, 7 (2), 139-154. Balima, L. H., Zerbo, I., Bayen, P., Kiemtoré, H., Ganamé, M., Cissé, M., & Thiombiano, A. (2023). Higher diversity, denser stands and greater biomass in peri-urban forests than in adjacent agroforestry systems in Western Burkina Faso: implications for urban sustainability. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195 (9), 1077. Fischer, J., Gardner, T. A., Bennett, E. M., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., Daw, T., Folke, C., Hill, R., Hughes, T. P., Luthe, T., et al. (2015). Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability , 14 , 144-149. Wyborn, C. (2015). Co-productive governance: a relational framework for adaptive governance. Global Environmental Change , 30 , 56-67. Goodwin, G. (2019). The problem and promise of coproduction: Politics, history, and autonomy. World Development , 122 , 501-513. Isaac, M. E., Sinclair, F., Laroche, G., Olivier, A., & Thapa, A. (2024). The ties that bind: how trees can enhance agroecological transitions. Agroforestry Systems, 98 , 2369–2383. Shackleton, C. M., Brom, P., Gwedla, N., Matamanda, A. R., Sardeshpande, M., & Kumar-Nair, S. (2024). Embedding opportunities for poverty alleviation in urban green infrastructure design and management using South Africa as a case example. Cities, 155 , 105442. Hák, T., Janoušková, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators, 60 , 565-573. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendix.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 23 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 23 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 18 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 03 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Jul, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 09 Jul, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 09 Jul, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 01 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 01 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6970205","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":484451491,"identity":"65327d67-a6c4-4c09-8661-c8ebae7c63d0","order_by":0,"name":"Mallika SARDESHPANDE","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of KwaZulu-Natal","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mallika","middleName":"","lastName":"SARDESHPANDE","suffix":""},{"id":484451492,"identity":"ca22a721-6609-4bdd-a831-29432d2e37f2","order_by":1,"name":"Tsitsi BANGIRA","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of KwaZulu-Natal","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tsitsi","middleName":"","lastName":"BANGIRA","suffix":""},{"id":484451493,"identity":"a93cd6e2-9289-4c2d-a8e0-59504f55cbf3","order_by":2,"name":"Matilda AZONG CHO","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of KwaZulu-Natal","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Matilda","middleName":"AZONG","lastName":"CHO","suffix":""},{"id":484451494,"identity":"25894e27-e227-4c77-9f01-c29263265874","order_by":3,"name":"Trylee Nyasha MATONGERA","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of KwaZulu-Natal","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Trylee","middleName":"Nyasha","lastName":"MATONGERA","suffix":""},{"id":484451495,"identity":"542c77e3-60a0-4ea8-af7b-82b85ad6a8c6","order_by":4,"name":"Tafadzwanashe MABHAUDHI","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of KwaZulu-Natal","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tafadzwanashe","middleName":"","lastName":"MABHAUDHI","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-25 03:38:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6970205/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6970205/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-27864-3","type":"published","date":"2025-12-23T15:58:09+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":86636955,"identity":"15e07c60-5029-49dd-b3a3-4d642f3bb0d2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-14 07:25:17","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":140817,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConceptual framing of the study, research questions, data collected, and analyses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6970205/v1/883b647686c6569b53ee1417.png"},{"id":86635988,"identity":"a3c6654e-a821-4ccd-b588-a75dd8d0206a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-14 07:17:17","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":107465,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation of study sites in the local context and South Africa (inset). Some sites are fragmented because of dual land tenure – traditional and municipal.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation of study sites in the local context and South Africa (inset). Some sites are fragmented because of dual land tenure – traditional and municipal.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. 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 and fire are being replanted with useful food and forage species to encourage sustainable land use (eThekwini Municipality 2021)[64]. 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.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. 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 fragments [65]. 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.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6970205/v1/32dc8fa16f2ab739526b6194.png"},{"id":86635989,"identity":"7a869c82-7cb4-4361-ba12-e5e55c46ac93","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-14 07:17:17","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":184756,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePeri-urban agriculture suitability maps for (a) Osindisweni, (b) Ntshongweni and (c)Maphephetheni\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6970205/v1/e890af0665da102df149a1cf.png"},{"id":86636957,"identity":"f6f7b7ea-3b25-4373-af5c-76255074bee2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-14 07:25:17","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":241414,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe suitable areas for peri-urban agriculture after overlaying both the PGIS and GIS layers in Osindisweni, Maphephetheni and Ntshongweni districts\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6970205/v1/1675e1317dc5b6ee5f57f17a.png"},{"id":99172345,"identity":"37f21dcf-f0d1-4d4e-af6f-1904f6182dd4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-29 16:08:08","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1899774,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6970205/v1/0c6cf01e-b7c9-4dac-9497-38c23c083c49.pdf"},{"id":86636956,"identity":"c837a2bf-6c48-40ef-93df-8cf6928994cb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-14 07:25:17","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":19929,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6970205/v1/723f3e9ba54571f2fb918823.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Exploring the social-ecological potential for indigenous agroforestry in peri-urban areas: a participatory mapping approach","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eUrban and peri-urban food production can improve the resilience of food systems in multiple ways\u0026nbsp;[1]. 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 transportation [2], and socioeconomically, it can provide urban residents accessible, affordable, and nutritious alternatives to mass-produced and processed foods [3]. However, availability of land, labour, and materials are the main determinants of urban and peri-urban food production, in the global North and South [4]. In the face of densification and development, green space is a critical yet contested component of the urban landscape [5,6]. Cities worldwide have various legislations and allocations for food production in urban and peri-urban areas in communal gardens, private farms, and food forests [7]. These allocations help city planning to balance local economies, development interests, and urban environments, often in collaboration with local residents [8]. City-level adaptations are often crucial for successful implementation of national and regional food policies [9,10].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUrban 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 footprints\u0026nbsp;[11]. 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 variables [12]. 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 agriculture [13]. 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).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe 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 along sidewalks that provide substantial nutrient yields [14-16]. In some cases, urban and peri-urban brownfields may be reclaimed by municipalities or citizen collectives to grow food [17-19]. Urban parks and gardens established primarily for recreation may also be a significant and legitimate source of food and nutrition\u0026nbsp;[20-22]. Structural constraints to urban and peri-urban agroforestry include the availability of contiguous land and arable soil [4,11] and also resident and developer preferences for gentrified forms of nature, neighbourhoods, and greenspaces [23]. While biophysical and infrastructural variables can help determine suitability for urban agroforestry, social structures and perceptions are crucial to its long-term sustainability [24].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndigenous crops and trees are important components of agroecological systems. They are often resilient to local ecological stresses and shocks [25], as well as human disturbance and extraction [26,27]. On farms, indigenous crops and trees provide pollination services, alternative income, and nutrition for farmers [28]. In urban and peri-urban areas, they can also provide habitat connectivity to wildlife [29,30], including pollinators important to rural and urban food production [31]. 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 micronutrients [32,33], 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 tubers [34,35]. Although the potential of indigenous food-bearing tree species has been recognised [36-38], the research and application of these in agroforestry is still nascent. 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipatory 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. \u0026nbsp;Thus, a suite of social science methods were used to elicit spatial and temporal data, trends, and preferences in landscapes and land uses [39]. The participatory mapping was conducted to promote democratic, inclusive, and locally appropriate decision-making when combined with GIS modelling techniques [40]. 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\u0026nbsp;impoverished\u0026nbsp;[41]. People\u0026rsquo;s values for landscape features and uses can play an important role in successful landscape governance [42], including the implementation and observance of regulations [43]. 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 areas [44]. 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 South [45]. Our study follows a mixed methods approach giving equal importance to communities and experts in the mapping process [46].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 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 security [47]. 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 can be operationalised at local scale combining participatory research and different forms of knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e1.1. The local context\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs 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 food [49]. 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 producers [50]. 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 sales [51].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the broader socioeconomic sense, unemployment and inequality manifest in income and food poverty, and limited opportunities for people experiencing poverty to engage in either primary production or secondary activities to secure an income [52]. Particularly in cities, legacy spatial planning also constrains access to greenfields and greenspace, which can often be a source of food or materials to support the household economy [37,53,54]. Allocating and enriching urban and peri-urban spaces for food production are a priority on the National Development Plan for South Africa [55], and could also contribute to national-level cross-cutting initiatives like the Integrated Food Security and Nutrition Programme and the Natural Resources Management Programme [56]. 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.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e2.1. Conceptual framing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe 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 approach [57] to define the landscape configuration, land use, \u0026nbsp;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 (Figure 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 (Figure 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, as the spatiotemporal scales across the study sites were very small (mean area 190 km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e and time frame 10 years). 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.2. Study area\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe eThekwini municipality is host to a population of 3.9 million people, in its urban centre of Durban, as well as several peri-urban areas [58]. 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 land [37]. 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 areas [59-61]. 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 NGOs [62]. The municipality routinely undertakes reforestation and restoration across these open spaces, with the dual intention of improving biodiversity and supporting local bio-economy livelihoods [63]. There is also a strong emphasis on removing and controlling invasive alien species and planting endemic and indigenous species in greenspaces [37]. 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 (Figure 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.3. Participatory Mapping Workshops\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne 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. \u0026nbsp; 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 Refernece Number HSS/1971/017D). All methods were performed in accordance with the Economic and Social Research Council guidelines on ethical scientific research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe outline map (Appendix) 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 grazing [66].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA 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. \u0026ldquo;Tree\u0026rdquo; 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 were not deemed used for food production if food was only gathered but not actively grown there). The data collected were analysed qualitatively\u0026nbsp;[e.g. 67] for emergent themes and descriptions in MS Word. Quotes from participants were anonymised using the monikers \u0026lsquo;Respondent n\u0026rsquo;, and presented where appropriate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.4. Species selection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial-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 from [68], [36], and\u0026nbsp;[69].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.5. Suitability analyses\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral 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 production [70]. Generally, determining suitable areas for crop farming in urban areas revolves around making the most sustainable use of land resources while avoiding depleting other resources [71]. 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 decision [72].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis 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.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study adopted six factors, as suggested by [73], 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\u0026apos; 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1: Influence percentage for each factor used to produce the final suitability maps\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"601\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeographic factor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 496px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDescription\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e% of influence\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLand cover \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 496px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe 2020 South African Land Cover data was acquired from the South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment online portal, publicly available at\u0026nbsp;\u003cu\u003ehttps://egis.environment.gov.za/data_egis/data_download/current\u003c/u\u003e. Seven broad land cover classes, namely built-up areas, forests (commercial and natural), grasslands, water bodies, fallow lands, agricultural lands and bare areas, were identified in the three areas.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgricultural land capability \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 496px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe land capability data, defined as the total suitability for usage without causing harm to grazing, woods, wildlife, and crops that require frequent tillage, was acquired from the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development. The eight-class land capability classification constitutes the basis of most subsequent attempts at bringing land capability concepts under measurable parameters (Table A3).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDominant soils\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 496px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe soil data was obtained from the Soil and Terrain Database (SOTER), freely accessible at\u0026nbsp;\u003cu\u003ehttps://www.isric.org/explore\u003c/u\u003e. Four major soil categories were identified at the three study sites (Table A2).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSlope\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 496px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe slope percentage map was derived from the Copernicus Digital Elevation Model (COP-DEM)\u0026nbsp;with a 30m spatial resolution using the slope function in ArcGIS Pro software. The slope map was divided into ten equal interval classes, according to [74], to represent levels of slope suitability for the expansion of peri-urban agriculture.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProximity to water sources\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 496px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo help irrigate peri-urban food production, the study considered the distance to the available water sources. Rivers were the only available water sources that were considered in this analysis. The river networks were extracted from a 30m COPERNICUS- DEM using the watershed module in R Studio [75]. ArcGIS Pro software used The Euclidian distance function to generate distance maps from the existing rivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProximity to the main road\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 496px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor accessibility to the farmlands and easy transportation of harvest to the nearby markets, the distance from the roads was incorporated in the analysis. The road network data was acquired from the Department of Transport online portal, accessible at\u0026nbsp;\u003cu\u003ehttps://gis1.kzntransport.gov.za/arcgisportal/home/\u003c/u\u003e. ArcGIS Pro software used The Euclidian distance function to generate distance maps from the existing roads.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results and Discussion","content":"\u003ch3\u003e3.1.\u0026nbsp;Characterising greenspaces and food production potential through participatory mapping\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe workshops lasted about 90 minutes 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrent 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 opportunities [76,77]. 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 agreements [78], reducing certainty of long-term land use, and subsequent investment of labour and capital in food production [79]. It may also result in rent appropriation by powerful stakeholders at the expense of the community [80] and undemocratic development on land intended for food production, especially in urban and peri-urban areas [81]. This may partly explain why at Osindisweni, where most greenspaces are under communal tenure, participants expressed low interest in food production and agroforestry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2: Existing land use:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTypes of greenspaces,\u0026nbsp;their tenure, and uses at the three study sites. Species information is listed in Appendix Table A1.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"931\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTypes of space\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTenure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUses\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResources\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRemarks\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 930px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaphephetheni\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunal areas\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChief\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrazing, recreation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFodder, fruits (banana, guava)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBeautiful views, but far away, and harbour monkeys\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOpen spaces\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrazing, recreation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFish, fruits (mango + 10 spp.), herbs (watercress, wild spinaches)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncludes reservoir fishing, plantation, \u0026ldquo;nature\u0026rdquo; areas\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood gardens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeighbourhood\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood production\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVegetables (carrot, spinach)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow yielding\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Tree\u0026rdquo; spaces\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrivate and public\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood production and recreation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFruits (13 spp.)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncludes sports field, household, riverine trees, and plantation gumtrees\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 930px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNtshongweni\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOpen spaces\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood production, fuelwood collection, grazing, recreation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFish, fodder, fuelwood, vegetables (beetroot, cabbage, carrot, chilli, onion, peppers, spinach)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncludes reservoir fishing and erstwhile sports field that turned into a wetland and now stands protected\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood gardens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCooperatives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood production\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaize, vegetables (see above)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeed to know what to grow, when, where, and how\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Tree\u0026rdquo; spaces\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrivate and public\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood production and recreation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFruits (11 spp.), fuelwood\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncludes household and riverine trees, and an erstwhile game reserve that \u0026ldquo;no one uses now\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 930px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOsindisweni\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunal areas\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChief\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecreation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFruits (8 spp.), scavenged food and goods from landfill\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncludes bush, open space, landfill buffer, and riverine; fruits only collected in riverine, which is far away\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood gardens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnused\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePoor upkeep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Tree\u0026rdquo; spaces\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrivate and public\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood production and recreation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFruits (8 spp. + litchi to purchase), vegetables to purchase\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 155px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncludes household and riverine trees, an agricultural hub, and a litchi farm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;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.\u0026rdquo; - Respondent 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatural greenspaces were \u0026ldquo;far away\u0026rdquo; for residents of Maphephetheni and Osindisweni.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;[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.\u0026rdquo; - Respondent 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;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 gentrification [82]. 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.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;There are times in the summer when we don\u0026rsquo;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\u0026rsquo;s why our [community food] gardens are not successful. The crops die.\u0026rdquo; - Respondent 3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;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.\u0026rdquo; - Respondent 4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants 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.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;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.\u0026rdquo; - Respondent 5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;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.\u0026rdquo; - Respondent 6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased 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.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3: Perceived land use potential and food production feasibility in greenspaces at the three study sites.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"931\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGreenspace characteristics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMaphephetheni\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNtshongweni\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOsindisweni\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePositive aspects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 698px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperience of \u0026ldquo;nature\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;views\u0026rdquo;; recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, picnicking, and swimming with family.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 465px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUse of communal areas for grazing and foraging for food and wood; food gardens contributing to community nutrition\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSavings and earnings from local food sales from cooperative gardening.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNegative aspects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecreational greenspaces are located far away from residential areas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrivatisation of Resource Reserve and lack of community access.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConversion of area to landfill and conservation buffer; poor waste management and invasive control; ecological, health, and safety impacts.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 698px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of access to seeds, water, fencing, and food garden training hinders food production.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChanges over the past decade\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGradual: trees are now outnumbered by households within the community.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGradual: dwindling of game animals;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDrastic: appearance of a wetland at a sports field (and subsequent municipal protection);\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecently, numerous food garden cooperatives were formed during the coronavirus pandemic.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGradual: conversion and expansion of the landfill resulting in indiscriminate waste dumping and scavenging in the buffer area around the community;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDrastic: fumes and frequent fires from the landfill pose significant respiratory problems\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFuture prospects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrioritise the \u0026lsquo;One home one garden\u0026rsquo; concept, wherein each household can grow food in their yards through material and technical input.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOpen the Reserve to the public for food production (orchards), forestry (fuelwood), or community facilities (school, youth centre, or disaster high ground); plant indigenous trees as a replacement for invasive aliens and crop shade.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDemand better greenspace management through invasive alien control and waste collection; prioritise public infrastructure like schools, soup kitchens, shops, and health centres over food gardens and other greenspaces.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFood production potential\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow-yielding food gardens, fishing, foraging, and livestock supplement the food economy; high-yielding home gardens.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh-yielding crop and food gardens; high-yielding home gardens; need knowledge and training on locally suited species of food plants and animal breeds for agroecology.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceived unviability of air and soil due to waste dumping, landfill fires; poor upkeep of existing food garden.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTree planting feasibility\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAccessible to most people, valued for food, fodder, air and temperature regulation, and wood for poles; preference for mainstream foods such as avocado, oranges, and peaches over indigenous species.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAccessible and valued for food, fodder, shade, and sequestration;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eplacement of trees to prevent damage to property during floods and mudslides.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 233px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLimited access to household trees, which are \u0026ldquo;ancient, our own\u0026rdquo; and valued by the community; planting more trees may not be feasible until the landfill pollution problem is alleviated.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA number of these indigenous trees serve as a significant conduit to the intergenerational transfer of ecological knowledge and a connection to nature\u0026nbsp;[69], which in turn forms an important part of biocultural diversity and landscape stewardship [83]. 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. None of the herbs or crops were specifically mentioned by participants during the elicitation at the workshops. Similarly, choices of crops exist for areas that are more prone to drought or heatwaves, or for marginal soils or shaded or windy areas [68]. Spatiotemporal intercropping of these with conventional crops can help remediate soil [84,85]. Surplus production of indigenous crops and trees can feed into short and high value supply chains to urban centres [e.g. 38,86].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3.2.\u0026nbsp;Biophysical land suitability for greenspaces\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 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\u0026apos;s suitability for agriculture. Also, this area has a good road and river network.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor 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 (Figure 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 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)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"918\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSite attributes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResponse functions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndigenous species\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLatin name\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLivestock grazing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLive fence fruits\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKei apple\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDovyalis caffra\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood gardens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHome gardens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool gardens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumnum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCarissa sp.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMonkey orange\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStrychnos sp.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"9\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUse of biomass for fencing, fodder, food, and medicine, and replacement of invasive aliens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"9\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMultipurpose fruit trees\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDune currant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSearsia natalensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"9\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAny open spaces\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarula\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSclerocarya birrea\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMilkwood\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSideroxylon inerme\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBrown ivory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBerchemia discolor\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRed ivory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBerchemia zeyheri\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSour plum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eXimenia caffra\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTurkey berry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCanthium inerme\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWild medlar\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVangueria infausta\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWild plum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHarpephyllum caffrum\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSlope (M, N)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunal land tenure, low labour availability (O)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFast-growing annual herbs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAmaranth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmaranth sp.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood gardens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool gardens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAny open spaces\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJute mallow\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorchorus olitorius\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNightshade\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSolanum nigrum\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpider flower\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCleome gynandra\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWild mustard\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRapistrum rugosum\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlood risk\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWaterlogging-tolerant crops\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSweet potato\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIpomoea batatas\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood gardens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlong slopes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTaro\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eColocasia esculenta\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndigenous crop inclination (N)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndigenous grains\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSorghum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSorghum bicolor\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlat open spaces\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeff\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEragrostis teff\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePoor soil quality (O)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnnual nitrogen-fixing crops\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBambara groundnut\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVigna subterranea\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool gardens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlat open spaces\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCowpea\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVigna unguiculata\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePigeon pea\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCajanus cajan\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5: The distribution of land suitability for each site from the PGIS land suitability analysis model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"614\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSite\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMaphephetheni\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNtshongweni\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOsindisweni\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArea (km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercentage\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArea (km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercentage\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArea (km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercentage\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighly suitable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSuitable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerately Suitable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarginally Suitable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e134.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e179.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e82.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot Suitable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e137.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStatistics comparing the number of cells assigned to each suitability class for the three maps are presented in Table 5 and Figure 3. The areas of the sites were within 50 km sq. of each other, 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.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOsindisweni\u0026rsquo;s proximity to erstwhile sugarcane fields [65] 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 quality [87,88]. 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 production [89]. Notwithstanding, results from our participatory and synthesis process offer options to reinforce local food and nutritional security through innovative design elements [12]. 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 water [90,91]. 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 groundwater [92]. Agroecological strategies, including organic and circular inputs, are likely to alleviate environmental and food safety issues [93]. 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].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Community Impact","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study highlights the role of participatory co-design in developing urban agriculture configurations. It combines a social-ecological systems lens [95] with a landscape ecology approach [57] 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 Africa [96]. Our study demonstrates an interdisciplinary and participatory design approach to designing urban green infrastructure for ecosystem services [97]. 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 equity [98,99]. Further work in these communities has included the planting of a community agroforestry trial [100] and an agroecology demonstration hub [101] using indigenous species. These sites will serve as living learning laboratories for indigenous urban agroforestry. Communities will be involved in research related to assessing biodiversity and ecological implications such as species richness and plant biomass (e.g. Rockwell et al. 2022, Balima et al. 2023)[102,103], and also with development of market linkages for urban agroforestry [e.g. 24].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThis 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. This integrated approach can aid the development of site-specific solutions, forming dynamic governance co-produced by communities and institutions\u003c/span\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e83\u003c/span\u003e]. \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe participatory research component also helps to build an adaptive, responsive community of practice around each site by engaging with relevant stakeholders in non-political terms (Fischer et al. 2015, Wyborn 2015, Goodwin 2019)\u003c/span\u003e[\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR105\" citationid=\"CR104\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e104\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e106\u003c/span\u003e]. \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThrough innovative design considerations, our findings aim to enable synergistic improvements in food and nutritional security, agroecology, and multifunctional urban green infrastructure\u003c/span\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR107\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e107\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e108\u003c/span\u003e]. \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eThe 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)\u003c/span\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR109\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e109\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e6. \u0026nbsp; Acknowledgements\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMS 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.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Funding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7. Author Contributions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8. Conflict of Interest\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e9. Data Availability Statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAugstburger, H., K\u0026auml;ser, F., \u0026amp; Rist, S. (2019). Assessing Food Systems and Their Impact on Common Pool Resources and Resilience. \u003cem\u003eLand\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(4), 71.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSarkodie, S. A., Owusu, P. A., \u0026amp; Leirvik, T. (2020). Global effect of urban sprawl, industrialization, trade and economic development on carbon dioxide emissions. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Research Letters\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 034049.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBergius, M., \u0026amp; Buseth, J. T. (2019). Towards a green modernization development discourse: the new green revolution in Africa. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Political Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(1), 57-83.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollmann, A., Willkomm, M., \u0026amp; Dannenberg, P. (2021). 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. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e215\u003c/em\u003e, 104186.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaaland, C., \u0026amp; van den Bosch, C. K. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. \u003cem\u003eUrban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), 760-771.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKabisch, N., Qureshi, S., \u0026amp; Haase, D. (2015). Human\u0026ndash;environment interactions in urban green spaces\u0026mdash;A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e, 25-34.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHajzeri, A., \u0026amp; Kwadwo, V. O. (2019). Investigating integration of edible plants in urban open spaces: Evaluation of policy challenges and successes of implementation. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e84\u003c/em\u003e, 43-48.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuijs, A., Hansen, R., Van der Jagt, S., Ambrose-Oji, B., Elands, B., Rall, E. L., Mattijssen, T., Pauliet, S., Runhaar, S., Olafsson, A. S., \u0026amp; M\u0026oslash;ller, M. S. (2019). Mosaic governance for urban green infrastructure: Upscaling active citizenship from a local government perspective. \u003cem\u003eUrban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e, 53-62.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenberg, S., Drimie, S., Losch, B., \u0026amp; May, J. (2023). From local initiatives to coalitions for an effective agroecology strategy: Lessons from South Africa. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 15\u003c/em\u003e(21), 15521.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSardeshpande, 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., \u0026amp; Setty, S. (In Press). Harnessing synergies across networks to drive actionable change for sustainable and healthy food systems in India. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Agriculture and Food Research\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOpitz, I., Berges, R., Piorr, A., \u0026amp; Krikser, T. (2016). Contributing to food security in urban areas: differences between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture in the Global North. \u003cem\u003eAgriculture and Human Values\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 341-358.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArmanda, D.T.; Guin\u0026eacute;e, J.B.; Tukker, A. The second green revolution: Innovative urban agriculture\u0026rsquo;s contribution to food security and sustainability \u0026ndash; A review. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Food Security\u003c/em\u003e 2019, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e, 13\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor, J. R., \u0026amp; Lovell, S. T. (2021). Designing multifunctional urban agroforestry with people in mind. \u003cem\u003eUrban Agriculture \u0026amp; Regional Food Systems, 6\u003c/em\u003e(1), e20016.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBotzat, A., Fischer, L. K., \u0026amp; Kowarik, I. (2016). Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on urban biodiversity perception and valuation. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e, 220-233.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLarondelle, N., \u0026amp; Strohbach, M. W. (2016). A murmur in the trees to note: Urban legacy effects on fruit trees in Berlin, Germany. \u003cem\u003eUrban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e, 11-15.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026auml;umel, I., Weber, F., \u0026amp; Kowarik, I. (2016). Toward livable and healthy urban streets: Roadside vegetation provides ecosystem services where people live and move. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e, 24-33.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBonthoux, S., Brun, M., Di Pietro, F., Greulich, S., \u0026amp; Bouch\u0026eacute;-Pillon, S. (2014). How can wastelands promote biodiversity in cities? A review. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e132\u003c/em\u003e, 79-88.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRupprecht, C. D., Byrne, J. A., Garden, J. G., \u0026amp; Hero, J. M. (2015). Informal urban green space: A trilingual systematic review of its role for biodiversity and trends in the literature. \u003cem\u003eUrban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), 883-908.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSardeshpande, M., Rupprecht, C., \u0026amp; Russo, A. (2021). Edible urban commons for resilient neighbourhoods in light of the pandemic. \u003cem\u003eCities\u003c/em\u003e, 103031.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHurley, P. T., \u0026amp; Emery, M. R. (2018). Locating provisioning ecosystem services in urban forests: Forageable woody species in New York City, USA. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning, 70\u003c/em\u003e, 266-275. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColinas, J., Bush, P., \u0026amp; Manaugh, K. (2019). The socio-environmental impacts of public urban fruit trees: A Montreal case-study. \u003cem\u003eUrban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e, 126132.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBunge, A., Diemont, S. A., Bunge, J. A., \u0026amp; Harris, S. (2019). 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. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Urban Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), juy028.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhu, J., He, B. J., Tang, W., \u0026amp; Thompson, S. (2020). Community blemish or new dawn for the public realm? Governance challenges for self-claimed gardens in urban China. \u003cem\u003eCities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e102\u003c/em\u003e, 102750.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWiek, A., \u0026amp; Albrecht, S. (2022). Almost there: On the importance of a comprehensive entrepreneurial ecosystem for developing sustainable urban food forest enterprises. \u003cem\u003eUrban Agriculture \u0026amp; Regional Food Systems, 7\u003c/em\u003e(1), e20025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMabhaudhi, T., O\u0026rsquo;Reilly, P., Walker, S., \u0026amp; Mwale, S. (2016). Opportunities for underutilised crops in southern Africa\u0026rsquo;s post\u0026ndash;2015 development agenda. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(4), 302.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaoue, O. G., Jiang, J., Ding, W., Agusto, F. B., \u0026amp; Lenhart, S. (2016). Optimal harvesting strategies for timber and non-timber forest products in tropical ecosystems. \u003cem\u003eTheoretical Ecology, 9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 287-297.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLankoand\u0026eacute;, B., Ou\u0026eacute;draogo, A., Boussim, J. I., \u0026amp; Lykke, A. M. (2017). Natural stands diversity and population structure of \u003cem\u003eLophira lanceolata\u003c/em\u003e Tiegh. ex Keay, a local oil tree species in Burkina Faso, West Africa. \u003cem\u003eAgroforestry Systems, 91\u003c/em\u003e(1), 85-96. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeakey, R. R. (2020). A re-boot of tropical agriculture benefits food production, rural economies, health, social justice and the environment. \u003cem\u003eNature Food\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(5), 260-265.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChampness, B. S., Palmer, G. C., \u0026amp; Fitzsimons, J. A. (2019). Bringing the city to the country: relationships between streetscape vegetation type and bird assemblages in a major regional centre. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Urban Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), juz018. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZietsman, M. Y., Montaldo, N. H., \u0026amp; Devoto, M. (2019). Plant\u0026ndash;frugivore interactions in an urban nature reserve and its nearby gardens. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Urban Ecology, 5\u003c/em\u003e(1), juz021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBennett, A. B., \u0026amp; Lovell, S. (2019). Landscape and local site variables differentially influence pollinators and pollination services in urban agricultural sites. \u003cem\u003ePLoS One\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), e0212034.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBroegaard, R. B., Rasmussen, L. V., Dawson, N., Mertz, O., Vongvisouk, T., \u0026amp; Grogan, K. (2017). Wild food collection and nutrition under commercial agriculture expansion in agriculture-forest landscapes. \u003cem\u003eForest Policy and Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e84\u003c/em\u003e, 92-101.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBvenura, C., \u0026amp; Sivakumar, D. (2017). The role of wild fruits and vegetables in delivering a balanced and healthy diet. \u003cem\u003eFood Research International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e99\u003c/em\u003e, 15-30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMugiyo, H., Chimonyo, V. G., Sibanda, M., Kunz, R., Nhamo, L., Masemola, C. R., ... \u0026amp; Mabhaudhi, T. (2021). Multi-criteria suitability analysis for neglected and underutilised crop species in South Africa. \u003cem\u003ePLoS One, 16\u003c/em\u003e(1), e0244734.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFredenberg, 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/10.7916/3hd1-8t86\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSardeshpande, M., \u0026amp; Shackleton, C. (2019). Wild Edible Fruits: A Systematic Review of an Under-Researched Multifunctional NTFP. \u003cem\u003eForests\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(6), 467.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSardeshpande, M., \u0026amp; Shackleton, C. (2020). Fruits of the veld: Ecological and socioeconomic patterns of natural resource use across South Africa. \u003cem\u003eHuman Ecology, 48\u003c/em\u003e, 665-677.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-020-00185-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNkosi, N. N., Mostert, T. H. C., Dzikiti, S., \u0026amp; Ntuli, N. R. (2020). Prioritization of indigenous fruit tree species with domestication and commercialization potential in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eGenetic Resources and Crop Evolution\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e, 1567-1575.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRich, K.M., Magda Rich, Kanar Dizyee, (2018). Participatory systems approach for urban and peri-urban agriculture planning: The role of system dynamics and spatial group model building. \u003cem\u003eAgricultural Systems, 160\u003c/em\u003e, 110-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.022.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBilgilioglu, .S., Gezgin, C., Orhan, O. et al. (2022). A GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making method for the selection of potential municipal solid waste disposal sites in Mersin, Turkey. \u003cem\u003eEnviron Sci Pollut Res 29\u003c/em\u003e, 5313\u0026ndash;5329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15859-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchubert, H., Rauchecker, M., Caballero Calvo, A. \u0026amp; Sch\u0026uuml;tt. B., (2019). Land Use Changes and Their Perception in the Hinterland of Barranquilla, Colombian Caribbean. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 11\u003c/em\u003e(23): 6729. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236729\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKirby, M. G., Scott, A. J., \u0026amp; Walsh, C. L. (2023). Translating policy to place: exploring cultural ecosystem services in areas of Green Belt through participatory mapping. \u003cem\u003eEcosystems and People, 19\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2276752\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDepietri, Y., \u0026amp; Orenstein, D. E. (2020). Managing fire risk at the wildland-urban interface requires reconciliation of tradeoffs between regulating and cultural ecosystem services. \u003cem\u003eEcosystem Services, 44\u003c/em\u003e, 101108.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarrilho, J., \u0026amp; Trindade, J. (2022). Sustainability in Peri-Urban Informal Settlements: A Review. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 14\u003c/em\u003e(13) 7591. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137591\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSahana, M., Ravetz, J., Patel, P. P., Dadashpoor, H., \u0026amp; Follmann, A. (2023). Where Is the Peri-Urban? A Systematic Review of Peri-Urban Research and Approaches for Its Identification and Demarcation Worldwide. \u003cem\u003eRemote Sensing, 15\u003c/em\u003e(5) 1316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15051316\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnson, M.S., Adams, V.M., Byrne, J. et al. (2022). The benefits of Q\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PPGIS for coupled human-natural systems research: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eAmbio 51\u003c/em\u003e, 1819\u0026ndash;1836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01709-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSardeshpande, M., Bangira, T., Matongera, T. N., Azong Cho, M., \u0026amp; 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.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDepartment 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).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan der Hoeven, M., Osei, J., Greeff, M., Kruger, A., Faber, M., \u0026amp; Smuts, C. M. (2013). Indigenous and traditional plants: South African parents\u0026rsquo; knowledge, perceptions and uses and their children\u0026rsquo;s sensory acceptance.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 9\u003c/em\u003e, 1-12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePorkka, M., Kummu, M., \u0026amp; Siebert, S. \u0026amp; Varis, O. (2013). From food insufficiency towards trade dependency: a historical analysis of global food availability. \u003cem\u003ePLoS One\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e, e82714.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBizikova, L., Nkonya, E., Minah, M., Hanisch, M., Turaga, R. M. R., Speranza, C. I., ... \u0026amp; Timmers, B. (2020). A scoping review of the contributions of farmers\u0026rsquo; organizations to smallholder agriculture. \u003cem\u003eNature Food\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(10), 620-630.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStatsSA. (2017). Poverty trends in South Africa: An examination of absolute poverty between 2006 and 2015. Report 031006, \u003cem\u003eStatistics South Africa\u003c/em\u003e. Pretoria, South Africa, 138pp.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSardeshpande, M., \u0026amp; Shackleton, C. (2020b). Urban foraging: Land management policy, perspectives, and potential. \u003cem\u003ePLoS ONE\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(4), e0230693.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVenter, Z. S., Shackleton, C. M., Van Staden, F., Selomane, O., \u0026amp; Masterson, V. A. (2020). Green Apartheid: Urban green infrastructure remains unequally distributed across income and race geographies in South Africa. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e203\u003c/em\u003e, 103889.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNDP. (2013). National Development Plan 2030. Our Future \u0026ndash; make it work. \u003cem\u003eRepublic of South Africa\u003c/em\u003e. ISBN: 978-0-621-41180-5. 498pp. https://www.gov.za/documents/national-development-plan-2030-our-future-make-it-work accessed 08/04/2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNDA. (2021). National Department of Agriculture, Republic of South Africa. Programmes webpage.\u003cem\u003e National Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development, Republic of South Africa. \u003c/em\u003eAvailable online at https://www.nda.agric.za/Programmes accessed on 17/08/2021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHersperger, A. M., Grădinaru, S. R., Pierri Daunt, A. B., Imhof, C. S., \u0026amp; Fan, P. (2021). Landscape ecological concepts in planning: review of recent developments. \u003cem\u003eLandscape Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, 1-17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eeThekwini website. (2023). About us (eThekwini Municipality). Available online at https://www.durban.gov.za/pages/government/about-ethekwini accessed on July 13 2023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoberts, D. C. (1994). The design of an urban open-space network for the city of Durban (South Africa). \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 11-17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavids, R., Rouget, M., Boon, R., \u0026amp; Roberts, D. (2016). Identifying ecosystem service hotspots for environmental management in Durban, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eBothalia-African Biodiversity and Conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1-18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavids, R., Rouget, M., Burger, M., Mahood, K., Ditlhale, N., \u0026amp; Slotow, R. (2021). Civic ecology uplifts low-income communities, improves ecosystem services and well-being, and strengthens social cohesion. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1300.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBisaga, I., Parikh, P., \u0026amp; Loggia, C. (2019). Challenges and opportunities for sustainable urban farming in South African low-income settlements: A case study in Durban. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(20), 5660.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoyo, H., Slotow, R., Rouget, M., Mugwedi, L., Douwes, E., Tsvuura, Z., \u0026amp; Tshabalala, T. (2021). Adaptive management in restoration initiatives: Lessons learned from some of South Africa\u0026rsquo;s projects. \u003cem\u003eSouth African Journal of Botany\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e139\u003c/em\u003e, 352\u0026ndash;361.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eeThekwini 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).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDouwes, E., Rouget, M., Diederichs, N., O\u0026rsquo;Donoghue, S., Roy, K., \u0026amp; Roberts, D. (2016). The buffelsdraai landfill site community reforestation project. \u003cem\u003eUnasylva\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e, 12\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor, L., \u0026amp; Hochuli, D. F. (2017). Defining greenspace: Multiple uses across multiple disciplines. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e158\u003c/em\u003e, 25-38.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(4), 589\u0026ndash;597. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModi, A. T., \u0026amp; 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. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSardeshpande, M., \u0026amp; Shackleton, C. (2023). Fruits of the city: The nature, nurture and future of urban foraging. \u003cem\u003ePeople and Nature\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e, 213\u0026ndash; 227. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10428\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEl Baroudy, A. A. (2016). Mapping and evaluating land suitability using a GIS-based model. \u003cem\u003eCatena\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e140\u003c/em\u003e, 96-104.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKapoor, N., Jain, M., \u0026amp; Bansal, V. K. (2020). A methodological approach for weighting factors in land suitability assessment: a tool for facilitating spatial planning. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Mountain Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(3), 724-739.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKazemi, H., \u0026amp; Akinci, H. (2018). A land use suitability model for rainfed farming by Multi-criteria Decision-making Analysis (MCDA) and Geographic Information System (GIS). \u003cem\u003eEcological Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e116\u003c/em\u003e, 1-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaherdoost, H., \u0026amp; Madanchian, M. (2023). Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods and concepts. \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 77-87.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMazahreh, S., Bsoul, M., \u0026amp; Hamoor, D. A. (2019). GIS approach for assessment of land suitability for different land use alternatives in semi arid environment in Jordan: Case study (Al Gadeer Alabyad-Mafraq). \u003cem\u003eInformation Processing in Agriculture\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 91-108.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRstudio Team (2020). Rstudio: Integrated Development for R. Rstudio, PBC, Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com/. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShackleton, C. M., Blair, A., De Lacy, P., Kaoma, H., Mugwagwa, N., Dalu, M. T., \u0026amp; Walton, W. (2017a). How important is green infrastructure in small and medium-sized towns? Lessons from South Africa. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e180\u003c/em\u003e, 273-281.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShackleton, C. M., Hurley, P. T., Dahlberg, A. C., Emery, M. R., \u0026amp; Nagendra, H. (2017b). Urban Foraging: A Ubiquitous Human Practice Overlooked by Urban Planners, Policy, and Research. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1884.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBennett, J., Ainslie, A., \u0026amp; Davis, J. (2013). Contested institutions? Traditional leaders and land access and control in communal areas of Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e, 27-38.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShackleton, C. M., Mograbi, P. J., Drimie, S., Fay, D., Hebinck, P., Hoffman, M. T., ... \u0026amp; Twine, W. (2019). Deactivation of field cultivation in communal areas of South Africa: Patterns, drivers and socio-economic and ecological consequences. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e82\u003c/em\u003e, 686-699.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlofsson, M. (2021). Expanding commodity frontiers and the emergence of customary land markets: A case study of tree-crop farming in Venda, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e101\u003c/em\u003e, 105203.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLidzhegu, Z., \u0026amp; Kabanda, T. (2022). Declining land for subsistence and small-scale farming in South Africa: A case study of Thulamela local municipality. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e119\u003c/em\u003e, 106170.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCombrinck, Z., Cilliers, E. J., Lategan, L., \u0026amp; Cilliers, S. (2020). Revisiting the proximity principle with stakeholder input: Investigating property values and distance to urban green space in 26otchefstroom. \u003cem\u003eLand\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(7), 235.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElands, B.H.M., Vierikko, K., Andersson, E., Fischer, L.K., Gon\u0026ccedil;alves, P., Haase, D., Kowarik, I, Luz, A.C., Niemel\u0026auml;, J., Santos-Reis, M., Wiersum, K.F. (2019). Biocultural diversity: A novel concept to assess human-nature interrelations, nature conservation and stewardship in cities, \u003cem\u003eUrban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40,\u003c/em\u003e 29-34. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTiroesele, B., Obopile, M., \u0026amp; Karabo, O. (2019). Insect diversity and population dynamics of natural enemies under sorghum\u0026ndash;legume intercrops. \u003cem\u003eTransactions of the Royal Society of South Africa\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e74\u003c/em\u003e(3), 258-267.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalviya, M. K., Solanki, M. K., Li, C. N., Wang, Z., Zeng, Y., Verma, K. K., ... \u0026amp; Li, Y. R. (2021). Sugarcane-legume intercropping can enrich the soil microbiome and plant growth. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e, 606595.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePfukwa, T. M., Chikwanha, O. C., Katiyatiya, C. L., Fawole, O. A., Manley, M., \u0026amp; Mapiye, C. (2020). Southern African indigenous fruits and their byproducts: Prospects as food antioxidants. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Functional Foods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e, 104220.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmad, W., Iqbal, J., Nasir, M. J., Ahmad, B., Khan, M. T., Khan, S. N., \u0026amp; Adnan, S. (2021). Impact of land use/land cover changes on water quality and human health in district Peshawar Pakistan. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 16526.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOzsahin, E., \u0026amp; Ozdes, M. (2022). Agricultural land suitability assessment for agricultural productivity based on GIS modeling and multi-criteria decision analysis: the case of Tekirdağ province. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e194\u003c/em\u003e(1), 41.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeyedmohammadi, J., \u0026amp; Navidi, M. N. (2022). Applying fuzzy inference system and analytic network process based on GIS to determine land suitability potential for agricultural. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e194\u003c/em\u003e(10), 712.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChang, N. B., Imen, S., \u0026amp; Vannah, B. (2015). Remote sensing for monitoring surface water quality status and ecosystem state in relation to the nutrient cycle: a 40-year perspective. \u003cem\u003eCritical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(2), 101-166.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, Q. R., Zhang, S. Q., Huang, Y., Li, H., Jia, Y. H., Li, J., \u0026amp; Yuan, G. L. (2023). Spatial distribution and quantitative source identification of nutrients and beneficial elements in the soil of a typical suburban area, Beijing. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e195\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-14.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCalijuri, M. L., Castro, J. D. S., Costa, L. S., Assemany, P. P., \u0026amp; Alves, J. E. M. (2015). Impact of land use/land cover changes on water quality and hydrological behavior of an agricultural subwatershed. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Earth Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e74\u003c/em\u003e, 5373-5382.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenberg, S., \u0026amp; 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 19/06/2023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWotlolan, D. L., Lowry, J. H., Wales, N. A., \u0026amp; Glencross, K. (2021). Land suitability evaluation for multiple crop agroforestry planning using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis: A case study in Fiji. \u003cem\u003eAgroforestry Systems, 95\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1519-1532.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndersson, E., Haase, D., Anderson, P., Cortinovis, C., Goodness, J., Kendal, D., ... \u0026amp; Wellmann, T. (2021). What are the traits of a social-ecological system: Towards a framework in support of urban sustainability. \u003cem\u003enpj Urban Sustainability, 1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 14.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCilliers, E. J., Lategan, L., Cilliers, S. S., \u0026amp; Stander, K. (2020). Reflecting on the potential and limitations of urban agriculture as an urban greening tool in South Africa. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Sustainable Cities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e, 43.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKamjou, E., Scott, M., \u0026amp; Lennon, M. (2024). A bottom-up perspective on green infrastructure in informal settlements: Understanding nature\u0026apos;s benefits through lived experiences. Urban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening, 94, 128231.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNesbitt, L., Meitner, M. J., Girling, C., \u0026amp; Sheppard, S. R. (2019). Urban green equity on the ground: Practice-based models of urban green equity in three multicultural cities. \u003cem\u003eUrban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening, 44\u003c/em\u003e, 126433.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVargas-Hern\u0026aacute;ndez, J. G., \u0026amp; Zdunek-Wielgołaska, J. (2021). Urban green infrastructure as a tool for controlling the resilience of urban sprawl. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment, Development and Sustainability, 23\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1335-1354.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurgdorf, R., Sardeshpande, M. \u0026amp; Cooper, G. (2023). Indigenous tree forestry: Economic potential or potential fantasy?\u003cem\u003e Timber Industry Presents Magazine 4\u003c/em\u003e(2):14-20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreen 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 27/11/2024\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRockwell, C. A., Crow, A., Guimar\u0026atilde;es, \u0026Eacute;. R., Recinos, E., \u0026amp; La Belle, D. (2022). Species richness, stem density, and canopy in food forests: contributions to ecosystem services in an urban environment. \u003cem\u003eUrban Planning, 7\u003c/em\u003e(2), 139-154.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBalima, L. H., Zerbo, I., Bayen, P., Kiemtor\u0026eacute;, H., Ganam\u0026eacute;, M., Ciss\u0026eacute;, M., \u0026amp; Thiombiano, A. (2023). Higher diversity, denser stands and greater biomass in peri-urban forests than in adjacent agroforestry systems in Western Burkina Faso: implications for urban sustainability. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1077.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFischer, J., Gardner, T. A., Bennett, E. M., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., Daw, T., Folke, C., Hill, R., Hughes, T. P., Luthe, T., et al. (2015). Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social\u0026ndash;ecological systems perspective. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e, 144-149.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWyborn, C. (2015). Co-productive governance: a relational framework for adaptive governance. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e, 56-67.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoodwin, G. (2019). The problem and promise of coproduction: Politics, history, and autonomy. \u003cem\u003eWorld Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e122\u003c/em\u003e, 501-513.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIsaac, M. E., Sinclair, F., Laroche, G., Olivier, A., \u0026amp; Thapa, A. (2024). The ties that bind: how trees can enhance agroecological transitions. \u003cem\u003eAgroforestry Systems, 98\u003c/em\u003e, 2369\u0026ndash;2383.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShackleton, C. M., Brom, P., Gwedla, N., Matamanda, A. R., Sardeshpande, M., \u0026amp; Kumar-Nair, S. (2024). Embedding opportunities for poverty alleviation in urban green infrastructure design and management using South Africa as a case example. \u003cem\u003eCities, 155\u003c/em\u003e, 105442.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eH\u0026aacute;k, T., Janou\u0026scaron;kov\u0026aacute;, S., \u0026amp; Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. \u003cem\u003eEcological Indicators, 60\u003c/em\u003e, 565-573.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"agroecology, farm design, indigenous foods, peri-urban agriculture, suitability analysis","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6970205/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6970205/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ePeri-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\u003c/span\u003e-urban \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003esites\u003c/span\u003e in \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eDurban\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eSouth Africa.\u003c/span\u003e 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 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.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Exploring the social-ecological potential for indigenous agroforestry in peri-urban areas: a participatory mapping approach","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-14 07:17:12","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6970205/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-09-23T11:14:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-18T19:34:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"39898580959427408499417234757134406792","date":"2025-08-28T11:18:23+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-03T13:46:51+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"38980551840571521321335868002161104399","date":"2025-07-27T14:04:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"227427037061787226463591524728319376644","date":"2025-07-25T08:29:54+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-07-09T15:35:32+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-07-09T13:58:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-01T06:53:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2025-07-01T06:48:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"be1b3f42-8b5e-4a3f-9658-8565bcd47067","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 14th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":51438227,"name":"Biological sciences/Ecology/Agri ecology"},{"id":51438228,"name":"Biological sciences/Ecology/Urban ecology"},{"id":51438229,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental sciences"},{"id":51438230,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-29T16:02:24+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6970205","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-27864-3","journal":{"identity":"scientific-reports","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Scientific Reports"},"publishedOn":"2025-12-23 15:58:09","publishedOnDateReadable":"December 23rd, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-14 07:17:12","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41598-025-27864-3","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-27864-3","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6970205","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6970205","identity":"rs-6970205","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}